Book: Shakhmatov A.A. "Historical morphology of the Russian language

Tutorial addressed to philology students studying the history of the Russian language. It contains the necessary theoretical information, based both on traditionally established ideas about the development of the morphological system of the Old Russian language, and on the latest developments in this area. The practical part consists of texts from various monuments of the 11th-14th centuries with assignments.

Genus category.
By origin, the category of gender is associated with the concept of a real field (female - male). But already in the Proto-Slavic language it was an abstract grammatical category that did not have a direct connection with natural gender differences: each name, regardless of whether it indicated a person or inanimate object, received one or another grammatical gender indicator.

The peculiarity of the gender category in the Old Russian language was manifested in the following:
Generic differences were traced not only in the singular, but also in the dual and plural: beautiful dkvky (zh.r.) - red stoli (m.r.) - red words (cf.).
In the Old Russian language, the phenomenon of generic synonymy is widely represented (V.M. Markov writes about this in his monograph). Compare: in what nepevhch (from “overweight” - m.r.) - in cheei nepevhch (from “overweight” - f.r.); similarly: prosvht -npocvhma; fence - fence; make - outpost; reproach - reproach.

CONTENT
CHAPTER 1. NOUNS
1.1 General remarks
1.2.Genus category
1.3. Case category
1.4 Types of declension of nouns
1.4.1 Declension into *-à (*-jà)
1.4.2 Declension into *-o (*-jò)
1.4.3.Declination on *-th
1.4.4.Declination by *-i
1.4.5. Declension into a consonant
1.4.6.Declination on *-th
1.5. About the reasons for the unification of the types of declensions in the Old Russian language
1.6. Unification of types of declensions in the singular
1.6.1. Interaction of hard and soft declensions in the history of the Russian language
1.6.2. History of declination on *-th
1.6.3. History of declination by *-i
1.6.4 History of consonant declension
1.6.5. History of declination on *-th
1.7. Interaction of types of declensions in the plural
1.7.1 Nominative case plural
1.7.2 Genitive plural
1.8. Loss of forms of the dual number
1.9 Loss of the vocative case
1.10. Development of the category of animation

CHAPTER 2. ADJECTIVE
2.1 General remarks
2.2. Short forms of adjectives and their history
2.3 Possessive adjectives
2.4. Old Russian declension of short (nominal) adjectives
2.5. History of full (pronominal, member) adjectives
2.6 Forms comparative degree
2.7 Superlatives
Security questions for self-examination
CHAPTER 3. PRONOUN
3.1 General remarks
3.2 Declension of personal and reflexive pronouns
3.3. History of the personal pronoun of the 3rd person
3.4. History of non-personal pronoun forms
3.4.1 Demonstrative pronouns and their history
3.4.2 Declension of interrogative-relative pronouns in Old Russian
Security questions for self-examination
Literature.

Free download e-book in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Historical morphology of the Russian language, Part 1, Novikova N.V., 2007 Historical morphology of the Russian language, Part 1, Novikova N.V., 2007 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.

Download pdf
Below you can buy this book at the best discounted price with delivery throughout Russia.

1. Problems and tasks of historical morphology as the history of grammatical categories and forms of their expression in different periods language development. Diachronic relations of phonetics and grammar; morphologization of ancient phonetic alternations. The connection of phonetic changes with the history of forms, and syntactic relations - with the development of grammatical meanings. The historical connection of inflection and word formation. The main trends in the development of the morphological structure of the Russian language.
2. Sources for studying the history of grammatical categories and forms. The possibility of interpreting the testimony of written monuments and their relationship to the data of linguistic geography; dialect oppositions at the morphological level and their significance for the historical morphology of the Russian language.
3. Limiting the range of parts of speech when considering the history of categorical meanings and forms of inflection. The opposition of the name and the verb in the system of significant parts of speech. Basic categories of name and verb. The problem of differentiation of names (nouns, adjectives, numerals) by the time of isolation of East Slavic dialects. Parts of speech as morphological subsystems, interconnected and relatively autonomous in their history.

I. History of the categories and forms of the noun

1. Noun in the Old Russian language in the period of the oldest monuments. Gender as the main classifying grammatical category of nouns. The system of three numbers. Case inflections as exponents of numerical and case values ​​and their relation to the generic characteristics of names. Systems of case endings (types of declension) restored according to the testimony of the oldest ancient Russian texts; differences between the proper Old Russian (East Slavonic) nominal declension from the late Proto-Slavic and Old Slavonic.

Reflection in the oldest monuments of the process of destruction of the ancient (Proto-Slavic) types of declension associated with Indo-European nominal stems, which began in the pre-literate era, under the influence of a tendency to overcome the synonymy of case endings (expressors of the same grammatical meanings). Destruction of declensions into consonants and into *й in the living old Russian speech of the period of the oldest East Slavic monuments.
The real composition of Old Russian inflectional classes of nouns in its relation to the composition of Indo-European nominal stems.
Old Novgorod features of noun declension:
*a-declension - approx. genus. pad. units the number of tv. var. -a ok. data-local pad. units soft numbers. var. -a; OK. im.-vin. pad. pl. the number of tv. var. -a (along with -s); OK. im.-vin. pad. dv. soft numbers. var. -a (along with -i);
*o-declension - approx. them. pad. units the number of tv. var. -e; OK. dates pad. units number of men R. for proper names and nouns denoting persons, -ovi (along with -y); OK. local pad. units soft numbers. var. -a (along with -i); OK. them. pad. pl. number of men R. (including the plural form of the masculine participle in -l as part of the perfect) -a (along with -i); OK. im.-vin. pad. dv. numbers cf. R. -a.

1. The loss of the category of the dual number in connection with the problem of the history of the form and its grammatical meaning. Destruction of the category of dual number in living East Slavic speech against the background of the preservation of the dual number in the system of forms of the literary language medieval Russia. Early evidence of written monuments about the "dissolution" of the concept of "duality" in the broader concept of "plurality", opposed to "singularity". The destruction of the inflectional unity of the numerical forms of nouns due to the loss of the category of the dual number.
2. Regrouping of declension types of nouns in the singular. Usual character of inherited types of declension, not related to grammatical categories relevant for the Old Russian language. The meaning of the gender category in the regrouping of nominal paradigms in units. number.

