112 Odessa edition - Alexander
source

1: slo větъgo aleѯa
2: kako oubi siona cra amoreiska i oga cra vъsanъskago i *vi* cri xanaskix cf. Num 21:33, Ps 135:11
3: bis grad věkъ źělo vъ anaѳoliskoi zemli na msě
skamanъdre River Skamandros/Xanthos (today Karamenderes).
4: imaše *mź* vratъ
5: isxoždaše izъ nego voiska *o* stěgovъ
6: i toi grad nazivaetъ se trda
7: běše vъ nei crъ vělikъ i strašenъ źělo
8: imě emu bě amorъ crъ
9: vъ edinu noštъ vide crъ sъnъ strašъnъ Adžar: í+ vь edinu nóštь vídě crь vь sně gdè ródi crca ego glávnu wgněnu
10: i ouboja se ot nego
11: vide gde rodi crca
glavъnoju ogъnъnoju Miklosich: glavьnja 'dalos, titio, drěvo ogorělo'; a sg.acc would be expected - the form of both words is an inst.
12: i zapali grad
tradъ 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: izъgore
otnudъ Miklosich: otъnǫdъ 'pántōs, omnino'
14: i vъ to vrěmě iměaše crca dete vъ outrobě
15: egda rodi ego bis ženъski polъ
16: egda bis otroče *ź* mcъ i vъstavi crъ otroče vъ stlъpě i tri ženi nemi da služitъ ei
17: i zaprěti vělъmi jako da ne čjue glas ni reči člvčie da tako vъzъrastetъ da ne viditъ kamo se xoštetъ obratiti
18: i tu bis vъ stlъpě *ei* lět ne čuvъši glas ni reči člvčii
19: egda běše vъ isxodъ slnca staneše na vъstokъ slnca obrazom
20: i prozorom gledajušti glaše ot vъsex ezikъ po reči edinoi
21: crъ amorъ čjuždaše se i vъsi boljare
22: poneže ne razuměxu čto gletъ
23: i sъbra crъ po člku ot vъsěx ezikъ
24: i privdě ix podъ stlъpъ ideže be otrokovica
25: i tako rče imъ
26: poslušaite
27: da čto čjuete i razumeete tako napišete
28: tako i zapisaše eže kto razume
29: egda ona prěsta glati snesoše vъsiʺ pisanie prěd cremъ
30: i obrětoše gde mlet se bu za oca svoego
31: gletъ
32: gi ne postavi emu grěxa
33: ludъ bo jes
34: i ne věs čto tvoritъ
35: bžie xotenie kto možetъ razumeriti
36: nъ eže jes sъnъ videlъ to sъtvoritъ bratъ moi eže jes vъ outrobě crci
37: i xoštetъ roditi se
38: egda rodi se bis otroče mužъsko
39: pověle crъ
40: i odnesoše ego vъ pustie gori
41: i povrъgoše ego
42: i obrete otroče mečъka iže be izъgubila štenъce svoe ot lovъca i bolěxuvaše mlěkomъ
43: i vъsъxranii otroče za *g* lětъ
44: dondeže źvěrъ lovъci oubiše
45: i otroče emъše i privědoše kъ cru
46: i pozna crъ jako tъ jes snъ ego
47: a eže bis dvca vъ stlъpe izvedoše ju
48: i narekoše ime ei magъdunu rekъše sirejanъski prěmudra
49: a sinou nareče aleѯanъdrъ elinъski obretenъ
50: dъšti ego bě vъsego světa i mudrei vъsex Adžar: dьšti ego bě lěpa i prěmudra źělô. páče vьsěx velíko
51: i spisa muža na koni
52: prixoždaxu ot 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: ona glaše
55: egda vidu muža na koni jazdešta jakože jes vъ pisani moemъ togo poimou azъ muža
56: i tako vъsex ne xotešte
57: vъ edinъ dnъ sedešti ei na polate vide člvka vъzъ more jazdešta *v*
pъprišta mesta A dual would be expected, likely replaced by the pl form already.
58: i rče kъ ocu svoemu amoru cru
59: gi toi budetъ mužъ moi
60: posli da prizovutъ ego
61: i posla crъ
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 crъ Bucharest: i vidě crь sarakyninę
64: i počjudi se
65: i vъprosi ego crъ
66: pověždъ mi brate ot kudu esi ili čto išteši
67: sarakinъ rče gr. sarakēnos < ar. šarqīyīn 'Eastern'
68: azъ esmъ sulъtanъ crъ vъse sarakini
69: i xrabrostъ moju nikto ne imatъ
70: ištu ženu vъsex lěpъša i mudreiša Adžar: i íštu žénu da+ poímu sébě lě´pu í mudru páče vьsěx velíko
71: poneže ju bě samъ videlъ vъ sně
72: da ašte znaete gde povědite mně
73: togda magdonu izvedoše emu
74: vide ju sulъtanъ 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 odvede ju vъ sarakiniju
78: аleѯandrъ raste vъ domu oca svoego
79: i bis ratnikъ krepъkъ i crъ vъsem elinomъ
80: beše bo lěpota emu vělia i krasota
81: i rče vlъxvom svoim
82: ašte mi obreštete ženu lěpъša i mudreiša vъsego světa azъ vamъ dobra sъtvoru
83: i obidoše vъsu zemlju vlъšъstvom
84: i obretoše ženu vъ
mirei ou siona cra Morea - Latin name of Peloponese.
