Home Flowers Old Russian language. The history of the origin of the Old Russian language

Flowers

Old Russian language. The history of the origin of the Old Russian language

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

Who is the article for? For those who, together with me, dare to touch the initial definitions and terms of linguistics. It is there that Russian history is hidden. Those who show patience will find a candy at the end of the article after a scientific tediousness.
To begin with, it should be noted that the term Slavs exists in two forms in ethno-historical and in culture Russian language. ...
Just a couple of terms - Slavic and Russian, but the terminology of linguists can be moved with the mind. Look how the concepts are mixed.
Old Russian and Old Church Slavonic
Hereinafter, we will use the accepted terminology.
Old Russian and Old Church Slavonic have two fundamental differences.
Old Russian the language belongs to the East Slavic languages. Old Russian is already a proper Russian language, in its ancient stage.
The question arises. If Old Russian is actually Russian, then why should it be classified as a Slavic language, even if it is Eastern? Maybe it doesn't need to be taken anywhere? But here is another mystery of linguists.
The Old Russian language was a living language that developed according to its own internal logic and ultimately split into three East Slavic languages: Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian.
Recognizing the language as alive and with its own internal logic it is stubbornly referred to as Slavic. Nowadays, this is an established terminology, although the historical basis for Slavic terminology is much less than for Russian itself. This follows from the old place names of Europe, Latin and even later chronicle lists. In official science, the following statements are made.
The first mentions of the "Slavs" in the form "sklavins » ( Old GreekΣκλάβηνοι, Σκλαύηνοι and Σκλάβινοι) refer to VI century AD (in the writings of Pseudo-Caesarea , Procopius of Caesarea andJordan ) . This is exactly the time of the unwinding of Christianity. Already late lThe Atinian inscription on the tombstone of the Pomor Duke Boguslav (died on February 24, 1309) calls him almost modernly "Slavorum Slavus dux". Obviously, the term about the Slavs was edited in time. Later, along with the Slavs, History also recognizes the existence of the Rus. The German historian Ragevin (d. 1177) remarks in passing: “And Poland, in which there are only Slavs, in the west it has a border with the Oder River, in the east - the Vistula, in the north - ruthenian and the Scythian (Baltic. - S. Ts.) sea, in the south the Bohemian forests ". Source http://vinujden.livejournal.com/366476.html
Let's continue solving the puzzle.
Old Slavonic language refers to the South Slavic.
From the very beginning, Old Russian and Old Slavonic were different languages.
Let's admit. But how to understand the next passage?
Old Church Slavonic the language was from the very beginning ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGE, created on the basis of a limited number of South Slavic dialects of its time.
Again. Old Church Slavonic - created from South Slavic dialects... Interestingly, and the Slavic dialects, from which language arose, if the Old Slavonic itself is of artificial origin?
Words belong to linguistics. Now how will it be in Russian?
The Russian language as a living language began its evolution from an ancient stage, overcame the stages of reforms, and came to us as a modern Russian.
It seems logical. And at what unknown stage did the Russian language manage: split into three exactly East Slavic languages: Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian? How could the Russian language itself disintegrate into proper Slavic ones, if with the very beginning(Russian and Slavic) languages are different?
But here's the surprise. The chronicler of today's linguists did not know, and therefore wrote down what he knew: “ The Slavic language and the Russian - one is ". And how is this to be understood?
And here we already see ideology. Concrete is cast from a log, dogs give birth to cats. But if the Russian language has disintegrated, then its parts can only be Russian parts, different like the children of one mother, but native and Russian.
What was old or ancient before?
In dictionaries, the word ancient - what was before, old - same.
The terminology is not accidental. It reflects history. And what happened in history before, antiquity or old age? What used to be a living language or an artificial one created on the basis of a living one? It looks like antiquity is older. This is what was many generations before us, and old age is more likely a relation to the older generation among those who are now living. Word ancient it is a type of "world tree" or "tree that gives life." Therefore, the first form of the Slavic language is called only Old Slavonic, and the Russian, for the remoteness of history, is called the ancient Russian.
Linguists stated Old Russian and Old Slavonic were different languages. This directly follows from the territories of their birth and the surrounding peoples. Let's see the difference with an example, so as not to be unfounded.
Bulgarians can call their Old Church Slavonic source Cyril and Methodius “the Old Bulgarian language” as much as they want, but some forms of word formation and syntactic constructions were mechanically transferred from Greek to the Old Church Slavonic language. This is the source of the Old Bulgarian.
Again a question. Is it really up to Cyril, who created the Church Slavonic writing in the Bulgarian dialect, the so-called. Slavic peoples could not speak their native language? It seems like everyone has a gift for speech, but Cyril's language, or rather writing, is called artificial and bookish by linguists themselves. Then what language did the ancestors speak? Yes, they spoke Russian, only with different dialects due to the influence of different neighbors. However, the obvious Russian was called Slavic dialects.
Listening to linguists again.
By all indications, the Old Slavic language was precisely the South Slavic language, and not West Slavic or whatever. It was Old Slavonic that became the basis for variants of an artificial Church Slavonic language, created with the aim of "enlightening" the Slavs. And yes - this is an artificial, bookish language.
They spoke Russian, they created that very artificial church script in it. But the writing turned out to be Slavic for some reason. Why not say that before Cyril they spoke their native Russian and that they also created a church letter in it? What is the misclassification of terms for?
Based on materials: http://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/suprun-89c.htm
Church Slavonic language.
Again, a word to the scientist.
Church Slavonic language, Old Slavic literary language 11-18 centuries By its origin, this is an Old Church Slavonic language (which was also called Old Church Slavonic), influenced by the living languages of the peoples in which it was widespread. There are local varieties of the church language (revisions, editions): East Slavic, Bulgarian-Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian Glagolic, Czech, Romanian.
Source: Mikhail Karpov, http://otvet.mail.ru/question/74573217
The Old Church Slavonic (Old Church Slavonic) language was created in the middle of the IX - by the brothers Cyril and Methodius. Despite the fact that it is based on the South Slavic dialect of the city of Soluni, the Old Slavic language was never used as a means of living, everyday communication, and was originally conceived as a book, written, literary-church ... http://otvet.mail.ru/question/74573217

