We have yet to learn about one last type of language change. The changes that we talked about earlier (if you remember, these were changes in meaning and changes in pronunciation) are changes that relate primarily to individual words: we learned that words can change either their appearance, or their meaning, or, of course, both at the same time. But there are changes that concern the whole language, or, as linguists say, the structure of the language; in other words, they are changes in grammar.

We have already said that in the most general form, grammar refers to everything that you need to know in order to be able to connect words in a language with each other. Are there cases in the language, and if so, how many are there and how are they used? What tenses do verbs have in the language? Are there prepositions, what are they? All this (and much more) is the subject of grammar. You understand perfectly well that without knowing grammar, you can neither speak the language correctly nor understand what is said well. Grammar is the basis of the language, its "skeleton".

But it turns out that the grammar of the language changes over time. Let us turn again, for the last time, to Pushkin's lines. Don’t you find such combinations, for example, as about the dawn (in the sense of “at dawn; with the onset of dawn”) or the prince of Gaia-don rules that city (in the sense of “rules that city”)? Or here's another, in "The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish", you can read the following lines:

In front of him is a hut with a lamp,

With oak, plank gates.

It seems as if these lines were written by a foreigner who is a little confused in Russian cases: why from the gate, and not from the gate, why does the city rule, and not rule the city?

All these differences are not accidental. In Old Russian, as in modern Russian, there were also cases, but many endings were not the same as they are now, and many cases were used differently than they are now. In Pushkin's time, most of these differences had already disappeared, but some still remained. For example, the instrumental plural of words like city used to sound not like cities, but cities. Therefore, when Pushkin writes a hut from the gate, this, of course, is not a mistake, but the remnants of an ancient inclination. It must be said that even in our present language there is one expression which, in a petrified form,

Preserved this ancient instrumental case. This turnover is "with comrades" (which means approximately "not alone; together with assistants", that is, simply, "with comrades"); we don't really think about this strange form - well, they say so, and that's it. But in fact, this turnover is a rare fossil in which the features of the ancient Russian declension are imprinted - just like the outlines of ancient mollusks are imprinted in real fossils.

One more example. When asked how many numbers a noun has in Russian, any student will immediately answer: of course, two - singular and plural, how could it be otherwise? It turns out it can. And just in the Old Russian language, nouns had one more, third number. It was called dual and was used when it was only about two objects. For example, one neighbor was called in Old Russian cycЂd, many neighbors were called cycЂdu, but if there were two of them, they said - cycЂda (my suda is translated into modern language as “my two neighbors”).

The dual number in Russian disappeared about six hundred years ago. This was also a grammatical change. But you probably already realized that changes in grammar do not happen exactly like changes with individual words. Ancient grammatical features do not disappear without a trace, as a rule, some traces, some fragments remain of them. A linguist, like an archaeologist, can, by carefully studying a modern language, tell quite a lot about its past.

You ask me - is there really something reminiscent of the dual number left in the modern Russian language? Yes, surprisingly, it remains. And there are quite a few of these leftovers. Well, first of all: after all, for some reason we are talking about two neighbors, and not two neighbors? That ancient form is hidden here. (True, we now also say three neighbors to four neighbors, which was not in the language of our ancestors, but that's another story.) But that's not all. What is the “normal” plural ending for neuter words in -o? That's right, as, for example, in a pair of oars - oars. And why don't we form the plural of the words shoulder or ear in the same way? After all, we are not talking about shoulders, but shoulders, not ears, but ears. Yes, and the ancient dual number is involved here. The forms shoulders and ears are ancient forms of the dual number, which in modern language have defeated the “correct” plural forms (isn't it because when we say, for example, ears, we usually mean a pair of ears after all?). Although this victory was not won immediately: back in the 19th century, the shape of the shoulder was used quite widely. For example, in Fet’s famous poem “Don’t wake her up at dawn” (this is the middle of the last century), we read:

And her pillow is hot

And a hot tiring dream,

And blackening run on the shoulders

Braids tape on both sides...

Even in Blok's poems (written at the very beginning of the 20th century) one can still find shoulders.

Grammar may also undergo more serious changes. For example (if we still talk about cases), words of one declension can borrow endings from words of another declension. In the Old Russian language, the endings of the so-called "hard" and "soft" declensions of nouns were consistently distinguished. This is how it looked (of course, I will not give the entire declension table, but only one small fragment of it; the case, which in the Old Russian language was called “local”, in general, corresponds to the case of the modern Russian language, which is usually called “prepositional” in textbooks ".)

In the modern language, the soft type has simply disappeared: there is one less declension. Words of a soft type have lost their special endings and have acquired hard-type endings instead: now we are talking near the earth - like at a wall, on earth - like on a wall. But some Russian dialects decided differently: in some of them, for example, instead of two types of declension, only one remained, but ... due to the fact that the words of the hard type lost their endings and took on the endings of the soft type! In such dialects they say: at the wall, at the ground. There were a lot of such changes in the history of the Russian language; they are also familiar to almost all other languages ​​that distinguish between several types of declension: in the course of history, these types necessarily begin, so to speak, to “mix” with each other.

Can cases disappear altogether? It also happens. Nouns in the language generally cease to decline and begin to appear in a single form anywhere in the sentence. This means that there are no cases in such a language - as, for example, in English or French. Speaking of English and French, there were also cases in both languages! Both in Old French and in Old English (more precisely, in Old English, as they say). True, for example, only two of them remained in Old French - and in Latin, which was the ancestor of the Old French language, there were as many as five cases even in the late era, And if only two of the five cases remained in the language, then it is clear that they did not have long to live, but still for two or three hundred years this language was spoken in France.

Cases have also disappeared in the Bulgarian language. The Bulgarian language has the same ancestor as Russian - the Proto-Slavic language. And there were no less cases in this language (and in Old Bulgarian, the texts of which have been preserved) than in Russian. But now there is no trace of them. Judge for yourself: for example, "table" in Bulgarian will be "masa"; "on the table" and "on the table" will be "on the masa", "under the table" and "under the table" - "under the masa", and so on. The word is used in only one form - just like in modern English or French.

Changes in grammar most of all separate one state of the language from another. After all, if the words sound a little different or some of them have a different meaning, this difference is not so noticeable. But if, for example, the declension changes in a language, this affects it entirely, and so deeply that we immediately say: yes, the ancient language and its new successor are, indeed, two different languages ​​...