85: ime ei bě giluda
86: i povědašeʺ aleѯanъdru cru
87: alexanъdrъ crъ rče
88: sъberete me jako vъ sně sъ neju da vimъ drug druga
89: vlъxvi vlъxovъstvomъ svoim sъbiraxu ix kata nošti 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 kъ večerou biti
92: jako vъ sně
sgovorasta se tako vъ dni 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: aleѯanъdrъ sъtvori se jako edinъ kupъcъ
94: i priide s korabmi vъ paleopolъ kъ sionu crou
noseštii imenia 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 siona cra
96: i sionъ crъ togo daruva
97: i
sъtvorista se *v* brata Again a broken dual (2dl.aor form used for a 3dl subject), as in Veles.
98: i giluda crca vъsegda sъ aleѯanъdromъ bešě vъ taine
99: egda xoteše aleѯanъdrъ siona cra gostiti ona tu sedeše sъ alѯanъdromъ
100: sionu crou mneše aleѯandrova žena jest The missing refl. pronoun makes the sentence unclear (Veles has Sionu se mněše)
101: i paki ona otxoždaše vъ dom 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 crъ sion giludje
103: o vělie čjudo
104: ou sego kupъca žena jest veliku tvoju priliku nositъ
105: giluda věliko gnevaše se
106: i glaše
107: čto měne tako prilagaeši
108: kto i da egda azъ tava esъmъ to i ti tomu priličen jesi Unclear; Veles: da ašte takova esmь
110: on paki aleѯanъdra zoveše na gosti
111: i ona paki tu bě
112: i tako tvoreše vъsegda za
*ź* mscъ Odessa: *g*
113: i ou togo i u togo obretaše 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 prěměnjaše se
115: tako i běža s neju aleѯanъdrъ 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: sionъ crъ osta vъ pěčalii i vъ poruganъni věliko In Veles, this sentence appears first after the account of an earthquake in Troas following the entrance of Giluda.
117: aleѯanъdrъ egda vъ věliki gradъ trda vъvdě gildu potrese se gradъ velъmi
118: i morъ crъ rče
119: vъ istinu sъvrъši se sъnъ moi eže videx prěžde
120: sion že crъ posla kъ bratu svoemu iogu
121: iogъ posla kъ šuremъ svoim vъ xaananъ i vъ xalъdeju i vъ městopotamie
122: městopotamiisti
crie i perъsidsti sъbraše *di* crie 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 aleѯanъdra cra i na grad věliki trda
124: i obisedoše gradъ
125: i ratovaše ego za *zi* lětъ
126: i ne imaše emu čto sъtvoriti ot množestva polěma voi
127: edinъ imenemъ palъmida běše sluga ioga cra
128: i prooume se zatriki igrati
129: togda palmida prooume tavliu igrati jako
da srъdce bolerě igrajušte The subordinate clause differs in Veles, but both variants make little sense.
130: i paki palъmida sъtvori konja medъna velia źělo
131: i vъleze vъ konja sion crъ i
*l* xraberъ dobrixъ A substantive seems to be omitted, cf. Veles: *l* voe dobri i xrabri
132: i medni konъ
maѳataskii 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: palъmida podkova konja
po kopetami The nature of Palmida's ruse gets lost in this edition. Cf. Veles: naopaku peldami
134: i odъbra 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 zadъ gradom
136: i togo konja ostaviše na okolišti
137: i izidoše ot
gradъ Again, sg.gen would be expected after an ot.
138: i naidoše konja na okolištii
139: i čjuždaxu se
140: i povedaše aleѯanъdru
141: aleѯanъdrъ rče
142: vъvědte konja vъ
grda A sg.acc is more expectable than a loc, but grad is inanimate.
143: vedešti konja vъ gradъ tradъ The participle makes no sense here, as the next sentence is separated by a conjunction.
144: i na vratex grdou izide sion crъ is konja i vъsi voi sъ nim
145: i prietъ gradъ trdou
146: i razъvali ego do konъca
147: aleѯanъdrъ crъ poetъ ženu svoju gildu
148: i vъběža kъ sulъtanu zetu svoemu vъ sarakiniju
149: da jako bist gnevъ bžii na siona cra
150: egda priide vъ dom svoi sъ voi svoimi ne obretoše ženi svoi vъ domověx svoix
151: poneže bexu bežali sъ
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 pusti
153: aleѯanъdrъ že poetъ sultana i vъsu silu sarakiinskie
154: i pobi vъsi cri xananъskie i mesopotamiskie i xaldeiskie
155: ide na oga cra
156: i oubi ego
157: i razori gradъ velikъ vъ vъsanъ
158: i tex
vъzexu zemli sъrakinii vъ dostojanie 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 siona cra vъ moureu
161: i smiri se aleѯanъdrъ sъ rabi sionъskimi eže bexu bežali sъ ženami detemi
162: sion crъ stojaše vъ oleosě
163: a sulъtanъ i rabi ix bъijaxu gospodini svoe
164: i ratuvaxu
165: poneže imъ imexu ženi i domovi ix
166: i tako ratovaše se za *v* msca
167: i oubiše siona cra i vъse voi ego
168: i osta sultan i sъ aleѯandromъ *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 aleѯandrъ koliko se zla sъtvoriše o ednoi žene
170: togda jerslmъ razoriše i druzex gradovъ inex *sl*
171: i vъse voi izъbiše
172: i gori opustiše i vъse xori
173: i *gi* cri svenъ pěrъskago cra
174: i tako aleѯanъdrъ crъ otseče glavu prokletoi gilude
175: i samъ skoči vъ more
176: oudavi se
177: bu našemu slva vъ věki