Belorussian versus Ukrainian: Delimitation of Texts before A.D. 1569

Full text

Belorussian versus Ukrainian: Delimitation
of
Texts
before
A.D.
1569
BY
GEORGE
Y.
SHEVELOV
145
If a problem is
debated
without
solution
for
many
decades
it
can
usually be
inferred
that
it
had
been
defined
inappropriately
to
begin
with. Instead of
continuing
along
the
same
track
it
is
wiser
to
revise
the original premises.
The long-lasting
controversy
on
the
delimitation
of
Belorussian
(Br)
from
Ukrainian
(U)
texts
of
the
middle
period
(late
14th
through
the 17th century)
seems
to
be
a
case
in
point.
Without
going
into
the
time gone-by
when
Br
was
considered
by
some
scholars
(e.g.
Oho-
novs'kyj1) to
be
but
a
dialect of
U
and
without
offering
a
biblio-
graphical
survey
2 I
shall
limit
myself
to
mentioning
here
those
who
have taken
part
in
the
discussion.
Some
have
contributed
special
studies,
other
have
touched
on
the
problem
in
a
broader
context
(usually in histories of
the
two
standard
languages),
and
still
others
have compiled lists of
texts
claimed
to
be
specifically U
or
Br.
Ja.
Karski, P.
Zytec'kyj,
V.
Lastowski,
H.
Omel'cenko,
Je.
Tymcenko,
I. Ohijenko,
A.
Zurawski,
L.
Sakun,
L.
Humec'ka,
B.
Struminski,
P.
Pljusc, F. Zylko, A.
Martel,
C.
Stang,
M.
Zovtobrjux,
P.
Tymo-
senko -these
names
come
to
one's
mind
-
and
the
list
is still,
no
doubt, far from complete.
One
must
add
those
who
participated
in
the discussion
indirectly,
by
assigning
a specific
text
to
either
Br
or
U,
an apparently
innocuous
act
in
itself
if
done, so to
speak,
in
passing
but one which
may
become
fraught
with
consequences
if
it
so
labels
a text published
reliably
for
the
first
time.
An
example
is
the
publication of 14th
and
15th-century
charters
by
V. Rozov,
Ukra-
jins'ki hramoty (Kiev, 1928)3 -
are
all
of
them
Ukrainian?
I.
Ohi-
jenko introduced
the
Act
and
Epistles
of
Krexiv
into
the
scholarly
circuit in a voluminous
book
entitled
Ukrajins'ka
literaturna
mova
XVI st.,
I.
Krexivs'kyj
Apostol
1560-x
rr.
(Warsaw,
1930) -is
the
text really
Ukrainian?
I.
Bilodid
included
Hramatyka
slovenskaja
by
I. Uzevic in
the
series
Pamjatky
ukrajins'koji
movy
XVII
st. (Kiev,
1970)
and launched
it
as
'persa
hramatyka
vlasne
ukrajins'koji
litera-
turnoji movy' (p. v). Is it?
Daskevyc
published
some
Turkish
diplo-
matic correspondence
dated
1541-1543 as
Ukrainian.
4
Beyond
any
doubt it is Br. As is
generally
known,
Lastowski
had
similar
claims
on
the
Br
side.5
Such 'annexations'
probably
seem
to
their
perpetrators
as
import-
ant for enhancing
the
cultural
tradition
of
the
given
nation,
though
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com01/11/2020 12:36:01PM
via free access

146
THE
JOURNAL
OF
BYELORUSSIAN
STUDIES
all
they
actually
do is
deprive
that
nation
of
its
real
history
as
its
edifice sags
or
even
crumbles
under
the
pressure
of
these
extraneous
bodies.
This
is
what
has
happened
to
the
early
history
of
the
Russian
language:
it
is
heavily
distorted
and
hardly
exists
as
a
scholarly
whole
because
of
the
mass
inclusion
of
non-Russian
data
into
it.
It
is
maintained
simply
as
an
uncritically
accepted
set
of
internally
contradicting
cliches
held
together
by
the
force
of
an
extrascholarly
pressure.
