Moscow Sretenskaya Theological Academy

A

Abie

- immediately, right away

Az

- I

Akathist

(“unsaddled”) - prayer for which one does not sit

Alleluia

- “praise God”

Amen

- truly, truly so

Amozhe

- Where

Antiphon

- a chant performed by two choirs alternately

More

- if, although, whether

Yesterday

- If

It's too bad

- if

Top of page

Church Slavonic language and past existence

About the verb to be

in Russian and Church Slavonic they speak primarily as a service, auxiliary - not having independent lexical semantics and playing exclusively grammatical roles.

Indeed, this unit is involved in the formation of many analytical (composite) forms as a conjugated component. That is, from it - in the absence of a subject as an exponent of the subject, which is usual for the Church Slavonic language - you can find out what person we are talking about (about the speaker, the interlocutor or not participating in the speech), as well as about the number (singular, plural, dual), in the latter case - also about gender (male, female, neuter): I will

write
- 1 l. units composite bud.time; Yes,
they wrote
- 2 liters. plural all kinds of perfect; bya-st
and in the basis> / be-st
and
in the basis> wrote - 2-3 l.
dv.h. m.r. plusquaperfect; bykhov e
in inflection> wrote - 1 l. dv.h. and. and w.r. subjunctive mood.

However, do not forget that the verb to be

, like any other word in the language, has a lexical meaning that is capable of its full manifestation: “to be, to exist, to become, to happen, to come, to come, to be, to come true, to happen, to follow”; “to exist, to exist, to occur, to happen, to come”[1].

No matter how banal it may sound, the semantics of the word in question comes down to beingness, existence. It shows itself especially prominently if the verb is

used in various forms of the past tense.

Church Slavonic texts are permeated through and through with very similar word forms - bykhъ, bekhъ in the basis > etc., the difference between which is almost impossible for a speaker of the modern Russian language to catch, because the system of past tenses was cut down and instead of four members (aorist, imperfect, perfect, plusquaperfect) there was only one left - the perfect without the conjugated connective of being.

However, the fact that the units listed above, although difficult to differentiate, differ from each other in lexical and, most importantly, grammatical semantics, does not raise any doubt.

This means that the past tense forms of the verb to be

need a detailed analysis, the positive results of which must be used in the theoretical and applied study of the Church Slavonic language.

Unfortunately, in the available textbooks on this discipline, this issue is either not covered at all, or is presented in a complex or, on the contrary, schematic way: “With all the variety of forms of the verb to be

in past tenses into Russian this verb is usually translated into one of four forms of the past tense:
was, was, was, were
".[2]

So, remembering that action in the past is indicated in Church Slavonic in different ways, we can name four (!)

basic forms from the existential verb.

1. Classical aorist.

This form is formed by adding aorist endings to the aorist stem.

The stem of the aorist is the stem of the infinitive, which is obtained by cutting off the formative suffix -ti

:
would
be.

Based on specific lexical semantics, grammatical features, the meaning of the verb to be

in the aorist form can be described as follows:
an existential action occurred in the past, was characterized by disposability, speed and uniqueness, i.e.
there is a bright, clear limit of action. It is no coincidence that aorist semantics is directly related to the perfect form of verbs - where the limit of action is reached and, therefore, the action is completed and exhausted.

And often similar formations from the verb to be

it is necessary to translate not through
was, were
- nesov.v., but rather through
steel, steel
- nesov.v. and so on.

Therefore, the very subtle remark of A.V. is applicable to the forms under consideration. Ushkova: “The verb to be

, which itself denotes
a state
(hereinafter highlighted by A.V. Ushkov - L.M.), through the aorist form acquires the meaning of
the event
“[3].

For example: Or seeing someone else’s kindness, and being wounded by it in the heart

(Prayers for those coming to sleep, prayer 3, to the Holy Spirit):
bykh
- 1 l.
units - “Or seeing someone else’s kindness, and I was
wounded by it (
vulnered
- owl) in my heart.”

The Pharisee answered them: food and you are

?
(John: 7, 47): quickly
- 2 l.
plural - “Therefore, the Pharisees answered them: were you also deceived
(
deceived
- Sov.v.)?”

Today the heavens rejoice and the earth rejoices, as if it were seen

Thy procession, O God
(Prayers for the Presentation of the Lord, prayer 1, to the Lord Jesus Christ): bysha
- 3 l.
plural - “Now the heavens rejoice and the earth rejoices, because, O God, Your processions have become
visible.”

2. Classical imperfect.

This type of past tense is produced from an imperfect stem, which is formed by imperfect inflections.

The basis of the imperfect in the Church Slavonic language is a contracted unit: a truncated base of the infinitive + the formative suffix -я - bya-

.

Model of morphological meaning of the imperfect of the verb to be

next:
the action happened in the past many times, for a long time, with repetitions, i.e.
There is no duration limit at all .

In other words, the type of past tense in question is associated with the imperfective aspect.

Consequently, until the moment of speech, the event is in development and has not yet come to its logical end; there is a certain progression, periodicity. Because of this feature in grammatical semantics, some experts call the imperfect tense tense

.

For example: Even more in the loins of my father

, when you shit him Melchizedek
(Heb.: 7, 10): byashe
- 3 l.
units “For he was
still in his father’s loins when Melchizedek met him.

Byahu

but there are netsyi ellini from those who came
(John: 12, 20): byahu
- 3 l.
plural - “Some of those who came were
Hellenes.”

