326 Adžar edition - Alexander
source

1:	[...] Bě´še grad' velíkь vь anьtólistěi zemlì na měs'tě skaman'drě
2:	ímáše *mź* vrat'
3:	ísxóždaše iz négo voè *o* stégovь
4:	í vь stegu bě´še po *z* sьt' voè
5:	í tь` grad zověše s(e) tróatь.
6:	í bě´še vь nem crь velíkь źělô
7:	ime emu bě´še amórь crь
8:	í vь edinu nóštь vídě crь vь sně gdè ródi crca ego
	glávnu wgněnu	If Adžar editor used an Odessa-like source, he corrected this sentence (in Odessa we have a sg.inst glavnoju ognьnoju).
9:	i zapali grad trojátь
10:	i ízgórě vьs'.
11:	i vь tó vrěme
	ímušti crca ego vь črě´vě děte.	The irregular use of participles as roots of main clauses (or, possibly, the use of conjunction i to mark subordinate clauses) is common in Odessa/Veles too, but Odessa has here a 3sg.impf iměaše.
12:	da egda ródy bys(t) ženьsky pólь.
13:	í ubojá se crь wt sьna
14:	da egda bys(t) *ź* mcь ótróčetu í vьlóži ego crь vь stlь´pь kámenь
15:	í sь nim vьlóži *g* žéni ně´mi da slúžitь ému
16:	í zaprě´ti im crь velьmi. da ne priblížit se níšto kь stlь´pu. da ne slišit' otróče glsa níkoi. nъ^ ně´mo da vьzrástetь.
17:	í bys(t) dvca vь stlь´pě za *eı* lě`t
18:	da egda boúděše vьsxod slncu. óna bô staněše prótivu slncu.
19:	i prozorom
	gljušte, po	The editor seems to have focused a little less, confusing the form of the main verb. Odessa: prozorom gledajušti glaše
	edino rě´či wt vьsěx ezíkь	The ending is corrupted - Odessa: po reči edinoi
20:	crь amórь čjuždaše s(e), i vьsì bolě`re.
21:	ponežé ne razuměxu čtô gljétь.
22:	í sьbra crь po člku wt vьsěx ezíkь
23:	í privede xi kь stlьpu ídeže bě´še otrokóvica.
24:	i rče im
25:	poslušaíte
26:	da ktô čtô čjuetь tá bo zapisuíte.
27:	wno bô zapísaxu ktô čtô bě" čjúlь i razumělь.
28:	da egda ôna prěsta gláti. sьnesóše pisanïe prěd cra
29:	i
	sьstávišu rě´čь.	The 3pl.aor ending -šu is unexpected - usual reflexes are -še (Resava), -ša (Ruthenian) or -šę (OCS/Tarnovo). If Adžar editor used a source with Tarnovo orthography, the protograph may have had a big jus, as these get often confused. Both Bucharest and Petersburg have the regular small jus here (sъstavišę), but in the preceding sentence, Bucharest has sъnesošǫ.
30:	i obrě´toše	The unexpected "where" (gde) reflects the use of pronoun deto in later varieties.
	gdè mlit se bu za oca svoego	The use of gde for 'that' seems to reflect the general relative marker deto of damaskini.
31:	glje	While a participle seems to pass here better than 3sg.prs gletь used in Odessa, a f.sg form (like *gl-ušti) would be expected for a female speaker.
32:	gi ne póstavi emu grě´xa
33:	ponéže
	lь´dь jes(t).	The use of root jer is curious, as the /u/ in lud (as it is in modern BG and written also in Odessa) is inherited from OCS, it does not reflect a nasal.
34:	i ne věs(t) čtô tvórit'.
35:	i bžïe pově´lěnïe ne vьzmóžno es(t) prětvóriti.
36:	a sïe eže vídě sь´nь tô xóštetь sьtvóriti brátь moì.
37:	jes(t) nnja vь črě´ve mtri moeì crci
38:	i xóštet' rodíti se.
39:	da egda rodí se ótróče bys(t) mužь´ski pólь.
40:	í pově´le crь
41:	i wtnesoše ego vь góru pustu.
42:	í povrь´goše ego
43:	í obrě´te ego meč'ka íže bě´še izьgúbila šten'ce svoè wt lov'cь
44:	í podemši meč'ka otróče.
45:	i vьsьxráni ego za *g* lět' don'deže prišьd lov'ci
46:	i oubišu meč'ku.
47:	a otroče em'še
48:	i prívedoše eg prěd cra	Theoretically, we could analyze this sentence as the main clause of the preceding one. As above, the conjunction i (which is also in Odessa ed.) would be added on the basis of Greek. Preceding sentences with participles as main verbs may have been similarly separated from a more complex sentence.
