The other day, one of my secret admirers, a certain Serdit Serditych, in a remark about an article by my other admirer, Suomalainen, blurted out something at the address of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.A. Zaliznyak: “ It seemed to me that Acad. A.A. Zaliznyak read, after all, not in the usual, but in specialized school. It is this “adultness” that confuses those who encounter it for the first time. Not everyone can believe that an adult (and also with degrees and titles) is capable of spouting such blatant nonsense (from my own experience I can say that I still don’t fully understand how all this rubbish can be in the head a person who is not under the supervision of a psychiatrist). And this “adult uncle,” a dunce and a charlatan, as you and I have repeatedly found out here, doesn’t care about anything - geography, linguistics, chronology, philology, numismatics, literacy, correct command of foreign languages. This is such an indifference that one still has to think for a long time about which root should be extracted from it (although for some reason it seems to me that the result of this mathematical operation will be an irrational number)».

I note that two verbs in the present tense in a row, MAY BE located instead of the second verb in the indefinite form, MAY BE, fully characterizes the author of this commentary as an expert in the field of RL who gives his lectures V specialized school (you can guess which one). The reason for accusing the RAS academician of being “adult” was apparently the age of the academician, who was 78 years old. I note that for academics this is a normal age. The word “chushatina” is a neologism from Angry Seditych, and also, apparently, a new word in the grammar of the Russian language, that is, a degree of comparison from the noun “nonsense.” So to speak, " something more than nonsense" Serdit Serditych’s “own experience” is connected with people, under observation by a psychiatrist, (words " located at the located"are a tautology, if Serdit Serditych knows what it is), from here he accurately predicts what can and what has no right to be in the head of any person, even an academician. And this shows exactly what kind of “special school” he is talking about.

Undoubtedly, this expert’s speech is embellished by the Russian language and the slang word “don’t care” as an adverb. But Zaliznyak’s epithets are “ dunce and charlatan", and " don't care“raise some doubt as to whether Angry has the skills of scientific speech, or is simply a hooligan reader who is taking revenge on the respected academician Zaliznyak for something.

But Suomalainen, instead of rebuffing such criticism of Zaliznyak, agrees with it. He's writing: " Yes, you are absolutely right here. Of course (I should have made a reservation), in specialized school. In a regular setting, where there are many more C students, the percentage of understanding would be much lower" It is clear that at the specialized school for educational institutions of children, Zaliznyak was supposedly understood better, although the question immediately arises in what respect it was better. As we see, here too there is a mockery of the content of the academician’s statements.

And then, unexpectedly, “CHSV Chudinov” emerges as a measure of Zaliznyak’s mental abilities. Here's the exact quote: " But ChSV Chudinov, who positions himself as a methodologist of science, is giving him a hard time in this case too. Such a person - I agree with you completely - by definition (coupled with a doctorate) should understand much more than the most “specialized” students (they are still children, no matter what). But Andresen still remains infinitely right - only a child is destined to understand whether the king is naked or not. By the way, I never thought about the name of the school, but now SUDDENLY (in general, I laughed) - “Moomin- troll"How are you hinting? Our regiment is arriving?»

So, the “expert” of the Russian language Suomalainen writes the word “elki-motalki” (from the verb “to wind”) as “elki-matalki” (apparently from the noun “mat”), and Hans Christian Andersen turns out to be “Andresen”. Moreover, it becomes clear why this excellent Russian specialist with a Finnish surname suddenly remembered me, a sinner: it turns out now, when you enter the query “A.A.” into a search engine. Zaliznyak”, “Similar” queries immediately appear in the answer: “V.L. Yanin", "Yu.D. Apresyan" and, which I found hard to believe, "V.A. Chudinov." In other words, in terms of the frequency of reader requests, I stand immediately after Yanin and Apresyan and a couple of steps higher than V.V. Vinogradov. Who would have thought, based on the assessments of the Angry Serditychs and the Brykrovs?

Why do these “fighters against pseudoscience” call Academician Zaliznyak the “naked king”, calling the unknown Andresen as a witness? - Let's try to figure it out.

The purpose of science is the search for truth.

In his speech at the ceremony of awarding him the Solzhenitsyn Literary Prize (I note that Brykr and his comrades always make jokes about awarding literary prizes to someone), A.A. Zaliznyak said: “ I would like to speak out in defense of two simple ideas that were previously considered obvious and even simply banal, but now sound very unfashionable: 1) Truth exists, and the goal of science is to search for it. 2) In any issue under discussion, a professional (if he is truly a professional, and not just a bearer of government titles) is normally more right than an amateur. They are opposed by positions that are now much more fashionable: 1) Truth does not exist, there are only many opinions (or, in the language of postmodernism, many texts). 2) On any issue, no one's opinion weighs more than the opinion of someone else. A fifth grade girl has the opinion that Darwin is wrong, and it is good form to present this fact as a serious challenge to biological science. This fad is no longer purely Russian; it is felt throughout the Western world. But in Russia it is noticeably strengthened by the situation of the post-Soviet ideological vacuum.

The sources of these currently fashionable positions are clear: indeed, there are aspects of the world order where the truth is hidden and, perhaps, unattainable; indeed, there are cases when a non-professional turns out to be right, and all professionals are wrong».

I completely agree with all the statements of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.A. Zaliznyak, and even with that which is close to the position of agnosticism (regarding the unattainability of truth in individual cases), however, I especially highly appreciate his position that indeed, there are aspects of the world order where the truth is hidden. It is the hidden (more likely for the uninitiated) inscriptions, which have not yet been the object of epigraphy research, that I am exploring, thereby confirming this statement by the academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences. However, A.A. himself Zaliznyak does not deal with this, that is, with implicit inscriptions, and therefore he is not an expert here and it is permissible for him, like any non-specialist in this area, to make erroneous statements. For his scientific achievements do not lie at all in the field of microepigraphy and therefore it is incorrect to evaluate him in this area.

Zaliznyak continues: “ The fundamental shift is that these situations are perceived not as rare and exceptional, as they really are, but as universal and ordinary. And a huge incentive to accept them and believe in them is their psychological benefit. If all opinions are equal, then I can sit down and immediately post my opinion on the Internet, without bothering myself with many years of study and time-consuming acquaintance with what those who have devoted many years of research to this already know on this subject" And here the RAS academician is right.

He continues: “ There is a psychological benefit here not only for the writer, but no less for a significant part of the readers: a sensational refutation of what was considered a generally accepted truth just yesterday frees them from the feeling of their own insufficient education, and in one move puts them above those who have worked hard to study the relevant traditional wisdom, which they now learned is worthless. From the recognition that there is no truth in some deep philosophical question, the transition is made to the fact that there is no truth in anything, say, that the First World War began in 1914. And now we read, for example, that there never was Ivan the Terrible or that Batu is Ivan Kalita. And what’s much worse is that a sadly large number of people accept such news willingly».

And this is an attack against A.T.’s “New Chronology”. Fomenko, another academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences. As far as I understand, there is some distortion of the facts here: Fomenko did not deny the existence of Ivan the Terrible, but, on the contrary, argued that there were several of them. I also do not agree with many of A.T.’s provisions. Fomenko, however, the struggle for scientific truth with the help of lies seems unacceptable to me. Neither from A.A. Zaliznyak, nor from anyone else.

Speech by V.A. Uspensky.

On the same “Library” website (in an article with the address http://elementy.ru/lib/430463/430465) I read an introductory speech about V.A. Zaliznyak. Uspensky, professor at Moscow State University, head of the department of mathematical logic and theory of algorithms. He said, in particular: “ First, about the Russian language. Zaliznyak's research in this area began with his Russian-French dictionary, published in 1961. The dictionary was intended for the French-speaking user. The Russian language is inflectional, and this poses a difficult task for the compiler of a Russian-foreign dictionary designed for foreigners. It is necessary either to include all forms of the word in the Russian part of the dictionary, which is hardly possible in practice, or to accompany the dictionary with the rules of Russian inflection, which is what Zaliznyak did. He added his first masterpiece to the dictionary - “A Brief Essay on Russian Inflection,” that is, declinations and conjugations».

