tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78589629291113758802024-03-14T01:33:49.490-07:00Bulgarian languageLyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-2712910173077536182022-11-19T11:57:00.174-08:002023-09-29T02:21:11.378-07:00Lerin dialect (Лерински говор)<div class="page-content">
<div class="page active">
<p>Lerin dialect is spoken in and around the town of Lerin (Φλώρινα) in northwestern Greece. Its territory is north and northeast from the mountain wreath composed by the Nered Mountain with Vich and Bigla Mountain. To the east its border with the Kaylyar-Voden subdialect goes to the direction from Rudnik to Ostrovo Lake. To the north its border with Bitola-Mariovo dialects goes approximately along the today state border between North Macedonia and Greece. It is divided in four subdialects.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span>
<p>The first is used in the town of Lerin and in the villages to its immediate south: Nevòlyani (Σκοπιά), Nèred (Πολυπόταμο), Gòrno and Dòlno Kòtori ( Άνω, Κάτω Υδρούσσα), Krepèshina (Ατραπός) etc. </p>
<p>The second is used in the villages in the Lerin Field: Popъ̀lzhane (Παππαγιάννης), Vъ̀rbeni (Ιτέα), Voshchàreni (Μελίτη), Sètina (Σκοπός), which is on the place of the 10-11 century tsar Samuil fortress of the same name, Ròsen (Σιταριά), Pesòchnitsa (Αμμοχώρι), Gorno Kalenik (Άνω Καλλινίκη), Dolno Kalenik (Κάτω Καλλινίκη) etc. </p>
<p>The third subdialect is spoken in the so-called Gorni sela (Upper villages) – to the north and northwest of Lerin: Armènsko (Άλωνα), Buf (Ακρίτας), Ràkovo (Κρατερό), Klàbuchishcha (Πολυπλάτανο), Nègochani (Νίκη) etc. </p>
<p>The fourth subdialect is spoken along the southeastern periphery on the axis between Bànitsa (Βεύη) and Gornìchevo (Κέλλη) to the north, through Ekshi su (Ξινό Νερό), Pъ̀tele (Άγιος Παντελεήμονας), Pètъrsko (Πέτρες), to Zelenìche (Σκλήθρο) and Prekopàna (Περικόπη) to the south. This dialect differs most from the rest because it is transitional to the Voden and Kaylyar dialects and shares many common features with them.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicDPBj11owHxoX_Ui30EUZzjr-_sX2BWWoFDcLbwaa1V247ka70kzpdrJuRpSh84-EW2Sn7SSqu77XWLOh26tGSOESfKPqaOCnDu2kBQ877h1LcUMvjSZ3GJrpHKSe2anNOqyYDNRx9dYnNOtE6KldlwNEytFIi-2O8fbIRID7aOoaSlvnYBxx1bYwzQ/s1600/Lerinski%20govor.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="894" data-original-width="1194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicDPBj11owHxoX_Ui30EUZzjr-_sX2BWWoFDcLbwaa1V247ka70kzpdrJuRpSh84-EW2Sn7SSqu77XWLOh26tGSOESfKPqaOCnDu2kBQ877h1LcUMvjSZ3GJrpHKSe2anNOqyYDNRx9dYnNOtE6KldlwNEytFIi-2O8fbIRID7aOoaSlvnYBxx1bYwzQ/s1600/Lerinski%20govor.jpg" /></a></div>
<h1>Phonetic features</h1>
<h2>Development of vowels</h2>
<p>The development of the Old Bulgarian nasals ѫ, ѧ, and the vocal лъ, ръ contributed the most to the internal differentiation of Lerin dialect in the area of vocalism.</p>
<h3>Old Bulgarian ѫ</h3>
<p>Instead of the nasal ѫ in root morphemes, two basic reflexes occur on the Lerin terrain - а and ъ.</p>
<p>1. In all subdialects except the Southeastern Periphery and more specifically in the northern and central part of the area in the south and southeast to the line Nered - Babchor - Gorno Kotori - Setina - Popadia ѫ → a predominates: ма̀ш ‘man’, ра̀ка/ра̀ци ‘hand/hands’, за̀би ‘teeth’, на̀тре ‘inside’, сабо̀та ‘Saturday’, га̀ба, гна̀сен, дaп, забѝца, ка̀тник, капѝна, лачѝ, ма̀дро, пат, ра̀бой, cкaп, стапа̀ло, ста̀пица, стра̀га, ста̀пка, сат (Sakulevo), ка̀тници, гра̀ди, газо̀, я̀жица (Lerin), я̀глен, па̀то, cкàпo (Setina), да̀бово дъ̀рво (Gorno Kotori), ма̀ка (Неред), длабо̀ко, ка̀клица, кранк, стра̀нга, кадѐля (Zhelevo), рака̀ф (Krushoradi), гасѐница, ма̀теница (Hasanovo), вна̀тре (Popadia), я̀дица 'fishing rod', я̀глен (Boreshnitsa)</p>
<p>Inside this territory, however, ѫ → ъ is found regularly: гъ̀с ‘butt’, гъсенѝца ‘caterpillar’, къ̀сни ‘take a bite’, къ̀шей ‘piece of bread’, пъ̀рчка (with metathesis from пръчка), къ̀рклица (Gorno Kotori, Armensko, Gorno Nevolyani), гъ̀ска, пръ̀т, гъ̀с, гнъ̀сно, гъза̀р, стръ̀га, пръ̀чка, о̀бръч, къ̀са, покъ̀сок 'brunch' (Popadia, Popъlzhanе). In most of these last examples, the reflex ъ is found behind the velar consonants к, г and behind р.</p>
<p>On the Lerin dialect territory one can distinguish rarely the admixed reflex ѫ → у: гу̀ска (Obsireno) but гъ̀ска (Sakulevo, Popъlzhanе, Banitsa, Gorno Kotori, Pъtele, Zeleniche), гну̀с, гну̀сен (Zeleniche), гъ̀сто (Sakulevo, Banitsa) and гу̀сто, гъ̀лъп (Banitsa) and гу̀лап (Armensko, Sakulevo). Regularly with reflex ѫ → у in this region are used the lexemes: су̀да ‘judge’, су̀дя, судѐлище, ку̀йкя ‘house’, пу̀пче (in Gorni sela пу̀па̄ле) ‘bagel’, пу̀пка, гу̀жва (Popъlzhanе), ку̀с ‘piece’, по̀пок ‘navel’ and only in Zeleniche is found the form съдѝя;</p>
<p>2. In the villages of the Southeastern Periphery, to the south and east of the abovementioned line the principal reflex of ѫ in the root morphemes is ъ: мъ̀ш ‘man’, ръ̀ци ‘hands’, зъ̀би ‘teeth’, (о)нъ̀тре ‘inside’, събо̀та ‘Saturday’, гъ̀с ‘butt’, къ̀сни ‘take a bite’, въ̀глен, въжѝца, гъ̀ска, гъ̀cтo (Banitsa); зъ̀би, къ̀тник, пъ̀тeц, гърдѝ (with metathesis from гръдѝ), пъпỳк, ръ̀ци, мъ̀ш (Gornichevo, Zeleniche), гъ̀би, pъ̀кa, пъ̀т, скъ̀пo (Ekshi su), гъ̀зер, дъ̀п, гнъ̀c, къ̀са, къдѐля, нъ̀тре, пъ̀т (Pъtele).</p>
<h3>Old Bulgarian ѧ</h3>
<p>Usually ѧ reflects in e with a loss of the old nasalism: рѐт ‘order’, грѐда ‘beam’, чѐдо ‘child’, ѐчмен ‘barley’, етъ̀рва ‘sister-in-law’, ѐзик ‘tongue’, but in the Gorni sela subdialect there is: я̀чмен, я̀търва, я̀зик, as in Bitola dialect, while in Dolno Kotori, Popъlzhane and the surrounding villages they use я̀търва, but ѐзик.</p>
<p>An interesting phenomenon in the Lerin dialect are some lexemes, in which instead of ѫ or ѭ, the successors of diphthong ѩ are found: ѐглен, ежѝчка, едѝца (Бабчор), еток (Gorno Kotori), ѐглен, еглена̀р, едѝца, ежѝчка (Krushoradi), еток, едѝца (Popъlzhane). The variants еглен, едѝца, еток are found also in the peripheral Bitola villages in the direction Zhivojno - Skochivir. In connection with this phenomenon, Vidoeski makes the following conclusions: first, the substitution ѭ → ѩ is not found in all cases, hence this substitution is not automatic. In the same places, one finds examples of substitutions ѫ → e and ѫ → я: еток: ядѝца (Gorno Kotori), едѝца : яжѝца (Popъlzhane). Second, such reflex ѫ (ѭ) → ѩ appears only at the border between the а and ъ subdialects in the direction Babchor – Gorni Kotori – Krushoradi – Popadia. Third, in this same border belt there is no homogeneity in the ѩ substitution: ечмен, заек, паек, паежѝна (Babchor), език, ечмен, ечмено̀ф, за̀ечко, па̀ек, паежѝна : ятъ̀рва, ангу̀ля (Gorno Kotori), език, ечмен, едар : ятъ̀рва (Pъtele). The north isogloss of the variants заек, паек crosses the dialects border and goes deep inside the Bitola territory.</p><p>On the Lerin territory one can distinguish prothetic consonants before the continuity of the initial ѫ and ѧ. In the southern part examples with в predominate and in the north – examples with й. The isoglosses in this position do not overlap in all examples: еток, едѝца : яжѝца : ватор (Popъlzhane), яток : ваглен (Gornichevo), въглен : ядѝца (Ekshi su), ватор (Popъlzhane), ватар (Gorno Kotori), въ̀глен, въжѝца (Banitsa, Pъtele).</p><p>Traces of the old nasalism are preserved in the lexemes: въндѝца, мъ̀ндро, чомбрѝца, ангу̀ля, тръмба, енчѝ, кло̀мче (Zeleniche), янгу̀ля (Sakulevo), тръмба (Banitsa), трамба, ендрец (Gorno Kotori). As it can be seen, most of the examples are observed on the southern part of Lerin region.</p>
<h3>Old Bulgarian Ers (ъ, ь)</h3>
<p>The Big Er ъ as a rule has developed in о: со̀н ‘dream’, до̀ш ‘rain’, во̀шка ‘louse’, пѐток ‘Friday’, собѐра ‘to gather’, со (су in the Southeastern periphery) ‘with’. In this, Lerin dialect is similar to other Bulgarian dialects, like Pirdop, Dupnitsa, Kyustendil, Blagoevgrad, etc. However, in some words, ъ is preserved: мъ̀ска ‘mule’ (everywherе) – OBg. мъскъ.</p>
<p>The Little Er ь has developed in e: дѐн ‘day’, тѐмен ‘dark’, о̀стен ‘prod’, лѐсен ‘easy’, ста̀рец ‘old man’, цъ̀рвец ‘worm’, as in many words from Standard Bulgarian and from other Bulgarian dialects like the Eastern Rup dialects. However, it is known (Stoykov) that the development of ь is highly variable and Lerin dialect has also ма̀гла / мъ̀гла (in the Eastern periphery) ‘fog’ ← OBg. мьгла, with a preserved secondary Er as in Standard Bulgarian and other Bulgarian dialects like Hvoyna dialect and the <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">transitional (Bulgarian-Serbian) dialects</a>.</p><p>For the Lerin dialect, Vidoeski gives some more examples for something that he calls secondary Er and denotes as ъ<sub>2</sub>; however, for some unknown reason, he thinks that this ъ<sub>2</sub> can be any vowel like а, е, or even у. From the examples given by him, it is evident that he mixes up several unrelated things.</p><p>Starting with the observation that in places where ѫ has developed to а, "the sec. ъ<sub>2</sub> regularly has а: бадник, лага, лажѝца, магла (Sakulevo, Popъlzhane)" and in the villages where ѫ has developed to ъ "the sec. ъ<sub>2</sub> regularly has the same value: бъдна вечер, лъга, лъже, лъжѝчка (Zeleniche), лъжѝца (Banitsa), мъгла, мъска (Banitsa, Zeleniche)", Vidoeski tries to make a parallel between the development of ѫ and the development of <q>ъ<sub>2</sub></q> (which by definition is Big Er ъ obtained from Little Er ь, see Stoykov). However, from the examples given only мъгла has a secondary ъ per se. Бъдник/бадник and бъдна вечер (бъдни вечер) are not a secondary ъ (development of ь) but a development of ѫ from OBg. бѫдꙑ/бѫди 'something to happen, imminent, future'. For comparison, OBg. бъдѣти – бъждѫ – бъдиши means 'to watch, to be watchful' and is not a secondary but primary ъ. In the latter, ъ is in a weak position before ѣ and has been omitted in the Modern Bulgarian in words like бдя, бдение, бдителен, etc. (see, eg. Mirchev). The other examples given by Vidoeski: лага, лажѝца, лъга, лъже, лъжѝчка, лъжѝца, мъска, are just developments of the primary ъ from OBg. лъгати – лъжѫ – лъжеши 'to lie', лъжа 'a lie', лъжица 'spoon', and мъска ‘mule’. Further examples of Vidoeski are just developments of ь without passing through secondary ъ (or ъ<sub>2</sub> as implied in his text): тонок comes directly as a development of ь from OBg. тьнъкъ (ь is in a strong position before ъ), and does not come from тенок by assimilation as Vidoeski suggests; also а in òган comes as a direct development of the end ь in OBg. огн͡ь, a in добар, ендар, итар, остар are developments of the end primary (not secondary) ъ in OBg. добръ 'good', ѩдръ 'quick, agile', хъɪтръ 'cunning, skilful, experienced', остръ 'sharp'. The same is true for е before р in ветер, итер, остер in the Southeastern Periphery villages Banitsa, Pъtele and Zeleniche coming from ОВg. вѣтръ 'wind', хъɪтръ, остръ. Further, the forms седум, осум are ь developed in у from OBg. седмь, осмь while седъ̀мдесе, осъ̀мдесе (Zeleniche) are at last a secondary ъ developed from the middle ь in OBg. седмьдесѧть, осмьдесѧть. All these heterogeneous examples (except мъгла, седъ̀мдесе, осъ̀мдесе) are erroneously assigned by Vidoeski to <q>ъ<sub>2</sub></q>.</p>
<h3>Old Bulgarian Yat (ѣ)</h3>
<p>The Yat ѣ has completely developed in е on the whole territory of Lerin dialect which is the fact for all western Bulgarian dialects: бѐло ‘white’, млѐко ‘milk’, стрѐда ‘Wednesday’, бѐгам ‘to run’. Unlike <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2022/11/kostur-dialect.html">Kostur dialect</a>, in Lerin dialect there are no written documents that evidence an old reflex ѣ → я in Middle Ages.</p><p>Vidoeski gives examples of mostly the OBg. ꙗ developing in e stressing that they are limited in number: естелѝт (Popъlzhane), езòвец (Gorno Kotori), èсен, есèново дърво (Popъlzhane), еноàри (Pъtele), ерѝчка (Zeleniche), еловѝца (Banitsa), къшей (Zeleniche), бързей (Popъlzhane), чеша (on the whole territory), чекѝя (Banitsa, Gorno Kotori, Popъlzhane), бучèва (Zeleniche), печèли (Banitsa), баничèни (Banitsa), шаек (Zeleniche, Popъlzhane), together with шеяк (Gorno Kotori), кошèре (Popъlzhane, Nevolyani, Gorno Kotori), синек ← синàк (Banitsa). From these, only чеша is a ѣ development coming from OBg. чѣша (or чаша) and developing in the trivial e characteristic for the dialect.</p><p>Vidoeski is not sure if in the above group (ꙗ and ѣ reflexes) need to include ѫ that has developed in e like: еток, еглен, егленàр, едѝца, ежѝчка, ежѝца which geographically are located in the areal where ѫ has reflected in a which could be an example for the reflex я → e. He thinks that this is the same as the reflex a → e without even mentioning the obvious 100% ѣ → e reflex. In fact, the reflex to e is more than 100% because the above examples include also ꙗ → e reflexes. The confusion is complete when in the mix are included ѭ → я and ѭ → ѩ reflexes. The main transition to e is the ѣ → e reflex in the western part of the Bulgarian dialect territory resulting in the large <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2009/05/bulgarian-dialects-bulgarian-balgarski.html">Yat (ѣ) dialect division</a> of Bulgarian language. All other transitions to e are on top of ѣ → e.</p>
<h3>Old Bulgarian лъ/ль</h3>
<p>It has two reflexes:
</p><p>1. <b>лъ/ль → ъ</b> in the northern part including Lerin Field, Lerin villages and Gorni sela but excluding Lerin town: жъ̀т ‘yellow’, дъ̀ги ‘long’, къ̀к ‘thigh’, мъ̀чи ‘shut up’, съ̀нце ‘sun’, бъa, вък, мъчи, cъзa, гътъ, жъто but вълна, пълнo (Obsireno), дъгo, жъ̀чка, я̀бъка, къве, пъфeц, сънце but вълк, кълк, пълнеш (Gorno Kotori), вък, въ̀нен, гъте, жътнѝца, я̀бъка, пъфец, съза (Sakulevo, Popъlzhane, Boreshnitsa), мъчѐше, вък (Gorno Nevolyani), жъчка, съза, мъчи, гъта, жътѝца, бъва, вък but кълк, кълни, пълн, дълга (Armensko). But л is preserved before н: къ̀лна ‘to swear’, пъ̀лно ‘full’, въ̀лна ‘wool’ (Shklifovi 2003:20), лъ̀ска ‘to shine’ (in Nevolyani), but бога̀ри ‘Bulgarians’.</p>
<p>2. <b>лъ/ль → ъл</b> in the Southeastern Periphery and in the Lerin town: жъ̀лт, дъ̀лги, къ̀лк, мъ̀лчи, бълва, вълк, вълна, гълтаме, сълза (Banitsa, Gornichevo), кълкови, мълче, гъте, вълк, бъла, ябълко, жълт, дъ̀лгo, пъ̀лн but пъф (Zeleniche), кълкои, жълчка, сълза, мълчи, гълтa (Lerin), бълви, вълна, вълк, мълзиме, дълго, сълза, тълчук, кълк, but яболко and Бòгари (Zhelevo which has Gorna Koreshcha <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2022/11/kostur-dialect.html">Kostur dialect</a> with reflex лъ/ль → ъл).</p><p>
Other very rare reflexes are лъ/ль → лъ: слъ̀нце (съ̀нце in the town of Lerin) ‘sun’, лъ/ль → о or у: буга̀рцки (← бога̀рцки) / (бога̀рцки in the town of Lerin, Lerin villages (Babchor)), лъ/ль → ол: яболко, болгарцки. Vidoeski writes about some isolated reflex лъ/ль → <sup>ъ</sup>л which he sees as a transition to vocal л only in some lexemes in the Lerin villages Babchor and Gorno Nevolyani: б<sup>ъ</sup>лва, б<sup>ъ</sup>лска, в<sup>ъ</sup>лк, д<sup>ъ</sup>лго, м<sup>ъ</sup>лза, с<sup>ъ</sup>лнце, ж<sup>ъ</sup>лт. However, as a person whose alphabet has been unpossessed of the letter ъ, it is hard to expect his recognition of the different appearances of this letter and the sounds that it represents.</p>
<h3>Old Bulgarian ръ/рь</h3>
<p>This reflex is <b>ър</b> on the whole dialect territory: дъ̀рво ‘tree’, свекъ̀рва ‘mother-in-law’, пъ̀рсти ‘fingers’, сърце, сърп, вър, гъ̀рсти (Zeleniche, Banitsa). In the villages where ѫ → a, B. Vidoeski records a syllable-forming р̥ (Vidoeski 1999: 134). However for Borèshnitsa, Armenòvo and Dolno Kòtori Shklifovi have recorded ър (Shklifovi 2003: 114-170) and it is possible that this reflex is better approximated by ър or ръ: връ, пръсти.</p>
There is frequent metathesis in the sequence ръ ↔ ър: пъ̀рт, пъ̀рчка, cтъ̀pгa, о̀бърч, гърдѝ (Zeleniche), грътла̀н (Popъlzhane), гъртла̀н (Zeleniche), мръдо̀вец (мрътовец) (Banitsa). As concerns metathesis, it occurs with other sequences in some places with the lexemes: ко̀деле (коледе) (Popъlzhane), пояр (порай ← порой), по̀йлак (поляк), бълда (блъда) (Obsireno).
<h3>Vowel reductions</h3>
<p>The reduction <b>о → у</b> in unaccented syllables is common in the dialect, especially in the Southeastern periphery: кулèра, пуздèрка, ругузѝна, суàлка, ру̀чук, убèтки, у̀руф, удва̀й, òтруф, нàдур (надвор), Нѝкуль, сòбур, гулèм, in first person singular of the aorist: отѝдуф/отѝду, рèку, дòйду (Banitsa, Popъlzhane, Gorno Nevolyani). In the villages bordering with the Voden and Kaylyar dialects, this reduction is the norm: въ̀тук, вѝсук, мо̀зук, and also мозу̀ци, по̀лук, пỳпyк, свѝук, ко̀нуп, чувѐче (Zeleniche). Cases lie ду̀ри, у̀шче (Armensko, Gorno Nevolyani, Sakulevo, Popъlzhane) but о̀шче (Pъtele, Gorno Kotori, Zeleniche), бу̀мба, пу̀мпа, пу̀здер, кума̀нда, ỳгy (у̀гул), ступа̀нка ‘housewife’, пустѐля ‘bed’, are known in this phonetic form in wider areal of Bulgarian dialects. In the prepositions о → у is readily found too: далèку, блѝзу, ко̀ку, то̀ку, но̀гу, etc.</p>
<p><b>е → и</b> reduction: вичѐра ‘dinner’, нидѐля ‘Sunday, week’, as in the neighbouring Kailyar and Voden villages.</p>
<p>There are some examples of the reflex <b>a → ъ</b> in accented position which is in the same region as the reflex ѫ → ъ: гъ̀шчи, къ̀пa, мъ̀чка (Gorno Kotori), гъ̀зи (Gorno Nevolyani, Gorno Kotori), мъ̀че (Armensko), бъ̀лда from блада (Obsireno), стъ̀по (Gorno Nevolyani), вѝкъм ‘to call’. Such a → ъ reduction is frequently observed in some eastern Bulgarian dialects (Rodopa, Thrace, and Balkan dialects) and shows the unity of the Bulgarian dialect continuum in that many eastern dialect features transit to western dialects and vice versa, i.e. the Yat border is not an inpenetrble fence.</p>
<p>Omission of vowels is rare, and as far as it exists, it is limited to few examples. In the initial position the vowel о is omitted in the lexemes пашка (опашка), пинци (опинци) and in the substitutional forms вой, ваа, воа, виа. There is some cases with omitted end vowels: Залей вода да с (да се) напия (Gorno Nevolyani), не мож (може) да ида. In the Southeastern subdialect the end vowel of nouns is omitted when the article is affixed: чу̀пта ‘the girl’, рабо̀тта ‘the work’, ядѐйнто ‘the meal’.</p>
<p>At the end of this section, I'd like to give some examples of vowel reduction that are not a reduction (Vidoeski): котъ̀л, opъ̀л, пèпъл, стѐжър, гъзър, ко̀рън, остъ̀н (Zeleniche). It's immediately recognizable that this is the secondary ъ (this time the true one) derived from OBg. ь in a strong position in OBg. words like котьлъ 'cauldron' (ь is in a strong position before end ъ), орьл͡ь 'eagle' (ь is in a strong position before end ь), остьнъ 'prod' (ь is in a strong position before end ъ), корень 'root' (the end ь). In the ѫ → а regions (Lerin Field, Lerin villages) there is a second reflex ъ → а which is characteristic for other Bulgarian dialects like the Smolyan, Teteven and Erkech dialects where the secondary ъ transits to ô and ê (wide o and e).</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2>Development of consonants</h2>
<h3>Old Bulgarian ть/дь</h3>
<p>With the exception of the Southeastern Periphery their successors are <b>шч and ждж</b>: свѐшча ‘candle’ (Gorno Nevolyani, Popъlzhane), свешчо (Sakulevo), свешчарник (Babchor), га̀шчи ‘underpants’, гашчар, разгашчен (Sakulevo, Babchor), лѐшча ‘lentils’ (Babchor, Sakulevo), мàшчеа (Obsireno), машчèа (Sakulevo), плѐшчи, пашчѐрка (Babchor, Popъlzhane), пра̀шча (Sakulevo), врѐшче (Babchor), фа̀шчам ‘to hold’, пла̀шчам ‘to pay’, вѐжджи ‘brows’ (Armensko), мѐжджа ‘border, hedge’, чужджѝна ‘foreign land’, гра̀жджани, са̀жджи, мрѐжджа (Sakulevo, Armensko, Popъlzhane). The verbs of the type фа̀шчам – фа̀штам occur in the Lerin Field and the extreme Southeastern periphery but not in Zeleniche. Elsewhere these forms are фа̀твам, пла̀твам – as in the <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2022/11/kostur-dialect.html">Kostur</a> and the Dolna Prespa dialects.</p>
<p>In the subdialect of the Southeastern Periphery, their successors are <b>щ и жд</b> as in Standard Bulgarian: свѐща ‘candle’, снощи, га̀щи ‘underpants’, мащѐа (Gornichevo), лѐща ‘lentils’, нощви (Armensko), ма̀щеа, плещи, вреще (Zeleniche), фа̀щам ‘to hold’, пла̀щам ‘to pay’ (Banitsa), вѐжди ‘brows’, мѐжда ‘hedge’, наожда, сажди, чуждѝна ‘foreign land’ (Zeleniche, Gornichevo), чужди (Gorno Nevolyani), чуждинец (Banitsa).</p>
<p>In a few cases, the successors are <b>ш and ж</b>: га̀шник, мо̀шне, но̀шви, но̀шен, нѐмошен, пѐшник, по̀лнош, по̀мош, помо̀шник, плѐшки, са̀нош, свѐшник, межа, са̀жи, чу̀жо, чужѝна (Sakulevo, Banitsa, Gorno Kotori), вежи (Babchor).</p>
<p>Exceptions: кѐрка ‘daughter’, ку̀йкя ‘house’, ке/ки ‘particle for future tense’, а̀ргя ‘rust’ (in most villages), ръ̀гя (in Zeleniche), мѝго (Banitsa) / мѝгу (Popъlzhane) /мѐгю ‘between’ everywhere (Korolov 2018:112). That these exceptions are newer is evident by the fact that thes lexemes have doublets: ку̀йкя – къ̀шча, врѐйкя (Gornichevo, Popъlzhane) – врѐще (Zeleniche) – врѐшче (Babchor); нокя (Gorno Nevolyani) – ношкя, ношя (Babchor); ръгя (Armensko, Gornichane, Popъlzhane, Gorno Kotori) – ръжа (Babchor).</p>
<h3>Old Bulgarian чрь/чрѣ</h3>
<p>A specific for the Lerin region is the reflex <b>чрь/чрѣ → цър/цере</b>: църно ‘black’, цървѐно ‘red', цѐрепна ‘clay baking plate’, церѐо ‘intestine’ (Babchor, Gorno Kotori), цирево (Zeleniche) but црево (Hasanovo), црепна (Armensko) and чрео (Gorno Nevolyani). However, the older sequence чере- is preserved in черѐша ‘cherry’ (Babchor, Zeleniche), черешар (Babchor), череши (Popъlzhane) or is modified to стре- : стреша (Sakulevo, Pъtele, Banitsa) by dissimilation through цреша → среша → стреша (the group -ср- is completed with т). Obviously for the case with цере- there is a crossing with the group цре-, which is characteristic for the neighbouring Bitola and Voden dialects, and чере-. That this is a cross-dialect phenomenon is also shown by the geographical distribution of the цере- group. It is found on the entire border between Bitola and Lerin-Kostur area, and on the Bitola area up to the line Bareshani – Bukovo – Dihovo – Gjavato.</p>
<h3>Loss of softness</h3>
<p>It concerns mainly the sounds нь, кь, зь which transit to the respective hard sounds н, к, з either by simple hardening or by <b>anticipation of й</b>: бра̀йкя ‘brothers’, сва̀йкя ‘inlaws’, ко̀йн/ко̀йни ‘horse/horses’, одѐйне ‘going’, ядѐйне ‘eating’, вика̀йне ‘shouting’. Hardening of нь occurs especially often: кон, бана, Баница, – койн, койнцко, байна (Popъlzhane), дейна, ядейне (Gorno Kotori), сирейне, дуйна, койн (Zeleniche), койнар, камейна, ядейне, пилийня – пилина, дечина (Sakulevo), дейна, орайне, телийна (Gornichevo), койн, дечина (Pъtele). In some places sometimes й is not anticipated but remains after н creating soft end vowel: мъня, тиня, тръня, but байна, сайна (Popъlzhane), телиня, теминя but ядейне (Gorno Kotori), синяк, търня, but койн, байна (Zeleniche), тръня (Pъtele). It is probably a tendency in this type of formation to make the suffix -я (трън: трън-я) independent.</p>
<p>Taking the phenomenon of й anticipation into a historical aspect, it is jumping of iota (ı) over the respective consonant. Old Bulgarian has several sounds that denote softness: ь that gives softness to consonants, and the soft (ioted) vowels: ꙗ, ѥ, ѩ, ѭ. To these one can add ѣ when it reflects in я. In the dialect, ь or some of the iotas from the vowels jumps over the preceding consonant making a vowel diphtong and leaving (usually) a hard end vowel. For example, OBg. кон͡ь ь jumps over н and it becomes койн; OBg. кон҄ꙗ ı jumps over н and becomes койна. The example with лойзе (Sakulene, Gorno Kotori) ← лозье (Zeleniche) is a little harder to figure out because in OBg. лоӡьѥ one cannot say if ь or ı jumps in front of ӡ.
geographical distribution of the цере- group. It is found on the entire border between Bitola and Lerin-Kostur area, and on the Bitola area up to the line Bareshani – Bukovo – Dihovo – Gjavato.</p>
<h3>Loss or substitution of х</h3>
<p>The sound х has been found only in the lexemes: стомах (Banitsa), духо̀вден (Zeleniche), хазната (Gorno Nevolyani). In other cases, it is lost or is substituted with another phoneme. x was lost completely in all cases in initial position. In intervocalic position only in the sequences with у as the first member, x is replaced by в: глуво, мува, сувар, паз̀ува, руво, уво, but уше (Babchor, Armensko). In other cases х is lost too: снаа, стреа, ойдо̀а, etc. One finds a greater variety in connection with this sound in final position and before a consonant. In the northern part of the dialect, especially on the border with the Bitola dialect, at the end place x usually is substituted by ф: меф, Влаф, граф, праф, моф, буф, рекуф, викаф, змеф, ореф, очуф, пердуф, суф and only in some examples х is omitted: връ̀, стра̀ (Armensko), стра̀, сирома̀, нѝ (Sakulovo). In the southern part of the area x → ф regularly when it is behind the vowel у: буф – буфови, глуф, суф, кожуф, пердуф (Babchor), глуф, кожуф (Banitsa), суф, очуф (Zeleniche). After а, in most cases x was completely lost, while the vowel а got a little longer: Вла:, вра:, cтpa:, сирома: (Gorno Nevolyani, Gorno Kotori, Banitsa, Zeleniche). It is the same after и and р: връ̀:, въ̀р. After е in separate examples in different places different results can be found: грей, орей : меф (Banitsa), ме: (Zeleniche), орей : гре: : змеф (Gorno Kotori), ореф 'the fruit': орай/орей 'the tree' (Zeleniche). In the first person single in the past definite tense in Gorni sela and Lerinsko ф is found: викна̀ф, дойду̀ф (Armensko), пулѐф (Lerin), има̀ф (Gorno Kotori), and in the eastern part this form is with deleted х: викна, реку (Hasanovo), дойду (Popъlzhane), изгоре, дойду (Zeleniche), бе (Pъtele). In the dialect of the village of Babchor, in this separated form, x is replaced by к: викна̀к, падна̀к, умрѐк, собра̀к, напииса̀к, напра̀вик, о̀йдук, рѐкук but ойду, реку (aorist), сѐдек, я̀дек, у̀чек, спѝек, пѐек, вѝкек, са̀кек, less often вике, саке (for verbs from the a-group). </p>
<p>Even before a consonant, in the largest number of cases, x was completely lost in most of the Lerin area. Cf. дуна, здина, ма:на, оглу̀на, нино, мула (Sakulevo), чели (Armensko), мулия, мульосан (Popъlzhane). Also x is regularly lost in first and second tense plural in the past definite time in the whole territory: бѐ:ме – бѐ:те, седна̀:ме, рѐко:ме – рѐко:те (Babchor), викна̀:ме, викна̀:те, дойдо̀:ме (Zeleniche), видо̀:ме – видо̀:те (Hasanovo), згрешѝ:ме – згрешѝ:те (Gorno Kotori), отидо̀:ме (Gorno Nevolyani). In this position x is replaced by ф in the lexemes: о̀фтика, нофти (← нохти ← нокти), пифтѝа, тофтабѝта (in the whole territory), and in some examples in Gorni sela and northern villages: буфна, пафна, крефко, пофтѝ (Sakulevo). In several examples x → й: мейлем, чейли (on a larger area), in addition to чели (Zeleniche, Eshki su), нийно (Popъlzhane).</p>
<h3>дз and джь</h3>
<p>The old дз is in thе same positions where it alternates with г, e.g. нодзи, полодзи, беледзи (:нога, полог, белег), бладзе (: благ). In паядзи (Zeleniche) this is by analogy. In a number of cases, a new дз from з was obtained phonetically on the Lerin terrain with the sonants л, р and with в: cълдза (Gorno Kotori), дзвезда, дзвонец, дзвиска (Gorno Nevolyani, Gorno Kotori), then in одзгора (Obsireno), and in some other lexemes: дзевгар (Popъlzhane, Goreshnitsa), будза (Zeleniche), будзи (Gorno Nevolyani).</p>
<p>The affricate джь is new from a historical point of view. Except in foreign lexemes, it also occurs in place of ж before the diminutive suffix -e in nouns where ж alternates with г: ноджье, бреджье, полоджье, стоджье, роджье (: нога, брег, стог). So in this position the old correlation г : ж changed to г : джь. Apart from that, in a wider area, джь also occurs in the sequence жджь: вежджьи, сажджьи, etc., or without ж in глуджьо (Zeleniche); also стеджьер (Babchor, Gorno Kotori, Sakulevo).</p>
<h3>Consonant changes</h3>
The consonant changes relevant to the dialect differentiation of Lerin dialects:
<ul>
<li>the replacement of the groups бн and вн into мн: демне - демни, земни - гламница, огламник, одамна, племна (Sakulevo) but плевна in Popъlzhane, мнук (Obsirene) but внук (Sakulevo) and фнук in Gorno Kotori, Zeleniche, Pъtele;</li>
<li>the affrication of с into ц in the пс group: пцовиса Gornichevo, пцоиса Popъlzhane but also стипса Pъtele, стипс (Sakulevo), тепсиа (Gornichevo, Zeleniche), as well as in sequences of consonant + ск(и): волцко, леринцки, etc.;</li>
<li>the affrication of ш into ч in the sequence пч: пченица, пченка (Gornichevo) but ченка, ченица;</li>
<li>the assimilation of ш in the sequence сч: мошче, фешче, пояшче.</li>
<li>In most places к, г, л spontaneously are slightly softened before front vowels. In the Lerin Field, in the dialects of some villages, a middle (alveolar) l has developed (Shklifov, Shklifova 2003: 23).</li>
<li>In Nevolyani the middle velar l has become ў: гўа̀ата ме бо̀ли ‘I have a headache’; this is similar to the Graovo dialect in Pernik and a small neighbourhood around that town.</li>
</ul>
<p>The other smaller changes that occur in individual lexemes are marked through the examples: врапец (: врапци) Zelenichevo, обрасо (: обрас) Pъtele; грътлан Popъlzhane, гъртлан Zelenichevo; доцкна Pъtele; лувеница (лубеница) Armensko, чежма (чешма) Zelenichevo, Pъtele, шлифкова ракиа Gorno Kotori.</p>
<p>The consonant alternations more characteristic in the Lerin area are the following: г: дз in nouns and adjectives: нодзе/нодзи, белего: беледзи, полого: полодзите, пaeгo: паядзите, благо: бладзи, also благи; г : джь before the diminutive suffix -e in nouns: нога : ноджье, брего: бреджье and рого : роджьина; ш : с and ж : з for verbs in the present and past definite tense forms: пиши : (на)писа, кажи : каза, etc.</p>
<h3>Dropping consonants</h3>
<p>Cases in which individual consonants were lost are common. In the intervocalic position, the consonants в, й, д are often omitted in Lerin dialect, and in a more limited number of examples, also г, к, з, м.</p>
<p>The loss of the consonants в, й, д is a living process in Lerin dialect as well. The process of losing в is the most advanced. This sound is lost under the same phonetic conditions as in western Bulgarian dialects: /ови/ блюдои, носои, цоиса (пцовиса), сливоица, суроица, пасоишче, /ове/ поесмо, пойке (повеке), чоек - чойек, Кучкоини (Кучковени), пoйли (повели), /ова/ тоа, тоар, коално, негоата, вуйкоа, осноа, /ово/ дедо: (дедово), буко: (буково), него: (негово), /иво/ биолица, лиот, жиот, /ево/Неолани, налеок, пилeo месо, чрео, /аво/ крастао - красто: (краставо), убо: (убаво), /ави/ валаица (валавица), ракаи, капаица, праиш (правиш) Sakulevo, /ава/ пpaям (праам ← правам), гла: (глава), уба: (убава), /аве/ лепаец, тегаец Popъlzhane, Sakulevo, Armensko.</p>
<p>The loss of the consonant в as an active process took hold where ѫ → а. Further in the Southeastern Periphery the cases with lost в become more limited. The cases with lost в in the plural suffix /ovi/ have penetrated the most: уба̀й ‘beautiful’, лѐо ‘left’, воло̀й ‘oxen’, гла̀а ‘head’, ножои, лебои Zeleniche, but столови, волови, върови. </p>
<p>The sonant й is lost in the group /oйa/ in verbs of the type броам - броат, стоат, кроат, very often it is absent from the group ия: пиан, спиат, приател Sakulevo, in separate lexemes and in other groups: одаата, toponym Осоо (: ocoй), Одаата Sakulevo.</p>
<p>The consonant д is lost in an intervocalic position in some verbs, e.g. яйш (ядиш), грейш (гредиш), а зе (зеде) чупата, then in decimal numbers: двайсе, пеесе Sakulevo.</p>
<p>The sounds м, г, к, з, х are dropped in several lexemes, e.g.: зеам (земам) Popъlzhane, иям (имам) Armensko, Popъlzhane; лайца (лажица); Нереище (Нерезище) Banitsa; коа, сеа, нео о but него го, друите (другите) Sakulevo; туа Gorno Nevolyani, деа беше (дека) Sakulevo, Armensko.</p>
<p>In consonant groups, the following are omitted: в before д in the lexemes доец Obsirene, довец Gorno Kotori, довица Popъlzhane, надур (надвор) Gorno Nevolyani, before н in натре (in a wider area) and before ч in чера. Very often в is omitted in the preposition 'во': Пикни се там о кофчего Armensko. д is dropped in the group дн in the lexemes ено (едно), зайно (заедно) Zeleniche, and before л in сфърле Ekshi su, Zeleniche. м was lost in the adverb ного Armensko, ногу Obsirene, Sakulevo, Gorno Kotori. п is dropped in the initial sequences пц, пч: ци (пци) Sakulevo, цоиса Gorno Nevolyani, цоисан Sakulevo, ченица, ченка, ченкен Gorno Kotori, but not everywhere: пцовиса, пченица, пченка Gorichane.</p>
<p>Almost in all Lerin dialect areas, т is dropped at the end in the groups ст, щ: гръс, пръс, лис, приш. In numerous cases т is dropped at the end of word forms and after a vowel: госпо, in addition to госп, папра, креве (кревет), лако Ekshi su, наза (назат), напре, понапре Gorno Nevolyani, Gorno Kotori, regularly in decimal numbers: двайсе, триесе, седумдесе, деведесе, четирдесе Zeleniche, as well as in the article morpheme for masculine: лебо, камено.</p>
<p>In initial position, except for в in the preposition 'во' and г in the short pronoun 'го', й is omitted in the accusative form of the pronoun 'таа': А виде жената, а зе сабята Gorno Nevolyani; also: абалкото Pъtele, астелит Zeleniche.</p>
<p>The sound й in an intervocalic position when it is not in a grammatical function is pronounced very weak especially in the neighborhood of front vowels, it is often omitted, but sometimes it is inserted to fill the gap, especially when there is a need to avoid various assimilations. Such hiatic й can be found in the examples: сме(й)а, стре(й)а, машче(й)а, сна(й)а Bapchor, и(й)ам, пра(й)ам, чо(й)ек, Кучко(й)ени, се(й)а (сега), дру(й)и (други) Sakulevo, що ке ми я(й)иш на мене Gorno Nevolyani, попа(й)ата, sometimes also in third person plural of the past definite tense: има(й)а едно дете Gorno Nevolyani, ке бега(й)е.</p>
<h2>Vowel quantity</h2>
<p>Phonetic lengths in the Lerin dialect occur only sporadically in individual lexemes and they arose in three ways: a) by contraction of two identical vowels, ва: (ваа), та: (таа) Armensko, Gorno Nevolyani, ви:ме (видиме), гла: (глава), сна: (снаа) Gorno Kotori, мина:, лита: (литаа) Gorno Nevolyani, ода: (одаа), сна: Zhelevo; b) with compensation after the loss of x in first and second person plural in the past definite tense in the Southeastern periphery, вика̀:ме, носѝ:ме, вика̀:те, and in some other separate lexemes, e.g. стра:, гpe:, вр:, че:ли Zhelevo; and c) in the sequences [o:и, a:и] which are obtained by dеsyllabizing the vowel и, гро̀бо:ите, була̀:ица, о̀здра:и (оздрави) Gorno Nevolyani.</p>
<h2>Accent</h2>
<p>In Lerin dialect the accent is free within limits with a tendency to keep to the penultimate and antepenultimate syllable, as is the case in Tikveshko-Mariovo and the Kostur dialects. An accent on a closed ultima can only be encountered in separate lexemes.</p>
<p>The accent fulfills a phonological function only in the morphological differentiation of the present and past definite imperfect tenses in some villages, (present) вѝкате, ко̀пате : (imperfect) вика̀те, копа̀те Pъtele, Hasanovo, Gorno Kotori, Popъlzhane.</p>
<p>For the whole Lerin dialect, except for the subdialect of Gorni sela to the west and north, the accent usually falls on the penultimate syllable, like in the <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2022/11/kostur-dialect.html">Kostur</a>, Mariovo, and Tikvesh dialects: чо̀ек – чоѐци, во̀л – воло̀й, жѐна, рабо̀та, дѐте, детѐнце. But the addition of definite article and present verb suffixes does not change the place of the accent: чо̀ек –чо̀еко, чоѐци – чоѐците, воло̀й – воло̀йте, дѐте – дѐтето, нѝйа вѝкаме , вѝйа ка̀жвате.</p>
<p>In the extreme Southeastern Periphery, some words have an accent on the last syllable: едѐн ‘one’ (Prekopana, Ekshi su), една̀ ‘one (feminine gender)’, еднѝ ‘ones, some’, заграбèй, покосèй (Zeleniche), наро̀т ‘people’, егленя̀р (Krushorobi). An accent on a closed ultima can be encountered also in polysyllabic adjectival formations of -ав, -лив, -ит: козиня̀ф, горчелѝф, естелѝт / астелѝт (Zeleniche), in some compound nouns of the type: белоглàф, твърдоглàф, църноòк, белолѝк, глувонèм, петопръ̀с, листопàт, грозьобèр, водопàт (Popъlzhane), Скочивѝр (Nevolyane), and in Turkish loan words: изѝн, сургỳн, бучỳк, милèт, демèк, катрàн, филàн (Nevolyane). In the subdialect of Gorni sela the accent falls on the first syllable like in the southern Bitola villages (Dragosh, Lazhets), and part of Dolna Prespa and Gorna Koreshcha north of <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2022/11/kostur-dialect.html">Kostur</a>: свѐкърва ‘mother-in-law’, йа̀тървите ‘the sisters-in-law’, ра̀ботниците ‘the workers’.</p>
<p>In the vast majority of examples, and in all cases in Gorni sela, the old emphasis from the closed ultima has given way to the penultima: чòвек, òфчар, воденѝчар, for adjectives: зèлен, бòгат, for verbs: пàднат, ѝмал, etc. In the forms with open ultima from the same lexemes the accent kept the old place. In that way, a new model was obtained with a new type of shifting accent stabilized on the penultima in paradigmatic words: чòвек — човèци, òфчар — офчàри, воденѝчар — воденичàри, зèлен — зелèна / зелèни, бòгат — бoгàта / богàти, пàднат — паднàти, ѝмал — имàла / имàле. By analogy with these formations, there was a change in accent place in the plural forms and those words that had an accent on the penultima. Thus, the old paradigmatic model for words of the type дèвер — дèвери, кàмен — кàменье, я̀вор — я̀вори, вѝсок — вѝсоки broke and became the same as the previous one, so the model became: дèвер — девèри, кàмен — камèнье, я̀вор — явòри, with adjectives: вѝсок — висòки, бòгат — богàти, etc. The new model (with stabilized accent on the penultimate) included those nouns which form the plural with polysyllabic suffixes: лèп — лебòви / лебòи, сѝн — синòви / синòи, сòн — сонѝща / сонѝшча, рѝт — ридѝшча, and with nouns of neuter gender, such as: пòле — полѝня / полѝйна. The new accent shift in this phase did not extend to the vocative, the counted plural and the definite forms for nouns. Thus the new shifting accent model has the following form:</p>
<p>In Buf, Rakovo and partly in other Gorni sela the second syllable from the end is elongated: свѐкъ̄рва, йа̀тървӣте, ра̀ботницӣте. This feature is shared with the village Nivitsi in Dolna Prespa. The brother-in-law and family of Labro Korolov are from Buf and he could follow the dialect of this village for years. Among the first generation Canada-born refugees from Aegean Macedonia the lengthening of the penultimate vowel is known as "Buf dragging". Vidoeski adds that the elongated penulimate vowel simultaneously plays the role of a second accent to which Shklifovi decisively disagree (Shklifovi 2003: 16-17).</p>
<h1>Morphology</h1>
<p>There is <b>only one definite article for masculine singular</b>: ма̀жо ‘the man’, ко̀йно ‘the horse’. The article for other forms: сѐстрата ‘the sister’, детѐнцето ‘the boy’, даска̀лите ‘the teachers’, лу̀йгята (to the east)/лу̀гето (to the west) ‘the people’.</p>
<p>The <b>plural neutral gender in nouns ending in -и forms with the suffix -ѝна</b>: пупчѝна ‘bagels’ (← пу̀пче), магарѝна ‘donkeys’, чупѝна ‘girls’ (singular чỳпе); to the west the variant -иня is used along with -ина: ма̀гариня;</p>
<p>The<b> suffix for first person singular present and future tenses is -a</b>: о̀да ‘I go’, сѐда ‘I sit’, пра̀а ‘I do’, йа̀да ‘I eat’, кье па̀дна ‘I'll fall’, but in Zeleniche the suffix is -ъм: о̀дъм ‘I go’, да до̀йдъм ‘to come’, кьи кла̀дъм ‘I'll put’, similar to the neighbouring villages in the Kailyar region.</p>
<p>In the Lerin Field and to the Southeast the <b>suffix for third person singular for the second conjugation</b> is always -e: òн о̀де ‘he goes’, гово̀ре ‘he speaks’, пра̀е ‘he does’, вѐле ‘he says’, кье вѝде ‘he'll see’, while in Lerin town and to the west the forms for the third person singular for the first conjugation is always -и, то̀й мо̀жи ‘he can’, та̀а пѐчи ‘she bakes’, кра̀ди ‘he steals’;</p>
<p>The <b>suffix for first person plural for present and future tenses for all conjugations is -ме</b>: вѐлиме (to the west and to the southeast)/вѐлеме (in Lerin Field) ‘we talk’, кье сто̀риме/сто̀реме ‘we'll do’, мѝлваме ‘we like’.</p>
<p>The <b>plural suffixes for third person in all conjugations</b> are -ат (in the most part of the dialect region). But the suffixes for third conjugaation are -ае (in Armensko, Nevolyani), -аа (in Buf and Rakovo: вѝкат/вѝкае/вѝка̄а ‘they shout’;</p>
<p><b>Past indefinite tense</b> is formed with the auxiliary verb ѝмам and the neutral gender form of the past passive participle: ѝмам одѐно ‘I have gone’, ѝмаме напраѐно ‘we've done’, ѝмат видѐно ‘they've seen’;</p>
<p><b>Personal pronouns</b> are: йа̀с ‘I’, тѝ ‘you’, то̀й ‘he’, та̀а ‘she’, то̀/то̀а ‘it’, нùйа/нùе ‘we’, вѝйа/вѝе ‘you’, тѝйа/тѝе ‘they’. In the Southeastern subdialect the pronouns for third person are: òн, о̀на, о̀но, о̀ни.</p>
<p><b>Additional pronouns</b> are put before the verb and are doubled: му го сва̀ри ка̀фето на ба̀бата . ‘she prepared coffee for the old woman’, ни го да̀де лѐбо ‘he gave us bread’.</p>
<p>The<b> short dative pronoun му</b> is used for the three genders in singular and plural: му да̀де на съ̀ти ста̀ри. ‘he gave to all old men’, му вѝкна на ма̀йка ми ‘he shouted to my mother’.</p>
<h1>Lexical features</h1>
<p>More interesting lexemes: обѝскам ‘taste’ , чѐнка ‘maize’ , па̀лам ‘to look for’ – but ба̀рам in Gorni sela, съ̀ти ‘all’ – but сѐте in Gorni sela, ба̀йко ‘uncle’ (Southeastern Periphery), стрѝко, чѝче in the middle and west, бърбу̀йна ‘green beans’, ла̀фа ‘to talk’, лѝчен/лѝчна ‘handsome, beautiful’, прѝче̄сна (Buf)/пречѐска (Banitsa) ‘Holy Communion’, грѐда ‘to come’, ну̀нко/ну̀мко ‘godfather’, къ̀шей ‘a bite’, чу̀па ‘girl, maiden’, пу̀пче ‘bagel’, къ̀рша/скъ̀рша ‘to break’, пъ̀фец ‘snail’ (plural пъ̀фци) – the last word is from Popъlzhane, вия̀лник ‘wound banitsa’ (Buf).</p>
<hr />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqIYvW3AIbiwChZ1j7MkqIEQtZTQ9D77_aBJNDKu6XKRGaBfBg1uALjaC-ZjaPL1qs-SnYtZze7EDtgR_iB-p09Javsvtc_7ljmYCoeleQF52NMgm4OdXzEmO8hfqReKjWw-BRiSXmg6RYf0b_X8ST38njLE5ZG89VXjhqPHDesrkPa53Gz1d2s9WOIw/s852/Labro-dialectologia.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; padding: 10px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="852" data-original-width="820" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqIYvW3AIbiwChZ1j7MkqIEQtZTQ9D77_aBJNDKu6XKRGaBfBg1uALjaC-ZjaPL1qs-SnYtZze7EDtgR_iB-p09Javsvtc_7ljmYCoeleQF52NMgm4OdXzEmO8hfqReKjWw-BRiSXmg6RYf0b_X8ST38njLE5ZG89VXjhqPHDesrkPa53Gz1d2s9WOIw/s320/Labro-dialectologia.jpg" /></a></div>
</div>
<div>
<!--Pagination Button-->
<div class="pagination-container">
<div class="page-numbers-container">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<style>
/* Post Pagination by Key2Blogging */
.pagination-container {
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
}
.pagination-container .page-numbers-container {
display: flex;
font-size: 18px;
overflow: hidden;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: "raleway", sans-serif;
border-radius: 20px;
box-shadow: 0 4px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number {
padding: 8px 24px;
transition: all 400ms;
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number:hover {
background: #c5c5e9;
cursor: pointer;
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number.active {
background: #17A589;
color: #fff;
}
/* Page Content */
.page-content .page {
display: none;
}
.page-content .page.active {
display: block;
}
</style>
<script>
const pages = document.querySelectorAll(".page-content .page");
const pageNumbersContainer = document.querySelector(".page-numbers-container");
if (pageNumbersContainer) {
let pn = localStorage.getItem("pageNumber") ? localStorage.getItem("pageNumber") : 0;
const createPagination = () => {
pages.forEach((p, i) => {
const pageNumber = document.createElement("div");
pageNumber.classList.add("page-number");
pageNumber.textContent = i + 1;
pageNumber.addEventListener("click", () => {
localStorage.setItem("pageNumber", i);
location.reload();
})
pageNumbersContainer.appendChild(pageNumber);
})
document.querySelector(".page-number").classList.add("active");
pages[0].classList.add("active");
}
createPagination();
const pageNumbers = document.querySelectorAll(".page-numbers-container .page-number");
const activatePage = (pageNumber) => {
pages.forEach(p => {
p.classList.remove("active");
})
pages[pageNumber].classList.add("active");
pageNumbers.forEach(p => {
p.classList.remove("active");
})
pageNumbers[pageNumber].classList.add("active");
localStorage.removeItem("pageNumber");
history.scrollRestoration = "manual";
}
activatePage(pn);
}
</script>
</div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-87313233168065446402022-11-13T09:57:00.625-08:002023-09-30T07:33:53.964-07:00Kostur dialect (Костурски говор)<div class="page-content">
<div class="page active">
<p>Kostur dialect is spoken in the territory around the town of Kostur (Καστοριά) (Kostursko) in northwestern Greece, in the village of Vrъbnik (Vërnik) and in the town of Bilishcha (Bilisht) on Albanian territory, and in Novo Konomladi near Petrich in Bulgaria. To the southwest, Kostursko borders Epirus and Korchansko – a natural border is Mount Gramos with its foothills. To the north, the Vich mountain and the Nered mountain connect this area with Lerinsko. To the northwest the Gorbets mountain separates Kostursko from Dolnoprespansko, and the Snezhnik (Sinyachko) mountain, located in the southeast, separates it from Kaylyarsko and Kozhansko.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span>
<p>The Kostursko region is a high valley (800-1000 m.), surrounded by high mountains, in the center of which is the town of Kostur with the lake of the same name. Due to this special geographical situation, the language of its population is separated into a separate dialect.</p>
<p>The region encompassed by the Kostur dialect is situated at the extreme southwest corner of the Bulgarian language territory. Together with <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2022/11/kostur-dialect.html">Lerin</a>, Korcha, <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/solun-dialect.html">Solun</a>, Syar and Drama dialects, Kostur dialect makes a part of a southern continuum of Bulgarian dialects that preserves many Old Bulgarian language features. This continuum is partially broken only by the Kukush-Voden dialect group in which can be found some newer language features admixed on top of the old Bulgarian ones.</p>
<p>Kostur region encompases about a hundred villages either with pure or mixed populations of Bulgarians, Walachians, Greeks an
d Albanians. Before WWII the Bulgarian population predominated. Many of the villages were destroyed or severely depopulated during the Greek Civil War, and their inhabitants fled to Bulgaria and other Eastern European countries. Many people from Kostursko moved to Canada, the USA and Australia, where the dialect is still spoken by the oldest generation and by the first generation of their children born in North America. The dialect in Gòrna Korèshcha differs more strongly from the others, because it is transitional to the Lower Prespa dialect and shares many common features with it.</p>
<p>Kostur dialect is divided into five sub-dialects located on the following areas: Dòlna Korèshcha, Gòrna Korèshcha (both northwest of Kostur); Popòle, located east of Kostur and the Belitsa river basin; Northern Nestram and Gramos - southeast of Kostur; Kostenarìa – in the extreme southwest of Kostur region.</p>
<p>The villages of Zhelevo (Ανταρτικό), Oshchima (Τρίγωνο), Rulya (Κώτας), Tъrnaa or Tъrnava (Πράσινο), Besvina (Σφήκα) and others belong to Gorna Koreshcha.</p>
<p>Dolna Koreshcha includes Kosinets (Ιεροπηγή), Smъrdesh (Κρυσταλλοπηγή), Dъmbeni (Δενδοχώρι), Labanitsa (Άγιος Δημήτριος), Vъmbel (Μοσχοχώρι), Konomladi (Μακροχώρι), Statitsa (Μελάς), Gorno and Dolno Drenoveni (Κρανιώνας), Gabresh (Γάβρος), the former Pomak village Zherveni (Άγιος Αντώνιος) which is now inhabited by Greek settlers and so on. During the Greek civil war, the villages of Kosinets, Smъrdes, Dъmbeni, Lobanitsa, Vъmbel, Besvina, Tъrnaa, Gabresh were completely devastated. A small population lives in the remaining villages. In some of the devastated settlements (Smъrdesh, Dъmbeni), Grekoman Vlachs from Epirus were settled.</p>
<p>In the next tables numbers designate indicator villages that are included in the phonetic maps.</p>
<h3>Gorna and Dolna Koreshcha</h3>
<table>
<tbody><tr>
<td>1. Kòsinets</td>
<td>2. Smъ̀rdesh</td>
<td>3. Dъ̀mbeni</td>
<td>Labànitsa (Lobànitsa)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>36. Kъ̀rchischa</td>
<td>Vъ̀rbnik</td>
<td>4. Vъ̀mbel</td>
<td>5. Brèznitsa</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>10. Stàtitsa</td>
<td>11. Konòmladi</td>
<td>Tùrye</td>
<td>Pozdìvishcha</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Gòrno, Dòlno Drenòveni</td>
<td>Chъrnòvishcha</td>
<td>Gàbresh</td>
<td>Zhèrveni</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zhupànishcha</td>
<td>17. Àposkep</td>
<td>8. Zhelevo</td>
<td>Oshchima</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6. Rùlya</td>
<td>7. Tъ̀rnaa</td>
<td>9. Bèsvina</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The villages in Popole are: Zagoricheni (Βασιλειάδα), Churilovo (Άγιος Νικόλαος), Mokreni (Βαρικό), Mavrovo (Μαυροχώρι), Visheni (Βυσσινιά), Chereshnitsa (Πολυκέρασο), Bapchor (Βαψώρι), Prekopana (Περικοπή), Klisura (Κλεισούρα or Βλαχοκλεισούρα), Bogatsko (Βογατσικό) and others. The villages of Churilovo, Mokreni, Bobishcha, Zdreltsa, Kondorbi, Sheshteovo, Visheni, Blatsa, Chereshnitsa, Bъmbuki, Tiolishcha, Olishcha still keep their old appearance. In the villages of Zagoricheni, Kumanichevo, Gorentsi, Mavrovo, Lichishcha, Setoma, in addition to the old population, there are also Greek immigrants. The population of the villages of Kosturadzhe, Loshnitsa, Bogatsko and Dupyak is completely Greek. Arnauts live in Eleovo, Vlachs live in Klisura and Grъtsko Blatsa, and only immigrants from Asia Minor live in Fotinishcha. Now Bapchor is devastated, and only 5-6 houses remain in Prekopana.</p>
<h3>Popole</h3>
<table>
<tbody><tr>
<td>26. Zagorìcheni</td>
<td>Kumanìchevo</td>
<td>Churìlovo</td>
<td>27. Mòkreni</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>28. Bòbishcha</td>
<td>29. Gòrenci</td>
<td>Màvrovo</td>
<td>Dùpyak</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>30. Zdrèltsa</td>
<td>Kъ̀rpeni</td>
<td>Lìchishcha</td>
<td>Fotìnishcha</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Kondòrbi</td>
<td>Sètoma</td>
<td>18. Sheshtèovo</td>
<td>19. Vìsheni</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>21. Bъ̀lgarsko Blàtsa</td>
<td>23. Cherèshnitsa</td>
<td>Bъ̀mbuki</td>
<td>22. Tiòlishcha</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>20. Bàpchor</td>
<td>24. Prekopàna</td>
<td>25. Òlishcha</td>
<td>Klìsura</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>31. Kosturàdzhe</td>
<td>Lòshnitsa</td>
<td>Elèovo</td>
<td>Bogàtsko</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Gъ̀rtsko Blàtsa</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>Nestramsko is the region at the turn of the river Belitsa in the direction Kostur lake – Gramos and includes: Nestram (Νεστόριο), Chuka (Αρχάγγελος), Tikveni (Κολοκυνθού), Ludovo (Κρύα Νερά), Gramos (Γράμμος), Osheni (Οινόη), Zabъrdene (Μελάνθιο), etc. A significant number of the old population today lives in the large village of Nestram, in smaller numbers in the villages of Dranichevo, Chifliko, Dobrolishcha, Tikveni, Manyak, Chetirok, Izglebe, Breshchene, Galishcha, Zhelin and Tsakoni. The villages of Stentsko, Chuka, Grache, Papratsko, Yanovene, Pilьkadi, Kalevishcha, Shlimnitsa are depopulated. In 1923, the Bulgarian-Mohammedans were evicted to Turkey from the villages of Galishcha, Sveta Nedelya, Zabъrdene, Gorno Papratsko, Osheni and Gъrleni, and Greek immigrants were settled in their place.</p>
<h3>Nestramsko</h3>
<table>
<tbody><tr>
<td>46. Nèstram</td>
<td>45. Stèntsko</td>
<td>43. Chùka</td>
<td>34. Gràche</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>44. Dranìchevo</td>
<td>47. Chìfliko (Radogòzhe)</td>
<td>Tìkveni</td>
<td>Mànyak</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Òrman</td>
<td>48. Dobròlishcha</td>
<td>15. Tsàkoni</td>
<td>14. Zhèlin</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zhelegòzhe</td>
<td>48. Chètirok</td>
<td>Ìzglibe</td>
<td>Brèshchene</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Gàlishcha</td>
<td>Psòre</td>
<td>Lùdovo</td>
<td>Svèta Nedèlya</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>35. Pàpratsko</td>
<td>Drènovo</td>
<td>42. Òmotsko</td>
<td>41. Yanovène</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>39. Pìlьkadi</td>
<td>38. Kalèvishcha</td>
<td>40. Shlìmnitsa</td>
<td>37. Novosèlyani</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Gъ̀rleni</td>
<td>Gràmos</td>
<td>Òsheni</td>
<td>Vìchishcha</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zabъ̀rdene</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>Kostenaria is the mountaineous region south of the large village Hrupishche and includes: Pesyak (Αμμουδάρα), Bela Tsъrkva (Ασπροκκλησιά), Starichene (Λακκώματα), Markovene (Αμπελοχώρι), Gosno (Λαχανόκηποι), Ezerets (Πετροπουλάκι), Lebyshevo (Άγιος Ηλίας), Vitan (Βοτάνι) and others. Due to the mountainous nature of the Kostenaria area, the inhabitants of the villages were few in number even in the past. Today, there are only a small number of families in these villages.</p>
<h3>Kostenarìa</h3>
<table>
<tbody><tr>
<td>32. Pèsyak</td>
<td>50. Bèla Tsъrkva</td>
<td>33. Starìchene</td>
<td>52. Zhùzheltse</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>58. Snìchene</td>
<td>Dòlene</td>
<td>Sèmasi</td>
<td>Markòvene</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>33. Shkràpar</td>
<td>49. Gòsno</td>
<td>Màrchishcha</td>
<td>Luvràde</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>56. Èzerets</td>
<td>53. Lebìshevo</td>
<td>55. Mangìla</td>
<td>54. Vidulùshche</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Vìtan</td>
<td>51. Nèstime</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The dialect of Vrъbnik in Albania is of the type in Dòlna Korèshcha.</p>
<p>There are two towns in Kostursko: Kostur and Rupishcha. Kostur has about 14,000 inhabitants, most of them settled from the surrounding areas. There is a small local Greek population. Immigrants from Asia Minor and the Caucasus were also settled.</p>
<p>Rupishcha has about 5 thousand inhabitants. By ethnic origin, the population is mostly old. In the neighbourhood of Pachura, the Bulgarian language is still spoken today. Vlachs and Greek immigrants also live in the town.</p>
<p>In view of the dialect specifics, the dialect area is divided into two parts: Gornokostursko (Koreshcha (Gorna and Dolna) and Popole) and Dolnokostursko (Nestramsko and Kostenaria).</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcpE4gD8-cjvoUhGfQ7jk35CsRpvj7YX0GJJdChmgmrci9mLTMqih4lEdhU5loSKuZMtv7-1s_FW855rW1a9UPxGfcBprNMcJNgnFCs_2A0joA85EOAkzt1RLTigMhGqhmNkoLKMuX5hGhS7oW0XosE5Fs6K2Tbo-BLQjWT6D6p0JM9EgRglfRgZ4chQ/s1600/Kosturski%20govor.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="882" data-original-width="1095" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcpE4gD8-cjvoUhGfQ7jk35CsRpvj7YX0GJJdChmgmrci9mLTMqih4lEdhU5loSKuZMtv7-1s_FW855rW1a9UPxGfcBprNMcJNgnFCs_2A0joA85EOAkzt1RLTigMhGqhmNkoLKMuX5hGhS7oW0XosE5Fs6K2Tbo-BLQjWT6D6p0JM9EgRglfRgZ4chQ/s1600/Kosturski%20govor.png"/></a></div>
<h1>Place of Kostur dialect among the other Bulgarian dialects</h1>
<p>The Kostur dialect belongs to the Western Bulgarian dialects according to the ѣ (Yat) reflex. This phenomenon (ѣ reflex) is relatively recent in the Kostur dialect. In the dictionary from the village of Bogatsko, we see that in the 16th century the Kostur dialect shared the most important Eastern Bulgarian features: the pronunciation of ѣ like я was still in use (хляп, желязо), instead of щ, жд, stands again щ, жд, the consonant x is also preserved.</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ9u5QulqIm9ZYl4ptbC0dPAr2JeVf6vNO44Wt_LS3K5ZIDxAZBFrgPAhmS6TSBgEmD7pMa2QW2WZbPr8sqNgoJN5izWh0WgLHYo9_sQLUvhh8H444gcON3gkUHe14i7rHrlgrqHcv0n76loz6Av_fhW8otcJTHFGpQ5dDEKOYYIhWInp-mRs3KYfW9g/s1600/Kostur_map_Shklifov.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1190" data-original-width="1492" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ9u5QulqIm9ZYl4ptbC0dPAr2JeVf6vNO44Wt_LS3K5ZIDxAZBFrgPAhmS6TSBgEmD7pMa2QW2WZbPr8sqNgoJN5izWh0WgLHYo9_sQLUvhh8H444gcON3gkUHe14i7rHrlgrqHcv0n76loz6Av_fhW8otcJTHFGpQ5dDEKOYYIhWInp-mRs3KYfW9g/s1600/Kostur_map_Shklifov.gif" /></a><br />Map of Kostursko in Shklifov <a href="#ref1">[1]</a> according to the map of D. Yaranov of 1933. <br />Toponyms are written according to the local pronunciation and stress.</div>
<p>The Kostur dialect also has Eastern Bulgarian features and in many respects appears as an intermediate between <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2009/05/bulgarian-dialects-bulgarian-balgarski.html">Bulgarian eastern and western dialects</a>. The dialect of Gornokostursko with the reflex of the OBg. vowel ъ in о is associated with western dialects, and the reflex of ръ-рь, лъ-ль in ър and ъл — with the eastern dialects. The partial reduction of vowels in the eastern part of Kostursko is an Eastern Bulgarian phenomenon. The reflexes of ѫ in Dolnokostursko are of the eastern type. According to the reflexes of the OBg. combinations щ, жд the Kostur dialect occupies an intermediate position. The reflexes of чрѣ, чрь in the dialect are of eastern and western type. The dialect of Dolnokostursko has phonetic features in common with the Rhodope dialects. In place of ѫ and ъ before the consonant phonemes р, л in Dolnokostursko there is a vowel phoneme ô. The same phoneme is also present in the Rhodope dialects. With the minimal number of soft consonant phonemes (й, л', к', г'), Kostur dialect also occupies a special position among Bulgarian dialects.</p>
<p>The Kostur dialect is organically related to that of the village of Boboshchitsa, Korcha Region <a href="#ref2">[2]</a> and to the rest of the extreme south-western Bulgarian dialects.</p>
<h1>General characteristics of Kostur dialect</h1>
<p>The Kostur dialect also has its own characteristics that distinguish it as a separate dialect. Some of these features are also shared by neighboring Bulgarian dialects. In the past it attracted the attention of Slavists with the remnants of nasalism.</p>
<h2>Characteristic features in phonetics</h2>
<p>Remnants of decayed nasalization of OBg. vowels ѫ and ѧ are found in the dialect: пъ̀нда, гъ̀мба, чèндо, пèнда.</p>
<p>Doubled vowel phonemes are present in the dialect, giving the phonetic impression of long vowels. They are mostly found under stress before a missing consonant х: видòоме, правèеме, влàа, кревàаме, извадѝйме, скършѝйме.</p>
<p>As legitimate reflexes of the OBg. combinations шт, жд appear mainly шч and ж: свèшча, лèшча, вèжа,.
In the dialect area there are 8 vowel phonemes: и, е, ъ, а, â, о, ô, у. Of these, five phonemes — и, е, а, о, у — are characteristic of the entire dialect area. The phoneme ъ is found in Gornokostursko, and the phonemes â (labial a) and ô (middle o) are found separately in the dialects of the Nestramsko and Kostenaria. Only in the dialect of the village of Nestram is the presence of both vowel phonemes noticeable: мồка, рồка, къ̀рф, чъ̀рн. A positional variant e̥ is also found in the Kostenaria.</p>
<p>There are 23 hard consonant phonemes in the Kostur dialect area: п, б, м, ф, в, т, д, н, с, з, л, л̥, р, р̥, к, г, х, ц, s, ш, ж, ч, џ and 4 soft consonant phonemes: й, л', к', г'.</p>
<p>With the exception of a few villages in Gorna Koreshcha (Zhelevo, Rulya, Besvina, etc.), in the dialect the stress falls mainly on the penultimate syllable. The definite article does not change the character of the stress: дèте — дèтето, жèна — жèната, вòл — волòви — волòвите.</p>
<p>The soft consonant phoneme й can stand after a hard consonant phoneme without changing its hard character: стру̀пйа (стру̀п + йа), дъ̀мбйа (дъмб+йа), лàмйя (лàм + йа), рòфйа (рòф+йа), брàтйа (брàт+йа), бадйàва (бад+йàва), работàнйе, (работàн + йе), ъ̀ржйя (ъ̀рж + йа), нòшйя (нòш + йа), etc.</p>
<h2>Characteristic features in morphology</h2>
<p>The definite article for mascular singular in the dialect area is mostly o: чòвеко, пъ̀то, òфчаро, крàйо, грàдо.</p>
<p>Verbs in the present third person plural end in e: рабòте, прàве, стàве, пѝше.</p>
<p>The ending -йа, -'a, -я occurs for the plural in feminine nouns and less often masculine nouns: ливàда — ливàдйа — ливàг’а, нѝва — нѝвйа, стру̀п — стру̀пйа.</p>
<p>Neuter gender nouns ending in -e make plural forms mostly ending in -нѝшча, such as: ку̀че — кученѝшча, бѝше — бишенѝшча, чу̀пе — чупенѝшча, пòл’йе — пол’йенѝшча.</p>
<p>The third-person pronoun is тòй, тàйа, тò, тѝйа.</p>
<p>There are traces of the narrative mood only in folklore. It is not used in everyday speech.</p>
<p>The past indefinite tense is formed from the present tense of the verb ѝм (ѝмам) and the past passive participle in the neuter gender: Тòй ѝма пѝсано. Йàс ѝм прàвено.</p>
<p>The conditional mood is formed with the help of a future tense particle: Ке (за)-òде за-вòда, àку не бè бòлен.</p>
<p>In the dialect, there are remnants of the dative case for posession with masculine and neuter nouns: цàротòму, ку̀четòму сѝн.</p>
<p>The e-conjugation is substituted by и in the case when there is no vowel phoneme in front of the present root: Тòй пѝши. Ке пàдни чу̀пето. Да стàниш дòбар стòпан.</p>
<h2>Syntax specifics</h2>
<p>When the direct object in the sentence is articled, it is preceded by the preposition на which emphasizes definiteness: Йàс вѝду дèте (undefined). Йàс го-вѝду на дèтето (defined). Рàна волòви (undefined). И-рàна на волòвите (definеа). This phenomenon is widespread in Popole and Dolnokostursko.</p>
<h2>Lexical features </h2>
<p>In Kostur dialect, words characteristic of the dialect area are used, such as грèда 'go', шчу̀кам 'listen', бàрам 'walk', ми-сèмни 'it seems to me', лàпко and лàпка 'apple', прàвдо 'cattle', патàти 'potatoes', се-л’у̀та 'I am angry', кланàтйе 'greeting', сe-снамòжвам 'I get sick', ъ̀рва and съ̀рва 'to tear', мъ̀рса 'I don't fast', etc.</p>
<h2>Internal differences </h2>
<p>Complete unity of linguistic phenomena is not found in any language. The differences in the dialect of the Kostur population are primarily phonetic in nature. The difference between Dolno- and Gornokostursko is significant among the reflexes of ѫ and ръ-рь, лъ-ль. In the place of ѫ in Gornokostursko there is ъ, and in Dolnokostursko â, ô. Before the consonant phonemes of the above-mentioned combinations in Gornokostursko there is ъ, and in Dolnokostursko â, ô. In Kostenaria, we find e (e̥) before р. The same can be said about the reflexes of чрѣ, чрь. In Dolnokostursko they are: чâр, чôр, чер, and in Gornokostursko mainly чър and цър. The dialect of the Popole region is not uniform, too, since the reduction here does not affect the vowels equally. The dialect of Dolnokostursko preserves more archaisms in every respect, most of all in phonetics.</p>
<p>The villages that are located around the border of the dialect have some features in common with the neighboring dialects. Thus, in phonetic terms, Gorna Koreshcha is close to Dolna Prespa. Regarding the preservation of шт, жд the dialect of the village of Prekopana is the same as the dialect of Aytos, Kailyarsko: къ̀шта, вèжда. In the dialect of the village Bapchor, syllabic р̥ and л̥ are found, as in the village Neret, Lerinsko, and, on the other hand, the Kostur accent is found in some areas of Lerinsko and Kailyarsko.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h1>Phonetics</h1>
<h2>Modern state of the phonetic system</h2>
<h3>Vowel phonemes</h3>
<p>Almost all the vowel phonemes that are found in the dialects of the Bulgarian linguistic territory are present in the Kostur dialect. Before Shklifov <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>, studies on the phonetic system of Kostur dialect did not give a true picture of its rich diversity.</p>
<p>The following 8 vowel phonemes are found in the Kostur dialect area: и, е, ъ, а, â, о, ô, у. The vowel phonemes и, е, а, о, у are characteristic of the entire dialect area. The vowel phoneme ъ occurs only in the dialect of Gornokostursko (without the villages Bapchor and Zhelevo), and the vowel phonemes â (labial a) and ô (middle o) occur only in the dialect of Dolnokostursko, and in separate villages. Only in the dialect of the village Nestram is noticed a limited use of the vowel phoneme ъ (къ̀рф, пъ̀рф) and the presence of the vowel phoneme ô (мồка, пồт, зồмбут).</p>
<p>The vowel phonemes и, е, а, о in the regions of Popole, Koreshchata and Nestramsko in certain morphological positions create a phonetic impression of long vowels at the morpheme boundary, mainly for verbs in the past finite and past infinite tense first and second person plural as signals of these tenses. We cannot speak of long vowel phonemes in this case. These "long" vowels occur in front of an implied consonant x, and are loaded with a morphological function — temporal and generic — from which their positional limitation derives. In essence, they represent a combination of two uniform vowel phonemes — ѝй, èе, àа, òо, у̀у — and have no semantic function. There are no lexical units that differ semantically in the shortness-elongation correlation.</p>
<p>Therefore, long vowel phonemes do not occur in Kostur dialect, but in fact only doubled vowel phonemes that give the impression of being long.</p>
<blockquote>Long vowels occur in all languages, but have a different phonemic (phonological) value. From a phonemic point of view, long vowels are of two types: doubled and real (true). A doubled long vowel is a combination of two identical short phonemes, while a true long vowel is a single phoneme. Doubled and real long vowels are distinguished by their place in the morpheme, by the morpheme boundary. If the morpheme boundary passes through the long vowel, it is a combination of two identical short phonemes. <a href="#ref3">[3]</a> </blockquote>
<h4>Short vowel phonemes</h4>
<p>According to their articulatory and auditory properties, the vowel phonemes e, и, ъ, а, о, у are the same as the corresponding vowel phonemes in the literary Bulgarian language. The vowel phoneme ô does not differ from that in the Rhodope dialects. The labial vowel phoneme a(â) is auditory-articulatory close to the vowel phoneme ô. Such a phoneme was registered for the first time in Bulgarian dialects. <a href="#ref4">[4]</a> The vowel phonemes ô and â do not occur in the dialect of the same village, they are mutually exclusive .</p>
<p>The vowel phonemes и, e, a, o under stress are pronounced in the same way throughout the language area, but in unstressed position they have a different pronunciation. On this basis, the dialect was divided into two areas: an area with reduction and an area without reduction of vowels. The biggest territorial scope is the reduction of the vowels e and o. Their isogloss actually divides the Kostur dialect into two parts - eastern with reduction and western without reduction. In the eastern part, Popole and Kostenaria are included. The reduction of these vowels is not equally prevalent in the villages of this region.</p>
<h5>Vowel phoneme a</h5>
<p>The vowel phoneme a in Koreshchata, Nestramsko, and Kostenariata is positionally unrestricted. It is found in the first, second and third position, both stressed and unstressed: àва, àма, àба, мàйка, тàтко and тàтка (Yanovene), брàт, бàба, бàрам, сàкам, чу̀па, прèгач, шчèрка, чòрба, планѝна, рамнѝна, падѝна, татковнѝна 'father's part’, партѝзан, андàрин, нѝва, загàзвам, загàсвам, загѝнат, зàйдвам, плàтвам, закòпвам, закопàна, залѝсан, застàвам, армàсан, врàта, пàта, мèса, пèча, сèча, йàда, мàжа, спѝйа, бѝйа, ту̀ка, вàка, тàка, etc.</p>
<p>In Popole, the phoneme a is found mostly under and after an accent: пъдѝна, плънѝна, ърмàсвам, нъфàка 'progress', седнувàтйе, стрòшка 'clothes hanger', ръмнѝна, зъгàзвам, зъгѝнвам, зълѝсан, зàспан, стàнат, сèднат, etc. (the examples are from the village Chereshnitsa).</p>
<p>In the dialect of the village Chereshnitsa, the phoneme a has a positional variant ъ. It appears when the stress is shifted one syllable forward and alternates with a: стàнат — станàта and стънàта, тàтко — таткòви and тъткòви, фàтвам — фатвàйне and фътвàйне, дàвам — давàйне and дъвàйне, стрàм — страмòта and стръмòта.</p>
<h5>Vowel phoneme o</h5>
<p>The vowel phoneme o in Popole and Kostenariata is positionally restricted. It occurs mainly under stress and in idioms with a morpho-phonological function: òда, òдма, òше, òбрач, òвен, òвес, òган, чòрба, удгòре, уддòлу, фъртòма, пòл'йе, мòрйе, дòйда, бòса, кòса; чу̀жо, мъ̀жо, изèро, млèко, магàрто, вòло, дèтето and дèтто, чу̀пето, вуйвòда, вуйвòдо (vocative case), жèно, мàло, гулèмо, стàро, млàдо, пу̀сто, бугàрцко, ту̀рцко, etc.</p>
<p>In the western part of Kostursko (Koreshchata and Nestramsko without the village Nestram), which is not affected by vowel reduction, the phoneme o occurs in all three positions — at the beginning, middle and end of the word, in stressed and unstressed positions: ортòма, окòл’йа, окòлник, ок’òрвам, оздравѝвам, олѝмни, опàшвам, омйàсвам, опикàсвам, орлѝца, орнѝца, орàло, опòзде, отòрвам, отрàно, оттòгаш, вòйден, одàйа, мòзок, вòсок, вѝсок, нѝсок, òсом, голèмо, колèно, годѝна, кокòшка, роднѝна, пò-дòбра, пò-àрно, кнòко, висòко, калèшо, etc.</p>
<p>In the dialect of the village Chereshnitsa, the phoneme o has a positional variant y. It appears when the accent is shifted: смòк — смукòви, тòп — тупòви, грòп — грубòви, дòм — думòви, грòм — грумòви, вòл — вулòви, òртак — уртàци, òрман — урмàни, òстън — устèни, òда — удèеме, òрле — урленѝшча, etc.</p>
<h5>Vowel phoneme e</h5>
<p>The vowel phoneme e in the western part of Kostursko is positionally unrestricted. It occurs at the beginning, middle and end of the word in both stressed and unstressed positions: èсен, еврèин, èн, езèро, еди- нàйсе, елèче, есенѝца, èсти, èсме, ечемѝчен, èшче, лèто, мèсец, кòтел, невèста, недèл’а, сирèн’йе, чỳпе, дèте, кòрен, зèлен, лèтен, дèците, тèлците, офчàрите, чỳпите.</p>
<p>In the eastern part of the dialect area, the phoneme is positionally limited. In its basic forms, it is found only under and after stress in all three positions: èдна, нивèста, изèро, нидèл’а, вèрен, кулèно, млèко, сирèйне, грòзйе, тèле, вèле, кàфе, прàве, дàве, сèче, пèче, тèче, брѝче, etc.</p>
<p>When the stress is moved one syllable forward in the formation of derivative forms, the previously stressed phoneme e retains its previous voicing: дèдо — дедòви, снèк — снегòви, плèт — плетòви, млèчник — млечнѝци, лèп — лебòви, зèлен — зелèна, вèл’а — велèеме, мèл’а — мелèеме, лèс — лèсен — леснутѝйа, тèсен — теснутѝйа, etc.</p>
<p>Regarding the use of the vowel phoneme in the poststressed position, there is no unity in the dialect of Popole. It is found in the dialect of the village Zagoricheni and between two consonant phonemes in post-stress position: бòлен, тèсен, àрен, злàтен, стàрец, чòвек, игỳмен, etc. In the place of e in the dialect of the village Chereshnitsa, in this position there is ъ: бòл’ън, тèсън, àрън, злàтън, стàръц, чòвък, игỳмън, etc.</p>
<p>In some villages of Kostenariata (Zhuzheltse, Mangila, etc.) the vowel phoneme e has a positional variant deeper back e (e̥), which comes close to ъ. The variant e̥ is found before the consonant phoneme p mainly as a substitute for pъ-рь: кè̥рф, пè̥рф, вè̥рх, смè̥рт, гè̥рк, атè̥рва, дè̥ржа, è̥рва, свакè̥рва, те̥ркàло, кè̥рпус. As can be seen from the above examples, е̥ occurs in stressed position and rarely in prestressed position. In the dialect of the village Snichene, the same variant is present, only with a more limited use. It is noticed only after the consonant phonemes к', г', т, д: кè̥рф, свакè̥рва, кè̥рпус, гè̥рп, гè̥рк, тè̥рча, те̥ркàло and at the beginning of a syllable: è̥рва 'to tear'.</p>
<h5>Vowel phoneme и</h5>
<p>This vowel phoneme is positionally unrestricted. Occurs at the beginning, middle and end of the word in both stressed and unstressed positions: истѝна, истрѝйа, измѝйа, вѝкам, стрѝна, блѝка, мѝга, висòки, бèли, мèли, ножѝци, спѝци, крàци, etc. </p>
<p>The frequency of the vowel phoneme и is larger in the eastern part of Kostursko, where it stands also in the place of the etymological vowel e: нивèста, изèро, идинàйсе, сидèло 'nest', се крѝих (Manyak).</p>
In the village Snichene, a variant close to ы is found, only in some cases mainly at the site of the OBg. ꙑ in the stressed and prestressed position: сꙑ̀то, сꙑ̀т, рꙑ̀ба, езꙑ̀к, рꙑ̀т.
<h5>Vowel phoneme у</h5>
<p>The vowel phoneme у is positionally unrestricted. It occurs at the beginning, middle and end of the word, in stressed and unstressed position: ỳтре, ỳм, умирàчка, утрѝнвам 'to breakfast' (Kosinets), мнỳк, внỳк, дỳк’ан, дỳша, сỳша, браточèт, растỳрвам, ỳлук 'paralyzed' тèлку and тèку, мнòгу, бъ̀ргу, etc. </p>
<p>The frequency of the vowel phoneme у is greater in the eastern part of Kostursko, where it also occurs in the place of the etymological o: гудѝна, гурнѝца, кукòшка, купрѝна, дубрѝна, кулèно, дулѝна, купрѝва, вуйвòда, купàчка, вуденѝца, etc.</p>
<h5>Vowel phoneme ъ</h5>
<p>The vowel phoneme ъ is not found throughout the language area. It is characteristic of the language of Gornokostursko. In Dolnokostursko, it is found only in the dialect of some villages (Starichene, Breshchene, Psore, etc.), which are in close proximity to Gornokostursko. It is also found in the dialect of the village Nestram in very limited cases: къ̀рф, пъ̀рф, съ̀рп, атъ̀рва, èндър. Probably, this vowel phoneme in Nestram developed from е̥ which variant is found in some villages of Kostenaria before the consonant р. </p>
<p>The vowel phoneme ъ is unevenly spread in the two regions of Gornokostursko. Occurs in first and second position: ъ̀рш, ъ̀ршлан, ъндѝца, гъ̀лъп, пандарнѝца, мъ̀ка, мъ̀ска, дъ̀лбок, въ̀лна, пъ̀рф, къ̀рф, пъ̀рст, дъ̀п, бичамсъ̀с 'smashed, Turk.'. In Popole, it is also found in the place of etymological a in a prestressed position: ърнъỳтин, ъндàрин, плънѝна, гръдѝна, ръмнѝна, пъдѝна, мъгàре, пътàти, кърàйне, etc. </p>
<p>The use of the vowel phoneme ъ is most common in the dialect of Chereshnitsa, where it also occurs in the place of e between two consonants in a post-stressed position: гòл’ъм, зèл’ън, àрън, чòвък, шàрън, мъкедòнъц, плàтън, etc.</p>
<h5>Vowel phoneme ô</h5>
<p>The vowel phoneme ô is found in Dolnokostursko. During the articulation of the sounds through which the vowel phoneme ô is realized, the back of the tongue in its middle part is raised towards the palate. The lips are slightly rounded, the jaws are taut. The so-called Rhodope wide o is identical to the Kostur ô in terms of its articulatory properties. The difference between the phonemes o and ô consists in the fact that one of them (o) is from the back, and the other (ô) is from the middle row. The phoneme ô cannot be called a wide vowel phoneme or a wide o, because both vowel phonemes (o and ô) are wide along the passage between the palate and the tongue. Phoneme ô should be called middle vowel phoneme or middle o in Bulgarian dialectology.</p>
<p>Vowel phoneme ô is positionally restricted. It is found before and under stress at the beginning and middle of the word: ồрш, ồрт, ồршлан, стôрнѝшче, вôлчѝца, ồлшчи ’to polish’, тồрн, гồмба, мồка, пồт, рồка, кồшча, пồрф, сồлза, вồлк, вồлна (Kalevishcha). Therefore, the vowel phoneme ô appears primarily as reflex of OBg. ѫ and ъ, when ъ was in the groups ър-ръ, ъл-лъ.</p>
<h5>Vowel phoneme â</h5>
<p>The vowel phoneme â (labial a) is positionally restricted. In some villages of Dolnokostursko, it occurs only before and under stress at the beginning and middle of the word: ầрш, гầрк, мầка, нầтре, сầлза, кầрф, да-бầнда, гầмба, сầмба 'Saturday’, пầлна, кầлна, кâлнàт’е, вâлчѝца, стâрнѝшча, etc. (Yanoveni).</p>
<p>During the articulation of the sounds through which the vowel phoneme â is realized, the middle part of the tongue is raised up to the palate, and its tip approaches the alveoli. The lips are less rounded than in the sound ô.</p>
<p>When articulating the sound â, we adjust the speech apparatus for o and pronounce a, while for ô, we adjust the speech apparatus for a and pronounce o.</p>
<p>The vowel phonemes ô and â do not occur in the dialect of the same village.</p>
<h4>Doubled vowel phonemes</h4>
<p>The doubled vowel phonemes occur mostly at the morpheme boundaries of verbs in past tense first and second person plural in the place of the missing consonant x. They make a phonetic impression of long vowels. The doubled vowels are related to the stress, therefore in Gorna Koreshcha they are not found in an unstressed position. Similar vowels in the Dolna Prespa dialect. The accent system of Gorna Koreshcha is part of that of Dolna Prespa.</p>
<p>As a regular phenomenon, the following doubled vowel phonemes occur in front of the missing consonant x in the already mentioned positions:</p>
<p><b>ѝй</b>: испѝйме, измѝйме, исцедѝйме, сварѝйме, сторѝйме, купѝйме; испѝйте, измѝйте, исцедѝйте, сварѝйте, сторѝйте, купѝйте, etc.</p>
<p><b>èĕ</b>: пиèĕме, плачèĕме, гредèĕме, велèĕме, молèĕме, одèĕме; бèĕте, пиèĕте, плачèĕте, гредèĕте, велèĕте, молèĕте, одèĕте.</p>
<p><b>àă</b>: викàăме, работàăме, грабàăме, клавàăме, давàăме, бувàăме, тепàăме ; викàăте, работàăте, грабàăте, клавàăте, давàăте, бувàăте, тепàăте, etc.</p>
<p><b>òŏ</b>: видòŏме, кладòŏме, рекòŏме, дадòŏме, продадòŏме, йадòŏме; видòŏте, кладòŏте, рекòŏте, дадòŏте, продадòŏте, йадòŏте, etc.</p>
<p><b>ỳў</b>: испл’ỳўме, издỳўме, надỳўме, шчỳўме; испл’ỳўте, издỳўте, надỳўте, шчỳўте, etc.</p>
<p>At the end of words, doubled vowels aă and eĕ occur only in the following words: влàă, сиромàă (Chereshnitsa), грàă, прàă, грèĕ (but влàси, сиромàси, грàо, греòви).</p>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr style="text-align:center;">
<th colspan="5">Gornokostursko</th>
<th colspan="5">Nestram</th>
<th colspan="5">Nestramsko</th>
<th colspan="5">Kostenaria</th>
<tr>
<td>и</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>у</td>
<td>и</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>у</td>
<td>и</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>у</td>
<td>и</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>у</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>ъ</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>ъ</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>е</td>
<td></td>
<td>о</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>е</td>
<td></td>
<td>о</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>е</td>
<td></td>
<td>о</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>е</td>
<td></td>
<td>о</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>â</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>ô</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>а</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>ô</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>а</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>а</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>а</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The following conclusions can be drawn about the vocalism of the Kostur dialect:</p>
<ol>
<li>The phonological system of Gornokostursko is six-membered, three-tiered, symmetrical.</li>
<li>The phonological system of the village Nestram is seven-membered, four-tiered, asymmetrical.</li>
<li>The phonological system of Nestramsko and Kostenaria is six-membered, four-tiered, asymmetrical. The phonemes â and ô in the dialect of one and the same village do not occur together.</li>
<li>The phonemes â and ô are mutually exclusive.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h3>Consonant phonemes</h3>
<p>The consonant system of Kostur dialect is characterized by a minimal number of soft consonant phonemes and combinations of a hard consonant phoneme with й, without changing its hard character. The soft consonant phoneme н' is not found in Kostur dialect.</p>
<p>The following 23 hard consonant phonemes are found in the dialect area: п, б, м, ф, в, т, д, н, с, з, л, л̥, р, р̥, к, г, х, ц, s, ш, ж, ч, џ and 4 soft ones: й, л', к', г'.</p>
<h4>Hard consonant phonemes</h4>
<p>According to their articulatory and auditory properties, the hard consonant phonemes are identical to the corresponding phonemes in the Bulgarian literary language, with the exception of ш, ж, ч, and џ which are on the border between soft and hard, and due to the tendency to harden, they are assigned to hard. Hard consonant phonemes form oppositions that determine their differential features.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>п</b> is positionally unrestricted. Occurs at the beginning, middle and end of the word: пèт, пèча, пèта, плèта, пак, прèнда, прàвдо 'cattle’, пèнда, спѝйа, копрѝна, стопàнин, тòпка, сòпка ’obstruction’, теèпам, кòпам, уплàша, снòп, тèп, cтàп, слàп, лèп, грòп, дъ̀мп, зъ̀мп, ръ̀мп, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>б</b> is positionally restricted. It occurs only at the beginning and middle of the word: брàт, брѝча, бичкѝйа, бỳвам, бỳза, бỳчи, бàцвам, бек’àрин, бèрбер, разбèрвам, разбỳдвам, сòба 'stove', бàба, свàдба, гàбар, жàба, слàба, слабòда (Chiflik), бòрба, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>м</b> is positionally unrestricted: мавàло, магàре, мàзник, макàло, мамалѝга, млàдос, млèчка, стòмна, пòмна, глàмна, дàмла, гỳмно, трèм, стрàм, грòм, лòм, стàвам, клàвам, съ̀рвам, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>ф</b> is positionally unrestricted. It occurs in all three positions: фàл’а, фамѝл’а, фанèла, фàра 'relative', фàтвам, фèл’ка, фтòрник, фчèра, сòфра, òфтика, нòфти, сỳф, прàф, жѝф, здрàф, глỳф, крѝф, ỳлаф etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>в</b> in the dialect is positionally restricted. It occurs only at the beginning and middle of the word: вàр, вàра, вòйден, ведрѝна, вèзден, велèнце, вèнец, вèрвам, войвòда, воловàр, збòрвам, бỳвам, прàва, стàвам, дъ̀рва, пъ̀рва, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>т</b> is positionally unrestricted: тàка, татàрин, тàте, тезгèра, тежèва, тèсто, мèсто, бòстан, кòстен, сèстра, невèста, лàстар, пèток, вèток, млàт, брàт, свàт, грàт, глàт, жèнат, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>д</b> is positionally restricted. It occurs only at the beginning and in the middle of the word: дàвам, дàскал, двàйсе, дèбел, дèдо, денѝца 'morning star', добрѝна, свàдба, чèндо, пèнда, прèнда, градòви, млàдос, сèда, седèло, студòви, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>н</b> is not positionally unlimited: нàдеш, нàпре, нарòден, нашàрен, невòл’а, сèнка, дрèнка, добрѝна, зелèна, пèна, мàна, лàни, лèн, клѝн, дрèн, сòн, дèн, зèлен, вèрен, etc.</p>
à<p>The consonant phoneme <b>с</b> is positionally unrestricted: сàда, сàло, самовѝла, свекъ̀рва, светѝца 'icon', сèме, стърнѝшча, мъ̀ска, фỳстан, истѝна, пèс, брèс, стàрос, млàдос, мрàс, прàс, квàс, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>з</b> is positionally restricted. It is found only in the first and second position: злàна (Chereshnitsa) 'palm of the hand', злàто, збòрвам, знàм, змѝйа, звòнче (Kosinets), здрàвйе, прàзник, мàзник, глèзен, орѝзник, близнàче, брàзда, лòйзе and лòзйе, въ̀рзвам, бъ̀рзам, чèзма, измèта, измѝйа, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>л</b> has a positional variant close to Middle European l. The main variant of the phoneme л is found before ъ and before consonant phonemes in the middle word and rarely in initial and final position: лъ̀жа, ъ̀лска, въ̀лк, въ̀лна, дъ̀лк, мъ̀лча, бакàлка, болнотѝйа, бàлтак, съ̀лце (Kosinets), дйавòлцки, булгàрцки, акъ̀л. The positional variant occurs at the beginning, in the middle of the word before the vowel phonemes a, o, у and at the end of the word after them: làйа, lòй, lỳк, lỳда, бèlа, сèlо, мàlу, вòl, бѝвоl, пỳl, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>л̥ (syllabic л)</b> occurs only in the dialect of some villages (Bapchor, Zhelevo), which are located on the periphery of the Kostur dialect and have features characteristic of the western part of Lerinsko. The consonant phoneme л̥ is lexically and positionally restricted. It occurs at the place of the OBg. combinations лъ-ль between consonants, under and rarely before an accent, in the middle of the word and in singular cases at the beginning: л̥̀ска, вл̥̀на, дл̥̀к, сл̥̀за, мл̥̀за, вл̥̀к, вл̥чѝца (Bapchor), вл̥̀чица (Zhelevo), кл̥̀к, мл̥̀ча, тл̥̀ча, пл̥̀на, кл̥̀на, etc.</p>
<p>When articulating the sounds through which the consonant phoneme л̥ is realized, the tongue moves up and its tip tightly touches the alveoli. Unlike the non-syllabic л, with л̥ the front and middle parts of the tongue are raised and the passages through which the exhaled air stream passes are narrower than in the articulation of the non-syllabic л. Such a consonant phoneme can easily enter into a syllabic combination with a consonant phoneme without a vowel.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>р</b> is positionally unlimited: рабòта, рàдос, рàет, рèма, ръ̀ка, пъ̀рт, ъ̀рт, бèра, мèра, бàрам, дрỳгар, стàр, манàстир, волòвар, въ̀р, къ̀р, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>p̥ (syllabic p)</b> occurs in villages,
where л̥ also occurs. It is lexically limited. Occurs at the location of OBg. combinations ръ-рь. The consonant p̥ occurs more often in the middle of
the word and in limited cases at the beginning and end: р̥̀т, вр̥̀, кр̥̀ф, пр̥̀ф, пр̥̀ст, пр̥̀т, пр̥̀да, цр̥̀н, цр̥̀вец, вр̥̀ца 'string’, цр̥̀ква, цр̥̀па, стр̥̀нишче, (Zhelevo), стр̥нѝшче (Bapchor), цр̥̀квичка (Zhelevo), цр̥квѝчка (Bapchor), etc. Therefore, in the dialect of the former village Bapchor, the phoneme p̥ is also found in an unstressed position, as well as л̥.</p>
<p>The difference between the consonant phonemes р and р̥ is as follows: when articulating the sounds through which the syllabic consonant phoneme р is realized, the tongue densely and voluminously touches the alveoli, the frequency of vibration of the tip of the tongue is greater than in the non-syllabic p. The exhalation jet is stronger, the partition formed when the tongue comes into contact with the alveoli is denser, the burst is much stronger and allows a quick transition to the next consonant sound, which makes unnecessary the mediation of the vowel ъ.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>к</b> is positionally unrestricted: кàжвам, кàмен, кàпка, пàтица, клòмко, кокòшка, кòмка, копàчка, кòска, мотѝка, мрàк, бèлек, брàк, брèк, въ̀лк, врàк, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>г</b> is positionally restricted; occurs only in the first and second position: гàбар, гàза, гàйда, глàва, глèдам, гнѝйа, говòра, говèндо, градѝна, фъ̀ргам, прèгач, брегòви, дàлга 'wool’, дъ̀лга, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>x</b> is found only in Kostenaria in the dialect of the villages Starichene, Zhuzheltse, Mangila, Bela Tsrkva, Nestime, Snichene, etc. So far, this phoneme has not been noted as inherent to the Kostur dialect area. In the settlements mentioned above, it occurs only in the middle and at the end of the word: мỳха, àхур 'stables’, ỳхо, бỳхум ’to strike’, вйàхум 'to load', тахтабѝда 'woodblock' Turk., глỳх, сỳх, мèх, стрàх, прàх, влàх, вѝдух, бèх, рабòтих, вѐ̥рх, нѝх, плàтих, жѝвих, бèрих (the examples are from the villages Mangila and Zhuzheltse).</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>ц</b> is positionally unrestricted: цàпе, цèл, цèда, цèпа, цỳт, дèци, въ̀рца, бòрец, вèнец, македòнец, кòнец, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>s</b> is positionally and lexically restricted. It occurs at the beginning and middle of the word: sвèзда, sèпка 'loop' (Chiflik), sѝмбел’, sипирàф, sулỳфи 'lovelocks' Turk., sънгàло, sвѝска, sвèр, sвòнец, нòsи, полòsи, съ̀лsи, etc.</p>
<p>Phoneme s is not inherent to all dialect. It is not found in the dialect of the villages Kosinets and Dъmbeni (Dolna Koreshcha).</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>ш</b> is positionally unrestricted: шàвор, шàйка, шàрен, швъркàло, шлàпам, шл’ỳпка, штрèкам, шчèвйе, шчèрка, шàшка, шашармà, лèшча, свèшча, трòша, лòша, дỳша, сỳша, крỳша, дòш, нòш, кòш, бòш, кàдеш, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>ж</b> is positionally restricted. It is found at the beginning and in the middle of the word: жàба, жàл’вам, жвàкам, ждрèбе, ждрèпам, жеговѝна, жèжа, жỳжи 'to buzz', лèжа, мèжа, вèжа, дъ̀ржа, мòжа, рỳжам, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>ч</b> is positionally unrestricted. It is found in all three positions: чàкан, чембрѝца, чапàра, чкòр, мèчка, малèчка, млèчка, жъ̀лчка, пъ̀рчка, лажѝчка, ръ̀чка, се-влèчкам, мàчор, пъ̀рч, орàч, сàч, бàч, кòпач, сèйач, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme <b>џ</b> is positionally and lexically limited. It occurs at the beginning and in the middle of the word with a limited number of lexemes: џàба, џàм, џàфкам, џòм, џенебèт 'impure' Turk., џѝтка, џỳркам, џунџуглèт, џунџỳле, нòџе, мèжџа, вèжџа (Chernichevo), пенџèра, пèнџур, бòрџа etc.</p>
<h4>Soft consonant phonemes</h4>
<p>In terms of perception and articulation, the soft consonant phonemes in the Kostur dialect do not differ significantly in softness from the corresponding soft consonant phonemes in the Western Bulgarian languages. In the Kostur dialect, their minimum number is four: й, к', г', л', in the Western dialects — five: й, к', г', л', н'. The final soft phoneme does not occur in Kostur dialect.</p>
<p>The consonants <b>л, к and г are softened</b> automatically when they are followed by a front vowel. That's why л’ and hard л exist as separate phonemes only when л occurs before back vowels: лỳт ‘mad’ – л’ут ‘hot taste’, ко̀ла ‘car’, ко̀л’а ‘to slaughter’.</p>
<p>A soft consonant phoneme, like any phoneme, is phonetically indivisible.</p>
<p>The consonant system of Kostur dialect is characterized by the pronunciation of sound й after a hard consonant sound, with the exception of к, г, л, without changing their hard character. The different articulation of a hard consonant sound and й sounds clearly when this combination is found between vowel sounds: трàпйа (трàп+йа), шѝпйа (шѝп+йа), дъ̀мбйа (дъ̀мб+йа), здрàвйе (здрàв+йе), лòзйе (лòз+йе), брàтйа (брàт+йа), лàмйа (лàм+йа), рòфйа (рòф+йа), etc.</p>
<p>The combination of the hard consonant phoneme + й is positionally limited. At the beginning of the word it occurs extremely rarely, and at the end of the word it does not occur at all. In the middle of the word, it occurs mostly as part of the suffix to form plural forms for some nouns (-йа): брàт — брàтйа, шѝп — шѝпйа, вòда — вòдйа, ливàда — ливàдйа, бòс — бòзйа, etc.</p>
<p>In the consonant system of the Kostur dialect, in addition to й, actual soft consonant phonemes are к', г', л'. They cannot be decomposed into к + й, г + й, л + й.</p>
<h5>Consonant phoneme й</h5>
<p>The consonant phoneme й has no hard counterpart. It is positionally unlimited: йàска, йàбана, йàвор, йàгне, йàда, йàк, йàлоф, йàре, йàрем, йарембѝца, йарѝца, йỳнак, йỳнец, йòба, йàсли, йàйце, йадèйне (Popole), войвòда, кòйн, лòйзе, грòйзе (Dranichevo), вòйден, пèйа, тàйа, снàйа, се-смèйа, лèйа, вèйа, стòйа, работàнйе, спàнйе, здрàвйе, кланàтйе, жнàтйе, мòй, твòй, сòй, бòй, стòй, вѝкай, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme й occurs in the following combinations with a consonant before a vowel phoneme (hard consonant + й + vowel) in the middle of the word and in certain cases at the beginning of the word:</p>
<ol style="margin-left: 10px;">
<li>пй: снòпйа (< снòп), трàпйа (< трàп), стрỳпйа (< стрỳп), шѝпйа (< шѝп). In these examples, the soft consonant phoneme й performs a phono-morphological function. It is part of the plural suffix of these forms. Without such a function й is found in the word шкрàпйа 'scorpion' (Chereshnitsa). The combination пй does not occur in an initial syllable.</li>
<li>бй: дъ̀мбйа, сàбйа. The combination бй: occurs only in the middle of the word.</li>
<li>мй: лàмйа, кукумйàфка. This combination at the beginning of the word occurs only in the interjection мйàу.</li>
<li>фй: рòфйа, рофйàна, туфйàк. A combination фй at the beginning of the word occurs in the dialect of the village Kosinets: фйàн 'price' (Turkish).</li>
<li>вй: нѝвйа (< нѝва), трèвйа (трèва), мрàвйа (< мрàва, Chernichevo). At the beginning of the word in only in two examples is noticed the combination вй: вйàвам 'to climb', се-вйàсам 'to rush'.</li>
<li>тй: брàтйа, пъ̀ртйа (< пъ̀рт), цвèтйе, свàтйа, кълнàтйе, късновàтйе, осонвàтйе, стемновàтйе, etc. In Gorna Koreshcha, with some words, the combination тй is replaced by the phoneme к': цвèк’а, брàк’а, свàк’а. The consonant phoneme к' alternates with тй, because in many cases it has developed from тй or from т', where such a phoneme occurs or has occurred.</li>
<li>дй: дйàвол, дйàк, дйà 'where' (Rulya), бадйàва, ливàдйа (< ливàда), вòдйа (< вòда), попàдйа, л’ỳдйа (Tiolishche), etc. Occurs at the beginning and middle of the word. In some villages of Popole, г' is found instead of дй: ливàг’а, пупàг’а, л’ỳг’а.</li>
<li>нй: бàнйа, работàнйе, спàнйе, одèнйе, орàнйе. It does not occur at the beginning of a word.</li>
<li>сй: клàсйа (< клàс), лѝсйа (< лѝс), плàсйа (< плàс). The combination сй is noticed at the beginning of the word only in one single case in the dialect of the village Kosinets: сйà 'now'.</li>
<li>зй: лòзйе, грòзйе, бъ̀лзйа (> бъ̀лс ’tuft’), брèзйа (< брòс), бòзйа (< бòс). It does not occur at the beginning of a word.</li>
<li>рй: мòрйе, Бугàрйа, Унгàрйа, пèрйа (< пèро), кушàрйа (< кушàра, Chernichevo). In initial position рй does not occur.</li>
<li>цй: Тỳрцйа, Гъ̀рцйа, Фрàнцйа.</li>
<li>шй: нòшйа 'in the night’, къ̀шйа 'houses’ (Kosinets).</li>
</ol>
<p>With soft consonant phonemes, й is found only after л': пòл’йе, скòл’йе, кòл’йа (< кòл).</p>
<h5>Consonant phoneme к'</h5>
<p>The consonant phoneme к' is positionally limited. It occurs at the beginning and middle of the word. Only rarely к' occurs at the end of the word: горòцвек' (Sheshteovo). Its frequency before the vowel phonemes a, o, у is minimal: к’ор, к’ỳмур, к’ỳрк, к’ỳта, к’ỳп, измик’àрин, кỳк’а, брàк’а, свàк’а, цвèк’а. The last four examples are found only in some villages of Gornokostursko. The soft phoneme к' is mostly found in foreign words.</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme к' is widely represented before the pre-lingual vowel phonemes e, и. This phenomenon is consistent, so the softness is not marked with a diacritical mark. The same is true for г' and л' in front of middle-tongue vowel phonemes. Examples: кèрка, ке, кѝфам, кѝна, кѝсна, мèки, вѝке, цѝке, мъ̀ки, висòки, нѝски (к’èрка, к’е, к’ѝфам, к'ѝна, к’ѝсна, мèк’и, etc.).</p>
<h5>Consonant phoneme г'</h5>
<p>The consonant phoneme г' has limited use. It occurs at the beginning and middle of the word in a small number of words, mostly in foreign words: г’ỳм, г’òзмо, г’òн, г’òл, г’ỳрдѝйа, г’òмти 'as if’, жг’àле 'enemy son’, л'ỳг’а, ливàг’а. The last two words are found in some villages of Popole (Zagoricheni, Chereshnitsa).</p>
<p>The consonant phoneme г' is found before the frontal e, и: гèрдан, гèм, гемѝйа, гèч, гèрегеф, гѝбам, дъ̀лги, мѝге, стѝге (г’èрдан, г’èм, г’емѝйа, г’èч, г’èрг’еф, г’ѝбам, etc.).</p>
<h5>Consonant phoneme л'</h5>
<p>The consonant phoneme л' is often used. It is positionally unlimited: л’ỳт, л’ỳба, л’ỳдйа, л’ỳпа, л’ỳспа, л’òма 'chaviar’, л’ỳл’ам, вèл’а, мèл’а, кòл’а, кѝл’а 'to roll’, недèл’а, Бѝтол’а, крàдл’а, крàдл’о, жàл’вам, закòл’вам, запàл’вам, разбòл’вам, повèл’вам, гòл’а, постèл’вам, бѝл’ка, фèл’ка, зèл’ка, кошỳл’а, купѝл’ка, къшчỳл’ка, торбỳл’ка, невестỳл'ка, тиквỳл’ка, пàл’ка, питỳл’ка, прашàл’ка, мòл’ба, дỳл’бен, дèл’ба, бèл’, бѝл’бѝл’, тèл’, дѝкел’, тèмел’, кàтил’, мàксул’, àприл’, трѝфил’, трендàфил’, фѝтил’, мèтил’, жàл’, сòл’, etc.</p>
<p>Before the frontal vowel phonemes e, и only the soft phoneme л' is pronounced: лèжа, лèто, лèсно, лèп, гòлем, бòлен, сòлен, смèлен, весèлен, зèлен, вèли, бòли, бèли, вèле, бòле, мòле (л’èжа, л’èто, л’èсно, л’èп, гòл’ем, etc.). In the dialect of the village Chereshnitsa e in a post-stressed position in the middle of the word after л' (ле) is reduced to ъ, and the softness is preserved: гòл’ъм, бòл’ън, зèл’ън, дòл’ън, сòл’ън, смèл’ън, гàл’ън, ръзвисèл’ън, etc.</p>
<h4>Alternation of hard and soft consonant phonemes</h4>
<p>Hard consonant phonemes correspond to their soft counterparts when e is dropped after л' (ле) before a consonant phoneme and when the vowel phonemes o, a and e, и after л, к, г are alternated: бòл’ен — бòлна, бèл — бèл’и, гòл — гòл’и, бѝвол — бивòл’и, мèка — мèк’и, висòка — висòк'и, бỳка — бỳк’и, тиквỳл’ка — тиквỳл’к’и, дъ̀лга — дъ̀лг’и, мѝгам — мѝг’е (plural third person), стѝгам — стѝг’е, etc. At another position, the hardness-softness correlation does not occur.</p>
<h4>Alternation of voiceless and voiced consonant phonemes</h4>
<p>Such alternations occur between voiced and voiceless consonant forms: с : з, к : г, п : б, т : д, ш : ж, ф : в.</p>
<p>с : з: прàс — прàзо, бъ̀рс — бъ̀рза, мрàс — мразòви, брèс — брèзо etc. </p>
<p>к : г: прàк — прàго, врàк — врàго, плỳк — плỳго, бòк — бòго, пòлок — пòлого, дрỳк — дрỳго, брèк — брèго etc.</p>
<p>п : б: рòп — рòбо, грòп — грòбо, лèп — лèбо, зъ̀мп — зъ̀мбо, дъ̀мп — дъ̀мбо, ръ̀мп — ръ̀мбо, бòп — бòбо (Kumanichevo), зòп — зòбо etc.</p>
<p>т : д: рòт — рòдо, рѝт — рѝдо, рèнт — рèндо, пръ̀нт 'nervous’ (Chereshnitsa) — пръ̀нда, съ̀нт — съ̀ндо, кръ̀нк — кръ̀нго etc.</p>
<p>ш : ж: нòш — нòжо, дòш — дожòви, мъ̀ш — мъ̀жо, èш — èжо etc. </p>
<p>ф : в: нòф — нòва, пъ̀рф — пъ̀рва, къ̀рф — кървѝшча, здрàф — здрàва, прàф — прàва, крѝф — крѝва, глỳф — глỳва, etc.</p>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
<p>The system of consonant phonemes in Kostur dialect can be presented with the following table:</p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>п</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>б</td>
<td></td>
<td>т</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>д</td>
<td></td>
<td>с</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>з</td>
<td></td>
<td>к</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>г</td>
<td></td>
<td>ф</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>в</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>|</td>
<td></td>
<td>|</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>к'</td>
<td></td>
<td>г'</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ц</td>
<td></td>
<td>л</td>
<td></td>
<td>м</td>
<td></td>
<td>н</td>
<td></td>
<td>р</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>|</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>л'</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ш</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>ж</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>ч</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>џ</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>s</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>х</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>й</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The phonemes л̥ and р̥ (syllabic) are not included in this table, because they stand on the border between vowels and consonants and come closer to vowels than to consonant phonemes.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2>Phonetic changes</h2>
<h3>Reflexes</h3>
<h4>Reflexes of OBg. ъ</h4>
<p>The question of elucidation of ъ is related to the problem of the initial voicing of this vowel. Some researchers are of the opinion that the vowel ъ in the earliest Old Bulgarian period sounded like a labial back vowel. <a href="#ref5">[5]</a> This statement can be accepted as reliable, since the labial vowel a (â) is found today in the dialect of some villages in Nestramsko. Such a labial vowel could give a variety of reflexes.</p>
<p>The first stage is the clarification of the vowel ъ in о. This clarification is old, that's why it is universal in the dialect of Gorno- and Dolnokostursko.
At the place of the OBg. vowel ъ one founds о:</p>
<ol>
<li>In the middle of the word with closed syllables: со̀н ‘dream’, до̀ш ‘rain’, во̀шка ‘louse’, во̀пна ‘overfill’.</li>
<li>With the morpheme -ъкъ: мòзок, во̀сок ‘wax’, нѝсок, пèток, вèток, слàдок, четвъ̀рток ‘Thursday’, etc.</li>
<li>With the prepositions въ and съ: вo, со.</li>
<li>In the masculine article form: -о (-от): чòвеко (Gornokostursko), чòвекот (Dolnokostursko).</li>
</ol>
<p>In the dialect of Kostenaria, with the morpheme -ъкъ, the reflex is a: мòзак, пèтак. In the same area, the reflex a is found in conjunction с : сa. With the same conjunction, in the villages Tiolishcha and Kondorbi, ъ is pronounced simultaneously with о. With the prefix въз- (въс-) in Gornokostursko there is а reflex ъ: въздỳк, въстàйне, въспитàйне (Popole). This phenomenon is the result of literary influence.</p>
<p>The second stage of the clarification of the OBg. ъ occurs when the er vowel is found in the old combinations ръ (рь), лъ (ль). This clarification is relatively later and its results are not uniform (see the corresponding reflexes).</p>
<p>An excheption whereby ъ has the same reflex as ѫ is found in мъ̀ска/мầска/мồска ‘mule’.</p>
<h4>Reflexes of OBg. ь</h4>
<p>The clarification of the OBg. vowel ь in strong position is straightforward. Its reflex is e: дèн ‘day’, дèнес 'today', тèмен ‘dark’, темнѝца, òстен, тèс, стàрец ‘old man’, кòнец ‘thread’. Exceptions: мъ̀нгла/мầнгла/мồнгла ‘mist’, мъ̀ска/мầска/мồска ‘mule’.</p>
<h4>Reflexes of OBg. ѣ (Yat)</h4>
<p>Yakane (pronunciation of ѣ as ya) was also characteristic of the Kostur dialect in the 16th century. In the Bulgarian-Greek dictionary from the village Bogatsko we find the following examples shows that in the contemporary dialect the Yat pronounciation was ’а: жел'àзо, βιαδρο [в’àдро] ‘bucket’, кол’àно, в’àтер, хл’àп, μλιακο [мл’àко] ‘milk’, etc., but it was disappearing: νεδελα [н’èдела] ‘Sunday’, ςρεντα [срèда] ‘Wednesday’. Today, instead of 'a, we find e: желèзо, вèдро, колèно, вèтер, лèп, млèко, etc. Other examples: бèл ‘white’, вèра ‘faith’, бèгам ‘to run’, голèмо ‘big’, бè ‘was’, езòвец, пòec, жер, чèша.</p>
<p>The elucidation of ѣ in e is an internal phenomenon, not a foreign one. This clarification has passed through ’a. We find a remnant of this process in the word сакавѝца 'axe', which is noticed in the dialect of the villages Dъmbeni and Chuka (in all probability it is also found elsewhere). A remnant of the pronunciation of ѣ as йа is present in the settlement name Dryanovo according to the pronunciation of its Hellenized population and Dranychevo.</p>
<p>The reflex of ѣ define the Kostur dialect as a Western Bulgarian dialect.</p>
<h4>Reflexes of the OBg. ѫ and ѧ</h4>
<p>Nasal vowels from the vocal system of the Old Bulgarian language, in addition to the dialect of the Solun villages Visoka, Suho and Zarovo, have also left decomposed traces in the Kostur dialect.</p>
<p>The reflexes of the OBg. nasal vowels are of two types — with and without decomposed nasality. Decomposed nasalism is mainly found before the barrier phonemes б (п), д (т), г (к) at the beginning and middle of the word. It is a combination of a vowel (ъ, â, ô, o, е) and a consonant (м, н).</p>
<p>The vowel ѫ in the root of the word before consonants, with the exception of б, д, г, has changed to a vowel without decomposеd nasality.</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIhzDj4z0nV6qMxWyVvzZ4pkXqVXA1hfD8OGPVhCf_ENo8TlwVNTobhGEoSipJqqWPChMi9JK7VRF1qrCPpPyYeVKIfsf725GjdTCxl1nePHoCipQC8A4l2G_yeW-ncE79BBeHKys2lvC6xr20ge5QmdmcEJlkZzbDrx68yJyzws1NZhrjwtVXY8wE5A/s1600/Zamp.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px;margin-right:10px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="981" data-original-width="1462" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIhzDj4z0nV6qMxWyVvzZ4pkXqVXA1hfD8OGPVhCf_ENo8TlwVNTobhGEoSipJqqWPChMi9JK7VRF1qrCPpPyYeVKIfsf725GjdTCxl1nePHoCipQC8A4l2G_yeW-ncE79BBeHKys2lvC6xr20ge5QmdmcEJlkZzbDrx68yJyzws1NZhrjwtVXY8wE5A/s1600/Zamp.gif" /></a><br />Reflections of ѫ</div>
<p>Its reflexes are:</p>
<ol>
<li>The vowel ъ in Gornokostursko: пъ̀т, мъ̀ка, нъ̀тре, къпа, къпѝна, мъ̀та, мъ̀ча, ръ̀ка, наръквѝца, скъ̀п, съ̀шч, къ̀шча, гъ̀с, тъ̀тни, мъ̀ш, etc.</li>
<li>The vowel a (labial a) in Nestramsko (Yanovene) пầт, мầка, нầтре, кầшча, рầка, мầш, etc.</li>
<li>Vowel ồ (middle o) in Nestramsko and Kostenariata (for the distribution of vowels â and ô see the map beside): пồт, мồка, нồтре, рồка, мồска, кồшча, мồш, кồпа, etc.</li>
<li>The vowel a in the villages of Bapchor and Zhelevo: пàт, мàка, рàка, нàтре, мàска, скàп, кàпина (Zhelevo), капѝна (Bapchor), etc.</li>
</ol>
<p>As an exception, in some words the reflex is y: пỳча, кỳк’а and кỳйк’а, гнỳсен. In the latter case, we have the result of the old alternation ѫ — ѹ.</p>
<p>In the end of word for verbs, we find two reflexes of the big nasal — the vowels a and e.</p>
<ol>
<li>Vowel a: бèра, пèра, прàва, чѝна, пѝша, прèнда, плèта, вѝйа, вèл’а, сòл’а, дèл’а; бèйа, правèйа, чинèйа, работàйа, гредèйа, седèйа, съ молèйа (Popole). The vowel ѫ has become а with the suffix -нѫ: вѝкна, пàдна, блѝкна, клèкна, сèкна, врèкна, etc.</li>
<li>The vowel е in the present tense third person plural is the result of alignment with the reflexes of ѧ: прàве, рабòте, чѝне, пѝше, пèре, вèле, мèле, стàве, etc.</li>
</ol>
<p>In Koreshchata and Dolnokostursko with finite and non-finite past tense verbs third person plural in the place of ѫ stands e: работàе, бèе, велèе, правèе, пишèе, гредèе, пратвàе, прендèе, плачèе, ставàе, etc.</p>
<p>The decomposed nasal remnants of ѫ occur at the beginning and middle of the word regularly before the consonants б, д, г due to articulation reasons. Before the consonant б occurs м (мб), and before the consonants д, г occurs н (нд, нг). According to the vowel that comes before the consonant м or н, the decomposed nasal combinations are divided into three groups (see map above):</p>
<ol>
<li>ъмб, ънд, ънг (ъмп, ънт, ънк) in Dòlna Korèshcha, Gòrna Korèshcha, Popòle and the northernmost Nestram villages – Zhelin (Χιλιόδενδρο), Chetirok (Μεσοποταμία) and others: гъ̀мба, дъ̀мбо, пъ̀нда, кръ̀нго, пъ̀т ‘road’, ръ̀ка ‘hand’, мъ̀ки ‘troubles’, мъ̀ш ‘man’, къ̀шча ‘house’, съ̀што ‘also’ etc.</li>
<li>âмб, âнд, âнг (âмп, âнт, âнк) in the southern Nestram and Gramos villages – Dranìchevo (Κρανοχώρι), Dobròlishcha (Καλοχώρι), Gàlishcha (Ομορφοκκλησιά), Lùdovo (Κρύα Νερά), Yanovene (Γιαννοχώρι), Slìmnitsa (Τρίλοφος) and others: гầмба, дầмбот, пầнда, крầнгот, пầт ‘road’, рầка ‘hand’, мầш ‘man’, кầшча ‘house’, зầмби ‘teeth’, мầнди, сầнда, гầмби, etc.</li>
<li>ôмб, ôнд, ôнг (ôмп, ôнт, ôнк) in Nestram (Νεστόριο), the Kostenarìa and in the dialect of the resettled in Asia Minor and Turkey people from the former Pomak village Zhèrveni (Άγιος Αντώνιος) (see <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2021/02/labro-koroloff-paper-on-dialect-of.html">Labro Koroloff paper on the dialect of Zhèrveni</a>): гồмба, дồмбот, дồмбут (Nestram), пồнда, крồнгот, пồт ‘road’, рồка ‘hand’, мồки ‘troubles’, кồшча ‘house’, зồмби ‘teeth’, мồнди ‘testes’, сồнда ‘sue’, гồмби ‘mushrooms’.</li>
</ol>
<p>In the combinations мб and нд, there is a complete coincidence in terms of place of articulation and septal features . With the combination нг from decomposed nasalism, septal passability and sonority are present. In the dialect, the voiced consonants б, д, г alternate in the same word with their corresponding voiceless п, т, к: дъ̀мп — дъ̀мбо, зъ̀мп — зъ̀мбо, кръ̀нк — кръ̀нго. In the absence of sonority, the consonant м is not found in the dialect of many villages in Koreshchata: зъ̀п — зъ̀мбо, дъ̀п — дъ̀мбо (see the above map).</p>
<p>The following examples with decomposed nasalism at the beginning and middle of the word are found in the dialect: гъ̀лъмп — гъ̀лъмбо and гâлầмба (Dolnokostursko), съмбòта, сầмба (Dolnokostursko), глъ̀мбок (лъ̀мбок, длъ̀мбок), глъмбочѝна, гъ̀мба, гъ̀мбар, гъ̀мбаф, дъ̀мп — дъ̀мбо, дъ̀мбоф, жèлонт — жèлондо, бъ̀нда, зъ̀мп — зъ̀мбо, се-зъ̀мба, зъ̀мбл’а, назъмбѝца 'horse disease’, кръ̀нк — кръ̀нго, лъ̀нк — лъ̀нго, мъ̀нди, пъ̀нда, пъ̀ндар, пъндарнѝца, тръ̀мба, ръ̀мп — ръ̀мбо, ръ̀мба, съ̀нт — съ̀ндо, съ̀нда, съндилѝшче, гръ̀нди, съ̀нт — съндòви, отъ̀нде and одъ̀нде, млòмко 'ball of yarn’, бъ̀мблак (Kondorbi), 'bud’, гънглѝф (Chereshnitsa), etc.</p>
<p>In the villages Kumanichevo and Gorentsi, a decomposed nasalism has been preserved before the etymological consonants т, п and ч, resulting from the palatalization of т, in the following examples: мъ̀нтаф (мънтàва вòда), въ̀нтар 'barrel bottom’, пъ̀нтец, стъмпàл’ки, поръ̀нчвам.. The lexeme въ̀нтар is also found in the village Chereshnitsa. M. Maletsky <a href="#ref4">[4]</a> notes that in Gorentsi there is a verb блъ̀нда 'to worry, to make angry', but it is known only to the aged people. The same verb is present today in the dialect of the village Kumanichevo: Нè-съ блъ̀нди тàка, àко ỳмбриш, кòй ке-ти-и-пỳли твòите дèца.</p>
<p>A remnant of decomposed nasalism is also found in the name of the village Въ̀мбел. </p>
<p>From the above-mentioned examples, it is clear that in front of the consonants м, н from decomposing nasality, in addition to the vowels ъ, â, ô, in rare cases there is also o: клòмко, пòнтец, жèлонт.</p>
<p>Far fewer examples with decomposed nasality are observed in the peripheral Popòle villages – Zagoricheni (Βασιλειάδα), Chereshnitsa (Πολυκέρασο), Blàtsa (Οξυά), Visheni (Βυσσινιά), Mòkreni (Βαρικό) and Zhelevo (Ανταρτικό) in Gorna Koreshcha. Exceptions from this rule are: по̀пок ‘navel’, во̀глен ‘ember’ in Drenòveni (Κρανιώνας), Gàbresh (Γάβρος) and Chъ̀rnovishcha (Μαυρόκαμπος), together with о̀глен elsewhere, пỳпче ‘bagel’, орỳжйе ‘weapon’ and the verb form рỳжам ‘prepare (oneself)’ – in other places, сỳда ‘sue’ in Gorna Koreshcha and some peripheral villages in Popòle.</p>
<p>As for the reflexes of ѧ, the dialect is not uniform either. There are reflexes with and without decomposed nasalism. The latter forms are more regularly found: шèпа ‘handful’, зèт ‘son-in-law’, èзик ‘tongue’, клèтва ‘vow’, èчмен ‘barley’.</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEish-msdc6GdVRjcyXEhmtg4EbXN9wEnWH_IWmUmrbvOjaxw33k2dehLc5usFGP6UY6UDpbs3QbhDkISHEUS-yj4IJygIs4DvVecksx-Ol9cGmJGX7f2UxdAQgO7u5MrT9TFTY97W_YZIWsjT7HP0AfZju-FcYZtlsLVeP6cR-oj_B1ATWVkw45iwD7ZA/s1600/chendo.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="996" data-original-width="1465" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEish-msdc6GdVRjcyXEhmtg4EbXN9wEnWH_IWmUmrbvOjaxw33k2dehLc5usFGP6UY6UDpbs3QbhDkISHEUS-yj4IJygIs4DvVecksx-Ol9cGmJGX7f2UxdAQgO7u5MrT9TFTY97W_YZIWsjT7HP0AfZju-FcYZtlsLVeP6cR-oj_B1ATWVkw45iwD7ZA/s1600/chendo.gif" /></a><br />Reflections of ѧ</div>
<p>Remnants of decomposed nasalism occurs at the beginning and middle of the word before the consonants д (т), б: èндар, говèндо, говèндар, грèнда, глèндам, оглендàло, рèнт — рèндо, рèнда, чèндо, братучèт — братучèнди, братучèнда, пèндесе, девèндесе, Кòленда, пèнда, прèнда, прендèно, ерембѝца, лендѝна, чембрѝца ‘mint’, etc.</p>
<p>In the dialect of the villages Gorentsi and Kumanichevo, remnants of decayed nasalism are also found before the etymological consonants з, т: èнзик, свèнтец.</p>
<p>In the dialect of many villages (Kosinets) the forms пàенк and чембрѝца are found. Here there is a secondary clarification of ѫ (паѫкъ, чѫбръ).</p>
<p>In the dialect, there are also examples with the mixing of the two nasals: андѝца and eндѝца, ентъ̀рва and антъ̀рва (Kumanichevo), прèнт — прèнда 'nervous' and пръ̀нт — пръ̀нда (the first form is found in Zagoricheni, and the second in Chereshnitsa), èглен ( Bapchor).</p>
<p>Regular mixing of nasals before the consonants ч and ш does not occur in the dialect.</p>
<p>With the remains of decomposed nasalism, Kostur dialect is connected with the dialect of the already mentioned Solun villages Suho, Visoka and Zarovo, with the Polish language, where the nasals are still preserved, and with the Old Bulgarian loanwords in the Hungarian language (cf. galamb 'dove', gomba 'mushroom', szombat 'Saturday', gerenda 'beam', with corresponding Kostur forms).</p>
<p>In the past, remnants of decomposed nasalism were equally characteristic of all Kostur dialect. Today, this phenomenon is weakly represented in the northeastern part of Popole (see above maps). In the dialect of the village of Chereshnitsa, only the following examples with decomposed nasalism are found: пъ̀нда (пъ̀ндар, пъндърнѝца), мъ̀нди, пръ̀нт, èндър (нъèндра), чимбрѝца, кръ̀нк, дръ̀нк, клòмко, мъ̀ндро, Лъ̀нго (local toponym), гънглѝф, пèндесе, девèндесе and индѝца 'kind of needle’, трỳмбук, стръ̀нга (стб. стрѫкъ), въ̀нтър.</p>
<h4>Reflexes of шт, жд</h4>
<p>At the place of OBg. combinations шт, жд, developed from ть, дь, today in the Kostur dialect we mostly meet шч and ж: свèшча ‘candle’, лèшча ‘lentils’, къ̀шча ‘house’, врèшче ‘bag’, шчèрка ‘daughter’, гàшчи ‘underpants’, чужо ‘foreign’, вèжа ‘brow’, мèжа ‘abutment’. In some villages around the dialect area (Chereshnitsa, Bъlgarska Blatsa, etc.) at the place of the OBg. combination жд stands жџ: вежџа, межџа (in Zagoricheni, вèжа and вèжџа are used at the same time). In the dialect of the village Mokreni, йџ appears as а reflex of жд. In the village Prekopana, located on the northern periphery of the dialect, there are also the combinations шт, жд, characteristic of part of the neighboring Lerin dialect: свèшта, мèжда.</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRSuElEpLFF-H_1ez83QAayWfz078lwIZJM7uHbGIl6wB9hNcCKurx-2QBYkDDpMWt-rYIqv8knZNbKqU-UBMvF3e_yPVTRB_Hb-fnzY3rUFULG2OgkjHQeZ3fMv1Ch2dTa0-Xg3sT94uVfqBm2Nmn07x1Gewc_tNs68nnBuV07YEgYii_H6Csb4nvFw/s1600/Kostur_sch.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="988" data-original-width="1403" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRSuElEpLFF-H_1ez83QAayWfz078lwIZJM7uHbGIl6wB9hNcCKurx-2QBYkDDpMWt-rYIqv8knZNbKqU-UBMvF3e_yPVTRB_Hb-fnzY3rUFULG2OgkjHQeZ3fMv1Ch2dTa0-Xg3sT94uVfqBm2Nmn07x1Gewc_tNs68nnBuV07YEgYii_H6Csb4nvFw/s1600/Kostur_sch.gif"/></a></div>
<p>As an irregular phenomenon in some villages of Gornokostursko, Popole, the eastern part of Dòlna Korèshcha – Brèznitsa (Βατοχώρι), Gàbresh, Drenòveni, Chъrnòvishcha and others, instead of шт, жд, к', г' is found in a limited number of words: кỳк’а, кèрка, ке 'future tense particle’, гàки 'panties' (Chereshnitsa); миг’ỳ (Chereshnitsa), (for the distribution of шч and к' in the word шчèрка — кèрка, see below map). In the peripheral villages of Popòle (Chèreshnitsa, Zagorìcheni , Vìsheni etc.) they use кỳк’а ‘house’, along with къ̀шча.</p>
<p>Therefore, almost all reflexes of these combinations, which are found throughout the Bulgarian language area, are also found in the Kostur dialect. It is this that makes us think about phenomena that are traditionally considered Serbian influence in the Western Bulgarian languages due to their similarity with those in the Serbian language, mainly in the upper and middle reaches of the Vardar River.</p>
<blockquote>The groups шт, жд were soft in the Old Bulgarian language. <a href="#ref6">[6]</a> </blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguPxDSrd543qeOMEj6HFGCaadUyoVaQbKbR9-A9Zi89kigV9DOZGF06V7c4znjQMxhsNPH8OjrFxbH3assUcueOinO16s9hQtRANaoyLNC-NMgLFjNh8fuRmBOuqHp5SPoxZ2IyX3p0VFuKP4Bpms2xWBVkpm8VjfcmxmmEsXiONFfVpeGwEtyrC7ctA/s1600/Kostur_kj.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1013" data-original-width="1454" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguPxDSrd543qeOMEj6HFGCaadUyoVaQbKbR9-A9Zi89kigV9DOZGF06V7c4znjQMxhsNPH8OjrFxbH3assUcueOinO16s9hQtRANaoyLNC-NMgLFjNh8fuRmBOuqHp5SPoxZ2IyX3p0VFuKP4Bpms2xWBVkpm8VjfcmxmmEsXiONFfVpeGwEtyrC7ctA/s1600/Kostur_kj.gif"/></a></div>
<p>That is why they could be replaced by other soft consonants. Today's reflexes of these combinations in the Eastern Bulgarian dialects are the result of their early consolidation. In Western dialects, this hardening takes place later and leads to strong palatalization in the majority of Western dialects and partly in Eastern dialects, where т' and д' pass in к' and г': пàк', зèк’, цвèке, брàк’а, г’àвол, г’àкон and others. The same phenomenon is also found in some Eastern dialects (г’àду, Kotlensko). This process has also affected the combinations шт, жд. Reflexes of these combinations in Bulgarian dialects cannot be considered direct reflexes of ть, дь. They are reflexes or decomposed traces of OBg. combinations шт, жд in к' and г': пàк', зèк’, цвèке, брàк’а, г’àвол, г’àкон and others.</p>
<p>The transition of шт, жд into к', г' goes parallel in the western dialects with the transition of т' into к', and of д' into г'. Thus, for example, in the Kostur dialect, the replacement of шт, жд with к', г', and of т' and д' with к' and г' is very scarcely represented, while in the Kumanovo dialect this is a universal phenomenon.</p>
<p>The change of шт, жд into к', г' could have developed in the following way: врèш’т’е — врèш’к’е — врèйк'е — врèк’е; вèж’д’а — вèж’г’а, вèйг’а — вèг’а. Examples with шк' are still found today in Gevgeliysko, Bansko, Kyustendilsko and Vrachansko: прàшк’ум, плàшк’ум 'пращам, плащам’ (Gevgeliysko), нòшкем (Kyustendilsko); ношк’à (village Rila), нòшк’ем (Vratsa), etc. The нòшка form is also found in the village Mokreni in Kostursko. The combination шк' is also present in toponymy in the vicinity of Ohrid, in Struzhko and elsewhere in the Ohrid-Prespa basin. This phenomenon is called шт — к' crossover by Bl. Koneski. There cannot be any crossover to speak of here. This phenomenon is the transition of т' to к' without elision of ш.</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0u9ryclGazjksCbjY_5VRBn7bYuiR1_CY7IeX7fEH9_aEKK63IP7hG9INmpLj4noRvD0xy8N0hf2YslPTzLHK32DqUs22Csu7nhM-os9nqtYx3IshbZOgMR4fgDndwFII_cyBXTgK_7l8cCcbGXK2T3UWh4XlJd6hBU0bqK8CQZNfSSuMBz6lME1yIQ/s1600/Kostur_zh.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1004" data-original-width="1426" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0u9ryclGazjksCbjY_5VRBn7bYuiR1_CY7IeX7fEH9_aEKK63IP7hG9INmpLj4noRvD0xy8N0hf2YslPTzLHK32DqUs22Csu7nhM-os9nqtYx3IshbZOgMR4fgDndwFII_cyBXTgK_7l8cCcbGXK2T3UWh4XlJd6hBU0bqK8CQZNfSSuMBz6lME1yIQ/s1600/Kostur_zh.gif"/></a></div>
<p>In the Bulgarian dialects there are other examples with the combination жг': говèжг’о (Samokov), премèжг’и (Koynare – Beloslatinsko). In Strandzhansko, as well as in Lozengradsko (Kavaklia), the form в’àжг'и is found .</p>
<p>From the combinations шк' and жг', the consonants ш and ж could drop out, since they do not have a meaning-distinguishing function. Elision of these consonants is found in most southwestern Bulgarian dialects.</p>
<p>The replacement of шт, жд in the Kostur dialect is the result of palatalization. The alternation of т—ч, д—ж is a phenomenon characteristic of the Bulgarian language. Therefore, the reflexes of these OBg. combinations in the Kostur dialect have developed in the following way: *свèш’т’а — свèшча, *вèж’д’а — вèжжа — вèжа. The same can be said about the reflexes жџ, џ in some villages of the dialect area (see map above). In the process of development of the palatalization of these combinations, the consonants ш and ж played a special role due to their marked softness in the past, which to a certain extent is still preserved today. The combination шч as a substitute for шт is also found in other Bulgarian dialects.</p>
<p>The combination жд in the word гражданин in the dialect occurs in the following forms: гражàнин (Dolnokostursko), граждàнин (Prekopana), граждйàнин (Olishcha), градйàнин (Kosinets). In Ohridsko, located not far from Kosinets, this form is граг’àнин.</p>
<p>The reflexes of шт are found in a small number of verbs: пỳшча (пѹштѫ), исплèшча 'straighten', etc.</p>
<p>Reflexes of жд are very rare: зъвѝждам (Chereshnitsa). In place of the combinations шт, жд, a root consonant and the suffix -ва- are found in today's dialect, with the help of which imperfect verbs are formed from perfect ones: плàт+а — плàт+вам, прàт+а — плàт+вам, фàт+а — фàт+вам, вѝд+а — вѝд+вам, извàд+а — извàд+вам. This process has developed by analogy with the verbs: кỳпа — кỳпвам, ѝда — ѝдвам, кàча — кàчвам, кàжа — кàжвам, etc.</p>
<h4>Reflexes of чрѣ-, чрь-</h4>
<p>In the place of these Old Bulgarian combinations, the following are found in today's dialect: чер, чâр, чôр, чър and цър, цер, цр̥; чèрно, чầрно, чồрно, чъ̀рно, цъ̀рно and цр̥но. The first three combinations are found in Dolnokostursko, цър and цер in Popole and Gorna Korescha, and чър mainly in Dolna Korescha (see map below).</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpJSyQG_uAP3sicusobJ4LtLvNPQWAXP2ZeAxpA7Sq7CRFYvjg1uCLLagwtCehSrpx6dHpo1aFu5MehJjlj4Duy4o9Jqx__lMA7cF9d52Uy8Sp4nlid2-l93SNHzxE30EFrJGAGXExj6j1aDCsMQoguRJKx_DxOs55F2B-VSNuB2CDxYNHDe0A2qqmIw/s1600/Kostur_chr.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="993" data-original-width="1419" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpJSyQG_uAP3sicusobJ4LtLvNPQWAXP2ZeAxpA7Sq7CRFYvjg1uCLLagwtCehSrpx6dHpo1aFu5MehJjlj4Duy4o9Jqx__lMA7cF9d52Uy8Sp4nlid2-l93SNHzxE30EFrJGAGXExj6j1aDCsMQoguRJKx_DxOs55F2B-VSNuB2CDxYNHDe0A2qqmIw/s1600/Kostur_chr.gif"/></a></div>
<p>чрь/чрэ → чър-/чере-: чъ̀рно ‘black’, чървèни ‘red’, чъ̀рви ‘worms’, черèпна ‘earthenware for bread baking’, черèва ‘intestines’, черèша ‘cherry’ in Dòlna Korèshcha and northern Nèstram villages.</p>
<p>чрь/чрэ → цър-/цере- is found in Popòle and Gòrna Korèshcha: цъ̀рн, цървèна, церèпна (Popole) цъ̀рвена, цèрепна (Gòrna Korèshcha). An exception in both regions is the lexeme черèша/чèреша ‘cherry’.</p>
<p>чрь/чрэ → чåр-/чере- in the northern Nestram and Gramos villages.</p>
<p>чрь/чрэ → чер-/чере-: чèрни, червèно, черèпна in Kostenarìa.</p>
<p>чрь/чрэ → чôр-/чере- in the dialect of the Zhèrveni Pomaks.</p>
<p>The combination цр̥ is found in the dialect of the villages Bapchor and Zhelevo. In Popole and Gorna Koreshcha, as an exception, the combination чер is found in the words черèша and черèпна alongside церèпна.</p>
<p>Of great importance is the crossing of isoglosses. In the Kostur dialect, the combination чър is found with цър. It is here that the answer to the replacement of чър for цър should be sought, not in foreign influence. Due to articulation reasons, the consonant ч before the vowel ъ in the process of hardening could develop into ц.</p>
<h4>Reflexes of ръ — рь</h4>
<p>In the place of the group ръ — рь, the following combinations are found in the dialect (see map below):</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7l5isGvdDlUlDo0aEoHKRtG1RnwSio58n758B2ZbOnNzij1PUYgTS_FRpGIFKNnZQB2YpYX5QTVkQwLctqUgtHo-B6FjOVlkLtKfKuADs1lRsaJbQkl7CwFySiEgxn2z7aytUupvEUu8GruUdz1AmMqCKaJD26mEaLl47QF3xM-S43yDbTKepYaSH4g/s1600/Kostur_ar.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px;margin-right:10px"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1018" data-original-width="1433" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7l5isGvdDlUlDo0aEoHKRtG1RnwSio58n758B2ZbOnNzij1PUYgTS_FRpGIFKNnZQB2YpYX5QTVkQwLctqUgtHo-B6FjOVlkLtKfKuADs1lRsaJbQkl7CwFySiEgxn2z7aytUupvEUu8GruUdz1AmMqCKaJD26mEaLl47QF3xM-S43yDbTKepYaSH4g/s1600/Kostur_ar.gif"/></a></div>
<ol>
<li>-ър- in Gòrna Korèshcha, Dòlna Korèshcha, Popole, the northernmost part of the Nestram villages: дъ̀рво ‘tree’, къ̀рф ‘blood’, пъ̀рф, пъ̀рва ‘first’, пъ̀рст, гъ̀рк, въ̀р, съ̀рп, гъ̀рп, мъ̀рдам, пъ̀рт, въ̀рта, etc. Exceptions: гръ̀нци ‘crockery’, крèст ‘cross’, everywhere except Popole, where they used къ̀рст.</li>
<li>-âр- in most villages in Nestram and Gramos: кâрф, пâрф, пầрст, гầрк, гầрцки, вầр, сầрп, мầрдам, пầрт, вầрта, etc</li>
<li>-ôр- in the dialect of the Zherveni Pomaks and in Kalevishta (Καλή Βρύση), Nestram region: кồрф, пồрф, пồрст, гồрк, вồр, сồрце, гồрст, etc.</li>
<li>-ер- and -е̥р- in Kostenariata and Ezerets (Πετροπουλάκι): кèрф, пèрф, пèрст, гèрк, сèрце, вèрх, сèрп, пèрт и кè̥рф, пè̥рф, пè̥рст, гè̥рк, сè̥рце, вè̥рх, сè̥рп, etc.</li>
<li>-р̥- in the villages Bapchor and Zhelevo: кр̥̀ф, пр̥̀ф, пр̥̀ст, гр̥̀к, ср̥̀це, вр̥̀, ср̥̀п, пр̥̀т, etc. — as in the northwestern Bulgarian dialects.</li>
</ol>
<h4>Reflexes of лъ — ль</h4>
<p>In place of the group лъ — ль in the Kostur dialect, the following combinations are found (see map below):</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvLZ4qvg4N1yZZuu8D3w3SDW-r3LEOgs2paFxE3EOKKMr0ONhoEuT0lOWjUOTDNkhqV1_pfyA71RqnnCXDGQnevqkthvihc8rdjSdPAqN0Xtp8i0Iz9bVe0lXJv1c8eW_MRBpp1SLBaJI6OPdFcX4iOjcHqqW_36HJ1Wp6QyuPPUbn40rqDNhDkwWjUQ/s1600/Kostur_ra.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px; margin-right: 10px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1002" data-original-width="1407" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvLZ4qvg4N1yZZuu8D3w3SDW-r3LEOgs2paFxE3EOKKMr0ONhoEuT0lOWjUOTDNkhqV1_pfyA71RqnnCXDGQnevqkthvihc8rdjSdPAqN0Xtp8i0Iz9bVe0lXJv1c8eW_MRBpp1SLBaJI6OPdFcX4iOjcHqqW_36HJ1Wp6QyuPPUbn40rqDNhDkwWjUQ/s1600/Kostur_ra.gif"/></a></div>
<ol>
<li>-ъл- in Dòlna Korèshcha, Gòrna Korèshcha, Popòle and the northern Nestram villages: въ̀лк, вълчѝца, въ̀лна, къ̀лна, мъ̀лза, пъ̀лна, мъ̀лча, дъ̀лк, дъ̀лго ‘long’, пъ̀лн ‘full’, мъ̀лзи ‘(she) milks’, ‘тъ̀лча ‘squash’, жъ̀лт ‘yellow’, etc.</li>
<li>-âл- in the northern Nèstram and Gramos villages: вầлк, вâлчѝца, вầлна, кầлна, дầлго ‘long’, пầлн ‘full’, мầлзи ‘(she) milks’, тầлча ‘squash’, жầлт ‘yellow’, etc.</li>
<li>-ôл- in Nèstram, Kostenarìa and in the dialect of the Zhèrveni Pomaks: вồлк, вồлчйца, вồлна, кồлна, дồлго ‘long’, пồлн ‘full’, мồлзи ‘(she) milks’, тồлча ‘squash’, жồлт ‘yellow’, etc.</li>
<li>-л̥- in the villages of Bapchor and Zhelevo: вл̥̀к, вл̥чѝца (Bapchor), вл̥̀чица (Zhelevo), вл̥̀на, кл̥̀на, мл̥̀за, пл̥̀на, мл̥̀ча, дл̥̀к, etc.</li>
</ol>
<p>An exception to the above-mentioned cases is the clarification of this Old Bulgarian combination in the words болгàрин ‘Bulgarian’ (Dòlna Korèshcha, Nèstram villages), булгàрин (southern Kostur villages, most villages in Popòle), бо̀гарин (Gòrna Korèshcha), бугàрин (the peripheral villages in Popòle) and зòлва ‘sister-in-law’.</p>
Therefore, when clarifying the OBg. vowels ъ, ь, found in combination with the consonants р and л, these occur:
<ol>
<li>vowel (ъ, â, ô, е) + р, + л.</li>
<li>vowel (ъ, â, ô, е) + р̥, + л̥.</li>
</ol>
<h4>Groups вн, бн</h4>
<p>In the place of thеsе old combinations in Kostur dialect we find:</p>
<ol>
<li>вн at the beginning of the word: внỳк, внỳчка. This is typical for Dolnokostursko and for some villages in Gornokostursko (Bapchor).</li>
<li>мн in the middle of the word: рàмно 'even', плèмна ‘barn’, глàмна ‘brand’, одàмна 'long ago', оглàмник 'yoke', Слѝмница (village), дрèмно жѝто 'fine grain', загѝмна ' to perish', снòмник 'dream book', etc. In most of the villages of Gornokostursko and at the beginning of the word we find the мн combination: мнỳк ‘nephew’, мнỳка ‘niece’ (Zagoricheni).</li>
</ol>
<h4>Consonant х</h4>
<p>The velar consonant x is found only in some villages of the Kostenaria region (Snichene, Zhuzhelce, Mangila, Starichene). It is not found in most of the dialect area. The consonant x is found in the dialect of the village Bogatsko, as the already mentioned dictionary from the 16th century testifies.</p>
<p>According to Bl. Koneski: <q>In some spoke in Kostursko (Bapchor village, etc. .) appears a substitution of к for x in the past tense form: бèк, шèтак, etc., while in the other cases x is usually lost without a trace (referring to Z. Golomb).</q> Regarding the first statement it must be said that in the dialect of the inhabitants of the former village of Bapchor in Kostur, such a substitution is found only among the oldest. In conversations with representatives of the middle and young generation, one does not notice к instead of x in the past tense form. Regarding the second statement of Bl. Koneski it should be emphasized that the consonant x has disappeared without a trace only in very few cases, and that at the beginning of the word, as in most Bulgarian dialects.</p>
<p>This results in:</p>
<ol>
<li>Replacement of the consonant x with the consonant ф (в): мèф— мèво, глỳф — глỳва, сỳф — сỳва, òфтика, нòфти, ỳво (Yanoveni), etc. In the case of verb forms in the past tense, such a replacement does not occur.</li>
<li>Replacement of the consonant x with the consonant й. This phenomenon occurs mainly in the verb forms for the third person plural in the past tense in the Popole area: бèйа, велèйа, ръботàйа, пеèйа, седèйа, съ молèйа, съ бувàйа, etc. Replacement of x with й is also found in some nouns: снàйа, лèйа, стрèйа, òрèй, etc.</li>
<li>Replacement of x with к: дỳк, въ̀здук (Chereshnitsa). Aged people who have a weak command of the Greek language instead of x in all cases in Greek words and loanwords pronounce к: крòма 'color', кòра 'country, state', номàркин 'district governor, prefect', димаркѝо 'town hall', etc.</li>
<li>The consonant x doubles the stressed vowel before it. This phenomenon occurs in the following situations:
<ol type="a">
<li>In the past tense endings -хме, -хте: спàаме, — спàате, работàаме — работàате, бèеме — бèете, пиèеме — пиèете, видòоме — видòоте, правèеме — правèете, шчукàаме — шчукàате, ойдòоме ‘we went’, фатѝйме ‘we caught’, казàаме ‘we said’, прикажвàаме ‘we talked’, йадèете ‘you ate’ etc. Doubled vowels give the phonetic impression of long vowels.</li>
<li> In the word ends for some masculine nouns: влàа, прàа, сиромàа (Popole — сирòма, Koreshcha).</li>
</ol>
</li>
<li>The consonant x has disappeared without a trace at the beginning of the word: лèп, òро, àрно, òда, ỳбаф, ѝч, àбер, àрџа, àйде, арамѝйа, etc. This phenomenon is characteristic of almost all Bulgarian dialects.</li>
</ol>
<p>The intervocal х is often substituted with в: мỳва ‘fly’, сỳви ‘dry’.</p>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
<ol>
<li>The reflexes of the OBg. vowels ѣ and ъ have a West Bulgarian character.</li>
<li>The reflexes of ь have a general Bulgarian character.</li>
<li>Reflexes of the combinations ръ—рь, лъ—ль have a mixed character: Eastern and Western Bulgarian.</li>
<li>The reflexes of ѫ are Eastern Bulgarian. A phenomenon characteristic of the dialect is the decomposed nasalism mainly before consonants б, д, г.</li>
<li>A reflex of ъ in the combinations ръ—рь, лъ—ль and ѫ in some villages of Dolnokostursko is the vowel phoneme â (labial a), which was established for the first time in Kostursko, and together with the vowel phoneme ô, found in other villages of this region, in the Rhodopes, Dolna Prespa and in Debarsko, helps to establish the voice of these vocals in the earliest Old Bulgarian period.</li>
<li>The clarification of ѧ has a general Bulgarian character, except for the cases where a decomposing nasalism occurs mainly before б, д, г.</li>
<li>The change of the combinations шт, жд, чрѣ—чрь has a mixed character. The transition of шт, жд into шч, ж is the result of a softening process, and in к', д' — of elision and replacement of т' with к' and д' with г'. According to Stoykov, the soft consonants т', д' and the soft consonants к', г' are very close in articulatory terms, but slightly different in hearing.
Regarding the reflexes к’, г’, цър and цр̥, no foreign influence should be sought. The combination цър (цървèн) is also found in South-Eastern Bulgaria.
</li>
<li>The reflexes of the OBg. combination вн have eastern and western Bulgarian character.</li>
<li>The consonant х has general Bulgarian features: in some places it is preserved, at the beginning of the word it disappears without a trace, in other positions it doubles the vowels standing before it, or it changes into ф (в), й and partly into к.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h3>Reduction of vowels</h3>
<p>The reduction of vowels is also inherent in the dialect along the lower course of the Vardar River. <a href="#ref7">[7]</a> Reduction of vowels e, o, a is also found in the eastern part of Kostursko, located in the direction of the lower course of the Vardar River. It is found mostly in Popole and less often in Kostenaria. These two areas are located not far from Vodensko, where the reduction of vowels is a regular phenomenon. <a href="#ref8">[8]</a></p>
<p>The reduction of vowels in Kostur dialect as a phenomenon affects the vowels a, o, e before and partly after stress, when they do not have a special grammatical function. Therefore, the reduction in the eastern part of Kostursko is partial.</p>
<h4>Reduction of the vowel a</h4>
<p>The reduction of the vowel a is characteristic of the dialect of the villages in the Popole region. With this phenomenon, the Popole dialect is connected with the Voden dialect. Regarding the reduction of the vowel a in ъ, the dialect of these villages is not uniform in all cases.</p>
<p>In the north-eastern part of the Popole region, the reduction of the vowel a to ъ in a constant prestressed position is a universally regular phenomenon: плънѝна, гръдѝна, пъдѝна, къпѝна, ръмнѝна, ъвлѝйа, ълàйка, ъйдỳтин, ърнъỳтин, ърмàсник, ънгърѝйа, ъндàрин, ъмàлин, ърàпин, ъргàтин, ърèсвам, etc. (Zagoricheni, Chereshnitsa, Mokreni).</p>
<p>The vowel a with variable stress in the different forms of a word in most villages of Popole is not reduced: тàтко — таткòй, грàт — градòй, стàп — стапòй, трàп — трапòй, прàк — прагòй, фàтвам — фатвàйа, прàва — правèйа, клàвам — клавàйа, etc. (Zagoricheni). It is not reduced in the prepositions на, за and the conjunction да: Фатѝйа да-бèге су-пупаг’àта. Утидòйа дур-на-пулувѝнио пъ̀т (Zagoricheni).</p>
<p>In the dialect of the village of Chereshnitsa, the reduction of the vowel a in a constant prestressed position is an almost universal phenomenon, similar to that in the eastern Bulgarian dialects: Àй дъ-òйме дъ-нълèйме вòда ут-чèжмата нъ-Кѝрин трàп. Нòвата къ̀шча е нъпръвèна нъ-мèстото нъ-стàрата. Ърмъснѝцата гу-устàви нъ-дèтто.Only in some loan words it is not reduced: анàсана, анàфтама, батъкшѝйа, арънѝйа, etc. In rare cases, the vowel a is not reduced to ъ in the preposition на and the particle да.</p>
<p>In the dialect of the village of Chereshnitsa, when the stress is moved forward in the different forms of the same word, the vowel a under stress is pronounced sometimes as a, sometimes as ъ: тàтко — таткòви — тъткòви, стàп — стапòви — стъпòви, дйàвул — дйавòли — дйъвòли, прàк — прагòви — пръгòви, etc.</p>
<h4>Reduction of the vowel o</h4>
<p>The reduction of the vowel o is characteristic more or less for the entire eastern part of the dialect from the villages of Visheni, Bъlgarska Blatsa and Chereshnitsa to Nestram and Ezerets (see map below). This phenomenon in Kostenaria and the village of Nestram occurs before a stress, it is not regular, but it is quite common:</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih2Tiwwgr-4qSMprssjQAQS7kr8CiN7SaO0Xo32p6Kz2whMiWugk56hdaykE-VxXbjZD_H40DZ59EzUiRZy6bUmmbFO16GvJqu63rVjMDl3ILQx5uu-8GhxMJqeesaY4m3eqm-AIiC6TezlqmKRQnrFiZ1-J36vCRAShl0mcJCrtyy-8FrHEWy5ffx9w/s1600/Reduction_o.gif" style="padding: 0em 10px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="968" data-original-width="1415" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih2Tiwwgr-4qSMprssjQAQS7kr8CiN7SaO0Xo32p6Kz2whMiWugk56hdaykE-VxXbjZD_H40DZ59EzUiRZy6bUmmbFO16GvJqu63rVjMDl3ILQx5uu-8GhxMJqeesaY4m3eqm-AIiC6TezlqmKRQnrFiZ1-J36vCRAShl0mcJCrtyy-8FrHEWy5ffx9w/s1600/Reduction_o.gif"/></a></div>
<p style="font-size:small">Влашỳле, мòре влашỳле,<br />
шò ти-è чъ̀рна рѝзата ?<br />
— Рѝзата ми-è пỳ-бèла, <br />
съ̀рцето ми-è пỳ-чъ̀рно<br />
пỳ-èна бèла булгàрка.<br />
Булгàрке грèде от-жèтва,<br />
си-грèде бèли, чървèни, <br />
бусил’ковѝна мирѝше ;<br />
влаѝнке грèде от-Грàмос, <br />
си-грèде жòлти торỳнке, <br />
торунковѝна мирѝше.<br />
(Recorded by Sterya Buneva from the village Nestram)</p>
<p>In the villages of Popole, the vowel o, which is in a constant unstressed position before a stress, is reduced to у: гурнѝца, гудѝна, гулèмо, кукòшка, зуграфѝсвам and зугръфѝсвам (Chereshnitsa), пустèл’а, путрèба, пучỳдвам, пушчỳкам, пупàг’а, пулѝца, пулỳпка, урнѝца, утнòво, устàвам, урлѝца, урàло, etc. It should be noted that in the villages Tiolishcha, Kondorbi and Lichishcha, the reduction of o and e is present only in individual words, and not in all informants.</p>
<p>Reduction of the vowel o after stress has been observe by B. Shklifov in his native village Chereshnitsa. The vowel o, found after a stress between consonants, is reduced to у: пèтук, вòсук, кòнуп, нѝсук, млàдус, стàрус, упàснус, пѝскуп, пѝтруп, Бѝтул’а, мѝлус, etc.</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqmOZdcQG2XhUE-OODQXBRa83jsasqfFNCX5WCKTX4b-n_zW3sllO88gWVvvdWtY21hnMOo7R9IBNUHsIIWG-vvSJjNxLJFLAh2l0AlOl6UUca1lS70G-GBlsYmPRugVlv-l0ZlJNoFbnhP-7KtN-bN5vBFZL3UHub5djbWF_wVV3iXfZAXF9ntZqCJw/s1600/Reduction_petok.gif" style="margin-right:10px"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="1003" data-original-width="1458" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqmOZdcQG2XhUE-OODQXBRa83jsasqfFNCX5WCKTX4b-n_zW3sllO88gWVvvdWtY21hnMOo7R9IBNUHsIIWG-vvSJjNxLJFLAh2l0AlOl6UUca1lS70G-GBlsYmPRugVlv-l0ZlJNoFbnhP-7KtN-bN5vBFZL3UHub5djbWF_wVV3iXfZAXF9ntZqCJw/s1600/Reduction_petok.gif"/></a></div>
<p>The reduction of the vowel o with the suffix -oк (OBg. -ъкъ) is found in Popole and the village Nestram (see map bеside), and in its place in Kostenariata we find a.</p>
<p>When changing the stress on verbs in past finite tense first person singular and plural, the vowel o (òo from -ox) alternates with у: видòоме — вѝду, дойдòоме — дòйду, рекòоме — рèку, ойдòоме — òйду, найдòоме — нàйду, айдòоме — йàду, кладòоме — клàду, etc. Here, not the doubled vowel оо is reduced to у, but only the vowel o, because in first person past tense the stress did not fall on o: вѝдох— видòхме. The vowel before the missing consonant x was doubled only when it stood immediately before the consonant x and was stressed. This reduction of the vowel o is characteristic of most of the dialect area. In the villages Zagoricheni and Kunamichevo there are forms: вѝдо, клàдо, etc.</p>
<p>The reduction of the vowel o in word end does not affect the genitive suffixes, nor the neuter definite article: мàло дèте, мàлото дèте, висòко мèсто, висòкото мèсто, гулèмо дъ̀рво, àрно мòмче, тòпло млèко, шàрено кутàле, etc.</p>
<p>The vowel o is not reduced even when it is a suffix in adverbs formed from adjectives: висòко, àрно, тòпло, горèшчо and гурèшчо, убàво, лèпо, прèпно 'nice', студèно, нѝско, стрèдно, etc. In adverbs that are not formed from adjectives, instead of o we find у: мнòгу, бъ̀ргу, кèлку, тèлку, etc.</p>
<h4>Reduction of the vowel e</h4>
<p>The reduction of the vowel e goes roughly parallel to the reduction of the vowel o (see map below).</p>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnSCGpaMk-Ak_ezfUKaZVP-83oceYtVHqWLP168m6AaHnyvlngmZE3lrK7K5-cLV4gg3LbT0hF18Qt1BkU4EfdDCpkNhRl4gp6BCuF-7PhU60sTIHQ6ryCLtwoWB8EJq27vreBuvH0dhCHkCYx5UNT-Y62zXFljGs1M82xnRGzRuFKb3k7HV3wzhriqw/s1600/Reduction_nevesta.gif" style="margin-right:10px"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="982" data-original-width="1453" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnSCGpaMk-Ak_ezfUKaZVP-83oceYtVHqWLP168m6AaHnyvlngmZE3lrK7K5-cLV4gg3LbT0hF18Qt1BkU4EfdDCpkNhRl4gp6BCuF-7PhU60sTIHQ6ryCLtwoWB8EJq27vreBuvH0dhCHkCYx5UNT-Y62zXFljGs1M82xnRGzRuFKb3k7HV3wzhriqw/s1600/Reduction_nevesta.gif"/></a></div>
<p>The reduction of the vowel e is not equally prevalent and is found mostly in the Popòle peripheral villages – Cherèshnitsa, Zagoricheni, Mokreni and in some southern villages. A regular phenomenon is the reduction of e in a constant prestressed position: изèро, нивèста, иврèин, иничàрин, ивзòнин, ифтинѝйа, кисилѝна, клипàло, сидèло, лигàло, лиснотѝйа and лиснутѝйа (Chereshnitsa), мисичѝна, ниблибѝйа, нидèл’а, киримѝда, миръклѝйа, вичèра ‘supper’, дибèло 'thick', etc. In some villages of Kostenaria, in the post-stressed position between two consonants, there are separate examples of the reduction of e to и: дèвит, дèсит, се-крѝих (Mangila).</p>
<h4>Vowel reduction of e in Chereshnitsa</h4>
<p>In the dialect of the village Chereshnitsa, with the exception of a few words (терсенè, керèсте, черèша, перòсйа, прèт and слèт — prepositions, etc.), in the prestressed position the vowel e is reduced to и, and in the poststressed position, when it is between two consonants, regardless of whether it is an etymological vowel or a reflex, is reduced to ъ; кòтъл, чòвък, гòл’ъм, учѝтъл, бèрбър, èдън, шàрън, пèтъл, здрàвъц, плèтън, зèл’ън, дèбъл, изл’ỳпън, etc. When in some of the mentioned words the stress is moved forward, the vowel e reappears: гòл’ъм — голèми, чòвък — човèци, зèл’ън — зелèни, etc.</p>
<p>The vowel e is reduced to ъ and with the reflexive particle се and the short pronoun forms ме, те, не, ве, when they are in front of a verb: съ-ỳдри, съ-ѝзми, съ-жèни, съ-ърмàса, съ-пугъ̀рчи, съ-утèпа, съ-йъдòса, съ-удàви, съ-снъмòза 'got ill’, съ-фàти; мъ-вѝке, мъ-сàке, мъ-вѝде; тъ-мѝлве, тъ-бàре, тъ-шчỳке, тъ-чèкам, тъ-сàкам, нъ-мъ̀че гъ̀рците, нъ-зътвòрве, нъ-бỳве, нъ-плàше, нъ-прàве гъ̀рци; въ-чèкаме, въ-сàкаме, въ-бъ̀раме, въ-мòлиме, въ-мулѝтваме, въ-пỳлиме, въ-крèпиме, etc.</p>
<p>When the above-mentioned short pronominal forms are found after the verb, they are not reduced (imperative mood): вѝкна-ме, сàкай-ме, вѝди-ме, шчỳкай-ме, бàрай-не, вѝди-не, etc.</p>
<p>The pronominal short form ве 'you' does not occur after a verb.</p>
<p>When the reflexive particle stands after the verb (imperative mood), the vowel e reappears: вѝди се, чỳвай се, ѝзмити се, слèчите се, вѝдите се, etc.</p>
<p>A similar reduction of the vowel e is also found in some Eastern Bulgarian dialects (Pavlikeni).</p>
<p>Reduction of e with the reflexive particle before the verb is also found in other Popole villages (Lichishcha, Bъmbuki, Òlishcha, etc.).</p>
<p>In the village Chereshnitsa, the vowel и before the suffix for masculine forms in the narrative mood is reduced to ъ: гувòръл, стòръл, нъпрàвъл, утвòръл, зъбурàвъл, òдъл, сàдъл, мѝсл’ъл, глòбъл (plural гуворѝле, сторѝле, нъправѝле, etc.).</p>
<h3>Vowel replacement</h3>
<h4>Replacement a with e</h4>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigRQzXWN1xItf_hFro3v22kdUs6xxrBVWXiUR7DuK_GCKZGof5WGJ_HKN4vQofPpa0tssMD1I90qoEr7TqaSisGVXPDRZNnaigmpjt75DvWW9R1y0NLGhmlOIiC7ERtDcGnb2G56KJoWxGMUdqyiyqjtAg7gpqMi7oyA8nBmr2N--hr1SUablYokigrw/s1600/Kostur_vod.gif" style="display: block; padding: 0 1em; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="600" width="600" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigRQzXWN1xItf_hFro3v22kdUs6xxrBVWXiUR7DuK_GCKZGof5WGJ_HKN4vQofPpa0tssMD1I90qoEr7TqaSisGVXPDRZNnaigmpjt75DvWW9R1y0NLGhmlOIiC7ERtDcGnb2G56KJoWxGMUdqyiyqjtAg7gpqMi7oyA8nBmr2N--hr1SUablYokigrw/s1600/Kostur_vod.gif"/></a></div>
<p>After the consonants ж, ч, ш, in some cases the vowel a is replaced by the vowel e: жèба, òфчер, воденчèр (Shlimnitsa), жèр, кушèра (Dъmbeni), кучèни (Dranichevo); читѝйа, шимѝйа (Chereshnitsa — а: е: и); шèрен, поръ̀чен, венчèнйе, желовѝта пèсна, печèл’а (Kosinets). (For the replacement of a with e in the word воденичар, see figure below.)</p>
<p>The replacement of a with e in the word чèша is universal.</p>
<p>In the above examples, the vowel a, located before the consonants ж, ч, ш, shares the fate of ѣ.</p>
<p>Replacement of a with e is also found after a soft consonant л': пол’àна — полèна — пулèна, селèнин (Smъrdesh).</p>
<p>Substitution of the vowel a in e after the consonants ж, ч, ш, л' is found in both Northern and Southern Bulgaria.<a href="#ref9">[9]</a></p>
<p>In the following examples, the vowel substitution is due to various phonetic reasons:</p>
<p>e: a — аврèин, тỳфйак (Nestram), авдовѝца (Ezerets).</p>
<p>е: ъ — èндек (Drenoveni) and ъ̀ндък (Popole).</p>
<p>е: и — ѝли, бѝл’ки 'hopefully’ (Chereshnitsa) and èли, бèл’ки (Kosinets).</p>
<p>е: о — èшче (Koreshcha), òше (Popole).</p>
<p>и: у — гѝч 'tickle’ (Rulya) and г’ỳч (Chereshnitsa), финдỳзи 'hazelnuts' (Koreshcha) and фундỳзи (Chereshnitsa); кискѝйа for кюския 'pavilion’.</p>
<p>а: ъ — знàм (Koreshcha) and знъ̀м (Popole), как and кък (ка, къ).</p>
<p>о: е — кèлку and кèку, тèлку and теку.</p>
<h4>Replacement of o with a (akane)</h4>
<p>In some villages of the dialect area, instead of the vowel o in the prestressed position, we find the vowel a in the following words: ваданѝчер, слабòда (Chiflik), тапòла, матѝка, лапàта (Bapchor) (see map above).</p>
<p>With these examples of akane, the Kostur dialect is connected to the Rhodope dialects.</p>
<h4>Replacement of o with у</h4>
<p>Replacement of o with у occurs mostly with some adverbs that do not originate from adjectives and with the preposition во in stressed position before personal pronoun forms in the village of Konomladi: делèку, блѝзу, мнòгу, бъ̀ргу, тèлку and тèку, кèлку and кèку; вỳ-нас, вỳ-него, вỳ-неми, etc. The same substitution is also present with the lexeme кушèра in the village of Dъmbeni. These examples cannot be considered a reduction, since there is no such thing in Koreshchata.</p>
<h3>Dropping of vowels</h3>
<p>In the Kostur dialect, the dropping of vowels is quite common. It occurs at the beginning, middle and rarely at the end of the word and leads to shortening of syllables, i.e. the word is simplified. Dropping vowels does not affect the meaning of words.</p>
<p>Dropping vowels is also related to stress — only unstressed vowels are dropped.</p>
<p>The drop of vowels at the beginning of the word is limited:</p>
<p>drop of a: нафòра, натамòсвам, Мèрика.</p>
<p>drop of e: вангèлие, сèнцка (трèва) 'есенска’,'autumn'.</p>
<p>drop of и: ликѝйа 'age' (Greek loanword), тал'àнин. </p>
<p>drop of o: пѝнци 'опинци'.</p>
<h4>Dropping of vowels in the middle of words</h4>
<p>Dropping vowels in the middle of a word is a common phenomenon. It is most common in the Popole region, mainly with the genitive ending, when nouns and adjectives are articled. The same phenomenon is found in Dolnovardarsko and in some Thracian dialects. When forming the definiteness forms for nouns, feminine and neuter adjectives, feminine plurals and plural verb forms for 1st and 2nd person plural, the vowel before the consonants т, н, р, л, м, ш is often dropped: жèна — жèнта, жèнте, пилèна — пилèнта — пилèнте, студèна — студèнта — студèнте, зелèна — зелèнта — зелèнте, плънѝна — плънѝнта — плънѝнте, дèте — дèтто, брàте — брàтто, бàте — бàтто, урàло — урàлто, кутàле — кутàл’то, бѝше — бѝшто, врèме — врèмто, шѝше — шѝшто, знàме — знàмто, вèл’а — вèл’те, мèл’а — мèл’те, пѝша — пѝште, бèра — бèрте, съ-бòра — съ-бòрте, съ-мèра— съ-мèрте, etc. The vowel и is also dropped in the formation of the definite form for the plural of masculine nouns: офчàри — офчàрте, гувендàри — гувендàрте, пъртизàни — пъртизàнте, кумѝти — кумѝтте, ъндàрти — ъндàрте, бугàри — бугàрте, другàри — другàрте, аскèри — аскèрте, etc.</p>
<p>Cases of dropping vowels at the end of the word are rarer. The vowel у is dropped from the possessive article -тòму: Петротòм сѝн (instead of Петротòму сѝн), царотòм шчèрка (instead of царотòму шчèрка), зетотòм мàйка (instead of зетотòму майка), таткотòм нѝва (instead of таткотòму нѝва) and others. We find this phenomenon in the dialect of Ezerets, Zhuzheltse and in other villages of Kostenaria.</p>
<p>The vowel е is also dropped in the negative particle не, found after the particle да (да не) — дàн: Дàн гу-вѝде чỳпето? Дàн гу-бàраш нъ-мъ̀ш-ти? Дàн сàкаш дъ-мъ-зèваш зъ-нивèста? Дàн гу-вѝда дрỳк пъ̀т тỳка (Chereshnitsa).</p>
<h4>Metathesis of vowels and consonants</h4>
<p>Vowel metathesis is found in the combinations лъ, ръ in the initial syllable: ъ̀лска (Chereshnitsa), ъ̀лшчи (Kosinets), ъ̀рш, ъ̀ржи 'growl', ъ̀рт, ъ̀ршлан, etc.</p>
<p>Metathesis of consonants is found in the following examples:
кâртàло (Чука), търкàло (Grache); свѝчки 'all’; лàро (Ezerets) 'plough’; кèлар inst. керал.</p>
<p>Metathesis of the consonants ц—к, ц—т, ц—ч is found in the local name of the primrose: горòквец, Kosinets (< горòцвек); горòтвец — in most villages of Koreshcha (< горòцвет), грòчвъц, Chereshnitsa (< горòцвек’, Sheshteovo).</p>
<p>Metathesis of й consonant is present in Popole for verbal nouns formed with the suffix -нйе: урàйне, пулèйне, спàйне, игрàйне, пасèйне, шчукàйне, одèйне (← *одèнйe ‘going’), бегàйне (← *бегàнйе ‘running’), *дèйна (← дèнйа ‘in the day’). Soft н’ does not occur in the dialect. In the other subdialects there is: одèнйe, бегàнйе, дèнйа.</p>
<p>Metathesis of й is also found in the following two examples: грòйзе, лòйзе (Zagorichani). The forms грòзйе, лòзйе are found almost in the entire speaking area. In кòйн (Zagorichabi), the preposition of й was realized from the indirect case forms, and not from the nominative, because the phoneme cannot be decomposed into two parts.</p>
<h4>Transition of soft to hard consonants</h4>
<p>The transition of soft consonants to hard ones is a characteristic phenomenon of the dialect. The strengthening of consonants and the clarification of ѣ в е (< ’a) in this dialect has led to a minimal number of soft consonants. Instead of a soft consonant, as is the case in other dialects, only a hard consonant is found in the Kostur dialect in the following examples: зèма 'land’, сѝна ’blue’, кòно 'the horse’, офчàро 'the shepherd’, пъ̀то 'the road’, учѝтело 'the teacher’, тỳтун 'tobacco’, мусулмàнин 'Muslin’, сỳргун 'exile’, дỳшек 'quilt’, etc.</p>
<p>When the consonants г' and т' were strengthened in the Turkish loanwords тюлбен and гяурин received hard к and д: каỳрин, дỳл'бен. In the last example, there is also anticipation.</p>
<h4>Insertion of consonants</h4>
<p>In the following cases, we find the insertion of the consonants м, б, г by analogy with the remnants of decomposing nasalism: мъ̀нгла, фамбрѝка, пàмбук 'cooton’, џòнџе, ỳмбре, кàндре, йàнглаш.</p>
<p>In the word фулувèйка (Konomladi) 'cuckoo' we find a prosthetic inserted consonant ф. The inserted consonant т is found in the combinations ср' жр: стрèда, стрèде, стрàм, мàстраф, стрèта, Нèстрам, пòстран ждрèбе; н: татковнѝна ’fatherland’; е: лàвам 'bark', бувам 'beat'- (у < ы) — by analogy with verbs such as дàвам, стàвам, плàвам, etc. In the words гòстик, нòхтик there is an inserted vowel и and consonant к (Mangila., Zhuzheltsi) .</p>
<h4>Dropping of consonants</h4>
<p>Dropping of consonants in Kostur dialect is a frequent phenomenon. It is due to internal linguistic reasons that lead to a simplification of the phonetic structure of the word.</p>
<p>The most common phenomenon is the dropping of the final consonant т: млàдос, стàрос, лỳдос, бòлес, брèс, пàкос, мèкос, мѝлос, нàпре, нàза, пàпра, поп, etc.</p>
<p>The consonant т also falls out in the middle of the word when it is between two consonants: пòсна недèл’а, гàшник, нòшно (врèме).</p>
<p>A characteristic phenomenon for the dialect is the dropping of the consonant т from the suffix -ство: богàсво, арамѝсво, брàсво, домакѝнсво, рòпсво. In isolated cases, it also falls out in other positions: андàрин.</p>
<p>In rare cases, the consonant к also falls out: pa 'again', ка and къ 'how' (Popole), тỳа 'here'.</p>
<p>In some cases in Dolnokostursko and Koreshchata, the consonant д, located before н (дн), falls out: èн, èна, èно, èни, пàна, сèна, etc.