Unification of inflection of neuter gender names on the basis of ancient stems into *o (early destruction of stems into *es; transition of names into *t into the class of nouns male in connection with the generalization of word-building indicators of "diminutiveness"). The history of names ending in *en in Russian dialects and in the written language, relics of ancient stems into consonants in modern Russian.
Combining in one type of declension of nouns husband. kind (except for the bases on * | I The fate of names on * 1 (short), or those who have lost the ancient declension (like son-in-law - son-in-law, etc.), or who have passed into the class of feminine gender names (as a degree, step, etc. .) The fate of the name way (as well as mouse) in the literary language and dialects of the Russian language Generalization of the basis of names on *en and their inclusion in a single "male" declension.
The development of masculine declension of variant inflections into the genus. and local pad. units numbers as a result of the early combination of names with stems in *o and *d. The initial distribution of inflection -y in both cases to all masculine names with a monosyllabic stem and mobile stress. Reflection in the monuments of the tendency to use variant inflections to express different particular case meanings. The latest history of the endings of the genus. and local pad. in Russian dialects and its reflection in texts of different periods and different genres; reduction of the sphere of functioning -y in both cases during the period of codification of the norms of the literary language of the Russian nation.
The use of variant endings of dates in Old Russian texts. pad. units numbers to express different categorical meanings in the class of names husband. gender (reinforcement of inflection -ovi, opposed to -y, as an indicator of the form of personal nouns); preservation of functional differentiation of variant inflections of dates. pad. in Ukrainian dialects and the absence of inflection -ovi in ​​Russian dialects and Old Russian monuments of business and everyday writing.
The interaction of hard and soft declension variants as a reflection of the general tendency to overcome the synonymy of case endings. Different directions of this interaction by dialects and reflection of its results in texts different periods. Unification of inflections on the model of a solid version and the elimination of alternations of consonants in the stems during inflection in the northeastern dialects, which determined the features of the norms of the literary language of the Russian nation. Formation of a numerous system of cases in the Russian dialect language (with a mismatched set of inflections for each of the cases in the singular).

1. Unification of types of declension of nouns in the plural. The development of grammatical opposition units. and many others. numbers. Neutralization of generic differences in the forms of pl. the number of pronouns, adjectives and nouns; inflectional consequences of this neutralization, its impact on the history of forms, etc. number of nouns.

History of date forms, local. and creativity. pad. pl. numbers. Early textual evidence of the unification of inflections in dates. and places. fall; the role of personal nouns and nouns in this process cf. kind. Later extension of the process to the names of wives. kind of type bone, horse; evidence of monuments and modern Russian dialects. Competition of inflections -ami and -mi (from -mi, -mi) to creative work. pad. pl. numbers; the predominance of inflection -ami as unified inflections -am and -ah are consolidated in dates. and local pad. Long-term preservation of flexion creative. pad. husband. and avg. gender -ы / - and in prepositional constructions and stable turns and its distribution in these constructions, according to the monuments of the 16th-17th centuries, among the names dating back to the stems on *а. Tendency to formant fixation -a- values indicator pl. numbers in connection with the unification of inflections -am, -ah, -ami.
Unification of endings to them. pad. pl. numbers, opposing names cf. kind (with the ending -a: windows, fields) names husband. and wives. childbirth, summarizing the indicators of them. and wine. pad. -i and -ы, rethought as phonetic variants of one inflection (after a soft or hard consonant stem) - in connection with the phonological history of and / s in Russian. Morphologization of the soft consonant at the end of the stem of some nouns muzh. kind before the ancient inflection them. pad. -i (neighbors, serfs, obey) as one of the ways to implement the tendency to oppose the formative bases of units. and many others. numbers (neighbor, neighbor, etc., but neighbor "and, neighboring, etc.; cf. in the old Russian texts: posluh, posluha - poslus" and, poslus "her").
Distribution to forms them. (and vin.) pad. formant -a- as an indicator of plural. numbers in connection with the unification of the endings -a-m, -a-mi, -a-x; expansion of the functions of inflection -a- due to a change in the grammatical meaning of the ancient indicator named after. (vin.) pad. collective formations (cf. forms in -ya and -ovya - as a result of contamination -ove + -ya) and paired nouns, where -a goes back to the form of duals. numbers. Accentological alignment of forms pl. numbers with a tendency to move the stress in plural. number on -a (cf .: house-a, house-a-m, house-a-mi, house-a-x, like half-i, half-i-m, half-i-x at the house, home, home, etc. field, field, field, etc.), in connection with which the sphere of functioning of inflection -a, which originally characterized only names with a mobile accent, is expanding, covering in colloquial speech and in dialects, all nouns with historically unstressed endings in the plural. number (cf. colloquial and dialectal: brothers - brothers, choice - elections, mother - mothers, squares - squares, etc.); the tendency to attach to the formant -a- the meaning of the universal formative affix - the indicator of the plural. number of nouns. Separation of formants -j- (from the indicator of the name of the falling plural -ya Tsa]) and -ov]- (cf. -ovya) as formative affixes - indicators of the bases of the plural. numbers opposed to the bases of units. numbers (cf.: brother-, brother-a, etc. - brother "j-a, brother" j-am, etc., lane-o, lane-a, etc. - lane "j -a, lane "j-am, etc., son-, son-a, etc. - sons" j-a, sons "j-am, etc.).
Historical and morphological conditions for the preservation of ancient inflections of the genus. pad. pl. numbers (zero, -ov lt; -ovb, -ee lt; -ii), becoming variant as the declensions unify in plural. number. Expansion of the sphere of functioning of inflections -ov and -ey as exponents of the case meaning of different variants of declension of nouns in plural. number; differences in the implementation of this process in the dialects and in the system of the literary language, which consolidated the relations that had developed in the northeastern dialects at the time of the codification of the norms of the literary language of the Russian nation.
Differentiation of bases units. and many others. numbers in cases like: a) leaf - leaves; b) brother - brothers; c) sir - sir.

