Editing Old Church Slavonic (section)

==Local influences (recensions)==

Over time, the language adopted more and more features from local Slavic vernaculars, producing different variants referred to as <em>Recensions</em> or ''Redactions''. Modern convention differentiates between the earliest, classical form of the language, referred to as Old Church Slavonic, and later, vernacular-coloured forms, collectively designated as [[Church Slavonic]].{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2006|p=64: Strictly speaking, "Old Church Slavonic" refers only to the language of the early period, and to later writings which
deliberately imitated it.}} More specifically, Old Church Slavonic is exemplified by extant manuscripts written between the 9th and 11th century in Great Moravia and the First Bulgarian Empire.

===Great Moravia===
[[File:Zavedeni slovanske liturgie na velke morave.jpg|thumb|''The Introduction of the Slavonic Liturgy in Great Moravia'' (1912), by [[Alphonse Mucha]], ''[[The Slav Epic]]'']]
The language was standardized for the first time by the mission of the two apostles to [[Great Moravia]] from 863. The manuscripts of the Moravian recension are therefore the earliest dated of the OCS recensions.<ref>{{harvcoltxt|Lunt|2001|p=9}} "The seven glagolitic folia known as the Kiev Folia (KF) are generally considered as most archaic from both the paleographic and the linguistic points of view..."</ref> The recension takes its name from the Slavic state of Great Moravia which existed in Central Europe during the 9th century on the territory of today's Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, northern Austria and southeastern Poland.

====Moravian recension====
[[File:Kiev Folios, fol. 7r.jpg|thumb|Folio 7 of the 10th-century Glagolitic [[Kiev Missal]], written in the Moravian recension]]
This recension is exemplified by the [[Kiev Missal]]. Its linguistic characteristics include:
* Confusion between the letters ''Big yus'' '''⟨Ѫѫ⟩''' and ''Uk'' '''⟨Ѹѹ⟩''' – this occurs once in the Kiev Folia, when the expected form въсоудъ ''vъsudъ'' is spelled въсѫдъ ''vъsǫdъ''
* {{IPA|/ts/}} from Proto-Slavic *tj, use of {{IPA|/dz/}} from *dj, {{IPA|/ʃtʃ/}} *skj
* Use of the words ''mьša'', ''cirky'', ''papežь'', ''prěfacija'', ''klepati'', ''piskati'' etc.
* Preservation of the consonant cluster {{IPA|/dl/}} (e.g. ''modlitvami'')
* Use of the ending&nbsp;–ъmь instead of&nbsp;–omь in the masculine singular [[instrumental case|instrumental]], use of the pronoun čьso

=== Duchy of Bohemia ===
[[File:Pražské Zlomky 1.jpg|thumb|Prague Glagolitic Fragments]]
The Bohemian (Czech) recension is derived from the Moravian recension and was used in the Czech lands until 1097. It was written in [[Glagolitic]], which is posited to have been carried over to Bohemia even before the death of Methodius.{{sfn|Huntley|1993|p=30}} It is preserved in religious texts (e.g. Prague Fragments), legends and glosses and shows substantial influence of the [[West Slavic languages|Western Slavic vernacular]] in Bohemia at the time. Its main features are:<ref>{{cite web | first1 =Alena A. | last1 = Fidlerová |author2= Robert Dittmann |author3=František Martínek |author4= Kateřina Voleková |title=Dějiny češtiny |url= https://ucjtk.ff.cuni.cz/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2015/11/D%C4%9Bjiny-%C4%8De%C5%A1tiny.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://ucjtk.ff.cuni.cz/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2015/11/D%C4%9Bjiny-%C4%8De%C5%A1tiny.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |access-date=16 May 2020 |language=cs}}</ref>
* PSl. *tj, *kt(i), *dj, *gt(i) → ''c'' /ts/, ''z'': ''pomocь'', ''utvrьzenie''
* PSl. *stj, *skj → ''šč'': ''*očistjenьje'' → ''očiščenie''
* ending ''-ъmь'' in instr. sg. (instead of ''-omь''): ''obrazъmь''
* verbs with prefix ''vy-'' (instead of ''iz-'')
* promoting of etymological ''-dl-, -tl-'' (''světidlъna'', ''vъsedli'', inconsistently)
* suppressing of epenthetic ''l'' (''prěstavenie'', inconsistently)
* ''-š-'' in original stem ''vьx-'' (''všěx'') after 3rd palatalization
* development of yers and nasals coincident with development in Czech lands
* fully syllabic ''r'' and ''l'' 
* ending ''-my'' in first-person pl. verbs
* missing terminal ''-tь'' in third-person present tense indicative
* creating future tense using prefix ''po-''
* using words ''prosba'' (request), ''zagrada'' (garden), ''požadati'' (to ask for), ''potrěbovati'' (to need), conjunctions ''aby'', ''nebo'', etc.

