Sándor Maticsák (Debrecen)finnugor.arts.unideb.hu/adatok/maticsak/pdf/026-FirstMo...It was about this time when Feodor Beljajev, a student of rhetoric from the Kazan academy completed

Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen Band 36 © Helmut Buske Verlag 2013

The first Mordvin translation of the Lord’s Prayer1

Sándor Maticsák (Debrecen)

AbstractThe first written documents of Mordvin literacy, dating back only to three centuries, were glossaries put down by foreign travellers, and prose passages, poem fragments recorded in multilingual, ecclesiastic books used in the Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan theological seminaries. Sometime in the second half of the 18th century, Feodor Beljajev, a student of rhetoric from the Kazan academy completed the Erzya-Mordvin translation of the Lord’s Prayer. This text was very briefly discussed in A. P. Feoktistov’s monograph on the evolution of Mordvin standard literary language. The present paper discusses the difficulties of the transcription and issues of orthography first, then a detailed analysis of the text follows with especial regard to neological issues. Etymological information is provided next, and finally the dialectal affiliation of the text is established.

Keywords: Mordvin, bible, translation

1. The beginnings of Mordvin literacy: glossariesSimilarly to the rest of the Finno-Ugric languages, Mordvin written records also date back only to a short period of time: as much as three centuries. The first written documents were glossaries put down by foreign travellers, and prose passages, poem fragments recorded in multilingual, ecclesiastic books used in theological seminaries like the Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan seminaries.

The very first steps can be attributed to a Dutch scholar, Nicolaes Witsen (1641–1717), who published his Dutch work titled Noord en oost Tar tarye, about the peoples of the Russian Empire in 1692. The author discussed the Mordvins as well; and in addition to the description of their customs and way of life, he also published a Dutch–Mordvin glossary containing 324 entries (Feoktistov 1963: 3–11; 1968b: 107–108; 1971: 13; 1976: 10–15; Maticsák 2011: 118–120; Mikola 1975: 15–25).

In the 17–18th centuries, the Russian Empire continued its expansion to the south and east, which called forth a great demand for the scientific exploration of the country. Expeditions organized by the educated tsars, Peter I and Ca-therine II – with effective support from the part of the academy – completed the geographic-topographic description of the empire, worked up a systematic

1 The work/publication is supported by the TÁMOP-4.2.2/B-10/1-2010-0024 project. The project is co-financed by the European Union and the European Social Fund.

taxonomy of the flora and the fauna, and at the same time, collected a substantial body of ethnographic and linguistic data about the peoples unknown at that time. The Mordvins were also included among those peoples.

Of the travellers, the renowned German doctor and scientist, Daniel Gott-lieb Messerschmidt (1685–1735) is worthy of mentioning. He organized an expedition to Siberia between 1720 and 1727. His linguistic data collected was summarized in his manuscript titled Specimen der Zahlen und Sprache Einiger Orientalischen und Siberischen Völker. In addition to Hungarian, Finnish, Komi, Udmurt, Mansi and Khanty data, we can also find the Mordvin numerals from one to ten in this (Feoktistov 1971: 14–15; 1976: 15–16).

Philipp Johann von Strahlenberg’s (1676–1747) life-work is well-known. In his book titled Das Nord- und Ostliche Theil von Europa und Asia, there are 28 Mordvin words (numerals and expressions for other basic notions) (Feoktistov 1963: 11–12; 1971: 13–14; 1976: 16–18; Maticsák 2011: 120–122).

Gerhard Friedrich Müller (1705–1783) collected a considerable amount of material as a member of the so-called Second Kamchatka Expedition. He summarized the results of his expedition in two works of large volume, titled Sammlung Russischer Geschichte and Описания живущих в Казанской губернии язы ческих народов. An eight-language dictionary is included in the latter one, the Mordvin data of which contains 313 words – Erzya expres-sions for the most part (Feoktistov 1963: 12–22; 1971: 16–17; 1976: 85–88; Maticsák 2011: 122–123).

Müller’s enterprise was continued by Johann Eberhard Fischer (1697–1771), who published the result of his collecting activity between 1739 and 1747 in a volume describing the Finno-Ugric peoples, titled Sibirische Geschichte. In this book, we can find 24 Mordvin words as well, while in the collection of articles (Quaestiones Petropolitanae) published by Schlözer in Göttingen in 1770, there are 23 Mordvin expressions. His immense dictionary, titled Vocabularium Sibiricum, has only recently been published, and contains 277 Mordvin expressions (Mun ká csi 1882: 292–296; Zsi rai 1994: 492–494; Gulya 1983; Zaicz 1997; Feoktistov 1968a: 86–88; Maticsák 2011:123–125).

Scientific expeditions continued Russia-wide under the reign of the en-lightened sovereign, Catherine II as well. One of the prominent personalities conducting the collecting field-work was Peter Si mon Pallas (1741–1811), the results of whose work were published in the book titled Reise durch verschie-dene Provinzen des Russi schen Reichs (1771–1776). This work contained 22 Mordvin words and expressions (Feoktistov 1963: 31–33; 1971: 19–22; 1976: 43–50). A remarkable result of his linguistic work is his Linguarum totius or-bis vocabularia com parativa (1786–87). Erzya and Moksha words were also included in the two hundred languages discussed – almost 300 expressions

94 Sándor Maticsák

from both of the dialects (Feoktistov 1975: 117–125; 1976: 89–93; Maticsák 2011: 126–129).

Some further noteworthy travellers were Petr Iva no vich Rychkov (1712–1777), who completed the historical-geographic description of the Orenburg area between 1752 and 1755, briefly mentioning the customs and religion of the Mordvins as well, adding some Mordvin words to his account (Feoktistov 1976: 21–24); Ivan Ivanovich Lepechin (1740–1802), who collected almost two dozen Mordvin words and three short texts as the leader of the Second Oren-burg Expedition (Feoktistov 1963: 23–30); Johann Peter Falck (1732–1774) and Jo hann Gottlieb Georgi (1729–1802), who published a couple of dozens of Mordvin expressions – mainly names of the pagan gods (Feoktistov 1963: 33–35; 1976: 33–51).

Towards the end of the 18th century, some smaller dictionaries were pub-lished. In 1785, the greatest achievement of contemporary Mordvin lexicogra-phy was published: Bishop Damaskin’s (1737–1795) multi-lingual dictionary, titled Словарь языков разных народов. The first volume of the book is a 1038-page Russian–Tatar–Chuvash–Erzya-Mordvin dictionary, while its second part is a 746-page Russian–Mari glossary. The Mordvin section of the dictionary contains 11,000 words and was redacted by A. P. Feoktistov in 1971.

2. The beginnings of Mordvin literacy: religious texts18th century missionary work and the expansion of the Catholic Church were clearly “profitable” for the Finno-Ugric and Turkic peoples from a linguistic point of view. Missionaries were not welcome in these areas, even though those receiving baptism were promised tax allowances. This forceful, speeded missio-nary work was often faced with serious opposition; the Mordvins of the Nizhny Novgorod district, for example, rose up against it in 1743–44 and between 1804 and 1810. Missionaries of the Christian faith came to realize that these pagan communities did not show any interest whatsoever towards the services held in Church Slavonic; this is why they began to translate various liturgic texts into the language of the locals. Another direction of missionary work was the foundation of schools: the first non-Russian language school was set up in Kazan in 1707. After a two-year activity, this institution had to suspend its work for a while, but was reopened in 1722 with more than two dozens of pupils. Most of them were Tatar, Chuvash, Mari, Mordvin or Kalmyk. The Kazan, and later the Nizhny Novgorod school had a significant role in the development of Mordvin literacy (Fábián 2003: 91–92; Feoktistov 1976: 115–117).

The St. Petersburg Academy published a volume titled Духовная це ремония in 1769, containing ecclesiastic passages in Russian, Latin and Greek, but a couple of Mari, Udmurt, Chuvash and Tatar poem fragments and prose excerpts were also included in it, together with a Mordvin text of a few lines

The first Mordvin translation of the Lord’s Prayer 95

length. The latter is considered to be the first continuous written text in Mord-vin according to our present knowledge (Feoktistov 1976: 55–57, 236; for a detailed analysis, see Maticsák 2012).

In 1782, a similar volume was published in Moscow, comprising Mordvin, Mari, Tatar, Udmurt, Chuvash and Kalmyk data, titled Сочинения в прозе и стихах. In this, we can find the first Mordvin poem, in the Moksha dialect – written in a poor style, hardly intelligible at several points (Feoktistov 1968b: 109–110; 1976: 57–58).

A special volume of the Nizhny Novgorod seminary (Торжество Ниже-го родской семина рии) came out in 1787, also in Moscow. It is structured similarly to the earlier volumes, containing mainly Russian, Latin and Greek passages, but also a few German, French, Tatar and Chuvash texts, and some Mordvin material comprising 133 words (Feoktistov 1976: 59–60, 236).

From 1788, we have a chrestomathy with the title Действие Нижегородской духовной семинарии (containing 55 Mordvin words), and the Russian text of the catechism, accompanied by an Erzya–Mordvin translation of it, on 32 pages (Краткiй катихизись) (Feoktistov 1968a: 8–18). Some more noteworthy texts are the Mordvin translation of the Священная ис торiя (1790), the manuscript of Символъ в`ры (1791), and the special volumes of the Kazan (1795) and the Nizhny Novgorod (1798) seminaries (Feoktistov 1968a: 43–47; 1976: 61–64).

3. The first translation of the Lord’s PrayerAll these writings faithfully represent the turbulent academic life that charac-terised the vicinity of these two religious centres and schools in the second half of the 18th century. It was about this time when Feodor Beljajev, a student of rhetoric from the Kazan academy completed the Mordvin translation of the Lord’s Prayer (Молитва Отче нашъ на мордовском язык`). This text was very briefly discussed in A. P. Feoktistov’s monograph on the evolution of Mordvin standard literary language (1968a: 20, 23). The source of the text is (or was) the following: Рукописный отдел гос. Публичной библиотеки им. Салтыкова-Щедрина, ф. Аделунга 35, л. 203. I have no knowledge about the subsequent fate of the text. Unfortunately, Feoktistov did not publish a replica, therefore the text is known only in his Cyrillic transcription.

