Slověne = Словѣне, 2012, том 1, № 1

International Journal of Slavic Studies

Institute for Slavic Studies of
the Russian Academy of Sciences

Vol. 1

№ 1

Москва 2012

СловЭне
Slověne

ISSN 2304 – 0785 = Slověne ( print )

The editorial board

Editor in-chief: Fjodor B. Uspensky

Iskra Hristova-Shomova, Angel Nikolov, Maria Yovcheva (Bulgaria); Vaclav 
Čermak (Czech Republic); Milan Mihaljević, Mate Kapović (Croatia); Roland Marti, 
Björn Wiemer (Germany); Marcello Garzaniti (Italy); Jos Schaeken (Netherland); 
Peter M. Arkadiev, Roman N. Krivko, Sergey L. Nikolaev, Maxim M. Makartsev, 
Philip R. Minlos, Alexander M. Moldovan, Tatjana V. Rozhdestvenskaja, 
Anatolij A. Turilov, Boris A. Uspensky, Fr. Michael Zheltov, Victor M. Zhivov 
(Russia); Jasmina Grković-Major, Tatjana Subotin-Golubović (Serbia); Robert 
Romanchuk, Alan Timberlake, William Veder, Alexander Zholkovsky (USA)

Managing editors: Roman N. Krivko, Philip R. Minlos 

Technical editor: Anastasia I. Ryko

Редакционная коллегия

Главный редактор: Ф. Б. Успенский

Мария Йовчева, Ангел Николов, Искра Христова-Шомова (Болгария); 
Бьёрн Вимер, Роланд Марти (Германия); Йос Схакен (Голландия); 
Марчело Гарзанити (Италия); П. М. Аркадьев, о. М. Желтов, В. М. Живов, 
Р. Н. Кривко, М. М. Макарцев, Ф. Р. Минлос, А. М. Молдован, С. Л. Николаев, 
Т. В. Рождественская, А. А. Турилов, Б. А. Успенский (Россия); Ясмина ГрековичМейджор, Татьяна Суботин-Голубович (Сербия); Александр Жолковский, 
Роберт Романчук, Алан Тимберлейк, Уильям Федер (США); Милан Михалевич, 
Мате Капович (Хорватия); Вацлав Чермак (Чехия).

Редакторы выпуска: Р. Н. Кривко, Ф. Р. Минлос

Технический редактор: А. И. Рыко

Slověne  Словѣне. International Journal of Slavic Studies. Vol. 1. № 1. — М.: Институт 
славяноведения РАН. 2012. — 274 с.

e-mail: slavs.journal@gmail.com

© Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012

© Authors, 2012

© Igor’ M. Ermolaev (design, layout), 2012

Contents / Содержание

4 
Preface
5 
Предисловие

 
Articles / Статьи

7 
Jasmina Grković-Major ( Novi Sad ). Οn Proto-Slavic Oath Formulas
 
Ясмина Грекович-Мейджор ( Новый Сад ). О праславянских клятвенных формулах

27 
Maxim M. Makartsev ( Moscow ). Towards Common Balcan Lexical Evidential 
Markers
 
Максим М. Макарцев ( Москва ). К общебалканским лексическим эвиденциальным маркерам

52 
Anna A. Pichkhadze ( Moscow ). Subject of Subordinate Clause as Object with Verbs 
of Perception, Thought, and Communication in Old Russian
 
Анна А. Пичхадзе ( Москва ). Субъект в зависимой предикации в роли объекта при глаголах 
восприятия, мысли и передачи информации в древнерусском

61 
Olga V. Mitrenina ( Sankt-Peterburg ). The Syntax of Pseudo-Correlative 
Constructions with the Pronoun kotoryj ('which') in Middle Russian
 
Ольга В. Митренина ( Санкт-Петербург ). Синтаксис псевдо-коррелятивных конструкций 
с местоимением который в старорусском

74 
Philip R. Minlos ( Moscow ). Slavic Relative što / co between Pronouns and Conjunctions
 
Филипп Р. Минлос ( Москва ). Славянское релятивное što / co между местоимениями и союзами

92 
Вернер Лефельдт ( Гёттинген ). Карл Генрих Майер : последний славист 
Альбертины
 
Werner Lehfeldt ( Göttingen ). Karl Heinrich Meyer : der letzte Slavist der Albertina

100 
Марина А. Бобрик ( Берлин ). Загадочный псалом Макса Фасмера и его 
биографический контекст
 
