2021/1, стр. 20 - 35

SOUTH SLAVIC-UKRAINIAN PHONETIC AND GRAPHIC VARIABILITY IN RELIGIOUS MONUMENTS OF THE 14\(^{\text {TH}}\) – 15\(^{\text {TH }}\) CENTURIES

Резюме: As a result of the analysis of liturgical texts of the 14th–15th centuries created in the territory of Ukraine, expressive signs of interaction between the Old Bulgarian graphic and spelling system and the Ukrainian folk speech are recorded. Manifestations of the phonetic and graphic South Slavic-Ukrainian variability are associated with the following linguistic phenomena in the vocalism and consonantism of religious monuments: continuity of the former*ę,*’а and *Q; change of the initial *jе into о; transition of e into o after hushings and ц; reduction of и > ь before iotated vowels; confusion of unstressed и and е; development of sound combinations *tоrt, *tоlt, *tеrt, *tеlt; reflexes of sound combinations ър, ъл, ьр, ьл; hardening of р'; hardness/softness of hushing consonants; dissimilation and simplification of consonants; change of sound combinations *dj, *zdj and *tj, *kt . In the phonetic system of the studied monuments, the interaction of the traditional writing of that time and the local vernacular is observed, in particular, the phonetic features of the North Ukrainian and the South-West Ukrainian dialects are revealed. The study of the language of religious monuments taking into account the results of other research in the field of philology, paleography, theology has undeniable prospects for linguistic interpretation of church books with the definition of local language traditions of the time, their localization as elements of the Slavic written culture, resolving debatable issues regarding the formation, chronology and systematization of the church-written corpus.

Ключови думи: religious monument; variability; phonetic system; the Old Bulgarian language, the Ukrainian dialect influence

Topicality

The period of the 14th – 15th centuries was marked by the active spread of liturgical literature in the territory of Ukraine. The idea of the Church Slavonic basis of religious texts of that time is traditional in the Slavic studies. According to the theory of diglossia common in the Ukrainian scientific studies, two literary and written languages functioned in parallel in Kyivan Rus: The Old Slavonic, which acquired the local Ukrainian phonetic, grammatical, and lexical features under the influence of living language, and the Old Ukrainian, which was based on the vernacular (Uspenskij, 1994, p. 4 – 8; Skab, 2014, p. 45 – 46). The statement about the Old Bulgarian origin of the religious monuments distributed on the territory of Ukraine of this time was quite reasonably expressed by A. Stamenova: “In other Slavic and non-Slavic countries, lists of liturgical and related texts, translated or created in the Old Bulgarian language, are distributed. This is how its editions (derivations, local types) are formed, for example, Moravian, Croatian, Serbian,… Ukrainian, Belarusian, Vlach-Moldavian. They are connected by the common Old Bulgarian language basis, but differ in secondary ethnic local layers as a result of functioning in a foreign language environment” (Stamenova, 2017: 29).

Research sources

There are few religious monuments of the 14th century, marked by the consequences of the military attacks of Batu Khan, the widespread destruction of cultural artifacts in the Ukrainian and adjacent territories. As L. Zhukovska emphasized: “The vast majority of them are written in the Galician-Volyn, Novgorod, Pskov, Rostov-Suzdal, Smolensk-Polotsk language regions… The relatively small number of ancient lists of the Gospels from the southern and eastern regions of Russia, including from Kyiv land is due to the fact that a large number of manuscripts in these areas were lost during the Mongol-Tatar invasion” (Zhukovskaya, 1976). These are primarily such liturgical manuscripts of the 14th century: The Putna Gospel of the 13th – 14th centuries, the Gospel of Verkovich of the 13th – 14th centuries, the Bybelskyi Apostle of the 14th century, the Lutsk Gospel of the 14th century, the Lavryshiv Gospel of the 14th century, the Pandects of Antioch of 1307, the Lutsk Psalter of 1384, the Kyiv Psalter of 1397, the Polycarp's Gospel of 1307, the Panteleimon's Gospel of 1317.

Due to the economic and socio-political development of the Ukrainian lands, the 15th century was characterized by the active formation of centers of book writing. The transition from parchment to a more convenient and cheaper material - paper - contributed to the increase of written literature, its wider penetration into the popular environment. Rich linguistic material is presented in the following written records: Ismaragd of the 15th century, the Kamyanka-Strumyliv Gospel of 1411, the Chetia-Mineya of 1489, the Teachings of Ephraim the Syryn of 1492, the Apostle of the 15th century from the village of Antonivtsi in Kremenets region, the Korolevo Gospel of 1401, the Uzhhorod Half-Uncial of the beginning of the 15th century, the Mukachevo Psalter of the 15th century.

Analysis of research on a scientific problem

These liturgical monuments are an invaluable source for studying the history of language, as the language system is realized in a set of linguistic facts recorded at the same time, in the same place. As a result, they have become the subject of research by many linguists, both in the context of general linguistic reviews – V. Anichenko (Anichjenka, 1966), L. Bulakhovskyi (Bulakhovskyi, 1977), L. Zhukovska (Zhukovskaya, 1959), А. Stamenova (Stamenova, 2017), J. Stradomski (Stradomski, 2014), S. Temchіn (Temchin, 2009) and others; and works on individual linguistic monuments – K. Verdiani (Verdiani, 1954), P. Kopko (Kopko, 1912), V. Nimchuk (Nimchuk, 1997), С. McRobert (McRobert, 2010), P. Popesku (Popesku, 1962), M. Smorąg-Różycka (Smorąg-Różycka, 1999), V. Jagic (Jagic, 1894) and others. However, special attention should be paid to the issue of the South SlavicUkrainian phonetic and graphic variability in these books, which is a significant gap in historical and linguistic studies.

The purpose of our scientific work – based on a thorough analysis of preserved and accessible texts of religious monuments of the \(14^{\text {th }}-15^{\text {th }}\) centuries from the territory of Ukraine to identify examples of the phonetic and graphic South SlavicUkrainian variability, to clarify linguistic phenomena attested in parallel linguistic elements, to analyze linguistic interactions as possible causes of variability.

Presentation of the main material and justification of the research results

Analysis of the problem of the relationship between spelling and pronunciation in religious manuscripts of the \(14^{\text {th }}-15^{\text {th }}\) centuries showed that the history of the transmission of vowels and consonants is complex and contradictory, which is due to the variability of graphemes, phonetic oscillations due to the influence of local speech.

Vocalism

Variable spellings due to irregular use of , transition of the ancient *ę and *Q in pure vowels. In the liturgical texts of the 14th century we find a consistent interchange of the letters ѧ – ѫ, ѫ – ѭ in the Gospel of Verkovich, typical of the Old Bulgarian monuments: алчѧш̩и ЄВ, 160 а, вьсплачѧт(ь)сѧ ЄВ, 87 а, имѧш̩аго ЄВ, 41 а, вь сѧботоу ЄВ, 46 а – вьзѫшѫ ЄВ, 92 б, (сomp. взѧшѫ ЄВ, 92 б), жѫждеть ЄВ, 19 а, поклонишѫсѧ ЄВ, 3 б, прозѫбе ЄВ, 163 а, слышѫть ЄВ, 53 б; ѭзыкомь ЄВ, 66 а, ѭсте ЄВ, 84 б, силы нбсныѭ 66 а – вьпиѩш̩аго ЄВ, 176 б, оуповаѩть ЄВ, 168 а etc. The confusion of the yus is represented in the Mukachevo Psalter: паѫчина МП, 38 – паѧчина МП, 89, even compared to: бωрѧщïимсѧ МП, 34, внѧтрь МП, 44, каплѧщiа МП, 71, празноущѧго МП, 41, призываѧщïихъ МП, 98, на прѧ моѧ МП, 34, оузрѧ МП, 5, въ главv ѧглоу МП, 117 and others. This phenomenon is even more widely represented in the Kamyanka-Strumyliv Gospel: волѧ (Possessive case, singular) КСЄ, 33, 181, вънѩтръ КСЄ, 52 зв., гласᲈѧт КСЄ, 12, на землѩ (Possessive case, singular) КСЄ, 132 зв., имѧтт КСЄ, 24 зв., имаѧш̩и КСЄ, 82, истинствоᲈѧт КСЄ, 12, силY ишедшᲈѧ КСЄ, 76, негодᲈѧш̩е КСЄ, 93, за некоᲈѧ крамолоY бывшоᲈѧ КСЄ, 154, в геенY огньнᲈѧ КСЄ, 43, 85, не требоᲈѧть КСЄ, 36 зв. and many others.

