Etymological dictionary m fasmer online. M

Nikitin O.V.

By birth, by culture acquired in childhood, by education, he was a Russian man, a scientist who remained faithful to the Russian theme until the end of his life. He was a philologist of the Russian school.

O. N. Trubachev

The name of Maxim Romanovich Vasmer (1886-1962) has long been firmly established in the textbook cohort of the largest Slavic scholars of the 20th century. And first of all - because of his fundamental work “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language” (1st ed. - Heidelberg, 1953-1958), which is now preparing for release in its fourth edition. And indeed, this thesaurus became a kind of linguistic hymn to the Russian language, showing how great its significance and influence, along with other Slavic languages, on the development of the family tree of glottogenesis. This was essentially the first strictly scientific work in the history of linguistics, based on modern principles and rules for the study of etymology no longer as an “applied” discipline, but as an independent and perhaps the most important branch of linguistics, designed to reveal the “hidden strings” of centuries-old layers and interweavings in the fabric of languages, indicate their obvious and possible connections with other languages and dialects, and ultimately build a strict consistent system of etymological analysis. The life of one of the most talented and extraordinary scientists of the last century was dedicated to this scientific passion (that’s right: after all, etymology literally captured the very young Vasmer).

But if almost every student now knows first-hand about his brainchild, and for scientists his “Dictionary” is still one of the main (and at the same time most popular) manuals, now almost no one will remember the stages of his scientific research. biographies about those truly major discoveries that the young M.R. Vasmer made at the dawn of the “linguistic age.” It is in them that lies the potential of his powerful talent and remarkable courage to seek, find, discover and prove what his senior colleagues seemed to take for granted, not worth attention, and premature. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to talk in more detail about the pre-revolutionary life of the scientist associated with the Russian school, with Russia. And this circumstance is also important for us because it shows how truly great the Russian tradition of research in the field of linguistics was (and remains to this day) and what heights it reached through the efforts of its best representatives, who, by the will of fate and the terrible vicissitudes of the 20th century, later found themselves outside their native land. countries.

M.R. Vasmer belonged to one of the “branches” of the linguistic tree of Russia - the St. Petersburg school. He studied at the capital's university at a time when the greatest scientists taught there - I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and A. A. Shakhmatov, who became a model for him in scientific activity. It is not surprising, therefore, that M. R. Vasmer’s first scientific work appeared during his student years and clearly showed where his research interests were directed - “Slavic correspondences to Indo-European formations” (1906).

Departing for a short time from the purely scientific activity of M.R. Vasmer, a noteworthy fact here is, as it seems to us, reflecting the core that he held within himself in the era of revolutionary upheavals, when the wind of freedom often captured young people and carried them into the sky. And there are many examples of this. By the way, some of M.R. Vasmer’s fellow students and his comrades later became revolutionary figures, such as N.V. Krylenko. They saved us a relief detail for the biography of the young M.R. Vasmer. Once, at a friendly party, D. Manuilsky, who was “in the revolution from the gymnasium bench,” “artistically imitated both the mellifluous father-theologian, and the burry leader of academicians Engelhardt, and fellow student, philologist Max Vasmer, who persuaded “not to make your Russian revolution so loudly, you’re interfering with preparations for the session”[i]. Like this!

So, from the beginning of his research activity, M.R. Vasmer’s attention was focused on the study of the genealogy of words and the ways of their penetration into Russian and other Indo-European languages. Late 1900s - 1910s There is a whole series of publications on this issue. Thus, in the article “Finnish borrowings in the Russian language,” he has already presented, like another prominent scientist, Solmsen, his program for further work in the field of etymology: “To study the influence of any neighboring language on Russian, the following is required: 1) A good acquaintance with historical grammar both languages and serious reading in both, then, if possible, familiarity with some other languages that have influenced the Russian language. 2) It is necessary to become familiar with Russian (and sometimes generally Slavic and Ario-European) antiquities, then with the natural sciences, since it concerns the geographical distribution of animals and plants, and finally with ethnography, since one has to deal with the names of clothes, rituals, etc. 3) In case of etymological doubts, it is necessary not only to take into account phonetics, but also semasiology. 4) Careful use of all etymological works previously devoted to this issue is necessary.” In his words we find a lot of useful information for the modern study of the origin of words. But what is striking here is the breadth and depth of the approach of a very young twenty-two-year-old, but mature beyond his years, scientist.

His views were honed, his horizons of linguistic palette expanded on business trips to Greece and the Slavic states, where he went shortly after graduating from university. At the same time, his work “On the Question of the Language of the Ancient Macedonians” was published, where M. R. Vasmer explores a very difficult problem. Moreover, the author showed himself to be an expert on the history of the issue, analyzed existing points of view and in the end carefully put forward his own, as if implementing in parts the plan he had outlined. “The question of the position of the Macedonian language,” he says, “among other languages of the Ario-European group has so far been resolved in two ways: some scientists are in favor of the Greek origin of the Macedonian language<…>, other<…>They consider this language to be a special Ario-European language, most closely related to the subsequently extinct languages of the northern part of the Balkan Peninsula - Thracian and Illyrian, and a descendant of the latter - the Albanian language." M. Vasmer comes to the following conclusion: “My remarks lead me to a conclusion, which, for the sake of caution, I formulate as follows: the little that has survived from the language of the Macedonians does not yet allow us to more accurately determine the relationship of this language to other languages of the ancient Balkan Peninsula time: in any case, at present we have more data in favor of the hypothesis about the relationship of the Macedonian language with the Thracian-Phrygian languages (author's italics - O.N.). True, a final solution to this issue will be possible only when other Balkan languages, and especially the Modern Greek dialects of Macedonia, are studied more thoroughly.”

M. Vasmer will return to this problem more than once[v] and always - which is significant - follows purely scientific principles. Compare, for example, in the article “Notes on the Origin of the Hellenistic Language” he writes “The above facts are enough to make it clear that the formation of the Hellenistic language did not occur due to some arbitrariness, but due to a strict pattern, like everything in the history of language "

Finally, another work of this period, which we consider it appropriate to dwell on, is also very interesting, and its modern sound is so impulsively felt that one thinks: it was not written at the dawn of the 20th century, but in the 21st century. “Mixing of languages and borrowing in language,” is what the author called it. M.R. Vasmer defines the essence of the approach to solving this problem as follows: “When the kinship of those languages that we now call Indo-European was discovered, and when it was proven that they all go back to one common ancestor - the proto-language, then after that researchers with They began to engage in the comparative study of these languages with enthusiasm in order to achieve the restoration of their parent language in this way. Thus, the main attention was paid to the distant past and distracted from the modern state of the language. Only gradually did a change occur in the attitude towards the proto-language, and at the same time in the attitude towards the modern state of the language.” M.R. Vasmer gives interesting examples of mixing languages and their mutual influence. Thus, according to his data, a case of indirect influence occurred in the English language of the Indians of Canada. “They mixed,” writes the scientist, “two English words two “two” and too “too” and therefore, to enhance the meaning of “too” they use the word three. For example, “it is three hot in this room.” And then he gives an example from his own observations in support: “Thus, there is very favorable soil for so-called “monotonies” (Verallgemeinerung; German “generalizations” - ed.) in mixed languages. On this issue, one more side of “indirect” borrowing can be noted: for one reason or another, most often under the influence of humor, it may happen that, by analogy with an entire category of foreign words, a new one is formed. So, I had to hear how a German, who did not speak Russian, greeted Russians with the words: Russian! trampled! This, of course, is a non-existent word, but it was formed under the influence of the Russian past tense. Consequently, this is also an indirect borrowing” (ibid.).

