Orthodox Metropolitan Filaret: It's Time to Take a Step Toward Unity

Catholic Online ^ | May 6, 2010 | Jesús Colina

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY  (Zenit.org)  - The time is now for the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to take a step toward unity, and for Benedict XVI and the Orthodox patriarch of Moscow to meet, says the Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus.

Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk and Sluck said this Tuesday at the international conference held in Rome on "The Poor Are the Precious Treasure of the Church: Orthodox and Catholics Together on the Path of Charity."
 
During the conference, which was promoted by the Sant'Egidio Community, participants reflected on the reception of the most frail in our societies, the testimony of the Fathers of the Church, and the challenges dictated by new social problems.

According to Metropolitan Filaret, the time has come to take decisive steps toward unity, reported the country's Catholic news service.
 
The Orthodox leader added that both Churches seek to establish full unity, and stressed that he has come to this conclusion based on the fraternal dialogue and the meetings that they have held with representatives of the Catholic Church.
 
If Benedict XVI and Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia were to meet, it would be a first for the two pastors of Rome and Moscow.
 
Metropolitan Filaret's statements coincide with the announcement of the "Days of Russian Culture and Spirituality in the Vatican," which will be held May 19-20, and which will culminate with a concert offered to Benedict XVI by Kirill I.

The musical event will include compositions of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, president of the Department for Foreign Relations of the Patriarchy of Moscow.
 
On Wednesday, Metropolitan Filaret visited the Holy Shroud of Turin and Cardinal Severino Poletto, archbishop of Turin.
 

[ArrogantBustard]

I'm just expanding on the fun.

"Norfolk", pronounced by a native (as, for example, Mrs. Bustard) sounds almost obscene.

Irina's last name is somewhat jarring to the eyes, but this discussion of the city of "Sluck" reminded me of it.

[annalex]

in Serbia, Medvedev's name is spelled as Mедведев rather than [Meдвједев], but Dostoevsky's is spelled as Достојевски.

All three "E" in Medvedev and Dostoevsky are gliding E, because any "E" in Russian glides a bit. If you don't glide it at all, it is spelled with Э, or is a foreign word, like "integral".

If you speak in Russian and don't glide your E's, you speak with an accent but you will be understood. Some foreigners overglide (if that's a word), and that is an accent too. There is an episode in one of the two satrical Ostap Bender novels (12 Chairs or The Golden Calf) where Ostap sets up a phony enterprise using a typewriter that has its E hammer broken, so he substitutes Э for Е. That typewriter is hilariously described as "typewriter with a Turkish accent".

There is something in E following an O that prevents the tongue from naturally glide, so you would want to put a Y in Dostoyevsky.

I don't know if there are any firm transliteration rules in English about Russian E; there probably aren't. People insert or omit these Y's based on what they see others do, or upon their own intuition.

Short-long distinctions do not exist in Russian (or Bulgarian). Vowels are lengthened for emphasis. "Лук" is pronounced the same in either sense. I did not know that they existed in any Slav language, thank you for telling me.

Yat, "Ѣ"

This topic is so obscure, even finding Ѣ in Unicode was hard. So far as I can tell, by the time the letter was abolished there was no discernible phonetic difference between Ѣ and E in Russian. I do not know the old spelling rules (I am generally not a linguist). I have a suspicion that where in Bulgarian there is a dual pronunciation Е/Я (беха/бяха), that reflects "Ѣ in some way, but I do not really know. See this article for more: Yat; it mentions some other letters that were dropped even earlier.

Святой, etc., also reflects that duality in Bulgarian. In modern Russian, however, only Я is used as far as I can think of it: священник, святость, посвящение. In Bulgarian, E is used in all words corresponding to these.

[annalex]

Norfolk

I believe standard British pronunciation is also the unpronouncable one, with silent L.

