Lecture 2-3

Indo-European languages. The concept of proto-language.

Proto-Slavic language. Linguistic paleoslavistics.

INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES, language family, the most widespread in the world. Its distribution area includes almost all of Europe, both Americas and continental Australia, as well as significant parts of Africa and Asia. More than 2.5 billion people – i.e. About half of the world's population speaks Indo-European languages. All major languages ​​of Western civilization are Indo-European. All languages ​​of modern Europe belong to this family of languages, with the exception of Basque, Hungarian, Sami, Finnish, Estonian and Turkish, as well as several Altai and Uralic languages ​​of the European part of Russia. The name "Indo-European" is conditional. In Germany the term "Indo-Germanic" was formerly used, and in Italy "Ario-European" to indicate that ancient people and ancient language from which all later Indo-European languages ​​are generally believed to have descended. The supposed ancestral home of this hypothetical people, whose existence is not supported by any historical evidence(except for linguistic ones) is considered Eastern Europe or Western Asia.

The oldest known monuments Indo-European languages are Hittite texts dating back to the 17th century. BC. Some hymns Rigveda And Atharvaveda are also very ancient and date back to approximately 1400 BC. or even earlier, but they were transmitted orally and were written down later. The same can be said about the Homeric epic, parts of which go back to the 13th or even 14th century, and probably also about the oldest fragments Avesta(the time of its creation is very uncertain).

Different writing systems were used to record Indo-European languages. Hittite cuneiform, Palayan, Luwian and Old Persian were written in cuneiform, Luwian hieroglyphic - in a special hieroglyphic syllabary alphabet, Sanskrit - using Kharostha, Devanagari, Brahmi and other alphabets; Avestan and Pahlavi - in special alphabets, modern Persian - in Arabic writing. According to currently available information, all types of alphabets that the languages ​​of Europe have used and are using come from Phoenician.

The Indo-European family of languages ​​includes at least twelve groups of languages. In order of geographical location, moving clockwise from northwestern Europe, these groups are: Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Tocharian, Indian, Iranian, Armenian, Hittite-Luvian, Greek, Albanian, Italic (including Latin and originating from not Romance languages, which are sometimes classified as a separate group). Of these, three groups (Italic, Hittite-Luwian and Tocharian) consist entirely of dead languages. Of the other dead languages, Palaic and Luvian, as well as Lydian and Lycian, are undoubtedly Indo-European. Little remains of the Thracian, Phrygian and Illyrian languages; there is reason to believe that Thracian or Illyrian are the ancestors of the modern Albanian language, and Phrygian - the ancestors of modern Armenian.

The first person to notice the similarities between Sanskrit and European languages, was a Florentine merchant and traveler Filippo Sassetti (1540–1588). Comparing Italian words sei, sette, otto,nove, Dio, serpe with Sanskrit, sapta, , nava, devas, sarpan, he realized that their similarity is not accidental, but is due to linguistic kinship (which today can be illustrated by the same examples). On the other hand, and quite independently, the striking similarity between the Persian and German languages ​​was noticed and shown in numerous examples by the Flemish scholar Bonaventure Vulcanius in his work Deliteris et lingua Getarum sive Gothorum(1597), and after him by several German explorers. One of them was the philosopher Leibniz, who, with a great deal of exaggeration, wrote in his OtiumHanoveranum(1718): “You can write poetry in Persian - any German will understand them.” And yet, the first scientist who logically deduced from such facts the possibility of the existence of an original Indo-European proto-language was Sir William Jones, who in 1786 wrote: “Sanskrit, with all its antiquity, has a striking structure; it is more perfect than Greek, richer than Latin, but at the same time in its verbal roots and in grammatical forms there is a clear similarity with both of these languages, which could not have arisen by chance; this similarity is so great that no philologist, when studying all three languages, can help but come to the conclusion that they originated from one common source, which apparently no longer exists. Similar, although less obvious, grounds exist for the assumption that Gothic and Celtic also have a common origin with Sanskrit; Old Persian can also be classified in the same family of languages.” Jones did not delve into this problem, but already in the works of R. Rusk and F. Bopp (c. 1815), a systematic study of Indo-European languages ​​was begun and the foundations of comparative Indo-European studies were laid.

To the languages ​​identified by Jones - Latin, Greek, Indian, Celtic and Germanic - Bopp added Iranian in 1816, Rusk in 1818 - Baltic and Slavic, and again Bopp in 1854 - Albanian. Armenian, previously considered one of the Iranian dialects, was recognized as an independent Indo-European language by Hubschmann in 1875. The belonging of Tocharian to the Indo-European languages ​​was proven by F. Müller in 1907, cuneiform Hittite - by B. Grozny in 1915, Luvian - by him (later), hieroglyphic Luvian - I. Gelb and P. Merigi, Lydian and Lycian - Merigi, Palayan - G. Bossert. Any relationship of the Indo-European family of languages ​​with other language families - Semitic, Uralic, Altai, etc. - has not yet been proven. The Indo-Hittite theory of E. Sturtevant, which considers Hittite and some other Anatolian languages ​​as an independent, albeit related, group parallel to the Indo-European ones, does not have sufficient evidence.

The Indo-European proto-language was undoubtedly an inflected language, i.e. its morphological meanings were expressed by changing the endings of words; this language had no prefixation and almost no infixation; it had three genders - masculine, feminine and neuter; at least six cases were distinguished; nouns and verbs were clearly contrasted; heteroclysis was widespread (i.e., irregularity in the paradigm, cf. fero: tuli or I am : I was). According to the classical scheme, the phoneme system included four classes of stop consonants (voiceless unaspirated, voiceless aspirated, voiced unaspirated, voiced aspirated) with four positions of articulation (velar, labiovelar, dental, labial); two smooth ( l,r), two semivowels ( y,w), two nasals ( m,n), one sibilant ( s), but not a single fricative (except s) and not a single affricate. All nasals, smooth and semivowels at the very latest stage of the existence of the Indo-European language could act in two functions - syllabic and non-syllabic. Early Indo-European had only three vowel phonemes: a,e And o(long and short); later they were added i, u, and reduced – . The accent was mobile and had well-defined morphological functions. There was quite developed system alternations of vowels that performed morphological functions, remnants of which are partially preserved - for example, in English (cf. give, gave, given; drive,drove, driven; sing, sang, sung, etc.) and, to a lesser extent, in Russian (cf. put away, I'll clean it up, dress). Roots were modified by adding one or more root qualifiers (suffixes) and endings to the right.

Based on a comparison of Indo-European languages, it has become possible to some extent to reconstruct the material and spiritual culture, customs, lifestyle and social institutions of the ancient Indo-Europeans - people who spoke a common Indo-European language. So, from the fact that in Latin there is a word mel, in Gothic - , in Greek - , in Old Irish - mil, in Hittite cuneiform – melit and they all mean "honey", we can conclude that the Indo-Europeans were familiar with this product; and if you compare Latin bos, Umbrian bue, Old Irish bo, English cow, Latvian goovs, Old Church Slavonic gov-e-do, Tocharian ko, Greek, Armenian kov, Avestan gauš and Vedic gaús, meaning “cow” (less commonly “bull” or “buffalo”), it will become obvious that the Indo-Europeans were aware of cows. Based on this kind of considerations, it can be stated with reasonable certainty that the Indo-Europeans bred domestic animals, in particular sheep, dogs, cows, goats, pigs, ducks, geese, and later horses; that they cultivated the land with a plow; that they sowed barley, wheat, millet, oats and spelt; and that they ground grain and obtained flour from it. Among the wild animals they knew the bear and the wolf, and among the trees - beech, birch, oak and pine. Of the metals, they probably knew only bronze or copper. Apparently, these were people of the late Stone Age, and, as the German word indicates Messer"knife", they were familiar with stone cutting tools. Messer comes from Old High German mezzi-rahs, from mezzi-sahs, the first element of which is * mati- (English) meat"meat"), and the second is cognate with Old English seax"sword" and Latin saxum"stone"; the entire word refers to a knife made of stone and used for cutting meat. (The study of such facts is called linguistic paleontology.)

Using the same method, you can try to identify the “ancestral homeland” of the Indo-Europeans, i.e. the last territory of their settlement before the first division, which took place at the latest in the 3rd millennium BC. Widespread use of designations for "snow" snow, German Schnee, lat. nix, Greek , Russian snow, Lithuanian etc.) and “winter” (lat. hiems, Lithuanian ziema, Russian winter, Greek Vedic himás), in contrast to the lack of uniform designations for “summer” and “autumn,” clearly indicate a cold northern ancestral home. This is also evidenced by the presence of the names of the trees given above, in the absence or late appearance of the names of trees growing in the Mediterranean area and requiring a warm climate, such as the fig tree, cypress, laurel and grapevine. The names of tropical and subtropical animals (such as cat, donkey, monkey, camel, lion, tiger, hyena, elephant) are also late, while the names of bear, wolf and otter are early. On the other hand, the presence of these names of animals and plants and the absence of names of polar animals (seal, sea lion, walrus) and plants definitely speaks against a polar ancestral home.

The names of beechwood, honey, and salmon, which are found only in certain areas of the world, clearly point to Europe; and salmon (German) Lachs, Russian salmon, Lithuanian lašiša; in Tocharian laks means "fish") is not found in either the Mediterranean or the Black Sea, so the only sea that can be discussed is the Baltic. One of the scientists who defended the Baltic hypothesis was G. Bender, other researchers named Scandinavia, Northern Germany, as the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Europeans, Southern Russia together with the Danube area, as well as the Kyrgyz and Altai steppes. The theory of the Asian ancestral home, very popular in the 19th century, in the 20th century. supported only by some ethnologists, but rejected by almost all linguists. The theory of an Eastern European homeland located in Russia, Romania or the Baltic countries is supported by the fact that the Indo-European people had long and close contacts with the Finnish peoples in the north and with the Sumerian and Semitic cultures of Mesopotamia in the south.

Thanks to the development of areal linguistics, a new and very fruitful approach to the problem of reconstructing Indo-European culture has emerged. It has been observed that the extreme regions of the Indo-European range (Latin and Celtic on the one hand, and Indian and Iranian on the other) reveal a variety of words of a religious, social and political nature that are associated with a rigid patriarchal social order. Words like Latin flamines, pontifices, Celtic druides, as well as Indian gurú- , brahman- , they say that in this society there was a dominance of priestly colleges, which orally transmitted sacred knowledge. These words are undoubtedly preserved from a more ancient period and indicate that Indo-European society once had a religious-aristocratic structure based on rigid social differentiation. Vestiges like this social structure can be observed in the later castes of India, which almost completely reproduce the system of social structure of ancient Gaul, as described by Caesar, as well as ancient Ireland and Rome. The central regions of the Indo-European area (Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Greek, Armenian) have lost all or most of these terms and demonstrate in historical times a much more democratic structure, in which the power of the king, nobility and priests is small, there are few priestly associations, and political and judicial matters are decided by the people's assembly.

INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES (otherwise called Indo-European linguistics), a branch of linguistics that studies the historical development of Indo-European languages ​​and reconstructs their most ancient states; the earliest formed and most developed part of comparative historical linguistics.

The concept of proto-language.

