UDC811.1(5:?.6';i67.63(091) Irena Orel
Faculty of Arts, Ljubljana
PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SLOVENIAN
LITERARY LANGUAGE
The article presents the basic formal and semantic changes in the usage of prepositional phrases in two books of four Slovenian biblical translations from the 16th century to the present. It deals separately with temporally marked usage of prepositional phrases and prepositional verbs and their alternating pairs in the 400-year span.
V prispevku so predstavljene temeljne izrazne in pomenske razvojne spremembe v rabi predložnih zvez v dveh knjigah štirih slovenskih svetopisemskih prevodov od 16. stoletja do danes. Posebej je opredeljena časovno zaznamovana raba predložnih zvez in predložnomorfemskih glagolov ter njihove izmenjavne dvojnice v štiristoletnem razvojnem loku.
Key words: phrasal system in Slovenian, historical morphosyntax, prepositional phrases, linguistic changes, biblical texts
Ključne besede: predložni sestav slovenskega jezika, zgodovinska oblikoskladnja, predložne zveze, jezikovne spremembe, biblijska besedila
0 Introduction
0.1.0 Based on the complete concordance extract of more than 13,000 prepositional phrases from two biblical books (the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament and the Book of Moses (Exodus) in the Old Testament) in four diachronic translations, i.e., Trubar's (1557) and Dalmatin's (1584) in the 16'h century, Japelj-Kumerdej's in the 18'h (1784, 1791), Wolf's edition in the middle of the 19th (1857-1859), and Zgodbe svetega pisma by F. Lampe at the end of the 19th century (1894-1895)), a typology of preservation and variation in the usage of prepositional phrases in the main literary language over a 400-year time span has been established.1
0.1.1 The prepositional phrase2 has a two-part structure. Prepositions form the nucleus. They are real or primary3, which form a finite multitude, a closed system of about twenty members, and unreal or secondary, originally adverbs without comple-
1	This research was conducted as a part of the author's doctoral dissertation entitled Predložni sistem v razvoju slovenskega knjižnega jezika od 16. do 19. stoletja (The Prepositional System in the Development of the Slovenian Literary Language from the 16th to the 19th century) (Ljubljana, 1993). The results were also published in two articles in Linguistica (Orel-Pogačnik 1995) and JiS (Orel-Pogačnik 1994/95).
2	J. Toporišič, in the section of his grammar concerned with types of word phrases and clauses, does not take prepositional phrases into consideration, but only nominal, adjectival and adverbial phrases, as well as verbal and predicative phrases (Toporišič 2000: 558), although in the part of morphology that deals with prepositions he does have a section entitled Pomen predložnih zvez (The Meaning of Prepositional Phrases) (2000: 416). V Enciklopediji pa ima iztočnico predložna zveza, uvaja pa tudi izraz predložna beseda za vse vrste predlogov (1992: 206). In Enciklopedia has for the various prepositions entry as prepositional phrase (1992: 206). He discusses the preposition in syntax (1982), i.e., in the framework of phrases in general.
3	They are derived from place adverbs and adverbial particles.
ments, which are the so-called adverbs in prepositional function or adverbial prepositions, homonyms with adverbs. From a functional-syntactic point of view the prepositional phrase is a prepositional-case form/phrase, which consists of a free deprepo-sitional morpheme of the verb (PMV)4 and an oblique-case form of the noun or its syntactic equivalent. In the prepositional phrase the preposition is usually followed by a noun in an oblique case as its adjunct5 (a noun and a personal pronoun equivalent)6, a nominal phrase (e.g., D po redu, po sredi morja, po vsej egiptovski deželi; per njemu/vas, pod se, po tebi inu po tvoimfolki),7 an adjective converted into a noun (D po suhim, po {irokim), an adjectival pronoun - usually a relative pronoun or a nomi-nalized form (po/per katerim; po vsem tem), rarely an adverb or an adverbial pronoun (od unod/tod/kdaj). Prepositions together with other parts of speech - their right-side semantic complements form variously structured prepositional phrases. In addition to simple nominal phrases (e.g., D pred gospuda, pred faraona), there are numerous complex nominal phrases, which are realized by various types of adjectival pronouns and numerals (to a lesser extent also real adjectives) functioning as premodifiers, and non-agreeing genitives as postmodifiers. Often they are extended with coordinate or subordinate clauses, or by means of juxtaposition. In biblical texts they further define the noun, or determine and (demonstratively, by way of classification, qualitatively ^) modify it with premodifiers and postmodifiers, which may form a clause. Especially in Trubar, less frequently in Dalmatin and Japelj, an indefinite or a definite article may occur before the noun - under the influence of the German model text and Slovenian spoken language (e.g., T uenim ~elnu, ven grob, za eno besedo; iz tiga vinograda, iz te vode, na te Rotauže inu ute {ule). The context related to descriptions of the objective world in the Second Book of Moses is also the accumulation of multi-word prepositional phrases with the same or different prepositions in coordinate, juxtapositional, subordinate and appositional relations (e.g., D pred vsim folkom; pred izraelsko vojsko; pred uto tiga pri~ovanja; pred tem folkom; pred davri ute tiga pri~ovanja; per svoje matere mleki; u' venim ognenim plameni iz srede garma; v tretjim mesci po izhodu Izraelskih otruk iz Egyptovske dežele; pred vzdihanjem inu britkostjo, inu pred te{kim delom; pred ta pert, kateri /^/; na petnajsti dan druziga Mesca, po tem ~asu, ker so oni bili iz Egiptovske dežele {li; (biti) v korbi, per davrih ute tiga pri~ovanja; (biti) u va{ih rodeh, per davrih ute tiga pri~ovanja, pred gospudom; (storiti) iz zlata,
4 Henceforth the free prepositional morpheme of the verb will be referred to as PMV.
5Compare L. Rizzi 1991: 507, R. Quirk etc. 1972: 299, H. Weinrich 1995: 612. Rizzi explains the prepositional phrase as a mediator between lexical (nouns, verbs, adjectives) and grammatical categories (complements, articles, etc.). Its inner structure is less complex compared to other phrases, which can have many complements and one or more specifier. In Quirk etc. the prepositional phrase is defined as a structure consisting of a preposition and a complement (1972: 299), and in the framework of the adverbials it is defined as a structure consisting of a nominal phrase with a superordinate preposition (1972: 44).
6	Only in Japelj is the complement to the preposition za an infinitive in the role of a noun used as a colloquial phrase (e.g., za piti, za cegle delat, za nosit), whereas Dalmatin did not use it in the Bible, perhaps also because of the prevailing meaning of intention with the preposition k/h, where the infinitive was replaced by a gerund (k pitju).
7	The examples are taken from the translations of the Second book of Moses by Dalmatin (D), Japelj (J), Wolf (W), and Lampe (L). See Sources.
iz gelih zid, iz skarlata, karmezina, inu iz sukanih belih zid; (stati) ondukaj pred tabo na eni skali v'Horebi,8 J On je tudi Jturil penkle is vijhnove shide na robi eniga perta na obeh plateh (2Mz 36,11)). The preposition, however, does not introduce a clause and does not have a conjunctive function in Slovenian even in older texts.
0.1.2 In all translations, temporal markedness can be observed in some adverbs of time when they are used as prepositional adverbial phrases - these adverbs of time are not yet single-word lexical items, but are written separately as nominal prepositional phrases consisting of a preposition and a temporal noun (e.g., po noči 'ponoči' (T-L), po dnevi/dnevu 'podnevi' (during the day), po zimi 'pozimi', na večer 'zvečer' (T, D, J), z'večer, u'večer (D), z'jutra 'zjutraj', only W zjutrej), and in some prepositional adverbs influenced by German, which are today replaced by a free accusative case: na taisti dan, na pervi dan (T, D, J) (SSP tisti dan, prvi dan).