1. The history of the category of animation (Vin. Pad. forms), which is formed in the Russian language on the basis of the Old Russian category of a potential subject (person). The development of this category in cases of coincidence of the forms of wines. pad. With forms. fall, therefore, in units. number - only in the class of nouns husband. kind (and according to dialects - also in the group of names of women. kind of type mother, horse), in pl. number - with the coverage of nouns of both genders during the period of generalization of inflections by them. and wine. pad. Later distribution of the category of animation in units. number on the names of animals; episodic reflection of this process only in the texts of the late 16th - early 17th centuries. The inclusion in the category of animation of the names of female persons and the names of animals in the plural. not earlier than the 17th century. The syntactic nature of the category of animation in the Old Russian language, where the form of wines. pad. matched the form. pad. only when pointing to a direct object - in the absence of such a coincidence in prepositional constructions from wines. fall; relic preservation of the old form of wines. pad. in similar constructions in Old Russian texts (up to the 17th century), in dialects and partly in the modern literary language (cf .: went to people, soldiers, etc.).

Duration _2_hours

1) general characteristics morphological structure of the Russian language of the X - XI centuries.

2) The history of the noun.

1) General characteristics of the morphological structure of the Russian language of the X - XI centuries.

Its proximity to the morphological structure of the Old Church Slavonic language. Therefore, the initial characteristic will be the same, only further changes will be new to you.

Characterization of the morphological structure as synthetic (inflectional). Those. the connection of words in a sentence is indicated mainly with the help of inflections (word order is also important, but not in the same way as, for example, in English). Inflections are the main morphological means of the Russian language. Therefore, the history of inflections - important aspect in the study of the history of the morphological structure of the Russian language.

Synonymy of inflections

An essential feature of most Old Russian inflections is synonymy - the expression of the same syntactic relations by different morphemes.

Rod.p. units h. table-a, wife-s, son-y, cost-i, day-e

Homonymy of inflections

The expression of some words with one morpheme of several different syntactic relations, of other words expressed by different morphemes.

R.p. table paths

D.p. table way

M.p. table ways

Polysemy of inflections

Each inflection simultaneously performs several functions, transmits several meanings.

R.p. unit table-a

a - simultaneously transmits R.p., and singular, and m.r.

These features are also characteristic of the modern Russian language. But nevertheless, in the history of the Russian language, these tendencies are overcome.

The tendency to overcome inflectional synonymy is due to the restructuring of declension types.

In order to overcome the homonymy of inflections, a distinction appeared in the language for some endings: was in forest- knows a lot about forest, works for home- told about home.

2) The history of the noun

Declension types have undergone the greatest changes in the history of the Russian noun. The ancient system of six types of nominal declension developed in the Indo-European era and was inherited completely by the Proto-Slavic language.

The distribution of nouns according to declensions depending on the type of Indo-European stem.

Phonetic changes finals and the morphological process of re-decomposition of the basis of case forms into Proto-Slavic as a basis for further transformations of the declination system.

AND. * voda

R. * vodas

D. ٭ vodai

AT. * vodam

M. ٭ vodai

Valery Vasilievich Ivanov believes that the distribution of nouns by declension types was based on a semantic feature. It is assumed that the final sounds of the stem were once suffixes with certain values. Now it is difficult to determine them, but there are still some possibilities.

٭ter this suff. combined words denoting persons in a certain relationship.

Dr. rus. mother (٭mater), dachi (٭dukter)

Sister ( German Schwester

Brother ( German bruder, st-glor. brother)

Lat. Pater

body < ٭telent

On the old division of words according to the basics, a new one began to be superimposed - the division of words according to gender. The genus category is a later category. Linguist A. Meie, speaking about the category of gender in various languages ​​of the world, called it one of the least logical and most unforeseen categories. Children under two to two and a half years old cannot yet comprehend the differences between the natural sexes. So, Zhenya Gvozdev spoke about his father in the J.R. until the age of two and a half, and even about himself until the age of 3.

Brat → to ŏ

Sister → ā

In the Old Russian language, this trend has intensified.

٭stolŏs ٭sūnŭs

Table son

The endings are the same, one gender - there is an opportunity for rapprochement. Hence, one type disappears.

The victory, as a rule, was won by the productive type of declension. But the lost type did not disappear without a trace. Traces can always be found in a language.

ŭ and ŏ

R.p. unit sugar, Lomonosov

M.p. was in forest- knows a lot about forest, works for home- told about home.

R.pl. son ov table b

Ĭ and jŏ

Words m.r. switched to declension type on jŏ.

Ex. way has not been changed. Apparently, it is connected with the book character. But it does not adjoin 3 folds either. in tv.p. unit has a different ending by the bone.

In dialects, there was a further development of this word, it tends to jŏ(without a path, my path), or becomes a f.r. (my way, my way).

into a consonant

٭ n (kams, remes, day; name, seed ...)

٭ t (calf, donkey, child)

٭ s (word, sky, miracle)

٭ r (mother, daughter)

This declension group has ceased to exist. The words spread across different types declination. However, their paths were different.

Fate of masculine nouns with suff. –*n type kamy

I.p. form unit Cams, rhemes was supplanted by the form V.p. unit stone, belt After that, these words (and day) in their appearance coincided with the words fire, fire(ĭ) and began to decline according to this type. When did the words m.r. ĭ switched to jŏ went there with them stone, belt, day.

1. kams, rems → stone, belt

2. stone, belt, day = fire, fire(ĭ)

3. stone, belt, day →(ĭ)

4. fire, piss(ĭ) m.s. → jŏ

5. stone, belt, day → jŏ

Reflection of the initial influence of the endings - * ĭ of the bases of the word day in the monuments

Ot mistress days (novg. years) primordially bottom

and surviving derivative words (the other day, afternoon, third days, dial. Sedni, etc.)

On the same day (The Walking by Abbot Daniel)

primordially days e

the other day, afternoon, third day, (dial.)

The fate of nouns female with suff. -*r mothers and daughters.

Mother, children

↓

Mother Daughter

↓

into ĭ

In indirect forms, the suffix is ​​preserved mothers, daughters.

History of neuter noun groups with suffix. -*s type word.

Word, sky, miracle (cf.)

ŏ (village)

At the words miracle and sky in plural suff. -es is preserved.

unit Plural

Miracle Miracles

Sky Heaven

unit Plural

word word

body body

Eye of the eye

ear ears

Why? Miracle, sky- book words.

Words, body in modern Russian language are used with an ironic connotation. (Mayakovsky)

The word kolo was in a special position. It has not lost the suffix not only in oblique cases, but has acquired in I.p. wheel.

Specifics of historical changes in a group of words with the suffix -*t of type goat

calf, donkey, goat(cf.)

calf, colt, goat

Ŏ (m.s.)

In plural suff -at- preserved.