===First Bulgarian Empire===
[[File:Car_Simeon_Bulharsky_-_Alfons_Mucha.jpg|thumb|"[[Simeon I of Bulgaria]], the Morning Star of Slavonic Literature". (1923), by [[Alphonse Mucha]], ''[[The Slav Epic]]'']]
Although the missionary work of Constantine and Methodius took place in Great Moravia, it was in the [[First Bulgarian Empire]] that early Slavic written culture and liturgical literature really flourished.{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2006|p=43}} The Old Church Slavonic language was adopted as state and liturgical language in 893, and was taught and refined further in two bespoke academies created in [[Preslav]] (Bulgarian capital between 893 and 972), and [[Ohrid]] (Bulgarian capital between 991/997 and 1015).<ref>{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=X9PGRaZt-zcC&pg=PA436 |title=Toward an Understanding of Europe|isbn= 978-1-59942983-0 |last1=Ertl|first1=Alan W |year= 2008|publisher=Universal-Publishers }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=P-1m1FLtrvsC&pg=PA50 |title= Contested Ethnic Identity |isbn= 978-303430196-1 |last1=Kostov|first1=Chris |year= 2010|publisher= Peter Lang }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=ltRWy32dG7oC&pg=PA533 |title=The Poetics of Slavdom: Part III: Njego |isbn= 978-0-82048135-7|last1=Zlatar|first1= Zdenko|year= 2007|publisher=Peter Lang }}</ref>

The language did not represent one regional dialect but a generalized form of early [[South Slavic languages#Eastern group of South Slavic languages|eastern South Slavic]], which cannot be localized.<ref name= "Old Church Slavonic, Horace Lunt">{{Harvnb|Lunt|2001}}.</ref> The existence of two major literary centres in the Empire led in the period from the 9th to the 11th centuries to the emergence of two [[recension]]s (otherwise called "[[redaction]]s"), termed "Eastern" and "Western" respectively.{{Sfn |Vlasto|1970|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=fpVOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA174 174]}}<ref>{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=_kn5c5dJmNUC&pg=PA431 |title=Indo-European Language and Culture|isbn= 978-1-40518896-8 |last1=Fortson|first1=Benjamin W |date= 2009-08-31|publisher=John Wiley & Sons }}</ref>

Some researchers do not differentiate between manuscripts of the two recensions, preferring to group them together in a "Macedo-Bulgarian"<ref>{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=5pCBRsfJMv8C&pg=PA188 |title= Ancient Indo-European Dialects |last1= Birnbaum |first1= Henrik|last2= Puhvel|first2= Jaan |year= 1966}}</ref> or simply "Bulgarian" recension.{{Sfn |Sussex|Cubberley|2006|p=43}}<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/is_ran/is_ran_4.html |title= Razmyshlenija o makedonskom "sreze"… | first = I. | last = Kaliganov |website= kroraina}}</ref><ref name="usa" /> The development of Old Church Slavonic literacy had the effect of preventing the assimilation of the [[South Slavs]] into neighboring cultures, which promoted the formation of a distinct Bulgarian identity.{{Sfn |Crampton|2005|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ylz4fe7757cC&pg=PA15 15]}}

Common features of both recensions:
[[File:Codex Suprasliensis.jpg|thumb|The Bulgarian [[Codex Suprasliensis]] is one of the earliest extant Cyrillic manuscripts, dating back to the mid-900s]]
* Consistent use of the soft consonant clusters {{script|Cyrs|⟨щ⟩}} (*ʃt) & {{script|Cyrs|⟨жд⟩}} (*ʒd) for Pra-Slavic *tj/*gt/*kt and *dj. Articulation as *{{IPAlink|c}} & *{{IPAlink|ɟ}} in a number of Macedonian dialects is a later development due to Serbian influence in the [[Late Middle Ages]], aided by Late Middle Bulgarian's mutation of palatal *{{IPAlink|t}} & *{{IPAlink|d}} > palatal k & g<ref>{{cite book|last=Selishchev|first=Afanasii |script-title=ru:Очерки по македонской диалектологии|trans-title=Essays on Macedonian dialectology|location=Kazan|pages=127–146}}</ref>{{sfnp|Mirchev|1958|pp=155}}<ref>{{cite book|last=Georgiev|first=Vladimir |script-title=bg:Възникването на палаталните съгласни кʼ и гʼ от шт и жд в югозападните български говори, Проблеми на българския език|trans-title=Emergence of Palatal /k'/ and /g'/ from [sht] and [zhd] in the Southwestern Bulgarian Dialects. Issues Relating to the Bulgarian Language<!--|location=Sofia 
-->|year=1985|pages=43}}</ref>
* Consistent use of the [[yat]] vowel (ě)
* Inconsistent use of the epenthetic l, with attested forms both with and without it: <em>korabĺь</em> & <em>korabъ</em>, <em>zemĺě</em> & <em>zemьja</em>, the latter possibly indicating a shift from <ĺ> to <j>.{{sfnp|Huntley|1993|pp=132}}{{sfnp|Mirchev|1958|pp=55}} Modern [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]]/[[Macedonian language|Macedonian]] lack epenthetic l
* Replacement of the affricate {{script|Cyrs|⟨ꙃ⟩}} (*{{IPAlink|d͡z}}) with the fricative {{script|Cyrs|⟨ꙁ⟩}} (*{{IPAlink|z}}), realized consistently in Cyrillic and partially in Glagolitic manuscripts{{sfnp|Huntley|1993|pp=133}}
* Use of the past participle in perfect and past perfect tense without an auxiliary to denote the narator's attitude to what is happening{{sfnp|Huntley|1993|pp=153}}