The largest scientific work of M. R. Vasmer of this period was his “Greco-Slavic Etudes”, published with a short break in 3 parts from 1906 to 1909. Part III comprised his master's thesis. And the published work, the last part, due to its significant scientific value, was nominated for the full M. I. Michelson Prize. In a review of M. R. Vasmer’s work, Academician F. E. Korsh wrote: “The author’s merit is great and will, without a doubt, be appreciated by all Slavists, as well as historians of Russian culture.”

The result, so to speak, of his scientific activity in Russia was the defense of his doctoral dissertation “Research in the Field of Ancient Greek Phonetics” and the publication of its text, undertaken by Petrograd University. This major work illuminated many important problems in the field of formation of individual ancient Greek dialects based on data from literary and epigraphic monuments. And although in the Preface M.R. Vasmer wrote that “my research does not pretend to be an original method,” at the same time he noted: “it claims to be consistent”[x]. And indeed it is. To trace the changes in ζ at different stages of the development of the Greek language, to note (by island!) the features of its changes in the Achaean and Doric dialects and much more - only a scientist who has chosen Science as his vocation is capable of doing so.

This edition of M. Vasmer’s “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language” is the first experience in translating such books into Russian. Compared to the usual translation of scientific books, this translation poses some specific difficulties. The “Dictionary” was compiled in difficult wartime conditions, which the author himself says in his preface and which also cannot be ignored. Taking into account all these circumstances, the editors, when preparing M. Vasmer’s “Dictionary” for the Russian edition, considered it necessary to carry out the following work.

The author published his dictionary over a relatively long period of time in separate editions. Almost each of them evoked numerous responses and reviews, which pointed out noted inaccuracies or controversial interpretations, provided additions, and sometimes new etymologies. Everything that the author considered necessary to take into account from these comments, he collected in an extensive addition placed at the end of the dictionary. During translation, all the author's additions, clarifications and corrections are included directly in the text of the Dictionary, and inclusions of this nature are not noted or highlighted in any way. The translator also provided the Dictionary with some additions, drawn from publications that appeared after the publication of M. Vasmer’s work, and partly from rare (mainly Russian) publications that were inaccessible to the author for technical reasons. In addition, N. Trubachev included a number of additions to the dictionary that are in the nature of scientific comments and new etymologies. All translator's additions are enclosed in square brackets and marked with the letter T. Editorial comments are also enclosed in square brackets. They are given with the mark “Ed.” Without any markings, only editorial clarifications related to geographical names are given in square brackets, for example: “in the [former] Smolensk province.”

When working on M. Vasmer’s “Dictionary,” translations of not all etymologized words were given. Naturally, for Russian It makes no sense for the reader to determine the meanings of all Russian words, as the author did when compiling his dictionary for the German reader. Therefore, in this translation, definitions of the meanings of words in the common Russian language are omitted, but Vasmer’s interpretations of rarer, outdated and regional words are preserved. This last one, as well as determining the meanings of the parallels from other languages cited in the articles, required a lot of additional work from the editors. M. Vasmer, for obvious reasons, widely attracted Russian studies containing not only Russian, but also Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Baltic and other materials. At the same time, he translated the meanings of words given in the sources into German. With the usual polysemy of words, reverse translation of meanings (in particular, those contained in Dahl and in regional dictionaries) from German into Russian or interpretation of meanings, for example, Turkic words, through a third (German) language could lead to a direct distortion of the semasiological component in establishing the etymology of the studied words To avoid this error, the editors subjected the definitions of the meanings of Russian and Turkic examples to a complete comparison, reducing them to those given in the sources. As for language examples from all other languages, their meaning was determined in most cases using the corresponding dictionaries. At the same time, the spelling of non-Russian examples was checked (or their compliance with modern writing standards), as well as the correctness of the references. The need for this work is evidenced by the following examples: by the way careless M. Vasmer, referring to Gordlevsky (OLYA, 6, 326), cites: “and Turk. alyp äri". In fact, Gordlevsky: “Turk. alp är". In the dictionary entry for the word buzluk, M. Vasmer cites Turkm with reference to Radlov. boz meaning "ice". In fact, according to Radlov, boz means “gray” (buz “ice”), which also corresponds to modern Turkmen usage. In the dictionary entry for the word ashug there is a reference to Radlov: Radlov 1, 595. The link is incorrect, it should be: Radlov 1, 592. The correction of all such inaccuracies in the text of the “Dictionary” is not marked with any marks.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the editors, keeping in mind a fairly wide contingent of readers, considered it necessary to remove several dictionary entries that could be the subject of consideration only in narrow scientific circles.

Reconciliation with Russian sources was carried out by L. A. Gindin and M. A. Oborina, and with Turkic sources - JI. G. Ofrosimova-Serova.

Preface

The long and fruitful scientific activity of M. Vasmer was strictly consistent in its focus. Most of his research was devoted to lexicology in its various branches: the study of borrowings in the Russian language from the Greek language, the study of Iranian-Slavic lexical connections, the analysis of toponymy of Eastern Europe of Baltic and then Finnish origin, Greek elements in the Turkish dictionary, etc.

The consistent completion of these private studies was the “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language”.

If the vocabulary (registry of words) of the etymological dictionary is not limited to arbitrary selection and widely covers the vocabulary of the language, then it reflects the multifaceted culture of the people - the creator of the language, its centuries-old history and its wide connections (between tribes in ancient times and international ones in modern times). In order to correctly understand the extremely complex vocabulary of a language like Russian in composition and origin, knowledge of many languages is not enough; broad awareness of its history and dialectology, and, in addition, the history of the people and their ethnography is necessary; You also need direct acquaintance with ancient monuments - the linguistic sources of not only the Russian language, but also its neighbors. Finally, it is necessary to master the vast scientific literature on Slavic lexicology.

It is beyond the power of one person to go through and master this entire circle. It is now clear to everyone that, at a high scientific level, the task of a modern etymological dictionary can only be accomplished by a team of linguists, which includes specialists in all related philologies for each language. But M. Vasmer, like many other etymologists of the past and our century, undertook to solve this problem single-handedly. A daring plan is characteristic of this outstanding scientist.

At the beginning of our century, a rather successful attempt to single-handedly prepare an etymological dictionary of the Russian language was made by the Russian scientist A. Preobrazhensky. Having collected and summarized the scattered studies on the etymology of Russian words in his still very useful etymological dictionary, he only added his own materials and careful critical remarks here and there.