PAGE_BREAK--Vladimir Monomakh's personality was undoubtedly outstanding for his time, though typical of the early Russian Middle Ages. Monomakh, with all his inalienable qualities, was still the son of his age. He did not pave new paths, did not think about social reforms. His program of mitigating the class contradictions caused by the growth of feudalism in the ancient Russian state was not only moderate, but also not new.
The letter to Oleg was added to the enumerated texts of Monomakh not by chance. Objectively, it also has a great educational value. The situation described in it corresponds to the tasks of creating a high moral ideal. On a tragic example from the life of a prince, the behavior proper from a Christian point of view is modeled. If you are guided by the example of Vladimir Monomakh, then this will allow you to get out of the most difficult life situations with dignity. The letter is deeply autobiographical. As a matter of fact, this is an element of biography performed in a different literary manner. In a letter to Oleg Monomakh, he speaks of the responsibility of the government, which is obliged to act as a model of justice and moderation. In fact, the letter embodies the ideas of good deeds formulated by the prince himself. The only difference is that we are not dealing with an abstract moral requirement, but with a description of a specific situation in which Monomakh's behavior embodied this principle. In the context of the instruction, the letter turns out to be a full-fledged element of the autobiography, which supplemented the autobiographical part of the "Instruction". True, unlike writing, not all the facts of the annalistic block can serve as a worthy example to follow. Disharmonious with the proclaimed author and the ideal image of the ruler Monomakh's bragging of military victories and fearless exploits in the hunt. Nor can the ruthless devastation of Minsk, captured in civil strife, serve as an example for posterity. For the rest, the "Instruction" is a high example of morality in such an atypical area for it as politics.
The work that came out from the pen of Vladimir Vsevolodovich has come down to us in a single list, as part of an annals rewritten by the monk Lavrenty in 1377 and bearing his name. The entire heritage of Monomakh is inserted into the article of 1096, where it appears under a common heading, as "Instruction", although it has a fractional structure4.
The first publisher of the "Instructions" A. I. Musin - Pushkin called it "Dukhovnaya", that is, the testament of Grand Duke Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh to his children. This, indeed, is more of a testament than a lesson, and not only to your children. It is not for nothing that Monomakh himself writes: “My children or someone else, having heard this grammar ... will take it into your heart and not be lazy and start working like that”5.
Monomakh acted in the conditions of the intensified class struggle as a result of the growth of feudal exploitation in the country.
With his "Instruction" Monomakh did not in the least delay the further development of contradictions in feudal society, but justice requires recognizing that during the reign of Monomakh himself remarkable successes were achieved that ensured for a time the prosperity of the ancient Russian state. Having annexed the lands of the deceased Svyatopolk to his hereditary possessions in 1113, Vladimir Monomakh concentrated in his hands at least three-quarters of Russia, and his possessions constituted a continuous territory. He was not satisfied with the position of the first among other Russian princes equal to him. He restored the former formula of the grand duke's power: "in the father's place." With a stern hand, he suppressed any violation of his will. When in 1116 Gleb Minsky attacked foreign territory, Monomakh with an armed hand deprived him of the Minsk principality and took him to Kyiv. By the way, the "Instruction" ends with the story about this campaign. Probably, one of the objectives of the "Instruction" was to warn some princes about the consequences of self-will and violation of the feudal subordination established by Monomakh. To this end, the author of the “Instruction” also cites an earlier case: in 1100, at the congress of princes in Vitichev, after the blinding of Vasilko, the following decision was made: David should not be given the reign of Vladimir because he “threw a knife into us, he was not in the Russian land"6. And Volodar Rostislavich was told: “Take your brother Vasilko to you, and let you have one power, Przemysl. Yes, if you like it, yes it’s gray, whether it’s still not, let Vasilka semo, but we feed him from here. When the Rostislavichi did not agree with this decision, the other princes wanted to force them by force and sent to tell Vladimir Monomakh, who was then on the Volga, about his intention. “Usretosha, for I was heard from my brothers on the Volza,” writes Monomakh in the “Instruction,” and saying: Come to us, let us take away Rostislavich’s wife and their volost; If you don’t go with us, then we will be to ourselves, and you to yourselves.” 8.
The feudal strife of the late 11th-early 12th centuries was one of the gravest national disasters. To avoid them, the princes entered into agreements, securing them with a "cross-kissing" oath. Of course, this did not help much, but Monomakh strictly adhered to the observance of such agreements and did not violate them, even at the risk of quarreling with other princes.
"Instruction" by Vladimir Monomakh is a literary monument of outstanding importance. It reflected with unusual brightness the height of the culture of ancient Russia and the role that literature played in the social and state life of the Russian people of that time. Vladimir Monomakh was a real writer - artist. A leitmotif runs through all of his “Instructions”: the call to “mourn” about your Russian land, about its workers, but not be limited to passive regret, but actively fight all the negative phenomena of feudal reality. Many parts of the Teachings are written with great artistic skill. Indicative in this regard is the story of the siege of Chernigov by Oleg Svyatoslavich, who brought with him many Polovtsians. Seeing no way to defeat the enemies, Monomakh agreed to leave Chernigov. With remarkable brightness and expressiveness, he talks about how he had to go with a small retinue through the entire enemy army: on us (Polovtsy), like wolves standing, and from the ferry and from the mountains, oh god and holy Boris, do not let them reproach me "9. In a simple, lapidary form, Monomakh conveys the enormous inner tension of this scene, forcing the reader to experience the same feelings that the author experienced in his time. The poetic nature of Monomakh is reflected in his attitude to nature, which causes the author of the Teaching to think about the structure of the universe and the place of man in it. “How the sky is arranged,” Monomakh exclaims, “what is the sun, what is the moon, what are the stars, and darkness and light ... And we marvel at this miracle ... How can we imagine diversity in human faces, if the whole world is not combined into one image , but who is in his own image ... And this is why we marvel at how the bird of heaven from the fire goes first into our hands, and is not placed on a single "land, but strong and thin go through all lands ... "10. Monomakh was well-read man, and from his “Instruction” it can be seen that he was well acquainted with the “Izbornik of 1076.” One of the articles in this collection (“The word of a certain father to his son”) may have served as a model for the “Instruction.” But Vladimir Monomakh's "Instruction" is much more specific than the article in "Izbornik". Everyday details abundantly presented in the "Instruction" are so characteristic that, even if the author had not named himself in the preface, readers could easily guess his name from the list of events in his life. mentioned in this first autobiographical work of Russian literature .
An important feature of Monomakh's "Instructions" is its humanistic orientation, appeal to man, his spiritual world, which is closely related to the humanistic nature of the author's worldview. Moreover, protected by 100% as a reliable handwritten literary source, "Instruction" in its content is highly patriotic and highly biased towards the fate of the Russian land as a whole and each person individually - be it a prince, a clergyman or any layman. In addition, the “Instruction” is firmly inscribed in the pan-European medieval literary tradition of royal, imperial instructions to heirs and descendants - English and French, Byzantine (for example, the treatise of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus “On the management of the empire” of the 10th century was written in the form of an instruction to his son - heir) ll.