Moreover, consistent scribal errors indicate the following trends in the development of the recension(s) between the 9th and the 11th centuries:

* Loss of the [[yer]]s ({{script|Cyrs|ъ}} & {{script|Cyrs|ь}}) in weak position and their vocalization in strong position, with diverging results in Preslav and Ohrid{{sfnp|Huntley|1993|pp=126–127}}{{sfnp|Duridanov|1991|pp=541–543}}{{sfnp|Mirchev|1958|pp=55}}
* Depalatalization of {{script|Cyrs|⟨ж⟩}} (*{{IPAlink|ʒ}}), {{script|Cyrs|⟨ш⟩}} (*{{IPAlink|ʃ}}), {{script|Cyrs|⟨ч⟩}} (*{{IPAlink|t͡ʃ}}), {{script|Cyrs|⟨ꙃ⟩}} (*{{IPAlink|d͡z}}), {{script|Cyrs|⟨ц⟩}} (*{{IPAlink|t͡s}}), and the {{script|Cyrs|⟨щ⟩ & ⟨жд⟩}} clusters.{{sfnp|Duridanov|1991|pp=541–543}} They are only hard in modern Bulgarian/Macedonian/[[Torlak dialect|Torlak]]
* Loss of intervocalic {{IPAslink|j}}, followed by vowel assimilation and contraction: <em>sěěhъ</em> (denoting <em>sějahъ</em>) > <em>sěahъ</em> > <em>sěhъ</em> ('I sowed'), <em>dobrajego</em> > <em>dobraego</em> > <em>dobraago</em> > <em>dobrago</em> ('good', masc. gen. sing.){{sfnp|Huntley|1993|pp=132}}{{sfnp|Duridanov|1991|pp=545–547}}
* Incipient denasalization of the [[small yus]], {{script|Cyrs|ѧ}} (ę), replaced with {{script|Cyrs|є}} (e){{sfnp|Duridanov|1991|pp=544}}
* Loss of the present tense third person sing. ending {{script|Cyrs|-тъ}} (<em>tъ</em>), e.g., {{script|Cyrs|бѫдетъ}} (<em>bǫdetъ</em>) > {{script|Cyrs|бѫде}} (<em>bǫde</em>) (lacking in modern Bulgarian/Macedonian/Torlak){{sfnp|Duridanov|1991|pp=547}}
* Incipient replacement of the sigmatic and asigmatic aorist with the new aorist, e.g., <em>vedoxъ</em> instead of ''vedъ'' or ''věsъ'' (modern Bulgarian/Macedonian and, in part, Torlak use similar forms){{sfnp|Duridanov|1991|pp=548}}
* Incipent analytisms, including examples of weakening of the noun declension, use of a postpositive [[definite article]], infinitive decomposition > use of <em>da</em> constructions, future tense with {{script|Cyrs|хотѣти}} (> {{script|Cyrs|ще/ќе/че}} in Bulgarian/Macedonian/Torlak) can all be observed in 10-11th century manuscripts{{sfnp|Duridanov|1991|pp=551–557}}

There are also certain differences between the Preslav and Ohrid recensions. According to Huntley, the primary ones are the diverging development of the strong yers (Western: {{script|Cyrs|ъ}} > {{script|Cyrs|o}} (*{{IPAlink|ɔ}}) and {{script|Cyrs|ь}} > {{script|Cyrs|є}} (*{{IPAlink|ɛ}}), Eastern {{script|Cyrs|ъ}} and {{script|Cyrs|ь}} > *{{IPAlink|ə}}), and the palatalization of dentals and labials before front vowels in East but not West.{{sfnp|Huntley|1993|pp=129, 131}} These continue to be among the primary differences between Eastern Bulgarian and Western Bulgarian/Macedonian to this day. Moreover, two different styles (or redactions) can be distinguished at Preslav; Preslav Double-Yer ({{script|Cyrs|ъ}} ≠ {{script|Cyrs|ь}}) and Preslav Single-Yer ({{script|Cyrs|ъ}} = {{script|Cyrs|ь}}, usually > {{script|Cyrs|ь}}). 
The Preslav and Ohrid recensions are described in greater detail below:

