Morphological and Syntactic Change in Medieval Greek and South Slavic Languages 389586661X, 9783895866616

Citation preview

LINCOM STUDIES IN INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTICS

LINCOM Studies in Inda-European Linguistics In this series

01 John M. Peterson

05 Nathalie Schapansky

Grammatical Relations In Pall and the Emergence of Ergatlvtty In lndo-Aryan

Negation, Referentlaltty and Boundedness

In Gwenedeg Breton A Case Study in Markedness and Asymmetry

08 Moreno Morani

lntroduzlone alla Ungulatica Latina

09 Moreno Morani

lntroduzlone alla Ungulatica Greca

12 Shaligram Shukla

Hindi Phonology

14 Vit Bubenik

Morphological and Syntactic Change In Medieval Greek and South Slavic Languages

Morphological and Syntactic Change in Medieval Greek and South Slavic Languages

VitBubenik

2001 LINCOM EUROPA

All correspondence concerning LINCOM Studies in lndo-European Unguistics should be addressed to:

LINCOM EUROPA Freibadstr. 3 D-81543 Muenchen [email protected] http://home.t-online.de/home/LINCOM.EUROPA www.llncom-europa.com

All rights reserved,including the rights of translation into any foreign language. No part of this book may be reproduced in any way without the permission of the publisher.

Printed in E.C. Printed on chlorine-free paper

Die Deutsche Bibliothek- CIP Cataloguing-in-Publication-Data A catalogue record for this publication is available from Die DeutscheBibliothek (http://www.ddb.de)

ISBN389586 661 X

PREFACE This monograph is based on my research in the area of Hellenic, Slavic, and Ballcan linguistics during the last ten years. It explores in seven chapters the converging, parallel and diverging development of nominal, pronominal and verbal morphology and syntax of Byzantine

Greek and South Slavic languages (Church Slavonic, Medieval Bulgarian and Macedonian). Its argumentation is based on data culled from medieval literary documents ( 11th - 1511i c.). Data gathering for the present volume was supported by two installments of my research grant awarded by Alexander von Hwnboldt-Stiftung tenable at the University of Munich. During the periods of June - August 1994 and September-

November 1996 I could avail myself of the

rich holdings of the Institute for General and Indo-European Linguistics, Institute for Byzantine Studies and New Greek Philology, and Institute for Slavic Philology. My gratitude is due to Professor Dr. Klaus Strunk, who sponsored my work for the Humboldt Foundation, for his kind permission to use the facilities and the library of the Institute for Indo-European Linguistics, and

to Professor Dr. Armin Hohlweg for a similar permission to use the holdings of the Institute for B)'7.81ltineStudies and New Greek Philology. I was also able to avail myself of the considerable local expertise in philological and linguistic matters connected with the interpretation of Greek, Old Church Slavonic and Middle Bulgarian texts, and Balkan Linguistics. It is my pleasant duty

to acknowledge the advice and assistance of my Gennan colleagues at the University of Munich:

Dr. W. Fiedler, Dr. W. Hock, Dr. P.-A. Mumm and Dr. W. Schulze-FOrhof. Over the years I have presented parts of my work at several Annual Meetings of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Thessaloniki (1989, 1994 and 1997) and the International Conference on Historical Linguistics at the University of Manchester (1995). I would like to use this opportunity to thank members of the audiences and other scholars for their helpful comments on earlier versions of these sections: Dr. A. Pb. Christidis (University of

Dr. V. Friedman (University of Chicago), Dr. G. Horrocks (University of Cambridge), Dr. B. D. Joseph (State University of Ohio), Dr. M. Setatos (University of Thessaloniki), Dr. Cb. Symeonidis (University of Thessaloniki), Dr. Ch. Tzitzilis (University of Thessaloniki),

Thessaloniki). I started the present monograph in 1996 and completed it in 1999. During the last stage of this project several students (Alicia Kolesnikova, Ken Matthews, Anna Muselius, Jessica Peddle

and MadeScott) helped me with the typing of its results; I appreciated their patient handling of Greek, Cyrillic and Old Church Slavonic fonts.

11

CHANGEIN MEDIEVALGREEKAND SOUIH SLAVICLANGUAGES

My special thanks are due to my research assistant Lawrence Greening who has been involvedin editing, final text formatting,font checking. indexing and preparing a camera-ready copy for publication by Lincom Europa. St. John's, November 2000

VitBubcnik Department of Linguistics Memorial University of Newfoundland

CONTENTS Preface List of lllastratlons Abbreviations of Languages and Dialects

vi viii

Abbreviations of Primary Literature

ix

Abbreviations of Grammatical Terminology

xi

Introduction

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Vcmacular Medieval Greek corpus Medieval Bulgaro-Macedonian corpus Byzantine triglossia The Balkan Sprachbund

Chapter l: Development of the Nominal Inflection In Greek

1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3

Reduction of the morphological case system The emergence of the principle of parisyllabicity Thematization of athematic nouns A new alignment of morphology and semantics in diptotic and triptotic nouns The situation in archaic Modem Greek dialects Pontic dialects Cypriot Greek South Italian dialects The phrasal case in Medieval Greek

Chapter 2: Development of the Nominal Inflection In South Slavic Languages

2.1 2.2 2.3

Reduction of the morphological case system Emergence of the postpositive article Development of the phrasal case in Medieval Bulgaro-Macedonian

Chapter 3: Development of the Pronominal Systems

3.1 3.2

Development of the Greek pronominal system Development of the South Slavic pronominal systems

1 1 4

7 8

11 11 12 13 15 16 16 19 22 24 29 29 33 36 42 42 47

iv

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND

sourn SLAVIC LANGUAGES

Chapter 4: Object Doubling Constructions 4.1 Convergence in the development of the pronominal systems of Macedonian and Greek 4.2 Macedonian pronominal clitics as 'bound' morphemes 4.3 Object doubling in its Balkan context 4.4 Excursus Chapter 5: Development of the Tense/Aspect System 5.1 On the nature of innovations in the aspectual systems of Medieval Greek and South Slavic languages 5.2 Analytic future 5.3 Two retrospective aspectual categories in Medieval Greek 5.4 The rise of the "have"-perfect in Macedonian 5.5 On the origins of the inferential mode in Bulgaro-Macedonian 5.6 On the origins of the conditional in Medieval Greek and South Slavic languages 5.7 Changes in the participial systems of Medieval Greek and South Slavic languages Chapter 6: Development of the Diathetic System 6.1 Preservation of the middle voice in Greek 6.2 Analytic mediopassive in Modem Greek 6.3 Remaking of the middle voice in Slavic 6.4 Reflexive passive

60 60 63 66

69 72

72 72 76

77 82 87 90

99 99 100

102 108

Chapter 7: Consequences of the Loss of the Infinitive 7.1 Loss of the infinitive 7.1.1 Medieval Greek 7.1.2 South Slavic 7.2 Expressions of deontic modality 7.2.1 Medieval Greek 7.2.2 South Slavic 7.3 Finite hypotactic and paratactic causativization

110 110 110 112

7.3.1 Medieval Greek 7.3.2 South Slavic 7.4 Contamination of the infinitive and the subordinate clause

118

7.5

Temporal clauses

Conclusions

113

113 115 118 121

122 124 127

CONTENTS

Editions of Primary Literature Selected Vemacular Medieval Greek Sources Selected Medieval Bulgaro-Macedonian Sources

V

133 133

135

References and Select BlbUoarapby

137

Index of Modern Aatbon

144

Index of Quoted Paua1es

145

Index of Subjects

149

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Table 0.1 Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 1.3 Table 1.4 Table 1.5 Table 1.6 Table 1.7 Table 1.8 Table 1.9 Figure 1.1

Byzantine triglossia (14111- 15111c.) lntcnncdiatc nominal paradigms Morpho-semantic categories of the Ancient Greek noun Morpho-semantic categories of the Modern Greek noun Morpbo-scmantic categories of the Modern Greek noun livtpac; "man" in Pontic liv9pom~ "man" in Pontic Morpbo-semantic categories of the Pontic noun Morpho-semantic categories of the Cypriot noun Morpho-semantic categories of the South Italian (Calabrian and Apulian) noun Locative and indirect object/allative in Modern Greek

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table2.4 Table 2.5 Figure 2.1

o-stcms (singularforms) in South Slavic languages a-stems (singular forms) in South Slavic languages Old neuter nouns in South Slavic languages o-stcms (plural forms) in South Slavic languages a-stems (plural forms) in South Slavic languages The development of phrasal case in Bulgaro-Macedonian

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Figure 3.1

Ancient Greek pronominal system Early Modern Greek pronominal system (based on Eroto/critos, l 7dtc.) Old Church Slavonic pronominal system Modern Macedonian pronominal system WesternMacedonian pronominal system(dialect ofDihovo), according to Groen (1977) Macedonian personal pronouns ( 111 Sg)

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table4.3

Albanian pronominal system Pronominal beneficiary/recipient and patient in Albanian Marking for participants in discourse (in plural) in Bulgarian and Macedonian

Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3

The formation of the conditional in Greek, Bulgarian and Macedonian The late Old Church Slavonic participial system Analytic passiveconstructions in MedievalBulgaro-Macedonian

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

vii

Table 6.1

Early Modem Greek diathetic system according to Sofianos (16 th c.)

Table 7.1

Inceptive (apxtt;,roI apx(vro / lipxoµaL)and tenninative (:rmuro/ nauoµm)

Table 7.2

Aktionsart in Medieval Greek Hypotactic and paratactic causatives in Medieval Greek

ABBREVIATIONS OF LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS

AGr Arum

Bu ByzGr Daco-Rum EMnGr IE Mac MBu MnBu MnCypriot MnGr MnMac OBu

ocs PIE

Ancient Greek Arumanian Bulgarian Byzantine Greek Daco-Rumanian Early Modern Greek Inda-European Macedonian Middle Bulgarian Modern Bulgarian Modern Cypriot Modern Greek Modern Macedonian Old Bulgarian Old Church Slavonic Proto-lndoeuropean

ABBREVIATIONS OF PRIMARY LITERATURE

Alosis

Georgillas' Fall of Constantinople

Asseman

Doukas Erotokr

Codex Assemanianus Assizes of Cypru., BanUlroevange/ie Belthandros and Khrysantza John the Exarcb's translation of the Ekthesis of John of Damascus Chronicle of Boustronios Letter to the Corinthians Digenis Akritas Chronicle of Doukas Eroto/r:ritos

Gyp

Gyparis

Hermon IG

Hermoniakos• Byzantine Iliad Inscriptiones Graecae lmberios and Margarona Isaiah 's Vision Gospel according to John Gospel of Priest Jovan Evangelie Kochno KopriJtenslddamasldn Laws of Cyprus Gospel according to Luke Gospel according to Mark Chronicleof Ma/cl,airas Malalas' Khronographia Le Manasses moyen bulgare Codex Marianus Logoi Paregoretilroi Chronicle of Morea Gospel according to Matthew Norovs/cajaPsaltyr' New Testament OxyrhynchusPapyri Phlorios and Platziaphlore

Assizes Banilko

Belthandros Bogoslovie Boustronios Cor Dig.Aler

Imb

Isaiah J

Jovan Kochno Kopr Laws Lk M

Makh Mal Manasses Mar Misfortune Morea Mt Nor NT Pap. Oxyrh Phlor

CHANGE IN MEDIEVALGREEKAND sourn SLAVIC LANGUAGES

X

Phyl. Alex Prax. Sil Prax. Slept Prifa Ptoch Radomir Sac. Abr Sav Sestnik Sin Sofianos Supr Thanatikon Tocco Valachic Vama Vlacho-Bulg Zogr

Alexander Saga PraxapostolusSiJatovacensis PraxapostolusSlepcensis Trojanska prica

Poemes Prodromiques L 'evangeliairede Radomir Sacrifice of Abraham Sawina /cniga Das Hexaemerondes ExarchenJohannes Psalterium Sinaiticum Grammairedu grec Vulgaire Codex Suprasliensis Gcorgillas' Plague of Rhodes Chronicleof Tocco History of Valachie Battle of Varna Dalw-rom.,,nitl(Mileti~, 1896) Codex Zographensis

ABBREVIATIONS OF GRAMMATICAL TERMINOLOGY

Abl Ace

ablative accusative

Aor

aorist

Art Aux

article

Ben

beneficiary

Cl

clitic dative

Oat

auxiliary

Dir Du

dual

F(em)

feminine

Fut

future genitive gerundive

Gen Gerve Imp

direct

imperative

Impf

imperfect

lmpfve Ind

imperfective indicative

Indet

indeterminate

Inf

infinitive

lnstr

instrumental locative

Loe M(asc)

MPP

masculine mediopassive perfect particle

N(eut) N(eg)

neuter negative particle

Norn

nominative

NP Obj Obi

noun phrase

p PAP Part Pass

object oblique past past active participle participle passive

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND

xii

sourn St.A VIC LANGUAGES

Pat

patient

Perf

perfect

PerfvAP

perfective active participle

Perfve

perfective

Pers

person

PIP

passive imperfective participle

PI

plural

Plqimpf

pluimperfect

Plqpf

pluperfect

pp

past (passive) participle

PPP

passive perfective participle

Prep

preposition

Pres

present

Pro

pronoun

Prt

particle

Q Ree Refl Sg Subj Subju Subjve Sup V Voc VP

interrogative particle

w W'L

recipient reflexive singular subject subjunction (= subordinating conjunction) subjunctive supine

verb vocative verb phrase word Wackemagel's Law

INTRODUCTION

0.1 Vff'llt1alllr Metllnal Grak corp,a

My study is based on the corpus of vernacular texts written between the 11th and the I 5111c. The earliest among them is the epic of Digenis Alcritaswhich is surrounded by the uncertainty concerning the linguistic form of its earliest version. According to Beaton (1989:46-47) the original author may have been a moderatelyeducated refugee, working in the capital some time after the battle ofManzikert (1071), who wished to preserve selected oral heroic poetry from his Anatolianhomeland.An example of the ballad-stylesource material is provided by the surviving Song of Armoures(To-0 'Apµoupfl), especially the shared use of the unrhymed fifteen-syllable 'political' verse. The 'man of Amorion' is perhaps the emperor Mikbael m (842-867) taking revenge on the Saracens for the humiliating defeat of Amorion in 838 (cf. Beck, 1971 :53-57). Without addressingthe controversiesregardingthe relationshipof its five surviving manuscripts and their relationship to spoken language, it may be said that this epic probably represents the vecy first attempt to create a 'literary' counterpartto contemporaryvernacularGreek. As possible examples of local dialect influence,Honocks (1997:267) mentions the Ancient negative particle ou(instead of 6tv) and the possessive adjective ~ (instead of oou). On the other band, this pioneer attempt necessitated also a massive intake of the style and conventions of earlier and contemporary works in the Byzantine literary lcoine,and in this respect our earliest vernacular text sets up an example for all the subsequent poetic compositions. Next come the four satiricalpoems by 'Ptochoprodromos', dedicatedto John II (1118-1143) and Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180). In his compositions Theodore Prodromos apparently attempted to approximate the speech of the educated upper class in Constantinople. His morphology is quite traditional (he prefers the negative particle ou(ic:)and aorist forms in -ov, declines his participlesand distinguishesthematic and athernaticdeclensions);on the other band, his syntax is 'progressive' (the future is expressed by the construction va. plus subjunctive, he doubles nominal objects by pronominal clitics and the latter tend to be located postverbally). Among the Constantinopolitanfeaturescould be the predominanceof the accusativeform for the function of the beneficiary/recipient(6U>ouvµ£ ''they give me", 6U>ouvµac;''they give us") and the extensionof the stem-formingelement -ou- to certain verb forms (such as the mediopassive imperfect); cf. Horrocks (1997:270). The civil servant Mikbael Glykas addressed the Komnenos emperor Manuel I (1143-1180) in VersesWritten WhileHeld Imprisoned.He relies less successfully than Ptochoprodromoson 'middle' registers and playfully exploits the spoken languages of proverbial sayings. Ptochoprodromos and Glykas are the only two examples of the literary use of popularizing language during the 12111c.

2

CHANGEIN MEDIEVALGREEKAND sourn SLAVICLANGUAGES

Another precondition for the re-emergence of vernacular writing during the 14111c. was "a broadening circle of interested readers not educated in the classicizing language", as suggested by Browning (1989:125). Horrocks (1997:281) emphasiz.ed the spreading use of the modem Romance languages as influential for the use of Greek in corresponding genres (chronicles, fictional literature of romances and political allegories dealing with animals and birds). Unlike the early Byzantine lchronographias beginning with the creation of the world (such as that of Ma/alas of the 6• c.), the chronicles written during the 14111and 15• c. arc devoted to near-contemporary and contemporary historical events. The Chronicle of Tocco celebrates the exploits of the ruling dynasty in Epirus (1375-1427) and the famous Chronicle of the Morea (early 14• c.) begins with the capture of Constantinople(1204) andcontinues with an account of the deeds of the de Villebardouin family in the Peloponnese. According to its editor (Schmitt, 1904:xliii)"it is Greek only in language,but thoroughly French in its literary form and its spirit". Its poet was "a Greek of some importance in a Frankish court" (according to Jeffi'eys, 1972:272) or "an anti-Byzantine writer, probably of French immigrant stock" (according to Horrocks, 1997:155). It is very likely that his 'artistic' ideolect reflects the contemporary Peloponnesian variety of spoken Greek. There is very little evidence that the poet was exposed to the classicizing tradition of Byzantine literature. There arc even what may be called gross violations of 'good' Greek grammar; for instance he uses the nominative instead of the accusative with names of relatives (e.g. xai.pet~ ... t1'v8uyat11p''he greets the daughter" [Morea 2492]; the genitive of i-sterns alternates between innovative t'tluye'1 am afraid that he might leave" and CTpa:xyB&M ce

Jl& ue TJ)1,l'H8JJ, on the other hand. Further search through the Medieval Bulgaro-Macedonian

corpus is necessary to establish the date of the appearance of these phenomena on the Slavic side.

CHAPTER ONE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NOMINAL INFLECTION IN GREEK

1.1 Retl11ctwnof die 1110,pl,olagiclll cau qstem In Ancient Greek there was a distinctionbetween vocalic and consonantal stems. Masculine vocalic stems added-sin the nominative,-n in the accusativeand lengthenedtheir thematic vowel in the genitive (o ~ 9, later raised to u and shortened to u): (1)

Sg Norn

~

"horse"

VU'U'tll(;"sailor"

Ace

mov

VQ'U't'fJ'V

v£avtac;"youth" VEavtav

Gen

'umou

vamou

VEavto"

Feminine nouns in -al-e added -n in the accusative and -s in the genitive: (2)

Sg Norn

xwpa"land"

nµ,\ "honor"

Ace

ti.µ1\v

Gen

nµf\c;

Side by side with these two types there were consonantal stems (both masculine and feminine) which exhibited a variety of patterns (caused by ablaut); their common feature was the 0 as a thematic vowel (hencephulalc-s"guardian" vs. log-o-s "word'') and a different set of inflections: (3)

Norn

nat'l\p "father"

Ace

nattpa natp6c;

Gen

llv'l\p"man"

The only common morphological feature of all the vowel-stem nouns was the suffix -n of their accusative. This fact proved to be decisive in overcomming the Ancient Greek polymorphy of grammatical meanings in that the suffix -n started to appearwith consonantalstems. The two-toone relationship of morphology and semantics in Ancient Greek: -n and -a - Ace Sg gave way to on~to-one relationship in late Hellenistic Koine: -n - Ace Sg. It is important to realize that a prerequisite to this morphologicalchange was a phonologicalphenomenonof the loss of vocalic quantity. This change presumablycould not have taken place in pre-Christiancenturies, when the vocalic quantity was still phonemic (contrast andra with neanian). Only later on, when the vocalic quantity stopped being phonemic, can we contemplate the extension of -n from X-an to Y-a (e.g. neanian- an"ran). This reasoning seems to be confirmed by the fact that our Attic

12

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND S01.ITHSLAVIC LANGUAGES

examples come from late Imperial times (see Dietrich, 1898: 159 for data). Of course, this process could be under way earlier (or later) in different regions. For instance, there is an isolated example c'lv6p"1vtav"statue" of the 4 111c. B.C. from Cyprus; in the Septuaginta there are a number of examples such as atyav "goat",

yuvaticav"woman" which would seem

to indicate

that this change was taking place in the Syro-Palestinian variant of Hellenistic Koine during the 21111 c. B.C.