Reflection of the former *ę and *’а. The language of the church at that time reflected the North Ukrainian dialects, in particular in the varied spellings caused by the reflection of the former *ę and *’а. For example, in the texts of the Kyiv Psalter: оуглебохъ КП, 90 зв. – оуглѧбноу КП, 91 зв.; ефиωплене КП, 97, заєцємь КП, 144, кленѧхоуса КП, 139 зв., прозебаи КП, 143 зв., прозебаюшаꙗ КП, 224 зв., прокленоуть КП, 158 зв. and the like, but: памѧть КП, 10 зв., сᲇмѧ КП, 122, тысѧш̩ь КП, 117, клаѧхсѧ КП, 122 etc. According to the conclusions of V. Nimchuk, “...the strengthening of the northern element in Kyiv region began in the twelfth century and apparently increased after the TatarMongol invasion”, therefore, the native language of the scribe was Ukrainian in its northern form. (Nimchuk, 1997, p. 21). Many examples of the change of *ę and *’а into е in the unstressed position can be found in the Gospel of Verkovich, first of all in the verb affix -сѧ: не боитᲇсе ЄВ, 146 б, вьзрадоуѥтсе 16 б, кланꙗшесе ЄВ, 23 б, наоучитесе ЄВ, 26 а, ωставлᲇетсе ЄВ, 40 а, прославитсе ЄВ, 16 а, родисе ЄВ, 16 б, чюдисе ЄВ, 47 б and others; in the endings of nouns: вь име моi ЄВ, 21 а; in the middle of the words: j кнезы ЄВ, 29 б, двою на десете ЄВ, 50 б, ѥзыкь ЄВ, 47 а; as well as in the stressed position: иночедь ЄВ, 45 б, начело ЄВ, 38 б, проклети ЄВ, 19 б, свезано ЄВ, 20 б, чедо ЄВ, 48 а etc.

The spellings in the Lutsk Psalter and the Lutsk Gospel related to the transmission of the former *ę and *’a may testify to more noticeable spelling tendencies, the skill of the scribes of that time: имu ЛП, 8 зв., кнѧзи, ꙗзыци ЛП, 2, любѧш̩имъ его ЛП, 30 зв., памѧть ЛП, 10 зв., прᲇпоꙗсаꙗ ЛП, 22, смѧтесѧ ЛП, 5 зв., сᲇмѧ ЛП, 28 and others; грꙗдоуш̩а iдиного на десѧть ЛЄ, 3 зв., истѧзаюш̩имасѧ ЛЄ, 2 зв., помꙗнеши ЛЄ, 44, свѧза ЛЄ, 69, сᲇꙗноѥ ЛЄ, 61 etc. Therefore, we did not find in these manuscripts any use of e in the place *ę and *’a in the unstressed position, attested in other monuments of Polissya. This may be due to the fact that the scribe consistently used the graphemes ѧ (ꙗ) to convey the vowel e under the strong influence of spelling traditions.

In Hagiography of 1489, the grapheme е was recorded in accordance with the Proto-Slavic ę in an unstressed position: хто жедаєть – жаж(д)ѫщихъ , and: колодезь, паметайте, жены плесание Четья, 39. The grapheme е instead of я is used in the Apostle of Kremenets region: клѧтвою – кленᲇтесѧ неуведаемый, светилища, j страстех Ап, 70, 72; in Ismaragd: продлъжєю(т) Ізм. №488, 7, развраш̩єѥть Ізм. №489, 60, but: кнѧгинѧ Ізм. №489, 33 зв., мѧтѫш̩есѧ Ізм. №488, 90, Ізм. №488, 44. Isolated cases of substituting ѧ (я) through е occur in the texts created in the south-western territories of Ukraine: in the Mukachevo Psalter: блvде(т) (3rd person plural) ср(д)цемь МП, 94, крjтцїи же наслᲇде(т) (3rd person plural) землu МП, 36, тежцᲇ(х) ) МП, 34, we also compare the inverse confusion: чѧлюсти МП, 31; in the Kamyanka-Strumyliv Gospel: стезатисѧ – стѧзатисѧ КСЄ, 43 зв., тежателем – j(т) тѧжател КСЄ, 89, бᲇахᲈ отегчени КСЄ, 124, болеш̩аѧ КСЄ, 37 зв., свезавше КСЄ, 50 зв., плаш̩еницю КСЄ, 95 зв.

The oscillations caused by the transition of the initial je into o. Some signs of change of the initial jе into о are found in numerals and derived words: динъ ЛЄ, 2 зв., єдины ПЄ, 3, единого КП, 5 зв. – одинъ ЛЄ, 2 зв., however, the Church Slavonic forms predominate: единъ ЛП, 8 зв., ѥдиного БА, 3 зв., единомышлениемь КП, 74, единою КП, 82, единачадаго ПЄ, 2, ѥдиначадыи ЛЄ, 1 зв., ѥдиночадъ ЛП, 32, ѥдiнᲇмь Лавр Є, 54 зв. etc. We also observe the oscillation in other parts of speech: елеемь КП, 62 – олᲇемь ЛП, 28 зв., ωлᲇи ЄВ, 92 б, Ѡлена Лавр Є, 78 зв., Ѡлены ПЄ, 251, Єсифови ПЄ, 192 – Ѡсифови ПЄ, 16, Ѥсифъ – Осифъ Лавр Є, 14-14 зв., but: езера КП, 162, ѥзеро Лавр Є, 46, при езерᲇ ПЄ, 89, елень КП, 57, сн~ве ефремови КП, 106 and the like. Most traditional spellings are due to the specifics of the religious in the monuments of official and business writing of that time, the cases of spelling о, which has become established in the modern East Slavic literary languages, significantly prevail (Tsaralunga, 2017, p. 67-68).

The oscillations caused by the transition of e into o after the hushing sound and ц. Cases of traditional spelling are combined with the specific Ukrainian phonetic feature – the transition of e > o in variable spellings: бчола – бчелы, вже – вжо, єщо – єще, жолчь – желчи, жона – жену, предотече – пр(д)тчо Четья, 37-38; we also compare: говоречо, жовтый, радоуючосѧ, старцо(м), черницою, чого, чоловᲇкъ and the like Четья, 37-38.

