326 Adžar edition - Alexander
source

1:	[...] běše gradъ velikъ vъ anъtolistěi zemli na měsъtě skamanъdrě
2:	imaše *mź* vratъ
3:	isxoždaše iz nego voe *o* stegovъ
4:	i vъ stegu běše po *z* sъtъ voe
5:	i tъ grad zověše se troatъ
6:	i běše vъ nem crъ velikъ źělo
7:	ime emu běše amorъ crъ
8:	i vъ edinu noštъ vidě crъ vъ sně gde rodi crca ego
	glavnu ogněnu	If Adžar editor used an Odessa-like source, he corrected this sentence (in Odessa we have a sg.inst glavnoju ognьnoju).
9:	i zapali grad trojatъ
10:	i izgorě vъsъ
11:	i vъ to vrěme
	imušti crca ego vъ črěvě děte	The irregular use of participles as roots of main clauses (or, possibly, the use of conjunction i to mark subordinate clauses) is common in Odessa/Veles too, but Odessa has here a 3sg.impf iměaše.
12:	da egda rodi bist ženъski polъ
13:	i uboja se crъ ot sъna
14:	da egda bist *ź* mcъ otročetu i vъloži ego crъ vъ stlъpъ kamenъ
15:	i sъ nim vъloži *g* ženi němi da služitъ emu
16:	i zaprěti im crъ velъmi da ne približit se ništo kъ stlъpu da ne slišitъ otroče glsa nikoi nъ^ němo da vъzrastetъ
17:	i bist dvca vъ stlъpě za *ei* lět
18:	da egda bouděše vъsxod slncu ona bo staněše protivu slncu
19:	i prozorom
	gljušte po	The editor seems to have focused a little less, confusing the form of the main verb. Odessa: prozorom gledajušti glaše
	edino rěči ot vъsěx ezikъ	The ending is corrupted - Odessa: po reči edinoi
20:	crъ amorъ čjuždaše se i vъsi bolěre
21:	poneže ne razuměxu čto gljetъ
22:	i sъbra crъ po člku ot vъsěx ezikъ
23:	i privede xi kъ stlъpu ideže běše otrokovica
24:	i rče im
25:	poslušaite
26:	da kto čto čjuetъ ta bo zapisuite
27:	ono bo zapisaxu kto čto bě čjulъ i razumělъ
28:	da egda ona prěsta glati sъnesoše pisanie prěd cra
29:	i
	sъstavišu rěčъ	The 3pl.aor ending -šu is unexpected - usual reflexes are -še (Resava), -ša (Ruthenian) or -šę (OCS/Tarnovo). If Adžar editor used a source with Tarnovo orthography, the protograph may have had a big jus, as these get often confused. Both Bucharest and Petersburg have the regular small jus here (sъstavišę), but in the preceding sentence, Bucharest has sъnesošǫ.
30:	i obrětoše	The unexpected "where" (gde) reflects the use of pronoun deto in later varieties.
	gde mlit se bu za oca svoego	The use of gde for 'that' seems to reflect the general relative marker deto of damaskini.
31:	glje	While a participle seems to pass here better than 3sg.prs gletь used in Odessa, a f.sg form (like *gl-ušti) would be expected for a female speaker.
32:	gi ne postavi emu grěxa
33:	poneže
	lъdъ jest	The use of root jer is curious, as the /u/ in lud (as it is in modern BG and written also in Odessa) is inherited from OCS, it does not reflect a nasal.
34:	i ne věst čto tvoritъ
35:	i bžie povělěnie ne vъzmožno est prětvoriti
36:	a sie eže vidě sъnъ to xoštetъ sъtvoriti bratъ moi
37:	jest nnja vъ črěve mtri moei crci
38:	i xoštetъ roditi se
39:	da egda rodi se otroče bist mužъski polъ
40:	i pověle crъ
41:	i otnesoše ego vъ goru pustu
42:	i povrъgoše ego
43:	i obrěte ego mečъka iže běše izъgubila štenъce svoe ot lovъcъ
44:	i podemši mečъka otroče
45:	i vъsъxrani ego za *g* lětъ donъdeže prišъd lovъci
46:	i oubišu mečъku
47:	a otroče emъše
48:	i privedoše eg prěd cra	Theoretically, we could analyze this sentence as the main clause of the preceding one. As above, the conjunction i (which is also in Odessa ed.) would be added on the basis of Greek. Preceding sentences with participles as main verbs may have been similarly separated from a more complex sentence.
