___________SCIENTIFIC NOTES OF KAZAN UNIVERSITY

Volume 157, book. 5 Humanities

UDC 811.161.1

TO THE QUESTION OF THE REDUCED VOFES IN THE OLD RUSSIAN LANGUAGE: CHRONOLOGY, PHONOLOGICAL MECHANISM, REFLECTION IN MONUMENTS

M.B. Popov

annotation

The article deals with some debatable issues of the relative and absolute chronology of the fall of reduced vowels in Old Russian dialects, as well as the features of its phonological mechanism. Phonological theory and material of written monuments of the XII century. confirm the hypothesis of the phonologization of the new b until the complete loss of the weak reduced vowel in the next syllable. Based on the opposition in the manuscripts of the XIII - XIV centuries. spellings with e, o and b, ъ, the concept of a relatively late (after the change of strong reduced in [e] and [o]) disappearance of reduced vowels from the system of phonemes develops. The concept of an absolutely weak position, which is very ambiguously assessed in paleo-Russian studies, is considered in the context of the hypothesis of V.M. Markov about inorganic reduced as a trigger for the fall of reduced vowels.

Key words: Old Russian language, historical phonology, reduced vowel drop, absolutely weak positions, book pronunciation, new yat.

The drop of reduced vowels not only led to their disappearance from the system of phonemes, but also affected the foundations of the sound (and not only sound) structure of the ancient Slavic languages. Its prerequisites were the same for various Slavs, but the loss of reduced vowels occurred already in individual Slavic languages ​​and dialects at different times. Even the Eastern Slavs did not represent a monolithic unity regarding the fall of reduced vowels. Such a large-scale change required considerable time for its full implementation. In the Old Russian language, it - with the widest possible approach - took the period from the end of the 11th to the 14th centuries. inclusive, going through several stages.

The fall of reduced vowels in the Old Russian language is well reflected in writing, so the state of the Yers in dated monuments is traditionally of paramount importance for determining the time, and in some cases the place, of writing undated Old Russian manuscripts, including those with broad dating. In addition, what we know about the fall of the reduced in Old Russian due to the presence of a relatively large number of ancient monuments can be projected onto other Slavic languages, in which the fall of the reduced took place earlier, and its initial stages are not sufficiently attested by written monuments.

M.B. POPOV

Despite the study of the history of reduced vowels in the Old Russian language, many problems remain debatable. A number of adjustments are made as new material is introduced into scientific circulation and theoretical solutions appear, largely based on data from diachronic typology. The article discusses some of these problems.

The questions of absolute and relative chronology of the fall of reduced vowels have always been at the center of attention of paleorusists, and a number of hypotheses concerning the history of the dialect division of the Old Russian language are directly deduced from the fact that the fall of reduced vowels in its dialects did not occur simultaneously. A striking example is the hypothesis of N.S. Trubetskoy about the connection of Russian-Ukrainian dialect differences with the different times of the passage of the fall of the reduced in the north and south of the Old Russian territory. Trubetskoy's hypothesis is directly dependent on the conclusion of A.A. Shakhmatov that in the southern dialects of the Old Russian language, reduced vowels were lost a century earlier (the middle of the 12th century) than in the northern ones (the middle of the 13th century). In turn, Shakhmatov's conclusions were based on the material of ancient written monuments. In particular, he relied on the state of the Yers in the southern (Galician-Volyn) DE11641 and in the northern Novgorod letters of the 60-70s of the 10th century. and RP1282, which fully reflected not only the loss of the weak ones (according to Shakhmatov, "semi-short deaf"), but also the change in the strong ("short deaf") reduced ones. DE1164 is indeed the earliest (although not the most typical of its time) large dated manuscript in which the clearing of the strong reduced is very consistently reflected. Neither Mst nor GE1144 are South Old Russian monuments of the first half of the 12th century. - do not yet reflect the clearings of strong reduced ones. In addition, DE1164 is not only the oldest monument, reflecting a full-scale clarification of strong reduced ones, but also the earliest dated manuscript that fixes a new Ъ. Euph1161, in fact, dates back to the same time, where there are many omissions of weak words (for example, who, knlz, vjchtsyu, saved, church), but there is not a single spelling that reflects the clarification of the strong reduced (chstnyi, chstnogs, krst; cf. also the lack of clarification in roots of the *tbrt type, in which [b] was strong before the smooth one and which were rendered “in Old Slavonic”: tinkle, church), and the new b is well represented in the monument (kab'ngs, nb to wear out, wear out, igoumnd). DE1164, which consistently conveys a new Ъ and a change in reduced ones not only in a weak, but also in a strong position, has always been considered as a monument, the material of which is in good agreement with the traditional hypothesis of substitutive vowel extension in new closed syllables (before the lost weak reduced of the next syllable), put forward still F. Mikloshich in the middle of the 19th century. and accepted by A.A. Potebney and other scientists. A.I. Sobolevsky, who discovered a new Ъ in the Galician-Volyn manuscripts of the 12th - 14th centuries, also considered it as a result of the lengthening of [e], which did not differ from [e] in anything other than duration. *

According to the hypothesis, still prevailing in paleo-Russian studies, after the loss of weak reduced ones in new closed syllables, not only substitutive lengthening of vowels [e] and [o] took place, which were given much later in Ukrainian [i] (possibly through an intermediate stage of diphthongs), but also the clarification of the strong reduced ones in [e] and [o]. However, the parallelism between the clarification of strong reduced terms and the appearance of a new b does not quite agree with the data of Eph. 1161. Already A.I. Thomson, critically evaluating the theory of substitutive extension from a general phonetic position, pointed out that vowels in closed syllables are usually shorter than in open ones, therefore, if lengthening existed in the Old Ukrainian language, then it must have occurred under the conditions of the existence of weak reduced ones in the next syllable. From a phonological point of view, a convincing criticism of the theory of substitutional extension is contained in the works of Yu.V. Shevelev and P. Garda. An alternative (and more convincing, in our opinion) approach proceeds from the fact that [e] and [e] differed in rise, and not in quantity; accordingly, [e] turned into [e] due to an increase in rise under the influence of a weak [b], which, like [e], was a mid-high vowel. Regardless of which feature [b] caused the change [e] > [e], the new [e] had to be phonologized before the loss of the weak [b] (perhaps immediately before this), since after its loss the conditions would also cease to exist. , which caused the lengthening and / or narrowing of [e], turning it into [e].

Thus, it is theoretically possible to assume the possibility of the existence of monuments with a new b, which would not reflect the loss of non-finite weak reduced ones. We have at least one such site, Suzdzm, paleographically dated to the 12th century. (or even its first half). If the older dating is correct, then this is the earliest monument with a new Ъ. As a detailed study of the very unusual, but rather consistent graphic and spelling system of SuzdZm, showed, the new yat in it is denoted by the letter b (cf. e_ssk_e, peaceful, in the world, dch_rieo, son, etc.). In addition, with the successive preservation of weak and strong eres in SuzdZm, the letters b and b denote not only [b] and [b], but also [e] and [o] (for example, slave instead of slave, pumzi instead of help, kryt instead of kryste , carnage instead of carnage, narchny instead of named, etc.). Along with the new Ъ, the monument reflects the new o of the Galician-Volyn type. The difference between the new b and the new o is that in the first case [e] in the position before the weak [b] coincides with the already existing phoneme [e] and is respectively denoted by the letter b, and in the second - [o] gives a new phoneme [ o], for which, naturally, no special letter was provided in the alphabet. To designate [o] in SuzdZm, o is used (for example, one's own, otrok, gyorgieo instead of George, animals), and for the old [o] - ъ. Apparently, Suzdzm represents a graphic system that was formed after the emergence of new b and o, but before the loss of the weak reduced ones of the next syllable and the clearing of the strong ones in [e] and [o]. Of the two alternative solutions - to indicate in writing the difference between [e], [o] and [e], [o], sacrificing the distinction [e], [o] and [b], [b], or, conversely, retain the distinction

M.B. POPOV

[e], [o] and [b], [b], ignoring the new opposition, - in the conditions of the beginning of the fall of the reduced vowels, the first one was chosen. Thus, SuzdZm reflects such a state of the sound system of the Galician-Volyn dialect, when the phonological change - the appearance of new [e] and [o] - has already taken place (since only phonological differences are reflected in writing), and the condition that caused it is the presence of a weak reduced in the next syllable - still preserved.

Returning to the issue of different times of falling reduced vowels in the south and north of Russia, we note that already in the time of A.A. Shakhmatov knew ancient Russian written monuments, which contradicted his hypothesis about the loss of reduced ones in the Novgorod dialect only in the second half of the 13th century. So, in VarlKhut, strong reduced ones become clearer (for example, behind the Volkhov, on the Volkhevtsi, measles, Volmina when removing two, rl, pozhn, etc.), and in three cases out of five o in place of era is written in roots like *tbrt, which, according to Shakhmatov, they most convincingly prove the transition of [b] and [b] into [e] and [o] in the language of the scribe, since it is impossible to assume the influence of Church Slavonic orthography here.

From the point of view of reflecting reduced vowels, one of the mysterious ancient Russian manuscripts for a long time was Mil. Until recently, on the basis of non-linguistic data, it was indirectly dated to 1215 (at best, the end of the 12th century). According to the state of the Yers, even taking into account its Novgorod origin, Mil adjoined, rather, to the monuments of the 11th - early 12th centuries, than to the monuments of the early 13th century, since there are practically no spellings in it that reflect the clarification of the reduced ones, and the number of omissions of the weak ones limited to typical for the beginning of the XII century. cases. In Mil, spellings with e and o in place of [b] and [b] in a strong position are marked only by forms: sic! 24c, 34b-c, 35a, 64c (constantly with b at the end), fig tree 104b, fig tree 154c (twice), -qiu 119a, 127b (-tsou), 127c (twice), 142c, 154b, w fig tree 133b, 157a , smokovnichskoe 154v and tokmo 154v. The writings with e and o undoubtedly entered Mil from a South Slavic protographer. I.A. Falyov cited Mil's material as the most convincing evidence that the complete drop of reduced vowels in the northern Old Russian dialects took place only in the first half of the 13th century, since this monument does not contain examples of the clarification of reduced in roots like *tbrt. A recent study by G.A. Molkova confirms the absence of spellings in Mil with the clarification of the reduced vowel in such roots. This riddle of Mil can now be considered solved thanks to the efforts of a number of researchers who have convincingly proved that the manuscript is a whole century older than traditionally thought.

Although the study of the Novgorod birch-bark letters has made some clarifications in our ideas about the chronology of the fall of reduced vowels (naturally, in the direction of ancientization), in general, the material of the birch-bark letters confirms the traditional point of view that an active process of the loss of weak reduced vowels in the Novgorod dialect took place throughout the 12th century. beginning in the second quarter of the 12th century. and ended by the thirteenth century. As for the transition of strong reduced to [e] and [o], it began in the second half of the 12th century. and generally ended by the second quarter of the 13th century. (see, for example,).

TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FALL OF REDUCED VOWELS...

The significance of birch bark letters for understanding the fall of reduced vowels is obvious: we have material, as far as possible, dependent on Church Slavonic influence (in particular, on South Slavic protographers), which is also presented as a corpus from the 11th to the 15th centuries, that is throughout the entire (albeit unevenly over the centuries) period, within which the fall of reduced vowels in its broadest sense took place. However, the shortcomings of birch bark as a source for reduced vowels are also obvious. Firstly, the small volume and specificity of texts often do not provide the necessary material for statistical processing and comparison with the data of book monuments; secondly, the Novgorod "bias" in the corpus of letters does not allow comparing homogeneous data relating to different dialects, in particular, the north and south of Russia; and, thirdly, the presence of the so-called everyday (incompletely distinguishable) graphic writing system, which is characterized by various types of non-etymological use of the letters b/o and b/e/b, of course, makes phonetic decoding difficult, especially since most of the letters with such a mixture are in the XII - XIII centuries, that is, precisely for the period when there is an active transition of strong reduced to [e] and [o].

For a long time, historians of the Russian language tried to discover the phonetic background of the mixing of b / o, b / e / b in the monuments of ancient Russian writing (not only in birch bark letters). A.A. Shakhmatov saw a graphic phenomenon in it, but believed that it was caused by the clarification of strong reduced vowels in the Old Russian language. G.K. Goloskevich, who studied EE1283, in which such a mixture is quite clearly presented (especially in the postscript of the scribe Eusebius), also interprets it as a graphic device that arose "under the influence, on the one hand, of a living language in which strong ъ and ь turned into o and e , and on the other hand, under the influence of traditional graphics, according to which ъ and ь were written where o and e were already pronounced in live speech. At the same time, he understood that this was not about mechanical, unconscious mistakes of the scribe, but about a graphic technique. Further research confirmed that various types of letter exchanges ъ/о, ь/е/ъ in monuments like Smol1229, or in a number of birch bark letters, cannot be interpreted as scribes' errors, since they are carried out as a graphic device against the background of an otherwise almost impeccable orthography. However, spellings with a mixture of b/o, b/e/b in book monuments, in which they act as a deviation from the norm, can in principle be considered as errors, even if they are caused by the interference of the everyday graphic system.

So, traditionally, the mixing of b/o, b/e was interpreted as a graphic phenomenon, due to the clarification of strong reduced vowels in the Old Russian language. However, such an explanation is contradicted by the fact that such a mixture is already attested by the monuments of the first half of the 11th century, while the change in the reduced ones in a strong position dates back to a much later time - not earlier than the middle - of the second half of the 12th century. Apparently, the oldest text with a mixture of b / o, more precisely with one of the varieties of such a mixture (the use of o instead of ъ), is an inscription on a Novgorod wooden cylinder dating from the first half of the 11th century:

M.B. POPOV

meho. Thus, the emergence of a household graphic system cannot be considered the result of an Old Russian change in strong reduced vowels in [e] and [o].

At present, most historians of the Russian language recognize that the confusion of the letters b / o, b / e / b in the monuments of the XI - XIII centuries. - the phenomenon is graphic and does not reflect any ancient Russian phonetic change. The conclusion about the purely graphic nature of the mixing of b/o, b/e/b has some important secondary consequences for the historical phonetics of the Russian language. Thus, the long-held opinion that the mixing of ь/е/ъ in Smol1229 reflects the transition [е] > [е] in the ancient Smolensk dialect was somewhat discredited. If in Novgorod birch-bark letters such a mixture cannot indicate the transition of [e] to [e], since in the Novgorod dialect the phoneme<е>changed in [i], and not in [e], then a similar mixture of b / o, b / e / b in Smol1229 can also be interpreted as a purely graphic feature of writing, and not an indication of the transition [e] > [e]. From the fact that Smol1229 reflects the transition [e] > [e], the conclusion was drawn not only about the absence in the ancient Smolensk dialect of the beginning of the 13th century. phonemes<е>, but also phonemes<о>([o]closed), which can now also be called into question.

However, the recognition that the mixing of b/o, b/e in ancient Russian monuments is a graphic phenomenon does not remove the question of its genesis. Therefore, other hypotheses of the origin of the household graphic system arose. One of them was developed in detail by A.A. Zaliznyak and has recently become widespread. This witty explanation of the confusion of b/o, b/e in birch-bark letters is based on two other hypotheses. First of all, this is the hypothesis of A.A. Shakhmatova about the existence in the XI - XIII centuries. special church pronunciation of ers, supported by N.N. Durnovo and later developed by B.A. Uspensky. According to this hypothesis, Russian scribes in the XI - XII centuries. they read, regardless of the strong or weak position of the reduced vowel, the letter b as [e], and b as [o] (who, who, day, son). According to Shakhmatov, this pronunciation arose as a result of the contacts of the first Russian scribes with their teachers - South Slavic scribes, in whose language the reduced vowels had already been dropped both in weak and in strong positions. But to explain the genesis of the everyday graphic system, this hypothesis would not be enough. Another link in the explanation of A.A. Zaliznyak was the assumption that in ancient Russia, teaching book reading without learning book writing was widespread. Literates who have mastered the rules of book reading, in which e (= [e]) and b (= [e]), as o (= [o]) and ъ (= [o]), were read the same way, but who did not learn the rules of book orthography, which required distinguishing e (= [e]) and b (= [b]), as o (= [o]) and ъ (= [b]), transferred to the letter the identity of the letters b / e, b / o and thus gave rise to a household graphic system. However, the idea of ​​Shakhmatov and his followers about the church ("liturgical", "bookish") pronunciation, despite its prevalence, is not shared by all historians of the Russian language. Recently, a deep and comprehensive criticism of this hypothesis is precisely in connection with 2

2 However, A.A. Zaliznyak admits that “pure learning to read, without any elements of learning to write, is still more of a convenient construct that simplifies the description of the main features of the situation than a complete reality.”

TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FALL OF REDUCED VOWELS...

with the origin of the graphic system with mixing b / e, b / o gave I.M. Ladyzhensky.

It is curious that after explaining the everyday graphic system by the existence of the book pronunciation of the ers, the everyday system itself began to be considered as confirmation of Shakhmatov's hypothesis about church pronunciation. But if before the discovery of the everyday system, the mixing of ь/е, ъ/о in book monuments was the main argument in favor of the hypothesis of church pronunciation, now, when such a mixture in book monuments itself has begun to be considered as inclusions of the everyday system, the presence of mixing b / in book monuments e, b/o can no longer serve as a basis for the hypothesis of church pronunciation. The circle is closed, and the hypothesis of book reading b and b hangs in the air. In the very hypothesis of a special book reading of the ers in the 11th - 12th centuries. the most vulnerable point is, in our opinion, the fact that the reflection of such a reading on the letter "in principle was not allowed by the Church Slavonic spelling norm" . Chess and his modern followers, on the one hand, suggest a sharp discrepancy between book and colloquial pronunciation, and on the other hand, they proceed from the fact that the book written norm (spelling) did not at all take into account the book pronunciation (orthoepy), but focused on colloquial pronunciation . This took place in a situation where the spellings of the South Slavic protographs, copied by Old Russian scribes, did not at all correspond to the colloquial pronunciation of the Eastern Slavs, in which reduced vowels were preserved. Thus, the Old Russian book orthographic norm contradicted both the Old Russian book pronunciation and the orthographic standard of the South Slavic monuments, but corresponded to the living Old Russian pronunciation. This whole construction is unlikely, although theoretically it is probably possible.

It seems that there is no need to postulate a special book reading of ers in the 11th - 12th centuries, at least so radically different both from their colloquial pronunciation and from their transmission in book writing, both in general and to explain the genesis of the everyday graphic system . At the same time, it is impossible to deduce the everyday graphic system from the clarification of strong reduced vowels on Old Russian soil and its reflection in writing, if we agree with the chronology of the fall of the reduced among the Eastern Slavs accepted in modern paleo-Russian studies. But to connect the emergence of such a graphic system with the earlier completion of the fall of reduced vowels among the southern Slavs and the reflection of its results in the monuments copied by ancient Russian scribes, as suggested by I.M. Ladyzhensky, seems completely natural. It was at the end of the 10th - the first half of the 11th century, that is, at an early stage in the assimilation of Slavic writing by East Slavic scribes, in the context of the discrepancy between the phonological system of the Old Russian language and South Slavic spelling in terms of the transmission [b] - [e] and [b] - [o] the foundations of the so-called everyday (incompletely distinguishable) graphic system could have been laid.

Objecting that the mixing of the letters b/e, b/o in the strong position of the reduced vowel (cf. the parallelism of spellings like day = day, son = sleep) could also cause the mixing of b/e, b/o in the weak position, A. BUT. Zaliznyak notes that “the indifferent use of two letters, limited to a certain position

M.B. POPOV

(or by a certain class of word forms) in no way causes a general (independent of position) confusion of these letters: in other words, the fact that they correspond to different phonemes is by no means forgotten. But he speaks of the Old Russian situation after the strong reduced vowels were clarified, therefore there can be no talk of any “certain position” (weak or strong position of the reduced vowels), since<ь>and<ъ>as independent phonemes by this time no longer exists. "Universal" (that is, both in strong and weak positions) confusion in such a situation can quite naturally be caused by the fact that in a large number of authoritative manuscripts of the second half of the 12th - first half of the 13th centuries. b actually can mean "zero sound" (after soft) and [e], and b - "zero sound" (after hard) and [o]. Accordingly, the “correct” spellings, such as day = day, day = day, son = sleep, son tb = son tb, could well provoke such spellings typical of the everyday graphic system as dene = day, sono = sonno, medo = m'dъ = m'do, domo = d'm', etc. However, now (primarily thanks to the research of A.A. Zaliznyak) we know that graphic systems with mixing b/e, b/o arose before the fall of reduced vowels in the Old Russian language, but after the fall and clarification of reduced vowels in the ancient Macedonian dialects, reflected in the Old Slavonic monuments. Therefore, the situation described above can be transferred to the early Old Russian period of the first half of the 11th century. with the amendment that in the language of East Slavic scribes the reduced vowels [ь] and [ъ] still existed as independent phonemes, and Old Slavonic manuscripts with the results of the fall of reduced vowels acted as authoritative manuscripts. The East Slavic scribe sees in the South Slavic original spellings like day = day, son = sleep and derives from them a graphic system in which b and e can denote both [b] and [e], and b and o - as [b], so [about] his own pronunciation. We emphasize that in the system before the fall of the reduced vowels, the mixing of b/e, b/o must necessarily affect both strong and weak positions. For a native speaker, there were no “weak” and “strong” positions, since allophone differences are not recognized and are not reflected in writing. Strong and weak reduced were allophones of one phoneme -<ь>or<ъ>3. Accordingly, if for some reason a scribe put an equal sign between the letters b = e, b = o, then he can write not only son = dream, day = day, horse = kn, but also knj = kondze, horse = horse = k'n = k'ne.

Thus, the formation of an incompletely distinctive graphic system was not directly related either to the decline of reduced vowels in the Old Russian language, or, apparently, to the existence in the 11th century. hypothetical "church" ("bookish") pronunciation, but had a graphic and spelling nature. Since any graphic-orthographic phenomenon is based one way or another on the system of phonemes of a given language, in this case, the impetus for the development of a graphic system with a mixture of e/b, b/o was the difference

3 This, however, does not mean that at some point even before the fall of the reduced vowels, perhaps at the end of the 11th century, strong and weak became different phonemes, but by this time incompletely distinguishable graphic systems, apparently, had already formed.

TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FALL OF REDUCED VOWELS...

between the phonological system of East Slavic dialects before the fall of reduced vowels and the phonological system of ancient Macedonian dialects after the fall of reduced vowels, reflected in Church Slavonic monuments copied in Russia at the end of the 10th - the first half of the 11th century.

Closely related to questions of chronology is the problem of the mechanism of falling reduced vowels, the specificity of which is determined by the fact that it includes relatively independent phonological changes: the elision of weak ones and the “clarification” of strong ones, and hence two different mechanisms of change. Written monuments clearly indicate that at first the reduced vowels were lost in weak positions, and then changed in strong positions. Moreover, if the loss of weak reduced ones is a very long process, largely phonetically and morphonologically conditioned, then the transition of strong reduced ones to [e] and [o] apparently took place faster, if only because it, in a certain sense, wedged into the process of eliminating weak reduced vowels: the gradual loss of weak reduced ones begins long before the clearing of strong ones and ends later than the final transition of the latter to [e] and [o]. Thus, the completion of the loss of weak reduced vowels occurred already in the conditions of strong reduced ones that became clear in [e] and [o]. To understand the mechanism of change, it is essential that the transition of strong reduced vowels with vowels [e] and [o] is associated not so much with the disappearance of weak reduced vowels, but with the processes that took place in the system of Old Russian vocalism, primarily with the appearance of the phoneme<о>([o] closed) Galician-Volyn (in parallel with the development of a new [e]) or Great Russian type.

When they say that weak reduced vowels first disappeared, and then strong ones cleared up, this is only partly true. Materials of monuments of the XII-XIII centuries. do not allow reconstructing such a stage of change, when only strong reduced vowels are phonologically opposed to other vowels. Since before the end of the clarification of strong reduced vowels, not all weak vowels were lost, but only those that were in favorable phonetic conditions from the point of view of the consonant environment (that is, in more or less “simple” groups of consonants), in the Old Russian language (according to dialects from the end of XII until the beginning of the 15th century - in fact, throughout the entire so-called late Old Russian period), a situation developed when only weak reduced vowels were preserved. The most favorable conditions for the preservation of weak reduced vowels were cases where [b] and [b] were in consonant clusters, cf. dvri, daska, dbri, gl'tati, krstiti, flatterer, flatterer, dead man, vengeance, vengeance, tear, snha, tstyu, tishcha, chsten, etc. In the spelling of monuments reflecting the clarification of strong reduced vowels, starting from DE1164, such a system is presented quite consistently .

In DE1164, o and e in place of strong reduced vowels are written in different types of roots, suffixes and endings in 96-100% of cases (in prepositions and prefixes, of course, less - 45%). In weak positions, the percentage of spellings with omitted eres is much less, and in combinations of three or more consonants, that is, in “complex” consonantal groups, it is practically absent, and eres are never omitted in such cases as

M.B. POPOV

chsten, stkllnitsyu, snha, wait, dskou, fall in love, etc., but are systematically absent in the word forms dva, koto, chto, ptitsd, all, dark, look, etc. Thus, it should be assumed that in the language of the scribe weak reduced vowels in cases like dvri, love, on the one hand, are opposed to phonemes<е>and<о>in cases like dark, look up, and on the other - zero sound. Accordingly, the weak reduced vowels preserved in consonant groups continue to be allophones of phonemes.<ь>and<ъ>. Yes, these are surviving phonemes that go to the periphery of the system; nevertheless, they still remain as independent phonemes. The reduced vowels preserved in complex consonant groups behaved (at least at the time of clearing the strong ones) as weak, which follows from the change [b] of the preceding syllable into [o], and [e] into “new b” (cf. in DE1164 Sunday, it is necessary to door, from the flesh, with tears as it rises, it is necessary for many, from two, with everything and not kristish, not at all, not as good as always, not honor).

Fairly consistent spelling that contrasts weak reduced vowels in consonant clusters with phonemes<е>and<о>, carried out in the text of RP1282:

1) eras are usually skipped between two consonants (true, brother, who, what, knazh (-a), swordsman, golovnik, hryvnia, collector, everything, vsevolod, start, sag, know, to them, tom, kd, two, bchely, etc.), although in some cases, of course, they are preserved (svkoupiv | she, with children, with a wife, in robbery, in the wild, free, sweat, daughters, etc.) and are even put in etymologically "bezjerov" a preposition without (without a golovnik, without people, without a language, without any);

2) in place of strong ers, e and o are usually written (merchant, boyarsk, hryvnia, vynez, lchebnogs, end, pole, nadolz, hundred, bort, bortnaya, spoil | tit, etc.), although in many cases, especially in combinations with smooth ones, the eras are preserved (buy, istch, stir up, kr'v, verv, v' targu, part, b'rt, v' r', etc.). The only pattern that is carried out almost 100% is the preservation of er in groups of three consonants (Russian, Kykv, Blogorodsky, suhnet, pkhnet, kr-net, krvav, revenge, msta, kasnAch | ko, golovnichestvo, obedience, servility, tyunstvo, plaintiff , vzlozhil, etc.). There are only two deviations: on the one hand - to pay, on the other - to firewood. In addition, 3 times there is a spelling of thousand with a omission from in the suffix -ьsk-, which may indicate the loss of [b] and the simplification of the consonant group (thousand > thousand > thousand = thousand with a reflection of the clatter in the Novgorod list). However, there could be a phonetic change here, caused by the specifics of consonant groups (two whistling around [b]: + [b] +) and the position of [b] itself in the “weakest” - the second stressed non-final - syllable.

Material confirming the existence of an intermediate phonological system with independent phonemes<ь>and<ъ>4, ascending to the weak

4 It can be assumed, however, that in connection with the development of a correlation in softness/hardness, the preserved reflexes of weak<ь>and<ъ>merged into one phoneme such as shva (it can be denoted [e]), as was the case with phonemes<а> (<*?) и <а>.

TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FALL OF REDUCED VOWELS...

reduced vowels and opposed phonemes<е>and<о>, is presented in many ancient Russian monuments of the XIII - XIV centuries. . The further fate of these surviving phonemes is known. On the one hand, they could be identified and coincide with phonemes<е>and<о>and their later reflexes (cf. in DE1164 mother-in-law - only 6 times in the root mother-in-law - and 1 time mother-in-law, but in GE1266-1301 already only mother-in-law, mother-in-law, in LE mother-in-law, mother-in-law; in DE1164 dbri, but in LE XIV c. jungle; in DE1164 zhzla, zh|zla, and in GE1266-1301 already zhzla, zhzl|la, etc.), and on the other hand, since the remaining reduced vowels are in a sense in an additional distribution with zero sound ([ b] and [b] surrounded by more than two consonants turn out to be, as it were, the realization of zero sound, cf. fate, collect, but dbri), they can be interpreted by a native speaker and begin to be realized as a zero of sound, that is, they are lost (dbrdneskj > dbrdneskj > brdnesk > modern Bryansk). This final decline of the reduced process took place in the second half of the 13th - 15th centuries. at the so-called morphonological stage of the fall of reduced vowels.

The possibility of such an interpretation of the monuments of the Late Old Russian period of weak eras reflected by the orthography is sometimes underestimated. So, it is difficult to agree with I.M. Ladyzhensky, when he, exploring the spelling system of the main copyist (scribe B) of two northeastern prologues of the second half of the 14th century. (from the collection of the Library of the Moscow Synodal Printing House RGADA - T165 and T167), comes to the conclusion that his eps do not denote any vowels, but only indicate the hardness / softness of the preceding consonants). Judging by the material of the manuscripts, scribe B consistently reflects the loss of weak reduced vowels (collection, with brother, save, oumvenie, vvede, etc.) in consonant groups, in place of etymological reduced vowels, he writes b, b (dski, krsti, flatter, mzdb, cherntsi, vzlozhi, vzmozhe, etc.) or o, e (erect, exalt, divlesd, kupleshe, etc.). THEM. Ladyzhensky believes that the spelling of er in such cases as dski, cherntsi, widowhood, sorcery, lay down is a graphic and spelling phenomenon, and the scribe simply counted the letters (for example, sequentially ъ is skipped between two consonants - call, vzide, etc. - and is preserved in a group of three or more consonants - vzmozhe, vzdati, etc.)). It seems that the scribe Vera in combinations of three or more consonants in many cases reflected the preserved weak reduced vowels that were in the process of disappearing or vocalizing, and this state was, apparently, a feature of the dialect of the scribe, and not a “bookish” pronunciation.

One of the traditional problems of falling reduced vowels is the interpretation of the so-called absolutely weak positions of the reduced ones. The concept of absolutely weak reduced vowels was formed in the process of searching for an answer to the question in which positions reduced vowels began to be lost first of all. The researchers drew attention to the fact that in ancient Russian manuscripts there was a circle of root morphemes (word forms), which already in the XI - early XII centuries. are often written with omissions. Usually reduced

M.B. POPOV

in such words were in the initial syllable of the root: vydova, vyse, gnati, dva, evil, kanAz, kto, many, birds, etc. A.A. Shakhmatov concluded that the reduced ones first fell out in the initial syllable of the word form. Later I.A. Falyov, criticizing Shakhmatov's arguments, in particular, drawing attention to the fact that the initial syllable of the root does not coincide with the initial syllable of the phonetic word (many ~ multiply, knj ~ s knyazm, etc.), put forward the hypothesis that ““ the fall of the deaf ” in Russian did not begin in the first syllable of the word, but in the roots, where ъ, ь did not alternate with ъ, ь are strong or were “empty”, “superfluous” for linguistic consciousness. Subsequently, weak reduced ones in such morphemes, where they did not alternate with strong ones, that is, were constantly in a weak position, were called "absolutely weak" or "isolated", and the idea that the fall of the reduced ones began from an absolutely weak (isolated) position, has become widespread in paleo-Russian studies. I.A. Falyov relied on prototypical roots (two, knAz, many, etc.) and manuscripts in which there was “constant in some and frequent in other manuscripts writing many, princely, partly in opposition to the more frequent evil, etc.” . Gradually, the researchers increased the number of such roots. Here is an approximate list of the words with absolutely weak erami most often found in manuscripts: b’chela, vydova, vnuk, vtor, vchera, bendy, dva, dondezhe, kade, books, knAz, koto, mnikh, m’n, mn’ti, many, psati, bird, wheat, healthy, here, tgda, takmo, upvati, someone. Taking into account derivatives, the number of words with absolutely weak reduced vowels increases significantly. However, due to the fact that morphemic identity acts as a criterion for distinguishing between weak and absolutely weak eres (especially when trying to take into account the “linguistic consciousness” of the speakers of an ancient language), many controversial cases arise. This list usually includes the word bird, but should it be considered that it represents the same root as in the word bird, where [b] is fundamentally strong? If yes, then [b] in the word bird should not be interpreted as absolutely weak. Should we consider the words kyto [ky-to] and kyi [ky-|b], chto [s-to] and chii [s-|b] as one-root for the period of falling reduced vowels? Has there been a simplification in the word s'dorov? Does the prefix stand out in the word death? Etc. There are no definitive answers to these questions.

The case forms of the pronoun vys with [b] in a weak position adjoin the above list. Some researchers consider the root [ь] of this pronoun as absolutely weak, although it was not isolated: in the forms im. and wine. p. units h. in most dialects, he was in a strong position (vys; cf. also adverbs vysde and vyszhde). The exception was the ancient Novgorod dialect, where the form of them. p. units h. was vyhe (or vyhe) at wines. p. units h. vykh (or vykh) with reduced ones in a strong position. In any case, for the Old Novgorod dialect there are more reasons than for other dialects to assume an absolutely weak position [ь] in the pronoun вх-, since in its paradigm there is no such thing. p. units h., no genus. n. pl. h. did not have a strong [b] at the root. But the shape of the wines. p. units h. with a strong [b] does not allow us to classify the weak [b] in other forms of the vx- paradigm as absolutely weak even in the Old Novgorod dialect.

TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FALL OF REDUCED VOWELS...

The attention of researchers has long attracted the form of them. p. units h. all with the omission of a strong reduced vowel in a number of Old Slavonic and Old Russian, primarily Novgorod, monuments (M1095, M1097, Il, Mil)5. Since the writing is all found in Old Slavonic monuments, it is usually explained as a phenomenon of graphic-morphological analogy, that is, induction from the side of forms, where b was omitted in a weak position, and in Old Russian texts it is interpreted as a direct influence of Old Slavonic protographers. However, taking into account our new knowledge about the Old Novgorod dialect for Novgorod manuscripts of the 11th - 12th centuries. one cannot rule out another explanation based on the interaction of the bookish (Kiev) and dialectal (Pskovsko-Novgorod) pronouns of the pronoun vys. We can propose the following hypothesis. The Novgorod scribe, trying to get closer to the prestigious Kiev pronunciation, combined the Kiev one. n. = vin. n. [y ^ b] and Pskovskonovgorodskoe im. n. [uhe] F wine. n. [uhh], as a result of which a hybrid form named after them appeared. n. = vin. n. [y ^ e] (with a weak [b] in the root), which could be transmitted by writing all along with the standard all. From the Kiev model here is preserved by him. n. = vin. n. and [s] at the end of the stem, and from the Pskov-Novgorod - inflection [e]. Studied Pskov manuscripts of the XIV-XV centuries. N.M. Karinsky noticed that everything is regularly written in monuments with especially pronounced dialectal features, and in monuments copied by more literate scribes, everything and everything alternate, and with a predominance of everything, and came to the conclusion that the form behind the frequency everything was pronounced with vowel at the end, and the entire spelling was more ancient for Pskov writing than the entire one, which, in his opinion, was introduced in the 15th century. in a literary way.

Difficulties in determining the circle of words with absolutely weak reduced ones are connected not only with the presence of borderline cases, but also with the fact that there are practically no manuscripts in which the principle of skipping reduced vowels would be strictly and consistently carried out only in an absolutely weak position postulated on the basis of morphological isolation, then there are those where, for example, eres would be omitted only in words like dva, kandz, mnikh, etc., but would not be omitted at all in the forms of day, window, smart, sleep, etc. Short texts, including birch bark certificates are not very revealing. So, in the inscription on the Tmutarakan stone of 1068, absolutely weak reduced ones (glb and kndz) are omitted in a nutshell. In another one - tmTsgorokana, where [ъ] can be attributed to absolutely weak ones, it is preserved, and there are no ordinary weak er in the inscription (except for the er at the end of the word). In Mst, ъ is most often omitted in the root зъл-, which contains the usual weak reduced6 (20 spellings with 47 spellings with ъ not at the end of the line and 9 spellings with a superscript), while absolutely weak er is not omitted at all in the roots b’chel- ( 2 times), widow- (16 times), vtor- (13 times), yesterday (1 time), here (48 times), and in such an indicative root as dv-, for 11 cases with er

5 Sometimes the absence of the whole is considered as additional evidence of the Nenovgorod origin of the monument, as M.A. Fedorov in relation to Mst.

6 Falyov himself did not classify ъ as absolutely weak and, on the contrary, contrasted it with isolated reduced words.

M.B. POPOV

and 103 superscript spellings account for only 9 misspelled era spellings.

All this makes researchers treat the reality of absolutely weak positions with some prejudice and ignore their role in the process of the fall of weak reduced ones. So, G.A. Khaburgaev considered the omissions of eres in isolated positions as evidence of the loss of weak reduced ones in all positions, and writing with the preservation of eres in non-isolated positions was evidence of orthographic tradition. This extreme view is shared by few. There is also an opposite approach, which has great foundations and a long tradition in Russian paleoslav studies: omissions of eras in the monuments of the 11th - early 12th centuries. do not reflect the loss of reduced vowels at all, but indicate the spelling tradition formed under the influence of Old Slavonic manuscripts. According to this point of view, even the Mstislav charter (about 1130) does not reflect the initial stage of the fall of reduced vowels. It is difficult to agree with both points of view. The very concept of an absolutely weak position in the spirit of I.A. Falyov (that is, as morphologically isolated7) was born in the process of finding out in which positions the reduced vowels disappeared first of all, and Falyov considered the omissions of er in such a position as evidence of the loss of a vowel in the living dialect of the scribe. Thus, under the conditions of the beginning of the fall of the reduced vowels, the morphonological isolation of the reduced vowel only contributed to its earlier loss. This factor could hardly be the only one. Undoubtedly, it intersected with another equally, and perhaps even more important factor - with the features of the consonants surrounding the reduced one. There are other interpretations of spellings like dva, kanlz, many, in which gaps are reflected earlier than in other weak positions.

Apparently, the concept of an absolutely weak position should not be as formalized as it was after the work of I.A. Faleva. This concept reflects a certain trend, a certain statistical dominant, which is not found in any of the ancient Russian monuments of the 11th - 12th centuries. not carried out very strictly. In the end, this is not surprising, given that East Slavic scribes mastered writing by copying South Slavic monuments, in which the fall of reduced vowels was already widely reflected. In addition, separating absolutely weak (isolated) positions from ordinary weak (non-isolated) ones, one should probably take into account not the common root of related words, but the paradigm of word forms of one lexeme. Then in the paradigm of evil, evil, evil, etc., we will find the usual weak reduced in the root of evil, and in the paradigms of evil, evil, evil, etc. or evil, evil and many others - absolutely weak in the same root . This assumption needs to be tested on the material of the manuscripts of the 11th - 12th centuries.

7 Wed. a different understanding of the absolutely weak positions of V.N. Checkman. On the basis of typological observations, he proposed to consider the pre-stressed syllable and the end of the word as absolutely weak positions, since in the languages ​​he studied, it is in these positions that the reduction of centralized vowels is most consistently carried out.

TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FALL OF REDUCED VOWELS...

It turned out to be possible to interpret absolutely weak positions in a new way in the context of V.M. Markov on inorganic (plug-in) reduced . One of the features of the mechanism of falling reduced vowels, according to the scientist, was the development of intercalated reduced within the original groups of consonants (dvor > dvor, tri > tri, нКвъ > гнКвъ, zemlga > zemlga), which was accompanied by the fall of weak reduced ones. As shown by V.M. Markov, inserts of non-etymological reduced ones are widely reflected in the monuments of the 11th-12th centuries. V.N. Checkman noted that "in languages ​​with reduction of centralized vowels, non-etymological reductions often appear at the end of words and in consonant clusters" . He believed that the observations of V.M. Markov are quite consistent with these data of diachronic typology. However, examples from French (appearance of e-muet after a single consonant at the end of a word), Japanese (breaking down consonantal groups with sounds , [u] in borrowings like durama< англ. drama) и хинди (то же самое в заимствованиях из санскрита), которыми Чекман иллюстрирует соответствующую закономерность, мало похожи на то, что реконструирует Марков для древнерусского языка. По Маркову, неорганические редуцированные, которые в рукописях могли передаваться как ерами, так и надстрочными знаками, появляются именно в исконных сочетаниях согласных, которые не противоречили действию закона открытого слога (восходящей звучности). Что касается заимствований эпохи до падения редуцированных гласных, то в них вставные [ь] и [ъ] появлялись в тех группах согласных, которые были невозможны в позднем праславянском (аньдреи, пъсалъмъ, серьгии и др.), и такие вставные редуцированные прямо не связаны с гипотезой В.М. Маркова. Именно развитие неорганических гласных, которые, кстати, в основной массе были морфонологически изолированными, приводило, по мысли Маркова, к дефонологизации слабых редуцированных. Широкое распространение неорганических редуцированных в таких словах, как дъворъ/д’воръ, тьри/т’ри, гънКвъ/г’нКвъ < дворъ, три, гнКвъ, приводила к тому, что этимологические редуцированные гласные в таких словах, как дъва, тьри, гънати, перестали противопоставляться фонематическому нулю, а значит, они сами превращались в фонематический нуль. В функциональном отношении этимологические слабые [ь] и [ъ] были как бы «дискредитированы» вставными неэтимологическими редуцированными . Если гипотеза В.М. Маркова верна, то именно абсолютно слабые редуцированные в первую очередь и должны были ассоциироваться с фонематическим нулём.

Not all researchers, however, agree with V.M. Markov that the development of inorganic vowels caused the fall of the reduced ones and thus preceded it. On the contrary, one can consider it rather as a consequence of the beginning process of the fall of the weak reduced ones (see, for example, ). The insertions of consonants reduced to native groups are difficult to explain from the point of view of the tendency towards the openness of the syllable, since these groups of consonants themselves did not violate the openness of the syllable (except, of course, for roots like *tbrt, in which the Eastern Slavs developed the second full-voice, but this is a special happening). It is more logical to assume that the development of inorganic reduced ones was precisely the reaction

M.B. POPOV

on the beginning weakening of the weak reduced ones, which began as a result of the exhaustion of the tendency to an open syllable. The development of non-etymological reduced ones provided the conditions for the dephonologization of the bulk of the weak reduced ones and facilitated the smooth folding of the law of the open syllable.

It is important to emphasize that V.M. Markov, equating the etymological and intercalary reduced in phonological quality, does not assume for the early stage of the fall of the reduced proper phonetic loss of the vowel sound, he speaks only of the functional weakening of the original reduced vowels, of their neutralization with phonemic zero. Thus, it turns out that with the loss of weak reduced ones, the phonological change preceded the phonetic one, and the phonetic reality was only then pulled up behind the phonological one. Such a mechanism contributed to the gradual and smooth passage of such a global phonological change as the fall of reduced vowels in the Slavic languages.

One of the typological features of the sound changes associated with the loss of vowels is that in the early stages of the process, weakening and dropping out of the vowel always act as a sign of the colloquial style of pronunciation. As the process of falling weak reduceds developed, the pronunciation without a vowel gradually spread from the colloquial (elliptical) style to the neutral, and then to the full (eventually even "super-full"). This movement of the current phonetic change up the stylistic scale usually intersects with the age and social characteristics of native speakers in a complex way. Approximately from the middle of the XII century. until the middle of the thirteenth century. (apparently, in different dialects and age groups at different times) there was such a situation when in an isolated position and at the end of a word, as well as in simple groups of two consonants, weak reduced ones were lost phonologically (they stopped being opposed to zero sound) and phonetically (they stopped being pronounced8) . At the same time, until the end of the XII - beginning of the XIII century. weak reduced ones, lost in colloquial and even full style, could be restored under special stylistic conditions (during the recitation of ideologically important and poetic texts), being reproduced as elements of the traditional rhythmic structure of the text. Naturally, the restoration of weak reduced ones was difficult precisely for absolutely weak ones (morphonologically isolated), since they were not supported by strong ones in the same morphemes and word forms (cf. p., but window - [trench] window - [trench"es'e] window - [okep'es"e] window).

It is practically impossible to trace the details of the reflection in writing of such stylistic shifts in pronunciation, which were also complicated by a complex of phonetic and morphonological conditions, but the general trend on the material of the monuments of the 11th-15th centuries. is clearly visible and well known to researchers: the number of word forms with missing weak eps is gradually increasing. Despite many circumstances

8 Here, apparently, various successive stages of vowel weakening were possible, which cannot be accurately reconstructed; up to non-phonological vowels of an indefinite timbre like a schwa ([k'p'yay'e] kanAzhe, window, etc.).

TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FALL OF REDUCED VOWELS...

(influence of protographers, spelling tradition, scribes' training, type of monument, etc.), which make it difficult to decipher texts phonetically, reflecting the fall of reduced vowels in them is strikingly reminiscent of the development of a living phonetic process (sound change in progress). This conclusion can be extended to the reflection in the Old Russian monuments of the change of strong reduced in [e] and [o].

