The meaning of the word language in Old Russian. Old Russian language

Below we present to your attention an electronic Internet version of the dictionary of the Old Russian language. This resource also deserves to be added to the "Favorites" pages of your search engines.

Dictionary of Old Russian words with meaning and interpretation (ed. I. I. Sreznevsky).

The dictionary, published at the end of the 19th century after the death of the compiler, contains more than 40,000 dictionary entries and more than 17,000 derivative forms of words from the Old Russian, Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic languages.

Title page of the electronic version of the dictionary on the page oldrusdict.ru

The site provides a search by dictionary entries and meanings, phonetic search, as well as a dictionary table of contents for independent search of dictionary entries. If you wish, you can contact the developer if you find shortcomings in the project.

A small instruction on how to use the advanced search is also given on the main page of the dictionary.

Table of contents of the subdivisions of the dictionary of the Old Russian language
Detailed presentation with words typed in Russian and links to the desired page of the original.
Link to the page of the dictionary of Old Russian words from the table of contents of the electronic edition

Happy using!

Note to Rodnover

Despite the fact that the compiler of the above dictionary devoted much time to the study of pre-Christian traditions, cults and languages, the publication and other works of the researcher do not mention the special value of birch bark artifacts. Today, archaeologists of the Russian Academy of Sciences began to “find” them in large numbers in excavation sites of the 21st century, mainly with large state funding. By the way, the words “Veles” were also not found in the book. What can we say about the newfangled?!

In the middle of the 19th century, scientists did not know about Veles and Vedas. It’s just that Mikhail Zadornov has not yet been born - for nothing that he is a humorist.

Another feature that requires philological reflection is contained in the list of names of scientists who have devoted themselves to the study of antiquities. A note from Wikipedia attracts attention with a set of characteristic nationalities, in which Great Russian surnames are a rare exception.

Related material:

Scientifically substantiated exposure of the scientific version of world history from specialists from the authorized commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Extended video footage from the RSL conference on revealed substitutions and conscious manipulation of Russian history over the past two or three centuries.

Review of the site site for the historical study of A. V. Pyzhikov "The Edge of the Russian Schism". Video and transcript of a lecture by a scientist during the presentation of a new book.

Selected materials:

A selection of materials on the topic of the relationship between religious and secular perception of the world, including the headings "", "", materials "", information, as well as readers of the site "Old Believer Thought".

Visit the Customs section of our website. You will find in it a lot of interesting things from the undeservedly forgotten. . .

A lively and reasoned story about the methods of baptism practiced by the New Believers, and true baptism according to the canons of the Church.

A brief selection of objective literature on ancient Orthodoxy and the history of the Russian Church.

Which cross is considered canonical, why is it unacceptable to wear a pectoral cross with the image of a crucifix and other images?

Exclusive photographs depicting the consecration of the Great Epiphany Water in the Pokrovsky Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in Rogozhskaya Sloboda.

A rich photo report on the appointment of the bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church and a sketch of the modern life of the true Church.

The Old Russian language is the language of the Old Russian people, formed in the Old Russian state (Kievan Rus), mainly on the basis of dialects of closely related East Slavic tribes. It is usually dated to the 8th-14th centuries. It belongs to the East Slavic group of Slavic languages. Predecessor of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages.

The Old Russian language is the language of the Old Russian people, formed in the Old Russian state (Kievan Rus), mainly on the basis of dialects of closely related East Slavic tribes. It is usually dated to the 8th-14th centuries. It belongs to the East Slavic group of Slavic languages. Predecessor of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages.

Monuments of writing have been known since the middle of the 11th century (manuscripts and entries in books). The inscriptions on individual items date back to the beginning of the 10th century. As part of the Tale of Bygone Years, the treaties of Russia with the Greeks of 911, 944, 971 have come down to us.

The linguistic community of the East Slavic tribes took shape in the bowels of the Proto-Slavic linguistic community during the 1st-8th centuries. n. e., when the Eastern Slavs developed language features that distinguish them from the language of the southern and western Slavs.

Separate phonetic, grammatical and lexical features bring the Old Russian language closer to the South Slavic and West Slavic languages; all or some. But the Old Russian language also differed in a number of features that are absent in other Slavic languages ​​or gave different results in them. So for the Old Russian language is typical:

Full-voice - (lexico-phonetic phenomenon of the modern Russian language: the presence of combinations in root morphemes: oro, olo, barely between consonants, characterizes the phonetic appearance of many modern Russian words).

[h,] [w,] (instead of [w, t,], [w, d,] - y southern Slavs and [ts,] [d, s] - in Western), develops from *tj, *dj (svcha, boundary) and from *Rt, *qt before vowels front row: night, stoves, d'chi (cf .: bake, urine), urine.

Since the 10th century, the absence of nasal vowels [o], [e]: instead of them they began to pronounce [y] and im A and others [a]> [, a]: rouka, maso.

The phonetic system of the language of the era of the most ancient monuments was characterized the following features. The syllable was open; could not end with a consonant, the sounds in the syllable were distributed according to increasing sonority, in other words, the syllable began with a less sonorous sound and ended with a more sonorous one (doim, sled, pravida). In this regard, until the 12th-13th centuries, when the reduced [b] and [b] fell and new closed syllables appeared, there were no conditions for opposing consonants according to sonority-glasnost. There were 10 vowel phonemes: front vowels - [i], [e], (b), [e], [b], [a] [leaf, lchyu, (lchiti), fly (fly), day, n Am ] and the back row - [s], [y], [b], [o], [a] [try, pout, pita (bird), chop, break]. There were 27 consonants. The sound [v] was either labial-tooth [v], bilabial [w] (a similar pronunciation is preserved even now in dialects: [lauka], [, deuka], [low]). The sound [f] was in borrowed words in the written language of educated people. In the colloquial language, instead of it, the sound [n] or [x] is pronounced in borrowed words: Osip (Josif), Khoma, Khovrony. Hardness-softness couples formed only sounds [n] - [n,], [r] - [r,], [l] - [l,], [s] - [s,], [s] - [s ,]. The rest of the consonants were or only soft: [j], [h], [c,], [g,], [w,], [w, t, w,], [g, d, g,] (modern. [`sh,], [`zh,] - push, yeast), or only solid: [g], [k], [x] (death, jelly, hytr), [n], [b], [c ], [m], [t], [d]. Before front vowels, hard consonants became semi-soft. Consonants [g], [k], [x] before front vowels could only be in borrowed words (geona, cedar, chiton).

The grammatical structure, inflectional in type, inherited many features of the Proto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European languages.

Nouns differed: by gender: m., cf., f.; by numbers: singular, dual, when it was about two objects (two, tables, houses, dvb, lt, woman, legs), pl.

There were 6 cases: I., R., D., V., T., Local (modern prepositional); some nouns also had a vocative form, used in education (father - father, wife - wife, son - son).

According to the system of case forms, nouns were combined into 6 types of declensions, each of which could include words of different genders. The destruction of this system of declination occurred towards the end of the Old Russian period.

Adjectives (qualitative and relative) had a full and short form and were declined in both forms.

The verb had the form of the present (future) tense (I wear, I will say), 4 forms of the past tense: 2 simple - aorist (nosikh, skazakh) and imperfect (noshah, hozhah), and 2 complex - perfect (I wore) and pluperfect - long ago - come (dah wore or was worn), each of the forms of the past tense had special meaning, associated with an indication of the course of action in the past, 2 forms of a complex future: pre-future (I will wear) and analytical future, which largely retained the character of a compound verbal predicate [imam (I want, I will begin) to wear]. The -l form (like bore) was a past participle and participated in the formation of complex verb tense forms, as well as the subjunctive mood (was bore). In addition to the infinitive, the verb had another invariable form - supin (or the infinitive of the goal), which was used with verbs of motion ("I'm going to catch fish").

According to the dialectal features within the Old Russian language, the northwestern territories with clatter were contrasted (non-distinguishing [ts,], and [h,], [g] of explosive formation, the form R.p. singular f.r. on -b ( in zhen) and the southern and southeastern regions with the fricative distinction [ts,], [h,], [g] and the form of R.p. However, the dialectical features did not destroy the unity of the Old Russian language, as evidenced by the written monuments of the 12-13th centuries, created in different territories of the Old Russian state. the language of the ancient Russian people, which developed in the Kiev state.In the old Russian language, business and legal writing was created, in complex connection with elements of the Church Slavonic language, the Old Russian language appeared in monuments of hagiographic literature and in chronicles. Strengthening the unity of the Old Russian language was also facilitated by the formation of a common spoken language of the center of the Old Russian state - Kyiv, whose population was formed from people from different dialectical territories. The single spoken language of Kyiv - Kievan Koine - is characterized by the smoothing of dialectal features and the spread of common phonetic, morphological and lexical features in the speech of its inhabitants.

The strengthening of dialect features and, as a result, the weakening of linguistic ties between the territories of the distribution of the Old Russian language was associated with the loss by Kyiv from the end of the 11th and especially in the 2nd half of the 12th century of its political significance and the strengthening of the role of new centers of social life. Monuments of the 13th century reflect a number of local linguistic phenomena, which indicates the formation of new linguistic communities. According to a number of such features in the 13th century, after the completion of the process of loss of the reduced ones common to the Eastern Slavs, the south and southwest (Kyiv, Galicia-Volyn, Turov-Pinsk lands - the territories of the future Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) turned out to be opposed to the north and northeast ( territories of the future Russian language), where, in turn, Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Rostov-Suzdal dialects began to form, as well as the dialect of the upper and middle reaches of the Oka and the interfluve of the Oka and the Seim. In the 14th century, the territory of the southwest and west of Russia came under the rule of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland, which further separated them from the northern and northeastern territories, where the Russian state and the language of the Great Russian people were formed. In the 14-15 centuries. the Old Russian language broke up into 3 separate East Slavic languages.