An important stage in the development of Indo-European studies is associated with the name of A. Schleicher, who worked in the 1850–1860s. Schleicher finally formulated the concept of an Indo-European proto-language, distinct from Sanskrit or any other language of the Indo-European family known to us. This once single language subsequently split into several languages, from which in turn modern Indo-European languages ​​originated. No texts remain from it, but it can be reconstructed based on regular sound correspondences between the languages ​​we know. Schleicher even wrote a fable in this proto-language, considering it to be completely restored. However, later it became clear that it was impossible to completely restore the proto-language: much was lost without a trace and was not reflected in the texts that have reached us; Moreover, the proto-language might not have been completely unified. Based on this, some scientists, without rejecting the very concept of a proto-language, believed that the restored “proto-language” is only a theoretical construct, a system of regular correspondences (the last formulation belongs to A. Meye). The concept of a proto-language still dominates in Indo-European studies, although later (in particular, N. Trubetskoy), in the 1930s, a different explanation was proposed for the similarity of Indo-European languages ​​as a result of the secondary convergence of languages ​​that were not previously related to each other.

Proto-language - (base language) - a language from whose dialects a group of related languages, otherwise called a family, emerged (see. Genealogical classification of languages). From the point of view of the formal apparatus comparative historical linguistics each unit of the proto-language ( phoneme, morph,word form,combination of words or syntactic construction) is determined by the correspondence between genetically identical elements of individual languages ​​originating from a given proto-language. For example, in Indo-European in the proto-language, the phoneme *bʰ is determined by the correspondence between Old Indian. bh, ancient Greek φ (-*ph), lat. f- (in position at the beginning of a word), germ. b-, glory. b-, etc. Therefore, in the concept created by F. de Saussure and developed by A. Meillet, each phoneme (like other units) of the proto-language can be considered an abbreviated entry of a line in the table of correspondences between phonemes (or other units) of the proto-language and is replaced by an ordinal row number in such a table (matrix). This approach is of significant interest for the complete formalization of procedures reconstruction proto-language, in particular, with the aim of using computers to restore the proto-language.

When interpreting a proto-language meaningfully, it is considered as a language that corresponds to universal typological patterns derived on the basis of other known languages, and existed in real space and historical time in relation to a specific society. To test the reality of such an approach to a proto-language, cases are especially important when it is possible to approach the same proto-language both through reconstruction based on a system of correspondences between the languages ​​that arose from it (for example, Romance) and from written sources (folk Latin, which is Romance proto-language). Proto-language of the Romance group of languages ​​- colloquial Latin language may, in turn, come from a dialect of the Italic proto-language, which can be traced back to the dialect of the Indo-European proto-language. Sequential construction of all known large families languages ​​of the world(such as Indo-European) to proto-languages, which in turn go back to the dialects of the proto-language of the macrofamily (for example, Nostratic, see Nostratic languages) allows us to reduce all families of languages ​​in the world to several proto-languages ​​of large macrofamilies. According to hypotheses, these proto-languages, in turn, originated from the dialects of one proto-language of Homo sapiens sapiens, which existed since its appearance (from 100 to 30 thousand years ago), while the proto-languages ​​of individual macrofamilies existed in a time interval much closer to the historical one ( about 20-10 thousand years ago), and the proto-languages ​​of individual families that separated from macro-families - in an even closer time interval, less than one ten thousand years. Thus, the proto-language is a historical concept, and there is a hierarchy of proto-languages ​​according to the time of their division into dialects: a proto-language, previously divided, could later give a dialect from which a proto-language develops, which later became the basis for a family of languages, one of the dialects of which, in turn, gives rise to a certain family of languages, etc.

Proto-Slavic language.

Slavic languages ​​are ultimately descendants of the Indo-European proto-language. Regardless of whether this happened through an intermediate proto-Slavic language or whether the development came directly from the Indo-European proto-language, the opinion that a Proto-Slavic language existed has long been established in Slavic studies (in German comparative studies - Urslavisch or die urslavische Sprache, in French slave commune and in the Anglo-American Common Slavic). Its outlines are, of course, hypothetical, i.e. are speculative, since it existed many hundreds, or even thousands of years ago and, of course, was not recorded in written monuments. This is a proto-language restored through reconstruction, a kind of linguistic model based on the most important features- phonetic, grammatical and lexical. Nevertheless, we can say with confidence that it was originally a territorially varied language, i.e. which was a collection of related and, presumably, some unrelated dialects or dialects. It spread over a certain territory, which was occupied by tribes communicating with each other. Due to the expansion or movement of the habitat, connections between individual parts of the Slavic ethno-linguistic area weakened, and speech at all levels began to develop local peculiarities, which ultimately led to some severance of ties and the formation of an independent course of development. Based on the stated logic of ethnolinguistic development, we can call the Proto-Slavic language the progenitor of all Slavic languages ​​that once existed and exist now.

To date, a separate discipline has been formed that studies the problems of the Proto-Slavic language - linguistic paleoslavic studies, which is an integral part of general paleoslavic studies. At the same time, the sphere of her interests should also include questions traditional culture, reconstructed on the basis and with the help of language. This discipline is already a century and a half old. The following periodization of its development is proposed:

the first stage is the emergence of the science of the Proto-Slavic language, associated with the work of A. Schleicher “A Brief Essay on the History of Slavic Languages” (1858) and such names as F. Miklosic, Leskin, F. F. Fortunatov, V. Yagich, A. A. Potebnya, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, A. I. Sobolevsky, A. A. Shakhmatov, S. M. Kulbakin, Vondrak, A. Meillet, J. Rozvadovsky and others;

the second stage begins from the time of the First World War, when the work of G. A. Ilyinsky “Proto-Slavic Grammar” (1916) appeared and when A. Belich, P. A. Buzuk, N. N. Durnovo, N. worked to improve the reconstruction method. Van-Wijk, O. Guyer, J. Zubaty, N. S. Trubetskoy, A. Vaian, L. A. Bulakhovsky, T. Lehr-Splavinsky, R. Nachtigal and others;

3) the third stage has been developing since the second half of the twentieth century, enriched with new material, new approaches to the reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic language, and the appearance of generalizing works on both grammar and vocabulary; among the researchers one can name F. Maresh, S. B. Bernstein, T. LehrSplavinsky, V. I. Georgiev, E. Kurilovich, R. Yakobson, H. Stang, Y. Shevelev, I. Lekov, P. S. Kuznetsov, V. Kiparsky, O. N. Trubachev, V. N. Toporov, Vyach. Sun. Ivanov, N.I. Tolstoy, E. Stankevich, H. Birnbaum, V.K. Zhuravlev, V.A. Dybo and many others. 5 Not all scientists took the liberty of dating all stages of the existence of the Proto-Slavic language. Moreover, quite often some of them changed their ideas regarding the periodization of the Proto-Slavic language. The discrepancy in the interpretation of the time of the birth of Slavic speech is obvious: from “around the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC.” to “shortly before the beginning of our era”, similarly in the case of the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language - from the prehistoric era of the 2nd half of the 1st millennium BC. until the X-XII centuries. AD The count thus goes on for millennia. Figures with an accuracy of up to a century are especially dubious.

4.3. Principles of reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic language. Proto-Slavic reconstruction based on the comparative historical method is more successful than the restoration of the Indo-European proto-language. This is understandable: the time of the existence of Proto-Slavic is closer to us, and the material of the Slavic languages, which still remain the closest languages ​​to each other in the circle of the Indo-European linguistic family, contributes to reconstruction. These factors also favor the fact that a large number of words and their forms are often reconstructed without going beyond the framework of Slavic languages ​​and dialects. In this regard, it makes sense to talk about intra-group, and in our case, intra-Slavic reconstruction, which can also be considered as an extension of internal reconstruction. However, to make the results more convincing, here too it is usually necessary to resort to a control test using data from other Indo-European languages.

Before illustrating this position with examples, we note that due to the similarity of many elements and features, Proto-Slavic is often identified with the Old Church Slavonic language - as was done in the initial period of development of the comparative historical method, when the Indo-European proto-language was actually equated with Old Indian Sanskrit. However, this applies not only to the Proto-Slavic language. It has become a tradition to place, for example, Latin and Romance languages, Old Norse and Old Scandinavian, Lithuanian and Baltic in such dependence. There is a significant contradiction in this formulation of the question: if, say, Proto-Slavic is identified with Old Slavonic, created in the 9th century. based on Bulgarian-Macedonian dialects, then in the classification it should not be placed in the subgroup of South Slavic languages ​​and one should not talk about its dialect basis at all! In this case, we should talk about maximum genetic proximity, but not about identity. This is important to keep in mind.

So, let's start reconstructing, say, the word brother - I.-E. *b4rater - praslav. *bratrb. To implement the first stage of reconstruction, it is necessary to involve material from all Slavic languages ​​and see what the situation is with this word:

Proto-Slavic form - *brat- or *bratr-? In this case, the number of languages ​​does not always help: it may happen that the first form without the final consonant -r- arose as a result of its disappearance - in which case is the form with -r- original? And that’s why it was precisely it that was represented in the Proto-Slavic language?

This issue can be resolved with the help of external reconstruction, and for this it is necessary to expand the range of languages ​​being compared, i.e. go beyond the Slavic languages, turning to other Indo-European languages, cf.:

It is easy to notice that the word brother in the above non-Slavic Indo-European languages ​​clearly (with rare exceptions) demonstrates the final -r. There is nothing left to do but to attribute this -r to the form of the words of the Proto-Slavic language that interests us, which is also confirmed within the language group by one South Slavic (Old Church Slavonic) and two/three West Slavic languages ​​(Czech and Upper and Lower Sorbian), in which the proto-form is best preserved .

On the reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic dictionary.

The reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic dictionary has been carried out over the past century and a half. An indicator of its modern level is the publication of etymological dictionaries of Slavic languages ​​(Proto-Slavic dictionaries). With the help of lexical-semantic reconstruction, not only the vocabulary of the proto-language is restored, but at the same time a picture of the life of ancient tribes. Consequently, by reconstructing lexical units, we thereby reveal the contours of ancient Slavic culture. Since some of the words and their meanings go back more than one millennium, we can talk about a significant advantage of lexical-semantic reconstruction data over phonetic and grammatical reconstruction data.

However, lexical-semantic reconstruction is very difficult process, which is fraught with many surprises. Let's say moreover: there are many researchers who are skeptical about the possibility of more or less accurately establishing the real semantics of proto-linguistic words. It must be borne in mind that the very ideas of the speakers of ancient languages ​​about themselves and about the world around them cannot be fully projected onto our ideas, since over the course of many millennia they changed, were erased, intertwined, etc., thereby hiding from us their original condition. Just like ideas about the world, the words themselves and their meanings changed. This process has always been influenced by internal and external factors. So, internal factors manifested itself in the fact that the meaning of the word could shift or change under the influence of some new associations (connections with another subject and meaning), its use in a metaphorical sense, in expansion or narrowing original value and so on. External factors manifested themselves in changes in the surrounding world and in the influence of surrounding languages.

In 1974, two major events took place in world Slavic studies: the Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Committee of Linguistics of the Polish Academy of Sciences began publishing multi-volume etymological dictionaries of the Proto-Slavic language. Theorist, initiator, one of the authors and editor of the “Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages. Proto-Slavic lexical fund"was O. N. Trubachev (after his death the publication continues under the editorship of A. F. Zhuravlev), "Proto-Slavic Dictionary" began to be published under the editorship of F. Slavsky. A special feature of the dictionaries is that, in addition to lexemes of common Slavic distribution, they also include words characteristic of the part Slavic territory, i.e. lexical dialectisms that were projected into Proto-Slavic times. The Moscow dictionary will reflect more than 20 thousand words, including derivatives, as well as local (dialect) ones. After completing the publication of both dictionaries, it will be possible to more successfully reconstruct fragments of the ancient Slavic worldview and attitude. At the same time, this will also help in determining the degree of proximity of Slavic languages ​​to each other.

