Russian is one of the group of East Slavic languages, along with Ukrainian and Belarusian. It is the most widespread Slavic language and one of the most widespread languages in the world in terms of the number of people who speak it and consider it their mother tongue.
In turn, Slavic languages belong to the Balto-Slavic branch of the family of Indo-European languages. Thus, to answer the question: where did the Russian language come from, you need to take an excursion into ancient times.
Origin of Indo-European languages
About 6 thousand years ago there lived a people who are considered native speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. Where exactly he lived is today the subject of fierce debate among historians and linguists. The steppes of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, and the territory on the border between Europe and Asia, and the Armenian Highlands are called the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans. In the early 80s of the last century, linguists Gamkrelidze and Ivanov formulated the idea of two ancestral homelands: first there was the Armenian Highlands, and then the Indo-Europeans moved to the Black Sea steppes. Archaeologically, speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language are correlated with representatives of the “Yamnaya culture”, who lived in eastern Ukraine and the territory of modern Russia in the 3rd millennium BC.
Isolation of the Balto-Slavic branch
Subsequently, the Proto-Indo-Europeans settled throughout Asia and Europe, mixed with local peoples and gave them their own language. In Europe, languages of the Indo-European family are spoken by almost all peoples except the Basques; in Asia, various languages of this family are spoken in India and Iran. Tajikistan, Pamir, etc. About 2 thousand years ago, the Proto-Balto-Slavic language emerged from the common Proto-Indo-European language. The Pre-Balto-Slavs existed as a single people speaking the same language, according to a number of linguists (including Ler-Splavinsky) for approximately 500-600 years, and the archaeological culture of Corded Ware corresponds to this period in the history of our peoples. Then the linguistic branch divided again: into the Baltic group, which henceforth took on an independent life, and the Proto-Slavic group, which became the common root from which all modern Slavic languages originated.
Old Russian language
Pan-Slavic unity was maintained until the 6th-7th centuries AD. When speakers of East Slavic dialects emerged from the general Slavic massif, the Old Russian language began to form, which became the ancestor of the modern Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian languages. The Old Russian language is known to us thanks to numerous monuments written in Church Slavonic, which can be considered as a written, literary form of the Old Russian language. In addition, written monuments have also been preserved - birch bark letters, graffiti on the walls of churches - written in everyday, colloquial Old Russian.
Old Russian period
The Old Russian (or Great Russian) period covers the time from the 14th to the 17th centuries. At this time, the Russian language finally stands out from the group of East Slavic languages, phonetic and grammatical systems close to modern ones are formed in it, other changes occur, including the formation of dialects. The leading dialect among them is the “akaya” dialect of the upper and middle Oka, and, first of all, the Moscow dialect.
Modern Russian language
The Russian language we speak today began to take shape in the 17th century. It is based on the Moscow dialect. The literary works of Lomonosov, Trediakovsky, and Sumarokov played a decisive role in the formation of the modern Russian language. Lomonosov wrote the first grammar, establishing the norms of the literary Russian language. All the richness of the Russian language, formed from the synthesis of Russian colloquial, Church Slavonic elements, borrowings from other languages, is reflected in the works of Pushkin, who is considered the creator of the modern Russian literary language.
Borrowings from other languages
Over the centuries of its existence, the Russian language, like any other living and developing system, has been repeatedly enriched by borrowings from other languages. The earliest borrowings include “Balticisms” - borrowings from the Baltic languages. However, in this case, we are perhaps not talking about borrowings, but about vocabulary preserved from the time when the Slavic-Baltic community existed. “Balticisms” include words such as “ladle”, “tow”, “stack”, “amber”, “village”, etc. During the period of Christianization, “Grecisms” entered our language - “sugar”, “bench”. “lantern”, “notebook”, etc. Through contacts with European peoples, “Latinisms” - “doctor”, “medicine”, “rose” and “Arabisms” - “admiral”, “coffee”, “varnish”, “mattress”, etc. entered the Russian language . A large group of words entered our language from Turkic languages. These are words such as “hearth”, “tent”, “hero”, “cart”, etc. And finally, since the time of Peter I, the Russian language has absorbed words from European languages. Initially, this is a large layer of words from German, English and Dutch related to science, technology, maritime and military affairs: “ammunition”, “globe”, “assembly”, “optics”, “pilot”, “sailor”, “deserter” " Later, French, Italian and Spanish words related to household items and the field of art settled in the Russian language - “stained glass”, “veil”, “couch”, “boudoir”, “ballet”, “actor”, “poster”, “pasta” ", "serenade", etc. And finally, these days we are experiencing a new influx of borrowings, this time mainly from the English language.