M. Vasmer included in his dictionary not only the etymological hypotheses of his predecessors, but also the results of his own research, which occupied a very prominent place there. The author's extensive experience and erudition have provided, in many cases, a convincing, acceptable solution to controversies within the areas of interaction between Russian and neighboring languages that he has well studied. However, sometimes inaccuracies, errors and even unjustified comparisons appear in M. Vasmer's dictionary. This is most often observed in Vasmer’s interpretation of the dictionary reflections of Russian-Turkic and Russian-Finno-Ugric connections. The first was noted by E. V. Sevortyan in his review of M. Vasmer’s dictionary. In the same way, B. A. Serebrennikov also pointed out the mistakes of Vasmer in etymologies based on the material of the East Finnic languages. There are also mistakes in the use of Baltic material. I will limit myself to one example. About a hundred years ago, Bezzenberger, in the marginal gloss of the Lithuanian translation of the Bible by Bretkun, incorrectly interpreted the word darbas as Laubwerk ‘braid of leaves’, which served as the basis for the erroneous comparison of this word by I. Zubaty with the Belarusian dorob'basket'. M. Vasmer, without checking in authoritative dictionaries, repeated this untenable etymology (see E. Frenkel’s explanation in the second edition of his “Etymological Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language,” p. 82). The word darbas never had such a meaning either in old monuments, or in modern literary language, or in Lithuanian dialects, but meant ‘labor, work; work, product.

Some of the reviewers (for example, O. N. Trubachev) give great credit to M. Vasmer for the inclusion of dialect vocabulary and onomastics. But in this direction M. Vasmer took only the first step: from the enormous dialectal stock of “extraliterary words” available even in published works and the no less immense stock of local names and personal names, he included only some part. In addition, as the reviews that appeared and the reconciliation undertaken by the editors show, it was in dialect and toponymic etymologies that he made the most inaccuracies.

As for the creation of an etymological dictionary of all Russian (and especially East Slavic) toponymy and hydronymy, it is not yet possible to solve this problem. This will require long decades of preparatory work by an entire team, the creation of complete sets of critically selected material of personal names and local names, which we do not yet have. Therefore, the composition of the onomastic part of M. Vasmer’s dictionary naturally gives rise to some critical comments. Fairness requires that it be noted that the author has given a number of successful articles, such as, for example, the articles Don, Danube, Moscow, Siberia. However, the current state of the study of these problems has led to the fact that in M. Vasmer’s dictionary there are also random and less successful entries in terms of selection and scientific interpretation, such as, for example, Baykanavofield and etc.

The weakest side of M. Vasmer's dictionary is its semantic definitions and comparisons. He himself admitted this indirectly in the afterword to the third volume of the dictionary. Here is one example:

I. 137: " Bakhmur‘nausea, dizziness’, Nizhegorod-Makaryevsk. (Dahl). I understand how to compound with gloomy‘cloud, darkness’. The first part is probably an interjection bah!, therefore, originally: “what darkness!” Wed. similarly Ka-luga, Kaluga from puddle["what a puddle!"].

The last thing that needs to be warned about to everyone who will use the dictionary is M. Vasmer’s exaggeration of the German influence on the vocabulary of the Russian language, especially German mediation when borrowing European cultural terms, often coming directly from Dutch, French, Italian or Latin. Compare, for example, the articles: admiral, adju, actuary, altar, pineapple, anise, questionnaire, argument, barge, barricade, bason, basta and many others. It is characteristic that the dictionary contains almost no articles about ancient Slavic personal proper names, such as Kupava, Oslyabya, Ratmir, Militsa, Miroslava and others, while M. Vasmer found it necessary to give the etymology of personal names of Germanic origin, such as Sveneld, Rogvolod and under.

In the process of editing the dictionary, the editors discovered and eliminated a large number of oversights by M. Vasmer in references to sources, incorrect spellings and interpretations of words from little-known languages. Inaccuracies in quotations, incorrect emphasis of some dialect words, etc. have been corrected.

The publication of the Russian edition of M. Vasmer’s dictionary will be of great importance not only because it contains a summary of etymological studies of Russian vocabulary over the last half century (including little-known foreign works), but also because the very fact of publishing the “Etymological Dictionary” M. Vasmera will apparently revive domestic etymological research, refresh general interest in the history of the native language, and help revise many traditional techniques and methods of etymological reconstruction. Much has already been said about the practical value of this book as a useful reference book; it is beyond any doubt.

Prof. V. A. Larin

Preface by the author

I dreamed of compiling an “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language” as the main goal of my scientific activity even during my first studies on the influence of the Greek language on the Slavic languages (1906–1909). The shortcomings of my early works prompted me to further intensively study Slavic antiquities, as well as most of the languages of the peoples neighboring the Slavs. At the same time, the works of F. Kluge drew my attention to the need to first research Russian professional languages, which gave me a reason already in 1910 to do a lot of work on collecting materials about the language of Russian Ofeni. I hoped that during this time the publication of the excellent “Slavic Etymological Dictionary” by E. Bernecker and “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language” by A. Preobrazhensky would also be completed, which would facilitate my further experiments in this direction. It was only in 1938, while in New York, that I began to work systematically on the Russian etymological dictionary, after decades during which I had made only occasional extracts intended for this purpose. When a significant part of the dictionary had already been prepared, a bomb hit (January 1944) deprived me of not only this and other manuscripts, but also my entire library. It soon became clear to me that after the war I would have to concentrate all my efforts on the dictionary if I was to continue my work as planned at all. The card index was destroyed, but I could count on the rich collection of books of the Berlin Slavic Institute.

But, unfortunately, after 1945 I have no opportunity to use this library. At the moment I do not have a good university library at my disposal. Under these conditions, the work could not turn out the way I imagined it in my youth. It is based on extracts that I collected during the famine years of 1945–1947. in the deserted libraries of Berlin and later, during my two years of study in the libraries of Stockholm (1947–1949). I cannot now fill in many of the gaps that are obvious to me. I decided, yielding to the persuasion of my students, to prepare the dictionary for publication, as far as this is feasible under modern conditions. The decisive role in this was played by the conviction that in the near future, given the current state of Slavic libraries, it is unlikely that anyone in Germany will be able to offer more comprehensive material.

Lack of space, unfortunately, does not allow me to give here a long list of people who tried to help me out with books. My colleagues gave me especially great help: O. Brock, D. Chizhevsky, R. Ekblom, J. Endzelin, J. Kalima, L. Kettunen, V. Kiparsky, K. Knutsson, V. Mahek, A. Mazon, G. Mladenov , D. Moravcsik, H. Pedersen, F. Ramovs, J. Stanislav, D. A. Seip, Chr. Stang and B. Unbegaun. Of my students, I am especially grateful to E. Dickenman, W. Fayer, R. Olesch, H. Schröder and M. Woltner for the books they gave me.

Those who know the USSR will be surprised by the presence in my book of such old names as, for example, Nizhny Novgorod (now Gorky), Tver (instead of Kalinin), etc. Since the linguistic material I used was drawn mainly from old publications, the basis which established the administrative division of Tsarist Russia, changing the names threatened to cause inaccuracy in determining the geography of words, and references like “Gorky” would have entailed confusing the city of Gorky with the writer Gorky. Thus, the old names are used here only to avoid misunderstandings.

