116 Sofia edition - Alexander
source

1:	Slwvo. stgo aleѯandra.
2:	kako oubi sïwnaa cra. amoreiska. ï wgà cra i *vï* crei. xannawnskixь,	cf. Num 21:33, Ps 135:11
3:	Bys grad velei zě´lò vь antïwxïiskoi zemli, na městě`.	Odessa: anaѳoliskoi
	skamandrě`	River Skamandros/Xanthos (today Karamenderes).
4:	imaše. *mź* vrat
5:	isxodeše iz nego *o* stegov
6:	i tьi grad wzyvaše s(e) trda
7:	beše vь nem crь velèi i stràšnь zě´lò.
11:	vidě` rodi crïcà
	glàvnju wgnь`nou	Miklosich: glavьnja 'dalos, titio, drěvo ogorělo'; a sg.acc would be expected - the form of both words is an inst.
12:	i zapali grad trádou.
13:	izgorě`
	wtnudь.	Miklosich: otъnǫdъ 'pántōs, omnino'
14:	i vь tò vrě´me- imaše crca dete vь outrobě`.
15:	egda rodi crïca
	i bis žensky polь,	Redundant cc
16:	egda bys *ź* mscь vьstavi crь, vь
	stlьp wtroče. i *g* ženi da služetь wtročeti.	Odessa: stlьpě
17:	i zaprěti velmi, jako da ne čjuet glas ni rě´či člvče, da tako vьzraste, da vditь kako se xoštet wbratit(i),
18:	i tou bys vь stlьpě do *eï* lět ne čuv'ši glas ni rě´či člvče,
19:	egda
	budeši vь isxod slnca. stàně´še na isxod slnca wbrazomь`.	Adžar: boúděše, Odessa: běše
20:	i prozorwm gledajuštii na vьstokь. i glaše wt vьsěx ezikь, po rěči edinoi.
21:	crь
	iamórь čjuždaše s(e)	Unclear, whether it should be read as iamorь or crь+ i+ amorь. The first would be logical from the point of narrative, even if uncommon in the text tradition. Given the forms like bolari (and below even jaleѯandri), it is likely that /ja/ and /a/ were not clearly distinguished in the editor's vernacular. The name of the Tale's "Priam", the king of Troas, has been much discussed. Močuľskij (1893:375) considered it an influence of the Legend of Diogenēs Akritēs, where a "King Amir" (Amēras) plays a central role. Mazon (1942:17-20) mentions more possible explanations: e.g. Homer himself, or, following the preferrence for biblical names, Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of Shechem in Canaan (Gen 33:19). He could be also the "king of Amorites" (Amorrhaios in Gen 10:16, tr. in some CS texts as amorěiskii carь, according to Mazon).
22:	i vьsi bolari čjuždaxou se,
23:	ponže ne razoumějaxù čtò glet,
24:	crь iamorь sьzva wt vsěx ezykь. po člku
25:	i privdě ix pod stlьp iděže jes wtrokovicà.
26:	i tako rče imь
27:	posloúšaïte.
28:	da što
	tko razumě`et, tako i zapišet.	SC?
29:	tako što
	tko razoúme tako i zapísa.	SC?
30:	egda wna prě´stà glati, snésoše vьsi pisanïe prěd cra.
31:	i sь`stàvše i wbrě´toše, gdè.
	molite s(e) bou za wca svoego	Adžar: mlit, Odessa: mlet
32:	i glet
33:	gi ne postavi emoú grě´xa.
34:	loud bo jes
35:	i ne věs čto tvoritь,
36:	bžïe xotěnie, kto možetь
	razoriti,	Odessa: razuměriti
37:	nou eže jes
	sně vidělь to sьtvoritь` bràtь` moi. eže vь outrobě estь crici.	Prepositionless locative?
38:	i xoštet se roditi.
