The proto-language of humanity: what language did Adam and Eve speak. An alternative view of a linguist: the Old Russian language is the proto-language of all other languages! Ancient proto-language

If we compare pairs of languages ​​from the Indo-European family, it turns out that many of them have more than 30% overlap in basic vocabulary, uniform stems and parallel lines of vowel alternation.

This fact arouses not only interest, but also a burning desire to quickly understand the similarities - after all, thanks to them, mastering a pair of languages ​​will be three times easier.

The emergence hypothesis, according to linguist Alexander Militarev, is associated with the emergence of man as a species. He also points to the theory of monogenesis (the origin of all the world's languages ​​from one proto-language). His thoughts are shared by both anthropologists and geneticists. The main idea is the similarity in sound and meaning of stems in many languages. There are similar roots and grammatical structures that suggest the existence of global etymologies. To prove this theory, it is necessary to draw parallels between the languages ​​of each language family, find the very parent language of each family, compare them with each other, find sound matches, etc. That is, it is necessary to engage in a step-by-step reconstruction, which will answer the question about the existence of a single proto-language.

Within the framework of such a study, only the Nostratic, Afroasiatic, Sino-Caucasian and Austrian macrofamilies have been more or less studied. They have lexical and grammatical similarities. However, A. Militarev suggests that when other macrofamilies are studied, it will be possible to prove their relationship. An important fact remains that all languages ​​have the same structure: they have vowels and consonants, main and minor members of the sentence.

A. Militarev believes that the proto-language of humanity disintegrated in the Eastern Mediterranean, where Israel and Lebanon are now located. In this place, geneticists have recorded migration from East Africa approximately 40-50,000 years ago. But at the same time, African macrofamilies today are a secondary distribution of peoples who returned from Western Asia and thus “erased” previously existing languages. The period of origin of the proto-language of the Eurasian family can be called the 15th millennium BC. However, even Militarev himself does not deny the division of languages ​​in Africa, when there was a Khoisan family with clicking consonants.

It is logical that the more human groups diverge, the more languages ​​move away from each other. Take, for example, which is radically different in, and. Or try comparing Spain and Latin America. There is no doubt that Spanish and Portuguese languages ​​arose from Latin. The only question that needs to be clarified remains the following: did the world's languages ​​have one single proto-language or were there several of them?

It is interesting that the Russian language separated from Ukrainian and Belarusian in the 6th century. But Ukrainian and Belarusian separated from each other in the 14th century. For such a clear method of separating languages, there is glottochronology, with which you can determine the moment of divergence of languages ​​with an accuracy of 2-3 hundred years for every 2-3,000 years from us, as well as up to 500-1000 years at a “distance” of up to 10-12 000 years from our time.

30% of matches in languages ​​are not random. It is this number that includes common words related to anatomical terms, environmental objects, living beings, and some key verbs. But do these 30% matches indicate that Adam's tongue once actually existed? Linguists are yet to find out, and we will keep you updated on all scientific breakthroughs on the way to the origins of human languages.

Ancient languages

Today, several languages ​​are recognized as the most ancient. Thus, the first written evidence of a root Egyptian language dates back to 3400 BC. The Sumerian language was first attested in writing in 3200 BC. The Elamite language existed around the same time as Sumerian and, like Sumerian, has no established genetic connections with other languages. They spoke this language from about 3 to 1 thousand BC. in the ancient kingdom of Elam, whose capital was the city of Susa. Today it is southwest Iran. The first mention of the Akkadian language, spoken by the inhabitants of ancient Mesopotamia, dates back to 2800 BC.

Eblaite language is the second most ancient language of the Semitic group after Akkda. It was common since 2400 BC. in western territory of modern Syria, now dead. The Hittite Empire, during its period of prosperity, created its own language, Hittite. Its origin dates back to 1650 BC. One of the most ancient - not only in terms of oral speech, but also writing - is the (ancient) Greek language, the first mention of which dates back to 1400 BC. The Chinese language, according to experts, arose around II century BC In ancient Crete, the Minoan language was widely used, which flourished throughout 2nd century BC

According to experts, the most ancient Western languages ​​are Hebrew, Latin, (ancient) Greek, Old Irish, Gothic and Lithuanian. Of the Asian languages, the most ancient are Sanskrit, Chinese (Mandarin) and Tamil. Ancient writings in Sanskrit and Tamil that are over 5,000 years old have been found.

In general, to determinewhich language is considered the most ancient on Earth, we must first find out or understand what the most ancient civilization existed on our planet. Now it is difficult to talk about this topic, and who can judge fairly in this case if every nation claims that it was the first.

Moreover, the absence of any material evidence of the existence of a language and its written form in antiquity does not mean its real absence; it may turn out that such artifacts will be found in future research. Therefore, to solve this issue, an integrated approach is needed at the intersection of various sciences that study ancient civilizations.

Parent language

Let's look at what qualities the Proto-Indo-European language or proto-language must have had.

Proto-Indo-European language- the ancestor of the languages ​​of the Indo-European family, reconstructed by linguists. According to these reconstructions, it was a developed inflected language, in which the noun varied in three numbers and eight cases, and the verb in three tenses, two voices and four moods.

The proto-language could have a syntax characteristic of many languages ​​at an early stage - subject - direct object - predicate. The function of “preposition” was performed by “postposition” (postposition), since it stood not before the noun, but after it.

For example, instead of “the man went to the wide river,” a speaker of the proto-language would say “The man went to the wide river,” as, for example, in the modern languages ​​of the Altai family - Turkic, Japanese, Korean. Hindi and many Indian languages ​​work the same way.

So, in Russian there are only three types moods verbs: indicative ( indicative ), imperative ( imperative ) and conditional/subjunctive ( conjunctiva).

Desirable mood(optative ), as an expression of the desire (more or less persistent) of the speaker, was quite common in Proto-Indo-European languages; According to some experts, all uses of the optative imperative in ancient languages ​​implied a call to “higher powers.”

From the proto-language, the optative passed into later languages, in which it gradually disappeared, leaving only insignificant traces in some, which now acquired a slightly different meaning. For example, the traditional form of expressing curses or blessings, widely represented in the Avar language, is the optative.

Researchers believe that the Indo-European optative could be the basis of the Slavic imperative (imperative mood).

There is one more inclinationin ancient Indo-European languages ​​such as Sanskrit - injunctive - intentional mood, that is, an expression of one’s own intention, coinciding in Russian with the perfect future tense (for example, “I’ll write”).Usually found in the main clause, it is functionally comparable to the subjunctive and imperative. "And I will tell about the exploits of Indra."

Precatative - a special form of the desired mood, which expresses the wish of a request, a prayer (“let it be…”).This mood is characteristic of Sanskrit.

The Irish, Estonian and Hungarian languages ​​are also characterized by other moods, for example, the maximum type of imperative-hortative systems. This is not in Russian. Hortative constructions in Russian are formed only with a verbgivein imperative form:D let's sing! Let's read! Let me go get some bread myself!

But in the Latvian language, the paraphrase mood is also used to convey other people’s words.

Aorist - a tense form of a verb, denoting a completed (one-time, instantaneous, perceived as indivisible) action performed in the past. In English it corresponds to the Past Simple form, and in Russian it merges with the past perfect verb. As a separate form of the verb, it is characteristic of a number of Indo-European languages: Greek, Old Armenian, Old Indian, Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, Old Russian, etc.

Imperfect - aspectual and tense verbal form of a number of languages ​​of the world, meaning the imperfect form of the past tense. The imperfect existed in many ancient Indo-European (Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Old Church Slavonic) and Semitic (Hebrew, Ge'ez) languages, and among modern languages ​​it exists primarily in Romance languages, and among Slavic languages ​​in Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. The ancient imperfect was preserved only in the Indo-Iranian and ancient Greek languages, as well as in the form of the Hittite preterite. Latin, Slavic, Baltic, Armenian and Celtic imperfects are of late origin (see.Semerenyi O.Introduction to comparative linguistics. - M.: URSS, 2002. - P. 317;Erhart A.Indoevropské jazyky. - Praha: Academia, 1982. - P. 178)

Augment – ​​prefix (prefix before root), which is placed at the beginning of verbs of some Indo-European languages ​​to form past tense forms. Augment is used in ancient Greek, Armenian and Phrygian, as well as in Indo-Iranian languages ​​and Sanskrit, but has been lost in other Indo-European languages. For example, in the ancient Greek language of Homer it was not used at all, the reasons for which are still unknown.

For example, Akkadian or Assyro-Babylonian language, is one of the oldest Semitic languages, forming their northern or northeastern group (possibly together with Eblaitic); is the spoken language of the three peoples who inhabited the territory of Ancient Mesopotamia - Akkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians. Depending on the expression of the predicate, there could be 5 moods in the Akkadian language (imperative, subjunctive, ventive, precatative, prohibitive) and two types of sentences: verbal and nominal. The word order of a verb sentence is: subject - direct object - indirect object - predicate. When the predicate is expressed in the causative form of the verb, there can be two direct objects. The word order of a nominal sentence is: predicate - subject, both of them are in the nominative case, the presence of a connective between them is not necessary.

For the Proto-Indo-European language, the eight-case system (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, instrumental, locative, depositive cases), preserved in full only in the ancient Indo-Iranian languages, is restored. Other Indo-European languages ​​simplified it to one degree or another.

The structure of nouns can be expressed by the formula “root (+suffix1...suffix n) + ending.” There were no prefixes in the proto-language.

Numerals are one of the most stable elements of Indo-European vocabulary. Proto-Indo-Europeans used a decimal number system.The numerals “one” and “one hundred” are well etymologized. For example, in Indian languages ​​there are separate words for the numbers 100 thousand and 10 million.

By the way, in the scientific world it is generally accepted that the decimal non-positional number system with unit coding of decimal digits (from 1 to 1,000,000) arose in the second half of the third millennium BC. e. in Ancient Egypt. In the Egyptian number system, numbers were hieroglyphic symbols; they denoted the numbers 1, 10, 100, etc. up to a million, zero as an empty space was absent.

But the decimal positional number system existed in the ancient Indian civilization (metal weights for scales were found in Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, Merhgarh) already in 5-7 thousand BC. Indian numbering together with zero came first to Arab countries and then to Western Europe in the form of “Arabic numerals”. Told about her Central Asian mathematician al-Khorezmi (783 – 850). Simple and convenient rules for adding and subtracting numbers written in the positional system made it especially popular. And since al-Khorezmi's work was written in Arabic, the Indian numbering in Europe received the wrong name - “Arabic”.

Another of the main means of searching for a proto-language and ancestral homelandserves linguistic paleontology. Both the presence of words denoting certain realities and their absence are taken into account.

For example, in the Proto-Indo-European language there were no designations for cypress, laurel, olive, olive oil, grapes and donkey, which does not allow placing the ancestral home in the Mediterranean,

According to scientists, the presence in the proto-language of such indicative words as “bee”, “honey”, “mead”, and also “horse” is currently considered more important for the localization of the Indo-European ancestral home. The honey bee was not distributed east of the Urals, which allows us to exclude Siberia and Central Asia from consideration.

Thus, according to experts, the Horse, which was of great importance for the Proto-Indo-Europeans and was widespread during the hypothetical period of the existence of the proto-language mainly in the steppes of Eurasia, excludes the Middle East, Iran, Hindustan and the Balkans. However, studies concerning the presence of the horse in the Indian subcontinent have shown that it (along with the cart or chariot) was known there as early as 7 thousand BC. (frescoes, figurines, anthropological material, etc.). The Indian horse differed from the Asian (Caucasian) in the number of ribs, etc., therefore the words denoting the horse were different.

Thus, we do not observe many qualities in the Russian (Old Russian) language that would allow us to speak of it as a Proto-Indo-European language.

NEW TALES OF THE DISTANT PAST (part 4)

V.I. Degtyarev

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE

But let's return to the legends. The Bible describes the construction of the Tower of Babel, which was supposed to reach the heavens where the Gods live. To put it simply, humanity began to strive for space.

But the curators, as now, did not need this.

The Bible says that “all the people on earth had the same language and the same words.”

But Yahweh (the word Yahweh is the plural, which must be understood as Gods) decided: “Let us go down and confuse their language there, so that one does not understand the speech of the other. And Yahweh scattered them from there throughout all the earth.”

The main principle of the “Eye” – “divide and conquer” – was again applied.

Different religions were formed based on different gods. But after the idea of ​​“monotheism” penetrated (or was introduced) into the minds of people, each religion began to seek recognition of only its own as the true god. This was often achieved with fire and sword. The idea of ​​“monotheism” has become the main cause of mass religious wars, which sometimes continue in an even bloodier version in our time.

Now about the proto-language.

Research by V. Govorov and others showed that “in the history of mankind there has never been a pre-literate period. Language and Writing existed before Man and were given to him by the Gods. The real history of writing on Earth is comparable to the time of existence of the Slavic-Aryan Peoples.”

The great Mikhailo Lomonosov in his book “Ancient Russian History...”, published in 1766, wrote: - “The real history of Rus' goes back more than four hundred thousand years». And according to the data of the Old Believers - even more.

“There was one Language of the Creator, common to the entire Universe, which models the entire structure of Space and Matter, from the atom to the cell and the Galaxy. And this language is the Proto-Slavic Language! (V. Govorov)

V. Govorov presents the results of a Japanese experiment on assessing the information content of a word and its recognition at the subconscious (genetic) level. A group of representatives of different nations was covered from head to toe with all kinds of sensors, and they were allowed to listen to the simplest words like "dog", "tree" and the like in a variety of languages.