0.2 Prepositions9 as uninflected, sinsemantic, grammatical or functional parts of speech are categorized as relators because only when connected to other parts of speech do they convey relations. Recently they have also been categorized as connectives,10 which are semantically defined in relation to the broader linguistic context. On the surface level they are treated within the field of morphosyntax because they convey relations between words and because of their connectedness to syntactic categories. On the deeper level one can observe their relative semantic independence, i.e., dependence. Within the prepositional phrase, the preposition has the role of a modifier or specifier of relations or a grammatical device for removing the functional homonimity of case forms within phrases with lexical parts of speech (content words), or it is treated like all other phrases in generative grammar. Sincretism of case forms dictated the use of prepositional cases (in Slovenian exclusively prepositional cases - locative and instrumental). The interchangeability of non-prepositional and prepositional cases is confirmed by the variation in government of some verbs (priblizati se k čemu/čemu, čakati na koga/koga, usmiliti se čez koga/koga etc.), but through the development the non-prepositional case usage has prevailed.
0.3 Prepositions, together with the case ending of the noun, constitute case morphemes, which define the case by way of complementation because they imply the case ending(s) (e.g., za časa, za čas, za časom). Prepositions as the auxiliary words
8	There are many instances where synonymous prepositional phrases can be considered either subordinate, dependent from one another, or complementary.
9	Prepositions have had their name since Antiquity because of their position in front of the nominal complement. The term was first introduced in Slovenian by Valentin Vodnik in his grammar of 1811, based on Russian terminology. Prior to that, Pohlin's term sprednja beseda (the front word) and Zagajsek's translation from German predbeseda (pred - in front; beseda - word) were used.
In the syntax of connectives (Junktion), H. Weinrich treats them as prepositional connectives (Präpo-sitional-Junktion) in his Text grammar of the German language (Weinrich 1993: 612-695). Weinrich divides connectives according to their base (Basis), which can be nominal, subject + copula and a verb, into three functions or determining types: attributive, predicative or applicable, which is also possible in adjuncts.
that enable the connection between a superordinate and a subordinate construction are indicators of syntactic relations between the two. They cannot be a syntactic part of the sentence themselves, but, instead, they express the relations between sentence elements, i.e., the oblique cases of nouns in relation to verbs, adjectives and nouns.
0.3.1 The basic role of prepositional phrases is that of adverbial complements as specifiers and modifiers with the typical sentence-element role of adverbials, which usually apply to the whole clause or the predicate; their place in the clause structure is arbitrary, governed only by principles of functional sentence perspective. As post modifiers they are optional because they only additionally define the predicate, the post modifying PMV can appear in a complement and has a structural-syntactic influence of a verb (@ele 2001: 82): e.g., J 2Mz: videti kri na durci, pisati zavezo na table, narediti/storiti kaj v čem/na čem/pod čim, etc.); or obligatory, when they occur as governed adverbial modifiers, without which the sentence would be ungrammatical e.g., a) with some verbs of state, position or residence, which need a place adjunct, for instance, živeti/prebivati v/na/pri kom ali čem, položiti/postaviti na/v/pod/pred/za/nad koga ali kaj, e.g., D položiti kruhe na mizo, J postaviti sotorje v'tim kraji Etham na zadnih pokrajnah te PuSave, stati na skali, ustaviti se na bregi te vode, zbrati se/sniti se k njemu,^^ etc.; b) with verbs of motion (iti, priti, peljati, voditi kam) - e.g., D je Ihäl tje k'ViJhim farjem (Mr 14,10); je mej Folkom od sadaj k'njemuprifhla (Mr 5,27); kadar je on od folka v'HiJho bil priJhäl (Mr 7,17), SSP kadar je od množice sel v hiSo; (pri)peljati v deželo; pasti na dno, plavati v mleku in medu, nesti v svoji roki etc.; c) with verbs where the prefix and the preposition of direction are the same12 (vstopiti v, izpeljati iz, vtakniti v, izvleči iz, odgnati od, odločiti od, odstopiti od, strgati iz, izsekan biti iz česa (J, in other translations it is antonymous v kaj (T), v čem (D)), sleči koga iz česa (T), sleči kaj iz koga (D), obleči v kaj .) - in older translations there is also a non-prefixed verb used instead of a prefixed one, even with an adverb of direction (stopiti v, stopiti (ven) iz, iti od/iz, (vun) pelati/spelati/izpelati etc.), e.g., J iz čolna »vun« stopiti, od faraona proč iti 'to leave') or with a synonymous preposition (izpeljati od). In written discourse, there are also some common figurative phrases in which the adverbial function is blurred, e.g., položiti bolezni na koga 'povzročiti bolezni komu'. The typical adverbial prepositional phrase with the meaning of manner used in biblical texts is a fixed phrase with a nominal variable: ljubiti iz celega srca/ tvoje duse/tvoje misli/tvoje moči.
11	This phrase occurs in all translations and its usage is also confirmed in both foreign-language model texts. Today the morpheme k/h is replaced with the complementary positional pri with the stress on the final joining item.
12	Vidovič Muha: 22: »the prefix is homonymous with the prepositional verbal morpheme of the syntactic base form«. Dular 1982: 115: »the adverbial of destination can be governed if it is close to a verb that requires the cases with directional prepositions (vstopiti v letalo 'to board a plane')«. Križaj Ortar (1990: 137) semantically differentiates the preposition as either a morpheme of the context with directional meaning or as a morpheme of the verb in lexicalized phrases, e.g., priključiti se čemu 'to join something'.«
0.3.2.0 Participants appearing in front of prepositional phrases make them subordinate to other phrases (verbal, nominal), part of which they become, but they also further define their meaning.
0.3.2.1 Prepositional phrases are usually a part of a verbal phrase, which they define and act as prepositional objects of the verb. Verbs with PMV occur in all oblique (non-nominative) cases. There are two types of post modifying PMVs: lexicalized free verbal morphemes and un-lexicalized free morphemes (@ele 2001: 82). The objective role of prepositional phrases as governed verbal prepositional modifiers with PMV is widely spread and homonymous with almost all real prepositions (less common with do, iz), or limited to certain phrases (e.g., with ob: priti, biti ob kaj). With some it is used extensively (e.g., with PMV k/h, čez, na, proti) or it is the only one (zoper). Prepositional phrases vary accordingly to different translations, as regards to the choice of PMV as well as in resembling the usage in the original language German) or Slovenian colloquial language, which shows syntactic traits of the official language of the country in that period (e.g., with the verb čuditi se the recipient can be expressed with a free dative case or a PMV čezA or nad,. The same change can be observed with the PMV in jeziti se ~ez (T, D), na koga/kaj, nadkom/~im. Sometimes they partly overlap or they are in agreement (e.g., D vojskovati se, bojovati zoper koga/s kom, in SSP also proti komu, in the antonymous usage za koga). With some verbs the PMV is predictable, closely connected to the meaning of the case and in agreement with the meaning of the verb, e.g., lo~iti se od koga/~esa, re{iti od ~esa, etc. The obligatory recipient role is temporally marked in verbs of joining (pridružiti se h komu), bringing (prinesti h komu), belonging (sli{ati h komu 'pripadati komu'), approaching (približati se h komu/čemu 'komu/~emu'), where the use of enclitic form of the personal pronoun allows for the usage without PMV (except with pripeljati and dodajati, where SSP uses both options); in Trubar and Dalmatin such usage is common - the reason could be that the spatial relation was still felt between the prefix pri- and directional component of the verb expressed by the PMV k/h (e.g., pristopiti h komu/k čemu), where PMV remains, as is the case with other verbs of motion which express the orientation towards an (in)animate goal that is reached (e.g., (pr)iti h komu/čemu, D pridružiti se h komu : SSP pridružiti komu: Je bo k'Jvoji Sheni perdrushil (1Mz 2,24), SSP: in se pridružil svoji ženi; Ta Shena, katero Ji ti meni perdrushil (1Mz 3,12)). The usage of PMV coincides with use in German, but not in Latin (adherebit uxori suae).