====Preslav recension====

The manuscripts of the Preslav recension<ref>{{cite book |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=aMwy-0D_6NEC&pg=PA409 |title=The Early Versions of the New Testament|isbn= 978-0-19826170-4 |last1= Metzger |first1= Bruce Manning |year= 1977|publisher=Clarendon Press }}</ref>{{Sfn |Sussex|Cubberley|2006 |p= 64}}<ref name="Kamusella 2008">{{Harvnb|Kamusella|2008}}{{Page needed |date=April 2022}}.</ref> or "Eastern" variant{{Sfn |Birnbaum|1991|p= 535}} are among the oldest of the Old Church Slavonic language, only predated by the Moravian recension. This recension was centred around the [[Preslav Literary School]]. Since the earliest datable [[Cyrillic Script|Cyrillic]] inscriptions were found in the area of [[Preslav]], it is this school which is credited with the development of the Cyrillic alphabet which gradually replaced the Glagolitic one.{{Sfn |Curta|2006|p=221–222}}<ref>{{cite book|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=J-H9BTVHKRMC&pg=PR3-IA34 |title=The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire |isbn=978-0-19161488-0 |last1= Hussey |first1= J. M. |date= 2010-03-25|publisher=OUP Oxford }}</ref> A number of prominent Bulgarian writers and scholars worked at the Preslav Literary School, including [[Naum of Preslav]] (until 893), [[Constantine of Preslav]], [[John Exarch]], [[Chernorizets Hrabar]], etc.. The main linguistic features of this recension are the following:

* The Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets were used concurrently
* In some documents, the original supershort vowels {{script|Cyrs|ъ}} and {{script|Cyrs|ь}} merged with one letter taking the place of the other
* The original ascending reflex (''rь'', ''lь'') of syllabic {{IPA|/r/}} and {{IPA|/l/}} was sometimes metathesized to (''ьr'', ''ьl''), or a combination of the two
* The central vowel ы (''ꙑ'') merged with ъи (''ъj'')
* Merger of {{script|Cyrs|{{angle bracket|ꙃ}}}} (*{{IPAlink|d͡z}}) and {{script|Cyrs|{{angle bracket|ꙁ}}}} (*{{IPAlink|z}})
* The verb forms {{script|Cyrs|нарицаѭ, нарицаѥши}} (''naricajǫ'', ''naricaješi'') were substituted or alternated with {{script|Cyrs|наричꙗѭ, наричꙗеши}} (''naričjajǫ'', ''naričjaješi'')

====Ohrid recension====
The manuscripts of the Ohrid recension or "Western" variant{{Sfn |Stolz|Titunik|Doležel|1984|p=111 | ps =: "Specific phonological and lexical differences led Jagić (and many others after him, notably Vaillant) to distinguish carefully between the Western (or Macedonian) OCS of the glagolitic manuscripts and the Eastern (or Bulgarian) OCS of the Suprasliensis…"}} are among the oldest of the Old Church Slavonic language, only predated by the Moravian recension. The recension is sometimes named Macedonian because its literary centre, [[Ohrid Literary School|Ohrid]], lies in the historical [[Macedonia (region)|region of Macedonia]]. At that period, [[Ohrid]] administratively formed part of the province of [[Kutmichevitsa]] in the [[First Bulgarian Empire]] until the [[Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria|Byzantine conquest]].{{Sfn |Vlasto|1970|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=fpVOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA169 169]}} The main literary centre of this dialect was the [[Ohrid Literary School]], whose most prominent member and most likely founder, was [[Clement of Ohrid|Saint Clement of Ohrid]] who was commissioned by [[Boris I of Bulgaria]] to teach and instruct the future clergy of the state in the Slavonic language. This recension is represented by the [[Codex Zographensis]] and [[Codex Marianus|Marianus]], among others. The main linguistic features of this recension include:

* Continuous usage of the [[Glagolitic alphabet]] instead of [[Cyrillic script|Cyrillic]]
* Strict distinction in the articulation of the yers and their vocalisation in strong position (ъ > *{{IPAlink|ɔ}} and ь > *{{IPAlink|ɛ}}) or deletion in weak position<ref name="Huntley 1993 126–7"/>
* Wider usage and retention of the phoneme *{{IPAlink|d͡z}} (which in most other Slavic languages has dеaffricated to *{{IPAlink|z}})