“The same reaction (recognition) for everyone was observed only when the word was pronounced in Russian. Something ours "linguists" this and similar results are not very publicized.” (V. Govorov)

V. Govorov did a great job of searching for a scientific language and its alphabet that describes everything in a dynamic mode; comparisons of different languages ​​and alphabets were made, an analysis of the scientific foundations of the language was made. Here are his conclusions:

1. The basic Proto-Language of Humanity is a group of Slavic Languages.

2. Our languages ​​have proven scientific origins.

3. Our languages ​​are the languages ​​of mathematics and programming, including genetic and biological.

4. The names of the letters directly indicate their fractality, that is, infinity, or the enormous amount of information contained in them.

5. The correct letterforms provide a complete description of the process (part), and, in combination with the name of the letter and (or) the meaning of the word, are suitable for scientific analysis. The modern style of letters gives us practically no information, moreover, it distorts our thought processes.

6. Each concept is described only by its own word. Synonyms and homonyms are not allowed in the language. Their presence in modern language is caused by the lack of letters for their correct spelling.

7. Translation to "Latin" of any Slavic Language is murder of Him and its People.

8. Forced teaching of foreign languages ​​to our children destroys their psyche and mental abilities. You must first learn your language.

9. In order to “get smart”, you need to switch to the correct alphabet to start the process. Only in appearance it seems that it is up to everyone to relearn or not to relearn! So the question is no longer worth it.

“The transition to the scientific genetic alphabet is a question of the survival of the Slavic Peoples! And here we will not listen to anyone but ourselves! (V. Govorov)

I want to reassure speakers of other languages. Modern Russian is not the most ancient language. He is simply the closest to him.

The famous Indian scientist, professor Sanskritologist Durga Prasad Shastri, at a scientific conference in 1964 in India, noted that “ Russian and Sanskrit are the two languages ​​in the world that are most similar to each other.

“What’s surprising,” as he notes, “is that Our two languages ​​have similar word structures, style and syntax.”

“This arouses,” in his words, “deep curiosity in everyone who is familiar with linguistics.”

After a two-week stay in Moscow, Shastri told the translator (N. Gusev): “No need to translate! I understand what you are saying. You are all speaking here in some ancient form of Sanskrit, and I can understand a lot without translation.”

“How I wish that Panini, the great Indian grammarian, who lived about 2600 years ago, could be here with me and hear the language of his time, so wonderfully preserved with all the smallest subtleties!” (From the materials of the conference of the “Society of Indian and Soviet Culture”, Meerut district on February 22-23, 1964, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh).

And this speaks for itself.

To be convincing, I will give a far from complete list of similar words.

Sanskrit - Russian:

Badra - Cheerful
Bratri - Brother
Budh - To wake up
Bhurana - Buran
Tada - At that time
Roller - Roller
Val - Val
To you - to you
you - you
Ved, view - Ved
Vedana - Awareness
Valana - Wave
Vrajya - Enemy
Sadin - Horseman
Vyak - Speak (blutter)
Hornbeam - Rob
Mane - Mane
Gudita - To hum, to play
Davan - Giving
Deha me agni - Give me fire
Yes - Give
Davy - Virgo
Dravya - Wooden
Drava - Wood, Firewood
Samya - Stay together (family)
Divo - Divo, or “miraculously descended from heaven”
Divya - Marvelous
Dala - Share
Khata - House (in Ukrainian - “hata”)
Dra (drap) - Drag (run away)
Dur - Bad
Dada - Uncle
Jivan, jiva - Alive
Gang - Disfigured, crippled
Ila - Il
Itas - So
Kashchit - Everyone
Ka - How
Kara - Kara (murder)
Porridge, porridge - Cough
Kada - When
Katarat - Which
Kravi - Blood
Kruncha - Twisted
Kusha - Sash
Kurcha - Curly
Kustha - Bush
Heap - Heap
Lad - Get along
Las - Caress
Lip - Sculpt
Lipatka - Velcro
Lish - Only (a little)
Loop - Loop
Lyubkh - To love
Mastaka - Mastak (head)
Matrva - Motherhood
Mashaka - Bag
Man (mna) - To think
Me - My
Brand - Darkness (eclipse)
Mok, moch - Get wet, wet
Front sight - Mouse
Nagna - Naked
Beer - Drink
Us - Us
Nabasa - Heaven
Ned - No
Nikhina - Lowland
Nishtka - Low
Fall down - Fall down
Navina - Novina (moon)
Nava - New
Nasa, nasika - Nose, spout
Nich - Night (in Ukrainian - “nich”)
Agni - Fire and the name of the god of fire
Adi - One
Fool - Turning away from God
Utkrita - Open
Utchal - Set sail, set sail
Fall - To fall, to fall away
Couple - Couple (other)
Foam - Foam
Purva - First
Paraswim - Swim across
Psa - Dog
Chicken - Rooster, sing
Pach - Oven
Pachana – Cookies
Plavana - Swimming
Plava - Floating
Indulge - Indulge - contribute to the commission of sinful acts and their consequences
Priya - Nice
Prastara - Space
Prati - Against
Radh - To please
Vrana - Rana
Vranin - Wounded
Rich - Speech (in Ukrainian - “pich”)
Race - Rosa
Ru - Chop
Rush - Destroy
Garden - Plant
Swakar - Father-in-law
Swar - Sparkle
Sveta – Light
Swa - Yours
Matchmaker - Brother-in-law
Shrava - Fame, rumors
Sneha - Snow
Sabrana - Gathering
Sabratri - Brothers
Soto - One Hundred
Stupa - Stupa
Suha - Suho
Drying - Drying
Tas - To carry
Tva - Yours
Creation - Create
Te - Te
Twii - To you
Tinder - RubTo - That
Tada - Then
Tat - That
Tritium - Third
Three - Three
Traya - Three, triad
Track - Troika
Trasa - Cowardice, fear, fear
Iti - Walking, walking, movement
Chashaka - Cup
Widman (feminine - "vidma") - A man of great learning
(“witch” is how a witch is called in Ukraine)
Chatvara - Four
Chatur - Four
Chaturdatsan - Fourteen
Miracle - Eccentric, fool
Chula - Chulan
Shala - Shalash
Samana - Shaman, ascetic mystic
Mane - Neck
Shibham - Shibko
Etam - This
Etad - This
Yuna - Young

I would like to remind you that initially the Old Russian language had about 150 letters. And in Sanskrit, in which all ancient Indian texts are written, according to one count there are 44 letters, according to others - 47, and according to others - 49 (35 consonants and 14 vowels).

This is explained by the fact that Sanskrit is a language that uses the Devanagari syllabary, i.e., individual “letters” are combined into ligatures, of which there are more than 1200. Vowel modifiers are also used. Therefore, it is not clear what to count as a letter - the modifier itself or a letter with a modifier - as another letter?

The word "devanagari" is translated from Sanskrit - "language of the gods." It is believed that this is the most ancient alphabet in the world. All the Vedas are written on it - the very first religious scriptures of mankind.

The official language of India is Hindi.

The Hindi alphabet is based on the complete Devanagari alphabet. With the addition of seven more letters with a dot to the basic Devanagari alphabet, which convey sounds that were included in Hindi with borrowed words from Persian and Arabic and four ligature letters, the Hindi alphabet has 55 letters.

Now let me give you some information that is controversial and even absurd for some, but in the context of this article is quite logical:

“From a number of ancient sources (Indian and Slavic-Aryan Vedas) it became known that more than 600,000 years ago on Midgard-Earth, as our ancestors called it, the first people appeared, representatives of the four peoples of the white race: the X'Aryans, the D'Aryans , Slovenians and Holy Russians. These peoples came from different planets, but spoke the same language - Old Russian. Over time, the peoples mixed, so the descendants of these peoples eventually began to be called Slavic-Aryans.”

“And about 40,000 years ago, representatives of the colored races arrived on Earth: the yellow race, the red race and the black race, settling where they are today. After the campaign of the Slavic-Aryans, who spoke the Old Russian (Sanskrit) language, in Dravidia (Ancient India), the Vedas were transferred to the Hindus.”

“For four thousand years, Sanskrit, “frozen” (it was forbidden to make any adjustments to the grammar and pronunciation of words) among representatives of the highest caste of Hindus, actually turned out to be the Old Russian language, 70% of the words of which have been preserved in modern Russian.”

“However, over the millennia this relationship was forgotten, especially after the collapse of the Slavic-Aryan empire. Modern linguists prefer to “touch” the history of language very carefully, inventing various compromise terms such as: Indo-European languages, Indo-European peoples.”

“The peoples of Dravidia (Ancient India) were Nagas and Dravidians - representatives of the black race. The Slavic-Aryans who populated Europe gave rise to many European peoples after the mixing of the white race with the gray subraces resulting from the mixing of the white race with the black race. At the same time, European peoples spoke Russian until the 16th century, which is confirmed by many monuments preserved in Europe and Asia.”

Many will not agree with this interpretation of ancient history. They will consider it nonsense.

But then explain this scientific incident.

Scientists' calculations based on Moore's law show that DNA, as the basis of biological life on our planet, appeared 10 billion years ago, that is, before the Earth itself, which is only 4.5 billion years old.

Moore's Law, which applies to electronics, states that the number of transistors in microcircuits doubles every two years. Geneticists decided to apply this law to biological circuits, in particular DNA, which also became more complex during the process of evolution. Scientists estimate that, unlike electronics, genetic complexity doubles every 376 million years. By simple calculations, it turns out that the first life should have appeared long before the appearance of the Earth itself.

Thus, we get two options for our origin.

Either we ourselves are aliens, or we were created by aliens using genetic technologies based on ready-made DNA. Horseradish is not sweeter than radish.

But there is also a third one. The most classic one, that is, the academic one, who created another “brake on scientific thought” - Charles Darwin.

From a monkey.

And what? Cute cute creature covered with fur. Intelligence by cosmic standards is the same as ours. And he looks a lot like you and me, only he doesn’t wear pants.

Everyone can choose their own option if they wish. Who will like what more?

I want to add. Natalya Bekhtereva proved that Russian and Arabic are systemic languages ​​of the human brain, which is why Russian is a magical language, a magical language. And to prove all of the above, I will give a few more quotes.

“We were friends with Bekhtereva, the director of the Brain Institute, and one of her last scientific works was that Russian and Arabic are the systemic languages ​​of the human brain. This is already at the level of physiology, at the level of markers. There is also the science of racology, which confirms this.”

(From the memoirs of traveler V.V. Sundakov about Bekhtereva) at 00:12:40 minutes

“The study revealed that the brain, like any computer, operates in special system languages ​​that are blocked from the user for obvious reasons. However, the analysis of available language facts makes it possible to reveal system languages ​​and, therefore, remove information from the system files of the brain. As it turns out, our subconscious uses a language pair as system languages: real Arabic and Russian languages, regardless of our ethnicity. The main computer is connected to the noopole (an analogue of the artificial Internet), which is constantly fed by morphology from real existing ethnic groups: Russian and Arab.”

(From the preface to the book by N. Vashkevich “SYSTEM LANGUAGES OF THE BRAIN”)

ANCIENT RUSSIAN SAZHENS AND CHINESE FENG SHUI – THE WAY TO HARMONY new !

Finally, we come to the topic of linguistic relatedness. I understand in general terms what this is, but I would still like you to demonstrate it somehow.

Yes Easy! What do you mean, how do Ukrainians pray?

Ha ha! Yes. They speak in language.

It’s not easy for Tody to explain why you were so quick about the food. The Ukrainian language is very similar to Russian, its grammar is not so significantly different, and its vocabulary is also basically the same as Russian. There are some differences that make it difficult to understand, but in general we understand Ukrainian speech well and can even get used to it simply by listening and imitating it.

The same cannot be said about the speech of other Slavic peoples, who are much further away from us linguistically. I'll ask you in Czech: Věříš na zázraky? How will you answer?

I understood the first two words: you believe And on. And for some reason I don’t like the last one. Did you just say something bad?

No. I just asked if you believe in miracles.

Yah you! I don't believe in any miracles.

Okay, not a very good example. Let's simplify the problem. Try to translate from Polish: Zawsze niech będzie słońce, zawsze niech będzie niebo, zawsze niech będzie mama, zawsze niech będę ja!

Yes, this is a children's song: “May there always be sunshine...”. It’s just not entirely clear how to accurately translate the words zawsze And niech.

Word zawsze means "always" niech- "let be". You see for yourself that there are languages ​​that you can partially understand without even knowing them. All this is due to linguistic kinship. Here's a miracle for you.

In this case, I gave examples from Slavic languages. But there are languages ​​that are more distant. Try to translate, for example, this simple Greek phrase: Η ελληνική γλώσσα δεν είναι εύκολη (I ellinikí glóssa den eínai éfkoli) .

I didn't understand anything at all.

I said that Greek is quite difficult. It is truly complex and very different from the Slavic languages, although it is also related to them on a deep level.

This sentence contains words that may be familiar to you. For example, the Greek word γλώσσα (glóssa) "language", goes back to ancient Greek γλῶσσα (glôssa) "language" from which words are derived gloss And glossary. Attic form γλῶττα (glôtta) is also present in the word polyglot.

Exactly! But I would never have guessed it in my life. If I had known the translation from the beginning, then perhaps the thought of the connection of the word would have occurred to me γλώσσα (glóssa) with Russian gloss. And my imagination just doesn’t work that way.

But there are no words in this sentence that are related to Russian at the ancient level? What other words in this “alien” Greek might I know? In my opinion, there are no such people anymore.