The language problem has undergone the strongest mythologization in modern Ukraine. Capitalizing on the almost century-long distortion of our philological ideas, many of the modern activists of the “pro-Rukhov” and separatist-nomenklatura political spectrum of Southern Rus' are now spewing fiery philippics against one of the local literary forms of origin.
At the instigation of these forces, the snobbish majority of the former Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine recorded the 10th article of the Constitution of our state in a linguistically incorrect text form.
The global scientific philological community has developed fairly stable criteria for determining dialect varieties within one language, as well as purely interlingual differences. The first of these philological phenomena are considered to be those whose comparative linguistic “pedigree” is less than a thousand years old. That is, when the single base language (before its branching into dialects) of the dialects under study is no more than ten centuries old. If the beginning of such linguistic differentiation is from 1000 to 2000 years old, then much in the characteristics of this philological phenomenon depends on certain ethnological, state, and purely local linguistic traditions.
In the times of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Herodotus (mid-5th century BC), all ancient Greek dialects were called dialects 1. This concept then characterized different levels of relatedness of Hellenic dialects. For example, the closely related Ionian “Homeric”-Asia Minor and Attic dialects were called dialects. Modern linguists understand this! The linguistic commonality of the Ionian dialects among themselves is approximately a little older than the era of the Trojan War and falls somewhere in the middle. II millennium BC e. Thus, the affinity between the literary language forms of Herodotus (the “Homeric” branch) and Sophocles (the Attic) is less than 1000 years old. If, of course, we focus chronologically on the 5th century BC. e. The more distant linguistic proximity of the Ionian dialects in general (including both classical literary forms of this group - Attic and “Homeric”) with other Eastern Greek “bundles” of dialects: Aeolian and Achaean-Cypriot-Pamphylian - was also determined by the ancient Hellenic by the public as "dialectal".
The common proto-language of all these three linguistic branches (according to the “family tree” of philology) began to disintegrate somewhere in the beginning. 2nd millennium BC e. This most likely happened immediately after the appearance of the so-called. "eastern" Hellenes on the territory of present-day Greece. From the point of view of modern philological (and social) ideas, these are already (in most cases of the New Time) interlingual (for they date back 1500 years) differences. In addition, almost “two-thousand-year-old related” (to the Ionians, Aeolians and Achaeans) Dorian dialect was also called (in the “Periclean” era) a dialect. The simple Athenian peasant (like other Western Greek dialects) almost did not understand it. The “1.5-thousand-year-old related” Aeolian and Achaean “dialects” were also very difficult for the average resident of Attica (if he was not already a more or less regular regular at the capital’s Theater). Only other Ionian dialects close to the common Athenian (including their “Homeric-Herodotus” literary form) did not require an interpreter.
The kinship (according to the data of the same “family tree” of comparative linguistics) of modern groups of Belarusian, Ukrainian and Great Russian dialects, we note, is a little closer (about 600 - 800 years) to each other 2 than the “almost identical” (according to intellectuals, etc.) n. "classical era" of Hellas) Attic-"dramatic" and "literary-prosaic" Ionian dialects of the Greek language among themselves.
Part of the entire linguistic “mosaic” we previously examined in the south of the Balkan Peninsula (in the 5th century BC) also had normative literary forms. Among them is the above-mentioned Ionian-“Homeric-Herodotian”. In addition, another written Ionian norm, the Attic “Aeschylean-Aristophanic” dialect, also became widespread. Also popular were the Aeolian-lesbian (“sapphic”), Dorian-“laconic”, some. other documented varieties of Hellenic speech of that time.
Slightly different criteria in the so-called. Gallo-Roman philology 3. Norman, Parisian-Picardian, Burgundian and other northern French dialects (the branching of which is slightly more than 1000 years) are interpreted as dialects. The Provençal-Gascon dialects, which are more distant from the latter, are grouped by specialists into a separate language (“Languedoc”) 4. The distance (on the “family tree” of comparative linguistics) of the latter from Northern French 5 is about 15 centuries.