In the conjugation of some verbs, the base of which ends in a consonant в or д in first person singular present, the above-mentioned consonants fall out: прàва — прàш, дàвам — дàш, клàда — клàш, вѝда — вѝш, òда — òш, etc.</p>
<p>In the dialect of Gorna Koreshcha, similar to the Bulgarian dialects from central Macedonia, a process of dropping an intervocalic consonant в develops : нèеста, ỳбао, нòо, сỳо, пòике, which is sometimes pronounced, sometimes not.</p>
<p>The consonant в is also dropped in some other cases: отòрвам 'open' (Koreshcha), сòсем and сỳсем, о 'in' — a preposition (Yanovene, Kosinets).
Loss of consonants in singular cases: г: сèа, сѝа (Kosinets) 'now', велѝден, о 'him' (Kosinets); м: въ̀пир (Koreshcha), ъ̀ржа 'growl'; ч: пỳша (Popole), пỳшча (Koreshcha), шо, òше (Popole), шчò, èшче (Koreshcha); л: съ̀нце (almost in the whole dialect); н: съ̀лце (Kosinets); к: дйа (< дèа < дèка) (Oshchima); й: àсли (Konomladi); ж: лàйца (Rulya); д: ъвукàтин (Chereshnitsa), л’ỳй (Dъmbeni); м: нèй (< нèми, Dъmbeni).</p>
<h4>Insertion and dropping of syllables</h4>
<p>In the following two cases we encounter syllable insertion:</p>
<p>то: стомàчкам 'смачкам’ (Dolnokostursko); ни: търнѝнки 'трънки’.</p>
<p>Dropping syllables is a rare phenomenon:</p>
<p>по: брàтим 'побратим’ (Kosinets); чо: зàш (Chereshnitsa), зàшчо (Kosinets); ха: ỳпла 'уплаха’, мàла 'махала’, кабатлѝйа 'кабахатлѝйа'; ти: перосйа (Chereshnitsa) 'перостия’.</p>
<p>In the following examples, the dropping of the syllable is also related to other phonetic changes (palatalization, insertion of a vowel): кỳжна 'кой знàе’; дрỳже 'другаде’; съ̀на 'снаха’ (Kosinets).</p>
<h4>Palatalization of к, г, х, т, д, з, с</h4>
<p>The results of the softening of these consonants are as follows:</p>
<p>к: ч — чòвек — човèчен, мъ̀ка — мъ̀чен, вèк — вèчен;</p>
<p>к: ц — чòвек — човèци, въ̀лк — въ̀лци, крàци;</p>
<p>г: ж — лèгле — лèжа, мѝгла — мѝжа;</p>
<p>г: з — пòлого — полòзи, мнòгу — мнòзи, нòга — нòзи (Kosinets);</p>
<p>г: s — пòлого — полòsи, нòга — нòsи (Popole);</p>
<p>х: ш — мè(х) — мèше, стрà(х) — стрàшен, прà(х) — прàшен;</p>
<p>х: с — влà(х) — влàси, сирòма(х) — сиромàси;</p>
<p>т: ч — свèшта, лèшта (Prekopana); свèшча., лèшча (all);</p>
<p>д: ж — вèжда, мèжда (Prekopana); вèжа, мèжа (< вèжжа, мèжжа, all);</p>
<p>д; џ — вèжџа, мèжџа (Chereshnitsa);</p>
<p>д: ш: This alternation occurs when forming the predicate mood of the verbs клàда 'to put’ — клàшле, йàда — йàшле, дòйда — дòшле, дàда — дàшле, вѝда — вѝшле, отѝда — отѝшле etc.;</p>
<p>з: ж — вèжа 'to embroid’ — извèза, лѝжа — излѝза, мѝжа — замàза;</p>
<p>с: ш — пѝша — напѝса, брѝша — избрѝса, вѝша — вѝсок, стѝс — стѝша.</p>
<p>In the dialect of Dolnokostursko, the consonant с, found before л' (-ли, -ле), is palatalized in ш: мѝшл’а, дрѝшл’а, шлѝва, машлѝна, шлèп, etc. This phenomenon is a remnant of the Old Bulgarian period (мыслити — мышлѭ). In such cases, з is also palatalized in ж: ижлèза.</p>
<h4>Other phonetic changes due to softening and to other causes</h4>
<div class="separator" style="float:left; font-size: small; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4Ga7nkyIMicrZCZzzc4eMJDMOetGsfQniGqpkyeUItOx3mW4U_CkyCpy6Fhi0VtFEs4usXtTW4Wx1hTesohHw7o9V2zsFuFu5Gtx7gSBaXycvpo1yXUQQqsAhYLqLB-ORqDLcC98jEgJ9xLADepn5LgCKzyJcSCEQvLtM2BewUlPAQrLPStciUdCmx5si/s1533/Kostur_lazhitsa.gif" style="display: block; padding: 0 1em; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" width="600" data-original-height="1126" data-original-width="1533" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4Ga7nkyIMicrZCZzzc4eMJDMOetGsfQniGqpkyeUItOx3mW4U_CkyCpy6Fhi0VtFEs4usXtTW4Wx1hTesohHw7o9V2zsFuFu5Gtx7gSBaXycvpo1yXUQQqsAhYLqLB-ORqDLcC98jEgJ9xLADepn5LgCKzyJcSCEQvLtM2BewUlPAQrLPStciUdCmx5si/s600/Kostur_lazhitsa.gif"/></a></div>
<p>дй: г’ — дйàк (Popole), г’акон (Kosinets); ливàдйа (Dolnokostursko), ливàг’а (Popole); попàдйа (Dolnokostursko), пупàг’а (Popole);</p>
<p>г: д — глèто 'chisel’;</p>
<p>й: г’ — йуптин (Dolnokustursko), г’ỳптин (Gornokostursko);</p>
<p>ск: шч — врèскам, пл’ỳскам (Popole), врèшча, пл’ỳшча (Dolnokostursko);</p>
<p>д: з — злàна 'palm’ (Chereshnitsa);</p>
<p>тй: к’ — цвèтйе (Dolnokostursko), цвèк’е (Popole);</p>
<p>т: к — клèе 'rots’ (Kosinets);</p>
<p>к’. т — нèмтур (Rulya), нèмк’ур (Chereshnitsa);</p>
<p>с: ц — цèнка 'shadow’ (Nestram), прèлец (Lichishche);</p>
<p>т’: д — дỳл’бен 'тюлбен’;</p>
<p>к: в — тỳва 'here’ (Yanoveni);</p>
<p>пв: ф — кỳфа (Kosinets), 'кỳпвам (Popole);</p>
<p>д: й — плàйна 'midday’ (Kosinets);</p>
<p>ч: ц — чемèнто 'cement’;</p>
<p>ж: з — чèзма (Kostur), чèжма (Popole).</p>
<p>In the dialect, the following consonant alternations occur in the lexeme spoon (see map opposite):</p>
<ol>
<li>ж: џ — лъжѝца — олџѝца;</li>
<li>ж: д — лъжѝца — олдѝца, алдѝца;</li>
<li>ж: s — лъжѝца — алsѝца;</li>
<li>ж: з —лъжѝца — алзѝца</li>
</ol>
<p>St. Mladenov gives лъ̀га as the primary form of spoon <a href="#ref10">[10]</a>. If we proceed from this assumed basis, in the above-mentioned forms we find a replacement of the consonant г with the consonants ж, s, д, џ, з and a metathesis of a vowel in some examples (олдѝца, etc.).</p>
<p>But there is also reason to assume unrealized liquid metathesis and palatalization of д in ж in the forms олдѝца, алдѝца.</p>
<h4>Replacement of one consonant with another</h4>
<p>Replacing one consonant with another is primarily an assimilation process. This phenomenon can also develop with combinations of vowels and consonants between which there is a vowel: в: б — ибдувѝца (Chereshnitsa), евдовѝца (Kosinets); т: д — капѝдан 'captain’; к: г — гамѝла; г’: к — каỳрин; ш: с — спиòнин; п: б — бỳдра; г: й — мейдан (Kosinets); в: й — тогàйа; к: в — бòчка (Chereshnitsa), бòчва (Nestram).</p>
<p>In the Kostur dialect area, the consonant с from the suffix -ск- is replaced by ц as in the Rhodopes: вòлцки, сèлцки, тỳрцки, бугàрцки (булгàрцки, бългàцки), рòпцки, костỳрцки, солỳнцки, есèнцки, etc.</p>
<h4>Anticipation</h4>
<p>Examples with the transfer of softness from one consonant to another are found in nouns that end in the suffix -ỳл’ка. The softness of the consonant к, derived from its proximity to the vowel и (-ки) as a plural ending, is transferred to the consonant л standing before it: невестỳл’ка (< невестỳл’к’и), тиквỳл’ка (< тиквỳл'к'и,), питỳл’ка (< питỳл’к’и), къшчỳл’ка (< къшчỳл’к’и) etc.</p>
<p><b>Prothetic в before the reflex of ѫ </b>in initial position: въ̀глен, въ̀тък, въжѝца, въ̀тър;</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2>Accent</h2>
<p>Also see <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/08/accent-in-bulgarian-dialects.html">Accent in Bulgarian dialects</a></p>
<p>The initial studies on the accent system in Kostur dialect <a href="#ref11">[11]</a> <a href="#ref12">[12]</a> indicate only one type of accent — paroxytone (on the penultimate syllable): чо̀век ‘man’ – човèци ‘people’, во̀л ‘ox’ – воло̀ви ‘oxen’, жèна ‘woman’, рабо̀та ‘work’, дèте ‘child’, детèнце ‘small child’. This type is predominant, but it is not the only one. First M. Malecki in <a href="#ref4">[4]</a> draws attention to this phenomenon. With the feminine and neuter nouns and adjectives, the accent is paroxytone, with the masculine nouns and adjectives and with other parts of speech, the accent is proparoxytone (on the third syllable). That is why it is necessary to take a detailed look at the accent system in Kostur dialect.</p>
<p>Kostur accent is in most cases mobile. Suffixes also affect it. The definite article and verb suffixes do not change the accent position: чо̀век ‘човек’ – чо̀веко ‘the man’, човèци ‘people’ – човèците ‘the people’, воло̀ви ‘oxen’ – воло̀вите ‘the oxen’, дèте ‘child’ – дèтето ‘the child’, нѝйа вѝкаме ‘we call’ (compared with вѝкам ‘I call’), вѝйа кàжвате ‘you say’ (compared with кàжвам ‘I say’). This means that in the articulated forms the stress is proparoxytone.</p>
<p>Another type of accent occurs in the Kostur dialect area, which has not been noted in the literature so far. The accent in Gòrna Korèshcha – in Rulya, Bèsvina, Tàrnava, Òshchima and Zhèlevo – is totally different from above. It always falls on the first syllable as in some villages of the Dolna Prespa dialect: по̀вел’ваме ‘we order’, свèкървата ‘the mother-in-law’, о̀печено ‘baked’, рàботниците ‘the workers’. It is also characteristic of the dialect of some villages (Grazhdeno) in Dolna Prespa and is the subject of a separate study.</p>
<p>The accent in the Kostur dialect, as well as the accent in Kaylyar, most of Lerin, Tikvesh, and part of the Veles dialect — Klepata have the same accent system.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, only the western half preserves completely the Kostur dialect while the eastern half is influenced either by Lerin or Bitola dialects. The accent in the western half is also preserved in all its regularity while to the east it is mottled with accent traits from Lerin and Tikvesh-Moriovo dialects. Only in the Boboshchitsa (Korcha) dialect is the stress truly fixed on the penultimate. In Kostur dialect there is indeed a strong tendency to get to the penultimate by dropping the second last unstressed vowel, but there are still plenty of examples of stress on the third syllable from the end: пàдниме, сто̀риме, лю̀дята, пернѝците, плèшчите.</p>
<h3>Accent in nouns</h3>
<h4>Masculine nouns</h4>
<p>In non-derivative nouns and in the vast majority of derivatives, the accent falls on the penultimate syllable: тàтко, дèдо, вỳйко, говèндар, пъ̀ндар, сел’àнин, комѝтин, измик’àрин, бербèрин, касàпин, андàрин, аскèрин, булгàрин, арнаỳтин, ергèнин, ѝграч, свѝрач, въ̀рзач, пѝйач, крòйач, òрач, преспàнец, костурèнец, итал’ àнец, полòнец, стàрец, мъртòвец, свèтец, планѝнец, терзѝйа, сайбѝйа, мераклѝйа, кабатлѝйа, арамѝйа, армàсник, калèсник, стрòйник, йỳнак, дàскал, бòрец, гòспо 'Lord’, смъ̀рдл’о, смъргòл’ко, 'sniveller, greenhorn’, бърбòрко, òфчар, волòвар, etc.</p>
<p>In the basic singular form, only the derived nouns formed with the suffixes -àн, -зàн, -чàр, have a final accent: боризàн, пъртизàн (Popole), гъркомàн, сърбомàн (the forms гъркомàнин, сърбомàнин, are also found), левичàр, десничàр. With the word народ, the accent in most Popole villages and in some Dolno Kostur villages falls on the last syllable: нърòт, нарòт. In the Kostenaria, the following words have last syllable accent: мисирòк, мачарòк, биленџѝк.</p>
<p>If the noun is lengthened by one or two syllables when forming the plural forms, the accent moves and falls on the penultimate syllable: нàрот — нарòди, чòвек — човèци, òфчар — офчàри, говèндар — говендàри, пòл’ак — пол’àци, калèсник — калеснѝци, армàсник — армаснѝци, дèдо — дедòви, тàтко — таткòви, стрѝко — стрикòви, трàп — трапòви and трапѝшча, грòп — гробòви and гробѝшча, вòл — волòви, тòп —- топòви, сѝн — синòви, etc.</p>
<p>Nouns that in the singular end in suffixes -ѝйа, џѝйа, лѝйа, in the plural. number have a final accent: арамѝйа — арамѝй, бакарџѝйа — бакарџѝй, батакшѝйа — батакшѝй, бимбашѝйа — бимбашѝй, мушчарѝйа — мушчарѝй, алваџѝйа — алваџѝй, калайџѝйа — калайџѝй, сапунџѝйа — сапунџѝй, лофчѝйа — лофчѝй, дограмаџѝйа — дограмаџѝй, мераклѝйа — мераклѝи, кабатлѝйа — кабатлѝй, пакослѝйа — пакослѝй, дертлѝйа — дертлѝй, etc.</p>
<p>The definite article does not change the character of the accent: чòвек — чòвеко, човèци — човèците, говèндар — говèндаро, говендàри — говендàрите, булгàрин — булгàрино, булгàри — булгàрите, арамѝйа — арамѝйата, арамѝй — арамѝйте, мераклѝйа — мераклѝйата, мераклѝи — мераклѝйте, etc.</p>
<h4>Feminine nouns</h4>
<p>In singular feminine nouns, the accent falls on the penultimate syllable: жèна, чỳпа, бàба, мòма, аргàтка, булгàрка, г’ỳпка, говендàрка, мераклѝка, планѝна, нѝва, орнѝца, лендѝна 'abandoned field’, въ̀рба, тапòла, крỳша, рамнѝна, ърженѝца, светйца, върснѝца, богорòйца, гъ̀рбл’а, крàдл’а, бỳзл’а, etc.</p>
<p>When forming the plural forms of monosyllabic nouns the accent changes: къ̀рф — кървòви — кървѝшча, кàл — калòви — калѝшча. The number of these nouns is very limited.</p>
<p>Nouns that in the singular end in -ѝйа, in the plural have a final accent: шамѝйа — шамѝй, борѝйа — борѝй, дул'бѝйа — дул’бѝй, корѝйа — корѝй, гердѝйа — гердѝй, лошотѝйа — лошотѝи, куртолѝйа — куртолѝй, расправѝйа — расправѝй, г’урлутѝйа — гурлутѝй, фасарѝйа — фасарѝй, страмотѝйа — страмотѝй, etc.</p>
<p>In the singular, only the word живот in Popole has a local accent: лòша живòт.</p>
<p>The definite article with feminine nouns, too, does not change the character of the accent: мàйка — мàйката, сèстра — сèстрата, воловàрка — воловàрката, планѝна — планѝната, градѝна — градѝната, дул’бѝйа — дул’бѝйата, мàйки — мàйките, сèстри — сèстрите, воловàрки — воловàрките, планѝни — планѝните, градѝни — градѝните, дул’бѝй — дул’бѝйте, etc.</p>
<h4>Neuter nouns</h4>
<p>The accent on neuter nouns in all cases falls on the penultimate syllable: пòл’йе, мòрие, сèно, езèро, дъ̀рво, йàгне, òко, млèко, врèме, стòлче, дèте, воловàрче, измик’àрче, офчàрче, чỳпче, тèле, магàре, пъ̀рле, врàпче, пѝле, сèдло, орàло, дувàло, търкàло, плашѝло, шѝло, гъ̀рло, etc.</p>
<p>If when forming the plural forms the noun is lengthened by one syllable, the accent shifts and falls on the penultimate syllable: мòрйе — морйенѝшча, пòл’йе — пол’йенѝшча, врèме — временѝшча, etc.</p>
<p>The definite article with neuter nouns, too, does not change the character of the accent: мòрйе — мòрйето, дèте — дèтето, магàре — магàрето, магарѝна — магарѝната, плашѝло — плашѝлото, дъ̀рво — дъ̀рвото, etc.</p>
<h3>Accent on adjectives</h3>
<p>Usually, the accent falls on the penultimate syllable, except for a few cases when in the masculine form it is on the final syllable: ỳбаф — убàва — убàво — убàви, гòлем — голèма — голèмо — голèми, вѝсок — висòка — висòко — висòки, дèбел — дебèли, etc.</p>
<p>The definite article for feminine and neuter adjectives does not change the character of the accent: бèла — блата, чъ̀рна — чъ̀рната, àрна — àрната, висòко — висòкото, мѝло — мѝлото, дòбро — дòброто, etc.</p>
<p>With the definite article for the masculine gender, the accent is shifted by one syllable: вѝсок — висòкио, гòлем — голèмио, зèлен — зелèнио, дèбел — дебèлио, etc. But if it is taken into account that in essence the definite article is added to the old full form of masculine adjectives, then in that case too the accent is unchanging.</p>
<p>Suffixed adjectives formed with the suffixes -лѝф (-ѝф), -àф (-чàф, -ничàф), -èст, -никѝф in the masculine forms have an accent in the end syllable: ленѝф, мънглѝф, работлѝф, ветрѝф, каменлѝф, страмежлѝф, горчлѝф, дремлѝф, миришлѝф, прикажлѝф, метил’àф, пъртал’àф, болничàф, ветричàф, кашличàф, търкалèст, бузèст, месèст, зеленикàф, жълтаникàф (also зеленѝкаф, жълтанѝкаф).</p>
<p>In suffixed adjectives formed with the suffixes -оф and -ин, the accent is invariable. In the masculine gender it falls on the penultimate syllable, and in the other two genders and the forms for the plural, it does not change: Тòмето Шàмуф, Шàмува чèжма, Шàмуво дèте, Шàмуви нѝвйа (Chereshnitsa), тàткоф — тàткова — тàтково — тàткови., дъ̀мбоф — дъ̀мбова — дъ̀мбово — дъ̀мбови, тапòлоф — тапòлова — тапòлово — тапòлови, бàбин — бàбина — бàбино — бàбини, мàйкин — мàйкина — мàйкино — мàйкини, сèстрин — сèстрина — сèстрино — сèстрини, зòлвин — зòлвина — зòлвино — зòлвини, тèтин — тèтина — тèтино — тèтини, etc.</p>
<p>With some component adjectives, in the forms for the masculine singular, there is an end accent: гологлàф, дебелоглàф, въртоглàф, църноòк (чърноòк), etc.</p>
<h4>Gradated forms</h4>
<p>When grading qualitative adjectives, the stress does not change: пò-дòбра, нàй-дòбра, пò-àрна, нàй-àрна, пò-висòка, нàй-висòка, пò-ỳбаф, нàй-ỳбаф, пò-лòш, нàй-лòш and others. The particles по and най are also accented.</p>
<h3>Accent on numerical names</h3>
<p>In the numerals from 1 to 20, the accent falls on the penultimate syllable: èдно and èно, четѝри, сèдом, òсом, дèвет, дèсет, единàйсе, дванàйсе, тринàйсе, четирнàйсе петнàйсе, шеснàйсе, седомнàйсе, деветнàйсе, двàйсе.</p>
<p>In the numerals from 30 to 100, the accent falls on the third syllable from the end: трѝдесе, четѝрдесе, пèндесе, седàмдесе, осàмдесе, девèндесе.</p>
<p>In the numerals from 400 to 900, both parts are accentrd, with the accent on the second part falling on the penultimate syllable: стотйни (четѝри стотѝни, пèт стотѝни, шèс стотѝни, сèдом стотѝни, òсом стотѝни, дèвет стотѝни).</p>
<p>The accent in two-syllable numeral names falls on the penultimate syllable: трѝста, двèсте, сèдом, òсом, дèвет.</p>
<p>In 1000, the accent also falls on the penultimate syllable: ил’àда.
Monosyllabic numeral nouns are accented. They do not appear as proclitics: пèт пàри, трѝ òфци, шèс дỳши, èн чòвек, стò брàви.</p>
<h3>Accent on pronouns</h3>
<p>In the case of pronouns, the accent falls on the second syllable: йàска, мèне, тèбе, нèго, нàска, вàска, тѝйа, мòйа, вàша, нàша, кèлку and кèку, твòйа, etc.</p>
<p>The accent is invariable with the following pronouns: кèлкуф and кèкоф — кèлкува and кèкова — кèлкуво and кèкуво — кèлкуви and кèкови, тèлкуф and тèкоф — тèлкува and тèкова, нèгоф — нèгова, etc.</p>
<p>With the interrogative pronoun къквòй 'what' in Popole (Chereshnitsa) and with the relative pronoun нъкòй the accent falls on the last syllable.</p>
<h3>Accent on verbs</h3>
<p>In the singular first person present tense the accent falls on the penultimate syllable and keeps its place in all forms: рабòтам, рабòташ, рабòта, рабòтаме, рабòтате, рабòте. Therefore, in plural first and second person the accent falls on the third syllable from the end.</p>
<p>There is a difference between Gorno- and Dolnokostursko regarding the accent in the forms of the past imperfect tense. In Gornokostursko, the accent falls on all forms of the penultimate syllable: збòрве, зборвàше, зборвàăме, зборвàăте, зборвàе and зборвàйа. In Dolnokostursko, the accent in the singular first person falls on the penultimate syllable and keeps its place in the other forms: збòрве, збòрвише, збòрвеме, збòрвете, збòрвее.</p>
<p>In the forms of the past perfect tense, the accent falls on the penultimate syllable.</p>
<p>In the imperative mood in two-syllable verbs in the singular, the accent falls on the penultimate syllable and in the plural the accent does not change its place: стàни — стàните, мòли — мòлите, сèди — сèдите, вèли — вèлите, etc.</p>
<p>In the imperative forms of polysyllabic verbs, the accent is not constant. Usually it falls on the first syllable: дòнеси — дòнесите, рàботай, пòработай, òтори and òтвори, зàтори and зàтвори, etc. Рàботай бъ̀ргу, зàшчо се-стèмна. Òтори врàтата, зàшчо èсти тòпло. Ѝзвади-го рèпейо от-чòрапо (Manyak). When the same form is followed by a short accusative personal form, the accent may also fall on the last syllable: донесѝ-го държèйлето ! Извадѝ-го рèпейо ! (Manyak). In the village of Chereshnitsa, with polysyllabic verbs in the singular imperative form, the accent may also fall on the penultimate syllable. In plural accent does not change its place: дỳнеси — дỳнесите, дунèси, дунèсите.</p>
<p>In passive and active participles and verbal nouns, the accent falls on the penultimate syllable. In passive participles, it is mobile: ỳмбрен — умбрèна — умбрèно, нàписан — написàна, пàднат — паднàти, пèешчем, работàшчем, пиèнйе — пиèйне, работàнйе — работàйне, кланàтйе, пълнàтйе, къснивàтйе, etc.</p>
<h3>Accent on invariable parts</h3>
<p>Monosyllabic invariable parts of the dialect (prepositions and some conjunctions and particles) are unaccented. They make up a phonetic whole with the words to which they refer: во-нѝвата, на-пàзар, и-йàска, ке-дòйда, се-мѝйа — ѝзмий-се, се-брѝча — ѝзбричи-се, со-мèне, бес-тèбе, со-нèго, etc. However, it should be noted that in Gorna Koreshcha and in some villages of Dolna Koreshcha (Kondorbi, Dъmbeni, Smъrdesh, Kosinets) the prepositions standing before personal pronoun forms, are accented: сò-мене, сò-тебе, сò-нейа, сò-него, бèз-нейа, etc. This phenomenon is also characteristic of the Dolna Prespa dialect.</p>
<p>With a large part of the two-syllable and polysyllabic invariable parts of the dialect (adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, particles) the accent falls on the penultimate syllable: прòстум, грабанѝца 'running', нòшйа, дèнйа, фчèра, ỳтре, тъ̀нде and отъ̀нде, зàшчо, нàпре, àйде, àбре, àми, кàто (Tiolishcha; but катò, Kondorbi), etc.</p>
<p>In some of them, the accent falls 1) on the last syllable: затò and затòс (Dolnokostursko), амàн, прутѝф (Popole), сакъ̀н, открàй, докрàй, апасàс 'suddenly’, аиабà ’really?’, дурдò, etc.; 2) on the third syllable from the end: ỳдолу, òколу, пòвике, àферум, àшколсум, анàсана, etc.</p>
<p>In interjections, monosyllables are also accented. They are pronounced like the doubled vowels: Ай, и-тòй èсти тàму! Лàăп, цèло йàгне го-изèле воèнаш. Птỳў, и-тѝйа ти-бѝле човèци! Ѝй, кèку порàсна чỳпата!</p>
<p>When the particles form words-sentences, they are accented. Ке дòш? — Нè. Ке-òйме за-дъ̀рва? —- Дà. In reduplication of the negative particle не the first one is accented: Нè, не-сàкам да-дòйда. Нè, не-è тòй. <i>Не </i> is also accented when it is in front of нèма. Нè, нèма да дòйда.</p>
<p>The affirmative particle да is also stressed: Дà, ке-дòйда. Дà, тòй èсти.</p>
<h3>Double accent</h3>
<p>Feminine and neuter compound nouns and adjectives followed by an eclectic word receive double stress. Masculine forms only in the plural have a double accent: чỳпа — Чỳпатà-му èсти бòлна. Чỳпитè-му èсе лèпи, дèте — Дèтетò-ни дòбре збòрви. Дèцитè-ни èсе о-чужѝна. голèмата — Голèматà-му чỳпа се-армàса. Голèмитè-му шчèрки нè-се ленлѝви (Yanoveni).</p>
<p>Double accent occurs mostly in Dolnokostursko. In Gornokostursko it is regular only with the inflected article: вòлотòму рòк.</p>
<h3>Accent in settlement names</h3>
<p>The accent in polysyllabic names of the settlements falls mostly on the third syllable: Загорѝчени, Òлишча, Черèшница, Àпоскеп, Кòсинец, Дъ̀мбени, Брèзница, Òшчима, Бèсвина, Конòмлади, Поздѝвишча, Чърнòвишча, Жèрвени, Жупàнишча, Бъ̀мбоки, Бòбишча, Куманѝчево, Чурѝлово, Гòренци, Лѝчишча, Вѝшени, Тиòлишча, Фотѝнишча, Сèтома, Мàврово, Лòшница, Дранѝчево, Добрòлишча, Цàкони, Чèтирок, Ѝзглебе, Гàлишча, Пàпрацко, Òмоцко, Пѝлькади, Новосèляни, Èзерец, Старѝчене, Жỳжелце, etc.</p>
<p>There are few cases in which the polysyllabic names of settlements have an accent on the penultimate syllable: Прекопàна, Кондòрби, Богàцко, Радагòже, Желегòже, Мангѝла, Луврàде, Яновèне.</p>
<p>In the two-syllable names of settlements, the accent falls on the penultimate syllable: Блàца, Бàпчор, Пèсяк, Грàмос, Стèнцко, Чỳка, Грàче, Жèлин, Дỳпяк, Здрèлца, Смъ̀рдеш, Гàбреш, Рỳля.</p>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
The following conclusions can be drawn from the examined accent features in Kostur dialect:
<ol>
<li>Kostur dialect has a variable and a fixed accent. In most cases, the accent falls on the penultimate syllable. The definite article does not change the character of the accent. This fact can be considered as evidence that the paroxytonic accent in Kostur dialect developed before the appearance of the definite article. In the already mentioned dictionary of the village of Bogatsko from the 16th century, the accent is also paroxytonic.</li>
<li>In certain cases, the accent is fixed (бàбин — бàбина — бàбини, тàткоф — тàткови).</li>
<li>Oxytonic accent and examples of proparoxytonic accent are found in the dialect.</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h1>Morphology</h1>
<h2>Noun</h2>
<h3>Gender</h3>
<h4>Masculine gender</h4>
<p>Masculine nouns include:</p>
<ol>
<li>Names for male relatives regardless of the ending of the name: тàтко and тàтка (Yanoveni), тèтко and тèтка (Dolnokostursko), дèдо, стрѝко and стрѝка (Dolnokostusko), чѝчо and чѝча, брàт, вỳйко and вỳйка, etc.</li>
<li>Nouns for persons ending in -ѝйа (mostly of Turkish origin): мераклѝйа, батакшѝйа, керваниѝйа, майтапчѝйа, башчанџѝйа, чорбаџѝйа, etc.</li>
<li><p>Nouns ending in a consonant: плèт, мèт, снèк, говèндар, òфчар, пèшник, трàп, гòстин, мòст, пъ̀т, дъ̀мп, зъ̀мп, ъ̀рт, къ̀т, сàат, пèток, мòзок, мèгдан, кабàат, вòл, бѝвол, шчъ̀рк, кокошàрник, кàмен, къ̀смет, пàмпур, etc.</p>
<p><em>Note.</em> Many nouns ending in a consonant are feminine, for example: рàдос, жѝвот, бòлес, прòлет, èсен, вàр.</p></li>
<li><p>Nouns ending in a doubled vowel before a lost final consonant x: влàă (<влах), грàă (<грах), сиромàă (<сиромах), грèĕ (<грех): Дòбар влàă бèше Мѝтре Влàшето. Грàо се-свàри. Сиромàо нèма лèп да-йàди (Kondorbi).</p>
<p><em>Note.</em> The noun прàă (dust) is used in both the masculine and feminine genders. The nouns кожух and орех have the forms кòжуф, òрей.</p></li>
</ol>
<h4>Feminine gender</h4>
<p>Feminine nouns include:</p>
<ol>
<li>Nouns ending in the vowel a, except those denoting men (see above) мàйка, бàба, тèта, стрѝна, нѝна, невèста, кòза, крàва, òфца, мъ̀ска, биволѝца, крỳша, сàбйа, лàмйа, тапòла, рекѝйа, нòга, ръ̀ка, сѝла, добротѝйа, лошотѝйа, etc.</li>
<li>Nouns ending in a consonant: млàдос, стàрос, рàдос, мѝлос, бòлес, прòлет, èсен, сòл', кàл, вàр, пòт, къ̀рф, смъ̀рт, жàр, живòт, пèсок, etc.</li>
</ol>
<h4>Neuter gender</h4>
<p>Neuter nouns include:</p>
<ol>
<li>Nouns ending in the vowel -e: мòрйе, пòл'йе, скòл’йе, врèме, плèме, сèме, мòмче, стòлче, чỳпе, спàнйе, одèнйе, тèле, пъ̀рле, йàгне, стàпче, крàче, нòже, лèпче, тòпче, пỳпче, балтѝче, мèсце, etc.</li>
<li>Nouns ending in the vowel -o: езèро, сèно, млèко, жѝто, чървѝло, грèбло, търкàло, дувàло, седèло, глèто, òко, ỳхо (Snichene), шѝло, белѝло, плàтно, клепàло, сèдло, etc.</li>
</ol>
<h4>Differences in gender affiliation</h4>
<p>Regarding the gender of the nouns живòт, къ̀рф, смъ̀рт, there are differences in the dialect. The above-mentioned words in Gornokostursko are feminine, and in some villages of Dolnokostursko (Grache) these are masculine. The nouns вàр, кàл, пèпел, пòт in the dialect of the village of Bela Tsъrkva are masculine, in the dialect of the village of Chereshnitsa they are feminine, and тèл' in the first village is feminine, in the second — masculine. The word лòй in Chereshnitsa is masculine and in Snichene — feminine.</p>
<h3>Number</h3>
<h4>Masculine plural</h4>
<p>The plural of masculine nouns is formed as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Monosyllabic nouns form plural forms with the ending -òви (-ой), which is added to the singular form: сѝн — синòви (Kosinets) — синòй (Zagoricheni), стàп — стапòви — стапòй, брèк — брегòви — брегòй, снèк — снегòви — снегòй, зèт — зетòви — зетòй, прàк — прагòви — прагòй, бòк — богòви — богòй, тòп — топòви — топòй, грòп — гробòви — гробòй, etc.</p>
<p>In the same way the following two-syllable nouns form plural forms: тàтко, дèдо, вỳйко, тèтко, стрѝко, чѝчо: таткòви — таткòй, дедòви — дедòй, вуйкòви — вуйкòй, etc.</p></li>
<li>One part of monosyllabic nouns form a plural also ending in -йà: трàп — трапòви — трàпйа, снòп — снопòви — снòпйа, пъ̀рт — пъртòви — пъ̀ртйа. The forms formed in this way have a collective meaning.</li>
<li>Some monosyllabic nouns form plural only with the ending -йа: брàт — брàтйа, бъ̀лс — бъ̀лзйа 'soil with grass roots’, бòс — бòзйа, дъ̀мп — дъ̀мбйа, тъ̀рн — тъ̀рнйа, пъ̀рт — пъ̀ртйа, etc.</li>
<li>A small number of monosyllabic nouns form the plural ending in -и: зъ̀мп — зъ̀мби, мъ̀ш — мъ̀жи, влàă — влàси, гъ̀рк — гъ̀рци, въ̀лк — въ̀лци, крàци (<крак).</li>
<li>The ending -ѝшче also serves to form plural forms for monosyllabic nouns with collective meaning: грòп — гробòви, where there are many гробòви — гробѝшча, пъ̀т — пътѝшча, сòн — сонѝшча, рѝт — ридѝшча, трàп — трапѝшча, etc.</li>
<li>Polysyllabic nouns form plural forms ending in -и: òфчар — офчàри, нàрот — нарòди, бѝвол — бивòли, говèндар — говендàри, òрач — орàчи, дъ̀рвар — дървàри, лèкар — лекàри, дрỳгар — другàри, дйàвол — дйавòли, стèжер — стежèри, etc.</li>
<li>The nouns that in the singular end in -ин, when forming the plural forms lose this suffix: булгàрин — булгàри, славйàнин — славйàни, сел’àнин — сел'àни, андàрин — андàри, арнаỳтин — арнаỳти. In this way the plural is formed for other nouns, too, such as еврèин, музавѝрин, стопàнин, костурчàнин, битолчàнин, каймакàнин, гражàнин, спиòнин, комѝтин, etc.</li>
<li><p>Nouns whose singular base ends in the suffix -ен form plural forms ending in -йа: кàмен — камèнйа (камèйна, Popole), рèмен — ремèнйа (ремèйна, Popole), кòрен — корèнйа (корèйна, Popole), etc.</p>
<p><i>Note.</i> The nouns кòстен, пъ̀рстен, òстен form the plural forms with suffix -и: костèни, пърстèни, остèни. The noun плàмен has no plural form.</p></li>
<li>Nouns ending in the singular with the suffix -ѝйа, form plural forms by replacing -йа with -и, and then the sound ии merges into ѝй: комшѝйа — комшѝй, мераклѝйа — мераклѝй, батакшѝйа — батакшѝй, късметлѝйа — късметлѝй, бостанџѝйа — бостанџѝй, дограмаџѝйа — дограмаџѝй, etc.</li>
</ol>
<h4>Feminine plural</h4>
<p>The plural of feminine nouns is formed as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>With monosyllabic nouns, the plural forms numbers are formed with the suffixes -òви (-òй) or -ѝшча: къ̀рф — кървòви — кървòи (Zagoricheni) — кървѝшча, кàл — калòви — калѝшча. Few monosyllabic feminine nouns have plural forms. The forms made with the ending -ѝшче have a collective character.</p>
<p>This ending, which is the same as the masculine ending, is due to the gender fluctuation of the same words.</p></li>
<li>Polysyllabic nouns denoting animate and abstract objects, nouns used to name parts of the body and vegetation form plural ending in -и: жèна — жèни, чỳпа — чỳпи, шчèрка — шчèрки, мàйка — мàйки, глàва — глàви, нòга — нòзи and нòsи, ръ̀ка — ръ̀ци, йàка — йàки. In this way they form plural for nouns such as кòза, кобѝла, вълчѝца, мèчка, бѝшка, тèта, сèстра, нѝна, стрѝна, бỳка, къпѝна, маменѝца, тапòла, чужѝна, добрѝна, височѝна, дълбочѝна, etc.</li>
<li>Polysyllabic nouns denoting inanimate objects form plural in Gornokostursko mostly with the ending -йа and -'a, and in Dolnokostursko — as with nouns for animate and abstract objects ending in -и: ливàда, — ливàдйа and ливàг’а, нѝва — нѝвйа, трèва — трèвйа, планѝна — планѝнйа, падѝна — падѝнйа, кошàра — кошàрйа, калѝва — калѝвйа, etc. The plural form of the noun къ̀шча in the villages of Kosinets and Smъrdesh is къ̀шйа (compare with the Thracian form къшт’à).</li>
<li>Nouns ending in -ѝйа in the singular, make their plural forms by dropping -a and merging -ии into ѝй: шамѝйа — шамѝй, борѝйа — борѝй, дул’бѝйа — дул’бѝй, корѝйа — корѝй, гердѝйа — гердѝй, лошотѝйа — лошотѝй, фасарѝйа — фасарѝй 'alarm' (Greek), etc.</li>
<li>The remaining nouns with a й-stem in the singular form plural ending in -и: сàбйа — сàбйи, лàмйа — лàмйи, шкрàпйа — шкрàпйи, etc.</li>
</ol>
<p>All feminine nouns in the dialect of the villages of Nestram, Snichene, Zhuzheltse and some other surrounding villages form plural ending in е: жèне, рồце, нòsе, бàбе, мàйке, ливàде, планѝне, тешкотѝе, лошатѝе, дракмѝе, рѝбе, сàбйе, булгàрке, влаѝнке, мồке, нѝвйе, сèстре, гудѝне, etc.</p>
<p>This phenomenon cannot be considered a foreign influence. In all probability, we find here a generalization of the nominative and accusative case of the old plural forms of names from II Old Bulgarian declension with a soft base (дѹшѧ, ӡємлѩ, ӡмиѩ).</p>
<h4>Neuter plural</h4>
<p>The plural of neuter nouns is formed as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Nouns ending in -o in the singular form plural forms ending in -a: жѝто — жѝта, шѝло — шѝла, дъ̀рво — дъ̀рва, сѝто — сѝта. In this way they form plural in nouns such as езèро, глèто, грèбло, зингàло 'latch’, бàсмо, плàтно, белѝло, корѝто, колèно, бъ̀рдо, венчѝло, видèло, влàкно, дувàло, àро, etc.</p>
<p>The formation of plural of òко, ỳхо, (ỳво) makes an exception: òчи, ỳши.</p></li>
<li>While in Eastern dialects, nouns ending in -e (-че, -ле), form plural forms mostly with the ending -ета, -та from the generalization of the old -ѧт-stem in the indirect cases, then in the western dialects the old base in the indirect cases -ϵн- has prevailed over the others. The vowel e has been replaced by и (-ин- < -ϵн-). Neuter nouns ending in -e, when forming the forms for the plural get the ending -ѝнйа(-ина). However, in the Kostur dialect, such an ending occurs only with polysyllabic nouns: магàре — магарѝна and мъгарѝнйа (Popole), кутàле — куталѝна — куталѝнйа, тезгèре — тезгерѝна — тезгерѝнйа; офчàрче — офчарчѝна, козàрче — козарчѝна, говендàрчина, воловàрче — воловарчѝна, измек’àрче — измек’арчѝна, ластàрче — ластарчѝна, бишкàрче — бишкарчѝна, etc. In the dialect of the village of Breshchene, by analogy with the last examples, we find the extended variant — чина: магàре — магарчѝна, сугàре — сугарчѝна, кỳчина, àпчина, к’о̀фтина, in Gòrna Korèshcha as it is in Dolna Prespa.</li>
<li><p>Two-syllable nouns ending in -e form plural forms ending in -нѝшча: знàме — знаменѝшча, плèме — племенѝшча, сèме — семенѝшча, мòрйе — морйенѝшча, пòл’е — пол’йенѝшча, врàпче — врапченѝшча, йỳнче — йунченѝшча, пъ̀рле — пърленѝшча, ждрèбе — ждребенѝшча, чỳпе — чупенѝшча, кученѝшча ‘dogs’, именѝшча ‘names’, апченѝшча ‘pills’, к’офтенѝшча ‘meatballs’. Some disyllabic nouns form plural only with the ending -ѝшча: йàре — йарѝшча, йàгне — йагнѝшча, пѝле — пилѝшча.</p>
<p>The formation of plural forms of two-syllable nouns ending in -e with the collective ending -ѝшча (-нѝшча), is one of the characteristic features of the dialect.</p></li>
<li>Nouns ending in -ѝшче (they are polysyllabic) form plural forms ending in -a: бунѝшче — бунѝшча, стърнѝшче — стърнѝшча, огнѝшче — огнѝшча, чупѝшче — чупѝшча, женѝшче — женѝшча, etc.</li>
<li>Some polysyllabic nouns form plural forms also with the ending — ки: шимѝче — шимѝчки (шимичѝна), кутѝче — кутѝчки (кутичѝна), цицàрче — цицàрки (цицарчѝна), Popole.</li>
</ol>
<p>The nouns йàйце and ỳше (ỳхо, ỳво) have the following plural forms: йàйца, ỳши.</p>
<h4>Differences in the formation of some plural forms</h4>
<p>With the noun дèте, the plural form in Popole is дèца, and in the other districts — дèци. The plural form for тèле in Popole is теленѝшча and тèлца, and in Koreshchata - тèлци (in the singular, the form телец cannot be found). In Popole, along with йагнѝшча (йагненѝшча, Kumanìchevo), there is also a plural form of ъгъ̀нца (Chereshnitsa). The noun лю̀де has the following varieties: л’ỳг’а (Zagorichani), л’ỳдйа (Kondorbi), л’ỳди (Kosinets), and кон: кòни and кòнйа (Kumanìchevo). Feminine nouns in the village of Nestram and in some villages of Kostenariata form plural forms ending in -e.</p>
<h4>Forms of nouns when preceded by numerals</h4>
<p>In the dialect, there is no number form for masculine nouns. When a numerical (except èден) precedes the noun, it takes the ordinary plural form: двà волòви, трѝ ножòви, пèт човèци, дèсет въ̀лци, etc. Only with the nouns пъ̀т and къ̀т is the number form preserved: двà пъ̀та а-анакатòса въ̀лната со-пòстрик. Му-клàваме двà къ̀та пòстрик и-èн къ̀т въ̀лна (Kosinets).</p>
<h4>Nouns with singular only</h4>
<p>Nouns used to name metals, foods and other substances, nouns with a collective meaning and verb nouns have only the singular form: лèп, мèт, млèко, сирèнйе, ỳрда, мàс, мàсло, брàшно, квàс, вàр, бàрут, сèно, грòзйе, слàма, прèсол’, гнòй, берèкет, желèзо, бàкар, спàнйе, прàнйе, одèнйе, йадèнйе, сакàнйе, etc.</p>
<p>Feminine abstract nouns that end in -ос have singular forms only: млàдос, стàрос, рàдос, смèлос, etc.</p>
<p>The rest of the abstract nouns mainly have singular forms: жѝвот, смъ̀рт, тежèва, убавѝна, брашновѝна, болнотѝйа, скъпѝйа, тишѝна, цѝкна 'cold weather’, ведрѝна, темнѝца, etc.</p>
<h4>Nouns with plural only</h4>
<p>Names of objects made up of two identical parts have plural forms only: клèшчи, гàшчи, ножѝци, патỳри, клèнsа 'pattens', трèпки, гребèни 'comber', etc.</p>
<p>The following nouns have only plural: пòсти, Вòдици, трѝци, нòшви, йàсли, согребѝни 'pits dug by dog's paws', горèли, 'гурели’, гризитѝни, etc.</p>
<h3>Definitive forms of nouns</h3>
<h4>Singular</h4>
<h5>Masculine</h5>
<p>The definite article for masculine nouns in the majority of the dialect area is -o: нàрот — нàродо, мъ̀ш — мъ̀жо, чòвек — чòвеко, пъ̀т — пъ̀то, трàп — трàпо, òфчар — òфчаро, пòп — пòпо, etc.
In some villages of Dolnokostursko, a full form of the definite article is found -от: мầжот, нàродот, чòвекот, пầтот, трàпот, вầрот (Grache).
In the dialect of the villages of Nestram, Mangila, Zhuzheltse, etc. the definite article is -ут (due to reduction from -от): цàрут, мồжут, трàпут, чòвекут, лàфут, брàкут ‘the wedding’, свèкурут ‘the father-in-law’, etc.</p>
<p>Masculine nouns that end in the vowel -o in the singular take the article -то, as do neuter nouns: тàтко — тàткото, дèдо — дèдото, вỳйко — вỳйкото, стрѝко — стрѝкото. The same nouns in Dolnokostursko end in the vowel -a (Yanoveni) and take the article -та, like feminine nouns: тàтка — тàтката, etc.</p>
<h5>Feminine</h5>
<p>The definite article for feminine nouns is -та: òфца — òфцата, сèстра — сèстрата, мàйка — мàйката, крàва — крàвата, брàва — брàвата, глàва — глàвата, бòлес — бòлеста, рàдос — рàдоста. In this way are articulated also, планѝна, падѝна, жèна, чỳпа, лàпка, бàба, гъ̀мба, дрèнка, бòл’а, бѝл’ка, прòлет, вàр, кàл, къ̀рф, смъ̀рт, смòква, пѝта, etc.</p>
<h5>Neuter</h5>
<p>The definite article for neuter nouns is -то: мòрйе — мòрйето, пòл’йе — пòл’йето, вѝно — вѝното, гъ̀рло — гъ̀рлото, езèро — езèрото, сèдло — сèдлото, шѝло — шѝлото, магàре — магàрето, пъ̀рле — пъ̀рлето, плашѝло — плашѝлото, орàло — орàлото, etc.</p>
<h5>Plural</h5>
<p>Nouns ending in the plural in -и and -e, receive the definite article -те: градòви — градòвите, волòви — волòвите, планѝни — планѝните; планѝне — планѝнете, булгàрке — булгàркете, влаѝнке — влаѝнкете (Nestram). In this way, forms for definiteness are also сватòви, дèци, ръ̀ци, пърчòви, кòзи, òфци, рѝби, годѝни, змѝй, молѝтви, другàри, говендàри, пъндàри, комѝти, андàри, etc. In the villages of Mangila, Snichene and Zhuzheltse, masculine nouns receive the article morpheme -ти: градòвити, нарòдити, даскàлити, etc.</p>
<h3>Vocative form</h3>
<p>In the dialect, vocative forms are used when a person or object is addressed.</p>
<p>Masculine nouns when forming a vocative form receive the endings -e, -o, -у:</p>
<p>е: сѝн — сѝне, бòк — бòже, чòвек — човèче, вòл — вòле, кòн — кòне, брàт — брàте, бѝвол — бѝволе, etc.</p>
<p>о: мъ̀ш — мъ̀жо, свàт — свàто, грàд — грàдо, èш — èжо, спиòнин — спиòнино, гъркомàнин — гъркомàнино, булгàрин — булгàрино, etc.</p>
<p>у: мъ̀жу, свàту, грàду, èжу, булгàрину: Шчо-прàш бре-мъ̀жу ? Дèка òш мѝли свàту? (Kosinets). Therefore, the endings for the vocative form -o, -у alternate in the dialect.</p>
<p>When forming the vocative form, feminine nouns end in -o: жèна — жèно, чỳпа — чỳпо, бàба — бàбо. In this way, also мàйка, сèстра, стрѝна, тèта, вỳйна, шчèрка, крàва, планѝна, гòра, невèста, снàйа, зòлва, аргàтка, булгàрка, офчàрка, жетвàрка, дрỳшка, змѝйа, кỳчка, etc., form vocative forms.</p>
<p>Neuter singular nouns and all plural nouns have no special vocative forms.</p>
<p>Most of the male proper personal names have only a vocative form: Дѝне, Стèфо, Вàне, Мàне, Мѝтре, Пàнде, Блàже, Кòчо, Цѝл'о, Мѝте, Тàшко, Спàсе, Пèтре, Ѝл’о, Мѝчо, etc.</p>
<h3>Remains of case forms of old declined article</h3>
<p>Kostur dialect is fully analytic, but remnants of the possessive dative are also found. These are forms of the inflected article. The dative form of OBg. demonstrative article тъ тòму in masculine nouns is added to the basic form expanded with a vowel o, derived from the old case ending y: цàро — цàротòму, дйàволо — дйàволотòму, пòпо — пòпотòму, Го̀спотòму чо̀век ‘God's man’, врàготòму мàйка ‘devil's mother’, for example: Тòй йа-звè за-невèста цàротòму шчèрка. Дèка о-дйàволотòму мàйка бèше? Пòпотòму сѝн се-жèни (Kosinets). На-вòлотòму рòк да-съ-скрѝеш, пà ке-тъ-намèриме (Kumanichevo). With neuter nouns, the inflected article is added directly to the base form: кỳче — кỳчетòму, магàре — магàретòму, for example: Кỳчетòму сѝн ми-и-скъ̀рши жамòвите. Магàретòму шчèрка ми-о-мàми чèндото (Kosinets).</p>
<p>The remnants of the old inflected article are mainly used in folklore and in idiomatic expressions.</p>
<p>The use of these case forms in the dialect is one of the characteristic features of Kostur dialect.</p>
<p>Remains of the old case forms are found in the adverbs: дèнйа and дèйна, нòшйа, нàзум — гъ̀зум, въ̀ром.</p>
<h3>Personal and family names in the dialect</h3>
<p><b>Male personal names</b> mostly end in vowels -е, -и, -о. This phenomenon is due to the widespread use of the address form (old vocative case). These personal names receive the same endings as masculine nouns receive in general when addressed.</p>
<p>-o: Кòл’о, Тѝпо, Пèцо, Стèфо, Пàндо, Йòто, Спѝро, Пàвл’о, Ѝл’о, Дòно, Къ̀рсто, Цѝл’о, Пèтро, Йòрго, Мѝто, Лèко, Кòчо, Кѝро, Стàмко, Пàско, Кàл’о, Мàно, Трàйко, Рѝсто, Тъ̀рпо, Тàшо, Зѝсо, Жѝфко, Кирйàко, Гѝро, Нỳмо, Нàсо, Лàмбро and Лàбро, Вèсо, Нàсо, Блàжо, Съ̀рбо, Тòдо, Мàрко, etc.</p>
<p>-e: Дѝне, Вàне, Пèтре, Л’àбе, Блàже, Ѝце, Цѝле, Гѝле, Дòне, Кòле, Стàсе, Гèле, Пàне, Тòме, Рѝсте, Йòрге, Пàнде, Кòсте, Тъ̀рпе, Стàсе, Нàке, Тòде, Мѝте, Кѝре, Трàйче, Рѝсте, Съ̀рбе, Кѝрче, Пèце, etc. Some of the above personal names ending in -e are diminutives: Рѝсте, Пàнде, Тъ̀рпе, Съ̀рбе, etc.</p>
<p>Personal names ending in -и are few: Микàли, Метòди, Йòрги, Слàви, Тàки, Лàки, Ристàки, Петрàки, Бỳри 'Борис’, etc.</p>
<p>Male personal names ending in a consonant are too limited in number: Вàнгел’, Тàнас, Стòян, etc.</p>
<p>Female personal names end in vowels -a and -e: Прòша, Лèна, Дѝна, Вàна, Пèтра, Кѝла, Стамèна, Дафѝна, Кирàца, Търпèна, Дàна, Йàна, Сòфа, Дèжа, Цѝл’а, Дòнка, Тòма, Велѝка, Жѝфка, Пèна, Спàса, Вèна, Невèнка, Сỳлта, Кал’òпа, Мѝта, Зòйа, Гѝна, Тѝна (Kosinets). The same names can also end in -e (-че): Прòше, Лèнче, Стамèне, etc.</p>
<p><b>Female names for spousal affiliation</b>. After marriage, a woman has two personal names. One (maiden's) is official, and the other, received from the name of the husband, is unofficial. The use of the informal name is obligatory in the kinship environment on the male line. Only her husband has the right to call her by her maiden name. The rest of the family address her by the new name, which denotes belonging and submission.</p>
<p>Female names for marital affiliation are formed with the suffix -вѝцa from the man's personal name: Кòл’о — Кол’овѝца, Дѝне — Диневѝца, Стèфо — Стефовѝца, Пàндо — Пандовѝца, Рѝсто — Ристовѝца, Мѝтре — Митревѝца, Пèтре — Петревѝца, Кѝро — Кировѝца, Блàжо — Блажовѝца, etc.</p>
<p>There is no unity in the dialect when forming <b>surnames</b>.</p>
<p>In the dialect of the village of Kosinets, surnames end:</p>
<ol>
<li>on suffix -òфцки (-фцка): Нỳмо Нинòфцки, Трàйче Нинòфцки, Мѝта Нинòфска (Тодорòфцка), Мàрко Пирòфцки, Мѝтре Пирòфцки, Мàра Пирòфцка, etc.</li>
<li>Consonant and vowel. In fact, this is a surname obtained from the relevant profession: Кòл’о Бакал’, Дѝна Бакàл'ка, Трàйче Бакàл’че, Нàсо Къ̀ршак (voivod's name Atanas Kъrshakov), Дàна Къ̀ршачка, etc.</li>
<li>with the suffix -оф (-еф) there are few surnames: Лàмбро Рỳкоф, Пàндо Киселѝнчеф, etc.</li>
</ol>
<p>In the village of Ezerets, however, all surnames end in -оф, -ова, (-еф, -ева): Нàскоф — Нàскова, Зѝкоф — Зѝкова, Мѝноф — Мѝнова, Пàндоф-Пàндова, Керпàчеф — Керпàчева, Никòлоф — Никòлова, Тòмоф — Тòмова, Шòмоф — Шòмова, Дỳкоф — Дỳкова, Стàвроф - Стàврова, Пл'àноф — Пл'àнова, Варсàмоф — Варсàмова, Г’àтоф — Г’àтова.</p>
<p>In the dialect of the village of Chereshnitsa, surnames mostly end with the suffix -уф (-ува, -уво): Дѝне Сỳл'уф (killed in 1949 as a major of the partisan troops), Динивѝца and Динвѝца Сỳл'ува, Микàл'че Сỳл'уво, Кòле Пàндуф, Йòрги Рòгуф, Тòме Шàмуф, Тòме Пъ̀рпуф, Стèфо Шклѝфуф, Йòрги Търпчѝнуф, Гѝлето Бèл'уф, Кѝро Зèкуф, Пèцо Пòпуф, Кỳзо Шимàгуф, Дѝне Пл'àстуф (now he lives in Skopie and writes himself as Пл'aстòфцки), Дѝне Шàпуф and others.</p>
<p>A significant number of surnames are formed with the suffix -ин (-ина), which is added to female personal names: Пèтрето Стàсин, Мàра Мàфина, Гѝри Дèспин, Тàшко Цѝнин, Цѝл’а Цѝнина, Тодòрчин, etc.
Only two surnames are found with the suffix -фцки (-фцка): Ристòфцки — Ристòфцка, Петрèфцки — Петрèфцка.</p>
<p>The aforementioned personal and family names are not official today. The official names of Bulgarians in Aegean Macedonia are in Greek.</p>
<p>Surnames that end in the suffixes -оф (-еф), -ова (-ева), -цки, -цка, -ин, -на do not receive the definite article. Only surnames ending in a consonant, vowel -a and -o receive the definite article: Къ̀ршако се-отèпа. Кòл’о Бакал'о èсти тỳва. Бакàл'чето се-армàса (Kosinets).</p>
<p>Of the personal names, only those that end in the vowel -e, Тòме — Тòмето, Пèтре — Пèтрето, Кòле — Кòлето can have definite articles. Only in the dialect of the village of Konomladi is such a phenomenon absent: Дòйде Пèтре. Кòле се-армàса. Вѝкни-го Вàне.</p>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
<p>The syntactic relations of nouns to other words in the sentence are expressed analytically using prepositions and a common case form.</p>
<p>The dialect also has another feature, characteristic only of the Bulgarian language among the Slavic languages: the definite article. With the masculine article morpheme -o (-от, -ут), the Kostur dialect is connected with most western Bulgarian dialects, with some Misian (Shumen) dialects and with the south-eastern Bulgarian dialects.</p>
<p>With the ending -òви to form plural forms for monosyllabic masculine nouns, the dialect is associated with most Western Bulgarian dialects, and with -йа for some masculine and feminine nouns occupies a special place. This ending has evolved from the old collective -ьѥ.</p>
<p>With the ending -e for the feminine plural, the dialect of the villages of Nestram, Mangila, Zhuzheltse is connected with the Bulgarian dialects of Shopsko.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2>Adjective</h2>
<h3>Grammatical gender and number</h3>
<h4>Singular</h4>
<p>In the singular, adjectives have separate forms for masculine, feminine, and neuter.</p>
<h5>Masculine</h5>
<p>The masculine form ends:</p>
<ol>
<li>on a consonant: ỳбаф, здрàф, чѝтаф, лèп, àрен, лòш, дòбар, вѝсок, дèбел, бèл, чъ̀рн, чъ̀рвен, зèлен, прèпен, лѝчен, гъ̀рт 'ugly’, мèк, слèп, сѝлен, кỳс, бòлен, пъртал’àф, нòф, стàр, млàт, жѝф, мъ̀тен, дъ̀лк, длàмбок, мѝрен, пàлаф, etc.;</li>
<li>with the vowel -и (suffix -цки): будàлцки, гъ̀рцки, тỳрцки, булгàрцки, съ̀рбцки, андàрцки, комѝцки, партизàнцки, чупѝнцки, воденичàрцки, офчàрцки, планѝнцки, говендàрцки, гъркомàнцки, мерикàнцки, сèлцки, etc.</li>
</ol>
<p>Adjectives with two main forms (short and long) are rare. The long form is formed by adding the vowel и to the short form ending in a consonant. The long form is used only when addressing: Мòйо тàтко е мѝл. Мѝли-ми тàтко! Лèбо è скъ̀п. Скъ̀пи дèдо, къ̀-си су-здрàвйето? Стàри мòй прийàтел’, шо-прàш? Злàтън пъ̀рдстън. Злàтни бòже, дàй ми сѝла и-здрàвйе (Chereshnitsa).</p>
<h5>Feminine</h5>
<p>The feminine form ends in a vowel -а: убàва, лèпа, гъ̀рда, стàра, сѝна, голèма, мàла, ширòка, зелèна, кỳса, прèпна, дебèла, слàба, офчàрцка, партизàнцка, комѝцка, булгàрцка, г’ỳпцка, мъ̀шка, жèнцка, etc.</p>
<h5>Neuter</h5>
<p>The neuter form ends in the vowel -o: лèпо, убàво, крѝво, дебèло, кỳсо, сѝно, зелèно, нѝско, чъ̀рно, бèло, дòбро, партизàнцко, комѝцко, булгàрцко, гъркомàнцко, спиòнцко, мàйкино, тàтково, бàбино, etc.</p>
<h4>Plural</h4>
<p>The plural form is common to all three genders and is formed from the masculine singular number with the addition of the ending -и: убàви, àрни, голèми, висòки, нѝски, гòрни, дòлни, стрèдни, бèли, партизàнцки, комѝцки, булгàрцки, гъ̀рцки, тàткови, мàйкини, бàбини, тèтини, etc.</p>
<p>By analogy with the ending in the plural number of feminine nouns in the dialect of the village of Zhuzheltse and in some surrounding villages, feminine adjectives end in the plural. number in -e: бèле òфце, висòке чỳпе, дòбре жèне, лòше бàбе, etc.</p>
<p>With a large number of adjectives when forming the forms for feminine and neuter gender and plural number the suffix vowel (-е, -а, -ъ) are dropped: мàзен — мàзна, мàзно, мàзни; злàтен — злàтна, злàтно, злàтни; àрен — àрна, àрно, àрни. This also applies to the following adjectives: стрèден, прèпен, лѝчен, сòчен, прàшен, сѝлен, слàвен, пòтен, врèден, потрèбен, смèшен, бòлен, кàлен, домàшен, дòлен, гòрен, дòбър и дòбар, мъ̀рсен, мъ̀чен, etc.</p>
<p>In many adjectives, however, when forming feminine, neuter, and plural forms the suffix -e does not fall out: дъ̀рвен — дървèна, дървèно, дървèни; стỳден — студèна, студèно, студèни; пченѝчен — пченичèна, ъ̀ржен — ържèна; лèнен — ленèна ; копрѝнен — копринèна ; въ̀лнен — вълнèна; стрèбрен — стребрèна; зèлен — зелèна, чъ̀рвен — чървèна, ламарѝнен — ламаринèна, etc.</p>
<p>With many adjectives, the final voiceless consonant of the main form (masculine) alternates with the corresponding voiced one: бъ̀рс — бъ̀рза, пъ̀рф — пъ̀рва, здрàф — здрàва, нòф — нòва, болничàф — болничàва, млàт — млàда, свèт — свèта, блàк — блàга, мèк — мèка, гъ̀рт — гъ̀рда, пръ̀нт — пръ̀нда, слàп — слàба, сỳф — сỳва, ỳбаф — убàва, etc.</p>
<p>Adjectives in the dialect do not have residual case forms. Case endings for adjectives are also not found in the monument of the village of Bogatsko from the 16th century.</p>
<h3>Forms of definiteness</h3>
<h4>Singular</h4>
<h5>Masculine</h5>
<p>Masculine adjectives form a definite form with the article morpheme -о (-от, -ут), which is added to the expanded stem with the vowel -и (вѝсок — висòки, бèл — бèли, дòбар — дòбри) to masculine nouns : висòки — висòкио, бèли — бèлио, дòбри, — дòбрио, стàри — стàрио, млàди — млàдио, убàви — убàвио, etc.</p>
<p>The article morpheme -от is found in the dialect of Dolnokostursko, and in the villages of Nestram, Mangila, Zhuzheltse, Ezerets it is -ут: бòлниот — бòлниут, дòбриот— дòбриут, стàриот — стàриут, мѝлиот — мѝлиут, etc.</p>
<h5>Feminine</h5>
<p>Feminine adjectives form definiteness with the article morpheme -та: дòбра — дòбрата, лèпа — лèпата, àрна — àрната, прèсна — прèсната, студèна — студèната, лòша — лòшата. In this way, they form definiteness: тòпла, ỳмна, убàва, булгàрцка, партизàнцка, работлѝва, мѝла, висòка, дебèла, слàба, гнỳсна, пъ̀рва, гòрна, дòлна, делèчна, блѝска, кисèла, блàга, мèка, чупѝнцка, г’ỳпцка, бàбина, тèтина, etc.</p>
<h5>Neuter</h5>
<p>Adjectives of the neuter gender form definiteness with an article morpheme -то: убàво — убàвото, лòшо — лòшото, голèмо — голèмото, мѝрно — мѝрното, дèсно — дèсното, офчàрцко — офчàрцкото, говендàрцко — говендàрцкото, сèлцко — сèлцкото, мàмино — мàминото, etc.</p>
<h4>Specifics in the formation of definiteness forms</h4>
<p>When the basic masculine form ends in a sonorous consonant (м, н, р), in Popole the definite form is formed from the short, and not from the extended stem with a vowel -и: гòл’ъм — гòл’ъмо — Гòл’ъмо пъ̀рч гу-изедòйа въ̀лците; зèл’ън — зèл’ъно — У̀блечи-го зèл'ъно фỳстан; бòл’ън — бòл’ъно — Бòл’ъно чòвек дèнъс ỳмре; прукòпцан — прукòпцано — Прукòпцано син не-зъбуръвỳва мàйка и-тàтко; дòбар — дòбаро — Дòбаро чòвък не-òй дъ-спиунѝсва нъ-гъ̀рците (the examples are from the village of Chereshnitsa).</p>
<p>This form for definiteness differs in accent from the form for the neuter gender in those Popole villages (Zagoricheni, Olishcha), where the vowel -e in a post-accented position, located between two consonants, is not reduced to -ъ, as in the village of Chereshnitsa. Therefore, in these villages, the accent has a semantic function. When forming the neuter forms, the accent moves one syllable forward, and when forming the definite form, the accent is fixed:</p>
<table>
<tr>
<th colspan=2>Non-Article Forms</th>
<th>Article Forms </th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><i>masculine</i></td>
<td><i>neuter</i></td>
<td><i>masculine</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>гòлем</td>
<td>голèмо</td>
<td>гòлемо</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>зèлен</td>
<td>зелèно</td>
<td>зèлено</td>
</tr>
</table>
<h4>Plural</h4>
<p>All three genders in the plural number form definiteness with the article morpheme -те, which is added to the non-article form for plural number: убàви — убàвите, àрни — àрните, булгàрцки — булгàрцките, арнаỳцки — арнаỳцките, тàткови — тàтковите, бàбини — бàбините, etc. In some villages of Kostenaria (Zhuzheltse, Mangila, etc.), masculine and neuter adjectives receive the article morpheme -ти: дòбрити мồжи, стàрити л’ỳди, etc.</p>
<h3>Types of adjectives</h3>
<p>Qualitative, relative adjectives and adjectives from old participles are found in the dialect.</p>
<p>Qualitative adjectives express:</p>
<ol>
<li>appearance of the person:красѝф, лèп, прèпен, ỳбаф, лѝчен, гъ̀рт 'ugly’, рỳс, чърноòк;</li>
<li>sizes of objects: вѝсок (вѝсок рѝт), гòлем (гòлем дъ̀п), дъ̀лк (дъ̀лга пъ̀рчка), кỳс, дèбел, тèнок;</li>
<li>colors: зèлен, чъ̀рн, бèл, сѝн, черешлàноф, белонàф, вишинàт, мòрен, жъ̀лт, чъ̀рвен, пиперàф, трандафѝл’оф, небèсен;</li>
<li>taste sensations: сòлен (солèно сирèнйе), блàк (блàга пѝта), кѝсел (кисèла чòрба), л’ут (л’ута пипèрка), горчѝф (горчѝва бѝл’ка);</li>
<li>physical properties: здрàф (здрàва жèна), йàк (йàк мъ̀ш) слàп (слàбо дèте), бòлен (бòлен чòвек), слèп (слèпи жèни), кỳц (кỳца баба), сѝлен (сѝлен мъ̀ш), etc.</li>
<li>intellectual, volitional, and moral qualities: дòбар (дòбар стопàнин), мъ̀ндар (мъ̀ндро дèте), ѝтар (ѝтро чỳпе), ỳмен (ỳмна шчèрка), донеслѝф (донеслѝва невèста), скрèжаф 'scrungy’ (скрèжаф дèдо), пречеклѝф (пречеклѝва жèна), страмежлѝф (страмежлѝф òфчар), работлѝф (работлѝф измик’àр), ленѝф (ленѝва жèна), лòш (лòша тèшча), àрен (àрен комшѝйа), погòден (погòден зèт).</li>
</ol>
<p>Relative adjectives in the dialect express material relations and belonging:</p>
<ol>
<li>material relations: стрèбрен (стрèбрен пъ̀рстен), дъ̀рвен (дървèно орàло), желèзен (желèзен плỳк), бакъ̀рен (бакъ̀рен котèл), ламарѝнен (ламаринèна четѝйа), зèмен (зèмно плàфче 'plate, saucer’);</li>
<li>affiliation: тàткоф (тàткова нѝва), сèлцки (сèлцки ѝмот), чорбаџѝцки (чорбаџѝцка чỳпа), бàбин (бàбина кошỳл’а), мàйкин (мàйкино дèте), блàцки (блàцки òрман 'forest belonging to the village of Blatsa'), etc.</li>
</ol>
<p>Relative adjectives formed with the suffix -и (OBg. -ии < ьіь) are not found in the Kostur dialect. They are transmitted in a descriptive way: трàга от-въ̀лк, сирèнйе от-òфци, кòжа от-мèчка, мèсо от-òфца, млèко от-кòза, трàга от-лисѝца, дỳпка от-зàек, etc.</p>
<p>Adjectives from old participles are: горèшч, съ̀шт and съ̀шч, гнѝл</p>
<h4>Immutable adjectives</h4>
<p>In the dialect, there are also adjectives with one form in the singular for all three genders. They are of Turkish origin: урсỳс, ỳлук ‘paralyzed’, пачарѝс ‘troublemaker’, àл’ас ‘lazy’, тèмбел’, бабаџан, дѝл’бер ‘very beautiful’, кèлеш, маскàра ‘shameless’, кератà, сàкат, сỳртук, терсенè, фỳдул, фукàра, кàтил’ ‘vile’ and others.</p>
<h3>Comparative and superlative forms</h3>
<p>Only qualitative adjectives for the size of objects, for physical properties, intellectual, volitional and moral qualities form a comparison. The aforementioned qualitative adjectives possess the following degrees of comparison:</p>
<ol>
<li>Comparative degree. It is formed with the particle пò (пỳ, Popole), which is placed in front of the basic form: ỳбаф — пò-ỳбаф, пò-убàва, пò-убàво, пò-убàви; вѝсок — пò-вѝсок, пò-висòка, пò-висòко, пò-висòки; млàт — пò-млàт, пò-млàда, пò-млàдо, пò-млàди. In this way, the form for comparison is also formed by лèп, мèк, кỳс, дèбел, слàп, лòш, страмежлѝф, работлѝф, крòток, лѝчен, красѝф, мѝрен, ленѝф, ѝтар, бъ̀рс, чѝст, мъ̀рсен, скрèжаф, сѝлен, гòлем, бòлен, донеслѝф, мѝл and others.</li>
<li>Superlative degree. It is formed with the particle най which is placed in front of the basic form: ỳбаф — нàй-ỳбаф, нàй-убàва, нàй-убàво, нàй-убàви; работлѝф — нàй-работлѝф , нàй-работлѝва , нàй-работлѝво , нàй-работлѝви . In the same way the superlative degree is formed by the adjectives mentioned in the comparative degree.</li>
</ol>
<p>The particles по and най are stressed in the dialect. The reduction of о to у in the particle по (пу) in the eastern part of Popole is a result of analogy — leveling with the form of the preposition по which in the aforementioned area is пу.</p>
<p>The reduction in the number of relative adjectives is due to Greek influence through education in schools. In a descriptive way (with preposition + noun) the use of relative adjectives for indicating material origin is replaced. Speakers of the dialect prefer to say от дъ̀рво, instead of дъ̀рвен, от желèзо instead of желèзен, and so on. They do the same when they speak Greek. When learning a foreign language this form is easier to perceive new concepts. In folk Greek language descriptive way is preferred. So for example in Greek it is more often said τυϱί ἀπό πϱόβατα (like in Костурско сирèнйе от òфци) instead of πϱοβατήσιο τυϱί (овче сирене).</p>
<h2>Numeral name</h2>
<p>The numeral names in the Kostur dialect are close to the forms of those in the Bulgarian literary language.</p>
<h3>Numeral numbers</h3>
<h4>Numerals for a specific number</h4>
<p>The numeral number един in the dialect has two forms: èден (èдън Chereshnitsa, едѝн, Mokreni) in Popole and èн in Dolnokostursko and Koreshchata. From these basic singular forms, the forms for feminine and neuter gender and the common form for plural are formed. The numeral number двà, двè has a form for masculine gender двà and for feminine and neuter genders двè. The other numeral numbers have only one form.</p>
<p>The numeric numerals are:</p>
èден, èдън, èн (for masculine); едѝн (Mokreni),<br />
èдна, èна (for feminine); еднà (Mokreni),<br />
èдно, èно (for neuter); еднò (Mokreni),<br />
èдни, èни (for plural), еднѝ (Mokreni),<br />
двà (for masculine),<br />
двè (for neuter and feminine),<br />
трѝ,<br />
четѝри, читѝри,<br />
пèт,<br />
шèс,<br />
сèдом, сèдум,<br />
òсом, òсум,<br />
дèвет,<br />
дèсет,<br />
единàйсе, идинàйсе and единàйсет (the forms ending with т are widespread in Dolnokostursko),<br />
дванàйсе and дванàйсет,<br />
тринàйсе and тринàйсет,<br />
четиринàйсе, читиринàйсе and четирнàйсет,<br />
петнàйсе and петнàйсет,<br />
шеснàйсе and шеснàйсет,<br />
седомнàйсе, сидумнàйсе and седемнàйсет,<br />
осомнàйсе, усумнàйсе and осемнàйсет,<br />
деветнàйсе and деветнàйсет,<br />
двàйсе and двàйсет,<br />
двàйсе и èдно (èно),<br />
двàйсе и двè,<br />
двàйсе и трѝ,<br />
двàйсе и четѝри (читѝри),<br />
двàйсе и пèт,<br />
двàйсе и шèс,<br />
двàйсе и сèдом (сèдум),<br />
двàйсе и òсом (òсум),<br />
двàйсе и дèвет,<br />
трѝдесе, трѝйсе and трѝдесет,<br />
трѝдесе и èдно (èно) etc.<br />
четѝрдесе, четѝрсе and четѝрдесет,<br />
пèндесе and пèндесет,<br />
шèйсе and шèйсет,<br />
седòмдесе, съдъ̀мдъсе (Chereshnitsa) and седòмдесет,<br />
девèндесе and девèндесет,<br />
стò,<br />
двèсте,<br />
трѝста,<br />
четѝри стотѝни, читѝри стутѝни,<br />
пèт стотѝни (стутѝни),<br />
шèс стотѝни (стутѝни),<br />
сèдом стотѝни, сèдум стутѝни,<br />
òсом стотѝни, òсум стутѝни,<br />
дèвет стотѝни (стутѝни),<br />
ил’àда, две ил’àди etc.<br />
катомѝрйо, кътумѝрйо 'million’<br />
<h4>Numerals for male persons</h4>
<p>In the dialect, masculine numerals are complex. They are formed from the simple numbers with the suffix -мѝна, which in some cases has a meaning equal to persons:</p>
двà-мѝна,<br />
трѝ-мѝна,<br />
четѝри-мѝна, читѝри-мѝна,<br />
пèт-мѝна,<br />
шèс-мѝна,<br />
сèдом-мѝна, сèдум-мѝна,<br />
òсом-мѝна, òсум-мѝна,<br />
дèвет-мѝна,<br />
дèсет-мѝна,<br />
единàйсе-мѝна, идинàйсе-мѝна,<br />
тринàйсе-мѝна,<br />
четирнàйсе-мѝна, читирнàйсе-мѝна,<br />
петнàйсе-мѝна, шеснàйсе-мѝна,<br />
седомнàйсе-мѝна, сидумнàйсе-мѝна,<br />
осомнàйсе-мѝна, усумнàйсе-мѝна,<br />
деветнàйсе-мѝна,<br />
двàйсе-мѝна, etc.<br />
<p>These numerals can be used to denote plurals that include male and female persons: По-пъ̀то минàе двàйсе и-петмѝна (Koreshchata). They may be men only or men, women and children. More examples: На-нàшчо сèло Загорѝчени на-двàйсе и-пет мàрт ил’àда дèвет стутѝни и-пèтта гудѝна гъ̀рцките ъндàри утепàйа осỳмдесе-мѝна. Тѝйа се-фамѝл’а дèвет-мѝна.</p>
<h4>Numerical for an approximate number</h4>
<p>When indicating a quantity from 10 to 100 in this dialect, special numerals are formed for an approximate number. They are formed from the base of numerals with the suffix -ѝна:</p>
десетѝна,<br />
тринайсетѝна,<br />
четирнайсетѝна, читирнайсетѝна,<br />
петнайсетѝна,<br />
шеснайсетѝна,<br />
седомнайсетѝна, сидумнайсетѝна,<br />
осемнайсетѝна, усумнайсетѝна,<br />
деветнайсетѝна,<br />
двайсетѝна.<br />
<p>From 20 and up, only the round numerals have a form for an approximate number:</p>
трийсетѝна, тридесетѝна,<br />
четирсетѝна,<br />
пендесетѝна,<br />
шейсетѝна,<br />
седомдестѝна, седумдестѝна,<br />
осомдестѝна, усумдестѝна,<br />
девендестѝна,<br />
стотѝна, стутѝна<br />
<p>Examples: Партизàните бèе двайсетѝна, а-àскеро стотѝна. Въ̀лко влèзе на-кошàрата и-изèде двайсетѝна òфци. От-стò къ̀шчи осомдестѝна се-испустѝе. Йàс бè зàтвор сàму пендестѝна дèна. Имàаме трийсетѝна кòзи и-тѝйа въ̀лците и-изедòе (Kondorbi).</p>
<p>Two consecutive, unrelated numerical numbers also have the meaning of approximate numbers: пèт-шèс: Тѝйа бèе пèт- шèс дỳши. Дъ̀рвата и-продàваме за-двàйсе-трѝйсе дракмѝй. Вòйден по-сèлата жѝве по-трѝдесе-четѝрдесе стàри, и-трѝ-четѝри млàди.</p>
<h3>Ordinal numerals</h3>
<p>Numeral ordinals in the singular have masculine, feminine and neuter forms, and in the plural. number—only one form common to all three genders. The construction and use of these forms fully corresponds to the literary counterparts in the Bulgarian language:</p>
пъ̀рф, пъ̀рва, пъ̀рво, пъ̀рви,<br />
фтòр, фтòра, фтòро, фтòри,<br />
трèт, трèта, трèто, трèти,<br />
чèтвърт, четвъ̀рта, четвъ̀рто, четвъ̀рти,<br />
пèти, пèта, пèто, пèти,<br />
шèсти, шèста, шèсто, шèсти,<br />
сèдми, сèдма, сèдмо, сèдми,<br />
òсми, òсма, òсмо, òсми,<br />
девèти, девèта, девèто, девèти,<br />
десèти, десèта, десèто, десèти,<br />
единàйсти, единàйста, единàйсто, единàйси,<br />
двàйсти, двàйста, двàйсто, двàйсти,<br />
трѝйсти, трѝйста, трѝйсто, трѝйсти,<br />
четирдесèти, etc.<br />
<p>In the dialect of some villages in Kostenaria (Zhuzheltse, Mangila, Snichene, etc.), the numeral ordinals standing before feminine nouns in the plural number, form plural forms ending in -e: пèрве чỳпе, фтòре пàре, трèте жèне.</p>
<p>Numerical ordinals are formed only from numeric numerals up to a hundred.</p>
<p>Ordinal numerals are mostly used to denote a date. In some cases, for dates up to ten numeric numerals are also used. На двà мàй ке òда на пàзар. На фтòри мàй ке òйме на гòсти. На дèсет мàрт рòди жèната. На-петнàйсе жèтвар фатѝйме да-жнѝеме. На-двàйсе и-пèт мàрт празнỳве гъ̀рците.</p>
<p>In the Old Bulgarian language, numerical forms are also used to denote a date. This phenomenon is also characteristic of the Greek language.</p>
<h3>Fractional numerals</h3>
<p>Fractional numerals are complex. They express part of something and are formed from numerical and ordinal numerals: двè трèти, трѝ чèтвърти, пèт шèсти, etc.</p>
<p>In the dialect, there are also numerals formed with the suffix -ѝна, with the meaning of fractional numerals: пол and половѝна (пулвѝна, Popole), третѝна, четвъртѝна.</p>
<h3>Articles for numerals</h3>
<p>All numerals have a definite form, constructed in the following ways:</p>
<ol>
<li>Numerals that end in the vowels e and и, receive the definite article -те: двè — двèте, трѝ — трѝте, четѝри — четѝрите: Ми-дойдòе нъ-гòсти и-двèте сèстри. Му-се женѝе и-трѝте дèци (Koreshchata). Читѝри òфци имàше и-читѝрте и-изèде въ̀лко (Chereshnitsa).<br />
In Gornokostursko, the final vowel is dropped when articulating composite numerals ending in e in Gornokostursko: двàйсе — двàйсте, трѝйсе — трѝйсте, пèндесе — пèндесте, седòмдесе — седòмдесте, осòмдесе — осòмдесте, девèндесе — девèндесте.</li>
<li>Numerals that end in a vowel also receive the definite article -те: пèт — пèтте, шèс — шèсте, сèдом — сèдoмте, òсом — òсомте, дèвет — дèветте, дèсет — дèсетте, etc.</li>
<li>The numeral стò is articulated by the article -то: стòто.</li>
<li>Numerals that end in the vowel a receive the article -та: трѝста — трѝстата, ил’àда — ил’àдата.</li>
<li>When the numeral is compound and means thousands, only the first word is articulated: Пèтте ил’àди долàри ми-и откраднàе по-пъ̀то. Шèсте ил’àди òфци и-заклàе аскèрите, etc.</li>
<li>Numerical ordinals form the definiteness, like adjectives: пèти — пèтио, пèтата, пèтото, пèтите; двàйсти — двàйстио, двàйстата, двàйсто — двàйстите, etc.</li>
</ol>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
<p>Numerical nouns in the Kostur dialect are very close to those in the literary Bulgarian language.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2>Pronoun</h2>
<h3>Personal pronouns</h3>
<p>Personal pronouns have separate forms for 1st, 2nd and 3rd singular and plural number and three cases: nominative, accusative and dative. In the two last cases, two forms are found: full and short. Full forms have independent stress, and short forms are clitics (enclitics or proclitics).</p>
<h4>Singular</h4>
<h5>Forms for first person</h5>
<ol>
<li>The nominative form is йàс (йàска, йàскай). The forms йàска and йàс are equivalent and occur throughout the dialect area. Only in the village of Drenoveni, instead of йàска, йàскай is observed. Examples: И-йàс ке-дòйда да-и-пàсиме òфците (maybe йàска too). Йàс бè пèт годѝни, кòга дойдòе гъ̀рците, но-свѝчко памèтвам. Йàска сàкам да-те-зèвам за-сѝн-ми. Йàс сѝ бòл’ън (Chereshitsa). Йàскай бè осомнàйсе годѝни àпс, нò нè-се откàза от-идèйата (Drenoveni). Йàска бè на-пàзарут (Nestramsko).</li>
<li>Accusative forms are full and short. The full form is мèне. Той мèне сàка да ме-ỳчи. Мèне, а-нè тèбе сàке да-отèпе (Koreshchata).<br />
<p>In most cases, the full form is duplicated with the short form: Мèне-ме найдòе да-мъ̀ме. И-на-мèне ме бòли съ̀рцето. Со-нèго и-мèне ке-ме фàте. When used with prepositions, it is not reduplicated except for the preposition на: Со мèне дòйде тòй. Бес-мèне нѝшчо не-стàва. От-мèне ѝмаш да-зèваш. Дỳр-до мèне дòйде. Къ̀му мèне грèди. На-мèне мъ-вѝде (Zagoricheni). Нъ-мèне мъ-уплàши (Chereshnitsa).</p>
The short form is ме (in Popole мъ): Ме-нàйде на-пъ̀то. Ме-вѝде на-òрото. Ме-сàка за невèста. Ме-фатѝе гъ̀рците да-збòрвам булгàрцки и-ме-затворѝе (Kosinets). Мъ-вѝка мàйка. Мъ-удрѝйа у-нòгата и-мъ-устъвѝйа (Chereshnitsa).</li>
<li>Dative forms are short only. Complete dative forms are not used. The short dative form is му: Му-рèку да-дòй при-нàc. Му-вѝкам нèмой тàка, нò нè-ме шчỳка. Му-дàвам да-пѝе и-йàди. The short dative form can be duplicated with an accusative, preceded by a preposition на: Му-дàвам на-нèго да-пѝе и-да-йàди. Му рèку на-нèго да-дòй при-нàc. Му-вѝкам на-нèго, etc.</li>
</ol>
<h5>Forms for second person</h5>
<ol>
<li>The nominative form is тѝ: Тѝ èси дòбре (Yanoveni). Тѝ пà дòйде? Тѝ кòга фчàс бèше на-нѝвата и-съ-въ̀рна? (Zagoricheni). Тѝ сѝ дèтето на-пòл’ако?</li>
<li>b. Accusative forms are full and short.<br />
The full form is тèбе: Тèбе те-бàре. Тèбе те-вѝкам да-збòрваме. За-тèбе и-плèтиме чорàпите. Йàс со-тèбе снè фàра (Kosinets).<br />
When the accusative form is used as a direct complement in the sentence, it is doubled: Тèбе те-сàкам за-невèста (Koreshchata).<br />
The short form is те (in Popole тъ): Те-барàше брàт-ти от-Въ̀мбел. Ке-те-опѝтам нèшчо, прàво да-ми-кàжиш (Kosinets). Вòйдън ки-тъ-армàсам зъ-мòйо cѝн (Chereshnitsa).</li>
<li>Dative forms are short only. Full form is not used. The short form is ти: Ти-донèсу рѝба. Ти-рèку да-ме-чèкаш. Ти-дойдòе гòсти и-нè те-намерѝе дòма. Ти-нòса пѝсмо от-сѝн-ти.</li>
</ol>
<h5>Forms for third person</h5>
Masculine forms:
<ol>
<li>The nominative form is тòй, тòс. The second form is found in Dolnokostursko. Тòй бèше снòшчи тỳва. Тòй èсти мòйо къ̀смет. Тòй не-се-oтèпа, тòй èсти жѝф èшче. Тòй остàна о-Мèрика (Kosinets). Тòс èсти дòбар чòвек. Тòс спѝ.</li>
<li>Accusative forms are of two types: full and short.<br />
The full form is нèго: Нèго го-нàйде да-го-мъ̀чиш. Òй при-нèго. Съ-нèго се-познàваме от-апсàната. До-нèго бè йàс, но остàна жѝф (Kondorbi). Гу-вѝду нъ-нèго пут-тъпòлта (Chereshnitsa). Со-нèго за òда (Nestramsko). Бèс-него не мòжа да жѝва. (Kondorbi). The short form is го (гу, Popole): Го-нàйде дул’бèнчето. Го-видòoме зàспан на-сèнка (Koreshchata). Гу пỳлиш шò прàй су-вулòвите ? Гу-фтъсàаме нъ-стрèт пъ̀то и-гу-пумулѝйме дъ-съ-въ̀рни. Гу пушчỳка на-тàтко му и-стàна чòвък (Chereshnitsa).</li>
<li>Dative forms are only short. The old full dative forms for expressing a dative relationship have been replaced by a preposition + full accusative form.<br />
The short dative form is му: Му-дàду да-йàди. Му-рèку да-не-о-бỳва. Му-йа-звèеме чỳпата за-невèста. Свѝчки му-вèле да-сèди мъ̀ндро. Му-се-отепàе и двèте дèци (Kosinets).</li>
</ol>
Feminine Forms:
<ol>
<li>The nominative form is тàйа (тà, тàa) and тàс. The latter is used in Dolnokostursko: Тàйа сàма дòйде на-гòсти. Тà ми-рèче да-те побàрам. Тàa се армàса за дòбро дèте. Тàйа ти рèче тàка да-вèлиш? Тà è работлѝва жèна, àма è лòша, мнòгу збòрва (Kondorbi). Тàс èсти мàйка-ми. Тàс дòйде да-не-бàра дòма, àма нѝкой не-нàйде. Тàс, чỳпата, бèше мнòгу дòбра (Yaboveni).<br />
The forms тàйа (тà, тàa) are used in parallel in the dialect of Gornokostursko.
The short accusative and dative forms are not used after prepositions, unless they are duplicated by the corresponding full forms.</li>
<li>There are two accusative forms: full and short.<br />
The full form is нèйа: Нèйа е-пушѝйме за-вòда (Popole). Сò-нèйа бèеме на-жвàтйе. Йàс сèдна дò-нèйа. Сò-нèйа нѝкой не-мòжи да-се-мèри. Нèйа а-сàкам за-невèста (Kondorbi).<br />
The short form is е (йа, а, ъ, га). The form йа is mostly found around the Albanian border. It is noticed in the dialect of the villages of Yanovene and Kosinets: Йа-вѝду шчèрката-му. Офцàта йа-изèде вầлко. Тàс йа-фầрли вầлната (Yanoveni). In the village of Kosinets, the forms йа and a often alternate.<br />
<table style="border:none; font-size:small">
<tr>
<td style="border:none;">Йàдите дèци, пѝете,<br />
вàйа годѝна дòбра è,<br />
дрỳгата гòспо йа-знàе,<br />
жѝвиме, èл’ умѝраме,<br />
ел’ òйме о-чỳжа чужѝна,<br />
о-затревèна Мèрика,</td>
<td style="border:none;">Òгно да-а-изгòри,<br />
плàмен да-йа-пламнòса.<br />
Откà излèзе Мèрика,<br />
свѝте мерàци кладòе<br />
и-на-лекàри ойдòе.<br />
(Kosinets)</td>
</tr>
</table>
In the village of Konomladi, only the form а is found, and the form e is characteristic of almost the entire dialect area: Е вѝду да-збòрва сò-нèго (Dъmbeni). Е-спасѝйме на-чỳпата. Е-утвòри врàтата. Лисѝцата е-изèде на нàй-гулèмата кукòшка. Е-фатѝйа да-крàди. Тòй е сàка за-нивèста (Popole). In the villages of Chereshnitsa and Bъlgarsko Blatsa, the forms е and ъ are used: Е-вѝде нъ-нèйа — Ъ-вѝде нъ-нèйа. In the village of Zhelevo, located on the border with Lerinsko, the form га is found: Га-вѝду да-рàбота.</li>
<li>The dative form is only short — му: Му-рèку да-дòйди, тà не-сàкаше. На-невèстата му-дàду скъ̀пи нèшча. Му-е-бàци ръ̀ката.</li>
</ol>
Neuter forms:
<ol>
<li>The nominative form is тò and тòс in Dolnokostursko: Тò дòйде и-ми-кàза. Тò бèше здрàво, кòга тàка се-разбòли. Тò зàспа. Тò не-шчỳка. Тò èсти со-говèндата. Тòс спѝ, бòлно èсти. Тòс стàна голèмо чỳпе.</li>
<li>Accusative forms are full and short. Full form — нèго: Да-го-вѝш нèго кèку порàсна. Òй прѝ-него. Дò-него èсти бàба-му (Dъmbeni). Short form — го (гу, Popole): Го-вѝду (дèтето). Го-ỳдри (чỳпето) по-глàвата. Го-вързàе (кỳчето) да-нè лàва (Kosinets). Гу-скòрна нъ-дèтто (Chereshnitsa).</li>
<li>The dative form is only short — му: Му-оздрàве на-дèтето пъ̀рсто. Му дòйде (на чỳпето) да-се-бầлви (Yanoveni). Лòшо му-грèй ут-рѝбинто мàсло (Chereshnitsa). Му-дàду да-йàй.</li>
</ol>
<h4>Plural</h4>
<h5>Forms for first person</h5>
<ol>
<li>Nominative forms are: нѝйа (нѝе). The first form is the most common in the dialect. The second form is mostly found near the Albanian border: Нѝе снè дòбре (Kosinets). Нѝе èсме чѝсти булгàри (Yanoveni). Нѝйа смè сурумàси (Zagoricheni). Нѝйа снè мнòгу мъчèни (Chereshnitsa).
<li>Accusative cases are full and short. The full form is нàс (нàм). In Popole, нàс is mostly found, and in the dialect of the other regions, the two full accusative forms alternate. For example, in the villages of Kalevishcha, Yanovene, Stensko, Chuka, Grache, Drenoveni, Snichene, Nestram, the form нàс is used, and in Kosinets, Starichene, Mangila, etc. — the form нàм. In the village of Dumbeni, both forms are used in parallel. The short form is не (in Popole нъ): Не-видòе на-пъ̀то. Не-направѝе за-ѝч никàде. Не-шчукнàе, шчо-збòрваме булгàрцки и-не-затворѝе (Kosinets). Пòл’ако нъ-нъпрàви мѝниси. Нъ-тушкàйа зъ-тò пỳсто бугàрцко (Chereshnitsa).</li>
<li>The dative form is only short — ни: Ни-псувѝса крàвата. Ни-съ-умòри тàтко. Ни-е-изгорèйа къ̀шчата и-ни-и-звèйа òфците (Popole). Ни-дойдòе гòсти от-Въ̀мбел. Мàма ни-кỳпи нòви чорàпи. Ни рекòе мнòгу нèшча (Kosinets).</li>
</ol>
<h5>Forms for second person</h5>
<ol>
<li>Nominative form: вѝйа (вѝе). The distribution of these two variants coincides with the distribution of the forms for first person plural. Therefore, the second variant is found in the vicinity of the Albanian border. Вѝйа стè дòбри л’ỳг’а. Вѝйа стè àрни су-здрàвйето. Вѝйа прудàвате дъ̀рва? (Popole). Вѝе за-òйте за-дầрва? (Yanoveni). Вѝе шчò прàвите тàму ? (Kosinets).
<p style="font-size: small">Невèста жѝто правèше,<br />
дèвет гълъ̀мби ранèше <br />
и-вèрно му-се-молèше:<br />
Гълъ̀мби, брàтйа да-ми-cтè,<br />
вѝе лѝтате висòко,<br />
вѝе глèдате делèку...<br />
(Kosinets)</p></li>
<li>Accusative forms are full and short. The full form is вàс (вàм). The distribution of the вàм form coincides with the accusative form for first person plural: На-вàс въ-чèке дòма. При-вàс съ-кумѝтите. Ут-вàс грèде и-за-вàс збòрве (Popole). Ке-òда прѝ-вам. Зầ-вам èсти тòва нèшчо (Kosinets). The short form is ве (in Popole въ): Ве-вѝке о-Кỳстур. Ве-фатѝе да-кòсите чỳжа ливàда (Dъmbeni). Въ-кълèсваме на-брàко. Въ-вѝду зàдно дъ-збòрвате. Въ-бàра дèдо Шàмо (Chereshnitsa).</li>
<li>The dative form throughout the dialect area is only short — ви: Ви-рèку да-си-òйте дòма. Ви-постèли да-си-лèгните. Ви-кỳпи нòви пл’àчки. Ви-нòса шекèрки. Дàйте-ми пàри назàем, ỳтре ке-ви-и-въ̀рна. Ви-и-намèри загинàтите говèнда.</li>
</ol>
<h5>Forms for third person</h5>
<ol>
<li>The nominative form is тѝйа (тѝе). Тѝйа се жѝви и-здрàви. Тѝйа гèч легнỳве да-спѝе (Popole). Тѝе ке-бъ̀нде дòма за-òбет (Kosinets). Тѝе èсе дòбре (Yanoveni).</li>
<li>Accusative forms in the dialect are: нѝй, нѝх, нѝми, нѝм, нèми, нèй, нèму. The form нѝй is noticed in Chereshnitsa, Nestram, Stensko, Starichene, etc. И-вѝду на-нѝй да-крàде грòзйе. Су-нѝй нè-си збòрваме, тѝйа се лòши л’ỳг’а. Бèс-да-и упѝтаме на-нѝй, нѝшчо нъ-мòжиме да-ви-кàжиме дàли ке-òйме на-пàзар у-Мàвруво (Chereshnitsa). The form нѝми is used in the villages of Kondorbi, Sheshteovo, and the form нѝм is used in Bela Tsъrkva. In Drenoveni, the forms нèми, нèй are used at the same time. И-вѝду нèми (нèй). Му- дàду на-нèми (нèй) сакавѝца. The form нèму is used in Konomladi.<br />
In the dialect of many villages (Chuka, Kalevishcha, Grache, Breznica, Yanovene, etc.) instead of the accusative form, the nominative тѝйа, тѝе is used. In Mangila нѝх form is noticed: На-нѝх и-вѝдух.<br />
The short accusative form и is common to the entire dialect area: Дòма и-намерѝйме. И-видòоме да-бèге. И-върнàе пàрите. И-напасѝе говèндата. И-изпрашѝе нѝвйата (Koreshchata). Утнòво и-нъправѝйме кỳките (Popole).</li>
<li>The dative form is short — му 'them, to them': Му-рèку да-си-дòйде дòма. Му-и-въ̀рна пàрите. Му-вèлиме на-дèцата да-нè-се откàжве от бугàрцката вèра. На-чỳпите мỳ вèлиме да-сè работѝви, чèсни, донеслѝви и пречеклѝви. Ни-дàве, ке-му-дàваме и-нѝйа. Му-направѝйме дòбро на-нѝй, àма съ-лòшо ни-го-платѝе (Tiolishcha).</li>
</ol>
<p>A characteristic of the dialect is that the short dative form is used for all genders in singular and plural: му дàду на жèната ‘I gave it to the woman’, тàтко му на дèците ‘the childrens' father', etc.</p>
<p><i>Forms of personal pronouns</i></p>
<table>
<tr>
<th rowspan="3">Number</th>
<th rowspan="3">Person</th>
<th colspan="5">Case forms</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th rowspan="2">nominative</th>
<th colspan="2">accusative</th>
<th colspan="2">dative</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>full</th>
<th>short</th>
<th>full</th>
<th>short</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="3">Singular</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>йàс, йàска, йàскай</td>
<td>мèне</td>
<td>ме, мъ</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>ми</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>тѝ</td>
<td>тèбе</td>
<td>те, тъ</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>ти</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>masculine тòй, тòс<br />
feminine тàйа (та, тàа, тàс)<br />
neuter тò, тòс</td>
<td>нèго<br /> нèйа<br /> нèго</td>
<td>го, гу<br />
е, йа, а, ъ, га<br /> го (гу)</td>
<td>—<br />—<br />—</td>
<td>му<br /> му<br /> му</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="3">Plural</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>нѝе, нѝйа</td>
<td>нàс, нàм</td>
<td>не, нъ, ни*</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>ни</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>вѝе, вѝйа</td>
<td>вàс, вàм</td>
<td>ве, въ, ви*</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>ви</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>тѝе, тѝйа</td>
<td>нѝй нѝми нѝм<br /> нèми, нèй, нѝх<br /> нèму</td>
<td>и</td>
<td>—</td>
<td>му</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p style="font-size:small">* The forms ни, ви have been noticed in Snichene, Ezerets: Ни-видòе на-нàм. Ни-бỳие гèрците. На фатѝе. Ни звèе да-ни-кòле. Ви-вѝду на-вàм. Ви-бàре.</p>
<h3>Personal reflective pronouns</h3>
<p>The personal reflexive pronoun has two forms: full and short.</p>
<p>The full form is сèбе си: Свèки си-глèда сèбе-си. Сàму за-сèбе-си рабòта. This form is not often used. The full form is replaced by its accusative and short form си : За-мèне си-мѝсл’а. Тòй си глèда сàму нèго, за-дрỳк не-мѝсли.</p>
<p>The short form is си. It occurs often in prepositional use and stands before the verb or before a short accusative pronominal form: Иàс си-кỳпи нòф фỳстан. Си-глàви млàт òфчар. Си-нàйде убàва невèста. Сàм си-е-изèде глàвата. Лòшото си-го-барàше и си-го-нàйде. Тàка си-го-сакàше (Kondorbi).</p>
<h3>Possessive pronouns</h3>
Possessive pronouns in the dialect have a full and a short form. The full form has the grammatical category gender with adjective endings and definite and indefinite forms. Short forms do not have their own accent.
<h4>Full possessive pronouns</h4>
<h5>Singular forms</h5>
<p>First person: мòй, мòйа, мòйо, (мòе); мòй: Тòс èсти мòй сѝн (Dolna Koreshcha). Мòйо тàтко ỳмбре. Тàйа е мòйа чỳпа. Съ-ръзбòле дèтто мòйо. Мòйата (мòйта) крỳша фтàса. Мòйте нѝвйа слàна и сланòса (Popole). Мòе èсти йàгнето. Мòето дèте бòлно лèжи, не-оздрàве èшче (Kosinets).</p>
<p>Second person: твòй, твòйа, твòйо (твòе); твòй. Дèка е òфчаро твòй ? Твòйо òфчар и-зъгѝна òфците. Йàс е-сàкам твòйта гулèма чỳпа. Твòйта мàйка е дòма (Popole). Твòята сèстра èсти бòлна (Dolna Koreshcha). Тòва дèте твòе èсти? Твòето мòмче нèма да-се-въ̀рни от-Мèрика (Kosinets). Мòмчето твòйо ми-рèче дъ-òш при-нèго (Chereshnitsa). Твòйто лѝце ѝма стрỳпйа. Твòйте брàтйа сè дòбре (Kosinets).</p>
<p>Third person: нèгоф, нèгова, нèгово, нèгови (in Popole нèгуф, нèгува, нèгуво, нèгуви): Стàпо è нèгуф. Нèговата шчèрка èсти лèпа (Dolna Koreshcha). Нèговото чèндо за-òди на-кỳрбет (Dolna Koreshcha). Тѝйа нèшча се нèгуви.</p>
<p>The forms нèйн, нèйна, нèйно, нèйни: are also found: Тòй сàму нèйното си-гу-сàка. Не-тъ̀ргай пу-нèйните умѝшча. Бòлните се нèйн тàтко и-нèйна мàйка. Нèйните дèца нè-се жѝви (Popole).</p>
<h5>Plural forms</h5>
<p>First person: нàш, нàша, нàшо, (нàше, нàшчо); нàши (нàшчи, Tiolishcha). Тàс èсти нàша шлѝва (Nestramsko). Нàшча нѝва е пу-гулèма (Popole). Нàшето сèло го-запалѝе и-нàшите къ̀шйа се-испустѝе (Kosinets). Нàшче мъ̀жи свè пу-чужѝна удèйа дъ-ръбòте (Chereshnitsa). The form нàшчо is noticed in Manyak.</p>
<p>The neuter form нàшо is more common than нàше. The latter is noticed in Kosinets, Yanovene, Kalevishcha, Chuka, Snichene and Konomladi.</p>
<p>In the articulation of the above forms, the definitive article is the same as for adjectives: нàшиo, нàшата, нàшето, нàшото, нàшите. This phenomenon occurs in Koreshchata. Due to elision of the vowels a, o, e, и (нàшта, нàшто, нàште) the combination шт in these forms in the central and eastern part of the dialect area shares the fate of OBg. combination шт -шч: нàшча, нàшчо, нàшче.</p>
<p>Second person: вàш, вàша, вàше, (вàшо, вàшио), вàши (вàшчи). Their distribution coincides with the first person forms (see above). Вàшио тàтко èсти жѝф и здрàф. Вàша мàйка èсти тàс? Тèлето нè èсти вàше (Yanovene). Вàшето дèте èсти лòшо (Kosinets). Вàшча кълъ̀чка не-сèчи (Popole). Вàшите и нàшите мъ̀ки нèме крàй (or нàшче and вàшче).</p>
<p>Articulated forms in the second person are formed as in the first plural (see above).</p>
<p>Third person: нѝн, нѝна, нѝно, нѝни (Popole), тèмен, тèмна, тèмно, тèмни (Koreshchata and Dolna Koreshcha), тèйн, тèйна, тèйно, тèйни (Nestramsko). Example: Вòй е нѝн мнỳк. И-нѝнио сѝн избèга. Нѝната мàйка утнòво съ-мъ̀жи. Тèйниут мồш èсти бòлен (Nestramsko). Тèмната нѝва фтàса. Тèмните дèци и-оставѝе кòските на-планѝните. Тѝйа се тèмни рàботи (Koreshchata).</p>
<h4>Short possessive pronouns</h4>
<h5>Singular forms</h5>
<p>First person: ми- Татко-ми èсти жѝф èшче. Мàйка-мѝ ỳмбре (Koreshchata). Брàт-ми съ-нъмèрва у-чужѝна (Chereshnitsa). Сèстра-ми се-мъ̀жи о-чỳжо сèло (Dъmbeni). Мầш-ми èсти о-Мèрика и-йàс за-òда при-нèго (Yanovene).</p>
<p>Second person: ти — Кàжи-му на-брàт-ти да-дòй при-нàм. Тàтко-ти ми-рèче лòши лафòви. Мàйка-ти не-сàка да-те-дàй на-мèне. Рабòтата-ти àрно въ̀рви. Къ̀шчата-ти ке-пàдни. Дèдо-ти Кòл'о бèше кумѝтин (Kondorbi).</p>
<p>Third person: му (for all three genders) — На-Стèфо му-ỳмбре мàйка-му. На-Прòша му-се-разбòле шчèрката. На-дèтето ръ̀чето му-се-посèче. Е-вѝду на-мàйка-му. Зèт-му òйде на-Сòлун. Се-разбòле женатà-му. Мъ̀ш-му èсти дòбар (Manyak).</p>
<h5>Plural forms</h5>
<p>First person: ни — Дèцата-ни се здрàви и-жѝви. Чỳпитè-ни сè ръботлѝви. Òфците-ни и-изèде въ̀лко. Кукòшкитè-ни свèкуй дèн нèсе. Нѝвйата-ни и-крèна бỳрата (Popole). Къ̀шчатà-ни пàна (Kosinets).</p>
<p>Second person: ви — Мàйка-ви èсти ленлѝва, нèйти да-рабòта (Yanovene). Брàт-ви нèма да-се-въ̀рни. Чỳпатà-ви èсти за-женèтйе. Тàтко ви сè въ̀рна от-чужѝна (Koreshchata).</p>
<p>Third person: му — На-свѝчки му-и-звèе прàвдата 'the cattle’. Л’ỳг’ата избегàйа, à нѝв’ата-му и-кỳките-му устанàйа пỳсти (Chereshnitsa). Тѝе се дòбре, шчèрки-му èшче пò-дòбре (Kosinets). Брàтйатà-му и-на-двèте чỳпи се-отепàе о-бòрбата (Dъmbeni).</p>
<p>The forms of the possessive pronouns can be presented in the following table:</p>
<table>
<tr> <td></td> <td></td> <td>masculine</td> <td>feminine</td> <td>neuter</td> <td>plural for the 3 genders</td> <td>short form</td> </tr>
<tr> <td rowspan="3">singular (one owner)</td> <td>first person</td> <td>мòй</td> <td>мòйа</td> <td>мòйо, мòе</td> <td>мòй</td> <td>ми</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>second person</td> <td>твòй</td> <td>твòйа</td> <td>твòйо, твòе</td> <td>твòй</td> <td>ти</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>third person</td> <td>нèгоф<br />нèйн<br />нèгоф</td> <td>нèгова<br />нèйна<br />нèгова</td> <td>нèгово<br />нèйно<br />нèгово</td> <td>нèгови<br />нèйни<br />нèгови</td> <td>му<br />му<br />му</td> </tr>
<tr> <td rowspan="3">plural (many owners)</td> <td>first person</td> <td>нàш</td> <td>нàша</td> <td>нàшо, нàше</td> <td>нàши</td> <td>ни</td> </tr>
<tr><td>second person</td> <td>вàш</td> <td>вàша</td> <td>вàшо, вàше</td> <td>вàши</td> <td>ви</td> </tr>
<tr><td>third person</td> <td>нѝн<br />тèмен<br />тèйн</td> <td>нѝна<br />тèмна<br />тèйна</td> <td>нѝно<br />тèмно<br />тèйно</td> <td>нѝни<br />тèмни<br />тèйни</td> <td>му<br />му<br />му</td> </tr>
</table>
<h4>Possessive pronoun свòй, свòйа, свòйо; свòй</h4>
<p>The possessive pronoun свòй, свòйа, свòйо (свòе); свòй has limited use. It is used for all persons: Иàс си-е-сàкам свòйта тъткỳвнѝна 'paternal inheritance’ (Chereshnitsa). Тòй не-мòжи да-го-рабòта свòйо ѝмот, а-нè чуж да-зèва. За-свòйте дèца се-грѝжи (Kondorbi).</p>
<p>The short form is used more often in the dialect: Си-го-вѝде дèтето умбрèно. Си-е-покòси ливàдата. Си-е-сàка шчèрката. Нè-си е-мèнваме бугàрцката вèра. Си-и-мъ̀жи чỳпите. Си-го-вѝде къ̀смето. Си-и-остàви дèцата. Сѝно си-го-испъ̀нди (Kondorbi).</p>
<p>The short pronominal form си stands in front of the short personal form, which is in front of the verb form. This distinguishes it from the short form of the personal reflexive pronoun сèбе си (the particle си).</p>
<h4>Indicative pronouns</h4>
<p>Indicative pronouns for persons and objects:</p>
<ol>
<li>For proximity: вòй, вàйа, вòйо (вòе, во̄̀); вàйа/ва̄̀, вѝйа (вѝе) ‘this ... these’: во̀й чо̀век ‘this man’, вѝйа л’ỳдйа ‘these people’, Шчо-бàре тỳка вѝе л’ỳди? (Kosinets). Зèми-го вòй пèшник лèп и-дỳнеси-го на-стрѝко-ти. Вàйа жèна не-ми-се-пỳли да-è àрна. Су-вòйо нèшчо шо-сàкаш да-прàш. Вѝйа гъркумàни гу-зъпустѝйа сèлото (Popole).</li>
<li>тòй, тàйа/та̄, тòе (тòа, то); тѝйа, тѝе. These forms are found in the dialect of Gornokostursko: Тàйа чỳпа па-è бòлна. Тòе дèте е мнòгу пъчърѝс (Popole). Тѝйа се лòши жèни. In the dialect of the village of Kosinets, the form тòва is also found for the neuter gender: Тòва èсти дèтето на-съ̀на-ми.</li>
<li>тòс (for masculine and neuter), тàс; тѝйа, тѝе ‘that, … those’. These forms are used in Dolnokostursko: то̀с чо̀век èсти до̀бар ‘this man is good’, тàс жèна èсти лèпа ‘this woman is beautiful’, то̀с тỳва/тỳа чо̀век ми èсти вỳйко ‘this man is my uncle’, Тòс чòвек èсти от Нèстрам. Тàс кầшча èсти на Лàзо. Тòс дèте èсти бòлно. Тѝе èсе гâркомàните (Yanoveni).</li>
</ol>
<p>Indicative pronouns for indicating signs and qualities:</p>
<ol>
<li>тàкоф, тàква, тàкво; тàкви and тъквòй, тъквàйа, тъквòе; тъквѝйа (Popole). Тàкоф òфчар не-ми-трèба. Чỳма-ти е тàква лòша жèна. Делèку да-сѝ от-тàкви лòши л’ỳди (Koreshchata). Тъквàйа чỳпа ми-трèба зъ-нивèста. Тъквòй чòвък сѝ тѝ? (Chereshnitsa).</li>
<li>тèлкуф, тèлкува, тèлкуво, тèлкуви (Chereshnitsa), тèкоф, тèкова, тèково, тèкови (Dolnokostursko, Koreshchata). Вѝду тèлкува гулèма змѝйа. Тèлкуво стàна дèтто (Chereshnitsa). Тèкуво голèмо дầрво нèйта (Yanovene). Тèкова стàра чỳпа не-сàкам за-чèндотò-ми.</li>
</ol>
<h4>Interrogative pronouns</h4>
<p>Interrogative pronouns for persons and objects: кòй, кòйа, кòйо (кòе); кòй; шо (шу Popole./ шчо, чо (Chъrnovishcha): Кòй-те сàка? Кòйа-ти арèсва от-чỳпите? Кòе йàгне блèе? Кòй се тѝйа л’ỳг’а? (Popole). Шо сàкаш да-йàш? Шу-ки-ублèчиш ? Шчо-сàкаш да-ми-рèчиш? Чо-кỳпи на-пàзаро?</p>
<p>The masculine interrogative pronoun referring to persons has two case forms: кой — nominative, кòго — genitive-accusative. Often times, the genitive-accusative form is replaced by the nominative form: Съ-кòго збòрваш тѝ — Съ-кòй збòрваш тѝ? Съ-кòго бèше за-вòда — Со кòй бèше за.вòда? За-кòго се-мъ̀жи — За-кòй се-мъ̀жи? На-кòго му-дàваш лèп — На-кòй му-дàваш лèп? (Kondorbi).</p>
<p>Interrogative pronouns for attributes:</p>
<ol>
<li>кàкоф (кàкуф), кàква, кàкво; кàкви and къквòй, къквàйа, къквòе; къквѝйа (Popole). Кàкоф чòвек èси тѝ? Кàква мàйка èсти тàс? Кàкво èсти дèтето? (Dolnokostursko). Кàкви нѝвйа ѝмате? Къквàйа тѝ è ръбòтата? Къквòй мъ̀ш ѝмаш? Къквѝйа сè ливàг’ата? (Popole).</li>
<li>кèкоф, кèкова, кèково; кèкови (Dolnokostursko and Koreshchata), кèлкуф, кèлкува, кèлкуво; кèлкуви (Popole). Кèкова да-е-остàва кòсата? Кèкуви ти-сè дèците? Кèлкуво пурàсна дèтто? Кèлкуви сè вàшче чỳпи? The forms кòлкуф, кòлкува, кòлкуво, кòлкуви are also present in Zagorichene. Probably this is a result of a literary influence</li>
</ol>
<p>Interrogative pronouns for possession: чѝ, чѝйа, чѝе; чѝ. Чѝ сѝн сѝ? Чѝе дèте сѝ? Чѝйа òфца е-изèде въ̀лко ? Чѝйа èсти тàйа убàва чỳпа? Чѝ волòви влегòе о-ливàдата? Чѝ мъ̀жи се-върнàе от-чужѝна? (Dъmbeni).</p>
<h4>Relative pronouns</h4>
<p>Relative pronouns in form completely coincide with interrogative ones, but in terms of the function they perform in the sentence, they differ from the latter. Кòй и-да-èсти, трèба да-йа-отвòриш врàтата. Кàкво и-да-èсти дèтето, мàйката и-тàткото го-мѝлве. Кèкови и-да-сè йагнѝшчата, ке-и-продàйме. Чѝйа и-да-сѝ чỳпа, мнòгу си убàва (Smъrdesh). The form found in the village of Zagoricheni: Àйде да-рỳчаме, кòйто дòйде, дòйде, нèма да-чèкаме.</p>
<h4>Generalizing pronouns</h4>
<p>Generalizing pronouns for persons and objects:</p>
<ol>
<li>свèки, свèка, свèко; свѝчки and свèкуй, свекòйа, свекòе; съ̀чки, съ̀ти (Popole). Свèки òт-нам èсти со-грѝжи голèми. Свèка мàйка мѝсли дòбро за-чèндото-си (Koreshchata). Свекòе нèшчо си-гỳ-ѝма муръфèто. Свèкуй нъ-мòжи дъ-глèда òфци. Свѝчки снè дòбри. Съ̀ти снè дòбри. (Chereshnitsa);</li>
<li>съ̀т, съ̀та, съ̀то ; съ̀ти. These forms are used in Popole, they mean something whole. The plural form also means 'all'. Съ̀та пѝта е-изèде на-рỳчук. Дèтто гу-ѝспи съ̀то млèко. Съ̀ти л’ỳг’а съ врънàйа ут-къ̀ро (Chereshnitsa). The masculine form сът is often avoided and instead цèл is used</li>
<li>цèл, цèла, цèло; цèли. Цèл нърòт съ-весèли пред-цъ̀рквата (Zagorichane). Цèло лèто не-завъ̀рна дòш. Цèла зѝма върнèше снèг. Двè цèли плèмни сèно ѝмаме. The plural form also means 'all': Цèли мъ̀жи и-заторѝе гъ̀рците. Цèли дèца избегàе от-сèлата (Koreshchata).</li>
</ol>
<p>Generalizing pronouns for attributes and qualities:</p>
<ol>
<li>свекàкоф (свекàкуф), свекàква, свекàкво; свекàкви. Нòшно врèме ѝма свекàкви л'ỳг'а пу-пътѝшчата (Popole). Не-сàкам дèтето-ми да-ѝгра со-свекàкви дèци от-мàлата (Kosinets). Свекàкуф нърòт ѝма у-тàйа дỳнйа (Chereshnitsa).</li>
<li>кàта (кàто, кàту) 'every' — used only to indicate time: Кàта дèна пѝеме прèсно млèко. Кàта недèл’а (Drenoveni). Кàто дèна стàвам рàно (Dranichevo). Кàту дèна йàйме сирèйне (Popole).</li>
</ol>
<h4>Indefinite pronouns</h4>
<p>Indefinite pronouns for persons and objects:</p>
<ol>
<li>èркой 'whoever, everyone', еркòйа, еркòе; èркой. Èркой дъ-мѝни пỳ-сèлто, у-нàс ке-дòй (Chereshnitsa). Еркòйа чỳпа не-се-зèва за-невèста. На-èркой не-òтворвай врàта;</li>
<li>нèкой, некòйа, некòе; нèкой. Нèкой рòпа на-врàтата. Некòйа чỳпа пèе о-планѝната (Dъmbeni). Некòе дèте съ-удàви у-изèрто (Chereshnitsa). Нèкой мъ̀жи сàму сe-върнàе здрàви от-гъ̀рцките затвòри.</li>
</ol>
<p>Indefinite pronouns for attributes:</p>
<ol>
<li>некàкоф, (некàкуф), некàква, некèкво ; некàкви. Некàкоф мъ̀ш дòйде да-те-бàра. Ме-чèка èшче некàква рабòта? Некàкви л'ỳди ке-мѝне по-сèлото (Kosinets);</li>
<li>еркàкоф (еркàкуф), еркàкво, еркàква; еркàкви 'whatever’. Еркàкуф òфчар йàска не-глàва. Еркàква рабòта тòй не-въ̀рши. Не-кỳпвам еркàкви черèши. Еркàкво гердàнче не-нòси тàйа. Тòй не-дрỳжи сò-еркàкви мъ̀жи.</li>
</ol>
<p>Indefinite pronouns for quantity are: in Popole: еркèлкуф, еркèлкува, еркèлкуво, еркèлкуви. Еркèлкува и да-è убàва и дòбра, нèма да-е-зèвам; and in the other regions: еркèкоф, еркèкова еркèково; еркèкови. Еркèкова и-да-èсти нѝвата, ке-йа-кỳпа (Kosinets).</p>
<p>The forming of subject pronoun ʻwhoeverʼ and the conjunction ʻwhateverʼ with the help of the prefix ѐр- to become ѐркой and ѐршчо is used in such sentences as Ѐркой да бѝди 'Whoever it may be' (in Standard Bulgarian it is Който и да е), Ѐршчо сàкаш 'whatever you want' (Std. Bg. Каквото поискаш), etc. This feature is found also in Ohrid dialect and may be from Persian (Iranian) origin.</p>
<h4>Negative pronouns</h4>
<p>Negative pronouns for persons and objects:</p>
<ol>
<li>нѝкой, (нѝкуй), никòйа, никòйо (никòе); нѝкой (нѝкуй). Со-нѝкой от-гъркомàните не-сàкам да-се-вѝда. За-нѝкой нѝшчо не-нòса. За-никòйа чỳпа от-тàйа къ̀шча нèма да-го-армàсаме. Дòма нèма нѝкой. Нѝкой от-дòбро не-си-го-остàва рòдното мèсто (Koreshchata). Вòйдън нѝкуй не-сàка дъ̀рва дъ-кỳпи (Popole);</li>
<li>ниèден, ниèдън (Chereshnitsa), ниèдна, ниèдно; ниèдни (Popole), ниèн, ниèна, ниèно; ниèни (Dolnokostursko, Koreshchata). Ниèдън мъ̀ш не-устàна у-сèлто (Chereshnitsa). Ниèден бугàрин дан-устàни — викàйа гъ̀рците (Zagorichane). Ниèна кầшча нèма здрàва (Yanovene).</li>
</ol>
<p>Negative pronouns for attributes and qualities: никàкоф (никàкуф), никàква, никàкво; никàкви. Никàкоф гòстин не-сàкам. Никàква кòжа не-ти-бòрџа. Никàквò сèно не-продàвам. Никàкви злàтни пàри нèмам.</p>
<h4>Conclusions</h4>
<p>The forms of the pronouns in the Kostur dialect are generally Bulgarian, with the exception of the indefinite èркой, еркàкоф, еркèку, and are close to those of the literary Bulgarian language.</p>
<p>Case forms are found only with personal pronouns.</p>
<p>With the short personal pronouns, we observe the following homonymy: му</p>
<ol>
<li>form for third person, masculine, singular: Му-рèку на-нèго;</li>
<li>form for third person, feminine, singular: Му-рèку на-нèйа;</li>
<li>form for third person, neuter, singular: Му-рèку на-нèго;</li>
<li>form for third person, plural: Му-рèку на-мъ̀жите, на-жèните и-дèците да-си-òде дòма.</li>
</ol>
<p>The same homonymy is found in the short forms of the possessive pronouns in the third person singular and the third person plural: мàйка-му. It can mean 1) his mother, 2) her mother, 3) their mother. The meaning of му is understood from the context, for example: Бàба Сòфа èсти меракосàна, сѝн му пѝе вѝно и-рекѝйа (Koreshchata, Nestramsko).</p>
<p>Short personal pronouns are used before a verb, and short possessives are used after a compound noun, with the exception of kin names in the singular: Не-видòе аскèрите. Ни-дадòе мнòгу прѝке. Му-дàвам да-йàди. Му-е-фàл’а чỳпата. Му-и-закòли òфците. Мàйка-му èсти жѝва. Брàтйата-му сè дòбри. Псовѝса крàватà-ни.</p>
<p>The full and short forms of the personal pronoun are used simultaneously to denote the same object of the verb action, similar to literary language. The full form can stand either before the short or after the verb: И-на-нèго му-дàду or му-дàду и- на-нèго. Нèйа е-вѝду. (На-нèйа е-вѝду) or е-вѝду нèйа (е-вѝду на нèйа). И-на-нàм (нàс) ни-рекòе.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2>Verb</h2>
<p>In the verb system of Kostur dilect, we find the following grammatical categories: person, number, subject, gender, tense and mood.</p>
<p>According to their general semantic and formal features, verbs in Kostur dialect can be classified in several ways.</p>
<h3>Types of verbs by meaning</h3>
<h4>Personal and impersonal verbs</h4>
<p>In relation to the doer of the verb action, verbs are divided into personal and impersonal.</p>
<p>Most verbs in the dialect are personal (the subject of the action is available). They are conjugated in all persons singular and plural. Such verbs are: чèкам, пèйа, вѝкам, òда, се-мѝйа, сèча, пèча, тòча, съ̀рва, прèда and прèнда, пỳл’а, мèса, вèл’а, пàса, чỳвам 'to keep’, бỳвам, се-мъ̀ча, ỳча, бàрам, клàвам, дàвам, къ̀лна, къ̀сам ’to bite’, бèра, кòпам, etc.</p>
<p>Impersonal verbs lack the subject of the action and he is not implied. They are few in number and are used only in third person singular. Impersonal verbs mainly mean natural phenomena: въ̀рни 'to rain, to snow’, гъ̀рми, ъ̀лска, стỳди, рòси, сѝла се-сèчи 'lightning is seen, but thunder is not heard', тъ̀тни, and also some physical and mental states: ме-бòли, ме-йàпи 'to itch', ми-се-спѝ, ми-се-пѝе, ми-се-òди, ми-се-плàчи, etc.</p>
<h4>Transitive and intransitive verbs</h4>
<p>Transitive verbs denote actions that directly and completely affect an object, for example: мèра, бèл’а, пèйа, сèйа, кòл’а, крèвам 'to lift', клàвам, дèлкам, пàл’а, òрам, кòпам, жнѝйа, плèта, мèта, мèса, пèра, чèпкам, ткàйа, грèба, влàча, сỳча, зèвам, дàвам, пỳшвам, пѝша, пѝйа, йàда, мъ̀лза, тèрам 'to chase', тèпам, etc.</p>
<p>When the object is an articled noun, reduplicated by a short pronominal form, after the transitive verbs there is a preposition на. This phenomenon is widespread in Popole, Kostenariata and Nestramsko. However, it is not characteristic of the dialect of the Koreshchata region. Examples: Глèдам чòвек — Гу-глèдам на-чòвеко. Пỳл’а мъ̀ска — Е-пỳл’а на-мъ̀ската. Мàцка сàкам да-вѝда — На-мàцката сàкам да-е-вѝда. Бỳвам лòши дèца — И-бỳвам на-лòшите дèца. Фашѝстите тепàйа пъртизàни — Фашѝстите и-тепàйа на-фатèните пъртизàни. Вѝкам, мъ̀жи да-ми-пумôжве — И-вѝкам на-мъ̀жите да-ми-пумòжве. Крèвам камèйна — И-крèвам на-камèйната. (Popole)</p>
<p>Intransitive verbs denote actions that cannot directly and completely affect an object. Such are the verbs бàрам 'walk’, рàста, овèнвам, смъ̀рда, пъ̀рда, цѝкам, блèйа, плàча, рѝкам, кỳкам, кỳцам, седѝнвам, стàвам, стòйа, глàдвам, падѝнвам, спѝйа, etc.</p>
<h4>Non-reflexive, reflexive and reciprocal verbs</h4>
<p>Non-reflexive verbs are: мѝйа, бỳвам, крòйа, мъ̀лза, трѝжа, брѝча, вàра, плàтвам, съ̀ркам, кàрам, пъ̀лта, затвòрвам, отвòрвам, тỳрвам, въ̀рша, брѝша, лѝжа, къ̀рша, бèса, тèпам, кòл'а, пàса, дỳйа, шѝйа, крòйа, сàкам, дàвам, мѝлвам, etc.</p>
<p>Reflexive verbs are formed from non-reflexive verbs, by placing a short form of the personal reflexive pronoun се (in Popole съ — for accusative case), си (for dative case) in front of the non-reflexive verb. They are: се-мѝйа, се-брѝча, се-мѝсл’а, се-плàша, се-меракòсвам, се-облèквам, се-обỳвам, се-слèквам, се-къ̀рпа, се-тòкма, се-ружам 'to put makeup’, се-мèра, си-вèл’а, си-мѝсл'а, си-рабòтам, си-плèта, си-прèнда, си-въ̀рша, си-жнѝйа, си-збòрвам, etc.
Reciprocal verbs are formed in the same way. However, they, unlike the reflexives, have only the plural: се-мѝлваме, се-кàраме, се-пỳлиме, се-бàраме, си-дàваме, си-збòрваме, etc.</p>
<h3>Verb types</h3>
<p>Verbs in Kostur dialect have the category of form — perfect or imperfect. The type of the majority of verbs is expressed by a morphological marker - a prefix or a suffix. The rest of the verbs lack a morphological marker and the type is expressed through their semantics.</p>
<p>Both imperfect and perfect verbs can be derivative or non-derivative, formed with suffixes and prefixes. Verbs of the imperfect form are found in the dialect, expressing a repeated action: зъкъшл'ỳвам and нъкъшл'ỳвам — I cough from time to time, пудвикнỳвам — I shout from time to time: Пудвикнỳва свèкуро, àма нè è лòш ; врекнỳвам — I growl from time to time, си къснỳвам — I eat from time to time, вреснỳвам, пърднỳвам, гръбнỳвам, си-путпèвам, etc. (the examples are from the village of Chereshnitsa).</p>
<p>Most of the non-derivative verbs are of the imperfect form: пỳл’а, прàва, пàса, мèл’а, крòйа, пèча, мѝйа, пèра, тèрам, крѝйа, пѝйа, кòл’а, кòпам, кàна, дàвам, клàвам, стàвам, etc. The number of non-derivative verbs belonging to the perfect form is smaller: вѝда, кàжа, тỳра, плàта, прàта, кỳпа, фàта, бàца, бъ̀нда and бѝда, клàда, etc.</p>
<p>The prefixed derivative verbs are of the perfective form: напрàва, напѝйа, истỳра, измѝйа, пожнѝйа, разбỳда, скѝна, скъ̀рша, скòрна, закòл'а, открàда, отèпам, прокъ̀лна, etc., and the prefix-suffix verbs are of the imperfective form: закòл’вам, открàдвам, отепвàм.</p>
<p>The verbs formed with the suffixes -ва, -ѝва (-ỳва-) are of the imperfective form: плàтвам, вѝдвам, кỳпвам, бàцвам, рòдвам, развѝвам, покрѝвам, паднѝвам, заспѝвам, оздравѝвам, легнѝвам, поздравѝвам, etc. The verb forms with the suffix -ỳва- are found in some villages of Popole (Chereshnitsa, Bъlgarska Blatsa): заспỳвам, уздравỳвам, пуздравỳвам, etc.</p>
<p>The verbs formed with the suffix -н(а)- in third person singular are in the perfect form: пỳкна, клèкна, пàдна, вѝкна, сèдна, мъ̀лкна, пѝкна, врèкна, скòкна, врèсна, цѝкна, пъ̀рдна, лèгна, свèтна, etc.</p>
<h4>Formation of perfect verbs from imperfect verbs</h4>
<p>Perfect verbs are formed from imperfect verbs in two ways:</p>
<ol>
<li>with prefixes:<br />
до-: доплèта, допрèнда, дожѝва, достòра, довъ̀рша;<br />
за-: запèйа, заѝграм, заспѝйа, зашѝйа, засмъ̀рда, заблèйа;<br />
из- (ис-): избрѝша, измèта, изгòра, испѝйа, испèча, истрѝйа, истрѝжа, исỳша (иссỳша), истèча;<br />
на-: напрàва, навèда, натòча, намàжа, набỳвам, нал’òта, надỳйа, напàса, найàда;<br />
о-: отèпам, ожèна, острàма, опỳл’а;<br />
по-: пошчỳкам, пожнѝйа, покòса, погàл’а, помѝлвам, помòл’а;<br />
про-: проговòра, прочèта;<br />
раз- (рас-): разбỳда, расшèтам, расшѝра;<br />
с- (со-): смàчкам, смерѝша, собèра, согрàда;<br />
у-: увèна, увѝйа, уплàша, etc.</li>
<li>with the suffix -н(а), third person singular ни: вѝкам — вѝкна, чỳкам — чỳкна, кỳкам — кỳкна, гъ̀рми — гъ̀рмни, пѝкам — пѝкна, клèча — клèкна, пъ̀рда — пъ̀рдна, etc.</li>
</ol>
<h4>Formation of imperfect verbs from perfect verbs</h4>
<p>Imperfect verbs are formed from perfect verbs with the suffixes:<br />
-ва-: курдѝсам — курдѝсвам, арèсам — арèсвам, плàта — плàтвам, кỳпа — кỳпвам, рòда — рòдвам, варòсам — варòсвам, йадòсам — йадòсвам, меракòсам — меракòсвам, закòл’а — закòл'вам, отèпам — отèпвам.<br />
-ѝва-: скѝсна — скиснѝвам, спъ̀рсна — спърснѝвам, ожѝва — оживѝвам, поздрàва — поздравѝвам, оздрàва — оздравѝвам, пèрна — пернѝвам, etc.</p>
<h3>Mood of verbs</h3>
<h4>Declarative mood</h4>
<p>The declarative mood has forms for present tense, past perfect tense, past imperfect tense, past indefinite tense, past preterite tense, future tense, future in the past tense, future preterite tense, future in the past preterite tense.</p>
<h5>Present tense</h5>
<p>Present tense verb forms are formed from present base to which the following personal endings are added: singular — first person. -a, -м (for third conjugation), second person -ш, third person -ø; plural — first person -ме, second person -те, third person -е.</p>
<table style="text-align:center;">
<tr>
<td colspan=5>First conjugation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>person</td>
<td>singular</td>
<td>plural</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>мѝйа</td>
<td>мѝеме and мѝйме</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>мѝеш</td>
<td>мѝете and мѝйте</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>мѝе</td>
<td>мѝе</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>The first conjugation pertains to verbs like дỳйа, вѝйа, пѝйа, сèйа, лèйа, лàйа, крòйа, ткàйа, жнѝйа, крѝйа, шѝйа, тлèйа, се-смèйа, блèйа, пл’ỳйа, бл’ỳйа, вèйа, стòйа, гнòйа, etc.</p>
<table style="text-align:center;">
<tr>
<td colspan=5>Second conjugation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>person</td>
<td>singular</td>
<td>plural</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>нòса, пѝша, пà(д)на</td>
<td>нòсиме, пѝшиме, пà(д)ниме</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>нòсиш, пѝшиш, пà(д)ниш</td>
<td>нòсите, пѝшите, пà(д)ните</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>нòси, пѝши, пà(д)ни</td>
<td>нòсе, пѝше, пà(д)не</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>The second conjugation pertains to verbs like вѝкна, прèнда, крèна, крèпа, сèдна, мъ̀лза, кòса, вòза, мòл’а, дèл’а, дѝша, лèжа, мѝжа, мàма, òда, пèра, тèча, мèта, плèта, сỳша, бèра, мèра, се-бòра, вòда, плàча, сèча, влèча, прèча, се-мъ̀ча, etc.</p>
<p>Verbs of the second conjugation in the dialect of the village of Mokrene located at the border with Kaylyarsko, in third person end with -е: кòлиш — кòле, сèчиш — сèче, вèлиш — вèле, скòкниш — скòкне. In third person plural the verbs end with -йат, -ат: знàйат, пèйат, кòл'ат, сèчат, пèчат.</p>
<table style="text-align:center;">
<tr>
<td colspan=5>Second conjugation</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>person</td>
<td>singular</td>
<td>plural</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>дàвам</td>
<td>дàваме</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>дàваш</td>
<td>дàвате</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>дàва</td>
<td>дàве</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p>The third conjugation pertains to verbs like рабòтам, кòпам, шчỳкам, пỳкам, рòпам, сàкам, тèпам, тèрам, кàрам, скòкам, стàвам, клàвам, арèсвам, ом'àсвам, ад’àсвам, рòдвам, рàдвам, кỳпвам, плàтвам, мѝлвам, вèнчам, etc.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<p>The <b>verb ‘to be’</b> in southern and southwestern regions: èсам, èси, èсти, èсме, èсте, èсе. To the north: сè/сѝ, сѝ, è, cмè, cтè, сè. In Dolna Korèshcha the archaic form èсти ‘is’ is used together with è.</p>
<p>The suffix for <b>first person singular present tense</b> for first and second conjugation is -а: о̀да ‘go’, вèл’а ‘say’, сèда ‘sit’, лèжа ‘lay’, го̀тва ‘to cook’, мъ̀лза ‘to milk’, йàда ‘eat’.</p>
<p>The suffix for <b>first person plural present tense</b> for all verbs is -ме: го̀твиме ‘we cook’, бèгаме ‘we run’, кѝниме ‘we tear’, пỳлиме ‘we see’, рабо̀таме ‘we work’.</p>
<p>The suffix for <b>third person plural present tense</b> for all verbs is -e: тѝйа о̀де ‘they go’, повèл’ве ‘they order’, сèде ‘they sit’, лèже ‘they lie’, го̀тве ‘they cook’, помѝнве ‘they pass’.</p>
<p><b>First conjugation</b> is replaced by second conjugation: прèндиш ‘you spin’, к’е стàни ‘will become’, к’е до̀йдиш ‘you shall come’, к’е те вѝкни ‘will call you’, пèчиме ‘we bake’.</p>
<p><b>The perfect</b> is formed with ѝмам + past participle for neutral gender: ѝмам одèно ‘I have gone’, ѝма писàно ‘(he) has written’, ѝмe видèно ‘they have seen’, ѝмаме научèно ‘we have learnt’.</p>
<p>Except all peripheral villages in Popole and in Zhelevo where it is -а/-йа, the <b>suffix for third person plural in aorist</b> is -e: видо̀е ‘they saw’, сакàе ‘they wanted’, направѝе ‘they made’, казàе ‘they said’, завервàе ‘they believed’.</p>
<p>The <b>particle for future tense</b> is за to the south and к’е to the north: за о̀да на цḁ̀рква ‘I'll go to church’ за до̀йда ỳтре ‘I'll come tomorrow’, за наỳчиме ‘we'll learn’, за мèса пѝта ‘I'll knead a pita’, к’е фърл’а ‘I'll throw’, к’е те нàйди ‘he'll find you’, к’е пристѝгниме опо̀зде ‘we'll arrive late’. The за particle is characteristic especially for Nestram, Yanoveni (Γιαννοχώρι) and Pilkati (Μονοπλίο). They use such expressions as "За ойме за Пилкати!" Because of these unique expressions, the surrounding villages in the region gave the nickname to the inhabitants of these three villages "За о̀йци" (The goers).</p>
<p>The <b>imperative forms</b> are accented on the first syllable: фàти го за ръ̀ката ‘take his hand’, до̀несите тро во̀да ‘bring some water’, зàпалите го о̀гно ‘light the fire’. The negative imperative is formed with нèмай: нèмай сѝне, не о̀ди на чужѝна ‘don't go abroad, son’.</p>
<p>The <b>adverbial participles</b> are formed with the suffices -àшчем, -èшчем: одèшчем ‘going’, викàшчем ‘calling’, гредèшчем ‘coming’.</p>
<p>The affirmative particle да ‘yes’ is not used in the dialect and is substituted by так/такà.</p>
<h1>Syntax</h1>
<p>The clitic pronouns are put in front of the verb with an obligatory doubling of the objective case pronouns: ми го звè пàлтото ‘he took my coat’, си я вѝде шчèрката ‘she saw her daughter’, му открадѝе свѝчкo на л’удйата ‘they stole everything in the people’, бàбата си го мѝлва мнỳчето ‘the grandma loves her grand child’.</p>
<h1>Vocabulary features</h1>
<p>Typical words for the dialect are: мъ̀тка ‘milk churner’, биенѝца ‘buttermilk’, гърчмàлник ‘weasand’, пл’àчки ‘clothes’, лàпка ‘apple’, лигàвец ‘snail’, литàшка ‘butterfly’, мѝсер ‘maize’, грèда ‘to come’, киселѝна ‘vinegar’, гъ̀рст ‘handful’, прàвдо/прàвда ‘cattle’, орѝзник ‘rice pie’, бучèва ‘noise’, то̀ски ‘only one’, гъ̀рча ‘to snore’, шчèвйе ‘dock (plant, Rumex sp.)’, седèло/сидèло ‘nest’, бѝше ‘pig’, жѝгер/джѝгер ‘liver’, л’èп ‘beautiful’, л’ендѝна ‘fallow, meadow’, къснѝвам/къ̀сна ‘take a bite’, покланàтйе ‘greeting’, ро̀т ‘face’I, ми сè мни ‘it seems to me’, вел’а ‘to say’, пỳл’а ‘to look’, се л’ỳта ‘to get angry’, ъ̀рва/к’ѝна ‘to tear’, макàло ‘porridge’, макàлце ʻforkʼ, благо̀та ‘dairy products’, ỳрда, ‘curd’, мàс ‘butter’, мàсло ‘vegetable oil’, сàло ‘lard’, бизèл’йа ‘peas’, àрмас ‘engagement’, брàк ‘wedding’, кàй (← кàк и) ‘as well as’ (in the notheastern periphery (Chereshnitsa, Zagoricheni, Mokreni etc.) кàто is used), свèска ‘sister-in-law’, къ̀рша ‘break’, мъ̀лза ‘to milk’, шѝпер ‘backbone’, Сèчко ‘February’, Чървèник ‘June’, пъ̀рле ‘young donkey’, кръ̀нк ‘round low table for kneading dough’, со̀ба ‘stove’, крèвам/крèна ‘to lift’, бачѝло ‘dairy’, чỳпа ‘girl’, йат ʻpoisonʼ, клàвам/клàда ‘to put’, планỳчка ‘strawberry’, по̀тквас ‘yogurt, sour milk’, беèро ʻfellow villagerʼ, шо̀пи ‘a name for the inhabitants of Gorna Koreshcha and Dolna Prespa, used in Smъrdesh, Vъmbel, and Vrъbnik villages).</p>
<p>Intradialect lexical differences: кувàрки (Popole) – вѝфки (Korèshcha) – к’елèшк’и (Dolni Kostur region) ‘sarmi’; рѝза (Dolna Korèshcha, Dolni Kostur region) – муфèска (Popole) – шимѝйа (Zagoricheni and Chereshnitsa) ‘head scarf’; тèмен (Dolna Korèshcha) – нѝн (Popole) ‘their’; имо̀ник/кàрпус (Dolni Kostur region) – либинѝца (Chereshnitsa) ‘watermelon’; патàти (Popole, Dolni Kostur region) – къртỳли (Gorna and Dolna Koreshcha) ‘potatoes’.</p>
<h1>Samples</h1>
<h2>Drenòveni</h2>
<i>Labro Karolov, narrator</i>
<p>Тàтко-ми Лàзо Королоф е-рòден во-сèло Дренòвени, во-гòрната мàла, чо-му-велиме Гòрно Дренòвени. Се-знàе, чо-е-рòден на-Голèма Богордѝца, а-годѝната нè-си-е знае тòкму, зàшчо ка-а-лапнàе гъ̀рците нàшата Македòня со-съ̀рпцка пòмош, свѝчки църкòвни кнѝги и-тефтèри и-изгорèе, заш-бèе писàни по-бългàрцки. Мѝслиме, чо-е- рòден на-ильàда дèветстотини и-фтòра годѝна и-сèга èсти на- девèндесе и-дèвет годѝни. Прèд-да-се фàти Балкàнцкьо бòй дванàйста годѝна дèдо-ми Лàбро Корòлоф бèше на-чужѝна во-Атѝна кай-мàйстор (майстор ‘construction worker’). Ка-рàзбра, чо-ке-е-у̀дре на-Ту̀рця, той го-вя̀на (вявам/вяна ‘to board’) пàмпуро (пампур 'ship') за̀ено со-дру̀ги на̀ши косту̀рчени пра̀во за-Ва̀рна и-сс-пѝса доброволец во- балга̀рцката а̀рмя да-се-бо̀ри за-слобо̀дата на-Македо̀ня. Загѝна на- фрòнто. То̀чно дèка-му-е гро̀бо, нѝкой не-зна̀е. Дѐдо-ми Ла̀бро и-по̀- ра*но има̀ше о̀дено о Атѝна да-рабòта. Ста̀рите дреновчѐни во- Кана̀да разкажва̀е, чо-дѐдо-ми Ла̀бро за̀рди егза̀рхо се-ска̀рил со- нѐкой-си фанатѝк гъ̀рк во-Атѝна. Гъ̀рко му-рѐкол на-дѐдо-ми: „Да-ти-го̀ ѐба балга̀рцкьо ѐгзарх.“ Тога̀я му-отвъ̀рнал дѐдо-ми Ла̀бро: „Да-му-сѐ сѐра на-та̀я вошльоса̀на бра̀да на-твòйо пъ̀рч гъ̀рцки патрѝка“. Почна̀ле да-се-бѝе. Гъ̀рко од-дѐдо-ми Ла̀бро я̀де бо̀й со- òки. Гъ̀рко го-да̀шол дѐдо-ми на-съ̀ндо. Гъ̀рко напра̀вил пòплак (пòплак ‘plea’), чо дѐдо-ми го-испцу̀л патрѝката. Кадѝята го- пѝтал на-дѐдо-ми Ла̀бро, за̀шчо го-ѝзби. Дѐдо-ми му-удвъ̀рнал, чо- тòй пъ̀рф ми-гò испцу̀ бълга̀рцкьо ѐкзарх и-пъ̀рф ме-у̀дри. Кадѝята сандèше право и-да̀де пра̀во на-дѐдо-ми Ла̀бро. А̀ма го-вѝкнал скрѝшум да-му-ка̀жи, чо-ес̀ти опа̀сно да-оста̀ни о-Атѝна, мо̀же да-го- спа̀стре (спастрѝвам/спа̀стра ‘kill, assassinate’). И-та̀ка дѐдо-ми бѐше прину̀ден да-се-въ̀рни о-Дрено̀вени. А̀ма по-врѐме па-отѝшал во-Атѝна.</p>
<h2>Smъ̀rdesh</h2>
<i>Anton Mangov, narrator</i>
<p>Сѐло Смъ̀рдеш ѐсти блѝзо до-алба̀нцката гранѝца, на-жа̀дето мѐжду Алба̀ня и-Гъ̀рця. Има̀ше и-телонѝо (телонѝо - гр. ‘customs’) та̀мо. Кога дойдòе гъ̀рците два̀йста годѝна, направѝе голѐмо телонѝо, òти беше големо движѐнйето мѐжду Алба̀ня и-Гъ̀рця. О-ту̀рцко-врèме бѐше голѐмо сѐло, има̀ше на̀т-три* ильа̀ди ду̀ши, става̀ше сѐкоа недèльа па̀зар. А̀ма ту̀рците го-изгорѐе, го-изгорèе два̀-пъ*та, за̀шчо сѐлото бѐше комѝцко, булгàрцко. Отта̀мо има̀ше мно̀го войво̀ди - Ва̀силь Чекала̀ров, Па̀ндо Кля̀шеф и-дру̀ги има̀ше. Сѐлото бѐше комѝцко, се-борѐше про̀тиф ту̀рците и-за-то̀ го-изгорѐе ту̀рците. Има̀ше мно̀го отепа̀ни, на̀т-сто* ду̀ши. Сѐлото ѐсти построѐно на- та̀кво мѐсто, шчо-половѝната во̀да от-чѐзмите о̀ди о-Адриатѝческо мо̀ре и-половѝна ка̀мо Егѐйцко мо̀ре. На-та̀ква височѝна ѐсти сѐлото. Ка̀-изго*ре сѐлото, мно̀го на̀рот избѐга. По̀векето дойдòе ту̀а о- Булга̀ря со-фамѝли:те. А-дру̀гите избега̀е. Нѐкой по-Амѐрика, Астра̀льа и-о дру̀ги даржа̀ви.</p>
<h2>Dъ̀mbeni</h2>
<i>Magda Yumbrukova Vlahova, narrator</i>
<p>Дъ̀мбени бѐше о-планѝната, нема̀ше много по̀лййе. И-то̀, шчо̀-го има̀ше, со трапо̀ви бѐше. И-ридòви мно̀го има̀ше. Ло̀зя мно̀го има̀:ме. О-Лазѝня има̀ше тѐко бла̀го гро̀зйе, шчо̀-се лепѐше на-ръ̀ците. Та̀мо бѐше прѝпек. Съ̀лце печѐше сѝлно и-гро̀зйето бѐше мно̀го бла̀го. По-ѐно врѐме реко̀е, шчо̀-америка̀нците о-ста̀п (стап ‘walking stick’) донеко̀е бо̀лес - филоксѐра. Зафатѝе да-се-су̀ше лòзята. Но̀ви ло̀зя кладо̀е. Сѐга, прѐд-да бѐгаме четѝрйесе и-девѐта годѝна, мнòго-ма*ло ло̀зя остана̀е. А-планѝната има̀ше орѐй, ц̀ела планѝна орѐй. Ко̀га кажва̀е, òти у̀тре ке-се-бѐре орѐйте, цѐлото сѐло сака̀:ме да-òйме да-бѐриме орѐй. Ко̀й ка-мо̀жеше, фатва̀ше. Яс тѝя орѐй и-фа̀ти, ке-й-ишчу̀кам (ишчуквам, ишчукам ‘to thresh’). Сака̀:ме да-фа̀тиме двѐ, трѝ дъ̀рва, да-й-ишчу̀каме орѐйте, да-и-собѐриме и-да-това̀риме врешча (врешче ‘sack’). И-по-пòлййето има̀ше орѐй. А̀ма планѝната бèше за-свѝчки, та̀мо за̀ено и-берѐ:ме. Бла̀ги бѐе кастѝците (кастѝца ‘the soft tissue inside the walnut kernel ’).</p>
<h2>Òшчима</h2>
<i>Petrana Raykova, narrator</i>
<p>На-Вòдици си-о̀де:ме, се-слèква:ме (се-слèквам/се-слѐча ‘to dress up’), си-о̀деме во-цъ̀рква. Ке-си-nèe, шо̀-ке-си nèe nòno, òттамо се-крèваше (ce-кpèвaм/ce-кpèнa ‘to go to') цèлото сѐло, шо-бѐше. Си- òде:ме на-рèката, ке-о-фъ̀рльае кpècтo во-во̀дата. О̀решки рèката се-вѐлеше. Màлa-рѐка бèшe. И-ке-бèше зàградено та̀ка, ка-бѐше зѝма, од-мрàзо и-ке-о-фъ̀рльае кpècro во-нàтpe во-рѐката и-ке-се- фъ̀рльае дèци, mo-кe-бèa жèнати, мла̀ди да-о-бàpe во-вòдата. Кòй- ке-о фàтваше кpècro и-тòй сѐтне ке-о-зèваше. Ке-пòминваше по-цèлото сѐло. Ke-бèpee nàpи, ке-му-да̀вае и-тоа-бѐше. Сèтне си- òде:ме од-Во̀дици, си-прàе:ме фу̀руглици (фу̀руглица ‘a ceremonial banner made of a long pole with various ornaments on it’) – ъ̀рженье гòлемо, шо-жнѝе нѝвйето и-ке-си-на̀права:ме со-кòнци цъ̀рвени. Кòлачина прàе:ме за-Кòленда и-си-й-въ̀рзва:ме на-фу̀руглицата, шо-бѐе така, фу̀руглици и-вèлее. И-ке-си-зèаме и-на-Во̀дици, àко си-грèде:ме од-во̀дата дру̀гьо-ден. И-си-о̀де:ме во-пòнеделнико по-нѝвйето, си-кла̀а:ме пъ̀рчки од-въ̀рби да-рàзвие èдна, ѐдна въ̀рба и-ъ̀рженица ке-му- клàва:ме и тòа-беше.</p>
<h2>Лу̀дово</h2>
<i>Elena Petrova, narrator</i>
<p>По̀по Зѝси, ко̀га бèшe то̀й дèте, звè ѐна жèна, Вла̀я, oт-тѐмно сѐло, од-Га̀лишча, мойто cèлo ѐсти Лу̀дово.И-до̀йде то̀й, e-apèca на-Влàя, е-звè. Сѐтне се-сторѝе стройнѝци за-мѐне. Дойдо̀е сèтне тѝя, ойдо̀е пà на-Влàина кḁ̀шча тàм. До̀йде по̀-напре свèкар-ми. До̀йде свèкар- ми и-отѝде на-èна одàя тàка и-нḁ̀тре на-о̀весо се-зака̀чи. О̀вес ѝмеме ен-ку̀п вḁ̀ршен. И-сèна та̀м. И-я̀с помѝна та̀ка и-ме-вѝде. И-сѐтне отѝде до̀ма-му - „Ѐли тàс ке-е зѐмиме, èли дру̀га нè, тàс“. Убàва, тѐкo гу̀шник (гу̀шник ‘neck’) ѝме. Cèra нèмам ни-гу̀шник, ни-кàмен. „И-та̀с ке-е-зѐма“. И-то̀й до̀йде да-ме-пу̀ли, та̀м де-бèше Вла̀ина пенджèра, од-Влàя, та̀мо от-пòпo Ко̀льо. И-дойдо̀е, то̀й ме-глèда, я̀с за-во̀да. Магѝрката е-ѝме товарèно со-букленѝшча (бу̀кле ‘water vessel’) тѐко голèми и-двà ко̀тли на-рḁ̀ците вода пḁ̀лни. Од-далѐко но̀симе во̀да. И-помѝна по-та̀м. И-èтo сетне ме-видо̀е тѝя от-пенджѐрата. И-дойдо̀е сѐтне. До̀йде, ми-го-клàде пḁ̀рстено на-рḁ̀ката и-побѐгна. Сèтне петна̀йсе дѐна сва̀дбата. На-петнàйсе дèна се-звèме.</p>
<h2>Ѐзерец</h2>
<i>Dina Naskova, narrator</i>
<p>И-звѐе дѐците да-и-изва̀де на-перѝпото (перѝпото - гр. ‘walk’). И-ойдо̀е на-ѐдно мѐсто - Свѐти Илѝя го-ка̀жвиме. Та̀му бѐше горя̀на (burned) цè̥рква, а̀ма Свѐти Илѝя го-вѐлиме. Та̀му ѝма голѐми дò̥мбя, широ̀ки. Ойдо̀е та̀му дѐците. Па-мòйте бѐе двѐ. Леонѝт се- ка̀жви дѐтето и-чу̀пчето Гликирѝя. Ойдо̀е, ѝгре, чѝне, пра̀ве та̀му. Да̀скалут и-даскалѝцата сèде. До̀бре, а̀ма Гликирѝя му-ка̀жви на-бра̀т-му, на-Леонѝт: „Леонѝда, а̀йде до̀ма да-си-о̀йме, ми-се-я̀ди лѐп. - А, ти-се-я̀ди лѐп! Ба̀р (come) ту̀ка, ба̀р ту̀ка Гликирѝя“. Ка-е-фа̀ти учѝтелут, бо̀й, ти-зѐва вè̥рца (вè̥рца ‘thread, rope’), му-и-вè̥рдзви но̀чките (но̀чка ‘small leg’) и-са-кай-до̀лу гла̀ва от-фѝданут, од-дò̥мбут вѝси. И-со̀бра цѐли дѐци от-ско̀лййето да-глѐде. „Глѐдайте, му-рѐче, то̀й, ко̀й за (will)-го̀вори по-булга̀рцки, та̀ка ке-вѝси, цѐли та̀ка ке-ви-обѐса“. До̀бре, а̀ма дѐтето мо̀е по̀-голе*мо, шо-е-глѐда сѐстра, сѐстра, тѝе зна̀е од-мѝлос, од-братовчѝна, мо̀ли : „Пу̀шчи-е“, а-тòй нѐ-е пу̀шчи. Ка-ло̀пна (‘took’) ка̀меня и-на-да̀скалут са-ка̀меня да-го-бѝе. Од-некòе врѐмe ro-пу̀шчи чу̀пето. Рò̥ците му-и-имàше цèли чèрни от-стàпут. Са-ста̀п е-бувàше обесèна кай-дòлу са-глàва. Рò̥чките (рò̥чка ‘small hand’) му-бéе сѝни, сѝни прò̥тя, кàшчо го- бѝеше са-ста̀пут. До̀йде чу̀пето да-у̀мбри. На-сѐдом гудѝнки бèшe чу̀пето, а-дèтето бèшe на-дѐвет. Ка̀-го-пу̀шчи до̀лу чу̀пето от-вè̥рца-та, шо-го-имàше забесèно са-кай-дòлу гла̀ва, той рàзбра, шо-чу̀пето ке-у̀мбри. Бѐше загинàто от-свèтут, не-мòжеше нѝ-да плàчи, нѝ-да збòрви, цèло премè̥рзна. Ка-го-донесòе до̀ма, ни-я̀й, ни-пѝе два̀, трѝ дèна. О̀йду на-лèкар, той кàжви : „Крàй, чу̀пето нèма кè̥рф, кè̥рфта му-стàна во̀да“. Ka-бèшe червèно, бèло, пò̥лно тогàс, жò̥лто ста̀на и-ѐшче жò̥лто èсти. Cèгa ècти ту̀ка на-Пàзарджик, от-тогàс сè̥рцето е-бòли, жò̥лто кè̥рпус оста̀на чу̀пата. От-себа̀п сè̥рцето на-пèнся ѐсти мла̀да. Тàка нàшче о̀чи йме видèно. Гè̥рцкьут дàскал се-кàжвише Сотѝри Секеларѝу. Ка-дòйде до̀ма тàтко-му и-му-кàза чу̀пето тàка и-тàка, то̀й рѐче : „За-го-убѝя, за-òда, за-е зèма пу̀шката и-за-го-умòра. Я̀с йм скриèно пу̀шка за-тѝе мè̥рсни гè̥рци, нèма да-го-тè̥рпа, ке-го-ишчѝста.“ И-и-грѝзеше рò̥ците от-ѝнат. Не-мòжиме да-го-заборàвиме тòс нèшчо.</p>
<h2>Тио̀лишче (Тихо̀лишче)</h2>
<i>Dota Voynovska, narrator</i>
<p>Бра̀ко во-Тио̀лишча го-фа̀тваме от-четвъ̀ртуко. Пра̀йме калѐзма (калèзмо ‘a small flat bread for wedding invitation’) и-на-вечèрата се-субèрваме со̀йо, чу̀пите. Òйме да-и-калѐсваме посестрѝмите, шo-cè по̀-бли*зни. На-пèтуко мèсиме дру̀ги калèзма. Òйме го-калèсваме со̀йо. Калèзмата cè пупченѝшча, си-и-мèсиме. Òйме да-и-калèсваме на-дѐцата, блѝзните со̀йови. На-сабо̀тата ко̀ле воло̀ви йли о̀фци. И ко̀ле кулакчѝ:те (кулакчѝя ‘a bachelor who invites guests and helps the groom’), блѝзните шо-cè ут-стра̀на на-дèтто, од-зѐто. Од-нивèстата стра̀на тѝя ко̀ле дру̀г-во*л за-нèйньо со̀й. Слет-плàйна и-чèкаме гелевѝ:те (гелевѝ: ‘musicians, orchestra’), и-пречèкваме са-рикѝя, са-вѝно. Ке-о̀йме да-и-чèкаме, ке-у̀дре о̀ше од-далèко, от-сѐлото да-свѝре. Рàдва-се. И-тогà: са-знае - „Ей, то̀й прàй брàк“. Дойдо̀е гелевѝ:те, излèгве свѝчки во-сèлто тàму льу̀дята да-глѐде гелевѝ:те шо-свѝре, шо-ста̀ва брàк.</p>
<h2>Кондоро̀би</h2>
<i>Dota Kamburova, narrator</i>
<p>Ту̀рцко врѐме бѐше. Удѐ:ме на-буга̀рцко скòйле. Я̀с на-òсум гудѝни бѐше. Да̀скал ѐдната гудѝна ни-бѐше Ла̀мбро, дру̀гата гудѝна бѐше Катерѝна ут-Прѝлеп. Мѝтра бѐше па̀ ут-Прѝлеп, уд-ѐдно сѐло бѐе ут-Прѝлеп. Ла̀мбро бѐше уд-Бѝтульа. Я̀с учѐше пъ̀рвата гудѝна, та̀ка не-учѐе, нема̀ше нѝшчо, да-пѝшиме на-плòча са-кòндилй. Пѝши, брѝши са-кòндилй. А-фтòрата гудѝна ни-дадòе буква̀рка - А, Б, В. Та̀я и-фтòрата гудѝна, я̀ска нѐ-го свъ̀рши скòйлето. Ни-дадòе ут-пъ̀рво уделѐйне чита̀нка, а̀ма нѐ-го свъ̀рши скòйлето. До̀йде Гъ̀рця, затвурѝе. А-пъ̀к за-цъ̀рквата. Скòйлето бѐше ту̀ка, та̀му бѐше на- ѐдна пѐнда цъ̀рквата. Буга̀рцка цъ̀рква има̀:ме и-буга̀рцко скòйле има̀:ме. И-гъ̀рцка цъ̀рква има̀ше, гаркома̀нцки фамилѝ: има̀ше, едина̀йсе къ̀шчи бѐе. Буга̀рте, демѐк нѝя македо̀нците, има̀:ме двайсетѝна къ̀шчи, бѐе. Тѝя нѐ-знае*е гъ̀рцки. Македòнцки си-гувурѐ:ме, буга̀рцки.</p>
<h2>Чърѐшница</h2>
<i>Teodota and Stefan Shklifovi, narrators</i>
<p>У-ку̀кьата са-влѐгва ут-пòрта, велѐ:ме и-у-къ̀шчата. По̀ртата е-пу̀-гулѐма уд-вра̀тта. Су-двѐ-по*ли (по̀ла ‘door wing’) е-правѐна за-да-мòжи да-влѐзи тува̀рън ко̀н су-жѝто нъ̀тре. Прет-пòртата ѝма пра̀к. Пра̀го са-пра̀ви уд-здра̀во-дъ*рво - дъ̀п или-бу̀ка, кой ка-ѝма. Ут-пòртата са-влѐгва у-путрѐмо (путрѐм ‘anteroom’). Путрѐмо пу̀-ра*но бѐше ма̀зан су-цъ̀рвена зѐма. Ут-путрèмо са-òди на-дòлната уда̀а, сòба (сòба ‘living room') му-вѐлиме и-у-кѐрало. Ут-путрѐмо ѝма ска̀ла за-чарда̀ко. Чарда̀ко е-нъ̀т-путрèмо, ут-шчѝци-е. Ут-ча̀рдако (ча̀рдак ‘anteroom on the second floor’) са-влѐгва у-гòрните уда̀й. Една̀ удая̀ ѝма бѐс-о*джак, му-ка̀жваме дива̀на (дива̀на ‘summer room’). Та̀-е за-гòсти за-лèтно-вре*ме. Дру̀гите уда̀й ѝме òджак, са-пòлзве и-зѝмно- вре«ме за-спа̀йне и-за-гòсти пу-именѝшчата. Ко̀га гредѐя го̀сти, зѝмната уда̀я са-пустелйва̀ше су-нòви веленцѝна и-а̀лцки (а̀лцки ‘crimson’) велѐнца на-башòвите (ба̀ш ‘the central place in front of the fireplace’) и-уба̀ви чѐрги на-къ̀то. Зѝмната уда̀я и-сòбата има̀я òджак. Натрѐжната (натрѐжен ‘inner’) стрàна пуд-о̀джако до̀лу се-кàжва клàник. Tàмy ca-пàли òгано. À-о̀кул за̀кул клàнико ca-вèли угнѝшче, уд-двèте стра̀ни ду-угнѝшчето и-стѝсо (стѝс ‘brick wall’) - бàш. Угнѝшчето е-пусла̀но су-камèйна и-су-царвèна зèма са-мàчка. На-ста̀ро-вре*ме забесвàа сѝнджир на-о̀джако. На-сѝнджиро забесва̀я гьу̀м, ко̀тъл, ко̀тле во̀да да-са-то̀пли. На-угнѝшчето клава̀а гъ̀рне и-си-варѐя мàнджа. Свѝчко варèя у- гъ̀рне. Ако-бèше мѐсо, гу-праклавàа (пракла̀вам, пракла̀да ‘transfer from one vessel to the other’) у-бакарèно тинджèре су-пра̀с, су-кро̀мит, су-патàти, зèлйка. Тинджѐрто гу-клава̀а на-пиро̀стьа, му-вѐлиме и-перустѝя. Céra го̀ре-до*лу, цèли ѝме ашчалъ̀ци (ашчалъ̀к ‘kitchen’).</p>
<h2>Загорѝчени</h2>
<i>Sotir Dolev, narrator</i>
<p>На-васта̀йнето дѐвет стутѝни и-трѐтата гудѝна кумѝтте има̀я кладѐно каза̀ни на-планѝнката Въ̀рбица, шу-сѐ намѐрва на̀д-Загури*чини. Ка̀-се я̀ви уздо̀ла ут-Ка̀йнако ту̀рцкьо а̀скер, каза̀ните и-уставѝя та̀ка. Нѐкуй кла̀де фа̀рмак (фа̀рмак ‘poison’) на-каза̀ните. Некѐлку ту̀рци ядо̀а ут-ка̀зано и-се утрувѝя. Су-то̀ва гу-изгурѐя цѐлуто сѐло. Ту̀рците утидо̀а и-на-манастѝро Сети-Вра̀ч на̀д- О*лишча, мегу-Олишча и-Черѐшница, а̀ма нѐ-влего*я нъ̀тре. Игу̀мено варѐше чинѝчка (чинѝчка ‘maize’) и-му-дава̀ше на-сельа̀ните. Ѐдна жѐна, ка-удѐя на-манастѝро, ко̀га бега̀я, си-гу-фъ̀рли дѐтто. Ка-бега̀а, дру̀ги гу-намерѝя. На-чу̀вачо (чу̀вач ‘keeper’) на-цъ̀рквата Сети-Та̀нас гу-фатѝя ту̀рците. Цъ̀рквата а-завартѝя и-утепа̀я едина̀йсе четнѝци. И-утта̀му ту̀рците звѐя, фатѝя каму̀ Прекупа̀на и-Вѝчо.</p>
<hr />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqIYvW3AIbiwChZ1j7MkqIEQtZTQ9D77_aBJNDKu6XKRGaBfBg1uALjaC-ZjaPL1qs-SnYtZze7EDtgR_iB-p09Javsvtc_7ljmYCoeleQF52NMgm4OdXzEmO8hfqReKjWw-BRiSXmg6RYf0b_X8ST38njLE5ZG89VXjhqPHDesrkPa53Gz1d2s9WOIw/s852/Labro-dialectologia.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; float: left; padding: 10px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="852" data-original-width="820" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqIYvW3AIbiwChZ1j7MkqIEQtZTQ9D77_aBJNDKu6XKRGaBfBg1uALjaC-ZjaPL1qs-SnYtZze7EDtgR_iB-p09Javsvtc_7ljmYCoeleQF52NMgm4OdXzEmO8hfqReKjWw-BRiSXmg6RYf0b_X8ST38njLE5ZG89VXjhqPHDesrkPa53Gz1d2s9WOIw/s320/Labro-dialectologia.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style=""><a href="https://knizhen-pazar.net/books/199/19983/1998376.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; float: center;"><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="276" data-original-width="194" src="https://knizhen-pazar.net/books/199/19983/1998376.jpg"/></a></div><p>Most of the material in this post is from the book Иван Илиев, Лабро Королов. Българска диалектология. Българските говори в Северозападна Гърция, Албания и Косово and from Shklifov <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>. Some material is contributed also by Vic Nicolas, my online friend from a Kostur origin.</p>
<p></p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1>
<p><a name="ref1">1.</a> Благой Шклифов. Костурският говор: Принос към проучването на югозападните български говори. Българска академия на науките. Институт по български език. София, 1973.</p>
<p><a name="ref2">2.</a> Благой Шклифов. Общността на костурския говор с говора на село Бобошчица. — Български език, 1971, кн. 1, с. 71—73.</p>
<p><a name="ref3">3.</a> Ст. Стойков. Увод във фонетиката на българския език. София, 1966, с. 84.</p>
<p><a name="ref4">4.</a> M. Malecki. Drobiazgi z Macedonji. 4.0 rozwoju samogłosek nosovych w Kosturskiem. 5.0 <q>polskim</q> przycisku w gwarach kosturskolerińskich. Lud. Slowianski. Krakòw, III, 2, 1934, с. А 266–287.</p>
<p><a name="ref5">5.</a> Н. Ван-Вейк. История старославянското языка, перевод с немецкого. Москва, 1957, с. 68.</p>
<p><a name="ref6">6.</a> К. Мирчев. Историческа граматика на българския език, с. 139.</p>
<p><a name="ref7">7.</a> Ст. Романски. Долновардарският говор. — Македонски преглед, 1932, кн. 1, с. 106—113.</p>
<p><a name="ref8">8.</a> В. Думев. Воденският говор. — Македонски преглед, 1943, кн. 3, стр. 25—41.</p>
<p><a name="ref9">9.</a> Ст. Стойков. Към диалектния вокализам на българския език (преглас на гласна а в гласна е). — В: Славистичен сборник. С., 1963, 285—290.</p>
<p><a name="ref10">10.</a> Ст. Младенов. Етимологически и правописен речник на българския книжовен език. С., 1941, с. 281</p>
<p><a name="ref11">11.</a> Б. Цонев. Към историята на българския език. МСБ, т. XIX, с. 277</p>
<p><a name="ref12">12.</a> А. М. Селищев. Очерки болгарских диалектов в Македонии. с. 277.</p>
</div>
<div>
<!--Pagination Button-->
<div class="pagination-container">
<div class="page-numbers-container">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<style>
/* Post Pagination by Key2Blogging */
.pagination-container {
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
flex-wrap: wrap; /* Add this line to wrap according to page width*/
}
.pagination-container .page-numbers-container {
display: flex;
font-size: 18px;
overflow: hidden;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: "raleway", sans-serif;
border-radius: 20px;
box-shadow: 0 4px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);
flex-wrap: wrap; /* Add this line to wrap according to the page width*/
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number {
padding: 8px 24px;
transition: all 400ms;
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number:hover {
background: #c5c5e9;
cursor: pointer;
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number.active {
background: #17A589;
color: #fff;
}
/* Page Content */
.page-content .page {
display: none;
}
.page-content .page.active {
display: block;
}
</style>
<script>
const pages = document.querySelectorAll(".page-content .page");
const pageNumbersContainer = document.querySelector(".page-numbers-container");
if (pageNumbersContainer) {
let pn = localStorage.getItem("pageNumber") ? localStorage.getItem("pageNumber") : 0;
const createPagination = () => {
pages.forEach((p, i) => {
const pageNumber = document.createElement("div");
pageNumber.classList.add("page-number");
pageNumber.textContent = i + 1;
pageNumber.addEventListener("click", () => {
localStorage.setItem("pageNumber", i);
location.reload();
})
pageNumbersContainer.appendChild(pageNumber);
})
document.querySelector(".page-number").classList.add("active");
pages[0].classList.add("active");
}
createPagination();
const pageNumbers = document.querySelectorAll(".page-numbers-container .page-number");
const activatePage = (pageNumber) => {
pages.forEach(p => {
p.classList.remove("active");
})
pages[pageNumber].classList.add("active");
pageNumbers.forEach(p => {
p.classList.remove("active");
})
pageNumbers[pageNumber].classList.add("active");
localStorage.removeItem("pageNumber");
history.scrollRestoration = "manual";
}
activatePage(pn);
}
</script>
</div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com0MFR4+58 Sofia, Bulgaria42.690487 23.455808941.071608393227834 21.258543275 44.309365606772161 25.653074525tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-39072893682584309612021-02-14T06:42:00.062-08:002022-11-11T23:10:27.079-08:00Labro Koroloff paper on the dialect of Zhèrveni<div id="left" style="float: left; width: 36%;">
<h3>Research Notes</h3>
<hr align="center" color="blue" size="2" />
</div>
<div id="left" style="float: left; width: 22%;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: right;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zuUyItDt1Oo/YCk5v6efy1I/AAAAAAAAKT0/cBOvkFBJLtsRM_ot0oJpC5bBGsrRl8vsACPcBGAsYHg/s501/Labro_tree.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="448" data-original-width="501" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zuUyItDt1Oo/YCk5v6efy1I/AAAAAAAAKT0/cBOvkFBJLtsRM_ot0oJpC5bBGsrRl8vsACPcBGAsYHg/w200-h179/Labro_tree.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
</div>
<div id="right" style="float: right; width: 36%;">
<h3 style="float: right;">Заметки</h3><br />
<hr align="center" color="blue" size="2" />
</div>
<div id="center" style="clear: both;">
<div id="left" style="float: left; width: 48%;">
<h1>Notes on the Dialect of Zhèrveni, Kostur Region, as Spoken by Their Descendants in Mustafapaşa and Cemilköy, Turkey</h1>
<p>Larry Labro Koroloff<br />
Independent researcher, Canada</p>
<h2>Abstract</h2>
The article dwells upon the dialect of the people of Bulgarian origin in Mustafapaşa and Cemilköy, Turkey, descending from the village of Zhèrveni in Kostur region (Aegean Macedonia). The general outline of some peculiarities of the dialect's phonology is presented as well as some lexical differences between the Christian dialect in the neighbouring villages and the Muslim dialect of Zhèrveni. Three songs in Zhèrveni dialect are published for the first time.
<span><a name='more'></a><h2>Keywords</h2>
<p>Slavic dialects in Greece, dialects of Muslim Slavs, South-Slavic dialectal phonology</p>
</span></div>
<div id="right" style="float: right; font-size: 1.1; width: 48%;">
<h1>Заметки о диалекте с. Жéрвени (район Костура) у переселенцев в Мустафапаше и Джемилькёй (Турция)</h1>
<p>Ларри Лабро Королов<br />
Независимый исследователь, Канада</p>
<h2>Резюме</h2>
В статье рассматривается диалект болгарских переселенцев в Мустафапаше и Джемилькёй (Турция), которые происходят из с. Жéрвени в районе Костура (Эгейская Македония). Представлен очерк некоторых фонологических особенностей диалекта, а также описание лексических различий между диалектом мусульман из Жéрвени и христиан из соседних сёл. Впервые публикуются три песни на жервенском диалекте.
<h2>Ключевые слова</h2>
<p>славянские диалекты в Греции, диалекты славян-мусульман, южнославянская диалектная фонология</p>
</div>
<div id="center" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<p></p>
<hr align="center" color="blue" r="" size="2" />
<h3>Published in the journal Slověne, issue No. 2, 2012</h3>
</div>
<div style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Larry_Koroloff_presented_with_the_Golden_Laurel_Branch_2_%28cropped%29.jpg" style="clear: left; display: block; margin-bottom: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 0px;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="240" height="320" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Larry_Koroloff_presented_with_the_Golden_Laurel_Branch_2_%28cropped%29.jpg" /></a><a href="https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%BE_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Лабро Королов</span></a></div>
<p>The village of Zhèrveni is located in the valley of the Bàbchor River north of Kostur (Καστοριά in Greek) on the eastern edge of the Korèshcha, the district northwest of Kòstur. The villages of Chərnòvishcha and Drenòveni are found to the southwest of Zhèrveni, Pozdìvishcha to the west, and Konòmladi to the north. All of these villages are also in the Korèshcha. To the south lies the village of Shestèvo, to the southwest is Vìsheni and to the northeast is Babchor. These latter villages belong to the district of the Popòleto. Since 1912, Zhèrveni has been in Greece. In 1927 Zhèrveni was renamed Agios Antonios by the Greek government.</p>
<p>The only linguist who has dealt with the Zhèrveni dialect is André Mazon, who visited Zhèrveni after the end of World War I and published some observations and three folk tales <a href="#ref2">[Mazon 1923: 140–148 et passim]</a>.</p>
<p>The residents of Zhèrveni converted to Islam in about 1800 <a href="#ref3">[Кънчов 1970: 342]</a>. Their word for the Virgin Mary is Городѝца (< Богородѝца).
This one term alone speaks volumes about their Christian origins. While in Zhèrveni, except for some of the men, they did not speak Turkish. In 1924, according to the Lausanne Treaty there was a population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Large groups of Orthodox Christians in Turkey, whether Greek speaking or not were expelled to Greece and large groups of Muslims in
Greece, Turkish speaking or not, were expelled to Turkey. Thus the people of Zhèrveni left their native village en masse and began their arduous journey to the village of Sinasos, later renamed Mustafapaşa, four kilometers to the south of the town of Ürgüp in Cappadocia, Turkey. A few Zhèrveni families settled in Cemilköy, eight kilometers to the south of Mustafapaşa.</p>
<p>The younger generation no longer speaks the Zhèrveni dialect. However,an interest has developed in their Zhèrveni heritage and in 2007 the community activist Süreyya Aytaş, the first woman of Zhèrveni heritage to receive a university degree, published the book <a href="#ref1">“Bitmeyen Muhacirlik” (‘Unending Emigration’)</a>. In it she records the memories of the older generation about their grueling journey to a place where they did not know the language and received a less than a friendly welcome from the local population. The book is in Turkish, but there are some songs and proverbs in the Zhèrveni dialect transcribed in Turkish orthography. They are heavily influenced by the Turkish language, i. e. lack of agreement of the genders of the nouns and adjectives and the interference in the transcription of the dialect by Turkish vowel harmony. But by their inclusion in the book, they will remain as a memorial of the Zhèrveni folklore which will soon disappear.</p>
<p>The observations below were made during my visit to Mustafapaşa in July of 2007.</p>
<p>I was also able to record two songs from Cevdet Resùlov (Gümüssoy) of Cemilköy, one of the last living Zhervèntsi. He still has memories of his old neighbourhood in Zhèrveni or as he expressed it: Йа помèтвам мàалата! ‘I remember the neighbourhood!’ The songs are at the end of the article along with one sung by the men at the coffeehouse.</p>
<p>In the transcription the use of a colon after a vowel indicates a long vowel, which occurs where the consonant /h/ has been dropped: i. e. влà: < влах, снà:а < снаха.</p>
In most of its features, the dialect of Zhèrveni agrees with the dialect spoken in the Korèshcha villages to its west. For example like the other Korèshcha villages, the Zhèrveni dialect preserves the older form of the third person singular of the present tense of the verb ‘to be’ ести, the more archaic forms of the clusters /чрь, чрѣ/, as чồрно, черèво, as well as a modified form of the Old Bulgarian nasal vowels in certain circumstances as shown below. It differs from its neighbours in the Popole to the east, whose village dialects all lack the forms ести and all use цъ̀рно, церèво.