Historical changes in the grammatical structure of the Russian language: nouns, pronouns and adjectives (on the example of "Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh").
The grammatical structure of the modern Russian language is generally inherited from Old Russian. It coincides in many ways with the grammatical structure of the language of our ancestors, since grammar in its general features can remain unchanged for a long time.
The basis of the morphology of the Old Russian language was the system of declension and conjugation, that is, in other words, the inflectional structure of the language, the essence of which lies in the fact that the connection of words is expressed in most cases with the help of endings.
At earlier stages of the development of the Russian language, there were significantly more grammatical forms than in modern Russian12.
A) nouns
The noun of the Old Russian language is characterized, as in modern Russian, by the grammatical categories of gender, number, and case.
Category kind by the nature of its origin is common Indo-European. Masculine nouns are distinguished: take, cross, god, Lord, belly and others; feminine: soul, alms, volost, sadness, victory and others; neuter gender: good, evil, loneliness, miracle, heaven and many others. The category of the genus has largely survived unchanged to the present day. In the text we can find many more examples of words of various genders.
The category of number in the Old Russian language was represented by three forms: singular, plural and dual. The meaning of the singular and plural coincides with their meaning in modern Russian. The dual number was used when it was about two or paired objects: one city, many cities, two cities; two wives, two villages, two noses, and the like.
Examples from the text:
Singular
Plural
Dual
sanekh
god
literacy
heart
fear
in souls
nonsense
alms
way
parish
children
ambassadors
enemies
with tears
brothers
human beings
affairs
sins
miracles
eyelids
hand
rotoma
hand
The nouns of the Old Russian language were inclined, i.e. changed according to cases. The Old Russian language had the following cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, local. In the singular, the vocative case was still used, expressing in its meaning the form of address. Its remnants in modern Russian are forms like God, Lord, and the like. In the plural, the vocative form is the same as the nominative case. When declensing nouns in the dual number, there is a coincidence of the forms of cases of nominative - accusative - vocative, genitive - local, dative - instrumental13. Examples from the text: good - neuter, singular, accusative; in souls - feminine, singular, local case; horse - plural, dative case.
In the Old Russian language, by the era of the beginning of writing, there was a multi-type declension, which was expressed in the fact that the same cases of nouns of different types of declension had different endings. In the early period of the Proto-Slavic language, each type of declension was characterized by the last sound of the base, depending on which vowel or consonant the base ended in (later the final sound moved to the end, that is, the morphemes were re-decomposed in favor of the end).
1. Words with a stem on *ā had a hard and soft (*jā and words like girl, where there was no *j, and the original soft consonant arose from the back lingual after the front vowel as a result of the third palatalization) varieties of declension. This type of declension included feminine nouns that have endings [a], ["a] in the nominative case: water, earth, wife, hand; some masculine nouns on [a], ["a]:. servant, governor, youth; masculine nouns in -ii: judges, helmsmen; feminine nouns in -yni: princesses, slaves. Examples from the text: do not look at governors(masculine noun, plural, accusative), including soul(feminine noun, singular, nominative, soft variety), walking in its own way lands(feminine noun, plural, dative, soft variety), alms creating (noun feminine, singular, accusative, soft), above chapters ours (feminine noun, plural, genitive).
2. Words with a stem on *ŏ also had a hard and soft (*jŏ and words like ots, where there was no *j, and the original soft consonant arose from a back lingual consonant after a front vowel in the third palatalization) varieties of declension. This type of declension included masculine and neuter words, having in the nominative case, respectively, the endings -ъ, -о after a hard consonant: table, village and -ь, -е after a soft consonant: horse, field, as well as masculine words like edge , robbery. Examples from the text: old honor like father(noun masculine, singular, genitive, soft), don't look at lad(masculine noun, singular, accusative), suddenly man die (masculine noun, gender, singular, nominative case), and the other hornworm pain (masculine noun, dual number, dative - instrumental cases), do not let the dirty deeds in village(neutral noun, plural, locative), giving away god praise (masculine noun, singular, dative case).
3. This type of declension is not numerous. Words with a stem in *ŭ included several masculine nouns with the ending -ъ in the nominative case after a solid consonant: son, house, vyrkh, vol, floor (half), ice, honey, possibly also the words row, gift, chin, pir and some others. Examples from the text: do not be lazy in home(noun masculine, singular, locative), you cannot for nothing(masculine noun, singular, instrumental), Koksus with son(masculine noun, singular, instrumental).
4. Words with stems in *ĭ included masculine and feminine words with the ending -ь in the nominative case. Feminine nouns at the end of the stem could have both a semi-soft consonant: bone, and primordially soft: night, and masculine nouns before the end could only have a semi-soft consonant, and not a primordially soft consonant. It is the semi-soft consonant in the nominative and accusative cases that makes it possible to distinguish masculine words with stems in *ĭ and *ŏ: the word way, where the stem ends in a semi-soft consonant (if *j were present here, then *tj would give [h "] in Old Russian); also a dove, where at the end of the stem there is a semi-soft consonant (if there was *j here, then *bj would give [bl "]), therefore, these are words with a stem on *i. Examples from the text: and night(feminine noun, singular, nominative), walking by(noun masculine, plural, dative), honor the guest(masculine noun, singular, accusative), do not give authorities(feminine noun, singular, genitive), parish we will take them away (feminine noun, singular, accusative case), which gave us mercy(feminine noun, singular, accusative), endure and packs and death(feminine noun, singular, instrumental).
5. Words of all three genders belonged to nouns with a stem in a consonant. The ancient stems are found here in oblique cases, in which there is a sort of “accumulation” of suffixes to a consonant. This type was leaning:
a) Masculine nouns with the suffix -en- (based on the consonant *-n: *kamen): kamy - stone, flame - flame, as well as the words day, deer, root and some others;
continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--b) Neutral nouns with the suffix -en- (consonant stem *-n: *imen): name - name, time - time, letter (letter) - writing, number (number) - number and others ; ,
c) Nouns of the middle gender with the suffix -yat- (based on the consonant *-t): tel - calves, gousya - gousyate, otrochya - otrochiate and other names of cubs;
d) nouns of the middle gender with the suffix -es- (based on the consonant *-s): sky - heaven, ouho - ooshesa, body - bodies and others;
e) Feminine nouns with the suffix -er- (based on the consonant *-r): mother - mother, daughter - daughter14.
Examples from the text: laziness over everything mother(feminine noun, singular, nominative), confess miracles(neutral noun, plural, genitive), in name(neutral noun, singular, accusative), въ day(masculine nouns, singular, accusative).
6. Nouns with a stem in *ū included a few feminine words with the ending -ы in the nominative case: beeches, tyky, mossy, father-in-law, lyuba, bra, kry, church, morki, ash, yatry. Examples from the text: and in churches then deitei (feminine noun, singular, dative case).
In the process of centuries-old historical development, the Old Russian system of declension of nouns has undergone significant changes. The main direction of these changes was to simplify the declension system, which was expressed in the unification of declension types, in the unification of case endings, especially in the plural, in the loss of the vocative form and the dual number. Some of these changes are caused by phonetic factors, others by the mutual influence of hard and soft stems, some cases on others in the same declension ... However, the grammatical gender played the main and decisive role in changing the declension system of nouns. As a result, the old types of declination were destroyed and new ones were established.
Combining declension types. In the Old Russian language of the 11th century, as is known, there were six main types of declension of nouns. However, already in ancient times, even before the appearance of written monuments, some types of declension began to influence others. So, for example, as a result of the interaction of nouns with stems in *ŏ(*jŏ) and *ŭ, one ending was established in the instrumental case of the singular: -ьмъ (city and son).
The process of interaction of different types of declension of nouns continues to develop in the written period. This is easy to see if we turn to the oldest Russian monuments - the Ostromir Gospel, the Izbornik of Svyatoslav, the Smolensk Charter of about 1229 and others. So, in the “Izbornik of Svyatoslav” of 1073, it is found from flax instead of flax. We see these changes in the text: gods instead of gods, they will laugh at your house instead of houses.
The interaction of different types of declension of nouns gradually leads to the unification of some types of declension, the disintegration and disappearance of others. As a result, three new types of declension are formed in Russian. The transformation of declension types occurs under the influence of grammatical gender. Nouns are grouped around one type or another no longer according to ancient foundations, but according to a generic characteristic. Thus, masculine words of different types of declension receive the same endings and gradually develop one type of declension based on the most stable and numerous declension with a basis in *ŏ(*jŏ). It is joined by words with stems in *ŭ, as well as masculine nouns with stems in *i and *-n. The same happens with feminine and neuter nouns. The combination of declension types according to the principle of grammatical gender was expressed, first of all, in the interaction of nouns with stems in *ŏ(*jŏ) and *ŭ, in the partial destruction of the declension with a stem in *ĭ and the splitting of the declension of nouns with a stem into a consonant and * ū .
Noun interactionWith bases in *ŏ(*jŏ) and *й. The interaction of nouns with stems in *ŏ(*jŏ) and *ŭ, as mentioned above, began in the speech of the Eastern Slavs in the pre-literate era. This interaction was expressed in the fact that these types of declination began to approach each other, mutually influence each other. Their rapprochement was facilitated by the fact that both declensions belonged to the same (masculine) gender and had the same endings in the nominative singular: city and son. Already in the most ancient monuments, nouns with a base on * ŭ meet with the endings of words with stems in *ŏ(*jŏ). So, along with the forms of the genitive case of the singular volou, verkhou and others, the forms of an ox (Laurentian Chronicle), without a top (Walking of Abbot Danil) are used. In the "Instruction" we meet: along with the form of the dative case of the singular number of sons, there is also the form of son, in a row instead of in a row.
On the other hand, nouns with stems in *ŏ(*jŏ) have secondary endings borrowed from the declension of words with stems in *ŭ. These changes are reflected in the text: along with the forms of the genitive case of the singular bogou, the forms of bogovi are used, polk is used polku.