I am especially grateful to my colleague G. Krahe for his kind interest in my dictionary during the process of its publication. My student G. Breuer helped me with the difficult reading of proofs, for which I also express my heartfelt gratitude to him.

M. Vasmer

Author's afterword

I was completely absorbed in compiling this dictionary from the beginning of September 1945. At the same time, I was more interested in sources than in linguistic theories. Therefore I cannot understand how one of my reviewers could claim that I “could not draw my material directly from the sources” (“Lingua Posnaniensis”, V, p. 187). I can only ask the reader to check for himself, when reading my dictionary, how true this statement is, and at the same time also pay attention to my list of abbreviations.

Until June 1949, I was only engaged in collecting material. I then began processing the manuscript, which continued until the end of 1956. The literature on etymology published after 1949 was so extensive that, unfortunately, I was not able to make full use of it. A complete processing of the latest literature would delay the completion of the work and, given my age, could even cast doubt on its successful completion.

I am aware of the shortcomings of my presentation. Your knowledge of the Russian dictionary of the 16th and 17th centuries is especially unsatisfactory. But at the same time, I ask you to keep in mind that even such a work as F. Kluge’s “Etymological Dictionary of the German Language,” which has served as an example for me for half a century, deepened the history of the word in the proper sense only gradually, from edition to edition. I marked the first appearance of the word with the instructions “for the first time at...” or “(starting) with...” If I have written horn (Gogol), Burmite(eg, Krylov), etc., then such references do not mean that I consider these particular cases to be the oldest, as some of my reviewers decided.

My original intention was to also include important personal and local names. When I saw that the material was growing to alarming proportions, I began to restrict and decided to process personal names separately. Many of them have been studied so little that a meager interpretation of them would hardly be convincing. The need to limit the volume of the dictionary also did not give me the opportunity to trace in all details the spread of Russian borrowings in neighboring languages, because then I would have to take into account Russian borrowings not only in the Baltic and Polish languages, but also in the Finno-Ugric languages. Nevertheless, I have presented the most important of them for the history of language.

From modern vocabulary, I tried to reflect words found in the best writers of the 19th century, which, unfortunately, are far from being fully represented even in large dictionaries. Dialect words were included in quite a large number because they reflect regional differences and often, as relic words from the language of a displaced population, can shed light on the ethnic relationships of prehistoric and early historical eras. Various references to correlative words are more easily visible in a printed dictionary than in a manuscript, especially if the latter is large in volume, as in this case. If I were to prepare a new edition, the number of references to different articles in it would increase, and references to the first appearance of a word would appear much more often. Words from the Old Russian language that are of linguistic, cultural and historical interest are included.

In the “Additions” I corrected the most important typos noted so far and expressed my attitude to some of the comments of my reviewers. An exhaustive analysis of the other points of view that emerged during this time would require too much space.

My student and friend G. Breuer gave me great help in the difficult work of proofreading. I am grateful to Mrs. R. Greve-Zigman for constant assistance in technical preparation, and to her and R. Richardt for compiling the word index.

Many of the wishes expressed in reviews of my dictionary will undoubtedly be useful for the subsequent Russian etymological dictionary, in which special attention should be paid to the numerous words named here as unclear. If I had to start the work again, I would pay more attention to the tracings and the semasiological side.

The word index has become so large that it was necessary to abandon the inclusion of compared words of Slavic languages and Western European words that underlie later cultural borrowings.

M. Vasmer

Berlin-Nikolaev, April 1957

Brother of the orientalist-Arabist, numismatist Richard Vasmer (Russified form Roman Romanovich Vasmer, according to other sources, Richard Richardovich or even Georgy Richardovich.).

The main works are devoted to the study of Slavic languages (linguistic contacts of the Slavs with other peoples: Greeks, Iranians, Turks, Finno-Ugrians, etc.); the history of the settlement of Slavic, Baltic, Iranian, Finno-Ugric peoples in Eastern Europe, the study of Eastern European anthroponymy and toponymy, the influence of Slavic languages on Albanian, etc.
The result of his many years of research was the etymological dictionary of the Russian language (vol. 1-3, 1950-1958) - the largest in terms of material coverage and linguistically reliable work on the etymology of the Russian language.

He supervised the publication of one of the first reverse dictionaries of the Russian language, and edited the “Dictionary of Russian Water Names,” a collection of all known Russian geographical names. He published a series of monographs on the philology and culture of Slavic peoples (vol. 1-10, 1925-1933).

Biography

Russian period

Max Vasmer was born into a merchant family of Russian Germans in St. Petersburg.

1903 - graduated from the famous Karl May classical gymnasium.
1903-1907 - studied at St. Petersburg University, studied comparative linguistics and Slavic studies. Among his teachers were philologists I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and A. A. Shakhmatov.
1907-1908 - trip to Greece (Athens, Thessaloniki), where he studied dialects of the Greek language, as well as the Albanian language. In his own words, he already intended to create a Russian etymological dictionary and considered this the main goal of his scientific activity.
1906-1909 - published his first known lexicographic work - “Greco-Slavic Studies”, which explored the influence of the Greek language on the Slavic ones.
1908-1910 - studied at the universities of Krakow, Vienna and Graz.
1910 - he defended the third part of “Etudes” as a master’s thesis, for which he received the M. I. Michelson Prize from the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Passed the exams for the right to give lectures and received the position of private assistant professor at St. Petersburg University.
1912 - as a professor of Slavic philology, Indo-European and comparative linguistics, he taught at the Higher Women's Bestuzhev Courses.
1914 - “Research in the Field of Ancient Greek Phonetics” was published in Moscow.
1915 - “Research…” defended as a dissertation and awarded the degree of Doctor of Philology.
1917-1918 - Professor of Indo-Germanic linguistics and Slavic philology at the Philological Faculty of Saratov University.

Vasmer in Yuryev

After the October Revolution, Vasmer, while in Finland, decided not to return to Saratov and moved to Yuryev (now Tartu), Estonia.

1918-1921 - taught at the University of Tartu as an ordinary professor. He participated in the return (on the basis of the peace treaty between Estonia and the RSFSR of February 2, 1920) to Tartu from Voronezh of the university library, where it was evacuated during the First World War. At the same time, he transported his personal library from Russia, which he subsequently provided for the use of German Slavists and used in his works.

Vasmer in Leipzig

In 1921, Vasmer received an invitation from Leipzig.

1921-1925 - holds the position of ordinary professor of the historical and philological department of the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Leipzig, works at the department of Slavic philology
Since 1921 - co-director of the Indo-German Institute, the Institute of South-Eastern Europe and Islam and the State Research Institute of Indo-German Studies
Since 1923 - ordinary member of the philological and historical class of the Saxon Academy of Sciences
In 1924, he founded the journal “Zeitschrift f?r slavische Philologie” (“Journal of Slavic Philology”), which soon became one of the leading foreign Slavic publications and is still published today. The magazine published articles by Vasmer himself on Russian etymology

Berlin period

In 1925 Vasmer moved to Berlin.

