MBOU "Bryansk City Lyceum No. 2 named after Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov"
on the topic: “Archaisms”
Student Mitsuk M.R.
Physics and mathematics group
Teacher Voronina N.B.
Bryansk, 2013
Introduction
Archaisms (from the Latinized ancient Greek. ??????? - « ancient") are words, phrases, some grammatical forms and syntactic structures denoting objects, phenomena, actions that have fallen out of active use due to their replacement by new ones, but have synonyms in modern speech. Archaisms should not be confused with historicisms. Historicisms are words or stable phrases denoting the names of objects that once existed but disappeared, have completely gone out of circulation, and have no analogues in the Russian language. Archaisms, in contrast to historicisms, are outdated names of objects used in modern life, and historicisms are names of outdated objects or phenomena. Archaisms are also called “relics” of antiquity. There are many archaisms in the Russian language, but they are used quite rarely in colloquial speech. From the point of view of life, archaisms are something that has lost its meaning or changed its meaning. Archaisms are directly related to traditions: everything that tradition refuses to hold is archaic. At the same time, tradition does not remain constant, and its change can turn archaism into completely natural meanings.
Chapter 1. Why did archaisms appear?
The main reason for the appearance of archaisms is the development of language: some words are replaced by others, filled with new, more modern meaning. The vocabulary of the Russian language is constantly changing and continuously enriched. Some words live for centuries, others die out before they are born, or find another use, another meaning of existence. Language is a living organism; it itself regulates the set of words needed by a given generation at a given time. It is not possible to artificially change the set of words in a language.
Chapter 2. Types of archaisms
In the Russian language there are 2 groups of archaisms. They are similar in that they have already left everyday communication, but continue to remain in the language itself in one form or another. A group of lexical and grammatical archaisms.
· Lexical archaisms are outdated words that have completely changed their structure, but have a corresponding synonym in modern speech. Lexical archaisms, in turn, are divided into 3 subgroups:
Semantic archaisms are words that have been preserved in modern language, but are used in an outdated meaning (belly - in the meaning of “life”; shame - in the meaning of “spectacle”; existent - in the meaning of “existing”).
Lexico-phonetic archaisms are words that have retained their meaning, but have a different pronunciation instead of the obsolete one (glad - hunger;
piit - poet; mirror - mirror).
Lexico-word-formative archaisms are words that have retained their meaning, but have a different word structure instead of the outdated one (action - disaster; answer - answer; shepherd - shepherd).
· Grammatical archaisms are words that are not part of the modern language system, but are preserved only in certain set expressions. Let's look at this using the example of the expression “talk of the town.” The form “pagans” is not explainable from the point of view of modern types of declension. This is a frozen form of the word “language” or “tongues”, preserved due to the stability of the expression itself. The impossibility of replacing it with a corresponding modern form is determined by the specific meaning of the entire phrase, the semantic archaism of the words included in it.
Chapter 3. Why are archaisms needed?
Archaisms appear very quickly, words find new meanings... but is this necessary? Do words that almost no one uses in their speech make sense? Maybe they simply “contaminate” the modern lexical dictionary? In fact, archaisms have an important role in the Russian language.
Function of archaismsExamples1. The use of archaisms helps to convey the era of a certain historical period in works of art. To know history, you need to know the words of that time. One of the examples of the use of archaisms is a line from A.S. Pushkin’s poem “The Prophet”: “Arise, prophet, and see, and listen...”. In this case, the word “see” has a synonym in modern speech - “look”, and the word “listen” means “listen”.2. Archaisms enrich our speech, they make it brighter. After all, these words were passed down by many people from generation to generation. Many sayings are still used using archaisms that carry an instructive meaning. “Take care of it like the apple of your eye” - this expression is a phraseological unit, but it is based on the archaisms “apple” and “eye”. If we translate this phrase into modern Russian, it will sound like this: “Take care of the pupil of the eye.” It’s not difficult to guess that “apple” = pupil, and “eye” = eye.