As a result of the interaction of these declensions, one type is gradually developed. The declension of words with a stem in *ŭ has disappeared, but some of its forms have entered the second declension and have survived in the Russian language to this day. These forms, ascending to nouns with a stem in *ŭ, in modern Russian are the following: singular genitive in -u (sugar, peas, tea); prepositional singular in -y (in the forest, at home); genitive plural in -ov (cities, houses).
Partial destruction of the declension of wordsWith based on*ĭ . In ancient times, masculine and feminine nouns belonged to this declension. However, masculine nouns are gradually merging with the soft declension for *ŏ. This was facilitated by the coincidence of the formative and accusative cases of the singular: horse and guest.
In the end, in the Russian language, one declension of masculine nouns of a soft variety turned out. As a result, words like guest began to change, like the word horse: the genitive case of the singular guest - horse; dative singular to the guest - the horse. But not all masculine nouns of the declension of words with the stem in *ĭ have passed into declensions in *ŏ. Some of them (larynx, liver, seal, degree, pain, and others) remained in the old declension, beginning to be perceived as feminine nouns. Just a word path retained its gender and continues to lean as before: path - path - path and so on. In turn, the declension of words with a stem in *ĭ itself had an impact on the declension of nouns with a stem in *ŏ. This was reflected in the fact that the genitive plural in -ey extended to masculine nouns of the declension in *ŏ: horses, husbands instead of old horses, can. In the text of the "Instructions" these interactions are not reflected in any way. Consequently, it has not yet begun in the Russian language of the 12th century.
Thus, the old declension of words with a stem on *i, having lost masculine words in its composition and concentrated feminine nouns in itself, formed the modern III declension.
Declension of nounsWith stem to the consonant u *ū.
The destruction of this declension, which began in the preliterate era, continued into the written period. Decay of noun declensions with a stem into a consonant and * ū followed the path of redistributing his words between other types on the basis of grammatical gender.
The masculine nouns belt, root, day and others have passed into the declension of nouns with the stem in *ŏ. According to the same declension, the word kamy began to decline after it received the form of a stone in the nominative case of the singular under the influence of the accusative case. The masculine noun of the flame, having changed into a flame, passed into a group of words of the middle gender of the type name
Feminine nouns mother and child entered the new third declension. A number of words in *ū: father-in-law, tsrky, marky, and others, having received accusative forms in the nominative case of the singular, also passed into the modern third declension. Other words of this type acquired the ending -a in the nominative case of the singular and began to change according to the first declension: boukva, tykva.
Nouns of the neuter gender such as a calf, a piglet, a foal, which received in the nominative case of the singular form calf, piglet, foal, entered the declension of nouns with a stem in *ŏ as masculine words. According to the same declension (like a village), having lost the suffix -es- in the singular, the words heaven, chowdo, word, body began to decline. In the words body and word, this suffix is ​​also lost in the plural. Nouns like name, time, tribe mostly retained their old declension.
As a result of all these changes, the declensions of consonant-based nouns and *ū have disappeared.
Thus, very significant changes have taken place in the system of declension of nouns throughout the history of the Russian language. As a result, three declensions take the place of six ancient Russian types. The modern first declension includes feminine nouns of the Old Russian declension of nouns with a stem in *ā(*jā) and partially words of the former declension of words with a stem in *ū . The second declension includes words of the masculine and neuter gender of the former declension of words with a stem in *ŏ(*jŏ), as well as masculine nouns of Old Russian declension of words with a stem in *ŭ and *ĭ and words of masculine and neuter declension of nouns with a stem in a consonant such as kama, remy, calf, pig, word, sky. The third declension covers feminine nouns of the old declension of words with the stem in *ĭ, as well as the words of the declension of words with the stem in the consonant mati, d'chi and partly the words in *ū: father-in-law, marky, tsyrky.
Other changes. The process of interaction of different types of declension is not limited to the design of three declensions in Russian. This process goes even further in the plural. Nouns of different types of declension in the plural gradually lose their differences, unify. So, in the dative, instrumental and local cases of the plural, over time, uniform forms are established for all types of declension of nouns, regardless of grammatical gender. In the dative, instrumental and local cases, under the influence of the declension of words to *ā(*jā), all nouns began to end in amъ, ami, ахъ. These changes began a century later than the "Instruction" was written, therefore they were not reflected in this text: "20 live horses ..."
The first examples with new endings are noted in the monuments of the 13th century. So, for example, in the Pskov paremennik of 1271 we meet Egyptians, bezakoniy, with hoods. The process of spreading the endings -am, -ami, -akh was long, ending, as P. Ya. Chernykh suggests, only by the second quarter of the 18th century.
In addition to the interaction between individual types of declension, there is a convergence of the endings of the soft and hard variants within the first two declensions. Separate cases of such rapprochement are found in the monuments of the 11th century. So, in the Novgorod Menaion of 1095, the form “in veta clothes” is noted instead of clothes. Here the ending -e appeared under the influence of a solid variety (like a wife). As a result of this interaction, the endings of the soft version were replaced by the endings of the hard version. I did not find these changes in the text ...
By the 14th century, the dual number had fallen out of use, replaced by the plural. Separate surviving forms of the dual number are now recognized as plural forms, for example: eyes, shoulders, horns, banks, and so on. In the XIV-XV centuries, the vocative form was also lost. Instead, when addressing, the nominative case began to be used. However, from a limited group of words, the vocative form is found in the monuments of the 16th century. For example, in the Kazan chronicler: lord, virgin, virgin, brethren, Christ, zastoupniche, man, Peter, Nicholas, son, Lord and others. The vocative form is still preserved in the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. In Ukrainian: father, sinka, mamo, falcon, Katre and so on; in Belarusian: son, brother and others. The "Instruction" was written before the loss of the dual number and the vocative form occurred, so in the text we meet these forms: rukama, horn; the vocative form was not used in the Teaching.
The development of the category of animation. The category of animation in the modern Russian declension is expressed by the form of the accusative case, equal to the genitive, when designating living beings: to love a father, to buy cows, to catch birds, and so on. .
In the Old Russian language, initially there was no category of animation. Therefore, animate and inanimate nouns in the accusative case had the same forms: vizhou dom and vizhou ott.
However, even in the pre-literate era, to designate persons (people), and first in proper names, and then in common nouns, the Eastern Slavs begin to use the accusative case of the singular, equal to the genitive case, in masculine nouns. This is already reflected in the most ancient written monuments.
In the 14th century, the category of animation extended to masculine plural nouns, and from the 16th century to feminine plural nouns. Examples: victorious derevlyan (Laurentian Chronicle); bestowed upon the prince of the Russians (1 Novgorod Chronicle); and teach slaves (Domostroy); and their wives and children were sent for them (Grigory Kotoshikhin).
And only in the 17th century did the category of animation cover words denoting animals and birds. Examples: I bought just one borashka (Acts of the economy of the boyar B. I. Morozov); but they catch those birds near Moscow and in the city and in Siberia (Grigory Kotoshikhin); ... how to bring the third thing, the swan, and put it on the table (ibid.).
This is how the category of animation arises and develops in the Russian language, finally taking shape by the 18th century. Since the category of animation began to form later than the work was written, the category of animation is not materially expressed: man, god.
B) Pronouns
The category of pronouns includes words that do not name objects and their signs, but only point to them. The specific meaning of the pronoun is obtained only in the conditions of coherent speech16.
In the Old Russian language, pronouns were divided into two large groups - personal and non-personal.
Personal pronouns included the first: yaz, we; the second: you, you are faces, and also the reflexive pronoun yourself adjoined them. Impersonal pronouns included several categories, many of which have not yet been fully formed.
There are several points of view explaining the appearance of the nominative singular form of the 1st person pronoun - i. The traditional point of view: before the fall of the reduced in the Old Russian language, the two-syllable form yaz was used, but since the other forms of the nominative case were monosyllabic (you, we, you), by analogy with them, the word yaz loses the second syllable. However, G. A. Khaburgaev believes that the form yaz was not typical for live speech, he sees a contamination of the Old Slavonic form az and the Old Russian form ya. According to G. A. Khaburgaev, the form I did not originate from yaz; education i is considered as a very ancient Proto-Slavic dialectal feature, which was entrenched in East Slavic and West Slavic dialects. Both forms of yaz and ya are recorded in written monuments. Therefore, it can be assumed that the forms yaz and i coexisted in the living speech of the Eastern Slavs. In the text, we meet only one form of the pronoun of the 1st person: “I can’t you, I ...”, which indicates that this form was more common. In the work of Vladimir Monomakh, we meet yaz as the main form of the personal pronoun of the 1st person singular. I is used only as a demonstrative pronoun.
Genitive - accusative singular pronouns1 – th and2 - th person, as well as the reflexive pronoun itself. In these forms of commentary, both stems and inflections of words are required. In the XII-XIV centuries there were forms with the basics teb-, seb- (*teb, *seb). From the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th centuries, forms with the stems tob-, sob- (tobe, sobe) began to be used, and in the 15th - 16th centuries the forms of pronouns with these stems become predominant, but in the 17th century the old form wins (in the modern Russian literary language we find in the genitive - accusative cases of the singular form of you, yourself). There are several hypotheses about the origin of the ending -а (the original ending -е, which is preserved, for example, in South Russian dialects). A. I. Sobolevsky saw the influence of the genitive case forms of the singular declension nouns on *ŏ (horse, table). I. V. Yagich suggested that the form can arise under the influence of the enclitic forms of these pronouns - me, cha, sya (me - me, me). A. A. Shakhmatov believes that the ending -a is the result of phonetic changes: after a soft consonant ["e > "a]. In the “Instruction”, the forms tobe, sobe (“we will be to ourselves, and you to yourself ...” - the dative case), “and people will amuse you”) and enclitic forms (“like me ...”, if you and angry…”).
continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--