0.3.2.2 In the early periods the use of fixed verbal phrases was adopted from foreign languages, and was sometimes stylistically selective, e.g., D imeti boj s kom along
with bojevati se s kom; položiti roko na svojga bližniga blagu; SSP: iztegniti roko po blagu svojega bližnjega 'krasti' (to steal); najti gnado pred mojma očima, SSP najti milost v tvojih očeh; dati gnado/milost pred Egipterji, SSP priskrbeti naklonjenost pri Egipčanih; biti gospod čez koga/gospodovati čez koga, SSP gospodovati nad kom; imeti/dati oblast čez koga (up to W), SSP dajati oblast nad kom, za koga; en svit držati čez koga, SSP posvetovati se zoper koga; delati {pot iz koga (T), za{potovati (D); dati povelje na koga (J) 'ukazati komu kaj' (to order sb to do sth); v roke dati 'izro~iti' (to
hand over); biti v nadlego 'nadlegovati' (to annoy); imeti dopadenje na kom/nad kom, SSP imeti veselje nad kom etc. Such fixed verbal phrases, consisting of a noun and a primary verb or another verb, often form the syntactic base for single-lexeme verbal compounds, which are used simultaneously or in the texts of later date. Literal translations also occur in several lexicalised phrases or verbal phrasemes with PMV k/h, where the temporally marked usage of PMV expressing purpose or intention is preserved; today, these phrases are commonly used with PMV za or na, v, e.g., obsoditi k smrti 'na smrt', priti k srcu 'do srca', k {kodi gnati, biti k pomoči 'v pomo~', povabiti k ohceti 'na ohcet', peljati k večnimu lebnu 'voditi v ve~no življenje', pripraviti/biti pripravljen k čemu 'za kaj', biti komu h komu (e.g., k sinu 'za sina') vzeti k ženi 'za ženo, oženiti se', dati k ženi 'za ženo'. Instead of the phrase vzeti koga k sebi the verb vzeti, vzeti s seboj, privzeti is used in several other ways in later translations.
0.3.2.3 The choice of PMV varies between different texts or stages of language development, and is common to specific types of verbal actions (e.g., with verbs expressing discontentment the free morpheme čez is used in older texts and nad in newer ones etc.). Only seldom are the synonymous PMVs simultaneously interchangeable (e.g., in the meaning of contradiction: proti and zoper), usually one is replaced by the other or the translator makes a different choice. The verb vpiti shows a quadruple variability (nüA used today, less frequently used nadA, older čezA like with verbs of discontentment, and k/h following the model of verbs of speaking).13
0.3.2.4 Less frequently - only with positional, but not with directional prepositions - the prepositional phrases act as non-participant, right-valency modifiers in the role of predicative modifiers with sinsemantic verbs (e.g., loseph pak je bil poprej v'Egypti) (2Mz 1,5). With the preposition za in some figurative verbal phrases they are used as a predicative attribute (držati koga za kaj 'imeti koga za kaj' (to regard sb as sth), biti komu za koga/kaj, e.g., Inu on je bil njej sa Syna (D 2Mz 2,10)). All translations preserve the following type of phrase: postaviti/narediti koga za boga/ poglavarje/visje/sodnike čez koga, SSP postaviti za poglavarje nad kom; storiti za vajvode čez en velik narod etc. The following phrases are also temporally marked and resemble German patterns: postati h komu/čemu 'postati kdo/kaj' (to become somebody/something) (inu (palica) je k'eni kazhipojtala (D 2Mz 7,10)).14
0.3.2.5.1 If they further define the noun, they are syntactically their prepositional postmodifier: a) they can be a part of a nominal phrase (e.g., D luj od tiga ovna; pej~ico per jetrah; pej~ico na jetrah; vse zelis~e na puli; vsaki od svojga dela; (vzeti si) (to take) polne vaju pesti saj od peči; Ephod iz zlata, iz gelih žid, iz skarlata, karmežina,
13	Compare with the section discussing synonymity of prepositional phrases (1.1.7) as well as the section on systemic changes in prepositions (1.3.3.3).
14	German is the only language that uses (as did Dalmatin) the verbal phrase with the auxiliary verb postati (to become) with the predicative modifier in the prepositional dative case instead of the nominal case postati k čemu/komu, similarly, as in storiti k čemu.
inu iz sukanih belih zid; od vsake glave pul sikela, po sikeli te svetinje, od vseh kir so bili {tiveni, od teh, kateri so bili J ta pervi dan po saboti; njegovu vpitje čez nevsmilenje tih perganjavcov per delih (2Mz 3,7); W suknjo za pod naramnik (2Mz 39,20)); b) a part of an adjectival phrase (D /~astitliv/ v svetosti, per ogni pe~enu, /ena/ k drugi, /ena/ za drugim), c) a part of an adverbial phrase (T doli na {trikih; D z'vuna pred tem pertom; vunkaj pred hi{o; zgoraj per verhi, noter do vode15); d) as well as a part of a prepositional phrase (e.g., D (priti) k eni persegi per gospudu, (položiti) v lo~je per kraju vode). Paired, complementary prepositions that are antonymous in only one semantic component form a special type of subordinate prepositional phrase, e.g., iz Raemseza v Suhot; odperviga dne, noter do sedmiga; od enih vrat do drugih, v tim kampi; od žlahte do žlahte)
0.3.2.5.2 The attributive role of prepositional phrases is limited to their use within the nominal phrase and not the sentence or the verbal phrase. They appear as an agreeing right modifier of the nominal phrase, defining it in terms of quality, type, or belonging. Its origin is twofold: it is the result of the conversion of an attributive dependent clause and an independent verbal clause with an adverbial. With some prepositions this role is only marginal, rare (e.g., with prepositions na, v, and po), but it is more prominent with others (e.g., od, do, iz, brez, or z/s). In some meanings it is typical, e.g., that of belonging, possession, incompleteness, exclusion, arrangement, and substantiality, it defines the noun with respect to place, time, and intention (e.g., T Inu on praui htimu zhloueku /to Juho roko, D kateri je imel juho roko (Mr 3,3); D eden, s'imenom Barrabas (Mr 15,7)). Such phrases are also temporally marked (e.g., T, D Symon od Cananeie (J; W Simona Kananitarja/Kananejca); D eniga od božjiga žlaka vdarjeniga; h'timu od božjiga žlaka vdarjenimu (SSP hromega, hromemu)). To some extent they are limited to only certain (lexicalized) nominal phrases (e.g., eden od Pisarjev (D), eden iz vas (J), kteri zmed prerokov (W), kdo izmed vas (L); sam na/po/ v/pri sebi; njemu na čast (J),pet komolcov na dolgost (J) 'po dolžini/dolg' (in length)).
1 Changes in the Development of the Prepositional System
1.0 As expected, the prepositional system from the sample of biblical texts, which are written in a perfected and stylistically demanding language, confirms how stable, limited in number, unusually frequent and confined the use of real prepositions is in all of the translations: brez, do, iz, k/h, med, na, nad, ob, od, po, pod, pred, pri, v, z/s, za; zavoljo/zaradi, zastran (L).16 On the other hand, the usage of unreal prepositions, which are of adverbial, nominal or adjectival origin, is unstable, and that unreal prepositions are open in number, but used infrequently - their frequency varies from the lowest in Trubar to the highest in Lampe (blizu, čez, krog (J Mr), mimo, naproti,
15	Reinforcement with a semantically empty adverb in the role of an emphatic particle 'tja, prav' is typical of Trubar's, Dalmatin's and Japelj's translations and was influenced by the German model text.