1.1.1 The emergence of the principle of parisyllabicity The next step in the morphological levelling of the three Ancient Greek patterns was an analogical creation of a new nominative in the athematic declension. Speakers of late Hellenistic

vtavlav : VEavlac;= liv(>pav: Xby extending the -s from the Similarly, in the case of nominative of thematic nouns to the athematic ones; X = liv(>pac;. = yuvaticav: X was completed by extending the feminine nouns the proportion xd>pav: xpa 0-suffix to the new stem yuvatic:a-(alternatively, we may talk about the subtraction of -n

Koine completed the proportion

marking the accusative). Dietrich (1898:160) presented some evidence for the geographical origins of this innovation in papyri from Roman Egypt of the 21111c. B.C., which show forms such "pledge" (Ancient as ..oou;.Actually, even nowadays the problem remains unsettled in that Kathareousa keeps ft n:6>..t;,~ n:6>..£00;,whereas Dhimotiki prefers TIn6>..T1, tTI; n6>..T1; (especially in compounds TIA~no>..TI, etc.).3 The themati7.ationof athematic consonantal stems is documented sporadically during several periods of the long history of the Greek language. During the Hellenistic period the best known example is the Aetolian plural dative in -m; (ix6vrm;, XPTlµatm;, navrm;, etc.) found in inscriptions (of the 3rd and 2nd c. B.C.) from Epirus, Aetolia, Acamania, Western and Eastern Locris, Phocis, Delphi, Aenis, Malis and Phthiotis (cf. Bubenik 1983, 1989a:127-128). Another set of data is available in Greekborrowings in Coptic (of the type µap~ for µapm;, tptxo; for 0pfl;, µacrnx~ for µaat~, cf. Bubcnik 1989:261). Examples of the thematic genitive and dative (of the type a>.£tct6pou,:Jt'V€'Uµatou, atoµatq>) are available from Roman and Bywitine papyri (Dietrich 1898:163, Gignac 1981). During the Medieval period thematic forms such as 'E1Ct6pou, 'Eict6pq> (instead of "EICt~, "E1Ctopt)4are found in Hermoniakos' Byzantine Iliad written in the region of Epirus by "ein bemerkenswerter Ignorant" (Beck 1971:169) during the 14111c. In the 2()1hc. similar 'deviant' fonns are available in archaic dialects of Asia Minor Greek. "wine" In Cappadocia (Delmes6) old neuter nouns in -a 1touµa "cover", xwµa "earth", ic>..1\µa display the genitive in -at where 1touµat continues the thematic form 1touµatou (Dawkins 1916:93);similarly, in Pbarasa the genitive of &oµa "flat-house roof' was l>ooµatou (Dawkins 1961:164).' Influence in the opposite direction - from athematic to thematic nouns - is limited to the accusative and nominative plural. Already in pre-Christian centuries the nominative plural suffix -es could appearin the accusative with athematic nouns. Its earliest documents belong to the 3n1 c. B.C. : ouµno>..£µ1\oavrt; (Achaea); 2nd c. B.C. : tou; >..tyovrt; (Egypt), etc. On the other hand, documents for the appearence of-es in the accusative of thematic nouns (a-stems) do not belong to extend beyond the beginning of the 2nd c. A.D. Rhodian examples tai)tt; and li>..>..£;

DEVELOPMENTOF 1liE NOMINALINFLECI'IONIN GREEK

15

the 3n1c. (cf. Hatzidakis 1892:139-140), Egyptian examples are probably earlier (2nd c.). The last phase of this process, the spread to the nominative plural of a-stems could have started during the

6 .. c. A.O. to judge by our earliest piece of evidence from Malalas: AlVEi.a6t;.Dietrich (1898:157) duitinguished two phases in this process: first, the masculine nouns in -T);{lmt6tT);, D4>v "with the permissionof their parents" [Laws 550.101).

µt tov 6pwµov tou; yovti;

The article distinguishes three different fonns in the plural feminine nouns (al/t'I Nom, tac;,'tal.c;Ace, to>vGen, i.e. e, tes, ton> MnCypriot i, tes, ton): (13)

to

6ticmov toiic;

av8pro:n:ouc;ical tu>V

ART+M/PliOBLmen+oBL ART law '"The law of the men and of the women"

and

yuvmicu>v

[Assizes 70.18-19] ART+F/PliGENwomen+GEN

(Occasionally, one comes across a mixed construction with tou; MIPIJOBLbut the noun in the old genitive plural form in -wv as in El; n'rvau>..t)vtou; 11:oupytoi.&v "in the area of the citizens" [Assizes 49.22)). Another salient feature of Medieval Cypriot is its 'monoptotic' quantifier which may appear

in the frozen form 11:aoa(Fem Sg) in all cases in both genders and numbers. The following data are from the Assizes (14 111c.): (14)

Genitive:

:n:aoo6v8pwJtO(vro"I give you". In Northern dialects the morphological case (accusative) can be used even in the noun phrase, cf. (22). The only major addition to the system of phrasal cases in MedievalGreek was the periphrasis with the prepositionsde;"to; in"(> OE) and l>ui"through"(> ye.a)expressing the indirect object (i.e., the notions of reception and benefitting). In Ancient Greek the indirect object would be expressed synthetically by the morphological dative, e.g. ll>roicato cp0..11µatfl µ11tpt"I gave a kiss to the mother''; in Medieval Greek the dative (of recipient/beneficiary)was replacedby the prepositional phrase consisting of the preposition 0£ plus the noun in the accusative: (21) To cpU.ov tOU µava napa&i>ice O'tfl ART+N kiss he+GEN gave+ 3SG to=ART+FEMI ACC mother "He gave his kiss to the mother"

[Erotokr 196.16]

In (21) the prepositionOE appears in the proclitic fonn with the article in the feminine accusative: s=ti < se=ti. (22)

nattpa

To

£uta

O'tOV

it

said+tso

to=ART+MASc/ ACC father+GEN/ACC

To

£uta

tOV

nattpa

it

said+tso

ART+MASc/ ACC

father+cEN/ACC

(Southern MnGr)

(Northern MnGr)

"I said it to the father"

In (22) the preposition 0£ appears in the proclitic fonn with the article in the masculine

accusative: s=ton < se=ton. As early as the beginning of the Christian era there is evidence that the phrasal case consisting of the prepositionelc;plus the noun in the accusative could also express the notion of location (cf. Humbert 1930/1960:293): (23)

µT) 6.ypov tLc; tOV 6 ART+MISG/ ACC field+ACC not ART+MISOINOMin btl.Otpt,p(l't(J)

tLc; ta

tum back+AOR+3SO to

6:n:Low

ART+N/PllACC back

"And let him who is in the field not tum back"

[M 13.16]

26

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOUTII SLAVIC LANGUAGES

New Testament instances may be matched by those occurring in papyri:

(24) taOta

6t

navta

OW£vi\

El;

tov

XLtO)Va [Pap. Oxyrh VI. 929, 211111c.]

these+N

PRT all+NIPL be together+IMPF+3SG

in

ART+MAsc/ ACC

chiton+ACC

"all these were together in the chiton"

The blurring of the distinction between allation (goal-oriented movement) and location is docwnented even in pre-Christian centuries. One of the salient features of the North West Doric Koine during the 2nd c. B.C. was the preposition tv ''in" with the accusative in the meaning of the allative, while all the other varieties of Greek used

tv with

the dative in the meaning of the

locative (cf. Bubenik 1989a:196 for details):

Allative

(25) nd

2 c. B.C.

Locative

tv AalC£l>alµova

+-

tv AalC£l>alµovL

(North West Doric)

tl.; Aa1C£6alµova (elsewhere) post-Christian

tL; tOVa.ypov

centuries

➔

a.ypov (replacingtv tq>a.yp{p) tl.; tov

This almost contradictory double meaning of the phrasal case

de; plus the accusative

(allative/indirect object and locative) could be instrumental in reinterpreting another preposition to express the indirect object. The preposition bLa meant originally "through" (in space: bi.CL acm~

''through the shield"; in time:

bui vuict6c; "through

the night"; means: bL' tpµ,rvtwc;

"through an interpreter"). Nowadays, one of its meanings is to express an (abstract) goal of motion (allative): :n;aooyLq>wv) thematically: bharant-o, bhardt-assa (Gen), bharant-er_,a (Instr); cf. dev-o "god", dev-assa (Gen),

dev-e,:,a(lnstr) vs. Sanskrit bharan, bharant-alJ(Gen), bharat-a (Instr). 6.

Cf. Householder et al. (1964:59) for details. Nouns in -mµo may have the genitive in beside the suffix -olµatoc;.

:_u(or --iii)

CHAPTER TWO DEVELOPMENT OF THE NOMINAL INFLECTION IN SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

2.1 Ral•ctlon of tl,e Morpllologlcal cae qstan Reduction of the complex case system (up to seven fonns in Masc Sg) of Ancient Slavic (as represented by the OCS texts of the 10"'-11 111c.) in South Slavic languages has been studied in

numerous monographs. As a necessary historical background for the study of the emergence of the postpositive article in Bulgaro-Macedonian(2.2) and that of the phrasal case (2.3), I want to revisit certain salient facts of this process.On the Hellenic side, Ancient Greek reduced its system of seven cases inherited from PIE during the 'dark' period (between the Mycenaean and Archaic/Classical periods, ea. 12111- 8111c. B.C.) and emerged with four (five with the vocative) cases plus the article. The essence of these reductionist processes was the replacement of the inherited 'peripheral' cases (lnstr, Loe, Abl) by 'phrasal' cases consisting of prepositions with nouns in the remaining 'central' cases (Gen, Ace, Oat). As we saw above (1.3), during the late Hellenistic andearly Byzantine periods even the old dative was ultimately replaced by a phrasal case. South Slavic data present a veritable workshop for these processes. Taking the OCS state of affairs as a starting point one may follow the reductionist/simplificatory processes in conservative Serbian all the way through progressive Bulgaro-Maccdonianwhich ended up with a simple dichotomy of 'direct' vs. 'oblique' case, limited to masculine nouns in the singular with the definite article. The contrast direct vs. oblique does not exist with the feminine and neuter nouns, and in the plural of all genders (with or without the definite article). All the other cases are realized as phrasal cases with the help of various prepositions (as in English or Romance languages). In this context one usually mentions the survival of the vocative (in both genders) and to a very limited degree dative singular (in both genders), see (2.2) and (2.3). The masculine o-stem forms (Sg) are juxtaposed in Table 2.1. The six forms of OCS were reduced to five in Serbian (by syncretizing the dative and locative), and to four (including the dative) in Bulgarian. In view of the absence of the feminine oblique form, the loss of case morphology was more drastic in Bulgarian which preserved only a half of the original forms ofOCS a-stems. Serbian continues the old state of affairs practically unchanged (only the -m in the Instr cannot be explained phonologically). These matters are surveyed in Table 2.2. Old neuter nouns (in -C, -n, -t, -s) were thematized in Serbian as shown in Table 2.3. One may observe that already in OCS some plural forms were thematic: Norn/Ace, Gen (CAOB-fC-"la) and Instr (CAOB-tc......,"with words"); the dative andlocative displayed i-stem suffixes (-t.M"laand -a.x-a-). Typologically, the Serbian imparisyllabicpattern i'm-e(Norn) vs. thematic l"m-en-a(Gen)

30

CHANGE IN MBDIBVAL ORBEK AND SOU'IH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

ocs

..

bog-1,..god"

Nom Oen

Oat

·U

.,.

Ace

Serbian

..

bog

Bulgarian

bog

·U

(-u)

·•

-a(Obl)

Voc

bo!-e

Loe

bodz~

•U

lnstr

bog-onn.

-om

bo!-e

bo!-e

Table 2.1: o-stau (singularforms) In SoutltSlavic languages

SgNom

ocs

Serbian

Bulgarian

!en-a

!en-a

!en-a

Oen

·Y

-e

Oat

~

-i

Ace

-6

•U

Voc

-0

-0

Loe

~

-i

Instr

-ojli

-om

(-e(-i))

·O

Table 2.2: a-stau (singularforms) in SouthSlavic languages

SgNom/Ace

ocs

Serbian

Bulgarian

im..a

'im-e

fm-e

Oen

-en-e

-en-a

Oat

-en-i

-en-u

PINom/Ace Oen

im-en-a

im-en-a

-en-1,

-en-i

im-ena

Table2.3: Old neuternounsin SouthSlavic languages

correspondsexactlyto the Hellenistic,By:zantineand Pontic CJt6µa(Norn)vs. thematic CJtoµ-atou (Gen), cf. 1.3. Also Bulgarianpreservedhere the imparisyllabicpattern contrastingthe Sg ime vs. PI im-ena. It may be said that in addition to the genitive (with masculine nouns), Modem Bulgarian preservedonly one case from Old Bulgarian, the vocative: OBu brain. "brother", bratr-e (Voc) > MnBu brat (Norn),brat-e (Voc);OBuien-a "woman" ien-o (Voc) > MnBu ien-a (Nom), Un-o

DEVEWPMENT OF TIIB NOMINAL INFLECTION IN SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

31

(V oc ). The shift of accent with a-stemsis certainly archaic (cf. Mladenov 1929:225); remarkably, it is not found in West and East Slavic languages: (I)

The a-stem vocative in Slavic languages

Norn

Bulgarian sestr-a "sister"

Czech

Russian

sestr-a

sestr-a Voc

sestr-o

sestr-o

In Modem Bulgarian the instrumental case has survived in the so-called figura grammatica (synonymica) which is very popular in folk poetry: vikom vilca"he shouts" (lit. he shouts by shouting), tekom tece "it flows", cudom se cudi "he marvels", begom pobegnali "they ran" (cf. Mladenov 1929:232). Other archaisms are instrumentals of time and space as in the proverb denem svetec, nostem lcradec "he is a saint during the day, [but] a thief during the night"; and the adverb pilem "on the way'' (in literary Bulgarianpilem developed a temporal meaning "passing by''). Already in OCS the notion of location (in space and time) was expressed analytically by means of several prepositions accompanying the noun in the locative. Prepositionless locatives (of the Sanskrit type nagare "in the city'') were rare in OCS. As in all other Slavic languages, in Modern Bulgarian several of them were recategorized as adverbs, e.g. lete "in the summer''(< Jit.rl); gore "above upstairs"(< rop'h "on the mountain"; gora in Modern Bulgarian means "forest, wood'');dobre ''well"(< .u;ospt). There are also several prepositional locatives in Modem Bulgarian, e.g.na meste "locally"(< aa Mt.en "on the spot''); na s1,ne (nas1,ne) "in the dream"; v h.sti "at home, home"; etc. (cf. Mladenov 1929:234). The loss of case morphology was even more drastic in the plural. As Table 2.4 shows, in o-stems Serbian reduced the original number of five forms to four, while Bulgarian ended up with a single form of the 'general' case. There were two anomalies in the OCS paradigm: the double-marked genitive plural and the unmarked nominative singular displayed the same suffix -1,; and the 'peripheral' instrumental shared its suffix -y with the 'central' accusative (ultimately from two very distinct suffixes in PIE

Ace PI• -ons and Instr PI• -ois). Both of them were done away with in Serbian. The genitive plural is now marked by the peculiar suffix -ii and the instrumental was syncretized with the dative/locative (the suffix -ima is ultimately an -i stem Dat/lnstr dual suffix, cf. OCS rOCT-laMA "guests''). In Serbian velar stems (-lc/-g) one observes a morphophonemic dichotomy of central

(Gen, Ace) vs. peripheral cases, with the latter indicated by the allomorph in -c/-z: boz- (used also in the Nom/Voc). Bulgarian displays the u-stem suffix -ove with monosyllabic masculine nouns: sin-ove "sons" (originally au-stem noun) ➔ bog-ove "gods" (originally, an o-stem noun).