The development of the grammatical structure of the English language

2. System of weak verbs

3. Preterite-present verbs

4. Irregular and suppletive verbs

5. The formation of analytical forms of the verb

6. Development of the syntactic structure of the English language

List of sources used

1. Evolution of strong verbs in English

The Old English verb system had:

The function of the future tense was performed by the present tense with certain adverbs of the future tense. At the end of the ancient period, a special form of the future tense and other complex (analytical) forms of time began to appear.

5) three non-personal (nominal forms): infinitive, participle I, participle II;

6) Old English verbs had 4 basic forms - the infinitive; unit ave. time; plural ave. time; communion II.

In addition, verbs were divided into two groups (on the basis of the formation of past tense and participle II forms) - strong ones with alternating root vowels and weak ones (with suffixation), i.e. with the addition of the dental suffix -d, -t to the verb stem. In addition to these two groups, there was a small group of so-called. preterite-present verbs (with features of both strong and weak verbs) and a few irregular verbs (anomalous verbs). Strong verbs are older than suffixed verbs. In OE there were about 300 such verbs, these were words of indigenous origin, dating back to the common Indo-European language-base. This explains their high frequency. For example:

OE etan Lat edo rus. there is

OE sittan Lat sedeo rus. sit

OE beran Lat fero rus. take

Examples of verbs dating back to the common Germanic language:

OE drīfan int. trivan di. drifta

OE helpan ext. helfan di. hjalpa

OE rīdan dn. ritan di. riþa

By their morphological nature, strong verbs are a system poorly adapted to quantitative growth, because every verb must, according to the composition of its root, be included in one of the seven classes into which all these verbs were divided in antiquity. The further history of strong verbs, which is the disintegration of this system and its replacement by a system of verbs with suffixation, confirms the archaic character of this system.

So, strong verbs formed their basic forms with the help of an alternation of the root vowel, which was called ablaut (gradation). Ablaut is common in all Indo-European languages, but only in the Germanic languages ​​is it used as a regular morphological device by which the basic forms of the verb are formed.

The ablaut alternation had three steps. In Indo-European languages ​​(except Germanic) there is a qualitative and quantitative ablaut. I-e ablaut - alternation of vowels e - o - zero of the vowel (I take - cart, take - collection, took, drive - drove). In languages ​​where there is an alternation of vowels in number, an alternation of a long and a short vowel is possible: Lat. legō - lēgi (e - e:), fodiō - fōdi (o - o:). In the Germanic languages, ablaut had the following form i / e - a - zero of the vowel: rīdan - rād - ridon - riden. This alternation underlies the first five classes of strong verbs.

It should be noted that the first five classes differ not in the form of the ablaut, but in the type of complicator, i.e. an additional vowel, or a consonant following an ablaut vowel. The complicator vowel, when combined with the ablaut vowel, creates a long vowel or diphthong. However, in Old English verbs, neither the ablaut vowel nor the complicator occurs in its pure form, because they are obscured by later phonetic changes. Verb classes and their typical alternations are distinguished on the basis of comparison with other languages, especially with Gothic.

Although three degrees of ablaut were used to form forms of strong verbs, the basic forms of OE. there were four verbs (like Gothic) - infinitive, past. unit time h., last time pl. h., participle II. The ratio of the main forms of the verb and the steps of the ablaut is as follows: the 1st step of the ablaut corresponds to the 1st basic form of the verb - the infinitive, the 2nd step - to the 2nd basic form - the prosh form. time unit hours, 3rd stage - the 3rd and 4th main forms of the verb - the form of past. time pl. h. and participle form II. Thus, the essence of vowel alternation is that at the heart of the infinitive, participle I, present. tense and imperative mood, verbs from classes 1 to 5 have the vowel e or i (depending on the sound following it). At the heart of the unit h past. tense is the vowel a. In the basics pl. h past. tense and participle II, the vowel was absent or the alternation was equal to zero. At the base of many h past. time in the 4th and 5th grades, a long front vowel of the lower rise appeared.

In addition to ablaut, in the first five classes of strong verbs, common Germanic refraction (for example, in the forms coren, holpen, boren) and voicing according to Werner's law (ceosan - curon - coren) regularly occur.

Strong verbs of the sixth grade in the Old Germanic languages, including Old English, were formed on the basis of the Indo-European quantitative ablaut o - ō. However, in the Germanic languages ​​this alternation was reflected as a qualitative-quantitative a - ō: faran - fōr - fōron - faren (to travel).

The seventh class was formed not according to the ablaut, but with the help of reduplication, i.e. by doubling the first consonant of the root, with which the past forms are created. tense of seventh grade verbs. However, in Old English the reduplication is left in a residual form and is difficult to trace.

Strong verbs of the seventh class do not have a main type, but are equally represented by different variants (for example: hātan - heht - hehton - hāten; rædan - reord - reordon - ræden; lætan - - læten, lēt).

During the Middle English period, many strong verbs become weak. Strong verbs retain six classes according to the method of formation, however, their main forms undergo significant phonetic and spelling changes. Seventh grade in Middle English language finally breaks up: most of the verbs turn into weak ones, the remaining verbs, as a result of significant phonetic changes, lose their basic principle of formation and therefore do not form a single group.

During the Early New English period, a significant restructuring of the morphological structure of the strong verb takes place: instead of the four main forms, strong verbs retain only three. This change affected all strong verbs, but it happened differently in the following ways:

a) alignment of the vowels of the past tense according to the vowel units. numbers

ME risen - rōs - risen - risen

MnE rise-rose-risen

b) alignment of the vowels of the past tense according to the vowel plural. numbers

ME binden-bōnd-bounden-bounden

MnE bind-bound-bound

c) alignment of past tense vowels according to the vowel of participle II:

ME stēlen - stal - stēlen - stolen

MnE steal - stole - stolen

d) individual type alignment:

ME spēken – spak – spēken – spēken

MnE speak-spore-spoken

The transition of strong verbs from the four-basic to the tribasic system can be represented as the following scheme:

ME writen - wrot - writen - writen

MnE write - wrote - written

ME finden-fand-founden-founden

MnE find-found-found

In this regard, a prerequisite is created for restructuring the principle of dividing verbs into morphological types. The former opposition of strong and weak verbs is being replaced by an opposition based on the principle of form formation: verbs that form their forms according to a certain model, according to a certain standard, and verbs whose main forms are not amenable to standard form formation. Thus, by the beginning of the modern period (18th century), verbs began to be divided into regular Standard Verbs) and irregular (Non-Standard Verbs). In modern English, the group of irregular verbs includes all former strong verbs and all weak verbs in which the past tense and second participle forms are formed in a non-standard way (sleep - slepte; tell - told, etc.).