49:	i poznavъ ego crъ rče
50:	se jest snъ moi
51:	i narče ime emu aleѯandrъ sirěč obrětenъ
52:	a iže bist vъ stlъpě dvca i izvedošu ju
53:	i narekoše ime ei magъdona sirěčъ prěmudra
54:	dъšti ego bě lěpa i prěmudra źělo pače vъsěx veliko
55:	i napisa muža na koni
56:	i prixoždaxu ot inix
	crexъ	The sentence shows a case discord: wt expects a gen, which we have in the adjective, but the noun is clearly a sg.loc (Odessa: iněx cri, Bucharest/Petersburg: inyx carei, Sofia: inix crь).
57:	xotexu ju poeti sebě crcu
58:	ona že glaše
59:	ašte ne viždu muža na
	konъ jazdešta jakože azъ pisax to ne poimu sebě muža	Expected sg.loc (as above).
60:	i tako sěděše ne
	xotěše	Here a finite form actually replaces a rather more expected participle, cf. Odessa: i tako vъsex ne xotešte (where it does not make more sense after an i, as discussed above; cf. Sofia: i tako vъsex ne xotěše).
61:	i vъ edinъ dnъ sědešti ei na větrъnicě	Having a dative absolute as subject, the sentence was clearly subordinate to the following one, like in Odessa text. In this edition, the sentences are separated by an additional i.
62:	i vidě muža vъzъ more jazdešta *v* prъprišta města
63:	i rče kъ ocu svoemu cru
64:	gi toi mně^ budetъ mužъ
65:	nъ^ pusti
66:	i prizovi ego
67:	i posla crъ
68:	i
	prizovaše ego	A 3sg form would be more fitting into the context, but not in an imperfect.
69:	i
	vědě crъ sarakina	Likely a scribal error, cf. Odessa: i vъnide crь, Petersburg: i vidě crь sarakinina
70:	i počjudi se źělo
71:	i rče emu
72:	pověždъ mi brate ot kudu
	grediši ili čto išteši	Odessa: ot kudu esi; Bucharest/Petersburg/Sofia: kamo ideši 'where do you go'
73:	sarakinenъ rče
74:	azъ esmъ sulъtanъ crъ vъsei zemli sarakinskoi
75:	i xrabrostiju
	moeju nikto ne imatъ	A sg.acc (Odessa: xrábrostь moju) would be expected.
76:	i ištu ženu da poimu sebě lěpu i mudru pače vъsěx veliko
77:	poneže esmъ vъ sъně takovu vidělъ
78:	da ašte gde znaeši pověždъ mi	The syntax after the da (which is itself used likely with the meaning 'and' here) sounds somewhat non-Slavic. Odessa variant is slightly more comprehensible: da ašte znaete gde povědite mně
79:	togda
	magъdona izvedoše emu	A sg.acc (Odessa: magdonu) would be expected.
80:	i
	viděvъ sultanъ	Odessa: i vide ju sul'tan i pozna ju
81:	i poznavъ ju
82:	i rče	Although Adžar ed. has more conjunctions, the redundant third conjunction here (expecting *i viděvь Sultanь i poznavь ju, reče) is already present in Odessa ed.
83:	vъ istinu siju viděxъ vъ sъně
84:	i magъdona vidě pisanie svoe
85:	i
	poznavъ ego	The participle is clearly used as a root, as if it was a finite past tense form (also the gender does not pass to Magdona - a *poznavši would be expected).
86:	i poem ju sulъtanъ crъ
87:	i otvede vъ sarakiju veliku
88:	aleѯandrъ že raste vъ domu oca svoego
89:	i bist mužъ ratъnikъ i krěpkъ źělo i crъ vъsěm elinom
90:	i běše lěpota ego velia źělo
91:	i povelě vlъxvom svoim
92:	i rče
93:	ašte mi izъobrěštetъ ženu lěpu i mudru pače vъsěx veliko to azъ vam sъtvoru mnoga dobra
94:	vlъxъvi sъ vlъšъbъstvom svoim
	obišъdšim vъsu zemlju	Veles: obidoše
95:	i obrětoše ženu vъ
	mourei siona cra crcu imajušti lěpotu	Morea - Latin name of Peloponese.
	velia źělo	A sg.acc (Veles: veliku krasotu) would be expected.
96:	ime ei běše giluda
97:	i privedoše ju kъ aleѯanъdru	The sentence does not make sense here from the point of view of the narrative - maybe a scribal error. The original verb seems to be in Veles ed.: pridoše kь Aleѯandru 'they came (back) to Alexander'. On the other hand, Veles ed. does not contain the following three sentences, describing the magical means, by which the lovers meet at first. Veles ed. mentions their meetings in dream only first when Alexander comes to Paleopol.