1925-1945 - full professor at the Slavic Institute at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Berlin
1925-1933 - publishes 12 volumes of “Essays on Slavic philology and cultural history” (Grundrisse der slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte, Berlin, Leipzig, 1925-1933). A total of 90 volumes were supposed to be released.
1932-1936 - published in four volumes “Essays on the Historical Ethnology of Eastern Europe” (Beitr?ge zur historischen Volkerkunde Osteuropas, Berlin, 1932-36), which, in particular, talked about the settlement of Finnish tribes in the Russian central zone
In 1926 - participated in a scientific conference in Minsk
January 14, 1928 - elected foreign corresponding member in the category of linguistics (Slavic philology) of the Department of Humanities of the USSR Academy of Sciences
1930-1931 - gave lectures in Lund, Uppsala, Stockholm
1938-1939 - lectured as a visiting professor at Columbia University in New York, where he began systematically working on compiling dictionary entries for the etymological dictionary of the Russian language
1937-1941 - gave lectures in Sofia, Budapest, Bucharest and Helsinki

Vasmer did not interrupt his activities during the Second World War, despite numerous difficulties. In addition to preparing dictionary entries, Vasmer at this time continued to write works on Slavic studies and teach at the department (classes were conducted until February 1945). His works of this time include “The Slavs in Greece” (Die Slaven in Griechenland, 1941), “The Old Relations of the Population of Russia” (Die alten Bev?lkerungsverh?ltnisse Russlands, 1941), “Greek Loanwords in the Serbo-Croatian Language” (Griechische Lehnw ?rter im Serbokroatischen, 1944) and others.

In January 1944, Vasmer's house was hit by a high-explosive bomb. The scientist himself was in a bomb shelter at that time, but his library and manuscripts, including a card file for an etymological dictionary, were destroyed. Vasmer began compiling the card index again, using the library of the Slavic Institute.
Since 1945 this library became inaccessible to him; Vasmer continued to work in other Berlin libraries
In 1945-1946 - did not publish a single article, focusing on restoring the vocabulary card index

In 1946, the Slavic Institute, which found itself in East Berlin, resumed its activities. Vasmer lectured there in the winter semester of 1946-1947.

Stockholm

Due to the growing political conflict, and also for the purpose of treating an eye disease, Vasmer accepted an invitation from Stockholm.

1947-1949 - Professor at Stockholm University

West Berlin period. Publication of an etymological dictionary

1949-1956 - full professor, head of the department of Slavic studies at the Free University in West Berlin.

Until June 1949, Vasmer was collecting material for the dictionary and restoring lost data from memory, and in 1949 he began processing the manuscript of the dictionary.
The dictionary was published by the Heidelberg University Press Carl Winter. The first edition of the dictionary was published in 1950. The publication continued until 1958 in separate issues, which amounted to three volumes.

1956 - visited Moscow, participating in the work of the International Committee of Slavists. Retirement.
1958 - comes to Moscow again as a participant in the IV Congress of Slavists. At this congress, his etymological dictionary was also discussed.
1961 - awarded the title of honorary doctor (Latin: Doctor honoris causa) from the Faculty of Philosophy in Bonn.

Death

On November 30, 1962, Max Vasmer died. He was buried in West Berlin, in the cemetery of the Evangelical parish of Nicholassee. In 1987, by decision of the Senate, his burial received the status of an honorary grave (German: Ehrengrab).

Russian translation of the etymological dictionary

Vasmer's etymological dictionary was published in German by the Karl Winter publishing house. Work on translating the dictionary into Russian began in 1959. The translation was published in 1964-1973 in Moscow by Slavic philologist O. N. Trubachev (1930-2002) in a circulation of 10,000 copies. The dictionary was published with corrections and additions, as a result of which it grew by more than one third and already comprised four volumes. After that it was reprinted several times.

In 2004, the IDDK company published a version of the dictionary on CD-ROM.

Essays

Greco-Slavic sketches.
- I. News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Imp. Academy of Sciences. 1906. XI. 2;
- II. Greek borrowings in the Old Church Slavonic language // News of the Department of Russian Language and Literature. 1907.XII;
- III. Greek borrowings in the Russian language // Collection of the Department of Russian Language and Literature. 1909. T. 86.
Kritisches und Antikritisches zur neueren slavischen Etymologic.
- I, II. Rocznik Slawistyczny (RS). 3. 1910;
- III. R.S. 4. 1911;
- IV. R.S. 5. 1912,
- V RS. 6. 1913.
Research in the field of ancient Greek phonetics. Pg., 1914.
Ein russisch-byzantinisches Gespr?chbuch. Leipzig, 1922. Untersuchungen uber die ?ltesten Wohnsitze der Slaven. Teil I: Die Iranier, in Sudrussland. Leipzig, 1923.
Beitr?ge zur historischen V?lkerkunde Osteuropas.
- I. Die Ostgrenze der baltischen St?mme. Berlin, 1932;
- II. Die ehemalige Ausbreitung der Westfinnen in den slavischen L?ndern. V., 1934;
- III. Merja und Tscheremissen. Berlin, 1935; IV. Die ehemalige Ausbreitung der Lappen und Permier in Nordrussland. V., 1936.
Bausteine zur Geschichte der deutsch-slavischen geistigen Beziehungen. Berlin, 1938.
Die Slaven in Griechenland. V., 1941. Reprint: Leipzig, 1970. Die griechischen Lehnw?rter im Serbokroatischen. V., 1944. Russisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Heidelberg, 1950-1958; (Russian translation) Vasmer Max. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. T. 1-4. M., 1964-1973 (first edition).
Grundriss der slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte. Herausgeber zusammen mit R. Trautmann. Berlin; Leipzig, 1925-1933. Bd. 1-12.
Complete list of M. Vasmer's works: Festschrift fur Max Vasmer zum 70. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1956. Berlin, 1956; Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie. Heidelberg, 1963. Bd. XXXI. H.1.

Nikitin O.V.

O. N. Trubachev

Finally, another work of this period, which we consider it appropriate to dwell on, is also very interesting, and its modern sound is so impulsively felt that one thinks: it was not written at the dawn of the 20th century, but in the 21st century. “Mixing of languages and borrowing in language,” is what the author called it. M.R. Vasmer defines the essence of the approach to solving this problem as follows: “When the kinship of those languages that we now call Indo-European was discovered, and when it was proven that they all go back to one common ancestor - the proto-language, then after that researchers with They began to engage in the comparative study of these languages with enthusiasm in order to achieve the restoration of their parent language in this way. Thus, the main attention was paid to the distant past and distracted from the modern state of the language. Only gradually did a change occur in the attitude towards the proto-language, and at the same time in the attitude towards the modern state of the language.” M.R. Vasmer gives interesting examples of mixing languages and their mutual influence. Thus, according to his data, a case of indirect influence occurred in the English language of the Indians of Canada. “They mixed,” writes the scientist, “two English words two “two” and too “too” and therefore, to enhance the meaning of “too” they use the word three. For example, “it is three hot in this room.” And then he gives an example from his own observations in support: “Thus, there is very favorable soil for the so-called “monotonies” (Verallgemeinerung; German “generalizations” - ed.) in mixed languages. On this issue, one more side of “indirect” borrowing can be noted: for one reason or another, most often under the influence of humor, it may happen that, by analogy with an entire category of foreign words, a new one is formed. So, I had to hear how a German, who did not speak Russian, greeted Russians with the words: Russian! trampled! This, of course, is a non-existent word, but it was formed under the influence of the Russian past tense. Consequently, this is also an indirect borrowing” (ibid.).

