# Freising manuscripts - how  understandable are they to West Slavs



## trance0

I have just thought of an interesting topic. I would like to ask all the native West Slavic speakers to check the following link: http://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/bs/ and report here how much of the text you understand based on your native West Slavic languages. On this web page you have written phonetic transcriptions, translations into other Slavic and World languages and sound records of all three manuscripts.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Interesting topic, trance0!

On THIS page of the site, you can find various lines from the Manuscripts with translations into modern Slovenian, Latin, German, English, Italian, and Polish.


----------



## texpert

This is my quick attempt at the first part. Bold is what I positevely understood, the rest was either wild guessing or misinterpreting. 

Note - I can read BCS but this did not help at all. Also, I have no knowledge of Old-Slavic or lithurgical texts to speak of. 

I'll get back to it later. 
 
GLAGOLITE PO NAZ REDKA ZLOUEZA: *Bose,↑ Gozpodi miloztiuvi,↑ Otze Bose,↑ Tebe izpovuede vuez moi greh,↑ i zuetemu Creztu*,*↑ i zuetei Marii↑,↑ i zue- temu Michaelu↑,↑ *i uzem crilatcem bosiem,*↑ i zuetemu Pe- 5 tru↑,↑ *i uzem zelom bosiem,↑ i uzem musenicom bosiem,↑ i uzem vuernicom bosiem,↑ i uzem,↑ devuam praudnim,↑ i uzem praudnim.*↑↑ I tebe,*↑ bosi rabe,↑ *choku biti ↑ izpovueden uzeh moih greh,↑ i vueruiu,↑ da mi ie,↑ na zem zuete *beusi,↑ *iti se na on zuet,*↑ paki se uztati na *zodni den*.*↑↑ Imeti mi ie sivuot *10 *po zem,↑ imeti mi ie otpuztic moih grechou.*↑↑* Bose miloztiuvi,↑ primi moiv izpovued moih grechou:↑ *ese iesem*ztuoril zla *po t *den*,↑ pongesebih na zi zvuet vuuraken i bih crisken,↑ ese pomngu ili ne pomngu,↑ *ili vuolu ili nevuolu,*↑ ili vuede ili ne vuede,↑ *ili u nepraud*- 15 nei rote *ili u lsi*,↑ *ili *tatbe *ili zavuizti*,↑ ili v uzmazi ili v zinistue,↑ ili ese *mi ze tomu chotelo*_,↑_ emuse mi bi ne doz- talo choteti,↑ ili v poglagolani,↑ ili zpe ili ne zpe,↑ ili ese iezem ne zpazal nedela,↑ ni zueta vuecera,↑ ni mega pozta i inoga mnogoga,↑ ese *protiu Bogu i protiu me- 20 mu creztu*.↑↑ *Ti edin,↑ Bose,↑ vuez,*↑ *caco mi ie iega potre- ba vuelica*.*↑↑ Bose,↑ Gozpodi miloztivi,↑ Tebe *ze mil tuoriv od zih postenih *greh i od ineh mnozeh*,↑ *i vuensih i minsih*,↑ ese *iezem ztvoril*.↑↑ Teh ze Tebe mil tuoriv,↑ *i zuetei Marii↑,↑ i vzem zvetim.*↑↑


----------



## Azori

Which transcription should this be? Diplomatic, critical or phonetic? I'm asking because they are quite different.


----------



## trance0

There are also sound recordings of all the text(and the URL to them: http://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/bs/html/bsWV.html). I would like to know how everyone understands both spoken and written Old Slovene. You should look at all the material except for the translations. Check out all the transcriptions and choose the one you`re most comfortable with.


----------



## Azori

I've just listened to it and I can say that for the most part I understood only some separate words here and there. I understood the first part better (especially the beginning), probably because I've read its phonetic transcription several times before, but I couldn't understand the second part at all, except for a few words. If I didn't look at the written text or a translation I wouldn't even know what the speech was about. I also found it difficult to listen to because of the intonation, despite it was spoken slowly. I haven't listened to the third part because my notebook doesn't want to play it for some reason.


----------



## Azori

Here's the phonetic transcription Grafenauer 1922.

