Thank you for sharing this. I am now learning about church slavonic. I hope there is a course like this in Bulgaria 🇧🇬

I'm a native Greek speaker and I'm quite impresed and fascinated by how much Greek has influenced other languages, especialy Old church slavonic. I can fully understand half of the letters without prior exposure to the language, and the other half I find familiar to my language, not only in it's prior, more archaic form, but modern Greek also!

@r.fantom

Жыл бұрын

I hate the fact that it's a Greek alphabet

@xristoforosstefatos7249

Жыл бұрын

@@r.fantom why?

@r.fantom

Жыл бұрын

@@xristoforosstefatos7249 I am Serb, and don't really like the fact rhar we actually don't have our alphabet..

@xristoforosstefatos7249

Жыл бұрын

@@r.fantom Well, I get that, but hey, think how we as peoples fought on the side many times in history. Also I would prefer something related to the Greek alphabet more than something Latin or Americanized. But Latin is also heavily influenced by Greek so haha, I guess no luck for you 😂

@r.fantom

Жыл бұрын

@@xristoforosstefatos7249 Well, you're right there, I am just mad these days, on every side, someone steals our history, it provocates me, and it just made me sad that even Old Serbian isn't Serbian... Actually only Alphabet, at least Glagollic is ours..

Great video, could you please in the future create some simple videos reading aloud Bible verses and going over them word-for-word? Even maybe reading a whole chapter and simply showing the translation into English and/or modern Slavic languages beneath every verse, so we can hear the language and understand it? I believe many learners could benefit from such comprehensible audiovisual content.

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

Definitely, I've been super busy with school, work and church life. Hopefully by December, I can have a video up every week

Love it. I'm looking forward to learning this. Thanks for the video.

This is awesome, thank you!

17:34 Can those palatalized letters have a function of iotalized letters too?

Oh, my God, sir.... This is amazing. You have earned a new subscriber

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much

Thank you for your work. I'm starting Catachumin classes at my local Romanian Orthodox church. This is helpful. Thank you Thanks.

Great awesome work 👏 thank you 😊

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

You're very welcome!

Thank you for the video, it is great! I'm glad that you used and explained the whole alphabet. Other videos on YT omit some letters. And I got confused when I tried to read some text cause it contained weird letters. Even Wikipedia wasn't helpful for me at the time. Turned out my knowledge was lacking. Thanks again and keep up good work! Greetings from Poland!!

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

I'm glad you enjoyed!

You are a life-saver!!

What other languages do you speak?

Ѣ was a Jæ. That explains why everyone was confused between je and ja..because je and jæ are almost identical and in the Latin alphabet A and A(æ) are the same it just depends on what you’re spelling/saying “fat” “car”. In the earlier 1900’s Russian kids got so confused about бѣлый блѣдный бѣдный бѣсъ, to the point that their was a reform with the alphabet and they dropped ѣ and started to say белый or білий etc or biały which is Polish, notice ia which fits perfectly as iæ jæ.

Great video! Really helpful, though I have a question. Are the words you say also the names of the letters? As in w = double u, you know? Or are those just classical examples of use?

@block2.017

2 жыл бұрын

So say the letter Дд in OCS, it's name is до́бро (dobro) which means "good". Essentially the names in OCS letters are actual words in the language except for some of the Greek letters and the yers

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

@@block2.017 yup that is correct!

@emv...

2 жыл бұрын

@@block2.017 Thanks a lot mate! Quite interesting, didn't know that they have such names.

It was st Cyril and st. Methodius at the behest of the Byzantine emperor who created the old Church Slavonic and Cyrillic language, but whatever.

Not just orthodox Slaws, also roman catholic Slaws used this language.

@user-vt3ig2bk4j

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but only the Croats. For the other Roman Catholic Slavs the Slavic liturgy was strictly forbidden, so they were forced only using Latin. The Croats however somehow managed to keep their Slavic liturgy alive, despite all the suppression from the Germans and to a lesser degree, the Vatican.

In rusyn Church slavonic Г makes a h sound and Ґ makes the g sound

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

That's like Ukrainian

Croatia is 100% Catholic Country but we are using Old Church Slavonic nowdays too. Just visit island Murter on Dalmatian Cost of Croatia you cann stil hear the liturgy in Old Church Slavonic.

@johnnyd2383

2 ай бұрын

No, it is not. You have, just as any other country, other faiths within the boundaries. Your false claim is revealing your thinking of "supremacy" which is rubbish. Your admission that you use Church Slavonic in church, which is Cyrillic inscription, a the same time devastating Cyrillic tombs of Serbs on your territory speaks about the sick state of the mind in the Croatian nation.