32

CHANGE IN MEDIBVAL GREEK AND SOUIH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

ocs

Serbian

Bulgarian

Norn

bodz .j

boz.j

bog-ov6

Gen

bog

•1,

bog-I

Dat

bog

-Offl'l,

boz.ima

Ace

Voc

bog ·Y bodz .j

Loe

bodz

lnstr

bog -y

-el['l,

bog-e boz-i boz-ima boz-ima

Table2.4. o-stems (plural forms) in South Slavic languages

Nom

ocs

Serbian

Bulgarian

!en-y

!cn-e

!en-f

Gen

•1,

-i

Dat

-lffl'l,

-ama

Ace

-y

-e

Voc

-y

Un-e

Loe

•IX1,

!en-ama

lnstr

-arni

-ama

Table 2.5: a-stems (plural forms) in South Slavic languages

The loss of case morphology was even more pervasive in a-stems, with conservative Serbian possessing only three distinct forms out of the five found in OCS, as shown in Table 2.5. Contrasted with o-stems, one notices a more 'rational' distribution of the suffix-yin OCS Norn/Ace, continued by the Serbian -e. As with o-stems a single syncretic form -ama (originally a Dat/lnstr dual suffix) functions nowadays as the Dat/Loc/lnstr suffix. A rarity is seen in the vocative form ien-e, distinguished suprasegmentally from the nominative ien-e (short falling vs. short rising pitch accent). In the Indo-European phylum of languages, there is another typologically similar phenomenon of this 'secondary differentiation' of the vocative. In the lndoAryan family Hindi contrasts segmentally the direct plural case, e.g. la,:k -e ''boys" with the vocative la,:k-o''boys!" (the oblique plural form is la,:k-o).This contrast was not available in the Old Indo-Aryan (cf. Sanskrit sutiilJ "sons" NomNoc). Unlike Serbian, Bulgarian preserved only a few relics of plural case forms. The original nominative plural is seen in raid"crayfish" (instead of rac,) and orexi "walnuts" (dialectal ores,). The original genitive plural survives in compound cardinal numerals: petstotin "SOO" ... devetstotin "900" and in various numerical expressions: za mnogo godin "after many years",

DEVELOPMENTOF TI1E NOMINALINFLECTIONIN SOUlll SLAVIC LANGUAGES

33

tristaglav dobinJc"300 head of cattle". In the Damaskinsthere are archaismssuch as n. N1s1n., etc. (cf. Mladenov 1929:238 for details.) The peripheralplural cases (Dat, Instr,Loe) have beenlost completelyin Modem Bulgarian. Their loss may be studied in considerable detail in the late Damaskins which display a number of analogicalfonnations continuingtrends observablealreadyin the earliest OCS documentssuch as the 'tug-of-war' between o- and u-stems.For instance,one finds CWH-Olll (Nom PI) "sons" and CWN-OS-GM'lo (Dat Pl) vs. CWH-OlllandCWH-'loM'loin the OCS texts. Here the less distinct Oat Pl -'bm'b(< •-umu(.r))was replaced by a 'bipartite' suffix -ov-om:1,where -ov could be conceived ofas the plural marker (cf. syn-mae)and-om:1was the dative plural suffix borrowed from o-stems. The innovativefonn of the locativeplural vo/-ov-en (vs. OCS BM- Oaco-Rum lupu+lui (the relics of the Latin case suffixes, Norn -u, -o > Oat -u, are consideredsynchronicallyan epenthetic vowel -u to Lupul ''the wolf'). Bulgarian forms arose similarly: syn+z.=tz. ''that son" > sin=z.t ''the son"; the oblique fonn is identical with the ancient genitive: sin+a=togo (dialectal), standard sin+a. In OCS texts there are rare instances of the type 'IAOBifucOT'I. ''that man" [Mar; M 14.21) which spell the demonstrative pronoun together with its head noun and consequently might be interpreted as a piece of evidence for the clitic stage, cloveb=tr. > clovelcotr., in the formation of the article; in Codex Suprasliensis (10"' c.) one encounters AA"'A' IIMOI( BAIOA..,.....,(Mc; autq> ical to oicout£A.LOV) "give him the dish"; in &!stnik of John the Exarch (ea 900 A.O.) *HBOTOI( TOMOI( ''to the life" [Sestnik 9Sb], UMoro Toro nAOAA "of the same fruit" [Sestnik 1OOb], etc. Similar examples are on increase during the following centuries; for instance, in Trojanska priai (14111c.) one encounters "' AAUHTf AHAKWOI( opa,KHf TO "don't give Ajax the weapon". During the Early New Bulgarian period (1.,. - 1s• c.) these examples become very common in the Damaskins (esp. in the Gen/Ace and Oat Sg Masc): oy(SH,D.llBHHJll, 66ra roro RM "Daniel killed their god" [K.opr102) H pe'le ~ nan OH3HBOBBI,BJI8,D.Hriro~ [K.opr62) "and that soldier said to the vladyka (ruler)". In Modem Bulgarian the case fonns of the postpositive article are found only in dialects (Sumen and Rhodopi):popa=togo - popa=toga "of the priest", popu=tomu ''to the priest"; there are even fonns with the triple article (cf. under for Macedonian): cifilka=suk vs. cil'llka=tuk vs. cil'ilka=nuk"ofthe man" vs. "of this man" vs. "of that man". Most archaic forms appearin the Rhodopi dialects which also possess feminine forms (data from Mladenov 1929:248): (2)

JKelltTOH

!en+!=toi

J1tenoni.M1> !en+am~nn,

> t'ln+i=-tuhi

"to the woman"

> :Un'+lm=tlm

"to the women"

Modem Bulgarian and Macedonian distinguish three genders of the postpositive article in the singular (MnBu =z.t, =ta, =to) and two in the plural (Masc/Fem =te and Neuter =ta). Only in Macedonian does the definite article have three alternative fonns: the fonns with v instead oft indicate someone/something near the speaker; and the fonns with n someone/something at a distance - but visible - to the speaker:

DEVELOPMENTOF TIIE NOMINALINFLECTIONIN SOt.ml SL.AVIC LANGUAGES

(3)

beli=ot vol

"the white ox"

beli=ovvol beli'"'Ollvol

"the white ox here"

35

"the white ox there"

In Bulgarian if the definite masculine noun (or noun phrase) functions as the direct (or prepositional) object, it is provided with the suffix of the oblique case. AB mentioned in 2.1 feminine nouns do not possess an oblique form and use its direct form even in the functionof the direct object: 1 (4)

vitdam grad

"I see a city"

vlidamgrad-i

"I see the city"2 "I see a woman" "I see the woman"

vlidam !er1' vf!dam !enazsta

In the function of the definite subject masculine singular nouns use the direct form of the article vo/=7Jide "the ox comes", while feminine nounsuse the same suffix -ta:iena=ta ide "the woman comes". ABmentioned by Mladenov (1929:226)the contrast between the oblique and the direct case is not observed in various Bulgarian rural dialects. Thus in Sliven (East) and Vidin (West) one may say Stojan ide "Stojan comes" and vikaj Stojan "call Stojan"; popo(t) ide "the priest comes" and da vilratpopo(t) "let them call the priest" (or popa ide and da vilcatpopa ).3 At the Western end of the spectrum, in Macedonian, the oblique case is used only with masculine nounshighest on the scale of animacy (anthroponyms), and also with common nouns denoting relationship (providing they end in a consonant). Bulgarian and Macedonian are contrasted in (5): (5)

vitdam vol-a

"I seethe ox" (Bulgarian)

vol-1,tide

''lbe ox comes"

go gledam vol-ot "I seethe ox" {Macedonian)

vol-ot ide

"The ox comes"

Given the morphological identity of the subject and object forms in Macedonian, one can argue that this language had to create some extra means of keeping these two syntactic functions

apart. AB in the case of English, one witnesses the fixing of word order, and in addition the peculiar phenomenon of cross-indexing the definite article in the verbal complex by pronominal clitics (lit. him:::alsee ox=the). For details cf. Chapter Three.

36

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOU111 SLAVIC LANGUAGES

2.3 Develop111ent of the phrasal case In Medieval Bulgaro-Maeedonian The losses on synthetic morphology of case described in 2.1 were compensated for by the phrasal (prepositional) case. More specifically, the notions of reception and instrumentality started being expressed analytically (here the prepositional phrase ultimately ousted the dative

and instrumental cases); but the other notions - accompaniment and location - were expressed analytically already in OCS. The change we witness here consists of replacing the instrumental and locative cases of the noun with the genitive (or Gen/Ace) case which will end up as the oblique case in Modern Bulgarian: PREPN+INSTR> PREPN+GEN/ACC > PREPN+oBL. The recipient (and beneficiary) used to be expressed synthetically by the dative in OCS, e.g.

dax1, to syn+ovi ''I gave it to a/the son". With the rise of the postpositive article in BulgaroMacedonian the case could be marked twice: on the noun and by the dative form of the demonstrative pronoun: dadox go sin+u=tomu. The real break with the past came when the dative form of the noun was replaced by the prepositional caseconsisting of the preposition na with the noun in the oblique case: dadox=mu=go na sin+a (lil I=him=it=gave to the son) "I gave it to the son". The former dative form of the recipient appears now in the verbal complex in the guise of the pronominial clitic mu ''him" (the phenomenon of object doubling will be studied in Chapter Four). Summarily:

(6)

dax1,

syn+ovi

to

(OCS)

N+DAT dadox

sin+u""'lOmu

go

(Late MBu)

N+DAT=PRo+DAT na sin+a

dadox=mu=go DAT

(MnBu)

toN+oBL

"I gave it to the son"

Early medieval texts display a variety of other forms, both synthetic and analytic; instead of the dative one encounters the accusative (as in contemporary Northern Greek dialects) and the nominative; and the preposition na could be combined with the noun in the dative form. The following examples are from the Banis/coEvangelie (131hc.)

[Bani§ko;Lk 14.17]

.3BAHW

say+INF invited+ACC ''to say to those who had been invited" MOH

a .. .3a1'C'l'trl"k

BpA"l'lt

tcll+IMP/PL

brothers+NOM my+PlJNOM

''tell my brothers"

[Bani§ko;Mt 28.1OJ

DEVELOPMENTOF 11IE NOMINALINFLBCllONIN SOUTHSLAVICLANGUAGES

" and

...

MHAOCTI.

■ro

mercy

he+oEN/ACC to

BO&qlHM

CA

■ro

feamd+DAT

REFL

he+oEN/ACC

37

[Bani§ko; Lk 1.50]

"and his mercy is on those who fear him"

Earlier OCS biblical translations display the dative here: .SBAHHwM,, aoa.WTttM, c.. Mladcnov (1929:227}complained that in the twenties journalists preferred the phrasal case (na+oBL) to the ancient dative in -u (with animate masculine nouns). Its stronghold were anthroponyrns(Mark-u, Ivdn-u,etc.) and the word 1 'God". Thus the proverb PrekalensvetecBogu ne e drag ..cin ObertricbenerHeiliger ist sclbst Gottnicht angenchm" (''God himself does not like an exaggerated saint") is not possible with the phrasal dative na Boga. With feminine nouns of relatives the ancient dative is also available in dialects (majcesi, iene si, sestresi '"to his mother, to his wife, to his sister"). In Middle Bulgarian the dative was used with nouns of place to denote the goal of movement or location; e.g. AOHAOW& AOBpA,.... rpAAOI( lit. they came to the gate to the town (MnBu dojdoxa do vratatana grada ''they came to the gate of the town''). Similarly, the function of the beneficiary in OCS was expressedby the morphological dative, e.g. OT'I.BilwTAX' CWHOSHsyn+ovi "I answered to the son"; nowadays, in Modern Bulgarian, one can say only arroeopm: Ha cBBana sin+a with the phrasal case consisting of the preposition na and the word "son" in the oblique case. As far as the related notion of possession is concerned, in OCS the nominal and the pronominal possessorwere expressedby the genitive case.In Middle Bulgarian the nominal and the pronominal possessor started being expressed by the morphological dative, which was later on replaced by the prepositional phrase na plus the noun (in the Gen/Ace). Mladcnov ( 1929:228) quotes the following Middle Bulgarian example of the dative, and its Modern Bulgarian equivalent na plus the oblique case: (8)

AORAOIU.a

AO

span

reach+AOR+JPL

to

gatc+OBNIPL town+DAT

(MB)

rpa.-oy

''They came to the gate of the town" dojdoxa

do

vratata

na

grada

reach+AOR+JPL

to

gate=ART

to

town+oBL

{MnB)

Similarly, the pronominal possessor which used to be expressed by the genitive in OCS startedbeingexpressedby the clitic pronominal form in the dative. OCS and Modern Bulgarian constructions are given in (9):

(9)

CWH..,

■ro(OCS)

sin mu (MnBu)

son

he+OEN

son=he+DAT

"his son"

"his son"

38

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

In Modern Macedonian dialect ofDihovo (Groen 1977:81) the clitic dative forms are used only with kinship tenns (= inalienable possession): (JO) sinmi

"my son"

son=l+DAT sinoj mu

"his/her sons"

SOllS""S/hc+DA T

To put emphasis on the possessor (and to avoid ambiguity in the 3"' Pers Sg) the pronominal possessive adjectives ( or the phrasal case in the 3"' Pers Sg) have to be used: (II)

m6ja

Una "MY wife"

my

wife

vs.

Una mi "my wfFE"

wife==l+DAT

son=hc+DAT

n6gof/na toj "His son" hi<o he

sin mu

n6zin/na tAja"HERson"

sfnmu

vs.

sin mu "his/her SON" sonzslhc+DAT

son=shc+DAT hers/to she The phrasal case in Macedonian (Dihovo) combines the prepositional na with the nominative

fonn of the pronow toj (M), taja (F). In Bulgarian one has to use the oblique fonn nego (M), neja (F): sin mu na nego "HiS son" (cf. Chapter Four). Thus, ultimately, in both Bulgaro-Macedonian and Greek semantic functions of possessor and beneficiary/recipient ended up being expressed by the same phrasal (prepositional) case.The following examples show the Bulgarian phrasal casecombining the preposition na with the noun in the oblique case(= former genitive), and the Greek genitive in both functions: (12)

Possessor

Recipient/Beneficiary

"the house of the old man"

"he said to the old man"

Bulgarian: lnJtata

na

house=ART to

starika old+oBL

mu=re«

na

hc+DAT=say+AOR+3SG to

starika old+oBL

Greek: to=spiti

tu=gcronta

ART=house ART+GEN=old+GEN/ ACC

to=ipe

tu=gcronta

it=say+AOR+3SG

ART+GEN=old+GEN/ ACC

DEVELOPMENT OF TIIB NOMINAL INFLECTION IN SOU1H SLAVIC LANGUAGES

39

It is worth mentioning that in Hellenistic Greek the distinction between possession and

reception was weakened/blurred in contexts where Wackemgel's Law moved pronominal clitics to S-2 position as in the following NT example in (13):

!SBGa.W.11.

CA

CTpAXOMI>

BIAMMI>

be-aftraid+AOR+3PL

REFL PREP N+INSTR

and

a.

[Bani!iko;M 4.41]

great+INSTR

"and they were filled with great fear" [Bani!iko;Mk 1.6)

BI

:IICI

tNJAHI>

VJBAI> 'II HI>

BAACII

was

PRT

John

clothed

hair+NOM/PL camel 's+NOM/PL

BIAl>BA.lll.:IICH

"Now John was clothed with camel's hair"

In the latter example the nominative plural vlasi is used instead of the instrumental plural vlasy whose fonn is homophonous with the accusative plural (cf. 2.1 ). The notion of accompaniment and location were already expressed analytically in OCS (by PREP N+INSTR and PREP N+LOC respectively). With the loss of morphological case the instrumental and locative came to be replaced by the genitive/accusative (the ancestor of the oblique case) or by the nominative. Pertinent examples from the BaniJ/roevangelie (13 th c.) are provided in (15) and (16), respectively: ( I 5)

WBA

Ba.:JAl:IICI

HA

J. TI

O't('IIHHKOMI>

[Bani!iko;Mt 26.20) lie+AOR+3so

Jesus

with

two+NOM/ACC to ten

"Jesus 'sat' with the twelve disciples"

disciples+INSTR

CHANGEIN MEDIEVALGREEKAND SOUTII SLAVIC LANGUAGES

40

In ( 15) oba is the nominative/accusative form of ''both, two" occuring after the preposition s,, ''with" instead of the expected form obema na desete (lit. two+INSTR-to-ten) in agreement with the head-noun "disciples" in the instrumental. (16)

BOAH

BI.

p03KAIHH

&IHAMH

npptch

fflUAHA

ICpCTAt;

greater

in

bom+NOM

women+INSTR

prophet

John+GEN

Baptist+oEN

NHICTO&I

nt;c-n.

noone

not-is

[BaniAko;Lk 7.28]

"Amongthose born of women none is greater than John"

In (16) the locative phrase "among those

born"

is expressed by

v.1,

roideni lit. in bom+NOM

PL

roidennyx'h lit. in bom+Loc PL. The caseless examples in prepositional phrases in (14) and (16) herald the contemporary state of affairs. In Modem Bulgarian the oblique case in prepositional phrases is limited to the definite instead of

v.1,

masculine nouns in the singular; in all other instances an absolute 'caseless' form is found. In more general terms, the previous expose may be capturedby the figure where CASE stands for the peripheral cases of OCS (Oat, lnstr, Loe). The synthetic prepositional phrase

PREP N+cASE

CASE of

OCS was replaced by the

during the medieval period, and the

CASE

was ultimately

replaced by the oblique case (with definite masculine nouns in the singular) or by 'zero' (in all other instances):

ocs N+cASE

MBu

>

MnBu

PREP N+cASE PREP N+GEN/ACC

>

PREPN+OBL

PREP N+NOM

>

PREPN

Figure 2.1: The development of phrasal case in Bulgaro-Macedonian

DEVELOPMENT OF 1HE NOMINAL INFLECTION IN SOUTii SLAVIC LANOUAGES

41

NOTES I.

With feminine nounsthecontrast betweenthedirect and oblique fonns is available only in dialects; for instance, in the extreme North West it is observed with the names of relatives (cf. Mladenov 1929:226): s~tra mu dQ§la "his sister came" vs. /upf na s~trl. si "tell your sister".

2.

As mentioned by de Bray (1980:102), in certain older writers the oblique form could be used

indiscriminantly for both definite and indefinite objects: vildam grad+a "I see the/acity". In MnBu

the indefinite object is expressed by the direct form vudam grad. 3.

Synchronically, it may be said that the oblique case is formed by the removal (subtraction) of-tin the direct form -1,t and the final fa/ is spelled with -a.

4.

Both interpretations (possessor or beneficiary) are available in [J 11.21] and [J 11.32], where

Marthasaid: Kupt.2, £l fie;rullt, O'UIC&v axt8aV£V6 66~

µou

but Mary said:

Kupl.E,tl fie;ru&?, ouic liv µou cbct8avev6 a6£).cl>6 i, and raising of the front mid e> f) the Early Medieval system lost a number of morphological contrasts. In the 2nd Pers Sg the contrast between the nominative (sy> si) and the dative (soi> sy> s1) was lost; in the plural the contrast between all the forms of the 1• Pers vs. those of the 2nd Pers was lost (the resulting forms would

DEVBLOPMENTOF1HEPRONOMINALSYSTEMS

43

sound as follows: •imis. •imon, •;min, •;mas). There were no clitic forms in the plural subparadigm, and in the singular only the 111 Pers displayed opposition between the full (emu,

eme') and the clitic forms (mu, me). First, some general typological observations from the point of view of one of the Early Modern Greek descendants (Erotokritos, 1T1'c.). Most notably, the above mentioned contrast

eme

between the full vs. clitic form in the 1• Pers Sg, vs. me, supplied a model for all the other persons: 2nd Pers Sg ese vs. se, 1• Pers PI emas vs. mas, 2nd Pers PI esas vs. sas. e could also be added to clitic (?) forms to create new full forms: tone (vs. ton), mase (vs. mas), sase (vs. sas), and tose (vs. tos). These forms arc not found in Modem Greek which possesses only one oblique form in the plural:

(])

EMnGr

MnGr

"we"

"we"

emfs

emfs

Full

emas ~ masc

emas

Clitic

mas

mas

Dir Obi

In the 3n1Pers the full fonns with -e (tone, tine, tose) were replaced by the accusative forms of the demonstrative pronoun ajtos (aft6n, aftin, aftus, aftes). In Modern Greek the 3n1Pers clitics are identical with the forms of the article (with the exception of the genitive plural: article toov vs. clitic to~ (2)

-

earlier t&v vs. t~):

mill>ui

rot

to)V

children

and

ART+GEN/PLchildren+GEN=they+GEN

The form t~ both t~

[Erotokr 302.3]

arose apparently by contamination of the genitive t(l)V and accusative forms to-u EMnGr emas). However, as in Bulgaro-Macedonian, the clitic forms preserve the morphological contrast between the genitive vs. accusative (dative vs. accusative in Bulgaro-Macedonian), which is crucial for the expression of the semantic functions of the possessor, beneficiary/recipient and patient. Unlike Bulgaro-Macedonian,Modern Greek possesses only one plural clitic form in the 1' t and 2nd Pers (emas vs. mas, esas vs. sas). The Modern Greek case system is thus somewhat anomalous in displaying more nominal (Norn, Gen, Ace) than pronominal full forms (Norn and

DEVELOPMENTOFlHEPRONOMINALSYSTEMS

45

Full Forms "I"

"you"

"he"

"she"

Norn

ego

esf

aftos

aftf

Gen

CIM(na),

time

tine

mma ese(na), s6na Clitics

Gen

mu

IU

(n)tu

(n)tis, tsi

Ace

me

se

ton

tin

Full forms "we"

"ye"

"they(M)"

"they(F)"

Norn

emfs

sis

aft(

aftcs

Gen/Ace

emu,mue

esaa, sue

tose

?

(n)tos

?

Clitics Gen/Ace

mas

SIS

Table 3.2: Early Modun Gredc pronominal system (lxued on Erotokritos, I 7"'c.)