===Later recensions===
{{Main|Church Slavonic}}
Old Church Slavonic may have reached [[Slovenia]] as early as [[Cyril and Methodius]]'s [[Cyril and Methodius#Journey to Rome|Panonian mission]] in 868 and is exemplified by the late 10th century [[Freising manuscripts|Freising fragments]], written in the [[Latin script]].{{sfn|Huntley|1993|p=31}} Later, in the 10th century, [[Glagolitic]] liturgy was carried from Bohemia to [[Croatia]], where it established a rich literary tradition.{{sfn|Huntley|1993|p=31}} Old Church Slavonic in the [[Cyrillic script]] was in turn transmitted from Bulgaria to [[Serbia]] in the 10th century and to [[Kievan Rus']] in connection with its adoption of Orthodox Christianity in 988.{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2006|p=84–85}}{{sfn|Kamusella|2008|p=218}}

The later use of Old Church Slavonic in these medieval Slavic polities resulted in a gradual adjustment of the language to the local vernacular, while still retaining a number of [[Eastern South Slavic languages|Eastern South Slavic]], [[Moravia]]n or [[Bulgaria]]n features. In all cases, [[yus]]es denasalised so that only Old Church Slavonic, modern [[Polish language|Polish]] and some isolated [[Bulgarian dialects]] retained the old Slavonic nasal vowels.

In addition to the Czech-Moravian recension, which became moribund in the late 1000s, four other major recensions can be identified: <em>(Middle) Bulgarian</em>, as a continuation of the literary tradition of the [[Preslav Literary School|Preslav]] and [[Ohrid Literary School]]s, <em>Croatian</em>, <em>Serbian</em> and <em>Russian</em>.{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2006|p=64–65}} Certain authors also talk about separate <em>Bosnian</em> and <em>Ruthenian</em> recensions, whereas the use of the Bulgarian Euthimian recension in [[Wallachia]] and [[Moldova]] from the late 1300s until the early 1700s is sometimes referred to as <em>"Daco-Slavonic"</em> or <em>"Dacian"</em> recension.{{sfn|Kamusella|2008|p=218, 277}} All of these later versions of Old Church Slavonic are collectively referred to as [[Church Slavonic]].{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2006|p=64}}

====Bosnian recension====
[[File:Humacka ploca 2v.jpg|thumb|210px|Humac tablet (10th–11th century)]]
The Bosnian recension used both the [[Glagolitic alphabet]] and the [[Cyrillic alphabet]]. A home-grown version of the Cyrillic alphabet, commonly known as [[Bosančica]], or Bosnian Cyrillic, coined as neologism in 19th century, emerged very early on (probably the 1000s).{{Sfn |Marti|2012|p= [https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/books/9783110288179/9783110288179.269/9783110288179.269.pdf 275] | ps =: "[T]he first printed book in Cyrillic (or, to be more precise, in ''Bosančica'')…"}}<ref>{{cite book | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=udYWAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA2 | title = Cyrillic books printed before 1701 in British and Irish collections: a union catalogue | first = Ralph | last = Cleminson | publisher = [[British Library]] | year = 2000| isbn = 978-0-71234709-9}}</ref>{{sfn|Kamusella|2008|p=219–220: In the 14th century, the Cyrillic alphabet underwent reform under Bulgarian and Greek influence, but in inaccessible Bosnia, isolated from the outer world by mountain ranges, the Cyrillic developed into a special form known as Bosančica, or the 'Bosnian script'}} Primary features:

* Use of the letters ''i, y, ě'' for *{{IPAlink|i}} in [[Bosnian Cyrillic#Gallery|Bosnian manuscripts]] (reflecting Bosnian [[Shtokavian#Yat reflexes|Ikavism]])
* Use of the letter [[djerv]] (Ꙉꙉ) for the Serbo-Croatian reflexes of Pra-Slavic *tj and *dj (*{{IPAlink|t͡ɕ}} & *{{IPAlink|d͡ʑ}})
* Djerv was also used denote palatal *l and *n: {{script|Cyrs|⟨ꙉл⟩}} = *{{IPAlink|ʎ}}, {{script|Cyrs|⟨ꙉн⟩}} = *{{IPAlink|ɲ}}
* Use of the letter [[Щ]]щ for Pra-Slavic *stj, *skj (reflecting pronunciation as *ʃt or *ʃt͡ʃ) and only rarely for *tj

The recension has been subsumed under the Serbian recension, especially by Serbian linguistics, and (along with Bosančica) is the subject of a dispute between Serbs, Croatians and Bosniaks.{{sfn|Kamusella|2008|p=976}}

====Middle Bulgarian====

The common term "Middle Bulgarian" is usually contrasted to "Old Bulgarian" (an alternative name for Old Church Slavonic), and loosely used for manuscripts whose language demonstrates a broad spectrum of regional and temporal dialect features after the 11th century (12th to 14th century, although alternative periodisation exists, as well).<ref>Gerald L. Mayer, 1988, ''The definite article in contemporary standard Bulgarian'', Freie Universität Berlin. Osteuropa-Institut, Otto Harrassowitz, p. 108.</ref><ref>{{Cite encyclopedia|last=Bounatriou|first=Elias|title=Church Slavonic, Recensions of|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Slavic Languages and Linguistics Online|year=2020|doi=10.1163/2589-6229_ESLO_COM_032050 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-6229_ESLO_COM_032050}}</ref>{{sfnp|Mirchev|1958|pp=13–14}} An alternative term, <em>Bulgarian recension of Church Slavonic</em>, is used by some authors.{{sfn|Kamusella|2008|p=277}} The period is generally defined as a transition from the [[synthetic language|synthetic]] Old Bulgarian to the highly [[analytic language|analytic]] New Bulgarian and Macedonian, where incipient 10th-century analytisms gradually spread from the north-east to all Bulgarian, Macedonian dialects and Torlak. Primary features:

Phonological
* Merger of the [[yus]]es, *ǫ=*ę ([[Ѫ]]ѫ=[[Ѧ]]ѧ), into a single [[mid back unrounded vowel]] (most likely ʌ̃), where ѫ was used after plain and ѧ after [[palatal consonants]] (1000s–1100s), followed by [[denasalization]] and transition of ѫ > *{{IPAlink|ɤ}} or *{{IPAlink|a}} and ѧ > *{{IPAlink|ɛ}} in most dialects (1200s-1300s){{sfnp|Mirchev|1958|pp=110–114}}<ref>{{cite book|last=Totomanova|first=Ana-Maria|script-title=bg:Из българската историческа фонетика |trans-title=On Bulgarian Historical Phonetics|location=Sofia|publisher=University Printing House St. Clement of Ohrid|year=2014|edition=III|isbn=978-954-07-3788-1|pages=28–29}}</ref>
* Str. *ě > *ja (ʲa) in Eastern Bulgarian, starting from the 1100s; {{script|Cyrs|вꙗнєцъ}} (''vjanec'') instead of {{script|Cyrs|вѣнєцъ}} (''v(j)ænec''), from earlier {{script|Cyrs|вѣньцъ}} (''v(j)ænьc'') ('wreath'), after vocalization of the strong front yer{{sfn|Mirchev|1958|pp=15}}
* *ě > *e starting from northwestern Macedonia and spreading east and south, 1200s{{sfn|Mirchev|1958|pp=20}}
* *cě > *ca & *dzě > *dza in eastern North Macedonia and western Bulgaria (yakavian at the time), {{script|Cyrs|цаловати}} (''calovati'') instead of {{script|Cyrs|цѣловати}} (''c(j)ælovati'') ('kiss'), indicating hardening of palatal *c & *dz before *ě, 1200s{{sfn|Mirchev|1958|pp=19}}
* Merger of the yuses and yers (*ǫ=*ę=*ъ=*ь), usually, but not always, into a [[schwa]]-like sound (1200–1300s) in some dialects (central Bulgaria, the [[Rhodopes]]).{{sfn|Mirchev|1958|pp=18, 23}} Merger preserved in the most archaic [[Rup dialects]], e.g., [[Smolyan dialect|Smolyan]] (> {{IPAlink|ɒ}}), [[Paulician dialect|Paulician]] (incl. [[Banat Bulgarian dialect|Banat Bulgarian]]), [[Zlatograd dialect|Zlatograd]], [[Hvoyna dialect|Hvoyna]] (all > {{IPAlink|ɤ}})
[[File:RilskaGramota.JPG|thumb|210px|The 14th-century Rila Charter of Tsar [[Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria|Ivan Shishman]] is representative of Middle Bulgarian's development towards analytism]]
Morphological
* Degradation of the [[noun declension]] and incorrect use of most cases or their replacement of preposition + [[dative]] or [[accusative]] by the late 1300s{{sfn|Mirchev|1958|pp=24}}
* Further development and [[grammaticalization]] of the short [[demonstrative pronouns]] into postpositive [[definite articles]], e.g., {{script|Cyrs|сладость{{small|'''тѫ'''}}}} ('the sweetness'){{sfn|Mirchev|1958|pp=196–205}}
* Emergence of analytic [[comparative]] of adjectives, {{script|Cyrs|{{small|'''по'''}}богатъ}} ('rich'''er''''), {{script|Cyrs|{{small|'''по'''}}добръ}} ('bett'''er'''') by the 1300s{{sfn|Mirchev|1958|pp=180}}
* Emergence of a single plural form for adjectives by the 1300s
* Disappearance of the [[supine]], replaced by the [[infinitive]], which in turn was replaced by ''da'' + present tense constructions by the late 1300s
* Disappearance of the present active, present passive and past active participle and the widening of the use of the l-participle (''reklъ'') and the past passive participle (''rečenъ'') ('said')
* Replacement of aorist plural forms <em>-oxomъ</em>, <em>-oste</em>, <em>-ošę</em> with <em>-oxmy</em>/<em>oxme</em>, <em>-oxte</em>, <em>-oxǫ</em> as early as the 1100s, e.g., {{script|Cyrs|{{small|реко'''хѫ'''}}}} (''rekoxǫ'') instead of {{script|Cyrs|{{small|реко'''шѧ'''}}}} (''rekošę'') ('they said'){{sfn|Mirchev|1958|pp=216, 218}}