Without dwelling in detail on the provisions of the dissertation (this is the subject of attention of specialists), we would like to note that it, along with his other works, not least played a role in the election of M. R. Vasmer in 1928 as a foreign corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Department of Humanities. In the “Note on the Scientific Works of Prof. M.R. Vasmer”, academicians E.F. Karsky and B.M. Lyapunov wrote that “Maxim Romanovich Vasmer is currently one of the outstanding linguists of Slavic studies in Western Europe.<…>His conclusions on various issues are based on the rich material he collected in Russian and Western European science.”

We will not specifically touch upon the analysis of the works of M. R. Vasmer of the post-revolutionary period, we will only say that the world-famous journal Zeitschriftfürslavische Philologie, founded by him, is still the most authoritative publication on Slavic-Russian philology and continues the best traditions of M. R. Vasmer.

To conclude our brief essay, we will cite another rather interesting, as it seems to us, episode from the “Russian” biography of the scientist, when he, already a master of Slavic philology, again crossed the threshold of his native land.

A particularly significant social event for the development of science was the IV International Congress of Slavists, held in Moscow in the fall of 1958. It brought together the leading philologists from many countries of the world, as well as those who, after almost forty years, found themselves back in their own country. Among them was M.R. Vasmer (who, together with other foreign guests, had already come to Moscow in 1956 for a meeting on preparations for the upcoming forum), who then, as noted in the materials of the congress, represented Germany. By the way, he was not the main speaker, as if remaining in the shadow of his colleagues, but more than once made correct remarks and comments when discussing scientific problems. Let us present the few facts that were recorded in the materials of the discussion of the IV Congress. Thus, at a meeting on September 3, 1958, he, in particular, stated, not unreasonably, the following: “The study of Baltic local names on Russian soil and Baltic borrowings in the Finnish languages (partly included in the Mordovian language) suggests a fairly significant spread of the Baltic tribes, to Kaluga, Smolensk and western parts of the Moscow region." In order to show how representative that congress was and how much attention was paid to issues in the field of etymology, we note, for example, that at the meeting of the Linguistic Section on September 5, the reports of V. Mahek (Czechoslovakia) “Principles of constructing etymological dictionaries of Slavic languages”, F. Slavsky (Poland) “Notes on the etymological studies of Slavic vocabulary”, A. Vaian (France) “Etymological problems”, G. Mihaile (Romania) “On the issue of compiling an etymological dictionary of Slavic borrowings in the Romanian language.” M. Vasmer, O. N. Trubachev, V. Kiparsky, V. Doroshevsky, N. M. Shansky, J. Ostrembsky and others took part in the discussion of their reports. What a constellation of names! And what continuity of generations!

Let us present one more fragment from the discussion that unfolded after F. Slavsky’s report. M.R. Vasmer, as always, very delicately and at the same time convincingly said: “F. Slavsky expressed the opinion that in my Russian etymological dictionary Russian texts of the 16th century are used too little. I ask you to look, if not in the dictionary, then at least in the list of texts I used (Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, vol. I, pp. XI-XLIII) to decide how justified this reproach is. For my part,” he continues, “I find that henceforth etymological dictionaries should pay more attention to the vocabulary of dialects. In the Russian language, it would be important to use materials from dialects with a double o; in Polish, more attention should have long been paid to the lengths of vowel sounds found in many dialects and in a large number of published texts.” F. Slavsky, in turn, noted: “I highly appreciate the work that M. Vasmer put into documenting texts of the 16th-17th centuries. In my report, I noted only what M. Vasmer himself wrote about in the afterword to Volume III of his dictionary, emphasizing how insufficient our knowledge of Russian vocabulary of the 16th-17th centuries is. and how much more needs to be done here.”

In 1953, as we have already mentioned, the first volume of M. Vasmer’s “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language” was published in German in Heldelberg. Its publication lasted for six years, and by 1958 it was completed (vols. 1-3). Our reader is more familiar with the Russian version of the book translated and with additions by O. N. Trubachev, first published in 1964-1973. (vols. 1-4; see also 2nd ed. - 1986-1987). In the “Preface” to it, Prof. B. A. Larin, paying tribute to the feat of M. Vasmer and speaking about his “brave plan”, at the same time names obvious inaccuracies and weaknesses, among which, in his opinion, “semantic definitions and comparisons”, as well as “ M. Vasmer’s exaggeration of German influence on the vocabulary of the Russian language.” In addition, it should be added that M. Vasmer gives a lot of reference words and characteristics like “from French.” Moreover, the great advantage of his book (and this was noted by many reviewers) was his close attention to onomastics and dialect vocabulary. These areas, as a rule, are ignored by etymologists. For M. Vasmer, such a “turn” is also the result of his own research priorities. And it is very valuable.

But the main thing is that M. Vasmer’s dictionary “will revive domestic etymological research, refresh general interest in the history of the native language, and help revise many traditional techniques and methods of etymological reconstruction.” In this B.A. Larin was certainly right.

Here is a fragment of a dictionary entry.

Avsen m. 1. “first day of spring” (March 1), for example, in Melnikov; 2. “a comic song that is sung in the village on Christmas Eve under the windows of unloved people.” || It is hardly possible, together with Potebnya (in Lyapunov, Zhst., 1892, I, 148), to explain from Usen (XVII century), which he considers related to lit. Aušrà, lat. aurora. This is phonetically impossible. More likely from *autumn: spring. The variant tausen appeared, apparently, as a rhyming formation to the named word. Wed. dial spring “time, close to spring” (Dal). The convergence with oats (Schneeweiss, ZfPH 5, 1951, 369) can hardly be proven.

O. N. Trubachev later spoke in detail about some of the features of the publication of the “Etymological Dictionary” and about the work on the “Russian Fasmer”, as if summing up many years of reflection on a given topic.

In the 1950s, both before and after the publication of the “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language” by M. Vasmer, discussions on general problems of etymology took place in the domestic scientific press, where such problems as the compilation of an etymological dictionary of the Russian language were discussed , its principles, comparative characteristics of Russian dictionaries of this type with Romance and Germanic ones, the specifics of Slavic etymology and much more. The most prominent Russian and European scientists took part in the round tables, and the journal “Issues of Linguistics” became the main publication for the discussion. It was on its pages and in the central scientific press that those years that the works of R. A. Acharyan, V. I. Abaev, M. N. Peterson, O. N. Trubachev, E. V. Sevortyan, B. A. Serebrennikov, N M. Shansky and other developers of this problem, which, we note, began to be actively implemented after the IV Moscow Congress of Slavists (1958). The German edition of “Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch” (hereinafter in the text: ES) by M. Vasmer, released just at this time, the first major scientific lexicon since the time of A.G. Preobrazhensky, naturally aroused general interest. Its discussion and, in general, etymological problems have become firmly established in the toolkit of science. Let us take a closer look at some of the most important works and theses of those years.

