In the literary language of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. the main changes took place in terms of activating some models and limiting others, in terms of eliminating one of the types of identical designs, in terms of fixing stylistic functions for a number of designs.
1. In the field of a simple sentence, there have been some changes in the system of the predicate Shvedov N.Yu. Changes in the simple sentence system. - Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian literary language of the XIX century. M., 1964..
In the first half of the XIX century. the use of many forms of connective predicates ceases, and in the language of the second half of the 19th century. only one form is used: the link is also a noun in the nominative case. Constructions of this type are assigned to book texts with logical speech. I. S. Turgenev: Self-love, as an active striving for perfection, is the source of everything great.
Constructions with the pronoun this, the combination of the pronoun this with the linking verb was, the combination this is in the role of a linking word are widely distributed. Bunin: And to visit the Donets ... - it was my old dream.
The use of predicates with the form of the connective essence is reduced, already in the second half of the 19th century. characteristic only of scientific literature and business speech, although such constructions continue to be used in scientific writings throughout the 19th century.
The infinitive predicates with the connective are disappearing from use, therefore the use of incoherent constructions becomes the norm for the modern language.
Predicates are widely used with a connective verb means (for V.G. Korolenko: To say too much - sometimes it means not to say anything) and a combination of this means (for V.I. Pisarev: ... Not to see anything higher and more charming in life than mutual love ... - it means not to have a concept of real life).
At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th century, in the incoherent predicate, the instrumental predicative was activated, displacing the nominative predicative, but in the second half of the 19th century. the use of nouns in the instrumental case as part of a predicate is limited. The main thing for the modern language is the distinction between the meanings of these constructions: the instrumental case is used to denote the temporary stay of someone in a certain state, position. From M. Gorky: I am again a utensil on a steamer. The nominative case is used to indicate a permanent feature. At A.T. Tvardovsky: But even though the earth is everywhere the earth, but somehow the strangers smell of poplars and rotten straw in a different way.
The use of short forms of adjectives as a predicate is limited in the activation of full forms. Poetic speech is still dominated by short adjectives. From E. Yevtushenko: It is foggy, like the fogs of the Patriarch's Ponds on an autumn night; this boy is old. He became like that early.
Impersonal sentences are activated with the nominative case of a noun as the main member (Not all honey - he says. - Not just gentlemen - I.A. Bunin), infinitive sentences with various particles (Though to run away, I wish I could catch, etc.).
2. Changes occurred in the system of complicated sentences Kovtunova I.I. Changes in the compound sentence system. - Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian literary language of the XIX century. M, 1964..
Participles are lost, coinciding in meaning with subordinate clauses, being replaced by subordinate clauses.
The use of gerunds with the gerund being is reduced. From M.Yu. Lermontov: Being an egoist in the highest degree, however, he was always reputed to be a kind fellow. The nominal part, while maintaining such a turnover, is expressed in the form of instrumental case.
In the second half of the XIX century. adverbial phrases with a comparative meaning are distributed.
Participial phrases with short forms of participles related to the predicate leave various styles of the literary language and the language of fiction, remaining the property of poetic speech. From I.A. Bunin: And, exhausted by the heat, I stand on the way - and drink the life-giving moisture of the forest winds.
In the language of fiction, the use of separate adjectives, full and short, is activated, which have the meaning of a qualitative additional characteristic of someone or something.
Separate groups with adjectives in a short form remain the property of poetic speech.
3. Changes have taken place in the system of complex sentences Pospelov N.S. The main directions in the development of structural types of a complex sentence in the Russian literary language of the 19th century, as well as: The development of sentences of a "single-term" structure. - Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian literary language of the XIX century. M..1964..
In the second half of the 19th century, a number of synthetic constructions narrowed the scope of use, other constructions completely left the language, the shades of meanings of many complex sentences became clearer, a desire was shown to unite the parts of each construction as closely as possible, the subordinating connection was strengthened and the role of subordinating conjunctions as means of expression was strengthened. one relationship or another.
In attributive subordinate clauses, the relative pronoun takes the place characteristic of the modern word arrangement, i.e. becomes at the beginning of a subordinate clause if it is a subject or a member of a sentence that depends on the verb, but if the pronoun depends on the noun, then it becomes after the main word of the phrase in which it is included.
Starting from the 19th century, constructions with correlative pronouns such as - which
And even if you are invented by me, such
What I would like to meet
I don't want to meet you in winter
So that my invention does not shatter.
Since the second half of the 19th century, the use of attributive subordinate clauses with the relative pronoun as well as the demonstrative pronoun the same in the main clause has been strengthened.
Consequently, by the end of the 19th century, unions begin to be widely used if, when, provided, in case, because, then to, because, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, displacing unions if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, because.
4. There are changes in the system of phrases: certain types of phrases leave the language (get bored with life), others appear in it (children from the street, a bottle of wine, horseback riding, a so-so person, free from work), many constructions are replaced by new ones (a teacher in eloquence - a teacher of eloquence, a lesson from geography - a lesson in geography, etc.) Beloshapkova V.A., Zolotova G.A., Prokopovich N.N., Filippova V.M. changes in the system of phrases - Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian literary language of the XIX century. M., 1964. .
