Transcript The perfect in Old Church Slavonic: a corpus-based

THE PERFECT IN OLD CHURCH SLAVONIC:
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
ἡτοίμακαPF, οἱ ταῦροί μου καὶ τὰ σιτιστὰ τεθυμένα,
καὶ πάντα ἕτοιμα; δεῦτε εἰς τοὺς γάμους
• рьцѣте зъванымъ: се, обѣдъ мои оуготовахъAOR,
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 ἀπέθανενAOR, 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 2nd 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 resultativebased perfects
• However, in Modern Bulgarian, resultative
uses (along with evidential ones) are
widespread
• A non-standard diachronic development or a
later areal influence?