Bulk ancient words The Proto-Slavic language consists of words that are originally Slavic in origin.

Causes and directions of the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language

Some external and internal factors are cited as the reasons for the collapse, in some cases focusing on external ones, in others - on internal ones. Thus, the external factors include the settlement of the Slavs over vast territories, the movement of its individual parts in various directions, the loss of unity in political, administrative and cultural terms, the influence of various historical events, etc. Internal reasons include linguistic factors. Usually these are one or another phonetic processes that the Proto-Slavic language began to experience due to the loss of territorial, social, etc. unity. Some Slavists insist that the internal collapse was prepared by the multidirectional development of the vowel system, the action of the law of the open word, which caused, among other things, the monophthongization of diphthongs, as well as the palatalization of consonants, as a result of which not only contrasting pairs of hardness and softness could be formed, but also new consonants appeared (hissing, whistling, some affricates). This was the opinion, for example, of the Polish Slavist L. Moshinsky (1965).

Regarding the direction in which the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language took place, some statements have been made various points vision. IN early XIX V. the Slovenian V. E. Kopitar presented a picture of the collapse into two parts - northwestern (now West Slavic) and southeastern (now South and East Slavic). Already in the twentieth century. Polish Slavist A. Furdal (1961), on the contrary, taking into account the fate of palatal consonants, noted deep differences between the North Slavic (West and East Slavic) and South Slavic languages. The idea is gradually taking shape that the initial division of the proto-language took place in the “west-east” direction, as a result of which two huge dialect arrays were formed - western and eastern. The first became the source of West Slavic languages, the second - East and South Slavic. This hypothesis was substantiated by A. A. Shakhmatov, who saw the West Slavic proto-language in the western massif, and the East and South Slavic proto-languages ​​in the eastern massif. Nowadays, ideas about these two “proto-languages” have changed significantly, not to say that not all researchers recognize them. Supporters of this point of view believe that this was caused, on the one hand, by the movement of tribes, and on the other, by the emergence of differences in the language, in particular, in the multidirectionality of phonetic development. So,

Phonetic differences are also relied upon when considering the internal division of the resulting dialect arrays. In accordance with the stated point of view, which can be considered traditional, in the west, the dialect array that had been consolidated disintegrates in the “north-south” direction - on the basis of the northern subdialect, a group of Lechitic languages ​​(Polish, Kashubian) is formed with a transitional Serbian Sorbian belt, and from the southern subdialect they are isolated Slovak and Czech languages. As for the eastern massif, according to this point of view, it is also divided into two parts: the eastern, which gave birth to the East Slavic languages, and the southern, on the basis of which the South Slavic languages. Inside the southern massif there was also a division in the east-west direction: the Bulgarian-Macedonian massif was formed in the east, and the Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian massif in the west.

Literature

Dulichenko A. D. Introduction to Slavic philology. – M., 2014.

Meillet A. Introduction to the comparative study of Indo-European languages. – M. – L., 1938.

Georgiev V.I. Research in comparative historical linguistics. – M., 1958.

Gamkrelidze T.V. Ivanov Vyach. Sun. Indo-European language and Indo-Europeans. Reconstruction and historical-typological analysis of proto-language and protoculture, book. 1–2. – Tbilisi, 1984.

Toporov V.N. Indo-European languages. – Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. – M., 1990.

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

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

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

Russian State Geological Prospecting University named after Sergo Ordzhonikidze

Abstract on Russian language and speech culture

Topic: "Proto-Slavic language"

Completed by: student of group FP-16

Babenko G.V.

Checked by: Mirzaeva R.M.

Moscow 2017

Plan

• Introduction
• 1. Chronology
• 2. History of phonetics
• 2.1.1 Consonants
• 2.3.1 Consonants
• 2.3.2 Vowels
• 2.5 Consonant system of the early common Slavic language
• 2.8 Accentuation
• 3. Morphology
• 3.1 Noun
• 3.2 Pronoun
• 3.3 Verb
• 3.3.1 Present tense
• 3.3.2 Aorist
• 3.3.3 Imperfect
• 3.3.4 Perfect
• 3.3.5 Plusquaperfect
• 3.3.6 Future tense
• 3.3.9 Infinitive
• 3.4 Communion
• 4. Syntax
• 5. Vocabulary
• Literature

Introduction

Proto-Slavic language is the proto-language from which the Slavic languages ​​originated. This language was spoken until the 6th century. No written monuments of the Proto-Slavic language have survived, so the language was reconstructed based on a comparison of reliably attested Slavic and other Indo-European languages.

According to some assumptions, the Proto-Slavic language was formed in the first millennium BC. The question remains open whether the Proto-Slavic language came directly from the Proto-Indo-European language, or whether it branched off later from the Proto-Balto-Slavic language.

Over the long period of its existence (presumably 2000 years), the Proto-Slavic language underwent various changes. This circumstance, as well as the unequal understanding by different linguists of the processes occurring in languages, caused differences in attempts to reconstruct the Proto-Slavic language. Some authors have sought to distinguish different periods (for example, three periods) in the development of the Proto-Slavic language, but this has not received universal support.

In the 5th and 6th centuries, as a consequence of the Germanic migration period, the migration of Slavic tribes began. These movements marked the beginning of the division of the Proto-Slavic language. The Bulgarians formed their first empire in 681, and at the end of the 9th century the Bulgarian dialect was first recorded and spoken in Thessaloniki, marking the beginning of literature in Old Church Slavonic. Old Church Slavonic cannot be considered Proto-Slavic proper, given the fact that it was written down at least two centuries after the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language, but it is still close enough to it that Old Church Slavonic was probably understandable to native speakers at that time other Slavic dialects and vice versa.

1. Chronology

It is very difficult to separate the Proto-Slavic language from the late Proto-Indo-European, since the first is an organic continuation of the second. Therefore, the history of the Proto-Slavic language is often presented not in the form of a two-member scheme: Proto-Indo-European - Proto-Slavic, but in the form of a three-member scheme: Proto-Indo-European - Proto-Slavic - Proto-Slavic. This scheme was followed by N.S. Trubetskoy, G.A. Khaburgaev, O.N. Trubachev and others.

Proto-Slavic is a dialect of Proto-Indo-European, which, after the collapse of the latter (V-IV thousand years BC), gradually began to develop its own, original features that distinguished it from related languages.

The Proto-Slavic dialect became the Proto-Slavic language when all language levels Enough changes have accumulated so that the speech of the ancestors of the current Slavs became incomprehensible to related ethnic groups (1500-1000 BC). To date the end of the Proto-Slavic period, Academician O.N. Trubachev put forward the argument of iron.

Proto-Slavic broke up (ca. 500-600 AD - according to glottochronology [1] [2]) into a number of idioms that were in complex relationships with each other. They gave rise to modern Slavic languages.

According to the concept of N.S. Trubetskoy and N.N. Durnovo, the late Proto-Slavic period lasted until the 12th century (until the fall of the reduced ones), and the differences between the future Slavic languages ​​during this period did not go beyond dialectal ones. This theory was subjected to fair criticism by S.B. Bernstein, and after the introduction of the glottochronology method into scientific circulation, this theory cannot claim viable status.

Proto-Slavic language phoneme morphology

2. History of phonetics

2.1 Late Proto-Indo-European/Early Proto-Slavic phoneme system (traditional reconstruction)

2.1.1 Consonants

			Middle language	Guttural	Laryngals
				palatovelar	velar	labiovelar
	voiced aspirates
Fricatives
Semivowels

2.1.2 Vowels

	front row	middle row	back row
	monophthongs
	monophthongs
	diphthongs
	monophthongs
	diphthongs

2.2 Proto-Slavic phonetic changes

The Proto-Slavic era lasted from approximately 4000 BC. (proposed date for the collapse of the Proto-Indo-European language) before 1000 BC. (hypothetical time of accumulation of enough changes at all levels of language to recognize the language of the Slavs separate language). Changes of the Proto-Slavic era:

1. The three-row system of Proto-Indo-European stops (voiceless aspirates - strong - voiced aspirates) was transformed into a two-row system (voiceless - voiced, with the loss of an additional sign of aspiration). This innovation was carried out jointly with the Baltic languages.

2. Coincidence of the labiovelar series with the series of simple velars.

3. Satemization. Palatalized velars (k"), through the intermediate stages of middle linguals (t") and affricates (ts), passed into sibilants (s). Undoubtedly, this process began before the final collapse of the Proto-Indo-European language, but ended after, because its results are different in different Satem languages.

4. Transition s to x. It occurred simultaneously with satemization, but ended earlier. This can be seen in the example of the words psati and vs (village). In both cases, s is in a position suitable for transition to x. However, it appeared after the completion of the transition from k" and therefore did not give x in these cases. It was after the completion of satemization that x received the status of a phoneme in the Proto-Slavic language. There is a theory by A. Meillet, who, based on data from other sat?m-languages, in which s passed into љ, put forward a concept according to which s also passed into љ in Proto-Slavic, and only after, during the first palatalization, љ remained before the front vowels, and before the back vowels passed into х (by analogy with the distribution of k/ And).

5. Coincidence of f and b (>v), o and a (>o). The excess sign of longitude/brevity continued to persist for a very long time. After this change, the vowel system was shortened by 6 phonemes (f, g, fi, fu, gi, gu). Similar (but not identical!) processes occurred in the Indo-Iranian, Baltic and Germanic languages. Bulgarian academician V.I. Georgiev put forward a theory according to which the origins of Russian akanya lie precisely in this process. On this moment does not have widespread support, since it stems from an incorrect understanding of the essence of Russian Akanya.

6. Neutralization of the opposition m/n at the end of a word. Only n became acceptable. We observe such a transition in all Indo-European languages, except Italic and Indo-Iranian, including Anatolian.

2.3 The phoneme system of the early Proto-Slavic language

2.3.1 Consonants

The consonant system of the Proto-Slavic language in the period before palatalization and iotation looked like this [3]:

2.3.2 Vowels

	front row	middle row	back row
	monophthongs
	monophthongs
	diphthongs
	monophthongs
	diphthongs

At the same time, from a phonological point of view, diphthongs were biphonemic combinations [4].

2.4 Proto-Slavic phonetic changes

The Pre-Slavic era lasted presumably from 1000 BC. up to 500-600 AD (collapse of Slavic unity).

Changes of the Pre-Slavic era:

· Delabialization o>u in a final closed syllable. Wed. a similar but independent process in Latin.

· Accommodation jo>je.

· Elimination of final d and t.

· First transitional palatalization of the posterior linguals. k, g, x > и", dћ", љ" before front vowels.

· Accommodation z > v after i", dћ", љ", j.

· The affricate dћ", which was the result of the first palatalization, was simplified to a simple spirant ћ", but remained after z. [ 5 ]

· Interaction of whistlers with j": sj">љ", zj">ћ". The reflexes of this interaction merged with the reflexes of the first palatalization.

· Interaction of sonorants with j": lj">l",rj">r",nj">n". This phonetic process replenished the consonant system of the Proto-Slavic language with three new phonemes.

· Interaction of labials with j": bj">bl", pj">pl", mj">ml", vj">vl".

· ы>y, u>ъ, о>i, i>ь.

· Accommodation jъ>jь, jy>ji.

· z>m ([zh] in some dialects and [k] in others). Complete loss of vowel length as a differential feature.

· Nasal formation. However, at the end of the word after the reduced n, it was simply lost.

· Loss of final s.

· Monophthongization of diphthongs: oi > m, i; ei > i; ou > u.

2.5 Consonant system of the early common Slavic language [6]

2.6 Common Slavic phonetic changes

The Common Slavic period lasted from the 6th to the 9th centuries AD. Changes of the Pan-Slavic era:

· Second transitional softening of posterior linguals. It dates back to the 6th-7th centuries AD. Unlike the first palatalization, it produced whistling reflexes. The Old Novgorod dialect was not affected. k, g,x+m 2, i 2 >c",dz",s" (in southern and eastern dialects) /љ" (in western dialects).

· Palatalization of back-languages ​​in the groups kvi, kvм, gvi, gvм, xvi, xvм in the southern and eastern dialects v. s. preservation of unsoftened consonants in the Western and Novgorod-Pskov dialects.

· Third transitional softening of posterior linguals. It is dated by different authors both before the second palatalization, and after, or simultaneously with it.

Described by the formula b, i, k, r" + k, g, x + a, o. In further results were obscured by the influence of analogy. [ 7 ] Among the exceptions to the above formula are the words polsevati, vs', sits', kon't', ot't', etc.

· Interaction between tj, dj.

· Development of groups kt", gt" > c" in western dialects, i" in eastern, љ"t" in southern.

· Simplification of tl, dl groups in southern and eastern dialects v. s. preservation of these groups in Western v. s. conversion to kl, gl in the Pskov dialect.

· Metathesis in groups like tort, tolt, tert, telt.

· Metathesis in the initial groups or, ol, ar, al. After this, the trend towards increasing sonority received its logical conclusion.

2.7 Phonetic changes that already occurred in certain Slavic languages

· Zetacism.

· Fall of the reduced.

· Loss of nasals.

· Weakening g>g in Czech-Slovak and South East Slavic. Sometimes this process is attributed to the Proto-Slavic era. Refutation made by Yu.V. Shevelev [8].

2.8 Accentuation

Proto-Slavic accentuation as a whole continues the ancient Proto-Indo-European state, characterized by two types of mobile musical stress - acute and circumflex, but is reconstructed with significant difficulties caused by the fact that stress was not marked in Old Slavic monuments, and all modern languages ​​have greatly changed the ancient system.

Particularly valuable are the data from the Serbo-Croatian language, which has four types of stress: short falling (kratkosilazni aktsenat) kra?va, long descending (arugosilazni accent) grad?d, short ascending (kratkoulazni accent) Tdance, long ascending (arctic accent) remka. However, Serbo-Croatian has experienced a systematic shift of stress one syllable closer to the beginning of the word, so it cannot be determined from it ancient place accents.

Russian and Bulgarian retained the mobility of stress, but replaced the musical stress with a forceful one.

Czech, having fixed the stress on the first syllable, retained only traces of the ancient state: the acuteness was reflected in it as the length of the vowel.

3. Morphology

3.1 Noun

Proto-Slavic retained 6 Indo-European cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative) and the vocative form, losing only the depositive case.

In Proto-Slavic there were following types declinations (depending on the thematic element): to - *в-, - *o-, - *i-, - *u-, - *ы-, to consonant. In addition, the types on - *в - and - *o - were divided into hard and soft subtypes (-*jв - and - *jo-). The consonant declension type also included several subtypes. The Indo-European type on - *o - was lost and merged with the type on - *v-, leaving a trace in the form of the nominative case form of words like slave. The heteroclitic declension was also completely lost

Below are examples of the Proto-Slavic declension in the form in which it was shortly before the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language. The words *vьlkъ “wolf”, *kon”ь “horse”, *synъ “son”, *gostь “guest”, *kamy “stone”, *lмto “summer, year”, *pol”e “field” are given. *jьмк "name", *telк "calf", *slovo "word", *ћena "woman, wife", *duљa "soul", *kostь ​​"bone", *svekry "mother-in-law", *mati "mother".

Table. Samples of Proto-Slavic declension

Declension type

3.2 Pronoun

3.2.1 Personal and reflexive pronouns

	1 person unit h.	2nd person unit h.	Returnable	1st person plural h.	2nd person plural h.

3.2.2 Possessive pronouns

To the number possessive pronouns in Proto-Slavic they included the following: mojь, tvojь, svojь, naљь, vaљь.

	Masculine	Neuter gender	Feminine

3.3 Verb

The late Proto-Slavic language had a developed and complex system verb tenses. The verb could form the present tense, aorist, imperfect, perfect and plusquaperfect. At the same time, only the present tense and the aorist went back to the Indo-European proto-language. As in modern Slavic languages, the verb had two stems: the infinitive and the present tense. There were three moods: indicative, imperative and subjunctive.

As is known, for the Proto-Indo-European language there are two series of verbal endings, which are traditionally called primary and secondary. The Proto-Slavic language retained the ancient distinction: primary endings were used in the present tense, and secondary endings in historical ones.

Below are examples of the Proto-Slavic conjugation in the form in which it was shortly before the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language. The words *nesti “to carry”, *dvignoti “to move”, *znati “to know”, *xvaliti “to praise”, *dati “to give”, *vмдмti “to know”, *jмsti “to eat”, *byti “to be” are given.

3.3.1 Present tense

Class (according to Leskin)					V (athematic)
		dvignetъ/dvignetь	znajetъ/znajetь	xvalitъ/xvalitь
		dvignotъ/dvignotь	znajotъ/znajotь	xvalктъ/xvalкть	dadktъ/dadкtь	vмдктъ/vмдктъ	jмдктъ/jмдктъ

3.3.2 Aorist

The aorist denoted an action as a fact that took place in the past and had already been completed at the time of speech. The aorist was formed from the stem of the infinitive. There were three ways of forming the aorist: simple, sigmatic athematic and sigmatic thematic. The simple aorist was formed by directly adding secondary personal endings to the base of the infinitive. The sigmatic athematic aorist was formed by adding the suffix - s- to the stem. Personal endings were already added to the suffix. The sigmatic thematic was formed in almost the same way, with the difference that the suffix - s - was not attached directly to the stem, but to the thematic vowel following the stem. The sigmatic thematic aorist is actually a Proto-Slavic innovation, while the simple and sigmatic athematic aorist were inherited by the Proto-Slavic language from Proto-Indo-European.

Class (according to Leskin)

3.3.3 Imperfect

The imperfect denoted a continuous or repeated action in the past. The forms of this tense were formed from the base of the infinitive using the suffix - max - (after soft consonants - aax-, after vowels - ah-), a connecting vowel and personal endings.

Class (according to Leskin)

3.3.4 Perfect

The perfect denoted an action in the past, the result of which exists at the time of speech. It was formed analytically: using the l-participle and conjugated forms of the verb *byti in the present tense. Thanks to the participles in their composition, the perfect forms distinguished grammatical gender.

	masculine	feminine	neuter gender
	neslъ jestъ/jestь	nesla jestъ/jestь	neslo jestъ/jestь
	nesli sotъ/sotь	nesly sotъ/sotь	nesla sotъ/sotь

3.3.5 Plusquaperfect

The plusquaperfect denoted an action in the past that preceded another action in the past, or an event that happened a very long time ago. It was formed analytically, similar to the perfect, with the difference that the forms of the verb *byti were not in the present tense, but in the imperfect.

3.3.6 Future tense

In the Proto-Indo-European language there was a sigmatic future tense, inherited by some groups of Indo-European languages ​​(formed using the suffix - s - in ancient Greek, - sya - in Sanskrit and - si - in Lithuanian), but this method of forming the future tense is unknown to Proto-Slavic. In modern Slavic languages, the future tense is formed analytically (Russian). will do, Polish bkdk robii, Czech budu dмlat), using perfective verbs (Rus. I'll do it, Polish zrobik, Czech udmlbm) and synthetically (Ukr. robitim, although this form was formed from the early analytical version). In this regard, science faces a logical question: did there exist a form of synthetic future tense in Proto-Slavic? According to I.V. Yagicha existed, but in the later stages of the existence of Proto-Slavic it was supplanted by the described new formations. As evidence, Yagich cites the Old Slavonic participial form bysh?shte?/bysh?shte?, formed, according to his assumption, from an unattested form of the verb *byti - *byљo, corresponding to lit. bъsiu.

3.3.7 Imperative mood

Unlike, for example, the ancient Greek language, in Proto-Slavic the imperative mood did not distinguish between categories of time. The imperative paradigm was defective.

Class (according to Leskin)					V (athematic)

3.3.8 Subjunctive mood

	masculine	feminine	neuter gender

3.3.9 Infinitive

The infinitive was formed using the suffix - ti, which provoked various phonetic changes if the stem ended in a consonant: ved-ti > vesti "to lead", met-ti > mesti "revenge", tep-ti > teti "to beat".

3.4 Communion

· active present participle.

declination
		dvig-n-y dvig-n-k

· passive present participle

formed using the suffix - m-, inflected like an adjective.

reko-m-ъ, reko-m-a, reko-m-o.

· active past participle I

is formed using the suffix - љ - after consonants, - vъљ - after vowels.

ending - ъ, - vъ in N. sg. m.r., - ъљi, - vъљi N. sg. and. R.:

nes-ъ, svмti-vъ, rmk-ъ, nes-ъљi, svмti-vъљi, rmk-ъљi

· active past participle II

formed using the suffix -l-, declined like an adjective.

by-l-ъ, nes-l-o, dvigno-l-а, pisa-l-ъ, xvali-l-о, mog-l-a, plet-l-ъ

· passive past participle

formed using the suffixes - t-, - n-, - en-, declined like an adjective.

bi-t-ъ, klк-t-o, vi-t-a, pozna-n-ъ, vid-en-o, ved-en-a, plet-en-ъ.

4. Syntax

In Proto-Slavic, Wackernagel's law continued to operate in full.

5. Vocabulary

Most of the Proto-Slavic vocabulary is original, Indo-European. However, long-term proximity to non-Slavic peoples, of course, left its mark on the vocabulary of the Proto-Slavic language. Most of the Proto-Slavic borrowings are of Germanic origin. There are also many Latin and Turkic borrowings.

In fact, the dictionary of the Proto-Slavic language is the multi-volume “Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages”, which began to be published in 1974. In Poland there is a similar project - “Sіownik Prasіowiaсski”.

5.1 Proto-Slavic heritage in modern Slavic languages

A significant part of the vocabulary of modern Slavic languages ​​is made up of the Proto-Slavic heritage. According to the calculations of the Polish linguist T. Lehr-Splawiński, about a quarter of the vocabulary of an educated Pole is of Proto-Slavic origin [9].