This paper aims to provide a more detailed analysis of this text. First, the difficulties of the transcription and issues of orthography are discussed, then the morphological analysis of the text follows (which does not include mor-phosyntactic issues in the translations), etymological information is provided next, and finally the dialectal affiliation of the text is defined.


3.1. The orthography of the textA. P. Feoktistov’s literal copy of the text (1968a: 23) is as follows:

Тятяй минекь, кона эрятъ мянель ланксо улеза святой ляметь тоньть сазо якъ инязорокардыма тоньть улеза олятъ тонть кода мянель ланксо истя якъ масторъ лаксо кши минянекъ тука эрва чистэ кадыкъ минянекъ пандомонокъ минекь кода якъ минь пандлитянокъ пандлицынень минекь иля совата минекь кодамоякъ бѣдасъ но ваномискь шайтянсто.

The author consistently uses the hard sign after hard consonants: сазо якъ, истя якъ, масторъ, минянекъ, кадыкъ, пан до мо нокъ, кода якъ, панд литянокъ, кодамоякъ, бѣдасъ. Palatalization is usually marked in a correct way: тятяй, тятяй, минекь, мянель, улеза, ляметь, тоньть, инязо ро, олятъ, истя, минянекъ, минянекъ, минь, иля, шай тян сто (but: эрва is written instead of эрьва and кирдыма instead of кирдима) – the soft sign, however, is sometimes used incorrectly: ваномискь,минекь.Non-palatalized consonants are marked by a subsequent ы and э: кадыкъ, чистэ. The spelling of тонть ~ тоньть is unstable (the transcription of the two consecutive palatalized consonants – tońť – in Cyrillic letters stays a problem up to the present).

The text was written in an Erzya dialect that contains both the open and the mid /ä/ and /e/ sounds. This is true to most of the written records from the 17–18th centuries (on dialectal affiliation, see later). The former sound is marked by the я letter: тятяй (present-day standard form: тeтяй), мянель (мe нель), ляметь (лeметь), минянекъ (минeнек). This assigns a dual role to я, since it serves for the transcription of j + a and also that of the consonant + a combination: якъ[-jak], инязоро [ińazoro], пандли тя нокъ [pandľi ťanok], иля [iľa], шайтянсто [šajťansto]; in Russian loans: святой [svjatoj], олятъ [oľat].

There are some spelling errors to be found in the text:– the инязорокардыма expression is probably a misspelling, its correct form is

инязорокирдима;– лаксо: its correct version is ланксо (as spelt at two other points of the text); – иля совата: the correct transcription is иля совавта;– the spelling of the якъ particle is unstable, сазо якъ, истя якъ, кода якъ,

but кодамоякъ – these are spelt as one word today; – the use of the hard sign and the marking of palatalization (as mentioned

before) are not always successful: минекь > минекъ, ваномискь > ваномискъ; эрва > эрьва; кирдыма > кирдима;

– the complete lack of punctuation is conspicuous – there are no punctuation marks in the text, except for the comma after the second word.


According to the above, the correct transcription and the Roman letter equi-valent are as follows:

Тятяй минекъ // кона эрятъ мянель ланксо // улеза святой ляметь тоньть // сазоякъ инязорокирдима тоньть // улеза олятъ тонть // кода мянель ланксо истяякъ масторъ ланксо // кши минянекъ тука эрьва чистэ // кадыкъ минянекъ пандомонокъ минекъ // кодаякъ минь пандли тя нокъ пандлицынень минекъ // иля совавта минекъ кодамоякъ бѣдасъ // но ваномискъ шайтянсто.

ťäťaj mińek, kona eŕat mäneľ lankso, uľeza śvatoj lämeť tońť, sazojak ińazorokirďima tońť, uľeza oľat tońť, koda mäńeľ lankso iśťajak mastor lankso, kši mińäńek tuka eŕva čiste, kadik mińäńek pandomonok mińek, kodajak miń pańďľiťanok pańďľicińeń mińek, iľa sovavta mińek kodamo jak bedas, no vanomisk šajťansto.

Literal translation:

Our father // who lives in heaven // your name be hallowed // your reign come // your will be done // the same way on earth as it is in heaven // bring us bread every day // forgive our debts // the same way as we pay our debtors // do not lead us into any kind of trouble // but guard us from the devil.

3.2. The morphological analysis of the text (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)тятяй минекъ кона эрятъ мянельfather-Voc we-Gen who live-Vx2Sg heaven

(6) (7) (8) (9) (10)ланксо улеза святой ляметь тоньтьpostposition be-Opt3Sg hallowed name-Px2Sg you-Gen

(11) (12) (13) (14)сазоякъ инязорокирдима тоньть улезаcome-Opt3Sg + also tsar + reign you-Gen be-Opt3Sg

(15) (16) (17) (18) (19)олятъ тонть кода мянель ланксоwill-Px2Sg you-Gen how heaven postposition

(20) (21) (22) (23) (24)истяякъ масторъ ланксо кши минянекъas + also earth postposition bread we-Dat


(25) (26) (27) (28)тука эрвачистэ кадыкъ минянекъbring-Imp2Sg every + day-Elat let-detImp2Sg we-Dat

(29) (30) (31) (32)пандомонокъ минекъ кодаякъ миньpay-Px1Pl we-Gen as + also we

(33) (34) (35) (36)пандлитянокъ пандлицынень минекъ илясовавтаpay-Vx1Pl debtor-Dat we-Gen lead

to-negImp2Sg

(37) (38) (39) (40)минекъ кодамоякъ бѣдасъ ноwe-Acc not any sort of trouble-Illat but

(41) (42)ваномискъ шайтянстоguard-DetImp2Sg/Pl1 devil-Elat

3.3. The detailed analysis of the textSix aspects were taken into consideration during the analysis:

a) The morphological analysis of the given word with an exact definition of the suffixes. For this, László Keresztes’ chrestomathy (1990) and descriptive grammars (Gram matika 1980, Erźań keľ 2000 = EK) were used as help.

b) Occurrences of the word (or its dictionary form) in contemporary writ-ten records: Mordvin material from the glossaries and itineraries of Witsen (1692), Strahlenberg (1730), Müller (1743/1791), Fischer (1747), Rychkov (1762), Lepechin (1771–1805), Pallas (1786–87), and Damaskin’s 11,000-le-xemes dictionary (1785) in particular (for the exact bibliographical data, see the References section). (Moksha forms are marked with an M, Erzya forms are unmarked.)

c) The Erzya form of the word in Paasonen’s comprehensive dialectal dic-tionary (MdWb). The data in the dictionary is given in Roman letters, which is kept here as well.

d) The present-day form of the word. This information is provided on the basis of three dictionaries: the Erzya–Russian comprehensive dictionary (ERV),


the Erzya–Finnish concise dictionary (ESS), and the Erzya–Hungarian com-prehensive dictionary (EMSz). This data is given in Cyrillic letters.

e) The Moksha equivalent of the given word. For this, the Moksha–Russian comprehensive dictionary (MRV) and the Moksha–Finnish concise dictionary (MSS) were used. Following the analysis, I clearly verify that the text was written in the Erzya dialect, through a comparison of the Erzya and Moksha material.

f) The origin of the word: besides data from the UEW, Keresztes’ etymo-logical glossary (1986) and the recently published etymological dictionary by Vershinin (2004–2011) were used.

The text of the Lord’s Prayer has been adapted into Mordvin on multiple oc-casions in the 19–21st centuries. I have examined nine of the translations with neologistic and usage based aspects in mind. The 19th century translations contain a considerable number of Russicisms, while translators of the more recent translations from around the millennium strive for more Mordvin-sounding texts. These phenomena are discussed at the end of each entry. The studied translations are the following: 1-2) relevant sections of Matthew’s (6: 9–13) and Luke’s Gospels (11: 2–4) from the 1821 New Testament translati-on; 3) H. Dalton’s publication on page 63 of the volume titled Das Gebet des Herrn in den Sprachen Russlands; 4) an 1882 text from Kazan, published by Zsigmond Németh (1990: 56); 5) the 1889 translation of the Gospel According to Luke; 6) the translation appearing on page 42 of the volume titled Букварь для Мордвыэрзи; 7) a 1993 Children’s Bible; 8) the 1996 translation of the Gospel According to Luke; and 9) Matthew 6: 9–13 from the 2006 translation of the New Testament (Од Вей сень лув) (The exact bibliographical data is given in the References section.)

(1) тятяй● It is the vocative of the noun тятя. The vocative is of Tatar origin, and it is not counted among case endings by Mordvin grammars. Keresztes (1990: 66) considers it to be a derivative suffix; the Grammatika (110) discusses it together with the diminutive suffix -ка, e.g. авакай ’little mother’, Митякай ’little Mitja’. In Bartens’ opinion (1999: 81–82), it is a discourse particle (clitic): „pääte toimii siis pragmaattisen partikkelin tavoin ja onkin sel lai seksi tulkittava”. Bereczki (1988: 324) refers to it with the Vo ka tiv suf fixe expression.● Occurrence in early written records: тятяй ’отец’ (Pallas 8), тятя ’отец’ (Dam 187).● Paas. ťeťe (~ ťiťa, taťa, ťaťa, ťeťa, ťiťa, ťäťa) ’отец / Vater’ (MdWb 2396).● Present-day form: тетя ’отец’ (ERV 659); ’isä’ (ESS 169); ’apa’ (EMSz 372).


● It has no Moksha equivalent, the word аля ’мужчина; отец; муж’ (MRV 34); ’mies; isä; ih mi nen; urho’ (MSS 13) is used instead. Cf. Erzya аля ’муж чина; юноша, молодой че ло век’ (ERV 46); ’mies; aviomiehen van hem pi veli; kelpo, toimelias; mie he käs’ (ESS 6); ’férfi; legény, fiatal em ber; vitéz, hős’ (EMSz 39). ● Its origin is debated. According to Vershinin (436), it possibly derives from the Russian origin word тятя, but it is more likely to originate in children’s language.