I quote this for those who call academician A.A. Zaliznyak " a dunce, a charlatan and a don't care».

I will continue quoting: “ The work lasted 13 years and culminated in the publication of the first edition of the dictionary in 1977. The dictionary immediately became an event in Russian studies. It has become necessary not only for linguists, but also for everyone who uses the Russian language. Its fourth edition was published in 2003. Today, the landscape of Russian studies is unthinkable without this dictionary and the monograph that preceded it. “Look at Zaliznyak” has become the same formula as “look at Dahl».

I note that the criterion for assessing the creativity of A.A. Zaliznyak became in demand for his work, both among Russian scholars and among a significant part of the Russian-speaking population.

« Now about Zaliznyak’s second career - deciphering ancient texts. This refers to letters on birch bark, but not only them. What did Zaliznyak do here, if we limit ourselves to the main thing? First. He read some of the letters for the first time, and for some he finally determined their correct meaning. And this determination of the correct meaning sometimes had important consequences».

Consequently, if Zaliznyak had for the first time read correctly some Etruscan texts or correctly determined their correct meaning, he would have made a certain significant contribution to science. Just like any other person. Because merit is not related to the specific name of the researcher. This is the opinion of the mathematician, although from the point of view of Brykr or Serdit Serditych, the mathematician has no right to judge the contribution of someone to linguistics, since he is not a professional.

« Here are two examples, in a somewhat loose paraphrase. The phrase “I am sending pike and tongs” gave grounds for far-reaching conclusions about the development of blacksmithing in the Novgorod region and even about the proximity of fishing and blacksmith settlements. It turned out - “pike and bream”! The phrase “doors of the cell” was understood as “doors of the cell.” It turned out that “the doors are intact”! That is, it is written “kele doors”, it was read as “kele doors”, but in the modern sense - “the doors are intact”. Thus, it was proven that in the language of the ancient Novgorodians there was no so-called second palatalization, the presence of which was considered an axiom».

It is clear that from the point of view of V.A. Uspensky if Academician A.A. Zaliznyak showed that the Etruscan word should be read not AVIL, but ACHIL, and the word ACHIL means an abbreviated and accusatory spelling of the word POCHIL, then this would mean that Academician Zaliznyak finally determined its correct meaning. And if he showed that the Etruscans wrote the word LADO (lord) in the plural as LADI, and then, when replacing A with U, they began to write PEOPLE, then this determination of the correct meaning had important consequences to understand the history of suppletivism of noun forms already in the Russian language. For the content of truth does not depend on who discovered it, and the fact of its discovery is an undoubted scientific merit.

« Second. When Zaliznyak’s predecessors encountered difficulties in understanding a particular letter, they usually declared the scribe illiterate or they thought that he peed himself here, and replaced one letter with another - then everything worked out for them. Zaliznyak proceeded from such a strange presumption - the spelling correctness of texts: that everyone is literate, everyone writes correctly, what a person wanted to write, he wrote. Which was confirmed. And it turned out that it was much easier to take this point of view. A certain harmonious idea of ​​the language that was there arose, and everything came together».

Transferring this principle of the presumption of correct spelling to the Etruscan language immediately leads to the assertion that academic science has so far studied Etruscoid, and not genuine Etruscan texts. After all, Academician Zaliznyak’s predecessors were also linguists, and many of them were even academicians. But he didn’t take their opinion into account - and he turned out to be right!

« Third. Having studied the living, everyday language in which birch bark letters were written, Zaliznyak established that there were two main dialects in the ancient Russian language - the northwestern one, which the Novgorodians spoke, and the southcentral-eastern one».

If academician A.A. Zaliznyak studied the Etruscan texts, he would have come to the conclusion that in addition to the northwestern Novgorod, there was also a western Smolensk-Polotsk dialect. And, having studied the Scythian texts, I would have realized that there was also a southeastern, Scythian dialect. So Academician A.A. Zaliznyak can be considered the founder of the discipline “historical dialectology of the Russian language,” where he discovered the first among many other dialects.

« Fourth. According to widespread belief, various languages ​​and dialects - and certainly East Slavic languages ​​and dialects - are formed through divergence, that is, divergence, splitting from some original language or dialect. Well, somewhere at the very beginning, in ancient times, there was some kind of proto-language. Zaliznyak discovered that the modern Russian language that we all speak arose as a result of the reverse process - it arose through convergence, that is, convergence from the northwestern dialect and the south-central-eastern dialect, which in ancient times were just different».

Consequently, by the time the Novgorod dialect appeared, the single Russian proto-language had diverged into a number of dialects, and later, in historical times, came together again. But this discovery perfectly corresponds to my position that at the moment of maximum divergence of dialects of the Russian language, there were several state formations in which these languages ​​were spoken: Yarova Rus, Rus Slavs, Rus Scotia, Rus Mary, Rus Mira, Rus Mokosh, Russia Alive, Rus' Rod... Later, in place of some states, Western Europe was formed, in place of others - Tartary, in place third - Muscovy. So this linguistic discovery formed a very serious basis for my research.

« Fifth. Archaeologists date letters based on the depth of the strata from which they were excavated. This is the so-called stratigraphic dating. Zaliznyak created a purely paleographic method of so-called extrastratigraphic dating. To do this, he had to analyze the graphic features of the letters. Based on this analysis, Zaliznyak proposed his dating method, a method based solely on the internal features of the letter, which does not imply any appeal to its archaeological history. Well, it's reminiscent of how art historians date an ancient vase by its design.».

Here, unfortunately, V.A. Uspensky is inaccurate. In 1967, the publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences republished the book “Russian Paleography”. The publishing house notes that “The book was written by an outstanding Slavist of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Shchepkin (1863-1920). This fundamental historical and grammatical study examines the evolution of Russian writing from ancient times to the 18th century.” So the paleographic dating method has been known since the end of the 19th century. It’s another matter if academician A.A. Zaliznyak improved it.

« Sixth. In 2000, a wooden book from the first quarter of the 11th century, the so-called Novgorod Codex, was unearthed in Novgorod. This means a book from the first quarter of the 11th century. The book consisted of three wax-coated tablets with text scratched into the wax. The text on the wax was relatively easy to read, but there were also texts scratched into the wood, and there were two types of texts - some were scratched on those parts of the wood that were not and had never been covered with wax, and other texts were faint traces left by what was scratched on the wax. This means that the writing pierced right through the wax and left marks on the wooden backing. And all these texts on wood of both types were read with great difficulty. In addition, over the course of decades, texts on wood were layered on top of each other. It required truly superhuman skill to see a meaningful text in the web of scratches - or rather, many such hidden texts superimposed on each other.

Zaliznyak saw and read these hidden texts. The very conjecture that the wax was pierced through by the writing, that this should have left barely noticeable scratches on the wooden backing, and that these scratches, upon careful study, can be read - this conjecture itself represents a separate, absolutely remarkable achievement».

I draw the reader's attention to the fact that reading hidden texts barely noticeable scratches is a separate, absolutely wonderful achievement " But the main pathos of criticism by Brykr and his colleagues of any epigraphists is that they allegedly read cracks and scratches, and that this contradicts normal science. And for this, it turns out, literary prizes are awarded as for absolutely remarkable achievement.

And another wonderful expression of the mathematician: “Some are given the ability to hit targets that others cannot hit, others given the ability to see goals that others cannot see" It is useful for all these Suomalainens and Angry Angries to re-read these words from time to time. For blindness is their long-standing illness.

« And finally, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.” Zaliznyak proved it authenticity, in the understanding of the word “proved”, which is generally possible in philology. The proof is based on the most subtle patterns of the Old Russian language he revealed. A hypothetical falsifier would have to have unthinkable qualities, namely, to know these patterns, some of which were discovered quite recently, to know and hide his knowledge from his contemporaries.

