# Bulgarian, Macedonian: genitive case



## darnil

If cases are lost in both languages, why is it possible to find this (apparently) genitive forms in this text? (Gospel - Matthew 10:21):

*BG Брат брата ще предаде на смърт, и баща чадо; *
*MK А братот ќе го предаде брата си на смрт, и таткото - детето,*

Are they just archaic forms, kept only as a result of the tradition?


----------



## jazyk

As far as I can tell, those are not genitive forms, but those accusatives in a used in any position except nominative I told you about in the other thread.


----------



## darnil

jazyk said:


> As far as I can tell, those are not genitive forms, but those accusatives in a used in any position except nominative I told you about in the other thread.


 You are right. As I understood the subject, they are in the only oblique case that (still) exists in these languages and in this case their syntactic function can only be accusative. Is that right?
If that is the case, it reminds me what happened in medieval French and Occitan, with only two cases, one nominative and the other just "oblique"...

Why are they used here? 
Is this use something normal? Is it usual in everyday language or just a relic of "bygone years" which is kept only for stylistic reasons (to make it more solemn or more "bookish")?
That is my real point.

(obrigadinho!)


----------



## Mac_Linguist1

darnil said:


> Why are they used here?
> Is this use something normal? Is it usual in everyday language or just a relic of "bygone years" which is kept only for stylistic reasons (to make it more solemn or more "bookish")?
> That is my real point.



All of the above. In fact almost all, if not all, western (and some north eastern) dialects have the oblique case for personal nouns. So you could say it's common in everyday conversation (regional dialects). It's also considered slightly archaic by more educated speakers as the standard language doesn't really allow this form in formal/academic and  journalistic language. The only time you'd see it used in a newspaper, for example, would be for stylistic reasons. Naturally one could probably see it used in sacred texts for the reasons given above.

But don't get confused with the Bulgarian "short article"! As far as I know, nouns take this form when they are objects (as opposed to subjects which take the "full article" form).

Friedman says:

_The oblique form is a Westernism accepted into Literary Macedonian. It is always facultative and is limited to masculine proper and family names, kinship terms ending in a consonant, -i, -o, or -e, and the nouns c#ovek ‘person’, bog ‘god’, g!avol ‘devil’, and gospod ‘lord’. Nouns in a consonant, -o, or -i take -a, nouns in -e add -ta: brat ‘brother’ OBL brata, tatko ‘father’, OBL tatka, Dragi, OBL Dragija, Goce, OBL Goceta. The use of oblique forms for names of domestic animals is now considered dialectal.

_


darnil said:


> If cases are lost in both languages, why is it possible to find this (apparently) genitive forms in this text? (Gospel - Matthew 10:21):
> 
> *BG Брат брата ще предаде на смърт, и баща чадо; *
> *MK А братот ќе го предаде брата си на смрт, и таткото - детето,*
> 
> Are they just archaic forms, kept only as a result of the tradition?



In my opinion, the Macedonian passage is a translation from the Bulgarian (which I think uses the short article). For me it sounds quite stilted and I would prefer to use "свој". So, something like:

_А братот ќе го предаде својот брат на смрт и таткото — детето/татко детето свое. __

_The latter half sounds better.


----------



## darnil

Thank you all. 
I think I have finally understood...


----------



## Mac_Linguist1

darnil said:


> Thank you all.
> I think I have finally understood...



I hope my answer wasn't too jumbled.


----------



## darnil

Mac_Linguist1 said:


> I hope my answer wasn't too jumbled.


No, it was perfect. 
The only thing is that I’m trying to understand too many concepts from too many languages in too short a time.
Imagine: I’m trying to put together a global idea of how animacy works in _all_ Slavic languages, and I am not any expert. Thank God it is only a preliminary study and not an “oh-so-important!” book for experts. Maybe some day…
The best thing is discovering that with such a thing as the Internet one can connect with people who know the facts first-hand and are willing to help.
So, thank you all once again.


----------



## Christo Tamarin

darnil said:


> If cases are lost in both languages, why is it possible to find this (apparently) genitive forms in this text? (Gospel - Matthew 10:21):
> 
> *BG Брат брата ще предаде на смърт, и баща чадо; *
> *MK А братот ќе го предаде брата си на смрт, и таткото - детето,*
> 
> Are they just archaic forms, kept only as a result of the tradition?


 
Hi, *darnil*. Hi, *Mac_Linguist1.*

In my opinion, these biblical texts can hardly demonstrate using casual endings for animated nouns in modern Slavo-Balkanic.

The original text in *Greek* {Matthew 10:31} follows: 


> .. *παραδώσει δέ αδελφός αδελφόν εις θάνατον καί πατήρ τέκνον* ..


 
The text in *Old Slavic* which seems to be translated literary from Greek follows:


> .. *предастъ же братъ брата на смрьть, и отьць чядо* ..


The nouns marked in red are used in accusative. Being an animated noun, *братъ *has its accusative form*брата* identical to that of genitive.

The text in *English* follows:
follows:


> .. _and the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child_ ..