Suffix - onok- became very productive. Now it does not necessarily indicate the names of the baby animals. Honey agaric - mushrooms (from stump), oiler - oilers ( butter). Inanimate → not very ancient. This is a favorite suffix. children.

In Old Russian, this group of words included the word shy.

Robenk

Child

This word ousted the word from the language child, now found only in poetic speech.

Dialect correspondences of paradigms of declension of nouns of this group.

Declension history of neuter nouns with -*n type suffix name

Name, seed, time

Name, seed, time

They retained some of the former endings, now they have made up a group of dissimilar nouns.

Declension destruction -*ū type stems father-in-law

I.p. roof, love

I.p. (V.p.) blood, love

I.p. bows, pumpkins

I.p. letter, pumpkin

This bias has completely disappeared.

Processes of unification within productive types of declension.

a) In the Old Russian language TV. and soft the varieties of declensions in ā, ŏ differed from each other not only in that in one case the stem ended in soft. acc., and in the other - on solid. In some cases they had different endings.

R.p., units wives

D., M.p. wife

R.p., units Earth

D., M.p. land

I.p. table

etc. hundred

M.p. table

I.p. horse

etc. horse

M.p. horses

The path of development of these varieties is their convergence. In the literary language, the victory of the hard variety is observed. TV influence facts. soft varieties. observed since the 11th century.

In chlověchě imageě (Novgor. Mineya)

instead of sea

As a result, TV and soft. varieties of declensions began to differ only in the quality of the last sound of the base.

cases feedback reflected in modern northern dialects.

On the table, in Moscow.

From a height, from a hut, from a hand.

Preservation of archaic inflection -I soft variety in spelling for nouns in -IY, -IE, -YA in the prepositional singular. numbers and -YA in the dative case as a result of the influence of the Church Slavonic language.

b) Unification of inflections of the nominative and accusative cases.

Initially in ancient the language of the form I. and V. p. in m.r. differed.

I.p. fruit

V.p. fruit

I.P. oxen

V.P. oxen

From the 13th century fluctuations in writing are observed.

ranks arrange the former

Let's go to the nearest see and hail

This suggests that the language has developed a single form for I. and V.p. In nouns m.r. tv. varieties this form by origin is the old form of V.p.: gardens, fruits, oxen.

Ex. m.r. soft varieties retained the old form I.p. - horses.

History of nominal declension in the plural.

Rapprochement various types declensions are also reflected in the plural. in ancient language, 6 types of declension were distinguished in the plural.

AT modern language they are essentially one: s (and).

In addition, a: city, teacher, driver.

In the modern language there are ov, ev, her, zero (tables, bread, knives, wives). But they can belong to exactly the same declension.

In the d., t., m. cases, the endings were completely unified.

Was: D.p. wife - table - bone

etc. wives - tables - bones

M.p. zhenakh - table - bones

It became: D.p. wife - tables - bones

etc. wives - tables - bones

M.p. wife - tables - bones

Forms are established that were previously characteristic only for bases on a.

Traces of old forms in modern. language are adverbs rightly so (for deeds). And also tv.p. plural on the mi. People, children, horses, (let's lie down with bones). In some dialects, these nouns. have an ending ami. People, children, horses.

The history of the formation of variant inflections I.p. plural - and (-s), -a, -e.

Sources and history of variant inflections R.p. plural –ov, -ey and zero inflection.

The influence of collective nouns in the history of plural paradigms in masculine and neuter words.

Originally in the Old Russian language V.p. unit at the words m.r. was always equal to I.p. (I see a table, I see a son).

Reason: the need to distinguish between subject and object.

Mother loves daughter. Daughter loves mother.

The remedy was found:

V.p. = I.p. inanimate

V.p. = R.p. shower

These cases are close in meaning.

Was reading a book

Didn't read books

Drank water

Drank some water

1. In the words of Zh.R. V.p. coincides with R.p. only in plural

I see sisters, nannies.

2. 2 fold. m.r. the forms coincide both in singular and in plural.

I see a brother, brothers; cat, cats.

3. s.r. V.p. coincides with R.p. only in plural

I see children, insects

Individual nouns in modern Russian language allow fluctuations in the expression of animation-inanimateness.

To see microbes is to see microbes.

Remaining: married.

People, get on the horse! Hey, come on! ("The Tale of the Golden Cockerel")

Saddshi on a horse and went into the fire.

Marry

Go out to people

Fit for a father

Rush to the generals

The development of abstract thinking.

Loss of vocative form

Lord, God

What do you want, old man?

Doctor, heal yourself.

About the wind, wind.

New vocative forms in Russian:

Kolk, mom, dad.

Lecture No. 9-10

History of the pronoun and adjective in Russian

(topic name)

Duration _4_ hours

1) History of pronouns

1.1 Personal pronouns

In the Old Russian language, pronouns fell into two sharply distinct groups. The first of them was formed by personal pronouns, which included the pronouns of all numbers of the 1st and 2nd person. In grammatical terms, these pronouns have many features in common with nouns, but in some ways they differ from them. Like nouns, they are used in a sentence as a subject and objects. Like nouns, they are characterized by the presence of the category of case. Pronouns had the same cases as nouns, but they did not have a vocative form. Like nouns, pronouns had three numbers. Unlike nouns, pronouns did not have a gender category. This feature is characteristic of all Indo-European languages ​​(in the languages ​​of some families, for example, in Semitic, personal pronouns have the category of gender).

In structural and syntactical terms, the reflexive pronoun was adjacent to personal pronouns yourself. It was inflected like a personal pronoun you, with the difference that since the return places. is used only to express the addition, he did not have an I.p., it did not change in numbers.

The second and larger group was formed by the so-called. non-personal pronouns, including various semantic categories - demonstrative, possessive, interrogative, relative, attributive, negative, indefinite. A feature of these pronouns is that, in addition to the categories of number and case, they had the category of gender. According to grammar indicators, non-personal pronouns approached adjectives. In a sentence, they basically functioned as definitions. Some of them (spec.) and as a subject and object.

A pronoun considered by school grammar as a personal pronoun of the 3rd person is he, by origin is a demonstrative pronoun and, in relation to the Old Russian language, should be included in impersonal pronouns.

Old Russian personal pronouns are characterized by the presence of suppletivism. (jaz - me, we - us).