[kosta50]

Alex, what do you mean by "gliding E?" That said, Serbian pronunciation of E is exactly equivalent to Э. Thus, when the Serbs see Медведев, they read it as Мэдвэдэв. I believe the Bulgarians pronounce E exactly the same, as an Э. To my ears, the unaccented Russian E is "softened," not a full YE but rather as if it had a Ь in front if it. On the other hand, accented E tends to be more like YE.

There is something in E following an O that prevents the tongue from naturally glide, so you would want to put a Y in Dostoyevsky

Short-long distinctions do not exist in Russian (or Bulgarian). Vowels are lengthened for emphasis. "Лук" is pronounced the same in either sense. I did not know that they existed in any Slav language, thank you for telling me.

In Serbian, лук (onion), is identical to the English "look" (although it is a double "oo" it is pronounced as a short vowel). On the other hand, лук (bow), as in "лук и стрела," the "y" is distinctly long but not quite double "уу."

But you won't find a Serbian linguist who will tell you that there is a long-short distinction, but it is clear as a bell to anyone with half way decent hearing.

Another distinction that is actually sometimes made obvious graphically is "a," such as in the genitive case of "letters" (писамâ) or "in order to give" да дâ.

I seriously doubt that similar differences don't exist in other Slavic languages, including Russian and Bulgarian. They may not be recognized, but they must exist, for all vowels can be pronounced as long or short; In Serbian кост, мост, со(л), etc. are long "o" sounds, while боље, кољиво, коњ, слон, etc. are all short "o" sounds.

This topic is so obscure, even finding Ѣ in Unicode was hard

It is obscure in Russian and Bulgarian, which is why it was eliminated. But eliminating it in Serbian was a major mistake. In Serbian the palatalization (inflection) of Ѣ is a major factor in the division of standard Serbian into two geographical variants, which is why Ѣ was a perfect solution for a unified orthographic standard. Today, many refugees from the western parts of the former Yugoslavia bring with them their western version of the language into Serbia and confuse the kids there.

As said previously, this difference is not trivial. Thus победа is pronounced as побъеда in the western dialect but as побэда in the eastern. The word used to be spelled uniquely as побѣда, but today it is spelled побједа and победа.

Святой, etc., also reflects that duality in Bulgarian. In modern Russian, however, only Я is used as far as I can think of it: священник, святость, посвящение. In Bulgarian, E is used in all words corresponding to these.

But how is святость pronounced in Russian? Isn't is more like svetost' than svyatost'? Why not replace it with a "gliding" E then? :)

[annalex]

To my ears, the unaccented Russian E is "softened," not a full YE but rather as if it had a Ь in front if it

Yes, that is what I mean by "gliding". However, in Russian language, it is not necessary to add a Ь in front if it. Isolated E glides already. Ь or Ъ regulate the prononciation of the preceding consonant, rather than E itself.

I seriously doubt that similar differences don't exist in other Slavic languages, including Russian and Bulgarian

They probably existed at some point, just like they existed in Greek. But today, in Russia and in Bulgaria people lengthen and shorten their (stressed) vowels, often in an exagerrated manner, to add emphasis and without regard to what word it is, like singers do in songs in any language. This does not add a sillable. Normally, all vowels are pronounced middle-length, for example, И is pronounced as a bit lengthened I in "big" or a bit shortened EE in "beef".

Thus победа is pronounced as побъеда in the western dialect but as побэда in the eastern. The word used to be spelled uniquely as побѣда, but today it is spelled побједа and победа.

I understand. In fact, when the orthography reform was instituted by the Soviets, it was pointed out that Ѣ is not exactly superfluous even in Russian. But the argument sort of died down, quite possible because like with everything during these wretched times, orthography was politicized as well. Ican easily imagine people beign sent to the Gulag for the Ѣ letter.

I did not know my grandmother, but I new my granddad's sister. She was born in 1898. One of the things that caused he to feel bitter even in her old age was the episode when she -- a bookkeeper -- submitted some report to the boss, something she knew was done well. The boss returned it with a red pencil across the front page: "I request that new orthography be used". She did not end up in jail, but that was among her grievances with the Soviet power that she would secretly tell me about, how they made her rewrite (or retype) the lengthy report that was perfectly comprehensible, in fact more comprehensible to the Russian reader, in the first place.

how is святость pronounced in Russian?