Marina Bobrik ( Berlin ). Der rätselhafte Psalm bei Max Vasmer und dessen biographischer Kontext

145 
Роман Н. Кривко ( Москва ). Древнеболгарский пласт в ростовской служебной 
Минее XIII в. ( РНБ, F. п. I 37 )
 
Roman N. Krivko ( Moscow ). Old Bulgarian Layer in the Office Menaion of the Beginning of the 13th c. 
( RNB, F. p. I 37 ) of Rostov Provenance

222 
Амир Капетанович ( Загреб ). Многовековые направления в языковой 
интеграции хорватского общества
 
Amir Kapetanović ( Zagreb ). Centuries-long Trends in the Linguistic Integration of Croatian Society

244 
Михаил В. Ослон ( Москва ). Орфография и фонетика Юрия Крижанича
 
Mikhail V. Oslon ( Moscow ). Juraj Križanić's Orthography and Phonetics

 
Reviews / Рецензии

264 
Motoki Nomachi ( ed.), Grammaticalization in Slavic Languages : from Areal to 
Typological Perspectives, Sapporo : Slavic Research Center, Hokaido University, 
2010, 132 p. Reviewed by Milivoj Alanović ( Novi Sad )

Slověne   2012 №1

Preface

One should ask why to launch a new peer-reviewed journal for Slavic studies. 
This fi eld of research sees a variety of excellent projects. However, the available journals are, for the most part, limited to individual Slavic languages or 
subfi elds and, correspondingly, represent separate (mostly national) scholarly 
traditions. The missions of these teams are self-evident.
Our position, on the contrary, is a tricky one. We aim at bringing together diverse studies dedicated to aspects of Slavic philology and neighbouring 
fi elds. We hope that the journal will become a forum of international interaction and mutual enrichment of the Russian, East and West European, and 
North American philological trends. Our main strategical goal is to present 
the Slavic world and Slavic studies as crossroads of cultural and scholarly traditions. Chanses are that the project will succeed, but it is but a possibility.
As for now, what we are confi dent in is that the idea spontaneously brought 
together not only an impressive editorial board, but a group of scholars willing 
to participate with contributions, critics and discussions. The preparations of 
the fi rst issue was a time of vivid exchange of opinions, and, eventually, some 
fun. Hopefully, to be continued.

The journal will come out in two issues per year both in hard copies 
and online. It is based on “anonymous and blind referees” system. We encourage you to submit your contributions to the following e-mail address: 
slavs.journal@gmail.com

Fjodor B. Uspensky ( editor in-chief )

Roman N. Krivko, Philip R. Minlos ( managing editors )

№1   Slověne

Предисловие

Создание нового рецензируемого славистического журнала, первый 
номер которого сейчас вышел в свет, неизменно сопровождалось одним и тем же повторяющимся вопросом: “Зачем?” Удивление предсказуемо: славяноведению и так посвящено немало блестящих периодических изданий. Однако эти, хорошо известные специалистам, журналы 
большей частью сосредоточены либо на отдельных славянских языках, 
либо отражают исторически сложившиеся направления в славистике и, 
соответственно, представляют отдельные, как правило, национальные 
научные школы или течения. Их деятельность впечатляет своей очевидной результативностью.
Наши задачи видятся издателям несколько иначе. Уже в первом 
номере мы постарались собрать статьи максимально широкого тематического диапазона, связанного со славяноведением и смежными дисциплинами — от лингвистической типологии до истории науки. Мы 
надеемся, что журнал станет формой международного сотрудничества 
и обмена идеями между филологическими традициями России, Западной и Восточной Европы и Северной Америки. Наша главная стратегическая цель — описать славянский мир и славяноведение на перекрёстке 
культурных и научных традиций. Мы полагаем, что наш проект окажется успешным, и это более, чем умозрительная возможность.
На сегодняшний день мы видим, что идея журнала неожиданно позволила не только собрать сильную редколлегию, но и создать группу 
учёных, готовых участвовать в публикациях и дискуссиях. Подготовка первого номера стала для его редакторов и составителей временем 
горячих споров и не принесла ничего, кроме творческой радости. Мы 
надеемся на продолжение.

Журнал будет выходить два раза в год в бумажном виде и в электронном. Все статьи проходят двойное рецензирование, в ходе которого 
ни рецензенты не знают имени автора, ни автор — имени рецензентов. 
Мы просим присылать ваши статьи на адрес: slavs.journal@gmail.com.