Obi). Languages typically display the opposite ratio (e.g. English), or, they preserve case distinctions with pronouns while they lose them with nouns (e.g. Bulgaro-Maccdonian). The nominal beneficiary/recipient(= indirect object) may be marked by the preposition s(e) ''to" (cf. Bulgaro-Macedonian preposition na ''to"): (7)

dino

to---vivllo

sto=Jani

ART=book to+ART=John "I (am) giv(ing) the book to John"

give+lso

If the pragmatic function of 'tail' (as defined by Functional Grammar, Dik 1989:135, Sicwicrska 1991 :150-153) is assigned to this constituent, it has to be crossindexed by the pronominal clitic in the verbal complex (proclitic if the verb is finite): (8)

tu=to=dino

to=vivlio

him=it=give+ 1S0

ART=book to+ART=John

sto=Jani

"I (am) giv(ing) the book to him, to JOHN"

It should be observed that in (8) the recipient is outside the 'nuclear' predication (Dik l 989:183ff.). Prosodically, the tail constituent (the right dislocand) is separated from the nuclear

46

CHANGE IN MEDIBV AL GREEK AND SOUill SLAVIC LANGUAGES

predication by the intonation (expressed orthographicallyby the comma) which is not present in (7) where the recipient is inside the nuclear predication. Similarly, the pronominal recipient - if assignedthe function of tail - will appear after the intonation break: (9)

aft6s mu=to=edose,

(s)emena

he l+GEN=it=give+AOR+3SG

{to)=l+oBL

"He gave it to ME"

The preposition se is obligatory in the case of double contrastive focus, as shown in (5): (10)

s=emcnaedose

to=vivlfo

6xi

S=e&a1a

to=l+oBL

ART=book

not

to=you+oBL

give+AOR+3SG

"Hegave the book to ME, not to YOU"

The oblique full fonn may also appear in the position of theme, or, functionally speaking, the beneficiary or patient may be assigned the function of theme, as shown in (6): (11)

cmena

8a

mu=filfsis

to=xeri

l+oBL

FUT

l+GEN=kiss+FUT+2SG

ART=hand

"To me you will kiss the hand?"

~ "Will you kiss

cmena

aflste=me

l+oBL

let+AOR+IMPIPL=l+ACC

the hand to me?"

"(As far as I am concerned), let me go!"

Early Modem Greek examples of coreferentialtheme and tail constituents (from Erotolcritos, 1711t c.) are given in (12): (12)

va µoi)

ta 1tflc;

tµtva

na=mu=ta=pis

cmena

that l+oEN=thosc=say+AOR+2SG

l+oBL

[Erotokr 181]

"That you (may) tell those to me"

icalXllVW OE ke=xano=se

k=esena

and=lose+ 1SG=you+ACC

and=you+oBL

"And I (will) lose you"

[Erotokr 173]

DBVELOPMENTOFTIIEPRONOMINALSYSTEMS

µa

6£ µo0 'peoE de=-mu=rese

ma

but

l+oBL-=ever

47

[Erotokr 118]

not-l+GEN-please+AOR+3so

"But (as far as I am concerned) it never pleased me"

The use of coreferential theme and tail constituents is common in Modem Colloquial Greek, especially in dialects. (13) is an example from the Northern (Macedonian) variety (an example

from Adamopoulos. 1988:39): (13)

ICLotva

TIµol.pa

0 tOOUICEL

ki•lala

i=mfra

l=cduki

and-you+oBL

ART=fate you+ACC=give+AOR+3/SG

µLa cpouvta mia=filnda

µapaµtv,J marambti

one=flower

withering

"And as far as you are concerned, the fate gave you a withcring flower"

3.2 Devdop,nent of the South SIIWk pronondnal qste111s To facilitate our further investigation I will be referring to Table 3.3, which shows the pronominal system of Old Church Slavonic (the locative and instrumental fonns are not essential

for further discussion and are omitted). Unlike in the full forms of the 1• and 2nd Pers, there was no morphological contrast between

the dative and the accusative/genitive in the dual and plural in the clitic fonns. In the 3rd person plural the contrast in gender was neutralized in oblique forms; but the contrast between the full and clitic form was here available (at least in the dative): onelimN ''to THEM'' vs. elimN ''to them". To judge by written documents, use of clitics was not well established; in many instances when we expect a clitic fonn the full fonn appears. There are even instances of parallel sentences one with a full form and another one with a clitic form; an example from Our Father in the Codex

Z.Ogrophensis[Zogr; Mt 6.13] is given in (14): (14)

n

HC

B.._BCAH

H4C'lt

B.._ H404C'1"1,,

and

not

lead+IMP

we+ ACC

into

H.._

H3B4BH

Hbl

OT'I.

HC0~3HH

but

deliver+IMP

we+ACC

from

cvil+oEN

temptation

"and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil"

48

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

"I"

"you"

"be"

"she"

Nom

A3'1,

.......

Olt'I,

OtlA

Gen

MIHI

TfRI

..-o

Dat

M .. ttt.

Mft

TCBt

Tit

-oV

Ace

"''"'

"'""

'NBf

TA

Olt'I,

"

..-0

(Dual)

"we"

"yen

''they" (M)

Norn

st

u

Ott•

Gen

NAIO

MIO

■IO

Dat

""""

KAMA

-· °"" -·

"we"

"ye"

"they" (M)

Norn

M'l,I

ll'IJ

Gen

NAC'I,

UC'I,

°""

Oat

""""'

llAM'I,

NAC'I,

"""

"they" (F)

°""

u

Ace

ON&

IUO

n•

Ace

-

·"

OtlA

UC...

11'1,1

"they" (F)

°"""

"X"'

"X"'

""'"' ...

""'"' ""

Table 3.3: Old Church Slavonic pronominal system

Another example from the same codex is in (15): (15)

AA

npikAA~

TISI

cana.pa.

hand

you+ACC

enemy+NOM judgc+DA T

CJIIANN

that

"' not

N

CJIIANN

T.O,.

npkAAC'l'a.

CA01(A34' N B'I,, TCMt.Na.qa

and

judgc+NOM

you+ACC

hand

constablc+DAT

B... Bp..........

T.O,.

[Zogr; Mt 5.25)

"otherwise he may hand you over to thejudge, and thejudge to the constable, and you will be put in jail"

Pronominal clitics expressing the patient and beneficiary/recipient

occur typically in

postverbal position (16), but they may also be placed in S-2 position by Wackernagel's Law (17). (16)

Postvcrbal clitics: and

C'I.TISopt& BY

'IICOM'I.

AOBa.qA

make+ I SG=ye

pcople+DAT

fishermen

"and I will make you fishermen of people"

[Zogr; Mt 4.19]

DEVELOPMENI'OFTHEPRONOMINALSYSTEMS

49

( 17) S-2 (Wackemagel's) clitics: AAH

fVB .........

tbat=him

kill+3PL

[Mar; M 14.55]

''that they may kill him" !U,P,lAWffC

[Mar; M 15.47]

nOAArAAX&

IC"i,Af H

look+IMPF+2DU where=him

lay+AOR+3PL

"they (dual) were looking where they laid him down"'

Examples in (17) show typical phonological hosts, such as the subordinating conjunction AA "'that" and the relative adverb IIC'I.A«"where". More rarely, however, even the coordinating conjwiction n "and" may host pronominal clitics, as shown in (18), where the reflexive pronoun c« is attached to it: ( 18) n a

[Supr (Auty 1968:79))

AHl4f

cro

OBpA!lW

H!lM41.ttaWf

and=REFL face

his

form+Acc/PL

change+IMPF+3SG

"and his face changed itself 92

Further research into the matters of synenclisis involving the forms of the auxiliary

(A'I,,•

participle plus verb "to be"), and various particles and conjunctions (such as the interrogative particle An;conjunction/particle

*' "and; but'') is a desideratum.

Broadly speaking, pronominal

clitics arc placed before the auxiliary as shown in (19): (19)

A

MAAO MH

and

a little='1+DAT are

fCH

(Supr (Auty 1968:78)]

AAA...

give+PAP

"and you gave me a little"

n

"

TOrAA

BO

rOCIIOAb

M•

and

then

for

lord

l+ACC was

non.AAA ...

[Supr (Auty 1968:80)]

scnd+PAP

"and for then the Lord sent me"

In Middle Bulgarian this type of synenclisis, governed by W ackernagel 's Law, whereby the pronominal clitic was attached immediately to the past active participle (PAP) and then followed

by the auxiliary, gave way to a new type of synenclisis governed by Behaghel's Law, whereby the auxiliary comes immediately after the PAP. These matters can be studied on the following data from the OCS Psalterium Sinaiticum (11 111c.) and Norovs/raja Psaltyr', a Middle Bulgarian retranslation of the psalterium (14 th c.):

so (20)

CHANGE IN MEDIEVALGREEK AND SOU111SLAVIC LANGUAGES

OVMHHAI.fat

[Nor 8.6)

fro

umniliesi ego

V+PAPAUX

PRO

[Sin 8.6)

OVMI.HHA ... "fat

uminilu i esi

V+PAP=CL

AUX

''you made him smaller"

[Nor 20.5)

AiAAI.fat fMOV

dali esi emu AAA ... fMoV

V+PAPAUX

PRO

[Sin 20.5)

fat

daluemuesi

V+PAPPRO

AUX

''you gave him"

Hcnosb c.

ispovmi

'Nn

[Nor 21.26]

~ te~

V=REFL

PRO

[Sin 21.26)

HCIIOS'U\I. 'I'll 0.

ispovmii ti sjl!

V=CL

REFL

A more complicated case is seen in (21) (21 )

CIIACHAI. fat

[Nor43.8]

BIIU HACI.

spasili esi bo nasi

V+PP AUX PRT PRO

[Sin 43.8]

CIIACHA-.. BO HW fCft

spasi111 bo ny esi

V+PP=PRT=CL

AUX

''becauseyou saved us"

where the auxiliary could be separated from its PAP by two elements (a particle and a pronominal clitic). Modem Bulgarian, however, preserved the sequence w=AUX=PRO; thus (19) would be translated (Mladenov 1929:293) as shown in (22): (22) rocn6~

Me

6e

npanin

lord=mc=be+AOR+ 3SG

"the Lord

sent

send+PAP

me"

Modem Macedonian, on the other hand, places the pronominal clitics after the auxiliary the block ofproclitics AUX=PRo=V:

in

DEVELOPMENTOF TIIE PRONOMINALSYSTEMS

(23)

jas

sum

go

pr6dal

I be+lso him/it "I have sold him/it"

51 (Groen 1977:212)

sell+PAP

The interrogative particle AH is placed in S-2 position by Wackemagel's Law (19); similarly, the conjunction/particle "and; but .., which translates the Greek particle bt, is placed in S-2 position and the pronominal clitics follow. This is shown in (20):

*'

(24)

"' not

RX,. AH 'I'll

pcu..,

was+AOR+lso-Q=you

say+PAP

[Supr (Auty 1968:79)]

"Didn •t I tell you?" "Hadn •t I told you?" (25)

■rAA

*'

H

when=and=him

ROC"l'ABHW•

RA'Tptt'f'XA

appoint+IMPF+3PL

patriarch+ACC

[Supr (Auty 1968:79)]

"And when they appointed him patriarch"

BAA*CHYH

*f

TO

blessed=and=it

CAYWAB...

OVBGa ~

hear+-PERFV AP

be-frightened+AOR+ 3SG=REFL

[Supr (Auty 1968:80)]

"Havingheard it, the blessed was frightened" And finally, there are rare instances which anticipate the later Bulgaro-Macedonian crossindexing

of objects by pronominal clitics in the verbal complex: (26)

"

CAHN... IOVHOWA mp

... no HfMlo

"A' ...

[Mar; M 14.51]

"and one youth went after him ...

" and

IOVffOW.o.

i~i

iuno~

grab+AOR+3PL=him

youth+ACC

... and they grabbed him" lit. and they grabbed=him the youth

Here we may speculate that the translator was influenced by the spoken language, since i iese=i (without iunose ''youth.,) should suffice in literary style (the Greek original has only ical icpatofui.v mh6v "and they grab him .., i.e. not •ical icpatofuLv airt6v 16v VEavtav). A later example from BaniJko Evangelie (13 th c.) is given in (27):

52 (27)

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOUTII SLAVIC LANGUAGES

H*f

Bio

Cl.'ffTAAlo

HfC'l'I. H, •••

what

God

join+PAP

is=it

[Banilko; M 10.9)

"what therefore God has joined together, ..."

Neither the earlier Codex Marianus ( ... """"'"' tc-n.) nor the Greek original (6 8£~ O'U'V£!;£~£v) display the demonstrative pronoun "it" in this passage, and the influence from the spoken language remains a reasonable explanation for its occurrence in BaniJlcoEvange/ie. 3 A similar explanation is available for the occurrence of the doubling in the 2 nd Pers in Evangelistary of Radomir (13th c.): (28)

TfB ...

'f;t.AO

Vl'llOfWTAIIKTI.

TH

c.t.

child

forgive+3PL

you+DAT

REFL+ACC you+DAT

rp...Clt

TBOtt

sins

your+PL

[Radomir; M 2.5)

"My child, your sins are forgiven to you."

Here, the Greek original displays the construction with the possessive pronoun lifted from its postnominal position and cliticized to the verb: acptevtal oou al aµaptlm (+- acptevtm al aµaptlm oou). In the 3rd Pers of the reflexive construction the doubling pronoun can be the full fonn CtBf (29) or the clitic fonn e. (30): (29)

use

A•

IUTBpl.*fTI.

u.

that

throw-away+3SG

REFL+ACC REFL+oBL

[Radomir; Mt 16.24)

"let him deny himselr'

(cf. ModernBulgarian translation (1991) Heu ce o-rpe11eOTLce6e cH). In (30), however, Modem

Bulgarian requires the doubling by means of the full form. ''I"

"you"

"he"

"she"

Nom

jas

ti

toj

taa

Dat

menc

mi

tcbc

ti

ncmu

mu

ncjze

i

Ace

mcnc

me

tcbc

tc

ncgo

go

nea

ja

''we"

"ye"

"they"

Nom

nfe

vie

tic

Dat

nam

ni

varn

vi

nim

im

Ace

nas

ne

vas

ve

niv

ji

Table 3.4: Modern Macedonianpronominal system

DEVELOPMENTOF THE PRONOMINALSYSTEMS

(30)

A

AWff

AOMI.

NA

CA

pA!IAMlt'n.

house on REFL+ACC divide and if "and if a house is divided against itself"

53 [Radomir; M 3.25]

CA

REFL+ACC

(vs. Modem Bulgarian (1991) B uo e,JUUl'L AOM'lt ce pu,u:lum upoTBB'bce6e ca). Modem Macedonian pronominal system is displayed in Table 3.4. Innovationsintroduced by Macedonian (Western dialects) vis-A-visthe Old Church Slavonic system (Table 3.3) may be described as follows: (i)

(ii)

The OCS distinction of the dative vs. accusative in the singular (t • and 2nd Pers, i.e., participants in discourse) was given up in favor of a single oblique full form, which continues the old accusative (mene, tebe). In the singular clitic forms the OCS distinction of the dative vs. accusative is continued (mi vs. me, ti vs. te); in the plural Macedonian (but not Bulgarian) introduced new fonns matching the singular ones (ni vs. ne, vi vs. ve); and the distinction of gender (OCS oni ''they'' (M) vs. ony (F) was given up in favor of unmarked tie ''they''.

Non-standard dialects introduced even more far-reaching innovations. The dialect ofDihovo (a Western dialect spoken in a village lying about eight kilometers to the West of Bitola, described by Groen (1977), gave up the OCS distinction of the dative vs. accusative in all persons in both numbers; in the plural both full forms (Dat and Ace) are available but either of them can be used to exp1csseither the beneficiary or the patient In addition, the distinction of gender and number on clitic forms expressing the recipient/beneficiary was lost (Dihovo mu "to him/her/them" vs. Standard Macedonian mu ''to him", i ''to her", im ''to them". The Dihovo system is presented in Table 3.5. "I"

"you"

"he"

"she"

Nom

ju(b)

ti

toj

ta(j)a

Oat

mene

mi

tebe

ti

toj, nego

mu

taja, neze

mu

Ace

mene

me

tebe

te

toj, nego

go

taji

je

"we"

"yeH

"they"

Nom

nfe

vie

tie

Oat

nam,nas

ni

vam, vu

vi

tie, nim(i)

mu

Ace

nam, nas

ne

vam, vu

ve

tie, nim(i)

i

Table 3.5: WesternMacedonianpronominal system (dialect of Dihovo). accordingto Groen (1977)

CHANGE IN MEDIEVALGREEK.AND SOUTII SLAVICLANGUAGES

54

Pertinent examples of the difference between Standard and Dihovo are given in (31): (31) toj he

mene

me

vfde

me+oBL

me+ACC

see+AOR+3so

"he saw me"

toj

nas

ne

vfde

he

we+ACC

we+ACC

see+AOR+3so

(Standard)

"he saw us" toj

nas/nam

ne

vfde

(Dihovo)

he

we+oBL

we+ACC

see+AOR+3SG

"he saw us"

toj

nam

ni

go

dade

he

we+DAT

we+DAT

it+ACC

give+AOR+3SG

go

dade

it+ACC

give+AOR+3SG

(Standard)

"he gaveit to us"

nam/nas ni he we+oBL we+DAT "he gave it to us"

toj

(Dihovo)

Macedonianpersonal pronouns are the only class of words which distinguish case. They have special fonns when they have a subject function (direct form), and other object (oblique) forms to express functions of the beneficiary/recipientand the goal/patient (in tenns of morphology, the dative and the accusative case). The object (oblique) forms distinguish full and clitic forms; the full forms do not distinguish between the dative and the accusative (with the difference between Standard and non-Standard speech as described above) and they have to be used together with the clitic fonns which possessthis contrast (except when they occur after a preposition), as shown in Figure 3.1. The nominal beneficiary/recipient(= indirect object) is marked by the preposition na "to" and crossindexed by the clitic form in the verbal complex: (32)

mu go daof

he+DAT=it+Acc=gave+ 1SG

na to

brat mi

(Dihovo)

brothcr=l+DAT

"I gaveit to my brother"

It should be observed that the object clitics mu (he+DAT) and go (it+ACC)are proclitics whereas the possessive mi (/+DAT) is an enclitic: mu - go - daofna - brat - mi.