Some cases are characterized by the presence of two types - full and enclitic. Enclitic forms are usually called shorter forms that do not carry independent stress. Enclitic forms appeared in D.p. (mně, mi) V.p. unit (mene, me) and pl. us, us, us, us).

Differences from Old Church Slavonic:

I. Presence of initial j in I.p. units part 1st person. The form az is also often used in Old Russian texts, because:

1. Old Slavonic tradition;

2. is often used in frozen turnovers of business documents according to tradition.

Diploma of Prince Mstislav

The reason for the development of yaz in I. Yaz is a two-syllable pronoun. All others are monosyllabic. After the fall of the reduced, the second syllable was dropped.

II. In D. and M. p. different pronouns

Tebě sebě (old word) tobě sobě

Forms that go back to them survive to this day. In part of modern North Great Russian dialects, there is tobe, sobe, in South Great Russian - taba, saba

History of personal and reflexive pronouns. The origin of the personal pronoun of the third person, the preservation of the demonstrative semantics of non-personal pronouns in it, the suppletivism of the bases, as well as the grammatical inflectional categories of gender and number. Loss of dual pronouns. History of individual case forms.

In terms of dialects, the full forms of R.V. unit personal pronouns of the 1st and 2nd person, as well as reflexive. In ancient times, these forms ended in -e. at me, at you, at myself Such forms are preserved at the present time in the South Great Russian dialects, as well as in the Belarusian and Ukrainian languages ​​(in Ukrainian with a different accent: before me). In northern dialects, the ending -a appears: me, you, myself.

The reflection of such forms in the monuments, namely the northern ones, including Moscow, has been observed since the end of the 14th century. Such a norm is also established in the literary language. There are different theories to explain this phenomenon:

1. Phonetic (A.A. Shakhmatov).

Change [e] to [´a] in the unaccented position.

2. Morphological (A.I. Sobolevsky)

By analogy with noun. in R.p. unit to ŏ

Kon I

3. Morphological (I.V. Yagich)

By analogy with enclitic pronouns me, you.

In a significant part of the dialects, instead of the old forms of D.M.p. to you, yourself forms develop to you, to yourself. This form has become the norm in the literary language. Possibly under the influence of the elders. language, possibly intersyllabic assimilation, possibly under the influence of R.V.p. forms.

In most dialects, enclitic forms are lost. Since, according to tradition, enclitics have been used for a long time in monuments, it is difficult to say exactly when exactly in which dialects these forms finally disappear from the living language. But already in the letters of the 15th century, these forms are used mainly in traditional formulas. In the literary language, we, of course, as archaisms, also meet these forms among writers of the 18th century:

Nothing without reason ti would not start.

(Trediakovsky)

The remnant of the enclitic form in the modern language is those in the expression "I will give you."

The remainder of the enclitic forms of the reflexive pronoun is the reflexive particle in reflexive verbs.

1.2. Impersonal pronouns

In the Old Russian language, as well as in other ancient Slavic languages, demonstrative pronouns were connected by somewhat different relationships than in SRY. Demonstrative pronouns define the subject in relation to the speaker or to the subject of speech in terms of proximity or remoteness. At the same time, we now differ in the form of the pronoun only two degrees of removal - “something close” and “something far” (cf. this - that).

In the ancient Slavic languages, three degrees of removal were expressed: 1) close to the speaker; 2) close to the interlocutor (greater degree of distance) tъ; 3) generally far away.

Very early united into one pronoun paradigm he and and.

This association is probably due to the semantic proximity of both pronouns. I.p. pronouns and in the most ancient monuments, both Russian and Old Slavonic, is no longer used. Usually this role is played by he, indirect cases from which are still used.

The suppletivism of the fundamentals appears.

But the old form of V.p. i, yu, e still in use. Subsequently, V.p. m.r. is replaced by a form identical to R.p. his . Because of the development of the category of animation.

M.r. zh.r. cf.

V.p. and yu e

V.p. his his

Pronoun he originally had the function of determining (on berezh). Then, replacing the pronoun and, increasingly began to perform the function of the subject and object. In this regard, it loses its function - to express the third degree of remoteness. The establishment of two degrees of removal instead of three reflects the ever further generalization, the abstraction that is carried out in development. grammatical structure language.

V.p. zh.r. Yu is still preserved in some dialects: yon yu threw. In most Russian dialects, it is replaced by the form R.p. eě.

Fluctuations indicative of penetration new form, is observed in the monuments of the 15th century: bartered for her. (contamination of the old form yu and the new one).

Its form has been preserved even now in some dialects. In the literary language - her. Where about- not clear.

In spelling, until the reform of 1917, the form her, but only for the form R.p. under the influence of the old forms.

In addition, in the 18th century the plural form has penetrated into the literary language. onet. It was not the original ancient form. This is an old Russian dialect neoplasm (by analogy with all). In the literary language there was a delimitation: they- m. and cf., onet- f.r.

Do not sing, beauty, with me

You are the sad songs of Georgia:

Remind me onet

Another life and a distant shore.

(Pushkin)

And envy onet the sovereign's wife (Pushkin)

This form did not exist in the living language. The reform of 1917-1918. the form onet was excluded from the literary language.

In indirect cases, pronouns and even in the pre-literate era, in combination with prepositions, the initial n(oh him). This phenomenon is based on phonetic relations. Some prepositions, namely въ, къ, съ, ended in n, i.e. ٭ vъn, ٭kъn, ٭sъn.

At a certain time it n is lost in a closed syllable. Loss n occurs mainly in those cases when this word following the preposition begins with a consonant. If the next word begins with a vowel or a consonant, phonetically merging with which n does not form a syllable boundary, then n is retained, moving on to the next syllable.

٭vъn domъ > vъ domъ

٭kъn domu > kъ domu

٭sъn domьм > sъ domьмь

٭ sъn jego > sъ n´ego

As a result n moves on to the next syllable. And then there is a generalization - the element n is also transferred in combination with other prepositions: he has. Pretext at never included n.

In isolated cases, this n can also be observed not in pronouns, but only in cases where the preposition has become a prefix. Wed inspire (vn + ear), remove, accept.

In some dialects n not used anywhere in pronouns with prepositions: to him, with him, with yom, from yego.

In other dialects, on the contrary, there is a generalization with n. Tell him he dumped her.

In the development of pronominal forms, the same tendency is manifested as the noun, namely, the unification of various types of declension - tv. and soft varieties.