Ф. Б. Успенский ( главный редактор )

Р. Н. Кривко, Ф. Р. Минлос ( редакторы первого выпуска )

№1   Slověne

On Proto-Slavic 
Oath Formulas1

Jasmina 
Grković-Major

University of Novi Sad
Faculty of Philosophy,
Novi Sad0

Abstract
This paper deals with Slavic oath formulas containing the phrases ‘stand fi rm’ 
and ‘hold fi rm’, found mostly in peace treaties. The analysis carried out on the rich 
corpus of Old Serbian charters writt en in the vernacular and followed by a comparison with the data from Old Russian. The research is an att empt to reconstruct 
their possible Proto-Slavic structure, both linguistic and conceptual.  
Aft er presenting the relevant data, the author reconstructs the following ProtoSlavic formulas: *stojati tvrьdo / krěpьko vь / na klętvě (kъ) komu ‘stand fi rm in / on 
the oath toward someone’, *drьžati tvrьdo / krěpьko klętvǫ (kъ) komu ‘hold fi rm the 
oath toward someone’. Both Serbian and Russian charters show lexical variations 
in the prepositional phrase and in the adverbial modifi er of the formulas, which 
testify to their semantic compositionality.
The etymology of their basic lexical constituents (*stojati, *drьžati, *tvrъdo, *krěpьko) 
indicates that  ‘immobility, fi rmness’ is their core meaning, *drьžati ‘make immobile > hold’ being just a transitive version of *stojati ‘be immobile > stand’. The 

1 This paper resulted from research on the project “The history of the Serbian language” 
(178001) fi nanced by the Ministry of Science of the Republic of Serbia. See also: 
Grkovi-Major 2008; 2010a.

О праславянских 
клятвенных 
формулах

Ясмина 
Грекович-Мейджор

Университет Нового Сада,
философский факультет,
Новый Сад

|

Slověne   2012 №1

On Proto-Slavic 
Oath Formulas 

concrete, physical concepts ‘stand’ and ‘hold’ were mapped into the target domain 
of the abstract ones (> ‘exist’ and ‘keep, have’). They represent the embodied experience and speak in favor of Embodied Realism. Indo-European parallels show 
that ‘stand’ and ‘hold’ belong to some of the basic Indo-European (although not 
just Indo-European) conceptual metaphors, having a deep cultural motivation.
These notions were so deeply rooted into the conceptual apparatus that they survived the change of cultural codes, becoming an integral part of the oath in Christian times. As time went by, they were secularized and reduced to phraseological 
units. They still exist today, even with the same lexical constituents as in the medieval charters, e.g. Serb. držati X (reč, obećanje, veru), Russ. sderžat’ X (dannoe slovo, 
kljatvu), stojat’ na X = tverdo deržat’sja X (ubeždenij a, mnenij a). 

Keywords
historical and cognitive linguistics, formulaic phrases, oath formulas, ProtoSlavic, Serbian, Russian, medieval charters, peace treaties.

1. Introduction

The goal of formulaic phrase reconstruction is, on one hand, to reveal the syntactic-semantic models which are specifi c for diff erent areas of social communication, their pragmatic and functional aspects, even proto-texts or text fragments. On the other hand, the goal would be to understand the universal and/or 
culturally specifi c conceptual models which lay behind them, since these formulas are “the expression of an underlying semiotic system” [Watkins 1992: 393]. 
Cognitive linguistics emphasizes that the investigation of idioms and formulaic sequences reveals the important elements of the human conceptual 
structure [Gibbs 2007: 721]. Yet, dealing mainly with formulas in the contemporary linguistic systems, it is often restricted by the level of the semantic transparence of their lexical constituents. We argue that understanding a deeper 
motivation of many formulaic expressions is possible only in a comparative and 
diachronic perspective, in which one of the important aspects is etymological 
analysis [Mokienko 2010], which helps us to access the primary conceptual 
building blocks of a formula. Moreover, if we are to postulate certain concepts 
as universal, or even culturally specifi c, we have to broaden our investigation to 
the deeper chronological levels, keeping in mind that the structure of today’s 
linguistic systems is determined by their development and cannot be explained 
without taking the previous synchronic strata into account. 
The aim of this paper is to off er insight into Proto-Slavic oath formulas. 
The reconstruction of Proto-Slavic legal terminology has so far drawn less attention than the reconstruction of the language of myth and poetry [Ivanov, 
Toporov 1974; Loma 2002]. The biggest contribution in the area of legal terminology was given by Vjač. Vs. Ivanov and V. N. Toporov [e.g. Ivanov, Toporov 1978; 1981], for which the main sources were East Slavonic data. The 