All languages ​​change over time - their sound composition, the meanings of words, the principles of adding words into sentences vary. The modern language and its ancient "versions" are separated by centuries and therefore differ very noticeably. Therefore, for example, an Englishman who does not specifically study Old English will not be able to read and understand the "Song of Beowulf" in the original.

The language spoken by the ancient Russians, at first glance, is clearer. The letters of Ivan the Terrible to Prince Andrei Kurbsky (1528-1583) can be understood by a Russian-speaking reader as a whole without preparation (“Kurbsky dog”, which is clearer). However, the apparent transparency of the Old Russian language for Russian-speaking people is deceptive. In fact, Tsar the Terrible spoke with Prince Kurbsky in a language different from the modern one, and Prince Vladimir Equal to the Apostles would not have understood even Ivan the Terrible.

What is the Old Russian language

There is a popular notion that Old Russian is the language in which services are held in the Russian Orthodox Church. This is not so, they serve in churches in a completely different language - Church Slavonic, this language differs from Old Russian.
But first things first. Many thousands of years ago there were tribes that spoke the same language. Their language, which is called Proto-Indo-European, went through a lot of changes and formed the basis of many modern languages. It was actively studied and reconstructed at the beginning of the 20th century by several famous linguists at once (in particular, Antoine Meillet, author of the book “Introduction to Comparative Study Indo-European languages"). Then the Indo-Europeans settled in the vast territories of Europe and Asia. These people spoke languages ​​that grew out of a single proto-language.
The Old Russian language grew out of the seed of the Indo-European languages. This seed turned out to be so tenacious that from the former languages ​​that existed before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans in Europe and Asia, only small fragments remained, like the Basque language. It is linguistic kinship that causes the fact that many words denoting basic human values ​​- mother, father, daughter, son, fire, sun, night - are very similar in different languages. Compare "night" - "notte" - "Nacht" - "night" in all its variants in the Indo-European languages.
Approximately at the turn of the III-II millennium BC. e. people who speak the languages ​​of this group have ceased to understand each other. The adverbs diverged. In particular, the Slavic branch emerged from the common Indo-European language, or, according to the theory of the Balto-Slavic parent language, the Balto-Slavic branch.
Common Slavic, as, in particular, writes Samuil Borisovich Bernstein (1911-1997) in the work “Essay on the Comparative Grammar of the Slavic Languages” and in the article “Slavic Languages” of the Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary, was preserved almost until the 5th century. At this time, the Slavs began to move east and west, reaching the Elbe (Laba) in the west, Ryazan in the east, and Novgorod and Pskov in the north. It is surprising that with such a width of settlement, the Slavs retained a linguistic community for about another five or six centuries. Even now the difference between Polish, Czech and Russian is not so great that an educated person would not be able to read elementary phrases in one of these languages. For example, the Germanic peoples who spoke Old English, Old German and Old Swedish could not maintain the same closeness to the modern period.
During the settlement of the Slavs, the common Slavic language was divided into East Slavic, South Slavic and West Slavic branches. And here we come to the answer to the question of how the language of church services differs from the language of the ancient Russians. The latter is an East Slavic version of the language - the one spoken by Prince Vladimir. And the Old Slavonic language goes back to the South Slavic variant (of the modern languages, the South Slavic branch includes, in particular, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian).

In 1707-1710, the so-called civil press was introduced in Russia. Its forerunners were books published in a printing house in Amsterdam. At the beginning of 1710, Peter I ordered him to prepare for comparison and selection a copy of the alphabet with "an image of ancient and new Slavic printed and handwritten letters." After reviewing the alphabet presented to him at the beginning of 1710, the tsar personally crossed out all the Slavic letters and left the letters of the civil font, and the letters (ot), (o) and (psi) completely crossed out. On the back of the cover of the alphabet, Peter wrote: “These letters should be printed in historical and manufactory books, and which are underlined, do not use those in the above-written books.” And at the bottom, under the initial letters of the alphabet, he wrote the date when the decree took place: “Given the year of the Lord 1710 of January on the 29th day”

St. Cyril and Methodius were Macedonians and spoke the Macedonian dialect of the ancient Bulgarian language. It was into this language that they translated church services in the second half of the 9th century. This language, through church literature and translated books, became the literary language of the Eastern Slavs, Kievan and Moscow Rus, until the 18th century.
Church Slavonic is as close to Old Russian as all Slavic languages ​​were in the 9th century. But the Old Church Slavonic language has a slightly different syntactic, lexical and phonetic structure than Old Russian. It is curious that until the 18th century two languages ​​coexisted in Russia - one for literature and officialdom, the other for colloquial speech. They influenced each other, but remained independent.
There are many Church Slavonicisms in the Russian language, which still carry the mark “high style” on them, because in Church Slavonic they spoke about the high, about God. “Grad” (city), “brada” (beard), “one” (one) - all these are words that in the oral speech of our ancestors sounded different than what they themselves wrote in the annals. In turn, Church Slavonic absorbed colloquial Russian. Therefore, now they serve in churches in a language that differs from that into which the books of Cyril and Methodius were translated. Over the past thousand years, he has become much closer to his East Slavic relative.

How the Old Russian language was restored

The language that our ancestors spoke, scientists have restored in several ways. In particular, studying documents and letters: notes on birch bark, inscriptions on tombstones, texts of agreements. On the basis of Novgorod birch bark letters, the remarkable linguist Andrey Anatolyevich Zaliznyak reconstructed the Old Novgorod dialect of the Old Russian language. In 1995, his book "Old Novgorod dialect" was published. Excavations continue near Novgorod every summer, and every year in September, the scientist entertainingly tells about the details of ancient Russian life to everyone who comes to his public lecture at Moscow State University. Lomonosov.

How many religions does the Bible contain and specify? The Bible defines two religions: Judaism (Old Testament) and Christianity (New Testament). Two religions as a single project for building a world slave society. The Old Testament contains the religion of the slave owners. The New Testament is for slaves. The purpose of the project is declared in the Old Testament: “and you shall rule over all nations” (Deuteronomy 23:19,20).
Socialist symbolism, familiar to two generations, comes from the same ancient source the same as Christianity. The source seems to be familiar and unknown at the same time.
This is the preamble to the topic of the title.

Who is the article for? For those who, together with me, dare to touch the initial definitions and terms of linguistics. It is there that Russian history is hidden. Whoever shows patience, candy awaits at the end of the article after scientific tediousness.
To begin with, it should be noted that the term Slavs exists in two guises in ethnohistorical and in culture Russian language. .
Just a couple of terms - Slavic and Russian, but the terminology of linguists can be mind-bending. You see how the concepts are mixed.
Old Russian and Old Church Slavonic
Here and below we will use the accepted terminology.
Old Russian and Old Slavonic have two fundamental differences.
Old Russian language belongs to the East Slavic languages. Old Russian is already the Russian language itself, in its ancient stage.
The question arises. If Old Russian is actually Russian, then why should it be attributed to Slavic languages, albeit eastern ones? Maybe it shouldn't be taken anywhere? But here is another mystery of linguists.
The Old Russian language was a living language that developed according to its own internal logic and eventually split into three East Slavic languages: Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian.
Recognizing the language as alive and with its own internal logic it is stubbornly attributed to the Slavic. Now this is the established terminology, although there are much fewer historical grounds for Slavic terminology than for Russian proper. This follows from the ancient toponyms of Europe, Latin and even later chronicle lists. AT official science the following assertions are made.
The first mention of the "Slavs" in the form "sklavins » ( other GreekΣκλάβηνοι, Σκλαύηνοι and Σκλάβινοι) refer to VI century AD (in the writings of Pseudo-Caesarea , Procopius of Caesarea andJordan ) . This is just the time of the unwinding of Christianity. It's already latethe Atin inscription on the tombstone of the Pomeranian duke Bohuslav (d. February 24, 1309) calls him almost modernly "Slavorum Slavus dux". It is obvious that the term about the Slavs was edited in time. Later, along with the Slavs, History also recognizes the existence of the Rus. The German historian Ragevin (d. 1177) remarks in passing: “And Poland, in which they live alone Slavs, in the west it borders the Odra River, in the east - the Vistula, in the north - Rusyn and the Scythian (Baltic. - S. Ts.) Sea, in the south the Bohemian forests. Retrieved from http://vinujden.livejournal.com/366476.html
Let's continue to solve the puzzle.
Old Slavonic language refers to the South Slavic.
From the very beginning, Old Russian and Old Slavonic were different languages.
Let's say. But how to understand the next passage?
Old Church Slavonic language from the beginning ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGE, created on the basis of a limited number of South Slavic dialects of its time.
Again. Old Church Slavonic - created from South Slavic dialects. Interestingly, and the Slavic dialects, from which language did they originate, if the Old Church Slavonic itself is of artificial origin?
Words belong to linguistics. And now how would it be in Russian?
The Russian language, as a living language, began its evolution from the ancient stage, overcame the stages of reforms, and arrived to us as modern Russian.
Seems logical. And at what unknown stage did the Russian language manage to: break up into three exactly East Slavic languages: Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian? How could the Russian language proper disintegrate into Slavic proper, if from the very beginning(Russian and Slavonic) different languages?
But here's the surprise. The chronicler of today's linguists did not know, and therefore wrote down what he knew: “ The Slavic language and Russian are one. And how to understand it?
And here we see the ideology. Concrete is cast from a log, dogs give birth to cats. But if the Russian language has collapsed, then its parts can only be Russian parts, different like the children of one mother, but native and Russian.
What used to be old or ancient?
In dictionaries the word ancient - what was before old - the same.
The terminology is not accidental. It reflects history. And what happened earlier in history, antiquity or old age? What used to be a living language or an artificial language created on the basis of a living one? Looks like it's older. This is what was many generations before us, and old age is rather an attitude towards the older generation among those who are alive today. Word ancient it is like a "world tree" or "a tree that gives life." Therefore, the first form of the Slavic language is called only Old Slavonic, and Russian, for the prescription of history, is called ancient Russian.
The linguists have stated Old Russian and Old Slavonic were different languages. This directly follows from the territories of their birth and the surrounding peoples. Let's see the difference with an example, so as not to be unfounded.
The Bulgarians can call their Old Slavonic source of Cyril and Methodius “the Old Bulgarian language” as much as they like, but some forms of word formation and syntactic constructions were mechanically transferred from Greek into the Old Slavonic language. Here is the source of the ancient Bulgarian.
Again a question. Is it really before Cyril, who created the Church Slavonic letter in the Bulgarian dialect, the so-called. Slavic peoples could not speak their living native language? It seems that the gift of speech is like that of everyone, and the language of Cyril, or rather writing, is called artificial and bookish by linguists themselves. Then what language did the ancestors speak? Yes, they spoke Russian, only with different dialects due to the influence of different neighbors. However, the obvious Russian was called Slavic dialects.
Again we listen to linguists.
By all indications, the Old Church Slavonic language was precisely the South Slavic language, and not West Slavic or something else. It was Old Church Slavonic that became the basis for variants of the artificial Church Slavonic language, created with the aim of "enlightening" the Slavs. And yes - this is an artificial, bookish language.
They spoke Russian, they created that very artificial church writing in it. But the writing turned out somehow Slavic. Why not say that before Cyril they spoke their native Russian language and created a church letter in it? Why reorder terms?
Based on materials: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/suprun-89c.htm
Church Slavonic.
Again, the word scientists.
Church Slavonic language, Old Slavonic literary language of the 11th-18th centuries. By its origin, this is the Old Church Slavonic language (which was also called Old Church Slavonic), which was influenced by the living languages ​​of the peoples among whom it was common. Distinguish local varieties church language(excerpts, editions): East Slavic, Bulgarian-Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian Glagolitic, Czech, Romanian.
Source: Mikhail Karpov, http://otvet.mail.ru/question/74573217
The Old Church Slavonic (Old Church Slavonic) language was created in the middle of the 9th century by the brothers Cyril and Methodius. Despite the fact that it is based on the South Slavic dialect of the city of Thessalonica, the Old Church Slavonic language has never been used as a means of living, everyday communication, but was originally conceived as a book, written, literary and church . http://answer.mail.ru/question/74573217