It is pronounced "svyatost", as written. When Я is not stressed, it is subject to the same phonetic reduction rules as any vowel, so "посвящение" would not sound differently than "посвещение".

[kosta50]

in Russia and in Bulgaria people lengthen and shorten their (stressed) vowels, often in an exagerrated manner, to add emphasis and without regard to what word it is, like singers do in songs in any language

Everybody does that, Alex. Even in English, i.e. "I am sooooo happy..." This doesn't mean different words don't have vowels of different correct length. For Russian and Bulgarian this is not an issue. For Serbian, which presents itself as (supposedly) a "phonetic" language, it does.

I understand. In fact, when the orthography reform was instituted by the Soviets, it was pointed out that Ѣ is not exactly superfluous even in Russian

Such as? What is the difference in Russian pronunciation between вести and вѣсти? In Serbian it is clear as a bell. The western pronunciation is identical to Russian; the eastern is вэсти. Clearly, ѣ would serve a useful orthographic function in Serbian, but where is the equivalent in Russian?

orthography was politicized as well

Pretty much the way Serbian Cyrillic was identified with Serbian nationalism and forced out during the communist regime. In the mid 1960's, for example, Serbian (but not Macedonian) Cyrillic typewriter production was stopped. When I was in Belgrade in 1986 to bury my mother I couldn;t find a single Serbian Cyrillic typewriter there. But I could easily obtain one in the US! The country was forcibly being "latinized" and good part of the problem with two alphabets today is the result of that. The fact that Cyrillic is the official (constitutional) alphabet seems to be ignored on a wide scale and politics still play a major role in the issue.

Violations of the Constitution in that regard can be found all over the place, from the courts to the very online office of the President! Many "European" Serbs opt for the Latin (Croatian) script because they firmly believe the foreigners will better understand Serbian! Others say that Cyrillic is a Babylonian type of alphabet that has outlived itself by a long shot.

In the Bosnian Parliament a fistfight erupted when a Serbian representative asked for the printer material to be in Cyrillic (constitutionally guaranteed right). In Croatia, a petition has been circulated to obtain enough signatures that would allow local municipalities populated by at least 1/3 Serb population to display public signs in Serbian and in Cyrillic in addition to Croatian (which is exclusively written in the Roman characters).

So, I am very much familiar with the politics of orthography. Even as recently as 2000, some Serbian linguists launched the idea that the Latin script used (Croatian Latin alphabet) is "also" Serbian, i.e. "Serbian [sic] Latin alphabet."

It is pronounced "svyatost", as written

I guess it must be that "gliding" Я. I remember distinctly Father Arkady, who headed a sizable Russian orthodox congregation in a local OCA church pronouncing святий with a muted "e" that sounded very much like светий. :)

[annalex]

Yes, all lengthen vowels for emphasis; I was simply pointing out that no vowel phoneme in Russian or Bulgarian is in itself long or short. I understand Serbian is different as is, of course, English.

What is the difference in Russian pronunciation between вести and вѣсти?

I don't know what was the phonetic difference when 'ѣ' was originally put into use, but today I do not detect any difference in how words formerly spelled with 'ѣ' and 'е' sound. I do not know what the objections were in 1920's in that regard. I am certain, however, that at some point there was a phonetic distinction because one can see a trace of it in Bulgarian, and now you told me that in Serbioan the distinction is apparent.

"svyatost"

That, I assure you, is Я like any other. "Святий" is Church slavonic. The Russian is "святой", and Я is muted because it is not under stress. E or И would be likewise muted when unstressed, and all three would sound alike. This does not demonstrate anything about Я in particular. Consider "немой" (mute) and "витой" (twisted), the first syllable sounds the same in all three.