|  9 

2012 №1   Slověne

Jasmina Grković-Major

South Slavic situation has been less often studied [Katii1985; 1989–90, 
Grkovi-Major 2008], although it represents a valuable source for the study 
of Proto-Slavic legal language.
The research is primarily based on the rich corpus of Old Serbian charters 
written in the vernacular,2 in comparison with Old Russian data.3 Giving some 
Indo-European parallels, we will try to reconstruct their possible Proto-Slavic 
structure, both linguistic and conceptual. This might also contribute to the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European sources of these formulaic expressions since, as noted by C. Watkins [1989: 793], “a proper linguistic theory 
must be able to account for the creativity of human language; but it must also 
account for the possible long-term preservation of surface formulaic strings in 
the same or diff erent linguistic traditions over millennia.”  

2. The Importance of the Oath

The study of archaic formulas implies their analysis in the frames of a syncretic cultural model, whose deep motivation was manifested at all levels of 
existence: in mythology, ritual, poetry, social structure etc. [Ivanov, Toporov 1978: 222]. The foundation of such a cultural system was magical thinking, in which the ritual was an integral part of reality, and the very existence 
of the world and society depended on conducting it properly, while the word 
spoken during it was not just a linguistic sign but had an executive force [Kasirer 1985: 50–51]. The same principle is present in Indo-European poetic 
language, in which “the proper form of a hymn, the proper ordering of ritual 
speech, compels the divinity to grant the wishes of the maker or commissioner 
of the hymn” [Watkins 1995: 91]. 
Since in magical thinking words have a creative force, the essential component in Indo-European law was the formulaic pronouncement: “Ce n’est pas 
le faire, mais toujours le prononcer qui est constitutif du «droit»” [Benveniste 
1969, II: 114]. In the Avesta, when asked about how many types of contract 
existed, Ahura Mazda answered that there were six of them, the fi rst one being the contract of words [ZA I: 34]. Its crucial part was an oath, a solemn and 
binding act in Indo-European societies: “On comprend que Contrat et Serment 
aient constitué aux yeux des Aryens les deux piliers de l’ordre social et cosmique, les deux étant liés” [Haudry 1981: 66]. Ernout, Meillet [1951: 329] 
explain the Lat. ius in the following way: “Le mot a dû signifi er a l’origine formule religieuse qui a force de loi”. Not abiding to it was punishable by death: 
the Scythians would punish a perjurer by decapitation [Her. 4.68], the Greek 
public oaths invoked destruction for perjurers [Faraone 2005: 144–145], in 

2 The corpus consists of [MS], [SSA], [SPP] and [ZS]. 

3 The corpus consists of [DDG], [GVNP], [Lavr.], [POL], [SG] and [VPL].

|

Slověne   2012 №1

On Proto-Slavic 
Oath Formulas 

Albanian epic poetry “death comes after the oath is broken” [Miovi1981] 
etc. The written Indo-European tradition refl ects the same view. The peace 
treaty between the Hittite king Hattušilli III and Ramesses II, after a long list 
of gods and goddesses who were invoked as witnesses, states the following: 
“as to him who shall not keep them, a thousand gods of the land of Hatti and 
a thousand gods of the land of Egypt shall destroy his house, his land and his 
servants” [Langdon, Gardiner 1920: 197]. And Hesiod writes that “the Erinyes assisted at the birth of Horcus (Oath) whom Eris (Strife) bare to trouble 
the forsworn” [Hes. 802–804]. 
Since the oath was of vital importance in Indo-European societies,4 ritual 
speech was strictly ordered. It was preserved by the repetition of formulaic 
phrases, in which the lexical constituents may have undergone lexical variation over time.5 However, the variation was always within the same conceptual 
domain and did not aff ect the conceptual basis of the formulas.

