ⰰⰸⱏ–––––ⱌⰰⱄⰻⱀⰰ––ⱅⰰⰳⱁⰴⱆⱈⰰⰰⰸⱏ
ⱁⱂⰰⱅ–ⰴⱃⱏⰶⰻⱈⱝⱂⰻⱄⰰⱈⱏⱄⰵⱁⰾⰵⰴⰻⱑⱓⰶⰵ
ⰴⰰⰸⱏⰲⱏⱀⰻⰿⱃⱏⰽⱃⰰⰾⱏⱈⱃⱏⱝⱅⱏⱄⰽⱏ–––
ⰴⱀⰻⱄⰲⱁⱗⰲⱏⱄⰲⰵⱅⱆⱓⰾⱆⱌⰻⱓⰻⱄⰲⰵ––
ⰿⰻⰶⱆⱂⱝⱀⱏⰴⰵⱄⰻ–ⱃⱝⰽⱃⱏⰱⱝⰲⱑⰿⱃⱝ–––ⱏⰲ––
ⱌⱑⱂⱃⰱⱏⱀⰵⰱⰳⰰ–ⱏⱂⱁⱄⰾ–ⰲⰻⱀⱁⰴⰾⱑ––ⰲⰰⰲⱁ
ⱅⱁⱌⱑⰴⰰⰻⰶⰵⱅⱉⱀⱁⱃⱒⰵⰽⰾⱏⱀⰻⰻⰱⱁⰻⰱ–ⰰⱀⰾⰰⰻⰳⰵ
ⰲⰰⰼⰾⰻⱄⱅ҃ⰻⰻⱄⱅ҃ⰰⱑⰾⱆⱌⰻⱑⰰⱞⱀⱏⰴⰰⰻⰾⰵⱄⰴⱑⰶⰻⰲⰵ
ⱅⱏⱞⱉⰾⰻⰸⱝⱀⰵⰱ҃ⱁⰳⰰⰰⰸⱏⱁⱀⱝⱅⱏⰴⰱⱃⱉⰲⱜⱅⱏⰸⱏ
ⰴⱝⱈⱏⱌⱃ꙯ⱑⰽⱏⰲⱏⱄⰻⱅⰻⱄⰲⱉⰵⱓⰱⱃⱝⰰⱜⱓⱄⱏⰴⰵⰲ
ⰵⱅⰻⱓⰲⱏⰴⱀⰻⰽⱏⱀⰵⰸⰰⰽⱉⱄⱏⱞⱏⱅⱝⱉⰱⰾⰰⰾ
ⰰⱓⱋⱝⰳⱉⰲⱏⱄⱆⰽⱏⱃⱝⰻⱀⱆⰻⰱⱑⱎⰵⰲⱏⱅⱏⰾNⱜⱞ
ⱜⰽⱆⰾⱝⰲⱏⱉтⱉⱒⱍ–––ⰲⰵт꙯ⱆⱓⰾⱆⱌ꙯ⱜⱓⰲⱏⰵⰾⰻNⱉ
... [vъ ime ot]ca i sina [i sve]tago duxa azъ
opat[ъ] drъžixa pisaxъ s o ledině juže
da zvъnъmirъ kralъ xrъvatъskъ[i vъ]
dni svoę vъ svet[uju] luciju i s[vedo]-
mi županъ desimra krъbavě mra[tin]ъ vъ l[i]-
cě pr(ez)b(itr)ъ neb(o)gъ a...ъ posl...vin...lě...vъ...v o-
tocě da iže to por(e)če klъni i bo(gъ) i 12 a(posto)la i 4 e-
va(n)g'(e)listi i s(ve)taě luciě am(e)nъ da iže sdě žive-
tъ moli za ne boga azъ opatъ d(o)brovitъ zъ-
daxъ crěkъvъ siju i svoeju bratiju sъ dev-
etiju vъ dni kъneza kosъmъta oblad-
ajucago vъsu kъrainu i běše vъ tъ dnIm-
ikula vъ octočъcI sъ svetuju lucIju vъ edino
A[ZЪ VЪ IME O]TCA I S(I)NA [I S](VE)TAGO DUHA AZЪ
OPAT[Ъ] DRŽIHA PISAHЪ SE O LEDI[N]Ě JuŽE
DA ZЪVЪNIM[I]RЪ KRALЪ HRЪVATЪSKЪÏ [VЪ]
DNI SVOJĘ VЪ SVETUJu LUCIJu I S[VEDO]-
MI ŽUPANЪ DESIMRA KRЪ[BA]VĚ MRA[TIN]Ъ VЪ L(I)-
CĚ PR(I)BЪNEBŽA [S]Ъ POSL[Ъ] VIN[OD](O)LĚ [ĚK](O)VЪ V(Ъ) O-
TOCĚ DA IŽE TO POREČE KLЪNI I BO(G) I BÏ(=12) AP(OSTO)LA I G(=4) E-
VA(N)J(E)LISTI I S(VE)TAĚ LUCIĚ AM(E)NЪ DA IŽE SDĚ ŽIVE-
TЪ MOLI ZA NE BOGA AZЪ OPATЪ D(O)BROVITЪ ZЪ-
DAH CRĚKЪVЪ SIJu I SVOEJu BRATIJu SЪ DEV-
ETIJu VЪ DNI KЪNEZA KOSЪMЪTA OBLAD-v
AJuĆAGO VЪSU KЪRAINU I BĚŠE VЪ TЪ DNI M-
IKULA VЪ OTOČЪCI [SЪ S]VETUJu LUCIJu VЪ EDINO
- Why the two forms ⰰ and ⱝ? ⱁ and ⱉ? ⰻ and ⱜ?
they are mixed throughout, but
neither transliteration distinguishes them
- The glagolitic ⰿ occurs only once--all others are Latinate ⱞ
- Last 2 lines particularly strange. (running out of space? time?
getting tired? later attempts at damage repair?)
- The glagolitic Ⱀ is replaced in last 2 lines with a latin N. Modern serbian has њ, sounding like ny. Could it be this?
- In last line, on two occasions what looks like ⱅ rotated CCW, is interpreted as ⰲ, thought maybe it is Ⱐ? In old church slavonic was pronounced like y; ⱏ unrecognizible
Titlos and vzmet