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

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

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

What does this mean? About the fact that on a large territory of Europe about two thousand years ago, peoples spoke in close dialects, which made it possible to create one language for their Christian enlightenment, understandable to all enlightened ones. Otherwise, such a voluminous work is only within the power of the state apparatus, whoever started it. Such work is clearly beyond the power of a single person, even if a genius. Just as now the numerous apparatus of state institutions of the West is working with one goal, regularly over the centuries to destroy Russian civilization. The creation of an artificial literary language of the Church is only an episode in that continuous struggle.
It seems that a lot has gone on the shelves, but no. Another surprise from linguists. To prevent the clever people from getting back the true history, they have drawn another term for them.
Proto-Slavic language
Among the known terms, there is one more, no less vague - Proto-Slavic language.
This is an ideological term meant to consider Russian only a recent outgrowth of culture. For the Proto-Slavic, a serious theory has been developed, a whole language tree has been grown in order to show, even with a young term, the ordinariness of the Russian language, and Russian itself is ordered to be considered a part and a product of a certain Proto-Slavic. Why not Pra-Russian? The Russian language, like this concept itself, is the antiquity of Russian civilization. But how can this be admitted into modern minds? What were they fighting for then? Therefore, this whole vegetable garden and a patchwork of terms, which were created by monopolists from science, is born.
Further more. Vicky reports.
"The Proto-Slavic language was a descendant Proto-Indo-European ... (Approx.Yar46. Heavy artillery has started. Who can resist the Indo-European.) There is a hypothesis according to which the prabalts andthe pre-Slavs went through a period of community, and is being reconstructedProto-Slavic language, which later broke up into Proto-Slavic and pro-Baltic » .
We have a solid great-great, but again for some reason Slavic, although earlier it was declared an artificial creation, which is about a thousand years old. We read the wiki further.
The term "Proto-Slavic" was formed with the prefix great- from the word "Slavic", and as a consequence of the influence of the German comparative school -correlative with a similar German term Urslavisch. The Russian term finds its exact match in the rest Slavic languages: belor. Proto-Slavic, ukr. praslov'yanskiy, Polish Prasłowiański, Czech. and Slovak. praslovanský, bulg. Proto-Slavic, maked.Proto-Slovenian, Serbo-Horv. and Horv.praslavenski, Serb.Proto-Slovenian, Slovenian.praslovanski.
And what is there to admire if the terminology common to all languages is influenced by one German comparative school. Let's continue quoting Wiki.
F. Slavsky and L. Moshinsky date back to the period of the Balto-Slavic community ca. 2000-1500 BC. After 1500 BC. the history of the Proto-Slavic language itself begins. F. Slavsky connects the beginning of the dialectal differentiation of the Proto-Slavic language with the beginning of the great migrations of the Slavs in the 5th century. L. Moshinsky dates back to the time of the Slavic expansion to the Balkan Peninsula and the formation of the western, southern andeastern groups of Slavic languages the end of the existence of the Proto-Slavic language.

It is no less interesting that in the same Wiki we read about the beginning of the Russian language in the same 1500 years BC. Isn't that one language? Well, maybe dialects or, as linguists say, chronological slices of reconstruction. http://www.primavista.ru/rus/dictionary/lang/russian
This is not so fantastic, if we take into account the descriptions vague in history for the Rus and Slavs (see the beginning of the article about the Slavs as an ethnos).

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

It turns out that in ancient times there was Proto-Slavic language, recognized by linguists, and among its spurs was the one that later became Old Russian?
Not so simple. The whirling of terms continues.
The term "Old Russian language" is used in two close but not identical meanings. Not bad. There is one term, but two meanings.
On the one hand, the Old Russian language is the East Slavic proto-language, the language Eastern Slavs before the period of their disintegration into three separate East Slavic peoples, i.e. until about the XIII - XIV centuries. The emergence of the Old Russian language in this sense of the word refers to the period of the disintegration of the Proto-Slavic language and the settlement of the Eastern Slavs over a wider territory than it was originally.
On the other hand, the term "Old Russian language" is used to denote the written (literary) language of the Eastern Slavs from the period of its emergence (XI century) to the collapse (XIV century), and sometimes to the 17th century.
In short, you can count how you like someone. What about us? Clarity is needed here.
What contributed to the divergence of the previously common language? Of course, large habitats and local traditions, but primarily the establishment of state boundaries and religious differences. But behind the leapfrog of terms, you will not immediately notice such obviousness.
Why is the terminology so strange.
How does terminology come about in this area?
Partly based on historical events, but most importantly on the basis of a scientific school supported by the state.
And what do we have?
And here, in the words of Mavro Orbini: "The glorious people did not have learned men to adequately describe Russian history."
But where did the Russian scholars come from under the auspices of the state? Two national royal dynasties were destroyed. The last Rurikovichs - Ivan the Terrible and his son, as studies have shown, were poisoned. On Vasily Shuisky from the Suzdal branch, the Rurikovichi on the throne ended completely. Basil died as a prisoner of the Polish king Sigismund. The Godunov dynasty was stopped before it really began. The selected Romanov dynasty was replaced with German blood along the way.
Here is the German school and wrote us history, and introduced the terms of linguistics for Russian and Slavic studies. It is characteristic that "our everything" Alexander Pushkin, having entered the Lyceum, began to learn Russian, knowing, like all the nobles of that time, only French. It was in French that the great Russian poet wrote his first poems. The miracle of Pushkin's poems is a double miracle. In his work, he relied not only on the language, but also on the Russian worldview. The Petersburg Academy of Sciences is a different matter. Here, in spite of the access of foreign professors to Russian archives, an alien view of Russian history took place.
It is difficult to expect objectivity from a foreign scientific school, even if facts similar to Western history are known in Russian history. For example, in Europe, the island of Ile de France is known, from which France began. And we have? The island of Rus is known in Karelia. In the Baltic, the modern island of Rügen had the pre-Christian self-name of Ruyan, in the north of modern Latvia on the river Ruja, there is the ancient city of Ruiena. Previously, the Balts, who founded the cities of Izborsk, and Yuryev (Tartu) lived here. For information on Ruiene, personal thanks to the blogger rujas_veldze.
Written source from the 6th century. many tribes with the names of Rus and Rusyns are remembered. They were also called ruthenes, ruts, rugs. The descendants of these Russians still live in Germany, Hungary, Romania.
And where are the Russian beginnings with such a rich history of toponyms and ethnonyms? Where does the love for the all-embracing word Slavs come from, under which the Rus for some reason hid, although it is from them that the state of Rus is known? Why is this famous state of Rus not from the Rus, but from the Slavs? How did it happen that the Russians, having adopted Christianity, left not Russian, but Slavic paganism? And where did the Slavs go, having lost their paganism?

It's time to look for the origins of the word itself Slavs... It seems that in the Russian language this word responds, but how many contradictions and unanswered questions arise at the same time.
The West has composed history for the glory of the West and for the humiliation of the East. Everything that was marked with the word Slavs, referred to the concept slaves... Well, the West classified itself as a civilized patrician.
The Europe of the West, having many languages, wrote history and created terms in international Latin, such as, for example, the "History of Two Sarmatians" by the Pole Matthew Mekhovsky, taken for dogma in the West, or "Gothic" by Jordan Gotzky. Of course, in such stories we will not find an objective presentation about the Russians, only about the Slavic slaves, even if one of them paid "bad tribute with swords."
Hence the obvious policy of states that do not preserve their European history. A striking example USA. The first thing that the settlers from the Old World did was to destroy the local Indian population, along with their history and architecture, and continued this policy throughout the world. You do not give up your identity, get bombed or sanctions, while international criminality was covered with the sheep's clothing of democracy. Hence the support of the West by Poland, which, like Ukraine, was deprived of its true history. Both states have chosen a policy of Russophobia since their inception, which is typical for countries with severed historical roots. Slaves are not supposed to have a genealogy. The policy of these countries is unchanged in spite of multiple partitions by the same West and Poland and Ukraine. The master ordered the slave, and the slave does not dare to disobey. But this is a different topic.

