All Slavic Languages: Sky

buntovnik

New Member
Bulgarian
Hello,

I'm just curious to know the word for 'sky' in all the Slavic languages. It would be nice if you could also indicate where the stress lies in the word.

Thank you.
 
  • Azori

    Senior Member
    Slovak:

    obloha, nebo

    The word obloha is perhaps more common (at least in spoken language). Nebo can also mean "heaven" - in a religious sense. The stress is on the first syllable in both words.

    Czech:

    obloha, nebe
     

    bigic

    Member
    Serbian (Serbia, Ekavian)
    In Serbian it's same as in Ukrainian and Russian, but the accent on the word "nebesa" is on the second syllable. And the most used word for heaven in common speech is "raj".
     

    Ben Jamin

    Senior Member
    Polish
    In Serbian it's same as in Ukrainian and Russian, but the accent on the word "nebesa" is on the second syllable. And the most used word for heaven in common speech is "raj".
    In Polish raj means Paradise.
    Raj and niebo are often used interchangeably.
    Niebiosa, however, is used only in poetic language, and then in the meaning of sky, not heaven.
     

    marco_2

    Senior Member
    Polish
    Niebiosa, however, is used only in poetic language, and then in the meaning of sky, not heaven.

    In some archaized texts (mostly with religious contents) you can come across the form w niebiesiech in the meaning of heaven (e.g. Radość w niebiesiech z jednego nawróconego grzesznika), but it is of course not very common.
     

    nimak

    Senior Member
    Macedonian
    Macedonian

    • небо (nebo) ['nɛbɔ] neut.; plural: неба (neba) ['nɛba]
    • небеса (nebesa) ['nɛbɛsa] pl., archaic
     
    Last edited:

    rushalaim

    Senior Member
    русский
    Technically is, but other than in planetology the plural of небо has little chance to occur, hence this semantic development. Небеса means "heaven" already in the ealiest Slavic texts, e. g. Old Church Slavonic "Pater noster": Otьče našь, jьže jesi na nebesьxъ… (The same in Greek: Lord's Prayer - Wikipedia).
    Apparently, Bulgarian (Church-Slavic) [nebesa] is dual not plural! Perhaps, Bulgarian Christians imitating Hebrew dual שמים "sky"
     

    Awwal12

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Apparently, Bulgarian (Church-Slavic) [nebesa] is dual not plural! Perhaps, Bulgarian Christians imitating Hebrew dual שמים "sky"
    1. שמים is considered plural, not dual.
    2. I have no idea why it seems "apparent" to you, but the nominative dual form of *nebo is *nebesi ("nebesě" in OCS).
    3. OCS here apparently calques Greek ("Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς...") which in turn apparently calques Aramaic/Hebrew (שמים/שמיא). No duals anywhere, though.
     
    Last edited:

    rushalaim

    Senior Member
    русский
    1. שמים is considered plural, not dual.
    2. I have no idea why it seems "apparent" to you, but the nominative dual form of *nebo is *nebesi ("nebesě" in OCS).
    3. OCS here apparently calques Greek ("Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς...") which in turn apparently calques Aramaic/Hebrew (שמים/שמיא). No duals anywhere, though.
    1. Hebrew שמים [shamayim] is definitely dual not plural! Otherwise, it would be pronounced like [shamim] (though, in construct it is pronounced like plural [shamei]). Those dual are: שנים שתים מים שמים
    2. Russian [nebo] is [нёбо] "palate" indeed.
    3. Genesis 1.8 writes that the sky is [твердь] "firmament", and Greek ουρανοσ "sky" is singular. So, apparently Greek "Pater Noster" was taken from original Aramaic where "sky" is always plural אבון דבשמיא and never dual.
     

    Awwal12

    Senior Member
    Russian
    1. Hebrew שמים [shamayim] is definitely dual not plural! Otherwise, it would be pronounced like [shamim]
    Except there is no "*sham" in the meaning "sky". The proto-Semitic singular reconstruction is "shama:y" (cf. Standard Arabic "sama:ʔ"). Hence the plural Hebrew "shama:yim".
    So, apparently Greek "Pater Noster" was taken from original Aramaic
    It must have been, considering that Christ preached in Aramaic (or chiefly in Aramaic) but Evangelions were already written in Greek from the start. While Greek here generally calques Aramaic in "Pater Noster" only (as far as I can tell), in OCS this usage gets spreaded. Obviously, OCS cannot calque Aramaic or Hebrew directly; all the early Biblical translations fully rely on the Greek texts (for instance, all the proper names reflect Byzantine Greek pronunciation, while OCS would be able to provide much better approximations in many cases).
     