(2, 30, 35, 37) минекъ● It is the genitive-accusative form of the first person plural personal pronoun минь (Gram ma ti ka 255; EK 127; Keresztes 1990: 198). ● Occurrence in early written records: минек (Dam 105), минекъ (Dam 110, 158).● Paas. mińek ’наш / unser’ (MdWb 1263).● Present-day form: минек ’наш; нас’ (ERV 383); ’bennünket; miénk’ (EMSz 229).● Moksha equivalent: минь ’наш’ (MRV 383); ’meidän’ (MSS 112).● The original form is a personal pronoun of Uralic origin (see Entry 32).

(3) кона ● It is an interrogative and relative pronoun (Gram ma ti ka 261–263; EK 133–134; Ke resz tes 1990: 65). It appears as a relative pronoun in the text under study.● Occurrence in early written records: кона ’который’ (Dam 125).● Paas. кона ’кто, который / wer, wercher [interr. u. rel.]’ (MdWb 805).● Present-day form: кона ’который’ (ERV 285); ’joka’ (73); ’aki, ami, amely, ame lyik, melyik’ (EMSz 175).● Moksha equivalent: кона ’который; какой’ (MRV 277); ’joka, mikä’ (MSS 76).● The root of this pronoun can be traced back to the Uralic protolanguage, cf. U ku- (~ ko-) ’we, wel cher, ? was’ (UEW 191; Keresztes 1986: 63; Versh 152).

(4)эрятъ● It is the second person singular indicative present form of the verb эря (Gram ma tika 290; EK 157–159; Ke resz tes 1990: 39–40).● The root of the verb occurs in the following forms in the early written records: эрь (Dam 42, 75, 79, 95, 148, 176, 206); ярь (Dam 244); iaрь (Dam 176). As a nominal derivative: эрямо ’жизнь’ (Pallas 212). ● Paas. eŕams ’жить; проживать; бывать / leben; wohnen; oft sein’ (MdWb 368).● Present-day infinitive form: эрямс ’жить’ (ERV 787); ’elää, asua; olla’ (ESS 201); ’él; lakik’ (EMSz 456).● Moksha equivalent: эрямс ’жить’ (MRV 905); ’elää, asua’ (MSS 217).


● This is a word of Uralic origin, cf. U elä ’leben’ (UEW 73; Keresztes 2011: 55; Versh 86).

(5, 18) мянель● Occurrence in early written records: menel ’Himmel’ (Witsen 624), ме нилъ ’небо’ (Müller 83), мянень, м`нилъ ’небо’ (Pallas 4), мянель ’небо’ (Dam 159).● Paas. meńeľ ’небо / Himmel’ (MdWb 1239).● Present-day form: менель ’небо; вселенная’ (ERV 376); ’taivas’ (ESS 93); ’menny, mennybolt, ég, égbolt; boltozat’ (EMSz 226).● Moksha equivalent: менель ’небо; вселенная’ (MRV 376); ’taivas’ (MSS 110).● It is a word of Finno-Ugric origin, cf. FU mińз ’Himmel’ (UEW 276; Ke-resztes 1986: 87; Versh 245).

(6, 19, 22) ланксо● It is a postposition and an adverb; the noun ланго ’поверхность’ (ERV 330), ’pinta’ (83), ’fe lü let, felszín’ (EMSz 197) inflected with the со inessive case ending (Grammatika 380, 386; EK 252; Ke resz tes 1990: 70).● Occurrence in early written records: мязе лангсо як ’на чем-нибудь’ (Dam 158).● Paas. laákso ’на, поверх (где?) / auf, über (wo?)’ (MdWb 1014).● Present-day form: лангсо ’наверху (нареч.); на, над (послелог)’ (ERV 330); ’pääl -lä (ESS 83); ’fel szí nen, rajta (hsz.); felszínén, felületén (nu.)’ (EMSz 198).● Moksha equivalent: лангса ’на (послелог); наверху, сверху (нареч.)’ (MRV 325); ’päällä’ (MSS 95).● Its origin is obscure. Vershinin does not preclude the possibility of comparison of the ланг root to the Finnish luo, Southern Sami luhte ’to’ lexemes (Vershi-nin 198), but the SSA (2: 105) traces this back only to the Sami equivalents.

(7, 14) улеза ● It is the third person singular optative form of the verb уле (present-day standard form: улезэ) (Grammatika 296; EK 169; Ke resz tes 1990: 42). The -за element is either there due to Moksha influence or it is the result of (false) analogy, cf. Opt1Sg улезан, Opt2Sg улезат.● Occurrence in early written records: уляза (Lepechin 165). Other verbal forms: ули IndPres3Sg (Pallas 367; Dam 47, 77, 86, 91 etc.) Infinitive form: улмекс ’быть’ (Dam 47).● Paas. uľems ’быть; становиться; иметь / sein; werden; haben’ (MdWb 2448).● Present-day infinitive form: улемс ’есть, иметься; быть’ (ERV 692); ’olla; tulla’ (ESS 178); ’(meg)van, létezik’ (EMSz 395).● Moksha equivalent: улемс ’быть, иметься; существовать’ (MRV 779); ’olla’ (MSS 190).


● It is a word of Finno-Ugric origin, cf. FU wole- ’sein, werden’ (UEW 580; Ke resz tes 1986: 175; Versh 460).

(8) святой● The equivalent of ’sacred’ in Mordvin is ванкс, ванькс in Damaskin’s dic-tionary (256) (originally: ’pure, clean’, Dam 54, 234, 237, 310). The origin of this is unknown; it is probably a derivative word, because the word-final -кс seems to be a suffix.● Paas. svetoj ’святой / heilig’ (MdWb 2081).● In present-day Erzya, for the word ’holy’ the Russian origin святой ’holy’ (SES 306, EMSz 325) lexeme is used on the one hand (cf. furthermore: священной ’свя щен ный’, ERV 572; ’pyhä’, ESS 147), and the internally formed Mordvin compound иневанькс (SES 306, EMSZ 127) < ине ’great’ + ванькс ’chaste, clean, honest’ (Keresztes 2009: 76) on the other.● Moksha equivalent: святой ’святой’ (MRV 606); ’pyhä’ (MSS 163).● It is a word of Russian origin, cf. святой ’holy’.● The 1821 translations (Matthew 6: 9–13 and Luke 11: 2–4) and the 1870 version still used the Russian origin святой, святямс lexeme. In the versions from the end of the 19th century, this was replaced by Mordvin origin verbs (or verbs that behaved as Mordvin words of full value by that time), cf. валдомомс ’to be shone upon’ (1882, 1889); шнавомс ’to be glorified’ (1894). The most recent translations (1993, 1996, 2006) include the compound noun ине ванькс (see above) that is an internally formed word, a result of neologistic tendencies; and a suffixed variant of this same noun (i.e. ’sacrament’) containing the the -чи abstract nominal suffix.

(9) ляметь● It is the second person singular form of the noun лям with a possessive case ending (Gram ma tika 198; EK 89; Ke resz tes 1990: 58).● Occurrence in early written records: лямъ ’имя’ (Pallas 168), лямь ’имя’ (Dam 112), ’названiе’ (Dam 151), ’титул’ (Dam 286).● Paas. ľem ’имя / Name’ (MdWb 1105).● Present-day form: лем ’имя, название, звание’ (ERV 337); ’nimi’ (ESS 84); ’név; keresztnév; el ne ve zés, megnevezés’ (EMSz 202).● Moksha equivalent: лем ’имя; название, наименование; кличка’ (MRV 332); ’nimi’ (MSS 97).● This is a word of Uralic origin, cf. U nime ’Name’ (UEW 305; Keresztes 1986: 77; Versh 207).

(10, 13) тоньть, (16) тонть● It is the genitive of the second person singular pronoun тон, either with an augmentative Px2Sg case ending or the -нть element of the objective con-


jugation. Its present-day standard form isтонь (Grammatika 255; EK 127; Ke resz tes 1990: 62, 198).● Occurrence in early written records: тонть ’твой’ (Dam 284).● Paas. toń ~ tońť ’твой / dein’ (MdWb 2314).● Present-day form: тонь ’tiéd’ (EMSz 381). Cf. furthermore тон ’ты’ (ERV 667); ’si nä’ (ESS 171).● Moksha equivalent: тонь ’твой’ (MRV 734). ● The original form is a pronoun of Uralic origin, cf. U tɣ ̈ ’du’ (UEW 539; Keresztes 1986: 169; Versh 442).

(11) сазоякъ ● The word is made up of two parts: the inflected form of the verb са and the якъ particle.

(11a) сазо● It is the Sg3 optative form of the verb са (Grammatika 296; EK 169; Ke-resz tes 1990: 42). ● Occurrence in early written records: самкс ’прийти’ (Dam 261, 293).● Paas. самс ’приходить, прибывать / kommen, ankommen’ (MdWb 1945).● Present-day form: самс ’приехать, прийти; вернуться; подойти’ (ERV 567); ’tul la, saapua’ (ESS 146); ’(meg)érkezik, elérkezik; (meg)jön, eljön; be kö szönt’ (EMSz 322). ● Moksha equivalent: самс ’прийти, приехать; надвигаться; воз вра тить ся, вернуться’ (MRV 598); ’tulla’ (MSS 161).● It is a Finno-Permic (or maybe Uralic) origin verb, cf. FP (?U) saɣe- ’kommen, an kom men, an langen, erreichen’ (UEW 429; Keresztes 1986: 128; Versh 394).

(11b, 20, 31, 38) якъ ● This is a particle with the meaning ‘too, also’; it also exists in the -якъ, гакъ and какъ variants (Grammatika 393, 395; EK 256–257; Ke resz tes 1990: 71). This particle appears in the written records both spelt as two words and written in one. It is used as a replacement of the ‘and’ conjunction several times in the text.● Paas. -gak, -jak, -kak ’и, также, даже / auch, sogar’ (MdWb 407, 480, 572).● Present-day form: гак, как, як ’is’ (EMSz 97, 134, 466).● Moksha equivalent: вок, га, ге, ке (Grammatika 395; MK 204; Ke resz-tes 1990: 71).