49:	i poznavь ego crь rče
50:	se" jes(t) snь moì.
51:	i narče ime emu aléѯandrь. sìrěč óbrě´tenь.
52:	a íže bys(t) vь stlь´pě dvca. i ízvedóšu ju
53:	i narékoše ime eì mag'dona sìrěč' prě´mudra
54:	dь´šti ego bě" lěpa i prě´mudra źělô. páče vьsěx velíko
55:	í napisa muža na kóni.
56:	i prixóždaxu wt ínix
	crex'	The sentence shows a case discord: wt expects a gen, which we have in the adjective, but the noun is clearly a sg.loc (Odessa: iněx cri, Bucharest/Petersburg: inyx carei, Sofia: inix crь).
57:	xótexu ju poeti sebě` crcu.
58:	ona že gláše
59:	ašte ne viždu muža na
	kon' jázdešta jákože azь pisax. to ne poímu sebě` muža.	Expected sg.loc (as above).
60:	i táko sěděše ne
	xótěše.	Here a finite form actually replaces a rather more expected participle, cf. Odessa: i tako vъsex ne xotešte (where it does not make more sense after an i, as discussed above; cf. Sofia: i tako vъsex ne xotěše).
61:	í vь edin' dnь sědéšti eì na větrьnicě	Having a dative absolute as subject, the sentence was clearly subordinate to the following one, like in Odessa text. In this edition, the sentences are separated by an additional i.
62:	í vídě múža vьz' more jázdešta *v* prьpríšta mě´sta
63:	í rče kь ócu svoemu. cru
64:	gi toí mně^ budet' múžь.
65:	nь^ pusti
66:	í prízovi ego
67:	í posla crь
68:	í
	prízovaše ego.	A 3sg form would be more fitting into the context, but not in an imperfect.
69:	í
	vědě crь sárakina	Likely a scribal error, cf. Odessa: i vъnide crь, Petersburg: i vidě crь sarakinina
70:	i počjúdi se źělô.
71:	i rče emu
72:	pověždь mi bráte wt kúdu
	grédiši íli čtô ištéši	Odessa: ot kudu esi; Bucharest/Petersburg/Sofia: kamo ideši 'where do you go'
73:	sárákinen' rče.
74:	azь esmь sul'tan' crь vьseì zemlì sarákinskoi.
75:	i xrábrostïju
	moejù nikto ne ímat'	A sg.acc (Odessa: xrábrostь moju) would be expected.
76:	i íštu žénu da poímu sébě lě´pu í mudru páče vьsěx velíko
77:	ponéže esmь vь sьně tákovu vidě´lь
78:	da ašte gdè znaeši pověždь mi.	The syntax after the da (which is itself used likely with the meaning 'and' here) sounds somewhat non-Slavic. Odessa variant is slightly more comprehensible: da ašte znaete gde povědite mně
79:	togda
	mag'dona izvedoše emu.	A sg.acc (Odessa: magdonu) would be expected.
80:	i
	vidě´vь sultan'	Odessa: i vide ju sul'tan i pozna ju
81:	i poznávь ju.
82:	i rče	Although Adžar ed. has more conjunctions, the redundant third conjunction here (expecting *i viděvь Sultanь i poznavь ju, reče) is already present in Odessa ed.
83:	vь istinu sïjù víděxь vь s'ně.
84:	í mag'dona vídě pisanïe svoè
85:	i
	poznavь ego	The participle is clearly used as a root, as if it was a finite past tense form (also the gender does not pass to Magdona - a *poznavši would be expected).
86:	i poem ju sul'tan' crь
87:	í wtvede vь sarákïju velíku.
88:	aleѯandrь že raste vь domu wca svoegò.
89:	i bys(t) mužь rat'nikь i kr(ě)pkь źělô. i crь vьsěm elinom.
90:	i bě´še lě´pota ego vélïa źělô.
91:	i povélě vlьxvom svoim
92:	i rče.
93:	ašte mi ízьobrěštet' žénu lě´pu i mudru páče vьsěx velíko. tô azь vam sьtvóru mnóga dóbra.
94:	vlьx'vi sь vlь´šьb'stvwm svoim.
	w´bišьdšim vьsu zemljù.	Veles: obidoše
95:	i obrě´toše žénu vь
	moúreì siw´na cra crcu imajušti lěpótu	Morea - Latin name of Peloponese.
	velïa źělô.	A sg.acc (Veles: veliku krasotu) would be expected.
96:	íme ei bě´še gilúda.
