112 Odessa edition - Alexander
source

1:	Slo vět'go aleѯa.
2:	kako oubi sïwna cra amoreiska. i wga cra vъsan'skago. i *vı* cri xanaskix.	cf. Num 21:33, Ps 135:11
3:	Bys grad věkь. źělo. vь anaѳolískoi zemli na msě
	skaman'dre.	River Skamandros/Xanthos (today Karamenderes).
4:	imaše *mź* vrat'.
5:	isxoždaše iz' nego voiska *o* stěgovь.
6:	i toi grad nazyvaet' se trda.
7:	běše vъ nei crь vělik' i strašenь źělo
8:	imě emu bě amorь crь.
9:	vъ edínu nóštь vide crь sьnь straš'nь	Adžar: í+ vь edinu nóštь vídě crь vь sně gdè ródi crca ego glávnu wgněnu
10:	i ouboja se wt negó.
11:	vide gde rodi crca
	glav'noju wgьn'noju	Miklosich: glavьnja 'dalos, titio, drěvo ogorělo'; a sg.acc would be expected - the form of both words is an inst.
12:	i zapaly grad
	trad'	The name of the city seems to oscillate between f.sg Troada and m.sg Tradь, which is possibly due to shortening of the name.
13:	iz'gore
	wtnud'.	Miklosich: otъnǫdъ 'pántōs, omnino'
14:	i vъ to vrěmě iměaše crca dete vъ outrobě.
15:	egda rodi ego bys žen'sky pol'.
16:	egda bys wtroče *ź* mcь. i vъstavy crь wtroče vъ stlьpě. i tri ženy nemi da služitь ei.
17:	i zaprěti věl'mi jako da ne čjue glas nï reči člvčïe. da táko vъz'rastetь. da ne viditъ kamo se xoštetь wbratyti.
18:	i tu bys vь stlьpě *eı* lět ne čuv'ši glas ny réči člvčïi.
19:	egda běše vъ isxod' slnca stáneše na vъstokъ slnca wbrazwm.
20:	i prozwrwm gledajušti glaše. wt vъsex ezykъ po reči edinoi.
21:	crь amórь čjuždaš(e) se i vъsi boljare
22:	poneže ne razuměxu čto gletь.
23:	i sьbra crь po člku wt vьsěx ezíkь
24:	i privdě ix pod' stlьpь ideže be wtrokóvica.
25:	i tako rče im'
26:	poslušaite
27:	da čto čjuete i razumeete tako napišete
28:	tako i zapisaše eže kto razume
29:	egda wna prěsta glati. snesoše vъsyʺ pisanïe prěd cremь.
30:	i wbrětóše gde. mlet se bu za wca svoego
31:	gletь.
32:	gi ne póstavi emu grěxa.
33:	ludь bo jes
34:	i ne věs čto tvoritь.
35:	bžïe xotenie kto možetь razumeriti.
36:	nъ eže jes sьnь videl' to sьtvóritь bratь moı eže jes vъ outrobě crcy
37:	i xoštetь roditi se.
38:	egda rodi se bys wtroče mužьskw.
39:	pověle crь
40:	i wdnesoše ego vъ pustïe gory
41:	i povrъgoše ego.
42:	i wbrete wtroče meč'ka iže be izьgúbila šten'ce svoe wt lov'ca i bolěxuvaše mlěkomь.
43:	i vъs'xranıi wtroče za *g* lět'
44:	dondeže źvěrь lov'ci oubiše
45:	i wtroče em'še i privědoše kь cru
46:	i pozna crь jako tь" jes snь ego
47:	a eže bys dvca vъ s(t)lьpe izvedoše ju
48:	i narekoše ime ei Magьdunu. rek'še sirejan'ski prěmudra.
49:	a sinou nareče aleѯan'drь. elin'sky obretenь.
50:	dьšti ego bě vъsego světa- i mudrei vъsex.	Adžar: dьšti ego bě lěpa i prěmudra źělô. páče vьsěx velíko
51:	i spisa muža na kony
52:	prixoždaxu wt inex
	cri	Sentence is unclear due to the unclear subject: maybe *ljudie/pisania ot iněx carei 'people/messages from other kings'? The shortened cri could stand for both pl.nom and gen (and also acc, inst...). Adžar has a corrupted pl.gen-loc phrase here (wt inix crex').