The use of phrases with prepositions after, during, during, in continuation is activated.
The free use of phrases consisting of nouns and adjectives denoting the belonging of an object to something is reduced (in the Dictionary of 1847, for example, combinations are indicated as normative: an umbrella handle, a frying pan handle, a careless belt, a cup handle), replaced by combinations of two nouns.
A number of non-prepositional combinations of nouns are replaced by prepositional combinations (departure troubles - departure troubles, lyceum friends - lyceum friends). On the other hand, some prepositional phrases are replaced by non-prepositional ones (an order from the Senate - an order from the Senate, an answer from a friend - an answer from a friend).
5. There were no significant changes in the field of morphology. It is possible to ascertain only individual cases of the disappearance of certain forms (in the house, teachers, tooth, pud - the genitive plural, see, writing, etc.).
There have been a number of changes in the verb system Avilova I.S., Ermakova O.P., Cherkasova E.T., Shapiro A.B. Verbs, adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. - Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian literary language of the XIX century. M., 1964. In the second half of the XIX century. the process of ordering the series of species correlation continues. For example, in the series to crimson and stain - stain, destroy and destroy - destroy, etc. One of the imperfective verbs ceases to be used, being used only in poetic speech and stylized prose works.
Many prefixed imperfective verbs have gone out of use: sin, hurry, drown, giving way to non-prefixed verbs (sin, hurry, drown).
A number of verbs with the suffixes -a- displaced verbs with the suffixes -iva-, -yva- (entrust - entrust, evaporate - evaporate, stick - stick), on the other hand, many verbs with the suffix -a- were replaced by verbs with the suffix - willow-, -yva- (catch-catch, heat-heat, etc.).
A number of prefixed verbs is being replenished: with prefixes -from-, -you-, times-, under-.
The number of verbs formed from nouns with suffixes -nich-, -ich- (clown, monkey, secretive, familiarize), -ova- (secretary, teach), -irova- (balance, control, pose, promote) is increasing.
The use of multiple verbs (arguing-arguing, dinning-dining), past tense forms of verbs with the suffix -nu- (penetrated, faded, resurrected, avoided) is reduced.
In the second half of the 19th century, the category of adverbs was replenished due to the formation of adjectives from names with the suffix -ichesk- (melodic, automatic, mathematical), with the prefix -po and the suffixes -om, -him-, o-, -e- (in local , in a related way, truly, materially, impressively).
There were few changes in the system of nouns Zemskaya E.A., Plotnikova-Robinson V.A., Khokhlacheva V.N. and Shapiro A.B. Changes in word formation and forms of nouns and adjectives. - Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian literary language of the 11th century. M., 1964. the gender of nouns is determined, which are still used now in one form, then in another: vegetable and vegetable, cloud and cloud, shutter and shutter. The noun cloud has only the form of the middle gender, the form of clouds is possible only in poetic speech:
The bow sang.
And a stifling cloud rose above us.
And the nightingales dreamed of us.
A number of nouns are beginning to be used both in the singular and in the plural: power-power, sphere-spheres.
The wind whirled the snow.
The crescent of the moon rolled;
And slowly, walking among the drunks,
Always without companions, alone,
Breathing in spirits and mists,
She sits by the window.
(A.A. Blok)
The use of forms on -y in the genitive case of masculine nouns is reduced, the fluctuation in the use of forms of nouns in the prepositional case, the use of nominative plural forms of masculine nouns on -ya (leaves-leaves)
At the end of the 19th century, an orthographic reform was being prepared, which was partially implemented in 1918.
Thus, in the literary language of the post-Pushkin era, the most significant changes occurred in the vocabulary. There were no major changes in the grammatical structure of the literary language of this period: the further development of grammatical variant, doublet forms of assigning certain stylistic functions to such forms.
The 19th century is the century of the heyday of Russian literature. In the 1930s and 1940s, the language of fiction influenced the development of journalistic styles. In the 1960s and 1970s, journalistic styles, influenced by scientific prose, influenced the language of fiction. The role of the writer in the process of further development of the language of fiction, its interaction with the literary language and live folk speech is growing. Lermontov, Gogol and other writers of the 19th-20th centuries develop Pushkin's traditions in the selection of linguistic means from the literary language and living speech.
When analyzing the language and style of the works of Lermontov, Gogol and other writers of this period, one should distinguish between their role in the history of the Russian literary language and in the history of the language of fiction.
Since the middle of the 19th century, the styles of the modern Russian literary language have been formed. Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov played an important role in shaping the journalistic style. The formation of styles of scientific prose is associated with the names of Lobachevsky, Timiryazev, Sechenov, Mendeleev.
At the end of the 19th century, the first Marxist circles appeared in Russia, the terminology of the Marxist doctrine about the laws of development of economic and socio-political life was formed. An important role in the formation of economic, socio-political, philosophical terminology, in the creation of modern scientific, popular science, journalistic styles was played by the works of V.I. Lenin.