On the other hand, “dialects” of very ancient affinity that were previously familiar among philologists have been renamed languages by modern linguists. These, among others, are now called (albeit “unwritten”) a number of Kartvelian groups of dialects (Svan, Chan, Mingrelian and some East Georgian), the branching of which with the literary norm of Shota Rustaveli and Queen Tamara is somewhere in the range of 1.5 - 5 thousand years 6.
In Western Europe, there are no cases of the existence of official languages that would be close (on the linguistic-comparative “family tree”) to each other for less than 10 centuries. With the exception of one “collision” - the Flemish and Dutch dialects of the 7th western “wing” of the Central German group of dialects!
Due to various geopolitical and inter-confessional-religious ups and downs, the Dutch found themselves in different states - Holland and Belgium. For some time, the closely related West-Middle German literary forms of both countries were considered separate languages. They were called Dutch and Flemish, respectively. In modern times, common sense has taken over. The Dutch and Flemish forms of the single Dutch language are now officially recognized.
Characteristic in this regard is the interdialectal situation among our neighbors, the Poles. 8. Masurian dialects, for example, differ from Poznań, Seredzan, Śląski and others. etc. just like our Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian “languages” among themselves. In Poland, the main dialectal branching of its main ethnographic groups is similar in time to the differentiation period of the “Rusichs” - somewhere in the range of 600 - 800 years. The linguistic differences of the Pomeranian Kashubians from the entirety of other Lechitic dialects reach about 11 - 13 centuries. Exactly the same linguistic paradox is observed in our country 9. Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian literary and business forms, as well as their various dialects (and Koine!), according to comparative linguistics, are closer to each other than they are all together - to the autochthonous dialects of the “Rusnaks” "Transcarpathia.
If not a separate philological phenomenon, then maybe as a regional norm - a “Moscow” dialect foreign to Ukraine? Let's analyze this problem retrospectively.
The branching of the Old Russian language began at the end. XII century barely noticeable phonetic discrepancies 10. This circumstance was well demonstrated by Academician B. A. Rybakov in contrasting various parts of the “Kyiv Chronicle”, some of which were written in Belgorod-on-Irpen (modern Belgorodka) at the court of the Grand Duke-Co-ruler Rurik Rostislavich, others were in the capital itself, where another “duumvir” Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich “sat on the table.” The best pages of this chronicle came from the pen of the most likely author of another masterpiece ("Tales of Igor's Campaign") - boyar Pyotr Borislavich. The latter had (in both of his works) the features of the then Kyiv all-Russian “koine” (transitional between two or more linguistically close dialects of colloquial form). This “synthesized” adverb already acquired its historical significance. It became a fairly monolithic druzhina-princely administrative language norm 11. This linguistic form spread even before 1200 to all the then specific centers.
"Belgorodkovsky" pages of the "Kyiv Chronicle" con. XII century somewhat different. phonetic "Ukrainianisms", which reflects the peculiarities of the all-Russian language of the capital principality, as opposed to the dialect of the then East Slavic metropolis itself. The dialect of the latter in that era had already spread in Chernigov, and in Polotsk, and in Vladimir-on-Klyazma, and in Rostov the Great and other dynastic destinies of the Rurikovichs 12. The phonetic divergence of the Kiev and “Belgorodkovsky” “pronouncements” became later the “foundation” of the later main linguistic (according to the comparative linguistic “family tree”) branching of the Russians.
The further fate of the capital’s “koine” continued on the Suzdal 13, Novgorod, Smolensk, Kursk-Bryansk and Ryazan “grounds”. Formed during the 13th - 16th centuries. so-called "Kiev-Moscow business language" 14, which finally assimilates the remnants of the northern East Slavic (Vyatichi, Krivichi, Slovenian-Ilmen) dialects, gradually transforming them into their own dialects. Thus, the modern so-called. “Great Russian language” is a direct descendant of the Kyiv Old Russian dialect. The latter developed, ultimately, precisely from the Middle Dnieper, more ancient Polyano-Russian East Slavic “linguistic bundle”, and not from the colloquial speech of the Krivichi, Radimichi, Vyatichi and Novgorod Slovenians. As well as, indeed, in addition to the dialectal characteristics of the Dregovichi, Volynians, White Croats, Tivertsi, Ulichs and Severians.
The Tale of Igor's Campaign also testifies to this!
The fact that this masterpiece was written in Kyiv does not raise doubts among any serious specialist. Of all the modern East Slavic dialects, the so-called. “Russian language” is most similar to the word-forming manner of the author of “The Lay...” 15.