Still as it is, Marin. You just won't be able to see it without preparation. Words that have been borrowed and look similar to words in the source language are easy to identify. Words that come from the proto-language are quite difficult to identify by eye. Word είναι (eínai) here is a relative of one famous Russian verb. Can't guess what verb I'm talking about?

No, somehow I just can’t figure out this secret with my mind.

So be it, I’ll reveal an age-old secret. Word είναι (eínai) is the 3rd person singular form of the verb είμαι (eímai) "to be", which comes from ancient Greek εἰμί (eimí) “to be.” (Words είμαι (eimai) and εἰμί (eimí) are generally not infinitives, but forms of the 1st person singular, but I usually translate this personal form into Russian as an infinitive, since for us this form is the main one.) This very verb εἰμί (eimí) is supposed to have developed from the form *εσμί (esmi).

Now look at the following table and find ten differences.

Russian	Staroslav.	Ancient Greek	Latin	Sanskrit
am	yes	εἰμί (eimi)		अस्मि (ásmi)
you		εἶ (eî)		असि (ási)
There is	Yes	ἐστί (ν ) (estí(n))		अस्ति (ásti)
we are	ѥсмъ	ἐσμέν (esmen)		स्मस् (smás)
naturally	Yes	ἐστέ (esté)		स्थ (sthá)
essence	set	εἰσί (ν ) (eisí(n))		सन्ति (sánti)

These forms of the verb “to be” in different languages ​​are among the most ancient. They have partially retained their appearance in modern languages, but this can only be detected in comparison. By the way, comparison, if you remember, is the basis of comparative historical linguistics.

Wow! Now I have seen the light a little, but suddenly I have two questions. Firstly, what did these, as you say, ancient forms look like then? Secondly, why are English verb forms be so different from the ones you cited? After all, English, as far as I understand, is also related to Russian?

Undoubtedly, English is related to Russian. All Germanic languages ​​are also Indo-European. And the corresponding Germanic verb forms also go back to the common ancient paradigm of conjugation of the verb “to be,” but the changes there are of a slightly different nature.

Here's another table for comparison. It presents Proto-Indo-European (PIE), Proto-Germanic, Gothic, modern English and German forms.

	Teutonic	Gothic	English	German
*h₁ esmi
*h₁ esi
*h₁ Esti
*h₁ smos
*h₁ sté
*h₁ senti

As you may have already noticed, some English and German forms of the verb “to be” do not fit into the general scheme. This is explained quite simply. English word are goes back to Old English earon and is, in fact, a form of a completely different verb that has replaced the original forms. German forms bin, bist are forms of the Proto-Germanic verb *beuną, which, by the way, is related to the Russian word be. Linguists call this phenomenon suppletivism.

You know, now it seems to me that I know everything. I just have one more question about this table. This will probably sound stupid, but I'll ask anyway. Russian word There is cognate with English is? Did I understand correctly?

English is, French est, Italian è , Czech je, Persian است (ast), Armenian է (ē) – all these are words that are related to Russian There is. (Of course, this verb form should not be confused with the infinitive There is meaning "to eat." These are common homonyms.)

Now also Armenian? Yes, this is actually somewhere in Transcaucasia! I'm kind of confused. So which languages ​​are considered Indo-European?

The Indo-European family of languages ​​extends from India in the east to Iceland in the west. This is its historical area; today Indo-European languages ​​are widespread on other continents. It is the largest language family in the world. The classification of Indo-European languages ​​is quite extensive, so I will mention only the largest and most famous languages.

The Indo-Iranian (Aryan) branch of the Indo-European language family includes: Nuristani (Ashkun, Vaigali, Kati, Prasun), Indo-Aryan (Bengali, Gujarati, Maldivian, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi, Sinhalese, Sindhi, Hindi), Dardic (Kalasha, Kashmiri, Khowar, Pashai, Shina) and Iranian languages ​​(Baluchi, Dari, Kurmanji, Leki, Persian, Sorani, Tajik, Hazara, Central Iranian, South Kurdish). Ancient languages ​​of this branch: Avestan, Old Indian, Old Persian, Median, Mitannian.

Separately, Armenian (ancient Armenian) and Greek (ancient Greek) are distinguished. Sometimes they, together with the Illyrian (Albanian, dead Illyrian and Messapian), Thracian (dead Dacian and Thracian) and Phrygian languages ​​(dead Paeonian and Phrygian) are combined into the Paleo-Balkan branch.

Slavic languages ​​are divided into three subgroups: western (Upper and Lower Sorbian, Kashubian, Polish, Slovak, Czech, Dead Polabian), southern (Bulgarian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Old Church Slavonic) and eastern (Belarusian, Russian , Ukrainian, also Old Russian and Old Novgorod). Together with the Baltic (or Baltic) languages ​​(Latgalian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Dead Prussian), the Slavic languages ​​are often combined into the Baltoslavic branch.

Germanic languages ​​are also divided into two subgroups: Western (English, Afrikaans, Yiddish, Luxembourgish, German, Dutch, Low German, Frisian) and Northern (Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese). Historically, there was also an eastern subgroup of Germanic languages ​​(Burgundian, Vandal, Gothic), but it has completely died out to this day. The Germanic branch also includes the ancient Germanic languages: Old English, Old Saxon, Old High German, Old Scandinavian and others.

The Italic branch of the Indo-European languages ​​included two groups: Oscan-Umbrian (Oscian, Umbrian) and Latin-Faliscan (Latin, Faliscan). Today all these languages ​​are extinct, but from Latin, as you know, modern Romance languages ​​developed. They include several subgroups: Balkan-Roman (Aromanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, Moldavian, Romanian), Gallo-Roman (Norman, French and its dialects), Ibero-Roman (Spanish, Portuguese and other languages ​​of the Iberian Peninsula: Aragonese, Asturleonese, Galician , Ladino), Italo-Roman (Italian and numerous dialects of Italy: Venetian, Corsican, Lombard, Neapolitan, Piedmontese, Sardinian, Sicilian), Occitan-Roman (Catalan, Provençal), Romansh (Ladin, Romansh, Friulian).

The Celtic branch barely survives today, but it once included a large number of languages ​​and spread over large areas of Europe. It is customary to distinguish continental (all dead: Galatian, Gaulish, Celtiberian, Lepontian, Lusitanian), Goidelic (Irish, Manx, Scottish Gaelic) and Brythonic Celtic languages ​​(Breton, Welsh, Cornish, dead Cumbrian).

Two more large branches have not survived to this day: Tocharian (Eastern Tocharian A and Western Tocharian B) and Anatolian (Isaurian, Cilician, Lydian, Lycian, Luwian, Palai, Pisidian, Sidetian, Hittite). By the way, they are very interesting to linguists, since they provide very good material for analysis, including etymological ones.

It would never have occurred to me to combine Persian or ancient Indian with Russian. Of course, I am not an expert in these languages, but it seems to me that they cannot possibly be similar to Russian. These are languages ​​of completely different cultures. And the fact that Armenian belongs to the Indo-European languages ​​was unexpected news for me. I always thought that it was closer to other languages ​​of the Caucasus.

I think if you are shown some simple Sanskrit text, its transliteration and translation, then you can easily determine which words of the ancient Indian language correspond to Russian. Sanskrit can hardly be called similar to Russian, but many words in this language are close to Russian in both forms and meanings.

Just look at these words: उदन् (udán), ग्ना (gnā), धूम (dhūmá), नभस् (nábhas), त्रि (tri), जीवति (jīvati) ), भरति (bhárati), स्मयते (smáyate). How would you translate them?

I was able to find matches only for some words: ग्ना (gnā) - “wife”, धूम (dhūmá) - “thought”, नभस् (nábhas) - “sky”, त्रि (tri) - “three”, जीवति (jīvá ti) – “chew”, भरति (bhárati) – “take”, स्मयते (smáyate) – “laugh”. The meaning of the word उदन् (udán) is somehow difficult for me to determine.

I guessed almost everything, only धूम (dhūmá) is “smoke”, and जीवति (jīvati) is “to live”. The word उदन् (udán) means “water”, and the word नभस् (nábhas) means “cloud, sky”.

Can you learn more specifically about parent languages? You have already named Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Germanic. I don't quite understand what this is? When and where did they even exist?

A proto-language is some ancient language from which modern languages ​​began to emerge. Each language group has its own parent language.

The Proto-Slavic language is the parent language for all modern Slavic languages. It existed somewhere in the 2nd-1st millennium BC on the territory of Eastern Europe and began to break up into dialects around the 5th century AD, when the Slavs began to migrate to the south and east. The final collapse of the Slavic languages ​​dates back only to the 12th century, when the so-called fall of the reduced ones occurred.

Proto-Germanic is the parent language of all modern Germanic languages. It existed at about the same time as Proto-Slavic, and spread from the north (Southern Scandinavia, Denmark, partly Northern Germany) to the south, west and east.

For all modern Romance languages, the proto-language was Latin (if you look deeper, proto-Italic). We know a lot about Latin, since the heritage of Ancient Rome is great, we have many written monuments in this language.

The Proto-Indo-European language, in turn, is the proto-Slavic, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Italic, as well as Proto-Celtic, Proto-Indo-Iranian and some other ancient proto-languages.

There are a lot of hypotheses, each of which places the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans in its own area: the Kurgan hypothesis of M. Gimbutas (initially the Volga steppes, then the northern Black Sea region), the Balkan hypothesis (Balkan Peninsula), the Anatolian hypothesis of K. Renfrew (western Anatolia, Turkey), the Armenian hypothesis T.V. Gamkrelidze and Vyach. V. Ivanova (Armenian Highlands). There are several more less popular hypotheses today, which are shared only in some countries. For example, many Indians think that the ancestral home of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is in India, but today this hypothesis is no longer tenable.

In Indo-European studies, there is still debate about when and where the Proto-Indo-European language arose. The time of the collapse of the proto-language is usually dated to the 3rd millennium BC, but it is possible that this happened earlier.

Yeah. What has science come to? And what’s interesting is that such antiquities are being studied and even dated. Archaeologists at least have in their hands a material antiquity that can be subjected to radiocarbon dating. How can you date proto-languages? After all, this is not some kind of thing?

Glottochronology answers this question. This application of lexicostatistics, which precisely determines the time of divergence of two or more languages, establishes the “half-life” of vocabulary. That is, linguists can also conduct an analysis similar to radiocarbon dating.

American linguist M. Swadesh proposed a hypothesis according to which in the languages ​​of the world there is a vocabulary that is relatively stable, that is, it can not be replaced for a long time by borrowings or native words with other roots. If such words are displaced, it happens rarely and (theoretically) evenly, linearly.

Based on this hypothesis, the time of divergence of languages ​​is calculated mathematically. I will not describe the technique itself; it is quite complicated. If you want, you can find a description of the technique in the works and articles of our domestic linguist S. A. Starostin. He studied this topic a lot.

Here you go. And I just wanted to ask how the calculation is carried out. So be it, let's skip the math part. Explain to me at least what kind of vocabulary is this that has “relative stability”? Can you provide specific examples?

In the dictionary of all languages ​​there are words that are not associated with any specific culture or features of local life. These are nouns related to nature ( sky, Earth, stone, wind, water, tree, Sun, star, day, night), person ( man, woman, heart, head, leg, eye), kinship ( mother, father, Brother, sister), all living creatures ( beast, fish, bird), as well as simple pronouns ( I, You, We), adjectives ( warm, cold, old, new), Verbs ( There is, drink, breathe, see, hear, know), numerals ( one, two, three, four, five). In many closely related languages ​​such words are similar.

Take a look at this table of lexical correspondences for Slavic languages.

Russian	Ukrainian	Bulgarian	Serbian	Polish
one	one	one	Yodan
			two
			three
woman	woman	wife	wife
man	man		muskarats	mężczyzna
mother	mother	T-shirt	mајka
father	dad	bashcha	otats
tree	tree	shit	wood
eye			eye
			nose
heart	heart	sartse	sȑtse
There is	there are		There are
see	bachiti	I see	view(ј )kids	widzieć
Sun	sun	sun	sun	słońce
Earth	Earth	earth	earth
night			but
day	day		Dan

In this table, most of the words are the same. However, there are words that simply do not fit into the overall picture. For example, the Russian word eye(it is used more often than the original obsolete word eye) has nothing to do with Ukrainian eye or Polish oko. Polish word kobieta obviously not of the same root as Russian woman or Serbian wife.

Some words of the language, as I said, disappear over time and are replaced by others. The further the languages ​​are from each other, the more such departures occur. Here is the same table, which already presents Russian, Lithuanian, German, Italian and Irish (all languages ​​belong to different language groups).

Russian	Lithuanian	German	Italian	Irish
one
woman	moteris
man
mother				mathair
father	tė́vas
tree
eye
heart
There is	válgyti		mangiare
see
Sun
Earth	žẽmė
night
day

I would like to immediately draw your attention to the fact that some words that seem unlike Russian ones are actually related to them. For example, the Irish word bean comes from pre-Celtic *benā, where is the initial *b arose from the Proto-Indo-European labiovelar consonant *gʷ. The whole word goes back to the Proto-Indo-European word *gʷḗn"woman" from which comes the Proto-Slavic *žena“woman” (hence the Russian wife, Ukrainian woman, Serbo-Croatian wife etc.), Proto-Germanic words *kwenǭ"woman" and *kwēniz"wife" (hence the English queen"queen"), ancient Greek γυνή (gunḗ) “woman, wife”, as well as the Sanskrit ग्ना (gnā) “wife”, which you guessed recently. German Frau(from Proto-Germanic *frawjǭ"madam") and Italian donna(from Latin domina"Madam") have a completely different origin.

