143 Alenka Jelovšek DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.63.1-2.143-176 ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana alenka.jelovsek@zrc-sazu.si THE 16TH-CENTURY SLOVENIAN LITERARY STANDARD AND SLOVENIAN MANUSCRIPT TEXTS FROM THE SECOND HALF OF THE 16TH CENTURY AND EARLY 17TH CENTURY 1 INTRODUCTION The Slovenian literary language1 was first established in 1550 with the first two Slove- nian printed books, Catechiſmus and Abecedarium, by Primož Trubar and developed over the next four decades by his fellow Protestants, culminating in the publication of the entire Bible translation in 1584 that set the model for the literary production in the following two centuries (cf. e.g. Pogorelec 2011: 21, 35). In the 16th and early 17th cen- tury, sporadic use of Slovenian also in other (nonreligious) texts types is attested by a handful of preserved manuscripts.2 In this article, selected Slovenian manuscripts from the second half of the 16th century and the first quarter of the 17th century are studied in light of their adherence to the established (Protestant) standard (see Section 3) of the period or their deviation from it. The main aim of the research is to determine how much influence the Protestant standard had on the non-religious production in central Slovenian area in the analyzed period. The adherence to the standard is assessed on the basis of the orthographical, phonological and morphological features of the texts which are compared to the same features in the works of the dominant Protestant writers and to those in the Catholic EVANGELIA INU LYSTVVI 1612. The article is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a short overview of the eth- nographical, political and linguistic situation in Slovenian historical lands before the establishment of the literary language. In Section 3, the question of the standardiza- tion of the Slovenian literary language is examined. In Section 4, the research sources and methodology are discussed in more detail. Section 5 presents the findings of the analysis, which are summarized in the conclusion, together with their sociolinguistic implications. 1 The term literary language is used in Slovenian linguistics to describe the language used in Slovenian printed works (cf. Lewaskiewicz 2017, who defines the term even more broadly as language standard, general national language and the language of writings). 2 For an overview of the surviving manuscripts, see Kos et al. 1971, Kološa et al. 1982, Ogrin 2008–2011 and Orel 2017 (with a short linguistic analysis); some short religious writings in Slovenian are also described in Orel 2010. 144 2 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW By the beginning of the 16th century, the majority of what is today Slovenia was a part of the multi-ethnic Habsburg hereditary lands ruled by German-speaking nobility. The lands inhabited by Slovenian-speaking population were divided into various Habsburg duchies: Slovenians formed a majority in the Duchy of Carniola and a significant mi- nority in the Duchies of Carinthia and Styria, and in the lands of the Austrian Littoral (Magocsi 1993: 99). The duchies formed an administrative region known as Inner Aus- tria and in the Reformation period (1550–1598) their predominantly Protestant estates helped finance the literary production in Slovenian to promote the new religion among their Slovenian-speaking subjects (Luthar 2008: 193–211). Linguistically, Slovenian lands had been included in the Germanic political and cultural sphere even before becoming part of the Habsburg hereditary lands, as much of the upper classes were German-speaking. Due to the political and cultural situa- tion, various languages were used, i.e. predominantly Slovenian and German dialects (in some places also Italian dialects) in spoken communication, and Latin and Middle High German3 were used as cultural languages. The peasants and their families, who represented the majority of the population, spoke a variety of Slovenian dialects, which differed from one region to another (Lenček 1982: 93–115). While the language of the Catholic church was still Latin, by necessity, they had to adapt to the language of the peasants, as is illustrated in some Slovenian manuscripts preserved from the Mid- dle Ages that contain basic prayers, some hymns and short sermons in Slovenian (cf. Mikhailov 1998). The town population was ethnically and linguistically diverse and often bi- or trilingual. However, the Slovenian language was not used in official written communication; from the late 13th and early 14th century German replaced Latin as the official language in municipal administration (Javor Briški 2012: 590–591). The pre- dominant language of the nobility was German, but it is presumed – and for some cases also attested in the historical sources (Grdina 1999: 18, 88; Štih and Simoniti 1996: 138) – that especially lower nobility who had patrimonial jurisdiction on their estates were bi- or even trilingual, speaking German and Slovenian and either Latin or Italian, depending on their provenance and education. Therefore, the ethnic affiliation of those who understood several languages did not entail the use of one single language in all situations and circumstances (Ahačič 2014: 17–18). In intellectual circles, only knowl- edge of Latin was prized. For those intending to continue their studies at university, the use of the national languages (German, Italian, Slovenian) was merely a »necessary evil« until pupils learned enough Latin to continue their education in it (Ahačič 2014: 23). As a result of such linguistic situation, no writing, let alone literary creativity, took place in any of the numerous dialects of Slovenian before the middle of the sixteenth century, with the exception of the medieval (mainly religious) fragments mentioned above (Cooper 1985: 35). The borders of the historical Habsburg lands in the today Republic of Slovenia, 3 The oldest preserved German literary texts originating from the Slovenian territory were written in the early Middle High German period (Javor Briški 2022: 81). 145 which roughly overlap with the main dialect groups,4 are presented in Picture 1; the Central dialects which became the basis of the emerging Slovenian standard are marked 2a (Upper Carniolan), 2b (Inner Carniolan) and 2c (Lower Carniolan). Figure 1. Borders of the Historical Habsburgian Lands in the Republic of Slovenia; https:// sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokrajine_v_Sloveniji#/media/Slika:Borders_of_the_Historical_Hab- sburgian_Lands_in_the_Republic_of_Slovenia.svg (CC BY-SA 3.0); 1 - Austrian Littoral; 2a – Upper Carniola, 2b – Inner Carniola, 2c – Lower Carniola, 3 – Carinthia; 4 – Styria; 5 – Prekmurje. 3 THE 16TH-CENTURY SLOVENIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE 3.1 The establishment and development of the Protestant literary language in the 16th century In the 16th century, the new Protestant movement spread also to Slovenian lands and re- sulted in the first printed Slovenian books, published by an exiled Catholic priest turned Protestant, Primož Trubar. He, according to his own words,5 was not aware of any pre- existing written tradition in Slovenian but wanted to create literary language that would be understood by the speakers of various Slovenian dialects in the Inner-Austrian lands and would enable Trubar to preach the new Reformed faith to them from his exile in 4 For a more detailed representation of Slovenian dialects, see Karta slovenskih narečij in the Slovenian Linguistic Atlas (https://fran.si/204/sla-slovenski-lingvisticni-atlas/datoteke/SLA_Karta-narecij.pdf). The map in Picture 1 is limited to the territory of Republic of Slovenia and does not represent the Slovenian-speaking territories outside the modern state borders. 5 In 1582 Trubar wrote: »For it is widely known that 34 years ago there was neither a letter nor a register, even less a book, in our Slovenian language, as they held the Slovenian and Hungarian languages too coarse and barbaric to be either written or read« (Luthar 2008: 207). 146 Bavaria. He opted for a spoken idiom, which he knew from the Lower Carniola region, upgraded with the some Upper-Carniolan features and stripped of some local peculiari- ties (Herrity 2012: 5). This is how he formed the synchronous linguistic concept, the first supradialectal central Slovenian literary language, which, in his opinion, was gen- erally understood in all the Slovenian-speaking regions.6 »Trubar’s common language is not a precisely defined and well thought-out system, but a useful tool for under- standing. It is precisely this general intelligibility that defines Trubar’s concept of the common language« (Jesenšek 2008: 7–8; see also Ahačič (2014: 34) who stresses the intelligibility of Trubar’s language both in towns and in the countryside). The first two Slovenian books were followed by 47 publications in Slovenian, mainly with religious content, which all adopted (and partially adapted) Trubar’s literary language (Lenček 1982: 251–252, Ahačič 2022). »The later Protestant writers recognised the same basis for the literary language, but each slightly modified it in favour of his own dialect or with new ideas on the orthography and the word-stock« (Herrity 2012: 5). The development of the Protestant literary language, especially its orthography, has been thoroughly investigated in Slovenian linguistics (eg. Rigler 1968, Ramovš 1971, Toporišič 1986, Ahačič 2022). Primož Trubar established the first variant of the Slove- nian orthographical standard (Haugen’s (1987, cited in Ayres-Bennett 2021: 34) Gra- phization stage of the codification process) and he adhered to it in all his works, despite the changes introduced by other authors during his lifetime. His main aim was to estab- lish a system that would be simple (so even (German-speaking) foreigners could read it well with practice),7 aesthetic (as few graphemes to a phoneme as possible) and similar to the more common types of script (Latin, German, Italian) (Ahačič 2014: 265–266). Sebastijan Krelj was the first to draw attention to the shortcomings of Trubar’s ortho- graphy. Krelj sought to assign special letters and grapheme clusters for all phonemes of the language. Among other things he tried to orthographically distinguish voiced and voiceless alveolar (<ſ> for /s/, for /z/) and palatoalveolar (<ſh> for /š/ (IPA: /ʃ/), for /ž/ (IPA: /ʒ/)) sibilants, a distinction which Trubar did not consider important, because he did not hear the difference between them in German (perhaps even in Slo- venian) (Ahačič 2021a: 240). But the complexity of Krelj’s system introduced in his POSTILLA SLOVENSKA (1567) led to its rejection by other authors,8 although some of his solutions were later adopted by Jurij Dalmatin, in his translation of the Bible 6 That the addressees of his works were speakers of all Slovenian dialects in Inner Austria (with the exception of Prekmurje, since Prekmurje was administratively part of the Hungarian crown), is evident from his introductions in individual works (see Ahačič 2014: 40–41). 7 In the introduction to his collected New Testament translations, published in 1581–1582, he specifically stated: »I have likewise retained my old orthography, for it can be read by anyone not familiar with the Slovenian language and understood perfectly well by any Slovenian peasant through listening« (translation in Ahačič 2014: 49). From other Trubar’s texts it can be assumed that he saw German Protestant preachers (and those Slovenian preachers who had forgotten their native tongue during their studies abroad), as well as some noblemen and noblewomen, as potential readers of his texts to illiterate Slovenians (Ahačič 2014: 46–49). 8 As Krelj died shortly after the publication of his Postilla Slovenſka in 1567, he was not able to further advocate his proposed changes. Besides the complexity of his orthography, an ideological factor could have contributed to the rejection of it by other Slovenian Protestants, as Krelj was a supporter of a more radical Protestant movement called Flacianism, which other leading Slovenian Protestants rejected (Grdina 1999: 196). 147 (Dalmatin, BIBLIA, 1584), and Adam Bohorič, in his Latin-language Slovenian gram- mar (Bohorič, Arcticae horulae succisivae, 1584), who also reassessed various spelling solutions and established the spelling system later known as bohoričica that remained in use until the 19th century (Ahačič 2022: 105–106). The two publications from 1584 represent the pinnacle of Protestant literary achievements. As this brief overview shows, the spelling system was in the centre of the codification attempts of the new language standard (see below). This is in accordance with Milroy/Milroy’s thesis (2012) that the spelling system is the most highly regulated domain because only in the orthography can standardization be fully realized; spelling is amenable to control as it is relatively easy to oversee, it is unambiguous and it is straightforward to correct (Ayres-Bennett/ Bellamy 2021: 5). On other linguistic levels, fewer attempts were made to enhance uniformity and each author retained some of his individual characteristics (cf. Herrity 2012: 5). Compared to orthography, Slovenian linguists studied other linguistic levels less systematically.9 The most comprehensive phonological study is Rigler 1968, but it mainly focuses on the development of main vowels. If a source is not stated explicitly, linguistic phe- nomena analyzed in this article are generally compared to original Protestant material available in digital form (Korpus 16, see Ahačič 2019). 