Of the manuscripts of the 11th century, perhaps only EvgPs has numerous spellings with e and o in place of strong reduced ones (nachdtok, love, szhdnoi, day, revenge, end, truth, vshed, etc.) in the complete absence of any spellings skipping weak epochs. Considering that in EvgPs there are no examples with clarification of reduced vowels in roots like *tbrt (cf. tvrdo, outvrdisA, s|mrtn'i, oskvirn'vysha, etc., with the dominance of spellings with the "Old Church Slavonic" order of smooth and er, but with a distinction of reduced vowels - mrtvyA , hardy, gradii, mlniA, etc.), it can be assumed that the spellings with e and o in place of strong ers penetrated into EvgPs from the original. As for the monuments of the 12th century, in the south it is GE1144, in which there are still no writings reflecting the clearing of strong reduced ones. As shown above, Eph1161 and Suzd3m are the same, although these monuments are not so indicative due to their small volume. In the north, the UstS rewritten in Novgorod (circa 1170) widely reflects the loss of weak reduced ones, while “strong reduced ones are nowhere replaced in writing by the letters o and e” . Against this background, TolPs stands out by its resemblance to EvgPs, which can be dated to the beginning of the 12th century. . At the main scribe, the manuscripts are presented as spellings with missing er in an absolutely weak and weak position (v zlob 48, 87ob, zlaA 101, multiply 107, knazi 51ob, who 165, nobody 259, tomou 49, disperse 159ob, sbrashasA 45ob, vzvakh 5b, forever 51, gospel 30, etc.), and quite widely with a clearing in a strong position (all 43b, everywhere 4b, day 229, days 56, rain 111b, revenge 97b, honor 235b, remove 144b, dream of 143b, the righteous 52ob, whisper 62ob, came 203ob, pavel 57ob, tears 220ob, heavy 11, strong 23ob, useful 60, true 81, old 236ob, etc.). There are no spellings with clarification in roots like *tbrt in TolPs.

In connection with the different time of the fall of reduced vowels in the north and south of Russia, the PE is of interest. It appears to have been copied in the first half of the thirteenth century. in Novgorod, possibly from the Galician-Volyn original and reflects the stage between the fall of the weak and the clearing of the strong [b] and [b]. With a large number of spellings with the omission of weak er, which are preserved only in certain positions (primarily in groups of consonants, between two identical consonants, and in some other cases), only 4 examples are recorded in the manuscript with the clarification of strong reduced ones (debt, pillar, three hundred , quarter-ruler), however, two of them are indicative, as they are marked in the root *tblt and, probably, taken out of the original.

In the SI (second half of the 12th century), there are few cases of missing weak eros in roots compared to cases of their preservation, and these omissions are usually observed in an isolated position (books-, knAz-, many-, birds-, dv-, zl-, who , mn-, tl-, that, etc.). And in other cases, mainly after

M.B. POPOV

smooth [g] (eagle, creator, dvrmi, vBrno, oumrsha); in addition, there are spellings with p at the end of the line), and there is no replacement of er by the letters o, e.

An earlier stage of change is recorded in the Zlat manuscript (first half or middle of the 12th century): in an absolutely weak position (especially in the roots of books-, knlz-, many-) the omission of a reduced vowel is reflected, but there are very few such spellings (in addition, misspellings era in the preposition kъ, cf.: to tomou, to tebB, to us). This manuscript also contains the omission of reduced vowels in the usual weak (not absolutely weak) position (for example, in the suffix -н-) between the consonants bn, vn, zn, dl, sn, ln, zhn, mn, rn, tn, rsh, vsh, tl, and in the original combinations bn, gn, zn, kn, sn, bl, vl, ml, pl, br, tv, tr, spellings with inorganic eres are noted, that is, in fact, in the same combinations of consonants, where the omission of etymological erov; there are practically no spellings with o, e in place of strong reduced ones.

Zlat and SI are difficult to unambiguously localize, but given the degree of reflection of the fall of reduced vowels and the absence of a new yat, clatter and other bright dialectal phonetic features, the researchers point to their northeastern (Rostov-Suzdal) origin. If this is so, then the Zlat manuscript can be considered the oldest written monument of North-Eastern Russia that has come down to us, older than the SI (second half of the 12th century). Northeastern manuscripts TrK, ZhN1219, TA1220, UE of the early 13th century. (no later than the 40s) from Rostov the Great reflect the already final stage of the fall of reduced vowels. This is evidenced by the consistent reflection of both the loss of weak reduced ones (tma, pravdou, sheep, sdBla, collection, former, etc., while maintaining them in consonant groups - tshcha, dshi, slza, dsky, etc.), and the vocalization of strong reduced ones (overpowered , pillar, dungeon, truthful, righteous-nick, zhidovesk, love, whispers, saplings, etc.), and they also present a mixture of b / o, b / e. If the dialect affiliation of these monuments accepted by the researchers is correct, the active process of falling reduced vowels in North-Eastern Russia - the future Great Russian territory - can be attributed to the middle of the 12th century. - the first half of the XIII century. The mentioned northeastern manuscripts (Zlat, SI and Rostov beginnings of the 13th century) reflect the consistent development of this process in dialects, which later formed the basis of the modern Russian literary language.

M.B. Popov. On the Fall of Reduced Vowels in the Old Russian Language: Chronology, Phonological Mechanism, Reflection in Written Records.

The paper is focused on some controversial issues of relative and absolute chronology concerning the fall of reduced vowels in the Old Russian dialects, as well as peculiarities of its phonological mechanism. The phonological theory and Old Russian written records of the 12th century support the view on new jat(t) phonologization before the fall of the weak reduced vowel in the next syllable. Based on the contrasting graphemes of e, o and ь, ъ in the manuscripts of the 13th-14th centuries, the idea of ​​rather late (after the change of strong reduced vowels in [e] and [o]) disappearance of reduced vowels as phonemes is developed. The mixed concept of “absolutely weak position”, which is ambiguously estimated in paleo-

TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FALL OF REDUCED VOWELS...

Russian studies, is discussed in the context of V.M. Markov's hypothesis of non-etymological reduced vowels as a trigger of their fall.

Keywords: Old Russian language, historical phonology, fall of reduced vowels, absolutely weak positions, liturgical pronunciation, new jat.

Sources

EvgPs - Eugene Psalter of the XI century. (GPB, Pogod. 9; BAN 4.5.7).

PA - Pandects of Antiochus XI century. (GIM, Sunday 30).

Il - Ilyin book XI-XII century. (RGADA, Type. 131).

Mst - Mstislav gospel until 1117 (GIM, Sin. 1203).

GE1144 - Galician Gospel of 1144 (GIM, Syn. 404).

SuzdZm - Suzdal serpentine (GIM, No. 19726).

Evf1161 - inscription on the cross of Euphrosyne of Polotsk 1161

TolPs - Tolstoy Psalter of the XII century. (RNB, F.n.I.23).

Mil - Milyatino Gospel of the XII century. (RNB, F.wU).

Zlat - Zlatostruy XII century. (RNB, F.wI^).

SI - The Word of Hippolytus (GIM, Miracles 12).

DE1164 - Dobrilovo Gospel of 1164 (RGB, f. 256, No. 106).

UstS - Studian Charter around 1170 (GIM, Sin. 330).

VarlKhut - Contribution of Varlam to the Khutyn Monastery 1192-1210

Smol1229 - List A of the Treaty of the Smolensk Prince Mstislav Davidovich with Riga and Fr. Gotland 1229

TrK - Trinity (Lavrsky) kondakar (RSL, f. 304.1, No. 23).

ZhN1219 - Life of Nifont 1219 or 1222 (RSL, f. 304.1, No. 35).

TA1220 - Intelligent Apostle 1220 (GIM, Sin. No. 7).

UE - University gospel of the XIII century. (NB MGU No. 2, Ag.80).

PE - Polotsk Gospel of the XIII century. (RNB, Pog. 12).

GE1266-1301 - Galician gospel 1266-1301 (RNB, F.wI^).

RP1282 - Russian truth according to the list of the Novgorod helmsmen of 1282 (GIM, Sin. 132). EE1283 - Eusebius Gospel of 1283 (RSL, f. 178, No. 3168).

LE - Lutsk gospel of the XIV century. (RSL, f. 256, No. 112).

Literature

1. Trubetskoy N.S. On the sound changes of the Russian language and the collapse of the all-Russian linguistic unity // Trubetskoy N.S. Selected works on philology. - M.: Progress, 1987. - S. 143-167.

2. Shakhmatov A.A. Essay on the most ancient period in the history of the Russian language // Encyclopedia of Slavic Philology. - Issue. 11(I). - Pg.: Department of Russian. lang. and literature Imp. Acad. Sciences, 1915. - 368 p.

3. Sobolevsky A.I. Proceedings on the history of the Russian language: in 2 volumes / Ed. V.B. Krysko. -M.: Yaz. Slavs. culture, 2004. - Vol. 1: Essays on the history of the Russian language. Lectures on the history of language. - 712 p.

4. Thomson A.I. On the diphthongization e, o in the Ukrainian language // Sat. Department of Russian lang. and verbal Academy of Sciences of the USSR. - L., 1928. - T. 110. - No. 3. - S. 318-322.

M.B. POPOV

5. Shevelov G.Y. A historical phonology of the Ukrainian language. - Heidelberg: Winter, 1979. - 809 p.

6. Garde P. Le mythe de l’allongement compensatoire en ukrainien // The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the United States. - 1981-1983. - V. XV, No 39-40. - R. 69-81.

7. Gippius A.A., Zaliznyak A.A. About the inscriptions on the Suzdal serpentine // Balto-Slavic studies 1997. - M .: Indrik, 1998. - P. 550-555.

8. Molkov G.A. Linguistic and paleographic study of the Old Russian manuscript of the Milyatino Gospel (RNB, F.n.I.7): Dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. - St. Petersburg, 2014. - 267 p.

9. Falev I.A. On reduced vowels in the Old Russian language // Language and Literature. -1927. - Issue. 1, T. 2. - S. 111-122.

10. Zaliznyak A.A. Old Novgorod dialect. - M.: Yaz. Slavs. culture, 2004. - 872 p.

11. Shakhmatov A.A. Research on the Dvina charters of the 15th century. // Research in the Russian language. - St. Petersburg: Department of Russian. lang. and literature Imp. Acad. Sciences, 1903. - T. 2, Issue. 3. - 140 + 184 p.

12. Goloskevich G.K. Eusebius Gospel of 1283: An Experience of Historical and Philological Research // Studies in the Russian Language. - St. Petersburg: Department of Russian. lang. and literature Imp. Acad. Sciences, 1914. - T. 3., Issue. 2. - 70 s.

13. Zaliznyak A.A. Old Russian graphics with mixing b - o, b - e // Zaliznyak A.A. "Russian nominal inflection" with the application of selected works on the modern Russian language and general linguistics. - M.: Yaz. Slavs. culture, 2002. -p. 577-612.

14. Uspensky B.A. Russian book pronunciation of the XI - XII centuries. and its connection with the South Slavic tradition (Reading the Yers) // Uspensky B.A. Selected works: in 3 volumes - M .: Shk. "Languages ​​of Russian culture", 1997. - Vol. III: General and Slavic linguistics. -WITH. 143-208.

15. Ladyzhensky I.M. Graphic-spelling and linguistic features of the manuscript books of the Printing Collection of the RGADA No. 165, 166, 167: Dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 2011. - 282 p.