53:	prosexo ju	< *prosexu ?
	ženi sebě	The use of sg.gen (< *ženy) is regular (cf. Lunt 2001:145). Adžar has sg.acc (xotěxu ju poeti sebě crcu) due to a different verb.
54:	wna glaše
55:	egda vidu muža na koni jazdešta. jakože jes vъ pisani moemь togo poimou azь muža.
56:	i tako vъsex ne xotešte.
57:	vъ edinь dnь sedešti ei na polate vide člvka vъz' more jazdešta *v*
	pьprišta mesta	A dual would be expected, likely replaced by the pl form already.
58:	i rče kь wcu svoemu amoru cru
59:	gi toi budetь mužь moi
60:	posly da prizovutь ego
61:	i posla crь
62:	i
	prizvaše ego	A 3sg form would be more fitting into the context, but not in an imperfect.
63:	i	Adžar: i vědě crь sarakina
	vъnide crь	Bucharest: i vidě crь sarakyninę
64:	i počjudi se
65:	i vъprosi ego crь
66:	pověždь mi brate wt kudu esi ili čto išteši
67:	sarakinь rče.	gr. sarakēnos < ar. šarqīyīn 'Eastern'
68:	azь esmь sul'tanь crь vъse sarakïni
69:	i xrábrostь moju nikto ne imatь
70:	ištu ženu vъsex lěp'ša i mudreiša	Adžar: i íštu žénu da+ poímu sébě lě´pu í mudru páče vьsěx velíko
71:	poneže ju bě samь videlь vъ sně
72:	da ašte znaete gde povědite mně
73:	togda magdonu izvedoše emu.
74:	vide ju sul'tanь i pozna ju.
76:	i
	poemše	The first translation was likely trying to build complex sentences with participles, which were then misinterpreted as imperfect forms.
77:	i wdvede ju vь sarakinïju
78:	аleѯandrь raste vъ domu wca svoego.
79:	i bys ratnikь krep'kь i crь vъsem elinomь
80:	beše bo lěpota emu vělïa i krasotá.
81:	i rče vlьxvom svoim:
82:	ašte mi wbreštete ženu lěp'ša i mudreiša vъsego světa azь vamь dobra sьtvoru
83:	i wbidoše vъsu zemlju vlьšьstvwm.
84:	i wbretoše ženu vь
	mirei ou sïwna cra	Morea - Latin name of Peloponese.
85:	ime ei bě gïluda
86:	i povědašeʺ aleѯan'dru cru.
87:	alexan'drь crь rče
88:	sьberete me jako vъ sně sь neju da vimь drug druga.
89:	vlьxvi vlьxovьstvomь svoim sьbiraxu ix. kata nošty za *v*
	lět	After a '2' one would expect a dual. The pl.gen could reflect the loss of its distinctive form in BG/MK, but also a possible interference of a Greek original (the kata in the sentence makes the latter plausible too). An expectable CS form lětě is found only in the Petersburg ed.
90:	i toliko ljublexu se
91:	eliko želěxu kь večerou byt(i)
92:	jako vь sně
	sgovorasta se tako vъ dny	Another trace of dual loss - CS pl.aor: 1. -xově, 2. -sta, 3. -ste (Lunt 2001:102). 3dl.aor -sta (also attested in Kiev d.) likely reflects an analogical levelling preceding the loss of distinctive dual. Veles has 3pl.impf zgovoraxu.
	tvoraxu	And after a broken dual, a plural form is used for the same subject.
93:	aleѯan'drь sъtvori se jako edinь kup'cь.
94:	i prïide s korabmi vъ palewpolь kъ sïwnu crou
	noseštïi imenïa. mnoga.	The f.sg form is not congruent with Alexander, but it reflects dialectal development in MK, where this form is used as a gerund (today we would have something like *noseiḱi). Other versions have n.sg form nosešte, which seems to have acted as a gerund in some OCS sources (cf. Lunt 2001:159).