<p>However, being located on the eastern edge of the Korèshcha, Zhèrveni speech does show a few features of the neighbouring Popole region. The most recognizible feature is the use of àрно instead of дòбре used by the Korèshcha villages with the exception of Konòmladi and Stàtitsa, which are also on the periphery of the Korèshcha.</p>
<p>With no intermarriages with its neighbouring Christian villages, the dialect of Zhèrveni no longer developed in tandem with that of its Christian neighbours. It has been frozen in time in some respects and has preserved archaic features lost by its neighbours. In other respects, it has diverged from its neighbours by developing a few new features independently.</p>
<p>The most notable differences are the independent developments of the Old
Bulgarian back nasal vowel /ѫ/ and the groups /рь, ръ/ and /ль, лъ/.</p>
<p><b>1.</b> Whereas in all the other Korèshcha and Popole villages /ѫ/ has developed into /ъ/, in the Zhèrveni dialect it has developed into a labial /ồ/ (The vowel /ồ/ is described by Blagoy Shklifov as a <q>middle vowel, with the lips lightly rounded and the jaw tensed</q> <a href="#ref4">[Шклифов 1973: 18–19]</a>) or /ồн/ before voiced dental stop /д/ or /ồм/ before voiced bilabial stop /б/ <a href="#ref4">[Шклифов 1973: 18-19]</a>: пồт, зồмби, дồмбйа, ке-та испồнда, ке-ме-бие мồжо, шồшто [‘също’].</p>
<p>Mazon noted both /ъ/ and /o/ (not /ồ/ ) as developments of the back nasal vowel, with no rule as to when one was used or the other <a href="#ref2">[Mazon 1923: 18]</a>. Even the same root words could use one of these two vowels in the singular and the other in the plural. He also notes that /рь, ръ/ and /ль, лъ/ had developed into /ор/ and /ол/ and not /ôр/ and /ôл/. Perhaps at that time of Mazon’s visit, a process of the replacement of the phoneme /ъ/ by /ồ/ was underway and was only completed in their new home in Turkey. An /aр/ instead of/ồр/ is noted in in one of Cevdet’s folksongs: царква instead of цồрква. This suggests that the above hypothesis may be true. But we may not be certain, as folksongs travel from place to place and may contain outside influences. Or perhaps Mazon’s informants who were all men who had more contact with the neighbouring villages had been influenced by their speech.</p>
<p>Zhèrveni is the only village in the entire northern part of the Kostur region to have developed a labial /ồ/. However this feature is found in some villages in the southernmost part of the region – Nèstram and the Kosternariya (Èzerets, Snìcheni, Zhùzheltsi and others) <a href="#ref4">[Шклифов 1973: 28]</a>. Farther afield, this development occurs in some Dolna Prespa villages (Gèrman, Nìvitsi, Dòlno Dùpeni and others), in the Debar Region as well as in the Rhodopes of southern Bulgaria.</p>
<p><b>2.</b> The Old Bulgarian front nasal vowel /ѧ/ has developed into /a/ in short form personal pronouns: Ма фàти, та у̀дри, са стòри.</p>
<p>This is a feature also found in much of the Popole region. But with regard to Zhèrveni’s immediate Popole neighbours, this development is found only in
Vìsheni, but not in Shestèvo or Babchor.</p>
<p>In the lexeme антồрва (sister-in-law), the front nasal vowel /ѧ/ has changed to /an/. The nasality of the vowel /ѧ/ is preserved, having changed into the phoneme /n/. In the neighbouring Korèshcha villages the nasality of the vowel in this lexeme has been lost and the form is етъ̀рва. This is an example of Zhèrveni preserving archaic traits lost by their Christian neighbours.</p>
<p><b>3.</b> The groups /ль, лъ/ and /рь, ръ/ have developed into /ôл/ and /ôр/: дồлго, вồлк; сồлза, вồлна; дồрво, вồрни, гồрми, вồрви; чồрно. Zhèrveni is the only village in southwestern Macedonia to develop /рь, ръ/ > /ôр/. It is only found far to the northwest in certain villages between Struga and Debar in the Republic of Macedonia, in Golo Bordo (most of Golo Bordo is found on Albanian territory), and even farther away, in some Rhodope dialects in southern Bulgaria.</p>
<p><b>4.</b> The religious separation of Zhèrveni from the neighbouring Christian villages of the Korèshcha has caused Zhèrveni to develop a number of lexical differences unique to that village. The chart below shows some lexical differences between Zhèrveni and the neighbouring Korèshcha villages.</p>
<p>In Ottoman Turkish times, most children of Zhèrveni’s neighbouring villages attended Bulgarian schools. Before Bulgarian schools opened, education was in Greek, although education in Greek affected relatively few students. It is not unusual that the Bulgarians of the Kostur region adopted a few loanwords from literary Bulgarian, as well as earlier loanwords dealing with education from Greek. These loanwords are missing in the Zhèrveni dialect:</p>
<table border="2" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
<tbody><tr>
<th><b>Zhèrveni</b></th>
<th style="width: 20%;"><b>Korèshcha</b></th>
<th></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>кòмпир</td>
<td>кърту̀льа</td>
<td>‘potato’</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>шефтелѝя</td>
<td>прàска</td>
<td>‘peach’</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>бѝрян</td>
<td>кокòшка со òрис</td>
<td>‘chicken and rice’</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>бѝрек</td>
<td>бу̀рек</td>
<td>‘pie’ (both are different modifications of the Turkish börek)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>нòна (мàйка occurs in a folksong)</td>
<td>мàйка</td>
<td>‘mother’</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>пòкер</td>
<td>пòвеке</td>
<td>‘more’</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>мèтеп</td>
<td>скòлйе</td>
<td>‘school’ (mektep comes from Arabic via Turkish)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>кѝтап</td>
<td>кнѝга</td>
<td>‘book’ (in Zhèrveni, kniga means a ‘letter’)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>мàльум</td>
<td>дàскал</td>
<td>‘teacher’ (мàльум comes from the Arabic muallim ‘learned’. The only school in Zhèrveni was a Koranic school which only boys attended)</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The past tense of the verb to say/tell has evolved into the forms йас кàжи, ние кажѝ:ме. This is transcribed in one of Mazon’s folktales <a href="#ref2">[Mazon 1923: 141]</a>. This development is unique in the whole of southwestern Macedonia (Kostur and Lerin regions). There, the form is Яс кàза, ния казà:ме.</p>
<h2>Songs in the Zhèrveni dialect</h2>
<table style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th></th>
<th style="width: 50%;"><h3>Translation:</h3></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p>1<br />
Олèле, лèле, пòлеле<br />
Шо да го чѝниме тàтко ни?<br />
Да го пу̀шчиме за дồрва.<br />
Да го изèде мèчките.<br />
Пулите грèди тàтко ни,<br />
Кòжа на рàмо, дồрва на кòно,<br />
Олèле, лèле, пòлеле</p></td>
<td><p>Oh my, oh my and more oh my!<br />
What are we to do with our father?<br />
Let’s send him to get some firewood<br />
Let the bears devour him<br />
Look! Our father is returning,<br />
With a bear skin over his shoulder and<br />
firewood on the horse,<br />
Oh my, oh my and more oh my!</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p>2<br />
Чупичѝна душичѝна<br />
Остàймете (sic) да помѝна<br />
Да помѝна, да размѝна<br />
Нèшчо зàвал не ви чѝна<br />
Рôчичѝна по джепчѝна<br />
Пôлни рàмни шекерчѝна<br />
Шекерчѝна, све джумчѝна.</p></td>
<td><p>Dear little girls, dear little souls,<br />
Let me pass by and let me continue,<br />
I won’t do anything bad to you,<br />
My little hands are in my pockets,<br />
Chock full of little candies,<br />
Little candies, all little lumps.</p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><p>3<br />
Ка не ти е жàльно, мàри Стàнко,<br />
За лèпата цàрква ?<br />
Ич не ми е жàльно за лèпата цàрква;<br />
Сèлим ке го зèвам, туркѝна ке бѝда!<br />
Ка не ти е жàльно, мори Станко,<br />
За твòйта майка?<br />
Ич не ми е жàльно за мòята мàйка,<br />
Сèлим ке го зèвам, туркѝна ке бѝда!</p></td>
<td><p>Don’t you miss, oh Stanka,<br />
The beautiful church?<br />
I don’t miss the beautiful church in the least,<br />
I will marry Selim and become a Turk!<br />
Don’t you miss, oh Stanka,<br />
Your mother?<br />
I don’t miss my mother in the least,<br />
I will marry Selim and become a Turk!</p></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<div id="center" style="clear: both;">
<h2>References</h2>
<p><a name="ref1">1. </a>Sureyya A., Bitmeyen Muharcirlik. Lozan Mubadilleri Vakfi Yayini, Istanbul, 2007.</p>
<p><a name="ref2">2. </a>Mazon A., Contes Slaves de la Macedoine Sud-occidentale, Paris, 1923.</p>
<p><a name="ref3">3. </a>Кънчов В., Избрани произведения, Том 2, София, 1970.</p>
<p><a name="ref4">4. </a>Шклифов Б., Костурският говор, София, 1973.</p><p><br /></p>
<h1>Labro Korolov – expelled with harsh words from MPO Canada because of Spaska</h1>
<p>Labro Korolov is chairman of Macedonia – Switzerland in the Balkans, Toronto. His organization was part of the Macedonian Patriotic Organization for the United States and Canada, established back in 1921 to defend the Bulgarian language and culture in those distant lands. Being Bulgarian was a pride. Labro or Larry, as he is also called, is from Kostur, Aegean Macedonia, and his grandfather died at the front during the Balkan War to defend the freedom of Mother Bulgaria. With the help of Labro, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences published a book on the dialects in Aegean Macedonia, because those dialects are closer to the literary Bulgarian language than to the 'Macedonian language' created by decree. You can download the book here: http://macedonia.kroraina.com/shklifovi/index.html</p>
<p>The reason for being expelled by the MPO is the letter sent in support of Ms. Spaska Mitrova and the brutal injustice shown by the Macedonian judicial system to this young woman and mother. MPO is no longer the historical MPO of old, fighting with teeth and nails to preserve the Bulgarian spirit. Today it has become a PR of the false Macedonian rhetoric that confuses the destinies of Vardarians on their way to EU and NATO membership.</p>
<hr />
<p>– Mr. Korolov, on behalf of the readers, thank you for this interview.</p>
<p>– What is happening in Canada, are there any other Bulgarians from Macedonia there?</p>
<p>– Bulgarian emigration here dates back to the end of the 19th century. Many came after the defeat of the Ilinden Uprising. In 1910, the Macedonian-Bulgarian Church of St. St. Cyril and Methodius was founded here by people mainly from Southwestern Macedonia: Kostur, Lerin and Kaylar. They were staunch Bulgarians, but today their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are completely assimilated. After 1960 here came many from Vardar Macedonia, who had a Macedonian identity. Today, there are only a handful of people, descendants of Bulgarians from Macedonia, who know who and what they are. We have been protected from Macedonianism by the native dialects we speak at home. For example, my native Kostur dialect, which is the most extreme southwestern Bulgarian dialect, is much closer to the literary language than to the "Macedonian" language. But the assimilated English-speaking descendants of the old Bulgarians cannot see and hear how Serbianized the "language" is and the Macedonianism has won the sympathy of some of them.</p>
<p>– What is the situation in the MPO?</p>
<p>– What I said above about Toronto has happened in the United States, but much stronger. There are not many members in the United States and those people who are members are there only for the folk dances at the parties. It is a big mistake that none of the Bulgarians who came to North America became members of the MPO.</p>
<p>– We are melting, then. Why did this happen?</p>
<p>– In the United States there is a strong policy for everyone to become only English-speaking Americans and the children did not keep the Bulgarian language. It's the same in Canada.</p>
<p>– Mrs. Alusheva expelled you publicly with insults and threats ... Is this a normal practice?</p>
<p>– That's how it happened. I have never heard such words from a woman.</p>
<p>– What position did you hold in the organization?</p>
<p>– I was a member of the Central Committee.</p>
<p>– How long?</p>
<p>– Two years now.</p>
<p>– Do you see a solution to the problem?</p>
<p>– MPO will not exist for long. There is no money and no members.</p>
<p>– How many Bulgarians are there in Canada who are from Vardar or Aegean Macedonia?</p>
<p>– No one knows the exact number. Originally from Aegean Macedonia, there should be about 15-20 thousand, but almost all who came after 1960 are Grekomans, and as many from Vardar Macedonia.</p>
<p>– How does the Bulgarian embassy treat them?</p>
<p>– Is there a Bulgarian embassy in Toronto? They are not very active.</p>
<p>– How is the Macedonian anti-Bulgarian policy in Canada financed? From the government in Macedonia? Private donations?</p>
<p>– From the government, too, and there are rich Macedonians.</p>
<p>– You financially supported BAS for the publication of studies on dialects in Aegean Macedonia. What motivated you? Tell us briefly about the project.</p>
<p>– I wanted it to remain a testimony to our Bulgarian dialects from Aegean Macedonia. Not to further the lie that they spoke there as in today's Skopje.</p>
<p>– Do you have other similar plans?</p>
<p>– I started writing an ethnographic-historical-linguistic book about Drenoveni, the village of my parents.</p>
<p>– Thank you very much.</p>
<p>– Me too.</p>
<h3>Tasha Tasova</h3>
<h3>Emigrant BG</h3>
</div></div>
Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-61573601163249435052015-01-19T01:04:00.147-08:002023-09-28T06:06:22.898-07:00Bulgarian alphabet<div class="page-content">
<div class="page active">
<p>Writing appears at a certain stage of human development as the most important cultural achievement of mankind. It facilitates communication between individuals and peoples; allows for the permanent storage of knowledge in mathematics, construction, medicine, history, geography, military science, astronomy, astrology; contributes to the development of literature, music and various art forms. This, in turn, creates conditions for rapid spiritual, cultural and technical progress of a society.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span>
<p>There are several stages in the development of alphabets – mnemonic, pictographic, ideographic. A further improvement is the phonetic alphabet with alphabets consisting only of consonants, also known as syllabic, being more primitive. The last stage of the phonetic alphabets are vowel-consonant alphabets which have signs for all sounds. They are handled more easily and are able to express abstract concepts.</p>
<p>A nation's possession of its own alphabet is a measure of its spiritual ascension and degree of cultural development. Since antiquity, the literate nations were given the role of spiritual leaders, of kernels for unification of humanity. It is not rare in history when people who own writing are able to survive under the most severe tests of fate, while the illiterate disappear from the historical scene after relatively mild crises.</p>
<p>Few ancient peoples had writing. Written records, which they left on clay tablets or papyrus, on the walls of temples or on stones, vessels, coins, etc., still arouse admiration and constant interest in historians, archaeologists, linguists. Some of these ancient peoples such as Sumerians and Phoenicians disappeared, others survived for centuries. Their descendants are rightly proud of the cultural achievements of their ancestors.</p>
<p>Few Bulgarians, however, know that they have had their own letters since ancient times – long before Cyril and Methodius and their students had created Glagolitic and Cyrillic. In the last decades numerous inscriptions written with the ancient alphabet have been found and continue to be found everywhere Bulgars/Bulgarians lived – in Pamir (Imeon), Bactria (Balkhara), the Caucasus, Urals, Volga region, the territory of modern Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece and, of course, in Bulgaria.</p>
<p>Not in any way belittling the work of the Solun brothers and their disciples we must admit that these genii used the millennial Bulgarian experience in this cultural field. The creation of Glagolitic and Cyrillic was an important stage in the advancement of Bulgarian culture. Glagolitic was consecrated by the Pope in Rome thanks to the diplomatic talents of <i>kanas ubigi</i> Boris, to the selfless work and courage of Cyril and Methodius and their disciples. Bulgarian language was legitimated as a sacred language, together with the other three languages – in which the Scriptures were to be written – Jewish, Greek and Latin. Thus, the Danubian Bulgars became the spiritual leaders of the Slavs, cultivated them and associated them to the European civilization. In order to complete the picture, we must go back in time.</p>
<h3 align="center">Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets</h3><table align="center"><thead>
<tr><th width="17%">Glagolitic</th> <th width="12%">#</th> <th width="17%">Cyrillic</th> <th width="12%">#</th> <th width="18%">Sound</th> <th>Name</th></tr></thead>
<tbody><tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰰ</td><td>1</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">а</td><td>1</td><td>a</td><td>az</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰱ</td><td>2</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">б</td><td>–</td><td>b</td><td>buki</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰲ</td><td>3</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">в</td><td>2</td><td>v</td><td>vede</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰳ</td><td>4</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">г</td><td>3</td><td>g</td><td>glagoli</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰴ</td><td>5</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">д</td><td>4</td><td>d</td><td>dobro</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰵ</td><td>6</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">е</td><td>5</td><td>e</td><td>yest</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰶ</td><td>7</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ж</td><td>–</td><td>ʒ</td><td>zhivete</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰷ</td><td>8</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѕ</td><td>6</td><td>ʣ</td><td>dzelo</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰸ</td><td>9</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">з</td><td>7</td><td>z</td><td>zemlya</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰹ</td><td>10</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">i,ї</td><td>10</td><td>j</td><td>–</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰻ</td><td>20</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">и</td><td>8</td><td>ɩ</td><td>izhe</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰼ</td><td>30</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">(ћ)</td><td>–</td><td>gʲ</td><td>gjerv</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰽ</td><td>40</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">к</td><td>20</td><td>k</td><td>kako</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰾ</td><td>50</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">л</td><td>30</td><td>l</td><td>lyudye</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⰿ</td><td>60</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">м</td><td>40</td><td>m</td><td>myslite</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱀ</td><td>70</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">н</td><td>50</td><td>n</td><td>nash</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱁ</td><td>80</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">о</td><td>70</td><td>ɔ</td><td>оn</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱂ</td><td>90</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">п</td><td>80</td><td>p</td><td>pokoi</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱃ</td><td>100</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">р</td><td>100</td><td>r</td><td>rətsi</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱄ</td><td>200</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">с</td><td>200</td><td>s</td><td>slovo</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱅ</td><td>300</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">т</td><td>300</td><td>t</td><td>tvrədo</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱆ</td><td>400</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѹ,оу</td><td>400</td><td>u</td><td>uk</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱇ</td><td>500</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ф</td><td>500</td><td>f</td><td>frət,fert</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱚ</td><td>(500)</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѳ</td><td>9</td><td>θ</td><td>fita</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱈ</td><td>600</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">х</td><td>600</td><td>х</td><td>her</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱉ</td><td>700</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѿ</td><td>800</td><td>o</td><td>ot</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱋ</td><td>800</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">щ</td><td>–</td><td>ʃt</td><td>shta</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱌ</td><td>900</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ц</td><td>900</td><td>ʦ</td><td>tsi</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱍ</td><td>100</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ч</td><td>90</td><td>ʧ</td><td>tsha,tshrəv</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱎ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ш</td><td>–</td><td>ʃ</td><td>sha</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱏ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ъ</td><td>–</td><td>ə,ɤ</td><td>big er</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱐⰹ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ы,<span style="font-family: 'RomanCyrillic Std';">ꙑ</span></td><td>–</td><td>ə,ɨ</td><td>ery</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱐ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ь</td><td>–</td><td>ʲ</td><td>small er</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱑ</td><td>(800?)</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѣ</td><td>–</td><td>ê,eª</td><td>yat</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱓ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ю</td><td>–</td><td>ju</td><td>–</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱑ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">я</td><td>–</td><td>ja</td><td>–</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">—</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѥ</td><td>–</td><td>je</td><td>–</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱔ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѧ</td><td>900</td><td>ę</td><td>small yus</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱘ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѫ</td><td>–</td><td>ą</td><td>big yus</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱗ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѩ</td><td>–</td><td>ję</td><td>yes</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱙ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѭ</td><td>–</td><td>ją</td><td>yəs</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">—</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѯ</td><td>60</td><td>ks</td><td>ksi</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">—</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѱ</td><td>700</td><td>ps</td><td>psi</td></tr>
<tr><td style="font-family: Dilyana; font-size: 12pt; text-align: center;">ⱛ</td><td>–</td><td style="font-family: Dilyana; text-align: center;">ѵ</td><td>400</td><td>y</td><td>izhitsa</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="box">The tables and text can be rendered using a font that contains both Glagolitic and Cyrillic letters such as <a href="https://www.obshtezhitie.net/res/dilyan.ttf">Dilyana</a> which can be downloaded from the <a href="https://www.aatseel.org/resources/fonts/medieval_slavic_font.htm">AATSEEL (American Association of the Teachers in Slavic and Eastern European Languages)</a> page.</p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Kъnig – the old Bulgar runes</h1>
<p>
The writing <i>kъnig</i> emerged in the places of ancient Thraco-Bulgarian migrations in ante-deluvial times and developed in stages paralleling the other ancient writings. There have been many interactions and loanings between kъnig and these other writings.
<p>The root of the word <q>kъnig</q> (OBg: кън͡игъı) comes from the Old Chinese <i>k'üen</i> 'scroll' (ModCh: 纸卷 zhǐjuǎn) <a href="#ref57">[57]</a>. The word was loaned directly in the Bulgar language (<i>*kün'ig > *küniv</i>) restoring two individual Old Chuvash forms: 1. <i>*k'ün'čьk > кўнчěк</i> <q>kind of ornament on a woman's garment</q>; <i>*k'ün'-gi / *k'ün'-üg > k'ün'iv</i> <q>book, codex</q>, which is evidenced by the Hungarian <i>könyv</i> <q>book</q> and Mordvinian <i>konov</i> <q>paper</q> borrowings; 2. <i>*k'ün'i- > *k'ün'i-gi > к'әn'iγь > кън͡игъı</i> <a href="#ref58">[58]</a>. This word has been preserved in Sumerian as <i>kunuku</i> (inscription) and <i>kəniga</i> (writing, knowledge). It is inherited from Bulgar to Slavic: книга (Bulgarian and Russian), књига (Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian), kniha (Czech and Slovak), książka (Polish), and non-Slavic: könyv (Hungarian) languages.<a href="#ref64">[64]</a></p>
<p>Kъnig letters (kъni) have been known from archeological finds for more than 100 years already; however, until recently, no attempt has been made to decipher them, find their phonological value, or connect them to their natural successors: the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets.</p>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller;text-align:center;">
<img alt="Kъnig alphabet" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zdpe8P5yCOI/WV0jDmFEt9I/AAAAAAAAFIk/r6WimpasxrYApObGG7p1MD7JrO9jF2vTgCLcBGAs/s1600/Bulgar_runic_letters-1.PNG" width="420" />
<p>Kъnig alphabet <a href="#ref53">[53]</a> <a href="#ref54">[54]</a>.</p></div>
<p>The oldest mention on the Bulgar runes is found in the mid-9th c. AD work <i>On the Letters</i> by the Bulgarian writer Chernorizets Hrabъr. Being already a Christian, he wrote pejoratively about the pagan Bulgars </p><blockquote>with lines and nicks ... they [the old Bulgars] read and divined</blockquote>
<p>In 1905, the Czech-Bulgarian archeologist Karel Škorpil began collecting and publishing kъni that he found on artifacts. For the next 75 years, those were neglected, for the most part deliberately.</p>
<p>In 1980, Lyudmila Doncheva-Petkova published a comprehensive and systematic presentation of kъni <a href="#ref51">[51]</a> which included their interpretation, as well as a catalogue with their location, aspect, the object they were written upon, and their discoverers. The Appendix contains 42 tables with a total of 1337 symbols of which 783 are defined as kъni, 14 are Glagolitic, and 185 are from the Cyrillic and Greek (Phoenician) alphabets.</p>
<p>In 1982, Vasil Yonchev graphically analysed the kъni, which he named <q>tribal and unindefined symbols</q>. He concluded
</p><blockquote>... the bulk of these various symbols comprise, in fact, a strictly organised and logically developed system that can be reduced to a single geometric pattern <a href="#ref52">[52]</a>.</blockquote><p></p>
<p>In 1992, Petъr Dobrev deciphered and phonetically identified a large part of the found kъni. This enabled him to translate most of the old Bulgar inscriptions <a href="#ref53">[53]</a>.</p>
<p>In 2000, Bono Shkodrov <a href="#ref54">[54]</a> ordered a selected set of the kъni deciphered by Dobrev into a kъnig alphabet according to their phonetic value. The kъni included in this alphabet were <q>certain</q>, i.e. they were dated to the period of the First Bulgarian state before the creation of the Glagolitic alphabet (681-850 AD) and were found in proximity to the old Bulgarian cultural centers. This kъnig alphabet contains 132 letters of which 75 are phonetic and 9 are numeric.</p>
<p>In his study <a href="#ref53">[53]</a>, Dobrev found unexpected analogy between kъnig and the writing of Ancient Elam (2700-539 BC). This was followed up by Shkodrov <a href="#ref54">[54]</a> who did a comparative analysis between kъnig and various ancient scripts found on artifacts such as sculptures, figures, pottery, architectural fragments, etc. starting from ante-deluvian times (before 5600 BC).</p>
<p></p><table align="center" style="width: 420px;">
<tbody><tr>
<th>Old script</th>
<th style="text-align: left;"># equal</th>
<th style="text-align: left;"># total</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>6th to 4th millenium BC</th>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><q>Noah's plate</q></td>
<td>23</td>
<td>26</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Early kъnig (<q>Danube script</q> + <q>Old European</q>)</td>
<td>200</td>
<td>272</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>3rd millenium BC</th>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sumer, Acad, and Elam</td>
<td>35</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Egypt</td>
<td>54</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mohenjo-daro and Harappa</td>
<td>19</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>2nd millenium BC</th>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Crete</td>
<td>20</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Biblos</td>
<td>16</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Hets</td>
<td>19</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Cyprus</td>
<td>23</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Bactria</td>
<td>36</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>China</td>
<td>18</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>1st millenium BC</th>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Phoenician</td>
<td>10</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Greek</td>
<td>28</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Thracian</td>
<td>20</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Karian</td>
<td>28</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Etruscan</td>
<td>18</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Iberian</td>
<td>29</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Latin</td>
<td>19</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>1st millenium AD</th>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>German runes</td>
<td>18</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Danish runes</td>
<td>10</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Swedish/Norse runes</td>
<td>7</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Anglo-Saxon runes</td>
<td>11</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Orkhon-Yenissey alphabet</td>
<td>35</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>South Russia, Caucasus</td>
<td>68</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Danubian Bulgaria (681-850 AD)</td>
<td>83</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2 style="clear: both;">Noah's plate and Varna culture</h2>
<p>
The predecessors of kъnig developed 7000-8000 years ago, some two thousand years earlier than any other known writing. The early kъni are found today on artifacts from Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, former Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey, and even from the bottom of the Black Sea. These are territories which at one time or another have been included into the Bulgarian historical borders (yellow area on the map).
</p><div class="image" style="font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/spas-antonov/8471429914/" title="Danube script"><img alt="Danube script" height="640" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8391/8471429914_ef25d85ae2.jpg" title="Map of early kъnig territory" width="640" /></a><p>Map of early kъnig territory</p></div>
<p>There is a very strong evidence that the Biblical flood (the Deluvium) happened in the Black Sea region. It is not by chance that Noah's Ark was found on top of Mount Ararat which was an island immediately after the Flood. According to the Bible, Noah was a progenitor of all modern mankind. Evidence, however, suggest that kъnig existed before the Flood (in ante-deluvial times).</p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ1EdqKE2OxEtlhVoDEyEhaTVDoYdi5Ht4LFPz7-U0XUFLj01FL7zrF9KbIHen7FOh2c6mFRW-AE4XS3cpYXKmiSHfmazMDueKQFBXlXTwhAeHRfTXnUdJPcfRxkJniQSx1FIVO8APARB1ApkF7LVesT92eYq-SCOQ4kZcz1UtvPtPGYWMOMznIersmw/s313/Black-sea-hist_zps3a4ba52a.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Old shores of the Black Sea" border="0" data-original-height="199" data-original-width="313" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ1EdqKE2OxEtlhVoDEyEhaTVDoYdi5Ht4LFPz7-U0XUFLj01FL7zrF9KbIHen7FOh2c6mFRW-AE4XS3cpYXKmiSHfmazMDueKQFBXlXTwhAeHRfTXnUdJPcfRxkJniQSx1FIVO8APARB1ApkF7LVesT92eYq-SCOQ4kZcz1UtvPtPGYWMOMznIersmw/w277-h167/Black-sea-hist_zps3a4ba52a.png" title="Old shores of the Black Sea" width="277" /></a><p>Old shores of the Black Sea</p></div>
<p>Oceanological studies carried out in Black Sea in the period 1962-1998 by USA, Bulgarian, Russian, and Turkish researchers and experts found evidence about a catastrophic flood dated at about 5600 BC. This flood destroyed a highly developed civilisation that inhabited the old shores of a much smaller freshwater lake. <a href="#ref63">[63]</a> The Bulgarian participant in this expedition, Prof. Petko Dimitrov with the Oceanology Institute-Varna, found in 1985 at the sea bottom near the Bulgarian coast an artifact that he named <q>Noah's plate</q> that he picked with the mechanical arm of the <i>Argus</i> submersible craft. This object located on the old lakeshore at a depth of 90-120 m has a shape of truncated cone with a dug-in inner part resembling a plate. On the outside of the cone and at the inside bottom there are symbols inscribed with a sharp object. Part of them are clearly visible but most are shallow traces in the plate substrate.</p>
<p></p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img height="160" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FPxtGf33f_4/WV0nyiU6_-I/AAAAAAAAFIo/X8BVAxHQtR8V8RHIcEKcwNkkVy3CUwkoACLcBGAs/w229-h160/Noahs_Plate_1_zps8xdo0bmo.jpg" width="229" /><p>Noah's plate</p></div>
<p>The ideal shapes of the plate, the advanced culture of production, and mostly the statement on its pre-deluge age, disturbed even the most famous Bulgarian and foreign archaeologists who referred it sometimes as of the old Byzantine time, sometimes to the Roman period. Even more striking is the circumstance that it was made of sandstone, which testifies to the great technological abilities of the Neolithic handicrafts. Specialists refrained from giving an opinion on its age, as well as from estimation of the reliability of the facts regarding the discovery. The 1996 BBC Horizon scientific popular film <i>Noah’s Flood</i> that described the discoveries about the Black Sea Flood had a scene about <q>Noah’s plate</q> in its original shooting. However, this scene is missing in the film. The scientific censorship entirely neglected this fact, not without the knowledge of Pitman and Ryan, the authors of <a href="#ref63">[63]</a>. They were also doubtful about the scientific reliability of facts regarding the existence of direct proofs of ancient pre-deluge culture. The attempts of Prof. Dimitrov to publish his finding of <q>Noah’s plate</q> in academic editions encountered blatant ridicule. Pictures of Noah's plate published on the Web drew the attention of the well-known specialist in underwater archaeology Prof. Francesco Torre, at the Museum of Underwater Archaeology in Trapani, Italy who came to the opinion that the item looks like Neolithic ceramics (6,000-5,000 BC). Later, coming to Varna and carefully examining the plate, he confirmed his opinion about the Eneolith age of the plate. He also suggested that </p><blockquote><br />The Noah’s plate is an everyday object that was used for grinding small dried beans, something as a prototype of present mortars. I suppose it was made of mud and small sand and it was baked under the Sun. I couldn’t say with certainty whether people of that time used a potter’s wheel or some primitive version of it. <a href="#ref62">[62]</a></blockquote><p></p>
<p></p><div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Prof. Petko Dimitrov" border="0" height="140px" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HUK-CYdYETU/WV0obNFqlnI/AAAAAAAAFIs/M6Y53AmMl8M1pCa3dhDSkiSjSrEnQIj_wCLcBGAs/s1600/Noahs-plate-Petko-Dimitrov_zpsnqm0mhgg.jpg" width="200px" /><p>Prof. Petko Dimitrov with<br /> the Noah's plate</p></div>
<p>The symbols carved in the outer side of the plate have a linear-geometric shape. Some of them are composites and some are repeating. The clearly visible symbols are 28 in number, of which 26 have a different shape. The total number of symbols (clear and unclear) is about 60. B. Shkodrov showed that out of the 26 legible Noah's plate symbols, 23 belong to the kъnig alphabet (kъni) <a href="#ref54">[54]</a>. This helped to reduce the number of sceptics who considered the marks as casual traces of worms and scratches, and increased the number of those ready to accept them as sign of proto-Sumerian writing. Among the latter is Prof. Harald Haarmann, the prominent specialists in ancient writing symbols, professor in multi-linguistics at the Catholic University, Brussels who considered the symbols extremely intriguing. He immediately saw parallels with early kъnig (<q>Old European</q> writing as he called it) found on Karanovo seal, Gradeshnitsa plate, etc. A puzzling result that he observed in the comparison was that early kъnig has a large number of pictographic signs while the signs on Noah's plate are highly abstract. Prof. Haarmann elaborated on a hypothesis according to which there probably was a historical relation between Old European civilization and ancient Sumerian civilization. He suggested that there was a zone of circum-Pontic cultural convergence that was split into separate regions by the Great Flood, with refugees from the inundated land moving into the Balkans and into Mesopotamia. This hypothesis postulate that writing technology was among the innovations of the post-deluge age. The sign usage on “Noah’s plate” would suggest a pre-deluge script, but that is extremely difficult to prove on the basis of only one inscribed object. <a href="#ref62">[62]</a> Other hypotheses about <q>Noah's plate</q> are more plausible, e.g. that it has been dropped from a ship of a later epoch.</p>
<p>The geological proof of the Flood convincingly testifies to an event that was extreme in magnitude with catastrophic consequences. A significant part of the land was submerged by surging waves. The old shorelines that were the center of a flourishing Pre-Flood civilization were drowned by the sea. The Bulgarian archeological museums are very proud of the remains of this civilization that have been found along the whole Black Sea coast. Indisputably, the Varna necropolis is the most important and sensational discovery of Bulgarian archaeologists.</p>
<p>The necropolis was discovered in 1972 during building operations in the Varna industrial zone. The interesting story of this discovery has been told by the late Ivan Ivanov who led the excavations. As well as carrying out the excavations very professionally, he made a lot of effort to have the unique Eneolithic treasure placed in the Varna Archaeological Museum.</p>
<p>According to Ivanov, the excavator operator Rajcho Marinov noticed an object hanging on the cogs of a litter-bin and he went to clean it. He saw other unearthed items and understood he had come upon artifacts. Marinov delivered the found items to the curator of the Dulgopol Museum, Dimitar Zlatarov, who, in turn, notified the Varna archaeologists. They were on the site on the 3rd of November 1972. The initial euphoria provoked by the discovery of the oldest processed gold coming from a civilization more ancient than Mesopotamia and Egypt, was followed by days of hard work – excavation operations, classifications, analyses, etc. An area of 7,500 m<sup>2</sup> was explored and 294 graves with rich and various inventories were found. The great number of golden items, over 3,000 with a total weight of 6 kg, puzzled the scientists. More gold than the total amount of gold found around the world from this period was discovered in only one grave. Copper, flint, stone tools, and jewelry of metal, bones, minerals and shells of the Mediterranean mollusks <i>Dentalium</i> and <i>Spondylus</i> – about 22, 000 items - were also found. <a href="#ref62">[62]</a></p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img height="140px" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7hOx9dhB7SU/WV0o_jveMoI/AAAAAAAAFIw/u6FH6inhWfUBANbaZMKPicreIXwTHwEsgCKgBGAs/s1600/varna_necropolis_treasure_2_zpssg8zoxlz.jpg" width="200px" /><p>Varna Necropolis Treasure</p></div>
<p>Forty years ago, the young scientists could hardly imagine the importance of the Varna necropolis. It is irrefutable proof that an ancient civilization, older than the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations, existed on the Bulgarian lands. The Varna necropolis is not the only finding of the kind. Prof. Dr. Henrieta Todorova is one of the most devoted advocates of the hypothesis that Bulgarian lands, particularly the Black Sea coast, were the center of the earliest civilization in human history. She studied the ancient history of North Eastern Bulgaria and led the archaeological excavations in the regions of Shabla, Durankulak, and Devnia. The results of her research are presented in a number of publications including <i>The Stone-Copper Age in Bulgaria</i>, <i>Durankulak</i> and <i>New Stone Age in Bulgaria</i>.</p>
<p>Here is what Prof. Todorova said in an interview under the headline <i>The Black Sea is the earliest center of civilization in human history</i>:</p>
<blockquote>Many people are reluctant to believe that but it is true. It is obvious from the social structure in 5,000 BC which is adequate to the scientific requirements for the creation of a civilization: social differentiation of the population in rich and poor, monumental architecture, royal domination, differentiated production and trade relations. Historians discovered that these elements had first appeared on the Black Sea coast during the last quarter of the 5th millennium BC, i.e. earlier than in Mesopotamia, earlier than anything that has been known to people as the first civilization. It happened that after 1975-1976, in the opposite of the accepted concepts for early and most early, we, the Bulgarians represented something even earlier. Of course, there were reproaches that we were just telling stories. However, the excavations carried out in several very important sites offered an opportunity to trace the creation and development of this ancient civilization. <a href="#ref62">[62]</a></blockquote>
<p>This culture, called “Varna culture”, dated at 5,000-6,000 BC <a href="#ref62">[62]</a> testifies to the existence of a typical marine civilisation. On the one hand, centers of ore production and metallurgy of gold and copper were located along the coast (around the present mines of Meden Rid ('Copper Hill'), Rossen, Sъrneshko Kladenche ('Doe's Well') and Varna). On the other hand crafts flourished around large administrative centers. The constant trade relations within the Black Sea region and with the Mediterranean region were of great importance for the development of the society together with the processing of gold and copper. The <i>Dentalium</i> and <i>Spondylus</i> shells found in the Varna necropolis are most probably the oldest pre-coin forms of Eneolithic society. The old shoreline, now underwater, and the shores of the Varna lakes were probably centers of production of copper and stone tools, as well as golden jewelry. The main trade routes to the northern Black Sea and other Black Sea harbors passed through the region. This is evidenced by the 443 copper tools found in Karvuna (present Kavarna), on the Middle Dniester River bank and the finding of metal on the Volga River bank near Saratov. There are similar finds from Velke Rashkovitze in Slovakia. Analogous copper tools and golden anthropomorphous amulets are found in Varna and other places in Bulgaria. These numerous facts and findings give a sound basis for ascertaining that a significant part of the Balkan Peninsula and the Black Sea region was encompassed by identical material and intellectual cultures. <a href="#ref62">[62]</a></p>
<p>Recently, a historian from Varna, well known as an intense opponent of the Flood occurring in the Black Sea, made a sensational announcement. In his book <i>The Jews and Judaism – the beginning of the human civilization 7,000 years ago</i> he struck public opinion with the claim that the Jews created the first human civilization. He wrote about a golden treasure dated to 4,300 BC exported from Bulgaria 30 years ago and later on ransomed by the well-known businessman Michael Chorni. Today, as the author claims, the treasure is in a bank safe in Sofia. Probably, it is a finding similar to that of the Varna Eneolithic necropolis. Of course, the pro-Jewish interpretation has been lavishly paid for. The point is that more and more new facts about the Varna pre-Flood civilization are being collected. <a href="#ref62">[62]</a></p>
<p>Unfortunately, the exploration of the spiritual culture during the Eneolithic period, as well as during the other prehistoric epochs, is difficult due to lack of writing on necropolis artifacts, which would have given most of the information necessary to elucidate the basic cult-religious and everyday life characteristics of the society. Practically, all researchers are unanimous that between the Varna and Durankulak necropoles exist common features that give information about a common pre-Flood intellectual civilisation and of course, about the level of its material culture, social and economic development. <a href="#ref62">[62]</a> For the present, the Noah's plate symbols are the only writing claimed to be from a pre-Flood civilisation.</p>
<h2 style="clear: both;">Vincha culture and early kъnig</h2>
Varna culture is part of a Balkan-wide civilisation / culture, alternatively called <q>Danube Civilisation</q> (on the above map) and Vincha culture, which flourished from over 7,000 BC to about 4,000 BC when some kind of social upheaval took place: according to some, there was an invasion of new populations, whilst others have hypothesised the emergence of a new elite. This long period, spanning three millenia was, however, a time of relative stability in which a continuous archeological layer is evident in most sites, often making dating a difficult task. For this reason, many of the finds are dated either at 7,000 BC or at 4,000 BC depending on the cautiousness of the researcher in choosing either the earliest or the latest period limit. Some researchers, e.g., D. Djordjevich <a href="#ref65">[65, Fig. 5]</a> view the Vincha culture as a part of a wider world culture and extend its reaches to the whole European continent including Western Europe up to the Southern Scandinavia, the whole North African Mediterranean Coast, Middle East, and Northern Asia up to Eastern Siberia and Northern China, or, in short, all that was known as the Old World. Without negating the many ties and similarities with the other old world cultures, we are on the opinion that Vincha culture has enough distinctive features to characterise it as a distict culture centered on the Balkan Peninsula and the Southeastern part of Middle Europe.
<p>Vincha people, close relatives of Varna culture carriers, produced golden dishes and ornaments, such as those found in the Varna and Durankulak necropoles. They created water-routes by sailing along rivers and seas, as illustrated by some pottery motifs. From a cultural, technical and social point of view, the Balkan development surpassed that of Asia Minor and, later on, Mesopotamia <a href="#ref55">[55]</a> <a href="#ref59">[59]</a>. And, more importantly, Vincha culture is characterised by a kind of pre-Sumerian writing containing so many kъni-like symbols that one cannot resist the temptation to identify this writing as an early form of kъnig.</p>
<p>If there had been no progress in abstract symbolism, geometry, mathematics and some form of <i>ars scriptoria</i> in this dynamic technical and economic scenario, it would have been practically impossible to collect, store and communicate the great amount of information on technology and mental powers as well as on the natural world and cosmos. Therefore, what remains of this early kъnig is unfathomable and tenaciously resists the efforts of anyone attempting to decipher it. Nothing is known about the existence of such a reference language. Moreover, it is too ancient for us to hope to find something like the multilingual <q>Rosetta Stone</q> which would permit us to translate it into a known language. <a href="#ref56">[56]</a></p>
<p>Some kъni suggest a kind of script used for blessings and invocations, for dedications, divinations, magical or liturgical formulas (not simple signs). In other words kъnig recorded language-related ideas and statements by means of standard graphic signs. It should not be confused with other communication channels used by the Balkan-people such as religious symbols, geometric decorations, figurative language, devices for memory support, star and land charts, ritualistic markings, numeric notations or simple marks stating the owner/manufacturer of an artefact. The Balkan system of communication was composed of several elements: writing was only one of them.</p>
<p>Many symbols are found on artifacts buried in tells (tomb mounds), popularly known in Bulgaria as <q>Thracian tombs</q>. The name is not a coincidence, for the tells are found throughout Bulgaria, on territories once inhabited with Thracian tribes, as well as in parts of Southern Romania which were settled by the Thracian tribe Geti who went as far north as today Belarus where tells are found in high concentration. The Geti became known in later chronicles as Anti; together with Dacians/Venedi these were grouped with the common name Sclavini (Slavs).<a href="#ref61">[61]</a> The highest concentration of tells is in the Thracian Plain on the territory of the Odrissian Kingdom (from the Thracian tribe Odrissi). Such tells (<i>kurgans</i>) are found also in Anatolia and on the steppes north of the Black Sea; the latter are concentrated on the territories once inhabited by Bulgars.</p>
<p></p><div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/spas-antonov/8471467072/" title="Magurata cave"><img alt="Magurata" height="40" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8226/8471467072_06ce7633da.jpg" width="200" /></a><p>Inscriptions from Magurata cave</p></div>
The precursors of these symbols are usually found on rocks or in caves and date from the Mesolith (> 7th millenium BC). Such are the symbols found in the locality <q>Pobiti Kamъni</q> (Upright Stones) near Varna on the right base of a column from the Sun Group and on flint tools found there. Other Mesolithic writings and pictures are found in Magurata cave, on rocks over the village of Oreshaka, Troyan Region, and elsewhere.<p></p>
<p></p><div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/spas-antonov/8509270727/" title="sitovo-inscription"><img alt="sitovo-inscription" height="60" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8506/8509270727_60663c2d0a.jpg" width="200" /></a><p>Sitovo inscription</p></div>
<p>A later, Neolithic inscription was made about 6,500 years ago on the wall of a cave near Sitovo (next to Plovdiv, Bulgaria). In the cave itself, besides the inscription, Neolithic ceramics was found as well with characteristics of the Vincha group. <a href="#ref48">[48]</a> The written signs are in two lines and each row is 3,4 meters long. The signs are 40 cm. tall. One can distinguish several kъni in this inscription.</p>
<p>Some of the symbol-bearing artefacts found in tells are the clay idol from Taban tell near Asenovets village, Nova Zagora Region of the mid-4th millenium BC; from the remnants of the Thracian city Sevtopolis, on ceramic dishes and stone figurines in the Thracian fortresses <q>Small Fortress</q> in the locality <q>Copper Hill</q> near Sozopol and Paliokastro in Sakar Mountain, etc. Most kъni, 29 of them, ordered into phrases or sentences were found on 15 gold dishes from the Rogosen Treasure.</p><p>
</p><div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/spas-antonov/8468331613/" title="Gradeshnitsa plaque"><img alt="Gradeshnitsa plaque" height="250" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8374/8468331613_e5edcd2314.jpg" width="150" /></a><p>Gradeshnitsa plaque</p></div>
<p>One of the oldest inscriptions, the Gradeshnitsa plaque found in a sanctuary (perhaps), recalls a ritual, shallow vase 12.5 cm long. Discovered in Vratsa (north-west Bulgaria) by the Bulgarian archeologist Bogdan Nikolov (who also discovered the Rogosen treasure) in 1969 <a href="#ref60">[60]</a>, it is dated at 4800 BC and is bearing inscriptions on both sides. On the outside, it reveals an anthropomorphic stylised figure in a ritual posture with arms raised, surrounded by a great quantity of triangular and V-shaped motifs. <a href="#ref46">[46]</a></p>
<p>The picture shows the inside of the Gradeshnitsa plaque, bearing a long inscription divided into four horizontal segments; above each line there are three or four very different kъni crossed with religious symbols. <a href="#ref47">[47]</a>. B. Nikolov recognised a total of 24 kъni and decided that they were some unfamiliar ancient writing. There were over 100 objects with similar writing at the same age in Vratsa Museum. The ancient scribes simplified and stylised the images so that they made a transition from pictograms to more abstract forms and went beyond their original sense towards a more organised writing system. Although he was not able to decode the kъni, Nikolov thought that they had an additional meaning beside the religious one.</p>
<p><div class="image-left" style="float: right; margin-left:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/spas-antonov/8469361098/" title="Karanovo seal"><img alt="Karanovo seal" height="250" src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8509/8469361098_de0f41f977.jpg" width="150" /></a><p>Karanovo seal</p></div>
<p>The best studied inscription from Bulgaria, the Karanovo stamp seal was found in Karanovo tell, in the Maritsa Valley, near the modern city of Nova Zagora (central Bulgaria). The excavation, made by Bulgarian archaeologist Georgi I. Georgiev <a href="#ref41">[41]</a>, has revealed artefacts and house plans of three millennia (7th to 4th millenium BC). The tell at Karanovo has accumulated 12 meters of cultural deposits from the Neolithic to the Bronze age. This tell was formed in layers over the centuries as wattle-and-mud houses were levelled and rebuilt about once each generation.</p>
<p>The Karanovo seal was discovered in the remains of a house destroyed by fire; an incident which slightly scorched the seal, but ultimately has contributed to its fine state of conservation. The disk measures 6 cm in diameter, is 2 cm thick and with a handle 2 cm long.</p>
<p>The stamp seal is inscribed with the ancient European script and for this reason it was probably an object of prestige, placed in a prominent position and possibly used in religious ceremonies. <a href="#ref42">[42]</a> <a href="#ref43">[43]</a> The signs inscribed on the Karanovo seal are divided into four groups by the arms of a cross. The signs are straight, abstract and it is impossible to connect them to any forms belonging to the "real" world like birds, oxen, houses, etc. that are seen in later ideograms. Richard Flavin <a href="#ref44">[44]</a> <a href="#ref45">[45]</a> proposes that the incised characters from Karanovo bear a remarkable resemblance to the constellations which make up the western zodiac, in a somewhat sequential order. Such celestial ideograms could be even better precursors to the linear-geometric writing than the <q>earth-bound</q> ones. This inscription is said to be 6,800 years old <a href="#ref43">[43]</a> but having in mind the context in which it was found, its age can be anywhere between 7,000 and 4,000 BC.</p>
<p>The most common of these early kъni has been collected and ordered in 2 <q>inventories</q>: <q>Danube script</q> <a href="#ref49">[49]</a> and <q>Old European script</q> <a href="#ref50">[50]</a>.</p>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Danubian" border="0" height="254" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mFpLF-dDJ_k/WV0qeQzE4JI/AAAAAAAAFI0/pFafUqmolvAvwqnehRwgcmSQSzHeGNTHwCLcBGAs/w700-h254/Danubian_zps16f210d8.png" width="700" /><p>Danubian script and Old European combined</p></div>
<p>Signs based on "V" are the most common signs on spindle whorls, figurines and pottery. The V sign may be inverted or appear as multiple V's (chevrons). The V may also be modified by a short line placed either within the V or at the right of the V. The V is also the most frequent sign found in combination with other signs. Dating to the Upper Paleolithic, the V sign generally has a feminine reference. Gimbutas <a href="#ref42">[42]</a> associated the sign with the Bird Goddess.</p>
<p>The "X" sign is frequently associated with V's and is the 2nd most common sign, dating to the Upper Paleolithic. The X is especially found on pottery and is sometimes modified by a short line appended to the end of either of the two crossed lines, at the top or bottom. As with the V sign, a short line may also be placed adjacent to the right side of the X. Combinations of V with other signs include "X" (DS 37-39, 42) and a deity attribute sign (DS 45-50).</p>
<p>Triangles, rectangles and lozenges all appear to identify a goddess in her fertile, life-giving function; therefore, they may also be related to the pubic triangle and the V sign. The rectangle, the use of which has been compared with the Egyptian cartouche, generally contains two parallel short lines that are thought to be associated with the "goddess," perhaps as one of her defining qualities. Occasionally a short line is placed within the sign, possibly symbolizing seed or fertility. Several interesting sign clusters are composed of two or more signs - including a V sign or a whirl symbol - joined to 2, 3 or 4 lines. DS 76-81 are inscribed on ritual objects.</p>
<p>Two parallel lines (DS 82R; R=Ritual) that frequently have a diagonal orientation are found on numerous female figurines and may symbolize an attribute, such as the power that is associated with a deity. In particular, a goddess may be called upon to bestow a blessing or grant a wish. This is suggested by the use of two parallel lines on numerous spindle whorls as probable invocations of a goddess in rituals of magic and divination, whereas the presence of two lines together with a V sign on figurines evokes a request for reproductive fertility. Occasionally two lines are repeated, giving the appearance of a sign or symbol composed of four lines, but these examples should be understood as a pair of two lines, i.e., two and two, not four. This appears to apply to two lines in the use of script; the doubling of two lines on spindle whorls, for example, may also appear in an inscription as four lines. Reduplication intensifies an invocation as well as devotion to a deity.</p>
<p>Gimbutas described this force as the "The Power of Two", or the power of doubling. The Great Goddess seems to have been associated with powers that involve the number 2 and its doubles, or reduplications. Two-headed figurines may also be an expression of the Power of Two or symbolize an aspect of the Great Goddess. Two lines joined together by a bar may represent the quality of twinning. Twins are frequently considered to be special symbols of fertility, abundance or good fortune. Through time the desirable features of two lines likely tended to symbolize the goddess herself, not just her power. Then the double line would have served as a logogram indicating the presence of a deity.</p>
<p>Three parallel lines (DS 85R) are found on both figurines and spindle whorls and, according to Gimbutas, symbolize the Bird Goddess. However, if a bar connects the three lines, thereby joining them into one sign (DS 86R), then a triple source of power or triple aspect goddess may be indicated. A doubling of the three lines - shown either as six lines or as two groups of three lines - may reflect a ritual method of invoking the Bird Goddess. Six parallel lines appear on a number of female figurines.
The common occurrence of two, three, four or six parallel lines on both figurines and spindle whorls signals their link with the goddess and calls to mind a possible use of numerology for ritual purposes. The ritual use of 2, 3, 4 or 6 lines may reflect the importance of these "lucky" numbers in a duodecimal system (based on twelve) or a sexagesimal system (based on 60).</p>
<h2 style="clear: both;">Third millenium BC</h2>
In the period 3100-2700 BC, there were close relations between Elam, Sumer, and Acad. Most researchers think that Sumerian writing is the oldest one dating from the 3100 BC. Some are of the opinion that Sumerian influenced not only Elam but also the Egyptian and proto-Hindu (Sanskrit) writings. The oldest samples are found on the so-called <q>husbandry tablets</q> and on seals on which the symbols had linear-geometric shapes. In the period 2700-1900 BC, the Sumerian and Elam writing transformed in abstract cuneiform shapes. This transition to cuneiform was a result of the clay-writing techniques.<p>
The earliest phase of Egyptian writing is characterised with linear-geometric symbols on pottery. These symbols were preserved in their original shapes and used for more than 3 millenia. They were compositionally supplemented and enriched with pictograms in monumental murals. These symbols were modified in the hieratic (from the Greek meaning "sacred") or a cursive script of Egyptian hieroglyphs first used during the 1st Dynasty (2925 - 2775 BC). Hieratic script was almost always written in ink with a reed pen on papyrus. After about 660 BC, the Demotic script (demotic is from the Greek meaning "of the people" or "popular") replaced hieratic in most secular writing, but hieratic continued to be used by priests for several more centuries. I. E. Gelb noted that linear-geometric symbols on clay vessels were often found in the pre-dynastic period of Ancient Egypt [].</p>
<p>The Indus Valley Civilization, 2600 BC–1800 BC, was an ancient civilization thriving along the lower Indus River and the Ghaggar-Hakra river in what is now Pakistan and western India. Proto-Hindu writing is known from artifacts dug out in the cities of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa in Pakistan. The results of the comparative analysis with the third millenium BC writing systems is given in the <a href="">Table</a>.</p>
<p><b class="red">II millenium BC.</b> Unlike Egyptian writing, which developed as a mix of linear-geometric and pictorial symbols, in Crete one can clearly distinguish two separate – pictorial and linear-geometric – writings. In Hetians and Sumerians the initial phase is linear-geometric, the second phase is mixed (pictorial and linear-geometric), and the third phase is cuneiform. Cyprus has a clear linear-geometric writing. The early writing in China has predominantly linear-geometric character (inscriptions on bones used for divination). Later, the symbols assimilate cuneiform in their general visual and compositional effect. They underwent some changes in early Han period (1800 BC) when there was a partial reinstatement of linear-geometric symbols.</p>
<p></p><div class="image"><img alt="Scythia" border="0" height="381" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nmHmjEb3bwY/WV0ri15XlLI/AAAAAAAAFI4/0oBLbty0kd8trFTRkPETGUKZFw_Qvg3lgCLcBGAs/w640-h381/Scythia-Parthia_100_BC.png" width="640" /></div> The oldest cuneiform characters were found on Neolithic pottery near the cities Tunchuan, Geyan, Chanəan, Lintun in Shaanxi Province and dated by radiocarbon analysis at about 4800–4700 BC. Later inscriptions of the Shang-in period (16-11 c. BC) were found on fortune-telling turtle bones, bovine shoulder blade and bronze ritual vessels. It is generally believed that the modern Chinese hieroglyphic (ideographic) writing arose from the cuneiform characters. Initially hieroglyphs were simpler and fewer (about 2500) but with the development of subject concepts the ideograms (hieroglyphs) became more complex and numerous (up to 50000). Some Chinese legends mention that hieroglyphs were introduced by the mythical ruler and ancestor of the Chinese Fu Si (2852-2737 BC) to replace the node writing. According to another version, the Chinese hieroglyphs were invented by Tse Tsan, the associate of Emperor Huang Di (2698-2598 BC)<p>
Many scientists have found similarities between the Bulgar <i>kъnig</i>, Phoenician and Sumerian writing, Chinese characters, Brahmi writing in India, Etruscan alphabet found on the territory of modern Italy, Old German and Scandinavian runes. Bulgarian researchers (Dimitar Sasselov <a href="#ref36">[36]</a>, Peter Dobrev <a href="#ref39">[39]</a>, Dorian Alexandrov, Vesselin Beshevliev <a href="#ref37">[37]</a> <a href="#ref38">[38]</a>, etc.) pay attention to the similarity between the characters of the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabet and <i>kъnig</i> on one side and Chinese characters (mostly their old versions). Most probably, in the course of the Bulgar migrations in the general east-to-west direction, Bulgars had been picking elements of other people's alphabets whose cultures they inherited on their way.</p><p>
The similarity between <i>kъnig</i> and the ancient Sumerian script can be explained by the fact that the creation of Sumer (Samara) involved the Bulgar Aryans. There are similar Sumerian and Bulgar words – <i>idol</i> (saint), <i>kunuku</i> (inscription), <i>shar</i> (to paint), <i>zid</i> (to erect). The same occurs in the names - Malamihr, Assen, Pərvan, Lyutskan, Gantsi, Balih, Baltin, Zvinitsas, Ivats, and others.</p><p>
The similarity between <i>kъnig</i> and Etruscan alphabet can be explained by the fact that according to the chronicles of Volga Bulgaria, Atryach city (Troy) was established by the Bulgars whose name for the region of Asia Minor was Yana Idel (cf. Anadol, Anatolia). After the conquest and destruction of Atryach, part of the survivors led by Aeneas, sailed away and settled on the Apennine Peninsula where the natives called them by the name of their town Atryach – Etruscan.</p><p>
</p><p>Around 1800 BC, the Aryans from Pamir and Hindu Kush conquered northern India bringing along new culture and traditions that would play a significant role in the further development of this historic region. Vedic teachings appeared following the activities of Bulgar Brahmas in India. The Brahma Panini who was born in the capital of Balkhara – the city of Balkh, founded the first grammar of the Sanskrit language.</p><p>
The Indian epic <i>Mahabharata</i> and the sacred books <i>Vedi</i> were recorded in Sanskrit with "Brahmi" writing. In <i>Mahabharata</i>, the name <q>balhika/bahlika</q> (Bulgars) was mentioned 70 times <a href="#ref40">[40]</a>. These Indian sources, supported by some Arab chronicles (Di-mashqi, al-Biruni), write about the re-settlement in India of the ancient king Kardama, coming from Balkh, the capital of Balkhara. In India, this king founded the Kingdom of Kardamites. It is evident that Kardama came from Balkhara not only from the direct sources but also from his name, which according to Sanskrit experts, is not of an Indian origin but comes from the languages north of India, in the area of Balkhara.</p>
<p>Chinese chronicles refer to Balkhara with the name Bo-lo and write directly that together with the old state Bo-lo there is another state with the same name founded by Bo-lo people who re-settled in Northern India. Later chronicles write that Bo-lo (Balkhara) was settled by the displaced more eastern people Yuèzhī (月氏) whose ruler was attacked by the Huns and escaped in India where he founded a new kingdom called the Small Yuèzhī.</p><p> In the 4th c. BC in the area of Balkhara (known as Bactria in Greek literature) the meeting, mutual understanding and penetration of the Bulgar and Greek cultures took place. This happened after Alexander the Great reached here with his troops. Since then the Bulgars began to use Greek script together with <i>kъnig</i>. This tradition was preserved in the Kushan empire, built on the ruins of the Greco-Bactrian state that existed between 1st and 2nd c. AD.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2 style="clear: both;"><i>Kъnig</i> in Old Great Bulgaria</h2>
<p></p><div class="image"><img alt="Irnik Bulgaria" border="0" height="457" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ywCEtzy3okw/WV0treucwrI/AAAAAAAAFI8/ifSk2vzL8r8blheEvOci7GjkHGWHL3SZQCLcBGAs/w640-h457/BC20200-AD700BulgarsByEremyan.GIF" width="640" /></div><p></p>
Until 1970s there were no reliable data as to whether the Bulgars (Proto-Bulgarians) that settled on the Balkan Peninsula had their own alphabet. Students were taught that Bulgars lacked alphabet and used the Greek one although the latter is inadequate to express the specific Bulgar sounds; this was supported by a few Bulgar inscriptions written in Greek letters found in the Balkan lands originally settled by Bulgars. Since then, numerous <i>kъnig</i> inscriptions were discovered in the same area. Some were carved on the walls of the Bulgarian capitals Pliska and Preslav, others were discovered in the northeastern Bulgarian villages of Madara, Krepcha, Ravna, Popina, Byala, and Asparuhovo.
<p>The early Middle Ages was a very interesting period in the history of alphabets. Various alphabets developed around Eastern Europe at that time, and some of them later spread thousands of miles by the large migrations of peoples. During this period quite different alphabets were developed almost simultaneously in the Caucasus region – the Armenian, Georgian, Caucasian Albanian, Alanian, and Kassogian alphabets, as well as the special alphabet of the inscriptions from the Humar ruins. The Seklers' writing was developed on the territory of today north Romania and later – the runic letters of the treasure from Nagy Saint Miklos. Two other writings appeared to the east at the same time: the Manihean alphabet that was characteristic of the former Sogdiana, and even further to the east – the Orkhon-Yenisey script (Turkic runes) used in areas close to China.</p>
<p>In this mix of writings it is not easy to determine the exact position of the inscriptions discovered in the 7-9 c. Bulgarian settlements. In the first decades of their discovery the researchers compared them mechanically with most diverse alphabets: the Orkhon-Yenisey Turkic alphabet, the Seklerian one from Hungary, the Gothic runic writing, the inscriptions from the Humar ruins, etc. The result of the comparison was that none of them could help in deciphering the inscriptions from Northeastern Bulgaria.</p>
<p>Northeastern Bulgaria is exactly the area once most densely populated by the Danubian Bulgars and in the 8-9th c. AD it formed the central area of the First Bulgarian Empire. Isolated <i>kъnig</i> inscriptions were found outside this territory – for example in the village of Shudikovo (Eastern Serbia), on the island of Pakujul lui Soare (Romania), Balshi (Albania), Varosh (FYROM), Zhitkov (Serbia), Nagy szent Miklosh (Hungary). Another alphabet appears in inscriptions to the south of the Balkan mountains: in the village of Sitovo (Plovdiv district), in the city of Parvomay and in the village Krushevo (Demir Hissar district). As this second alphabet is not attested in the earliest Bulgar centres one can assume that it was of local importance and was developed parallel to <i>kъnig</i>.</p>
<p> The finds from the village Murfatlar in Northern Dobrudja are particularly rich. About 60 inscriptions were photographed there and published – most written in <i>kъnig</i> and the others written in Slavic. Some inscriptions are accompanied with drawings which are particularly valuable, since they facilitate significantly the interpretation and allow relatively easy deciphering of the words, written in <i>kъnig</i>.</p>
<p>Most of the illustrative material have Christian religious content. Three of the drawings show persons in clerical garbs – most likely saints, and one – a rectangular plan, most likely a church. Another drawing depicts a bird. Prof. Edward Triarsky, who was the first to deal with these inscriptions, explained the Christian character of the drawings by the fact that they come from churches. As Murfatlar was one of the early Christian Bulgarian centres, it is not amazing that most of the drawings illustrating the inscriptions represent saints. Triarsky advanced the hypothesis that the Murfatlar script was an artificial writing created by a Greek scholar specifically for the Bulgars after their conversion to Christianity. But the occurrence of similar inscriptions in the areas of the Old Great Bulgaria points out it was a runic writing, used by the Bulgars even before their settlement on the south coast of Danube.</p>
<p>The reading of the runic inscriptions is particularly assisted by some Slavic inscriptions carved nearby on walls in Murfatlar, in Pliska and Preslav. Comparison of Slavic and Bulgar inscriptions allowed the deciphering of 7 of the old characters. It can be safely stated that the decoding is correct, because the Slavic inscriptions demonstrate how each of these 7 characters sounded like. But the Slavic inscriptions from the early Cyrillic centres of Bulgaria cannot help in reading the entire <i>kъnig</i>. Most characters from Murfatlar appear in other, older alphabets.</p>
<div class="separator" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><a href="https://peterstamps.ru/pictures/wr_wares/69802_1_2.jpg" style=""><img alt="Turchaninov" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="305" data-original-width="225" src="https://peterstamps.ru/pictures/wr_wares/69802_1_2.jpg"/></a><p>Georgiy Turchaninov <br />(1902—1989)</p></div>Particularly helpful for the interpretation of the inscriptions from Danubian Bulgaria (after 7th c. AD) is the existence of similar inscriptions from the territory of Old Great Bulgaria (2nd-7th c. AD). Acad. G. Turchaninov <a href="#ref33">[33]</a> discovered many inscriptions of this type in Southern Ukraine, in Northern Caucasus and in the Imeon (Pamir) mountains and assumed with no sufficient argumentation that they were left by the Alans and the Kassogs. But what was regarded as Alanian and Kassogian proved to be an inheritance of the Kubrat Bulgaria. In one inscription Turchaninov <a href="#ref33">[33]</a> read these two indicative words: ALANUI KAN, i.e. the "Khan of the people Alans", "the ruler of the Alans". This inscription contains the highest Bulgar title KHAN, written with <i>kъnig</i>-type letters. Another point of interest is that the Alans are well-known as people, once closely connected with the Bulgars. Since the 5-6th c. AD they lived together with the Bulgars in Southern Ukraine and in Caucasus. It is not a coincidence that the high ruler of the Alans bore the Bulgar title KHAN.
<p>Likewise, the similarity of the Ukrainian characters with that of Pliska and Murfatlar, the areas, in which Asparuh set foot, is not coincidental. The close political and cultural relations between Alans and Bulgars suggest the application of the already deciphered Ukrainian inscriptions as a key for those from Murfatlar. For example, it is not difficult to recognize that six out of the seven characters in the inscription ALANUI KAN are also found in Murfatlar.</p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Murfatlar-Imeon" border="0" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LhXuhzIM3uI/WV0wYAhhErI/AAAAAAAAFJQ/fizxxuiWHh0tDHNpBrYWELqdQQK9xoqTgCLcBGAs/w306-h400/P49.GIF" width="306" /></div>
<p>Beside the Alans, the Kassogs, another people once living close to the Bulgars, had also a <i>kъnig</i>-like alphabet. Seventh-century Armenian sources mentioned that the people "Kash" (the Kassogs) live "between the Bulgars and the Pontus", i.e. in the area between that of Kubrat Bulgaria and the Black Sea. The Kassogs were therefore also close neighbours of the Alans. That is why there is close similarity between the Alanian inscriptions, discovered along the lower course of Don, the Kassogian inscriptions between Don and Kuban, and the Murfatlar <i>kъnig</i>. In one of the Kassogian inscriptions Turchaninov read the title KHAN KAISIHI, the word KHAN being written in contemporary <i>kъnig</i>. Seven out of the ten characters of the Kassogian inscription appear in Murfatlar, two more – of a somewhat modified appearance.</p>
<p>The Alanian, Kassogian and Ossetian inscriptions helped to interpret 20 Murfatlar characters. Adding another seven characters from the Slavic characters, we have almost the whole runic alphabet of Murfatlar deciphered. However, it was not clear and there was no common opinion whether the characters of these inscriptions were letters or syllables.
<p>
Frequency of character occurrence is a quantitative criterion allowing to determine the type of old writings, i.e. whether those use letters, syllables or hieroglyphs. The hieroglyphic writings consist of many characters and therefore the frequency of occurrence of an individual character is small. In the syllabic writings (e.g., Sanskrit) the number of the characters is much smaller, which increases the possibility of repetition of one and a same character in the text. Letter scripts have the highest frequency of characters.</p>
<p>The Murfatlar inscriptions appear to have frequency similar to those for letter scripts: each character occurs 5 times on the average (the total number of characters is 53 and a total length of the texts is 237 characters). Such frequency is untypical for the hieroglyphic and syllabic systems and shows that the Murfatlar inscriptions are written with letters.</p>
<p>Another problem was in which direction the texts should be read. Triarsky thought, most likely because of the wide-spread assumption that the Bulgars were Turkic people, that these inscriptions must be read from right to the left. The interpretation was based on the fact that all Turkic runic writings are read from right to the left. The thorough study of the inscriptions found on the walls of Murfatlar reveals, however, some special features:</p>
<p>First, the letter in the leftmost corner of one inscription is particularly large and stretched, a clear hint that the text must be read
from that letter, that is from left to the right. Secondly, in almost all inscriptions the first left letters are the most carefully written ones.
The further to the right we go, the more uneven and carelessly written they become. Third, in some inscriptions the last line contains only one or two characters. And these lonely characters, which obviously end the text, are either in the centre (which is likewise very interesting) or in the left corner of the line. Fourth, the lines in the longer inscriptions are aligned to the left, pointing that the line started from left.</p>
<p>All these special features point that the inscriptions of Murfatlar, unlike the Turkic inscriptions, were written from left to the right. This direction of writing, although rare in the East, was characteristic for a number of Iranian and Caucasian peoples – Alans, Kassogs, etc.</p>
<p>Further proof that the alphabet brought by the Asparuh Bulgars is not Turkic is found in the works of the well-known Turkologist R. Kazlassov, who after a thorough investigation of the two writings came to the conclusion that they are principally different. The inscriptions of Murfatlar (Besarabi) were written in a special alphabet, which does not resemble any of the well-known alphabets of the Turkic peoples. <a href="#ref34">[34]</a></p>
<p>An important peculiarity, revealed by the deciphering and interpretation of the inscriptions of Murfatlar, is the quite frequent use the special church character "tilde" above some words. This character accompanies holy terms in the Christian texts, or more accurately, it is an abbreviation for holy terms.</p>
<p>The following words appear with "tilde": <img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KtssGA1Ap8E/WV0xLp3EilI/AAAAAAAAFJU/F1_UrhUbxawjcCXnuw2lH31D9zvN75RggCLcBGAs/s1600/P33.GIF" />. It greatly assists the translation as each of these characters is Christian.</p>
<p>A set of inscriptions from Caucasus renders some clarification. Inscriptions from Eastern Dagestan from the epoch of the spread of Christianity there show that some more important religious terms were denoted with special runic characters. And above these terms (although written in runes) appears the symbol "tilde". It was probably brought to the region of Caucasus by Byzantine missionaries.</p>
<p>The word GOD, for example, is written there as <img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-v-HzfTDGiFA/WV0x9bqDsFI/AAAAAAAAFJY/3XISSvnQ5twOME9pADXE0HuLr88IxLobgCLcBGAs/s1600/P34A.GIF" /> <a href="#ref35">[35]</a>. Similar religious terms, marked with a "tilde", are also discovered in Western Caucasus. The religious traditions probably brought with them certain characters and symbols. Thus the character "tilde" has travelled a very long journey back – from the Greeks to the Christian Caucasians, to the Bulgars, and, finally, to the Slavs.</p>
<p>Then, even not knowing the exact meaning, it can be safely stated that the special words such as <img src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QdD-CkHWglw/WV0yzhRk3aI/AAAAAAAAFJc/CGQdlezq5PU3reSQ_npZzy7k6inoHag5ACLcBGAs/s1600/P34B.GIF" /> are Bulgar Christian terms. Thus in the Christian texts the word GOD was written as BG, CHRIST like XC, etc. The Bulgars apparently abbreviated the high Christian symbols and in this way came to somewhat strange combinations of runic characters, marked by the classic Christian "tilde". Particularly interesting is the symbol <img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D9L862FKp8s/WV0zCnDOOYI/AAAAAAAAFJg/CBqHnRWVp6YH5ryQTOIrnsjHlvLF4qYkACLcBGAs/s1600/P34C.GIF" /> which is not marked by "tilde" and with its large dimensions stands out against the other inscriptions on the wall. It is the most remarkable of the inscriptions of Murfatlar, and that could hardly be a coincidence.</p>
<p>The stress on this symbol shows that it probably meant the common among the ancient Near East peoples word AN (GOD), which appeared first in Sumerian but later spread among many eastern peoples. It makes us believe that the Bulgars (whose homeland was situated to the east of Sumer and Accad) could have use similar religious terms in their language. The character <img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D9L862FKp8s/WV0zCnDOOYI/AAAAAAAAFJg/CBqHnRWVp6YH5ryQTOIrnsjHlvLF4qYkACLcBGAs/s1600/P34C.GIF" /> is read exactly as AN in some eastern alphabets (Alanian, Kassogian). In them, as well as in the Bulgars, the combinations AN and EN were depicted by a single letter. The cases of similarities between Bulgar and Sumerian words show likewise that the Sumerian word AN was also used by the Bulgars.</p>
<p>And finally, in this inscription below the word <img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D9L862FKp8s/WV0zCnDOOYI/AAAAAAAAFJg/CBqHnRWVp6YH5ryQTOIrnsjHlvLF4qYkACLcBGAs/s1600/P34C.GIF" />
is the word <img src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-62W35uXwJR4/WV0ztFZBCNI/AAAAAAAAFJk/kc71ovwCOrQgigo-HzNfbAA7K4HhnGhvgCLcBGAs/s1600/P35.GIF" /> which, with the help of eastern alphabets,
can be read as UAKH (monastery, cloister). That likewise confirms the proposition
that the character <img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D9L862FKp8s/WV0zCnDOOYI/AAAAAAAAFJg/CBqHnRWVp6YH5ryQTOIrnsjHlvLF4qYkACLcBGAs/s1600/P34C.GIF" /> denotes GOD. Both words together form GOD'S CLOISTER - the meaning of the most impressive inscription from Murfatlar.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h1 style="clear: both;">The Glagolitic conundrum</h1>
<div class="image">
<img alt="Glagolitic" border="0" height="549" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KiNBl78n3_U/WV005tR21sI/AAAAAAAAFJs/CRfFezMdpwwi_0KqVX_rvKysJRH7x1pSQCLcBGAs/w640-h549/gl_ocs.GIF" width="640" /></div>
<p>The problem of the origin of the two Bulgarian alphabets is tightly connected to the problem of their age.</p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Josef Dobrovsky" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pGgckC_kLO4/WV012o_xZBI/AAAAAAAAFJw/It9FrFrtgzkz8qWXoV5ycoCn4DnKS6XagCLcBGAs/s1600/Jan_VilC3ADmek_-_Josef_DobrovskC3BD.JPG" width="200" /> <p>Josef Dobrovsky (1753-1829)</p></div>
<p>Because the Glagolitic alphabet before 1836 was known only as Croatian alphabet, an opinion held sway, based on an old Croatian legend, that this alphabet was created only for Croats; a Croatian saint, St. Jeronimus, was named as the creator. Glagolitic was mentioned in a 1248 papal letter that allowed Croats to use it in their books. In 18th c. some doubt was cast on this established belief. In 1782, the Czech scientist and founder of Slavic linguistics Josef Dobrovsky expressed opinion that Glagolitic alphabet is not very old writing but arose as late as 13th c. when Croat monks modelled it from Cyrillic for their own use.</p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: right; margin-left:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Gelasius Dobner (1719-1790)" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RudMHwJAyfs/WV03pz_G2PI/AAAAAAAAFJ0/Z2L9qsgrgecjDhElfLJqP8wjnQwUIbzqgCLcBGAs/s1600/DOBNER.JPG" width="200" /> <p>Gelasius Dobner (1719-1790)</p></div><p>Soon after, in 1785, another Czech scientist, Gelasius Dobner, an older contemporary of Dobrovsky rebuffed this opinion saying that Glagolitic is an old writing, even older than Cyrillic, and that Sst. Cyril and Methodius invented the Glagolitic itself; however, very few were hesitant: Dobrovsky with his powerful authority kept most scientists on his side. He kept repeating his statement and paid little attention on the new data which other scientists collected and offered in support of Dobner's opinion. Because Dobner based his opinion, among others, on <i>Abecenarium bulgaricum</i>, Dobrovsky negated the antiquity of this monument putting it in 14th and even in 15th c. (<i>Abecenarium bulgaricum</i> is a list of Glagolitic letters and their names. The letters are written in 2 lines, and above each letter is written its Slavic name with Latin Gothic: as bócobi uédde glagoli, etc. This list was found as an inscription in a Latin manuscript of 10th c. (Paris, National Library, No. 2940); the inscription itself dates in 12th c. The Latin manuscript is now lacking from the Paris Library, but the list of Glagolitic letters is preserved in several photos). Even the discovery of such old Glagolitic monument as the Aseman or Vatican Gospel could not sway Dobrovsky and he died with the conviction that Glagolitic is not older than 13th c.</p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Jernej Bartol Kopitar (1780-1844)" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YBzTpHgXLGU/WV04WdPUkWI/AAAAAAAAFJ4/Z0gTB-qpP48_twnHgWayZ-L2a39mCqy1gCLcBGAs/s1600/Jernej-kopitar.JPG" /> <p>Jernej Bartol Kopitar <br />(1780-1844)</p></div>
<p>Only after Dobrovsky's death his opinion was rebuffed when another old Glagolitic monument, <i>Glagolita Clotzianus</i>, was found by the Slovene linguist Vartolomey Kopitar; by-and-by it was accepted that Glagolitic is an old writing, at least as old as Cyrillic. Kopitar wrote this, without many paleographic comparisons, in the introduction of his publication of <i>Glagolita Clotzianus</i>, and even suggested that Glagolitic was used by Slavs before St. Cyril. Of course, bizarre opinions kept on cropping after that, even till the present time, on the origin of this writing: some thought it as a Bogomil writing (P. Preuss, I. Sreznevsky, Palauzov) and supposed that Glagolitic was the reason for a special Church gathering in Dalmatians to anathematize this writing (Venelin, Bodyansky). The research on the Glagolitic writing kept on throwing new light on the problem: new and important Glagolitic monuments such as Zograf Gospel, Grigorovich or Mariin Gospel were found that gave rich material to Šafarik to write a review on Glagolism at that time <a href="#ref1">[1]</a> in which he described the different opinions on this issue, studied the Glagolitic letters one by one and compared them with various European and Asian alphabets, and then he gave samples of Glagolitic monuments (Bulgarian and Croatian) making printing types for Glagolitic according to the letters of the Aseman and Mariin Gospels (round Glagolitic).</p><p>Sreznevsky <a href="#ref2">[2]</a>, Grigorovich <a href="#ref3">[3]</a>, and Bodyansky <a href="#ref4">[4]</a> supported the antiqiuty of Glagolitic alphabet, although they maintained the then common opinion in Russia, that Stt. Cyril and Methodius first invented Cyrillic and therefore this alphabet is the original Slavic writing.</p><p>A great breakthrough in the problem of Glagolitic origin was the discovery of Prague Glagolitic Sheets, received by Šafarik from Höfler which was the basis of <a href="#ref5">[5]</a>. The Prague Sheets contain obvious traces of the Czech-Moravian language, namely, the Bulgarian sounds щ and жд are reflected in ц and з (Glagolitic <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱌ</font> and <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⰷ</font>) which indicates that these sheets are remnants of the writing that Cyril and Methodius planted in Moravia in the 9th c. Therefore, this writing was Glagolitic, which the Holy brothers themselves should have been versed in Moravia. After the Prague Sheets became known, better understood became the place in the Moskopol live of Kliment which says that St. Kliment invented for Bulgarians more clear letters (Cyrillic).</p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Pavel Josef Šafarik" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZYwPCt4FLY/WV05oA--W7I/AAAAAAAAFJ8/GglrjtgruUExpJo6iNyi5QQ1TXRkNqRjQCLcBGAs/s1600/safarik.JPG" width="180" /> <p>Pavel Josef Šafarik</p></div>
<p>Šafarik <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/#ref5">[5]</a> studied also the connection of Glagolitic with oriental alphabets, pointing that e. g. <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⰰ, ⰵ, ⱓ, ⱌ, ⱍ, ⱎ,</font> and perhaps <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⰱ</font> arose from Phoenician-Jewish-Samaritan, <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱅ</font> – from Ethiopian (Coptic), <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⰴ, ⱚ,</font> and <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⰾ</font> he compared with the Greek δ, θ, and λ; and <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⰲ</font> – with the Latin v. About the many squiggles in the Glagolitic letters, Šafarik said that they had been taken from the Ethiopian (Coptic) alphabet.</p><p>A large number of Slavic and non-Slavic scientists after Šafarik exercised their wits with a greater or lesser success on the strange shapes of Glagolitic letters, without a final solution of this hard puzzle, left to us from great antiquity.
<div class="image-left" style="float: right; margin-left:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Franc Miklošič (1813-1891)" border="0" height="270" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5JI6WRNBK4s/WV09CBbMaWI/AAAAAAAAFKA/kK70rZ9OmVUrJtF3ZHZe-gSJYGLfy1RMQCLcBGAs/s1600/6255351439527112.JPG" width="180" /> <p>Franc Miklošič (1813-1891)</p></div>Thus Miklošič wrote an entry in the German Encyclopedia of Ersch and Gruber with the title Glagolitisch, in which, accepting the opinion of Šafarik that Glagolitic is an old writing and it is namely the writing invented by St. Cyril, maintained that the so-called Cyrillic was composed partly from the Greek alphabet (the first 21 letters except б and ж), and partly from Glagolitic (б from <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⰱ</font>, ж from <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⰶ</font>, ц from <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱌ</font>, ч from <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱍ</font>, ш from <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱎ</font>, ѣ from <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱑ</font>, ю from <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱓ</font>). The other letters (ъ, ь, ъı, ѧ, ѫ), according to Miklošič were either newly invented, or modified from their Glagolitic counterparts. Miklošič repeated and elaborated on the Kopitar's idea that Glagolitic was not composed by one person, but is a work that have started and developed before Cyril and Methodius. In this entry Miklošič enumerated all then known Glagolitic monuments in Bulgarian redaction as well as some Croatian when he wrote about the Croat Glagolitic. Miklošič gave about 10 pieces of evidence for the Glagolitic antiquity.
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Franjo Rački (1828 – 1894)" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QDk-9LvLdFw/WV09RSVtuXI/AAAAAAAAFKE/Yc7xosZB7lQjEUPafCkJDuzm1eI2Gt9RACLcBGAs/s1600/Franjo_RaC48Dki_photo.JPG" width="180" /><p>Franjo Rački (1828 – 1894)</p></div>
<p>After Šafarik and Miklošič, the Croatian historian and long-time chairman of the Yugoslav Academy, Fr. Rački published a study<a href="#ref6">[6]</a> in which, after the general history of writing, he dwelled on the apology of Hrabar, supposing that it concerns Glagolitic; he suggested that the prototypes of Glagolitic letters are found in the Phoenician alphabet but also mentioned an influence from Greek cursive and Albanian writing.</p>
<p>Rački also published the Vatican and Aseman Gospels with Glagolitic letters and wrote a study <a href="#ref7">[7]</a> on the famous Glagolitic inscription in the Croatian church St. Lucia on Krk island. This inscription is interesting because it is in the Croat redaction but is written in round Glagolitic which until then was thought to belong only to Bulgarian monuments.</p>
<p>At this time I. Sreznevski continued his studies on Glagolism <a href="#ref8">[8]</a> <a href="#ref9">[9]</a> in which he appended some 10 photos of known and unknown Glagolitic monuments. The same Sreznevsky acknowledged the linguistic community on the Kiev archeologic conference with the so-called Kiev Sheets, a Glagolitic monument that is as important as the Prague Sheets. After this the Kiev Sheets were published in the abstracts of the Kiev Conference in 1874 and in <a href="#ref10">[10]</a>.</p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Izmail Sreznevsky (1812-1880)" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--iqVEVwXp_g/WV09rzT_JrI/AAAAAAAAFKI/MTSqIX1jAKcWJQIAaLMjf9d5k8qlBTh4ACLcBGAs/s1600/Sreznev2.JPG" width="180" /> <p>Izmail Sreznevsky <br />(1812-1880)</p></div>
<p>It is not surprising that Sreznevsky did not accept the views of the West Slavic scientists (Šafarik, Kopitar, Miklošič) about the primarity of Glagolitic. Generally, this idea did not take root in Russia. Professors like Florinsky and Sobolevsky did not believe that Glagolitic is the first Slavic writing. Sobolevsky, e. g. expressed the bizarre idea that Glagolitic was invented in Moravia and therefrom was transferred to Bulgaria!</p><p>In 1882-83, the linguistic society was acknowledged with 2 new Glagolitic monuments which the Zagreb professor Leopold Geitler found himself and transcribed in the Sinai Monastery St. Katarina – the Sinai Prayer Book and the Sinai Psalm Book. At the same time, Geitler published a study on Glagolism <a href="#ref11">[11]</a> in which he tried to prove that the Glagolitic arose from Albanian writing and even poined a place of origin: <q>around Drin River, in the triangle Elbasan, Berat, and Ohrid.</q> On one hand, Geitler suggested that Glagolitic is ancient writing that arose from caligraphic modification of the Albanian alphabet but at the same time he alleged that some of its letters (<font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱌ, ⱑ, ⱎ, ⱍ, ⱋ</font>) were taken from Cyrillic writing, because according to him Glagolitic and Cyrillic were used simultaneously. This work of Geitler, otherwise full of paleogrphic comparisons, and accompanied with many photos, was reviewed in detail by Jagić <a href="#ref13">[13]</a> who debunked Geitler's idea from all aspects. Jagić wrote about it <a href="#ref12">[12]</a>:</p><blockquote>We must give all that is due to this remarkable paleographic work; in it, the author tries to view the Glagolitic writing according to the newest approaches of paleography; however, Geitler's main idea is wrong: he does not seek the source of Glagolitic in the Greek or Latin writing but in an Albanian alphabet which it is positively known not to date from 9th c. neither its letters are more similar to Glagolitic than the Greek writing.</blockquote>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px;font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><img alt="Vatroslav Jagić (1838-1923)" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pGqgjDCn_Wg/WV0_EOpg61I/AAAAAAAAFKM/L42SiWllZxQVPNnh63QR0TZdeQGbSR8qwCLcBGAs/s1600/Vatroslav_Jagic_1877.PNG" width="180" /> <p>Vatroslav Jagić (1838-1923)</p></div><p>We should mention here, that after some scientists suggested a tight link between Glagolitic and Greek cursive, 2 attempts were made to back off to Šafarik's opinion that Glagolitic arose from Oriental alphabets. R. Abicht <a href="#ref14">[14]</a> suggested that Glagolitic arose from Georgian alphabet. His comparison was not very convincing, however, because, in fact, there is no similarity between the 2 alphabets; there is only some superficial likeness, i. e. at first glance Georgian alphabet resembles Glagolitic in the same way as it resembles Coptic or Armenian alphabets; however, when one compares letters one to one, he can convince himself that the similarity is coincidental – letters with different phonetic value are similar to each other.</p><p>Prof. Vondrak who held a negative opinion about this Abicht's work <a href="#ref15">[15]</a> suggested by individual comparisons that Glagolitic arose from Samaritan writing, however, this comparison was not more convincing than Abicht's; the similarity is again superficial and coincidental because it concerns letters that are pronounced differently, e. g. <b>e</b> and <b>j</b>, <b>ъ</b> and <b>v</b>, <b>б</b> and <b>m</b>, etc. But Vondrak accepted also that some Glagolitic letters were borrowed from the Greek cursive.</p><p>The distinguished Russian professor Vsevolod Müller in 1884 tried to prove the origin of Glagolitic from Sassanid writing featured in one manuscript of the Indian book Avesta. According to Müller, this writing became known to St. Cyril through the Khazars who gave it to the Russian colonists in Herson. Prof. Jagić wrote disapprovingly on the Sassanid theory <a href="#ref12">[12], pp. 92-95</a>, <a href="#ref13">[13], pp. 108-113</a>.</p><p>Simultaneously with the different opinions about the origin of Glagolitic, there was the opinion from the very start that Glagolitic has something in common with the Greek cursive writing because some Glagolitic letters closely resemble the respective letters from Greek cursive. Some scientists (Miklošič, Gardthausen, Rački, Leskien) drew attention to this fact, however, until 1881 no one had made a paleographic comparison. In 1881, the British paleograph Isaac Taylor suggested <a href="#ref16">[16]</a><a href="#ref17">[17]</a> that the Glagolitic was taken in full from the Greek handwriting such as it was used in the 9th c. He tried to establish the origin of all Glagolitic letters from the Greek cursive by comparing individual letters and letter combinations against each other through tentative transitional forms. This comparison was partly acceptable and met with an universal approval in respect to the letters that occur in the Greek alphabet but the other, typically Slavic letters from ч to the end were not expalined satisfactorily by Taylor; he made combinations that were not characteristic for the 9th c. however high one estimates the linguistic talents of the first Slavic teachers. For example, St. Cyril although he knew many languages could not arrive to the idea to write the Bulgarian sound ъ with a combination of ο and ει – therefrom <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱏ</font>, or ц – with τσ – therefrom <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱌ</font>, or щ – with σστ – therefrom <font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱋ</font>, etc. Even earlier in the same volume the small paper of Haferkorn was published <a href="#ref18">[18]</a> in which the Glagolitic is described as older than Cyrillic, and the 14 letters that are lacking in the Greek alphabet are explained as borrowed from Glagolitic.</p><p>Jagić <a href="#ref12">[12]</a>, <a href="#ref13">[13]</a>, accepting the main principle for the origin of Glagolitic from the Greek cursive writing proposed comparative tables that avoided the tortuous Taylor's combinations and gave more acceptable matches.</p>
<p>At the same time, a Russian paleographist, Archimandrite Amphilochius, well-known for his many paleographic works, in <a href="#ref19">[19]</a> also gave a comparative table of Greek and Slavic writing with which he showed that 18 Glagolitic letters (а, в, г, д, е, л, м, н, о, ѡ, р, с, ф, х, ч, ѕ, ѳ, and ѧ) arose directly from the respective Greek cursive letters, five were taken from Jewish alphabet (б, к, т, ш, ц), and for the rest he said that St. Cyril took them from his alphabet – from Cyrillic. Accordingly, Amphilochius supposed that both Slavic alphabets were created or composed by Cyril and Methodius, and then Cyrillic for the Orthodox Christians while Glagolitic – for the Roman Catholics!</p><p>The Russian Professor Belyaev from Kazan wrote a summary <a href="#ref20">[20]</a> of all these opinions on the origin of Glagolitic from the Greek cursive, and in 2 tables compared the Glagolitic letters against the respective Greek cursive letters together with the intermediate forms proposed by him. For most letters Belyaev agreed with Taylor and Jagić, and gave his interpretation only for some letters.</p><p>Fr. Müller <a href="#ref21">[21]</a> also deduced Glagolitic from Greek cursive and his main hypothesis was that Cyrillic letters lacking in Greek alphabet were borrowed from Glagolitic.</p><p>N. K. Grunsky, a professor in the Yurevsky (Dorpatsky) University, in his book <a href="#ref22">[22]</a> when he described mainly the Kiev and Prague Glagolitic sheets, mentioned the origin of Glagolitic and opposed Taylor's (and Jagić's) theory, i. e. did not accept that it had arisen only from Greek cursive writing but was a mixture of Greek, Latin, and Jewish letters; Grunsky did not agree with Vondrak about the Jewish alphabet origin of some letters.</p><p>Finally, let us mention a study <a href="#ref23">[23]</a> by Carl Vessely. Studying the papyruses of Archduke Reiner in Vienna, he came to the conclusion (as he said independently of Geitler) that the Glagolitic writing arose from the newer Latin handwriting. However, Vesely's comparison of Glagolitic with the Latin cursive of 2nd to 6th c. did not reveal such kinship because here, too, the similarity was not greater than the Geitler's Albanian writing.</p><p>Taking into account everything written about the age and the origin of Glagolitic, we can say that almost all West European scholars tend to describe it as older than Cyrillic and deduce it from Greek cursive while most Russian scholars have some reserves about this view with the older Russian linguists, like Florinsky and Sobolevsky denying its antiquity outright.</p><p>Older Bulgarian linguists, such as Tsonev <a href="#ref24">[24]</a> lean to the theory that Glagolitic is older than Cyrillic.</p>
<h2>Propagation of Glagolitic</h2>After Cyril and Methodius introduced Glagolitic together with the first religious books in Moravia, it came into wide use there until the death of Methodius in 885, after which it was replaced by Latin alphabet. However, even after Methodius' death some monasteries in Czechia and Moravia used Glagolitic for a long time afterwards. It is known, e. g., that the Benedictine Sazavian Monastery near Prague used Slavic liturgy (by Glagolitic books) as late as the end of 11th c. (1092) when Bratislav II expelled the Czech monks and put a German abbot (ecumen). The Prague and Kiev Sheets are probably written in some of these Slavic monasteries. In 1346, Charles IV himself interested in Slavic writing, founded the monastery in Vishegrad (near Prague) in which he brought Croatian monks from Dalmatia to teach the Czech brothers in Glagolitic. This monastery, known even today by Czechs as Slavic (it had also Russian monks) was then called Emmaus because it was founded just after Easter when the Gospel is read about the 2 travellers who, going to Emmaus, met the resurrected Christ (Luke, 24). Many transcriptions of Croatian books came out of Emmaus monastery; the most famous among them being the Reims Gospel as seen from a note of 1395 in its margin. The book consists of 16 sheets in Cyrillic and 31 sheets in Glagolitic containing pericopes following the Greek and Roman Catholic rites. The Reims Gospel has been used in the coronations of French kings and the strange letters that some chroniclers of this time described were, in fact, Glagolitic! Beside the transcriptions, Czech monks used the Croatian Glagolitic to write works in purely Czech language.
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller;text-align:center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Reimski_evan%C4%91elistar.1.jpg/1024px-Reimski_evan%C4%91elistar.1.jpg"><img border="0" height="488" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Reimski_evan%C4%91elistar.1.jpg/1024px-Reimski_evan%C4%91elistar.1.jpg" width="640" /></a><p>The Reims Gospel with a Cyrillic and a Glagolitic sheet</p></div>
<p>At the end of 14th c., there were other Slavic liturgy monasteries (Glagolitic) founded by western Slavs: in Silesia (founded by Konrad II in 1380) and near Krakow in Poland (founded in 1390) <a href="#ref26">[26]</a> but nothing is known about the Glagolitic books from those monasteries.</p><p>If we follow the available data on the lives and work of Cyril and Methodius, after Czechs, Slavic liturgy and writing was accepted by Slovenians. Of course, this writing should have been at first Glagolitic but so far no Slovenian monument written in Glagolitic has been found. The only monument from the past Cyril-Methodius literary work in Slovenians – the Freisingen Prayers – was written in Latin but it likely had a Glagolitic original as its basis.</p><p>Glagolitic persisted for the longest time in Croatia – almost 1000 years. It is not known who gave Glagolitic to Croats – Slovenians or Bulgarians, but once adopted, Glagolitic writing took strong roots in Croatia, prevailed over all obstacles and persecution and passed through a long history that comes to modern times. At present, only in Croatian churches the liturgy is read from Glagolitic books, and only in Croatia Glagolitic found fierce defenders against its persecutors from Vaticana. In its many-century history, Glagolitic in Croatia not only passed through the above 3 stages but a true cursive handwriting developed which, on its side, through wide use in daily live, branched in several directions and was used until the mid-18th c. in Istria.</p><p>Glagolitic was used also in Bosnia as seen in some tomb inscriptions and in one Bogomil book (Radoslav Apocalypse) in the library of Roman propaganda. The book is from 15th c. and was written partly in Bosnian Cyrillic and partly in Glagolitic which can also be called Bosnian, because it is very different from Bulgarian and Croatian Glagolitic.</p><p>Serbia and Russia adopted Slavic writing later than the western Slavs in a time when Glagolitic came out of general use in Bulgaria. Therefore, almost no Glagolitic monuments were found either in Serbia or in Russia except a Serbian apostolic from 15th c. in which in addition to the Cyrillic text there are a few marginal notes in Glagolitic and one Glagolitic signature from the Srem Monastery Krushedol: <i>priest David from Belgrade</i>. <a href="#ref27">[27]</a> While the marginal notes were written with small, well-exercised handwriting, the Krushedol signature was written with large coarse Glagolitic. Both the notes and the signature were mixed with Cyrillic letters, and the notes even contain Greek letters.</p><p>It remains to outline the development of Glagolitic in Bulgarians and when the second, Cyrillic writing developed which was used not only by Bulgarians but also by Russians and Serbs and even by Romanians until late 18th c.</p><p>If we accept that Glagolitic was established as an official writing in 855, as witnessed by Chernorizets Hrabar, i. e. before the departure of Cyril and Methodius for Moravia, then for the second writing we must look for another, later date and for another reason. An important reason for the Cyrillic alphabet appeared 9 years later when the Preslav Court accepted Christianity; therefore it is very likely that together with Christianity, eastern Bulgarians took from the Greeks the Greek Uncial (capital) alphabet for their Church books, supplementing it with letters from Glagolitic; in any case this took place during the reign of Boris, i. e. before 885 because soon after this date St. Kliment brought this alphabet to Bulgarians in Macedonia and became its propagator there. Accordingly, we can allege that Glagolitic is a West Bulgarian writing and Cyrillic is East Bulgarian; however, it is hard to delineate the areas of one or the other alphabets, or deny that even after the establishment of Cyrillic writing, East Bulgarians used Glagolitic. Prof. Jagić <a href="#ref28">[28]</a> was very specific about it and even determined borders of Glagolism stating that Glagolitic was used in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula from Struma-Seres up to Sofia-Vidin, across Danube and Panonia to Moravia. But it seems that there is no reason to limit so the Glagolism in Bulgarians; we are only certain that Glagolitic comes from Western Bulgaria (Ohrid), and Cyrillic comes from Eastern Bulgaria (Preslav) but afterwards Glagolitic was also used in the eastern Bulgarian regions with the following arguments:</p><ol><li>The close relationship between the 2 alphabets, namely, that the last 13 letters of Cyrillic alphabet arose from the respective Glagolitic letters, shows that the creators of the second Bulgarian alphabet used Glagolitic.</li>
<li>It is very likely that together with the Glagolitic letters eastern Bulgarian literators received also the Glagolitic transcriptions from the initially translated religious books, the books that Cyril and Methodius prepared for Moravia. Because these books were written in Glagolitic, people were needed to read them and change them to Cyrillic.</li>
<li>Methodius' students who found asylum in Preslav at first did not know a Slavic writing other than Glagolitic, therefore they first wrote with Glagolitic.</li>
<li>There is a direct evidence that the words of the well-known Old Bulgarian literator Presbyter Konstantin were transcribed in 904 in the Patelen Monastery on the Ticha River near Preslav; if this Bulgarian literator came from Moravia, he was certainly a Glagolite.</li>
<li>It is evident that Presbyter Konstantin wrote Glagolitic by his alphabet prayer in which after the letter <i>izhe</i> there was a verse that in the transcriptions begins with л (летитъ нъıнѣ словѣньскоѥ племѧ); this verse probably began not with летитъ but with some other word whose first letter was ћ; this letter in the Glagolitic follows just after <i>izhe</i>.</li>
</ol><p>It follows that eastern Bulgaria shouldn't be excluded from the area of Glagolism; it is true, however, that in the eastern regions Glagolitic didn't take root as in Western Bulgaria – its original birth place; it is also true that no Glagolitic monument is found that can be said to originate in eastern Bulgaria as well as that all Cyrillic monuments with Glagolitic admixtures originate from the western Bulgarian regions.</p>
<p>One Bulgarian manuscript of 12-13th c. written in the region of Debar and called Bitola triode <a href="#ref25">[25]</a> contains Glagolitic writing that resembles very much Croat Glagolitic. This manuscript is otherwise Cyrillic but was probably transcribed from an older Glagolitic manuscript and because its transcriber Georgi Gramatik was versed in both alphabets, he often mixed Glagolitic letters, words even whole lines within the Cyrillic text. If we suppose that Georgi Gramatik copied a local source and did not study Croat books we must accept that in 12th or 13th c. the Glagolitic of Bulgarians in Macedonia went on its way to become elongated as in the Croat <q>glagolashi</q>. Jagić <a href="#ref12">[12]</a>, taking into account the angular aspect of the Glagolitic in Kiev and Prague Sheets, suggested that originally Glagolitic in Czecho-Moravia was angular while in Bulgaria it became round. </p>
<p>Thus, Glagolitic originated in Bulgaria where soon after the death of Cyril and Methodius it was replaced by another alphabet that we now call Cyrillic.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdo_k5rOd2gzd7aRJ9ZLYZf5dbmavDeMrcjCgz-KbfW6HcnSRlssyCv9FDEmbxqco4KTI3i2sPvn_yAM-XwB0JJUm3E967ebgIcWYy8BOrhtRwdouQoLs-SM-HJlHGxQWUsIYH-TosnvgyLeDADQaBHeVB5DFYzhm8hbIm2ngSG1NQKh3pqUZNyIrxQQ/s1600/Bulgaria-927.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 0 1em; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="677" data-original-width="526" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdo_k5rOd2gzd7aRJ9ZLYZf5dbmavDeMrcjCgz-KbfW6HcnSRlssyCv9FDEmbxqco4KTI3i2sPvn_yAM-XwB0JJUm3E967ebgIcWYy8BOrhtRwdouQoLs-SM-HJlHGxQWUsIYH-TosnvgyLeDADQaBHeVB5DFYzhm8hbIm2ngSG1NQKh3pqUZNyIrxQQ/s1600/Bulgaria-927.jpg"/></a>Bulgaria in 927, during the culminationa of the literary and cultural development, named <q>The Golden Century</q></div>
</div>
<div class="page">
<p></p><h1 style="clear: both;">Advent of Cyrillic</h1>
<div class="image"style="font-size:smaller;text-align:center;">
<p><img alt="Cyrillic" border="0" height="549" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nUH3CME05vI/WV1AIs31IjI/AAAAAAAAFKQ/qNlpZmDwz1MzeFBT5X70Qsi_D6PTgQZJgCLcBGAs/w640-h549/OldSlavonic.GIF" width="640" /></p></div>
<p>Greek alphabet, as it was used in the 8th and 9th c. had an obvious influence on the further development of Bulgarian, and especially the Cyrillic, alphabet. On its part, the Greek alphabet was borrowed from the Phoenicians as early as 5-6th c. BC. The Phoenician alphabet likewise was not original – it was borrowed from Egypt. Of the many hundreds and thousands symbols that old Egyptians used in their writing, Phoenicians chose only 22 symbols and thus created their own alphabet in which letters designated only consonant sounds (syllabic alphabet). Greeks, borrowing these 22 symbols from the Phoenicians, adapted those to their sounds, and gave to some of them a vowel meaning, adding 2 or 3 more symbols that were needed to designate Greek sounds (phonetic alphabet). There is not only a great similarity between Greek and Phoenician alphabets but also the names of the respective letters are almost identical. Because Egyptian writing was based on images, most letters of the Phoenician alphabet still corresponded to to their names, i. e. they depicted the images of the objects whose names were taken as the names of the letters.</p><p>Phoenicians, who in their time had trade connections with the whole world, propagated their alphabet to many peoples, so that most European and Asian alphabets arose from the Phoenician alphabet. Of course, after some time the similarity between the original Phoenician alphabet and the alphabets that arose from it was obliterated so that the old connection can be established only by paleography. For example, the present Arabic alphabet which is used by all Muslims arose from the Phoenician alphabet; so does the Sanskrit alphabet, although it is apparently very different.</p><p>Some peoples, e. g. Jews and Arabs, retained the old way of writing – from right to left; others, such as Greeks and all peoples who borrowed their alphabets from them, write from left to right. There is evidence that before starting to write from left to right (about 5th c. BC), Greeks wrote both ways, i. e. writing a line from right to left, they continued the next line from left to right in the same way as one ploughs, so that the writing looked wiggly; therefore such writing was called βουστροφηδόν – 'ox turning'. As a consequence of this back-and-forth writing, the forms of some asymmetric letters were changed so that letters reverse to the Phoenician were obtained; such were the Greek <span style="font-family: Arial;">Г, E, K, N</span> vs. the Phoenician
<img alt="Reverse letters" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kOIP3wnRjkA/WV1AzWfk9WI/AAAAAAAAFKU/SXhu7FRhixY2qQOT1bMMfDYSGKuUTJzygCLcBGAs/s1600/letters-reverse.GIF" /></p>At first Greeks wrote with large capital letters, keeping their old form, but later, when writing became more widespread, they began to change letter forms and appended links for faster writing: so the cursive or handwriting arose. It in turn developed and changed in different ways according to the time and place, and also to individual habits of writers. However it is, it is important to know that at the time when Bulgarian Slavs entered cultural relations with Greeks, there were 2 kinds of Greek alphabet: one large, Uncial alphabet which was the precursor of Cyrillic alphabet, and another smaller and shorthand writing which was the precursor of Glagolitic alphabet. It is not certain when and how Bulgarians accepted Greek alphabet; there is only some cursory information that St. Cyril invented or adapted a writing system for Bulgarians. So linguists discussed for a long time the age and time of origin of the 2 Bulgarian alphabets. Especially the Glagolitic alphabet with its bizarre hooks and squiggles drew the Slavists' attention since very early time and gave material for all kinds of hypotheses. As for Cyrillic, with the exception of letters that come after ц, it is nothing else than Greek large writing: if you see a Greek book from 9th or 10th c., written with such writing, at first glance until you didn't realize the language, you will say that this is a Slavic writing – so great is the similarity between Greek Uncial writing and Slavic Cyrillic. All Greek Uncial letters come in the set of the Slavic Cyrillic alphabet and give the letters until х; for the letters following х there are no Greek symbols or sounds, and therefore those can't be compared directly with Greek; they can be compared with the corresponding Glagolitic letters to find amazing similarities seen above.
<p>While used by Bulgarians, Czech-Moravians, and Croats, Glagolitic developed in three stages: first was round Glagolitic which is most similar to the Greek cursive, and which has round wriggles and squiggles; then angular Glagolitic appeared in which wiggles became sharp and squiggles became triangles; and lastly, especially in Croats, came elongated Glagolitic in which squiggles became rectangles; the last type is called Croat Glagolitic because many Croat monuments were written with this writing and it was used until the end of 19th c. in some Croat regions.</p>
<p>Old Bulgarian manuscripts that are used to study the <a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/history-of-bulgarian-language.html">history of Bulgarian language</a> were written with two kinds of alphabet: Glagolitic and Cyrillic. Glagolitic was the first Bulgarian alphabet. It was composed by St. Konstantin Cyril and was used by him and his disciples in the translation of religious books from Greek to Old Bulgarian. Cyrillic copied the Greek Uncial writing (large capital letters), supplemented with new letters to write the Old Bulgarian sounds which do not exist in Greek language (ч, ж, ц, ш, ъ, ь, ѣ, ѫ, ѧ, ы). Cyrillic has great similarity with the Greek alphabet. For example, the vowel у in Cyrillic is written with 2 letters ѹ imitating the Greek alphabet in which the same sound is written with 2 letters (оυ). In Cyrillic there are 2 symbols for vowel i again influenced by the Greek alphabet.</p><p>There are some differences between the 2 Old Bulgarian alphabets. Glagolitic uses the same symbol (<font face="Dilyana" size="3">ⱑ</font>) for both ѣ and я. When transliterating Glagolitic texts with Cyrillic, this common symbol is written with ѣ, e. g. ѣко instead of яко, ѣдатъ instead of ядатъ. Glagolitic has special symbol for writing soft г' in words of Greek origin (soft г' did not exist in Old Bulgarian). When transliterating Glagolitic texts in Cyrillic, this symbol is written as ћ, e. g. анћелъ, ћеона. Glagolitic does not have a symbol for and the earliest Glagolitic lacked ѩ.</p><p>Softness of consonants is marked with apostrophe, e. g. л' р' н' but this is found only in some monuments (Zograf Gospel and Suprasəl Collection). Abbreviated words are usually marked with curly line above with the Greek name titlo, e. g. <font face="Dilyana" size="3">гл͠а (=глагола), и͠с (=исѹсъ), б͠ъ (богъ)</font>, etc. Apostroph is often put in the place of omitted er vowels, e. g. д'ни (=дьни), з'ло (=зъло).</p><p>Both Cyrillic and Glagolitic letters double as numbers. While the number of Glagolitic letters is determined by their order in the alphabet, Cyrillic letters follow the Greek alphabet, i. e. letters that are not of Greek origin (e. g. ж, ш, ч, к, etc. ), do not express numbers. Some numbers in Cyrillic are written with Greek letters which are used in the alphabet only to write Greek words because they express typical Greek sounds, e. g. ѳ=9, ѯ=60, ѿ=800, ѱ=700. Thousands, as in Greek, are written with letters for single digit numbers put after the special sign ҂, e. g. ҂а=1000, ҂б=2000, etc. When used as numbers, letters are written with titlo above.</p><p>As we now know that Cyril invented or adapted Glagolitic and not Cyrillic alphabet, it is more appropriate to call the Glagolitic alphabet a Cyrillic alphabet and relate the present Cyrillic with the name of St. Kliment and call it Klimentitsa because Kliment became its advocate and propagator in western Bulgaria; or, accepting that Glagolitic arose in the west and Cyrillic arose in the east, call Glagolitic west Bulgarian writing and Cyrillic – east Bulgarian. Indeed, old writers referred to Glagolitic as Cyrillic, as it is seen from a note in Russian monument of 1047 which someone Ѹпи̂р лихои transcribed from кѹриловицѣ.</p><p>Be as it is, if we do not count the time before Cyril and Methodius, Glagolitic was used in the Bulgarian Kingdom in 9th, 10th, and 11th c. while in the 12th and 13th c. only transcription from Glagolitic originals was done so that in the 14th c. Glagolitic became unreadable for ordinary literators and only very few knew it and used it as cryptography as in one Zograf mineus No. 102 (азъ Данїил писахъ сїе) <a href="#ref25">[25], p. 183</a> or a Bosnia manuscript of 15th c. already mixed with Cyrillic <a href="#ref29">[29]</a>. Cf. also <a href="#ref30">[30]</a>.</p><p>As to Bulgarian Cyrillic manuscripts containing Glagolitic which is not a cryptography, let us add to the abovementioned Bitola triode also: Bolonia Psalm Book, Ohrid Apostole, a Middle Bulgarian triode <a href="#ref31">[31]</a>, Vratsa Testament in which on page 166 there is a titled Glagolitic M <a href="#ref32">[32]</a>.</p><p>Just like Glagolitic, Cyrillic passed through various stages of which we distinguish 3 major ones: <i>Ustav</i> writing which is closest to the Greek Uncial writing of 9th-10th c.; it is beautiful and large writing, however, its best is preserved in very few manuscripts because most Bulgarian manuscripts were written with <i>semi-Ustav</i> writing which is smaller and most letters deviated more or less from the original regularity. In addition to Ustav and semi-Ustav wwe can distinguish also <i>handwriting</i> (cursive) which was used in most short notes and rarely in whole books. The handwriting deviates much from the Ustav and semi-Ustav and is similar to the modern handwriting. In Tərnovo at the end of 14th c. appeared another writing between semi-Ustav and handwriting which can be called transitive or Tərnovo handwriting. This handwriting is usually large and beautiful and we can call it Evtimiy handwriting because many works of Patriarch Evtimiy were written with it. In 15th, 16th, and 17th c. the Cyrillic went through further stages. The modern printed and handwritten letters originated from the period of Peter the Great, who introduced in Russia the modern Citizen alphabet instead of the old Church alphabet.</p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1>
<p><a name="ref1">1.</a> <a href="https://archive.org/details/pamtkyhlaholskh00afgoog">P. Šafarik. Památky hlaholského písemnictví, Praha, 1853.</a></p>
<p><a name="ref2">2.</a> Sreznevsky. Ancient Slavic writings (Древнiя письмена славянскiя). Journal of the Ministry of National Education, 1848.</p>
<p><a name="ref3">3.</a> <a href="https://books.google.bg/books?id=nBkPAAAAIAAJ&dq=%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9&lr&num=100&as_brr=3&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false">Grigorovich. On the ancient Slav writing (О древней письменности славянъ). Journal of the Ministry of National Education, 1852.</a></p>
<p><a name="ref4">4.</a> Bodyansky. 1855. On the time of origin of Slavic writing (О врѣмени произхожденiя слав. письменъ).</p>
<p><a name="ref5">5.</a> P. Šafarik. 1857. Über den Ursprung und die Heimat des Glagolismus.</p>
<p><a name="ref6">6.</a> <a href="https://www.antikvarijat-vremeplov.hr/franjo-racki-pismo-slovjensko-zagreb-1861">Fr. Rački. Slovensko pismo, Zagreb, 1861.</a></p>
<p><a name="ref7">7.</a> Fr. Rački. Starohrvatski glagolski nadpis u crkvi sv. Lučije kod Baška na Krku, Starine VII, Zagreb, 1865.</p>
<p><a name="ref8">8.</a> I. Sreznevsky. Traces of Glagolitic in the 10th c. monuments (Слѣды глаголицы въ памятникахъ Х в.). Acad. Reports VII, 1859.</p>
<p><a name="ref9">9.</a> <a href="https://ksana-k.ru/?p=1063">I. Sreznevsky. Ancient Glagolitic monuments compared with Cyrillic monuments (Древнiе глаголическiе памятники сравнительно съ памятниками кириллицы), 1866.</a></p>
<p><a name="ref10">10.</a> I. Sreznevsky. Roman Catholic missal in an ancient Glagolitic list (Римско-католическiй миссаль въ древнемъ глаголическомъ спискѣ), Свѣдѣнiя и замѣтки о малоизвѣстнихъ памятнихъ, Nos. 73 and 74 1874.</p>
<p><a name="ref11">11.</a> <a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008590387">Geitler, Leopold, 1847-1885. Die Albanesischen Und Slavischen Schriften. Wien: A. Hölder, 1883.</a></p>
<p><a name="ref12">12.</a> Vatroslav Jagić. Slavic Encyclopedia <b>3</b>:77.</p><p><a name="ref13">13.</a> Vatroslav Jagić. Four critical paleographic papers. Serbian Library, 1884.</p>
<p><a name="ref14">14.</a> R. Abicht. Ist die Aehnlichkeit die glagolitischen mit die grusinischen Alphabet Zutall, Leipzig, 8°, 34, 1895.</p>
<p><a name="ref15">15.</a><a href="https://archive.org/details/archivfrslavis18berluoft/page/540/mode/1up?view=theater"> Vondrak. Zur Frage nach der Herkunft des glagolitischen Alphabets, Archiv <b>18</b>: 541-556; <b>19</b>: 167-188.</a></p>
<p><a name="ref16">16.</a> Isaac Taylor. Über den Ursprung des glagolitischen Alphabet, Archiv <b>5</b>: 191-192, 1881.</p>
<p><a name="ref17">17.</a><a href="https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008602363"> Isaac Taylor. The alphabet, London, 1883.</a></p>
<p><a name="ref18">18.</a> Haferkorn. Einiges über das Verhältnis des cyrillisches Alphabet zum glagolitischen. Archiv <b>5</b>: 164-166.</p><p><a name="ref19">19.</a> Archimandrite Amphilochius. Supplement to the Galichitsa Gospel of 1144 (Дополненiе къ Галичскому Четвероевангелiю), Moscow, 1883.</p>
<p><a name="ref20">20.</a> Belyaev. History of the alphabet and a new opinion about the origin of Glagolitic (Исторiя алфавита и новое мнѣнiе о происхожденiи глаголицы), Kazan, 1886.</p>
<p><a name="ref21">21.</a> Fr. Müller. Bemerkungen zur Geschichte der altslavischen Schriften. Archive <b>19</b>: 554-556.</p>
<p><a name="ref22">22.</a> N. K. Grunsky. Monuments and problems in the old Slavic writing (Памятники и вопросы древнеславянской письменности), Yurev, 1904.</p>
<p><a name="ref23">23.</a> Carl Vessely. Glagolitisch-lateinische Studien. Studien zur Papyrus-kunde, Vol. 8, 1913.</p>
<p><a name="ref24">24.</a> Цонев, Б. Българска и славянска азбука (Bulgarian and Slavic alphabet). <i>In</i>: История на българския език (History of Bulgarian language). Vol. 1. Sofia, 1940, pp. 272-301.</p>
<p><a name="ref25">25.</a> Иванов, Йордан. Български старини от Македония (Bulgarian antiquities from Macedonia). pp. 87-104.</p>
<p><a name="ref26">26.</a> Sirku. Zur Geschichte des Glagolismus in Böhmen. Archiv <b>21</b>:101.</p>
<p><a name="ref27">27.</a> Stojanović, Ljuba. Über einen cyrillichen Apostolus serbischer redaction mit glagolitischen Marginalglossen. Archiv <b>22</b>:510-525.</p>
<p><a name="ref28">28.</a> Vatroslav Jagić. Entstehungsgeschichte, 127.</p>
<p><a name="ref29">29.</a> Vatroslav Jagić. Archiv <b>25</b>:35.</p>
<p><a name="ref30">30.</a> Yatsimirsky. Кирилловскiя нотныя рукописи съ глаголическими тайнописными записями (A Cyrillic note manuscript with Glagolitic cryptographic records). Ancient Slavic Committee, Moscow Archive Society, Vol. 3.</p>
<p><a name="ref31">31.</a> Karinsky. Glagolitic Samples, No. 13.</p>
<p><a name="ref32">32.</a> Tsonev, B. Bulgarian antiquities, Book 4, Table 4.</p>
<p><a name="ref33">33. </a>G. Turchaninov. Speech and written monuments of the peoples of the North Caucasus and Eastern Europe, Leningrad, 1971.</p>
<p><a name="ref34">34. </a>R. Kazlassov. The ancient Turkic runic alphabet. In: Problems of the Proto-Bulgarian history and culture. Sofia, 1989, p. 239.</p>
<p><a name="ref35">35. </a>A. Abramjan. The deciphering of the Caucasian inscriptions, Erevan, 1963.</p>
<p><a name="ref36">36. </a>D. Sasselov. The way of Bulgaria, Sofia, 1937, 2002.</p>
<p><a name="ref37">37. </a>V. Beshevliev. Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1992.</p>
<p><a name="ref38">38. </a>V. Beshevliev. Proto-Bulgarian epigraphy, Fatherland Front, 1981.</p>
<p><a name="ref39">39. </a>P. Dobrev, M. Dobreva. Proto-Bulgarian epigraphy, Tangra Tan-nak-ra, 2001.</p>
<p><a name="ref40">40. </a>P. Dobrev. <a href="https://chitanka.info/text/8270/11">Indian evidence about ancient Balkhara</a>. Ch.1.3 In: Saga of ancient Bulgars, Sofia, 2005 (in Bulgarian).</p>
<p><a name="ref41">41. </a>Mikov, V., Georgiev, G. I., and Georgiev, V. I., "L' inscription du sceau circulaire de Karanovo - la plus ancienne ecriture d' Europe," Arheologia 11, Sofia, 1969, 4-13 (in Bulgarian).</p>
<p><a name="ref42">42. </a>Gimbutas, M., The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 2nd ed., U. of C. Press, 1982</p>
<p><a name="ref43">43. </a>Merlini M., Was Writing Born in Europe? Searching for a Sacred Script, Rome</p>
<p><a name="ref44">44. </a><a href="https://www.flavinscorner.com/karanovo.htm">Flavin Richard D., "The Karanovo Zodiac" in Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, Vol. 20, 1991</a></p>
<p><a name="ref45">45. </a>Flavin Richard D. "The Karanovo Zodiac and the Old European Linear", in Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, Vol. 23, 1998</p>
<p><a name="ref46">46. </a>Haarmann H., Early Civilization and Literacy in Europe. An Inquiry Into Cultural Continuity in the Mediterranean World, Berlino, New York, 1995.</p>
<p><a name="ref47">47. </a>Winn, Shan M.M., Pre-writing in Southeastern Europe: The Sign System of the Vinca Culture ca 4000 BC, Western Publishers, Calgary, 1981.</p>
<p><a name="ref48">48. </a>Todorovic J., "Written signs in the Neolithic cultures of Southeastern Europe", in Archaeologia Iugoslavica, X, Societas archaeologica Iugoslaviae, Beograd, 1971</p>
<p><a name="ref49">49. </a><a href="https://www.prehistory.it/ftp/inventory/danube_script/danube_script_01.htm">Winn, Shan MM The inventory of the Danube script. (online article)</a></p>
<p><a name="ref50">50. </a><a href="https://www.prehistory.it/mappadeisegni1i.htm">Haarmann, Harald. Sign inventory of the old European writing. (online article)</a></p>
<p><a name="ref51">51. </a>Doncheva-Petkova, Lyudmila. 1980. Signs on archeological finds from Medieval Bulgaria, 7th-10th c., Sofia (in Bulgarian)</p>
<p><a name="ref52">52. </a>Yonchev, Vasil. 1982. Ancient and modern Bulgarian script, Sofia (in Bulgarian)</p>
<p><a name="ref53">53. </a>Dobrev, Petъr. 1992. The stone book of Proto-Bulgarians, Sofia (in Bulgarian)</p>
<p><a name="ref54">54. </a>Shkodrov, Bono. 1992. The writing of old Bulgarians and its connection to the ancient civilisations: a comparative analysis, Proceedings from the conference <q>2000: The Bulgarian contribution to world civilisation</q>, Sofia (in Bulgarian)</p>
<p><a name="ref55">55. </a>Haarmann, H., On the Nature of Old European Civilization and its Script, in "Studia Indogermanica Lodziensia" vol II, Lódz, 1998</p>
<p><a name="ref56">56. </a>Merlini M., <a href="https://www.prehistory.it/scritturaprotoeuropai.htm#">Was Writing Born in Europe? Searching for a Sacred Script</a>, Rome, 2004</p>
<p><a name="ref57">57. </a>Fasmer M. 1967. Etymological dictionary of Russian language, Vol. I, Moscow</p>
<p><a name="ref58">58. </a>L'vov A. 1967. Etymology of the Old Slavic кънигъı – кънигъчии, <i>Balkansko ezikoznanie</i>, <b>15</b> (2)</p>
<p><a name="ref59">59. </a>Acad. Vladimir Georgiev. 1977. Thracians and their language, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia</p>
<p><a name="ref60">60. </a>Genov, Nikolay. The mysterious clay cult vessel is 6800 years old. Standard Newspaper, 19.04. 2002, Sofia</p>
<p><a name="ref61">61. </a>Turchinovich O. 1857. A historical review of Belarus since antiquity (in Russian). Edward Pratz Typography, St. Petersburg, pp. 6-15</p>
<p><a name="ref62">62. </a>Dimitrov, Petko and Dimitar Dimitrov. 2004. The Black Sea, the Flood and the Ancient Myths. Slavena Publishers, Varna, ISBN 954-579-335-X</p>
<p><a name="ref63">63. </a>Ryan, William B., Pitman, Walter C. (2000), Noah's Flood: The new scientific discoveries about the event that changed history, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-684-85920-3</p>
<p><a name="ref64">64. </a>Антоанета Желева. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200114120841/http:/www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com">Кън͡игꙑ – произход и значение на думата.</a></p>
<p><a name="ref65">65. </a>Drago Djordjevich. <a href="https://iefpg.org.rs/Conference/2019/S&L2019_PROCEEDINGS.pdf#page=148">New knowledge of the genetic and linguistic continuity of the Serbian language</a>. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Fundamental and Applied Aspects of Speech and Language, Belgrade, Crowne Plaza 01-02 November, 2019, Miško Subotić, Slavica Maksimović (eds.), pp. 148-168.</p>
<p><a name="ref68">66. </a>Penske, S., Rohrlach, A.B., Childebayeva, A. et al. Early contact between late farming and pastoralist societies in southeastern Europe. Nature (2023). <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06334-8">doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06334-8</a></p>
</div>
<!--Pagination Button-->
<div class="pagination-container">
<div class="page-numbers-container">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<style>
/* Post Pagination by Key2Blogging */
.pagination-container {
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
flex-wrap: wrap; /* Add this line to wrap according to page width*/
}
.pagination-container .page-numbers-container {
display: flex;
font-size: 18px;
overflow: hidden;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: "raleway", sans-serif;
border-radius: 20px;
box-shadow: 0 4px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);
flex-wrap: wrap; /* Add this line to wrap according to the page width*/
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number {
padding: 8px 24px;
transition: all 400ms;
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number:hover {
background: #c5c5e9;
cursor: pointer;
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number.active {
background: #17A589;
color: #fff;
}
/* Page Content */
.page-content .page {
display: none;
}
.page-content .page.active {
display: block;
}
</style>
<script>
const pages = document.querySelectorAll(".page-content .page");
const pageNumbersContainer = document.querySelector(".page-numbers-container");
if (pageNumbersContainer) {
let pn = localStorage.getItem("pageNumber") ? localStorage.getItem("pageNumber") : 0;
const createPagination = () => {
pages.forEach((p, i) => {
const pageNumber = document.createElement("div");
pageNumber.classList.add("page-number");
pageNumber.textContent = i + 1;
pageNumber.addEventListener("click", () => {
localStorage.setItem("pageNumber", i);
location.reload();
})
pageNumbersContainer.appendChild(pageNumber);
})
document.querySelector(".page-number").classList.add("active");
pages[0].classList.add("active");
}
createPagination();
const pageNumbers = document.querySelectorAll(".page-numbers-container .page-number");
const activatePage = (pageNumber) => {
pages.forEach(p => {
p.classList.remove("active");
})
pages[pageNumber].classList.add("active");
pageNumbers.forEach(p => {
p.classList.remove("active");
})
pageNumbers[pageNumber].classList.add("active");
localStorage.removeItem("pageNumber");
history.scrollRestoration = "manual";
}
activatePage(pn);
}
</script>
Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-73880468341236532222013-07-26T04:18:00.118-07:002023-04-07T00:54:35.275-07:00Battle of Pliska<p>The Battle of Pliska which is better known in Bulgaria as the <b>Battle in Vъrbitsa Pass</b> (Bulgarian: Битката във Върбишкия проход) was a series of battles between Bulgaria governed by knyaz Krum, and troops gathered from all parts of the Byzantine Empire led by the Emperor Nicephorus I Genik. The Byzantines plundered and burned the Bulgar capital Pliska which gave time for the Bulgars to block passes in the Balkan Mountain that served as exits out of Bulgaria. The decisive battle took place on July 26, 811, in some of the passes in the Eastern Balkan Mountain, most probably the Vărbitsa Pass. There, the Bulgars used the tactics of ambush and surprise night attack to effectively trap and immobilize the Byzantine Army, thus annihilating almost the whole army, including the Emperor. After the battle, Krum encased Nicephorus's skull in silver, and used it as a cup for wine-drinking. This is probably the best documented instance of the custom of the skull cup.<span><a name='more'></a></span></p>
<p>The battle of Pliska was one of the worst defeats in Byzantine history. It deterred Byzantine rulers from sending their troops north of the Balkans for more than 150 years afterwards, which increased the influence and spread of the Bulgars/Bulgarians to the west and south of the Balkan Peninsula, resulting in a great territorial enlargement of Bulgaria.</p>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><p><img alt="Krum celebrating with skull" border="0" height="406" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iEOMVTUYmgg/WV9Cn8K6QiI/AAAAAAAAFUU/FiXwZg0Ezu0Yrb-BO56vuPE4yxhDJY3RQCKgBGAs/w568-h406/Media-12984-pic.png" width="568" /></p><p>Knyaz Krum holding Nicephorus's skull</div>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Initial campaigns</h1>
<div class="image-left" style="font-size:smaller; float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align:center;"><img alt="Knyaz Krum" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wpP_q44VKyc/WV9GLThH09I/AAAAAAAAFUY/6cJf-VbP1RMl3q7U2OH5BqwenpQluvP-QCKgBGAs/w203-h320/KhanKrum-1.jpg" width="203" /> <p>Kanasubigi Krum (796-814)</p></div>
At the end of the 8th century in Bulgaria, during the rule of the knyazes Telerig and Kardam, their efforts to unite Balkan tribes into a Bulgarian state representing a power center rivaling Byzanthium met with success. The power struggles over the succession of the Bulgarian throne subsided. Some time before 800 AD (probably in 796 AD), the direct successor of Kardam, <b>knyaz (kanas) Krum</b>, ascended to the Bulgarian throne. There is some controversy as to the exact date of accession, as well as about the early activities of knyaz Krum. Most historians agree that Krum ascended to the throne before 800 AD and his early policy was that of strenghtening ties with the Byzantine and Avar aristocracy. Such early accession of Krum is suggested by the fact that the aristocrat Konstantin Patsik who escaped from Byzantium to Bulgaria in the late 8th century was married to a Krum's sister while Krum was in power and Patsik had a son with her who was mature in 813. <a href="#ref7">[7, p.126]</a><p>During the rule of knyaz Krum the centralization of the knyaz's power reached its peak. The Bulgars did not limit their wars only to Byzantium; they also waged wars in the west of the Balkan Peninsula, and those wars transformed from defensive to aggressive and invasive. During the first years of his rule, Krum had to attend to his north-west borders where at the beginning of the 9th century the political situation changed due to the expansion of the Frankish Empire in the Middle Danubian region and the repulsion of the weak remnants of the Avar Khaganate towards the east beyond the Tisa River after the decisive victory of Charlemagne over the Avars in 803. This last event presented an occasion for Krum to put an end to the Avar possessions. </p>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2707475641_bca59f9817_b.jpg"><img border="0" height="693" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2707475641_bca59f9817_b.jpg" width="520" /></a><p>Bulgar warriors. Scene from reenactment of the battle,<br />
26 July 2006. Photo credit: <a href="http://klearchosguidetothegalaxy.blogspot.com/2008/07/blog-post_28.html">Klearchos Kapoutsis</a></p></div>
<p>In 805, the Bulgars killed and captured the remaining Avars, and annexed their lands in today's Eastern Hungary and Transylvania to Bulgaria. The Bulgars put the kagan to flight and captured a host of Avar soldiers; years later, the latter would serve in the Bulgars' wars against Byzantium. The Slav tribes that lived in those lands, after being freed from the Avar rule, recognized the power of the Bulgar knyaz. <a href="#ref13">[13]</a> Thus the Bulgarian state became a neighbour of the Frankish Empire, with the recognized border starting from the estuary of Sava upstream on the Danube to the Tisa River, then upstream the whole length of the Tisa and along the Prut River to the North Besarabian trench at Leovo, along this trench which in the east reaches to the Dnester River near the town of Benderi to the south-east, finishing at the Black Sea coast. Of course, given those borders to the northwest, it is beyond doubt that the Bulgars had succeeded in annexing the lands along the Mlava and Morava Rivers to the border of the Servian tribes; the expansion of Bulgaria in this direction happened earlier together with the gradual subsiding of the Avar rule there in the 8th century. <a href="#ref8">[8]</a></p>
<div class="image-left" style="font-size:smaller; float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align:center;"><img alt="Bulgar heavy" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wyxI-LASOBI/WV9HVREOp4I/AAAAAAAAFUc/E8gjAwXHQy8eL8DZV1AD_vR0-JVqE317wCKgBGAs/s1600/Bulgar-1.png" width="200" /><p>Heavily armed Bulgar soldier</p></div>
<p>In parallel with his policies to the north west, Krum also paid attention to the events in Byzantium. The political struggle of the Slavs trying to free themselves from Byzantine rule, that began during the co-reign of Constantin VI and his mother Empress Irene, was put down by the strategos Stauricius in 783-784; he succeeded in reestablishing the Emperor's power over the Slavs. When Nicephorus I became emperor in 802, Slavs renewed the struggle for independence. Taking advantage of the difficulties of Byzantium because of the unsuccessful wars with the Arabs (Saracens), on the one hand, and the general discontent in the Empire due to the ill-timed financial reforms of the Emperor, on the other, the Slavs started a revolt with the same goal as 20 years previously: to secede from Byzantium.</p>
<p>One of the main episodes in this struggle was the uprising of the Peloponnese Slavs in 805 (or 807) who plundered and devastated the neighbouring villages, occupied the outskirts of the town of Patri, and besieged the town, in alliance with the Arabs. However, the siege was unsuccessful and the Slavs were defeated. The Byzantines thought that their victory was entirely due to the blessing of the Apostle Saint Andreas, the patron of the town of Patri. When Nicephorus learned about this, he decided that, because the victory was achieved thanks to St. Andreas, all the trophies, taken from the Slavs belonged to him, the Emperor. After that, he ordered that all Slavs who besieged Patri, together with their families, kins, and possessions, be bound to the soil of the church St. Andreas in the Patri Mitropoly. From then on, the Slavs belonging to this mitropoly were obliged to pay the expenses of the strategos, archons, patricians, and all dignitaries, sent by the Emperor to the church land. The fate of the Peloponnese Slavs signaled to the other Slavs in the Empire, that a similar fate could be expected by them if they did not immediately receive help from the outside. Such help they could receive only from the Bulgars who were already a force to be reckoned with on the peninsula. On their side, the Bulgars did not miss an occasion to show their readiness to help, especially towards the Macedonian Slavs.</p>
<p>Such relations between Macedonian Slavs and Bulgars can be surmised from the expedition of Nicephorus against the Bulgars in 807. He only reached Adrianopolis (today Edirne), a Byzantine town close to the Constantinopolis, returned back to the capital, and canceled the campaign after learning of a conspiracy by the courtiers and military against him there. Theophanes <a href="#ref1">[1]</a> presents this expedition as senseless; however, the reason can easily be found in the relations between the Macedonian Slavs and Bulgars. That abortive attack, however, gave reason for the Bulgar knyaz Krum to undertake military operations against the Byzantine Empire. The main objective was an extension to the south and south-west. In the next year a Bulgarian army penetrated the Struma valley and defeated the Byzantines. The Bulgarian troops captured 1,100 litres (360 kg) of gold, earmarked for soldiers' pay, and killed many enemy soldiers including all strategos and most of the commanders because they were gathered to receive their pay. <a href="#ref1">[1]</a> According to the calculation made by Warren Treadgold, the amount of gold captured by the Bulgarians represented the salary of 12,000 people. <a href="#ref32">[32, p. 157]</a> The figure represents, most likely, the actual forces the emperor deployed in the region known to Bulgars as Lower Moesia. It is scarcely possible that this surprising attack had been undertaken only for robbing gold; on the contrary, as with the similar attack of 789, one can see a systematic effort by the Bulgars to penetrate towards the Aegean Sea and detach the western regions of Byzantium. However, the Bulgars' access to Lower Moesia was blocked by a series of fortified Byzantine points from western Thrace, first of all, by Serdica, which, given its military-strategoic significance, would become the next policy objective of knyaz Krum. Therefore, the Bulgars wanted to weaken this military centre, which is supported by the fact the in the spring of the following year, Krum undertook a serious military expedition in the same direction. Just before Easter in 809 the knyaz besieged the strong fortress of Serdica (today Sofia) and seized the city, killing the whole garrison of 6,000. <a href="#ref11">[11, p. 342]</a></p>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-12hg_t8JsWY/WV9eyalMtsI/AAAAAAAAFW4/wrhEcmfs6vkVpV_H7Nkjcbz3Mqy7EXHrgCKgBGAs/s1600/Territorial_expansion_during_the_reign_of_Khan_Krum_803-814.png"><img alt="Han Krum map" border="0" height="617" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--Hq16qJ0WOo/WV9IxdSCeYI/AAAAAAAAFUg/hTnmU8gdL_kqON_q9NGT9eQGHsaWkyACACKgBGAs/w657-h617/Territorial_expansion_during_the_reign_of_Khan_Krum_803-814.png" width="657" /></a> <p>A map of Bulgaria during knyazes Krum and Omurtag and movements of armies in the major battles.</p></div>
<p>Nikephoros reacted by organizing a campaign against the Bulgars, launched in April 809, with the aim of reconquering and rebuilding Serdica. Its development is presented briefly and confusingly by Theophanes the Confessor: <q>Nikephoros, recorded Theophanes, pretended to go campaigning against him [Krum] on the day Tuesday of Passion Week [April 3], but he did not achieve anything worthy of notice. When the officers who had escaped the massacre asked him for a promise that they would be protected, he refused to give it to them and thus forced them to desert to the enemy, among them the spatharios Eumathios, war machine expert. To his great disgrace, Nikephoros tried to convince the Imperial Citadel [Constantinople] by holy oaths, that he celebrated the Feast Passover in the camp of Krum (αὐλῇ τοῦ Κρούμμου)</q>. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 484]</a> Going through the text of the Chronicles reveals, without a doubt, the fact that its author himself expresses serious reservations about the veracity of the information concerning the success achieved over the Bulgars, communicated by Nikephoros in Constantinople. Despite this fact, the information contained in the Chronicle of Theophanes received different interpretations from the researchers who approached aspects of the Byzantine campaign against the Bulgars in the spring of 809.</p>
<p> Bulgarian historian Vasil Zlatarsky accepts as absolutely plausible the reservations formulated by Theophanes of the news conveyed by the emperor Nikephoros to Constantinople, announcing a military success in a campaign in which he achieved nothing <a href="#ref8">[8]</a>. His interpretation of Theophanes is that as soon as Nikephoros learned of the fate of Serdica, he hastened to go out "just for appearance", as Theophanes puts it, against the Bulgarians on Tuesday of Passion Sunday (April 3), but this time too without success; he even refused to receive with him the archons who had escaped the massacre at Serdica, although they begged for pardon, and this, of course, forced them to seek refuge with Krum himself; among them was an experienced mechanic, Spatarius Eumatius. With such inaction, Nicephoros still tried with documents to assure in Constantinople that he allegedly celebrated Easter in the palace (ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ) of Krum, which he did only to distract the attention of the citizens of the capital from the discontent in the army. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 485]</a> However, he could not avoid the latter. When the emperor wanted to restore Serdika, which had been abandoned and devastated by the Bulgars, with the help of his soldiers and thereby make up for his inactivity, but at the same time, fearing that the army would not obey his order, he tried through stratagems before the archons to convince the army itself to ask the emperor for the restoration of the city. But the soldiers, realizing that these were tricks of Nicephoros himself, raised a terrible rebellion against him and the generals. At first Nicephoros tried to quell the rebellion with the help of the military leaders, most of whom he managed to attract to his side, and then he himself assured them with terrible oaths that he cared for their welfare and that of their children. These exhortations had an effect on the soldiers and the rebellion was subdued. After that, the emperor immediately left for Constantinople, ordering the patrician Theodosius Salivara, his most trusted person, to find the main rebel leaders, and when the troops returned, he punished all the culprits of the rebellion with various punishments, "by trampling, says the chronicler, the terrible oaths he gave”. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 485-486]</a> </p>
<p>Zlatarski notes that Theophanes does not specify where Nicephoros' route was directed and he opposes Bury, who interprets Theophanes as <q>the emperor first descended to the mountains through Mileona and Markelli and reached Pliska through the Veregava pass</q>, pointing out that <q>the plundering of Pliska was retribution for the destruction of Serdika, to which he looked in order to resume. It is not established, says Bury, which road he took, but he avoided meeting the victorious enemy</q> <a href="#ref11">[11, p. 342]</a>. According to Zlatarski, such conclusions can hardly be drawn from the quoted phrase. Even if we assume that Nicephoros went straight to the residence of the Bulgarian knyaz, we still have no reason to claim that the emperor really robbed Pliska. On the contrary, taking into account, on the one hand, the inaction of Nicephoros, and, on the other hand, the fact that the campaign itself, according to Theophanes, was "for appearance", it becomes clear that the chronicler here is ironizing the emperor, as makes him declare feats which he has not actually done. In addition, the chronicler's statement that the emperor refused to receive the chiefs who escaped the Serdica massacre at the very beginning of the campaign, and the fact that there is not even the slightest hint in the text about the movement of Nicephorus with his troops from east to west, from Pliska to Serdica, are sufficient to prove that Nicephoros set out in the direction, not of Pliska, but of Serdica, and does not appear to have reached the city itself; indeed, he had a desire to restore Serdika, which had been "abandoned" by the Bulgars, but this did not come true either, and, on the contrary, he himself was forced to return to Constantinople.</p>
<p>This whole story with the described rebellion shows how unpopular Nicephoros was among the army, which even in his presence raised a rebellion. Of course, these relations greatly contributed to the expansion and consolidation of Bulgarian influence. Indeed, our chronicler does not write whether Serdika was again occupied by Bulgarian troops, but it is too believable that after the departure of Nicephoros to Constantinople and the withdrawal of the Byzanthine troops, the entire Sofia region was already in Bulgarian hands, especially since we don't see the Bulgars recapturing this region from Byzantium. Be that as it may, but with the conquest of Serdika, the last Byzantine fortress in the interior of the peninsula, a free way to Slavic Macedonia was opened for the Bulgars. What great successes the Bulgars had in this direction and how dangerous they became for the empire, are shown by the new measures of Nicephoros to consolidate the imperial power in Macedonia.<a href="#ref8">[8]</a> At the opposite pole are other researchers, Bulgarian or foreign, who accept the information presented by Theophanes as false. Accordingly, they identify the "camp of Krum," with the fortress of Pliska, the residence of the Bulgarian knyaz. <a href="#ref7">[7]</a> <a href="#ref9">[9]</a> <a href="#ref10">[10]</a> <a href="#ref33">[33]</a> <a href="#ref34">[34]</a> <a href="#ref35">[35]</a> <a href="#ref10">[36]</a></p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">The Byzantine Catastrophy</h1><h2>The Pliska expedition</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Nicephorus viewed with anxiety the western provinces of his Empire in Macedonia and Thessaly. The Slavs, on whose fidelity no reliance could be placed, were predominant there, and it was the aim of the Bulgars to bring the Macedonian Slavs under their dominion. To meet the dangers in this quarter the Emperor determined to resettle a large number of his subjects from other parts of the Empire and establish them as Roman colonists in what was virtually a Slavonic land. They could keep the Slavs in check and help in repulsing Bulgar aggression. The transmigration began in September 809 and continued until Easter 810. It seems to have been an unpopular measure. Men did not like to leave the homes to which they were attached, to sell their property, and say farewell to the tombs of their fathers. The poor cling far more to places than the rich and educated, and it was to the poor agriculturists that this measure exclusively applied. Some were driven to desperation and committed suicide rather than go into a strange and distant land; and their richer brethren sympathized with them; in fact, the act was described as nothing short of "a captivity." But though it may have been hard on individuals, it was a measure of sound policy; and those who on other grounds were ill-disposed to the government exaggerated the odium which it aroused.<a href="#ref11">[11, p. 342]</a> Nicephorus, who prided himself greatly on this act, seems to have realised the danger that the Slavonic settlements in Macedonia and Greece might eventually be incorporated into a Bulgarian empire; and these new colonies were designed to obviate such a possibility.<a href="#ref11">[11, p. 342]</a><p>In 811, the Byzantine Emperor organised a large campaign to conquer Bulgaria once and for all. His preparations were long and careful; troops were collected from throughout the Empire. There was no danger from the Saracens at the moment; so he gathered an enormous army from the Anatolian and European <i>themata</i> with their <i>strategoi</i>, and the imperial bodyguard (the <i>tagmata</i>). The troops of the Asiatic themes had been transported from beyond the Bosphorus; Romanus, general of the Anatolians, and Leo, general of the Armenians, were summoned to attack the Bulgars, as their presence was no longer required in Asia to repel the Saracens <a href="#ref11">[11, p. 343]</a>. They were joined by a number of irregular troops, armed with slings and clubs, who expected a swift victory and plunder. The conquest was supposed to be easy, and most of the high-ranking officials and aristocrats accompanied Nicephorus, including his son Stauracius and his brother-in-law Michael I Rangabe, all patricians, commanders, officials, all divisions, and commanders' sons who were above 15 years of age of which last he composed a division of his son, and called them <i>Worthies</i> (Hikanatoi). <a href="#ref2">[2, p.148]</a> The whole Byzantine army is estimated to have been up to 60,000 <a href="#ref14">[14]</a> or 80,000 <a href="#ref15">[15]</a> soldiers.</p><div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/klearchos/2707507145/" title="Battle of Pliska by Klearchos Kapoutsis"><img alt="Battle of Pliska" height="485" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2707507145_bcd5d55734.jpg" width="646" /></a> <p>Byzantine camp. Scene from reenactment of the battle, 26 July 2006. Photo credit: <a href="http://klearchosguidetothegalaxy.blogspot.com/2008/07/blog-post_28.html">Klearchos Kapoutsis</a></p></div><p>In May 811 <a href="#ref17">[17]</a>, the great expedition left Constantinople, led by the Emperor himself and his son, Stauracius, and set up camp at the fortress of Marcelae (present-day Karnobat) near the Bulgarian frontier where it stopped to gather the various detachments coming from the different parts of the Empire. The period of stay at Marcelae is not known: estimates range from several days to several weeks. Judging from the fact that the Byzantine Empire was very large and time was needed especially for troops from Asia (e.g. the Armenians), it is safer to take the higher estimate, which supposes that the stay at Marcelae took the better part of June and/or early July. This is confirmed by the events that happened at Marcelae. After learning that such a large army was gathering at his border, Krum assessed the situation, estimated that he could not repulse the enemy, and sent ambassadors to Marcelae begging humbly for peace which Nicephorus haughtily rejected; he was distrustful of Bulgar promises and confident of victory. <a href="#ref9">[9, p. 56]</a> Theophanes disapprovingly writes that the Emperor was deterred by his own "ill thoughts" and the suggestions of those of his advisors who were thinking like him.<a href="#ref1">[1, p. 486]</a> Some of his military chiefs considered the invasion of Bulgaria to be imprudent and too risky but Nicephorus was convinced of his ultimate success, counting mainly on the luck and wisdom of his son Stauracius. At this time, a courtier close to Nicephorus, by the name of Byzantios, escaped from Marcelae for unknown reasons and went to Krum, taking with him the Imperial apparel and 100 litres (about 33 kg) of gold; many considered this as a bad omen for Nicephorus.</p><p>Another bad omen was the unfavorable period of the year, coinciding with the heliacal rising of Sirius, the Dog Star. <a href="#ref16">[16]</a> "It was the devastating rising of the Dog" <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 486]</a>, the Dog Days, considered to be an evil time "when the seas boiled, wine turned sour, dogs grew mad, and all creatures became languid, causing to man burning fevers, hysterics, and phrensies". <a href="#ref17">[17]</a> To Greeks this signified certain emanations through which the Dog Star exerted its malign influence. People suffering its effects were said to be 'star-struck' (astroboletos). <a href="#ref18">[18]</a> The Dog Star caused a "reckless bravery of the impertinent coward [Nicephorus]" and made him behave like a madman, frequently shouting challenges and then realizing that some supernatural power, "God or his enemy" (the devil), pulled him against his will. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 486]</a></p>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-efDTL3AbSmQ/WV9JzIXQdjI/AAAAAAAAFUk/fr2eSKgywloxzuRDF90BajJKniT8JsgwgCKgBGAs/s1600/628px-Sky_above_Pliska_23_July_811.png" target="_blank"><img alt="Sky over Pliska" border="0" height="610" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-efDTL3AbSmQ/WV9JzIXQdjI/AAAAAAAAFUk/fr2eSKgywloxzuRDF90BajJKniT8JsgwgCKgBGAs/w639-h610/628px-Sky_above_Pliska_23_July_811.png" width="639" /></a> <p>The sky above Pliska at dawn, 03:06 a.m. on July 23, 811. <a href="#ref19">[19]</a> </p></div><p>The march towards the Bulgarian capital Pliska is not well described. Traditional historical treatments follow Theophanes who records that Byzantines penetrated Bulgarian territory on July 20 <a href="#ref20">[20]</a>, <a href="#ref8">[8, p. 331]</a>, <a href="#ref21">[21]</a>.</p><p>At the time of the battle, the Bulgarian border was situated to the south of the Balkan Mountains, and Krum controlled important towns and garrisons on the southern side, including some that were very close to Marcelae. It is probable that by "Bulgarian territory" Theophanes means the lands north of the Balkan, since it is hard to imagine that a Byzantine historian would acknowledge a barbaric tribe owning land that has always been considered part of Byzantium. During the first millennium, the territory of northern Bulgaria (Moesia) was covered with an unbroken forest, known in Europe as <i>Magna Silva Bulgarica</i>. The forest was especially dense and impassable in the discussed region: Veregava and the plains and valleys at its foothills. It further slowed the march: the large army moved in columns along the narrow forest paths, the cavalry frequently dismounting at the steep slopes. Because this was a hostile territory, light cavalry scouts were sent ahead to spy out the army's line of march, the position of enemy forces and fortifications, the availability of wood and water, fodder and food, and were responsible for providing the commanders of the Byzantine forces with sufficient information for them to plan their route and the marching camps.</p></div>
<div id="colTwo"><div class="image-left" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-right: 1em; font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><img alt="Nicephorus enters Bulgaria" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KND6R44997I/WV9MkHn1YtI/AAAAAAAAFUo/DVD7JcvA2cknJos4GCEKHp9Xxcy_cAZXwCKgBGAs/s1600/emperornicephorusentersbulgaria.jpg" width="205" />
<p><b>Above: </b>Emperor Nicephorus <br />enters Bulgaria with his army. <br />
<b>Below:</b> The captured Nicephorus<br /> is presented to Krum.<br />
Miniatures from the<br /> Mannasas Chronicle.</p></div>
<p>An additional impediment to the march in the form of a natural barrier was the Balkan, a 550 km long mountain chain running from Timok River in the west to the Black Sea in the east, which forms the central backbone of modern Bulgaria, and divides it into Northern and Southern parts. Known in various times as Haimos (Greek, derived from Thracian word "saimon" meaning 'mountain range'), Haemus (Latin, with the meaning 'bloody'), Balkan (Turkish, 'mountain'), Stara Planina (Bulgarian, 'old mountain'), this mountain has a great geographic and historic significance. The Zlatitsa and Vratnik passes divide the Balkan in three parts: Western, Middle, and Eastern. The lower, Eastern part, known in the 6-11 centuries as Veregava (Bulgar, 'the chain'), or Matori Gori (Slavic, 'mother mountains') stood between the meeting place of the Byzantine troops (Marcelae) and the Bulgar capital Pliska. The only way to cross the mountains is to move along the narrow passes closest to Marcelae. There are four possible routes: Rish, Vărbitsa, and Kotel passes, and the region between the confluence of the rivers Luda Kamchia and Ticha (Big Kamchia), some 20 km east of Luda Kamchia Gorge. It is known that Vărbitsa Pass was opened in 8 century, or early 9 century, at the latest <a href="#ref12">[12, p.150]</a> <a href="#ref8">[8, Appendix VII, p.531]</a>. Byzantine commanders generally preferred to cross this part of the Balkan through the then called "Veregava Pass" which is identified with Vărbitsa <a href="#ref22">[22]</a> or Rish <a href="#ref11">[11, p.343]</a> Passes.</p>
<p>The crossing, difficult for such a multitudinous army, would inevitably occupy some time. Approximate distances and timing are listed in the following table.</p>
<table align="center" border=1 style="text-align:center"><tbody>
<tr> <th></th> <th><b> Rish Pass</b></th> <th>Vărbitsa Pass</th> <th>Kotel Pass</th> <th>Luda Kamchia</th> </tr>
<tr> <td>Total distance <a href="#ref23">[23]</a> (km)</td> <td>91.66</td> <td>117.18</td> <td>145.12</td> <td>98.75</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Distance in pass (km)</td> <td>12.91</td> <td>25.85</td> <td>25.01</td> <td>0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Time (days)</td> <td>5.54</td> <td>7.42</td> <td>8.94</td> <td>5.49</td> </tr>
</tbody> </table>
<p>About distances, the following must be borne in mind: while distances in the passes are relatively accurate because they were measured by following the contour of the pass, total distances are underestimated by 10-30 km because level terrain was measured on a straight line, since it is impossible to guess the exact route on level ground. For the timings, one must consider a march of 25 km to be both long and tiring for men and horses, and although this rate could have been maintained as an average in some cases, terrain, weather and the quality of the roads, tracks or paths used by the army will all have played a role, so that very considerable variations must have been usual. The average length of a day's march for infantry or combined forces was probably rarely more than 19-23 km, which has been an average for most infantry forces throughout recorded history; and this figure would more often than not be reduced if very large numbers, which had to be kept together, were involved.
</p><div class="image-left" style="float: left; font-size:smaller; margin-right: 1em; text-align:center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5JrpedNJ9kE/WV9PibhzMzI/AAAAAAAAFVg/kSliZlx8bRc2_gnDsDvqZlFSLLx34qBIACKgBGAs/s1600/byzantine-pliska.JPG" style="font-size:smaller; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Byzantine march" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5JrpedNJ9kE/WV9PibhzMzI/AAAAAAAAFVg/kSliZlx8bRc2_gnDsDvqZlFSLLx34qBIACKgBGAs/s1600/byzantine-pliska.JPG" width="200" /></a><p>Byzantine march</p></div> The average can be increased when no accompanying baggage train is present, and increased yet again for forced marches, although there is an inverse relationship between the length and speed of such marches and the loss of manpower and animals through exhaustion. The speed at which large forces can move varies very considerably according to the terrain: anything between 11-13 km and 18-20 km per day. Cavalry by themselves can cover distances of up to 60-80 km, provided the horses are regularly rested and well nourished and watered. Small units can move much faster than large divisions: distances of up to 30 km per day for infantry can be attained. The average marching speeds for infantry are 4.8 km per hour on even terrain, 4 km on uneven or broken/hilly ground. <a href="#ref24">[24]</a> From the above mentioned, and taking into account that the Byzantine army was very large, one can take the lower estimate (18 km per day) as the rate of march, reducing it further to 11 km per day for march in a pass. Timings in the table are calculated on the above assumption; as seen, the march from Marcelae to Pliska could have taken 5.5 to 9 days. This defines the period of departing from Marcelae as July 11 to July 14, according to Theophanes <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>, or July 2 to July 5, according to Scriptor Incertus <a href="#ref2">[2]</a>.
<p></p><div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><p><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QBeNnIAnrS8/WV9Qb19YwpI/AAAAAAAAFVo/Xgo47Y-twRUhExcTdpHsgv27ZVcbsFWwQCKgBGAs/s1600/nikiforgonikrum201.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Nicephorus chases Krum" border="0" height="296" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QBeNnIAnrS8/WV9Qb19YwpI/AAAAAAAAFVo/Xgo47Y-twRUhExcTdpHsgv27ZVcbsFWwQCKgBGAs/w531-h296/nikiforgonikrum201.jpg" width="531" /></a></p><p>The initial Byzantine success</p></div><p>Nicephorus intended to confuse the Bulgars, and over the next ten days launched several feigned attacks, which were immediately called back. The Byzantines met little resistance <a href="#ref4">[4, vol. 3, sheet 1, p.17]</a> and in three days they reached the capital, where they met a 12,000 army of elite soldiers who guarded the stronghold. The Bulgars were defeated and most of them perished. Another hastily assembled army of 50,000 soldiers had a similar fate. <a href="#ref2">[2, p.148-149]</a> On 23 July the Byzantines quickly captured the defenseless capital. The city was sacked and the countryside destroyed. <a href="#ref6">[6, p.372-373]</a> <a href="#ref25">[25]</a> Knyaz Krum attempted once more to negotiate for peace:</p>
<blockquote>Here you are, you have won. So take what you please and go with peace. <a href="#ref1">[1, p.487]</a></blockquote>
<p>Nicephorus, overconfident after his success, ignored him. He believed that Bulgaria was thoroughly defeated and conquered.</p>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GvXMj7L640A/WV9RcPXsx-I/AAAAAAAAFVs/IuEvgPg5HB4lvm5AaeJ-vop82l8I1paYgCKgBGAs/s1600/battle-of-pliska-attack.JPG" target="_blank"><img alt="Byzantines attack" border="0" height="464" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GvXMj7L640A/WV9RcPXsx-I/AAAAAAAAFVs/IuEvgPg5HB4lvm5AaeJ-vop82l8I1paYgCKgBGAs/w618-h464/battle-of-pliska-attack.JPG" width="618" /></a> <p>Byzantines attack the Bulgar stronghold. Scene from reenactment of the battle, 26 July 2006. Photo credit: <a href="http://klearchosguidetothegalaxy.blogspot.com/2008/07/blog-post_28.html">Klearchos Kapoutsis</a></p></div><p></p><p>Michael the Syrian, patriarch of the Syrians Jacobites in XIIth century described in his Chronicle the brutalities and atrocities of the Byzantine Emperor: “Nicephorus, emperor of the Romans, walked in Bulgars land: he was victorious and killed a great number of them. He reached their capital, took it over and devastated it. His savagery went to such a point that he ordered to bring their small children, got them tied down on earth and made thresh grain stones to smash them.” <a href="#ref4">[4, vol. 3, sheet 1, p.17]</a> The Byzantine soldiers looted and plundered; burnt down the unharvested fields, cut the sinews of the oxen, slaughtered sheep and pigs. <a href="#ref2">[2, p.150]</a> The Emperor took over Krum's treasury, locked it and did not allow his troops to reach it at the same time cutting noses and other appendages of soldiers who touched the trophies. <a href="#ref26">[26]</a>. At the end, Nicephorus ordered his troops to burn down Krum's residence. <a href="#ref1">[1, p.490]</a> <a href="#ref6">[6, p. 372-373]</a></p></div></div><h2>The battle in the pass</h2><div class="two-columns">While Nicephorus I and his army were busy plundering the Bulgarian capital, Krum mobilized his people (including the women) to set traps and ambushes in the mountain passes. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 488]</a> Initially Nicephorus intended to march through Moesia and reach Serdica (today Sofia) before returning to Constantinople, but the news of these preparations for a battle changed his decision and he chose the shortest way back to his capital. <a href="#ref2">[2, p.152]</a> On 25 July his army entered the Vărbitsa Pass but the road was barred with thick wooden walls and Krum's detachments watched from the heights around. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 490-491]</a> The emperor became panicked by the situation and repeatedly told his companions that they were trapped and imminent death awaited them.</div><p>Nicehorus is reported to have said: <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 490-491]</a></p><blockquote>Even if we had wings we could not have escaped from peril.</blockquote><p>It must be noted that nights in this period were dark and moonless, with the moon late in the fourth or early in the first quarter, having entered the -13,746 lunation on July 24, 07:17 local time. <a href="#ref27">[27]</a> For several nights, in which they could not see even the shadows of the Bulgars that were following and surrounding them, a noise of troop movements and clang of arms kept Nicephorus and his companions in a feverish restlessness and brought them to an utter exhaustion. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 490-491]</a> On July 26 <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 490-491]</a>, Saturday <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 490-491]</a> <a href="#ref2">[2, p. 152]</a>, the Bulgars gathered their troops and tightened the noose around the trapped enemy. At dawn, they rushed down and started to kill the panicked and totally confused Byzantine s, who fruitlessly resisted for a short time before perishing. Upon seeing their comrades' fate, the next units immediately ran away.</p>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><p><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ByQAzUjRkMw/WV9S9IpmPLI/AAAAAAAAFVw/zPkwx7lRhFwikIWZ0cHQSiFAz-PDS8YkgCKgBGAs/s1600/krunrazbiva.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Krum wounds Staurakius" border="0" height="451" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ByQAzUjRkMw/WV9S9IpmPLI/AAAAAAAAFVw/zPkwx7lRhFwikIWZ0cHQSiFAz-PDS8YkgCKgBGAs/w601-h451/krunrazbiva.jpg" width="601" /></a></p><p><b>Above:</b> The war of knyaz Krum. <b>Below:</b> The army of knyaz Krum chases and wounds Nikephorus's son and heir Staurakius.</p></div><p>In their retreat, the Byzantine forces hit a swampy river which was difficult to cross. As they could not find a ford quickly enough, many Byzantines fell into the river. The first ones stalled in the mud with their horses and were trampled by those who came next. The river was filled with so many dead men and horses that the chasing Bulgars easily passed over them and continued the pursuit. Those who passed through the river reached a wooden wall which was high and thick. The Byzantines left their horses and began climbing the wall with hands and legs and hung over the other side. The Bulgars had dug a deep moat from the outer side and when the Byzantine soldiers were getting across the ramparts, they fell from the high wall, breaking their limbs. Some of them died instantly, others hobbled some time before falling to the ground and dying from thirst and hunger. The Byzantine troops burnt the wall at several places but as they were rushing to get across it, they too fell into the moat along with the burning parts of the palisade. The anonymous narrator laments on this event, in which, it seems, most of the <i>Worthies</i> (the youngest soldiers) were killed:</p><blockquote>Who will not weep when he hears this? Who will not cry? Thus perished the commanders' sons both of the old and of the young ones who were a whole multitude, in the blossom of their youth, and they had beautiful bodies that shined with whiteness, with golden hairs and beards, with handsome faces. Some of them had just been engaged to women, distinguished with nobility and beauty. All perished there: some brought down by sword, others drowned in the river, third fell from the rampart, and still others burned in the moat. Only a few of them escaped but even they, after they arrived in their homes, almost all of them died.<br />
—Scriptor Incertus, p. 148-149 </blockquote><p>Among those killed were the patricians Aecius, Peter, Sisnius, Tryphillios, Theodosius Salivaras (the patrician Eparchos [Prefect] of the capital), Romanus (the patrician and strategos of the theme Anatolic), and many protospatharios, spatharios, and archons of the tagmata, the domesticos of the Excubitors, the droungarios of the Imperial Watch, the strategos of the Thracian army, archons of themes together with innumerable soldiers. All arms and Imperial treasures were lost. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 492]</a> Nicephorus' son Stauracius was carried to safety by the imperial bodyguard after receiving a paralyzing wound to his neck. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 489-492]</a> <a href="#ref6">[6, p. 373]</a>. Only a few survived the defeat, one of them being Nicephorus' brother-in-law Michael Rangabe; the majority of those who survived died shortly after they arrived at their homes.</p>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OnLzoQkBVIo/WV9USHAAJQI/AAAAAAAAFV8/uKbl_hHX54Eq4KAKvv2X3JUD2Ryk8TiRACKgBGAs/s1600/pliska-killing.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgars killing Byzantines" border="0" height="379" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OnLzoQkBVIo/WV9USHAAJQI/AAAAAAAAFV8/uKbl_hHX54Eq4KAKvv2X3JUD2Ryk8TiRACKgBGAs/w597-h379/pliska-killing.jpg" width="597" /></a><p><q>...all perished there ... in the blossom of their youth ...</q></p></div><p>The most notable person to be killed, however, was Emperor Nicephorus. According to Christian historians, the Byzantine soldiers hated him so much that they killed him in some way or another: some say that the Christians (Byzantines) killed him with stones after he fell down while the eunuchs in his entourage (<i>parakoimomenous</i>) died either in the fire of the burning ramparts or were killed with swords <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 491]</a>; either the Byzantines killed him themselves or, when the barbarians started to kill him, the Byzantines finished the killing of the torturer <a href="#ref6">[6, p. 373]</a>; in any case, Nicephorus was killed by a Roman [Byzantine]. <a href="#ref4">[4, vol. III, p. 373]</a> However, old Bulgarian sources say explicitly and unequivocally that Nicephorus was killed by the Bulgars, even by Krum himself. Thus, in the old-Bulgarian translation of the Mannases Chronicle, writing in general about the Nicephorus catastrophe in 811, one reads:</p>
<div class="image"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5PfXPaTl2vo/WV9Yy16BG-I/AAAAAAAAFWI/7JoJ1gc3hn8aSAPp1w7sJpZvAlnIqv3ugCKgBGAs/s1600/400px-Manassias_Krum_victory.JPG" target="_blank"><img alt="Old Cyrillic text" border="0" height="156" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5PfXPaTl2vo/WV9Yy16BG-I/AAAAAAAAFWI/7JoJ1gc3hn8aSAPp1w7sJpZvAlnIqv3ugCKgBGAs/w489-h156/400px-Manassias_Krum_victory.JPG" width="489" /></a>
</div><blockquote><i>This tsar Nicephorus came into the Bulgar land during Kniaz Krum</i>['s reign] <i>and at first he apparently vanquished him, and plundered the estate bearing his</i> [Krum's] <i>name. After this, Krum gathered those who were left after the defeat, and he attacked the tsar during the night, and not only defeated the Greeks, but he</i> [Krum] <i>himself cut the head of the tsar, and he cased his head in silver, and poured wine in it, and he gave it to the Bulgars to drink from it.</i> <a href="#ref3">[3, p. 143]</a></blockquote><div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9PJ8W-Og_gE/WV9Z-N-me5I/AAAAAAAAFWY/Prx-BLOc_E0e-GI1xyLoX6e_fXVctQGqQCKgBGAs/s1600/2008-vastanovka.JPG" target="_blank"><img alt="Battle in the pass" border="0" height="398" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9PJ8W-Og_gE/WV9Z-N-me5I/AAAAAAAAFWY/Prx-BLOc_E0e-GI1xyLoX6e_fXVctQGqQCKgBGAs/w597-h398/2008-vastanovka.JPG" width="597" /></a> <p>Battle in the pass. Scene from reenactment of the battle, 26 July 2008.</p></div><p>Further in this chronicle, under two miniatures, illustrating the above text, it is written that "Kniaz Krum" caught tsar Nicephorus and cut his head. <a href="#ref3">[3, p. 145]</a>
</p><div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eDdsBAFWVFY/WV9gYcD5RqI/AAAAAAAAFXM/J2AWpb055xMTdwYziOmUZH6Pq8GKHLQKgCKgBGAs/s1600/Page-18.jpg"><img alt="Krum finds Nicephorus in tent" border="0" height="510" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eDdsBAFWVFY/WV9gYcD5RqI/AAAAAAAAFXM/J2AWpb055xMTdwYziOmUZH6Pq8GKHLQKgCKgBGAs/w588-h510/Page-18.jpg" width="588" /></a> <p>Krum finds the frightened Nicephorus in his tent</p></div>
<p>In the Arabian Synaxarium (Prologue), that had copied the description of the said battle almost literally from the Greek Synaxarium, under the month of Tammuz (July) day 23, there is the following synopsis:</p><blockquote>In this day, we mention our Christian brothers, who died in the Bulgar lands in the days of tsar Nicephorus who set out with his Army during the ninth year of his reign against the Bulgars, attacked them suddenly, and was deigned with victory at first, and [Nicephorus] won a great victory. But what came to pass after this, is not to be muted but deserves cry and lament. It happened so that, one night, the Bulgars taking advantage of the carelessness of the Greeks, attacked their army, killed the tsar and many other commanders. Those who received deadly blows transcended immediately from our world; those for whom the blows were not deadly hid in the wooded and overgrown places; those who were captured alive suffered numerous tortures because they refused to deny Our Lord Jesus Christ; for some of them their heads were cut with sword; others were deprived of their present life with strangling; thirds were wounded with numerous arrows and transcended from this life. As for the rest, they were imprisoned in dungeons and sentenced to hunger and thirst. In this way, they freed themselves from this world and were wreathed with martyrs' wreaths. <a href="#ref28">[28]</a></blockquote>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G2xbqrEypgM/WV9a1QU0L0I/AAAAAAAAFWg/YWF7JPaNbX0TjYBu3qJCoFOIU5Ek6quMwCKgBGAs/s1600/khankrumpoluchavaglavatanavizantiyskiyaimperatornikifor.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Krum receives head" border="0" height="429" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G2xbqrEypgM/WV9a1QU0L0I/AAAAAAAAFWg/YWF7JPaNbX0TjYBu3qJCoFOIU5Ek6quMwCKgBGAs/w597-h429/khankrumpoluchavaglavatanavizantiyskiyaimperatornikifor.jpg" width="597" /></a> <p>Knyaz Krum receives the head of the Byzantine Emperor Nikephorus. Painting by Nikolay Pavlovich (1835-1894)</p></div><p>According to tradition, Krum had the Emperor's skull lined with silver and used it as a drinking cup. From the Byzantine (Christian) point of view, this act is an expression of the barbaric Bulgar customs, and is nothing more than sacrilege and a humiliation of Nicephorus. One must take into account, however, that according to the pagan religion of the Bulgars, the strength of the enemy, residing in his head, dissolves in the wine, and transfers to the blood of the person who drinks from the skull, making him invincible. The most powerful ruler of Europe had been vanquished, and Krum accepted his power by drinking from his skull. With this, he did not humiliate the Emperor; on the contrary, he acknowledged Nicephorus's power and wished it to be passed to himself by drinking from his skull. Evidently, Krum did not share Theophanes' opinion that Nicephorus was an incompetent commander leading a riff-raff army; quite on the contrary, Krum thought highly of the strength of the Byzantine army and the military ability of Nicephorus. As is seen by Krum's repeated humble peace proposals, he did not underestimate even for a moment Nicephorus as his adversary. There is no evidence for Krum making drinking cups from the heads of other commanders that he defeated: the Avar khagan and Michael Rangabe; probably he did not consider them great enough for these rites.</p>
<h2>Location of catastrophe</h2>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7bXpWo0j4eU/WV9bOYEQOJI/AAAAAAAAFWo/kNpEe1JMgA0V_LHVpDIsDan5TqdI_8hxQCKgBGAs/s1600/Battle_of_VC483rbitsa_Pass.png" target="_blank"><img alt="Battle of Varbitsa Pass" border="0" height="672" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7bXpWo0j4eU/WV9bOYEQOJI/AAAAAAAAFWo/kNpEe1JMgA0V_LHVpDIsDan5TqdI_8hxQCKgBGAs/w649-h672/Battle_of_VC483rbitsa_Pass.png" width="649" /></a> <p>Map of the Battle in the Pass</p></div> <p>Although historians are unanimous about the timing of the last battle, in which Nicephorus I Genik was killed (July 26, 811), there is some disagreement about the exact location of the battle. It must be noted that although Theophanes writes about this event in great detail as a contemporary and also according to the narratives of participants, he does not give any topographic names that can pinpoint the place of the catastrophe; therefore, this place is designated differently by different authors. Thus, Konstantin Jireček <a href="#ref12">[12]</a> thinks that the invasion of Nicephorus as well as his defeat happened in the Veregava and Vărbitsa Passes because the latter had been opened until 8th or 9th century at the latest. Brothers V. and K. Škorpil <a href="#ref29">[29]</a> tried to prove that the catastrophe happened in the Kotel Pass, and they even tried to place the Bulgar and Romean positions. They based their opinion on a local legend that "here Bulgars and Greeks fought, and there was a maiden named Vida, who by discerning the rampart on the near peak, facilitated the Bulgar army" and that in "Greek Hollow" (between the Vid Peak (Kăstepe) and Razboyna Mountain) fell 16,000 Greeks together with their tsar. Later, K. Škorpil softened his earlier opinion by suggesting that Nicephoras' army was returning from Aboba (Pliska) towards Vărbitsa and in Vărbitsa Pass they were repulsed by Krum towards the Kotel Pass where the fighting took place in the so-called "Greek Hollow". But immediately after this, he writes: "According to legend, the fighting between Bulgars and Greeks took place in the locality "Razboy" between the villages Krumovo (Chatalar) and Divdyadovo (on the southern slopes of the Shumen Plateau) in the vicinity of Aboba (Pliska). We think, however, that a more probable location for the fight between Krum and Nicephorus is the Rish Valley, which, being surrounded by mountains, corresponds to Nicephorus' words. Krum could retreat to Marcelae through Veregava Pass and the said valley." <a href="#ref30">[30]</a> The last paragraph shows that K. Škorpil has abandoned his earlier opinion and maintains that the catastrophe occurred in the Veregava (=Chalăka) or Rish Passes. J. B. Bury, however, thinks that Veregava Pass is not the right location of the fight: "So far as we can divine, he permitted the enemy to lure him into the contiguous pass of Verbits, where a narrow defile was blocked by wooden fortifications which small garrisons could defend against multitudes. Here, perhaps, in what is called to-day the Greek Hollow, where tradition declares that many Greeks once met their death, the army found itself enclosed as in a trap." <a href="#ref11">[11, p. 344]</a> As we see, Bury accepts the earlier opinion of K. Škorpil; however, he mistakes Vărbitsa Pass with Kotel Pass in ascribing the location of "Greek Hollow".</p>
<p>The following objections can be raised against the opinion that Kotel Pass was the location of the battle: First of all, it is too risky to rely on local legends for determining the location of historic events, if those are not supported, at least in part, by literature data. This precaution is necessary especially with the issue at hand, first, because such legends for Nicephorus' defeat exist in many places throughout Eastern Bulgaria (around Shumen and Preslav), not only among Bulgarian but also among the Turkish population there, and second, because those legends cannot be considered to go back to old times: they were created relatively recently, during Bulgarian Renaissance and rediscovery of Bulgarian history. This is best exemplified by the name "Greek Hollow". This name in the mouth of old Kotel citizens sounds "Grăshki" and according to some "Grishki" or "Grashki" (=Pea Hollow), or even as in Bury, "Groshki" (=Penny Hollow) so that etymology can have completely different meaning.</p><p>Without doubt, however, the best evidence can be found in the chronological data in Theophanes' account. As we saw above, Nicephorus entered the Bulgar territory through the border fortress Marcelae on July 20. The first 3 days he spent on the move in skirmishes with the Bulgars, and when he entered the mountain pass, he chose steep paths, so that on the fourth day, July 23, he could enter into the residence of the Bulgar knyaz. One cannot believe the words of Theophanes that Nicephores plundered and killed the population of the town, and then burned Krums' palaces only in one day, and immediately went back; because, as we saw, Krum, even after the plunder, negotiated for peace, probably to gain time while blocking the entrances and the exits of the pass, which happened on the 5th and the 6th day (Thursday and Friday) while Nicephorus was still in Pliska. Evidently, he left on the 6th day because on the 7th day (Saturday) on July 26 at dawn the Bulgars were already attacking Nicephorus' tent. It is hardly conceivable that in such a short time the Byzantians would reach the peaks Vetrila and Vid in the Kotel Pass and take good strategoical positions, and Nicephorus make a military camp in the locality "Karenika" in the Kotel Pass. Moreover, Nicephorus learned about the Bulgar fortifications while he was on the move and was already inside the pass, and this happened in the night of the 7th day, because if he knew before that he wouldn't want "to have wings" but would seek another way to retreat. The confusion and panic in the Byzantine army show that it was attacked without warning, so that it is unconceivable that Nicephorus would have time to fortify and choose "important positions" and, in general, to prepare for battle. All this shows that the defeat of Nicephorus happened not far from Krum's residence and this can be in the Chalăka or the Vărbitsa Passes. It is hard to say which one; however, if we take into account that Nicephorus chose the shortest way for retreat, it is more probable that Nicephorus chose the Vărbitsa pass, through which he entered into Bulgaria. <a href="#ref9">[9, p.58]</a></p>
<p>On the basis of calculation of distances and speeds of movement, using partly our data plus additional measurements and considerations, Vasile Mărculeţ <a href="#ref31">[31]</a> does not agree that the battle took place in Vъrbitsa, Kotel, Rish, Veselinovo passes or in Ticha (Kamchia) Valley, and proposes, as a hypothesis, two possible new locations.</p>
<p>The first hypothesis has as its starting point the assumption that, after leaving Pliska, the Byzantine forces headed southwest, crossed Stara Planina via Vărbitsa Pass, following up at this point one of the itineraries they had penetrated into Bulgaria, then headed west through the passage between Stara Planina and Mt Sredna Gora. The battle could have taken place in Mărculeţ's opinion, at the western end of the passage between the two mountain ranges, in the area of Klisura, on the river Stryama, the ancient Syrmos. In this case, the Byzantine forces traveled in the 15 days of march from Pliska to Klisura about 320 km, which means a pace of movement of 22 km or 14 miles a day.</p>
<p>The second hypothesis starts from the assumption that, after leaving Pliska, the Byzantine troops headed west, crossed the Pre-Balkan Plateau to the Troyan area, on the upper course of the river Osъm. In Mărculeţ's opinion, the first two phases of the Bulgarian-Byzantine battles, may have taken place at the entrance to the Troyan Pass. The third phase could probably have taken place at the exit of the same pass. In such eventuality, the Byzantine forces crossed, in the 15 march days, a distance of about 290 km, having a travel pace of more than 19 km or about 13 miles a day. Through the information regarding the riches of the area, transmitted by the Scriptor Incertus <a href="#ref2">[2]</a>, which reveals an agricultural region par excellence, specific to the Pre-Balkan Plateau, Mărculeţ believes this hypothesis as the most plausible. <a href="#ref31">[31]</a></p>
<h2>Aftermath</h2>The defeat was the worst the empire had faced since the Battle of Adrianopol over 400 years earlier, when the Eastern Roman forces were defeated by the Visigoths and Emperor Valens himself was killed. It was a stupendous blow to the Imperial prestige—to the legend of the Emperor’s sacrosanctity, so carefully fostered to impress the barbarians. Moreover, the Visigoths that slew Valens had been mere nomads, destined soon to pass away to other lands; the Bulgars were barbarians settled at the gate, and determined—more so now than ever—to remain there. The military might of the Empire was severely crippled and the memory of this catastrophe never paled among Byzantines while the Bulgars would ever be heartened by the memory of their triumph. <a href="#ref9">[9, p.58]</a> Stauracius, the new emperor, had been wounded and was ineffectual as emperor; he was deposed and succeeded by his brother-in-law Michael I Rangabe a month later. <a href="#ref4">[4, p. 17]</a>
<div class="image" style="font-size:smaller; text-align:center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ev7_GBST-4A/WV9bpW4QECI/AAAAAAAAFWs/Heoa4RQxKLciB8wrs4QcYVkQBHaI2GXigCKgBGAs/s1600/Krum_celebrates.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Skull cup" border="0" height= src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ev7_GBST-4A/WV9bpW4QECI/AAAAAAAAFWs/Heoa4RQxKLciB8wrs4QcYVkQBHaI2GXigCKgBGAs/w507-h665/Krum_celebrates.jpg" width= /></a> <p>Knyaz Krum feasts after the victory over Nicephorus I Genik. <a href="#ref3">[3]</a> Inscription (in Old Bulgarian Slavic): "<i>Krum Kniaz encased the head of tsar Nicephores and drank to the health of Bulgars</i>."</p></div>
<p>For Bulgaria, this victory had tremendous importance: it not only saved it from the great threat from Byzantium and returned all the lands taken from them, but strengthened all Bulgar conquests in the West together with Serdika and secured them from future attacks by Byzantine emperors, for whom Bulgaria became a permanent threat. For a long time, until the reign of John I Tzimiskes (<i>ca.</i> 970), Byzantines were afraid to pass the Balkan Mountains. Krum had good reason to be exultant. The whole effect of Constantine Copronymus’ long campaigns had been wiped out in one battle. He could face the Empire now in the position of conqueror of the Emperor, on equal terms, at a height never reached by Isperih or Tervel. Henceforward he would not have to fight for the existence of his country; he could fight for conquest and for annexation. Moreover, in his own country his position was assured; no one now would dare dispute the authority of the victorious knyaz. He could not have done a more useful deed to strengthen the Bulgar crown. Moreover, this victory elevated the image of the Bulgar knyaz in the eyes of Macedonian Slavs and with this opened a way for extension of the Bulgar state to the southwest. This pride of Krum is most clearly evident in the story about Nicephorus' head:</p><blockquote>As he cut the head of Nicephorus, Krum put it on a stake for several days to show it to the tribes coming to him to our disgrace. After that he took it, plated it with silver from the outside and proudly made the Slav knyazes [princes] drink from it. <a href="#ref1">[1, p. 491]</a></blockquote><p>Content with their victory, the Bulgars did not at once follow it up with an invasion. But late next spring (812) Krum attacked the Imperial fortress of Develtus, a busy city at the head of the Gulf of Burgas, commanding the coast road to the south. It could not hold out long against the Bulgars. Krum dismantled the fortress, as he had done at Serdika, and transported the inhabitants, with their bishop and all, away into the heart of his kingdom. In June the new Emperor Michael set out to meet the Bulgars; but the news that he was too late to save the city, together with a slight mutiny in his army, made him turn back while he was still in Thrace. His inaction and the Bulgar victories terrified the inhabitants of the frontier cities. They saw the enemy overrunning all the surrounding country, and they determined to save themselves as best they could. The smaller frontier forts, Probatum and Thracian Nicaea, were abandoned by their population; even the population of Anchialus (today Pomorie) and Thracian Berrhoea (today Stara Zagora), whose defences Empress Irene had recently repaired, fled to districts out of reach of the heathen hordes. The infection spread to the great metropolis-fortress of Western Thrace, Philippopolis (today Plovdiv), which was left half-deserted, and thence to the Macedonian cities, Philippi and Strymon. In these last cities it was chiefly the Asiatics transported there by Nicephorus that fled, overjoyed at the opportunity of returning to their homes. Over the next two years, Krum was able to attack the empire in the vicinity of Constantinople itself, although he was never able to take the city. Michael attempted to recover from the loss, but was defeated in 813 at the Battle of Versinikia. After this victory, Krum began preparations for a direct attack against the Byzantine capital. During these preparations, according to Scriptor Incertus, he gathered a large army, including his allies the Avars and "all Slavinias" (καὶ πάσας τὰς Σκλαβινίας). <a href="#ref2">[2]</a> This fragment is very revealing, attesting to the existing military agreement between the Bulgar state and the Slavs from the Bulgar-Thracian group outside its territory who saw Bulgaria as their natural political and ethnic center. By "all Slavinias" we must understand the Slavic tribes, primarily in Thrace and Macedonia, who were still under the Byzantine rule and who hoped that after a joint attack against the then weakened Byzantine Empire they could win at last their freedom and political independency. Through his alliance with "all Slavinias" Krum followed his policy of unification which the Bulgar knyazes initiated since the beginning of 8th century and which at that moment had every chance to succeed. However, Krum died unexpectedly in 814, amid the military preparations.</p>
<h2>Krum function in mathematics and machine learning</h2>
<p>The growing amount of available data and complex machine learning models have led to the need for distributed learning schemes that require significant computational resources. However, distributing computation over several machines increases the risk of failures such as crashes, computation errors, stalled processes, biases in data distribution, and even attacks that compromise the system. The majority of learning algorithms used today rely on stochastic gradient descent (SGD), which involves minimizing a cost function based on stochastic estimates of its gradient. Distributed implementations of SGD typically involve a single parameter server that updates the parameter vector, while worker processes estimate the update based on the data they have access to. During each learning round, the parameter server broadcasts the parameter vector to the workers, who compute an estimate of the update, and the parameter server aggregates their results to update the parameter vector. The following problem arises in this process, called The Byzantine Generals Problem.</p>
<h3>The Byzantine Generals Problem</h3>
<p>We imagine that several divisions of the Byzantine army are camped outside an enemy city, each division commanded by its own strategos (general). The strategoi can communicate with one another only by messenger. After observing the enemy, they must decide upon a common plan of action. However, some of the strategoi may be traitors, trying to prevent the loyal strategoi from reaching agreement. The strategoi must have an algorithm to guarantee that</p>
<p>A. All loyal strategoi decide upon the same plan of action.</p>
<p>The loyal strategoi will all do what the algorithm says they should, but the traitors may do anything they wish. The algorithm must guarantee condition A regardless of what the traitors do. The loyal strategoi should not only reach agreement, but should agree upon a reasonable plan. We therefore also want to insure that</p>
<p>B. A small number of traitors cannot cause the loyal strategoi to adopt a bad plan.</p>
<p>Condition B is hard to formalize, since it requires saying precisely what a bad plan is, and we do not attempt to do so. Instead, we consider how the strategoi reach a decision. Each strategos observes the enemy and communicates his observations to the others. Let <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>) be the information communicated by the <i>i</i>th
strategos. Each strategos uses some method for combining the values <i>v</i>(1) ..... <i>v</i>(<i>n</i>) into a single plan of action, where <i>n</i> is the number of strategoi. Condition A is achieved by having all strategoi use the same method for combining the information, and Condition B is achieved by using a robust method. For example, if the only decision to be made is whether to attack or retreat, then <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>) can be Strategos <i>i</i>'s opinion of which option is best, and the final decision can be based upon a majority vote among them. A small number of traitors can affect the decision only if the loyal strategoi were almost equally divided between the two possibilities, in which case neither decision could be called bad.</p>
<p>While this approach may not be the only way to satisfy conditions A and B, it is the only one we know of. It assumes a method by which the strategoi communicate their values <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>) to one another. The obvious method is for the <i>i</i>th strategoi to send <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>) by messenger to each other strategos. However, this does not work, because satisfying condition A requires that every loyal strategos obtain the same values <i>v</i>(1) ..... <i>v</i>(<i>n</i>), and a traitorous strategos may send different values to different strategoi. For condition A to be satisfied, the following must be true:</p>
<p>1. Every loyal strategos must obtain the same information <i>v</i>(1) .... , <i>v</i>(<i>n</i>). Condition 1 implies that a strategos cannot necessarily use a value of <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>) obtained directly from the <i>i</i>th strategos, since a traitorous <i>i</i>th strategos may send different values to different strategoi. This means that unless we are careful, in meeting condition 1 we might introduce the possibility that the strategoi use a value of <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>) different from the one sent by the <i>i</i>th strategos – even though the <i>i</i>th strategos is loyal. We must not allow this to happen if condition B is to be met. For example, we cannot permit a few traitors to cause the loyal strategoi to base their decision upon the values <q>retreat</q>,..., <q>retreat</q> if every loyal strategos sent the value <q>attack</q>. We therefore have the following requirement for each <i>i</i>:</p>
<p>2. If the ith strategos is loyal, then the value that he sends must be used by every loyal strategos as the value of <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>).</p>
<p>We can rewrite condition 1 as the condition that for every <i>i</i> (whether or not the <i>i</i>th strategos is loyal),</p>
<p>1'. Any two loyal strategoi use the same value of <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>).</p>
<p>Conditions 1' and 2 are both conditions on the single value sent by the <i>i</i>th strategos. We can therefore restrict our consideration to the problem of how a single strategos sends his value to the others. We phrase this in terms of a commanding strategos sending an order to his hypostrategoi, obtaining the following problem.</p>
<p><b><i>Byzantine Generals Problem.</i></b> A commanding strategos must send an order to his <i>n</i> – 1 hypostrategoi such that</p>
<p>IC1. All loyal hypostrategoi obey the same order.</p>
<p>IC2. If the commanding strategos is loyal, then every loyal hypostrategos obeys the order he sends.</p>
<p>Conditions IC1 and IC2 are called the interactive consistency conditions. Note that if the commander is loyal, then IC1 follows from IC2. However, the commander need not be loyal.</p>
<p>To solve our original problem, the <i>i</i>th strategos sends his value of <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>) by using a solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem to send the order <q>use <i>v</i>(<i>i</i>) as my value</q>, with the other strategoi acting as the hypostrategoi.</p>
<h4>Impossibility condition</h4>
<p>The Byzantine Generals Problem seems deceptively simple. Its difficulty is indicated by the surprising fact that if the strategos can send only oral messages,
then no solution will work unless more than two-thirds of the strategoi are loyal. In particular, with only three strategoi, no solution can work in the presence of a
single traitor. An oral message is one whose contents are completely under the control of the sender, so a traitorous sender can transmit any possible message. Such a message corresponds to the type of message that computers normally send to one another.</p>
<p>We now show that with oral messages no solution for three strategoi can handle a single traitor. For simplicity, we consider the case in which the only possible decisions are <q>attack</q> or <q>retreat</q>. Let us first examine the scenario pictured in which the commander is loyal and sends an <q>attack</q> order, but Hypostrategos 2 is a traitor and reports to Hypostrategos 1 that he received a <q>retreat</q> order. For IC2 to be satisfied, Hypostrategos 1 must obey the order to attack.</p>
<p>Now consider another scenario, in which the commanding strategos is a traitor and sends an "attack" order to Hypostrategos 1 and a "retreat" order to Hypostrategos 2. Hypostrategos 1 does not know who the traitor is, and he cannot tell what message the commander actually sent to Hypostrategos 2. Hence, the scenarios in these two pictures appear exactly the same to Hypostrategos 1. If the traitor lies consistently, then there is no way for Hypostrategos 1 to distinguish between these two situations, so he must obey the <q>attack</q> order in both of them. Hence, whenever Hypostrategos 1 receives an "attack" order from the commander, he must obey it.</p>
<p>However, a similar argument shows that if Hypostrategos 2 receives a <q>retreat</q> order from the commander then he must obey it even if Hypostrategos 1 tells him that the commander said <q>attack</q>. Therefore, Hypostrategos 2 must obey the <q>retreat</q> order while Hypostrategos 1 obeys the <q>attack</q> order, thereby violating condition IC1. Hence, no solution exists for three hypostrategoi that works in the presence of a single traitor.</p>
<p>This argument may appear convincing, but we strongly advise the reader to be very suspicious of such nonrigorous reasoning. Although this result is indeed correct, we have seen equally plausible <q>proofs</q> of invalid results. We know of no area in computer science or mathematics in which informal reasoning is more likely to lead to errors than in the study of this type of algorithm. For a rigorous proof of the impossibility of a three-strategoi solution that can handle a single traitor, we refer the reader to <a href="#ref40">[40]</a>.</p>
<p>Using this result, we can show that no solution with fewer than 3<i>m</i> + 1 strategoi can cope with <i>m</i> traitors. The proof is by contradiction – we assume such a solution for a group of 3<i>m</i> or fewer and use it to construct a three-strategoi solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem that works with one traitor, which we know to be impossible. To avoid confusion between the two algorithms, we call the generals of the assumed solution Bulgarian boili, and those of the constructed solution Byzantine strategoi. Thus, starting from an algorithm that allows 3<i>m</i> or fewer Bulgarian boili to cope with <i>m</i> traitors, we construct a solution that allows three Byzantine strategoi to handle a single traitor.</p>
<p>The three-strategoi solution is obtained by having each of the Byzantine strategoi simulate approximately one-third of the Bulgarian boili, so that each Byzantine strategos is simulating at most <i>m</i> Bulgarian boili. The Byzantine commander simulates the Bulgarian commander plus at most <i>m</i> – 1 Bulgarian boili, and each of the two Byzantine hypostrategoi simulates at most <i>m</i> Bulgarian boili. Since only one Byzantine strategos can be a traitor, and he simulates at most <i>m</i> Bulgarians, at most <i>m</i> of the Bulgarian boili are traitors. Hence, the assumed solution guarantees that IC1 and IC2 hold for the Bulgarian boili. By IC1, all the Bulgarian boili being simulated by a loyal Byzantine hypostraategos obey the same order, which is the order he is to obey. It is easy to check that conditions IC1 and IC2 of the Bulgarian boili solution imply the corresponding conditions for the Byzantine strategoi, so we have constructed the required impossible solution.</p>
<p>One might think that the difficulty in solving the Byzantine Generals Problem stems from the requirement of reaching exact agreement. We now demonstrate that this is not the case by showing that reaching approximate agreement is just as hard as reaching exact agreement. Let us assume that instead of trying to agree on a precise battle plan, the strategoi must agree only upon an approximate time of attack. More precisely, we assume that the commander orders the time of the attack, and we require the following two conditions to hold:</p>
<p>IC1'. All loyal hypostrategoi attack within 10 minutes of one another.</p>
<p>IC2'. If the commanding strategos is loyal, then every loyal hypostrategos attacks within 10 minutes of the time given in the commander's order.</p>
<p>(We assume that the orders are given and processed the day before the attack and that the time at which an order is received is irrelevant – only the attack time given in the order matters.)</p>
<p>Like the Byzantine Generals Problem, this problem is unsolvable unless more than two-thirds of the strategoi are loyal. We prove this by first showing that if there were a solution for three strategoi that coped with one traitor, then we could construct a three-strategoi solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem that also worked in the presence of one traitor. Suppose the commander wishes to send an <q>attack</q> or <q>retreat</q> order. He orders an attack by sending an attack time of 1:00 and orders a retreat by sending an attack time of 2:00, using the assumed algorithm. Each hypostrategos uses the following procedure to obtain his order.</p>
<ol>
<li>After receiving the attack time from the commander, a hypostrategos does one of the following:</li>
<ol type="a">
<li>If the time is 1:10 or earlier, then attack.</li>
<li>If the time is 1:50 or later, then retreat.</li>
<li>Otherwise, continue to step (2).</li>
</ol>
<li>Ask the other hypostrategos what decision he reached in step (1).</li>
<ol type="a">
<li>If the other hypostrategos reached a decision, then make the same decision he did.</li>
<li>Otherwise, retreat.</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<p>It follows from IC2' that if the commander is loyal, then a loyal hypostrategos will obtain the correct order in step (1), so IC2 is satisfied. If the commander is loyal, then IC1 follows from IC2, so we need only prove IC1 under the assumption that the commander is a traitor. Since there is at most one traitor, this means that both hypostrategoi are loyal. It follows from ICI' that if one hypostrategos decides to attack in step (1), then the other cannot decide to retreat in step (1). Hence, either they will both come to the same decision in step (1) or at least one of them will defer his decision until step (2). In this case, it is easy to see that they both arrive at the same decision, so IC1 is satisfied. We have therefore constructed a three-strategoi solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem that handles one traitor, which is impossible. Hence, we cannot have a three-strategoi algorithm that maintains ICI' and IC2' in the presence of a traitor.</p>
<p>The method of having one strategos simulate <i>m</i> others can now be used to prove that no solution with fewer than 3<i>m</i> + 1 strategoi can cope with <i>m</i> traitors. The proof is similar to the one for the original Byzantine Generals Problem and is left to the reader.</p>
<h4>A solution with oral messages</h4>
<p>We showed above that for a solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem using oral messages to cope with <i>m</i> traitors, there must be at least 3<i>m</i> + 1 strategoi. We now give a solution that works for 3<i>m</i> + 1 or more strategoi. However, we first specify exactly what we mean by "oral messages". Each strategoa is supposed to execute some algorithm that involves sending messages to the other strategoi, and we assume that a loyal strategos correctly executes his algorithm. The definition of an oral message is embodied in the following assumptions which we make for the strategos message system:</p>
<ul>
<li>A1. Every message that is sent is delivered correctly.</li>
<li>A2. The receiver of a message knows who sent it.</li>
<li>A3. The absence of a message can be detected.</li>
</ul>
<p>Assumptions A1 and A2 prevent a traitor from interfering with the communication between two other strategoi, since by A1 he cannot interfere with the messages they do send, and by A2 he cannot confuse their intercourse by introducing spurious messages. Assumption A3 will foil a traitor who tries to prevent a decision by simply not sending messages. The practical implementation of these assumptions is discussed below.</p>
<p>The following algorithms require that each strategos be able to send messages directly to every other strategos. Later, we describe algorithms which do not have this requirement.</p>
<p>A traitorous commander may decide not to send any order. Since the hypostrategoi must obey some order, they need some default order to obey in this case. We let RETREAT be this default order.</p>
<p>We inductively define the Oral Message algorithms OM(<i>m</i>), for all nonnegative integers <i>m</i>, by which a commander sends an order to <i>n</i> - 1 hypostrategoi. We show that OM(<i>m</i>) solves the Byzantine Generals Problem for 3<i>m</i> + 1 or more strategoi in the presence of at most <i>m</i> traitors. We find it more convenient to describe this algorithm in terms of the hypostrategoi "obtaining a value" rather than "obeying an order".</p>
The algorithm assumes a function majority with the property that if a majority
of the values vi equal v, then majority (Vl,.. •, v,-D equals v. (Actually, it assumes
a sequence of such functions--one for each n.) There are two natural choices for
the value of majority(v1, ..., v,-1):
1. The majority value among the vi if it exists, otherwise the value RETREAT;
2. The median of the vi, assuming that they come from an ordered set.
The following algorithm requires only the aforementioned property of majority.