There are vowel oscillations in the adjective forms of the Uzhhorod HalfUncial: давшомоу, изведшомоу, оубившомоу, оутвердшомоу УП, 93 а-93 б – отрѧсшемоу, створшемоу, поразившемоу УП, 93 а-93 б and the like; in the Mukachevo Psalter: благодᲇавшому МП, 12, 56, весел ѧщомоу МП, 42, въшедшому, нищому МП, 67, грѧдѫщому МП, 70, живѫщомоу МП, 122, ω(т)емлѧuщамᲈ МП, 75 – живуще(м) МП, 30 etc; in the texts of the Kamyanka-Strumyliv Gospel: чотыромь КСЄ, 8 зв. – четыри КСЄ, 10 зв., чотыродесѧтницю КСЄ, 1 зв., чотыроличныи КСЄ, 66 зв., as well as: каѥш̩омсѧ КСЄ, 137, чоловᲇк КСЄ, 138 зв. The Apostle from Kremenets region: ничого, чому, but: лицемирїе Ап, 70, 73; Ismaragd: въставшои Ізм. №489, 172 зв.,прᲇходѧш̩о Ізм. №488, 15 зв., ничого Ізм. №488, 5, 11 зв., 17 зв., чого Ізм. №488, 14 зв. etc.

Reduction of и > ь before iotated vowels. Yu.Shevelyovdrew attention to the optionality of writing и and ь before j in church monuments (Shevelov, 2002, p. 352). Many similar parallel ancient East Slavic inscriptions with ь before iotated ones, which reflect living speech, in accordance with the Old Slavic и, inscriptions, are found in the Lutsk Psalter: dᲇꙗньꙗ ЛП, 19, любовью ЛП, 30, ωружьє ЛП, 18, покаꙗньѥмь ЛП, 20, посᲇченьꙗ ЛП, 18 зв., селенье ЛП, 23 зв., оугльѥ ЛП, 21 and others, сomp.: безакониє ЛП, 15 зв., достоꙗниѥ ЛП, 16 зв., камениꙗ ЛП, 24, прошениѥ ЛП, 19, радостию 25 зв., оуглиѥ 20 зв., оумилениꙗ ЛП, 20, оупованиѥ 16 зв. etc. Word forms with ь instead of и dominate in the Lutsk Gospel of the 14thcentury: Бж~ьz ЛЄ, 4 зв., змью ЛЄ, 5 зв., знаменьꙗ ЛЄ, 11, Марьꙗ ЛЄ, 12 зв., оу преломленьи ЛЄ, 3 зв., радостью ЛЄ, 6 зв., подъ съмоковью ЛЄ, 4 зв., оупьютсꙗ ЛЄ, 8 зв. and many similar; in the endings of nouns in the Lavryshiv Gospel: писаньѥ Лавр Є, 49 зв., подножью Лавр Є, 80 зв., рождьѥ Лавр Є, 39 зв., свътᲇньꙗ Лавр Є, 12 зв., оуздыханьꙗ Лавр Є, 14 зв. etc. It should be noted that the Kyiv Psalter also represents the spelling with ь in accordance with the ancient with и before the iotated ones: безᲈмьꙗ КП, 51 зв., бл(с̃)внье КП, 4 зв., званье КП, 5 зв., моленье КП, 7 зв., повел нье(м) КП, 8 зв., сп̃нье КП, 44 зв., бл̃говоленiꙗ КП, 7 зв., весели КП, 17 зв. and others. In the Pandects of Antioch we do not observe variability, as vernacular forms prevail: въ безмолвьи ПА, 5 а, въздержань ПА, 22 б, житьѥ ПА, 18 б, с лестью ПА, 154 б, с напастью ПА, 74 б, бес ПА, 50 а, без роптаньꙗ ПА, 82 а, ко смᲇрᲇнью ПА, 160 б and the like. Variable spellings related to the reduction of и > ь before iotated vowels are contained in the Uzhhorod Half-Uncial: братьꙗ – братїа УП, 9 б, веселье УП, 194 а – веселие УП, 193 б, в кᲇльи УП, 16 б – в кᲇлии УП, 10 а, пью УП, 192 а – пию УП, 187 б and many others. Similar changes are represented in the Teachings of Ephraim the Syryn: братьи ЄС, 77 зв. – братия ЄС, 298, во житьи ЄС, 32 зв. – у житии ЄС, 48, многословᲇсью ЄС, 22 зв. – многословᲇсию ЄС, 208 зв. and many similar.

Confusion of unstressed и and е. Cases of oscillations of the unstressed и and е in liturgical texts of the 14th century are rare: не прегрᲇша(т) – пригрᲇша(т) КП, 44 зв., призри ЛП, 27 зв. – презри ЛП, 9 зв., преидоша ЛП, 21 – придᲇте ЛП, 31, прелагаютсѧ КП, 63, преидоша КП, 98 зв., преплывають КП, 144 зв., в зимли КП, 109, исправляюче Полікарп Є, 112, прибывает ПЄ, 21, прикратилисѧ – прᲇкрататьсѧ ПЄ, 143, сu прикратили ЄВ, 86 б etc. In general, the process of converging the unstressed и and е is very vaguely represented by the religious monuments of the 14th century. Note: researchers believe that this feature, which belongs to the characteristic Ukrainian language features and is widely used today in many Ukrainian dialects, appeared in writing around the middle of the 15th century (Bulakhovskyi, 1977, p. 250; Shevelov, 2002, p. 665 – 666).

In the religious monuments of the 15thcentury: придадѧт –предадѧт КСЄ, 53 зв., пребываєшь – прибыває(т), претерпᲇлъ – притерпᲇлълъ Четья, 47; in the Apostle of the 15th century from Kremenets region: въ времu послᲇдние, нераздражайти, помазавше Ап, 70, 73; in the Teachings of Ephraim the Syrуn: негыблимаго ЄС, 16, немощинъ, пишить ЄС, 170 зв., суитьнаго ЄС, 9, 10, 14 зв. and others, суитᲇ ЄС, 25 зв.; in the Uzhhorod Half-Uncial: прїчасникъ – прегрᲇшїхъ УП, 2 б-2 а, прегрᲇшать УП, 67 б, пречюдныи УП, 131 б, кернїци УП, 76 а and others. The spelling of и instead of е is typical of the Kamyanka-Strumyliv Gospel: пuть таланть еси придал КСЄ, 56, прикратилисѧ КСЄ, 54, припоѧсовсѧ КСЄ, 188 зв., сторицїю КСЄ, 119 зв., хировими КСЄ, 8 зв.; Ismaragd: Василеи Ізм. № 488, 15 зв., Деωнисьꙗ Ізм. № 489, 3, живуш̩е(х)) Ізм. № 489, 15 зв., жинитисѧ Ізм. № 488, 49, помѧнить Ізм. № 488, 37, седѧть Ізм. № 488, 9, сотворете Ізм. № 488, 37, ходете Ізм. № 488, 55.

Variability associated with *tоrt , *tоlt , *tеrt, *tеlt sound combinations reflexes. Significant influence of the South Slavic written traditions affected the spelling of continuations of *tоrt, *tоlt, *tеrt, *tеlt sound combinations. Since the examples of the development of the pleophony in the studied texts are rare, – березезолъ ПЄ, 249, нагородъства ЛП, 10, Ѡгородника ПЄ, 246, – it is possible to state consistent observance of the traditions of book-writing operating at that time. This is consistently confirmed by examples of word forms in the Lutsk Gospel: брашно ЛЄ, 12, възвратистасѧ ЛЄ, 3 зв., гла(с) ЛЄ, 2, ω(т) града ЛЄ, 4, зъдравъ ЛЄ, 16, въ средоу ЛЄ, 14, посрᲇдᲇ ЛЄ, 3 etc; in the Lutsk Psalter: враждоуюуш̩аа ЛП, 3 зв., грады ЛП, 10 зв., дрᲇво ЛП, 18 зв., младенечь ЛП, 7 зв., посрᲇдᲇ чрᲇва ЛП, 27, прахъ ЛП, 23, прᲇвыше ЛП, 7 зв., оуслади ЛП, 19 зв. and many others; in the Kyiv Psalter: власъ, главы, посрамѧтсѧ КП, 55 зв., гла(с) КП, 5 зв., масло кравье КП, 209 зв., плᲇнилъ КП, 89, позлаш̩ена(х) КП, 62, посреде КП, 65 etc. In the Pandects of Antioch the nonpleophonic forms prevail: из града ПА, 165 б, дърага ПА, 291 а, многозраченъ ПА, 108 а, прᲇд лицемь ПА, 38 б, схранить ПА, 179 б, however, it is also witnessed: ворожᲇньꙗ ПА, 193 б, въ деревᲇ ПА, 48 б, сволокъ сu ПА, 32 а.

