How did the Russian language appear? Do we have a foreign

§ 34. The vast territory of the Kievan state with a diverse population in terms of economic, ethnic and cultural characteristics, united under the rule of Kiev, early began to show tendencies towards disintegration.

By the middle of the 11th century, and especially in the 12th century, the process of weakening Kyiv, on the one hand, and the process of strengthening and separating new political centers, on the other, led to the fact that Kyiv lost its leading role. The historical life of ancient Russia, unable to stay on its original territory, shifted to the north, northeast, northwest and west and began to concentrate around several new centers that no longer had an all-Russian, but a local significance. This intensified the feudal fragmentation of ancient Russia, which also led to certain changes in the language of the Old Russian people: the strengthening of feudal fragmentation meant, first of all, the deepening of dialect differences in the Old Russian language.

In written monuments of the 12th - early 13th centuries. a number of dialects of the Old Russian language are reflected. This was the period when the process of the fall of the reduced ones took place, common to all Eastern Slavs, but having different consequences, on the one hand, in the south, and on the other, in the rest of the territory (we are talking about the fate of the original [o] and [e] before the syllable with lost [ъ], [ь] and about the fate of combinations like [*trbt] with a reduced one in a weak position; see below).

Thus, even then the south and southwest of the Old Russian territory (Kiev, Galicia-Volyn and Turov-Pinsk lands) were opposed to the north and northeast. But in the north and northeast, everything was not the same in terms of dialect. On this territory, everywhere, except for the Smolensk and Polotsk lands, it developed (see § 131); in Smolensk and Polotsk, an early change of [e] into [e] took place (see § 131).

Apparently, the appearance of akanya in the Russian language belongs to the same era. All this testifies to the deepening of dialect differences, covering either wide or narrow territories, depending on economic, political and cultural associations.

In this era, the following dialects were distinguished: Novgorod - with [g] explosive formation, labial-tooth [c], clatter, [e] in place of [e], okan, with [b]; Pskov - also with [g] explosive, labial-tooth [c], clatter, okan, but with [e] in place of [e]; here the combinations [*tlj, [*dl] in the form [cl], [ch] were preserved, in place of [s], [h] and [w], [g] lisping consonants were pronounced; Smolensk - with [g] explosive, lip-labial [c], clatter, clatter, with [e] in place of [e], but without [b]; rostov o - suz dalsky - with [g] explosive, labial-tooth [c], with [e] in place of [e], with, with a clatter, but in the absence of a clatter; a dialect of the upper and middle Oka and the interfluve of the Oka and the Seim, characterized by akany, fricative formation [g], labial [c], without clatter, with [ё] and over a large area.

However, the closeness of the Russian dialects in the previous era did not lead in the new period of their history to their great divergence, to a complete violation of their unity. The linguistic community of the Old Russian people was preserved, because the development of dialect differences did not deeply affect the structure of the Russian language. The written monuments of the period under consideration, which clearly reflect dialectal features, are written in the same Old Russian language.

At the same time, at that time, certain phenomena had already developed in the language, which later became characteristic features of individual East Slavic languages. However, in this period it is still impossible to talk about the formation of these languages, since the corresponding socio-economic communities have not yet formed.

§ 35. By the XIV century. the feudal fragmentation of ancient Russia intensified, which led to a further isolation of the Russian dialects of northeastern Russia and southwestern and western Russia. However, at that time, another process was going on - the process of creating the Russian state in the northeast, in Rostov-Suzdal Rus.

During the period of the XIV-XV centuries. three separate East Slavic peoples are formed - Great Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. In the sharp separation of the dialects of the southwest and west, the fact that these territories of Russia were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania played a role.

So, although the trend towards the isolation of Old Russian dialects was outlined as early as the 12th century, it was still only in the era of the 14th-15th centuries. there is a formation of three East Slavic nationalities with their special languages.

§ 36. Speaking about the formation of three East Slavic languages, A. A. Shakhmatov put forward a hypothesis about the course of this process. Shakhmatov associated the formation of three separate languages ​​with the fate of the three groups of East Slavic tribes he singled out for an earlier period - North Russians, South Russians and East Russians. In his opinion, most of the South Russians formed the Ukrainian nationality and the Ukrainian language; the Belarusian language was formed partly by South Russians, partly by East Russians, as well as by the descendants of the Dregovichi and Radimichi; the Great Russian language was formed from the dialects of the Northern Russians and most of the Eastern Russians.

The fact that two different groups of tribal dialects played a role in the formation of the Great Russian language was reflected, according to Shakhmatov, in the presence of two dialects of the Great Russian language - northern and southern (transitional Middle Great Russian dialects testify to the convergence of these two dialects).

Putting forward this theory, A. A. Shakhmatov overlooked the fact that the languages ​​of the East Slavic peoples did not arise directly as a result of the development of tribal dialects - the three East Slavic languages ​​were formed as a result of the unification and development of territorial dialects of the era of feudal fragmentation under new historical conditions. Therefore, the composition of the Great Russian language included dialects of the Rostov-Suzdal land, Novgorod, Pskov, Ryazan lands, the so-called Verkhovsky principalities; the composition of the Belarusian language includes dialects of Smolensk and part of the Galician lands, etc.

§ 37. The movement of historical life from the south to the northeast, the concentration of the population in a new territory led to the creation of a large state in Rostov-Suzdal Rus.

Very soon, at the head of Rostov-Suzdal Rus, the Moscow principality, with its center in Moscow, became the base around which the Great Russian people were formed.

Evidence of the formation of the Great Russian nationality and its language on the basis of the unification of different dialects is the emergence throughout the territory of this nationality, without going beyond its borders, of linguistic neoplasms that are not characteristic of the languages ​​of the Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalities.