Algorithm OM(0).
(1) The commander sends his value to every lieutenant.
(2) Each lieutenant uses the value he receives from the commander, or uses the value
RETREAT if he receives no value.
Algorithm OM(m), m > O.
(1) The commander sends his value to every lieutenant.
(2) For each i, let vi be the value Lieutenant i receives from the commander, or else be
RETREAT if he re :eives no value. Lieutenant i acts as the commander in Algorithm
OM(m - 1) to send the value vi to each of the n - 2 other lieutenants.
(3) For each i, and each j ~ i, let vj be the value Lieutenant i received from Lieutenant j
in step (2) (using Algorithm OM(m - 1)), or else RETREAT if he received no such
value. Lieutenant i uses the value majority (vl ..... v,-1 ).
<p>The most robust system tolerates Byzantine failures, which are completely arbitrary behaviors of some processes. A classical approach to mask failures in distributed systems is to use a state machine replication protocol, but in the case of distributed machine learning, this requires all worker processes to agree on a sample of data or how the parameter vector should be updated. However, these solutions are not satisfactory in realistic distributed machine learning settings because they entail significant communication and computational costs, defeating the purpose of distributing the work, and they do not prevent Byzantine processes from proposing updates that prevent the convergence of the learning algorithm.</p>
<p> However, this aggregation can be challenging to devise to tolerate Byzantine processes among the workers, as a single Byzantine worker can prevent any classic averaging-based approach from converging. In Blanchard et al. (2017) paper <a href="#ref37">[37]</a>, the authors show that no linear combination of updates proposed by the workers can tolerate a single Byzantine worker, and a non-linear, squared-distance-based aggregation rule that selects the vector closest to the barycenter can only tolerate a single Byzantine worker. Two Byzantine workers can collude to move the barycenter farther from the correct area, making it challenging to choose the appropriate aggregation of the vectors proposed by the workers.</p>
<p>The paper <a href="#ref37">[37]</a> discusses how stochastic gradient descent (SGD) is used in various learning algorithms and its implementation in distributed settings where a parameter server broadcasts the parameter vector to worker processes that compute an estimate of the update. However, the presence of Byzantine workers, who may provide malicious updates, can prevent classic averaging-based approaches from converging. The authors propose an aggregation rule, Krum (named for Knyaz Krum (Greek Κρούμος) of the end of the eighth century, who undertook offensive attacks against the Byzantine empire. Bulgaria doubled in size during his reign), that selects the vector closest to its <i>n</i> – <i>f</i> neighbors to ensure resilience to Byzantine workers.</p>
<p>Krum is also evaluated experimentally and is compared to classical averaging, confirming that Krum can stand Byzantine attacks while averaging does not. Krum is also evaluated for its learning speed and is shown to perform well with a reasonable mini-batch size. The paper <a href="#ref37">[37]</a> also discusses Multi-Krum, a variant of Krum that outperforms other aggregation rules like the medoid, inspired by the geometric median. satisfies a resilience property and has a (local) time complexity linear in the dimension of the gradient. The authors show that the machine learning scheme converges under Krum, which selects only one vector, and discuss other variants.</p>
<p>A Krum function is an aggregation rule that is used to achieve Byzantine-resilient distributed stochastic gradient descent (SGD).<a href="#ref37">[37]</a> It is based on the Euclidean distance between the gradients proposed by different workers in a distributed machine learning system. The Krum function selects the gradient that has the smallest sum of distances to <i>n</i> – <i>f</i> – 1 other gradients, where <i>n</i> is the total number of workers and <i>f</i> is the number of Byzantine workers.<a href="#ref38">[38]</a></p>
<p>More formally, let <i>X</i> be a set of <i>n</i> points in <i>d</i>-dimensional Euclidean space, and let <i>x</i> be a point in <i>X</i>. The Krum function <i>Kr</i>(<i>x</i>) is defined as:</p>
<i>Kr</i>(<i>x</i>) = ∑ ||<i>x</i> – <i>x</i><sub>i</sub>||<sup>2</sup>
<p>where <i>x</i><sub>i</sub> is the <i>i</i>-th nearest neighbor of <i>x</i>, and ||.|| denotes the Euclidean norm.</p>
<p>The Krum function can guarantee convergence despite <i>f</i> Byzantine workers, as long as 2<i>f</i> + 2 < <i>n</i>.<a href="#ref37">[37]</a></p>
<p>The Krum function is often used in multi-worker systems, where each worker has a set of local observations and must make a decision based on those observations. The Krum function can be used to aggregate the observations of the workers and select a decision that is robust to the presence of Byzantines (outliers or malicious workers).</p>
<p>The challenges of dealing with Byzantine behavior in distributed asynchronous machine learning systems, caused by hardware or software failures, corrupt data, or malicious attacks were further addressed by Damaskinos et al. (2018) <a href="#ref39">[39]</a> who proposed Kardam, the first asynchronous algorithm that can cope with such behavior by utilizing a filtering and a dampening component. As we know, Kardam was a Bulgarian knyaz who pre-empted the Byzantine empire’s invasion. He was the predecessor of Krum (Blanchard et al., 2017) <a href="#ref37">[37]</a>, the Bulgarian knyaz who gave his name to the first provable solution for the synchronous Byzantine SGD problem.</p>
<p>The filtering component of the Kardam algorithm ensures resilience against one-third of Byzantine workers, while the dampening component adjusts to stale information through gradient weighting. Damaskinos et al. (2018) <a href="#ref39">[39]</a> prove that Kardam guarantees convergence in the presence of asynchrony and Byzantine behavior and evaluate it on CIFAR100 and EMNIST datasets. They show that Kardam induces a slowdown due to the cost of Byzantine resilience, which is less than <i>f/n</i>, where <i>f</i> is the number of Byzantine failures tolerated, and <i>n</i> is the total number of workers. The dampening component is also shown to be useful in building an SGD algorithm that outperforms other asynchronous competitors in environments with honest workers.</p>
<h1>Sources</h1>
<h3>Primary sources</h3>
<p><a name="ref1">1. </a>Theophanes the Confessor, <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chronographia/Chapter_61">Chronographia</a>, Ed. Carl de Boor, vol. I, 1883, vol. II, 1885, Leipzig.</p>
<p><a name="ref2">2. </a><a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Scriptor_Incertus">Scriptor Incertus</a>. Anonymous Vatican Narration (Narratio anonyma e codice Vaticano), In: Codice Vaticano graeca 2014 (XII s.) ff. 119-122; Ivan Duychev (1936) New Biographic Data on the Bulgarian Expedition of Nicephorus I in 811, Proc. Bulg. Acad. Sci. 54:147-188 (in Bulgarian); H. Grégoire (1936) Un nouveau fragment du "Scriptor incertus de Leone Armenio", Byzantion, 11:417-427; Beshevliev, V (1936) The New Source About the Defeat of Nicephorus I in Bulgaria in 811, Sofia University Annual Reviews, 33:2 (In Bulgarian).</p>
<p><a name="ref3">3. </a>Mannases Chronicle, 1335-1340. Apostolic Library. The Vatican.</p>
<p><a name="ref4">4. </a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_the_Syrian" title="Michael the Syrian">Michael the Syrian</a>, <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/ow/4321714" rel="nofollow">Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199)</a>, published by Jean Baptiste Chabot (in French). 1st Ed. Paris : Ernest Leroux, 1899-1910, OCLC 39485852; 2nd Ed. Bruxelles: Culture et Civilisation, 1963, OCLC 4321714</p>
<p><a name="ref5">5. </a>B. Flusin (trans.), J.-C. Cheynet (ed.), <i>Jean Skylitzès: Empereurs de Constantinople</i>, Ed. Lethielleux, 2004, ISBN 2-283-60459-1.</p>
<p><a name="ref6">6. </a>Joannes Zonaras. Epitome historiarum, ed. L. Dindorfii, 6 vol., Lipsiae (BT), 1858—75. <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epitomae_Historiarum/Chapter_24" title="s:Epitomae Historiarum/Chapter 24">Epitomae Historiarum/Chapter 24</a> in <i>Epitomae Historiarum</i> by Ioannis Zonarae.</p>
<p><a name="ref25">25. </a>Georgius Monachus. Chronicon, p.774</p>
<p><a name="ref26">26. </a>Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Chronographia tripertita, p.329</p>
<h3>Secondary sources</h3>
<a name="ref7">7. </a>Bozhilov, Ivan, and Gyuzelev, Vasil. 1999. History of Bulgaria. Vol. 1: History of Medieval Bulgaria 7-14 c. AD. Anubis Publishing, Sofia, ISBN 954-426-204-0. (in Bulgarian)
<p><a name="ref8">8. </a>Zlatarski, Vasil N. 1918 (in Bulgarian). <a href="http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/vz1a/index.html">Medieval History of the Bulgarian State, Vol I: History of the First Bulgarian Empire, Part I: Age of Hun-Bulgar Domination (679-852)</a>. Sofia: Science and Arts Publishers, 2nd Edition (Petar Petrov, Ed.), Zahari Stoyanov Publishers, 4th Edition, 2006. ISBN 9547366284.</p>
<p><a name="ref9">9. </a>Runciman, Steven (1930). <a href="http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-history-of-the-first-bulgarian-empire-by-steven-runciman.jsp">A History of the First Bulgarian Empire</a>. G. Bell & Sons, London.</p>
<p><a name="ref10">10. </a>Fine, Jr., John V.A. (1991). <a href="http://worldcat.org/oclc/59968940&referer=one_hit">The Early Medieval Balkans</a>. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0472081493.</p>
<p><a name="ref11">11. </a>Bury, J.-B. (1912). <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/historyofeastern00buryiala">A History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the fall of Irene to the accession of Basil I (802—867)</a>. Macmillan & Co., Ltd., London. ASIN B000WR1S6Q, OCLC/WorldCat 1903563.</p>
<p><a name="ref12">12. </a>Jireček, K. J. (1876) (in German). <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=VBhThVLpc4MC&pg=PA88&dq=isbn:3487064081&hl=bg&sig=fAZ7WUtHdEDBNEJos4IeObUcFyY">Geschichte der Bulgaren</a>. Nachdr. d. Ausg. Prag 1876, Hildesheim, New York : Olms 1977. ISBN 3-487-06408-1.</p>
<p><a name="ref13">13. </a>István Bóna, <a href="http://vmek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/49.html">Southern Transylvania under Bulgar Rule</a>, Chapter II.6 In: History of Transylvania (Béla Köpeczi, Gen. Ed.), Vol. 1, 2001-2002 Social Science Monographs, Boulder, Colorado; Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc. Highland Lakes, New Jersey</p>
<p><a name="ref14">14. </a> Ivanov, Ivo (June 2007),"The Address of a Victory", <i>Bulgarian Soldier</i> Issue 6 (in Bulgarian)</p>
<p><a name="ref15">15. </a> <a href="http://rdsc.md.government.bg/BG/About/VoennaIstoria/1_08Krum.php" rel="nofollow">Military history of Bulgaria</a></p>
<p><a name="ref21">21. </a>Blasius Kleiner (1761) History of Bulgaria (in Latin), translated in Bulgarian by Karol Telbizov, edited by Ivan Duychev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Publishing House, Sofia 1977</p>
<p><a name="ref22">22. </a>Todorov Dzh.Zh., Stoyanov R.I., Ivanov I.R., and Chalakov I.H. <i>The Lost Town: A History of Sadovo</i> (in Bulgarian)</p>
<p><a name="ref24">24. </a>John Haldon. The Organisation and Support of an Expeditionary Force: Manpower and Logistics in the Middle Byzantine Period. In: Byzantium at War (Edited by Nicolas Oikonomides), Athens: Institute for Byzantine Studies, 1997</p>
<p><a name="ref28">28. </a>А. Васильев, Арабский синаксарь о болгарском походе императора Никифора I. В „Новый сборникъ” статей в честь проф. В. И. Ламанского, Петроград, 1905, стр. 361—362.</p>
<p><a name="ref29">29. </a>Шкорпил В. и К., Някои бележки върху археологическите и историческите изследвания в Тракия, Пловдив 1885.</p>
<p><a name="ref30">30. </a>K. Шкорпил. Материалы для болгарских древностей Абоба-Плиска. Известия Русского Археологическото Института в Константинополе, Х (1905).</p>
<p><a name="ref31">31. </a>Mărculeţ, Vasile. <a href="https://ibn.idsi.md/sites/default/files/imag_file/17_Marculet_compressed.pdf">"Campania împăratului Nikephoros I în Bulgaria (811). Considerații asupra unor aspecte controversate."</a> Tyragetia. Serie nouă 31.1 (2022): 293-309.</p>
<p><a name="ref32">32. </a>Warren Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival 780-842 (Stanford 1988).</p>
<p><a name="ref33">33. </a>J. Haldon, The Byzantine Wars, The History Press (Gateshead 2008).</p>
<p><a name="ref34">34. </a>D.P. Hupchick, The Bulgarian Byzantine Wars for Early Medieval Balkan Hegemony. SilverLined Skulls and Blinded Armies (Palgrave, Macmillan 2017).</p>
<p><a name="ref35">35. </a>P. Niavis, The Reign of the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I (802-811) (Edinburgh 1984).</p>
<p><a name="ref36">36. </a>R. Browning, Byzantium and Bulgaria. A Comparative Study Across the Early Medieval Frontier (London 1975).</p>
<p><a name="ref37">37. </a>Blanchard P., Guerraoui R., El Mhamdi, El M., Stainer J. <a href="https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/file/f4b9ec30ad9f68f89b29639786cb62ef-Paper.pdf">Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent.</a> Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA.</p>
<p><a name="ref38">38. </a>Cong Xie, Oluwasanmi Koyejo, Indranil Gupta. <a href="https://fid3024.github.io/papers/2018%20-%20Generalized%20Byzantine-tolerant%20SGD.pdf">Generalized Byzantine-tolerant SGD</a>. arXiv:1802.10116v3 [cs.DC] 23 Mar 2018</p>
<p><a name="ref39">39. </a>Georgios Damaskinos, El Mahdi El Mhamdi, Rachid Guerraoui, Rhicheek Patra, Mahsa Taziki. <a href="https://proceedings.mlr.press/v80/damaskinos18a/damaskinos18a.pdf">Asynchronous Byzantine Machine Learning (the case of SGD).</a> Proceedings of the 35 th International Conference on Machine Learning, Stockholm, Sweden, PMLR 80, 2018.</p>
<p><a name="ref40">40. </a>Pease, M., Shostak, R., and Lamport, L. Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. J. ACM 27, 2 (Apr. 1980), 228-234.</p>
<h2>Footnotes</h2>
<p><a name="ref16">16. </a>This is the period of the year when Sirius first becomes visible above the eastern horizon at dawn, after a period when it was hidden below the horizon or when it was just above the horizon but hidden by the brightness of the sun. The period of the heliacal rising of the Dog Star determines the Dog Days, or as the Romans called them, <i>caniculares dies</i> (days of the dogs). For the ancient Egyptians, Sirius appeared just before the season of the Nile's flooding, so they used the star as a "watchdog" for that event on which they based the Egyptian calendar.</p>
<p><a name="ref17">17. </a>Brady’s Clavis Calendarium, 1813</p>
<p><a name="ref18">18. </a>For the ancient Greeks, the appearance of Sirius heralded the hot and dry summer. Due to its brightness, Sirius would have been noted to twinkle more in the unsettled weather conditions of early summer. The traditional ancient timing of the Dog Days is the 40 days beginning July 3 and ending August 11; however, at present, due to the precession of the equinoxes, the heliacal rising of Sirius has shifted with 37 days towards the end of the year so that it begins on August 9 and ends on September 17.</p>
<p><a name="ref19">19. </a>The image was made with the help of the astronomy software <a href="http://fourmilab.ch/homeplanet/" rel="nofollow">Home Planet</a>, release 3.3a, with Pliska coordinates <a href="http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Battle_of_Pliska¶ms=43_23_N_27_8_E_" rel="nofollow">43°23′N 27°8′E</a>. Half of the Sun's disk appears above the horizon from the east. The Dog Star (Sirius of the constellation Canis Major (Big Dog)) rises 2 minutes before the Sun (heliacal rising). The moon is late in its last quarter in the constellation Cancer (Crab).</p>
<p><a name="ref20">20. </a>Theophanes (p. 486) gives the exact day in which the expedition set out; however, the original text is damaged so that only the month is legible.</p>
<p><a name="ref23">23. </a>Distance was measured using the distance measuring tool of the free software application Google Earth, version 4.2</p>
<p><a name="ref27">27. </a>Calculated with the freeware program Home Planet, v. 3.3a, Sun/Moon info module.</p>
<h2>Citation</h2>
<p>This preprint can be cited as: Antonov, Lyudmil. Battle of Pliska. ResearchGate DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13680.53767" rel="nofollow">10.13140/RG.2.2.13680.53767</a></p>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-34439533704107409522013-07-11T00:33:00.109-07:002023-02-07T12:31:46.443-08:00Bulgarian compared to other Slavic languages<div class="separator" style="clear: both;font-size:small; float: left; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/b/b6/Derzhavin_NS.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; margin-right:10px;"><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="300" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/b/b6/Derzhavin_NS.jpg"/></a><p><a href="https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87">Acad. Nikolay Sevastyanovich<br /> Derzhavin (1877-1953)</a></p></div>
<p>Bulgarian language is the third written European language after Greek and Latin. It is a pre-Indo-European language that was formed at the time when Bulgarians (known by different names in the contemporary Greek and Latin literature: Thracians, Illirians, Getians, Dacians, Sclavini, Skythians, Bulgars) were formed as a people. According to Academician Nikolay Derzhavin, Bulgarians began to form as a people even before the formation of the Indo-Europeans (9800 years ago).<a href="#ref26">[26]</a> He reached these conclusions on the basis of paleolinguistic analysis. Recent genetic and genomic studies confirm his concepts.</p>
<blockquote>Bulgarians are Bulgarians, not Turks, not Tatars, not Finns, not Huns, not Chuvash, not Slavs, and by their origin they belong to the most ancient pre-Indo-European peoples.</blockquote>
<p>Until the 15th century, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs did not call themselves "Slavs". Until the Middle Ages, the Slavic language was defined as the language of the Bulgarians, not the language of Russians, Poles, Slovaks, Slovenes, etc. In 9 . and 10th century, the Bulgarians spread their writing among these peoples. From the Bulgarian books, these peoples adopted the Old Bulgarian language as their own. But after the conquest of Bulgaria by the Ottomans, these peoples did not want it to be known that they were writing and reading in the language of an enslaved people. That's why they renamed the Old Bulgarian language to <q>Church Slavonic</q>. In the 9th and 10th centuries, when the Preslav and Ohrid book schools spread Bulgarian books throughout Europe, there were no Slavs then. There is no written document from the 7th to the 12th century that speaks of Slavs. Slavs began to be talked about in the 17th century by Peter I and especially Catherine the Great. She could not bear the thought that someone else had given writing to the Russians and embraced the idea of the Benedictine monk of Dalmatian/Croatian origin, Mavro Orbini, that all peoples with similar languages should be called "Slavs". These are practically all the communities that received reading and writing from the Bulgarian literary schools. Thus the Bulgarian merits for the enlightenment of this vast sea of neighboring peoples were displaced and replaced. But then there was no Bulgarian state and there was no way for the Bulgarians to protect the truth.<a href="#ref26">[26]</a>
<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p>Everyone studying the language of Bulgarians will assure that it is as much Slavic as is, e.g., Russian or Serbian. The deeper study in the Bulgarian culture shows that today's Bulgarians cannot be separated from other Slavs and that their ancestors, together with the ancestors of Serbs, Croats, Russians, Slovenes, Poles, and Czechs, were members of the same proto-Indo-European tribe which some time lived on one territory. Moreover, Bulgarians showed their Slavishness before all other Slavs when as early as 9th c. were the first to create Slavic literature and spread enlightment in all Slavic countries. The modern Bulgarian language, in spite of some non-Slavic traits, is still pure Slavic language because if one looks closer into these non-Slavic traits, he will see that they arise from a common Slavic basis. Thus, modern Bulgarian is rooted in that common Old Bulgarian (= Proto-Slavic, Church Slavonic) language which is thought of as the source of all Slavic languages.</p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Proto-Bulgarian and Indo-European</h1><div class="two-columns">
<div class="image">
<p><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1H3mdd5MsjU/WV-BmPQ3LbI/AAAAAAAAFYA/0geB13cP6HQkLjElokO2nxw8RWZS0rwSQCKgBGAs/s1600/Balto-Slavic_lng.png" target="_blank"><img alt="photo Balto-Slavic_lng.png" border="0" height="457" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1H3mdd5MsjU/WV-BmPQ3LbI/AAAAAAAAFYA/0geB13cP6HQkLjElokO2nxw8RWZS0rwSQCKgBGAs/w640-h457/Balto-Slavic_lng.png" width="640" /></a></p></div>
<p>There is no consensus among researchers concerning the Bulgarian language and its position among the other Indo-European languages. Some consider it closer to the Iranic branch while others relate it more with the German branch. What is certain is that Proto-Bulgarian is closest to the so-called Baltic languages (Lithuano-Lettan and Old Prussian), and some time there was a common <i>Lito-Slavic language</i>, which contacted on one side with German, and on the other — with Iranian language. This follows not only from similarities between Lito-Slavic, German, and Iranian but also from the geographical position of the Lito-Slavs. Although much time passed since the Great Migration of the Indo-European peoples, we can say that the ancient neighbourhood is preserved even today between Lito-Slavs and Germans; today there are no other peoples also between Slavs and Arians (Armenians and Persians). Of course, similarity between different Indo-European languages does not come always from original kinship but also from later neighbourhood. For example, Albanian has similarities with Greek and Latin but it does not mean that it originated from Greek or Latin and not from some other European or Asian language; closeness is a consequence of long neighbourhood and nothing more. Therefore, it is very difficult to determine the original kinship of Indo-European languages, to draw a genetic tree, and to subordinate one Indo-European language to the others with respect to kinship because no one can be certain which language arose from the others. One sees that there is only a gradual transition between Indo-European languages and two languages always have a third as an intermediate and this third language has pronunciation traits from the 2 others. Indo-European languages are a closed chain and as parts of a common whole they always have something in common, however this communality is seen better between neighbouring languages then between more distant ones. Thus, Lithuanian is between Slavic and German, Celtic is between German and Latin (Italic), Albanian is between Italic and Greek, Armenian is between Greek and Sanskrit (Old Indian), and Zend (Old Persian) is between Sanskrit and Slavic. But which of those is older or younger, it is hard to say because all Indo-European languages arose fron one root, and if they differ it is not because some of them are younger and others are older, or some are more conservative and others are more variable.</p><p>We tend to think that a people that speaks an older language is itself older. Still more confusing is the literature of individual Indo-European languages which in some comes from antiquity and in others is much later; seeing old monuments in some language, we tend to think this people older than other peoples which coincidently do not have such old literature. So it was at first with the well-known case of Sanskrit which confused the first European linguists with its ancient writings, was proclaimed as the oldest Indo-European language and was put as the basis of all languages from Indo-European root. At present, the charm of the Sanskrit antiquity faded somewhat because not everything in this old literature is as old as thought: comparative linguistics found such old traits, even older, in other Indo-European languages. Therefore, we can assert that Indo-European languages are related not as children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of one father, but as brothers. This is understanding of the Indo-European languages of Prof. Brugman who in his comparative Indo-European grammar described the main Indo-European languages as 8 parallel branches: Arian (Indo-Persian), Armenian, Greek, Albanian, Italic, Celtic, German, Balto-Slavic.</p><p>Indo-European languages take the largest territory and are spoken by most of mankind: almost the whole Europe, large part of Asia, Africa, America, and Australia. The name Indo-European languages comes from the fact that the bulk of these peoples lives in Europe and India. The name Indo-German languages was also used which meant that the peoples at the two borders of the group are Indians at the east and Germans at the west. The second name was used before it became known that Indo-Europeans are found to the west of Germans: these are the Celts in Brétagne and the British Isles. The name Arian, Arian languages is also used which shows that Indo-European languages originated in India because ária in Sanskrit (Old Indian) means 'fellow tribesman'. Most researchers use the name Arian only for the Asian branch of Indo-European languages, and some (Brugman) use it only for Sanskrit and Zend.</p><p>Based on many reliable data from comparison between Slavic and Lithuano-Lettish, we can take for a proven fact that Lithuanians and Slavs lived together for a long time while the other related peoples lived separately from them. This relationship must be followed through in these languages and so to reconstruct the old Lito-Slavic language. This is the final objective of Slavistics which will be probably solved in the future. Before this, however, Slavistics must solve more direct tasks such as the relationships between Slavic languages in order to reconstruct the original Proto-Slavic language.</p>
<h2 style="clear: both;">Inter-Slavic relations</h2><p>The problem of the oldest Slavic homeland and the closer relations between Slavic languages has always concerned Slavic linguists, historians, and ethnographers but they have not reached a positive answer because reliable data are lacking. Some point to southwest Russia as far as the Black Sea, others — Lithuania, thirds limit these settlements to the north of Carpathians, and forths accept the lands of lower Danube as the first homeland of the old Slavs. The Czech ethnographer L. Nięderle points to Carpathians, and more exactly the plain to the east of Wisla, as far as Dnieper and the river Desna, and to the north as far as Smolensk. This origin of Slavs is very likely taking into account that the present Slavic lands are all around it and are situated on the whole periphery of this old homeland.</p>
<p class="image"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r6KdrGHYKcw/WV-CSdkzQhI/AAAAAAAAFYM/n0pstHciHK8Ox5EPtxJbLxHesgSvctYZQCKgBGAs/s1600/Slavic_languages_map-1.png" target="_blank"><img alt="Slavic languages map" border="0" height="590" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r6KdrGHYKcw/WV-CSdkzQhI/AAAAAAAAFYM/n0pstHciHK8Ox5EPtxJbLxHesgSvctYZQCKgBGAs/w640-h590/Slavic_languages_map-1.png" width="640" /></a></p><p>Leaving aside the old Slavic homeland and considering the present relationships among Slavs, one sees that they occupy a large part of Middle and Eastern Europe and with their tribal divisions form a chain among which stand 2 non-Slavic peoples: Hungarians and Romanians. Comparing Slavic languages we'll see that here the pattern observed in Indo-European languages is reproduced, even more clear: a gradual transition from one language, one dialect, to another. The kinship of Slavic languages supports very well the theory of I. Schmid for the wave-like propagation of languages. However, this wavelike propagation of Slavic languages takes the shape of circles that are located on the periphery of a bigger circle into which center there is no longer a Slavic people because this center is occupied by foreign peoples (Hungarians and Romanians). To help imagine better the relationship and similarity of Slavic languages let us accept that these circles overlap, so between each two circles there is a common area where a transitional dialect is spoken. Indeed, between Russian and Polish there is Belarussian which has also traits of Polish language; between Polish and Czech there is Lužica-Sorbian dialect; between Czech and Slovenian there is Slovak dialect; between Slovenian and Serbian there is the Kajkavian Croat; and between Serbian and Bulgarian there are the Kosovo-Morava (transitional) dialects which have traits from both languages. </p><p>The gradual transition between Bulgarian and Russian is somewhat interrupted by the fact that there is at present no such transitional dialect as between other Slavic languages — except Ukrainian which has more common traits with Bulgarian than with Russian. Still, the gradual transition is lacking probably because there were for a long time foreign peoples between Russians and Bulgarians which prevented the formation of a transitional dialect. Jagić <a href="#ref1">[1]</a> supposes that a transitional dialect existed also between old Bulgarian ancestors (Panonian Slavs) and Russians through the present Hungary and Romania. This suggestion is based on the many Bulgarian toponyms in Siebenbürgen. Oblak went further and supposed that the Bulgarian north-western dialects which have ч-дж instead of щ-жд are a continuation of the Carpathian Ukrainian dialect. Jagić was a staunch supporter of the gradual transition between Slavic languages and did not accept any divisions between them because there is no abrupt border between neighboring Slavic languages and their traits intermingle.</p><p>It is true that neighboring Slavic languages have so many common traits that sometimes they are hard to distinguish but this does not prevent their grouping in the same way as one groups dialects of one and the same language. It is another question whether to consider Slavic languages as languages or as dialects. Then the protest against the various divisions of Slavic languages makes sense because these divisions assume languages and not dialects. Indeed, having in mind the huge difference between dialects in German, or in French, it would be more correct to call Slavic languages not languages but dialects. Only the fact that almost all Slavic languages have long history, and established and developed their own literatures can justify the names Slavic peoples and Slavic languages. Otherwise, if all were united in a single state, if all had a single standard language, nobody would talk about individual Slavic languages, and we would have only Slavic dialects. But even so, when we begin to study these dialects, we'll have to classify them somehow in order to know them better. Therefore, comparing the modern Slavic languages, we must order them to clarify their relations and their mutual kinship, we must distinguish them somehow, after which we'll dwell some more on the situation of Bulgarian language among its related Slavic languages.</p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Classification of Slavic languages</h1>
<div class="image-left"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TOO4b947axg/WV-DV1jHmoI/AAAAAAAAFYY/pvdRrI8EXvkPBg3gz3rj0CyQsSPUXlOGgCKgBGAs/s1600/Jan_VilC3ADmek_-_Josef_DobrovskC3BD.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img alt="Josef Dobrovsky" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TOO4b947axg/WV-DV1jHmoI/AAAAAAAAFYY/pvdRrI8EXvkPBg3gz3rj0CyQsSPUXlOGgCKgBGAs/s1600/Jan_VilC3ADmek_-_Josef_DobrovskC3BD.jpg" width="200" /></a> </div>There is no established opinion among Slavists about the classification of Slavic languages; not only there is no consensus about the basis for classification but also about the number of individual Slavic languages. Evidently, this despairs some, so they revolt against any classification. However, these attempts since the very beginning of Slavistics until now, even they did not give an end result, are important because they show how Slavistics gradually acquires "more knowledge both on the whole group and individual parts of Slavic languages" <a href="#ref2">[2]</a>. Dobrovsky <a href="#ref3">[3]</a> after enumerating the 12 Slavic languages without classification in the dictionary of Catherine the Great <i>Comparative Dictionary of all Languages</i>, 1793, attempted to classify the Slavic languages on a scientific basis. He accepted two groups of Slavic languages: (1) Russian, Old Slavonic, Illyric or Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, and Wendian (Slovenian in Carniola, Stiria, and Carinthia); (2) Slovak, Czech, Upper Lužician, Lower Lužician, and Polish.<p></p><p>There are 10 distinguising traits of the Dobrovsky classification:</p>
<table align="center"><tbody><tr><th></th><th colspan="2">Southeastern group</th><th colspan="2">Northwestern group</th></tr>
<tr><td>1.<br />
2.<br />
3.<br />
4.<br />
5.<br />
6.<br />
7.<br />
8.<br />
9.<br />
10.</td> <td>раз<br />
из<br />
epenthetic л<br />
-л-<br />
щ<br />
зв<br />
тъ (той)<br />
пепел<br />
птица<br />
десница</td> <td>разум<br />
издати<br />
корабль<br />
сало<br />
мощь<br />
звезда<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</td> <td>роз<br />
вы<br />
no epenthetic л<br />
-дл-<br />
ц<br />
гв<br />
тен<br />
попел<br />
птак<br />
правица</td> <td>розум<br />
выдати<br />
корабь<br />
садло<br />
моць<br />
гвезда<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>This first classification of Slavic languages was immediately accepted by all Slavists at that time and held for a long time with some ammendments and additions proposed by Vostokov. He omitted points 1, 2, and 9 because in Russian it is роз and вы, and птака; instead of those traits, Vostokov points that in the first group there is <b>p</b>, and in the second group — <b>рж</b>: рeч — ржеч.</p>
<div style="float: left; font-size: smaller; margin-right: 0.4em; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PNiBX79kxNc/WV-Dzcia1tI/AAAAAAAAFYc/rxSch-ebDCA9CDf_iw1cwcrUsiKQn4rxACKgBGAs/s1600/safarik2.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="Pavel Josef Šafarik" border="0" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PNiBX79kxNc/WV-Dzcia1tI/AAAAAAAAFYc/rxSch-ebDCA9CDf_iw1cwcrUsiKQn4rxACKgBGAs/w164-h200/safarik2.jpg" width="164" /></a><p>Pavel Josef Šafarik</p></div>
<p>This classification was accepted also by Šafarik <a href="#ref4">[4]</a> who called the first group south-eastern Slavic languages, and the second group — north-western. But in his detailed classification Šafarik deviated very much from Dobrovsky because sometimes he took more and sometimes less Slavic peoples and dialects. For the first time Šafarik mentioned Bulgarians which Dobrovsky and Vostokov had forgotten; however, Šafarik attached Bulgarians to Serbs, together with Bosniaks, Montenegrins, and Dalmatians. After this, he corrected this error and classified the Slavic languages as follows:</p></div><p></p><p><b>I. Southeastern group:</b> Russian, Bulgarian, Illyric (Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian);</p><p><b>II. Northwestern group:</b> Lech (Polish and Kashubian), Czech (Czech, Moravian and Slovak), and Polabian (with Upper and Lower Lužician)</p><p>Later, Šafarik in <a href="#ref5">[5]</a> removed most of the 10 points of Dobrovsky and kept only 2 of them (3 and 4) and to them added also a trait that д and т are dropped in front of н in the southeastern group, and are retained in the northwestern group: вѧнѫти — vadnouti, but the groups remained the same as in Dobrovsky.</p><p>This partition in two stuck in Slavistics especally when it was endorsed by Schleicher who accepted these three traits of Šafarik but he attached special importance to the tj and dj reflexes on which basis he made a more detailed partition of Slavic languages dividing the southeastern group in two: Russian and Yugoslavic, and then dividing the Yugoslavic group in three languages: Bulgarian (щ-жд), Serbian (ћ-ђ), and Slovenian (ч-ϳ); also, the northwestern group is divided in four languages: Czech, Polish, Lužician, and Polabian <a href="#ref6">[6]</a>.</p><p>Together with such partition in 2 groups, there were also opinions that Slavic languages can be divided into 3 groups. Palacky <a href="#ref7">[7]</a> wrote about eastern (Russians and Bulgarians), southwestern (Slovenians, Serbs, and Croats), and northwestern (Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Lužicians) Slavs. Before this, Vostokov had suggested an apparent tripartition <a href="#ref8">[8]</a>; describing the division of Dobrovsky, Vostokov expressed an opinion that Russian in some traits (вы, роз, птак) is intermediate between the southeastern and the northwestern Slavic group. Other Russian linguists followed Vostokov (Nadezhdin, Ustrelov, Maksimovich), who proposed with some variations tripartition instead of bipartition. The arguments of Nadezhdin involve a Russian feature that indeed separates this language from both the northwestern and the southeastern groups: it is the Russian vocalisation (Russian г<b>о</b>р<b>о</b>д vs. Yugoslav гр<b>а</b>д and Polish gr<b>o</b>d). This phenomenon by itself is very important and characteristic but it is not certain if it is so old to be a basis for separation of Russian from the others, i.e., if this phenomenon is pre-Russian and Old Slavonic, or it arose on Russian soil. There are divergent opinions about this: Mikloshich <a href="#ref9">[9]</a>, Jagić <a href="#ref10">[10]</a>, and Krek <a href="#ref11">[11]</a> think that vocalisation is an old phenomenon but developed later on Russian soil, after the separation of Slavic languages while Maksimov <a href="#ref12">[12]</a>, Lavrovsky <a href="#ref13">[13]</a>, Gaitler <a href="#ref14">[14]</a>, and I. Schmidt <a href="#ref15">[15]</a> think vocalisation is a pre-Russian phenomenon.</p><p>However old, the Russian vocalisation (город) couldn't be older than, e.g. the Polish grod; if one takes examples as Volos from βλάσιος, паполом from πάπλομα <a href="#ref16">[16]</a>, one can assert that город is not older than град. Even if one accepts the Russian vocalisation as basis for division, i.e., to separate Russian from the other southwestern Slavic languages, one must then place Czech among the Yugoslav languages, and put Polish in a separate group. All other traits of these languages go against such classification.</p><p>Much more acceptable is the tripartition of Daničić <a href="#ref17">[17]</a>, who takes as a basis a very old phonetic phenomenon, the tj, dj reflex in Slavic languages. These combinations were changed in a different way in each Slavic language and can serve as a distinguishing trait. Daničić suggested that Slavic languages first separated in 3 branches: Serbo-Croatian, Russo-Bulgarian, Polish-Czech. Serbo-Croatian remained closest to the old combinations because ћ-ђ sound similar to tj-dj; the Russo-Bulgarian group changed the sound j after т to ш, and after д to ж; hence ч (тш) and (д)ж in Russian, and after metathesis — щ (шт) and жд in Bulgarian. The western Slavic languages changed j after т to с, and after д — to з; hence in Polish ц (тс) and дз, and in Czech ц (тс) and з (д is dropped).</p><p>Leskin and Jagić objected to this classification as based only on one trait. However, Leskin, too, separated Slavic languages in three groups by only one trait, the accent, although he admits that the different accent systems developed in historical time.</p><p>For an acceptable classification of Slavic languages, we need to find the main differences between them and use these differences as a basis for classification. Most important are the phonetic traits because these are older than morphological traits. It is not accidental that all forms in Slavic languages, nouns as well as verbs are interpreted from Old Bulgarian; it is so because Old Bulgarian monuments are the oldest, dating of 9-10 c. when individual Slavic languages had very few formal differences. Studying the phonetic traits that have a potential as a basis for classification one can see that many of them cross over, i.e. they are not found in only one group; other traits are of too little importance to serve as a basis for distinction. This is why some Slavists do not speak about any classification only implicitly accepting a certain number of Slavic languages and avoiding mention on their interrelationship (Kopitar, Grigorovich, Mikloshich). Thus, Mikloshich without specifying any classification, ordered Slavic languages in his Comparative Grammar according to their similarity to Old Bulgarian (Old Slavonic, according to him); his order is this: Old Slavonic, New Slavonic, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Ukrainian, Russian, Czecho-Slovak, Polish, Upper Lužician, Lower Lužician. Sreznevsky, reviewing <a href="#ref5">[5]</a>, reached to the conclusion that instead of talking about classification, it is better to accept a certain number of Slavic dialects and not push any further. Jagić was also against classification because he saw in Slavic languages a gradual transition between each other; about the generally accepted bipartition (northwestern and southeastern) he said directly:</p><blockquote>I do not support bipartition because, strictly speaking, it is not important for science and because it does not lead to any result. <a href="#ref1">[1]</a></blockquote><p>It seems, however, that a partition of Slavic languges is not superfluous but quite on the contrary, it is as necessary as any classification in science. As one can speak about grouping of dialects in some more or less living language, one can speak also about classification of Slavic languages; such classification is even more legitimate because there are indeed some traits that make us accept 2 or 3 separate groups of Slavic languages. Maybe the differences that are found in the modern Slavic languages were not so big in earlier times; however, observing them today we need to stress them; according to the nature and occurence of these differences we'll have one or another classification of the modern Slavic languages.</p>
<p>Let us at first solve the question about the basis of classification. We mentioned above that phonetic differences between Slavic languages can serve as a basis for classification because they are older and are more characteristic. Accent is considered a phonetic difference because it is a phonetic phenomenon involving the vowel sounds. Lexical differences can also be used but those must involve a large number of words, and not only 3-4 words, as accepted by Dobrovsky (cf. points 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of his classification) and his followers; in addition, as we noted, these words are not partitioned as Dobrovsky alleged but somewhat differently; e.g. while Dobrovsky assigned the words роз, вы, птак only to the northwestern group, it turned out that they are found also in the southestern group (in Russian). Excluding, therefore, the lexical differences, out of the 10 classification traits of Dobrovsky, only 4 are left which are purely phonetic and should be taken into account for a classification basis. Let us add to these 4 the pronunciation of soft р (реч and ржеч) which was suggested by Vostokov, and the dropping of д and т in front of н proposed by Šafarik; then we'll have 6 important phonetic traits which could bolster a well justified classification of Slavic languages. To these 6 traits we can add 2 more, maybe comparatively newer but not less important. One of those is the accent which in the south-western group is indefinite (on different syllables) while in the north-western group it is definite (on one and the same syllable). In addition to accent which makes the 7th distinctive trait, we can add also the replacement of ъ: while in the south-western group ъ is replaced with a hard vowel (ъ, о, а), in the northwestern group ъ is replaced by е and therefore passes to the soft vowel category although this e still keeps its former origin. The replacement of e with ъ in new Slavonic, as well as the replacement of о with ъ in Slovac are secondary and non-general. Moreover, we should note that Slovak – if we count it as a language, and not as a dialect – is not easy to classify also by some other traits; the reason is that it is at the middle between the 2 groups and therefore it is a transitional Slavic language in the same way as there are transitional dialects.</p><p>Thus, the division of the Slavic languages into 2 groups – northwestern and southeastern – is based on the following 8 phonetic traits:</p><p class="green"><b>1. The reflex of the old sound combinations tj and dj (dental + j)</b></p><p>In the northwestern group (Polish and Czecho-Slovak) instead of the old tj and dj there are hissing sounds (ц and дз in Polish and Slovak and ц and з in Czech) while in the southwestern group (Russian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croat and Slovenian) insthead of tj and dj there are affricates: ч-ж in Russian, щ-жд in Bulgarian, ћ-ђ in Serbian, ч-j in Slovenian).</p><p class="green"><b>2. The changes of the labial consonants when followed by j (epenthetic l)</b> </p><p>In the northwestern groups linking of labials with j is allowed: zemia, while in the southwestern group in these cases a labial (softening) ль is inserted: землıа. Here it is meant the older state of Slavic languages when in Bulgarian was also землıа.</p><p class="green"><b>3 .The pronunciation of soft ŕ or rj</b> </p><p>In the northwestern group the soft ŕ or rj receives an accompanying sound ж, so that it is pronounced as рж: Polish rzecz, Czech řeč, while in the southeastern group ŕ or rj remains unchanged: реч.</p><p class="green"><b>4. The reflex of kv and gv</b></p><p>In the northwestern group we find these old sound combinations unchanged: Czech květ, Polish kwiat; Czech hvězda, Polish gwiazda, while in the southeastern group those are replaced by цв – зв (or дзв): цвѣт, звѣзда.</p><p class="green"><b>5–6. Dental d and t in front of l and n</b></p><p>In the northwestern group the dentals d and t are retained in front of l and n while in the southwestern group they disappear: on one hand radlo, sadlo, pletla, vadnouti, svitnouti, and on the other – рало, сало, плела, ванѫти, свьнѫти.</p><p class="green"><b>7. Pronunciation of ъ</b></p><p>In the northwestern group ъ is pronunced as an є-sound though different from the etimological є while in the southeastern group this vowel is hard: ъ, о, or а; in Czech and Polish deska, in Bulgarian дъска, in Russian доска, and in Serbo-Croatian daska. In Slovenian, although it is written deska, it is pronounced дъска.</p><p class="green"><b>8. Accent.</b></p><p>In the northwestern group accent is definitive, i.e. it falls on one and the same syllable, namely: in Czech – on the first syllable, and in Polish – on the penultimate syllable while in the southeastern group the accent is indefinite, i.e. it can fall on any syllable. Whatever exceptions there are, those are either new, or do not occur in the standard languages but only in dialects.</p><p>Out of the 8 phonetic traits which we accept as distinctive traits between the 2 groups of Slavic languages, the most important for classification is the tj,dj reflex because it can be used for further classification. Indeed, this reflex not only distinguishes clearly the 2 main Slavic language groups because instead of tj-dj we have on one hand (in the northwestern group: Polish and Czech) hissing consonants (ts-dz), and on the other (in the southeastern group: Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Russian, and Bulgarian) affricate consonants (tš-dž) but furthermore, comparing the main Slavic languages again on this basis we see that the pronunciation of tj-dj separates them very well from each other; thus, we can always recognise Polish by its c-dz instead of tj-dj, Czech – by c-z, Serbo-Croatian – by ћ-ђ, Slovenian – by č-j, Russian – by ч-ж, Bulgarian – by щ-жд.</p><p>Thus, assuming unmutated tj-dj in Proto-Slavic, we have:</p><p class="green"><b>In common Slavic svêtja – medja.</b></p><p class="green"><b>I. In the northwestern group tj-dj give hissing reflex.</b></p>
<table><tbody><tr><td width="40%">Polish<br />
Czech</td> <td width="20%">c-dz<br />
c-z</td> <td width="40%">śvieca – miedza<br />
svice – meze</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><p class="green"><b>II. In the southeastern group tj-dj give affricates.</b></p><table><tbody><tr><td width="40%">Russian<br />
Bulgarian<br />
Serbo-Croatian<br />
Slovenian</td> <td width="20%">ч-ж<br />
щ-жд<br />
ћ-ђ<br />
č-j</td> <td width="40%">свѣча – межа<br />
свѣща – межда<br />
свиϳећа – међа<br />
svêča – meja</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><p>Of course, this classification does not prevent combining Slavic languages in other groups by some or other common traits; this could only help understand their relationship. Whatever we do though, the primary division in two will stand firm; first, because it is supported by very important and old traits, and second, because through it we obtain 2 groups of languages separated very well dialectally and geographically. Separated, because the few "crossovers" that occur here and there do not contradict the above classification because these crossovers occur either near the division border, such as, e.g. dl-tl in Slovenian which comes from neighbouring Slovak, or are later phenomena such as: да светна, да падна, земя, оставям, бракя in Bulgarian.</p><p>However we classify Slavic languages, we must admit that the problem of their interrelationships is very difficult because it is interweaved with issues that have no positive solution. First of all, we do not know since when the Slavic peoples occupy their present lands and if their present location has always been the same; if not, how it has changed. Furthermore, we do not know the date of the various phonetic and morphological changes in individual Slavic languages and if, e.g. the same changes in 2 or more Slavic languages are due to living in a community, or as neighbours, or those arose independently. Thus, we see that both in Serbian and in Russian the Old Bulgarian ѫ is replaced with у; if we assume that this is because both languages are in the southeastern group then why don't we find the same replacement in Bulgarian and in Slovenian? They are in the same group, aren't they? Moreover, why do we find the same reflex in Czech, which is in the northwestern group? The same confusion ensues also when we ask why ѣ is replaced in Russian, Serbian, and Czech with e and ϳe while in Bulgarian and Polish this vowel is replaced with ϳa, although the last 2 languages are not from the same group. These questions can be answered somehow but it seems that in addition to individual reasons there should be taken account of the natural contact through neighbourhood – either hisorical or pre-historical. If it is always stressed that the present dialect traits in Slavic languages had arisen early in Proto-Slavic times, why shouldn't we assume for some identical traits in different Slavic languages to be a result of a previous neighbourhood of these languages, a neighbourhood that has thereafter been eliminated by historic events?</p><p>Thus, the comparison of Bulgarian with other Slavic languages suggests that at some time Bulgarian had other Slavic neighbours and not only Serbian as it is now. Indeed, if we take into account that Bulgarian Slavs were located at some time in the Hungarian plain, in Transylvania, Walachia, and Moldova, as is suggested by so many Bulgarisms in Hungarian and Romanian, we must conclude that in the past Bulgarian touched not with one language, as now, but with several; for it took the center of the circle of Slavic languages situated around it, the place that is now occupied by Hungarians and Romanians. Hence, some striking similarities of Bulgarian with Slavic languages with which it doesn't come in geographic contact.</p><p>And indeed, the more we study the relationship of Bulgarian to other Slavic languages, the more we are convinced that Bulgarian, taken together with its dialects, contains in itself traits from all Slavic languages. Maybe every other Slavic language seems to be so encompassing if we start comparisons from it but still there are facts that give some advantage to Bulgarian in this respect. Thus, in addition to its undoubtedly central location until the arrival of Magyars in today Hungary and Transylvania, Bulgarian has also the advantage that its documental history dates from the earliest time when no other Slavic language possessed written monuments. Furthermore, the numerous Bulgarian dialects not only confirm with living examples what is conserved in written monuments but put it in touch with one or another Slavic language; because in Bulgarian dialects we find reflected almost all old and new phonetic traits of Slavic languages. This gives us a basis to conclude that many of these common traits between Bulgarian dialects and individual Slavic languages are an echo from the time when Bulgarian was in touch with those languages.</p><p>One or two examples can explain what was said above. Bulgarian in its present area touches to the west with Serbian, and to the north-east – with Russian; thus it is natural that it has the most common traits with these 2 languages. This is really so, but while the similarities between Serbian and Bulgarian are easy to understand because these 2 languages lived many centuries next to each other, the similarity between Russian and Bulgarian cannot be explained by a present neighbourhood because in fact it dates since newer time, since some 180 years, namely, since the various Russian-Turkish wars when many Bulgarian youth from Eastern Bulgaria left their homeland to live in Russia. This new neighbourhood did not influence significantly the 2 languages, or if it did, it did it only locally, not affecting the deeper language structure. Therefore, the similarity between Bulgarian and Russian should be interpreted as a coincidence, or as a consequence of a former closer neighbourhood. The latter is more probable, because it is supported by other facts.</p><p>Second. Bulgarian and Polish are now furthest from each other both in space and in language traits. In spite of this, these 2 languages keep an identical pronunciation of ѣ, the same pronunciation that is characteristic for Bulgarian from its written monuments. This similarity between Polish and Bulgarian is not accidental but dates from the time when these 2 languages bordered each other, and maybe even then they were as distinguished from other Slavic languages by this common trait as they are now.</p><p>Some obvious similarities of Bulgarian with Slovenian and Slovak languages that will be described below, lead to the same conclusion that these languages which are now far apart, were close neighbours at an earlier time – thus, the amazing similarities among them.</p>
<div class="image"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tm_FpqhKU0E/WV-FOXQnY5I/AAAAAAAAFZY/uIWcWOqYf3EqH_rd5WHRQrVp9ZvYadhSwCKgBGAs/s1600/Vazov-jubilee-StStanimirov-web.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Benyo Tsonev, Ivan Vazov, Lyubomir Miletich" border="0" height="450" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tm_FpqhKU0E/WV-FOXQnY5I/AAAAAAAAFZY/uIWcWOqYf3EqH_rd5WHRQrVp9ZvYadhSwCKgBGAs/w640-h450/Vazov-jubilee-StStanimirov-web.jpg" width="640" /></a> <p><b class="green">Ivan Vazov Jubilee in the National Theatre, 24.10.1920.</b><br />
<i>Left to right:</i> St. Stanimirov, Al. Radoslavov, Dim. Lazov, Prof. Benyo Tsonev, Iv. Vazov, Prof. Lyubomir Miletich, Dr. Mihail Arnaudov, Dr. Phil. Manolov, Stoyan Omarchevski, Hristo Tsankov - Derijan, Prof. Ivan Georgov, Stilyan Chilingirov, Adriana Budevska, Elena Snezhina.</p></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Bulgarian compared</h1><p>Before we go over to a detailed comparison between Bulgarian and other Slavic languages, we'll give a short summary of individual Slavic languages, with emphasis on their phonetic traits.</p><h3>Russian</h3><ol><li>tj and dj are pronounced as ч and ж: свѣча, межа.</li>
<li>ѫ reflects in у: рука, мука; ѧ reflects in я: мясо, ряд.</li>
<li>Russian vocalisation: instead of ра and ла that arose from older <i>or ol</i>, in Russian we have оро, оло: борода, голова instead of брада, глава; also, in Russian we have instead of рѣ, лѣ (from the ancient er, el between consonants) – ере, еле (or оло): дерево, железа, молоко.</li>
<li>In Russian unlike any other living Slavic language, the old pronunciation of ъı, written ы, is preserved: сын, мышца.</li>
<li>ъ and ь which are pronounced as vowels, become о and e: плотно, день.</li>
<li>Old Bulgarian interconsonant ръ and лъ keep their old original form (ор-ол, ер-ел, ро-ле, ре-ле) only in Russian: торг, волк, зерно, кровь, плоть, крест, слеза. In most Bulgarian dialects this form has reflected very long ago: тръг, влък, зръно, кръв, плът, кръст, слъза.</li>
<li>The accent is old, undefined. </li></ol><h3>Serbo-Croatian</h3><ol><li>tj and dj are replaced with ћ and ђ, pronounced as very soft чь and джь: свећа, међа.</li>
<li>ѫ reflects in у: рука, мука; ѧ reflects in е: месо, ред.</li>
<li>ъ is assimilated with ь and both are pronounced as а: даска, дан, лан.</li>
<li>ръ and лъ (interconsonant) are pronounced as р̥ (vowel)̥ and у: прст, суза.</li>
<li>л at the end of syllables is vocalised as о: пепео, криоце.</li>
<li>The accent is undefined, however, in Serbian it is regularly shifted forward by one syllable.</li>
<li>Serbo-Croatian has tonal accent.</li>
</ol><p>Serbo-Croatian is divided in 3 dialects according to the pronunciation of чьто: Shtokavian, Chakavian, and Kajkavian. Shtokavian is spoken by the true Serbs, while Chakavian and Kajkavian comprise the Croatian language.</p><h3>Slovenian</h3><ol><li>tj and dj are replaced with ч and j: свеча, меjа.</li>
<li>ѫ reflects in о: рока, мока; ѧ reflects in е: месо, ред.</li>
<li>ъ is assimilated with ь in a dark sound ъ which is written as е: bez, deska, den, len.</li>
<li>ръ and лъ are pronounced as vowels р̥̥ and л̥: prst, slza.</li>
<li>The accent is old but very much mutated.</li>
<li>There is tonal accent but it is new and long vowels are only the stressed ones.</li>
<li>Verbs have dual forms.</li>
</ol><h3>Polish</h3><ol><li>tj and dj are pronounced as ц and дз: świeca, miedza.</li>
<li>ѫ retains its original pronunciation as оⁿ (written ą ) and ѧ retains its pronunciation as eⁿ (written ę ); however they are exchanged sometimes so that instead of ѫ comes eⁿ and instead of ѧ comes оⁿ. It is usually accepted that long ѫ and long ѧ give оⁿ while short ѫ and short ѧ give еⁿ: dąb – dębu (дѫбъ, дѫбѹ), wiązać (вѧзатн), pęto (пѫто).</li>
<li>ъ and ь are replaced with e and ie (soft e).</li>
<li>ръ and лъ are pronounced as ro and lo: gród, wrota, glowa.</li>
<li>ѣ is pronounced я or е as in the Eastern Bulgarian, depending on its location; ѣ is reflected not only before soft syllables but also before labial and pharyngeal consonants: kwiat (flower), źelazo, biały – but: bielić, liewy, chleb, świeca, grzech.</li>
<li>Specific softening of consonants resulting on more hissing and affricated sounds than in other Slavic languages; thus, in addition to soft ŕ giving rz, all d and t before soft vowels give dz and c while z, s, c give ź, ś, ć: miescie (мѣстѣ), kość (кость), jeźdźić (ıаздить).</li>
<li>Accent is defined and falls on the penultimate syllable.</li>
</ol><p>Kashubian, Polabian, Upper and Lower Lužician dialects are affiliated to Polish and are spoken in Saxony and Prussia; Polabian is no longer spoken.</p><h3>Czech</h3><ol><li>tj and dj are replaced by ц and з (c and z).</li>
<li>ѫ gives u or ou depending on whether it is short or long: ruka, soud. ѧ gives ě, í or a, á depending on whether it is short or long and whether it stays before soft or hard syllable: pět – pátý, svatý – světiti, kníže (кънѧsь). Besides, the length of Czech vowels does not correspond to the supposed Proto-Slavic tonal accent.</li>
<li>ръ and лъ are reflected differently – either in vowel r and l: hltati, or in re, lu: krev, slunce.</li>
<li>ѣ gives ě, é or í depending on whether it is short or long: tělo (body), léto (summer), mlíko (milk), bílý (white), bídny (poor), víra (faith). The same reflexes occur also with ѧ and ia (я).</li>
<li>Long o gives u which is written ů: vůle, nůž.</li>
<li>ю (ju) reflects in i or í depending on whether it is short or long: klíč, jitro.</li>
<li>г is pronounced as h: hlava, hora (mountain).</li>
<li>Soft ŕ gives чж written ř: břeh, dřevo, moře, tvořiti.</li>
<li>Accent is definite and always falls on the first syllable.</li>
<li>Tonal accent is present and is relatively new phenomenon.</li>
</ol><p>Slovak language is usually affiliated to Czech but it differs mainly for the reflex of dj in dz, ъ and ь reflect in o and e, there is no ř, the stress is not the same as in Czech.</p><p>This short characteristic of Slavic languages shows their phonetic variety which sometimes makes it difficult to find unifying traits.</p><h2 style="clear: both;">Bulgarian and Serbian</h2>Shown here are only the very old traits that distinguish the 2 languages. For a fuller description of the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/borders-of-bulgarian-language.html#linguistic_borders">linguistic borders between Bulgarian and Serbian</a>, see <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/borders-of-bulgarian-language.html">the article on borders of Bulgarian language</a>. Serbian, namely, and not Serbo-Croatian, first, because Bulgarian touches only to Serbian and not to Croatian dialects; second, because in respect to Bulgarian, we should differentiate between Serbian and Croatian. As we'll see, the "Croatian" dialects (Kajkavian and Chakavian) in some traits are closer to Slovenian and Bulgarian than to Serbian.<p>If we exclude the traits that distinguish Bulgarian from Serbian as parts of the south-eastern Slavic group then amazingly very few traits are left that are common to the two languages. Those are the following 5, 3 of which concern phonetic traits and 2 are syntactic:</p><p><b>1. ъı = и.</b> Both in Serbian and in modern Bulgarian the pronunciation of this vowel reflects in the ordinary и. This pronunciation today is not common only to Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian but also with Slovenian and is a common distinctive feature of all Yugoslav languages. The impulse for this reflex comes from the Serbian milieu and goes to the east. The following arguments support this:</p><p><b>a)</b> we do not have any positive knowledge about an old Serbian pronunciation of ъı while Bulgarian monuments as late as 14th c. use this vowel very correctly;</p><p><b>b)</b> even today there are Bulgarian dialects that keep the old pronunciation of ъı though not in full;</p><p><b>c)</b> the Bulgarian dialects with retained old ъı are far from the Serbo-Bulgarian ethnographic border – they are near Solun and Shumen;</p><p><b>d)</b> the reflex of ъı in и developed together with other reflexes specific for Serbian (ѣ = e, ь = ъ, ѫ = у, ѧ = е) while in Bulgarian these are either lacking or came by impulse from the west.</p><p><b>2. ѧ = е.</b> Both in Bulgarian and Serbian the Old Bulgarian nasal ѧ reflects in the same vowel е – of course, if we ignore those old reflexes (йъ, йо, я) found in Bulgarian dialects. Because the reflex in е now is common for all western Bulgarian dialects while the other reflexes occur only in Eastern dialects, it is very probable that the reflex ѧ = е also comes as a continuation of the Serbian reflex for this vowel. This is even more acceptable taking into account the Russian reflex я and the Croatian-Slovenian reflex а (after palatals). Therefore, the ѧ = е reflex comes into Bulgarian as a wave from the west, as well as the ѣ = е reflex which at present takes only the western half of the Bulgarian language territory. Accepting this continuity, likewise accepting everything common between Serbian and Bulgarian, it cannot be excluded that such ѧ = е reflex may have arisen secondarily on Bulgarian soil.</p><p><b>3. ѣ = е.</b> This is the third phonetic similarity between Serbian and Bulgarian. Because half of Bulgarian still keeps the old pronunciation of ѣ (as я) and only the western dialects reflect it in е as in Serbian, the comparison by this point only confirms what was said above on the direction of phonetic reflexes – they go from west to east, from Serbian to Bulgarian. The same is true for the reflex of ръ in Serbian and Bulgarian.</p><p><b>4.</b> Future tense is made by the same auxiliary verb хощѫ (to wish) in both Bulgarian (ще) and Serbian (ћу, ћеш, ће, ћемо, ћете). This trait is common only for Bulgarian and Serbian, while Croatian and Slovenian use for this purpose the verb бѫдѫ. Probably this trait have passed from Bulgarian to Serbian and this is why it does not occur in the other Yugoslav languages. In Bulgarian this trait is relatively new – it is lacking in Slavic languages other than Bulgarian and Serbian and has arisen on the Balkan Peninsula because it is common for all Balkan languages.</p><p><b>5.</b> The infinitive is made by the conjunction да + finite verb in both Bulgarian and Serbian. Although such infinitive decomposition is not still fully applied, it is common in Serbian, while in Croatian and Slovenian it does not occur, or it is very rare. This analytical trait is also due to Bulgarian dialect influence upon Serbian because in other cases, too, we observe much greater trend toward analyticity in Bulgarian than in Serbian.</p><p>With so few common traits, the difference between Serbian and Bulgarian seems great; but in fact, Bulgarian is closer to Serbian more than to any other language. This is so because the pronunciation of the other vowels and consonants is similar without the reflexes and palatisation that occur in the northern Slavic languages (Czech, Polish, and Russian). In Serbian and Bulgarian, and in South Slavic as a whole, there is no Czech reflex of ja into je and jí, no Russian vocalisation, no Polish-Russian ьо instead of e, while the phonetics is comparatively conserved and the words have few reflexes from their old pronunciation. There is something else which assimilates these languages even more: the great number of common words. The vocabulary and the morphemic complex is almost identical in Bulgarian and Serbian. In respect to its local folk vocabulary Bulgarian is undoubtedly closer to Serbian than to Russian, although the literary loans between Bulgarian and Russian approximated these languages, too. It seems incredible that conversational Bulgarian has <b>3 times</b> more common words with Serbian than with Russian. This can be checked by comparing the same text in the 3 languages: while in an average page of Russian text, a non-linguistically educated Bulgarian finds 24 to 30 unknown words, in the same page Serbian text, he will find only 8 to 10! This lexical similarity and difference of Bulgarian with its 2 neighbouring Slavic languages is probably a result of more recent relations between Serbs and Bulgarians, which did not take place between Russians and Bulgarians. This multitude of common words makes Serbian better understood for Bulgarians and vice versa – Bulgarian for Serbs. The lexical similarity would facilitate very much the introduction of a common literary language between these two peoples if the political rivalry between them didn't reject any idea for mutual cooperation.</p><h2 style="clear: both;">Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian</h2>Comparison of Bulgarian with the other Yugoslav languages or dialects – beyond Serbian – reveals curious facts, suggested above, namely, that Bulgarian did not have Serbian as a neighbour in the past. It is true that now Bulgarian and Serbian are the closest languages, but it is also true that Bulgarian has some common traits with Croatian and Slovenian that are lacking in Serbian.<p>The group of Croatian-Slovenian dialects is a united whole, separated from Serbian, when compared to Bulgarian so they are taken together. And indeed these dialects have many common, old traits which distinguish them from Serbian and assimilate them to Bulgarian. Here, by "Croatian" are meant the 2 Croatian dialects – Kajkavian and Chakavian which by the tj-dj reflex are the same as Slovenian, which reflect in ч-j, and not in ћ-ђ, as in Serbian.</p><p>The following traits occur in Croatian-Slovenian and Bulgarian, and do not occur in Serbian:</p><p><b>1.</b> In Croatian-Slovenian in addition to the common reflex ѧ = e, there is also another reflex that is similar to the Middle Bulgarian Yus reflex, namely, after palatals (ж, ч, ш, and й) ѧ reflects in а, and not in е: jazik, prijati, žatva, etc. The same reflex шѧ, жѧ, ѩ occurs in many Bulgarian dialects: йъзик and язик, шътам and шатам, жътва and жатва. This trait does not occur in Serbian.</p><p><b>2.</b> In Bulgarian, as well as in Slovenian and Croatian, the initial ѫ is pronounced with the objective в – вѫ: vos, vozel, vože, vohati, votek (in Slovenian) vs. ѫсъ (въси), ѫзлъ (възел), ѫжє (въже), ѫхати (въхам), ѫтъкъ (вътък) in Bulgarian. In some Bulgarian dialects, here and there, the archaic pronunciation without в is retained: ože, ozel – йъже, йъзол (in Ohrid dialect) and яже, язол (in Prilep-Mariovo and Bitola dialects).</p><p><b>3.</b> In both Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian, the group чръ is not reflected: черно – črno, червей – črv, etc. while in Serbian чръ is reflected in цр: црно, црв. It is true that in many Bulgarian dialects the reflex чр = цр occurs but all these dialects are western, therefore, closer to Serbian, while in the more distanced dialects it is always чер and not цър. The only exception is the word църква which is pronounced so also in the east (together with черква) but for it we have the Old Bulgarian цръкъı.</p><p><b>4.</b> The end-of-syllable л which in Serbian passes in о (рекао, пепео) remains unchanged in Croatian and Slovenian, as well as in Bulgarian. Also, the reflex of the interconsonant group лъ in у (вуна, жут) is not widespread neither in Slovenian, nor in Croatian.</p>
<p><b>5.</b> The similarity between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian is seen also in the inconsistent use of the epenthetic л. In this respect, Serbian is very strict, so that it has retained all cases known from old Bulgarian, and even has added new cases (снопље, гробље vs. снопнѥ, гробнѥ) while many Croatian and Slovenian dialects not only lack the new cases but also abandon the old ones; cf. spravjati, stavjati, zovjem, skubje in <a href="#ref18">[18]</a>.
</p><p><b>6.</b> Similarity between Bulgarian and Chakavian is found in the pronunciation of words like веселje, каменje where we do not hear the fused Serbian љ, њ but the separate лj, нj which is characteristic also for Bulgarian dialects.</p><p><b>7.</b> The accent between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian is also similar, while in Serbian it is different although originating from older common basis.</p><p><b>8.</b> In the pronunciation of ѫ as ô in Slovenian (and some Kajkavian dialects) we can find strong similarity with the Bulgarian Debar and Rup dialects where ѫ has the same reflex.</p><p><b>9.</b> In Croatian-Slovenian, as well as in the Bulgarian southwestern dialects (Kostur, Lerin, etc.) щ is pronounced as шч and not as шт as in Serbian. This similarity is included here because the standard Bulgarian also came from an older шч which later became шт.</p><p>Therefore, while between Bulgarian and Serbian there are only 2 or 3 phonetic similarities, between Croatian-Slovenian and Bulgarian in addition to the Serbo-Bulgarian phonetic similarities there are 9 others. Moreover, if we compare the similarities between Bulgarian and Serbian with those between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian we see that the former are from more recent time and obviously passed from one language to the other while the similarities between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian are of such nature that they cannot be accepted as new loans but are an evidence of older relationship between the respective languages.</p><p>How to explain this similarity? Did it arise at the time when the Slavo-Bulgarian language touched to the Croatian-Slovenian directly on the Panonian plain or this similarity dates from later neighbourhood of Sloveno-Croatian (Kajkavian and Chakavian) and Bulgarian on the present Serbian lands before they were occupied by Serbs? The first hypothesis is supported by the fact that Bulgarian has some similarities with other Slavic languages that do not border it at present (Slovak and Polish) while the second hypothesis is supported by the fact that the similarities between Serbian and Bulgarian are from more recent time. It is risky to state a decisive opinion on this issue but from the many similarities between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian it is clear that the dialect continuum among the Yugoslav languages is disrupted by the Serbian language and if we can speak about Yugoslav dualism in the sense so staunchly defended by Jagić <a href="#ref19">[19]</a>, we are justified enough to support another older dualism, Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian on one hand and Serbian, on the other which is separated by the late arrival of Serbs and their wedging between Bulgarians and Croato-Slovenians.</p><p>The comparison of Bulgarian with other Slavic languages leads to this same hypothesis that Bulgarian Slavs in their former location in the Panonian and Dacian area were close neighbours with Slovenians (and maybe Croats), with Slovaks, Poles, and Russians, while with Czechs and Serbs they were not in direct touch and this is why they have not common old traits. Slovaks separated Bulgarian from Czechs but where were Serbs so that they were not neighbours to Bulgarian Slavs, it is not known; it is probable that they were somewhere beyond the Carpathеs, and after the Slovenes (Bulgarian Slavs and Slovenians) and Croats settled their present lands, Serbs came between them on the Balkan Peninsula. With this, we accept that the Porphyrogenet evidence about the late migration of Serbs is true, and the opinion of Miklošić about the kinship of the present Bulgarian and Slovenian is acceptable as far as that in 9th c. they were just the same 2 Slovene dialects which are today the most Bulgarian щ-жд dialects and the southwestern Bulgarian кь-гь dialects, i.e. they were very close to each other but differed only in the tj-dj reflex; in Slovenian it was ч-j (and maybe also кь-гь), and in Bulgaro-Slovene it was щ-жд.</p><h2 style="clear: both;">Bulgarian and Russian</h2>The relationship between Bulgarian and Russian is totally different from the relationship between Bulgarian and Serbian. First and foremost, Russian and Bulgarian do not touch so closely as Bulgarian and Serbian; we do not have any evidence that they touched more closely through today Dobrudzha and Besarabia at any time in history. In spite of this, surprisingly we find more common traits between Russian and Bulgarian than between Serbian and Bulgarian. The similarities are of 2 kinds according to whether we compare the popular dialects or the literary languages of the 2 peoples; in the first case we find old dialectal similarities, while in the second one – literary loans after 10th c.<p>The first kind of similarities between Russian and Bulgarian include:</p><p><b>1.</b> The same reflexes of the two ers (ъ and ь), ъ = о and ь = е: кой, кога, тогава; день, лень, темен.</p><p><b>2.</b> In both Russian and Bulgarian we have the old indefinite accent (on varying syllables).</p><p><b>3.</b> The tj-dj reflex, although at present it is not the same in the 2 languages, still it is similar and from the same origin if we start with older чч-дждж in the 2 languages. The pronunciation шч-ждж corresponds completely to the pronunciation of these consonants in the southwestern Bulgarian dialects: ишче, глождже, прошчене, etc.</p><p><b>4.</b> The group чрь is pronounced in both Russian and Bulgarian as чер: червяк, червоточина, червив, черен, черника, чернило, черпиш, etc. This trait is not specific to only Bulgarian and Russian because as we saw, it is present in Croatian-Slovenian, as well as in Czech and Polish; but is is important when comparing Bulgarian and Russian because it is not present in Serbian although the latter is geographically closer to Bulgarian.</p><p><b>5.</b> To the similarities between Russian and Bulgarian, we should add a trait that is specific to many Russian dialects – it is the postfixed article that is characteristic for standard Bulgarian: мужикот, дорогата, дорогуту, etc. Although the organic link between the Bulgarian article and this dialectal Russian form is not proven as suggested by Miletich <a href="#ref20">[20]</a>, still this apparent similarity cannot be denied; this is mention of this similar trait is relevant.</p><p><b>6.</b> Morphological similarity between Russian and Bulgarian is seen in the final т in 3rd person present tense, which is still retained in only these languages; 3rd person plural is common between the standard languages: стоят, лежат, and 3rd person singular is common between Russian and southwestern Bulgarian in which the end т is still present: стоит, лежит.</p><p>All these common traits between Russian and Bulgarian are ancient and were not developed under influence of recent neighbourhood; they are a firm basis to suggest that these two languages have been more tightly connected in other time and in other place. And probably this was in the old habitations of Slovene-Bulgarians in Moldova and Transylvania.</p><p>The other kind of similarities between Russian and Bulgarian are due to mutual literary influences. Therefore, these traits involve the literary languages of these peoples. It is known that together with Christianity, Russians took from Bulgarians a well-advanced literature. Begining in 10th c. and continuing through XVth c., Russian literature was fed entirely from the south, and therefore most Old and Middle Bulgarian literary works are now preserved in Russia. Even since its introduction in the old Kievian Rus, Old Bulgarian entirely seized Russian literature and did not step aside to Russian popular language for a long time. Under the powerful auspices of the Russian Church, Old Bulgarian not only persisted, unlike in other Slavs, but it gradually came into wider use and became a foundation for the Russian literary language although somewhat changed according to the specifics of Russian popular speech. In 17th c. either directly from Russia or through Aton, Bulgarian churches and monasteries began to supply books from Russia. Thereupon began the reverse influence – Russian on Bulgarian – although some literary loans from the north occurred even earlier. At first this influence was very limited as the Bulgarian literature itself was limited; but in time, the more widespread education and literature in Bulgarian, the stronger Russian influence on the Bulgarian literary language. Starting with Paisiy and ending with Vazov – all the best Bulgarian writers and poets obtained knowledge either directly from Russian schools, or from Russian books. Russian literature was and still is an abundant source of science and poetry. It is no wonder, therefore, that Russian traits are introduced in the Bulgarian literary language; it is perfectly normal to find many similarities between the standard languages of these 2 peoples. And because these similarities are relatively new – although they started as early as 10th c. – we can always trace them and show with great certainty what in Russian is Bulgarian and what in Bulgarian is Russian while these older similarities listed above can only be observed without being able to prove which is taken from where.</p><h2 style="clear: both;">Bulgarian and Polish</h2>Let us now see how Bulgarian is related to the northwestern Slavic languages, namely to their main representatives – Polish and Czech.<p>Polish is very far from Bulgarian in everything; also in cultural aspect Poles seem to create a different world to other eastern and southern Slavs, and this have been so from time immemorial, as we have very few or almost no data about their participation in the wider Slavic writing and liturgy which were adopted so enthusiastically by all other Slavs. Of course, comparing Bulgarian with Polish we'll try to show an older similarity between these two languages, and not literary or cultural links of these peoples after accepting Christianity. This is very interesting since at first glance there is no kinship between Bulgarian and Polish. However, the comparison shows the following common traits which can be explained only as trace of a former close neighbourhood between the 2 languages.</p><p><b>1.</b> ѣ = я, ꙗ. Both in Bulgarian and Polish the Old Bulgarian vowel ѣ has the pronunciation ıa (я): siano, wiara, wiadro, piana, piasek, wiano, želazo, kolano (read: желязо, коляно), obiad, wiatr, etc. Moreover, ѣ is reflected in front of soft syllables in the same way as in Bulgarian: wiara – wierzić, bialy – bielyć, miasto – miesćie, etc. Reflected, because Polish also starts from an original ea or я, as Bulgarian, because as long as it is known about Polish writing, this vowel has always had in Polish the same pronunciation as at present. Taking into account that the pronunciation of я for ѣ is characteristic for Bulgarian as early as 9th c. what else can we suppose other than this pronunciation was brought from the north by Bulgarian Slavs probably from a place adjacent with a Polish tribe since it is preserved today only in these 2 languages.</p><p><b>2.</b> Initial ѫ = вѫ. This characteristic trait is also very old and specific only for Polish, Bulgarian, and Slovenian. According to this reflex, every initial ѫ is pronounced labially, with the object в, so it becomes:</p>
<table><tbody><tr><th>Old Bulgarian</th><th>Polish</th><th>Bulgarian</th></tr>
<tr><td>ѫсъ<br />
ѫжь, ѫжє<br />
ѫгль<br />
ѫзлъ<br />
ѫхъ, ѫхати</td> <td>wąs<br />
wąź, węźa<br />
węgel<br />
węzel<br />
węch, wąchać</td> <td>въси<br />
въже, гъжва<br />
въглен<br />
възел<br />
въхам</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>It is noticeable that here, as in the pronunciation of ѣ, Polish is like the eastern Bulgarian dialects (together with the southern Kostur and Solun dialects).</p><p>Since in Old Bulgarian ѫ, ѭ are more characterisic, Bulgarian southwestern dialects (Ohrid, Prilep-Mariovo, and Debar dialects) in this respect are closer to the language of Cyril and Methodius because in these dialects the initial ѫ is just iotified: ıъже, ıъглен, ıъзол (Ohrid dialect), ıаже, ıаглен, ıазол (Prilep-Mariovo dialect), ıôже, ıôглен, ıôзол (Debar dialect). Slovenian language is just as divided in this trait as Bulgarian: ož and vož, ozel and vozel, otroba and votroba, otel and votel (ѫтлъ = hollowed out). Also in Ukrainian and Belarussian, probably from Polish neighbourhood, we have in addition to у also ву instead of initial ѫ: уж and вуж, угол and вугол, усы and вусы, уда and вуда (ѫда = fishing-hook).</p><p><b>3.</b> Nasal pronunciation of ѫ and ѧ. In the modern living Slavic languages the old nasal are nowhere as well preserved as in Polish and Bulgarian. True, this pronunciation does not occur in all Bulgarian dialects but we can allege with great certainty that nasalism has been kept in Bulgarian until much later than in all other Slavic languages (except Polish): until 13th c. Bulgarian writing used nasals very widely and we can accept that their use was based on the then living language.</p><p><b>4.</b> To the above listed similarities between Polish and Bulgarian, one more can be added, which, although not as old as the others, is very obvious. It is the Polish accent, which is similar to the accent in one Bulgarian dialect – Kostur dialect. This similarity gets added importance if we compare it to another similarity of the Kostur dialect with Polish – the nasal pronunciation of ѫ and ѧ. One would ask in such comparison, does the Kostur dialect share an old kinship with Polish also in this trait, or is it just a coincidence? The development of Polish accent presents just the same mystery as the origin of the Kostur accent; does it mean they both date from the same time? An idea springs to mind when studying the Kostur accent – to explain the lack of accent signs in the oldest Bulgarian manuscripts with the fact that the dialect which was originally used as a basis for the Slavic literary language had a definitive, and more exactly, second-syllable accent, and therefore, there was no need for accent signs; otherwise, it is not clear why Bulgarian didn't imitate Greek manuscripts also in this aspect?</p>
<h2 style="clear: both;">Bulgarian and (Czecho)-Slovak</h2>
Czech stands farther apart from Bulgarian than any other Slavic language. The two languages are hard to compare: one cannot find any similarities but only differences. This lack of common traits between Czech and Bulgarian confirms the main idea for the past location of Slavo-Bulgarian among the other Slavic languages, that these 2 languages were not in such close neighbourhood to develop or retain the same traits. And it was so indeed, because between them there was another Slavic language which separated them and was a transitional dialect; it is the present Slovak language which today retains this property – to be a transition between the northwestern and southeastern Slavic languages, so that it is still not clear if it is a separate language or a Czech dialect. This is because Slovak language (or Slovak dialect) takes a middle geographical position between Slavic languages (it touches Czech, Polish, Ukrainian, and Croatian-Slovenian), so it is very hard to compare with it: because it concentrates phonetic and morphological traits from all surrounding Slavic languages whatever similarities we find between Slovak and Bulgarian, we'll find these also in other Slavic languages, and we are not always certain whether to count those as old traits or as more recent loans. Therefore, the common traits between Slovak and Bulgarian would only be worthwhile if it can be shown that they are characteristic for Slovak since a time for which neighbourhood between Slovaks and Slavo-Bulgarians can be assumed. This is very difficult to prove. The similarities between Slovak and Bulgarian are the following:
<p><b>1.</b> ъ = о, ь = е. The reflexes of Old Bulgarian ers in Slovak are the same as in Bulgarian: lož (лъжь), von (вънъ), voš (въшь), zamok, došol; den (дьнь), lev (львь), lest' (льсть), kupec (коупьць), etc. All right, but this trait can be interpreted very well as a later Ukrainian influence, and not as an old permanent trait; however, there is something that indicates a Slovak-Bulgarian community in this respect. It is the fact that in Slovak we find traces suggesting that ъ, before it reflected in о, had a dark reflex, just as in Bulgarian; because instead of the usual reflex ъ = о there are also а and е: moch and mach, rož and raž, dožd', dažd', and dežd', doska, daska, and deska; all these ъ reflexes point to one and the same dark and indeterminate pronunciation <i>ъ</i>, characteristic for Bulgarian and Slovak (d<i>ъ</i>ska, t<i>ъ</i>šč, k<i>ъ</i>v<i>ъ</i>l, etc.).</p><p><b>2.</b> ѧ = ä ( = йъ). The Old Bulgarian vowel ѧ is pronounced variously in modern Slovak: as ä, as ıa, and as e. It is not yet determined which is the original reflex here. Gebauer <a href="#ref21">[21]</a> points to ıa, Pastrnek <a href="#ref22">[22]</a> – e, Jagić <a href="#ref23">[23]</a>, and Oblak <a href="#ref24">[24]</a> – ä. Of these 3 reflexes the best candidate for precursor is the sound ä, which is intermediate between the other two. But exactly because it is in the middle, it can equally well come either from Czech or from Ukrainian – the more so because this sound ä in Slovak is very widespread, and is a reflex not only from ѧ, but also from ѣ (väža, človäk, zemän, snäh), from a (vytapät', stavät, čäs, käd', gäjdy, kämen), and from є (mäd, jäzero). If it is proven that the reflex ä = ѧ is older than the others, it can be related to a similar reflex (йъ) in some Bulgarian southeastern (Rup) dialects, as well as in the Paulician dialect which is spoken in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Transylvania. Thus, we can properly compare the Slovak pät, mäkka, sväty, päta with пйът, мйък, свйътà, пйътà (Batak dialect) which are the immediate reflexes from пѧть, мѧкъкъ, свѧтъ, пѧта, from which later developed the Rup пьо<sup>а</sup>т, мьо<sup>а</sup>к, etc.</p><p>We must note that the sound ä replaces in Slovak only short ѧ, and then only after labial consonants – otherwise ѧ is replaced by я or ıa – depending on whether this is short or long ѧ: klatba – kliat', pät – piatok, sviazat', riad, etc. Thus, if we start from ä, we must accept for я and ıa a subsequent clearing of the dark sound ä – either for tonal, or for assimilatory reason. The same clearing must have occurred then in Czech, as well as in Russian, while in Croat-Slovenian (excluding Rezian) such increase of ä to a was limited only to syllables жа, ша, їа, and ча, and the other cases developed towards e. In Bulgarian, the dark pronunciation of the palatal syllables is common (жътва, шъпа, йъзик) especially in the eastern dialects while the central dialects clear ъ into a (жатва, шапа, язик).</p><p><b>3.</b> A nice similarity between Bulgarian and Slovak can be seen in the pronunciation of ръ and лъ which are reflected into their sonant character (irrespective of their old origin) in the same way as in Old Bulgarian, so that we have only: srna, vrba, črn, krv, črv, plno, slza, vlk, blcha, klka, žlč while in Czech in addition to srna, vrba, etc. we have červ, čern, and in addition to pln, vlk we have blecha, kluk, žluč, etc. The similarity consists in the fact that Slovak has preserved the same position of these sound groups which has been probably a common trait of the Sloveno-Bulgarian language in its first homeland, with the only difference that in Old Bulgarian (at least in writing) this position is expressed always with ъ after р and л: връба, влъкъ, кръвь, слъза.</p><p><b>4.</b> The fourth simiarity between Bulgarian and Slovak is the partly preserved pronunciation of ѣ as ia or 'a: diavka, smiach, bl'ady, b'alo, bl'ačat (блѣıати), biada, hriach, neviam, vara (вѣра), caly, preciadzat', kviatok, chliav, driamat', liatat, poobliakal, priachrščia. Pastrnek <a href="#ref22">[22], pp. 45-49</a>, sees a Polish influence in ѣ = ia; however, they are more likely to be traces of old local ѣ = ia, because, if they were loaned from Polish, they would obey the Polish rule for ѣ, i. e., we wouldn't have examples as: smi<b>ach</b>, hri<b>ach</b>, pri<b>ah</b>rščia, nevi<b>am</b>, dri<b>am</b>at', obli<b>ak</b>al, hli<b>av</b>, etc., which in Polish are impossible. Cf. also: capit', vravit', zabol'alo, l'av, l'ava, l'avo, bl'adý, sňat, neviäm, cadzit', caly, etc.</p><p><b>5.</b> The fifth similarity is the same pronunciation of the group чрѣ, which both in Bulgarian and Slovak was extended in the so-called vocalised form; Bulgarian: череши, череп (or чиреп), черясло, черен (or чирен), черва or чирева; Slovak: čerešňa, čerep, čerieslo, čerevo, čerevička, čirida (balcony).</p><p><b>6.</b> The verbs ending in овати are pronounced with ending ува, уват in both Slovak and Bulgarian (although in the Slovak conversational speech the ending ovat' is preferred): menúvat', darúvat'. Similar pronunciation occurs in some Ukrainian dialects, and in Old Croatian but this similarity is also obvious and, maybe, not accidental.</p><p><b>7.</b> The seventh similarity between Slovak and Bulgarian is lexical; it is the many common old words that sometimes are amazingly similar in form and meaning. It is not surprising to develop a lexical similarity between two neighbouring languages, such as Bulgarian and Serbian: Serbs and Bulgarians lived for many centuries next to each other, had a common culture that was imposed either from one or from another side, so common words were constantly transferred. But when you find a word in Slovak which you thought occurs only in Bulgarian, you unwittingly linger on it and wonder if it is not a remnant from the time when Slovaks and Bulgarians (Sloveni) were closer neighbours. First Šafarik <a href="#ref4">[4], pp. 98-99; 375-377</a> noted the fact that many Old Bulgarian words occur in Slovak and not in Czech, but a detailed study on this problem is lacking. The Slovak dialects contain many words and idioms that remind the former close neighbourhood and event unity between Slovaks and Bulgarian Slavs. This is characterised by the following words which occur in Slovak and Bulgarian, while in Czech they are either completely lacking, or have other meaning, or are very rare.</p>
<table align="center"><tbody><tr> <th>Slovak</th> <th>Bulgarian</th> <th>English</th> </tr>
<tr> <td>
babka<br />
babonstvo<br />
bachor, bachorok<br />
bočnik<br />
božit' sa<br />
brav<br />
buzogáň<br />
cedilo, cedilka<br />
celiet' sa<br />čirida<br />
daždovnica<br />
dever<br />
dobytče<br />
dochnut'<br />
dojit'<br />
dolčina<br />
domašni<br />
drhlavý, drglavý<br />
dubica<br />
duška materina<br />
gajdy<br />
grlačka<br />
grochtat'<br />
huňa<br />
imanie<br />
jaraby<br />
kábaň<br />
kasanka<br />
klatit' sa<br />
kl'akam<br />
klinec<br />
klokoči<br />
kračuň<br />
kyša<br />
klečka<br />
kodkodakat'<br />
krčah<br />
krepél<br />
kutkovat'<br />
kutník<br />
kvaka<br />
lemeš<br />
leskovica<br />
leskovina<br />
lichva<br />
ličim<br />
ličnost<br />
liskav<br />
loža<br />
lub<br />
mačkat', smačkat'<br />
mešec<br />
mladoženec<br />
mladoženica<br />
mlazga, mliazga<br />
mrholi<br />
munkat'<br />
mzda<br />
nahrnut'<br />
naježit' sa<br />
naňo<br />
neduh<br />
obad<br />
ovad<br />
obahnit'<br />
oblažit', oblažovat'<br />
odčesnut', razčesnut'<br />
odolok<br />
napokon<br />
okotit' sa<br />
omela<br />
ornica<br />
osyka<br />
ovalát'<br />
paprat'<br />
pchat'<br />
peciarka<br />
pištel, pištelka<br />
pitvor<br />
plešivec<br />
podlizovat' sa<br />
pohár<br />
pochabý<br />
pokyv, kyvat', kyv<br />
polaznik<br />
postav<br />
práchno<br />
priečka<br />
prieloh<br />
prikmotrit' sa<br />
psie-hrozno<br />
pútec<br />
rabuša<br />
ranina<br />
rataj<br />
rozsadlina<br />
rozsadnut' sa<br />
rucho<br />
samokov<br />
samotok<br />
sedmorka<br />
shovor<br />
shovorit' sa<br />
schulit' sa<br />
siaknut'<br />
šiabra<br />
skapat' sa<br />
sklesnit'<br />
slehnut' sa<br />
sloboda<br />
stipka<br />
streh<br />
strnisko<br />
strpnut'<br />
stulit' sa<br />
stud<br />
suk, suč<br />
svak<br />
šašo<br />
šatrny<br />
šibat'<br />
škopit'<br />
škopec<br />
škvrna<br />
šuta<br />
šutit'<br />
taliga<br />
test<br />
tuňo<br />
urda<br />
úsad<br />
useknut'<br />
vahanec, havanec<br />
velmož<br />
veno<br />
veštica<br />
velit'<br />
vhlbit'<br />
vov<br />
vyblknut'<br />
vybočit' sa<br />
vybuchnut'<br />
vybuchat'<br />
vlkolák<br />
vrava, varavet'<br />
vskresit'<br />
zaprtok<br />
za rána<br />
žasnut' sa<br />
zastrkadlo<br />
zbutňeje<br />
želje<br />
zluhat', zolhat'<br />
zmamit'<br />
zpuchet' sa<br />
zrutit'<br />
zvara<br />
zvarat'<br />
žabyklač<br />
žavčas<br />
žílka<br />
živorit'<br />
žlna<br />
žltak, žltok<br />
žltenica<br />
žreb
</td> <td>
бабка<br />
бабуни<br />
бахур<br />
бочник<br />
божа се<br />
брав<br />
боздуган<br />
цедило, цедилка<br />
целя̀ се<br />чарда<br />
дъждовница<br />
девер<br />
добиче<br />
издъхвам<br />
доя<br />
долчина<br />
домашен<br />
дръглив<br />
дъбица<br />
бабина душица<br />
гайда<br />
гърлешница<br />
грухти<br />
гуня<br />
имàне<br />
яребат<br />
кабаница<br />
касатка<br />
клатя се<br />
клякам<br />
клинец<br />
клокочи<br />
крачуни<br />
прòкиш<br />
клечка<br />
кудкудякат<br />
кърчаг<br />
кърпел<br />
къткам<br />
кътник<br />
квака<br />
лемеш<br />
лесковица<br />
лесковина<br />
лихва<br />
лича<br />
личбина<br />
лъскав<br />
ложе<br />
луб<br />
мачкам, смачкам<br />
мѣшьць<br />
младоженец<br />
младоженка<br />
мъзга, млъзга<br />
мърхоли<br />
мънкам<br />
мьзда<br />
нагърна<br />
наежвам се<br />
нане<br />
недъг<br />
обад<br />
овад<br />
обягна се<br />
облажавам<br />
разчесна<br />
одолнѥ<br />
напокон<br />
окоти се<br />
имел<br />
орница<br />
осика<br />
овалям<br />
пъпря<br />
пъхам<br />
печурка<br />
пищял, пищялка<br />
притвор<br />
плешивец<br />
подлизвам се<br />
пахар<br />
похабен<br />
киване, кивна<br />
полезник<br />
постав<br />
прахан<br />
пречка<br />
прелог<br />
окуми се<br />
куче грозде<br />
пътец<br />
рабуш<br />
ранина<br />
ратай<br />
разседлина<br />
разседна се<br />
рухо<br />
самоков<br />
самоток<br />
седморка<br />
сговор<br />
сговарям се<br />
изхули се<br />
пресекна<br />
жабри<br />
скапа се<br />
клесна го<br />
слегна се<br />
слобода<br />
щипка<br />
щрек, стрег<br />
стърнище<br />
изтръпвам<br />
потули се<br />
стоудъ (OBg.)<br />
сък, съчка<br />
свак, сват<br />
шаша<br />
шатърен<br />
шибам<br />
скопявам<br />
скопец<br />
сквърна<br />
шута<br />
шутя<br />
талига<br />
тъст<br />
тоунѣ<br />
урда<br />
у̀сад<br />
да усекна<br />
ваганка, гаванка<br />
велможа<br />
вѣно<br />
вещица<br />
вели<br />
вглъбвам<br />
във<br />
избликна<br />
избочвам се<br />
да избухна<br />
да избухам<br />
върколак<br />
вървя<br />
да възкръсна<br />
запъртък<br />
заран<br />
джасна се<br />
стрѣкало<br />
бутнее<br />
жалее<br />
слъгвам<br />
измамвам<br />
спухри се<br />
срутвам<br />
извара<br />
изварям<br />
коли-жаба<br />
завчас<br />
жилка<br />
живурка<br />
жълна (dial.)<br />
жълтък<br />
жълтеница<br />
жребе, жребий
</td> <td>old coin<br />
wizard(ry)<br />
sausage (kind of)<br />
shirt sleeve<br />
to vow<br />
wether<br />
mace<br />
baby sling<br />
cure oneself<br />balcony<br />
newt<br />
brother-in-law<br />
animal<br />
expire (for animal)<br />
to milk<br />
hollow<br />
poltergeist<br />
scraggy<br />
oak wood<br />
thyme<br />
bagpipe<br />
gourd<br />
to grunt<br />
shepherd's cloak<br />
treasure<br />
variegated (for birds)<br />
shepherd's cloak<br />
apron<br />
to shake<br />
to kneal<br />
nail<br />
to gurgle<br />
Christmastide<a href="#note1"> (1)</a><br />
acid<br />
stick<br />
to cackle<br />
jug<a href="#note1"> (1)</a><br />
club<br />
cluck<br />
molar<br />
croak<br />
ploughshare<br />
hazel-stick<br />
hazel<br />
interest<br />
beautify<br />
beauty<br />
shiny<br />
bed<a href="#note2"> (2)</a><br />
bast<br />
crumple<br />
pouch<br />
bridegroom<br />
bride<br />
sap<br />
to drizzle<br />
to mumble<br />
wages<br />
to drape<br />
to bristle<br />
uncle<br />
ailment<a href="#note3"> (3)</a><br />
horse bot fly<br />
horse bot fly<br />
to yean<br />
to envy<br />
to comb<br />
lap<br />
at last<br />
to have kitten<a href="#note4"> (4)</a><br />
mistletoe<br />
fallow<br />
aspen<br />
to roll in<br />
to crawl<br />
to poke<br />
mushroom<br />
shin, whistle<br />
narthex<br />
baldhead<br />
to leak<br />
bowl<br />
worn<br />
nod, to nod<br />
carol-singer<br />
a loom of material<br />
tinder<br />
obstacle<br />
fallow land<br />
to drop in<br />
nightshade<br />
path<br />
tally<br />
at dawn<br />
farm-hand<br />
fault<br />
to fault<br />
garb<br />
smithy<br />
must (pulp)<br />
set of seven<a href="#note5"> (5)</a><br />
agreement<br />
to agree<br />
to slip out<br />
to stop<br />
gills<br />
to fall to pieces<br />
to split<br />
to settle down<br />
freedom<a href="#note6"> (6)</a><br />
pinch<br />
on the lookout<br />
stubble<br />
to tingle<br />
to hide<br />
shame<br />
branch, twig<br />
in-law<br />
crackpot<br />
attentive<br />
to lash<br />
castrate<br />
eunuch<br />
stain<br />
hummel<br />
to trim<br />
cart<br />
father-in-law<br />
cheap<br />
infusion<br />
farm<br />
to blow nose<br />
mortar<br />
noble, lord<br />
marriage portion<br />
fortune-teller <a href="#note8"> (8)</a><br />
says<br />
make concave<br />
in<br />
to gush out<br />
to bend<br />
to burst<br />
to thrash<br />
werewolf<a href="#note7"> (7)</a><br />
to walk<br />
to rise from the dead<br />
addle egg<br />in the morning<br />
to bash oneself<br />
key-lock<br />
to sprout<br />
to grieve<br />
to fib<br />
to deceive<br />
fester<br />
demolish<br />
curds<br />
to boil<br />
blunt knife<br />
in a short time<br />
vein<br />
to vegetate<br />
woodpecker<br />
yolk<br />
jaundice<br />
stallion, lot
</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<p><a name="note1">1.</a> This word occurs in Czech but it is considered a Slovak word.<br />
<a name="note2">2.</a> In Czech louža means 'stream'.<br />
<a name="note3">3.</a> In Czech this word is archaism.<br />
<a name="note4">4.</a> Otherwise the word mačka is used for 'cat' in Slovak which, as in Bulgarian, means both 'cat' and 'anchor'.<br />
<a name="note5">5.</a> In Czech, it is sedmerka.<br />
<a name="note6">6.</a> This word is found in Bulgarian dialects; in Czech, it is svoboda.<br />
<a name="note7">7.</a> In Czech, it is vlkodlak.<br />
<a name="note8">8.</a> In Bulgarian, the meaning of this word is 'witch'. Slovakian has the word 'bosorka' for 'witch'.<br /></p>
<p>The following idioms have a curious similarity in the two languages</p><table align="center"><tbody><tr> <th>Slovak</th> <th>Bulgarian</th> <th>English</th> </tr>
<tr> <td>na jeden dušok<br />
žaludok mele<br />
vspak-ruky<br />
urečú ho<br />
veru!, vera!<br />
bol som sa zariekol<br />
čini sa mi<br />
treba je<br />
ktori-si<br />
celi boži deň<br />
zabol'alo ho srce<br />
hračka-plačka<br />
umoknuti ako myš<br />
čertovskà robota!<br />
vre u ňom<br />
ma dlhy prsty<br />
čert ne spi<br />
preliat' olovo<br />
hladny jako vlk<br />
blädý jako stena<br />
lahký jaku pierko<br />
biely jako sňah<br />
sladky joko mäd<br />
rovný jako svieca<br />
slany ako živica</td> <td>на един дъх<br />
стомахът меле<br />
наопък-ръце<br />
урочасват го<br />
вяра!<br />
зарекъл съм се<br />
чини ми се<br />
трѣба ѥстъ<br />
някой-си<br />
цял божи ден<br />
сърцето го заболя<br />
играчка-плачка<br />
мокър като мишка<br />
дяволска работа!<br />
ври и кипи в него<br />
има дълги пръсти<br />
дяволът не спи<br />
лея куршум<br />
гладен като вълк<br />
бледен като стена<br />
лек като перо<br />
бял като сняг<br />
сладък като мед<br />
прав като свещ<br />
солено като бигор</td> <td>in one breath<br />
the stomach churns<br />
inside-out<br />
put an evil spell<br />
by my faith!<br />
I've promised<br />
it seems to me<br />
have to<br />
somebody<br />
the whole day<br />
he had a heartache<br />
a cry-toy<br />
wet as a mouse<br />
devil's deed!<br />
it boils in him<br />
he has long fingers<br />
devil doesn't sleep<br />
to pour lead<br />
hungry as a wolf<br />
white as a wall<br />
light as a feather<br />
white as snow<br />
sweet as honey<br />
straight as a candle<br />
salty as travertine</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>In Slovak very often verbal nouns ending in ица are used, just as in Bulgarian: mačkanica, motanica, metenica, dušenica, plieskanica, sušenica (dried cheese).</p><p>Also interesting are the verbal adverbs ending in ačky: spiačky, stojačky, nechtiačky, etc. as in Bulgarian: стоячки, седечки, etc.</p><p>This is only a cursory comparison between Slovak and Bulgarian vocabularies. But if the comparison goes further in the field of the intellectual and material culture of these two peoples, one would find more points of contact; there are many common fairy-tales, proverbs, folk customs, dances, plays, etc. Below is a list of many Slovak proverbs which have the same Bulgarian counterparts; some of them are so identical that they need not be translated, and all of them show how close is Slovak to Bulgarian.</p>
<ul style="list-style-type: square;">
<li>Idi mu na krivo gajdy — разкриви му се гайдата — his bagpipe got bent
</li><li>Nohy založim za plece a ujdem — ще си туря краката на рамо и ще ида — I'll put my legs on the shoulders and go
</li><li>Tak s ním zaobchodi, ako s malovanim vojcem — гледа го като писано яйце — Cares for him as a painted egg
</li><li>Tma ako v rohu — тъмно като в рог — as dark as in a horn
</li><li>Vola za rohy, človeka za reči chytaju — вол се хваща за рогата, а човека – за езика — the ox is taken by the horns, and the man – by the tongue
</li><li>So suchym aj sirové hori — покрай сухото гори и сурово — the raw burns along with the dry
</li><li>L'ava dlaň ma svrbi – prijmem peniaze — лявата длан ме сърби – ще получа пари — my left hand is itching – I'll get money
</li><li>Aby ti vòz ne škriepal, pomast' mu kolesa — намажи си колата да ти не скърцат — Grease the wheels not to screech
</li><li>Boh dopušt'a, ale neopušt'a — Бог забавя, ала не забравя — God delays but does not forget
</li><li>Ide, kode ho oči vedú — отива, където го очи водят — goes where his eyes lead him
</li><li>Ne pchaj nos kde si ne treba — не пъхай нос дето не трябва — don't stick your nose where you shouldn't
</li><li>Ne pchaj prsty medzi dvere — не си пъхай пръстите между вратата — don't stick your fingers between the door
</li><li>Od hlavy do päty ho premeral — премери го от глава до пети — he measured him from head to toes
</li><li>Odl'ahlo mu na srdci — олекна му на сърцето — his heart got lighter
</li><li>Buchnem t'a, že ti hned' oči vyskočia — така ще те ударя, че ще ти изскочат очите — I'll hit you so that your eyes will pop
</li><li>Tak t'a capim, že hned' jazik vyplaziš — така ще те цапна, че ще изплезиш език — I'll slap you so that you'll pull out your tongue
</li><li>Ryba od hlavý smrdi — рибата се вмирисва откъм главата — the fish stinks from the head downwards
</li><li>Čo hluchý ne počuje, to si vymisli — каквото глухия не чува, си го измисля — the deaf imagines what he cannot hear
</li><li>Palica ma dva konce — тоягата има два края — a stick has two end
</li><li>Nevolaňy host' má miesto za dverami — на неканен гост мястото му е зад вратата — an uninvited guest stays behind the door
</li><li>Klin s klinom — клин клин избива — wedge removes wedge; to fight fire with fire
</li><li>Jedon Boh na nebi, jedon král' na zemi — Бог високо, цар далеко — one God on heaven, one King on earth
</li><li>Potreba ruši zakon — нужда закон изменя — need changes the law
</li><li>Kto malo hovori vel'a mysli — който малко говори много мисли — that who speaks little thinks much
</li><li>Jako ti hrajú, tak musiš tancovat' — както ти свирят, така ще играеш — you dance as they play
</li><li>Až ked' preskočiš, povedz hop — като прескочиш, тогава кажи хоп — when you jump then say hop
</li><li>Dlhé vlasy, kratky rozum
</li><li>Kad' slnko svieti a dažd prši, čert babu bije — дъжд вали, слънце пече – дяволът се жени — it rains, the sun shines – it's the devil's wedding
</li><li>Nič mu ne chýbä, iba vtačie mlieko — има от пиле мляко — he has even bird's milk
</li><li>Chcel by mat' aj vlka sytého, aj barana celého — и вълка сит и агнето цяло — both the wolf sated and the sheep whole
</li><li>Nieje domu bez dymu — няма къща без дим — there is no house without smoke
</li><li>Darovanomu koňovi ne hl'ad' na zuby — на харизан кон зъби се не гледат — don't look a gift horse in the mouth
</li><li>Nešt'astie ne chodi po horách, lež po l'ud'och — нещастието не ходи по горите, а по хората — misfortune goes to people and not to the woods
</li><li>Dobré sa samo chvali — хубавото само се хвали — the good speaks for itself
</li><li>Prázny klas hore stoji — празният клас стърчи нависоко — the empty wheat ear climbs higher
</li><li>Jaká otázka taka otpoved' — какъвто въпроса такъв и отговора — response matches the question
</li><li>Narodil sa so zubama — родил се със зъби — he was born with teeth
</li><li>Jako seješ, tak budeš žat' — каквото сееш това ще пожънеш — you will reap what you saw
</li><li>Ukáž mu prst, a on celú ruku chyti — покажи му пръст, той ще ти отхапе ръката — show him a finger and he will bite your hand
</li><li>Kto priskvary l'ubi, tomu na svadbu prši — който се кара, на сватбата му дъжд вали — shrews have a rainy wedding
</li><li>Ruka ruku umýva, a obe sú biele — една ръка мие другата, та и двете чисти — one hand washes the other and both are clean
</li><li>Proti smrti niet lieku — няма лек срещу смъртта — death cannot be cured
</li><li>Ked' vodie slepý slepého, padnú oba do jamy — слепец води слепеца и двамата падат в ямата — a blind man leads another blind man and both fall in the pit
</li><li>Ne vidi d'alej od nosa — не вижда по-далеч от носа си — doesn't see farther than his nose
</li><li>Pójdem, kam mä dve oči ponesú — ще отида където краката ме отнесат — I'll go where my legs carry me
</li><li>Vrana vrane oči ne vykole — гарван гарвану очи не вади — a raven doesn't poke the eyes of another raven
</li><li>Chodí spat' so sliepkami — спи с кокошките — goes to bed early
</li><li>Je to stará liška; t'ažko sa chytat' dá — стара лисица е; трудно се хваща — he is an old fox; it's hard to catch him
</li><li>Jedon šije, druhý páre — един шие, друг пере — one sews, another washes
</li><li>Trafila kosa na kameň — удари коса на камък — hit an obstacle
</li><li>Vajce chce byt' múdrejšie nežli sliepka — яйцето е по-мъдро от кокошката — the egg is wiser than the hen
</li><li>Dvakrat meraj, a raz strihaj — два пъти мери, веднъж режи — measure twice, cut once
</li><li>Sytý ne verí lačnému — ситият не вярва на гладния — the sated doesn't believe the hungry one
</li><li>Dobrý chýr d'aleko ide, ale zlý ešte d'alej — добрият слух отива далече, а лошият още по-далече — the good rumour goes far but the bad one even farther
</li><li>V mútnej vode ryby lovit' — лови риба в мътна вода — he fishes in a turbid water
</li><li>Prazdný sud najviac huči — празно гърне най-много дрънчи — an empty jug clangs louder
</li><li>Do osieho hniezda pichnut' — бръкна в осино гнездо — poked in a wasps' nest
</li><li>Krev neni voda — кръвта вода не става — blood is thicker than water
</li><li>Dotial krčah k studní chodi, dakial sa ne zabije — веднъж стомна за вода, два пъти, па счупена — the jug goes to the spring until it is broken
</li><li>Sveti slnko, ale zybaté — свети слънце, но зъбато — the sun shines, but has teeth (it's cold) </li>
</ul>
<p>We dwelt more on Slovak because this language is not well known and because this exposition could interest some linguists to continue this comparison, which will convince us that what we call Slovak language was recently separate from Czech and Polish, and was much closer to the south Slavic group, and more specifically to Bulgarian language.</p><p>Many authoritative scientists supported such separate status of Slovak language (Šafarik, Maretić, Florinsky, and others), and some (Kopitar, Miklošić, and Dümler) go further – they allege that Slovaks have originally been Slovenians (Slovinians) that were later Czechized. Maretić alleged the same but Jagić countered this opinion saying that the Slovaks were closest to Czechs even in the 9th century <a href="#ref25">[25]</a>.</p><p>No one denies this closeness but it does not prevent the suggestion that in the 9th c. Slovak was more south Slavic than western Slavic language.</p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Conclusions</h1>All said above about the relationship of Bulgarian to the other Slavic languages allows us to make the following conclusions:<p><b class="green">First.</b> Bulgarian Slavs before they settled on the Balkan Peninsula were located in their old abode at such place that they touched with Sloveno-Croats, Slovaks, Poles, and Russians, but they did not touch with Czechs and Serbs.</p><p><b class="green">Second.</b> In the above location, Slavonic Bulgarian had already the same phonetic traits that are found in the oldest monuments of the Cyril and Methodius writing; namely, in addition to all traits characteristic for the southeastern Slavic languages, it had the following specific traits:</p>
<ol><li>tj-dj = шч-ждж and шть-ждь<br />
</li><li>ѫ = ън; initial ѫ = ън and вън<br />
</li><li>ѧ = йън and ен<br />
</li><li>ъ = ъ and о, ь = йъ and е<br />
</li><li>ръ = ръ, лъ = лъ<br />
</li><li>ѣ = я<br />
</li><li>чръ = чръ<br />
</li><li>ъı = ъй<br />
</li><li>accent is on various syllables </li></ol>
<p>Taking into account the present Bulgarian dialects, we could suggest for that age, and even earlier, a certain division in two groups differing by the following:</p><table><tbody><tr> <th> </th> <th>I.</th> <th>II.</th> </tr>
<tr> <td>1.<br />
2.<br />
3.<br />
4.</td> <td>щ-жд = шч-ждж<br />
initial ѫ = ън, йън<br />
ѧ = ен (йен, жен, шен)<br />
ъ = о, ь = е</td> <td>щ-жд = шть-ждь<br />
initial ѫ = вън<br />
ѧ = йън (йън, жън, шън)<br />
ъ = ъ, ь = йъ</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<p style="clear: both;">In the modern Bulgarian language group I corresponds to the southwestern dialects, while group II corresponds to the eastern dialects, especially to Rup dialects. But it is very likely that there were more than 2 branches which by their subsequent crossing gave the present variety of Bulgarian dialects.</p><p>The old and new situation of Bulgarian language, as in general the mutual relation of the main Slavic languages, can be graphically expressed with a chain of 6 circles, intertwined about a central 7th circle. The central circle could represent the old place of the Slavonic Bulgarian which at present is occupied by Hungarians, Romanians and Slovaks, and the 6 circles around it represent the main present Slavic languages which by their interactions produced mixed languages or dialects: between Czech and Polish – Lužician-Sorbian, between Polish and Russian – Belorussian, between Russian and Bulgarian – Ukrainian, between Bulgarian and Serbian – Kosovo-Morava dialects, between Serbian and Slovenian – Croatian, between Slovenian and Czech – Slovak. But Slovak today occupies a central position so that it touches to all Slavic languages as before, with the exception of Bulgarian.</p><p>Once we consider so the position of Slavonic Bulgarian, the problem of the origin and the name of the Cyril and Methodius language becomes very clear; because whether it originated on the Balkan Peninsula or in Panonia, it is all the same because the tribe that spoke it, then occupied both Panonia and the Balkans. Only if we wish to specify together with its name also the place where the first Slavic writing was invented, we can, according to our conviction, call it Panonian Slavonic or Balkan Slavonic. However, both names point to the same Slavic tribe, the tribe from which the today Bulgarians arose.</p><h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1><p><a name="ref1">1.</a> V. Jagić. Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse innerhalb der slavischen Sprachen, Arch. XX, 16; XVII, 603; VIII, 134</p><p><a name="ref2">2.</a> V. Jagić. Arch. XX, 13</p><p><a name="ref3">3.</a> Dobrovsky. Institutiones linguae slovenicae, 1822</p><p><a name="ref4">4.</a> Šafarik. History of Slavic languages and literatures, 1826</p><p><a name="ref5">5.</a> Šafarik. Národopis, 1842</p><p><a name="ref6">6.</a> Schleicher. Short overview. Academic proceedings, VII</p><p><a name="ref7">7.</a> Palacky. Geschichte Böhmens, 1836</p><p><a name="ref8">8.</a> I. Sreznevsky. Philological observations of Vostokov, 1865</p><p><a name="ref9">9.</a> Mikloshich. Lautlehre, 31, 84</p><p><a name="ref10">10.</a> Jagić. Rad XIV, 208, Arch. I, 393</p><p><a name="ref11">11.</a> Krek. Einleitung in der slav. Litteraturgeschichte, 224</p><p><a name="ref12">12.</a> Maksimovich. On the relationship of Russian and western Slavic, 1845</p><p><a name="ref13">13.</a> Lavrovsky. On the Russian vocalisation, 1852</p><p><a name="ref14">14.</a> Geitler. Old Bulgarian phonology</p><p><a name="ref15">15.</a> I. Schmidt. Zur Geschichte des Indo-germ. Vocalismus, II</p><p><a name="ref16">16.</a> Potebnya. On the sound history in Russian, 144</p><p><a name="ref17">17.</a> Daničić. Rad I, ћ and ђ in the history of Slavic languages; Classification of Slavic languages, Belgrade, 1874</p><p><a name="ref18">18.</a> Gundulić. Mikl. I, 413</p><p><a name="ref19">19.</a> Jagić. Arch. XVII, 85-9, XIX, 276-7</p><p><a name="ref20">20.</a> Miletich, L. The article in Bulgarian and Russian (in Bulgarian), Coll. XVIII, 45-48</p><p><a name="ref21">21.</a> Gebauer. Hist. mluvn. jaz. česk. I, 116</p><p><a name="ref22">22.</a> Pastrnek. Beiträge z. Lautl. d. slovak. Sprache, 37</p><p><a name="ref23">23.</a> Jagić. Arch. f. sl. Phil. X, 256; XV, 523; XVI, 509-512</p><p><a name="ref24">24.</a> Oblak. Collection for folklore, science, and literature XI, crit. sec. 6</p><p><a name="ref25">25.</a> Jagić. Entstehungsgeschichte, 18</p><p><a name="ref26">26.</a> Nikolay Derzhavin. History of Bulgaria. Origin of the Bulgarian people and formation of the first Bulgarian state on the Balkan Peninsula", Sofia, 1946</p>
<div class="image-left"><p><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1Injwe7S5HQ/WV-EP6QdKlI/AAAAAAAAFYk/BCtCINBOTkIP5-pIpJRWgLjBlmyffgXLwCKgBGAs/s1600/Ist_Tsonev.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Istoria na Bulgarsky ezik" border="0" height="280" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1Injwe7S5HQ/WV-EP6QdKlI/AAAAAAAAFYk/BCtCINBOTkIP5-pIpJRWgLjBlmyffgXLwCKgBGAs/s1600/Ist_Tsonev.jpg" width="210" /></a></p><p>This web page is based on material from: <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/istoriiablgarski01tsonuoft">Benyo Tsonev. History of Bulgarian Language. Chapter II. Bulgarian and other Slavic Languages, pp. 11-62</a></p>
<h2 style="clear: both;">Citation</h2>
<p>This preprint can be cited as: Antonov, Lyudmil. Bulgarian compared to other Slavic languages. ResearchGate DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21420.33920" rel="nofollow">10.13140/RG.2.2.21420.33920</a></p>
</div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-60422846171994914502013-05-09T00:03:00.015-07:002023-09-29T01:20:32.824-07:00Bulgarian dialects<p><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4wzE4hjCru8/WV_hEi1no9I/AAAAAAAAFbY/zJb15Xm6ANUFirQxDsF7iltCywfayZn0QCKgBGAs/s1600/Dialectcontinuum.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgarian dialect continuum" border="0" height="427" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4wzE4hjCru8/WV_hEi1no9I/AAAAAAAAFbY/zJb15Xm6ANUFirQxDsF7iltCywfayZn0QCKgBGAs/w640-h427/Dialectcontinuum.jpg" width="640" /></a></p><p><b>Bulgarian dialects</b> (гòвори) are part of the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html">South Slavic dialect continuum</a>, linked with Serbian to the west and bordering Albanian, Greek and Turkish to the south, and Romanian to the north. All Slavic dialects spoken in the geographical regions of Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia, and Dobrudzha are dialects of the Bulgarian language. <a href="#ref1">[1]</a> <a href="#ref2">[2]</a> <a href="#ref3">[3] </a><a href="#ref4">[4]</a> <a href="#ref5">[5]</a> <a href="#ref6">[6]</a> <a href="#ref7">[7]</a> <a href="#ref8">[8]</a> <a href="#ref9">[9]</a> <a href="#ref10">[10]</a> <a href="#ref11">[11]</a></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
<p>Considering the striking individualty of <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html">Bulgarian compared with the other Slavic languages</a>, some non-Bulgarian linguists use also the terms: east-southern Slavic dialects; Balkano-Slavic dialects; Macedonian dialects; Slavic dialects in Northern Greece, Albania, and Kosovo, etc. With such descriptions they indicate the dialects of the whole Bulgarian historical and geographic dialect territory. Although they avoid using explicitly the national designation, in fact, they acknowledge the individuality and unity of Bulgarian language.</p>
<p>Bulgarian dialect language today because of changes of extra-linguistic character is found in and outside the state borders of Republic of Bulgaria in the three historical regions: Moesia, Thrace and
Macedonia. It has a chracteristic individuality: in the ninth century, it is a classic Slavic language, and now it is a Balkan language, characterised by nouns with no cases but with rich articularisation, analytical formation of the degrees of comparison, doubling of the object, etc.; in the verbs - replacing the infinitive with a "to" construct, formation of an analytical future tense with particles and so on. These grammatical features (with minor exceptions) are characteristic of all dialects and the specifics of the Bulgarian language is built on them as an individual and characteristic Slavo-Balkan language. This characteristic is confirmed by hundreds of foreign researchers. In the field of phonetics and vocabulary, however, differences between dialects are essential and the dialect classification is done on them.</p>
<p>Bulgarian dialectology dates to the 1830s and the pioneering work of Neofit Rilski, <i>Bolgarska gramatika</i>, published 1835 in Kragujevac. Other notable researchers in this field include Marin Drinov, Konstantin Josef Jireček, Benyo Tsonev, Yordan Ivanov, Lyubomir Miletich, Aleksandar Teodorov-Balan, Stoyko Stoykov, Stefan Mladenov, Blagoy Shklifov.</p><p>An important characteristic of Bulgarian dialectology is that the names of dialects and dialect groups are based exclusively on the <b>geographic principle</b> which helps to classify dialects objectively on the basis of linguistic traits, irrespective of the political conjuncture. This is in sharp contrast to the dialectologies of neighbouring countries which base their dialect classifications on subjective ethnic grouping, e.g., Serbian dialectology – "torlak", "shop", "macedonian (in ethnic sense)" dialects; Greek dialectology – "pomak" dialect, etc. As a rule, ethnic dialectology has resulted in invented nationalities turning dialectology into a weapon for political aspirations.</p><h1>Dialect area</h1><p>Bulgarian language area is located in the Eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula. To the north, it borders Romanian language, of the Roman language family. The <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/borders-of-bulgarian-language.html">language border</a> goes along Danube from the Timok Estuary to the town of Silistra, then it crosses Dobrudja and ends at the Black Sea coast. In the past, a numerous Bulgarian population lived in Romanian (Northern) Dobrudja but in 1941 according to an agreement between the Bulgarian and Romanian governments, these people were moved to the Bulgarian (Southern) Dobrudja in the place of re-settled Romanian population. Therefore, the northern border of Bulgarian language is clearly delineated as it separates two different languages: Bulgarian and Romanian. The eastern border is the Black Sea. The southern border of Bulgarian is not clearly defined. The Bulgarian population in the southern parts of Thrace and Macedonia lived for many centuries mixed with other ethnicities, primarily Greeks and Turks, speaking languages very different from Bulgarian. So, instead of language mixing, these ethnicities remained clearly differentiated on the language basis and, indeed, language became the main ethnic characteristic. A large part of Bulgarians (Grecomans) spoke Greek in public and Bulgarian at home. Islamised Bulgarians (Pomaks) spoke a Bulgarian dialect mixed with Turkish words. And yet, a historical border to the south exists that separates Bulgarians from others. It is the old Roman road Via Ignatia that connects the Adriatic with the Black Sea. For a large part, it goes close to the Aegean coast <a href="#ref85">[85]</a>. North of Via Ignatia Bulgarians predominate while south of it they are in the minority.</p>
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yLYDDSZm-18/WV_hgDW09rI/AAAAAAAAFbc/VnmkjYe5ebAYxWbhvkdGINUZfLm5BknKwCKgBGAs/s1600/rizmap22.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgaria demographic" border="0" height="533" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yLYDDSZm-18/WV_hgDW09rI/AAAAAAAAFbc/VnmkjYe5ebAYxWbhvkdGINUZfLm5BknKwCKgBGAs/w640-h533/rizmap22.jpg" width="640" /></a><p>A 1865 map of the Balkan Peninsula, showing the track of Via Ignatia <a href="#ref85">[85]</a>.</p><p>To the west, Bulgarian borders Serbian language. This border, however, is not clearly defined. Bulgarian and Serbian are very similar Slavic languages, and Bulgarians and Serbs have a lot in common in their languages and customs. Because of the specific historical circumstances on the lands around the Bulgarian-Serbian border, the population there lived for many centuries in a single economical, political, and cultural community. Thus, on a dialect basis, the languages are not easily distinguished. Until 15th century, these lands were alternately under Bulgarian and Serbian rule, and then for 5 centuries they were ruled by the Ottomans. The state border was established only in 1878; until then the Serb-Ottoman border went much further to the west <a href="#ref13">[13]</a>.</p>
<p>The border to the west and southwest goes along the approximate line established by Stefan Verković – Serbian folk researcher and ethnograph, and Prof. Afanasiy Selishchev – a great Russian Slavist. For the western and southern borders of Bulgarian, Verković writes in detail in his works <a href="#ref82">[82]</a> and <a href="#ref8">[8]</a>:</p><blockquote>The border to the south is defined by Bistritsa River from its sources to its estuary, then by Hortach, Vavro, Kolomenta, Kakavo, and Erisovo. Bulgarian language is prevalent to the north of the above rivers ... To the north, starting from the beginning of the mountain range separating Prizren and Shkodra sandzaks, the border between Bulgarian and Serbian tribes consists by the high chains of Shar that reach as far as Kachanik where they connect with the so-called Skopian Montenegro. From Kachanik to Morava River, the border goes along the above-mentioned Skopian Montenegro. The border between Bulgarians and Serbs living in Kosovo plain is Morava River. From Morava River as far as the Danube the vernacular is identical to that of Macedonian and Thracian Bulgarians ... (<a href="#ref8">[8]</a>, pp. 43-44).</blockquote><p>The studies of Verković which he did for 30 years, are fully confirmed by other Serbian scientists, such as Milovan Vidaković (1833), Dr. Jovan Subotić (1845), Jovan Gavrilović (1863), Tuminski (1868), А. Hadžić (1870), Vasa Pelagić (1879) and others.</p><p>It is worth noting that much the same border to the west was drawn by Krste Misirkov in his study <a href="#ref84">[84]</a>:</p><blockquote>The border between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian languages and peoples is the line that begins on the right bank of Sava River, goes to the south along the watershed of Kolubara and Morava, then along the watershed of Serbian Morava and Ibar to Skadar and the Adriatic Sea.</blockquote><p>More specific data about the south-western border are found in the comprehensive study of Prof. Selishchev <a href="#ref83">[83]</a>, as a part of his work "Slavic-Albanian relations". Below is a short excerpt:</p><blockquote>Bulgarian south-western language borderline, starting at the mountain ranges of Gorusha and Gramos and from Belitsa River to the south turns from the village of Slimitsa to the east and further to the north, to the Bulgarian village Lobanitsa and to the Bulgarian-Albanian town Biglishta goes to the north-west ... From the village Podbuche it goes to the south shore of Ohrid Lake, to the Bulgarian monastery "St. Naum". At Struga the borderline goes to the west of Drin. Further to the north-west of the crest of Golo Brdo at the village Torbochani crosses to the other side of Drin River ... along the Drin ... From here, at Kenok Hill, the border turns to the east to the Bulgarian Muslim village Zhernonitsa and further to the Mavrovi Inns ... to Rudoka Mountain, to the Vratsa Pass and to the villages of Prizrenska Gora, situated between Shar Mountain, Rudoka Mountain and Koritnik ... From Gora to the north-east through the Shar Mountain, from its peak Lyubotran and then to the east, north of the Bulgarian village Rogachevo, goes to Dervent in Polog near Vardar and further to the north-east to Skopjan Montenegro (pp. 1-3).</blockquote><p>Compared, the three quoted authors agree completely. This shows the precision of their research, although carried out in different years and circumstances. Indeed, in the borders so delineated, there are foreign populations: Albanians, Turks, Greek, as well as Turkified, Hellenised, or Serbianized Bulgarians but as long as there is a language with the traits characteristic for Bulgarian language, it is strictly Bulgarian, different from all other languages. </p><p>However, the various geographic, historical, political, and economic factors exerted a powerful influence to generate a great variety of dialects. A number of traits cross in these dialects which are not present in all of them but occur in such combinations that give an individual aspect of each dialect. The dialects are similar or dissimilar to each other but in a way that creates a complex branched chain between them. Thus, Bulgarian dialects are doubly connected: through common traits that make a single language regardless of minor variations, and through local traits characterising dialect groups that also unite dialects into a single language but through a chain-like connection. The strength of this link is felt especially in the similarity of dialects which are distant in geographical sense (e.g., Smolyan dialect in the Rhodopes and the Debar (Miyak-Rekantsi) dialect as far as the Albanian mountains in Macedonia, or the Shop dialect along Iskar and the Moesian dialects towards Danube and the Black Sea.</p><p>The dialects along the western Bulgarian border, so-called <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">'transitional dialects'</a>, became an object of the Greater Bulgarian and Greater Serbian jingoism. Bulgarian and Serbian politicians tried through dialectology to prove that the dialects in the border area are pure Bulgarian or pure Serbian. Bulgarian linguists drew the border of Bulgarian language far to the west — from the Timok Estuary through Zaecar, Bolevac, Stalac, Pristina to Prizren. Serbian linguists placed the eastern border of Serbian language at Iskar River or even at the Yat border <a href="#ref14">[14]</a>.</p><p>In fact, not only along the Bulgarian western border but everywhere, especially among Slavs, in the border areas between close languages there are always <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">transitional dialects</a> and the change from one language to another is very gradual. The <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">transitional dialects</a> can be explained with the instability of political borders between the peoples during their national formation. The population in the border area usually had been ruled alternately by one or another Middle Age state or Empire, and had lived together with close economical, cultural, and political ties. Such transition is seen for Czech and Polish dialects, Polish and Byelo-Russian, Russian and Ukrainian, etc.</p><p>Macedonian dialects which possess all the characteristics of the Bulgarian language system and are very similar in grammar and vocabulary had been described as Bulgarian dialects in the large majority of publications before WWII. The similarity of Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects is a result of their common origin and identical development for more than 12 centuries in the Bulgarian national and cultural area <a href="#ref15">[15]</a>. Bulgarian and Macedonian are part of a language continuum which is different from the Serbo-Croatian language continuum. After the codification of Standard Macedonian language in the Republic of Macedonia on the basis of two southwestern Bulgarian dialects (Prilep-Mariovo dialect and Bitola dialect) in 1944-45, some linguists recognised the new standard as a separate language, although Bulgarian (including some members of the codification committee) and many non-Bulgarian linguists do not accept the codification, describing it as a political decision without a solid linguistic basis. <a href="#ref2">[2]</a> <a href="#ref16">[16]</a> <a href="#ref17">[17]</a> <a href="#ref18">[18]</a> <a href="#ref19">[19]</a> <a href="#ref20">[20]</a> <a href="#ref21">[21]</a> <a href="#ref22">[22]</a> <a href="#ref23">[23]</a> <a href="#ref24">[24]</a> <a href="#ref25">[25]</a> <a href="#ref26">[26]</a> <a href="#ref27">[27]</a> <a href="#ref28">[28]</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p><a href="http://ibl.bas.bg//bulgarian_dialects/" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgaria dialect map" border="0" height="700" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Lk2KqC6PNFU/WV_h-2JbrjI/AAAAAAAAFbg/KBYghlB_vX0fIifldOnNGqLXqjGPydyqACKgBGAs/s1600/dialect-map_zpssidrnhcq.png" width="880" /></a><p>Interactive Bulgarian dialect map showing the individual dialects.</p><p></p>
<h1>Classification</h1><p>Bulgarian language developed in <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/history-of-bulgarian-language.html">historical circumstances</a> that contributed to its dialect segmentation and crossover. Therefore, today it is among the the most dialectically segmented Slavic languages. Modern Bulgarian dialects carry remnants from old tribal divisions of the Bulgarian ethnos during its <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/history-of-bulgarian-language.html">historical development</a> from the First Bulgarian State until the end of the Ottoman rule.</p><p>When classifying Bulgarian dialects, the Bulgarian dialectology lays stress on two kinds of traits: traits that distinguish individual dialects, and, on the other hand, traits that are common to two or more dialects and unite them in larger dialect groups. Distinguishing individual dialects in the present state of Bulgarian dialectology is a very difficult, almost impossible, task. Bulgarian dialects are not systematically studied by the methods of linguistic geography to show the territorial distribution of linguistic phenomena. Furthermore, the specific historic fate of Bulgarians resulted in a complicated dialect segmentation of the Bulgarian dialect area which spans at present several countries. <a href="#ref29">[29]</a> <a href="#ref30">[30]</a> <a href="#ref31">[31]</a> <a href="#ref32">[32]</a> <a href="#ref33">[33]</a> <a href="#ref34">[34]</a> <a href="#ref35">[35]</a> <a href="#ref36">[36]</a> <a href="#ref37">[37]</a> <a href="#ref38">[38]</a> <a href="#ref39">[39]</a> <a href="#ref40">[40]</a> <a href="#ref41">[41]</a> <a href="#ref42">[42]</a> <a href="#ref43">[43]</a> <a href="#ref44">[44]</a> <a href="#ref45">[45]</a> <a href="#ref46">[46]</a> <a href="#ref47">[47]</a> <a href="#ref48">[48]</a></p>
<p>Classification of Bulgarian dialects in dialect groups is difficult and arbitrary because the ties between local dialects cross in a counter-intuitive way. Indeed, Bulgarian dialectology recognises a classification based on geographical regions but it is only tentative. According to this classification, there are so-called territorial dialects: 1) Eastern dialects, subdivided in Moesian, Balkan, and Rup dialects, each with its subdialects; 2) Western dialects, subdivided in North-western, South-western, and transitional.</p><p>These groups are not unique; each of them crosses with the others in various ways, so it would be more instructive to describe dialect similarities and differences on the basis of some ten major traits and several language forms of such nature as to give an impression of a dialect, imparting to it an individual flavour.</p>
<h3>Classification by the Yat mutation</h3><p>The oldest and most widely accepted Bulgarian dialect isogloss is the Yat border. It was established more than 150 years ago and has received strong support throughout. According to the Yat classification (the mutation of the Old Bulgarian vowel ѣ (Yat)), Bulgarian dialects are divided in 2 large groups: Yakavian (Eastern) and Ekavian (Western). Ekavian dialects pronounce ѣ solely as /ɛ/ (/bɛl/, /bɛli/) while Yakavian pronounce it /ʲa/ or /e/ (/bʲal/, /beli/) or solely /ʲa/ (/bʲal/, /bʲali/).</p>
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9j0Arqc3HmI/WV_iWvdQ70I/AAAAAAAAFbk/hi91xJNTN94lHOZBumJ3DeAKc45dwdgMACKgBGAs/s1600/Bgmap_yat.png" target="_blank"><img alt="The Yat border" border="0" height="503" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9j0Arqc3HmI/WV_iWvdQ70I/AAAAAAAAFbk/hi91xJNTN94lHOZBumJ3DeAKc45dwdgMACKgBGAs/w640-h503/Bgmap_yat.png" width="640" /></a> <p>The Yat isogloss ("Yat border")</p><p>The Yat border was first defined by Hristodul K. Sichan Nikolov <a href="#ref49">[49]</a> and the Russian Slavist Viktor Grigorovich <a href="#ref50">[50]</a>. It was next described by Petko Slaveykov and Konstantin Jireček and accurately traced by towns and villages by Prof. Benyo Tsonev and Prof. Lyubomir Miletich.<a href="#ref51">[51]</a> <a href="#ref52">[52]</a> <a href="#ref53">[53]</a> <a href="#ref54">[54]</a> <a href="#ref55">[55]</a> </p><p>The Yat border (see map opposite) begins from the Vit Estuary and goes to the south in the direction Pirdop — Panagyurishte — Razlog — Gotse Delchev (Nevrokop) — Solun (Thessaloniki), making a sharp turn around Pazardzhik. The border goes through the regions of Nikopol, Pleven, Lukovit, Lovech, Teteven, Pirdop, Panagyurishte, Ihtiman, Peshtera, Chepino, Razlog, Gotse Delchev, Melnik, Petrich, Demir Hissar, Kukush (Kilkis), Ser, and <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/solun-dialect.html">Solun</a>. Thus, it divides in two regions the Bulgarian (including Macedonian) dialects. In the Yakavian area are, e.g., the regions of Ser, Drama, Gotse Delchev, the eastern part of Solun Region as far as Mesta, that is, the whole Eastern Macedonia. <a href="#ref51">[51]</a></p><p>In the Middle Ages, Yakavism was widespread in the whole Bulgarian language area, reaching to the extreme south-west. This is evidenced by the 16. century Bulgarian-Greek dictionary, written in the Kostur dialect (Bogatsko), e.g., хляб (bread), желязо (iron), вядро (bucket), коляно (knee), простряно (spread), невяста (wife), ряка (river), вятер (wind), сячиво (tool), etc.</p><p>In the past, Bulgarian dialectology distinguished two groups of Yakavian dialects, also on the basis of the Yat mutation: North-Eastern dialects pronouncing Yat only as я /ʲa/ (/bʲal/, /bʲali/) and South-Western dialects pronouncing it only as /ɛ/ (/bɛl/, /bɛli/). The border between North-Eastern and South-Western dialects started at Pazardzhik and went along the right bank of Maritsa River, or, more accurately, along the northern slopes of the Rhodopes until the village of Skobelevo (Parvomay Region) where it crossed Maritsa and with small turns went to Burgas. This border was also traced by villages by Tsonev. <a href="#ref51">[51]</a></p><p>Therefore, Bulgarian dialects were divided in 3 groups on the basis of Yat mutation:</p><ol class="list0"><li><b>Western dialects</b> (<i>mutational Yat</i>) which instead of Yat use only e /ɛ/ (/ɡɔlˈɛm/, /ɡɔlˈɛmi/, /ˡlɛtɔ/, /ˡlɛtɛn/, /ˈmlɛkɔ/, /mlɛkˈar/). Such were the dialects on the Danubian Plain west of the Yat border, plains to the north and south of the Balkan Mountain: Botevgrad, Sofia, Ihtiman, Samokov, Radomir, Dupnitsa, Kyustendil, the Western Borderlands, dialects in Central and Western Macedonia and transitional dialects.</li>
<li><b>Northeastern dialects</b> (<i>semi-mutational Yat</i>) which instead of Yat use я /ʲa/ or e depending on accent and on the next syllable (/ɡɔlˈʲam/, /ɡɔlˈemi/, /ˡlʲatɔ/, /ˡleten/, /ˈmlʲakɔ/, /mlekˈar/). Such were the dialects on the Danubian Plain east of the Yat border, all Balkan and Middle Mountains Region and to the south in the Thracian Plain to the slopes of the Rhodopes.</li>
<li><b>Southeastern dialects</b> (<i>non-mutational Yat</i>) which instead of Yat use either я /ʲa/ (/ɡɔlˈʲam/, /ɡɔlˈʲami/, /ˡlʲatɔ/, /ˡlʲaten/) or e /ʲe/(/ɡɔlˈʲem/, /ɡɔlˈʲemi/, /ˡlʲetɔ/, /ˡlʲeten/). Such were the dialects in the southern part of Burgas, Elhovo, Topolovgrad, Harmanli, Dimitrovgrad, Haskovo, south of Plovdiv, Asenovgrad, Peshtera, Smolyan, Devin, Chepino, etc.</li>
</ol><p>By 1964, however, after the compilation of the first volume of the Bulgarian Dialect Atlas which encompasses dialects in the South-Eastern Bulgaria to the east of the 25th meridian and south of the Balkan Mountain ridge, it was found that a second Yat border Pazardzhik-Burgas didn't exist. <a href="#ref56">[56]</a> There is a relatively small group of non-mutational Yat dialects (/bʲal/−/bʲali/, /mlʲaku/−/mlʲatʃen/) along Maritsa River while the rest of the southeastern dialect area consists of semi-mutational Yat dialects (/bʲal/−/bʲeli/, /mlʲaku/−/mlʲetʃen/) to the east and non-mutational Yat dialects (/bʲel/−/bʲeli/, /mlʲeku/−/mlʲetʃen/) to the west. It is unclear if the present state of the southeastern Bulgarian dialects is due to changes that happened after 1903 — the time when Prof. Tsonev carried out his field studies — or this is an earlier situation which he did not detect. It is more likely that in his trip, Tsonev determined only partially the northern border of non-mutational Yat dialects (/bʲal/−/bʲali/, /mlʲaku/−/mlʲatʃen/) and incorrectly stated that south of this border, all such non-mutational Yat dialects were located. For this reason, the idea of a second Yat border as a distinguishing isogloss was abandoned and the earlier idea of a single Yat border dividing all Bulgarian dialects in Yakavian (eastern) and Ekavian (western) held sway. <a href="#ref55">[55]</a> <a href="#ref56">[56]</a> <a href="#ref57">[57]</a> <a href="#ref58">[58]</a> <a href="#ref59">[59]</a> <a href="#ref60">[60]</a> </p><p>The Yakavian-Ekavian classification of Bulgarian dialects is clear-cut but it has serious flaws. First of all, there are no other isoglosses that coincide with the Yat border. Usually, at both sides of the Yat border there are completely identical dialects which differ only by the Yat pronunciation. Furthermore, a single linguistic trait, whether phonetic, morphological, or lexical, is not sufficient to characterize a dialect or dialect group.</p><p>More recent studies, however, showed that the Yat border is not so singular and isolated as thought before. Indeed, there are no other isoglosses that completely coincide with it. However, close to the Yat border, especially in its part to the north of Pazardzik, there are several other isoglosses running in parallel, mainly to the west of the Yat border. Such are some phonetic, <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/08/accent-in-bulgarian-dialects.html">accent</a>, morphological and lexical isoglosses like the mutation /ˡʲa/-/ˡɛ/ (/polˈʲani/—/polˈɛni/, /pijˈani/—/piˈɛni/), <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/08/accent-in-bulgarian-dialects.html">accent</a> in some verb forms (/tʃˈɛta/—/tʃɛtˈɤ/, /bˈɛri/—/bɛrˈi/, /bˈɛrete/—/berˈɛte/), the suffix for verb conjugation in first person plural present tense (/berˈɛme/—/berˈɛm/, /nˈɔsime/—/nˈɔsim/), some words (/ʲa/—/as/, /ɔn/—/tɔj/, /ʒeʒɔk/—/ɡoreʃt/, /krap/—/kɤs/, /razbɔj/—/stan/), etc. <a href="#ref61">[61]</a> <a href="#ref56">[56]</a></p><p>For this reason the Yat division of Bulgarian dialects is actual and important at present. One must have in mind that the Yat pronunciation, as a very frequent trait, is very characteristic for Bulgarian dialects — it can readily identify colonists from individual regions of the Bulgarian linguistic territory. Furthermore, there is no other linguistic trait that groups so clearly and regularly the Bulgarian dialects. This is evident by the attempts of Prof. Tsonev to classify Bulgarian dialects by other traits like the Big Yus (Big Nasal) substitutes, diphtong /ʃt/-/ʒd/ mutations, Yer substitutes, <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/08/accent-in-bulgarian-dialects.html">accent</a>, etc.</p>
<h3>Classification by Big Yus (Big Nasal) substitutes</h3><p>The Big Yus (Big Nasal) ѫ in Old Bulgarian corresponded to the nasal vowel /*oⁿ/. In standard Bulgarian it existed until the spelling reform of 1945 when it was replaced with ъ as it had long before lost its original phonemic equivalent in most dialects. There is a variety of Big Yus mutations and substitutions (see map opposite) in Bulgarian dialects (shown below on the example of Old Bulgarian рѫкa /r*oⁿk'a/ hand, зѫбъ /ˡz*oⁿb/ tooth, зѫби /z*oⁿbˈi/ teeth):</p>
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a7aevbJSdF8/WV_ix1F76iI/AAAAAAAAFbo/LLY0otwfSeAoy_uMWYD7FXCrzgs8JyOPwCKgBGAs/s1600/Bulgarian_dialect_map-yus.png" target="_blank"><img alt="Big Yus isogloss" border="0" height="533" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a7aevbJSdF8/WV_ix1F76iI/AAAAAAAAFbo/LLY0otwfSeAoy_uMWYD7FXCrzgs8JyOPwCKgBGAs/w640-h533/Bulgarian_dialect_map-yus.png" width="640" /></a> <p>The Big Yus isoglosses</p><ol><li> <b>ъ-dialects</b> (ръкà /rɘk'a/, зъп /ˡzɤp/, зъби /zɘbˈi/). These are the majority of Bulgarian dialects and the standard Bulgarian. These dialects are located mostly in the North-Eastern and North-Western Bulgaria, the eastern part of South-Eastern Bulgaria, large part of Macedonia (Drama, Ser, Kukush, Doiran, Gevgelia, northern Kostur, Dolna Prespa, southeastern Lerin, Ohrid, Resen, Struga, Gostivar, north of Debar), Gora <a href="#ref62">[62]</a>, Thrace (Aegean Thrace, European part of Turkey), and small areas in Asia Minor.</li>
<li> <b>а-dialects</b> (ракà /rаk'a/, зап /ˡzap/, заби /zˈabi/). These dialects are also widespread. They are located mostly in Western Bulgaria — Vratsa, Botevgrad, Eastern Sofia Region, Pernik, Radomir, Kyustendil, Ihtiman, Samokov, Dupnitsa, large part of Vardar Macedonia (Veles, Kichevo, Bitola). In this group are included also some Yakavian (Eastern) dialects: Pirdop, Koprivshtitsa, Klisura, and some parts of Rhodopes. These dialects are called "central dialects" because geographically they take a central position in the Bulgarian dialect area. <a href="#ref51">[51]</a></li>
<li> <b>у-dialects</b> (рука /rˈuka/, зуб /ˡzub/, зубе /zˈubɛ/). These dialects are the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">transitional dialects</a> located around the Bulgarian-Serbian border (Belogradchik, Tsaribrod, Tran, Breznik, Bosilegrad) and northern Macedonia (north of Kumanovo, Kratovo, Skopie).</li>
<li> <b>о, ô-dialects</b> (рòка /rˈɔka/, зоп /ˡzɔp/; рồка /rˈɐka/, зôп /ˡzɐp/). These dialects have isolated character and are found in the Central and Eastern Rhodopes and around Debar in Macedonia (ô-dialects also in Western Rhodopes).</li>
<li> <b>ê-dialects</b> (рềка /rˈæka/, зêп /ˡzæp/). These are found only in Teteven Region, two villages in eastern Bulgaria (Kozichino (Erkech), Pomorie Municipality and Gulitsa, Varna Municipality), three villages in the southwestern corner of Vardar Macedonia around Struga (Radozhda, Vevchani and Mali Vlay), and the village Lin in Albania.</li>
</ol><h3>Eastern Bulgarian dialects</h3><h4>Moesian dialects</h4>Shumen dialect<br />
Razgrad dialect<br />
<h4>Balkan dialects</h4>Central Balkan dialect<br />
Kotel-Elena-Dryanovo dialect<br />
Panagyurishte dialect<br />
Pirdop dialect<br />
Teteven dialect<br />
Erkech dialect<br />
Subbalkan dialect<br />
<h5>Transitional Balkan dialects</h5>Galata dialect<br />
Dragichevo dialect<br />
Varbitsa dialect<br />
<h4>Rup dialects</h4><h5>Eastern Rup dialects</h5>Strandzha dialect<br />
Thracian dialect<br />
<h5>Rhodopa (Middle Rup) dialects</h5>Smolyan dialect<br />
Shiroka laka dialect<br />
Hvoyna dialect<br />
Batak dialect<br />
Chepino dialect<br />
Paulician dialect<br />
Zlatograd dialect<br />
Chech dialect<br />
<h5>Western Rup dialects</h5>Babyak dialect<br />
Razlog dialect<br />
Gotse Delchev dialect<br />
Drama-Ser dialect<br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/solun-dialect.html">Solun dialect</a><br />
<h3>Western Bulgarian dialects</h3><h4>Northwestern Bulgarian dialects</h4>Byala Slatina-Pleven dialect<br />
Vidin-Lom dialect<br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html"><h4>Transitional Bulgarian dialects</h4></a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Tran dialect</a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Breznik dialect</a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Belogradchik dialect</a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Godech dialect</a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Bosilegrad dialect</a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Tsaribrod dialect</a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Skopie-Kumanovo-Kratovo dialect</a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Tetovo dialect</a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Kosovo-Morava (nashinski) dialect</a><br />
<a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Timok-Morava dialect</a><br />
<h4>Southwestern Bulgarian dialects</h4>Botevgrad dialect<br />
Vratsa dialect<br />
Sofia dialect<br />
Elin Pelin dialect<br />
Ihtiman dialect<br />
Samokov dialect<br />
Dupnitsa dialect<br />
Kyustendil dialect<br />
Blagoevgrad dialect<br />
Petrich dialect<br />
Pianec-Kamenitsa-Kraishte dialect<br />
Malashevo dialect<br />
<h5>Middle Vardar dialects</h5>Bitola dialect<br />
Veles dialect<br />
Prilep-Mariovo dialect<br />
<h5>Southwestern border Bulgarian dialects</h5>Doyran dialect<br />
Kukush-Voden dialect<br />
Gevgelia dialect<br />
Enidzhe-Vardar dialect<br />
<a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2022/11/kostur-dialect.html">Kostur dialect</a><br />
<a href="https://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2022/11/lerin-dialect.html">Lerin dialect</a><br />
Ohrid-Struga dialect<br />
Prespa dialect<br />
Debar (Miyak-Rekantsi) dialect<br />
Korcha dialect<br />
<h3>Among the traditional diaspora</h3>Banat Bulgarian dialect<br />
Wallachian Bulgarian dialects<br />
Transylvanian Bulgarian dialects<br />
Bulgarian dialects in the former Soviet Union<br />
Anatolian Bulgarian dialects <p>The above dialects have lost the old nasalism of ѫ. The next 3 groups have preserved the nasalism in a slightly modified form. Modifications include increased articulation of the nasal vowel to the extent of separating the nasalism in a consonant − н /ŋ/ in front of voiceless consonants or м /ɱ/ in front of voiced consonants − and dialect-specific substitution of the nasal vowel. This trait defines the nasal dialects as very ancient.</p><ol class="list0" start="6"><li> <b>ън/ъм-dialects</b> (рънка /rɘŋkˈa/, зъмб /ˡzɤɱb/) – <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/solun-dialect.html">Solun dialect</a>, Kostur dialect, and most of Dolna Prespa dialect.<br />
</li><li> <b>ан/ам-dialects</b> (ранка /rɑŋkˈa/, замб /ˡzɑɱb/) – extinct trait of Korcha dialect.<br />
</li><li> <b>ôн/ôм-dialects</b> (рôнка /rɐŋkˈa/, зôмб /ˡzɐɱb/) – existed in the Kostenariya and Nestram in the southernmost Kostur dialect area. Probably, ôн/ôм-dialects are the oldest because in them ѫ is closest to its original pronunciation. </li></ol><p>A serious flaw of this classification is that it, too, is isolated with no other confirming isogloss. Moreover, unlike the Yat border, it does not divide Bulgarian dialects in a regular manner. <a href="#ref63">[63]</a></p><h3>Classification by *tj, *dj mutations</h3><p>By the *tj, *dj mutations, there are 5 dialect groups: <a href="#ref64">[64]</a></p><ol class="list0"><li> <b>шт/жд-dialects</b> (нош(т) /nɔʃ(t)/, леща /leʃta/, среща /sreʃta/; прежда /preʒda/, вежди /veʒdi/, межда /meʒda/) take the major part of the Bulgarian dialect area being exclusive in all Eastern and Northwestern Bulgaria, prevalent in Samokov, Sofia, Ihtiman, Ohrid, Struga, pocket close to Lerin (Banitsa, Pətele, Ekshi Su, Zeleniche, Prekopana), Dolna Prespa, Solun <a href="#ref65">[65]</a>, Drama, Ser, Dupnitsa, Kyustendil, Petrich and mixed with other *tj, *dj mutations in the rest of the dialect area.<br />
</li><li> <b>ч/дж-dialects</b> (ноч /nɔtʃ/, лeча /lɛtʃa/, среча /sretʃa/; преджа /prɛdʒa/, веджи /vɛdʒi/, меджа /medʒa/) in which the palatal affricates ћ /cç/ and ђ /ɟj/ that were borrowed from the Serbian language since the 16-17th century were hardened (de-palatinized) to become ч /tʃ/ and дж /dʒ/. These are the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">transitional dialects</a> around the Bulgarian-Serbian border in the regions of Belogradchik, Tsaribrod, Tran, Breznik, Bosilegrad <a href="#ref66">[66]</a>, and some regions in Eastern Serbia (Pirot, Surdulica), Kosovo (Gora), and Northern Macedonia (north of Skopje and Kumanovo).<br />
</li><li> <b>к/г(кь/гь)-dialects</b> (нокь /nɔc/, лекя /leca/, срекя /sreca/; прегя /preɟа/, вегьи /veɟi/, мегя /meɟа/) are spoken to the west and north-west of Kyustendil (Kyustendil Kraishte and Kamenitsa), northern Macedonia (Gorni Polog, Skopska Crna Gora, Kumanovo, Ovče Pole, Kratovo, Kriva Palanka), Tetovo, Veles, Prilep, Mariovo, Bitola and north of it; and partly (mixed with other шт/жд mutations) in the regions of Debar, Prespa, Kastoria (Kostur) (very rare), Doyran, Florina (Lerin), Kilkis (Kukush), Edessa (Voden), Pianec. The plosive consonants /c/ and /ɟ/ are pronounced usually without frication with different degree of plosion (dorsal to frontal) and palatization. A variation of this mutation, шт → йкь(jкь) /ʲc/ and/or жд → йгь(jгь) /ʲɟ/, occurs in some villages around Kukush, Voden, and Lerin. The area of mutation of the future tense forming particle (ще /ʃte/ → ке /kɛ/, кье /ce/) is much wider and includes also southern Sofia region, Ihtiman, Samokov, Pazardzhik, and some Eastern Rup dialects (Thrace and Strandzha dialects, e.g., Elhovo, Svilengrad, etc.).<br />
</li><li> <b>шч/ждж-dialects</b> (ношч /nɔʃtʃ/, лешча /leʃtʃa/, срешча /sreʃtʃa/; прежджа /preʒdʒа/, вежджи /veʒdʒi/, межджа /meʒdʒа/) are found in a relatively pure state in Korcha, Kostur, Doyran, and Ohrid town; mixed with кь/гь and/or шт/жд mutations in Maleševo, south of Bitola, Debar, Struga, Dolna Prespa, Lerin; mixed with ч/дж mutations in Samokov (Shishmanovo) and Breznik. Variants of the жд → ждж mutation occur in Kostur (жд → ж /ʒ/) and Doyran (жд → йдж /ʲdʒ/).<br />
</li><li> <b>шкь/жгь-dialects</b> (ношкь /nɔʃc/, лешкя /leʃca/, срешкя /sreʃca/; прежгя /preʒɟа/, вежгьи /veʒɟi/, межгьа /meʒɟа/) are limited to very small area south of Bitola (also variant шьк /ʃʲk/) and Eastern Rup around Strandzha (variant жьгь /ʒʲɟ/ as in вежьгьи /veʒʲɟi/). </li></ol><p>As repeatedly mentioned, *tj, *dj reflexes are an important phonological trait, characteristic for each individual Slavic language, and used for language differentiation. Bulgarian language is characterized with the шт(щ)/жд mutation on which the Standard Bulgarian is based. The presence of numerous *tj, *dj variants on the Bulgarian linguistic territory indicates outside linguistic influences and/or spontaneous modifications due to linguistic isolation of peripheral areas. Alternatively, this variability may be (and has been) explained with coexistence of fundamentally different dialect systems. This latter case would be indicated by an approximately simultaneous separation of two or more reflexes from the primitive Proto-Slavic *tj, *dj.</p><p>This issue became actual and received an added importance, with political overtones, in connection with the Bulgarian vs. Macedonian controversy. Historically, as in other border regions, this started as Bulgarian <i>vs</i>. Serbian controversy. Stojan Novaković, Serbian politician and diplomat, charged by the Serbian government with the mission to organize the assimilation campaign in Macedonia in accordance with the Serbian national (Garašanin) doctrine, propagated the idea that Slavs in Macedonia were Serbs because they spoke a dialect of Serbian language with the typical Serbian ћ,ђ reflex of Proto-Slavic *tj, *dj. Aleksandar Belić, a Serbian linguist, was more careful in making some distinction between Serbian affricates ћ,ђ and Macedonian plosives кь,гь; however, he considered the latter as a very close variant which is evident by the symbols that he used for those − ћ<sup>К</sup> and ђ<sup>Г</sup>. According to Belić, Macedonian dialects were divided into Southern (Solun, Kostur, Korcha to Bitola, Resen, Ohrid and Debar) and Northern ("true Macedonian dialect", Tetovo and Štip). In the Southern dialects *tj reflects in шт(шч), and *dj reflects in жд(ждж), while in the Northern the reflexes are ћ(ћ<sup>К</sup>) and ђ(ђ<sup>Г</sup>) <a href="#ref67">[67]</a>.</p><p>The most detailed and comprehensive study of the *tj, *dj reflexes in Macedonia and Albania was carried out by the Russian linguist Afanasy Selishchev <a href="#ref68">[68]</a> <a href="#ref69">[69]</a>. He studied this phonetic trait in all aspects: not only the territorial distribution of dialect variants but also occurrence in different words, in different grammatical positions with a clear idea of all acustic and physiological specifics in relation to the neighboring Slav languages using data not only from written documents but also from toponymy. Selishchev stressed the fact that unlike the Serbian ћ and ђ, the Macedonian кь and гь are pronounced without frication. A fricative element was found very rarely to the north of Tetovo but even there, кь and гь were not identical to the Serbian affricates. Selishchev also noted the reduced palatization of кь and гь, which varies in different Bulgarian dialects from Macedonia.</p><p>On the basis of his study of the territorial distribution of шт/жд, шч/ждж, and кь/гь, Selishchev found that the basic reflex of the Proto-Slavic *tj, *dj in dialects from Macedonia is шт/жд or its more ancient stage шч/ждж. Using a huge amount of dialectological material, he found that this pronunciation was fixed on a large part of the territory of Macedonia: Debar, Struga, Ohrid, Resen, Kostur, Lerin, Solun, Kukush, Doyran, Maleševo. The шч/ждж is archaic and gives way to шт/жд. For this conclusion, Selishchev used the studies of V. Oblak and B. Tsonev who noted that in some dialects the old people spoke шч/ждж while the young knew only шт/жд. It was notable that the archaic шч was more resistant to the newer шт than ждж to жд. Thus, in some Debar, Resen and Kostur dialects the archaic шч was found along with жд.</p><p>Palatal кь, гь in a limited number of words and forms (e.g., кукя, кье, векье) are found also far to the east of Macedonia. Thus, the particle кье is found in many Eastern Bulgarian dialects. Nevertheless, through deeper analysis, Selishchev came to the conclusion that кь, гь are not innate to dialects in Macedonia but were calqued from the imported Serbian analogs together with the whole word. For example, the word кукя (house) is found throughout Macedonia. The process of borrowing is confirmed by the root vowel: here in the place of the dorsal nasal vowel one finds the vowel у /ʊ/ (compare bg:къща /kɤʃta/ with sr:кућа /kʊcça/). Even in Northern Macedonia, in Lešok, Selishchev heard both кукя and къща <a href="#ref70">[70]</a>. </p><p>Toponymy provided very valuable data for study of кь and гь. Selishchev showed with toponyms that in the dialects of central Macedonia шт, жд are more ancient than кь and гь. For example, while in the vernacular from Prilep region the word for trousers is гакьи, diphthong шт is still preserved in the names of villages around Prilep − Кривогаштани /krivɔgaʃtani/ ("Crook-trousers") <a href="#ref68">[68]</a>. Later, he used toponyms to solve very difficult and baffling problems from the history of Macedonian dialects. Supported by many sources, Selishchev showed that the process of replacement of шч (шт) - ждж (жд) by кь, гь had been long and, by WWII, yet unfinished in many parts of Macedonia. Selishchev showed convincingly that this process goes from north to south. In the southeastern and southwestern corners, a very limited number of words were spoken with кь, гь.</p><p>There was one serious flaw in this analysis. Since the time of Gilferding (1850-60) toponyms in Albania and Greece that end in -kaki were thought to originate from the Proto-Slavic *tj. If this was true, one had to agree not only that кь is a specific Macedonian reflex of *tj but, what is more, that it existed in the language of those Slavs that in the 6-7th centuries flooded in great numbers not only in Epirus and Thessaly but also in Peloppones. Selishchev either had to explain the origin of these toponyms or disavow his views on the origin of кь, гь in the modern Macedonian dialects. He solved this problem in a special chapter in his book <i>Slavic population in Albania</i> (1931). <a href="#ref69">[69]</a></p><p>The suffix -kaki interpreted as a reflex of the Proto-Slavic *ko,tja is a composition of heterogeneous elements that are never found in Macedonia. In dialects from Macedonia occur either къшта (къшча) or кукя. There are no examples of кушта (кушча) or къкя (какя). If such were found, they would contain both Bulgarian and Serbian reflexes of the Big Yus and *tj. The toponym Gardikaki, for example, is unique in this respect. Selishchev pointed out that these toponyms can end in -i but also without it. In Epirus and Albania they less often end in -u. These comparisons showed that the second element of the toponym was not related to the Proto-Slavic *ko,tja. The thorough research was successfully completed after taking into account the geologic and soil science publications on Albania and North Greece. From Albanian language, it was seen that the suffix -kuкь can be interpreted as "red"; it is often found on territory with Albanian settlements and specifically in places where the soil has reddish hue. In the region of Upper Shqumba the mountain peaks in Lurje are called Gurikuкь which means "red stone". North of Argirocastro one finds Hundokuкь or Hundёkuкь which means "red nose". In his book, Selishchev described many more examples <a href="#ref69">[69]</a>. </p><p>This comprehensive analysis of dialects and toponymic data in Macedonia and Albania showed convincingly that кь, гь in place of the Proto-Slavic *tj, *dj is a late phenomenon arising under the influence of the Serbian phonetic system introduced (sometimes sporadically) by the Serbian administration, rulers, settlers, and teachers <a href="#ref71">[71]</a>. This analysis has wider significance beyond the narrow frame of classification of Slavic dialects in Macedonia and Albania. It bears direct relationship to the origin of Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) language. Before the publication of this analysis, in the Slavistic literature was current the hypothesis of N.S. Trubetskoy, N.N. Durnova and some other Slavists, according to which кь, гь arose directly from the Proto-Slavic *tj, *dj and were present in the language of Cyril and Methodius. The studies of Selishchev disproved this hypothesis <a href="#ref72">[72]</a>. Most linguists accepted Selishchev's conclusions <a href="#ref73">[73]</a>, including most Bulgarian linguists <a href="#ref74">[74]</a> <a href="#ref75">[75]</a>. Some of the latter (Blagoj Shklifov, V. Georgiev) disagreed on the issue of whether кь, гь are internal or borrowed and in 1981-82 hypothesized that these reflexes arose as a result of specific processes, innate for the dialects in Macedonia <a href="#ref76">[76]</a> <a href="#ref75">[75]</a>. However, this new point of view was not supported by argumentation <a href="#ref72">[72]</a>. </p><p>Some leading linguists from Republic of Macedonia (e.g., Acad. Božidar Vidoeski) appraised the study of Selishchev and used his classification and data in their works <a href="#ref77">[77]</a>; others implicitly acknowledged Selishchev's conclusions. For example, Blaže Koneski in his <i>A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language</i> (book 1, 1952) in which he stipulated the norms of the Macedonian Standard, listed the кь, гь reflex only as a second, supporting distinctive trait in Macedonian language after the ъ → o reflex; the latter is, indeed, a very early trait.</p><h3>Classification by the ъ − о isogloss</h3><p>The Dutch Slavist Nicolaas van Wijk proposed a classification of Bulgarian dialects by the reflex of OBg. ъ /*ɘ/ in o /ɔ/, that is, by the isogloss ъ − о: сън, дъш → сон, дош instead of OBg. сънъ, дъждь <a href="#ref78">[78]</a>. </p><p>This reflex is known for its antiquity and since the time of Old Bulgarian divided the Bulgarian language area in two main dialect groups — Eastern and Western. However, the isogloss о—ъ is not very clearly distinguished and exhibits a great variability. Thus, о instead of OBg. ъ is found in the Western dialects and Pirdop dialect but in some dialects it is only in prepositions and prefixes (воф, воздàхна, сос, собỳе), in others − in prefixes and suffixes (воф, сос, пèток, песòк), and in third − in all closed syllables (вос, сос, пèток, бòчва, дош). Only in some Bulgarian dialects in Macedonia (Malashevo, Veles, Prilep-Mariovo, Debar, Kostur, Doyran, Kukush, Voden) vowel o completely substitutes ъ. Complete reflex ъ → о is found in some Rup dialects but there it is a result of a specific late process replacing a secondary Yer when two Yers/Nasals (Big or Small) occur in the same word: дош from дъждь (Big and Small Yers), мòгла from мьглѫ (Small Yer and Big Nasal), зоп from зѫбъ (Big Nasal and Big Yer), кльòтва from клѧтвѫ (Small and Big Nasals). In the Moesian dialects of Northern Bulgaria there is a reflex (vocalisation) of OBg. ъ in о in the article form for masculine (гърбò, нусò) and in the suffix -ък (добѝтọк, пèтọк). Therefore, this trait does not allow for a clear-cut classification of Bulgarian dialects <a href="#ref79">[79]</a>. </p><p>In order to improve this classification, Prof. Tsonev proposed to classify Bulgarian dialects by both ъ (Big Yer) and ь (Small Yer) reflexes <a href="#ref80">[80]</a>, thus dividing Bulgarian in 4 dialect groups:</p><ul><li><b>Rup-Rhodopes</b> with OBg. ъ reflecting in o and OBg. ь reflecting in йъ /ʲɘ/<br />
</li><li><b>South-Western</b> with OBg. ъ reflecting in o and OBg. ь reflecting in ъ or e<br />
</li><li><b>North-Eastern</b> with OBg. ъ reflecting in ъ and OBg. ь reflecting in ъ or e<br />
</li><li><b>North-Western</b> with OBg. ъ reflecting in ъ and OBg. ь reflecting in ъ </li></ul><p>This classification, too, has serious flaws in that it does not divide regularly the Bulgarian dialect area and the 4 groups do not include all variations. For instance, in the Moesian dialects of the North-Eastern group there is a reflex ъ > о, in the East Rup dialects of the Rup-Rhodopes group there is a reflex ь > е, etc. Taking into account only the reflexes of the OBg. ь, Bulgarian dialects have been classified in 3 groups <a href="#ref81">[81]</a>:</p><ul><li>Dialects with <b>soft reflexes</b> on ь comprising Rup-Rhodopes with the soft reflexes е or йъ /ʲɘ/<br />
</li><li>Dialects with <b>hard reflexes</b> on ь represented by the transitional dialects: ь > ъ<br />
</li><li>Dialects with <b>hard and soft reflexes</b> comprising North-Eastern, South-Western, and the Eastern half of the North-Western dialects:ь > ъ (а) and е. </li></ul><p>This classification is also not very clear-cut and does not divide the Bulgarian dialect area in approximately equal parts.</p><h3>Classification by morphological and lexical traits</h3><p>In the Bulgarian dialect area, several morphological and lexical boundaries can be drawn that approximately coincide and form a band of isoglosses. Such isoglosses are, e.g.:</p><ul class="list0"><li>The suffix for plural in polysyllable masculine nouns that end in a consonant. In the North-Western Bulgaria (except part of Moesian dialects), this suffix is -и /ɪ/, in Western and South-Eastern Bulgaria it is -е /ɛ/: пръстени, ръкàви, гълъби — пръстене, ръкàве, гълъбе.<br />
</li><li>The suffix for first person plural present tense for first and second conjugation verbs. In North-Eastern Bulgaria it is -м /m/, in Western and South-Eastern Bulgaria it is -ме /mɛ/: берèм, четèм, върв<font face="Arial">ѝ</font>м — берèме, четèме, върв<font face="Arial">ѝ</font>ме.<br />
</li><li>The words: аз/я, недей/немòй, крак/ногà, р<font face="Arial">ѝ</font>за/кошỳля, стан/разбòй, горèщ/жèжък, къс/крап, etc. The first word of these pairs occurs in North-Eastern Bulgaria, the second — in Western and South-Eastern Bulgaria.<br />
</li><li>Morphonological isoglosses in the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/08/accent-in-bulgarian-dialects.html">accent</a> of disyllabic neutral singular nouns and in the form for the imperative mood second person singular in the verbs of first and second conjugation. In North-Eastern Bulgaria the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/08/accent-in-bulgarian-dialects.html">accent</a> is on the suffix, in Western and South-Eastern Bulgaria — on the root: месò, кроснò — мèсо, крòсно; бер<font face="Arial">ѝ</font>, нос<font face="Arial">ѝ</font>, мет<font face="Arial">ѝ</font> — бèри, нòси, мèти. </li></ul><p>Interestingly, the band of morphological and lexical isoglosses goes along the Yat borders: both the primary, accepted one (Vit estuary to Vardar delta) and the secondary, apparent one (Pazardzhik to Burgas). Thus, they define a central (middle) region comprising North-Eastern and Central Bulgaria, and a lateral (peripheral) region comprising North-Western, South-Western, and South-Eastern Bulgaria which envelops the central region of the Bulgarian dialect continuum.</p>
<h1>References</h1><p><a name="ref1">1.</a>Стойков (Stoykov), Стойко (2002) [1962] (in Bulgarian). <a href="http://www.promacedonia.org/jchorb/st/index.htm">Българска диалектология</a> (Bulgarian dialectology). София: Акад. изд. "Проф. Марин Дринов". ISBN 9544308466. OCLC 53429452.</p><p><a name="ref2">2.</a> Institute of Bulgarian Language (1978) (in Bulgarian). <a href="http://www.promacedonia.org/bugarash/ed/index.html">Единството на българския език в миналото и днес (The Unity of Bulgarian language in the past and today)</a>. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. p. 4. OCLC 6430481. Published in Бълг. ез. (Bulgarian language), 1978, No. 1</p><p><a name="ref3">3.</a> Mazon, Andre. Contes Slaves de la Macédoine Sud-Occidentale: Etude linguistique; textes et traduction; Notes de Folklore, Paris 1923, p. 4.</p><p><a name="ref4">4.</a> Селищев, Афанасий. Избранные труды, Москва 1968.</p><p><a name="ref5">5.</a> Die Slaven in Griechenland von Max Vasmer. Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1941. Kap. VI: Allgemeines und sprachliche Stellung der Slaven Griechenlands.</p><p><a name="ref6">6.</a> K. Sandfeld, Balkanfilologien (København, 1926, MCMXXVI).</p><p><a name="ref7">7.</a> Konstantin Josef Jireček, Die Balkanvölker und ihre kulturellen und politischen Bestrebungen, Urania, II, Jg. 13, 27. März 1909, p. 195.</p><p><a name="ref8">8.</a> Stefan Verković, Описание быта македонских болгар; Топографическо-этнографический очерк Македонии (Description of the life of Macedonian Bulgarians. Topographic and ethnographic essay of Macedonia), St. Petersburg, 1889.</p><p><a name="ref9">9.</a> Шклифов, Благой. Проблеми на българската диалектна и историческа фонетика с оглед на македонските говори (Problems of the Bulgarian dialect and historic phonetics with respect to the Macedonian dialects), София 1995, с. 14.</p><p><a name="ref10">10.</a> Шклифов, Благой. Речник на костурския говор (Dictionary of Kostur dialect), Българска диалектология, София 1977, с. кн. VІІІ, с. 201-205.</p><p><a name="ref11">11.</a> Mladenov, Stefan. Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache, Berlin, Leipzig, 1929, § 207-209.</p><p><a name="ref12">12.</a> Цонев, Б. Граници на българската реч и народност (Borders of Bulgarian language and ethnicity). <i>In</i>: История на българския език (History of Bulgarian language). Vol. 1. Sofia, 1940, pp. 272-301.</p><p><a name="ref13">13.</a> Младенов, Ст. Граници на българската реч и държава в миналото и днес (Borders of Bulgarian language and state in the past and today). Родна реч, 1927, Issue 1, 16-23.</p><p><a name="ref14">14.</a> Младенов, Ст. Понятието „български език” и границите на българския език. Брой и разпространение на българите (The term "Bulgarian language" and the borders of Bulgarian language. Number and distribution of Bulgarians). <i>In</i>: Младенов, Ст. История на българския език (History of Bulgarian language). Sofia, 1979, 21-22.</p><p><a name="ref15">15.</a> Селищев, А.М., Болгарский язык (Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Селищев. А. М. Приноси в българската диалектология и етнография (Contributions in Bulgarian dialectology and ethnography). Sofia, 1986.</p><p><a name="ref16">16.</a> Otto Kronsteiner (Salzburg University), The collapse of Yugoslavia and the future prospects of the Macedonian literary language (Der Zerfall Jugoslawiens und die Zukunft der makedonischen Literatursprache). Der slawischen Sprachen, Wien, Band 29, 1992, S. 143-171.</p><p><a name="ref17">17.</a> Henninger, T. (Bedales School, Petersfield, UK). 1994. Bulgarian and Macedonian. <i>In</i>: The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1: 429-430, ISBN 0080359434; Henninger, T. Slavic Languages 7: 3964-3966.</p><p><a name="ref18">18.</a> Prof. James F. Clarke. 1988. Macedonia from S. S. Cyril and Methodius to Horace Lunt and Blazhe Koneski: Language and Nationality. In: The Pen and the Sword: Studies in Bulgarian History, edited by Dennis P. Hupchick, Boulder: East European Monographs ; New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press. ISBN 0880331496.</p><p><a name="ref19">19.</a> Keith Brown. 2003. The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of a Nation, Princeton University Press, p.2.</p><p><a name="ref20">20.</a> Vladimir Sis, Czech Balkanologist. 1918. Mazedonien. Zuerich. Art. Institut Orell Füsli. p. 74.</p><p><a name="ref21">21.</a> James Hastings. 2003. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 4, Kessinger Publishing, LLC ISBN 0766136884, page 79.</p><p><a name="ref22">22.</a> Robert D. Kaplan. Balkan Ghosts, ISBN 0679749810, p.60.</p><p><a name="ref23">23.</a> Hugh Poulton. 2000. Who Are the Macedonians? ISBN 0253213592.</p><p><a name="ref24">24.</a> Stephen E. Palmer, Jr., and Robert R. King, Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question, Hamden, Conn., 1971. pp. 19-57</p><p><a name="ref25">25.</a> Troebst, Die bulgarisch-jugoslawische Kontroverse um Macedonian 1967-1982, Muenchen, 1983.</p><p><a name="ref26">26.</a> Stefan Troebst, 'Makedonische Antworten auf die "Makedonische Frage", 1944-1992: Nationalismus, Republiksgrundung, 'nation-building', Sudosteuropa, Vol. 41, 1992.</p><p><a name="ref27">27.</a> James Pettifer, The new Macedonian question. International Affairs, Vol. 68. No.3, 1992.</p><p><a name="ref28">28.</a> F. A. K. Yasamee. Nationality in the Balkans: The Case of the Macedonians. In: Balkans: A Mirror of the New World Order, Istanbul: EREN, 1995; pp. 121-132.</p><p><a name="ref29">29.</a> Селищев, А. М. Старославянский язык (Old Slavonic). Part I. Москва, 1951, с. 32</p><p><a name="ref30">30.</a> Стойков, Ст., Основното диалектно деление на български език (Major dialect boundaries of Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Славянска филология (Slavic linguistics). Vol. 3. Sofia, 1963, 105-120.</p><p><a name="ref31">31.</a> Бернштейн, С.Б., Е.В. Чешко. Классификация юго-восточных говоров Болгарии (Classification of southeastern Bulgarian dialects). Изв. АН СССР. Сер. лит. и ез., 1963, вып. 4, 289-299.</p><p><a name="ref32">32.</a> Попова, Т. В. К вопросу о типологической характеристика болгарских диалектов (On the typological characteristics of Bulgarian dialects). Вопросы языкознания, 1961, No. 5, 78-86.</p><p><a name="ref33">33.</a> Бернштейн, С. Б. К вопросу о членении болгарских диалектов (On the classification of Bulgarian dialects). Вопросы языкознания, 1983, No. 4, 10-18.</p><p><a name="ref34">34.</a> Кочев, Ив. За основните проблеми на българската диалектология (On the principal problems of Bulgarian dialectology). Бълг. ез., 1984, No. 2, 97-109.</p><p><a name="ref35">35.</a> Бояджиев, Т. Диалектите на българския език (Dialects of Bulgarian). <i>In</i>: Българският език — език на 13-вековна държава (Bulgarian as a language of a thirteen century state). Sofia, 1981, 52-70.</p><p><a name="ref36">36.</a> Бояджиев,Т. За единството на българските диалекти (On the unity of Bulgarian dialects. <i>In</i>: Българистични изследвания. Първи българо-скандинавски симпозиум (Bulgaristic studies. First Bulgarian-Scandinavian Symposium. Sofia, 1981, 20-28.</p><p><a name="ref37">37.</a> Бояджиев, Т. Принципи и методи за класификация на българските говори (Principles and methods for classification of Bulgarian dialects). <i>In</i>: Исторически извори на българския език (Historical sources of Bulgarian language). Доклади (Reports). Vol. I. Сравнително езикознание. Диалектология. Превод (Comparative linguistic, dialectology, translation), Sofia, 1983, 205-215.</p><p><a name="ref38">38.</a> Бояджиев, Т. Българските диалекти и тяхната класификация (Bulgarian dialects and their classification). <i>In</i>: Българските народни говори. Знания за езика (Bulgarian ethnic dialects. Linguistic knowledge. Vol. 6. Sofia, 1986, 14-22.</p><p><a name="ref39">39.</a> Бояджиев, Т. Принципи и методи за класификацията на диалектите в славянските езици (Principles and methods for the classification of Slavic languages). <i>In</i>: Славянска филология (Slavic linguistics). Vol. 19. Sofia, 1988, 208-215.</p><p><a name="ref40">40.</a> Българският език и общността на неговите диалекти (Bulgarian language and its dialect community). Бълг. ез., 1983, No. 1, 7-40.</p><p><a name="ref41">41.</a> Клепикова, Г.П., Т.В. Попова. О значении данных лингвистической географии для решения некоторых вопросов истории болгарского языка (On the role of linguistic geographical data to resolve some issues in Bulgarian language history). Вопросы языкознания (Problems in linguistics), 1968, No. 6, 98-108.</p><p><a name="ref42">42.</a> Кочев, Ив. Основното диалектно деление на българския език (Major dialect boundaries of Bulgarian language). Бълг. ез., 1980, No. 4, 295-304.</p><p><a name="ref43">43.</a> Църнушанов, К. Българските народни говори и единството на българския език (Bulgarian national dialects and the unity of Bulgarian language). Sofia, 1968, 18 p.</p><p><a name="ref44">44.</a> Попова, Т. В. К вопросу о значении морфонологических признаков для диалектного членения болгарского языка (On the role of morphonological traits for the dialect differentiation of Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Общеславянский лингвистический атлас (All-Slavic linguistic atlas). Материалы и исследования (Materials and studies), 1977, Moscow, 1979, 108-124.</p><p><a name="ref45">45.</a> Ivanov, J. N. Zur Frage der Klassifizierung der bulgarischen Dialekte in Mazedonien. Linguistique balkanique. 1982, No 4, 43-51.</p><p><a name="ref46">46.</a> Pomianowska, W. Ugrupowanie gwar południowoslowiańskich w śwеtlе faktów lеksykalnych i słowotwоrzczych. Z polskich studiów sławistycznych (Warszawa), 1978, z. I, 95-100.</p><p><a name="ref47">47.</a> Saur, V. Jak klasifikovat bulharská nářeči? In: Sborník prací filoz. fak. Brněnské univ. Ř. Jazykovědná, 1982. roč. 31, č. 30, 155-167.</p><p><a name="ref48">48.</a> Vakarelski, Hr. Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis von Sprach- und Kulturgrenze auf Grund bulgarischen Materials. In: Festschrift Mathias Zender. Bonn; 1972, 99-105.</p><p><a name="ref49">49.</a> Христодул К. Сичан Николов. Болгарска аритметика (Bulgarian arithmetic), Букурещ (Bucharest), 1845.</p><p><a name="ref50">50.</a> Григорович В.И. Очерк путешествия по Европейской Турции (Travelogue of European Turkey), Казань, 1848.</p><p><a name="ref51">51.</a> Цонев, Б. Разпределение на българските говори според ѣ (Distribution of Bulgarian dialects according to ѣ). <i>In</i>: История на българския език (History of Bulgarian language). Vol. 1. Sofia, 1940, 303-334.</p><p><a name="ref52">52.</a> Mladenov, St. Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache. Berlin und Leipzig, 1929, 13, 92-96, 317-318.</p><p><a name="ref53">53.</a> Василев, Ст. П. Граници между източните и западните български говори (Borders between eastern and western Bulgarian dialects). Родна Реч, 1934, No. 3, 179-181.</p><p><a name="ref54">54.</a> Георгиев, Вл. Предславянският произход на ятовата граница (The pre-Slavic origin of the Yat border). <i>In</i>: Въпроси на българската етимология (Problems in Bulgarian etymology). Sofia, 1959, 114-119.</p><p><a name="ref55">55.</a> Стойков, Ст. Ятовият преглас в български език (The Yat reflex in Bulgarian language). Бълг. ез., 1963, No. 4-5, 326-332.</p><p><a name="ref56">56.</a> Младенов, М. Сл. Ятовата граница в светлината на нови данни. (Към въпроса за диалектното разчленение на българския език.) (The Yat border in the light of new data: On the dialect differentiation of Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Славистичен сборник (Slavistic compendium). Sofia, 1973, 241-256.</p><p><a name="ref57">57.</a> Шаур, Вл. За произхода на ятовата граница в българския език (On the origin of the Yat border in Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Исторически развой на българския език (Historical development of Bulgarian language). Vol. 3. Сравнително езикознание. Диалектология. Превод. (Comparative linguistics, dialectology, translation), Sofia, 1983, 255-271.</p><p><a name="ref58">58.</a> Кочев, Ив. Фонетични и фонологични промени на ê < ѣ в говори около ятовата граница (Phonetic and phonological ê < ѣ reflexes around the Yat border. Изв. Инст. бълг. ез., 16, 1968, 437-445.</p>