3.2 The Protestant literary language as the first Slovenian language standard Trubar’s language in the first two printed books could be characterized as a literary language according to Lewaszkiewicz (2017: 32), who claims the literary language formation process consists of enhancing the general functional and linguistic efficiency of unrefined dialectal substrates and the development of supradialectal language stand- ards. He distinguishes this development from standardization which arises later. As Trubar’s literary language was adopted by other Protestant writers of the period (with minor adaptations), it became a language standard, as defined by Swan et al. (2004). According to their definition, a language standard is a linguistic variety which is rela- tively uniform and functions as a measure (or standard) against which the quality of an individual speech is evaluated, but lacks the overtly prescriptive norms and codification characteristic of standard varieties (Swan et al. 2004: 176), as opposed to a standard language as a relatively uniform variant of a language which does not show regional variation and tend to observe prescriptive, written norms, which are codified in gram- mars and dictionaries (Swann et al. 2004: 295). In the development of the Protestant standard, the following stages of Milroy and Milroy’s model of standardization (2012, cited in Ayres-Bennett 2021: 36) can be identified: selection (Trubar’s literary lan- guage), acceptance (by other Protestant authors), diffusion (in their published works),10 maintenance (resistance to Krelj’s attempts at reforming orthography), acquisition of prestige (through Dalmatin’s Bible translation). There was little elaboration of function 9 For an overview of studies carried out up to 2008, see articles by Majda Merše, Andreja Legan Ravnikar, Jožica Narat and Kozma Ahačič in Merše (2008/2009). 10 It should be noted that acceptance and diffusion remained limited because of the socio-cultural conditions of the period (prevailing illiteracy, the prestige role of Latin and German among the educated, etc.). 148 (mainly religious works, although Slovenian was included in two multi-language dic- tionaries compiled by the German scholar Hieronymus Megiser (1592, 1603)). The Protestant standard was described in Bohorič’s grammar, but the main aim of the gram- mar was not to codify the language but to show the similarity of its grammatical struc- ture to Latin and therefore to prove that Slovenian is a “cultivated” language (Ahačič 2014: 82). As it was written in Latin, it was intended only for a small circle of the educated elite (Ahačič 2014: 43).11 Therefore, the de facto standard of the period was the language variety of the Bible translation because of its authoritative status, its diffusion not only in print but also orally, and its influence on other religious works, which ensured its implementation (cf. Currie 2022: 27–28). As Dalmatin’s translation of the Bible was the only Protes- tant work officially used also by the Catholic Church in the 17th century, the language standard it established was accepted also by the Catholic writers and remained the model for literary production for the next two centuries (Ahačič 2012: 17), despite its increasing divergence from the spoken varieties, as spoken Slovenian underwent sig- nificant dialectal development, which also increased the differences between the vari- ous dialects (Lenček 1982: 24). Such standardization process can be seen as an early-Modern variant of the stand- ardization from above, as the main Protestant writers chose the forms that they believed would be most widely understood by Slovenian-speaking population, and not as stand- ardization from below, which assumes a conventionalization process, with language users accommodating to each other so their linguistic input becomes more alike (Rut- ten/Vosters 2021: 66–67), by which potentially all members of a language commu- nity and all of their forms of verbal interaction have contributed to the standardization process of this language (Elspaß 2021: 94). But as Rutten/Vosters (2021: 67–69) point out, the standardization from above is an eighteen-century phenomenon and the earlier selection and codification practices differed from it by different language ideologies, different targets and the orientation to different target audiences. Their directionality of prescription is primarily horizontal, with certain members of the group suggesting certain forms to other members of the group. The standardization is therefore limited both socially and generically (Rutten/Vosters 2021: 69). Similar development of a language standard based on the Bible translations can be found in Welsh (Currie, forthcoming), and as for Welsh, Joseph’s concept of circum- stantial standardardisation, where the selection of a variety occurs circumstantially as a by-product of other events (Joseph/Rutten/Vosters 2020; Currie, forthcoming) could be applied also to Slovenian. The 16th-century Slovenian Protestant standard is usually described as supradialectal (e.g. Herrity 2012: 5). Its establishment could be seen as a result of supralocalisation in 11 The language of the grammar differed slightly from the language of the Bible, which in itself was not completely uniform, retaining some (dialectal) variation despite revisions. A series of articles comparing Bohorič’s grammatical descriptions of specific categories to their realization in other Protestant works, including Dalmatin’s Bible, were published in a monograph in 2022: Merše (2022) – verbs, Čepar (2022) – nouns, Jelovšek (2022b) – personal pronouns, Legan Ravnikar (2022) – word formation. 149 the broader sense, as defined by Nevalainen and Tiecken-Boon van Ostade (2006, cited in Currie (forthcoming)): “the geographical diffusion of linguistic features beyond their region of origin”,12 or of norm convergence (Rutten/Vosters 2021: 67). It was a result of a deliberate selection by the leading Protestant authors to achieve the widest possible intelligibility of their works. 3.3 The acceptance of the Protestant standard in the 17th and 18th centuries and the language development in the 19th century With the suppression of the Slovenian Protestant movement in 1598, the printed pro- duction in Slovenian was almost completely halted for a century but the public use of Slovenian increased, compared to the pre-Protestant period, as we can see from the preserved manuscripts of the period (see Pogorelec 2011: 317–318). More im- portantly, the Protestant language standard was preserved in a Catholic edition of a lectionary13 EVANGELIA INU LYSTVVI (1612) based on Dalmatin’s translation of the Bible, which became a model for Slovenian religious and secular writers of the 17th and 18th centuries from the central dialectal areas (Ahačič 2012: 17). Therefore, »the trace of Trubar’s Carniolan language with some historically founded orthographic improvements and second- and supradialectal phonetic changes lasted until the 19th century« [my translation] (Orel 2010: 414). In the eastern Slovenian territories, however, the Protestant standard was felt as too different from the local dialects; in the 18th and 19th centuries, two regional standards (in Eastern Styria and Prekmurje) developed (Jesenšek 1992: 175–179). A special regional standard also developed in the Carinthia region at the end of the 18th century and some attempts were also made in the central Slovenian territory to establish a new regional standard closer to the spoken language (Pogorelec 2011: 121–122). In the middle of the 19th century, a new unified Slovenian standard language was proposed by lead- ing Slovenian linguists and accepted for the use e.g. in schoolbooks and newspapers, which was based on the 16th-century Protestant standard but incorporated features of other dialectal groups (Pogorelec 2011: 126–127); a few years before, bohoričica was replaced with Gaj’s Latin alphabet (gajica). 4 RESEARCH SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY As the main aim of the research presented in this article is to determine how much influence the Protestant language standard had on the non-religious (in terms of con- tent) production in central Slovenian region of the period, a selection of existing Slo- venian manuscripts14 with non-religious content, written in the Reformation period (1550–1598) and the three decades following it, was made. The analyzed sources were limited to those written by authors who originated from or lived and worked 12 A different definition of supralocalization is used by Rutten and Vosters (2021: 67), who describe it as convergence through accomodation between language users and distinguish it from the standardization from above. 13 A lectionary is a collection of Bible texts appointed to be read in church services on particular days of the year. 14 See note 5. 150 in central Slovenian dialectal region. This restriction was adopted with the purpose of providing the description of the diffusion of Protestant language standard in the region where its influence on the writing was most likely, due to the same dialectal basis. Among them, special attention was paid to documents from Ljubljana as the centre of the Slovenian reformation, where the Protestant printing house also oper- ated between 1575 and 1581, and the provincial administration seat. Additionally, manuscripts written by priests, who were likely to be acquainted with the Protestant standard, directly or indirectly through the rare Catholic prints of the period (see 3.2), were also included in the research. The aim of such selection is to provide the basis for comparison by which the diffusion of Protestant standard to other regions and social classes can be evaluated. The selected texts include translations of secular laws or proclamations from Ger- man, letters or letter fragments and forms for various municipal oaths (1620–). To il- lustrate how Slovenian was written before the establishment of the Protestant literary language, a pre- or non-standard15 manuscript Prisege kranjskega mesta (Kranj Oaths, 1531–1558) are also described. As there is no comprehensive corpus of Slovenian man- uscripts, various published transcripts of the selected sources were used in the analysis. The (presumed) authors of the texts include a Protestant preacher, various Catholic priests and official scribes who were not always native speakers of Slovenian. This variety enables some comparison in authors’ acceptance of the Protestant language standard according to their ethnic identity and religious affiliation and also level of education. The adherence to the language standard is assessed on the basis of the orthographi- cal, phonological and morphological features of the texts which are compared to the same features in the works of the dominant Protestant writers (Trubar, Krelj, Dalmatin) and, from 1615 on, to the standard set in the Catholic EVANGELIA INU LYSTVVI 1612 (EiL), which in general follows the language of the Protestant era (cf. Rigler 1968: 209–216). The most common features are presented in Table 1; some features specific to individual manuscripts are additionaly included in their descriptions. Table 1. The common language features analyzed in various manuscripts Orthographical features spelling of alveolar (IPA: /s/, /z/) and palatoalveolar sibilants (IPA: /ʃ/, /ʒ/) spelling of alveolar (IPA: /ts/) and palatoalveolar fricatives (IPA:/ʧ/) spelling of i and j, u and v spelling of consonants b, t, k and h 15 It is not known whether the Kranj Oaths were written before or after the publication of Trubar’s early works, but based on their orthography it is presumed that, even if they were written after the establishment of the Slovenian literary language, the writer was not familiar with it (Golec 2011a). 