German Herz, which is difficult to compare so easily with Russian heart, goes back to the Proto-Germanic word *herto"heart" (hence the English heart) and further to Proto-Indo-European *ḱḗr"heart", where the Proto-Slavic *sьrdьce“heart” (hence the Russian heart, Ukrainian heart, Serbo-Croatian sȑtse etc.), Latin cor"heart" (hence the French cœur, Italian cuore, Spanish corazon), ancient Greek καρδία (kardía) "heart", Sanskrit हृदय (hṛdaya) "heart". Irish croí and Lithuanian širdis, of course, here too.

Also quite interesting is the case with the word day. It goes back to the Proto-Slavic word *dьnь"day", further to the Proto-Indo-European root *dyew-"sky", from which also comes the Latin diēs"day". From the latter, as you might guess, comes the Spanish día and Portuguese dia. Italian giorno and French jour, as it may seem, have nothing to do with these words at all, but this is not so. Both words come from the Latin adjective diurnus“day”, which, in turn, is derived from diēs. This is not quite a direct etymology, but still the words have the same root. There are also such confusing cases.

As you can see, the number of matches in this table is also quite large, but the number of eliminations is also much greater than in the first table. Complete tables containing one hundred or two hundred words are called Swadesh lists. Using them, the exact number of eliminated words is calculated, then the time of divergence of the languages ​​whose vocabulary is analyzed is calculated. The results of calculations do not always give a satisfactory result, but in general, the use of such a technique gives linguists a lot.

German Tag and English day, it turns out, are also connected with the Russian word day?

No, these words are not related to Russian day. They come from the Proto-Germanic word *dagaz"day", which goes back to the Proto-Indo-European root *dʰegʷʰ-"burn". Hence the Lithuanian dègti"burn", Russian burn, Latin foveō"to warm", Irish daig"fire", Sanskrit दहति (dahati) "to burn, burn." I've heard this question many times already. Apparently, many consider these words to be related.

Then my soul is at peace. For many years I thought that day And day somehow connected. I didn’t sleep at night. But it turned out that everything is so simple. But all you had to do was learn Lithuanian, Latin, ancient Greek, Irish, Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European in addition. And then also think of connecting these words from the listed languages. What a little thing!

Would you like to be funny? Sanskrit alone, by the way, is taught for many years and is not always mastered. Ancient languages ​​are an order of magnitude more complex than modern ones.

You cited so many words from the Proto-Indo-European language that it seems as if it is well known. Do we really know everything about him?

Proto-Indo-European is a hypothetical language. It was reconstructed on the basis of living languages, since none of us heard it. Proto-Slavic, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Celtic and many other proto-languages ​​were reconstructed in the same way.

You may have noticed that words from these languages ​​begin with an asterisk (*). This icon is called an asterisk, it indicates that this word has not been attested anywhere and that scientists are only suggesting this form. Therefore, we cannot know everything about the Proto-Indo-European language, but we can assume a lot.

How can you reconstruct an entire language? I still believe that it is possible to somehow determine its age, but it seems to me that it is simply impossible to recreate from scratch what was once a living language.

Linguists do just that: they do the impossible - they revive the dead. Reconstructing the proto-language is quite difficult. Different languages ​​give us a lot of contradictory facts, and much has been lost over time, so the picture is incomplete in all respects.

The phonetics of the Proto-Indo-European language, as it may seem at first glance, is well known, but this is not so. Linguists use a compromise model. The consonant system in this model includes labials * m, * p, * b, * bʰ , * w, dental * n, * t, * d, *dʰ, * s, * r, * l, middle language * y, three rows of posterior lingual: palatovelar *ḱ , *ǵ , *ǵʰ , velar *k, *g, *gʰ and labiovelar *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ, as well as laryngals * h₁ , *h₂ , *h₃ . Five short vowels *i, *e, *a, *o, *u are opposed to long *ī , *ē , *ā , *ō , *ū . Some linguists believe that long vowels arose after the loss of laryngeals. They also suggest the presence of four syllable sonatas *ṛ , *ḷ , *ṃ And *ṇ (consonants *r, *l, *n And *m in the position between vowels), diphthongs from vowel combinations * e, * a And * o with non-syllabic *i̯, *u̯(same as * w, * y) and some reduced *ə (some consider it a vocalized laryngeal).

It is not always possible to reconstruct the grammar accurately and completely, since some nominal or verbal forms may have disappeared without a trace, and it is simply impossible to restore them on the basis of modern data. Similarly, if we did not know Latin grammar, then using the material of all known Romance languages, we would not be able to recreate at least one of the two forms of the passive voice in Latin, since it has not been preserved anywhere.

Nevertheless, based on the available data, it was established that the Proto-Indo-European language had a three-gender system (masculine, feminine and neuter), the noun varied in eight cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, instrumental, locative, depositive) and three numbers ( singular, dual, plural). The verb had the categories of person, number, tense (present, imperfect, aorist and perfect), voice (active and neuter) and mood (indicative, imperative, conjunctive and optative). It is also known that a noun, an adjective and a verb could be thematic (the stems ended in *o, alternating with *e) and non-thematic (they did not have such a vowel).

When reconstructing vocabulary, many difficulties arise; it is not always possible to establish the exact meaning of an ancient root. But they are trying to integrate what can be “saved” from the destructive influence of time into the reconstructed system of the proto-language. Thus, it is constantly being improved. The most brilliant scientists around the world have been working on this for decades.

How does lexical reconstruction actually happen? Tell me at least briefly so that I can understand where these words under the asterisk come from.

Linguists have a good visual model - the same Latin. We know that the Latin word factum[ˈfaktum] “fact; done" turned into French faith, Italian fatto, Spanish hecho, Portuguese feito, Romanian fapt. But if we were completely ignorant of Latin, if all written monuments in this language were destroyed in due time, and nothing at all had reached us, we could theoretically guess what the word with the meaning “made” looked like in this language: we would know that it started with * f, followed by some vowel (most likely it was * a), and after the vowel there would be a combination of some consonant (plosive * k; compare also borrowings: English fact, German Faktum, Russian fact) And * t. We could reconstruct a hypothetical root * fakt- or something similar. By matching the following words with the meaning of "milk" in Romance languages: French lait, Italian latte, Spanish leche, Portuguese leite, Romanian lapte, we would, by analogy with the previous example, say that their common root in Latin looked like * lakt- . Indeed, these words come from the Latin form lactem(“milk” in Latin – lac), which we know very well.

Linguists act in a similar way when reconstructing Proto-Indo-European foundations. The only difference is that we know the Latin language, so we can check any of our guesses about the form of some obscure words, based on what we know. However, in the case of the Proto-Indo-European language, everything is much more complicated, since we did not have any initial data about it, except for modern words in Indo-European languages.

Let's consider this example for the Proto-Indo-European language. Let's take a number of words with the meaning “door” from Slavic languages: Russian door, Ukrainian doors, Old Church Slavonic door, Serbian doors, Bulgarian doors, Polish drzwi, Czech door. On their basis, the Proto-Slavic word is quite simply reconstructed *dvьрь"door". This word is similar in form and meaning to the ancient Greek θύρα (thúra) "door", Latin foris"door, gate", Sanskrit द्वार् (dvār), द्वार (dvā́ra) "door, gate", English door"door", Gothic daur"door", Persian در (dar) "door", Albanian here"door", Armenian դուռ (duṙ) "door" and Old Irish dorus"door". It can be assumed that they are all related.

To determine what the common Proto-Indo-European root looked like, you should analyze each phoneme of the given words. Initial * d could have been in Proto-Indo-European, but ancient Greek θ (th) and Latin f talk about its aspirated character. Thus, the Proto-Indo-European root begins with *dʰ. Also, through comparisons and assumptions, it is determined that the semivowel came after it *w, also at the root there was a smooth *r. Between *w And *r there was a vowel *e or *o. That is, the whole root looked like *dʰwer- or *dʰwor-(from the latter the Russian word also comes yard).

The Indo-European root could be overgrown with various suffixes, forming new words (as in Russian: door, door, door etc.). Partly for this reason, some forms of cognates do not always coincide with each other. The vowels of a root could alternate in different ways (in linguistics this is called ablaut), giving different results in modern languages, so sometimes the same root is represented in different ways.

Today, reconstruction does not take much time, since almost all correspondences between modern languages ​​and Proto-Indo-European have long been known. During a thorough reconstruction, each phoneme should be justified by referring to similar cases, some laws, exceptions, of which a lot have accumulated recently. One such justification can take ten pages. Thank God, almost all this work has already been done. Back in the 19th century, it was wandering in the dark, but it yielded results.

Yeah. I can imagine how much information scientists had to process when they looked for these words and found matches for them. And all this without computers!

It was routine work. But entire dictionaries of such roots and words were created that glorified the names of their authors. For example, the dictionary of the Indo-European language by Yu. Pokorny, published in 1959, is very popular all over the world and is still considered one of the best.

Is it possible to speak in a Proto-Indo-European language or at least write some kind of letter? Or has it not yet been reconstructed to such an extent that it can be used for practical purposes?

You can talk and write a letter. They tried to do this back in those years when Proto-Indo-European began to be actively reconstructed. The German linguist A. Schleicher, already familiar to us, wrote an entire fable in this language, which today is known as “Schleicher’s fable”. Here is her text.

Avis akvāsas ka Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat.

Sheep and horses A sheep [with] no wool (shorn sheep) saw horses pulling a heavy cart [with] a large load, quickly carrying a man. The sheep said to the horses: my heart is pressed [in] me (my heart is sad), seeing the horses carrying a man. The horses said: listen, sheep, my heart is pained [by] what I saw (our heart is sad because we know): man, the lord, makes the wool of the sheep warm clothing [for] himself and [the] sheep have no wool (the sheep no longer have wool , they are shorn, they are worse than the horses). Hearing this, the sheep turned [into] the field (it ran away).

Schleicher's text, in fact, is far from a modern reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language, since it was written almost a century and a half ago and reflects mainly the features of Sanskrit, which Schleicher himself considered to be closest to the Proto-Indo-European language.

Today, almost every year new versions of this fable appear, everyone trying to leave their mark on linguistics. But no one will surpass Schleicher, because he became a pioneer, a mad experimenter who sought to revive a long-extinct language and capture it in this text.

I liked the fable, but I’m unlikely to be able to read it correctly. But I easily recognized the word card"heart". Now I recognize it in any language.

What about colloquial Proto-Indo-European? If I want to learn it to “communicate with my ancestors” or just for fun, then where should I look for learning material?

Some linguists today are creating their own projects for a colloquial version of Proto-Indo-European, but I have doubts that the language they propose is close to the language spoken five or six thousand years ago. Besides, there are many simpler and more popular languages ​​in the world that really should be learned. For example, Spanish or Portuguese.

If you really want to touch the ancient proto-language in its modern version, then you can look for the book of the Spanish polyglot K. Quiles “Grammar of the Modern Indo-European Language”. Also quite interesting is the book “Preliminary Syntax of Modern Indo-European Language” by F. Lopez-Menchero. I have these books in English, but, to be honest, I haven’t fully mastered them. In addition, I do not agree with all the provisions of these books; they contain very controversial statements.

I will definitely find and read them. And Spanish and Portuguese are next in my queue. So be calm.

In general, if we collect what we talked about above, it turns out that almost the entire linguistic diversity of our planet in a historical perspective is compressed into some single proto-language. But we mainly named European languages ​​and partly Asian ones. What about other languages? For example, it is not at all clear to me where the place of Japanese or Chinese is in this system. Did they develop separately or are they also related to the Indo-European languages?

I've been waiting for you to ask about this. This question has been of particular interest to me lately. The fact is that, in addition to the Indo-European language family, there are several other large families in the world: Uralic (Samoyedic and Finno-Ugric languages), Altai (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu languages, as well as Korean and Japanese), Kartvelian (Georgian), Sino-Tibetan (Chinese and Tibeto-Burman languages), Dravidian (mainly the languages ​​of South India), Afroasiatic (Berber-Libyan, Cushitic, Omotian, Semitic, Chadic languages, as well as ancient Egyptian), Austronesian (numerous languages ​​in Taiwan, South -East Asia, Oceania and Madagascar) and others. For some of them, their parent languages ​​were also reconstructed.

At the beginning of the 20th century, quite a lot was already known about proto-languages. The famous Danish linguist H. Pedersen, back in 1903, in one of his articles, expressed the idea that there are languages ​​related to Indo-European at a more ancient level. His guess was very bold for that time.

Later, this idea of ​​Pedersen was developed in the works of our domestic scientists: first by V. M. Illich-Svitych, then by A. B. Dolgopolsky, V. A. Dybo and S. A. Starostin. Based on the material of Indo-European, Altaic, Afroasiatic, Kartvelian, Dravidian and Uralic languages, they were able to generally reconstruct a significant part of this proto-language of the second level, using the same comparative method, but not in relation to living languages, but in relation to proto-languages. We can say that they reconstructed the “proto-proto-language” that existed more than ten thousand years ago. Illich-Svitych even wrote a short poem on it, repeating the feat of A. Schleicher. Here is her text.

There is something philosophical in this poem...

There is not only philosophy here, but also a challenge to scientists. Illich-Svitych, in fact, encrypted instructions for future generations of linguists. I interpret it this way: “language is a ford across the river of time” - in order to understand it, you need to cross this river, that is, overcome time; “he leads us to the dwelling of the dead” - he will reveal to us the secrets of antiquity, give us the opportunity to look at the world through the eyes of those who spoke the most ancient language; “but the one who is afraid of deep water will not be able to get there” - whoever is afraid or does not want to look and see beyond what has been achieved (the Proto-Indo-European level) will never reveal these secrets.