39:	egda rodi se i bys wtroče, mužьsky polь,
40:	pově´lě´ crь
41:	i wtnesoše vь
	poustouju gorou	Why a long form? Odessa: pustïe gory
42:	i povrь`goše
43:	i wbrě´te wtročè mečkà. eže bě izьgoúbila. štencè svoe wt lovьcь. i boledovaše mlěkwm,
44:	i vьsxráni wtroče za *g* lět
45:	dondežè zvěrь lovci oubiše,
46:	i wtròče privedoše kь crou.
47:	i poznà crь jako toi jes snь jeg,
48:	a ježe bys dvca vь
	stlьpou izvedoše ju	SC? Originally an o-stem, other editions also have stlьpě, in OCS we have sg.gen stlъpa Adžar/Odessa: stlь´pě
49:	i narče ime eì. magdona rekše sïrïanьski, prěmoudra.
50:	a
	snoú si narče ime aleѯandrarь´. elïnь´sky wbrěten,	A u-stem should have -ovi thus in Odessa too, Adžar has emu
51:	dьšti ego bě´še lepa vьsego svě`tà, i	Adžar: dьšti ego bě lěpa i prěmudra źělô. páče vьsěx velíko
	moúdrěja vь`sěx	OCS-kosher would be *mǫdrěiši Adžar: prěmudra, Odessa: mudrei
52:	i spìsa na xartïi, muža na
	ikoně,	Adžar: na koni, Odessa: na kony (sic)
53:	prixodexù wt inix
	crь,	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').
	prositi jei	Possibly a misunderstood supine? Adžar: xotexu ju poeti, Odessa: prosexo
	ženou sě´bě`.	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:	wnà glaše.
55:	egda viždou
	mouž na kony sědštà jako jes vь pisanïi moemь` tgw poimou azь muža.	Odessa: muža
56:	i tako vьsex ne xotěše
57:	vь jedin. sědšti na polatě vìdě člka vьz morě´. jazdě´šta *v*
	pьprište mestá.	A dual would be expected, likely replaced by the pl form already. Possibly misinterpreted as preposition?
58:	i rče kь wcoù svoemu iamoru- cru
59:	gi, toi boúdet moi mouž,
60:	posli da prizovet ego,
61:	i vidě crь	Adžar: i vědě crь sarakina, Bucharest: i vidě crь sarakyninę
	sarakininà	gr. sarakēnos < ar. šarqīyīn 'Eastern'
62:	i počjud se velmi.
65:	i vьprosï jego crь,
66:	bràte kamo ideši
67:	čto li išteši
68:	sarakininь rče,
69:	azь jesmь crь súltanь, vьsě´i sarakïnii
70:	i xrábrostь` mojú, nikto ne imat.
71:	ištoú ženoú da poimou lepšou vьsego svě´ta i moúdrěšoú,	Adžar: i íštu žénu da+ poímu sébě lě´pu í mudru páče vьsěx velíko
72:	ponže samь´ vidělь´, vь sně`
73:	da ašte gdě znate povědite mi,
74:	togda magdonou izvedoše kь nemoú.
75:	vdě ju súltanь
76:	i pozna jù.
77:	i poemь´ ju wtvde ju vь sarakinïju
78:	аleѯandarь rastè vь	SC?
	domù wca svoego.	The old u-stem ending is in all versions.
79:	i bys ratnikь krěpьkь, i crь vьsěmь elinwm.
80:	beše bo lěpota ego velïa zě´ló.
81:	i rče vlь´xvwm svoim.
82:	ašte mi wbrě´štete ženou. lěpšou i moúdrě´išou vsego svě´ta. azь vamь velìkà dobrà, sьtvoru
83:	vlьxvy wbidoše vьsou zemlju vlьxwvstvom.
84:	i wbrětoše ženoú. vь
	amorě`i oú sïwná cra.	Morea - Latin name of Peloponese. Sofia ed. seems to stick to a "Canaanite" interpretation: Amorea - land of Amorites.
85:	ime ei bě´še igïluda.
86:	i povědaše aleѯandrù crù.
87:	alexandrь` rče imь.