97:	í prívedoše ju kь aleѯan'dru	The sentence does not make sense here from the point of view of the narrative - maybe a scribal error. The original verb seems to be in Veles ed.: pridoše kь Aleѯandru 'they came (back) to Alexander'. On the other hand, Veles ed. does not contain the following three sentences, describing the magical means, by which the lovers meet at first. Veles ed. mentions their meetings in dream only first when Alexander comes to Paleopol.
98:	í pově´daše emu.
99:	togda páky rče vlьxvom svoim.	Odessa: rče vlьxvom svoim: sьberete me jako vъ sně sь neju da vimь drug druga. vlьxvi vlьxovьstvomь svoim sьbiraxu ix kata nošti; Veles: togda paky rče vlьxvom svoim. i ljubiše se za *v* lět toliko veliko kat nošti
100:	sьberě´te me vь sь´ně sь nejù. da vídimь drúgь drúga.
101:	í
	sьbrav'še ix vlьx'vi	The gender of the wizards is not clear from the context. Pl.dat vlьxvom would imply an o-stem, but the shape of the participle indicates a f.pl instead. The use of a participle is unexpected anyway (Odessa: sьbiraxu).
	noštïju vь sьně.	Adžar editor curiously uses an adverbial based on old sg.inst to express 'each night'. The form is preserved in some dialects until today. Odessa: kata nošti; Petersburg: po vъsę nošti.
102:	í tolíko
	ljublě´xu se źělô. za *v* lět' elíko	I guess the replacement of dual forms is already sufficiently commented in older versions.
	dnju želáxu večeru bíti.	Adverbial sg.inst with a generalized f.sg ending? Differs from previous versions (Petersburg: vъ dnïi, Veles: vь dni).
103:	da jáko vь sьně zgovórěsta se táko í vь dni tvóraxu
104:	aleѯandrь sьtvóri se jáko edinь wt kupь´cь
105:	i prïíde vь paliw´pol' sь korab'mi kь siw´nu cru.
106:	í nósešte mnógo íměnïa	The conjunction is not in Odessa and other versions.
107:	í daróva síw´na cra.
108:	í siw´nь crь daróva tog'.
109:	i
	sьtvórista se brátïa.	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.
110:	a gíluda crca sь aleѯandrom vьsegda bě" po w´bīčaju.
111:	da egda góstěsta se w´na sě´děše pri
	aleѯandra	The sg.gen/acc does actually make sense, if pri would have a directional meaning, and the verb an iterative one (e.g. tja sjadaše pri nego 'she was sitting herself next to him'). The two older versions (Veles: pri+ alѯandrwm; Odessa: sъ aleѯandromь) seem to imply a static meaning (even if Veles ed. uses a wrong/unexpected case after pri).
112:	siw´nu
	smějaše se. jako aleѯan'drova žéna bě".	Adžar editor either had sense of humor or did not understand the sentence. The verb in other versions (Veles: mněše) implies Sion as the subject of the sentence.
113:	da egda wtxoždaše siwn' vь dom svoì. gláše crci svoeì,
114:	w velïe čjúdo o sem
115:	u sego kup'ca sïa žéna, velíku príliku imat' kь nemu. jak'	Does not really make sense in the narrative. Adžar ed. seems to be copying a source similar to Veles. The original is likely better reflected in Odessa ed.: ou sego kup'ca žena jest velïku tvoju priliku nosïtь
	togova jes(t) žéna	This clause is not found in other versions. The possessive togova is strange in CS (where simply a pronoun like togo or ego or a dat would be used), resembling the modern poss.adj. negov.
116:	togda igiluda gnevaše s(e),
117:	i gláše emu
118:	počtô méne prílagaeši k tômu.
119:	ašte âzь táko esmь tô í ti príličen' esi tómu kup'cu.
120:	wn' páky aleѯandra zóvěše na gósti
121:	i wna tù bě"
122:	i táko tvorě´sta za *ź* mcь gogda ou tógo kog'da ou togo.	The strange sequence gogda ou+ togo+ kogda ou+ togo goes likely back to a source of the Odessa type: i ou togo i ou togo wbretaše+ s(ę). i vъ ina ruxa prěměnjaše+ s(ę)
123:	aleѯandrь wbrě´taše se vь ínьnajâ ruxa prěměnujušte se.
124:	i ímáše bô aleѯandrь vь kórabi svoem, man'ѳïju sь zlátom i biserom i kamenïem mnógocě´nnim
	oukrášennaa.	A sg.acc would be expected (Veles: ukrašenuju).
125:	čjuv'ši bô igíluda crca jakó pródajuet' aleѯandrь vь korábi svoem manѳïju.