Does this “proto-proto-language” have a name?

I almost forgot about the most important thing... This “proto-proto-language” in scientific literature is called Nostratic (from the Latin pronoun noster"our"). Have you ever heard this name?

No, I've never heard of this. Maybe in bad dreams, but as a rule, I don’t remember them.

Are there any similarities that can be recognized in the various languages ​​from the families represented? I even have difficulty distinguishing them in Indo-European languages. How can one find some correspondence in this sea of ​​words?

To be honest, I don’t always notice them either. But using already known correspondences between proto-languages, I can connect, for example, the Proto-Indo-European word *wodr“water” (where Russian water, English water"water", Lithuanian vanduõ"water", ancient Greek ὕδωρ (húdōr) "water", Latin unda"wave") with the Proto-Ural word *weti"water", where Finnish comes from vesi"water" and Hungarian viz"water". In Proto-Nostratic this word looked like * wet(compare with the last word in Illich-Svitych’s poem).

Your favorite Proto-Indo-European word *ḱérd“heart” (I already represented it in the form *ḱḗr without *d and with a long root vowel) is very similar to Georgian მკერდი (mkerdi) “chest”, dating back to pre-Kartvelian *mkkerd-(initial consonant – prefix). For them I have seen reconstructions *k̕ærd And *k̕erd(in other notation systems the reconstruction may look different, for example as *k̥ärd∇).

There have been quite a lot of such coincidences, but this is not yet enough to assert that such similarity is not due to a random coincidence or ancient contacts of speakers of proto-languages. Still, the very possibility of the existence of an ancient Nostratic proto-language seems very probable, I personally believe in it.

According to the theory of monogenesis, all people with their own languages ​​came from a single tribe and subsequently, settling around the planet, began to lose cultural and linguistic ties. The carriers of the Nostratic proto-language are one of the branches of these people who roamed the planet, who continued to divide into other tribes. The process of this division is still ongoing.

So, if we summarize everything, it turns out that the languages ​​of the world are related to varying degrees. Slavic languages ​​go back to a certain Proto-Slavic language, which, in turn, together with Proto-Germanic, Proto-Celtic and other ancient proto-languages, goes back to some Proto-Indo-European language. The latter (together with other proto-languages) can also go back to some more ancient “proto-proto-language”, which is called Nostratic. Did I understand the meaning correctly?

Yes, that is right. I will add to what has been said that there is also a hypothesis about the existence of the Borean language, which was worked on by the same S. A. Starostin. According to this hypothesis, all known earthly languages ​​(or most of them) can go back to a single ancient proto-language, which was spoken by our ancestors during the period of settlement in Eurasia or even in Africa. Actually, this picture emerges if we adhere to the theory of monogenesis.

Work has been going on for a long time to compare Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian languages ​​(the latter include Sino-Tibetan, North Caucasian, Dene-Yenisean, ancient Hurrito-Urartian languages, Basque and Burushaski, which many consider isolates, as well as some other ancient languages). Other hypothetical macrofamilies of languages ​​are being actively studied: Austrian (Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Tai-Kadai languages, as well as Miao-Yao languages) and Ameridean (American Indian languages). This is the very last level of comparison, the deepest water.

Here you go! A “great-great-great language” also appeared.

As you see. Only for now are proto-Indo-European level proto-languages ​​being seriously discussed. The existence of Nostratic and especially Borean languages ​​is disputed by many linguists. But it seems to me that this is wrong. If such proto-languages ​​really existed and if linguists manage to get close to them, then this will seriously advance us in the study of primitive society.

I already understand this. If scientists know what was in the ancient language, this will allow us to understand what surrounded the ancient people, what they did. And we will finally be able to find out how ancient people grunted after their pigs.

It’s also not entirely clear to me exactly what similarities are taken as a basis when comparing the grammars of languages. I seriously doubt that the grammar of the Russian language can be compared with the grammars of some other languages. Even English grammar seems too different to us.

The grammar of languages ​​is also subject to comparison, but it is not mainly relied upon. If you remember, we talked about the fact that there is a linguistic typology that classifies languages ​​according to the types of expression of grammatical meanings and types of morphological structure. In general, this science also compares languages, but looks for those similarities that are not due to kinship.

Let me give you a simple example. Many languages ​​have an article as a part of speech. We usually talk about the prepositive article (definite or indefinite): English a(n) , the, German ein, eine, ein, der, die, das, die, French un, une, des, le, la, les etc. However, there are languages ​​in which articles strangely go behind the word, becoming part of it. Such articles are called postpositive. They exist, for example, in the Bulgarian language. So, the Bulgarian word mj“husband” with an article looks like m'zht, word hail“city” with an article looks like hail. There is an article here -т corresponds to a particle -That In russian language ( husband, city). Compare also the Bulgarian articles for neuter and feminine nouns: iron"iron" - iron-nitrogen, lato"summer" - latoto, wife"wife" - married, mountain"forest" - gorata. You can find the same thing in Swedish: hus"house" - huset, bok"book" - boken, björn"bear" - björnen. Such strange similarities in the structures of Bulgarian and Swedish are completely coincidental.

It happens that the similarity is due to long-term contacts of languages. The Bulgarian language belongs to the so-called Balkan language union, which also includes Macedonian, Greek, Albanian and Romanian. According to a number of characteristics, Serbo-Croatian, Gypsy languages ​​and some dialects of Turkish are also included in this union. It turns out that the emergence of the postpositive article is a general innovation in some of these languages. It is also in Albanian ( shtëpi"house" - shtëpia, tryezë"table" - tryeza, kërci"shin" - kërcyri) and Romanian ( lup"wolf" - lupul, copil"child" - copilul, fereastră"window" - fereastra). Here we can no longer talk about random similarity, but the presence of a postpositive article does not indicate the relationship of languages. The languages ​​just got closer, something coincided in them. These and some other similarities of the languages ​​included in the Balkan linguistic union have attracted linguists throughout the 20th century.

Grammatical similarities that come from antiquity, of course, exist; they are detectable in the same forms of words in different languages. But grammar changes quite quickly, sometimes even beyond recognition. Remember what I said at the very beginning about English and Bulgarian. Grammar can change unpredictably, old grammatical categories disappear, new ones appear.

Does word order somehow help linguists determine the relationship of languages? For example, if in one language the verb is always in one place, and in another - in another place, does this mean anything?

Syntax, word order, in some cases allows us to make some assumptions about kinship, but then we should talk about comparison not according to one syntactic feature (for example, the place of a specific member of a sentence), but according to a whole set of features. Everything here is the same as with grammar.

The position of the verb in a sentence is of interest to the same typologists, that is, linguists who study similarities that are not related to linguistic kinship. The verb in a sentence, of course, can be in different places, and other members of the sentence can be located differently relative to the verb. Still, the number of combinations is limited, and therefore the same order can easily be found in languages ​​spoken in different hemispheres of the blue planet.

Data from word order typologies suggest that almost half of all languages ​​have SOV order (i.e., “subject, subject-object, object-verb, predicate”). These include completely different languages: Hindi, Armenian, Turkish, Tatar, Uzbek, Mongolian, Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, Basque and many others. In all these languages, the verb comes after the object.

For example, the phrase “I don’t speak Japanese” in Japanese looks like this: “私は日本語は話せません (わたしはにほんごははなせません, watashi wa Nihongo wa hanasemasen).” Here the word 話す (はなす, hanasu) is precisely the verb “to speak” (the form 話せません (なせません, hanasemasen) is negative for the present-future tense). The word 私 (わたし, watashi) is the pronoun “I”, the word は (wa) is a special particle, and the word 日本語 (にほんご, Nihongo) translates to “Japanese language”. To say “I don’t speak Hindi” in Hindi, we use a similar construction: “मैं हिन्दी नहीं बोलता हूँ (maĩ hindī nahī̃ boltā hū̃).” Somehow we already met the verb हूँ (hū̃) at the very beginning. It is an auxiliary verb, a form of the verb होना (honā) "to be", which is used together with the masculine participle बोलता (boltā) "speaker", a form of the verb बोलना (bolnā) "to speak". Thus, the entire last part of the sentence बोलता हूँ (boltā hū̃) is the predicate, and everything that comes before it is the subject and the object (the negation नहीं (nahī̃) refers to the verb, but we will not drag it into the predicate).

There are languages ​​of the SVO type (“subject – verb – object”), which include many European languages ​​(English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, Czech, Finnish, etc.), as well as Russian, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Hausa, Swahili and some other languages. There are also a lot of such languages.

You don't have to look far for examples. For the Russian language, the basic order will be in which the verb comes after the subject: “I don’t speak Russian.” We can also say differently: “I don’t speak Russian,” “I don’t speak Russian.” These are possible variants of the statement, but they, as a rule, have a special style. In English, there is only one way to say it: “I don’t speak English.” In German we would say: “ich spreche kein Deutsch”, in French: “je ne parle pas français”, in Spanish: “yo no hablo español”, in Polish: “nie mówię po polsku”, in Finnish: “en puhu suomea”. In these statements, the verb is always after the subject (real or implied) and before the object.

There are four other word orders that are less common. I won’t explain them, I don’t see the need for it. It is already clear that such a characteristic as the place of a verb in a sentence cannot serve as an indicator of kinship. We compared Hindi and Japanese, which belong to completely different language families, but have a common feature - the position of the verb at the end. At the same time, for example, Celtic languages ​​have a completely different order (VSO, “verb - subject - object”), which is not typical for European languages ​​at all, but is found in Arabic and Filipino.

It turns out that grammar and syntax are hardly comparable at all? There's something I don't quite understand. After all, you said that the grammar of the Proto-Indo-European language is being actively reconstructed. How so?

Grammar is also compared, but, as I said, not very well and not very willingly. Based on the material of closely related Slavic languages, one can understand what the conjugation or declension was in Proto-Slavic. Proto-Germanic grammar is restored using the material of Germanic languages. Then all this is compared with each other in order to understand what the grammar of the Proto-Indo-European language was. If grammar had not been subject to comparison at all, then Schleicher probably would not have risked writing something in Proto-Indo-European. Comparing grammar is difficult for the reasons already mentioned, but it is possible.

Syntax is still more difficult than grammar, but there are a lot of theoretical works on it, and we know something about it. For example, it is known that Proto-Indo-European had a basic word order of the SOV type, although in general the order was relatively free, as in Russian, since Proto-Indo-European was an inflected language.

Can you give an example of some particular comparison of grammar, so that it is clear where exactly we should look for similarities?

I have already given forms of the verb “to be”, which have quite ancient origins. Here's another example for you. From Proto-Indo-European root *bʰer-"carry" is a Russian verb take(in Old Church Slavonic - take), ancient Greek φέρω (phérō) "to wear", Latin ferō"wear". Now compare the forms of these words in the table.

	Old Slav.	Russian	Latin	Ancient Greek
*bʰéroh₂	take it	I'll take it	ferō	φέρω (phérō)
*bʰéresi	bereshi	take it		φέρεις (phéreis)
*bʰéreti	takes	beret		φέρει (phérei)
*bʰéromos	take	let's take		φέρομεν (pheromen)
*bʰérete	take	take it		φέρετε (phérete)
*bʰéronti	takes	take		φέρουσῐ (ν ) (phérousi(n))

Here are only the so-called thematic forms of the singular and plural of the Proto-Indo-European verb (it was also conjugated in the dual). They were just reconstructed based on the material of modern and ancient classical languages, known to science quite well. You can find similarities in inflections, which are grammatical indicators.

Still, the most preferable object of study and comparison is phonetics. Different phonetic correspondences can be established between different languages. Previously, I hardly paid your attention to them, but now I want you to discover them here yourself.

Have you ever heard how Ukrainians talk?

Then there is no need to explain why you answered this question so quickly.

Do you believe in miracles?

May there always be sun, may there always be sky, may there always be mom, may there always be me!

Greek is a difficult language.

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

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

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education

Nizhny Novgorod State University named after. N.I. Lobachevsky

Discipline: Introduction to Slavic philology

On the topic: Origin and meaning of the terms: proto-language, proto-Slavic language, proto-Indo-European language, Old Slavic language, dead language

Nizhny Novgorod

"What is Protolanguage" . Prerequisites for the creation of the theory of proto-language

Slavic proto-language pre-literate historical

The comparative historical study of languages ​​is one of the most advanced linguistic sections, both in terms of the depth of penetration into the mechanism of the historical development of languages, and in the development of its methodological techniques, conceptual apparatus and terminology, and the establishment of laws that have sufficient explanatory power. At present, we can confidently state that, based on method of historical comparison(interlingual and intralingual) within the framework of linguistic comparative studies, a fundamental linguistic-historical theoretical discipline has been formed - diachronic linguisticcomparative studies(Neroznak, 1986).

One of the central issues of the theory of diachronic linguistics and the general theory of reconstruction still remains the problem of reconstructing a preliterate (prehistoric) previous linguistic state - the proto-language. At the same time, using the reference points of linguistic time, i.e. the time of the appearance of sounding human speech, the linguist reconstructs the proto-linguistic state of varying chronological depth. And the further away from us the plane projected in time, on which the grid of linguistic data is superimposed, is, the more hypothetical the reconstructed proto-linguistic model becomes. The common Slavic proto-language (Proto-Slavic language) appears as a reality verifiable by linguistic facts, in comparison with which the Indo-European proto-language should already be considered as a hypothetical construction, the verification of which is significantly more complicated due to the heterogeneity and different temporal locations of the data.