Where ya study?

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

I just collect different books, websites etc. It takes a lot of work to get info

You do know that there is a difference between и та ї, так?

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, the difference however, is very slight. It can be picked up by literally just listening to words

I don't think there actually ever was such thing as Old Church Slavonic language. The term was invented later, pretty much like there was no country actually named Kyivan Rus or Byzantium. It would be interesting if you could make a video where you try to trace the history of 'Old Church Slavonic'.

@user-vt3ig2bk4j

Жыл бұрын

So, how do you explain the existence of quite a huge amount of documents written in that language, which date to the 9, 10 and 11 century, without the language existing? And the people back then obviously didnt call it "Old Church Slavonic", but only словѣньскꙑ (slověńsky), or словѣньскъ (slověńskŭ), which in english would simply translate to "Slavic". And keep in mind, that it was a literary and liturgical language, which was based upon spoken South Slavic dialects of the 9. century. As such, it had quite a few elements, which were not present in the spoken tongue. But that does not mean it never existed, or doesn't exist today in the form of it's successor, New Church Slavonic, which is a liturgical language to this day.

@IvanRakilovsky

Жыл бұрын

@@user-vt3ig2bk4j Was it really ever a single language though? Did it not vary quite a bit from region to region? Most of the documents you are talking about are religious scripts translated from Greek, right. Which were the main literary schools where "Old Church Slavonic" was developed and where? How we name things today matters a lot. Which country are we speaking about actually when we speak of "South Slavic" and "Old Church Slavonic"?Given the context why is this country rarely named? I believe coining a politically neutral term, like "Old Church Slavonic", basically helps delete from the annals of history the very country where the language originated from.

@user-vt3ig2bk4j

Жыл бұрын

@@IvanRakilovsky PART 1 OF 2 Pozdrav, Ivane. In the following answer, I'd like to try to explain mainly two things, (hoping not to talk about too obvious, widely known facts): 1) Why is this language we are talking about actually considered a single language from around the year A. D. 860 to around A. D. 1100? And how can we know that for sure? Why is it not thought of as a single language anymore after ≈ A. D. 1100? What had changed for it to diverge into different dialects/ languages? 2) Why of the presently used terms "Old Church Slavonic" and "Old Bulgarian" neither one is really much better nore much worse than the other. In other words: why are both terms adequate and appropriate for usage? So, let's start with 1) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yes, by modern standards of assessment, it is considered a single language. Keep in mind the following in order to understand, why that is so: Old Church Slavonic (OCS) as such, or as some like to call it, Old Bulgarian (OB), only existed for around 250 years, from the 9. to the 11. century. During these 250 years, all written documents show extremely little variation in aphabet and phonetics, grammar and used vocabulary, as the adaptation of the written word towards various Slavic vernaculars in further apart regions still had NOT taken place (that is basically the answer!). As a South Slavic dialect (not language! I'll explain why), spoken by Slavs in the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9. century, it still retains many features from Proto- Slavic. For example in the realm of phonetics: the typical Slavic nasals ѧ, ѩ, ѫ, ѭ; the half- vowels ь, ъ, properly pronounced and rigorously distinguished one from the other (front and back yer); the consistent and correct usage of Yat ѣ with its original sound [æ]; the usage of Yery as ꙑ and not as ы, (because only after ь and ъ melted into one sound, the simpler letter form ы was prefered). In the realm of grammar: all 7 grammatical cases fully in place (with 3 genders, 3 nomeri: singular, dual, plural), all original Proto- Slavic tenses, especially well preserved with regards to past tenses (3: aorist, imperfect, perfect). Vocabulary: Proto- Slavic vocabulary with typical South Slavic features, some Greek loan words, which remained untranslated (nearly no Germanic, and obviously zero turkish influence). To sum it up: all these features are, with extremely little variation, present in the majority of documents, which are considered to be part of the OCS/ OB textual corpus between the 9. and the 11. century. And what started to happen after around A.D. 1000 - 1100? During these 250 years of OCS`s existence as a literary and liturgical language, a lot had changed in ALL Slavic vernaculars, from east to west, from north to south. All South Slavs (Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats) started to pronounce ꙑ simply as и, and in all Slavic vernaculars (except Polish ones) the nasal vowels ѧ, ѫ lost their nasality, turning into normal vowels. The half- vowels ь, ъ turned either into full- vowels or are abandoned completely at other positions in the word (only Bulgarian kept ъ as an actual vowel) . All Western and Eastern Slavic dialects lost all the past tenses except the perfect tense. So, as you see, many of the original Proto- Slavic features were lost in ALL Slavic vernaculars, although not homogenously distributed. OCS/ OB however, managed to keep all these Proto- Slavic features well preserved in written and liturgical form during the ≈ 250 years previously to the 11. century, which is reflected throughout the relevant documents, which are characterized as OCS. Now comes the key point: after around A.D. 1100, all (Christian Orthodox) Slavs started more and more to adapt the original OCS/ OB to their, now heavily changed vernaculars, due to obvious reasons of better understandability for lay- people. This is the case especially in the realms of phonetics and alphabet, partly also in grammar, but to a bit lesser degree in vocabulary; that means the South Slavic flavour always remained present in all recensions. In Bulgarian texts after A.D. 1100 these changes and loss of Proto- Slavic features are obvious, in Serbian texts and Russian texts as well. By that, the various recensions of OCS came to life after around A. D. 1100, called xyz- Church Slavonic, e.g. Bulgarian- Church Slavonic, Serbian- Church Slavonic, Czech- Church Slavonic (very short life due to Germans and Roman Catholicism), Russian- Church Slavonic. From that period onwards the changes and the textual variation become very obvious and clear in all documents. Due to that, the original OCS/ OB seized to exist in it's original form, but continued to live on, at lest in some way in the shape of it's (New) Church- Slavonic, heavily adapted successors. Nowadays, all Church Slavonic recensions of OCS/ OB have died out, except the Russian one, which was also introduced to the South Slavs in the 18. and 19. century. Enslaved as the latter ones were under the Ottoman yoke, their literary languages (and churches) were supressed and sadly died out completely. Therefore they accepted Russian- Church Slavonic with gratitude, and use it to this day in liturgy besides their vernaculars.