Texts created no later than the eleventh century are usually called monuments of the Old Church Slavonic language, and later manuscripts - monuments of the Church Slavonic language of Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, etc. editions (depending on the features of which Slavic language penetrated into these monuments).
On the common territory for a long time coexist Russian speech and church, the one that is the language of services and church literature. Symbiosis contributed to the penetration of elements of the church language into the living language of the Russian people.

http://www.philol.msu.ru/~slavphil/books/stsl_csl_web.pdf

In the 18th century, the Church Slavonic language loses its status as a literary language - the Russian language itself begins to play this role, the Church Slavonic language retains only its original function, which it still performs - to be the language of liturgical literature.
Speaking in Russian, the living language remains the language of the people, while the artificial one continues to live in its own artificial environment, for which it was created.

What does it say? About the fact that in a large area of ​​Europe about two thousand years ago, peoples spoke close dialects, which made it possible to create one language for their Christian enlightenment, understandable to all enlightened ones. Otherwise, such a voluminous work is only within the power of the state apparatus, who would have started it. It is clearly beyond the power of one, albeit a brilliant person to perform such work. Just like now a numerous apparatus state institutions The West is working with one goal, regularly for centuries to destroy Russian civilization. The creation of an artificial literary language of the Church is only an episode in that continuous struggle.
It seems like a lot of things fell apart, but no. Another surprise from linguists. So that the wise men could not regain the true story, they drew another bullshit term.
Proto-Slavic
Among the well-known terms, there is another no less vague - Proto-Slavic.
It is an ideological term meant to Russian only a recent product of culture. A serious theory has been developed for the Proto-Slavic, a whole language tree has been grown to show, even with a young term, the mediocrity of the Russian language, and Russian itself is ordered to be considered a part and a product of some Proto-Slavic. And why not proto-Russian? The Russian language, like this concept itself, is an antiquity of Russian civilization. But how can this be allowed into modern minds? What were they fighting for then? That is why this whole garden and patchwork of terms is born, which the monopolists of science have created.
Further more. Wiki reports.
"The Proto-Slavic language was a descendant of Proto-Indo-European . (Note.Yar46. ​​Heavy artillery has earned it. Who can resist the Indo-European.) There is a hypothesis according to which the Prabalts andthe Proto-Slavs survived the period of community, and is being reconstructedProto-Balto-Slavonic, which later broke up into Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic » .
We have solid great-great, but again for some reason Slavic, although earlier it was declared an artificial product, which is about a thousand years old. Read more on the wiki.
The term "proto-Slavic" was formed with the prefix great- from the word "Slavic", and as a result of the influence of the German comparative school -correlative with the similar German term Urslavish. The Russian term finds its exact match in other Slavic languages: Belor. Proto-Slavic, Ukrainian Proto-Slovian, Polish Prasłowianski, Czech. and Slovak praslovansky, Bulgarian Proto-Slavic, made.Proto-Slovenian, Serbohorv. and Croatianpraslavenski, SerbianProto-Slovenian, Slovenianpraslovanski.
And what is there to admire if the terminology common to all languages ​​is from the influence of one German comparative school. Let's continue quoting Wiki.
F. Slavsky and L. Moshinsky date the period of the Balto-Slavic community ca. 2000-1500 BC. After 1500 B.C. the history of the Proto-Slavic language proper begins. F. Slavsky connects the beginning of the dialectal differentiation of the Proto-Slavic language with the beginning of large migrations of the Slavs in the 5th century. L. Moshinsky dates back to the time of the Slavic expansion to the Balkan Peninsula and formations of the western, southern andEastern groups of Slavic languages ​​the end of the existence of the Proto-Slavic language.

It is no less interesting that in the same Wiki we read about the beginning of the Russian language in the same 1500 BC. Isn't it just one language? Well, maybe dialects or, as linguists say, chronoslices of reconstruction. http://www.primavista.ru/rus/dictionary/lang/russian
This is not so fantastic, given the descriptions for Russ and Slavs that are vague in history (see the beginning of the article about the Slavs as an ethnic group).

how Proto-Slavic could look like in the pre-literate period of existence?
This is obtained by reconstructing the pre-literate Proto-Slavic language. The Proto-Slavic language stood out from the collapsed Indo-European proto-language, developed for a long time, interacting with Germanic, Baltic, Finno-Ugric, Turkic and other dialects (with the languages ​​spoken by the tribes surrounding the ancient Slavs), and about one and a half thousand years ago began to break up into dialects, from which the modern Slavic languages ​​subsequently originated.
The Proto-Slavic language (it is sometimes also called Old Slavic or Common Slavic, since it was common to all Slavs) existed, which means it developed and changed for quite a long time.
Based on materials: A.I. Izotova, Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic, http://www.philol.msu.ru/~slavphil/books/stsl_csl_web.pdf

It turns out that in ancient times there was Proto-Slavic recognized by linguists, and among its spurs was the one that later became Old Russian?
Not so simple. The circle of terms continues.
The term "Old Russian language" is used in two close, but not identical, meanings. Not bad. One term, two meanings.
On the one hand, the Old Russian language is the East Slavic parent language, the language of the Eastern Slavs before the period of their disintegration into three separate East Slavic peoples, i.e. until about the XIII - XIV centuries. The emergence of the Old Russian language in this sense of the word refers to the period of the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language and the settlement of the Eastern Slavs on a wider territory than it was originally.
On the other hand, the term "Old Russian language" is used to refer to the written (literary) language of the Eastern Slavs from the period of its emergence (XI century) to its collapse (XIV century), and sometimes even until the XVII century.
In short, you can take it as you please. And what about us? Clarity is needed here.
What contributed to the divergence of the previously common language? Of course, large habitats and local traditions, but first of all, the establishment of state borders and religious differences. But behind the leapfrog of terms, such obviousness is not immediately noticeable.
Why is the terminology so weird.
How is the terminology in this area generally born?
Partly based on historical events, but most importantly on the basis of a scientific school supported by the state.
And what do we have?
And here, according to Mavro Orbini: "The glorious people did not find learned men in order to adequately describe Russian history."
But where could Russian pundits come from under the auspices of the state? Two national royal dynasties were destroyed. The last Rurikovichs - Ivan the Terrible and his son, as studies have shown, were poisoned. On Vasily Shuisky from the Suzdal branch, the Ruriks on the throne ended completely. Vasily died as a prisoner Polish king Sigismund. The Godunov dynasty was stopped without giving it a proper start. The chosen dynasty of the Romanovs was replaced with German blood along the way.
Here the German school wrote history for us, and introduced the terms of linguistics for Russian and Slavic studies. It is characteristic that “our everything” Alexander Pushkin, having entered the Lyceum, began to learn Russian, knowing, like all the nobles of that time, only French. It was in French that the great Russian poet wrote his first poems. The miracle of Pushkin's poetry is doubly a miracle. He relied in his work not only on the language, but also on the Russian worldview. The St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences is another matter. Here, despite the access of foreign professors to Russian archives, an alien look fell on Russian history.
It is difficult to expect objectivity from a foreign scientific school, even if facts similar to Western history are known in Russian history. For example, in Europe, the island of Ile de France is known, from which France began. And we have? Rusov Island is known in Karelia. In the Baltic, the modern island of Rügen had the pre-Christian self-name Ruyan, in the north of modern Latvia on the Ruya River, there is the ancient city of Ruiena. Previously, the Balts, who founded the cities of Izborsk, and Yuryev (Tartu) lived here. Personal thanks to the blogger rujas_veldze for information on Ruien.
Written source from the VI century. many tribes are commemorated with the names Russ, Rusyns. They were also called rutens, ruts, rugs. The descendants of these Russians still live in Germany, Hungary, Romania.
And where are the Russian beginnings with such a rich history of toponyms and ethnonyms? Where does the love for the all-encompassing word Slavs come from, under which for some reason the Russians hid, although it is from them that the state of Rus is known? Why is this well-known state of Rus not from the Rus, but from the Slavs? How did it happen that the Rus, having adopted Christianity, left not Russian, but Slavic paganism? And where did the Slavs go, having lost their paganism?