(12) инязорокирдима● It is a compound word; the result of the translator’s attempt to adopt the Russian Царство into Mordvin. It is composed of two elements: иназоро +


кирдима. Its meaning is:’tsar, sovereign + empire, reign’ = ’tsardom, king-dom, empire’.

(12a)инязоро● It is a compound: ине ’great’ + азорo ’lord’.● Occurrence in early written records: инязоро ’император’ (Dam 112, 115), ’король’ (Dam 124), ’царь’ (Dam 306). Occurrence of the individual consti-tuents: ine (Witsen 626, as a first constituent), ине (Dam 53, 56, 69, 77 etc.); azir (Witsen 625), [куд]азаръ ’господинъ’ (куд ’house’) (Müller 87), азоро (Dam 123).● Paas. ińazoro ’князь, император / Fürst, Kaiser’ (MdWb 463).● Present-day form: инязор ’царь’ (ERV 216); ’tsaari’ (ESS 58); ’cár, császár, ural kodó, fejedelem’ (EMSz 128). The individual constituents: ине ’великий’ (ERV 212); ’suuri, iso’ (ESS 57); ’nagy, hatalmas’ (EMSz 127) + aзор ’хоз-я ин, вла делец; хозяйственник; хозяин, гла ва дома; пол но власт ный рас-по ря дитель; близкий родственник жениха на свадь бе’ (ERV 37); ’isän tä, omis taja’ (ESS 4); ’gazda, házigazda, tulajdonos, úr’ (EMSz 34). ● Moksha equivalent: оцязор ’царь, государь, император’ (MRV 451); ’kei -sari, tsaari’ (MSS 131) < оцю ’большой, крупный’ (MRV 451); ’iso, suu ri’ (MSS 130) + aзор ’хоз я ин, вла де лец’ (MRV 29); ’isäntä, herra’ (MSS 11).● The first constituent is of Uralic origin: U enä ’groß, viel’ (UEW 74; Keresztes 1986: 42; Versh 87). The second constituent is an Iranian loan in the Finno-Ugric proto-language: FU azɣrз ’Herr, Fürst’ < Old Iranian *asura- (UEW 18; Joki 1973: 253; Keresztes 1986: 35; Rédei 1983: 220; Versh 10).

(12b) кирдима● Based on the examination of corresponding passages of the texts, a spelling mistake was thought to occur in this word, since the 1821, 1870 and 1882 translations of the Lord’s Prayer had all contained the иня зо рокирдима.2 Trans-lations from the end of the 19th century (1889, 1894) and today’s modern texts (1993, 1996, 2006), however, include the инязорксчи ’great + lord + abstract suffix = empire, kingdom’ variant.

2 If we supposed the кардыма form, then only the кардаз ’court, yard’ or the кардo ’stable, pen’ nouns would be possible (in this case, the translation could be ’tsar + court + abstract suffix’), but the -ма suffix is problematic here, because it can only be attached to verbal stems. The original verb form could be карда-, the meanings of which are: ’запрещать, пре пятст вовать, удерживать’ (MdWb 617). In this case, the third meaning of the verb could possibly be applied (’to keep, to save’) (tsar + keeping??), but this does not seem to be a satisfactory explanation. The passage in question is misinterpreted by Feoktistov as well (1968a: 23): ’да придет усмирить царей’, i.e. ’come (imper.) + to restrain, to soothe + tsar-PlAcc’ [?].


● Occurrence in early written records: кирдима ’владение, держание, обла-дание; владетельство’ (Dam 54, 81), ’во здер жа ние’ (Dam 57); ’тер п е ли вость’ (Dam 286), ’трезвость; тер пение’ (Dam 289), ’удер жание’ (Dam 295).● Paas. kiŕďima ’удержание, фут ляр; терпение / worin etw. ent halten ist, Futteral; Geduld’ (MdWb 777). ● Present-day form: кирдeма ’терпение; место для хранения; (ERV 264); ’kär siv äl li syys, maltti’ (ESS 69); ’(vissza)tartás; türelem; tartály, tároló’ (EMSz 163). Its meaning has changed and became narrower; in the text of the Lord’s Prayer it is used in the ’владетельство; reign, governing’ sense. ● Moksha equivalent of the original verb: кирдемс ’держать; ’держаться; иметь, раз водить; задержать; поймать; удержать; стать; вынести; потерпеть (MRV 257); ’pitää, kestää; pidätellä, estää’ (MSS 70).● The original verb is of Finno-Volgaic origin, cf. FV kärte ’halten, ertragen, leiden, dul den’ (UEW 652; Versh 146).

(15) олятъ● It is the second person singular form of the noun оля suffixed with a possessive case ending (Gram matika 198; EK 89; Ke resz tes 1990: 58).● Occurrence in early written records: оля ’власть’ (Pallas 205), ’из во ле нiе’ (Dam 110), ’поизволенiе’ (Dam 207), ’уволненiе’ (Dam 293), ’сво бо да’ (Dam 254), ’свободность’ (Dam 255), оля, воля ’власть’ (Dam 325), воля ’вольность’ (Dam 59).● Paas. oľa ’воля, свобода; воля, мощ / Freiheit; Wille, Macht’ (MdWb 1445).● Present-day form: оля ’воля, свобода; простор (ERV 437), ’vapaus’ (ESS 109); ’sza badság’ (EMSz 259); воля ’воля’ (ERV 140).● Moksha equivalent: воля ’свобода, воля’ (MRV 127), ’tahto’ (MSS 38).● The word is of Russian origin, cf. воля ’(free) will; wish; intention, aspiration; freedom’.● The word оля was included in translations for a long time, it is only the most recent versions (1993, 1996, 2006) that replaced it with the more Mordvin-sounding арсемамель and мельарсема copulative compounds, cf. ар се ма ’ду ма; мысль; пожелание; мечта; же лание; пред ложение; раздумья’ (ERV 58); ’aja tus, miete’ (ESS 9), ’gon dolkodás; gondolat; jó kívánság’ (EMSz 46); мель ’же лание, стрем ле ние, на ме ре ние; мнение; мысль; настрoение’ (ERV 374); ’mieli, halu, aie’ (ESS 93), ’kedv, hangulat; gondolat; vélemény’ (EMSz 224). The former is of Finno-Ugric, the latter is of Finno-Permic origin (UEW 16, 701 Versh 21, 242).

(16)кода● It is an interrogative and relative pronoun (Gram ma ti ka 261–263; EK 133–134; Ke resz tes 1990: 65). The studied text uses it in the relative pronoun function.


● Occurrence in early written records: кода ’как’, (Pallas 458, Dam 115), ко да бы ’как бы’ (Dam 326), али кода ’или как’ (Dam 111), кода ’коль’ (Dam 121).● Paas. кода ’как / wie [interr. u. rel.]’ (MdWb 802).● Present-day form: кода ’как (нареч.), когда, как (союз), как (соединит.)’ (ERV 274); ’kuinka, miten; kun; kuin, kuten’ (ESS 71); ’hogy(an); ahogy(an); mint, amint, mihelyt’ (EMSz 168).● Moksha equivalent: кода ’как’ (MRV 264); ’kuinka; miten’ (MSS 73).● The root of the pronoun can be traced back to the Uralic protolanguage, cf. U ku (~ ko) ’we, welcher, ?was’.

(20)истяякъ● The word consists of two elements, the pronominal adverb истя (Gram ma ti-ka 368; EK 237; Keresztes 1990: 69) and the particle якъ (see Entry 11b for).● The occurrence of истя in early written records: eстя ’так’ (Dam 284), ’и тако’ (Dam 283), eстя кода ’так как’ (Dam 284), кода эстя ’как так’ (Dam 115), эстямо ’такiй’ (Dam 283), ’таковый’ (Dam 284).● Paas. iśťa ’так / so’ (MdWb 346).● Present-day form:истяяк ’и так, таким образом’ (ERV 219); ’így/úgy is’ (EMSz 130) – истя ’так, таким образом; так, до такой степени на столь ко’ (ERV 218); ’niin, näin’ (ESS 59); ’így, úgy’ (EMSz 129).● Moksha equivalent: ста ’noin, niin, sillä lailla’ (MSS 171).● It is an internally formed word. Paasonen derives it from the pronominal root e-, cf. furthermore ese ’тут, там / da, dort’, este ’оттюда, оттуда / von dannen, dort her’, esteďe ’с, из тех / von (aus) je nen’, eńe ’эти / diese’, iśťak ’так, имен но так / so, eben so’, iśťamo ’та кой, подовный / solcher, ein solcher’, iśťańa ’так / so’ (MdWb 343–348), and similarly in Versh 89. This root is of Uralic origin, cf. U e ’dieser’ (UEW 67).

(21)масторъ● Occurrence in early written records: M мастäрь земля’ (Pallas 304), мастор ’империя’ (Dam 112), инязоронь мастор ’государство’ (Dam 76).● Paas. mastor ’земля; почва; свет; страна, государство / Erde; Boden; Welt; Land, Reich’ (MdWb 1186).● Present-day form: мастор ’земля, мир, свет, вселенная; страна, государство; земля, почва; родина; сторона, край (ERV 366); ’maa, maailma’ (ESS 91); ’föld; ország; állam; haza; világ’ (EMSz 220).● Moksha equivalent: мастор ’страна, государство; суша, земля; пол’ (MRV 366); ’maa’ (MSS 107).● The origin of the word is unknown (the standpoints expressed in EtV 103 and Vers 234 are unacceptable).