Also, a huge number of people, especially those who have lived a long life, use outdated words in their speech, without knowing it. What we now call archaisms are the most common words for them. These people use archaisms out of habit; for them they are irreplaceable. 3 pages
archaism word obsolete
Completion
Many people find archaisms in literature and understand that it is quite appropriate to use them in modern speech. However, most often archaisms acquire the status of final extinction. I think that language should follow a natural path, and archaisms should not be revived. It is worth paying tribute to traditions, but it is not permissible to live in the past; we need to look for new ways of development. This applies to both language and people’s speech. I believe that in a few decades, the words we use now will also become archaisms for people of future generations.
Note
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin (1799-1837) - Russian poet, playwright and prose writer. Author of many works valued all over the world.
References
1.Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia.
TSB (Great Soviet Encyclopedia) - 3rd edition, work in 30 volumes, 1970.
Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language by S.I. Ozhegov (1900-1964) - 22nd edition.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Language is a complex, multi-level system that we are used to using without paying any attention to it. The peculiarities of its organization are, as a rule, only of interest to philologists and linguists directly, for whom this component of our life is simply part of the profession.
Meanwhile, the language develops, is constantly in dynamics, takes on new forms and expands its boundaries. New words flow into it in an endless stream, which over time become quite familiar to us and part of everyday speech. Others, on the contrary, fall out of use and are gradually forgotten due to the lack of need for them. This is how archaic words appear in our vocabulary.
Where do they come from
You don't need to be a linguist to understand the fact that these kinds of words do not appear in the speech system out of nowhere, just like that. Any outdated word or expression at some period in the development of the language was quite commonly used and did not cause bewilderment or any other feeling of that kind in anyone.
What is archaism essentially? How is it different from any other phenomenon in the structure of language? First of all, it is an outdated word, the meaning of which may be partially or completely lost for most native speakers. Archaisms do not appear by chance, being a completely natural, well-founded phenomenon.
The movement of humanity forward and the development of language, as a result, require constant updating of the vocabulary, which leads to the fact that certain lexemes are simply no longer necessary.
Where do they live?
We think about what archaism is only when, among the usual and completely understandable letter combinations, we encounter one whose meaning is not completely clear to us or is not clear at all. Of course, this happens not only with outdated vocabulary, but in such cases the touch of antiquity is quite noticeable, and it is almost impossible to confuse archaism with a newfangled word.
A characteristic feature of the words included in this category is a pronounced sign of obsolescence. Most often they are found in fiction, when, for example, the author wants to endow a character with characteristic features or simply refers to previous eras in the narrative. And, of course, this kind of literature is especially filled with words, written before the 17th-18th centuries and not adapted to the modern language system.
In order to understand what archaism is, let’s turn to a specific example: consider the word “breg,” which appears quite often in the poetry of A.S. Pushkin. In the modern Russian language there is a similar full-vowel “bereg”, which completely coincides with the first in meaning, but has a completely different stylistic coloring. This kind of phenomenon is called phonetic archaism.
What other words are there?
Sound differences and disagreement are not the only sign of outdated words in our speech. Linguists, who once asked themselves the question of what archaism is, identify several groups of lexemes of this kind.
Along with those already mentioned (phonetic), there are also word-forming ones. As a rule, the attribution of a word to a given group is indicated by the presence of a suffix that has fallen out of use in modern speech. As an example, we can cite words such as “museum,” found in Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit,” or “assistance” instead of “assistance.”
Special view
Archaisms, examples of which were given earlier, may be different. If earlier we talked about changes in the sound and composition of a word, then in this case we will talk about individual lexemes that exist along with modern ones that are commonly used. Remember, for example, words such as “eye” or “for” - in the language to which we are accustomed, there are equivalent analogues, the meaning of which is clear to absolutely everyone. Thus, archaisms, examples of which were given in this case, are lexical.
The essence is forgotten and the meaning is lost
Speaking about this phenomenon of the Russian language, one cannot help but point out a very important feature that should be taken into account. Russian archaisms should not be confused with so-called historicisms. The key feature of the latter is their semantic meaning. As a rule, such lexemes meant household items, titles and ranks that simply no longer exist in modern reality. Thus, when the phenomenon itself disappears from life, the word that denoted it disappears over time.