Glagolite *po* *naz* redka zloueza

*Bože, gospodi milostivy, otče Bože, tebě izpovědě*
vəs *moj* *grěh* *i* *svętěmu* Krəstu *i* *svętěj* *Mariji* *i* *svę**těmu* *Mihaelu* *i* *vsěm* krilatcem *božijem* *i* *svętěmu* *Pe**tru i vsěm* səlom *božijem i vsěm mučenikom božijem**i vsěm věrnicom božijem i vsěm děvam pravdnym i* uzěm *pravdnym i tebě, božji* rabe, hoćų *byti izpovědən vsěh mojih **grěh* *i* *věrujų,* da *mi* *je* *na* sem *světě* byvši iti *že* *na* *on **zvět,* paki *že* *vstati* *na* *sǫdny* *dən.* Iměti *mi* *je* *živuot *po sem; iměti *mi je otpustək mojih grěchou. Bose **milostivy, primi mojų ispověd mojih grěhou,* ježe *jesəm* *stvoril* *zla* po t(ə) *dən,* ponježe *byh* *na* sə *svět **vrodjen* *i byh* krəšćen; ježe pomnjų ili *ne* pomnjų, ili voljų ili nevoljų, ili vědę ili *ne* vědę, ili v *nepravd**něj* rotě ili *v* *lži,* ili tatbě ili *zavisti,* ili *v* vsmazi ili *v* sənič(əs)tvě, ili ježe *mi* *sę* *tomu* hotělo, jemuže *mi* *bi* *ne* *dos**talo* hotěti, ili *v* poglagolanji, ili *spę* ili *ne* *spę*, ili ježe *jesəm* *ne* spasal neděla ni *světa* *večera* ni měga posta *i* inoga mnogoga, ježe *protiv* *Bogu* *i* *protiv* *mě**mu* krəstu. *Ti jedin, Bože, věs, kako mi jega potrě**ba velika! Bože, gospodi milostivy, tebě* sę mil tvorjų od sih *počtenyh* *grěh* *i* *od* *iněh* *mnozěh **i vęnčih i mənših,* jęže *jesəm stvoril.* Teh sę *tebě *mil tvorjų *i svętěj Mariji i vsěm svętym.*


----------



## trance0

Interesting, a friend of mine told me, that this archaic Slovene sounds like Czech to him(he mentioned that the vocative "bože" reminded him of Czech in particular) , while to me it seems closer to Modern Slovene and your personal remark about the intonation just confirms my observation. That said, I find written text easier to understand than the spoken one.


----------



## JakubikF

It reminds me Czech too  What is more I hear few sounds typical for Polish - nasal vowels ę and ą (or nasal u).


----------



## JakubikF

I must say this text seems not to be very clear to me as I thought before reading and listening to it. I understand about 75% of it. Suprisingly I understand more while reading a text in modern Slovene.


----------



## Azori

JakubikF said:


> It reminds me Czech too


I don't understand how this can sound like Czech to someone.


----------



## JakubikF

The example on the level of my understanding of Slovene.

"Brižinski spomeniki so najzgodnejši             dokument slovenske kulture. So najstarejši ohranjeni zapisi v slovenščini in hkrati najstarejša slovanska             besedila, zapisana v latinici."

Brižinski spomeniki są najważniejszym dokumentem słoweńskiej kultury. Są najstarszym, zachowanym tekstem w języku słoweńskim (= w słoweńszczyźnie) ... najstarszą słowiańską ... zapisaną łacinką.  

Brižinski spomeniki is the most important document of Slovenian culture. They are the oldest, survived text in Slovene ... the oldest Slavonic ... written in Latin alphabet.  .


----------



## JakubikF

Lior - it sounds similar to Czech and in fact to Slovak too. I am not saying I would mix up them. However if someone asked me whether or not it is a south group of Slavonic languages I would say this is the western group (kind of Czech-Slovak dialect).


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

JakubikF said:


> The example on the level of my understanding of Slovene.
> 
> "Brižinski spomeniki so najzgodnejši dokument slovenske kulture. So najstarejši ohranjeni zapisi v slovenščini in hkrati najstarejša slovanska besedila, zapisana v latinici."
> 
> Brižinski spomeniki są najważniejszym dokumentem słoweńskiej kultury. Są najstarszym, zachowanym tekstem w języku słoweńskim (= w słoweńszczyźnie) ... najstarszą słowiańską ... zapisaną łacinką.
> 
> Brižinski spomeniki is the most important document of Slovenian culture. They are the oldest, survived text in Slovene ... the oldest Slavonic ... written in Latin alphabet. .


 
Very close:

"Brižinski spomeniki are the *earliest* document of Slovenian culture. They are the oldest surviving *writings* in Slovene and, *at the same time (also)*, the oldest Slavonic *texts* written in the Latin alphabet."