@user-vt3ig2bk4j

Жыл бұрын

@@IvanRakilovsky PART 2 OF 2 Let's continue with 2) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Why are both terms, "Old Church Slavonic", and "Old Bulgarian" adequate? Well, simply put there are arguments for and against both names. It depends on whether we classify the South Slavic vernaculars from the 9. century as already distinct languages, or rather as dialects of one still existing "Old South Slavic" language. If we see them as very well mutually intelligible dialects, then the term OCS is quite fitting, however if we put the focus more on the differences between South Slavic dialects of the 9. century, we might rather call it Old Bulgarian. Arguments for OCS: i) In fact, all South Slavic vernaculars were fully mutually intelligible during those times (9, 10, 11. century), to a much higher degree than the present day South Slavic languages are. How do we know that? Well, even the West Slavs in Great Moravia during the mission of St. Cyrill and St. Methodios had - as it is reported - no problems at all understanding the written and liturgical Eastern- South- Slavic vernacular (call it Bulgarian if you wish), despite the geopraphical distance. Therefore the neighbouring South Slavic vernaculars (of Serbs, Croatians, Slovenes) must have been extremely close to the one used in the First Bulgarian Empire, which was taken as the basis for the literary language we discuss here. But as full mutual intelligibility, next to gramatical similarity, is one of the main criteria for classifying two or more venaculars as merely dialects of the same polycentric language, as opposed to distinct languages, it makes much sense to see the South Slavic vernacuar spoken in the First Bulgarian Empire during the 9. century as merely that: a South Slavic dialect of a broader "Old South Slavic" language, as opposed to a distinct "Old Bulgarian" language (which "supposedly" already existed in the 9. century as a distinct language). ii) The Bulgarian Slavic writers themselves during the 9., 10. and 11. century always simply called their own language, in spoken and in written form, "Slavic" (словѣньскꙑ), but never "Bulgarian", as this (Slavic) was the way their ancesors called their language, and as they recognized that they spoke basically the same language as all other South Slavs, with minute dialectal differences. Arguments for Old Bulgarian: i) Although this Eastern- South Slavic / Bulgarian vernacular was fully mutually understandable to all other South Slavic vernaculars during the 9. to 11. century, it already had some unique phonetical (but not really grammatical) features, which made it distinct from the others: As an example one might choose the word "candle". In Proto- Slavic this was světja / свѣтꙗ, while in Bulgarian spoken Slavic of the time it turned into svešta/ свєща, in Serbian into sveća / свєћа, in other dialects into sveča/ свєча, or even sveca / свєца. There are many examples similar to this one. ii) A present day Bulgarian, who wants to proudly emphasize the achievements of his/ her ancestors, is often inclined to primarily use the term "Old Bulgarian" instead of "Old Church Slavonic". That is fine, but not always fully convincing to other Slavs. Conslusion: the dividing line between "dialect" and "language" sometimes can be quite blurred, and difficult to point out. Sometimes it is a matter of interpretation, sometimes of personal, subjective inclinations. The Slavic writers in the old days never called their own language "Bulgarian", but I personally think it is nonetheless not wrong to also call it "Old Bulgarian" nowadays, as the first distinguishing features were already visible. You see, it boils down to the question: dialect or language? "Old Church Slavonic" is a more neutral term, as you said, which lays its focus on the fact, that it was primarily a literary and liturgical language. I hope I managed explaining why I think that both terms are all right, and that you maybe got a few new and interesting insights into the first Slavic literary language.

