![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
@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.
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)
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)
Shouldn't the Cyrillic Omega (ѡ) be used instead of the Greek one? It Is Me Here ( talk) 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The sentence "The orthography is also very special, using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously" could be made better. Rather than orthography, one should say spelling (orthography means 'correct spelling' or 'spelling norm'; and the pecularity in question is certainly more a question of pronunciation than of spelling norm). Rather than synonymously, the wiki contributor probably meant equivalently or indiscriminately. But even so that would probably not be correct: I am sure that the Novgorod writers would still use the (etymologically) "right" vowel letter more often than the "wrong" one. So one can speak on inconsistency in usage or something. Unfortunately I know not enough about the Novgorod texts to suggest a correction. Note also spellings such as солова (twice) for слова in the second example (no. 497), where the first о doesn't even stand for an expected ъ, but stands for zero. -- Zxly ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
GoreGrindGeek ( talk) 14:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Russchron, I saw that you've added a work by Savignac to the Soruces section. This section is supposed to contain the sources cited in the article and I don't see references to any of Savignac's articles. If in fact some information is referenced to these article, please add inline references. Alaexis ¿question? 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Lokys dar Vienas, I seen that you deleted native name of Novgorod dialect as "OR". I don't understand why you classified this as original research, while this gramota is described in scientific literature – this page used as reference contains two fragments of works which describe it. Wojsław Brożyna ( talk) 09:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This conang does not have significant coverage. Also, the conference paper explicitly says that it is marginal. Therefore it does not have encyclopedic value. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
@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.
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)
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)
Shouldn't the Cyrillic Omega (ѡ) be used instead of the Greek one? It Is Me Here ( talk) 19:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The sentence "The orthography is also very special, using ъ and о on the one hand and ь and е on the other synonymously" could be made better. Rather than orthography, one should say spelling (orthography means 'correct spelling' or 'spelling norm'; and the pecularity in question is certainly more a question of pronunciation than of spelling norm). Rather than synonymously, the wiki contributor probably meant equivalently or indiscriminately. But even so that would probably not be correct: I am sure that the Novgorod writers would still use the (etymologically) "right" vowel letter more often than the "wrong" one. So one can speak on inconsistency in usage or something. Unfortunately I know not enough about the Novgorod texts to suggest a correction. Note also spellings such as солова (twice) for слова in the second example (no. 497), where the first о doesn't even stand for an expected ъ, but stands for zero. -- Zxly ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
GoreGrindGeek ( talk) 14:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Russchron, I saw that you've added a work by Savignac to the Soruces section. This section is supposed to contain the sources cited in the article and I don't see references to any of Savignac's articles. If in fact some information is referenced to these article, please add inline references. Alaexis ¿question? 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@ Lokys dar Vienas, I seen that you deleted native name of Novgorod dialect as "OR". I don't understand why you classified this as original research, while this gramota is described in scientific literature – this page used as reference contains two fragments of works which describe it. Wojsław Brożyna ( talk) 09:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
This conang does not have significant coverage. Also, the conference paper explicitly says that it is marginal. Therefore it does not have encyclopedic value. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)