This does not always happen - periodically the semantic properties of the lexeme are modified, acquiring a completely different (even the opposite) coloring.
Russian archaisms, like any others, also differ from historicisms in that they have equivalent analogues in the modern language, synonyms, with the help of which one can easily replace a component with a more understandable one.
These are the features of such a phenomenon as archaisms in the language system. Of course, we do not use words of this kind when calling friends or filling out reports, nevertheless, without them our speech would be incomplete and completely unremarkable.
Historicisms- words or stable phrases that are the names of objects that once existed, but disappeared, phenomena of human life. Historicisms belong to the passive dictionary and do not have synonyms in the modern language.
The age of historicism can be calculated both in centuries (smerd, boyar, bratina) and decades (NEPman, educational program, tax in kind).
Examples: tiun, bortnichat, smerd, boyar, brother, nepman, educational program, tax in kind.
Archaisms are outdated words and expressions that add solemnity to speech: A wondrous genius has faded away like a torch; Show off, city of Petrov, and stand unshakably, like Russia.... They can be strictly lexical (outdated words, names of objects and concepts that exist today: finger - finger, prophetic - wise, prison - prison) and lexical-semantic (outdated meaning words: certificate - a written certificate of service, the behavior of someone; station - a stopping place on the main roads, where travelers changed horses; light - high society, a circle of people belonging to the privileged classes).
Archaisms - (from the Greek archaios - ancient) obsolete for a certain era, obsolete linguistic elements (words, expressions, affixes), replaced by others.
Types of archaisms.
Lexical archaism. An obsolete word that has a corresponding synonym in modern language. In vain (in vain, in vain), neck (neck), from ancient times (of old), actor (actor), this (this), that is (that is).
Semantic archaism. A word that has been preserved in modern language, but is used in an outdated meaning. Belly (meaning “life”), shame (meaning “spectacle”), existing (meaning “existing”).
Archaism lexico-phonetically and. A word that has retained the same meaning, but has a different sound design instead of the obsolete one. Historia (history), hunger (hunger), yet (yet), mirror (mirror), piit (poet).
Archaism of lexical and word formation. A word that has retained its meaning, but has a different word-formation structure instead of the previous, outdated one. Action (disaster), respond (answer), shepherd (shepherd). In terms of stylistic archaisms are used:
a) to recreate the historical flavor of the era (usually in historical novels, stories);
b) to give speech a touch of solemnity, pathetic emotion (in poetry, in an oratory, in a journalistic speech);
c) to create a comic effect, irony, satire, parody (usually in feuilletons, pamphlets);
d) for the speech characteristics of a character (for example, a person of clergy).
Archaisms are fundamentally different from historicisms. If historicisms are the names of outdated objects, then archaisms are outdated names of quite ordinary objects and concepts that we constantly encounter in life.
15. Stylistic coloring of the word. Types of stylistic coloring of words.
The words are stylistically unequal. Some are perceived as bookish (intelligence, ratification, excessive, investment, conversion, prevail), others are perceived as conversational (regular, blurt out, a little); some give the speech solemnity (prescribe, expression of will), others sound casual (work, talk, old, cold). “The whole variety of meanings, functions and semantic nuances of a word is concentrated and united in its stylistic characteristics,” wrote academician. V.V. Vinogradov In the stylistic coloring of words, the stylistic characteristics of a word take into account, firstly, its belonging to one of the functional styles or the lack of functional-style fixation, and secondly, the emotional coloring of the word, its expressive capabilities.
SCIENTIFIC
1⃣ Scientific - heterogeneity
General scientific (proper scientific)
GOAL: communicate new information (scientist➡️scientist)
Monograph-book is devoted to the deepest consideration of one word, subject
LINGUISTIC FEATURES: Terms, book vocabulary
General scientific vocabulary, words are used only in science (goals, objectives, methods, conclusion)
Neutral words/interstyle vocabulary (do not have color)
2⃣ Educational and scientific scientist➡️student
GOAL: to teach
GENRES: textbook, newspapers, lecture, essay, report.