[kosta50]

I was simply pointing out that no vowel phoneme in Russian or Bulgarian is in itself long or short

Neither is any long or short in Serbian, by itself. However, they become long and short in different words, and not for effect. The word нос (nose) or пост (fast, as in not eating) which have very long o, as opposed to стоj (stop), боj (battle), very short o.

I am certain, however, that at some point there was a phonetic distinction because one can see a trace of it in Bulgarian, and now you told me that in Serbian the distinction is apparent.

The disticntion is apparent in how it evolved. In the western dialects the "ѣ" evoled into "iye/ye" and in the more farther regions (in Dalmacia) into "и" (as in Unkarinian), while in Eastern Serbian, and Bulgarian it evoled into an "э", sometimes even into an "ээ"!

Thus, within the same language, words such as свѣт is pronounced as as свэт, свиjеt and свит, and spelled accordingly, rather than just свѣт.

My impresison is that the Bolshevik orthographic reform replaced the "ѣ" not only with "e" (that is ye, which is okay) but also with "я" in some words. I know that "ѣ" was a YE because the Serbian writer and vladyka from Montengro Petar Petrovich Nyegosh spelled his surname as Hѣгошъ (modern spelling Његош). So, how did it beocme a "я" in some words?

But on the other hand, a 12th century epistle to the people of Dubrovnik by a Bosnian lord was signed by the scribe Radoye as "Ѣ Радое" using the yat in place of Я!

and Я is muted because it is not under stress. E or И would be likewise muted when unstressed, and all three would sound alike

Yes, that's the case wiht modern Greek too. You have I, Y, and H all pronoiced as И. Of course nothing exemplifies this better than English.

[annalex]

the Bolshevik orthographic reform replaced the "ѣ" not only with "e" (that is ye, which is okay) but also with "я" in some words

I cannot think of an example of that in Russian, but again, I never studied this matter,.

Generally, orthogoraphy was not on people's mind till the spread of literacy in 19c. Getting off the Slav set of topics, Sir Raleigh is known to spell his own name differently within the skope of the same page.

[kosta50]

I cannot think of an example of that in Russian, but again, I never studied this matter

It has to do with Little Yus (Ѧ) as well as the Big Yus (Ѫ), which morphed into ya and ye. There was also some confusion as to how the perosnal pronoun (which used toba Az but then became Ya), and how it was spelled. I already mentioned Radoye in a 12th century Bosnian document where he uses "Ѣ" instaed of "Я" for a personal pronoun.

By the way, I have read someowhere that in early 1700 hundreds, the "ѣ" had a distinct vocalization in Russian, but by the time of the great orthographic reform in the latter half of the 18th century, Lomonosov wrote that there was no audible difference between the "ѣ" and and an ordinary "e". However, for some reason the yat was retained until 1917. Other sources indicate that in some regions the "ѣ" is still audibly distinct from the Russian "e".

[kosta50]

"Святий" is Church slavonic. The Russian is "святой",

I meant to get back to you on this. Свети is also Serbian. Serbian also has 7 cases just as Church Slavonic. Also the Serbian infinitive ending on -и is idnetical to Church Slavonic, as in молити (to pray). Although Church Slavonic sounds and looks "Russian," it is grammatically much closer to Serbian.

[annalex]

It has to do with Little Yus (Ѧ), [etc.]

Thank you -- I did not know any of that.

Although Church Slavonic sounds and looks "Russian," it is grammatically much closer to Serbian.

It is true that Serbian and to a lesser extent Bulgarian are closer to the Church Slavonic than Russian. Till I learned Bulgarian I could not understand the Church Slavonic.

[kosta50]

Till I learned Bulgarian I could not understand the Church Slavonic

Till I learned Bulgarian I could not understand the Church Slavonic

That's fascinatuing, Alex, since to a Serbian ear Russian sounds a lot like Church Slavonic.

[annalex]

It may sound so, and indeed a Russian can get the general drift of it, but the actual vocabulary is closer to the Southern Slav languages.