151 Phonological features reflex of yat reflex of o with a long falling tone reflex of word-final -o reflex of palatal ĺ (IPA: /ʎ/) and ń (IPA: /ɲ/) modern vowel reduction (reduction of high vowels, akanje, etc.) Morphological features pronominal-adjectival endings in oblique cases (SG.M/N) nominal endings in oblique cases (INS.SG.M/N, DAT/LOC/INS.PL.M/N) forms of the verbs imeti ‘to have’ and hoteti ‘to want’ forms of the preposition brez ‘without’ and the conjunction in ‘and’ 5 THE PROTESTANT LANGUAGE STANDARD AND THE SELECTED SLOVENIAN MANUSCRIPTS: RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS 5.1 Kranj Oaths – pre-standard written Slovenian One Slovenian manuscript, the so-called Kranj Oaths containing four types of oath (marked as KRA-1 (a townsman’s oath), KRA-2 (a town councilor’s oath), KRA-3 (a town judge’s oath) and KRA-4 (a judge’s instruction to sworn witnesses)), has been preserved from approximately the time when the Protestant literary language began to emerge.16 The manuscript is dated to the period between 1531 and 1558 and differs con- siderably from the emerging Protestant standard, especially in orthography, although phonological and morphological differences are also noticeable. The spelling of the manuscript is strongly influenced by German and is inconsistent:17 alveolar sibilants /s/ and /z/ are represented indiscriminately by the graphemes <ſ> and , while /s/ is also represented by <ß>, and the palatoalveolar sibilants /š/ (IPA: /ʃ/) and /ž/ (IPA: /ʒ/) are spelled (also indiscriminately) as <ſch>, and in the cluster /št/ in one case also as . The sibilant affricate /c/ is written as or , and for the palatoalveolar affricate /č/ (IPA: /t͡ʃ/) we find as many as five variants: , ,18 (rezthj = reči ‘say- INF’),19 and . /b/ is typically spelled as and only in a few cases as . We find also the variation in the graphemes used for other consonants, e.g. and for /k/ (khockher = kakor ‘as’), and also for final /h/, for /t/. Double consonants are also used, e.g. for /t/, for /l/. It should be mentioned that many of the spelling variants (as well as some additional, see Table 1) can also be found in the literary language of Slovenian Protestants, most often in Trubar’s works, and that the orthographical differentiation between voiced and voiceless sibilants was introduced by later Protestant authors (see 3.1). Trubar’s most important orthographical 16 Published e.g. in Pajk (1870), Mikhailov (2001); a detailed overview in Golec (2011a). 17 The quantitative orthographical data can be found in Golec (2011a). 18 As the grapheme for /č/ is the same as used by Trubar, some researchers have speculated that it indicates familiarity with Trubar’s work. But the same grapheme has been used in the Stara Gora manuscript dated to the end of the 15th century (Golec 2011a). 19 The spelling for /č/ could also be considered as an error arising from the reversed order of graphemes: rezthj = rečti ‘say-INF’ (cf. Golec 2011a). 152 contribution compared to the pre-standard written Slovenian are the relatively strict re- placement of German multigraphs (multi-letter graphemes) for palatoalveolar sibilants and affricate with digraphs and omission of the use of (German) for /b/. Table 2. Graphemes for specific consonants in Kranj Oaths compared to Trubar’s early works. /s/ (IPA: /s/) /z/ (IPA: /z/) /š/ (IPA: /ʃ/) /ž/ (IPA: /ʒ/) /c/ (IPA: /ts/) /č/ (IPA: /ʧ/) /b/ (IPA: /b/) /k/ (IPA: /k/) /h/ (IPA: /x/) /t/ (IPA: /t/) Kranj Oaths s, ſ, ß s, ſ ſch ſch z, tz zh, z, tſch, ztſch*, tzh w, b kh, ckh, ck, c ch, g, h t, th, tt Trubar20 ſ, s, ſſ, ß, ſs ſ, s, z, ſſ, ſs sh, ſh, ſsh, ßh sh, ſh, ßh, ſsh, ſch z, c zh b, p, bb k, c, g, ck h, ch t, d, dt, tt For /v/, in addition to the graphemes and , is also used in Kranj Oaths, and /i/ and /j/ are spelled as , and . An unstable schwa is often written with . The language of the manuscript shows characteristics of both the Upper-Carniolan and Lower-Carniolan dialects,21 which led to the assumption that the writer was origi- nally from Ljubljana or its surroundings (Pajk 1870, Golec 2011a). Palatal ĺ (IPA: /ʎ/) has reflexes /l/ and /jl/ (Khreillu = kralju ‘king-DAT.SG’), and voiced palatal nasal ń (IPA: ɲ) has reflexes /n/ (Nich = njih ‘they-GEN.PL = their’)22 and /jn/ (promoſcheinem = 20 Trubar’s spelling variants are cited from the orthographical table in the Dictionary of the 16th-Century Slovenian Literary Language, Vol. 1 (SSKJ16: 41–42). The variants (e.g.,, <ſ> and <ſſ>) are often positional and their distribution in Trubar’s prints is similar to their distribution in German prints of the period. 21 The Upper- and Lower Carniolan dialects have been for centuries central to Slovenian geographically as well as linguistically in the sense that most of the historical innovations of the Slovenian language which originated in the Slovenian speech territory radiated from here to the adjoining dialects of Styria and the Littoral (Lenček 1982: 146). The vowel system of the Upper Carniolan dialects is characterized by monophthongal reflexes of yat and o with a long falling tone: in long syllables: ě >  and ȏ > . The unaccented word-final -o was presumably maintained in the analyzed period but has been reduced in the course of the modern Slovenian vowel reduction. The reduction has especially strongly affected Upper-Carniolan high vowels. »In the Upper Carniola dialects vowel reduction is strong; every short high vowel in the system has changed, including the schwa, which tends to be reduced qualitatively to ‘zero’« (Lenček 1982: 147). Of the other features, the hardening of the palatal ĺ and ń to l and n, as well as the simplification of the cluster šč > š are relevant for this discussion. The modern Lower Carniolan dialects are characterized by their tendency to dipthongize long vowels. In the 16th century, only the reflex of yat was dipthongal (ě > e), while the nasals were still monopthongal and the reflex of the long o with a long falling tone was u, the same as for o in the word-final position (-o > -u). The vowel reduction is weaker than in Upper-Carniolan dialects, but a tense-lax type of reduction (such as akanje, the development of unstressed o to a) is typical for the modern Lower-Carniolan dialects. Palatal ĺ is hardened to l, while palatal ń still retains palatal pronunciation in certain positions. The consonantal cluster šč is not simplified (Lenček 1982: 149). The first specific Upper Carniolan dialectal features are attested in Celovški rokopis (around 1380), while Lower Carniolan features can first be found in Stiški rokopis (1440) (Orel 2017: 256). 22 Although the form wreſch nich = brež nih < brez njih ‘without them’ with the palatalization of the word-final alveolar sibilant /z/ > /ž/ indicates /n/ is at least a functional palatal. 153 premoženjem ‘property-INS.SG’). Accented yat23 has a monovowel reflex /e/, for word- final -o we mainly find /u/, but also /o/ (tho mallu. Jenu tho Velickho = malo in veliko ‘the-ACC.SG.N small-ACC.SG.N and the-ACC.SG.N great-ACC.SG.N); for the o with a long falling tone (IPA: /ô̞ː/), the reflexes vary, even in the same lexemes (goſpodj = gos- podu ‘Lord-DAT.SG’ : Tackhu = tako ‘so’, goſpudi = gospodu ‘Lord-DAT.SG’ (KRA-1); gospodi (KRA-2, KRA-3, KRA-4), Tackho (KRA-2); only in the neuter demonstra- tive pronoun, and the synonymous definite article,24 to, reflex /o/ is consistent. There are few instances of vowel reduction: /i/ is reduced to schwa in the conjunction ino = in ‘and’, which as a result gets a prothetic j- (jenu); the unaccented -u is sometimes reduced to -o (deſchelskhemo = deželskemu ‘provincial-DAT.SG.M’) in adjectival end- ings. The vowel modification a > e before j is also common but not consistent (krejlu25 = kralju ‘king-DAT.SG’ (KRA-1, KRA-3 and KRA-4) vs. krajlu (KRA-1, KRA-2)). In some cases, the cluster /šč/ is simplified in /š/ (vošiti = voščiti ‘grant-INF’). Prominent features in which the manuscript agrees with Trubar’s characteristics, which his successors did not adopt, are the instrumental form of the reflexive pronoun ſebo = sabo/seboj and the forms with a rounded vowel (after the development /a/ > /o/) of vom ‘you-DAT.PL’ and oli ‘or’ instead of vam and ali. Among the morphological characteristics, the noun endings with the vowel /a/ in the masculine nominal declension (peryatelam = prijateljem ‘friend-DAT.PL’, perſtama = prstoma ‘finger-INS.DU’) should be highlighted, which, according to Ramovš (1952: 42–43), first appeared in Slovenian in the Carinthian and Upper-Carniolan dialects, and is said to have arisen by analogical expansion of vowel /a/ from nominative plural also to dative and locative plural of neuter nouns, and from there also in instrumental singular; endings with /a/ then became common for masculine nouns as well.26 In loca- tive singular of the neuter nominative declension, the instrumental ending occurs (po moyem promoſcheinem = po mojem premoženju ‘by my-LOC.SG.N property-INS.SG’). In the adjectival declension, variant endings with the reflexes /e/ and /i/ (which is standard for the 16th century literary language) are attested (deželskemo vs. deželskimo ‘provin- cial-DAT.SG.M’). The manuscript also differs from the language of Slovenian Protestants in the use of the preposition form brez instead of pres ‘without’ and the form of the conjunction temeč instead of temuč = temveč ‘but’. 23 Yat was a common Slavic long vowel, in Cyrillic script written with <ѣ>, which is generally believed to have represented the sound [æ] or [ɛ], a reflex of earlier Proto-Slavic */ē/ and */aj/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Yat). 24 Slovenian typically does not use definite and indefinite articles, but under the influence of German the demonstrative pronoun ta was frequently used in older texts as a loan translation for the German definite article. 25 Examples occuring in various spelling forms are orthographically modernized. 26 Individual occurrences of this form are also found among Slovenian Protestants (cf. Ramovš 1952: 43; Jelovšek 2021b: 162, note 99). 154 5.2 Manuscripts written in the period of the development of the Protestant standard 5.2.1 The proclamation about a new wine tax (1570) The second extant manuscript from the 16th century, which is also the first known official document in Slovenian, was created in the office of the provincial estates in 1570 and was intended for winegrowers. It is a proclamation about a new wine tax. This manuscript (published and analyzed in Jug 1942) is undoubtedly closely related to the contemporary Protestant literary language, because on the basis of its linguistic characteristics, it can be unequivocally determined that the author of the text was one of the Protestant writers, Jurij Juričič, a native Croat (Chakavian) from Vinodol (today a municipality in the Primorje-Gorski Kotar County in western Croatia),27 who in the years following Sebastijan Krelj’s death was preparing an adaptation of Krelj’s transla- tion of the first part and a translation of the second and third parts of Johann Spangen- berg’s postil (Ioannes Spangenberg, Auslegung der Epiſtel vnd Euangelien von Oſtern bis auffs Aduent and Auslegung der Epiſtel vnd Euangelien von den furnembſten Festen durchs gantze Jar, 1558), containing passages from the Epistles and Gospels and cor- responding homilies for Sundays between Easter and Advent and for some Church Holidays. The proclamation agrees with Krelj’s orthography (cf. Rigler 1968: 219–222, Ahačič 2022: 84–88) in the spelling distinction between /s/ (<ſ>, <ſſ>, <ſs>) and /z/ (), and /š/ (<ſh>, <ſ> before ) and /ž/ (), in the distinction between /č/ () and /ć/ (IPA: /t͡ɕ/) () and the marking of the palatal ĺ (lüdye = ljudje ‘people-NOM’, Deshelian = deželanov ‘(provincial) nobleman-GEN.PL’, oblbe = obljube ‘promise-GEN. SG’) and ń (poſledniem = poslednjem ‘last-LOC.SG.M’). It differs from Krelj’s standard mainly in significantly more frequent use of the grapheme both for /i/ (e.g. my = mi ‘we-NOM’ against Krelj’s consistent mi) and for /j/ (kraye = kraje ‘place-ACC.PL’), as well as for the clusters /ij/, /ji/ and /iji/, which Krelj mostly spelled with the digraph . Such a spelling could perhaps be attributed to the copyist, but we also find a simi- lar distribution of graphemes in Juričič’s translation of Spangenberg’s postil (Jelovšek 2022a), proving it to be Juričič’s idiosyncratic spelling. In terms of phonological features, the predominant reflex /o/ for the o with a long fall- ing tone (Goſpod = gospod ‘Lord-NOM.SG’ vs. nalushili = naložili ‘load-PTCP.PL.M’) and the preservation of the word-final -o (vto iſto Goſpodſtvo = v to isto gospostvo ‘in that- ACC.SG.N same-ACC.SG.N dominion-ACC.SG’) in contrast to (Trubar’s) Lower-Carniolan -u partly match Krelj’s language, but are even more consistent, as they are also found in 27 Juričič came to Slovenian lands as a Catholic priest some time before 1561, when he officially joined the Protestants; in addition to his participation in Croatian Protestant press, he soon tried his hand at writing in Slovenian (though his work was notably influenced by his native idiom) and worked as an author and the editor on a Protestant songbook published in 1563, which was not received positively by Trubar and his followers. Juričič’s contribution to Slovenian literary language is in a more detailed way described in Jelovšek (2022a). It was not unusual for that period that Croatian priests preached in Slovenian lands, as their lands were part of the same realm and the languages were mutually intelligible; more than one joined the Slovenian Protestant movement, although only Juričič is known to have actively participated in the Slovenian translations, while others, such as Antun Dalmata and Stjepan Konzul, served only as proof readers for Slovenian texts (cf. Rotar 1988: 24). 