Sind der „Relativisator“ то und die Syntax anderer Enklitika als klare Beweise für die Authentizität des Igorlieds zu werten?
Are the "relativizer" to and the syntax of other enclitics to be considered clear evidence of the authenticity of the Igor's tale?

Summary/Abstract: According to Andrej Anatol´evič Zaliznjak, the evidence for the particle to as a “relativizator”, as it is encountered in Old East Slavic texts and in particular in the Novgorod birch bark documents merely up to the first half of the 13th century, can be used as a more or less irrefutable argument for the authenticity of the Igor’s tale, where it appears once in connection with kotoryj. As linguistic knowledge about the usage of to as a “relativizator” in East Slavic has been acquired only recently, no falsificator would have allegedly been able to use kotoryj to perfectly in accordance with pre-1250 Old East Slavic syntax. A comparative view, however, as it was once initiated, but then abandoned by Zaliznjak (1981) himself, demonstrates that to as an enforcing particle and also to as a “relativizator” in particular has been widely used in other Slavonic languages. Który to as such is known to Old, Middle and Modern Polish, as well as to Middle Ruthenian. Therefore, those who believe that there are polonisms in the Igor’s tale, which prove it to be a falsification, could also use the evidence of kotoryj to in the Igor’s tale as an argument for their own purposes. The significance of the “relativizator” to, thus, seems to be limited. Analogically, the same holds true for some other syntactic arguments put forward by the Moscow linguist in his latest book, namely as regards the enclitic elements in the Igor’s tale.

• Details
• Contents