DEVEWPMENT OF lllE PRONOMINAL SYSTEMS

55

"I"

Subject (Direct) jds

Object (Oblique)

Full

Clitic

mene Dative

Accusative

mi

me

Figure 3.1: Macedonianpersonal pronouns (l" Sg)

The pronominal beneficiary/recipient may be marked by the same preposition na (na toj ''to him", na taja ''to her'') or expressed by the oblique form (nego ''him", neze "her''); in either case, it has to be crossindexed by the clitic mu which is marked for case (dative) but not for gender (in Dihovo). The nominal categories of number, gender and case are thus divided between full and clitic forms in that the former ones are marked overtly for number and gender, and the latter ones for number and cue. Examples in (33) show the male recipient (case indicated by mu 3SG+DAT,and gender indicated by the oblique form with or without preposition na tojlnego) and those in (34) the female recipient (case indicated by mu 3SG+DAT,and gender by the oblique form with or without preposition na tajalneze). (33)

Pronominal male recipient:

(33.i)

mu

go

daof

na

toj

3SG+DAT

it+ACC

gave+lSG

to

he+DIR

"I gave it to him" (33.ii)

mu

go

daof

nego

3SG+DAT

it+ACC

gave+ISG

he+OBL

"I gave it to him"

(Dihovo)

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND

56 (34)

sourn SLAVIC LANGUAGES

Pronominal female recipient: i. mu 3SG+DAT

go

d!of

na

taja

it+ACC

gavc+ISG

to

shc+DIR

(Dihovo)

"I gave it to her" ii.

mu

go

d!of

nezc

3SG+DAT

it+ACC

gave+ISG

shc+oBL

"I gaveit to her"

In (33.i) and (34.i), the recipient is marked by the clitic form mu, without the distinction of gender, and crossindexed by the prepositional phrase na to} (M) vs. na taja (F), with the distinction of gender; in (33.ii) and (34.ii), as above, the recipient is marked by the clitic form mu, and crossindexed by the oblique form nego (M) vs. neze (F), with the distinction of gender. The nominal patient (direct object) is not marked by any preposition but it has to be crossindexed- ifit is definite - by the pronominal clitic (go ''him",je ''her", i "them'') in the verbal complex. Pertinent examples are provided in (35): (35)

(Dihovo)

otvorete je

vrata ta

open+2PL=hcr

door=ART

"open the door'' otko

imame

k61a, ...

since

have+ IPL

car

"since we have had a car, ..." go gledam

oockot

him=watch+ ISO

man=ART

"I am watching the man" gledam

foekot

nadvor

watch+ I SG

rnan=ART

outside

"I am watching the man outside"

The pronominal patient is definite and has to be crossindexed by the pronominal clitic, as was shown in (31 ). The sequence OBL CL v (oblique form - clitic form - verb) is the most marked one, i.e., if the patient or the recipient are assigned the pragmatic function of focus (in the sense of Functional Grammar, cf. Dik 1989:277-288) the oblique form is placed in preverbal position,

DEVELOPMENTOF 1HE PRONOMINALSYSTEMS

57

as was shown in (31), repeated here for the sake of convenience.The unmarked counterparts are listed in (36): (31)

toj

mene

me

vfde

he

l+oBL

l+ACC

see+AOR+ 3SO

"he saw ME" toj

mm

he

we+DAT we+DAT

ni

go

dade

it+ACC

give+AOR+3so

"He gave it to US" (36)

toj

mevfde

mene

he

l+Acc=see+AOR+3SO

l+oBL

"he saw me" toj

ni

go

d!de

nam

he

we+DAT

it+ACC

give+AOR+3so

we+DAT

"hegave it to us"

58

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK. AND

sourn SLAVIC LANGUAGES

NOTES I.

Russian Old Church Slavonic does not possess the clitic i "him, it". Contrast OCS in (1):

" him

that

[Lk 2.21 (Mladcnov 1929:293))

tspbcaT

circwncise+3PL

"that they (may) circumcise him" (cf. Bulgarian All ro oCSpeJKaT) with Russian OCS in (2): (2) AA

that

HputY,,.

1ro

circwncise+3PL

him

"that they (may) circwncise him" 2.

This usage survived in Modem Bulgarian dialects, but not in Macedonian. Mladcnov (1929:293) compares OCS [J 11.28] in (1): (I)

OV"HTIA' i.

Cl

IC'l"lo

teacher

here

is

"

and

:JOBITi.

.....

calls

you

[J 11.28)

"the teacher is here and calls you" with Modem Bulgarian in (2): (2)

)"IHTCJJ

'1>T

teacher-ART

e

TYi(

H

TC

BHIC&

is

here

and

you

calls

De Bray (I 980: 130) exemplifies H "and" and HO "but" as hosting clitics in (3): (3)

06iAaA P0AHHBTBCH H ii CJIYlKH sipno

"Love your country and serve it faithfully" ,IJ,ifpee e H

y TJlX,

HO I'O He H8MepHJJH

"He was sought (i.e., they looked for him) in their house, but they did not find him" 3.

An interesting piece of evidence in this respect is the translation of [Mt 16.22) in Baniiko EWlngelie:

DEVELOPMENTOF lHB PRONOMINALSYSTEMS

(1)

, nOU\.. n...,,. n NA...

T ~ICA'ffl

59 [Bani§ko; Mt 16.22]

IIMty

"and [Jesus] having taken Peter and started scolding him"

Codex Marianus, however, clearly indicates that the matters were the other way around: (2)

,

nocM .. " nnp'lo

NA-W.'l'I. ~ICA'ffl

[Mar; Mt 16.22]

CMOV

"and Peter having taken him [-=Jesus] started scolding him" It would appear that the Middle Bulgarian translator understood the clitic i "him" as crossindexing the nominal object Peter. lit. and having taken

= him Peter.

CHAPTER FOUR OBJECT DOUBLING CONSTRUCTIONS

After surveying in parallel fashion the development of the Greek and South Slavic pronominal systems in Chapter Three, we will examine the convergence in the development of the pronominal systems of Medieval Greek and Macedonian in 4.1. Pronominal clitics in the latter language allow to a certain degree to be treated as 'bound' morphemes (4.2). Object doubling in its Balkan context will be studied in 4.3. Given the phonological dimension in the study of cliticization, sections 4.1 - 4.3 will feature Greek, Bulgarian and Macedonian data in broad phonetic transcription(+ stands for morpheme boundary,= for clitic boundary,# for word boundary).

Gtwk' 4.1 ConNrgence In tl,e tlndop,nent of tl,e pronominal systems of Macedonian 1111d At this point we may try to establish the causal nexus between the loss of synthetic (morphological) case and the emergence of cross-indexing (double-marking) of the recipient/ beneficiary and patient by means of the pronominal clitics. On the South Slavic side, we may start at the stage of synthetic case represented by OCS vizdo syn+a "I see the son" and daxw to

syn+ovilu "I gave it to the son" (the patient is marked by the suffix -a and the recipient by the suffix -ovi/u). After the formation of the definite article, early Middle Bulgarian descendants of these two constructions can be reconstructed as shown in (1 ): ( 1)

glcdim sin+a=togo

"I sec the son"

dadox go sin+u=tomu

"I gaveit to the son"

During the Early New Bulgarian period (represented by the Damaskins) both forms sinutomu (double-marked for dative) and sinotomu (only tomu is marked for dative) are documented (cf. Mladenov 1929:248 and St0lting 1970: 184-187 for actually documented examples such as

gospodarutomu ''to the housekeeper" vs. ange/otomu ''to the angel"). As far as I have surveyed the literature, the form *sinotogo is not documented (the double-marked sinatogo is common). To assign the pragmatic function of focus (marked by capitals in (2) and (3) below) to the patient or recipient the strategy of cross-indexing (double-marking) by pronominal clitics was developed (the same, of course, could be achieved by intonation): (2)

glcdam=go (go=glcdAm) sina=togo

"I see the SON (i.e., not someone else)"

dadox=mu=go (mu=go=dadox) sinu=tomu

"I gave it to the SON (i.e., not to someone else)"

OBJECT DOUBLINGCONSTRUCTIONS

61

In subsequent development, the case marking on the postpositive article (= demonstrative pronoun) was lost and we reach the modem Bulgarian (3) and Macedonian (4) stage: (3)

(4)

gledam=go sina

"I see theSON"

didox-mu=go na-sina

"I gave it to the SON''

go-gledam sinot

"I see the son"

mu-go==dAdov na-sinot

"I gaveit to the son"

(Bulgarian)

(Macedonian)

There arc two important differencesin the outcome of this historical process. In Macedonian but not in Bulgarian - the strategy of cross-indexing the focal patient and the recipient/beneficiarywas demarked.The Bulgarianequivalents of the Macedonian sentences do not display the coreferential pronominal clitics: (S)

gledamsina

"I see theson"

dadox=-go na"'sina

"I gave it to the son"

(Bulgarian)

The other difference concerns the direction of clisis. In Bulgarian the clitics arc attached to the finite verb forms by Wackemagel'sLaw in S-2 position as enclitics, whereas in Macedonian the clitics are attached to the finite verb fonn as proclitics (with the exception of the imperative). Modem Greek followedthe same pattern as Middle Bulgarianbefore the loss of case marking on the definite article; with the exceptionof the article being postpositivein Bulgaro-Macedonian but pre-positivein Greek, the sentences in (2) have exact parallels in Early Modem Greek texts: (6)

vlq,o-ton

(ton=vlq,o)

ton"'",j6(n)

sec+ lso=him

(himcsee+lso)

ART=son

~osa=tu=to

(tu=to=edosa)

ston=j6(n)

gave+ lso=you=it

(you=it=gave+lSG)

to=ART=son

"I see theson"

"I gave it to the son"

That is, the article is marked for case (ton=ACC,ston=DAT)while the noun does not have to be marked by -n for the oblique case (ACC or DAT); cf. Bulgaro-Macedonian after the loss of case marking on nouns: dadox=mu=gosinotomu (earliersinutomu). In its later development Modem Greek concurredwith Macedonianin favoringthe strategyof proclisis with finite verb fonns (but enclisis is used widely in non-standard epichoric dialects), cf. Greek and Macedonian vs. Bulgarian:

CHANGEIN MEDIEVALGREEKAND SOUTII SLAVIC LANGUAGES

62 (7)

vs.

vs.

ton=vlq,o, ton=-jo

(Greek)

go=glMun sinot glcdam=go, sina

(Macedonian) (Bulgarian)

tu=to=6dosa, ston=jo

(Greek)

mu=go=dadov na=slnot

(Macedonian)

d!dox=mu•go,na=slna

(Bulgarian)

}

proclisis enclisis

}

proclisis enclisis

However, as indicated by the absence of comma, only Macedonian went as far as demarking the above constructions and reducing thus the pronominal clitics to affixes whose sole function may be said to indicate object agreement with the patient or recipient/beneficiary. One of the remarkable features of Macedonian vis-1-vis Bulgarian is the stability of the clitic block REc=PAT,e.g. mu=go, which appears immediately before the finite verb forms as one would expect from bound morphemes(= prefixes). This holds true both for the negative and interrogative sentences. On the other band, in Bulgarian if the main verb is in the past active participle (PAP),the auxiliary may precede or follow the block of clitics, while the interrogative particle Ii separates them from the main verb (PAP=li=AUX=mu=go or PAP=li=mu=go=AUX); in Macedonian, the auxiliary is placed at the beginning of the block of proclitics - with the pronominal clitis attached immediately to the verb - while the interrogative particle Ii is placed by Wackernagel's Law after the main verb (AUX=mu=go=PAP=li). In Bulgarian, the negative particle may precede the clitic block mu=go with the interrogative particle Ii attached to the main verb or intervening between the clitics (NEG=mu=Q=go);or, the negative particle may appearbefore the auxiliary and the interrogativeparticle NEG=AUX=Q with the clitic block mu=go attached to the past active participle. On the other band, the only option of closely related Macedonian is to place the auxiliary beforeand the interrogativeparticle after the block of pronominal proclitics plus the finite verb form: AUX=(mu=go=PAP)=Q. 1be following data exemplify all the aboveoptions: Bulgarian

Macedonian

i.

Dal=li=mu=go=e?

Mu=go=dal=li?

"Did he give it to him?"

ii.

OO=li=si=mu=go?

Si=mu=go=dal=li

"Did you give it to him?"

Ne=mu=go=dal=li?

"Dido 't he give it to him?"

Ne=si=mu=go=dal=li?

"Didn't you give it to him?"

(8)

•Dal=li=mu=go=si? iii.

2

Ne=mu=go=dal=li? Ne=mu=li=go=dal?

iv.

Ne=si=li=mu=go=dal?

OBJECT DOUBLING CONSTRUCTIONS

63

The Macedonian state of affairs may be described insightfully by assuming the existence of the block of pronominal proclitics (mu=go) plus the finite verb fonn (past active participle in {8.i-iv)). The negative particle ne and the finitizing auxiliary areaddedas proclitics to this block, while the interrogative particle Ii is attached by Wackernagel's Law as an enclitic to this block. Summarily: NEO=AUX=(mu=go=PAP)=Q. The interrogative particle may also be cliticized to the negative particle (e.g. ne=li mi=ja=donese knigata "Didn't he bring the book to meT') or to the auxiliary (ne=bev=li ti=ja=donel knigata "Hadn't he brought the book to your',

cf. Kube!

(1988:288). In either case the block of pronominal proclitics appears immediately before the finite verb fonn or the past active participle. The Bulgarian state of affairs is more complicated as a consequence of its free accent and a different scope of the application of Wackemagel's

Law. As (i) and (ii) show, the passive

participle may host not only the sentential interrogative particle Ii but also the auxiliary and the block of pronominal clitics mu=go; and the order auxiliary and the block of pronominal clitics appears to be interchangeable:

or

PAP=Q=AUX=(mu=go) PAP=Q=(mu=go)=Aux

1

If the predicate is negated,all the above enclitics become procilitics: the negative particle appears before the block mu=go with the interrogative particle attached to the main verb or intervening between the proclitics (iii); or, the negative particle may appearbefore the auxiliary and the interrogative particle, and the block mu=go procliticized to the past active participle (iv). In other words, the block of pronominal clitics in Bulgarian is not so closely knit as in Macedonian since the interrogative particle may intervene between the dative and the accusative NEG-,nu=go=PAP=Q

clitic:

~ NEG=mu=Q=go=PAP.

Given the internal word-like stability of the block mu=go=PP in Macedonian -

unlike in

Bulgarian the block of clitics mu=go is never Interruptedby the interrogative particle (cf. iii and iv), and it cannot be separated from its PAP by this particle (cf. i and ii)-

it might be argued

that the morpheme boundary+ would capturemore adequately the affix-like status of mu and go:

#mu+go+dal#.

4.2 Macedonian pronominal clitics as 'bound' morphemes Recently, the synchronic status of Modem Greek and Macedonian clitics has been a matter of controversy. Spencer ( 1991 :358 ff.) argued that the clitic doubling phenomenon in Macedonian is similar to object agreement in a language like Chukchee. Similar clitic doubling constructions are also known from Hebrew and Latin-American Spanish (the type lo=vimos

aJuan

"We saw

John''). According to Spencer ( 1991 :362), also the Greek clitic system bears much resemblance to that of Macedonian, but he did not elaborate on this point. Prinz ( 1991) went into detail and suggested that pronominal clitics of Modem Greek are bound morphemes affixed syntactically to the hosting lexical item. One of his arguments for the affix-status of Modern Greek object clitics (pp. 170-184) draws on the parallel working of the three-syllable rule. As is well known, this rule moves the accent in inflected fonns if an extra

CHANGE IN MEDIEVALGREEK AND SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

64

syllable is added, e.g. onoma ''name" ➔ onomatos (Gen), and seemingly also in the clitic group,

e.g., kane=to "do it!" ➔ kane mu=to "do it for me!". However, the parallel is incomplete since one would expect *kane=mu=to by the du= syllable rule. Also, it is not clear in which sense the elision of the stressed vowel of the phonological host after the special clitic (e.g., ta=exo ➔ ta=xo "I have them'') proves the affix status of Modem Greek special clitics. It is true that the accent in Greek finite forms is assigned by the three-syllable rule, e.g., the active imperfect edina (1 11 Pers Sg), ediname (t • Pers PI) "dress", but there arc also affixes which arc accented inherently (i.e. the finite forms in which they occur cannot be said to be accented by the tbr=-syllable rule), e.g. the mediopassive imperfective edinomun ( 1• Pers Sg) or the passive future 8a di8o. On the Macedonian side, however, the du= stress rule treats as a word any content word together with its enclitics: ienata wifc=ART"the wife", ienata=ti wife=ART=you=DAT"your wife", dajte=mi "give me!", dajte=mi=go "give me it!". But more importantly, the special clitics of Greek do exclude

the full NPs, or, put differently,

they do not obligatorily

crossindex

the

recipient/beneficiary and the patient. In this respect, they arc different from the special clitics of Macedonian which are obligatory with definite object NPs (including full forms of pronouns). To argue more convincingly for this point, let us re-examine the Greek examples in (9) below and their Macedonian equivalents in (10): (i)

gives the nuclear predication without cross-indexing the recipient and patient;

(ii)

crossindexes the recipient;

(iii)

crossindexes the patient;

(iv)

crossindexes both the recipient and the patient.

In Greek (9) single and double cross-indexing (ii-iv) is available but it is not obligatory. (ii) or (iv) (cross-indexing the recipient) is used when the recipient is assigned the pragmatic fimction of tail in which case there must be an intonation break between the sentence and this constituent. As shown in (iii) and (iv), the patient may be crossindexed only if it is definite (in this respect Greek concurs with Macedonian). On the other hand, the Macedonian counterparts in (10) reveal that: (i)

without the recipient and the patient crossindexed the sentence is ungrammatical;

(ii)

unlike in Greek, the definite patient has to be crossindexed by the clitic;

(iii)

it is not enough to crossindex the definite patient if the recipient is expressedin the sentence.

(9)

i.

dino

vivlio sto=Jani

OBJECTDOUBLINGCONSTR.UCI10NS

ii.

tu=dino

iii.

iv.

(10)

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

6S

to

vivlio sto=Jani

to=dfno

to

vivlio sto=Jani

•to-dfno

ena

tu-to=dfno

to

•tusto-cifno

ena

••ciivam .. divam

knfgata

.. mu=divarn

kn(gata

mu=divarn

~dna kn(ga

•ja=divam .. ja=divam

lmigata ~lm(ga

mu=ja=divarn

lmigata

•mu=ja=divarn

~lmiga

{ ena }

vivlio sto=Jani

} na=ivana 3

~kn(ga

} na=ivana

} na=fvana

} na=fvana 2

As shown above, in Macedonian the patient is crossindexed only if it is definite. The beneficiary/recipient, however, has to be crossindexcd no matter whether it is definite or indefinite: ( 11) i=divarn

na=Unata

she+DAT=give+ 1so

to--woman=ART

"I give [it] to the woman" i-divam

na (~)

Una

she+DAT=give+lso

to(=one) woman

"I gave [it] to a woman"

Some dialects of Macedonian may crossindex even the indefinite patient provided it is animate: (12)

kafi=se

gore,

get=REFL upstairs

da

go=g)eda§

eden

fo'ek

umren (Sandfeld 1930:193)

that

he+ACC=see+2SG

one

man

dead

"Climb upstairs that you may see a dead man"

66

CHANGB IN MEDIEVAL GREBK AND SOtrrH SI.AVIC LANGUAGES

The data in (11) and (12) suggestthat the determining factor for the cross-indexing of objects in Macedonian is animacy rather than definiteness.

4.3 Obj«t tlo11blillg ;,. 116Balklu, COlltat As is well known all the other languages of the Balkan Sprachbunduse the same strategy of cross-indexing of the beneficiary and patient by the pronominal clitics. The Albanian system resembles that of Macedonian. Its clitics behave like 'affixes' in that they are obligatory, and their corefcrcntial beneficiary and patient are not separated from the sentence by an intonation break. Appropriateexamples are given in (I 3): (13)

djali

mori

librin

e

ia

boy

took

book+ACC

and

s/he+DAT=s/hc+ACC

dha

~

gave

to

(Camaj 1984:265)

sister+DAT

'The boy took the book andgave it to his sister" cp-ia

djalit

givc=s/hc+DAT=s/he+ACC boy+DAT

buken

(Camaj 1984:265)

bread+ACC

"Give the boy the bread!" The whole system of full and clitic forms is displayed in Table 4.1:

"I"

''you"

"he"

Hshe"

Norn

un!

ti

ai

aj6

Oat

mue/a

Ace

mue/a

me me

ty

te

(a)tij

i

(a)saj

i

ty

te

(a)te

e

ate

e

"we"

..ye..