Today's clumsy attempts by some in Ukraine to “derive” modern Great Russian dialects from the Church Slavonic language are complete ignorance (or a gross hoax). The latter was back in the 19th century. according to grammatical characteristics, they were distributed into the South Slavic linguistic subgroup of the classics of German linguistics 16. Lexical Church Slavonic borrowings are found in approximately equal numbers in both Ukrainian and Russian dialects.
In Kyiv itself, in 1240, the functioning of the all-Russian “koine” ceased as a result of the almost complete extermination of the capital’s population by Batu. The newly settled inhabitants of the former East Slavic metropolis already spoke with “Belgorodka” peculiarities. Later (14th - 18th centuries) this dialect developed into a unique southern Russian language zone. One of the representatives of the latter was the Poltava dialect - on the foundation of which I. P. Kotlyarevsky built the modern literary Ukrainian form 17. After 4 decades, N. V. Gogol convincingly doubted 18 the advisability of such a creation (even on the basis of his native dialect) of a parallel linguistic Russian norm. This great Poltava resident brilliantly used the “Great Russian” literary dialect to process Ukrainian folklore and epic (“Evenings on a farm near Dikanka”, “Mirgorod”).
Is it throughout the entire territory of modern times? Powers of Ukraine are southern Russian dialects (in comparison with other East Slavic ones) autochthonous?
No! In Kyiv itself, the first decades (in the 12th - 13th centuries) of the “separate” existence of the Russian dialect passed. T.n. "Russification" of the Mother of Russian Cities in the 1860s - 90s. - testifies only to the return here of a descendant of the Kyiv dialect. In the Kharkov region, Lugansk region and northern Donetsk region, speakers of the Russian dialect appeared at the end of the 15th century, and speakers of the southern Russian dialect appeared later - in the 1630s - 1710s. It is here that the “Muscovites” are big natives. In addition, the colonization of the Taurian steppes by the Eastern Slavs (for these lands were related to the early stages of our common ethnogenesis) was carried out mainly by two ethnographic streams. Black Sea military-diplomatic “reconquista” A. V. Suvorov, P. A. Rumyantseva, Gr. A. Potemkin, Catherine II and A. A. Bezborodko led to mass rural (and urban) migration from Ukraine and Central Russia at the same time.
Some modern “would-be paleoethnologists from Rukh” are trying to prove some kind of Ukrainian-Crimean Tatar “idyll” in the then Northern steppes. Black Sea region. But this is speculation out of thin air! Pripontida was inhabited (with the exception of the territory of some Zaporizhian palankas and Donchak yurts) from the beginning. 17th century and up to last Thursday 18th - Nogais, relatively formally dependent on Bakhchisarai 20!
Thus, Russian “Rusichs” are greater autochthons (than Ukrainians) of Slobozhanshchina and northern. Donbass. The same degree of “indigeneity” is characteristic of both main East Slavic branches of relatively modern Odessa region, Kherson region, Crimean Autonomy, Nikolaev region, part of Donetsk and Zaporozhye regions. The same “dualism” of the heritage of Ukrainians and Russians is also characteristic of Kyiv. The modern capital of Ukraine is territorially much larger than the location of the ancient Mother of Russian Cities. Present-day Kyiv includes not only the “posad” of the metropolis of Yaroslav the Wise and Peter Borislavich, but also a number of “Belgorodkovo”-speaking suburbs of that era. And in general, our “East Slavic Rome” is the “parental home” of every variety of Russian speech, to any “Russian”.
On the other hand, the Ukrainian dialect is relatively more autochthonous for Kuban. Many areas of the east and south of present-day “Erethia” (like Tauris) are also “co-aboriginal” in terms of the ratio of speakers of the main Russian language branches. One of these Russian-Ukrainian “syntheses” (the land of the Sunzha Cossacks) has already ceased (we hope temporarily) to exist 21. During 1991 - 1994. (again in 1996 - 1997) destroyed the so-called. "Ichkerians".