LINGUISTIC FEATURES terms, examples, illustrations, examples,
Level of extraneous material: from simple to complex
Neutral vocabulary, lots of examples
3⃣ Popular science / I will start as a journalistic scientist➡️wide audience
GOAL: simple, accessible, clear, entertaining.
GENRES: articles, TV report/radio report, speech.
LINGUISTIC FEATURES: a mixture of scientific and journalistic. Fine and expressive features.
4⃣ Reference and information
GOAL: to orient a person in the flow of information, to provide orientation.
5⃣ Scientific and technical
GENRE: technical,
OFFICIAL BUSINESS STYLE
1⃣ Stationery (all documents)
2⃣ Diplomatic (language of diplomats)
3⃣ Legal (jurisprudence)
PUBLICIST (mass media)
Features of the language: vocabulary is varied.
Used: metaphors, phraseological units, language games (deliberate incorrectness)
ART
COLLOQUIAL
Language is thin. Literatures
Characteristic: incomplete phrases, colloquial words, emotional vocabulary.
Dialogue, jargon, vernacular.
16. Unjustified use of words with different stylistic connotations. Mixing styles.
A stylistic assessment of the use of words with different stylistic connotations in speech can only be given by keeping in mind a specific text, a certain functional style, since words necessary in one speech situation may be inappropriate in another.
A serious stylistic flaw in speech can be the introduction of journalistic vocabulary into non-journalistic texts.
The cause of stylistic errors in book styles can be the inappropriate use of colloquial and colloquial words. Their use is unacceptable in an official business style.
In the scientific style, errors arise due to the author’s inability to use terms professionally and competently. In scientific works, it is inappropriate to replace terms with words of similar meaning.
The inclusion of terminological vocabulary in texts that are not related to scientific style requires the author to have a deep knowledge of the subject. An amateurish attitude towards special vocabulary is unacceptable, leading not only to stylistic, but also to semantic errors.
The use of terms becomes a stylistic flaw in the presentation if they are not clear to the reader for whom the text is intended. In this case, terminological vocabulary not only does not perform an informative function, but also interferes with the perception of the text.
The pseudoscientific style of presentation often becomes the cause of inappropriate comical speech, so you should not complicate the text where you can express the idea simply.
They were replaced by others, but continue to be used as stylistically marked ones, for example, in poetic speech to create a high style. It should be distinguished from historicisms - words that have completely fallen out of use.
In highly stratified developed languages, such as English or Portuguese, archaisms can serve as professional jargon, which is especially true for jurisprudence and religion.
Archaism is a lexical unit that has fallen out of use, although the corresponding object (phenomenon) remains in real life and receives other names (outdated words, supplanted or replaced by modern synonyms). The reason for the appearance of archaisms is in the development of the language, in the updating of its vocabulary: one words are replaced by others.
Words that are forced out of use do not disappear without a trace: they are preserved in the literature of the past and as part of some established expressions used in a certain context; they are necessary in historical novels and essays - to recreate the life and linguistic flavor of the era. In modern language, derivatives of words that have fallen out of active use (for example, “ this hour" and " this day" from the archaic "this" and "this").