16	Originally, the latter three do not belong to the group of real prepositions, but are included in this group because of their exclusively prepositional, i.e., non-adverbial, use. Real prepositions also have a word-formational function of prefixal morphemes in compounding.
nasproti, okoli, okrog (W, L), poleg, proti, skozi, sredi, vpričo (W, L), vrh/vrhu (T, D), znotraj, zoper, zraven/raven (D), zred (T, D), zunaj/izvuna (D).
1.0.1 The number of real and unreal prepositions partly leveled out in the texts - there are 16 originally real prepositions, but from the functional viewpoint of their exclusively prepositional, non-adverbial, usage there are 18 (also med and zavoljo/ zaradi, zastran). The number of unreal prepositions used in the translations increases from 11 in Trubar to 19 in Lampe, which indicates how limited their use was compared to the present. In the translations up to the 19'h century the most common preposition is k/h, which is used as many as 422 times by Dalmatin in 2Mz. This preposition also displays the most significant decline in usage, i.e., from being used 233 times by Trubar to only 47 times in Wolf's edition. In Japelj's translation (2Mz) prepositional phrases with prepositions na, v and k/h are most common, but in the 19th century (W, L) the most commonly used preposition is v, which is in second place in older translations except in Dalmatin (2Mz), who uses the preposition na most. Lack of uniformity was observed, especially in the usage of prepositions čez and skozi from the middle of the 19th century when they are mainly used to express spatial relations. A considerable increase in usage can be observed with the preposition nad expressing the meaning of location, which is replaced by the older preposition čez, which is also used as PMV with verbs of surpassing, supremacy, emotion, opposition, and with ob, which is used with the meaning of place in Wolf's edition for the first time.
1.1.0	There are several developmental changes in prepositions: full or partial inter-changeability with (an)other synonymous preposition(s), changes in their distribution, their form and positional variation. Changes also occur in their semantic structure, i.e., polysemy vs. their present specialization for specific semantic roles, greater synonymity and differences in the frequency of usage of particular meanings.
1.1.1	The exchange in the prepositional inventory (the loss of one preposition and its replacement by another) from the point of view of historical development can only be observed in the etymologically and derivationally non-primary, i.e., unreal preposition of causality with separate constituents (circumposition) za voljo zaradi^^, which was absolute (there is no competition between the two prepositions in the texts)18. In all older translations only the former preposition is used, except in Lampe where it is fully replaced by zaradi, which can be observed in Janežič's grammar (first edition of 1854) for the first time, and individually zastran (used also in the formal variant obstran, mentioned also in Kopitar's grammar of 1808). Although it is still used in Slovenian dialects (also in Pannonian dialect and the literary language of Prekmurje),
17	According to Kopečny, it is used in Slovenian, the dialect of the Cres island (Croatia), Czech and Slovakian, and old Polish, which has the dative form kvuli, kvoli, kwoli/gwoli with the preposition k.
18	In discussing the unusual position of prepositions, the unreal prepositions na(s)proti and zoper should be mentioned. In rare instances, they are found after the noun and have post-positional (postponed) variants, but this usage is not attested in the sample texts.
in literary language - as a calque from the German prepositional phrase um - willen, where the real prepositional component comes before and the nominal component after the complement of the prepositional phrase, while the prossesive pronouns also have the possibility of compounding with the other constituent, e.g., um meinetwillen etc. (Schröder: 183-4)19 - it was replaced with the originally Slavic preposition zaradi, which consists of the preposition za and the locative case of the noun radh. As a free prepositional phrase it was used in Old Church Slavic, South Slavic languages, and Ukrainian, referring to cause or intention. In the archaic use it also occurs without the prepositional component as radi20. Trubar mostly uses the prepositional phrase za volo + koga/česa (e.g., Ja uolo te bejjede (Mr 4,17)), less commonly with inter-position za koga/česa volo (Ja lete beJJede uolo (Mr 7,29)). Dalmatin also uses it as interposition in agreement with German syntactic phrases as used by Luther. Japelj, on the other hand, displays prepositional use with the constituents written separately (sa volo), or exceptionally written together (savolo). Japelj's translation shows the decline in such usage and shows the tendency towards the one-word prepositional form, but not yet in his early translation (1791), where the components are written separately even in the prepositional placement, which may be due to uniformity of writing. There is a discrepancy between the fairly balanced number of prepositional phrases and considerable disagreement in examples, especially in comparison with Dalmatin's and other translations: for expressing causal relations Dalmatin uses translational options with synonymous prepositions od, and čez, pred with appropriate verbal phrases; za is the only alternating syntactic pattern in Japelj, whereas the prepositional phrase za tega voljo/ za voljo tega is usually replaced by a causal and resultative clause - a coordinate or a subordinate clause and an appropriate conjunction: causal zakaj; re-sultative zato, torej, zatorej or with the phrase zato, ker, or with an adverbial clause of purpose with the conjunction da. In Wolf's edition the components are written together and therefore used only prepositionally, e.g., zavoljo; prepositional phrases are usually replaced by a subordinate clause with a subordinate conjunction ker, as well as the phrases mentioned above or the synonymous preposition za. Lampe's translation from the end of the 19th century systematically replaces it with previously unknown preposition zaradi, but zastran is also used with the same meaning in Wolf and Lampe - with the primary meaning of consideration or with a causal emphasis. Considering the comparison with Luther's translation we can make the following observations: analogy to the German phrase »vmb - willen« is confirmed in the disjoined usage of both components with the enclosing noun in Trubar and Dalmatin, similarly, there is an analogy to German in the phrase za mojo volo, whereas in Japelj's translation the phrase zavoljo mene is used, which is closer to Latin translation (propter me).
19	Following Miklosi~'s examples taken from Trubar, it can also be combined with an adjective, e.g., za vaso voljo (4, 415) (Kopečny 1973: 266).
20	According to Bajec (similarly also in Pletersnik), radi is a Croatism, zaradi the literary, and zarad the colloquial form (Bajec 1959: 137).
1.1.2	In the translations between the 16*^ and the end of the 18th century the preposition z/sc is never used, since until W the outer-surface or the higher starting point is not expressed separately, i.e., iz is used in this role.
1.1.3	The absence of some unreal prepositions is also fairly significant: vpričo, which according to Kope~ny (1973: 266) exists only in Slovenian, does not occur in T and D,21 razen cannot be found in T, D, or J because it is replaced by izven/zunaj; the first one to use it was W (razun). The adverbial prepositions are mostly used adverbially, very rarely prepositionally (e.g., in Dalmatin especially mimu22, seldom blizu/blizi23, exceptionally vrh^4), whereas in newer translations they are more frequent. The prepositionprek(o) does not occur in any of the translations25. Nasproti and naproti are used only adverbially in the 16th century because the non-prefixal preposition proti is used instead. W also has only the postponed usage of the preposition with the noun in the dative case, whereas J uses the rare combination of the prepositional na spruti/naspruti with the genitive/dative case, but also uses the more common dative combination with an inversion or with the preposition pruti. (For examples see the chart bellow)
D
J
W
SSP
Sakaj ony To is Raphidima bily potegnili, inu To priThli v'SinaiTko Pufzhavo, inu To ondukaj v'Pufzhavi legli. Inu Israel je ondukaj Shotore poftavil pruti tej Gorri
Sakaj po t^m, kar To Te is Raphidim prozh podali, inu do pufhave §inai priThli, To ony ravnu na timiftim kraji ftan sa fhotorje svolili, inu Israel je tam na fpruti hriba fhotorje gori poTtavil.
Vzdignili so se namreč iz Rafid in so prišli v sinajsko pušavo,in so šotorili v tem kraji; postavili so pa ondi Izraelci šotore gori nasproti.