In the field of phonetics, such neoplasms were the change of weak [b] and [b] in combination with the previous smooth (type) in [o] and [e] and the development of [yi], [yts] in [oi], [s]; in the field of morphology - the loss of the vocative form, the replacement of whistling with back-lingual ones in the forms of declension (leg instead of nose), the development of the form of names. pad. pl. h. on -a (like a coast), the formation of imperative forms in -ite instead of -ѣte (like carry instead of carry), the appearance of imperative forms with [k], [g] in verbs in the back language (help

help instead). All these facts distinguish the Great Russian language and testify to the unity of the newly emerging nationality in the north-east of Russia.

§ 38. The language of the Great Russian people was structurally close to the modern Russian language: by this time there had already been a change [e] to ['o] and a functional unification of [i] and [s], a system of hard-soft and deaf-voiced consonants, the old system of past tenses was lost, some old types of declensions were combined, hard and soft variants of declensions were unified.

The core of the territory of the Great Russian nationality was dialectally united, but its gradual expansion increased the dialect diversity both at the expense of the North Great Russian and South Great Russian dialects. Both gradually begin to become dialects of the Great Russian language. Thus, the national Russian language now appears in its local varieties. In business writing, the Rostov-Suzdal dialect, which included the Moscow dialect, is especially reflected; other dialects begin to concentrate around this dialect. But the local dialects continue to develop in connection with the feudal regional tendencies that have not yet been eliminated. Thus, to the south of Moscow, the Tula Territory stands out from the Akaya territory, the dialects of which develop under the influence of Moscow, while the Ryazan Territory is less subject to such influence. However, the Ryazan dialects were also heterogeneous: the dialects of the south more retain the S.E.R. features than the dialects of the north; there is an interaction with the Finno-Ugric dialects, the speakers of which live in the Ryazan territory. In the west, the Kursk-Oryol land, located between Russia and Lithuania, was influenced by the latter, and when this territory fell into the XIV century. into the composition of Lithuania, it did not develop linguistic neoplasms of the south at all.

In the XIV-XV centuries. Smolensk dialect stands out, S.-E.-r. by nature, with Belarusian features.

In Moscow and to the north of it there were round dialects. Such were the Pskov dialect, which only later became Middle Great Russian; an extensive Novgorod dialect that developed differently on its territory: Vologda-Vyatka, Arkhangelsk, Pomeranian, Olonets dialects began to differ here, developing the features that are characteristic of them now, as well as Novgorod proper, which came under the influence of Moscow in connection with the renewal of the population from the center.

The Rostov-Suzdal dialect is also distinguished, in the dialects of which neoformations begin to develop in this era, bringing them closer to the south-east-r. dialects; their descendants are the Vladimir-Volga dialects. Finally, in the XIV-XVI centuries. at the junction of the s.-v.-r. and S.-E.-R. dialects, transitional Middle Great Russian dialects are formed.

Russian is one of the East Slavic languages, along with Ukrainian and Belarusian. It is the most widely spoken Slavic language and one of the most widely spoken languages ​​in the world in terms of the number of people who speak it and consider it their mother tongue.

In turn, the Slavic languages ​​belong to the Balto-Slavic branch of the Indo-European language family. Thus, in order to answer the question: where did the Russian language come from, you need to make an excursion into ancient times.

Origin of the Indo-European languages

About 6 thousand years ago there lived a people who are considered to be the carriers of the Proto-Indo-European language. Where he lived exactly is today the subject of fierce debate among historians and linguists. The steppes of Eastern Europe and Asia Minor, and the territory on the border between Europe and Asia, and the Armenian Highlands are called the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans. In the early 80s of the last century, linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov formulated the idea of ​​two ancestral homes: first there was the Armenian Highlands, and then the Indo-Europeans moved to the Black Sea steppes. Archaeologically, the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language are correlated with representatives of the “pit culture”, who lived in the east of Ukraine and on the territory of modern Russia in the 3rd millennium BC.

Isolation of the Balto-Slavic branch

Subsequently, the Proto-Indo-Europeans settled throughout Asia and Europe, mixed with the local peoples and gave them their own language. In Europe, the languages ​​of the Indo-European family are spoken by almost all peoples, except for the Basques; in Asia, various languages ​​​​of this family are spoken in India and Iran. Tajikistan, Pamir, etc. About 2 thousand years ago, the Proto-Balto-Slavic language emerged from the common Proto-Indo-European language. The Proto-Baltoslavs existed as a single people speaking the same language, according to a number of linguists (including Ler-Splavinsky) for about 500-600 years, and this period in the history of our peoples corresponds to the archaeological culture of Corded Ware. Then the language branch divided again: into the Baltic group, which henceforth began to live an independent life, and the Proto-Slavic, which became the common root from which all modern Slavic languages ​​originated.

Old Russian language

All-Slavic unity persisted until the 6th-7th century AD. When carriers of East Slavic dialects stood out from the common Slavic array, the Old Russian language began to form, which became the ancestor of modern Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian languages. The Old Russian language is known to us thanks to numerous monuments written in the Church Slavonic language, which can be considered as a written, literary form of the Old Russian language. In addition, written monuments have survived - birch bark letters, graffiti on the walls of temples - written in everyday, colloquial Old Russian.

Old Russian period

The Old Russian (or Great Russian) period covers the time from the 14th to the 17th centuries. At this time, the Russian language finally stands out from the group of East Slavic languages, phonetic and grammatical systems close to modern ones are formed in it, other changes take place, including dialects. The leading among them is the “aking” dialect of the upper and middle Oka, and, first of all, the Moscow dialect.

Modern Russian

The Russian language we speak today began to take shape in the 17th century. It is based on the Moscow dialect. The literary works of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky, Sumarokov played a decisive role in the formation of the modern Russian language. Lomonosov also wrote the first grammar, fixing the norms of the literary Russian language. All the richness of the Russian language, which has developed from the synthesis of Russian colloquial, Church Slavonic elements, borrowings from other languages, is reflected in the works of Pushkin, who is considered the creator of the modern Russian literary language.