Examples of archaisms in Russian
Archaisms in Russian have a generally Slavic root, and sometimes correspond to existing usages in both South Slavic and West Slavic languages:
Az - I (“you’re lying, dog, I am king!”, “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay”; Bulgarian az sam, maked. jas sum) know - know (derivatives: not Vedas not Vedas washed, Vedas Um. Belor. I guess) velmi - very, very (Belarus. velmi) vechor - last night (“evening, do you remember the blizzard was angry...”) neck - neck (“Before the proud satrap Israel did not bow your neck”) voice - voice (“the voice of one crying in the wilderness” , “the voice of the people is the voice of God”; derived words: with voice yeah, co voice ny, full voice Yep, one voice ny, transportation glash transport/carriage voice it, glash atay; identical to modern Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian meanings) just now - recently right hand - right hand (“punishing right hand”; Bulgarian dyasno - right) dlan - palm (Bulgarian dlan, mak. blade) daughter - daughter (“you are my unlucky daughter” - humorous; Bulgarian daughter) if - if (“if you are polite”) belly - in the meaning of “life” (“not sparing your belly”, “not on the stomach, but on death"; Bulgarian/Mak./Serb. stomach) zelo - very gold - gold (“There King Kashchei languishes over gold”; identical to modern Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian meanings) izhe - which, which (for example, “like them”; Serb. iste) lanita - cheeks lepota - beauty, splendor (Bulgarian) blunder, Serbian babble) to say a word - to speak (“they didn’t order to execute, they ordered to say a word”); derivatives: by word of mouth it happens, according to word of mouth ka night - night (for example, in the expression “day and night”, that is, “both day and night”; identical to modern Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian meanings) óko, oči - eye, eyes (“in the blink of an eye”, “black eyes ", "days and nights at the open-hearth furnaces our Motherland did not close its eyes", "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", "the eye of Sauron"; derivative words: very good obvious, very good eyewitness, in very good Iu, very good ny/for very good ny, very good ki; identical to the modern Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian meanings) oné - they (about female persons) ósem (Gen. Pad. “ocs”) - eight (derived word: axis inog); Bulgarian axes, poppy osum, Serbian osam. eighteen - eighteen; Bulgarian osemnadetset, poppy he'll get mad, Serbian will eat ass. finger - finger (“pointing finger”; derivatives: finger hey, on finger ok, twelve finger nay gut, on finger Yankee (digitalis), lane chats; Bulgarian prst, poppy and Serbian prst) therefore - therefore, because - because, since, because; Serb. utoliko this, this, this - this, this, this (“this very second!”, “this moment!”, “what does this mean?”) adversary - villain, scoundrel - form 3 liters. pl. part of the verb “to be” only - only to hope - to hope (“I trust in the mercy of God”) mouth - lips, mouth (“a smile frozen on the lips”; derivatives: mouth ny, mouth ye; identical to modern Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian meanings) red - red, scarlet (Bulg. cherven, Mac./Serb. Crven, Ukrainian red gold, Polish czerwony, Czech /Slovak červená, Belor. chyrvony) forehead - forehead (“to hit with the forehead”, that is, to express reverence, respect; derivative word: brow bit; identical to modern Bulgarian, Serbian and Macedonian meanings) shelom - helmet (“drink the Don with shelom”; derived words: o with a helmet it, oh sheloml yonny) shuytsa - left hand like or aki - as if, exactly (to add a comparative phrase - “wise, like a serpent”, “And still you are at work, great sovereign, like a bee”) Polish. jak, Czech jako, Slovak ako., Belarusian yak.
see also
- Neologism - on the contrary (on the contrary), a newly introduced word; New word .
Write a review about the article "Archaism"
Literature
- R. P. Rogozhnikova, T. S. Karskaya. School dictionary of obsolete words of the Russian language: Based on the works of Russian writers of the 18th-20th centuries. - M., 1997, 2005. - ISBN 5710795305.
- V. P. Somov. Dictionary of rare and forgotten words. - M.: Vlados, Astrel, AST, 1996, 2009. - ISBN 5-17-004597-2, ISBN 5-271-01320-0.
- O. P. Ermakova. The life of a Russian city in the vocabulary of the 30s - 40s of the twentieth century: A brief dictionary of bygone and passing words and expressions. - Kaluga, Moscow: Eidos, Flinta, Science, 2008, 2011. - ISBN 978-5-9765-0967-2, ISBN 978-5-02-037282-5.