Two approaches to understanding neither yu essence of the proto-language

In modern linguistic dictionaries, the definition of the term “proto-language” reflects two understandings of the essence of the proto-language. One of them defines the proto-language as an abstract model, which is hypothetical in nature: “Proto-language (base language). The oldest of a number of genetically related languages ​​as an object of comparative historical reconstructions: an abstract model, conceivable as the source of all other languages ​​that developed on its basis in one family or group. The proto-language is common Russian; the proto-language is common Slavic; the proto-language is Slavic-Baltic; the proto-language is Indo-European." As follows from the above definition, the Indo-European proto-language is defined as a hypothetical common language of the Indo-Europeans, restored by the comparative historical method. This definition is focused on the point of view of researchers of the historical state of languages, who believe that the proto-language can be reconstructed only as a certain model, the sum of linguistic reconstructions available at a given stage, but not as a real linguistic state.

Another approach is that a proto-language is a language state that existed in a past reality: “A proto-language, a foundation language, an ancestor language...

In the classification of languages ​​by families, this is the name given to the language from which this or that language in question arose in a normal way: Latin is the ancestor language for French... and the descendant language is not a new language, but a new state of the evolved language" (Maruso, 1960 , 223). Such an understanding of the proto-language presupposes its real existence in the past.

This difference in approaches dates back to the formation of the theory of proto-linguistic states. The formation and development of comparative historical linguistics and its methodology is associated with the works of F. Bopp, J. Grimm, R. Rusk and others. They are credited with scientifically proving the kinship of Indo-European languages ​​and establishing patterns of similarities and differences between them.

The first theoretical substantiation of the model of the proto-linguistic Indo-European state was undertaken in the middle of the 19th century. A. Schleicher in a number of his works. Based on Charles Darwin's theory of the evolutionary development of living organisms, he put forward a theory of the development of Indo-European languages ​​in the form of a family tree. According to this theory, the common trunk represented the “primary organism” of the proto-language, which in the process of development was divided into branches. Large branches were divided into smaller branches. “We call the languages ​​that first emerged from the proto-language the basic languages; almost each of them differentiates into languages, and languages ​​can further break down into dialects and dialects into sub-dialects.

All languages ​​descending from the same proto-language form a language genus, or language tree, which is then divided into language families, or language branches." Given the diversity of the world's languages, Schleicher argued that "it is impossible to establish a common proto-language for all languages, most likely there was many proto-languages." The Indo-European proto-language presented in the theory of the family tree, according to Schleicher, "alive, like all natural organisms," had the appearance of an integral, homogeneous linguistic state, not divided into dialects. At the same time, linguistic reality contradicted such an ideal prototype of the most ancient language The forms of existence of a living language abounded in its various variants, represented by dialects, subdialects, dialects, supra-dialectal Koine, social dialects, etc. The theory of the family tree put forward by Schleicher as a real reconstructed proto-language received the name “Schleicher’s paradigm” in the history of linguistics.

Another concept of the term "Proto-language"

PROTOLANGUAGE is one of the important concepts of linguistics and philosophy of language. In linguistics, this term refers to a language from whose dialects a group of related languages ​​originated. The currently existing language families are traced back to the proto-languages ​​of these families, the origin of which, in turn, is explained by the historical divergence of dialects of the P. macrofamily. Thus, on the one hand, a classification of the languages ​​of the world exists in synchrony (group, family, macrofamily), and on the other hand, a hierarchy of languages ​​and proto-languages ​​unfolds in diachrony. According to some hypotheses, the proto-languages ​​of macro-families go back to a single human Proto-Language. The existence of such a language is determined in the range from 100 to 30 thousand years ago.

Comparative-historical methodology

The very idea of ​​a Proto-Language is associated with the need to explain the empirically recorded similarities and differences of languages. The principle of explanation is to reduce empirical diversity to a common basis. The method of reduction, which is also used in modern linguistics, began to take shape at the end of the 18th century. and is a special case of the application of a general methodological approach that was widely used (and is still used) both in the humanities and in the natural sciences. The essence of this methodology is an attempt to describe the continuous diachronic change of forms that occurs naturally. The stimulus for change can be both external factors and internal characteristics of the changing object. The variability of the paths of change leads to a constant increase in the diversity of forms, since many new ones can arise from one initial form, differing in some characteristics. In linguistics, this methodology is called comparative-historical. It could successfully be called evolutionary. It is interesting that the development of evolutionism in biology occurs at approximately the same time as the emergence of the comparative historical method in the study of languages. The application of a methodology of this kind necessarily leads to the hypothesis of a “common ancestor” for a group of different objects that have similar forms. If we are talking about languages ​​that are close in certain characteristics, then the Protolanguage is such a common ancestor.

In a number of cases, the hypothesis about the Proto-Language turns out to be an empirically established fact. This happens when there are written sources that make it possible to record, firstly, the specified language itself, and secondly, the ways of its transformation into the currently existing languages ​​of one group or family. This is exactly the case with the Latin language, as the basis language of the Romance language group. In other cases, the Proto-language is reconstructed on the basis of a comparative analysis of modern languages. A number of formal methods have been developed that make it possible to reconstruct the units of the Proto-Language based on the system of correspondences between the units of individual languages ​​originating from it. In this case, the Protolanguage acts as an abstract object of linguistic research.

"Proto-language as a language, expressing the truth"

Within the framework of some philosophical concepts, the idea of ​​a Proto-Language has a metaphysical (and sometimes mythological) aspect. By Proto-Language we mean the original language of humanity, which has the ability to express true knowledge. In ancient philosophy (in particular, the Stoics) the idea of ​​a true language was considered, the words of which are the true names of things that convey their essence. These kinds of ideas also assume that the language in everyday use is the result of a corruption of the original language. Therefore, the task of knowing the truth requires the restoration of the true language, freeing it from later layers that obscure true knowledge. In the philosophy of language of the 20th century. there are also concepts of true language capable of expressing truth. Ultimately, such a language is always regarded as an ideal language, whose sentences are uniquely interpretable and have obvious meaning. A project for such a language is presented, for example, by Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The implementation of this project was undertaken within the framework of logical positivism. Despite the fact that the ideas of the philosophers of this school seem to have little in common with the mythology of true language or with the metaphysics of the Stoics, their attitude to language also bears the features of the myth of true names distorted by incorrect use.

There are, however, completely different concepts that revive the idea of ​​true language. The most striking of them is expressed in Heidegger's thesis about language as the “house of being.” According to this thesis, language, in its undistorted sound, allows being to be expressed. Through it, the truth about things is spoken out, hidden under the layers of existence and appearing in the word as “the unconcealment of being.” Unlike positivists who insist on unambiguity and logical rigor, Heidegger sees the main feature of genuine speech about being in its polysemy. Accuracy in expressing truth is possible only through laxity of speech. If positivism considers the language of science (however, ideal, not real) as a true language, then Heidegger considers the language of poetry to be such. A common feature, however, is the belief in the depravity of the “ordinary” use of language and the need for some special efforts to find the true language. (G.B. Gutner)

"ABOUT Common Slavic language » And « Proto-Slavic language » ( synonyms or independent terms ?)

The term “Common Slavic language” and its equivalents in other languages ​​(English Common Slavic, etc.), used diachronically, that is, in relation to one of the stages of Slavic linguistic evolution, is one of two competing terms that are intended to designate the usually postulated proto-language (ancestor language) underlying the process of development of all Slavic languages. If this term were used panchronically (or anachronically), that is, in relation to all stages of Slavic linguistic evolution, then it would obviously have different content. It could refer to some or all of the features common to all Slavic languages ​​at one time or another. Such a meaning of the term would be mainly typological in nature, while in many cases the historical reasons for the structural similarity that stems from the genetic relationship of the Slavic languages ​​among themselves would be ignored. A similar meaning would be attached to the term “common Slavic language” if the latter were used synchronously, that is, relative to a certain period of time in Slavic linguistic evolution, for example, in the period corresponding to approximately 1000 BC, or the beginning of the 13th century , or the modern period. However, if such meanings of the term are intended, then, to avoid possible confusion, it seems more appropriate to introduce another term, such as “proto-Slavic language”(despite the fact that this term could evoke certain historical and ideological associations) or “generalized Slavic language,” a term preferred in the modeling-typological approach; The term “Proto-Slavic language” competes with the term “common Slavic language”. To some extent, the preference for one term or another is a matter for each linguist or scientific tradition. Thus, for example, the French term slave commun is more widely used than proto-slave, at least partly due to the influence of Meillet's classic work. The Russian term “proto-Slavic” is apparently still more common than “common Slavic,” although the latter was preferred by some scholars, including Fortunatov, and especially became common after the appearance of the translation of Meillet’s book.

Consequently, if the terms “common Slavic” and “proto-Slavic” can in fact be considered synonymous, then the very presence of these two terms (and their equivalents in other languages) may suggest a slightly different application. For example, in order to distinguish between two main phases of the development of the Slavic proto-language, namely: the initial stage of its development - immediately after its separation from some larger linguistic unit, such as the Balto-Slavic language or part of the late Indo-European language - and the final the stage of its more or less homogeneous existence, immediately preceding the subsequent split into several Slavic linguistic groups. Recently it was proposed to retain the term “Proto-Slavic” for the earlier phase of the Common Slavic proto-language, and “Common Slavic” for its later phase. However, an absolutely clear division of the Slavic proto-language into earlier and later periods remains incomprehensible in view of the relative and often contradictory chronology of many sound changes on which the attempt at such a division may be based.

These terminological considerations, if they do not meet objections, rest on the problem of the relationship between those linguistic realities that lie under the concepts of “early Proto-Slavic” and “(common) Balto-Slavic”, on the one hand, and “late common Slavic” and differentiated “early Slavic” - on the other, or more precisely, the problem of the relationship between each individual dialect of the late Common Slavic and a separate pre-literate Slavic language or linguistic subgroup.... it is methodologically difficult to draw a clear boundary between what can be considered as late (Common) Balto-Slavic, and what is considered to be an early Proto-Slavic language. The latter - to the extent that its basic phonological and morphological structures are reconstructed on internal grounds - is essentially derived from the hypothetical Baltic linguistic model. Reversing the common (rather, generalized) Baltic linguistic structure to its early Proto-Slavic correspondence seems virtually impossible. It should also be noted that the temporal boundary of the late Common Slavic language fluctuates, it is difficult to determine with the help of irrefutable criteria, since many of the changes are consistent with general trends that already prevailed in the previous centuries of Slavic linguistic development. The development of specific Slavic languages ​​and subgroups, undoubtedly, was preceded by the divergent evolution of the late Common Slavic language in the preliterate period, which therefore confirms the theoretical assumption of the existence of specific Slavic languages ​​before they were recorded in writing.Thus, it is only possible to establish the time of the Late Common Slavic language, which is different for individual parts of the Slavic linguistic area, - - the time of the “fall of weak eras” and the accompanying or immediately following process of “vocalization (clarification) of strong eras.” Of course, there are no intralingual reasons that could cause a coincidence in time between the end of the common Slavic period and a purely random event - the emergence of the Slavic writing in the second half of the 9th century as a result of the mission of Constantine and Methodius in 863. However, if we exclude from consideration the entire common Slavic linguistic evolution, which was characterized by some spatial variability, the end of the more or less homogeneous development of Slavic as a whole could be dated to approximately 500 AD .

However, since the purpose of this work is to review and evaluate recent and current discoveries and observations relating to the reconstruction of the preliterate Slavic proto-language, as well as to formulate some as yet unresolved or obscure problems of this postulated language, the term “Common Slavic language” is used as a general conventional term to designate the entire extent of Slavic (but not pre-Slavic) linguistic evolution up to its recording in written monuments.

P Slavic language

Slavic languages ​​go back to the same source. This common Slavic ancestor language is conventionally called Proto-Slavic; conditionally because it is unknown what the people who spoke this language called themselves in ancient times.

Proto-Slavic language is the proto-language from which the Slavic languages ​​originated. No written monuments of the Proto-Slavic language exist, so the language was reconstructed based on a comparison of reliably attested Slavic and other Indo-European languages.

The Proto-Slavic language was not something static, it changed over time and its forms can be reconstructed in different ways, depending on the chosen chronological section.

The Proto-Slavic language was a descendant of the Proto-Indo-European. There is a hypothesis according to which the Proto-Balts and Proto-Slavs experienced a period of commonality, and the Proto-Balto-Slavic language, which had already split into Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic, is being reconstructed.

About the name

The term “proto-Slavic” was formed using the prefix pra- from the word “Slavic”. There are discussions in science regarding the etymology of the self-name of the Slavs (singular *slovмninъ, plural *slovмne). There are several main hypotheses:

from the noun *slovo “word” or the verb *sluti (1st person singular *slovo) “to speak clearly”;

from the hypothetical hydronym *Slovo, *Slova or *Slovje, which is traced back to pra-i.e. *?le?- / *?lo?- “to be clean, transparent” (K. Moshinsky believed that this was the Dnieper, a Slavic folklore epithet of which during the period of Kievan Rus and known from “The Tale of Igor’s Host” - Old Russian . Slovumtich, in the meaning “glorious, famous, famous, originally, perhaps full-flowing”); recently: from the hydronyms Slavuta, Slavka and others to Slav-.

from pra-i.e. *(s)-lau?-os “people” (with Indo-European “mobile s”).

