| Abstrakt: |
The focus of the paper is on the problem of the terminological designation of the first Slavonic written language, i.e. the language in which Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century translated from Greek the main liturgical books before going on a mission to Great Moravia, wherever it was. The logically contradictory nature of terms such as Russian "старославянский, церковнославянский, староцерковнославянский", French "vieux slave", German "Altkirchenslavisch", etc. is demonstrated. The contradiction lies in the fact that the Bulgarian dialectal basis of the language of Cyril and Methodius’ translations is affirmed and denied at the same time. The authors, as a rule, overlook the fact that before the first translations of Cyril and Methodius, there was no Slavonic written tradition at all, which could immediately lead to a strong differentiation between the Slavonic bookish language and the Slavonic spoken language. Imprecise, or rather, ambiguous and sometimes vague terminology does not contribute to an objective description of reality. The reasons for the reluctance to give the language of Cyril and Methodius, i.e. the first written Slavonic language, the name that belongs to it by right, i.e. "the Old Bulgarian language", lie outside the boundaries of proper linguistic science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