Borrowings from other languages

Over the centuries of its existence, the Russian language, like any other living and developing system, has been repeatedly enriched by borrowings from other languages. The earliest borrowings include "Baltisms" - borrowings from the Baltic languages. However, in this case, we are probably not talking about borrowings, but about vocabulary that has been preserved from the time when the Slavic-Baltic community existed. The “Balticisms” include such words as “ladle”, “tow”, “stack”, “amber”, “village”, etc. During the period of Christianization, "Grecisms" - "sugar", "bench" entered our language. "lantern", "notebook", etc. Through contacts with European peoples, “Latinisms” entered the Russian language - “doctor”, “medicine”, “rose” and “Arabisms” - “admiral”, “coffee”, “lacquer”, “mattress”, etc. . A large group of words entered our language from the Turkic languages. These are words such as “hearth”, “tent”, “hero”, “cart”, etc. And, finally, since the time of Peter I, the Russian language has absorbed words from European languages. At first, this is a large layer of words from German, English and Dutch related to science, technology, maritime and military affairs: “ammunition”, “globe”, “assembly”, “optics”, “pilot”, “sailor”, “deserter ". Later, French, Italian and Spanish words related to household items, the field of art settled in Russian - “stained-glass window”, “veil”, “couch”, “boudoir”, “ballet”, “actor”, “poster”, “pasta” ”, “Serenade”, etc. And finally, these days we are experiencing a new influx of borrowings, this time from English, in the main language.

The linguistic problem has undergone the strongest mythologization in modern Ukraine. Speculating on almost a century of perversion of our philological ideas, many of the modern activists of the "pro-Rukh" and separat-nomenklatura political spectrums of Southern Russia are now spewing fiery philippics at one of the literary forms that are local in their origin.

With the filing of these forces, the snobbish majority of the former Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine fixed the 10th article of the Constitution of our state in a linguistically incorrect textual form.

In the world scientific philological environment, fairly stable criteria for determining dialect varieties within the same language, as well as purely interlingual differences, have been worked out. The first of these philological phenomena are those whose comparative linguistic "pedigree" is less than a thousand years old. That is, when the single language-base (on the eve of its branching into dialects) of the dialects under study is no more than ten centuries old. If the beginning of such linguistic differentiation is from 1000 to 2000 years old, then much in the characterization of this philological phenomenon depends on certain ethnological, state, and purely local linguistic traditions.

At the time of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Herodotus (middle of the 5th century BC), all ancient Greek dialects were called dialects 1. This concept was then characterized by a different level of relationship between the Hellenic dialects. Dialects were called, for example, close to each other Ionian "Homeric"-Asia Minor and Attic dialects. Modern linguists understand this! The linguistic commonality of Ionian dialects among themselves is approximately a little older than the era of the Trojan War and falls somewhere in the middle. II millennium BC e. Thus, the affinity of the literary language forms of Herodotus ("Homeric" branch) and Sophocles (Attic) is less than 1000 years old. If, of course, chronologically focus on the 5th century BC. e. The more distant linguistic proximity of the Ionian dialects as a whole (including both classical literary forms of this group - Attic and "Homeric") with other Eastern Greek "bundles" of dialects: Aeolian and Achaean-Cypriot-Pamphylian - was also determined by the ancient Hellenic by the public as a "dialect".

The common proto-language of all these three linguistic branches (according to the "genealogical tree" of philology) began to disintegrate somewhere in the beginning. II millennium BC e. This happened, most likely, immediately after the appearance of the so-called. "Eastern" Hellenes on the territory of present-day Greece. From the point of view of modern philological (and social) ideas, these are already (in most cases of the New Time) interlingual (for they are 1500 years old) differences. In addition, almost "two thousand years-related" (to the Ionians, Aeolians and Achaeans) the Dorian dialect was also called (in the "Pericles" era) a dialect. A simple Athenian peasant almost did not understand him (like other Western Greek dialects). The "1.5-thousand-year-old related" Aeolian and Achaean "dialects" were also taken very hard by an ordinary resident of Attica (if he was not yet a more or less regular regular in the capital's Theatre). Only other Ionian dialects close to a simple Athenian (including their "Homeric-Herodotus" literary form) did not require an interpreter for him.

The relationship (according to the data of the same "family tree" of comparative linguistics) of modern groups of Belarusian, Ukrainian and Great Russian dialects, we note, is a little closer (about 600 - 800 years) to each other 2 than "almost identical" (according to intellectuals, etc.) n of the "classical era" of Hellas) Attic-"dramatic" and "literary-prose" Ionian dialects of the Greek language among themselves.

Part of the entire linguistic "mosaic" of the south of the Balkan Peninsula (in the 5th century BC) that we previously considered also had normative literary forms. Among them is the above-mentioned Ionian-"Homeric-Herodotian" one. In addition, another written Ionian norm, the Attic "Aeschylus-Aristophanes" dialect, also acquired significant distribution. Also popular were the Aeolian-lesbian ("Sapphic"), Dorian-"laconic", some. other documented varieties of the then Hellenic speech.

Slightly different criteria in the so-called. Gallo-Romance philology 3. Norman, Parisian-Picardian, Burgundian and other northern French dialects (the branching of which is slightly more than 1000 years old) are treated as dialects. More distant from the latter, the Provencal-Gasconian dialects are grouped by specialists into a separate language ("Languedoc") 4. Remoteness (on the "genealogical tree" of comparative linguistics) of the latter with northern French 5 is about 15 centuries.

On the other hand, "dialects" of a very old affinity, previously familiar among philologists, have been renamed into languages ​​by modern linguists. These, among others, are now called (albeit "non-written") a number of Kartvelian groups of dialects (Svan, Chan, Megrelian and some East Georgian), the branching of which with the literary norm of Shota Rustaveli and Queen Tamara is somewhere in the range of 1.5 - 5 thousand years 6.

In Western Europe, there are no cases of the existence of official languages ​​that would be close (on the linguistic-comparative "family tree") to each other for less than 10 centuries. With the exception of one "collision" - the Flemish and Dutch dialects of the 7th western "wing" of the Middle German dialect group!