From the above it follows that Russian is precisely the Russian language with its living and ancient history. At the same time, the Slavic language is artificial and bookish, as an artificial and recent term itself, but they are trying to assign the most ancient status to this artificial one on the wave of historical patriotism.
This substitution, as it were, ritually accustom one to the concept of a slave. Really. In Latin, a slave is slavus ... Following the Latin international enlightenment in In many European languages, the word slave is derived exclusively from the Slav: slave in English, shiavo in Italian, sklave in medieval Latin, esclave in French, slaf in Swedish, sklafos in Greek and saklab in Arabic. .
Where does this consonance come from in different languages? Secondly, from Latin, but firstly!
Slavin Hebrew Tslav means cross .
The Russians did not have the self-designation of the cross "Slavs", for in the Vedas the ancestors are not slaves, but "the grandsons of God." There was no such ethnos in Europe before baptism. The word appeared only after the adoption of Christianity from the sect of the Jews, transformed by Byzantium into a full-fledged religious teaching.
TSLAV - SLAV - SLAVS took initiation as the host of Christ in heaven - all sorts of cherubs and seraphim there.
Since SLAVE goes back to the Hebrew word TsLAV - cross. SLAVE are those who took upon themselves the cross as servants of God, as the host of Christ.
For a thousand years our "self-names" were sharpened for Christianity, and sharpened, so that we now aggressively believe in this sharpening and aggressively protect it.
With few exceptions, the names of modern Russians are taken from the canons about Orthodox saints. But, looking into the directory of personal names of the peoples of the RSFSR, we will see marks next to the names - Greek, Lat., Heb.
There is also an oddity on our topic. In the system adopted at the Romanov court, the princes were addressed - His Serene Highness. And how many names we know with the word "light". We traditionally refer them to Slavic names, but. Not so long ago "The Golden Principles of Russia". Among the people, “to go to Russia” meant “to be born”, to bring it to Russia = “to come out into the Light”. And again the source is RUSSIA. Then why is the word all around Slavs?

Ivan the Terrible, all the great dukes and Russian tsars prevented the penetration of the Jewish nationality into the central regions of the country. For this, Grozny was poisoned, and is now slandered.
Curious word prince... In the ancient work "The Word of Law and Grace", Metropolitan Hilarion calls Kiev prince Vladimir is not a prince at all, but "our kagan". In the original, this can be seen unambiguously: “ praisekagan our vlodimer, from baptism worthless byhom "... In later editions kagan gradually turned into prince... And why?
Russian culture did not accept the word kagan, and was quietly replaced.
Based on materials: http://solitaire17.livejournal.com/84415.html
reference.
The meaning of the word is prince.
In Lusatian languages, knjez is a polite way of speaking to a man, knjeni is to a married woman, and knježna is to an unmarried woman. And we are current and do not know how to address each other. Everything is a man, yes a woman, or clumsy - a citizen. And it is our dear, that's what it was.
Let's take the Russian wedding vocabulary. Newlyweds as conditional founders of the clan are called "prince" and "princess" And later the head of an already established family becomes a prince as an administrative-military person, as the father of a large family.
Baptism, coups, revolutions took place. And here's the question.
Why does the West constantly interfere in our life and seeks to subjugate the Russian people and peoples with Russian culture, the so-called? Slavs? And he does this out of habit, for centuries considering the peoples around him as slaves both before Christianity and after its adoption. The pursuit of world domination requires an obedient army. Those who disagree with this role are pitted against each other.
Slaveholding Rome fell in the 5th century along with its slaveholding, adopted together with the term from Israel, TsLAV, but already as - SLAV, SLAVUS, Rab. After the fall of Rome in Europe, this "business" did not stop. Slave markets are known in Genoa, Venice, Florence. In Crimea, the merchants of Genoa and the Ottoman Empire bought slaves from Eastern Europe. The hetmans of Ukraine traded in the families of the Cossacks. In the early Middle Ages (10-11 centuries) in Prague located near the Old Town Square largest slave market. There were mainly Western Slavs as slaves. Slavs means slaves.
The similarity of languages called linguists Russian and Slavic can be explained simply, they have one source, to which the German school has assigned the term Proto-Slavic language
The idea that Russian allegedly arose recently, and Slavic as the language of slaves existed in what times is WRONG, and erroneous for several reasons.
The first reason. Word slave old Russian, existed before the late Latin slavus.
Reason two.The word slave had an original meaning different from what is now accepted.
Word slave like the word Work same-rooted ancient and Dolatin.
Modern word slave borrowed, not just from where, but from the initial Old Church Slavonic language. This word goes back to the common Slavic orbъ... Initial op changed in Old Church Slavonic in ra... This combination ra typical for many Old Church Slavonic words (like mind). The original meaning of the word slave made sense orphan, and only later - bonded work.
There was a substitution of the meanings of the word slave: from the original small, timid orphan on man owned by a master.
The historical connections of the Russian words slave, work, timid and child can be traced unambiguously.
A source; O.E. Olshansky, Professor of the Slavic State pedagogical university, author of works on the history of Russian word formation, http://slovo.dn.ua/rab-rabota.html.
The word slave with the initial meaning is a person deprived of parents, with the advent of Christianity it becomes a person deprived of all rights. How different this is from the Russian custom, when the Community gave orphans to a full family.
Another version by word SLAVE can be found in Hebrew.
A slave is a word from the Torah, it means - a multiplier, slave - a lot. What did the slave multiply? He multiplied the wealth of the master with his work and his children. Doubt about the interpretation? We read the original. “PRU VE RAVU” means “Be fruitful and multiply”. If the Old Testament has not been read, then this phrase, of course, has been heard more than once.
The Obi versions of the story complement the words slave to each other perfectly.
Everything, as it were, our Slavic began after baptism, and not earlier. This is what "enlightenment" it is.

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

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.

Introduction

1.2 Lexical structure

1.3 Phonetic structure

1.4 Morphological structure

1.5 Syntactic structure

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

We cannot determine with certainty the time when written literature appeared in our country. There is, however, every reason to believe that it existed in Russia even before the second third of the 11th century - the time with which we can date the first surviving monuments of Russian writing. This assumption is based on the fact that at this time we are dealing with specimens of a literary culture that is already significant in quality, and therefore it is difficult to think that before this we have no monuments of written literature at all - they probably simply did not reach us. As for writing in general, that is, all the data - on the basis of historical evidence - attribute its origin in Russia long before its adoption of Christianity. In any case, in the 9th - 10th centuries. she already, undoubtedly, existed with us.

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

Russian literature at this time puts forward new themes and new ideas associated with the fact that it becomes at the service of the state structure reformed by Peter, when the feudal-estate monarchy develops into an absolutist national state of landowners and merchants, which raised the class of landowners at the cost of cruel exploitation of serfs and contributed to development of the nascent merchant class. At the same time, new literary genres and styles were developing, which either did not know at all in the 17th century, or knew them only in an embryonic state.

However, some historians are inclined to date the end of ancient Russian literature and the beginning of a new one to the middle of the 17th century. This look, following N.S. Tikhonravov, was especially thoroughly argued by V.M. Istrin, who considered the second half of the 17th century. as the beginning of a new period of Russian literature, mainly because at this time there is an intensified development of secular literature. This circumstance is indeed very significant for the characterization of the new, in which Russian literature differs mainly in the second half of the 17th century. from previous literature. We would also add to this an increased penetration into Russian literature of the second half of the 17th century. elements of folklore, found, however, from the beginning of the century. But for all that, since in the literature of the 17th century. still a significant place is occupied by works on church-religious themes and the complete victory of the secular element over the religious-church element in our country affects only in the 18th century, since only the literature of the 18th century. serves as a direct organic threshold to the Russian literature XIX century, historically it is more correct to stand on the traditional point of view, which brings ancient Russian literature to the beginning of the 18th century, that is, to that cultural turning point in the fate of Russia, which is associated with the Peter's reforms.

So, ancient Russian literature has about six and a half centuries of existence. It is quite natural in this case to assume that Old Russian literature was written in the Old Russian language.

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

to identify the features of the Old Russian language;

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

1. Features of the Old Russian language

1.1 Functional and territorial differentiation

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

The earliest written monuments in Old Russian date back to the 11th century; among them were the "Ostromir Gospel" (1056-1057), "Arkhangelsk Gospel" (1092), "Novgorod Menaion" (1995-97), etc. In the 11th - early 12th centuries, the first Russian lives and sermons appeared ("The Legend of Boris and Gleb "," The Life of the Monk Theodosius of the Caves "," The Word about the Law and Grace of Metropolitan Hilarion ") and the chronicle (the most famous is the" Tale of Bygone Years "). Various works of art have been created in the Old Russian language, including The Lay of Igor's Host.

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

All these processes had an impact on the language - there was a weakening of the linguistic connection between individual territories and the strengthening of dialectal features: in the north and northeast, various dialects arose (Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Rostov-Suzdal, etc.). As a result of the mixing of the North Great Russian dialect (characterized by okania) with the South Great Russian dialect (typically Akane), the Middle Great Russian dialects arose. The opposition of the southern and southwestern regions (the territory of the future Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) to the northern and northeastern (the territory of the future Russian language) gradually intensified, which led in the 14-15th centuries to the disintegration of the Old Russian language into three separate East Slavic languages - Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian.

1.2 Lexical structure

The main lexical fund of the Old Russian language was made up of common Slavic words such as water, earth, sky, dn, ls, vk, hlb, stna, svcha; - zhiti, dalati, vidti, walk, orati, speech; good, - old, red. The second important part is the East Slavic words (family / snake, balka, bell, boot). Some common Slavic words were completely or almost superseded by East Slavic ones (for example, the word ax with the word ax). There was a parallel use of lexemes such as pis (general Slavic) and dog (East Slavic). There were a number of borrowings from other languages - Greek, Turkic languages, etc. Various semantic changes took place, for example. the old meaning of the lexeme red "beautiful, beautiful, light" has given way to the meaning of color.

1.3 Phonetic structure

In Old Russian, there were 10 vowel phonemes: / a /, / o /, / i /, / e /, / u /, / y / (s), / d /, / e / - yat, reduced front vowels / b / and back row / b / and 26 consonant phonemes: / b /, / v /, / g /, / d /, / ћ "/, / z /, / z" /, / j /, / k / , / l /, / l "/, / m /, / n /, / n" /, / p /, / r /, / r "/, / s /, / s" /, / t /, / h /, / c "/, / and" /, / љ "/, / љ" t "љ" /, / ћ "d" ћ "/. In colloquial Old Russian, the consonant / f / was absent and / p / - sail (Greek faros) or / h / - Homa (Thomas); the letter f was used only in borrowed words such as February, lantern Already in the 10th century, the nasal vowels / a / (?) and / k / (? ), more precisely, they turned into / u / and / "a /: pbka> hand, m'so> meat. Until the 12th century, the law of an open syllable was in effect - the syllable ended with a vowel: stol, wrote. In the 12-13 centuries, the loss of the reduced / b /, / b / occurred, which led to the formation of various combinations, for example, dsk> board, sn> sleep, cross> cross, d'va> firewood. blood> blood, vlna> wave, gurlo> throat, volc> wolf, vrvka> rope. In place of the Proto-Slavic combinations tj, dj, consonants / and "/, / ћ" / appeared: svetja> candle, medja> border. In monuments, the combination / љ "and" / was usually denoted by the letter u; rarely met shch. The Old Russian language was characterized by full accord (city, beard, milk); examples of full accord are already recorded in the Ostromir Gospel.

1.4 Morphological structure

In the Old Russian language there were three numbers: singular, dual and plural. The dual appeared only in three case forms - one was used to express the meanings of the nominative, accusative and vocative cases, the other was genitive and prepositional, and the third was dative and instrumental. In the case system, consisting of six types of declension, there was a vocative (vocative case). It was used in circulation, for example. friend, old man (in modern Russian only the remnants of this case have survived in the form of interjections God, God). The short forms of adjectives differed in that they (1) were inclined and (2) were used in the function of the predicate and the definition (in the modern language, only the remnants of such an attributive use have survived: in the world, on bare feet, in broad daylight). The demonstrative pronoun i, i, e played the role of a personal pronoun of the third person (later demonstrative pronoun he). Complicated cardinal numbers were in the form of a prepositional combination (one on the tenth / tenth). To designate the numbers 40 and 90, special East Slavic forms have developed - forty and ninety (instead of the expected fourty and ninety). Ordinal numbers had full and short forms - first and second. The Old Russian language possessed a wide system of past tense forms (perfect is not a thing, aorist is not, imperfect is carry, pluperfect is not byah). There was a complex subjunctive mood (bykh carried), but from the 13th century the aorist byah, would, etc., would cease to change in persons and a general form would be established. To convey the goal of the movement, a supin was used - a form on -t (I'm going to fish). The participle system consisted of full and short forms.

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

Thus, the combination of concrete and abstract meanings of one word in a general context represents the properties of the Old Russian linguistic semantic syncretism of a symbol. The language itself already presents opportunities for artistic rethinking of the word within the limits of each verbal formula and against the general semantic background of the entire text; a constant return to symbolically important characteristics and words. It is no coincidence that Likhachev, as it seems, stipulates that such listed examples of personification - depending on the words that clarify their meaning - correlate with various parts speech: “materialized with the help of a verb”, “concretized with the help of an epithet” - these are really two main ways of switching the basic meaning of a word to a figurative in a direct context. At the same time, the key names themselves, subject to personification, are almost all feminine, and in the XII century. most of these names still retained a collecting (abstract) meaning. The role of the verb and the adjective in the actualization of one of these connotations relates already to the problem of the epic epithet.

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

1.5 Syntactic structure

The sentence of the Old Russian language was distinguished by a weak grammatical connection of the members of the sentence. Parataxis (compositional connection) prevailed in relation to hypotaxis ( subordination). Free designs were widespread. There was the so-called second nominative (the nominative case in the predicate for verbs with the meaning? To be, to be called, to be called ": he is now calling Ougur; and pade is dead (in modern Russian, the instrumental case is usually used) and the second accusative (accusative case for verbs to name, to have whom, to put in as someone, etc.: make Methodius a bishop in Pannonia, we want to have a father and an abbot), which in modern Russian corresponds to the instrumental case. , -I was sometimes used in the function direct addition in combination with the infinitive of transitive verbs such as land pakhati, mow the grass. There was a so-called independent dative - a simple thought, requiring a subject and a predicate, was expressed by a combination of a noun or pronoun in the dative case and a participle agreed with it (to Mstislav who is eating on obd, when he comes into it).

In the most early period of the Old Russian literary language, three styles were distinguished: business, church-book (church-literary) and secular-literary Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. / Ed. Yartsevoy V.N. - M .: Soviet encyclopedia, 1990 ..

2. Little and many in the Old Russian language

The historical life of a word goes through three stages:

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

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

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

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

Vasmer's dictionary gives the following etymology of the word "many": many, adj., Ukrainian. many, Old Russian, Art. Slav. many polъj (Mar., Zogr., Klots., Sup.), cf. step. mnozhai, bulg. many, Serbo-Horv. a lot, slovenian. mno? g, mnoґga f., Czech, slvc. mnohyґ, mnoho, Polish. mnogo, n.-puddles. mљogi. Kindred Goth. manags "many", d.-v.-n. manаg "other, some", Old Irish. menicc "frequent, numerous", lit. minia "crowd" Vasmer's Etymological Dictionary. - M., 1987. - P.441 ..

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

MUCH, MUCH - often; many times.

POLYESQUE is ignorance.

MULTIPLE - very merciful.

MANY RICH - abounding in everything.

MULTI-SICK - mournful, raising many labors, deeds, troubles, suffering.

MULTIPLE - subject to strong temptations, attacks.

MULTI-DRILL - disturbing.

MULTIPLE - very plentiful.

MUCH - many times.

MULTIPLE - spiky.

MULTIPLE - full of vanity.

MULTIPLE - very famous.

VARIOUS - in many forms; different.

MULTI-PANEL - multiply cultivated.

READY - having many eyes.

PLANT - fruiting; many things.

LOTS - obesity.

MULTIPLE - full of charms and temptations.

MULTI-LIGHT - joyful; solemn.

MULTIPLY - full of sorrow and grief.

SNOWDAY - teeming with variety of food.

MULTIPLE - aggravated; multiplied; reinforced.

MULTIPLE - completely empty, useless.

MULTIPLE - very condescending.

MULTI-HEALING - Giver of many healings.

MUCH - many times, many times.

MUCH WONDERFUL - exuding many miracles; glorified by miracles.

MULTILINGUAL - consisting of many tribes.

MUCH - more.

MUCH - many times, many times.

The basis of all these words, according to V. I. Dal, is the word MANY - a great number, in a large number; excess, abundant; more often used in plural. number: many, or as an adverb: many, abundantly, southern. app. rich, klzh. horror, sowing. burly; v the highest degree abyss, abyss, plenty Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary the Great Russian language. - M., 1952 .. Many animals are killed by fires. The people crowded a lot in the trail. Many seek honor. Many trees have withered, or many trees have withered. Much noise, little use. Many living people - and even that more dead... Many (people), others, some. Many summers - and many are already gone! And they live a lot, but everyone dies. God grant a lot, but you want more. God ugly a lot - and nothing is sown. To give to everyone, there will be a lot. Many are called, but few are chosen. There are many, but there are no superfluous (excess) (children, money). Many, many - and still so much. There are many, but you want more. Not many that two, but many that for one! A lot of mercy, but more daring. A lot is satisfying, a little is honest. They talk a lot, but they do little. Not about the fact that he ate a lot, but about the fact that where the heck of things? He eats a lot, but he drinks a lot. There are many good ones, but no cute (cute). Much and more, like two for one, and moreover, like two for three. It's not a pity for a dear to lose a lot. The poor need a lot, and the stingy need everything. Many are fighting with their hands, and few with advice (minds). Little in learning, but firm in reason. A lot - a little, a lot, a little, a little.

LONGEVITY, longevity, longevity, longevity, long life, long life; a prayer proclamation for the longevity of a royal or other high person, many years. Long-term, be durable; to whom many years, to proclaim many years.

Hello you, I have been for many years,

let go to spend the night to your mercy!

You have a long life, you live a long time;

I greet you with many years.

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

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

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

By means of a statement containing the word little, the speaker informs that the quantifiable set is less or the predicative feature manifests itself in lesser degree than you might expect. The very existence of a quantifiable set or predicative attribute is in this case a presupposition of an utterance. The specified feature of the actual division also explains the intonation characteristics of sentences with words a little: little always carries a logical stress. The foregoing explains the lack of use of the word a little in the actual existential sentences. Indeed, the actual existential sentence is a message about existence, and the presence of a word indicates little that existence enters into a presupposition, i.e. assumed in advance.

True, there are statements with the word little, with the help of which the speaker questions or even denies the existence of a quantifiable set or predicative attribute. One of the statements can take place in a situation where the speaker is convinced that there are no similarities between the compared phenomena; in the second, the speaker reports that he has no interest in the phenomenon in question. The effect under consideration arises in cases when we are talking about abstract entities, for which a very small number may be equivalent to the absence. Essentially uninteresting indicates a low degree of "interest"; synonymous with the word of little interest Chervenkova IV General adverbial indicators of the measure of a sign: Author's abstract. dis. Cand. philol. sciences. - M., 1975 .. It can also be assumed that any two phenomena have at least trivial common features, thus the statement can indicate the absence of common features, except for the trivial.

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

The word has slightly different communicative properties. A statement in which a little quantifies a predicative sign expresses a message about the very fact of manifestation of this sign, and the fact that a sign manifests itself to a small extent constitutes an additional message, which often completely fades into the background, so that a little is used only to "soften" the statement ... Therefore, a little in such sentences can never bear the main logical stress. I.V. Chervenkova argues that in proposals with adverbial, a twofold actual division is possible. In support of this point of view, she points to the possibility of a double interpretation of the proposals.

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

If a little carries a logical emphasis, the utterance turns out to be almost synonymous with the corresponding utterance with the word little: the existence of a quantifiable set is a presupposition, the fact that a multitude exists in small numbers is assertion. True, there are certain semantic differences between "little" and "little" in this case as well. Both words mean "less than the norm", but the "norm" itself can be understood in two ways. // NDVSH. Filol. science. - 1984. - № 3. - pp. 72-77 .. If the "norm" is understood as a quantity, usual for such situations, corresponding to a stereotype, then both a little and a little are equally used. But another understanding of the “norm” is also possible - as a quantity sufficient to achieve something. In this case, only a little can be consumed. With the first understanding of the "norm" the antonym of words is few and few will be a lot, with the second - the antonym of the word is little - enough.

If “a little” does not bear a logical stress, the actual division is similar to the actual division of sentences, in which it quantifies a predicative attribute a little: the message about the existence of a quantifiable set is the main message, while the existence of this set in a small number is an additional message.

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

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

One or one, one or only. One is here and the other is there. One by one they left, one by one. Not a single penny. He didn’t give us a single share, he didn’t give us anything. God is one, but not everyone has the same conscience. I will not give a single money. Alone, alone or eye to eye, a friend, together.

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

Edinet m. Lonely, one, one of a kind, for which there is no friend or the like.

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

To be one, to be one, one, indivisible.

ONE - according to; the same.

ONE - at one time, the same; equals; yet.

IS ONE - Is it still?

ONE believer - professing the same faith with someone.

SINGLE - one-shaped; monotonous.

SINGLE BLOOD - originating from one blood; native brother.

UNANIMOUSLY - unanimously, thinking the same with someone.

UNIFORM - having the same disposition with anyone.

THE ONE BEGOTTEN - the only one by birth; one son (one daughter) from the parents.

ONE - once.

Considering the vocabulary of "The Lay of Igor's Campaign", you can quite often find words that have elements of one and the same, mainly in figurative expressions.

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

In the history of the study of the figurative system "Words ...", some stages are indicated. Maksimovich and Dubensky spoke not about comparison, but about assimilation (symbolism), which also coincides with the view developed by Buslaev on the mythological character of the monument's imagery. About simple comparisons and metaphors, which in the "Word ..." in pure form no, Grammatin said for the first time, and N. Golovin added that "The Word ..." "is filled with metaphors and allegories." In general, serious scientists up to the middle. XX century, listing specifically the paths and figures used in the "Word ..." personification, "images of folk poetry", mythological symbols, proverbs and sayings ("parables" and riddles), even lamentation as a folk form of expression of emotions, states, etc.

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

They also spoke carefully about the “metaphor” of the “Words ...” later, remaining within the framework of the ideas about the imagery of the “Word ...” and “images of folk poetry” (Larin, Likhachev, etc.)

Such imagery can be understood as a real basis for describing a natural landscape, included in symbolic assimilations: corpses - sheaves, a cemetery - a mortal cup, etc., often given in the Lay ... "). Consequently, the term "image" in all such cases was used in the medieval scope of the concept: the image is wider than a path or figure and combines linguistic imagery with mythological symbols inherent in culture.

The analytical nature of the research procedure required clarification, and the indefinite term "image" began to be concretized in relation to each individual manifestation of imagery in the text of the monument. There are three directions in the narrowing of the term.

Likhachev began to talk about the “symbolic meaning of the image”, about “symbolic parallelism”, and this brought the problem from the superficial visual-artistic level to the semantic level; parallel to this, Jacobson admitted that the "Word ..." and at the beginning. XIII century Russian and Western poetry. An attempt to combine the figurative (metaphorical) and semantic (symbolic) aspects of the description of the artistic specificity of the text manifested itself in vague definitions: “symbolic-metaphorical interpretation”.

Orlov is already confidently speaking about the metaphor in the Lay, although at the same time it was he who pointed out the main difference between literary-book and oral-folk tropes: rhetorically, book metaphors folk art prefers a (permanent) epithet. The metaphor as "one of the main ways of figuratively reflecting reality" in the "Word ..." acquired decisive significance in the opinion of Eremin: and from the folk epic, while he understands metaphoricity as "figurative rapprochement of one kind of reality with others" (but this is an epiphora) or as a transfer of meaning from the abstract to the concrete (which is more like metonymy).

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

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

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

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

Translating the phenomena of the material world into phenomena of a spiritual order, abstractly general, the author of "Lay ..." creates a symbol, since such a symbol is assumed by the described action through the perception of this action by the hero of the narrative (bones sown in battles - rose up in sorrow).

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

Apparently, only in our perception (we understand these combinations differently than the author of "Lay ...") is this an adorning, metaphorical, constant epithet. Permanent epithets of folk poetry include: brave squad, red maidens), filthy Polovtsi, open field, blue sea, blue Don, black raven, black earth, gray wolf, gray eagle, hot arrow, green grass, greyhound horse, fierce beast, bright sun, daring sons, dear brother, blackened shield, blackened banner, dragie oxamites. "Decorating epithets": a golden-domed tower, silver streams, a yew bed, crimson pillars, golden stirrups. "Metaphorical epithets": prophetic fingers, living strings, iron shelves, a word of gold, a pearly soul (N.I. shores, and N.V. Gerasimov also - buoy tour, daring body, young moon, strong regiments; yar bui - "a complex metaphorical epithet"). All combinations of the latter type are sometimes called "poetic epithets", meaning their imagery. Calculations of epithets in the "Word ..." are very subjective: Hoffman finds only 10 permanent epithets, V.N. Peretz - 57 (i.e. all names are adj.), A.I. Nikiforov ( all adjectives) - 208.

We can find the same thing in other monuments of Old Russian literature.

Conclusion

The nature of ancient Russian literature was also determined by the fact that the church environment in the old days was not only for the most part a creator, but also a monopoly guardian literary tradition, who saved and multiplied in the lists only the material that corresponded to her interests, and was indifferent or hostile to the material that did not satisfy these interests or contradicted them. At first, a significant obstacle to the development of secular literature was the fact that before the XIV century. parchment was used as material for writing, the high cost and scarcity of which excluded the possibility of any widespread spending on manuscripts that did not pursue direct goals of a religious edifying nature. But religious and edifying literature found itself free circulation only to the extent that it was approved by the church censorship: there was a significant section of the so-called "apocryphal" literature, "false" or "renounced", books that were not approved by the official church and were prohibited by it. for reading, although in other cases church leaders, themselves poorly understanding the literature that was subject to prohibition, thereby unconsciously connived at its dissemination.

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

N.K. Nikolsky at one time justly remarked: "The Word about Igor's Campaign", "The Word of Daniel the Zatochnik", fragments of historical legends in the annals, "The Word about the Perdition of the Russian Land" and similar works show that in the early centuries of Russian life, in addition to church teaching bookishness, secular literature existed and developed, which reached a significant flourishing in Southern Russia. If "The Lay of Igor's Host" were single for its era, then it would, of course, be a historical incongruity. " A.I. Sobolevsky agreed that there were many works in ancient Russia similar to the "Lay of Igor's Campaign", and explained their disappearance by the loss of interest in their content in the coming generations.

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

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

Bibliography

Baranov A.N. To the description of the semantics of adverbs of degree (barely, barely, slightly, slightly). // NDVSH. Filol. science. - 2004. - No. 3.

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

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

Zhivov V.M. Language and culture in Russia in the 18th century / V.M. Zhivov - M., 1996.

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

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

Levin V.D. A brief outline of the history of the Russian literary language. - M .: Education, 1964.

Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. / Ed. Yartsevoy V.N. - M .: Soviet encyclopedia, 1990.

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

Essays on the comparative grammar of the East Slavic languages. / Ed. N.I. Bukatevich, I.E. Gritsyutenko, S.A. Savitskaya. - Odessa: Odessa state. un-t. them. I. I. Mechnikov, 1958.

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

Chervenkova I.V. General adverbial indicators of the measure of a characteristic: Author's abstract. dis. Cand. philol. sciences. - M., 1975.

Etymological Dictionary of Vasmer. - M., 1987.

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

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

Written monuments have been known since the middle of the 11th century (manuscripts and records in books). Inscriptions on individual objects date back to the early 10th century. As part of the "Tale of Bygone Years", the treaties of Russia with the Greeks in 911, 944, 971 have come down to us.

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

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

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

[h,] [f,] (instead of [w, t,], [f, d,] - in the southern Slavs and [c,] [d, h] - in the western ones), develops from * tj, * dj ( candle, meza) and from * Rt, * qt before the front vowels: night, oven, dchi (compare: baking, urine), urine.

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

The phonetic system of the language of the era oldest monuments characterized by the following features. The syllable was open, i.e. could not end with a consonant, the sounds in the syllable were distributed according to the increasing sonority, in other words, the syllable began with a less sonorous sound and ended with a more sonorous one (home, slid, praivida). In this regard, until the 12-13th centuries, when the reduced [b] and [b] fell and new closed syllables appeared, there were no conditions for the opposition of consonants in sonority-publicity. There were 10 vowel phonemes: front vowels - [and], [e], (b), [e], [b], [a] [leaves, b, (b), lie (fly), dn, n Am ] and the back row - [s], [y], [b], [o], [a] [torture, poutati, pta (bird), lom, lomati]. There were 27 consonants. The sound [v] was either labiodental [v], bilabial [w] (a similar pronunciation is preserved now in the dialects: [lauca], [, deuca], [low]). The sound [f] was in borrowed words in the literary language of educated people. In the popularly spoken language, the sound [n] or [x] is pronounced instead of it in borrowed words: Osip (Josif), Khoma, Khovrona. Pairs of hardness-softness formed only the sounds [n] - [n,], [p] - [p,], [l] - [l,], [s] - [s,], [h] - [z ,]. The rest of the consonants were or only soft: [j], [h], [c,], [f,], [w,], [w, t, w,], [f, d, f,] (modern. [`w,], [` f,] - let’s go, yeast), or only solid: [g], [k], [x] (gibel, kysel, khytr), [p], [b], [c ], [m], [t], [d]. Before the vowels of the front row, hard consonants acquired a semi-softness. The consonants [г], [к], [х] before the front vowels could only be in borrowed words (geona, cedar, chiton).

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

Nouns differed: by gender: м., Wed, f .; by numbers: singular, dual, when it was a question of two objects (dva, table, houses, dvb, ltl, wife, legs), plural.