    Last edited:

    rushalaim

    Senior Member
    русский
    Except there is no "*sham" in the meaning "sky". The proto-Semitic singular reconstruction is "shama:y" (cf. Standard Arabic "sama:ʔ"). Hence the plural Hebrew "shama:yim".
    It must have been, considering that Christ preached in Aramaic (or chiefly in Aramaic) but Evangelions were already written in Greek from the start. While Greek here generally calques Aramaic in "Pater Noster" only (as far as I can tell), in OCS this usage gets spreaded. Obviously, OCS cannot calque Aramaic or Hebrew directly; all the early Biblical translations fully rely on the Greek texts (for instance, all the proper names reflect Byzantine Greek pronunciation, while OCS would be able to provide much better approximations in many cases).
    1. There was not any "Proto-Semitic". Proto-Semitic is just scientists' assumption.
    2. Gospels are full of Aramaic not Hebrew
    Language of Jesus - Wikipedia
    Bible translations rely on Latin version not Greek. Latin translation is based on later Rabbinic Hebrew version than earlier Greek. The same Bulgarian (Church-Slavic) rely on Latin not Greek. Bulgarian (Church-Slavic) took ц, ш, щ letters from Hebrew alphabet directly.
    3. Maybe, that's why Hebrew שמים and מים are dual, because of Genesis text writes about waters as a pair (Genesis 1.6-8) "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day".
     

    Awwal12

    Senior Member
    Russian
    There was not any "Proto-Semitic". Proto-Semitic is just scientists' assumption.
    "Reconstruction" is not "assumption". The fact that Semitic languages are related (and related to each other much closer than to any other language) means that they all unavoidably go back to some single proto-language. Even though our reconstructions aren't necessarily identical to the proto-languages which actually existed and do not describe those languages in their entirety, with a sufficient amount of data the accuracy of our predictions can be very high.
    Bible translations rely on Latin version not Greek.
    Latin translations were made for the Western Roman Empire. In the East they were simply unnecessary, since most people spoke Greek anyway (which means they could read Septuagint as well as the original Gospel books) and very few spoke Latin. OCS translations are very obviously made from Greek from the start, not only reflecting Byzantine Greek (not Vulgar Latin) pronunciation, as I mentioned, but also attempting to represent all the Greek sounds which were absent in Old Bulgarian. Cf. OCS Ilia < Byz. Ilias (Ἡλίας) vs. Latin Elias; the Latin translation reflects earlier Greek pronunciation, while the Slavonic reflects the later, Byzantine one; cf. Polish Eliasz, which is loaned, indeed, from Latin.
     

    rushalaim

    Senior Member
    русский
    "Reconstruction" is not "assumption". The fact that Semitic languages are related (and related to each other much closer than to any other language) means that they all unavoidably go back to some single proto-language. Even though our reconstructions aren't necessarily identical to the proto-languages which actually existed and do not describe those languages in their entirety, with a sufficient amount of data the accuracy of our predictions can be very high.
    Latin translations were made for the Western Roman Empire. In the East they were simply unnecessary, since most people spoke Greek anyway (which means they could read Septuagint as well as the original Gospel books) and very few spoke Latin. OCS translations are very obviously made from Greek from the start, not only reflecting Byzantine Greek (not Vulgar Latin) pronunciation, as I mentioned, but also attempting to represent all the Greek sounds which were absent in Old Bulgarian. Cf. OCS Ilia < Byz. Ilias (Ἡλίας) vs. Latin Elias; the Latin translation reflects earlier Greek pronunciation, while the Slavonic reflects the later, Byzantine one; cf. Polish Eliasz, which is loaned, indeed, from Latin.
    1. Bulgarian (Church-Slavic) translation was rewritten according to Latin. If you'd compare, you'd notice that.
    2. Stating that there was any Proto-language is myth of modern scientists according to Bible myth about common language in Babylon.
     
    Top