(23) кши


● Occurrence in early written records: pche ’Brot’ (Witsen 626), кши ’хлeб’ (Pallas 150, Dam 324), кше ’хлeб’ (Müller 93, Dam 304).● Paas. kši ’хлeб / Brot’ (MdWb 907).● Present-day form: кши ’хлeб; зерно’ (ERV 321); ’leipä’ (ESS 81); ’kenyér’ (EMSz 191).● Moksha equivalent: кши ’хлeб’ (MRV 309); ’leipä’ (MSS 89).● It is a word of Finno-Volgaic origin, cf. FV kürsä ’Brot’ (UEW 679; Keresztes 1986: 68; Versh 190).● The ancient origin кши was replaced with a copulative compound – also made up of ancient constituents – in translations from the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, cf. кши са л ’хлeб-соль; угощение’ (ERV 321); ’ruoka, kestitys’ (ESS 81); ’kenyér-só; étel, éle lem, ennivaló; megven-dégelés, ven dég lá tás’ (EMSz 192). The word са л ’соль’ (Dam 270, 322; ERV 563); ’suola’ (ESS 145), ’só’ (EMSz 321); sal ’соль / Salz’ (MdWb 1935) is of Finno-Permic origin (UEW 750; Versh 393).

(24, 28) минянекъ● It is the dative of the first person plural personal pronoun минь (Gram ma ti ka 255; EK 127; Keresztes 1990: 198).● Paas. mińeńek ~ mińďeńek ’нам / uns’ (MdWb 1263).● Present-day form: минeнeк. ● Moksha equivalent: миндeйнeк (MK 104).● The original form is a personal pronoun of Uralic origin (see Entry 32).

(25) тука ● It is the second person singular imperative of the verb туe- ~ ту- (тук), complemented with the -a particle, to soften the imperative (Grammatika 295–296; EK 165–167; Keresztes 1990: 42). ● Occurrence in early written records: тука ’давай’ (Pallas 370), тука ’при-неси-ка’ (Dam 235, 323); туемс ’отступить’ (Dam 190); туймекс ’отой ти’ (Dam 189), ’привозить’ (Dam 223).● Paas. tujems ’принести, привезти / bringen, holen’, a dialectal variant of this is the verbal root -tu (MdWb 2341).● Present-day form: туемс ’принести; привезти’ (ERV 681); ’tuoda’ (ESS 174); ’(el)visz; (el)hoz’ (EMSz 386).● Moksha equivalent: тумс ’уйти, уeхать; пойти; привести’ (MRV 753).● The word is of Uralic origin, cf. U toɣe- ’bringen, holen, geben’ (UEW 529; Keresztes 1986: 171).● In some of the later translations (1821, 1870, 1894, 1996, 2006), the verb ‘to bring’ was replaced with максомс ’to give’ – that is also of Finno-Volgaic origin, cf. UEW 698; Versh 228.


(26) эрьвачистэ ● The morphological analysis of the word: эрьва чи + стэ elative. In Mord-vin, the elative can be an adverbial of place (кудосто ’from the house’), an adverbial of manner (стакасто ’with difficulty’) and – as in this case – an adverbial of time (те шкасто ’meanwhile’, ом бо це чистенть ’on the next day’, валскесте чокшнес ’from morning till evening’) (Grammatika 170; EK 85; Keresztes 1990: 74). ● Occurrence in early written records: aрва чисте (Dam 203), iарвачинь (Dam 176). – Occurrence of the individual elements: эрь (Dam 141, 236), iарь (Dam 176), эрва (Dam 48, 49, 77, 95, 203, 293), эрьва (Dam 90, 103, 230, 276), iарьва (Dam 304), ярва (Dam 64); schy (Witsen 626); чи (Mül ler 83; Pal las 235, 273; Dam 80, 105, 208, 218, 239, 248, 256, 316). ● Paas. eŕva ’каждый, всякий, весь / jeder, all’ (MdWb 381); či ’солнце; день / Son ne; Tag’ (MdWb 249).● Present-day form: эрьва чистэ ’ежедневно’ (ERV 786); ’mindennap, na-ponta’ (EMSz 454). Occurrence of the individual elements: эрьва ’каждый, всякий; раз ный, всякий’ (ERV 785); ’joka(inen); tavallinen’ (ESS 201); ’minden, mind egyik’ (EMSz 454); чи ’Солнце; солнце; день’ (ERV 747); ’au rinko, päi vä’ (ESS 191); ’sun; day’ (EMSz 427). On the interrelation of the celestial body and the unit of time, see Ma ti csák 2006: 17–20. The -чи element had been grammaticized into a suffix and became a suffix of abstract nouns (see Maticsák 2005b for details).● Moksha equivalent: эрь шиня ’joka päivä (MSS 205). Equivalents of the in-dividual elements: эрь ’каж дый, любой, всякий’ (MRV 903); ’jokainen’ (MSS 216); ши ’солнце, свет, теплo; день’ (MRV 863); ’päivä, aurinko’ (MSS 205).● Vershinin (517) draws a parallel between this word and the Tatar här. Ac-cording to Paasonen (1897: 32), a direct Iranian origin is also possible, cf. the Sanskrit sárva, and the Old Persian haruva. – The second element is of Finno-Ugric origin, cf. FU kečä ’Kreis, Ring, Reifen’ (UEW 141; Ke resztes 1986: 157; Versh 490).

(27) кадыкъ● This is the second person singular objective imperative form of the verb кадо- (Gram ma ti ka 295–296; EK 165–167; Keresztes 1990: 42). ● Occurrence in early written records: кадмокс ’уступать; оставить’ (Dam 300). (This form still exists in the dialects.) The studied text contains the word in the ‘let, allow’ sense.● Paas. kadoms ’оставлять, покидать; откладывать, отсрочивать; кон чать, переставать; про щать, извинять / lassen, verlassen, zurücklassen, üb rig lassen aufschieben, aufsparen; ablassen, auf hören; vergeben, ver zei hen’.


● Present-day form: кадомс ’оставить; отложить; перестать, прекратить’ (ERV 223); ’jättää’ (ESS 60); ’(el)hagy’ (EMSz 133).● Moksha equivalent: кадомс ’оставить; забыть; уйти; бросить’ (MRV 215); ’jättää; antaa, sallia’ (MSS 54).● The word is of Uralic origin: U kaδ'a ’lassen, verlassen, bleiben’ (UEW 115; Versh 94).

(29) пандомонокъ● It is the fist person plural form of the noun пандомо with a possessive case ending (-нок) at the end. The noun is a derivative of the verb пандо-, formed with the deverbal noun suffix -мо (Gram ma ti ka 105, 199; EK 36, 96; Keresztes 1990: 58). ● Occurrence in early written records: пандомо ’плата’ (Dam 201), ’от мщение; рас пла та’ (Dam 188); пандума ’платеж’ (Dam 201). ● Paas. panduma ’долги / Schuld(en)’ (MdWb 1524). ● Present-day form: пандомa ’плата, платеж’ (ERV 454), the original verb: пандомс ’пла тить, заплатить; на ло жить заплату, починить’ (ERV 454); ’maksaa, suo rittaa maksu’ (ESS 114); ’(meg)fizet, kifizet’ (EMSz 267).● Moksha equivalent: пандомс ’уплатить, заплатить’ (MRV 460); пан до мa ’maksu, maksaminen’ (MSS 133).● The word had probably been formed internally (the opinion expressed in Vers 331 is unacceptable). ● The passage in question is as follows in Latin: et dimitte nobis debita nostra ’and forgive us our debts’; the Russian variant of the same is this: и прости нам долги наши. The first Mordvin translation of the Lord’s Prayer contains this concrete sense, but subsequent translations replaced it with the more abstract ‘forgive us our sins’ (cf. 1821: нолдыкъ3 пяжетнекъ, in recent translations: нолдыть пе же те нек).

(31)кодаякъ● It is an interrogative and relative pronoun. It appears as a relative pronoun in the text under study, see Entry 17 for details about the pronoun and Entry 11b for the -якъ particle.

(32) минь● This is a first person plural pronoun (Grammatika 252; EK 127; Ke resztes 1990: 198).● Occurrence in early written records: минь (Pallas 393); мигакъ ’и нас’ (Lepechin 165, helyesen миньгакъ lenne); минь ’мы’ (Dam 325).● Paas. miń ’мы / wir’ (MdWb 1263).

3 The original meaning of нолдамс is ’to cancel, to forgive (a debt)’, but the word took up the sense ’to forgive, to pardon’ in translations of the Gospel (Fá bián 2003: 97–98).


● Present-day form: минь ’мы’ (ERV 384); ’me’ (ESS 95); ’mi’ (EMSz 230).● Moksha equivalent: минь ’мы’ (MRV 383); ’me’ (MSS 112).● The word is an Uralic origin personal pronoun: U mɣ̈ ’wir’. The -n element is a later form of the Uralic *nз nominal suffix (UEW 294; Keresztes 1986: 89; Versh 252).

(33)пандлитянокъ ● It is the first person plural present indicative form of the verb пандлe (Gram-matika 290; EK 157–159; Ke resz tes 1990: 39–40).● Occurrence in early written records: пантлян ’заплачиваю’ (Dam 100).● Paas. pandoms ’платить, уплатить / zahlen, bezahlen’ (with other different meanings) (MdWb 1524).● Present-day form: пандлeмс (ERV 456).● The word is internally formed; a variant of the verb пандo (cf. Entry 29) com-plemented with the -л frequentative suffix.

(34) пандлицынень● The active present participle form of the verb пандлe with a dative case ending at the end (Grammatika 163–164, 348–350; EK 80, 219–220; Ke resz tes 1990: 54, 68). Based on the context, the correct form would be пандлицятнень.● See Entry 29 and 33 for details.● The passage in question is as follows in Latin: sicut et nos dimittimus de-bitoribus nostris ‘as we forgive our debtors’; the Russian variant of the same is: как и мы про щаем должникам нашим. The literal translation of the Mordvin минь пандлитянокъ панд лицынень минекь is this: ’we pay back our payers [creditors]’. Feoktistov’s translation (1968a: 23): ’мы вернем их кре ди торам на шим’ [= we repay our creditors]. The otherwise high quality translation is mistaken at this one place, because the verb ‘to forgive (a debt)’ should appear instead of the verb ‘to pay’. – Subsequent translations apply diverse solutions: кад танокъ пан дыцят нень минекь ’we forgive our payers’ (1821 Máté); нолтлитянокъ пантли цяс тень минекъ ’same meaning’ (1821 Lukács); ми не некъ пан ду мать нень простятанокъ ’same meaning’ (1889); стуфлесынек тенек апаронь теицять нень ’we forget the bad things others have done to us’ (1894); нолд тне тя но минек икеле чу мо сот не нень ’we forgive those who sinned before us’ (1993, 2006); нолд тне тя но ми ненек зыя нонь теи цят ненень ’we forgive those who have done harm to us’ (1996). – We can observe how the translations change from the concrete sense to a more abstract one. Some of the translators use paraphrases.