It's time to look for the origins of the word itself Slavs. It seems that in Russian this word responds, but how many contradictions and unanswered questions arise in this case.
The West has made up history for the glory of the West and for the humiliation of the East. Everything that was marked with a word Slavs, related to the concept slaves. Well, the West classified itself as a civilized patrician.
Europe of the West, having many languages, wrote history and created terms in international Latin, such as, for example, the "History of the Two Sarmatians" by the Pole Matvey Mechovsky, or the "Gothic" of Jordan the Goth, accepted as dogma in the West. Of course, in such stories we will not find an objective presentation about the Rus, only about Slavic slaves, even if one of them paid "bad tribute with swords."
Hence the obvious policy of states that do not keep their European history. A prime example is the USA. The first thing that the settlers from the Old World did was to destroy the local Indian population along with their history and architecture and continue this policy around the world. You don't give up your identity, get bombed or sanctioned, while international criminality is covered with the sheepskin of democracy. Hence the support of the West by Poland, deprived, like Ukraine, of its true history. Both states have chosen a policy of Russophobia from the moment of its inception, which is typical for countries with torn historical roots. Slaves are not supposed to have a genealogy. The policy of these countries is unchanged despite the multiple divisions by the same West of both Poland and Ukraine. The master ordered the slave, and the slave does not dare to disobey. But that's another topic.

It follows from the above that Russian is precisely the Russian language with its own living and ancient history. At the same time, the Slavic language is artificial and bookish, as an artificial and recent term itself, but on the wave of historical patriotism, they are trying to assign the most ancient status to this artificial language.
This substitution, as it were, is ritually accustomed to the concept of a slave. Really. Slave in Latin slavus . Following the Latin international enlightenment in in many European languages, the word slave is derived exclusively from the Slav: slave in English, shiavo in Italian, sklave in medieval Latin, esclave in French, slaf in Swedish, sklaphos in Greek, and saklab in Arabic. .
Why such consonance in different languages? Secondly, from Latin, and here is the first!
Slavin Hebrew clav means cross .
The Russians did not have a cross self-name "Slavs", because in the Vedas the ancestors are not slaves, but "the grandchildren of God." There was no such ethnic group in Europe before baptism. A word appeared only on the adoption of Christianity from the sect of the Jews, transformed by Byzantium into a full-fledged religious doctrine.
TSLAV - SLAV - SLAVES accepted the initiation as the army of Christ in heaven - all sorts of cherubim and seraphim there.
Since SLAVE goes back to the Hebrew word TsLAV - cross. SLAVE are those who took up the cross as servants of God, as the army of Christ.
For a thousand years, our “self-names” have been sharpened for Christianity, and have been sharpened, so that we today aggressively believe in this sharpening and aggressively guard it.
With few exceptions, the names of modern Russians are taken from the canons of Orthodox saints. But, looking into the directory of personal names of the peoples of the RSFSR, we will see notes next to the names - Greek, Lat., Heb.
There is also an oddity in our theme. In the system adopted at the Romanov court, the princes were addressed - the brightest. And how many names we know with the word "light". We traditionally refer to them as Slavic names, but. Not so long ago, the "Golden Beginnings of Russia." Among the people, “Come out to Russia” meant “to be born”, to bring to Russia = “to come out into the Light”. And again, the source is RUSSIA. Then why round the word Slavs?

Ivan the Terrible, all the great princes and Russian tsars prevented the penetration of the Jewish nationality into the central regions of the country. For this, Grozny was poisoned, and now slandered.
Curious word prince. In the old work "The Sermon on Law and Grace," Metropolitan Hilarion calls Kyiv prince Vladimir is not a prince at all, but "our kagan." This is clear in the original: praisekagan to our vlodimer, from a worthless baptism byhom ". In later editions kagan gradually turned into prince. And why?
Russian culture did not accept the word kagan, and it was quietly replaced.
Source: http://solitaire17.livejournal.com/84415.html
Reference.
The meaning of the word prince.
In the Sorbian languages, knjez is a polite term for a man, knjeni for a married woman, and knježna for an unmarried woman. And we then the current and do not know how to address each other. Everything is a man, yes a woman, or clumsy - a citizen. And it is our own, that's how it was.
Let's take wedding Russian vocabulary. The newlyweds as the conditional founders of the clan are called "prince" and "princess" And later, the head of an already established family becomes a prince as an administrative-military person, as the father of a large family.
There were baptisms, coups, revolutions. And here's the question.
Why is the West constantly interfering in our lives and seeking to subjugate the Russian people and peoples with Russian culture, the so-called. Slavs? And he does this out of habit, for centuries considering the peoples around him as slaves both before Christianity and after its adoption. The desire for world domination requires an obedient army. Those who do not agree with this role are pitted against each other.
Slave-owning Rome fell in the 5th century along with its slavery, adopted along with the term from Israel, TsLAV, but already as - SLAV, SLAVUS, Slave. After the fall of Rome in Europe, this "business" did not stop. Slave markets are known in Genoa, Venice, Florence. In the Crimea, merchants from Genoa and the Ottoman Empire bought slaves from Eastern Europe. The hetmans of Ukraine traded in the families of the Cossacks. AT early middle ages(10th-11th centuries) in Prague located near the Old Town Square largest slave market. There, the slaves were mostly Western Slavs. Slavs means slaves.
Similarity of languages ​​called by linguists Russian and Slavic is explained simply, they have one source, to which German school for persuasiveness, the term Proto-Slavic
The notion that Russian supposedly arose recently, and Slavic as the language of slaves existed hoo at what times is WRONG, and erroneous for several reasons.
Reason one. Word slave old Russian, existed before the emergence of late Latin slavus.
Reason two.The word slave had an original meaning different from what is accepted today.
Word slave like the word Job cognate ancient and pre-Latin.
modern word slave borrowed, not from anywhere, but from the initial Old Slavonic language. This word goes back to the common Slavic orbъ. Primary op changed in Old Church Slavonic in ra. This combination ra characteristic of many Old Slavonic words(kind of mind). The original meaning of the word slave made sense an orphan, and only later bonded labor.
There has been a change in the meaning of the word slave: from original small, timid an orphan on the man who is the property of the master.
The historical connections of the Russian words slave, work, shy and child can be traced unambiguously.
Source; O.E Olshansky, Professor of the Slavic State Pedagogical University, author of works on the history of Russian word formation, http://slovo.dn.ua/rab-rabota.html .
The word slave with the initial meaning - a person deprived of parents, with the advent of Christianity becomes - a person deprived of all rights. How unlike the Russian custom, when the Community gave orphans to a full family.
Another version of the word SLAVE can be found in Hebrew.
Slave - a word from the Torah, means - a breeder, a slave - a lot. What did the slave breed? He multiplied the master's wealth with his work and his children. Doubt your interpretation? We read the original. "PRU VE RAVU" means "Be fruitful and multiply." If a Old Testament and did not read, then this phrase, of course, was heard more than once.
Both versions of the story of the word slave complement each other perfectly.
Everything, as it were, our Slavic began after baptism, and not earlier. That's what "enlightenment" is.

Using the vague terminology of Slavic studies, Russian is replaced by Slavic. Slavic Western historians identify with slavery, with that slavery, which they themselves sometimes do not distinguish. Toli it is a social phenomenon, roofing felts religious. And then we, studying from Western textbooks (since there are no others), began to sincerely believe that Slavism is our historical national antiquity. We do not notice in the term the viral bookmark laid down by the Western School with the concept of slavery.
The term is something with a catch, and with a double bottom. Turn on antivirus and...
We are not Slavus slaves. We are Russians! Here is our identification in history.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Good work to site">

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Introduction

1.2 Lexical structure

1.3 Phonetic structure

1.4 Morphological structure

1.5 Syntactic structure

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

We cannot accurately determine the time of occurrence in our country. written literature. There is, however, every reason to believe that it existed in Russia even before the second third of the 11th century - the time by which we can date the first monuments of Russian writing that have come down to us. Such an assumption is based on the fact that at that time we are dealing with examples of a literary culture already significant in quality, and therefore it is difficult to think that before that we had no monuments of written literature at all - probably they simply did not reach us. As for writing in general, that is, all the data - on the basis of historical evidence - attribute its occurrence in Russia long before the adoption of Christianity by it. In any case, in the IX-X centuries. it certainly already existed.