The traditional spelling in the transmission of the former sound combinations *tоrt, *tеrt is reflected in the Lavryshiv Gospel: бранить Лавр Є, 94 зв., жрᲇбꙗ Лавр Є, 117, мрᲇжа Лавр Є, 59, посрᲇдᲇ Лавр Є, 45 зв., срᲇду Лавр Є, 165 зв., стрᲇгуш̩е Лавр Є, 153 and many similar. The traditional spelling in the Putna Gospel is quite consistently followed: по брᲇгоу ПЄ, 64, врага ПЄ, 55, враты ПЄ, 217, ннᲇ възбраните ПЄ, 230, срᲇдᲇ васъ ПЄ, 2, схранити ПЄ, 40, оузвратиста с ПЄ, 4, въ чрᲇвᲇ ПЄ, 229 and others; in the Bybelskyi Apostle: власы БА, 6 зв., глава БА, 6, младъ БА, 8 зв., млᲇка БА, 17, сладцᲇ БА, 24, j(т) срᲇды БА, 31, съграждаѥтьть БА, 3 зв., чрᲇсъ БА, 5 etc; in the Gospel of Verkovich: силv вражиѫ ЄВ, 166 б, vскым(и) враты ЄВ, 159 а, с. 6, посрдᲇ ЄВ, 163 а, прᲇ(д) j(т)цемь ЄВ, 21 б and the like.

In the 15th century, consistent traditional writings became the part of most religious monuments: град, ωбратит, пред бг̃ом, сребро Ап, 72-73; вразї УП, 10 б, власꙗ УП, 151 а, врата УП, 182 а, древа УП, 70 б, младенець УП, 95 б, предними дверми УП, 68 б, сладкыꙗ УП, 20 б, сраменъ УП, 120 а, чрево УП, 65 а, but: березо(л) УП, 154 а; the Teachings of Ephraim the Syryn: злато ЄС, 103 зв., небрᲇжᲇньi ЄС, 4, прᲇдложеньѥ ЄС, 241 зв., прᲇкословᲇсьници ЄС, 121, срамляимося ЄС, 75 зв.; the Mukachevo Psalter: враждоуѫщѫѧ (!) МП, 2, гла(с) МП, 28, меташu жрᲇбiѧ МП, 21, въ риза(х) позлащена(х) МП, 44, по срамлѧтсѧ МП, 82, прѧполовленie МП, 101, из чрᲇва МП, 70; the KamyankaStrumyliv Gospel: по брегоᲈ КСЄ, 25, 75 зв., гласᲈѧт КСЄ, 12, златницю КСЄ, 50 зв., пред събою КСЄ, 20, страны тирскїа КСЄ, 38 зв., ис чрева КСЄ, 45; Ismaragd: вранове Ізм. № 488, 227 зв., гласове Ізм. № 488, 235, града Ізм. № 488, 55, два древа Ізм. № 488, 27 зв., наслаженїа Ізм. № 488, 24 зв., небреженіе Ізм. № 488, 39, ωбраoешт Ізм. № 488, 30 зв., чрес повел ние Ізм. № 489, 15 зв. and others.

However, the language of Ismaragd also reflects the pleophony forms: вередиши Ізм. № 488, 118, головою Ізм. № 488, 5 зв., голо(д) Ізм. № 488, 235, голодень, пере(ж) Ізм. № 488, 6 зв., золотомъ Ізм. № 489, 90, не ωтеребле(н), не соромоти Ізм. № 488, 4-4 зв., полонъ Ізм. № 488, 11, оухоронити Ізм. № 488, 9 etc. Obviously, the language of the church became more and more close to the vernacular, so the liturgical books include expressions of pleophony.

Variability of reflexes of combinations ър, ъл, ьр, ьл.

Signs of change are witnessed in the monuments of religious style ьр > ер; ъл > ол: дерзъноу Лавр Є, 134 зв., долженъ Лавр Є, 103, жертвоу ЛП, 24 зв., зерно Лавр Є, 11 зв., наверхъ ЛП, 7, наполн(ите) Лавр Є, 10, столпъ Лавр Є, 113 зв., торжникомъ Лавр Є, 3, торжьникомъ Полікарп Є, 32, оумолъкни Лавр Є, 66, червь ЛП, 26 зв. and the like. In the Gospel of Verkovich there is a spelling ъ, ь after the smooth: дльжьнь ЄВ, 34 а, дрьжитсе ЄВ, 24 а, ω(т)врьжетсе ЄВ, 21 б, тльцате ЄВ, 54 а, вь четврьтѫѩ ЄВ, 30 б etc, caused, apparently, by the Old Bulgarian influence and peculiarities of spelling of that time.

Newer constructions with vowels of full creation in the Uzhhorod Half-Uncial often correspond to the ancient combination of ър, ъл, ьр, ьл between consonants: волна, сполнис УП, 11 а, держави УП, 18 б, державенъ, скорбᲇти УП, 120 а, дерзновенїе УП, 196 а, долготерпᲇнью УП, 196 б, испроверже УП, 30 а, УП, 10 а, одержа УП, 27 а, ω(т)верзи УП, 36 а, персть, приверженъ, оутвержение УП, 208 а, скорби УП, 5 а, скорблю УП, 78 а, скорбь УП, 9 а, холмъ УП, 91 б etc. Older constructions with reduced vowels are less common: дрьжава УП, 121 а, дръжавоу УП, 17 а, їстръженьꙗ УП, 121 б, одръжашесѧ, ωдръжа УП, 120 а, скрьбь УП, 208 and others.

The words reduced in the middle are very consistently used in the texts of the Mukachevo Psalter: влънь МП, 94, на връби МП, 190, връхь МП, 39, въспоплъзновеніа 55, грълица МП, 83, длъготръпᲇливь МП, 7, жрътвѫ, скръби, тѧжкосръдіи МП, 4, мрътьвь МП, 30, одръжаніе, растръгнᲇ(м) МП, 2, плъкь МП, 26, пръвыѧ МП, 43, пръсть МП, 6, 8, съвръшиль МП, 39, съмръть МП, 17, чръвь МП, 21, чрътога МП, 18 and others; the Kamyanka-Strumyliv Gospel: влъхвы КСЄ, 14 зв., длъгы КСЄ, 20 зв., ω(т)връзше КСЄ, 14 зв., тлъцᲇте КСЄ, 22 and the like.