<p><a name="ref59">59.</a> Генчев, Ст. Етнографски аспекти на ятовата граница (Ethnographic aspects of the Yat border). <i>In</i>: Първи конгрес на Бълг. историческо дружество (First congress of the Bulgarian historical society), 27-30 Jan. 1970, Vol. 2. Sofia, 1972, 145-148.</p><p><a name="ref60">60.</a> Генчев, Ст. Към проучването на различията между обичаите при погребение от страни на ятовата граница в Северна България (On the study of funeral rites varieties on the two sides of the Yat border). Изв. на Етнографския институт с музей, 11, 1968, 169-200.</p><p><a name="ref61">61.</a> Младенов, М. Сл. Ятов изоглосен пояс!? (Yat isogloss belt!?, Съпост. езикознание (Comparative linguistics), 1990. No. 4-5, 223-227.</p><p><a name="ref62">62.</a> Hristova, E. 2008. The modern substitutes of the Old Bulgarian nasal vowels ѫ and ѧ in the Gorani dialect in Albania. Macedonian Review, 2:97-102 (Доц. д-р Евдокия Христова. 2008. Съвременните застъпници на старобългарските назални гласни ѫ и ѧ в горанския говор в Албания. Македонски преглед, 2:97-102).</p><p><a name="ref63">63.</a> Mladenov, St. Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache. Berlin, 1929, 119-121.</p><p><a name="ref64">64.</a> Цонев, Б. Разпределение на българските говори tj, dj (Distribution of Bulgarian tj, dj dialects). <i>In</i>: История на българский език (History of Bulgarian language). Vol. 1. Sofia, 1940, 344-350.</p><p><a name="ref65">65.</a> Кочев, Ив. Съчетанията ш’т, жд в солунския диалект (Diphthongs ш’т, жд in Solun dialect). Бълг. ез., 1986, 5:426-428.</p><p><a name="ref66">66.</a> Бoжков, Р. Континуатите на праславянските съчетания tj, dj в босилиградския говор (Continua of proto-Slavic phthongs tj, dj in Bosilegrad dialect). Бълг. ез., 1987, 1-2:123-127.</p><p><a name="ref67">67.</a> Белић А. Галички диjалекат. Београд, 1935.</p><p><a name="ref68">68.</a> Селищев, А. Очерки по македонской диалектологии (Essays in Macedonian dialectology). Казань, 1918. Vol. 1.</p><p><a name="ref69">69.</a> Selischtscheff, A. Die slawische Bevölkerung in Albanien. Nachdruck besorgt von Reinhold Olesch. Koeln-Wien: Boehlau Verlag, 1978.</p><p><a name="ref70">70.</a> Selishchev, A. 1935. Macedonian dialectology and Serbian linguists. Macedonian Review (Селищев, А. 1935. Македонская диалектология и сербские лингвисты. Македонски преглед), 9(3-4), pp. 56-97.</p><p><a name="ref71">71.</a> Bernstein, Samuel B. A.M. Selishchev: Slavist-Balkanist (Бернштейн, С.Б. А.М. Селищев — славист-балканист, Наука, Москва, 1987).</p><p><a name="ref72">72.</a> Šaur, V. Bulharské št, žd < *tj, *dj. Slavia (Praha), 1985, 2:128-140.</p>
<p><a name="ref73">73.</a> Ивaнчев, Св. Развоят на *tj, *dj в шт, жд и етногенетичният процес на Балканите (Evolution of *tj, *dj into шт, жд and the ethnogenetic process in the Balkans). Старобългаристика (Old Bulgarian studies), 1981, 1:27-47.</p><p><a name="ref74">74.</a> Тотоманова, А. М. Още веднъж за меките к и г на мястото на праславянските tj и dj в югозападните български говори (Once again on the soft k and g at the place of the proto-Slavic tj and dj in the south-western Bulgarian dialects. Старобългаристика (Old Bulgarian studies), 1990, 3:57-59.</p><p><a name="ref75">75.</a> Шклифов, Б. Развойният процес на шт, жд в българския език (The process of шт, жд development in Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Първа национална младежка школа по езикознание (First national youth school in linguistics). Sofia, 1981, 24-26.</p><p><a name="ref76">76.</a> Георгиев, В. И. Възникване на палаталните съгласни к’ и г’ от ш’т’, ж’д’ в югозападните български говори (Development of the palatal consonants к’ and г’ from ш’т’, ж’д’ in the south-western Bulgarian dialects). — Бълг. ез., 1982, 5:398-404.</p><p><a name="ref77">77.</a> Видоески Б. Основни диjалектни групи во Македониjа (Major south-western Bulgarian dialect groups). Македонски jазик (Bulgarian language in Macedonia), 1960-1961, 11-12:13-31.</p><p><a name="ref78">78.</a> Van Wijk, N. Zur Grenze zwischen dem Ost- und Westbulgarischen. Archiv für slav. Philologie, 1925, 39(3-4):212-216.</p><p><a name="ref79">79.</a> Романски, Ст. Македонски преглед (Macedonian review), 1925, 5-6:169-172.</p><p><a name="ref80">80.</a> Цонев, Б. 1906. Добрейшово четвероевангелие. Предговор (The Dobreysha quadri-gospel. Introduction). Sofia, pp. 30-31.</p><p><a name="ref81">81.</a> Кочев Ив. 1959. Застъпници на меката ерова гласна в български език (Substitutes of the soft Yer vowel in Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>:Статьи и материалы по болгарской диалектологии (Articles and materials in Bulgarian dialectology), 9:70-82, Moscow, 1959.</p><p><a name="ref82">82.</a> Stefan Verković. Народне песме македонских бугара (Folk songs of Macedonian Bulgarians), Belgrade, 1860.</p><p><a name="ref83">83.</a> Афанасий Селищев. Днешната югозападна граница на българската говорна област (Present south-western border of the Bulgarian dialect area), Македонски преглед (Macedonian Review), <b>7</b>:1, 1930</p><p><a name="ref84">84.</a> Кръсте Мисирков. Към въпроса за пограничната линия между българския и сърбо-хърватския езици (On the borderline between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian languages), Българска сбирка (Bulgarian collection), <b>17</b>: 1-2, 1910/11, p. 100</p><p><a name="ref85">85.</a> The Turks, the Greeks and the Slavons. Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe. By G. Muir Mackenzie and A. P. Irby, London, 1867. With Maps etc.</p>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-4883506007541341992013-05-08T00:05:00.011-07:002022-11-11T03:41:41.729-08:00Borders of Bulgarian language<div id="content"><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><div class="image"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EbybJpbLauA/WV_dp4NNp_I/AAAAAAAAFbE/LVA7_ielX_sDPls0r5WBQ6chTqXpUKBcwCKgBGAs/s1600/Dialectcontinuum.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgarian dialect continuum" border="0" height="427" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EbybJpbLauA/WV_dp4NNp_I/AAAAAAAAFbE/LVA7_ielX_sDPls0r5WBQ6chTqXpUKBcwCKgBGAs/w640-h427/Dialectcontinuum.jpg" width="640" /></a> </div><p>The distribution of Slavic languages may be visualized by a chain of circles that cross and intermingle so that many transitive dialects arise. In this Slavic chain, Bulgarian is the south-most link which is located between Serbian and Russian. Because the interactions between Bulgarian and Serbian, on one hand, and between Bulgarian and Russian, on the other, are not equivalent, the similarities of Bulgarian to Russian and Serbian are not the same. While Bulgarians and Serbs lived very close to each other for a very long time on a long borderline, the connection between Bulgarian and Russian took place on a narrow strip along Dobrudzha which was populated with other foreign peoples and was interrupted by the wide and scarcely populated Danube delta. The relatively large similarity between Bulgarian and Russian can be explained by the former Russian-Bulgarian neighbourship in the old homeland of Bulgars and Bulgarian Slavs and with subsequent loans between Bulgarian and Russian.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p></div><div id="colTwo">
<div class="image"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VUnqx87IR7o/WV_eA_WpINI/AAAAAAAAFbI/CkValUh_2jUts6raZxGwZ7s_8okYIDK4wCKgBGAs/s1600/rizmap22.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgaria demographic" border="0" height="533" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VUnqx87IR7o/WV_eA_WpINI/AAAAAAAAFbI/CkValUh_2jUts6raZxGwZ7s_8okYIDK4wCKgBGAs/w640-h533/rizmap22.jpg" width="640" /></a> <p>A 1865 map of the Balkan Peninsula, showing the track of Via Ignatia <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>.</p></div><p>On the basis of linguistic similarities and differences between Slavic languages, one can see that Serbs were not neighbours to Bulgarians in their old abode. Furthermore, comparing the today southern Slavic languages, one can see that even on the Balkan Peninsula, Serbs were not always neighbours to Bulgarians; this is seen by the many phonetic similarities that are found between Bulgarian and Sloveno-Croatian and which are lacking in Serbian. This shows that Serbs came later, penetrated between Bulgarians and Sloveno-Croats and thus interrupted the dialect continuity between southern Slavs.</p></div></div>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Territorial borders</h1>
<div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">
<p>In its present state, the Bulgarian language area takes the most important parts of the Balkan Peninsula and for the most part it borders foreign people, and not Slavic ones: Romanians to the north, Turks to the east, Greeks to the south, Albanians to the south-west, and because every one of these peoples defends its state and political doctrines, the ethnographic issues on the Balkans are very complicated. On Bulgarian side, when at issue is distinguishing the Bulgarian language and nationality from others, there isn't and cannot be any controversy, because the difference between Bulgarian and other languages is evident. Every unbiased ethnographer or diplomate will draw the border of the Bulgarian nation to the limit where Bulgarian is spoken. There can be some controversy only about some mixed border villages but this controversy could be easily decided on the basis of an accurate statistic taking into account the majority of the respective population.</p><p>It is a different situation with the ethnographic border between Serbs and Bulgarians whereby two similar people of the same tribe touch and interact. Basically, here too, if there is no bias by the two sides, an agreement could be easily reached taking into account the grammatical differences between the two languages; because even though they are very similar and the transitive Bulgarian-Serb dialects are very close, there are scientific criteria that could help clearly distinguish these dialects if there was such good will from the Serbian side as it is from Bulgarian, if Serbian ethnographers and linguists didn't put in this controversy more politics then a true light of science, more animosity than a neighbourly conciliation. Because the claims of the Bulgarian western Slavic neighbours concern not only some controversial border villages as it is usually between neighbours, they concern whole regions that are purely Bulgarian, which the Greater Serb politicians and ethnographers, with pseudoscientific distortions, proclaim for Serbian in order to put a scientific basis for their illegitimate claims. This is why, when delineating the borders of Bulgarian language and nation against the other Balkan peoples, we'll give more detail on the Serbian-Bulgarian language border in order to define it and establish it on a scientific, linguistic, basis.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7FZ64zUU-q0/WV_eb0dPBXI/AAAAAAAAFbM/dxmDSh1o2cEz3k4cOLjISGYRoAeLt6JPgCKgBGAs/s1600/Karta_BG_dialekti_2.gif" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img align="left" alt="Map of Bulgarian dialects" border="0" height="640" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7FZ64zUU-q0/WV_eb0dPBXI/AAAAAAAAFbM/dxmDSh1o2cEz3k4cOLjISGYRoAeLt6JPgCKgBGAs/w440-h640/Karta_BG_dialekti_2.gif" width="440" /></a></div><p></p><p>The ethnography of the Balkan Peninsula is tightly connected to the always hot Macedonian question: everything written about Macedonia concerns directly or indirectly its neighbouring regions and peoples. And because this question is still on the agenda for almost 150 years, the literature about it and about Balkan ethnography comprises numerous papers, books, brochures, maps, and statistics in all languages, and together with them – diplomatic agreements, police measures, occupations, and also four bloody, ruinous wars – always this ominous Macedonian question without a favourable decision; it hangs as a threatening sword over all Balkan peoples and will be a scare until the moment it is fairly decided on the basis of the national principle which was so triumphantly proclaimed but unfortunately often ignored by everybody.</p><p>As most directly affected by the Macedonian question, Bulgarians contributed most to its elucidation; during the wars Bulgarian scientists had the opportunity to study directly in the field the western limits of the Bulgarian homeland and to fill their data and evidence for the ethnography of Macedonia and the Morava region. These studies confirmed everything that was before known by Bulgarian scientists about the ethnography of the Balkans and the distinguishing of Bulgarian nationality.</p><p>Regardless of the present or future Bulgarian state borders, the borders of the Bulgarian speech and ethnicity are defined as follows.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3MsxpoNBU8I/WV_e7eLhuBI/AAAAAAAAFbQ/6lLXMVPgf5Yjg_joQoBhqre4dOSHecoLQCKgBGAs/s1600/Balgarska-ezikova-teritoria.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img align="left" alt="Photobucket" border="0" height="511" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3MsxpoNBU8I/WV_e7eLhuBI/AAAAAAAAFbQ/6lLXMVPgf5Yjg_joQoBhqre4dOSHecoLQCKgBGAs/w640-h511/Balgarska-ezikova-teritoria.jpg" width="740" /></a></div><p>The eastern border is the Black Sea.</p><p>To the north, the language has as a natural border the river Danube that spans the larger part of the Bulgarian-Romanian border. The smaller (land) part of the border starts at the town of Silistra on the Danube and ends at the village of Durankulak on the Black Sea, passing through the region of Dobrudzha and dividing the latter in 2 parts: Northern (Romanian) Dobrudzha and Southern (Bulgarian) Dobrudzha. In the past, a numerous Bulgarian population lived in Romanian (Northern) Dobrudzha but in 1941 according to an agreement between the Bulgarian and Romanian governments, these people were moved to the Bulgarian (Southern) Dobrudzha in the place of re-settled Romanian population. Therefore, the northern border of Bulgarian language is clearly delineated as it separates two different languages: Bulgarian and Romanian.</p>
<p> The southern border of Bulgarian is not clearly defined. The Bulgarian population in the southern parts of Thrace and Macedonia lived for many centuries mixed with other ethnicities, primarily Greeks and Turks, speaking languages, very different from Bulgarian. So, instead of language mixing, these ethnicities remained clearly differentiated on the language basis and, indeed, language became the main ethnic characteristic. A large part of Bulgarians (Grecomans) spoke Greek in public and Bulgarian at home. Islamised Bulgarians (Pomaks) spoke a Bulgarian dialect mixed with Turkish words. And yet, a historical border to the south exists that separates Bulgarians from others. It is the old Roman road Via Ignatia that connects the Adriatic with the Black Sea. For a large part, it goes close to the Aegean coast <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>. North of Via Ignatia Bulgarians predominate while south of it they are in the minority.</p><p>In Thrace, the territories on the two sides of Via Ignatia very often changed hands between Bulgarians, Greeks, and Turks but north of it they have been predominantly Bulgarian most of the time, mixed with Greeks, or Turks. Therefore, the border goes from the environs of Istanbul (Tsarigrad) through Chataldzha and Silivria, and then along Via Ignatia goes close to the Aegean (Byalo more) coast to the Struma Estuary and Orphano Bay. Then it crosses the Bogdan Mountain (Beshik-Dag) and through the Lagadina Field (Hortach, Vavro, Kolomenta, Kakavo, and Erisovo <a href="#ref2">[2], pp. 43-44</a>) goes to Solun. From the Solun Bay the border goes upstream along Bistritsa River which it leaves to pass near Kozhani and Shatishta; then again along Bistritsa to Hrupishta. </p>
</div><div id="colTwo">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EoEZh6EHSOo/WV_fW0hCKKI/AAAAAAAAFbU/VWH6nYQxtUMm_sTuWEcu3WaNl2whikCjwCKgBGAs/s1600/BET_2.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;" target="_blank"><img align="left" alt="Photobucket" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EoEZh6EHSOo/WV_fW0hCKKI/AAAAAAAAFbU/VWH6nYQxtUMm_sTuWEcu3WaNl2whikCjwCKgBGAs/w640-h461/BET_2.png" width="740" /></a><p>The border to the west and southwest goes along the approximate line established by Stefan Verković – Serbian folk researcher and ethnograph, and Prof. Afanasiy Selishchev – a great Russian Slavist. Until 15th century, these lands were alternately under Bulgarian and Serbian rule, and then for 5 centuries they were ruled by the Ottomans. The state border was established only in 1878; until then the Serb-Ottoman border went much further to the west <a href="#ref4">[4]</a>. For the western and southern borders of Bulgarian, Verković writes in detail in his works <a href="#ref3">[3]</a> and <a href="#ref2">[2]</a>. The studies of Verković which he did for 30 years, are fully confirmed by other Serbian scientists, such as Milovan Vidaković (1833), Dr. Jovan Subotić (1845), Jovan Gavrilović (1863), Tuminski (1868), А. Hadžić (1870), Vasa Pelagić (1879), Alexandar Belić (1906) and others. More specific data about the south-western border are found in the comprehensive study of Prof. Selishchev <a href="#ref5">[5]</a>. It is worth noting that much the same border to the west was drawn by Krste Misirkov in his study <a href="#ref6">[6]</a>.</p>
<p>The southwestern border goes south of the region of Kostur (Kostenaria), along the mountain ranges Gorusha and Gramos and then turns to the east from the village Slimitsa (Slimnitsa) and further to the north to the Bulgarian village Lobanitsa towards the Bulgaro-Albanian settlement Biglishta. Therefrom the border goes to the northwest which leaves to the east the Bulgarian villages Rakitska, Zərnovsko, Leska, Pustets, Glombochitsa, Podbuche, along the south shore of the Ohrid Lake, to the Bulgarian monastery "St. Naum" and the village of Lin.</p>
<p>To the west of this line are Albanian settlements except two neighbouring villages, Drenovo and Boboshchitsa, that are Bulgarian. Some Bulgarian families lived at the turn of 19th c. in other Korcha villages: Sovyani, Sinitsa, Pirg, Rambets, Bulgarets, Hotishta, Bratovitsa. In the town of Korcha itself, there was a Bulgarian population in 2 neighbourhoods. Old men in several now Albanian villages still remember the former Bulgarian language. The population to the west of Ohrid lake is Albanian. Bulgarian population at the beginning of 20th c. lived only in some northwestern villages: Lin, Raytsa, Radozhda, Vlahtsi, Kalishta, Radolishta.</p> <p>From Struga, the border goes near the west shore of Ohrid Lake through Yablanitsa Mountain, passes through the Bulgarian Muslim villages to the west of Drin: Steblevo, Borovo, Sebishte, Kosovets, Tərnovo. West of this line are the Albanian village Zaradchani and the Bulgarian villages Upper and Lower Belitsa <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/borders-of-bulgarian-language.html#ref7">[7], p. 48</a>. Veleshta became primarily Albanian village by 1920s. The Bulgarian villages Vranishta, Oktisi, Vehchani (Vevchani), Podgortsi, Borovets, Yablanitsa (some Albanians) are to the east of the border. Here is the northern part of Yablanitsa ridge. The border then goes to the northwest along the Golobrdo ridge. At the turn of 19th c. here Bulgarian border villages were Borova, Sebishte, Tərnovo, Leshnichan, Torbachi. <a href="#ref8">[8]</a> Borovo, as well as Kosovets and Torbachi north of it are mentioned as Albanian, and Sebishte – as mixed Bulgarian-Albanian in 1916. <a href="#ref9">[9]</a></p><p>
At the village Torbachi the border crosses to the other side of Drin River, leaving to the east the Bulgarian-Albanian town Debər and the Bulgarian village of Sushitsa and goes along Drin to the north. A number of villages on Drin are Albanian: Konyari, Solokiki, Spas, Rashani, Blato, Maytar, Chernene, Voynik, Chanka, Kovachitsa. The next village to the north on the Drin – Deolani (Dovolani) – is Bulgarian-Albanian. From here, at Kenok Hill, the border turns to the east to the Bulgarian Muslim village Zhernonitsa and further to the Mavrovi Inns (in the region of the village Mavrovo). In one village to the northwest of the border – Brizhdan (Brzhdan) on Drin – there were 4 Bulgarians (9 Walachians, 40 Gypsies, and 1008 Albanians) in 1916-1918 <a href="#ref10">[10]</a> and a quarter of this village bears the Slavic name Domazetay. In 1860s, in another village close by – Melan / Melia north of Deolani – there was a Bulgarian population. <a href="#ref7">[7], II, p. 37-38</a> Villages ustream along Radika (Gorna Reka) were Albanian by the beginning of 20th c.</p><p>
From Mavrovi Inns, the western border of the Bulgarian linguistic area goes to Rudoka Mountain, to the Vratsa Pass and to the villages of Prizrenska Gora, situated between Shar Mountain, Rudoka Mountain and Koritnik. The Slavic population of Gora was forced to change its religion from Christianity to Islam but the traditional Bulgarian language was preserved in many villages and their population. The traits in this language is similar to those in the southwestern Bulgarian dialects spoken in western Macedonia. The common religion asserted a strong Albanian influence on the Gora Bulgarians which, like other Bulgarians in western Macedonia, do not object to being called Albanians. They were registered as Albanians at the time of the Austrian occupation in 1916-1918. <a href="#ref9">[9], p. 54-56</a> In some families and villages in Gora, the Slavic speech was completely disused and was replaced by Albanian. The attempts of the Serbian government to open schools in some villages in Gorna Reka were unsuccessful; by 1929 no teacher remained there. <a href="#ref11">[11]</a></p><p>From Gora the border goes to the north-east through the Shar Mountain, from its peak Lyuboten and then to the east, north of the Bulgarian village Rogachevo, north of Rogach ridge to Dervent in Polog near Vardar and further to the north-east to Skopian Montenegro. In this region, the Albanian ethnicity predominates, and the Bulgarian element is preserved in islands of Bulgarian Muslim (torbesh) villages. The villages of the Prizren Opolya are all Albanian. There are many Albanian villages in other Prizren <i>zhups</i> (districts). Only the following villages near Prizren are Slavic: Vrbichane, Novoselyane, Seltse (Sevtse), Vrbeshtitsa, Yazhintse, Shtrptse, Berevtse, Gotovusha, Sredska, Zhivinyane; the other villages are either mixed or completely Albano-Muslim. In the Bulgarian Muslim dialects, *tj, *dj is reflexed in кь, гь but ѫ is reflexed in ъ, ъ and ь are reflexed in o and e, there is a triple definite article, etc., which are the typical Bulgarian dialects of Shar and Koritnik Mountains. The Slavic langauge of the population in the Prizren zhups Sredska and Sirinich incorporates elements of 2 Slavic languages: Bulgarian and Serbian. Bulgarian elements come from Slavs who in old times lived north and north-west of Prizren: Slavic toponyms are evidence for this. Thus, there are words with <i>zhd</i>, <i>sht</i> instead of Proto-Slavic *dj, *tj, *-kt' (Grazhdenik, Obrazhda, Lyubizhda, Selograzhde, Chrpyoglazhde, Torazhda, Spənozheshtani, Nebregoshte, Dobrushta), words with -<i>ets</i> instead of earlier -<i>ьць</i> (Nashets, Tupets, etc.).</p>
<p>In addition to these linguistic data, we can note the ethnographic observations of A. Haberlandt in the Prizren area. The houses around Prizren have clearly eastern aspect (brick buildings); village houses are situated terrace-like on the hill slopes; many of them are surrounded by huge stone walls. Gardens have very Bulgarian character, and field-guarding is in south-eastern manner. Folk costumes are different in colour, decorations, and partly in their elements. On this basis, without doubt the bulk of population in the direction Mitrovitsa-Pech originates from newer settlers with ethnicity different from that in southern Metochia. The first belongs to Serbian nationality while the second has older character which is close to the Bulgarians from Macedonia <a href="#ref12">[12]</a>.</p><p>To the west of the above southwestern limits of the Bulgarian linguistic area there were no Bulgarian settlements in the 20th c. except those mentioned above in the Korcha region and 4 Bulgarians in the village of Brizhdan in Lower Debar, near Peshkopia. But to the east of the border line, in western Macedonia, there are many Albanian settlements. Here, the Albanians do not inhabit compact terrritory: either their villages are on Bulgarian territory or Albanians take part of a Bulgarian village. Statistical data of 1912-1913 show that there were 194 195 Albanians in Macedonia (1 103 111 Bulgarians, 548 225 Turks, 267 862 Greeks, 79 401 Walachians, 43 370 Gypsies, 106 360 others). Most Albanians were settled in the western and northern Macedonia: 43 230 near Polog (Tetovo and Gostivar regions), 33 375 near Debar, 14 400 near Bitolya, 13 240 near Skopie, 20 000 near Preshevo <a href="#ref13">[13]</a>.</p><p>From Prizren district the border goes in a generally northern direction through Kopaonik and Yastrebəts Mountains to Krushevəts and Morava River. Along the western shore of Morava the border goes as far north as the rivers Sava and Danube where it closes the Bulgarian linguistic territory.</p><p>In the borders so delineated, there are foreign populations: Albanians, Turks, Greek, as well as Turkified, Hellenised, or Serbianized Bulgarians but as long as there is a language with the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/borders-of-bulgarian-language.html#linguistic_borders">traits characteristic for Bulgarian language</a>, it is strictly Bulgarian, different from all other languages.</p>
</div></div>
<a name="linguistic_borders"><h1 style="clear: both;">Bulgaro-Serbian linguistic borders</h1></a> <h2>Phonetic</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><ol class="list0"><li>The Old Bulgarian ѫ gives in Bulgarian <b>ъ</b> while in Serbian it gives <b>y</b>: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>д<b>ъ</b>б<br />
з<b>ъ</b>б<br />
м<b>ъ</b>ка<br />
р<b>ъ</b>ка<br />
т<b>ъ</b>га</td> <td>д<b>у</b>б<br />
з<b>у</b>б<br />
м<b>у</b>ка<br />
р<b>у</b>ка<br />
т<b>у</b>га</td> <td>oak<br />
tooth<br />
sadness<br />
hand<br />
sorrow</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The Old Bulgarian *tj, *dj combinations give in Bulgarian <b>щ</b> and <b>жд</b>, and in Serbian – <b>ћ</b> and <b>ђ</b>: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>сре<b>щ</b>а<br />
пла<b>щ</b>ам<br />
пле<b>щ</b>и<br />
ме<b>жд</b>а<br />
ра<b>жд</b>ам</td> <td>сре<b>ћ</b>а<br />
пла<b>ћ</b>ам<br />
пле<b>ћ</b>е<br />
ме<b>ђ</b>а<br />
ра<b>ђ</b>ам</td> <td>meeting<br />
to pay<br />
shoulders<br />
border<br />
to bear (child)</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The Old Bulgarian ъ and ь in Bulgarian are assimilated only in root syllables into a dark ъ, but in suffix syllables are separated and are pronounced as <b>ъ</b> and <b>е</b> while in Serbian they are pronounced only as <b>а</b>: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>б<b>ъ</b>з<br />
б<b>ъ</b>чва<br />
т<b>ъ</b>н<b>ъ</b>к<br />
т<b>ъ</b>м<b>е</b>н<br />
ост<b>е</b>н</td> <td>б<b>а</b>з<br />
б<b>а</b>чва<br />
т<b>а</b>н<b>а</b>к<br />
т<b>а</b>м<b>а</b>н<br />
ост<b>а</b>н</td> <td>elder<br />
barrel<br />
thin<br />
dark<br />
goad</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The Old Bulgarian лъ in the middle of syllables in Bulgarian remains unchanged as <b>-лъ-</b> or becomes its metathesis <b>-ъл-</b>, while in Serbian it mutates into <b>-у-</b>: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>т<b>лъ</b>сто<br />
с<b>ъл</b>за<br />
в<b>ъл</b>к<br />
б<b>ъл</b>ха<br />
в<b>ъл</b>на</td> <td>т<b>у</b>сто<br />
с<b>у</b>за<br />
в<b>у</b>к<br />
б<b>у</b>ва<br />
в<b>у</b>на</td> <td>fatty<br />
tear<br />
wolf<br />
flea<br />
wool</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The consonant <b>л</b> at the end of syllables is present in Bulgarian as the sound /l/ while in Serbian it changes to the vowel <b>o</b>: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>кри<b>л</b>це<br />
пепе<b>л</b><br />
би<b>л</b><br />
смя<b>л</b> се<br />
работи<b>л</b>ница</td> <td>кри<b>о</b>це<br />
пепе<b>о</b><br />
би<b>о</b><br />
сме<b>о</b> се<br />
ради<b>о</b>ница</td> <td>winglet<br />
ashes<br />
been<br />
laughed<br />
workshop</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The palatal (soft) <b>љ</b> (ль) is not found in Bulgarian while in Serbian it is present: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>избавен<br />
купен<br />
снопи<br />
коноп<br />
Скопие</td> <td>избав<b>љ</b>ен<br />
куп<b>љ</b>ен<br />
сноп<b>љ</b>е<br />
коноп<b>љ</b>е<br />
Скоп<b>љ</b>е</td> <td>saved<br />
bought<br />
sheaves<br />
hemp<br />
Skopie</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
</ol></div><div id="colTwo"><ol class="list0" start="7"><li>Voiced consonants at the end of words in Bulgarian change to the respective voiceless consonants while in Serbian they remain voiced: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>бо<b>п</b><br />
дъ<b>п</b><br />
ро<b>к</b><br />
бря<b>к</b><br />
ре<b>т</b></td> <td>бо<b>б</b><br />
дъ<b>б</b><br />
ро<b>г</b><br />
бре<b>г</b><br />
ре<b>д</b></td> <td>beans<br />
oak<br />
horn<br />
shore<br />
order</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Vowel reduction is found often in Bulgarian, especially in Bulgarian dialects while in Serbian there is no vowel reduction: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>т<b>ъ</b>ка<br />
сел<b>у</b><br />
малк<b>у</b><br />
ч<b>и</b>те<br />
т<b>ъ</b></td> <td>т<b>а</b>ко<br />
сел<b>о</b><br />
мал<b>о</b><br />
ч<b>е</b>те<br />
т<b>е</b></td> <td>so<br />
village<br />
little<br />
he reads<br />
you</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The Old Bulgarian sound <b>дз</b> /ʣ/ is retained in Bulgarian, especially in Bulgarian dialects while in Serbian it is replaced by <b>з</b> /z/: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td><b>дз</b>визка<br />
<b>дз</b>ифт<br />
<b>дз</b>везда (<i>dial</i>)<br />
<b>дз</b>ид (<i>dial</i>)<br />
<b>дз</b>вон (<i>dial</i>)</td> <td><b>з</b>виска<br />
<b>з</b>ифт<br />
<b>з</b>везда<br />
<b>з</b>ид<br />
<b>з</b>ван</td> <td>ewe<br />
bitumen<br />
star<br />
wall<br />
ringing</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The stress in Bulgarian is retained at the same place as in Old Bulgarian while in Serbian it is shifted: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>вод<b>à</b><br />
зав<b>ò</b>д<br />
пар<font face="Arial"><b>ѝ</b></font><br />
благодар<b>я̀</b><br />
не зн<b>à</b>м</td> <td>в<b>ò</b>да<br />
з<b>à</b>вод<br />
п<b>à</b>ра<br />
благ<b>ò</b>дарим<br />
н<b>è</b> знам</td> <td>water<br />
institute<br />
money<br />
to thank<br />
I don't know</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The stress in Bulgarian does not change the length of the stressed vowel while in Serbian stress prolongs or shortens the vowel: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>пол<b>è</b>ка<br />
предпри<b>я̀</b>тие<br />
интер<b>è</b>сен<br />
фантаст<font face="Arial"><b>ѝ</b></font>чно<br />
рожд<b>è</b>н д<b>è</b>н</td> <td>пол<b>ā</b>ко<br />
предуз<b>ē</b>ће<br />
интерес<b>ā</b>нтан<br />
фант<b>ā</b>стично<br />
р<b>ò</b>ђенд<b>ā</b>н</td> <td>easy<br />
enterprise<br />
interesting<br />
fantastic<br />
birthday</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
</ol></div></div><h2 style="clear: both;">Morphological</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><p>The main differences between Bulgarian and Serbian are morphological. The first three points refer to the main characteristic traits of Bulgarian while the first five points make Bulgarian analytic language compared to Serbian (and other Slavic languages) which is synthetic language.</p><ol class="list0"><li>Bulgarian lost the old case forms in nouns, adjectives, and adverbs (some cases retained only in pronouns) while Serbian retained all cases: <br /><br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>мъжа<br />
мъжа<br />
мъжа<br />
мъжа<br />
мъжа</td> <td>муж<b>у</b> (<i>accusat.</i>)<br />
муж<b>а</b> (<i>genitive</i>)<br />
муж<b>и</b> (<i>dative</i>)<br />
муж<b>ом</b> (<i>instr.</i>)<br />
муж<b>е</b> (<i>prepos.</i>)</td> <td>man<br />
man<br />
man<br />
man<br />
man</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Bulgarian developed a postfixed article form while Serbian does not use articles: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>снег<b>ът</b><br />
река<b>та</b><br />
море<b>то</b><br />
човек<b>а</b><br />
книга<b>та</b></td> <td>снег<br />
реке<br />
мора<br />
човек<br />
књиге</td> <td>the show<br />
the river<br />
the sea<br />
the man<br />
the book</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Bulgarian does not have an infinitive form while Serbian has retained the old infinitive form: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>да работя<br />
да дойда<br />
да донеса<br />
да отида<br />
да прочета</td> <td>рад<b>ити</b><br />
дођ<b>и</b><br />
доне<b>ти</b><br />
пођ<b>и</b><br />
прочита<b>ти</b></td> <td>to work<br />
to come<br />
to bring<br />
to go<br />
to read</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The comparative degree in Bulgarian is formed with the particles <b>по-</b> and <b>най-</b> while in Serbian it is formed by suffixes or by words with different roots (synthetic): <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td><b>по-</b>слаб<br />
<b>по-</b>добър<br />
<b>по-</b>лек<br />
<b>най-</b>красив<br />
<b>най-</b>щастлив</td> <td>слаб<b>иjи</b><br />
бољ<b>и</b><br />
лак<b>ши</b><br />
наjлеп<b>ши</b><br />
наjсрећн<b>иjи</b></td> <td>weaker<br />
better<br />
lighter<br />
the most beautiful<br />
the happiest</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The future tense in Bulgarian is formed analytically with the auxilliary particle <b>ще</b> which does not change while in Serbian it is done either with a conjugated auxilliary particle or with a sufficial construction (synthetically): <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="25%">Bulgarian</th><th width="50%">Serbian</th><th width="25%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td><b>ще</b> чета<br />
<b>ще</b> четеш<br />
<b>ще</b> чете<br />
<b>ще</b> четем<br />
<b>ще</b> четете</td> <td><b>ћу</b> читати, чита<b>ћу</b><br />
<b>ћеш</b> читати, чита<b>ћеш</b><br />
<b>ће</b> читати, чита<b>ће</b><br />
<b>ћемо</b> читати, чита<b>ћемо</b><br />
<b>ћет</b>е читати, чита<b>ћете</b></td> <td>I'll read<br />
you'll read<br />
he'll read<br />
we'll read<br />
you'll read</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The plural in some masculine nouns is formed with suffix <b>-ове</b> or <b>-е</b> in Bulgarian and with suffix <b>-ови, -еви</b> in Serbian: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>дом<b>ове</b><br />
снег<b>ове</b><br />
брег<b>ове</b><br />
кон<b>е</b><br />
цар<b>е</b></td> <td>стан<b>ови</b><br />
снег<b>ови</b><br />
брег<b>ови</b><br />
коњ<b>и</b><br />
цар<b>еви</b></td> <td>homes<br />
snows<br />
shores<br />
horses<br />
kings</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>The plural adjectives do not have a gender suffix in Bulgarian while in Serbian these have gender suffix: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>добр<b>и</b> хора<br />
добр<b>и</b> жени<br />
добр<b>и</b> села<br />
стар<b>и</b> книги<br />
стар<b>и</b> другари</td> <td>добр<b>и</b> људи<br />
добр<b>е</b> жене<br />
добр<b>а</b> села<br />
стар<b>е</b> књиге<br />
стар<b>и</b> другови</td> <td>good people<br />
good women<br />
good villages<br />
old books<br />
old friends</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
</ol></div><div id="colTwo"><ol class="list0" start="8"><li>Verbs in first person plural end in <b>-м</b> or <b>-ме</b> in Bulgarian and in <b>-мо</b> in Serbian: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>плет<b>ем</b><br />
пита<b>ме</b><br />
ходи<b>м</b><br />
мие<b>м</b><br />
чете<b>м</b></td> <td>плете<b>мо</b><br />
пита<b>мо</b><br />
иде<b>мо</b><br />
пере<b>мо</b><br />
чита<b>мо</b></td> <td>we knit<br />
we ask<br />
we go<br />
we wash<br />
we read</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Verbs in third person plural end in the old suffix <b>-т</b> in Bulgarian while in Serbian this suffix is lacking: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>плет<b>ат</b><br />
пит<b>ат</b><br />
ход<b>ят</b><br />
ми<b>ят</b><br />
чет<b>ат</b></td> <td>плет<b>у</b><br />
пита<b>jу</b><br />
ид<b>у</b><br />
пер<b>у</b><br />
чита<b>jу</b></td> <td>they knit<br />
they ask<br />
they go<br />
they wash<br />
they read</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Verbs in second person plural past tense end in the suffix <b>-хте</b> in Bulgarian while in Serbian this suffix is <b>-сте</b>: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>плето<b>хте</b><br />
пита<b>хте</b><br />
ходи<b>хте</b><br />
мие<b>хте</b><br />
чето<b>хте</b></td> <td>плето<b>сте</b><br />
пита<b>сте</b><br />
идо<b>сте</b><br />
пера<b>сте</b><br />
чита<b>сте</b></td> <td>you knitted<br />
you asked<br />
you went<br />
you washed<br />
you read</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>on plural past finite tense end in the suffix <b>-ха</b> in Bulgarian while in Serbian this suffix is <b>-ше</b>: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>плето<b>ха</b><br />
пита<b>ха</b><br />
ходи<b>ха</b><br />
мие<b>ха</b><br />
чето<b>ха</b></td> <td>плето<b>ше</b><br />
пита<b>ше</b><br />
идо<b>ше</b><br />
пера<b>ше</b><br />
чита<b>ше</b></td> <td>they knitted<br />
they asked<br />
they went<br />
they washed<br />
they read</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<li>In verbs that in Old Bulgarian ended in <b>-оватн</b> the letter <b>о</b> changed to <b>у</b> in Bulgarian while in Serbian this suffix retained its <b>о</b>: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>куп<b>у</b>вах<br />
куп<b>у</b>ван<br />
куп<b>у</b>ване<br />
път<b>у</b>вах<br />
път<b>у</b>ване</td> <td>куп<b>о</b>вах<br />
куп<b>о</b>ван<br />
куп<b>о</b>вање<br />
пут<b>о</b>вах<br />
пут<b>о</b>вање</td> <td>I bought<br />
bought<br />
buying<br />
I travelled<br />
travel</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Imperative mood is equalised by the hard base in Bulgarian and by the soft base in Serbian: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>плет<b>е</b>те<br />
мол<b>е</b>те<br />
пер<b>е</b>те<br />
бъд<b>е</b>те<br />
ид<b>е</b>те</td> <td>плет<b>и</b>те<br />
мол<b>и</b>те<br />
пер<b>и</b>те<br />
буд<b>и</b>те<br />
од<b>и</b>те</td> <td>knit<br />
ask<br />
wash<br />
be<br />
go</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Generative case in pronouns in Bulgarian ends in <b>-го</b> while in Serbian ends in <b>-га</b>: <br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>ко<b>го</b><br />
нико<b>го</b><br />
няко<b>го</b><br />
всеки<b>го</b><br />
<b>го</b></td> <td>ко<b>га</b><br />
нико<b>га</b><br />
неко<b>га</b><br />
свако<b>га</b><br />
<b>га</b></td> <td>whom<br />
nobody<br />
somebody<br />
everybody<br />
him</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Dative and accusative cases plural in pronouns <b>ни, ви</b> are the same in Bulgarian while in Serbian they have different forms: <b>нама, вама</b> (<i>dative</i>); <b>нас, вас</b> (<i>accusative</i>)</li>
<li>Bulgarian uses abbreviated personal pronouns <b>мен, теб</b> while Serbian lacks them</li>
<li>Vocative case in female personal nouns ending in -ка in Bulgarian has the suffix -ке while in Serbian they have suffix -ко: bg: <b>Боянке</b> – sr: <b>Боjанко</b></li>
</ol></div></div><h2 style="clear: both;">Sintactic</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><ol class="list0"><li>Bulgarian has analytic relational expressions while Serbian has syntetic expressions – case forms: <table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>Казах на жената<br />
Бeше с куче<br />
Влиза в морето<br />
Гледа земя<br />
Даде го на майка</td> <td>Рекао сам жен<b>и</b><br />
Био jе са пс<b>ом</b><br />
Улази у мор<b>е</b><br />
Гледа земљ<b>у</b><br />
Дао je маjц<b>и</b></td> <td>I told the woman<br />
He was with a dog<br />
Goes into the sea<br />
Looks at land<br />
Gave to mother</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>In Bulgarian there is doubling of personal pronouns while in Serbian there is no such doubling: <br /><br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>мене ме<br />
тебе те<br />
него го<br />
нея я<br />
нас ни</td> <td>мени<br />
теби<br />
њега<br />
њoj<br />
нама</td> <td>me<br />
you<br />
him<br />
her<br />
us</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>In comparisons Bulgarian uses accusative case when it is possible (in pronouns) while Serbian uses nominative case; also, in comparisons Bulgarian uses the preposition <b>от</b>, while Serbian uses the preposition <b>него</b>: <table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>голям като мене<br />
висок като него<br />
по-нисък от нея<br />
по-силен от мен<br />
по-голям от теб</td> <td>велики како jа<br />
висок колико он<br />
нижи него она<br />
снажниjи него jа<br />
већи него ти</td> <td>as big as me<br />
as tall as you<br />
shorter than her<br />
stronger than me<br />
bigger than you</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Bulgarian uses very often the definitive forms of past tense (past finite and past infinite) while in Serbian past definitive forms are used very infrequently and they are replaced by past indefinite: <br /><br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>потъна<br />
потъваше<br />
работих<br />
четох<br />
четях</td> <td>утонуо je<br />
тонуо jе<br />
радио сам<br />
чео сам<br />
читао сам</td> <td>he sank<br />
he was sinking<br />
I worked<br />
I read /red/<br />
I was reading</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
</ol></div><div id="colTwo"><ol class="list0" start="5"><li>Bulgarian very often omits the conjunction <b>да</b> either in futture tense constructions or elsewhere while Serbian keeps this conjunction: <br /><br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>той ще дойде<br />
аз ще кажа<br />
ще следи<br />
бих казал<br />
не щях</td> <td>он ће да дође<br />
jа ћу да кажем<br />
ће да прати<br />
хоћу да кажем<br />
ни да сам знао</td> <td>he'll come<br />
I'll say<br />
it'll rain/snow<br />
I'd say<br />
I wouldn't know</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Bulgarian often omits the singular and plural auxiliary verb for third person (<b>e</b> and <b>са</b>) while in Serbian omission of this verb is very rare: <br /><br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>било (e) късно<br />
не (e) наред<br />
колко (е) важно?<br />
щели (са) да<br />
какво (са) чели?</td> <td>било ϳе касно<br />
ниϳе у реду<br />
колико ϳе важно?<br />
хтели су да<br />
шта су читали?</td> <td>it was late<br />
it's not ok<br />
how important?<br />
they'd ...<br />
what'd they read?</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
<li>Bulgarian uses the past finite form of the verb бъда (to be) – <b>бе/беше</b> (was/were), while in Serbian there is no such use: <br /><br /><table><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">Serbian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>той си бе дошъл<br />
тя не бе казала<br />
беше късно<br />
не беше лошо<br />
що беше това?</td> <td>био jе дошао<br />
ниϳе била рекла<br />
било ϳе касно<br />
ниϳе било лоше<br />
шта ϳе било ово?</td> <td>he had come<br />
she hadn't said<br />
it was late<br />
it wasn't bad<br />
what was this?</td> </tr>
</tbody></table></li>
</ol>
<script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!--Bulgarian dialects, small-->
<ins class="adsbygoogle" data-ad-client="ca-pub-2877421315223432" data-ad-slot="5664959639" style="display: inline-block; height: 280px; width: 336px;"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>
</div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><p><a name="ref1">1.</a> The Turks, the Greeks and the Slavons. Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe. By G. Muir Mackenzie and A. P. Irby, London, 1867. With Maps etc.</p><p><a name="ref2">2.</a> Stefan Verković, Описание быта македонских болгар; Топографическо-этнографический очерк Македонии (Description of the life of Macedonian Bulgarians. Topographic and ethnographic essay of Macedonia), St. Petersburg, 1889.</p><p><a name="ref3">3.</a> Stefan Verković. Народне песме македонских бугара (Folk songs of Macedonian Bulgarians), Belgrade, 1860.</p><p><a name="ref4">4.</a> Младенов, Ст. Граници на българската реч и държава в миналото и днес (Borders of Bulgarian language and state in the past and today). Родна реч, 1927, Issue 1, 16-23.</p><p><a name="ref5">5.</a> Афанасий Селищев. Днешната югозападна граница на българската говорна област (Present south-western border of the Bulgarian dialect area), Македонски преглед (Macedonian Review), <b>7</b>:1, 1930</p><p><a name="ref6">6.</a> Кръсте Мисирков. Към въпроса за пограничната линия между българския и сърбо-хърватския езици (On the borderline between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian languages), Българска сбирка (Bulgarian collection), <b>17</b>: 1-2, 1910/11, p. 100</p></div><div id="colTwo"><p><a name="ref7">7.</a> Hahn, Reіse durch dіe Gebіete des Drіn und Wardar. II. 1863. Denkschr. d. Ak. d. Wissensch. Phіl.-hіst. Cl., Bd. 16, Wіen. 1869</p><p><a name="ref8">8.</a> проф. Йорд. Иванов, Българо-албанската етнична граница (Bulgaro-Albanian ethnic border), Македонски преглед (Macedonian Review) I, <b>4</b>:46, 1925</p><p><a name="ref9">9.</a> St. Mladenov, Bemerkungen über dіe albaner und das Albanіsche іn Nordmakedonіen und Altserbіen. Balkan-Archіv, I, 1925, p. 66.</p><p><a name="ref10">10.</a> Fr. Seіner, Ergebnіsse der Volkszählung іn Albanіen іn dem von den oesterr.-ungar. Truppen 1916-1918 besetzen Gebіete. Schrіften der balkankommіssіon. Lіnguіst. Abteіlung. XIII. 1922, р. 50.</p><p><a name="ref11">11.</a> С. Милосављевић, Просветне прилике Горње Реке. Jужни преглед, IV, № 2. Скопље. 1929, р. 70.</p><p><a name="ref12">12.</a> Arthur Haberlandt, Kulturwіssenschaftlіsche Beіträge zur Volkskunde von Montenegro, Albanіen und Serbіen, Wіen, 1917, р. 157.</p><p><a name="ref13">13.</a> J. Ivanoff, La Questіon macedonіenne. Parіs. 1920, р. 187; Й. Иванов. Българетѣ въ Македония. София. 1915, р. CII-CIV.</p></div></div></div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-1686368838371528222013-05-08T00:02:00.003-07:002022-10-18T10:52:23.701-07:00History of Bulgarian language<div id="content"><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Bulgarian language takes а prominent place in comparative linguistics and constitutes an important link in the chain of Indo-European languages. The historical study of Bulgarian language is important not only to Bulgarians but to all other Slavs, too, because it answers many questions about the history of all Slavic languages. Bulgarian language prides itself with very old written monuments: Slavic linguistics would not be as advanced as it is now without these Old Bulgarian manuscripts; it would not be so useful to the general comparative linguistics if there wasn't <i>Old Bulgarian language</i>, preserved and transferred to us through millenia clearly and accurately with its living pronunciation in Bulgarian dialects.<span><a name='more'></a></span><p>Taking into account this great importance of Old Bulgarian on one hand, and on the other — the dark obscurity that hid Bulgarians and their language for five centuries until 1878, one can understand how even bright minds can be confused about the origin of this ancient language and how everyone, affected by national sentiment, could consider it as a language close to his own nationality.</p></div><div id="colTwo"><p>Studying the language in time and place will explain this issue, will strenghten the conviction that the language of Sst Cyril and Methodius really originates in the Bulgarian land. Thus, in addition to so many phonological and morphological similarities proving the kinship of old and new Bulgarian language, Bulgarian dialectology proves also that all the beautiful words known from the Old Bulgarian monuments, exist even today in Bulgarian language — of course, not as popular words but as provincialisms. Who has not been exulted when, perusing dialect or folkloristic materials, suddenly finds some old Bulgarian word that wasn't known to exist in Bulgarian dialects? Such words sound like a distant echo from this old time when all Bulgarian Slavs spoke them as common words; but today we think of them either as deep provincialisms or as high bookish phrases, loaned from Russian literature.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Slavic alphabet and Bulgarian language</h1><div class="two-columns">
<div id="colOne"><p><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MiMpv_kq3so/WV_aMfp5QDI/AAAAAAAAFas/P40jNLDQK_Up-xFNYPme6Zx_cZqzFT5vACKgBGAs/s1600/KiriliMetodi.jpg" target="_blank"><img align="left" alt="Cyril and Methodius" border="0" hspace="10" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MiMpv_kq3so/WV_aMfp5QDI/AAAAAAAAFas/P40jNLDQK_Up-xFNYPme6Zx_cZqzFT5vACKgBGAs/s1600/KiriliMetodi.jpg" /></a></p><p>At the end of the first quarter of the 7th century, the settlement of the Slavs on the Balkan Peninsula was almost completed. The western Balkans were occupied with Slavic ancestors of today Serbs, Croats, and Slovenians, while its central, eastern, and southern parts, i.e., Moesia and Dobrudja, Pomoravie and Timok, Thrace and Rhodopes, Macedonia, Central and Southern Albania, Epirus, were occupied by the Slavs of the eastern Slavic group. Part of these tribes continued to inhabit wide territory north of the Danube. Slavic tribes penetrated to the southernmost parts of Greece, and settled some Aegean Islands. Data about these Slavic tribes are scarce and knowledge about them is incomplete. It is known that Severs (or Severians) lived in Dobrudja. To the west of them, the Danubian plain was settled by the great tribal Slav union called The Union of the Seven Tribes. More to the west, in the region of river Timok lived the Timochans, and in the region of river Morava lived the Moravians. In the northwestern part of Thrace, in the foothills of the Rhodopes and the Balkan lived the Dragoviches, in the basin of river Struma − Strymons (Strumiantsi or Strumians). Close to the Aegean Sea coast between the rivers Struma and Mesta was settled the tribe of the Smolians; north of the Chalkidiki Peninsula between the rivers Vardar and Struma lived the Rinkhins. In Macedonia, in the valley of the Crna river were the Berezites. Each South Slav tribe had its own dialect that was close to the dialects of the other tribes.</p>
<div class="image"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VkO8TECxxZo/WV_aw28XO5I/AAAAAAAAFaw/KkNh6Wq885YmcaPW_vqy1hG9_PGtRBuqQCKgBGAs/s1600/da_155.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Slavic tribes on the Balkans" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VkO8TECxxZo/WV_aw28XO5I/AAAAAAAAFaw/KkNh6Wq885YmcaPW_vqy1hG9_PGtRBuqQCKgBGAs/s1600/da_155.jpg" width="650" /></a> <p>Slavic tribes on the Balkans (5-7 c.) before arrival of the Bulgars</p><p></p><p></p></div><p>In the second half of the 7th century, the fate of the eastern and southern Slavic tribes was forever associated with another people — Bulgars (proto-Bulgarians) — who, led by Asparuh, forced Byzantium after a series of battles to recognize in 681 the new state of Slavs and Bulgars, to conclude a peace treaty with them and pay them an annual tax. Another Bulgar leader, Kuber, with his group settled in Macedonia and from there tried to conquer Solun.</p></div><div id="colTwo"><p>During 6 to 9 century most of the Slavic tribes to the north and south of the Danube were included within the Bulgarian state, which became an attractive center for Slavs, because they considered Bulgars as their defenders and allies against the common enemy Byzantium. Slavs, through their superiority in number, assimilated first the local Thracian population, who had been partly Romanized and partly Hellenized, and then the two Bulgar tribes (one in the northeast and the other in the area of today's Macedonia). Through this process of assimilation, Slavs became the main ethnic component of the Bulgarian nation in the three geographic areas — Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia — that comprised the Bulgarian state during most of its existence until it was conquered by the Ottomans. The name of the new state — Bulgaria — was derived from Bulgars whose families governed the state administration. Such examples are not rare in the political history of European nations. It is enough to indicate the case with the French, a people of Latin origin, who took the name of the Germanic tribe Franks.</p><p>It is well known and universally accepted that early Bulgarian (and Slavic, in general) literature is associated with the work of the Solun brothers Cyril and Methodius. Direct incentive for the creation of Slavic alphabet and the first Slavic books was the request of the Moravian Prince Rastislav made in 862 to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III, to send him "a bishop and mentor" to preach Christianity in understandable language. For this difficult educational mission, the Byzantine Emperor chose the Solun brothers who had been already famous for their knowledge. According to the hagiographies of the two brothers-saints, the Emperor chose them because, although they were Byzantines, as citizens of Solun they knew the language of the local Slavo-Bulgarian population. Cyril and Methodius made a new alphabet (Glagolitic alphabet) in 862 (or 863) and translated the most important liturgical books from Greek to Slavo-Bulgarian. Thus, Old Bulgarian became a literary language that served as a basis for the formation of the other Slavic literary languages.</p><p>The mission of the two brothers in Moravia was not successful: their schools were closed and their students were persecuted and driven out of Moravia. Some of the students reached Bulgaria where they were met with respect and jubilation. Bulgaria was ruled at this time by the learned Tsar Boris I, who several years earlier had enforced Christianization of Bulgarians. Boris I needed the alphabet to have Byzantine liturgical books translated from Greek to Bulgarian and immediately organized building of schools and teaching the new Slavic alphabet throughout Bulgaria. Two centers of learning and writing, led by Cyril and Methodius students, were established in Bulgaria: one in the second Bulgarian capital Preslav in the northeast, led by Naum and Ioan Exarch, and the other in Ochrid in the southwest, led by Climent. In the second half of 9th and the first half of 10th centuries these centers, and also schools and monasteries throughout Bulgaria produced the earliest Slavic literature, a period which is known as the Golden Century in Bulgarian culture.<a href="#ref1">[1]</a></p><p>In the 9th century, in Bulgaria was created another Old Bulgarian alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet which replaced the Glagolitic alphabet. Cyrillic alphabet was used by Bulgarians, Russians, Serbians, and Romanian many centuries afterwards. Gradually, elements of the respective spoken languages seeped in to replace archaic elements and thus the respective recensions of Old Bulgarian appeared (Russian recension, Serbian recension, etc.). In the Old Bulgarian period (9th to 11th century) the letters were carefully drawn without abrupt changes in the direction of writing and no connections between individual letters. The difference between writing styles concerned primarily letter size. Since 12th century the large font (Ustav writing) was replaced with a smaller font (semi-Ustav writing), in which some elements for faster writing appeared.</p><p>The presence of a common written language at such early time preceding the formation of most other European nations was a great unifying factor that gave a strong impetus to the consolidation of the Bulgarian nation and the development of Bulgarian national conscience. In the following centuries during periods of foreign occupation, the effort to preserve the Bulgarian language was the main factor counteracting the assimilatory policies of the occupying powers.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Migrations</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">The territorial distribution of dialects is to a large degree also a result of the major migratory movements, which have been particularly strong for Bulgaria. From 10th century up till modern times large Bulgarian ethnic masses often moved in one direction or another, changed their territory and this has had an enormous impact on the formation, evolution and territorial distribution of today's Bulgarian dialects. As early as 10th century Bulgarian Bogomils (heretics) migrated en masse to Byzantium. In the 13th century, large numbers of Bulgarians from the Danubian plain were forcibly re-settled to Transylvania (Siebenbürgen) by Magyars and sold as slaves.<a href="#ref3">[3]</a> The Bulgarian national conscience and unity were very negatively influenced by the invasion of the Turks that commenced in mid-14th century and resulted in their complete settlement in Bulgaria at the end of that century. The Turkish rule caused indescribable sufferings to the Bulgarian people and caused significant changes in the ethnographic situation in Bulgaria. As early as the first decades of the Turkish rule some regions lost completely their Bulgarian character. In the northeastern Bulgaria those were Ludogorieto (Deliorman), Tuzluk and the foothills of Eastern Balkan Mountains, in the southeastern Bulgaria — almost the whole Thracian plain and Eastern Rhodopes. A part of the Bulgarian population in these areas was uprooted: either killed or captured and sold into slavery. Another part escaped in inaccessible and remote highlands in the Balkans and the Central Rhodopes. A third part was forcibly removed to other places in order to free up space for the Turkish colonists. For instance, some of the few surviving citizens of the capital Tarnovo after its fall in 1393 were resettled in the Malko Tarnovo region, and others in the Central Rhodopes where they founded several settlements, e.g. Ustovo.<a href="#ref4">[4]</a> At the time, a significant number of Bulgarians were resettled to Asia Minor. In general, in 14th and 15th century the Bulgarian population in the great plains — the Danubian and Thracian, was almost completely destroyed. Since 16th and especially 17th century, however, the Bulgarians began to climb into these lowland areas from the Balkan and Rhodopes mountains and gradually settled there, first as part-time and later as permanent workers in the Turkish chifliks (manors) and as independent farmers and shepherds.</div><div id="colTwo"><p>Major changes in Bulgaria occurred in the 16th century with forced Islamisation and Turkifications in the Rhodopes, Lovech, Teteven, and Gerlovo regions. Some of the Bulgarians in these areas were Turkified and others ran to faraway lands. Great changes occurred in Northern Bulgaria after the unfortunate Tarnovo uprising in 1598. In the 17th century after the failure of Chiprovtsi uprising in 1688 significant parts of northwestern Bulgaria were almost completely de-Bulgarised. Part of the population was killed, and others ran to exile in Wallachia and Banat.</p>
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uZj5MSwfjBw/WV_bOmYfU0I/AAAAAAAAFa0/S-mPGtHtJPcc6LrM4ztCZ-7HbMcFE_dYwCKgBGAs/s1600/Karta_BG_Migracii.gif" target="_blank"><img alt="Migrations and emigrations of Bulgarians during the Ottoman yoke" border="0" height="420" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uZj5MSwfjBw/WV_bOmYfU0I/AAAAAAAAFa0/S-mPGtHtJPcc6LrM4ztCZ-7HbMcFE_dYwCKgBGAs/s1600/Karta_BG_Migracii.gif" width="420" /></a> <p>In 18th and 19th century during the wars between Russia and Turkey, large masses of Bulgarian population, mainly from eastern Bulgaria, escaped with the Russian troops north of Danube in Romania, Bessarabia, Azov Sea Coast, Crimea, etc. After the Liberation, there was a mass exodus of the Turkish population which was replaced by Bulgarians from the highlands. The fields and plains were quickly re-Bulgarized. Even the Banat Bulgarians returned to their native land. Migrations continued during the 20th century, beginning with the Balkan wars and the massive de-Bulgarization of Thrace and Macedonia through "voluntary" emigration of Bulgarians from Thrace in Greece 1925-1926 and the resettlement of the Bulgarians in North Dobrudzha in 1941.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Periods in language development</h1><h2>Prehistoric period</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Some linguistic features of the Slavo-Bulgarian dialects before the appearance of Slavic books (9th century) can be inferred through the analysis of the numerous local Slavic names, preserved since that distant era in areas populated by Slavo-Bulgarians, and by old Bulgarian loan words that entered the Albanian, Greek, Romanian and Hungarian languages. Best suited for this purpose are Slavic toponyms in today's Greece, particularly in its southern parts. Slavo-Bulgarian population in Greece was assimilated by Greeks (Hellenized) much earlier than in the trans-Danubian regions. Furthermore, the Greek lands were far from any later influence from another Slavic language. Compared with the very few Slavic loan words in the Greek language, the Greek toponyms of Slavic origin in today's Greece surprise with their great number and antiquity. Most of them reflect the very old phonetic features of the language of the Bulgarian Slavs who penetrated as already noted, deep in southern Greece. It was not so with the trans-Danubian regions that are now occupied by Hungary and Romania. Surrounded from all sides by other Slavic nations, they had been experiencing their varied impact over the following centuries.<p>Between 6th to 9th century A.D. the Slavic languages gradually separated by a slow but constant departure from the original proto-Slavic language. In this period the Bulgarian national language slowly took shape on the basis of tribal dialects of the Slavo-Bulgarian population, whose main mass had already been located in the south-eastern regions of the Balkan Peninsula. The earliest differences between the emerging Slavic languages were phonetic. Thus, for example, in the dialects of the Slavo-Bulgarian tribes the proto-Slavic palatals *tj and *dj were already pronounced as diphtongs шт /ʃt/ (or шч /ʃtʃ/) and жд /ʒd/ (or ждж /ʒdʒ/), cf. свѣшта from pr.-Sl. свѣ/*tj/а and межда from pr.-Sl. ме/*dj/а. In all other Slavic languages these sounds underwent a different change specific for each language. An early difference between the Slavo-Bulgarian dialects and the dialects of other Slavic peoples is found in the evolution of the typical proto-Slavic vowel ѣ /*ja/ (yat). Only in the dialects of the Slavo-Bulgarians, ѣ evolved in wide e (either я /ʲa/ or е /ɛ/) which is very typical even for the modern Bulgarian language, cf. e.g. хляб /hlʲab/ (bread) or dial. хлеб /hlɛb/ from OBg. хлѣбъ.</p><p>Abundant evidence shows that in the language of the Slavo-Bulgarians the palatinized *tj and *dj were pronounced as /ʃt/ and /ʒd/ and the yat vowel was pronounced as /*ja/. Those are found primarily in archaic Slavo-Bulgarian toponymy in today's Greece and South and Central Albania, i.e. in areas that were densely populated by Slavo-Bulgarian population. Thus, in today Greece there are local names as Κορύστιανη = Кориштане, Πεστά = Пешт, Μεσδάνι = Междане. South and Central Albanian toponyms are Пештер, Лешта, Хоштова, Гаждени. The fact that the yat vowel ѣ in the language of the Slavo-Bulgarians was pronounced as я /*ja/, is demonstrated by the presence of archaic Slavic toponyms in Greece as ̒Ρεάχοβου = Ряхово, Λιασκοβέτσι = Лясковец, Δρανίτσα = Дряница. In today's South and Central Albania one finds archaic Slavic toponyms like Лясковик, Лябово, Сяново, etc. Hence, it is evident why all researchers of archaic Slavic toponymy in Greece and Albania clearly state that it is a remnant of a Slavic population who spoke Bulgarian language.<a href="#ref9">[9]</a> <a href="#ref10">[10]</a> The diphtongs шт and жд (the diphtong шт later acquired a letter, шт = щ) and the yat vowel ѣ as in хлѣб, мѣсто, грѣх remain typical for a large part of the Bulgarian dialects.</p></div></div><h2>Old Bulgarian</h2><div class="two-columns">The earliest written sources that give information on the history of Bulgarian language are from 10th to 11th century. These are manuscripts on parchment, mostly transcripts of translations of Cyril and Methodius and their students. The oldest Bulgarian Glagolitic and Cyrillic monuments, preserved in latter transcriptions, are: Mariin Gospel, Zograf Gospel, Asemanii Gospel, Sinai Psalm Book, Sinai Liturgical Book, Klotz Collection, Suprasal Collection, St. Sava's Book, Enina Apostle, etc. The language in the translations represents the first stage in the development of the Bulgarian written language. This language has the following major phonetic and morphological traits:<ul><li>Existence of nasal vowels ѫ /*oⁿ/ and ѧ /*eⁿ/, for example, пѫть, мѫжь, рѧдъ, мѧсо</li>
<li>Phonematic vowels ъ and ь</li>
<li>Wide pronunciation of ѣ (either /*ja/ or /ɛ/)</li>
<li>Vowel ы</li>
<li>Mutation of the proto-Slavic /*tj/, /*dj/ as шт /ʃt/ (or шч /ʃtʃ/), жд /ʒd/ in words like хоштѫ, виждѫ, etc.</li>
</ul><p>Old Bulgarian shows many common features with stages of development of the other Slavic languages. However, the translations of the Solun brothers show a number of morphological and syntactic features that were typical only for the Bulgarian population of 9th to 11th centuries, mostly word combinations like сестра еи (bg:сестра ӣ, her sister), братъ емоу (bg:брат му, his brother), рѫка ти (bg:ръката ти, your hand) that were not used by other Slavs. The main morphological features of Old Bulgarian are presence of cases, the presence of a variant of the infinitive form called supine form, synthetic adjective comparison forms, past infinite, past finite, and future simple verb tenses, etc.</p><p>The Bulgarian character of the language of Cyril and Methodius was scientifically proven as early as 19th century during the emergence of Slavic linguistics on the basis of the above phonetic features.<a href="#ref11">[11]</a> The most important evidence are the above mentioned diphtongs шт and жд that appear in old Bulgarian manuscripts instead of the proto-Slavic palatals *tj and *dj. This is a typical feature only for Bulgarian: all other Slavic languages have other replacements of these proto-Slavic phonemes. Thus, e.g., the proto-Slavic forms свѣт/*tj/а, ме/*dј/а in old manuscripts are written as свѣшта, межда (as they are spoken in modern Bulgarian) unlike the Serbo-Croatian свећа, међа, Russian свеча, межа, Polish swieca, miedza, Czech svice, meze. Moreover, the шт/жд mutation is a feature, characteristic for the whole Bulgarian dialect area. Data from old manuscripts, toponyms, and modern dialects show convincingly that the modern ќ /c/, ѓ /ɟ/ instead of шт, жд, e.g. свеќа, граѓанин for свешта, гражданин in some Western Bulgarian dialects, especially in those from the central and northern part of Vardar Macedonia and also in some Thracian dialects, are a much later phenomenon. It is indicative in this respect that words with old шт, жд are used alongside the new ќ, ѓ in many of these dialects, e.g. свеќа alongside with свештник and мошне. Cf. also веќе, ќи, ќерка, but къшча, свешча, чуждина, прежда, веждите, etc. (Kostur dialect); куйќа, полноќ, помеѓу, нейќит, but рождат, нош, фаштат, свешча, гашчи, чуж, etc. (Resen dialect). In contrast to the great variety of mutations in the modern western Bulgarian dialects, old manuscripts contain only шт, жд forms, irrespective of the region from which they originate. Important in this respect is the comparatively recent Bulgarian-Greek dictionary that was written in the Kostur region in 16th century.<a href="#ref12">[12]</a> The dictionary has only шт, жд forms: кашта, вяжда, рожда.</p><p>Another important evidence for the Bulgarian character of the Cyril and Methodius language is the above-mentioned pronunciation of ѣ, which was written in words like хлѣбъ, млѣко, вѣра, etc. Yat (ѣ) was pronounced as /*ja/ or wide е /*e/ which is suggested by the fact that in the glagolithic alphabet invented by Cyril there is only one common letter for ѣ and ѩ. Reliable data show that in 9th-11th century the wide pronunciation of ѣ was spread on the whole language area that included the regions Moesia, Thrace, and Macedonia.<a href="#ref13">[13]</a> As already noted, the former /*ja/ pronunciation of ѣ in the western Bulgarian regions is mainly inferred from old Greek names of some Slavic toponyms in today's Ekavian regions like Πριλιάπος = Прилѣпъ, Πρίσδριανα = Призрѣнъ, Δεάβολις = Дѣволъ, Χτεάτοβο = Хтѣтово, Тетово, Τριάδιτσα = Срѣдьць, etc. Western Bulgarian forms like цадим (OBg:цѣдити), цаним (OBg:цѣнити), цалувам (OBg:цѣловати), цапам (OBg:цѣпити) with a de-palatized (hardened) consonant ц /ts/ in front of the wide vowel /ʲa/ or /e/ are another evidence that the western Bulgarian pronunciation цел, хлеб, место, тесно is a late phenomenon.</p><p>A third very characteristic feature of the Cyril-Methodius' language is the peculiar nasal pronunciation of the vowels ѫ /*oⁿ/ and ѧ /*eⁿ/. Pronunciation of these vowels is supposed to has been similar to the French /ɔ̃/ in bon and /ɛ̃/ in bien. This is a typical feature of the 9th to 11th century Bulgarian, with a Slavic analog only in Polish language. That in the past this feature was characteristic for the whole language area is concluded, as already pointed out, again from the archaic Slavic toponymy in Greece, from some phonetic features of the old Slavic loan words in Romanian and Albanian language, from the language of the so-called Cherged prayers, reflecting the speech of old re-settlers from Svishtov region of 16th century. Traces of the old nasal pronunciation are found in forms like зъмби, мънка, пънт, рънка, дъмп, скъмп, крънгове, братученд, глендам, гренда, ерембица, чендо, ендзик, etc. in the speech of re-settlers from Solun, Kostur, Korca, western Aegean, and other regions. Individual cases of nasalism are found in the Rhodopes dialects.</p><p>These typical features for Old Bulgarian has been lost or modified as a result of various influences in the course of language evolution but have persisted and are best preserved in southern dialects — Rhodopes, Southern Thrace and Southern Macedonia. Today the wide ѣ pronunciation, replacements шт, жд for the old palatals *tj, *dj, traces of ы, traces of case forms, traces of archaic pronunciation of ѫ and ѧ, the identical pronunciation of ѣ and ѩ (/hlʲab/ or /hlɛb/, /ʲama/ or /ɛma/), the reduction of vowels а, о, е, the mutation of /a/ in /ɛ/ behind fricatives (чаша — чеши), etc., approximate the southern Macedonian dialects with the Thracian and Rhodopes dialects. Solun dialects are of eastern Bulgarian (Rup) type.</p><p>Some researchers incorrectly refer to Old Bulgarian as "Old Slavonic" or "Old Church Slavonic".<a href="#ref14">[14]</a> Old Bulgarian is a language of the common people which functioned in a written form to serve in the state, governmental, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic unification of the Bulgarian Slavs. Established in the 9th century, later the language acquired additional functions to serve as an international Slavic language. This fact, by itself, is not a reason to consider Old Bulgarian only as a common Slavic language (koine) but it also explains why later in some Slavic countries another versions and patterns were build on its basis, that reflect the linguistic idiosyncracies of these countries: Russian redaction, Czech-Moravian redaction, Serbian redaction, Croatian redaction.<a href="#ref15">[15]</a> <a href="#ref16">[16]</a> <a href="#ref17">[17]</a></p><p>On the basis of pronunciation of the old yat vowel, Bulgarian dialects are divided into two major dialect groups — western (Ekavian) and eastern (Yakavian). In the north, the border between Ekavian and Yakavian goes along the river Vit, in the south — along river Mesta in a general direction Nikopol-Solun (see map of the Yat border). Archaic pronunciation of wide e occurs in some dialects along the Yat border, in the Rhodopes and some other southern dialects. In general, to the east of the Yat border, the Old Bulgarian vowel ѣ, when stressed, is pronounced as wide vowel /ʲa/ (/mlˈʲako/, /(h)lˈʲap/) while to the west of the Yat border ѣ is pronounced as /ɛ/ (/mlɛko/, /(h)lɛp/). Data from the old manuscripts, some old toponyms, Bulgarian loan words in other Balkan languages, etc., show that the yat division is relatively recent — the first certain cases of ekavism occur in writings of 13th century. The south-western dialects are partly in the Ekavian, and partly in Yakavian areas. The wide pronunciation of ѣ is preserved in some archaic dialects (Solun, Ser (also Syar /sʲar/), Korca). The above mentioned Bulgarian-Greek dictionary<a href="#ref12">[12]</a> written in 16th century in Kostur reflects the old wide yat sound in words like колѩно, невѩста, млѩко.</p></div><h2>Middle Bulgarian</h2><div class="two-columns">In the Middle Bulgarian period − 12th to 14th century – the grammatical structure of Bulgarian language underwent a number of changes and the phonetic system was significantly modified. Relations between Middle and Old Bulgarian are those between two successive stages of the historical development of a single language.<a href="#ref18">[18]</a> <a href="#ref19">[19]</a> <a href="#ref20">[20]</a> The stringent phonetic principle for use of Cyrillic letters was violated because of changes in the pronunciation of some vowels and close imitation of Greek spelling rules. Their use deviated from Old Bulgarian tradition and was dictated by artificial rules (the spelling reform of Patriarch Evtimiy of Tarnovo). The numerous written documents from this period because of the zeal of the scribes to preserve the originals, give a very limited opportunity to follow the precise course of transformation from Old Bulgarian to Middle Bulgarian, from synthetism to analytism in the noun system. In some documents like the Troyan Tale (14th century) changes that occurred in the live language are reflected:<ul><li>the Yer vowels ъ, ь in a weak position (in front of syllables that do not contain Yer and in the end of words) were no longer pronounced</li>
<li>the nasal vowels ѫ /*oⁿ/ and ѧ /*eⁿ/ behind palatized consonants converged phonetically or fused in a secondary Yer and began to substitute each other</li>
<li>the posterior lingual vowel ы became phonetically equivalent to the anterior lingual vowel и</li>
<li>a general tendency to a harder (depalatinized) pronunciation of consonants became evident</li>
<li>the deconstruction of the case system continued</li>
<li>the use of the definite article increased</li>
<li>some participles disappeared (present active and present passive)</li>
<li>the да-construct developed as a replacement of the infinitive and the supine</li>
<li>the use of the complex form for future tense stabilized, e.g. хъшѫ читати -> щѫ да четѫ -> ще чета</li>
</ul>
<div class="image"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uNg9COBLkFA/WV_bwhYjwLI/AAAAAAAAFa4/JRWh1GwHfokL-5C3S9vIJ1hEJOQBxvXCACKgBGAs/s1600/Exarchate.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="The Bulgarian Exarchate" border="0" height="350" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uNg9COBLkFA/WV_bwhYjwLI/AAAAAAAAFa4/JRWh1GwHfokL-5C3S9vIJ1hEJOQBxvXCACKgBGAs/s1600/Exarchate.jpg" width="420" /></a> <p>The Bulgarian Exarchate (1870-1912) and the Bulgarian dialect area.</p></div><p>All listed and also a number of other changes occurred in parallel with the development of Bulgarian dialects in Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia resulting in the formation of the general structure of modern Bulgarian. These characteristic linguistic features unite all Bulgarian dialects<a href="#ref32">[32]</a> and separate them in a single individual group within the other Slavic languages.</p></div><h2>Modern Bulgarian</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colTwo">The period of formation of Modern Bulgarian − from 15th century till present − is clearly divided in two parts. The longer first part, 15th to end of 18th century, bears the deep marks of the Ottoman rule.<a href="#ref20">[20]</a> At the very start of the 15th century, there was not even a trace left of the former glory of Bulgarian culture, or, for that matter, of anything 'Bulgarian'.<a href="#ref22">[22]</a> The Tarnovo Patriarchy was abolished and Bulgarians were put under the auspices of the Greek Patriarchy at Constantinople; Bulgarian churches, monasteries, schools, and books were destroyed; Bulgarian ethnicity and nationality themselves were abolished as concepts. Peoples in the Ottoman empire were classified on the principle of religion in a system based on the so-called millets. Bulgarians together with other Christians were included in a millet ruled by the Greek Patriarchy. Thus, from the very beginning, Bulgarians were affected by double assimilation: Turkish (the official language of the Ottoman Empire), and Greek (the language of church and school in the Christian millet). Soon the use of Bulgarian language was confined to very close circles: within the family or, at most, within the local village. This disruptive trend continued and even intensified in the 16th and 17th centuries with the mass migrations of various peoples in and out of Bulgaria and forcible Islamisations and Turkifications of large Bulgarian-speaking regions. The language responded to these circumstances with separation into numerous more or less localized dialects. Instead of a single nation-state with a common language, Bulgaria in this period consisted of patches, each speaking a dialect more or less resembling Middle Bulgarian, interspersed with patches, speaking dialects of other languages: Turkish, Greek, Vlach, Albanian, Gagauz, Tatar, Circassian, etc.<a href="#ref23">[23]</a> As in Old Bulgarian, in the earlier Middle and Modern Bulgarian transformations, the dialects of Bulgarians in Thrace, Moesia, and Macedonia Macedonia follow the same trends.<p>From the end of 16th century to the middle of 19th century, in the Bulgarian lands, an effort was made to create a literary language on the basis of common spoken language through damaskins, collections of texts with a religious and moral content. The name damaskin comes from the Greek bishop and scholar Damaskinos Stouditis whose compendium Treasure (1558) contained 36 hagiographies and moral teachings.<a href="#ref24">[24]</a> The first damaskins were written in Western Bulgaria. They contained only works by Damaskinos Stouditis and were written in literary language of that time that included also elements of the common spoken language. The oldest damaskins (16 to 17 c.) were Rilski, Kostenecki, Elenski, Adzharski.[38] Damaskin literature changed at the end of 17 century. Part of the known works of Damaskinos Stouditis were translated in Modern Bulgarian and were combined with works of other authors. Collections with a mixed content in the common spoken language were compiled, in which works of Damaskinos Stouditis still dominated. In Central Bulgaria (the Balkan and the Middle Mountains) several big and well prepared damaskins were published: Protopopinski, Troyanski, Dryanovski, Koprivshtenski, Tihonravov, etc.<a href="#ref25">[25]</a> In 17th century, damaskins went out of the confines of churches and monasteries to be used by common people. Their content became richer, the language came closer to the living language. The works of Damaskinos Stouditis took a smaller part, and the rest was filled with works of various topics and genres: biographies, teachings, apocryphs, religious tales, novelettes, witty sentences, taken from older Bulgarian compendiums or translated from Modern Greek printed books of 17th century. All works in the damaskins had easy to read content and style and reflected the characteristic traits of various Bulgarian dialects. Some of the more significant damaskins from 18th century were: Pazardzishki (1753), Panteleev, damaskin by Josif the Bearded, damaskin by Pop Puncho from 1796, etc. Damaskins educated Bulgarians to resist attempts for assimilation through Islamization and Turkification by giving a large space to the hagiographies of early Christian martyrs, pointing to moral norms, decrying superstitions. Translators reworked individual words, putting some elements of Bulgarian reality. More famous damaskin writers were Daskal Nedyalko and his son Philip (17th c.), Josif the Bearded, Pop Puncho, Pop Todor Vrachanski, Hieromonach Roman, Nikiphor of Arbanasi, Theophan Rilski (18th c.), Daskal Todor Pirdopski (19th c.), etc.<a href="#ref26">[26]</a></p><p>Damaskin literature was widely distributed in 17-18 centuries to fulfil the needs of Bulgarian readers. It is an important source for linguistic study and an interesting linguistic phenomenon which shows the increasing democratic trends in Bulgarian literature. By their content, damaskins belong to the Medieval literature but with their new elements they show a transition to a new type of literature. In spite of the wide-spread destructionl of Bulgarian books during the Ottoman rule, there are about 200 damaskins preserved today. They are stored in the Bulgarian National Library, the National Church Historical and Archeological Museum in Sofia, the Archive of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, the Plovdiv National Library, the Rila Monastery. Damaskins are stored in libraries in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Odessa, Belgrade, Bucharest, Ljubljana. Only a small part is published.<a href="#ref27">[27]</a></p><p>The modern Bulgarian literary language formed in the period of the Bulgarian Revival (18th century to 1878) mainly on the basis of dialects from the Central Balkan and Middle Mountain regions and included also some features characteristic for the Western dialects. It is characterised by the following traits:</p><ol><li>Instability in the old case system, which resulted in loss of cases in Modern Bulgarian in contrast to all other Slavic languages. For example, the old relation between generative and dative lost its case form and acquired a new form consisting of the preposition на (of, to) and a noun in its general form, cf. майката на детето (the mother of the child instead of the child's mother) and дадох му на детето (I gave to the child instead of I gave the child). Today, traces of old case form are found only in some archaic dialects in the Rhodope, Thrace, Korca.</li>
<li><a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/during-reign-of-anastasius-bulgars.html#definite article">Development of an article form</a>. A general characteristic of all Bulgarian dialects is the definite article — мъж-ът (-а, -от, -о) (for masculine), жена-та (for feminine), дете-то (for neutral), полета-та (for plural). This specifically Bulgarian feature developed mainly in the Middle Bulgarian period: old forms of the indicative pronoun are added as suffices to the nouns and adjectives. This feature characterizes all Bulgarian dialects and distinguishes them together with the loss of the case system, from all other Slavic languages. In some dialect areas (all northeast and part of the west and south-east) article form acquired only pronouns that had an element т-. Other dialects have the so-called triple article form: articulating consists in adding the pronoun roots т-, с-, н- or т-, в-, н-, some of which indicate near objects, and others indicate more distant objects. Thus, in the Rhodope are found article forms like жената, женаса, женана, and in Tran, Breznik and some dialects from Middle Vardar − жената, женава, женана.</li>
<li>Replacement of the old infinitive and supine forms with a да construct: (хощѫ) ити → (искам) да ида. The infinitive decomposition evolved uniformly in all Bulgarian dialects.</li>
<li>Retention of the simple verb forms for the past tense (past finite and past infinite) in all Bulgarian dialects of Thrace, Moesia and Macedonia.</li>
</ol><p>As repeatedly emphasized in linguistic literature, these are the most important features that highlight the specifics of Bulgarian language. It can be definitely said that a Slavic population, whose language structure is characterized by these four factors is or has been Bulgarian.</p><p>Other important characteristics of Modern Bulgarian are:</p><h4>Phonetic</h4><ul><li>the 11 Old Bulgarian vowels are reduced to 6 after some vowels in definite positions became phonetically equivalent (ѩ = ѧ, ѫ = ъ, ѧ = e, ѣ = e, ы = и)</li>
<li>the Yer vowels ъ, ь completely disappear in the end of words and in open syllables</li>
<li>the Old Bulgarian Yat vowel acquires a mutation я-е (e.g. лято-летен)</li>
<li>Modern Bulgarian does not differ significantly from Old Bulgarian with respect to number of consonants</li>
</ul><h4>Morphological</h4><ul><li>comparatives and superlatives are formed by the particles по- and най- (по-добър, най-добър)</li>
<li>a new past participle with the suffix -ел is formed, e.g. носел, пиел</li>
<li>a new mood (narrative) is formed for expression of non-observed action and non-witness attitude of the narrator (e.g. пиел, бил пиел, щял бил да пие)</li>
<li>doubling of the direct object, e.g. виде го детето (го виде детето) (he saw (it) the child), каза им на децата (he told (them) the children), etc. In relation to this feature, pronoun constructs of the type мене ме, мене ми, тебе те, тебе ти (e.g. мене ми се спи, тебе те е страх), etc., came into use.</li>
<li>rich temporal and modal verb system: 9 verb tenses and 4 moods. While loss of cases resulted in simplification of the noun system, the verbs not only preserved their former variety of temporal forms (tenses) but acquired new forms, e.g. the so-called renarrative verb forms - "Казват, че написал писмо." ("They say that he has written (vs. he wrote) a letter"). This is a characteristic feature for Bulgarian. The other Slavic languages are characterized with a more complex noun system and a simpler verb system.</li>
<li>an analytic construct for future tense with the particle ще (ше, че, ке, ќе, жъ, зъ, and others) and a definitive verb form, e.g. ще ида, че ида, ќе ида, etc. This construct replaced the old simple future tense (cf. OBg:поидѫ), and also constructs that contained an auxiliary verb and infinitive form (cf. OBg:хощѫ ити).</li>
<li>counting form with suffix -а for plural masculine nouns used at the end of cardinals as a remnant of the old pair number (e.g. два стола (two chairs), три бора (three pines)), as well as retained archaic repeat forms to designate paired objects (e.g. ръце, нозе (hands, legs)).</li>
<li>suffix -ове (-ови) for monosyllabic masculine summative nouns, e.g. кумове, сватове (сватови), etc.</li>
<li>a new verb conjugation with -а element (cf. verbs of type гледам, гледаш, давам, даваш).</li>
<li>formation of possessive pronouns for third person singular and plural from the old generative form of the personal and indicative pronouns него-в, тех-ен, них-ен (них-ни).</li>
</ul><p>Development of the modern Bulgarian language is due to the efforts of the Revivalist poets and writers. Because of the close cultural and historical ties between the Bulgarian and Russian peoples, Modern Bulgarian initially incorporated many traits from the rich and developed Russian language. Until the beginning of 19th century, Russian literary language in its vocabulary and idiomatics was, in fact, one of the high styles of Old Church Slavonic language, which is a Russian redaction of Old Bulgarian. The influence of the Slavonic Church tradition on the early development of Modern Bulgarian served as a bridge between Russian and Bulgarian and facilitated the Russian lexical penetration which enriched the cultural lexic layer of Bulgarian by replacing unnecessary Turkish words, and serving as a model for a modern language structure. The Bulgarian vocabulary was filled and enriched with words from the international culture. Borrowings from other languages came in Bulgarian through Russian or directly from the respective Western European languages. Some puristic tendencies against the excessive and not always reasonable use of borrowings appeared as a reaction to this process. Ivan Bogorov, Nayden Gerov, and later Alexander Teodorov-Balan and Stefan Mladenov made great efforts to preserve the purity of Bulgarian literary language from unnecessary foreign influences and layering. Generally speaking, the Bulgarian purism is moderate.<a href="#ref28">[28]</a> <a href="#ref29">[29]</a></p>
<div class="image"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KEq4BdZ8bbg/WV_cSCwzR4I/AAAAAAAAFa8/B94N02p6B7w1Y691naWQ31mY7tv-kCyvACKgBGAs/s1600/RizMap30.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgarian ethnographic map" border="0" height="350" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KEq4BdZ8bbg/WV_cSCwzR4I/AAAAAAAAFa8/B94N02p6B7w1Y691naWQ31mY7tv-kCyvACKgBGAs/s1600/RizMap30.jpg" width="420" /></a> <p>Ethnographic map of Bulgarians in 1912 at the eve of the Balkan Wars. The map was made by a team of Bulgarian professors in geography, ethnography and history at the University of Sofia under the leadership of Prof. A. Ishirkov <a href="#ref5">[5]</a></p></div><p>In the period 1878-1944, there were some unification processes aiming to consolidate and stabilize the written and spoken language: correspondence between pronunciation and spelling of verb suffices (e.g. чета, четат = четъ, четът), in palatal consonants in the verb roots (e.g. търпя, търпят = търп'ъ, търп'ът), in the suffices for plural masculine nouns (e.g. селяни, овчари not селяне, овчаре), the articled form of nouns and adjectives (e.g. книгите, градовете, високият, големият, високите, големите), in Yakavism and Ekavism, in the particles -ър, -ъл, -ръ, -лъ (e.g. грък - гърци, мълча - млъкни), etc.<a href="#ref30">[30]</a> <a href="#ref31">[31]</a> In the Standard spoken and written Bulgarian, elements from Western Bulgarian increased their penetration:</p><ul><li>use of the present participle is resumed (by the influence of Russian and Old Church Slavonic), e.g. мислещ, търпящ</li>
<li>analytic forms of proper names (на Иван, на Тодор instead of на Ивана, на Тодора)</li>
<li>clear and articulate pronunciation of stressed and unstressed vowels instead of their reduction</li>
<li>use of short pronoun forms ме, те, се</li>
<li>non-mutational pronunciation of etymological я: поляни, селяни, овчари instead of полени, селени, овчери</li>
</ul>
<div id="image"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-727aBa_U8wI/WV_czFf10vI/AAAAAAAAFbA/YOR3KfF3Ge0PQoHSbklc08dpwLBZghycwCKgBGAs/s1600/Bgflag_yat_big_yus.png" target="_blank"><img alt="BG flag Yat and Big Yus" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-727aBa_U8wI/WV_czFf10vI/AAAAAAAAFbA/YOR3KfF3Ge0PQoHSbklc08dpwLBZghycwCKgBGAs/s1600/Bgflag_yat_big_yus.png" /></a></div><p>The spelling reform of 1945 applied more stringently the phonetic principle, freed the spelling from unnecessary traditionalism and placed it closer to the living language. It facilitated learning spelling and pronunciation. Letters without phonetic equivalents were removed (ѣ and ѫ; ъ and ь at the end of words).</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><p><a name="ref1">1.</a> For some of the most important works of this period, see Ivanova K. and S. Nikolova. Celebration of Words. The Golden Century of Bulgarian Literature: Annals, Biographies, Theology, Rhetorics, Poetry (Тържество на Словото. Златният Век на Българската Книжнина: Летописи, жития, богословие, риторика, поезия). Sofia: Agata-A, 1995.</p><p><a name="ref2">2.</a> The Turks, the Greeks and the Slavons. Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe. By G. Muir Mackenzie and A. P. Irby, London, 1867. With Maps etc. Taken from THE BULGARIANS in their historical, ethnographical and political frontiers (Atlas with 40 maps). Preface by D. RIZOFF, Minister of Bulgaria in Berlin. BERLIN, Königliche Hoflithographie, Hof-Buch- und -Steindruckerei WILHELM GREVE, 1917.ASIN: B000UUZN4S</p><p><a name="ref3">3.</a> For a detailed ethnography and language characteristic of Bulgarians in Transylvania and Banat, see Balkanski, Todor. Transylvanian (Siebenbürgen) Bulgarians: ethnos, language, ethnonymy, onomastics, prosopographies. (Трансилванските (седмиградските) българи. Етнос. Език. Етнонимия. Ономастика. Просопографии), IK Znak-94, Veliko Tarnovo, 1996; Miletich, Lyubomir. Study of Bulgarians in Siebenbürgen and Banat (Изследвания за българите в Седмиградско и Банат). Nauka i Izkustvo, Sofia, 1987.</p><p><a name="ref4">4.</a> Mikov, V. Origin and significance of the names of Bulgarian cities, villages, rivers, mountains, and places (Произход и значение на имената на нашите градове, села, реки, планини и места). Sofia, 1943, p. 64.</p><p><a name="ref5">5.</a> "Petermanns geographischen Mitteilungen" 1915, table 44. Map by a collective of Bulgarian professors led by Prof. Anastas Ishirkov. Taken from THE BULGARIANS in their historical, ethnographical and political frontiers (Atlas with 40 maps). Preface by D. RIZOFF, Minister of Bulgaria in Berlin. BERLIN, Königliche Hoflithographie, Hof-Buch- und -Steindruckerei WILHELM GREVE, 1917. ASIN:B000UUZN4S</p><p><a name="ref6">6.</a> Б. Цонев, История на българский език, т. I, С., 1919; 1940; т. II, 1934; т. III, 1937.</p><p><a name="ref7">7.</a> Ст. Младенов, История на българския език. С., 1979.</p><p><a name="ref8">8.</a> К. Мирчев, Историческа граматика на българския език, С., 1958; 1963; 1978.</p><p><a name="ref9">9.</a> Max Vasmer (1941). Die Slaven in Griechenland, Mit eine Karte. Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1941 (Zentral Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Leipzig 1970).</p><p><a name="ref10">10.</a> Селищев, Афанасий. Избранные труды, Москва 1968.</p><p><a name="ref11">11.</a> For details, see V. Jagić, Entstehungsgeschichte der altkirchen-slawischen Sprache, Berlin, 1913.</p><p><a name="ref12">12.</a> This manuscript, published by C. Gianelli and A. Vaiant is kept in the Vatican Library and has the title Beginning. Bulgarian words and their correspondence with the folk [Greek] language (Ἀρχ(ὴ) ἐν Βουλγαρὶοις ριμὰτον, εἰς κινῆ γλότα ἐρχομἕνη).</p><p><a name="ref13">13.</a> Evidence for the old Bulgarian character of ѣ is given in van Wijk, N. History of the Old Slavic language (История старославянското языка), Moscow, 1957, pp. 188-189.</p><p><a name="ref14">14.</a> Младенов, Ст. Понятието „български език” и границите на българския език. Брой и разпространение на българите (The term "Bulgarian languge" and boundaries of Bulgarian language. Number and distribution of Bulgarians). <i>In</i>: Младенов, Ст. История на българския език (History of Bulgarian language). Sofia, 1979, 21-22.</p><p><a name="ref15">15.</a> Mladenov, Stefan. Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache, Berlin, Leipzig, 1929.</p><p><a name="ref16">16.</a> Shchepkin, V.M (1899) Treatise on the language in Sava's book (Рассуждение о языке Саввиной книги), St Petersburg, 1899, p. 10</p>
</div><div id="colTwo"><p><a name="ref17">17.</a> Oblak, V. A contribution to Bulgarian grammar (Принос към българската граматика), Ann. Sofia Univ., 9, Sofia, 1894, p. 517</p><p><a name="ref18">18.</a> van Wijk, N. History of old Slavic language (История старославянското языка), Moscow, 1957, p. 37.</p><p><a name="ref19">19.</a> Considering the striking individualty of Bulgarian compared with the other Slavic languages outlined on the basis of the above features some non-Bulgarian linguists use also the terms: east-southern Slavic dialects; Balkano-Slavic dialects; Slavic dialects in Northern Greece, Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria; Bulgarian-Macedonian dialects, etc. With such descriptions they indicate the dialects of the whole Bulgarian historical and geographic dialect territory. Although they avoid using explicitly the national designation, in fact, they acknowledge the individuality and unity of Bulgarian language.</p><p><a name="ref20">20.</a> Г. Д. Попов. Кратък историческа литература. От началото на писмеността до нашето време (Concise literature history. From beginning of writing till present), Солун, 1886. Electronic Edition: EI LiterNet, Varna, 2006, ISBN 954-304-183-0</p><p><a name="ref21">21.</a> Самуил Бернштейн (1948). Разыскания в области болгарской исторической диалектологии. Том I. Язык валашских грамот XIV-XV веков (Research in Bulgarian historical dialectology. Vol. 1. The language of Walachian certificates from 14-15 cc.). Published by USSR Academy of Sciences (in Russian)</p><p><a name="ref22">22.</a> Jireček, K. J. (1876) (in German). Geschichte der Bulgaren. Nachdr. d. Ausg. Prag 1876, Hildesheim, New York : Olms 1977. ISBN 3-487-06408-1. http://books.google.com/books?id=VBhThVLpc4MC&pg=PA88&dq=isbn=3487064081&hl= bg&sig=fAZ7WUtHdEDBNEJos4IeObUcFyY.</p><p><a name="ref23">23.</a> Ethnographie von Makedonien, Geschichtlich-nationaler, spraechlich-statistischer Teil von Prof. Dr. Gustav Weigand, Leipzig, Friedrich Brandstetter, 1924, ASIN: B0018H0Y82,LCCN: 25024383, LC: DR701.M4 W4, OCLC:6692519</p><p><a name="ref24">24.</a> П. А. Лавров. Дамаскин Студит и сборники его имени "Дамаскины" в южнославянской письменности (Damaskinos Studitis and his namesake compendia "Damaskins" in the south-Slavic writings). Одесса, 1899.</p><p><a name="ref25">25.</a> Д. Петканова-Тотева. Дамаскините в българската литература (Damaskins in Bulgarian literature). София, 1965.</p><p><a name="ref26">26.</a> Ев. И. Демина. Тихонравовский дамаскин - болгарский памятник XVII в. Исследование и текст (Tihonravov damaskin: a Bulgarian monument from 17 c.). Part 1-2. Sofia, 1968-1972.</p><p><a name="ref27">27.</a> Б. Ст. Ангелов. Съвременници на Паисий (Paisiy's contemporaries. Vol. 1-2. Sofia, 1963-1964.</p><p><a name="ref28">28.</a> П. Динеков. Българската литература през XVII и първата половина на XVIII в. В: История на българската литература в четири тома (Bulgarian literature in the 17th and the first half of 18th centuries <i>In</i>: History of Bulgarian literature in four volumes). Vol. 1. Sofia, 1962.</p><p><a name="ref29">29.</a> Л. Андрейчин. Основна българска граматика (Basic Bulgarian grammar). Sofia, 1944.</p><p><a name="ref30">30.</a> Л. Андрейчин. Някои въпроси около възникването и изграждането на българския книжовен език във връзка с историческите условия на нашето Възраждане (Some issues connected with the origin and development of the Bulgarian literary language in the historical circumstances of the Bulgarian Renaissance). Бълг. език (Bulgarian language), No. 4, 1955.</p><p><a name="ref31">31.</a> Л. Андрейчин. Унификационни процеси в българския книжовен език през първите две десетилетия след Освобождението (Unification processes in the Bulgarian literary language in the first two decades after Liberation). Бълг. език (Bulgarian language), No. 5, 1973.</p><p><a name="ref32">32.</a> Л. Андрейчин. Единството на българския език в миналото и днес (Unity of Bulgarian language in the past and today). Бълг. език (Bulgarian language), No. 1, 1978.</p><p><a name="ref33">33. </a>Стойков (Stoykov), Стойко (2002) [1962] (in Bulgarian). <a href="http://www.promacedonia.org/jchorb/st/index.htm">Българска диалектология</a> (Bulgarian dialectology). София: Акад. изд. "Проф. Марин Дринов". ISBN 9544308466. OCLC 53429452.</p></div></div></div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-9736463611959916672013-05-07T06:10:00.004-07:002022-10-18T10:52:38.056-07:00Report from Visoka<div><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ilyk2TC4lbo/WV_k35Kz8YI/AAAAAAAAFbs/fyWN_0T50msbKB2i6KhCLnEWI4hcuWL1gCKgBGAs/s1600/Neofit.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Greek priest" border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ilyk2TC4lbo/WV_k35Kz8YI/AAAAAAAAFbs/fyWN_0T50msbKB2i6KhCLnEWI4hcuWL1gCKgBGAs/s1600/Neofit.jpg" width="300" /></a></div>
<h1>Дописка от село Висока</h1><p>Дописка от село Висока, днес Оса, Солунско, вестник „Съветник“, № 29, 7 октомври 1863. Написано на солунски диалект. Правописът е запазен.</p><a name='more'></a><br />
<p>„Висока, 20 септемвриiй.</p><p>Во 24 брой на почтеннй-тъ ви вѣстникъ со радость видохме да обнародвате похвалното-то постоянство на соседни-тѣ ны единородци Леприговчани (или както Фенеръ ги вика Ерисовчани) за да не прикознаватъ искана-та отъ владикѫ-тѫ си заплатѫ. То наистина е похвално за наши-тѣ сосѣди и нiе не можихме да не сподѣлиме радость-тѫ за драги-тѣ надѣжби, що народъ-тъ чека отъ разбънденiе-то на тiя братiя. Но и за насъ нѣма ли нѣщичко да ся напише? И нiе не сме ли Бугари! Гленда се, дописникъ-тъ ви бѣше заборавилъ насъ сиромаси-тѣ, защото сме на високо мѣсто, по коя причинѫ добыхме и името-то Висока, па онъ не може отъ толку долу, дѣка се нахожда во блатистiй-тъ Солунъ, да ны виде. Ами и нiе по наша сиромашiя, като Бугари що сме, ето що направихми.</p><p>Отъ ланѣ още отворихме бугарско училище, повеке отъ любопытство да видиме да ли пѫнтъ-тъ по кой-то вьрвеше училище-то ни, сирѣчъ дотогавашното ли гърцко ученiе бѣше причина що чанда-та ни не напрендваха во образованiе-то, или нѣкоя друга? Вандишно-то обаче испитанiе на ученици-тѣ на училище-то ни изевиха истина-та. Ченда-та ны на еднѫ годинѫ озгорѣ се научиха прѣзъ майчинъ си ензикъ толко, колко во дѫлжина-та на толко-тѣ поминали години не можиха никакъ да напрендватъ по рѫковотство-то на гръцко-то ученiе. То се харно и добро, но таѫнъ годинѫ ни зѣха учитель-тъ ни во Сѣръ, дѣка го главиха за бугарскiй учитель и пѣвецъ во цьрква-та св. Антонiя, па сега не знаиме на каква стока ке паднеме, защо като досегашнiй-тъ учитель, ако не много ученъ, обаче народенъ и ревностенъ, едвамъ ли ке найдиме.</p><p>Второ що направиха Височане-тѣ, е согласiе-то со което они се упрѣха и не припознаха Солунскiй-тъ надъ Гърци-тѣ митрополитъ кюръ Неофита. Доста време лежаха затворени во Солунъ за за тѫзъ причинѫ коджабашiа-та на Н. Прев. управитель-тъ ни ги оправда и ги прати въ селото-то да си глендатъ работата-та. Г-нъ Неофитъ пѫнтоващемъ по селата нигдѣ не му дадоха нищо, а селяни-тѣ отъ селата Новосело, Хортачъ, Лайново, Айватово, Балжа, Дремиглава, Юваница (Ювезна), Лѫнгандина и друзи-тѣ по високiй ридъ, отъ Негованъ до Сухо, за да се избавуватъ по лесно отъ назбори-тѣ (надуманiе - кандѫрдисванiе), со коитѣ онъ се мѫнчеше да ги наклони за да го припознаѭтъ и да му дадѫтъ заплатѫ-тѫ, они, велямъ, прибѣгнаха на слѣдно-то: „Св.владико, Висока е най-пьрво село мегю насъ, хади първемъ тамо, нѣка те припознаѭтъ нейни-тѣ жители, нѣка ти платятъ то що сакашъ, па послѣ ке видиме и нiе, тога може да се чине нѣкое чаре.“</p><p>Неофитъ разбра, шо нужда бѣше да си вьрне стрѣли-тѣ противъ сиромашка Висока. Онъ испрати първом и поиска Височани-тѣ да ходатъ при него. Они му се отговориха устнѣ, чи не можатъ да ходатъ защо никаква работа не ги кане. Сетнѣ прати готваръ-тъ си со дiаконъ-тъ да ги готватъ мѣсто, защото ке грендѣлъ владика-та. Они имъ показаха ханъ-тъ, койтъ нарочито е направенъ за пѫтници. Дяконъ-тъ со готваръ-тъ се върнаха назадъ со той отговоръ, като видоха, чи никой не ги приближаваше во село-то.</p><p>Неофитъ глендащемъ постоянство-то ны и разбиращемъ, що ако ходе самъ ке му се опратъ Височане-тѣ юначке, за не се осрами испратилъ е до нихъ амфиполскiй-тъ епископъ Антима, който отъ малко врѣме му е намѣстникъ. Епископъ-тъ дойде въ Висока; слезналъ во гостиница-та, защото кѫщи-тѣ височански иматъ низки врати, па не го берели. Повикна чорбаджiи-тѣ, мегю които се отличюва Г-нъ Димитъръ Малама, и имъ рекалъ за му плататъ по нова-та уредба на Народно-то Собранiе владищина-та, за която носе и царско ираде. Височане-тѣ му отговориха: </p><p>„Нiе никакво наше народно собранiе не знаиме да е станало, за уреди заплата на владици-тѣ. Народно-то Собраниiе за което Ваше Прѣосвещенство казувате е было гърцко и уредба-та коя оно направило се отнесува на Гърци-тѣ за Гърци-тѣ владицы. По тая мисла и Царско-то Правителство на Негово Величество всѣмилостивiй-тъ царь Султанъ Абдул-Азиса издаде и ви даде на рѫнка ираде-то, което носите. На насъ, като сме Бугаре, не се отнесува оно, но само на Гърци-тѣ. Царско-то Правителство издаде реченно-то ираде за улесненiе на Христѣни-тѣ и прѣкѫсванiе на владишки-тѣ злоупотрѣбленiя, а не за го земите вiя на рѫнци, за му искривувате смисла-та и за притѣснувате Христѣни-тѣ насила за ви плащатъ то, което не прiематъ никой отъ Христѣни-тѣ и когато само нѣколко отъ разни фенерци-владици испратени човѣци, които носеха име-то народни представители, со владишко-то само, или може бы, и на подкупници-тѣ имъ старѣйшини, още избиранiе, сѣ енвиха в Ц/градъ като прѣдставители на христiанскiй-тъ народъ па се собраха та направиха устави и уредби за владишки заплати и пр. По той начинъ они излагаха и народъ-тъ христiанскiй, кого лънживо преставуваха и Царско-то Правителство което довѣрещемъ надъ пълномощни-тѣ имъ подписани само от разни велможи, кои-тѣ бѣха се събрали тога, - не зборваме за друзи мѣста, не за насъ, во Солунъ - нарочнѣ затова и подвьрдени отъ фенерскiй-тъ митрополитъ, хи приѣ и справедливо за представители, па подтвърди нихни-тѣ рѣшенiя, като народна христенска воля. По вiя причини, согласнѣ со царска-та воля, нiе ке прiемаме тiя уредби цьрковни, коитѣ по царска милость ке излезатъ отъ народно ни собранiе во Цариградъ, и во койтъ ке се представляваме. Онiя коитѣ подписаха пълномощiе-то на Киркочо, представитель, как-то казувате на цѣла Мѫнкедонiя (πάσης Μακεδονίας), онiя пакъ сѫ длъжни за прiематъ и рѣшенiя-та на това собранiе, во което хи представуваше онъ, и та е мислиме смисла-та на царско-то ираде, що носите, и което нiе почитащемъ съ дѫлбоко уваженiе го бакнуваме и надъ глави-тѣ ни го турваме, но прътивъ негова благодѣтелна и народоспасителна воля неможиме да вървиме.“</p><p>- „Е глави, глави! големи и дебели бугарски! се отговори епископъ-тъ, сакате да се сапротивете на добро-то, което Велика-та Цьрква майка-та ви се гриже да ви чине, па ке си загубите секакви добрини и ке се расите отъ коренъ!“</p><p>- „Нiе, никакво добро не чакаме отъ мащеха-та ни гърцка В.Цьрква. Секое добро нiе го чекаме отъ Милостиво-то ни Правителство на Н.Вел.Султанъ-тъ, онъ ни е татко, онъ и майка! никого друго не познаваме надъ глави-тѣ ни господарь, и никой другъ надваръ отъ Н.Величество нѣма право за се гриже за насъ, коитѣ му сме вѣрни подданници, и само на негова-та щедра милость и отческа грижа се надѣваме за добиванiе-то на цьрковни-тѣ ни правдини и за напрѣдка-та на наше-то умственно развитiе и вообще за благоденствiе-то на ситѣ подданици, що лежатъ подъ славнiй му щитъ. Богъ за му уячява Държава-та и за му дарува благополучни дни, па на негова животъ нѣма да се плашиме, че е възможно да се рассипиме отъ гоненiя-та на душмани-тѣ на обще-то добро!“</p><p>Епископъ-тъ си побѣгна осраменъ и само Айватово се принуди за заплати на митрополитъ-тъ 17 лири турски, защо не имъ освящаваше цьрквата. Неофитъ тiя пари хи слага за заплата-та му, но селяне-тѣ хи слагатъ за освященiе-то на цьрква-та имъ. Нie се научихме, че онъ отъ ядъ отиде во св.Горѫ. Богъ да му просте грѣхове-тѣ!</p><p>Отъ брой 100 на гърцкiй-тъ вѣстникъ Анатоликосъ Астиръ се извѣщаваме, че отъ Солунъ се избралъ за избиранiе-то на гъркiй-тъ патрикъ представитель Г-нъ Димитрiй А.Икономо, или какъ Солунъ го знае Балдадоро. Анат.Астиръ, се разбира, като казува че се избралъ отъ Солунъ, подразумѣва че той почтенъ господинъ и гражданинъ ке представи во гърцка-та цьрква само димогеронди-тѣ Солунци, гърцки-тѣ подданници и нѣколко още Цинцари, а не епархiя-та солунска, защото епархiя-та не се опитала за това нѣщо, и първъ пѫнть сега отъ Анат.Астиръ чюе за него. Обаче и ако се опитуваха села-та и Българе-тѣ, отъ градъ-тъ не ке се бъркаха на подобно дѣло.</p><p>Настоятелството на училище-то ни прiело единъ листъ отъ Българска Пчела даромъ испратенъ отъ настоятелството <font face="Arial">ѝ</font> въ Солунъ, но не знаиме кой е посвятитель-тъ му. Кой и да е обаче, цѣло село му обенвуваме наше-то благодаренiе и признателность за посвенщенiе-то му. Тоже и единъ родолюбецъ отъ Сѣръ ни испраща даръ единъ листъ отъ Съвѣтникъ, кому изевихме частно и писменно наше-то благодаренiе и признателность. Желаещемъ обаче, щото благодаренiе-то на единъ родолюбецъ да не е извѣстно само въ колело-то ни, но и во обще-то на народъ-тъ ни, нiе извенуваме и прѣзъ вѣстникъ-тъ тая обща на селяни-тѣ ни признателность, коитѣ до сега не знаили были, нито видѣли вѣстници на майчинъ си ензикъ.</p><p>Дано си-тѣ Бугари заможни да вьрлатъ вниманiе-то си кѫдѣ злощастна-та и сиромашка-та вая бугарска страна.“</p>
<h1>Report from Visoka</h1><p>Report from the village of Visoka, today Hossa, near Solun, newspaper „Savetnik (Advisor)“, Issue 29, October 7, 1863. <a href="#ref1">[1]</a> Written in Solun dialect with original spelling.</p><p>„Visoka, September 20.</p><p>We were glad to see that in Issue 24 of your respected newspaper you published the laudable persistence of our neighbouring congeners of Leprigovo (or as Phanar says, Erisovo) in not giving the pay requested from them by the Mitropolite. This is truly laudable for our neighbours and we cannot but share the joy for the dear hopes that the disobedience of our brothers gives to our people. But isn't there anything to write about us? Are we not Bulgarians, too! It seems that your correspondent forgot us, the poor folks, because we live on a high place by which reason we got the name Visoka (high), so he cannot see us from below, from the boggy Solun. Although we are poor, we are Bulgarians, so this is what we did.</p><p>Since last year we opened a Bulgarian school, mostly because we were curious to see if the way our school was going, that is, the former Greek school, was the reason our children are behind with their education, or there is some other reason. The last exam of the pupils of the new school, however, showed the truth. Our children learned so much through their mother tongue for little more than a year that it was more than they learned in so many years of Greek education. It all went well, but this year they took our teacher in Ser <a href="#ref2">[2]</a> where they hired him for a Bulgarian teacher and a singer in St. Anthony church so now we do not know if we will be lucky with the new teacher because it is hard to find a person like our previous teacher: he was not much learned but he was kind and zealous.</p><p>The second thing that we, the Visoka folks, did, was the consensus with which we resisted and didn't recognize the Greek Solun Mitropolite cure Neophyte. Because of this, [some of our people] were imprisoned for a long time in Solun but His Excellence the Prefect acquitted them and returned them in the village to mind their business. Mr. Neophyte when he travelled through the villages, they didn't give him anything, and the peasants from the villages Novo selo, Hortach, Laynovo, Ayvatovo, Balzha, Dremiglava, Yuvanitsa (Yuvezna), Langandina and the others along the high ridge from Negovan to Suho in order to avoid easier the wheedling (cajoling, coercion) with which he tried to make them acknowledge him and give him his pay they said the following: „St. Mitropolite, Visoka is the first village among us, go there first, let its villagers recognize you, let them pay you what you want and then we will see, we may do some bargain.“</p><p>Neophyte realized that he had to point his arrows against the poor Visoka. He first sent to ask Visokans to go to him. They answered orally that they could not go to him because they had no business there. Then he sent his cook with his deacon to prepare his arrival. They showed them the inn which was build especially for travellers. The deacon and the cook went back with this answer when they saw that no one approached them in the village.</p><p>Neophyte, seeing our persistence and realizing that if he came alone he would be resisted by the brave Visokans, did not want to be humbled and sent the Amphipol bishop Antim who is his deputy for some time. The bishop came to Visoka; he went down to the hotel because the Visoka houses have low doors through which he couldn't pass. He called the rich men, first among them Mr Dimitar Malama and asked them to pay for the Mitropoly according to the new regulation of the People Assembly for which he carried a Sultan decree. The Visokans answered:</p><p>„We do not know about any our People Assembly taking place that regulates Mitropolite pay. The People Assembly for which Your Holiness talks about has been Greek and the regulation that it passed applies to Greeks for Greek Mitropolites. For this purpose the Government of His Majesty the merciful Sultan Abdul Azis issued and gave in your hand the decree that you carry. It does not apply to us, the Bulgarians, it applies only to Greeks. The Sultan Government issued the said decree to ease the Christians and stop the Mitropolite embezzlement and not for you to carry it around and distort its meaning to press Christians to pay such money that no Christian can accept and that only some of various people chosen by Phanariot Mitropolites which bore the name people representatives, though chosen only by the Mitropolites or, maybe also by their corrupt elders, appeared in Istanbul as representatives of the Christian people to meet and make orders and regulations for Mitropolite pays, etc. In this way they lied to both the Christian people whom they falsely represented and the Sultan Government who trusted their power signed by various dignitaries which were gathered there – we do not talk about other places, not about us, in Solun – and especially for this confirmed by the Phanar Mitropolite who accepted them as representatives and confirmed their decisions as the will of the Christian people. For this reason, according to the will of the Sultan, we will accept such church regulations which by Sultan's grace will come out from our People Assembly in Istanbul and in which we shall be represented. Those who signed the powers of Kirkocho, as you say, a representative of the whole Macedonia (πάσης Μακεδονίας), they will have to accept the decisions of this Assembly, too, in which he was representating them, and we think this is the reason of the Sultan's decree that you carry, and which we cherish a deep respect for; we kiss it and put it above our heads but we cannot go against his beneficial people-salvational will."</p><p>- „Eh, heads, heads! big and thick Bulgarian heads!", answered the bishop, "you want to resist the good that the Great Mother Church cares to do to you so that you will lose all benefice and will be eradicated!“</p><p>- „We do not expect any good from our step-mother the Greek Great Church. We expect all good from our graceful Government of His Majesty the Sultan, he is our father and mother! we do not know of any other master above our heads, and no other than His Majesty has the right to care for us which are loyal subjects, and we expect only his graceful mercy and fatherly care to achieve our religious rights and advance in our mental development and altogether the well-being of all subjects which are under his glorious shield. Let the Lord strengthen his State and grant him successful days, and while he is alive we won't be afraid that we will be dispersed by the attacks of our enemies for our common good!“</p><p>The bishop ran away ashamed and only Ayvatovo had to pay 17 Turkish lires because otherwise he didn't want to bless their church. Neophyte thinks that these money are his pay but the peasants think that the money are for blessing their church. We learned that in his anger he went to Holy Mountains [Aton]. God forgive his sins!</p><p>From Issue 100 of the Greek newspaper Anatolikos Astir we learn that from Solun they elected as representative Mr Dimitry A. Ikonomo, or, as Solun knows him, Baldadoro for the election of Greek Mitropolite. Anatolikos Astir, it seems, when it says that he is elected from Solun, it implies that this respected notable and citizen will represent in the Greek Church only the dimogeronds <a href="#ref3">[3]</a> of Solun, the Greek subjects and several Tsintsars, but not the Solun diocese because the diocese did not attempt this and hears about this for the first time from Anatolikos Astir. However, although the villages and Bulgarians tried this, the town did not want to participate in such action.</p><p>Our School Board received a sheet of Bulgarian Bee sent as a gift from its Board in Solun, but we do not know who is the person behind this. Whoever he is, the whole village devotes to him our gratitude and acknowledgement for his gift. Also, a patriot from Ser sends us as a gift a sheet from Savetnik, to whom we sent privately and in writing our gratitude and acknowledgement. Wishing, however, that the gratitude to a patriot is not known only in our circle but also in the community of our people, we publish through the newspaper this common for all peasants gratitude who until now didn't know and didn't see newspapers in their mother tongue.</p><p>Let all well-to-do Bulgarians direct their attention to this unfortunate and poor Bulgarian country.“</p></div><div class="meta"><h2>Notes</h2><p><a name="ref1">1.</a> Reprinted by Martin Hattala in the Croatian newspaper <i>Kniževnik</i>, Zagreb, 1865, <b>2:</b>471-474.</p><p><a name="ref2">2.</a> The name of this teacher is Hristodul Bozhinov from Visoka. He translated from Greek to Bulgarian to his students and gave sermons in Bulgarian in the local church.</p><p><a name="ref3">3.</a> Council of Elders (Greek: Δημογεροντία). The Elders represented each village and were elected locally.</p>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-22035521589997516612013-05-07T06:09:00.059-07:002023-09-26T03:42:53.634-07:00Railway construction in Macedonia during the Bulgarian Unification (1941-1944)<div id="content"><h3>by Dr. Angel Dzhonev, Ph.D </h3><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><p></p><div class="image" style="float: left; font-size: 0.8em; margin-right:10px"><img border="0" height="271" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UBDzCCDuTu0/TZfo3M4npMI/AAAAAAAAGLU/54pgfSYJnBI/s400/gyueshevo-kumanovo-nachalo.jpg" width="420" /><br />Work along Kumanovo-Gyueshevo track</div><p>Bulgaria joined the Tripartite Pact on March 1, 1941. The rapid defeat of Yugoslavia and Greece by the Wehrmacht forces in April 1941 was followed by the provisional annexation to the Bulgarian Tsardom of territories in Western Thrace, south-eastern Macedonia, the islands of Thassos and Samothrace, collectively called the Aegean, Vardar Macedonia, Kosovo and Morava region together with the Western Borderlands, with a total area of 39,765.6 square kilometers.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p>The government of Bogdan Filov developed a program to build basic communication in these areas in parallel with the administration, education, economic, cultural and other state institutions. Among them, considerable space was devoted to the construction of railway lines connecting the old boundaries of the Tsardom and the new lands <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>.</p><p></p></div></div>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Railway construction during the Balkan Wars and WWI</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"> Bulgaria had railway policy towards the geographical area Macedonia ever since Liberation and the desire for railway connection was characteristic of almost all governments before and after the wars of 1912-1913 and 1915-1918. Although one of the final results – the implementation of a direct railway connection – had not been achieved, the line Sofia-Kyustendil-Gyueshevo was built on the territory of Bulgaria at the then huge cost of 12.5 million levs and the border terminus opened on July 16, 1910 despite the objections of the Great Powers at the time. The expense was accepted by the Bulgarian people and government because the railway connected native Bulgarian lands. The intention of the Bulgarian government to link Sofia and Skopie and then the Albanian port Vljora was sabotaged by Austro-Hungary, Serbia and Greece who had an interest of a weak Bulgarian state. During WWI, narrow-gauge (Decauville) railways (600 mm)<a href="#ref†"><sup>†</sup></a> for both military and civil use were built along the routes: Skopje-Tetovo-Kichevo reaching the outskirts of Ohrid, Gradsko-Prilep reaching the outskirts of Bitola; Radomir-Dupnitsa-G. Djumaya (today Blagoevgrad)-Kulata reaching a few kilometers from Demir Hisar (today Sidirokastron) and several shorter lines with total length of 671 km or 88.3% of all imported Decauville rolling stock. <p>The state program deemed as essential connecting projects the standard railways Gyueshevo-Kumanovo, Kyustendil-Tsarevo Selo (today Delchevo)-Kochani-Shtip-Gradsko and along the river Struma valley <a href="#ref2">[2]</a>.</p> <div id="colTwo"><div class="image" style="float: left; margin-right:10px"><img border="0" height="264" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7Yc2GP89wUU/TZfrSEWARwI/AAAAAAAAGMc/Ze0tT6JluQI/s320/gyueshevo-kumanovo+001.jpg" width="420" /></div>
<p>Between the two world wars, the narrow-gauge line was replaced by the standard line Radomir-Dupnitsa-G. Djumaya and works towards Simitli and Krupnik started in order to reach the Greek border at Kulata <a href="#ref3">[3]</a>. A narrow-gauge line (760 mm) was built in the same period towards the river Mesta Valley from Saranbey (today Septemvri) to Belitsa with a planned terminal Nevrokop (today Gotse Delchev) <a href="#ref4">[4]</a>.</p> <p>This is approximately the reality from which the Bulgarian railway construction in Macedonia started during WWII (1941-1944) and it was the railway policy of the Bulgarian governments that lasted more than half a century but did not show the necessary results. There is a complete continuity between governments that perceived the need for direct communication as an element in the efforts for national unification.</p></div>
</div><div id="colTwo"><p>The railways Gъrdelitsa-Gevgeli-Skopie, Veles-Bitola-Kremenitsa, Veles-Shtip-Kochani, Skopie-Kachanik-Gъrlitsa, Skopie-Sarakino, a small section in the region of Ohrid and General Zhostov (today Skopie neighborhood Gyorche Petrov)-Orashie operated on the territories annexed from the former kingdom of Yugoslavia. Their total length was about 649 km, of which 590.6 km standard and 57.5 km narrow gauge (600 mm). They were assigned to an individual Skopie railway region <a href="#ref5">[5]</a>.</p> <div class="image-left"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0LHBFgGElKw/TZfrRqAmD4I/AAAAAAAAGMY/OYpS_gNLZfE/s1600/gyueshevo-kumanovo+010.jpg"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0LHBFgGElKw/TZfrRqAmD4I/AAAAAAAAGMY/OYpS_gNLZfE/s400/gyueshevo-kumanovo+010.jpg" style="clear: both; float: left; margin-right:10px" width="265" /></a></div><p>In the Aegean, initially the standard lines Poroy-Dedeagach, Mirini-Orfani and a small section of Dedeagach-Odrin came under Bulgarian control, with a total length of 381 km. Military action caused many partial destructions that needed repair; improvements were made on the quality and intensity of traffic <a href="#ref6">[6]</a>. All these existing lines increased the Bulgarian railway network with more than 1000 km. Connecting lines through Nish (for Vardar Macedonia) and Odrin (for the Aegean), however, remained under foreign control. Furthermore, the link between the Aegean and Vardar Macedonia and the Solun railway junction lay on a territory under foreign control. The newly-acquired lines were practically isolated from direct connection to the railway network in the old Bulgarian borders, which put this issue among the first to be resolved by the Bulgarian government. </p>
<p><script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!--lantonov_main_Blog1_300x250_as-->
<ins class="adsbygoogle" data-ad-client="ca-pub-2877421315223432" data-ad-slot="3308992620" style="display: inline-block; height: 250px; width: 300px;"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script></p>
</div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Initial developments</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">The time needed to realize the railway connection projects not only forced the Bulgarian government to prompt action, but it also proceeded to the signing of agreements with its neighbours to use existing connections under their power. Germans played a major role, having undoubted interest to control the railway infrastructure for better maneuvering of troops and supplies. Even before the offensive in the Balkans at the end of March 1941 they signed an agreement for the use of the Bulgarian network <a href="#ref7">[7]</a>. Conferences were held in Vienna, where on the newly-acquired territory was introduced a special "Balkan military ticket" <a href="#ref8">[8]</a>. Subsequently, some details were specified in the determination of border stations and freight traffic. Poroy was agreed on as an exchange station on the line Dedeagach-Solun <a href="#ref9">[9]</a>. Another major issue was the taking control in Western Thrace of the operation on the line Dedeagach-Pition by the Bulgarian Railways <a href="#ref10">[10]</a>. The Bulgarian government compromised on keeping the German control on this line <a href="#ref11">[11]</a>. The transfer of the railway Svilengrad-Odrin-Pition to Turkish control caused some tension in the Bulgarian-German relations which was settled through the mediation of Tsar Boris III <a href="#ref12">[12]</a>.<p>Conflicts occured with Italy, which claimed full control of the network in Western Macedonia and Kosovo. It was agreed to set Gъrlitsa as a border station on the route Skopie-Kosovska Mitrovica. Much more difficult were the negotiations for the Decauville line Skopie-Ohrid-Struga-Tashmorunishta conducted on several conferences. A proposal for a complete Italian exploitation of this line was rejected and the government stood up its position that traffic on Bulgarian territory be carried out by the Bulgarian Railways <a href="#ref13">[13]</a>. These frictions did not hinder the discussions between Sofia and Rome for Trans-Balkan projects. Extension of the railway from Bitolya through Struga and Elbasan to the Adriatic Sea, and plans for building the road Durazzo-Skopie-Sofia and an oil pipeline from Ruse through Sofia and Skopie to Durazzo were discussed on an intergovernment level <a href="#ref14">[14]</a>. A joint venture for transportation was planned, and the Italian side undertook to implement the projected line Urosevac-Antivari, which along with the project Gyueshevo-Kumanovo provided connection Sofia-Adriatic <a href="#ref15">[15]</a>. These actions were complemented by the Bulgarian-Romanian signed agreement for the construction of a bridge on the Danube between Russe and Giurgiu and uninterrupted road for Bucharest and further east <a href="#ref16">[16]</a>.</p></div><div id="colTwo">The railway infrastructure was of interest also to the enemies of the Tripartite Pact. Key lines and facilities were placed under special surveillance and security in order to prevent possible attacks by allied aircraft or partisan movement. Despite the low traffic capacity the Decauville to River Struma Valley and the continued construction of the standard line, this direction became one of the areas of competition and dominance. For the Bulgarian and German military circles, it was important to preserve the control over it, while Anglo-Americans planned subversive action with the support of local partisan squads around Dupnitsa, Razlog, etc. operating in the Rila-Pirin region <a href="#ref17">[17]</a>. Such was the task of the First Sofia Liberation Brigade while the Kyustendil squad performed sabotage between Radomir and Gyueshevo <a href="#ref18">[18]</a>. <p>The U.S. State Department drafted a post-war development plan of Macedonia, taking into account the existing railway infrastructure along the Struma and Vardar valleys. A possible compromise between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia was assumed, with the new frontier going along the line between the disputed and undisputed areas of 1912. In railway terms Vardar Macedonia was divided in two with the north line Ohrid-Skopie-Kumanovo-Kyustendil remaining under the control of Belgrade and the southern line Bitolya-Veles-Shtip-G. Djumaya under the control of Sofia. In this scenario, a very serious Greek opposition was expected, because part of the railway to Solun passed through Bulgarian territory <a href="#ref19">[19]</a>. Intelligence headquarters were competing to analyze weaknesses in other directions, and the Bulgarian intelligence captured an Allied order to the armed resistance in Bulgaria to gather information about specific sites along the lines Skopie-Veles, Veles-Bitolya-Kremenitsa and Skopie-Ohrid. Implementation of the projects Simitli-Demir Hisar, Gyueshevo-Kumanovo, G. Djumaya-Kocani, Momchilgrad-Gyumyurdzina and Sofia-Pernik was monitored with keen interest by the Allieds. <a href="#ref20">[20]</a>.</p>
<div class="image" style="float: left; margin-right:10px"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-linxl2AbNBQ/TZfrKz7PIYI/AAAAAAAAGL8/4Odh6COIjBY/s1600/gyueshevo-kumanovo+004.jpg"><img border="0" height="280" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-linxl2AbNBQ/TZfrKz7PIYI/AAAAAAAAGL8/4Odh6COIjBY/s400/gyueshevo-kumanovo+004.jpg" width="420" /></a></div><p>All the mentioned aspects were certainly elements of the Bulgarian railway policy in Macedonia. The wartime situation and the provisional status of the borders further complicated the plans of Sofia. Despite the negative factors and problems, the government of Bogdan Filov undertook the ambitious task to implement the connection projects that had been frozen for decades.</p> </div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Planning and preparation</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Only ten days after the entry of Bulgarian troops in the newly-annexed territory on May 3, 1941 the Council of Ministers adopted a decree for the exploration, and construction of the railways Momchilgrad-Gyumyurdzina, Kulata-Demir Hisar (Decauville), G. Djumaya-Tsarevo Selo-Kochani and Gyueshevo-Kumanovo began on 1 June the same year <a href="#ref21">[21]</a>. Extremely fast preparatory activities were carried out followed by building the identified facilities on the designed routes. With the exception of Momchilgrad-Gyumyurdzina all routes were on the geographical area of Macedonia. In addition, replacing the Decauville with a standard line along the river Struma valley in the section Simitli-Krupnik, and further to Demir Hisar and the extension of the narrow-gauge along Mesta river basically formed the building policy of the Bulgarian Tsardom at the beginning of the period considered here.<p>In the preparatory period, a discussion went on in Bulgarian society on the need for individual projects and the most rational routes. The directions to Skopie and river Struma valley gained an undisputed consensus. The importance of the railway project Gyueshevo-Kumanovo was well-known, and was met with approval by the population. Such was the attitude towards the construction of the section Kulata-Demir Hisar of the existing Decauville. It was seen as a temporary solution and it was therefore recommended that the whole route Simitli-Demir Hisar be replaced with a standard railway. The main motive for the construction was dictated primarily by the desire for fast and permanent connection with the Aegean for economic and strategic reasons. Both projects had been examined and approved in the past and had also a full public and political support <a href="#ref22">[22]</a>.</p><p></p><div class="image" style="float: left; margin-right:10px"><img border="0" height="276" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Xflw4rg7lo0/TZfrMpa8qrI/AAAAAAAAGME/XEmzjLukb8s/s400/gyueshevo-kumanovo+015.jpg" width="420" /></div><p></p></div><div id="colTwo">There was no consensus on the railroad along the valley of the River Bregalnitsa. The direction of the route caused significant problems. The section between Kocani and Tsarevo Selo was without an alternative, while further on the realization of several options to G. Djumaya, Kyustendil, and Dupnitsa was possible. The engineering society supported primarily directions consistent with the geographic realities, and rationally chose the most feasible ones and with a smaller number of man-made structures – bridges and tunnels, with smaller slopes and other positive characteristics. Eng. Andon Prahov came up with a very circumstantial analysis. Four partially overlapping options were compared. The government-favored G. Djumaya – Tsarevo selo had two possible approaches to the Struma Valley towards Bregalnitsa through Vlahina Mountain. The first was downstream Chetirka River and its tributary Klisura, a watershed tunnel under Leshtanska Mountain and climbing down to the river Bregalnitsa; and the second went along the Klisura River with a watershed tunnel under Lukov Peak and descended along the ravines of Tursko Gabrovo. Due to the large slope, the line began about 5 km north of G. Djumaya. The watershed tunnels alone were 2700 m and 3900 m, respectively, located at 750 and 770 m altitude. The first option had a total length of 41 km, and the second had 35.5 km, with the tunnels along totaling about 5 km.<p>The project Kyustendil-Tsarevo selo also incorporated two methods for crossing the main watershed. The most convenient route began at the village Kopilovtsi, passed through the village Kadin bridge (today Nevestino) and along the river Eleshnitsa and its tributary Rechitsa reached the watershed "Black Rock". Thence along the gorge of the village Tursko Gabrovo it descended about 2 km below Tsarevo selo. In the different approaches to "Black Rock" two tunnels were formed, respectively 2280 m and 1980 m, but in the latter case, the station moved about 2.7 km after Tsarevo selo. The total line was 58 km with about 4300 m tunnels. Considerably smaller, only 1350 m, was the watershed tunnel if the Rechitsa Valley was avoided and instead it was continued on along Eleshnitsa to Rakovo village. The connection was made along the Karovitsa River, Selnishki Gorge and Bregalnitsa River and the station was again about 2.7 km below Tsarevo selo. The total length was 61 km with about 2500 m tunnels. This option was significantly worse than the other one through "Black Rock" because it required instead of long tunnels additional man-made structures and steeper gradients.</p><p>The section Kadin bridge – Tsarevo selo passing through the Piyanets area remained unchanged in the other projects too. This section could be reached from Kyustendil as well as from Boboshevo and Dupnitsa. The first way was along the river Struma, about 16 km long, which is the distance from Kadin bridge to Kyustendil, while 3-4 bridges for crossing the river, and several tunnels were needed for the route from Boboshevo. The route from Dupnitsa to Kadin bridge also requires man-made structures - two tunnels under the watersheds "Bineka" and "Shumnati Peak" along with 7 smaller tunnels with a total length of 2300 m and 3 large bridges over the rivers Dzherman, Razmetanitsa and Struma. The distance from Dupnitsa to Kadin bridge is 24 km and to Tsarevo selo it is 66 km. Eng. A. Prahov recommended that the Government re-analyse all factors, because the destination Kyustendil – Kadin bridge – Tsarevo Selo through the watershed "Black Rock" had a decided advantage. He opposed the political arguments with the law of 1918 and the subsequent surveys conducted by military units <a href="#ref23">[23]</a>. The railway expert analysed the situation from the perspective of natural geographic factors and searched for the most appropriate solutions. For him, the intentions of rulers or vested interests were less important. The political circles, however, had a final say in making decisions.</p></div></div>
<h1>Political debate</h1>
<p>The population of the Piyanets region sent a statement to the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers. It called for the railway passing from Kyustendil to Tsarevo Selo to cover 36 villages inhabited by about 40,000 people. To meet the annual needs the plan provided for transportation of 10,000 tons goods. Among the items for export were about 10-12,000 tons fruits and 2,000 tons tobacco. There were high capacity oak and pine plantations and mineral resources development. Exploitation of coal, shale oil, and granite was expected to start. Railway building was thought as a necessary elements of raising the welfare of the population which otherwise did not see opportunities for prosperity. A copy of the text was sent to Vice-Chairman of Parliament, the Kyustendil MP Dimitar Peshev <a href="#ref24">[24]</a>. Public in the project area also became involved. The aim was not only to persuade government officials with economic motives but to create a political lobby to modify the original design. The advantages of the Piyanets route created conditions for such support and a controversy in the state institutions.</p>
<div class="image-left" style="float: left; margin-right:10px"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CB1zy0vda_4/TZfrN76fPqI/AAAAAAAAGMI/XjNIDbiSqz8/s400/gyueshevo-kumanovo+006.jpg" width="240" /></div>
<p>There was no consensus in the authorities for the direction of the route to Tsarevo selo. Eng. Mitov, the Construction Director with the Ministry of Public Works circulated a map among and lobbied to the lawmakers for the option Dupnitsa-Tsarevo Selo. King Boris III disapproved of his conduct and posed the issue to the Prime Minister. B. Filov took rapid measures and sharply criticized his subordinate officer, as recorded on July 7, 1941 in his diary: </p><blockquote><i>"At 4 o'clock I called Eng Mitov, whom I admonished with the argument that he cannot advocate another building policy, except that of the government and that technical considerations must often defer to the political ones ... " </i></blockquote>
<p>The monarch and the Prime Minister staunchly supported the realisation of the already approved lines <a href="#ref25">[25]</a>. The opposition coming at different levels and from different backgrounds questioned the correctness of the Cabinet decision. Voices for revision got louder and put on trial the top state officials who preferred firm defense of their position rather than a possible compromise.</p>
<p>The lively discussion was carried over to the meetings of the National Assembly. In the bill to expand the country's railway network, the Minister of Public Buildings, Roads and Public Works Eng. Dimitъr Vassilev proposed to build new lines in southwestern Bulgaria and the new territories: the standard lines Simitli-Kulata-Demir Hisar, Gyueshevo-Kumanovo, G. Djumaya-Kochani, Momchilgrad-Gyumyurdzhina, Dupnitsa-Bobov Dol, a second railway from Sofia to Pernik and the Decauville General Todorov-Vetren. Basically, the main points adopted in the decree of the Council of Ministers were confirmed, with a change in the beginning and end of the narrow gauge, but with no substantial changes of the main track. The construction works adopted by the Cabinet were sanctioned by the Parliament. On July 13, 1941 the bill was introduced in the Parliament Hall and presented by Minister D. Vassilev. Prepared, perhaps, from the publicly expressed opinions, he tried at the outset to counter any opposition by showing the gradation of the main factors in railway construction as supported by the government. He listed the following reasons as the most important ones: first – policy, second – military, third – technical, fourth – economic, fifth – operational, and maybe partly psychological. The reason of this approach was to invalidate all attempts at revision of already taken decisions by the government.</p>
<p>In this context the Minister preferred to give a brief description of each project, but the focus was mainly on the direction G. Djumaya-Kochani in the section G.-Djumaya – Tsarevo selo. In support he stressed the economic advantages of the region, the available natural resources and strategic military advantages. A considerable resemblance to the alleged benefits brought forward by the population Piyanets was evident because these areas were close and had common relief and climate. On the Vlahina slopes also grew tobacco, fruit trees, forests and the mineral deposits were studied. The second aspect, which sought to put lawmakers at fait accompli, was the fact that most of the works adopted with the government decree of 3 May, were being implemented. Showing some self-criticism for missing the deadline approved - June 1, D. Vassilev reported with satisfaction the launch on 12 and 13 June 1941 of the projects Momchilgrad-Gyumyurdzhina, G. Djumaya-Kochani and Kumanovo-Gyueshevo. The delay of the Decauville Kulata-Demir Hisar was explained by the presence of many minefields along the route that had to be removed promptly. The main point of the speech was to put aside local interests, as lawmakers focus on public aspirations.</p><p>The speech seemed to had largely played its role, because the bulk of the MP candidates for the debate refused to participate. The Minister's scenario faltered after a declaration for a short opinion was requested by the Kyustendil MP Peter Mihalev. Contrary to his request, Mihalev made a long and reasoned statement on the spirit of the law in general and in particular for each project of the Government program. Probably, like the Minister, the MP was seriously prepared for the parliamentary debate. His clear focus was also on the disputed area as he extensively highlighted the advantages of the option Dupnitsa – Tsarevo Selo compared to G. Djumaya – Tsarevo Selo. He used a whole arsenal of opinions of railway experts and the position of the local population in Piyanets. A strong trump-card was the fact that a delegation from the Piyanets region had visited ministers and a further study had been ordered. The Defense Minister came with a declaration in support of the Dupnitsa route. The strategic aspect was reinforced by the opportunities for extending the line from Dupnitsa to Samokov and Kostenets and beyond to Thrace, and also to Northern Macedonia through Kyustendil. The passage through the Bobov Dol coal basin was also recognised as a major bonus.</p><p>The MP Tasko Stoilkov tried to oppose with a mentoring tone, and historical and patriotic statements. His speech was in the context of the ministerial speech, but did not supplement essentially the discussed aspects. The contribution of population between G. Djumaya and Tsarevo Selo to the liberation movement of the Macedonian Bulgarians was brought as a new fact in support of the argument for passage of the railway line through that region. The leaning of MPs to support the government policy was reflected not only by the vote on the first reading of the law, but also by placing the issue for immediate urgent discussion on a second reading.</p><p></p></div><div id="colTwo"><p>The Vice-Chairman of the National Assembly Dimitar Peshev opposed to this request of Minister D. Vassilev. The MP wanted a new debate in the committee where they could make the necessary assessment. He accused the government of ignoring the opinion of the special committee sent along the routes. </p><blockquote><i>The reports of the respective agencies are not in this sense which the Bill exposes. The Ministerial Council delegated three gentlemen ministers out of its members who went to the spot, examined the work and came with a report that is different from what is now inserted in the Bill.</i></blockquote> D. Vassilev was forced to give explanation for the repeated sessions of the Government on this issue and for his visit with his colleagues Ivan Popov and Slavcho Zagorov on both routes, but he remained firm of his opinion for immediate second reading. This decisive opposition broke the resolution of the Kyustendil MPs and the law was passed with a single significant addition - the line Simitli-Kulata-Demir Hisar included a branch to Petrich <a href="#ref26">[26]</a>. At the next meeting, 222,688,000 leva were voted as extra costs for building projects, which included all the connecting lines to Macedonia <a href="#ref27">[27]</a>. Adoption of the law in the National Assembly ended the opportunity for change of the Government-proposed and Tsar-approved railway policy. Out of these three institutions, the Parliament was assigned the role only to confirm the already established decision. Achieving such a result was not particularly difficult. With the exception of the section G. Djumaya-Tsarevo Selo the other sites enjoyed a significant public support. The outcome of the debates was that a railway junction in the area was G. Djumaya instead of Dupnitsa or Kyustendil. The narrow political motives in this case were not only a leading, but also the determining factor in outlining the long-term goals for Macedonia.<p></p>
<div class="image" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="550" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1md4Dax6Pyk/TZfrO5OnbyI/AAAAAAAAGMM/mWKrmPpuMkE/s640/gyueshevo-kumanovo+013.jpg" width="420" /></div><p>The inclusion of all construction sites in the state program and the start of their implementation did not lead to a rapid change of opinion. The dispute was whether all projects could be build simultaneously, or first make one or two, while the others are planned for a later date. The famous journalist and publicist Daniel Krapchev exposed a view giving a priority to connections along the River Struma Valley and the destination Sofia-Kyustendil-Skopie. He defined the line G. Djumaya-Kochani as "local" and recommended speeding the construction of the first two lines at the expense of the others <a href="#ref28">[28]</a>. </p><blockquote><i>Let's not waste any energy on secondary and tertiary sites and to concentrate all efforts in these two trunk lines <a href="#ref29">[29]</a>.</i></blockquote> Railway and military experts also recommended giving priority to both projects, then starting the others. Doubts were expressed as to availability of enough workers and it was recommended to contract individual sections to private enterpreneurs <a href="#ref30">[30]</a>. The strong commitment of the government to build all lines simultaneously, dictated by the desire to demonstrate the Bulgarian government as a bearer of prosperity and progress, posed a risk of dissipation of forces. The state resources were not unlimited, and a significant amount of labor and imported materials were required. The wartime situation was not given the due attention because major upturns at the front were conceivable that could restore the old status quo, as happened during WWI. At the outset, the Bulgarian railway construction policy in Macedonia was ambitious, coherent and maximally comprehensive. The lack of flexibility and prioritisation at a given stage tested the chances for success and the achievement of desired results was placed at risk.<p></p><p>The determination of the line directions was accompanied by specific engineering and technical preparation, consisting of construction design, tracing the area and bringing in the necessary workforce. This task was entrusted to the Ministry of Public Buildings, Roads and Public Works and its New Railway Lines Department. Old plans prepared during WWI were updated. The initial site inspection was done by the Chief Director of Construction and the Chief Inspector for the Explorations. After them the engineering teams for the final routing did their work. It was planned that 14,000 regular and 35,000 mobilised reservist workers start at the beginning <a href="#ref31">[31]</a>. Management of the formed units was relegated to retired officers and non-commissioned officers <a href="#ref32">[32]</a>. The Skopie governor Kozarov expected that the lines Gyueshevo-Kumanovo and G. Djumaya-Kochani would start with 30,000 labor servicemen and several thousand workers hired from the local population, which would ensure their livelihoods <a href="#ref33">[33]</a>. According to Minister D. Vassilev, about 60,000 reservists laborers were expected to be brought in on all construction sites in the new lands with the total number expected to reach 85-90,000 together with the regular servicemen <a href="#ref34">[34]</a>. The Labour Service was assigned the task of providing the bulk of workers planned. Estimates for the total number of people involved differred substantially, which indicated a contradiction in the statements of the responsible officials. Significant concentration of manpower from other areas required accommodation facilities to provide appropriate living conditions. This implied additional organisation. Recruit workers from the local population at this stage were regarded only as an auxiliary factor and their recruitment only seeked to solve some social problems.</p></div><h1>Work in 1941</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Despite the delay, the new rail construction started on 11 June 1941. In August, inspection of the sites was carried out. Minister Vassilev attended the G. Djumaya cross-junction. Work started on the sections Kochani-Tsarevo Selo and G. Djumaya-Krupnik, and the land was surveyed between Tsarevo Selo and G. Djumaya. The start of the Decauville Kulata-Demir Hisar was imminent. Final preparatory works were going on and 5,000 workers were expected to be brought in <a href="#ref35">[35]</a>.
<p>The construction of this project was planned to be completed in two months and immediately after that the efforts were to focus on the standard line Krupnik-Demir Hisar. Initial actions were aimed at the easier sections. Such was the approach on the Skopie route, where the section Kumanovo-Kriva Palanka was worked upon, and the River Bregalnitsa construction works were concentrated between Tsarevo Selo and Kochani <a href="#ref36">[36]</a>. The construction of the route in level terrains had some advantages and it was preferred not only because it was much easier. The main part of the workforce are non-combatant labor men, who hardly had the skills to implement more complex engineering structures. Their role was to prepare the route for laying the rails. In the more skilled work they played a secondary function, while experts realised man-made structures such as bridges, culverts, tunnels, retaining walls, etc., which are characteristic of mountainous areas. In the plains, the work results could be achieved faster and could be seen immediately, which was in line with the ambitions of the government to manifest its increased attention to the problems of the population in Macedonia.</p><p></p><div class="image"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mTZuf8nU5dY/TZfrPfTRlVI/AAAAAAAAGMQ/Y7jIcmGirMk/s1600/gyueshevo-kumanovo+007.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mTZuf8nU5dY/TZfrPfTRlVI/AAAAAAAAGMQ/Y7jIcmGirMk/s400/gyueshevo-kumanovo+007.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>The standard line G. Djumaya-Simitli was opened on October 9 which was a section along the the River Struma route <a href="#ref37">[37]</a>. Building of the Decauville Kulata-Demir Hisar started last, because of the clearing of minefields, but it was the first railway to be completed. Construction works were initiated on August 24, and the narrow-gauge line was put into operation on 29 November <a href="#ref38">[38]</a>, and on December 8, 1941 it was officially opened by the Minister of Public Works D. Vassilev <a href="#ref39">[39]</a>. The railway was 14.8 km long, with a total of 18.2 km Decauville rails laid including the station tracks; 106,867 cubic meters of earth- and stone-work was carried out, 206,485 wages were given out at the total value of 9,873,985 leva <a href="#ref40">[40]</a>. With its launch the railway connection Sofia-Solun was established, which in this period had political, economic and strategic importance especially since the Mediterranean basin was an arena of combat. It was seen as a temporary solution until replacement with a standard rail. Despite its shortcomings, its commissioning enabled the first direct link between the networks of the Tsardom of Bulgaria and the geographical area of Macedonia. It took more than sixty years to realize this important result of the Bulgarian Railway policy. In a territorial aspect, however, it was important mainly to the Aegean Region.<p></p><p>In the annual Government review, the new railways were presented as an important fact for the achievements, as well as for the upcoming efforts. The Prime Minister highly appreciated the narrow-gauge connection along the river Struma. He outlined the priorities for development – first the line Gyueshevo-Kumanovo, followed by G. Djumaya-Kochani and finally Momchilgrad-Gyumyurdzhina <a href="#ref41">[41]</a>. In this context, Minister Vassilev insisted the sum of 1,270,000,000 leva to be paid on the urbanisation of the new lands, including railroad construction <a href="#ref42">[42]</a>. He assessed the budgeted funds for 1942 of 201,000,000 leva for working on the tracks as "very insufficient" and claimed a further 250,000,000 leva for import of rails, switches, semaphores, and other materials from abroad <a href="#ref43">[43]</a>. About 26,000 workers were brought in on the railway construction in 1941 <a href="#ref44">[44]</a>. A contradiction emerged between the declarations and the real capacities. There was not enough money, which affected material supplies. The estimates for the planned workforce were not fulfilled, and even the planned minimum was not approached. Despite the emerging problems the government continued to push for the completion of all started projects and did not lose its ambition and confidence in success.</p><p>New railways were planned and it was sought to optimize the network to achieve the best possible connection between the lines in the Aegean and Vardar Macedonia. Regulations were improved as a law amendment extended the route of the Decauville Kulata-Demir Hisar <a href="#ref45">[45]</a>. It was extended with about 1 km and additional switches were installed <a href="#ref46">[46]</a>. Negotiations with the Germans were conducted for the section Karasuli (today Polikastron)-Kilindir (today Kilindia) on the Greek territory. Demands in Berlin were made for the supply of rails for tracks <a href="#ref47">[47]</a>. In this respect the Council of Ministers voted a decree to build as soon as possible the standard line link between Dedeagach-Poroy and Skopje-Gevgeli lines <a href="#ref48">[48]</a>. Despite the problems with the Italian plans in the region of Kosovo, the industrial Decauville Kacanik-Strъbtse (Shtrъbtse) was started <a href="#ref49">[49]</a>. Busy traffic and coal transportation were the reasons for building a second line between Sofia and Pernik. It was not parallel to the first, and started from the village Voluyak reaching the village Batanovtsi, with a projected extension to Radomir. Through its implementation two independent lines would lead to the capital, which could significantly relieve congestion. Following the opening of works along the Skopie and Struma directions it was expected to increase further the volume of shipments and the doubling of the railway was a logical preventive measure <a href="#ref50">[50]</a>.</p></div></div><h1>Work until the end of WWII</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Implementation of the connection with the Aegean through a Decauville partially satisfied the governing officials, but efforts were directed towards replacing it with a standard line. At the beginning of 1942 the section Simitli-Krupnik began operation <a href="#ref51">[51]</a>, and in April the construction of the entire route between Krupnik and Demir Hisar was launched. The most serious challenge was the trans-pass of Kresna and Rupel Gorges, where tunnels and bridges were planned. The site was also divided into sections, and the problem emerged for providing enough manpower. Labor servicemen, mobilized civilians and wage workers were the main categories of the drawn workforce. At various times, entirely or partially were brought in the First, Seventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-first, Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth and other labor battalions <a href="#ref52">[52]</a>. <blockquote><i>Very few of the local population appeared to work on the line and mobilized civilians gave very little work, bordering on nothing</i></blockquote> noted an activity report <a href="#ref53">[53]</a>. The reasons lied in the sparsely populated areas and the profitability of tobacco that people preferred to construction. A supply of workers from other regions was needed <a href="#ref54">[54]</a>. Mobilized civilian professionals received appropriate wages, but apparently there was no particular interest, because the Cabinet voted for a number of decrees with administrative measures to compel them to work on the sites <a href="#ref55">[55]</a>. Jewish labor brigades were concentrated on the railroad Krupnik-Demir Hisar as regular workers <a href="#ref56">[56]</a>. Serbs from Morava Region were also involved in the construction <a href="#ref57">[57]</a>. </div></div><p>The strategic advantages of Struma direction were appreciated and it gradually became a state priority among sites in Macedonia. Bulgarian representatives repeatedly put demands on the German side to supply the necessary materials. By the "global deal" or other forms they called for the delivery of 121 switches for this direction <a href="#ref58">[58]</a>. Minister Vassilev planned for the line to reach Levunovo by the end of 1943 <a href="#ref59">[59]</a>. The priority of the Struma direction remained after the death of King Boris, and was supported by Regency and the new cabinets. At the meeting between the three regents and Adolf Hitler, held on March 17, 1944 in Salzburg, the Bulgarian side requested rails, trucks and other materials for completion of the construction works. The Germans promised assistance within their capabilities <a href="#ref60">[60]</a>. The existing labor shortages and imported railway materials affected fully the direction of Krupnik-Demir Hisar. Its primary significance forced the state officials to use to the maximum their opportunities in domestic and foreign plan. Forced labor and labor organised in various forms were an essential tool preferable to self-interest, because the effort for rapid implementation did not allow for delay or additional investment of financial resources. The supply of imported materials relied on Germany, which fully involved in the war, and could hardly satisfy all orders. There was no practical alternative in this plan, at least not inside the countries of the Tripartite Pact. Most of the route in the interwar period was in Bulgarian sovereignty, but time was missed to built a line near the Greek border, passing Kresna Gorge. From this position it was much easier to build a standard rail connection at Demir Hisar.</p><p></p><div class="image"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-38npLKMpB-k/TZfrQ-Co93I/AAAAAAAAGMU/1S4tRHD07LQ/s1600/gyueshevo-kumanovo+008.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-38npLKMpB-k/TZfrQ-Co93I/AAAAAAAAGMU/1S4tRHD07LQ/s400/gyueshevo-kumanovo+008.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>Diverse opinions appeared on the project Gyueshevo-Kumanovo. They were related to the specification of the maximal gradients and radii of curves, because the route passed through mountainous terrain. Maximal gradients were adopted to be 15 ‰ and minimal curves were up to 500 m in order to achieve higher speed, but this further complicated the route. Radii of 300 m were allowed only in the mountainous area between Kriva Palanka and Gyueshevo <a href="#ref61">[61]</a>. The distance was divided into two sections. Work was started first between Kumanovo and Shopsko Rudari, where only 6 tunnels were planned <a href="#ref62">[62]</a>. In the other section Gyueshevo-Kratovo the tunnels were 47. The mountainous terrain required a long preparation, leading to some delays and the first sod was turned on February 9, 1942 in Kriva Palanka <a href="#ref63">[63]</a>. Attention was directed to tunneling, and a record 8 meters progress for 24 hours was reported. Accidents happenned, resulting in death. Workforce appeared to be in sufficient quantity, which initially satisfies the demand, because the region was poor and the indigenous peoples were willing to participate in construction. The attempts to shift people to St. Vrach (today Sandanski) failed, because they all wanted to stay close to their homes. The average daily workforce was about 1,600 people, reaching up to 2,100 people Seventeen food kitchens were opened <a href="#ref64">[64]</a>. The most serious challenge was the 2,362 m long watershed tunnel into the "Deve Bair" locality near Gyueshevo <a href="#ref65">[65]</a>. The company "Grün & Bilfiger" was a contractor at the site and it gave the hired master bricklayers and plasterers daily wages of between 160 and 240 leva, free accommodation and food at low prices. The track is inspected repeatedly by Minister Vassilev <a href="#ref66">[66]</a>.<p></p><p>At the railway line Gyueshevo-Kumanovo the Ninth Labor Battalion was located <a href="#ref67">[67]</a>. A civilian mobilization was carried out and additional forces were brought in. Duty evasion and concealment became apparent, or finding reasons, such as harvest, health, not to appear at work <a href="#ref68">[68]</a>. Efforts were underway to attract master masons, miners, diggers, tinsmiths, and brick-bakers <a href="#ref69">[69]</a>. Calorie requirements necessary for each worker were issued by public authorities, commissariat was established and a mandatory social insurance was required <a href="#ref70">[70]</a>. Most of the problems on the site were similar to those of Krupnik-Demir Hisar. The population in northeastern Macedonia was significantly poorer and with fewer opportunities to find work, which facilitated its involvement in the construction. Because the Skopie destination was a priority of Bulgaria before the wars, the railroad operated close to the border. The starting position was good, but serious obstacles remained to overcome, including the watershed tunnel. On the other hand, the need for link to Central Macedonia became secondary to the route to the Aegean Sea. These two directions were approved and their realisation became paramount.</p><p>The railway line Kocani-G. Djumaya had two sections separated by the watershed tunnel under Vlahina Mountain. The section from the direction of Kochani and Tsarevo Selo included 45 tunnels with a total length 11.5 km, of which 16 were at some stage of construction. The most difficult areas were in the Bregalnitsa river gorge at Istibanya and on the slopes of Vlahina. Problems arose with the lack of truck tires, and bad food and timber supply roads. The presence of pine forests in the region was used to build a sawmill with which this issue was resolved. Employees were hired along the track, and mobilized civilians were brought in <a href="#ref71">[71]</a>. Third, Fourth, and Sixteenth Work Battalions were located at the site <a href="#ref72">[72]</a>. Its characteristics were very similar to those of Gyueshevo-Kumanovo. Despite existing problems with material supply and labor, construction of facilities did not stop.</p><p>Among the completed construction projects was the restoration of the line Karasuli-Kilindir, that was removed by the Greeks after the WWI. It was a direct link built in the Ottoman period to connect the railways in the Vardar valley with the Aegean Coast, but with no connection to Solun. Because this link was on Greek territory, Bulgaria not only engaged with the construction of the line, but conducted the whole operation from the border at Poroy through Kilindir to Karasuli. The restoration of the section with a length of 26.5 km started on 15 July and ended on November 15, 1943. Work along the route was carried out by 1,200 labor servicemen, and second-hand rails, from Bulgarian Rail, were installed by about 120 professionals <a href="#ref73">[73]</a>. The railway was worth 65,000,000 leva <a href="#ref74">[74]</a>. The need of this line outweighed the serious risks of loss of investment. The track was not even on the territory under Bulgarian control, and lay entirely in the Greek zone and there was no guarantee for retaining control even under the most favorable circumstances. The urgent need is evident from the fact that despite the request for rails, imported from Germany, those were not awaited. The line was built with the available second-hand rails, removed from other Bulgarian railways.</p>
<p></p><div class="image"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0LHBFgGElKw/TZfrRqAmD4I/AAAAAAAAGMY/OYpS_gNLZfE/s1600/gyueshevo-kumanovo+010.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0LHBFgGElKw/TZfrRqAmD4I/AAAAAAAAGMY/OYpS_gNLZfE/s400/gyueshevo-kumanovo+010.jpg" width="265" /></a></div>During the war, construction of narrow-gauge line along the river Mesta Valley continued. On March 3, 1943, the section Bansko-Belitsa with a length of 18 km was introduced into service and efforts were directed to Dobrinishte <a href="#ref75">[75]</a>. The line was seen primarily with a local economic importance. This seems the reason that at this stage no attempt was made to extend it to the planned point Nevrokop with a possible extension to the standard railway at Drama.<p></p><p>Losing the war forced the new Fatherland Front Government to prepare in detail for the upcoming peace conference. It made a number of analyses, including a report on financing the annexed territories prepared as early as March 1945. It gave specific details of the railway constructions undertaken. By the exit of Bulgaria from the Hitler coalition in early September 1944 two short connecting lines had been completed and opened – Kulata-Demir Hisar and Karasuli-Kilindir. In the most advanced stage was the standard line Krupnik-Demir Hisar. Along its 81 km 4,469,725 cubic meters of earthworks and stone works were carried out, 97,039 cubic meters of concrete and masonry work was completed, 36.6 km track were laid, 5,512,750 wages were used totaling 244,746,523 leva <a href="#ref76">[76]</a>.</p><p>The two sites in Vardar Macedonia were also at different construction stages. The priority Gyueshevo-Kumanovo had a length of 105 km, 1,569,077 cubic meters of earthworks and stone works were carried out, 29,729 cubic meters of concrete and masonry work was completed. 24 km tracks were laid. 2,337,719 leva wages were given and a total amount of 525,974,673 leva was spent. There was a weaker activity along G. Djumaya-Kochani line. Along the 127 km 1,107,266 cubic meters of earth and rock work was carried out, 14,314 cubic meters of concrete and masonry work was completed, and 130 meters track were laid. 1,679,793 leva wages were used, totaling 313,365,208 leva. During the war, the German company Told built in the Bulgarian-controlled region in Kosovo the narrow-gauge line Shtrъbtse Kachanik with a length of 32 km, which was purchased by the Bulgarian Railways for 80,000,000 leva <a href="#ref77">[77]</a>. At the line Momchilgrad-Gyumyurdzina only 40 km were surveyed and 16.6 km were built, altogether worth123,840,899 leva <a href="#ref78">[78]</a>.</p><p>After 1944, the lines in Pirin Macedonia were completed. The standard line Krupnik-Kulata became operational, but although it was ready during the war to the south towards Demir Hisar, it was not connected, and remained interrupted until 1965, when it was opened after a Bulgarian-Greek agreement. The last stretch of narrow-gauge line along the river Mesta from Bansko to Dobrinishte with a length of 6.8 km was built <a href="#ref79">[79]</a>. The projected Kumanovo-Gueshevo line saw some sporadic work until 1947 when the project was frozen until present time. In 2015 began construction of the stretch Kumanovo-Belyakovtse with the length of 32 km. An extension of this line to Kriva Palanka with 50 bridges and 24 tunnels is planned. The last and most difficult is the stretch Kriva Palanka-Gueshevo all of which goes through mountains. The pre-project investigations show that 100 tunnels with different lengths has to be bored with very dense ordering tunnel-bridge-tunnel. Cost and time for building are still unclear. There are also some ecological problems because the line crosses woodlands. Because of the huge boring and earthworks the cost is projected to exceed 1 billion euro. Whether this project will become a reality depends again on political interests and the approval of Europe ("the Great Powers"). It is doubtful if Serbia and Greece will be very happy from closer ties and stronger economic relations between Bulgaria and Vardar Macedonia.</p>
<div style="float: left; font-size: 0.8em; padding-right: 15px; width: 320;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="340" data-original-width="392" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhH5unlPz6wPcsCNEZPb9rRpRV7QaalYfWv8AjA3PieFCiOddV9H_q8waFqtro6aApk4t2czG24l5P7CsnrP3lE2SuiDY4VDyD-xhR7IxvpUsIaXf9T0o0NXqCwJFkGQBXB-WDVfbblsD4xFaiHoyjrUg7rOBqvRVmALmih9K6OB1_-2BKOOs8cfpjixQ/s320/Sofia-Skopie.jpg" width="320" /> <br />Remains on the Macedonian side of the Sofia-Skopie <br />line built by the Tsardom of Bulgaria in 1942.</div>
<p>The net investment in the new lands, contributed by Bulgaria amounted to 38,600,000,000 leva. The total amount invested in railway construction by the Ministry of Public Buildings, Roads and Public Works was 2,297,801,288 leva, which is two thirds of the about 3,500,000,000 leva spent on construction by this institution <a href="#ref80">[80]</a>. Together with the line Karasuli-Kilindir worth 65,000,000 leva financed by the budget of the Ministry of Railways, Posts and Telegraphs, the total reached 2,362,801,288 leva. Of these, with the exception of two sites – in Western Thrace and Kosovo, which cost a total of 203,840,899 leva, in Macedonia were spent 2,158,960,389 leva or over 91% of total investments. This amount is about 5.6% of the net 38,600,000,000 leva invested by Bulgaria in its controlled lands in the period 1941-1944. This achievement is comparable to WWI, when also about 90% of the railways were built in Macedonia.</p><h1>Conclusions</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">The construction of connecting lines occupied a central place in the Bulgarian railway policy. Despite the provisional status of the new territories, the risk of its change was not taken into account and the implementation of a major program was started. Several reasons justify its development, allowing for the admission of various hypotheses. It was influenced by accumulated failures in the past, among which stand out the delay in construction along the River Struma Valley towards the border with Greece. In another starting position similar to that of the Decauville it would be possible to complete the priority connection to the Aegean at Demir Hisar. Significantly different events could occur if it was approached according to the assessment of a number of professionals and public figures and instead of four sites, the efforts were focused on two sites.</div><div id="colTwo"> <p>Weaknesses can also be found in the prior provision of imported materials, which in time of war are much more difficult to obtain, and in the organization of labor resources. This criticism applies in full force on projects in the old borders of the Tsardom, while the situation in the new lands was significantly more dynamic. Ignoring the wartime territorial status quo and its perception as the final position entailed an euphoric and ambitious policy. Resources were spread over several sites instead of focusing on key priorities. The results are a fact, but they have lower quality attributes than if the successful completion of major projects was achieved. The Bulgarian railway construction policy was formulated and managed by the Government and the Monarch, while the Parliament had to play a minor role. Political motives were put in the foreground, pushing aside economic conditions and technical specifications. Weaknesses affected the achievement, but after the Liberation only in the two world wars Bulgaria had the opportunity to develop its own railway construction in Macedonia. A direct link between Sofia and the Aegean was achieved. </p><div class="image" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DhqTUPnpDfA/TZfrTS0MoTI/AAAAAAAAGMg/I3uIqOhpYe4/s400/gyueshevo-kumanovo+012.jpg" width="420" /></div><p>Efforts in 1941-1944, however, did not give the expected result. Despite the almost ready for normal operation line along the Struma and the operating Decauville the Aegean railway communications were interrupted after restoration of Greek sovereignty in the region. Attempts to renew the work on sites in Vardar Macedonia also failed. After the war, Bulgaria again had no direct rail connection to the network in the geographical area of Macedonia.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Notes and references</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">
<a name="ref†">†</a> The standard gauge is 1,435 mm (4'8½''). Anything below it is narrow gauge. Decauville railways are the narrowest gauge, usually 600 mm (1'11⅝''); the first Decauvilles were 400 mm (15¾''), and then 500 mm (19¾'').
