Введение
Вымерший славянский язык, на котором говорили в средневековом Новгороде. Староновгородский диалект (древненовгородский диалект; также переводится как Старо-Новгородский или Древний Новгородский диалект) — термин, введенный Андреем Зализняком для описания старовосточнославянского диалекта, зафиксированного в берестяных грамотах (берестянная грамота). Грамоты датируются XI–XV веками и были раскопаны в Новгороде и его окрестностях. Для лингвистов староновгородский диалект представляет особый интерес, поскольку он сохранил некоторые архаичные черты, утраченные в других славянских диалектах, такие как отсутствие второй палатализации. Кроме того, грамоты предоставляют уникальные свидетельства о славянском разговорном языке, в отличие от церковнославянского, который доминировал в письменной литературе того периода. Большинство грамот содержат неформальные записи, такие как личная переписка, инструкции, жалобы, новости и напоминания. Такое широкое распространение указывает на высокий уровень грамотности, даже среди женщин и детей. Сохранившиеся записи демонстрируют оригинальное написание того времени; в отличие от некоторых текстов, в них отсутствует славянская вторая палатализация в корневом конечном положении, например, рукѣ, моги; изменение vl’ > l’, например, Яколь, Яковлев; номинатив единственного числа мужского рода о-основ в e, например, Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе; родительный падеж единственного числа а-основ в “мягком” ě вместо “твердого” y, например, бес кунѣ. Та же замена встречается в винительном падеже множественного числа о-основ и а-основ; замена “твердого” и на его “мягкие” соответствия в других неименительных падежах, таких как двойственное и множественное число императива, номинатив единственного числа мужского рода причастия настоящего времени действительного залога и прономинальные окончания (например, тиxъ вместо *тѣxъ); отсутствие палатализации основы с новыми ѣ и и окончаниями, как в старовосточнославянском; винительный и именительный падежи множественного числа а-основ в ě, например, кобылѣ, сиротѣ.
Extinct Slavic language spoken in medieval Novgorod
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Особенности староновгородского диалекта, установленные филологическими исследованиями за последние десятилетия:
Extinct Slavic language spoken in medieval Novgorod
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
отсутствие второй славянской палатализации в корневом начальном положении, например, кѣл, хѣр;
особый рефлекс праславянских сочетаний *TьRT, *TъRT, дающих TьRьT, TъRъT. Однако в некоторых диалектах они давали TroT, TreT; западнославянский рефлекс сочетаний *TоRT, например, погродье против погородие;
изменение ml’ > n’, например, емлючи > енючи;
отсутствие слияния именительного и винительного падежей единственного числа мужского рода независимо от одушевленности, например, Именительный падеж ед.ч. погосте : Винительный падеж ед.ч. на погостъ;
праславянские сочетания *kv, *gv сохранились как в западнославянских языках, вместо того чтобы превратиться в cv, zv перед передними гласными, как в других восточнославянских диалектах.