Grammar, especially morphology, is the most stable aspect of a language, but it also changes. Each grammatical form has two sides: the grammatical meaning and the grammatical means by which it is expressed. Historical changes concern both the grammatical meanings themselves and their expression.
Any grammatical form does not exist by itself, but in a number of other forms to which it is opposed. This series of grammatical forms thus has a common grammatical meaning (it is called a grammatical category), which is precisely manifested in the opposition of these forms. For example, the category of time in Russian is manifested in the opposition of the present, past and future tense. Thanks to this connection, any change in the composition of grammatical forms is reflected in other forms of the same category, and sometimes can lead to the loss of the category itself. For example, French originated from Latin, which has five case forms: the nominative and four oblique cases. But already in Old French the number of cases was reduced to two (nominative and indirect). The meaning of this oblique case, which replaced the four lost ones, certainly did not equal the meaning of any of the former cases. It has become broader and more abstract. The indirect case indicated only the dependence of the noun on other words, in contrast to the independent nominative case. Other, more specific meanings (for example, the meaning of belonging, which was previously expressed by the genitive, the addressee of the action, which was previously expressed by the dative) began to be conveyed by prepositions. During the XIV-XV centuries. the distinction between these two case forms has been lost, and thus the category of case in general has been lost. There are no cases in modern French.
But grammatical categories are not only simplified and disappear. There are also opposite changes. New grammatical categories emerge. So, for example, in modern Russian there is a grammatical category of animation - inanimateness, which was not in the Old Russian language. The category of animation - inanimateness is manifested in the fact that for animate nouns the accusative case coincides with the genitive, and for inanimate nouns - with the nominative (I see a brother, but I see a table). In the Old Russian language, the names of living beings and inanimate objects were originally inclined in the same way, therefore, there was no animateness and inanimateness as a grammatical category. It developed in the XV-XVII centuries.
Some changes concern only the means of expressing grammatical meanings, without affecting the meanings themselves. These changes are varied in nature and scope. Here, individual isolated changes are also possible. For example, the pronouns I and you used to have the ending -e (me, you) in the genitive accusative. Subsequently, it was replaced by the ending -ya (me, you) under the influence of short pronouns (me, cha), which then disappeared from the language. The forms of me, you are preserved only in dialects. But such isolated changes are rare. Not only the grammatical meanings themselves, but also the means of their expression form a system (such, for example, are inflectional types: types of declension and conjugation). Therefore, changes in the endings of some forms often entail changes in the entire system of inflectional types.
Now the words fruit and honey belong to the same declension. In Old Russian, these nouns belonged to different declensions. In the genitive case there was a fetus, but honey, in the dative - a fetus, but honey. But some forms coincided with them: nominative and accusative cases - fruit, honey. Under the influence of some case forms, others also merged, two declensions merged into one (see Analogy in grammar).
Changes may also affect the very way of expressing grammatical meanings. For example, the number forms of nouns in French were once distinguished by endings. Then the plural endings were lost, preserved only in writing, and service words - articles became indicators of the number of nouns (compare: le talon - "heel", les talons - "heels"; la maison - "house", les maisons - "home" » (the final s is not pronounced).
In order to demonstrate the different types of grammatical changes, we have separately considered changes in the grammatical categories themselves and in the means of their expression. But in reality, these changes are often combined and intertwined: changes in the expression of grammatical meanings also cause changes in grammatical categories, and a change in grammatical categories affects the restructuring of inflectional types.
This was the case with the emergence in the Russian language of the category of animation - inanimateness. What was the reason for the emergence of a new category? The reason was the coincidence of the endings of the nominative and accusative cases of masculine nouns. In the Indo-European parent language (the ancestor of many European languages, including Slavic), these cases differed. As a result of various phonetic processes in the Proto-Slavic language, both cases of nouns of some types of declension ended in reduced vowels ъ and ь (fruit, son, guest), which were then lost. The coincidence of the nominative and accusative cases created the inconvenience that made it difficult to distinguish between the subject of the action (the one who performs the action) and the object to which the action is directed. The coincidence of these forms in the names of living beings (and, above all, people) was especially inconvenient, because "they could be both the subject and the object of the action: Ivan defeated Peter - who defeated whom? Getting rid of this inconvenience, the Russian language went this way: instead of the former form of the accusative case, a new form began to be used, coinciding with the genitive (as in personal pronouns): Ivan defeated Peter. At first, this form was used only for nouns denoting a male person, but then spread to the names of other living beings. A category of animation developed - inanimateness.
Another example of the influence of changes in grammatical means on the grammatical categories themselves. It has already been said that the number of types of declension in Russian has decreased. In particular, two types of declension of masculine nouns have merged: the representative of one type is, for example, the word forest, and the other is honey. These nouns in the genitive, dative and local (later prepositional) cases had different endings. After the merger of the two types of declension, one ending for each case form turned out to be superfluous.
What happened?