95:	i daruva sıwna cra.
96:	i sïwnь crь togo daruva.
97:	i
	sъtvorista se *v* br(a)ta	Again a broken dual (2dl.aor form used for a 3dl subject), as in Veles.
98:	i giluda crca. vъsegda sь aleѯan'dromь bešě vъ taine.
99:	egda xoteše aleѯan'drь sïwna cra gostity. wna tu sedeše sь alѯan'dromъ.
100:	sıwnu crou. mneše aleѯandrova žena jes(t).	The missing refl. pronoun makes the sentence unclear (Veles has Sionu se mněše)
101:	i paky wna wtxoždaše vь dwm svoi.	The following two sentences sound weirdly, likely because of missing (or wrongly translated) subordination markers. Cf. Veles: da egda wtxoždaše si vь domь svoi, glaše kь crci
102:	glaše crь sïwn giludje:
103:	w vělïe čjud(o)
104:	ou sego kup'ca žena jes(t) velïku tvoju priliku nosïtь.
105:	giluda vělyko gnevaš(e) se
106:	i glaše.
107:	čto měne tako prilagaeši.
108:	kto i da egda azь tava es'mь. to i ty tomu priličen jesi.	Unclear; Veles: da ašte takova esmь
110:	wn paki aleѯan'dra zoveše na gosty.
111:	i wna paky tu bě
112:	i tako tvoreše vъsegda za
	*ź* mscь.	Odessa: *g*
113:	i ou togo i u togo wbretaš(e) se.	Unclear, likely some specific phrase trying to explain how Alexander changed his identity. No clearer in Veles (kogda u tog).
114:	i vъ ina ruxa prěměnjaš(e) se.
115:	tako i běža s neju aleѯan'drь.	Actually not written how! The story of how he wooed her into a ship, known from Veles (and Adžar) ed. is missing also in Bucharest, Petersburg and Sofia texts.
116:	sıwnь crъ wsta vъ pěčalïi i vъ porugan'ny vělïko.	In Veles, this sentence appears first after the account of an earthquake in Troas following the entrance of Giluda.
117:	aleѯan'drь egda vъ vělïki grad' trda vьvdě gildu potrese se grad' vel'mi
118:	i morь crь rče
119:	vъ istinu sьvrьši se sьnь moi eže videx prěžde.
120:	sïwn že crь posla kь bratu svoemu iwgu.
121:	iwgь posla kь šuremь svoim vь xaananь. i vъ xal'deju i vъ měs(t)opotamïe.
122:	měs(t)opotamïisty
	crïe i per'sidsti sьbraš(e) *dı* crıe.	This is the only sentence in Odessa ed., where crie (formally a C-stem pl.nom or jo-stem pl.acc) is used instead of cri (formally a jo-stem pl.nom or newer C-stem pl.acc) - for both pl.nom and acc. Veles has in the same sentence both forms, but functionally in unexpected positions: crie for subject, cry (< cěsari) for object. However, the narrative implies the subject and object of the sentence is the same, so the text was likely enough confusing for the editor.
123:	i priidoše na aleѯan'dra cra i na grad vělïky trda.
124:	i wbisedoše grad'
125:	i ratovaše ego za *zı* lět'
126:	i ne imaše emu. čto sъtvoriti wt množestva polěma (voi).
127:	edinь imenemь pal'mida běše sluga iwga cra.
128:	i prooume se zatrïky igrati.
129:	togda palmida prooume tavliu igrati jako
	da srьdce bolerě igrajušte.	The subordinate clause differs in Veles, but both variants make little sense.
130:	i paky pal'mida sьtvori konja med'na velïa źělo.
131:	i vъleze. vъ konja sïwn crь i
	*l* xraberь dobrixь.	A substantive seems to be omitted, cf. Veles: *l* voe dobri i xrabri
132:	i medni konь
	maѳataskïi xoždaše.	The adverb (Veles: imatnski, Odessa: maѳataskïi, Bucharest: matatokyi, Petersburg: matatatokyi, Sofia: matski, Adžar: matan'ski) was likely, like polema, simply left untranslated, perplexing scholars since the discovery of the Tale. Syrku (1884:86) translates it as equus hic automatus movebatur 'the horse moved automatically', constructing the Greek source as metatopizomenos, lit. 'changing place'. Mazon (1942:38) reconstructs the original word as metakınētós or metáѳetos 'déplaçable'.