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

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

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

The verb had the form of the present (future) tense (I wear, I will say), 4 forms of the past tense: 2 simple ones - aorist (wear, skazakh) and imperfect (wear, hozhah), and 2 complex ones - perfect (I am worn) and pluperfect - a long time ago - that came (yes wore or I was wore), each of the forms of the past tense had a special meaning associated with an indication of the course of action in the past, 2 forms of a complex future: the future (I will wear) and the analytical future, which in many respects retained its character composite verbal predicate[imam (want to start) wear]. The na-l form (like nosil) was a past participle and participated in the formation of complex verb tense forms, as well as the subjunctive mood (byl nosil). In addition to the infinitive, the verb had one more unchangeable form - supin (or goal infinitive), which was used with the verbs of movement ("I'm going to catch fish").

In terms of dialectal features within the Old Russian language, the north-western territories were opposed with clinking (non-distinction [c,], and [h,], [r] of explosive formation, the form of the r.p. singular ph.f. in -b ( u wives) and the southern and southeastern regions with the distinction of [c,], [ch,], [g] fricative and the form of the rn singular ff on -y There were differences in the vocabulary as well. However, dialectical features did not destroy the unity of the Old Russian language, as evidenced by the written monuments of the 12-13th centuries, created in different territories of the Old Russian state. Old Russian monuments are written in Cyrillic, Glagolic texts in the Old Russian language have survived. Old Russian language, in which these monuments were written, was common business and legal writing was created in the ancient Russian language, in a complex combination with elements of the Church Slavonic language, the ancient Russian language appeared in the monuments of hagiographic literature and in the annals. The state of the Old Russian language was also facilitated by the formation of a common spoken language in the center of the Old Russian state - Kiev, whose population consisted of people from different dialectical territories. The common spoken language of Kiev - Kiev Koine - is characterized by the smoothing out of dialectal features and the spread of common phonetic, morphological and lexical features in the speech of its inhabitants.

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

ANCIENT RUSSIAN LANGUAGE, the language of the East Slavic population of the Old Russian state (mid-9th - 1st third of the 12th century) and Russian lands and principalities of the 12-14th century, that is, the language of the Old Russian ethnic community during its formation, consolidation and disintegration; common ancestor of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages.

Information about the Old Russian language of the period up to the 11th century can be gleaned only from indirect sources - borrowings in neighboring languages, primarily Finno-Ugric, and evidence of the Old Russian language by foreign authors (in particular, in the work of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus "On the peoples"). From the 10th century, isolated, linguistically uninformative inscriptions have also survived (on the korchag from Gnezdovo, on coins).

Since the 11th century, written monuments of the Old Russian language (Cyrillic) appear - actually Old Russian and Russian Church Slavonic (see Church Slavonic language). The first includes most of the letters (by the beginning of the 21st century, about 1000 birch bark letters and about 150 parchment letters of the 11-14th century are known), many entries in handwritten books and inscriptions, including graffiti. Actually Old Russian monuments of a business and everyday nature (first of all, birch bark letters) reflect the lexical, phonetic and grammatical features of the Old Russian language, dialectal features are frequent in them and Church Slavicisms are very few in number. The supra-dialectal form of the Old Russian language (possibly based on the dialect of Kiev) functioned as the language of official documents (letters, Russkaya Pravda, princely statutes of the 10-12th century). The group of Russian-Church Slavonic monuments is made up of some letters, records and inscriptions, and especially handwritten books. Highlighted: church books, the texts of which are East Slavic copies from the South Slavic, mainly Bulgarian, originals (which are mainly translations of Greek books); Old Russian translations from Greek; original Old Russian works (chronicles, historical, ethnographic, preaching, legal texts). In terms of volume, the books are many times superior to all other sources (about 1000 ancient Russian manuscripts have survived, including tens and hundreds of pages of text). Among the most important book monuments: Ostromir Gospel (1056-57), Izbornik Svyatoslav 1073 and Izbornik 1076, Archangel Gospel (1092), Novgorod Service Menaion (1095-97), Putyatin's Menaion and Sinai Patericon (11th century), Mstislav's Gospel and Ilyin's book (turn of the 11-12th century), Yuryevskoye, Dobrilovo and Galitskoye Gospels (12th century), Studian charter and Vygoleksinsky collection (end of 12th century), Assumption and Trinity collections (turn of 12-13th centuries), Novgorod 1st Chronicle (parts 13 and 14th century), Novgorod helmsman (late 13th century), Pandects of Nikon Montenegrin in the lists of the 13th and 14th centuries, "Brief Chronicle" by George Amartol (1st half of the 14th century), numerous Prologues in the lists of the 13th and 14th centuries, Merilo the Righteous, Paleya and Sylvester collection (2nd half of the 14th century), Chudovsky New Testament (14th century), Laurentian Chronicle (1377), Ipatiev Chronicle (about 1425; contains chronicle records until the end of the 13th century); see also Monuments of the written language of the Russian language of the 10-17th centuries. Russian-Church Slavonic monuments are written in the Church Slavonic language of the Russian version, which acted as the book-literary language of Ancient Rus. It includes, as an organic part, many Russisms (East Slavicisms). These Old Russian linguistic features - both common to all East Slavic dialects and dialectically limited - are manifested in Russian-Church Slavonic monuments, against the background of Church Slavonic features, to varying degrees: in religious texts - only as inclusions (more or less numerous), in the original secular texts (especially in the annals) - to a considerable extent.

Most of the monuments that have come down to us (including birch bark letters) were written on the territory of the Novgorod land; their better preservation in comparison with the monuments of other territories of Ancient Rus is explained by both historical (the unaffectedness of Novgorod by the Mongol-Tatar invasion) and natural (the quality of the soil in which the birch bark is preserved) conditions. A number of monuments come from the Galicia-Volyn principality, Smolensk, Polotsk, Rostov the Great, Pskov, Tver, Ryazan, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, possibly Kiev. The unevenness of the reflection of dialectal features of various territories in writing is the reason for the insufficiency, sometimes one-sidedness of our knowledge about the dialectal division of the Old Russian language, in which the ancient Novgorod-Pskov dialect, as well as the dialects of Smolensk, Polotsk (Western Russian), Tver, Galician or Volyn in general South Russian, including the dialect of Kiev), Rostov-Suzdal, later Moscow; there is practically no information about other dialects (Ryazan, Chernigov, etc.).

Forming the East Slavic subgroup of the ancient Slavic languages, the Old Russian language as a whole or in most of its dialectal territory initially differed from the Western and / or South Slavic languages in a number of phonetic and morphological features. On the place of the Proto-Slavic groups "vowel + smooth", full-vowel combinations "vowel + smooth + vowel" developed in it: * gordъ> city (first full accord), * grdъ> grdъ (second full accord). The vowel labialization took place in the groups * telt, * tъlt> * tolt, * tъlt> tolot, tъlъt: milk, пълънъ. There was a metathesis in the groups "vowel + smooth" under the descending intonation at the beginning of the word: * õrbъ> rob. The 3rd palatalization gave a reflex * x in the form of ‘(vs). The consonant groups * kt before * i, as well as * tj have turned into "h" (* rekti> speech, * mogti> * mokti> urine, * xotjǫ> want); * dj - in "f" (* xodjǫ> I go); * stj, * skj - in sh ‘h’ (* prostjǫ> forgive); * zdj, * zgj - in (* dъzgjь> monuments of writing like “djch”). The explosive before l in reflexes * dl, * tl was lost: * vedlъ, * pletъ> vel, pll. There was a change in the group * dm> "m" ("seven"; compare "week"). The nasal vowels have been lost: * ǫ> y, * ę> ‘a (* рǫtь> path, * rędъ> row). The vowel * ē in combination with the nasal at the end of the word form changed to ě (in some inflections: * zemjēns> earthѣ). Predominantly East Slavic trait - the use of "o" and "y" at the beginning of a word in accordance with je and ju, more common in other Slavic languages ["lake" (compare the Polish surname "Jezersky"), "un" ‘young’].