Proto-Slavic language

Old Church Slavonic

Slovak

Polish

Ukrainian

Belarusian

Slovenian

Serbo-Croatian

Bulgarian

Macedonian

Literature

1. Bernstein S.B. Essay on the comparative grammar of Slavic languages. - M., 1961.352 p.

2. Birnbaum H. Proto-Slavic language: Achievements and problems in its reconstruction. - M.: Progress, 1987.

3. Bondaletov V.D., Samsonov N.G., Samsonova L.N. Old Slavonic language. - M., 2008.

4. Vaian A. Guide to the Old Church Slavonic language. - M., 2007.

5. Gorshkov A.I. Old Slavonic language. - M., 2002.

6. Zaliznyak A.A. Ancient Novgorod dialect. - M., 1995 (2nd ed., M., 2004).

7. Krasukhin K.G. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics. - M: Academia, 2004.318 p.

8. Kuznetsov P.S. Essays on the morphology of the Proto-Slavic language. - M: URSS, 2006.

9. Martynov V.V. Language in space and time. On the problem of glottogenesis of the Slavs. - M: URSS, 2004.

10. Maslova V.A. Origins of Proto-Slavic phonology. - M.: Progress-Tradition, 2004.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

The order of the gojuon system. Comparative analysis of the phonetic structure and sound composition of the Japanese and Russian languages. Characteristics of vowels and consonants, semi-voiced and voiced sounds, their pronunciation. Longitude (number) of sounds, its designation and meaning.

course work, added 03/27/2011


Composition of vowel phonemes in German and Belarusian languages. Classification, main characteristics of vowel phonemes in the German and Belarusian languages. General definition of vowels and phonemes. Composition of vowel phonemes in the Belarusian language. Alternation of German vowel phonemes.

course work, added 08/31/2008


The action of the law of syllabic synharmonism in the Proto-Slavic period: a combination of consonants and vowels of homogeneous articulation; organic softening of hard consonants. The law of the open syllable of the East Slavic period. Phonetic signs of borrowings.

presentation, added 03/21/2014


Comparative characteristics of the phonetic systems of Avar and Arabic languages. The composition and system of vowels and consonants of these languages. Phonetic adaptation of Arabisms in the Avar language. Features of the use of stress in the languages ​​under study.

thesis, added 07/28/2012


Classification of vowel sounds in English according to various criteria. Rules for the articulation of sound combinations. Principles of classification of English consonants. A combination of plosive consonant sounds with lateral sonant sounds. Combination of consonants with vowels.

lecture, added 04/07/2009


The Great Vowel Shift of English (a large change in the pronunciation of long vowel sounds) in the 14th and 15th centuries. The process of palatalization. Assimilation of iota to the previous consonant (j-gemination). The merits of the philologist Henry Sweet, his phonetic works and theories.

abstract, added 12/06/2010


The oldest morphological and lexical features. New in phonetics: loss of words ъ and ь at the end. Reduced vowel in Old Church Slavonic. Second palatalization of velar consonants in the late Proto-Slavic period. Forms of the simple aorist.

test, added 11/08/2010


Phonetics as a science. classification of sounds (consonants and vowels). Consonants: basic features; first movement; neutralization; gemination. Vowels: Old English diphthongs; velar reversal; development of unstressed vocalism; vowel change.

course work, added 01/03/2008


Isolated use of sounds. Features of syntagmatics phonetic units. The compatibility and quality of sounds in the flow of speech. The action of syntagmatic laws. Positional exchange and positional changes of vowels and consonants in the Russian literary language.

presentation, added 02/05/2014


Consonantal type of the Russian language. Sound system of the Old Russian language. Loss of nasal vowels. Secondary softening of semi-soft consonants. Falling of reduced vowels, reduction of final vowels complete education. Formulation of the deafness-voiced category.

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

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

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

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

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

The originality of the Proto-Slavic language is largely explained by the fact that its historical changes were determined by development trends inherent only to it. The most common of these was the tendency towards syllabic division of speech. At the late stage of development of the Proto-Slavic language, a uniform structure of syllables was formed, which led to the restructuring of previous syllables in such a way that they all ended in vowels (see Law of Open Syllables). It was then that in the cases discussed above bă°l-tă°n (etc.) changed to blo-to, bo-lo-to or blah-to (with open syllables).

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

Studying the Proto-Slavic language (a language that has not reached our time - the ancestor of all Slavic languages) corresponding member. RAS G.A. Ilyinsky studied throughout his life, and no Russian scientist made a greater contribution to his research than he. Ilyinsky was the first in Russia to compose a general work entitled “Proto-Slavic Grammar,” highlighting its subject (the Proto-Slavic language) and justifying the method of studying this language.

The analysis of this language was based on the comparative historical method, which received wide use in linguistics of the late XIX - early XX centuries. While researching and reconstructing the Proto-Slavic language, the scientist could not do without the data of comparative Indo-European linguistics, as well as without comparing living and now extinct Slavic languages ​​(Bulgarian, Serbian, Polish, Czech, Slovenian, Russian, as well as Kashubian, Lusatian, etc.) .

The first edition of the book was published in 1916 and received wide recognition in domestic and foreign science. According to academician A. A. Shakhmatov was awarded it in 1918 with the Tolstoy Prize and the gold medal of the Academy of Sciences, which, however, due to the civil war and devastation, was never awarded to the scientist.

Highly appreciating the significance of this work by Ilyinsky, A.A. Shakhmatov wrote: “G.A. Ilyinsky generally carried out his task brilliantly and, having introduced us to the results of the comparative grammar of Slavic languages, assisted in strong degree their further study."

The author’s great merit, by his own admission, was that he set himself the goal of “... compiling a grammar of the language that would combine not only the main facts of its phonetics and morphology, but also the main results of their research” (Preface, p. III - IV). The scientist’s work consisted of an Introduction, 2 parts (Phonetics and Morphology) and consisted of 57 chapters, 316 paragraphs and more than 550 pages. Ilyinsky was one of the first in world science to give a systematic description of the Proto-Slavic language in the field of vocalism (system of vowel sounds) and consonantism (system of consonants), determined the chronology of certain sound changes, and outlined dialect differences that matured in the depths of the Proto-Slavic language. The scientist’s work was of great ideological significance, as it revealed the common roots of all Slavic languages ​​and gave a visual representation of their former linguistic unity.

Considering the history of the Proto-Slavic language in its development, Ilyinsky touched upon the distribution of Indo-European languages ​​into groups, determined the place of the Proto-Slavic language in the circle of the eastern group of Indo-European languages, and cited opinions known in the science of that time about the ancestral home of this language, the time of its origin and disintegration into individual Slavic languages. One of the questions developed in his work was the question of lexical contacts of the Slavs with peoples belonging to different Indo-European (and non-Indo-European) language groups, which has been of great interest to this day. It is noteworthy that on all the problems presented in the “Proto-Slavic Grammar” the scientist did not limit himself to presenting a set of opinions presented in science, but expressed his own, original view.

Due to the fact that Ilyinsky’s work had great importance for Slavic science, and in the years since the publication of the first edition of the book, many new works (and ideas) on Proto-Slavic issues have appeared, including from G.A. himself. Ilyinsky, E.F. Karsky, acting on behalf of the USSR Academy of Sciences, proposed in 1927 to G. A. Ilyinsky to prepare the second edition of the “Proto-Slavic Grammar” (hereinafter PG) for the Encyclopedia of Slavic Philology. Ilyinsky readily responded to this proposal and immediately began preparing the second edition. He considered this work in the period of the late 20s - early 30s as the main work of his life. The second edition was supposed to be released much more expanded and supplemented. Suffice it to say that the Introduction to the book was more than doubled, and the number of chapters in the second edition increased by 11 numbers and was equal to 58, while the number of paragraphs was 466.

The story of the failed publication of the second edition of the “Proto-Slavic Grammar” is one of the most tragic aspects of Russian linguistics in the 30s and is connected with the fact that in the 20s the Japhetic theory of N.Ya. gained strength and was declared truly Marxist. Marr, and comparative historical linguistics, one of the most talented representatives of which was G.A. Ilyinsky, was declared bankrupt and bourgeois. It should be noted that if a number of domestic scientists only passively opposed the introduction of Marrian ideas into linguistics, then Ilyinsky actively opposed Marrism and even participated in the discussion held at the Communist Academy, realizing that this could have a detrimental effect on the publication of his “Proto-Slavic grammar." This is what he wrote to academician. B.M. Lyapunov on March 2, 1929 in this regard: “In Lately I'm very worried that my PG won't see the light of day at all. As I heard from M.N. Speransky, N.Ya. is appointed chairman of the “Language and Literature” commission of the Academy of Sciences. Marr, and I am very afraid that he will throw a spoke in my wheels. He does not recognize “proto-languages” at all, and here I recently had the imprudence to speak at the local Communist Academy together with the well-known E.D. Polivanov about the notorious Japhetic theory, and with complete frankness expressed his opinion about this phantasmagoria (St. Petersburg. Branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 752. Op. 2. pp. 200-200 vol.). The history of Ilyinsky’s relationship with Marr was not limited to the scientist’s speech at this debate. Back in 1921, when Ilyinsky lived and worked at Saratov University, he was invited to collaborate with the Institute of Japhetidological Research, to which the scientist responded with restraint and sarcastism: “Of course, I can only respond with deep gratitude to your flattering invitation. But I am afraid that, due to my complete ignorance in the field of Japhetid linguistics, the Institute will be much more useful to me than I am to him...” (The letter is in the N.Ya. Marr fund, St. Petersburg. Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 800, op. 3 No. 406, l.1). Ilyinsky spoke even more openly about Marr’s ideas in letters to his fellow scientists: “In philology, N.Ya. sets the tone for us. Marr with his Japhetidic theory, which is (to say the least) the ravings of a madman. And, nevertheless, this complete nonsense will probably soon be declared universally binding for all linguists by the “Orthodox” system of linguistics, and woe to those who allow themselves to call this theory by its real name... “In general, the humanities in our country are not now in fashion, the course is towards industrialization; even minor studies in the field of philology do not always receive a favorable reception, especially if Marxism is not dragged into them, at least by the hair. on the other hand, N.Ya.’s “Japhetidian theory” acquired an almost official character. Marr, which is a peculiar mixture of ignorance, holy naivety and the wildest fantasy" (From the letters of G.A. Ilyinsky to M.G. Popruzhenko, a Russian scientist who emigrated to Bulgaria after the October Revolution, (Archive of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, f. 61, unit file 164, sheet 22, sheet 24, letters dated November 5 and December 16, 1928).

This same irreconcilable attitude of G.A. Ilyinsky’s commitment to the “new doctrine of language” was also reflected in his nomination to full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. His candidacy was proposed by B.M. Lyapunov, E.F. Karskiy, V.N. Perets and V.M. Istrin, but not only was he not elected as an academician, but he refused to run in the last round of voting, since he understood in the current situation the futility of these elections. This is what he wrote about this, Acad. B.M. Lyapunov, with whom he had warm friendly relations and common scientific interests throughout his life: “As for my prospects in the Academy of Sciences, I, of course, look at the current situation soberly and do not at all delude myself with vain hopes: I look at the upcoming campaign as to a lottery in which 99% are black tickets.” (St. Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, f. 752, op. 2, l. 267, letter dated April 29, 1930). This view of Ilyinsky was fully consistent with reality, for the linguistic rank of the Institute of Language and Literature RANIMKHIIRK noted his irreconcilable position in relation to the Marrian teaching and commitment to the Indo-European theory.