3. Proto-Slavic Oath Formulas

Early Christianity did not approve of the ritual of swearing. In the New Testament Jesus is clearly against it: “But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither 
by heaven; for it is God’s throne” (Mt. 5:34). Later in the third and fourth 
centuries the majority of the church fathers spoke out against swearing and 
only later was it accepted by the Church [Stanojevi1922: 2]. Being obviously of vital importance, this pre-Christian custom fi nally won its place in the 
new cultural code. Justinian’s decree from 535 AD established the oath which 
all civil servants had to give, swearing by God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the 
Virgin Mary etc. This formula fi rst entered the Byzantine charters, and from 
there the papal and other western charters, as well as those in Slavia orthodoxa 
[Stanojevi1922: 4]. 
However, the source of this oath lay in pagan times. Its structure was inherited from Proto-Indo-European days and this is probably why it found fertile ground in all the communities. Pagan oaths, deeply rooted through thousands of years of practice, were kept by being adapted, thus surviving not only 
in the traditional culture but in the offi  cial documents of medieval Christian 
rulers and noblemen, too. Let us look at the Slavic situation.
Oath formulas which were lexically marked by the old religion were adapted by the replacement of their lexical constituents. The Proto-Indo-European 

4 For a broader survey of the oath and swearing (in the sense of taking a vow) from 
ancient to modern times and some of its universal characteristics in diff erent societies 
see [ERE 9: 430–438]. We are, however, focused here on Slavic as a branch of IndoEuropean.

5 Cf. the variations in the formula “hero overcome death” [Watkins 1995: 391–397].

|  11 

2012 №1   Slověne

Jasmina Grković-Major

formula “to swear by god”6 [Watkins 1989: 791–792; West 2007: 199–201] 
was adapted by replacing the name of a pagan god with the name of the Christian one, with the Virgin Mary or with the names of Christian saints, who assumed the function of pagan gods after the conversion of Slavs to Christianity 
(for the Serbian situation see: [Čajkanovi1973: 153–154]), e.g.: 

(1) a. ‘to swear by Perun’ > b. ‘to swear by a saint’ 
 
а. клѧшасѧ ѡружьємь своимъ . и Перуномъ бм҃ъ своимъ . и Волосом̑ 
скотьимъ бг҃омъ [Lavr. 38], 
 
b. i s prava srca esmo prisegli na[omq vyromq i dU[omq ... i svetimq }rqEmq i 
arhanqgelomq mihailomq na[imi krqstnymi imeni [MS CCIV, 1391];

(2) a. ‘to be cursed by Perun > b. ‘to be cursed by God and all the saints’
 
a. и да будет̑ клѧтъ ѿ б҃а и ѿ Пєруна яко преступи свою клѧтву [Lavr. 38],
 
b. da e prokletq wdq boga i wdq vsyhq svetQhq [MS XXXIII, 1234–1240].

The syntactic structure of the formulaic phrases is entirely preserved: *klęti 
(sę) + the instrumental; *byti proklętъ + otь + the genitive, the second one 
being a “passive version” of the fi rst one. In both cases the adjunct expresses 
the agent or the instrument which would execute the punishment in case of 
perjury [Nmec 1994: 377]. Cf. the following: 

(3) да не имуть помощи ѿ  б҃а и да будеть рабъ въ весь вѣкъ в будущии . и 
да заколенъ будеть своимъ ѡружьємъ [Lavr. 38].

Swearing on a weapon is known in other Indo-European traditions as well, 
witnessing to an ancient warrior weapon cult [Watkins 1995: 417; West 
2007: 463–462]. As for the broader Slavic tradition, it is worthwhile to notice 
that we fi nd indirect evidence for swearing on the sword in Chronica Boemorum, written by Cosmas of Prague in the 12th century:

(4) Teste Marte deo et mea domina Bellona, quae mihi fecit omnia bona, per 
capulum ensis mei iuro, quem manu teneo [ChB: 24].

The South Slavic epic tradition testifi es also to the swearing on a weapon:

(5) Kad ja pođem među družinicom
 
zaklinjem se konjem i oružjem [GP Vuk VI 16.9–11].7

 
On the other hand, formulas which did not contain a specifi c lexical element 
pointing to the old religion were preserved as such and incorporated into 
Christian discourse. Although they are of “neutral character”, not mentioning 
a specifi c deity, the structure of a formulaic phrase can be very archaic, as in:

6 Although the question surpasses the aim of this investigation, it should be added that 
this formula appears in other traditions, too. It was obviously part of Jewish tradition 
as well, as testifi ed to by the Old Testament: “And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, 
neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the lord”(Leviticus 19:12).

7 I would like to thank Aleksandar Loma for pointing out this example.