Notes
Links
- // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
Passage characterizing Archaism
"Love? What is love? - he thought. – Love interferes with death. Love is life. Everything, everything that I understand, I understand only because I love. Everything is, everything exists only because I love. Everything is connected by one thing. Love is God, and to die means for me, a particle of love, to return to the common and eternal source.” These thoughts seemed comforting to him. But these were just thoughts. Something was missing in them, something was one-sided, personal, mental - it was not obvious. And there was the same anxiety and uncertainty. He fell asleep.He saw in a dream that he was lying in the same room in which he was actually lying, but that he was not wounded, but healthy. Many different faces, insignificant, indifferent, appear before Prince Andrei. He talks to them, argues about something unnecessary. They are getting ready to go somewhere. Prince Andrey vaguely remembers that all this is insignificant and that he has other, more important concerns, but continues to speak, surprising them, some empty, witty words. Little by little, imperceptibly, all these faces begin to disappear, and everything is replaced by one question about the closed door. He gets up and goes to the door to slide the bolt and lock it. Everything depends on whether he has time or not time to lock her. He walks, he hurries, his legs don’t move, and he knows that he won’t have time to lock the door, but still he painfully strains all his strength. And a painful fear seizes him. And this fear is the fear of death: it stands behind the door. But at the same time, as he powerlessly and awkwardly crawls towards the door, something terrible, on the other hand, is already, pressing, breaking into it. Something inhuman - death - is breaking at the door, and we must hold it back. He grabs the door, strains his last efforts - it is no longer possible to lock it - at least to hold it; but his strength is weak, clumsy, and, pressed by the terrible, the door opens and closes again.
Once again it pressed from there. The last, supernatural efforts were in vain, and both halves opened silently. It has entered, and it is death. And Prince Andrei died.
But at the same moment as he died, Prince Andrei remembered that he was sleeping, and at the same moment as he died, he, making an effort on himself, woke up.
“Yes, it was death. I died - I woke up. Yes, death is awakening! - his soul suddenly brightened, and the veil that had hitherto hidden the unknown was lifted before his spiritual gaze. He felt a kind of liberation of the strength previously bound in him and that strange lightness that has not left him since then.
When he woke up in a cold sweat and stirred on the sofa, Natasha came up to him and asked what was wrong with him. He did not answer her and, not understanding her, looked at her with a strange look.
This was what happened to him two days before the arrival of Princess Marya. From that very day, as the doctor said, the debilitating fever took on a bad character, but Natasha was not interested in what the doctor said: she saw these terrible, more undoubted moral signs for her.
From this day on, for Prince Andrei, along with awakening from sleep, awakening from life began. And in relation to the duration of life, it did not seem to him slower than awakening from sleep in relation to the duration of the dream.
There was nothing scary or abrupt in this relatively slow awakening.
His last days and hours passed as usual and simply. And Princess Marya and Natasha, who did not leave his side, felt it. They did not cry, did not shudder, and lately, feeling this themselves, they no longer walked after him (he was no longer there, he left them), but after the closest memory of him - his body. The feelings of both were so strong that the external, terrible side of death did not affect them, and they did not find it necessary to indulge their grief. They did not cry either in front of him or without him, but they never talked about him among themselves. They felt that they could not put into words what they understood.
They both saw him sink deeper and deeper, slowly and calmly, away from them somewhere, and they both knew that this was how it should be and that it was good.
He was confessed and given communion; everyone came to say goodbye to him. When their son was brought to him, he put his lips to him and turned away, not because he felt hard or sorry (Princess Marya and Natasha understood this), but only because he believed that this was all that was required of him; but when they told him to bless him, he did what was required and looked around, as if asking if anything else needed to be done.
When the last convulsions of the body, abandoned by the spirit, took place, Princess Marya and Natasha were here.
– Is it over?! - said Princess Marya, after his body had been lying motionless and cold in front of them for several minutes. Natasha came up, looked into the dead eyes and hurried to close them. She closed them and did not kiss them, but kissed what was her closest memory of him.
“Where did he go? Where is he now?..”
When the dressed, washed body lay in a coffin on the table, everyone came up to him to say goodbye, and everyone cried.
Nikolushka cried from the painful bewilderment that tore his heart. The Countess and Sonya cried out of pity for Natasha and the fact that he was no more. The old count cried that soon, he felt, he would have to take the same terrible step.
Natasha and Princess Marya were also crying now, but they were not crying from their personal grief; they wept from the reverent emotion that gripped their souls before the consciousness of the simple and solemn mystery of death that had taken place before them.