98:	i povědaše emu
99:	togda paki rče vlъxvom svoim	Odessa: rče vlьxvom svoim: sьberete me jako vъ sně sь neju da vimь drug druga. vlьxvi vlьxovьstvomь svoim sьbiraxu ix kata nošti; Veles: togda paky rče vlьxvom svoim. i ljubiše se za *v* lět toliko veliko kat nošti
100:	sъberěte me vъ sъně sъ neju da vidimъ drugъ druga
101:	i
	sъbravъše ix vlъxъvi	The gender of the wizards is not clear from the context. Pl.dat vlьxvom would imply an o-stem, but the shape of the participle indicates a f.pl instead. The use of a participle is unexpected anyway (Odessa: sьbiraxu).
	noštiju vъ sъně	Adžar editor curiously uses an adverbial based on old sg.inst to express 'each night'. The form is preserved in some dialects until today. Odessa: kata nošti; Petersburg: po vъsę nošti.
102:	i toliko
	ljublěxu se źělo za *v* lětъ eliko	I guess the replacement of dual forms is already sufficiently commented in older versions.
	dnju želaxu večeru biti	Adverbial sg.inst with a generalized f.sg ending? Differs from previous versions (Petersburg: vъ dnïi, Veles: vь dni).
103:	da jako vъ sъně zgovorěsta se tako i vъ dni tvoraxu
104:	aleѯandrъ sъtvori se jako edinъ ot kupъcъ
105:	i priide vъ paliopolъ sъ korabъmi kъ sionu cru
106:	i nosešte mnogo iměnia	The conjunction is not in Odessa and other versions.
107:	i darova siona cra
108:	i sionъ crъ darova togъ
109:	i
	sъtvorista se bratia	CS pl.aor: 1. -xově, 2. -sta, 3. -ste (Lunt 2001:102). 3dl.aor -sta (also attested in Kiev d.) likely reflects an analogical levelling preceding the loss of distinctive dual.
110:	a giluda crca sъ aleѯandrom vъsegda bě po običaju
111:	da egda gostěsta se ona sěděše pri
	aleѯandra	The sg.gen/acc does actually make sense, if pri would have a directional meaning, and the verb an iterative one (e.g. tja sjadaše pri nego 'she was sitting herself next to him'). The two older versions (Veles: pri+ alѯandrwm; Odessa: sъ aleѯandromь) seem to imply a static meaning (even if Veles ed. uses a wrong/unexpected case after pri).
112:	sionu
	smějaše se jako aleѯanъdrova žena bě	Adžar editor either had sense of humor or did not understand the sentence. The verb in other versions (Veles: mněše) implies Sion as the subject of the sentence.
113:	da egda otxoždaše sionъ vъ dom svoi glaše crci svoei
114:	o velie čjudo o sem
115:	u sego kupъca sia žena veliku priliku imatъ kъ nemu jakъ	Does not really make sense in the narrative. Adžar ed. seems to be copying a source similar to Veles. The original is likely better reflected in Odessa ed.: ou sego kup'ca žena jest velïku tvoju priliku nosïtь
	togova jest žena	This clause is not found in other versions. The possessive togova is strange in CS (where simply a pronoun like togo or ego or a dat would be used), resembling the modern poss.adj. negov.
116:	togda igiluda gnevaše se
117:	i glaše emu
118:	počto mene prilagaeši k tomu
119:	ašte azъ tako esmъ to i ti priličenъ esi tomu kupъcu
120:	onъ paki aleѯandra zověše na gosti
121:	i ona tu bě
122:	i tako tvorěsta za *ź* mcъ gogda ou togo kogъda ou togo	The strange sequence gogda ou+ togo+ kogda ou+ togo goes likely back to a source of the Odessa type: i ou togo i ou togo wbretaše+ s(ę). i vъ ina ruxa prěměnjaše+ s(ę)
123:	aleѯandrъ obrětaše se vъ inъnaja ruxa prěměnujušte se
124:	i imaše bo aleѯandrъ vъ korabi svoem manъѳiju sъ zlatom i biserom i kameniem mnogocěnnim
	oukrašennaa	A sg.acc would be expected (Veles: ukrašenuju).
125:	čjuvъši bo igiluda crca jako prodajuetъ aleѯandrъ vъ korabi svoem manѳiju
126:	sionъ crъ vъně izъ
	grad izъšъlъ běše	Unlike the original phrase in Veles (izvъn grad'), here a sg.gen would be expectable.