Of course, the comparative historical method in linguistics was the basis on which the entire edifice of the Proto-Slavic Grammar was built. It was absolutely clear to the scientist that denying this method was anti-scientific. In the 2nd edition of the Introduction to his work, he spoke about this with complete certainty: “Just as a comparative linguist, comparing the sounds and forms of individual Indo-European languages, draws approximately accurate conclusions about the form that they had at the time of the collapse of the Indo-European language, so does a comparative linguist -Slavist, combining data from Slavic dialects, guesses about those Proto-Slavic formations that laid the foundation for them” (PG. L. 5). It is enough to compare this position with the directly contradictory postulate of the founder of the “new doctrine of language”, contained in his work “On the Origin of Languages”: “The dominant Indo-European school of linguistics does not recognize, and cannot recognize, the Japhetic theory, since it overthrows it not only basic provisions, such as the fairy tale about the proto-language, but also undermines the very method of its work, which is exclusively formal and comparative.<…>There can be no talk of reconciling the new theory with the old on fundamental issues unless the Indo-Europeanist renounces his main theses. I consider the attempt of some of my very few students and especially followers to build a bridge to be more disastrous than the desire of the vast majority of Indo-European linguists to completely ignore Japhetic linguistics” in order to understand that Ilyinsky’s work was doomed. However, supporters of comparative linguistics, representatives of the old school of linguistics, had high hopes for the emergence of PG, considering its release a response to Marr’s phantasmagoric theory.

The second edition of the Proto-Slavic Grammar, prepared for printing in mid-1930, was put into production and was supposed to appear in the Leningrad branch of the Nauka publishing house, but the proofreading proceeded extremely slowly. Ilyinsky’s editor and constant assistant in correcting the book was B.M. Lyapunov, to whom he wrote with gratitude: “As for editing PG, then, of course, I can only thank fate that it sent me such a noble editor as you: You have already managed to make quite a few valuable additions to the book and have saved it from one inaccuracy..." (St. Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, f. 752, op. 2, l. 260). Due to the slowdown in work on the book at the publishing house, Ilyinsky suspected something was wrong; he had a presentiment that Marr and his supporters might interfere with the publishing process. In 1930, a consistent persecution of Ilyinsky and other Indo-European scientists began, spearheaded by N.F. Yakovlev, as Ilyinsky reported in a letter to Lyapunov dated October 29, 1930: [Yakovlev] ... back in August he published an outrageous article in the newspaper “For Communist Enlightenment”, calling on supporters of Marxism and Japhetism to rally against the Indo-Europeans and launch a personal attack on them, as “subkulakists” (!!!) In particular, in this article he offended M. Peterson, D. Bubrikh and especially me, defaming me as “the most reactionary of modern Slavists” (St. Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, f. 752, op. 2 , l. 285).

In 1930, Ilyinsky, concerned about the suspension of publication, wrote letters to the Academy of Sciences and its Editorial and Publishing Council (RISO), in which he “exhausted all arguments to prove the need to continue printing the book,” but these letters remained unanswered. He also saw Marr’s intervention in this, since one of his addressees was V.P. Volgin, when he was the dean of the First Moscow State University, according to Ilyinsky’s testimony to Lyapunov, treated him “absolutely correctly and quite favorably.” … “If in Leningrad he began to treat me completely differently, then without a doubt it was under the influence of Marr. For me, there can also be no doubt that he is drowning PG under the dictation of the same evil genius of our science” (St. Petersburg branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences, f. 752, op. 2, item 117, sheet 301 vol.)

Meanwhile, the Proto-Slavic Grammar, by decision of RISO, was submitted for review to N.Ya. Marr, who, as one would expect, gave it a sharply negative review: “The said work by G.A. Ilyinsky, the result of his many years of work, does not go beyond the boundaries of the formal-comparative school of linguistics in its material and interests, but methodologically stands entirely on the positions of idealistic linguistics. As a result, Ilyinsky’s work cannot in any case be recommended as a practical aid for the study of Slavic languages, therefore, there is no need to publish it” (St. Petersburg branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences, f. 18, op. 2, no. 238, l. 100). Marr proposed publishing only the Introduction to the work, to which it was supposed to give a preface, in which the “formal-comparative method” in linguistics was supposed to be debunked and the dead end “into which this method had led so-called Slavic studies” was to be shown, and the main part of the book was not to be printed at all . It was proposed to publish the Introduction in a limited edition.

Marr’s review is dated February 12, and already on the 13th of the same month, RISO made the following decision: “Having taken into account the written review of Academician. N. Ya. Marra about the work of G.A. Ilyinsky “Proto-Slavic Grammar”, agree with his proposal to publish the book, providing it with a preface. Ask academician N.Ya. Mara to write this preface, having previously sought the consent of the author. Finish the publication by releasing only the quantity necessary to supply the Academy Library (50 copies) and other libraries (one copy each). The remaining previously printed sheets should be handed over for use as paper pulp” (St. Petersburg branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences, f. 18, op. 2. No. 238, l. 98).

Ilyinsky courageously began to defend his work, writing a statement to RISO, where he especially emphasized that it was wrong to decide the fate of his book on the basis of Marr’s negative review: “Not to mention the fact that he [Marr. - G.B.] cannot treat me impartially, - after all, I am an open and principled opponent of his Japhetic theory, considering it unsatisfactory, by the way, from a Marxist point of view - N.Ya. Marr can hardly be recognized as a categorical authority in the field of Slavic studies: he never systematically dealt with issues of Slavic studies... Therefore, the fate of my book depends on the opinion of Acad. N.Ya. Marr is as strange as it would be surprising to judge the value of a special work on grammar based on the review of a Turkologist, even a first-class one” (St. Petersburg branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences, f. 18, op. 2 No. 238, l. 154). In the second statement to RISO, he notes one more detail: the first edition of PG was awarded the Tolstoy Prize and the gold medal of the Academy of Sciences based on the review of A.A. Shakhmatova. “Now,” the scientist continues, “the Academy of Sciences is going to subject the same book, but in an improved and expanded form, to almost complete destruction. Reason - review by N.Ya. Marra. But is it really possible that the authority of Marr, who never seriously studied the Slavic languages, and who himself, as a conscientious scientist, never called and does not call himself a Slavist, has more crucial“What is the authority of Shakhmatov, a direct specialist and author of a number of major works specifically in the field of the Proto-Slavic language?” (Ibid., l. 157) The answer to this rhetorical question is obvious.

Ilyinsky sent a copy of the first application to RISO to Lyapunov, who, in turn, also petitioned to continue printing the PG in full. In his statement, Lyapunov was not afraid to emphasize that Ilyinsky’s work is valuable primarily because it contains conclusions about comparative phonetics and morphology of Slavic languages, in fact speaking not only against Marr’s recall, but also against the entire “new teaching about language.” This petition from Lyapunov seemed to have gained force, and at a meeting of RISO on March 25, 1931, it was decided to “Ask Academician. A.S. Orlova view the work of G.A. Ilyinsky (partly already typed and partly in the manuscript) from the point of view of introducing such amendments (abbreviations and additions) into it that, without much effort and major changes, would make it possible to publish this work.” It is very significant that the “editing” of the PG was proposed not to a linguist, but to a literary critic, who, by his own admission, “didn’t dare touch linguistics.”

Orlov’s review, despite all the streamlining, was ultimately negative, because although he verbally “did not deny the desirability of publishing the Proto-Slavic Grammar,” but even being a non-specialist in the field of linguistics, he was able to discern the main feature of the Introduction, which, in his words, is that “... the provisions of “comparative” grammar are expressed here with the greatest sharpness and in this form pass through all §§ (all 96 printed pages)” (St. Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, f. 18, op. 2 No. 238, l. 104).

Judging by the surviving documents, on May 22, 1931, RISO Secretary I. Eisen turned to Marr with a request to give a new opinion on Ilyinsky’s work, sending him, along with the typesetting, the manuscript, as well as all extracts from the minutes of RISO meetings at which the issue of publishing the PG was discussed , and Marr's first conclusion. However, we did not find Marr’s second review (if it existed at all) in the Archive materials. Most likely, Marr gave the final order to suspend the publication orally.

Perhaps Ilyinsky still had faint hopes of resuming printing. In a letter to Lyapunov dated December 23. 1931 he wrote: And after your last letter I remain perplexed about the fate of PG. It is unclear to me whether RISO has made a final decision on further printing or not; In addition, I am still in the dark about what will be done with the printed Introduction: will it be completely destroyed or will it be released in a limited number of copies?<...>Although you write that the main reason for the persecution of the PG is the lack of Marxist-Leninist ideology in it, I don’t believe it. If this were so, then why would the second part of Obnorsky’s work on “Decline” be published? After all, there is nothing Marxist in it either; Derzhavin, who cannot be denied a lack of sympathy for official doctrines, publishes in the first volume of Proceedings of the Slav[ian] Institute three articles by Speransky, in which you would search in vain even with a candle for Marxist or Leninist ideas. Consequently, the point is not in ideology, but in the personality of the author of PG, hated by Marr and his satellites. Under such circumstances, I am seriously thinking about resigning even the title of correspondent member of the RAS, motivating my decision in a special memorandum” (St. Petersburg branch of the RAS Archive, f. 752, op. 2, l. 334).

When the scientist finally realized that the RISO resolution regarding the printing of one Introduction remained on paper, having turned into an empty formality, he began to ask Lyapunov for one thing - to save the PG manuscript itself. In letters to his friend, he never ceases to repeat this request in different versions: he asks to take it for safekeeping in order to later send it to Moscow, he offers to stop by Leningrad to take it personally from Lyapunov. It remains unclear for what reasons he did not do this, as well as why Lyapunov did not take the work (it is not in Lyapunov’s fund). One way or another, in the Archive of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, only the Introduction, rewritten by the hand of Ilyinsky’s wife and part of his proofs, survived, while the text of the main part of the 2nd edition of the PG, apparently, should be considered lost.

Below are excerpts from the Introduction to the 2nd edition of PG Ilinsky.

Introduction

General concepts
1. What is the Proto-Slavic language?

The term “proto-Slavic language” in science usually means the language that the Slavs spoke in that era when they formed one ethnographic whole. At that time there were no Russians, no Bulgarians, no Serbo-Croats, /l. 2/ no Slovenes, no Czechs, no Serbo-Lusatians, no Poles, but there were only slov ě ne, explained in a dialect which, although never free from certain dialectical differences, generally represented a fairly integral linguistic individuality.

Instead of the term “proto-Slavic language”, some scientists, in Russia especially Fortunatov and his school, and in France Me ye and his students, prefer to use the term “common Slavic language”, “le slave commun”, but this word should be avoided, since it can lead to major misunderstandings: after all, not every common Slavic language phenomenon can at the same time be Proto-Slavic. For example, the loss of reduced vowels in open syllables or the replacement of the ancient form by them. pad. based on -ū- the corresponding form of wines. pad. (Kr ъ v ь вм. Kry, ljub ъ v ь м. ljuby, etc. are undoubtedly pan-Slavic phenomena, but they arose not in the era of Slavic tribal unity, but in front of the eyes of the history of already separated Slavic languages. Of course, this objection retains force also for that “common Slavic language”, by which Buddha... and some others mean the later era of the life of the Slavic proto-language (on the eve of its collapse) / l. 3/ in contrast to the more ancient “proto-Slavic” in the most precise sense of the word.