Odpravili so se iz Refldima in prišli v Sinajsko puščavo ter se utaborili v puščavi. Tam se je Izrael utaboril
nasproti gori,
1.1.4 There is an exception in the 16th century in Trubar and Dalmatin - the unreal preposition zredi 'skupaj z' (together with), which consists of the prepositions s^n and v^n, and the noun r^ds26, and was only used in the 16th century. In the selected corpus it occurs only three times in Trubar and Dalmatin with the emphasized associative meaning of s/z, reinforced by the adverb vred, which is also used in the coordinate
21	In Dalmatin's Bible in digital format, 46 hits include adverbial usage and the verbal phrase biti v'prizho, as well as seven cases of prepositional usage, e.g., v'prizho teh gmajn (2 Kor 8,24).
22	In Japelj only the variant mqmu can be found, and in Wolf memo is used.
23	In the entire translation by Dalmatin the preposition blisu occurs only four times, whereas blisi is used twenty-one times.
24	In Dalmatin it is replaced by the phrase na vrh, except in two instances where it is used with the noun glava (head): do verh glave. In J and W the usage is more common.
25	In D, J, and W it is not even used as an adverb (confirmed by the analysis of the digital edition).
26	Compare Kope~ny 1973: 231, where he quotes Pleteršnik's and Bajec's examples e.g., zred teboj 's teboj vred' (together with you).
prepositional phrase as its first constituent (e.g., sred tem lunzom, inu s'dvema Ouna-ma (D 2Mz 29,3)). In newer translations the particle tudi is used for emphasis and the preposition poleg (SSP) for the meaning of addition. Zred can also be used adverbially with the preposition z/s (e.g., T jred fteimi duanaijtimi (Mr 4,10)), which is expressed with the preposition z/s and with the adverb red by Dalmatin (s'temi dvanajjtimi red); Japelj similarly uses the adverb vred. In other positions it is replaced by the real preposition and in SSP a synonymous adverb is added (skupaj z dvanajsterimi).
1.1.5	Compound prepositions are rare in the 16th century, except is mej 'izmed' (from among; out of) written with separate components, in Japelj also written as is jr^d (grma, njih). They started being used as single-word prepositions in the 19*^ century (zmed/izmed (14 : 1), spred (1), izsred (1) in Wolf's edition; izmed (23), izpod (1), izpred (6), spred (17) in Lampe (e.g., (od)iti, izgnati/pregnati spred faraona/obli~ja, izginiti spred ljudstva), which is expressed by means of verbal phrases iti od koga or izgnati pred kom/~im in Dalmatin's and the present-day translations.
1.1.6	Prepositions with two-case valency with spatial and temporal meanings are less frequently used with the accusative, depending on the reality they describe, although this is not always the case (for example, in Japelj the prepositions na and po are more frequent with the accusative when referring to place). In other adverbial meanings the locative and the instrumental forms are more frequent, except in the final meaning, which is related to the orientation to a goal and has only accusative form. In the sample texts the preposition za does not occur with the genitive and therefore does not have the potential to form prepositional phrases with three-case valency.
1.1.7	A diachronic overview shows significant semantic changes, which, from the 19"^ century onwards, occur entirely only in the older prepositional calques from German from Luther's translation. Thus, the preposition k/h does not express intention-ality anymore, from Wolf's edition from the middle of the 19'h century the meaning of instrument or mediator is not expressed by the preposition skozi, etc. The calqued PMV verbal phrases are also replaced by the Slavic valency possibilities and PMV changes in some verbal meanings. The spatial emphasis of direction, which is expressed by the deep meaning of the dative case itself, is in the early stages of Slovenian literary language development expressed by the PMV k/h, which is devoid of meaning, in the object usage with verbs of speaking, such as praviti (especially in Trubar inu praui Hpetru (Mr 14,37)), (po)re~i, dejati only in past tense (especially in Dalmatin and Japelj: inu je djal h'Petru)), less frequently with govoriti; it is preserved the longest with vpiti/kri~ati, where prepositional usage was preserved in all translations (W has the variant vpiti v Boga); with other verbs, PMV is not used in the 19'h-century translations27. There are single instances of such usage also without PMV
27 Historically, the usage of the preposition k/h with such verbs, which coincides with the free dative case, with an emphasized directionality of the speaker towards the addressee, can only be found in Old Church Slavic, old Russian, Polish and Czech. Kopecny presumes that the preposition originates from the directional type klicati h komu and he explains the development of the postponed particle -ka/-ko with its
(e.g., D Mr 3.9), especially with govoriti, praviti, and some verbs are always used with a free dative case e.g., odgovoriti and povedati. For the content object the preposition od is replaced by o (vedeti od koga (SSP o kom)); with verbs of emotion PMV čez is replaced with nad or na, or it is omitted (e.g., srditi/jeziti se čez koga ^ nad kom/na koga; usmiliti se čez koga ^ koga; čuditi se čez koga ^ komu etc.).
1.1.8 Comparison of individul translations showed that there is no agreement between the surface structure and the corresponding deeper level - the syntactic means that can be substituted with prepositional phrases are mainly their original clauses, subordinate clauses of appropriate relations, synonymous conjunctions and their single-word equivalents - corresponding adverbs, which substitute only some bare prepositional phrases, especially expressing spatial, temporal, and manner relations.
1.2.0	On the formal level the early stages of development show a rich formal diversity (written, phonetic, positional) with numerous morphemic variants. The written form of even single-letter prepositions, even in the early stages of development of the standard Slovenian language shows the translators' consistent consideration of the systemic norms for distinguishing phonetic positional variants and the tendency towards uniformity of written form, which occurs in individual translator's writing. Differences occur between different translators, also because of the changes in the standard language through history.
1.2.1	The evolution of spelling of nonsyllabic prepositions was oriented towards the spelling of the preposition separately from the noun or its premodifiers. Trubar still spells such prepositions together with the following word (when the following word begins with the same grapheme, the two words merge into a single word and are not doubled, e.g., JelJami, Jvojemi).^^ In Dalmatin29 they are separated from the following word by an apostrophe, following Krelj's introduction of this trend in 1566-67 (e.g., Olje k'Lampam; h'prahu; k'vezheri), similarly in Japelj, where the preposition is written with a space separating it from the following word (e.g., s' tabo). In Wolf's edition and in Lampe it is written as it is today, i.e., it is not graphically connected to the adjacent word, but it is connected to it in pronunciation. Other monosyllabic and polysyllabic prepositions maintain their independent position. In the short, enclitic form of the personal pronoun for the third person accusative case for all numbers it occurs very rarely in the dependent form (e.g., nanj, vanje) - once in Trubar uain (Mr 9,25); more often only in the middle of the 19th century, e.g., W: prednj (5), vanj (9), vanjo (10), vanja (1), vanji (3), vanje (5), zanje (3); L vanj (2), vanjo (1), zanje (1).
medial stage of pre- and post-positional usage (rhci-ka mhne-ka) into the type rbci kh mhne, which was originally more common compared to today's non-prepositional usage (Vasmer after Kopečny 1973: 105).
28	Dalmatin thus uses the reflexive personal pronoun only as Jabo without a preposition, similarly to the modern literary forms seboj, sabo.
29	In Dalmatin's translation one can also observe instances where the preposition is written twice, which seem to be errors: u'venim ognenim Plameni (2Mz 3,2), uv'eno mero (2Mz 26,8).