Due to various kinds of geopolitical and interfaith-religious vicissitudes, the Dutch ended up in different states - Holland and Belgium. For some time, the closely related West-Middle German literary forms of both countries were considered separate languages. They were called - Dutch and Flemish, respectively. In recent times, common sense has taken its toll. The Dutch and Flemish forms of the single Dutch language are now officially recognized.

Characteristic in this regard is the inter-dialectal situation among our neighbors, the Poles. etc. just like our Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian "languages" among themselves. In Poland, the main dialect branching of its main ethnographic groups in time is similar to the timing of the differentiation of the "Russians" - somewhere within 600 - 800 years. The linguistic differences of the Pomeranian Kashubians from the totality of other Lechitic dialects reach about 11 - 13 centuries. Exactly the same linguistic paradox is observed in our country 9. Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian literary and business forms, as well as their various dialects (and Koine!) According to comparative linguistics, are closer to each other than they are all together - to the autochthonous dialects of "Rusnak" "Transcarpathia.

If not as a separate philological phenomenon, then maybe as a regional norm - the "Moscow" dialect is alien to Ukraine? Let's analyze this problem in retrospect.

The branching of the Old Russian language began in the end. 12th century barely noticeable phonetic discrepancies 10. Academician B. A. Rybakov showed this circumstance well in contrasting various parts of the Kievan Chronicle, some of which were written in Belgorod-on-Irpen (modern Belgorod) at the court of the Grand Duke-co-ruler Rurik Rostislavich, others in the capital itself, where another "duumvir" Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich "sat on the table". The best pages of this chronicle came from the pen of the most likely author of another masterpiece ("The Tale of Igor's Campaign") - the boyar Pyotr Borislavich. The latter also had (in both of his works) the features of the then Kievan all-Russian "Koine" (transitional between 2 or more linguistically close dialects of the colloquial form). This "synthesized" dialect already then acquired its historical significance. It became a rather monolithic retinue-princely administrative language norm 11. This linguistic form spread even before 1200 to all the then appanage centers.

"Belgorodkovsky" pages of the "Kyiv Chronicle" con. 12th century somewhat different. phonetic "Ukrainisms", which reflects the features of the common Russian language of the capital principality, as opposed to the dialect of the then East Slavic metropolis itself. The dialect of the latter in that era had already spread in Chernigov, and in Polotsk, and in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, and in Rostov the Great and other dynastic destinies of the Rurikovichs 12. the "foundation" of the later main linguistic (according to the comparative linguistic "family tree") branching of the Russians.

The further fate of the capital "Koine" had its continuation already on the Suzdal 13, Novgorod, Smolensk, Kursk-Bryansk and Ryazan "grounds". Formed during the 13th - 16th centuries. so-called. "Kiev-Moscow business language" 14, which finally assimilates the remnants of the northern East Slavic (Vyatichi, Krivichi, Slovenian-Ilmen) dialects, gradually transforming them into their own dialects. Thus, the modern so-called. "Great Russian language" is the direct successor of the Kyiv Old Russian dialect. The latter developed, in the final analysis, precisely from the Middle Dnieper, the more ancient Polyano-Russian East Slavic "linguistic bunch", and not the colloquial speech of the Krivichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi and Slovenes of Novgorod. As, however, and in addition to the dialectal features of the Dregovichi, Volhynians, White Croats, Tivertsy, streets and northerners.

This is evidenced by the "Lay of Igor's Campaign"!

The fact that this masterpiece was written in Kyiv is not in doubt among any serious specialist. Of all the modern East Slavic dialects, the so-called. "Russian language" - is most similar to the word-forming manner of the author of "Words..." 15.

Complete ignorance (or a gross hoax) is today's clumsy attempts by some in Ukraine to "deduce" modern Great Russian dialects from the Church Slavonic language. The last one was in the 19th century. according to grammatical features, they were distributed into the South Slavic linguistic subgroup of the classics of German linguistics 16. Lexical Church Slavonic borrowings are found in approximately the same number in both Ukrainian and Russian dialects.

In Kyiv itself, in 1240, the functioning of the all-Russian "Koine" ceased as a result of the almost complete extermination of the population of the capital by Batu. The newly settled inhabitants of the former East Slavic metropolis already spoke with "Belgorodkovskaya" features. Later (14th - 18th centuries) this dialect turned into a kind of southern Russian language zone. One of the representatives of the latter was the Poltava dialect, on the foundation of which I.P. Kotlyarevsky built the modern Ukrainian literary form Russian norm. This great Poltava resident brilliantly used the "Great Russian" literary dialect to process Ukrainian folklore and epos ("Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka", "Mirgorod").

And whether throughout the territory of modern. Powers Ukraine Southern Russian dialects (in comparison with other Eastern Slavic) autochthonous?

Not! In Kyiv itself, the first decades (in the 12th and 13th centuries) of the "separate" existence of the Russian dialect passed. T. n. "Russification" of the Mother of Russian Cities in the 1860s - 90s. - testifies only to the return here of a descendant of the Kyiv dialect. In the Kharkiv region, Luhansk region and in the northern Donetsk region, the speakers of the Russian dialect appeared at the end of the 15th century, and the southern Russian later - in the 1630s - 1710s. It is here that the "Muscovites" are great natives. In addition, the colonization of the conquered (because these lands were related to the early stages of our common ethnogenesis) Taurian steppes by the Eastern Slavs was carried out mainly by 2 ethnographic streams. The Black Sea military-diplomatic "reconquista" of A. V. Suvorov, P. A. Rumyantsev, Gr. A. Potemkin, Catherine II and A. A. Bezborodko led to mass rural (and urban) migration from Ukraine and Central Russia, at the same time.

Some modern "unfortunate paleoethnologists from Rukh" are trying to prove some kind of Ukrainian-Crimean Tatar "idyll" in the then steppes of the North. Black Sea region. But this is speculation "from the ceiling"! Pripontida was inhabited (with the exception of the territory of some Zaporizhzhya palankas and Donchak yurts) from the beginning. 17th century and before the last thurs. On the 18th - 20 Nogais, relatively formally dependent on Bakhchisaray!