133:	pal'mida pwdkova konja
	po kopetami.	The nature of Palmida's ruse gets lost in this edition. Cf. Veles: naopaku peldami
134:	i wd'bra dobrix
	voi *t*	A pl.gen would be expected - form voi seems generalized for all plural cases in Odessa, while Veles prefers voe.
135:	i skri ix vъ nošti zad' gradwm.
136:	i togo konja wstaviše na wkolïšti.
137:	i izidoše wt
	grad'	Again, sg.gen would be expected after an ot.
138:	i naidoše konja na wkolïštïi.
139:	i čjuždaxu se
140:	i povedaše aleѯan'dru.
141:	aleѯan'drь rče
142:	vъvědte konja vъ
	grda.	A sg.acc is more expectable than a loc, but grad is inanimate.
143:	vedešti konja vъ grad'. trad'	The participle makes no sense here, as the next sentence is separated by a conjunction.
144:	i na vratex grdou izyde sıwn crь is konja i vьsi voi sь nim.
145:	i prietь grad' trdou
146:	i raz'valï ego do kon'ca.
147:	aleѯan'drь crь poetь ženu svoju gildu
148:	i vъběža kъ sul'tanu zetu svoemu vъ sarakïnïju.
149:	da jako bys(t) gnevь bžïi na sıwna cra.
150:	egda priide vъ dwm svoi sь voi svoimi ne wbretoše ženi svoi vъ domověx svoix.
151:	poneže bexu bežalï sь
	rabi svoimi.	The pl.inst form differs in Veles and Odessa versions. Veles prefers -mi, which goes back to OCS u-stem ending -ъmi, while Odessa prefers -i (although it also has e.g. korabmi). This would be a regular reflex of OCS o/jo-stem ending -y, but it also may reflect a generalized pl.nom ending.
152:	vъsi voi obretoše domovi svoi pusty.
153:	aleѯan'drь že poetь sultana i vъsu silu sarakïinskye.
154:	i poby v'si cri xanan'skïe. i mesopotamiskïe i xaldeiskïe.
155:	ide na wga cra
156:	i oubi ego
157:	i razory grad' velikь vъ vьsanь.
158:	i tex
	vъzexu zemli sьrakinïi vь dostojanïe.	Here, the use of 3pl.impf on a perfective verb does not have an iterative sense like usually in CS, but rather shows the generalization of the ending for aorist tense - as commonly attested by damaskini. Veles has a 3sg.aor vъzet.
159:	i vъse egda prěbivae tako.	Another clause, which was likely subordinated in original, losing some sense due to additional conjunctions.
160:	i priidoše na sıwna cra vъ moureu
161:	i smïri se aleѯan'drь sь rabi sïwn'skimi. eže bexu bežali sь ženami detemi.
162:	sïwn crь stojaše vъ wlewsě.
163:	a sul'tan' i rabi ix bъıjaxu gospodini svoe
164:	i ratuvaxu.
165:	poneže imь imexu ženy i domovi ix.
166:	i tako ratovaš(e) se za *v* msca.
167:	i oubiše sıwna cra i vъse voi ego.
168:	i wsta sultan i sь aleѯandromь *r*
	ljudi.	Formally a pl.acc, but possibly due to homography caused by unclear rendering of sequence -ij (after a number expectable pl.gen would be *ljudii).
169:	i vide aleѯandrь kolïko se zla sьtvoriše w ednoı žene.
170:	togda jerslmь razoriše. i druzex gradovь inex *sl*
171:	i vьse voi iz'byše
172:	i gori wpustyše. i vъse xori.
173:	i *gi* cri svenь pěr'skago cra.
174:	i tako aleѯan'drь crь wtseče glavu prokletoi gilude.
175:	i samь skoči vъ more
176:	oudavi se.
177:	bu našemu slva vь věky