Presentation on theme: "T HE PERFECT IN O LD C HURCH S LAVONIC : A CORPUS - BASED STUDY IN GRAMMATICAL SEMANTICS Vladimir Plungian (Moscow) Anna Urmanchieva (St.-Petersburg &"— Presentation transcript:
T HE PERFECT IN O LD C HURCH S LAVONIC : A CORPUS - BASED STUDY IN GRAMMATICAL SEMANTICS Vladimir Plungian (Moscow) Anna Urmanchieva (St.-Petersburg & Moscow)
Preliminary notes A periphrastic form: l-participle + ‘be’ [present / past] Elusive semantics and “strange” uses NB: no direct Greek counterpart (which is an extremely rare case in NT translation practice)! Greek perfect (which is not the most transparent, for its part) is mainly rendered by OCS aorist OCS perfect is a “free choice” of Slavic translators
Greek vs. OCS: Mt. 22:4 εἴπατε τοῖς κεκλημένοις: ἰδοὺ, τὸ ἄριστόν μου ἡτοίμακα PF, οἱ ταῦροί μου καὶ τὰ σιτιστὰ τεθυμένα, καὶ πάντα ἕτοιμα; δεῦτε εἰς τοὺς γάμους рьцѣте зъванымъ: се, обѣдъ мои оуготовахъ AOR, ю҅ньци мои и оупитѣнаа исколена, и вьсѣ готова; придѣте на бракъ Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage [KJB]
OCS vs. Greek: Lk. 8:52 рыдаахѫ же вьси и плакаахѫ сѧ еѩ. онъ же рече: не плачите сѧ еѩ. нѣстъ оумръла нъ съпитъ ἔκλαιον δὲ πάντες καὶ ἐκόπτοντο αὐτήν; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν: μὴ κλαίετε, οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν AOR, ἀλλὰ καθεύδει And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth
The main problem OCS perfect is not like “standard” European participle-based perfect (and even not like Greek perfect) It drastically lacks resultative uses – which are always considered the bulk of perfect domain (cf. also 1-2 in the handouts) In addition, the rules seem different in different texts – in our case, Codex Marianus, Codex Supraslensis, and Euchologium Sinaiticum.
Main types of uses: a “pragmatic” cluster “Interpretive” uses: mark a situation which has particularly important consequences “Characteristic” uses: describe the subject’s (important) properties Experiential uses: refer to the fact of (non)- ocurrence of the situation in the past “Emphatic” uses: highlight the most important episode in discourse
Discourse highlighting: interpreting останѣте еѩ. по чъто ѭ троуждаате. добро бо дѣло съдѣла о мьнѣ. вьсегда бо ништѧѩ имате съ собоѭ҄. ı егда хощете можете имъ добро творити. а мене не вьсегда имате. еже имѣ сиѩ сътвори. варила естъ похризмити тѣло мое на погребение. (Mk 14.6-8) Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will, ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
Discourse highlighting: characterization отъвѣшташѧ и рѣшѧ емоу. въ грѣсѣхъ ты родилъ сѧ еси весь. ı҅ ты ли ны оучиши. ı изгънашѧ и вънъ. (Jn 9.34) They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
Discourse highlighting: experiential ıс же рече имъ. ей. нѣсте ли чьли николиже. ѣко из оустъ младьнечь и съсѫштихъ съвръшилъ еси хвалѫ. (Mt 21.16 et passim) And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise
Discourse highlighting: focalization отъвѣшта емоу и’с. о себѣ ли ты г’леши се. ли ини тебѣ рѣшѧ о мьнѣ? отъвѣща пилатъ. еда азъ жидовинъ есмъ? родъ твои. ı архиереи прѣдашѧ тѧ мьнѣ. что еси сътворилъ? (Jn 18.34-35) Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Discourse highlighting: focalization рыдаахѫ же вьси и плакаахѫ сѧ еѩ. онъ же рече: не плачите сѧ еѩ. нѣстъ оумръла нъ съпитъ (Lk 8:52) And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth аминь амнь г’лѭ вамъ. ıштете мене не ѣко видѣсте знамение. нъ ѣко ѣли есте хлѣбы и насытисте сѧ. (Jn 6.26) Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
Main types of uses: a “syntactic” cluster Hypothetic: marking a past hypothetical situation in conditional sentences Anterior: marking anteriority in the past (= pluperfect uses)
Past hypothetical Г’ла еи и’съ: Жено, что сѧ плачеши, кого иштеши? Она же мьнѧшти ѣко врътоградарь естъ, рече емоу г’и, аште ты еси възѧлъ, повѣждь мьнѣ, къде и еси положилъ, ı азъ ı вьзъмѫ. (Jn 20:15) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
Anterior Г’и, пѧть таланътъ ми еси прѣдалъ. се дроугѫѭ҄ :д: таланътъ приобрѣтъ ими. (Mt 25:20) Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
Internal differences Codex Suprasliensis: more extensive uses of perfect NB: the problem of 2 nd person singular (special rules for Euchologium Sinaiticum!) – avoiding the homonymy 2Sg / 3Sg aorist and 2Sg aorist / 2Sg imperative, as in остави
To conclude No resultative use Semantically, better described as a discourse highlighting, oscillating between “interpretive” and “characteristic” uses, close to the domain of experiential meaning; Can also have relative tense (anterior) uses and past hypothetical uses (in conditional constructions); Rather, pragmatically relevant situations than something else
To conclude OCS perfect is clearly not a resultative-based perfect; but was it ever a resultative-based perfect? The problem is related to the original semantics of l-participle: probably, not resultative! A deverbal adjective with “a general sense of quality, sometimes accompanied by modal nuances” [Igartua 2014]
To conclude OCS perfect is a “narrow” experiential-like perfect not identical to typical resultative- based perfects However, in Modern Bulgarian, resultative uses (along with evidential ones) are widespread A non-standard diachronic development or a later areal influence?