Editing Old Church Slavonic (section)

===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}})