155 the conjunction ino = in ‘and’, which Krelj consistently wrote as inu. Slavko Jug, who published this manuscript in 1952, identified the form ino as a feature of the Ljubljana dialect (Jug 1942: 78), but this is not in accordance with Rigler’s later theory about the contemporary reflexes of /e/ for yat and /u/ for o with a long falling tone and word-final o in Ljubljana (Rigler 1968).28 Similarly, we find reflex /o/ for the o with a long falling tone in the adverb okollo = okoli ‘around’ against Krelj’s okuli, which can be attributed to the influence of Juričič’s native Croatian language. The same applies to the occasion- al reflex /i/ for yat (Myſeca = meseca ‘month-GEN.SG’, didinſki = dedni ‘hereditary-NOM. SG.M’, etc.) alongside relatively frequent reflex /ej/,29 the /u/ for nasal ǫ (Sugornikov = sogornikov ‘tenant-GEN.PL of a vineyard’, budeiu vs. bodeio = bodo ‘be-FUT-3PL.’), and the forms of the numerals yedanaiſt = enajst ‘eleven’ (Krelj and the other enajst) and ſtirdeset = štirideset ‘forty’ (Krelj and the other štirideset) also differed from the forms used by other Protestant authors) (Besedje 2011). Juričič’s idiosyncrasies are also the unreduced form of the preposition pry = pri ‘at’ (other Protestant writers used reduced form with a secondary schwa per) and prasdnik = praznik ‘holiday’ (others: praznik), while he used the standard preposition pres = brez ‘without’, as opposed to bres in the majority of other analyzed manuscripts; all the mentioned forms can also be found in Juričič’s printed work. He also partially deviated from Krelj’s example in the morphol- ogy, which is characteristically inconsistent: e.g., in the adjectival declension, we find, in addition to standard endings with the reflex /i/ of the secondary yat (vſakateriga = vs- akaterega ‘every-GEN.SG.N’), also endings with /e/ (poſledniem = poslednjem ‘last-LOC. SG.M’) and with the Croatian /o/ (Dunaiſkoga = dunajskega ‘Viennese-GEN.SG.M’).30 On the other hand, similarly to Krelj, Juričič declined masculine nouns ending in -r without extension -j- (Proclamation: Vicarom = vikarjem ‘vicar-DAT.PL’, Rihtarom = rihtarjem ‘judge-DAT.PL’; cf. Krelj: Ceſarom = cesarjem ‘emperor-DAT.PL’). When translating the proclamation, Juričič therefore adhered to the orthography established by Sebastijan Krelj, while at the same time showing many individual char- acteristics on the phonological, morphological and lexical levels; a comparison with his printed work, Postilla from 1578, shows that the same characteristics, with the exception of Krelj’s orthography, are at least partially preserved in this work, despite attempts to approach the central standard (cf. Merše 2013: 129–145) and the revision of 28 The form ino appears sporadically in the published works of Slovenian Protestants, including those of Trubar (eg. TE 1555: C3a; on the same page, there are 14 occurrences of the form inu, indicating that the single form ino is probably a mistake) and later in the Bible, but it is found only once in Krelj’s works (KPo 1567: XLVI) and also in Hišna postila 1595, which was edited by the Ljubljana-born Andrej Savinec and where we find several specific Ljubljana dialectal features, and it does not occur at all in the work of another native of Ljubljana, Janž Znojilšek’s translation of Luther’s catechism from 1595 (Korpus 16), so it seems unlikely that it really was a feature of the Ljubljana dialect. 29 /ej/ is also used in the adjective ſloveinſki = slovenski ‘Slovenian-NOM.SG.M’ that had almost consistent reflex /e/ in the Protestant works (and of the three occurences of /ei/ in this lexeme, one can also be attributed to Juričič, while the other two are probably errors). 30 Juričič’s uncertainty in the use of adjective endings is also shown in the corrections in the manuscript, which Jug (1942: 79) assumes are Juričič’s work: thus he corrected puntarſkega to puntarſkiga, and deshelskimu to deshelskemu. 156 one of the other Protestant authors31 before printing. Both Juričič’s manuscript transla- tion and his printed work can therefore be characterized as a “detour” in the develop- ment of the Protestant standard (cf. Ahačič 2020), while the manuscript differs from other non-literary texts of the period as well. 5.2.2 Gorske bukve (1582) – the translation of the Styrian Vineyard Law from 1543 The next extant manuscript is a translation of the German Styrian Vineyard Law from 1543, prepared in 1582 by the Catholic priest Andrej Recelj.32 The relatively extensive text (approx. 3,500 words), which is known from a copy thought to have been made at the end of the 16th century (Ogrin 2021), is the oldest extant legal text in the Slovenian language. His orthography largely matches the orthography of Slovenian Protestants, but as with other manuscripts, with the exception of Juričič’s, we find many differ- ences, especially in the writing of alveolar and palatoalveolar sibilants: /s/ and /z/ are indiscriminately written with <ſ>, and <ſs>, /š/ and /ž/ are predominantly spelled as <ſh> and , but also as <ſ> (often before and also ), , <ſs> and excep- tionally also with the German trigraph . The grapheme is used for /c/, which is exceptionally also spelled as (Delouzhú = delavcu ‘worker-DAT.SG’). For /č/, the spelling is dominant, but we also find and / (leſhetsh = ležeč ‘lying’, ritſhi = reči ‘thing-GEN.PL’). Digraphs also appear for velars, but some are dif- ferent from those used in Kranj Oaths (hkobenimu = k nobenemu ‘to no-one-DAT.SG.M’, Vnemzhich = v Nemcih ‘in Germans-LOC.PL’, ie. in German). Some Upper-Carniolan features, such as the reflex /o/ for the word final -o (which is most common with the demonstrative pronoun of the neuter gender and the syn- onymous definite article (to uinu ‘this/the wine-ACC.SG’, to iſtu ‘the-ACC.SG.N same-ACC. SG.N’))33 and the dialectal form of the preposition mih alongside standard vmej = med ‘between’, could be inserted in transcribing the original text. In morphology, the noun endings with the vowel /a/ in masculine and neuter nomi- nal plurals (Shiuotam = životom ‘body-INST.SG’, tergainam = trganjem ‘(grape) picking- INS.SG’; Gospudam = gospodom ‘Lord-DAT.PL’) are more frequent than standard end- ings with /o/ (i.e. uinom = vinom ‘wine-INS.SG’). The adjectival declension is the same as in the Protestant standard; the dative ending in LOCsg. of masculine and neuter adjectives occurs only once (ta [=na] timu uinogradi = na tem vinogradu ‘on the-LOC. 31 The majority of researchers assume that the revisor was Adam Bohorič (for an overview, see Jelovšek (2022a: 116–121); on the other hand, Rigler (1986: 37), based on the retention of Croatisms, believes that the conversion from Krelj’s to Trubar’s or Dalmatin’s orthography was made by the printer Janž Mandelc, while Ahačič (2021b: 178) mentions another Protestant author, Janž Tulščak, as a possible revisor. The revision of Juričič’s printed work again proves that the main focus of the Protestant standardization efforts was the orthography (see 3.1), while on phonological and morphological levels a greater degree of variation was acceptable. 32 Published in Dolenc (1940) and in Jelovšek (2021a). 33 It is difficult to determine whether the word-final -o in the neuter definitive pronoun to, when in the role of a definite article, was stressed or unstressed, but as the reflexes in 16th century Upper- and Lower Carniolan were the same for both stressed and unstressed final -o (Upper Carniolan -o, Lower Carniolan -u), the question is not crucial for this discussion. 157 SG.M vineyard-LOC.SG’). Demonstrative pronoun taisti is generally declined in both parts (timuiſtimu = temu istemu/tistemu ‘that-DAT.SG.N-same-DAT.SG.N’), but in one case only the final part is declined (taiſte = taiste/tiste ‘that-same-NOM.F.PL’). The negated verbs hoteti ‘want-INF’ and imeti ‘have-INF’ have only contracted forms (nima ‘NEG-have- PRS.3SG’, nozhe = noče ‘NEG-want-PRS.3SG’) that were not typical for the Protestant liter- ary language (Trubar: uncontracted forms (negation particle + verb) ne ima ‘not have- PRS.3SG, ne hozhe ‘not have-PRS.3SG’; Dalmatin: contracted forms with different vowel reflexes: nejma ‘NEG-have-PRS.3SG, nezhe ‘NEG-want-PRS.3SG’). 5.2.3 Two Slovenian texts from 1598 The next two analyzed Slovenian manuscript texts were written fourteen years after the publication of the complete Bible, in the year when Protestant preachers were expelled from most of the Slovenian lands, and they also come from Catholic circles. The author of the first is a priest, and the second was supposedly written by a layman, the secretary of the vidame (the deputy governor named by the ruler) of Carniola. The first is a Latin letter interspersed with Slovenian sentences from priest Nikolaj Koprivec to Bishop Tomaž Hren of Ljubljana,34 which was written in Radeče, in the Lower Sava Valley in the Duchy of Carniola on the border of the Duchy of Styria, and is dated to 5 February 1598. Their orthography and language show at least a partial influence of the Protestant standard, especially if we compare them to the Kranj Oaths. Orthographically, the text is quite inconsistent, but basically close to the Protestant spelling: /s/ and /z/ are written indiscriminately with and <ſ>, /s/ also with and <ſs>, /c/ is written with ; the major deviations are among palatoalveolars: /ž/ is written with , /č/ with and , /š/ in addition to under the influence of the German spelling also with <ſch>, and the cluster /šk/ with (Scof = škof ‘bishop-NOM.SG’).35 The influence of the German orthography is also discernible in the writing of the final /h/ with . The language of the writer, who was born in Radeče (and was therefore presumably speaker of the East Lower Carniolan dialect, same as Dalmatin) but spent almost 30 years in the Styrian capital Graz, shows similarities to Trubar’s works, such as the use of the possessive pronoun muj = moj ‘my-NOM.SG.M’ (Dalmatin moj) and the spelling of palatal ń without the indication of palatalization in the personal pronoun nega = njega ‘he-ACC’ (same as Dalmatin until 1584, later njega). The predominant reflex /u/ of o with a long falling tone in Gospud = gospod ‘Lord-NOM.SG.’corresponds with the literary (Lower-Carniolan) form and is in contrast with the Styrian form with /o/ (gospod), which is found in the last Slovenian passage in the letter; the diphthong reflex for yat in lexemes in which even in Trubar’s works it was only an exception or did not appear at all (meiſhati = mešati ‘mix-INF’, neikai = nekaj ‘something-ACC’ with a diphthong only twice in Dalmatin in 1575 (Korpus 16, see Ahačič 2019)), and /ej/ also for the nasal in lubeiſni = ljubezni ‘love-GEN.SG.’ and pregleidati = (s)pregledati ‘overlook-INF’ shows the opposite tendency to that of the 34 Published in the catalogue Slovenščina v dokumentih skozi stoletja (Kos et al. 1971: 23–24). 35 The same spelling of the word can be found in some of Trubar’s works, especially the earliest (Korpus 16). 158 majority of Slovenian Protestants, who in general tended to avoid the diphthong reflex (cf. Rigler 1968, Müller 2001). Koprivec also differed from the Protestant orthography in (inconsistent) spelling of the reduced form of the preposition pri ‘at’ without a sec- ondary schwa written with (pr : per), and the conjunction in ‘and’ has the same form as in the Kranj Oaths (ienu). Another text from that year, the translation of Archduke Ferdinand’s letter to the vidame of Carniola36 presents a significantly different spelling and linguistic im- age. In it we find some similar spelling features as in Kranj Oaths, e.g. for /b/ (wodo = bodo ‘be-FUT.3PL’), for /h/ and for /k/ are common, as are dupli- cated graphemes for consonants; however, it differs from it in the spelling of palatoal- veolar sibilants: they are predominantly not written with various multigraphs deriving from German orthography, but /ž/ is usually written with the same graphemes as both alveolar sibilants:37 (Slusbe = službe ‘job, position-GEN.SG’), while for /š/ digraph is predominantly used; as in other manuscripts, the grapheme is used for /c/ (exceptionally in meszha = mes(e)ca ‘month-GEN.SG), as well as for <č> (maznu = močno ‘strongly’, Samuz = samuč ‘only’), which is also written as (Zhlaueka = človeka ‘man-ACC-SG’) and exceptionally with (lutz = luč ‘light-NOM.SG’), and indicates /k/ (uncai = venkaj ‘out’); the peculiarity of the manuscript is the use of for the word-initial /j-/ (hieche = ječe ‘prison-ACC.PL’). The language of the manuscript is characterized by a fairly developed modern vowel reduction with the reduction of unstressed i > ǝ (bitte < biti ‘be-INF’; jemeli < imeli ‘have-PTCP.3PL.M’ : imal = imel ‘have-PTCP.3SG.M’, ienu < inu ‘and’ with prothetic j-) and u > o (nemo < njemu ‘he-DAT. SG’, temo < temu ‘this-DAT.SG.M’). Akanje (development of o > a) is strongly devel- oped (dale pastaulen < doli postavljen ‘down-set-PTCP.3SG.M, ie. removed from office’, imaia < imajo ‘have-PRS.3PL’, and occurs also in stressed position: asmich < osmih ‘eight-LOC’); we also find the transition of the preposition na ‘on’ to ne. The reflections of word-final -o are mixed, we find both /o/ (to isto = to isto ‘that-ACC.SG.N same-ACC. SG.N’, Vozitno = očitno ‘publicly’, pokorno = pokorno ‘obediently’) and /u/ (taku = tako ‘so’, bellu = bilo ‘be-PTCP.SG.N’, ienu vs. ieno = ino ‘and’). Cluster /šč/ is simplified to /š/ (pokorshina = pokorščina ‘obedience-NOM.SG’). The demonstrative pronoun taisti (from ta + isti ‘the same’) is usually inflected in both parts (temo istomo = temu istemu ‘the-DAT.SG.N same-DAT.SG.N’), but in one case only in the last one: hkteistomu = k tais- temu ‘to the-DAT.SG.N same-DAT.SG.N’. On the basis of these characteristics, Rupel (1956: 55) assumes that the vidame entrusted the translation of the German letter to his scribe, who was presumably from the northwestern Slovenian territory and, as the vidame’s employee, was certainly not a Protestant. As Rupel concluded: “that’s why he only knew the Slovenian writing of the time from afar and, if necessary, wrote in his own dialect. Just as he was not consistent in his spelling, he also did not write a pure dialect, as he also picked up other dialect features in Ljubljana.” [my translation] (Rupel 1956: 55) 36 Published in Kos (1971: 24–25), with commentary in Rupel (1956), and transliterated in Golec (2007). 