In the practice of translation, grammatical transformations are usually combined with lexical ones. In many cases, a change in the construction of a sentence is caused by lexical, rather than grammatical reasons. Since the communicative load of a sentence most often requires a careful choice of the word, the solution of the translation task depends on the successful choice of the form of the word, its grammatical category. From a practical point of view (not to mention a theoretical one), it is advisable to consider grammatical transformations separately, abstracting from the lexical content of constructions.

Grammatical transformations - the transformation of the sentence structure in the process of translation in accordance with the norms of the TL. Transformation can be complete or partial, depending on whether the structure of the sentence is completely or partially changed. Usually, when the main members of the sentence are replaced, complete T. occurs, but if only minor ones are replaced, partial.

It is important to take into account all the factors that may affect the application of grammatical transformations, namely:

1) the syntactic function of the sentence;

2) its lexical content;

3) its semantic structure;

4) the context (environment) of the proposal;

5) its expressive-stylistic function.

Analytical work of the translator on syntactic structure the sentence consists of two stages: its analysis in comparison with the logical (nuclear) structure and taking into account the usage that forms the preferred surface construction for expressing the same thought in the target language: I have a dog - I have a dog. Those. the formal-syntactic (surface) structure of sentences does not coincide with the logical (nuclear) one. In the Russian sentence, the object of predication of possession (a dog) is a formal subject, the predication of possession is expressed by the verb of existence (is), and the logical subject of predication, the owner of the object, is represented by a formal circumstance (for me).

Semantic structure sentences require transformation when the subject of English. sentences is an abstract concept: long habithas made it is more comfortable for me to speak through the creatures of my invention - Due to a long-term habit, it is more convenient for me to speak through people I have invented.

Contextual environment sentences may also require its grammatical transformation in translation. For example, when translating English sentences beginning with the same personal pronoun - the stylistic norm of SL allows this, but such monotony is unacceptable in RL.

The main types of grammatical transformations include:

Syntactic assimilation (literal translation);

Division of the proposal;

Consolidation of proposals;

Grammar substitutions:

a) changing the form of words,

b) substitution of parts of speech

c) replacement of members of the proposal.

Syntactic assimilation (literal translation) - a method of translation in which the syntactic structure of the original is converted into a similar structure of the TL. This type of "zero" transformation is used in cases where there are parallel syntactic structures in FL and TL. Syntactic assimilation can lead to a complete correspondence between the number of language units and the order of their location in the original and translation: I always remember his words. - I always remember his words.

As a rule, however, the use of syntactic similitude is accompanied by some changes in structural components. When translating from English into Russian, for example, articles, linking verbs, and other service elements may be omitted, as well as changes in morphological forms and some lexical units.

All these changes do not affect the basic structure of the sentence, which is transmitted using a similar Russian structure, keeping the same set of sentence members and the sequence of their location in the text. Syntactic similitude is widely used in English-Russian translations. A change in the structure of a sentence during translation is usually explained by the impossibility of ensuring the equivalence of a translation by means of a literal translation.

Division of the proposal is a method of translation in which the syntactic structure of a sentence in the original is converted into two or more predicative structures of the TL. Articulation transformation leads either to the transformation of a simple sentence of FL into a complex sentence of TL, or to the transformation of a simple or complex sentence of FL into two or more independent sentences in TL: The annual surveys of the Labor Government were not discussed with the workers at any stage, but only with the employers. - The annual reviews of the Labor government were not discussed among the workers at any stage. They were discussed only with entrepreneurs.

In the example, the separation of the last part of the English statement into a separate sentence in the translation allows us to clearly express the opposition in the original.

English newspaper and information messages are characterized by the desire to fit as much information as possible into the framework of one sentence by complicating its structure. The style of the Russian press is more characterized by the desire for a relative brevity of sentences containing informational materials.

Combining offers is a translation method in which the syntactic structure in the original is transformed by combining two simple sentences into one complex one. This transformation is the reverse of the previous one: That was a long time ago. It seemed like fifty years ago. - It was a long time ago - it seemed that fifty years had passed.

Often, the use of union transformation is associated with the redistribution of predicative syntagmas between adjacent sentences, i.e. there is a simultaneous use of union and division - one sentence is divided into two parts, and one of its parts is combined with another sentence.

Grammar substitutions- this is a translation method in which a grammatical unit in the original is converted into a TL unit with a different grammatical meaning. A grammatical unit of a foreign language can be replaced at any level: word form, part of speech, sentence member, sentence of a certain type.

It is clear that when translating, the forms of the FL are always replaced by the forms of the TL. Grammar substitution as a special way of translation implies not just the use of FL forms in translation, but the rejection of the use of FL forms similar to the original ones, the replacement of such forms with others that differ from them in expressed content (grammatical meaning). So, in English and Russian there are singular and plural forms, and, as a rule, the correlated nouns in the original and in the translation are used in the same number, except for cases when the singular form in English corresponds to the plural form in Russian ( money - money; ink - ink, etc.) or vice versa, the English plural corresponds to the Russian singular (struggles - struggle; outskirts - outskirts, etc.). But under certain conditions, the replacement of the form of a number in the translation process can be used as a means of creating an occasional correspondence: We are searching for talent everywhere. We are looking for talent everywhere.

They left the room with their heads held high. They left the room with their heads held high.

A very common type of grammatical substitution in the translation process is part of speech substitution. The translator resorts to it when there is no part of speech or construction with the corresponding meaning in the TL, when it is required by the norms of TL compatibility, etc. A noun is often translated by a verb, an adjective by a noun, an adverb, etc.

When replacing parts of speech, words in the translated text are often used in syntactic functions other than their counterparts in the original text, which certainly requires a restructuring of the entire sentence structure. In this case, the type of the predicate is often replaced: the compound nominal is replaced by the verb and vice versa. The passive-active transformation is also accompanied by the replacement of parts of speech.

Structural transformations of this kind often require the introduction of additional words or the omission of any elements. The introduction of additional words is often due to the fact that Russian and English sentences have a different structure. Most often, words that are semantically redundant are subject to omission, i.e. expressing the meaning that can be extracted from the text without their help.

All of the above substitutions and transformations are complex: permutations are combined with substitutions, grammatical transformations with lexical ones, etc.

The accusation was disproved editorially. This accusation was refuted in editorial.

Translated adverb editorially is passed as a noun with an adjective, because in Russian there is no equivalent to the English dialect.

Ben's illness was public knowledge. About Ben's illness everyone knew.

Combination public knowledge has no analogue in Russian. Therefore the noun knowledge replaced by a verb; adjective public due to its broad semantics, it can be replaced by the pronoun all. The syntax of the sentence undergoes changes: the subject disease becomes an addition, the compound nominal predicate in the translation is replaced by a simple verb.

It should be said that in an English sentence the order of its components is often opposite to the order of the components of a Russian sentence. This is due to the fact that in an English sentence the order of its members is determined by the rules of syntax - the subject precedes the predicate, circumstances are often located at the end of the sentence. In Russian, the word order is determined not by the syntactic function of words, but by the logical structure of thought - the semantic center of the message or the rheme (that “new” that is reported in the sentence) is at the end of the sentence, and the secondary members of the sentence, including the circumstances of the place, time, etc., are located at the beginning of the sentence.

The translation of the following sentence requires a whole range of substitutions. This is dictated by the fact that in Russian there is no noun equivalent to English:

Not is a three-time loser at marriage. He was unsuccessfully married three times.

Adjective three-timethree times a day is replaced by the adverb three times, noun marriage- adjective married;loserloser, loser replaced by adverb unsuccessfully.

It is difficult, almost impossible, to enumerate and illustrate all the possible substitutions and permutations and build them into any kind of system. We can only note some grammatical phenomena in the English language, during the transmission of which the probability of structural transformations, in particular, the replacement of parts of speech, is the highest. Such grammatical phenomena include words formed with the help of suffixes -eg(-og) and -able.

They are interesting and difficult because the suffix -er forms a noun with the meaning of the agent from almost any verb, and the suffix -able forms adjectives from the stem and the verb and the noun.