So, for example, pronouns approach in their case forms who and someone. In Old Russian (as well as Old Church Slavonic) Tv.p. these pronouns sounded respectively tsěm, chim. (Why c? 2 palatalization.)

Throughout the history of the language, parallel forms kěmъ, chěmъ are established.

In a number of dialects, as well as in the literary language, for many pronouns, differences have been preserved between the declension with a stem into a hard and the declension with a stem into a soft consonant. Wed, for example, toy, but all, topics, but them.

Throughout the history of the language, some parallel forms are lost in the area of ​​non-personal pronouns (as well as in personal ones). So, in ancient times, along with the pronoun koto, there was the pronoun kyi, which had the indirect cases of whom, to whom ... The rest of the m.r.: “what the hell!” Remainder cf.: something, somehow, something, somewhere, somewhere. These forms, as parallel ones, have disappeared from the language.

Pronoun t(I.p.) turned out to be inexpressive due to its brevity and therefore began to be used in a double form tut. After the fall of the reduced changed into that.

R.p. unit this pronoun also went through a process of change.

The form this in modern language is archaic, sometimes used ironically. In live speech, it is used only in such adverbial expressions as now, right now. This is due to the fact that this pronoun is further ousted from live speech by the pronoun that has newly developed in the same meaning. this. Penetration into the language of the pronoun this refers to a very late time - Deut. half of the 17th century formed by merging the pronoun that with pointing particle e. This particle could be separated in other words: e in that, e to that, e with that... The trace of such use is a form of the type common in dialects evtot.

2) The history of the adjective

In the Old Russian language, as in the modern one, there were two types of adjectives - short and full.

short (nominal, non-member, indefinite)

full (pronominal, member, definite) adjectives

Adjectives changed by gender, number and case, consistent with the nouns to which they belonged. Unlike the modern language, in ancient times not only full, but also short adjectives were declined. The declension of short adjectives is due to the fact that in ancient times they could function not only as a predicate, as now, but also as a definition. The full ones functioned only as definitions.

Nominal adjectives m. and s.r. bowed as a noun. stemmed with *ŏ, adjectives in f.r., as a noun. with stem in *ā. Hard and soft varieties.

From the point of view of their historical development, the full forms of adjectives are later than the short ones. Nominal forms go back to the common Indo-European language-base, in which the noun. and adj. bowed the same way.

Full adjectives were formed from short ones by adding demonstrative pronouns i, i, e. (in Proto-Slavic period).

Initially, full adjectives had a sign of an object distinguished from the rest. Evil ja dog – (this bad dog). Short adjectives denoted a neutral sign. Evil dog- (it is not specifically indicated which dog, dog in general).

Full adjectives are also called member adjectives, since the demonstrative pronoun originally played the role of a specific member, i.e. performed approximately the same function as a member or article in German, French. and English. The definite article of these languages ​​(der, Die, das - German; le, la French, the English) genetically also goes back to demonstrative pronouns.

Thus, initially demonstrative pronouns expressed the definiteness or indefiniteness of a noun, i.e. expressed the category of certainty-uncertainty.

1. Some nouns already in their semantics carried certainty:

Great day (Easter)

No need for a pronoun.

2. Possessive adjectives thus characterized the subject as definite: Son Afanasiev is a definite son of a definite Athanasius. A demonstrative pronoun is not needed.

3. Decree. pronouns were added to adjectives when they acted as definitions. With the predicate, they are not needed.

The father is healthy.

Say, this sentence refers to already famous person or not?

The fact is that the sign in the nominal predicate is already called with a familiar object or person.

Only short adjectives acted as a predicate. All these reasons contributed to the destruction of the category of certainty-uncertainty.

As already mentioned, short adjectives could be used not only as a predicate, but also as a definition, and, in accordance with their defined, they changed by cases.

For consolation many dousham Christianskam

But already in the monuments of the 12-13th centuries. indirect cases of short adjectives are rarely used, which indicates the beginning of the process of their loss in the living language. This is due to the fact that the full forms of adjectives are increasingly assigned to the definition, short ones are stored only in the predicate. Since the predicate always agrees only with the subject, it always stands in I.p., and indirect forms are lost. And full adjectives begin to gradually act as predicates.

Indirect cases of short adjectives have been preserved in the modern living language only in petrified combinations of the adverbial type: red-hot, red-hot; from small to large; good, hello; barefoot.

In folklore:

Gates tesovy dissolved; he sat on good horse.

Tsar Saltan, saying goodbye to his wife,

On the of good horse sitting down

She punished herself

Save it, love it.

This usage must be distinguished from the widespread use in 18th and 19th century poetry. the use of the so-called. truncated adjectives.

uncountable the sun is burning there … (Lomonosov)

Let's start ab ovo: my Jezerskoy

Descended from those leaders

Whose in ancient eyelids sail audacious

Enslaved the shores of the seas.

Truncated adjectives should be understood as short forms, artificially formed from full forms and not corresponding to the ancient short ones. Such formations were used for the purpose of archaization.

Differences in accent. In short forms it falls on the ending, in full forms it falls on the syllable preceding the ending. Artificially formed truncated adjectives retain the stress of the full adjective.

how mala spark in eternal ice… (Lomonosov)

Wed infinitesimal and a bunch of malá

The fields were covered with a gloomy night ... (Lomonosov)

My soul is gloomy ... (Lermontov)

From the short forms of adjectives, one should distinguish between the contracted forms of adjectives that are common in dialects:

Big (hut), big (village), big (boots)

These forms arose phonetically as a result of the loss of the intervocalic j and the subsequent contraction of two vowels into one.

biga → bigaa → big

Big → big → big

If these were the old forms, then there would also be forms in m.r. (new house). But they are not.

Why relative adjectives lost short form? (On one's own)

Possessive adjectives have a special fate. They partly retained their former short forms.

I.p. grandmother's

R.p. grandmother's

D.p. grandmother's

This is due to the fact that in the meaning of attraction. adj. there is already a certainty. But more and more often, full forms are spreading: grandmother's, grandmother's.

1) general characteristics morphological structure of the Russian language of the X-XI centuries, its proximity to the morphological structure of the Old Church Slavonic language. Characterization of the morphological structure as synthetic (inflectional), fusional, characterized by the synonymy of inflections and their polysemy. Parts of speech.

2) The history of the noun. Grammar categories, inherited from the Proto-Slavic language, the specificity of the categories of gender, number and case. The absence of the category of animation - inanimateness.