Consonantism

Hardening of р'. Signs of depalatalization of р' before vowels а and у are represented by a small number of spellings, so, given the specifics of religious writing of that time, it is possible to state the predominance of traditional spelling in liturgical texts. There are some exceptions, apparently caused by vernacular influence: iзєро гороуш̩є Лавр Є, 111; кесарᲈ ЄВ, 87 б, 119 б, Лазару КП 67, Лазара ЄВ, 48 а, мора ЄВ, 30 б, назаранине ЄВ, 42 б, прамо Лавр Є , 117; рибара ЄВ, 23 а, ц~роу ЄВ, 33 б and the like, but: боурѧ КП, 67 зв., вечерю БА, 6 зв., вечерѧ ЄВ, 55 а, горю (дієсл.) ПЄ, 96, грѧдыи ЛП, 28 зв., дрѧхла ЛЄ, 2 зв., зѧрѧ (!) и сл~нце КП, 101 зв., морѧ КП, 97, напрѧже ЛП, 7, напрѧже КП, 9, ωлтарю КП, 59, полъморѧ ЛЄ, 11, рѧдника БА, 10, рѧсны КП, 62 зв., Сухарь ПЄ, 27, творю БА, 33 зв., творю ПЄ, 26, творѧш̩имъ КП, 40 зв., and, obviously, hyperic, трѧпезоу ЛП, 28 зв., трѧпеза КП, 92 зв.

Signs of the hardening of р', inherent in the Ukrainian dialects, are recorded in the Apostle of Kremenets region: сотворᲈ, гра(д)ущих Ап, 70; the KamyankaStrumyliv Gospel: ко морю КСЄ, 72 – ко морᲈ КСЄ, 70, сътворю КСЄ, 86 зв. – сътворᲈ КСЄ, 191; in Ismaragd lists: борѫ(т) Ізм. № 488, 21, по морѫ Ізм. № 488, 41, ωбрш̩еши Ізм. № 488, 30 зв., сотворᲈ Ізм. № 489, 56 etc.

Signs of hushing sounds' hardening/softening. Often linguistic parallelism in religious texts is associated with the processes of hardening of hushins: кончᲇтьсѧ ЄВ, 99 а – скончатисѧ ЄВ, 11 б, ωбрѧш̩ – ωбрѧш̩ᲈ КП, 89 зв., притчѧ ЄВ, 61 а – прича ЄВ, 46 б, чюдеса КП, 152 зв. – чᲈдеса КП, 150 etc. But along with the traditional spellings: несоуш̩юю КП, 8, кожю КП, 143, нашю КП, 61, постыжюсѧ КП, 39 зв., вь притчю КП, 66, оутвержю КП, 41 зв., чюдно КП, 9, чюжемоу КП, 60 зв. and others, we record word forms that may indicate the depalatalization of consonants: величатисѧ КП, 13, лжа, КП, 5, моужа КП, 6, одеръжаш̩аꙗ, приближатсѧ КП, 41, плача КП, 7 зв., вь притъчахъ 105 зв. etc.

The softness of the hushings is reflected in most examples from the Lutsk Gospel: не вижю ЛЄ, 7 зв., дышюш̩юю ЛЄ, 11 зв., межю собою ЛЄ, 14 зв., недоставшю ЛЄ, 8, одежю ЛЄ, 13, помажють ЛЄ, 12 зв., оуложю ЛЄ, 7 зв. and others, but there are examples of the hardening of hushings: грꙗдоуш̩аа ЛЄ, 3 зв., отроча ЛЄ, 13 зв., плаш̩аницю ЛЄ, 12 зв., пребываюш̩агоаго ЛЄ, 10 зв., оуслышать ЛЄ, 10 etc. We find parallelism in the graphic transmission of hushing consonants in the Lutsk Psalter: насыш̩юсѧ ЛП, 18 зв., ωмочю ЛП, 5 зв., оуврачюи ЛП, 19, поглажю ЛП, 23, не постыжюсѧ ЛП, 32 зв., чюдно ЛП, 7, чюжии ЛП, 23, съ шюмомь ЛП, 10 зв. and the like, but there are cases of another implementation of hushing: вᲇнчалъ ЛП, 7 зв., державно ЛП, 16 зв., издалеча ЛП, 24, наоуча ЛП, 22, ωбниш̩авша ЛП, 8-8 зв., подвижатьсѧ ЛП, 17 зв., плача ЛП, 6-6 зв., шаташасѧ ЛП, 2 etc; in the texts of the Pandects of Antioch: бывъшюю ПА, 7 б, въздвижють ПА, 18 б, чюѥмъ ПА, 106 б, надежю ПА, 14, плачюш̩ е ПА, 223 а, свᲇш̩ю ПА, 61 а, не хош̩ю ПА, 214 а, чювествьѥ ПА, 61 б and the like., but: дш~а ПА, 3 б, изьвᲇш̩ати ПА, 153 б, лъжа ПА, 106 б, о начатъцᲇ ПА, 9 б, осълоушалъ ПА, 99 б, пиш̩а ПА, 18 а, повъчатисѧ ПА, 43 б, ръжа ПА, 29 а, чають ПА, 41 а and others.

We record similar changes in the monuments of the south-west, namely – in the Bybelskyi Apostle: вашю БА, 33 зв., възложю БА, 3, наоучю БА, 10 зв., плачюш̩есu БА, 2 зв., положю БА, 4 зв., не пош̩ажю БА, 26, прохожю БА, 12 зв., в чюжᲇхъ БА, 23 and others, but: ваша БА, 35 зв., причастници БА, 13 зв., троужаюш̩емоусѧ БА, 24 зв., чаша БА, 5 etc.; in the Putna Gospel: вложю ПЄ, 9, жꙝждѫшта ПЄ, 212, слышю ПЄ, 13, притчю ПЄ, 33, стражю ПЄ, 107, оузвраш̩юсѧ ПЄ, 103, чашю ПЄ, 66, чловᲇчю ПЄ, 152, but: възвᲇш̩аи ПЄ, 104, жатва ПЄ, 30, лежаш̩а ПЄ, 3, начаша ПЄ, 107, ωтѧгъчають ПЄ, 121, въ прїтчахъ ПЄ, 94 and the like; in the Gospel of Verkovich: бышѧ ЄВ, 11 а, вьпросишѧ ЄВ, 7 б, плачѧш̩асѧ ЄВ, 80 б, праведничѧ ЄВ, 28 а, притьчѧ ЄВ, 61 а, but: имѧш̩аго ЄВ, 41 а, имѧш̩оу ЄВ, 33 б, ω(т)вᲇш̩ашѫ ЄВ, 2 б8, печалнї ЄВ, 16 а etc.

Note that y in conjunction with ж, ч, ш, is always used as ю in the texts of the Uzhhorod Half-Uncial: возвожю УП, 120 а, доушю УП, 12 а, иш̩юш̩ихъ УП, 182 а, кожю УП, 20 а, межю собою УП, 68 б, надежю УП, 19 б, насы ш̩юсѧ УП, 204 б, наоучю васъ УП, 67 б, нашю УП, 10 б, пиш̩ю УП, 11 а, препоꙗшютьсѧ УП, 11 б, притчю УП, 14 б, пришедшю УП, 156 б, солжють, в соушю УП, 10 б, оуврачюета УП, 166 б, честнᲇишю УП, 7 б, всᲇми чювьствы УП, 9 б, в чюдесᲇхъ УП, 3 а, шюма волны УП, 11 а etc, but in conjunction with а the forms are non-palatal: дш~а УП, 67 а, единочадаго, чадомъ УП, 64 а, начало УП, 16 б, j(т) печали(х) (!) УП, 67 б, радощами УП, 95 б, да оуслышать УП, 67 а, часы УП, 181 а and the like. Similar spelling features we found in the Teachings of Ephraim the Syryn: вᲇльможа ЄС, 303 зв., печали ЄС, 62 зв., одежю ЄС, 23, почюдьмыся ЄС, 148, прикълючються ЄС, 16, чюжᲇмь ЄС, 86 зв. and others. It is noteworthy that in religious monuments of the previous century, this trend is also present.