Also, some scientists used the term “Common Slavic language” or “Slavic base language” to designate the Proto-Slavic language.

The Proto-Slavic language was a descendant of the Proto-Indo-European. There are many similarities between the Baltic and Slavic languages.

This forced many scientists (A. Schleicher, K. Brugmann, E. Kurilovich, A. Vaillant) to believe that the Proto-Balts and Proto-Slavs experienced a period of community, and to reconstruct the Proto-Balto-Slavic language, which had already split into Proto-Slavic and Proto-Baltic. At the same time, a number of other scientists (I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, A. Meillet, H. S. Stang) believe that these convergences are caused by parallel development and mutual influence due to living in neighboring territories.

There are several main localizations of the ancestral home of the Slavs:

Eastern European (Ya. M. Rozvadovsky, A. A. Shakhmatov)

central (L. Niederle, Yu. T. Rostafinsky, M. Yu. F. Fasme)

western “autochthonous” (J. Kostrzewski, L. Kozlovski, J. Czekanovski, M. Rudnicki)

Asian (early works by K. Moshinsky)

Later, K. Moshinsky placed the area of ​​the Proto-Slavic language in the period around 500 BC. e. to the west-central Dnieper region. From there, according to the scientist, the Slavs settled to the north and west.

F. Slavsky and L. Moshinsky date the period of the Balto-Slavic community to ca. 2000--1500 BC e. After 1500 BC e. the history of the Proto-Slavic language itself begins. F. Slavsky connects the beginning of dialect differentiation of the Proto-Slavic language with the beginning of large migrations of the Slavs in the 5th century. L. Moshinsky dates the end of the existence of the Proto-Slavic language to the time of Slavic expansion into the Balkan Peninsula and the formation of the western, southern and eastern groups of Slavic languages.

Idea about the development of the Proto-Slavic language. Although the Proto-Slavic language existed for a very long time and no written texts remain from it, nevertheless we have a fairly complete understanding of it. We know how its sound structure developed, we know its morphology and the basic fund of vocabulary, which is inherited from Proto-Slavic by all Slavic languages. Our knowledge is based on the results of a comparative historical study of Slavic languages: it allows us to restore the original appearance (protoform) of each linguistic fact under study. The reality of the restored (original) Proto-Slavic form can be verified and clarified by the testimony of other Indo-European languages. Correspondences to Slavic words and forms are found especially often in Baltic languages, for example in Lithuanian. This can be illustrated by roots, which include combinations of sounds that changed differently in different Slavic languages ​​after the collapse of Proto-Slavic, but remained unchanged in the Lithuanian language.

Many words are common to all Slavic languages, therefore, they were already known to the Proto-Slavic language. The ancestral form common to them has undergone different changes in different Slavic languages; and the design of these words in Lithuanian (and in other Indo-European languages) suggests that originally the vowel was in all roots before I or g. In the Proto-Slavic language, the roots of these words presumably should have sounded: *bolt-o from the earlier *ba°lt- "a°n, *golv-a, *kolt-iti, *vort-a, *gord-b, *korva. The established relationships allow us to formulate a historical-phonetic law, according to which it is possible to reconstruct in all other similar cases ( presumably restore) the original prototype: Russian norov, Bulgarian morality, etc. provide the basis for the reconstruction of Proto-Slavic * pogu-ъ (compare Lithuanian narv-ytis - “to be stubborn”), peas, grakh, etc. - Proto-Slavic * gorx-b (compare Lithuanian garb "a - a type of grass), etc. It is in this way that the appearance of the disintegrated Proto-Slavic language is restored.

We can talk about Proto-Slavic as a unique Indo-European language insofar as it is characterized by a complex of features that are unique to it and combined with a series of features that are, to one degree or another, known to other languages ​​of Europe and South Asia.

At some stage of their life, a group of European tribes speaking dialects close to the ancient Baltic, Iranian, Balkan, Germanic, united into a fairly strong union, within which for a long time there was a rapprochement (leveling, leveling) of dialects, necessary for the development of mutual understanding between members of a tribal union. It can be assumed that in the 1st millennium BC. e. There was already an Indo-European language, characterized by features that were subsequently known only to Slavic languages, which allows us, modern researchers, to call it Proto-Slavic.

The originality of the Proto-Slavic language is largely explained by the fact that its historical changes were determined by development trends inherent only to it. The most common of these was the tendency towards syllabic division of speech. At the late stage of development of the Proto-Slavic language, a uniform structure of syllables was formed, which led to the restructuring of previous syllables in such a way that they all ended in vowels.

The Proto-Slavic language existed until the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e., when the tribes who spoke it, having settled in vast territories of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, began to lose contact with each other. The language of each of the isolated groups of tribes continued to develop in isolation from the others, acquiring new sound, grammatical and lexical features. This is the usual way of forming “related” languages ​​from a single source language (proto-language), noted by F. Engels, who wrote: “Tribes, dismembering, turn into peoples, into entire groups of tribes... languages ​​change, becoming not only mutually incomprehensible , but also losing almost every trace of the original unity.”

"Proto-Indo-European language"

Proto-Indo-EuropeanmYi languagesmTo-- the hypothetical ancestor of the languages ​​of the Indo-European family, including Slavic, Germanic, Romance and others. Some linguists classify Proto-Indo-European as a member of the Nostratic macrofamily of languages.

Nostratic languages (from lat.nostrвs,genus. n. nostrвtis "our", "our circle", "local") is a hypothetical macrofamily of languages, uniting several language families and languages ​​of Europe, Asia and Africa, which go back to a single Nostratic proto-language.

Disintegration and dialect division of the Proto-Indo-European language. Due to the settlement of Indo-European tribes, at a certain point in time, a single Proto-Indo-European language ceased to exist, degenerating into the proto-languages ​​of individual groups. The first language to separate was the Proto-Anatolian language. According to the Kurgan theory, its bearers left the territory of their ancestral home to the west, to the Balkans (Cernavoda culture and Usatov culture). Considering the antiquity of this branch, E. Sturtevant proposed to introduce a new term “Indo-Hittite language” for the period in the history of the parent language before the departure of the Proto-Anatolians, and to use the word “Proto-Indo-European” for the period after the departure. Probably, the Pratocharians were the next to separate after the Proto-Anatolians and went to the east. The remaining Indo-European tribes remained in contact with each other for some time.

Periodization and chronology . There is currently no generally accepted periodization.

Periodization by V. Maida

the early Indo-European period (6000-4500 BC), which ends with the separation of the Anatolian branch;

Middle Indo-European period (4500--3500 BC);

Late Indo-European period (3500--2500 BC).

From the Proto-Indo-European language continuum, separate groups of dialects branched off at different times. The degree of linguistic isolation can be determined by the characteristics of vocabulary, morphology and specific laws of phonetic changes. The reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language is based on the most ancient linguistic monuments of different groups of the Indo-European language family.

Buildlanguage. Almost all modern and known ancient Indo-European languages ​​are languages ​​of the nominative system. However, many experts hypothesize that the Proto-Indo-European language in the early stages of its development was an active language; Subsequently, the names of the active class became masculine and feminine, and those of the inactive class became neuter. This is evidenced, in particular, by the complete coincidence of the forms of the nominative and accusative cases of the neuter gender. To the greatest extent, remnants of the active system have been preserved in the Anatolian languages; in other Indo-European languages, the division into active and passive is not rigid.

Constructions resembling active construction in modern English (he sells a book - he sells a book, but a book sells at $20 - the book is sold for 20 dollars) are secondary and not directly inherited from Proto-Indo-European.

Commonality of successor languages. Since no direct evidence of the Proto-Indo-European language has survived, linguists, using the comparative method, analyzed the vocabulary and phonology of the successor languages. A large number of words in modern Indo-European languages ​​come from Proto-Indo-European roots, but these words have received regular phonetic changes. Even more similarities emerge in the early forms of modern Indo-European languages. Many similarities were also found at the grammatical level. After early researchers in the field such as Franz Bopp and Jacob Grimm had systematized the common features of the Indo-European languages, August Schleicher attempted in 1861 to reconstruct hypothetical common roots. Thanks to new discoveries and methods, work continues to clarify and deepen the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language.

Degrees of relationship. The Proto-Indo-European language had a complex and developed system of naming degrees of kinship. In particular, it contained the words: grandfather, father (*btta), dad, mother (*mйh?tзr), parent, son (*suHnъs), brother (*bhrеh?tзr), grandson, nephew, daughter (*dhugh ?t?r), sister (*swеsр), daughter-in-law, father-in-law (*swe?uros), mother-in-law, stroy or stry (paternal uncle), ui or vui (*h?ewh?yos, maternal uncle), brother-in-law , brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, sister-in-law, father.

History of the study. The familiarization of Europeans with Sanskrit and its systematic comparison with ancient Greek, Latin and Germanic languages ​​made it possible to lay the foundations for the comparative study of Indo-European languages. The importance of Sanskrit for the creation of Indo-European studies lay in two things: its archaic nature and its study in the works of ancient Indian grammarians.

At the dawn of Indo-European studies, relying mainly on data from Sanskrit, scientists reconstructed the four-row system of stop consonants for the Proto-Indo-European language. This scheme was followed by many scientists. Later, when it became obvious that Sanskrit was not equivalent to the proto-language, suspicions arose that this reconstruction was unreliable. Indeed, there were quite a few examples that made it possible to reconstruct a series of voiceless aspirates. Some of them were of onomatopoeic origin. The remaining cases, after F. de Saussure put forward the laryngeal theory, brilliantly confirmed after the discovery of the Hittite language, were explained as reflexes of combinations of voiceless stop + laryngal. Then the stop system was reinterpreted. But this reconstruction also had drawbacks. The first drawback was that the reconstruction of a series of voiced aspirates in the absence of a series of voiceless aspirates is typologically unreliable. The second drawback was that there were only three rather unreliable examples for Proto-Indo-European b. This reconstruction could not explain this fact.

A new stage was the promotion of the glottal theory in 1972 by T.V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov (and independently by P. Hopper in 1973). This scheme was based on the shortcomings of the previous one. This theory allowed for a different interpretation of the laws of Grassmann and Bartholomew, and also gave a new meaning to Grimm’s law. However, this scheme also seemed imperfect to many scientists. In particular, it suggests for the late Proto-Indo-European period the transition of glottalized consonants to voiced ones, despite the fact that glottalized ones are rather unvoiced sounds.

The latest reinterpretation was made by V.V. Shevoroshkin, who suggested that Proto-Indo-European did not have glottalized ones, but “strong” stops, which are found in some Caucasian languages. This type of stop can actually be voiced.

Old Slavonic language

OLD SLAVONIC LANGUAGE, otherwise - the ancient Church Slavonic language - the most ancient of the written Slavic languages, which spread among the southern, eastern and partly western Slavs in the 9th-10th centuries. n. e. as the language of the Christian church and literature. In its origin, it is a written adaptation of one of the dialects of the Bulgarian language of the second half of the 9th century, namely the dialect of the mountains. Thessaloniki in western Macedonia (now Thessaloniki). However, the Slavic language received its initial distribution in the West Slavic environment, in the Great Moravian Duchy (within present-day Czechoslovakia).

History of origin.

The Old Church Slavonic language arose as a language for translating Christian liturgical books from Greek for the needs of Christian missionary activity in Moravia. In 863, the Great Moravian Duke Rostislav, striving for independence in relation to the German clergy, who represented the Roman Church in Moravia, sent an embassy to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III with a request to send him persons who could preach Christianity to the Moravians in a language they understood. This preaching mission was entrusted to the brothers Constantine (in monasticism Cyril) and Methodius, the sons of a prominent Byzantine nobleman, natives of Thessaloniki, who knew the language of the local Bulgarian settlers. Before leaving for Moravia, Constantine compiled the Slavic alphabet, according to most scientists the so-called Glagolitic alphabet, and also managed to begin translation work, which continued in Moravia. Constantine and Methodius also extended their missionary activity to the Slavic principality of Kotsela on Lake Blaten, in Pannonia (now within Hungary), where the Slovenes, one of the South Slavic peoples, lived. After the death of Constantine and Methodius, their students moved their activities to Bulgaria, which at the end of the 9th and beginning of the 10th centuries. was experiencing an era of great literary growth. The activity of the disciples of Constantine and Methodius in Bulgaria is apparently associated with the appearance of the second Slavic alphabet, probably the so-called Cyrillic alphabet, as well as some differences in the language compared to the Old Church Slavonic language of the older era. From the Bulgarians it passed to the Serbs, and then to Kievan Rus. Over time, the Old Church Slavonic language, which served as a church-literary language for various Slavic peoples, among each of these peoples was to a certain extent assimilated by the corresponding living Slavic language, so that in relation to the XI-XII centuries. we have to talk about local varieties or so-called. editions of S. language. Of these, the most important are the Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian versions.

The term "Old Church Slavonic" is the most accepted in modern Russian-language scholarship; French terms are formed similarly. le vieux slave, lat. palaeoslavica. In different linguistic traditions, the Old Church Slavonic language is called: Old Church Slavonic (in the Russian tradition of the 19th - early 20th centuries), Old Slavic, Old or Old Bulgarian (in the Bulgarian tradition, sometimes in German: Altbulgarisch). Until the middle of the 19th century, in the Russian tradition it was called (together with Church Slavonic) simply “Slovenian”, “Slavonic” or “Slavic”. The term Slavicism can also be applied to borrowings from the Old or Church Slavonic language.

Historical monuments.

