116 Sofia edition - Alexander
source

1: slovo stgo aleѯandra
2: kako oubi sionaa cra amoreiska i oga cra i *vi* crei xannaonskixъ cf. Num 21:33, Ps 135:11
3: bis grad velei zělo vъ antioxiiskoi zemli na městě Odessa: anaѳoliskoi
skamandrě River Skamandros/Xanthos (today Karamenderes).
4: imaše *mź* vrat
5: isxodeše iz nego *o* stegov
6: i tъi grad ozivaše se trda
7: beše vъ nem crъ velei i strašnъ zělo
11: vidě rodi crica
glavnju ognъnou Miklosich: glavьnja 'dalos, titio, drěvo ogorělo'; a sg.acc would be expected - the form of both words is an inst.
12: i zapali grad tradou
13: izgorě
otnudъ Miklosich: otъnǫdъ 'pántōs, omnino'
14: i vъ to vrěme imaše crca dete vъ outrobě
15: egda rodi crica
i bis ženski polъ Redundant cc
16: egda bis *ź* mscъ vъstavi crъ vъ
stlъp otroče i *g* ženi da služetъ otročeti Odessa: stlьpě
17: i zaprěti velmi jako da ne čjuet glas ni rěči člvče da tako vъzraste da vditъ kako se xoštet obratiti
18: i tou bis vъ stlъpě do *ei* lět ne čuvъši glas ni rěči člvče
19: egda
budeši vъ isxod slnca staněše na isxod slnca obrazomъ Adžar: boúděše, Odessa: běše
20: i prozorom gledajuštii na vъstokъ i glaše ot vъsěx ezikъ po rěči edinoi
21: crъ
iamorъ čjuždaše se 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 vъsi bolari čjuždaxou se
23: ponže ne razoumějaxu čto glet
24: crъ iamorъ sъzva ot vsěx ezikъ po člku
25: i privdě ix pod stlъp iděže jes otrokovica
26: i tako rče imъ
27: posloušaite
28: da što
tko razuměet tako i zapišet SC?
29: tako što
tko razoume tako i zapisa SC?
30: egda ona prěsta glati snesoše vъsi pisanie prěd cra
31: i sъstavše i obrětoše gde
molite se bou za oca svoego Adžar: mlit, Odessa: mlet
32: i glet
33: gi ne postavi emou grěxa
34: loud bo jes
35: i ne věs čto tvoritъ
36: bžie xotěnie kto možetъ
razoriti Odessa: razuměriti
37: nou eže jes
sně vidělъ to sъtvoritъ bratъ moi eže vъ outrobě estъ crici Prepositionless locative?
38: i xoštet se roditi
39: egda rodi se i bis otroče mužъski polъ
40: povělě crъ
41: i otnesoše vъ
poustouju gorou Why a long form?
Odessa: pustïe gory
42: i povrъgoše
43: i obrěte otroče mečka eže bě izъgoubila štence svoe ot lovъcъ i boledovaše mlěkom
44: i vъsxrani otroče za *g* lět
45: dondeže zvěrъ lovci oubiše
46: i otroče privedoše kъ crou
47: i pozna crъ jako toi jes snъ jeg
48: a ježe bis dvca vъ
stlъpou 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 ei magdona rekše sirianъski prěmoudra
50: a
snou si narče ime aleѯandrarъ elinъski obrěten A u-stem should have -ovi
thus in Odessa too, Adžar has emu
51: dъšti ego běše lepa vъsego světa i Adžar: dьšti ego bě lěpa i prěmudra źělô. páče vьsěx velíko
moudrěja vъsěx OCS-kosher would be *mǫdrěiši
Adžar: prěmudra, Odessa: mudrei
52: i spisa na xartii muža na
ikoně Adžar: na koni, Odessa: na kony (sic)
53: prixodexu ot inix
crъ 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 sěbě 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 viždu
muž na koni sědšta jako jes vъ pisanii moemъ tgo poimou azъ muža Odessa: muža
56: i tako vъsex ne xotěše
57: vъ jedin sědšti na polatě vidě člka vъz morě jazděšta *v*
pъprište mesta A dual would be expected, likely replaced by the pl form already. Possibly misinterpreted as preposition?