88:	sьberete me jako vь sně` sь neju. da vdimь drug drúga,
89:	vlьxvi. vlь´xwvstvomь sьbiraxoú ix. kata nošti za *v*
	ltě	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 ljuběxú se,
91:	eliko vь
	dne žedàxou, včerou biti,	Formally, a sg.gen for an OCS i-stem - next sentence has vь dni. Adžar: dnju
92:	jako vь sně`
	zgovarasta se, tako i vь 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.
	tvorxou.	And after a broken dual, a plural form is used for the same subject.
93:	aleѯandrь´ crь sьtvori se jako edin koupь´cь-
94:	i prïide sь korábom vь palewpь, kь sïwnou crou
	noseštï iménïa mngo.	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 darova cra sïwn.
96:	i sïwnь crь tgw darova.
97:	i
	sьtvorista se brta. jegïlouda crïcà vьsegda sь leѯandromь bě´ vь taině`.	Again a broken dual (2dl.aor form used for a 3dl subject), as in Veles.
99:	egda xoštaše sïwn cra gostìti.
	wn tou sděše prï jaleѯandrì.	Sofia ed. seems to confuse Alexander and Giluda in this passage, thus making it seem, as if the affair was actually between Alexander and Sion. The pronoun is shortened, with the n written over the ot.
100:	sïwn crь´ mně´še egòva žena es	The missing refl. pronoun makes the sentence unclear (Veles has Sionu se mněše)
	paky wtxoždaše. vь domь 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 crïca
103:	w velïe čjud
104:	ou seg. kupcà
	jes	Odessa: žena jes(t)
105:	velïju prilikou tvoju nosit.
106:	togda igïlúda gnevaš(e) se.	Here, the passage ceases to make sense, unless the Queen and Giluda were two persons.
107:	i glaše.
108:	čto mne tako prilgaeši kь toi. da egda azь takova jesmь i ti tomoú priličnь esi.
110:	wn paky alendrà zově´še na gosti.
111:	i wn tou	Odessa: i ona paky tu bě
112:	i tako tvoreše za
	*ź* mscь.	Odessa: *g*
113:	egda ou tgw wbrě´taš(e) se. wnà vь ina rúxa prěměnjaš(e) se.	The passage is unclear in all included editions. Likely some specific phrase trying to explain how Alexander (actually, here it looks like it was Gulida) changed his identity. No clearer in Veles (kogda u tog).
114:	tako iže bě sь neju.	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.
115:	sïwn crь wstà vь pěčali. i vь porougani velicě`.	In Veles, this sentence appears first after the account of an earthquake in Troas following the entrance of Giluda.
116:	aleѯandrdь egda vьvde igïldou vь tradou- grad potrěse sě grdь velmi.
117:	iamorь` rče crь.
118:	vь istinoú. sьvrь`ši se sьn moi. eže viděx prěžde
119:	i sïwn crь posla kь bratoú svoemou ïjugou.
120:	ïougь posla kь
	šoúramь svoim. vь xanawn i vь xaldeju	Odessa: šuremь
121:	i mesopotamiscïi. crïe i perscïi crïe sьbraše s(e) crïe *dı*
122:	i pridoše na aleѯandra. na grad velikïi tradou.
123:	i wbьsědoše grad
124:	i byše za *zı* lět
125:	i ne imaše što emou sьtvoriti. wt mnòžьstva po golema.
126:	ednь mouž palmida.	Odessa: edinь imenem palmida běše sluga ioga cra
127:	proume zatrьki igrati.
128:	palmida beše slúgá. ïjugà cra.	This sentence is placed before the previous one in other editions.
129:	egda
	oudaše s(e) vьsi bolari zatrьky, igrati togda paky palmida proume tavlïju igrati, jako	Miklosich: oudati 'tradere, dare'
	da srьdet se igrajušte,	The subordinate clause differs in Veles, but both variants make little sense.