Of the two dative case endings (-u and -ovi), only the ending -u has been preserved. Both genitive endings (-а and -у) were preserved, but began to be used in different meanings. The ending -y began to express the meaning of a part of the whole (along with some others); for example: the taste of honey, but why honey, give me honey (some amount). In modern language, the ending -y is gradually being replaced by the ending -ay in this sense. Both endings of the prepositional case (in the forest-e and in the honey-u) were also preserved (albeit in a small group of words) and also began to differ in meaning; compare: to be in the forest and understand a lot about the forest.
This is how new case meanings appeared. The system of cases became more complicated.
As can be seen from the examples given, analogy plays an important role in historical changes in inflectional types, that is, a change in the forms of some words under the influence of others that are somewhat similar (see Analogy in grammar). However, analogy only becomes an active force when it helps to carry out transformations that are useful for the grammatical system, for example, to free the language from excessive diversity in the means of expressing the same meanings.
Unidirectional changes in the expression of different categories can change the grammatical structure of the language. Thus, the French and English languages from synthetic languages, in which grammatical meanings are expressed mainly within the word, turned into analytical ones, which are characterized by the expression of grammatical meanings outside the word, using auxiliary layers and word order (see Analytical and synthetic languages).
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 SL stylistic norm 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 utterance into a separate sentence in the translation allows us to clearly express the opposition in the original.
English newspaper 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 the norms of TL compatibility require it, 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 some 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.
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 accident. 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 proper behavior 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 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. The ruthless devastation of Minsk captured in civil strife cannot 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 "Instruction" by Vladimir Monomakh is much more specific than the article in "Izbornik. Everyday details abundantly presented in the "Instruction" are so characteristic that, even if the author did not name 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 nominative - accusative - vocative, genitive - local, dative - creative13 cases. 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 stem, depending on which vowel or consonant the stem ended in (later the final sound moved to the ending, that is, the morphemes were re-arranged in favor of the ending).
1. Words with a stem in *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 in [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 the front vowel according to 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 such as 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 that end in -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 kind 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 calf, piglet, foal, which received in the nominative 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 the Old Russian declension of words with a stem in *ŭ and *ĭ and words of the 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 a stem in *ĭ, as well as words of declension of words with a stem in the consonant mati, d'chi and partially 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 dialectal Proto-Slavic 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--
In the functioning and development of the language, there are quantitative changes in the service part of speech. In the modern Russian language at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, some new particles were formed. The way they are formed is characteristic of the grammatical class; certain discursive units - modal words or adverbs - have formed particular meanings.
As if,- modal meaning: They have as if had no children (est. R. 2000); No stopping people as if must look for her (TV.
07/26/2016); I as if I’ll warn you right away: there are such meetings when the inhabitants begin to attack me, accuse me of all mortal sins. And I say: friends, I'm just going to the Moscow Regional Duma (oral pub. 07/26/2016); If Seryoga releases me early tomorrow, then I as if this, I will be able (us. mob. r. 2016); We are the first as if did not know how to do it (or. 2016).
Type,- modal meaning: Will he come tomorrow? - Type yes (oral);
- - excretory meaning: Well, these type statesmen ..; The lesson, of course, ended with Nastya's tears - Dasha, type, spoke to her sharply (Senchin. What do you want? 2011);
- - designation of someone else's speech: He type did not know (or. 2009). Briefly speaking,- definitive meaning: I shorter arrived there, and there
there was no one (us. life. R. 2015); Us shorter all the same, you need to go there (or. R. 2016).
Count up- emphatic meaning: Count up how many people were there (us. life. R. 2015)
Such/oh- definitive meaning: she such comes and starts saying that... (oral language 2014); I such generally calm (or. R. 2015); I such screamed, then went to the first-aid post (us. r. 2016); We such we sit, we can’t say anything (ordinary life. R. 2016).
Here, after all, the same, but;
Modal meaning: He such: And what kind of circular do you have, Chinese? (us. byt. R. 2015); She is such: And why do I need it! (Orth. byt. R. 2016).
In fact, - connecting meaning: Ukraine today loses the right to a discount on Russian gas. In fact at the same time, the price for it will even decrease by almost 13%; It will be too subtle for your newspaper... This legal problem is very delicate. in fact(b. 04/01/2016); I still assume that it is tense in fact action program for credit institutions (b. 06/23/2016)
Same, and, and, besides.
Defining meaning: These books were bought by workers. Passion for education in fact was huge (TV. 08/15/2016).
After all, exactly, just.
In this new quality, this unit loses its emphasis and changes the semantic connections in the structure of the sentence. For example: They leveled up there in fact(or. r. 2010);
Eventually, - emphatic value: Eventually we were late (us. life. R. 2010); He left and eventually did not return (Star. 2014.10); I became terribly interested in how everything works on the stage, and eventually I began to play myself; This view was named that way because I was puzzled over what to include in it, and eventually decided to include everything (b. 23.6.16); At first they said that they would bring the suspects at eleven, then at twelve. Eventually they were brought to three (TV. 07/17/2014).
Here, and, well.
In a good way - definitive value: in a good way repairs need to be done there (ust. R. 2010); Although in a good way it is not a diagnosis, but a symptom (Details of the world. 2011).
After all, exactly, in general, the same.