58: i rče kъ ocou svoemu iamoru cru
59: gi toi boudet moi mouž
60: posli da prizovet ego
61: i vidě crъ Adžar: i vědě crь sarakina, Bucharest: i vidě crь sarakyninę
sarakinina gr. sarakēnos < ar. šarqīyīn 'Eastern'
62: i počjud se velmi
65: i vъprosi jego crъ
66: brate kamo ideši
67: čto li išteši
68: sarakininъ rče
69: azъ jesmъ crъ sultanъ vъsěi sarakinii
70: i xrabrostъ moju nikto ne imat
71: ištou ženou da poimou lepšou vъsego světa i moudrěšou Adžar: i íštu žénu da+ poímu sébě lě´pu í mudru páče vьsěx velíko
72: ponže samъ vidělъ vъ sně
73: da ašte gdě znate povědite mi
74: togda magdonou izvedoše kъ nemou
75: vdě ju sultanъ
76: i pozna ju
77: i poemъ ju otvde ju vъ sarakiniju
78: аleѯandarъ raste vъ SC?
domu oca svoego The old u-stem ending is in all versions.
79: i bis ratnikъ krěpъkъ i crъ vъsěmъ elinom
80: beše bo lěpota ego velia zělo
81: i rče vlъxvom svoim
82: ašte mi obrěštete ženou lěpšou i moudrěišou vsego světa azъ vamъ velika dobra sъtvoru
83: vlъxvi obidoše vъsou zemlju vlъxovstvom
84: i obrětoše ženou vъ
amorěi ou siona cra Morea - Latin name of Peloponese. Sofia ed. seems to stick to a "Canaanite" interpretation: Amorea - land of Amorites.
85: ime ei běše igiluda
86: i povědaše aleѯandru cru
87: alexandrъ rče imъ
88: sъberete me jako vъ sně sъ neju da vdimъ drug druga
89: vlъxvi vlъxovstvomъ sъbiraxou 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 ljuběxu se
91: eliko vъ
dne žedaxou včerou biti Formally, a sg.gen for an OCS i-stem - next sentence has vь dni. Adžar: dnju
92: jako vъ sně
zgovarasta se tako i 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.
tvorxou And after a broken dual, a plural form is used for the same subject.
93: aleѯandrъ crъ sъtvori se jako edin koupъcъ
94: i priide sъ korabom vъ paleopъ kъ sionou crou
nosešti imenia 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 sion
96: i sionъ crъ tgo darova
97: i
sъtvorista se brta jegilouda crica vъsegda sъ leѯandromъ bě vъ taině Again a broken dual (2dl.aor form used for a 3dl subject), as in Veles.
99: egda xoštaše sion cra gostiti
on tou sděše pri jaleѯandri 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: sion crъ mněše egova žena es The missing refl. pronoun makes the sentence unclear (Veles has Sionu se mněše)
paki otxoždaše vъ domъ 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 crica
103: o velie čjud
104: ou seg kupca
jes Odessa: žena jes(t)
105: veliju prilikou tvoju nosit
106: togda igiluda gnevaše se Here, the passage ceases to make sense, unless the Queen and Giluda were two persons.
107: i glaše
108: čto mne tako prilgaeši kъ toi da egda azъ takova jesmъ i ti tomou priličnъ esi
110: on paki alendra zověše na gosti
111: i on tou Odessa: i ona paky tu bě
112: i tako tvoreše za
*ź* mscъ Odessa: *g*
113: egda ou tgo obrětaše se ona vъ ina ruxa prěměnjaše 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 sъ 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: sion crъ osta vъ pěčali i vъ porougani velicě In Veles, this sentence appears first after the account of an earthquake in Troas following the entrance of Giluda.