Suffix -er. Analyzing the translation of nouns formed with the suffix -er(-og), we, of course, do not intend to touch upon those words that have constant correspondences in the lexical system of the Russian language, such as traveller traveler, painter painter, and others. We will talk about words that are translated by replacing them with other parts of speech or descriptive translation. As already noted, the suffix -er is extremely productive. Moreover, due to the established linguistic tradition, in the most ordinary situations, where the Russians use the verb, the English in most cases will use the noun with the suffix -eg. For example:

Mother's eyes were dry. I knew she was not a Crier The mother's eyes were dry. I knew she wasn't in the habit of crying.

He is a heavy eater. He eats a lot.

At the same time, in the dictionary of V.K. Muller, the equivalent of the noun eater is eater, and the noun crier - kpukun, herald.

Such examples could be cited innumerable.

He is a poor swimmer. - He doesn't swim well.

She is no good as a letter writer. She can't write letters.

I am a very rapid packer. - I fit very quickly.

The meanings of such nouns are regularly translated using Russian verbs:

Since these nouns are often occasional formations, that is, they are created in the process of speech, they are not fixed in dictionaries and sometimes attract attention with their unusualness and unexpectedness.

(Occasional - not corresponding to the generally accepted use, characterized by individual taste, due to the specific context of use. An occasional word or phrase is used by the speaker or writer "once" - for this case.)

The suffix -eg is so productive that nouns are formed with its help, which, strictly speaking, do not have the meaning of an agent, since they are formed not from verbs, but from other parts of speech. For example:

first-nighter regular visitor to theater premieres

full time worker

Suffix -able. The suffix -able is interesting for us not in those adjectives that are borrowed from French and which have constant matches in Russian (reliable - reliable, laudable- commendable and etc.). These adjectives are easy to translate. Problems begin when one has to look for adequate Russian adjectives, which sometimes have nothing to do with the meaning of the English verb from which the corresponding adjective is derived. For example:

disposable syringe disposable syringe

collapsible boat collapsible boat

teachablepupil smart student

payablemine profitable mine

Sometimes you have to resort to the help of relative attributive sentences, i.e., to a descriptive translation:

actionable offense

dutiable goods

avoidable tragedy

It can hardly be expected that such an occasional neoplasm as do-gooder, will be included in the dictionary. But here's an adjective put-downable (un-putdownable), also formed according to the occasional principle, has already ceased to be a neologism:

a put-downable book

an un-putdownable book

As can be seen from the examples, the replacement of a noun by a verb is often accompanied by the replacement of an adjective with this noun by the Russian dialect. The verb is often replaced by verbal nouns of a different type : It is our hope that an agreement will be reached by Friday. - We hope that an agreement will be reached by Friday.

English adjectives replaced by Russian nouns are most often formed from geographical names: Australian prosperity was followed by a slump. - The economic prosperity of Australia was followed by a crisis.

Wed also the British Government - the government of Great Britain; the American decision - US decision; the Russian Embassy - the embassy of Russia, etc. Often, a similar replacement is also used for English adjectives in a comparative degree with the meaning of increasing or decreasing volume, size or degree: The stoppage which is in support of higher pay and shorter working hours, began on Monday. - The strike in support of demands for higher wages and shorter working hours began on Monday.

Replacement of members of the proposal leads to a restructuring of its syntactic structure. This kind of restructuring also occurs in a number of cases when a part of speech is replaced. For example, in the examples above, the replacement of the noun by the verb was accompanied by the replacement of the definition by the circumstance. A more significant restructuring of the syntactic structure is associated with the replacement of the main members of the sentence, especially the subject. In English-Russian translations, the use of such substitutions is largely due to the fact that in English, more often than in Russian, the subject performs other functions than designations of the subject of the action, for example, the object of the action (the subject is replaced by an object): Visitors are requested to leave their coats in the cloak-room. - Visitors are asked to leave outerwear in the cloakroom.

designations of time (the subject is replaced by the adverb of time): The last week saw an intensification of diplomatic activity. - Last week there was an intensification of diplomatic activity.

designations of space (the subject is replaced by the circumstance of the place): The little town of Clay Cross today witnessed a massive demonstration. - There was a massive demonstration in the small town of Clay Cross today.

designations of the cause (the subject is replaced by the circumstance of the cause): The crash killed 20 people. - As a result of the disaster, 20 people died.

Offer type replacement results in a syntactic rearrangement similar to transformations when using an articulation or union transformation. In the process of translation a) a complex sentence can be replaced by a simple one (It was so dark that I could not see her. - I couldn't see her in such darkness.);

The main clause can be replaced by a subordinate clause and vice versa (While I was eating my eggs, these two nuns with suitcases came in. - I was eating fried eggs when these two nuns came in with suitcases.);

A complex sentence can be replaced by a complex one and vice versa (I didn't sleep too long, because I think it was only around ten o'clock when I woke up. I felt pretty hungry as soon as I had a cigarette. - I didn't sleep long, it was ten o'clock when I woke up. I smoked a cigarette and immediately felt how hungry I was.);

A complex sentence with an allied link can be replaced by a sentence with an allied link and vice versa (It was as hot as hell and the windows were all steamy. Had the decision been taken in time, this would never have happened. - If the decision had been taken in time, this would never have happened .).

Translation from one language to another is an endless process of transformations - lexical, grammatical and stylistic, which inevitably entail structural transformations. In most cases, when translated, the Russian sentence does not match the English sentence in structure. It has a different word order, a different sequence of parts of a sentence, and so on. The reason for this is the difference in the structure of languages.

All of these types of transformations are rarely found in their pure form, in isolation. As a rule, transformations are complex.

Given that translation allows for some variants, all the structural changes that sentences undergo in translation are not dictated by the translator's personal taste, but by necessity, and this necessity, in turn, is determined by the grammatical structure of the TL, its norms of compatibility and word usage.

In translation practice, mistakes are rare due to a misunderstanding of the sentence structure. This is me about qualified translators who are fluent in a foreign language. Problems arise when an additional function, semantic or expressive-stylistic, is superimposed on the syntactic structure.

I. Phonetic changes.

The pronunciation side of every language is constantly changing, but in most cases phoneticians are powerless to explain why any given change has occurred.

The language fully fulfills its purpose if it remains (in the field of pronunciation) unchanged. That a change in pronunciation is a hindrance to the functioning of a language, especially if it serves the highest social needs, is proved by literary languages. With them, the process of sound changes is slowed down, hampered precisely because they are tools of culture.

There are many theories about the causes of phonetic changes. Changes in sounds in the language are either corrupt (but their ubiquity does not allow us to agree with such an assessment) or they make sense, i.e. determined by the very essence of the language, its work.

There have been many attempts to understand the general causes of phonetic changes. Here are some of those attempts.

1. The principle of saving pronunciation efforts. Some changes follow this principle. But many changes in pronunciation required, on the contrary, an increase in muscular work.

The notion that the essence of phonetic processes is the simplification of articulations involves a series of changes in which each subsequent term is simpler than the previous one and requires less energy. This series, going into the distance of the past, should lead to fairly complex articulations. How could such articulations, very complex in antiquity, come about? Why did the language start out with incredible complexity? And could this complexity be so powerful that its simplification constituted the phonetic history of human languages? Until it is clear why the language of the earliest epochs had such articulatory complexity that its simplification dragged on for centuries, until then the hypothesis of the economy of articulatory efforts cannot be considered a means of explaining the causes of linguistic pronunciation evolution.

2. The principle of saving phonemes and their distinctive features. It is assumed that the disappearance of phonemes that, for some reason, turned out to be weak: either they are rare in the speech stream, or their distinctive load is weak, or there are few words that include such sounds, or they are weak, because they are formed by features not represented in other phonemes. .

3. The principle of symmetry. After I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and F. de Saussure, linguistics began to talk about systemic relationships between units of a language. The system was called a set of interrelated units, so that the status of each unit is determined by the presence of all other units of this set. The concept is complex and it does not come down to symmetry at all.