Please, - definitive meaning: No cigarettes to be found L please(us. byt. R. 2015); Man, please show your ticket ^please", Don't give me a cigarette please", Guys, can I go first please(or. r. 29.6.16); Could you do this to me please(Orth. Life. R. 10.8.16).
This is the final post-positive particle, which, in accordance with its differential-informative content, is not separated by a pause and intonation.
New units are formed in addition to the transition of different parts of speech into the composition of particles. In modern Russian, some new discursive words with amplifying meaning are created:
Quite self- amplifying meaning: The hero is lost, thumps and quite a bastard. He considers himself an unbeliever, although in fact he is just quite a Christian (V. 06/23/2014); Various events of various calibers have been held there for a long time, including quite a entertainment (RG. 06/29/2015); The cat Kuzya jumped through the hoop and quite a peacefully communicated with rats (Mayak. 06/15/2016). = Well, just like that.
Wed previously functioning phraseologized combination of an adverb with a pronoun: He could not have done otherwise, this is artistic, and he quite a faithful (Dostoevsky. Notebooks. 1869); Some kind of internal needs lived in him outside of science, which he did not quite a formulated (Bely A. At the turn of two eras. 1929).
Super, simple. - modal-evaluative value: Super(colloquial - simple.) = exclusively, well, in.
Yourself- definitive meaning: Always treated the late Peter Weil with sympathy. Such yourself a good-natured fat man walks around the cities of Europe and talks (LG. 2017.11); We hope that you expressed very yourself a serious argument (TV.
Exactly, right there.
All these words that have appeared are very common in modern Russian. They belong to the colloquial and colloquial sphere. This stylistic reference is a large characteristic part of their content.
The service part of speech develops in terms of content. New meanings are formed for the particles that were available in the modern Russian language. This expands the content of the words. Thus, new units of discursive expression appear. These occurrences are numerous.
We fix them when highlighting the types of contexts by the method of structural-semantic analysis of texts, where semantic valences are revealed as a mechanism for connecting the meanings of words. Let us note these meanings that have appeared in modern speech in addition to the existing content of words. Synonymy, antonymy and homonymy among them testify to the nature and character of the meaning of particles. Let us identify and note here the particles synonymous with these values.
BUT, - cf. SOSH: particle. 1. Indicates a question or response to someone. the words. 2. Strengthens circulation.
Defining value: BUT go there; BUT let's go to my place, let's drink tea (us. R. 2015); BUT let's feed the cat! (Lighthouse.
Come on, - ka;
Reinforcing value: BUT all go to hell. Remember my name (Yu. Kuznetsov, 2000).
vernacular connecting meaning: BUT by e..! (rude, simple 1990s); BUT in the snout! BUT remove the skin with a razor! (Bushkov A. 1995).
And, here and, and so, and here.
BUT'+ vernacular excretory meaning: Don't start, but; Listen shut up a(vulg. simple. 2016); Don't talk like that a(or. r. 2016).
Ka, yes, well;
Indicative value: BUT hello (set r. 2012).
Here, this, well, well.
This discursive word becomes an agglutinative element, not separated by a pause in speech, which is typical of a-interjection.
Come on, - Wed. SOSH: To be. 1. To be, to happen, to happen. 2. Be often, constantly or sometimes. 3. Be (those!) Greeting at parting (simple).
Prost, modal meaning: farewell ‘goodbye, all the best’, South Russian.
It was. The particle expressed a modal meaning. TSU: denoted that the action began, but was interrupted, or was supposed to.
Formative meaning: Doesn't this prove that it was not necessary to start with the revolution, but It was start with reforms and limit yourself to reforms (Lenin V.I. On the meaning of gold. 1920); I don’t need, I didn’t have to rush towards love for so many years (Song of the 1960s “A Simple Story”).
Determinant: Why It was then fence the garden (us. R. 2014); Why It was so much running in the rain (OR 2017)
Precisely, well, here;
Acquired amplifying meaning: My heart-rending screams made her finally take hold of the grip with which she began It was
get me. A short comment was already in the evening (LG. 2015.9); The driver moved It was where they pointed him, when he suddenly heard, as if in pursuit: “Everything can be seen from the other side” (Shishkin O. Vedmyonysh. 2013); milkmaid, It was, hired, so she soon left, although they paid well; He tried It was, drag at least one of the attackers away from a friend (Ivanovskaya gazeta 2009); The Evil Fairy wanted to celebrate It was to surround the goddaughter with care again, but accidentally looked at the visiting hypnotist, and he looked at her (Lukas O. Princess, swineherd and learning difficulties // October. 2014.11); So, after all, the mermaids will bite the housewife and spit out the bones - such an evil, to the point of comfort, enchanting tribe. Tsar It was collided with a mermaid, so he barely took his legs (Lichutin V. Obsession // L G 2015.10).
Come on, get out, really.
This is a derivative particle formed from the verb form. In the type of use of written speech that has appeared, its punctuation is made, indicating its separation from a certain syntactic component. In modern speech, she expresses moderate expression.