37 If we presume that the transcription in Kos et al. 1971: 24–25 is accurate; it is possible that the both and <ſ> from the original texts were transcribed as . 159 5.2.4 Proclamation about the introduction of a new surcharge (1611) From the period before the Catholic edition of EiL, there is also a proclamation about the introduction of a new surcharge from 1611, written in the circle of Ljubljana mu- nicipal administration. This document, which is missing today, is said to have been written “in German letters”, and it was said to have been translated from German at the request of a beadle who used a drum to announce the magistrate’s proclamations around the town. “Its creation is completely accidental, as it is just a clumsy translation that was commissioned by a beadle, who probably did not know German” [my transla- tion] (Jug 1942: 74). Since the text is preserved only in a transcription from 1886 (Vrhovec 1886), which does not distinguish between <ſ> and and uses for both, it is not possible to determine if different graphemes were used for /s/ and /z/ in the original manuscript, as it was typical for the Protestant language standard established in the Bible. In one case (if it is not an error in the transcription), is used for /z/ (skhazati = skazati ‘show- INF’), which otherwise marks /c/ and /č/ in the text. For /š/, and the German trigraph 38 are used, /ž/ is also spelled as . For /b/, is used, as well as singular occurences of (vrati = brati ‘read-INF’) and (nabit ‘nailed (to)’), /k/ is consist- ently written with the digraph , and final /h/ with . The writer’s inexperience in writing Slovenian texts is also shown by the spelling for je ‘be-PRS.3SG’, which was probably an attempted phonetic representation of the initial palatal approximant j in the manner similar to German orthographical representations of the hiatus (e.g., in the word Ehe), instead of the standard . With regard to phonological phenomena in this short text, we find consistent pre- and occasionally also post-tonal akanje (o > e) (Pred Sehoda = pred škodo ‘from dam- age-INS.SG’), reduction of final high vowels (Suetle Först = svetli first ‘esteemed-NOM. SG.M prince-NOM.SG’, na Siuato < na životu ‘on body-LOG.SG., i.e. corporal (adj.)’); it is not clear whether /o/ in the phrase khakesno Blagu = kakšno blago ‘any-ACC.SG.N goods-ACC.SG’ is a result of reduction u > o or a reflex /o/ of word-final -o, while the reflex of o with a long falling tone in the noun blagu is /u/, the same as in the literary language), and inconsistent drop of the schwa (Pakhorn : Pakhoren = pokoren ‘obedi- ent-NOM.SG.M’); the reflex of palatal ĺ is /l/ (pella = pelje ‘lead-PRS.3SG’, pastaulenech = posta vljenih ‘set-PTCP.LOC.PL.M’), the prefix raz- developed to rez- (resumete = razumite ‘understand-IMP.3PL’), while the Lower-Carniolan development of na- to ne-, which is characteristic of some other texts, is not attested (nabit ‘nailed-PTCP.NOM.SG.M’). The difference between the imperatives Pasluschaite = poslušajte ‘listen-IMP.3PL’and resu- mete = razumite (Trubar: reʃumeite (Korpus16) ‘understand-IMP.3PL’), pauete = povejte ‘tell-IMP.3PL’ can be explained as a hypercorrection, which would indicate avoidance of the dipthong reflex /ej/ of yat. 38 We can also presume that in the words Sekodo = škodo, Sekhoda = škoda ‘damage-ACC./NOM.SG’, is a spelling error for . 160 5.2.5 Another Slovenian fragment Another Slovenian fragment, dating from 1612, around the time of the publication of the Catholic lectionary, can be found in the letter of the Polish Jesuit Albert Ocicki,39 which he wrote to the pastor of Pilštaj, Adam Aparnik, from Pleterje monastery. He concludes the Latin letter with a few Slovenian sentences, written in an orthography that largely matches the pre-biblical orthography of Slovenian Protestants (e.g. for /j/, for /v/, , <ſ> and <ſs> for /s/, for /z/, <ſh> for /š/; /c/ is not attested, is generally used for /č/, but the unique spelling Zhupan stands out, where this digraph is used for /ž/, which is otherwise also written with <ſh>. The language also partially matches the earlier variant of the literary language of the Protestants (e.g. muj = moj ‘my’ as in Trubar’s works; the reflex of o with a long falling tone is /u/ (Goſpud, Bug), which is also a variant reflex of the nasal ǫ (budite : bodi), typical for the Croat Juričič 40 years earlier, and for word-final -o we find /-u/ (inu) as well as /-o/ (toliko); yat is consistently written with (rezhah, urednoſti, sueſti), the reflex of palatal ń is /n/ (negoua40 ‘his-NOM.SG.F’), and the reflex of palatal ĺ in the word-final position is /l/ (priatel ‘friend’ – with the preserved prefix pri-, which is also found in the verb priprauite41). In morphology, a special feature is the a-declension ending in the femi- nine i-declension noun (LocPl rezhah). A conjunction ali has a variant ale, which could be the result of vowel reduction and is also found in Styrian Vineyard Act from 1582, but there are no other signs of reduction. The preserved letter proves that foreign friars who worked in Slovenian territory learned Slovenian language standard to a higher degree than lay native speakers work- ing as scribes; as it is not clear whether the Catholic edition of the lectionary was pub- lished before the letter was written, the language model for the was more probably an earlier work, maybe the lost Pachernecker’s catechism. 5.2.6 To summarize To summarize, the majority of manuscripts written approximately in the period when the Protestant language standard was gradually established show few traces of that standard (see Tables 3 and 4). The exceptions are two manuscripts written by Catholic priests. 39 Published in Rupel (1958: 123). 40 Although the language of the letter is reminiscent of Trubars, the possessive pronoun njegov appears in the literary language only from Krelj and more frequently in Dalmatin’s works (Besedje). 41 While the form priatel is more frequent in the majority of Protestant works than the form periatel which is tipical for Trubar’s works, the verbal prefix pri- is much rarer than its reduced variant (Korpus 16). In EiL, only priatel is found, and the occurences of the forms pripraviti are slightly more frequent than perpraviti. 161 Ta bl e 3. O rth og ra ph ic al fe at ur es in th e m an us cr ip ts w rit te n in th e pe rio d of th e de ve lo pm en t o f t he P ro te st an t s ta nd ar d. K ra nj O at hs T ru ba r K re lj Pr oc la m at io n 15 70 (J ur ič ič ) R ec el j 15 82 D al m at in ’s B ib le 1 58 4 A rc hd uk e’ s le tt er 1 59 8 K op ri ve c’ s le tt er 1 59 8 Pr oc la m at io n 16 11 O ci ck i’s le tt er 16 12 /s / s, ſ, ß s, ſ, ſſ, ſs , ß ſ, ſſ ſ, s, ſſ, ſs ſ, s, ſs ſ, ſſ, ſs , ( s, ß) 1 ſſ, ſ, s, ss s, ſ, ſs [s ]2 s, ſ, ſs /z / s, ſ ſ, s, z, ſſ , ſ s s, ſ s ſ, s, ſs s, (ſ, ſs ) s, sh ſ, s, ſs [s ], [z ] s /š / ſc h sh , ſ h, ſs h, ßh ſh , s h ſh ſh , s h, ſ, s ſ s, sc h ſh , ( sh ) sh , c h, s S, ſc h, ſh [s ], [s ]c h ſh /ž / ſc h sh , ſ h, ß h, ſs h, ſc h sh , ſ h sh ſh , s h, ſ, s ſ s, sc h sh s, sh Sh [s ] ſh , Z h /c / z, tz z, c z, c z, c z, z h, ts z, c tz , z , z h Z z c /č / zh , z , tſc h, zt ſc h, tz h zh zh zh (+ c h = ć) zh , z , ts ch zh zh , z , t z, Z z zh /b / w , b b, p , b b b, p b b b, b b, (p ) b, w b b, w , v b /h / ch , g , h h ch h, c h h h, c h h, c h ch , h , h k ch h, c h h /t/ t, th , t t t, d, tt , d t t, tt, th , d t t, dt , t h t, tt, (d , d t) t, tt, th , d t t t t /k / kh , c kh , ck , c k, c , g , c k, q k, c , c h, g, q k k, h k, q, c , c h, gk k, c , ( g) k k, c kh , g kh , k k 1 Le ss fr eq ue nt ly u se d gr ap he m es w hi ch a re n ot c on sid er ed » sta nd ar d« fo r a c er ta in p ho ne m e ar e w rit te n in th e br ac ke ts. 2 Sq ua re b ra ck et s d en ot e th e gr ap he m es u se d in th e tra ns cr ip tio n th at d o no t n ec es sa ril y re fle ct th e or ig in al o rth og ra ph y. 162 Ta bl e 4. P ho no lo gi ca l a nd m or ph ol og ic al fe at ur es in th e m an us cr ip ts w rit te n in th e pe rio d of th e de ve lo pm en t o f t he P ro te st an t s ta nd ar d. K ra nj O at hs T ru ba r K re lj Pr oc la m at io n 15 70 (J ur ič ič ) R ec el j 15 82 D al m at in ’s B ib le 1 58 4 A rc hd uk e’ s le tt er 1 59 8 K op ri ve c’ s le tt er 1 59 8 Pr oc la m at io n 16 11 O ci ck i’s le tt er 16 12 ya t e e, e j e, e j ej , e (+ C ro at ia n i) e, e j e, (e j) e ej e e o u, o u u, o o u, o u o, u u, o u u -o -u , - o -u -u , - o -o -u , - o -u -o , - u, -a -u o -u ĺ l, jl l, lj lj, l, jl lj, l l, lj, jl l, jl, lj l l l l ń n, jn n, jn nj , n nj , n n, jn , n j nj , n , ( jn ) n, jn , j n n / šč š šč šč šč š, šč šč , ( š) š / / / pr on ./a dj . en di ng s -e ga , -ig a -ig a -ig a -ig a, -e ga (+ C ro at ia n -o ga ) -ig a -ig a -ig a, -o ga -ig a -ig a, * -e ga (r ed uc tio n? ) / no m in al en di ng s -a m -o m -o m -o m -a m , -o m , - um -o m -a m ? / / / N E G + im et i1 / ne jm a ni m a / ni m a ne m a / / / / ho te ti / ho če ho če , oč e oč e oč e ho če / / ho če / N E G + ho te ti no če ne če no če , ne če / no če ne če / no če / / br ez ‘w ith ou t’ br ez pr ez Pr ez pr ez br ez , pr ez pr ez / / / / in ‘a nd ’ je nu in u In u in o in u, n u, no , i nu j in u je nu je nu in u in u 1 A ll ve rb al fo rm s i n ta bl es 4 a nd 6 a re g iv en in th e 3r d sg . p re se nt ; p ar tic ip le fo rm s a re a dd ed w he re th ei r b as e di ffe rs fr om th e pr es en t f or m . 163 The exceptions are the manuscript written by one of the Protestant authors in 1570, which adheres to contemporary orthographical standard but still retains other linguistic idiosyncrasies of the author, and the translation of the vineyard act from 1582, written by a Catholic priest and Cistercian friar which adheres to the Protestant standard in gen- eral but shows greater variation in spelling (showing influences of German orthography that could have been introduced by the transcriber) and in other linguistic features and therefore cannot be described as adhering to any of the variants of the emerging Protestant language standard introduced by various Protestant authors (Trubar, Krelj, Dalmatin’s pre-Bible works). Other documents have orthographically more in common with the pre-standard Kranj Oaths than with the Protestant standard (see Table 3), al- though they diverge from them especially in the less frequent use of German consonant clusters for palatoalveolar sibilants. Among them, the third manuscript written by a clergyman, Koprivec’s letter from 1598, also agrees with Protestant language standard (Lower Carniolan), especially on the phonological level. The occurrence of modern vowel reduction is increasingly reflected in the texts, especially those attributed to lay scribes. Almost all texts show the use of the endings -am, -ami in the masculine and neuter noun declension which were rare in the standard language, where the endings -om, -omi were generally used. 5.3 Manuscripts written after the publication of the Catholic edition of EVANGE- LIA INU LYSTVVI (1612) 5.3.1 Archduke Ferdinand’s proclamation (1615) Another translation of an official proclamation, written after the publication of EiL, is Archduke Ferdinand’s proclamation to the subjects of the Naklo (Upper Carniola, near Kranj) and Primskovo (Lower Carniola, between Litija and Trebnje) provincial prince- ly offices from 161542 that the provincial princely commission was coming to visit, which was supposed to be translated by the scribe of the vidame’s office in Ljubljana (NRSS-Ms 105). The spelling of the text, as far as we can conclude from the published transcription,43 distinguishes between alveolar and palatoalveolar sibilants, but not con- sistently between /s/ and /z/ and /š/ and /ž/, for which the graphemes and <ſ> (for /s/ also <ſs> between two vowels) and and <ſh> respectively, are used indis- criminately. /c/ is consistently written with , and /č/ mainly with , while in the indication of the date we also find the trigraph (Tsheterti = četrti ‘the fourth-NOM. SG.M’), as well as , which is probably a mistake (oshte = (h)oč(e)te ‘want-PRS.2PL’). As in other similar manuscripts, is used for the preposition k (khenim = k enim ‘to one/a-NOM.SG.M’). The language mostly corresponds with the established standard, only in one case the o with a long falling tone has a reflex /o/ (Soper = zoper ‘against’), and the cluster /šč/ is developed into /š/ (pokorſhino = pokorščino ‘obedience-ACC.SG’). There are few signs of modern vowel reduction: only the word-initial /i-/ is reduced 42 Published in Kos et al. (1971: 25–26). 43 In certain places in the transcription (Kos et al. 1971: 25–26), gajic graphemes are used for palatal alveolars, and it is not clear whether they were really used in the original. 164 and strengthened with a prothetic j (Jemenitnim < imenitnim ‘distinguished-DAT.PL.M’), while the masculine form of the demonstrative pronoun te = ta ‘that-NOM.SG.M’ in the date could be used under the influence of the Styrian or Carinthian dialect. The reflexes of palatal ń are inconsistent: Vkranski = v kranjski ‘in Carniolan-LOC.SG.F’, porozheine = poročenje ‘instruction-NOM.SG’, Vporozheniu = v poročenju ‘in instruction-LOC.SG’, while palatal ĺ is written with