2. “Fiction” of the Proto-Slavic language

From the proposed definition of the concept “proto-Slavic language” it is clear that at present it represents only scientific fi ction. In fact, if direct traces of the Proto-Slavic language had reached us in the form of written monuments or even some kind of living dialect, which by some miracle had survived unchanged for many, many hundreds of years, then we would have the right to talk about the Proto-Slavic language as a real fact. While this does not exist, and while we do not even dare to dream of the discovery of such monuments or such a dialect, we can only form an approximate idea about it, and, moreover, exclusively by studying its dead and living descendants, i.e. those eight dialects that form the so-called Slavic family of languages. Careful and careful combination of their data, both among themselves and with evidence from the siblings of the Proto-Slavic language - other Indo-European languages ​​- gives science the opportunity to at least partially restore or reconstruct Slavic /l. 4/ proto-language. Consequently, science operates here by the same means as when, through comparison of individual Indo-European languages, it constructs (often amazingly accurate) guesses about the original structure of the Indo-European proto-language. Of course, the latter language is also a fiction, but a fiction that once represented the same living fact as, for example, that “vulgar” folk Latin, from which numerous modern Romance dialects were formed within the memory of history.

3. Tasks and methods of Proto-Slavic grammar

The fact that the Proto-Slavic language did not leave behind any other monuments, except for modern and some extinct Slavic dialects, predetermines not only the comparative nature of the method of Proto-Slavic grammar, but also its most important tasks. In fact: when comparing Slavic languages ​​with each other, we notice in them, next to such features that undoubtedly developed in historical times, and a whole mass of such common features that cannot be explained otherwise than by the unity of their origin from identical source. Questions about what  is in modern Slavic languages ​​on//a consequence of /l. 5/ their father and what represents the product of their separate individual development is dealt with by a special linguistic discipline - Slavic comparative grammar and to a: as a comparative linguist, comparing the sounds and forms of individual Indo-European languages, he draws approximately accurate conclusions about the form that they had at the time of the collapse of the Indo-European language. Likewise, a comparative linguist-Slavicist, combining data from Slavic dialects, guesses about those Proto-Slavic formations that laid the foundation for them. It follows that the restoration of the Slavic language is the main thing I am tasked with the science of Slavic comparative grammar, and the grammar of this language there is its first chapter.

But speaking about the reconstruction of the Proto-Slavic language as the main problem of Slavic comparative linguistics, one should not, however, lose sight of one thing in highest degree important circumstance: no matter how deeply we study the sound and formal composition of modern Slavic languages, we will never be able to depict the history of the Proto-Slavic language throughout its entire length, from the beginning of its origin to the disintegration into separate Slavic dialects. And this is understandable, since the latter are not based on the Proto-Slavic language in /l. 6/ its entire volume, but only its certain individual dialects. And if so, then the modern descendants of these dialects could not reflect in themselves those phenomena of the Proto-Slavic language that completed their development cycle long before the time when the process of differentiation of the Proto-Slavic language began. It follows that modern Slavic languages ​​can provide material for conclusions only about the last moment of the evolution of the Slavic proto-language, but they themselves are not able to help penetrate into the secrets of its origin. For example, based on the fact that all Slavic languages ​​use the nouns voda “aqua” (cf. ancient Church Slavic water, Bulgarian water, Serbo-Croatian voda, Serbian voda, Czech voda, vl. woda, p. woda, r . water) we can make the undoubtedly correct conclusion that in the Proto-Slavic era this name had the form voda, and that it included sounds of the type to which phonemes like v, o, d, and a belonged, but where did these latter originate from? , what process they went through before they received their current even such a conditional character - the study of Slavic languages ​​alone cannot explain this. In other cases, our situation is even worse: some Proto-Slavic sounds, such as ě (yat) or ъ. b, have left such diverse reflexes in modern Slavic languages ​​that we either completely render //xia /l. 7/ powerless to determine the nature of those phonemes to which they go back even to sound types, or we can do this only in the most general, vague terms.

The position of the researcher would be hopeless if another science did not come to the aid of Slavic grammar in such cases - comparative grammar European languages. And its main task is to restore the proto-language, but such a proto-language that had already reached the crown and end of its development, which had long gone through all its main stages and was already close to its complete and final disintegration into separate dialects. But the end of the development of the Indo-European proto-language is the beginning of the development of those dialects from which its descendants arose, including that group of dialects in the depths of which the Proto-Slavic language originated. Thus, if Slavic comparative grammar gives us an idea primarily of the final stages of the evolution of the Proto-Slavic language, then the comparative grammar of Indo-European languages ​​introduces us to the first and moments of its life. Hence it follows great value comparative linguistics for Proto-Slavic grammar: after all, only by establishing the starting points of the development of the Proto-Slavic language can one begin to study those numerous phonetic and morphological processes that little by little led to the formation of modern Slavic languages, of course, in their embryonic state. /l. 8/

4. The importance of the Proto-Slavic language for Slavic, Indo-European and general linguistics

So, if science knows anything reliable about the Proto-Slavic language, about its origin, composition, conditions and laws of its development, it is exclusively thanks to the methodological and systematic combination of data from two linguistic disciplines: comparative Y og r a m a t i c a n d S l a v i n a n c h l a n g u a g ra m a n d Comparative Grammar and Indo-European languages: both of these sciences are, as it were, two pillars on which the majestic edifice of the grammar of the Proto-Slavic language rests. It does not follow from this, however, that the science of the Proto-Slavic language, which owes its existence entirely to these two disciplines, is not of interest to them in itself. Quite the contrary: without its provisions and especially without the facts collected by it, they themselves cannot take almost a single step in their own research.

/l. 9/ Indeed, it was not in vain that we called the grammar of the Proto-Slavic language above the first chapter of the comparative grammar of Slavic languages. By studying this chapter, we thereby form a fairly accurate idea of ​​the enormous heritage that the Slavic languages ​​received from their father and which is still their powerful binding cement. And we can say in advance that we will not understand anything in any way. historical development individual Slavic languages, nor in their mutual relation, unless we first highlight in them in the most precise way those common features that they carried over from the Proto-Slavic era, either as ready-made capital (such as individual sounds and forms), or in the form of well-known predispositions and trends that, already on the basis of individual Slavic languages, predetermined the course of many phonetic and psychomorphological processes in a strictly defined direction. Consequently, Proto-Slavic grammar casts a bright light on ancient elements and moments in the structure of each individual Slavic language, and this lays the foundation not only for the construction historical grammar of this language, but also for a strictly scientific study of the differentiation of the main Slavic linguistic core, i.e. those processes which, in fact, constitute the main content of Proto-Slavic grammar as such. /l. 10/ And one of the most important results of such clarification of the relative role of archaisms and new formations in the life of individual Slavic languages ​​is the determination of the mutual kinship between Slavic languages, or - in other words, - their strictly scientific classification. Thus, without exaggeration, we can say that all Slavic linguistics in general is ultimately based on the science of the Proto-Slavic language, and therefore familiarity with this language is a sine qua non of elementary scientific education every Slavic linguist.

But not only Slavic studies, but also Indo-European studies in general are extremely interested in successful development sciences about the Proto-Slavic language. Although the latter is only one of many descendants of the Indo-European language, and although its role was played for a long time by its eldest son, the so-called Old Church Slavonic, or Old Church Slavonic language, at present no one doubts the enormous significance that the Proto-Slavic language has for reconstruction of the Indo-European proto-language. The fact is that of the entire large family of Indo-European languages, not a single one, with the possible exception of Lithuanian, has retained as much antiquity in its sounds, forms, stress, intonation and phrases as Proto-Slavic. Meillet pointed this out quite correctly, especially emphasizing the amazing stability of his consonantism. And if so, then we should not be surprised that many, for example, its phonetic processes represent a fairly accurate /l. 11/ display of relevant phenomena of the Indo-European language. It is enough to point out that the history of the emergence of reduced vowels in the Proto-Slavic language, in particular, their appearance before Indo-European nasal and smooth sonants, throws a bright light on the history of the development of Indo-European weakened vowels, and it is not for nothing that Hirt in his the latest reconstruction language of the Indo-Europeans to designate one type of the latter uses Slavic letter b.

On the other hand, the preservation of final vowels, thanks to which the Indo-European nominal declension retained almost all of its case forms in the Proto-Slavic language, helps us look into all the main recesses of the syntactic structure of the Indo-European phrase. These first two examples that came across are enough to make sure that the restoration of the building of the Proto-European language is inevitably doomed to failure if the architect neglects the inexhaustible material that the Proto-Slavic language contains in this regard. Together with its closest brother, the proto-Baltic language, the proto-language of the Slavs should serve in this kind of work not only as a correction, but also as a to a certain extent and di rekt i v o m. Therefore, we should not consider it a mere coincidence that the brilliant linguist who was the first to apply the idea of ​​a proto-language on a large scale to comparative-//linguistic/l. 12/ Research, Aug. Schleicher, with particular love, studied the Baltic and Slavic languages.

But the Proto-Slavic language is of great importance not only for the comparative grammar of Indo-European languages, but also for general linguistics. Recently van Wijk quite rightly pointed out that in no other language is the close dependence of particular changes on more general trends so clearly manifested as in the Proto-Slavic language. Almost all phonetic changes, which, as we will see below, developed at the end of the Proto-Slavic era and which left the stamp of special originality on the Proto-Slavic language, are the result of two aspirations, namely the desire for maximum fullness of voice and for palatalization of consonants.

The first tendency found concrete expression in the so-called law of open syllables. In contrast to the Proto-Germanic language, where non-final syllables usually ended in a consonant, in the Proto-Slavic language a syllable could generally only end in a vowel sound. Having arisen among native speakers for some still unclear purely internal reasons, this tendency was the driving nerve, the main motor of almost all the most important phonetic processes of the Proto-Slavic language: both the monophthongization of diphthongs (§ 86) and the formation of nasal vowels (§ 97). And the emergence of purely floating/l. 13/ combinations (§129), and decomposition of prepositions (§ 166), and simplification of consonants and assimilation of consonants, etc. Even the disappearance of final consonants (§§ 177, 185) was a direct consequence of the tendency to end every syllable with a vowel sound, and therefore Mikkola was not on the right path when, on the contrary, in the disappearance of final consonants he hoped to open the starting point for the development of the law of open syllables. Probably in connection with the emergence of open syllables is the desire of the Proto-Slavic language to pronounce vowels as openly as possible, which, by the way, resulted in a weakening of the labialization of some vowels (for example, o, ŭ, ū) and a wide pronunciation of others (for example, ĕ).

An equally powerful factor that penetrated the entire organism of the Proto-Slavic language was the desire to soften consonants wherever they were located immediately before the palatal vowels (e,ę,ĕ,i, b). This palatalization of consonants caused numerous and very important sound changes, and often not just once, but in two or even three steps. Below we will familiarize ourselves with all such processes in detail, and now we will note that this tendency also arose in the Proto-Slavic language due to immanent reasons, and therefore, together with the first, deserves the deepest and most careful study of any researcher general laws language development.

The publication was prepared by G.S. Barankova with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation within the framework of project No. 06-04-00580a “Russian philological science in Bulgaria”

Notes

On the history of the 2nd edition of the Proto-Slavic Grammar, see also: Zhuravlev V.K. From the unpublished “Proto-Slavic Grammar” by G.A. Ilyinsky // Questions of linguistics. 1962. No. 5. P. 122-129. Barankova G.S. On the history of the creation of the second edition of “Proto-Slavic Grammar” by G.A. Ilyinsky // Russian language in scientific coverage. 2002. No. 2(4). pp. 212-248.