Thus, the Russian "Rusichs" are great autochthons (than Ukrainians) of Slobozhanshchina and sowing. Donbass. The same degree of "nativeness" is characteristic of both main East Slavic branches in relation to modern Odessa, Kherson, Crimean Autonomy, Mykolaiv, parts of the Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions. The same "dualism" of the heritage of Ukrainians and Russians is also characteristic of Kyiv. The modern capital of Ukraine is territorially much larger than the location of the ancient Mother of Russian Cities. Today's Kyiv includes not only the "settlement" of the metropolis of Yaroslav the Wise and Peter Borislavich, but also a number of "Belgorod"-lingual suburbs of that era. And in general, our "East Slavic Rome" is the "parental home" of any kind of Russian speech, any "Rusich".

On the other hand, the Ukrainian dialect is relatively more autochthonous for the Kuban. Many areas of the east and south of the current "Erephia" are also (like Taurida) in terms of the ratio of speakers of the main Russian language branches - "co-aboriginal". One of these Russian-Ukrainian "synthesis" (the land of the Sunzha Cossacks) has already ceased (we hope that temporarily) its existence 21. During 1991 - 1994. (again in 1996 - 1997) destroyed the so-called. "Ichkerians".

From everything previously analyzed, the language policy of the modern Ministry of Education of Ukraine, which proclaimed the Kiev-Moscow literary form - an "optional" foreign one, seems criminal. The younger generations are weaned off (the "Russian language" is not studied in 90% of Kyiv schools) from the "lion's" share of national culture. Children are deprived of the opportunity to know one of our own literary forms and precisely the one that is one of the official ones in the UN. Schools do not study the work of (domestic) northern and eastern Russian writers and other cultural figures. The "Russian-speaking" achievements of Ukrainian authors are distorted (by clumsy and tendentious translations "from one dialect to another") - Gr. S. Skovoroda, N. V. Gogol (this great Poltava resident was generally against the "cultivation" of the literary form of the dialect of his own locality), V. G. Korolenko, T. G. Shevchenko's prose, and the works of many other South Russian creators. The pro-"Rukhovsky" "Smerdyakovshchina" believes that with its short-sighted cultural and linguistic policy, it strengthens some local ethnographic positions. In fact, the "independents" are destroying them, clearing the linguistic colonization space for foreign influences. First of all - English-speaking and cosmopolitanized. In order to preserve self-identity, it is necessary, first of all, to cultivate both the most widespread literary forms of the native language in the land of Rus-Ukraine in secondary and higher schools. Both "Lomonosov-Karamzinovskaya", and "Kotlyarevskaya".

A similar situation takes place in modern India 22. The late medieval Delhi dialect ("Khari Boli") of the Western Hindustani group of dialects has 2 current literary forms: Urdu and Hindi. Both of them are official in the "Republic of Bharat" and "relatives" in the education system of this state.

The "mono-lingualism" of the 2 most common modern Russian literary norms is indirectly recognized by the West. In 1992 in Kyiv, Kharkov, Lvov and our other large cities near some. universities, dozens of foreign students appeared - "C grade" Russianists. They decided to learn (and "pass") the Ukrainian literary form as a 2nd Slavic language (according to their learning processes). However, all the philological departments (where these unfortunate Slavists hoped to "push" their academic obligations) did not count this subject for them. This entire group of "triple" Russianists was forced to relearn (from Ukrainian) either into Polish, or Bulgarian, or Czech (or some other Slavic) language. Since 1993, this "philological pilgrimage" to Ukraine has ceased. Western linguists do not recognize the Poltava literary norm as a separate (from Russian) Slavic language. The scientific conscientiousness of the luminaries of the philology of "Abendland" is still higher than the current politicking.

Academy of Sciences of the Russian Empire at the beginning. 20th century repeatedly discussed the problem of correlation between Ukrainian and Russian literary forms. However, the very formulation of the linguistic question under consideration at these meetings was somewhat incorrectly done - language or dialect!

At the household (and journalistic) level, some are acceptable. simplification. For the usual social propaganda "niche" - the wording "language" in relation to Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian literary East Slavic norms is acceptable. The text of the Constitution should have been dominated (in an accessible form) by scientifically verified vocabulary. Article 10 of our Basic Law should be replaced. From the point of view of modern linguistics, it would have been better like this: "Holding mob in Ukrainian є Ruska Mova (in the" Ukrainian Litherane Formi) power of the power of the il functions. Ukraine... ". Further according to the text edited in 1996 by the Verkhovna Rada.

However, this wording (as we see from all of the above) does not reflect today's Ukrainian realities in this textually scientifically verified form. It is not historically justified either. The Verkhovna Rada of the new convocation will have to amend, among some points of our Constitution, this (tenth) article of it.

1. Radtsig S. I. History of ancient Greek literature. - M., 1982, p. 18 - 26, 74 - 76, 160 - 176, 201 - 202, 242 - 244, 271 - 272, 305 - 307; Shkurov V. A. The history of the formation of the Hellenistic koine // Moznavstvo. -- K., 1996, N 1, p. 58 -- 63.

2. Zhovtobryuh M. A., Rusanivsky V. M., Sklyarenko V. G. History of Ukrainian language. Phonetics. - K., 1979, p.23, 40.

3. Gak V. G. French language// Great Soviet Encyclopedia (BSE). 3rd ed. T.28. - M., 1978, p. 214 - 215; Sluka A.E. The French // TSB. 3rd ed. T.28..., p.215 - 217.

4. Katagoshchina N. A. Provencal language// TSB. 3rd ed. T.21. - M., 1975, p.9.

5. Gurycheva M. S., Katagoshchina N. A. Comparative grammar of Romance languages. Gallo-Romance subgroup. - M., 1964, p. 3 - 29.

6. Militarev A. Yu. How young we were 12 thousand years ago?! // Knowledge is power. - M., 1989, 3, p.49.

7. Mironov S. A. The Dutch language// TSB. 2nd ed. T.11. - M., 1952, pp. 602 - 603.

9. Dzendzelevsky Y.A. Linguistic atlas of Ukrainian folk dialects in the Transcarpathian region of the Ukrainian SSR. Part 1 - 2. - Uzhgorod, 1958 - 1960; Dzendzelevsky I.A. Transcarpathian dialects // Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia. T.4. - K., 1980, p.72.