Much effort has been expended to prove the tendency of sounds to be placed symmetrically. But if we do not vulgarize the concept of a system, then such a pull of the sounds of a language to become in order remains completely inexplicable. Apparently, in reality there is no such desire.

Public life, in its everyday manifestations, in everyday activities, is gradually speeding up. Does it affect pronunciation? Some Russian dialects have a high rate of speech, but retain all the clarity of articulations. Thus, the fast pace of speech does not at all entail blurring, weakening, and simplification of articulations.

First, the phonetic change occurs in a certain position. Then it can spread to other positions. In some cases, it covers all possible positions, and then the sound changes in the language as a whole. The old sound ceased to exist, a new one appeared in its place. Thus, the phonetic change has a positional character. Positional changes, on the other hand, would like to be considered as conditioned by articulation.

If there were such cases, then it must be admitted that the basis of all positional interactions is not an articulatory need at all, it is not physiology that "starts" this mechanism.

II. Grammar changes.

The most stable part of the language - grammar - is also, of course, subject to change. And these changes can be different. They can also concern the entire grammatical system as a whole, as, for example, in the Romance languages, where the former Latin system of inflectional morphology (declension, conjugation) has given way to analytical forms of expression through functional words and word order, or they can be reflected in particular questions and only certain grammatical categories and forms, as, for example, it was during the XIV-XVII centuries. in the history of the Russian language, when the system of verbal inflection was rebuilt and instead of four Slavic past tenses (imperfect, perfect, aorist and pluperfect), one past tense was obtained (from the former perfect).

The grammatical structure, as a rule, is very stable in any language and undergoes changes under the influence of foreign languages ​​only in very rare cases. Such cases are possible here.

Firstly, a grammatical category that is unusual for a given language is transferred from one language to another, for example, aspect differences of a verb from the Russian language into the Komi language, but this phenomenon is formalized by the grammatical means of the borrowed language.

Secondly, the word-formation model is transferred from one language to another, which is often called “borrowing affixes”, for example, suffixes -ism-, -ist- into the Russian language in the words: Leninism, Leninist, otzovism, otzovist, etc. here it is not that we borrowed the suffixes -izm-, -ist-, but that word models in -izm- and -ist- with certain grammatical meanings were introduced into the Russian language, regardless of the meaning of the root.

Thirdly, much less often, almost as an exception, one can find in languages ​​the borrowing of inflectional forms, i.e., those cases when the expression of a relation (relational meaning) is adopted from another language; as a rule, this does not happen, since each language expresses relations according to the internal laws of its grammar.

In the process of grammatical development of the language, new grammatical categories may also appear, for example, gerunds in the Russian language, which originated from participles that ceased to agree with their defined and “frozen” in any one, inconsistent form and thereby changed their grammatical appearance. Thus, within groups of related languages, in the process of their historical development, significant discrepancies may arise associated with the loss of certain former categories and the emergence of new ones. This can be observed even among closely related languages.

In the closely related German and English languages, as a result of their independent development, a completely different fate of declension arose: in German, which received some features of analyticism and shifted all the "severity" of declension to the article, four cases still remained, and in English, where the article does not decline , the declension of nouns disappeared altogether, only the possibility of forming from names denoting living beings, of an "archaic form" "Old English genetive" ("Old English genitive") with "s: man" s hand - "man's hand", horse "s head - “head of a horse”, instead of the more usual: the hand of the man, the head of the horse.

III. Lexical changes.

The vocabulary of the language changes continuously and is updated much faster than other structural tiers of the language. This is understandable, because the vocabulary of the language, directly reflecting reality with its changes in the language, must include new words to designate new things, phenomena, processes, and put aside old ones. This process is always a fact of the development of the vocabulary of the language, its replenishment and stylistic differentiation, which enriches the expressive means of the language. In other words, when the vocabulary changes, its increase always exceeds the decrease.

This applies mainly to the formation of derivative words from existing ones, borrowing and native creation of terms and various polysemic transfers of meaning, however, it does not concern the main layers of vocabulary, what is called the main vocabulary fund or the main fund of vocabulary, which is used to form new derivative words and portable values.

The main fund of vocabulary changes more slowly than the peripheral and special layers of the vocabulary, but here too changes occur either through the formation of new derivative words from non-derivative ones, and the producing non-derivative word itself may be lost. Or by borrowing words from other languages, which happens when a new thing appears (in technology, in everyday life), and when it becomes necessary to express a new concept in the field of social relations or ideology (international terms democracy, revolution, etc. .), and when the given word, although it duplicates the existing one, but for one reason or another turns out to be necessary.

The reasons for such duplication (doubling) of words in the language are different; sometimes it is a desire for terminology, especially when the borrowed word is an international term, sometimes the desire to highlight some shade of meaning that is unclear in its word, and sometimes it’s just a fashion for a foreign language, which is typical for jargon borrowings (not a victory, but a victory, not politeness , and politeness, etc. in the Russian language of the 18th century).

Loss of words from the vocabulary is a gradual transition of words from the active dictionary to the passive one; these are all the “historical” words that were once called the realities of the modern era (i.e., facts of reality), and then already lost, for example, boyar, clerk, archer, brush, as well as Nepman, fellow traveler (in a figurative sense in relation to writers in the 20s of the XX century).

This category of words - “historicisms” - should be distinguished from archaisms, i.e. obsolete words that denoted realities that were not lost, but called differently (for example, a boar - a boar, a banner - a banner , stogna - area, etc.).

Archaisms, unlike historicisms, can be resurrected, that is, they can return from a passive vocabulary to an active one; such are the words advice, decree, major, sergeant, officer, etc.

New words in a language are called neologisms.

The vocabulary of a person, reflecting the vocabulary of the language, is like a "pantry", where "shelves with words" are located in a certain perspective: one is closer, what is needed every day; others - further, which is necessary only in certain cases and situations, such "distant" words include archaisms, highly specialized terms, purely poetic words, etc.

New words appear in the language in different ways and for different reasons.

1. The invention of words is extremely rare, which once again confirms the stability of the language and its word-building elements.

2. Creating new words based on existing models based on existing words in the language is a very productive way to update the dictionary. The words on -ization denote measures aimed at the implementation of what is expressed by the root, hence, according to the model of legalization, activation, the words militarization, passportization, pasteurization, vernalization, sovietization arose.

3. Borrowing. The enrichment of the vocabulary of a language at the expense of the vocabulary of other languages ​​is a common consequence of the interaction of different peoples and nations on the basis of political, trade, and economic relations.

When borrowing, a new word most often comes along with new things (tractor, tank, combine), with the introduction of new organizational forms, institutions, positions (division, battery, officer, general, office, secretary, infirmary, intern, paramedic, university, conservatory , magistracy, associate professor, dean's office, dean, lecture, seminary, semester, consultation, exam, score, etc.).

When borrowing, one should distinguish between:

1) Whether the borrowing occurs orally through conversational communication or in writing through books, newspapers, catalogs, manuals, technical passports of machines, etc.

2) Whether the borrowing occurs directly or through intermediaries, i.e., through transfer languages, which can greatly change both the sound form and the meaning of the borrowed words.

Sometimes the same word comes in two ways: directly and through an intermediary, or comes into the language twice, through different intermediaries, or twice in different eras (then the borrowing language gets two different words instead of two historically different forms of the same word in the original) . Sometimes a borrowed word is returned unrecognized back to its own language with a different meaning and with a changed sound form.

3) There may be borrowings within one language, when a common literary language borrows something from dialects, professional speech, jargons, and vice versa.

4) Tracing. Along with borrowing foreign words in the unity of their meaning and material design (albeit with changes in both), languages ​​widely use tracing of foreign words and expressions.

5) The expansion of the vocabulary through word formation should be considered in grammar, because word formation is a grammatical phenomenon, although the results of this process get their place in the vocabulary; As for the enrichment of the vocabulary by transferring the meanings of existing words, this is the sphere of vocabulary.

6) Vocabulary can be differentiated by meanings within even closely related languages.