In the texts of the Mukachevo Psalter such a pattern is not observed, although there are confusions: ищазаеть МП, 67, 118, лъщаахѫ МП, 5, подвижасѧ МП, 96, 113, подрᲇжаніе МП, 43, поръпщѫ(т) МП, 58, съгорѧщѫ МП, 7, шоумомь МП, 9 – велерᲇчюѧщеи МП, 34, въжѧжда МП, 41, въшоумᲇшѧ МП, 45, ищезошѧ МП, 36, 63, 101, постидᲇшѧсѧ МП, 52, раздрᲈшишѧ МП, 10, смѫтишѧсѧ МП, 17, чюдеса МП, 25, чuлюсти МП, 31 etc.

In the Kamyanka-Strumyliv Gospel we observe parallel spellings: дш~ю КСЄ, 41 – дш̃оᲈ КСЄ, 87, кр̃ш̩юсѧ – крш̩ᲈсѧ КСЄ, 87, плачᲈш̩еи КСЄ, 18 – плачюш̩и и КСЄ, 200 зв., притча КСЄ, 89 зв. – притчю КСЄ, 34 зв., 35, 38 зв., чᲈдеса КСЄ, 48 – чю десе КСЄ, 203 зв. So along with depatalized forms: безначалнаго КСЄ, 8, болаш̩аꙗ КСЄ, 27, начат КСЄ, 146, прелш̩аетесѧ КСЄ, 51, оᲈбоꙗшасѧ КСЄ, 75 зв., аш̩eхош̩оᲈ КСЄ, 110 зв. etc., – the softness of the consonants is reflected: бывшю КСЄ, 60 зв., врачю КСЄ, 111, гл̃ш̩ю КСЄ, 41 зв., ωтрочѧ КСЄ, 168 зв., праведничю КСЄ, 29, оᲈмлъчu КСЄ, 50 зв., чюждаго КСЄ, 181, чѧда КСЄ, 28 and others.

The confusion of hushings is quite consistently evidenced in the lists of Ismaragd: вашю Ізм. № 488, 43, жѧтели Ізм. № 488, 227, моужю Ізм. № 488, 8 зв., плачю Ізм. № 488, 53 зв., причѧстникы Ізм. № 488, 226 зв., сходѧш̩ю Ізм. № 488, 13, творѧш̩ю Ізм. № 488, 19 зв., тᲈжю Ізм. № 488, 55 зв. – венчаеть Ізм. № 488, 22, възбоужаите Ізм. № 488, 40, жадаи Ізм. № 488, 4 зв., не ω(т)чаимо Ізм. № 488, 3 зв., ω(т)ча Ізм. № 488, 47 зв., почали Ізм. № 488, 8 зв., чаровь Ізм. № 488, 55, не шепчы Ізм. № 489, 48 зв. etc.

Cases of dissimilation in pronoun forms are not recorded in the liturgical books of the 14th century, which may indicate the stability of traditional spelling: кто ПА, 116 а, кто ЛЄ, 2, кто КП, 5 зв., кто БА, 3 зв., 14, кто ПЄ, 2, кто ЄВ, 2 а, 8 а, нікто ЛЄ, 14 зв., никто ЛП, 9 зв., никто же БА, 33 зв., никто же ПЄ, 3, никто же ЄВ, 4 а, ньктожє Лавр Є, 80 зв., нкто ПЄ, 100, что ПА, 110 б, чьто ЛЄ, 14, что ЛП, 13 зв., что КП, 9 зв., что ПЄ, 2, что ЄВ, 118 б, ничто же ЛЄ, 6 зв., ничто же КП, 103, ничто же БА, 3 зв., почто БА, 1 and many similar. However, at the end of the 15th century, new forms of such words appeared: хто Ізм. № 488, 3 зв., 7 зв., нихто Ізм. № 489, 26, 77 зв., што Ізм. № 488, 6, штобы Ізм. №488, 7 зв., што(ж) Ізм. № 488, 10, штоль Ізм. № 488, 3 зв., ништо Ізм. № 488, 5, нᲇшто Ізм. № 488, 9 зв., пошто Ізм. № 488, 14 зв. and others.

Occasionally we record examples of simplification of sounds in groups of consonants: празника КП, 101 зв – праздьноуюoаго КП, 57 зв., лестномоу БА, 36, местьника ЛП, 7 зв., мuсопоустнаz ПЄ, 121, непричастьна ЛП, 8 зв., праздьника ПЄ, 22, праздноуѥте БА, 1 зв., распоустьныꙗ ПЄ, 74, сердьцемь КП, 10, сыропоустнаꙗ ПЄ, 124, срдцмь Лавр Є, 93 зв., срдчнаго ПЄ, 68, въ слнци ЛП, 23 зв., оустьны ЛП, 14 etc.; сл~цю УП, 118 б – слнцю УП, 123 б, ср~це трезвuoесu УП, 87 а – срдцю УП, 191 б, and also: празникы МП, 73, празноуѧщаго МП, 41, прїчасникъ УП, 2 а, оупразнитесѧ МП, 45, празнуйте, but бога(т)ство, че(с)тный Ап, 70, 72 and others.

Reflection of the Proto-Slavic sound combination *dj attracts attention by spelling the vernacular ж in accordance with the Old Bulgarian жд: гражане – граждꙗне Лавр Є, 104.

In the texts of the Pandects of Antiochus, the Lutsk and the Kyiv Psalters, the Bybelskyi Apostle, the Lavryshiv Gospel, the Putna Gospel, the Gospels and the Gospel of Verkovich, the sound combinations *dj, *zdj were continued by the following continuants:

*dj > ж: in nouns: гражане ПЄ, 117, гражаны ПА, 42 б, исхоженье КП, 180, надежа Лавр Є, 14 зв., надеже ЛП, 9 зв., надежю БА, 4, въ наслаженьи ЛП, 8 зв., ноужю же им zше ПЄ, 195, одежа ПА, 207 б, въ одежахъ ПЄ, 116, jдежею Лавр Є, 78 зв., ωружьi ЛП, 18, ωсужᲇньѥ Лавр Є, 7 зв., оутверженьѥ ЛП, 20, оутвержение КП, 97 зв. and others;

in adjectives: слажьша ЛП, 27, хоужьше БА, 6 зв. etc;

in verb forms: вижь (imperative mood) ЛП, 11, въгажаюoе ПА, 109 б, въсажь же (imperative mood) ПЄ, 103, дажь (imperative mood) ЛП, 10, заблоужьшаꙗ Лавр Є, 44, жажюш̩е КП, 152 зв., обижю ПА, 83 а, пош̩ажю БА, 26, прихожю Лавр Є, 27, роженое ПЄ, 6, дрᲇво саженоѥ ЛП, 1 зв., свобожаѥмъ ПА, 25 а, стыжюся ЛП, 31, соужю Лавр Є, 12, троужающагося Полікарп Є, 112 and many others;

in adverbs: прᲇже ЛП, 18 зв., пьрᲇже ПА, 61 а, прᲇже БА, 33 etc.

*dj, *zdj > жд: in nouns: дождь КП, 96 зв., дождь ПЄ, 56, дъждѧ ПА, 123 б, дрож(д)ьꙗ 102 зв., жажду ПЄ, 191, рождьꙗ Лавр Є, 39 зв. and others;

in adjectives: чюждихь ЄВ, 31 б etc.;

in verb forms: въжделᲇныи ЛП, 24, жwждѫшта ПЄ, 122, ωсᲈж(д)енъ КП, 7 зв., повᲇждъ ЄВ, 88 б, пригвожденᲇи ЛП, 19 зв. раждьжемѧ ЛП, 17 зв., раждежесѧ КП, 150, рождени ЄВ, 183 а, страждеши ПЄ, 96, троужда ѭтсѧ ПЄ, 60 and the like;

in adverbs: прᲇжде ПЄ, 192 and others;

*dj > ждьж (ждеж): раждьжено ЛП, 14 зв., раждежена ЛП, 22, раждежено КП, 14 зв. and the like;

*zdj > жч: дожчь Лавр Є, 51 зв, 52, 82 and others, ωдъжчи Лавр Є, 104 etc.