"they

"they (F)"

Nom

m/e

ju

(M)"

at6

Oat

oeve

DI

juve

ju

ata

u

(a)tyn/re

u

Ace

ne

DI

ju

ju

(a)tyn/re

i

(a)t6

i

(a)ta

Table 4.1: Albanianpronominalsystem

In the plural subparadigm the Albanian pronominal system grammaticalizes the distinction between recipient/beneficiary vs. patient by full fonns (neve Dat vs. ne ) whereas Macedonian docs it by clitic forms (ni Dat vs. ne ). In the singular subparadigm (the I st and 2 nd Pers) there is only one oblique full vs. clitic fonn, respectively (mue/a vs. me) as in the Greek plural

67

OBJECT DOUBLING CONSTRUC110NS

subparadigm. In the 3rd Pers the morphological contrast between the dative and the accusative is observed in both full and clitic fonns. One of the interesting features of the Albanian system is the existence of contracted fonns of the sequences of pronominal clitics expressing the beneficiary/recipient and patient. For instance, ia in (14) consists of i "him/her" (Oat) and e "him/her" (Ace). The contracted sequences of the beneficiary/recipient andpatient (in the 3rd Pers) are shown in Table 4.2. The system neutralizes the distinction in number of the patient (3 rd Pers) after the beneficiary/recipient (in the 3rd Pers, andthe 2nd Pers PI), i.e., ia is both "him-it/them",jua "themit/them", ua "to ye-it/them". The number distinction of the patient is shown on the coreferential noun: (14)

ia "him - it"

(< i + e)

ia

librin

dha

book+ACC

3SG=3 gave

"he gave him the book"

ia "him - them"

(-8fl 80.t:Lypa4>-fl 8eAEL

In the passive future the contrast of perfectivity is implemented by former infinitives of the aorist:

ypaq,-f\/graf-f/ continues the Ancient Greek strong passive aorist ypaq,f\vm/graph!:nai/, and ypaq,-0f\/graf-tf/ the innovative passive aorist ypa8f\vm /graphthe:nai/. One may observe that the sole phonological difference between the imperfective active future and its passive counterpart in the 3rd Pers Sg was accentual:

74 (3)

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOUlH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

80..t:Lypact,-EL"will be writing" 80..t:Lypa4>-fl "will be (being) writing" 80..t:Lypa4>-8fl "will be written"

(Imperfective) (Imperfective) (Perfective)

Contrastedwith their present tense counterparts,grafete ''it is (being) written" and na grafti ''may be written". one observes the asymmetry in the imperfectiveaspect: grtifete : 8eli graft: :na grafti : Oe/igrafti. Later language gave up the infinitive form graf-l (but not graf-ti) and thus achieved the symmetry observed in Modem Greek: gra/ele: Oagra/ele :: na graf-li: Oagraf-ti. There arc some particular future fonns of the copula. While with other verbs Sofianos' and 8£Mt>ypact>fl) correspond descriptive labels of the First and Second Future (8£Mt>ypa"'1£L to our perfective and imperfective categories, this apparently is not the case with the copula. Here the First Future combines the auxiliary 8£lro with the infinitive £Wtm /fste/ < eislai < eislhai with the mcdiopassive suffix -o8a1. /sthai/), while the Second Future combines the same auxiliary with the finite forms of the copula: (4)

"to be"

First Future

Second Future

Sg 1

=~}

8am elµaL

2 3

elotm

8tA.£L

(16* century, after Sofianos]

80..tu;elam 80..t:Lelotm

In the 2nd Pers PI in spite of the spelling £!at£ /iste/ we arc obviously dealing with the homophonous infinitive fonn t!otm /iste/. The latter form is also used instead of the expected 111 Pers PI fonn dµe8ev and the 3111Pers PI dvm. In other words, in the case of the copula the contrast between the First and Second Future was limited to the t • and 2nd Pers Sg, and one may justifiably wonder about its viability. Given that Sofianos captured some semantic nuance here, it could be along the lines of the Slavic contrast between the perfective and imperfective future: po-budu lam "I will be there (for a limited period of time)" vs. budu lam "I will be there" (examples from Czech). In the IE languages, it is unusual for both the auxiliaryandthe main verb (and 8a.w to be finite. According to Bincscu (1915:116) combinations of the type 8£Mt>ypact,ro t!µaL) appearedin the 151bcentury (e.g. ruto0av£L;8tu1.; ''you will die" in CretanXeniteia [449] or 8el£L; l.6£'L; ''you will see" in Misfortune [140]) and we may be inclined to interpret them as reduced phrases 8£Mt>va ypact>ro (8£Mt>va e!µm) which preceded them by at least one century (cf. 1). On the whole double finite constructions arc less common. For instance. the Chronicle of Malchairas (15th century) prefers the combination with the infinitive (8£A.Oµ£V e!otmv ''we will be'') to occasional double finite phrases such as:

(5)

ic:atbteLOfl etom 4>payy0 -OEL(V), cf. -EL(v)).

DEVELOPMENTOF 1lIE TENSFJASPECTSYSTEM

(9)

77

Late Hellenistic/Early Byzantine Perfective Retrospective Present

fxwypa,i,«;

Past

fypa,pa

£lµl ytypa~ ~ ytypa~ - ~ ypa,pa;

Medieval Greek [t6• centutry after Sofianos] Perfective Retrospective Present Past

lypa,pa

ypaµµivov fxw ypaµµtvov £txa ~ £txa ypa'\j)EL

The 'unclassical' combination of lxw with the perfect mediopassive participle in -µtvcx;was practically unknown before the period of Frankish domination (following the sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the imposition of Frankish rule over certain parts of the Byzantine empireesp. the Peloponnese). Its morphosyntactic structure in the Chronicle of Morea (or early 14* c.) parallels closely that of contemporary French and Italian:

have+IMPF=2SO

toix;

VLICTlµivouc;

ART+MIPllACC

defeatt-PP+MIPllACC

[Morea 4939; Codex Hafniensis]

"you havd defeated them"

The innovative past retrospective aspect (pluperfect) with the infinitive, etxaypa"1EL,literally ..I had to write" (or ''I intended to write''), seems to have originally been a conditional in the early Byzantine Greek (this topic will be pursued in Section 5.6). Horrocks (1994) argued that the conditional developed into a past habitual and finally emerged as a pluperfect through contact with Romance languages. The gap for the present retrospective, contemporary txw ypa"1EL/exo grapsi/, existed even during the 1.,. century to judge by contemporary grammarians, Girolamo Germano (1622) and Simon Portius (1638). On the other hand,Sofianos lists the so-called Second Aorist which looks like an imperfective counterpart to etxaypaq>EL (the lexical verb lxw "I have" could fonn only the Second Aorist, etxalXEL)~if indeed the contrast ofperfectivity was available in the past, we could call these formations 'pluimperfects'. In any case, the Second Aorist has not survived into Modem Greek as a consequence of the loss of the infinitive, cf. 7.1.

5.4 The riff of tl,e "l,ave"-perfect In Macedonlan 3 On the Slavic side - as in the case of Medieval Greek - it was the functional overlap between the aorist and the perfect in Ancient Slavic (as known to us through Old Church Slavonic texts) that provided the impetus for further developments. Cognitively speaking, the difference between the aorist and the perfect or, in aspectual terms, that between the retrospective and the perfective aspect is somewhat delicate. The perfective aspect presents the subject internally at the very last moment of its action, while the retrospective aspect views this last moment of the action

78

CHANGE IN MEDIEVALGREEK.AND SOUlll SI.AVIC LANGUAGES

from an external position (cf. Hewson & Bubenik (1997:32) for an elaboration on this distinction). The difference between the aorist [past perfective] and the perfect [present retrospective] may be expressed graphically as shown in ( 11):

k--xl k

(11)

aorist

Ixperfect

[past perfective] [present retrospective]

Another functional overlap existed in Ancient Slavic between the imperfect [past imperfective] and the so-called 'imperfective' perfect. The latter contradictory category refers to the perfect formed in OCS from unprefixcd, i.e. imperfective, verbs. These two weak spots in the late OCS aspcctual system are indicated by underscore in (12): ( 12) Functional overlap betweenthe aoristandthe perfect, and the imperfect and the imperfective perfect in late OCS (1 t•- 12* century):

nNU'l'lt

"write" [retrospective) "be"-perfect

[perfective]

[imperfective]

Present

NA-fllJU&

U4:DlaC4:A'\ ■Mia

Aorist

U4:fllaC4-X,.

HA-flNU-A'lo

Present

"""-nnw44-x,.

QUU-6'\

Imperfect

R-X,.

■Mia

The southernmost Slavic languages- Bulgarian and Maccdonian-pn:saved the aorist and the imperfect but reanalyzed the old ''bc"-perfect as the inferential mode under the impact of Tmkish (cf. Min!ev 1978:231). In addition, Macedonian created a 'real' resultative perfect (i.e. the perfect with the auxiliary "have") under the impact of Balkan Romance converging thus with its neighbours, Albanian and Modem Greek. Let us start our investigation by portraying the aspcctual system of Macedonian in (13). It consists of three diachronic layers: (i)

(ii) (iii)

the inherited system of synthetic fonns based on the themes of the present and aorist of Ancient Slavic going back to PIE; the innovative ''have"-pcrfect without any direct ancestry in Ancient Slavic; and the innovative inferential mode. This category continues morphologically the ''be" -perfect of Ancient Slavic; however, its meaning shifted from the retrospective witnessed to predominantly inferential, used when reporting events based on someone else's evidence, hearsay.

DEVELOPMENTOF 111BTENSF/ASPECTSYSTEM

(13) Aspectual

system of

(perfective]

[imperfective]

Modem

79

Macedonian

[inferential]

[inferential]

"have"-perfect

"be"-perfect

"have"-perfect

HllIIHW&M

HM&M H8JIHW8HO

C)'M H8DHW8JI

C)'M HM8JI H8DHW8HO

H81IHID8B

HM8B H8JIHW8HO

6ev H8DHW8JI

(Sev HM8JI H8fiHW8HO

DHWllM

C)'M IIHWeJI

IIHWeB

6evnHweJI

Typological changes separating Modem Macedonian in ( 13) from the ancestral system in ( 12) include above all the loss of the 'paradoxical' 'imperfective'

categories of Ancient Slavic, namely the

aorist (i.e., the aorist formed from the unprefixed verbs, e.g., ni.CA-X"a)and the

'perfective' imperfect (i.e., the imperfect formed from the prefixed verbs, e.g., HA-nHWAA-X"a), These categories are still found in Modem Bulgarian, but Macedonian can form the imperfect only from imperfective verbs and the aorist only from perfective verbs. The analytic ''have"-perfect of Macedonian is conspicuously missing in the other South Slavic languages. In the East, however, it is found in some 1bracian Bulgarian dialects which are co-territorial with Greek (cf. Kodov 1934) and Georgiev (1957) reported that the "have"-perfect is beginning to develop in colloquial Bulgarian. In the other Balkan languages the periphrastic "have" -perfect is found in three varieties ( cf. Havrinek 1936), as shown in ( 14): (i)

Daconunanian and Albanian usctheauxiliary "'have"irrespective of whether the main verb is transitive or intransitive;

(ii)

Greek uses the auxiliary "have" with transitive verbs and the auxiliary "be" with intransitive verbs;

(iii)

Macedonian and Arumanian in principle usc the auxiliary ''have" with either category:

HMaM

B~eao and am vidzuta "I have seen", and

HMaM

,11,oj,11,euo

and am vinita "I have come". The auxiliary "be", however, shows a marked tendency to occur with intransitive verbs, especially those of terminative "I have come Aktionsart stipulating that the goal was reached: CYM,11,oj,11,eH (and am here)", CYMnernaT "I have lain down (and am in the supine position)".

On the whole, the Macedonian and Arumanian perfect is

typologically identical with the "have"-perfect of Modem Greek and many other IE languages which use the auxiliary "be" with certain intransitives.

80 (14)

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOUTII SLAVIC LANGUAGES

Analytic perfect in Balkan languages (i) "have" -perfect

Dacorumanian

Albanian

am vizut

kampare kamposure

"I have seen"

am venit

(ii)

"I have come"

Modem Greek "have"-perfcct

txw(L)cx(

/exo (i)Of/

"I have seen"

"bc"-perfect

Etµmcp,:aoµtvoc;

/(me ftasmenos/

lit. I am come

Macedonian

Arumanian

HM&M BH,11.CHO

am vidzuti

HM&M AOJACHO

am viniti

CYMAOJAea

csku viniti

(iii) "have" -perfect "be" -pcrfect

"I have seen" "I have come" lit. I am come

On the basis of these data, Gohtb advanced the hypothesis of the Arumanian origin of the

"have" -perfect in Macedonian. He observed that it is most strongly represented in the dialects of south-western Macedonia which were in intimate contact with Arumanian. Later on (1984:35) he elaborated on his hypothesis in terms of reciprocal Slavic-Romance influence. summarized in (15). During Stage II Slavic-Romance bilinguals would reproduce the Arumanian amu cinatu "I have dined" in Slavic, and imamveceranobecame the primary construction with transitive verbs. During Stage III the original Slavic '"be"-perfect was reproduced as cinat" by the speakers of Romance and lastly the '1>e"-perfect was borrowed by the speakers of Slavic but by now its passive participle shows agreement with the subject as the /-participle of the original Slavic

eslw

construction. (1 S) Reciprocal Slavic-Romance influence in the rise of the analytic perfect in Macedonian and

Arumanian, based on Gob1b (1984)

Stage I

Stage II

Slavic (Macedonian)

Balkan Romance (Arumanian)

sum vctcral

am• cinat'

(original Slavic)

(original Romance)

sum veteral ~ imam veterano +- am• cinat" (original)

Stage III

imam vetcrano

(primary) Stage IV

"I have dined"

imam veterano

(borrowed)

~ sum vetcral

➔ esku cinat" ~ am• cinat°

(secondary)

~ sum veteran+(borrowed)

(borrowed) esku cinat• ~ am• cinat"

DEVEWPMENT OF TifE TENSPJASPECT SYSTEM

81

Due to the literary tradition in OCS and the colloquial nature of the ''have" -perfect, we cannot

date exactly Stage ll in Macedonian. It must have taken centuries for the "have"-perfect to rnalce its first appearancein writing. One of the earliest is found in a manuscript, dated to 1706, in the monastery Kmino (quoted from Koneski 196S:204): (16)

nMAM ...

have+lSG

npou.,....

" he+ACC

(Macedonian, early

damn+PP+MIACC and

1s•century)

curse+PP+MIACC

"I have damned him and cursed him"

(16) is an important piece of evidence for an older state of affairs in its agreement in gender/number/case of the pronominal object with the participle. In contemporary Macedonian this type of agreement is continued in either collocation of the participle vis-a-vis its auxiliary. The participle might be separated from its auxiliary as in (17.i) ..I have that work finished"; or it might be adjacent to it as in (17.ii) "I have finished that work". In the latter case it is possible to put the passive participle in the neuter gender as shown in (17.iii) ja BMllM 3upmeao Ta& paoora; in colloquial the participle can be separated from its auxiliary as shown in (17.iv) which is unacceptable in standard Macedonian: ( 17) i.

ja=HM&M

Taa

pa6oTa

3aapweua

she+ACQ=have+ 1so

that+F

work+F

finish+PP+F

(contemporary Macedonian)

"I have that work finished" ii.

ja=HM&M3aapwena Taa pa6oTa

"I have finished that work" iii.

ja=HMllM

3aapweeo

Taa

pa6oTa

she+ACC=have+lSG

finish+PP+H

that+F

work+f

"I have that work finished" iv.

ja=HMllM

Taa

pa6oTa

3aapmeeo

she+ACc=have+lSG

that+F

work+f

finish+PP+H

( colloquial)

"I have finished a work"

(17.iii) represents the full-fledged ..have"-perfect of Modem Macedonian available in all the tenses of the perfective aspect and both modes, i.e., perceptive and inferential, as shown in (13). The crucial momentum in its formation was the cessation of agreement of the participle with its head noun. Put differently, one could maintain that in (17.i) and (17.ii) the verb HMaTHstill betrays its original lexical value of ''to possess", and the rest of the construction Taa pa6oTa

82

soum SLAVIC LANGUAGES

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND

38Bpmeaa (17.i) and 38Bpmeaa in the noun phrase RMaTB

Taa

Taa

paoora (17.ii) undergo ordinary adjectival agreement seen

:1upmeaa pa6oTa ''that finished wotk". In (17.iii) the lexical value of

was bleached through grammaticalization to a mere auxiliary marking the retrospective

aspect and the participle itself does not agree with its head noun. There are certain interesting parallels between the Macedonian ''have" -perfect and its incipient counterpart in Czech and Polish. In the latter two languages, the ''bave"-perfect is more or lea limited to spoken language and it cannot be formed from all transitive verbs. The parallels, however, exist only to ( 17.i) and ( t 7 .ii) with the participle separated fi:om or next to its auxiliary and the obligatory agreement in

gender/number/case. A more doubtful part of Gobtb's scenario is the borrowing of the ''be"-perfect with the passive participle fi:om Romance (Stage IV). This is shown in {I 8) on Czech examples. Assuming German influence on Czech as a result of centuries-old Czech-German bilingualism (Stage II), no one, to the best of my knowledge, has proposed Stage m (Slavic influence on the ''be"-perfect ofGennan). Constructions in Stage IV such asjsem na-pi-t "I have drunk to my fulVmy heart's content", consisting of the copula and the passive participle, are limited to reflexive (or perhaps more specifically digestive) verbs, and they arose genetically without any foreigninfluence in all Slavic languages. In addition, they may be formed even fi:om intransitive verbs which do not allow the fonnation of the ''have"-perfect; e.g.jsem

i,,span''I am well-slept'' is available but not

"I have slept". Semantically, they may be best described as perfect of accomplishment (to use Vendler's 1967 tenn). Their grammatical status is peculiar in that these participles are not used in the passive voice and tend to be lexicaliud by being recycled as adjectives; e.g.,jsem na-jeze-n "I have eaten to my heart's

content" ➔

na-jeze-n-y "X who has eaten to his heart's content". Intransitive verbs

Digestive verbs

(18)

I II

(Czech)

"cat"

"drink''

"sleep"

"weep"

Past

jcd-ljscm

pi-ljsem

spa-ljsem

plaka-1 jsem

"havc"-pcrfect

m6m

m6m

sn~ze-no

vy-pi-to

"be"-pcrfect

jsem

jsem

jsem

jsem

(of achievement)

na-jeze-n

na-pi-t

vy-sp6-n

u-plaka-n

"I have

"I have

"I am

"My face is

eaten to

drunk to

well-slept"

tear-stained"

my full"

my full"

III

IV

5.5 On the origins of the inferential mode in B11lgaro-Macedonlan

As mentioned above, the ''be"-perfect of Ancient Slavic constructed with the /-participle wu inherited into all Slavic languages but only in the extreme South in Bulgaro-Maccdonian it acquired the meaning of the inferential mode or 'renarration'

(called

npe:&:8JIWIOCT

in

DEVELOPMENTOF TI{BTBNSFJASPBCTSYSTEM

83

Macedonian and npeB3WBaHe in Bulgarian). The contrast between inferential and noninferential modes permeates the whole system of Bulgaro-Macedonian; the Macedonian system was presented in (13) and the Bulgarian data are shown is (19): ( 19) Aspectual systemof Bulgarian

"be" -perfect [perfective]

HammJa

HIUIHC&X

[imperfective]

"be"-perfect[inferential] C'bM aanHcan

6sx H8IIHcan

C'bM

DHlll8 IIRllleX

6HJ1aanacan

C'bM DHWCJI

6JIX IlHWCJI

C'bM 6HJI IIHWCJI

Bulgarian, unlike Macedonian, has recourse to the copula in the formation of its retrospective categories. Its system - in the absence of the ''have"-pcrfect - is more symmetric in being dichotomi7.ableinto 'definite' and 'indefinite' (= inferential) categories. Under (non-inferential) "be"-pcrfect the form 6J1XB8IIHcaJI"I had written" is the pluperfect; the pluimpcrfect «suIIRIIIen "I had been writing" is its innovative imperfective counterpart. Additional problems arise in the 3rd Pers Sg which may or may not display the auxiliary: Bulgarian

(20)

l

2 3 4

5 6

nHw-e (Pres) miw-ewe (lmpf) mic-a (Aor) IlHC-a-JJ e (Pert) 6e(me) miw-e-n (Plqimpf) 6e(we) DHc-a-n(Plqpf)

Inferential

nJiw-e-n IlHC·&·JJ nee-a-JI 6e-n nliw-e-n 6H-JJDHC·&·JJ

The weak spot in the inferential system is the morphological identity of the infercntial aorist and the perfect (i.e., one cannot distinguish between "I have heard that he wrote" and "I have heard that he has written"). In other persons the ambiguity increases in that the 3rd Pers Sg DBc-a-JImay be not only the inferential aorist and perfect but also the non-inferential perfect. The ambiguity between the aorist and the perfect is considerably diminished in Macedonian as a result of its systematizationof the ''have"-perfect. As shown in (21), here the inferential aorist Ha-nHWa-JJ is different from its innovative perfect counterpart HM-aaa-DBlll-aBO "I have heard that he has written".The only ambiguity exists now between the latter form and the non-inferential pluperfect (which is rarely used).

