Коришћење глаголских придѣва за доживљене радње койе немайу никакве везе са садашњошћу је особина прѣузета у славено-сербски из рускога йезика. И коя оста до дан-данас, никада йе се не ослободисмо.
Партениј Павловић је духовник, мудрољубац и инок бугарскога потијекла у служби србске цркве, за језикословље значајан по том, да је први писао на бугарском народном језику.
О употреби описних л-облика с помоћним глаголом или без њега ( +aux vs. -aux) у његових дјелијех постоје радови.
Један од њих је овај https://web.archive.org/web/20200225053025/https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/113115/1/Sonnenhauser-A%20_Final__Balkanistica%2029_proof.pdfЗа разлику од русскога језика, -aux л-облици у бугарском и србском имају различиту улогу неголи +aux облици, стога не проистичу из пустога опонашања русскога језика, но вуку своје коријење од самих почетака тих језика. Не поричем паке, да постоје писаоци градске трсе ( трса = тур. сој ) који су опонашајући русски покрој (=енг. стил) своја дјела довели до изопачења, али то се не може рећи за силна народна дјела, понајбоље свједоке чистога србскога народнога језика. Залажем се за његу аориста, али нећу бити мати која превише штити једно дијете, а друго пак запоставља и одвргава само јер свише личе очевој страни.Наводим кључно:The time span between the late 17th and the late 19th century constitutes a remarkable period in the history of Balkan Slavic on its way to the later literary and standard languages. Documents dating to this period exhibit a change in linguistic structure with the increasing replacement of Church Slavonic by the vernacular. Regards the functionalisation of the presence vs. omission of the 3rd person auxiliary with the l-periphrasis...
D’omina’s (1970) analysis and the examples cited above indicate that
+aux forms
are not used as a narrative tense in these texts, whereas
-aux forms certainly do
appear in narrative contexts. This suggests that in the damaskini of the 17th and
18th century, the l-periphrasis did not (yet) function as a general past and that the
role of the auxiliary consisted of anchoring some previous event to a present point
in time (actual present in the case of dialogues; textual present in the case of
subordination). Its omission allowed for the de-anchoring from the primary point
of orientation and thereby opened up the possibility of these forms being used in a
sequence of events (cf. also Dickey 2013).
What the data also show is that -aux forms
do not code notions like
renarrative or non-witnessed. Both are possible interpretations, triggered in specific
contexts.
The excerpts from Sofronij Vračanski’s Nedelnik and Pop Punčo’s Sbornik in (13)
and (14), which both tell the Văzdiganieto na čestnyi krăstъ, illustrate that one and
the same story may be presented using different verbal categories: -aux in the
Nedelnik and aorist in the Sbornik. This difference is found not only in the excerpts
presented here but characterizes both texts in general.
What is observed here is the usage of mainly -aux forms, with the insertion of a sequence
of aorists (underlined)
when it comes to describing the motivation for Matthew to
arrange his gospel exactly the way he did.
That -aux forms
anchor the narration to a character in the text and not to the
narrator is also suggested by example (27) (= (4a), above), wherein the adverb
davno can only refer to the subject of the matrix clause, but not to the narrator:
I taka se pom(o)li i naděeše se na b(og)a, davno vidělь někogy
togova čl(ově)ka (Trojanski , 262/177).
‘And so he prayed and hoped to God that somebody might have
seen that man.’
Whereas the
present and imperfect forms (čini, směšjiuva se, xody, dosažda,
plakaaxu)
give a description of the situation, the
-aux forms narrate events from a
perspective different from the narrator’s, while the
+aux form e mučilь indicates
the
relevance of the torturing to the narrator’s time of utterance. Example (28) also
shows that the point of view specified by -aux forms may be left unspecified and
be simply that of some “non-narrator’s.”
