摘要：Summary Bilingualism between the Church Slavonic (CS) and other Croatian idioms and Latin is based on the fact that they are two different languages, and these two systems never interefered in manuscripts. There are no examples of Latin liturgical texts in which rubrics are written in Croatian, as we often find that rubrics of liturgical codices are written in lingua vernacula, and the text in CS. This shows that the scribes see CS and lingua vernacula as higher and lower idioms. Thus, the Latin language was always experienced as a foreign and as such was in use, separated from the variants of Croatian. It performed all functions: official legal texts, liturgy and literature. Furthermore, in the Croatian Middle Ages, the relationship between the Croatian Church Slavonic (CCS) and lingua vernacula was diglossia, more accurately, including the transitional type of language, triglossia in which there were high, medium and low variations. All variants of Croatian have their own names and are different. There was the CCS, with high literary features. However, that language never satisfied all the requirements that one standard language must meet. There were two lower ranks of language which also had their scopes: Chakavian- -Church Slavonic (-Kajkavian) amalgam and Chakavian. Their scopes are socially well-defined. In some areas they negligibly overlap, but they never had a function of a high variant CCS – liturgy. It was used at the highest, official level, in the liturgical, biblical and ritual texts; it had determined scope. It was stable and highly regarded both in culture and in terms of language, and equally valuable as Latin. It was the highest version for liturgical use, as well as the language of miscellanies, where it was used only in texts of biblical content. It didn’t have native speakers (no one normally uses a high variant in everyday communication) and was taught only by formal education, primarily because it was a written language, language of literature. For private or informal reading a transitional type of language was used, the hybrid structure, Chakavian-Church Slavonic (-Kajkavian) amalgam as a literary language, super regional version found in miscellanies, the medium variant; a kind of link between the CCS and lingua vernacula. Non-liturgical literary works, written by the late 14th Century in CCS were mainly created in Glagolitic monastery scriptoriums. Kajkavian elements were not involuntary. We find them in Petrisov zbornik. The tendency of that language is directed toward national, primarily Chakavian. Lingua vernacula, Chakavian or Chakavian-Kajkavian (Chakavian-Štokavian) language, the lowest variant, is used for everyday life, charters and testaments, especially in legal documents from 14th century; apart from Latin, the only representative of the administrative style; standardized to a certain degree (its norm is unwritten, but noticeable). We find it in epigraphy, graffiti, in the rubrics of codices, in notes on the margins of manuscripts, colophons, etc. It sometimes had elements of CS, but only as feature of higher style. Finally, it dominated both Latin and CCS; it eventually became very expressive, multi-functional and stylistically developed linguistic form, despite the opinion that the low variant was inappropriate for any valuable written expression. In bilingualism, borrowing terms has never occurred with Latin. However, in triglossia that was intentional. This confirms that the scribes have not experienced CS as a foreign system in relation to Chakavian and Chakavian-Church Slavonic (-Kajkavian) amalgam, as they have Latin. Confirmation for this is the name of Kožičić’s Missal: Missal hruacki, not Missal (Old or Church) Slavionic. Then, scholars in the Vrbnik Capitol School studied Latin and Croatian school, and not (Old) Slavonic. Besides, there was never Chakavian- -Latin amalgam as Chakavian-Church Slavonic (-Kajkavian).