16. Malkova O.V. Reduced vowels in the Dobril Gospel of 1164: Auto-ref. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 1967. - 21 p.

17. Malkova O.V. On the principle of dividing reduced vowels into strong and weak in late Proto-Slavic and in ancient Slavic languages ​​// Vopr. linguistics. -1981. - No. 1. - C. 98-111.

18. Popov M.B. Problems of synchronic and diachronic phonology of the Russian language. - St. Petersburg: Philol. fak. St. Petersburg State University, 2004. - 346 p.

19. Fedorova M.A. Orthography of the Mstislav Gospel and the problem of narrow dating of monuments of the early Old Russian period // Vestn. St. Petersburg. university Ser. 9. - 2015. - Issue. 2. - S. 164-176.

20. Wayana. Guide to the Old Church Slavonic language. - M.: Izd-vo inostr. lit., 1952. -447 p.

21. Karinsky N.M. The language of Pskov and its region in the 15th century. - St. Petersburg: Type. M.A. Aleksandrova, 1909. - 207 p.

22. Khaburgaev G.A. Once again about the chronology of the fall of the reduced in the Old Russian language (in connection with the question of the relationship between book-written and dialect speech) // Linguistic geography, dialectology and history of the Russian language. - Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of Arm. SSR, 1976. - S. 397-406.

TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FALL OF REDUCED VOWELS...

23. Chekman V.N. Studies in the historical phonetics of the Proto-Slavic language: typology and reconstruction. - Minsk: Science and technology, 1979. - 215 p.

24. Markov V.M. On the history of reduced vowels in Russian. - Kazan: Kazan Publishing House. un-ta, 1964. - 279 p.

25. Ladyzhensky I.M. Reduced vowels in Ilya's book // Die Welt der Slaven. - 2014 - T. LIX. - S. 219-241.

26. Grinkova N.P. Evgenievskaya Psalter as a monument of Russian writing in the 11th century. // Izv. II Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - 1924. - T. XXIX. - C. 289-306.

27. Ishchenko D.S. Old Russian manuscript of the 12th century "Studio Charter": Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. - Odessa, 1986. - 16 p.

28. Gavrilenko T.N. Reflection of reduced vowels in a manuscript of the 12th century. // Vestn. Leningrad. university Ser. 2. - 1989. - Issue. 2. - S. 68-73.

29. Shulaeva D.P. To the history of the language in the XIII century. (Paleographic and phonetic description of the manuscript GPB Pog.12): Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. - L., 1970. - 15 p.

30. Golyshenko V.S. From the history of the Russian language of the 12th century (paleographic and phonetic description of the manuscript of the Chudov Collection No. 12 of the State Historical Museum): Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 1963. - 26 p.

31. Karaulova F.V. Palaeographic and phonetic description of the manuscript Zlatostruy of the 12th century: Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. - L., 1977. - 22 p.

32. Knyazevskaya O.A. On the fate of reduced vowels ъ, ь in Rostov manuscripts of the first third of the 13th century. // Linguistic geography, dialectology and history of language. - Chisinau: Shtiinitsa, 1973. - S. 202-208.

33. Knyazevskaya O.A. Letters o, e in place of reduced vowels in Rostov manuscripts of the early 13th century. // Linguistic geography, dialectology and history of language. - Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of Arm. SSR, 1976. - S. 327-336.

Received 07/24/14

Popov Mikhail Borisovich - Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Russian Language Department, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia.

This term is used in various sciences. Verbatim reduction- this is a reduction, bringing back, erection.

Interpretation of the concept under consideration depending on science

As part of mathematics, logic reduction is a special logical and methodological technique that allows you to reduce the complex to the simple.

AT astronomy, geodesy- the process of bringing the results of observations, changes from one reference system to another through the introduction of a number of amendments determined by the influence of certain causes. The latter are being introduced due to the fact that the performance of angular measurements is carried out for sighting purposes. Their vertical axes do not coincide with the existing point centers. The above correction is applied to such measurements as are made at an adjacent point.

AT chemistry reduction is deoxidation, i.e., the process opposite to oxidation. In other words, the process of recovery from oxide.

In science like biology, the concept under consideration is a development that leads to a simplification of the internal structure of the organism.

AT technique reduction is a decrease, reduction in the force of movement or tension.

As part of sociology the term under consideration means a theoretical approach, the essence of which is to substantiate social behavior from the point of view of psychology and physiology.

Also the reduction is ( In russian language) weakening in an unstressed position of the sound of vowels.

The concept under consideration can also be interpreted as the alienation of the crown lands from the aristocracy, which was carried out by the royal authorities of a number of European states (XVI-XVII centuries).

Reduction is also called the Paraguayan settlements of the Indians, directly controlled by the Jesuit order.

Vowel reduction

It is known that this is a change in a vowel sound in a weak position (unstressed). Vowel reduction can be qualitative and quantitative. In the first case, there is a cardinal change in sound in an unstressed position, its qualitative characteristics change. So, a qualitative reduction of vowels is observed in the change of such sounds as [o], [e], [a].

In the second case, only the duration of pronunciation is affected (shortening the sound), while the main characteristics do not change, which is why even in an unstressed position the sound being pronounced is always recognizable. The quantitative reduction of vowels in Russian is observed in the pronunciation of such sounds as [i], [y], [y].

Degrees of reduction

The process under consideration depends on the position of the unstressed syllable in which the sound is used. So, in the first pre-stressed, uncovered syllable or combination of vowels, the degree of their change is much less than in other unstressed syllables.

Thus, Russian vowels, which are subject to qualitative reduction, have 2 degrees. As already known, the 1st degree is a change in vowels either in the first pre-stressed syllable, or in an open, or in a combination of vowels, and the 2nd is their change in subsequent syllables - pre-stressed, stressed.

Pronunciation of reduced vowels depending on the hardness/softness of the preceding consonant

Reduction in words spring, laborer, sixth, nickel, water, fly, etc.. the same, that is, under stress it is the same sound, despite the fact that, in fact, the sounds are different.

More recently, the so-called ekaya was considered the literary norm of pronunciation (it was necessary to use such sounds that had an e-shaped overtone, as between letters and and uh). The norm was the pronunciation of sounds close to [s] and [and], in an unstressed position in place of percussion e.

It is known that after solid consonants, according to the rules, the following sounds are pronounced:

• [a] (milk [malako]);
• [s] (soap maker [soap maker], turn yellow [zhylt "et"], stomach [belly], horses [lashyd "hey"]).

After soft - sounds:

• [and] (worlds [m "iry], lie [l" izhat "], hours [h" isy]);
• [y] (to love [l "ub" it"]).

From the above examples, it can be seen that the same unstressed vowel sound can be displayed in writing with different letters, namely:

• [a] - with letters o (for example, bed [pas "t" el"]) and a (for example, heat [heat];
• [and] - with the letters e (for example, honey [m" idok]), i (for example, rows [r" ids]), and (for example, piston [n" iston]), and (for example, an hour [h "isok]);
• [y] - with the letters u (for example, bureau [b "uro]) and y (for example, empty [empty"]);
• [s] - in letters and (for example, life [zhyz "n"]), s (for example, thinker [thought "it" il"]), a (for example, regret [zhyl "et"].

All of the above regarding the correspondence of unstressed vowels and the letters denoting them, for convenience, can be presented in the form of a table.

Russian linguistics

This science is represented by the following sections that study the modern literary language:

• lexicology;
• morphology;
• phonetics;
• morphemic and word formation;
• syntax.

It is important to note that graphics, spelling, as a rule, are not studied independently. So, the first one is included in the section of phonetics, and the second - word formation, phonetics, morphology.

Such a section as stylistics is studied in the lessons of speech development, and punctuation - in the study of syntax.

Object of study of linguistics

Its sections describe the language in many ways, which is why they have independent objects:

• phonetics - sounding speech;
• word formation - the derivation of a language unit;
• morphology - words as parts of speech;
• morphemic - the composition of a language unit;
• lexicology - the vocabulary of the sign system;
• syntax - sentences, phrases.

Syntax, together with morphology, forms grammar.

The linguistic term considered in this article belongs to the section of phonetics.

Unstressed vowels

As mentioned earlier, in an unstressed position, vowels are pronounced more briefly, with less muscular tension of the organs of speech, than under stress. This process in the framework of linguistics is called reduction. So, vowels in an unstressed position change their quality and are thus pronounced differently than stressed ones.

In our language, only 4 vowels are distinguished in an unstressed position: [y], [i], [a], [s]. They differ, in terms of pronunciation, from their corresponding drums. These sounds are not only shorter, but also have a slightly different timbre, which is caused by less muscular tension during pronunciation, resulting in a shift of the speech organs to a resting position (neutral position). In this regard, their designation by means of the same transcription marks as for stressed vowels is, to a certain extent, conditional.

English: reduction

For the correct pronunciation of English words, it is worth remembering that they are unacceptable to pronounce separately. English speech sounds quite smoothly, which is achieved with the help of special laws for the pronunciation of individual English words in the general flow of speech - reduction, a bunch of sounds. Thus, reduction in English is the loss of some vowel sounds of their strong form or their complete disappearance from words.

In English, both syllables in a word and the words themselves within a sentence can be stressed and unstressed. Some lexical units sound strong enough, which is why they are significant, others are unstressed, they are auxiliary. Natural reduction or loss of individual sounds occurs in unstressed words, since the sounds also sound weak in them.

If you turn to the dictionary (transcription section) of service words: articles, conjunctions, prepositions, you will notice that there are 2 of their options: a weak and a strong form. It is the first one, as a rule, that sounds in English speech, since function words in sentences are unstressed. Exactly the same picture is observed with pronouns, auxiliary, modal verbs, due to the fact that they quite often perform an auxiliary, auxiliary function and are thus unstressed.

For comparison, the following examples can be given:

Varieties of reduction in English

Just as in Russian, in English the linguistic term under consideration can be divided into the following types:

1. quantitative reduction. With it, the sound loses longitude, for example:

• replaced with [u];
• goes to [i].

2. quality reduction (examples are given earlier and just below). The sound changes dramatically.

• [ɑ:] becomes [ə];
• [ʌ] changes to [ə];
• [æ] is replaced by [ə];
• [ʊ] becomes [ə].

3. Zero reduction. There is a complete loss of sound, for example: she is - [ʃi ɪz] (She is a good girl [ʃi z ə ɡʊd ɡɜːl]).

Thus, summing up, we can say that reduction in the language (both English and Russian) is a linguistic term and is divided into qualitative and quantitative. These are the laws of pronunciation.

Reduction in terms of philosophy

This is her main phenomenological method. His understanding, according to E. Husserl, affects the understanding of the whole phenomenology as a whole. This German philosopher believed that it is the most difficult task of philosophy, which as a result determines both the authenticity of the existing philosophical reflection and the meaning of human life itself.

Its difficulties are connected, firstly, with unnaturalness. If we consider the situation with the usual natural setting, characteristic of everyday, scientific experience, then it is carried out in accordance with hypothetical imaginings. The phenomenological one (achieved through reduction) is the exact opposite of nature.

In this regard, we can say that reduction does not negate the world, it is a radical reduction of the existing consciousness to the level of "itself" (to the original givens of man). Thus the world does not become less existing, it only passes into its phenomenon. The so-called reduction mode allows exclusively noetic-noematic structures of consciousness. However, this is very difficult to implement, in view of the fact that people are accustomed to seeing only the objective. It is even more difficult to turn it inward, along with the endless obstacles present in the form of habits of empirical-subjectivist, objectivist thinking.

Three types of Husserl reduction

He singled out:

• psychological;
• transcendental;
• eidetic reduction.