O. N. Trubachev, in the article “Principles of constructing etymological dictionaries of Slavic languages,” dwelling in detail on the history of the issue, the advantages and disadvantages of individual publications, identifies M. Vasmer’s ES according to a number of indicators. The scientist says, in particular, that “M. Vasmer unusually expanded his vocabulary, including due to a large number of borrowed place names.” Further, O. N. Trubachev, analyzing various points of view, is inclined towards the “compromise” nature of this type of publication: “Those who make maximum demands on the etymological dictionary are right, he writes, because if this or that rare, uncommon word will not be reflected in such a dictionary, where is its true place? There is no doubt, however, that this point of view needs clarification. The compiler of an etymological dictionary must, apparently, choose a compromise option in a certain sense (our italics - O.N.), based, on the one hand, on the broadest representation of all forms in circulation in the language and in need of an etymological explanation, on the other hand the other - and above all - on taking into account the facts of genetic kinship, since ultimately the etymological dictionary is based precisely on the reflection of this kinship. The combination of both of these principles is capable of reflecting with a sufficient degree of objectivity the etymology of a given language in the fullest meaning of the word.” It is no coincidence that we cited this extensive quotation, showing the complexity and ambiguity of this problem. According to O. N. Trubachev, M. Vasmer’s “Russian Etymological Dictionary” basically meets the described maximum requirements…” and at the same time is very original as an author’s work, revealing the range of interests of the etymologist himself: topo- and ethnonymy, onomastics. Despite individual omissions, which are hardly possible to avoid (and it is worth taking into account that M. Vasmer alone compiled this monumental dictionary, that his many-year-old card file was lost, and he was forced to restore it), “M. Vasmer’s dictionary is distinguished by ... exhaustiveness completeness." It included (only in the German edition, excluded in the Russian translation) obscene words, the study of which, however, as a linguistic phenomenon is not denied by O. N. Trubachev: “... there is no practical question about the odiousness of these words; in Russian etymological literature we have not come across any references to the corresponding words.”

In the mentioned article of the then young, but scientifically daring and educated scientist, it is interesting to compare O. N. Trubachev’s etymological dictionaries of Brückner, Slavsky, Golub-Kopechny and Vasmer. According to his statistics, it is clear, for example, that the latter has a significantly increased corpus of common Slavic words and early borrowings (there are 3191 of them), Brückner - 2217, Slavsky - 669, Golub-Kopechny - 2026, and later borrowings (there are 6304), as well as expressive, onomatopoeic and obscure words (1119), and proper names and ethnonyms (818), which are almost absent in other dictionaries. From this it follows how integral and comprehensive the task M. Vasmer set for himself, and what he gave preference to. In this interesting article there are other interesting observations on individual words, which generally confirm the correctness of the method chosen by M. Vasmer, the thoroughness, even scrupulousness of his genealogical developments.

A little later, in the same place, in “Questions of Linguistics” (No. 5, 1959), a detailed article by N. M. Shansky “Principles for the construction of a Russian etymological dictionary of a word-formation-historical nature” was published, where the issue of creating a new dictionary was also discussed. At the same time, the author largely relies on the ideas of M. Vasmer, subjecting his brainchild to analysis in a number of positions, and polemicizes with his critics. “Some linguists,” writes N. M. Shansky, “consider it inappropriate to include in the etymological dictionary words that are calques and structurally derivative borrowings, citing the fact that our knowledge of such words is random and is one of the rare finds. It seems that M. Vasmer was absolutely right to ignore this “argument,” explaining - albeit inconsistently - both individual tracing papers and some derivative foreign words.” From the critical comments indicated by N. M. Shansky, there is the following: “It is absolutely clear that in this (new - O. N.) dictionary, the headwords will not be those found in both A. Preobrazhensky and M . Vasmera non-prefixed “roots” of the type -arc-, -kuk-, skrep-, -kres- (nut), -chez- (nut), -lyb- (it), etc.; Only the real word will be explained.”

The author of this article puts forward a different methodology for selecting words, compared to M. Vasmer, abandoning his “maximalist” position and considering it unnecessary to include facts from different eras and systems in the etymological dictionary of the modern Russian literary language.

This detailed and richly illustrated article contains other valuable thoughts on the general nature of etymological research. And each time its author, as it were, tries on M. Vasmer’s “etymological coat” to new conditions, striving not only to follow him, but, as it were, revives his ideas, making them more systematic in relation to the development of science of those years.

These and other discussion articles reflect, to one degree or another, the tangible influence of M. Vasmer’s ES on the development of Russian linguistic thought. The impetus he made through titanic efforts and resulting in a fundamental work caused the emergence of etymological dictionaries in Europe and Russia, in our country this is primarily the “Historical and Etymological Dictionary of the Ossetian Language” by V. I. Abaev (vol. 1, 1958), “Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages”, ed. O. N. Trubachev (prospectus, trial articles, 1963, publication continues), “Historical and Etymological Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language” by P. Ya. Chernykh (vols. 1-2, 1993 - published after the death of the scientist) and “Etymological Dictionary of Russian language" ed. N. M. Shansky (vol. 1, issue 1, 1963, publication continues). Let us note, by the way, that M. Vasmer’s last work was a review of the Russian etymological dictionary.

Probably, from the standpoint of modern knowledge, the linguistic “strategy of the moment” and the already existing extensive materials and research on etymology, one can find many errors in M. Vasmer’s ES. But one thing is certain: he was one of the first, if not the main “driver” of the idea, who drew the attention of the scientific community to this side of the genesis of the language and, note, the Russian language.

And now, 50 years after the publication of the first volume of M. Vasmer’s ES, he is still considered one of the most authoritative sources, including in the compilation of new dictionaries. Here is one example. The recently published “Etymological Dictionary of Russian Dialects of Siberia” by A. E. Anikin, which includes borrowings from the Ural, Altai and Paleo-Asian languages, in the very first lines of the “Introduction” names M. Vasmer’s ES and its Russian edition translated by O. N. Trubachev “ the most complete, qualified and... complete etymological study of Russian vocabulary." “It can be argued,” further notes A.E. Anikin, “albeit with reservations, that at the current stage of development of Russian etymology, Vasmer’s dictionary offers a high-quality development of Indo-European (in the broadest sense...) connections of Russian vocabulary and at the same time provides a satisfactory description of the included it includes Turkisms, Mongolisms and “Finno-Ugricisms”. There were probably natural explanations for this: work in desolate Berlin libraries of the post-war period, lack of necessary literature, etc. But the main thing here is something else: M. Vasmer’s ES is in active use in modern science, and its shortcomings and “miscalculations” are moving other researchers to fill the etymological lagoons. This, probably, is the true life of the dictionary and the talent of its creator.