Several characters appear with titlo and several pairs with vzmet.
Some of them may be accidents or later additions, but in some cases space
was clearly provided for a titlo above a letter.
- Line 1. vzmet over ⰴⱆ. Fairly clear, but curved like a breve
- Line 8. titlo over ⱅ in 2 places. Very clear space was provided
- Line 9. titlo over ⰱ. Looks like space was provided
- Line 10. vzmet over ⱌⱃ. just a straight line, but clear
- Line 11. titlo over ?. Space was provided. Nice curved titlo
- Line 13. vzmet over ⰵⱅ, another one over ⱆⱌ. First is straight,
second has nice downward crooks.
- Line 8, 3rd letter is transliterated 'j' or "g'".
Box at top right, three lines pointing down.
Modern Croatian has
Dž /dʒ/ dž as in gin
Đ /dʑ/ đ as in jack
The word should read like "evangelisti". But glagolitic letters are these?
These would be џ and ђ in Cyrillic, so maybe Ⰷ and Ⰼ.
I'm going to guess it's the second, based on shape.
- Line 10, 6th letter looks like crossed b, transliterated 'r'.
Well it's not too far. The 'r' otherwise looks like a square b
with a right hook at top
- Line 10, 7th letter from the end. Crack half obliterates it.
Both transliterations read Ju, but I find it unreadable.
- Line 11, 4th letter is strange. First it seems to have a titlio.
box on right, smaller box in middle, two horizontal lines to left.
Perhaps the smaller box should be just one horizontal line at the top,
in which case it would look like a 'p'. If further the horizontl lines
on the left really form a box, it would look like a 't'. Both transliterations
have "Ju", which it looks nothing like.
- Line 11, 13th letter is damaged on the left side.
Rest looks like ⰵ. OK then we're in agreement.
- Line 11, 18th letter looks like a vertical bow-tie.
Transliterated as 's'. Looks different from other s's on stone. Well OK.
- Line 11, 22nd letter damaged by crack. Top maybe looks like 't'.
Transliterated as 't'. OK.
- Line 12, 5th letter from end. Might be ⱈ but is missing the
upward crook that appears elsewhere. Transliterated as ъ, whose
Cyrillic version it resembles, but ... it doesn't resemble other
examples on the stone at all.
- Line 12, 3rd letter from end.
- In last line, there is a letter that looks like an Upsilon,
which is transliterated as 't'.