From everything previously analyzed, the language policy of the modern Ministry of Education of Ukraine, which proclaimed the Kiev-Moscow literary form as “optional” foreign, seems criminal. The younger generations are being separated (in 90% of Kyiv schools the “Russian language” is not studied) from the “lion’s” share of national culture. Children are deprived of the opportunity to know one of our own literary forms and precisely the one that is one of the official ones in the UN. The works of (domestic) northern and eastern Russian writers and other cultural figures are not studied in schools. The “Russian-language” achievements of Ukrainian authors are being distorted (by awkward and tendentious translations “from one dialect to another”) - Gr. S. Skovoroda, N.V. Gogol (this great Poltava resident was generally against the “cultivation” of the literaryized form of dialect of his own area), V.G. Korolenko, the prose of T.G. Shevchenko, the works of many other southern Russian creators. The pro-Rukhov “Smerdyakovism” believes that with its short-sighted cultural and linguistic policy it is strengthening some local ethnographic positions. In fact, the “independents” are destroying them, clearing linguistic colonization space for foreign influences. First of all, English-speaking and cosmopolitanized. In the name of preserving self-identity, it is necessary, first of all, in secondary and higher schools to cultivate both of the most common literary forms of the native language in the land of Rus'-Ukraine. Both “Lomonosov-Karamzinovskaya” and “Kotlyarevskaya”.
A similar situation occurs in modern India 22. The Delhi late medieval dialect (“Khari Boli”) of the Western Hindustani group of dialects has two current literary forms: Urdu and Hindi. Both of them are official in the “Republic of Bharat” and “native” in the educational system of this state.
The “monolingualism” of the 2 most widespread modern Russian literary norms is indirectly recognized by the West. In 1992 in Kyiv, Kharkov, Lvov and our other big cities near some. Dozens of foreign students, “C” students in Russian studies, appeared at universities. They decided to study (and "pass") the Ukrainian literary form as a 2nd Slavic language (according to their study processes). However, all philological departments (where these would-be Slavists hoped to “shove off” their academic obligations) did not count this subject for them. This entire group of “C” students in Russian studies was forced to relearn (from Ukrainian) either Polish, or Bulgarian, or Czech (or some other Slavic) language. Since 1993, this “philological pilgrimage” to Ukraine has ceased. Western linguists do not recognize the Poltava literary norm as a separate (from Russian) Slavic language. The scientific integrity of the luminaries of Abendland philology is still higher than the current politicking.
Academy of Sciences of the Russian Empire in the beginning. XX century repeatedly discussed the problem of the relationship between Ukrainian and Russian literary forms. However, the very formulation of the linguistic issue under consideration at these meetings was made somewhat incorrectly - language or adverb!
At the everyday (and journalistic) level, certain things are acceptable. simplification. For an ordinary social propaganda “niche”, the formulation “language” regarding Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian literary East Slavic norms is acceptable. The text of the Constitution should be dominated (in an accessible form) by scientifically verified vocabulary. Article 10 of our Basic Law should be replaced. From the point of view of modern linguistics, it would sound better like this: “My power in Ukraine is Ruska mov (in its Ukrainian literary form) The power will ensure its overall development and functioning. liny development and evolution of the Russian literary form of the Russian language and national minorities Ukraine..." Further according to the text edited in 1996 by the Verkhovna Rada.
However, this formulation (as we see from all of the above) does not reflect today’s Ukrainian realities in this textually scientifically verified form. It is not justified historically. The Verkhovna Rada of the new convocation will have to adjust this (tenth) article among some points of our Constitution.
1. Radzig S.I. History of ancient Greek literature. - M., 1982, p. 18 -- 26, 74 -- 76, 160 -- 176, 201 -- 202, 242 -- 244, 271 -- 272, 305 -- 307 ; Shkurov V. A. History of the formation of the Hellenistic Koine // Movoznavstvo. -- K., 1996, N 1, p. 58 -- 63.
2. Zhovtobryukh M. A., Rusanivsky V. M., Sklyarenko V. G. History of Ukrainian language. Phonetics. - K., 1979, pp. 23, 40.
3. Gak V. G. French language // Great Soviet Encyclopedia (BSE). 3rd ed. T.28. - M., 1978, pp. 214 - 215; Sluka A.E. French // TSB. 3rd ed. T.28..., p.215 - 217.
4. Katagoshchina N. A. Provençal language // TSB. 3rd ed. T.21. - M., 1975, p.9.
5. Gurycheva M. S., Katagoshchina N. A. Comparative and comparative grammar of Romance languages. Gallo-Roman subgroup. - M., 1964, p. 3 - 29.