Maxim Romanovich Vasmer was not only a man of high moral qualities and great courage in science and life. He personified an entire era in Slavic studies. The scientific world still lives by its traditions, constantly turning to the experience and knowledge of the bygone generation of legendary Slavic enlighteners of the 20th century.

Bibliography

[i] Quoted. according to the editor: Simonov E. D. Youth N. V. Krylenko // Prometheus: History-biography. almanac ser. "The lives of wonderful people." T. 13 / Comp. V. I. Kalugin. - M., 1983. P. 17.

Vasmer M. Finnish borrowings in Russian. Regarding the article by Prof. A. L. Pogodina. Dept. Ott. B. m. and g. S. 1 (Living Antiquity. T. XVI. Book 2).

Vasmer M. On the question of the language of the ancient Macedonians // Dep. from the publication: Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1908. January. P. 22.

Right there. P. 35.

[v] See, for example: Vasmer M.R. Linguistic notes on Slavic languages // Living antiquity. Book 66. Year XVII. Vol. II. 1908. pp. 141-149, etc.

Vasmer M. Notes on the origin of the Hellenistic language // Dep. Ott. from the publication: Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1909. August. P. 342.

Vasmer M.R. Mixing languages and borrowing in language. Dept. Ott. St. Petersburg, 1910. P. 3 (from the “Report of the St. Petersburg Gymnasium and the Real School of K. May 1909-1910”).

Right there. P. 18.

Korsh F. E. Review of the essay by M. R. Vasmer “Greco-Slavic sketches. III. Greek borrowings in Russian. St. Petersburg, 1909. Dept. Ott. from the publication: Collection of reports on prizes and awards for 1909 (M. I. Michelson Prize). St. Petersburg, 1912. P. 623.

[x] Vasmer M.R. Research in the field of ancient Greek phonetics // Notes of the Imperial Petrograd University. Part 121. - M., 1914. P. VII.

Karsky E. F., Lyapunov B. M. Note on the scientific works of prof. M. R. Vasmera. Dept. Ott. (TsSB RSL). B. m. and g. S. 475.

See in more detail, for example: Chernysheva M. I. Max Vasmer (1886-1962) // Domestic lexicographers. XVIII-XX centuries / Ed. Bogatova G. A. - M., 2000. P. 235-250. The article also lists the most important literature about him.

IV International Congress of Slavists. Discussion materials. T. 2. Problems of Slavic linguistics. - M., 1962. P. 437.

Right there. pp. 96-97.

Right there. P. 108.

Quote according to the editor: Vasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes. T. 1. M. 1986. P. 7.

Right there. P. 10.

Right there. P. 59.

See about this in more detail: Trubachev O. N. Afterword to the second edition of the “Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language” by M. Fasmer // Fasmer M. Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language: In 4 volumes. T. 1. M. 1986. P. 563- 573; It's him. From work on the Russian Fasmer. On issues of theory and practice of translation // Questions of linguistics, 1978. No. 6. P. 15-24.

Trubachev O. N. Principles of constructing etymological dictionaries of Slavic languages // Questions of linguistics. 1957. No. 5. P. 65.

Right there.

Right there. P. 66.

Right there. P. 67.

Quote according to the editor: Shansky N. M. Principles of constructing a Russian etymological dictionary of word-formation and historical nature // Shansky N. M. Russian linguistics and linguodidactics. - M., 1985. P. 56.

Right there. P. 57.

See for more details: Ibid., p. 58.

Vasmer M. (Rec.) Shansky N. M., Ivanov V. V., Shanskaya T. V. Brief etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1961 // Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie, 1962, Bd. 30, hf. 2, ss. 424-430.

Anikin A. E. Etymological dictionary of Russian dialects of Siberia: Borrowings from the Ural, Altai and Paleo-Asian languages. - M; Novosibirsk, 2000. P. 3.

Right there. P. 7.

To prepare this work, materials from the site were used

Tags: M. R. Vasmer and his “Russian Etymological Dictionary” Article Russian language, speech culture

FASMER, MAX(Vasmer, Max) (1886–1962), Russian and German linguist. Born into a merchant family in St. Petersburg on February 28, 1886. After graduating from high school in 1903, he studied comparative linguistics and Slavic philology at St. Petersburg University. Vasmer's teachers were I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, A.A. Shakhmatov, G.A. Ilyinsky (1876–1938). His research was published from 1907 to 1909 Greco-Slavic studies, which brought Vasmer the title of candidate of Slavic philology and master's degree in Indo-European linguistics. From 1907 to 1909 he worked as a gymnasium teacher in St. Petersburg, and in 1908–1910 he continued his studies at the universities of Krakow, Vienna, Graz and Athens.

In 1910, Vasmer received the position of private assistant professor at St. Petersburg University, and in 1912 - the position of professor of Slavic philology and Indo-European linguistics at the Bestuzhev courses. In 1914 he published a work Research in the field of ancient Greek phonetics, which he defended in 1915 as a dissertation. In 1915–1917 he held the position of professor of Indo-Germanic linguistics and Slavic philology in Saratov, from 1918 - in Tartu, from 1921 - in Leipzig, from 1925 - in Berlin. In 1930–1931 he lectured in Lund, Uppsala and Stockholm. In 1938-1939 - visiting professor at Columbia University in New York, in 1947-1948 - professor at Stockholm University. From 1937 to 1944, Vasmer gave lectures at the universities of Sofia, Budapest, Bucharest and Helsinki, and from 1949, until his retirement in 1956, he headed the department of Slavic studies at the newly formed Free University in West Berlin. During the Nazi dictatorship, Vasmer repeatedly spoke out in defense of scientists disliked by the regime. Vasmer died in West Berlin on November 30, 1962.

One of the main topics of Vasmer’s publications is the influence of Greek on Slavic languages, which he discussed in his monographs Slavs in Greece (Die Slaven in Griechenland, 1941) and Greek loanwords in Serbo-Croatian (Griechische Lehnwörter im Serbokroatischen, 1944, both books were published in Berlin). Other important topics are the relations of the Slavic peoples with their neighbors, traces of the Vikings in the territories inhabited by the Western Slavs and Russians, the ancestral home of the Slavs, the relationship between the Slavic and Germanic peoples. Some works are devoted to literary topics. Vasmer owns two fundamental works on the history of philology: Correspondence between B. Kopitar and Jacob Grimm(B.Kopitars Briefwechsel mit Jakob Grimm, Berlin, 1937) and On the history of German-Slavic spiritual relations (Bausteine zur Geschichte der deutsch-slawischen geistigen Beziehungen, Berlin, 1939). Vasmer is the founder of the most important organ of German Slavic studies - “Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie” (“Journal of Slavic Philology”).

Vasmer's main and most famous work is Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language in 3 volumes ( Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch– Heidelberg, 1943–1958); The Russian translation of the dictionary was published in 4 volumes in 1964–1973 and was subsequently republished).

Vasmer was a full member of the Saxon and Prussian academies, the academies of sciences in Stockholm and Copenhagen, the Academy of Sciences and Letters in Mainz, a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, as well as the academies of sciences in Budapest, Oslo, Vienna and Sofia.