84

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

(21)

Macedonian

Inferential

3

IIRID-a(Aor)

na-uem-a-n

4

HM8 HB·DHW·aHO

6

RM-a-JIna-OHW-aeo(Plqpt)

{Perf)

HM-a-nna-1111w-ano

It is generally assumed that Turkish provided the semantic model for this category in BulgaroMacedonian; e.g., Gobtb (1960:37) stated explicitly: the structural influence of Turkish seems to be indubitable here. This influence was conditioned by the bilingualism in at least some districts of Macedonia and Bulgaria. Taking a closer look at the OCS corpus one can come up with various examples of inferential usage of the "bc"-pcrfect, as already done by Wijk in 1933. Do we want to ascribe this phenomenon to the influence from Altaic Proto-Bulgarian? In the Middle Bulgaro-Maccdonian corpus these examples become more numerous and convincing. Koneski (1975:26) discussed use of the perfect with resultative and inferential meaning in the Gospel of Priest Jovan (13• c.). In the well-known parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15.11-32) the elder son upon hearing from the servants about his father's slaughtering the calf for his brother complained to his father using the pcrf ect in inferential meaning: (22)

H

3AICAAAb

CMOY

■Clt

TCACl\b

nHTOMIJ

and

kill+PAP

be+DAT

be+2SG

calf

fatted

[Jovan 126]

"And you killed for him the fatted calf'

The same passage in the OCS Codex Marianus displays the aorist

(3Atcl\A

''you killed''). Thus it

is quite conceivable that the inferential alloseme of the retrospective aspect in Ancient Slavic could have been semanticized in Bulgaro-Macedonian during the medieval period without any foreign model. In systemic terms, the borrowing of the "have"-perfect from Romance should also have made it possible for the old ''be" -perfect to acquire more and more the meaning of the inferential mode. Having said all this I still do not want to ignore the role played in this process by Turkish-Slavic bilinguals through the five centuries in the fonner Ottoman empire. A propos the 'typological distance' (cf. Thomason and Kaufinan 1988) between Turkish and South Slavic, we may observe the structural identity of their non-inferential vs. inferential aorist. More specifically, in Slavic the aorist is fonned by attaching its suffixes to the infinitive stem but its inferential counterpart by fonning the verb phrase consisting of the aorist /- participle andthe copula. Similarly, in Turkish the aorist is a synthetic fonn where to the stem ending in -di the

personal endings are suffixed, whereas the inferential perfect is rather an analytic fonn consisting

DEVELOPMENTOF THE TENSFJASPECTSYSTEM

85

of the verbal root or stem to which the inferential fonn of the copula mq. imqim, is cliticized. Pertinent data are shown in (23): (23)

Inferential

Inferential

di-past (Aorist)

progressive past

yaz-ch-m

yaz-ryor-du-m

yaz-llllf-DD

yaz-ryor-m11f-um

m.•x,.(Aor)

QH~A-X,.

Aorist

Imperfect

rmca-x

miw-e-x

OHc!-JIC'LM

ImW•C-JI(C'LM)

(Turkish)

(lmpf)

(OCS)

(Bulgarian)

This structural identity was extended from the aorist to the imperfect and, since the inferential imperfect of Bulgarian ha no ancestry in OCS, it may by said to be constructed according to the pattern of the Turkish progressive past. But arguably the innovative imperfect could also be handled by syntactic analogy with the Bulgarian inferential aorist (extension) without involving the Turkish model (borrowing). For further discussion we have to include some Macedonian data as shown in (24): (24)

"write" 3111Sg

Macedonian

Bulgarian

Turkish

Aorist

Ha-DHwa

Ha-mica

yaz-ch

Ha-mica-JI e

yaz-m~-ttr

Ha-tmca-JJ

yaz-m~

''be" -Perfect [retrospective] Ha-nawa-JJ [inferential]

In Macedonian in the 3rd Pers the auxiliary c/caT "is, are" ha been completely lost (except in the northwestem dialects) and the "be"-perfect of Macedonian may be used for the narration of both witnessed and reported events. But as was shown in (13) Macedonian possesses also the ..have" -perfect whose meaning is only non-inferential. The only context where only the "be" perfect may occur to the exclusion of the aorist is that of antiaffirmation as shown in (25), using Friedman's example (1978:110): (25) Ne aepyaaM .u.eu roj ro HanpaaHJil•Hanpaae roa "I don't believe that he has done (''be"-pcrfect/•aorist) it"

(Macedonian)

Similarly in Turkish (26) the inferential -mq may be used for both witnessed and reported events as its counterparts in Macedonian and again it is only in the antiaffinnative context where the aorist is excluded.

86

(26)

CHANGE IN MEDIEVALGREEK AND soum SLAVIC LANGUAGES

mannuyonnn ki a adam bunu yapmq/~ "I don't believe that that manhasdone ("be"-pcrfcctJ•aorist) this"

(Turkish)

However, as shown in (13), in Bulgarian and Turkish - in contradistinction with Macedonian - the contrast between the non-inferential vs. inferential "be"-perfect is possible in the 3rd Pers. Without its auxiliary the bare participle Bamtca-JI (Bulgarian) and yaz-m11 (Turkish)refer typically to a reportedevent "I gather that be wrote". If the participle is followed e (Bulgarian) and yaz-mr1-trr mean by its auxiliary it refers to a witnessed event: BlllIHC&-JI simply "he wrote". The presence vs. absence of the auxiliaryimplementingthe contrast between the witnessed vs. reported categories in Bulgarian is another argument for the influence from Turkish on South Slavic languages in the reanalysis of the Ancient Slavic retrospective "be"perfect. Those who dissent (e.g., Friedman 1978) observe that Turkish dir is an emphaticocopulativeenclitic which may be suffixed to any person in various tenses and that it arose only recentlyby the grammaticalizationof the lexical verb dur-malc"stand". In contradistinction the Bulgarianauxiliary e/caTis limitedto the 3rd Pers of the "be"-perfect and it goes back to Ancient Slavic •CT'IJcan.. The above evidence allows us to modify the strong arealist position in regard to the rise of the "have"-perfect in Macedonian and the inferential mode in Bulgaro-Macedonian as follows. In view of the fact that the "have"-perfect has spread only in Bulgarian and the latter was not under influence of Balkan Romance as was South Western Macedonian, we may admit that Macedo-Arumaniancontacts and bilingualism played a major role in its becoming a partof the languagesystem. But one has to rememberthat there was a predisposition to this process in that native Slavic morphology (OCS HMATH "have'') was used for this purpose. Also, what may be called an incipient "have"-perfect in Czech and Polish does not call for an areal explanation. In addition, one certainly does not have to go as far as Goblb in assuming the borrowing of the perfect of achievement.In systemic terms, one might be inclined to view the addition of the new resultative perfect to the grammar of Macedonian as a conditioning factor for the reanalysis of the ancient "be"-perfect as the inferential mode. This would appear to be a realistic assumption for Macedonian but less so for Bulgarian where the diffusion of the "have"-perfect may be brought into a causal nexus with the ambiguity in the aspectual system, exploiting exclusively the "be"-auxiliary.In general terms, the shift of the retrospective aspect to the inferential mode, observable between OCS and Bulgaro-Macedonian, is a classical example of the structural reanalysis cum extension with parallel externalcauses, i.e. structuralborrowing from Turkish (cf. most recently Harris & Campbell, 1995:149-150, on multiple causation in terms of these three mechanisms).Lack of space prevent us from considering the situation in extraterritorial dialects to complete our study of the actuation problem. Suffice it to say that all the archaic Aegean Macedoniandialectspossess the "have"-perfect.However,those which were in close contact with Greek and Albanian (Kulakia, Kostur and Boboltica) are unique among all the Slavic languages in losing completely the ancient "be"-perfect.

DEVELOPMENTOF THE TENSF/ASPECTSYSTEM

87

5.6 0,, tl,~ origias of tl,~ condltlonal In Medlnal Gruk and Soutl, Slavic /anguaga In Ancient Greek hypothetical statements were introduced by the conjunction d; the verbs in both the protasis and apodosis of the condititional sentencewere either in the optative (to express fulfillable conditions) or in the indicative of the imperfect or the aorist (to express unfulfillable conditions). In either case, the apodosis of the conditional sentence contained the particle liv. The imperfect (optative or indicative) versus the aorist (optative or indicative) realized the aspectual contrast of perfectivity. Thus this system allowed for a double binary contrast in conditional sentences:a potential event (imperfective or perfective) versus an unreal event (imperfective or perfective). These four options are exemplified in (27) with their Latin equivalents which - unlike their English rendition- show consistently the aspectual contrasts:

(27) El !xoi.;, bM!>oLTJC; &v.

(Potential imperfective)

Si habeis, d!s.

"If you had, you would be giving"

El axoLTJC;, boLTJC; &v.

(Potential perfective)

SI habueris,dederis. "If you had, you would give"

El EtXElbouc;&v.

(Irrealis imperfective)

Si haberes, dares.

"If only you had, you wouJd be giving" El lc,xE u > 1., cf. Bubenik 1989a: 187), it became necessary to remodel the morphology of conditional sentences on analytic grounds. Its exponent became the auxiliary used for the formation of the future tense, first

lxw "I have" later on 8t).w "I want", put in the

imperfect; hence the medieval forms {i8EMIypacj)-EL"I would be writing" (imperfective) and

118£MI ypa,j,-EL"I would write/have written" (perfective). The earliest analytical conditionals combine fxw (in the imperfect) with the infinitive of the main verb as in the following example from Malalas' Khronographia (6.., A.O.): (28)

Etxov

ot

t.:al

tac_;

vaOc_;

have+IMPF+3PL

PRT

and

ART+F/PUACC

ships+ACC

88

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOU1lf SLAVIC LANGUAGES

ol bum+AOR+JNF

[Mai 128.5]

ART+MIPLINOM

Barbarians

"The barbarians would have burnedour ships"

In Modem Greek the conditional with the finite fonns of the auxiliary 8a.ro "I want" (of the type {i8EA.C1 ypa,t,-£L)is limited to Kathareousa. The other type, 8a lypaa..I would write .., is used universally; it fonns a true 'future in the past' by keeping the future particle 8a and replacing the finite present tense fonn of the main verb by its counterpart in the imperfect. It is important to realize that its perfective counterpart cannot be formed by using the aorist

•ea

lypa,i,« (cf. Medieval fi9£>..-a ypacp-£1. versus fi9t:A.C1-a ypa,t,-£Lor Ancient lypaci,t..86vta touc; "when they came" vs. ancient t>..86vtwvaut&v). The following examples are from the Chronicle of Boustronios (15 th c.): (36)

ical

tA.86vta

tO\J

and

come+AOR+PART+ACC

hc+GEN

[Boustronios 513.10-11]

"and when he come to Cyprus"

ical

tµrcat vovta

and

enter+PART+ACC

[Boustronios 500.24-25) they+oBL

"and when they were entering"

Therearealso instancesof an archaizing combination t>..86vtoc; (Gen Sg) with the plural clitic, as in the Chronicle of Malchairas' (15 th c.): (37)

ical

tA.86vtoc;

touc;

and

come+AOR+PART+GEN

they+oBL

"and when they had come to Famagusta"

Eli;

tt')v 'Aµ6xoootov

[Makh §192.18-19)

92

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOUlll SLAVIC LANGUAGES

In the Cypriot dialect of Makbairas and Boustroniospronominal subjects are in the oblique case (genitive in the singular and genitive/accusativein the plural) but the nominal subjects are in the nominative: (38) ml

6uxj3alvavta

oktyau;

[Boustronios 414.7~]

and pass+PART+ACC sevcral+NOMIPL "and after several days had passed"

days+NOM

Also the Ancient mcdiopassiveparticiple in -µiv~ was degrammaticalizedas a consequence of the loss of the reduplicating perfect. Nowadays, in Kathareousa, the participial forms with reduplicationsupply learned words such as 6LalC£KpLµµiv~"distinguished", ouyaicoµµtv~ "abbreviated",while those without reduplicationare a part of every day vocabulary:q>aywµiv~ "satiated", :rnwµiv~ "drunk, tipsy", ypaµµivov "fate, destiny". South Slavic languages reduced the battery of the four full-fledged participles of Ancient in Russian). While Slavic to the absolutive (called also gerund or transgressive,Aeenp1111acme in Greek its fonn is traceable back to the plural accusativeof the imperfective(present)participle, ypact,-ovt-ac;, in Slavic one has to do with either the nominative or dative plural of the same The ocs participle (e.g., Bulgarian XOA-Clll-en "(while) going" with an extra -It, or XOA-elll-CM). suffix -At&WT developed via -UJ.UT to Modern Bulgarian -aeJCR,-aiixB. Several old participles in-emr are found as relics in Modern Bulgarian (e.g., rop-emr ''hot", BOB-eillT"stinking") and there are also dialectal absolutives in -emr-en, -emr-en, or -emr-RMH-Ita.Some dialectal absolutives continue the construction of the dative absolute: (39)

xodee~em starecot nilol drudzi l'ug'e

[Mladenov 1929:265 quoting ~apk.VIII 66]

''The old man found other people while he was walking"

The perfective active participle (OCS -B'I,,) has been lost completely in Modern Bulgarian with a few archaisms (or Russisms) remaining in the literary language (such as t>BBWH "having been", aeCJIY)ICBBIIIB "without serving")and a dialectal form nepitaJ(< "' nWTAB'l,,WH) "without asking". An interesing syntactic phenomenon of Middle Bulgarian is the co-ordination of the perfective active participle with a clause containing a finite verb form; an example from Trojans/eaprica (14111century) is provided in (40): (40)

CAIJWAB'I,.

TO

Dpiu.Ml(WA

Kp4A'1,.

8'1,.

H

ROAAT&

[Pria 481 hear+PERFVAP

it

Priam

king

"King Priam heard it and went into the palace"

and

go+AOR+3SG

in

palace+ACC

DEVEWPMBNT OF TIIE TENSFJASPECTSYSTEM

93

Similar instances arerarein OCSbuttherearc27 examplesin Trojans/eaprlca (assembled by

Mirtev 1968:377). The sourceof this MiddleBulgarianconstruction is a contamination of the type: (41)

OVCAWWA

TO ICpAA"' H MC

S6NW41'\ Tf

FOto~ HA••

I QM4TA

V+PERS/NO

CONJ

V+PERS/NO

Y+PBRFVAP

nAAATa

y+PBBS{NO

On the other hand, the conjoining of two participles, or rather co-ordination of two non-finite fonns where the second form functions as the finite form, is rare. There is only one example in

Trojans/eaprlca: (42)

BttAt.•"'

•ro Dpt.aMvun, ..,..,,...

"

•"'3A"'Xff&&"' vr qr1,Aqi&

••AMH

[Pria 63)

and moan+PBRFVAP "When he saw him dead Priam started weeping from [his) heart" see+PBRFVAP

The imperfective passive participle (of the OCS type BIA-GM' and BIA-ttM,.. "being led around'') has been degrarnmaticalized and lexicalized in literary Bulgarian (and given up completely in Serbian): (43)

Degrammaticalization of the passive imperfective participle

Bulgarian

cf. Russian

"visible"

•~

•IWIMWA

BlfAIIJIB

"intolerable"

HCDOROCHM

BCBWHOCJIMWA

HCDOAHOCJIHB

vs.