« About forty years ago I asked Andrei Anatolyevich what he thought about the authenticity of the Lay. He sent me to Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman, who happened to be nearby, and my brother Boris Andreevich Uspensky. - Of course it’s genuine! - Lotman answered. - Of course it's fake! - my brother answered. Zaliznyak himself then avoided answering. Now I answered».

I note that all these Angry Serditychs repeatedly attacked me because I also proved the authenticity of the “Veles Book”. Namely, based on the rules for reading the runica and the rules for transliterating the text on it with the runes of the Rod.

A.A. Zaliznyak and “New Chronology”.

The Wikipedia article “New Chronology” states, in part: “ A. A. Zaliznyak notes that “the main “dynastic parallelism” in the history of Rus', which, according to A. T. Fomenko, is the basis of the new chronology of Rus', is pure fiction, based on a long series of gross falsifications of real chronicle data».

I was curious to look at this criticism in more detail, especially since I also disagree with the “New Chronology” in a number of places. However, before quoting the answer of A.A. Zaliznyak, I will quote the comments made by A.T. Fomenko to his scientific opponent.

The beginning was made by the article by A.A. Zaliznyak “Linguistics according to A.T. Fomenko" in the collection of the Russian Historical Society "Antifomenko". Volume 3. - M.: “Languages ​​of Russian Culture”, 2000.

A.T. Fomenko about the article by A.A. Zaliznyak.

« Extensive article by A.A. Zaliznyak - the largest of the critical articles addressed to us, included in the collection - does not at all concern the issues of justification or construction of the foundations of chronology. It discusses only our reconstruction of universal history, proposed by the Amiya as still a hypothetical picture, based on the interpretation of historical information from the point of view of our proposed new chronology.

Our reconstruction is criticized by A.A. Zaliznyak from the point of view of Scaligerian chronology, on which he constantly, explicitly or subconsciously, relies in his criticism. A.A. Zaliznyak directly writes: “Having taken up the construction of hypotheses in the field of history and linguistics, ATF should be judged by exactly the same court as ordinary historians and linguists».

To this attack A.T. Fomenko replies: “ In response, we note that “ordinary” historians and linguists work within the framework of Scaligerian chronology, often without even realizing how much their conclusions depend on this chronology. And they judge each other’s works, naturally, also from the point of view of Scaligerian chronology. It is not difficult to imagine what will happen if we begin to judge our work, carried out within the framework of a new chronology, fundamentally different from Scaliger’s, with the “same court”. With the above-mentioned phrase placed at the very beginning of his article, A.A. Zaliznyak could well have finished the article. Since its subsequent content, in full accordance with the specified phrase, has nothing to do with chronology».

Reasonable objection. However, in this case, I can apparently act as an independent expert, since I equally do not recognize either the Scaligerian chronology or the hypothesis of the new Chronology, which has not yet achieved full accuracy. I recently took the point of view of chronology according to Yar, but from her point of view, the statement of A.T. Fomenko’s “antiquity is the Middle Ages” looks more reliable than traditional Scaligerian dating. So, despite my sympathy in this article for A.A. Zaliznyak, I have to admit that A.T. was right. Fomenko.

But I will continue A.T.’s objections. Fomenko: “ Needless to say, with the approach he chose, A.A. Zaliznyak discovers blatant, outrageous contradictions with things familiar to him. All that has been said can be briefly summarized in just a few words: our reconstruction of history sharply contradicts the Scaligerian chronology and many conclusions that are drawn from this chronology, in particular, in linguistics. And indeed it is. Because our reconstruction is based on a completely different chronology of history. This is a trivial fact that hardly requires such a detailed proof as A.A.’s article. Zaliznyak».

And in this case, I also support the objections of A.T. Fomenko.

« As for the actual linguistic remarks accompanying our reconstruction of history, which are especially strongly attacked by A.A. Zaliznyak, we always emphasize in our books that linguistics is not for us a means of proving anything. Actually, linguistics was generally of little use in chronology. It was not used at all to construct a new chronology. But when the chronology has already been constructed, then at the stage of historical interpretations, it is sometimes useful to involve linguistic considerations. Naturally, perceiving them not as evidence, but as some guiding considerations that can somewhat clarify or supplement the already generally constructed picture of the events of the past» .

As far as I understand, by “linguistics” both sides mean figuring out the etymology of many words. The etymology itself is very dependent on dating. If, for example, the Russian language is considered to have emerged only in the 9th century AD, then, of course, many other languages, for example, Egyptian, could hardly have borrowed anything from it. But if it turns out that both the Egyptian mummies and the Egyptian pyramids and Egyptian steles were signed in Russian, and the Egyptian inscriptions were located on top of them, then it turns out that the Russian inscriptions are ANCIENT than the Egyptian ones. And then the word KHARAON turns out to be older than the word PHARAON, and the last word, as I showed in one of the drawings, came from the word KHARAON, when part of the first letter X with a long left diagonal was circled and turned into the letter F. In the same way , when the direction of the letter changed to the opposite, the word WORLD, read in the opposite direction, gave the word ROME. So such correspondences in words can only be correctly understood in the light of true chronology.

In other words, A.T. is right again. Fomenko, not A.A. Zaliznyak.

A.T. Fomenko about meeting A.A. Zaliznyak with a new chronology in general.

« Although A.A. Zaliznyak says that he is mainly considering our book “New Chronology and Concept of the Ancient History of Rus', England and Rome”, calling it briefly NH, she then speaks out in essence about all our books, across the entire spectrum of our research, starting with the condemnation of our astronomical analysis, statistics, etc. At the same time, at the very beginning of his article A.A. Zaliznyak writes: “I cannot help but condemn the annotation to the book [NH] and the information about the authors on the cover. The abstract states: “Intended for the widest range of readers interested in the application of natural science methods in the humanities.” This is disinformation: the book uses conventional humanitarian methods.

Academician A.A. Zaliznyak tells a lie. All our research is based on the application of statistical, natural science, and mathematical methods to a variety of historical material. This is described in detail in several of our books. In our other publications, constantly, at almost every step, there are references to the results of our empirical and statistical studies. The question is whether A.A. read. Are our books devoted to natural scientific methods in history slanderous? Have you seen our permanent links to their results? Either yes or no. If he read and saw, then he deliberately deceives reader with phrases similar to the one quoted above. If you haven’t read it, then it probably wouldn’t be worth speaking out about the subject, the essence of which is A.A. Zaliznyak, as we see, actually did not understand».

Interesting situation. On the one hand, A.A. Zaliznyak must understand humanitarian problems (although not all), and therefore, having found them in the book of NH, he limits himself only to it, and declares that he did not find natural scientific methods in this book. And in this case he absolutely right: They are not there. But in the list of references for this book, under No. 1, there is a link to a work in which such methods are presented. So if A.A. Zaliznyak analyzes only the work of A.T., he is right, but if by it he judges all the works of A.T. Fomenko, he is wrong. But in this case I am on the side of A.A. Zaliznyak, if we are talking only about the book, and on the side of A.T. Fomenko, if we are talking about the New Chronology in general.

Therefore, I decided to consider A.T.’s objection. Fomenko to the end. " Further A.A. Zaliznyak begins his article with a section entitled “Amateur linguistics as a tool for reshaping history.” A.A. Zaliznyak continues to tell lies. In all our books, we specifically emphasize repeatedly that the linguistic considerations we use from time to time are not independent proof of anything. The proof is the results of natural scientific methods. Only then, when we try to re-read ancient documents, are we forced to demonstrate the ambiguity of their reading, which arises primarily due to the fact that old texts were often written without vowels. This is where various linguistic considerations arise. The question is whether A.A. understands. Zaliznyak indicated the relationship in our works between natural scientific methods and linguistic considerations? Either yes or no. If he understands, then again deceives the reader with statements like the one quoted. If not, then why make statements on a topic, the essence of which remained A.A. Is it deeply incomprehensible to Zaliznyak?»