6. Militarev A. Yu. How young were we 12 thousand years ago?! // Knowledge is power. - M., 1989, 3, p.49.
7. Mironov S. A. Dutch language // TSB. 2nd ed. T.11. - M., 1952, pp. 602 - 603.
9. Dzendzelivsky Y.A. Linguistic atlas of Ukrainian folk dialects of the Transcarpathian region of the URSR. Part 1 - 2. - Uzhgorod, 1958 - 1960; Dzendzelivsky I.A. Transcarpathian dialects // Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia. T.4. - K., 1980, p. 72.
11. Mavrodin V.V. Ancient Rus'. - L., 1946, pp. 306 - 307.
12. Tolochko P. P. Ancient Rus'. - K., 1987, pp. 186 - 187.
13. Abakumov O. V. Three Pereyaslavi - migration and analogy of the creation of okonims // Movoznavstvo. - K., 1996, 2-3, pp. 27 - 32.
14.Filin F.P. Russian language // TSB. 3rd ed. T.22. - M., 1975, p.410.
15. Kyrylets L. M., Nimchuk V. V., Rilsky M. T., Rilenkov M. I., Lutsevich I. D. (Yanka Kupala) A word about Igor’s campaign. T.1 - 2. - K., 1982.
16. Korolyuk V. D. Slavic studies// TSB. 3rd ed. T.23. - M., 1976, p.547.
17. Yatsenko M. T. Ivan Kotlyarevsky // Library of Ukrainian Literature. I. Kotlyarevsky. - K., 1982, pp. 30 - 31.
18. Krutikova N.Є. Gogol // Shevchenko Dictionary. T.1 - K., 1976, p.160.
19.Abakumov O.V. Recognition of the Anta dialect of the late Spilnoproslovyanskiy linguistic unity behind the synthesis of linguistic-archaeological evidence // Onomastics of Ukraine I millennium. n. e. - K., 1992, pp. 18 - 26.
20. Panashchenko V.V. Reflecting the aggression of Turkish and Crimean feudal lords // History of the Ukrainian SSR. T.3. - K., 1983, pp. 96 - 97.
21.Abakumov A.V. North Caucasus // Economic newspaper (Development). - M., 1997, 27, p.7.
22.Barkhudarov A.S. Hindi // TSB. 3rd ed. T.28. - M., 1978, p.286. Barkhudarov A. S. Hindustani // TSB. 3rd ed. T.28. - M., 1978, p.287.
20.Formation of the language of the Great Russian people. Features of the difference between the Russian (Old Russian) language and other East Slavic languages
A new linguistic situation has emerged since the second half of the 14th century and is associated with the formation of a centralized state around Moscow. Feudal fragmentation is replaced by a new unification of East Slavic lands in the northeast. This unification was the reason for the formation of the Great Russian nationality, which gradually included all speakers of the Russian language who were under the rule of the Tatar-Mongols.
At the same time in the XIII-XIV centuries. those parts of the East Slavic population that escaped the Tatar-Mongol conquest (in the west) are part of the Lithuanian-Russian principality, on the territory of which the Western Russian nation is formed. The Western Russian nationality gradually disintegrates into the Belarusian (under the rule of Lithuania) and the Ukrainian (under the rule of Poland) nationalities.
The common historical fate of the three nationalities determined the closest proximity between all three languages of the East Slavic peoples and at the same time ensured their independent development.
In the process of formation of the Great Russian people and their language, Moscow played a prominent role. As an analysis of the oldest monuments of Moscow writing shows, at first the residents of Moscow used the dialect of the northeastern group, the Vladimir-Suzdal type. However, the further, the more one feels the influence on this originally Northern Russian dialect basis of the Southern Russian speech element, which intensified in the Moscow dialect.
An analysis of the language of early Moscow writing shows that initially the population of Moscow (at least within the princely court) adhered to the Northern Russian pronunciation.
In particular, in the Spiritual Charter of Ivan Kalita of 1327-1328. we find spellings: Ofanasey, Ostafyevo.
However, already in the entry with praise to Prince Ivan Kalita on the “Siya Gospel” of 1340, one can notice a reflection of the southern Russian Akaya pronunciation, namely: “in the lands of the deserted.”
In the monuments of the 15th century. and especially in the 16th century, akanya becomes the dominant feature of Moscow pronunciation. This pronunciation also applies to vocabulary of Northern Russian origin: p A row - “household” in the Konshinsky list of “Domostroy”.