<p><a name="ref">*</a> The material has been published in: Scientific Proceedings of Law and History Faculty of the Southwestern University "Neophyte Rilski", year 6, vol. 1-2, Blagoevgrad, 2010, pp. 225-239.</p>
<p><a name="ref">**</a> Ph.D. Dr. Angel Dzhonev is author and coauthor of several books. The last of them was <i><b><a href="http://www.knigabg.com/index.php?page=book&id=16998">Macedonia in the railway policy of Bulgaria (1878-1918)</a></b></i>.</p><p>
<a name="ref1"> 1. </a>Central State Archives (CSA), f. 176k, op. 8 a.e. 931, l. 61; see the actions taken in more detail in: The National Liberation movement of the Macedonian and Thracian Bulgarians from 1878 to 1944. Vol. 4. Sofia, 2003, 344-361.</p><p><a name="ref2"> 2. </a>Dzhonev, A. Macedonia in the railway policy of Bulgaria (1878-1918). Thesis. Sofia, 2007.</p><p><a name="ref3"> 3. </a>CSA, f. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 1024, l. 1b.</p><p><a name="ref4"> 4. </a>Rail transport in Bulgaria. Sofia, 1987, 52-53; Deyanov, D. Railway network in Bulgaria from 1866 to 1975. Sofia, 2005, p. 172.</p><p><a name="ref5"> 5. </a>Zora, issue 6577, 20 May 1941.; Issue 6610, July 1, 1941.; Issue 6613, July 4, 1941; Gornev, R. Railways in Skopie railway area. - Review of the state railways and ports in Bulgaria, 1942, No. 1-2, 4-24; No. 3-4, 16-29; No. 5-6, 39-50.</p><p><a name="ref6"> 6. </a>Zora, issue 6629, July 12, 1941; Gornev, R. Railways in Aegean Thrace and eastern Macedonia. - Review of the state railways and ports in Bulgaria, 1943, No. 3-4, 28-38; No. 5-6, 11-18. </p><p><a name="ref7"> 7. </a>CSA, f. 176k, op. 8 a.e. 1057, l. 6-12.</p><p><a name="ref8"> 8. </a>CSA, f. 307, op. 25 a.e. 45 l 308-309.</p><p><a name="ref9"> 9. </a>Ibid, L. 371-372.</p><p><a name="ref10"> 10. </a>Bulgaria as wayward ally of the Third Reich. Sofia, 1992, p. 63. (compiler V. Toshkova)</p><p><a name="ref11"> 11. </a>Diplomatic documents on the participation of Bulgaria in World War II. Logs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the governments of Georgi Kiosseivanov, Professor Bogdan Filov, Dobri Bojilov, Ivan Bagrianov, Konstantin Muraviev (1939-1944). Sofia, 2006, 236-237. (Compiled by Ts. Biliarsky, I. Gezenko)</p><p><a name="ref12"> 12. </a>Bulgaria as a wayward ally of the Third Reich, p. 78; Noykov, St., V. Radev. King Boris III in the secret documents of the Third Reich from 1939 to 1943. Sofia, 1995, p. 155.</p><p><a name="ref13"> 13. </a>CSA, f. 176k, op. 8 a.e. 1057, l. 1, 3, 19-26, 35, 37, 39-40, 42, 48-55; Diplomatic documents on the participation of Bulgaria in the Second World War, p. 214, 235-236.</p><p><a name="ref14"> 14. </a>Bogdan Filov. Dnevnik. Sofia, 1990, pp. 493, Dimitrov, I. Bulgarian-Italian political relations from 1922 to 1943. Sofia, 1996, 357-359.</p><p><a name="ref15"> 15. </a>CSA, f. 176k, op. 8 a.e. 1120, l. 89-94. </p><p><a name="ref16"> 16. </a>Sazdov, D., P. Penchev. Danube Bridge: 100 years diplomacy and politics. Sofia, 2006, 143-144.</p><p><a name="ref17"> 17. </a>Bulgaria as a wayward ally of the Third Reich p. 56, 188, 201, 203, 219, 236.</p><p><a name="ref18"> 18. </a>History of the Kyustendil District organization of the BCP. Sofia, 1984, pp. 341, 345.</p><p><a name="ref"> 19. </a>Toshkova, V. Draft of the U.S. Department of State by December 1943 for control of Macedonia after World War II. - Centuries, 1979, No. 5, 65-66.</p><p><a name="ref"> 20. </a>Archive of the Ministry of Interior, Ob-1156, L. 82-87.</p><p><a name="ref21"> 21. </a>Zora, issue 6596, May 10, 1941; Shorthand records of the 25 NA, II extraordinary session, fifth session, July 13, 1941 Sofia, 1942, pp. 131.133.</p><p><a name="ref22"> 22. </a>Nedkov, T. The Aegean and Macedonian railway networks. - Our Railways, 1941, No. 8-9, 3-5; Balevski, K. Fast and overall organization of the building and management of newly projected railways. - Review of the state railways and ports in Bulgaria, 1941, No. 5-6, 185-191; Danchov, Y. New Railway lines for the liberated areas. - Journal of Bulgarian engineers and architects, 1941, No. 9, 122-124; A. Prahov. New railway lines connecting the Aegean Thrace and Macedonia with Bulgaria. - Journal of Bulgarian engineers and architects, 1941, No. 10, 142-145.</p><p><a name="ref23"> 23. </a>A. Prahov Ibid. cit., 142-145.</p><p><a name="ref24"> 24. </a>CSA, f. 1335k, op. 1 a.e. 145 l 1. </p><p><a name="ref25"> 25. </a>Bogdan Filov. Diary ..., p. 355.</p><p><a name="ref26"> 26. </a>Shorthand records of 25 NA, II extraordinary session, fifth session, July 13, 1941 ..., 131-138.</p><p><a name="ref27"> 27. </a>Ibid, sixth session, July 14, 1941, pp. 156.</p><p><a name="ref28"> 28. </a>Zora, issue 6647, August 14, 1941</p><p><a name="ref29"> 29. </a>Ibid, issue 6658, August 27, 1941</p><p><a name="ref39"> 30. </a>CSA, f. 1335k, op. 1 a.e. 146 l 1-4; Danchov, J. op. cit., s. 123; Balevski, K. op. cit., s.189.</p><p><a name="ref31"> 31. </a>Zora, issue 6596, May 10, 1941 </p><p><a name="ref32"> 32. </a>Ibid, issue 6573, May 15, 1941</p><p><a name="ref33"> 33. </a>Ibid, issue 6588, June 4, 1941</p><p><a name="ref34"> 34. </a>Ibid, issue 6592, June 8, 1941</p><p><a name="ref35"> 35. </a>Ibid, issue 6637, August 2, 1941</p><p><a name="ref36"> 36. </a>Ibid, issue 6642, August 8, 1941, issue. 6651, August 19, 1941 </p><p><a name="ref37"> 37. </a>Ibid, issue 6694, October 10, 1941</p><p><a name="ref38"> 38. </a>Ibid, issue 6736, November 30, 1941</p><p><a name="ref39"> 39. </a>Ibid, issue 6743, December 9, 1941; Deyanov, D. op. cit., s. 191.</p><p><a name="ref40"> 40. </a>Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (AMVnR) u. Paris Peace Conference (PLA), Op. 1 mo. 6 a.e. 108 l 128.</p><p></p></div><div id="colTwo"><p><a name="ref41"> 41. </a>Filov B. Way of Bulgaria. In the great tests of greatness and progress. Sofia, 1941, pp. 33.</p><p><a name="ref42"> 42. </a>Zora, issue 6746, December 12, 1941</p><p><a name="ref43"> 43. </a>Vassilev, D. Bulgaria in the works. Sofia, 1942, 40-41; Zora, issue 6772, January 17, 1942 </p><p><a name="ref44"> 44. </a>CSA, f. 176k, op. 8 a.e. 1060, l. 2-3.</p><p><a name="ref45"> 45</a> State Gazette, issue 78, April 14, 1942</p><p><a name="ref46"> 46. </a>CSA, f. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 1006 l 1a.</p><p><a name="ref47"> 47. </a>Diplomatic documents for the participation of Bulgaria in the Second World War ..., p. 193.</p><p><a name="ref48"> 48. </a>State Gazette. 88 April 25, 1942</p><p><a name="ref49"> 49. </a>State Gazette. 148 July 9, 1942; Diplomatic documents for the participation of Bulgaria in the Second World War ..., 299-300.</p><p><a name="ref50"> 50. </a>Radoslavov G., On the rail crossroads between East and West in the Balkans. (On the issue of construction of the railway network in southwestern Bulgaria.). - In: Postwar Bulgaria between East and West. Sofia, 2005, 297-299.</p><p><a name="ref51"> 51. </a>Deyanov, D. op. cit., s. 191.</p><p><a name="ref52"> 52. </a>AMVnR, u. PLA, a.e. 633, l. 37; Brief History of building troops of Bulgaria from 1920 to 2000. Sofia, 2000, p. 92, 98, 101, 107, 111, 113.</p><p><a name="ref53"> 53. </a>CSA, f. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 1016, l. 1.</p><p><a name="ref54"> 54. </a>CSA, f. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 1122, l. 1a.</p><p><a name="ref55"> 55. </a>SA, Kyustendil, f. 25k, op. 1 a.e. 124 l 26-28, 89.</p><p><a name="ref56"> 56. </a>Jews died in the struggle against fascism. Sofia [1958], pp. 244.</p><p><a name="ref57"> 57. </a>Lieutenant General Nikola Mihov. Diary 19 September 1943-7 September 1944 Sofia, 2004, p. 96. (Preface and notes Ts. Biliarsky).</p><p><a name="ref58"> 58. </a>CSA, f. 316k, op. 1 a.e. 313, l. 69.</p><p><a name="ref59"> 59. </a>Lieutenant General Nikola Mihov. Diary ..., p. 16.</p><p><a name="ref60"> 60. </a>Ibid, pp. 36; Toshkova C. The foreign policy of the Government of Dobri Bozhilov (September 1943-May 1944). - Historical Review, 1974, No. 2, p. 27; same. Bulgaria and the Third Reich. Sofia, 1975, p. 172.</p><p><a name="ref61"> 61. </a>CSA, f. 678k, op. 3 a.e. 65 l 74-78; Danchov, J. op. cit., 123-124.</p><p><a name="ref62"> 62. </a>For the technical parameters of the section-Kumanovo-Shopsko Rudari see in more detail: CSA, f. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 998, a.e. 1021, a.e. 1027. </p><p><a name="ref63"> 63. </a>Zora, issue 6796, February 17, 1942, CSA, f. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 1017, l. 1.</p><p><a name="ref64"> 64. </a>CSA, f. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 1017, l. 1-5, a.e. 644 l 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 32, 54, 57, 71, 79, 80, 116, 119, 120, 123, 232, Deyanov, D. The railroad Gyueshevo-Kriva Palanka-Kumanovo-expects completion already 50 years . - Rail, 1993, No. 6, 22-26.</p><p><a name="ref65"> 65. </a>CSA, f. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 643, l. 1-7, a.e. 645; Zora, issue 6852, April 28, 1942</p><p><a name="ref66"> 66. </a>Kyustendil News issue 22 October 15, 1943, CSA, f. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 644 l 127.</p><p><a name="ref67"> 67. </a>A Brief History of building troops of Bulgaria ..., p. 91st</p><p><a name="ref68"> 68. </a>State Archives - Kumanovo, Macedonia, f. 113, op. 2 a.e. 337, L. 429-430, a.e. 434, l. 452, a.e. 346, l. 4; a.e. 347, l. 5; a.e. 348, l. 5; a.e. 351, l. 32 SA-Kyustendil, f. 25k, op. 1 a.e. 124 l 89.</p><p><a name="ref69"> 69. </a>SA Kyustendil, f. 25k, op. 1 a.e. 125 l 7, 49-51.</p><p><a name="ref70"> 70. </a>State Archives - Kumanovo, Macedonia, u. 113, op. 1 a.e. 207, l. 6, 28, 29, a.e. 62 L. 171-172; a.e. 63, l. 173; a.e. 131 l 246.</p><p><a name="ref71"> 71. </a>CSA, f. 307, op. 84 a.e. 6, l. 2-5, 12-13, 18a., U. 157k, op. 1 a.e. 1007, a.e. 1023.</p><p><a name="ref72"> 72. </a>Todorov, T. The work of the Bulgarian Workers' Party of revolutionizing the army labor service (1941-1944). - Military collection, 1989, No. 6, pp. 88 91 A Brief History of building armies of Bulgaria ..., p. 91st</p><p><a name="ref73"> 73. </a>Gornev, R. Restoration of railroad Karasuli-Kilindir (Polikastron-Kilindiya). - Review of the state railways and ports in Bulgaria, 1944, No. 3-4, 21-27; Brief History of building troops of Bulgaria ..., p. 102.</p><p><a name="ref74"> 74. </a>AMVnR, u. PLA, op. 1 mo. 6 a.e.108, L. 132.</p><p><a name="ref75"> 75. </a>Deyanov, D. The railway network in Bulgaria ..., s. 196.</p><p><a name="ref76"> 76. </a>AMVnR, u. PLA, op. 1 mo. 6 a.e.108, L. 128.</p><p><a name="ref77"> 77. </a>Ibid, L. 123-124.</p><p><a name="ref78"> 78. </a>Ibid, L. 128.</p><p><a name="ref79"> 79. </a>Rail transport in Bulgaria ..., s. 43, 53.</p><p><a name="ref80"> 80. </a>AMVnR, u. PLA, op. 1 mo. 6 a.e. 108 l 123-124.</p> </div></div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-5801966263099790322013-05-07T06:07:00.004-07:002022-11-01T07:40:47.203-07:00Historical Kosovo<div id="content"><div id="colOne"><div class="image"><p><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m3Wvgsl1NV4/WWuGdITf3XI/AAAAAAAAFjg/rIfME9ia0xQt5y2VJEU2G2KD1bHSiaZOQCKgBGAs/s1600/Vidovdanski_hram.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Vidovdanski hram project" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m3Wvgsl1NV4/WWuGdITf3XI/AAAAAAAAFjg/rIfME9ia0xQt5y2VJEU2G2KD1bHSiaZOQCKgBGAs/s1600/Vidovdanski_hram.jpg" width="410" /></a></p><p>The main interior of the unrealised Vidovdan temple.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
</div></div><div id="colTwo"><div class="image"><p><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uJxs1qrEmeY/WWuG8j19FKI/AAAAAAAAFjk/3CdxG_IYJr842uVXr7Usc42wI_XWiN7NQCKgBGAs/s1600/2043533726_89dbc7da5b.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Caryatids" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uJxs1qrEmeY/WWuG8j19FKI/AAAAAAAAFjk/3CdxG_IYJr842uVXr7Usc42wI_XWiN7NQCKgBGAs/s1600/2043533726_89dbc7da5b.jpg" /></a></p><p>Ivan Meštrović. Caryatids. A fragment design from Vidovdan temple-to-be.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">A triumphing defeat</h1>
<div id="colOne"><div class="image"><p><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JXT4QPqPt98/WWuHhRX-QdI/AAAAAAAAFjo/sd387J3TTsMmmiqlunmgZEZrM3_nK2Q-ACKgBGAs/s1600/vidovdanski_hram3.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Mock-up Vidovdan temple" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JXT4QPqPt98/WWuHhRX-QdI/AAAAAAAAFjo/sd387J3TTsMmmiqlunmgZEZrM3_nK2Q-ACKgBGAs/s1600/vidovdanski_hram3.jpg" width="420" /></a></p><p>A mock-up of Vidovdan temple.</p></div><p>One can seldom find a Serbian book or epic song that fails to mention <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Myth" target="_blank">Vidovdan or Kosovo</a>.</p><p>For Serbs, Kosovo is not the place where the Serbian state was destroyed eaten by internal disorders, quarrels, and treasons. It is not one of the darkest pages of Serbian history in which the two sons-in-law of tsar Lazar – Miloš Obilić and Vuk Branković, allured by their desire to get the tsar's crown behaved in a way that should make each Serb blush with shame. But no, for Serbs Kosovo is a sacred relic, the only historic event that makes them proud before the world.</p><p>Moreover, while the treason of the second Lazar's son-in-law was still unknown and amongst the leaders was spread the rumour about the relations with Sultan Murad of the elder son-in-law, Miloš Obilić, whom Lazar exposed as a liar in the eve of Vidovdan as Judas was exposed; instead, this second Judas in Serb memory was elevated to the height of a legendary folk hero only because his guilty conscience led him the very same night to the Sultan's tent where he made the <q>great feat</q> of basely killing Murad with the knife hidden under his clothes on the pretext to tell him something secret.</p><p>It's everywhere and always this <q>classical</q> Kosovo for whose <q>historical memory</q> a magnificent monumenal temple (Vidovdan temple) was designed, some of whose details are reproduced here.</p>
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3ssvAdGRFm0/WWuH1Bj7NnI/AAAAAAAAFjs/ONBm0LTVjcYrAxfMrUOPXiKohmWcyQetQCKgBGAs/s1600/3174392779_d42d5f1908_o.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Vidovdan Temple" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3ssvAdGRFm0/WWuH1Bj7NnI/AAAAAAAAFjs/ONBm0LTVjcYrAxfMrUOPXiKohmWcyQetQCKgBGAs/s1600/3174392779_d42d5f1908_o.jpg" width="410" /></a> </div><div id="colTwo"><p>In 1905-1906 Ivan Meštrović in Vienna made his first sketches for the Kosovo cycle consisting of hundreds of sculptures, telamones, caryatids, sphinxes, of the heroes and widows that were intended for representation at the Vidovdan Temple, which was to be the imposing crown of the cycle. He completed most of these sculptures in Paris and for the first time showed them at the 1910 Vienna Secession Exhibition.</p><p>The ages should know and remember the greatness of the <q>classical</q> Serbian Kosovo. </p><p>Just look at the fragments of this never-to-be-built temple-monument: caryatids, sphinxes, obelisks, bas-reliefs, which remind the ancient magnificence of Assiria, Babylon, Egypt, and Athens.</p><p>A wooden scale model of the Temple was shown in Rome in 1911 on an exhibition to mark the 50th anniversary of unification of Italy. The actual Temple was to have been 250 meters long with a 10- meter tall bell-tower. Inspired by Kosovo legends, Meštrović’s idea was to place the sculptures of lions at the temple entrance along the staircase and the sculptures of falcons on the portal. Two rows of caryatids placed along the corridor represented the mothers, sisters, wives and fiancées of the Kosovo heroes such as Miloš Obilić, who with his mighty swing, appears as capable of slashing through anything standing in his way, and Srdja Zlopogledja, whose head symbolizes suffering and desire for revenge.</p><p>The Battle of Kosovo was to have been illustrated by over 100 sculptures and paintings at the structure’s center. Part abstract, the white figures on a tall tower were to symbolize the souls of Kosovo heroes. For this exhibition Meštrović had prepared numerous sketches for the stone reliefs and the fresco friezes depicting various scenes from the Battle of Kosovo as well as a large number of small and big figures of heroes. In Rome, he exhibited imposing sculptures intended for the Temple, including those of Marko Kraljević (who did not participate in Kosovo Battle but was a Turkish ally then), Srdja Zlopogledja, Miloš Obilić as well as of the mothers and widows of the Kosovo heroes …</p><p>Meštrović's wooden scale model of the Temple had a monumental entrance - resembling a triumphal arch - that led to a peristyle and then to the domed-central structure section encircled by a periptero and a bell-tower next to it with columns depicting the Kosovo heroes.</p><p>Sounds as an irony – a triumphal arch on a temple commemorating a disgraceful defeat! But this monstrosity was not destined to be built.</p><p>In the period before WWI, Serbia took the idea of carrying out the Vidovdan Temple building project seriously. To these ends, a State Committee for the Serbian and Yugoslav Art was set up and its program of activities included the construction of the Temple at Gazimestan. However, with the arrival of WWI all activities ground to a stop.</p><p>When the war ended and a new state was established, the circumstances within the country had changed and the funds needed for the construction of the Temple appeared not to be the only obstacle. Meštrović himself changed his mind about his ethnic affiliation. After the creation of Yugoslavia, he turned rather to Zagreb and Split than to Belgrade.</p><p>Meštrović was aware that the construction of the Temple under his precepts would take a long time – generations even – and that it called for a tremendous endeavor to see through. According to some post-WWII assessments, the construction of the Vidovdan Temple would have cost over 300 million dollars.</p><p>By the way, this is not and cannot be a historical price of Kosovo, nor an expression of the <q>original culture</q> of Serbia; these are foreign motifs of temple elements over which Serbian sculptors toiled because they were ordered from them. Rather, these are symbols of an insane <q>state idea</q>.</p>
<div class="image"><p><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lI6Q-gQcU1E/WWuIajGHVqI/AAAAAAAAFjw/iVKODJBI3lMkd9cIuzRGVj6rx3BtDsuKwCKgBGAs/s1600/jr_12_2010_4_05_b.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Vidovdanski hram" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lI6Q-gQcU1E/WWuIajGHVqI/AAAAAAAAFjw/iVKODJBI3lMkd9cIuzRGVj6rx3BtDsuKwCKgBGAs/s1600/jr_12_2010_4_05_b.jpg" width="410" /></a></p><p>Row of caryatids.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">A story of treason</h1><div id="colOne"><p>Let's briefly outline here what is Kosovo in reality and what is its true historical value.</p><p>In popular interpretation it was defeat at the Battle of Kosovo which brought about the disintegration of the medieval Serbian empire. Careful analysis of the post-Dušan era, however, demonstrates that the empire, this <q>historical accident</q> <a href="#ref2">[2]</a>, had already collapsed long before the battle. During the years of Tsar Uroš's reign (1355-71) the authority which the Nemanjić dynasty represented was completely undermined by powerful lords who succeeded in governing their territories quite independently of their tsar. With Uroš's death in 1371 the Nemanjić dynasty became extinct; and in the eighteen years which separate his death and the Battle of Kosovo the struggle for territorial aggrandizement among the nobility of Serbia only continued.</p><p>We'll use a Serbian source: <i>Historical Pictures</i> by Stanoj Bošković <a href="#ref1">[1]</a> which, though written as fiction and permeated with patriotic feeling, lacks the chauvinism of later Serbian writers and <q>historians</q> (Bošković died in 1864).</p><p>In the eve of the historical Vidovdan at Kosovo, two enemy armies were already stalking each other – the Turks led by Sultan Murad took positions behind Priština, near the river Sitnica while the Serbs led by Tsar Lazar took positions on the other shore of Sitnica and along the river Gračanica.</p><p>In this last and unequal battle had to be decided not only the fate of Serbia but that of the whole Balkan Peninsula.</p><p>Could Serbs fulfill this great historical task as <q>representatives</q> of all Southern Slavs, given their unstable state in order to dream about supremacy on the Balkans? Well, this was their only historical opportunity.</p><p><q>Tsar Lazar had fully prepared his people to fight</q> <a href="#ref1">[1], p. 76</a>. In addition, his army included other nationalities: Croats, Bulgarians (Branichevtsi), Slovenes, Montenegrins, Bošniaks led by King Tvrdko, and Romanians led by Mirčo voevoda, all of them eager to take a decisive stand against the new invaders of the Balkans. Sultan Murad, although with a more numerous army, was worried about the outcome of the forthcoming battle; that's why he wanted to take advantage of the proposed treason by the closest relatives of Tsar Lazar, and, as we'll see below, he knew in detail the position and strength of his enemies.</p><p>In the fateful night Tsar Lazar called together the last boyar council in his tent.</p><blockquote>Darkness enveloped as a dough the two armies in a black cover. Dense clouds hovered over Priština and Gračanica and layered on the Kosovo Field. <a href="#ref1">[1], p. 77</a></blockquote><p>Tsar Lazar was deeply worried. The news about the hideous treason committed by his elder son-in-law Miloš Obilić reached him, despaired him, and at the same time embittered him. His state did not have so many lands as Murad took from the former Dušan Kingdom. Very small regions were left under his rule: Mačva, Srem, part of Slavonia, Braničevo, Resava, Nišava, Raška, and Primoria while at the same time Murad had conquered the whole Macedonia, part of Thrace, the whole Thessaly, Epirus, Aetolia, Acarnania, and Albania.</p><p>Meanwhile, <q>Bulgaria which lived in peace and love with Serbia</q> <a href="#ref1">[1], p. 82</a> and which <q>was the foremost Serbian ally had to fall without receiving the promised help</q> <a href="#ref1">[1], p. 112</a>. Tărnovo and the glorious fortresses Ovech (Lovech), Nikopol and Dorostol fell into Turkish hands.</p><p>Lazar sat in deep reverie. Next to him was the old voevoda Jug-Bogdan with his nine sons Jugovići who took both wings of the tsar's table. Around Lazar sat the five voevodas and in their midst was the elder tsar's son-in-law Miloš Obilić. Next to the left tsar's knee sat ban Strahil, next to him voevoda Musić and the two closest friends of Miloš, Milan Topoličanin and Ivan from Kosajnica. Next to the right Lazar's knee sat his favourite, the youger tsar's son-in-law Vuk Branković. The Serb historian doesn't mention (perhaps because it is obscured by time) another circumstance: the soul of the elder son-in-law Miloš Obilić was possessed by the same hellish plot as that of the younger son-in-law Vuk Branković. The first, as eldest, had more right on the throne; however, everything shows that the tsar's favourite was Vuk to whom the command of the right flank of the Serb army was entrusted. Envy and antagonism secretely enticed both of them to an equal degree to commit treason so that each one make friends with Sultan Murad and take the Serbian throne after the Turk victory.</p><p>Debates and arguments erupt: how to attack the enemy. The tsar takes his cup and drinks to the health of his betrayor: the son-in-law Miloš Obilić. The latter is unmasked by this, he stands up and disappears in the dark night.</p><p>A dramatic moment.</p>
<div class="image"><p><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cm2eF5EAia4/WWuKsqJykwI/AAAAAAAAFkI/vyloyaKV8VACsx9ibWmWa20mUnb75YTgACKgBGAs/s1600/serbia21.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Milos Obilic, exposed as traitor, swears to kill Murat" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cm2eF5EAia4/WWuKsqJykwI/AAAAAAAAFkI/vyloyaKV8VACsx9ibWmWa20mUnb75YTgACKgBGAs/s1600/serbia21.jpg" width="420" /></a></p><p>Miloš Obilić, exposed as traitor, swears to kill Murat.</p></div><p>But the Serbs don't see in the person of Miloš Obilić the guilty conscience of Judas who goes to hang himself after the betrayal committed by him; on the contrary, in his decision to go to his sure death in the Turkish camp and the Sultan tent to which he knew the password and the path even in the darkest night – in this Serbs see even today their selfless hero who sacrificed himself for the fatherland.</p>
<div class="image"><p><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-musx70R-HfM/WWuI9Qo5fyI/AAAAAAAAFj4/HCSKS8g5S1kvI2Xahs8hHrm7t2AwbSgNQCKgBGAs/s1600/Milos_Obilic.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="A traitor depicted as a hero" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-musx70R-HfM/WWuI9Qo5fyI/AAAAAAAAFj4/HCSKS8g5S1kvI2Xahs8hHrm7t2AwbSgNQCKgBGAs/s1600/Milos_Obilic.jpg" width="420" /></a></p><p>A traitor depicted as a hero.</p></div></div><div id="colTwo"><p>Early at dawn on Vidovdan sultan Murad was stabbed in the belly by Obilić whom he awited with trust and without any safeguard. At first, this causes a terrible confusion in the Turkish camp. Serbs, of course, knew nothing about the decision of their <q>national hero</q> in order to take immediate advantage from this act which would be decisive about the outcome of the battle.</p><p>Gradually, Turks pulled together; the leadership was taken by Haydar Pasha and the elder sultan's son Bayazid who lifted the spirit of the soldiers with the slogan of revenge. The exasperated Turks rushed against the Serbs. Success changed sides. Tsar Lazar's soldiers fougth bravely but Turks were no less persistent.</p><p>At one point, Turks pressed to cross Gračanica in order to step on the Kosovo belt that was occupied by the Serbs; they strived towards the Serb center.</p><blockquote><p>At the Turkish center stood the leader of archers Haydar Pasha and the two sultan sons took the two flanks. The left flank of the younger son Yakub began to ford the river.</p><p>The sultan son Yakub, with Ayne-beg and Sarădzha Pasha, had passed the waters of Sitnica and with this began the fight at the right Serb flank. The Serbs on this flank were led by Vuk Branković, helped by the old Jug-Bogdan with his nine Jugovići. <a href="#ref1">[1], p. 142</a> </p></blockquote>
<div class="image"><p><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-92gvZQt2UQc/WWuJUgXaH3I/AAAAAAAAFj8/ONMVk3MXXSM9gNQCJvV2f765JVTcrgndgCKgBGAs/s1600/800px-Kosovo_Fieldsvg.png" target="_blank"><img alt="Kosovo Field Map" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-92gvZQt2UQc/WWuJUgXaH3I/AAAAAAAAFj8/ONMVk3MXXSM9gNQCJvV2f765JVTcrgndgCKgBGAs/s1600/800px-Kosovo_Fieldsvg.png" width="420" /></a></p><p>The battle plan.</p></div><p>Turks, who knew the Serb positions and their command beforehand, expected so much from Serb betrayal as they expected from their own strength. So, against the right Serb flank, the young Murad son Yakub himself fought with the left Turk flank.</p><blockquote>Yakub could very well hope for the first victory counting on the betrayal of Vuk Branković. He knew that Vuk thought that the more favours he make to Turks the bigger present he'll get. Moreover, Yakub aspired to the sultan throne so he needed very much Vuk's help in order to take greater merits than his elder brother. <a href="#ref1">[1], p. 142</a></blockquote><p>Vuk Branković, of course, was ready for betrayal, because he, too, was allured by the tsar's crown.</p><blockquote><p>King Tvrdko intended to hit Bayazid with the left Serb flank in order to move the fight to the Turkish camp beyond Sitnica. But Bayazid suddenly avoided the attack. He slipped away and rushed to the rescue of his brother Yakub who was pressured by the Jugovići.</p><p>With this Bayazid achieved 3 things: first, he helped his his brother so as to remove him from the throne; second, he placed himself in the centre so as the whole battle turn around him; and third, he moved the fight to the left shore of Sitnica, in the Serbian camp, keeping his rear with the rivers Sitnica and Gračanica. <a href="#ref1">[1], p. 143</a></p></blockquote><p>But the real fight only begins. Yakub and Bayazid with the two Turkish flanks again rush against the Jugovići. A cruel fight develops ...</p>
<div class="image"><p><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-joe_WHkrU9w/WWuJqUsVbpI/AAAAAAAAFkA/HBwnJO-R6gg5l_baz_gbqowyOuVJS5t5wCKgBGAs/s1600/Battle_on_Kosovo1389.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Kosovo battle" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-joe_WHkrU9w/WWuJqUsVbpI/AAAAAAAAFkA/HBwnJO-R6gg5l_baz_gbqowyOuVJS5t5wCKgBGAs/s1600/Battle_on_Kosovo1389.jpg" width="420" /></a></p><p>The battle.</p></div><p>The whole battle should have occured at the right Serb flank to push back the already tired Yakub. But Jug and Jugovići are left alone and the poor Vuk not only deserted them in the most opportune moment but betrayed his tsar and his people. He retreated with his soldiers on the Goleš Mountain in the most favourable moment when he could have helped his people and finish this great battle on the two shores of Sitnica.</p><p>This act of Vuk was a death blow on the Serbs. The deserted Jugovići were defeated and Yakub won the victory on the right flank. He succeeded to unite with his brother Bayazid and help him against Lazar just as Bayazid helped him at the start against Jug and Vuk. And once the word spread among the troops that <q>Vuk betrayed the noble tsar</q> and that Yakub had won the first victory, it was enough to demoralise all Serbs. Lazar was encircled by both Tukish flanks. </p><p>And when Tvrdko set off for the Turk centre, the black rumour about Vuk killed the spirit of his fighters and he retreated with the hesitant Bošnyaks.</p><p>Meanwhile Lazar himself retreated. His warriors couldn't stop the retreating Serbs coming from all sides.</p><p>A big tumult and disorder reigned among Serbs. Turks stealed among the companies of Lazar, killed the horse under him and the tsar disappeared from view. Thinking that their leader was dead, Serbs were confused even more. Eventually, Lazar reappears, but now it is too late to repair the damage. The confusion continued. Noble bodies fall around the last tsar.</p><blockquote>Thus ended the Serb glory, thus perished the Serbian tsar name on this terrible Vidovdan. <a href="#ref1">[1], p. 150</a></blockquote><p>So, what else have to glorify Serbs at Kosovo but their helplessness, disgrace, and treason !?</p><p>Yes, and the heroism of Miloš Obilić. With the price of his blood, he atoned for his treachery and became <i>a legendary Serb hero</i> ...</p><p>Every other people would be ashamed to recognise as hero one who acts his <q>heroism</q> in such way. But Serbs are original on this occasion. This, despite the fact that no one doubts the betrayal of Miloš Obilić which was known to tsar Lazar and most of his noblemen.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1><div id="colOne"><p><a name="ref1">1.</a> Станоj Бошковић. 1882. Слике из српске историjе, Београд.</p><p><a name="ref2">2.</a> Флоринский, Тимотей. 1888. Памятники и законодательной деятелности Душана, Кiев.</p></div><div id="colTwo"></div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-11651343980412298462013-05-07T05:16:00.002-07:002022-10-20T12:04:33.557-07:00Morava Bulgarians in Serbian literature<div id="content"><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Literature is a reflection of real life, language, morals, customs, and temperament of a people. In this sense it is, so to speak, a <q>material evidence</q> of its whole spiritual life. The realistic Serbian literature at the turn of 19th c. documented the Bulgarian character of the population along Morava and Nišava.<span><a name='more'></a></span><p>The abovementioned lands which Serbs (whom the local Bulgarian population dubbed "Šumadians") considered as their <q>newly liberated</q> regions in 1877-78 and proclaimed as part of <q>Old Serbia</q> immediately striked Šumadians with their foreign <q>exotic southern nature</q> and the specificity of their population and they hastily started their assimilatory activities because Niš, Leskovac, Vranja, Prokuplje and Kuršumlija were at the gates of Macedonia and North Albania.</p><p>Before occupation of these lands, Serbs didn't hide that people who lived there were <i>Bugari</i> because the attention was concentrated on Austrian lands. But once settled in this Bulgarian region, at once, as by magic, the latter became <q>a part of Serbia</q> and the population turned out to be Serbs, speaking in some peculiar <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html"><q>eastern Serbian dialect</q></a> with <q>archaic Serbian forms</q>.</p><p>The Bulgarian Principality before its liberation was powerless to react against the separation and estrangement of these lands from the heart of Bulgaria.</p><p>But could Serbs in 5 decades, after all their efforts, obliterate the language, customs and morals of those whose ancestors in 1850s started the church struggle as a first step towards national liberation with a stubbornness possessed only by Bulgarians; could they assimilate those whose fathers rebelled in 1883 in the famous Zajčar rebellion spread over the whole Timok region and ready to break forth in the Morava region – a rebellion that reflected the spontaneous opposing feeling of the Bulgarian whose dream about San-Stefano Bulgaria did not come true?</p><p>Serbian literature answers this question. The realistic Serbian writers describe the life of Morava Bulgarians with well preserved Bulgarian types, Bulgarian morals, language, songs, proverbs, environment – the agitations and expressions of the Bulgarian national temperament.</p></div>
<div id="colTwo"><h3><i>Zona Zamfirova</i></h3><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bFLmJN848vA/WV_Kk0-ICsI/AAAAAAAAFZs/XSJ7GiGvc3kqsfq9UIQjX-tShfwzaqWUwCKgBGAs/s1600/zona-01.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Zona Zamfirova" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bFLmJN848vA/WV_Kk0-ICsI/AAAAAAAAFZs/XSJ7GiGvc3kqsfq9UIQjX-tShfwzaqWUwCKgBGAs/s1600/zona-01.jpg" width="420" /></a> <p></p>
<div class="image"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jEMHyfJ0HqU/WV_LGgsitJI/AAAAAAAAFZw/lzoC5fijOEAdYoc-JHedjQcye59mT11vQCKgBGAs/s1600/Nish-church.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Nish Church" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jEMHyfJ0HqU/WV_LGgsitJI/AAAAAAAAFZw/lzoC5fijOEAdYoc-JHedjQcye59mT11vQCKgBGAs/s1600/Nish-church.jpg" width="420" /></a> <p>A document from the <q>exotic Serbian South</q> <a href="#ref2">*</a> </p></div></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Borisav Stanković: the poet of Vranja</h1>
<div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><p></p><div class="image-left"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C5FG037zcwU/WV_Mt8X2eTI/AAAAAAAAFZ0/7I3Pg77qXmQL2XOiUol6m2euUsJIqGBdgCKgBGAs/s1600/BrankoRadicevic1.jpg" target="_blank"><img align="left" alt="Borisav Stankovic" border="0" height="220" hspace="10" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C5FG037zcwU/WV_Mt8X2eTI/AAAAAAAAFZ0/7I3Pg77qXmQL2XOiUol6m2euUsJIqGBdgCKgBGAs/s1600/BrankoRadicevic1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><p></p></div><p>Borisav Stanković (1876 – 1927) was born in the town of Vranja. The language of his native town left live and intact Bulgarian traces in his writing for which he was reproached by Serbian critics. And yet the talented Vranjanin got his way with his language. According to the <a href="#ref1">Serbian critic and esthete Skerlić </a> </p><blockquote>Borisav Stanković takes the first place among the modern Serbian writers. ... Before Borisav Stanković Serbian literature was limited to the northern and western Serbian regions. Stanković first introduced in the literature the southeastern Serbian lands, that part of <b>Old Serbia</b> [?] which Serbia liberated [!] in 1877-1878. He is a bard of that new picturesque and interesting exotic world, of his birthplace Vranja where he spent his childhood, that left the strongest and unforgettable memories and from which, in his stories, he cannot be set free. He does not sing about the present Vranja which is modernised [and Serbianised?] but about Vranja of the <q>old days</q>, the patriarchal people, with their narrow views but cordial life. He describes what he saw and felt, he usually describes people who really existed and events that really happened. ... There is in his description of Vranja life something very much Vranjanian, local, <b>interesting archaic Serbian dialect</b> [?]. Moreover, in all this realistic description of one of the Serbian nooks where many archaic and patriarchal elements are still preserved, there is also something very personal, impressionistic, lyrical ... In all his stories in which a struggle is going on between East and West, between the personality and the masses, passion and moral, dream and reality, poetry and prose of life, in all these things to which he could give magnitude and verse, Stanković always participated with all his open soul.</blockquote><p></p><h2><i>Old days</i></h2><p>And indeed, leaf through his uniquely affectionate <i>Stari dani</i> (Old days) and you will discover the whole soul of our Vranjanin who loves his local Bulgarian language despite the reproaches of Skerlić that his syntax was <q>faltering and the general literacy unsatisfactory</q> <a href="#ref1">Skerlić, p. 469</a>. Moreover, in his short stories you will discover such visions and pictures, such descriptions of old Vranja with its streets and high fences, large porches, yards with motley maiden gardens; so many dear memories about St. George's Day, about vintage time, etc., etc., that carry you to the memories of your own childhood and make you feel the beauty and breathe the air of the Bulgarian Vranja.</p>
<div class="image"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y7iIXTryEt0/WV_NiMP1giI/AAAAAAAAFZ4/1uMEgyFrllMUihisgfzOV-Dq3EcHKrYcQCKgBGAs/s1600/bora-stankovic-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Old Vranja" border="0" height="210" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y7iIXTryEt0/WV_NiMP1giI/AAAAAAAAFZ4/1uMEgyFrllMUihisgfzOV-Dq3EcHKrYcQCKgBGAs/s1600/bora-stankovic-1.jpg" width="420" /></a></div> <p>Let's briefly quote a little from <i>Stari dani</i> to show the reader the nature of that Stanković language in which indeed the Serbian syntax is quite faltering and which as a whole is <q>unsatisfactory</q>. These <q>flaws</q> are exactly what makes his narrative living and realistic:</p><p><q>Па кад <u>е истина, што долазиш</u>? <u>Што ме не оставиш</u> ... <u>Ето</u>, имаш жену, децу ... – Ех, не спомени ми. – Да, <u>ти имаш</u>, а jа? Па jош и то, да <u>нешто</u> он чуе, онда <u>где</u> чу jа, <u>где</u>? (p. 14)</q></p><p>– А <u>што</u>? <u>Ти ли си ми дала </u>...<br />
<q><u>Пукне ли</u> лето</q> ... (p. 49)</p><p>Снашка Паса ... пева стару песму: како кадън Стана у башту ишетала, <u>изгубила сърма-колан</u>, у сречу joj млад калуђер, нега набедила за колан и куне га:<br />
<q>Ако си <u>зел</u> срма-колан<br />
<u>Като колан да се виеш</u></q></p><p>The monk answers:</p><p><q>Не сам, Стано, жива била!<br />
Ако сам <u>зел сърма-колан</u>,<br />
<u>Като колан</u> да се виjем<br />
Око твоjа <u>снага</u> ...</q> (p. 84)</p><p>Another song:</p><p><q><u>Што</u> си, Лено, на големо<br />
Барем да си од колено?<br />
– Ако не сам од колено<br />
А jа имам црне очи<br />
Црне очи, <u>медна уста</u>.</q> (p. 64)</p><p><q>– Па да се ожениш. А да знаш <u>какво сам ти девоjче избрала</u></q> (p. 85)</p>
<div class="image"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aF3oxll2XL4/WV_OhUZRrsI/AAAAAAAAFZ8/uxaKeqFuRlUHK4oyqbjdm8fNZGhK_SlAwCKgBGAs/s1600/0c5a3600.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Nas bozic" border="0" height="300" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aF3oxll2XL4/WV_OhUZRrsI/AAAAAAAAFZ8/uxaKeqFuRlUHK4oyqbjdm8fNZGhK_SlAwCKgBGAs/s1600/0c5a3600.jpg" width="420" /></a></div><h2><i>Our Christmas</i></h2><p>The town of Vranja is on the road to Macedonia. Listening to the speech of the native population you could hear a very perceptible Bulgarian tonality of that dialect spoken in Macedonia.</p><p>Open <i>Naš Božić</i> (Our Christmas) and read about the Vranja Christmas which is very different from that Christmas which is celebrated in Šumadija.</p><p>The children impatiently await Christmas.</p><p><q><u>Море каков сан</u>? – Неделя ево како се не спава. <u>Те Божич дошао до Скопља</u>, сад jе у Прешево, па у Биљачи, и све ближе, ближе ко нама</q> ...</p><p>The Vranja Christmas comes along the same road on which the grandfathers, expelled by the Turkish rule from Skopje and Central Macedonia, came to Vranja and settled here. The children enjoy their new shoes with <q>buttons</q>. The mother, sleeves folded up to her elbows, the whole week tidies up, washes, beats the carpets, puts things in order. The bowls shine on the shelf. The table and the baking dishes are sheltered near the wall. The veranda is plastered with red clay and the window panes of the low father's house shine solemnly.</p><p>Christmas has already come. Pious people come back from church. Joy and satisfaction fill every house. Gypsy clarinets scream through the neighbourhood.</p><p>Sweetly sad memories.</p><p>The narrator, then just a small boy, comes back from church under his father's roof. The mother sits on the couch and broods. Tears fill her eyes. Ever since she was widowed, the holiday joys cannot be felt in this home. But suddenly she sees through the window Иван Паламар<u>ът</u> (Bulgarian definite article), a friend of the late host, approaching to bring a little joy to the silent house. He brings along the Gypsies.</p><p>This house, too, bursts with exultation. The clarinet shrieks, the tambourine starts madly beating and the sprightly Fatimè with the wide <i>shalwars</i> begins belly-dancing, cracking her henna-covered fingers, and singing with a female Gypsy alto:</p><p><q>Jа не жалим <u>снагата</u> моjа,<br />
Jа не жалим <u>снагата</u> моjа,<br />
Жалим <u>сърмали jелек</u> ...</q></p><p>And the mother, tears slowly dropping down her face, looks tenderly at her son as if to tell him:</p><p><q>– Божић, сине. <u>Видеш ли?</u></q> (In Serbian should be: <i>jе л'си видео</i>).</p>
<div class="image"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-duJPiyPQn_s/WV_O-T0p1aI/AAAAAAAAFaA/nZAaZR7mz9c3K7zU2MBhzay4-a_SyosRQCKgBGAs/s1600/dve-vatre.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bora Stankovic museum" border="0" height="420" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-duJPiyPQn_s/WV_O-T0p1aI/AAAAAAAAFaA/nZAaZR7mz9c3K7zU2MBhzay4-a_SyosRQCKgBGAs/s1600/dve-vatre.jpg" width="420" /></a> </div></div>
<div id="colTwo"><h2><i>Koštana</i></h2><div class="image-left"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2u6imjM-uR4/WV_Pk1pJHfI/AAAAAAAAFaE/A2Daf7bH0QExgBLPx5lezzYaqAnosWJ1ACKgBGAs/s1600/8849_JRJ_knjige.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Koštana" border="0" height="300" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2u6imjM-uR4/WV_Pk1pJHfI/AAAAAAAAFaE/A2Daf7bH0QExgBLPx5lezzYaqAnosWJ1ACKgBGAs/s1600/8849_JRJ_knjige.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><p>One of the good works of Borisav Stanković is his <i>Koštana</i> – a short novel which he subsequently re-worked in a play (<i>Dramska priča</i> published in 1905 in Serbian Karlovci)</p><p>To cut it brief, we won't go into the short novel <i>Koštana</i>, which abounds with many Bulgarian linguistic forms from the region of Vranja, but we'll take up his dramatised work in which the writer strived – according to Skerlić's recipy – <q>to correct his syntax and spelling</q>. Unfortunately, however, Stanković again remains incorrigible Bulgarian because he still uses many Vranjanian <q>local</q> words and idioms such as <q>уста да имаш, а език да немаш</q>, <q>ти си крива</q> (p. 8), <q>голема гора</q> (in Serbian <q>велика шума</q>, p. 18), etc. In order to be well understood by his readers in Šumadija, the author was compelled to make something like a dictionary in the footers of pages 19, 20, 22, 38, and others where he gives a translation of the Vranjanian words:</p><p>батка – старjи брат<br />
жал – бол, саучашће<br />
лош – рђав<br />
хубав – леп, мио, млад<br />
черпня – зељани суд<br />
бробиняк – мрав, etc.</p><p>The play <i>Koštana</i> presents the life of the poetic Vranja Region with its Vranjanian <q>Carmen</q> – a seductive young Gypsy named Koštana who disturbs the men of the whole town with her grace and dancing.</p>
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ms27uMaAMB0/WV_QyLEQReI/AAAAAAAAFaI/SIEeOKyWy5IL28SyD-DJxoxtumwrXtykgCKgBGAs/s1600/BoraStankovic_1_350.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bora Stankovic house" border="0" height="350" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ms27uMaAMB0/WV_QyLEQReI/AAAAAAAAFaI/SIEeOKyWy5IL28SyD-DJxoxtumwrXtykgCKgBGAs/s1600/BoraStankovic_1_350.jpg" width="420" /></a> <p>Stojan, the son of Hadji Toma, is hopelessly in love with the enchantress. His father is very angry about that. He insists that the mayor Arso take measures against the seductress by deporting her to Turkey or forcing her to marry to any Gypsy so that she settle down and the families in town live in peace. Hadji Toma is very worried about his son who runs after the Gypsies and dresses and feeds the <q>white world</q>.</p><p>– <u>Ето ти</u> твоj<u>а</u> Србиjа, – he speaks with indignation to the mayor of Vranja. This is it, Serbia, to whom <i>bai</i> Arso serves so zealously and to whom Vranjanins cannot easily reconcile.</p><p>But the mayor's brother Mitko is also in love with Koštana. He deserts his wife and children and is mad about her. In one scene Hadji Toma finds his son enjoying his time with friends, Koštana, and Gypsy clarinets far from the town, at the mill. Hadji Toma falls infuriated on his son and chases him away.</p><p>But ... those beautiful Gypsy eyes, that luxuriant hair, body, and gait little by little awake and excite his blood. So he takes the place of his son and continues the revelry. He even leads all, with the Gypsy clarinets and tambourines into the town and in his home.</p><p>The play is studded with many Bulgarian songs from Western Bulgaria and Macedonia. Thus, on p. 17:</p><p>Jа не жалим <u>снагата</u> моjа, џанум!<br />
Jа не жалим <u>снагата</u>,<br />
Жалим <u>сърмали jелек</u>, etc.</p><p>On p. 23:</p><p>Шта си, Лено, на големо<br />
Барем да си од колено, etc. <br />
(a popular song from Veles, Macedonia)</p><p>On p. 29:</p><p>Отвори ми бела Ленче<br />
вратънца, вратънца,<br />
Да ти видим, бело Ленче,<br />
устънца, устънца.<br />
– Не могу ти, пиле Миле,<br />
да станем, да станем,<br />
Маjка ми jе села, Миле<br />
на фустан, на фустан.</p><p>On p. 30:</p><p>Стоjане, море, Стоjане,<br />
Не ли смо пуста родбина,<br />
Где се jе чуло, разбрало<br />
Брат сестру, море да зема.<br />
– Стамено, море, Стамено,<br />
Стамено, китко пролетна,<br />
Не си ли чула, разбрала:<br />
Широко поле ход нема,<br />
Дубока вода брод нема,<br />
Ситно камене броj нема,<br />
Убава мома, мори, род нема.</p><p>On p. 32:</p><p>– Стани, Ванке, постани,<br />
Да ти зборам два збора;<br />
Да ти зборам два збора,<br />
Дори да те изгорам,<br />
Дори да те изгорам,<br />
За тоj твоje пръстенче;<br />
За тоj твоje пръстенче,<br />
С'с дванаест камена.</p><p>On p. 35:</p><p>Еj, ако те jе, пиле, мала моме,<br />
Жал за мене,<br />
Стани рано, пиле, мала моме,<br />
Испрати ме<br />
Море, испрати ме, пиле, мала моме,<br />
Накраj село<br />
Еj, накраj село, пиле, мала моме,<br />
У ливаде ...</p><p>On p. 43:</p><p>Да знаеш, моме мори, да знаеш,<br />
Каква jе жалба за младост,<br />
На порти би ме чекала,<br />
Од коња би ме скинала,<br />
У собу би ме унела ...<br />
Оф, аман-заман, младо девоjче,<br />
Изгоре ми срце за тебе.</p><p>On p. 54:</p><p>Механџи, море, механџи,<br />
Донеси вино, ракиjу,<br />
Да пиjем, да се опиjем<br />
Дертови да си разбиjем.</p><p>As we can see, the <q>spelling</q> of some songs is corrected here and there, for example:</p><p><q>Що си Лено на големо</q> became <q>шта си</q>; <q>не ли сме пуста родбина</q> became <q>не ли смо</q>; <q>Със дванаест камена</q> became <q>с'с дванаест</q>; <q>Донеси вино, ракия</q> became <q>Донеси вино, ракиjу</q>. The song</p><p>Море насред <u>село</u> шарена чешма<br />
течеше, аго, течеше,<br />
Море <u>на чешмата</u> <u>до две до три моми</u><br />
<u>стоеха</u>, аго, <u>стоеха</u>.</p><p>which is sung all over Macedonia, in <i>Dramska priča Koštana</i> is corrected <q>syntactically</q> thus:</p><p>Море насред <i>села</i> шарена чешма<br />
течеше, аго, течеше,<br />
Море <i>и на чешму</i> <i>дво до три моме</i><br />
<i>стоjашев</i>, аго, <i>стоjашев</i>.</p><p>And yet, all meticulous <q>spelling and syntactic corrections</q> failed to Serbianise the folk poetry of Vranja because its very existence is the transfer of rhythmic linguistic forms from mouth to mouth and from generation to generation. Indeed, one can guess the origin of the above quoted songs not only from their language but also from the voicing and the subject.</p><p>Thus, a Serb will never use definite article: снага – снага<u>та</u> (body – the body); and only снага without article in Serbian means <q>force</q> and not <q>body</q>; therefore, unlike чешмата, the <q>syntactic correction</q> spared снагата because Serbs would be confused. There is no idiom що си на големо in Serbian; apostrophe is put instead of every middle ъ in Bulgarian words: джан'м, с'с, etc.; Serbs do not use the words and phrases: разбирам, зборувам, пиле, испрати ме, да знаеш, за тебе, каква е жалба за младост, etc.</p>
<script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!--Bulgarian dialects, small-->
<ins class="adsbygoogle" data-ad-client="ca-pub-2877421315223432" data-ad-slot="5664959639" style="display: inline-block; height: 280px; width: 336px;"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script>
</div></div>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Stevan Sremac: the poet of Niš</h1><div class="two-columns">
<div id="colOne"><div class="image-left"><p><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QdsyxK5jR_A/WV_Rp6428rI/AAAAAAAAFaM/jVLTj1krvGYwXg7C_x3A4GnCHjB--fHhgCKgBGAs/s1600/Stevan_Sremac.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Stevan Sremac" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QdsyxK5jR_A/WV_Rp6428rI/AAAAAAAAFaM/jVLTj1krvGYwXg7C_x3A4GnCHjB--fHhgCKgBGAs/s1600/Stevan_Sremac.jpg" width="200" /></a></p></div><p>Stevan Sremac was born in 1855 in the town of Senti in the former Austrian province Bačka that was later incorporated in Yugoslavia. Only 13-years old he came to Belgrade where he graduated at high school and then at the Historical and Philological Department of the Belgrade University in 1878. After that Sremac was a teacher in Niš for a long time. It is very important here that Sremac, as a philologist, took seriously the linguistic aspect of his novels and novellettes of country life which he renders in such difficult <q>Niš dialect</q> that the Šumadians must use a special dictionary to understand it. </p><p>The Serbian criticist Skerlić, noting that Sremac began his writing activity in his mature years (as late as 1890), described him as <q>Niš poet who gave all his sympathy to the newly-liberated regions that preserved the old-time patriarchal life</q>. In Niš, Sremac spent dozens of his best and brightest years of his life. There, he started to write, as a <q>photo</q> of Niš life, his <i>Ivkova slava</i>, <i>Zona Zamfirova</i>, <i>Uncle Jurdan</i>, <i>Eksik-Adji</i>, etc.</p><blockquote>Stevan Sremac, a romantic in his soul, negligent to the cold and heartless [Serbian] West – as he stated himself – found in Niš immediately after the liberation a picturesque, exotic East where the old life, the old ideas conserved their influence. He felt very well among this eastern decorum and among the simple, cordial <q>people of the old mould</q> for whom life does not bear problems but only joy. He felt the poetry of old Niš and began to praise the mercurial living of the old and cheerful Nišlii. And he did this in an entertaining and picturesque manner, warmly and pleasantly, with many local colours, and often in the characteristic Niš dialect <a href="#ref1">Skerlić, p. 400</a></blockquote></div><div id="colTwo"><p>Additionally, Skerlić considers Sremac <q>a relist in the style of his writing</q> who <q>looks at life with attentive eye and who always writes in his notebook characteristic words, jokes, gestures, situations, expressions, songs, etc.</q> that gave to his compositions <q>a saturated local colour and complete realism. That's why the Niš life looks original and interesting and becomes a new world in the Serbian literature<a href="#ref1">Skerlić, pp. 401-402</a></q></p><p>The extent to which Stevan Sremac and Borisav Stanković are photographers of reality (let's not overlook this aspect of Serbian creative art) is shown by the fact that they described real events not hiding the names of their prototypes. Thus, bai Ivko of <i>Ivkova slava</i> is a real person. When the dramatised novel <i>Ivkova slava</i> was performed in Niš, bai Ivko stood up among the audience and approved or protested about some exaggerations or distortions. Also, Zona Zamfirova and her father – an old Niš <i>chorbadjia</i> – are well-known in the whole environs of the town.</p><p>Borisav Stanković's Koštana is also known in the whole environs of Vranja. When the play <i>Koštana</i> was first performed in Vranja, Hadji Toma was taken along to the theatre by his son and without a warning he saw on the stage another Hadji Toma disguised to an amazing likeness and was embarrassed. But his embarrassment passed all limits when he saw on the stage all his family and very clearly recognised his friends and Koštana. Extremely confused, he left the theatre cursing. Koštana, so seductive when young, lived to be old woman and died in the usual Gypsy misery.</p><p>One of the Stanković's aunts held a grudge with her imprudent nephew for a long time because he indulged in disgracing her in his books.</p><p>All this comes to show how precise and scrupulous were Borisav Stanković and Stevan Sremac as country life writers whose work gives us valuable and irrefutable linguistic materials.</p>
</div></div><h2 style="clear: both;"><i>Ivkova slava</i></h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><div class="image-left"><p><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dpJ6SIs1zQQ/WV_SNIeFkaI/AAAAAAAAFaQ/14esFNnUFsc27VTeHnHglQHOr0pFjShmQCKgBGAs/s1600/imagesqtbnANd9GcQ-4nuHDl7Giicv5_FY72GiCcKN6P_AdmHkX2ucoN7a1kk-AmCr1Qt1.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Ivkova slava" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dpJ6SIs1zQQ/WV_SNIeFkaI/AAAAAAAAFaQ/14esFNnUFsc27VTeHnHglQHOr0pFjShmQCKgBGAs/s1600/imagesqtbnANd9GcQ-4nuHDl7Giicv5_FY72GiCcKN6P_AdmHkX2ucoN7a1kk-AmCr1Qt1.jpg" width="200" /></a></p></div><p>The Serbian <i>slava</i> is an ancient family holiday. It is the day when the forefather on masculine line adopted Christianity (several centuries ago) and was baptised. This day is observed and passed on from father to son as the most stringent tradition.</p><p>On the day of <i>slava</i> a round loaf in the shape of crown is put on the table with a tallow candle burning in front of it all through the day. In the evening, the host can extinguish the candle by dipping it into wine; if the host is not alive or is absent then the eldest son or grandson can extinguish the candle even if he is as young as 2 years. Guests come during the day and they are treated up to 3 times. Boiled meat is also served to the guests. Grain is not served on the days of St. Arachangel and St. Ilia because these saints are still alive. Since most baptisms happened in old time on the days of St. Nicholas, St. Arachangel, and St. George, these are the days with the most <i>slavas</i>. </p>
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AXUlZxwmQig/WV_S-bOit5I/AAAAAAAAFaU/usgvXlKI92UBEzEd9cbxIPOv0WcYrp7FwCKgBGAs/s1600/slava.gif" target="_blank"><img alt="Slava" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AXUlZxwmQig/WV_S-bOit5I/AAAAAAAAFaU/usgvXlKI92UBEzEd9cbxIPOv0WcYrp7FwCKgBGAs/s1600/slava.gif" width="420" /></a> <p>In Šumadija <i>slava</i> was preserved in its original form: in its eve the son or the grandson of the home where <i>slava</i> will be celebrated visits all friends and relatives and invites them to the <i>slava</i> lunch or supper by offering them a keg with boiled brandy and honey. Only invited guests can come to the table. Eating and drinking has no end – till morning, even several days after. In Morava region, this Serbian custom is newer and not completely adopted.</p><p>The <i>slava</i> is stringently observed and honoured as a family holiday. No one dares to change the day of the forefather's holiday except daughters who adopt the <i>slava</i> of their husbands. Even in the poorest home, no one economizes on eating and drinking in the <i>slava</i> day.</p><p>Such family holidays, but in a very different form, are still observed in some parts of Bulgaria (<i>kurban</i>) especially in Macedonia where they are called <i>sluzhba</i>. Somewhat similar to <i>slava</i> is the widespread Bulgarian custom <i>Name Day</i> which is celebrated on the day of the saint with the same name as that of the celebrating person.</p><p>Serbs insist very much on their <i>slava</i> which in modern time they raised as their national cult and loudly proclaim that: <q>Where <i>slava</i> is celebrated, all is Serbian</q>.</p><p>Let's note here that in the <q>newly-liberated regions</q> such as Vranja, Leskovac and others, <i>slava</i> has not substituted the Name Day.</p><p>So, bai Ivko of Niš celebrates <i>slava</i> ... And what kind of <i>slava</i> is Ivko's <i>slava</i>, how quickly was it imposed on the people from the <q>newly liberated Eastern region</q>, Sremac will tell us because as a conscientious <q>photographer</q> and Niš poet he could not hide this.</p><p>Several days before St. George's Day feverish preparations for <i>slava</i> are going on in the home of Ivko Jorganjia<u>ta</u> (<u>the</u> duvet-maker; note that his name is Ivko, coming from Ivan, and not Jovko that comes from Jovan). The apprentices dare not step on the newly clayed veranda and carefully make wide steps.</p><p>The holiday comes. Mariola, the neighbours' girl, serves the guests. Since morning different guests come in and out – craftsmen, clerks, tradesmen, with wives, with children, relatives, acquaintances, strangers. </p><p>Various conversations are started. It is very evident that the <i>slava</i> in this <q>newly-liberated region</q> is new phenomenon. Ivko Jorgandjiata, once again talks about his <q>trouble</q> as he has done on each <i>slava</i>; how his grandfather abandoned the old <i>slava</i> and chose a new saint. Of course, the ancient family tradition doesn't allow such change of the <i>slava</i> day that has been transferred from generation to generation for ten centuries. The problem is that bai Ivko lies to himself and to the guests that the change was done by his grandfather because his relatives probably know that his parents and himself celebrated their Name Days.</p><p>Old Nišlii (just as Timočani), if asked, will tell you that once <q>по старински се е <i>служба служила</i>, а съг – по-новому, се <i>слава слави</i>.</q></p><p>As soon as Serbs became masters of these eastern Bulgarian lands they undertook, together with the repressions and propaganda, to obliterate all ethnic symbols that could show the Bulgarian character of the population in these <q>newly-liberated regions</q>. This course of quick assimilation was especially accelerated after the Serbo-Bulgarian War of 1885. Thus, the white woolen peasant dresses in Niš Region were substituted <i>compulsorily</i> with black dresses, in Šumadian cut. For this purpose, Serbian tailors were sent to villages, and the <i>travellas</i> <a href="#ref3">**</a> of women in Timok Region were forbidden in 1886 with a special decree of King Milan. Together with the elimination of these Bulgarian symbols, everywhere in the <q>newly-liberated regions</q> a massive agitation was carried out for the Serb-characterizing <i>slava</i>. Each time when a dispute about the language of Nišlii and Timočani breaks, Serbs dash out and try to dismiss all arguments with the rejoinder: <q>Yes, true, but they celebrate <i>slava</i>!</q></p><p>But not only the <q>Bugarashi</q> celebrated such <i>slava</i>: among Ivko's guests stands out the figure of Mr. Dr. Milan Ružić, Jew by ethnicity (Sremac mentions on p. 20 that previously he was called Moritz Rozenzweig); his Honour Milan Ružić also adopted the Serbian <i>slava</i> because he had to keep his social status and he had willy-nilly become a <q>true Serb</q>.</p><p>– Which <i>slava</i> do you celebrate? – one of the women guests asks him.</p><p>– I and my Missis celebrate the Third Day of Pentecost. (p. 30)</p><p>Some guests already want to leave. Bai Ivko tries to make them stay:</p><p>– Што! Ама зар саг и ти господин доктуре? Ето такоj си е таj! <u>Штом</u> (щом not ћим) се jедан <u>дигне</u> (not диже) <u>и иска да си отиде</u> (Skerlić caught a typical Bulgarian phrase), виде и ониjа, па други. (p. 22)</p><p>And the hostess adds:</p><p>– Па елате jутре барем на патерицу.</p><p>As the Niš language requires a special dictionary to be used by Serbs, so Nišlii need a dictionary for the Serbian words:</p><p>– Патерица се <u>вика</u> (not виче) женски светак ... (p. 23)</p><p>As just said, Šumadians and the <q>newly liberated</q> do not completely understand each other. Thus, the host offers <q>танир са дуваном и цигар-папиром</q> and invites everyone:</p><p>– <u>Коj пиjе тутун</u> нек се послужи. (In Serbian: <i>Ко пиjе дувана</i>).</p><p>They fold cigarettes. Silence. Ivko asks one of the guests:</p><p>– А ти, господин Марко, <i>ћуриш</i> ли?</p><p>– Како рече? (doesn't understand the Bulgarian word)</p><p>– <u>Викам</u>: ти зер не <u>пушиш</u>? Па саг <u>ич ли не пиjеш тутун</u> ... (p. 32).</p><p>At another place Kalcho explains:</p><p>– Па знаш, господине, како ће да ти речем ... од време си научи<u>х</u> <u>па што да правим! ударим на Лоjзе па отутке се спуснем</u> с пушку теке, ради адета ...</p><p>– Are the environs rich, is there game? – asks the treasurer.</p><p>– Па има ... Има време за <u>заjаци</u>, има <u>срндаки, има за шотки, што ги виjа, из Шумадиjу што сте, викате патке дивjе, а ми ги па викамо шотчичи</u> ... (it should be the other way round and that's why it provokes laughter).</p><p>It turns out that among Ivko's guests there is a Šumadian idler, Svetislav, unknown to anybody. He has settled uninvited in Ivko's house and feasts just as all Serbs who settled uninvited in this Bulgarian region. At the end of the novel Svetislav succeeds in marrying the neighbours' girl Mariola who presently serves the guests. When the bridegroom (a former tramp actor) begins to strut in front of his young wife, she turns to him with astonishment and even with despair:</p><p>– Море, дизаj се, фантазиjо, <u>ич не те разбирам што збориш</u>! (in Serbian: <i>баш не те разумем шта причаш</i>). О, Божьке, збори си като мутафчиjе (p. 199).</p><p>Yes, these are indeed two worlds that do not understand each other, this is a real struggle between East and West – as Skerlić says – between the small Bulgarian East and the Serbian West, between the the person that came from outside and the mass, between the dream of the newly-liberated and the ugly reality which the Serbian regime imposes ... </p><p>Bai Ivko has good friends in the persons of the Wolf, Kalcho, and the Grass-snake, <q>esnaf people</q> (middle-class people) with whom he is very close and intimate. In the evening, after the guests have left, the three good Ivko's friends stay behind to have some more eating and drinking. They want to have a big feast as at a true <i>slava</i>; moreover, as friends of Ivko, according to very favourable to them regulations for this holiday, they are to be at the most prominent place at the table. However, bai Ivko still supports the Name Day concept and as we'll see later on, he opposes the Šumadian <i>slava</i> which he adopted only by name. He leaves his guests and goes to bed. His friends, however, among whom is the total stranger Svetislav, the tramp actor, themselves pour wine, bake appetizers and continue the <i>slava</i> ...</p><p>In vain is Ivko's anger, in vain he chases them away because they are going to ruin him. Our newly Serbianised Nišlii – the Wolf, Kalcho, and the Grass-snake, won't listen to reason. They feast and sing through the night. Ivko wakes at some time and listens to the clamour.</p><p>– Па <u>още ли са тия тук</u>? – he remonstrates. (In Serbian: <i>Па jош увек ли су овe овде?</i>)</p><p>But the <i>slava</i> does not allow the host to leave his best friends with whom he has lived <q>како сол и леб</q> (p. 51) and go to bed. This is not a Name Day on which the guests are received and sent off during the day and the neighbourhood rests peaceful until evening. Our culture-bearers Kalcho, the Grass-snake, and the Wolf don't give a penny about the neighbours' opinion. Drinking and singing go on until dawn. Such <q>lumpuvane</q> (romping) which is usual for Serbs, is something out of the way for the peaceful <i>esnaf</i> habits of Bulgarian Niš. The description of the town atmosphere reminds us the Bulgarian provincial towns at the time of the Ottoman rule:</p></div><div id="colTwo"><blockquote>The neighbours get up. One can hear the pattering of pattens in the adjacent yards. A nappy <i>shalwar</i>-clad woman runs out, washes her white face at the well and, face still unwiped, peeks through the plank fence to see where this uproar is coming from ... People pass on the street. Girls run to the tap, baker boys pass with bagels and <i>pinirlii</i> (cheese-buns) and shout at the top of their lungs ... lapse into silence for a while to listen and then laugh aloud and go on their way.</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zqpkwgQ3sY4/WV_UGphHj_I/AAAAAAAAFaY/E3qlsI-ZFD05s_L263PchIdSZiEUnYzFwCKgBGAs/s1600/zona-13.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Nishka charshija" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zqpkwgQ3sY4/WV_UGphHj_I/AAAAAAAAFaY/E3qlsI-ZFD05s_L263PchIdSZiEUnYzFwCKgBGAs/s1600/zona-13.jpg" width="420" /></a></p><p>Isn't there somewhat unusual and strange in this rumpus for the Niš <q>esnaf people</q> indeed!</p><p>The <i>slava</i> in Ivko's house continues through the second day. The Wolf and Kalcho chase the fowls in the yard with the duck gun, slaughter, pluck, cook; get hold of a lamb, skin it in a hurry and roast it. Ivko, jumping out of his skin, goes to complain directly to the mayor.</p><p>– Господин преседниче, <u>што направише сас мен</u> (not <i>шта учину са мном</i>) и моjу кућу? (p. 113). Па данас трећи дан, маjка му стара! (p. 114). Е па не сам си ни ja битолско <u>магаре</u> (not <i>магарац</i>), па да потеглим толки товар! (p. 114).</p><p>The dialogue with the mayor occupies 20 pages.</p><p>– Па викам да скочиш, господин преседниче, та да видиш сас твоjе очи моjу бруку и моjу жалос. Ене ги там седе, па на сваки черек сата по jедно ручање (p. 114).</p><p>– Оно е едење, оно е пиjење, оно е пуцање, че видиш и чуjеш и па нече да веруjеш. <u>У зем да пропаднем оди срам</u>, <u>што че рекну</u> па комшиjе. (p. 115).</p><p>Of course, the mayor puts on his hat and goes himself to see the <q>scandal</q> and to pacify the roisterers who want to ruin Ivko. The mayor is a Šumadian who came to the <q>exotic newly-liberated region</q> to have a good time. Ivko's expectations and hopes to see law and order are useless: the mayor gets ahead of Ivko and goes to Kalcho, the Wolf, the Grass-snake, and Svetislav. He finds them slaughtering two more lambs.</p><p>– What on the world these people do! They cut meat. Just look at them! They can't cut the steaks in the right way ... Come, give this knife to me. So. This is how you cut steaks, see? What? You don't have enough wine, do you? O.K. ...</p><p>So the <i>slava</i> continues purely in the Šumadian way. Only Gypsies are lacking. They send for them.</p><p>On coming home, Ivko hears the Gypsy music from afar and puts his hands to his head.</p><p>– <u>Леле</u> маjке, што ће баш да пропаднем! ... (p. 150).</p><p>The Šumadian mayor convinces the Wolf that today is his <i>slava</i>, too. Since the slava cult is not yet established in this region, the Wolf readily agrees that his <i>slava</i> is exactly this day. Sremac unnoticeably puts in the manner in which Šumadians suggests the slava to Moravans who manifest spontaneous opposition in the person of Ivko Jorganjiata and the unaccustomed neighbours. So, the Wolf starts celebrating <i>his slava</i>.</p><p>Of course, Kalcho, the Wolf, and the Grass-snake have the profiteering <i>kelepir</i> mentality of the ubiquitous Bulgarian bai Ganyo and they begin the new <i>slava</i> again in Ivko's house and on Ivko's account.</p><p>So, presently it is the family <i>slava </i>of the Nišlia Wolf that is <q>consecrated through generations</q> ...</p><p>Ivko comes broken-hearted, sits against his will and participates in the Wolf's <i>slava</i>, as an invited good guest. Now he sees Svetislav the idler and asks:</p><p>– Па коj je па таj.</p><p>His friends look around and shrug their shoulders.</p><p>Serb flocking from beyond Morava in the <q>exotic Serbian region</q> has been <i>en masse</i>.</p><p>Whoever got detached from somewhere hurried to take roots here. The Serbianisation had to become in the most certain way – by marrying into the family. Svetislav introduces himself to the mayor as a good clerk and the latter takes him in his trust. He appoints him immediately as a clerk in the Municipal House, gives him an advance payment and even agrees to solicit for him to marry the pretty Mariola. Once decided, this is done. Everything goes quickly. Ivko and his wife go at once to ask the girl from her parents and come back joyful ...</p><p>It turns out, however, that the young Šumadian bridegroom doesn't have even a hat on his head ... They loan him the guard's hat an take him to the bride's house.</p><p>Thus, Ivko gets rid of his guests. On parting, he kisses Svetislav <q>movingly</q> on the forehead and tells the party:</p><p>– Е па <u>лака</u> (not <i>лаку</i>) ви ноч. Аjд са здравље. А догодину извољте на светога Живка ... <u>таг</u> че ми е слава ... Че променим, <u>ете</u>, светитеља. (p. 171).</p><p>Here it is once again the tradition of the Nišlii <i>slava</i>. On St. Živko (there isn't such a saint) ...</p><p>And then for 5 years our spontaneous revolutionary Ivko advertises in newspapers that he is ill and cannot celebrate slava ... and even escaped as far as Belgrade to get rid of an imposition to which he, the old Nišlia couldn't get used and which he – and not only he – doesn't count as a family holiday that is compulsory by dint of a centuries-long tradition for each Serbian family.</p><p>The above quoted phrases and dialogues characterise the Bulgarian nationality of Nišlii that distinguish them from Šumadians (Serbs); let's quote a few phrases which are found in abundance in <i>Ivkova slava</i> to show some more of the <q>Niš dialect</q> that is so difficult for Šumadians.</p><table><tbody><tr> <th>Niš dialect</th> <th>Standard Serbian</th> </tr>
<tr> <td>По големо девоjче станула (p. 10)</td> <td>Beче девоjчица jе постала</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Па керко, кротка да будеш! (р. 11)</td> <td>Па кћи, мирна да будеш!</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Како магаре (19)</td> <td>Као магарац</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Ако другче направиш (19)</td> <td>Ако другче урадиш</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Леле!</td> <td>Jао! or Jоj!</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Колко</td> <td>Колико</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Татко</td> <td>Отац</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>А мен ми е па жал, па викам (31)</td> <td>А мени jе жао па вичем</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Елате малко да поседнеме (49)</td> <td>Ходете мало да седнемо</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Лошо ли е? (49)</td> <td>Jели рђаво?</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Хубаво си живуемо: како сол и леб (51)</td> <td>Лjепо живимо ко со и леб</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Мустачи</td> <td>Бркове</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Едно магаре из лоjзе што е, па го натовар<font face="Arial">ѝ</font> са заjаци. (69)</td> <td>Jедног магарца што jе из винограда натоварих га зечовима.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Да ти не дава Господ ни да ги раниш, ни да ги поиш. (120)</td> <td>Да ти не да Бог ни да их храниш, ни да их поиш.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>А знаш ли што иска jоште Пеливан? (120)</td> <td>А je л' знаш што jош хоће Пеливан?</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Ама хубаво и кротко девоjченце. (120)</td> <td>Али лjепо и мирно девоjче.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Ниjе мечка, ама нешто оште по хубаво. (120)</td> <td>Ниjе мечка, али нешта jош лjепше.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Много лош човек (132)</td> <td>Врло рђав човек</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Ни ти с нас, ни ми па с тебе (160)</td> <td>Ни ти са нама, ни ми са тобом</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Ако не му давате девоjченце, разбираш ли? (160)</td> <td>Ако не му дате девоjчицу, jел' разумеш?</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>А кум сас прасе (162)</td> <td>А кум са прасетом</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><h5>Songs</h5><p>Излезох да се прошетам<br />
Низ таjа пуста Битоља<br />
Низ евреjското махало<br />
Низ тиjа тесни сокаци<br />
Там видов мома евреjче<br />
На висок чардак стоjаше (78).</p><p>Каква си красна, душице моjа (11)</p><p>Славеj пиле, не пеj рано (72)</p><p>Ракито, мори, Ракито,<br />
Ракито тънка селвиjо<br />
Тури ми вино да пиjем,<br />
Да пиjем, да се опиjем ...</p><p>And while Nišlii use this <q>eastern Serbian dialect</q> Šumadians in this novel speak very precise Serbian</p><h5>The Cashier:</h5><p>– Jе си л'га чула, Бога ти? Па бар да удеси, да се може веровати. Ловио зечове. (р. 170)</p><h5>The Mayor:</h5><p>– Да си мене питао, а ти вала не би дао ни да ги сечеш. Тако се ради. Па онда не знаш шта jе доста; толико jе то сладко. Ал'ко си веч поч'о онда даj бар мени таj нож да jа то ... (р. 136).</p></div></div><h2 style="clear: both;"><i>Zona Zamfirova</i></h2>
<div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><div class="image-left"><p><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5SIubHpvFJo/WV_VB_9CoQI/AAAAAAAAFac/SrjJjbknsC8P5NgS4GqOypZQuAFPMItMwCKgBGAs/s1600/8868_JRJ_knjige.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Zona Zamfirova book" border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5SIubHpvFJo/WV_VB_9CoQI/AAAAAAAAFac/SrjJjbknsC8P5NgS4GqOypZQuAFPMItMwCKgBGAs/s1600/8868_JRJ_knjige.jpg" width="200" /></a></p></div><p>As you can see, our Niš character hasn't yet managed to become Zona Zamfir<u>ić</u>.</p><p>Zona is a daughter of a <i>chorbadjia</i> (and her father still stays <i>chorbadjia</i> and hasn't yet become <i>gazda</i>), brought up in all virtues and faults of the <i>esnaf</i> morality in a <q>Bugaraš varoš</q> as Šumadians previously called Niš and the other Morava towns.</p><p>All young men of Niš long for Zona. All town youth hum a little song adapted for her. She is beautiful with the graceful gait of a swan. And her diffident pride makes her dearer and more attractive. Young men want her <q>from Filibe (Plovdiv) to Edrene (Odrin)</q>.</p><p>Zona seldom goes to the <u>horo</u> (Bg:chain dance, in Serbian it is called <i>kolo</i>). But even when she goes there, it is only to look down on the <i>esnaf</i> lads amongst whom, according to the definite opinion of her father and her foul-spoken aunts, she doesn't have a match. The <i>horo</i> happens on the square in front of the <u>Kalofer</u> (town in Bulgaria) Inn. She stays at the side, accompanied by her maid-servant, observes and pretends that she doesn't see the looks cast towards her from all sides together with concealed sighs.</p><p>The young master Mane Kuyumdjiata is the one most rapt on Zona. He has cocked his hat over nicely sticking out locks of black hair, twirled thin bachelor's moustaches, tightened with a narrow white belt over his trousers, and dances sprightly with the most beautiful maids. But his thought doesn't leave the white swan who is looking at him and perhaps admiring him, but hides all this in the proud maiden heart. Both Zona and Mane are equally objects of looks and desires. But the young master is not high-born and doesn't have a high house with a terrace and bay window, he doesn't have a yard covered with a box-tree garden in which a marble fountain is lashing out; the young master who made himself with constance and industry cannot expect to be given easily the <i>chorbadjia</i>'s daughter. And he cannot even think about another.</p>
<p><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jxser45IFsc/WV_XCMmNXkI/AAAAAAAAFag/gq34VJUU16UMQGFTtxadkIEo06Y1cKSzwCKgBGAs/s1600/zona-11.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgarian house" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Jxser45IFsc/WV_XCMmNXkI/AAAAAAAAFag/gq34VJUU16UMQGFTtxadkIEo06Y1cKSzwCKgBGAs/s1600/zona-11.jpg" width="420" /></a></p><p>Mane could despair, start drinking, and go bust. His mother, a humble and pious widow, is very worried about him and tries to marry him off to another maid if only to save him from despair. In vain. Master Mane is resolved to take Zona and no one else. His mother is in a quandary. But the poor woman can do nothing. Mane's frivolous and garrulous aunt takes on herself the difficult task and goes to the <i>chorbadjia</i>'s house to arrange a marriage. There, of course, she is met with abuses and insinuations. But she stands no nonsense herself: she opens her big mouth for relief. With this she impedes the affair further. And Zona is intended to marry a <i>chorbadjia</i>'s son.</p>
<p>At last, two Mane's friends come to the rescue. They have lived little but endured much. By their advice, a plot is made to break the pride of the <i>chorbadjia</i>'s daughter after which the task is facilitated. One of them dresses in women's clothes and hangs about Zona's gates towards evening. Mane passes along him with a coach known to have been used for bride-stealing, takes the sham Zona and the coach rushes through the street.</p><p>The next day, the whole town already knows that Zona has been stolen and has spent the night with her abductor Mane. This awful rumour distresses the whole family of the <i>chorbadjia</i>. Even one Belgrade newspaper writes about the scandal. Mane plays the innocent. A blackmailing journalist comes to him and proposes to refute what is written and defend the reputation of the young master but Mane rejects his services.</p></div>
<div id="colTwo"><p><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ag81cFA7G3E/WV_X0MsybaI/AAAAAAAAFak/elDZdcrhS_IgTxPwtfxMgFv_WfhSLfkXQCKgBGAs/s1600/zona-04.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Zona's mother" border="0" height="600" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ag81cFA7G3E/WV_X0MsybaI/AAAAAAAAFak/elDZdcrhS_IgTxPwtfxMgFv_WfhSLfkXQCKgBGAs/s1600/zona-04.jpg" width="420" /></a></p>
<p>The <i>chorbadjia</i>'s son refuses to marry Zona. Zona is devastated enough even before this blow. She seldom appears in the street or the shops and begins to languish ...</p><p>Month after month drag on ...</p><p>At last, the <i>chorbadjia</i> himself drops by at Mane's shop a few times and invites him to become his son-in law ...</p>
<p><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-USl-njXFtPA/WV_YQP7pFAI/AAAAAAAAFao/FyAnuMRmsQkp6LwkS5VhpmisffyRqilIACKgBGAs/s1600/zona2Bzamfirova.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Zona Zamfirova film" border="0" height="250" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-USl-njXFtPA/WV_YQP7pFAI/AAAAAAAAFao/FyAnuMRmsQkp6LwkS5VhpmisffyRqilIACKgBGAs/s1600/zona2Bzamfirova.jpg" width="420" /></a></p><p>Let's now take a brief look at the language aspect of the novel because if we wish to describe all Bulgarian expressions, we have to type here the whole novel.</p><p>Words that Sremac himself put in quotes: дете, нешто, дедо-попе, дедо владика, мустачи.</p><p>Bulgarian dialect from Macedonia: збори ми (In Serbian: прића ми); татко ти (In Serbian: твоj отац); што праjте (In Serbian: шта радите); што ке ми чиниш; мори разбирам (In Serbian: разумем); ти си работи, а jа ке седнем малко.</p><h5>Proverbs</h5><p>Две љубеници под една мишка не се носат.<br />
Три циганки – цело хоро, etc.</p><p>The purely Bulgarian language forms that Sremac describes in this novel together with the folk costume and other historical documents exist even to this day.</p><p>But there is more: the pages of <i>Zona Zamfirova</i> contain indelible family symbols like <u>Kalofer Inn, Kazanlik rose oil, Gabrovo Monastery St. Mary, Filibe, Edirne</u>, etc., that show the direction where Morava Bulgarians looked to. On the contrary, the hearts of Sremac's characters contain only coldness and confusion about Serbs: people coming from north and west that are strangers to their language, moral, and mental purity as well as some <q>white-world women</q> without shame and moral who seduce their men. Furthermore, papers are published in Belgrade that disgrace them and torment their singular world which is so colourful, warm and intimate.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">The <q>Serbian</q> language of Morava Bulgarians</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><p>Bulgarians along Morava, Timok, and Nišava are obliged to speak Serbian language. But that <q>Serbian</q> spoken only at official places in towns – as Serbs themselves acknowledge – is a ridiculous slang and, together with the <q>ancient East-Serbian dialect</q> is another unmasking for Serbs.</p><p>In order to extinguish this slang, Serbs publicly ridiculed it in the press, and in various feuilletons and brochures. In this way, they planned to remove the telltale language forms at least in the intellectuals and the younger generations from Vranja to Požarevac. There was more than the definite article which worried Serbs; despite the creeping of many Serbian words in the vocabulary of Morava region, another very obvious Bulgarian language characteristic is the use of propositions instead of the full set of 7 Serbian noun declensions.</p><p>After the Serbo-Bulgarian War in 1885, Serbian philologists and publicists put great efforts in their struggle with the <q>errors</q> in Serbian language. Thus, <a href="#ref5">Jovan Bošković</a> shows many inaccuracies in Serbian, the most interesting of which is the incorrect and indiscriminate use of declension forms. In his first volume, Bošković dwells on the 22 cases when infinitive is used and condemns the young Serbian writers who are in touch with the population of the <q>newly-liberated</q> east Serbian regions.</p><p>Let's see what is the <q>Serbian</q> language spoken by the new generations in Morava region from <a href="#ref6">the book of M. T. Golubović.</a> In 10 printer's sheets are contained more than 30 Niš anecdotes in broken and humorous Serbian. What follows are 3 excerpts from the Niš language. The first excerpt shows the typical Morava dialect in the speech of Kalcho, an ordinary Nišlija <i>esnaf</i>:</p><table class="box"><tbody><tr> <th>Niš dialect</th> <th>Standard Serbian</th> </tr>
<tr> <td><h5>Африкански заjац</h5></td> <td><h5>Африкански зец</h5></td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Ономад <u>ли беше</u> недеља? <u>Jес' Jес'</u>, – ономад. <u>Немам</u> посл<u>у</u>, па <u>се диго рано</u>, пре зор<u>у</u>. <u>Аjд, аjд</u>, <u>те дођо</u> до Нишав<u>у</u>. <u>Пређо</u> ћуприjу, па <u>уфати</u> онаj пут покраj <u>Кале</u>. Идем <u>си</u> тако<u>j</u> сам, нигде жив<u>а</u> душ<u>а</u>. Маjк<u>у</u> му, <u>малко</u> ме <u>уфати</u> <u>стра</u> од они<u>jа</u> бедем<u>и</u>, од он<u>еjе</u> зидин<u>е</u>!</td> <td><i>Jел</i> ономад <i>jе била</i> недеља? <i>Jест, jест</i>, – ономад. <i>Не сам имао</i> посл<i>а</i>, па <i>сам устао</i> пре зор<i>е</i>. <i>Аjд</i>, <i>па дођох</i> до Нишав<i>е</i>. <i>Пређох</i> ћуприjу, па <i>узедох</i> онаj пут покраj <i>Тврђаве</i>. Идем <i>тако</i> сам, нигде жив<i>е</i> душ<i>е</i>. Маjка му, <i>мало</i> ме <i>ухватио</i> <i>страх</i> од они<i>х</i> бедем<i>а</i>, од они<i>х</i> зидин<i>а</i>!</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Замисл<u>еjа</u> сам се тако<u>j</u>, па <u>фрљи очи</u> <u>на куде</u> <u>касарину у топџиску</u>, море иде нешто по он<u>аj</u> <u>малеџак</u> <u>бедем</u> што jе <u>до</u> врбе. <u>Шће да бидне</u>, маjка му?! <u>Утуви</u> се да видим, па полако <u>пођо</u> <u>на куд њега</u>. Кад он, жена буђава, спази<u>jа</u> ме зар, па чучну<u>jа</u> куд jедн<u>у</u> коприв<u>у</u>, у ути<u>'а</u> уши.</td> <td>Замисл<i>ио</i> сам се <i>тако</i>, па <i>баце поглед</i> на <i>топџиске касарне</i>, море иде нешто по он<i>ом</i> <i>малом</i> <i>бедеме</i>, што jе <i>код</i> врбе. <i>Шта ће бити</i>, маjка му?! <i>Реших</i> се да видим, па полако <i>пођох</i> <i>к'њему</i>. Кад он, жена буђава, спаз<i>ио</i> ме зар, па чучну<i>о</i> куд jедн<i>е</i> коприв<i>е</i>, у ути<i>jа</i> уши.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td><u>Заjац</u> jе – не <u>мож'</u> друг<u>о</u> <u>да бидне</u>!</td> <td><i>Зец</i> jе – не <i>могуће</i> друг<i>че</i> <i>бити</i>!</td> </tr>
<tr> <td><u>Врну</u> се до врб<u>у</u>, па <u>осеко</u> jед<u>но</u> <u>пруче</u> и <u>пођо</u> <u>на куд њега</u>. <u>Нема</u> три корака, – <u>стану</u>. Он мене гледа, jа њега гледам. О, маjку му, <u>шће да бидне</u> ово<u>j</u>, как<u>ав</u> jе ов<u>оj</u> напаст, <u>да ме неjе нешто</u> <u>собаjле осотоњоле</u>? <u>Да не сам</u> <u>собаjле</u> <u>ступнуjа</u> на мађиjе, <u>jали ти</u> <u>на сугреби псећи</u>, па <u>несам</u> пљуну<u>jа</u>?!</td> <td><i>Вратих</i> се до врб<i>е</i>, па осеко<i>х</i> jед<i>ан</i> <i>прутић</i> и пођо<i>х</i> <i>к њему</i>. <i>Несу били</i> три корака, – <i>стадох</i>. Он мене гледа, jа њега гледам. О, маjку му, <i>шта ће бити</i> <i>ово</i>, как<i>ва</i> jе ов<i>а</i> напаст, <i>jел ме jе што</i> <i>jутрос</i> ...? <i>Jе сам ли</i> <i>jутрос</i> <i>ступио</i> на мађиjе, <i>или на неки</i> <i>псећи сугреб</i>, па <i>нисам</i> пљуну<i>о</i>?!</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Право да ти кажем, почеше да ме избиj<u>аjу</u> грашке од <u>зноj</u>. <u>Уплаши</u> се. Jа <u>мрдну</u> мало <u>с пруче</u>, он се <u>обрну</u>, – па <u>си</u> пође <u>полак'</u> <u>на куде</u> <u>касарину</u>.</td> <td>Право да ти кажем, почеше да ме избиj<i>у</i> грашке од зноj<i>а</i>. Уплаши<i>х</i> се. Jа мрдну<i>х</i> мало <i>прутићем</i>, он се <i>окрену</i>, – па пође <i>лагано</i> <i>на к'</i> <i>касарни</i>.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td><u>Погледа</u>, <u>погледа</u>, <u>што</u> да <u>правим</u>?!</td> <td>Погледа<i>х</i>, погледа<i>х</i>, <i>шта</i> да <i>радим</i>?!</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Пушка ми <u>неиjе туj</u>. Чапа <u>остануjа дом</u>, а <u>убаво ћаше</u> куче да пође <u>с мен</u> <u>тоj jутро</u>, <u>ама</u> ко jе <u>знаjа</u> <u>тога</u> ђавола и <u>коj</u> се jе <u>надаjа</u> за <u>оваj</u> <u>сорту</u> <u>заjаци</u>!! <u>Мисле се, мисле</u>, па ми <u>текну</u> на памет што ми <u>jе причаjа</u> jедан оџа <u>у турско време</u>.</td> <td>Пушка ми <i>ниjе ту</i>. Чапа jе <i>остала кући,</i> а <i>добро хтеде</i> куче да пође <i>самном</i> <i>тог jутра</i>, <i>али</i> ко jе <i>знао</i> <i>тог</i> ђавола и <i>ко</i> се jе <i>надао</i> за <i>ове</i> <i>сорте</i> <i>зечева</i>!! <i>Мислих се, мислих</i>, па ми <i>дође</i> на памет што ми <i>причао</i> jедан оџа <i>за време турака</i>.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td><u>Викаше</u> он – Бог до го прости – Калчо бре, ашколсун што си <u>ловиџиjа</u>, и Султан <u>знаje</u> за <u>теб'</u>, ми смо <u>испратили</u> <u>абер</u> за св<u>и</u> ловц<u>и</u> из <u>Ниш</u>, <u>ама</u> много те волим и <u>теб</u> ћу <u>ти испричам</u> – <u>такоj бива</u> – <u>jед'н</u> муабет за <u>заjци</u> ама <u>ће тражим</u> да <u>ич</u> не <u>збориш</u> <u>на други</u> <u>човеци</u> – зашто <u>ће</u> те <u>колем</u> <u>како</u> пиле.</td> <td><i>Причаше</i> он – Бог до га прости – Калчо бре, ашколсун што си <i>ловџиjа</i>, и Султан <i>зна</i> за <i>тебе</i>, ми смо <i>испослали</i> <i>позив</i> за св<i>е</i> ловц<i>е</i> из <i>Ниша</i>, <i>али</i> много те волим и <i>тебе</i> ћу <i>испричати</i> – <i>тако мора</i> – <i>jедан</i> муабет за <i>зечеве</i> ама <i>тражићу</i> да <i>никако</i> не <i>говорите</i> <i>другим</i> <i>људима</i>, зашто <i>ћу</i> те <i>заклати</i> <i>ко</i> пиле.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>За <u>заjци</u> <u>ти не треба</u> ни пушка ни <u>куче</u> него <u>мурафет</u>. <u>Видиш ли заjац</u>, <u>паднаj</u> на <u>земља</u>. А <u>си паднаjа</u>, – умртви се. <u>Заjац</u> те <u>надуши</u> и прилази <u>на куд</u> <u>теб</u> <u>се по-близо</u>.</td> <td>За <i>зечеви</i> <i>не треба ти</i> ни пушка ни <i>пас</i>, него <i>мурафета</i>. <i>Jел' видиш зеца</i>, – <i>падаj</i> на <i>земљу</i>. А <i>чим паднеш</i>, – умртви се. <i>Зец</i> те <i>нањуши</i> и прилази <i>код</i> <i>тебо</i> <i>све ближе</i>.</td> </tr></tbody></table></div><div id="colTwo"><p>Yet, Kalcho is a simple <i>esnaf</i> man. Now let's see the <q>literary Serbian</q> of Kole Pusha who already excels in Niš as a speaker and even as a <q>publicist</q>.</p><h5>Speaker</h5><table class="box"><tbody><tr> <td>Пуша се <u>укачи</u> на <u>с'нд'к</u>, извади артиjу и поче:</td> <td>Пуша се <i>попе</i> на <i>сандук</i>, извади артиjу и поче:</td> </tr>
<tr> <td><u>Браћо</u>, жене, девоjке и сви <u>што</u> <u>сте</u> <u>обрнули</u> главе <u>на куд мене</u>, тужном збору!</td> <td><i>Брачо</i>, жене, девоjке и сви <i>шта</i> <i>се</i> <i>окренуле</i> главе <i>к мен</i>, – тужни зборе!</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Преди нама jе мртво тело Васка <u>Бранковичем</u>, <u>бившом</u> <u>кметом</u> <u>у обштину нишку</u>.</td> <td>Пред нама jе мртво тело Васка <i>Бранковића</i>, <i>бившег</i> <i>кмета</i> <i>општине нишке</i>.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td><u>Родиjа</u> се jе, како и ми што смо се родили у <u>татка</u> и <u>маjку</u> сви <u>се</u> знате <u>кол'ко</u> му <u>jе д'нске годинама</u>.</td> <td><i>Родио</i> се jе, како и ми што смо се родили у <i>оца</i> и <i>маjке</i>; сви <i>ви</i> знате <i>колико</i> му <i>данас година</i>.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Човек jе <u>биjа</u>, да <u>ве</u> не <u>л'жем</u>. Добар беше, <u>с'лте</u> за кмета <u>неjе</u> због <u>меки</u> <u>нараф</u>.</td> <td>Човек jе <i>био</i>, да <i>вас</i> не <i>лажем</i>. Добар беше, <i>али</i> за кмета <i>ниjе</i> био због <i>меке нарафе</i>.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td><u>Ама</u> има, <u>писуjе</u> у <u>книге</u>, ви <u>тоj</u> не знате: има <u>ники</u> <u>молекулчики</u>, <u>ники</u> <u>атомчики</u>, <u>ники</u> што би рекли <u>гнидице</u>, па се стегну како <u>питиjе</u>, ама Бог, <u>сполаj на Господа</u> – <u>по jак jе од сви нама</u> што смо се овде <u>собрали</u> <u>како</u> на <u>неко</u> <u>свадбом</u>.</td> <td><i>Али</i> има, <i>пише</i> у <i>книгама</i>, ви <i>то</i> не знате: има <i>неки</i> <i>молекулчичи</i>, <i>неки</i> <i>атомчичи</i>, <i>неки</i> што би рекли <i>гњидице</i>, па се стегну као <i>пихтиjе</i>, ама Бог – <i>хвала Господу</i> – <i>jакчиjе од свиjу нас</i> што смо се овде <i>скупили</i> <i>као</i> на <i>неку</i> <i>свадбу</i>.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>У <u>книге</u> <u>писуjе:</u> од <u>смрт</u> се не <u>мож</u> побегне. За <u>тоj</u> драги моj <u>Васком</u>, и ми ћемо сви <u>по теб</u>, и jа сам ти, приjо, с <u>jедну</u> ногом у гробу, едва <u>дизам</u>, а близо сам <u>ти при рупу</u>, само <u>здравjе</u> од Бога.</td> <td>У <i>књиге</i> <i>пише:</i> од <i>смрти</i> се не <i>може</i> побегне. За <i>то</i>, драги моj <i>Васко</i>, и ми ћемо сви <i>за тобом</i>, и jа сам ти, приjо, с <i>jедном</i> ногом у гробу, едва <i>него дижем</i>, а близо сам <i>код рупе</i>, само <i>здравље</i> од Бога.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td><u>Тужном збором</u>! Испратите испратите домаћина, па да <u>ви</u> се <u>врне</u>, да Бог да, зашто сви идемо <u>на там</u>.</td> <td><i>Тужни зборе</i>! Испратите, испратите домаћина, па да <i>вам</i> се <i>врати</i>, да Бог да, зашто сви идемо <i>тамо</i>.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Добар човек <u>како</u> што jе <u>биjа</u> Васко <u>тешком патриотом</u>, не ће га више <u>бидне</u> <u>из по</u> међу нама. Истина, <u>неjе</u> <u>биjа</u> од <u>моjу</u> <u>партиjу</u>, <u>ама</u> jе биjо ак либерал.</td> <td>Добар човек <i>као</i> што jе био Васко <i>тешки патриота</i> – не ће га више <i>бити</i> међу нама. Истина, <i>ниjе</i> <i>биjо</i> од <i>моjе</i> <i>партиjе</i>, <i>али</i> jе биjо ак либерал.</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><h5>Publicist</h5><table class="box"><tbody><tr> <td>љубезни г. <u>уредниче</u>! Изволте с опроштењем, да штампаш <u>овоj</u> исправку по <u>законом</u> од <u>штампу</u> и <u>тоj</u> на истом <u>местом</u> и <u>онол'ко</u> исто да <u>будну</u> <u>редови</u>, не сме да <u>фали</u> ни jедно словце.</td> <td>љубезни г. <i>уреднику</i>! Изволте, с опроштењем, да штампаш <i>ову</i> исправку по <i>закону</i> од <i>штампе</i> и <i>то</i> на истом <i>месту</i>, и <i>оноликом</i> исто да <i>буде</i> <i>редова</i>, не сме да <i>фале</i> ни jедно словце.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Исправка<br />
у вашом фактичком листу <q>Политика</q>, а 126 д'н по Васиљицу, искочила jе jедна прикажња (а ви л'жете свет, викате га фељитон, тоj баjагим од фитиљи работа) коjа jе лажавна због своjом целином и мртвачким словом.</td> <td>Исправка<br />
у вашем фактичком листу <q>Политика</q>, а у 126 дан по Васиљицу, изашла jе jедна прича (а ви лажете свет, вичате га фељетоном, кобаjаги од фитиљи посла) коjа jе лажовна у своjоj целини и мртвачког слова.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Неискачам има, да ве не л'жем, скоро три месеца. Болан сам, редко излазам на поље због сурдисување, па доде комшиjа и рече ми за тиjа фитиљони, по глав да ви искачаjу анатемници jедни, те га прати да ми купи туjа новину.</td> <td>Не излазим, да вас не лажем, скоро три месаца. Болестан сам, ретко излазим на поље због сурдисување, па дође комшиjа и прича ми за тиjе фитиљоне, на главу да вам изашли, анатемници ниjедни, те сам га послао да ми купи ту новину.</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>Прочетеjа сам га и неjа тоj истина, да сам jа држаjа мртвачком словом. Тоj ми мен ич неjе на памет паднуло. Тоj ако искате да знате ко jе држаjа том беседом то jе биjа Миле Цига, другаром на покоjном Васку.</td> <td>Прочетао сам их и ниjе то истина, да сам jа држао мртвачко слово. То и мен ниjе на памет пало. То ако хоћете да знате ко jе држао ту беседу, то jе био Миле Цига, другар покоjном Васку.</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><p>For Šumadians, not only the incorrect use of declensions is ridiculous but also the Nišlian word stresses. For example: господ<font face="Times New Roman">ѝ</font>не instead of Serbian госпòдине; испрàвка instead of <font face="Times New Roman">ѝ</font>справка; данàс instead of дàнас; ћупр<font face="Times New Roman">ѝ</font>jа instead of ћу̀приjа; каквà instead of кàква; несàм instead of н<font face="Times New Roman">ѝ</font>сам; султàн instead of су̀лтан, etc.</p><p>All this show that the Serbian varnish of Morava region is very thin and transparent and that an untouched Bulgarian soul lies beneath it.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Notes and references</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><p><a name="ref1">Jован Скерлић.</a>1914. Историја нове српске књижевности. Београд.</p><p><a name="ref2">* <i>The church</i></a> Sst. Arachangels was built in 1819. The temple was gilded in the same year at the time of Archierei Most Blessed Mitropolite Mister Grigor the Bulgarian born in the town of Trən. Month of March 1837 after the Birth of Christ.</p></div></div> Inscription on the throne of the church Sst. Arachangel Gavrail and Michail in the town of Niš. Copy made by Prof. V. Zahariev in 1918 and stored in the Ethographic Museum in Sofia.<div id="colTwo"><p><a name="ref3">** </a>Travellas are spirally folded ribbons which are worn at the temples near the kerchief. These adornments (<i>kumbalbatsi</i>) were worn also by the Macedonian Bulgarians in Solun Region.</p><p><a name="ref5">Jован Бошковић.</a> Скуплени спис. a series of 8 volumes, Belgrade, 1888- </p><p><a name="ref6">Мих. Т. Голубовић.</a> Успомене из новоослобођених краjева. Београд, народна штампариjа Обилићев венац, 1906</p></div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-10105147026012195232013-04-12T00:25:00.009-07:002022-11-06T12:43:47.404-08:00Transitional dialects<div id="content"><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><b>Transitional dialects</b> are spread about the two sides of today's <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/borders-of-bulgarian-language.html">Bulgarian-Serb border</a> and are a gradual transition between Bulgarian and Serbian languages. <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2009/05/bulgarian-dialects-bulgarian-balgarski.html">Bulgarian are those dialects</a> that were spoken inside the borders of Bulgaria before 1918, namely the dialects around Belogradchik, western of Berkovitsa, around Tsaribrod, Trən, Breznik, and Bosilegrad, known as Belogradchik-Trən dialect. Serbian are the dialects west of the border around Knjaževac, Pirot, Leskovac, and Vranja.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div></div></div><p>Transitional dialects between pure Bulgarian and pure Serbian contain traits from the two languages. From Bulgarian side, the beginning of these transitional dialects is in the settlements where the old nasal ѫ (Big Yus) is pronounced as у [u] so we have рука, мука instead of ръка, мъка or рака, мака. This pronunciation of ѫ as у is the main phonetic difference of these dialects compared to the standard Bulgarian, so they were called <b>у-dialects</b> <a href="#ref3">[3]</a>.
</p><p class="image"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5zXmev6icto/WWuB_MYQRTI/AAAAAAAAFjE/Xh06GkT1fVMfFO7X7cj60hTMFW_APFszgCKgBGAs/s320/Torlak_dialects_BDA.png" target="_blank"><img alt="Transitional dialects" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5zXmev6icto/WWuB_MYQRTI/AAAAAAAAFjE/Xh06GkT1fVMfFO7X7cj60hTMFW_APFszgCKgBGAs/s320/Torlak_dialects_BDA.png" width="420" /></a></p><p>These <b>transitional</b> or <b>у-dialects</b> from the Serbian side begin west of Morava along the line Smederevo, Kraguevəts, Trəstenik, Kurshumli, Prishtina, Prizren. From Bulgarian side they start along the line Belogradchik, Tsaribrod, Breznik, Bosilegrad, and 6 northern regions in Macedonia: Tetovo, Kumanovo, Preshovo, Gilyano, Kratovo, and Palanka. A small separate island of these dialects exist in Caraş-Severin County in Romania and there its speakers are called Krashovani and ethnically identify as Croats or Bulgarians. Speakers on the main territory are ethnically Bulgarians or Serbs. To the east and south of these regions are pure Bulgarian dialects, in which the regular substitution of ѫ is ъ, а or o while у is an exception.</p><p><a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/06/morava-bulgarians-in-serbian-literature.html">The old population of Morava Valley</a> (so-called Moravians) migrated along the military border with the Austrian Empire as early as 17-18 c. while the bulk of the old Bulgarian population was expeled from Belgrade Region after the capture of Belgrade in 1521. The regions along the Morava and Danube valleys remained very scarcely populated after the Ottoman conquest in 15-16 c. After the Karposh and Chiprovtsi uprisings, these regions were again populated mainly by Bulgarians coming from south and east. Walachians moved in the northern parts, in Mlava and Pecs valleys, and Kladovo. The Russian linguist Afanasiy Selishchev noted that Timok Walachians in Branichevo Region retained the old <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/during-reign-of-anastasius-bulgars.html">local toponymy</a> which is of Bulgar, and not Serb, origin.</p>
<p><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FR5qVucHjdk/WWuD-yo1JhI/AAAAAAAAFjQ/EbiX6EVlV2837pd82FpgSAWjCSgUByRkQCKgBGAs/s1600/RizMap20.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Hahn Bulgarian Morava map" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FR5qVucHjdk/WWuD-yo1JhI/AAAAAAAAFjQ/EbiX6EVlV2837pd82FpgSAWjCSgUByRkQCKgBGAs/s1600/RizMap20.jpg" width="420" /></a></p><p>Three empires that existed on the Balkan Peninsula: Byzantine Empire, First Bulgarian Empire, and Ottoman Empire, had their influence on forming transitional dialects between Serbian and Bulgarian. The historical and ethnographic aspects of this issue were worked out in detail by three Bulgarian authors: A. Ishirkov <a href="#ref86">[86]</a>, S. Chilingirov <a href="#ref87">[87]</a>, and G. Zanetov <a href="#ref88">[88]</a> <a href="#ref89">[89]</a> <a href="#ref90">[90]</a>, while the linguistic aspects were first elucidated by B. Tsonev <a href="#ref3">[3]</a></p><p>This border area has been included alternatively in Bulgaria or Serbia until 15th century, and after this until 1878 has been united politically, administratively, and economically. In the transitive dialects, there are traces of relationships that today do not exist. Generally speaking, these transitive dialects have a number of phonetic and other grammatical traits, some of which connect them with the Bulgarian, and others with the Serbian language system. It must be stressed, however, that in the main grammatical traits, transitive dialects are closer to Bulgarian than to Serbian, which is evidenced by the Bulgarian origin of the population. Serbian dialectologists, however, allege the opposite. They call these dialects "Torlakian dialects", and not transitive dialects, and allege that they are Serbian in their basis, in their primary traits. According to them, traits that are typically Bulgarian, such as the postfixed article, degraded case, analytical comparative degrees, etc. are not even due to Bulgarian influence but are some abstract "Balkanisms" which assumedly arose from assimilated Roman population. All other isoglosses which connect these dialects with the Bulgarian language system, according to Serbian dialectologists were chronologically secondary, much later. The only novel concept which they accepted in more recent time is that the issues about development and affiliations of these dialects shouldn't be linked to issues of ethnicity of their carriers.</p><p>The classification of the у-dialects to Bulgarian or Serbian language is not only linguistic but also a political problem. The codifier of the modern Serbian language Vuk Karađić as early as 19 c. wrote about the "torlakian dialect" in his <i>Serbian Dictionary</i>:</p><blockquote>"Torlak is a person who speaks neither pure Serbian nor pure Bulgarian" <a href="#ref91">[91]</a></blockquote><p>Some of the Serbian linguists classify the у-dialects as a separate dialect, different from the other dialects of Serbo-Croatian (Štokavian, Čakavian, Kajkavian, etc.). Other Serbian linguists, as Milan Rešetar, Pavle Ivić, and Dalibor Brozović classify у-dialects as an old Štokavian dialect and name it Kosovo-Resavian dialect or Prizren-Timok dialect because some subdialects use the word що for 'what' (however, this is characteristic also for the Bulgarian dialects in today Bulgaria and Macedonia). On the other hand, some groups y-subdialects use the words кво, кикво or ко for 'what' (cf. the Standard Bulgarian какво).</p><p>Bulgarian linguists refer to the y-dialect area in Serbia and Kosovo as Prizren-Timok dialect or Kosovo-Morava dialect. For the territory of Bulgaria and the Western Borderland they use the name Belogradchik-Trən dialect (Rangel Bozhkov et al.) with Belogradchik, Trən, Godech, Breznik, Tsaribrod, Bosilegrad, etc., subdialects.</p><p>Stefan Mladenov defined these dialects as Transitional y-dialects that are a transition from Bulgarian to Serbian language but still Bulgarian for the bulk of their traits.</p><p>Krste Misirkov defined the western border of the y-dialects in this way:</p><blockquote>"This is the line that begins on the right bank of the river Sava, goes to the south along the watershed of Kolubara and Morava, then along the watershed of Serbian Morava and Ibar towards Shkodra and the Adriatic."</blockquote><p>According to Professors Benyo Tsonev and Gavril Zanetov who studied these dialects during the First World War when almost all Morava Valley was part of Bulgaria, the dialect continuum includes also the Požarevac (Pozharevəts) Region with the whole valley of river Great Morava (Common Morava), including Kruševac (Krushevəts), Smederevo, the region of Levoch, and the other left tributaries of Great Morava (only the lower reaches in the Lower Morava basin). For this reason the older Serbian authors call the Kosovo-Morava dialect – <i>levachki</i> (left) dialect. </p>
<p class="image"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Tykx_XwHKMs/WWuEZzK4v-I/AAAAAAAAFjU/5MJMVNrNjlk4RmtEfM1S2pKI9K9eAx2LACKgBGAs/s1600/Torlak.png" target="_blank"><img alt="Torlak dialect" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Tykx_XwHKMs/WWuEZzK4v-I/AAAAAAAAFjU/5MJMVNrNjlk4RmtEfM1S2pKI9K9eAx2LACKgBGAs/s1600/Torlak.png" width="420" /></a></p><p></p><div id="colTwo"><p>Stoyko Stoykov called these dialects "transitional dialects" and thought that they shape a "gradual transition from Bulgarian to Serbian language" and the border between these languages is the state border before 1918, i.e. the subdialects Trən, Breznik, Belogradchik, Western Berkovitsa, Tsaribrod, and Bosilegrad are Bulgarian, while Knjaževac, Pirot, Leskovac, and Vranja are Serbian <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>; however, when writing this Prof. Stoykov worked in the circumstance of a totalitarian communist regime with censure in Bulgaria. According to Stoykov:</p><blockquote>"The dialects along the western Bulgarian border, so-called 'transitional dialects', became an object of the Greater Bulgarian and Greater Serbian jingoism. Bulgarian and Serbian politicians tried through dialectology to prove that the dialects in the border area are pure Bulgarian or pure Serbian. Bulgarian linguists drew the border of Bulgarian language far to the west — from the Timok Estuary through Zaecar, Bolevac, Stalac, Pristina to Prizren. Serbian linguists placed the eastern border of Serbian language at Iskar River or even at the Yat border <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>."</blockquote><p>From the Serbian side, the beginning of these transitional dialects is where traits characteristic for Bulgarian language begin: degradation of cases, archaic stress, lack of quantitet, lack of infinitive and of the old comparative degrees, retention of the old middle and end лъ and the more frequent use of definitive verb forms.</p>
<p><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xbqEJgjOKx8/WWuEvx8nvXI/AAAAAAAAFjY/2J7zjPi_5l0VmYK2M0boudCgl6iH57j8gCKgBGAs/s1600/Karta_BG_govori_v_Srbija.png" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgarian dialects in Serbia" border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xbqEJgjOKx8/WWuEvx8nvXI/AAAAAAAAFjY/2J7zjPi_5l0VmYK2M0boudCgl6iH57j8gCKgBGAs/s1600/Karta_BG_govori_v_Srbija.png" width="420" /></a></p><p>The continuation of these у-dialects to north and west through Pirot and Nish regions through the whole Morava Valley, as well as through Prishtina and Prizren regions comprises a single dialect entity which is different from both Serbian and Bulgarian by the common trait of Yer fusion: the two Yers (ъ, Big Yer and ь, Small Yer) are pronounced in the same way as one darkened sound schwa – ъ [ə]:</p><table class="box"><tbody><tr> <th width="30%">Transitional dialect</th> <th width="30%">Old Bulgarian</th> <th width="40%">English</th> </tr>
<tr> <td>дън<br />
дънъс<br />
лък<br />
лъко<br />
лъсън<br />
опънък<br />
орълът<br />
съга<br />
тъмън</td> <td>дьнь<br />
дьньсъ<br />
лькъ<br />
лько<br />
льсьнъ<br />
опьнькъ<br />
орьлътъ<br />
сьга<br />
тѫмьнъ </td> <td> day<br />
today<br />
easy<br />
easily<br />
facile<br />
opinək (raw-hide shoe)<br />
the eagle<br />
now<br />
dark</td> </tr>
</tbody></table><p>Because this common trait of the transitional dialects spreads southwards through Kosovo Field, and to the north goes through the whole course of Morava, Tsonev <a href="#ref3">[3]</a> named them Kosovo-Morava dialects. Serbian dialectologists, such as Cvijić, true to their habit of inventing nationalities, call these dialects "torlak dialects" or "shop dialects" on the bases of the nickname of the population from these regions. No conclusions can be made only on the names "shops" and "torlaks" as these are very vague. It remains an open question if this population reflects some non-Slavic ethnicity. Based on the specific customs of this population, there is some reason to assume a foreign origin; however, in their language there is nothing that cannot be explained with reference to Bulgarian or Serbian: these dialects, although spread on a large area, didn't produce any individual traits. This, however, still doesn't mean that together they cannot be considered as a separate dialect. The reason that they were not completely assimilated into Bulgarian or Serbian was that throughout history they were on the border between Bulgaria and Serbia, and therefore they underwent a constant influence from east and west.</p><p>This relates to all Morava dialects, including Timok-Luzhica dialect, which A. Belić tried to present as free from all influences. The influence from east and south (from Bulgarian) has always been much greater than from the west (from Serbian). Exactly because of the strong influence from Bulgarian, Kosovo-Morava region is different from the Serbian nationality and language. Prof. Cvijić noticed very well this specificity; however, his explanation was wide off the mark. He saw in the Kosovo-Morava region a specific cultural belt, different from the Serbian culture, and because he didn't wish to admit that this non-Serbian culture is a continuation from Bulgarian side, he called the Kosovo-Morava cultural belt Byzanthine-Tsintsar, different from the Serbian cultural belt which he called 'patriarchal'. It is much more natural to accept the obvious, knowing (as Cvijić knew) that the larger part of the population in the Kosovo-Morava region came from south and east. For the Morava region, Cvijić himself wrote: "Most of the immigrants came from Kosovo and Macedonia", and for the Timok region, he wrote: " ... has immigrants from different regions of today Bulgaria, mainly from Znepole, Zagora, Berkovitsa, Vidin, and Lom". Of course, these "immigrants" from south and east came with their southern and eastern culture, and whatever they called it, it was a Bulgarian culture, because it came from Bulgarian regions. Furthermore, in all probability the original Slavic population in the Kosovo-Morava region has been Bulgarian from very early time, and alhough it has been dispersed many times for the last 300 years, it remained Bulgarian, because after each dispersal the empty places were again occupied by immigrants from Bulgarian regions. That this population was Bulgarian even 300 years ago, one can see from the many written documents, written in the Kosovo-Morava region for the past 500 years. As concerns Morava region, in addition to written documents, much evidence is given by European travellers all of whom accept River Morava as the border between Serbia and Bulgaria because they well noticed that beyond this river another population starts that is different from Serbs by language and customs.</p><p>According to the regions that they occupy, Kosovo-Morava dialects are clearly separated in half to northern and southern. Northern, or Moravan, are the dialects in Vrana, Leskovac, and Nish regions, and along Morava; southern, or Kosovan, are the dialects in Prishtina, Prizren, Tetovo, Kumanovo, and partly Kratovo regions. However, it must be stressed that this division is more geographic than dialectal, because in the Kosovo-Morava region, although it is large, dialect differences are very small and there is no dialect separation . The single more significant difference is the reflex of the Proto-Slavic *tj and *dj by which there are two well-defined dialect groups:</p><ol><li>dialects with fricative *tj,*dj reflex or ч-дж dialects (with pronunciation свеча, меджа – candle, border) and </li>
<li>dialects with guttural *tj,*dj reflex or кь-гь dialects (with pronunciation свекьа, мегьа (свекя, мегя). </li>
</ol><p>The first group occupy the eastern part of the Kosovo-Morava area: Bosilegrad, Breznik, Trən, Tsaribrod, Belogradchik, Pirot, Knjaževac, and Bela Palanka, and the second group which is much larger occupies the rest of the transitional dialect area. While the first group is very homogeneous as regards the use of ч-дж, the second group shows some variability in this respect, because in addition to кь-гь, one finds especially in towns the Serbian ћ-ђ (свећа, међа), and also the original pronunciation of *tj,*dj (светьа, медьа / светя, медя). Still, the guttural кь-гь predominates.</p><p>The first group is contiguous to the north-western Bulgarian dialects while the second group is contiguous to the south-western Bulgarian dialects that are spoken in Macedonia. Bulgarian traits predominate in both groups; therefore, those are predominantly Bulgarian dialects with very small Serbian admixture.</p><p>Still, these dialects are transitional, because they are a transition from Bulgarian to Serbian and vice versa. These dialects are as much transitional between Bulgarian and Serbian as, e.g., Belorussian is a transition from Russian to Polish, or Croatian is a transition from Serbian to Slovenian. Two long-time neighbouring languages – especially two related languages – are never sharply separated so that transition is abrupt; there is always a transitional environment, an intervening belt, which contains a mixture of both languages.</p><p>The origin of the population of Morava region indicates the type of speech there. Excepting the Walachians who rather densely populate the nortern part of Morava, above the line Zaječar – Bolevac – Kyupria, the rest of the Slavic population in Morava region consists of old and new immigrants. The old immigrants came from the south-east, i.e. from Macedonia and from western Bulgaria in the last 300 years when Bulgarians were often forced to escape from the Turkish attrocities towards freer lands. The new immigrants came from the north-west as clerks and officials of Serbian authorities after Morava region came into the Serbian state. Thus, in Morava region two Slavic languages, Bulgarian and Serbian, met and clashed and inevitably produced a dialect with characteristics of both languages. The problem is how much this dialect, which is primarily Bulgarian, reflect Serbian traits, and whether these Serbisms allow it to be separated from the other Bulgarian dialects.</p><p>Macedonian dialects which possess all the characteristics of the Bulgarian language system and are very similar in grammar and vocabulary had been described as Bulgarian dialects in the large majority of publications. The similarity of Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects is a result of their common origin and identical development for more than 12 centuries in the Bulgarian national and cultural area <a href="#ref15">[15]</a>. Bulgarian dialects in Macedonia are integral part of the Bulgarian language area and are different from the dialects in the Serbo-Croatian language continuum in all major traits. Some of them (Solun dialects, Kostur dialect, Ohrid dialect) served as originators of Bulgarian language on the whole Bulgarian linguistic territory. Therefore, Macedonian dialects are treated linguistically as typical Bulgarian dialects, and not as transitional dialects. Exception is made only for the northern-most dialects in Macedonia (torlak dialects) that are included in the Serbo-Bulgarian transitional dialects by Bulgarian, Serbian, and international linguists. <a href="#ref2">[2]</a> <a href="#ref16">[16]</a> <a href="#ref17">[17]</a> <a href="#ref18">[18]</a> <a href="#ref19">[19]</a> <a href="#ref20">[20]</a> <a href="#ref21">[21]</a> <a href="#ref22">[22]</a> <a href="#ref23">[23]</a> <a href="#ref24">[24]</a> <a href="#ref25">[25]</a> <a href="#ref26">[26]</a> <a href="#ref27">[27]</a> <a href="#ref28">[28]</a></p></div>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Characteristics</h1><h2>Phonetic</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">The transitional dialects have the following phonetic traits:
<ol><li>Little Yus ѧ gives in transitional dialects <b>e</b>: месо (meat), десет (ten), гредà (beam), жèдън (thirsty)</li>
<li>Yat ѣ gives in transitional dialects <b>e</b>: млеко (milk), лето (summer)</li>
<li>Yery ъı (ꙑ) gives in transitional dialects <b>и</b>: бик (bull), рикам (cry)</li>
<li>ръ gives in transitional dialects <b>р̥</b> (vowel r, syllabic r): пр̥ви (first), др̥во (tree)</li>
<li>Initial въ gives in transitional dialects <b>у</b>: удовица (widow), да улезем (to enter), уведèм (to usher in), удèвам (to thread), улàзим (to come in) унỳтре (inside)</li>
<li>ъ and ь give in transitional dialects <b>ъ</b> in all positions, i. e. they are not substituted by other vowels: тънък (thin), остън (goad), лъ̀жем (to lie), дъскà (board), съ̀н (dream), песъ̀к (sand), добѝтък (cattle), òстър (sharp), свèкър (father-in-law); дъ̀н (day), тъ̀мен (dark), лън (flax), лъ̀сно (easily), овъ̀н (ram), оръ̀л (eagle), грòзън (ugly), сѝлън (strong), стàръц (old man), венъ̀ц (wreath).</li>
<li>*tj-*dj give in transitional dialects <b>кь-гь</b> or <b>ч-дж</b>: свекьа, мегьа or свеча, меджа (candle, border), ноч/нокь (night), лèча/лèкя (lentils), плàчуем/плàкюем (to pay), вèджа/вèгя (brow), прèджа/прèгя (yarn)</li>
<li>Big Yus ѫ give in transitional dialects <b>у</b>: рука (hand), мука (sadness), пут (road), гỳска (goose), кудèля (distaff-ful)</li>
<li>Intrasyllable лъ is retained or gives <b>л̥</b> (vowel л) : жлто (yellow), слза (tear)</li>
<li><b>л</b> at the end of syllables is retained and does not change in <b>o</b>: пепел, крилце and not пепео, криоце (ashes, winglet)</li>
<li>The old sound <b>дз</b> /ʣ/ is retained: дзвезда, дзид/дзъд (star, wall)</li>
<li>There is no inserted or palatal љ: гробье, др̥вье and not гробље, др̥вље (cemetry, woods)</li>
<li>There is vowel reduction in transitional dialects: къкъ̀в (what), тъкà (so)</li>
<li>Voiced consonants at the end of words are pronounced as voiceless: боп, рок, грат instead of боб, рог, град (beans, horn, town)</li>
<li>Transitional dialects use the old stress: козà, орàч, мазнинà (goat, ploughman, fat)</li>
<li>Transitional dialects lack tonal stress (change in pitch of the stressed vowel): главà, пѝтам and not глāва, пӣтам (head, ask)</li>
<li>A specific middle л (л̚), which is softer than the consonant л in the other Bulgarian dialects; however it is less palatal than ль: бел̚—бел̚à (white), пàдъл̚—пàдл̚а—пàдл̚и (fallen), крил̚ò (wing), л̚ой (suet), л̚ук (onion).</li>
<li>Assimilation of consonant л to vowel у (ў) /u/ — Pernik л; this is characteristic for Breznik dialect in Graovo (around Pernik) and is sometimes perceived as a speech defect: скакаўèц (grasshopper), пѝўе (chicken), кеўèш (brat), кòпеўе (bastard), поўè (field).</li>
<li>Complete lack of the consonant ф and use of в instead of ф in new words: венèр (torch), ванèла (flannel), вỳрня (oven), Стèван (Stephen), кòва (bucket). The consonant ф does not appear even as assimilant in front of voiceless consonant: рàвт (shelf), тевтèр (notebook), Слàвчо (Slavcho), цъвтѝ (blooms), ковтòр (stove).</li>
<li>Lack of consonant х in all positions: мъ (moss), дъ (breath), пу (rat), гре (sin), плèто (knitted), буà (flea), леб (bread).</li>
<li>Very frequent use of soft н (нь) and л (ль) at the end of words (конь (horse), òгънь (fire), гòрънь (upper), тигàнь (pan), осѝль (awn), пасỳль (beans), медàль (medal)) and before the frontal vowels е, и (ньега (him), ньèму (him), гньетèм (to push), ньѝва (field); мèльем (to mill), льѝга (slobber), страшльѝв (timid)).</li>
</ol><p>Traits 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 are specific for individual transitional subdialects and are not found in either Standard Bulgarian or Standard Serbian. Traits 19 and 20 <i>de facto</i> remove from use two alphabetic consonants: ф is replaced by в, and х is disused. On the other hand, non-standard phonemes appear in these dialects as variations of the consonants л (л̥, л̚, ў — traits 9, 17, 18) and р (р̥ — trait 4).
</p></div><div id="colTwo"><p>Comparison of the other 16 phonetic traits with Bulgarian and Serbian shows that the first 5 traits are found in both Bulgarian and Serbian. Of the remaining 11 traits, 8 are Bulgarian (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16). Only one of the remaining 3 traits is Serbian: it is (8) the reflex of the Old Bulgarian ѫ in у. The other 2 traits (6 and 7) are between Bulgarian and Serbian and are typical traits for transitional dialects which simultaneously assimilate and dissimilate it from both. For example, pronunciation of ъ and ь as ъ (6) is similar to Serbian in that the two yers fuse in the same vowel (although such fusion partly occurs in Bulgarian); however, their pronunciation as ъ is a typical Bulgarian trait.</p><p>The *tj,*dj reflexes (7) are not exactly the same as those occuring in Serbian language. Belić <a href="#ref92">[92]</a> marks them with ћ' and ђ' evidently aiming to symbolise an intermediate pronunciation between кь-гь and ћ-ђ; however, such pronunciation is transient and occurs only in persons who want to immitate the Standard Serbian pronunciation. The real *tj,*dj reflexes are either кь-гь or ч-дж depending on the subdialect: the dialects that are closer to Morava have кь-гь, and those along Timok, Luzhnica and Vlasina have ч-дж. Neither кь-гь nor ч-дж are the Serbian ћ-ђ although they are closer to ћ-ђ than to the Bulgarian щ-жд. Still, in Moravan region the pure Serbian reflexes ћ-ђ are also heard but those have been introduced later under the educational influence. Even if one accept that the *tj,*dj reflexes (7) in these dialects are a Serbian trait, then compared to Bulgarian, the transitional dialects have 8 Bulgarian phonetic traits against 2 Serbian traits; this is sufficient to show to which Slavic language they should be classified judging by phonetics. This comes only from enumerating the phonetic traits: however, looking closer into these traits, and hearing the native pronunciation in which the stress acts with its influence on the purity of vowels (reduction) and the various analogies which produce new changes in consonants (cf. прàтен, вàтен, извàден, садèнье, светèнье, зарòбен, изгỳбен, нàйден, раслàбен, кỳпен, забрàвен, задàвен, etc.), one can immediately be convinced that this is a Bulgarian dialect, which, because of its location close to the border, has acquired some Serbian traits. Is it possible to distinguish from Bulgarian reductions such as чък instead of чак, зър instead of зар, към, къмто (къмто Цариброд), пъ си рове, какъ̀в, къндѝло, ỳ‿зъм (instead of ỳ-земе), кр̥з неко време, тр̥си-баба, гр̥дѝна, стр̥нà, дьим instead of да идем!?</p><p>Compare also the metatheses, characteristic for Bulgarian: цъвти, съвнуло, пландувам, забовàрил, цъкло, цволика, Цона, etc. which are typical for transitional dialects. Note also the dropping of the end dental consonants: милос, жалос, радос, пос, мос, грос, дъш, дванайс, петнайс, двайс; and still more: ка instead of как, ча instead of чак, etc.</p><p>Also typical for Bulgarian is the transition of сц and шч into ц and ч: бесцèно кàменье (precious stone) → бецèно, исцерѝла → ицерѝла (cured), болешчѝца, ишчѝсти → болечѝца, ичѝсти (ache, to clean).</p><p>On the contrary, in the transitional dialects one finds exactly the same additions of sounds and whole particles, as in the other Bulgarian dialects: тая люта зима (this bitter winter), тия турци (these Turks), ония двоица (those two), това (this), онова (that), толкова (so much); тука (here), оттука (from here), оддека (where from), додека (where to), преди нас (before us), зади нас (behind us).</p><p>All the above examples are found in <a href="#ref92">[92, p. 233]</a>. Belić also notes these typical Bulgarian traits, however, he does not acknowledge those as Bulgarian but explains them in a peculiar way: for the old traits (stress, дж, л) he says that these are Old Serbian traits, left over in the transitional dialects from as long ago as 12 c., when these dialects had branched from the main Serbian language. As concerns the newer traits (lack of tonal stress, vowel reduction, darkening of end consonants), he says that the transitional dialects developed those independently of Bulgarian influence. In such way Belić explains all grammatical traits of this dialect ignoring their similarities with the neighbouring Bulgarian dialects. However, accepting that the transitional dialects branched from Serbian as long ago as 12 c., Belić indirectly admits that by such branching the dialect assimilated to Bulgarian. Whether these similarities to Bulgarian are ancestral or acquired later is irrelevant to the issue to which Slavic language the transitional dialect belongs, because it is judged by its present state.</p></div></div><h2 style="clear: both;">Morphological</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Transitional dialects possess morphological traits reflecting the most important distinguishing characteristics of Bulgarian. The first three are the most basic traits of Bulgarian:<ol class="list0"><li>Fusion of all cases (except nominative and vocative) into a single indirect case (agglomerative case) and use of pronouns (analyticity) instead of cases. The nominative and agglomerative cases are distinguished in impersonated male nouns: човèкът дойдè (the man came) — остàви човèка на мѝра (leave the man alone); купѝмо волà (we bought the ox), оценѝмо си момкà (we valued the boy). The -а form is not article because the article for male gender is only -ът. The two forms (nominative and agglomerative) occur also in female nouns and adjectives: дойдè женà (a woman came) — видè женỳ, видè еднỳ женỳ (he saw a woman). This agglomerative form which is accusative by origin, took the function of all other cases and is characteristic for all dependent cases: отидè ỳ‿гору (went to the woods), ударѝ га пò‿главу (hit him on the head); убѝ се нà‿руку (he hurt his hand).</li>
<li>Development of article form as a further transition towards analyticity. The article in transitional dialect is only the full article -ът; short article is lacking; кòньът побèже (the horse ran), човèкът дойдè (the man came). There are vestiges of declensed article in plural animate nouns which ends in -тога for agglomerative case (човèкът – човèкатога (the man); он видè човèкатога (he saw the man); узè волàтога и коня̀тога (he took the ox and the horse)). The same article is taken by the adjacent adjectives (видè добрòтога човèка (he saw the good man)). There is also a specific form for dative article form ending in -отому: дàй добрòтому човèку (give to the good man). The feminine article in nominative case ends in -та, and in agglomerative case ends in -ту: рекàта дошлà—минỳл рекỳту (the river came—he passed the river), пòлякът òткара нàшуту кобѝлу (the field-keeper took away our mare)</li>
<li>Analytical expression of the infinitive with the particle да + finitive verb: можеш ли да кажеш instead of the old можеш ли казати (can you say).</li>
</ol><p>These 3 traits by which the transitional dialects differ from Serbian, constitute the foundation of Bulgarian language. Whether these traits were acquired from some non-Slavic tribe, or developed under the influence of the main Bulgarian language is not of such importance, as Belić implies when he tries to show that these traits do not come from Bulgarian but from some hypothetical more common culture existing in antiquity for all Balkan peoples east of Morava. Here Belić does not see how he contradicts himself, because to assume that Moravans were influenced by another, non-Serbian culture which influenced also Bulgarians, means that Moravans have lived from time immemorial together with the Bulgars in order to acquire their language and traits lacking in Serbian; meaning that the Moravan dialect developed for a long time parallel with Bulgarian language as its integral part. And this is really so, as the further comparison will show. Thus, in addition to the above 3 "major" (as Belić calls them) traits, there are other ones, as major and important, and all together give to the transitional dialects a Bulgarian character. Below are listed some of the most important:</p><ol class="list0" start="4"><li>Analytical expression of the comparative and the superlative degrees in adjectives through the particles <b>по-</b> and <b>най-</b>: по-висок, най-голям (taller, biggest).</li>
<li>Analytical expression of future tense with the particles <b>ке</b> or <b>че</b> and the verb in present tense (not infinitive): ке идем or че одим (I'll go), я че пийèм (I'll drink), че му дàм (I'll give him), тѝ че пийèш (you'll drink), он че òре (he'll plough), че нòсимо (we'll carry), онѝ че нòсу (they'll carry), че òру (I'll plough). In first person singular sometimes there is чу: я чу пийèм (I'll drink), чу му дадèм (I'll give him).</li>
<li>Use of double personal pronouns: мeнe ме обичат; тебе ти пращат подарък; Ивана го хвалят (it is me they love, it is you to whom the present is sent, Ivan is whom they praise).</li>
<li>Use of the preposition <b>на</b> to express both indirect cases (generative and dative).</li>
<li>Use of suffix <b>-ье</b> for masculine plural nouns: гребенье (combs), овчарье (shepherds), селянье (peasants). This trait occurs in Bulgarian manuscripts as early as 12th c.; by preserving the softness of the base consonant, transitional dialects show very well its origin which is the 3rd declension, i. e., the abbreviated suffix <b>-нѥ</b>. </li>
<li>The forms for the imperative and present tense in 2nd person plural are the same, as in Bulgarian: берèте (pick), перèте (wash), четèте (read). </li>
</ol></div><div id="colTwo"><ol class="list0" start="10"><li>The two definite tenses (finite and infinite) are used much more often than in Serbian.</li>
<li>Verbs which in Old Bulgarian had the root -ова, in transitional dialects are pronounced -ува, as in Bulgarian: немой купува (don't buy), зарадува се (rejoiced), царува (reigns), добрувà (prospered), светувàл (existed).</li>
<li>The participles of verbs with soft roots do not change their root consonant which is the same as in Bulgarian: купен (bought), оставен (left), платен (paid), etc. and unlike Serbian: купљен, остављен, плаћен.</li>
<li>Accusative and dative forms of plural personal pronouns ни and ви are the same, as in Bulgarian: я <i>ви</i> не видò, затò <i>ви</i> руку не подàдо (I didn't give you a hand because I didn't see you); он <i>ни</i> не познà, затова <i>ни</i> не проговори (he didn't talk to us because he didn't recognise us).</li>
<li>Shorter forms of the pronoun in 3rd person as in Bulgarian: dative им (sr: њим), accusative ѝ (sr: ϳoϳ).</li>
<li>Short forms for accusative personal pronouns: мен, теб instead of мене, тебе (me, you).</li>
<li>Some nouns have changed gender in comparison with the standard languages: ствар (thing), смърт (death), памет (memory), кр̥в (blood), реч (speech), варош (town), жал (pity); the word вечер (evening) has double gender: добър вечер (good evening) but една вечер (one evening), първата вечер (the first evening); the words посао (work) and мисао (thought) in Serbian are masculine but in transitional dialects those are feminine (посъл, мисъл) under the influence of standard Bulgarian работа and мисъл. Cf. also: половин дън (half a day), на половин (in half) as in Bulgarian instead of половина.</li>
<li>Plural and singular. The word гусла (a stringed musical instrument) in transitional dialects is singular as in Bulgarian, and not plural as in Serbian. Децà (children) is considered plural as in Bulgarian: две децà (two children), със децà (with children), има децà (there are children); the same with бракя or брача (brothers), дружина (company), двоѝца (pair).</li>
<li>The vocative case in female nouns ending in ка in transitional dialects ends in ке instead of ко: Савке, Здравке, Марике, etc.</li>
</ol><p>Against these 18 Bulgarian traits, transitional dialects have the following Serbian traits:</p><ol><li>Accusative case in female nouns which ends in -у, which by the way results from the common ѫ reflex in these dialects.</li>
<li>Suffix -е for plural feminine nouns and adjectives: жèне (women), сèстре (sisters), рѝбе (fishes), рỳке (hands); белè (white), жлътè (yellow), църнè (black).</li>
<li>Suffix -а for plural neutral adjectives (добрà децà (good children), големà селà (big villages)). Thus, in transitional dialects adjectives have specific suffices for all genders in plural: белѝ (<i>m</i>), белè (<i>f</i>), белà (<i>n</i>, white); добрѝ мỳжье (good men), добрè жèне (good women), добрà децà (good children).</li>
<li>Forms ньèга и га instead of „него” and „го” for agglomerative case in masculine third person pronoun: ньèга га въ̀рли кòньът (the horse threw him over), мръ̀зи га ньèга (he is lazy), дàл га у сỳт (he sued him).</li>
<li>Verbs in first person plural end in -мо: плетемо (we knit), плетоймо (we knitted), нòсимо (we carry), òдимо (we go), пѝйемо (we drink), четѝмо (we read).</li>
<li>Verbs in third person plural in present tense end in -у and -е: плету (they knit), моле (they ask)</li>
<li>Verbs in second person plural in past tense end in -сте: пойдосте (you went), плèтосте (you knitted), брàсте (you picked), носѝсте (you carried), минỳсте (you picked), направѝсте (you made).</li>
<li>Verbs in third person plural in past definite end in -ше: пойдоше (they went), плèтоше (they knitted), брàше (they picked), минỳше (they packed), варѝше (they boiled), направѝше (they made).</li>
</ol><p>Other than those 8 really Serbian traits, there is nothing else similar to Serbian in transitional dialects. If there are some other deviations from Bulgarian, they arose locally, either in recent or earlier times, e. g. the peculiar form for plural ending in и or ии (кучети (dogs), др̥вети (trees), колети (stakes), унучети (grandchildren)), as well as the various dative forms of the personal pronoun она – йо, о, ю, ву, во (her).</p><p>First person singular and third person plural in some transitional dialects (виду, видев (I see, they see)) and the peculiar participle form ending in -я instead of -л (видия (seeing)) are neither Bulgarian, nor Serbian. There are also many forms common for Serbian and Bulgarian.</p></div></div><h2 style="clear: both;">Syntactic</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">As shown above, in transitional dialects there are some phonetic and morphological traits common with Serbian. Syntactically, however, in these dialects there is no trait that is common with Serbian and lacks in Bulgarian and on the contrary, there are many traits common only to Bulgarian and transitional dialects.</div></div><p>Thus, in addition to the 3 main traits (analytic declension, article form, and doubling of personal pronouns) which are both morphological and syntactic, transitional dialects possess the following syntactic traits that are common to Bulgarian and are lacking in Serbian:</p><ol class="list0"><li>Use of accusative case with particles such as като (as), колко (how much), како (like): като мене (as me), колко ньега (as much as him), како пас (like a dog), момче како тебе (a boy like you), колко мене йе висок (he is as tall as me).</li>
<li>Omission of the auxiliary verbs йе and су: он узел врекю (he took the sack), она задела дувку със клин (she plugged the hole with a wedge), деца му остали сираци (his children were orphaned), тъг му дал едън дукат (then he gave him a ducat), сватови га побрали и пропудили (his in-laws scolded him and chased him away), тъг бегали оди чуму (then they ran away from the plague).</li>
<li>Use of the auxiliary verb бе: бе дошъл (he had come), бе паднала (she had fallen), да не бе утекъл (if you hadn't left), бе донел (he had brought).</li>
<li>Omission of the conjunction да:</li>
<ul><li><i>in future tense</i>: я кю га изгорим (I'll burn it), я кье узнем (I'll take), кье идем на-гости у нюма (I'll visit him);</li>
<li><i>in other cases</i>: много ни теше буде добро (it would have been good for us), теше га убийе (he could have killed him), не смеу се вр̥ну (he was afraid to go back), дали га могу найдем, не можем се опре (would I be able to find him he can't resist), иска се живи (should be alive).</li>
</ul><li>Use of буди in the Bulgarian sense 'when': буди су ти отпале руке те, не си корава (when your hands are tired then you are not wily enough), буди ме газиш, що ме ломиш? (when you step on me why do you break me?). Cf. бъди, синко, бъди (when, son, when).</li>
</ol><div id="colTwo"><ol class="list0" start="6"><li>Frequent use of the particle си, as in Bulgarian: на си се вр̥не (to get back), продадомо си ги (we sold them), па си га ньега чувала (she brought him up), оне су си биле такве (they were like this), они си отишли (they went away).</li>
<li>Use of the short plural form in simple masculine nouns in counting: десет гроша (ten pennies), девет стола (nine chairs) instead of грошева, столова.</li>
<li>Use of invariable све: съ све войска (with all troops), съ све деца (with all children).</li>
<li>Use of impersonal имало: имало йедън човек (there was a man), па га било чума (he suffered the plague), паднало снег (it was snowing), град га било (it was hailing on him).</li>
</ol><p>There are many idioms in transitional dialects which are obvious because of their typically Bulgarian character:</p><ul><li>"Ти ли си, попе?" – "Я съм" – "Що чеш тука" ("Is that you, father?" – "Yes, it's me" – "What are you doing here?"). Cf. Bulgarian: що щеш тука?</li>
<li>"Отѝде при йеднỳ жену на конак, па пита женỳту: може ли, снао, тува да спим?" ("He went to a woman at an inn, and he asked the woman: may I, wife, sleep here?")</li>
<li>Да има кой да ме вати, па пò‿главу! (Let someone catch me and hit me on the head!)</li>
<li>Иска да знайе много (he wants to know too much), я иска да ги исечем (I want to slaughter them)</li>
<li>Нече падне, защо се др̥жи (he won't fall because he has a hold); иде със ньега, защо йе муж ньойън (she goes with him because he is her husband)</li>
<li>Па ги вр̥наше (they turned them back); па кье га пита (he'll ask him); па га па зовне (calls him sometimes)</li>
<li>Идоше дур границу (they went to the border)</li>
<li>Че дойде куде Петровден (he'll come until St. Peter's Day), че се врати куде пладне (he will come back around midday)</li>
</ul></div><h2 style="clear: both;">Accent</h2><div class="two-columns">Although accent in transitional dialects shows some deviations from standard Bulgarian, it still belongs to the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/08/accent-in-bulgarian-dialects.html">common Bulgarian accent group (indefinite hetero-syllabic accent)</a>, and is most similar to the accent in the northwestern Bulgarian dialects around Sofia, Tsaribrod, and Trən.</div><p>Thus, <b>two-syllable female nouns</b> which in Bulgarian have accent on the end syllable retain this old stress in the transitional dialects: бащà, бл̥à (flea), водà, войскà, вр̥бà, вр̥вцà, главà, главня̀, горà, гредà, децà, дъскà, женà, жл̥нà, дзвездà, земя̀, зимà, змия̀, зорà, иглà, игрà, козà, кулà, лозà, лъжà, меджà, муà, мъглà, ногà, овцà, окà, пашà, пчелà, р̥джà, рекà, росà, рукà, свечà, свилà, свиня̀, сестрà, сланà, сл̥зà, слугà, снаà, странà, стрелà, торбà, травà, чешмà, чоà. Their derivatives change stress as in Bulgarian: водѝца, вр̥бѝца, ручѝца, главѝца, etc.</p><p><b>Three-syllable female nouns</b> preserve the same accent, as in Bulgarian: я̀бл̥ка, лòбода, жèнщина, мàчеа, опрàва, вèщица, у̀сница, пàзуа, пòплака, прабàба; благовèс, зàповед; бòрина, ѝстина, сбѝрщина, кòзина, ровѝна, планинà, рудѝна, слàтина, суднинà, утринà, свѝнщина; верѝга, вечèра, грамàда, др̥жàва, дубрàва, дубѝца, девòйка, жл̥тѝца, иля̀да, йетръ̀ва, качỳла, клисỳра, кобѝла, кокòна, колѝба, корỳба, кошỳля, канàта, кумѝца, ливàда, лисѝца, лопàта, лъжѝца, Морàва, невèста, недèля, орлѝца, пая̀нта, панѝца, певѝца, секѝра, сколỳва; главѝна, градѝна, гр̥бѝна, зидѝна, петѝна, шестѝна, сланѝна, средѝна; cf. also: висинà, дл̥бинà, мазнинà, милинà, врукьинà, старинà, etc.</p><p><b>Four-syllable female nouns:</b> керемѝда, кираджѝка, попадѝка, меанджѝка, измекя̀рка, кречетàлка, мотовѝлка, воденѝца, самовòлька, вражалѝца, каленѝца, сиротѝна, бр̥закѝна, испòлица, я̀ловица, я̀годица, кàмерица, крàставица, мỳтеница, прèперица, рỳ̀павице (череши-хрупавици), цàревица; годѝшнина, зимòвина, лапàвица, цепòтина, човèщина, etc.</p><p><b>Two-syllable male nouns</b> on one hand: грèбен, зàяк, зàйъм, ѝзвор, кàмен, òблак, òгън, òглав, òпаш гя̀вол, пèпел, пòстав, прèкор, прèлаз, прèслав, рàбуш, рèмен, кàмен, спòмен, стрàтор, трòскот, ỳглен; and on other hand: бр̥шлàн, гр̥кля̀н, кожỳ, кочàн, обèд, обтòк, овъ̀н, ячъ̀м, ожèг, осѝл, паздèр, понòр, потòк, пригòр, рукàв, сокòл, унỳк, юнàк, човèк, поля̀к, роя̀к, шестàк; and also the foreign words: боклỳк, болвàн, беглѝк, вустàн, дирèк, дулỳм, дукя̀н, индàт, ковтòр, комàт, кромѝт, пипèр, пирòн, салàм, синòр, тавàн, триòн, чèреп, шекèр, etc.</p><p><b>Two-syllable neutral nouns</b> on one hand: винò, влакнò, гнездò, крилò, кроснò, млекò, платнò, селò, сукнò, лицè детè, жребè, котлè, кутрè, петлè, сребрò; on the other hand: гỳмно, жѝто, зъ̀рно, я̀то, мèсто, мàсло, рàмо, я̀гне, сèме, etc.</p><p>There is no point to give more examples; the accent similarity with common Bulgarian accent is seen from the small list above. This can be seen further from the common words below.</p><h2 style="clear: both;">Morphogenic suffices</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Morphogenic elements in transitional dialects are the same as in Bulgarian; most of those are also common with Serbian, and yet in those the transitional dialects are closer to Bulgarian than to Serbian. For example, the suffix -як has wider meaning, and as in Bulgarian is used also in the sense of collectivity: траволя̀к, партоля̀к, лискуля̀к, прашуля̀к, трешчиля̀к, момчурля̀к, дечурля̀к.</div></div><p>The diminutive suffix -ийка is shortened to -ика: комшѝка, антерѝка, попадѝка, Марѝка, Софѝка, etc.</p><p>The suffix -ка is also wider used in transitional dialects, as in Bulgarian, and in many cases it is no longer diminutive: жѝлка, кѝтка, кр̥стàчка, рỳчка, сỳчка.</p><p>Suffix -ица is used in some nouns where it is not found in Serbian but only in Bulgarian: болешчѝца, вр̥вчѝца, певѝца, ръчѝца, солчѝца, ракѝйца, песънчѝца.</p><p>Also widened is the use of suffix -ичка, as in Bulgarian: бàбичка, ведрѝчка, главѝчка, здрàвичка, лъжѝчка, корѝчка, нѝвичка, ножѝчка, панѝчка, etc.</p><p>Suffix -енце, specifically Bulgarian suffix for diminutives of neutral gender, is also used very widely in transitional dialects: детèнце, кучèнце, момчèнце, пилèнце, джубèнце, унỳченце, шишèнце, йелèченце, кравàйченце, etc.</p><div id="colTwo"><p>Suffix -ин is used as widely as in Bulgarian: бекя̀рин, везѝрин, гавàзин, говедàрин, гося̀нин, пандỳрин, etc.</p><p>Suffix -ина in some cases has the same use as in Bulgarian (for collectivity), and not in Serbian: добринà, итринà, чистинà, густинà; cf. Troyan damaskin: добринıa instead of добрина meaning много добрини.</p><p>In the transitional dialects one can find even the collective suffix -нье in female nouns which occurs in some old Bulgarian literature and dialects: рудиньè, гòдинье, лозѝнье, стрàнье; cf. планиньèто, стèнье, гòрье, even зємлє.</p><p>Suffix -ище in Bulgarian, Serbian, and transitional is used for forming plural in simple nouns: пỳтища, грàдища, плèтища, дòлища but in the same time it is used for magnification, as in Bulgarian: кутрѝще, кр̥вѝще, турчѝще, детѝще, девòйчище.</p><p>Suffix -етия is for collectivity: волетѝя, момчетѝя, колетѝя, кутретѝя, парчетѝя, скупотѝя, страотѝя.</p><p>Suffices -еа and -ейе for verbs are used as in Bulgarian: живеали, пеали, смеали се; слънце грейе, да окьоравейе, да остарейе, копнейе, слабейе, белейе се, жл̥тейе се, etc.</p><p>On the contrary, there is not a single suffix which is used only in transitional and Serbian, and is not found in Bulgarian.</p></div><h2 style="clear: both;">Lexis</h2><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">If we separate words that are common to both Bulgarian and Serbian from words that are only found in transitional dialects, we can see that the rest, and they are many, are common only between Bulgarian and transitional. Out of the 2000 words, given by Belić <a href="#ref92">[92]</a>, 800 are local for the transitional dialects, 1000 are common between Bulgarian and transitional and are not found in Serbian, and only 200 are common between transitional and Serbian. The last category are purely Serbian words that came into Morava region in the second half of 19th c.; those are easily recognised as foreign words either because they are bookish and formal or because they have local synonyms. It must be taken into account, that a great part of the words, assigned to the local category, are found in the Bulgarian western dialects, but these were not counted as Bulgarian because they are not in common use, e.g.: лапавина instead of лапавица, тресозем (swamp), трвонь (wood saw), трапушка (small pit), съвлак (dodder, <i>Cuscuta</i> sp.), старка (матица), ранкице (early pears), загмури се (dived), жъзну ме (burned me), мачуга (hoe), крупàвица (hail), крошна (basket), ковр̥част (curly), клюндр̥во (woodpecker), клашня̀нка (woolen cap), клашнье (soft woolen fabric), банка (pit), воденци (watery pears), ватраль (fire iron), etc.</div></div><p>The 1000 Bulgarian words can be grouped according to various criteria. Some are typical Bulgarian words which are widely used and undoubtedly belong to the Bulgarian vocabulary, e.g.: голèм, ỳбав, рàбота, рабòтим, одртèл, пъ̀шкам, надỳпчен, исплюскàл га, комкàл се, кòмка, намерѝла, дума, думам, станỳймо, кимнул, испратѝймо ги, заоратѝймо се, расчушкà ги, съсипà се, поискà му, съ̀вну, расъвну, осъвну, цъ̀вну, цъвтѝ , трсим да спастрим, отодим, наодим. мр̥мòри, кр̥мим, каним, кани се, да вр̥лим, вр̥вим, вр̥вèте, вардим, да надвѝйе, да попоскам, да прикоткам, карам, друсам, задавам се, бъ̀клица винò, дъш, мъзга, пъкло, лъ̀скаво, пуйък, излèзъл, любòв, гл̥чѝ, гл̥чка, жл̥тѝца, кл̥чѝща, жл̥чка, сплъстѝло се, слънчоглèд, дръ̀нкам, ръ̀тка, дрешки, седенкя, бувалкя, оцутра, одоцутра, пцувал, опцувал, котлè, бецèно каменье, разчорлила се, свени се, совест, градѝна, славей, бащà, кокòна, стòвна, качỳлка, òбич, тупàн, синѝгер, тараèж, велигден (and велигдън), врàчка, опàшка, дупка, дупчица, друшка, големствò, големцѝ, врапчè, клопотàр, облеклò, очилà, градỳшка, имàне, маанè, далèчко, минѝчко, ỳбавичко, блажно, рабòтна, нерабòтна, съгашно, старовремско, црвеникав, горчѝв, вакляст, галàтне думе, куче, мечка, сетне, така, съгà, къга, еднъ̀г, еднỳш, догде, првин, дори, комай, сплуло се, искам, белну се, да бръкнем, бркам, да бутнем, бутам, да куснем, да поминем, прилега, не свр̥та се, прилѝча, разбирам, налита, набеджуем, да погалим, надушуйе, сподобуйе, умѝлкуйе се, блъсък, заслънỳла се (склонила се), пъстр̥ва, шегувам се, да зèмеш, йеднъг, тъгàй, съга и съги, уджич (югич), снаоджа га (снахожда го), àрен човек, старойкя, люлькя, мишка, аджаркѝнье сливе, самовòлька жена, повѝвке (diapers), кобѝлка (кобилица), жѝчка, бувàлькя (baseball bat), патѝлник, кравàрник, повèсмо, кросно, трнокòп, обрòк, жèнщина, детѝще, падалище, кречетàло, густъ̀к (dense forest), момчурля̀к, средорек. (sr:спрудина, river island), убил га Марен!, кр̥внина (глоба за убийство), цволѝка (бучиниш, hemlock), диàние (таласъм), въшка, жъгли, да га жъгне, кр̥стъц, ракитъ̀к (ракитак), пуйка, пуйчичи, бучкам, бучка (piston), кийъц (кияк, тотмак на врата), турчетѝя, лъжла, венчѝла (венчални венци), мàточина, цепотина, бòрина, торбѝче, кладенче, песънчѝца, цàревица, мỳтеница, прèперица, кàтерица, солчѝца, ръжчѝца, панѝца, каленѝца, стринка, целѝвка, цедѝлка, семки, кречеталька, квачка, завèска, земнѝк и зѝмник, дрвнѝк, оканѝк, оканѝца (vessel containing 1 oka), камик, ремик, прашуля̀к, травуля̀к, кривак, конощѝп, заяк, канàта, коруба, калцỳнье, копиле, сучка (съчка), etc.</p><div id="colTwo"><p>Another group are words that are not so common but occur in most Bulgarian dialects, e.g.: клепем, подрипỳйем, пландỳйем, пестỳйем, животỳйем, поваркỳйем, бидỳйем, ставина се, съвиня се, прашам, ощурел, дъш вр̥не, другòш, некне (през денè-си), бр̥го, вревлѝв, кощелив, клюсина, клекав, брабинàк, стреар, прикажня, кладня, чурлявина, обрисина, вражаръ̀ц, брабѝнци, вражалѝца, шупелька, умирачка, смешка, желкя, другачка, гонетка, несретник, клъчник, кр̥кàче, партоляк, нàвака (съдба), кошуля, сприя, руба, обга, карта (плоска), карпа (скала), вр̥чва, нèнавис, забовари, обричише га, улюдише га, закасàл, окни га, акну га, побъши, палъц, дзъд, цревье, оточка, опънджак, смотрим, кл̥баси, вревим, гмечим.</p><p>The third group are words that occur also in Serbian but have other meaning there, or have some specific meaning for Bulgarian and transitional, e.g.: превари га in Bulgarian and transitional means 'I overcame him' while in Serbian it means 'I deceived him'; вр̥ви in Bulgarian and transitional means 'goes' while in Serbian it means 'goes in file'; бацам in Bulgarian and transitional means 'to kiss' while in Serbian it means 'to throw'; одбирам in addition to its common meaning 'to select, to choose' in Bulgarian and transitional means also 'to understand': не одбирам от туш работу (I don't understand this thing). Such are also: докачам, прачам, облагам, капвам (капнах от ходене), истрови се (дете), кривъц (вятър), кротко (полека), држава, кр̥стъц, карам, блажим, ожени.</p><p>Finally, the closeness of transitional and Bulgarian is seen by the use of the same foreign words that do not occur in Serbian, such as: порта, дисаги, лѝпца and the verb липцà, стаса (фтаса), кромид, ластар, поянта, темпло, парусия, русалия, вута (фута); азгъ̀н, бадявà, баришъ̀к, къскандѝше, да бастишем, кабулим, заборчил се, батисàл, балдисàл, осакатил се, ерген, бумбул, атър, чатмà, камà, мая̀, бозгỳн, индàт, нишàн, керен, серкмè, чанàр, годжабашѝя, вергѝя, гарѝя, рабаджѝя, саачѝя, сайбия, япѝя, теслимуйе, трампували, дайма, сал, салте, годжà, годжàмити (instead of коджà, коджамити), зòрле, бèлким, башкà, дип, ич, сабàле, etc. Interestingly, transitional dialects use many Turkish words. Many of those have suffix -ък and this suffix is also added to local words; thus in addition to: кованлъ̀к, касаплъ̀к, комшилъ̀к, одалъ̀к, раатлъ̀к, спаилъ̀к, etc. also: гунаклъ̀к, рибарлъ̀к, ковачлъ̀к, кожарлъ̀к, оратлъ̀к (conversation), патлъ̀к (патило), приказлъ̀к, неразборлъ̀к, дечурлъ̀к, старешлъ̀к, etc.</p><p>Transitional dialect, on the other hand, do not use many of the Turkish words occuring in Serbian, such as басамак, пиринач, кашика, сирке, авля, etc. and use Bulgarian words instead: стлъба, орис, ложица, оцът, двор, etc.</p><p>All these common traits between transitional dialects and Bulgarian make us conclude that these dialects are inseparable part of Bulgarian language, and that these traits are the result of long coexistence under the same culture, same influences and same aspirations</p></div>
<h1 style="clear: both;">(Sub-)dialects</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Irrespective of their large dialect area, transitional dialects are very homogeneous. Only some very small and limited differences allow separation to individual dialects that are in fact sub-dialects. On the Bulgarian territory there are 3 (sub-)dialects: Trən, Breznik, and Belogradchik.<h2>Trən dialect</h2><p>Trən dialect is spoken in the region of Trən town. It is distinguished by the following traits:</p><p>1. Sonant р, л, and sometimes the groups ър, лъ: кр̥с, кр̥в, бр̥̀чка, гр̥м, but also къ̀рстът, тъ̀рнът, затъ̀рни, пригъ̀рчам, къ̀ршим; жл̥т, дл̥бòко, сл̥̀ба, but also жлът, длъбòко, слъ̀ба. However, after labial consonant there is у instead of group ъл: буà (бълха), вỳна, я̀бука, мучѝм (мълча), пун (пълен).</p><p>2. Yer vowel ъ at the place of OBg. ъ and ь: дъж, лъжем, мъ (мъх), дън (ден), лъ̀сън (лесен), овъ̀с, стàръц. There are also cases with vowel o instead of OBg. ъ and OBg. ь: ложѝца, рожъ̀нь (ръжен), собòр, соблàчим, чорàпок, моглà .</p><p>3. Triple article form, i. e. in addition to the article form -ът, -та, -та, -та, -та, which expresses general definitiveness, there are other 2 article forms: -ъв, -ва, -во, -ве, -ва for near definitiveness, to designate definite objects that are close to the speaking person, and -ън, -на, -но, -не, -на for far definitiveness, to designate definite objects that are far from the speaking person:</p><p class="box" style="text-align: center;">мỳжът, женàта, детèто, мужьèте, женèте, децàта; <br />
мỳжъв, женàва, детèво, мужьèве, женèве, децàва;<br />
мỳжън, женàна, детèно, мужьèне, женèне, децàна;<br />
кòньът побèже, женàта отидè, испѝл водỳту; донèси винò у шишèво, кòньъв ме въ̀рльи, опѝнъкъв ме стèга, женàва йе бòлна, женỳву вòдете на дòктор; мужèне су билѝ на дървà, ѝжана със църнèте черемѝде йе нàша, селòно тèше да отнесè водà.</p><p>Today the article forms -ъв и -ън are seldom used.</p><p>4. Double article of female nouns that end in consonant (кос—костỳту, сол—солтỳту, пàмет—паметỳту), that developed in analogy to words such as рàбота—работỳту. Similar double article is typical for Gabrovo dialect.</p></div><div id="colTwo"><h2>Breznik (Graovo) dialect</h2><p>Breznik dialect is spoken in the region of Graovo to the west and north-west of Sofia. It is characterised by the following traits:</p><ol class="list0"><li>Sonant р, л: бр̥з, вр̥бà, др̥̀во, зр̥̀на, цр̥̀вик, цр̥н, гл̥̀там, дл̥бòк, жл̥т, сл̥̀нце, стл̥̀ба. However, after labial consonant there is у instead of group ъл: буà, вук, вỳна (вълна).</li>
<li>Composite шч instead of шт irrespective of origin (башчà, гỳшчер, клèшчи, крàишче, пèшчо, òшче, огньѝшче, пỳшчам, шчо), but there are cases with ч (гàче, срèча, ноч). Also, instead of the composite жд regularly occurs дж: вèджа, меджà, прèджа, ръджà.</li>
<li>A single full article form <b>-ът</b> in masculine nouns:: брèгът, крàйът, мỳжът, пỳтът, стòлът, кòньът, учѝтельът.</li>
<li>Vowel е вместо х in the past infinite forms: бѝее (биех), гледàе (гледах), търпèе (търпях), бѝеемо, бѝеесте, бѝеею.</li>
<li>Future tense particle чу: чу мèсим, чу к̀ỳпим.</li>
<p class="box"><b class="green">Example:</b> Сèк’и не мòже дà подквàси ỳбаво к’ѝсало млèко. Онà бèше виновàта, а мỳжа си тỳраше на пòдклеп (It was her fault, but she slandered her husband). Сàмо га подкокорòсую, а òн им ѝде по акъ̀лът и щурèе.
(<i>Goz village</i>) Тѝ па нèму не разбѝраш. Н’èга га рàниш чèсто унèтре (You feed him often inside.) Видовà ли сестрỳ ти? Товà ми се арèсуе на мèне.</p>
</ol><h2>Belogradchik dialect</h2><p>Belogradchik dialect is spoken to the north, west, and southwest of the town of Belogradchik. Individual migrants from this dialect area settled between Vidin and Lom and separated the Vidin-Lom dialect. In addition, the Belogradchik dialect, like the Balkan dialects, influenced the dialects from the western part of the Danubian Plain.</p><p>The Belogradchik dialect is characterised with the following traits:</p><ol class="list0"><li>Sonant consonants р and л: вр̥бà, гр̥̀не, гр̥̀нци, др̥̀во, кр̥в, ср̥п, ср̥̀це, гл̥̀там, гл̥̀тна, дл̥̀га, сл̥̀ба, вл̥к, вл̥̀на, мл̥зèм, пл̥ (плъх), пл̥̀на.</li>
<li>A single full article form <b>-ът</b> in masculine nouns: комѝнът, носъ̀т, студъ̀т, мỳжът искочѝл нà двор.</li>
<li>Pronoun form for 3rd person singular female agglomerative case гю, ню instead of я and for 3rd person plural dative case гьим, гюм instead of им: òн гю нèче, погл̥чàмо с ню вечертỳ; я гюм купѝ; онѝ едỳ, a òн гьѝм гл̥чѝ.</li>
<li>Past indefinite form with root of -ше, obtained by generalisation of the forms for 2nd and 3rd person singular: я плетèше, тѝ плетèше, òн плетèше, мѝ плетèшемо, вѝ плетèшете, онѝ плетèшео (плетèшеу).</li>
</ol></div></div>
<h2 style="clear: both;">Timok-Morava dialect</h2>
<div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">
Timok-Morava dialect in its variety spoken along the right bank of the river Bulgarian Morava (South Morava) in and around the town of Nish at the turn of the 19th c. is very well illustrated in the works of Stevan Sremac, most notable of which are the novels <i>Zona Zamfirova</i> and <i>Ivkova slava.</i> The latter one begins with an introductory chapter describing the dialect traits with respect to its differences from Standard Serbian, and ends with a dictionary of dialect words. Many of these differences are due to Standard Bulgarian traits (<q>Shop dialect</q> according to Sremac) present in the speech of the Nish citizens.