It seems to me that A.A. Zaliznyak did not explicitly formulate what is meant by “amateur linguistics.” I have already shown that, having examined the Novgorod letters on birch bark, he did not understand that it was not so much about dialectal differences in pronunciation, but about a different spelling, that is, a different spelling. Does this mean that he is an amateur in spelling problems? In other words, in your research, have you wandered into an area where you yourself are an amateur? If this is so, then it is unlikely that he has the moral right to label another academician as an “amateur.”

« It is curious that the linguist A. A. Zaliznyak begins the mentioned very first section of his article not with linguistics, but with astronomy. He accuses us of incorrectly dating Thucydides' eclipse by using too free a "literary translation" of Thucydides' text on eclipses. This, they say, is “a clear example of a mistake.” A.A. Zaliznyak writes: “A striking example of an error of this kind in A.T.F. is analyzed by E.S. Golubtsova and V.M. Smirin, and after them A.L. Ponomarev. Talking about the eclipse of 431 BC. e., Thucydides reports that the sun became month-shaped, and also that some stars appeared. A.T.F., based on the literary Russian translation of Thucydides, understands this to mean that first the sun became month-shaped, and later (when the eclipse reached the total phase) stars appeared. Thus, A.T.F. sees here a message about a total solar eclipse. However, as the named authors have shown, such an interpretation is possible only for the translation used by A.T.F. The original text of Thucydides does not give such a possibility: it can only be understood in such a way that the indicated events are simultaneous: the sun became month-shaped (that is, it was not completely eclipsed) and at the same time some stars appeared» .

The Wikipedia article "Eclipses of Thucydides" states: " N.A. Morozov saw in the supposed contradiction of Thucydides’ text with astronomical reality evidence of the inconsistency of the entire existing chronology. He proposed his own dates for eclipses: August 2, 1133 AD. e., and then on March 20, 1140 and August 28, 1151, and the first eclipse turns out to be total, as, according to Morozov, it should have been according to Thucydides, and also closer to noon at the time of the culmination - 14:00 Athens time (Morozov obviously meant astronomical noon - 12 o'clock). Following Morozov, the eclipse is attributed to this date, and with it all the events described by Thucydides, the so-called “New Chronology” of A. T. Fomenko, and Fomenko, parallel to Morozov’s, proposed his own version: August 22, 1039 AD. e., 9 April 1046 AD e., September 15, 1057 AD e. Criticizing the assumptions that Thucydides could see Venus, Fomenko considers it unlikely that Venus could be seen next to the dazzling (albeit weakened several times) Sun».

According to my research, Thucydides became a priest in THE YEAR 1466 FROM THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST . Therefore, all the proposed dates for eclipses, namely August 3, 431 BC. e. for the first, March 21, 424 BC. e. for the second and 27 August 413 BC. e. for the third (lunar), obtained by Johannes Kepler and Dionysius Petavius, as well as data from N.A. Morozova and A.T. Fomenko, it seems to me, are not correct. It is likely that later astronomical decisions would have been correct.

Conclusion A.T. Fomenko.

« The question is whether A.T. knows him. What's wrong with these results of ours and Morozov's? He claims to know him. But in this case, he deliberately writes lies, presenting our results in the distorted manner quoted above. And he transfers the question from a scientific plane to a purely demagogic one.

After talking about astronomy, A.A. Zaliznyak proceeds to condemn our linguistic considerations that arise in our works - I repeat once again - only as an attempt to re-read ancient tests, often unofficial. This is most of the article by A.A. Zaliznyak is written in a humorous manner. He offers a variety of witty remarks that should show how absurd sound analogies can be, bringing together concepts that are different in essence. Such humor has nothing to do with our research. It seems unnecessary to comment on anything here.».

Probably, A.T.’s comments here. Fomenko are correct, although you should listen to the opposite side.

« Using the example of the analysis of the case of Thucydides’ eclipses, it is clear that analyzing the fundamentals of chronology in each specific case is a rather complex task that requires painstaking and thorough research. All the necessary details can be found in our books. Unfortunately, one gets the impression that the authors of the collection are of little interest in the essence of the matter. Otherwise, the level of discussion proposed in would be significantly different. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to analyze in such detail, as in the example of Thucydides’ triad, all the lightweight statements of the authors of the collections, which often have only the appearance of “scientific objections.” We refer the interested reader who wants to really understand the essence of the issues raised to our books» .

Unfortunately, A.T.’s claims Fomenko to A.A. Zaliznyak is very similar to those that I have for Brykr, Suomalainen and Serdit Serditych. But is he right? Let's try to listen to the opposite side.

Principles of controversy according to A.T. Fomenko.

This is the title of A.A.’s article. Zaliznyak. In it he writes: “ To my article (among other articles) there is now a response published on the Internet by A. T. Fomenko (hereinafter: ATF) and G. V. Nosovsky. It follows the usual ATP response style. I will comment on it, first of all, as an example of polemics on A. T. Fomenko.

At first I thought that this comment of mine would be published next to the ATF response itself and therefore there was no particular need for quoting. But, unfortunately, the ATF forbade the publication of his response in the same collection where the critical articles themselves to which he responds are republished. Therefore, for the sake of those readers for whom searching for Fomenkov’s answer may be difficult, I had to quote rather long quotes from him.

Any ATF response to criticism is actually intended for those who have already believed in the “new teaching.” Only they are able not to notice how clumsily such answers are crafted. And they, of course, should be supported at all costs in the feeling that the leader will be able to repel any criticism. By not wanting to see its answer side by side with what it is responding to, ATF has made it quite clear that it prefers the reader to confine itself to the text of ATF itself, and does not have much hope for the persuasiveness of its answers to those who will read them in direct comparison with the original criticism articles».

This version seems rather far-fetched to me. A.T. Fomenko simply noted that many provisions of A.A. Zaliznyak have nothing to do with the problem itself. In particular, you can see that the publication of A.T.’s answers. Fomenko together or separately from the comments of A.A. Zaliznyak really has nothing to do with “New Chronology”. And the opinions of A.A. Zaliznyak regarding the persuasiveness of A.T.’s statements. Fomenko are simply A.A.’s assumptions. Zaliznyak.

« ATF has developed stable skills, almost automaticity, in producing such quasi-responses. There is a set of standard formulas that provide the author with a general tone of superiority that is so important for fans and allow him to avoid answering unpleasant questions, “saving face.”».

It must be said that in Chapter 6 of the book there are 9 sections with responses to the speeches of various critics. Naturally, detailed answers would make up a whole plump book, which was not part of A.T.’s task. Fomenko. The magnitude of the answer is purely the author's discretion. There are not and cannot be any norms here. The author can give an answer to each line of the accusation or not answer at all - this is his right.

Answer formula A.T. Fomenko from the position of A.A. Zaliznyak.

« 1. The main one of these formulas: the opponent is either dishonest or does not understand. (And how, in fact, could it be otherwise, since the ATP theory is initially correct?)».

I was surprised to notice that my client was shaking somewhat: A.T. Fomenko reproached him for the fact that A.A. Zaliznyak read only one book by A.T. Fomenko from many, and that the conclusions of A.T. Fomenko are based on natural scientific results. But these natural scientific results, although they greatly narrow the number of possible datings for a number of historical events, do not yet make it unambiguous. So in this case I take a softer position: A.A. Zaliznyak most likely underestimates the importance of astronomical methods. Although they are not unambiguous, they still introduce only a few chronological possibilities, significantly reducing uncertainty.

« 2. Your opponent is being rude, so you don’t have to answer him." Here A.A. Zaliznyak is right. However, unfortunately, he himself sometimes allows rudeness, calling all his opponents amateurs or amateurs. Therefore, the radical way to get the desired answer is not to be rude at all.