116: aleѯandrdъ egda vъvde igildou vъ tradou grad potrěse sě grdъ velmi
117: iamorъ rče crъ
118: vъ istinou sъvrъši se sъn moi eže viděx prěžde
119: i sion crъ posla kъ bratou svoemou ijugou
120: iougъ posla kъ
šouramъ svoim vъ xanaon i vъ xaldeju Odessa: šuremь
121: i mesopotamiscii crie i perscii crie sъbraše se crie *di*
122: i pridoše na aleѯandra na grad velikii tradou
123: i obъsědoše grad
124: i biše za *zi* lět
125: i ne imaše što emou sъtvoriti ot množъstva po golema
126: ednъ mouž palmida Odessa: edinь imenem palmida běše sluga ioga cra
127: proume zatrъki igrati
128: palmida beše sluga ijuga cra This sentence is placed before the previous one in other editions.
129: egda
oudaše se vъsi bolari zatrъki igrati togda paki palmida proume tavliju igrati jako Miklosich: oudati 'tradere, dare'
da srъdet se igrajušte The subordinate clause differs in Veles, but both variants make little sense.
130: togda sъtvori palmida medna konja medъna vělikag
131: i vъleze vъ kona sion crъ i sъ nim
*l* xrabrъ A substantive seems to be omitted, cf. Veles: *l* voe dobri i xrabri
132: i medni konъ
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 naopako The nature of Palmida's ruse gets lost in this edition. Cf. Veles: naopaku peldami
134: sъtvori
*t* voevъ dobrix An allusion to Thermopylae?
135: i vъ nošti obidoše za grad
136: i sъkriše se Details of movements of Palmida's army are not in Odessa ed.
137: na outrie vъsa voiska vъzdviže se
138: i pade na dalče ot
grad Thus in all versions. The writing is graphically the same as directional vь grad below.
139: i tgo kona ostaviše tou na okolišti
140: izidoše izъ
grad Again, sg.gen would be expected after an ot.
141: i obrětoše kona na okolištii
142: i čjuždaxu se
povědaju aleѯandru The morphological form is unclear, mostly resembles a 1sg.prs
144: aleѯandarъ rče
145: vъvdete kona vъ grad
146: i na vratex gradou izide sion crъ is kona i vъsi voie sъ nimъ
147: i priet vrat gradu
148: donděž priide i palmidъ sъ svoimi
eže imaše sъkrъvenix < *ęže ?
149: takožde vъsa voiska vъzvrati se
150: i prietъ grad tradou
151: i razori
e do konca Odessa: ego
152: aleѯandarъ crъ poet ženou svoju igilidu
153: i oubeže kъ soultanou zetou svoemu
154: da jako bis gnevъ bžii na
sioně cri Adžar: na siona cra
155: egda priide sъ voi svoimi vъ dom svoi ne obrětoše
nъ vъ dmověxъ svix Odessa: ženi
156: poneže
běžale běxou sъ Odessa: bežalï
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.
157: i vъsi voe domove
pouste obretoše SC?
158: aleѯandra vъzdviže soultana i vъsou sarakiniju
159: i pobi cre
xanaonske i xalděiske i mesopotamiske 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 juga cra
161: i pobiet
162: i razori grad veliki vasnъ
163: i těx zemlju
vъzexou sarakini vъ dosanie 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 vъsegda prěbivaxou tako
165: i priidoše paki na siona cra vъ
amoreju Odessa: moureu. Adžar has vь amorei.
166: i smiriše se aleѯandrъ sъ rabi
sionskiix eže běxou sъ ženami těx běžali A rare case discord with an instrumental of the noun (Adžar/Odessa: sionskimi).
167: i sion crъ stojaše vъ palepoli
168: aleksendrъ stojaše vъ aleose
169: i soultanъ i rabi ixъ bijaxou
gospodu svoju A plurale tantum gospoda ?
Adžar: gsnьmi, Odessa: gospodini
170: i ratoujaxou
171: ponež imъ ženi domovi imaxou
172: i toliko
teške rati běxu togda SC?
173: eliko vъ edinoi ndeli tisoušta mrъtъvъcъ běše 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
sion cra i vse voe go Odessa: siwna
177: i osta sъ sultanom i aleksandrom *r* ljud
178: vidě aleksandrъ kolika zla sъtvorixou se o ednoi žne