Such
a
situation
can
just
as
easily
prevail
in
the
histories
of
the
U
and
Br
languages
and
literatures
of
the
middle
period
if
nationalistic
gluttony
is
not
exposed
as
one
of
the
seven
deadly
sins.
The
self-presented
gifts
at
the
expense
of
the
neighbor
are
more
perilous
than
the
dona Danaorum.
It
is
this
danger
of
anarchy
in
the
history
of
the
Middle
Ukrainian
(MU)
and
Middle
Belorussian
(MBr)
languages
which
makes
it
incumbent
upon
us
to
return
to
the
century-long
discussion
and
to
attempt
a
revised
view
at
it
and
at
its
subject.
It
seems
that
what
is
needed
-
apart
from
good
will
which
we
must
assume
is
present
on
both
sides -is
not
a
revolution
in
approach
but
just
greater
precision
in
singling
out
the
various
facets
of
the
problem.
There
are
at
least
three
points
of
view
which
can
be
applied
to
the
delimitation
of
Br
and
U
texts
of
the
middle
period
and
it
is
vitally
important
to
keep
them
apart.
The
texts
can
be
judged
and
classified
from
the
viewpoint
of
the
history
of
literature(s);
of
the
history
of
the
standard
langu-
age(s);
and
of
the
history
of
the
spoken
language(s).
Not
that
these
criteria
are
new.
One
may
find
some
rudimentary
references
to
them,
e.g.
in
Ohijenko,
6
in
Zurawski,
7 a.o.
But
it
seems
that
the
distinction
between
the
three
has
not
been
adhered
to
strictly
enough.
8
1.
Literary
problems
can
only
be
touched
upon
in
this
article.
The
fundamental
fact
is
that
the
Belorussians
and
most
of
the
Ukrainians
(all
except
Bukovyna
and
Transcarpathia)
lived
in
essentially
one
country,
adhered
to
the
same
religion
with
the
same
church
langu-
age,
and
had
common
interests
and
common
enemies
(and
nothing
is
more
unifying
than
common
enemies!).
There
were
no
obstacles
to
the
unimpeded
circulation
of ideas, books,
and
people.
Concerning
the
last,
the
participation
of
the
Belorussians
in
the
population
movements
to
the
south,
especially
along
the
Dnieper,
in
the
Reconquista of
the
territories
below
Kiev,
which
started
in
the
late
15th
and
early
16th
century,
is
well
known,
although
the
part
they
played
in
the
formation
of
the
Cossacks
and
the
military
and
political
center
in
and
around
Sic
has
not
been
emphasized
sufficiently.
No
less
known
-
and
no
less
important
-
was
the
constant
influx
of
intellectuals
from
the
Ukraine
to
Vil'na
(Vilnius),
the
political
capital
and
the
cultural
center
of
the
Grand
Duchy
of
Lithuania.
Even
intellectuals
from
the
properly
Polish
part
of
the
country,
i.e.
mainly
Galicia,
were
attracted
to
Vil'na
and
not
to
their
'own'
political
capital, Cracow,
which
aliell'ated
them
by
the
differences
in
religion
and
cultural
tradition,
as
did
even
more
the
Volhynians
and
the
Kievans.
There
were
no
animosities
among
the
Ukrainians
and
the
Belorussians
and
I
am
not
aware
of
any
utterances
by
a
contemporary
which
would
stress
the
distinction
between
the
two
nationalities.
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com01/11/2020 12:36:01PM
via free access

BELORUSSIAN
VERSUS
UKRAINIAN
147
Under
these
conditions
one
must
speak
of
one
literary
process.
Naturally,
writers
may
be
classified
by
the
place
of
their
birth,
education,
or
activity
wherever
there
is
sufficient
information
on
such details.
But
such
external
criteria
would
be
artificial
and
indeed
superfluous for
the
understanding
of
the
literature.
And
what
if
the
same
author
wrote
a book
in
the
Ukraine
and
another
in
Belorussia?
It
would be
rather
ludicrous
to
cut
his
work
in
parts
and
to
assign
one
part
to
the
Ukrainian
literature
and
the
other
to
Br.
Exceptions
should be
made
for
those
works
which
only
existed
in
manuscript
form and
where
the
available
data
suggest
that
they
were
used
only
regionally
in
one
or
the
other
country.
This
seems, e.g.,
to
apply
to
some clearly
Br
texts
in
the
Poznan
collection
of
tales
(Povest'
o
Tryscane,
Istoryja
o
Atyli
a.o.), -
at
least
until
their
circulation
in
the Ukraine is
demonstrated.
The
literary
process of
the
time
may
be
most
adequately
presented
as
a history of
interconnected
local
cultural
centers
such
as
Vil'na,
Zabludaw,
Ostrih-Derman',
L'viv,
later
Orsa-Kucein,
etc.
Then
the
differences
between
a
Br.
history
of
literature
and
a U
history
of
literature for
the
period
under
discussion
would
be
not
so
much
in
the scope of
the
authors,
works,
and
styles
analyzed
as
in
a
different
degree of
attention
paid
to
the
history
of
such
local
cultural
centers.
9
2.
The
situation
is
similar
but
more
complicated
with
the
standard
language or,
more
accurately,
standard
languages:
the
ecclesiastic
and the secular
(with
some
compromises
between
the
two).
The
ecclesiastic
language
remained
essentially
Church
Slavonic
(ChSl),
not only in
church
service
books
but
also
in
the
original
writings;
it
is
enough to
refer,
e.g., to
the
Metropolitan
Misail's Poselstvo
do
Papeza
Siksta
IV
(1470s)
or
to
the
epistle
to
the
Patriarch
of
Con-
stantinople
concerning
Jonah
Hlezna
(ca. 1490).10
Local
features
crept into those
texts,
of
course,
but
inadvertently.
They
can
be
exposed
by
the
language
historian
as
a
superstratum
over
the
ChSl
foundation (as is
done
for
material
written
before
the
14th
century)
and, as expected,
they
are
mostly
either
U
or
Br.
But
a
third
ingredient
may
also
be
found
in
such
texts,
and
this
may
be
identified
as
the
standard
secular
language
of
the
country;
in
fact
Br
or
U
contributions
may
be
uncovered
only
under
this
disguise.
This
is
especially
true
of
texts
deliberately
aiming
at
linguistic
compromise,
such as
the
Presopnycja
Gospel
(1556-1561).
It
is a
simplification
when students
speak
of a
compromise
between
ChSl
and
U
in
this
and similar texts.
Actually
Abbot
Hryhorij
and
Myxajlo
Vasyl'ovyc
from Sjanik (Sanok)
strove
for
a
new
unity
of
ChSI
and
secular
traditions,
not
for
the
use
of
the
U
vernacular.
U
features
are
present
in
this
text
but
only
behind
the
fac;ade
of
the
standard
secular
langu-
age.
It
would
be
interesting
to
know
if
the
same
applies
(with
a
quite
different ratio of components)
to
Br
features
in
Skaryna's
translations.
This brings
us
to
the
question
of
the
nature
of
that
standard
secular
language, which
conventionally
may
be
called
Ruthenian
(Rth).
If
we
stay
within
the
period
ending
at
1577,
Karski's
characterization
of
this language
as
Br
(drawn
in
1893!) -
if
one
disregards
external
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com01/11/2020 12:36:01PM
via free access

148
THE
JOURNAL
OF
BYELORUSSIAN
STUDIES
influences,
mainly
lexical
and
syntactic
Polonisms
-is
basically
correct.
11
One
can
go
even
farther
and
speak
of
its
North
Central
Br
dialectal
basis.