The time when one can speak of the end of ancient Russian literature and the beginning of a new one should be considered the end of the 17th century. Since the 18th century in Russia, the predominance of secular principles in the culture of the ruling noble class and, at the same time, in its literature, that is, the main, leading literature, is already quite clearly defined. “The thoughts of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling thoughts. This means that the class that represents the dominant material force of society is at the same time its dominant spiritual force.

Russian literature at this time puts forward new themes and new ideas related to the fact that it becomes at the service of the state system reformed by Peter, when the feudal-estate monarchy develops into an absolutist one. nation state landlords and merchants, which elevated the class of landlords at the cost of cruel exploitation of the serfs and contributed to the development of the emerging merchant class. At the same time, new literary genres and styles were developing, which the 17th century either did not know at all, or knew them only in its infancy.

However, some historians are inclined to date the end of ancient Russian literature and the beginning of a new one to mid-sixteenth 1st century This view, following N.S. Tikhonravov, V. M. Istrin, who considered the second half of the 17th century, argued in particular detail. as the beginning of a new period of Russian literature, mainly because at that time there was an intensified development of secular literature. This circumstance is indeed very significant for characterizing the new thing that distinguishes Russian literature, predominantly in the second half of the 17th century. from previous literature. We would also add to this the increased penetration into Russian literature of the second half of the 17th century. elements of folklore, found, however, since the beginning of the century. But for all that, since in the literature of the XVII century. still a significant place is occupied by works on ecclesiastical-religious themes, and the complete victory of the secular element over the religious-ecclesiastical element is felt only in the 18th century, since only the literature of the 18th century. serves as a direct organic threshold to the Russian literature XIX century, it is historically more correct to stand on the traditional point of view, bringing ancient Russian literature to early XVIII century, that is, before that cultural turning point in the fate of Russia, which is associated with the reforms of Peter the Great.

So, ancient Russian literature has approximately six and a half centuries of existence. Quite naturally in this case suggest that ancient Russian literature was written in Old Russian.

The purpose of this work is to consider words with the elements "many-", "little-", "one-" and "one-" in the Old Russian language.

identify the features of the Old Russian language;

consider words that have the elements "many-", "little-", "one-" and "one-".

1. Features of the Old Russian language

1.1 Functional and territorial differentiation

Old Russian or East Slavic is the common language of the East Slavic peoples (Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians). This language was formed in the Old Russian state in the 7th-8th centuries and existed until the 14th-15th centuries, when three separate East Slavic languages ​​arose - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

The earliest written monuments in Old Russian date back to the 11th century; Among them, the Ostromir Gospel (1056-1057), the Arkhangelsk Gospel (1092), the Novgorod Menaion (1995-97) and others stood out. and Glebe", "The Life of St. Theodosius of the Caves", "The Sermon on the Law and Grace of Metropolitan Hilarion") and chronicles (the most famous is "The Tale of Bygone Years"). Various works of art were created in the Old Russian language, including The Tale of Igor's Campaign.

In ancient Russia, two languages ​​existed in parallel: Church Slavonic (the Russian version of the Old Church Slavonic language) and Old Russian. Their relationship was built on the model of diglossia Uspensky B. A. History of the Russian literary language (XI-XVII centuries). - M .: Aspect Press, 2003. - p.31 .. Old Slavonic and Old Russian languages ​​were very close to each other: the grammatical structure coincided, the vast majority grammatical forms and the main layers of vocabulary Levin V.D. Brief essay on the history of the Russian literary language. - M .: Education, 1964. - pp. 21-22 .. In the language of the Eastern Slavs of the 10-13th centuries, general processes, testifying to the East Slavic (Old Russian) unity Essays on the comparative grammar of the East Slavic languages. / Ed. N. I. Bukatevich, I. E. Gritsyutenko, S. A. Savitskaya. - Odessa: Odessa state. un-t. them. II Mechnikova, 1958. - p.15. Old Russian languages ​​are distinguished by the unification of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian elements in the field of vocabulary, phonetics and grammar. The unification process was facilitated by the existence of a single Kyiv state among the Eastern Slavs. The heyday of this state occurred in the 10-11 centuries. In the 12th and 13th centuries, intensified feudal fragmentation, internecine strife among the princes became more frequent. From the end of the 11th and especially in the 2nd half of the 12th century, Kyiv as a center was losing political significance. But on the other hand, the importance of Moscow grew (especially due to the unification of the East Slavic lands around it) and some other centers (Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir, Novgorod, etc.). A strong blow to Kievan Rus was dealt by the Tatar invasion (late 30s - early 40s of the 12th century). The process of divergence intensified after the western and southwestern parts of Ancient Russia came under the rule of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland in the 14th century.

All these processes also had an impact on the language - there was a weakening of the linguistic connection between individual territories and an increase in dialect devils: in the north and northeast, various dialects were born (Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Rostov-Suzdal, etc.). As a result of the mixing of the Northern Great Russian dialect (characterized by okane) with the South Great Russian dialect (typically it was akane), Middle Great Russian dialects arose. The opposition of the southern and southwestern regions (territories of the future Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) northern and northeastern (territories of the future Russian language), which led in the 14-15 centuries to the disintegration of the Old Russian language into three separate East Slavic languages ​​​​- Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

1.2 Lexical structure

The main lexical fund of the Old Russian language was made up of common Slavic words such as water, earth, sky, day, l's, vk', hlb, st'na, sv'cha; - live, do, see, walk, yell, speech; good, old, red. The second important part is the East Slavic words (family / family, bálka, bell, boot). Some common Slavic words were completely or almost replaced by East Slavic ones (for example, the word ax with the word ax). A parallel use of lexemes like psъ (common Slavic) and dog (East Slavic) appeared. There were a number of borrowings from other languages ​​- Greek, Turkic languages and others. There have been various semantic changes, for example. the old meaning of the lexeme red? beautiful, beautiful, light" gave way to the meaning of color.

1.3 Phonetic structure

There were 10 vowel phonemes in Old Russian: /a/, /o/, /i/, /e/, /u/, /y/ (ы), /д/, /e/ - yat, reduced front vowels / ь/ and back row /ъ/ and 26 consonant phonemes: /b/, /v/, /g/, /d/, /ћ"/, /z/, /z"/, /j/, /k/ , /l/, /l"/, /m/, /n/, /n"/, /p/, /r/, /r"/, /s/, /s"/, /t/, / h/, /c"/, /i"/, /љ"/, /љ"t"љ"/, /ћ"d"ћ"/. The consonant /f/ was absent in spoken Old Russian and instead it was pronounced / p/ - sail (Greek faros) or /h/ - Homa (Thomas); the letter f was used only in borrowed words like february, lantern. Already in the 10th century, the nasal vowels /a/ (?) and /k/ (? ), more precisely, they turned into / u / and / "a /: rka > hand, m'so > meat. Until the 12th century, the law of an open syllable was in effect - the syllable ended with a vowel: table, wrote. In the 12th-13th centuries, the reduced /ъ/, /ь/ were lost, which led to the formation of various combinations, for example, dska > board, son > sleep, krst > cross, drva > firewood. kr'v > blood, vlna > wave, garlo > throat, vlk > wolf, vrvka > rope. In place of the Proto-Slavic combinations tj, dj, the consonants /i"/, /ћ"/ arose: svetja > candle, medja > boundary. In monuments, the combination /љ"and"/ was usually denoted by the letter u; rarely met shch. The Old Russian language was characterized by full agreement (gorod, beard, milk); examples of full agreement are already recorded in the Ostromir gospel.

1.4 Morphological structure

There were three numbers in Old Russian: singular, dual and plural. The dual number appeared only in three case forms - one was used to express the meanings of the nominative, accusative and vocative cases, the other genitive and prepositional, and the third dative and instrumental. In the case system, consisting of six types of declension, there was a vocative ( vocative). It was used in circulation, for example. friend, elder (in modern Russian, only the remains of this case have been preserved in the form of interjections God, Lord). The short forms of adjectives differed in that they (1) were declined and (2) were used in the function of a predicate and a definition (only remnants of such attributive use have been preserved in the modern language: in broad daylight, on bare feet, in broad daylight). The demonstrative pronoun i, i, e served as a personal pronoun of the 3rd person (later the demonstrative pronoun he began to act in this function). Complex cardinal numerals had the form of a prepositional combination (one on a tenth / tenth). To denote the numbers 40 and 90, special East Slavic forms developed - forty and ninety (instead of the expected fourty and ninety). Ordinal numbers had full and short forms - prvy and prv. The Old Russian language had a wide system of forms of the past tense (perfect - not esme, aorist - nesoh, imperfect - nesyah, pluperfect - nesly byah). There was a complex subjunctive mood (bykh wore), but since the 13th century, the aorist byakh, would, etc., ceased to change in faces and was established general form would. To convey the purpose of the movement, supin was used - the form on -t (I'm going to catch fish). The participle system consisted of full and short forms.

Important morphological processes took place in the Old Russian language: the dual number disappeared (only relics remained), the vocative form, the complex subjunctive and supin (catch > catch), the category of animation developed (in the Old Russian language, as in other Slavic languages, at first there was no difference between animate and inanimate nouns), there was a unification of the types of declension, the system of past tenses was simplified (the aorist, imperfect, pluperfect disappeared), participles were formed from participles.