« In my case, ATF was unable to find any rudeness, so my “humor” was cited as a motive for not answering to the point (ATF, unfortunately, does not distinguish the meanings of words very accurately humorAnd irony).He writes like this: “...most of the article by A. A. Zaliznyak is written as if in a humorous vein. He offers a variety of witty remarks that should show how absurd sound analogies can be, bringing together concepts that are different in essence. Nothing to do with "This humor does not exist in our research. It seems to us unnecessary to comment on anything here." Of course, this is my fault. New chronologists should not be joked with. They are not some kind of clowns. They are not joking when they say, for example, that Ireland and Russia were one and the same in the past. They report this in the steely language of logic: “The identification of Ireland in a certain historical period with Russia ... clearly follows from the ancient English chronicles.” And if you still decide to object, then don’t be silly, but at least find an English chronicle from which this follows ambiguously».

Here A.A. Zaliznyak uses irony very wittily. Moreover, he actually took the most egregious example from A.T.'s statements. Fomenko - not all of the mathematician’s statements are so negatively eloquent.

« 3. What the opponent says has nothing to do with the essence of the ATP theory, so there is no need to discuss it. So, about my article it is said: “The extensive article by A. A. Zaliznyak - the largest of the critical articles addressed to us - does not at all concern the issues of justification or construction of the foundations of chronology. It discusses only our reconstruction of universal history, which we proposed as for now still a hypothetical picture based on the interpretation of historical information from the point of view of the new chronology we propose."

How true this is can be learned, by the way, from the ATP response itself. The fact is that at the speed with which the authors of the “new chronology” are now producing written products, they apparently do not have time to re-read what they have written. Therefore, they simply did not notice that already on the next page they wrote something opposite about their opponent: “he further speaks out, in fact, about all our books, across the entire spectrum of our research, starting with the condemnation of our astronomical analysis, statistics, etc. d.».

And here A.A. Zaliznyak is right.

« 4. The opponent explicitly or implicitly proceeds from the traditional chronology, so what he says will immediately lose its meaning as soon as we take the position of the new chronology. Here is what we read from ATF: “Our reconstruction is criticized by A. A. Zaliznyak from the point of view of Scaligerian chronology, on which he constantly, explicitly or subconsciously, relies in his criticism. A. A. Zaliznyak directly writes: “Having taken up the construction of hypotheses in fields of history and linguistics, ATF should be judged by exactly the same court as ordinary historians and linguists." In response to this, we note that "ordinary" historians and linguists work within the framework of Scaligerian chronology, often without even realizing that how strongly their conclusions depend on this chronology. And they judge each other’s work, naturally, also from the point of view of the Scaligerian chronology. It is not difficult to imagine what will happen if we begin to judge our work, carried out within the framework of the new chronology, by the “same court”, fundamentally different from Scaliger's. ...Needless to say that with the approach he chose, A. A. Zaliznyak at every step reveals blatant, outrageous contradictions with things familiar to him. All this can be briefly summarized in a few words: our reconstruction of history sharply contradicts Scaliger's chronology and many conclusions that are drawn from this chronology, in particular, in linguistics. And indeed it is. Because our reconstruction is based on a completely different chronology of history."

Let’s not dwell on how cleverly the expression “to be judged by the same court” (i.e., “to require the same degree of evidence”) is substituted with the required ATF meaning of “to be judged within the framework of indispensable compliance with traditional chronology.” Let us try to understand the greatness of the main idea of ​​this entire passage.

We must assume that if we agree that there was no ancient world and history began only in the 11th century, then fraud when writing out “dynastic parallelisms” will cease to be fraud, forgers of the 17th century will be able to make such fakes, for which you need to know the discoveries of the 19th century, the Königsberg Germans will be able to write Old Russian without errors, the word Jew will indeed turn out to be the same word as priest, etc. And in general, as soon as the veil of falsified Scaligerian chronology falls from our eyes, the fundamental principles of many sciences will change: the rules will become looser logic, the laws of comparative linguistics will change, the doctrine that Arabic is not the same as English will be revised, historical geography will become the science of mass travel of cities and countries across the face of the earth - in short, various special sciences will no longer put spokes in the wheels "new teaching"».

This is a worthy answer.

« Of the purely technical methods of constructing a polemical response, the signature technique of ATP is as follows. You need to find a statement from your opponent that seems quite vulnerable, even if it’s completely private, and engage in a lengthy refutation of it, after which you need to pass over in complete silence objections of primary importance (in some answers, the ATF explains this something like this: “You now understand what the opponent’s level is , so there is no need to continue)».

And this is a very accurate description of the method that the above-mentioned Brykry, Suomalainen and Serdity Serditych use against me. Bravo, Andrey Anatolyevich!

Next, I will omit some of the objections and move on to a very strong argument: “ 1) The theory of the new chronology has not been proven and cannot be proven mathematically, since its initial data are the testimony of written monuments, which can only be used after their non-mathematical (namely, philological and historical) analysis, and such an analysis, in principle, cannot reach the level mathematical reliability.

2) From the acceptance of the new chronology, the thesis of mass falsification inevitably follows (and is actually accepted by the ATF) written monuments in almost all countries. But this thesis turns out to be in irreconcilable contradiction with the real capabilities of people of the 16th-18th centuries. (the era to which the ATF attributes the bulk of falsifications): they did not have the linguistic knowledge necessary for such falsification; political, religious and economic conditions did not allow for the necessary coordination of all relevant works. In addition, this thesis presupposes a mode of human behavior and its incentives that have never really been observed anywhere on a mass scale.

3) The main “dynastic parallelism” in the history of Rus', which, according to ATF, is the basis of the new chronology of Rus', is pure fiction, based on a long series of gross falsifications of real chronicle data».

From the first objection it follows that the replacement of one chronology with another (Scaligerian with New) should be carried out by the entire complex of sciences, and not just astronomy. That's right, and you should never rush with such a replacement; you need to carefully weigh whether the game is worth the candle.

It follows from the second expression that, most likely, there was no falsification of history during the Renaissance - the old, pre-Christian historiography was simply destroyed, and in its place a new one, more appropriate to the new era, was invented.

Predynastic parallelism A.T. Fomenko, as I already wrote once, most likely represents a purely mathematical technique based on the broadly understood abstraction of identification, the basic abstraction of mathematics. This is the creation of a certain model of “similar historical persons”, something like a typological model, where A, B, C ... are not specific historical persons, but certain historical types.

Central thesis.

« Now about the central thesis of our article, which is that almost all linguistic statements of the ATF are at the level of ignorant amateurism. The authors did not dare to challenge it».

But I consider this statement to be real scientific rudeness by A.A. Zaliznyak. It’s not customary to talk to colleagues like that in science.

« They simply once again hid behind their well-worn formula, according to which linguistics for them is a trifle on which nothing significant for their theory depends... It’s a little embarrassing, of course, for academic authors who insistently claim that their products are not pulp fiction, and scientific work, when, having been caught filling hundreds of pages of their volumes with monstrous nonsense under the guise of “linguistic considerations,” they respond as if it were a trifling prank that does not cast any shadow on the scientific nature of the whole. Their self-confident amateurism is so incorrigible that even now in their answer, without any embarrassment, they repeat the previous ignorant nonsense: “old texts were often written without vowels.” (It is interesting to compare this attitude to the matter with how resolutely the ATF suggests that many of its critics not touch mathematics, since they understand nothing about it. Apparently, many fans of the new chronology are very flattered by this presumption emanating from their leader that mathematics it is better for outsiders not to meddle, while a mathematician, on the contrary, will understand any science better than any specialist. I am afraid that now the ATF has slightly tarnished this flattering reputation of mathematicians)».

This is also a strong attack by A.A. Zaliznyak.

Conclusion A.A. Zaliznyak.

« This is what the actual relationship between the humanities and the mathematical is in what the ATF is trying to pass off as a mathematical proof of its theory.

What remains, however, is the mathematical treatment of “dynastic parallelisms.” But after the blatant forgeries examined in my article, which were discovered in the main “dynastic parallelism” of Rus' (and about which the ATF did not dare to say a word in its own defense), I consider it unnecessary to return to this problem.