The
qualification
introduced
by
Stang
that
at
the
earliest
decades
of
its
formation
in
the
chancery
of
the
Grand
Dukes
of
Lithuania
there
was
a U
(later
Polissian)
element
in
that
langu-
age12
is
practically
of
minor
importance
because
the
trend
was
not
continued
after
the
late
15th
century
and,
in
addition,
very
few
Br
ancl
U
manuscripts
are
extant
from
this
earlier
time.
The
view
that
Br
anc1
U
were
consciously
synthesized
in
that
language
13 is
inadequate.
There
were
no
conditions
for
such
a
synthesis
at
the
Vil'na
princely
chancery
where
that
language
was
given
shape.
Paraphrasing
the
common
saying
in
this
case
the
rule
Cuius
caput
eius
linga
applied.
Moreover,
and
more
important,
there
are
no
U
features,
except
for
the
first
formative
decades,
in
the
texts
written
in
and
around
Vil'na
at
the
time
under
discussion.
The
standard
secular
language,
Rth,
being
thus
Br,
the
Ukrainians
in
their
use
of
it
now
and
then
introduced
some
U
features
precisely
as
they
had
done
in
ChSl.
In
such
cases
one
could
speak
of
Ukrainian-
isms
in
that
language
and
one
could
apply
the
same
method
for
ex-
tracting
U
features
as
is
applied
to
ChSl
texts.
But
the
actual
situa-
tion
is
much
more
complex,
because
the
standard
secular
language
of
the
time,
when
used
outside
of
the
region
of
its
rise, i.e.
outside
of
Belorussia
proper,
not
only
admitted,
but
even
in
most
cases
required,
certain
fairly
regular
substitutions.
We
are
well
aware
of
them
in
orthography
and
phonetics;
whether
they
extended
to
voca-
bulary
is
not
known,
in
any
case
there
they
were
not
striking.
14
The
inviting
analogy
is
that
with
English-speaking
countries
of
our
time. A
British
English
text
coming
to
America
is
adapted
ortho-
graphically:
valour
becomes
valor, organisation is
transformed
into
organization, etc.
What
is
more
important,
the
invisible
standards
of
pronunciation
differ
strongly
as, say,
the
vowel
in
the
verb
to
know.
The
semblance
of
unity
is
maintained
by
the
conservatism
of
the
spelling
alone.
The
conservatism
of
orthography
was
also of
major
importance
in
Rth
(and
it
is
in
this
only
-
and
even
here
but
partially
-
that
it
continued
the
tradition
from
before
the
14th
century).
The
most
striking
features
of
Br
pronunciation
were
not
admitted
into
writing:
akan'e,
cekanne-dzekanne,
nor
were
such
U
peculiarities
as
u
from
o
and
e
in
the
newly
closed
syllables
(Modern
U i)
and
the
so-called
new
e.
The
latter,
widely
spread
in
Old
U
texts
of
the
12th
through
the
14th
century,
was
eliminated
as a
rule
in
later
texts
and
replaced
by
e
in
disregard
of
the
pronunciation.
15
But
the
scope of
admitted
and
required
substitutions
in
spelling
was
broader
than
in
Modern
English
and
by
no
means
limited
to
unessential
orthographic
conven-
tions. I
shall
go
further
into
these
substitutions
below
(in
section
3).
Here
only
two
facts
should
be
brought
to
the
attention.
One
is
the
regularity
of
these
substitutions.
It
is
the
merit
of
Anicenka
to
have
shown
how
systematically
they
were
introduced
in
U copies of
Br
texts
such
as
:Zuhaj's of
Skaryna's
Bible
or
the
'Kievan'
copy
of
the
Lithuanian
Statute
(pp. 136-43 of
his
book
cited
in
note
2).16
The
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com01/11/2020 12:36:01PM
via free access

BELORUSSIAN
VERSUS
UKRAINIAN
149
second is -
and
this
is
rarely
realized
-
that
the
substitutions
were
of
two kinds:
not
only
U vs.
Br
but
also U vs.
Polissian
and
Polissian
vs.
the
other
two.