Serbian

To judge by late OCS documents, the imperfective passive participle on its way to the margin of the grammardeveloped meaning similar to that of the Latin gerundive (the passive participle of necessity); the following example is taken from the Evangelie Kochno [I 21.25] in the East Bulgarian redaction of the 13111century: (44)

"" UMOMOVMHA .... aMOV MltpOVBi.Mt.CTH'1'11QHWUMNHX'\

cnnIHH[MM'\

oM' aVtov otµaL tov IC6aµovxwpn6µ£vaf3Lf3k£a may

be

evaluated as evidence for the development from the non-modal "the books which are being

written" to the modal "the books which are (going) to be written". The Ancient Greek gerundive,

'tClypcattta f3Lf3>..ta "the books which arc to be written", is not found in the 'folksy' speech of the New Testament. 4

94

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUAGES

Further research is necessary into what may be evaluated as a neutrali7.8tionof the contrast between the perfective and imperfectivepassive participles (BfA-C""' vs. llfA-oM,). To judge by alternative translations of relevant Greek passages,this distinction was 'blUJTCd'in the minds of their translators. For instance, the passive future ''you will be dragged" in [Mt I 0.18]: (45) Kal btl 1f(tµ6vac; bt Kal j3aowic; ax8t\oeo8t "and you will be dragged before governors and kings"

[Mt 10.18]

is rendered with llfAfHH B&Afff in the Codex Zographensis, Codex Marianra and Ostromirovo evangelie, but with llfAOMH B&Afff in the Codex Assemanianus. On the other band, Greek did not possess a grammaticaldistinction between the indeterminate and determinate impcrfi,ctivepassive participles (of the type BOA-NM"'''being led around" vs. llfA· OM, ''being ledj. Hence two different renditions of the imperfective mediopassive participle rutay6µevoc;"being led" by creative Slavic translators of [I Cor 12.2]: (46)

npoc; ta EtbwMXta &ci,wva, aicpoaoµm

"hear"

QICOOO>

8Lyyavro

"touch"

ayyll;ro

oocj>pat voµm

"smell" "taste"

µupll;w

YEUOµaL

ICQ'tCJA.a~t VW'tT]VYEWTJ

There are also instances of the active voice in Ancient Greek being replaced by the middle voice in Medieval Greek (cf. 6.2). 6.2 A.nalytk,neduJpauwe In Mourn Gredc We saw in 5.3 that Medieval Greek (after Sofianos, 16th c.) ended up with two types of periphrasis for the retrospective aspect:ypaµµivov lxw (Etxa in the past) and Etxa ypa"1£1.. In this section we will examine their mediopassive counterparts ypaµµivoc; etµm "I have been written" (~µouv in the past) and etxa ypaq,8i\"I had been written" (there was also Etxa ypacpfl based on the old mediopassive aorist typaq>T)v); the present form lxw ypacp8i\(or ypacptil)'1 have been written" is not mentioned by Sofianos and must have developed later on. In Modem Greek the difference between these two mediopassive formations is claimed to be a matter of degree of resultativity, capturedby the following minimal pair of sentences (examples from Babiniotis & Kontos, 1967:164): (3)

·o

yi.6«V-fl-lCE passive suffix -µivik)

boji§i=~

3

bcrsk (=*sik)

bojin.=sl

Sg l

As far as the placement of the reflexivepronoun in OCS is concerned,two tendenciescan be

distinguished. In conjunction with other clitics the reflexive pronoun could be located in S-2 position by Wackemagel's Law or it could be placed immediatelyafter its verb where it belongs semantically(by Behaghel's Law). The South Slavic languagesexploit both options (see below); Czech,the WesternmostSlavic language,preserveda strong versionof Wackemagel's Law while the Easternmost Russian reduced the reflexive pronominal clitics to a grammatical morpheme, immobilized after its verb. Contrast Czech bojfm=se "I am afraid" andjii=se B6.JTM "1 am AFRAID" with Russian boju+s' andJa BOJU+S'; similarly, nebojfm=se "I am not afraid" and jii=se NEBOJIM"I am not AFRAID" with Russian ne=bojus' andJa ne=BOJU+S'. Lithuanian appearsto be in an intermediateposition by allowing the reflexive pronoun to appearbefore its verb if the sentenceis negated.This gradientfrom the reflexivepronoun placed by Wackemagel's Law within sentence to the 'penultimate clitic' to the grammatical suffix is sketched in (14):

DEVELOPMENT OF 11ffl DIATIIETIC SYSTEM

(14)

Cuch

Lithuanian

RUS8ian

b6Jtm""SC Ji-se b6jlm

bijau""S

neboJfnia•sc Ji-se ■6bojim

ltt

boj6+s' ja boj6+s' ae-boj6+s' ja ae-boJ6+s'

at bijau-s slblja6 at _, alblja6

105

In OCS the reflexive pronoun could be placed in S-2 position by Wackcmagel 's Law (with S-1 definedin phrasal terms); at the same time we observe another trend to place it immediately after its verb by Behaghel's Law; the first option is shown in (15): AO.SHA

HMA

[Lk24.35 (Vaillant 1977:261)]

that REFL+ACC rccognizc+AOR+3so thcy+JNSTR/DU ''that he had been recognized by them (two)" Similarly, in complementary questions the reflexive pronowi may be located either in S-2 position or immediately after its verb: (16)

In.TO

c.e.

llfN11COCII&

Mloff't

who

REFL+ACC

touch+AOR+3SG

l+DAT

ICTO

nptllCOCII&

c.e.

MR

who

touch+AOR+3SG REFL+ACC

[Zogr; M 5.31]

[Asseman; Sav; M 5.31]

l=DAT

"who has touched me"

In Modern Bulgarian and Macedonian only the former option is available (K.ojcc .u.onpe ...). In Modem Bulgarian the reflexive pronoun can be moved to S-2 position after focal (emphasized) personal pronouns: ( 17)

HHC cc

MH6ro

we=REFL+ACC very

HHTCpecyBaMC

be-interested+ 1PL

"WE are very interested"

In negative sentences, however, cc functions as a host for the negative particle: ( 18)

HC CC

6e300K6H'l'C

not=REFL+ACC worry+2PL "don't worry"

CHANGEIN MEDIBVALGREEKAND soum SLAVICLANGUAGES

106

In Old and Middle Bulgarian in the case of synenclisisother cnclitics (pronominal clitics. particle *f) can separate the reflexive pronoun from its verb: ( 19)

O'l'IIOVW"'lll

"l'lt

CA

l"p'kCN 'l'IIOH

forgive+ 3PL

you+DAT

REFL+ACC

sins

[Bani§ko; Mt 9.2)

your+PL

"your sins are forgiven to you"

Another example from the Bogoslovie of John the Exan:h is given in (20): (20)

nOC'I.AIT'I.

*'

CA

CHOX,.

send+PP

'PART

REFL+ACC

Enoch

"

Mita

and

[Bogoslovic 342a 3--4)

Elias

"Enoch and Elias will be sent"

In the same fashion in Modern Bulgarian other enclitics can separate the reflexive pronoun from its verb: (21)

HO

crpyaa

MH

ce

but

seem+Jso

l+DAT

REFL+ACC

''but it seems to me"

In the chain of proclitics, however, the reflexive pronoun is placed immediately before its verb: (22)

TIUll

that

neceH song

MH

CC

xapecaa

l+DAT

REFL+ACC

pleasc+3SG

"I like that song" In the case of the compound past the auxiliary is placed next to its verb in either case (i.e., the chain of enclitics or proclitics): (23)

JtyDHJI

C'hM

CH •••

buy+PAP

be+lso

REFL+DAT

"I have bought ... " TOH

ce

e

6opHJJ

C

Me'llt8

be

REFL+ACC

be-+-3S0

fight+PAP

with

bear

"he fought a bear"

DEVELOPMENTOF 11fE DIA11IETIC SYSTEM

107

If, however,the auxiliaryhosts the negativeparticle it may be separated from its verb by another proclitic: (24)

He

d.M

ro

BJUCAaJJ

not

be+lso

him

see+PAP

"I have not seen him"

The reflexive pronoun can also host the negative particle: (25)

HC

CC

ISe3DOK6ATe

not

REFL=ACC worry+2PL

"Don't worry!"

The dative form of the reflexive pronoun is attached to a noun to express the ownership of the subject (in any person): BHKaM CRH&CB"I call my (own) son", aau cRHa CH "He calls his (own) son" vs. CRH& MY"He calls his (someone else's) son". The pronoun can be lifted from its postnominal position and cliticized to the preceding verb:

am

(26)

B3CX

manKaTa=cH

take+AOR+ISO

hat=ART RBFL+DAT

"I took my hat" a3ex=cH

mAnKaTa

take+AOR+lSG=REFL+DAT

hat=ART

If the noun is qualified by an attribute the pronoun is cliticized to it within the noun phrase: (27)

manu

83CX

r0UM8T&=CH

tak.e+AOR+lso

big=ART=REFL+DAT hat

"I took my big hat"

The same phenomenon, covered by the tenn 'penultimate clitic' (cf. Anderson 1993 :75), is also known from Modern Greek: o Epyanic6..6;µa; ~ o Epyantc6; µa; Motca>..o;"our industrious teacher''. Earlier examples of this positional mobility are available from Radomir's Evangelistary(I 3th c.) in Middle Bulgarian:

108 (28)

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND SOU1ll SLAVIC LANGUAGES

*INA

novCTttsa.wn MOv,KA

QI

woman

abandon+PAP husband+ACC

REFL+DAT

[Radomir; M 10.12]

''the woman who divorced her husband"

ftAH

H

nptt!IOIIN

QI

M&*A

go

and

call

REFL+DAT

husband+ACC

[Radomir; J 4.16]

"Go and call your husband"

(vs. MiUKA csocroin [Zogr, Asseman] and M&*a. TBOll [Mar]). Similar examples become numerous in the Damaskins (17th/18th c.); (29) is an example of the 'penultimate clitic' from the KopriJtenslciDamaslcin(l ?ffic.) CH

[Kopr L] said

Jacob

seventh+DAT=ART+DAT

REFL+DAT

son+DAT

Dan+DAT

"Jacob said to his seventh son Dan"

6.4 Reflexivepassive The reflexive passive in OCS could be enlarged by the agentive phrase; for instance ..to be baptizcd by him" (tkxm"l.08ftvmim' a\rtoi)) can be accompanied by the agentive phrase realized by the phrasal case OT'lo N+GEN or the synthetic case N+INSTR Kpa.CTHT'I.~ OT'lo HlrO: (30)

(Mt 3.14]

43'1.

-rplBOV-

TOBOIIK

11:pt.CTl1Ttt

c.

I

need+ 1SG

you+INSTR

baptize+INF

REFL+ACC

"I need to be baptized by you"

Later translations into Bulgarian still keep the reflexive passive (e.g. the translation from 1991: a3'L HMllMl, HYQa Aa ce Kp-LCTJI on Te6e) even if contemporary Bulgarian does not allow the expression of a human agent. The Macedonian translation (1976) of the same passage has replaced the pseudo-reflexive passive by the analytic "be" -passive: (31)

lac

11>e6a

on.

Te6e

,na

6~aM

KPCTCH

I

need+3SG

from

you+oBL

that

be+ISG

baptize+PP

"I need to be baptized by you"

Another example with the agentive phrase in the instrumental, from the Evangeliarium Assemani (10th - 11th c.), is presented in (32):

DEVELOPMENTOF 11IE DIATHETICSYSTEM

(32) ""' but

A., that

CII ..Cff'I,

c.r.

Mtlfl"'

REPL+ACCworld "but that the worldmight be savedthrough him" save+3so

HM...

109 [Asseman Sb; J 3.17)

be+INSTR

Here, vice versa, the Bulgarian translation (1991) replaces the reflexive passive by the analytic '1>e"-passive(so 38 Jl8 (S~e cnn.n cnaces 11pe3i. Hero) while the Macedonian (1976) keeps J18ce coacs opeJtYHero). the original reflexive construction (TYKY cBCTOT A similar restriction on the realiution of the agentive phrase exists in other Slavic languages (Serbian, Croatian, Czech, Slovak). Only Russian allows for the expression of an overt human agent in the reflexive passive; however, the verb has to be in the imperfective aspect (cf. paCS6'1HMB "the house was being built by (the) workers". Siewierska 1984:259):AOM C'l'J)6HJ1c.11 Its perfective counterpart has to be realizedas an analytic "be"-passive: AOM 61dJInoCTpoes pa66'1BMB"the house was/has been built by (the) workers". Use of the passive imperfective aceMH lil he participle enlarged by the agentive phrase is extremely limited (e.g. os mooliM love+PIPall+INSTR "he is loved by all'') but the reflexivefonn of the imperfectiveactive participle ~ R3,AaBaeMLIA lit. publish+P(P is used widely: B3wubmm\CJI ~ lil publish+PRESPART+REPL JK:ypau "the journal which is being published" (in Czech only the latter option is available: vydavany ca3opis).

CHAPTERSEVEN CONSEQUENCESOF THE LOSS OF THE INFINITIVE

7.1 Los, of tlu lnjlaltlN

7.1.1 Medieval Greelc In spoken Medieval Greek the plethora of Hellenistic infinitives was gradually confined to the complementary ftmction after 'control' verbs. such as optl;,ro"command", :JtOL(J) or mµvro "make, cause". Jk)uM>µai."want". and after various modal and aspectual auxiliaries ((t)8EMI> "will". fxro "have". ,\µ,top& "can". buvaµai. "can". apxtl;,ro I c\pxoµai. "start". Jtaoo I :Jtauoµm "stop'').

With the verbs of the second type the infinitivecould be strengthenedwith the article (in the direct or oblique case. to or to-0. respectively)to fonn a nominalized direct object: (1)

toO

ypcicj>EL V

OU

ART+GEN write+INF not

buvoOµaL

[Imb665]

can+lso

"I cannotwrite" nai)oµaL

to'O

stop+lSG ART+GEN "I stop talking"

A£y£LV

[Alosis1031]

talk+INF

During the Middle Ages the constructionwith vo. + subjunctivegradually replaced the infinitive in both categories (cf. 5.2). Thus the inceptive ("start Ying") and tenninative Aktionsart ("stop Ying'') could be expressedby non-finite (lipxoµaL / :rtauoµaL to/ to-0 V+INF)or finite means (liPXOµaL/ :1tauoµa1.va. v+SUBJ). The following examples are from Bergades' Apolcopos (Cretan. beginning of the 15th c.): (2)

to'O tptXELVfipxu,a

[Apokopos 11]

"I startedrunning"

totptXELVbtaooa

[Apokopos 15]

"I stoppedrunning" 1\px(VLOEV VOoalcltJ "he startedmoving"

[Apokopos44]

CONSEQUENCESOF 1HE LOSS OF 1HE INFINITIVE

111

The Chronicleof Morea (141hc.) 'reinforces' the subordinatingcortjlDlctionva. by other elements (advcrbials &tro

V+ 1NF

hypotaxia

va

V+SUBNE

hypotaxis (finite)

ica\

V+IND

parataxis

V+IND

parataxis(uyndeton)

Table 7.1: Inceptive (apxlt;.wI apx(V(I) / df)xoµaL) and tenninative (MOO>/ Jtauoµm) Aktionurt in MedievalGreek

For the loss of the infinitive after modal verbs

(fxw, 8£Ml)) in the expressions of the future

tense, cf. 5.2. The aorist infinitive survived until Modem Greek in the expressions of the retrospective aspect

(txw ypoveu8fl(6 dv8pro:rcoc; :rcpbtettoi> va cJ)oveu8fl) or the preverbal position of the patient in the clause with the passive infinitive (6 dv8pro:rcoc; :rcpbtei toi> The latter example (14* c.) is provided in (13): cJ)ove'U8ftvm). xpvtEL

(13) m'tvtec;

all+NOMIPL is-fitting

[Hennon n.69-70)

tO'O ART+GEN die+INF

all+NOMIPL

The quantifier :rcavtec;could also be taken as the accusative, but the interpretation as the in the apposition; the latter can only nominative is preferable because of another quantifier, B>..m, be a nominative. Exponents of the notion ofmoravtawful conduct were impersonal constructions consisting

tottv "it is appropriate" with the of copulaic expressions f;eatLV"it is permitted" and :rcpt:rcov human actor in the accusative or dative: ( 14)

oih:ooc; yap Jtpbtov

lcrtlv

~µiv

ltA.t)pu>OaL

thus

is

we+DAT

fulfil+AOR+JNF

PRT

appropriate

naoav

bucaLOO'UVfl\l

all+ACC

righteousness+ACC

(Mt 3.15)

"thus it is r.pptopt iate for us to fulfil all righteousness"

After the loss of the dative and the replacement of the infinitival clause by its finite counterpart (14) would be realized as shown in (JS): (15). nprnov lcrtlv va

t1CJt>..1JPW00>µe ...

CONSEQUENCES OF lllE LOSS OF lllE INFINITIVE

115

7.2.2 South Slavic An exponent of the notion of obligation in OCS and MBu was the verb n0AOBATH "to become, befit; to have to; to be fitting, necessary" in the impersonal construction. The undergoer of the event is expressed by the dative and the predicate is in the infinitive. Here is the same passage [M 8.31] in OCS (Codex Marlanus) and MBu (Banilko Evangelie of the 13mc.): (16)

(H HA'IA'n. OV"H'l'H-.)

Mi.Moro

R~A'l'H

much

suffer+INF

•ico

ROAOBAA'n.

CWHOI(

that

befit+JSO

son+DAT hwnan+MIDAT

"

and

'IAOBil'ICICOMOI(

HCICOl(WCHOI( BW'l'H ...

[Mar, M 8.31]

try+PP+DAT be+INF

(H HA'l.t.TI,, OV"H'l'Ha) IHO ROAOBAIITI,,CWHOI('IAOBil'li.CICOMOI(, MHOrO

[Banilko;M 8.31] "(Andhe began to teach them)that the son of man must suffermany things,and be rejected" ROC'rpAAA'ffl, HCIC'dwtH11BWTlt ...

1nthe impersonal construction the passive participle in the predicate has to agree with its subject

in the dative case: (17)

CWHOI(...

HCICOl(WfHOI( Bi.rnt

that is-necessary son+DA T try+PP+DAT be+INF ''that the son must be rejected" As in Greek with the demise of the infinitive the nominative marking for the patient and the typical preverbal position for the subject became available. 1nModem Bulgarian and Macedonian

impersonal verbs, -rpe6na and-rpe6a, respectively, replaced the OCS verb n0AOB•n. here is the Modem Bulgarian (1991) equivalent of(l5): ( 18)

(H DO'IHB .zt8 (H

y,m)

ICBK"b

tfonWKHJITb

that

human+ART

"befits";

Muoro son+ART befit+JSG much

CHH'lt

nocrpa.tta, H .ItB (j~e OTXB1,pJICH'lt .•• that suffer+3SG and that be+FtIT+3SG reject+PP "(And he beganto teach them)that the son of man must suffermany things,and be rejected."

.ItB

Modern Macedonian (1976) is structured similarly ... neKa CHHoTqoseirKH Tpe6a MHory na llOCTP&'Aa, na 611,lleOTpJieH •..).

The pronominal undergoer in the l II and 2nd Pers PI can be expressed by full forms in the dative: HAM'I. "to us"and BAC'I. "to you":

116

(19)

CHANGE IN MEDIEVAL GREEK AND

■C'l"'I,,

ROAOBHO

HAM'I,

fitting

we+DAT is

sourn SLAVIC LANGUAGES [Mar;Mt 3.15]

npA&,\A

HCRA'I.Hlfflt

&"'IC&

fultil+INF

all+ACC righteousncss+ACC

"it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness"

(The Greek original in (14) is similarly constructed: ... ltpbtov Ewvor; ...

tour; utouc; toil ART+MIPLIACCsons+ACC ART+M/SG/GEN

flom

:n:OL

VTJ(JtEiloaL;

[Lk 5.34]

wedding+GEN make+AOR+INF fast+AOR+INF "Can you makeweddingguests fast?" In post-Hellenistic Greek another auxiliary, icaµvuv (< AGr ''toil, tabor") doubled the expression means of the language. After the finitization of the infinitive the above construction runs as

follows (cf. the translation of the NT from 1953):

CONSEQUENCES OF lHE LOSS OF 1HE INFINITIVE

(29)

µtµt~

ouvaa8evo. that

icaµtJ'tE

tO~...

VO.

make+SUBJVE+2PL

119

VT)Ot£1XOOLV

that

fast+SUBJVE+3PL

During a further evolution of the causative construction the lexical auxiliary "to make" was grammaticalized, i.e. it acquired the sense of a grammatical auxiliary "to cause". As a consequence of this process the causee started being expressed by the nominative (cf. the Corfu Bible of 1823): (30) Mn va f\µ,top£Lt£

ol

VO.

ICQµE't£

VO

VT)OtE'IJOUV

that

make+2PL

that

fast+3PL

ulot ...

ART+MIPI.INOM sons

In Modem Greek the causee in the nominative can be placed before its verb: (31) M~ µxop£tt£ va icav£t£m yLo(va VT)(Tt£tiouv (This construction is felt to be 'better' by some speakers1 than its counterpart with the causee in the accusative: ... va icav£tE touc; yiotif; va VT)CJtEuow).The construction with the causce in the nominative is possible if the subject of the matrix clause and that of the subordinate clause are different (icavow m yio( va VT)OtEUOWwould mean "the sons make X fast''). In Byzantine popular /wine the causative could be expressed paratactically in that the + subjunctive was replaced by the coordinate clause ical + indicative as in subordinate clause va. (32) taken from Georgillas' Plague of Rhodes (15111c.): (32)

µ'

btoL