Thus, the combination of concrete and abstract meanings of one word in a general context represents the properties of the Old Russian linguistic semantic syncretism of a symbol. Already the language itself provides opportunities for artistic rethinking of the word within each verbal formula and against the general semantic background of the entire text; constant return to symbolically important features and words. Likhachev does not accidentally, as it seems, stipulate that such listed examples of personification - depending on the words clarifying their meaning - correlate with various parts speech: “materialized with the help of a verb”, “concretized with the help of an epithet” - these are really the two main ways of switching the main meaning of a word to a figurative one in an immediate context. At the same time, the key names themselves, subject to personification, are almost all feminine, and in the XII century. most of these names still retained a collective (abstract) meaning. The role of the verb and the adjective in the actualization of one of these meanings is already related to the problem of epic epithet.

Personification encompasses both the scope of the concept (metonymy; it is Likhachev who speaks about the concept, and not about the image) and its content (the scope of the metaphor), and therefore cannot be narrowly qualified as a manifestation of the metaphor in the context of The Tale of Igor's Campaign. . In addition, this is not a comparison, but an assimilation, which leads us to the final conclusion that personification is not a manifestation of a metaphor, but a special case of an assimilation based on the semantic and syntactic features of the Old Russian language.

1.5 Syntactic structure

The sentence of the Old Russian language was notable for its weak grammatical connection proposal members. Parataxis (coordinative connection) prevailed in relation to hypotaxis (subordinating connection). Unprepositional constructions were widely distributed. There was a so-called second nominative (the nominative case as part of a predicate with verbs with the meaning? to be known, to be called, to be named ": hedgehog now calls Ougursky; and pade is dead (in modern Russian the instrumental case is usually used) and the second accusative (accusative case with verbs to name, to have someone, to appoint someone as someone, etc.: put Methodius as a bishop in Pannonia, if you want to have your own father and abbot), which in modern Russian corresponds to the instrumental case. Nominative units h. feminine in -a, -i was sometimes used in function direct complement in combination with the infinitive of transitive verbs like land plow, mow the grass. There was a so-called dative independent - a simple thought, requiring a subject and a predicate, was expressed by a combination of a noun or pronoun in the dative case and a participle agreed with it (to Mstislav, who eats on obd, come to him).

In the earliest period of the Old Russian literary language, three styles were distinguished: business, church-bookish (church-literary) and secular-literary Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. / Ed. Yartseva V.N. - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990 ..

2. Few and many in Old Russian

The historical life of the word goes through three stages:

the word is born as a symbol of a certain idea (eidos), being a kind of understanding of it; it is the noematic stage, or the stage of inner form;

then the word breaks away from its idea and begins to rush over the world of things, fertilizing them with its understanding; this is the stage of anarchic ambiguity;

then there is a filtering of the meanings of the word, the legitimization of some and the rejection of others in texts recognized as exemplary, and finally their codification in the dictionary; this is the normative step.

In the monuments of ancient Russian writing, the word is characterized by anarchic polysemy, aggravated by the influence of Greek texts translated in Ancient Russia Kamchatnov A.M. On the semantic dictionary of the Old Russian language. // Ancient Russia. Questions of medieval studies. - 2004. - No. 1. .

Fasmer's dictionary gives the following etymology of the word "many": many, adj., Ukrainian. many, other Russian, senior Slav. many pol'j (Mar., Zogr., Klots., Supr.), comp. step. multiply, bolg. a lot, Serbohorv. a lot, slovak. mno?g, mnoґga f., Czech, Slavic mnohyґ, mnoho, Pol. mnogo, n.-puddle. merogi. Kindred Goth. manags "many", D.H.N. manag "other, some", OE. menicc "frequent, numerous", here lit. minia "crowd" Etymological dictionary Fasmer. - M., 1987. - P. 441 ..

In the Old Russian language, as well as in the modern Russian language, a large number of words have the element "many-", although not always in the sense that is accepted now.

MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE - often; many times.

MULTISLOVE - ignorance.

MULTIFUNCTIONAL - very merciful.

MUCH RICH - abounding in everything.

MULTIPLE - mournful, having raised many labors, deeds, troubles, sufferings.

MULTI-BOMBING - subjected to strong temptations, attacks.

MULTIPURPOSE - disturbing.

MULTIPLE - very plentiful.

MULTIPLE - many times.

MULTICLASS - spiked.

MULTIPLE - full of vanity.

MULTIPLE - very famous.

VARIOUS - in many forms; different.

MULTIPLE - repeatedly cultivated.

MULTIPLE - having many eyes.

MULTIPLE FERTILITY - fruiting; many children.

Plurality - obesity.

MULTIPLE - full of charms and temptations.

MULTILIGHT - joyful; solemn.

MANY TEARS - full of sadness and grief.

MULTIPLE - replete with a variety of food.

MULTIPLE - aggravated; multiplied; reinforced.

MULTI-VEST - completely empty, useless.

MULTIPLE - very indulgent.

MULTI-HEALING - giving many healings.

MULTIPLE - many times, many times.

MUCH MIRACLE - exuding many miracles; renowned for miracles.

MULTILINGUAL - consisting of many tribes.

MULTIPLY - more.

MULTIPLE - many times, many times.

The basis of all these words, according to V.I.Dal, is the word MANY - a great number, in large numbers; excess, abundant; more commonly used in number: many, or as an adverb: many, plentifully, southern. app. richly, klzh. horror, sev. portly; in the highest degree, an abyss, an abyss, plenty Dal V.I. Dictionary Great Russian language. - M., 1952 .. Many animals die from fires. A lot of people crowded to follow. Many seek honors. Many trees withered, or many trees withered. Lots of noise, little use. Many living people - and even more dead. Many (people), others, some. Many summers - and many are already gone! And many live, and all die. God grant a lot, but you want more. God bless a lot - and nothing has been sown. Give to everyone, there will be a lot. Many are called, but few are chosen. It happens a lot, but there are no superfluous (surplus) (children, money). Many, many - and still so much. There are many, but I want more. Not a lot for two, but a lot for one! Much mercy, but more dashing. A lot - satisfying, a little - honestly. They talk a lot, but do little. Not about the fact that he ate a lot, but about the fact that where is the hell to do? He eats a lot, but he drinks a lot. A lot of good ones, but there is no cute (cute). There are many things like two for one, and not only that, like two for three. It's not a pity for a sweetheart to lose a lot. The wretched man needs much, and the stingy man needs everything. They fight many with their hands, and a few with advice (minds). Little in learning, but firm in mind. A lot, a little, a lot, a little, a lot.

many years, many years, many years, longevity, many days, long life; prayer proclamation for the long life of the royal or other high person, many years. To perennial, to be durable; many years to whom, to proclaim many years.

Hello you, longevity I

let me spend the night to your mercy!

You have many years, live long;

I welcome you for many years.

Composition occupies a special place among the word-building methods of the Russian language, since the derivatives formed in this way reflect the national and cultural specifics of the language to a greater extent.

The question of the originality of Russian word composition and the degree of influence of Church Slavonic, Greek and German its development has been repeatedly discussed in the scientific literature Vasilevskaya E.A. Compounding in Russian / E.A. Vasilevskaya. - M., 1962. - S. 34-36. The origins of this controversy can be found in the discussions of the masters of Russian literature of the 18th century. So, M.V. Lomonosov, who was largely guided by the German-Latin samples, and the archaists, led by A.S. Shishkov, saw in word composition a source of beauty and richness of the literary language. Karamzinists, who regarded French as an exemplary use (in which the word composition is poorly developed), on the contrary, advocated the purification of their native speech from words artificially created according to Greek models Zhivov V.M. Language and culture in Russia XVIII century / V.M. Zhivov. - M., 1996. - S. 322. .

Common ideas about the semantics of the words "little" and "a little", reflected in dictionary interpretations, are that these words have very close meanings - both indicate a small amount or a small degree of manifestation of a feature. Indeed, in some contexts, these words are interchangeable while maintaining the meaning of the statement. However, there are also such statements to which words give little and little, rather, the opposite meaning, or at least the opposite communicative purpose.

By means of an utterance containing the word little, the speaker reports that the quantifiable set is less or the predicative feature is less pronounced than one might expect. The very existence of a quantifiable set or predicative attribute is in this case a presupposition of a statement. The indicated feature of the actual articulation also explains the intonational characteristics of sentences with the words little: little always carries a logical stress. The foregoing explains the uncommonness of the word little in proper existential sentences. Indeed, the proper existential sentence is a message about existence, and the presence of a word indicates little that existence enters into a presupposition, i.e. expected in advance.

True, there are statements with the word little, with the help of which the speaker questions or even denies the existence of a quantifiable set or a predicative sign. One of the statements can take place in a situation where the speaker is convinced that there is no common features between compared phenomena, in the second, the speaker reports his lack of any interest in the phenomenon in question. The effect in question occurs when we are talking about abstract entities, for which a very small amount can be tantamount to an absence. Essentially uninteresting points to low degree"interesting", i.e. synonymous with the word of little interest Chervenkova I. V. General adverbial indicators of the measure of a sign: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 1975 .. It can also be assumed that any two phenomena have at least trivial common features, thus the statement can report the absence of common features, except for trivial ones.

Thus, similar examples do not refute the position according to which the existence of a quantifiable set or attribute is a presupposition of a statement. On the other hand, if we are talking about specific objects (for which a small amount is not equivalent to an absence), this effect does not occur.

The word has slightly different communicative properties. A statement in which the predicative feature is slightly quantified expresses a message about the very fact of the manifestation of this feature, and the fact that the feature is manifested to a small extent constitutes an additional message, which often completely fades into the background, so that a little is used only to “soften” the statement. . Therefore, a little in such sentences can never carry the main logical stress. I.V. Chervenkova argues that in sentences with an adverbial, a double actual articulation is slightly possible. In support of this point of view, she points to the possibility of two interpretations of the sentences.