These
were
the
years
in
which
the
bilateral
erosion
of
Polissian dialects
into
Br
proper
in
the
north
and
Ukrainian
proper
in the south
was
in
progress,
but
the
Polissian
dialects
were
still
a
unit (although
already
a
shrinking
one)
strong
enough
culturally
to
develop
their
own
set
of
substitutes,
most
strikingly
in
the
case of
e:
while the
standard
secular
language
of
the
capital
and
the
regions
around
it
admitted
the
use
of e
instead
of
e
in
all
positions,
the
Polissian did
not
allow
such
a
replacement
in
the
stressed
syllable
and U
proper
did
not
allow
it
at
all.
There
are
also
indications
that
even when e
was
under
stress
and
was
so
written,
its
sound
value
was
[e]
in
Br
proper,
[ie]
in
Polissia,
and
[i]
in
U
proper.
The inference
from
the
above
is
that
Rth
was
the
common
secular
language for
both
Belorussians
and
Ukrainians,
just
as
ChSl
was
their common
standard
ecclesiastic
language.
The
admitted
sets
of
substitutions,
extremely
useful
as
they
are
in
the
localization
of
texts,
do
not
amount
to a
synthetic
superunit
or
two
or
three
literary
languages.
In
the
histories
of
the
Br
and
U
literary
languages
it
should be
considered
as o n e
language,
the
one
shaped
in
North
Central Belorussia.
The
difference
between
its
treatment
in
the
histories of
the
Br
and
U
literary
languages
is
to
be
in
the
emphasis
on
its basis
or
on specific
sets
of
substitutions.
If
one
speaks
of
the
U
literary language of
the
16th
century
(within
the
period
under
con-
sideration)
whether
deliberately
or
inadvertently
one
uses
an
ambigu-
ous
term.
It
is
correct
if
what
is
understood
is
Rth
as
used
by
the
Ukrainians;
it
is
misleading
if
what
is
meant
is a
standard
language
based on U dialects
and
shaped
by
the
Ukrainians
for
their
own
use.
Such a U
literary
language
did
not
exist
at
that
time.
3.
Contrary to
the
unity
of
the
standard
written
language(s)
there
was
beyond
any
doubt
no
unity
in
the
spoken
language.
Furthermore,
it was not
just
an
agglomeration
of
regional
dialects
either.
Such
dialects of course
existed
but
they
were
clearly
subordinate
to
more
general
patterns:
that
of
Br
and
that
of U,
with
the
transitional
Polissian
pattern.
The
historian
of phonology,
morphology,
syntax
and
vocabulary of
either
language
should
not
be
deceived
by
the
relative
uniformity
of
the
written
language.
It
is
for
him
that
the
delimitation of
texts
is of
vital
importance.
Today
we
are
unable
to
carry
out
this
delimitation
by
basing
it
on
differences
in
vocabulary.
But
we
cannot
follow
Zurawski
(op.
cit.,
p.
81)
when
he
says
that
the
general
delimitation
will
be
possible
only after
the
appearance
(vyxad)
of
Old
Br
and
Old
U
historical
dictionaries.17
This
is
putting
the
cart
before
the
horse.
In
order
to
have such dictionaries
one
has
first
to
know
which
texts
are
to
be
used in which.
The
delimitation
obviously
must
precede
the
compila-
tion.
The
subsequent
dictionaries
will
probably
require
minor
corrections of
the
preliminary
classification
but
these
will
hardly
be
sweeping.
Fortunately
the
delimitation
of
texts
is
in
principle
possible today.
It can be
performed
for a
great
many
texts
on
the
basis
of
phonetic
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com01/11/2020 12:36:01PM
via free access

150
THE
JOURNAL
OF
BYELORUSSIAN
STUDIES
and
orthographic
peculiarities.
The
very
principle
of
subs
tit
u
ti
on
is
rooted
in
the
differences
between
the
two
languages.
In
addition,
there
are
in
most
texts
both
handwritten
and
printed
departures
from
the
established
general
standard
(including
the
admitted
sub-
stitutions)
due
to
insufficient
training
or
slips
of
the
writer,
scribe,
or
printer
which
reflect
the
spoken
language.