Why did Old Church Slavonic feature the "O" in letter "Oy"? Why wasn't it just "у" like nowadays? Why was "ъı" changed to "ы" during the reforms? It's not pronounced as "ĭi", but as "ŭi". Why were there so many variants of several letters like И, І, Ї, V?

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

Жыл бұрын

1st: it was borrowed from Greek ου 2nd. It was a combination of the cyrillic letters ꙏ and і (dotted or dotless) 3rd. They are from Greek

@ShauMapping

Жыл бұрын

@@learnoldchurchslavonic3307 1st: Yes, but... Why wasn't there anyone to change it to just "y" until more recently? 2nd: I see, but I don't see why it is written nowadays as "ы" instead of "ъı"? 3rd: Yes, but why were all of them accepted, when the alphabet already has a letter that represents e.g. sound "i"?

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

Жыл бұрын

@@ShauMapping You can't really trace some of these things. A lot of it just has to do with scribal errors and lack of education of how to write. I have no idea for the first two. Now for the last, here is an exert from Wikipedia: ⟨і⟩ was used before all vowels and before the semivowel ⟨й⟩ except at the end of a morpheme in a compound word, where ⟨и⟩ was used. So англійскій (English) used ⟨і⟩, but пяти + акровый = пятиакровый (five-acre) used ⟨и⟩. ⟨и⟩ was used as the last letter of a word and before consonants except in міръ for "world, universe, local community, commons, society, laity" and words derived from it (but: миръ "peace"). In a few words derived from Greek, use was derived etymologically based upon whether iota or eta was in the original Greek: Іисусъ "Jesus", from Greek Ιησούς, now written Иисус; also Іванъ from Ἰωάννης, now written Иван. However, since the middle of the 18th century loanwords came to be spelled according to the general rule: Іоаннъ but Иванъ, Никита (instead of Нікита), Филиппъ (instead of Філіппъ). As it turns out, the spelling of the two variants of мир was an artificial distinction to separate two different definitions of what was originally in fact the same word (much as with English "to" vs. "too").

@ShauMapping

Жыл бұрын

@@learnoldchurchslavonic3307 I see. In my opinion, multiple variants of "И" just created unnecessary confusion, especially because they are pronounced the same. How is native speaker supposed to differentiate "міръ" and "миръ" in speech, and not in text? Maybe context could help, but both words themselves are pronounced the same. Regardless of the context, if you only say "міръ"/"миръ" and nothing else, how are people supposed to tell the difference? Why wasn't "Ἰωάννης" written as "Iωаннис", and not just "Іванъ" before mid 18th century? If all loanwords were transliterated from Greek, why wasn't "Іванъ" transliterated correctly as well? What function did double letters do, like "пп" in "Філіппъ"/"Филиппъ", or like "нн" in "Іоаннъ"?

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

Жыл бұрын

@@ShauMapping Just how languages evolve

Something that sort of bothers me is that tge "names" of the letters aren't really names, they are just words that the letters are in, "dobro" "zemlja" "kako", none of those are distinct names

@zonezealot887

Жыл бұрын

Well, the names of the letters were chosen as a mnemonic device: азъ боукꙑ вѣдѣ глаголати добро = ‘I know to speak letters well’

@justdimitris354

Жыл бұрын

@@zonezealot887 obviously yeah, but its still bothering, itd be easier if they just named it "a" say and then theyd know what sound it makes

Why is this in the church Slavonic language: ꙮ?

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

Жыл бұрын

It's a special character used in referring to the many eyed seraphim. It's called a multi-ocular o

I’m An Old Church Slavonic of unused greek

@Julienne_706

8 ай бұрын

I mean unused Cyrillic

Where are you from?

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

United States

@learnoldchurchslavonic3307

2 жыл бұрын

@Standerass it takes some practice

@jadajeddou-fz9hd

Жыл бұрын

Анд морокоꙋ

Slově́nįskų Jęzýkų