The Moscow dialect becomes the dialect basis of the language of the entire Great Russian people. This Central Russian mixed dialect turns into a dialect base for the Old Russian literary language, which served the business and everyday needs of the state. As Muscovite Rus' expanded, all branches of the written language were gradually replaced by the Muscovite variety, especially after the introduction of printing from the end of the 16th century. Other varieties of the Old Russian literary language, which were formed on the territory of the Lithuanian state and Poland, subsequently became the basis of the Belarusian (from the 15th century) and Ukrainian languages (from the 16th century). These languages developed in parallel with the language of the Great Russian people.
By the 17th century, a demarcation line can be traced in the Russian (Old Russian) language, which separates it from related East Slavic languages - Ukrainian and Belarusian, namely:
1. Traces of alternations of back-lingual consonant sounds with whistling sounds (k//ts, g//z, x//s) are eliminated: hand - rutse, leg - nose, fly - muse. In Ukrainian and Belarusian languages, these alternations are the norm. For example: in Rutsi (Ukrainian), in Rutse (White).
2. Forms of adjectives in -oy, -ey are widespread: evil, blind, blue instead of the old evil, blind, blue. In the book “Teaching and cunning of the military formation of infantry people” (1647) we meet: a poor peasant (village peasant), a whole year, military formation.
3. Verbal forms extend to -оу, -е from –й, -й, for example: my, cut, beat instead of my, cover, beat.
4. The vocative form loses activity: son is written more often! sister! instead of the previous ones to my son! sister! These forms have been preserved in the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages: sinku! sister!
The differences between the Russian language and Ukrainian and Belarusian become especially noticeable after the modification of the grammatical system inherited from the Old Russian language. These include:
1) loss of declension of short forms of adjectives;
2) changes in the grouping of nouns by type of declension and unification of case inflections;
3) alignment of stems into velar consonants k, g, x in declension and conjugation (that is, the loss of forms such as ruce, bezi and their replacement with forms such as hand, run);
4) the spread of new conjunctions and allied words: what (instead of yako), so that (instead of yes, in order), which (instead of izhe), if (instead of even, ozhe) and others.
Consequently, the ethnic Russian language, until about the 14th century, has a common history with the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages, and later – an independent one, which correlates with the history of the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages.
As for the vocabulary, some words previously used by Moscow scribes are gradually pushing aside local words and acquiring the property of universality. These include: peasant (Novgorod smerd), money (Novgorod veksha, kuna), arable land (South Russian niva, rilya).
Sadovsky Alexander
Living Great Russian language
Sadovsky Alexander
Living Great Russian language
Dahl's dictionary can provide many pleasant moments. Today I came across the word: kuibaba. What do you think it means? Well, of course! Of course, dandelion, yellow chicory, Leontodon taraxacum! - what else?! I wasn’t even too lazy to look into the encyclopedia to check. Kuibaba! No, I mean, there’s no such word there! But there is a Kui people living in Thailand. As many as 400 thousand people. Think about it: FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND KUES. It is written that they are good elephant drivers and skilled blacksmiths. A good forge is an excellent driver and is indispensable in the forge. I also came across an expression from Dahl: “playing heriki.” Yeah, wait. Invent treatises “Russian traditions... stretch for centuries...”. Tic-tac-toe it is. Or this: “his legs are crap.” And - not a word of explanation. Or rather, Vladimir Ivanovich writes that this is the opposite of “legs like a wheel.” But I couldn’t come up with an antonym for the word wheel. Fuck, says Dahl. Fuck, you can think of it, he thinks.
The (fucking) procession
Ever since Exler forwarded my outpouring “The Living Great Russian Language” to hf, I haven’t been able to clear my mailbox of explanations. “A dick is not only a valuable fur, but also a letter of the alphabet”...
Moskvich writes: “If you really don’t know, I can explain. Fuck that...”. What a cunning! With this dick he knocked out the stingy, male provincial tears from me.
Or here’s a letter from a girl from St. Petersburg about the significance of a dick in the life of a Russian person: “... a dick has...”, - (how does she put it, huh?! What subtle knowledge of the subject!) she writes, further telling about the fact that a dick doubly significant: "...has two meanings."
And how erotically a boy from Bratsk says: “the heels are at some distance from each other, but the toes are still apart. At the same time, the hips are brought together, the knees touch each other with their lateral surfaces.” He's talking about "crap legs."
Or another resident of the capital. At the beginning of the letter, he mutters some incomprehensible spell words, and then joyfully exclaims: “...And finally (surprise, surprise!), Dick.” How joyful! How respectful - with a capital R! I didn’t remember the entire prayer, but the meaning is clear: “...very...hard...dick...”.