Before
we
proceed
to
a
brief
examination
of
the
most
typical
substitutions
and
departures
which
make
the
localization
of
texts
possible
it
is
worth
mentioning
that
the
location
of a
text
compilation
is of
lesser
importance
than
intrinsic
lingua-orthographic
criteria.
A
U
scribe
could
have
worked
in
Vil'na,
a
Br
monk
could
have
written
a
text
in
a
monastery
near
L'viv.
Some
texts
written
in
the
Ukraine
and
even
in
Moldavia
are
linguistically
Br,
e.g.
the
Luc'k
charter
of
1388,
the
note
of
~tefan
of
Moldavia
to
Prince
Alexander
of 1499,18
the
above
mentioned
Turkish
diplomatic
correspondence
of 1541-
1543
written
in
the
lower
reaches
of
the
Dniester,
etc.
The
set
of
substitutions
accepted
in
writing
as
we
know
it
now
was
as
follows:
1)
The
treatment
of
e.
As
pointed
out
above,
three
patterns
existed:
e > e
in
any
position
in
Br
proper;
e > e
if
unstressed
only,
in
Poliss-
ian;
e
kept
intact
in
U
proper.
19
To
exemplify:
mesto
-
mesta,
mesto
-
mesta,
mesto
-
mesta
resp.
The
exceptions
in
U
proper
and
Polissian
with
e
instead
of
the
stressed
e
in
words
of
the
type
terpenie
have
been
discussed
above.
They
do
not
make
these
texts
Br
or
mixed.
In
many
texts
the
stressed
e
was
reflected
as
e
after
j
(e.g. priexala,
doexati
in
the
Peresopnycja
Gospel, pp. 82, 98, 89
resp.).
It
obviously
was
considered
elegant
to
write
e
in
the
words
hrex
(hresniki,
Persopn.
Gosp., 90),
celovek
(clovecy,
Kamjanka
Buz'ka
Gospel, 1411),
and
nedelja
(e.g.
in
Odrexova
charter,
mid-
16th
century
20
).
These
mannerisms
do
not
place
the
corresponding
text
into
the
group
of
Br,
Polissian,
or
mixed.
They
are
essentially
foreign
words
sui generis.
2)
The
treatment
of r
from
older
sequences
T"b
and
T'b
between
consonants:
ry
in
Br
(and
Polissian) vs. r
in
U, e.g.
kryvavyj
vs.
krvavyj
(Modern
U
kryvavyj
is of a
later
date).
3)
The
reflex
of i:
in
an
unstressed
position
in
Br
(and
Polissian)
is
rendered
as
e,
in
U
as
ja, e.g.
svetyj
vs.
svjatyj.
In
this
case
the
Br
orthographic
standard
was
Polissian
in
origin:
there
the
unstress-
ed
i:
actually
had
changed
into
e;
but
it
was
accepted
in
Br
proper,
where,
because
of
jakan'e,
no
distinction
was
made
between
'a
and
'e
in
unstressed
syllables.
Moreover
it
probably
seemed
very
approp-
riate
in
view
of
the
general
tendency
to
eschew
any
reflection
of
akan'e
in
writing,
though
in
Br
proper
it
actually
was
hypercorrect.
4)
The
spelling
of
i
in
such
oblique
cases of
the
pronoun
(u)ves'
as
usix,
usim
etc.
in
Br
(and
Polissian) vs. e
in
U, a
morphologically
conditioned
development
in
Br
('adjectivization'
of
the
pronominal
paradigm).
5)
Br
(and
Polissian?) u vs. U o
in
adverbs
ending
in
Br
in
-kule
I
-kul',
-tule
I
-tul'
vs.
-kole
I kol',
-tole
I
tol'
in
U, cf.
Modern
Br
adkul',
dakul'
-
Modern
U
zvidkil'
I
zvidkilja.