Thus, the presence of an unshakable mathematical foundation under the main thesis of the “new teaching” - the reduction of the known history of mankind to one millennium - is simply a legend, intensively promoted by the ATF itself. In fact, this main thesis is based on nothing more than a hypothesis, which does not possess any obligation. Its fallacy is established by a method well known in science, called reductio ad absurdum (“reduction to absurdity”): the consequences that inevitably follow from this hypothesis are considered and their falsity is stated.

In this case, the most important of these consequences is the assertion that countless written monuments from different countries have been falsified, which directly or indirectly point to traditional rather than new chronology. But this statement is false, since it is incompatible with the real capabilities of people of the 16th-18th centuries. (see above) (and even ATF does not dare to assume that all this falsification was carried out in the 19th-20th centuries). It follows that the new chronology is incorrect. (And as a particular matter, it also follows that the interpretation of Thucydides’ evidence in ATF is incorrect - either for the reason assumed by Hoffmann, or for some other of several reasons that are fundamentally possible in such a case.)

So, the mathematical immutability of the “new teaching” is a fiction. As for the humanitarian component of this teaching, its level is below all norms accepted in the humanities».

Agree. At the same time, the very idea that there were shifts in chronology is not at all absurd. It is possible that A.T. Fomenko failed to prove this with the required degree of completeness and depth, so his attack was successfully repulsed by existing historical and linguistic science. However, a number of the provisions he cites are not at all absurd, although they are the ones that are least striking. Apparently, a person who has worked all his life in the field of rather large assumptions accepted in mathematics was unable to fit into the narrower gaps that exist in historical and philological knowledge.

Discussion.

The controversy between two, of course, very original and extraordinary scientists, is always of public interest. In this case, one of the authors, namely A.T. Fomenko, represents the point of view that chronology has a number of shifts in time, that is, it is heterogeneous in evidence throughout history, while another researcher, namely A.A. Zaliznyak, trying to defend the existing point of view. Each of the positions has a number of undoubted and a number of vulnerable provisions. A.T. Fomenko assures that A. Zaliznyak is lying, and in response, A. A. Zaliznyak calls his opponent an “ignorant amateur.” I believe that both of them said these rude things in the heat of polemical fervor.

It is curious that both opponents are innovators. And the paradox is that A.A. Zaliznyak discovered the difference in dialects of the Russian language in that historical period of the existence of two Russian regions, during which, based on Scaligerian chronology, no linguistic differences could have arisen. But he has no other chronology, moreover, he fundamentally does not allow it.

Paradox A.T. Fomenko is that he boldly identifies persons from different eras, as well as different geographical regions, making Iceland Russia, and Alexander Nevsky - Batu Khan. Persons and regions that are similar in one respect may be very different in all other respects. The mathematician here acts as the creator of typological-historical mathematical calculus, which traditional historiography does not yet need at all, and is not even going to reach such a level of abstraction yet. In other words, he introduces a certain mathematical method that is still alien to historical science. Decades must pass for any new method to take root in a particular scientific field. But he builds a new historiography on this abstraction, which generally does not go beyond the 10th century AD, but the period from the 10th to the 16th centuries. shows very vaguely. So he proposes to throw out the old chronology, which, perhaps, is not without shortcomings, but for now the current historiography is quite satisfied, and in return he offers a very short segment, moreover, filled with doubles of persons, events and regions. While it is not always clear to him where and who was the prototype, and who and when was his phantom reflection. In a word, instead of filling in the gaps in the existing chronology and throwing out several absolutely precisely proven non-existent rulers, he proposes to replace the already agreed upon and tested chronological model with some kind of semi-finished product.

It is clear that not a single science will tolerate the collapse of its frame, no matter what, spatial or temporal. And here, it seems, both the connection to geography and the connection to history will collapse.

It is not enough to show inaccuracies and inconsistencies - they still need to be explained, and not take their predecessors for complete laymen who do not know what they created. Therefore, the position of A.T. Fomenko is also vulnerable from the standpoint of scientific ethics.

I also show that in traditional Scaligerian chronology not everything is smooth, but not at all due to a lack of knowledge or intelligence among my predecessors. This was a political order of the Renaissance, which the scientists of that time coped with brilliantly. However, in addition to the chronology according to Christ, as it turned out, there was an equally perfect chronology according to Yar. It created certain spiritual obstacles for the spread of Christianity, and therefore was eliminated. But, as it turned out, not fully, having been preserved on a number of artifacts. Therefore, as the goals of my research, I set the task of interpreting and reconciling different datings along the Yar. So far, not everything is working out here, but I am not at all calling for abandoning traditional chronology and, to the best of my ability, I try to convert all dates according to the Yar into dates according to AD. I see very well that even more additional research is needed, but not in order to abandon the generally accepted chronology, but in order to identify those dates that, due to certain considerations, were identified inaccurately or incorrectly. It is always easier to destroy than to build. In the meantime, I’m taking on tasks that are not at all as large-scale as creating a new chronology. It would be quite enough for me to simply return Rome, Greece and Egypt, which were pushed back thousands of years during the Renaissance, to their rightful places. But this is not the main thing: I want to trace the history of Spring Rus' from Arctorus to Ruyana with all its ups and downs. This is quite scientific.

Conclusion.

I showed that A.A. Zaliznyak is a completely worthy opponent to A.T. Fomenko, so Angry Serditych’s barbs about the fact that he dunce, charlatan and indifference- do not stand up to criticism.

Literature.

1. Zaliznyak A.A.. Linguistics according to A.T. Fomenko // Collection of the Russian Historical Society “Antifomenko”. Volume 3. - M.: “Languages ​​of Russian culture”, 2000
2. Fomenko A.T.. Trojan War in the Middle Ages. Analysis of responses to our research / A.T. Fomenko. - M.: Astrel: AST, 2007. - 383 p.
3. G. V. Nosovsky, A. T. Fomenko. New chronology and concept of the ancient history of Rus', England and Rome Facts. Statistics. Hypotheses. - Moscow, Moscow State University, publishing house of the Educational and Scientific Center for Pre-University Education of Moscow State University, 1995-1996.
4. Fomenko A. T. Methods of statistical analysis of narrative texts and applications to chronology. (Recognition and dating of dependent texts, statistical ancient chronology, statistics of ancient astronomical messages). Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1990.
5. Zaliznyak A. A. Principles of controversy according to A.T. Fomenko. http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/zaliznk2.htm

Is academician A.A. Zaliznyak a dilettante?
Academician A.A. Is Zaliznyak an amateur?
V.A.Chudinov Sometimes I look at the website against language freaks to find out at whom the righteous anger of these tireless workers of science is now directed, who sometimes do not disdain even an obscene word or an obscene signature under a picture. And with great surprise I learn that, it turns out, the most important and most terrible of them is me. And now they have included academician A.A. Zaliznyak, who gave a lecture at Moscow State University against linguistic amateurs. And examples of such amateurism are most often cited from my works. Therefore, I would like, as I always do, to listen to the opinion of a more experienced linguist and learn where I have gaps. I will not hide the fact that I am flattered that I am now being quoted by academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Therefore, something in my research does not suit them.

I will try to quote the entire article by Academician A.A. Zaliznyak (HALL) without exception and comment on the relevant provisions.

Where did this or that word come from, how did it appear? These questions are of keen interest to many. In search of an answer, a person far from linguistics often begins to make guesses based on the random similarity of words. Amateur linguistics is not such a harmless hobby as it might seem at first glance. The famous linguist Andrei Anatolyevich Zaliznyak talks about the typical mistakes of amateur linguists and the dangers of an amateurish approach to learning a language. With his kind permission, the editors are publishing an expanded version of the text of the lecture given at Moscow State University at the Third Science Festival.

« Freedom of the press and the advent of the Internet are great achievements of our era. But every step of progress also has its shadow sides. Nowadays, such a shadow side is the rapid development of amateurism and the decline in the prestige of professionalism. Representatives of various sciences and arts speak about this. For example, Alexander Shirvindt writes bitterly in his memoirs about Zinovy ​​Gerdt: “In the era of the widespread victory of amateurism, any manifestation of high professionalism looks archaic and implausible».