Many monuments of the Old Church Slavonic language have been preserved, as the oldest (X-XI centuries) in the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabet. There are also numerous monuments of the 11th century, reflecting the influence of local dialects on the Old Church Slavonic language. Among them are monuments of the Russian edition (Cyrillic), monuments of the Czech edition, and of a later origin (XII-XIII centuries) - monuments of the Serbian and Central Bulgarian edition.

The number of known monuments of Old Church Slavonic proper is small. All of them are undated, but for various internal reasons they must be dated no later than the 11th century. and not earlier than the end of the 10th century. Of these, the most important:

a) written in Glagolitic alphabet - the Zograf Gospel (Saltykov-Shchedrin Public Library in Leningrad), the Mariinsky Gospel, the so-called Klotz Collection, the Sinai Breviary, the Sinai Psalter, the Kiev Missal;

b) written in Cyrillic - the so-called. Savvin's book (Moscow Historical Museum), Suprasl manuscript, Hilandar sheets, etc. The oldest monument in the Russian version is S. language. is the so-called Ostromirovo Ev. (1056--1057, stored in the Public Library in Leningrad), the oldest monuments of the Bulgarian version - Dobromirovo Ev. and the Bologna Psalter of the 12th century, Serbian translation - Miroslavovo Ev. XII.

Being the oldest written expression of Slavic speech, the Old Church Slavonic language retains in its structure many features lost by modern Slavic languages ​​(for example, the so-called “voiceless” vowels ъ and ь, nasal vowels, which are now preserved only in the Polish language and in some Macedonian dialects, complex system of past tenses in the verb, etc.). But at the same time, in comparison with other Indo-European languages, the Old Church Slavonic language reveals many new formations (especially in phonetics) that generally characterize Slavic languages.

Meaning The use of the Old Church Slavonic language for the science of language is determined not only by its antiquity, but also by the great role that it plays in the fate of younger Slavic literary languages, in particular Russian. On the basis of the Russian translation of the S. language, over time, the Church Slavonic language emerged, which was the main written language in Rus' until the end of the 17th century (see “Russian language”). The Russian variety of the Church Slavonic language has left deep traces in the Russian national literary language, which are still noticeable today, the so-called Slavicisms.

Old Church Slavonic is not the spoken language of the 9th century Slavs, but a language specifically created for translating Christian literature and creating one's own Slavic religious works. It follows from this that the Old Church Slavonic language simply could not coincide with the living language of the same time. However, it was understandable to speakers of Slavic languages ​​in its phonetics, morphology, and syntax, and vocabulary not used in spoken language turned out to be associated with the new religion, was learned by heart, and came into use along with the new faith. The Old Church Slavonic language was created on the basis of the dialects of the southern group of Slavic languages, to which, among the modern Slavic languages, belong, for example, Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian. At the same time, it began to spread to the territory now occupied by the Czech, Slovak, and Polish languages, belonging to the Western group, and by the end of the 10th century it also entered the East Slavic territory, inhabited by the ancestors of today's Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians. The language that our ancestors spoke at that time is usually called Old Russian, so after the baptism of Rus', the living spoken language of the Eastern Slavs - Old Russian - and the literary written language - Old Church Slavonic, which takes on some features of the living language and in this form, functions on its territory existed until the 17th century as the main written literary language. Scientists call this language "Church Slavonic", reserving the term "Old Church Slavonic" for the language of the 9th century, the same one created by Constantine and his students. Writing is carried out in the Old Russian language, but this is business and everyday correspondence, while works of art, chronicles, lives of saints, and teachings are written with an orientation towards the bookish Church Slavonic language.

Naturally, Russian and Church Slavonic languages ​​interact throughout their centuries-old history. Words and phrases of the Church Slavonic language penetrate into business writing, and then into the living language, remain there and are not perceived as something alien. This is the direct difference between borrowings from the Church Slavonic language (“Old Church Slavonicisms”) and all other borrowings. Borrowings from other languages ​​at the first stage are perceived as alien, foreign, and only then, having passed through the levels of phonetic, graphic, and grammatical development, do they become an element of the Russian language. Old Church Slavonicisms, at all stages of their entry into the Russian language, do not carry foreign language features. This is due, as mentioned above, to the small difference in the Slavic languages ​​in the 9th century, so words of Old Church Slavonic origin and words of Russian origin differ very little.

Old Church Slavonic language, the language of the oldest Slavic monuments that have come down to us from the 10th-11th centuries, which continued the tradition of those translated from Greek by Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century. liturgical and canonical books. It, the oldest Slavic literary language, is based on the Slavic South Macedonian (Thessalonica) dialect. From its very origins, the Old Church Slavonic language had the character of an international Slavic language, used among the Western Slavs (Czech, Moravian, Slovak and partly Polish lands), then the Southern Slavs and somewhat later (from the 10th century) the Eastern Slavs. Monuments to S. I. written in two alphabets: Glagolitic and Cyrillic. Most scientists assume that the Glagolitic alphabet is older than the Cyrillic alphabet and that it was invented by one of the creators of fame. writing by Konstantin-Kirill. The originality of the Glagolitic script, which does not allow us to confidently associate it with any of the alphabets known at that time, confirms this assumption. The Cyrillic alphabet quite often reproduces the style of the Greek statutory letter of the 9th century. The Old Church Slavonic monuments that have reached us reflect the local types of the ancient Slavic literary language of the 10th-11th centuries. The total number of Old Church Slavonic book monuments is small - 16 (including small ones). A valuable addition to the parchment body of the monuments are the inscriptions on the stone (the oldest is the Dobrudzha inscription, 943).

The continuation of the Old Church Slavonic language as a literary language was the Church Slavonic language, which at an early stage of development (11th-14th centuries) had a number of versions: Russian Middle Bulgarian Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian Glagolitic.

Dead language

There are several definitions of this concept, but they are all connected by a similar meaning and idea.

1. A language that has ceased to be the main means of communication of a certain ethnic community, having lost its speakers who transmitted this language from generation to generation naturally.

2.Dead tongues m To - a language that does not exist in living use and, as a rule, is known only from written monuments, or is in artificial, regulated use.

3. A dead language is a language that does not have living speakers for whom it is native. This usually occurs when one language is completely replaced by another, as when Coptic was replaced by Arabic and many native American languages ​​were replaced by English, French, Spanish and Portuguese.

The main reasons for the appearance of dead languages ​​can be identified:

1) the disappearance of the people who spoke this language (Tasmanian languages);

2) the transition of the people to a new language (Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Hurrian, Gothic, Prussian).

A Classical Dead Language may continue to be used in some limited areas of use (eg Latin, Classical Mongolian), but it has no native speakers and is always a learned language. Some linguists (V.K. Zhuravlev) question the use of the concept of “dead language” in relation to a language that at one time received a written form of existence. They believe that this language does not die, but continues to live on the bookshelf, often remaining an inexhaustible source of development of living literary languages, like Book Slavonic for Russian, Grabar for modern Armenian, Latin and Ancient Greek for European languages, Sanskrit for the South Asian cultural and historical area . Such a “dead” language can theoretically be “revived” under certain conditions, but in practice this happens in exceptional cases: for example, Hebrew “came to life”, receiving oral spheres of communication in Israel.

A dead language can continue to evolve into other languages ​​formed from it. An example of such a language is Latin, a dead language that is the ancestor of modern Romance languages. Similarly, Sanskrit is the ancestor of modern Indo-Aryan languages, and Old Church Slavonic is the ancestor of modern South Slavic languages.

In some cases, an extinct language continues to be used for scientific and religious purposes. Among the many dead languages ​​used in this way are Sanskrit, Latin, Church Slavonic, Coptic, etc.

Most often, the literary language is torn away from the spoken language and freezes in some of its classical appearance, then hardly changing; when a spoken language develops a new literary form, the old one can be considered to have turned into a dead language.

The degree of preservation of languages ​​represents a six-category scale proposed inRed BookUNESCO languages for a clearer definition of the danger threatening a particular language.

1. Extinct languages(extinct) - languages ​​for which there is no living speaker; for example, Polabian, Southern Mansi, Ubykh, Slovinian, Prussian, Gothic, Dalmatian, Kerek.

One should distinguish from them ancient dead languages ​​(ancient; languages ​​either extinct before 1500 (the date is arbitrary) or developed into modern languages ​​(like Latin)); book languages ​​(dead languages, the texts of which are still used today); In addition, there are several "revived" extinct (Cornish, Manx) and dead (Hebrew) languages, which are a special case.

1a. Possibly extinct languages(possibly extinct) - languages ​​that reliably existed in the recent past, but there is no reliable information about whether anyone speaks the language now. For example, Western Mansi, Cappadocian Greek,

2. On the brink of extinction(almost extinct, nearly extinct) - several dozen carriers (although there may be up to several hundred), all of whom are elderly. With their death, the language will definitely die out. For example, Livonian, Votic, Orok, South Yukagir, Ainu.

3. Endangered(endangered) languages ​​(seriously endangered) - there are more speakers (from two hundred to tens of thousands), but there are practically no speakers among children. This situation can persist for a long period if the language is a “second” one and is used in everyday life only by some adults. For example, Izhora, Vepsian, Northern Yukagir, Selkup, Yiddish, Nivkh, Ket, Breton, Kashubian.

4. Troubled languages(endangered) -- Some children (at least at some age) speak the language, but their numbers are dwindling. The total number of carriers can range from one thousand to millions. For example, Nenets, Karelian, Komi, Irish.5. Unstable languages(potentially endangered) - the language is used by people of all ages, but it does not have any official or other status and does not enjoy much prestige, or the ethnic territory is so small (1-2 villages) that it can easily disappear as a result of a cataclysm (avalanche with mountains, flood, war). Examples: Dolgan, Chukchi, minor languages ​​of Dagestan, Belarusian, Galician, Frisian, Basque.

6. Prosperous languages(non-endangered) (not endangered) - Russian, English, Estonian.

There is a fine line between dead languages ​​and the ancient states of the living: for example, the Old Russian language, whose native speakers also do not exist, is not considered dead. The difference is whether the old form of the language flowed into the new ones entirely or they split and existed in parallel for some time. Most often, the literary language is torn away from the spoken language and freezes in some of its classical appearance, then hardly changing; when a spoken language develops a new literary form, the old one can be considered to have turned into a dead language.

Most often, the literary language is torn away from the spoken language and freezes in some of its classical appearance, then hardly changing; when a spoken language develops a new literary form, the old one can be considered to have turned into a dead language (an example of such a situation would be the Turkish language, which replaced the Ottoman language as the language of education and office work in Turkey in the 20s of the 20th century).

Used Books

Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. M.: “Canon+”, ROOI “Rehabilitation”. I.T. Kasavin. 2009.

Lit.: Kulbakin S. M., Ancient Church Slavonic language, 3rd ed., Har., 1917; Lavrov P. A., Materials on the history of the origin of ancient Slavic writing, Leningrad, 1930; Selishchev A. M., Old Church Slavonic language, part 1--2, M., 1951--1952; Vaian A., Guide to the Old Church Slavonic language, trans. from French, M. 1952; Trubetzkoy N., Altkirchenslavische Grammatik, W., 1954.

Yandex.Dictionaries › TSB. -- 1969--1978

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

Proto-language. Genealogical classification of languages. The ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans according to language. The ancestral home of the Slavs according to language. Proto-Slavic language. Balto-Slavic community. August Schleicher (1821-1868). Two types of historical connections between languages.

course work, added 04/25/2006


Russian language is one of the most widely spoken languages ​​in the world. Russian language as the language of interethnic communication of the peoples of the USSR and the language of international communication. Features of the origin of the Russian language. The role of the Old Church Slavonic language in the development of the Russian language.

abstract, added 04/26/2011


Old Church Slavonic language as the common literary language of the Slavic peoples, the oldest fixation of Slavic speech. History of the emergence and development of Old Church Slavonic writing. Alphabet, preserved and unpreserved monuments of Old Church Slavonic writing.

abstract, added 11/23/2014


Slavic languages ​​in the Indo-European family of languages. Features of the formation of the Russian language. Proto-Slavic language as the ancestor of Slavic languages. Standardization of oral speech in Russia. The emergence of individual Slavic languages. Territory of formation of the Slavs.

abstract, added 01/29/2015


Proto-Slavic language, its linguistic branches. Formation of the southern and northern dialects of the Russian language, their main dialectal phenomena. Creation of the Old Slavic language by Cyril and Methodius. History of the Russian national language, Pushkin’s contribution to its development.

abstract, added 06/18/2009


The concept and main functions of language as a means of expressing thoughts. The essence of the theories of onomatopoeia, interjections, labor cries and social contract. Familiarization with genetic, areal, typological, and morphological classifications of languages.

abstract, added 04/04/2014


The essence of the concept of “language”, the stages of its development using the example of the European language family. Study of the conditions, principles, factors and features of the historical process of formation and mutual influence of languages. The concept of communication and interethnic linguistic communication.

course work, added 12/27/2012


Formation of national languages. Study of selected Germanic languages. General characteristics of Germanic languages. Comparison of words of Germanic languages ​​with words of other Indo-European languages. Features of the morphological system of ancient Germanic languages.

abstract, added 08/20/2011


The family tree of languages ​​and how it is compiled. “Inserting” languages ​​and “isolating” languages. Indo-European group of languages. Chukotka-Kamchatka and other languages ​​of the Far East. Chinese language and its neighbors. Dravidian and other languages ​​of continental Asia.

abstract, added 01/31/2011


Latin is one of the most ancient written Indo-European languages ​​and the basis of the writing of many modern languages. The main stages characteristic from the point of view of the internal evolution of the Latin language and its interaction with other languages.