From the examples it is clear that the stay in the loins is long, and belonging to the Hellenes is permanent.

3. Aorist in a special imperfective form.

It represents a compound of a stem, which is similar to the imperfect - be

—
, — and standard aorist endings.

Despite the fact that such forms are already found in Old Church Slavonic monuments, there is no doubt: they appeared later than the usual aorist and imperfect, for they constitute an alloy of them.

This structural syncretism is naturally reflected in lexical and grammatical semantics.

Aorist from the verb to be

in a special imperfective form denotes
a present action that occurred in the past many times, for a long time, and was repeated
.

Those. the listed components coincide with the classical imperfect, since they are determined by the nature of the stem, where, as is known, lexical semantics is concentrated. But in grammar, the leading role is played by endings - regular indicators of a general formalized meaning, independent of the denoted denotation and signification (subject and concept).

Hence the amendment: the action does not seem to be completed, but there is a certain, albeit very vague, edge, horizon

- and these are already aorist signs.

The context helps to understand the difference between the standard aorist and its later modification - lexical means, which in this case signal a certain transitivity of the existential action, its borderline character: between continuation and limit, duration and disposability.

For example: He, being youthful in spirit, but old in body, was righteous

and pious
(Akathist to the Presentation of the Lord, kontakion 5): be
- 3 l.
units - “He, being a young spirit, having aged in body, was
righteous and pious.”

Whenever rabbi best

sin, free
beste
from the truth:
beste
- 2 l.
plural - “Because while you were
slaves to sin, you
were
free from the truth.”

She left us, but didn’t run away

from us:
besha
- 3 l. plural - “They came out of us, but were not of us” (1 John: 2, 19).

If we comment on these examples, paying attention not only to the verb forms, but also to the lexical semantics of neighboring words, then the indicated fusion will reveal itself in full.

So, on the one hand, everywhere there is an indication of the duration of the state of righteousness and piety; slave of sin, free

.
On the other hand, it is limited: he is righteous and pious // having aged in body;
free beste from the truth // always slave beste and vice versa.

In the third quotation there are two aorist forms next to each other. One died

- classical, which denotes a one-act action, absolutely completed until the moment of speech.
The indicated form dictates a second one - homogeneous to it, which must be an aorist. But at the same time, the action, or rather the state, denoted by besha
, is distinguished by its duration, its “flow”.

The considered examples do not allow us to fully share the opinion that “ be

expresses a state in general, without indicating a limit of duration.”[4]

4. Analogous aorist.

We are talking about a very common unit for Church Slavonic texts : byst

- 3 liter form. units

It is formed by superimposing the classical aorist form on the present tense form of 3 l. singular: would + is = would be

.

Just like the aorist in a special imperfective form, the analogous aorist reflects the history of the Church Slavonic language, for it appears in the 13th-14th centuries and is in line with the radical restructuring of Old Russian morphology.

Representing the general type of grammatical meaning in this case is a difficult task, but doable. Of course, we must proceed from the etymological heterogeneity of both semantics and construction - from the closure of two chronological layers: the present and the past.

Because _

- aorist form, then
the action happened once in the past and has no continuation, i.e.
it is strictly limited, at the same time, this - already completed - existing action is important for the present. Which means, get

more than all other types of aorist, the translation
“became, became, became, became”
.

But the significance of this existential action cannot be interpreted only purely grammatically. Rather, we need to talk about a certain extra-linguistic, extra-textual role, principledness, markedness, and in other cases - about symbolism (Christian, Orthodox, liturgical, general historical, etc., etc.).

For example: Revenge of the frontal paradise will soon be - “The place of execution // was (became)

paradise."

Be

a man was sent from God, his name is John
(John: 1, 6) - “ was
sent from God, //
his name is John
”:

By faith Moses was born hidden

three months from his fathers
(Heb.: 11, 23) - “When Moses

he was
for three months .”

It seems that the indicated shade of grammatical meaning is also connected with the fact that the analogous aorist is not used in plural forms. and dv.ch., as well as in certain persons - 1 and 2 l.. The function of the form is quick

- name a unique, single action, attributing it to a person or object that is not included in a specific communication - i.e. to 3 l.

This circumstance, in turn, explains the possibility of translating an analogous aorist with a verb in an impersonal form - “it was, happened”

.

For example: And be

Peter, visiting everyone, also came to the saints living in Lydda
(Acts: 9, 32) - “And it happened
to Peter, visiting everyone, to come also to the saints living in Lydda.”

In conclusion, it is necessary to make a reservation: the proposed models of grammatical meanings are of a generalized nature and are based exclusively on Church Slavonic contexts.

Study of past tense forms from the verb to be

helps to understand how the rich formal-grammatical potential of a word is connected to its denotative and conceptual semantics, as a result of which a most fertile linguistic layer is formed that cannot be rudely torn off. On the contrary, it must be carefully removed when reading, interpreting and translating Church Slavonic texts.

[1]Archpriest Georgy Dyachenko

. Complete Church Slavonic dictionary. M., 1996. P. 62-63; Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. In four volumes. Ed. D.N. Ushakova. Volume 1. Stlb. 214.

[2]Pletneva A. A.

, Kravetsky A.G. Church Slavonic language. M., 2001. P. 40.

[3]A short textbook of the Church Slavonic language // Sotnitsy. M., 2002. P. 1091.

[4]Hieromonk Alipy (Gamanovich)

Grammar of the Church Slavonic language. M., 1991. P. 221.