Extinct Slavic language spoken in medieval Novgorod
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Часто орфография является домостоящей (в отличие от книжной), используя ъ и о с одной стороны и ь и е с другой синонимично (около 50% берестяных грамот с середины XII до конца XIV века). Новгородский материал Зализняк разделяет на семь хронологических групп:
Extinct Slavic language spoken in medieval Novgorod
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
+Периодизация староновгородских берестяных грамот по А. Зализняку
Extinct Slavic language spoken in medieval Novgorod
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Класс Период
A XI век до ок. 1125
B I ок. 1125–1160
B II ок. 1125–1160
C 1220-е – 1290-е
D I ок. 1300–1360
D II ок. 1360–1400
E XV век
Extinct Slavic language spoken in medieval Novgorod
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Old Novgorod dialect (древненовгородский диалект; also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the Old East Slavic dialect found in birch bark writings (berestyanaya gramota). Dating from the 11th to 15th centuries, the letters were excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings. For linguists, Old Novgorodian is of particular interest in that it has retained some archaic features which were lost in other Slavic dialects, such as the absence of second palatalization. Furthermore, letters provide unique evidence of the Slavic vernacular, as opposed to the Church Slavonic which dominated the written literature of the period. Most of the letters feature informal writing such as personal correspondence, instructions, complaints, news, and reminders. Such widespread usage indicates a high level of literacy, even among women and children. The preserved notes display the original spelling of the time; unlike some texts, they were not
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root final position, e. g. рукѣ, моги
the change vl’ > l’, e. g. Яколь, Яковлев
nominative singular masculine of o stems e, e. g. Иване, посаднике, хлѣбе
genitive singular of а stems in "soft" ě, instead of the "hard" y, e. g. бес кунѣ. The same substitution is found in the accusative plural of o stems and a stems. replacement of "hard" и by their "soft" counterparts in other non nominal cases, such as the dual and plural of the imperative, nominative singular masculine of the present active participle, and pronominal endings (e. g. тиxъ instead of *тѣxъ)
absence of palatalization of the stem with the new ѣ and и desinences, as in Old East Slavic
nominative accusative plural of а stems in ě, e. g. кобылѣ, сиротѣ
Features of the Old Novgorod dialect ascertained by the philological study in the last decades are:
lack of the Slavic second palatalization in root initial position, e. g. кѣл , хѣр
a particular reflex of Proto Slavic *TьRT, *TъRT clusters, yielding TьRьT, TъRъT. However, in some dialects these yielded TroT, TreT. West Slavic like reflex of *TоRT clusters, e. g. погродье versus погородие
the change ml’ > n’, e. g. емлючи > енючи
no merger of nominative and accusative singular of masculines regardless of animacy, e. g. Nom. sg. погосте : Acc. sg. на погостъ
Proto Slavic *kv, *gv clusters were retained as in West Slavic languages instead of being transformed to cv, zv before front vowels as in other East Slavic dialects
Often the orthography is domestic (as opposed to bookish), using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously (about 50% of birchbark manuscripts from the mid 12th to the late 14th century). The Novgorod material is divided by Zaliznyak into seven chronological groups:
+Periodization of Old Novgorod birchbark letters by A. ZaliznyakClassPeriodA11th century to approx. 1125B Iapprox. 1125–1160B IIapprox. 1125–1160C1220s–1290sD Iapprox. 1300–1360D IIapprox. 1360–1400E 15th century
Последствия находки в Старом Новгороде
По словам Зализняка, староновгородские языковые особенности, вместо того чтобы быть просто изолированными отклонениями, представляют собой комплекс своеобразных изоглосс. Отклонения более многочисленны в более древних берестяных письмах, чем в более поздних находках. Этот факт указывает, вопреки тому, что можно было бы ожидать, на то, что развитие шло по пути конвергенции, а не дивергенции, по отношению к другим северно-восточнославянским диалектам. По мнению Зализняка, открытие староновгородского диалекта опровергло прежние представления о восточнославянском как о относительно однородной языковой группе, выдвинув взамен концепцию о нём как об области гораздо большего диалектного разнообразия. Зализняк разделяет восточнославянскую территорию на две диалектные группировки: протоновгородско-псковскую, выделенную главным образом на основе двух признаков – отсутствия второй палатализации велярных и окончания *e* в именительном падеже единственного числа мужских основ на *o*, и все остальные восточнославянские диалекты.
According to Zaliznyak, the Old Novgorod linguistic features, instead of being merely isolated deviations, represent a bundle of peculiar isoglosses. The deviations are more abundant in older birch bark letters than in the more recent finds. This fact indicates, contrary to what may be expected, that the development was convergent rather than divergent, with regard to other northern East Slavic dialects. According to Zaliznyak, the discovery of Old Novgorod dialect suggests that earlier conceptions which held East Slavic as a relatively homogeneous linguistic grouping, have been dispelled by a view advancing it instead as an area of much greater dialectal diversity. Zaliznyak divides the East Slavic area into two dialectal groupings: Proto Novgorodian Pskovian on one side, singled out chiefly on the basis of two instances lacking second palatalization of velars and the ending e in nominative singular of masculine o stems, and all the remaining East Slavic dialects on the other.