A very interesting passage. First of all, I pay tribute: the academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences quotes not some Golda Meir or Herzl, little known to MSU students, but everyone’s favorite Russian ones Shirvindt and Gerdt (though Russians often pronounce these surnames as Shirvind and Gerd, but only due to their professional ignorance. In this sense Russians - the most undemocratic Russians. It would be simply wonderful if there were as few of them in Russia as possible).

Further, I am surprised: if Shirvindt remembers Gerdt with such words, then it follows that he, Gerdt, Shirvindt assigns the role of the winner, that is, amateur, whom he criticizes for lacking a high level of professionalism. This follows from the very construction of the phrase: Shirvindt writes in his memoirs about Zinovia Gerdt bitterly. If Shirvindt wrote about Gerdt with joy, then the reader would understand that Gerdt is a professional. But no. For if Shirvindt had written with bitterness about the lack of professionalism of others, then Zaliznyak’s sentence would have had a different word order. True, there is still a vague suspicion that the Russian academician does not speak Russian very well (however, for modern Russia this is not so important), but I indignantly dismiss this assumption as unworthy. A linguist, by definition, must know the language of his country of residence.

« Amateurism in the field of reasoning about language is more widespread than in other areas - due to the illusion that no special knowledge is required here. Everyone knows that there are sciences such as physics and chemistry; and too many people do not even suspect that there is a science about language - linguistics. Try to imagine an amateur book about celestial bodies, where the question would be discussed whether the Moon is the size of a plate or the size of a coin. Meanwhile, amateur writings about language of exactly the same level circulate in considerable quantities and are readily read and taken seriously by a fairly wide audience».

This is also a very interesting proposition. For example, on the website against linguistic freaks, immediately after my photograph there is a photograph of Dragunkin, professor of linguistics, doctor of philological sciences. Naturally, according to Zaliznyak, he had never even heard of what linguistics is. He teaches, but he has no idea what it is. Thanks to Andrey Anatolyevich for opening our eyes to him. And at the same time on me, because I also teach a number of linguistic disciplines. Having the appropriate education.

« A particularly sad indicator of the state of our education is that among the authors of amateur essays on language, and among their readers and admirers, we meet fully educated people and even holders of high academic degrees (of course, in other sciences). I must warn you that today I will have to expound on many things that for linguists have long become a truism, the basics of the profession. If in such a lecture someone decided to present the basics of mathematics, or physics, or chemistry, it would be absurd, since everyone became familiar with them at school. But, unfortunately, no basics of historical linguistics are taught in school, and people of other professions know almost nothing about them.

I prefer not to name specific names of amateur linguists - especially since many of them just want to be mentioned, even if only in condemnation, in order to look like serious opponents with whom they argue. I am trying to resist not specific authors, but a whole amateur movement, which, in essence, is quite monotonous in its declarations and in its method of action».

Wonderful again: Zaliznyak firmly understands that the basics of linguistics it's absurd to state, but - by some strange coincidence - begins to expound them. After all, at school they study such a discipline as the Russian language, and, among other things, from a historical aspect. And then, he admits what happened the whole amateur movement is, in essence, quite monotonous in its declarations and in its mode of action. Well, any scientific The direction is precisely distinguished by the unity of methods. But the actions of amateurs do not have such unity; everyone acts in their own way. I can say this as a scientific methodologist. So here the academician, to put it mildly, ... is not speaking quite professionally. Naturally, he considers the competing direction to be amateurish, since new research methods are unknown to him. Well, as for his fear of mentioning my name, this caution of the academician is quite understandable: Zhivov in the program “Gordon Quixote vs. Zadornov” was simply seething with indignation at a specific address, and made a very depressing impression on television viewers.

« I will make an exception only for the most famous of these authors - academician-mathematician Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko, whose performances as an amateur linguist I have already criticized in print. The vast majority of those who are familiar with his so-called new chronology know not his mathematical works, but books on the history of various countries (Russia, England, Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.), which is not depicted by Fomenko nothing in common with the usual ideas. Many people take these books seriously because they naively believe that the history they tell is revealed through mathematics. But in reality, at best, only Fomenko’s assertion that traditional chronology is incorrect could have any relation to mathematics. Fomenko did not even prove this assertion. But in this case, something else is even more significant for us, namely: the main content of Fomenko’s books is detailed stories about what the history of all countries supposedly was, different from traditional ideas: what conquests were made by this or that people, who were the rulers of empires, what they sent out orders, etc. And these stories have nothing to do with mathematics, but are almost entirely based on reasoning about words - geographical names and names of people. And alas, these arguments contain exactly the same gross and naive mistakes that amateurs without degrees and titles make, that is, they belong entirely to the sphere of amateur linguistics».

Again, I note with regret that although I am not one of Fomenko’s admirers, academician Zaliznyak is still telling a lie here. Fomenko considers a variety of methods for checking the current chronology, including horoscopes and data on solar eclipses, which have nothing to do with linguistics. In other words, Fomenko criticizes the chronology systematically, and not exclusively linguistically.

« True, now Fomenko’s fantasies on the topic of history are already drowning in the stream of other printed and television speeches of the same kind, uncontrollably reshaping - each time in their own way - the history of Russia and the whole world. But it is still regrettable, especially for the scientific and university environment, that among the irresponsible amateur fantasists there was a person of high scientific and university status».

Isn’t this an indicator that existing historiography has already proven itself wrong in a number of cases? And here it is not the herald who brought the bad news who is to blame, but the lies of the current historiography that it preaches.

Language interests people. "For most people, the language they speak is not only a tool necessary for practical life, but, at least at some moments, also an object of lively, disinterested interest. People of all walks of life and levels of education are asked from time to time issues related to language. Most often these are questions about which is more correct of certain options found in speech, for example: prod A l or pr O gave? exp e rt or uh expert? wherever he is neither was or wherever he was Not was? In these cases, the answers may have some significance for practical life. But questions often arise, so to speak, disinterested ones, generated by pure curiosity. For example: what exactly does the word tawdry mean? Where did it come from? When did it appear? Or: is there any connection between the words crumpled and mint? or court and ship? or potassium and calcium? or bite and encroach? And so on.»

From his academic distance, Andrei Anatolyevich goes through cases of readers of the magazine “Peasant” turning to linguists. It’s as if people were interested in purely applied orthoepic and etymological problems, but not in the general origin of the Russian language. He specifically seeks to isolate himself from private questions, the answers to which have long been known to science, in order to reduce much more serious linguistic problems to them.

How amateur linguistics is born. "The school tradition, unfortunately, is such that all such questions remain outside the scope of education. School teaches the grammar and spelling of one's native language and the elements of a foreign language, but does not give even the most basic idea of ​​how languages ​​change over time. As a result, to satisfy a keen interest in issues related to language, most people have to be content with random information that they read or heard on radio or television. Many people try to get answers to these questions through their own reflections and guesses. Fluency in their native language gives them the feeling that all the necessary knowledge about the subject has already been given to them and all that remains is to think a little to get the correct answer. This is how what can be called amateur linguistics is born».