1.2.2 Phonetic variation reflected in writing is limited to cases where it simplifies the pronunciation on the word boundary with nonsyllabic prepositions k/h, z/s/z, v/u. The variant of the preposition h does not occur only in Wolf's translation. Its usage is a lot more common in older translations than it is today because it was used the same way as in speech - with stops (p, b, t, d, k, g) and rarely with some fricatives (c, Č). In Bohoricica the voiceless morphemic variant /was not observed in the preposition s/z, but only s (= z) was used, except for Trubar, who used four variants (f/s/sh/fo). When vs- occurred in the initial position, the vocalized variant zo was used in the 16'h century (e.g., D sov fem dellom). This preposition also has the assimilated variant z with n' and is spelled together in Dalmatin; it is also used in Wolf's and Lampe's editions (e.g., D: shnym, L: z njim). Among phonetic peculiarities there is one of special interest, i.e., the spelling of the preposition od as ad, which occurs only once, in Trubar30. Its origin is in the dialectal pronunciation of the unaccented o (the so-called akanje). The typical phonetic variants of the prepositions skozi and proti are the 16'h-century Lower Carniolan variants skuzi and pruti, as well as super, which is also used by the Upper Carniolan authors. In Lampe's translation the cluster Cr is used in the preposition Cez (crez), and there are different variants of spelling of the reduced vowel in prepositions pri and zoper (per/per, super/super, supär). The preposition ob in its abbreviated variant o occurs only in some instances in Wolf's edition (e.g., o polnoči). Originally a denominal preposition, med had different forms through history: in Trubar umei/vmei with the prefix v, which is also used by later writers (e.g., Kastelec, Rogerij), in Dalmatin mej, but since J med has been used with d similarly to the rest of directional and spatial prepositions. In the 16th century the preposition brez also occurs in the older phonetic variant pres. Other prepositions, apart from the spelling variations, which originate from two different types of writing, and unstandardized usage of symbols for sibilants and shibilants in Bohoričica (e.g., skufi (T) - Jkusi (D, J), do not show any other discrepancies. The old written form of the preposition zoper has the largest number of different spelling variants (e.g., in T it is usually written as Jubper, and once as Juper and Jupper), whereas the translations from the 19th century already have the same form as today.
1.3.0	On the level of semantics there is a higher degree of agreement between the prepositions and the classifying and disregarded distinctive features, with a greater semantic field and, consequently, greater interchangeability. In older texts there was less semantic differentiation of the prepositions and more transition between similar meanings.
1.3.1	The period of stabilization of the prepositional system is marked by greater semantic broadness, increased polysemy and simultaneously increased synonymity. Through the development of language, these loosely used prepositions did not overlap anymore, even though their interchangeability in some groups of prepositions is still considerable, with a different register or stylistic markedness (e.g., meanings of spatial proximity, simultaneousness, manner, means, partiality, and comparison).
0 There are only two such cases in Dalmatin's Bible.
1.3.2.1	Polysemy is typical of real and some unreal prepositions (čez, proti, skozi), which are used in several interconnected meanings. Usually all prepositions mark a different basic relation of place (except the real preposition z/s, and the unreal zoper), and real prepositions usually also a possible temporal relation. All have a predictable syntactic objective and attributive usage, which is not always realized in the sample texts. The preposition od has the largest number of adverbial meanings (11, apart from those already mentioned, also partiality, origin, exclusion, comparison, manner, cause, concession, agent), and ob/o has the least (2). Among the unreal prepositions skozi (5) and čez (4) have the most, whereas some only occur in the locative meaning (blizu, sredi).
1.3.2.2	Within the framework of individual meanings according to different denotations - localizers and verbal actions there are partial meanings developing as well as shades of meaning of these partial meanings; sometimes they even demand a particular grammatical category (e.g., med demand a plural or group localizer). Unreal prepositions express special spatial relations or they are PMV, less frequently they express temporalness (čez, proti, skozi), exclusion (mimo, razen, zunaj, poleg), comparison (čez, mimo), means, mediator, manner (skozi up to the mid-nineteenth century), cause (čez).
1.3.2.3	The number of all meanings occurring in the sample texts is approximately twenty. Polysemy of the prepositions is semantically determined within the framework of its context, which, however, still leaves room for different interpretations. The meaning with the broadest field of semantic meanings is definitively that of place (spatial), from which other meanings (temporal, objective, manner, and reason) also originate to a large extent e.g., prepositions of hierarchical relations also express temporal relations (pluperfectness and futureness) in pred and za, temporalness is secondary in pod, whereas nad does not occur in the temporal meaning; with their semantic transfer they define the relation of human subordination (pod) and superiority (nad), sequence, advantage, postposition (pred, za), exchangeability (za), causality (pred, za), purpose (k/h, za, v), presence (pred), relation, connectedness (pred, na, z/s) etc.
1.3.3.1 Only those semantically corresponding prepositions that occur in simultaneously published translations can be considered synonymous, whereas those that occur and alternate in different time frames are considered alternating, semantically equivalent, but not interchangeable within the same context. On the basis of common classifying semantic features, prepositions are interchangeable and synonymous in specific meanings within a particular context. Synonymity also occurs in some unreal prepositions: in the meaning of contradiction čez - proti - zoper, in the meaning of exclusion mimo - razen - poleg - zunaj/izven, and in the spatial meaning of immediate proximity poleg - zraven; there are also prepositions synonymous with real prepositions with adverbial meanings: pri, ob - poleg, zraven; na - vrhu; pred - zunaj, izven; od, za, pred - zavoljo, zaradi, zastran; other prepositions express specific (spatial) relations, which real prepositions do not: spatial čez, skozi, mimo.
1.3.3.2 From full synonymity a type of situational synonymity has to be separated - one that is found in older texts especially with prepositions marking spatial and temporal relations of the same kind. With atypical uses some semantic features get blurred, neutralized, but the classifying feature gets emphasized. Semantic correspondence can develop as a result of neutralization of distinctive semantic features in some specific phrases and uses, so that another preposition replaces the typical preposition in a particular meaning due to omission or abandoning of one of the semantic features. This occurs only at the margins of the system, in specific usage, or in a particular time frame.
1.3.3.3.1	In the older period, synonymity occurs most often in the most common meaning, that is, in the meaning of place. The most rudimentary division according to static and dynamic characteristics - which is also a criterion used for dividing prepositions that can occur with two cases into situational and directional - depends on the preceding context, that is, on the static or dynamic meaning of the predicate. There is an alternating usage of the prepositions iz and od for the starting point in the interior or in the vicinity, since the preposition od was generalized to all types of starting points, and iz expressed both an interior as well as a surface starting point up to Wolf's edition, when it was replaced by z/sc in the meaning of surface starting point. The semantic field of the preposition do also partly overlapped with that of k/h, whereas the preposition čez expressed relations of the preposition nad not only for direction, but also for position. Near-synonymous prepositions with common semantic features and only one or two distinctive characteristics, which is/are neutralized, are interchangeable within the context, e.g., prepositions expressing starting point and destination iz, od and from the 19*^ century onwards also z/sc, which all have distinctive meaning according to the type of starting point, which can be disregarded. The preposition od in the basic meaning of disjunction (or source), also that of place, has the central position because it is the most general and can replace both. The semantic feature, which defines the starting point according to the inner or outer point of contact gets blurred, and the meaning of separating or going away is emphasized. The exchange is also supported by the usage of the preposition in the language of origin (the German von). The preposition iz is more specific because it includes the semantic feature +the interior +point of contact.
1.3.3.3.2	In the sample texts all prepositions express temporal relations, except nad, seldom pod, which is bound to the hierarchically expressed relation according to the named leading person in the prepositional noun, and z/sI, which only appears once in Wolf's edition. Primarily, the temporal relation is expressed by the preposition ob, which did not express any spatial relations prior to Wolf's translation. The semantic characteristic of repetitiveness was not necessary, but could be expressed by a singular temporal form. Simultaneous precise determination of time is expressed by ob as well as other prepositions, especially v, and influenced by German na and k/h e.g., v soboto, na soboto, ob soboti/sobotah' (on Saturday(s); na večer, k večeru 'zve~er' (in the evening), k veliki noči 'za veliko no~' (for Easter) (SSP ob prazniku). Only in Japelj
one can find temporal usage of the preposition skozi, which determines the duration of the action within the temporal meaning of the prepositional phrase (e.g., Skusi Jedem dny boJh opreJni kruh jedel (2Mz 23,15) (SSP: sedem dni) etc.