The most peripheral, archaic and at the same time innovative among the East Slavic dialects was the ancient Novgorod-Pskov dialect. In it, the 2nd palatalization was not realized, as well as, at least for * x, the 3rd palatalization (compare the Novgorod-Pskov "kule", "vkha" in place of the common Eastern Slavic "tsul", "vysya"). In some part of this dialectal territory, an explosive before l in reflexes * dl, * tl was preserved, followed by a transition (in Pskov dialects) to “ch”, “k” (for example, the Pskov “blues” 'bluly', 'uchkle' 'took into account' ). The simplification of the common Eastern Slavic combinations "sh 'h" "occurred by the loss of the final slot, that is, the transition to" sh' t "," zh 'd ", followed by a change in" sh' k "," zh 'g '":" Playful "," djgiti ". The combinations that have arisen as a result of iota palatalization of the labial have become simpler, namely vl ‘> l’, ml ‘> m‘> n ‘:“ Yaroslal ”,“ earth ”,“ nazen ”‘ down with ‘. In morphology, the most important distinguishing feature of the ancient Novgorod-Pskov dialect was the ending -e in the nominative singular masculine * o-declension (including the forms of pronouns, short adjectives and participles: "hlebe", "sama", "cheaper", "Prishle"), historically explained by the influence of a soft type of declension on a hard one; this influence also took place in the forms of genitive singular * ā -declination, nominative and accusative plural * ā - and * o-declensions ("water", "adolescent"). The Novgorod-Pskov dialect is characterized by the underdevelopment of animate-inanimate category in the singular masculine gender due to the preservation of the primordial opposition of the forms of direct cases. An important feature of this dialect, which united it, however, with the Smolensk-Polotsk and, possibly, also Tver dialects, was the clatter. In addition, the Pskov dialects did not distinguish between hissing and whistling (the so-called sokanie) and neutralized the difference between ‘e and’ a at the end of the word form (zapodarny yakan).

At the beginning of the written era, East Slavic dialects underwent a similar evolution, which indicates their joint development. At the phonetic level, throughout the entire East Slavic territory, the decline of the reduced ones (11-12 centuries) proceeded in a similar way: the weak reduced ones were lost, and the strong ones vocalized: "b" - into "o", and "b" - into "e" (sn> sleep , flax> flax 'flax'). In addition, in the entire East Slavic area, obviously, there was a transition "e"> "o" after the primordially soft consonants ("cholo-vѣk") and a softening of the back-lingual in the combinations "gy", "ky", "hy", which crossed in "gi", "ki", "hi".

However, there were also dialectal differences. T. n. tense reduced (variants of phonemes "b", "b" and "s", "and" in a position before j) in the north and northeast of the East Slavic territory, as well as before other consonants, changed in a strong position in "o" , "E", while in the west and south they coincided with "y", "and" (compare Russian "my", "neck", "live" - Ukrainian "myu", "shiya", "live", Belarusian " wash "," shyya "," zhyvy "). The consequences of the fall of the reduced were also different; in particular, in the monuments created in the south of Russia, there are such specific features as compensatory (compensating for the loss of the weak reduced in the next syllable) prolongation of "e" and "o" ["learning" (the so-called new yat), " "'Father'," grѣ-huv "]

and the coincidence of "and" and "s" ("steadying" instead of "ashamed" "az grushnyi" instead of "az grushnyi"). On a wider dialectal territory, a mixture of "v" and "y" is recorded, dictated by a change in the primordially bilabial "w"> "y" (vstok> ustok), and the transition of combinations of the trьt type through the trt stage into tryt (in the southern and western dialects: dryva "," blikha "). In a number of East Slavic dialects (including North Russian), after the fall of the reduced ones, a special phoneme ô ("o" closed) developed. The processes of assimilation and changes in consonants at the end of the word form took place in different ways in the south and north of the East Slavic territory. In the late ancient Russian period, such phenomena, limited only to individual East Slavic areas as akane, hardening of hissing and affricate, various changes and "sh‘ h ’". Some dialectal phonetic features, with a significant degree of certainty being traced back to the period after the fall of the reduced ones (for example, the spirantization of "g" in the southern and western dialects), are not reliably reflected in the Old Russian writing.

At the morphological level, the following main changes took place in the Old Russian language. In the singular number of nouns, intrageneric unification occurred, associated with the tendency to combine words of the same genus in one declension (only feminine remains within two declensions). The category of the dual has been lost. In the plural, intergeneric unification took place - the nouns of all 3 genders fixed the homonymous forms of the nominative-accusative, accusative-genitive cases and the forms of the dative, local and instrumental cases in -am, -ax, -ami; accordingly, the category of animate-inanimateness took on a universal character, spreading to all plural nouns. Generic differences have disappeared from plural adjectives and pronouns. Nominal (non-member) forms of adjectives, for which the predicate function became the main one, have lost the declension, retaining only the form of the case name. A similar development in participles led to the formation of gerunds. Numerical designations have evolved towards more and more generalization of morphological and syntactic properties. The system of verb tenses has undergone a significant reduction - the imperfect, aorist, pluperfect have been lost, and their functions have passed to the perfect, which began to be used without a bunch (shl'esi> walk); see Time (in linguistics). The opposition "perfect form - imperfect form" has acquired a more consistent character in connection with the development of means of imperfectivation, primarily the suffixes -va-, -yva-. The supine was lost (although supinate constructions with the genitive form of the dependent name continued to be used in the subsequent period).

Against the background of the development of more and more dialectal features in the Late Ancient Russian period, on the contrary, there is a smoothing of the most characteristic differences of the Old Novgorod dialect, approaching other dialects of Northern and Eastern Russia.

As a result of the listed linguistic changes, as well as as a result of extralinguistic factors (primarily the collapse of the single Old Russian state, the conquest of a significant part of the East Slavic lands by the Mongol-Tatars in the 13th century and the transition of the southern and western Russian lands to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland in the 14th century), the Old Russian language as a relatively common idiom that experienced general linguistic changes ceased to exist, splitting into 3 main linguistic regions - Great Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, separate story which - respectively as Old Russian (Central Russian), Old Ukrainian and Old Belarusian languages - begins in the 14-15th centuries.

Lit .: Shakhmatov A.A. Essay on the most ancient period in the history of the Russian language. P., 1915. M., 2002; he is. Historical morphology of the Russian language. M., 1957; Durnovo N.N. Introduction to the history of the Russian language. M., 1969; he is. Selected works on the history of the Russian language. M., 2000; Historical grammar of the Old Russian language / Edited by V. B. Krysko. M., 2000-2006-. T. 1-4-; Sobolevsky A.I. Proceedings on the history of the Russian language. M., 2004-2006. T. 1-2; A.A. Zaliznyak Old Novgorod dialect. 2nd ed. M., 2004. Dictionaries: Sreznevsky I. I. Materials for the dictionary of the Old Russian language from written monuments. M., 1892-1912. T. 1-3 and Supplements. M., 2003; Dictionary of the Russian language XI-XVII centuries. M., 1975-2006-. Issue 1-27-; Dictionary of the Old Russian language (XI-XIV centuries). M., 1988-2004. T. 1-7-.