<h3>Phonology</h3>
<p>1. As in the other western Bulgarian dialects, the Yat reflex is <b>ѣ → е</b>: н<b>ѣ</b> сам → н<b>е</b> сам (I am not), н<b>ѣ</b> си → н<b>е</b> си (you are not), н<b>ѣ</b> е → н<b>е</b> е (he is not), н<b>ѣ</b> сме → н<b>е</b> сме (we are not), н<b>ѣ</b> сте → н<b>е</b> сте (you are not), н<b>ѣ</b> са → н<b>е</b> са (they are not) (instead Standard Serbian: н<b>и</b>сам, н<b>и</b>си, etc.).</p>
<p>2. The Serbian <b>л → о</b> refleх at the end of words is lacking, as in Bulgarian: жа<b>о</b> → жа<b>л</b> (sorrow), би<b>о</b> → би<b>л</b> (he was), со<b>о</b> → со<b>л</b> (salt), etc.</p>
<p>3. Reflex <b>м → н</b> lacking in both Serbian and Bulgarian: па<b>м</b>тим → па<b>н</b>тим (remember), уз<b>м</b>у → уз<b>н</b>у (to take), м<b>н</b>ого → <b>н</b>ого (many).</p>
<p>4. /v/ is sometimes dropped when preceding /ı/: пра<b>ви</b>мо → пра<b>и</b>мо (to do), напра<b>ви</b> → напра<b>и</b> (did), etc.</p>
<p>5. <b>г</b> /g/ and <b>к</b> /k/ in some words are replaced with <b>дж</b> /ʤ/ and <b>ч</b> /ʧ/, most often when preceding /ı/: на<b>ги</b>здило се → на<b>джи</b>здило се (got adorned), по<b>ги</b>неш → по<b>джи</b>неш (to perish), бая<b>ги</b>м → бая<b>джи</b>м (supposedly); <b>ки</b>тим → <b>чи</b>тим (to decorate), на<b>ки</b>тило се → на<b>чи</b>тило се (was adorned), <b>ки</b>ша → <b>чи</b>ша (rain, sleet), широ<b>ки</b> → широ<b>чи</b> (wide), or /e/: те<b>к</b> → те<b>ч</b>е (until), бу<b>к</b>ет → бу<b>ч</b>ет (bunch of flowers). Reversely, sometimes reflexes ч /ʧ/ → к and дж/ʤ/ → г are observed: сирочи<b>ч</b>и → сирочи<b>к</b>и (orphans), рипчи<b>ч</b>и → рипчи<b>к</b>и (small fishes), сан<b>ч</b>им → сан<b>к</b>им (as if), <b>дж</b>идия → <b>г</b>идия (madcap), <b>ч</b>ерка → <b>к</b>ерка (daughter), <b>ч</b>еф → <b>к</b>еф (fun), etc.</p>
<p>6. The sound й /j/ is suffixed to some indicative pronouns and adverbs: то → то<b>й</b> (it), ту<b>к</b> → ту<b>й</b> (here), так<b>а</b> → так<b>ой</b> (such), etc.</p>
<h3>Morphology</h3>
<p>7. The adjective comparison forms are formed with the prefixes <b>по-</b> and <b>най-</b> as in Bulgarian (analytically): по-луд (Sr: луђи) madder, по-голем (Sr: великиjи) bigger, по-добар (Sr: бољиjи) better, по-брго (Sr: хитниje) faster; these prefixes may be put in front of nouns: по-момак (more real boy), по-зулумчар (greater wrong-doer), and even before adverbs: по-таква (more so)</p>
<p>8. Suffixes <b>й</b> /j/ and <b>я</b> /ja/ are added to indicative pronouns and adverbs: то → то<b>й</b> (it), ту<b>к</b> → ту<b>й</b> (here), так<b>а</b> → так<b>ой</b> (such); а на они<b>я</b> будале (and to those fools), да пойе ту<b>я</b> песму (to sing this song), etc.</p>
</div><div id="colTwo">
<p>9. Pronoun form for 3rd person singular female accusative case <b>гу</b> instead of Bg: я, нея; Sr: ју, је; 3rd person singular female dative case <b>ну</b> instead of Bg: ѝ, Sr: јоj њоj – traits that are similar to the Belogradchik dialect: òн гу нèче (he doesn't want her), погл̥чàмо с ну вечертỳ (we talked with her in the evening). The respective 3rd person plural pronouns are the same as in Standard Bulgarian <b>ги</b> and <b>им</b> (Sr: их, њих; им, њима): я им купи (I bought them smth.); они еду, а он ги глчи (they eat, and he scolds them).</p>
<p>10. Common use of <b>-уйе</b>, <b>-йеш</b> as a suffix for present tense verbs: питуйе (asks), писуйе (writes), живуйе (lives), променуйе (changes), знайе (knows), знайеш (you know).</p>
<p>11. A Bulgarian-type verb form for past infinite tense which is lacking in Serbian with suffices <b>-аше</b> and <b>-еше</b>: имашем (I was having), могашем (I was able); зовеше (was calling), требешем (ought to), волешем (was wishing), правешем (was doing), назешем (was taking), зборешем (was talking); пийешем (was drinking), мислешем (was thinking), тејашем (was wanting); similar for past finite tense: тешем (wanted); беше (was).</p>
<p>12. The past tense suffix <b>-л</b> changes to <b>-я</b> (this trait is different from both Serbian and Bulgarian): би<b>я</b> сам (I was), пи<b>я</b> сам (I drinked), бегендиса<b>я</b> (wished); слави<b>я</b> си (celebrated), обеси<b>я</b> (hanged), врну<b>я</b> (got back), улегну<b>я</b> (went to sleep); засе<b>я</b> (sowed over), доше<b>я</b> (came), изаше<b>я</b> (went out), etc.</p>
<p>13. The conjunction <b>с</b> can be also <b>са</b> (as in Serbian) or <b>със</b> (as in Bulgarian): да се ожени със нюма.</p>
<h3>Syntaxis</h3>
<p>14. The case system for nouns and adjectives is very simplified with only 2 cases – nominative and agglomerative (Serbian – 7 cases; Bulgarian – no cases); the lack of cases is compensated by frequent use of articles as in Bulgarian (analyticity): при него (at him), из кучу (out of the house), на той девойченце (to this girl), на Сийку (to Siyka), на нюма (to her), etc.</p>
<p>15. More frequent use of reflexive pronoun <b>си</b> compared to both Serbian and Bulgarian: та када си одоше Турци (so when the Turks (themselves) went away), па и он си пропаде (he, too, disappeared (himself)).</p>
<p>16. Use of 3rd person female dative instead of possessive pronoun: татко гу (her father).</p>
<h3>Lexis</h3>
Word-formers that are found more often than in standard languages are:
<p>17. <b>-ин</b> for words that lack this suffix in the standard languages: коцкарин (lecher), клисарин (sexton), екимин (doctor), etc.;
</p><p>18. <b>-ке</b> for many time and place adverbs: тамке (there), одовутке (beyond), отутке (from here); ючерке (yesterday);</p>
<p></p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><p><a name="ref1">1. </a>Стойков (Stoykov), Стойко (2002) [1962] (in Bulgarian). <a href="http://www.promacedonia.org/jchorb/st/index.htm">Българска диалектология</a> (Bulgarian dialectology). София: Акад. изд. "Проф. Марин Дринов". ISBN 9544308466. OCLC 53429452.</p><p><a name="ref2">2.</a> Institute of Bulgarian Language (1978) (in Bulgarian). <a href="http://www.promacedonia.org/bugarash/ed/index.html">Единството на българския език в миналото и днес (The Unity of Bulgarian language in the past and today)</a>. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. p. 4. OCLC 6430481. Published in Бълг. ез. (Bulgarian language), 1978, No. 1</p><p><a name="ref3">3.</a> Цонев, Б. Граници на българската реч и народност (Borders of Bulgarian language and ethnicity). <i>In</i>: История на българския език (History of Bulgarian language). Vol. 1. Sofia, 1940, pp. 272-301.</p><p><a name="ref4">4.</a> Селищев, Афанасий. Избранные труды, Москва 1968.</p><p><a name="ref5">5.</a> Die Slaven in Griechenland von Max Vasmer. Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1941. Kap. VI: Allgemeines und sprachliche Stellung der Slaven Griechenlands.</p><p><a name="ref6">6.</a> K. Sandfeld, Balkanfilologien (København, 1926, MCMXXVI).</p><p><a name="ref7">7.</a> Konstantin Josef Jireček, Die Balkanvölker und ihre kulturellen und politischen Bestrebungen, Urania, II, Jg. 13, 27. März 1909, p. 195.</p><p><a name="ref8">8.</a> Stefan Verković, Описание быта македонских болгар; Топографическо-этнографический очерк Македонии (Description of the life of Macedonian Bulgarians. Topographic and ethnographic essay of Macedonia), St. Petersburg, 1889.</p><p><a name="ref9">9.</a> Шклифов, Благой. Проблеми на българската диалектна и историческа фонетика с оглед на македонските говори (Problems of the Bulgarian dialect and historic phonetics with respect to the Macedonian dialects), София 1995, с. 14.</p><p><a name="ref10">10.</a> Шклифов, Благой. Речник на костурския говор (Dictionary of Kostur dialect), Българска диалектология, София 1977, с. кн. VІІІ, с. 201-205.</p><p><a name="ref11">11.</a> Mladenov, Stefan. Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache, Berlin, Leipzig, 1929, § 207-209.</p><p><a name="ref13">13.</a> Младенов, Ст. Граници на българската реч и държава в миналото и днес (Borders of Bulgarian language and state in the past and today). Родна реч, 1927, Issue 1, 16-23.</p><p><a name="ref14">14.</a> Младенов, Ст. Понятието „български език” и границите на българския език. Брой и разпространение на българите (The term "Bulgarian language" and the borders of Bulgarian language. Number and distribution of Bulgarians). <i>In</i>: Младенов, Ст. История на българския език (History of Bulgarian language). Sofia, 1979, 21-22.</p><p><a name="ref15">15.</a> Селищев, А.М., Болгарский язык (Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Селищев. А. М. Приноси в българската диалектология и етнография (Contributions in Bulgarian dialectology and ethnography). Sofia, 1986.</p><p><a name="ref16">16.</a> Otto Kronsteiner (Salzburg University), The collapse of Yugoslavia and the future prospects of the Macedonian literary language (Der Zerfall Jugoslawiens und die Zukunft der makedonischen Literatursprache). Der slawischen Sprachen, Wien, Band 29, 1992, S. 143-171.</p><p><a name="ref17">17.</a> Henninger, T. (Bedales School, Petersfield, UK). 1994. Bulgarian and Macedonian. <i>In</i>: The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1: 429-430, ISBN 0080359434; Henninger, T. Slavic Languages 7: 3964-3966.</p><p><a name="ref18">18.</a> Prof. James F. Clarke. 1988. Macedonia from S. S. Cyril and Methodius to Horace Lunt and Blazhe Koneski: Language and Nationality. In: The Pen and the Sword: Studies in Bulgarian History, edited by Dennis P. Hupchick, Boulder: East European Monographs ; New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press. ISBN 0880331496.</p><p><a name="ref19">19.</a> Keith Brown. 2003. The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of a Nation, Princeton University Press, p.2.</p><p><a name="ref20">20.</a> Vladimir Sis, Czech Balkanologist. 1918. Mazedonien. Zuerich. Art. Institut Orell Füsli. p. 74.</p><p><a name="ref21">21.</a> James Hastings. 2003. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 4, Kessinger Publishing, LLC ISBN 0766136884, page 79.</p><p><a name="ref22">22.</a> Robert D. Kaplan. Balkan Ghosts, ISBN 0679749810, p.60.</p><p><a name="ref23">23.</a> Hugh Poulton. 2000. Who Are the Macedonians? ISBN 0253213592.</p><p><a name="ref24">24.</a> Stephen E. Palmer, Jr., and Robert R. King, Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question, Hamden, Conn., 1971. pp. 19-57</p><p><a name="ref25">25.</a> Troebst, Die bulgarisch-jugoslawische Kontroverse um Macedonian 1967-1982, Muenchen, 1983.</p><p><a name="ref26">26.</a> Stefan Troebst, 'Makedonische Antworten auf die "Makedonische Frage", 1944-1992: Nationalismus, Republiksgrundung, 'nation-building', Sudosteuropa, Vol. 41, 1992.</p><p><a name="ref27">27.</a> James Pettifer, The new Macedonian question. International Affairs, Vol. 68. No.3, 1992.</p><p><a name="ref28">28.</a> F. A. K. Yasamee. Nationality in the Balkans: The Case of the Macedonians. In: Balkans: A Mirror of the New World Order, Istanbul: EREN, 1995; pp. 121-132.</p><p><a name="ref29">29.</a> Селищев, А. М. Старославянский язык (Old Slavonic). Part I. Москва, 1951, с. 32</p><p><a name="ref30">30.</a> Стойков, Ст., Основното диалектно деление на български език (Major dialect boundaries of Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Славянска филология (Slavic linguistics). Vol. 3. Sofia, 1963, 105-120.</p><p><a name="ref31">31.</a> Бернштейн, С.Б., Е.В. Чешко. Классификация юго-восточных говоров Болгарии (Classification of southeastern Bulgarian dialects). Изв. АН СССР. Сер. лит. и ез., 1963, вып. 4, 289-299.</p><p><a name="ref32">32.</a> Попова, Т. В. К вопросу о типологической характеристика болгарских диалектов (On the typological characteristics of Bulgarian dialects). Вопросы языкознания, 1961, No. 5, 78-86.</p><p><a name="ref33">33.</a> Бернштейн, С. Б. К вопросу о членении болгарских диалектов (On the classification of Bulgarian dialects). Вопросы языкознания, 1983, No. 4, 10-18.</p><p><a name="ref34">34.</a> Кочев, Ив. За основните проблеми на българската диалектология (On the principal problems of Bulgarian dialectology). Бълг. ез., 1984, No. 2, 97-109.</p><p><a name="ref35">35.</a> Бояджиев, Т. Диалектите на българския език (Dialects of Bulgarian). <i>In</i>: Българският език — език на 13-вековна държава (Bulgarian as a language of a thirteen century state). Sofia, 1981, 52-70.</p><p><a name="ref36">36.</a> Бояджиев,Т. За единството на българските диалекти (On the unity of Bulgarian dialects. <i>In</i>: Българистични изследвания. Първи българо-скандинавски симпозиум (Bulgaristic studies. First Bulgarian-Scandinavian Symposium. Sofia, 1981, 20-28.</p><p><a name="ref37">37.</a> Бояджиев, Т. Принципи и методи за класификация на българските говори (Principles and methods for classification of Bulgarian dialects). <i>In</i>: Исторически извори на българския език (Historical sources of Bulgarian language). Доклади (Reports). Vol. I. Сравнително езикознание. Диалектология. Превод (Comparative linguistic, dialectology, translation), Sofia, 1983, 205-215.</p><p><a name="ref38">38.</a> Бояджиев, Т. Българските диалекти и тяхната класификация (Bulgarian dialects and their classification). <i>In</i>: Българските народни говори. Знания за езика (Bulgarian ethnic dialects. Linguistic knowledge. Vol. 6. Sofia, 1986, 14-22.</p><p><a name="ref39">39.</a> Бояджиев, Т. Принципи и методи за класификацията на диалектите в славянските езици (Principles and methods for the classification of Slavic languages). <i>In</i>: Славянска филология (Slavic linguistics). Vol. 19. Sofia, 1988, 208-215.</p><p><a name="ref40">40.</a> Българският език и общността на неговите диалекти (Bulgarian language and its dialect community). Бълг. ез., 1983, No. 1, 7-40.</p><p><a name="ref41">41.</a> Клепикова, Г.П., Т.В. Попова. О значении данных лингвистической географии для решения некоторых вопросов истории болгарского языка (On the role of linguistic geographical data to resolve some issues in Bulgarian language history). Вопросы языкознания (Problems in linguistics), 1968, No. 6, 98-108.</p><p><a name="ref42">42.</a> Кочев, Ив. Основното диалектно деление на българския език (Major dialect boundaries of Bulgarian language). Бълг. ез., 1980, No. 4, 295-304.</p><p><a name="ref43">43.</a> Църнушанов, К. Българските народни говори и единството на българския език (Bulgarian national dialects and the unity of Bulgarian language). Sofia, 1968, 18 p.</p><p><a name="ref44">44.</a> Попова, Т. В. К вопросу о значении морфонологических признаков для диалектното членения болгарского языка (On the role of morphonological traits for the dialect differentiation of Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Общеславянский лингвистический атлас (All-Slavic linguistic atlas). Материалы и исследования (Materials and studies), 1977, Moscow, 1979, 108-124.</p><p><a name="ref45">45.</a> Ivanov, J. N. Zur Frage der Klassifizierung der bulgarischen Dialekte in Mazedonien. Linguistique balkanique. 1982, No 4, 43-51.</p></div><div id="colTwo"><p><a name="ref46">46.</a> Pomianowska, W. Ugrupowanie gwar południowoslowiańskich w śwеtlе faktów lеksykalnych i słowotwоrzczych. Z polskich studiów sławistycznych (Warszawa), 1978, z. I, 95-100.</p><p><a name="ref47">47.</a> Saur, V. Jak klasifikovat bulharská nářeči? In: Sborník prací filoz. fak. Brněnské univ. Ř. Jazykovědná, 1982. roč. 31, č. 30, 155-167.</p><p><a name="ref48">48.</a> Vakarelski, Hr. Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis von Sprach- und Kulturgrenze auf Grund bulgarischen Materials. In: Festschrift Mathias Zender. Bonn; 1972, 99-105.</p><p><a name="ref49">49.</a> Христодул К. Сичан Николов. Болгарска аритметика (Bulgarian arithmetic), Букурещ (Bucharest), 1845.</p><p><a name="ref50">50.</a> Григорович В.И. Очерк путешествия по Европейской Турции (Travelogue of European Turkey), Казань, 1848.</p><p><a name="ref51">51.</a> Цонев, Б. Разпределение на българските говори според ѣ (Distribution of Bulgarian dialects according to ѣ). <i>In</i>: История на българския език (History of Bulgarian language). Vol. 1. Sofia, 1940, 303-334.</p><p><a name="ref52">52.</a> Mladenov, St. Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache. Berlin und Leipzig, 1929, 13, 92-96, 317-318.</p><p><a name="ref53">53.</a> Василев, Ст. П. Граници между източните и западните български говори (Borders between eastern and western Bulgarian dialects). Родна Реч, 1934, No. 3, 179-181.</p><p><a name="ref54">54.</a> Георгиев, Вл. Предславянският произход на ятовата граница (The pre-Slavic origin of the Yat border). <i>In</i>: Въпроси на българската етимология (Problems in Bulgarian etymology). Sofia, 1959, 114-119.</p><p><a name="ref55">55.</a> Стойков, Ст. Ятовият преглас в български език (The Yat reflex in Bulgarian language). Бълг. ез., 1963, No. 4-5, 326-332.</p><p><a name="ref56">56.</a> Младенов, М. Сл. Ятовата граница в светлината на нови данни. (Към въпроса за диалектното разчленение на българския език.) (The Yat border in the light of new data: On the dialect differentiation of Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Славистичен сборник (Slavistic compendium). Sofia, 1973, 241-256.</p><p><a name="ref57">57.</a> Шаур, Вл. За произхода на ятовата граница в българския език (On the origin of the Yat border in Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Исторически развой на българския език (Historical development of Bulgarian language). Vol. 3. Сравнително езикознание. Диалектология. Превод. (Comparative linguistics, dialectology, translation), Sofia, 1983, 255-271.</p><p><a name="ref58">58.</a> Кочев, Ив. Фонетични и фонологични промени на ê < ѣ в говори около ятовата граница (Phonetic and phonological ê < ѣ reflexes around the Yat border. Изв. Инст. бълг. ез., 16, 1968, 437-445.</p><p><a name="ref59">59.</a> Генчев, Ст. Етнографски аспекти на ятовата граница (Ethnographic aspects of the Yat border). <i>In</i>: Първи конгрес на Бълг. историческо дружество (First congress of the Bulgarian historical society), 27-30 Jan. 1970, Vol. 2. Sofia, 1972, 145-148.</p><p><a name="ref60">60.</a> Генчев, Ст. Към проучването на различията между обичаите при погребение от страни на ятовата граница в Северна България (On the study of funeral rites varieties on the two sides of the Yat border). Изв. на Етнографския институт с музей, 11, 1968, 169-200.</p><p><a name="ref61">61.</a> Младенов, М. Сл. Ятов изоглосен пояс!? (Yat isogloss belt!?, Съпост. езикознание (Comparative linguistics), 1990. No. 4-5, 223-227.</p><p><a name="ref62">62.</a> Hristova, E. 2008. The modern substitutes of the Old Bulgarian nasal vowels ѫ and ѧ in the Gorani dialect in Albania. Macedonian Review, 2:97-102 (Доц. д-р Евдокия Христова. 2008. Съвременните застъпници на старобългарските назални гласни ѫ и ѧ в горанския говор в Албания. Македонски преглед, 2:97-102).</p><p><a name="ref63">63.</a> Mladenov, St. Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache. Berlin, 1929, 119-121.</p><p><a name="ref64">64.</a> Цонев, Б. Разпределение на българските говори tj, dj (Distribution of Bulgarian tj, dj dialects). <i>In</i>: История на българский език (History of Bulgarian language). Vol. 1. Sofia, 1940, 344-350.</p><p><a name="ref65">65.</a> Кочев, Ив. Съчетанията ш’т, жд в солунския диалект (Diphthongs ш’т, жд in Solun dialect). Бълг. ез., 1986, 5:426-428.</p><p><a name="ref66">66.</a> Бoжков, Р. Континуатите на праславянските съчетания tj, dj в босилиградския говор (Continua of proto-Slavic phthongs tj, dj in Bosilegrad dialect). Бълг. ез., 1987, 1-2:123-127.</p><p><a name="ref67">67.</a> Белић А. Галички диjалекат. Београд, 1935.</p><p><a name="ref68">68.</a> Селищев, А. Очерки по македонской диалектологии (Essays in Macedonian dialectology). Казань, 1918. Vol. 1.</p><p><a name="ref69">69.</a> Selischtscheff, A. Die slawische Bevölkerung in Albanien. Nachdruck besorgt von Reinhold Olesch. Koeln-Wien: Boehlau Verlag, 1978.</p><p><a name="ref70">70.</a> Selishchev, A. 1935. Macedonian dialectology and Serbian linguists. Macedonian Review (Селищев, А. 1935. Македонская диалектология и сербские лингвисты. Македонски преглед), 9(3-4), pp. 56-97.</p><p><a name="ref71">71.</a> Bernstein, Samuel B. A.M. Selishchev: Slavist-Balkanist (Бернштейн, С.Б. А.М. Селищев — славист-балканист, Наука, Москва, 1987).</p><p><a name="ref72">72.</a> Šaur, V. Bulharské št, žd < *tj, *dj. Slavia (Praha), 1985, 2:128-140.</p><p><a name="ref73">73.</a> Ивaнчев, Св. Развоят на *tj, *dj в шт, жд и етногенетичният процес на Балканите (Evolution of *tj, *dj into шт, жд and the ethnogenetic process in the Balkans). Старобългаристика (Old Bulgarian studies), 1981, 1:27-47.</p><p><a name="ref74">74.</a> Тотоманова, А. М. Още веднъж за меките к и г на мястото на праславянските tj и dj в югозападните български говори (Once again on the soft k and g at the place of the proto-Slavic tj and dj in the south-western Bulgarian dialects. Старобългаристика (Old Bulgarian studies), 1990, 3:57-59.</p><p><a name="ref75">75.</a> Шклифов, Б. Развойният процес на шт, жд в българския език (The process of шт, жд development in Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>: Първа национална младежка школа по езикознание (First national youth school in linguistics). Sofia, 1981, 24-26.</p><p><a name="ref76">76.</a> Георгиев, В. И. Възникване на палаталните съгласни к’ и г’ от ш’т’, ж’д’ в югозападните български говори (Development of the palatal consonants к’ and г’ from ш’т’, ж’д’ in the south-western Bulgarian dialects). — Бълг. ез., 1982, 5:398-404.</p><p><a name="ref77">77.</a> Видоески Б. Основни диjалектни групи во Македониjа (Major south-western Bulgarian dialect groups). Македонски jазик (Bulgarian language in Macedonia), 1960-1961, 11-12:13-31.</p><p><a name="ref78">78.</a> Van Wijk, N. Zur Grenze zwischen dem Ost- und Westbulgarischen. Archiv für slav. Philologie, 1925, 39(3-4):212-216.</p><p><a name="ref79">79.</a> Романски, Ст. Македонски преглед (Macedonian review), 1925, 5-6:169-172.</p><p><a name="ref80">80.</a> Цонев, Б. 1906. Добрейшово четвероевангелие. Предговор (The Dobreysha quadri-gospel. Introduction). Sofia, pp. 30-31.</p><p><a name="ref81">81.</a> Кочев Ив. 1959. Застъпници на меката ерова гласна в български език (Substitutes of the soft Yer vowel in Bulgarian language). <i>In</i>:Статьи и материалы по болгарской диалектологии (Articles and materials in Bulgarian dialectology), 9:70-82, Moscow, 1959.</p><p><a name="ref82">82.</a> Stefan Verković. Народне песме македонских бугара (Folk songs of Macedonian Bulgarians), Belgrade, 1860.</p><p><a name="ref83">83.</a> Афанасий Селищев. Днешната югозападна граница на българската говорна област (Present south-western border of the Bulgarian dialect area), Македонски преглед (Macedonian Review), <b>7</b>:1, 1930</p><p><a name="ref84">84.</a> Кръсте Мисирков. Към въпроса за пограничната линия между българския и сърбо-хърватския езици (On the borderline between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian languages), Българска сбирка (Bulgarian collection), <b>17</b>: 1-2, 1910/11, p. 100</p><p><a name="ref85">85.</a> The Turks, the Greeks and the Slavons. Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe. By G. Muir Mackenzie and A. P. Irby, London, 1867. With Maps etc.</p><p><a name="ref86">86.</a> A. Ishirkov. The western parts of the Bulgarian lands: notes and materials, Sofia, 1915</p><p><a name="ref87">87.</a> S. Chilingirov. Pomoravie according to Serbian sources: historical study, Sofia, 1917</p><p><a name="ref88">88.</a> G. Zanetov. Western Bulgarian lands in Serbia: history and ethnography, Sofia, 1917</p><p><a name="ref89">89.</a> G. Zanetov. Bulgarians on Morava: historical and ethnographic essays, Sofia, 1914</p><p><a name="ref90">90.</a> G. Zanetov. The population in the valley of Great Morava, Sofia, 1918</p><p><a name="ref91">91.</a> V. Karađić. Serbian dictionary interpreted with German and Latin words, Vienna, 1852, p. 768</p><p><a name="ref92">92.</a> Aleksandar Belić, Dijalekti istočne i južne Srbije, Srpski dijalektološki zbornik, 1, 1905</p></div></div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-91512373507508673192012-11-09T08:34:00.003-08:002022-11-01T08:07:29.623-07:00Bulgar toponyms<div id="content"><p><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TvRDX2ssd6E/WWHfQOaUPKI/AAAAAAAAFec/T1Qa2I0OSaoj4re9j9qp1O9fooNoqiDHgCKgBGAs/s1600/manasseschronicle.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Lower land of Ohrid" border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TvRDX2ssd6E/WWHfQOaUPKI/AAAAAAAAFec/T1Qa2I0OSaoj4re9j9qp1O9fooNoqiDHgCKgBGAs/s1600/manasseschronicle.jpg" /></a></p><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><blockquote>"During the reign of Anastasius, Bulgars started to conquer this land, they passed to Bъdyne [Vidin] and firstly begun to conquer the Lower land of Ohrid and later all of it." <br />
<font size="1">--Bulgarian translation of the <a href="#Manasses">Manasios Chronicle</a> made during the reign of John-Alexander, 14th c.</font></blockquote></div><div id="colTwo"><p>According to early historical sources, Bulgars settled permanently in Srem and Singindunum (Belgrade) since the 5-6th century AD. Consequently, soon after that, Bulgars settled the territory of old Macedonia – <i>dolna zemya ohridska</i> [the Lower Land of Ohrid]. According to scripts left by the Turnovo kings, Bulgars settled Macedonia at the beginning of the 6th century, at the time of Emperor Anastasios.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p>
</div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Romania and Hungary</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><h3>Banat, Turnu Mъgurele, Pest ...</h3><p>Dwelling since 4th century AD on both sides of the Danube, Bulgars left behind many names of fortresses and cities. Their strongholds are recognized by specific endings <em>-shi, -ik, -ich</em> (<em>-ech, -esh</em>) of their names, but also in many other ancient features. North and east of Middle Danube, in the Roman-named region of Panonia, one finds Bulgar-sounding names like Brassó, Krassó, Barca, and Barót <a href="#ref3">[István Bóna]</a>. It is possible that, both in the Tisza region and Transylvania, the Bulgar overlords relied on the remnants of another ethnic group: the Onogur-Bulgars (Wangars), who had moved into the region in the same period as the Danubian Bulgars. In this case, the above Bulgar-type toponyms might well be of Onogur-Bulgar origin <a href="#ref3">[István Bóna]</a>. Transylvania obtains from Bulgars the name Banat, which probably comes from the eastern word <em>ban</em> (mountain), which is found today in the Pamir languages and in the lands of the former Caucasian Bulgars. <em>Banat</em> in Pamirian literally means 'the mountains' and is almost a complete copy of the Latin name of Transylvania and the Slavic name of that district – <em>zagura</em>, which comes from the phrase <em>za guru</em> – 'behind the mountain'. This specifically Bulgar name – Banat – was used throughout the early Middle Ages along with the Slavic name Zagura (Zagora). And to the south and west of Transylvania, on the whole territory between the Danube and the Carpathians, appeared dozens of villages with Bulgar names - Baile, Bъilesht, Voilovo (Boilovo), Balvanesht (from <em>balvan</em>, 'idol'), Turda (salt mine), Turtava (in Slavic <em>slanik</em>, 'salt pad'), Zhupanek, Chukich, Tilva (pointed iron stake), Halъnga, Turnu Mъgurele, Pъunesht (from <em>paun</em>, 'peacock'), Toyaga (staff), Balsha, Kraguesht (from <em>kraguy</em>, 'hunter falcon'), Telesh (cf. the name of knyaz Telets), Telesh-Birnich, Hъrsesht, Zidone, Zidu, Sibin – from the Bulgar boyar name Sibin (renamed by the Romanians in Sibiu), Gubera, Almъzhiu, Segarcha, Mъndra (probably the same as the Mundraga fortress, in which Simeon took defence in the war with the Magyars), Tamburesht, Tsiguresh, Tsutsulesht, Tъtъran, Botorodzhi, Belchug, Tekuch-Kalinderu, Talpa-Trivalia, Okaba, Petrish, Kuzhmir, Bihar (Biharya), Hust, Bъlgrad (Gyulafehérvár), Beket, and others. Some of these names have their close counterparts further east. For example, the name Halъnga reminds the word Halanga or Halandzh characteristic of Volga Bulgars and Pamir, and the names of Bihar, Hust and Beket remind the Pamir cities Bukhara, Host, and Bakat - the last of which was mentioned as early as 550 AD. The name of the former town Pest (Peshta) – one of the towns that make today Budapest – is also of ancient Eastern origin which in Pamirian literally means 'the slope, the hill'.</p></div></div></div><p>Most of those names were found until recently in Romanian and Hungarian maps, and some exist even today. Almost the whole territory of present-day Romania is studded with ancient and medieval Bulgar names. The reason for this is not difficult to explain, since the oldest Bulgarian chronicle – <em>Nominalia of the Bulgar kanas (kniazes)</em>, composed around 765, points out that for more than five centuries Bulgars had a country beyond the Danube ("ob onu stranu Dunaia").</p><h1 style="clear: both;">Serbia</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><h3>Srem, Belgrade, Kragujevac, Morava, Tumba, Nish, Pirot</h3><p>But these traces are found not only in Romania and Hungary. They are also preserved in the region that was the earliest Bulgar conquest on the south side of the Danube, located in today eastern Serbia.</p>
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L1t5vkJztRY/WWHf32eyfFI/AAAAAAAAFeg/nxWiSLDr5WAcrYk6UrhUa05IGnvfiIWOwCKgBGAs/s1600/why_khan_krum_map_bulgaria.gif" target="_blank"><img alt="Knyaz Krum Bulgaria" border="0" height="550" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L1t5vkJztRY/WWHf32eyfFI/AAAAAAAAFeg/nxWiSLDr5WAcrYk6UrhUa05IGnvfiIWOwCKgBGAs/s1600/why_khan_krum_map_bulgaria.gif" width="420" /></a> <p>The first permanently controlled Bulgar land in the Balkans, recognized by Rome, is South-Danubian Panonia, with the major cities of Sirmium, Singindunum and Bononia <a href="#ref6">[Angelov]</a>. The arrival of Bulgars in this area was marked by a whole series of important changes. The city Sirmium got its new name Srem and the rivers Timakus and Margus were renamed in Timok and Morava. The river flowing to the west of Srem (today Serbianized as Mitrovica) got the name Kolubara. Old Singindunum became widely known as <em>Alba Bulgarica</em> ('Bulgarian town'). The Romano-Byzantine castle of Singindunum had white stone ramparts, and the Bulgars named it <em>Belgrad</em>, meaning 'White Castle' which contrastingly corresponds with the present-day Hungarian town Csongrád = cherni grad = 'black castle' <a href="#ref3">[István Bóna]</a>. Near Belgrade, a new fortress was built with the Bulgar name <em>Tetel</em>. All these changes occurred in the fifth-sixth century, when South-Danubian Pannonia was settled by the Bulgars. Even today most of the rivers flowing through eastern Serbia have the names given to them in that ancient Bulgar times.</p><p>The changes that Bulgars made in the names of those rivers and towns have their own interesting history. Why, for example, the river, called Margus in Roman times was renamed by Bulgars to Morava? The reason is that in the eastern regions, from which Bulgars arrived, the word <em>murava</em> occurred which means 'a quiet, peaceful river'. Like many other peoples, Bulgars liked to name things in simple words that make sense to them. And that is why they translated in their language most foreign names that they found in the Balkans. They did so not only with the names of rivers, but with the names of towns. In the oldest Bulgar centers of the Balkans – the land between Vidin and Srem – many ancient town names sound even today. Kragujevac received its name from the famous Bulgar hunting falcons – <em>kragui</em> – raised by specially designated people – <em>kraguyari</em>. Even today in Eastern Caucasus in areas once inhabited by Bulgars, the word <em>kraguy</em> means 'falcon'. The village Kutugertsi near Timok received its name from the name of the former Bulgar healers called <em>kutugeri</em>. Later this name became one of the names of the Bulgarian Bogomils. Tumba peak in Timok region also has an old Bulgar name. In one of the inscriptions of Omurtag, the tall mound halfway between the Danube and Pliska was called with the same word <em>Tumba</em>, and today in the old Bulgar territories around Pamir, mounts bear the names Tube and Tyube. Ancient Bulgar language echoes from the names of many peaks and mountains in this region – Vrъshka Chuka, Kom, Svъrlig, Kъrlig, and Viskyar. Echo of these names sounds today also in the Pamir Mountains, where <em>viskyar</em> in some languages means 'a hill' and <em>chuka</em> means 'peak', and in the Bulgar lands in the Caucasus, where <em>Svъrlig</em> literally means 'Sparrow mountain' (from <em>svъrlo</em>, 'sparrow').</p><p>As a souvenir left by the ancient Bulgars in Srem and Belgrade regions, an old plaque was found with Bulgar symbols, on which the typical symbol of old Bulgars – IYI – was engraved twice. The village, near which this plaque was discovered also bears a very old name. It is called Shudikovo in honor of some already forgotten Bulgar named Shudik. A similar name – <em>shudik</em> – is found today in the Caucasus among the neighbours of the erstwhile Kubrat Bulgars.</p><p>In addition to these ancient Bulgar names in the region between Vidin and Belgrade several other noteworthy names are found such as Murgash village, with the same name as peak Murgash in the Balkan Mountain, and also the villages Madara, Kalubre, Karanovchich, Chikatovo (from <em>chigat</em>, 'sword-bearer') Veli Shatra, Beleg, Chungula, Hubava, Globare, Globoder, Stopanya, Chokotar, Chuchulyaga, Vitosh, Mъrsach, Batush, Bubya, Gъrgure, Lagator, Kokoshine, Tsъrvulevo, Praskovche, Svirtsi, Vitoshevets, Plana, Prъzhdevo, etc. The ancient Bulgar origin of all these names is sealed in the words themselves.</p></div><div id="colTwo"><p>The earliest bridgehead established by the Bulgars in their first migrations in the Balkans is covered even today with typical Bulgar traces. Those are particularly abundant in Timok Region that have been severed from Bulgaria at a relatively late time – during the nineteenth century, after the liberation of Serbia. But in Belgrade and Srem there are still many traces as those were Bulgarian lands for nearly eight centuries – from the late fifth century to the mid-fourteenth century. In old times Belgrade has been best known as the place where Cyril and Methodius' students first set foot on Bulgarian soil. There, according to the hagiography of St. Kliment Ohridski, they were welcomed by the Bulgarian governor – <em>bori-tarkhan</em>, who conveyed them to Boris in Preslav <a href="#ref4">[Reader, p. 297]</a>. Both the title of the governor, and the text of the hagiography leave no doubt that in the ninth century Belgrade was a big Bulgar fortress. At the time of Samuel, Belgrade was still a Bulgarian town and is mentioned among the conquered Bulgarian settlements by Basil II in the chrysobull of 1015 <a href="#ref4">[Reader, p. 145]</a>. The Crusaders who came in 1096 in Belgrade and Nish mentioned those as Bulgarian cities, managed by Bulgarian dukes and principals:</p><blockquote><i>Hic itaque, sine offensione et aliquo adverso incursi, usque ad Belegravum, civitatem Bulgarorum, profectus est, transiens Malevillam, ubi terminatur fines regni Ungarorum. ... Walterus licentiam emendi vitae necessaria requisivit a principe Bulgarorum et magistratu civitatis. ...Walterus, relictis circumquanque sociis, fugitivus silvas Bulgarorum, per dies octo, exsuperans, ad civitatem ditissimam, quae vicatur Nizh, in medio Bulgarorum regno, secessit: ubi duci et principi terrae reperto ... dicto duce Nichita nomine, principe Bulgarorum et praeside civitatis Belegravae ...</i> <p>"So, passing through Mallevilla [Zemun] where the limits of the Hungarian Kingdom end, he went, without making an offence or enemy attack, as far as the Bulgarian town Belegrava [Belgrade]. ... Walter asked from the Bulgarian governor and the city governance a right to buy vital necessities. ... Walter abandoned his comrades everywhere and, running, passed the Bulgarian forest and retired in the very rich town called Nizh [Nish] in the middle of the Bulgarian Kingdom: there he found the duke and the governor of the land whom he told ... the above duke named Nikita, prince of Bulgaria and governor of Belegrava [Belgrade] ... " <a href="#ref4">[Alberti Aquensis]</a>.</p></blockquote><p>The last evidence of Belgrade as a Bulgarian town is from 1259 when it was conquered by the Magyars (PC, II, 76-77). Two centuries later, when the Magyars were pushed by the Turks beyond the Danube, Belgrade fell in the hands of the Serbs, who at that time were vassals of the Ottoman Empire. In strict observance of their vassality, Serbs settled permanently in the conquered with Turkish help town and over time it became their main stronghold.</p>
<p><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jDpYc9H-FwU/WWHgnI6YlGI/AAAAAAAAFek/NUNw-CMfSXMzPayYXlKDifMwGp400a_xACKgBGAs/s1600/BL_MAP-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Bulgar toponyms" border="0" height="490" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jDpYc9H-FwU/WWHgnI6YlGI/AAAAAAAAFek/NUNw-CMfSXMzPayYXlKDifMwGp400a_xACKgBGAs/s1600/BL_MAP-1.jpg" width="420" /></a></p><p>If we go down from Srem, Belgrade and Vidin (South-Danubian Panonia) towards Ohrid, the road passes through the ancient fortress Naisos, renamed Nish by Bulgars at the same time when Margus became Morava and Timakus became Timok. This name of the town given by the Bulgars remarkably coincides with the name of one of the most famous towns near Pamir – the capital of the old Partian Empire called Nissan. Close to Nish is Pirot – another town named by Bulgars in their specific Bulgar language. The name of Pirot is similar to the eastern word <i>pirg</i> (stronghold). The Bulgar character of the population of Nish, Pirot, and the Timok River Basin to the north-east has been preserved at least until the beginning of the 20th century, albeit largely Serbianized, as evidenced by the British traveller <a href="#Durham">Mary Edith Durham</a>. She saw a distinctly Bulgar cast of countenance and build in Pirot. Before its annexation to Serbia in 1878, Pirot was an undoubtedly Bulgar district. The population along the frontier and around Zaitchar was Bulgar and Romanian, the flat-faced, heavily built Bulgar with high cheekbones and lank black hair predominating. This is corroborated by local customs. Carpet making was widespread and the carpets were truly Bulgarian in origin. Carpets were not made in any other part of Serbia. And the neighbouring peasants played the bagpipe, the typical Bulgar instrument. Old books of travel call Nish a Bulgar town. Bulgars extend not only into the south of Serbia, but in the east spreads over the Timok. <a href="#Durham">[Durham]</a></p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Macedonia</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><h3>Gostivar, Vardar, Ohrid, Bitola</h3><p>This important episode in the life of ancient Bulgars can be traced across maps. From Pirot, going through Gostivar, a town named so by the Panonian Bulgars, one reaches the land of Ohrid – the Promised Land that was destined to be Bulgarian as early as the 6th century and where, according to the old Bulgarian chronicles, began the gradual settlement of Bulgarians on the Balkan Peninsula. The early settlement of Bulgars in Ohrid region is marked with the same traces as their settlement in Dacia Panonia to the north of the Danube and in Sirmium between Vidin and Srem. Coming near the Ohrid lake, the Bulgars immediately gave new names to towns. Former Lichnida got its present name Ohrid, the Lichnida Lake became Ohrid Lake, the river Axios was renamed to Vardar, the town of Pelagonia was called Bitola (from the old Bulgar term <i>bitol</i> – 'gathering place'), the town of Selasphor became Devol, new fortresses were built and were called Struga, Prespa and Prilep. All major towns in the region of Macedonia received new names by the Bulgar settlers and this fact is explicitly noted in the old Byzantine sources.</p><p>The Byzantine poet John Tsetsas, ridiculing the ignorance of some of his contemporaries who were not aware that Vardar was the new Bulgar name of the River Axios, even wrote a satire on this occasion.</p><blockquote>But the Peonians (Panonians) are Bulgars! Do not believe fools who tell you that Peonians are different people. Those fools think that Axios is different from Vardar. <a href="#ref5">[Sources, p. 104]</a>.</blockquote><p>For Tsetsas, it was funny not to know that the Bulgars came at the shores of Ohrid Lake from Panonia, called Peonia by medieval Greek authors, and that these new settlers renamed Axios to Vardar.</p><p>But how exactly the new names Ohrid and Vardar came into being and why the Bulgars were those who brought them in the Balkans? There are indications that in these names the ancient Bulgars put some special sense. In the Pamir and Hindukush, the ancient Bulgar native land, the word <em>var</em> means 'powerful'. And the rivers there most often bear the suffix <em>Dar</em> or <em>Darya</em>: Amu Darya, Sur Darya, Surhan Darya, etc. Therefore, the name <em>Vardar</em> was not only brought by the ancient Bulgars, but it was derived from their own language, and Tsetsas was not only once but twice correct when he scorned those who were not aware of its Bulgar origin. The meaning that the old Bulgars put in this name is quite deep. In their language Vardar meant 'Powerful River, Heroic River'.</p><p>Bulgars put a similar fine meaning to the name of the main town of south-western Macedonia – Ohrid. It is most likely associated with the word <em>okhro</em> (gold) that is found to the present day in the area of the old Kubrat Bulgaria. Traces of this old Bulgar word are kept in the term <em>okhra</em> (yellowish paint) preserved in the modern Bulgarian language. <em>Ohrid</em> probably means 'golden' or 'gold-like'. Evidently, this name did not arise accidentally. It bears quite a strong resemblance to the ancient Greek name <em>Lichnidos</em>, which means 'shiny', 'brilliant'. Thus Ohrid, like Vardar, turned out to be an old Bulgar, quite beautiful, name: 'Golden Town'.</p><h3>Struga, Prespa, Prilep, Devol</h3><p>Other major towns of Ohrid region also carry ancient Bulgar names. The names Struga, Prespa, Prilep are understood only by someone who knows Bulgarian. The word <em>struga</em> exists till the present day in some Bulgarian dialects to mean 'mountain pass' or 'a narrow corridor to let sheep in the pen' (also called <em>sturga</em>), while <i>prilep</i> (bat) and <i>pryaspa</i> (snowdrift) are words widely used in modern Standard Bulgarian that do not exist in any other Slavic language. The name Devol, incomprehensible today, with which Bulgars renamed the town Selasphor also has a very interesting origin. Similar names of settlements are found only in the region of the Pamir, where <em>devol</em> means everywhere 'high fence'.</p></div><div id="colTwo"><p>In the speech of people from the regions of Ohrid, Prilep, Bitola, southwest Korcha and other Balkan lands we find remnants of the language spoken by the Kuber Bulgars. There is a number of hitherto unexplained words and phrases such as <em>apotinano</em> (and you, mommy) <em>zhimiboga</em> (my god), <i>tugina</i> (abroad), <i>vo gerizon</i> (in the brook), <i>kuchento</i> (the dog), <i>kъshta</i> (house), <i>toynaka</i>, <em>tyanaka</em>, <em>az</em>, <em>mie</em> (that), <em>eve</em>, <em>evo</em>, <em>gyoa</em> (it seems that), <em>kod</em> (with, at), etc. which are found even today in the Orient in the lands, sometime populated with Pamir and Caucasian Bulgars.</p><p>The traces left behind by the ancient Bulgars on the map of the low Ohrid land once correctly known as Lower Bulgaria are unusually numerous and extend down to the coast of the Adriatic Sea. On the territory of present Albania the strongholds Kanina, Korcha, Himar, Balshi are now known from very old chronicles. These names have unmistakably old Bulgar origin. One of them, Himar, is similar to the name of the capital of Kubrat Bulgaria, Humar, while the town of Korcha sounds very similar to another large town of Kubrat Bulgaria – Korchev (today Kerch on the Azov Sea). The early presence of Bulgars in these parts is shown by the year 866 inscription found near Balshi which reports the Christianisation of the Bulgars by knyaz Boris. The very name Balshi is found not only in Albania but also in two other places – beyond the Danube, in the present-day village Balshi and near Sofia, where exists a village called Balsha.</p><p>Interestingly, during the 9th century some westernmost Bulgarian towns had two names – old Bulgar and Slavic name. For example, Balshi was called also Glavinitsa and Dubrovnik (then a town bordering Bulgaria) was called Raguza. The custom of Bulgars to give their own names to every larger town is evident throughout the regions settled by them. Bulgars named in their language even the capitals of foreign countries. Vienna, for example, was called Bech or Pecs, and Austria was called Bechko. Due to the fact that many old names of towns existed in two or even three forms, it becomes possible to understand their hidden meaning. For example, if one look at the lands of the Orient and in particular in the Pamir and Caucasus, it appears that there the word <i>balsha</i> means literally 'pillow', that is, the same meaning as the old Slavic word <i>glavinitsa</i>. Again in the Pamir one finds the word Pecs, which literally means 'curved, kinked', i.e. the same meaning as the old Slavic word <i>viena</i> ('bent, twisted' from the verb <i>viya</i> 'twist, bend'). Bulgar and Slavic names are often close matches to each other, and the Bulgar and Greek names were sometimes similar in meaning, as evidenced by the names Lichnida and Ohrid.</p><p>It is difficult to describe all traces that ancient Bulgars left in near Ohrid and in Albania. Here will be listed only the most important and interesting examples. In South Macedonia we find the settlements Trapshi, Kolshi, Gobeshi, Belshi, Gramshi formed in the same model as the old Bulgar name Glavinitsa – Balshi. The suffix <i>-shi</i> that is characteristic for these names is included in old Bulgar words <i>humshi</i> and <i>tulshi</i> from the Preslav inscription and represents a special old Bulgar nominal suffix. Of old Bulgar origin in that region are the names Chuka, Chuka-borya, Tabahon, Kulumria, Okshtuni (cf. the name Ohsunos), Zhupani, Harusha, Harushasъ, Bulgarets, Turan, Tumba, Tuholyo (cf. OBg, <i>tohol</i> in Avi-tohol), Kutsaka, Shishman, Botun, Sharenik, Kruma, Kosara, Lъoyma, Sukadzhiu (cf. OBg. <i>sokachii</i>, 'chef'), Plana, Munega, Dzibraka and others.</p><p>In Central and Eastern Macedonia and Greek Thrace we find Sindel, Isperlik, Zuzula, Tsare (cerris oak), Vinyahi (cf. with knyaz Vineh), peak Presian (above Kavala) peak Chavka (daw), Kishino, Shamak (name of swamp), Kanareto (village in Northern Greece), Mount Harvata and others.</p><p>In Albania are preserved names as Kamchishta, Sharan (carp), Sharani (carps), Mostachi, Zhegulya (joke pin), Bilecha, Tsera, Plana, Shevarlie, Tolishe, Mъrtsine, Chukasi (rocky peaks) Gruemira-chesme (fountain of Gruemir) Bukъmira, Bъhot, Brestus (the elm), Tana-i-bulgaritъ (Tana the Bulgarian) Mъniku (midget), Kuchi, Sasani, Kutse, Tsuta-Zhupanatъ, Stani-i-Mizъs (Stan the Moesian), Mushan, Priska, Balsheni, Bardor (cf. OBg Barduar), Veli-Kaliman, Borichi, Bushnish (hemlock), Rabosha, etc. Drach on the Adriatic, identified as a Bulgarian town in the 7th century, also keeps its name.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Eastern Bulgaria</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">The arrival of Bulgars in Dobrudzha and the Danubian Plain was marked by a series of great changes that were similar to those in the Ohrid region. Two of the largest extant fortresses, Durostorum and Odesos, were renamed by the Bulgars to Drъstъr and Varna. The ancient Dionisopolis (today Balchik), called Kruni by the Thracians, received its new name Karvuna while the subsequently acquired town Beroe was renamed to Boruy. New towns and fortresses, unknown until then, appeared such as the Madara fortress, Tutrakan (close to the former Transmariska), Kebedzhe (near the former Dianopolis – Devnya), Shumen, Shabla, Sindel, Nevsha, Hъrsovo, Cherven, and south of the Balkan – Krъn, Tuthon (former Anhialo) and Chenge, called Tsika by the Greeks.<p>Some of the towns in Eastern Bulgaria had three names in this period – Bulgar, Slavic, and Greek – <i>e.g.</i> Tuthon–Pomorie–Anhialo (cf. Kefalonia–Glavinitsa–Balshi). Even the newly named capital Pliska seems to have had two names at first – Plъskov and Aboba. The closest village to the ruins of Pliska was called Aboba by the local population. </p><p>It is remarkable for the Eastern Bulgarian lands that almost all bigger towns in this period get their names from the Asparuh Bulgars. Their names most often come from the east and have very clear and transparent meaning. In the ancient fatherland of Asparuch Bulgars even today can be found the word <i>drъstъr</i> meaning 'strong, difficult to capture'. Also occuring are the words <i>boruy</i> which means simply 'town', the word <i>tutra</i> – 'steepness' which probably the name of Tutrakan comes from, and also the word <i>aboba</i> – 'big earthen wall' which probably one of the names of Pliska (Aboba) comes from.</p><p>The name of the main Bulgar temple of Madara was also brought from the east. Traces of it are found both in Caucasus where the center of the former Kubrat state was located, and close to Pamir. In Caucasus the word <i>madar</i> means even today 'keep, revere' <a href="#ref8">[Chuvash]</a>. In the ancient languages that were spoken near the western borders of Pamir – in Mohenjo-Daro and Harapa, the sacrifications were called <i>mandira</i>, and the priests were called <i>mandira-karan</i>. The Sanskrit term <i>mantra</i> – 'sacred hymn', is also connected to these ancient religious terms. Madara was no doubt the sacred home of Bulgars. This characteristic is sealed in its very name which in ancient Bulgar meant 'the sacred place' or, maybe, 'the blessed place'. In the same way as in later times many settlements were founded with the names Tsъrkva, Manastir, Manastirishte, Bulgars gave the name Madara – 'the temple', 'the sacred place'. And namely because Madara was the most revered place by the Bulgars, in its rocks was cut the pantheon of the founder of the Bulgarian state – knyaz Asparuh.</p><p>As a whole, traces left by the Asparuh Bulgars on the map of Eastern Bulgaria are as numerous and distinct as the traces left in the Ohrid region and in Albania. In both places, Bulgars named with their own names all major towns upon arrival. In the Ohrid region these are Ohrid, Bitolya, Struga, Prespa, Prilep, Kukush, Kostur, etc.; in Albania: Drach, Balshi, Devol, Kanina, Korcha, Himar; and in Eastern Bulgaria: Drъstъr, Varna, Karvuna, Madara, Tutrakan, Shumen, Shabla, Kaspichan, Sindel, Chenge, Chirpan, and the newly built capital – Aboba. The handwriting of state construction in Bulgars was the same. So were the names they gave to their towns. They are usually beautiful eastern epithets that are found even today in the lands inhabited by ancient Bulgars before their migration to the Caucasus and the Balkans.</p></div><div id="colTwo"><p></p><h3>Towns, peaks, rivers, lakes ...</h3>All lands that today surround Bulgaria are colored with the evokative and beautiful names brought long ago by the ancient Bulgars. Such names are found in Romania and Hungary (Biharya, Peshta, Pech), in Eastern Serbia (Srem, Kraguevac, Morava, Pirot, Nish), in whole Macedonia and Albania. These names delineate the living space of Bulgars. They all are branches of the big nest built by them after conquering the Balkans.<p></p><p>But not only towns in the surrounding lands bear Bulgar names. Such names bear most mountains to the west and south. Ancient Bulgar sounding is preserved in two of the most common mountain terms in the Balkans – <i>chuka</i> and <i>chukar</i>. These two words occur in Romania, and also in Eastern Serbia – the first Bulgar beach-head on the Balkans, and also in the Ohrid-Skopie region, Albania, and Northern Greece. In addition to the Balkans, the specific term <i>chuka</i> occurs in only one other region – in Pamir and Hindukush. There, the word <i>chuka</i> is pronounced in the same way as in Bulgaria and means a high, most often bleak, mountain.</p><p>The two places in the world where this geographic term occurs have only one thing in common: there lived or live Bulgars. Therefore, this word is undoubtedly a heritage left by the Bulgar forefathers. That Bulgars is the people that brought to the Balkans the word <i>chuka</i> is evident from the derivative term – <i>chukari</i>. It is connected to the word <i>chuka</i> approximately in the same way as the old Bulgar title <i>boila</i> was connected to its derivative word <i>boilar</i> (bolyars). In both word pairs, the specific suffix <i>-ar</i> is found with which in the Bulgar language the plural of nouns was formed. So there can be no doubt that these names are of Bulgar origin. Names as Chukich in Western Romania, Chukaritsa in Eastern Serbia, Chuka and Chuka-Borya in Macedonia, Chukata and Chukara in the Rhodopes, Chukas and Chukasi in Albania today point like huge road signs the scope of the many-century Bulgar presence on the Balkans. And names as Vrъshka chuka, in which one of the words is Slavic, and the other is Bulgar, show that the word <i>chuka</i> was transferred from Bulgars to their neighbouring Slavic people. It is obvious that this combined name arose in a very early period, witnessed by the archaic epithet <i>vrъshka</i>, which, albeit Slavic, is not found today in any living Slavic language.</p><p>Of ancient Bulgar origin are also other three specific mountain terms – <i>rъt</i>, <i>rid</i>, and <i>urva</i>. All three are found in the east among the peoples of the Pamir circle. Some of the not so common and isolated names of peaks and ridges like Burel, Viskyar, Ruy, Ruen, Midzhur, Syutkya, Bunay, or of fields and gardens like Zne-pole, Mosko-pole, Bohot also come from the east, from the old homeland of the Asparuh Bulgars. The name Burel comes probably from <i>bur</i> – 'chalk', a widely occuring word in Pamir. Midzhur comes from <i>midzh</i> – 'black', a common word among peoples that populate the lands of the ancient Caucasian Bulgars at the Caspian Gates. Zne-pole comes from the Pamir word <i>zne</i> – 'closed, secretive', Bohot from <i>boh</i> – 'garden', and Syutkya in the Rhodopes from <i>sutk</i> – 'rounded' <a href="#ref7">[Pakhalina]</a>.</p><p>From very far away come the names of some rivers, swamps, and lakes on the Balkans. Other than Morava, Sava, and Vardar, that were mentioned above, their own eastern counterparts have also the rivers Vъcha, Skъt, Kamchia, Bъta, and Tsibъr while the names Mikre and Shamag (a swamp near Skopie) remind the Caucasus word <i>mikre</i> (swamp) and the old Bulgar name of the Balaton Lake – Shomog.</p><p>Contrary to the assumptions that old Bulgars disappeared leaving almost no traces, they spangled the map of the Balkans with tens and hundreds of their own names. Their memory is written on the land itself. And from this indelible and indestructible land memory, it can be best surmised where the old Bulgars lived, what was their occupation, what was their language.</p></div></div><h1 style="clear: both;">Origin of the <a name="definite article">definite article</a></h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne">Of special scientific value are the oldest Bulgar names remaining on the territory of today Romania, Hungary, and Serbia, as well as Macedonia and Albania. If we look closer in such ancient names as Biharya, Zidu, Turnu, Stopanya, Kalubre (Kalubrya), Madare (Madarya), Bitolya, Tsera, Linya, Zhegulya (joke pin), Rabosha, Mъniku (the midget), etc., scattered around in the lands neighbouring Bulgaria, we'll see a recurring feature. They very often end with the definite articles <i>-a, -ya, -u (-o)</i> that are characteristic in the Balkans only for Bulgarian language. By this trait, old Bulgar names can be easily recognised among the names of any neighbouring Balkan people. Because only ancient Bulgars had words like Biharya (the <i>bihar</i>, i. e. 'the monastery'), <i>zidu</i> (zido, 'the brickwall'), or Turnu (<i>turno</i>, 'the tower'), Kalubrya (the <i>kolobъr</i>), Stopanya, Chigota (the <i>chigot</i>), Pirgu (<i>pirgo</i>, 'the fortress'), Babuna (the Bogomil), Leskota ('the hazel'), etc.</div></div><p>It is well known that sometime only in Bulgarian one could say <i>zidon</i> ('the brickwall'), or <i>chukava</i> ('the hill') and this trait survived till present time in the folk dialects where at the end of words various definitive suffices are attached – cf, e.g. the variants <i>zhenava</i>, <i>zhenana</i>, <i>zhenasa</i> which in several Bulgarian dialects have only one meaning: 'the woman'. In the ancient Bulgar names scattered widely in the neighbouring countries one can see attached at the end almost all of these archaic definite articles. Side by side one can find <i>zidu</i> and <i>zidone</i>, as well as Turda and Turtava ('the mine'), Orsha (patrol, patrol booth) and Orshava (the patrol).</p><p>This feature occurs as early as 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries in the trans-Danubian Bulgar names like Biharya, Orshova, Turnu-Severin, Turnu-Mъgurele, Turda (Turtava). It can be seen in the same early period in the Sirmium region and the Ohrid region. When Bulgars settled in these regions in the sixth century there appeared names such as Madarya, Kolubrya, and Bitolya. Such typical Bulgar names appear very early also in the north-eastern part of the Balkan Peninsula. Soon after the arrival of Asparuh, the eastern part of the Balkan Mountain acquired the Bulgar name Veregava (ModBg:verigata, 'the chain'), which is mentioned around 830 in the Theophanes chronicle. The suffix <i>-va </i>in this new name is the same as in the old trans-Danubian names Turtava and Orshova, composed from the words <i>turta</i> (<i>turda</i>) and <i>orsha</i>. To the east – in Pamir and Hindukush, female nouns acquire this very same definite article <i>-va</i> in a number of languages. The name Madara, no doubt brought by the Asparuh Bulgars and preserved in Eastern Serbia as Madarya, shows that in the language of Asparuh the definite article <i>-a (-ya)</i> occured, <i>i.e</i>, the same definite article that appears in the trans-Danubian names Biharya and Peshta and in the Timok name Kolubrya.</p><p>Asparuh Bulgars brought to Eastern Bulgaria also other names of this type. The names of Madara, Bitola (Bitolya), Veregava, Kolubrya and others show that in the language of Asparukh Bulgars each word had two forms - defined and undefined, something missing in Slavic languages. The definite form was constructed with almost the same articles as in modern Bulgarian. The article for masculine was <i>-a</i>, and for feminine most often <i>-va</i> and was added to the end of the defined word.</p><p>That feature of Bulgar names is found in many other strange toponyms. For example, when John of Rila decided to become a hermit, he went first in an area that bore the name Skrino, i.e. ModBg:skrinъt ('the dresser', <a href="#ref4">[Reader, p. 463]</a>). This was around 920, but the name of the area itself was undoubtedly given earlier – in the 8th or 9th century. Around 920, the large port Konopa ('the hemp') was mentioned to be in Bulgaria in today's Northern Dobrudja <a href="#ref4">[Reader, p. 166]</a>. It was one of the two most important ports between the mouth of the Danube and Varna and was located north of Constantia (Kyustendzha). The name Konopa containing the defininitive article <i>-a</i> was clearly given by the Bulgars long before 920, because at that time Konopa was already a big and famous city. Also in the ancient name of Pliska – Plәskova, is apparent a particular definite article. Its closest concept is the Iranian word Plәsko – "center, environment", but at its end is attached the already known definite article <i>-va</i> (as in the words Veregava, Turtava, Orshova etc.). The name of Pliska – Plәskova, which in Bulgar language meant most likely 'the center, the capital', was formed by the same grammatical pattern as Madara – with a postfixed definite article.</p><p>Names of a similar type appeared very early in all other parts of the old Bulgaria. For example, when in 1017 Basil II defeated Samuil's Bulgaria, its last defender Ivats retired to an inaccessible mountainous place whose name the Greeks wrote as Vrohot <a href="#ref4">[Reader, p. 273]</a>. In Western Bulgaria the word <i>vrәh</i> ('peak') sounds in many places like <i>vrao, vraot, vrahot</i>, and this shows pretty well what the word marked as <i>vrohot</i> could mean. Before us is a typical Bulgarian name ending with a full definite article (a variant of <i>-әt</i>) used as early as 10 centuries ago. At that time, written Bulgarian used exclusively the Slavic case system. Definite articles started to appear in writing 250 years later. The same suffix <i>-ot</i> occurs in the name Botrot (from <i>botra</i> – 'dairy') recorded again in Samuil's Bulgaria.</p><p></p><div id="colTwo"><p>Still in this early age – around 1070, in the Eastern Rhodopes near Bachkovo Monastery, names are found written as Velikon (<i>i.e.</i> 'the great') and Lahanara <i>i.e.</i> 'the gardener' (from the Greek word <i>lahana</i> – 'cabbage, vegetable'). The first contains the definite article <i>-on</i>, similar to that in the name Zidone, and the second – the well known definite article <i>-a</i>. Charters of various churches and monasteries from Thessaloniki and Ohrid were found in the same period that list male names and nicknames Buhala (i.e. 'the Owl'), Bardokvata, Bodina, Bryasta; all show that the peculiar Bulgar article forms were used very early, and did not arise in 13-14th century, as was until recently assumed.</p><p></p><p>With their arrival to the south of Danube ancient Bulgars brought the postfixed article as the most important trait of their language and this is why the names containing postfixed articles occur in 7-10th century in all Bulgar lands – in North and trans-Danubian Bulgaria, in West Bulgaria and Lower Bulgaria (Ohrid Region), in Eastern Rhodopes.</p><p>It is notable that all early names that end in Bulgar article forms have roots that are foreign to Slavic languages. The words <i>verega, galat, plъsko, orsha, turda, konop, bihar, madar, kolobъr, butra</i> from which the names Veregava, Plъskova, Orshova, Turtava, Konopa, Biharya, Madara, Kolubrya, Butrot are constructed, do not occur among Slavs while they are very common in Bulgar-inhabited lands before the Bulgar migration to the Balkans. This is a proof that the postfixed article forms in Bulgarian language did not arise on a Slavic basis but are inherited from the language of Asparuh and Kuber Bulgars.</p><p>Indeed, looking through the old Bulgar names of towns and mountains, one cannot help noticing that they contain many specific words by which the Bulgarian language differs from the surrounding Balkan languages. To get a better impression about this, let us select from the old Bulgar names dispersed throughout Romania, Serbia, and Macedonia, only those that even today are understood by each Bulgarian.</p><p>Here they are:</p><p class="box">Zidu, Skrino, Konopa, Stopanya, Globarya, Brъshlyanya, Hubava, Morunesht, Birnich, (Telesh-Birnich), Chungula, Tsiguresht, Tamburesht, Toyaga, Bisercha, Belchug, Gizdъvesh, Murgash, Chukara, Chuchulyaga, Gushtera, Machkata, Sharani, Hralupi, Gъrlitsa, Gurgul, Gъrgur, Gurgulyat, Buhala, Kurilya, Kraguevets, Tъnganu, Gliganu, Kuchi, Mъniku, Pryaspa, Prilep, Gubera, Gъvana, Vъrtopu, Devesel (ModBg: devesil, 'lovage, hogweed'), Bъzъn ('the elder'), Tъntava (ModBg: tintyava, 'gentian'), Chubra, Buren, Praskovche, Kachulats, Kokoshine, Kosheren, Kochine, Tъrlo, Shipot, Balvan, Chukich, Rabosha, Tsъrvulovo, Svirtsi, Obay gora, Bayna basha, etc. </p><p>All these names are written in the way they are found in Romania, Serbia, and Macedonia, <i>i.e.</i> with the inavoidable distortions under Romanian and Serbian influence. But even so, they remain markedly Bulgarian and cannot be confused with Serbian and Romanian names. These words are Bulgarian, and not Serbian or Romanian, their grammar is typically Bulgarian and this is why every Bulgarian can understand them without translation while Romanians and Serbs cannot.</p><p>But why a Bulgarian can understand these names while for other peoples, including Slavic ones, they are vague and obscure? There are two reasons: first, because Slavs haven't most of the peculiar words contained in these ancient names. Second, because other Slavs haven't the specific article forms that help translate their exact meaning. The only people that had such words and such grammatical forms in the Balkans were the Asparuh Bulgars. Therefore, all the above-listed names are left by them. They are a direct heritage from the Bulgar language.</p><p>Not only Bulgarian history but also the map of Bulgaria is to a great extent created and written by the Asparuh Bulgars. But this fact was unknown for a long time. Only discovering the ancient names, dispersed by Bulgars everywhere on the Balkans, helped to understand what a people they were and what they left on both sides of the Danube.</p><p>Today there is no doubt that a large part of the names that sound not only under the today's Bulgarian sky but also in the neighbouring Balkan countries, are brought by the Asparuh and Kuber Bulgars.</p><p>Serbs use Bulgar words when they pronounce the names of Srem, Kraguevac, Nish, Pirot, and Morava. Romanians wake a sound of the thousand-year old Bulgar language when they pronounce the names of Biharya, Orshova, Turnu-Severin, Turnu-Mъgurele, and Bъalesht. And Bulgarians pronounce Bulgar words when they mention Pliska, Madara, Tutrakan, Shabla, Kavarna and many other Bulgarian towns, and also when they mention Ohrid, Vardar, Drach, Balshi, Korcha, and Raguza.</p><p>The fate of every great people seems to be giving something to the neighbouring peoples and then sink into itself, giving away part of its own creations and sometimes even forgetting about them. But even when a people leaves the places that it once inhabited, it leaves behind names of towns, rivers, and mountains. And by these names, every people can see who it was and where it lived.</p><p></p><p></p></div><h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1><div class="two-columns"><div id="colOne"><p>Die Slavische <a name="Manasses">Manasses</a>-Chronik. Auch der Ausgabe von Jan Bogdan. Muenchen, Wilhelm Fink Verlag 1966, page 115.</p><p><a name="Durham"> Durham, M. E. (Mary Edith)</a>, Twenty years of the Balkan tangle, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2007, ISBN 1434634264, Project Gutenberg e-text # 19669, p. 40.</p><p><a name="ref3"> István Bóna</a>, <a href="http://vmek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/49.html">Southern Transylvania under Bulgar Rule</a>, Chapter II.6 In: History of Transylvania (Béla Köpeczi, Gen. Ed.), Vol. 1, 2001-2002 Social Science Monographs, Boulder, Colorado; Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc. Highland Lakes, New Jersey</p><p><a name="ref4">Reader</a> in Bulgarian History, Vol. 1, Sofia, 1978</p></div><div id="colTwo"><p><a name="ref5">Sources</a> in Bulgarian History, Vol. 22</p><p><a name="ref6">Dimitar Angelov</a>. <a href="http://promacedonia.com/da/index.html">Formation of the Bulgarian Nation</a>, Sofia, 1971</p><p><a name="ref7">T. Pakhalina</a>. Sarikolo-Russian dictionary. Moscow, 1971</p><p><a name="ref8">Chuvash</a>-Russian dictionary. Moscow, 1980</p><p><a name="ref9">Alberti Aquensis</a>. Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, publié par les soins de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, Historiens Occidentaux, IV, Paris 1879, pp. 269-713.</p></div></div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com36tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-74389403402469442382012-10-25T00:38:00.100-07:002023-09-25T03:40:58.767-07:00Accent in Bulgarian dialects<div class="page-content">
<div class="page active">
<div class="image-left" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Benyo Tsonev" border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gx38QQKjoUM/WV_mClhLzaI/AAAAAAAAFbw/Faksyf4Inm8s9IawanwhrMXrfJR8uYPQACKgBGAs/s1600/160px-Benjo_Conev.jpg" /><p>Prof. Benyo Tsonev<br />(1863-1926)</p></div><p></p><p>Bulgarian dialects are a colourful mosaic with respect to accent, not less so as respecting any other trait. Oddly enough, one finds accent variations that deeply affect the classification basis which are lacking in other Slavic languages. For example, Polish and Czech have well established accents which are the same in all their dialects. Russian dialects, although possessing some accent variety, on the whole are homogenous throughout the Russian dialect area with the exception of dialects adjacent to Polish ones, such as Galician dialects, in which Polish influence dominates <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>. <span><a name='more'></a></span>Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian are similar with respect to accent despite the great dissimilarity in other traits. The differences that exist are easily explained with the antagonism of two layers of accent – old (pan-Slavic) and new (Serbian).</p><p>It's not so with Bulgarian.</p><p>Bulgarian, if analysed according to accent, is not a simple group of dialects with conserved basic accent principle and differing by some variations. On the contrary, Bulgarian is represented by dialect groups that belong to <b>different accent systems</b>. Their large number is striking: they are not 2, not 3 but 5, even 6 systems which are very different from each other. In this labyrinth of accents one have to gain a clear view, to distinguish and systematise them and as well as possible to explain their relationships and genealogy. Because, as many as there are accents in Bulgarian dialects, all of them should have one origin which should be found and linked with the various branches. This is as important problem for Bulgarian linguistics, as the establishment of the language unity in time and space. In addition, Bulgarian accent can help explain some accent properties in other South-eastern Slavic languages knowing that these languages have or had a common accent.</p><p>Studying Bulgarian dialects in respect to accent is very difficult not only because the dialects are striking with their varied accentisation but also because sometimes suitable dialect material is lacking. The older Bulgarian collections such as those of Miladinovs, Verković, Bezsonov, Karavelov, Cholakov, Dozon, etc., have no accents. Iliev was the first to put accents but his collection had very awkward and hard to use accent symbols. The dialect materials in the <i>Periodic Journal</i>, although abundant, not always have accents. The Ministerial Collection made a good start putting accents in most materials, although they are not always correct.</p><p>
Accent is a phonetic trait that can be used for classification of Bulgarian dialects: first, because it is an important dialect trait, and second, in spite of the great variety in Bulgarian dialects with respect to accent, there is no crossover, <i>i.e.</i>, dialects with similar accent traits stick together not being crossed by dialects of other accent systems. Of course, here too one can notice a gradual transition between dialects, however, geographically dialects with similar accent are separate from the others and are characteristic for a given region. This is an important condition for a trait that can be used for dialect classification.<p>The Bulgarian dialect area can be divided in 6 regions, each with a different accent system. In some Bulgarian dialects the accent is <b>indefinite</b>, i.e., it can be on any syllable, and it can be even different in different forms of the same word. Such is the accent in Standard Bulgarian and most Bulgarian dialects and such has been the accent in the other South-eastern Slavic languages: Russian, Slovenian, and Serbo-Croatian. In other Bulgarian dialects the accent is <b>definite</b>, i.e., it falls on the same syllable in a word and shifts only as needed in order to take this syllable. Such is, e. g., the accent in Kostur dialect that always go to the penultimate syllable, or in Prilep-Mariovo dialect where the accent falls on the third syllable counting from the end. There are also dialects in which accent is neither definite nor indefinite because it does not fall on a definite syllable but also cannot be on any syllable; it is linked to two constant syllables in each word so it is defined to some extent; such accent can be called <b>semi-definite</b>. Such accent occurs in Kukush-Voden dialect and falls on the last two syllables. Semi-definite accent occurs in Tikvesh dialect where it falls on the second and third syllables counting from the end.</p><p>According to whether accent is definite or not, Bulgarian dialects can be divided in 3 groups:</p><ol><li>dialects with <b>indefinite</b> accent</li>
<li>dialects with <b>semi-definite</b> accent</li>
<li>dialects with <b>definite</b> accent</li>
</ol><p>Because the 3 accent types (indefinite, semi-definite, and definite) have 2 varieties each, there are 6 accent types in Bulgarian, or 6 accent systems and accordingly, 6 dialect groups:</p><ol><li>dialects with indefinite-shifting <b>heterosyllabic</b> accent (dynamic accent)</li>
<li>dialects with indefinite-fixed <b>three-syllabic</b> accent (Shtip-Strumitsa accent)</li>
<li>dialects with semi-definite <b>two-syllabic first</b> accent (Voden accent)</li>
<li>dialects with semi-definite <b>two-syllabic second</b> accent (Tikvesh-Mariovo accent)</li>
<li>dialects with definite <b>second-syllable</b> accent (Kostur accent)</li>
<li>dialects with definite <b>third-syllable</b> accent (Prilep-Ohrid accent)</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h1 style="clear: both;">Indefinite accent</h1><h2>Shifting (heterosyllabic) accent</h2>This accent occurs in the larger part of the Bulgarian dialect area and is also the accent used in the Standard Bulgarian language. Because this accent existed in the past in all Bulgarian dialects, it can be called <b>dynamic accent</b>. Its charateristics are almost the same as those in the accent of the other south-eastern Slavic languages, i. e. it is variable, shifting, indefinite; however, its innate laws and causes are not yet explained. <p>There is a discussion about the origin of this accent. Tsonev <a href="#ref2">[2]</a> tried to explain it with a former quantitet which dominated the accent in these languages in the past. According to Tsonev, in the proto-Slavic there was a rule that the accented vowels should be short, and long vowels can occur either before or after an accented syllable (глāвà, рѫкà, крāкà, дèвēр, грèбēн, рèпēй, пèпēл) so that the long syllables were skipped and the accent fell on the short vowel. If accent had to fall on long vowels these vowels were shortened at first, bringing about the accent instability in the south-eastern Slavic languages (Russian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovenian). This rule explains easily the shifting accents in the above languages not only in declensions but elsewhere, such as: главà, главѝца, нàглава, òглав; ръкà, ръчѝца, ръцè, нàръки, òдръки; крàк, кракъ̀т, кракà, крачèц, нàкраки, òткраки. These shifts occur in words in which the root vowel is long; the above words and others similar to those have long stress in Serbian language: глâва, рŷка, крâк. That's why in Bulgarian we have on one hand: мъж мѝ, син му̀, девер ѝ, and on the other hand: брàт ми, зèт му, etc.; мъж, син, девер have long vowels (Serbian: мŷж, си̂н, дêвēр), and брат, зет have short vowels (Serbian: брäт, зëт).</p><p>Kul'bakin <a href="#ref3">[3]</a> opposed Tsonev's view on the ground that if it was accepted, it would make an upheaval in all Slavic accentology. Tsonev, however, continued to support his hypothesis and maintained that no other cause for the shifting south-eastern Slavic accent could be found. Its inconsistence with other hypotheses, or the fact that it was not in harmony with the Lithuanian language is not as important as to refute this hypothesis because Slavic languages differ in many respects from Lithuanian. This concerns also the accent, and there is no need to relate it to Lithuanian accent. In addition, not everything in Lithuanian is old. The Lithuanian accent, like the Slavic one, underwent modifications. Tsonev's hypothesis was not based on Lithuanian because there was not need for this and because even without this comparison the evidence for it was obvious. Whether the accent is similar to other non-Slavic languages or not, is irrelevant. Can we seek congruency with Lithuanian accent when such congruency is lacking among Slavic languages? For example, Polish accent is dissimilar to those in the south-eastern Slavic languages. Czech accent has opposite quantitet characteristics. We cannot require congruency with Lithuanian when Slavic languages are dissimilar with respect to accent. </p><p>The most important aspects of Tsonev's hypothesis are:</p><p><b class="red">1.</b> All accented vowels in the south-eastern Slavic languages are short.</p><p><b class="red">2.</b> Long vowels occur only immediately before or after an accented syllable. <a href="#ref4">[4]</a></p><p><b class="red">3.</b> Accented long vowels become shorter. This can be seen best in the use of ѣ (Yat) in Serbia: when it is not accented, it is pronounced <i>иjе</i> and when accented, it is pronounced <i>jе</i>; cf. риjèка (рѣка), but рjëчан; звиjèзда (звѣзда) but звjëздаст; миjèна (мѣна) but смjëна (смѣна).</p><p><b class="red">4.</b> Accented long vowels are secondary in the south-eastern Slavic languages and when it appears, another vowel becomes long: млāдä → млâдā.</p><p>Accepting these 4 basic truths about the south-eastern Slavic accent leads to acceptance of the basic principle that at least for the most part <b>long accented vowels are avoided</b>.</p><p>There is no need to expound more on this main principle in the Slavic accent because it can be explained only by comparison with other Slavic languages, especially those which has preserved their quantitet. When describing the accent in the modern Bulgarian dialects that lack quantitet and have a shifting accent our task is to group Bulgarian dialects according to accent location, i. e. which dialects preserved the original location and which did not, and how the accent location changed.</p><p>First, let's shorten the list of Bulgarian dialects with indefinite or shifting accent to distinguish them from dialects with definite or semi-definite accent and then describe the variations among dialects with indefinite accent.</p><p>As mentioned above, dialects with indefinite or dynamic accent occupy the greatest part of the Bulgarian dialect area. Such accent is found not only in all <b>Eastern Bulgarian dialects</b> (according to the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2009/05/bulgarian-dialects-bulgarian-balgarski.html">Yat border</a>) but in all <b>Northwestern Bulgarian dialects</b> together with the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html"><b>Kosovo-Morava dialect</b></a>. Additionally, all dialects to the east of Kochani, Radovish, Strumitsa, Doyran, Kukush and Solun have indefinite accent – of course, with some variations but as a whole it is the same shifting accent characteristic for the Eastern dialects. <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/solun-dialect.html">Solun dialect</a> is mixed in respect to accent as it is mixed in respect to other phonetic and morphological traits. Thus, Ayvatovo and Kirechkyoy, although east of Solun, have Kukush-Voden (semi-definite) accent, although they belong to the Eastern Bulgarian dialects. However, further east of Solun, towards Ser and Demir-Hisar, dialects with indefinite accent predominate. The Solun villages Suho, Visoka, Negovan, and Zarovo, famous for their nasalism, have also an indefinite accent, although very degraded: грендѝтьъ, дрангò (дрѫгътъ), дъмбòт, дъмбèту, крънгò (крѫгътъ), грендàта, etc. It is self-evident that the dialects from Demir-Hisar and north to Melnik, Petrich, Maleshevo, and Pianets have indefinite accent.</p><p>As can be seen from here, accent does not go together with other phonetic traits because dialects with similar accent can have very different phonetic traits. It is enough to say that dialects with indefinite accent include those with the 3 tj-dj substitutions (щ-жд, ч-дж, and кь-гь). This is not surprising as we know that such accent predominates in other Slavic languages. It shows that indefinite accent was the oldest Bulgarian accent which in the past was common for the whole Bulgarian language.</p><p>We call this accent indefinite because it can be on any syllable, and is not linked to given syllables (as in the other Bulgarian dialects, or in Czech or Polish language), and it does not depend on the number of syllables; no matter if the word has 2, 3, 4, or 5 syllables – the accent can be on any of those: водà, главà, търпѝш, градовè, планинà, виделинà, воденичàр, заобиколèн; ливàда, градѝна, желèзо, темен̀уга, пристан̀уша, воденичàрче; лòбода, пристàнаха, заповèдаха; ̀яребица, лèстовичка, пàвечерка, да порàботехме; т̀ърновчаните, пирдòпчанчето, радомѝрчаните, etc. This accent is also called <b>shifting</b> because words with the same root, and even one word in its various forms, can have diferent accent: водà, воденѝца, воденичàр, водехѝр, вòден, вòдеста, вòдестичък; град̀ът, градовè, гражданè, грàдски, граждàнски, царогрàжданин.</p><p>If, looking at these examples, and also by the term <q>shifting</q> accent you think that all words change their accent, you are wrong because words with shifting accent are, in fact, far less (< 10%) than words with fixed accent but they are used more often because they are 2- and 3-syllable words, they define the whole dialect and distinguish it from dialects with fixed accent.</p><p>Old Bulgarian and, perhaps, proto-Slavic had many more words with shifting accent compared to modern Bulgarian. The number of such words began to decrease very early, without creating new words, so that now there are very few new or foreign words with shifting accent. While a word like творèц, творцà, творцѝ, has shifting accent, its composite (and newer) words like стихотвòрец, миротвòрец, etc., have a fixed accent: стихотвòрци, миротвòрца, миротвòрци; also: борèц, борцѝ, but: ратобòрец, ратобòрци. It is notieable that for an accent to become fixed, it should not be on the last syllable, it should shift forward (<b>accent offset</b>): творèц – миротвòрец, борèц – ратобòрец. Probably this is how all old words with fixed accent were made, which by the character of their root vowel should have had a shifting accent; words like крàва, блàто, в̀яра, врàна which now in the south-eastern Slavic languages have a fixed accent were perhaps a former oxytones, judging by their root vowels that originate from long <i>o</i> and <i>e</i>; before shortening of the vowel in these words, i. e. before it passed under the principle of short-syllable accent, the vowel was pronounced with ascending accent, as we see from the Lithuanian analogues: kárve, báltas, bérzas, várnas. Fortunatova <a href="#ref5">[5]</a> and Leskien <a href="#ref4">[4]</a> show that this is the same accent that have the Serbian words like: глàва, р̀ука in which the accent offset is the same but newer. This trend of the older language to shift the accent backwards can be seen in all Slavic languages, including Bulgarian, and not only in dialects that with such shift formed new accent system but also in dialects with shifting accent. This is used in the classification of these dialects, looking at how many and which words in which dialect have accent offset. First, we must establish which words have a shifting accent and then compare dialects according to these modifications. It is difficult to find a common basis for such comparison; at present no Bulgarian dialect can be used for such basis, because no dialect has preserved the old accent. Each dialect changed something and it is not easy to restore the old accent because the other Slavic languages that could be used for comparison are in the same situation as Bulgarian: they also did not preserve the old south-eastern Slavic accent. Therefore, we can Standard Bulgarian, because it is known to many people and is in the middle between the old and new Bulgarian accent. Standard Bulgarian is based primarily on the north-eastern Bulgarian dialects: Tărnovo, Sevlievo, Lovech, Gabrovo, Troyan, Svishtov, Kazanlъk, Kalofer, Sliven.</p>
<p>The difference between Bulgarian dialects with indefinite accent can be seen according to the words with shifting accent in individual dialects. As a common rule, none of these dialects have a backwards shift (the accent didn't move towards the end of the word), and all have accent offset (the accent moved towards the beginning of words). This characteristic distinguishes these dialects from the dialects with definite of semi-definite accent which have also backward shift, as we shall see.</p>
<p>Nesting of indefinite-accent dialects according to changes in the old accent can be done using small accent variations in some groups of words. Of these variable-accent dialects, 3 main groups can be formed with somewhat bigger differences: Northern, Southern, and Western. There are many accent differences between these groups but they can be summarised by observing that the Northern and Western dialects are more conservative than Southern dialects, in which we see more words with offset accent. It is noticeable that the further one goes to the south and south-west, the more dialects change the old accent until we see dialects such as Demir-Hisar dialect in which words with offset accent are so many that the dialect appears to belong to the fixed-accent dialects.</p><p><b class="red">The Northern accent group</b> includes all north-eastern dialects (according to Yat), i. e. all dialects north of the Balkans and Middle Mountain north of the Rup-Rhodopa dialects, as well as all north-western щ-жд dialects, excluding the central dialects (with reflex ѫ → а) near Vratsa, Botevgrad, Etropole, and Mezdra, which have the accent characteristics of the Southern group.</p><p><b class="red">The Western accent group</b> includes all dialects that substitute щ-жд with ч-дж in the regions of Trъn, Breznik, Bosilegrad, Belogradchik and beyond the Bulgarin-Serb border around Pirot, Nish, etc., in the whole area of <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/transitional-dialects.html">Kosovo-Morava dialect</a> which includes also some Bulgarian кь-гь-у-dialects from Northern Macedonia. </p><p><b class="red">The Southern accent group</b> includes the western central dialects (ѣ → e, ѫ → а) beginning from Botevgrad and Vratsa through Etropole and Mezdra south to Vakarel, Ihtiman, Samokov, Dupnitsa, Radomir, and Kyustendil, as well as around Blagoevgrad, Razlog, Maleshevo, Pianets, together with all Rhodopa dialects beyond Odrin, and the dialects around Petrich, Drama, Ser, and Demir-Hisar.</p><p>This division of indefinite-accent dialects in 3 groups was not made according to some major accent variations because the accent in all these dialects is indefinite shifting but because in these groups the old accent have different offset: in the Northern group there are least words with offset accent, in the Weatern group we have more words, and in the Southern group these words are most. These 3 degrees of offset are expressed best with a particular verb form which is accented differently in different groups, namely the impertive mood for second person in prepositional verbs. In the Northern group they say, e. g., затворѝ, without offset; in the Western group they say затвòри, with an offset accent; in the Southern group the accent is even more offset – зàтвори. Of course, such offset does not occur in all words, but the above verb form is very chracteristic. In addition to it, each group has its own accent characteristics, which are briefly outlined below.</p><p>Below are words and forms that exhibit accent differences in the indefinite-accent dialects:</p><p><b class="red">1. </b>In the grown forms of monosyllable masculine and feminine nouns known also in the other south-eastern Slavic languages as words with shifting accent. Below are only those words common for all dialects with indefinite accent:</p><p class="box">бод, брод, брѣг, брѣст, бик, бѣг, бѣс, вълк, вол, враг, врат, върх, век, глад, глас, гнѣв, град, грѣх, гърб, дар, ден, дол, дом, дроб, друм, дреб, дрѣн, дух, дим, дѣл, дъб, дъжд, дъх, ек, жлеб, зев, звѣр, зет, зъб, зид, кал, квас, клас, клѣн, кмет, крак, кръг, кръст, кум, кът, лед, лен, луб, лов, лък, лѣк, лист, мед, мир, мор, мост, мраз, мрак, мѣх, мъж, мъх, нос, плач, плет, плод, пот, прах, прът, път, ред, род, рог, ръб, свѣт, смрад, смѣх, смет, снѣг, срам, стан, страх, студ, сън, тел, тор, труд, трън, ум, хак, хлад, хрѣн, цар, цвѣт, цѣр, час, чук, шев, щит. All female monosyllable nouns also belong here.</p><p>The differences in the accent of these nouns are expressed in:</p><p><b class="red">A. In the definite article for singular. </b>Most dialects keep the old accent on the vowel in the article whatever it is, ъ, о, а, õ or ẽ (Teteven): <font face="Times">градъ̀т, градъ̀, градàт, градõт, градẽ</font>; the only exception is in the Western group (Trъn-Pirot dialects) where this accent falls on the root vowel: <font face="Times">грàдът</font> and not <font face="Times">градъ̀т</font>.</p><p><b class="red">B. In the plural. </b>For example, instead of the Northern group <font face="Times">гласовè</font>, the Southern and Western group used offset accent <font face="Times">– глàсове</font>; such accent occurs also in Shumen dialect, and a large part of the monosyllabic nouns have offset accent also in the Middle Mountain dialects (Koprivshtitsa): <font face="Times">врàтове, гàдове, глàсове, грèхове, грàдища, гръ̀бове, дàрове, дàбове, дèлове, дàждове, звèрове, зàби, клàсове, крàка, лèдове, ку̀мове, мрàзове, мрàкове, мèхове, мàже, мòстове, плàчове, плòдове, прàхища, снèгове, срàмове, стàнове, стрàхове, ст̀удове, сàдове, ̀умове, цвèтове, чàсове</font>. However, when a definite article is added, many of these nouns restore their old (end) accent: <font face="Times">вратовèте, гадовèте, гласовèте, греховèте, градищàта, кракàта, зъбѝте, дъждовèте, зверовèте, меховèте, световèте</font>.</p><p><b class="red">2. </b>The monosyllable adjectives and pronouns are the second group of words with shifting accent: </p><p class="box"><font face="Times">бос, бѣл, бръз, вехт, врѣл, глух, гол, гъст, див, драг, дърт, жив, жълт, злат, клет, крив, къс, куц, лек, лих, луд, лѣв, мек, млад, нов, нѣм, плах, рус, руд, свет, сив, скъп, слѣп, стар, сур, сух, твърд, тих, тлъст, тъп, цѣл, чест, щърб, щур; мой, твой, свой, кой, чий</font></p><p>To these monosyllable adjectives are added other adjectives which are now two-syllable in masculine, and in feminine and neutral are again two-syllable having lost the suffix vowel (ъ or е):</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">глàдък, слàдък, гòрък, крòтък, жèден, дèсен, èдър, дрèбен, крèхък, прàзен, прàшен, мъ̀ршав, прèсен, пъ̀стър, рàвен, рòсен, рèдък, смèшен, спòрен, стрàшен, тъ̀нък, у̀мен, хлàдък, хлàден, хѝтър, чèрен, мàзен, млèчен, мòкър, мъ̀дър, мъ̀тен, нòщен, òстър</font></p><p>Adjectives with offset accent are used mostly in the southeastern part of the Northern group, in the regions of Pazardzhik, Plovdiv, Stara Zagora, Sliven, Kazanlъk, Gabrovo, Tryavna, Shumen, Razgrad, and Tъrnovo, while in other parts, especially in the Balkan and Middle Mountain towns (Panagyurishte, Koprivshtitsa, Sopot, Karlovo, Kalofer, Troyan, Lovech, and Kotel) the old accent is still preserved: <font face="Times">босà, младà, старà, глухà</font>, etc. This accent goes to the west and south as far as Vidin, Trъn-Pirot and Bosilegrad but it includes progressively less adjectives while it reaches to dialects (Kyustendil and Blagoevgrad) where only 3-4 adjectives remain with end accent: <font face="Times">добрà, светà, божя̀, еднà, and каквà</font>. These same adjectives are the ones with old accent also in the Rhodopa dialects and all other southern dialects.</p><p></p>
<p>Not only adjectives with a root accent (<font face="Times">прàва, здрàва, лѣ̀тно, зѝмно</font>, etc.) gave a contribution to this accent offset; it occured also in the pronoun (definitive) forms of these adjectives in which due to the contracted suffix the accent escaped from the end syllable – therefore the double accent in these adjectives and the antagonism between the 2 accents (<font face="Times">младà – млàда</font>).</p><p>In the Northwestern ч-дж dialects, and the weastern part of Sofia region, in addition to the two-syllable adjectives, some three-syllable adjectives have also an old (end) accent: <font face="Times">зеленà, високò, цървенò, широкò</font>. Here, however, a distinction is made between definitive and indefinitive sense of the adjectives because they say (e.g. in Bosilegrad region): <font face="Times">това дърво е високò, тая ньива е зеленà</font>, but they say: <font face="Times">висòкото дърво, зелèната ньива</font>. In Northwestern Bulgaria (Lovech) we have only the old accent: <font face="Times">дървенȍ-мàсло, планинскȍ-цвèте, ловченскȍ-вѝно, плевенскȍ-грòзде, гражданскѝ приказва, калянà ракия, колчавà</font>.</p><p><b class="red">3. </b>The two-syllable feminine nouns ending in <b>a (я)</b> that have old accent on the end syllable, are accented variously, according to the dialect. Below are listed all these nouns:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">брадà, бедà, бранà, бравà, брездà (браздà), борбà, бълхà, бланà, бозà, боя̀, бинà, водà, войскà, враждà, вредà, влакà, върбà, вратà, главà, главня̀, горà, глобà, грозà, гредà, глистя̀, грудà, дъскà, дъгà, душà, дихà, елà, елхà, женà, жарà (ярà), жеглà, зорà, земя̀, злинà, змия̀, заря̀, звездà, зимà, иглà, игрà, ивà, искрà, корà, козà, косà, купà (копà), кръкмя̀, кисцà, кърмà, клещя̀, кулà, колà, липà, лъжà, лулà, лозà, лесà, лъкà, лехà, лугà, лапà, момà, манà, млъзгà, мухà, мъскà, метлà, междà, мъглà, млакà, менà, молбà, мравя̀, осà, полà, пашà, парà, порà, песня̀, пчелà, пахтà, петà, пилà, ръждà, росà, ресà, рекà, рудà, ръкà, смолà, струнà, сая̀, снахà, сълзà, сестрà, скалà, снагà, странà, свилà, сланà, сърнà, стрелà, свиня̀, слугà, средà, стенà, смрекà, съгà, скулà, съдбà, трохà, тъщà, трескà, теслà, тлакà, тишмà, тревà, тъгà, торбà, тръбà, устà, хвалà, хвалбà, хранà, хазнà, ценà, цевà, щетà, юздà</font></p><p>Here again, we have to compare the accents both in the singular and plural forms of these nouns.</p><p>In the singular forms, the old accent is preserved in the Northeastern dialects, however to the south when reaching the Middle Mountain we have already an offset in the following (when they are not articled): <font face="Times">вòда, трòха, трèска, ѝскра, блъ̀ха, му̀ха, слъ̀за, глòба, свѝла, ку̀ла</font>, and in the central and western dialects to those are added: <font face="Times">брàва, лѝпа, смòла, пòра, сàя, бòрба, лèса, дàга, снàга, тàга, тòрба, зèмя, гòра, кòса, рèка, трèва, ду̀ша, глàва, брàда, врàта, у̀ста</font>. In Rhodopa and the southern dialects the accent in almost all these words is offset, and remained only in the following: <font face="Times">корà, момà, лъжà, злинà, снахà, ръждà, хранà, сърнà, петà</font>. </p><p>In the plural, the offset is even more widespread: if we come out of the narrow circle of the Northeastern dialects, we find an offset wherever we go. For example, as close as the Middle Bulgarian dialects (Koprivshtitsa) they say: <font face="Times">трòхи, грàди or гръ̀ди, мòщи, трèски, блъ̀хи, му̀хи, съ̀лзи, ѝгли, дъ̀ски, клèщи, звèзди, свѝне, зъ̀ме, глѝсте, връ̀бе, ръ̀це</font>, and the further we go west and south the more offset nouns until in the south central and Rhodopa dialects the offset is a rule, and the words with end accent (<font face="Times">лъжѝ, злинѝ, войскѝ, зорѝ, бинѝ</font>) are exception. It is to be noted that one northeastern dialect – Shumen dialect – is the same as the central and Rhodopa dialects in this respect: in Shumen dialect the offset in the plural of above nouns is complete and is preserved (in addition to the above) in the following: <font face="Times">петѝ, парѝ, странѝ, хранѝ, пахтѝ, лулѝ, боѝ, мазѝ, дамгѝ</font>.</p><p>Comparing this accent with the accent of the same nouns in Russian and Serbian, it is seen that, e.g., in Russian, some of the above nouns shift their accent in singular or plural in accusative case. Probably this offset in the central dialects began from a similar offset in the other southeastern Slavic languages; however, this analogy took force and included more words than those used in the old language.</p><p><b class="red">4. </b>Two-syllable nouns of neutral gender with end accent are the fourth group of words with shifting accent:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">окò, ухò, сърцè, окнò, морè, небò, дървò, полè, блатò, маслò, местò, хлапè, сукнò, хорò, писмò, прелò, цвеклò, духлò, козлè, бичè, кончè, гърчè, момчè, сребрò, челò, перò, селò, свислò, стъклò, седлò, ребрò, ведрò, месò, крилò, червò, гнездò, яйцè, детè, въжè, лицè, бранè, пранè, кланè, мренè, спанè, времè, винò, млекò, рунò, сенò, златò, прасè, телè, тестò, млевò, брашнò, витлò, влакнò, гърнè, греблò, кроснò, ликò, леглò</font></p><p>Here the accent is more variable in singular while in the plural the Standard Bulgarian (Northeastern) accent is preserved. However, in singular, the accent is offset in many of these nouns in many dialects. As close as Lovech where otherwise the old accent in nouns is most conservative, we find: <font face="Times">вѝно, млѣ̀ко, мѣ̀сто, ру̀но, лѝко, пèро, сèло, чèло, мàсло, въ̀же</font>, while in Tъrnovo, Shumen we find also: <font face="Times">съ̀рце, дèте, гъ̀рне, врèме, гнѣ̀здо, сѣ̀но, злàто, тѣ̀сто, прàсе, брàшно, кàче, крòсно, хлàпе</font>.</p><p>In the central and Rhodopa dialects the offset is more widespread, so that the only words with end accent remaining are: <font face="Times">седлò, ведрò, гнездò, яйцè, тестò, прасè, валмò, витлò, кроснò, сребрò, духлò, лицè, гърнè</font>. The diminutives ending in <i>-че</i> are not counted because they comprise a special group in the central and western dialects of neutral nouns with definite end accent: <font face="Times">гърчè, бичè, звънчè, кончè</font>, etc.</p><p>In the plural, an exception are the central dialects. Those prefer an offset accent and not only in nouns that has an offset in singular such as: <font face="Times">гъ̀рло – гъ̀рла, зъ̀рно – зъ̀рна, блàто – блàта, бъ̀рда, хòра, чèда, жѝта, ру̀ха, сѝта, шѝла, крѝла, жѝла, мèста, лèта, пèра, сèла, etc., but also in others: седлò – сèдла, ведрò – вèдра, гнездò – гнèзда, яйцè –я̀йца, тестò – тèста, валмò – вàлма, витлò – вѝтла, кроснò – крòсна, греблò – грèбла</font>. This accent reminds very much the Russian accent.</p><p>According to the above description of the accent in nouns, it seems that dialects differ very much in this aspect. This is not really so, however, because all the above words with offset accent, occassionally restore the old accent location so that many accent differences disappear. This is so, e.g., in the singular and plural article forms of the above feminine and neutral nouns: <font face="Times">глàва – главàта, глàви – главѝте</font>, this often occurs in the plural masculine nouns: <font face="Times">грàдове – градовèте</font>. This accent mobilty that distinguish all shifted-accent dialects shows also that this offset is a new phenomenon in nouns, a phenomenon that isn't complete as yet but whose completeion can be foretold even at present.</p><p><b class="red">5. </b>The accent in <b class="red">verbs</b> is also very variable in Bulgarian dialects, but this variation is not so irregular as in nouns; there are some rules that it generally obeys. For example, a common rule is that the accent in present tense is the same as that in the imperfect, past finite (aorist) has the same accent as the aorist participle and the short infinitive. Exceptions from this rule are very rare: a different (offset) accent between imperfect and present tense is found in Bosilegrad dialect: against present tense <font face="Times">плетèм, плетèш</font>, etc., we have imperfect <font face="Times">плèтê, плèтеше, плèтеше, плèтêмо, плèтесте, плèтеа</font> – Gorna Lisina; <font face="Times">клàдê, клàдеше, клàдēме, клàдēте, клàдея</font> – Dolna Lyubata; in the village of Tlъmino there is an elongated vowel in front of the dropped x in first person singular: <font face="Times">плèт<b>ē</b>, плèтеше, плèтēме, плèтēте, плèтеа</font>. Another common rule is that the accent do not fall at the end vowels in the first and second person plural but in some dialects from the same region (Bosilegrad) we find also an end accent (плетемò or плетемè and плететè), which reminds for a similar accentisation in Slovenian and Serbian (<font face="Times">ломѝмо, ломѝте</font>). Such accent is found in Gorna Lyubata, Bozhitsa, Nazъritsa (-мò, -тè), Rayantsi, Gorno and Dolno Uino, Kalotina, Tlъmino, and Dukat (-мè, -тè).</p><p>Also, different groups of verbs have more regular accent than nouns. For example, verbs ending in <i>-ам</i> have almost the same accent everywhere, or if it is variable in groups of dialects, it follows certain rules, so that it doesn't seem irregular. The accent is the same in present tense, imperfect, and imperative: <font face="Times">пѝтам, пѝташ, пѝта, пѝтаме, пѝтате, пѝтат; пѝтах, пѝташе, пѝтахме, пѝтахте, пѝтаха; пѝтай, пѝтайте</font>. Although the other forms (past finite, infinitive, and aorist participle) are differently accented in different dialects, their accents are the same in the same dialects: питàх, питà, питàл, or <font face="Times">пѝтах, пѝта, пѝтал</font>.</p>
<p>Also the same is the accent in verbs ending in <i>-еш</i> and <i>-иш</i>, and those ending in <i>-e</i>.</p><p>We find some variation in verbs ending in -и, some of which have an offset accent in the central and western dialect groups:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">блàжиш, брàздиш, вàриш, гàсиш, глàвиш, гòриш, грàдиш, дèлиш, дрòбиш, ду̀шиш, кàдиш, клèчиш, кòриш, кòсиш, крѝвиш, лèпиш, лѝчиш, лòвиш, мъ̀рсиш, плàстиш, пòтиш се, рèдиш, сàдиш, сòлиш, тòпиш, рòдиш, рàниш, цàдиш, цъ̀фтиш, благослòвиш, весèлиш, благодàриш, забрàдиш</font></p><p>In the Northern and Rhodopa dialects the old end accent in these verbs is preserved: <font face="Times">блажѝш, варѝш</font>, etc.</p><p>Leaving aside individual verbs, which may have some variable accent, we turn our attention to the accent in the different verb forms:</p><p><b class="red">A. Present tense. </b>In the Northern group, the end accent is conserved in all verbs which oxytonate in Standard Bulgarian: <font face="Times">четà (четъ̀), четèш, четè, четèм, четèте, четъ̀т; държà, държѝш, държѝ, държѝм, държѝте, държàт</font>; such is the accent also in all northwestern dialects in which this form in first person singular ends in -м: <font face="Times">плетèм, държѝм</font>, etc. But in the central, and especially the west-central dialects, and in all Rhodopa dialects, the accent is largely offset in the first person present in all oxytone verbs: <font face="Times">плèта, чèта, прèда, клàда, òра, дъ̀ржа, тъ̀рпа, гъ̀рма, въ̀рта</font>, etc.</p><p>This offset is transmitted from simple to prepositional verbs in which the accent falls on the prefix: <font face="Times">да зàплета, да прѝдържа, да ѝзора</font>, etc. Thus, we can establish a common rule for these dialects (Southern accent group) that the accent falls on the first syllable in all finite verbs. Cf. the Serbian accent: <font face="Times">ломѝмо, ломѝте</font> but: <font face="Times">да слȍми̂мо, да слȍми̂те</font>.</p><p>Such accent on the prefix is found also in some Middle Mountain (east-central) dialects, it occurs in some dialects further north (Teteven, Lukovit, etc.) in which otherwise the northern accent dominates but this offset (if can be called so because it is older than the usual northeastern accent in these forms), this offset is limited only in the prefixed monosyllable verbs: <font face="Times">да зàспа, да у̀мра, да зàвра, да пòдпра</font>, etc., and is not so general as in the west-central and Rhodopa dialects. Moreover, while an accent like <font face="Times">да у̀мра</font>, etc. in the Middle Mountain, etc. dialects occurs in all persons and numbers of present tense, the accent да зàплета, etc., is limited only to the first person singular while the other persons have dynamic accent: да заплетèш, заплетè, заплетèме, заплетèте, заплетàт. </p><p>The dialects of Sofia region which are influenced by the southern (central) and northern (Trъn-Pirot) dialects, split in two: some, in which the central form for first person singular present tense <i>-a</i> predominates, offset the accent in this form, and others in which the suffix <i>-м</i> for first person singular present tense predominates, keep the old dynamic accent: плетèм, да речèм, etc. We have to stress here that there is no such variation in the southern, Rhodopa, etc. dialects where are also 2 forms for the first person singular present (<i>-a</i> and <i>-м)</i> and still in all Rhodopa dialects and in the dialects of Ser, Petrich, and Demir-Hisar where this verb form is with <i>-м</i>, the accent in it is offset: <font face="Times">зàминам, прòвудеам, ѝзвадеам, òднеасам, ѝзлеазам</font> – from Ustovo; òковѫм, пòзлатьѫм – Demir-Hisar.</p><p>There are some exclusions from this rule. For at least one Rhodopa dialect (Chòkmanovo) when the accent falls on the first syllable in propositional verbs, the above form for first person present is pronounced without <i>м</i>: <font face="Times">ѝзлеазя, пòзлатя</font>; otherwise, if the form ends in <i>м</i> in prepositional verbs and the accent is not on the first syllable: да излеàзам, да позлàтям.</p><p><b class="red">B. Past finite tense (aorist). </b>We have in mind here the aorist in the vocal verb roots, or better, verbs ending in a and и because the other verbs have almost the same accent in all indefinite-accent dialects. According to the accent in the aorist, Bulgarian indefinite-accent dialects are divided in the following 3 regions:</p><p><b>1) </b>dialects with end (old) accent for this form: <font face="Times">дигнàх, задигнàх, молѝх, помолѝх</font>. Such accent predominates in the western and west-central dialects and goes further south as far as Melnik, but Rhodopa dialects remain outside this region.</p><p>Some dialects from the Western dialect group keep the old accent in the aorist form but in second and third person they offset it to the prefix in prepositional verbs: <font face="Times">прèстану, у̀стану</font>. Such accent in aorist occurs in some Sofia dialects that are closer to the Western accent group: <font face="Times">кой те нàреди, пòмами, у̀тече, ѝзбегна</font>. This accent is probably not a new offset, having in mind the Serbian accent in similar forms: <font face="Times">у̏̏тече, ȍплете, ȍпрêде, у̏̏краде</font>, etc.</p><p><b>2) </b> dialects with semi-offset accent: дигнàх but <font face="Times">задѝгнах, молѝх</font> but помòлих; it is characteristic for the western part of the Northern accent group (Lom, Vidin, Oryahovo, Pleven, Vratsa, Botevgrad) as well as for many Middle Mountain and Balkan towns (Etropole, Teteven, Lukovit, some Lovech villages, Troyan, Pirdop, Koprivshtitsa, Panagyurishte, Sopot, Karlovo, Kalofer, Kazanlъk, Kotel). The accent in the aorist in these dialects depends on whether the verb is simple or prepositional; non-prepositional verbs have end accent: <font face="Times">дигнàх, молѝх</font>, while prepositional verbs have end accent: <font face="Times">подѝгнах, помòлих</font>. This accent penetrates also in Standard Bulgarian.</p><p><b>3) </b> dialects with offset accent: <font face="Times">дѝгнах, подѝгнах, мòлих, помòлих</font>. This accent in aorist is used in the remaining northeastern dialects: Shumen, Razgrad, Tъrnovo, Ruse, Gabrovo, Tryavna, Elena, Sevlievo, Lovech, Svishtov, Sliven, Stara and Nova Zagora, Chirpan as well as all Rhodopa dialects. In these dialects, the accent in past finite depends on the accent in present tense: <font face="Times">мòля – мòлих, да пàдна – пàднах, държà – държàх, да горà – горѝх, да подарà – подарѝх</font>, etc.</p><p>The same 3 regions are formed according to the accent in the old-time infinitive which is now a defective indefinite form: падна-, моли-, държа-, etc. This form obeys the same accent rules as the aorist: паднàх-паднà-ща, пàднах-пàдна-ща, etc. This gives us additional right to consider the aorist form in Bulgarian as the true substitute of the old infinitive, in the classification of the Bulgarian verb; moreover, since we know that the aorist form at present is very viable verb form while the defective infinitive is disused.</p><p>As said, the aorist participle has the same accent as in the aorist.</p><p><b class="red">C. Imperative. </b>Here, the above 3 accent groups are very well delineated, too.</p><p>The accent in the imperative is best preserved in the Northern group, while the Southern and Western groups have offset which is distributed in the following way:</p><p>The Southern accent group represents dialects which have offset accent in the first person singular present tense, they offset the accent also in the imperative mood second person singular: да плàта – плàти!, да зàплата – зàплати! In some dialects neighbouring the Southern group there is an accent offset only in first person present tense while the imperative keeps the old accent: да зàплата but <font face="Times">заплатѝ</font> (Teteven). Now this offset occurs only in singular while in plural the old accent is kept: платèте, заплатèте, etc. Only in some southernmost dialects around Demir-Hisar and Drama this offset is kept also in plural: плàтите, зàплатите, плèтите, òплетите, нàберите, etc. (Gorno Brodi).</p><p>There is also offset in the Western group but it is not spread in the whole group nor does it behave in the same way as in the Southern group. As to the direction of this offset, in the most northern central dialects it is not fully established because, if some enclitic comes after the imperative form, the old accent is restored; for example, in Botevgrad where they say: <font face="Times">ѝди, мъ̀лчи, òтвори, дѝгни, стàни, пòгледни, зèми</font>, simultaneously say also: <font face="Times">научѝ-ме, претрупѝ-ме, запалѝ-ме, задомѝ-се, цафтѝ-ми</font>, etc.</p><p>While the accent in the Southern group is offset only in the second person singular, going to the prefix, in the Western group the accent is offset also in plural but does not go to the prefix if the verb is prepositional: плàти, плàтите but also заплàти, заплàтите.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2 style="clear: both;">Fixed (three-syllabic) accent</h2>
These dialects come into the middle between indefinite-shifting and more definitely accented dialects both in their geographic location and their accent characteristic. They border to the north and east the region of the dynamic indefinite accent, to the west with the third-syllabic (Veles) accent, and to the south-west, around Tikvesh and Doyran, they border two other accent systems. More definitely, this accent is found in the regions of Kratovo, Kochani, Shtip, Radovish, and Strumitsa, and by its properties it is closest to the dynamic accent, especially to the accent of the southmost dialects of the Southern group, e.g. Demir-Hisar and Drama, where the offset in nouns reach its maximum.<p>Although the reach of this accent is not so great, it comprises 3 types of dialects; Kratovo dialect (part of it) to the north, Shtip dialect in the middle, and Strumitsa dialect to the south. Kratovo-dialect belongs to the Bulgarian dialects in northern Macedonia but has admixtures from those from central Macedonia (кь-гь, ѫ → у and a, ъ → ъ and o, ь → ъ and e); Shtip dialect is Bulgarian dialect from central Macedonia, as are the Veles, Prilep, and Bitola dialects (кь-гь, ѫ → a, ъ → o, ь → e); Strumitsa dialect is also mainly a Bulgarian dialect from central Macedonia, but it is similar to Kukush-Voden dialect with many admixtures from the central Bulgarian щ-жд dialects (щ-жд and кь-гь, ѫ → a, ъ → o and a, ь → e and a).</p><p>The main characteristic trait of this accent, called for short <b>Shtip-Strumitsa accent</b> is its accent stability: each word has the same accent in all its forms, there is no offset, there is no backward shift in the sense of that occuring in the shifting-accent dialects. The Shtip-Strumitsa accent brought to the extreme the accent offset occuring to different degrees in the dialects further east. Accordingly, all nouns with offset accent, which in the shift-accent dialects were considered exceptions, here are accented correctly, namely:</p><p><b class="red">1. Monosyllable nouns</b> with shifting accent keep the accent on the root vowel also in the articled form and in plural: грàдо, брèго, мèдо, срàмо, дòжго, врàто, сàдо, нòсо; грàдове, брèгове, пòдове, бèсове, грèхове.</p><p><b class="red">2. Two-syllable feminine nouns</b> known in the indefinite-accent dialects as shifting, here keep one and the same accent on the root vowel both in singular and plural, with article or without: <font face="Times">глàва, у̀зда, ѝгла, брàда, вòда, òса, ду̀ша, лàжа, òвца, трàва; глàвата, ѝглата; брàди, брàдите, тòрба, тòрбите</font>, etc. This includes words of Turkish origin such as: чàлма, тòрба, пàша, чèшма, кàвга, etc.</p><p><b class="red">3. Neutral nouns</b> follow the same rule: <font face="Times">прòсо, лѝце, òро, кàче, дèте, съ̀рце; прòсото, òра, лѝца, дèца, съ̀рцата, я̀йцата</font>, etc.</p><p><b class="red">4. Monosyllable adjectives and pronouns</b> which in many eastern dialects have established accent.</p><p>Accent in <b class="red">verbs</b> is also constant and obeying common rules so that we don't have verb groups with different accents for the same form as we have with the indefininte-accent dialects.</p><p><b class="red">A. Present tense</b> in all verbs has accent on the root vowel: <font face="Times">плèтам (Shtip-Strumitsa), плèтат, плèте, плèтеме, плèтете, плèтат; тъ̀рпам, тъ̀рпеш, тъ̀рпе, тъ̀рпаме, тъ̀рпате, тъ̀рпе; глèдам, глèдаш, глèда, глèдаме, глèдате, глèдат</font>; and because the vowel <i>у</i> does not drop in verbs ending in <i>-увам</i>, in order to keep uniform, the accent in these verbs falls on this <i>у</i> so that we have not only: <font face="Times">милу̀ам, милу̀аш, сраму̀ам се, цару̀ам, купу̀ам, збору̀ам</font>, etc., but also: <font face="Times">веру̀ам, прикажу̀ам, качу̀ам, поклату̀ам, надваксу̀ам, облечу̀ам, никну̀а, кажу̀ам, срекьу̀ам, завиду̀ам</font>, etc. – without exception.</p><p><b class="red">B. Imperfect</b> follows the present tense as in other Bulgarian dialects: <font face="Times">плèтê, плèтеше, плèтēме, плèтēте, плèтеа (Shtip); тъ̀рпê, тъ̀рпеше, тъ̀рпēме</font>, etc.</p><p><b class="red">C. Past finite (aorist) form and the aorist participle</b> keeps the old accent, probably by neighbourhood influence from central Bulgarian dialects to the east which, as we saw above, have uniform end accent in this form: <font face="Times">станā̀, станà, станā̀ме, станā̀те, станàа; учи̂̀, учѝ, учѝ̄ме, учѝ̄те, учѝа; плетò̂, плетè, плетò̄ме, плетò̄те, плетòа; станàл, учѝл, учѝле</font>; but also and the aorist participle: плетèн, печèн, учèн, писàн, etc.</p><p><b class="red">D. The imperative</b> has also a constant accent which is offset in the same way as in the other central dialect to the east: <font face="Times">плèти, нàплети, у̀чи, нàучи</font>; with the only difference that in plural the accent keeps its place: <font face="Times">плèтете, у̀чите</font>; additionally, by analogy verbs ending in ам have an accent on the first syllable: <font face="Times">ѝзрипай, вѝтосай се</font>.</p><p>All words (nouns, adjectives, pronouns, etc.), known from eastern Bulgarian as words with fixed accent, in the Shtip-Strumitsa dialects have the accent on the same syllable as in the eastern Bulgarian. Because these words are very much, the accent in Kochani, Shtip, and Strumitsa dialects in many cases is the same as in the dynamic accent group. Exception are the few words which have in dynamic accent group an accent on the fourth syllable from the end; they shift the accent two syllables towards the end. That's why it seems that the Shtip-Strumitsa accent <b>prefers the three last syllables.</b></p><p>According to the relationship with the dynamic heterosyllable accent, words in Shtip-Strumitsa dialect are divided in three categories:</p>
<p><b class="red">1. Words with the same accent as the dynamic accent system</b>; they are the most because, as said above, here are included all monosyllable, two-syllable and three-syllable nouns which do not shift their accent in the dialects with heterosyllable accent:</p><p class="box"><b class="green">1. Words with accent on the last syllable</b><br />
<font face="Times">другàр, офчàр, грънчàр, свиня̀р, пудàр, говедàр, пазàр, кантàр; орàч, селàч, копàч; коня̀к, колàк, мустàк, петàк, жабуня̀к, капàк, калпàк, чардàк; язѝк, топлѝк, божѝк, помокьнѝк, кравàй, разбòй, дармòн, панагòн, човèк, ширòк, висòк, орề, длабòк, пелѝн, туту̀н, пау̀н, сокòл, пишчòл, дикèл, сиромà̂, меу̀р, немту̀р, карау̀л, бършля̀н, родàн, гърклàн, фидàн, тупàн, бостàн; зелèн, цървèн, кърстàт, сакàт, окàт, брадàт, рогàт, страшлѝв, зборлѝв, цървѝв, бодлѝв, дебèл; греотà, срамотà; назàд, напрèд, еднàш, озгòр, оздòл, спротѝ, дурѝ</font><br />
<b class="green">2. Words with accent on the penultimate syllable</b><br />
<font face="Times">òблак, дèлник, кàтник, перàтник, змия̀рник, пèпел, ѝзвор, гòспод, кòрен, прèшлен, гàрван, дуòмник, калу̀гер, бу̀мбар, вàглен, òбраз, прèкор, прѝсме, прѝкас, пòплак, зàлак, чифу̀тин, лажòвен, прия̀тел, попàра, свекъ̀рва, недèля, кошу̀ля, царѝца, жътѝца, лубенѝца, матнѝца, лесѝца, полѝца, магарѝца, лажѝца, калѝнка, маслѝнка, погàча, годѝна, роднѝна, мешѝна, капѝна, грамàда, ливàда, верѝги, дисàги, петèлка, кобѝлка, кокòшка, пону̀да, невèста, леву̀са, камѝла, секѝра, копрѝва, женѝдба, топòла, вергѝа, попадѝа, ефтинѝа, скапѝа, Софѝа, невòля, опàшка, мотовѝла, кукувѝца, каленѝца, умирàчка, живеня̀чка, велешàнка, тиквешàнка, струмиджàнка, радовишàнка; раковàтка, сировàтка, кираджѝка, дългокòса, краткоу̀мна, добровòльна; вретèно, корѝто, копѝто, огнѝшче, бунѝшче, патѝло, бесѝло, точѝло, говèдо, желèзо, колèно, детèнце, колèнце, вретèнце (Strumitsa: детѝнце, колѝнце, вретѝнце, etc.), кандѝлце, огледàло</font><br />
<b class="green">3. Words with accent on the third syllable from the end</b><br />
<font face="Times">рàбота, сàбота, мàшчеа, бàница, мàтица, пàзуа, кòшница, я̀годи, нѝшчелки, ку̀ковден, лèтоска, чèтири, кѝсело, бѝтолски, ку̀чешки, тàтковци, кѝлаво, лѝгаво, тèнджере, я̀лова, кàманье, сèкаде, сèкогаш, зàечко, зàлудо, кòпиле, èзеро, Сàмоков, Рàдомир, Цàриград, вèщица, въ̀рбница, кадèлница (Strumitsa: кадѝлница), кàшлица, чу̀брица, владѝчина, цървоя̀дина (Strumitsa: червотòчина), ѝстина, фу̀трина, кòзина, я̀рина, нà-вода, пò-лудо, пò-врат; дебѝ-муа, влачѝ-клашно</font></p><p>Further comparison is difficult because words with more frontal accent are rare, and many are lacking in these dialects: <font face="Times">бѝволица, ту̀павица</font> (Strumitsa: тèпавица), Тòдорица, Кòстадиница, Кòстовица. At the same time there is a trend in these dialects to avoid such accent because instead of <font face="Times">сѝпаница</font> they say <font face="Times">сипанѝца, крàставица → краставѝца, съ̀ботничав → съботнѝчав</font>, which can be interpreted by analogy with other dialects with similar accent.</p><p><b class="red">2. Words with offset accent.</b> These are all words which in the eastern dialects are known as words with shifting accent. The exception, as long as such exist, stems from some accent analogy which is strong in these dialects. The offset occurs in the same words as in the eastern dialects but in the Shtip-Strumitsa dialect the old accent is not restored and the offset occurs in all forms in a given word.</p><p><b class="red">3. Words with accent shifted backwards in comparison with dynamic accent. </b>Most of these are verbs or verb forms (participles and verbal nouns). Accent isn't offset as in the eastern dialects because of quantitet or some other mysterious reasons, but mostly as a result of accent analogy in order to achieve a uniform accent. Such accent is found in:</p><p class="box"><b class="green">1. Verbs ending in <i>-увам</i> pronounced <i>-уам</i> in Shtip</b> <font face="Times">веру̀ам, уносу̀ам, обвързу̀ам, поклату̀ам</font>, etc. in analogy with <font face="Times">цару̀вам, робу̀вам, купу̀вам</font>, etc.<br /> <b class="green">2. Passive participles in <i>-ен, -ан, -ат (-ет)</i></b> умислèн, издадèн, натоварèн, направèн, пушчèн, исписàн, собирàн, прокопсàн, порачàн, престегнàт, фанàт, поклонèт, неканèт in clear analogy with eastern dialects: градèн, гасèн, спасèн, орàн, ковàн, махнàт, заклèт, etc.<br /> <b class="green">3. Verbal nouns</b> одèнье, гледàнье, продавàнье, according to: градèне, копàне, имàне, махàне. Having in mind that the accent махàне, имàне is older than мàхане, <font face="Times">ѝмане</font> it is easily seen that the Shtip-Strumitsa accent in these words is the old not offset accent.<br /> <b class="green">4. Nouns ending in <font face="Times"><i>ѝца, ѝна</i></font></b> enumerated above and probably supplemented with others. </p><p>It is seen from the above that the Shtip-Strumitsa accent is closest to the dynamic accent and yet it constitutes a separate accent system because it lacks the mobility and definiteness that are characteristic for the dynamic accent. By the effect of analogy, here the accent obeys common rules, which make it semi-definitive. To stress this characteristic even more, let's add that these dialects exhibit a clear trend to limit the accent to the last two syllables; an exception are only the imperative forms with accent in the beginning which are inherited from the east and are not local. It is evident that according to accent these dialects approach the accent system of the Kukush-Voden dialect which has limited the accent of all words to the last two syllables and classified as semi-definite accent first stage.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h1 style="clear: both;">Semi-definite accent</h1><h2>Two-syllabic first stage accent</h2>This accent, which we'll call Voden accent for short, is characteristic for the dialects of Voden, Mъglen, Gevgelia, and Gyumurdzina; in Kukush, Doyran, and the villages north-west of Solun, there is almost the same accent but mixed from the dialects with shifting accent to the east.<p>The Voden accent is the second stage of Shtip-Strumitsa accent or the third stage of the dynamic accent. It can be derived equally weel from either: all accent analogues, either in nouns or in verbs and participles, which distinguish the Shtip accent from the dynamic accent, are characteristic also for the Voden accent; and all words with penultimate or end accent which are not affected by these analogies, are the same as in the dynamic accent. A Voden-specific property are only cases in which Shtip-Strumitsa dactyls become trochees, and these can be derived from dynamic accent which also has them.</p><p>The Voden accent is as fixed as the Shtip-Strumitsa accent: each word keeps its basic accent in all its morphological modifications (number, declension, or person); therefore, the accent is such that when changing the form of the word, it doesn't go behind the penultimate syllable. There are very few words with a dactyl accent.</p><p>In the Voden accent, as in the Shtip-Strumitsa accent, there is an accent offset in all words with shifting accent, i. e. in monosyllable nouns and adjectives, in two-syllable female and neutral nouns, verbs are the same but with another (reduced) pronunciation; in the imperative, the accent is not in the beginning but on the root vowel, i.e. it doesn't fall on the prefix as in Shtip-Strumitsa, but on the root vowel as far as it doesn't contradict the common phonetic principles of this dialect. First we'll describe the dialect in the declensed words.</p><p><b class="red">Two- and poly-syllable nouns and adjectives</b> with an accent on the last syllable in Shtip-Strumitsa and dynamic accent, keep this accent also in the Voden dialect:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">пау̀н, сокòл, тъпàн, пелѝн, патладжàн, езѝк, меху̀р, фидàн, брадàт, сакàт, сарàй, ширòк, висòк, дибèл, илèн, зелèн, голèм, чувèк, живòт, майму̀н, харèм, манастѝр, тимя̀н, Ивàн, Стуя̀н, сирумàх, загàр, бирбèр, другàр, златàр, уфчàр, кузàр, свинàр, патрѝк, граматѝк, тувàр, кужу̀х, пишàк, мустàк, юнàк, турлàк, мигдàн, кувàч, купàч, лувàч, вампѝр, урмàн, уртàк, амбàр, килàр, парамòн, кумàт, гирдàн, кафèс, кунàк, благусòв, курàб, сеймèн, ибришѝм, шегъ̀рт, аршѝн, Дойчѝн, Пирѝн, ръкàв, аргàт, стройнѝк, пампòр, братучèд</font></p><p>All <b class="red">participles</b> have the same accent as in the Shtip-Strumitsa dialect, and in Voden dialect they are formed in the same way as in Shtip-Strumitsa:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">наближѝл, послушàл, излизèл, удèл, фатѝл, плитèн, будèн, глидàн, сия̀н, купувàн, викнàт, дигнàт, стигнàт, тръгнàт</font></p><p>From words with accent on the second syllable in dynamic and Shtip-Strumitsa accents, the same in Voden dialect are only <b class="red">those ending in vowel</b>, i.e. female and neutral nouns:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">тимнѝца, царѝца, кушу̀ля, вирѝги, пуну̀да, нивèста, пулувѝна, пугàча, гудѝна, ливàда, кукòшка, тупòла, нивòля, (о)пàшка, килѝа, пупадѝа, вражàрка, баснàрка, вуйвòда, пустèля, калѝнка, кралѝца, пипиру̀га, тимину̀шка, пудлòшка, кулѝба, мутѝка, дивòйка, свитѝца, питàчка, градѝна, лисѝца, нидèля, мастагàрка, икòна, луднѝна, пулàта, кирмѝда, пипилàшка, вудинѝца, къпѝни, чърнѝца, увòйки, итъ̀рва, купрѝва, бунèла, владѝка, нау̀ка, пупàра, кадъ̀на, кукòна, гъркѝна, вичèра, фурту̀на, душѝца, ливàда, парѝчки, накувàлна, систрѝчка, самувѝла, пану̀кла, куру̀ба, самовѝлски; рудѝлу, сулѝлу, съдѝлу, углидàлу, жилèзу, юнàству, партàлче, уфчàрче, сирàче, дървѝче, вустàнче, прегàче, курѝту, гувèду, купѝту, бунѝшче, угнѝшче</font></p><p>Male nouns and adjectives, paroxytones in Shtip-Strumitsa or dynamic accents, are treated ambiguously in Voden dialect: those keeping the same number of syllables when forming vocal forms (female and neutral gender, plural), i.e. they have ъ and ь in the suffix syllable, <b>keep their old accent</b>:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">(о)пѝнук → пѝнци, дубѝтук → дубѝци, лàкът → лàхти, нòкът → нòхти, вèтък → вèтка, ѝтър → ѝтра, мъ̀ндър → мъ̀ндру, тòпъл → тòплу, мòкър → мòкра, òстър → òстри, крòтук → крòтка, тъ̀нък → тъ̀нка, стàриц → стàрци, глàдин → глàдни, жèдин, прàзин, лèтин, имòтин, ту̥̀рчин → ту̀рци, съ̀рбин → съ̀рби</font>, etc. </p><p>Nouns and adjectives which in their vocal forms get one more syllable, in the Voden dialect has the accent shifted backwards and then we have not гàрван but гаврàн, not <font face="Times">гъ̀лъб</font> but <font face="Times">гълъ̀б</font>, not шàрен but шарèн, not срèбрен but сребрèн, not лèшник but <font face="Times">лешнѝк</font>, and also <font face="Times">корèн, йодèр (=òдър), Богдàн, Стамбу̀л, Филѝп, месèц, пуя̀с, баèр, ичмèн (=ечемик), вичèр (пуд вичèри), бисèр, извòр, убàв, ангèли, утклю̀ч, утвòр, пукрòв, еничàр;</font> here come all participles with backwards shifted accent such as: найдèн, дигнàт, флизèл, etc. There are very few exceptions, and those are mostly words that have no plural such as: <font face="Times">пèпъл, лю̀буф, кàдиш (кадèж), гòспод</font> (in Voden dialect the final is vocal: гòспу).</p><p>All declensed words that have an accent on the third or fourth syllable from the end get <b>penultimate accent</b> in Voden dialect:</p>
<p class="box"><font face="Times">рабòта, събòта, банѝца, матѝца, пазу̀ва, пенчèра, заèчко, камèйнъ, футрѝна, истѝна, читу̀ра, облàчно, дървèну (масло), ядèйне, лютèйне, бигàйне, струмнѝчка, муриòфски, брадавѝца, типавѝца, радòсин, ябу̀лка, деспòта, силя̀нче, ипархѝа, майчѝчка, машчèа, фъртòма, грубѝшча, момчѝна, ластовѝца, каменѝца, ноговѝца (Kirechkyoy), пътѝшча, за прикажѝшче, сирèйне, свирèйне, типàйне, силя̀ни, бугàри, пусистрѝма, царшчѝна, стулнѝна, пладнѝна, пулатѝчка, грàда Будѝма, удзгурнѝна, малèчко, пея̀не, Стамбу̀ла, пернѝца, ирибѝца, дивойчѝни двори, Димитрѝва майка, Еленчѝце, гуспудину̀ва, сараèфка, Солунèнче, галèнко;</font> here come also the plurals of male monosyllable nouns which as we saw, are dactyls in Shtip dialect: царòви, ключòви, праòви, димòви, сватòви, пърчòви, грубòви, синòви, миòви (=мехове), либòви (=хлябове), мракòви, лафòви, нужòви, вулòви, etc.</p>Also, dactyl numerals has shifted their accent: <font face="Times">двадèсе, тридèсе, педèсе, дивидèсе, четѝри</font>; also in composite words such as: <font face="Times">кълви-òчи, Свита-гòра, добъ̀рден, Стратинòджа</font> (Kirechkyoy). Taking into account that oxytones as: <font face="Times">убавѝна, младѝна, страмòта (Kirechkyoy), гулемѝна, пъстъ̀рма, меàна, планѝна, пилèна, лютѝна, чудѝнци (Kirechkyoy), правѝна, кривѝна</font>, etc. have offset their accent on the penultimate syllable, we can very well understand the common rule for the Voden accent, at least for declensed words: <b class="red">all words in Voden accent are either oxytones or paroxytones depending on whether they end in consonant or vowel</b>. <p>In verbs, the accent is somewhat different. More exactly, there we have the same two-syllabic accent, however in order to understand some apparent exceptions, we must take into account the phonetics of Voden dialect which can help to see here the common accent principle of the Voden accent. First let's see which verb forms comply to the common accent principle and which apparently deviate from it. Deviating are: first and second person present tense plural: плèтиме, плèтите, and then all persons and numbers of past infinite tense (except first person): плèтише, плèтихме, плèтихте, плèтиха; all other verb forms are accented exactly according to the above rule: плèтъм, плèтиш, плèте, плèтът; in aorist: плетèх, плетè, плетèхме, плетèхте, плетèа; викнàх, викнà, викнàхме, викнàхте, викнàха; imperative: плèти, плèтейте, <font face="Times">вѝкай</font>, викàйте. Therefore, the above deviations would have been the only exceptions from the common accent law of the Voden accent, exceptions that may have been interpreted as remnants of the old (dynamic) accent which was used in the past in Voden region. These exceptions could be able to violate the common law of Voden accent. However, if we look closer in the pronunciation of these verb forms, we can easily see that here, too, the accent principle is complied to; because forms like плèтиме, плèтите are not pronounced as three-syllable words but the middle vowel is shortened to such extent that it becomes ь: плèтьме, плèтьте. A similar shortening can be seen also in other words: <font face="Times">дèтьту, врàтьте, градѝньте, чѝньте</font>. In the same way are interpreted 2 and 3 person singular and 3 person plural of the imperfect: плèтьте, плèтя. Then the only exception would be 1 and 2 person plural: плèтихме, плèтихте. As exceptions from the common accent rule of the Voden dialect could be considered the verbal adverbs which are usually with accent on the 4th syllable from the end: бидèшчимица, одèшчимица, игрàшчимица; here, it seems, the end -ица or -мица has been added later to the former simple participle: бидèшчи, одèшчи, or бидèшчим, одèшчим – hence, this apparent exception from the common rule. Otherwise, as we saw, this rule is very widely obeyed.</p>
<h2 style="clear: both;">Two-syllabic second-stage accent</h2>This accent which we'll call Tikvesh-Moriovo accent is characteristic for the dialects of Tikvesh and Moriovo, two central sub-regions of the Macedonia region, which have almost the same west-central Bulgarian dialect.<p>The main distinctive characteristic of Tikvesh-Moriovo accent is that it falls on 2 definite syllables, namely penultimate, and the third from the end but it never falls on the last syllable.</p><p>First, some characteristics of the dialect.</p><p>Tikvesh-Moriovo dialect is west central Bulgarian кь-гь dialect, which by its characteristics stands between central Macedonian and Pianets dialects. The distinctive traits of this dialect, in addition to accent, are:</p><p><b class="red">1. </b>щ-жд reflects in шч-ждж or in кь-гь: <font face="Times">пу̀шча, глòждже, кръшчèнье, горешчѝна, нишчèлки, ну̀жджа, срèшчу, пешчèра, овòшче; плèкьи, вèгьи, свèкя, мѝгю, нòкье, ку̀кя, кьерка</font>.</p><p><b class="red">2. </b>ѫ → а: <font face="Times">мàка, рàка, желàди, капѝна, мàшко дете, унàтре</font>, etc. with some variations, characteristic also for other west-central Bulgarian dialects: <font face="Times">бу̀брек, гу̀ска, желу̀док, ку̀со, пу̀пка, суд, гу̀жва</font>; also: <font face="Times">фану̀ло, яну̀ло</font>.</p><p><b class="red">3. </b>ъ → о, ь → е with some exceptions characteristic also for other west-central Bulgarian dialects: <font face="Times">лажа, магла, танко, лажѝца, макна.</font></p><p><b class="red">4. </b>ръ → ръ, лъ → ъ: пръстен, цръвени, прегрънале, връвеле; ябъка, жътица, съзи, въна, вък.</p><p><b class="red">5. </b>1 person singular in verbs always ends in a: пеа, прата, макна.</p><p><b class="red">6. </b>3 person singular in verbs of second conjugation has always e instead of и: моле, виде.</p><p><b class="red">7. </b>definite article is -от: пàтот, врàтот. </p><p><b class="red">8. </b>язе instead of я (аз); и instead of ги; му instead of им.</p><p>Tikvesh-Mariovo accent is a transition between Shtip-Voden and Kostur accent; its special property is to <b class="red">avoid the last syllable</b> and to <b class="red">limit the accent on the 2 penultimate syllables</b>.</p><p>According to this accent, all Shtip-Voden or dynamic accent oxytones become paroxytones: <font face="Times">чòвек, ю̀нак, рàкав, èрген, òрел, стòпан, пàзар, тèлар (телалин), бàйрак, сàндък, чèис, пàвун, сту̀ден, òбраз, сѝнджир, шѝник, àбер, боздòган, сирòма</font>; but when the word declenses, the dynamic accent is restored: <font face="Times">човèци, юнàци, ракàви, ергèни, стопàни, студèни, юнàче, паву̀ни, синджѝри, обрàзи, сиромàси</font>; also female nouns: <font face="Times">рòса, мàгла, сèстра, вèдро, у̀ста, планѝна, срамòта, пелèни, меàна, тамбу̀ра</font>, etc.</p><p>Obviously, if a word has a paroxytone accent in the dynamic system, the accent does not change place (remains paroxytone) in Tikvesh-Mariovo:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">годѝна, грамàда, капѝна, рачѝца, голèма, чифчѝче, базригя̀ни, шамѝа, ослепèла, онемèла, кралѝца, недèля, горèла, робѝнка, царѝца, каву̀рка, вдовѝца, кадъ̀на, самовѝла, собрàле, сопѝла, фанàле, богàта, незнàйна, свекръ̀ва, девòйка, солèна, рашèто, заòгя, йегу̀мен, капѝа, клису̀ра, темнѝца, темничàрче, бележѝти, ракѝа, црънѝци, кукувѝци, зелèна, висòки, дивàни, замръ̀зне, кобѝлка, петнàйсет, шеснàйсет, белоглàво, напрèла, вретèна, магàре, орàнье, отидòа, топòли</font>, etc.</p><p>The dynamic accent proparoxytones are treated variously: some remain proparoxytones, and others become paroxytones. Only those proparoxytones remain which are such in the Shtip-Strumitsa accent while all those that transformed in paroxytones in Shtip-Strumitsa, are such also in Tikvesh-Mariovo accent.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Proparoxytones are mostly verb forms: <font face="Times">кàжеме, тèрайте, фръ̀лале, помѝнеме, врàтиме, излèземе, ѝдеме. свъ̀ршиме, стòрите, стàните, чѝнете, дъ̀ржеше, шѝеше, гàнуло, фàнуло</font>; regularly in the imperative forms: <font face="Times">òстави, нàбери, ѝзнеси, дòнеси, зàмини</font>, etc. In addition, this third syllable accent occurs in many possessive adjectives, as well as in many other words:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">Мàрини, пòпова, гя̀кова, Ду̀нава, Прàово, сàбота, свѝлена; лàгънца, у̀бава, свàтови, ку̀мови, Лàзара, фъ̀ртома, нèкоа</font>; also many local toponyms keep the third syllable accent: <font face="Times">Сòтница, Мòклишча, Гю̀ргишче, Мèтковец, Гу̀мнишча, Гъ̀рбавец, Клопàтица, Къ̀ртишча, Гръ̀нчишча, Благѝевец, Долèтковец, Мустàкица, Кату̀нишча, Заднà-река, Светà-Петка, Мèлчишча, Лèсковец, Стòлови, Корѝлово, Никовàлнишче, Ковàчево, Кàмново, Бу̀ковец, Пèшчера</font> – villages and localities in Moriovo</p><p>It is remarkable that local toponyms keep the old preparoxytone accent even in Kostur dialect which is otherwise a stringently paroxytone dialect. </p><p>The other proparoxytones are changed in paroxytones either influenced by the Shtip-Strumitsa accent or by the neighbouring Voden accent; thus we have:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">скинàта, опашàна, растурèно, галèна, мамèна, зготфèна, качèна, зидàна, дадòа, облекòа, заведòа; пладнѝна, утрѝна, кладèнче; пазу̀а, Тодòрчо, кралèви, банèви, ябъ̀ка, ядѝца (въдица), здравѝца, шарèни, четѝри, Солу̀на-грàда, жалàди, месèци, побратѝма, девèре (vocative case), Йосѝва, радòсен, радòсна, ефтѝно, кисèло, галàби, Будѝма, будѝмска, бивòли, сватòви, рабòта, цигàни, цигàнка, лазàрка, два облàка</font></p><p>Specific Tikvesh-Moriovo are: носèше, учèше, одèше, учèа, which are not found in Voden. Unique are also: <font face="Times">рагя̀ат, отепàат</font> for third person plural present tense.</p><p>There are words with accent on the fourth syllable from the end in Tikvesh-Moriovo but they, too, do not violate the accent principle in this group; first, because those are very few, and second, because these words usually have 2 accents: one on the 4th syllable from the end, and other on the penultimate syllable: </p><p class="box"><font face="Times">мèсечѝна, крàставѝца, чèтворѝца, чòрбаджѝи, бèлогрàтка, рòбинчѝца, прèгрънàла, пàвунòво, прòговòрил, ку̀курѝгу, рòгозѝна, ру̀менлѝа, ду̀кадѝнче, бèлезѝци, мàйсторѝа, мàтенѝца</font></p><p>Such words show that Tikvesh-Moriovo accent prefers the penultimate syllable and the words in the last example can be considered as paroxytones which later acquire one more accent for balance – in order to keep the common accent principle because with these accent the word is split into 2 trochees: <font face="Times">мèсе-чѝна, бèло-грàтка, прòго-вòри</font>, etc. </p><p>As said above, Tikvesh-Moriovo accent system lacks oxytones. Only in some cases when the word is followed by an enclitic (<i>ми, ти, си, му, го, се</i>), the accent can be attracted on the last syllable of the main word: <font face="Times">наружàй-се! заколѝ-си, вратѝ-се, не шетàй-се, не правѝ-ми</font>; and even: прàшайтè-а! Свиретè-си! одетè-си! It seems that such accent shift occurs only in imperative forms and, maybe, maledictions such as: натемà-го, натемà-я! </p><p>As a general conclusion for the Tikvesh-Moriovo dialect, it can be said that it does not have the accent stability of Shtip-Strumitsa and Voden accents but it also lacks the accent mobility of the dynamic accent. It also has an additional mobility which attracts the accent on the penultimate syllable: <font face="Times">чòвек – човèци, сту̀ден – студèни, òбраз – обрàзи, бàба — бабѝчка</font>, etc. This mobility brings Tikvesh-Moriovo accent very close to the Kostur second-syllable accent.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h1 style="clear: both;">Definite accent</h1><h2>Second-syllable accent</h2>To the west of the Voden and Tikvesh-Moriovo accent, in the regions of Kaylar, Lerin, Kostur, Korcha, and Dolna Prespa in the southern-most part of Macedonia, are Bulgarian dialects with definite penultimate (paroxytone, second-syllable from the end) accent. These dialects to the west border with Albanian, to the south – with Greek element.<p>Although these dialects are very homogeneous grammatically, they can be split in 2 halves according to some phonetic traits: the eastern half includes the dialects of Kaylar and Lerin and the western half includes Korcha and Dolna Prespa. Dialects in the Kostur region take somewhat intermediate position as those are central for the Kostur accent system. Both halves are outside the central Bulgarian dialects and yet by the tj-dj reflex belong to the major Bulgarian щ-дж dialect area. Other common traits are the substitutions <b>ѫ → ъ, ън</b> in root vowels and <b>ѫ → а</b> in end vowels, <b>ъ → о</b> and <b>ь → е</b>, <b>ръ, лъ → ър, ъл</b>, as well as <b>-o</b> as a common article form for masculine gender.</p><p>Along these similarities, one finds the following phonetic and morphological differences between the 2 halves:</p>
<table>
<tbody><tr>
<th><center>Western half</center></th>
<th><center>Eastern half</center></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><b>1. </b>Pronunciation of nasals ѫ and ѧ </td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: center;">
<td><b><center>ъ, а, e, ън, ен</center></b></td>
<td><b><center>ъ, а, e</center></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><b>2. </b> tj-dj reflex </td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: center;">
<td><b><center>шч, ждж</center></b></td>
<td><b><center>щ, жд</center></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><b>3. </b> Suffix in first person singular present tense of the first and second conjugation verbs </td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: center;">
<td><b><center>-а</center></b></td>
<td><b><center>-ам, -ъм</center></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><b>4. </b> Suffix in third person plural present tense </td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: center;">
<td><i><center>None</center></i></td>
<td><b><center>-т</center></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><b>5. </b> Suffix in third person plural aorist </td>
</tr>
<tr style="text-align: center;">
<td><center><b>-е</b><br /><font face="Times">ойдѝе, казàе, носѝе</font></center></td>
<td><center><b>-а</b><br /><font face="Times">ойдòа, казàа, носѝа</font></center></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>Generally speaking, only the western half preserves completely the Kostur (penultimate) accent in all its regularity while the eastern half is influenced either by Voden or Tikvesh-Moriovo accents. In the Kostur region there is indeed a strong tendency to get to the penultimate by dropping the second last unaccented vowel, but there are still plenty of examples of third-syllable accent, especially in grammatically modified words: <font face="Times">пàдниме, стòриме, лю̀дята, пернѝците, плèшчите</font> <a href="#ref9">[9], p. 14-18</a>.</p><p>The properties of the Kostur accent are so clear, that it is enough to listen to a Kostur native or read a folk tale from the Kostur region marked with accents to convince yourself that in the Kostur dialect there is an infallible rule according to which the <b class="red">accent always falls on the penultimate syllable in all words</b>:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">бабѝчка, борѝна, сучèше, чешлàше, леèше, знаèло, чешлàе (чешлàха), научѝе, месечѝна, конду̀ри, зборвàше, секòа, неженèто, галèно, пътѝшча, четѝри, затворèни, гробѝшча, пазу̀ва, имàше, имàте, фъргàте, сетнѝна, лазàрка, теглèше, пенчу̀ри, дрънгòви, мъртòевц, панàир, съмбòта, зентòви, пендèси, четрѝма, дваèсе, триèсе, горешчѝна, облàчно, пътнѝци; тèмян, Рѝстос, гьèрдан, три месèци, ключòви, вангèлье, отворèни, испея̀но, нафòра, подадèна, за есèна, Митрòвден, пушвàше, покланèтье, ерембѝца, езèро, копринèни, веèше, бегàше, карàше, смеèше, мъглèше, здивàше, пофалю̀ва, надвикну̀ва, Солу̀на, Косту̀ра, надигру̀ва, надфърлю̀ва, зевàйне, посестрѝма, пернѝца, убàва мòма, гърмèви, тътнèви, тъмпàни, Янку̀ла, Янкулѝца, клàди, пелèни, негòви, синòви, печèно, точèно, стребрèна, кацнàла, царòви, прикьосàна, китèна, служèна, плакàно, къпàно, месèни, наднàто, повенàто, триндафѝля, кладèнци, ябъ̀лки, шарèно, борѝна, планѝна, темнѝна, улѝца, девèри, сребрèни, пърстèни, кървàви, малечкòво, кисèла, сирèйне, орàйне, гладàйне, гредèйне, дванадèсе, тринадèсе, Пейовѝца, Груйовѝца, невестѝнски, таткòви, сборòви, Янѝни, момѝни, Пейòви, върòви, язòви</font>, etc.</p>
<p>Fixing the accent on the penultimate syllable is done in 3 ways: (<b class="red">1</b>) most often by direct fixation through shifting accent from other syllables to the penultimate: <font face="Times">бабѝчка, печèно, убàва мòма, кладèнци, имàше, Вàсиль</font>, etc., etc.; (<b class="red">2</b>) contraction of the penultimate syllable so that a third-syllable accent slips to the second (penultimate) syllable: <font face="Times">Булгàря, Албàня, Гъ̀рця, Астрàля, двàйста, движèнье</font>, etc.; (<b class="red">3</b>) combination of short words in phrases with an overall penultimate accent: <font face="Times">нàт-три, нàт-сто, два-пъ̀та, на-тàкво, ка-изгòре, и-зà-то</font>, etc.</p>
<p>An exception are only 2 verb forms – for first and second person plural present tense which are with accent on the third syllable from the end: <font face="Times">стàниме, фàтиме, стòрите, дàдите, ѝмате</font>, etc. unlike aorist and imperfect which have an immutable penultimate accent: имàме, имàте, etc. Of course, in spite of these small exceptions, the Kostur accent remains definite second-syllable accent and it is much more regular than every other accent in Bulgarian dialects: without respect to word size or form, the accent necessarily seeks the penultimate syllable and remains there, while the word changes its size and then goes forwards or backwards in order to find its definite place: <font face="Times">мòма – момѝчка – момичèнце; Лàзар – Лазàра – Лазарѝца; шаренѝло – шарèно – шàрен</font>.</p><p>The influence of the various enclitics on the Kostur accent is minimal. Only the definite articles for the feminine, neutral and plural has some more expressed influence on the accent location while the masculine definite article <b>-o</b> and enclitics have a facultative influence and this only in verses. Thus, in addition to cases like: зетотòму, царотòму, попотòму, are common also: <font face="Times">босильòко, азнатàро, дукя̀но, свекòро, патерѝко (a kind of necklace), везѝро, байрактàро, цървèньо, зелèньо, собòро, зелнѝко, аргавàно, стежàро, ветèро, сокàко, поя̀са, зайèко, одъ̀ро</font>. In songs are found: <font face="Times">рацѝте, момàта, вратàта, койнѝте, гръндѝте, плешчѝте, полѝте; малàта, лепàта</font>, but in prose a third-syllable accent is preferred in such cases. For example, in the following text from the village Smъrdesh <a href="#ref9">[9], p. 32</a> to the northwest of Kostur the only regular proparoxytone (third-syllable from the end) is in the words with definite article: <font face="Times">сèлото, жàдето, албàнцката, движèньето, гъ̀рците, ту̀рците, половѝната, чèзмите, дру̀гите</font>; all other words including proper names are with penultimate (paroxytone) accent which is typical for the western half of the Kostur accent area:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">Сèло Смъ̀рдеш èсти блѝзо до-албàнцката гранѝца, на-жàдето мèжду Албàня и-Гъ̀рця. Имàше и-телонѝо (from Greek, 'customs') тàмо. Кòга дойдòе гъ̀рците двàйста годѝна, направѝе голèмо телонѝо, òти бèше голèмо движèньето мèжду Албàня и-Гъ̀рця. О-ту̀рцко-врèме бèше голèмо сèло, имàше нàт-три иля̀ди ду̀ши, ставàше сèкоа недèля пàзар. Àма ту̀рците го-изгорèе, го-изгорèе два-пъ̀та, зàшчо сèлото бèше комѝцко, булгàрцко. Оттàмо имàше мнòго войвòди – Вàсиль Чекалàров, Пàндо Кля̀шеф и-дру̀ги имàше. Сèлото бèше комѝцко, се-борèше прòтиф ту̀рците и-зà-то го-изгорèе ту̀рците. Имàше мнòго отепàни, нàт-сто ду̀ши. Сèлото èсти построèно на-тàкво мèсто, шчо-половѝната вòда от-чèзмите òди о-Адриатѝческо мòре и-половѝна кàмо Егèйцко мòре. На-тàква височѝна èсти сèлото. Ка-изгòре сèлото, мнòго нàрот избèга. Пòвекето дойдòе ту̀а о-Булгàря со-фамѝлиите. А-дру̀гите избегàе. Нèкой по-Амèрика, Астрàля и-о дру̀ги даржàви</font>.</p>
<p>Over the whole area with Kostur accent which is more or less influenced by neighbouring accents, Shklifov <a href="#ref9">[9]</a> distinguished the following basic accent types:</p>
<p><b class="red">1. The accent falls on the initial syllable.</b> This is specific for the dialect of the village of Oshchima in Dolna Koreshcha, Lerin region, e.g.: <font face="Times">Къ̀рстовден, плàнина – плàнината, кòшница – кòшницата, нòджина – нòджината, чèтирьесе, пъ̀рвиче – пъ̀рвичето, нèделята, пòдароците</font>. <a href="#ref10">[10], p. 50</a></p><p>A variation of the initial accent is frequently found in the dialect of the village of Nivitsi, Dolna Prespa – in words consisting of 3 or more syllables the vowel of the penultimate syllable is elongated (acquires quantitet): <font face="Times">вòда – вòдаата, Нѝвиици, гòдина – гòдинаата</font> <a href="#ref11">[11], p. 41</a>. This quantitet gives a melodic character of the Nivitsi microdialect which evokes an ironic attitude towards its carriers by the inhabitants of neighbouring villages. Shklifov asserts that the quantitated vowel is not accented in response to other authors (Bozhidar Vidoeski, Ivan Kochev) who suggest that in the Nivitsi microdialect there are two types of accent – on the first syllable (strong) and on the penultimate syllable (weak). According to Shklifov, the quantitet on the penultimate is not a regular rule but is outside the system and depends on delayed pronunciation. Initial accent is reported also in other villages of Koreshcha (Zhelevo, Rulya, Tъrna, and Besvina) and Dolna Prespa (Grazhdeno) with occasional quantitet of some post-accent vowels because of the delayed speech dynamics compared with the dynamic accent dialects.</p>
<p><b class="red">2. The accent falls on the proparoxytone (third syllable from the end).</b> This Prilep-Ohrid type accent is characteristic for the Dolna Prespa villages of Pъpli and Orovnik:<font face="Times">гòдина – годѝната, нèеста – неèстата, плàнина – планѝната</font>. In the Kostenaria (Ludovo, Ezerets – Lower Kostur) the deviations from Kostur accent are predominantly in the verb forms for past infinite: <font face="Times">Слàмата-е-клàвеме на-плèмната за-волòйте. Жѝтото го-товàрвеме на-мòските и-прàво на-òмборут</font> (Ezerets).</p>
<p><b class="red">3. The accent falls on the penultimate (paroxytone)</b> excluding only the definitive morphemes. This is the typical Kostur accent characteristic for the Kostur and most Lerin villages (excluding Oshchima in Koreshcha): <font face="Times">планѝна – планѝната, прèгач – прèгачо, прèгачи – прегàчите, чòрап – чòрапо, чорàпи – чорàпите</font>.</p>
<p><b class="red">4. The accent falls on the last syllable (oxytone).</b> This is reported with many examples mostly from the eastern half in several villages northeast of Kostur (Chereshnitsa, Zagoricheni, Mokreni) and the Lerin village Zeleniche: <font face="Times">нарòт, думазèт, сургу̀ч, каймакàн</font>.</p>
<p>In addition to the regions mentioned above, Kostur accent and Kostur dialect are found in the 2 main colonies from Kostur – in Bratsigovo which was known for a long time, and in Aydemir (Silistra region) which was reported by Miletich <a href="#ref6">[6]</a>. These Kostur colonies give us good clues as to the oldness of Kostur colonies in east Bulgaria. Because, although far from their birthplace, both the Bratsigovo and Aydemir Kosturians kept intact their old accent and dialect. The Bratsigovo <q>Arnaut</q> dialect is the same as Kostur dialect with its accent, forms, and sounds, and the Aydemir Kosturians reduced only the high vowels under the influence of east Bulgarian dialects but the accent was well preserved. Based on the fact, that in the Aydemir Kostur dialect the accent in imperfect is on the third syllable from the end (as in Voden dialect): плèтеше, плèтехме, плèтехте, плèтеха while in the Bratsigovo Kosturians the same form has a penultimate accent (плетèше, плетèхме, плетèхте, плетèха; давàше, давàхме, давàхте, давàха), as in the modern Kostur dialect, we can conclude that the Kostur accent got its modern shape after the emigration of Aydemirans and before the emigration of Bratsigovans. Knowing that the Bratsigovo Kosturians were exiled from their old place about 250 years ago, we can allege with certainty that the Kostur accent was the same as now 250 or 300 years ago.</p><p>That's why Miletich is right to allege that the Kostur colony in Aydemir is older than that in Bratsigovo but he has not enough grounds to maintain that it happened in the first century of the Turkish occupation, i.e. in 15th century. <a href="#ref6">[6], p. 628</a>. The time between the 2 emigrations was not so great, otherwise the dialects would not be so similar. We can judge about the antiquity of the Kostur accent from the accent in the <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/07/solun-dialect.html">Solun</a> villages (Suho, Visoka, Zarovo, Negovan, etc.) famous for their nasal pronunciation of the old nasals. Now these villages, which we can consider as an old continuation of the Kostur dialect, have a heterosyllabic accent. Therefore, before its splitting by the Kukush-Voden dialect, the Kostur dialect hadn't a definite accent as now but in its western part the present second-syllable accent developed while in the eastern part (around Solun) the old heterosyllabic accent remained. These assumptions are valid only if the Kostur accent system is not much older, that is, if the Kosturian didn't come on the Balkan Peninsula with an established second-syllable accent. See <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html">the comparison of Bulgarian and Polish</a>.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2 style="clear: both;">Third-syllable accent</h2>Third-syllable accent occurs in the south-western part of the Bulgarian dialect area, or more specifically in the region between Bitolya, Prilep, Veles, Skopie, Tetovo, Gostivar, Debъr, Struga, Ohrid, and Resen. There are several Bulgarian dialects in this area and their accent is so similar that it is hard to notice their other differences. Taking as a main difference the pronunciation of the old Bulgarian Big Yus (ѫ) vowel, one can distinguish 4 main dialects in this area:<ol><li>Ohrid (together with Resen and Struga): <b>ѫ → ъ</b><br />
</li><li>Debъr: <b>ѫ → o</b> (but part of Debъr region has <b>ѫ → ъ</b> reflex)<br />
</li><li>Prilep (together with Veles, Bitolya, Kichevo, and Skopie): <b>ѫ → а</b><br />
</li><li>Tetovo: <b>ѫ → у</b> </li></ol><p>The southwestern dialects in this group, those in Resen, Ohrid, Struga, and Debъr the reflex of tj-dj is щ-жд while in the rest of the dialects, кь-гь predominate.</p><p>This Prilep-Ohrid accent is strictly definite: it always falls on the third syllable from the end, i.e. it is shifted one syllable forward in comparison to the Kostur accent. In two- and three-syllable words the accent falls on the first syllable. Because there are many such words, one can get the impression that this is a first-syllable accent – as in Czech. But in four- and five-syllable words, it can readily be noticed that the accent doesn't go beyond the third syllable from the end.</p><p>Enclitics, like article, short personal and reflexive pronouns, auxiliary verbs, when they occur before or between major words in the sentence, are counted as part of the major words and attract the accent: <font face="Times">свекъ̀рва му, манàстирот, манастѝрите, чòвекот, човèците, човекàтаго, човекòтому, къде-стè-биле</font>, etc.</p><p>Pronouns, attributes, negation, prefixes по- and най- also make an accent whole with the main word and get the accent as one composite word: <font face="Times">òт-себе, преку̀-река, голèм-празник, планинскѝ-чоек, оналкàв-биол, не-тè-пушчам, по-шѝроки, най-гòлемо</font>.</p><p>This same accent rule applies to whole phrases of 2, 3, or more words that are syntactically closely bound so that the Prilep-Ohrid dialects can be rightly called phraseologic: <font face="Times">зашчо-ке-си-я̀-биеш глàата, неми-ти-сà згоди работѝчката (Resen), кога-кьè дойдеш, що-бешè-чекал, що-ми-сè-фалиш (Struga), кой-кьè-му-гò-купит, зашчо-да-не-му-гò-земит (Ohrid)</font>. It should be noted at once that this phraseologic accent does not occur everywhere; it is more common in the southwestern dialects (Ohrid, Struga, Resen, Debъr) while in the northeastern (Veles, Skopie) it is not stringently followed. This points to the southwestern dialects as a center of this accent providing that the deviations in the northeastern dialects are not new.</p><p>The Veles accent differs from the other third-syllable accents by the following:</p><p><b class="red">1. </b>All imperative forms have initial accent in Veles (as in Shtip): <font face="Times">ѝзвади, рàскопчи, ѝстурите, ѝсперете, рàзговори-се</font>, etc. Thus, in some cases the accent goes beyond the third syllable from the end which is not possible in other third-syllable accent dialects.</p><p><b class="red">2. </b>On the contrary, there are cases where the accent occurs more to the end of words, i. e. it is paroxytone or even oxytone: <font face="Times">овàа, овѝя, цел-дèн, сто-дèца, за еден чàс, на стрèт, одвай търкавалèс, търкавалèста, оддèка, èден пàт, унèтре, тòва мèсто</font> (Skopsko Novo Selo). There are apparently similar exceptions in Ohrid (as well as in Resen and Struga): годинàава, зимàава, утринàава, летòово, лебàа-ми, кръстàа-ми, богàа-ми, натемàа-го but those can be seen as no exceptions if we consider the long vowel as a double vowel. True exceptions in Ohrid then are only одвàй, потèм (after), колкò and олкò, онолкàв.</p><p><b class="red">3. </b>The phraseologic accent is not strictly followed in Veles: <font face="Times">пàзи бòже, кàко-му гòде, нè-сум се я̀вил, сèдум-ду̀ши, цèла-нòкь, врèла вòда, да-не-пàдне, у пу̀за, во пèнеа, на-я̀сье, крòтце-òди, да не се спрèпнеш!, за шеснàйесе-лири, Бàшино сèло, нè те пу̀шчам, нè ми се спѝе, кòго нàйде, вèтрища кога се вѝят, ако се згòди нèкой блѝзу, трèбе сàм да си вѝка крòтко, лу̀к я̀дам, лу̀к мѝрисам</font>.</p><p><b class="red">4. </b>There are traces of quantitet or, better, traces of the former dynamic accent in this dialect; words like баячка, трескалка, велешанка are pronounced with a long <i>a</i> after the stressed syllable: бàяачка, трèскаалка, велèшаанка; perhaps this elongation is a remnant of a former accent: <font face="Times">бая̀чка, трескàлка, велешàнка</font> and remained because of the closed syllable in these words.</p>
<p>Searching about the origin of the third-syllable accent the first question to ask is what is its organic link with the above 5 accent systems. This is not an easy question because neither of the neighbouring accent systems can be considered as a direct relative of the Prilep-Ohrid accent. Indeed, to the south in Dolna Prespa, Kostur, and Lerin there are dialects with a definite second-syllable accent which could hardly be considered as a basis for the Prilep-Ohrid accent: these are two separate accent systems having in common only the property that both are definite. There is nothing else to link them and no one can prove that one originates from the other. Going further east we touch the Tikvesh-Moriovo dialects that have the semi-definite accent system with a trend towards a second-syllable accent, therefore, those can't be considered as a basis for the third-syllable accent either; on the contrary, it seemd that the Tikvesh-Moriovo dialects had a third-syllable accent which at present is substituted with a second-syllable accent. To the northeast, the Shtip accent can't be considered a basis of the Prilep-Ohrid accent because it is a fixed accent while it seems that the Prilep-Ohrid accent arose from some very dynamic accent, an accent that was formerly widespread in Bulgarian and the other southeastern Slavic languages: only in such way one can explain the phraseologic accenture which now amazes us but in former times it was common for all Bulgarian language, and also in Russian, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovenian.</p><p>There is also no basis to assume an influence from the neighbouring foreign languages: Albanian and Greek. Albanian, although it touches Debъr and Ohrid-Struga dialects, is a language that uses a heterosyllabic accent. The Greek accent is somewhat similar to the Prilep-Ohrid accent because it does not go beyond the third syllable from the end; however, Greek is not directly adjacent to the dialects with third-syllabic accent: they are bridged by the Kostur-Lerin dialects with second-syllable accent.</p><p>As none of the neighbouring accent systems, Bulgarian or foreign, can be taken as a basis for the Prilep-Ohrid accent, one should skip the layer of dialects with definite and semi-definite accentures and reach to the indefinite dynamic accent; it can serve as a more reliable handle to elucidate the origin of the third-syllable accent. To hop over, because the immediate dialects to the north of Skopie are not very well studied as to accent to make a comparison; true, these also have indefinite dynamic accent, as well as in the northwestern Bulgarian dialects around Pirot, Tsaribrod, Trъn, etc., but no known accent traits that could explain the origin of the Prilep-Ohrid accent. Therefore, its most plausible origin is the indefinite accent in its various stages described above, assuming that it was occuring before in the dialects with third-syllable accent. It is all the same if one compares the third-syllable accent with some dialects along Pchinya and Morava or with the accent used in Tъrnovo. This is to say that the Prilep-Ohrid accent arose directly from a heterosyllable, dynamic and indefinite accent which occurred in this area before not passing through some of the other 4 accent systems.</p><p>The evidence about the origin of the Prilep-Ohrid accent is divided into 2 parts: origins in individual words and origins in whole phrases. This arises from the nature of Prilep-Ohrid accent which is 2 kinds: lexical that pertains to individual words and phraseologic that involves syntactic combinations or whole phrases. The explanation should be valid for both cases.</p><p>One can easily follow the tracks of the lexical accent taking into account all offsets and accent analogies which occur in the dialects with dynamic accent. There are very few words in Prilep-Ohrid accent which are not matched with the accent in some of the dynamic-accent dialects. For example, the two-syllable feminine and neutral nouns has a semi-offset accent already in the central щ-жд dialects while in the Mъrvak dialects in Ser and Petrich regions they all are with offset accent and the old end accent is restored in some of them only in the article form; in Shtip and Strumitsa this is not the case! No wonder that in Prilep they say:<font face="Times"> вòда, глàва, брàда, сèно, òко, съ̀рце</font>, etc.</p><p>The monosyllable male nouns which shift their accent on the article vowel in the northeastern and southern dialects begin to decrease as close as the Shumen area until they disappear completely in the Pirot area where no noun has the old accent (on the article suffix) but is accented on the root vowel. So it is natural to say in Ohrid: <font face="Times">грàдот, брèгот, зъ̀бот</font>, etc. and not: градòт, брегòт, зъбòт.</p><p>The plural in the same nouns shift their accent as close as the central dialects in Razlog and Maleshevo shifts the accent on the root vowel: <font face="Times">грàдове, брèгове, сѝнове, стòлове</font>, etc.; so it is natural that this root or initial accent in the said nouns occur in Struga. The monosyllable adjectives are used with an offset accent as close as Tъrnovo and Shumen areas: <font face="Times">млàда, млàдо, скъ̀па, ру̀са</font>, etc.</p><p>Many other nouns offset their end accent on more frontal syllables and make it closer to the Prilep-Ohrid accent; thus in the above dialects the accentures are <font face="Times">планинà and плàнина, пещерà and пèщера, хубостѝ and ху̀бости, пакостѝ and пàкости, младостѝ and млàдости, работà and рàбота, разговòр and рàзговор, договòр and дòговор, копилè and кòпиле, лободà and лòбода, пеленѝ and пèлени, яребѝца and я̀ребица, препелѝца and прèпелица, правдинà and прàвдина, обсеченè and обсѝчане, преображенè and преобразя̀ване, селянè and сèляне, гражданè and грàждане, плевненè and плèвнене, ловчанкà and лòвчанка, гражданкà and грàжданка</font>, etc.</p><p>The verb accent begins to shift also in the dialects with heterosyllable accent, it is enough to remember examples like: <font face="Times">да òтвора, да зàтвора, да нàбера, прѝбера, зàбера, да òпера, ѝспера</font> for present tense and cases like: òтвори, зàтвори, нàбери, òпери, нàплети, etc. for imperative mood. Imperfect and aorist in most verbs are also with third-syllable accent: <font face="Times">мѝслеше, мѝслехме, хòдехме, вòдихте, нòсеха, пàднахме, плèтохме, прèдохме, пèкоха</font>, etc.</p><p>Taking into account all regular and offset, old and new proparoxytones in the dialects with indefinite accent, one can ascertain that there are not many words left whose third-syllable accent could be due to the third-syllable system itself. Counting shows that the ratio is 5:3, i.e. of 8 polysyllable words in the third-syllable dialects, 5 are with the same accent as in the more eastern dialects, and only 3/8 became proparoxytones later.</p><p>For example, in the following song from Struga, taken from the Miladinov brothers collection <i>Bulgarian Folk Songs</i> (with exact accenture by Drimkolov) we find amazingly few words that do not occur in the eastern Bulgarian accent:</p>
<div style="float: left; font-family: Times; margin-left: 20%; width: 40%;">Стòйна ми змèя лю̀била<br />
Лю̀била що го лю̀била<br />
За дванàесет гòдини<br />
Нѝкой я Стòйна нè-узна<br />
Дури се сàма кàзала:<br />
Мàйко-ле, мѝла мàйко-ле<br />
ѝзлези нàдвор дà-видиш<br />
Дà-видиш чу̀до гòлемо:<br />
На синè-кукьи вèдрина,<br />
А на нàшава òблачно:<br />
Стòйна ми змèа лю̀била<br />
За дванàесет гòдини;<br />
Нѝкой ме, мàйко, нè-узна,<br />
Дури ѝзлезе майка-йе<br />
Тука си Стòйна нè-найде.<br />
</div>
<div style="float: right; font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 5%; width: 40%;">Мàлу шчо ми я дòгледа<br />
Мегю двà тèмни òблака<br />
Шàрен йе гàйтан дзу̀неше;<br />
Пак Стòйна ми се пòврати:<br />
Мàйко-ле, мѝла мàйко-ле,<br />
Ти сега да ме нè-чекаш,<br />
Тук да ме чèкаш и гòдина<br />
Со русò-момче прèд-мене,<br />
Со мъшкò-дете нà-ръце.<br />
Кога ми дòйде и гòдина<br />
Со русò-момче прèд-неа<br />
Со мъшкò-дете нà-ръце<br />
Пèрчето му се вèеше<br />
На ширòките рàмена.<br />
</div>
<p style="clear: both;">Out of 46 two- and polysyllable words in this song, only 13 deviate in their accent, while all others have the same accent as in the heterosyllabic dialects or 7.6:3 which is higher than the abovementioned 5:3. The interpretation that the Prilep-Ohrid accent has collected the accent offsets of all Bulgarian dialects and increased them states the fact without explaining it. Such explanation would also hold if the Prilep-Ohrid was adjacent to the heterosyllabic accent and not separated by accent systems that are closer to the heterosyllabic. That's why the explanation given below is more acceptable.</p><p>The origins of the third-syllable accent stem from the <b>old quantitet</b> which ruled in the dialect in which the third-syllable accent first arose, or better, it is directly related to the old offset whose cause is an old Proto-Slavic accent law: <b>long vowels do not accept accent</b>. To better understand the following, let's remind that in Old Bulgarian as in all south Slavic languages, there were 2 kinds of offset: one-syllable and two-syllable. One-syllable is when the offset is one syllable towards the beginning of the word; one-syllable offset we have in words: глàва, брàда, млàдо, пòпа, врàга, etc. instead of: главà, брадà, младò, попà, врагà, etc.; two-syllable offset we have in cases like: плàнина, грàждане, сèляне, пèщера, нà-глава, нà-ръки, òд-ръки, нà-краки, etc. In fact, both offsets are two-syllable, and only when there is no third syllable the accent hops on the adjacent syllable so it become one-syllable offset. However, according to the above accent law, every offset should be two-syllable if possible because the syllable before the accent is long in most cases so it didn't accept an accent but offset it to the beginning. If the word was three or more syllabic the accent stayed in the word but if the word was two- or one-syllabic the accent offset to other words which stood in close syntactic link with the main word. Thus, examples like: немога да излеза нà-глава, иде ми òд-ръки, завива се прèз-глава, станаха му нà-краки, отивам <span style="font-family: Times;">у̀</span> град, etc., which arose in very old time because those are in Russian, in Serbo-Croatian, and in Slovenian.</p><p>In Serbian, the accusative case is one such old offset: глâву, брâду (<i>accusative</i>) vs. глàва, брàда (<i>nominative</i>); therefore, when this offset arose the accent, seeking a short syllable, hopped on the preposition; but when the word lacked a preposition then the accent stopped on the adjacent syllable in the same word so an old accented length occurred; thus we have: глâву but нȁглâву. In Russian, the vocalisation allows such two-syllable offset so we have: гòлову, бòроду. The principle of two-syllable offset in Serbian is clearly seen in the aorist form second and third person in verbs in which this form is the same as the form for third person singular present tense (after dropping the end т): трêсе vs. трèсох, трèсосмо, трèсосте, трèсоше; when a preposition is put, the accent hops onto it: <span style="font-family: Times;">ѝстрêсе, also: рâсте – пȍрâсте, вêде – прѝвêде, хвâли – пȍхвâли, жу̂ри – пȍжу̂ри, прâвда – ȍпрâвда</span>, etc.</p><p>Just such two-syllable offset served as a base of the Prilep-Ohrid accent; at the start this offset was there in principle and the dialects with third-syllable accent gave it only an impetus, transformed it into accent law which became so powerful that not only unified all words in respect to accent but acted in all other cases where it hasn't been used before. Another phenomenon enhanced this two-syllable offset whose reasons are not known today but which could be assumed in the third-syllable accent dialects because it is found in the neighbouring dialects (Kostur-Lerin and Tikvesh-Moriovo); it is the avoidance of the end syllable by the accent, which is characteristic in some other Slavic languages (Serbian and Polish) and other languages, such as English and German. It is hard to tell whether this avoidance appeared originally in the third-syllable accent dialects or came from the neighbouring dialects located as a long belt to the south-east in Kostur-Lerin and Tikvesh-Moriovo areas; but when this avoidance began to rule, the old accent-quantitet law acted in full force: short vowels are accented, and long vowels are immediately before or after accented syllable. Therefore, when in the Prilep-Ohrid accent the avoidance appeared, the accent did not pass from the last to the penultimate syllable, as e.g. in Kostur, Tikvesh-Moriovo, and Polish, but was offset at once by two syllables by dint of the old two-syllable offset which should have been already very influential because it included many phraseologic accent offsets.</p><p>So we accept 2 reasons for the origins of the Prilep-Ohrid accent, 2 reasons that explain well both kinds of accent: lexical and phraseologic. Because the first reason – the two-syllable quantitet offset – historically goes before the end syllable avoidance, one has to assume that in the Prilep-Ohrid third-syllable accent system, the phraseologic offset – together with the phraseologic accent – arose before the lexical offset; in other words, before the pronunciation: <font face="Times">плàнина, грàдове, дòнеси, ѝскопай</font> instead of: <font face="Times">планинà, градовè, донесѝ, ископàй</font>, there were already many examples like: нà-глава, пò-врага, двà-гроша, пèт-пари, голò-глава, белò-гърло, etc. Therefore, it is better to start the study with the phraseologic Prilep-Ohrid accent. This is also necessary because the phraseologic accent in the Bulgarian dialects in Macedonia stays closer than the lexical accent to the old dynamic accent, as paradoxical as it may seem; true, it is enveloped in many later analogies but the traces of the old dynamic accent which served as a basis for the third-syllable accent, still show through. Thus, the prepositional composites which in Ohrid, Prilep, etc. make an accent whole, match similar composites with identical accents in the dialects with hetero-syllable accent system; cf.:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times">не се излиза нà-глава, дойде ми нà-ръки, претупаха го нà-две-нà-три, изгледа ме нà-криво, иде му òдръки, умира òт-глади, зàлудо работи зàлудо не стой, да се ражда нàд-брег и пòд-брег, нàд-път и пòд-път; хванах го зà-ръка, имам прѝ-сърце, ела нàдвечер или прѝвечер, тръгнаха прѝ-зори, каза си го още прѝ-живе, завивам се прèз-глава, отиде прèз-море, прèз-гора, прèзарце (прèз-ръце, Razlog); осучи го ò-две; погледна у̀-земи, накарах го в дъ̀н-земе, това млèко е у̀-жлътно, тука е местото у̀-стръмно, изгули се бèз-трага, дойде ò-време, ела пò-час, видех го нà-съне, отивам нà-гости, дò-пъти, дò-реда; наядох се дò-сита, говори на не у̀-свест, нà-мерки; излезе до нà-двор; нà-едно, нà-преки or нàпреку, нà-близу, нà-вода, нà-десно, нà-лево, нà-ново, нà-окол, зà-едно, зà-нога, зà-душа, пò-глава, пò-врат, зà-вчера, у̀-град, у̀-несвест (Dupnitsa), пò-буга (пò-Бога); вол се връзва зà-рог (Pirot), гледай нà-бога, проси зà-бога, пò-дину, пò-нъщу (village Plevne, Drama), средè-зима, средè-лято (Tъrnovo), нà-греда (Sofia region), падна от-бога, удри пò-нога, викна дò-бога (Sofia region), пò-поле скача òт-море дò-море пòд-бога сеница (Sofia region); прекò-море, нà-шилу (Tsaribrod), надѝ-море, у̀-ръка (Sofia region), шие нà-мито (askew), играла нà-место, нà-зима, òт-пладне, пòд-гуша, пò-грей (пò-грехи) помана, до дòвечер, ò-близо (Botevgrad), нà-небо, нà-земи</font></p><p>Such old accent was used in equal measure in Lovech, Tъrnovo, and Sofia regions just as in Prilep and Ohrid regions. Indeed, in the northern and eastern Bulgarian dialects its use became less frequent because the analytic nature of language put again its stamp there, so alongside: излизам нà-глава we have излизам на главà, alongside отивам нà-гости we have на гòсти, alongside станаха му нà-краки we have на кракà. From the parallel use of these composites we can conclude that the former are old remnants and the latter are new substitutes; we can also conclude that such prepositional prefixes with offset accent (old offset) were at old times much more common than today. Exactly because they arose in very old time, these prepositional composites making one accent whole in the Prilep-Ohrid proparoxytone dialects are much more that in the dialects with indefinite accent – first, because they were inherited in greater quantity, and second, they were later multiplied by accent analogy. We can conclude that these prefixes with prepositional accent originate from an old source together with the dynamic accent by the fact that they obey the same conditions in both types of accent: only nouns without article, or nouns which do not possess a logical accent and make together with the preposition an indefinite, phraseologic composite, have a prepositional accent; otherwise the noun conserves its accent both in the definite and indefinite accent systems: мечката завързват зàнос but: го ватив за нòсот not зà-носот; <font face="Times">стигнав до въ̀рвот</font> not дò-вървот; седна нà-стол (no logical accent: <i>on a chair</i>) but: сèдна на стòл (emphasis is on <i>the chair</i>). Exactly the same distinction is made in the dialects with heterosyllable accent: иде ми òд-ръце but: зè ми го от-ръцè (or от ръцèте), удари го пò-глава but: помилва го по главàта, etc.</p><p>The analytical development of the preposition as a separate part of speech before the main word is evident not only from the fact that the prepositional prefixes with accent tend to decrease in dialects but also many composite words (with preposition) which before had an accent on the preposition now are spoken with accent on the main word. There is no doubt that the word Загòра formerly had an initial accent: Зàгора where the Turkish name of this town came from Зàгра → Зàара. But the analytic spirit of New Bulgarian created the accent Загòра which spread everywhere, and the old name is not used anymore. Now there are many such prepositional words with alternate accent – prepositional (old) and root (new); thus we have:</p>
<table class="box" style="font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; width: 60%;"><tbody><tr><td>прѝказ → прикàз<br />
прѝсад → присàд<br />
рàссад → рассàд<br />
рàзлика → разлѝка<br />
òтлика → отлѝка<br />
òмара → омàра<br />
òпала → опàла<br />
òправа → опрàва<br />
пòпара → попàра<br />
пòтера → потèра<br />
пòклон → поклòн<br />
пòздрав → поздрàв<br />
пòдлог → подлòг<br />
прèглед → преглèд<br />
пòгон → погòн<br />
прèврат → преврàт<br />
пòклади → поклàди<br />
въ̀здух → възду̀х<br />
зàвой → завòй<br />
пòвой → повòй<br />
зàграда → загрàда<br />
зàдруга → задру̀га<br />
зàдуха → заду̀ха<br />
ѝсполица → испòлица<br />
дòхват → дохвàт<br />
пòхват → похвàт<br />
нàбожна → набòжна<br />
зàвера → завèра<br />
зàлудо → залу̀до<br />
нàпусто → напу̀сто<br />
зàлог → залòг<br />
</td> <td>зàклон → заклòн<br />
ѝзвод → извòд<br />
нàбор → набòр<br />
нàлог → налòг<br />
нàрод → нарòд<br />
нèмар → немàр<br />
нèхар → нехàр<br />
нàтур → нату̀р<br />
òбраз → обрàз<br />
òброк → обрòк<br />
òбед → обèд<br />
òтпор → отпòр<br />
òтвор → отвòр<br />
òтвод → отвòд<br />
òтбив → отбѝв<br />
òток → отòк<br />
пòкров → покрòв<br />
пòлет → полèт<br />
пòрой → порòй<br />
прèслап → преслàп<br />
прèвес → превèс<br />
прòстор → простòр<br />
прѝход → прихòд<br />
прèнос → пренòс<br />
рàзвод → развòд<br />
рàссол → рассòл<br />
рàзрез → разрèз<br />
рàзбой → разбòй<br />
рàсказ → раскàз<br />
съ̀бор → събòр<br />
у̀роки → урòки</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>In many such words the alternate accent hides a double meaning which arises from dialectic or historical differences in the meaning of the main word: <font face="Times">прѝказ</font> – Bulgarian dialectal word that arose from приказвам, to talk (<font face="Times">за чудо и прѝказ!</font>) while прикàз comes from the Russian word приказать, to order; <font face="Times">прѝсад</font>, an old Bulgarian word, means grafted pear while присàд means more general grafted tree or grafting; прèврат means 'changed, spoiled wine' while преврàт, a newer word means 'a coup, changed, upturned politics'; има пòхват means 'has "long fingers", steals' while има похвàт (again a new word) means 'he is deft'; òтвод means 'corridor' while отвòд means 'non-joinder'; нàрод means 'multitude, throng' while нарòд means 'people, nation'; òбраз means 'image, figure' while обрàз, обрàзи means 'face, cheeks'; <font face="Times">у̀рок, у̀роки</font> means 'bad luck from looking at' while урòк means 'lesson'. Comparing the meaning and the accent in such words, one can see at once that the newer, more modern words have a root accent and not a prepositional accent. This is a very convincing proof that the old accent is due to phonetic (quantitet) reasons and the new accent is due to syntactic logic.</p><p>If the prepositional accents arose recently, then we'd have cases with accents on conjunctions as in other cases on enclitics (ми, ти, са, му, etc.) when they occur in front of verbs. But what do we see? Of the conjunctions, only и sometimes accepts a logical accent (<font face="Times">ѝ-яс, ѝ-ти, ѝ-така, ѝ-него, ѝ-неа</font>), and these reminds the Serbian accenture on this conjunction: <font face="Times">ѝ-бог, ѝ-бога, ѝ-вук, ѝ-грâд</font>, etc. The prefixed enclitic pronouns (<font face="Times">му-рèков, я-кàзав, го-вѝкнав</font>, etc.) do not accept accent because their location does not date of the time when the accent moved onto prepositions; it is newer.</p><p>Therefore, all cases with prepositional accent in the proparoxytone dialects originate by the former common dynamic accent which has been characteristic for all Bulgarian dialects including those in Macedonia.</p><p>A second large group of phraseologic accent are cases in which the major tone falls on the adjective: рудò-ягне, тонкà-става, студнà-вода, целò-лето, лютà-змия, крефкò-месо, etc. Here, analogies with the dynamic accent dialects are also common, especially with the dialects which accent their adjectives in the old way: <font face="Times">белà, белò, белѝ, тънкà, тънкò, чернà, сивà, живà, целà, крехкà</font>, etc. There, too, the composites of such adjectives with two-syllable nouns are pronounced with the same third-syllabic accent as in Ohrid or Resen; with the only difference, perhaps, that the noun still preserves its accent in half – demoted to a secondary accent, while the primary accent falls on the adjective: <font face="Times">тънкȁ-снагà, крехкȍ-месò, сивȁ-змия̀, белȍ-книжè, живȁ-душà, целȍ-лèто, студнȁ-водà, добрȁ-душà, светȁ-горà, новȁ-къщà, вехтȁ-дрèха, сухȍ-мокрò; жи̃в-умрèл, бȅл-червèн, си̃н-зелèн, гола-пъ̀лтена, синя-кòтлена, ножче черно-чèренче</font>, etc.</p><p>Subsequently, the logical accent on the adjective began to dominate so much in the third-syllable accent system that it completely engulfed the noun accent, and when the third-syllable accent held sway, such composites were considered one word however much syllables it might contain; thus, accents like: Лазарò-поле, Кадинò-село, здрави-вòлои, големи-прàзници, сирна-нèделя, etc. It is evident that these are cases of logical accent not only from examples like: <font face="Times">койè-дете, каквѝ-овци, кòй-стопан, чия̀-тетка</font>, but also from the accent on the noun when the latter is emphasized: <font face="Times">злà су̀праа – гòтоа щèта; мàла рàбота, гòлема стрàмота; забилò ми-се синоно мòре</font>. This occurs especially when the adjective is put after the noun: рòса прòлетна, чòек плàнински.</p><p>It is notable that that in composites of adjectives with monosyllable nouns the accent doesn't reach further than the adjacent syllable: <font face="Times">свинскà-мас (not: свѝнска-мас), белà-сол, непечèн-леп, шарèн-пес, по-голèм-брат, далечнѝ-дни</font>, etc. In these exceptions from the third-syllable accent, a strong link with the dynamic accent is also seen: these exceptions have their beginnings at the time when the third-syllable accent was indefinite-dynamic and their former basis were composites like <font face="Times">свѝнска-маст, бèла-сол, горо-цвèт, добрѝ-дни</font>, etc., i.e. cases in which in front of the monosyllable noun stands a word with a vowel ending. This is apparently a monosyllable offset but in fact it is two-syllable offset if it is presented as a continuation of the time when the end Ers were actually pronounced; then белà-сол corresponds to an older accent <font face="Times">белȁ-солъ̀</font>, i.e. just as <font face="Times">у̀-град</font> corresponds to the older <font face="Times">у грȁдъ̀</font>. In a while, by analogy accents arose like: непечèн-леп, празничèн-ден, even шарениòт-вол. Of course, the logical accent on the adjectives played a role here, too, especially when it coincides with the phonetic accent. It is possible that the definite form of the adjectives also played a role, i.e., accent белà-сол came from белàа-сол.</p><p>Particles по and най and the negative не attract the accent both in the dynamic and in the proparoxytone dialects: <font face="Times">пȍ-добъ̀р, пȍ-младà, пȍ-рàно, нȁй-ху̀бав, нȁй-старà; не-мѝли и нȅ-драгѝ, децà нèвръсни, дойдè у нè-време, отидè у нè-врат</font>. Here the difference is also that in the northern and eastern Bulgaria there are also traces from the old accent: пȍ-младà while in the third-syllable dialects the secondary accent vanishes without trace.</p><p>Accents like: <font face="Times">попàтого, волàтого, ратая̀того, попòтому, човекòтому</font>, etc. are also characteristic for dynamic-accent dialects where such forms still remain (Trъn, Pirot, Bosilegrad, Tsaribrod).</p><p><b class="red">Interrogative pronouns</b> which make an accent whole together with the verb in third-syllable dialects, carry the main accent also in the dynamic dialects: <font face="Times">кȍй-дойдè? кому̃-казà? когȍ-удрѝ? когȁ-влèзе? коȅ-бèше? щȍ-чèкаш? чи̃й-бил кòньът? каквȁ-пèсен? когȁ-дойдè? къдȅ-бèше? къдȅ-ходѝ? каквȍ-сторѝ? щȍ-стòиш? защȍ-плакà?</font> Here, the relationships between the two accent types is the same as above.</p><p><b class="red">The imperative forms</b> comprise together with the noun and the pronoun an accent whole in the dynamic accent system, too: <font face="Times">дàй-ми-го! отворèте-ми, живèйте-си, земѝ-си-ги! отвържѝ-ми-ги! вехтȍ-кърпѝ – конци̃-хабѝ, старȍ-либѝ – денȅ-губѝ!</font> The same is true for the composite words in which the first part is an imperative verb: <font face="Times">влечи̃-клашнѝк, лапни̃-глътнѝ, бори̃-мèчка, дери̃-козà, лȁй-ку̀чка, сполȁй-бòгу</font>.</p><p>Many other cases with third-syllable phraseologic accenture are represented in the dynamic accent system; especially in typical sentences, proverbs, puzzles, etc. the similarity is obvious:</p>
<div style="float: left; font-family: Times; margin-left: 20%; width: 40%;">Самȍ-мèсо домȁ-дошлò<br />
Кроткȍ-àгне от двȅ-мàйки цѝца<br />
Бели̏-парѝ за черни̏-днѝ<br />
Беснȁ-ку̀чка по горȁ-лае<br />
Бели̏-прàсци в горȁ-пасàт<br />
Червȅн-козèл в пещерȁ лежѝ<br />
Полови̏н-блю̀до на стенȁ вѝси<br />
Двȁш-мерѝ, веднъ̏ш-крой<br />
Белȁ-гъ̀ска на еди̏н-крак<br />
Еднȁ-женà с чȅтири пòяса<br />
Висȍк-Тòдор без кòкали<br />
Самȁр-нòси кȍн-не-е,<br />
рогȁ-ѝма вȍл-не-е
</div>
<div style="float: right; font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 3%; width: 40%;">Русȍ-прасè просȍ-пасè<br />
Късȍ-прасè по ръ̏т-пасè<br />
Бързȁ-ку̀чка слепи̏-рàжда<br />
Смȍк-свѝри пȍт-плèт<br />
По-сȅ-полè свещи̏-горàт<br />
Сȅ-тъкàт, сȅ-предàт<br />
и сȅ-голѝ пȁк-голѝ<br />
От ту̏к-брèк от тȁм-брèк,<br />
посредàта гȍл-човèк<br />
Пèтър плȅт-плетè,<br />
подри̏-Пèтре плетъ̀,<br />
паднȁ-Пèтре плетъ̀<br />
Дрȅн-трещѝ, козȁ-врещѝ,<br />
самси̏н-гòспод кȍн-държѝ
</div>
<p style="clear: both;">With so many examples of two-syllable offset based on the old Slavic accent law, it is easy for the accent analogy to pass to separate words, to become lexical. First, the analogy passed through three-syllable oxytones with a tonal pattern ٹ _ ں and there are very many such words (<font face="Times">овчāрè, ковāчè, юнāцѝ, граждāнè, селя̄нè, граждāнкà, тетӣвà</font>, etc.). The offset by this formula is closest to the similar old Slavic offset either in propositional composites or in individual words. </p><p>Those were followed by all three- and poly-syllable oxytones which offset their accent by one syllable: пèщера, грàдове, дàрове, срàмота, видèлина, плàнина, мàскара, да нàправа, òстави – and there were so many dactylic words that they bacame the main principle in the Prilep-Ohrid accent. This principle or this multitude of proparoxytone words regulates the accent of the remaining words, i.e. the paroxytone words offset their accent on the third syllable from the end (<font face="Times">лѝвада, мòтика, тòпола, влàдика</font>), while the comparatively few words with fourth-syllable accent shift the accent towards the end to the third syllable: <font face="Times">я̀ребица → ярèбица, я̀ворово → явòрово, крàставица → крастàвица, лàстовица → ластòвица, грèбените → гребèните</font>, etc.</p><p>The accent offset in the two-syllable vocal oxytones (<font face="Times">водà, сърцè, светà, добрò, идѝ, станà</font>, etc.) can be interpreted differently depending on whether they are a result of the common accent principle in Prilep-Ohrid accent system or are individual offset such as exist in many Bulgarian dialects. Both interpretations assume an accent offset from the last syllable in the Prilep-Ohrid system and does not contradict the common accent principle in the third-syllable accent system.</p><p>This brief outline of the development of the Prilep-Ohrid accent gives only the main stages. A more detailed study would make its origin even more obvious. For such fuller study, one has to take an account the 2 neighbouring accent systems: Tikvesh-Moriovo to the south-east and Kumanovo-Vranja to the north which can give some more insight on this interesting accent and would complement what was told here without changing it.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h1 style="clear: both;">Bulgarian, Slavic, and Balkan accent</h1>After all said about the different kinds of accent in Bulgarian dialects, an overview of the whole Bulgarian dialect area follows with respect to the area, taken by the various accent systems. The biggest area, about 85%, is taken by the indefinite, heterosyllable or shifting accent which is to the north-east of the line Solun-Shtip-Kumanovo. This accent, which has in old time ruled in all south-eastern Slavic languages, connects through Tetovo, Kumanovo, Kratovo, Bosilegrad, Trъn, Breznik, and Tsaribrod with the accent in the Kosovo-Morava dialect which is also indefinite and heterosyllabic.<p>The area of heterosyllabic dynamic accent is bordered by a band of dialects in Strumitsa, Radovish, Shtip, and Kratovo where the accent is still heterosyllabic but it is not as dynamic as in the east. This band or belt in its continuation to the north through Kumanovo and Vranja fuses with the southwestern Morava dialect whose accent is more similar to Shtip accent than to the dynamic accent.</p><p>Behind this belt to the south and turning to the west one finds dialects with semi-definite or fully definite accent systems, all of which comprise about 15% of the Bulgarian dialect. The third-syllable accent takes about half of this latter area – almost as much as the other 3 accent systems. There is a gradual geographic transition between these: the Voden accent to the south is a continuation of Shtip-Strumitsa accent if we take into account that in Shtip-Strumitsa there are relatively few words with accent on the third-syllable from the end; these words take to the south a second-syllable instead of third-syllable accent to give the Voden accent system. The Tikvesh-Moriovo accent –on the 2 last syllables – is a transitional accent towards the Prilep and the Kostur accent: dactyl words assimilate it to Prilep accent while trochee words assimilate it to the Kostur accent. Whether Tikvesh-Moriovo has been or it is going to be a Prilep accent, is another matter; the fact is that there is a gradual transition between those.</p><p>Stating this transition does not mean that, i.e., Ohrid accent passed through this multitude of accent systems in order to fix itself on the third-syllable because we saw how similar it is to the common dynamic accent; no, this gradual transition is a result of neighbouring influences, and this variety of accent systems between the dynamic and third-syllable accent came later. Additional variety is brought by the кь-гь dialects which come from north to south and divide the Ohrid-Debar щ-жд dialects from the rest of the щ-жд dialects to the east. There is no doubt that in the region of Ohrid, Debar, etc., where now the third-syllable accent dominates, was formerly an area of the dynamic heterosyllabic accent which is now characteristic for more eastern dialects. Otherwise, one cannot explain so many Bulgarian words in Albanian language in which the accent is not third-syllable; these words could have come into Albanian only from today Bulgarian dialects with third-syllable or second-syllable accent, cf.: bigòr (with the same meaning as in Bulgarian: 'travertine'), bugàt, bul'àr and bujàr, haračnik, kъrčàg, kokòš, kotèc (OBg: котьць – 'chicken-coop'), kovàč, pokròv, ostèn, obòr, opèt (cf. Russian <font face="Times">'опя̀ть'</font>), pelìn, potòk, topàn, vešnìk, rogòs, nemèc, uròk, zabèl, zokòn, zastòj, tъrnokòp, etc. There are also many words from Bulgarian origin with end accent such as: g'obàr (глобарь), rotàr (ратар, ратай), štrastàr (стражар), kurvàr, etc., including many verbs like: rešìt (решити), vozìt, zbavìt, trondìt (трѫтити), vertìt, vervìt, točìt, etc. It is possible, however, that in the verbs the accent was changed by Albanian analogy.</p><p>These Bulgarian words in Albanian which came for sure from Ohrid-Debar can serve as evidence that in these dialects there were before words with end accent and therefore the third-syllable system in these dialects was a later development.</p><p>There is no basis whatsoever to resort to the Latin accent, as Masing <a href="#ref7">[7]</a> did because the Prilep-Ohrid accent historically is impossible to date from such early time. Somewhat more plausible is the suggestion of the Romanian Professor Haşdeu <a href="#ref8">[8]</a> that the second-syllable accent (Kostur-Lerin) accent has an organic link with the Polish accent. As unplausible as such opinion might seem, it has much more support that the simple assumption for a possible Roman influence on the Slavic inhabitants of South-western Bulgaria. According to Prof. Haşdeu, the several phonetic similarities between Polish and Bulgarian are not coincidental: today there are nasals only in Polish and Bulgarian; ѣ is pronounced as я only in these 2 languages; second-syllable accent occurs only in Polish and in one Bulgarian dialect, namely in Kostur dialect. An additional evidence about the antiquity of the Kostur dialect is the fact the oldest Bulgarian monuments were written without accent signs although in Greek manuscripts such signs were always present. The reason for this may be that in the Bulgarian dialect serving as a literary basis (Kostur-Solun dialect) there was a definite second-syllable accent as early as 9th century. There is an analogous relationship between Greek and Latin: the Latin writing arose from Greek but it is lacking accent signs; these are lacking because the Latin accent is definite so accent signs are not needed. All this supports the antiquity of the Kostur accent much more convincingly then to suppose one or another influence. However, this suggestion cannot be immediately accepted without a support by specific historical data. Unfortunately, this is the biggest problem in Bulgarian accent, because Bulgarian books were written without accents until the second half of 14th century; and since then in the small number of books that were preserved there is no trace of the definite accent systems. Only at the end of 18th century when the popular damaskins were transcribed in the south-western Bulgaria, the third-syllable accent appeared in a complete form as it is today so it cannot explain the origin of this curious accent. In the lack of specific data either of neighbouring influence or relationship with other Slavic languages, one has to explain the facts by properties of the present dialects. Such explanation for the third-syllable accent system was given above and it was found that it has a long-standing relationship with the dynamic heterosyllabic accent existing on most of the Bulgarian linguistic area.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h1 style="clear: both;">Double Accent</h1><h2>History and genesis</h2><h5 class="red">This section is based on material in <a href="#ref29">[29]</a></h5>
There is a phenomenon which has long been well-known as an inherent characteristic of certain Bulgarian dialects. This phenomenon is the
appearance of a second accent and sometimes (though rarely) more accents in polysyllabic lexical or prosodic words (lexical word + clitic).<p>Double accent, known in Bulgarian dialectology as двойно ударение, is for some dialects (for example, West Rup dialects) considered to be so indisputable that it is often included in university textbooks (<a href="#ref12">[12]</a> and references therein). This phenomenon has been under observation by Bulgarian dialectology for some time; hence the dialect area characterized by double accent is now well-known and covers a relatively compact area in southwestern Bulgaria and neighboring regions of Macedonia and Greece <a href="#ref13">[13], map 153</a>; <a href="#ref14">[14], maps 51, 52, 55, 76</a>; <a href="#ref15">[15], map 68</a>; <a href="#ref16">[16]</a>. Throughout this area, double accent occurs on alternating syllables on the lexical or the prosodic word.</p><p>It is also known that as of the 16th century those dialectal accent shifts which might have been connected with double accent had either been completed or were already in progress (for examples, see <a href="#ref17">[17]: 45-56</a>), and that the contemporary form of double accent had been completely established by the middle of the 19th century (proof of this can be found in the Tъrlinski Gospel <a href="#ref18">[18]</a>; <a href="#ref19">[19]</a>). Today we can state with certainty that at that time the area of the phenomenon was broader than it is today, and might have affected all dialects in the Rhodopes as well as dialects in the western part of Southern Thrace <a href="#ref20">[20]:72</a>; <a href="#ref21">[21]:63-64</a>; <a href="#ref13">[13]</a>; <a href="#ref22">[22]: 289</a>. This conclusion is based on certain manuscripts which have recently been made available to the scholarly community <a href="#ref23">[23]</a> who is now also familiar with the syllabic peculiarities of accentual units that provoke the occurrence of a second accent; those are syllabic structures in which the occurrence of double accent can be expected or can be predicted with some degree of certainty. When this syllabic structure is connected with dialects in the south of Bulgaria, the prediction is so reliable that the absence of double accent in such instances causes surprise (see, for example, <a href="#ref24">[24]:178-182</a>; <a href="#ref19">[19]</a>). In spite of all this, however, we have almost no knowledge of the acoustic and perceptual characteristics of the second accent, nor even of its origin. Nor do we know how the second accent is connected with the “first” accent, nor to what extent it is etymological. Although the additional accent is usually referred to as <q>secondary</q>, published sources rarely indicate whether this additional accent is in fact a phonetically measurable secondary stress. The implication is that the <q>second</q> accent is simply an additional accent and that the two accents are usually of equal strength. Indeed, the fact that most treatments of double accent usually make reference to etymology, at least obliquely, suggests that the term <q>secondary</q> may have more of a historical meaning (referring to an accent which is presumably not the original, inherited one), in addition to (or in place of) a possible phonetic meaning. For example, there are words like нèвестàта ‘the bride’, in which neither of the two accented syllables is “etymologically” accented. It is largely because of this complex of unsolved questions that most scholars have chosen to use the term <q>double</q> rather than the term <q>secondary</q>. On a more general level, there is a lack of clarity with respect to a very basic problem: given that this syllable structure causes (or is considered to cause) a second stress in some dialects, why does it not do so in others? Why, in these other dialects, do the same phonetic entities obey different tonic laws (for example: fixed antepenultimate stress, fixed penultimate stress, free stress, fixed initial stress, fixed final stress, or varieties and combinations of different accentual types)?</p><p>Many authors have been concerned with the reasons for the appearance of a second accent in polysyllabic words and accentual entities in Bulgarian dialects. Mieczysław Małecki attempted to prove that the occurrence of a second accent in Bulgarian dialects is due to positional restrictions of accent that were valid for Balkan languages, and relates the second accent of Bulgarian dialects to a similar accent in Greek dialects, which since ancient times has restricted the occurrence of word accent to the last three syllables of the word. Because clitics following a word are reckoned together with it for purposes of accent assignment, it sometimes occurs that the larger prosodic unit thus created is accented on the fourth syllable from the end. In such instances, Greek obligatorily assigns a second accent to the penultimate syllable of this unit. The rule in Greek is more restrictive than that in Bulgarian, as Greek adds a second accent only when clitics are post-posed. Subsequently it was also admitted that there was a possibility that contact with Greek or Albanian dialects had supported or influenced accent changes in Bulgarian <a href="#ref22">[22]: 286</a>. Although not everyone agreed with this idea, it was nevertheless quite productive. Kiril Mirchev <a href="#ref25">[25]: 64</a>, however, rejected this idea. Mirchev was the first Bulgarian linguist whose opinion was accepted as an authoritative explanation of the phenomenon. Noting that the alternation of accented and unaccented syllables in polysyllabic paradigmatic forms and syntagms (for example, мòмчетàта ‘the boys’ or <font face="Times">ку̀пи мѝ го</font> ‘buy it for me') creates a particular rhythm, Mirchev concluded that <q>the appearance of a second accent is due to a particular accentual rhythm which arose in the dialects in which it exists today</q> <a href="#ref25">[25]: 65</a>. According to this statement (or explanation), double accent is simultaneously a reason (a source), and a consequence (a result). It is evident that Mirchev views a particular accentual rhythm as a precondition for the appearance of a second accent. The question Mirchev does not answer, however, is this: what creates this special accentual rhythm if not the second stress? Logically interpreted, his explanation runs as follows: There is a particular accent rhythm that arises from the presence of a second accent, the appearance of which (the second accent) is caused by this accentual rhythm.</p><p>The term rhythmic accent, introduced by Mirchev to characterize double accent in Bulgarian dialects, explains neither the reasons for the occurrence of a second accent nor the nature of the phenomenon itself. Therefore, this term is devoid of linguistic content. It is related to perception, or rather, to the result of the perception of double accent, but it has no connection with the rule for the occurrence of double stress, nor does it explain the reasons for its existence in Bulgarian dialects today.</p><p>The occurrence of a second stress is not due to a <q>striving of the language</q> towards a rhythmic organization of polysyllabic words, lexical groups, or phrases. The rhythm in a sentence can also occur as the chance result of combinations of words in the sentence. For example : <font face="Times">ку̀пи бèло вѝно</font> ‘buy white wine’ or <font face="Times">зèм' си бя̀ла дрòпка</font> ‘take the liver’, <font face="Times">кажѝ на мàйка</font> ‘tell mother’, <font face="Times">видя̀ха бащà ти</font> ‘they saw your father’, <font face="Times">женà добрà и у̀мна</font> ‘a good and smart woman’. Such rhythm can occur in dialects with different accent systems, in which the phenomenon of double accent may be unknown. Of more recent authors, J.N. Ivanov accepted both Mirchev’s term and explanation <q>without reservations</q> <a href="#ref19">[19]: 213</a>; <a href="#ref26">[26]: 142</a>. Ivanov attempted to give additional explanations of the phenomenon and to specify more precisely the reasons for its occurrence appearance by focusing on the acoustic peculiarities of the stressed vowels in dialects with <q>double accent</q>. According to Ivanov, <q>the stressed vowels in doubly accented words tend to be longer; the second stress also tends to be longer than the first stress</q> <a href="#ref19">[19]: 213,n.4</a>, that is, some kind of principle of <q>increasing quantity</q> would have to operate as one moves from the initial to the final syllable. Thus, he thinks that the reason for the occurrence of a second stress lies in <q>prolonging the stressed vowel in the local dialects of the area of where polysyllabic words are characterized by double accent</q> <a href="#ref19">[19]: 213-214</a>. He also holds the opinion that </p><blockquote>the slowing of the speech rhythm caused by the lengthening of the stressed vowel cannot last more than one syllable, so that the following syllable needs a second accent <a href="#ref19">[19]: 214</a>.</blockquote> Ivanov uses the terms speech rhythm and accent rhythm inconsistently. At one point he claims that speech rhythm causes the occurrence of a second stress (see his statement quoted above), but later in the same work he states the cause is the accent rhythm: <blockquote>Accent rhythm as a factor, as an original cause for the occurrence of the double accent, can be seen best in polysyllabic words with three accents, as well as in individual phrases and lexical forms <a href="#ref19">[19]: 216</a>. </blockquote><p></p>Apart from this terminological confusion (speech rhythm and accent rhythm are different phenomena after all), there remain several other unclear points in Ivanov's explanation:
<ol>
<li>Why is it that the lengthened stressed syllable which slows down the speech rhythm, <q>cannot last more than one [unstressed] syllable</q>?</li>
<li>If Ivanov’s assertion is true, why does a final (oxytonic) second accent occur only exceptionally, as in forms like <font face="Times">фтòрийъ̀̀</font> ‘the second’, <font face="Times">любенѝцатà</font> ‘the watermelon’ <a href="#ref19">[19]: 203</a>, and not regularly? (J. N. Ivanov himself points out that the oxytonic second accent is the least frequently appearing double accent type, and that it does not occur in any position or word category with any regularity. He believes that <q>oxytonic accents must have arisen in the context of paroxytonic ones [...] (word + enclitic), for example <font face="Times">фтòрийъ̀̀</font> (му) ‘(his) second’, <font face="Times">любенѝцатà</font> (си) ‘(one’s) watermelon’.</q> He regards such examples <q>as a later development of paroxytonic [accents]</q> <a href="#ref19">[19]: 202-203</a>. Molerov however, who undoubtedly knew his native Razlog dialect better than did Ivanov, points out that <q>every trisyllabic word whose usual stress falls on the first syllable has two accents if the word ends with a consonant</q> <a href="#ref24">[24]: 179</a>.</li>
<li>Why does the same rhythmic principle not cause a third <q>rhythmic</q> accent in lexical forms like <font face="Times">вòзлавнѝцата</font> ‘the pillow’, нàтовàрени ‘loaded down’ and others, in which the last (second) accent is in antepenultimate position? The vowel carrying this accent is longer than the two preceding accented ones, and should cause accent-rhythmic forms like <font face="Times">вòзлавнѝицатàа, нàтовàаренѝи</font> and others.</li>
<li>Why in such words is there not a <q>second</q> oxytonic model reduplicated <q>as a further development of the penultimate model</q> – for example <font face="Times">въ̀злавнѝцатà</font> ‘pillow’ from <font face="Times">въ̀злавнѝцатà хи</font> ‘their pillow’, or <font face="Times">пòкашнѝнатà</font> ‘furnishings’ from <font face="Times">пòкашнѝнатà си</font> ‘one’s furnishings’?