[kosta50]

It may sound so, and indeed a Russian can get the general drift of it, but the actual vocabulary is closer to the Southern Slav languages.

That may be true, but it's not always obvious. For example I thought святий (Serbian: свети) was Church Slavoic and Russian. It "sounds" Russian. :) I suppose there are other simialr words.

In fact, the Russian form cвятой sounds like a genetitive case, feminine gender of святий, i.e. Святой Богородицы (i.e. TO the Holy Mother of God).

Can you give me some other CS words that are not like Russian-like?

[kosta50]

genetitive - oops, that should be genitive

[annalex]

I was thinking of the conjugation of "to be" and various propositions, which began to make sense through Bulgarian. Apellative (is it how it is called?) case does not exist in Russian. So, of "Отче наш иже еси на небесех" only "наш" and "на" are directly understandable, "иже еси" sounds quite foreign, and the rest is guessable. Compare Отче наш. Church Slavonic is,, nevertheless, the closest to Russian Slav language.

There is any number of adjectives that end in "ой": большой, молодой, etc. It is nominative masculine ending.

[kosta50]

Here is the modern Serbian version.

Оче наш, који (je)си на Небесима,
нека се свети Име Tвоје,
нека дође Царство Твоје,
нека буде воља твоја, на Земљи као и на Небу.
Хлеб наш насушни дај нам данас,
и опрости нам дугове наше,
као што их и ми опраштамо дужницима својим,
и не уведи нас у искушење,
већ нас избави од злога.
Амин.

Please notice the vocative case (Оче), and the structure of the prayer being very close to the original Church Slavonic. A modern Russian version, while outwardly structurally more similar to CS, departs grammatically and otherwise from the CS version.

However, I find the modern evrsion somewhat awkward. FWI, the Serbian letter "ђ" is equivalent to Russian "дъе" — in other words a palatalized "d" (as in dye).

For example "нека се свети" can be stated affirmatively also as "да се свети Име Tвоје" or even "да свети се име Твоје".

Instead of "нека дође Царство Твоје" can be stated just as well "да приђе Царство Твоје", and instead of "нека буде воља твоја" can be stated "да буде воља Твоја."

The order of Heaven and earth is reversed because of the western influence.

The translation into modern Serbian is also somewhat inconsistent. For example it says "Оче наш" and "Хлеб наш" but "дужницима својим" instead of "нашим" (svoy and nash both mean our). Why would they pick one and n to the other is an enigma.

"и не уведи нас у искушење" in Serbian all initial "в" prepositions have been morphed into "y" (easier to pronounce, such as Уторак for Вторник). In the Serbian recession of the CS, the word "введи" was "ваведи." here we have this half sound issue again and how to spell them.

In the 16th century they didn't really distinguish the "ь" from "ъ" and didn't use it as in Bulgarian, but I would imagine "въведи" was the option in some recensions later on.

For instance, the 16th c. Serbian version also say "дългы" for debts and "дължникомъ" for debtors.

It also uses the word "напастъ" instead of "исушение".

There is any number of adjectives that end in "ой": большой, молодой, etc. It is nominative masculine ending.

In Serbian, on the other hand, the endings are the same as in CS, in nominative бољи (better) млади (young).

[annalex]

Once I get used to special Serbian characters, the Serbian becomes completely transparent to me, and it also clarifies the Church Slavonic. But again, I know Bulgarian. "Који jeси", for example, is close to both the original "Иже еси" but also to Bulgarian "който си" (although modern grammar would be consistent with the 3rd person, "Който е"). In Russian, the verb "to be" is not normally used at all, and so while it is possible to say "который есть", which is close enough, authentic Russian equivalent is somethign like "сущий", or omotted altogether (see the same link).

uses the word "напастъ" instead of "исушение".

Where?

[kosta50]

Once I get used to special Serbian characters, the Serbian becomes completely transparent to me, and it also clarifies the Church Slavonic.