=====Euthymian recension=====
In the early 1370s, [[Patriarch of Bulgaria|Bulgarian Patriarch]] [[Euthymius of Tarnovo]] implemented a reform to standardize Bulgarian orthography.{{sfn|Kamusella|2008|pp=276}} Instead of bringining the language closer to that of commoners, the "Euthymian", or Tarnovo, recension, rather sought to re-establish older Old Church Slavonic models, further archaizing it.{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2002|p=85}} The fall of Bulgaria under Ottoman rule in 1396 precipitated an exodus of Bulgarian men-of-letters, e.g., [[Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kiev|Cyprian]], [[Gregory Tsamblak]], [[Constantine of Kostenets]], etc. to [[Wallachia]], [[Moldova]] and the [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania|Grand Duchies of Lithuania]] and [[Grand Duchy of Moscow|Moscow]], where they enforced the Euthymian recension as liturgical and chancery language, and to the [[Serbian Despotate]], where it influenced the [[Resava School]].{{sfn|Kamusella|2008|pp=158–159, 204, 276, 277: Bulgarian Church Slavonic was adopted as the official language of the Danubian Principalities and gradually developed into a specific Dacian recension that remained in use until the beginning of the 18th century}}{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2002|p=82, 85}}

====Croatian recension====
[[File:Reimski evanđelistargl10l1a.jpg|thumb|250px|A folio of the 13th-century [[Reims Gospel]], an example of Angular Glagolitic]]
The Croatian recension of Old Church Slavonic used only the [[Glagolitic alphabet]] of angular type. It shows the development of the following characteristics:

* Denasalisation of [[Proto-Slavic|PSl.]] *ę > e, PSl. *ǫ > u, e.g., OCS ''rǫka'' ("hand") > Cr. ''ruka'', OCS ''językъ'' > Cr. ''jezik'' ("tongue, language")
* PSl. *y > i, e.g., OCS ''byti'' > Cr. ''biti'' ("to be")
* PSl. [[Havlík's law|weak-positioned]] [[yers]] *ъ and *ь merged, probably representing some schwa-like sound, and only one of the letters was used (usually 'ъ'). Evident in earliest documents like [[Baška tablet]].
* PSl. [[Havlík's law|strong-positioned]] [[yers]] *ъ and *ь were vocalized into *a in most Štokavian and Čakavian dialects, e.g., OCS ''pьsъ'' > Cr. ''pas'' ("dog")
* PSl. hard and soft syllabic liquids *r and *r′ retained syllabicity and were written as simply r, as opposed to OCS sequences of mostly rь and rъ, e.g., ''krstъ'' and ''trgъ'' as opposed to OCS ''krьstъ'' and ''trъgъ'' ("cross", "market")
* PSl. #vьC and #vъC > #uC, e.g., OCS. ''vъdova'' ("widow") > Cr. ''udova''