Generally, - cf. MAC: adv. 1. In relation to everything. 2. At any uel. || not at all... not at all. 3. In general, in general. 4. Attaching a sentence, express. thought is more general than the previous one. 5. In value generalization sl.
Razg. amplifying meaning: Get drunk in this situation... It's somehow generally(Znamya. 2015.6); Generally give nothing; They are vbbmore want nothing; And me vbbmore to nothing (or. R. 2016); The Russian language in the seventh grade is only four hours a week, in the eighth three, in the ninth - generally two (LG. 2016.46).
Well, absolutely;
Emphasis-limiting meaning: Like this generally could happen? (b. 04/01/2016).
Same, and yes.
Yes,+ unfold modal meaning, exclamatory particle:<...>- Dsprinesu now! (us. byt. R. 2015).
Let's, - Wed SOSH: Give. 1. See give. 2. Sell. 3. Come on (those) particle. Forms a form command, incl. 4. Come on, particle. With indefinite imperfect form. in. use in meaning started, became (colloquial). 5. Come on (those) particle. With led, incl. other verb use when prompted to action (colloquial).
Prost, emphatic meaning: She and let's to blizzard him (set. R.)
Like, well, here;
Reinforcing value: And let's let's not talk about it anymore; And let's don't argue.
Prost, definitive meaning: farewell, ‘end of communication’: Well, that’s it, let's; Well, everything let's, kiss; Well let's when you arrive, call (us. R. 2015);
Restrictive value:<...> - Let's(oral); Okay, let's, Good. Let's, bye (set mob. r. 2017).
Yes OK;
Let's I will heal; Let's shave
Ah, well, no;
Modal-volitional meaning: - Come on; Let's here.
Ka, well, well.
De- cf. MASS: De particle. Prost. Use to indicate that the given words are a transmission of someone else's speech.
Razg. modal-volitional meaning, assessments. Designation not only of the manner of someone else's speech, but also of the fact, assessment: He began to speak. Like, I won't sign any protocol. de, falsification of everything (Danilyuk S. Ruble zone. 2004); She told him, de, come on, show me faster (Solomatina T. Nine months. 2010); There was a reaction. It followed from it that everything it's de not within the competence of the Federal Archives (L G. 2016.16)
Well, as if, well, here.
Only. Wed MAC: 1. Adv. to the only one. E. the right way. 2. In value particles used. for emphasis, limitation in the meaning: only, exclusively. He did not marry one very rich and beautiful bride, whom he really liked, the only because her great-grandfather was not a nobleman. (Aksakov S. Family chronicle).
Reinforcing-restrictive and emotional-evaluative meaning: Only, travel far to work; Only, there may be traffic jams (WP. 10.6.16); They have only the room is not ventilated (set r. 2010).
Yet, simple, cf.: Shimchuk, Shchur. Dictionary of Russian particles. Wed MASS: More. adv. 1. Additionally, in addition to the same. 2. So far. 3. Already. 4. Decree, cash possibilities, sufficient grounds. 5. More, to a greater extent. 6. In value. yield, union. Decree on the presumptiveness of the conditions. 7. In value. amplifying particle. Use with pronouns and adverbs for underlining, some. sign, fact, to give a certain expressiveness to what is being expressed.
Defining value: Yet one would only come, or even bring friends with him; I'm running out of time, and here are the guests. Yet two or three, otherwise all relatives at once.
Well, here, at least;
Modal-volitional meaning: Her baby falls asleep badly. Yet with a fairy tale he can fall asleep, but without it in no way; Very sour curd yet you can eat with sugar, but only in syrniki (us. byt. r.).
Is it, is it, only.
Means, - cf. MASS: So. 1. Enter, next. unfold Therefore, it has become. 2. Use. in meaning ligaments ‘this, this is’ with the predicate.
Razg. emphasizing-restrictive meaning: Means, Zhenya, you will draw up an agreement with them (or. R.)
So, well, here, so, yes;
Connecting meaning:<...>Then, means, two buns (set r. 03/28/2016)
And, well, more, also, of course.
How, - cf. School: 1. Places, adv. and allied sl. 4. Particle. Use to express surprise. 5. With verb. owls. in. signifies sudden action. 6. Union.
Emphasis-limiting value:<...> - How dont go? BUT how I won't buy it? (us. r. 1990s)
Is it not possible.
Which,- cf. Secondary school: places. 1. inquire, and allied. sl. Indicates a question about quality. 2. determine. Indicates a quality rating. 3. determine. With a rhetorical question or in a response, it means denial. 4. indefinitely. The same as some. 5. What! particle. Expresses a confident denial, not at all, just the opposite.
Simple, modal-volitional meaning: Which let's smoke, we have to go (or. R. 1990s); Which fly, I, brothers, have not seen the sky (Song of the group "DDT" "Serpent Petrov". 1994)
No, by no means is it possible.
Somehow - cf. Secondary school: 1. places, adv. Somehow, I don't know how. 2. Places, adv. To some extent, several. 3. Places, adv. Once upon a time. 4. Union. The same as exactly.