Statements in which the plurality qualifies a little are communicatively ambiguous.

If a little carries a logical emphasis, the statement is almost synonymous with the corresponding statement with the word little: the existence of a quantifiable set is a presupposition, the fact that a set exists in a small amount is an assertion. True, there are certain semantic differences between "a little" and "little" in this case as well. Both words mean “less than the norm”, but the “norm” itself can be understood in two ways. // NDVSH. Philol. Sciences. - 1984. - No. 3. - P. 72-77. But another understanding of the “norm” is also possible - as a quantity sufficient to achieve something. In this case, you can use only a little. At the first understanding of the “norm”, the antonym of the words few and few will be many, at the second - the antonym of the word few is enough.

If "a little" does not carry a logical stress, the actual articulation is similar to actual division sentences in which a predicative sign quantifies a little: the message about the existence of a quantifiable set is the main message, while the existence of this set in a small amount is an additional message.

In those cases where the word "a little" refers to an uncountable name, the meaning of the statement can only consist in reporting the existence of the corresponding (non-discrete) set; the message that this set is small may not be essential to the meaning of the statement - a little means simply "a certain amount". In combination with countable names in this sense, the word several is more often used.

3. "One-" and "one-" in the Old Russian language

One or one, one or only. One here and one there. One by one they left, one by one. There is not a single penny. He did not give us a single share, gave us nothing. God is one, but not everyone has one conscience. I won't give you any money. Alone, alone or eye to eye, a friend himself, together.

One, all one, one or equal, one and the same. In the addition of words, the same as one means loneliness, the absence of a dual or plural. Not everything is one, that bread, that chaff. Not for anything else, but for a single unity and friendly company. Everything is one, that bread, that mountain ash: both are sour.

Edinet m. lonely, single, one of a kind, for which there is no boyfriend or the like.

Unity (female) unity cf. the property of a single, constituting one whole; unanimity, unanimity. The unity of this teaching is opposed to the duality of the other. You know the unity of our aspirations.

To unite, to be one, one, inseparable.

ONE - according to; equally.

ONE - at once, equally; equals; more.

IS THERE ONE - Really still?

Fellow Religionist - professing the same faith with someone.

SINGLE - monotonous; monotonous.

SINGLE-BLOOD - originating from one blood; native brother.

SINGLE WISDOM - with one mind, thinking the same way with someone.

SINGLE - having the same disposition with someone else.

SINGLE-BEGINNED - the only one by birth; one son (one daughter) from parents.

ONE - once.

Considering the vocabulary of "Words about Igor's Campaign" one can quite often find words that have elements one- and one-, mainly in figurative expressions.

The imagery of the “Word...” is directly connected with the system of figurative means (figures and paths) with figurative meaning words reflecting abstract, animated or pictorially expressive features of text formulas. In many respects, figurativeness is rightly perceived as metaphorical in broad sense; in essence, speaking of the figurativeness of the "Words ...", they always had in mind a metaphor as a general term denoting any transfer of meaning - from metonymy to a symbol. In this regard, bearing in mind the figurativeness of the “Word ...”, they talked about “figurative metaphors of Byzantine origin”, about “metaphorical images” and “metaphorical comparisons”, about the “metaphorical meaning” (pictures of nature), about “metaphorical expressions ”and even about “metaphorical picturesqueness”; The most accurate definition in terms of the volume of the concept is found in Rzhiga: the style of "Words ..." is metaphorically allegorical; the image here is “more impressionistic than descriptive”, which is also an assessment of the medieval text from the point of view of modern literature, it does not cover the entire integrity of the figurative displacement of the semantics of the word, since the movement of meaning from the original nominative meaning of the word to the image is both the development of abstraction and the desire for abstraction. Quite naturally, any imagery acts as a form of embodiment of degrees of abstraction in the awareness of phenomena, objects and the connections between them - stylistic and semantic are woven into a kind of unity of meaning, and hence it is clear that the "poetic expressiveness of the Word ..." was closely connected with poetic expressiveness. of the Russian language as a whole”, and the new in the text “grew on the centuries-old cultural soil and was not torn off from it” Likhachev D.S. “The Word” and the aesthetic ideas of his time // “The Word” and culture. - M.: Enlightenment, 1976. - S. 196; in the “Word...” “the broad and free breath of oral speech is clearly felt”, which is also reflected “in the choice of artistic images devoid of literary sophistication”, since “the author of the Lay about Igor’s Campaign poetically develops the existing figurative system business speech and the existing feudal symbolism ... and does not seek to create completely new metaphors, metonyms, epithets, divorced from the ideological content of the entire work as a whole. - M .: Enlightenment, 1976. - P. 176 .. The author of "The Word ..." borrows not images from Byzantine literature, but some formulas, while the imagery of the text itself is determined by samples of the most ancient epic forms and ways of life of an agricultural society.

In the history of the study of the figurative system "Words ..." some stages are indicated. Maksimovich and Dubensky spoke not about comparison, but about assimilation (symbolism), which also coincides with the view developed by Buslaev on the mythological nature of the imagery of the monument. About simple comparisons and metaphors, which in the "Word ..." in pure form no, Grammatin said for the first time, and N. Golovin added that "The Word ..." "is filled with metaphors and allegories." In general, serious scientists up to ser. XX century, listing specifically the tropes and figures used in the "Word ...", they did not say anything about the metaphor in this monument (Buslaev, Tikhonravov, Speransky, etc.) - they mention negative comparison, repetitions, a constant epithet, personification, images folk poetry”, mythological symbols, proverbs and sayings (“parables” and riddles), even laments as a folk form of expressing emotions, states, etc.

Potebnya is especially careful in defining the figurativeness of the "Word...", referring mainly to symbolism, assimilation and parallelism. Speransky notes the essential characteristics of the figurative structure of the “Word...”: mythological in meaning, he calls the names of pagan deities, “a folk poetic method of personifying the elements”, a religious and mythological element as an opportunity to pair folk and Christian cultural symbols with an epithet.

Cautiously about the "metaphoristics" of the "Word ..." they spoke later, remaining within the framework of ideas about the imagery of the "Word ..." and "images of folk poetry" (Larin, Likhachev, etc.)

This imagery can be understood as real basis descriptions of the natural landscape included in symbolic similes: corpses - sheaves, a cemetery - a death cup, etc., often given in the “Word ...” in a picturesque, detailed description (“black earth ...”). Consequently, the term "image" in all such cases was used in the medieval scope of the concept: the image is wider than a path or figure and connects linguistic imagery with mythological symbols inherent in culture.

The analytical nature of the research procedure required clarification, and the indefinite term “image” began to be concretized in relation to each individual manifestation of imagery in the text of the monument. Three directions in the narrowing of the term have been identified.

O " symbolic meaning image”, Likhachev began to speak about “symbolic parallelism”, which brought the problem from the surface figurative and artistic level to the semantic level; parallel to this, Yakobson admitted that "The Word ..." is a work of a difficult, secret, influx-allegorical style that took possession at the end of the 12th century. and at the beginning 13th century Russian and Western poetry. An attempt to combine the figurative (metaphorical) and semantic (symbolic) aspects of the description of the artistic specificity of the text appeared in unclear definitions: “symbolic-metaphorical interpretation”.

Orlov is already confidently talking about the metaphor in The Word, although at the same time it was he who pointed out the main difference between literary-bookish and oral-folk tropes: rhetorically book metaphors folk art prefers the (permanent) epithet. Metaphor as "one of the main ways figurative reflection reality” in the “Word...” acquired decisive significance in Eremin’s opinion: the “emphasized metaphor” of the monument allows Eremin to point out the differences between the “Word...” from the annalistic works of Ancient Russia, but also from the folk epic, while he understands metaphor as "figurative convergence of one kind of phenomena of reality with others" (but this is an epiphora) or as a transfer of meaning from the abstract to the concrete (which is more like metonymy).

Finally, the authors of popular literature about the Word..., as well as the authors of linguistic descriptions, began to speak quite definitely about the "metaphorical nature" of the "Word ...". “The metaphor “Words ...” is at the center of the philosophical perception of events ... In the pictures of nature, the metaphor becomes the personification ...”, etc. Reflection mythological consciousness, the subtext of which is still nature, and not the facts of the Church. stories, is perceived as metaphorical: the metaphorical system "Words ..." consists of simple (from one word), complex (a group of words) and detailed metaphorical pictures, as well as a metaphorical epithet. The natural myth, based on assimilation and reflecting the pagan figurativeness of the word, the researchers are trying to decompose into formal linguistic groups, emasculating the meaningful meaning of the symbol, the imagery of which is created by the imposition of Christian symbolism on the symbol of pagan culture. The text is mysterious precisely because the borrowed metaphorical expressions and epithets of their own language, in unusual combination with each other, give rise to new symbols. Purely formal interpretations of metaphor bring us back to their meaningful function as symbols. The appearance of a “metaphor” in “The Word...”, which is inherent in our modern consciousness, is created due to the unexpected intrusion of words of abstract meaning into the concrete-figurative system of the monument, in which the figurative and emotional principles are “promoted to the fore”.

Larin found a fundamentally different way of research, accurately calling the style of Russian literature characteristic of the Middle Ages “metonymic imagery” and “symbolism of the image” B. Larin . Lectures on the history of the Russian literary language. M., 1975. - S. 163--165 ..

Mythological symbols are symbols of substitution, assimilation or sign. Pagan symbolism is manifested in the fact that the author of the "Word ..." each time, as it were, incarnates in a new character, personifying himself in him, and does not stand above them. The interpenetration of the pagan world (man - tree - beast - water ...) becomes an artistically justified means in describing this world. Indirect designation of a person, object, phenomenon is preferred to direct and immediate. naming by a simple indication of one bright (ideal or typical) feature brought to the forefront of perception. Velesov’s granddaughter is Boyan, Dazhbozhi’s grandchildren are Russians, Osmomysl is Yaroslav, shestokryls are warriors or princes; likening heroes to a wolf, a crow, a nest, a beast, a zegzitsa, swans, foxes, an eagle, a falcon, a nightingale, a tour, etc. - in essence, the same werewolf (which is attributed only to Vseslav), but spread by a verb (falcon flight) or the epithet (black raven) emphasizes the necessary sign of assimilation; phenomena of nature, symbolizing various troubles (winds, sun, thunderstorms, clouds, rain, lightning, thunder, rivers flowing, etc.), are a sign and background of the events taking place in those times, "when man did not yet separate himself from nature."

The combination of "image" and "concept" (representation of the image as a concept) in a verbal sign is characteristic of the "Word ...". Just not in such controversial metaphorical expressions (everything undeciphered and obscure seems to be a metaphor in this monument), but in purely metonymic transfers, for example, in designating weapons as a symbol of a warrior, his glory, actions, etc. (horse, spear, sword, saber , saddle, arrows, stirrup, banner, helmet, shield, etc.); the reality of the term, transferred to a new formula for it, is enriched with an additional, figurative meaning and develops into a symbol when a specific connection with a certain ritual, action or state of this person or object is lost.

Translating the phenomena of the material world into phenomena of the spiritual order, abstractly general, the author of the "Word ..." creates a symbol, since such a symbol is assumed by the described action through the perception of this action by the hero of the story (bones sown in battles - ascended with sadness).

Thus, the symbol as a category is revealed in the "Word ..." only in a systemic correlation with the means of language parallel or opposed to it, i.e. systemically, and is the only one of these means of which it can be said that a symbol is not a trope or a figure of speech, but a sign of an unknown force connected with reality - an image, a force that sets in motion both the action itself and the description of this action, and understanding the meaning of such action.

Apparently, only in our perception (we understand these combinations differently than the author of the "Word ...") is this an adorning, metaphorical, permanent epithet. The constant epithets of folk poetry include: brave squad, red maidens), filthy Polovtsi, open field, blue sea, blue Don, black raven, black earth, Gray wolf, a gray eagle, a red-hot arrow, green grass, a greyhound horse, a fierce beast, a bright sun, daring sons, a dear brother, an inky shield, an indelible banner, other oxamites. “Decorating epithets”: golden-domed tower, silver jets, yew bed, crimson pillars, golden stirrup. “Metaphorical epithets”: prophetic fingers, living strings, iron shelves, a golden word, a pearl soul (N.I. Prokofiev added to this list - a thoughtful tree, a warm haze, a good nest, a bloody dawn, a cruel haralug, a bloody grass, silver coast, and N.V. Gerasimova also - buoy tour, bold body, young month, strong regiments; yar bui - "a complex metaphorical epithet"). All combinations of the latter type are sometimes called "poetic epithets", referring to their figurativeness. The calculations of epithets in the “Word ...” are very subjective: Hoffmann finds only 10 constant epithets, V.N. all adjectives) -- 208.

The same can be found in other monuments of ancient Russian literature.

Conclusion

The nature of ancient Russian literature was also determined by the fact that the ecclesiastical environment in the old days was not only mostly the creator, but also the monopoly keeper of the literary tradition, saving and multiplying in the lists only that material that corresponded to its interests, and indifferent or hostile to the material, this interests that do not satisfy or contradict them. A significant obstacle to the development of secular literature at first was the fact that until the XIV century. as a material for writing, parchment was used, the high cost and scarcity of which excluded the possibility of any wide expenditure of it on manuscripts that did not pursue direct goals of a religious and edifying nature. But religious and edifying literature also found free circulation only to the extent that it was approved by church censorship: there was a significant department of the so-called "apocryphal" literature, "false" or "renounced" books that were not approved by the official church and prohibited by it. for reading, although in other cases, church leaders, themselves poorly versed in the literature that was subject to prohibition, thereby unconsciously condoned its distribution.

If we also take into account the death as a result of any disasters (fires, looting of book depositories during wars, etc.) of individual literary monuments, especially those that circulated in an insignificant number of lists, it becomes quite obvious that we do not have all the once existing material of ancient Russian literature, and therefore the very construction of its history, of necessity, can only be more or less approximate: if it were not for an accidental discovery at the end of the 18th century. in the provincial monastic library of the only list of "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", our understanding of ancient Russian literature would be much poorer than it was as a result of this find. But we are not sure that in ancient times there were no monuments similar to the Lay, the fate of which turned out to be less happy than the fate of the Lay.

N.K. Nikolsky at one time rightly noted: "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", "The Tale of Daniil the Sharpener", fragments of historical legends in the annals, "The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land" and similar works show that in the initial centuries of Russian life, in addition to church teaching bookishness, secular literature existed and developed, which reached a significant flourishing in Southern Russia. If The Tale of Igor's Campaign were single for its era, then it would, of course, be a historical inconsistency. A.I. Sobolevsky agreed that there were many works similar to The Tale of Igor's Campaign in ancient Russia, and explained their disappearance by the loss of interest in their content in the next generations.

The means of dissemination of works of ancient Russian literature was almost exclusively the manuscript; book printing, which arose in Russia only in the middle of the 16th century. and the former in general is a fact of great cultural significance, served mainly liturgical literature not only in the 16th century, but throughout almost the entire course of the 17th century.

The handwritten tradition of ancient Russian literature contributed to the variability of literary monuments, which often evolved in their ideological content, compositional and stylistic design, depending on the historical situation and the social environment in which this or that monument fell. The concept of literary property and individual author's monopoly on literary work in ancient Russia was absent. The copyist of this or that monument was often at the same time its editor, who did not hesitate to adapt the text to the needs and tastes of his time and his environment.

Bibliography

Baranov A.N. To the description of the semantics of adverbs of degree (barely, barely, slightly, a little). // NDVSH. Philol. Sciences. - 2004. - No. 3.

Vasilevskaya E.A. Compounding in Russian / E.A. Vasilevskaya.- M., 1962.

Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the Great Russian language. - M., 1952.

Zhivov V.M. Language and culture in Russia of the XVIII century / V.M. Zhivov. - M., 1996.

Kamchatnov A.M. On the semantic dictionary of the Old Russian language. // Ancient Russia. Questions of medieval studies. - 2004. - No. 1.

Larin B.A. Lectures on the history of the Russian literary language. M., 1975.

Levin V.D. Brief essay on the history of the Russian literary language. - M.: Enlightenment, 1964.

Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. / Ed. Yartseva V.N. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990.

Likhachev D.S. "Word" and aesthetic representations of its time // "Word" and culture. - M.: Enlightenment, 1976.

Essays on Comparative Grammar of East Slavonic Languages. / Ed. N.I. Bukatevich, I.E. Gritsyutenko, S.A. Savitskaya. - Odessa: Odessa state. un-t. them. I. I. Mechnikov, 1958.

Uspensky B.A. History of the Russian literary language (XI-XVII centuries). - M.: Aspect Press, 2003.

Chervenkova I.V. General adverbial indicators of the measure of the sign: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 1975.

Vasmer's etymological dictionary. - M., 1987.

Similar Documents

Problems of territorial differentiation of language. Territorial differentiation vocabulary from the point of view of ethnolinguistic geography. Differentiation of the Italian language on a territorial basis. Causes of the emergence of dialects of the Italian language.

term paper, added 08/06/2010


The manifestation of polysemy in the Russian language. The manifestation of polysemy in the Old Russian language. Polysemy in everyday vocabulary of the Old Russian language in the 11th-14th centuries. Semantics of some categories of the lexicon of written monuments. secondary meaning of words.

term paper, added 12/06/2006


The history and main reasons for the formation and disintegration of the Old Russian language, its lexical and grammatical features. Place and assessment of the significance of the Russian language among other languages. The emergence of a written language among the Eastern Slavs, its currents and styles.

term paper, added 07/15/2009


The word is the most important unit of language. Lexical meaning of the word, what is lexical compatibility. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms. Verbosity and lexical incompleteness. Words with limited scope. The words foreign origin, aphorisms.

control work, added 12/11/2011


Consideration of the main periods in the history of the English language. Formation of literary norms of the modern English language, features of its grammatical structure. The syntactic structure of the language and the principles of development of entire lexico-grammatical classes.

abstract, added 06/13/2012


Difficulties of practical and theoretical nature that arise when translating from a foreign language. Influence of the national specifics of the language on translation. Word choice in translation. Phonetic, lexical, grammatical and linguocultural interference.

article, added 01/23/2012


Reflection of the grammatical and morphological structure of the Old Russian language in the written monuments of the older period. Word formation and declension of nouns. Changes in the noun system: the disappearance of the vocative form and the dual number.

abstract, added 03/16/2012


The consonant type of the Russian language. Sound system Old Russian language. Loss of nasal vowels. Secondary softening of semi-soft consonants. Drop of reduced, reduction of final vowels complete education. Formation of the category of deafness-voicedness.

abstract, added 10/27/2011


Historical changes in the lexical system of the language. Derivational relations in modern language. Borrowing as a way of replenishing the language with new words. The place of computer slang in the language. Computer jargon as a language subsystem.

term paper, added 11/30/2006


Definition of phonetics. Study of phonetic system of the Russian language, which consists of significant units of speech - words, word forms, phrases and sentences, for the transmission and distinction of which are the phonetic means of the language: sounds, stress, intonation.