  • (Volio = voljo ‘will-ACC.SG’), as opposed to volo in EiL and predominantly in the works of Trubar and Dalmatin. In morphology, we find consistent use of the ending -am for the INS.SG and the DAT.PL of masculine nouns. Simi- lar to other manuscripts and unlike the literary language, the verb hoteti ‘want-INF’ is without the initial h- (oshte = (h)oč(e)te ‘want-PRS.2PL’). Although the orthography is, in some segments, still influenced by German, the spelling and language of the proclamation show more consistency compared to the translation of the Archduke’s letter from 1598. 5.3.2 The Ljubljana Oaths (c.1620) From the book of oaths of Ljubljana townsmen and officials, which also contains seventeen Slovenian oaths created between 1620 and 1727,44 the oldest seven oaths, which were presumably written around 1620, are analyzed here. They are the oaths of a citizen (LJU-1), a grain measurer (žitni merčun) and city watchman (LJU-2), a grain supervisor (LJU-4), a wine measurer (vinski merčun) (LJU-6), a city porter (LJU-7), a forest servant (LJU-8) and a short oath for witnesses in judicial proceedings (LJU- 10).45 Despite the fact that they were written in the oath book at approximately the same time by the same hand,46 the texts show a high degree of intra- and inter-textual variation in spelling, phonology and also morphology. In terms of orthography, the notations for alveolar and palatoalveolar sibilants are again inconsistent: as in other similar texts, the graphemes , <ſ>, <ſs> are used indiscriminately for /s/ and /z/, exceptionally also <ſh> (for /s/ also <ſſ> and ), for /š/ and /ž/ also , <ſh> (for /ž/ also <ſsh>), also and <ſch> according to the German orthography, in addi- tion to the same graphemes that denote alveolar sibilants (which are used especially, but not exclusively before /t/). The grapheme is consistently used for /c/, and , , and are also used for /č/ besides the predominat . Despite the obvious influence of German orthography on individual spellings (in addition to the multigraphs mentioned above, for /h/ in the middle and at the end of words can be attributed to German, while for /k/ could be used either under German or Latin in- fluence), Golec (2011b) in his analysis of oaths characterizes them as a “product of the era of literary Slovenian” [my translation], since spellings with German multigraphs are more the exception than the rule, and compared to the Carniolan manuscript, the almost complete absence of the grapheme is evident (it appears only in the word Worste = boršte ‘forest-ACC.PL’ (LJU-8). The idiosyncrasy of LJU-4 and LJU-6 oaths 44 Published in Golec (2011b), more thorough linguistic analysis in Oblak (1887). 45 The corrections and annotations in these texts, which deviate significantly from the basic notation, were not included in the analysis. 46 According to Golec (2011b), the scribe was born in a Protestant family in Ljubljana. 165 is an orthographic duplication of initial /v/ (uuernu = vernu ‘trueADV’, Vuinski = vinski ‘wineADJ’, uuſaki = vsaki ‘every’). The basic phonology and morphology of oaths match the standard language, but there are many deviations in all texts. In this respect, the oaths LJU-2 and LJU-7 are the closest to the contemporary literary language. For o with a long falling tone and final -o, we find both Lower-Carniolan (and standard) /u/ and Upper-Carniolan /o/ (LJU-2: toiſto = toisto ‘that-NOM.SG.N-same-NOM.SG.N’ : drugu = drugo ‘other-ACC.SG.N’, LJU-8: Goſpudi : Gospodu = gospodu ‘Lord/sir-DAT.SG’), and the absence of the diph- thong /ej/ for yat is noticeable. The occasional /u/ for nasal ǫ (LJU-7: letu ſlusbo = leto službo ‘this-ACC.SG.F office/position-ACC.SG’, LJU-10: sto moio Rotu = s to mojo roto ‘with this-INS.SG.F my-INS.SG.F oath-INS.SG’) is surprising.47 A reduction of (usually word-final) high vowels (LJU-1: Vnegoui kuptshie = v njegovi kupčiji ‘in his-LOC.SG.F business-LOC.SG’; LJU-4: tude < tudi ‘also’; LJU-6: enimu vslednimo = enemu vsledn- jemu ‘one-DAT.SG.M every-DAT.SG.M; i.e. everyone’, ubosimo ali bogatimu = ubogemu ali bogatemu ‘poor-DAT.SG.M or rich-DAT.SG.M’; LJU-7: poſtiti = pustiti ‘let-INF’) and a complete drop of schwa (LJU-1: pocorn < pokoren ‘obedient’; LJU-8: Touarsha < tovariša ‘comrade-GEN.SG’) is attested, as well as frequent akanje (LJU-8: sa tega uola = za tega voljo ‘for that-GEN.SG.N will-ACC.SG, i.e. because of’), in some texts also a change of prefixes and prepositions na, za > ne, ze can be found (LJU-6: pernereien < prinarejen ‘devoted-NOM.SG.M’, netem inu neunim sveto < na tem ino na onem svetu ‘on this-LOC.SG.M and on that-LOC.SG.M (= another) world-LOC.SG’; LJU-1: ſevese < za- veze ‘commitment-GEN.SG’), from LJU-6 onward there is also a change of a > e before j (LJU-6,7 pomagei : LJU-1,4 pomagai = pomagaj ‘help-IMP.3SG’). The reflex of palatal ĺ is constantly /l/, but for palatal ń we find different reflexes even within the same form (e.g. LJU-1: negoui : niegoui = njegovi ‘his-LOC./DAT.SG.F’, sahualeniem = zahvaljen- jem ‘thanksgiving-INS.SG’; LJU-4: kupuuaine = kupovanje ‘buying-ACC.SG’, niech < njih ‘they-GEN’(with reduced /e/ from /i/). We also find some archaic Lower-Carniolan forms, characteristic of Trubar, but not of other Protestant writers, e.g. LJU-1: mui = moj ‘my-ACC.SG.M’: moio = mojo ‘my-INS.SG.F’; LJU-8: oli < ali ‘or’. In the pronominal-adjectival declension, masculine and neuter singular case end- ings with the vowels /i/ and /e/48 are used interchangeably (LJU-4 tega poglauitega meſta : LJU-8 tega poglauitiga meſta = tega poglavitega mesta ‘this-GEN.SG.N main-GEN. SG.N town-GEN.SG’); in the LOC.SG of masculine and neuter gender, the ending has not yet become formally identical to the dative (the exception is LJU-1: per enimu = pri enem ‘by one-LOC.SG.M’: vletim = v letem ‘in this-LOC.SG.N’), although we can observe the strengthening of this phenomenon in the last works of Slovenian Protestants, while it appears only exceptionally in EiL. 47 It was typical only for the Croat Juričič who translated the proclamation in 1570. Its occurrence in phrases that are repeated in various oaths could lead to speculation that Juričič also translated some oaths that served as a model for the oaths written around 1620, which the variant use of the prefix naj instead of ner would also corroborate, but there is no other evidence for such claim. 48 The variant endings can be found in cases where old Slovenian pronominal and adjectival endings had the secondary yat (e.g., GEN.SG *-ěga > -iga/-ega, DAT.SG *ěmu > -imu/-emu). 166 Like some of the previously discussed texts, the oaths also differ from the contem- porary language standard in terms of the form of the verb hoteti ‘want-INF’ without the initial /h/ (ozhem = hozhem ‘want-PRS.1SG’, nozhem, also netshem = nočem ‘NEG-want- PRS.1SG’) and in the use of the preposition brez ‘without’(the Protestant prez is found only in one instance in LJU-1); non-syllabic prepositions are often omitted in front of similar consonant (LJU-1: hudimu pritti for k hudimu pritti ‘to bad-DAT.SG.N come-INF, i.e. come to grief’); we also find a superlative with prefixes nar and naj (LJU-1: nar uetzh : naiuezh = največ ‘the most’) in the same text; the simplification of the cluster /šč/ to /š/ is also characteristic (kershanſka = krščanska ‘Christian-NOM.SG.F’). Along the literary conjunction inu ‘and’, the reduced form yenu (LJU-4) with a prothetic j (similarly iemena < imena ‘name-ACC.PL’ in LJU-8) also appears. The variation in the writings of the same scribe suggests that, at least in some cases, they are transcriptions of older templates, which were either closer to the earlier lan- guage standard of the Protestants (this could explain Lower-Carniolan forms such as muj, oli, kupuuaine) or came from pre- or non-literary tradition, such as can be found in the Kranj Oaths or in the beadle proclamation from 1611. 5.3.3 Three Slovenian texts by Catholic priests (1620–1623) From around the time when the oldest Ljubljana Oaths were written, three Slovenian texts written by Catholic priests are also extant. Although all three authors belonged to the inner circle of the Bishop of Ljubljana Tomaž Hren, who commissioned (and pre- sumably also participated in adapting) the edition of EiL in 1612, the orthography and language of the texts vary considerably. The first manuscript is a letter from the Vicar General of the Ljubljana Diocese, Adam Sontner, to Bishop Tomaž Hren dating from 1620,49 in which he informs him about the intrigues of the Patriarch of Aquileia, visitator Xistus Carcan and the Archdea- con regarding the right of presentation for a benefice. The letter was written in Slovenian due to the confidentiality of its content (Miklavčič 2013), and the record itself shows that the Vicar General had no experience writing in Slovenian and did not follow the EiL spelling tradition. Thus, for the most part, he did not differentiate between the spelling of alveolar and palatoalveolar sibilants, the grapheme is most often used for all of them, /s/ is also written as ,50 which is used also for /š/ alongside and , and he also used the trigraph for /ž/. /c/ is written with , /č/ with and also the Ger- man , for /k/ in one case the digraph letter (Crainsche = krajnske ‘Carniolan- GEN.SG.F’) is used. The basic phonology mostly corresponds to that of the contemporary language standard (/e/ for yat, /u/ for o with a long falling tone and word-final -o), but it shows the results of vowel reduction: in addition to the reduction of high vowels (Gos- pudo Tautschero < gospodu Tavčer(j)u ‘Mister-DAT.SG Tavčer-DAT.SG’, nez < nič ‘noth- ing’, iemel < imel ‘have-PTCP.SG.M’ with prothetic j-, drop of /i/ in mel < imel), akanje is 49 Published in Kos et al. (1971: 26–27). 50 One of the spelling variants for /s/ could also be in osesha < ušesa ‘ear-ACC.PL’, but as is also often used for /š/ the more plausible form is ošeša with the transsylabic assimilation of sibilant and the reduction of the initial /u/. 167 frequent (ad < od ‘from’, Vlublana < v Ljubljano ‘to Ljubljana-ACC.SG’, sa Bosia uolia < za božjo voljo ‘for God’s-ACC.SG.F will-ACC.SG’), and narrowing of /e/ next to /j/ (nigoua < njegovo ‘his-ACC.SG.F’) and rounding of the schwa next to ł (otekol < otekel ‘swell- PTCP.SG.M’) also occur. The palatal ń has the reflex /n/ (nega = njega ‘he-ACC.SG’) at the beginning of the word, and /jn/ (staina = stanja ‘standing-GEN.SG’, uupainæ = (v)upanje ‘hope-ACC.SG’) in gerunds, while the reflex of palatal ĺ is /lj/ (uolia < voljo ‘will-ACC.SG’), unlike volo in the EiL. In the verb hoteti ‘want’, the initial h is preserved (hozem = hočem ‘want-PRS.1SG’). In terms of morphology, the adoption of the dative ending for locative of the 3rd person singular masculine (per nemu = pri njem ‘at he-LOC.SG’) is noteworthy, as well as one occurrence of an ending with the vowel /e/ for the demonstrative pronoun (letega ‘this-GEN.SG.N’) alongside the predominant ending with the vowel /i/ (sa tiga uola < za tega voljo ‘for that-GEN.SG.N will-ACC.SG, i.e. because of’). The translation of a Latin breve from 1621, which was issued concerning Bishop Tomaž Hren’s procurement of some indulgences for the diocesan church in Gornji Grad from Pope Gregory XV, presents a very different picture. The breve,51 which is believed to have been translated by Hren himself or by someone else on Hren’s orders, was probably publicly posted in the church itself. The language almost completely matches the contem- porary language standard in the EiL, including its spelling, but it is not entirely consistent: alveolar sibilants are consistently distinguished from palatoalveolar sibilants, but the spell- ing of voiced and voiceless sibilants partially overlap: /s/ is predominantly written with <ſ>, between two vowels with <ſs>, but less often also with , and vice versa /z/ predominant- ly with , but we also find examples of <ſ>. The same applies to /š/ (<ſh>, ) and /ž/ (, <ſh>). /č/ is written with , and for /c/, which is predominantly marked by graph- eme , we also find the spelling with capital , which is unique in the manuscripts ana- lyzed. Regarding the consonants, with the exception of rare duplicated graphemes (Dann = dan ‘day-ACC.SG’, Kimmavza = kimavca ‘August-GEN.SG’), the only divergence from the language standard is the single spelling of /h/ with in the abbreviation (S.tich ‘S[ain] t.