Razg. emphatic meaning: somehow can be said to pass (set r. 2016); our group somehow I didn’t pay attention to this statement, but it didn’t get out of my head (Mayak. 15.7.16)
After all, well, well, although, only;
Amplifying value: Problem solved somehow very simple (LG. 2016.30).
Mol, + emotional-evaluative value. Not only the transfer of someone else's speech, but the transfer of thought and characterization of a person, a figure: We were told that this, they say, none of your business (or. 2015); Somehow in our house there was a jumpsuit of a huge size. Probably one of the pilots brought him, they say, suitable for rural areas (Mayak. 07/22/16); Besides, we are talking about drugs, which is oh so serious. So seriously that the regional authorities are unlikely to go for a commutation of the sentence. Like, in fact, from a formal point of view, everything is correct (LG. 2016.30).
Well, well, you see.
Well, - cf. Secondary school: 1. int. Expresses excitement as well as surprise. 2. particle. Expresses surprise. 3. particle. In summarizing contexts, it serves to reinforce, emphasize. 4. particle [always shock] used. to indicate an unexpected and abrupt onset of action. 5. particle. Use in the value, let's say, let's say that so (simple). 6. particle. Same as yes (simple).
Defining value:<...> - Well.(colloquial simple) = yes, of course, exactly, exactly, right;
Negative meaning:<...> - Well, well yet! Yes well more: = no;
Reinforcing value: Well I went; Well, for now (us. byt. r.) = so, so.
O,+ modal-volitional meaning: O, Vladimir Nikolaevich (authorized mob. b. 2015)
Hello; ah, this is, well;
Indicative meaning: Oh, hello; (9, l and I was looking for you (set. R. 2015)
Here, by the way.
Just,+ connecting value: Just I am his wife, I can give him (oral mob. R. 2008); Ah, well, now I simply food (s.r.
04/05/2016) = besides, and so, here, well, ah, yes;
Emphasis: Today there are so many people, they go and go, simply! (or. r. 2012); I put your disk and simply I rest (or. R.
Exceptional, absolutely, well.
There,+ amplifying value: The key role should belong to the Ministry of the Interior. None there folk squads and everything else will not cope with this task (RG.
04/01/2016). = same, yes;
vernacular undefined meaning: At the very beginning, I asked not to be included in any political ratings. Influences there...(b. 04/01/2016); Was there a scandal? - Well there all sorts of neighbors (inst. r. 2016)
Some, well.
So, + restrictive value and modal-volitional value: So, enough about it (us. R.); So, Kolya, you are not my children (Senchin. What do you want? 2013); So, Vasya, don’t beckon children (us. R.) = come on, hey, well, already;
Indicative value: So, clean bowl here! (original 1980s) = come on, come on, come on, hey;
Defining value: So I will tell you that if money is taken from the budget for departmental security, then in total this will significantly exceed all the profits from the reduction of employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Kommersant. 04/01/2016)
Ah, well, but, here;
Reinforcing value:<...>So he will tell you.
Well, yes, yes.
Good,+ modal-volitional meaning: Today, a Moscow summer resident can buy a dump truck of chernozem for 15 thousand rubles. Yes Good if only this - here it is at least somehow used for its intended purpose (LG. 2016.10)
After all, let it be, let it be.
So that, So that he is good, So that you can live with it; So that nothing but...
Actually, it is, after all.
Duck, simple. Wed TSU. Duck - ‘here, after all’, a letter. So.
vernacular definitive value:<...> - Duck yes (us. byt. r.) = exactly, well, of course;
Reinforcing value: Duck and went; Well duck, these types of statesmen... (Senchin, 2013).
l then+ vernacular amplifying value:<...>- And then (mouth. R.); Sometimes they sit closer to the receiver and ... start to turn the knobs. l then(Mayak. 07/15/2016); l then no. = of course, yes, well, exactly, right; like this;
Attachment meaning: Close the window, otherwise blows (us. R.) = after all, because, well.
This unit includes functional categories: the connecting function of the union and the amplifying function of the particle.
Generally,+ unfold emphasizing-restrictive meaning: With patriotism generally the same story (LG. 2016L0) = after all, that's it, almost.
Too, + unfold amplifying value, negative value: Too I am an ace pilot (Vysotsky), Too specialist.
Here, well, then; not.
Already,+ spacious, defining meaning and modal meaning: Yes call already Vanya will give us already tea!
Come on, come on.
Rivne, + definitive meaning: I leave the cabinet smooth in the same condition as he left it to me<...>left the cabinet smooth the same; And we kept in touch with him throughout this period. smooth same as with N.T. Ryabov, and with A.V. Ivanchenko! (b. 04/01/2016).
Directly,+ attributive meaning: For them it was directly the reverse process - the acquisition of the state exactly as one's own (LG 2016.14) = exactly, completely;
Razg. emphasizing-restrictive meaning: You directly sad (set mob. 04/14/2016)
Allegedly. Wed TSU: 1. Union, book. obsolete; unfold iron. Uncertainty, unreliability = ‘what’, 2. Ch-tsa book. Imagination, inconsistency with reality in meaning. 'as if'.
