Basis and local influences
Autocephaly recognized by some autocephalous Churches de jure:
Autocephaly and canonicity recognized by Constantinople and 3 other autocephalous Churches:
Written evidence of Old Church Slavonic survives in a relatively small body of manuscripts, near of them solution in the First Bulgarian Empire during the slow 10th and the early 11th centuries. The Linguistic communication has a South Slavic basis with an admixture of Western Slavic features inherited during the mission of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Great Moravia 863–885.
The only well-preserved manuscript of the Moravian recension, the Kiev Folia, is characterised by the replacement of some South Slavic phonetic and lexical features with Western Slavic ones. Manuscripts statement in the Second Bulgarian Empire 1185–1396 have, on the other hand, few Western Slavic features.
Old Church Slavonic is valuable to historical linguists since it preserves archaic features believed to pretend once been common to all Slavic languages such as these:
Old Church Slavonic is also likely to name preserved an extremely archaic type of accentuation probably[]to the Chakavian dialect of innovative Serbo-Croatian, but unfortunately, no accent marksin the written manuscripts.
The South Slavic bracket of the language is evident from the following variations:
Old Church Slavonic has some extra features in common with Bulgarian:
The language was standardized for the first time by the mission of the two apostles to ] 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 western Slovakia and Czech Republic.
This recension is exemplified by the Kiev Folia.other linguistic characteristics include:
Old Church Slavonic language is developed in the eastern South Slavic, which cannot be localized. 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 recensions otherwise called "redactions", termed "Eastern" and "Western" respectively. Some researchers do non differentiate between manuscripts of the two recensions, preferring to multiple them together in a "Macedo-Bulgarian" or simply "Bulgarian" recension. Others, as Horace Lunt, have changed their view with time. In the mid-1970s, Lunt held that the differences in the initial OCS were neither great enough nor consistent enough to grant a distinction between a 'Macedonian' recension and a 'Bulgarian' one. A decade later, however, Lunt argued in favour of such a distinction, illustrating his bit with paleographic, phonological and other differences. The coding of Old Church Slavonic literacy had the case of preventing the assimilation of the South Slavs into neighboring cultures, which promoted the structure of a distinct Bulgarian identity.
The manuscripts of the Preslav recension or "Eastern" variant are among the oldest[] of the Old Church Slavonic language. This recension was centred around the ] 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 leading linguistic features of this recension are the following:
The manuscripts of the Ohrid recension or "Western" variant are among the oldest[] of the Old Church Slavonic language. The recension is sometimes named Macedonian because its literary centre, ][] This recension is represented by the Codex Zographensis and Marianus, among others. The main linguistic features of this recension include:
Czech Bohemian recension is derived from Moravian recension and had been used in the Czech lands until 1097. It's preserved in religious texts e.g. Prague Fragments, legends and glosses. Its main features are:
Later usage of the language in a number of medieval Slavic polities resulted in the correct of Old Church Slavonic to the local vernacular, though a number of South Slavic, Moravian or Bulgarian features also survived. Significant later recensions of Old Church Slavonic quoted to as Church Slavonic in the presentation time include: Slovene, Croatian, Serbian and Russian. In all cases, denasalization of the yuses occurred; so that only Old Church Slavonic, innovative Polish and some isolated Bulgarian dialects retained the old Slavonic nasal vowels.
The Serbian recension 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 Gospels belong to the Serbian recension. They feature the following linguistic characteristics:
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, closer resembling the Bulgarian recension.
The letter Ꙉ was also created, in place of the sounds *d͡ʑ, *tɕ, *dʑ and d͡ʒ,also used during the Bosnian recession.
The Russian recension emerged after the 10th century on the basis of the earlier Bulgarian recension, from which it differed slightly. Its main features are:
The style between OCS and post-OCS manuscripts is arbitrary, and terminology varies. The common term "Middle Bulgarian" is ordinarily contrasted to "Old Bulgarian" an selection name for Old Church Slavonic, and generally used for manuscripts whose language demonstrates a broad spectrum of regional and temporal dialect features after the 11th century.
The Bosnian recension used the Bosnian Cyrillic alphabet better known as Bosančica and the Glagolitic alphabet.
The Croatian recension of Old Church Slavonic used only the Glagolitic alphabet of angular Croatian type. It shows the developing of the following characteristics: