What are connected roots in Russian. Root morpheme (root) -

Root and affixal morphemes of the Russian language

Root of the word.

As part of the segmented stem, two types of morphemes are distinguished, differing in their purpose and degree of hierarchical dependence: 1) root morphemes and 2) affixes (service morphemes). For example, at the base of the word transfer three morphemes are distinguished: re-roll-to-, one of which is root throw- and two affixes: prefix re- and suffix -to-. The root morpheme is the main, obligatory part of the stem of the word. Service morphemes only complement it. Determining the root is associated with certain difficulties. Traditionally, the word root is defined in the linguistic literature from a semantic point of view: "The root is a morpheme with the main lexical meaning of the word", "the root is the bearer of the idea that determines the lexical meaning of the word"(Dibrova E.I., p. 462).

No less common is the definition root as a common part of related words. In both academic grammars, an attempt was made to structurally define the root through the concept of the stem of the word: “A root morph is a morph that is necessarily present in every word form and can completely materially coincide with the base”. However, the Russian Grammar recognizes the leading role of the root in expressing the lexical meaning of a word. The structural features of the root are established by the compilers of both grammars by opposing it to affixes: 1) the root is obligatory for the word form, affixes may be absent in it, 2) the root may coincide with the stem of the word, affixes do not allow the possibility of such a coincidence. However, the second of the selected features is not undeniably distinctive. On the one hand, this is prevented by the presence in the language of related roots of the type rob-to-y, rob-e-t, rob-ost, for-lodge-and-t, from-lodge-and-t etc., which do not exist without accompanying affixes, and on the other hand, the coincidence of some affixes (albeit indirectly, through function words), prefixes such as without-, on-, from-, not- and others with prepositions and particles.

In school practice, the root is determined by two criteria: 1) regular repetition in the composition of the word-formation nest, 2) the nature of the expressed meaning: “The common part of related words, which contains their main meaning, is called the root” (Babaitseva V.V., Chesnokova L.D.).

The root is a mandatory, then an indivisible part of the base. A word cannot exist without a root. And if the stem consists of one morpheme, then such a stem is equal to the root: legs-.a, hands-a, lead-ut. The root and stem are the same in non-segmented words __ with _ missing inflectional affixes of the type: Cafe suddenly, very already like, where and etc.

The obligatory presence of a root morpheme for each word is due to two reasons: 1) the primary role of the root in the expression of lexical meaning, 2) its central position in the word-formation nest. The subject-logical nature of the root is determined, on the one hand, by the features of the reflection in the word of a real object, its procedural attribute or characteristic property, and on the other hand, by the belonging of the word to one or another part of speech. In this regard, the following types of root meaning are distinguished: 1) subject (book-a, tree-o, horn-0), 2) procedural (carry, play, save, Oh) 3) indicative, subdivided into qualitative (yellow green) and quantitative (four) sign. The degree of specificity of the lexical meaning of the root is not the same: it can be greater or lesser. Less specific are words with the meaning of a procedural and qualitative attribute, in which the root morpheme can express only the general idea of ​​the concept being designated. (cf. wall-a, table-0, but light-th-, learning-th-e, mind-n-th.) A special place in this regard is occupied by pronominal roots that have an abstract demonstrative meaning (i-0, many, that-0, th-o). They do not designate objects and their signs, but only draw the attention of the interlocutor to them.

However, a direct relationship between the nature of the lexical meaning of the root and the part-of-speech belonging of the word cannot be drawn, since within each part of speech the roots can have a different degree of specificity. Thus, the roots of nouns along with a specific value of the type coast-0, forest-0, floor "e can also denote the abstract meaning of a procedural or qualitative feature (decision-en-e, ride-a, white-out-a etc.). But the shortest segment of the root (root morph) in the composition of related words of the derivational nest has the most generalized meaning. It expresses only the most general outlines of the designated concept, refined by means of affixal morphemes. As a result, each word acquires its own well-defined lexical meaning. So, for example, the root morph thu-at nest word-building chains chit-a-t, chit-a-tel-0, chit-to-a, th-en-e denotes only something related to the visual and / or sound perception of the written. But in the word reading, combined with a derivational suffix -niy/ -enyey- and the system of noun endings cf. kind, it receives a certain meaning of "a separate act of action." As carriers of lexical meaning, roots are opposed to affixes expressing a more abstract grammatical or derivational meaning. In the given example Thu-en-th grammatical meanings include gender, number, case of a noun; derivational, expressed suffixally, is the meaning of "a separate act of action".

In material (sound) terms, the root is an indivisible part of the stem, consisting of a number of phonemes (less often, one phoneme), capable of undergoing formal modifications. Traditionally, two types of such changes are distinguished: 1) positional (due to the current phonetic laws) and 2) historical alternations, preserved in the language from a very ancient time and caused in the past by phonetic reasons. An example of the first of these is the alternation of hard / soft, voiced / deaf consonants [d/d"], [d/t] in words annual, annual, year: [gd-av-oh, bastard "ich-n-th, goth], as well as the alternation of vowels [b-o-] in the same morpheme, caused by different positions in relation to stress.

The historical alternations of the root include, for example, the alternation of back-lingual consonants g, k, x hissing f, h, w in the roots of nouns with a diminutive suffix -ok: friend - friend, bitch - bitch, verse - rhyme. Alternating root sounds k-h takes place before the endings of the personal forms of the verb bake - bake. The independence of such alternations from the sound environment of the root is evidenced by the fact that both alternating sounds in all the examples given are in front of morphs of the same sound, i.e. in the same phonemic position. Such types of formal differences of the root morpheme do not violate its semantic unity, since the presented modifications are associated with the same concept of a certain period of time.

FREE AND CONNECTED ROOTS

According to the degree of morphemic and semantic independence, free and bound roots are distinguished.

Free are called roots that can act independently, without combination with auxiliary (except for inflection) morphemes or other roots. For example: wall-a, window-o winter-a, ride-a, forest-o-steppe-0. In this case, the word is a combination of root_morpheme with an ending, in immutable words like here yesterday - stem that matches the root.

Related roots include roots that appear only in conjunction with auxiliary morphemes (including non-inflectional ones) or other roots as part of an articulating (derivative) stem. Such roots differ from free roots, therefore they are commonly called r a d i k s o i d a m i (Latin "root" and Greek "similar"): in addition (in-do-bav-ok), plunge (in-verg-well), covenant (for-vet-0), skill (on-off-0), put on, dress (on- / o-de -th) and others. The peculiarities of their use are due to the fact that words with related roots do not have a parallel inarticulate stem. So, for example, if there are a number of repeated words with the root -bav-: add, additive, additional, increase, dilute and others - in modern Russian there is not a single word where the root –bav-- performed independently.

The formation of words with associated roots is caused by various changes in the word in the process historical district language development. So, for example, in the words finger and sun root morphemes from the point of view of modern consciousness are used only in combination with derivational_affixes;_ finger-0, finger-0; sun-ts-e, sun-ech-n-th, sun-yshk-o, sun-ts-e-pek-0. However, in the first of these words - finger the phenomenon of root connection is caused by the loss of the original word fell, previously used in a similar sense as a word with an indivisible stem, and in the second - sun - divergence of semantic connections with a single-root word salt, from which it is derived. Bound roots differ from free roots in a number of ways: they are 1) not used as inseparable stems; 2) are characterized by frequent repetition in series of single-structured formations. This is especially clear in derivative words with prefixes and suffixes: on-de-t, o-de-t, re-o-de-t, once-de-t, at-o-de-t; oto-y-ti, pod-y-ti, po-y-ti, so-y-ti; do-kaz-a-t, for-kaz-0, for-kaz-0, order-kaz-0, s-kaz-0, s-kaz-a-t, y-kaz-0, y-kaz- a-th etc.; 3) have a meaning obscured for modern perception, like words in the composition of phraseologically related units: nothing is visible balusters, balusters, sharpen, pitch-black hell, get in a mess etc.

The frequent repetition of related roots does not prevent the formation of words with single related roots, called unique ones, such as buzhen-in-a, currant-in-a, small-in-a, division of which is carried out according to the residual principle. The identification of related and unique roots in the morphemic analysis of the composition of a word often causes difficulties, especially in cases where one or two sounds of the type remain from the etymological root about-at-th, raz-at-th, about-at-in-0-0, s-nya-ty, v-nya-ty, from-nya-ty-e.

Erofeeva Veronika, Pushkin Nikita, Pardasova Julia

Research work helps to find out the origin of words, expressions (the name of dishes, the origin of surnames) in the Russian language.

Download:

Preview:

To use the preview of presentations, create a Google account (account) and sign in: https://accounts.google.com

Slides captions:

TOPIC: HOW THE WORDS DEVELOPED IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

The urgency of the problem. What is the need for my work? Subject: "Russian language". There are many words in Russian that we do not understand. To reveal the lexical meaning of a word, we turn to dictionaries. Before us the question arose: how did the words come about? Who invents them? In our time, what new words have appeared in the language? This research work will help us to identify the origin of words and expressions, improve academic performance in the Russian language. Type of project: theoretical, by time - medium duration, by the way children are organized - group

OBJECTIVES: to reveal the connection between the origin of the names of the most common plant-symbols in myths, legends of the peoples of the world with their history; learn about the ways of forming surnames; find out how common dishes and foods got their names. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT is to identify: how did words originate in Russian?

A riddle whose answer is the origin of the words a. 1. Lexical meaning (work with dictionaries). Attention is drawn to the ambiguity of the word. 2. Drawing of a word (according to the number of meanings of the word). 3. Etymology (origin) of the word (work with dictionaries). 4. My creativity. Work plan:

Solutions to the problem 1) Download the prepared abstract from the Internet 1) Download the prepared abstract from the Internet 2) Download the prepared answer from the Internet. 1) Ask your parents and friends. 3) Find information yourself from various sources and prepare a presentation based on it. Use dictionaries, literature on the topic, illustrations, photographs, slides, multimedia projector.

Expected result Expanding horizons. Finding out the origins of words in Russian (names of flowers, dishes, surnames). Increasing interest in the Russian language and history. Improving academic performance in the Russian language. Mutual assistance in learning and work.

How did the surnames come about

where do people get their last names from? ways of forming surnames

The first surnames in Russia appeared in the 14-15 centuries. Then the owners of surnames became feudal lords, princes, boyars, later - nobles, merchants. Most often, the origin of the surnames of people from wealthy estates and the meanings of surnames were associated with the names of the lands they owned (for example, surnames: Tverskoy, Vyazemsky). The simple Russian people did without surnames, being content with first names, patronymics, and nicknames. This was the case until the abolition of serfdom in 1861. By this time, the vast majority of the population of Russia were serfs, they did not have surnames. And only after the fall of serfdom, when the peasants ceased to belong to anyone, became independent, did the need arise to give them surnames. Then, in most cases, it was patronymics and nicknames that became the initial data for the origin of surnames.

Methods for the formation of surnames 1. Surnames from the profession. (Kuznetsov, Pastukhov) 2. Surnames from the place of residence. (Ozerov, Polevoy, Bolotnikov) 3. Surnames from geographical names. (Macedonsky, Chuvashov, Kostromin) 4. Surnames from nicknames. (Krivoshchekin, Novikov) 5. Surnames from the name. (Ivanov, Petrov, Ilyin) 7. Surnames from a historical event. (Nevsky) 8. Surnames from an event in a person's life. (Naydenov, Podkidyshev) 9. Surnames from the personal qualities of a person (Bystrov, Smirnov, Smelykh, Grozny) 10. Surnames from church names and holidays. (Christmas) 11. Surnames from the names of animals and birds. (Skvortsov, Drozdov, Medvedev, Zaitsev, Bobrov)

In our class, the surnames occurred:

Origin of words. Names of common dishes and individual products

The word APPETITE came to us under Peter I from Germany. The German "appetite" comes from the Latin "appetitus", which means strong desire. As you know, "bread is the head of everything", "bread on the table, and the table is the throne" ... The very important word for the Slavs "bread" was borrowed in the common Slavic period from the Germanic languages ​​(Gothic hlaifs, Old German hleib). The word "dough" is formed from the same stem as "squeeze" (alternating and / e, as in the words "blink / adjoin"). *Teksto changed to "dough" as a result of simplifying consonant combinations. The original meaning of this word is "what is squeezed" (i.e. crumpled in the hands).

The word "bagel" is derived from "ram"; initially bagels were called buns bent like a ram's horn (sometimes they are called volutes). This variety of sweets is named so for its resemblance to ice floes - they are similar in transparency and the ability to melt in the mouth.

The word SUGAR is borrowed from the Latin language "sakharum", randomly from the Sanskrit "sarkar", which means "gravel", "sand". Sour cream is so named because it is swept (raked) from settled sour milk. CREAM is what is drained from settled fresh milk. Fritters were popular in Ancient Greece. Fritters are butter cakes, and in Greek BUTTER is “elion”.

"Soup" is a borrowing from French (in the 18th century), where soupe goes back to the late Latin suppa - "a piece of bread dipped in gravy". The word "oil" is formed from the verb "to smear" with the help of the suffix "-sl-" (as "oar" from the word "carry", "harp" from "buzz"). The resulting form "maz-slo" was simplified, and it turned out "butter". "sandwich" in translation from German - "bread and butter".

"Tomato" in translation from Italian - "golden apple" Watermelon - "harmelon" from the Persian language. Orange. The word comes from two German words - “apfel” (apple) and “sina” (China), that is, “Chinese apple”. Vinaigrette is derived from the French vinaigre - "vinegar"

Research results:

General results of the study: Not a single foreign word came into the Russian language for no reason. In certain periods of history, different languages ​​​​- Arabic, ancient Greek, German, Polish - were distinguished by a strong penetration into Russian speech. Many Russian words have these roots. And today there are many neologisms of English origin. For example: jazz, rally, athlete.

New words appear literally every day. Some do not linger in the language, while others remain. The great creator of words was the scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. He had to build a number of sciences from scratch: physics, chemistry, geography and many others. Lomonosov introduced the words "thermometer", "refraction", "balance", "diameter", "square" and "minus" into the Russian language. Trying to establish the origin of a particular word, scientists have long compared the data of different languages ​​with each other.

The process of forming the vocabulary of the Russian language is long and complex. The question of the origin and development of vocabulary, the ways of its development is closely connected with the history of the Russian people. The entire vocabulary of the Russian language can be divided into two large classes: primordial, originally inherent in the Russian language; borrowed, that is, come to us from other languages. Thanks to borrowings, the Russian language becomes richer, they do not constitute a threat to it (only 10% of borrowed words). International vocabulary facilitates scientific, cultural and political contacts. "All peoples exchange words and borrow them from each other." (V. G. Belinsky)

Working on this topic, we learned how to use various dictionaries: etymological dictionary etymology of words meaning of words dictionary of the Russian language dictionary of synonyms Ozhegov's dictionary origin of the surname Dal's dictionary

Used literature: Dal V. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language in 4 volumes - M .: Education, 1968. From the history of Russian words: Dictionary - a guide. - M .: School - Press, 1993. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language - Russian language, 1975. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. - M., 1999. Dictionary-reference book on the Russian language. / Under the editorship of A.N. Tikhonov. - M.: Citadel, 1996. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. - M .: Publishing house of Moscow University, 1980.

Students of the 3A class of the municipal educational institution "Kugessky Lyceum" of the Cheboksary district of the Chechen Republic Erofeeva Veronika, Pardasova Yulia and Pushkin Nikita worked on the project.

The root is the main, obligatory part of the word. It is the root that expresses the main meaning of the word. Let's compare the words forest and forest (the suffix denotes the size - "small", and the root - the object itself), run and run (the prefix means "approach", and the root - the action itself).
But there is another situation.

Take verbs about at th time at th. They clearly recognize the prefixes about- (a variant of the prefix about) and times- (compare the similar meaning of the prefixes in the verbs to dress and undress), the indicator of the infinitive is -t. Where is the root? Root -u-. This root stands out as a remainder after isolating the prefix and other verb indicators. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that it is not used outside of combination with prefixes.

Such roots, which are used only in combination with derivational morphemes (prefixes or suffixes), are called connected, distinguishing them from "ordinary" - free roots.
In the words calf, foal, the roots are connected by the suffix -onok (compare this suffix with free roots: tiger - [tiger" -onok], elephant - [layers" -oik], wolf - [wolf" -onok]).
Often, in the semantics of a whole word, the meaning of the associated corium is unclear, it is felt weakly. We saw this in the verbs to put on and take off shoes, which have the associated root -y-. Here are more examples: take away - take away, raise - raise, remove - take off, accept - take. In these words, the meaning of the prefixes is clearly understood, and the meaning of the associated root (-nya- in Sov. V., -nim- in Nesov. V.) barely dawns. What does this root mean? Some kind of action, but what exactly is unclear.
Isolation of related roots is permissible only when other parts of the word are morphemes that have a definite, clearly perceived meaning in the composition of the word: in-nz-i-t, pro-nz-i-t (compare: in-poke, pierce), add- and-t, from-bav-and-t (compare: to-li-t, from-li-t); from-rejected-well, to-rejected-well-be (to-throw, to-throw, to-put). If the meaning of "neighbors" is not clear, there is no reason to isolate and the associated root.

So, in a group, take away, raise, accept, separate prefixes have specific spatial meanings and are clearly understood. In the verb to understand (“to comprehend with the mind”), the meaning of the prefix is ​​\u200b\u200bnot clear, therefore there is no reason to single out the associated root in this verb.

In terms of origin, there are two groups of words with related roots :
1. Originally Russian words, the root of which was free in the past.

Such are many prefixed verbs, including the already familiar words with the roots -verg- and -nya-.

In the Old Russian language there was a verb yati - "to take", which left the language; only his descendants survived - verbs with prefixes: take away,
raise, separate, etc.; -n--insert sound
between the prefix and the root, in modern language it appears as part of the associated root.
2. Borrowed words that came into the Russian language entirely, but when compared with other words, suffixes and prefixes are singled out in them: zgo-ism, ego-ist; tourism, tour-ist; isolate, isolate, [insulator]

(According to the reference manual by D.E.Rosenthal)

Elena Kosykh, candidate of philological sciences, associate professor

Altai State Pedagogical University, Russia

Natalya Chashchina, teacher of Russian language and literature

Secondary school №125, Barnaul

Championship participant: National championship in research analytics - "Russia";

Open European-Asian championship in research analytics;

The article presents arguments about the reasons for the appearance of related roots in the Russian language. Desemantization of the nuclear morpheme is probably due to historical phonetic processes that changed the shape of the root.

Keywords: morpheme, associated root, causes of desemantization.

The article presents the discussion of the causes that lead to the emergence of bound roots in Russian. Desemantized nuclear morphemes may be probably caused by historical phonetic processes changing the root structure.

keywords: morpheme, bound root, causes of desemantization.

If at the beginning there was a word, then it was necessarily represented by the root, which is recognized as the central and obligatory element of the morphemic structure of the word. This morpheme is the carrier of the main lexical meaning, and affixes (suffixes and prefixes) only specify it. However, the isolation of the root in the morphemic structure of the word at the present stage of the functioning of the language can be a problem, since over time the external form of the root can change. These changes are reflected in alternations and are due to various historical processes of the language.

The problem of identifying roots in words with a complex morphemic structure has led to a number of theoretical questions to which scientists still cannot give unambiguous and exhaustive answers. Opinion V.V. Lopatin and I.S. Ulukhanov that “much here remains unclear or unfulfilled” [Cit. by: Sheptukhina, 2006, p. 22] is still relevant today. The difficulty arises because the roots of the modern Russian language can be free or connected.

In synchrony, words with related roots are described in sufficient detail. However, among scientists there is no unity in the definition of the terms “connected root” and “connected stem”, the issues of derivation and articulation of words containing a connected root, a connected stem remain debatable [see, for example: Vinokur, 1959; Zemskaya, 2009; Sigalov, 1977; Sidorova, 2006; Tikhonov, 1990; Ulukhanov, 1993; Tsyganenko, 1991; Shansky, 1968; Shirshov, 1997]. Despite studies that attempt to identify the causes of the appearance of words with related roots in the Russian language [Strelkov, 1967], this aspect still remains insufficiently developed in science. In the diachronic aspect, which makes it possible to establish the cause of the origin of the connection of the root and to present the prospect of loss of freedom possible for modern roots, the works are practically not noted.

To find an answer to the question: why in the modern Russian language some roots have lost the ability to be used freely, without the environment of one or more word-forming affixes, we have undertaken a study based on the analysis of historical forms.

To identify the reasons for the loss of independence by roots, we chose related roots, which are most often found as examples of this phenomenon in textbooks and manuals on word formation for students of philological faculties of higher educational institutions [Zemskaya, 2009], [Kasatkin, 1995], [ Modern Russian language, 1999], [Modern Russian language, 2006].

The starting point of the work was the monograph by G.O. Vinokur "Notes on Russian word formation" [Vinokur, 1959], in which the researcher defined the term "connected stem", described this phenomenon and presented a list of related roots, using words in which these roots are given as examples.

In our study, we have a repertoire of related roots that are most often found in educational and reference literature on this issue, has about 40 nuclear morphemes that can only be used in the environment of word-building affixes (-bav-, dishes / blues (t) -,

-'a-//-im-//-em-//-ym-//?, -vad-//-import-, -vet-, -de-//-dezhd-, -ul-, - row-//-row-, -heavy-//*-thrusts-, etc.). The number of options for the functioning of these related root morphemes exceeds 1000 words of the modern Russian language (for example, fun, add; to observe, observe, observe; take, have, receiver; seduce, repel; hello, covenant; put on, clothing; street, lane; dress up, dress up; litigation, to pull, but the pull is still with a free root).

The classic example of a linked root is the morpheme - at - in words put on, put on, shoes. The formation of verbs occurs according to the well-known scheme: prefix + stem. The etymological dictionary notes that put on shoes derived from "pra-Slav. *ob-uti along with *jьz-uti (see study)” [Fasmer, 2003: Vol. 3, p. 109]. The dictionaries also state that to put on, to put on"related to lit. auti, aunu, aviau "to wear shoes, put on shoes" [Fasmer, 2003: vol. 3, p. 109]. In modern Russian, in these lexemes, a fusion of the root and the prefix is ​​observed.

The change in semantics that affected the units under study shows

G.O. Vinokur in “Notes on Russian word formation”, noting: “The meaning of this stem does not exist outside of articulation with the meanings of the prefixes ob-, raz-. It would be wrong to think that the meaning of the stem -y- is generally indeterminate. No, it is definable, but only in such a way that, whatever its definition, the definition itself will certainly include an indication that the corresponding action is possible only in those of its modifications, which in the language are denoted by the prefixes ob-, raz-. The researcher believed that, for example, the meaning of the basis -у- could be defined as follows: "perform an action, as a result of which the legs will be provided with clothing or deprived of it" [Vinokur, 1959, p. 424].

In the course of the study, it was found that the marked root was originally a diphthong *ou-, which was monophthongized in the Proto-Slavic period. And if the spelling OBOUTI, OBOUVATI was graphically transmitted on the letter, then phonetically - monophthong [y]. The contraction of the root morpheme caused the connection of the root -у-, since the semantics of the word also changed. The meaning of “pull”, “put on” was I.-e. root *ou- [Chernykh, 2002: Vol. 1, p. 589]. Gradually, this meaning was updated in the prefix ob-, which is realized in the meaning ‘ to cover or be covered with through an action called a motivating word': shod means "put on shoes" is noted in the modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1994, p. 430]. The analysis of these meanings led to the conclusion that the semantics of the root -у- was concretized over time due to the merger of the root with homonymous derivational prefixes ob- and raz-. It is essential to emphasize that the desemantization of the root and the redistribution of the morpheme boundary in the case of the birth of a connected root is accompanied by a semantic redistribution, i.e. part of the meaning of the root morpheme is transferred to affixes (prefix or root).

From a diachronic point of view, the associated central morpheme -у- is singled out in the word shoes. The morphemic structure of this word in modern Russian is explained by E.A. Zemskaya, with whose opinion, in this case, we absolutely agree: “The meaning of the prefix in this word is unclear, although in general the prefix is ​​habitual in the language; there is no noun in the language with the same root but with a different prefix. As for the suffix -в, it is dead and its meaning is completely incomprehensible to the speakers" [Zemskaya, 2009, p. 54]. Therefore the word shoes from the standpoint of the synchronous development of the language, it is simple and indivisible. And the meaning “clothes for the legs, what covers the legs around” is also realized through the element ob-.

Another example. The associated root -em- / -em- / -nim- / -nya- / -ym- / -’a- (Proto-Slavic *jьm) is isolated in words accept, take hug, take off, separate, listen, buddy, acceptable, heed, rise, receiver and others. In the dictionary of M. Fasmer it is indicated that the word heed, For example , formed by adding a prefix to the root: “*vъn- and *j?ti” [Fasmer, 2003: vol. 1, p. 329]. The original prosthetic -n'- in the Proto-Slavic language appeared in the position after the prepositions in, k, s which in the Proto-Slavic language sounded * vbn, *kbp,*sen. Then the consonant of the root morpheme *j merged with the final consonant of the preposition and the stem was re-decomposed. We see the same in the word bribe, formed from the prefix *vъz and *j?ti.

Thus, the etymological chain of this associated root looks like this: *jьm?j?ti? I A TI? yati? take, take, etc.

At one of the first stages of the formation of the root -’a- (-i-) there was a process monophthongization of diphthongoids(contraction into one vocal element of the vowel and nasal): ?, then - loss of nasality(in Old Russian): ?<’а>. Up to this point, the root -im-/- ’ a- could be used freely, but already in Dahl's dictionary it is noted that YATI was used "more with a pretext." For example, *j?ti?*vъn- + j?ti (listen). Reflected here base decomposition process, which led to the addition of -n'- to the root.

However, the establishment of phonetic processes that occurred with the root on the path of historical development is not enough to explain the reason for the loss of independence by the root.

You should track the change in the root semantics. In the etymological dictionary of Slavic languages, the following meanings of the studied root are noted: “*j?ti, *jim-, *jьmQ: st-slav. I A TI, imQ “to take”, other Russian, Russian-tsslav. I A TI, imQ “take”, “take” (Instructional Vl. Mon. 82), “grab” (Church. mouth. Vlad.), “touch, fall” (Ostr. Ev.), “seize, seize , deprive of liberty "(Ostr. Ev. and others), "bring" (R. Right. Vlad. Mon.), "catch, catch" (Ostr. Ev. and others), "reach, reach" (Laurus . L. under 1169), “to take possession” (Novg. Il. under 1417), “to become” (aux. verb, Church. ust. Vlad. and others) (Sreznevsky III, 1671), Russian. dial. yat“become” (Yarosl., experience 275), “take” (Kulikovsky 143), was"wanted" (Kulikovskiy 142), take“to take” (Novg. tar), “annoy, hurt the living” (Novg. Psk.) (Experiment 131), take"to seize, take possession of something" (Dobrovolsky 495), yatsya“take on, promise”” [Trubachev, 1981, p. 226].

Thus, only according to the etymological dictionary edited by O.N. Trubachev, there are about twenty meanings of i.-e. bases *jьm?, implemented in single-root words.

In the historical and etymological dictionary P.Ya. Chernykh, the above meanings are confirmed: “the etymological root *-jьm-, ascending to I.-e. * (mо) or *em, having the meaning “to take”, “grab”, realized the later meanings “to own, to seize”” [Chernykh, 2002: V. 1, p. 344].

In the explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language V.I. Dahl noted the word YATI, YAT in the meaning of “perfect. vb. from imati (to take) and imat (to catch); in some places until now (east), but more with a pretext to take, take; catch, seize, seize; start, become . entered, yat by the hand, Matt. yal, took. Vsevolod I shake your Yaroslav, annals. took prisoner. Yalo burn, vlad. it has become, the beginning. V.I. Dahl gives more examples, in addition, this root is used with prefixes: “ Take, take (raise), raise; take, complete from take. He didn't mind his own business. Take out, take out, take out" and etc . [Dal, 2002: Vol. 2, p. 1011].

In all dictionaries, one meaning “to take” is clearly fixed, the other meanings that this root realized vary widely.

In modern Russian, the meaning of "take" is assigned only to the verb itself take:“take, take, take; took, -a, -o; taken (taken, -a, -o); owls. 1. cm. take." - noted in the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by S. I. Ozhegov and N. Yu. Shvedova Yu [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1994, p. 78].

Thus, we note the narrowing of the semantic field of the root within a single word: the meaning of "take" in the modern language is correlated only with the word take, the meaning of "capture, take possession of something", given in the list of others in the dictionary, ed. O. N. Trubacheva, implemented in the word to accept"one. Take, get in charge» [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1994, p. 585]. In the word raise the meaning of “grab, seize” is reflected: “raise - 2. Take, seize, having enough strength to hold” [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1994, p. 529].

Consequently, the semantic field of one word narrows, but the semantics of words with an associated root as a whole, on the contrary, expands due to the compatibility of the associated nuclear morpheme with various affixes.

Thus, the previously used free root -’a-, for example, in the word yati, realized a large number of meanings, then, as noted by Dahl, yati“more with a preposition” began to be used, and at the present stage the root has many realizations in cognate words, but it is practically not used independently (freely).

It should be noted that the word have, which is actively used in modern Russian and contains the free root -im-. However, native speakers almost do not catch the connection of the root -im- in the word have with roots -em- / -em- / -nim- / -nya- / -im- / -ya- in words at eat property, for eat box, enterprise him atelier, zan I th, under th at, vz I weaving and others. The divergence of the semantics of these words occurred, probably, as a result of word-formation processes that occurred with the roots -em- / -em- / -nim- / -nya- / -im- / -i-. The addition of affixes to the root entailed the transfer of the main semantic load of the word to them.

It can be assumed that the free use of the root -im- in the word have is explained by the fact that the process of “binding” the root -im- with affixes has not yet been fully completed, in contrast to the roots -em-, -em-, -nim-, -nya-, -im-, -i-, which are free form in Russian does not exist.