126:	síw´nь crь vь´ně izь
	grad izь´šьlь bě´še	Unlike the original phrase in Veles (izvъn grad'), here a sg.gen would be expectable.
127:	i ne bě` tou".	The sentence is not in Veles.
128:	gilúda že vьstav'ši sь málo rab'mi
129:	i prïíde vь korablь kь aleѯandru vidě´ti manѳïju.	Adžar editor seems to reconstruct the complex sentence, broken by conjunctions and aorists in Veles ed.: igulida crca. vьstavši sь+ ma_lo rabmi. i+ prišьd vь+ korabь. i vide mentïjú
130:	aleѯandrь povělě vьzdvig'nuti větrila korabem	The infinitive, again, reflects a finite aorist in Veles ed.
131:	i wtnesóše giludu crcu.
132:	í prívedoše ju vь véliki grad trojadь
133:	togda grad pótrese źělô.
134:	amórь crь wtcь ego rče
135:	vь ĭstinu sьbí se sь´nь moì.
	iže viděxь glavnu wgněnu.	Adžar copies here a Veles-like source. Something like ideže 'where' or vъ nemže would be expected. Perhaps Odessa is closer to the original: sьvrьši+ se sьnь moi eže videx prěžde
136:	siw´nь crь wsta vь péčali i vь
	poruganïem velikwm źělô.	Maybe copying the adjectival sg.loc ending, the sg.inst is unexpected after v. In the Veles text (porugani veliko), the second word is likely an adverb.
137:	i pusti kь ıw´gu cru brátu svoemu oú vásanь grad.
138:	ıw´ga crь posla kь svoim šurem. vь xanawn' i vь xal'dei i vь mesópotamïju i vь	The form resembles the use of short article in some modern dialects, e.g. diakona 'the Deacon'. It is possible that in the original Sion indeed sent his brother to Canaan to collect his brothers in law, but the following word is not congruent with it anyway. Also Odessa and other versions have a sg.nom (i.e. iogь posla) here.
	per'six. i vь tar'sisь	Could be perhaps analyzed as a pl.gen or loc, but here the editor likely confused the ending (Veles: persis).
139:	mesopotamsti že crïe i xanaw´nьsti î persídsti i tarsidsti sьbráše se vьsěx crì *dı*
140:	i priídoše na aleѯan'dra cra i na véliky grad trojatь	Here, an Odessa-like source seems to be followed. Veles: i+ pridoše kь+ siwnu crou
141:	i wbisě´doše krě´pko
142:	i rьváše ego za *zı* lět'
143:	i ne možaxu emu čtô sьtvóriti wt množetva poljéma
144:	i bě´še edin' mužь. imenem pamida pikerьni ıw´ga
	crvь.	Another curious construction of possessives using derivation - other versions have sg.gen forms here. In Eight Parts of Speech, an early CS grammar from 14th c., the sg.gen row shows derivational affixes -ov- and -in-, which, indeed, fulfill a similar function as Greek genitives, i.e. marking of possessors.
145:	i sьtvori izarь igráti
146:	da egda naučiše s(e) vьsè voè izára igráti. togda že tъì pámida sьtvóri i tavlïju
	jako da sebě sout' a ne	Odessa: jako da srьdce sę bolerě igrajušte
	wpoi.	Veles: o polem
147:	páky tьžde pamída. iskova konja měd'na velíka źělô.
148:	î vьlěze vь kónja mě´dnago siw´nь crь
149:	i sь nim vьlězoše *l* dobri i xrabri voè.
150:	a mědni kon' matan'ski i xoždaše.
151:	i páky tьžde pamida podkóvavь kóne naw´páko petalami
152:	i naredi vьsè voíske
153:	î sьtvori voívod *t* dobrix
154:	i vь
	nošt' wtíde	Here, the sg.acc actually would not be expected (unless used figuratively).
155:	i sьkri ix pamída zad
	gradwm	Veles: i sьkriše se za gradь
156:	a na outrïa pade daleč' wt
	grad.	Veles editor writes grad city usually shortened, i.e. as гра with a д above. The sg.nom is marked with an additional jer after the a, as here, while sg.gen/acc is actually unmarked. This curious orthographic distinction is not reflected in Adžar, which uses the unmarked form both on positions of an expected nom and gen (as here, following ot).
157:	a mědni kónь ostáviše na w´kólište.
158:	i povelě aleѯandrь vьvésti
	měd'ni kon' vь grad.	While the animacy status of medni kon is unclear, Veles uses, even if a bit corrupted, a sg.gen/acc medngo kona.