Speaking of Serbian characters, fyi, they are the "logical" ligatures of ль --> љ and нь --> њ .

There is also a character that was used in Church Slavonic called the "cherv" and was written as "ћ" corresponding to sounds "тъе" or "дъе." To differentiate the two (other than by intuition) sometimes in the early 19th century the "дъе" version was modified to "ђ".

For a short time, in the same period, a competing convention was to use "ль" and "нь" without ligatures as was the case for centuries; also "ть" for "ћ" and "дь" for "ђ", but the single letter solutions prevailed very early.

In addition to those letters, letter "џ", corresponding to "дж" (which is considered a single sound), was borrowed from Romanian Cyrillic. Finally "й" and the equivalent of the Greek iota (i) were replaced with "j". Thus, all sounds beginning with Я, Іо, Е, Ю, Ї (as in yield), etc. became Ja, Jo, Je, Jy, Ји (or in English Ya, Ye, Yo, Yu, Yi), hence Yugoslavia in transliteration.

For example the name Iован (Ioannis) became Јован and should be transliterated into English as Yovan. Unfortunately, transliteration into Roman characters took a turn to favor Croatian convention, resulting in some weird looking names and words.

But again, I know Bulgarian. "Који јеси¸", for example, is close to both the original "Иже еси" but also to Bulgarian "който си" (although modern grammar would be consistent with the 3rd person, "Който е"). In Serbian one can say "који јеси¸" or "који си" as in Bulgarian (except that Serbian doesn't have the definite article "то"; it would be superfluous to say "Our Father who are that..." or "Оче наш, који то јеси").

However, the "long" form yesi is an accentuated affirmative, perhaps as if saying "you truly are" as opposed to just si which is the reason the long form was retained in the prayer. On the other hand, "Който е" reflects Bulgarian loss of CS case structure (seven cases, retained in Serbian and six in Russian), which is reduced to four cases and to a Serbian ear resembles "Me Tarzan you Jane" form of speech, or in English "who be next?"

Of course in Serbian one can say that a politician "који је", a shorter form of "који јесте" (interestingly the "ь" is vocalized here as a vowel), or "који то јесте" —the "то" being equiv. to это, as in который это есть). Again, in Serbian, the longer form is always more affirmative.

In Russian the есть (the long form) also seems to be used used in the affirmative cases, and the short form doesn't exist. Grammatically the form [you] are ([ти] јеси) is the same as in CS.

["напастъ" instead of "исушение"] Where?

That should have been "искушение" (and напасть should have had a "ь" instead of a "ъ" at the end; my bad).

The Serbian Church switched to the Russain redaction of the Church Slavonic in the middle of the 18th century when the books and clergy became scarce. To fill the gap, Russian and Ukrainian clergy came to Serbia and brought service books with them which favored the conversion.

The original Serbian version of the Lord's prayer was then changed to the current one. The Serbian Букварь printed in 1597 in Venice has the Serbian redaction of the Lord's Prayer (page 7 on the PDF file).

Interestingly you can see in it that it used the form "да свєтитсє" instead of the iotated a-ligature (ia) form , as in "свіатитсіа" or modern "святится". See his spelling of воля (вол), which leads me to conclude that the Bulgairan and Serbian version of свети was never святий and that the "ya" somehow replaced the "e" in Russian copies and was retro-introduiced into the Serbian Church via Russian clergy in the 18th century.

Which is why you find свєщеник (in Bulgairan and former Serbian orthography, or свештеник in modern Serbian) rather than священик.

Also notice the word "царство" (a Serbian form of царствие). Also "долгы наша" are "дългы нашє", modern Serbian "дуге наше"). Likewise "не въвѣди нась".

Notice the use of "ъ" where modern Bulgarian would have them (a half-sound) as opposed to "ь" used in place of Ъ at the end of the word. Russian simply drops the "ъ" in "введи".

And finally the Bukvar says "въ напасть нъ избави нась..." where Russian would put "в" and "но".