-GEN.PL.M’). In terms of the phonological deviations from the standard established by Slo- venian Protestants and adopted by Catholics in the EiL, it is worth mentioning a single oc- currence of the reflex /o/ for the o with a long falling tone (kar bi koli = ‘what would any, i. e. whatever would’) alongside the usual /u/, the diphthong reflex for yat in the negated form of the verb imeti (nejma = nima ‘NEG-have-PRS.3SG’; in the EiL, a form with a monoph- thong, i.e. nema, is used), a presumed reduction of u > o in the nominal dative ending (G. Bogo < Gospodu Bogu ‘L[ord]-DAT.SG God-DAT.SG’), and the development of the cluster /šč/ into /š/ (Karſhenika ‘Christian-GEN.SG’) (which is exceptionally also found in later Prot- estant works, but in EiL the cluster is mostly preserved). The single reflex /u/ in the ver- bal ending for the 1PL. -mo is probably an error (tu pervolimu inu naſho oblaſt damo = to privolimo ino našo oblast damo ‘that-ACC.SG.N consent-PRS.1PL and our-ACC.SG.F power-ACC. SG give-PRS.1PL, i.e. we give our consent and enforce it by the power vested in us’). The predominant reflex /jn/ for palatal ń in gerunds (isvelizhajne, saſlushejnâ) corresponds to EiL, which in this respect deviated from Dalmatin’s Bible with the reflex /nj/ (isvelizhanje = izveličanje ‘salvation-ACC.SG’, saſlushenju = zasluženju ‘merit-DAT.SG’ (Korpus 16, see 51 Published in Golia (1958: 134–135). 168 Ahačič 2019)). In morphology, the locative form of the third person feminine pronoun v’nje = v njej ‘in she-LOC.SG’ (vs. EiL nji and njej) should also be mentioned. A greater departure from the Protestant language standard (but at the same time small- er than the contemporary lay texts) is represented by the last fragment, written in 1623: the Slovenian statements in the investigation of the bishop’s commission against the vicar in the parish Sveti Peter pod Gorami (today Bistrica ob Sotli in eastern Slovenia on the border with Croatia),52 Gregor Bedal, who had a concubine and gave her part of the parish income. In Slovenian, the statements of the witnesses are written in a somewhat dialectally coloured language, but relatively close to the Protestant standard. The spelling of Slovenian fragments largely matches the earlier (pre-Bible) literary language of the Protestants, with non-differentiating spelling for voiced and voiceless alveolar and palatoalveolar sibilants (, <ſs>, for /s/, for /z/, for /š/ and /ž/), for /c/, for /č/, for palatal ĺ and for palatal ń (niega = njega ‘he-ACC’); the spelling of /i/ and /j/ and their combinations with (in addition to and ) resembles Krelj’s orthography (bilij = bili ‘be-PTCP.PL.M’, moij = moji ‘my- LOC.SG.F’, gornijga = gornjega ‘upper-GEN.SG’, ijh = jih ‘they-ACC’) and can probably be attributed to the influence of Latin, while the spelling of the word-initial /v-/ with an apostrophe (v’uzhiti = (v)učiti ‘teach-INF’, v’zherai = včeraj ‘yesterday’) matches Bohorič’s orthographical standard introduced in his grammar. “It can be seen that this priest was used to Slovenian writing, as it was cultivated by the Protestants and, after them, the Catholics in Hren’s era.” [my translation] (Rupel 1958: 127). Besides the use of duplicated in non-borrowed words (pritti ‘come-INF’), which can be found in other manuscripts, a special feature is the duplicated for /u/ in the word-final position (meſsuu = meso ‘meat-ACC.SG’, takuu = tako ‘so’), which is not attested in any of the texts analyzed in this paper.53 Accented yat is consistently written with , unaccented with (viditi ‘see-INF’), the reflex of o with a long falling tone is predominantly /u/, but we also find /o/ (nikuli – nikoli ‘never’ : nikoli, sludi – zlodej ‘devil-NOM.SG’ : slodi), the word-initial vowel i is reduced and has a prosthetic j- (iema – ima ‘have-PRS.3SG’); there are also other traces of vowel reduction (e.g. reduced i in nezh < nič ‘nothing’, be < bi ‘would’, reduced u in temeč < temuč – temveč ‘rather’ (the same form appeared in Kranj Oaths almost a cen- tury earlier); for domov ‘homeADV’ we find damu with o > a and assimilation of ov > uv > u, a is rounded before u (oku < ako ‘if’, koku < kako ‘how’), the suffix pri- is reduced to per-, the cluster /šč/ changed to /š/ (kershovati – krščevati ‘baptize-INF’); the pos- sessive pronoun for the 1st person sg. has the form moj as in works of most Protestant writers with the exception of Trubar, the negated forms of the verbs hoteti and imeti are nimam ‘NEG-have-PRS.1SG’ and nozhem = nočem ‘NEG-want-PRS.1SG’ (vs. the Protes- tant predominant forms nemam ‘NEG-have-PRS.1SG’ and ne hozhem ‘not want-PRS.1SG’, adopted also in EiL). In the instrumental singular of the masculine noun declension, we find the younger ending -am. 52 Published in Rupel (1958: 123–127). 53 The similar duplication for the marking of long final e is typical for Trubar’s works. 169 Ta bl e 5. O rth og ra ph ic al fe at ur es in th e m an us cr ip ts w rit te n af te r t he p ub lic at io n of th e C at ho lic e di tio n of E VA N G EL IA IN U L YS TV VI D al m at in ’s B ib le 1 58 4 Pr oc la m at io n 16 15 L ju bl ja na O at hs (c .1 62 0) So nt ne r’ s L et te r 16 20 B re ve 1 62 1 St at em en ts 1 62 3 /s / ſ, ſſ, ſs , ( s, ß) 1 s, ſ, s, ſſ, ſs , s s, sſ s, ss s, ſ, ſs s, ſs , s s /z / s, (ſ, ſs ) s, ſh ſ, s, sſ , ſ s s s, ſ s /š / ſh , ( sh ) s, sh ſh , s h, ſs , ſ , ſ ch , ſ sh , s ch s, ss , s ch sh sh , ſ h sh /ž / sh ſh , s h ſ, ſh , s h, ſs h, s, sc h, ſc h s, sh , s ch sh , ſ h sh /c / z, c z z z, t z z /č / zh zh zh , t zh , z , t sh , t ſc h z, ts ch zh zh /b / b, b b, (p ) b, w b b b /h / h, c h h, c h ch , h h h, c h h /t/ t, tt, (d , d t) t t, d, th t t t, tt /k / k, c , ( g) k k, c , c k, h k, k h k, c , c h k, q k Ta bl e 6 . P ho no lo gi ca l a nd m or ph ol og ic al fe at ur es in th e m an us cr ip ts w rit te n a fte r t he pu bl ic at io n o f t he C at ho lic ed iti on of E VA NG EL IA IN U L YS TV VI D al m at in ’s B ib le 1 58 4 Pr oc la m at io n 16 15 Lj ub lja na O at hs (c .1 62 0) So nt ne r’ s L et te r 1 62 0 Br ev e 1 62 1 St at em en ts 1 62 3 ya t e, (e j) e e e ej , e e o u u, o u, o u u, o u -o -u -u -u , - o -u -u -u ĺ l, jl, lj li, l l l l, lj ń nj , n , ( jn ) n, jn , n j nj , j n, n n, jn jn , n j, n nj šč šč , ( š) š š š š pr on ./a dj . e nd in gs -ig a -ig a -ig a, -e ga -ig a, -e ga -ig a -ig a no m in al e nd in gs -o m -a m -o m / -o m -a m N E G + im et i ne m a / / / / ni m a ho te ti ho če oč em oč e, h oč e če , h ot el PP L ho če če , h te l PP L N E G + h ot et i ne če / no če / / no če br ez ‘w ith ou t’ pr ez / br ez , p re z pr ez / / in ‘a nd ’ in u in u in u in u in u in u 1 Le ss fr eq ue nt ly u se d gr ap he m es w hi ch a re n ot c on sid er ed » sta nd ar d« fo r a c er ta in p ho ne m e ar e w rit te n in th e br ac ke ts. 170 The summarized data for the manuscripts written after the publication of the Catho- lic edition of EVANGELIA INU LYSTVVI can be found in Tables 5 and 6. 6 CONCLUSION The Slovenian manuscripts written in the second half of the 16th century and the first quarter of the 17th century which have been analyzed show that the Protestant stand- ard had little influence outside their immediate circle. Although the comparison with pre-standard Kranj Oaths shows that, since the establishment of the Slovenian literary language, especially spelling of sibilants and affricates was simplified (see Tables 3 and 5), it rarely achieved even the consistency of Trubar’s orthography. With the exception of one late manuscript, the Protestant variant use of the grapheme beside for /c/ was not adopted. After the publication of the Catholic edition of the New Testament texts in EVANGELIA INV LISTVVI in 1612, clerics in particular showed a somewhat greater adherence to the language standard established in Dalmatin’s Bible translation, though not all, as can be seen in the letter of Vicar General Adam Sontner from 1620. In general, it seems that members of the religious orders had more experience with writing in Slovenian as their secular counterparts, as the comparison between Cistercian Andrej Recelj (Gorske bukve, 1582) and Nikolaj Koprivec (letter to Bishop Hren, 1598) in the 16th century and between Adam Sontner and a foreigner, Polish Jesuit Adam Ocicky in the early 17th century shows. As the author of the only Catholic work printed in the 16th century, Lenart Pachernecker (see 5.2.2), was also member of the Cistercian order, it could be assumed that his work has influenced Recelj, while Jesuits were known for their higher education and also for their catechetical work in Slovenian from the end of the 16th century (Ahačič 2010: 221–222). It seems that lay authors, clerks and municipal scribes, were not familiar with the works of the Protestants, their spelling was highly inconsistent and often influenced by German orthography: we can find similar spelling variants (e.g. for /b/ in a frag- ment from 1611) as in Kranj Oaths written before the establishment of the Slovenian literary language. After the publication of EiL the language of the lay scribes was also closer to the language standard preserved in the EiL, although it did not achieve similar level of standardization as the clerical documents. On phonological and morphological levels (see Tables 4 and 6), similar features can be found in various manuscripts: the variation between Lower-Carniolan /u/ and Upper-Carniolan /o/ is a typical feature, as well as the development of the cluster /šč/ to /š/. The manuscripts also show various degrees of modern vowel reduction that usually correlates with the deviation from the Protestant orthography: the greater the deviation, the more phenomena of vowel reduction are attested in a document. Some specific features that are not prevalent in the Protestant standard also persistently ap- pear throughout the analyzed period, such as the reduced form jenu of the conjunction inu, the preposition brez instead of the prez and the forms of the verb hoteti without the initial /h-/. The variation of various adjective endings is also a common feature, as well as the prevalence of the endings with the vowel /a/ instead of /o/ in masculine and neuter nominal declension. 171 The sociolinguistic situation in the second half of the 16th century and the first quarter of the 17th century can therefore be described as diaglossic (after Auer 2005, presented in Rutten/Vosters 2021: 73), with the language of the majority of analyzed manuscripts being not distinctly dialectal nor entirely adhering to the Protestant lan- guage standard; on the level of orthography, the influence of German spelling conven- tions is also discernible, especially in manuscripts which show less familiarity with the Protestant language standard. The manuscripts can be described as hybrid (Martineau 2013 in Rutten/Vosters 2021: 73), their language combining dialectal reflections with features characteristic of the Protestant standard. The linguistic data presented confirm the assumption that the Catholic lectionary played a crucial role in maintaining the Protestant language standard in the period after the suppression of the Reformation movement in Slovenian lands, as the language of the clerics was much closer to the Protestant language standard than the language of the lay writers. It is, however, unclear whether the common features that differ from the Protestant language standard can be all attributed to the dialect(s) of the authors or they hint at an existence of a modified language standard in the Catholic circles that was based on the Protestant standard but developed some individual characteristics; it is possible that such variant language standard had existed even before the publication of the Protestant Bible and had been based on the now-lost Catholic catechism of Lenart Pachernecker; the letter of the Polish Jesuit from 1612, which shows some similarities with the translation of the Styrian Vineyard Law from 1582, hints at the possibility that this variant standard still existed in clerical circles around the time of the publication of the Catholic lectionary, which adopted the Protestant language standard of Dalmatin’s Bible translation. The question of the role of Pachernecker’s lost catechism is connect- ed to the question of the difference in acknowledging and maintaining the established language standard between the members of the Catholic religious orders and secular priests; both topics would merit further investigation. References AHAČIČ, Kozma (ed.) (2019) Korpus 16: Korpus besedil slovenskih protestantskih piscev 16. stoletja. Različica 1.0. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. https://fran. si/korpus16/ [accessed on 31 July 2022]. Besedje 2011: Besedje slovenskega knjižnega jezika 16. stoletja. www.fran.si. EVANGELIA INU LYSTVVI. Istiskanu v'Némshkim Grádzu: skusi Iuria Widmansté- terja, 1612. DOLENC, Metod (1940) “Gorske bukve” v izvirniku, prevodih in priredbah. Ljublja- na: Akademija znanosti in umetnosti. GOLEC, Boris (2011a) “Prisežni obrazci, najverjetneje iz obdobja med 1531 in 1558.” Neznani rokopisi slovenskega slovstva 17. in 18. stoletja (NRSS). In: M. Ogrin (ed.). Ljubljana: Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede ZRC SAZU. https:// nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/prisege/html/KRA-1–4.html [accessed on 31 July 2022]. 172 GOLEC, Boris (2011b) “Prisežni obrazci v rokopisnem kodeksu ‘knjiga priseg lju- bljanskih meščanov in uradnikov’ iz obdobja med 1620 in 1726.” In: M. Ogrin (ed.) (2008–2011), Neznani rokopisi slovenskega slovstva 17. in 18. stoletja (NRSS). Lju- bljana: Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede ZRC SAZU. https://nl.ijs. si/e-zrc/prisege/html/LJU-1–17.html [accessed on 31 July 2022]. GOLIA, Modest (1958) “Slovenica I.” Slavistična revija 11/1–2, 130–141. JUG, Stanko (1942) “Slovenski ‘zapovedni list’ iz leta 1570 in novi vinski davek.” Glasnik muzejskega društva za Slovenijo XXII, 74–84. KOLOŠA, Vladimir/Peter RIBNIKAR/Ema UMEK (eds) (1982) Iz roda v rod: pričevanja o slovenskem jeziku. Ljubljana: Arhiv SR Slovenije. KOS, Janez (ed.) (1971) Slovenščina v dokumentih skozi stoletja. Ljubljana: Arhiv Slovenije. “Ms 096. Ukaz nadvojvode Ferdinanda kranjskemu vicedomu.” Register sloven- skih rokopisov 17. in 18. stoletja. http://ezb.ijs.si/fedora/get/nrss:nrss_ms_096/ VIEW/ [accessed on 31 July 2022]. “Ms 105. Razglas deželnega kneza podložnikom deželnoknežjih uradov Naklo in Prim- skovo iz leta 1615. Register slovenskih rokopisov 17. in 18. stoletja.” http://ezb.ijs. si/fedora/get/nrss:nrss_ms_105/VIEW/ [accessed on 31 July 2022]. OGRIN, Matija (ed.) (2008–2011) Neznani rokopisi slovenskega slovstva 17. in 18. stoletja (NRSS). http://ezb.ijs.si/fedora/get/nrss:nrss/VIEW/ PAJK, Janko (1870) “Stari rokopis Kranjskega mesta.” In: Programm des k. k. Gymna- siums in Marburg. Marburg: Direktion, 25–43. RUPEL, Mirko (1956) “Slovenski akt ob protireformacijski epizodi v Vipavi 1598.” Slavistična revija 9/1–4, 45–64. RUPEL, Mirko (1958) “Prispevki k protireformacijski dobi.” Slavistična revija 11/1–2, 122–129. VRHOVEC, Ivan (1886) “Slovenski listič iz leta 1611.” Ljubljanski zvon 4/6, 253–254. Secondary sources AHAČIČ, Kozma (2010) “Raba slovenščine v šolstvu, cerkvi in začetkih gledališke de- javnosti v 17. in 1. polovici 18. stoletja.” In: Jerneja Kavčič/Marko Marinčič (eds). Musis amicus: posebna številka ob osemdesetletnici Kajetana Gantarja. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete = Keria, 12/2–3, 219–252. AHAČIČ, Kozma (2012) Zgodovina misli o jeziku na Slovenskem: katoliška doba (1600–1758). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. AHAČIČ, Kozma (2014) The history of linguistic thought and language use in 16th century Slovenia. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. AHAČIČ, Kozma (2020) “Razvoj slovenskega knjižnega jezika v 16. stoletju v številkah.” Slavistična revija 68/1, [3]–19. AHAČIČ, Kozma (2021a) “16. stoletje in jezikovni pouk slovenščine.” In: Matej Šekli/ Lidija Rezoničnik (eds), Slovenski jezik med slovanskimi jeziki. Ljubljana: Zveza društev Slavistično društvo Slovenije, 231–242. AHAČIČ, Kozma (2021b) Stati inu obstati: prvih petdeset slovenskih knjig. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. 173 AHAČIČ, Kozma (2022) “Adam Bohorič, Jurij Dalmatin, Sebastijan Krelj in bohoričica.” In: M. Jesenšek (ed.), 83–110. AYRES-BENNETT, Wendy (2021) “Modelling Language Standardization.” In: W. Ayres-Bennet/J. Bellamy (eds), 27–64. AYRES-BENNET, Wendy/John Bellamy (eds) (2021) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COOPER, Henry R. (1985) “Primož Trubar and Slovene Literature of the Sixteenth Century.” Slovene Studies 7/1–2, 35–50. CURRIE, Oliver (2022) “The role of the Bible in language standardization processes: the case of Welsh.” Jezik in slovstvo 67/1–2, 27–47. CURRIE, Oliver (forthcoming) “The word of God and the language of the people: stand- ardisation and variation in 17th-century Welsh manuscript sermons.” In: Anita Auer/ Tino Oudeslijs/Moragh Gordan (eds), Exploring Supralocalisation Processes: Lin- guistic Variation in Early Modern Urban and Regional Spaces. Berlin: Language Science Press. ČEPAR, Metod (2022) “Sklanjatvene paradigme samostalnikov v Bohoričevi slovnici v primerjavi z dejanskim stanjem v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku.” In: M. Jesenšek (ed.), 160–177. ELSPAß, Stephan (2021) “Language Standardization in a View ‘from Below’.” In: W. Ayres-Bennet/J. Bellamy (eds), 93–114. GOLEC, Boris (2007) “Meščanska naselja Vipavske in njihove posebnosti do konca fevdalne dobe.” Kronika 55, 201–230. GOLEC, Boris (2021) “Okoliščine nastanka Recljevega prevoda Gorskih bukev.” In: A. Jelovšek (ed.), 121–135. GRDINA, Igor (1999) Od Brižinskih spomenikov do razsvetljenstva. Maribor: Obzorja. HERRITY, Peter (2012) Slovene: A comprehensive grammar. London/New York: Routledge. JAVOR BRIŠKI, Marija (2012) “Slowenien.” In: A. Greule/J. Meier/A. Ziegler (eds), Kan- zleisprachenforschung: ein internationales Handbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter, 589–598. JELOVŠEK, Alenka (ed.) (2021a) Gorske bukve 1582: znanstvenokritična izdaja. Lju- bljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. JELOVŠEK, Alenka (2021b) “Jezik Recljevih Gorskih bukev.” In: Ead. (ed.), 137–190. JELOVŠEK, Alenka (2022a) “Jurij Juričič – Hrvat in slovenski knjižni jezik 16. stolet- ja.” In: Vanja Kočevar (ed.) Kolektivne identitete skozi prizmo zgodovine dolgega trajanja. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, 105–130. JELOVŠEK, Alenka (2022b) “Osebni zaimki v Bohoričevi slovnici: odraz stanja v slovenskem knjižnem jeziku 16. stoletja?” In: M. Jesenšek (ed.), 178–201. JESENŠEK, Marko (1992) “Jezikovni sistemi v slovenskem (alpskem in panonskem) govornem območju.” Jezik in slovstvo 37/7, 173–181. JESENŠEK, Marko (2008) “Trubarjev gmajn jezik kot podlaga za prvo slovensko knjižno normo.” Slavia Centralis 1/2 (2008), 5–14. JESENŠEK, Marko (ed.) (2022) Novi pogledi na Adama Bohoriča. Ljubljana: Sloven- ska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. 174 JOSEPH, John E./Gijsbert RUTTEN/Rik VOSTERS (2020) “Dialect, language, na- tion: 50 years on.” Language Policy 19/2, 161–182. KOS, Janez, et al. (1971) Slovenščina v dokumentih skozi stoletja. Ljubljana: Arhiv Slovenije. LEGAN RAVNIKAR, Andreja (2022) “Besedotvorje v Bohoričevi slovnici (1584) primerjalno s tvorjenkami v zgodovinskem Slovarju slovenskega knjižnega jezika 16. stoletja.” In: M. Jesenšek (ed.), 135–159. LENČEK, Rado (1982) The structure and history of the Slovene language. Columbus, OH: Slavica. LEWASKIEWICZ, Thadeusz (2017) “The Role of High Prestige Languages in the Formation of European Literary Languages.” Accents and Paradoxes of Modern Philology 1/1, 32–41. LUTHAR, Oto (ed.) (2008) The Land Between: A History of Slovenia. Frankurt am Main: Peter Lang. MAGOCSI, Paul Robert (1993) Historical Atlas of East Central Europe. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. MERŠE, Majda (ed.) (2008/9) Trubarjeva številka = Slavistična revija 56/4–57/1. MERŠE, Majda (2013). Slovenski knjižni jezik 16. stoletja: razprave o jezikovnem sis- temu, besedju in prevodni problematiki. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. MERŠE, Majda (2022) “Raba glagolov v Dalmatinovi Bibliji in prikaz glagola z ob- likami v Bohoričevi slovnici”. In: M. Jesenšek (ed.), 111–134. MIKHAILOV, Nikolai (1998) Frühslowenische Sprachdenkmäler. Die handschrift- liche Periode der slowenischen Sprache (XIV. Jh. bis 1550). Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. MIKLAVČIČ, Maks (2013): “Sontner, Adam (okoli 1576–1641)”. In: Slovenska bio- grafija. Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU. http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi593307/. MÜLLER, Jakob (2001) “Riglerjeva teza o začetkih slovenskega knjižnega jezika v številkah.” Jezikoslovni zapiski 7/1–2, 129–162. OBLAK, Vatroslav (1887) “Trije slovenski rokopisi iz prve polovice XVII. stoletja.” In: Letopis Matice Slovenske za leto 1887. Ljubljana: Matica Slovenska, 259–315. OGRIN, Matija (2021). “Rokopis Deželskosodni, desetinski in vinogorski red kneževine Kranjske. Kodikološki opis in izvor rokopisa.” In: A. Jelovšek (ed.), 107–120. OREL, Irena (2010) “Kranjski jezik v besedilih 16. in začetka 17. stoletja”. In: Alek- sander Bjelčevič (ed.), Reformacija na Slovenskem (ob 500–letnici Trubarjevega rojstva). Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 401–415. OREL, Irena (2017) “Pomen starejših slovenskih rokopisov za slovensko zgodovinsko jezikoslovje.” In: Aleksander Bjelčevič/Matija Ogrin/Urška Perenič (eds), Rokopisi slovenskega slovstva od srednjega veka do moderne. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 253–266. POGORELEC, Breda (2011) Zgodovina slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Jezikoslov- ni spisi I. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. 175 RAMOVŠ, Fran (1952) Morfologija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije. RAMOVŠ, Fran (1971) Zbrano delo 1. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. RIGLER, Jakob (1968) Začetki slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. RIGLER, Jakob (1986) Razprave o slovenskem jeziku. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. RUTTEN, Gijsbert/Rik VOSTERS (2021) “Language Standardization ‘from Above’.” In: W. Ayres-Bennet/J. Bellamy (eds), 65–92. SWANN, Joan/Anna DEUMERT/Theresa LILLIS (2004) A Dictionary of Sociolin- guistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ŠTIH, Peter/Vasko SIMONITI (1996) Slovenska zgodovina do razsvetljenstva. Lju- bljana/Celovec: Korotan/Mohorjeva družba. TOPORIŠIČ, Jože (1986) “Bohoričica 16. stoletja.” In: Breda Pogorelec/Jože Koruza (eds), 16. stoletje v slovenskem jeziku, književnosti in kulturi. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, 271–305. Abstract THE 16TH-CENTURY SLOVENIAN LITERARY STANDARD AND SLOVENIAN MANUSCRIPT TEXTS FROM THE SECOND HALF OF THE 16TH CENTURY AND EARLY 17TH CENTURY In the article, selected Slovenian manuscripts written between 1550 and 1623 are stud- ied in light of their adherence to the established (Protestant) language standard of the period or their deviation from it, with the aim of assessing the diffusion of the Protes- tant standard to non-religious texts produced in the central Slovenian area in the given period. The adherence to the standard is assessed on the basis of some orthographical, phonological and morphological features of the texts which are compared to the same features in the works of the dominant Protestant writers, especially Dalmatin’s Bible, and to the standard set in the Catholic EVANGELIA INU LYSTVVI 1612. The analysis shows that the sociolinguistic situation in the second half of the 16th century and the first quarter of the 17th century can be described as diglossic, with the language of the majority of analyzed manuscripts being not distinctly dialectal nor entirely adhering to the Protestant language standard, though greater adherence to the established stand- ards is observable in the manuscripts written by priests; in general, manuscripts can be characterized as hybrid, their language combining dialectal reflections with features characteristic of the Protestant standard. Keywords: history of the Slovenian language, standardization, non-standard varieties, historical linguistics, historical sociolinguistics 176 Povzetek SLOVENSKI KNJIŽNI STANDARD V 16. STOLETJU IN SLOVENSKI ROKOPI- SI IZ DRUGE POLOVICE 16. IN Z ZAČETKA 17. STOLETJA Prispevek proučuje izbrane slovenske rokopise, nastale med 1550 in 1623, glede na njihovo upoštevanje uveljavljenega (protestantskega) jezikovnega standarda tistega časa oz. odklona od njega. S tem poskuša oceniti, koliko se je protestantski jezikovni standard razširil na sočasna besedila s pretežno neversko tematiko, nastala v osrednji Sloveniji. Ocena ujemanja s standardnim jezikom temelji na opazovanju pravopisnih, glasoslovnih in oblikoslovnih značilnosti besedil in primerjave z istimi značilnostmi v delih poglavitnih protestantskih piscev, predvsem v Dalmatinovi Bibliji, in v katoli- škem besedilu EVANGELIA INU LYSTVVI 1612. Analiza je pokazala, da lahko soci- olingvistično situacijo konec 16. in v prvi četrtini 17. stoletja opišemo kot diglosično, saj pri večini obravnavanih rokopisov ne gre niti za zapis povsem narečnega govora niti za popolno upoštevanje jezikovnega standarda slovenskih protestantov, čeprav je večje upoštevanje protestantskega standarda opazno pri rokopisih, ki so jih pisali duhovniki. V splošnem lahko rokopise označimo kot hibridne, saj vključujejo tako narečne jezi- kovne elemente kot značilnosti protestantskega knjižnega standarda. Ključne besede: zgodovina slovenskega jezika, standardizacija, nestandardne različi- ce, zgodovinsko jezikoslovje, zgodovinska sociolingvistika