11. Mavrodin VV Ancient Russia. - L., 1946, p. 306 - 307.

12. Tolochko P. P. Ancient Russia. - K., 1987, pp. 186 - 187.

13. Abakumov O.V. Three Pereyaslavs - migration and analogy of the establishment of oikonyms / / Moznavstvo. - K., 1996, 2-3, pp. 27 - 32.

14. Filin F. P. Russian language // TSB. 3rd ed. T.22. - M., 1975, p. 410.

15. Kirilets L. M., Nimchuk V. V., Rilsky M. T., Rilenkov M. I., Lutsevich I. D. (Yanka Kupala) A word about Igor's departure. T.1 - 2. - K., 1982.

16. Korolyuk V. D. Slavic studies// TSB. 3rd ed. T.23. - M., 1976, p.547.

17. Yatsenko M. T. Ivan Kotlyarevsky // Library of Ukrainian Literature. I. Kotlyarevsky. - K., 1982, pp. 30 - 31.

18. Krutikova N.Y. Gogol // Shevchenkiv dictionary. T.1 - K., 1976, p.160.

19. Abakumov O.V. The study of the Antian dialect of the literal spilnopraslov`yanskoy movnoy unity behind the synthesis of linguistic and archaeological records // Onomastics of Ukraine I ths. n. e. - K., 1992, pp. 18 - 26.

20. Panashchenko V. V. Reflection of the aggression of the Turkish and Crimean feudal lords / / History of the Ukrainian SSR. T.3. - K., 1983, pp. 96 - 97.

21.Abakumov A.V. North Caucasus//Economic newspaper (Development). - M., 1997, 27, p.7.

22. Barkhudarov A. S. Hindi// TSB. 3rd ed. T.28. - M., 1978, p.286. Barkhudarov A.S. Hindustani // TSB. 3rd ed. T.28. - M., 1978, p.287.

Old Russian language after the 14th century. divided into three independent East Slavic languages. Since that time, one can already speak of Russian proper, or Great Russian, a language that differs not only from the languages ​​of the southern and western Slavs, but also from the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages ​​closest to it. Thus, the structure of the modern Russian language has developed from phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical elements dating back to different eras of its history - the Old Russian language, the language of the Great Russian people and the language of the Russian nation.

The difference between the Russian language and the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages ​​lies in the specific features of its system, mainly in phonetics and morphology.

In phonetics, such features are:

• “ro”, “lo” and “re”, “le” in the roots of words between consonants with “ry”, “ly” and “ri”, “li” in Ukrainian and Belarusian languages ​​(Russian “crush”; Ukrainian. “shine”, Belarusian “roof”);
• pronunciation of combinations of soft dental and hissing with j for long soft consonants in Ukrainian. and Belarusian languages ​​(Russian “dress”, Ukrainian “dress”, Belarusian “plazza”);
• explosive or fricative "g" with pharyngeal h in Ukrainian. and white languages ​​(Russian “city”, Ukrainian “horod”, Belarusian “horad”), etc.

In morphology, such features are:

• the absence of a special vocative form in the presence of it in Ukrainian. and Belor: Rus. "brother!", Ukrainian "Brother!", Belarusian. "brother!")
• the absence of alternation of "k", "g", "x", with "c", "h", "s" in the case forms of nouns if it is present in Ukrainian. and Belarusian;
• wide distribution of forms Im.p. plural endings -а(-я) under stress in nouns do not cf. in his absence in Ukrainian. and Belarusian (Russian “houses”, Ukrainian “houses”, Belarusian “ladies”), etc.

Significant features in the vocabulary as the most mobile and subject to external influences of the language area.

Dialect

- a kind of language that is characterized by the relative unity of the system (phonetic, grammatical, lexical) and is used as a means of direct communication in a team located in a certain limited area. The dialect is part of a broader language formation, opposed to other parts of this whole, other dialects, and has common features with them.

Dialects and dialects of the Russian language are combined into dialects: Northern Great Russian (the most typical feature of Okane) and South Great Russian (Akanye), between which the Middle Great Russian dialects stretch in a narrow strip from northwest to southeast (Pskov - Kalinin - Moscow - Penza - Saratov), ​​forming transition between two adverbs. Transitional dialects for the most part have a northern basis, on which later (after the 14th century) southern Russian features were layered. To the north and east of the transitional dialects is the Northern Great Russian dialect, which occupies all the northern and eastern regions of the European part of the USSR, as well as the Urals and most of Siberia. The South Great Russian dialect covers the southern part of the RSFSR. The border with the Ukrainian language is quite clear, on the border with the Belarusian language we find transitional South Great Russian and Middle Great Russian dialects.