 
Here are some translations into modern Bulgarian but in archaic style:


> .. *И ще предаде брат брата на смърт, и отец чадо ..*
> .. *BG Брат брата ще предаде на смърт, и баща чадо .. *
> .. *Брат брата ще предаде на смърт, и баща чедо ..*


 



These seem to be literary translations either from Old Slavic or from Greek. Why are they archaic? 

Definite forms of nouns are not used (compare to the English version).
Some other balkanic features are disregarded (e.g. {Balkan-4}). Thus, the only balkanic feature used is {Balkan-5}, the generic future tense; this is the only innovation.
The accusative form* брата *is used, at least according to the intention of the interpreter).
Here are some other translations into modern Bulgarian:



> (First chain)
> .. *Брат брат си ще предаде на смърт, и баща чедото си ..*
> .. *Брат брат си ще го предаде на смърт, и баща чедото си ..*
> .. *Брат брат си ще го предаде на смърт, и баща детето си ..*
> .. *Брат брат си ще го предаде на смърт, и бащата детето си ..*
> .. *Брат брат си ще го предаде на смърт, и таткото детето си ..*


 


> (Second chain)
> .. *Брат братa ще предаде на смърт, и баща детето ..*
> .. *Брат братa ще **предаде на смърт, *_сестра сестрата_*, и баща детето** ..*
> .. *Брат братът ще предаде на смърт, и баща детето ..*


etc.
What for a form is* братa *in the modern language? The version in the middle is to demonstrate that* братa *is not an archaic accusative form anymore; it is a new definite form instead. 



darnil said:


> *MK А братот ќе го предаде брата си на смрт, и таткото - детето*





Mac_Linguist1 said:


> In my opinion, the Macedonian passage is a translation from the Bulgarian (which I think uses the short article).


Yes, *Mac_Linguist1* is right. The form in red should be understood as a definite form rather than an ancient casual form of an animated noun.





Let us return to the second chain above which demonstrates *the problem with the archaic casual endings of animated nouns in Slavo-balkanic*. 

The archaic casual (accusative and dative) forms are not coordinated with the category of definite nouns in almost all dialects. Thus, the archaic casual (accusative and dative) forms can be used just in contexts where the category of definite nouns can merely be disregarded.
On the other hand, o-stemmed masculine nouns have preserved casual (accusative and dative) forms only.
Now, we have the explanation of Friedman's description: 



Mac_Linguist1 said:


> _The oblique form is a Westernism accepted into Literary Macedonian__. It __is *always facultative* and is *limited to* masculine proper and family names, kinship terms ending in a consonant, -i, -o, or -e, and the nouns c#ovek ‘person’, bog ‘god’, g!avol ‘devil’, and gospod ‘lord’. Nouns in a consonant, -o, or -i take -a, nouns in -e add -ta: brat ‘brother’ OBL brata, tatko ‘father’, OBL tatka, Dragi, OBL Dragija, Goce, OBL Goceta. The use of oblique forms for names of domestic animals is now considered dialectal._


*Remark 1*: Archaic accusative forms (oblique forms, as you call them) can be met in all over the Slavo-balkanic. So, I do not think they are _a Westernism_.
*Remark 2*: Nouns having archaic accusative forms usually have also archaic dative forms, at least in the folklore. That's why I prefer not to use the term _oblique _and keep the term _accusative_. However, for Romance languages, except Romano-balkanic, you are right to use the term _oblique case_.



Mac_Linguist1 said:


> But don't get confused with the Bulgarian "short article"! As far as I know, nouns take this form when they are objects (as opposed to subjects which take the "full article" form).


The short/full article distinction in modern Bulgarian can be just ignored. Native speakers have never distinguished them. This is just a scholastic invention. So, neglecting it in the speech is rather a rule. All Bulgarians have to *calculate* which form to use when writing. Most Bulgarians neglect it in writing, too. Serious researchers should not pay attention to it. 

What's the matter with those forms? 
The definite form of *брат* is *братът *(old *братътъ*; Macedonian/West Bulgarian *братoт*). In many dialects, the final *т *is dropped, so we have such forms like *братъ *(in the East) and *братo *(in the West). In the middle 19-th century, people could not properly write *братъ *because the final writen *ъ* was always mute. So, people used to write *братa* instead. The vowels *а* and *ъ *are not usually distinguished in an unstressed positions, moreover. When the article is stressed, as in *синът/сина*, there is a rule that the final letter *а *means actually* ъ. *

Thus, the full form is the just the form preserving the final *т* which is dropped in the shorten form. 

Next, bureaucrat officials did not want to give people the freedom to use whichever form they like. They invented a rule instead, thus demonstrating the bureaucracy in reproduction - the new rule does require supervision.

*Remark*: In dialects where advanced definite articles are used (Western and Standard Macedonian, e.g.), the final *т* cannot be dropped because it is in opposition to the other versions of the article.


----------



## Mac_Linguist1

Christo Tamarin said:


> *Remark 1*: Archaic accusative forms (oblique forms, as you call them) can be met in all over the Slavo-balkanic. So, I do not think they are _a Westernism_.



I should probably add that the oblique case is considered a westernism when speaking of the Macedonian dialectal area.


----------