130:	togda sьtvori palmida, mednà konjà med'na vělikag
131:	i vьleze. vь kona sïwn crь. i sь nim
	*l* xrabrь	A substantive seems to be omitted, cf. Veles: *l* voe dobri i xrabri
132:	i medni konь
	matski xodeše	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:	palmida, pokova
	konju	Adžar: kone, Odessa: konja
	petami nawpako,	The nature of Palmida's ruse gets lost in this edition. Cf. Veles: naopaku peldami
134:	sьtvori
	*t* voevь dobryx	An allusion to Thermopylae?
135:	i vь nošti wbidoše za grad
136:	i sьkriše s(e).	Details of movements of Palmida's army are not in Odessa ed.
137:	na (ou)trïe vьsa voiská vьzdviže s(e).
138:	i pade na dalče wt
	grad	Thus in all versions. The writing is graphically the same as directional vь grad below.
139:	i tgw konà wstaviše tou na wkolišti.
140:	izidoše izь
	grad	Again, sg.gen would be expected after an ot.
141:	i wbrě´toše kona na wkolïštïi.
142:	i čjuždaxu se.
	povědaju aleѯandrú.	The morphological form is unclear, mostly resembles a 1sg.prs
144:	aleѯandarь` rče
145:	vьvdete. konà vь grad
146:	i na vratex gradou, izide sïwn crь is kona i vьsi voïe sь nimь,
147:	i priet vrat gradu
148:	donděž prïide. i palmidь´ sь svoimi.
	eže imaše sьkrьvenix.	< *ęže ?
149:	takožde vьsa voiska vьzvràti se.
150:	i prïetь grad tradou,
151:	i razorï
	e do koncà.	Odessa: ego
152:	aleѯandàrь` crь poet ženoú svoju igïlïdú
153:	i oubeže kь soultanou zetou svoemu,
154:	da jako bys gnevь bžïi, na
	sïwně´ cri	Adžar: na siona cra
155:	egda priide sь voi svoimi vь dwm svoi, ne wbrětoše
	nь` vь dmwvěxь svix.	Odessa: ženi
156:	poneže
	bě´žále běxou sь	Odessa: bežalï
	rábi svoimì.	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.
157:	i vьsi voè domòve
	poustè wbretošè	SC?
158:	aleѯandra vьzdviže. soultana i vьsou sarakinïju
159:	i pobi cre
	xanawnske, i xaldě´iske. i mesopotámiske.	Adžar and Odessa have -ie, formally closer to the regular CS hard-stem m.pl.acc (< *-yę), but -e is still productive in SC.
160:	ide na jugá. crà
161:	i pobiet
162:	i razory grad veliky. vasnь
163:	i těx zemljù.
	vьzexou sarakïni. vь dwsanïe.	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.
164:	i vьsegda prě`bivaxou tako.
165:	i priidoše pakì. na sïwna cra vь
	amòreju.	Odessa: moureu. Adžar has vь amorei.
166:	i smiriše s(e) aleѯandrь`. sь rabi
	sïwnskïix eže bě´xoú sь ženami těx bě´žali.	A rare case discord with an instrumental of the noun (Adžar/Odessa: sionskimi).
167:	i sïwn crь stojaše vь palepwli.
168:	aleksendrь` stojàšè vь alewse.
169:	i soultànь` i rábi ixь` bijáxoú
	gospodú svoju.	A plurale tantum gospoda ? Adžar: gsnьmi, Odessa: gospodini
170:	i ratoujaxou
171:	ponež imь ženi domovi imaxou
172:	i toliko.
	teške rati bě´xú togda.	SC?
173:	eliko vь edinoi ndeli. tysoušta mrь`tьvьcь bě´še	Not in Odessa. We find a similar passage in Veles and Adžar ed., where the war is longer and more intense from the aspect of casualties: tisuštь mrьtvi givaxu za *i* mca na dnь 'a thousand of dead falling for 8 months each day'
174:	tako rati.
175:	tako ratovaxou se za *v* msca.
176:	i oubiše.
	sïwn cra. i vse voe go.	Odessa: siwna
177:	i wsta sь súltanwm i aleksandrom *r* ljud
178:	vidě` aleksándrь kolika zlà sьtvorixou se w ednoi žne