Each of the above types corresponds to a specific level of phenomenological research. Thus, psychological reduction covers the area of ​​descriptive phenomenology, transcendental - universal transcendental, and eidetic - essential.

Psychological reduction

The essence is a return to one's own experience or to "pure" indicators of psychological self-examination. The subject immediately encounters such a difficult circumstance as the interweaving of his psychological side of life with the information of "external" experience, which makes the former an extra-psychic reality.

Reality perceived from the outside belongs to a special intentional consciousness, despite the fact that the very perception by a person of his external reality belongs to the latter. This is where the need for an epoch (refraining from judgment) arises. Thus, the phenomenologist excludes any objective attitude, together with all judgments about the objective world. As a result, only experience remains in the form of intuitive self-givenness: a single tree, a house, the world as a whole (experience is the essence of the subject).

Stages of psychological reduction:

1. A systematic, radical era at the head of any objective point of view within the framework of experience, which is practiced when considering individual objects and attitudes of consciousness as a whole.
2. Experienced discretion, description, analysis of various kinds of “phenomena”: here the essence is already “semantic unities”, and not “objects”. The phenomenological description itself is formed from the characteristics of noematic objectivity and poetic acts.

Eidetic reduction

The ideation method enables the researcher to relate categorically to the actual aspects of phenomena, in other words, to consider them as "examples" of their invariant "essence". Thus, in order to study the a priori forms of phenomena, the phenomenologist abstracts from their particular forms. In the whole generality of noetic acts, he is only interested in unchanging structures that must be seen, since without them no perception is possible.

So, if the first type of reduction exposes the phenomena of inner experience, then the second one captures its essential forms. It is worth considering that the phenomenology under consideration, which empirically relies on the descriptive one, at the same time determines it a priori, which is why the genetic post factum turns out to be a logical prius.

Transcendental reduction

It is the deepest and, therefore, the most difficult stage of the entire procedure. Here the epoch is produced over eidetic and descriptive phenomenology. This is due to the fact that they still have roots in the realities of the mental world.

When the phenomenologist realizes the epoch and over the existing psychic subjectivity, then an area is opened to him that is in no way connected with the objective world and which acts as the self-givenness of pure subjectivity, expressed by the formula "I am".

Transcendental reduction purifies consciousness to the absolute subjectivity that constructs the world. According to Husserl, the structure of this subjectivity is threefold: ego, cogito, cogitatum. In other words, the transcendental "I", the original noetic acts, their noematic referents.

In general terms, the significance of the concept under consideration for phenomenology is due to the fact that reduction underlies the phenomenological method and radically changes the traditional philosophical ideas of both naive realism and subjective idealism regarding the relationship between consciousness and nature.

Take a closer look at the ancient spellings of the words you know: house, book, someone, someone, damn it. Although you know all the letters, you will find it difficult to read these words. It makes it difficult for the modern reader to use the letters ъ and ь, which is strange for the modern reader. The fact is that initially these letters denoted special vowels that were in the ancient Slavic languages. Many words then contained more syllables than now: the word house consisted of two syllables: do-m, book - of three: k-ni-ga, log - of four syllables: b-r-v-but.
Having studied the origin of the vowels [b] and [b] and their further fate, the scientists found that these sounds were pronounced shorter and weaker than all other vowels, and called them reduced or incomplete vowels. Except for special brevity, the vowel [b] in the Old Russian language was close in pronunciation to [o], and [b] to [e].
The reduced vowels were independent phonemes: they were opposed to the rest of the vowels and to each other, serving as distinguishers of word forms (a word form is a word in one of its grammatical forms). Compare kol ("kol") and kolo ("wheel"), sbrati ("collect") and sbirati ("collect"), clean ("clean") and clean ("clearing")
Subsequently, reduced vowels in some positions weakened and disappeared even more, while in others, on the contrary, they strengthened and changed into full vowels: [b] [o], [b] [e]. The words reduced at the end disappeared (stol ->- table, horse - *? con") and before the vowel of the full formation: who -*? who, who ->- what, spring ->- spring. another reduced one, then it changed into a vowel of a full formation: son son, plat ->- raft", day ->- den". ], the third one disappeared: log-beam.
Having disappeared in some positions and changed into [o] and [e] in others, reduced to the XIII century. lost as special phonemes. This is called the fall of the reduced. So, the number of vowel phonemes decreased by two. By itself, the change is not that significant. But language is a system, the elements of which are connected with each other, and a change in some of them leads to a greater or lesser restructuring of others. The fall of the reduced ones caused such a restructuring of the phonetic system of the Russian language as no other historical change.
First of all, the character of the syllable has changed. Prior to this, syllables were, as a rule, open, that is, they ended in a vowel. After the fall of the reduced ones, closed syllables appeared at the end of many word forms. Compare the fruit and the fruit, the eye and the eye, the life and the reaper.
Many consonants, being at the end of a word, underwent various changes. For example, voiced consonants have changed into voiceless ones: fruit -\u003e - fruit - *? plo [t], rog -*? horn -*? ro [k], fish fish ry [n] (genus p. pl.), etc.
If a combination appeared at the end of a word: consonant + [l], it was simplified. So, the form of the past tense without -l- (nes, etc.) was obtained from the form with -l- (nes-l-b): nesl nesl ->- nes.
And in the middle of a word, various hitherto unusual combinations arose, for example, a deaf and sonorous one turned out to be nearby. Assimilation took place, i.e., the likening of one sound to another deaf became voiced if a voiced one went on (kd - *? kd -> - [g] db; collection collection -> - | z] boron), and vice versa (boat boat - >- lo [t] ka; nails ->- nails ->- but [k] ti).
The changes in consonants that took place after the fall of the reduced consonants led to a restructuring of the system of phonemes. So, voiced and deaf consonant phonemes have never coincided before. Now they began to coincide at the end of a word and before noisy consonants. For example, the words fruit and flesh used to differ in all cases, and after the fall of the reduced ones, they coincided in the form im. and wine. cases units numbers: plo [t] - plo [d] a and plo [t] - plo-[t] a. Compare also ka [t] ka (from kadka) - ka [d] ok and ka [g \ ka (from katka) - ka [t] ok (tool).
Great changes have taken place in the relationship between hard and soft consonants. Previously, the hardness and softness of consonants (for those that were paired in terms of hardness and softness) were closely related to the character of the next vowel. So, before [b] there could only be a hard consonant, and before [b] - only a soft one. Compare the way (genus p. from shuga - “fetters”) and the way. Before the fall of the reduced ones, they differed not only in the hardness or softness of the consonants, but also in the final vowels: [b] and [b]. Not hard and soft consonants were opposed to each other, but whole syllables. After the fall of the reduced, hard and soft consonants became possible at the end of a word, where their hardness or softness did not “hang from the neighbors: pu [t] and pu [t "], ko [n] and ko hi"], by [l] and according to [l "] ("fields"). Consequently, hard and soft consonants became independent phonemes.
So after the fall of the phonemes reduced in the system, the role of vowels decreased, and the role of consonants increased. This corresponded to the general direction of the history of the phonetic system of the Russian language (see Internal Laws of the Language).
The fall of the reduced ones also affected morphology.
First, there were endings of a new type. Previously, all endings had a sound expression, and after the fall of the reduced ones, zero endings appeared (see Zero units in the language):
It was: table-b - table-a - table-at ...; fish-s - fish-b
It became: table-D-table-a - table-at ...; fish-s-fish-P
Secondly, in the grammatical forms of many words, alternations of phonemes arose<о>and<е>with zero (fluent vowels): It was: son-b - son-a - son-u ...; vesn-b - ve-sn-s.
It became: sleep-P-sn-a-sn-u ...; spring-P-- spring-s.
Thus, for some words, alternations (o) and (e) with zero have become an additional (in addition to endings) way of opposing grammatical forms.
The fall of the reduced ones occurred in all Slavic languages, but this process proceeded differently in them.

Reasons for the fall of the reduced. Reflection of the process of the fall of the reduced in written monuments. There are several hypotheses about the reasons for the fall of red's. 1 . V. M. Markov, Ivanov. Red-e were lost because they were uninformative phonemes, were weakly opposed to other vowel phonemes. b and b character special add. a sign of super-shortness. Markov: the information content of reds decreased even more due to the spread of non-etymological reds, due to the pr-pa ascending sonority. If this principle was violated, then insert editions arose: ВЪЗ Kommersant ZRѣTI - etymologically, there was no red-th at the end of prefixes on -З. Insert red th appears to restore the pr-pa ascending sonority. 2 . N. D. Rusinov. The loss of reds was facilitated by a change in the nature of the stress. Initially, the accent was musical. The stressed chapter was marked by intonation. In the DRY very early the emphasis became power. shock gl-th was now distinguished by strength and longitude. -> A contradiction arose: if there was an ed-th before the stress, then it was pronounced shorter and weaker than before the g-m in an unstressed syllable, which contradicted the character of the stress: D'SKY (boards). PPR in monuments. Dr. Russian monuments reflected an uneven picture. It is connected with the types of memorials, with the territory of their occurrence, with the positions of reds. In everyday writing, red-e was retained longer than in book writing. Pam-ki reflect the earlier loss of reds in a weak position, clarification - later. In different weak positions, the loss of reds took place at different times. Redds are lost first of all in the initial prestressed syllable, especially in those morphemes where weak reds did not alternate with strong ones: K Kommersant HZZ, M Kommersant NOGO, K Kommersant TO, H Kommersant THEN. The red-e at the absolute end of the word is lost early. This position was also not supported by the strong. At the end of words, red-e acted as separators in the continuous writing of the text. Later, b and b began to indicate hard / soft agreement. It is possible to judge the loss of the final reds by indirect data: hardening of the final labials (most often M) - ѣM b (b) -> eat, tѣm b (b) -> topics. The hardening of the final M took place throughout Russia. Excl.: SEVEN, EIGHT. In some Russian dialects, the hardening of the final labials was wider: KROV (=blood), GOLUB (=dove). In different dialects red-e were lost at different times. In the south, the fall occurred earlier (mid. XI century), in the north (mid. XII century). K ser. XIII century, the fall of the Reds ended.

b, b in combination with j changed: bj > s, jьj > u (combinatorial changes). S, and could be positions and options yj, and j. Ex., roofs (roofs). Positional changes include strong and weak positions -\u003e in the same morpheme, the reduction could alternate as strong and weak. Then the weak reducers ceased to be pronounced at all, and the strong ones begin to be pronounced as vowels of the full formation O and E. The reducers, and in weak positions were also lost, and in strong positions they were vocalized, but in different Eastern dialects in different ways. In dialects, which formed the basis of the PR y>o, u>e. Pr, shi / a > she / a, deaf > deaf. In dialects, which formed the basis of Ukrainian and White strong s, and passed into s, and complete formation. Soon, in Ukrainian, Y and I coincided in one I. Pr., Lii > lei (Russian), lii (Ukr), li (bel). Kryi> cut, krii, krii. The fate of the reducer depended on whether it was before the smooth one or after it: 1. tъrt 2. trъt. In combinations of the 1st type in all dialects, the reduced was clear. Pr., trg, vlna, drzhati. In the combination of the 2nd type, the fate of the reducer already depended on the position. In strong positions, the reduction, as usual, cleared up. Ex., blood. In weak positions (Ex., tear): 1. all the East Slavs lost red => 2. a confluence of consonants appeared 3. smoothly developed syllabism 4. but for the East Slavs, syllabism is not har-na, so there was a process of liberation from syllabism -> in the dialects of Rus yaz, after the smooth ones, the vowels O and E developed. In some words (as a dialect phenomenon), both the reduced and the smooth ones were lost. Due to the syllabicity of smooth developing the sounds Y and I both in Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. In some cases, the results of the fall of the reduction were unexpected, did not correspond to the rules of the respective positions: weak reds could be cleared up, and strong ones could be lost. Pr., smolnsk > Smolensk, chttsa > reader (air form Im.p.). Such forms arise in connection with grammatical analogy (the desire to generalize the bases of different forms of the word).