History of nominal declension. The ancient system of six types of nominal declension, the distribution of nouns by declensions depending on the type of Proto-Indo-European stem.

Phonetic changes in finals and the morphological process of re-decomposition of the basis of case forms in the Proto-Slavic language as a basis for further transformations of the declension system. Hypothesis about the semantics of Proto-Indo-European suffixes.

Principles and ways of restructuring the system of declensions in the Russian language as a continuation of the transformations that began back in the Proto-Slavic period: the leading role of the category of gender, the unification of inflections according to productive paradigms as the main trend in the transformation, the emergence of variance of endings as a result of the preservation of some inflections of unproductive declensions, differentiation with their help different case meanings of the genitive and local cases of the singular in the formation of the second declension.

Destruction of paradigms of non-productive types of declension by mixing, competition of inflections of productive and non-productive types in one case, and then their gradual generalization according to the productive variant. Preservation of some inflections of unproductive declensions, their fate and functions in the modern language. The origin of paradigms of heterogeneous nouns.

The early destruction of the declension - * ŭ of the foundations, which began in the Proto-Slavic era. Reflection in monuments of mixing, variance of case inflections -* ŏ stems and -* ŭ stems. Productivity of flexion – ьм, Т.p. unit and displacement of inflection –om(-e). Features of the use of inflection -ovi (-evi) D.p. unit Preservation of inflections - in R.p. unit, -u M.p. unit and -ov R.p.pl. in the literary language and dialects, up to the present time, their functions and correlation with variant endings in different periods of history and in the modern language.

Later (after the secondary mitigation of consonants) the destruction of the declension -*ĭ of the stems of the group of masculine nouns. Preservation of morphologically strong inflection -ey R.p. plural, its extension to nouns of all three genders, correlation with zero inflection and ending -ov(s). The fate of the ending is mi. Preservation of the declension paradigm -* ĭ basics male. gender and words way, which is inconsistent for the modern ratio of paradigms of three declensions, dialect correspondences of the paradigm of the word path.

Destruction of the declension of consonant stems.

Fate of masculine nouns with suff. –*en type kama. Reflection of the initial influence of endings -* ĭ stems in monuments and surviving derivatives words the other day, afternoon, third day, dial. sedni and etc.

Fate of feminine nouns with suff. -*er mothers and daughters.

History of neuter noun groups with suffix. -*es type word. The different fate of the suffix -es- in the declension paradigms of different nouns of this group.

The specifics of historical changes in the group of words with the suffix -*ent of the type of goat: the productivity of the word-formation model with the stable meaning ‘immature animal’, ‘cub’, the inclusion of a new suffix. –onok- into the singular paradigm, change in gender and declension, preservation of the ending –a of the neuter gender in I.p. plural The special fate of the word child. Dialect correspondences of paradigms of declension of nouns of this group.

The history of the declension of neuter nouns with the suffix -*men of the type name, constituting a group of dissimilar nouns. The origin of new forms in R.p. plural seeds, stirrups. Dialect correspondences in the declension of nouns of this group.

Declension destruction -*ū type stems father-in-law, the transition of some nouns into the declension -*ā stems, others into the declension -* ĭ stems.

Processes of unification within productive types of declension.

a) Unification of inflections of the hard and soft varieties in - *ŏ, -j ŏ and -*ā, -jā bases in the literary language and many dialects of the hard variety and in a number of dialects of the soft one. Preservation of archaic inflection -I soft variety in spelling for nouns in -IY, -IE, -YA in the prepositional singular. numbers and -YA in the dative case as a result of the influence of the Church Slavonic language.

b) Unification of inflections of the nominative and accusative cases.

c) Alignment of the bases on the posterior palate.

History of nominal declension in the plural. The loss of the category of gender and the formation of a single paradigm of declension in the plural. The process of deep unification of inflections in the dative, instrumental and local cases, presumably as a result of the influence of forms of pronominal adjectives that had unified inflections in these cases. The reasons for the productivity of inflections -am, -ami, -ah, which probably turned out to be morphologically strong due to the presence of a common inflectional vowel supported by inflection -a in I.p. Dialect forms Etc. plural

The history of the formation of variant inflections I.p. plural - and (-s), -a, -e.

Sources and history of variant inflections R.p. plural –ov, -ey and zero inflection.

The influence of collective nouns in the history of plural paradigms in masculine and neuter words.

Formation of the category of animation-inanimateness, which began in the Proto-Slavic period for marking the object of action in the sentence structure. The main ways of the formation of V.-R.p .: in units. for masculine nouns, in plural. number of masculine nouns after the unification of inflections of I. and V. cases and of feminine nouns after the unification of inflections of nouns of all three genders. Archaic forms of the accusative case in modern set expressions.

Loss of vocative form. Traces of the vocative form in modern Russian.

3) History of pronouns. Discharges of pronouns and their composition in the Old Russian language. Two groups of pronouns: personal and reflexive pronouns and impersonal pronouns. Specific features of both groups according to the nature of the demonstrative meaning, according to morphological features (composition of grammatical categories and declension) and according to syntactic role in a sentence.

History of personal and reflexive pronouns. The origin of the personal pronoun of the third person, the preservation of the demonstrative semantics of non-personal pronouns, suppletivism of stems, as well as grammatical inflectional categories of gender and number. Loss of dual pronouns. History of individual case forms.

Reorganization of the system of demonstrative pronouns on the path of maximum abstraction. Pronominal declension of hard and soft variety, history of separate case forms. Preservation of archaic forms in orthography before the reform of 1917-18, in modern orthography - endings -th.

4) The history of the adjective. Origin of nominal and pronominal adjectives. Destruction of opposition by the meaning of certainty - uncertainty in favor of opposition by syntactic function.

History of nominal adjectives. Loss of attributive function except for a number of forms possessive adjectives, which originally had only a nominal form. The disappearance of nominal relative adjectives.

The specificity of the declension of the preserved possessive adjectives with the suffixes -ov and -in and relatively possessive adjectives with suf. –иj ||-j-, as well as those formed from them geographical names and surnames.

Preservation of inflected nominal adjectives in the language of folklore and in the stylization of the language of works of art.

Artificial book neoplasms according to the model of attributive nominal forms, obviously, as the influence of the Church Slavonic language, in which the ancient system of nominal adjectives has been preserved: “uncountable suns” (Lomonosov), “ancient eyelids” (Pushkin), “far side” (Blok).