A modal meaning is formed: a link to the source of information; transmission of someone else's thought, transmission of someone else's speech: He registered on the Odnoklassniki social network, where he met recruiters from IG. Those in the course of correspondence supposedly proposed to attract other people from the former Soviet republics to commit a terrorist attack in Moscow on Victory Day. Among the options supposedly the terrorist attack on the "Immortal Regiment" was called (b. 05/06/2016)
Say, they say.
These noted new values exist alongside the previously existing values for these particles. They are built into the content system of the word, expanding it.
These particle values have a certain style relatedness. Basically, they belong to the colloquial style, and some of them belong to the vernacular. Some of them changed their stylistic reference, moving, as a particle of "allegedly", from the book sphere to a wider use.
In addition to the transformation of words, combinations of particles are created and distinguished in the modern Russian language, which carry the formed discursive meanings. They act as units expressing shades of the meanings of words in a sentence.
Sort of, - connecting meaning: I sort of chief (us. R. 1980s); It was the Russians who were freed from sort of their state, and they - from someone else's (LG. 2016.14); The ancient Romans founded a city up the Danube, it is called Obuda, that is, the old Buda. Sort of historical center with ancient circuses and Roman baths, but at the same time prices are like in the suburbs (WP. 06/30/2016)
After all, well, actually, in fact, practically, nevertheless;
Modal meaning: Him sort of liked (or. R.)
It seems like it should be.
Or how, - emphasizing-restrictive meaning: Let's go or how?
So, yes, finally.
If anything, - excretory-restrictive meaning: This is a fabric if anything(or. R. 2015).
That's it, exactly, after all, well.
The meaning of the word corresponds to a structural characteristic; this particular unit always stands at the end of the syntagma. Wed a previously functioning conjunction with a pronoun (If anything, I'll be there).
If needed, simple. - definitive meaning: Yes, if I understand what, I will come and look (set mob. 04/12/2016)
But, of course, everything.
Almost, - definitive meaning: He is there almost Chief; They have there almost downsizing (set r. 2009) = directly, just, exactly, it seems.
Something, - amplifying meaning: We work twelve hours, and you something say (mouth) = yes, yes, behold;
Distinguishing-limiting meaning: I had to drive off, something it started to rain, and I drove off to one editorial office (Terekhov A. Babaev. 2003); Something the motor does not work (set. R.)
After all, here it is.
Something simple. - Emphasis: Now something do not accept a handwritten contract (set on 07/05/2016); Yes something somehow it doesn't work.
Here, ah, here it is.
Nothing that, - amplifying value: A nothing that I am pregnant! (us. byt. r. 2005)
After all, and, here, yes, yes.
What more, - negative meaning:<...>- What more! = no, not at all.
The other one - amplifying meaning: he the one else employee! = same, after all.
What else, - emphatic meaning:<...>- Well what else! = why, no.
Well, - emphasizing-restrictive meaning: Well Let him go. = same, okay;
Reinforcing value: Well he is stupid; Well day! Well heat!
Here's what.
Or what- emphatic-restrictive meaning: You will tell him about it, or what? = after all.
The same,- connection value: V Same Elections are being organized in America... (Newspapers, 1996); After all the same Djokovic played 88 matches in 2015, while Williams played only 59 (Kommersant 09/24/2015). = besides, here, a, out, and; -Same.
Oh and, - amplifying value: Oh and fool; Oh and organization! = what, then.
So to speak/ [Drag] / [Drag], - connecting meaning: What does it teach us, so to speak, family and school (Vysotsky); On this, so to speak, we said goodbye (us. R.)
And so, and, well.
So so /[Znachtak] [Zachtak], - connecting meaning: [Znachttak], move the table to the corner (set byt. R.) = and so, well.
So that, - adjunctive meaning: Her mother considered him unworthy. So that he trained here, then got angry, went to Germany (b. 06/30/2016) = and so, well, therefore, here.
So ah,- connecting value: So a call him; So a let's invite them (us. R.)
Well, here it is.
In connection with discursive phrases, there is a question about the boundaries of a linguistic unit, which is essential for the service part of speech. In these resulting combinations, the question of their boundaries is decided in accordance with the individual meaning expressed - the additional information that they introduce into the content of the statement. The presence of a separate meaning is revealed by the possible selection of synonyms. These phrases function as stable ones, expressing certain structural meanings in the text.
(Outside of the literary language and normative use, obscene vocabulary is used in rude vernacular - obscenity. In low-style discourse, some obscene lexemes have turned into particles, giving signs of rudeness, cynicism, indifference or frenzied fun to the expression. They are an attribute of an intellectually very reduced and informatively rarefied communication .)
test questions
- 1. What is the linguistic status of the verbal components "-sya", "-te", "-ka" related to particles?
- 2. Describe the linguistic status of the pronominal components “-something”, “-or”, “-something”, “something”, traditionally referred to as particles.
- 3. Give a comparative description of particles and unions.
- 4. Stylistic reference and stylistic characteristics of particles.
- 5. Name the particles related to book styles of speech.
- 6. List the particles related to the oral-conversational sphere.