(36)илясовавта ● The phrase consists of two elements: the иля negative auxiliary and a suffixed form of совавтo.


(36a) иля ● This is the second person singular imperative form of the negative auxiliary (Gram ma tika 319; EK 194; Keresztes 1990: 50, 186).● Paas. iľa ’[отриц. глагол] / Vern.-Verb; kommt im Imper., Opt. u. Kon jun ktiv vor; wird auch objektivisch konjugiert’ (MdWb 451).● Present-day form: иля ’не (частица отриц. при повелительном наклоне-нии)’ (ERV 209); ’älä (kielt.)’ (ESS 56); ’ne (tiltószó imperativus egyes szám, 2. személyben)’ (EMSz 127).● Moksha equivalent: тят ’не (частица отри цат., употреблятся с глаго ла ми в по ве ли тель ном наклонении)’ (MRV 767).● The word is of Uralic origin, cf. U e ~ ä (UEW 68).

(36b) совавта● This is the second person singular imperative of the совавтo verbal root, accompanied by the иля auxiliary to form a negation (Gram ma tika 319; EK 188; Keresztes 1990: 50). This word is the causative form of the сова ’to go/come in’ verb with the вт suffix at the end.● Occurrence in early written records: сован ’вхожу’ (Dam 52, 65), ’до сту-паю’ (Dam 87), совавтлемкс ’вносить’ (Dam 55).● Paas. sovavtoms ’заставлять входить, вносить, вводить, приносить / ein treten lassen, herein brin gen, hereinführen, bringen’ (MdWb 2020).● Present-day form: совавтoмс ’ввести; принести, занести; подвести’ (ERV 596); ’viedä sisään’ (ESS 154); ’bevezet, behoz, bevisz’ (EMSz 336).● Moksha equivalent: сувафтoмс ’внести; занести’ (MRV 677); ’vie dä / mah duttaa si säl le’ (MSS 173).● The word was internally formed. The original root was probably of Uralic origin. cf. U soáe- ’hineingehen, eindringen’ (UEW 446; Keresztes 1986: 147; Versh 407). ● Recent translations replace the verb совавтo- with нолда- ‘to let’, cf. илямизь нолда ’do not let us’ (1993, 1996, 2006).

(38)кодамоякъ● It is a negative (in affirmative sentences, indefinite) pronoun, formed from the кодамо interrogative-relative pronoun with the help of the якъ particle (Gram ma ti ka 261–262; EK 133– 134; Keresz tes 1990: 65). See Entry 11b for the particle якъ.● Occurrence in early written records: кодамо ’какой, каковый’ (Dam 115); кодамояк ’ка ков нибудь’ (Dam 115).● Paas. кодамо ’какой, который / was für ein, welcher [interr. u. rel.]’ (MdWb 805).● Present-day form: ко дамо ’какой (вопросит., вос кли цат., относит.)’ (ERV 274); ’minkälainen, millainen’ (ESS 71); ’milyen; me lyik; amilyen’ (EMSz 169);


кодамояк ’какой-нибудь, какой-либо (неопред.)’; ’ни ка кой (от риц.)’ (ERV 274); ’minkäänlainen’ (ESS 71); ’valamilyen; tagadó mon datban: semmilyen’ (EMSz 169). (Double negation is a phenomenon observable in Mordvin as well.)● Moksha equivalent: кодама ’какой’ (MRV 265); ’millainen’ (MSS 73).● The root of the pronoun can be traced back to the Uralic protolanguage, cf. U ku (~ ko) ’we, welcher, ?was’ (see Entry 3).

(39) бѣдасъ ● It is the illative (с suffixed) form of the noun бѣда (Grammatika 170–172; EK 85–86; Ke resz tes 1990: 74). ● Occurrence in early written records: бeда ’бѣда’ (Dam 327).● Paas. beda ’бeда / Not, Unglück’ (MdWb 122).● Present-day form: бeда ’бeда’ (ERV 77); ’onnettomuus, hätä, pula’ (ESS 15); ’baj, ínség, nyomorú ság, szerencsétlenség’ (EMSz 56). ● Moksha equivalent: бeда ’бeда, несчастье, горе’ (MRV 59).● The word is of Russian origin, cf. бeда ’trouble, misery, need’.● In the Russian text, a word meaning ‘temptation’ is used (и не введи нас в искушение), and a less exact synonym of this, the noun беда was included in earlier Mordvin translations. The most recent versions replaced this with Mordvin phrases: илямизь нолда вар чав товомас (1993), иля мизь нолда минек теряв товомас (1996), иля мизь нолда снартнемасвар чав т не мас (2006). These new expressions are typical products of neologistic tendencies: the only source they can be found in this form with this meaning is translations of the Bible, cf. варчавтовома,вар чав т нема (< вар чамс ’to try (out), to put to test’), снартнема (< снартомс ’to try, to attempt’), терявтовома (< теряв томс ’to try (out), to have a try’). All the three versions of the passage mean the following: ‘do not let us go into ordeals’ (Fá bián 2004: 57; 2005: 29–31; cf. furthermore Ke resz tes 2009: 57).

(40) но ● This is a conjunction (Grammatika 393; EK 256). ● Occurrence in early written records: но ’но’ (Dam 170).● Present-day form: но ’но’ (ERV 413); ’mutta’ (ESS 103); ’de, hanem’ (EMSz 246).● Moksha equivalent: но ’но’ (MRV 415); ’mutta, vaan’ (MSS 122).● The word is of Russian origin, cf. но ’but’.

(41)ваномискъ● This is the second person singular objective imperative form of the verb вано- (complemented with an object indicating first person plural) (Gramma-tika 312; EK 180; Keresztes 1990: 48). The literary standard suffix -мизь is replaced here with the dialectal -миск.


● Occurrence in early written records: ваномс ’караулить’ (Dam 117), ’хра-нить’ (Dam 156).● Paas. vanoms ’смотреть, осматривать; ухаживать; охранять; защишать, обе-регать; спасать / schauen, betrachten, besehen, zusehen; pflegen; erz ie hen; hüten; bewahren, beschützen, be schir men; retten’ (MdWb 2534).● Present-day form: ваномс ’смотреть; осматривать; знакомиться; пасти; за бо тить ся’ (ERV 106); ’kat soa; vahtia’ (ESS 24); ’(meg)néz; (meg)őriz’ (EMSz 71).● Moksha equivalent: ваномс ’смотреть; ознакомиться’ (MRV 89); ’kat soa; vahtia, vartioida; pai mentaa’ (MSS 27).● The word may be of Finno-Volgaic origin: FV wan3- ’sehen, schauen’ (UEW 813; Versh 40).● Some of the later translations replaced the verb ‘guard’ with идимизь (1882, 1889, 1894) and мень стя мизь (1993, 1996, 2006). The word идeмс ’спасти, выручить; внести выкуп; оправдать(ся)’ (ERV 203); ’pelastaa, vapauttaa’ (ESS 55); ’megment, kiment’ (EMSz 124) is of unknown origin (Versh 82). The verb мен стe мс ~ мен стя мс ’освободить, выпустить на волю; упустить; пропустить’ (ERV 377); ’ir rottaa; vapauttaa, päästää’ (ESS 93); ’kiszabadít, meg sza ba dít; szabadon bocsát; kihagy’ (EMSz 227) originates from the Finno-Ugric мен e мс, meaning the same thing (UEW 268; Versh 246).

(42)шайтянсто ● It is the elative form of the noun шайтян; the word-final сто is the elative case ending. For different functions of the elative, see Entry 26 (Gram ma tika 170; EK 85; Keresztes 1990: 74). ● Occurrence in early written records: шайтaнъ (Müller 83).● Paas. šajťan ’чёрт / böser Geist, Teufel’ (MdWb 2211).● Present-day form: шайтян ’шайтан, чёрт’ (ERV 759); ’piru, perkele’ (ESS 194); ’sátán, ördög’ (EMSz 439).● Currently available dictionaries do not contain a Moksha equivalent of the word.● The word is a Tatar loan, cf. šajtan; cf. furthermore Chuvash šojtan (MdWb 2212). It was adopted into Russian as well: шайтан ’Shaytan (the name of the Devil in the Muslim world)’.● In later translations, names for the Evil One are the most varied of all ex-pressions. The 19th century texts use other Tatar origin words: берянь ’плохой; дур ной; худой; вет хый’ (ERV 80); ’huono, pa ha; laiha’ (ESS 16); ’rossz, hit vány; vézna’ (EMSz 57) and душман ’враг, противник; злой’ (ERV 177); ’vihollinen, vihamies; noita’ (ESS 47); ’dusmán, go nosz te vő, el lenség; gonosz’ (EMSz 108). In the 1993 Children’s Bible, these are replaced with зыянов ’вредный; разрушительный’ (ERV 199); ’ilkeä, pahanilkinen; huo no, va hin-


gol linen, turmiollinen (ESS 54); ’bajos, káros, ártalmas, hát rá nyos’ (EMSz 121), which was internally formed, but also from a Tatar base word. The most recent translations (1996, 2006) can be considered “the most Mordvin”, as they use the Апаро expression, cf. апарo ’неприятность; беда, не счастье; плохой; страш ный; не прият ный’ (ERV 53); ’paha, huono’ (ESS 8); ’kellemetlenség, baj; rossz, kel le met len’ (EMSz 43) < a- negative prefix + парo ’good’. Both elements are ancient: the first part is of Uralic origin, the second part is Finno-Permic (UEW 68, 724; Versh 333).