</li></ol>
<p>Suppose that one were to formulate Ivanov’s explanation so as to postulate that the slow speech rhythm caused by the lengthening of the stressed vowel cannot last more than two unstressed syllables (which is the norm in forms like пàтика ‘path’, грàждане ‘townpeople’, бъ̀рборе ‘(I) speak’, сèлото ‘the village’, and others). Even so, this would not give a satisfactory explanation of regular instances like <font face="Times">тòледжя̀ф</font> ‘so [large], so [small]’, клàденèц ‘well’ (but клàденци ‘wells’), нàшенèц ‘fellow townsman/villager’ (but нàшенци ‘fellow villagers’), <font face="Times">пия̀вичя̀ф</font> ‘pertaining to a leech’, <font face="Times">валя̀вичèн</font> ‘pertaining to the fulling-mill’, and other examples reported by Molerov <a href="#ref24">[24]: 180</a>. Already in 1904 Molerov described the phenomenon with greater precision than Ivanov: </p><blockquote>After the stressed syllable there may occur [...] two unstressed syllables only at the end of the word, and only when the word ends in a vowel <a href="#ref24">[24]: 180</a>.</blockquote><p></p> <p>Ivan Kochev has also dealt with the phenomenon of “second accent” in Bulgarian dialects <a href="#ref22">[22]</a>. He includes the occurrence of a second stress in the broader context of a specific rhythm not only as concerns entire sentences (such as <font face="Times">я̀ че òжнем òн додèка дòйде</font> ‘I will harvest until he comes’) but also as concerns phonological and tonic words (such as от Бàнско лè си? ‘are you from Bansko?’ <font face="Times">крàставѝца</font> ‘cucumber’, and others). Kochev sees the second stress as related to the following two tendencies: 1) <q>the tendency towards stabilization of the accent on a fixed non-final syllable in the forms of certain grammatical categories</q> <a href="#ref22">[22]:283</a> 2) <q>the tendency towards the stabilization of the accent in particular rhythmic-intonational groups</q> <a href="#ref22">[22]:286</a>. According to Kochev, the above two tendencies are a result of the more general, <q>typologizing</q> tendency toward stabilization of the accent on a fixed non-final syllable of the word in Bulgarian dialectal speech. For him the nonfinal syllable is in fact the penultimate one. He claims that in most Bulgarian dialects there is a tendency towards a <q>penultimate-accent organization</q> of words, and consequently, of phrases. In contrast to other authors, Kochev thinks that accent shifts in words and word forms are related to accent rhythm in a more complex way. On the one hand, he states clearly that </p><blockquote>the designation of the pre-final syllable (more rarely the pre-pre-final syllable) as a special position with respect to accent, and also the alternation at regular intervals of penultimate [accent] (and sometimes antepenultimate) in the sentence, is the primary reason for the formation of rhythmic groups in the southwestern dialects <a href="#ref22">[22]:288</a>.</blockquote> On the other hand, he claims that <blockquote>the tendency towards stabilization of the accent on a syllable further to the front, except in instances of a functioning accent shift between forms of different morphological categories, is … also supported by the appearance of particular rhythmic intonational groups at the boundaries of the phonological word (word, combination) or even phrase (sentence) <a href="#ref22">[22]:282</a>.</blockquote> <p></p>Thus, Kochev is not able to avoid the vicious circle of the links between accent shifts and accentual rhythm, asserting in his conclusion that <blockquote>the tendency towards the stabilization of accent on a fixed syllable in the word appears consistently in numerous forms, at the basis of which lie different sorts of rhythmic-melodic laws <a href="#ref22">[22]:291</a>.</blockquote> What can be considered rational in Kochev’s theory is the idea that the occurrence of <q>a second fixed and obligatory accent on the pre-final syllable in tetrasyllabic (and polysyllabic) words with initial accent</q> is a special case of the tendency toward stabilization of the accent on the penultimate syllable <a href="#ref22">[22]:289</a>. In this theory it is claimed that the occurrence of a second fixed penultimate accent, obligatory in polysyllabic words, is of great importance for the stabilization of paroxytonic rhythm in southwestern Bulgarian dialects <a href="#ref22">[22]:290</a>. <p>Double accent as a prosodic phenomenon in Bulgarian dialects has not only been discussed from different points of view: it has also been rejected by some linguists. According to Blagoj Shklifov, there are no words or lexical combinations with double accent. What is usually considered to be double accent is for Shklifov in fact </p><blockquote>the length or prolonging of a vowel, which some authors perceive as an additional accent <a href="#ref27">[27]:27-28</a>.</blockquote> One wonders why Shklifov is the only one who always hears a long vowel and thinks that the combination <q>stress + vowel sound</q> (which depends on the vowel’s position in the syllabic structure), is a phenomenon basically characteristic of the southern and southwestern dialects. It is also not clear why the existence of this combination in the Kostur region should be a reason for the absence of double accent in the Razlog region or in the Rhodopes, where it is also heard. In support of his assertion, Shklifov also cites examples from the Jambol-area villages Irechekovo and Nedyalsko: грòбищаата ‘the graveyards’, печàтницаата ‘the printing press’, and others. Insofar as it concerns the Bulgarian south, these forms are <q>admissible</q>, but as Shklifov does not mention anything about his source, these forms remain to be confirmed. He even discovers <q>accentual-rhythmic units</q> of up to seven syllables in which there is only one stress and one syllable in which the vowel is lengthened or long <a href="#ref27">[27]:19-27</a>. Shklifov defines its position counting from the initial syllable.<p></p><p>It is curious that no modern author writing on this topic has cited Stefan Mladenov’s opinion about the connection between dialectal accent shifts in the Bulgarian linguistic region and the occurrence of a second accent <a href="#ref28">[28]:184-186</a>. In commenting on southern Bulgarian dialect systems, he distinguishes two accent types in polysyllabic words: two-syllable accent, and three-syllable accent. Mladenov made a distinction between bisyllabic and trisyllabic accent on the one hand, and two-syllable and three-syllable accent on the other. By the first, he meant stress fixed on the second or third syllable from the end of the words, and by the second he meant stress no further from the end of the word than the second or third syllable. Three-syllable accent is defined as an accent that shifts from the final syllable to the third syllable from the end: this is <q>the system of three-syllable stress</q> (pattern ― ― ' ― ' ― '). There are two kinds of two-syllable accent. In one, <q>the last two syllables are accented preferentially (pattern ― ― ― ' ― ' ―)</q>, and in the other <q>the stress is carried by the second and third syllables from the end (pattern ― ― ' ― ' ― ―)</q> <a href="#ref28">[28]:185-186</a>. Mladenov’s observation on these types, and their connection with accent shifts, can be summarized in the following quotation: </p><blockquote>The paroxytones remain while the oxytones have to become paroxytones. But words which are accented on the fourth syllable from the end rarely become proparoxytones, but rather decompose into two paroxytones. Thus instead of general Bulgarian мèсечина ‘moon’, крàставица ‘cucumber’ and the like, they say <font face="Times">мèсечѝна, крàставѝца</font> and so forth (and not месèчина, крастà(в)ица, as in the regions with the ‘antepenultimate’ accent <a href="#ref28">[28]:186</a>.</blockquote> Mladenov concludes that in the Bulgarian dialectal southwest there are speech regions which <q>preferentially accent the pre-final syllable (pattern ― ― ― ' ― ―)</q>, and those which <q>are distinguished by the tendency to accent the third syllable from the end of the word or the lexical group</q> <a href="#ref28">[28]:186</a>. These observations of Mladenov suggest the solution to the mystery of the phenomenon of double accent in Bulgarian dialects. Double accent is not only connected with more recent accent shifts, but it is also linked to restrictions and prohibitions with respect to the position of accent. Mladenov is the only author whose analysis of the phenomenon of <q>double accent</q> does not depend on rhythmic reasons. I believe that the accentual diversity presently found in Bulgarian dialects is due to two tendencies active in the realization of two basic accent types: 1) free stress, characterizing northern Bulgarian dialects 2) limited (non-free) stress, characterizing southern Bulgarian dialects.<p></p>
<p>The term <q>limited stress</q> should be interpreted as a relatively free stress within the framework of the last three syllables (final, penultimate and antepenultimate), i.e. three-syllable and two-syllable in Mladenov’s terminology. As a rule, stress in initial position is not excluded in trisyllabic words in any Bulgarian dialect (there is one exception to this rule: the dialect of Boboshtica). Most accent differences in Bulgarian dialects are connected according to the place of stress in words of three syllables or more. In most Bulgarian dialects, stress is permitted in final position: exceptions are dialects with the so-called fixed penultimate stress (<q>disyllabic</q>), fixed antepenultimate stress (<q>trisyllabic</q>), and fixed initial stress. The area covered by these dialects is quite small. In the dialects with non-free stress, there is a tendency towards non-final stress; this tendency has been fully implemented only in certain southwestern regions. In dialects with regular penultimate or antepenultimate stress, there must have been a tendency towards an <q>internal</q> (non-final and non-initial) stress in words or word forms of three, four and more syllables. Thus, the tendency towards non-final stress has been realized due to positional restrictions such as <q>no further from the end of the word than the antepenultima</q> and <q>no further from the beginning of the words than the penultima</q>. According to this tendency, oxytones become paroyxtone or proparoxytone through a stress retraction, and words of four or more syllables with original initial stress become paroxytone or proparoxytone through a stress advancement. We may say for these dialects that the process of retraction (movement of stress towards the beginning of the word) is no longer relevant as a means for attaining a particular accentual organization of the polysyllabic word (syntagm). The process of advancement, however (movement of stress towards the end of the word), is still relevant, given the restriction <q>not further than penultima or antepenultima</q>. The so-called fixed accent is in essence a mobile accent which falls on different syllables in different forms of the same word (i.e. which differ only in terms of the number of syllables): however, it always falls on either the penultimate or antepenultimate syllable. For example: <font face="Times">стàрец – старèцо – старцатòго – старцѝтим</font> ‘old man’ [indefinite, definite, accusative, plural definite oblique]; <font face="Times">крастà(в)ичар – краста(в)ѝчарот – краста(в)ичàрите</font> ‘cucumber vendor’ [singular indefinite, singular definite, plural definite].</p><p>The only truly fixed accent is found in the extreme southwestern region – an initial stress which never shifts from the initial syllable. The accentual organization of words (syntagms) with penultimate and antepenultimate stress is based on the principle <q>first out, last in</q>. That is, the final syllable is the one which is important, not the initial syllable or the number of syllables that follow it. Compare Molerov’s statement: </p><blockquote>In the Razlog dialect many unstressed syllables are tolerated before the stressed syllable in a word. For example, <font face="Times">говедару̀вам ‘be a cowherd’, воденичару̀вам ‘be a miller’, воденичару̀вали ‘were millers’</font> [past active participle] <a href="#ref28">[28]:179</a>.</blockquote> Thus, the prefinal and the pre-prefinal syllable seem to be the most important structurally for marking the boundaries of accentual (phonetic) units (word forms, syntagms); and it is constant contrast between the accented syllable (penultimate or antepenultimate) and the end of the word which signals this boundary.<p></p> <p>Kochev also speaks about the special position of the prefinal syllable with respect to accent <a href="#ref22">[22]:289</a>. However, the boundaries of the accentual unit are marked differently in those southern Bulgarian dialects with fixed initial stress and in the dialects with the occurrence of a second accent. In these dialects there is a clear restriction against advancement of stress (shift towards the end of the word) from antepenultimate or preantepenultimate syllables. Since antepenultimate stress does not break the rule <q>not further than the third syllable from the end,</q> dialects with double accent frequently exhibit forms like <font face="Times">глàсове ‘voices’, рèдове ‘rows’, грàдуве ‘towns’, снòпиту ‘the sheaves’, купѝтуту ‘ the hoof’, ѝмету ‘the name’, пàтика ‘pathway’ бу̀бенѝцата ‘the watermelon’, ря̀жеме ‘(we) cut’, бъ̀рборе ‘(I) speak’</font>, and others: such forms are quite regular there. Forms and syntagms which are irregular in these dialects, however, are those such as <font face="Times">рèдувету ‘the rows’, грàдувету ‘the towns’, ку̀четата ‘the dogs’, пàтиката ‘the pathway’, ря̀жеме я кря̀хчината ‘(we) cut the lean meat’, зàбърборе ‘(I) begin to speak’</font>, and others. In these forms the contrastive syllable is the fourth from the end. Perhaps the occurrence of a second accent on the penultimate syllable in such forms is due to compensatory restoration of the contrast between the final syllable and the penultimate or antepenultimate. This explains the consistence and the regularity in these dialects of forms such as <font face="Times">рèдувету, грàдувету, ку̀четата, пàтиката, ря̀жеме я кря̀хчината ‘(we) cut the lean meat’, зàбърборе</font> and others.</p><p>Dialects with a fixed initial stress are at first glance sharply differentiated from other southwestern dialects. In actuality they correspond to the Boboshtica dialect and more generally to the tendency to maintain the contrast between penultimate and final syllables. In these dialects it is the penultimate syllable which is the contrasting one, although in this case the means of contrast is not stress but vowel lengthening. For example: пр̀с ‘finger’ - пр̀сти ‘fingers’, but пр̀стиите ‘the fingers’; similarly <font face="Times">я̀ръмбиица</font> ‘partridge’, тèнджеринаата ‘the cooking pot’. From the Golobъrdo Bulgarian villages in Albania, where the stress is fixed on the third syllable from the end, we may cite examples like плàниина ‘mountain’, голèмаата ‘the large’ [feminine noun follows or is understood], and others. As these examples show, there is no correlation between the number of syllables and the position of the initially stressed syllable in relation to the penultima. The signalizing of the contrast is not acoustically equivalent (or adequate). It seems that acoustic signals are perceived differently by speakers of different dialect groups. In some dialects the contrast is a second stress which marks a phonetic [phonological] word, while in others this will not be the case: for their speakers, other acoustic (phonetic) signals are more important for marking the boundaries of a phonetic-semantic unit. Generally speaking, the signals of contrast are connected with differences in perception: it can be a second accent, a long vowel (which some also hear as accented), a voiceless vowel, or a rise in intonation. This assertion, of course, is subject to experimental proof.</p><p>It is possible that the second accent seen in the phenomenon of “double accent” in southern Bulgarian dialects could have <q>developed</q> on the basis of an originally lengthened vowel in the penultimate syllable. Thus it seems that both the occurrence of a second accent and vowel lengthening in the penultimate unstressed syllable of polysyllabic words (and forms) are connected with the prohibition against stress advancement from initial syllables whenever the syllable structure of a word increases. This restriction prevents the initial stress from becoming a pre-antepenultimate stress (on the fourth syllable from the end of the word), which would break the contrast between the final syllable and the antepenultimate / penultimate one. However, there is still no answer to the important question of why it is exactly these two syllables that are so important for the accentual organization of the word (syntagm). Rhythm is only a consequence of the occurrence of a second stress in different phonetic entities: it is not the reason for its occurrence. In this sense the rhythmic melody at the sentence level <a href="#ref22">[22]:289</a> could in no way have supported (and did not support) either the stabilization of accent on non-final syllables or the appearance of a second accent in polysyllabic words and syntagms. Тhe occurrence of this second accent (either within a single word or within a syntagmatic phrase) in southern Bulgarian dialects) is connected with two factors: recent shifts in word accent, and positional limitations on the occurrence of word accent.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h2>Types and occurence</h2><h5 class="red">This section is based on material in <a href="#ref30">[30]</a></h5>
<h3>Canonic double accent</h3>
As a rule, double accent falls on alternate syllables which gives a highly striking, metrically regular rhythm to the speech pattern. Indeed, this rhythm is so memorable to anyone who has heard it in the field, and seems to pervade the speech chain so thoroughly, that it has apparently seemed natural for it to predict double accent occurence. Thus, most accounts of double accent state that whenever a word of the requisite number of syllables occurs, double accent will necessarily also be present. Furthermore, because double accent appears to occur solely at the word level, it is relatively easy to give lists of sample occurrences (categorized either according to metrical shape or to morphosyntactic category). The similarity of the lists of words attested in different dialects has led to the tacit conclusion that double accent is a unified phenomenon, capable of an abstracted description. The existence of this generalized description, and the frequency of its mention in works devoted to dialectal accentuation, have produced a sort of evaluatory metric, which has allowed dialectologists to decide whether or not a particular dialect is characterized by double accent.<p>As a result, the discipline of Bulgarian dialectology now includes a perception of what one might call <q>canonical</q> double accent according to which double accent is identified either with a particular abstractly-defined word frame, the vivid acoustic memory of a particular singing speech rhythm, or a pre-defined region on a dialect map. Usually, the term <q>canonical double accent</q> connotes a concatenation of all three of these factors.</p><p>Because the word frame which supports double accent must contain at least three syllables (and usually four or more), the morphosyntactic contexts of its occurrence are relatively circumscribed. The examples below were drawn from the southwest Bulgarian dialect of Bansko, situated in the center of the area of strongest double accent within Bulgaria proper.</p>
<table style="font-family: Times; font-size: medium; width: 70%;">
<tbody><tr>
<th style="text-align: left;">Prosodic words</th>
<th style="text-align: left;">Lexical words</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>вѝкамè го</b><br /> we call him</td>
<td><b>крàставѝца</b><br /> cucumber</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>прàзнувàло сè е</b><br /> it was celebrated</td>
<td><b>клàденèц</b><br /> wellspring</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>да сà измѝенѝ</b><br /> that they are washed</td>
<td><b>тòлковà</b><br /> thus, so much</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>пàсмотò</b><br /> the skein</td>
<td><b>кàзвамè</b><br /> we say</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>къ̀рвавѝцитè</b><br /> the blood sausages</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>These examples represent a typical (but by no means exhaustive) listing. Double accent can occur on lexical trisyllables but occurs much more frequently in prosodic trisyllables, however, when a clitic follows. Although the above examples suggests that double accent occurs freely on lexical trisyllables, in actual fact it is quite rare in such words unless there is a clitic following, or unless the final syllable is a definite article. Examples such as клàденèц, in which double accent appears on a final closed syllable, are particularly rare (partly because accented final closed syllables are in general infrequent in the lexicon). The additional accent assigned by double accent can occur on clitics, but only if another clitic-like form follows (as in прàзнувàло сè е) or precedes (as in <font face="Times">да сà измѝенѝ</font>).</p>
<h3>Additional / secondary accent</h3>
There are also numerous other instances, scattered throughout the broader Bulgarian dialectal landscape, where additional accents appear within the prosodic word (more rarely, also within the lexical word). No particular term is used to describe these instances, and no consistent study has been made of them. Apparently because the term double accent is so thoroughly identified with the well-circumscribed phenomenon described above, and because that particular phenomenon is so very striking, other possibly similar accentual phenomena have paled in comparison. Such general interpretation has been questioned by recent research which propose that a broader view be taken: it presents two other instances of additional accents within Bulgarian dialects, and poses a series of questions. The term <q>additional accent</q> was provisionally adopted to denote this phenomenon of additional accents; indeed, for now, one may view double accent as a particular sort of additional accent.<p>Another, especially widespread, type of additional accent occurs in a particular sort of prosodic word:</p><p class="box"><font face="Times" size="4"><b>не гò познàвам</b> don’t know him<br />
<b>не я̀ вѝжда</b> he doesn’t see her<br />
<b>не смè го намèрили</b> we haven’t found it<br />
<b>не му̀ я е покàзала</b> she hasn’t shown it to him<br />
<b>не стè му го подарѝли</b> you haven't presented him with it</font></p><p>That is, when one or more pre-verbal clitics follow the negative particle, the resulting prosodic word receives a second accent on the first clitic following the negation. The effect of this pattern on speech rhythms is striking, in that the clitic element immediately following the negative often bears not only dynamic stress but also very high tone, giving this syllable seemingly even greater prominence than that which bears the lexical accent.</p><p>What is absent, however, is the metrically regular pattern of alternating accents found in canonical double accent. The two relevant features which govern the accentuation seen in these examples are that (a) although several clitics may be present in the string, only the first can be accented; indeed, this one must be accented; and (b) the lexical place of accent in the verb form is not altered. Thus, although it is possible to hear a pattern of alternating accents, as in не гò познàвам, one can also find both successive accents, as in <font face="Times">не я̀ вѝжда</font>, and instances of two, three, or as many as four syllables separating the two accents (as in <font face="Times">не смè го намèрили, не му̀ я е покàзала and не стè му го подарѝли</font>, respectively). This accentuation is accepted (indeed, now prescribed) in the literary standard; it is also attested in a wide range of Bulgarian dialects, and is mentioned in many dialect descriptions.</p><p>Another type of additional accent has been reported in the eastern Bulgarian dialect of Erkech. In the particular sort of prosodic word composed of noun plus postposed definite article, a second accent often appears on the article morpheme itself. Although such accentuation is heard sporadically in all nouns, it is heard with by far the greatest regularity in plural nouns with the post-posed
article <b>-те</b>:</p>
<p class="box"><font face="Times" size="4"><b>мàжи-тè</b> the men<br />
<b>дòктори-тè</b> the doctors<br />
<b>фрàскавици-тè</b> [крàставици-тè] the cucumbers<br />
<b>сѝнов'-тè</b> the sons<br />
<b>кòн'-тè</b> the horses</font></p><p>The rhythm is striking in these examples as well, and functions to draw special attention to the end of the word. Indeed, the final syllable in this sort of additional accent bears such strong accent that the preceding syllable, the plural marker, is often lost. For instance, the indefinite forms of <font face="Times">сѝнов'-тè and кòн'-тè are сѝнове and кòни</font>, respectively. As in the first instance of additional accent (in negative verb phrases), here too it is possible to encounter the characteristic alternating rhythm of canonical double accent.</p><p>Here too, however, many other rhythms are also present. That is, if the indefinite form in question happens to bear penultimate accent, then the presence of an additional accent on the definite article will yield the rhythmic pattern expected for double accent, as in мàжи-тè. If the indefinite form bears antepenultimate stress, however (or, more rarely, preantepenultimate stress), there will be two or even three syllables separating the two accents (as in дòктори-тè and фрàскавици-тè, respectively). Conversely, accents can appear on succeeding syllables, as in кòн'-тè.</p><p>The existence of these various different types of accentuation, found at various points throughout the Bulgarian dialectal landscape, poses many interesting questions either descriptive or such concerning its description:</p>
<ol>
<li>Should the term double accent apply only to the canonical form as exemplified by the first set of examples? Or should the general concept be expanded to include other instances of additional accent, including but not limited to those exemplified in all examples above? That is, can we describe all forms of additional accent (double accent included) as in essence the same throughout their geographical spread? Do the attested differences (a) simply amount to a matter of greater or less frequency or occurrence; (b) represent different basic types of double accent; or (c) constitute two clear categories (double accent and additional accent) which are sufficiently different to exclude all possibility of generalization?</li>
<li>What is the phonetic nature of double accent? Is the additional accent a phonetically measurable secondary stress? Are the phonetic features implementing it the same as for the main word accent? If not, what is it that characterizes them? Are the phonetic features of double accent distinguishable from those of additional accent?</li>
<li>What conditions the occurrence of double accent? Is it the number of syllables, the shape of the syllables, or the lexical or grammatical characteristics of the word or syntactic string? Can the occurrence of double accent be predicted? Are the answers to these questions different, in any significant manner, for additional accent?</li>
<li>What is the rhythmic and prosodic relationship between double accent and/or additional accent (a word level prosodic phenomenon) and intonation (a phrase- and sentence-level prosodic phenomenon)?</li>
<li>Which descriptive model most successfully captures the nature of double accent? Should one speak in metrical terms (trochee, iamb, etc.) of the spoken chain, or should one focus upon the types of words, and especially the types of clitic strings, which seem to evince it most? Or is there another possible model which combines both these factors? Can the same questions be formulated for additional accent?</li></ol>
or historical origin:
<ol><li>What is the causal relationship between double accent in Bulgarian and the typologically similar phenomenon in Greek? What is the relevance, to any supposed causal relationship, of the fact that the Greek phenomenon (whereby a second accent is assigned to the penultimate syllable whenever the addition of post-posed clitics creates a unit bearing accent on the fourth syllable from the end) is more limited in scope than the Bulgarian one?</li>
<li>Does double accent provide historical evidence for morphologically conditioned stress shift within Slavic? For instance, does a form such as нàберèте (imperative plural) represent an intermediate stage between inherited наберèте and the retracted stress in the innovative нàберете? Conversely, does грàдовèте (definite plural of the noun grad) represent an intermediate stage between inherited грàдове and the innovative stress pattern градовè, thought to have arisen by analogy to the definite form градовèте? Do other instances of double accent represent relics of less transparent stress shifts (also presumed to be morphologically conditioned)? Is the complex of such evidence proof that double accent is internally motivated (i.e. purely a Slavic development)?</li>
<li>Does double accent represent an intermediate stage in the development of fixed antepenultimate stress in southwestern Bulgarian dialects? If so, what are the other stages of development?</li>
<li>What is the relationship between double accent and certain syntactic changes known to be due to convergence phenomena related to the Balkan Sprachbund? Do innovations such as the affixing of the definite article, the rise of possessive constructions expressed by a post-posed pronominal clitic, or word order changes affecting clitics, give rise to the presence of additional accents? Conversely, could a prosodic structure containing these additional accents have contributed to the development of these morphosyntactic phenomena associated with the Balkan convergence area?</li>
<li>Are either double accent or additional accent currently productive, or is either (or both) but a remnant of earlier processes, however these may be defined? Is there a difference between double accent and additional accent in this regard?</li>
</ol>
<p>These and other questions have intrigued scholars since the discovery of the extent of double accent in Bulgarian dialects. Some of them are well known in the literature, and some are posed here for the first time, especially those concerning the possible connections between double accent and additional accent. A unified account offering unequivocal (and satisfactory) answers to all of them is perhaps not possible; indeed, the possibility that both double accent and additional accent as presently defined could be part of the same historical development is remote. However, it is clearly time for a fresh approach to the data, and it is almost certain that such an approach will yield greater understanding of these questions than has been possible until now, given the force of the prevailing interpretations of double accent within Bulgarian dialectology.</p>
<p>Collaborative work towards a new interpretation of double accent began in the early 1990s. A key element in this work has been the joint perceptions of a native speaker and of a non-native speaker, both of whom have worked for many years in Bulgarian dialectology. Extensive fieldwork, spread out over seven years, was undertaken in which long stretches of narrative were recorded from many different areas of Bulgarian, including but not limited to areas with canonical double accent. Detailed analyses are being prepared of representative discourse samples from each dialect, without prejudgment as to the nature of double accent or expectations of its occurrence. It is intended that the resulting comparison of these analyses, made with attention paid both to each dialectal system as a self-contained whole and to the principles of linguistic geography, will give a better understanding both of the present scope and the historical development of Bulgarian accent. The present contribution concludes with a brief summary of two of the six regions, and makes certain tentative suggestions.</p>
<p>These two areas are Bansko, in southwestern Bulgaria; and the Erkech dialect, in northeastern Bulgaria. The Bansko dialect is one of the traditional exemplars of double accent: everyone agrees that it has canonical double accent, and expects a description of it to accord with the well-known facts. The Erkech dialect has long been known for certain remarkable prosodic features, including the presence of noticeable length in stressed syllables (stressed quantitet). Several decades ago, a secondary accent was noted sporadically in word-final position in this dialect. The term <q>double accent</q> was explicitly avoided in the description of this <q>secondary accent</q>.</p>
<p>The collaborative team began its field investigation of this question in the region of Bansko. Upon first listening, it appeared that the Bansko dialect did indeed assign additional accents to all prosodic words with the requisite shape. Close analysis of the recordings, however, showed that the situation was much more complex.</p>
<p>First, the phonetic nature of the additional accent varied considerably, such that it was in several cases impossible to tell whether there actually was an additional <q>accent</q> or not. Sometimes the putative second accent sounded like a slightly elongated vowel, sometimes like a phrase-penultimate high tone. It would be interesting to examine this material spectrographically; but without a constant frame against which to judge, it would be very difficult to make any significant measurements. At this point, one can only make the very general statement that first-run spectrographic representations of amplitude and frequency often contradicted the ear’s intuition.</p>
<p>Second, although double accent was found frequently in both lexical and prosodic words of the requisite number of syllables, it was by no means present in all of them. The speaker added a second accent here, and did not add it there; and there was no immediately obvious motivation for her choices – some seemed due to elements of discourse rhythm, some to syntactic constituency of the particular phrase, while others appeared simply arbitrary.</p>
<p>The concatenation of these two observations – the phonetic variability of acoustic impressions and the unexpectedly facultative nature of second stress assignment – demonstrates clearly that canonical double accent is nowhere near as systematic as has been suggested in the literature. Yet it is markedly and vividly present, even in the speech of young children and of educated bidialectal speakers. Furthermore, it does appear to be primarily connected with rhythmic factors: all the clearest and most unambiguous instances of double accent fit the metrical model of alternating stresses within a well-defined lexical or prosodic word. Examples above of the canonic double accent are drawn from Bansko; similar examples abound.</p>
<h3>Complementiser accent shifts</h3><h5 class="red">This section is based on material in <a href="#ref31">[31]</a></h5>
The Erkech dialect, by contrast, does not fit the above rhythmic model. And yet two clear types of secondary / additional accents were heard there with great frequency. The first of these is the additional accent on the definite article, as exemplified above. Fieldwork in 1996 not only verified the frequent presence of this type of accentuation, but also discovered a new context for additional accents. In this second instance, prosodic words in which clitic elements occurred after certain conjunctions were frequently heard with a second accent on the first of these clitics. Two conjunctions (ако ‘if’, often heard in a shortened form, ко; and кат ‘when, as’, a contracted form of като) regularly occasioned this second accent. So also – although less frequently – did the subordinating conjunction да ‘that’, and the coordinating conjunction и ‘and’. This accentuation is exemplified below.
<p class="box"><font face="Times" size="4"><b>кат гѝ изведè</b> when she takes them out<br />
<b>ко стè гу вѝждали</b> if you saw her<br />
<b>кат сè пенсионѝрат</b> when they retire<br />
<b>ко вѝ е безсòлно</b> if it isn’t salty enough for you<br />
<b>и сè оду̀мили</b> and they agreed<br />
<b>да гò тъ̀рси</b> that she look for him</font></p>
<p>The data from Erkech provide evidence which may help to shed light on one of the more puzzling issues in Bulgarian prosody, namely the behavior of the negative particle <b>не</b>. Though itself unstressed, it has the property within verb phrases of inducing stress on an immediately following pronominal (<font face="Times"><b>не сѝ ме видя̀л</b></font> you haven’t seen me) or verbal (<font face="Times"><b>не мè е видя̀л</b></font> (he) hasn’t seen me) clitic. If the following syllable is instead part of a stressed verb form, <b>не</b> has no prosodic effect (<font face="Times"><b>не видя̀л</b></font> (he) hasn’t seen (apparently)).</p>
<p>Two analyses of this have been proposed. The majority view appears to be that <b>не</b> is inherently stressed, but is lexically specified as post-stressing, i.e. its stress is manifested on a following element <a href="#ref33">[33]</a> <a href="#ref34">[34]</a> <a href="#ref32">[32]</a>. A precondition for this is that the following element has no lexical stress of its own, so only clitics are affected. An alternative view was proposed by Halpern <a href="#ref36">[36]</a>, whereby <b>не</b> is likewise inherently unstressed. However, whereas the pronominal and verbal clitics are specified as enclitics, <b>не</b> is specified as a proclitic. When the two come together, the proclitic and enclitic fuse to form a viable prosodic word, which by default phonological rules is assigned stress (though its position must still be specified).</p>
<p>The issue remains unresolved, because the arguments for or against either approach must be based on principle, or on theory-internal considerations. <b>Не</b> is the only word in Standard Bulgarian to behave this way, so there is nothing to compare it to. Nor is anything known of its prosodic history. The data from Erkech redress some of these empirical lacunae. There, <b>не</b> behaves just as in Standard Bulgarian. The surprise comes in the behavior of the complementizers <b>кат</b> ‘when’ and <b>ку</b> ‘if’, corresponding to Standard Bulgarian <b>катò</b> and <b>акò</b>, respectively. In Erkech they exhibit the same prosodic behavior as <b>не</b>, i.e. they are unstressed, but induce stress on immediately following pronominal and verbal clitics.</p>
<table border="2" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-family: Times;">
<tbody><tr>
<th style="text-align: center;">кат</th>
<th style="text-align: center;">ку</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Сèтне <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">кат гу̀</span></b> свършèм, зберèм гу<br />Later, when we finish it, we'll gather it</td>
<td><b><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">Ку гу̀</span></b> харèсват или <span class="red">ку йè</span> от пò-ху̀баву симèйство ...<br />If they like him or if he's from a better family…</td>
</tr><tr>
<td><b>На вѝш <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">кът я̀</span></b> пусрèшниш къквò стàвъ<br />Just look what happens when you meet her</td>
<td><b>Àс <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">ку мѝ</span></b> ... <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">ку мѝ</span> бя̀ше едѝн сѝн жу̀ф...<br />If I… if I had one son left alive…</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Пèйът игрàйът додè се опекъ̀т, <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">кат сè</span></b> опекъ̀т ...<br />They sing and dance while they’re baking; when they’ve baked…</td>
<td><b><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">Ку му̀</span></b> дадъ̀т дрèй то се облечè.<br />If they give him any clothes, he'll get dressed.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>И <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">кат сѝ</span></b> сидѝм ...<br />And while we're sitting around…</td>
<td><b>Тѝ <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">ку сѝ</span></b> тъдàшен...<br />If you're from here…</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Пък <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">кът è</span></b> мàлку тò стувѝ.<br />And when he's small, he stands.</td>
<td><b>Дугудѝна пàк ше дòдете <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #ff1a1a; color: red;">ку стѝ</span></b> жѝву-здрàву.<br />You'll come back next year if you're in good health.</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>It seems reasonable to suppose that the forms <b>кат</b> and <b>ку</b> are reduced versions of forms which were similar to, if not identical with, the <b>катò</b> and <b>акò</b> of Standard Bulgarian. That is, they are descended from words which were lexically stressed. The most economical way to account for the loss of stress on <b>кат</b> and <b>ку</b>, and the concomitant appearance of stress on following clitics, is to assume that a shift of stress occurred diachronically. This may help to fill in the missing link in the history of <b>не</b>: since it displays the same prosodic behavior, perhaps it too is descended from an originally stressed ancestor (cf. Baerman <a href="#ref35">[35]</a> for further evidence for this from western Bulgarian dialects). Translated into synchronic terms, this favors the first of the interpretations outlined above, namely that <b>не</b> is underlyingly stressed, but stress is realized on a following element. An interpretation along the lines of Halpern <a href="#ref36">[36]</a> would entail a more extreme restructuring of the system, for which there is no positive evidence.</p>
<p>There is one further phenomenon that warrants being noted in this context. The system in Erkech makes it possible for multiple post-stressing clitics to occur in sequence, something which of course cannot occur in Standard Bulgarian. How do they interact? Unfortunately, the data are limited to two examples: <b>Кът не бèха…</b> ‘When they weren’t…’; <font face="Times"><b>Кът ни ту̀риш крàй…</b></font> ‘When you don't put a stop to it…’</p>
<p>Since a stressed verb form is not an appropriate host, <b>не</b> does not assign stress. <b>Не</b> in turn does not receive stress from <b>кат (кът)</b>, though it is not clear exactly why. Perhaps it simply falls out of the range of possible hosts (by being underlyingly stressed?). A perhaps more pleasing solution is to suppose that where <b>не</b> precedes a stressed verb form – not an appropriate host for its stress – it procliticizes to it, become part of a single prosodic word. The same process would then apply to <b>кат</b>: since <b>не</b> is construed as part of the stressed word, it finds no host for its stress, and likewise becomes proclitic.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
To summarize, additional accents occur over a broad range of the Bulgarian dialectal landscape. In a certain limited area to the southwest the phenomenon is well catalogued, under the name of <q>double accent</q>, and is described in an abstracted, almost <q>canonical</q> form. Although additional/secondary accents occur in other areas of Bulgaria, both in the same form as found in the southwest and in other forms, the only systematic mention of such accents found in dialect descriptions from these areas refers to the secondary accent on the clitic following the negative particle (a pattern also found in the standard language). It is here proposed to refer to all instances of additional / secondary accents found in Bulgarian dialects by the general term additional accent; the examples given herein have been taken specifically from the Erkech dialect. This term is still provisional. It could be taken in the most inclusive sense (<q>there is another accent somewhere in the prosodic word</q>) or it could be taken in a more specific, exclusionary sense (<q>there is another accent in the prosodic word, but the conditions of its occurrence are not those found in canonical double accent</q>).
<p>Alternatively, one could view the use of additional accent simply as an intermediate stage in a process that would eventually allow a much broader understanding of the idea of <q>double accent</q>. Here two points are to be noted: first, the <q>double accent</q> of Bansko is nowhere near so regular and easily describable as has been thought until now; and second, the accentuation of Erkech admits of additional accents in a much more regular fashion than has been thought until now. There seem to be noticeable differences between the two systems, but more detailed analysis is needed before these differences can be adequately characterized. Stress assignment in the Bansko dialect seems to follow a primarily rhythmic pattern, and that in Erkech seems to be more syntactically determined.</p><p>Complementiser accent shifts can be described according to a single model. In each case a monosyllabic particle heading a verb phrase composed of proclitic(s) plus verb causes an additional accent to occur on the first clitic after the accented particle. It is necessary only to specify which particles are included in this statement for which dialect.</p><p>One might even utilize the distinction between <q>syllable-time</q> and <q>stress-time</q> languages in speaking of these two different dialectal centers. Since both are clearly part of the same language continuum, however, it is desirable to seek a description that unifies rather than separates. In both areas one finds doubly accented prosodic words, some of which involve additional accents on clitics and some of which implement a rhythmic pattern of alternating accents. The question of whether these similarities should be viewed on the one hand as superficial and random, or as part of a unified underlying process on the other, remains to be solved.</p>
</div>
<div class="page">
<h1 style="clear: both;">Quantitet</h1>
Quantitet is an accent-related change in the length of a vowel. The sequence of stressed and unstressed long and short vowels gives a language-specific intonation. Quantitet is a primordial Slavic trait that is well preserved and even further developed in Serbian language. It should be immediately said that no Bulgarian dialect has preserved the old quantitet and so this trait cannot be used for dialect grouping. Indeed, there are some dialects in which long and short vowels are apparent but that is not the old Slavic quantitet because these cases do not coincide with the Serbian quantitet and the vowel length was changed in recent times often by well-known reasons. Yet, it cannot be definitely concluded that all traces of the old quantitet have been obliterated in Bulgarian dialects judging from the published dialect materials as those lack length or accent markings.
<p>The usual Bulgarian accent best corresponds to the Serbian <i>gravis</i> <b>`</b> (grave accent) in its quantitative and qualitative characteristics. Although the Bulgarian accent is usually put at the place of the Serbian <i>double gravis</i> <b>``</b>, it is not as brief and strong. Along with this usual semi-short accent there are elongated vowels both in Standard Bulgarian and in Bulgarian dialects. Those have no relation with the old quantitet but are due either to logical reasons or to phonetic changes, or to dialect-specific characteristics but in each case they are unrelated to the old Slavic quantitet.</p>
<p>Long vowels are due to logical reasons in cases when some word must be emphasised to mean some multitude, magnitude, strength or duration. Below are some examples from the northeastern dialects:</p><p>
</p><p><b class="red">For multitude.</b> If someone narrates to have been shopping and have seen many cabbages (зеле) and people (хора), he could tell these words:
то <b>зеели, зеели</b> — купища, а пък <b>хоора, хоора</b> — мравунак! In one fairy-tale telling about a brother and sister running away from their parents who wanted to kill them, the sister tells her brother: <font face="Times">батьо, фърлѝ хумникът да стани</font> <b>каал, каал</b> — буба и мама да ни моят да ни стигнат; after a while she says again: <font face="Times">батьо, фърлѝ гребенът, да стани</font> <b>тръъни, тръъни</b>! And then again: <font face="Times">батьо, фърлѝ бръсначът, да станат</font> <b>нужоови, нужоови</b>. It is possible that the length of the generative case in Serbian comes from such lengthened pronunciation of the suffix vowel.</p>
<p><b class="red">For magnitude.</b> Една беше, ама <b>гуляяма</b>! Е <b>тоолкова</b>! Седнахми пуд идно <b>висооку</b> дърво; утсекух <font face="Times">иннъ̀</font>
<b>дибеела</b> туяга; навлекъл <font face="Times">иннѝ</font> <b>широоки</b> убуща.</p>
<p><b class="red">For strength.</b> Удари мъ, тъ мъ <b>заабуля</b>; Чакъх,
чакъх да йъдем, пъ то ми <b>приимъля</b> ут глад; стуях, стуях, па ми съ <b>дууспа</b> и аз си легнъх.
</p><p><b class="red">For duration.</b> Я виш Колю, по-малък ут тебйъ, пък си <b>круутува</b>! <b>Стууй</b> си нъ йно мясту, пък ти хойкъш! <b>Млоогу</b> щи мъ пумйънуваш! Нйъкъ си <b>дръънка</b>, пък ти си мълчи!</p>
These examples may be supplemented with the vocative case whose suffix is pronounced with an elongated <i>о</i> or <i>е</i> vowel so it is clearly pronounced without reduction even in the eastern parts: Петрее, Иванее, Петкоо, малее, сестроо etc. Length in vocative case is especially apparent when the name is pronounced loudly.<p></p>
<p>Leaving aside the vocative case where the length is always in the suffix vowel (<i>о</i> or <i>е</i>), in the other given above and similar examples the long vowel can be either with or without accent as well as before or after an accented syllable; one can say <font face="Times">круутỳва си or крутỳува си; стууѝ си and стуѝи
си</font>; along with гул<font face="Times">я̀</font>яма, дибèела, ширòоки etc. one can say also: гуул<font face="Times">я̀</font>ма, диибèла, шиирòки, etc. It is hard to say which is primordial in such cases but having in mind the old quantitet according to which long vowels are preserved only before accented syllables, it is more likely that the primordial pronunciation is диибèла, гуул<font face="Times">я̀</font>ма because those do not oppose to the old quantitet supposing that the logical continuation of vowels is something old in the Bulgarian language.</p>
<p>The length is optional in all examples above, i.e. a word can have a long or short vowel depending on whether it is emphasised or not. There are other cases, however, where again logical reasons generate or preserve constant lengths. Such is, for example, the long or double vowel in third person plural in the present tense in some dialects; thus in the Prilep dialect it is: <font face="Times">глèдаат, пѝтаат</font>, unlike <font face="Times">глèдат, пѝтат</font> in Standard Bulgarian. It can be concluded that the reason for preservation of this long vowel is logical because in the other verb forms (глед<b>а</b>м, глед<b>а</b>ш, глед<b>а</b>, глед<b>а</b>ме, глед<b>а</b>те), which were formed in the same way – through contraction – there is no such length.</p>
<p>Long vowel in the same verb form is also found in the central dialects in which the sound <b>т</b> is omitted and thus it coincides with 1st or 3rd singular; e.g. in Razlog 1st singular is да вѝкна, but 3rd plural is <font face="Times">да вѝкнаа</font>; also: да мèла and да мèлаа; да вида and да видаа; гледа — глèдаа; <font face="Times">пита — пѝтаа</font>, etc. Here the logical reason is even more obvious because when the accent differs in these forms, the long vowel disappears: e.g., in verbs like: плèта, òра, пèа, <font face="Times">стрѝга</font>, etc., 3rd person plural present tense is: плетà, орà, пеà, стригà – therefore, with a short vowel. In the Samokov dialect which obeys the same rule there is an accent offset in 3rd person plural present as is in 1st person; then again only the length in 3rd person plural is the only difference between the 2 forms:
рàста, гòра, бèра, гàса (1st person singular present) and рàстаа, гòраа, бèраа, гàсаа (3rd person plural present). It is interesting to investigate if the accent offset was a result of the lengthened suffix.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Along with these obviously logical elongations, there are many contracted vowels, although not all contractions are preserved in their original forms as long vowels. As a role, older contractions, with rare exceptions, have already lost their originals while younger contractions are still felt like lengths. For example, definite adjective forms such as млад<b>а</b>, млад<b>о</b> originating from <font face="Dilyana">младаѩ, младоѥ</font> are no longer pronounced with a long end vowel, as on Serbian; such pronunciation still occurs here and there as an archaism, and only in vocative case: клèтаа дъще; чèрнаа чумо! An interesting archaism from Ohrid is: о кутрàаго, also from Tәrnovo: гиди чумо умразнъйъ, свиньо селкъйъ, ургè ургисънъйъ, вещице старъйъ, but these forms look like renewed or clerical. Verbs ending in <b>-ам</b> keep their long suffix vowel to a degree only in some southwestern dialects. However, some new fusions are pronounced as long vowels: нее край! instead of не e край, слаа боже instead of слава боже, <font face="Times">ху̀буу</font> instead of хубаво, кучътъ, пильътъ instead of кучетата, пилетата (Lovech). In Troyan, where vowel assimilation and contraction is very widespread, the following occur: рèкоо, плèтоо instead of рекоха, плетоха, тяан (техен), видет го, чут го (го е), добро, зло (зло е), <font face="Times">вѝкном</font> (викнувам), Иванò майка (Иванова), etc. Lengths such as: гляат (гледат), бя (бяха), кя (кьеха), плèтаа (плетоха) from Resen; петнàас, двàас (15, 20) — in the Rhodopas and Ser (Gorno Brodi village); то свет, Razlog and Malko Tәrnovo; зимаава, годинаава, килоо, блудкоо, блоослов (килаво, блудкаво, благослов) in Prilep and Bitola regions; пàзуутъ, нèгуутъ, прàскуутъ, etc. instead of пазухата etc. It can be understood without further examples that vowel elision between consonants is a new phenomenon in Bulgarian dialects and therefore the long vowel in such cases is very obvious, in some such contractions one wonders if 1 or 2 vowels are heard.</p>
<p>In addition, long vowels substitute the old vowels ѣ, ѫ, and ѧ in some dialects. For example, the substitution of ѣ in Rhodopa and Razlog dialects is rather long than short vowel; ѣ is also long in Kirechkyoy. The sound that substitutes the Standard Bulgarian ъ in Rhodopa, Debar, and Teteven dialects can be quantitatively classified as a long vowel, although it is not as long as in Serbian, which is marked with the 2 long accents <b>^</b> (long falling) and <b>´</b> (long rising). Such length is probably heard for ъ in Erkech dialect (Burgas region) according to Miletich. It seems that in Erkech dialect all accented vowels are pronounced as long although the Miletich examples only confirm the length of ъ, ѣ, and а. Mirchev mentioned long а and е in Pozharevo north-west of Voden but gave only 3 words (дааде, меече, донеесе). Long vowels or, in general, drawled speech occurs in many Bulgarian dialects but those are new lengths which coincide with old long vowels. For example, in the villages Bozhitsa, Dragotintsi, Topli dol and Treklyano (Bosilegrad region) all monosyllable nouns ending in voiced consonants (б, в, г, д, ж, etc.) are pronounced with long root vowel: глоог, дрооб, роод, граад, ноож, роог, зиид, etc. – obviously, to better clarify the end consonant which in these dialects is voiced and does not turn into voiceless as in most Bulgarian dialects (глок, дроп, рот, etc.). In Bosilegrad region, many personal names are pronounced with long root vowel: Геeле, Тооле, Вееле, Гьооре, Йооца, Мииле, Коока, Ниика, Рааде, Миито. Long vowel аа in words like: лебаа-ми, кърстаами, натемааго, зимаава, etc. in Ohrid dialect were mentioned above; лаани can be added to these examples for all southwestern dialects.</p>
<p>Long accented vowels are reported for Strumitsa only before palatised open syllables: цвеекье, браакя, люугье, треекьи, бааня, веегьи, свеекя, вреекя, доваагям, раагям, плаакям, крадеенье, шетаанье, даваанье, гледаанье, ораанье, одеенье, цричеенье, умираанье, кучииня, пилииня, мачииня, качииня, телииня, etc. Long е also comes from ѧ: меесо, меека, пеета, рееса, грееда, пееда, треесам, шеетам, чеедо.</p>
<p>Almost the same length is seen in Pehchevo (Maleshevo region) in accented e in open vowels; it is prolonged and tightened so it is pronounced similar to и: <font face="Times">прѝида въ̀на, мѝита двòро, плѝита чорапè, трѝиса я̀бука, пѝича пипèр, пèера дрèии, вчѝира плѝитох цал ден, два орѝила (but: орèл!), два остѝина (but: остèн!)</font>. Probably, the substitution е → и in open syllables in some Rhodopa dialects comes from such tightened pronunciation: <font face="Times">нѝбу, прѝла, дѝня, тѝбеа (тебе), мѝнеа, вчѝра; главѝна ли си, жѝнеана ли си, та си гу мѝтна, той мѝнеа пьорстеан срѝбаран, нѝгу, сѝди, сѝлу, приз три я реки преанѝсах</font>. Perhaps this accented и was sometime a long vowel.</p>
<p>These examples show that long vowels occur in many Bulgarian dialects but one cannot speak about a Bulgarian quantitet in the usual sense of this term in Slavic science. There are, however, some northwestern dialects, namely around Tsaribrod and Pirot, where the old quantitet is partially preserved. For example, in the Tsaribrod village Komshtitsa there is a clear quantitet length in nouns and adjectives with offset accent: <font face="Times">врèеме, прàасе, лѝипа, брàава, клу̀убе, злàато, крѝило, пàафте, врàатът, брèегът, глàасът, дàарът, цèела, жѝива, ску̀упа, мèека, крѝива, дрàаго, слèепа</font>. These lengths occur also in Pirot with some more: <font face="Times">тъ̀ънко, сѝиво (but сивàа), ту̀упо (but тупàа), лу̀уда, лèева, су̀уво, глу̀ува, тъ̀ъвно, лъ̀ъко, брàашно, лѝика (ликàа), сѝина, му̀ужа, ку̀ума</font>. These are examples of real quantitet remnants, because they correspond to the similar Serbian accents both quantitatively and qualitatively.</p>
<p>But why did the old quantitet disappear completely in Bulgarian language? It did so because the accent offset in Bulgarian dialects happenned after the contraction before accented syllables while the old accented syllables have always been short according to the above mentioned accent law and, therefore, because: (1) the old accented vowels have always been short (2) the accent offset in Bulgarian happened later than in Serbian and this process hasn't yet finished (3) at the same time the long vowels before accented syllables were not pronounced – exactly as is now the situation in Serbian, which necessarily leads to the loss of old quantitet in Bulgarian. The same reason causes the loss of quantitet in Russian and Slovenian – two other southeastern Slavic languages. Quantitet still remains in the Croatian Chakavian dialect although destroyed to a large degree.</p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1><p><a name="ref1">1.</a> I. Werchratskij. Über die Mundart der galizischen Lemken, Arch. XIV, 587.</p><p><a name="ref2">2.</a> Benyo Tsonev. Ministerial Collection, VI, 1-82.</p><p><a name="ref3">3.</a> S. Kul'bakin. A study on the Ohrid Apostle, Bulgarian Antiquities, III, 64-67.</p><p><a name="ref4">4.</a> A. Leskien. Untersuchungen über Quantität und Betonung in den slavische Sprachen.</p><p><a name="ref5">5.</a> Fortunatova. Zur vergleichenden Betonungslehre der lituslavischen Sprachen, Archiv IV, 575-589.</p><p><a name="ref6">6.</a> Miletich Lyubomir. <q>The Arnauts</q> in Silistra region and traces of nasals in their language, Periodic Journal XLI, 622.</p><p><a name="ref7">7.</a> Masing. Zur Laut-und Accentlehre der bulgarischen Dialekte, 131. </p><p><a name="ref8">8.</a> B. P. Haşdeu. 1892. Strat şi Substrat. Genealogia popólelor Balcanice. Introducere la tomul III, din Etymologicum magnum Romaniae. Bucareşti.</p><p><a name="ref9">9.</a> Шклифов, Благой, Екатерина Шклифова. 2003. <a href="http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/shklifovi/index.html">Български диалектни текстове от Егейска Македония</a>. Българска Академия на Науките, Институт за български език, Академично издателство "Проф. Марин Дринов", София.</p><p><a name="ref10">10.</a> Шклифов, Благой, Екатерина Шклифова. 1973. Костурският говор. Българска Академия на Науките, Институт за български език, Академично издателство "Проф. Марин Дринов", София.</p><p><a name="ref11">11.</a> Шклифов, Благой. 1979. Долнопреспанският говор. Българска Академия на Науките, Институт за български език, Академично издателство "Проф. Марин Дринов", София.</p><p><a name="ref12">12.</a> Стойков (Stoykov), Стойко (2002) [1962] (in Bulgarian). <a href="http://www.promacedonia.org/jchorb/st/index.htm">Българска диалектология</a> (Bulgarian dialectology). София: Акад. изд. "Проф. Марин Дринов". ISBN 9544308466. OCLC 53429452.</p><p><a name="ref13">13.</a> Българска академия на науките, Институт за български език. 1975. Български диалектен атлас III, Югозападна България. София.</p><p><a name="ref14">14.</a> Българска академия на науките, Институт за български език. 2001. Български диалектен атлас, обобщаващ том I-III: фонетика, акцентология, лексика. София.</p><p><a name="ref15">15.</a>Иванов, Й. Н. 1972. Български диалектен атлас, българкщите говори в Егейска Македония. София.</p><p><a name="ref16">16.</a>Кочев, И. 1993. Тенденция към стабилизиране на ударението върху постоянна некрайна сричка на думата в българския език. Проблеми на българския език в Македония. София, pp. 281-291.</p><p><a name="ref17">17.</a> Ничев, A. 1987. Костурският българо-гръцки речник от XVI в. София.</p><p><a name="ref18">18.</a> Мирчев, К. 1932 . Един неврокопски български сборник с гръцко писмо. Македонски преглед, 2-3.</p><p><a name="ref19">19.</a> Иванов, Й. Н. 1971. Двойно ударение в българския език. Известия на Института за български език 20: 187-226.</p><p><a name="ref20">20.</a> Кодов, X. 1935. Езикът на тракийските българи. Тракийски сборник 6. (Бит и език на тракийските българи, част II), pp. 3-124.</p><p><a name="ref21">21.</a> Бояджиев, T. 1991. Българските говори в Западна (Беломорска) и Източна (Одринска) Тракия.</p><p><a name="ref22">22.</a> Кочев, И. 1993. Тенденция към стабилизиране на ударението върху постоянна некрайна сричка на думата в българския език. Проблеми на българския език в Македония. София, pp. 281-291.</p><p><a name="ref23">23.</a> Колев, Г. 2001. Данни за двойното ударение в паметник от средата на миналия век. Българският език през XX век. София, pp. 284-303.</p><p><a name="ref24">24.</a> Молеров, Д. 1905. Вторично ударение в разложкия говор. Известия на Семинара по славянска филология 1, pp. 173-182.</p><p><a name="ref25">25.</a> Мирчев, К. 1936. Неврокопският говор (Годишник на Софийския университет, историко-филологически факултет 32).</p><p><a name="ref26">26.</a> Иванов, Й.Н. 1977. Български преселнически говори. София.</p><p><a name="ref27">27.</a> Шклифов, Б. 1995. Проблеми на българската диалектна историческа фонетика с оглед на македонските говори. София.</p><p><a name="ref28">28.</a> Младенов, С. 1979. История на българския език. София (translation of Geschicte der bulgarischen Sprache, Berlin and Leipzig, 1929).</p><p><a name="ref29">29.</a> Kolev, Georgi. 2004. Dialectal accent shifts and double accent in the
Bulgarian linguistic region. In: Ronelle Alexander and Vladimir Zhobov, ed. Revitalizing Bulgarian Dialectology. University of California Press/University of California International and Area Studies Digital Collection, Edited Volume #2, 2002.</p><p><a name="ref30">30.</a> Alexander, Ronelle. 2004. The scope of double accent in Bulgarian dialects. In: Ronelle Alexander and Vladimir Zhobov, ed. Revitalizing Bulgarian Dialectology. University of California Press/University of California International and Area Studies Digital Collection, Edited Volume #2, 2002.</p><p><a name="ref31">31.</a> Baerman, Matthew. 2004. Poststressing Complementizers in Erkech (Kozichino). In: Ronelle Alexander and Vladimir Zhobov, ed. Revitalizing Bulgarian Dialectology. University of California Press/University of California International and Area Studies Digital Collection, Edited Volume #2, 2002.</p><p><a name="ref32">32.</a> Avgustinova, Tania. 1997. Word order and clitics in Bulgarian. Saarbrücken: University of the Saarland.</p><p><a name="ref33">33.</a> Hauge, Kjetil Rå. 1976. The word order of predicate clitics in Bulgarian. Meddelelser 10, Slavisk-baltisk institutt, Universitetet i Oslo). Oslo: University of Oslo. [Reprinted 1999 in Journal of Slavic Linguistics 7/1. 89-137.]</p><p><a name="ref34">34.</a> Penchev, Jordan. 1984. Stroezh na bъlgarskoto izrechenie. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.</p><p><a name="ref35">35.</a> Baerman, Matthew. 2001. The prosodic properties of ne in Bulgarian. In: Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Grit Mehlhorn and Luka Szucsich (eds.) Current issues in formal Slavic linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 59-68.</p><p><a name="ref36">36.</a> Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.</p><p></p>
<div class="image-left"><p><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JIKDxbYthJM/WV_mf6jOgjI/AAAAAAAAFb0/48OS5oORsHswNq6JxNeuceegMuHV_f_jwCKgBGAs/s1600/Ist_Tsonev.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Istoria na Bulgarsky ezik" border="0" height="280" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JIKDxbYthJM/WV_mf6jOgjI/AAAAAAAAFb0/48OS5oORsHswNq6JxNeuceegMuHV_f_jwCKgBGAs/s1600/Ist_Tsonev.jpg" width="210" /></a></p></div><p>This web page is based on material from: <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/istoriiablgarski01tsonuoft">Benyo Tsonev. History of Bulgarian Language. Chapter VII. Classification of Bulgarian Dialects According to Accent, pp. 412-495</a></p>
<h2 style="clear: both;">Citation</h2>
<p>This preprint can be cited as: Antonov, Lyudmil. Accent in Bulgarian dialects. ResearchGate DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12192.87042" rel="nofollow">10.13140/RG.2.2.12192.87042</a></p>
</div>
<div>
<!--Pagination Button-->
<div class="pagination-container">
<div class="page-numbers-container">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<style>
/* Post Pagination by Key2Blogging */
.pagination-container {
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
flex-wrap: wrap; /* Add this line to wrap according to page width*/
}
.pagination-container .page-numbers-container {
display: flex;
font-size: 18px;
overflow: hidden;
font-weight: bold;
font-family: "raleway", sans-serif;
border-radius: 20px;
box-shadow: 0 4px 8px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);
flex-wrap: wrap; /* Add this line to wrap according to the page width*/
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number {
padding: 8px 24px;
transition: all 400ms;
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number:hover {
background: #c5c5e9;
cursor: pointer;
}
.page-numbers-container .page-number.active {
background: #17A589;
color: #fff;
}
/* Page Content */
.page-content .page {
display: none;
}
.page-content .page.active {
display: block;
}
</style>
<script>
const pages = document.querySelectorAll(".page-content .page");
const pageNumbersContainer = document.querySelector(".page-numbers-container");
if (pageNumbersContainer) {
let pn = localStorage.getItem("pageNumber") ? localStorage.getItem("pageNumber") : 0;
const createPagination = () => {
pages.forEach((p, i) => {
const pageNumber = document.createElement("div");
pageNumber.classList.add("page-number");
pageNumber.textContent = i + 1;
pageNumber.addEventListener("click", () => {
localStorage.setItem("pageNumber", i);
location.reload();
})
pageNumbersContainer.appendChild(pageNumber);
})
document.querySelector(".page-number").classList.add("active");
pages[0].classList.add("active");
}
createPagination();
const pageNumbers = document.querySelectorAll(".page-numbers-container .page-number");
const activatePage = (pageNumber) => {
pages.forEach(p => {
p.classList.remove("active");
})
pages[pageNumber].classList.add("active");
pageNumbers.forEach(p => {
p.classList.remove("active");
})
pageNumbers[pageNumber].classList.add("active");
localStorage.removeItem("pageNumber");
history.scrollRestoration = "manual";
}
activatePage(pn);
}
</script>
</div>Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com38ul. Sv. Sedmochislenitsi 2-18, Sofia, Bulgaria42.674358576933841 23.32397460937542.300818076933844 22.692260609375 43.047899076933838 23.955688609375tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-9832859516146715392012-05-18T08:24:00.083-07:002022-11-13T12:02:25.727-08:00Solun dialect<b>Solun dialect</b> is a <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2009/05/bulgarian-dialects-bulgarian-balgarski.html">Bulgarian dialect</a> spoken in the vicinity of Solun (Greek: Saloniki, Thessaloniki). This dialect is best represented in the villages of Visoka <a href="#r2" id="2">[2]</a>, Suho, and Zarovo, <a href="#r3" id="3">[3]</a> near Lagadin, to the north of Solun. In addition to these, Solun dialect mixed with the neighboring Kukush-Voden dialect, is spoken in the villages of Negovan, Gradobor, Ayvatovo, Novo selo, Balevets, Kirechkyoy, Kliseli (Ilinets). <a href="#r4" id="4">[4]</a><a href="#r1" id="1">[1]</a> It is universally accepted that Solun dialect has preserved best the features of the Bulgarian language at the time of Cyril and Methodius. <a href="#r6" id="6">[6]</a><a href="#r7" id="7">[7]<span><a name='more'></a></span></a>
<h1>Classification</h1>
<p>The permanent interest of Slavic linguists in Solun dialect stems from the fact that it forms the basis of their languages and contains in a pure form some traits that are modified or extinct in the modern languages. Solun dialect turned out to be a veritable treasure trove in this respect. It must be regretfully said, however, that Solun dialect is understudied and many of its riches are lost, perhaps forever, for political and historic reasons.</p>
<div style="float:left; text-align:center; font-size:smaller; text-indent:0; margin-right:10px"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W9bUVVSCB-w/WWuNj09F8PI/AAAAAAAAFkg/opuS1vFPagsFb3xPONL8OdX7thgGASPhQCKgBGAs/s1600/solun-dialect-map.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Solun dialect map" border="0" height="360" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W9bUVVSCB-w/WWuNj09F8PI/AAAAAAAAFkg/opuS1vFPagsFb3xPONL8OdX7thgGASPhQCKgBGAs/s1600/solun-dialect-map.jpg" width="420" /></a> <figcaption>Мap of Bulgarian villages near Solun speaking <br />Solun dialect. The map is adapted from <a href="#r1" id="1">[1]</a>, 1934.</figcaption></div>
<p>Solun dialect is the prototype dialect that formed the basis of the Slavic alphabet created by the Solun-born brothers Cyril and Methodius. The main population in Solun and its environs since 6th century has been Slavic which in the 7th century mixed with Bulgars. By the 9th century Bulgarian language, a blend between the local Slavic and Bulgar, was already well formed and became the main language spoken in Solun neighbourhood. It was this local Solun Bulgarian dialect that was the mother language of Cyril and Methodius. Glagolithic alphabet, the first Slavic alphabet created by the holy brothers, reflected the characteristics of Solun dialect. These characteristics were carried over in its successor, the Cyrillic alphabet, created by their students and followers in the Preslav and Ohrid literary centers. The vast Old Bulgarian literature written during the Golden Century that united Bulgarian language by ironing out the dialect differences, was created on the basis of Solun dialect. Later, in 15-18th centuries, part of this literature formed the national languages of other East and South Slavic countries.</p><p>During the First Bulgarian State (9th-10th c.), the language and cultural community of Old Bulgarian, based on Solun dialect, existed on the whole Bulgarian territory, extending to the north far beyond the Balkan Mountains and the Danube, even north of the Carpates into Transylvania, with two cultural and literary centers at the capital Preslav and at Ohrid.</p>
<div style="float:left; margin-right:10px; text-align:center; font-size:smaller;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qO5QmWPgnik/WWuMLxkrCQI/AAAAAAAAFkU/fLOwQqdCx-4eiEQj54j6hu96mKYV6h6VwCKgBGAs/s1600/why_khan_krum_map_bulgaria.gif" target="_blank"><img alt="Balkan" border="0" height="460" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qO5QmWPgnik/WWuMLxkrCQI/AAAAAAAAFkU/fLOwQqdCx-4eiEQj54j6hu96mKYV6h6VwCKgBGAs/s1600/why_khan_krum_map_bulgaria.gif" width="420" /></a> <p>Map of the Balkan Peninsula in the 9th century.</p></div>
<p>At the end of 10th and early 11th century, a large part of the northern territories were lost by the incursions of Avars, Kumans, and Pechenegs. The capture of Preslav together with a large region in North-Eastern Bulgaria first by the Byzantines, led by Emperor John Tzimiskes, and later by the Russo-Normans, led by Kniaz Svyatoslav, was a very strong blow to Bulgarian cultural unity. This main cultural center was totally destroyed, and the huge amount of literature that it contained was burned, lost, or stolen by the invaders. Some part of Bulgarian cultural heritage was preserved in monasteries, churches, and the domains of local Bulgarian feudals which were gradually displaced to the south and west under the pressure of invading tribes leaving in the territories north of the Danube only some enclaves of Bulgarian speakers among non-Bulgarians speaking various non-written languages. These insulated islands of Bulgarian culture were unable to spread literacy far outside their localities lacking Bulgarian state and central administration. From the 11th century onwards, Bulgarian culture in the Trans-Danubian territories had to contend with the Latin-based culture, spread by the Roman-Catholic church that encroached from west and north, especially after the foundation of the Magyar Kingdom.</p><p>Bulgarian dialectology recognises it as a separate dialect (govor). Solun dialect and Drama-Ser dialect are combined in the Western Rup group of dialects which are transitory between the Western and Eastern Bulgarian dialects. <a href="#r6">[6]</a> The dialect spoken to the west of Solun, around Kukush and Voden, as well as in the region of Lower Vardar, is classified as Kukush-Voden dialect or Lower Vardar dialect, a separate South-Western Bulgarian dialect. <a href="#r6">[6]</a></p><p>Solun dialect has several archaic idiosyncratic characteristics that are used for its classification. The most important are the nasalism, Yery reflex, Yat reflex, and the retention of archaic questional and relative pronouns. Its western neighbour, Kukush-Voden dialect, lacks these archaic traits and has acquired some more recent (17th-18th century) features such as vowel reduction, end consonant palatisation, variable *tj, *dj reflex, etc. It is important to note that Solun dialect belongs to the Rup group while Kukush-Voden dialect belongs to the South-western border dialects group. Moreover, the Yat border, the most important Bulgarian isogloss that splits the language in Eastern and Western parts, passes along the Vardar River, dividing Kukush-Voden dialect and Solun dialect. Therefore, lumping these two dialects into one is linguistically incorrect. Such lumping is often tendentiously done for obvious reasons by authors from Republic of Macedonia who refer to this mixed entity as Solun-Voden dialect, or simply, as Solun dialect.</p><p>It is well-known that the Yat reflex (Yat split) is the most important phonetic classification trait that divides the Bulgarian dialects in two approximately equal in territory and number of speakers groups: Eastern (Yakavian) and Western (Ekavian). In Solun dialect, the Yat vowel has largely preserved its original pronunciation. Therefore, Solun dialect is neither Yakavian, nor Ekavian. It is more accurate to call it Eakavian which befits its transitional position on the Yat border between Eastern and Western Bulgarian dialects.</p><p>The original Yat /e<sup>a</sup>/ has been preserved not only in Solun dialect but also in a few other Bulgarian dialects, especially those from the Rup dialect group such as Zlatograd dialect, although the bulk of the dialects exhibit modern Yat reflexes. Traces of Yat are seen also in Romanian and Russian, languages that have based their written form on Old Bulgarian. The two Yat reflexes occur with approximately equal frequencies in both languages; however, in Russian they have no significance for dialect classification while in Bulgarian they are the cause for a major dialect split. </p>
<h1>Nasalism</h1><p>In this archaic trait of Solun dialect, the old nasal vowels ѫ (Big Yus) and ѧ (Little Yus) which do not exist in modern Cyrillic alphabets, are retained in a large number of words. The nasalism is articulated in separate consonants – н /ŋ/ in front of г, д, ж, з, к, т, ч, and м /ɱ/ in front of б, п. This trait marks Solun dialect apart from the other Bulgarian dialects, and in modern languages has its analogue only in the Polish nasals ǫ (coming from Big Yus) and ę (coming from Little Yus). In modern Bulgarian, Big Yus is replaced by ъ (Big Yer), Little Yus is replaced by <i>е</i> and there are no nasals. The strong articulation of the nasal consonant is very unusual for other Bulgarian speakers as it masks the meaning of nasalised words to a degree that they are no longer recognisable and traceable to words in literary Bulgarian. In Solun dialect texts, the Big Yus is usually written as ън (or ѫн in older texts) and the Little Yus is written as ен which is convenient for typesetting, as nasals were eliminated from modern Bulgarian alphabet; however, it makes it hard to distinguish the nasals from many other vowels with ен and ън that do not originate from nasals.<p>The term <q>nasalism</q> comes from <i>nas</i>, the Latin word for 'nose'. Sometimes this phenomenon is denoted by the Greek-Latin term <q>rhinesm</q> which comes from <i>rhinos</i>, the Greek word for 'nose'. References to the nose come from the fact that when pronouncing the nasal vowel the tongue is raised to press the upper palate, forming a tight seal that obstructs passage of air through the mouth. The exhaled air passes above the tongue through the nasal cavity and comes out through the nose. The tongue movement toward the next sound forms a barely heard consonant resembling /n/ or /m/ depending on the consonant following the nasal (in case of no such consonant, at the end of words, it resembles /n/). These nasal consonants have special phonetic markings as /ŋ/ and /ɱ/, respectively. Nasalism (rhinesm) is widespread in many languages, e.g. in English: English /'iŋliʃ/, -ing /iŋ/ suffix; in French: bon /bɔŋ/, etc.</p><p>Solun dialect is known for its <b>decomposed nasalism</b>. This means that the consonants н and м, that have been part of the respective nasals, are so clearly articulated that they separate and are no longer part of the nasal. Instead, one hears the vowels ъ /ə/ or e and after them a clearly separated and strongly pronounced н /n/ or м /m/. This is achieved by raising the tongue in a more forward position so that it does not seal so tightly the passage through the mouth. Thus the end consonant is more oral (mouth-pronounced) than nasal. The pronunciation of the latter consonants is so strong, especially in stessed nasals, that they predominate over the consonant following the nasal and it becomes weak and transient, e.g. рѫ̀Н<sub>к</sub>а; in the case of some end Yat-derived nasals in plural nouns this weak consonant is completely replaced by that derived from the nasal (see below). In general, consonants around the nasal vowels are destabilized and mutate easily. This occurs more often with the consonant after the nasal vowel: мѫ̀жь – мѫж – мѫч – мѫдж; ѭзл – ѭдзл, ѭ̀дзил; ѩзъ̀ıк – ѩдзъ̀ıк; мѧ̀со – мѧ̀цу; мѧ̀гък – мѧ̀ък – мѧк – мѧ̀ук.</p><p>On the basis of origin, Stoilov <a href="#r8">[8]</a> distinguishes two kinds of nasal vowels in Solun dialect: organic and non-organic.</p><p><em>Organic nasals</em> are those, originating from Old Bulgarian Big Yus (ѫ) or Little Yus (ѧ). </p><p><em>Non-organic nasals</em> are derived from Big Yer (ъ) or Yat (ѣ) which are replaced by Big Yus (ѫ) or Little Yus (ѧ), respectively. Some examples of organic and non-organic nasals are given at the end of this section: <a href="#r8">[8]</a></p><p>The iotified forms of Big Yus (ѭ) and Little Yus (ѩ) are either pronounced in the same way as the respective non-iotified nasals or have some peculiarities:</p><p>The iotified Big nasal ѭ is usually a syllable former: it makes a syllable of more than one sound by adding the semi-vowel й /j/ or the consonant в /v/ in front: ѭ̀̀же – йѫ̀же – вѫ̀же, вѫ̀жи; ѭ̀зл – вѫ̀зил – вѫ̀дзил; </p><p>The iota in the iotified Little Yus ѩ is usually lost so that it is pronounced like Little Yus ѧ: </p><p>Nouns that end in Yat are especially prone to generate a non-organic ѧ in their plural forms: телѣ – телѧта (calves), кучѣ – кучѧта (dogs), жребѣ – жребѧта (colts), копчѣ – копчѧта (buttons), пилѣ – пилѧта (chicken), дървѣ (дърво) – дървѧта (trees), and many others. Some of the plural forms of nouns that ended in -емѣ, -амѣ and had the stress on the first syllable underwent reduction of т while н from the decomposed nasal became dominant, masking the original plural form and fixed itself in the modern language: сèмѣ – сèмѧта – сèмента – семена̀ (seeds), зна̀мѣ – зна̀мѧта – зна̀мента – знамена̀ (flags), плèмѣ – плèмѧта – плèмента – племена̀ (tribes), врèмѣ – врèмѧта – врèмента – времена̀ (times), стрèмѣ – стрèмѧта – стрèмента – стремена̀ (stirrups). In these last nouns the stress jumps from the first to the last syllable which underlines the dominance of the consonant н that appears in these words suddenly from the decomposition of the nasal and undermines and eventually displaces the consonant т following the decomposed non-organic nasal to become a part of another (the last) syllable.</p><p>In Russian, a language much influenced by Old Bulgarian, the end Yat-derived non-organic ѧ nasal decomposition went in a similar way in these words. The end Yat here mutated in я /ja/ unlike Bulgarian which has ѣ → e mutation (Russian: сèмѣ → сèмя <i>vs.</i> Bulgarian: сèмѣ → сèме). This end Yat in the respective Russian plurals gave rise to the nasal ëн /jɔŋ/. The non-organic nasal underwent decomposition /jɔŋ/ → /jɔn/, and the dominant н replaced т in the same way and in the same words as in Bulgarian: сèмѣ – сèмя – семëна (seeds), зна̀мѣ – зна̀мя – знамëна (flags), плèмѣ – плèмя – племëна (tribes), врèмѣ – врèмя – времëна (times), стрèмѣ – стрèмя – стремëна (stirrups). The stress shifted from the first to the second syllable, onto the decomposed nasal (on ë) while н became a part of a different syllable.</p><p>In Serbian, another language influenced by Old Bulgarian, the end Yat-derived nasal decomposition went in the same way as in Bulgarian: ѣ → e → ѧ mutation, н replaced т, stress shift. The only difference of Serbian with Bulgarian is that the stress shifts from first to second syllable instead of from first to third syllable. The set of words affected by decomposed nasalism in Serbian is more limited than in Bulgarian and Russian: плèмѣ – плèме – племèна (tribes), врèмѣ – врèме – времèна (times), because of the more divergent Serbian vocabulary.</p><p>It should be noted in this respect, that in all cases of nasalism, both organic and non-organic, Solun dialect is richer in nasals than the respective modern languages, derived from it: Bulgarian, Russian, and Serbian.</p>
<h4>Organic nasals</h4>
<h5><b>ѫ, ън /əŋ/</b></h5>
<b>бл<i>ъ̀н</i>да</b> (roam <i>or</i> clamour) – Гдè си заблъндèл? Щу й таз блъ̀ндва? (Where do you roam? What is this uproar?)<br />
<b>б<i>ъ̀н</i>дъ</b> (to be) – да бъ̀нда жиф и здраф (to be safe and sound)<br />
<b>(вь)сèк<i>ън</i>де</b> (everywhere) – сèкънде се нава̀ (is found everywhere)<br />
<b>гр<i>ъ̀н</i>д</b> (breast) – гръндѝте ме буля̀т (my breasts hurt)<br />
<b>жèл<i>ън</i>д</b> (acorn) – дъмбèту да̀ват мло̀гу жèлънди (the oaks give many acorns)<br />
<b>кр<i>ъ̀н</i>г</b> (circle, wheel) – на крънго̀ то̀чими (we whet [knives] on the wheel)<br />
<b>к<i>ън</i>дè</b> (where) – къндèде утѝваш? - нѝкънде; за излèга дèгънде пу въ̀нка (where do you go? - nowhere; I will go somewhere outside)<br />
<b>к<i>ън</i>дèла</b> (distaff-ful of wool) – къндèлата се здрубѝ (the wool broke on the distaff)<br />
<b>к<i>ъ̀н</i>къл</b> (corncockle) – жѝтуту ѝма къ̀нкъл (the grain contains corncockle)<br />
<b>к<i>ън</i>т</b> (nook) – къ̀нту и пра̀зин (the nook is empty)<br />
<b>л<i>ън</i>г, л<i>ън</i>ка̀</b> (meadow) – кра̀въте паса̀т пу лънкъ̀те (the cows graze on the meadows)<br />
<b>л<i>ън</i>к</b> (bow) – крѝф като лънк (bent like a bow)<br />
<b>м<i>ъ̀н</i>дър </b> (wise) – мъ̀ндър чувèк (a wise man)<br />
<b>м<i>ън</i>ж </b> (man) – мънджèту рабо̀тят; идѝн мънч (the men work; one man)<br />
<b>м<i>ъ̀н</i>ка </b> (strife, difficulty) – мъ̀нката и у Го̀спуда; се мъ̀нчиха (strife is in Lord; they strove)<br />
<b>м<i>ъ̀н</i>та, м<i>ъ̀н</i>тан </b> (to muddle, turbid) – да те èзми мъ̀нтата; ним мъ̀нтиш уда̀та; мъ̀нту вѝну (let the muddy water take you; you muddle the water; turbid wine)<br />
<b>нѝк<i>ън</i>де</b> (nowhere) – нѝкънде ни утѝвам (I am going nowhere)<br />
<b>о̀бр<i>ън</i>ч</b> (hoop) – пра̀ят о̀брънч за бън̀чва (they make a hoop for a barrel)<br />
<b>пор<i>ъ̀н</i>ча</b> (to order) – пуръ̀нчах да ми ку̀пят тютю̀н; влъко̀ пуръ̀нчину ни ядè (I ordered them to buy me tobacco; the wolf does not order his meal)<br />
<b>пр<i>ън</i>т</b> (stick) – пръ̀нтиту исъ̀хнаха; пръ̀нчкъте са дибèлъ (the sticks dried; the sticks are thick)<br />
<b>п<i>ъ̀н</i>ди</b> (to chase) – пъ̀ндя кра̀въте (I chase the cows)<br />
<b>п<i>ън</i>т</b> (way, time) – пра̀ву пу пънтьо̀ у Су̀лун; два̀ пъ̀нтя (right on the way to Solun; two times)<br />
<b>р<i>ъ̀н</i>ка</b> (hand) – сас ръ̀нка ми гу да̀й (give it to me with your hand)<br />
<b>р<i>ън</i>ка̀в</b> (sleeve) – ми се урва̀ рънка̀ву (my sleeve was torn)<br />
<b>р<i>ън</i>кавѝца</b> (glove) – рънкавѝца се но̀си зѝми (gloves are worn in winter)<br />
<b>със<i>ъ̀н</i>д</b> (vessel) – ничѝсти съ̀ндуви (dirty dishes)<br />
<b>с<i>ъ̀н</i>да, съндба̀</b> (to judge, fate) – яс те съ̀ндя; ни ми глèнда съндба̀та; съ̀ндник бèла Я̀на (I judge you; he doesn't reckon my fate; white Yana is the judge)<br />
<b><i>съ</i>нк</b> (stem, branch) – ръшта̀ си пу̀сна сънко̀ (the rye grew stems)<br />
<b>т<i>ъ̀н</i>га</b> (sorrow) – тъ̀нга ми и падна̀лу за тèбе (I miss you)<br />
<b>т<i>ъ̀н</i>жа</b> (to be sad) – тъ̀нджа за тèбе (I am sad about you)<br />
<b>фр<i>ъ̀н</i>гър</b> (worm) – тус ол ѝма фръ̀нгъръц (this ox has a worm)<br />
<h5><b>ѫ, ъм /əɱ/</b></h5><b>гл<i>ъм</i>бо̀к</b> (deep) – глъмбо̀ка рèка (deep river)<br />
<b>г<i>ъм</i>ба</b> (mushroom) – мъ̀нгла за гъ̀мбъ (fog for mushrooms)<br />
<b>гъ̀л<i>ъм</i>б</b> (dove) – гъ̀лъмби хра̀ними (we feed doves)<br />
<b>д<i>ъм</i>б</b> (oak) – дъмбèту развѝха (the oaks took leaf)<br />
<b>з<i>ъм</i>б</b> (tooth) – зъмбъте са рèдкъ; ста̀ра ба̀ба биззъ̀мба (the teeth are far between; old toothless woman)<br />
<b>кл<i>ъ̀м</i>бо</b> (ball) – дай ми нèкулку клъ̀мба прèлу (give me a few balls of yarn)<br />
<b>к<i>ъ̀м</i>па се</b> (to bathe) – дèтету се укъмпѝ (the child bathed)<br />
<b>к<i>ъм</i>пѝна</b> (blackberry) – зака̀ча като̀ къмпѝна (hooks like a blackberry)<br />
<b>п<i>ъм</i>п</b> (navel) – пъ̀мпу ме булѝ (my navel hurts)<br />
<b>р<i>ъм</i>б</b> (edge) – кушу̀ля ръ̀мбя (І hem a shirt)<br />
<b>ск<i>ъм</i>п</b> (dear, expensive) – мèнсуту и скъ̀мпу (meat is expensive)<br />
<b>ст<i>ъм</i>п</b> (rung, step) – стъмпа̀льката се пукрѝ ут снèгу; стъмпа̀луту ме булѝ (the step was covered with snow;my foot hurts)<br />
<b>с<i>ъ̀м</i>бута</b> (Saturday) – у съ̀мбута жèнъте утѝват на пиранè (on Saturday women go washing)<br />
<b>т<i>ъ̀м</i>пан</b> (drum) – тъ̀мпан бѝй пу сèлуту (a drum beats in the village)<br />
<h5><b>ѧ, ен /eŋ/</b></h5><b>братоуч<i>èн</i>д</b> (cousin) – нъй сми два̀мата братучèнди (we two are cousins)<br />
<b>въз<i>èн</i>а</b> (to take) – ѝмам зèнту паръ̀ за жèнтва (I took money for harvest)<br />
<b>гл<i>èн</i>да</b> (to look) – глèндам те у учѝте; дуглèндувам; заглèндувам; углèнжувам се; приглèндувам; проглèндувам (I look you in the eyes; look through; take a look; look around; browse; gain sight)<br />
<b>гов<i>ен</i>да̀р</b> (cowboy) – гувенда̀ру дунèси кра̀въте (the cowboy brought the cows)<br />
<b>гр<i>èн</i>да</b> (beam) – грèндъте са расѝпанъ (the beams are scattered)<br />
<b>дèв<i>ен</i>т</b> (nine) – ба̀бини дивентѝни; разда̀духа му дивентѝнъ (old womens' tales; they gave him a ninth part)<br />
<b>дèс<i>ен</i>т</b> (ten) – дèсен паръ̀; дисентѝна ду̀ши (ten coins; some ten people)<br />
<b>ж<i>èн</i>тва</b> (harvest) – жèнтва и сига̀ (it is harvest time)<br />
<b>ж<i>ен</i>тва̀р</b> (reaper) – жентва̀рка; жентва̀рска пèсна (woman reaper; reaper's song)<br />
<b>з<i>ен</i>т</b> (son-in-law) – избрѝчин като̀ зèнт (shaven like son-in-law)<br />
<b>кл<i>èн</i>тва</b> (curse) – клèнтва ни ме фа̀ща; пруклентѝя (curses don't catch me; cursed thing)<br />
<b>ко̀л<i>ен</i>да</b> (Christmas) – дèцата кулендо̀ват на ко̀ленда (children go caroling on Christmas)<br />
<b>мèс<i>ен</i>ц</b> (month, moon) – гудѝната ѝма двана̀йси мèсенци (an year has twelve months)<br />
<b>мèс<i>ен</i>чина</b> (moon) – угрè мeсенчѝната (the moon has risen)<br />
<b>м<i>èн</i>гък</b> (soft) – мèнук лèп (soft bread)<br />
<b>м<i>èн</i>со</b> (meat) – о̀фчу мèнцу (mutton)<br />
<b>нар<i>èн</i>да</b> (to dress, to order) – на̀ренди сe мума̀та; нарèндба (the maiden dressed up; ordinance) <b>огл<i>ен</i>да̀ло</b> (mirror) – угленда̀луту ни глèнда ху̀баву (the mirror looks at us nicely)<br />
<b>посв<i>ен</i>тà </b> (to devote) – сe пусвентѝл (devoted himself)<br />
<b>прокл<i>èн</i>та</b> (to curse) – уклèнтил гу Го̀спут (Lord cursed him)<br />
<b>пр<i>èн</i>да </b> (to spin yarn) – прèнда бумба̀йк (I spin cotton)<br />
<b>пр<i>èн</i>жда </b> (yarn) – прèндинуту и ту̀к (the yarn is here)<br />
<b>п<i>èн</i>дя </b> (palm: <i>a measure of distance</i>) – пент пèндъ и уда̀ята длъ̀нга (the room is five palms long)<br />
<b>п<i>ен</i>т</b> (five) – пент паръ̀ (five coins)<br />
<b>п<i>èн</i>та</b> (heel) – на пèнтата си хо̀ди (he walks on his heel)<br />
<b>п<i>èн</i>тък</b> (Friday) – сèкуй пèнтук на паза̀р (shopping every Friday)<br />
<b>р<i>ен</i>д</b> (row, turn) – утѝвам пу рендо̀ (to go by my turn)<br />
<b>р<i>èн</i>да</b> (to order) – яс рèндя (I order)<br />
<b>св<i>ен</i>тèц</b> (saint) – свенцèту са напѝсанъı на ико̀нътe (the saints are painted on the icons)<br />
<b>т<i>ен</i>жà</b> (is heavy) – ту̀с тува̀р тенжѝ (this load is heavy)<br />
<b>ч<i>ен</i>дà</b> (to bear a child) – тас нивèста нè-и чендѝла; мънч хич ни чèнди (this wife hasn't born; a man cannot bear children)<br />
<b>ч<i>èн</i>до</b> (child) – мѝлуту чèнду на ма̀йка (my dear child)<br />
<h5><b>ѧ, ем /eɱ/</b></h5><b>ш<i>èн</i>па</b> (handful) – идна̀ шèнпа жѝту ми да̀й (give me a handful of grain)<br />
<b>я̀(е,и)р<i>ен</i>б</b> (partridge) – хѝтур като̀ иренбѝца (cunning as a partridge)<br />
<h5><b>ѭ, вън /vəŋ/, йън /jəŋ/</b></h5><b><i>въ̀н</i>же, <i>йъ̀н</i>же</b> (rope) – длъ̀ну като̀ въ̀нже (long as a rope)<br />
<b><i>въ̀н</i>зл</b> (knot) – як като̀ вънзл (strong as a knot)<br />
<b><i>въ̀н</i>тък</b> (weft) – въ̀нтуку се припльèва (the weft is interwoven)<br />
<h5><b>ѩ, ен /eŋ/</b></h5><b>за̀<i>ен</i>ц, за̀йц</b> (rabbit, hare) – за̀енциту припу̀щат; за̀енц фатѝх; за̀йц ско̀рнах; мло̀гу за̀йци (the rabbits grow bigger; I caught a hare; I jumped a hare; many rabbits)<br />
<b>за<i>ен</i>ча̀р</b> (harrier eagle) – тус пѝли и зенча̀р (this chicken is a harrier eagle)<br />
<b><i>èн</i>дър</b> (large) – èндур фасу̀л; èндръıю дубѝтук (large beans; the cattle)<br />
<b><i>ен</i>зѝк</b> (tongue) – ендзѝку ко̀кали нèма пък ко̀кали дро̀би (the tongue has no bones but it can break bones)<br />
<b><i>ен</i>тръ̀ва</b> (sister-in-law) – ентръ̀витѣ се ка̀рат (sisters-in-law quarrel)<br />
<h4>Non-organic nasals</h4><h5><b>ѫ, ън (Big Yus) from ъ (Big Yer)</b></h5><b>б<i>ъ̀н</i>чва</b> (barrel) – пра̀ят о̀брънч за бъ̀нчва (they make a hoop for a barrel)<br />
<b>дл<i>ъ̀н</i>го</b> (long) – длъ̀нгу като̀ въ̀нжи (long as a rope)<br />
<b>л<i>ъ̀н</i>джа, лънжа̀</b> (to lie, a lie) – ним вèрваш, те лъ̀нджа; лънджа̀та и ло̀шу нèщу (you believe those who lie; a lie is a bad thing)<br />
<b>л<i>ън</i>жѝца</b> (spoon) – лънджѝцата и уд дръ̀ву; лънджича̀рник (the spoon is made of wood; spoon-stand, spoon-box)<br />
<b>л<i>ън</i>жлѝв</b> (false) – лънджѝф чувèк (dishonest man)<br />
<b>м<i>ън</i>гла̀</b> (fog) – мъ̀нгла па̀дна; мънглѝчаву врьèми (a fog fell; foggy weather)<br />
<b>ст<i>ъ̀н</i>кло</b> (glass) – стъ̀нклуту се здрубѝ (the glass broke)<br />
<h5><b>ѧ, ен (Little Yus) from ѣ (Yat)</b></h5><p><b>п<i>ен</i>тèл</b> (rooster) – пентèл на бунѝщи пèй (a rooster crows on a dunghill)</p>
<p>The remnants of old nasalism are common for Solun, Kostur, and Korcha dialects. The area of this phenomenon includes regions located at the fringes of the Bulgarian linguistic territory where the southwestern-most Bulgarian dialects are spoken <a href="#r20" id="20">[20]</a>. It is natural to find in the neighbouring dialect regions many traces of nasal reflexes. Dialects with traces of nasalism reach as far as Middle Macedonia that comprise the central Bulgarian <b>a</b>-dialects. As all language phenomena, the decomposed nasalism wanes outside its typical area. In Prilep-Mariovo dialect, K. Mirchev points to nasal remnants in 3 words: йèнза (from OBg: ѩза disease, wound), гънглѝф (from OBg: гѫгънивъ smb. who mumbles through the nose) and тенгàло (from OBg: тѧгнѧтн to pull) <a href="#r21" id="21">[21]</a>. He defines the word йенза as archaism because it is used exclusively in some idioms and expletives. It is found also in Solun, Ohrid, and Veles dialects.<p>The second word гънглѝф links the Prilep-Mariovo and Kostur dialects. In Kostur dialect, the phonetic variant of this word is гънгльѝф <a href="#r25" id="25">[25]</a>. With the same phonetic variant this word is recirded among the patterns with decomposed nasalism in Solun dialect – in Suho, Visoka, and Zarovo <a href="#r26" id="26">[26]</a>.</p><p>The distribution of the third word тенгàло (meaning 'sling') reaches far to the west: to Korcha dialect in the region of Devol in today Albania. It occurs in Prilep-Mariovo, Bitola, and Resen dialects. The word is also found in Solun and Kostur dialects. The derivative тенгешка which is a term for a part of a loom (iron belt that stretches the fabric when weaving) is also found in the above dialects.</p><p>This overview of nasalism (rhinesm) shows once again the unity of dialects that preserve archaic traits. As a geographical center of this trait serves the Kostur region. To the northwest it reaches to the Solun villages Suho, Visoka, and Zarovo, and has sporadic occurence in Lerin dialect. The northern-most point of rhinesm is the village of Chereshnitsa, in which this trait is regularly found in definite positions and quantity <a href="#r27" id="27">[27]</a>. To the north it is dispersed in some appearances in the neighbouring Prilep dialect. To north-west it continiues to the Kostur villages Drenovyane and Boboshtitsa. In this area, an additional point, Vrəbnik, was described <a href="#r28" id="28">[28]</a>. Thus the isogloss of the rhinesm, passing from Kostur through the villages Smərdesh and Vəmbel, crosses the state borders between Greece and Albania, passes to the west through Vrəbnik and reaches northwest as far as Korcha.</p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Yery reflex</h1>The Old Bulgarian vowel Yery (ъı or ꙑ), rendered later in Russian as ы, which was often used as a suffix for plural and as a root vowel, is pronounced as the sound schwa /ə/ or /ɤ/ in Solun dialect. In Standard Bulgarian, Yery is written and pronounced as и /ı/. Listeners who are not used to Yery pronounced as schwa subconsciously reconstruct its pronunciation as that of the Russian ы: /əı/ or /ɨ/. <a href="#r9" id="9">[9]</a><a href="#r10" id="10">[10]</a> In the texts and examples, ъı is written only to mark the place of the Yery vowel; it is pronounced as ъ /ɤ or ə/.<p>The vowel ъı (ы) is known in Old Bulgarian as a hard variant of the vowel н /ı/. There is no consensus about its sounding. In both Old Bulgarian alphabets the vowel ы is written with a combination of two letter symbols: ⱐⰹ in Glagolithic and ъи (ъı) in Cyrillic. More common and frequent is the combination ъ+ı, i. e. ы, but in a number of Old Bulgarian manuscripts Yery is written with the combination ъ+и, i. e. ъи. On the basis of this graphical representation in Old Bulgarian, some scientists suppose that it was pronounced as a diphthong. Most of the Slavists, justifiably taking into account the fact that old diphthongs became monophthongs as early as in Proto-Slavic language, assume that the vowel ы was a monophthong and has sounded similarly to thе vowel ы in the present Russian language. By its origin, the vowel ы is an ancestor of the long Indo-European vowel ū. In the end of words ы developed specifically for Slavic languages as well from prototype suffixes -uns, -ons, -on. In Old Bulgarian ы occurs in suffices and before consonants, e. g. ты, ѩтры "sister-in-law", сынъ, мышлѭ. In front of vowels, ы becomes ъв, which is an old trait that occured in Proto-Slavic by a reflex of the long pre-language ū in ъв in front of vowel. In such a way in Old Bulgarian were formed series like the following: рыти — ръвати, мыти — омывенъ (Past Passive Participle of the verb), быти — забъвенъ (Past Passive Participle). In the Old Bulgarian manuscripts there are some vestiges of the typical Bulgarian reflex of ы in и. This reflex is found only in the combination ры, e. g. ривѣ instead of рывѣ (Zograf Gospel), отъригнѫти instead of отърыгнѫти (Enina Apostolic).</p><p>Yery is found very often in front of article suffix in words with definite article or in plural nouns and adjectives with or without definite article; in these cases, ъı is the plural morpheme:</p>
<h5>Root vowel</h5>
<b>бъ̀ıл</b> (to be, been) – що и бъıл? (who was?)<br />
<b>бъ̀ıлье</b> (herbs) – мло̀гу бъ̀ıли бирѣ̀х (I used to pick a lot of herbs)<br />
<b>бръ̀ıсам, бръ̀ıша</b> (to wipe) – яс бръ̀ıша (I wipe)<br />
<b>въıй</b> (you) – въıй ни пѝтати (you ask us)<br />
<b>въ̀ıме</b> (udder) – кра̀въıтѣ ѝмат чèтръı въ̀ıмента (cows have four udders)<br />
<b>въ̀ıй</b> (to howl) – влъко̀ въıй (the wolf howls)<br />
<b>гъ̀ıбнѫ</b> (to fold) – загъ̀ıнувам; загъ̀ıнах (to wrap; I wrapped)<br />
<b>истъ̀ıнѫ</b> (to get cold) – истъ̀ıналу млѣ̀ку (cold milk)<br />
<b>кръ̀ıя</b> (to hide) – сѣ и скръ̀ıлу мѣ̀стуту; яс сѣ кръ̀ıя (the place was hidden; I hide)<br />
<b>къ̀ıсал</b> (sour) – къ̀ıсал уцèт; къ̀ıсалу гро̀зди (sour vinegar; sour grapes)<br />
<b>къ̀ıсна</b> (to get spoilt) – лѣ̀бу сѣ скъ̀ıсна (the bread spoiled)<br />
<b>къ̀ıтка</b> (bunch or pot of flowers) – къ̀ıткъıтѣ на̀вади (she watered the flowers)<br />
<b>лъıс</b> (bald) – лъıс като̀ лъ̀ıсу тèли (bald as a hairless calf)<br />
<b>мъ̀ıя</b> (to wash) – мъ̀ıя сѫ̀дувиту (I wash up)<br />
<b>мъ̀ıшка</b> (mouse) – мъ̀ıшкъıтѣ бѣ̀гат (the mice run)<br />
<b>мъ̀ıшница</b> (armpit) – мъ̀ıшницата мѣ булѝ (my armpit hurts)<br />
<b>нъıй</b> (we) – нъıй ни бѣхми ту̀к (we weren't here)<br />
<b>плъıва̀</b> (to swim) – рѝбъıтѣ плъıва̀т (fish swim)<br />
<b>пъ̀ıта</b> (to ask) – яс пъ̀ıтам; пъ̀ıтай ста̀ритѣ (I ask; ask the old people)<br />
<b>ръ̀ıда</b> (to sob) – нèка пузаръ̀ıда (let her/him sob)<br />
<b>ръ̀ıта</b> (to kick) – ко̀нют ръ̀ıта; да̀й му идна̀ ръıтанѝца (this horse kicks; give him a kick)<br />
<b>ръ̀ıти</b> (to dig) – заръ̀ıха гу з гръ̀цкъıю поп; яс ръ̀ıя (they digged him in with the Greek priest; I dig)<br />
<b>скъ̀ıта сѣ</b> (to roam) – кой пъ̀ıта, ни скъ̀ıта (one who asks doesn't roam)<br />
<b>съıн</b> (son) – ко̀лку съ̀ıнуви ѝма по̀пу? (how many sons has the priest?)<br />
<b>съıт</b> (sated) – съ̀ıтъıю гла̀днъıю ни вѣрва (the sated doesn't believe the hungry)<br />
<b>съ̀ıтост</b> (satiation) – мèнциту мло̀гу съ̀ıтус дръжѝ (meat keeps you sated)<br />
<b>насъ̀ıщам сѣ</b> (to have enough) – сѣ насъ̀ıтах на тоз живо̀т (I had enough of this life)<br />
<b>тръ̀ıя </b> (to rub, to grind) – яс тръ̀ıя; тръ̀ıйна сол (I rub; ground salt)<br />
<b>тъ̀ıл </b> (back) – куга̀ си вѝдя тъıло̀ (when I see my back)<br />
<b>хъı </b> (them) – за-хъı èзма (I'll take them)<br />
<b>чèтъıри </b> (four) – четръıна̀йси (fourteen) <h5>Before article</h5>гръ̀цкъıю поп умрѣ̀ (the Greek priest died)<br />
вилѝдинскъıю пост и, да и друк (it is the Easter lent, and other, too)<br />
нèйнъıю мѫч (her husband)<br />
бѣ̀лъıю кон (the white horse)<br />
ха̀рнъıю чувѣ̀к (the good man)<br />
го̀рнъıю мост (the upper bridge)<br />
крѝвъıю ста̀риц (the stooped old man)<br />
<h5>Plural morpheme</h5>булга̀рскъı и гръ̀цкъı пент по̀пуви сѣ сто̀риха (the five Bulgarian and Greek priests met)<br />
да до̀йди на ста̀ръıтѣ ми гудѝнъı (let it come in my old years)<br />
ма̀лкъıтѣ ни си уста̀вям (I don't leave the small ones)<br />
кла̀нанъı на сѝчкъıтѣ мо̀мъı (avowed to all maidens)<br />
да ти пѝши ду̀мъıтѣ (to have your words written)<br />
как врьѣ̀виш (how are you)<br />
купѝх митлъ̀ıтѣ (I bought the brooms)<br />
ту̀рскъıтѣ паръ̀ı ни са кат ту̀кашнъıтѣ (Turkish money are not like the local ones)<br />
ха̀рнъı са на султа̀ (the salt is just right)<br />
дрèбнъıтѣ рѝбъı (the small fish)<br />
ха̀зната з бѣ̀лъıтѣ паръ̀ı (the coffer with the white money)<br />
ца̀рскъıтѣ люди (the king's men)<br />
на гро̀бищата ѝма мно̀гу жèнъı (there are many women at the cemetery)<br />
сѝчкъıтѣ, що бъ̀ıли, сѣ упла̀шили (all who were there got scared)<br />
<h1 style="clear: both;">ѣ (Yat) reflexes</h1><p>The Old Bulgarian vowels Yat (ѣ) and, sometimes, Little Yus (ѧ) are pronounced as wide e /ê,еа/ after a hissing consonant. <a href="#r11" id="11">[11]</a> This is an archaic feature of the dialect.</p><p>The Yat vowel has always attracted the interest of many researchers of Old Slavic and Old Bulgarian language. Despite the many papers on this peculiar vowel, the development of ѣ in Bulgarian keeps attracting interest. New theories for its phonetic value and distinguishing features in the language of the South Slavs on the Balkans are promoted that are controversial and differ from the present ones.</p><p>The mistery about the phonetic and phonological value of this vowel grows deeper with the use of a large number of graphemes by linguists from different periods and different schools when describing ѣ. This tradition began already with the creation of the two Old Bulgarian alphabets. The Glagolithic alphabet has only one grapheme ꙗ for both ѣ and the <b>a</b> vowel after palatal consonants. This indicates that probably the two sounds were prononced in the same or in a similar way. The Cyrillic alphabet has two graphemes which makes us conclude that the two vowels had different phonetic values. The contradictions get deeper by the differences in writing the phonetic equivalent of ѣ in the Bulgaro-Slavic loans in Greek, Romanian, and Albanian as well as in the Slavic toponymic material from Greece and Albania. In these sources for the language of the first Slavs on the Balkan Peninsula the vowel ѣ is designated by the diphthongs <b>йа</b> and <b>еа</b>: <b>Λιασκοβέτσι</b> but also <b>Ρεάχοβον</b>.</p><p>All researchers of the Rup dialects note the reflexes of this specific Old Bulgarian vowel; however, they use too many symbols for writing it whose phonetic value is unclear.</p><p>The two textbooks of Bulgarian dialectology – those by Stoyko Stoykov and Yordan Ivanov – give controversial and incorrect data about the reflexes of Old Bulgarian ѣ. Stoyko Stoykov wrote about the Zlatograd dialect: </p><blockquote>"Wide <b>e</b> /ề/ instead of OBg. ѣ under stress and before soft syllable, which sometimes transits to <b>'a</b>: бềли, белềшка, врềме, дềте, but also вр'àме, д'àте. In front of hard syllable there is only vowel <b>a</b> with a preceding soft consonant: б'àла, д'àдо, мл'àко, пл'àва, хл'àп." <a href="#r6" id="6">[6], p. 139</a>.</blockquote><p>The same statement is given by Yordan Ivanov:</p><blockquote>"Yat reflex <b>ѣ</b> > <b>ê</b>̀ under stress and in front of hard syllable (дềте, рềки, голềми, врềме, сềме, дубрề, хлềп), but also vowel <b>’à,</b> although less often (д’àли, умр’àли, б’àли) and only vowel <b>’à</b> in front of hard syllable (р’àка, л’àту, пл’àвъ, с’àдбъ, гол’àму)" <a href="#r29" id="29">[29], p. 88</a></blockquote><p>In Zlatograd dialect, and the Rup dialects as whole, the sounds <b>ề</b> and <b>’à</b> occur as continuants of the OBg. <b>ѣ</b> but they do not depend on the following syllable or consonants and there is no transition "sometimes" or "although less often" from <b>ề</b> to <b>’à</b>. The variants <b>ề</b> and <b>’à</b> from <b>ѣ</b> in the Rup dialects are not interchangeable but are characteristic for the dialects of individual settlements and are mutually incompatible.</p><p>The confusion becomes bigger by the fact that in writing the phonetic equivalents of the OBg. ѣ in Rup dialects, researchers use many differents symbols. Most often occurs the symbol <b>ề</b>, sometimes <b>è</b>, <b>’à</b>, while Miletich uses the graphemes <b>ä</b>, <b>еа</b> and also the symbol, letter, grapheme <b>ù</b> (mind that this is a letter for some sound, a symbol proposed by L. Miletich, and not the vowel <b>ù</b>, as we are apt to understand it) <a href="#r30" id="30">[30], p. 213</a>; also the sound <b>e</b>̥ [е with dot/circle below], the so called Miletich <b>е</b>, which he used for the pronunciation of <b>е</b> close to the vowel <b>ъ</b> in unstressed end position.</p><p>In the published literature for Rup dialects there are 7 symbols for writing the variants of the OBg. ѣ and this naturally leads to contradictions and errors.</p><p>The experimental study on the acoustic values of the ѣ reflexes in the Rup dialects showed that there is indeed distinction in the allophones <b>ề, è, ’à, ä, еа, ù, e</b>̥ but in fact these are individual variants for pronunciation of different informers who articulate these sounds in a specific way.</p><p>Commonly, <b>ề</b> is specified as the main reflex of the OBg. ѣ. But there are no examples in which the variants <b>ề, è, ’à, ä, еа, ù, e</b>̥ distinguish words or word variants.</p><p>These are examples for the lexical distribution of <b>ề</b>:</p><p class="box">авдавề, апустềлạ, бềло, бềгате, бил’ề, б’ề, бềхъ, будалềвạ, вề, вềйки, венчềвạ, вềтер, вềра, вềравам, врềме, въврềлạ, гол’ềм, горềла, грềй°eм, д’ềрт’ъ, дрềбън, дềте, ейсề, заблề, излềзе, имềло, изгорề, йề, йềла, йềли, йетềвạ, кулềносо, лề, лềй, лềп, лềпъс, лềте, лềф, мềсецът, млềко, н’ề, налềйеш, нев’ềста, недềл’°e, нềкъф, нềма, пềй, пейề, плềни, пусềлạ, сề, седề, сềкак, сềтих, сềф, смềн’ът, смềнạ, спрềли, срềшкạте, тề, тềх, трềвạ, убềлева, уважềвạй, умрềлънъ, чềй, ч’елềкън</p><p>This pronunciation of vowel <b>ề</b> is close to the state defined by V. Zhobov as a Western Bulgarian pronunciation.</p><blockquote>The wide <b>ề</b> is pronounced in the place of the stressed Yat vowel irrespective of the type of the following syllable also in a number of villages in Western Bulgaria along the Yat border. It is notable that the vowel <b>ề</b> is pronounced by the common Bulgarian way – between K<sub>2</sub> and K<sub>3</sub> which "almost fuse" according to Labov (<a href="#r31" id="31">[31], pp. 354-355</a>). Although very close, the vowels keep well their lexical distribution (<a href="#r32" id="32">[32], p. 18</a>).</blockquote><p>In the Rup dialects the sound <b>ề</b>, which is pronounced at the place of ѣ is not an individual phoneme but a historical variant of the phoneme <b>è</b> with a partially preserved lexical distribution. After the loss of its phonological value the sound <b>ề</b> gradually loses also part of its articulation and acoustic characteristics and and now is "almost fused" <a href="#r31" id="31">[31], pp. 354-355</a> with the vowel <b>è</b>. The reflex of OBg. <b>ѣ</b> – <b>ề</b> – is found only under stress and does not depend on the following syllable or consonant in the word. In unstressed position, the vowel <b>e</b> is pronounced.</p><p>Some examples in this context are: </p><p class="box">бềла сạм бềлạ йонàче, цềла сạм свềта йогрềла<br />
изпềвạ му из’èн’ън на жен*нạ<br />
тугàвạ уважềвạй дъ тъ уважềвạ<br />
тò утùде // зạ нềкъф дèн’ и йề ше дạ ùдъм<br />
тò и тèле имềше (<i>Златоград</i>)<br />
нев’ềста съм нев’ềста съм (<i>Старцево</i>)<br />
немề хлềп / пестèн ни бе хлềбът<br />
трềбава да ùмаме вềрạ / вềрạ дъ испълнềвạме (<i>Аламовце</i>)<br />
г’увềнạ рàбати в холàндийạ (<i>Бенковски</i>)<br />
лềгạмe̥ да пạспùмe̥ да сạбàлạй. Аг* са рạзговềвạме̥ ạф шêпчềкạ зèмạме̥ вóду (<i>Тихомир</i> <a href="#r33" id="33">[33], p. 96</a>)<br />
бубàйко сùн убùвạ за ейнак*въ невềстạ<br />
нùйде немềло ишширèт’ / кутрù ги йе укрàло (<i>Ерма река</i>).</p><p>The distribution of the vowel <b>ề</b> from OBg. <b>ѣ</b> in the Rup dialects, actually in those, in which it occurs, is not very different from the Tihomir dialect described by St. Kabasanov:</p><blockquote>"It is found stressed and unstressed, in the middle, in the beginning, and in the end of words. The consonant in front is usually moderately soft ... <b>ề</b> is primarily a substitute of OBg. <b>ѣ</b>. The wide <b>ề</b> occurs also in the place of every <b>а</b> after <b>й</b> and in most cases after <b>ж, ч, ш</b>." (<a href="#r33" id="33">[33], p. 21</a>).</blockquote><p>As to the reflex of the ѣ vowel in unstressed position, it reduces in the direction of dark Yer vowel.</p><p>There are two clear trends in the development of ѣ reflexes.</p><p>The first trend makes ѣ phonetically equivalent to <b>’à</b> – in the phonologic system of the language this is the phoneme <b>à</b>. Consonants in front of the <b>à</b> reflex are soft and their softness in clearly seen. It can be said that in this position the soft consonants decompose to a group of a consonant and the glide й /j/ which as a trend is alos observed in the western dialects (<a href="#r34" id="34">[34], pp. 12, 53, 55</a>, <a href="#r32" id="32">[32], p. 108</a>). In the settlements where the ѣ reflex is <b>’à</b>, vowel <b>ê</b> does not occur.</p><p>The second trend is towards reflex <b>ề</b> or <b>è</b> from ѣ – in the dialect vowel system this is a variant of phoneme <b>è</b>, seen as variation of the sounds ề and è in the same position:</p><p class="box">йềрмạ – йèрмạ, убềлева – бèл’ът, тề – тè, чувềкъ – чувèкъ, нề (we) – нè (we), врềме – врè-ме, бềх – бèх, имềло – имèло, лềвạ – лèвạ, мềсецът – мèсецạ, etc.</p><p>Many examples can be given for the variation of the allophones ề and è even in the speech of a single informant. There is no logical contradiction in any minimal pair. For example the words рèкạ (from OBg. peщи, peкѫ 'кажа') and рềкạ from OBg. pѣка 'рекà' function as omonyms.</p>
<p>It is not clear which of the reflexes <b>’à</b> or <b>ề</b> is more archaic. On a phonological level in the modern state of the Rup dialects, these are variants of different phonemes – <b>à</b> and <b>è</b>, respectively. These allophones occur in the dialects of various settlements and one variant always excludes the other. We must emphasize that the two variants <b>’à</b> or <b>ề</b> are very different in their sounding, these are two very different sounds, and phonologically are different phonemes. Probably both pronunciations <b>’à</b> or <b>ề</b> are new, while the archaic pronunciation is the diphthong <b>ea</b> described by L. Miletich in the beginning of 20th century, e.g., it is neither б’ало nor б’äло but беало (<a href="#r30" id="30">[30], p. 213</a>), that is <b>ea</b> from ѣ. According to Kiril Mirchev such was the pronunciation of ѣ in the Old Bulgarian and the Middle Bulgarian period:</p><blockquote>"According to the evidence of Konstantin Kostenechki (end of 14 and the first half of 15 c.) the sound that was written with ѣ in the old Bulgarian literature was wide <b>e</b> which was close to the sound of <b>ea</b> in the Greek word крѣсь, i.e. κρεάς ― 'meat', in the Turkish pronoun áhíü ― 'I', in the Romanian verb form áh, i.e. bea ― 'drink'. Therefore, it is supposed that the old sounding of ѣ as wide <b>ề</b> has dominated in Bulgarian up till 15 c. Even today this old sounding is widespread in Bulgarian dialects, especially in the South-Eastern dialect area. (<a href="#r20" id="20">[20], p. 119</a>). The pronunciation <b>ea</b> from ѣ described by L. Miletich has certainly been of longer duration."</blockquote><p>Both developments of ѣ are perfectly normal for the historical grammar of Bulgarian:</p><blockquote>"These developments went in two directions … In the first case the Yat vowel became vowel a with retained softness of the preceding consonant. In front of syllables that contained a frontal vowel, ѣ might change to <b>e</b> (<a href="#r20" id="20">[20], p. 119</a>)."</blockquote><p>Since, as we saw above, the development of the Yat vowel in the Rup dialects does not depend on the following syllable or consonant, the statement of K. Mirchev that ѣ did not undergo a spontaneous change, can be discussed. The Yat vowel changed in relation to its phonetic environment. We see that in neighbouring settlements, in the same phonetic environment, in the same lexical units one finds <b>’à</b> и <b>ề</b> continuants of ѣ.</p><p>The OBg. ѣ is most often substituted by ề but other allophones are also regularly found – also occur the vowel <b>è</b> with different softness of the preceding consonant; in the end of words it is most often a variant with glide й (or softness of the preceding consonant) and <b>е</b>̥. The closest to the standard pronunciation is the reflex <b>è</b>. The lack of phonological opposition between the allophones <b>ề, ’è, ’е̥, è, е</b> gradually assimilates their sounding to that of phoneme <b>è</b>, as it is in standard Bulgarian.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Average_vowel_formants_F1_F2.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; clear: left; float: left;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="387" data-original-width="467" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Average_vowel_formants_F1_F2.png"/></a></div>
<p>The vowel <b>ề</b> in the Zlatograd dialect has formant values that indeed defines it as wide <b>ề</b>. The values of the first formant from the spectrogram are 732 Hz. Comparison with the F<sub>1</sub> for standard Bulgarian – 450 Hz (Tilkov, 1983) – corresponds very clearly to the witdth of the vowel ề. Most important are especially the values of F<sub>1</sub> because they define the width of the vowel.</p><p>We can find a distinct spectrum of F<sub>2</sub> in the zone between 2200-2400 Hz.</p><p>In the modern Rup dialects the specific way to pronounce the sound that originated from the OBg. vowel ѣ is a sporadic trait in the speech of individual informators. The carriers of the local dialect pronounce sounds that on phonological level are variants of the phoneme <b>е</b>. The sounds that are pronounced have some acoustic differences which can be heard with unaided ear by an experienced observer, and by several computer programs for speech analysis. These differences are not felt by the carriers of the local dialect and do not carry a linguistic information. Maybe they carry only a socio-linguistic information. This is why the informers pronounce the wide vowel <b>ề</b> even in Turkish words and also in the place of the OBg. vowels ѣ, ѥ, ѧ, ѩ, and ꙗ. Since the width of the pronounced sound does not carry semantic information for the dialect carriers, it was gradually lost. At the present stage the variant <b>ề</b> occurs only sporadically.</p><p>Data about the structure of the formant vowel <b>ề</b> in the word бềло confirms the assumption that in the speech the width of vowel <b>ề</b> does not depend only by whether the sound is a reflex of OBg. ѣ.</p><p>In one specific case the reported data about F<sub>1</sub> (the spectrum is very clear and there is no doubt) of sound <b>ề</b> are 409 Hz. These values of the first formant do not give grounds to assume that in this case it is a pronunciation of a wide vowel <b>ề</b>, although by tradition in Bulgarian dialectology when transcribing in this position all researchers without exception put the symbol <b>ề</b>, at least when they describe a Rup dialect. In the research of D. Tilkov the values for the vowel <b>è</b> for female voice are respectively for F<sub>1</sub> – 450 Hz and for F<sub>2</sub> – 2319 Hz. That is, the data for the vowel <b>ề</b> in the word form бềло in fact are an evidence for a relatively completed process in which the phonetic values of the vowel <b>ề</b> are close to the values of the vowel <b>è</b> in the standard language.</p><p>On the basis of experimental results one can conclude that in the present Rup dialects the pronunciation of vowel <b>ề</b> as a really wide vowel is not regular but is an individual trait in the speech of different informers. That is, the pronunciation of the vowel <b>è</b> in Zlatograd dialect as wider or narrower does not depend on which Old Bulgarian vowel it is a substitute but it is an individual sporadic trait in the speech of individual informers. On the phonological level, the sounds <b>ề</b> and <b>è</b> are variants of the same phoneme.</p><p>Yat (ѣ) begins with the tongue in a frontal position starting to pronounce the vowel /e/. In the course of pronouncing Yat, the tongue moves backwards and the vowel ends with a sound similar to /a/. Therefore, Yat is a diphthong vowel /eª/ in which /e/ and /a/ are more or less fused together. For example, in Solun dialect: Сѣр /s'eªr/ (Serres); тѣ /teª/ (they, the); сѣ̀кѫдѣ /s'eªkəŋdeª/ (everywhere). A similar diphthong vowel, /æ/, exists in some Western European languages, such as English and German. For example, in English: bad /bæd/; man /mæn/; mad /mæd/; back /bæk/; sack /sæk/, etc. However, when pronouncing /æ/ the tongue moves in a direction opposite to that in Yat: from back to front, from /a/ to /e/. This is evident in the shape of the Old Latin letter æ itself (a fusion between the vowels /a/ and /e/) from where it was borrowed in the IPA phonetic transcription.</p>
<table class="box"><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Solun dialect</th><th width="33%">Literary Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>брѣк<br />
вѣк<br />
дѣ̀ду<br />
звѣ̀зда<br />
лѣп<br />
лѣ̀ту<br />
сѣ̀нка<br />
чувѣ̀к<br />
чѣ̀ша<br />
чѣ̀ют<br />
шѣ̀рка<br />
шѣ̀йка<br />
ку̀чѣ<br />
съ усѣ̀кнувам<br />
</td> <td>бряг<br />
век<br />
дядо<br />
звезда<br />
хляб<br />
лято<br />
сянка<br />
човек<br />
чаша<br />
чаят<br />
шарка<br />
шайка<br />
куче<br />
секна се</td> <td>shore<br />
century<br />
daddy<br />
star<br />
bread<br />
summer<br />
shadow<br />
man<br />
cup<br />
the tea<br />
color<br />
gang<br />
dog<br />
blow my nose</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>In its writing, Romanian preserves Yat in its original form as the diphthong <b>ea</b>, for example, St<b>ea</b>ua (name of football team), dragost<b>ea</b> (love), munt<b>ea</b>nu (highlander). When pronounced, however, Yat in Romanian always exhibits one of the modern Yat reflexes, я /ja/. Therefore, in all of the above examples, <b>ea</b> is read as /ja/.</p><p>Similar to modern Bulgarian, in Russian Yat has mutated in two reflexes: я /ja/ and е /je/ that, in general, do not coincide in individual analogous words,</p>
<table class="box"><tbody><tr><th width="25%">Old Bulgarian</th><th width="25%">Russian</th><th width="25%">Modern Bulgarian</th><th width="25%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr> <td>хлѣбъ<br />
лѣто<br />
лѣво<br />
бѣгъ<br />
бѣль<br />
колѣно<br />
мѣсо<br />
семѣ <br />
знамѣ<br />
памѣтъ <br />
бродѣщъ<br />
горѣщъ<br />
девѣтъ<br />
дѣсѣтъ</td> <td>хлеб <br />
лето<br />
лево <br />
бег<br />
белый <br />
голень<br />
мясо<br />
семя<br />
знамя<br />
память<br />
бродячий<br />
горячий<br />
девять<br />
десять</td> <td>хляб<br />
лято<br />
ляво <br />
бяг<br />
бял<br />
коляно<br />
месо<br />
семе<br />
знаме<br />
памет<br />
бродещ<br />
горещ<br />
девет<br />
десет</td> <td>bread<br />
year<br />
left, adj.<br />
run, n.<br />
white<br />
knee<br />
meat<br />
seed<br />
flag<br />
memory<br />
roaming<br />
hot<br />
nine<br />
ten</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Other traits</h1><h2>Soft consonants</h2><p>Bulgarian alphabet has a special letter for palatinization of consonants – Little Yer, ь/j/.</p><table align="left" class="box"><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Solun dialect</th><th width="33%">Standard Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr><td> соль<br />
день<br />
ка̀мень<br />
зенть<br />
пенть<br />
пѫть<br />
дѣ̀сить </td><td> сол<br />
ден<br />
камък<br />
зет<br />
пет<br />
път<br />
десет<br />
</td><td> salt<br />
day<br />
stone<br />
son-in-law<br />
five<br />
road<br />
ten<br />
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<p style="clear:left"><b>Retention of diphthongs шт (щ), жд</b> as in Standard Bulgarian, as opposed to more recent mutations in кь, гь in some Bulgarian dialects from Macedonia:</p>
<table align="left" class="box"><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Solun dialect</th><th width="33%">Standard Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr><td>къ̀ща<br />
пла̀щъм<br />
нущà<br />
вѣ̀жди<br />
мижду̀<br />
са̀жди </td><td> къ̀ща<br />
пла̀щам<br />
нощтà<br />
вèжди<br />
между̀<br />
са̀жди </td><td> house<br />
to pay<br />
the night<br />
brows<br />
between<br />
soot </td></tr></tbody></table>
<p style="clear:left"><b>Relatively unpredictable stress.</b> Often the stress is on the penult, but there are words that have stress placed on different syllables; <a href="#r6">[6]</a> this results in double-accented words: </p>
<table align="left" class="box"><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Solun dialect</th><th width="33%">Standard Bulgarian</th><th width="33%">English<br />
</th></tr><tr><td>ца̀рица̀та<br />
ко̀шница̀та<br />
ло̀буда̀та<br />
нèгувъ̀ıют<br />
гла̀сувèту<br />
ка̀жува̀ха<br />
</td><td> царѝцата<br />
ко̀шницата<br />
ло̀бодата<br />
нèговият<br />
гласовèте<br />
ка̀зваха<br />
</td><td>
the queen<br />
the basket<br />
the orache<br />
his<br />
the voices<br />
they said</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h3 style="clear:left">Morphological traits</h3>
<ol>
<li><b>Variable definite article</b> -о (-у,ю) in Suho dialect and -от (-ут, -ют) in Visoka dialect: мѣ̀сницу (the Meat Sunday: 8 weeks before Lent), кръ̀сту (the cross), чарда̀ку (the veranda), ко̀ню (the horse), кана̀пю (the string), каза̀ню (the cauldron), капа̀йкю (the lid), тютю̀ню (the tobacco), диньо̀ (the day), курин’ò; врахòт, вит’арòт, казан’ут, òгнут, сама̀p’ут, лѣбут, каѝшут.</li>
<li>Definite article -ту for masculine plural: брѣгувèту, бỳтувèт̂у, гла̀сувèту, д’èвир’èту, кòжувèту, кòкалèту, òблац’èту, пòйасèту, сфа̀тувèту.</li>
<li>Personal pronoun for 3d person: той, т’а, тузѝ, тус, т’е.</li>
<li>Questional pronouns: кутрѝ, кутра̀, кутрò, кутрè (Suho); кутръ̀й (Visoka).</li>
<li>Particle за forms future tense: за ка̀жа, за ста̀ни, за ти дам òште парѝ; за йа̀м и йа̀с лѣп.</li>
<li>Suffix -м for 1st person singular present tense for verbs of 1st and 2nd conjugation: ба̀йам, кфа̀с’ам, п’èрам, п’èчам и п’èкам, хòд’ам, хра̀н’ам, цѣп’ам. Also used suffix -а: гòст’а, дèр’а, къ̀лн’а, кòс’а, крòйа, м’èт’а, пр’èнд’а, с’èча, хòд’а.</li>
</ol><p></p>
<h1>Historical overview</h1>
<p>Two villages in the Thessaloniki (Solun) Region – Suho (bg:Сухо, gr:Σωχὀς) and Visoka (bg:Висока, gr:Ὂσσα,Βερτισκος) – drew the attention of Slavists a long time ago; <a href="#r12" id="12">[12]</a> the speech of Suho, through the works of the Slovenian linguist Vatroslav Oblak <a href="#r7">[7]</a>, came in the Slavistic literature as the best preserved relic of the original Old Bulgarian language. Oblak became aware of Solun dialect after reading a local <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/05/report-from-visoka.html">report written in the original dialect from Visoka</a>, <a href="#r2">[2]</a> printed first in the local newspaper <a href="#r13" id="13">[13]</a> and re-printed 2 years later by the Croatian linguist Martin Hattala in a Zagreb newspaper. <a href="#r14" id="14">[14]</a></p>
<div style="float:left; margin-right:10px; text-align:center; font-size:smaller;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XOsr3N7jmjI/WWuMvYroEpI/AAAAAAAAFkY/ridWk5L2hucDJ_wBDZuLNydObo4pHID2gCKgBGAs/s1600/vk_kaza01.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Solunska kaza villages" border="0" height="360" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XOsr3N7jmjI/WWuMvYroEpI/AAAAAAAAFkY/ridWk5L2hucDJ_wBDZuLNydObo4pHID2gCKgBGAs/s1600/vk_kaza01.jpg" width="420" /></a> <p>Map of Solunska kaza (Solun District) around 1900. <a href="#r19" id="19">[19]</a></p></div>
<p>Driven by his interest in Solun dialect, in the winter of 1891-92 Oblak visited Solun and some villages in its vicinity. In Solun, interviewing peasants from the Solun villages Suho, Novo selo, Gradobor, Bugarievo, Vatilak, and Vardarovski, he studied Suho dialect. There, Oblak also studied Debar dialect, a Bulgarian dialect from the western part of Macedonia, interviewing peasants from the Debar villages Galichnik, Klenje, and Oboki. These two dialects are described in the post-humous work of Oblak <a href="#r7">[7]</a>, published in 1896 by the Vienna Academy of Sciences under the editorship of the Croatian linguist Vatroslav Jagić. In this work, Oblak described the remnants of ѫ and ѧ in Suho but not ъı reflexes which were really non-existent in this village.</p><p>The phonological trait of interest in Solun dialect is the preservation of the ancient pronunciation of the Proto-Slavic nasal vowels ѫ (Big Yus) /əⁿ(ŋ)/ and ѧ (Small Yus) /eⁿ(ŋ)/, which resembles the pronunciation of the Polish vowels ǫ and ę, respectively. <a href="#r15" id="15">[15]</a> In the above mentioned report <a href="#r2">[2]</a> these words are: with ѫ − Лѫнгадина, Мѫнкедонія, мѫнчеше, разбѫнденіе-то, рѫнка, рѫнци, рѫнководство, лѫнжливо, пѫнть, пѫнтъ-тъ, пѫнтовощемъ, таѫнъ and тѫнъ (from таѫ and тѫ, now these words are not pronounced nasally); with ѧ − глѧнда се, глѧндатъ, глѧндащемъ, чѧнда-та, грѧндѣлъ, ѧнзикъ, посвѧнщеніе-то, ѧнвиха, изѧнвуваме, обѧнвуваме, напрѧндваха, напрѧндватъ. Solun dialect became the second linguistically described Bulgarian dialect from Macedonia after Kostur dialect to exhibit nasalism ("rhinism") as its most striking phonetic trait. <a href="#r16" id="16">[16]</a> Out of these two nuclei of the Old Church Slavonic, Solun and Kostur, Solun dialect was the more interesting because Solun (Greek:Saloniki, Thessaloniki) was the birthplace of Cyril and Methodius, the creators of Slavic alphabet. <a href="#r6">[6]</a></p><p>The interest towards the nasalism in Kostur and Visoka dialects spurred the study of nasal traces in other near or more distant villages, as well as study of other ancient pronunciations of some phonemes. Several years earlier than Oblak, the Bulgarian linguist and historian A. Shopov (pen name 'Ofeykov') wrote that the inhabitants of Visoko, Suho, and Zarovo, in addition to the /əⁿ(ŋ)/ and /eⁿ(ŋ)/ nasalism, had another old trait in their language: in plurals and other words, in which the Old Church Slavonic letter ъı was used, Bulgarian peasants from Solun villages did not use и /i/ as in Standard Bulgarian, but used ѫ(ъ) /ɤ/ instead. The pronunciation of this sound is subconsciously heard as that of the letter ы in Russian language. However, instead of ы /ɨ/, this vowel was pronounced as ъ /ɤ/ or schwa /ə/. <a href="#r10">[10]</a> A year later, the ъı to ъ reflex was confirmed by the Bulgarian ethnographer and writer Kuzman Shapkarev who, after pointing to nasalism traces in Kostur and Solun dialects, and in the Ohrid town dialect, wrote that Bulgarians in Visoka, Zarovo, Suho and Negovan pronounce ъı as ъ (and not as и). <a href="#r9">[9]</a></p><p>Another Bulgarian ethographer, Anton Popstoilov, became interested in the Solun dialect since 1890 when he was a teacher in Prilep. He learned about it from his colleague, Nikola Arnaudov who had been a teacher in Zarovo for 2 years. Arnaudov often talked about the archaic features of the dialect spoken in Zarovo so Popstoilov became eager to visit the villages near Solun and to hear himself how their inhabitants spoke. He visited Zarovo and Visoka in 1900 <a href="#r22">[22]</a>.</p><p>Because of this visit Popstoilov was arrested by the Turkish government in 1903 after the April coup commited by Bulgarian insurgents. They found in him a letter by Arnaudov with information on Solun dialect and put him in solitary confinement in Solun. In the letter, found by the police among Popstoilov's books, Arnaudov, after enumerating the words with Yery (ъı) reflex, paid attention to the remnants of nasalism in this dialect, listing the words: рънка, мънка, крънг, пент, ерембица, etc. According to the Turkish police, in these innocent words were hidden big rebellious secrets. The police conducted a painful interrogation before six people. When Popstoilov was escorted with handcuffs before them, the interrogators read the letter and immediately asked what insurgent's secrets are hidden behind the words рънка, мънка, крънг, etc. Popstoilov tried to explain the meaning of these words. When he described with gestures the word крънг (circle), the commander of gendarmerie and member of the interrogation committee Haireddin Pustinya, interrupted him with the words: "Крънг means talim (military training)! Now I understand why you went to Zarovo 3 years ago to teach peasants talim!" Not waiting for explanation, he ordered the wardens to incarcerate Popstoilov. On the following day, they escorted him with hands tied behind to the Solun tower and turned him over to military court. He waited there for 40 days in preliminary prison before appearing in court. There a deserter from the Bulgarian Army, the pomak officer Tefikov, gave a true explanation to these words, and the case was turned over to a civil court. After 84 days in jail, Popstoilov was released after giving a bribe of 25 Turkish Lira. </p>
<div style="float:left; margin-right:10px; text-align:center; font-size:smaller;"><a _blank="" href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jey42co6K14/WWuNHf3sfOI/AAAAAAAAFkc/zThCBM1zwa0Xbw-CHmUozw3HhDPd_9hxQCKgBGAs/s1600/vk_kaza11.jpg target="><img alt="Lagadinska kaza villages" border="0" height="360" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jey42co6K14/WWuNHf3sfOI/AAAAAAAAFkc/zThCBM1zwa0Xbw-CHmUozw3HhDPd_9hxQCKgBGAs/s1600/vk_kaza11.jpg" width="420" /></a> <p>Map of Lagadinska kaza (Lagadina District) around 1900. <a href="#r19" id="19">[19]</a></p></div>
<p>In 1908, A. Popstoilov visited a third village in the Lagadina Region, namely Kliseli (Ilinets) <a href="#r23">[23]</a>. This visit was necessary because, on the one hand, the former studies were controversial in that nasalism and ъı reflex in addition to Zarovo, Visoka, and Suho were also indicated for Negovan, and on the other hand, it had to be established whether there was nasalism in some other Lagadina village, as was indeed shown for Ilinets. In addition, the field work had to estabish on site, e.g. the pronunciation of ѣ, the reduction of vowels a, e, o, and other research. </p><p>During the Balkan Wars 1912-1913, Prof. Jordan Ivanov, as a soldier in the Bulgarian 7th Rila Division, stayed some time in Zarovo, Visoka, and Suho, and studied there dialects. His paper <a href="#r4">[4]</a>consists in 3 parts. In the first part he gives historical notes for Bogdan Mountain and its population, in the second part he describes some sounds of the Zarovo-Visoka-Suho dialect and a list of words and phrases with nasalism of ѫ and ѧ in Zarovo, Visoka, and Suho, and in the third part gives examples from the speech of the 3 villages. In addition to the already established traits of nasalism and Yery reflex, Ivanov noted a retained end Yer (ъ) in adjectives and participles which end with 2 or 3 consonants and are found mostly in groups composed of adjective and noun. However, later it became clear that in cases where Ivanov indicated end Yer, it was not ъ but a remnant of complex adjective contracted form <a href="#r24">[24]</a>.</p><p>In the first day of the Second Balkan war, on 16 June 1913, the Greek artillery shelled Zarovo aiming to destroy it, as there were no Bulgarian troops in the village. Shells and grenades killed 2 chidren and wounded 2 adults, destroyed severals houses, and set others on fire. The scared population of Zarovo ran to and fro in panic, not finding any salvation, and on the following day left their homes leaving behind their belongings and old people who could not walk. After running a week on foot, the whole village reached the old borders of Bulgaria and most of it was temporarily accomodated in the town of Samokov.</p><p>The Greek troops entered Zarovo, pillaged all food and furniture, killed the 5 old people that were left behind, and then burned everything except the church. So the beautiful village Zarovo turned to ashes. After the war no family returned to the village and it remained empty. Later, in 1922, after the defeat of the Greek Army in Asia Minor and the expulsion of the Greek population there, part of it was settled in Zarovo; not on the same place but a little to the side so instead of the old village Zarovo there is a new village but with Greek settlers under the name Nikopoli (gr:Νικοπολη). The only Bulgarian family that was left was that of the Grecoman priest. The destruction of Zarovo as Bulgarian village is a loss but the loss for dialectology is greater: the pillar that supported the old forms and constructions in Bulgarian language fell down beyond retrieve.</p><p>Visoka and Suho were almost untouched by the Balkan wars but as Grecoman villages under Greek rule it was forbidden to speak Bulgarian and gradually it was replaced by Greek language. It is a pity that the villages of the oldest Bulgarian population with their archaic language which is closest to the language of Sst Cyril and Methodius are today populated with the progeny of the wonderful mid-nineteen century Bulgarian patriots but all speak Greek language, have Greek folk songs, customs, beliefs, etc.</p>
<h1 style="clear: both;">Sample</h1><h2>Кралю Марку</h2><p>Пуйнò врѣмѭ бѝши идѝн чувѣк, гу вѝкаха Крàлю Мàрку. Тòс чувѣк бѝши млòгу гулѣ̀м чувѣк, усиндисѣт òки инà чѣ̀шка вѝну пѝѣши и стò òки инà буздугàна нòсиши; на нузѝ врѣмѭ излѣ̀зи инò млàду дѣтѭ щу на кувѣ̀тю ѝдѣха рàвну със Крàлю Мàрку. Видѣ̀ Крàлю Мàрку, щу ѝма тòлкус кувѣ̀т тòйи дѣтѣ, съ уплàши Крàлю Мàрку и си рѣчи със умò: "Ѣс за гу загубѝм тузѝ дѣтѭ!"</p>
<p>Гу вѝкаха дѣтѭту Катѝнчу и му рѣ̀чи идѝн дѣ̀нь: "Ѣла да пòйми барабàр у Висòка за да съ рашèтами на пѫтьо." Как утѝваха му рѣ̀чи Крàлю Мàрку да пруминè напрѣт Катѝнчу. Катѝнчу му рѣ̀чи: "Ти си пòгулѣ̀м, ѣс тѣ ни стъ̀пнувам тѣ̀бѭ." Крàлю Мàрку му рѣ̀чи пак: "Ѣс ѝмам мерàк ти да пруминèш напрѣт!" Сѣ̀тнѭ му рѣ̀чи: "Дѝлму такà ѝштиш за прумѝна напрѣт!" как тръ̀гна за да пруминè напрѣт извàди калъ̀чката Крàлю Мàрку, гу удрѝ инà калъ̀чка на кръ̀сту и гу заминà шѝчка калъ̀чката, амà дѣтѭту Катѝнчу ни пàна сидѣ рѣ̀чи: "Ох съ̀рциту мѣ забулѣ̀!" Крàлю Мàрку му рѣ̀чи: "Нѝкни, вѣ̀н си мръ̀ва кàлчъ ут таку̀ню за да хàпниш за ти пруминè съ̀рциту"; рѣ̀чи за да нѝкни̥ дѣтѭ Катѝнчу за да вѣ̀ни кàлчъ, съ удѣлѝ ут пулувѝна, пàна на зимѣ̀та.</p>
<p>Как видѣ̀ чъ такà стàна, гу пукълнà Крàлю Мàрку, му рѣ̀чи: "Тузѝ, щу ми гу стòри ни на Бòгу ду̀ша да дадѣ̀ш ни на зѣ̀мѣ кòкал да кладѣ̀ш!" гу устàви Крàлю Мàрку тàму да съ вàли и съ утѝди.</p>
<p>Сѣ̀тнѭ ут мръ̀ва врѣмѭ щу цару̀ваши òщи излѣ̀зи инò михàнима пищòф. Липòн пищòфу гу напълнювàха бару̀т и куршу̀̀м, да сѣ̀тнѭ гу плюснувàха. Дòйди нòс чувѣк, щу гу имàши пищòфу, утпрѣ̀т Крàлю Мàрку и му рѣ̀чи: "За ти гу фъ̀рлѣ тòс куршу̀м, мòжиш да гу фàтиш?" Крàлю Мàрку му рѣ̀чи: "Ѣс фàщам стò окѝ, ми тос куршу̀м нѣ̀ма за гу фàтѣ?" нос гу рѣ̀чи: "Дръш рѫкàта да гу фъ̀рлѣ!" и му плю̀сна, му ѣ удрѝ рѫкàта, устàна рòпка, си пруминà куршу̀м и ни мужà да гу фàти и тугàс си рѣ̀чи Крàлю Мàрку: "Нѣсни вѣ̀йки за живòт!" и пàна съ уклавà и такà му устàнаха кòкалèту на пòртитѣ, да съ бѣ̀сат. На сòлунскитѣ пòрти имàши кòкалъ убѝснѩту. – Да тѣ лѫджам, àку мѣ лѫджаха мѣ̀нѭ и ѣс тѣ лѫджам тѣ̀бѭ.</p>
<hr />
<p>Once there was a man whose name was Kralyu Marku. This man was very big, he drank from a cup of wine weighing eighty oki [1 oka = 1.2 kg] and carried a mace weighing hundred oki. At that time, there appeared a young boy who was as strong as Kralyu Marku. Kralyu Marku saw that this boy had a great strength. He was frightened and said to himself: "I'll bring down this boy!"</p><p>The boy's name was Katinchu and he said to him one day: "Come with me to go together to Visoka to have a walk on the road." When they went on the road, Kralyu Marku told Katinchu to go before him. Katinchu said to him: "You are bigger, and I'd not overstep you." Kralyu Marku told him again: "I wish that you walk first!" After that he said: "If you want so, I'll go first!" and as he passed the boy to go first, Kralyu Marku pulled out his sword, hit the boy's back and the sword cut right through; however, the boy Katinchu did'n fall and just said: "Oh, I feel a pain in my heart!" Kralyu Marku told him: "Kneel, take some soil from your heel, and eat to heal your heart". The boy Katinchu tried to kneel to take soil, but he parted in half and fell to the ground.</p><p>As the boy saw what happened, he cursed Kralyu Marku, saying: "For what you did to me, let you not give your soul to our Lord and let you not put your bones to the ground!" and then Kralyu Marku left him to roll on the ground and went away.</p><p>After some time, in the same kingdom they made a mechanical gun. First they loaded the gun with powder and a bullet, and then they fired. The man that owned the gun faced Kralyu Marku and told him: "I'll throw this bullet to you, can you catch it?" Kralyu Marku told him: "I catch hundred oki so it is nothing to me to catch this bullet!" and the man told him: "Raise your hand for me to throw the bullet!" and he fired, and the bullet hit his [Kralyu Marku's] hand, made a hole, and passed through his hand and he couldn't catch it, and then Kralyu Marku said to himself: "There is no life for me any more!" and he killed himself and so his bones were left to hang on the gates. There were bones hanging on the Solun gates. – As to lying, if they lied to me, I lied to you. <a href="#r1" id="1">[1], pp. 38-39</a></p>
<h3>Transcription</h3><table align="left" class="box"><tbody><tr><th width="33%">Cyrillic</th><th width="33%">Latin</th><th width="33%">IPA<br />
</th></tr><tr><td>а<br />
б<br />
в<br />
г<br />
д<br />
е<br />
ж<br />
з<br />
и<br />
й<br />
к<br />
л<br />
м<br />
н<br />
о<br />
п<br />
р<br />
с<br />
т<br />
у<br />
ф<br />
х<br />
ц<br />
ч<br />
ш<br />
щ<br />
ъ<br />
ь<br />
ю<br />
я<br />
</td><td>a<br />
b<br />
v<br />
g<br />
d<br />
e<br />
ž<br />
z<br />
i<br />
y<br />
k<br />
l<br />
m<br />
n<br />
o<br />
p<br />
r<br />
s<br />
t<br />
u<br />
f<br />
h<br />
c<br />
č<br />
š<br />
št<br />
ă<br />
j<br />
ü<br />
ä </td><td>a,α<br />
b<br />
v<br />
g<br />
d<br />
e,ɛ<br />
ʒ<br />
z<br />
i,ɩ<br />
j<br />
k<br />
l,ɫ<br />
m<br />
n<br />
o,ɔ<br />
p<br />
r<br />
s<br />
t<br />
u,ʊ<br />
f<br />
x<br />
ts,ʦ<br />
tʃ,ʧ<br />
ʃ<br />
ʃt<br />
ə,ɤ<br />
ʲ,j<br />
ju<br />
ja<br />
</td></tr><tr><th colspan="3">Solun dialect</th>
</tr><tr><td>ѣ<br />
ѫ<br />
ѧ<br />
ѭ<br />
ѩ<br />
ъı,ы<br />
</td><td>ѣ<br />
ǫ<br />
ę<br />
jǫ<br />
ję<br />
ă<br />
</td><td>eª,jə<br />
əŋ,əɱ<br />
eŋ,eɱ<br />
(j,v)əŋ,(j,v)əɱ<br />
(j,v)eŋ,(j,v)eɱ <br />
ə(ɪ),ɨ </td></tr></tbody></table>
<h1 style="clear: both;">References</h1><p><a href="#1" id="r1">1.</a> Mieczysław Małecki (1934) Dwie gwary macedońskie (Suhe i Wysoka w Soluńskiem) – Teksty, vol. I, Krakòw, Gebethner and Wolff Publishers, Printed at Jagiellon University, Editor J. Filipowski, map on page XV (in Polish); Map redrawn from copy of this work stored in the library of Macedonian State University, Skopje, Philosophy Department, Cat. No. 3767, 09.04.1959;<br />
<b>For verification:</b> <i>The legend on the map in the original is:</i> Legenda: (•) wsie (językowo) <u>bułgarskie</u>, (o) miejscowosci greckie, Uwaga: Wsie <u>bułgarskie</u> wylicsono wszystkie, miejscowosci greckie podano tylko niektòre dla orjentacji.</p><p><a href="#2" id="r2">2.</a> A <a href="http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/05/report-from-visoka.html">report from the village of Visoka</a> (in Bulgarian and English)</p><p><a href="#3" id="r3">3.</a> Stoilov, A.P. (Anton Popstoilov). <a href="http://www.promacedonia.org/ap_zarovo/ap_6.htm">Zarovo</a> (near Solun): Historical, ethnographic, and linguistic study. (editor K. Dinchev), Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Publishers, 1979 (in Bulgarian)</p><p><a href="#4" id="r4">4.</a> J. Ivanov. 1922. Un parler bulgare archaique. <i>Revue des études Slaves</i> Tome II, fascicules 1 et 2, Paris, 86-103. (in French)</p><p><a href="#6" id="r6">6.</a> Stoykov, Stoyko (2002) [1962] Bulgarian dialectology</p>, Sofia, Prof. Marin Drinov Academic Publishing House (in Bulgarian). ISBN 9544308466. OCLC 53429452. <a href="http://www.promacedonia.org/jchorb/st/index.htm">Book in electronic format</a><p><a href="#7" id="r7">7.</a> Oblak, W. Macedonische Studien, In: Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophische-historische Classe. Band CXXXIV. Wien, 1896. (in German)</p><p><a href="#8" id="r8">8.</a> Stoilov, A.P. Remnants of nasalism in the Solun villages Zarovo and Visoka. J. Orphogr., 1901, <b>61</b>:703-712 (in Bulgarian)</p><p><a href="#9" id="r9">9.</a> Shapkarev, K. Periodic Journal, 1886, Sofia, <b>19-20</b>:257 (in Bulgarian).<br />
<b>Quote:</b> "Bulgarians in Visoka, Zarovo, Suho [and not Zarva and Soho − K.Sh.] and Negovan pronounce ъ as ѫ, and not и, so, e.g., бъх, бъл, сън, въй, нъй, etc. are pronounced: бъх, бъл, сън, въй, нъй, etc. Thus, plurals of овца, пара, жена, риба: овцъ = овцѫ, or овцъ, паръ = парѫ or паръ, женъ = женѫ, женъ, ръбъ = рѫбѫ - ръбъ, etc."</p>
<p><a href="#10" id="r10">10.</a> Ofeykov. Periodic Journal, 1885, Sofia, <b>17:</b>321-322 (in Bulgarian).<br />
<b>Quote:</b> "Along the road from Solun to Syar, in the Solun Prefecture, there are the Bulgarian villages Visoka, Soho [correct: Suho] and Zareva or Zarva [later:Zarovo], whose dialect and pronuciation differ from the language of all neighboring and more distant Bulgarian villages. I wrote down many words and phrases of their inhabitants, of which you will allow me to publish some, in which occur ѫ and ѧ with nasal pronunciation and others which are important in another respect, namely, that in them in the place of every ъı in plural as well as in words containing ъı in the Old Slavic language, the inhabitants of the villages Suho, Visoko, and Zarevo use not и but ъ (ѫ). When one listens to this ъ (ѫ), the ear tries to hear the pronunciation of the Russian letter ы. Indeed, where Russians write ы, the inhabitants of the above three Solun villages say ъ (ѫ). Russians say, e.g., вы (вий), in Visoka, Soho and Zarevo say въй; Russians say который, in the respective villages they say котръй; Russians say сын, − in the villages: сън; Russians say мыш, − in the villages: мъшка (мишка), etc., etc."</p><p><a href="#11" id="r11">11.</a> Stoilov, A.P. Yat pronunciation in the Zarovo-Visoka speech (near Lagadin). J. Bulg. Acad. Sci., 1914, <b>8:</b>159-164 (in Bulgarian).</p><p><a href="#12" id="r12">12.</a> Kochev, Ivan. (1987) Old Bulgarian dialectal phenomena and the term Solun dialect. <i>Bulgarian language</i>, <b>3:</b>167-178 (in Bulgarian)</p><p><a href="#13" id="r13">13.</a> Savetnik, October 7, 1863, issue 29 (in Bulgarian)</p><p><a href="#14" id="r14">14.</a> Kniževnik, Zagreb, 1865, <b>2:</b>471-474 (in Bulgarian and Croatian)</p><p><a href="#15" id="r15">15.</a> Małecki, vol. 1, Introduction, p. III</p><p><a href="#16" id="r16">16.</a> Grigorovich, Viktor I. Travel essays from European Turkey. Kazan, 1848, pp. 165,167 (in Russian).<br />
<b>Quote:</b> "Bulgarians south of Bitola and the Ohrid Lake, in Korca, Boboshitse [correct: Bobishta − Stoilov: Zarovo, p.56] preserved in some words a full rhinism; thus, in the word мъндръ and the greeting да бъндеть живъ I heard this sound myself"</p><p><a href="#17" id="r17">17.</a> Shklifov, Blagoy and Ekaterina Shklifova. Bulgarian dialect texts from Aegean Macedonia, Sofia, 2003, p. 18 (in Bulgarian)</p><p><a href="#18" id="r18">18.</a> S. Keremidchieva. 2004. <a href="http://www.philology.ru/linguistics3/keremidchieva-04.htm">The fate of the Bulgarian dialect nucleus in the Salonik region</a> (in Russian). Languages and dialects of small Balkan ethnic groups. International scientific conference Sanct-Peterburg, 11-12 June 2004. Summaries, p. 18-19</p><p><a href="#19" id="r19">19.</a> V. Kanchoff. 1900. <a href="http://www.promacedonia.org/vk/index.html">Macedonia: ethnography and statistics</a> (in Bulgarian). Bulgarian Book Association, Sofia.</p><p><a href="#20" id="r20">20.</a> K. Mirchev. 1978. Historical grammar of Bulgarian language (in Bulgarian). Sofia, p. 115.</p><p><a href="#21" id="r21">21.</a> K. Mirchev. 1932. On some traces of nasalism in the central Bulgarian dialects (in Bulgarian). <i>Macedonian Review</i> <b>4</b>:91-101.</p><p><a href="#22" id="r22">22.</a> A. Popstoilov. 1900. A visit to Zarovo and Visoka (in Bulgarian). <i>Bulgarian Collection</i> <b>7</b>:632-649.</p><p><a href="#23" id="r23">23.</a> A. Popstoilov. 1910. A field trip in Bulgarian dialectology (in Bulgarian). <i>Bulgarian Collection</i> <b>17</b>:217-224.</p><p><a href="#24" id="r24">24.</a> This issue was addressed by St. Romanski. Alleged remnants of end Yer in a Bulgarian dialect in Macedonia (in Bulgarian). <i>Macedonian Review</i>. <b>3</b>(1):23-32.</p><p><a href="#25" id="r25">25</a> B. Shklifov. 1973. The Kostur dialect (in Bulgarian). In: Compendium of Bulgarian dialectology, Sofia, <b>8</b>:31.</p><p><a href="#26" id="r26">26.</a> B. Tsonev. 1984. History of Bulgarian languge (in Bulgarian), Sofia, Vol. 2, p. 417</p><p><a href="#27" id="r27">27.</a> B. Shklifov. 1995. Problems of Bulgarian dialectal and historical phonetics with a view to the Macedonian dialects (in Bulgarian). Sofia, p. 67</p><p><a href="#28" id="r28">28.</a> E. Hristova. 1999. Remnants of decomposed nasalism in a remote south-western Bulgarian dialect in Albania. (in Bulgarian). <i>Macedonian Review</i>. 1:61-66</p><p><a href="#29" id="r29">29.</a> Y. Ivanov. 1997. Bulgarian dialectology, Plovdiv (in Bulgarian)</p><p><a href="#30" id="r30">30.</a> L. Miletich. 1906. Phonetic traits of Pomak dialects around Chepino. Periodical Journal. <b>66</b> (6) (in Bulgarian)</p><p><a href="#31" id="r31">31.</a> Labov,W. Principles of Linguistic Change. Blackwell, 1994</p><p><a href="#32" id="r32">32.</a> Vl. Zhobov. 2004. The sounds of Bulgarian language, Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Science (in Bulgarian)</p><p><a href="#33" id="r33">33.</a> St. Kabasanov. 1963. One ancient Bulgarian dialect: the Tihomir dialect, Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Science (in Bulgarian)</p><p><a href="#34" id="r34">34.</a> Bl. Shklifov. 1995. Problems of the Bulgarian dialectal and historical phonetics with respect to the Macedonian dialects, Sofia (in Bulgarian)</p>
Lyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.com9