Talk:Old Novgorod dialect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. |
 |
Old Novgorod dialect is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
I don't understand why this article contains the text of birch bark letter Novgorod 109. There isn't a single typical Novgorod feature in it.
- Nsg. masc. in -ъ: коупилъ, възалъ
- Apl. masc. in -ы: съводы
I would also like to add that the бытовая графическая традиция is not specifically Novgorodian. The spelling of Zvenyhorod 2, Vitsebsk 1, and other texts is also бытовой. Xyboi 17:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] @Ghirlandajo / second palatalization & MR
@Ghirlandajo: I guess what the author pointed to is the absence of the second palatalization in all instances and the absence of the progressive (or third) palatalization in some. Since these palatalizations were consired to be a Common Slavic development (and have, indeed, operated in ALL Slavic languages - the second palatalization only partly in all of West Slavic) and the Old Novgorod/Pskov dialects lack it, there is reason to assume a seperate branch. The issue is somewhat problematic, but archaic (i.e. non-palatalized, not innovated by palatalization) forms like kěl- and vьх- do make clear that a homogenous Common East Slavic can never have existed.
- Ilmen Slavs are thought to have moved into Novgorod region and further to Beloozero and Rostov from the nothern areas of modern-day Poland. So the distinct features of their dialect should have been explained by its proximity to Polish dialects. Which doesn't justify your conclusion that "a homogenous Common East Slavic can never have existed". Since every language has dialects, there are no homogenous languages at all. Anyway, a separate article on North Slavic languages is prerequisite to adding any speculations on their features into other articles, including this one. --Ghirlandajo 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- The issue is that the Old Novgorod dialect, as far as the palatalizations are concerned, is not divergent just of East Slavic, but of ALL of Slavic. The absence of progressive palatalization in vьx- cannot be explained by Polish (or West Slavic) influence, since Polish does palatalize in this instance. The same goes for kěl- and ruki. The only thing West Slavic and Old Novgorodian have in common is the absence of palatalization of *kv-, *gv- followed by a front vowel, which is a specific divergence of the common development in West Slavic, but much less specific in Novgorodian, since the development of which this particular palatalization is a part did not take place in Novgorodian AT ALL.
-
-
-
- Indeed, every language has dialects, there is always some variety, but there are limits to the divergence. If one uses the term East Slavic, one assumes that the languages labeled as such have developed from some common stage, which does indeed not have to be entirely homogenous, but which does feature a number of specific developments the attested languages arisen from this stage share. Old Novgorodian does NOT share a number of important developments, which are not only Common East Slavic, but largely (except for kv/gv) Common Slavic.
-
-
-
- Of course, the second palatalization could have been solved by analogy in alternating position, but not in word-initial position, simply because there is no model. This makes it far more likely to assume that there just wasn't a second palatalization in the language which developed into the Old Novgorod dialect. Xyboi 15:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, we do not have any record of Old Polish or Old Czech, but Old Russian was well documented, see the bulk of Sreznevsky's dictionary for that. Therefore there is no ground to question its existence. I suppose that the number of dialectal characteristics of Old Novgorod developed as the time went by, so it is not a vestige of older languages, rather a sign of linguistic divergence which could have resulted in development of a new East Slavic language, on the par with Ukrainian or Belarusian. --Ghirlandajo 14:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- There a problem of chronology there. If all attested languages arisen from a certain common stage show an identical development, one has to assume that this development belongs to the proto-language. If Old Novgorodian has forms that correspond with the archaic situation, i.e. before the common palatalization took place, it is hardly likely to assume that this a result of a later development. Indeed, languages and dialects diverge all the time, like Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian did, and eventually became so different by dialect-specific developments that they can be viewed as seperate languages. All things happen, but one has to look at the nature of the divergence as well, for this is a major indication for the chronology of events. Xyboi 15:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
While I'm at it, I would also like to point out that the claim that the second palatalization is not attested in Modern Russian ("The second palatalization, characteristic of all other Slavic languages except Modern Russian") is incorrect or at least misleading. Indeed, Modern Russian lacks palatalized forms in alternating position (within a paradigm), but this is because these cases were solved by analogy - Old Russian (non Novgorod) texts do show palatalized forms in the expected cases. MR does, however, feature forms like целый, which would have been something like *келый, had the second palatalization not taken place. Xyboi 13:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Xyboi, you are free to modify the ridiculous claim, provided that you cite appropriate sources. --Ghirlandajo 14:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I will think about a new formulation. Xyboi 15:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK, 2nd palatalization didn't operate in Russian only on morpheme boundary position (in front of flexional endings). Sorry but saying that it's "not attested in modern Russian" is simply untrue. Russisn цена < Late Proto-Slavic *cěna < Early Proto-Slavic=Proto-Balto-Slavic *kayna < PIE *kʷoyneh₂. Old Novgorod dialect wouldn't have had that k>c change!
2nd palatalization itself is approx. dated from the end of 6th century to the middle of 7th century, spreading from the Slavic South. Unlike the e.g. 1st palatalization, it was not a Common Slavic change, and though is usually taken into account when talking about 6-th century "Late-Proto-Slavic", it was not really a pan-Slavic change. post-6th century Slavic sound changes acted upon already differentiated Slavic dialects (that were more or less mutually intelligible for a few centuries to come).
"Sout Slavic", "West Slavic" and "East Slavic" divisions are based on geographical not linguistic criteria. One can find many ancient isoglosses connecting East-West Slavic, West-South Slavic or East-South Slavic not occurring in the other branch. That fact cannot be emphasized enough. It's very sad to see people talking about "Proto-East Slavic" or "Common East Slavic". That language never existed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