3.4. Conclusion

a) Etymological distribution of the vocabularyThe text contains 29 lexemes (if compound constituents are considered as separate elements, and words deriving from a common root are counted to-gether). Of these, the following are of ancient origin (the data is given with the present-day spelling):aзоро ’lord’ < FU azɣrз

вано- ’to guard, to watch’< ? FV wanз-иля negative auxiliary < U e ~ ä ~ a инe ’great’ < PU enä истя ’so, as’ < U e- кадo- ’to let’ < U kaδ'a- кирдима ’reign, governing’< FV kärte-ко- (кона, кода, кодаяк, кодамояк) nominal root < U ku- (~ ko-)кши ’bread’< FV kürsäланксо ’on’ < ??FVлям ’name’ < U nimeмeнель ’heaven’ < FU mińз

минь (минек, миненек) ’we’ < U mɣ̈са- ’to come’ < FP (U?) saɣe-совавтo- ’to lead to’ < U soƞe-

тонь ’you’ < U tɣ̈ту- ’to bring’ < U toɣeуле- ’to be’ < FU wole-чи ’day’ < FU kečäэря- ’to live’ < U elä-

Internally formed: пандлe ’to pay’ (< пандо), совавтo ’to lead to’ (< сова < U soƞe), ?тятя ’father’.Tatar loans: шайтян ’devil’, ?эрь ’every’.


Russian loans: бѣда ’trouble’, но ’but’, оля ’will’, святой ’hallowed, holy’.Of unknown origin: масторъ ’kingdom, country’, пандо ’to pay’.

Similarly to other written records that have been studied, the ratio of ancient and internally formed lexemes is high: almost as many as three-quarters of all the words in the text belongs to this oldest layer of vocabulary. Although Mordvin literacy was in its infancy in this period, the ratio of Russian loans is not high: only four of the lexemes can be grouped here.

b) Erzya or Moksha?Decision about which of the two dialects the text was written in is guided by lexical and grammatical criteria. Not all of the 29 lexemes help, however, to answer the question, because of the following reasons:

a) the forms of the word are identical in the two dialects: E and M4 вано ’to watch, to guard’, кадо ’to let’, кода ’so, as’, кона ’who’, кши ’bread’, мастор ’country, kingdom’, минь ’we’, пандо ’to pay’, са ’to come’, ту ’to bring’, эря- ’to live’; бeда ’trouble’, но ’but’, святой ’hallowed, holy’;

b) the Moksha variant differs only in the word-final reduced vowel (the tran-scription of which was not consequent in early texts), or in spelling: E кодамо ~ M кодама ’what kind of’, ланксо ~лангса ’on’, со вавтo ~ сувафтo ’to lead to’;

c) the word pair (or its transcription) only differs in the /e/ and /ä/ sounds (which is not a relevant difference either, as there are Erzya dialects that use the /ä/ sound): E (18th century) лям, present-day: лем, M лем; E (18th century) мянель, present-day: менель, M менель.On the other hand:

d) the text contains two lexemes that are characteristic only of Erzya: E инязоро ~ M оця зор ’lord’, E эрь чистэ ~ M эрь шиня ’every day’;

e) the suffixed forms of the pronouns are also telling: the genitive-accusative form of минь ’we’ is минек in Erzya, while it is минь in Moksha; similarly, the dative is ми нe нек in Erzya, while мин дeй нeк in Moksha;

f) decisive evidence in the issue is – the second person singular form of the possessive declension: E ляметь

’name-Px2Sg’ ~ M лямеце (Entry 9);– the third person singular optative form of the verb са-: E сазо ~ M сазa

(Entry 11);– the second person singular imperative form of the negative auxiliary: E

иля ~ M тят (Entry 36);– and the suffixed form of the verb ванo-: E ваномискь, stand. ваномизь

~ M ва но масть (Entry 41).

4 E = Erzya, M = Moksha.


Based on the above listed data, it can be unambiguously posited that the studied translation of the Lord’s Prayer was written in the Erzya dialect. (Even if the word улеза seems to be a Moksha form.)

c) Which of the Erzya dialects?We have little data to rely on for the answering of this question (as opposed to, for example, the first written record from 1767, in the case of which, the voľ/veľ form of the first person plural conjunctive, the śť genitive of the objective declension, the form of the first person plural conjunctive, the -mo in fi native and the use of -tano Vx1Pl, and the preservation of the word-initial kš sound combination help to narrow down the range of possible subdialects to members of the north-western dialectal group spoken north to Lukoyanov).

The current text contains as few as three dialectal features:a) The text was written in an Erzya dialect that used the /ä/ sound – this

information does not have much value from the aspect of localization, because most of the Erzya dialects use this sound.

b) The first person plural verbal case ending is ťanok instead of the present-day literary standard ťano.

c) The text uses the -misk verbal suffix instead of miź – a suffix used in many different areas.

Jermushkin (1984: 9–27) grouped Erzya dialects into five main categories (1. central, 2. southern, 3. north-western, 4. south-western, 5. south-eastern). Ke resz tes (1990: 16–17) added the Mordvin dialects of Tatary, Bashkiria and areas beyond the Volga to these, under the name of the eastern dialectal group. Feoktistov (1990) took up the Soksa dialect in addition to the first four groups.

The verbal suffix tanok/ťanok occurs in the first and third dialect types. According to Jermushkin’s (1984: 129) observation, dialects of the first type use mainly the tano/ťano variant, while the third group prefers tanok/ťanok (together with the -tnak variant). This variant is used in Tatary and Chuvashia as well. On the basis of this, the second dialect type can be excluded, since in those dialects, the tam/ťam case endig is used (Jermushkin 1984: 14).

In the fourth type, the second person singular possessive suffix has only got a hard (non-palatalized) variant (-t). The translation of the Lord’s Prayer I studied contains a ляметь [ľämeť] form, therefore this dialect type can be excluded as well.

In the third dialect type, the first person plural possessive case ending ap-pears in the -nok form (only one subgroup uses the -mok variant). In the same dialect, the second person singular of the objective declension that refers to a first person plural object takes the miź form (Jermushkin 1967: 129), and also, the word-final ń consonant of the dative is deleted (Jermushkin 1965: 418). As a result, the third dialect type is also out of question.


On the basis of all this, it may prudently be established that the written record under study was written in the first (central) dialect type. The reason for which we cannot assert this with complete certainty is that the lexemes of the text differing from present-day literary standard forms do not constitute decisive evidence from the point of dialectal localization. One more argument in favour of the central dialectal type, however, is the lack of forms showing strongly marked dialectal features, for the present-day literary standard has developed from this dialectal group.

ReferencesAlhoniemi, Alho – Nina Agofonova – Mihail Mo sin 2000: Suomalais–er sä läi

nen sa nakirja. Фин нэнь–эрзянь валкс. Saransk: Red October.Aljamkin, N. S. [Алямкин, Н. С. (ред.)] 2000: Мокшень кяль. Морфология.

Саранск: Красный Ок тябрь ти по гра фиясь.Bartens, Raija 1999: Mordvalaiskielten rakenne ja kehitys. Mémoires de la

Société Finno-Ougrienne 232. Helsinki: Suo malais-Ugrilainen Seura.Bereczki, Gábor 1988: Geschichte der wolgafinnischen Sprachen. In Sinor, Denis

(ed.): The Uralic languages. De scription, history and foreign in fluences. Leiden – New York – Kø ben havn – Köln: Brill. 314–350.

Cygankin, D. V. (ed.) [Цыганкин, Д. В. (ред.)] 1980: Грамматика мордовских язы ков. Саранск: Мор дов ский государственный университет.

Cygankin, D. V. [Цыганкин, Д. В.] 1981: Словообразование в мордовских языках. Мор довский государственный университет им. Саранск: Огарева.

Cyankin, D. V. – M. V. Mosin [Цыганкин, Д. В. – М. В. Мосин] 1998: Этимо ло ги янь валкс. Саранск: Мордовской книжной изда тельст вась.

Cygankin, D. V. [Цыганкин, Д. В. (отв. ред.)] 2000: Эрзянь кель. Морфология. Саранск: Крас ный Ок тябрь.

Dam = Словарь языков разных народов в Нижегородской эпархии обы-та ю щих, именно россиян, татар, чувашей, мордвы и черемис … под при смотром Да мас ки на епископа Нижегородского и Алатoрского со -чиненный 1785-го года = А. П. Феок тистов: Русско–мордовский сло варь. Наука, Москва, 1971.

Ermushkin, G. I. [Ермушкин, Г. И.] 1965: Характеристика северо-западных го во ров эрзя-мордовского языка в связы с историей их носителей. In Эт но генез мордовского народа. Са ранск: Мордовскоe книжноe издательствo. 414–424.

Ermushkin, G. I. [Ермушкин, Г. И.] 1967: Имя существительное и глагол в се-ве ро-за падных го во рaх эрзя-мордовского языка. Вопросы мордов ско го язы к ознания. Труды, вып. 32. 104–143.


Ermushkin, G. I. [Ермушкин, Г. И.] 1984: Ареальные исследования по восточ ным финноугорским языкам (эрзя-мордовский язык). Моск ва: Наука.

Fábián Orsolya 2003: A mordvin bibliafordítás terminológiájáról. Folia Ura-li ca Debreceniensia 10. 91–102.

Fábián Orsolya 2004: A „kísértés” terminológiájának kérdései néhány finn ugor nyelvben. Folia Uralica Debreceniensia 11. 53–64.

Fábián Orsolya 2005: Вопросы терминологии искушения в не ко то рых фин-но-угорских язы ках. Folia Uralica Debreceniensia 12. 23–32.

Feoktistov, A. P. [Феоктистов, А. П.] 1963: Мордовские языки и диалекты в ис торико-этнографической литературе XVII–XVIII. вв. In Очерки мор довскых диалектов II. Са ранск: Мордовское книжное издательство. 3–36.

Feoktistov, A. P. [Феоктистов, А. П.] 1968a: Истоки мордовской письменнос ти. Москва: Нау ка.

Feoktistov, A. P. [Феоктистов, А. П.] 1968b: Первые текстовые записи на мор дов ских языках. In Congressus Internationalis FennoUgristarum -2/1. 106–114.