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com01/11/2020 12:36:01PM
via free access

BELORUSSIAN
VERSUS
UKRAINIAN
151
Less
consistently
applied
were
the
following
substitutions:
6)
Br
(and Polissian)
spelling
of
o
after
postdentals
vs. U
more
frequent
use
of e, e.g.
in
Br
texts
zona,
in
U
texts
more
often
zena.
This
difference
is
due
partly
to
a
stronger
adherence
by
U
scribes
to
church
spelling
(in
its
Euthymian
guise,
see
below)
and
partly
to
the
fact
that
many
-
but
not
all
-
areas
in
the
(Southwestern)
Ukraine
did not develop o
in
such
cases
at
all.
7)
Dispalatalization
of
r
reflected
by
spellings
n,,
ry,
ra,
ru
instead
of
T'b,
Ti,
rja,
rju
resp.
is
typical
of
Br
(and
Polissian)
texts
and
less
so
of U
because
in
the
(Southwestern)
Ukraine
the
dispalatalization
of
r had
not
affected
most
regions
at
that
time.
Thus,
e.g.
Br
urad
vs.
U urjad I urad.
8)
The
postdentals
were
dispalatalized
in
U
later
(and
not
in
all
positions)
than
in
Br
(and
Polissian).
Therefore
spellings
of
the
type
iyvyj
characterize
primarily
Br
while
in
U
one
finds
both
the
zyvyj
and
iivyj
types.
The
more
conservative
attitude
of
U
scribes
could
also have
played
some
part
here.
9)
In
the
gen
pl,
Br
(and
Polissian)
had
only
-ej,
U
both
-yj
and
-ej, e.g.
Br
nocej vs. U
nocyj
I
nocej.
But
the
situation
is
complicated
by the ChSl
influence,
which
could
result
in
occasional
-yj
form
in
Br texts also.
As
a
shibboleth
by
which
Br
texts
can
be
identified
as
distinct
from
U ones specific
forms
of
individual
words
can
be
useful:
Br
teze
'also' vs. U
tyz,
Br
kaznyj
'each'
vs. U
kozdyj
I
kazdyj
(Modern
Br
taksama, kozny,
Modern
U
tez,
k6znyj
21
).
The
palatalization
of
consonants
before
e
and
i
in
Br
vs.
their
non-
palatalization
in
U
was
no
doubt
applied
as
an
orthoepic
substitution
but with one
exception
it
was
not
reflected
in
spelling:
by
the
end
of
the period
under
consideration,
a
new
letter
3
developed
in
Br
from
a purely
graphic
variant
of
e
to
denote
the
non-palatalizing
pronun-
ciation of
consonants
before
e;
22 U
scribes
did
not
accept
the
letter
because
they
had
no
need
of
it:
their
consonants
were
not
palatalized
in
that position
in
any
case.
While
the
substitutions
1-6
were
applied
fairly
regularly,
7-9
were
less
so.
As
distinct
from
all
of
them,
d e p a r t u r e s
from
the
accepted spelling
should
be
distinguished.
They
were
never
applied
systematically;
moreover,
they
clearly
were
not
intended.
No
text
has them
consistently.
But
they
crept
in
time
and
again
as
an
in-
voluntary
tribute
to
the
actual
pronunciation.
For
a
student
interested
in the delimitation of
Br
and
U
texts
they
are
in
some
cases
no
less
important
than
the
much
more
regular
substitutions.
The
following
should be
watched
for:
(1)
Akan'e
in
Br
vs.
non-akan'e
in
U
(and
Polissian).
A
good
collection of
examples
in
E.
Karskij,
Belorusy,
I, Moscow, 1955,
pp.
135
ff.
(2)
Coalescence of i
and
y
in
U
(and
partly
Polissian)
vs.
their
distinction
in
Br.
In
principle
it
was
avoided
in
writing
as
tenaciously
as
akan'e.
But
it
was
much
more
difficult
to
do
in
the
case
of
i / y:
akan'e occurred
in
unstressed
positions
only
and
a
verification
with
the stressed
vowel
within
the
inflexional
or