• The Northern Great Russian dialect is characterized by three main features that are common to all its dialects: Okaniye, i.e. the difference between the vowels a and o not only under stress, but also in unstressed syllables, the presence of explosive g and -t (solid) at the end of the 3rd person of the present tense of verbs. In a number of dialects of this dialect, there are also clattering and clattering (not distinguishing q and h), the loss of j between vowels and the subsequent contraction of vowels, the change of solid l into y in a non-syllabic in a closed syllable, the use of an agreed postpositive particle: hour - from passed, to autumn -tu, etc. they distinguish the Pomor, Olonets, Novgorod, Vologda-Kirov and Vladimir-Volga groups of dialects.
• The South Great Russian dialect is characterized by akanye, the presence of fricative g and -t, (soft) in the 3rd person of verbs. The basis of the subdivisions of the Youth Great Russian dialects is the character of yakanya, i.e. vowel changes in the first pre-stressed syllable after soft consonants. A strong yak is characterized by the fact that in the first pre-stressed syllable in the position after the soft consonant in place e, o, a is always a, no matter what sounds are nearby: [b.ada, n, asu, n, asi, l, at, ate, in, hell, om, d, ar, evn, a]. It characterizes the Ryazan group of dialects. In the literary language, in this case, hiccups are represented. Moderate yakan is characterized by the dependence of the vowel of the first pre-stressed syllable on the quality of the consonant following this vowel, namely on its hardness or softness. In the event that this consonant is hard, in place of e, o, and in the first pre-stressed syllable after the soft consonant is a, if it is a soft consonant - and or e: [b, hell, c, asna, c, hell] , but [in, id, and, n, is, and] (commandative incl.) or [in, units, and, n, es, and]. It characterizes the Tula group. Dissimilative yakan is characterized by the dependence of the vowel of the first pre-stressed syllable on the quality of the vowel of the stressed syllable. At the same time, there is a peculiar dissimilarity, dissimilation of the vowels of the stressed and first pre-stressed syllable from the point of view of the rise. After a soft consonant in the first pre-stressed syllable, a (lower vowel) appears only if the upper vowel is stressed - and, s, y; if the vowels a (lower rise) are under stress, then in the pre-stressed syllable the vowels of the middle or upper rise are - and or e: [in, hell, color, ata, n, asu, n, as, and], but [in, ila ] (or [c, ela]), [n, isla] (or [n, if]), [b, ida, s, iml, a]. It characterizes the Orlov group.
• Middle Great Russian dialects are characterized by akanye, the presence of the explosive g and -t (solid) in the 3rd person of verbs, i.e. combine the features of both dialects. A distinctive feature of the Russian language is, therefore, its relatively weak dialect fragmentation.

The formation of the Great Russian nationality was closely connected with the formation of a centralized Russian state around Moscow, which acted as the unifier of all Russian lands. With the annexation of Novgorod and Pskov to the Moscow state, the state unification of the northeastern and northern Russian regions was completed. However, by the end of the 15th c. Russia is finally freed from the Mongol-Tatar yoke. In 14-16 centuries. there is an intensive development of Russian culture and writing. A large number of original works are being created, and translations from various languages ​​are widely practiced. In the middle of the 16th century Ivan Fedorov publishes the first dated printed book "The Apostle" (1563) in Moscow.

The language of the Great Russian people, the main elements of which date back to the Old Russian language, had a different dialectal basis. It was formed on the basis of the ancient Moscow dialect. In turn, the Moscow dialect, which originally belonged to the Northern Great Russian dialect, over the following centuries, under the influence of the Southern Great Russian dialect, evolved into a dialect of the Middle Great Russian type with a moderate acane. From the previous era, Moscow adopted the solemn bookish and official business styles of the literary language of Kievan Rus. However, to characterize the language of the Great Russian people, the letters of the Moscow princes of the 14th-15th centuries are of greater importance, in which the formation of the official-business (state) language of that time is traced. An analysis of Moscow writing allows us to conclude that from the end of the 14th century. the Moscow dialect becomes aka, the stress differs b and e, there are significant changes in the grammatical system, which largely determined the appearance of the modern Russian language. By the end of the 15th century the dual number is finally out of use, the vocative form is lost, the case forms of nouns are lost with alternating back palatine and whistling consonant stems, the nominative plural form of the stem on -o- masculine is replaced by the form of the accusative plural, in the dative - instrumental - local plural cases the numbers of all genera extend the stem endings to a: -am, -ami, -ah. By this time, the process of formation of four productive types of nominal declension and unification of their case forms is being completed; as a result of the interaction of soft and hard varieties of declension, the latter wins; stems into consonants are destroyed and combined with other, productive types of declension. In adjectives, generic forms in the plural disappear, the reflexive particle -sya joins the verb, the ending -t (solid) is approved in the 3rd person singular and plural, the ancient perfect is replaced by the simple past tense, etc. A specifically Russian layer of vocabulary is formed in the vocabulary: peasants, nobles, master, boyar, butler, clerk, petition, Kremlin, ax, village, money, ruble, mill, pond, arable land, robber, rumor, letter, tax, treasury, carpet , altyn, bondage, etc.

In the 16-17 centuries. the norms of the Moscow business language are becoming widespread. The introduction of book printing was the most significant event that eliminated dialect features and led to the creation of common literary and linguistic norms for the entire Muscovite state. As a result, the same changes took place in the literary language of the Russian people as in the common Russian language.

When studying historical and linguistic issues; associated with the second South Slavic influence, it is necessary to proceed from a detailed comparison of Russian written monuments of the late XIV-XV centuries. with South Slavic lists of them, which were brought to Russia from Bulgaria and Serbia in these centuries. Let us therefore turn to such aspects of written monuments as paleography, spelling, language and style.

Tangible shifts occur at the end of the XIV century. in Russian paleography. In the XI-XIII centuries. the only form of writing was the charter, with its distinct, free-standing, large letters. In the first half of the XIV century. along with this, an older semi-ustav appears, a letter simpler, but approaching the statute. By the end of the XIV century. the older semi-ustav is replaced by a younger one, close in style to a fluent italic. The nature of the external design of manuscripts is changing. In the Kyiv era, the “animal (teratological)” ornament dominates, from the end of the 14th century. it disappears and a floral or geometric ornament appears in its place. In the miniatures of manuscripts, gold and silver begin to predominate. A ligature appears - a complex continuous spelling of letters and words, which is ornamental in nature. There is such a characteristic detail in the design of manuscripts as a “funnel”, i.e., a gradual narrowing of the lines towards the end of the manuscript, ending with a mean sharp drawing. The styles of the letters e, y, b (s) change, the letter “zelo” appears, which until then only denoted the number 6. All this makes it possible at first glance to distinguish the manuscript, which was subjected to the second South Slavic influence, from the lists of the previous pore.