127:	i ne bě tou	The sentence is not in Veles.
128:	giluda že vъstavъši sъ malo rabъmi
129:	i priide vъ korablъ kъ aleѯandru viděti manѳiju	Adžar editor seems to reconstruct the complex sentence, broken by conjunctions and aorists in Veles ed.: igulida crca. vьstavši sь+ ma_lo rabmi. i+ prišьd vь+ korabь. i vide mentïjú
130:	aleѯandrъ povělě vъzdvigъnuti větrila korabem	The infinitive, again, reflects a finite aorist in Veles ed.
131:	i otnesoše giludu crcu
132:	i privedoše ju vъ veliki grad trojadъ
133:	togda grad potrese źělo
134:	amorъ crъ otcъ ego rče
135:	vъ istinu sъbi se sъnъ moi
	iže viděxъ glavnu ogněnu	Adžar copies here a Veles-like source. Something like ideže 'where' or vъ nemže would be expected. Perhaps Odessa is closer to the original: sьvrьši+ se sьnь moi eže videx prěžde
136:	sionъ crъ osta vъ pečali i vъ
	poruganiem velikom źělo	Maybe copying the adjectival sg.loc ending, the sg.inst is unexpected after v. In the Veles text (porugani veliko), the second word is likely an adverb.
137:	i pusti kъ iogu cru bratu svoemu ou vasanъ grad
138:	ioga crъ posla kъ svoim šurem vъ xanaonъ i vъ xalъdei i vъ mesopotamiju i vъ	The form resembles the use of short article in some modern dialects, e.g. diakona 'the Deacon'. It is possible that in the original Sion indeed sent his brother to Canaan to collect his brothers in law, but the following word is not congruent with it anyway. Also Odessa and other versions have a sg.nom (i.e. iogь posla) here.
	perъsix i vъ tarъsisъ	Could be perhaps analyzed as a pl.gen or loc, but here the editor likely confused the ending (Veles: persis).
139:	mesopotamsti že crie i xanaonъsti i persidsti i tarsidsti sъbraše se vъsěx cri *di*
140:	i priidoše na aleѯanъdra cra i na veliki grad trojatъ	Here, an Odessa-like source seems to be followed. Veles: i+ pridoše kь+ siwnu crou
141:	i obisědoše krěpko
142:	i rъvaše ego za *zi* lětъ
143:	i ne možaxu emu čto sъtvoriti ot množetva poljema
144:	i běše edinъ mužъ imenem pamida pikerъni ioga
	crvъ	Another curious construction of possessives using derivation - other versions have sg.gen forms here. In Eight Parts of Speech, an early CS grammar from 14th c., the sg.gen row shows derivational affixes -ov- and -in-, which, indeed, fulfill a similar function as Greek genitives, i.e. marking of possessors.
145:	i sъtvori izarъ igrati
146:	da egda naučiše se vъse voe izara igrati togda že tъi pamida sъtvori i tavliju
	jako da sebě soutъ a ne	Odessa: jako da srьdce sę bolerě igrajušte
	opoi	Veles: o polem
147:	paki tъžde pamida iskova konja mědъna velika źělo
148:	i vъlěze vъ konja mědnago sionъ crъ
149:	i sъ nim vъlězoše *l* dobri i xrabri voe
150:	a mědni konъ matanъski i xoždaše
151:	i paki tъžde pamida podkovavъ kone naopako petalami
152:	i naredi vъse voiske
153:	i sъtvori voivod *t* dobrix
154:	i vъ
	noštъ otide	Here, the sg.acc actually would not be expected (unless used figuratively).
155:	i sъkri ix pamida zad
	gradom	Veles: i sьkriše se za gradь
156:	a na outria pade dalečъ ot
	grad	Veles editor writes grad city usually shortened, i.e. as гра with a д above. The sg.nom is marked with an additional jer after the a, as here, while sg.gen/acc is actually unmarked. This curious orthographic distinction is not reflected in Adžar, which uses the unmarked form both on positions of an expected nom and gen (as here, following ot).
157:	a mědni konъ ostaviše na okolište
158:	i povelě aleѯandrъ vъvesti
	mědъni konъ vъ grad	While the animacy status of medni kon is unclear, Veles uses, even if a bit corrupted, a sg.gen/acc medngo kona.