====Russian recension====

The Russian recension emerged in the 1000s based on the earlier Eastern Bulgarian recension, from which it differed slightly. The earliest manuscript to contain Russian elements is the [[Ostromir Gospel]] of 1056–1057, which exemplifies the beginning of a Russianized Church Slavonic that gradually spread to liturgical and chancery documents.{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2002|p=81}} The Russianization process was cut short in the late 1300s, when a series of Bulgarian prelates, starting with [[Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kiev|Cyprian]], consciously "re-Bulgarized" church texts to achieve maximum conformity with the Euthymian recension.{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2002|p=82: The South Slavic component was deliberately emphasized during the " Second South Slavic Influence" of the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when Bulgarian prelates consciously "re-Bulgarized" (Issatschenko, 1980; 1980–1983) the church texts to achieve maximum conformity with the established church norms}}{{sfn|Kamusella|2008|pp=158–159: These immigrants enforced the South Slavic (Bulgarian) recension (version) of Church Slavonic as the standard in which religious books were to be written and administration conducted in Muscovy. This trend had commenced at the end of the 14th century when a succession of South Slavic monks had been nominated to the position of the metropolitan of all Rus (sometimes, anachronistically translated as ‘all Russias’) with his seat at Moscow}} The Russianization process resumed in the late 1400s, and Russian Church Slavonic eventually became entrenched as standard for all Orthodox Slavs, incl. Serbs and Bulgarians, by the early 1800s.{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2002|p=82: In time, however, the Russian recension of Church Slavonic gained increasing acceptance in Russia, and came to influence Serbian and Bulgarian Church Slavonic, and the formation and revival of these literary languages}}
[[File:Gospels russia.jpg|thumb|230px|The [[Mstislav Gospel]] is a 12th-century Cyrillic manuscript written in Russian Church Slavonic]]
* PSl. *ę > *ja/ʲa, PSl. *ǫ > u, e.g., OCS ''rǫka'' ("hand") > Rus. ''ruka''; OCS ''językъ'' > Rus. ''jazyk'' ("tongue, language")<ref>{{Harvnb|Sussex|Cubberley|2002|p=44}}</ref>
* Vocalisation of the [[yer]]s in strong position (ъ > *{{IPAlink|ɔ}} and ь > *{{IPAlink|ɛ}}) and their deletion in weak position
* *ě > *e, e.g., OCS ''věra'' ("faith") > Rus. ''vera''
* Preservation of a number of South Slavic and Bulgarian phonological and morphological features, e.g.{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2002|p=50}}
:- {{script|Cyrs|⟨щ⟩}} (pronounced *ʃt͡ʃ) instead of East Slavic {{script|Cyrs|⟨ч⟩}} (*t͡ʃ) for Pra-Slavic *tj/*gt/*kt: {{script|Cyrs|просвещение}} (''prosve'''šč'''enie'') vs. Ukrainian {{script|Cyrs|освiчення}} (''osvi'''č'''ennja'') ('illumination')
:- {{script|Cyrs|⟨жд⟩}} (*ʒd) instead of East Slavic {{script|Cyrs|⟨ж⟩}} (*ʒ) for Pra-Slavic *dj: {{script|Cyrs|одежда}} (''ode'''žd'''a'') vs. Ukrainian {{script|Cyrs|одежа}} (''ode'''ž'''a'') ('clothing')
:- Non-pleophonic ''-ra/-la'' instead of East Slavic pleophonic ''-oro/-olo'' forms: {{script|Cyrs|награда}} (''nag'''ra'''da'') vs. Ukrainian {{script|Cyrs|нагoрoда}} (''nah'''oro'''da'') ('reward')
:- Prefixes so-/voz-/iz- instead of s-/vz- (z-)/vy-: {{script|Cyrs|возбудить}} ('''''voz'''buditь''), vs. Ukrainian {{script|Cyrs|збудити}} ('''''z'''budyty'') ('arouse'), etc.

====Ruthenian recension====
The Ruthenian recension generally shows the same characteristics as and is usually subsumed under the Russian recension. The Euthymian recension that was pursued throughout the 1400s was gradually replaced in the 1500s by Ruthenian, an administrative language based on the Belarusian dialect of [[Vilnius|Vilno]].{{sfn|Sussex|Cubberley|2002|p=64, 85: During this period the written models included the "Euthymian" recension of Church Slavonic, an esoteric, Bulgarian-inspired attempt to re-establish older South Slavic models, which was then replaced by Ruthenian, a written and administrative language}}

====Serbian recension====
[[File:Miroslav's_Gospel_001.jpg|thumb|250px|A folio of the (10th–11th century) [[Miroslav Gospel]], a notable example of [[Serbian Cyrillic]] (UNESCO's Memory of the World Register]]
The Serbian recension{{Sfn |Lunt|2001|p= [https://books.google.com/books?id=7BXJgfIo_fYC&pg=PA4 4]}} used both the [[Glagolitic script|Glagolitic alphabet]] and the [[Cyrillic script|Cyrillic alphabet]]. A home-grown side version of the Cyrillic alphabet, commonly known as [[Serbian Cyrillic alphabet|Serbian Cyrillic]], emerged very early on (probably the 10th century).

Was written mostly in Cyrillic, but also in the Glagolitic alphabet (depending on region); by the 12th century the Serbs used exclusively the Cyrillic alphabet (and [[Latin script]] in coastal areas). The 1186 [[Miroslav Gospel]] is an example of the Serbian recension.

Primary features:

* Nasal vowels were denasalised and in one case closed: *ę > e, *ǫ > u, e.g. OCS rǫka > Sr. ruka ("hand"), OCS językъ > Sr. jezik ("tongue, language")
* Notable extensive use of diacritical signs by the [[Manasija|Resava]] dialect
* Use of letters ''i, y'' for the sound {{IPA|/i/}} in other manuscripts of the Serbian recension
* Use of the [[Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet#Early_history|Old Serbian Letter]] [[djerv]] (Ꙉꙉ) for the Serbian reflexes of [[Proto-Slavic language|Pre-Slavic]] *tj and *dj (*{{IPAlink|t͡ɕ}}, *{{IPAlink|d͡ʑ}}, *{{IPAlink|d͡ʒ}}, and *{{IPAlink|tɕ}})
=====Resava recension=====
Due to the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria in 1396, Serbia saw an influx of educated scribes and clergy, who re-introduced a more classical form that resembled more closely the Bulgarian recension. In the late 1400s and early 1500s, the Resava orthography spread to Bulgaria and North Macedonia and exerted substantial influence on Wallachia. It was eventually superseded by Russian Church Slavonic in the late 1700s and early 1800s.