Thus, the connected roots, in most cases, are those that in the Proto-Slavic period were affected by the law of syllabic harmony, as a result of which the external appearance of the word changed. Among the phonetic processes that took place with the roots on the way of their transformation from free nuclear morphemes to connected ones, is the monophthongization of diphthongs and diphthongic combinations with the subsequent loss of nasality by monophthongized vowels. The development of a prosthesis before a vowel in the position of the beginning of a word (the appearance and prosthetic), dephonologization of the differential sign of longitude also contributed to the appearance of roots with a modified sound shell, alternations, and horses prone to the loss of independence and freedom. In most words, the word-formation process of re-expansion of morphemic boundaries is noted.

It is essential to emphasize that the linguistic evolution of the related roots presented in the work in 70% of cases was accompanied by the process of monophthongization of diphthongs and diphthongoids in this morpheme. Based on this fact, we can say that it is precisely those roots that have undergone the influence of the monophthongization process that become connected.

One of the leading factors that influenced the connectedness of root morphemes is also the historical change in semantics. Over time, the root in the new vowel was no longer recognized by native speakers in the original semantics, as a result of which "affixes came to the rescue." Derivative morphemes spread, concretized the meaning of the original root and began to play a significant role in the interpretation of words with related roots. As a result, native speakers determine the semantics of words with non-free nuclear morphemes by deriving the meaning of affixes that have absorbed the semantic component of the nuclear morpheme. It is almost impossible to name the original meaning of the associated root without the use of special linguistic sources at the present stage of the functioning of the language.

It should be noted that in the course of clarifying the historical causes and conditions that influenced the transformation of the form and content of the associated roots of the Russian language, we encountered a number of features, on the basis of which we identified two groups of words with associated roots that function in the modern Russian language.

The first group is represented by words whose roots are connected in the modern Russian language, and were also used in a non-free form already in the Old Russian period. For example: -vyk- (other Russian. take it out, modern skill), pras- (other Russian. in vain, modern vain), -nz- (other Russian. inject, modern . plunge), -verg- (other Russian. bend, modern plunge) other.

The second group includes words whose roots in the modern Russian literary language are connected, and in the Old Russian language they were free. Also, the roots of these words can be used without the environment of derivational affixes in the modern Russian language, however, their functioning is limited to certain areas of the national language, which is reflected in the marks given in dictionaries. Among them: -row- (obsolete and colloquial. dress, lit. dress up), -nud- (outdated. to force, lit. tedious), -rage- (book. smash, lit. battle) other.

Discussing the trends in the formation of connectedness of roots, we assume that some roots of the II group (capable of being used in a free form in certain areas of the modern Russian language limited by norms) will join the ranks of absolutely connected nuclear morphemes after some time.

In addition, it can be assumed that the roots of words vlach it, mut it, rd et and some others lose their independence and become connected due to obscuration of semantics, loss of awareness by native speakers of family ties. The central morphemes of these words, as well as the roots that became connected, were influenced by the historical process of monophthongization of diphthongs and at this linguistic stage appear in words surrounded by derivational affixes. The only exceptions are the above lexemes in the form of generating non-affix infinitives.

The results obtained in the course of the study substantiate the diachronic approach to the issue of the functioning of words with associated root morphemes, as well as complement and deepen the existing scientific work on the problem of associated roots.

Literature:

1. Large academic dictionary of the Russian language: in 17 volumes / Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Linguistic Research: [ch. ed. K.S. Gorbachevich]. - M.; St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2006.
2. Vinokur, G. O. Notes on Russian word formation // Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Department of Literature and Language. - M.: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1959. - T. V, issue. 4. - S. 419-442.
3. Dal, V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language: in 2 volumes - M .: OLMA-PRESS, 2002.
4. Zemskaya, E.A. Modern Russian language. Word formation: textbook. allowance / E. A. Zemskaya. - 6th ed. - M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2009. - 328 p.
5. Kasatkin, L.L. Brief reference book on the modern Russian language / L.L. Kasatkin, E.V. Klobukov, P.A. Lekant; ed. P.A. Lekanta. - Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional - M.: Higher School, 1995. - 382 p.
6. Kuznetsova, A.I., Efremova, T.F. Dictionary of Russian morphemes: Ok. 52,000 words. - M.: Rus. yaz., 1986. - 1136 p.
7. Small academic dictionary of the Russian language [Electronic resource] / A.P. Evgeniev. - Access mode: http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas.htm].
8. Maslov, Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. - M.: Higher school, 1987. - 272 p.
9. Ozhegov, S.I. and Shvedova, N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / Russian AN.; Russian Cultural Foundation; - 2nd ed., corrected. and additional - M.: AZ, 1994. - 928 p.
10. Otkupshchikov, Yu.V. to the origins of the word. - M.: Azbuka-klassika, Avalon, 2005. - 352 p.
11. Modern Russian language. Theory. Analysis of language units: a textbook for students. higher textbook Institutions: at 2 o'clock. Part 1. Phonetics and orthoepy. Graphics and spelling. Lexicology. Phraseology. Lexicography. Morphematics. Word formation / [E.I. Dibrova, L.L. Kasatkin, N.A. Nikolina, I.I. Shcheboleva]; ed. E.I. Dibrova. - 2nd ed. correct and additional - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2006. - 480 p.
12. Modern Russian language: [textbook for philological specialties of universities / V.A. Beloshapkova and others]; ed. V.A. Beloshapkova. - Ed. 3rd, rev. and additional - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. - 926 p.
13. Modern Russian language: a textbook for university students / ed. P. A. Lekanta. - Ed. 2nd, rev. - M.: Bustard, 2001. - 558 p.
14. Tikhonov, A. N. Derivative dictionary of the Russian language: in 2 volumes - M .: Russian language, 1990.
15. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / ed. D.N. Ushakov. - M.: TERRA-Book Club, 2007.
16. Ulukhanov, I.S. On changing the meanings of words // Rus. speech. - 1970. - No. 4. - S. 59-62.
17. Fasmer, M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / M. Fasmer; Per. with it., add., afterword. O. N. Trubacheva. - 4th ed., erased. -M.: AST: Astrel, 2003.
18. Khaburgaev, G.A. Old Church Slavonic: a textbook for students of pedagogical institutes / G. A. Khaburgaev. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Enlightenment, 1986. - 288 p.
19. Tsyganenko, G.P. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: More than 5,000 words. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - K .: Glad. school, 1989. - 511 p.
20. Chernykh, P. Ya. Historical and etymological dictionary of the modern Russian language: in 2 volumes / P. Ya. Chernykh. - 5th ed., stereotype. - M.: Russian language, 2002.
21. Shansky, N.M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language / N.M. Shansky, T.A. Bobrov. - M.: Proserpina: School, 1994. - 400 p.
22. Sheptukhina, E.M. The evolution of verbs with associated stems in the common Russian language: author. dis. … Dr. Philol. Sciences / E.M. Sheptukhin. - Volgograd, 2006. - 51 p.
23. 2Shirshov, I.A. Explanatory word-building dictionary of the Russian language. - M.: AST: Astrel: Russian dictionaries: Ermak, 2004. - 1023 p.
24. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: in 2 volumes / ed. N.M. Shansky. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1968-1975.
25. Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages: Proto-Slavic lexical fund. Issue. 1. A - * conversations / ed. IS HE. Trubachev. - M.: Nauka, 1974. - 214 p.
26. Linguistics: a large encyclopedic dictionary / ch. ed. V.N. Yartsev; ed. count N.D. Arutyunova and others - 2nd ed., reprint. - M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998. - 685 p.

Your rating: No Average: 7.2 (11 votes)

The root is the main, obligatory part of the word. It is the root that expresses the main meaning of the word. Compare words house and house-ik(the suffix denotes the size - "small", and the root - the object itself), run away and come running. (the prefix means "approximation", and the root - the action itself).

But this is not always the case.

Let's take verbs put on shoes and take off one's shoes. What parts are they divided into? They clearly recognize prefixes about-(prefix option about) and once-(compare the similar meaning of prefixes in verbs dress and undress), the indicator of the infinitive -be. Where is the root? Root - at -. This root stands out as a remainder after isolating the prefix and other verb indicators. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that it is not used outside of combination with prefixes. Such roots, which are used only in combination with derivational morphemes (prefixes or suffixes), are called connected, distinguishing them from "ordinary" - free roots.

In words calf, foal roots are suffixed -onok(compare this suffix with free roots: tiger- [tiger"‑onok], elephant- [elephant"‑onok], wolf- [wolf "‑onok]).

Often in the semantics of a whole word, the meaning of the associated root is unclear, it is felt weakly. We saw it in verbs put on shoes and take off one's shoes having an associated root - at -. Here are more examples: take away - take away, raise - lift up, take off - take off, to accept - accept. In these words, the meaning of prefixes is clearly understood, and the meaning of the associated root ( -nya- in owls in., -nim- in nesov. c.) barely glimmers. What does this root mean? Some kind of action, but what exactly is unclear.

Isolation of related roots is only permissible when the other parts of the word are morphemes, which have a definite, clearly understood meaning in the composition of the word: first of all, about-n-and-t(compare: poke, pierce), add, from‑add‑and‑be(compare: do you, different); reject, v-verg-well (throw away, discard, insert). If the meaning of "neighbors" is not clear, there is no reason to isolate and the associated root. Yes, in a group take away, pick up, take, take away prefixes have specific spatial meanings and are clearly understood. In the verb understand(“to comprehend with the mind”) the meaning of the prefix is ​​unclear, therefore there is no reason to single out the associated root in this verb.

Associated roots are highlighted in synchronous language learning (see Synchrony and diachrony).

In terms of origin, there are two groups of words with related roots:

1. Originally Russian words, the root of which was free in the past. These are many prefixed verbs, including words already familiar to us with roots - verg - and - nya-. In Old Russian there was a verb yati- "take", gone from the language; only his descendants survived - verbs with prefixes: take away, lift, take away and etc.; -n-- an inserted sound between the prefix and the root, in the modern language it acts as part of the associated root.

2. Borrowed words that came into the Russian language entirely, but when compared with other words, suffixes and prefixes are singled out in them: egoism, egoist; tourism, tourist; isolate, isolate, [insulator].