There is a kind of spelling fashion. During this period, the letter “big yus” was again introduced into active use, already from the 12th century. completely ousted from Russian written monuments. Since there were no nasal vowels in living Russian pronunciation for a long time, this letter began to be used not only in those words where it was etymologically justified, for example, in the word rVka, but also in the word dVsha, where it replaced the etymologically correct spelling ou. In the XIV-XV centuries. the use of the letter “big yus” can be seen as a purely outward imitation of an ingrained Bulgarian spelling fashion. Under the influence of Bulgarian writing, the spelling of the vowel I without iotation appears, in the form a after the vowels: moa (vm. mine), svoa, salvation, etc. This spelling penetrates into the title of the Moscow sovereign - all Russia - where it is retained until the XVII in.

Under the influence of the Middle Bulgarian spelling, the outline of consonants reduced after smooth ones is established in accordance with their common Slavic syllabic character, although such a pronunciation never took place in Russian (for example: vlk, vrah, prst, right, etc.), which is widely reflected in spelling such a monument as "The Tale of Igor's Campaign". There is a desire for spelling convergence with the original Greek borrowings. So the word angel (Greek) aggeloj), which was written in the Kievan era in accordance with the Russian pronunciation - angel, is now written in Greek with a "double scale": aggel. At the same time, the scribes came up with a justification for the graphic differences: the word written under the title meant the actual angel, the spirit of good, while the word without the title was pronounced, as it was written, aggel and was understood as the designation of the spirit of evil, the demon: “to the devil and his aggel”.

Probably, the development by the Russian literary language of some Church Slavonicisms, previously used mainly in the East Slavic vowel, can be attributed to the period of the second South Slavic influence. According to A. A. Shakhmatov, the word pln, which was actually written up to 1917 with the letter “yat” at the root, unlike other Old Slavonicisms with combinations pb, ll at the root, which early changed the root vowel b in Russian pronunciation and spelling to e (for example, tribe, time, burden, etc.), retained “yat” because, having displaced the East Slavic parallel full, it was established in the Russian literary language only in the XIV-XV centuries.

At the same time, the introduction into the Russian vocabulary of words with a combination of consonants zhd (from the original dj) begins. This combination of sounds was certainly impossible for the Russian language before the fall of weak reduced ones and therefore was not present in the most ancient Old Slavonicisms, for example, before, clothes, hope, etc. Modern hope, clothes, leader, birth, walking, etc. are due to the era of the second South Slavic influence. However, such words were finally established in the Russian language (and in the Church Slavonic version of the Russian language) only in the 17th century. after Nikon's reform.

During the period of the second South Slavic influence, peculiar lexical doublets appeared, which developed from an originally single word. So, the Old Slavonic and Old Russian sbor (collection) with the fall of weak reduced ones turned into the word sbor, which today has specific and everyday meanings, the pronunciation of the same word with the preservation of the vowel after with in the prefix created the word sobor, which has narrow church meanings and uses: 1 ) the main, large church or 2) a collection of respected (spiritual) persons.

During the period of the second South Slavic influence, there is a massive correction of older Russian handwritten texts. Spravshchiki persistently strive to correct the Russisms they noticed, perceived as a deviation from the generally accepted norm, and replace them with parallel Old Slavonic formations. So, according to our observations, in the manuscript from the former collection of Undolsky No. 1 (now in the GBL), dating from the 15th century, the text of the Old Russian translation of the biblical book “Esther” (ch. II, article 6) has the following form. The original text: “The man of Judah was born in Susan city, his name is Mardakhai... the man was full from Jerusalem with the full... the king of Babylon was full of Nechadnezzar.” The referee carefully crosses out the letters o in the words polonen, polonom, poloni and puts at the top, after the letter l - the letter b, turning these words into plnen, plnom, plni.

Similar operations can be observed in the manuscripts containing the text of Russkaya Pravda and other monuments of the Kyiv era. Obviously, a similar fate befell the text of the Tale of Igor's Campaign, in which, as we could see earlier, many Old Slavonicisms owe their appearance to the era of the second South Slavic influence.

According to the calculations made in the book by G.O. (before the second South Slavic influence) is 4:1; in the monuments of the XVI century. this ratio changes in the direction of increasing dissonant combinations - 10:1. But still, it was not possible to completely eradicate the East Slavic vocabulary in terms of phonetic design even during this period.

The second South Slavic influence had a strong effect on the stylistic system of the then literary language, which was expressed in the creation of a special stylistic manner of “decorated syllable”, or “word weaving”. Such a manner, which has received particular distribution in the monuments of official church and state literature, in hagiographies, in rhetorical words and narratives, is characterized by repetition and heaping of single-root formations, syntactic and semantic parallelism. At this time, there is also an emphasized desire to create complex words from two, three or more stems, used as embellishing epithets. However, one should not exaggerate the degree of the actual South Slavic influence on the style of the Russian literary language of this period. Individual examples cited in D.S. Likhachev’s book as examples of the “decorated syllable” of the period of the second South Slavic influence, in fact, turn out to go back to the ancient texts of the psalter or other biblical books translated back in the Cyrillo-Methodian era.

To illustrate the stylistic phenomena that have been mentioned here, let us cite an excerpt from the Trinity Chronicle of mid-1404: This same watchmaker will be called hourly: at every hour, strike the bell with a hammer, razmirya and counting the hours of the night and day. Not more than a man strikes, but human-like, self-resonating and self-moving, strangely somehow created by human cunning, exaggerated and outwitted. The master and artist would be for this, some blacks from the Holy Mountain who came, a kind of Serb, named Lazarus. The price for this would be more than one and a half hundred rubles.

In the above passage, the lofty decorated syllable of “weaving words” was reflected in the heap of epithets that determine the action of the wonderful watchmaker. Let us pay attention to such complex words as hourlye, human-like, self-voiced and self-propelled, strangely, exaggerated and exaggerated. And then there are everyday Russianisms: hitting the bell with a hammer, half a hundred rubles.

This text can be recognized as typical of its era. It can be seen as the strength of the second South Slavic influence - it enriched the stylistic system of the literary language, so I its weak side - excessive ornateness. But the influence did not touch the primordial foundations of our literary and written language, which also developed in this era, primarily according to its own internal laws.

Meshchersky E. History of the Russian literary language