1.3.3.3.3	In the meaning of partiality or belonging, prepositions od, iz and med only differ in frequency of usage. Gradually, combined variants of the preposition med start to appear: zmed (in Wolf's edition) and izmed only from Lampe's translation onwards.
1.3.3.3.4	In the meaning of materiality or origin iz is used, less often also od (by Dalmatin). Means, manner and mediator are expressed by skozi in older translations (Dalmatin, Japelj), in the first meaning skozi is even more common under the influence of German prepositional phrases with durch, but from the 19'h century onwards it is completely replaced by z/sI. For expressing the means va is also used, and the alternating preposition poL for the mediator, which had been used even before that, in the 18th century, by the Prekmurje authors. In the meaning of means, there are inanimate nouns used in the prepositional phrase in the Old Testament, indicating by what an (miraculous) act had been achieved: skuzi eno močno/iztegneno/visoko/ gospodnjo roko; en močan vejter; (tvojo) moč/moč moje/tvoje roke, velike pravde (D); roko Itamara, veliko silo, mojo čast, eno persego, velike sodbe (J) - today it is expressed with the preposition z/s.31 If the noun is an abstract notion (D milost, kla-fanje, J povzdigvanje, zalazvanje, zagovarjanja, težke dela, reč, šibo, čudež/čudesa, vse sorte tlake) which determines the characteristics or the specific manner in which an act had been performed, the meaning of manner is expressed by it, which again, is more common in Japelj (D Ti Ji fkusi tvojo miloJt Jpremil tvoj Folk (2Mz 15,13); SSP: v svoji dobroti si vodil ljudstvo). When the noun in the prepositional phrase is an animate one, the meaning is that of mediation, which performs the action (D: govoriti, zapovedati; vrezati; J also rezati, zapisati, vun klicati, vkazati, dokončati) instead (by order or command) of someone else (Mojzesa, može, oznanuvavca, pečatarja/e), e.g., D kakor je GOSPVD fkusi Moffesa bil govoril (2Mz 9.35).
1.3.3.3.5	Systemic changes in the choice of prepositions can also be observed in the meaning of intention (intentionality), in which the preposition k/h is used in the 16th century instead of today's zaA. The usage of k/h is influenced by the German preposition zu (in Japelj its usage becomes equal to that of za). To a certain extent the prepositions vA and seldom naA are used with a synonymous meaning. The meaning of intention, that is, of mental focusing on the realization of an action, which is expressed by the complements, and the meaning of purpose or usefulness for a particular action, which is expressed by a nominal phrase with a subordinate prepositional phrase, are today introduced by prepositional phrases with prepositions zaA, vA, po and not k/h as is the case in Dalmatin. Since such prepositional phrases are conversions from adverbial clauses of purpose, the complement is usually a deverbal noun, e.g., imeti ušesa
31 An example of an exchange can be observed in Japelj de bi naJs /^/ Jkusi sh^jopomoril (2Mz 17,3), which is in Wolf's edition replaced with the preposition z/sI (z žejo).
k poslušanju, pridigovati k odpuščanju grehov, so bila k zetvi, k spominu 'v spomin' (in memory of), k priči 'v pričevanje' (in attesting), je pridnu k navuku 'koristiti k čemu' (to be useful for) (from the German ist nutze zur Lehre), biti k sramoti, k smrti (these fixed phrases used by Dalmatin are substituted by an adjectival predicative complement (biti osramočen), similarly to other languages, also German (soll nicht zuschanden werden)).
1.3.3.3.6 Causality is expressed through different syntactic patterns: after the uniting of adverbial clauses, prepositional phrases of cause are introduced by the originally and from the point of view of word-formation an unreal prepositional form za voljo/zavoljo/zaradi, and other synonymous prepositions, which in their secondary, figurative meaning also express a cause-effect relation, e.g., real preposition od (J od straha (posahnili)) with the shift of the origin of the action to its consequence, in rare cases za (D ofer za greh), predi (D pred teskim delom), naA (J na prejeto rano (umreti)), po (W po prejeti rani), and čez, which was used to the end of the 19th century (T je bil žalosten čez slipoto nih serca (= J)).
1.3.4 Antonymous paired prepositions are defined according to a specific distinctive semantic characteristic. V and na are paired prepositions with regard to the type of contact, v and iz with regard to their opposite orientation (starting point vs. end), vA and vL with regard to their opposite position and direction, etc. Z/sl and brez are the only completely opposite pair, where brez negates all meanings of the former by expressing the lack or loss of what z/si expresses, be it company (joining, uniting), means (instrument), manner, or a characteristic, which may also be expressed by clausal negation. Complementary od - do express both extremes (that of the starting point and that of the end). The preposition proti is an exception, which has the meaning of the opposite direction in two of its partial meanings of place: in the direction of the localizer and in the opposite direction - that is the reason for its double objective usage as well as its positive and negative intention of direction. Today, this preposition cannot be used in the positional meaning of place, whereas in the 16th century such usage was quite extensive and replaced the compounded prepositional form na(s)proti.
1.4 When comparing prepositional phrases that differ in their usage with those in Luther's German translation and the Latin Vulgate, the influence of the model text on the choice and usage of prepositions is - at least based on the limited number of examples in the selected sample texts - confirmed to a large extent. The dependence on the model text proves that the diversity in the choice of prepositional phrases or different syntactic phrases in the Slovenian translations is in many cases not coincidental and is rooted in the sources. In several systemic alternating usages of prepositions, in Dalmatin's and more rarely in Trubar's translations, the influence of Luther's model text can be observed. There is also a distinctive agreement of the prepositional phrases in Japelj's translation and in Wolf's edition with those in the Vulgate. In the usage of verbs with PMV, where the semantic motivation is diminishing and the influence of a model text is stronger and is ousting the domestic syntactic expressional possibili-
ties, the influence is also possible from other sociolinguistic and pragmatically based reasons, such as proficiency in German, bilingual ability, or the ability to translate from/to different languages and automatically switch between languages. In other prepositional phrases there is often no agreement even with the two model texts, or in Japelj also agreement with Luther (especially in the usage of čez and skozi), as the number of such, especially verbal phrases is also high in the translation from the Enlightenment period, when one would expect a greater concern for cultivated language due to the study of Slavic languages. Also, there is often no agreement with the Latin source (in prepositional phrases with čez, na, and v). Trubar's translation, compared to Dalmatin's, shows better, originally Slovenian translation solutions, but it also confirms the existence of a coinciding prepositional usage in spoken language, since some borrowed usages of verbs with PMV in Slavic languages are older and more widely spread (e.g., expressing the addressee and the content of the speech act with PMV k/h and od). This sheds some additional light on the fact that some typically used borrowed prepositional phrases are only partially in accordance with Luther's translations, which offers alternative explanations: they were either commonly established in the Slovenian literary syntax, or that they were used in the spoken language of the translator's native geographic area. In the literary language of Prekmurje, on the other hand, there were no such calque phrases. Following Küzmi~'s Prekmurje patterns, Central Slovenian authors later also eliminated and replaced these phrases by more primary Slavic patterns.
V angleščino prevedel Martin Grad.
