Језичке старине Полимља и Потарја — сведочанства старосрпских повеља

Abstract

Разматра се део старосрпског језичког простора омеђен сливовима Лима и Таре у светлу топономастичке грађе забележене у манастирским повељама из 13-14. века, која бива упоређена са савременим стањем и стављена у шири словенски и балкански контекст. Поред сразмерно малобројних страних примеса, супстратних и адстратних, у њој се издвајају словенски слојеви различите старине, настали од досељења Словена на те просторе па до времена бележења. Она такође пружа могућност да се установе основне црте тамошњих говора у позном средњем веку, како конзервативне, у смислу чувања прасловенске старине, тако и иновационе, тј. зачеци новосрпских развоја.

The present paper focuses on the region defined by the river basins of Lim and Tara. During the Middle Ages it was the central part of the medieval Serbian state and Old Serbian written sources, especially the monastic charters from 13th—14th centuries, give us the opportunity to look deeper into its linguistic past as well as to trace back to the time they were issued some features of the modern dialects spoken there. Our analysis is based on the toponomastic data provided by six charters and supplemented by those from a 15th century Turkish census. They were compared with the modern toponymy of the region, and considered within a

broader frame encompassing diachronic insights into other Slavic and Balkan languages. In the stratigraphy of the local toponymy the central and largely prevailing layer was Slavic, with only few foreign admixtures. The river names Lim and Tara, although without ancient attestations, represent a possible Pre-Slavic substrate; the evidence of a charter precisely distinguishing between y and i indicates that the original form of the former was *Lims rather than *Lym», which speaks against the etymology connecting it with Alb. lumi ‘river’. Some traces of adstrate influence, such as Visitor (< Rum. *visdtor dreaming place, shepherd camp’) or Sekulari (< Alb. shekullare < Lat. secularis ’secular’), are found 1n the southern border area. In sum, the medieval appearance of the Lim-Tara region is that of a thoroughly and long since Slavicized land. More than half a millennium of Slavic presence there laying beyond our Old Serbian evidence 1s reflected in the internal stratification of its main toponymic layer where along with words living and morphological patterns productive at the time of recording many more archaic items are recognized, which have been obsolete in 13- 14th century Old Serbian, such vosp ‘village’ (Pruska vosv), *terbocv wood clearer’ (Tréb’¢a), as well as a number of anthroponyms non-attested on Serbian soil outside the toponymy. They underlay mainly the equally archaic univerbized j-possessiva: *Je-dorgo (*Jedraz(a/e), attested by jedrazpkyj vorhv), Lubo-vide (Ljubovida), *Do-sedb (Dosude), Budimlja (*Budimo, shortened from Budimirs), Hotis (*Xotise from *Xotislave), Gorazde (Gorazde), *Vel(pv)ido (Velide), *Nevecerond ‘non darkening’ (Neveceranv), *Borzoko (Broskovo). Most of those names have parallels outside of South-Slavic area: Czech Liboviz, Chotis, Veliz, Brskov, Polish Lubowidz, Russian Veliz, Slavic in Hungary Budim (> Budin > Buda), Garasd, thus may be traced back to the Late Common Slavic epoch. The 13-15th century toponymy of the region displays all distinctive features of Old Serbian, particularly the early development *dj > d, distinguishing it both from East South Slavic (Macedonian, Bulgarian) and from the Old Croatian (Cakavian) and Slovenian branch of West South Slavic; here it is characteristic of both younger and older toponymic layers, cf., for the former, Medvéda glava, and for the latter Dosude, Lijubovida. Accordingly, *tj resulted in c, cf. especially the patronymics 1n -itji such as Dulici. The substitution for °y is always u (Gusino < *Gesino, prudb < *prodz, etc.). East South Slavic loss of the epenthetic / is unknown to the region (Budimlja, Plavijane). If compared to Modern Serbian, our material is characterised by the preservation of a series of distinctions subsequently lost, so, in the domain of phonetics, between » (< *», *#) and a, e.g. Dobro, today Dabar, between land u, e.g. Stlobica, Jabloéno > Stubica, Jabuéno; | at the end of the syllable was still unaltered, e.g. Cronilna sténa > Crnionica, é preservmg its phonological status (probably [e]), e.g. sténa > st(ij)ena, etc.; the words for ‘man’ and deep’ did not assume yet their modern forms (clovek», today cov(j)ek resp. glubokw, today duboko). The most conservative morphological features are the dual forms such as Suha bora ’two dried pine trees’ and the athematic declension of n-stems (kamy, kamene; Nom.pl. Plavljane, Loc. u Komarahp), although the influence of the o-stems on them is already manifest (Nom. Komarani, Dat. Komaranomp), as well as that of the u- on the o-stems (Loc. v Limu beside u Limé). In the local vernaculars some archaic traits foreign to the modern written language are conserved, such the declension Nom. Acc. kami, Gen. kamena, or the definite form of the adjectives in -ov- / -ev- with a descriptive meaning, e.g. Javorovi dé, from javor maple, as opposed to the possessive ones, such as Milosev dé ’Milos’s valley. On the lexical level we find terms that went out of use (gvozd» dense forest, dobrv ‘narrow wooded valley, mélv ’sand’ dubs oak’), or changed their meaning (blato ‘lake, today ‘mud, planina ‘alpine pasture, today mountain), as well as several archaic adjectives (lito ‘steep, of cliff, luk» *bent, situated 1n a river bend, plan» clear of vegetation, plane, sterile’). Our charters bear testimony to some developments of Modern Serbian having been already under way in the 13-14th century. The forms with cr < ¢r such as Cronino bredo, Cronilna sténa appear as early as the mid-13th century. From the general preservation of » and e there are a few exceptions, cf., for the former, 1316 Gradaévco beside Gradvévcv, Neveceranp, if from *Neveceron’s (see above), and already about 1250 Ugarnéo studenvcn, if from *Qgorecp (to Russ ugor worm, etc.). From around 1330 we have a probable instance of the jekavian new 10tation in Devcina < *Dévcina, an adjective to *dévoka girl, cf. today dévka in a dialect of the northern Montenegro. This place name is interesting also from a historical point of view, for it may be interpreted as ‘possession of the Virgin (Mary)’ and put into connection with a former episcopal estate of Our Lady's church at Ston.