The totality of causes of phenomena is inaccessible to the human mind. But the need to find reasons is embedded in the human soul. And the human mind, without delving into the innumerability and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, each of which separately can be represented as a cause, grabs the first, most understandable convergence and says: this is the cause. In historical events (where the object of observation is the actions of people), the most primitive convergence seems to be the will of the gods, then the will of those people who stand in the most prominent historical place - historical heroes. But one has only to delve into the essence of each historical event, that is, into the activities of the entire mass of people who participated in the event, to be convinced that the will of the historical hero not only does not guide the actions of the masses, but is itself constantly guided. It would seem that it is all the same to understand the significance of the historical event one way or another. But between the man who says that the peoples of the West went to the East because Napoleon wanted it, and the man who says that it happened because it had to happen, there is the same difference that existed between the people who argued that the earth stands firmly and the planets move around it, and those who said that they do not know what the earth rests on, but they know that there are laws governing the movement of it and other planets. There are no and cannot be reasons for a historical event, except for the only cause of all reasons. But there are laws that govern events, partly unknown, partly groped by us. The discovery of these laws is possible only when we completely renounce the search for causes in the will of one person, just as the discovery of the laws of planetary motion became possible only when people renounced the idea of \u200b\u200bthe affirmation of the earth.
Language never stands still. He, like a living organism, obeys the laws of tireless development. Some layers of it are significantly modified, some are replaced by new ones. Of course, this process is influenced by the development of society (changes in the social system, hierarchy), and progress in science and technology.
It is no coincidence that in connection with the development of the Internet and computerization, a huge number of new words have been entering the language - neologisms, sometimes barbarisms (that is, lexemes that have not yet been fully mastered, often differing in foreign language spelling). While outdated words and concepts are becoming a thing of the past. But they don't disappear completely because the process is slow. And as long as people live who know what, say, the word “Komsomol” or “rabfak” means, or works of art that use outdated words (often requiring explanation for the modern reader in the form of comments, footnotes, additions), they will not die at all . Lexemes that go into the past are usually divided into archaisms and historicisms. The latter are words denoting outdated phenomena and concepts, things.
For example, “armyak”, “caftan”, “tarantas”, “clerk” - today there is no such type of clothing, vehicle, position. There are no serfs or boyars. Therefore, these are historicisms. But what then is archaism? This is an obsolete word that denotes an existing phenomenon, concept, object. “Lanites” are the same as cheeks, “fingers” are fingers, “neck” is the neck. But we don't say that. To better understand what its role is in language and literature, let’s analyze what its types are.
For a number of words, neither the meaning nor the spelling has changed, but they are pronounced differently in modern speech. For example, “music”, “symbol”. Indeed, in the 19th century the emphasis was not placed where it is now: they said “music”, “symbol”. outdated words. What is semantic archaism? This is a word for which one or more meanings have become obsolete. For example, “not sparing your belly.” We are not talking about a specific part of the body. This word once meant “life.”
Or “scoundrel” - once upon a time this word was not a curse, a curse, but indicated a person unfit for military service. That is, the word remains, but it is now used in a completely different context, with a different meaning.
What is lexical or lexical-word-formative archaism? For example, who is “thief” in the phraseological unit “like a thief in the night”? Once upon a time this word meant “thief”, but now it is used only as part of this idiom, and then extremely rarely. Thieves exist, but the lexeme is obsolete. But, for example, “friendship” instead of “friendship”, “fisherman” instead of “fisherman” are quite understandable to us, since only the suffixes have changed. These are Russian lexical and word-forming archaisms. We understand that “dol” is “valley”, “questioning” is “asking”, but words such as “yastvo” (dishes, food) or “the day before” (the day before) already require comments. Nevertheless, archaisms and outdated words (including historicisms) help the writer recreate the flavor of the era. Thus, they play a stylistic role, especially if used in the speech or works of contemporaries. Often, names help to understand what archaism is (for example, the “Namedni” program or the word “estate”, which has recently been often used in names), and phraseological units that contain outdated elements - from “span” - a measure of length). To understand the meaning of such a name or idiom, we need to consult a special dictionary (for example, obsolete words and expressions).