Talk:Church Slavonic language
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
zdravstvuyte, Monedula, et. al!
and, please excuse the latin letters!
This is a fascinating article!
But, it also raises some fascinating questions!
So, tell us, Did this Church Slavonic Language (CSL) completely displace the Old Church Slavonic (OCS) that the Russians recieved from Kiev? If so, when? Did the two exist simultaneously--always?--never?--for a while?
- The change was rather gradual, and the Church Slavonic changed considerably through the centuries. So Old Church Slavonic and modern Church Slavonic never coexisted, but rather the former gradually changed into the latter. — Monedula 22:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Scholars find several modern variants of OCS due its spread. Isn't this CSL the Russian recension of OCS--called "CSL" in Russia?
- Yes, this article is about the Russian recension of CSL (not OSC!), although there have been many others recensions of CSL. — Monedula 22:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Did CSL EVOLVE into Russian? Even if it continued say, in worship once a distinct Russian was evident? And if it was, wouldn't it be a kind of proto-Russian, as opposed to the original language of the East Slavs/Rus' in general ("Rusian/Old Ruthenian/Old Russian")? And when did these events occur?
- No, CSL did NOT evolve into Russian. CSL is a South Slavic language, whereas Russian and Old Russian are East Slavic languages — so there are quite characteristic differences between them. — Monedula 22:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
And when did OCS and CSL cease to be generally intelligible to the average Russian speaker?
Let us know!
Spasiba! Genyo 17:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I trimmed the following phrase until clarification, because as it was, it is very confusing for non-Russian speakers.
- The letter е [je] is never pronounced as ё [jo]. Compare Church Slavonic and Russian words: небо/нёбо, одежда/одёжа.
Two things are mixed into one basket here.
- First, the lazy Soviet orthography introduced a habit to omit the diacritic in the ё [jo] turning it into е [je]; e.g., Khrushchev is in fact Khrushchyov, Chebyshev is Chebyshov, and (probably no one remembers this) Brezhnev was Brezhnyov when he was politruk during WWII. (Probably to misguide imperialist spies, as it was done with Baikonur Cosmodrome :-).)
- Second, in the course of evolution Russian phonetics was changed by replacing unstressed word endings with je into stressed endings with jo; e.g., priidem ((we) will come) -> pridyom, but the latter is "lazily" written as pridem.
Therefore an untrained person when reading a church text has an urge to read priidyom instead of priidem. (note: I hope Monedula will add Cyrillics in the above examples (and removes this note).) Mikkalai 18:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The fact is, the Church Slavonic language was not a widely spoken language — it was tought in schools, and students were urged to pronounce words exactly as they are written. So Church Slavonic pronunciation has its own tradition. — Monedula 23:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Church Slavonic was also used as a liturgical and literary language in other orthodox countries - Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia - until it was replaced by national languages.
You are probably confusing Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic. Mikkalai
- No, it was correct. Old Church Slavonic as such ceased to exist in the 11th century. After that, all its variations and descendants are called simply Church Slavonic. — Monedula 23:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was not careful in reading the sentence: I didn't pay attention to the word "literary " . But IMO it is still incorrect in a sense that it is NOT completely replaced as a liturgical. But I don't know to what extent it is used in Russian church. Can you clarify the discussed phrase in this respect? Mikkalai 23:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Church Slavonic partially remained as a liturgical language. I'm from Poland. I don't really know how about the current liturgical use in other countries. I only know that in the Polish Orthodox Church the basic liturgical language is Polish. Nevertheless, some religious songs (sung during religious ceremonies) are in Church Slavonic, so Church Slavonic is still used by orthodox people in Poland. One of my friends is orthodox, I can ask her for more details, if you'd like me to. Boraczek 08:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I returned the article to "Slavonic" from "Slavic". I have never heard this language called "Church Slavic" in English. Every single standard (print) reference I have ever seen, every Orthodox priest I have ever spoken to, every Uniate clergyman and cantor I know -- and there have been several of the latter in my family -- call it "Slavonic". The edit comment for the original change was incorrect in this context anyway. "Slavonic" as the name for this language is never taken as referring to the region in Croatia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- In the academy, this is a matter of British vs. American usage, with the former preferring "Slavonic" and the latter "Slavic". If the article is written according to American orthography and punctuation norms, it should be at "Slavic". Yes, in some eccesiastical contexts you'll see "Slavonic", but I'd prefer the article focus on the linguistic aspects, not liturgical use. CRCulver 01:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
How comprehensible are the words of e.g. a Slavonic Liturgy for a modern Slav who has not specifically studied Slavonic? -- 220.127.116.11 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is an important and interesting question. Would a person who speaks e.g. Russian be able to understand Church Slavonic? Maybe someone could provide a few sample phrases in Russian and Church Slavonic so that we could get an impression of how strong the differences are? Joreberg (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Note that Church Slavonic does not mean Russian Church Slavonic, and it certainly does not mean Orthodoxy+Cyrillic. The fact that Russian Church Slavonic eventually came to supersede basically all the other local Orthodox Church Slavonic norms does not invalidate their individual centuries-old development, tradition and attested corpus. It would be advisable to separate individual Church Slavonic traditions in the L3 ===X recension=== sections, and if they grow too large, create individual articles like Russian Church Slavonic, Bulgarian Church Slavonic etc. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)