The dominant continuum of the Proto-Slavic sound combination *dj in the religious monuments of the 15th century was the Old Bulgarian combination жд: дождь, заблоуждениꙗ, злостраждеть, не дождити по земли, ωсᲈждаеши, постраждите Ап, 72-73; in the Mukachevo Psalter: въжѧжда МП, 41, ωдъждить МП, 10, да не постижд с МП, 70, съ¾иж(д)еть МП, 126, оутвръждени МП, 150, хождаа(х) МП, 141, but: инорожь МП, 28; in the Kamyanka-Strumyliv Gospel: бездождїе КСЄ, 208 зв., виждъ КСЄ, 91 зв., дождъ КСЄ, 23, междᲈ събою КСЄ, 43 зв., ноᲈжда КСЄ, 146 зв., прежде КСЄ, 195 зв., чюждаго КСЄ, 181, but: межи цр~ковїю КСЄ, 53. Linguistic fluctuations in the Uzhhorod Half-Uncial, associated with the continuum of *dj, are represented in the spelling of жд, ж, жж оутверждены УП, 87 а – оутвержение УП, 208 а, рожешюю УП, 90 б – j(т) ражже(н)z УП, 198 б etc. In Ismaragd lists under the influence of live speech appear ж, зжд: преже Ізм. № 489, 19, гражано(м) Ізм. № 488, 32 зв., межи Ізм. № 488, 18 зв., одежа Ізм. № 488, 42 зв., побᲇжаемъ Ізм. № 489, 15 зв., пов жь Ізм. № 488, 20 зв., прироженїѧ Ізм. № 488, 4 зв., разждаетсѧ (!) Ізм. № 488, 41 зв., разсоужаѧ Ізм. № 488, 58, оутверженіе Ізм. № 488, 15 зв., ꙗжъ (imperative mood) Ізм. № 488, 16 зв. etc.

The combination жч is used in the Teachings of Ephraim the Syryn: дъжчевнаго, ЄС, 14, изможчалая ЄС, 95, изможчаньѥмь ЄС, 123, ражченеши ЄС, 179 зв., ражчеть, ражчᲇньѥ ЄС, 125-125 зв., ражчьжеть ЄС, 61 зв.

Reflexes of sound combinations *tj, *kt are represented by the traditional spelling of o (шт, щ): in nouns: нош̩ь ЛП 38 зв., нощи ЄС, 154 зв., до нош̩и КП, 17,нош̩ью ПЄ, 6, j(т) пеш̩i КП, 223 зв., пеш̩ера ПЄ, 136,пеш̩ь jгньноу ЛП, 26, пещь МП, 20, полунош̩и ПЄ, 86, полунош̩ница УП, 10 б, оупеш̩ь ПЄ, 223,пᲇш̩ь ЄС, 159 зв., пᲇш̩ь Ізм. №488, 124, свᲇш̩ю ПА, 61 а and the like; in adjectives: нош̩наго УП, 86 б, нош̩ьнаꙗ КП, 126 зв., пᲇш̩ьнаго ПА, 26 б, пᲇщьноѥ ЄС, 103 зв. etc.; in verb forms: поспосᲇщю 124 зв., свᲇш̩аша ЛП, 37 зв. and others; in adverbs: внош̩и КП, 120 and many others, but: печерьскаго УП, 156 б.

Conclusions. Thus, as a result of the analysis of the texts of religious monuments of the 14th – 15th centuries, clear signs of the interaction of the Old Bulgarian graphic and orthographic system and the Ukrainian folk speech were recorded. Manifestations of the phonetic and graphic South Slavic-Ukrainian variability are associated with the following linguistic phenomena: continuity of the former *ę, *’а and *Q; change of the initial *jе into о; transition of e into o after hushings and ц; reduction of и > ь before iotated vowels; confusion of unstressed и and е; development of sound combinations *tоrt, *tоlt, *tеrt, *tеlt; reflexes of sound combinations ър, ъл, ьр, ьл; hardening of р'; hardness/softness of hushing consonants; dissimilation and simplification of consonants; change of sound combinations *dj, *zdj and *tj, *kt .

In the phonetic system of the studied monuments, the interaction of the traditional writing of that time and the local vernacular is traced, in particular, the phonetic features of the North Ukrainian and the South-West Ukrainian dialects are revealed. Due to the fact that the sacred books were transcribed by local residents (Ukrainians), the newly created manuscripts contained many different spellings from the original, which reflected the peculiarities of oral regional speech of scribes. Ancient dialectal features of the living language penetrated into the orthoepy of the sacred language, which led to a gradual departure from the Old Slavic written usus and the emergence of variants of liturgical orthoepy. Dialectal phonetic features are reflected in the liturgical manuscripts created in the Ukrainian lands, graphically not to the same extent. In certain cases, it is reasonable to assume that some phonetic features were quite strongly developed in the scribe's language, but he could not reproduce them due to the orthographic traditions of religious book-writing of that time, which were based on the Old Bulgarian language basis. In general, we can conclude that the process of approaching the church language to the living vernacular acquired an organic understanding and a certain dynamic.

Prospects of the study

The study of the language of religious monuments taking into account the results of other research in the field of philology, paleography, theology has undeniable prospects for linguistic interpretation of church books with the definition of local language traditions of the time, their localization as elements of the Slavic written culture, resolving debatable issues regarding the formation, chronology and systematization of the church-written corpus.

Conditional symbols

Ап – Karpinskij, M. (1888). Yuzhno-russkij Apostol XV veka. [The South Russian Apostle of the \(15{ }^{\text {th }}\) century]. Russkij filologicheskij vestnik, 19, 68 – 73. Varshava.

БА – Kopko, P. (1912). Apostolus Bybliensis saeс. XIV. Grammatisch-kritisch Analysiert. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophischhistorische Klasse. Denkschriften, 55 (1), 1 – 103. Wien.

ЄВ– Kulbakin, S.M. (1901). Evangelie Verkovicha XIII – XIV v. Otchet o zanyatiyah v knigohranilishah Moskvy i Peterburga. [The Gospel of Verkovich of the 13th – 14th centuries. Report on the lessons in the book depositories of Moscow and St. Petersburg]. Sbornik Otdeleniya russkogo yazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 59 (3), 2 – 20.

ЄС – Sobolevskij, A.I. (1884) Poucheniya Efrema Sirina 1492 goda. [The teachings of Ephraim the Syryn of 1492]. Trudy po istorii russkogo yazyka, 1. Ocherki po istorii russkogo yazyka, 50 – 58. Kiev.

Ізм. № 488, Ізм. № 489 – Trebin, O. (1910). Materialy do istorii ukrainskoi movy z rukopysiv XV viku kyivskykh bibliotek. [Materials on the history of the Ukrainian language from the 15th century manuscripts of Kyiv libraries]. Zapysky Ukrainskoho naukovoho tovarystva v Kyievi, 7, 1-16.

КЄ – Sopko, O.I. (2015). Korolevske Yevanheliie 1401 r. [The Korolevo Gospel of 1401]. Uzhhorod: Grazhda.

КП – Kievskaya Psaltir 1397 goda iz Gosudarstvennoj Publichnoj biblioteki imeni M. E. Saltykova-Shedrina v Leningrade. (1978). [The Kyiv Psalter of 1397 from the State Public Library named after M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in Leningrad]. Moskva.