Feoktistov, A. P. [Феоктистов, А. П.] 1971: Русско–мордовский словарь. Из ис тории отечественной лексикографии. Моск ва: Наука.

Feoktistov, A. P. [Феоктистов, А. П.] 1975: „Linguarum totius orbis vocabularia com parativa” в его мордовской части. In Finno-ugristica 1. Tartu. 117–127.

Feoktistov, A. P. [Феоктистов, А. П.] 1976: Очерки по истории формирования мор довскых письменнолитературных языков. Москва: Наука.

Feoktistov, A. P. [Феоктистов, А. П.] 1990: Диалекты mордовских языков. In MdWb LX–LXXXVI.

Feoktistov, Aleksandr – Sirkka Saarinen 2005: Mokshamordvan murteet. Suo-malais-Ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia 249. Helsinki.

Fischer, Johann Eberhard 1747/1995: Vocabularium Sibiricum (1747). Der ety-mologisch-ver gleichende Anteil. Bearbeitet und her ausgege ben von Já nos Gulya. Frankfurt am Main etc. Opuscula Fenno-Ugrica Got tin gen sia VII.

Gulya, János 1983: XVIII. századi etimológiák. Mutatvány J. E. Fischer „Vo-ca bularium Sibiricum”-ának készülő kiadványából. In Uralisztikai Ta nul-má nyok 1. 163–171.

Herrala, Eeva – Aleksandr Feoktistov 1998: Mokšalais–suomalainen sa na kirja. Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen jul kai su ja 58. Turku.

Itkonen, Erkki – Ulla-Maija Kulonen (toim.) 1992–2000: Suomen sanojen alku-perä. Ety mologinen sanakirja. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kir jal lisuuden Seura

Joki, Aulis 1973: Uralier und Indogermanen. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 151. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.


Keresztes, László 1986: Geschichte des mordwinischen Konsonantismus II. Etymologisches Belegmaterial. Stu dia Uralo-Altaica 26. Szeged.

Keresztes, László 1990: Chrestomathia Morduinica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.Keresztes, László 2009: A finnugor népek irodalmi nyelvének kérdései az újabb

bibliafordítások tükrében. Folia Ura lica Debre ce nien sia 16. 57–89. Lepechin, I. I. [Лепёхин, И. И.]: Дневныe записки путешествия доктора и

Ака де мии наук адъюнкта Ивана Ле пё хина по разным провинциям Рос-сий ского государства. Санкт-Петербург, 1771–1805. http://www.runivers. ru/upload/ iblock/9be/Lepehin_ch1.pdf

Maticsák, Sándor 2005a: Az agglutinációval keletkezett mordvin képzőkről. Nyel v tu do má nyi Köz lemények 102. 7–34.

Maticsák, Sándor 2005b: A képzővé válás kora a mordvinban. Folia Ura lica Deb re ce nien sia 12. 69–86.

Maticsák, Sándor 2006: Vándorló napok. A hét napjainak megnevezése az euró pai nyelvekben. Debrecen.

Maticsák, Sándor 2011: A mordvin írásbeliség kezdetei: a XVII–XVIII. szá zad nyelvemlékei. Folia Ura lica Debre ce nien sia 18. 117–142.

Maticsák, Sándor 2012: Az első mordvin szövegemlék elemzése. Folia Ura lica Debreceniensia 19. 125–146.

MdWb = H. Paasonens Mordwinisches Wörterbuch. Zusammengestellt von K. Heikkilä. Be ar beitet und herausgegeben von Martti Kahla. I. (A–J) 1990, II. (K–M) 1992, III. (N–Ŕ) 1994, IV. (S-Ž) 1996. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ug-ri lai nen Seura.

Messerschmidt, Daniel Gottlieb 1962–1977: Specimen der Zahlen und Spra che Einiger Orien ta li schen und Siberischen Völker. Berlin.

Mészáros, Edit – Raisza Sirmankina 1999: Erzamordvin–magyar szótár. Studia Uralo-Altaica. Supplementum 8. Szeged.

Mikola, Tibor 1975: N. Witsens Berichte über die uralischen Völker. Aus dem Nie-derländischen ins Deutsche übersetzt von Tibor Mikola (Mit einem An hang). Studia Uralo-Altaica VII. Szeged.

Munkácsi, Bernát 1882: Az ugor összehasonlító nyelvészet és Budenz szó tá-ra. Magyar Nyelvőr 11. 241–255, 289–296, 342–350, 385–393, 433–445, 481–486, 531–541.

Müller, Gerhard Friedrich [Миллер, Г. Ф.] 1791: Описания живущих в Казанской губернии языческих народов. Санкт-Петербург. http:// international.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage? collId=mtfxtx&fileName=txg/g331929031//mtfx-txg331929031.db&recNum=93&itemLink =r%3Fintldl%2Fmtfront%3A@field%28NUMBER%2B@od1%28mtfxtx%2Bg331929031% 29%29&link-Text=0

Niemi, Jaana – Mihail Mosin 1995: Ersäläis–suomalainen sanakirja. Turun yli opis ton suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 48, Tur ku.


Paasonen, Heikki 1897: Die türkische Lehnwörter im Mordwinischen. Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 15/3.

Pallas, Peter Si mon 1786–1787: Linguarum totius orbis vocabularia com-parativa. Срав нительные словари всех языков и наречий. Санкт-Петербург. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index. php?title=File:Linguarum_ toti-us_orbis_1.pdf és …_2.pdf

Rédei, Károly 1983: Die ältesten indogermanischen Lehnwörter der ura li schen Sprachen. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 185. 201–233.

Rédei, Károly (ed.) 1986–1988: Uralisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bu-da pest: Aka dé miai Kiadó.

Ryčkov, P. I. [Рычков, П. И.] 1762: Топография Оренбургская, то есть обстоя тель ное описание Орен бургской гу бер нии, сочиненное кол лежским со вет ником и императорской Ака де мии наук кор рес пондентом Петром Рыч ковым. Санкт-Петербург. http://epr.iphil.ru/faily-publikacii/ Rychkov_1762.pdf

Serebrennikov, B. A. – R. N. Byzakova – M. V. Mosin [Серебренников, Б. А. – Р. Н. Бу за кова – М. В. Мосин] 1993: Эрзянь–ру зонь валкс. Эрзянско–русский словарь. Моск ва: Русский язык, Дигора.

Serebrennikov, B. A. – A. P. Feoktistov – O. E. Poljakov [Серебренников, Б. А. – А. П. Феоктистов – О. Е. Поляков] 1998: Мок шень–ру зонь валкс. Мокшанско–русс кий сло варь. Москва: Русский язык, Дигора.

Strahlen berg, Philipp Johann 1730: Das Nord- und Ostliche Theil von Euro pa und Asia. Stockholm. http://books.google.hu/books/about/Das_Nord_und_Ostliche_Theil_von_ Europa _u.html?id=EPMOAAAAQ AAJ&redir_esc=y (= Studia Uralo-Altaica 8. [1975]).

Veršinin, V. I. [Вершинин, В. И.] 2004–2011: Этимологический словарь мордовских (эрзян ско го и мок шанского) языков. Йош кар-Ола: Стринг.

Witsen, Nicolaes 1692: Noord en Oost Tar tarye, ofte bondigh ont werp van eenige dier landen, en volken, zo als voormaels be kent zyn geweest. Am s terdam.

Zaicz, Gábor 1997: Johann Eberhard Fischer: Vocabularium Sibiricum (1747). Der etymologisch-vergleichende Anteil. Folia Uralica Deb re ce niensia 4. 224–227.

Zsirai, Miklós 1994: Finnugor rokonságunk. Az uráli nyelv ro ko naink kal kap-cso latos legújabb ismeret- és forrásanyag rövid összegzésével köz re adja Zaicz Gábor. [2. kiadás.] Budapest: Trezor Kiadó.

Mordvin translations of the Lord’s Prayer1–2) Гос подань минекъ Iисусань Святой Евангелья, Матфей, Мар ко, Лука

ианнъ пель дестъ. Сёрмадозь эрзянь келсэ. Пецятазь яр макъ велга Рос -сiянь Биб лей ско ень Промк сонь. Петербургсэ. Тi по гра фiа со Нi ко лаень Гречань 1821 iень.


3) Dalton, H. 1870: Das Gebet des Herrn in den Sprachen Russlands. Buch-drucke rei der kai ser li chen Akademie der Wissenschaften, St. Pe ters burg.

4) Németh Zsigmond 1990: 96 gleiche Texte in uralischen Sprachen (Vater un-ser). Az Uralisztikai Tanszék kiadványai 3. Szombathely.

5) Святое Евангелiе Господа нашего Iисуса Христа отъ Луки, На Эрзян-скомъ наречiи Мор дов скаго языка, изданiе Православнаго Мис сiо нер -скаго Общества. Казань, 1889.

6) Букварь для Мордвы-эрзи. 2-е изданіе Православного Мис сіио нер ского Об щест ва. Типо-Ли тографіия Императорского Уни вер си тета, Ка зань, 1894.

7) Библиянь ловномат. (Детская Библия на эрзя-мор д вин ском языке.) Биб-лиянь ютавтомань инс титутось. Сток гольма–Хель син ки 1993. Transl. Н. С. Адушкина, В. С. Щемерова, Д. Т. Надь кин.

8) Лукань коряс Евангелиясь ды Апос то лет нэнь тевест. Библиянь ютав то-мань инс титутось. Сток гольма–Хельсинки, 1996. Transl. Г. И. Батков, Г. С. Девят кин, Д. Т. Надькин. Ed. Н. С. Адуш к ина, Т. С. Баргова, Г. И. Гор бунов.

9) Од Вейсеньлув. Биб лиянь ютав то мань институтось. Хельсинки–Са-ранск, 2006.


Documents

Sándor Maticsák (Debrecen)finnugor.arts.unideb.hu/adatok/maticsak/pdf/026-FirstMo...It was about this time when Feodor Beljajev, a student of rhetoric from the Kazan academy completed