- (b. 1935) Russian linguist, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1991; corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences since 1987). Works in the field of grammar, Slavic and Russian accentology, as well as general linguistics, the theory of composing linguistic problems, grammar... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1997), leading researcher at the Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences; born April 24, 1935 in Moscow; graduated from Moscow State University in 1958; main areas of scientific activity: Russian and Slavic linguistics,... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

- (b. 1935), linguist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1997). Works in the field of grammar, Slavic and Russian accentology, Slavic-Russian paleography, general linguistics, theory of composing linguistic problems, Sanskrit grammar, etc.; explored… … encyclopedic Dictionary

Andrey Anatolyevich Zaliznyak- Today Academician Andrei Zalinyak was awarded the State Prize of the Russian Federation. Presenting the awards for 2007, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev noted that the scientist linguist Andrei Zaliznyak had made a huge contribution to domestic and world linguistics.... ... Encyclopedia of Newsmakers

Andrey Anatolyevich Zaliznyak A. A. Zaliznyak during a lecture on birch bark documents from excavations in 2008 Date of birth: April 29, 1935 Place of birth: Moscow Citizenship ... Wikipedia

- ... Wikipedia

Andrey Anatolyevich (born 1935), linguist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1997). Works in the field of grammar, Slavic and Russian accentology, Slavic Russian paleography, as well as general linguistics, the theory of composing linguistic problems, Sanskrit grammar... ... Russian history

Andrey Anatolyevich Zaliznyak A. A. Zaliznyak during a lecture on birch bark documents from excavations in 2008 Date of birth: April 29, 1935 Place of birth: Moscow Citizenship ... Wikipedia

Andrey Anatolyevich Zaliznyak A. A. Zaliznyak during a lecture on birch bark documents from excavations in 2008 Date of birth: April 29, 1935 Place of birth: Moscow Citizenship ... Wikipedia

Books

• , Zaliznyak Andrey Anatolievich. 720 pp. The dictionary is recommended by the Order of the Ministry of Education, which determines the list of dictionaries and reference books containing the norms of the modern Russian literary language. The dictionary reflects (using...
• Grammar dictionary of the Russian language. Word change. About 110,000 words, Zaliznyak Andrey Anatolyevich. The “Grammar Dictionary of the Russian Language” reflects (using a special system of symbols) modern inflection, i.e. the declension of nouns, adjectives, pronouns,…

Andrey Zaliznyak born in 1935 in Moscow, in the family of an engineer and a chemist. He jokes that his first encounter with linguistics happened at the age of six: the future world-famous linguist was expelled from German classes “for lack of ability.”

In 1946, at age 11, he went to stay with relatives in western Belarus, a place where many languages ​​are spoken: Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish. According to Zaliznyak’s recollections, it was after this trip that he became interested in languages ​​and began to learn English, Italian and Spanish.

In 1958, Andrei Zaliznyak graduated from the Romance-Germanic department of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University, and studied as an exchange student at the French “École normale”. At the Sorbonne, Zaliznyak studied with the famous linguist, one of the last major theorists of structural linguistics, Andre Martinet.

In 1965, Andrei Zaliznyak became a Doctor of Philology while defending his Ph.D. thesis. He taught at the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University, as well as at many foreign universities.

A. Zaliznyak’s first monograph, “Russian nominal inflection,” was written in 1967. In it, he examined the theoretical problems of morphology, a branch of linguistics that defines a word as a special linguistic object and describes its internal structure.

In 1977, the “Grammar Dictionary of the Russian Language” compiled by the scientist was published. It provides precise models of inflection of one hundred thousand words in the Russian language. It was this work that served as the basis for all computer programs for automatic morphological analysis, including machine translation and information retrieval on the Internet.

The scientist worked on the history of ancient contacts between the Slavic and Iranian languages, and wrote a short grammatical sketch of Sanskrit.

Zaliznyak made a huge contribution to Russian historical linguistics. In 2004, his work “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign: a linguist’s view” appeared. The scientist put an end to the controversial issue of the authenticity or fakeness of the ancient Russian historical monument.

Andrei Zaliznyak showed that for possible falsification, its author would have to possess a huge amount of knowledge acquired by the science of language already in the 19th–20th centuries. Based on linguistic arguments, the conclusion is this: the likelihood of the Tale of Igor’s Campaign being fake is vanishingly small.

Since 1982, Andrei Zaliznyak has been systematically working on studying the language of birch bark letters. The first letter was found in 1951 at the Nerevsky excavation site, but the finds were not systematized and properly described from a linguistic point of view.

The scientist’s famous work is “The Ancient Novgorod Dialect (1995), it contains the texts of almost all birch bark letters with linguistic commentary. He is also the author of a linguistic commentary on a multi-volume edition of the texts of letters on birch bark, prepared jointly with archaeologist academician Valentin Yanin.

Andrey Zaliznyak is a well-known popularizer of science. He gives general lectures “On Historical Linguistics”; his lectures on “amateur linguistics” are popular. From a scientific point of view, he criticized the work of the “New Chronology” authored by A.T. Fomenko as amateurish and based on primitive associations. Every year the academician gives a lecture about birch bark documents found in the new season. His lectures attract hundreds of listeners.

“We, without hesitation, use what Zaliznyak did in language, as well as what Alferov did in physics,” says Natalya Solzhenitsyna. Moscow State University Professor V.A. Uspensky speaks of the “Grammar Dictionary of the Russian Language” as follows: “Look at Zaliznyak” has become the same formula as “look at Dahl.”

And one of the founders of the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school, philosopher, orientalist and philologist Alexander Pyatigorsky considers Andrei Zaliznyak the best modern Russian linguist: “Well, you know, he’s just a genius, that’s all.”

A popular science book by a major Russian linguist debunking the “New Chronology” and affirming the value of science

A. A. Zaliznyak at the annual lecture on birch bark documents sofunja.livejournal.com

The largest Russian linguist, who scientifically proved the authenticity of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” explained in a popular style how a linguist recognizes a fake, and described how an ordinary person can avoid falling for the bait of falsifiers.

Cover of the book by A. A. Zaliznyak “From Notes on Amateur Linguistics” coollib.com

In this book, Andrei Anatolyevich Zaliznyak, the discoverer of the Old Novgorod dialect and the compiler of a unique grammatical dictionary, appears as a true enlightener; The academician is extremely persuasive and writes in an accessible language. And, although Zaliznyak speaks to the general reader, the phrase “amateur linguistics” does not actually mean “linguistics that anyone can do”: it means exactly the opposite. “Amateur linguistics” appears here as the antonym of the concept “professional”: only a specialist who has studied the basics of science for a long time can judge the origin of words. In later speeches, Zaliznyak spoke more directly not about “amateur”, but about “false” linguistics: it is better for an amateur not to take on etymology.

The main part of the book is the destruction of the “New Chronology” of the mathematician Anatoly Fomenko, who suggested that almost all sources on ancient and medieval history are fake, and proposed his own “reconstruction” of history, which turned out to be more compact. Zaliznyak showed that many of Fomenko’s constructions are based on linguistic convergences, only carried out absolutely illiterately, associatively, contrary to the existing and long-discovered laws of language. There is a lot of anger in Zaliznyak’s criticism, but even more wit: “Deprived of linguistic cover, these constructions<А. Т. Фоменко>appear in their true form - as pure fortune telling. They have about the same relation to scientific research as reports about what the author saw in a dream.”

“I would like to speak out in defense of two simple ideas that were previously considered obvious and even simply banal, but now sound very unfashionable:
1) truth exists, and the goal of science is to search for it;
2) in any issue under discussion, a professional (if he is truly a professional, and not just a bearer of government titles) is normally more right than an amateur.
They are opposed by provisions that are now much more fashionable:
1) truth does not exist, there are only many opinions (or, in the language of postmodernism, many texts);
2) on any issue, no one’s opinion weighs more than the opinion of someone else. A fifth grade girl has the opinion that Darwin is wrong, and it is good form to present this fact as a serious challenge to biological science.
This fad is no longer purely Russian; it is felt throughout the Western world. But in Russia it is noticeably strengthened by the situation of the post-Soviet ideological vacuum.
The sources of these currently fashionable positions are clear: indeed, there are aspects of the world order where the truth is hidden and, perhaps, unattainable; indeed, there are cases when a layman turns out to be right, and all professionals are wrong. The fundamental shift is that these situations are perceived not as rare and exceptional, as they really are, but as universal and ordinary.”

Andrey Zaliznyak

The above quotation is from a speech delivered at the acceptance of the Solzhenitsyn Prize (the book in which this speech was published was published in the prize series); this speech is entitled “Truth Exists.” And it is not surprising: the main meaning of Zaliznyak’s “Notes” is not in the debunking of Fomenko and Fomenkovites, it is in the pathos of affirming the value of science.