Sources
Dalmatin, Jurij, 1584: BIBLIA, TV IE, VSE SVETV PISMV STARIGA inu Noviga TeJtamenta, JlovenJki, tolmazhena, Jkusi IVRIA DALMATINA. Bibel /das iJt/ die gantze heilige Schrifft / WindiJh. Gedruckt in der Churfürjtlichen Sachjijchen Stadt Wittemberg / durch Hans Kraffts Erben. ANNO M.D.LXXXIIII. — 1994, BIBLIA, tu je vse svetu pismu stariga inu noviga testamenta, slovenski, skuzi Jurja
Dalmatina. Faksimile, Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. (D) Japelj, Jurij, Kumerdej, Blaž, 1784-1802: SVETU PISMU NOVIGA TESTAMENTA. Pars prima.
Labacio Typis Joan. Frid. Eger. 1784. (J) —1791: Svetu pismu Stariga testamenta (pars prima), Ljubljana. DRUGE MOJSESOVE
BUKVE, imenovane EXODUS, ali IS.HOD., 219-395. Lampe, Frančišek, 1895: Zgodbe svetega pisma. Slovencem priredil in razložil dr. F. Lampe.
Izdala in založila Družba sv. Mohorja v Celovcu, snop 1-3, 1894 dalje. (L) Luther, d. Martin, 1972: Die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch. Wittenberg 1545, letzte zu Luthers Lebzeiten erschienene Ausgabe, Herausgegeben von Hans Volz unter Mitarbeit von Heinz Blanke, Textredaktion Friedrich Kur, Rogner & Bernhard, München. (Lu) BIBLIA SACRA Vulgatae editionis. SIXTI V. PONTIFICIS MAXIMI JUSSU RECOGNITA. ET CLEMENTIS VIII. Auctoritate edita. VENETIIS, Ex Typographia Balleoniana. MDCCCIV. (Vu)
Sveto pismo stare in nove zaveze z razlaganjem poleg nemskiga, od apostoljskiga Sedeža poter-jeniga sv. pisma, ki ga je iz Vulgate ponemčil in razložil dr. Jožef Franc Allioli. - Natisnjeno
po povelji precastitljiviga Kneza Gospoda Antona Alojzija, Ljubljanskiga Škofa. V Ljubljani. Natisnil Jožef Blaznik. (Pervi zvezek.). 1857. (Druge Mojzesove bukve. 95-171.) 5. zvezek, Evangeli Jezusa Kristusa po svetim Marku, 137-177. (W)
Trubar, Primož, 1557: TA PERVIDEIL TIGA NOVIGA TESTAMENTA, VTIM SO VSISHTYRI EVANGELISTI INV TA DIAne tih Iogrou, jdai peruizh vta Slouenski Iefik^, Skuji Primosha Truberia jueijtu preobernen. TVBINGAE, [Ulrich Morhart] ANNO M.D.LVII (-M.D. LVIII). (T)
Biblia Slovenica. 2004. Ljubljana: Društvo Svetopisemska družba Slovenije.
Slovenski standardni prevod, 1996. Svetopisemska družba Slovenije. (SSP)
References
BAJEC, Anton, 1959: Besedotvorje slovenskega jezika, IV, Predlogi in predpone. Ljubljana: SAZU, 14.
Dular, Janez, 1982: Priglagolska vezava v slovenskem, knjižnem jeziku (20. stoletja), disertacija. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta.
—	1983/84: Združena vezava v desni vezljivosti slovenskega glagola. JiS, XXIX/8, Ljubljana, 282-297).
KOPECNY, František, 1973: Etymologicky slovnik slovanskych jazikü, Slova gramaticka a zaj-mena, svazek 1 (Predložky, Koncove partikule). Praha: Nakladatelstvi Československe akademie ved.
Križaj-Ortar, Martina, 1990: Vezljivost: iz pomena v izraz. Zbornik XXVI. Seminarja slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana. 129-140.
Merše, Majda, 1986: Konkurenčna razmerja glagolov v Dalmatinovi Bibliji. Obdobja 6, 16. stoletje v slovenskem jeziku, književnosti in kulturi. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete. 375-388.
—	1989: Raba izsamostalniških glagolov in nadomestnih besednih zvez v Dalmatinovi Bibliji. SR 36/4. 375-397.
Orel-Pogačnik, Irena, 1994/1995: Predložni sistem v razvoju slovenskega knjižnega jezika od 16. do 19. stoletja. JiS XL/5. 172-175.
—	1995: Predložne zveze v razvoju slovenskega knjižnega jezika. Zbornik Slavističnega društva Slovenije 4. Ljubljana: Zavod republike Slovenije za šolstvo in šport. 57-68.
—	1995: Le systeme prepositionnel dans le developpement de la langue slovene litteraire du 16eme au 19eme siecle. Linguistica XXXV/2. 107-134.
—	1995: Predložni sestav osrednjeslovenskega in prekmurskega knjižnega jezika ob koncu 18. stoletja. Studia Slavica Savariensia 1/2. Szombately. 39-51.
Orel, Irena, 1999: Predložni sestav osrednjeslovenske, koroške, štajerske in prekmurske knjižne različice od srede 18. do srede 19. stoletja. Logarjev zbornik: 1. mednarodni dialektološki simpozij v Mariboru (Zora 8). Maribor: Slavistično društvo. 225-248.
Orožen, Martina, 1975: Razvoj predložnih zvez v slovenskem jeziku. XI. Seminar slovenskega jezika, literature in kulture. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete. 13-26.
—	1989, Preobrazba jezikovne zgradbe od Japljevega do Lampetovega prevoda Biblije v 19. stoletju. Slovenski jezik v znanosti 2. Ljubljana: Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete. 163-185.
Quirk, Randolf, Leech, Geoffrey, Svartvik, Jan, 1972: A Grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
RIZZI, Luigi, 19913: Il sintagma prepositionale. 507-531. V: RENZI, Lorenzo (ur.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultatione. La frase. I sintagmi nominale e preposizionale. Vol. I. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Schröder, Jochen, 1986: Lexikon deutscher Präpositionen. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
Sicherl, Eva, 2000: Sodobne jezikoslovne raziskave predložnih pomenov. Vestnik, Društvo za tuje jezike in književnosti Slovenije, 34/1-2. 413-424.
—	2001: O predložni vezljivosti v angleščini in slovenščini. Vestnik, Društvo za tuje jezike in književnosti Slovenije, 35/1-2. 299-312.
Toporišič, Jože, 1992: Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba.
—	2000: Slovenska slovnica. Ljubljana: Založba Obzorja.
ViDOVič Muha, Ada, 1988: Slovensko skladenjsko besedotvorje ob primerih zloženk. Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga.
Weinrich, Harald, 1993: Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim - Leipzig - Wien - Zürich: Dudenverlag.
Žele, Andreja, 2001: Vezljivost v slovenskem jeziku (s poudarkom na glagolu). Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU.
—	2003: Glagolska vezljivost: iz teorije v slovar. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU.
Povzetek
Iz diahrone slovenske medprevodne primerjave svetopisemskih besedil je bil ugotovljen delež časovno zaznamovanih izraznih, funkcijsko- in pomenskoskladenjskih zakonitosti predložnozveznega sestava in razvojnih izmenjav predložnih zvez. V rabi predložnih zvez kot izrazito negovorjene zgradbe v starejših obdobjih slovenskega knjižnega jezika je bila utemeljeno izkazana večja stopnja medjezikovne povezanosti, ki je bila v svetopisemskih besedilih izrazitejša tudi zaradi besedilne, pomenske in površinske skladenjske odvisnosti od uporabljenih prevodnih predlog. V razvojni perspektivi je prišlo do odpravljanja enakosti s tujejezičnimi vzorci, glagoli s PMG in stalne skladenjske zveze s tujimi PMG so opuščeni relativno pozno, sočasno z vzpostavitvijo norme splošnoslovenskega knjižnega jezika sredi 19. oz. šele ob koncu stoletja; skladenjski divergentnosti starejših obdobij sledi ustalitev rabe predložnih zvez v današnjih okvirih.