Changes in the syllabic and morphemic structure of the word due to the fall of the reduced ones. The PR led to the restructuring of the sound system of the DRY, since it stopped the main regularities of the more ancient period of history. After the PR, the law of an open syllable lost its relevance (although the trend towards an open syllable remained). So the words that had 2 open syllables in the DRY: one hundred / l, ko / n, s / n, turned out to be monosyllabic, moreover, with a closed syllable: table, con ', dream. The syllabic vowel harmonism also lost its relevance: within the limits of one syllable, sounds of heterogeneous articulation became possible ( forest- in 1 syllable soft consonant, front vowel and hard consonant). All this led to the spread of monosyllabic words in the Russian language (before the PR, mainly some conjunctions and prepositions). The loss of weak reds and the associated changes in the structure of the syllable led to the appearance in the DRY of new grammatical forms and new morphemes. "0 ending" - the form of the word is a pure stem as a result of the loss of the final weak b or b. Before PR, b and b were the endings of the forms I. p., units. hours of words m.r.: table, horse, words m. and f. R.: guest, bone. After the PR, “0 ending” appeared in these forms. But if forms with "0 ending" were only in words with b and b at the end, then the consequences of PR would not go beyond purely phonetic phenomena. Having arisen as a result of PR, new forms have become a grammatical phenomenon, that is, characterizing the morphological system of the PR, the forms of its inflection. The grammar elements consisting of one consonant also developed in the same way (before PR there were no morphemes from 1 consonant). Example: up to PR form 3 l., unit. and many others. hours of verbs present. temp. ended in [t], after the PR the ending was only [t ']. After PR, suffix morphemes appeared from some acc. Example: instead of DRY suf-owls - bsk-, -нн-, -bk-, arose - ck-, -n-, -to- (stick - stick). In the DNR, such morphemes are completely excluded.

Changes in the system of consonant phonemes due to the fall of the reduced ones. After the PR, the following processes took place: 1 . formation of phonemes f/f’. Previously met only in borrowings. After PR, there was a stunning i/v’ in abs. the end of a word (cro f') and before the next. deaf (morko f ka). The phonemes v/v’ have positional variants f/f’. The prerequisites for the emergence of independent phonemes f/f’ are being created. The process is supported by the presence of a sufficient number of borrowings with f/f’ in strong positions ( f araon). Until now, in dialects where there is no stunning in, in these positions, the replacement for hv, p. 2 . formation of correlation by ringing / deaf consonant. Before PR voiced and deaf acc. noun, but they did not form correlative rows, i.e., not noun positions, where the deaf were voiced, and the voiced were deafened. Excl.: s / s, because there was no red th in prefixes on -z. To PR PѧD - PѧT; ROG - ROCK. Deaf / ringing neutralization positions appeared: the end of the word, before the noisy acc. This meant that the deafness/ringing had become positionally conditioned quality. Instead of parallel rows, intersecting rows appeared: before PR<д>- [d],<т>- [t], after PR [d], [t]. POND - ROD, WATCH - WEDDING. After PR, the semantic role of this feature weakened. As a result of the emergence of correlation, a large number of homophones arose. 3 . formation of a correlation for hard / soft consonants. By the beginning of the written period, a secondary softening of the semi-soft ones occurred -> hard / soft pairs appeared. Up to PR soft acc. did not act as independent ones, because they did not play a semantic role. After the loss of the final red-th at the end of words, they began to be either hard or soft. acc. -> they became the only distinguishers of meaning in the position of the end of the word: BYL - WAS '(b). Hard / soft completely freed themselves from the influence of vowels, became independent phonemes. The hard/soft feature has strengthened its semantic role.

Changes in the system of vowel phonemes due to the drop of the reduced ones. After the PR, the number of vowels was reduced and the system was simplified. The phonemes b, b ceased to exist. There are 7 voices left. phonemes. Lost 1 of the different features - longitude (quantitative, quantitative). Phonemes have been merged<ы>and<и>in one. Their fate is connected with the categories hard / soft. 1 . At first, hardness and softness as a paired phenomenon were very limited. All hard could only get semi-soft. At that time<ы>and<и>are independent phonemes: soap - mil. 2 . To the beginning written period there was a secondary softening of the semi-soft. Couples appeared, but soft acc. not yet appeared. independent. Usually during this period, a whole syllable (syllabem) played a semantic role: soap - mil: the vowel no longer plays a decisive role, but acc. not yet acquired this role. Phonemes<ы>and<и>connection with acc., i.e., there is a dephonologization of the sign of a series of vowels, i.e., a weakening of the phonemic role. 3 . After PR soft acc. became independent phonemes -> precisely according to. began to play a leading role and began to determine the number of vowels (previously vice versa). Y and Y became allophones of the same phoneme<и>: [s], [and], since the sound [s] is more limited in its positions. It does not occur at the beginning of words, it is not used in isolation. By articulation, [s] is clearly different from [and], it can be pronounced in isolation -> its inclusive. in table. vowels. transformation<ы>, <и>in one phoneme has been observed in memory since the 12th century: the replacement of [and] with [s] after solid ones: LIFT -> LIFT, SHIT WITH IVAN -> WITH YVAN.

The fall of the reduced ones led to a radical restructuring of the entire sound system of the Old Russian language.

In the vowel system reduced number of vowels- b and b disappeared, and as a result of such a disappearance, the scope of the use of sounds o, e expanded. , day, lb, kusk, horse, all). (end 9 - beginning 11 cc 10 main phonemes, then [‘ä] merges with [a] and there are 9 of them, and at 12 in. With the fall of the reducer. and clearing them in a strong position vowel phonemes remain 7).

After the loss of the weak b and b, the law of the open syllable was violated. Closed syllables arose, uncharacteristic of the Old Russian language of the older period: in-s-l - in-sol, lo-d'-ka - boat-ka; w-s - all, s-sh-n - scary. However, it must be borne in mind that the general trend towards the openness of the syllable (the arrangement of sounds according to the degree of increasing sonority) has been preserved, and what is important, it has not lost its significance in the modern Russian language so far.

As a result of the fall of the reduced ones in the Russian language, new alternations of vowel sounds arose within different forms of the same word - the alternation of o, e with zero sound: sleep - sleep, rye - rye, lie - lie, piece - piece, day - day, dog - dog, stump - stump. This kind of alternation is called phonetic fluency on the grounds that the appearance of fluent sounds o, e is due to the clarification of ъ, ь in a strong position and their disappearance in a weak position.

From phonetic fluency should be distinguished fluency by analogy, or imitative fluency: ice - ice, stone - stone, moat - moat, ceiling - ceiling. In the words ice, stone, moat, ceiling, vowels o, e are primordial; in indirect cases (ice, stone, moat, ceiling) sounds o, e fall out by analogy with the genitive forms of sleep, day and the like.

The phenomena of grammatical analogy associated with the fall of the reduced b, b in the Old Russian language were numerous and varied.

In addition to phonetic fluency and fluency by analogy, one can distinguish fluency resulting from the appearance of syllables in sonorous consonants at the end of a word: vhtr - wind - wind, fire - fire - fire, sister - sister - sisters. This is due to the fact that the final reduced fell out in a weak position and native speakers were forced to articulate the final sonorant more clearly, as a result of which for some time they had a slight syllable. But since the syllabic sonorants were already lost at this stage of the development of the language, a vowel develops after the sonorants. Preference was usually given to [e], intercalated [o] was rare.

The fluency of the vowels o, e and in the modern Russian literary language is reflected.

The process of falling reduced caused great changes in the field of morphology.

Ticket number 14

Consequences of the fall of the reducer. in the vowel system.

The process of falling reducer. (in strong and weak positions) covered the entire territory of the distribution. DRY and ended in the middle of the 13th century. The fall of the reducer led to a radical restructuring of the entire sound. sys. DRY; this process also caused great changes in the field of morphology.

The most important changes are the following.

In the vowel system abbr. number of vowels - disappeared b, b. And as a consequence of this disappearance, the scope of use has expanded. sounds o, e. Compare: house, ice- oh, e here are primordial: dream, day, forehead, piece, end, whole(here o from b, e from b - sleep, day, lb, kusk, horse, up).

After the loss of weak b, b, the AIA was violated. There were closed syllables, uncharacteristic. for the DDA of the older period. Wed: after the fall: in sol, boat, whole, scary; before the fall: poso-l, lo-d-ka, vy-s, stra-sh-n. However, it should be borne in mind that the general trend towards the openness of the syllable (the arrangement of sounds according to the degree of age, sonority) was preserved, and, importantly, it has not lost its significance in the SRL so far.

Due to the fall of the reducer. in Russian lang. new alternations of vowel sounds arose within different forms of the same word - the alternation of o, e with zero sound: sleep - sleep, rye - rye, lies - lies, piece - piece, day - day, dog - dog, stump - stump. This kind of black. called phonetics. fluency on the grounds that the appearance of fluent sounds o, e is due to the clarification b, b strong and their disappearance in weak positions. From phonetic. fluency should be distinguished by analogy fluency, or imitative fluency: ice - ice, stone - stone, moat - moat, ceiling - ceiling. In words ice, stone, moat, ceiling vowels o, e are native; in cosv. in the same cases (ice, stone, moat, ceiling), the sounds o, e fall out by analogy with the forms of R.p. sleep, day and similar..

Phenomenon gram. analogies associated with the fall of ъ, ь in the DNR were numerous. and diversified The fluency of the vowels o, e and in SRLYA is reflected.

In a number of dialects of the DRY, in particular Galician-Volyn, in new closed. vowels o, e began to lengthen in syllables. So, oh changed in oh long, a e c e long, cat. began to be denoted in the monuments by the letter h and there was no special sign for the long o, they wrote two oo e.g.: stone - stone` (syllable closed, in it e became long stone", wrote stone; mother (V.p. later I.p), ma-thre, horse - kōn, koon; vol - vōl - vool.

In the future, emerged in new closures. syllables long o, e turned into i. This is yavl. still reflected in modern. Ukrainian lang.: kamin, kin, pitchfork, nis (nose), zahid (west), shist, nich, osin and similar. The process of transition from o to i, e to i, according to A.A. Potebnya, A.I. Sobolevsky and other linguists, passed through the stage of diphthongs. Yes, change ō the stages yo, ye, yi, yi have passed for a long time - finally i; ē - ie - i,

In modern Chernihiv dialects and now they pronounce kuon (horse), piech (furnace), shiest (six), which can serve as evidence of the presence of diphthongs in place of long o, e.

In Ukrainian monuments, cases of transition ē to i, o to i in new closures. reflection syllables. from the 12th century, but especially brightly in the 14th-17th centuries. Interestingly, in the same words, if the syllable was open, the transition e, o to i was not observed. Compare: pitchfork, but an ox, throw, but a horse, this, but seven, below - a knife. Alternating i from o or ē to closed. syllable with o, e in the open - this is a striking feature of the modern. Ukrainian lang.: style - table; dvir - yard, kin - horse, etc. Rus. and Belarusian. languages, such a transition of native o, e in new closed. syllables in i are not touched. This is a feature of Ukrainian lang.