159:	togda izide is kónja měd'nago síwn' crь i sь nim *l* voè dóbri i xrábri.
160:	i exou grádu vrat'. don'deže i mapída prïíde sь mnóžestvom voè.
161:	i priexu velíky grad trojădь
162:	í razórišu î rasykópašu ego
163:	gljúšte
164:	istьštaíte istьštaíte do
	w´snovanïe zemlì.	A sg.gen would be expected after a do. This is found also in Veles, other versions have do konca 'until the end'.
165:	aleѯandr že poem žénu svoju gilídu crcu
166:	i vь nóšti iz grad izide
167:	i poběgnuvь kь soultanu cru zétu svoèmu vь sákïju.
168:	da jáko bě´še gně´vь bžïi na síwna cra.
169:	da egda vьzvráti se sь svoími voì. vь dom svoì ni edin' že wt nix ne óbrě´te žénь
	svoì.	A pl.acc would be expected (Veles: ženy svoe), also the case is not congruent (pl.gen+pl.nom)
170:	nь tьk'mo poústi dove
	ix wbrě´taxu.	Object doubling in a 17th c. CS text?
171:	óni bô bě´xu bě´žali sь rab'mi svoími.
172:	áleѯandrь vьz'dvíže soul'tana crě i vьsu sarákïju.
173:	i ízbi vьsè cre xanaw´nьskïe í mesopótamistïe í xal'deískïe. i tar'siskïe í per'siskïe.
174:	í na siw´na crě prïíde vь mórei grad
175:	i porázi ego.
176:	takožde i na ıw´ga crě bráta ego prïíde
177:	porázi ego
178:	i razóri velíki grad vasan'.
179:	i
	těx	The object is omitted (zemlu in Veles), but it would seem plausible in modern BG, where těx could denote a 3pl.acc pronoun.
	prěexu sarákinjane.	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, but Odessa has a formal impf (vъzexu) too.
180:	âleѯandrь smíri se sь rábi siwn'skimi.
	eže běxu běžali sь gospždami svoími. iže běxu im žéni.	Something like "servants of warriors of Sion" would be expected, so it is not clear whose wives are being driven away. The complicated double subordination is not in Veles, so Adžar ed. seems to follow the Odessa-type here: i smïri+ se aleѯan'drь sь rabi sïwn'skimi. eže bexu bežali sь ženami detemi.
181:	aleѯánьdrь stojáše vь
	páliopolь.	Sg.loc expected (Veles has vь paleopoli).
182:	a siwn' crь stojaše vь elew´sě.
183:	a sultan' stojáše sь
	rabimi siw´nьskimi.	The ending alludes to an adjectival pl.inst, but on a noun it it looks just weird.
184:	bijáxu se rábi sь
	gsnьmi svoími	While the form is partly lost in abbreviation, the -n- is unexpected in pl.inst (Odessa has gospodini, which should be pl.acc?).
185:	ponéže im žéni domóve ĭxь
	napústile.	The verb is not in older editions, although looking quite MK to me with its -le ending and auxilla omission.
186:	í tolíko běše vь ti dni. teš'ky ráty elíko tisúštь mrь´tvi givaxu za *i*
	mca na dnь po tísuštьi.	The dual (!) likely reflects the modern use as a "count form" after numbers.
187:	í poráziše vьsè crïe xanán'sti *dı*	In Odessa ed., the Persian king somehow survives: i gori wpustyše. i vъse xori. i *gı* cari svenь pěr'skago cra
188:	togda jerslmь razórišu i íněx grádovь velikix
	*sil*	The number is corrupted - both *i* '10' and *l* '30' are tenths. This is likely due to a missing conjunction in Veles ed.: gradovь inex *s* *l* voe, maybe denoting '200 other cities (and) 30 warriors' (this, of course, does not make sense - Troas in the beginning boasted an army of 49 000, and ten months of 1000 dead per day would imply even a higher number). Odessa is more clear: i druzex gradovь *sl*, i vьse voi 'and 230 other cities and all warriors'
189:	í voè pogubiše
190:	í xóri w´pustišu.
191:	sultan' že wsta i aleѯandrь i sь nim *r* ljud
192:	ponéže vьsì ízbiše s(e)
193:	i vidě aleѯandrь kolíko se zlà sьtvori za ednu žénu.
194:	í poem mь´čь svoi
195:	í wtsěče žéně svoei glávu. ígiludi crci
	(sestri svoeì).	Struck.
196:	a sam skóči vь
	móri.	Sg.acc expected (Veles: vь more).
197:	bu že nášemu sláva vь vě´ky
198:	amin.