159:	togda izide is konja mědъnago sionъ crъ i sъ nim *l* voe dobri i xrabri
160:	i exou gradu vratъ donъdeže i mapida priide sъ množestvom voe
161:	i priexu veliki grad trojadъ
162:	i razorišu i rasikopašu ego
163:	gljušte
164:	istъštaite istъštaite do
	osnovanie zemli	A sg.gen would be expected after a do. This is found also in Veles, other versions have do konca 'until the end'.
165:	aleѯandr že poem ženu svoju gilidu crcu
166:	i vъ nošti iz grad izide
167:	i poběgnuvъ kъ soultanu cru zetu svoemu vъ sakiju
168:	da jako běše gněvъ bžii na siona cra
169:	da egda vъzvrati se sъ svoimi voi vъ dom svoi ni edinъ že ot nix ne obrěte ženъ
	svoi	A pl.acc would be expected (Veles: ženy svoe), also the case is not congruent (pl.gen+pl.nom)
170:	nъ tъkъmo pousti dove
	ix obrětaxu	Object doubling in a 17th c. CS text?
171:	oni bo běxu běžali sъ rabъmi svoimi
172:	aleѯandrъ vъzъdviže soulъtana crě i vъsu sarakiju
173:	i izbi vъse cre xanaonъskie i mesopotamistie i xalъdeiskie i tarъsiskie i perъsiskie
174:	i na siona crě priide vъ morei grad
175:	i porazi ego
176:	takožde i na ioga crě brata ego priide
177:	porazi ego
178:	i razori veliki grad vasanъ
179:	i
	těx	The object is omitted (zemlu in Veles), but it would seem plausible in modern BG, where těx could denote a 3pl.acc pronoun.
	prěexu sarakinjane	Here, the use of 3pl.impf on a perfective verb does not have an iterative sense like usually in CS, but rather shows the generalization of the ending for aorist tense - as commonly attested by damaskini. Veles has a 3sg.aor vъzet, but Odessa has a formal impf (vъzexu) too.
180:	aleѯandrъ smiri se sъ rabi sionъskimi
	eže běxu běžali sъ gospždami svoimi iže běxu im ženi	Something like "servants of warriors of Sion" would be expected, so it is not clear whose wives are being driven away. The complicated double subordination is not in Veles, so Adžar ed. seems to follow the Odessa-type here: i smïri+ se aleѯan'drь sь rabi sïwn'skimi. eže bexu bežali sь ženami detemi.
181:	aleѯanъdrъ stojaše vъ
	paliopolъ	Sg.loc expected (Veles has vь paleopoli).
182:	a sionъ crъ stojaše vъ eleosě
183:	a sultanъ stojaše sъ
	rabimi sionъskimi	The ending alludes to an adjectival pl.inst, but on a noun it it looks just weird.
184:	bijaxu se rabi sъ
	gsnъmi svoimi	While the form is partly lost in abbreviation, the -n- is unexpected in pl.inst (Odessa has gospodini, which should be pl.acc?).
185:	poneže im ženi domove ixъ
	napustile	The verb is not in older editions, although looking quite MK to me with its -le ending and auxilla omission.
186:	i toliko běše vъ ti dni tešъki rati eliko tisuštъ mrъtvi givaxu za *i*
	mca na dnъ po tisuštъi	The dual (!) likely reflects the modern use as a "count form" after numbers.
187:	i poraziše vъse crie xananъsti *di*	In Odessa ed., the Persian king somehow survives: i gori wpustyše. i vъse xori. i *gı* cari svenь pěr'skago cra
188:	togda jerslmъ razorišu i iněx gradovъ velikix
	*sil*	The number is corrupted - both *i* '10' and *l* '30' are tenths. This is likely due to a missing conjunction in Veles ed.: gradovь inex *s* *l* voe, maybe denoting '200 other cities (and) 30 warriors' (this, of course, does not make sense - Troas in the beginning boasted an army of 49 000, and ten months of 1000 dead per day would imply even a higher number). Odessa is more clear: i druzex gradovь *sl*, i vьse voi 'and 230 other cities and all warriors'
189:	i voe pogubiše
190:	i xori opustišu
191:	sultanъ že osta i aleѯandrъ i sъ nim *r* ljud
192:	poneže vъsi izbiše se
193:	i vidě aleѯandrъ koliko se zla sъtvori za ednu ženu
194:	i poem mъčъ svoi
195:	i otsěče ženě svoei glavu igiludi crci
	sestri svoei	Struck.
196:	a sam skoči vъ
	mori	Sg.acc expected (Veles: vь more).
197:	bu že našemu slava vъ věki
198:	amin