Modern dialect contractions full adjectives like neoplasms.

History of pronominal adjectives. Analogous change of case endings in the singular under the influence of the pronominal declension. No analogous shape change Etc. unit Inflection transformation R.p. unit husband. and cf.

Assimilation and contraction of vowels in case endings plural. Unification of inflections I.p. plural

The emergence of a predicative function in pronominal adjectives.

Church Slavonicisms in pre-reform and modern spelling norms concerning adjective inflections.

History of the comparative degree of adjectives.

Nominal and pronominal forms of comparative degree, their formation and history. The origin of modern comparative and superlative forms.

5) History of numerals. The absence of the numeral as an independent part of speech in the original morphological system. Word Specificity one. Morphological and syntactic features of words two, three and four as nominal adjectives. Morphological and syntactic features of a group of words from five before ten like nouns.

Reasons for the formation of the numeral as a part of speech. The loss of categories of gender and number by numerals and the acquisition of the specifics of syntactic relations with a noun.

The history of declension of numerals, the formation of modern case forms. The origin of modern complex and compound numerals. Word history fourty.

6) The history of the verb. Grammatical categories of the verb in the original morphological structure: categories of mood, tense, person, number. Two stems of the verb. Verb classes.

History of the past. Paradigms of the four forms of the past tense. History of the imperfect in spoken language and literary tradition. The history of the aorist in the colloquial language and book and written tradition, traces of the aorist in modern Russian. The history of the pluperfect, the formation of a new form of the pluperfect with the perfect form auxiliary verb be, traces of pluperfect in modern dialects and literary language. The perfect, the process and the result of the formation of the modern form of the past tense from it.

History of the future. Absence of simple future forms in the original system. Two complex future tenses. The history of the formation of modern forms of the future simple and the future complex. Their connection with the formation of the species category.

History of the Present. Two verb conjugations and a special conjugation of former non-thematic verbs. The question of the history of forms of the third person singular. and pl. Changes in other personal forms. rearrangement of bases. The history of the paradigms of each of the former non-thematic verbs, preserved archaic forms.

Imperative mood and his history.

Subjunctive mood and his history.

History of attributive forms of the verb.

a) The system of present and past participles of the real and passive voice. Origin and history of their forms, nominal and pronominal. Church Slavonic origin of modern real participles of the present tense. The origin of the forms of participles of the real voice of gerunds of the perfect and imperfect form.

b) The origin and history of the forms of the infinitive.

c) The origin and fate of soup.

7) History of adverbs. Types of the most ancient dialects: primitive and adverbialized. Methods of formation of adverbs in the history of the Russian language. Word formation tomorrow, twice, many times, now. Conditions for the formation of adverbial words. Changes in stress in the transition of words into adverbs.

8) Prepositions, conjunctions and particles in the Old Russian language, their history.

IV. Historical syntax

Specific features of the structure simple sentence in Old Russian. Predicative use of participles. Constructions with double cases. Dative independent in the book tradition.

Specific features of the structure complex sentences coordinating, subordinating and non-union types. Archaic constructions with weakly expressed relationships between parts. The ambiguity of subordinating conjunctions. The path of development of complex sentences of different types.

4.3. LABORATORY WORKSHOP

Historical morphology studies the history of the morphological system of the Russian language, the phenomena and changes that led to the formation of its current state.

Historical morphology studies primarily the history of changes in parts of speech.

The Old Russian language is a language of a synthetic type and an inflectional system. This means that the grammatical meanings in the Old Russian language were expressed mainly within the word and mainly with the help of inflections. Prefixes and suffixes were rarely used to express grammatical meanings. It should be noted that another grammatical morpheme was used in the Proto-Slavic language - the infix *n: it served to express the meaning of the present tense, for example: *le n gon lie down(*en#I; *on@y), cf.: lie down. This infix was inherited by the Proto-Slavic language from the Indo-European base language. Wed Latin: vi n co "I win", vici "I won".

The system of parts of speech of the Old Russian language differed from the modern one. In the Old Russian language there was no such part of speech as numerals, since there were no grammatical categories characteristic of this part of speech.

The class of adverbs was represented lexically less significantly than in modern Russian.

Nouns had the same grammatical categories as in modern Russian, but only the grammatical category of gender, characterized by the difference between three genders - masculine, feminine and neuter, was the same as in modern Russian. The grammatical category of the case had not 6 cases, as in modern Russian, but 7. There was a vocative case, which was used when addressing. Moreover, special forms of the vocative case appeared in the singular only in 4 types of declension: 1) *ŏ, *jŏ; 2)*ā, *jā; 3) *ŭ; 4) *ĭ. In other types of declension in the singular and in all types of declension in the plural, with the exception of masculine nouns with *ĭ, the vocative case coincided with the nominative case of the corresponding number. For masculine nouns ending in *ĭ, the vocative plural form coincided with the plural accusative form.

The category of number had not two numbers - singular and plural, as in the modern Russian language, but three - singular, plural and dual. The dual number was used to designate two things.

In the Old Russian language there were 6 types of declension of nouns, in contrast to the modern Russian language, which has 3 types.

Adjectives in the Old Russian language had the same categories as in the modern Russian language - qualitative, relative and possessive. But unlike the modern Russian language, adjectives of all three categories could appear both in short and in full forms. In modern Russian, only qualitative adjectives have short and full forms.

In the Old Russian language there was no personal pronoun of the 3rd person. In the meaning of this pronoun, the impersonal, demonstrative, pronoun and, ѥ,㆓ ; in the nominative singular and plural it was sometimes replaced by another demonstrative pronoun he, she, it. These pronouns in the Old Russian language were also used in their original meaning of demonstrative pronouns. This origin of the personal pronoun of the 3rd person is evidenced by the presence of a grammatical gender category in this pronoun, which was originally characteristic only of non-personal pronouns.

The Old Russian verb system was characterized by a variety of forms. There were 4 forms in the past tense: two simple ones - aorist and imperfect, and 2 complex ones - perfect and pluperfect. There were 3 forms in the future tense: simple future tense, 1st compound future tense and 2nd compound future tense.

In Old Russian, both real and passive participles had short and long forms. In modern Russian, only passive participles have short and full forms. In the history of the Russian language, short real participles were transformed into gerunds.