However, keep in mind that this introductory text is written in *modern* Slovenian.


----------



## JakubikF

"the oldest surviving writings" = najstarsze, zachowane zapiski/rękopisy - this is what I meant but I dropped the sense while translating it into Polish and English. 

I know it is a modern Slovenian. Thus, it is very interesting for me that I understand more in modern Slovenian than the ancestor of it. I think the old Slovenian should share more features with my native language than modern Polish to modern Slovenian. The evolution seems to separate languages as the natural selection does with species.


----------



## trance0

It could also mean that Polish and Slovene have partly changed in the same direction.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

For those of you who would like to compare the early Slovenian of the Freising Manuscripts with modern Slovenian, I just posted a link to an audio sample of modern standard Slovenian in the "All Slavic languages: Mutual intelligibility" thread.


----------



## texpert

JakubikF said:


> Lior - it sounds similar to Czech and in fact to Slovak too. I am not saying I would mix up them. However if someone asked me whether or not it is a south group of Slavonic languages I would say this is the western group (kind of Czech-Slovak dialect).


 
In fact, my first impression after hearing the record was: "Is it good old Karol Wojtyla speaking here?" 

All I could hear were some vaguely familiar words spoken with elaborate Polish accent. Though I must admit that had it been really Polish, I'd have gathered more than 50% of the content and not just 10% or 15% as I did in the end. 

Most of the second part was utterly incomprehensible to me (though still familiar sounding), with the clear exception of: _*Možete potomu, synci, viděti i sami razuměti*, ježe běšę prəvě(je) *člověci v lica tacije, akože i my jesəm, *tere *neprijaznina vznenaviděšę, a božija vzljubišě*. _


----------



## trance0

Well, this accent is in fact quite typical for Modern Slovene "church language". This is the intonation our priests use when they preach to parishioners.


----------



## WannaBeMe

Hello, my native language is Serbian, not West Slavic but I would also like to give a comment 

It was pretty well comprehensible to me, both the written and the spoken versions.

-I had no big problems with understanding the tenses or declensions.(I suppose, aorist and imperfect were a problem to West Slavs)

-Some words I new from the church like *paki*-always or *iže, jaže, ježe*- which, who (relative pronouns), *sej, sija, sije* - this (most of time in instrumental- *sem*)

-As I sow the written version I though first: "Oh my god whats that!" and then as I started to read and understand and adapt the system of writting there was no more problems with understanding it.

-The spoken version was as much comprehencive as the written one , a little problem were nasals but it was easier to understand than Polish nasals because I only should replace E with EN and U with ON (and in Polish E with ON und U with EN which sounds a lot strange to me).
In some cases the nasals have helped me like in first person singular of verovati - *veruju,* - it soundet to me like verujon- which is similar to Serbian *verujem.*

*-*And the other thing with sounded a little bit unusual the accent, tonation of words.

But suma sumarum I could understand it as much as modern Slovenian, in some cases better in some worse.


----------



## trance0

If you know (some) Old Church Slavonic you are "over qualified" to judge your understanding of this text purely on the basis of your native tongue, because this additional knowledge gives you the upper hand with the text. Old Slovene was still quite close to Old Church Slavonic in many respects. I would like some other Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian natives without prior knowledge of Church Slavonic to comment on their respective understanding of the text for comparison.


----------



## Mišo

First and foremost I would like to say thanks to trance0 for this thread.
Lastly, I made time myself for studying all the contest.
I listened every part twice, because I read during listening both old variants.
All three  parts were in like manner comprehensible.
I understood better to audio, than texts.
In comparison with modern Slovene, I find this language a bit more intelligible only in slower speech and some futures, that we can find in nowaday WSL.



texpert said:


> In fact, my first impression after hearing the record was: "Is it good old Karol Wojtyla speaking here?"


 The same came to my mind too.


----------



## Mišo

Mišo said:


> I understood better to audio, than texts.



See the right point - without listening I would knew by no means, how to read it, let alone, what does it mean.


----------



## Azori

Mišo said:


> I listened every part twice, because I read during listening both old variants.
> I understood better to audio, than texts.


You were listening to the recordings while reading and you understood them better than the texts???


----------



## Mišo

lior neith said:


> You were listening to the recordings while reading and you understood them better than the texts???



 I repete. Before listening, I though, the text will help me to understand, but it was vice versa at last.


----------