КСЄ – Kryzhanovskij, G. (1886). Kamenec-Stromilovskoe tetraevangelie 1411 goda i volynskoe narechie v XIV – XV vv. [The Kamenets-Stromilov tetra-Gospel of 1411 and the Volyn dialect in the 14th–15th centuries]. Volynskie Eparhialnye vedomosti, 17, 502 – 509; 18, 531 – 540.

Лавр Є – Svencickij, I.S. (1913). Lavrashevskoe Evangelie nachala XIV veka (Paleograficheski-grammaticheskoe opisanie). [The Lauryshеv Gospel of the beginning of the 14th century (Paleographic and grammatical description)]. Izvestiya otdeleniya russkogo yazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, XVIII (1), 206 – 229. Sankt-Peterburg.

ЛЄ – Lutske Yevanheliie XIV stolittia. Faksymilne vydannia. (2011). [The Lutsk Gospel of the 14th century. Facsimile edition]. Kyiv.

ЛП – Lutskyi Psaltyr 1384 roku. Faksymilne vydannia. (2013). [The Lutsk Psalter of 1384. Facsimile edition]. Kyiv.

МП – Sokolov, I.I. (1883). Mukachevskaya psaltyr XV veka. [The Mukachevo Psalter of the 15th century]. Sbornik statej po slavyanovedeniyu, sostavlennyj i izdannyj uchenikami V. I. Lamanskogo po sluchayu 25-letiya ego uchenoj i professorskoj deyatelnosti, 450 – 468. Sankt-Peterburg.

ПА– Pandekty Antiokha 1307 r. Natsionalnyi muzei u Lvovi imeni Andreia Sheptytskoho. Rukopys 48/257. [The Pandects of Antioch of 1307. Andrei Sheptytsky National Museum in Lviv. Manuscript 48/257].

ПЄ – Kałużniacki, Aem. (1888). Evangeliarium Putnanum. Monumenta linguae palaeoslovenicae, 1, 1 – 270. Wien-Teschen.

Полікарп Є – Kalajdovich, K.F. (1824). Ioann, ekzarh Bolgarskij: Issledovanie, obyasnyayushee istoriyu slavyanskogo yazyka i literatury IX i X stoletij. [John, Exarch of Bulgaria: Study explaining the history of the Slavic language and literature in the 9th and 10th centuries]. Moskva.

УП – Kolessa, O. (1925). „Uzhhorodskyi Poluustav” u pergaminovii rukopysi XIV v. [The Uzhhorodskyi Poluustav in a parchment manuscript of the 14th century]. Zapysky NTSh, 141 – 143, 1 – 59. Lviv.

Четья – Nimchuk, V. (2015). Ukrainska Chetia 1489 roku. [The Ukrainian hagiography of 1489]. Zhytomyr.

REFERENCES

Jagic, V. (1894). „Ismaragd” ein altrussisches Literaturdenkmal. [Review of “To the literary history of the Old Russian collections” of V.A. Yakovlev]. Archiv fur slavische philologie, 16, 240 – 242. Berlin.

Kopko, P. (1912). Apostolus Bybliensis saeс. XIV. Grammatischkritisch Analysiert. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 55 (1), 1 – 103. Wien.

McRobert, C.M. (2010). The textual peculiarities of the Luck Psalter of 1384 (Acquisti e Doni MS 360, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence). Ricerche slavistiche, 8 (54), New Series, 101 – 125.

Nandriş, Gr. (1924). Aspectele verbale in Evangheliarul slav de la Putna (sec. XIII – XIV). Codrul Cosminului. Analele Stiintifice ale Universitatii “Stefan cel Mare” din Suceava, 1, 9 – 18.

Popesku, P. (1962). Manuscrisele slavone din mănăstirea Putna. Bisеrica Ortodoxă Romină, 1 – 2, 105 – 145.

Smorąg-Różycka, M. (1999). Ewangeliarz Ławryszewski. Kraków.

Stradomski, J. (2014). Rękopisy i teksty. Studia nad cerkiewnosłowiańską kulturą literacką Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego i Korony Polskiej do końca XVI wieku. Krakowsko-wileńskie studia slawistyczne, 10. Kraków.

Verdiani, C. (1954). Il Salterio Laurenziano-Voliniense: Codice paleoslavo del 1384. Ricerche slavistiche, III, 1 – 29.

Anichjenka, W.V. (1966). Knizhna-carkownaslavjanskija tradycyi v ukrainskaj i belaruskaj perekladnoj pismennasci XVI – XVII st. [The Book-Church Slavonic traditions in the Ukrainian and Belarusian translated writing of the 16th – 17th centuries]. Slavia, 1, 68 – 70.

Bulakhovskyi, L.A. (1977). Vybrani pratsi: v 5 t. Т. 2. [Selected works: in 5 volumes. V. 2]. Kyiv, Ukraine.

Nimchuk, V. (1997). Kyivskyi Psaltyr 1397 roku – pamiatka pivnichnoho dialektu ukrainskoi movy. [The Kyiv Psalter of 1397 – the monument of the northern dialect of the Ukrainian language]. Ukrainskyi dialektolohichnyi zbirnyk, 3, 218 – 231. Kyiv, Ukraine: Naukova dumka.

Shevelov, Yu. (2002). Istorychna fonolohiia ukrainskoi movy. [Historical phonology of the Ukrainian language]. Kharkiv, Ukraine: Akta.

Skab, M.V. (2014). Tserkovnoslovianska mova ukrainskoi redaktsii: istoriia vynyknennia ta funktsionuvannia, hrafika, orfohrafiia, fonetyka, leksyka. [The Church Slavonic language of the Ukrainian edition: history of origin and functioning, graphics, spelling, phonetics, vocabulary]. Chernivtsi, Ukraine.

Stamenova, A. (2017). Istoriya leksicheskih drevnebolgarizmov v ukrainskom literaturnom yazyke. [History of lexical Old Bolgarisms in the Ukrainian literary language]. Sofia, Bulgaria: Paradox.

Temchin, S.Yu. (2009). Funkcionirovanie ruskoj movy i ierarhiya cerkovnyh tekstov. [The functioning of the Russian language and the hierarchy of church texts]. Studia Russica, XXIII, 226 – 234. Budapest, Hungary.

Tsaralunga, I. (2017). Pivdennoslovianski movni elementy v ukrainskomoldavskykh hramotakh XIV – XV st. [The South Slavic language elements in the Ukrainian-Moldavian letters of the 14th – 15th centuries]. In: Multikulturalizm i mnogoezichie. Sbornik s dokladi ot Trinadesetite mezhdunarodni slavistichni cheteniya. Sofia, 21 – 23 april 2016 g. T. 1. Lingvistika. Veliko Trnovo, Bulgaria.

Uspenskij, B.A. (1994). Kratkij ocherk istorii russkogo literaturnogo yazyka (XI – XIX vv.). [A brief outline of the history of the Russian literary language (11th – 19th centuries)]. Moskva, Russiа: Gnozis.

Zhukovskaya, L. P. (1959). O perevodah evangeliya na slavyanskij yazyk i o “drevnerusskoj redakcii” slavyanskogo evangeliya. [About translations of the Gospel into the Slavic language and about” the Old Russian edition” of the Slavic Gospel]. Slavyanskoe yazykoznanie. Sb. statej, 86 – 97. Moskva, Russiа.

Zhukovskaya, L.P. (1976). Tekstologiya i yazyk drevnejshih slavyanskih pamyatnikov. [Textology and language of the oldest Slavic monuments]. Moskva, Russiа.