As a man from Tomsk nobly puts it, wanting to comment: “here, my dear, let me insert a comma.” Well, at least it’s not like “insert dick.”
Netmail is full of crap. As soon as I open the golden one, a dick pops out like a jack-in-the-box. If I were Pushkin, I would probably have been inspired by the poem “Ruslan and the Dick”: “Forty-two heroes, they all came out of the primer, and with them the guy Dick.”
I already have nightmares at night that I am being interrogated by the Gestapo: (with a terrible German accent, but in Russian) “Do you know Herr Müller? And Müller himself??!” But it’s even worse when a Cherub appears in a dream and, poking his dirty finger, like the Red Army soldier on the poster “Have you signed up as a volunteer?”, begins to inquire: “Do you know what HERRR is??!” Every day I grow weaker from the flow of letters falling on me. That way, I will soon become a palmist, sorry, a palmist, and the time is not far off when old Charon will take care of transporting me across the waters of Acheron. I began to hate Formula F1 - after all, Schumacher competes there; gained hostility towards entomologists for their creepy herbariums. When I hear the words “state herb,” my drunkenness disappears in an instant. I stopped loving sherry, stopped going to Kherson, and now I have a sherry too. I shudder at the word "Hiroshima" more than all the Japanese combined.
What am I talking about? From now on, I ask you not to take a single word or phrase in my letters to pvt.exler, as well as in this message, too seriously.
Russian language in Ukraine- (Ukrainian Russian language in Ukraine) one of the two most common languages spoken by the population of Ukraine. During the 2001 All-Ukrainian Population Census, 29.6% of participants named Russian as their native language, including 14.8% of Ukrainians.... ... Wikipedia
Ukrainian language in Ukraine- (Ukrainian Ukrainian language in Ukraine) is the first most widely spoken language. The Ukrainian language is predominantly spoken in the north-west of Ukraine. Ukrainian is the most common second language among the population of Ukraine.... ... Wikipedia
Old Russian language- Self-name... Wikipedia
Old Russian (Great Russian) period- (XIV-XVII centuries) The stage of creating the language of the Great Russian people, formed around Moscow. The Great Russian language, as a result of sociolinguistic processes, separated from the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages... Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal
Russian language- This term has other meanings, see Russian language (meanings). Russian language Pronunciation: ˈruskʲɪj jɪˈzɨk ... Wikipedia
Little Russian language- Little Russian dialect, widespread in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is the name of a set of East Slavic dialects in most of modern Ukraine and the literary language formed on their basis, which are currently considered in science ... ... Wikipedia
Old Russian language- common ancestor (proto-language) Russian, Ukrainian. and white language, formed in the 6th - 7th centuries. on base eastern glory dialects of the disintegrating Praslav. language D.Ya., or general education. Slav., as in the language. eastern Slavs who lived in the territory. Dr. (Kievan) Rus', existed approx. until 13... ... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary
Old Russian period- (GREAT RUSSIAN) (XIV-XVII centuries) The stage of creating the language of the Great Russian people, formed around Moscow. The Great Russian language, as a result of sociolinguistic processes, separated from the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages... Terms and concepts of linguistics: Vocabulary. Lexicology. Phraseology. Lexicography
Great Russians- the name Great Russia is of artificial origin; it was compiled, apparently, by the clergy or, in general, book people and began to be included in the royal title only in the 16th century. For the first time, it seems, it is found in the Apostle, the first book, ... ...
Slavic languages- S. languages constitute one of the families of the Ario-European (Indo-European, Indo-Germanic) branch of languages (see Indo-European languages). The names Slav, Slavic languages, not only cannot be considered etymologically related to the word man, but cannot even... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron
Books
- A word about Igor's regiment. Signs, images, words, meanings, V.V. Omelchenko. Based on the analysis of ancient writings of the Avestan, Vedic, ancient Chinese, ancient Greek and ancient Slavic cultures, as well as the ancient Russian language, its word formation and richest... Buy for 753 UAH (Ukraine only)
- A Word about Igor’s Campaign: Signs, images, words, meanings, Omelchenko V.V. Based on an analysis of the ancient writings of the Avestan, Vedic, ancient Chinese, ancient Greek and ancient Slavic cultures, as well as the ancient Russian language, its word formation and the richest...