Wed. relevant statements on this matter by N.Ya. Marra: “We are against not only the existence of a single ancestral home of specific languages, as they really exist in their fullness of life without abstraction, especially against such a childishly simplified perception as a proto-language... the proto-language of human speech. We are against the existence of any proto-languages ​​in individual groups of human speech, the so-called Indo-European, Semitic, or smaller groups, for example, in the Indo-European circle - Slavic, Germanic, Roman... Only thought, divorced from materially existing reality, can allow , that the kinship of Russian with Czech or Polish, or French with Spanish, seems to have one origin, which allows them to build their proto-languages, proto-Romance language, proto-Slavic language, etc., not to mention the most scientifically composed common Indo-European language” Cit. by: N.Ya. Marr. Japhetidology. M., 2002. P. 194.

Quote by: N.Ya. Marr. Japhetidology. M., 2002. P. 108.

See an excerpt from A.I.’s letter. Thomson, cited by M.A. Robinson in his book The Fates of the Academic Elite: Russian Slavic Studies (1917-early 1930s). M., 2004. P. 159: “I am very pleased with the appearance of the new edition of Ilyinsky’s Proto-Slavic Grammar.<…>I hope that soon everyone will understand the scientific value of the work of Marr and Oldenburg, because... The number of linguists who have gone through a real scientific school is increasing more and more.”

Fortunatov F. F. (1848-1914) - an outstanding Russian linguist who studied Indo-European languages, a Slavist, a specialist in the field of comparative historical phonetics, an adherent of the comparative historical method in linguistics, the creator and developer of lecture courses on the comparative historical grammar of Indo-European languages . Fortunatov is known as the founder of the Moscow Fortunatov School (Moscow linguistic school), which occupied a leading place in the history of Russian linguistics at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 19th century. XX century Many famous Russian scientists came out of it, making the glory of Russian studies, Slavic studies and comparative studies (A.A. Shakhmatov, N.N. Durnovo, V.K. Porzhezinsky, A.M. Peshkovsky, B.M. Lyapunov, A.M. Thomson , D.N. Ushakov, S.M. Kulbakin, V.N. Shchepkin, etc.). Fortunatov’s students were also well-known foreign researchers: O. Brock, A. Belich, E. Bernecker, I.Yu. Mikkola and others, who made a great contribution to the development of world linguistics. All of them achieved great success in developing problems of the Proto-Slavic language (Proto-Slavic accentology, morphology and lexicology).

Meillet A. (1866-1936) French linguist, foreigner. corresponding member Petersburg AN (1906), author of numerous works on comparative historical linguistics, including the works: “Introduction to comparative study of the study of Indo-European languages” (3rd ed. 1938), “Comparative method in history. linguistics (Russian translation M., 1954), “Common Slavic language” (Russian translation 1951), representing the history of the Proto-Slavic language.

Budde E.F (1859-1929) - domestic linguist, corresponding member. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1916), author of works on Slavic studies, history of the Russian language and dialectology.

Schleicher A. (1821-1868) - German comparative scientist, tried to be the first to establish how private phonetic laws, operating within a given language, and the universal laws of language. Undertook the reconstruction of the Indo-European proto-language. He developed the theory of stadiality, since he believed that three morphological types of languages ​​- isolating, agglutinating and inflectional - represent three successive stages of language development (see Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. M, 1990, pp. 489, 491).

Wijk Nicholas van (1880-1941) - Dutch Slavist scholar, author of “History Old Slavonic language(Russian translation 1957)

Study of the Proto-Slavic language. Proto-Slavic language is the proto-language of the Slavic peoples. By proto-language, or base language, we mean a language to which several languages ​​genetically descend. Thus, Old Russian is the parent language for Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian; Common Slavic – for East Slavic, West Slavic, South Slavic groups of languages, etc.

IN scientific literature you can find two terms intended to designate the base language of the Slavs. Term Proto-Slavic language indicates the precedence of the system in question to the rest of the Slavic languages, as well as a period of relative ethnic and linguistic unity. Along with this name there is the term common Slavic language. The interpretation of this term - a language that has common features for all Slavic languages ​​at one time or another - has a typological basis. These terms are usually used as synonyms, but some scholars use them in relation to different stages of the existence of the proto-language of the Slavs. At the same time, they take into account that the base language developed dynamically, having experienced a number of major transformations. The Common Slavic language is understood as the initial period of development, immediately after its separation from the Balto-Slavic or Proto-Indo-European language; the Proto-Slavic language is understood as the final stage of a more or less homogeneous existence, which preceded the disintegration into several Slavic linguistic subgroups.

It is generally accepted that the Proto-Slavic language existed from the third millennium BC to the second half of the first millennium AD. It emerged from the pan-Indo-European linguistic unity, from which the Italic, Romance, Celtic, Proto-Germanic, Baltic, Hittite-Luvian, Tocharian, Indo-Iranian, Phrygian, Thracian, and Greek proto-languages ​​were also isolated (see).

It is customary to talk about two periods in the history of the development of the Proto-Slavic language, the conventional boundary of which is the great migration of peoples (1).

Early Pan-Slavic period covers a longer period, which lasts about two and a half thousand years. The Proto-Slavs lived very compactly at this time and spoke a single language. All language processes, which passed through their language, were uniform. In connection with the great migration of peoples and the settlement of the Slavs to the west and southwest, territorial unity was disrupted, and with it the Proto-Slavic language broke up into three language groups. Unified linguistic processes that originated in the depths of the base language now receive different reflexes. Time from VI to IX centuries. AD usually called late common Slavic period. During this period, features emerged that radically distinguished the East Slavic languages ​​from the West Slavic and South Slavic languages.

Despite the fact that the Proto-Slavic language is relatively young, not a single text written in it has been found. Thanks to a comparative analysis of Slavic and Indo-European languages, the Proto-Slavic language was artificially reconstructed by scientists. Now knowledge about the Proto-Slavic language represents a strict system of archetypes - hypothetically (that is, not absolutely reliably) derived language forms that underwent further phonetic and grammatical changes in accordance with the linguistic laws and patterns that were in effect at different times. Proto-Slavic forms are written in Latin letters and placed under an asterisk (asterix) - *. The main method of their restoration is the analysis of regular correspondences in closely related (Slavic) and other Indo-European languages ​​(mainly those that have a centuries-old history - Latin, Greek, Lithuanian, Gothic, etc.). Significant results are also obtained by comparing words with the same root and etymologically similar words within one language.
Note.
Signs used when recording reconstructed Proto-Slavic forms:

Sign	Description	Example use
*	used before any reconstructed form (sound, sound combination, morpheme, word form, etc.)	*tert, *mater
t	any consonant	*tert, *tolt
¯	longitude	*ā,
ﬞ	brevity	*ă
⁀	continuous (diphthong) nature of vowel pronunciation	*oȗ
̰̰	non-syllabic vowel character	*ṵ, *ḭ
۪	syllabic character of a consonant	*ḷ, *ṛ
ֹ	semi-soft consonant pronunciation	*tֹ
"	soft pronunciation of consonant	*t"
,	nasal (nasal) vowel pronunciation	*ę; * ǫ
°	rounded consonant pronunciation	*k°

Features of the Proto-Slavic language

Accent
Hypothetically, the stress in the Proto-Slavic language was tonic, or musical-expiratory. This means that all vowel sounds in a word were pronounced with equal force. What mattered was the rise and fall of the tone, as well as the duration of the sound of the vowel. Among modern Slavic languages, a similar accentological system has been preserved by the Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian languages.

Phonetics.

The sound composition of the Proto-Slavic language is significantly different from that found in modern Slavic languages. It is determined on the basis of a comparison of Slavic languages ​​with Indo-European languages.

Vocalism.

In the Proto-Slavic language, by the time it was separated from the pan-Indo-European linguistic unity, syllabic components were represented by three groups: “pure” (according to the terminology of A.A. Shakhmatov) sounds, diphthongs and diphthongoids.

1) “Pure” vowel sounds were opposed to each other not only in quality (i.e. articulation), but also in quantity of sound. There were 10 such sounds in the Proto-Slavic language: *ā, *ă, *ō, *ŏ, *ū, *ŭ, *ī, *ĭ, *ē, *ĕ. Sounds of unequal duration represented special phonemes with semantic and form-distinguishing abilities. Thus, *tŭ (“that”) is a demonstrative pronoun, singular, singular, i.p.; *tū (“you”) – personal pronoun 2nd, singular, ip.; inflection *-ē indicated the locative form (L.p.) singular. for nouns with ancient stems ending in *ŏ ( solid base), and inflection *-ĕ was an indicator of the vocative form (Vol.) in the singular. for the same nouns.

Quantitative differences were lost by vowels at a fairly early stage in the development of the Proto-Slavic language (2). As a result, in place of ten pure vowels, eight remained, and the differential sign of quantity was not completely eliminated, since in the common Slavic language the so-called “super short” vowels “ъ”, “ь” arose, which were pronounced as very short О and E.

Loss of quantitative differences in vowels:

	Until quantitative differences are lost		After the loss of quantitative differences
	Long	Brief
a: balka	*ā: *bāla	*ă: *bālo	o: fly
a: floor gati	*ō: *lōg-	*ŏ: *lŏg-	o: good life
s: son	*ū: *sūnŭs	*ŭ: *sūnŭs	ъ: son
and: humble	*ī: *mīr-	*ĭ: *mĭr-	b: m mouth
ѣ: ѣ ra	*ē: *vērās	*ĕ: *mĕdŭs	e: honey

As is easy to see, sometimes words with the same root conveyed subtle shades of meaning; most often they distinguished between a long-term or one-time action: *pīn-a-tei̥ - *pĭn-on-tei̥ (pinati - drink); *bīr-a-tei - *bĭr-a-tei (so-birati - take). With the loss of quantitative differences in vowels, these alternations turned into qualitative ones.

2) Along with individual monophthong vowels that formed syllables, diphthongs existed in the Indo-European and then in the Proto-Slavic language.

Diphthong (two-vowel, complex vowel) is a combination of two vowels - syllabic and non-syllabic - within one syllable.

In the Proto-Slavic language there were two types of diphthongs: with non-syllabic *u̥ and with non-syllabic *i̥:
*ăi̥, *āi̥, *ŏi̥, *ōi̥, *ŭi̥, *ūi̥, *ĭi̥, *īi̥, *ĕi̥, *ē i̥;
*ău̥, *āu̥, *ŏu̥, *ōu̥, *ŭu̥, *ūu̥, *ĭu̥, *īu̥, *ĕu̥, *ēu̥.

Modern Slavic languages ​​have not preserved ancient diphthongs. When the law of the open syllable began to operate in Slavic languages, at the end of a word and in the position before a consonant (non-syllabic) sound, diphthongs became monophthongized (in their place, the vowels I or ѣ appeared in the first group, U - in the second group), and in the position before the vowel diphthongs were split. In this case, the syllabic vowel remained within the first syllable, and the non-syllabic vowel in the form j or w --> v moved to the next one.

The diphthongs known in modern Czech, Slovak, and Lusatian languages ​​developed later as a result of the transformation of longitude in new closed syllables that arose after the loss of reduced vowels.

3) Syllables in the Proto-Slavic language could also form diphthongoids, or diphthong combinations.

A diphthongoid is a combination of a vowel sound with a sonorant sound (smooth or nasal), capable of forming a syllable.

This property was acquired if the diphthongoid fell into a position between consonants. Between vowels, these combinations represented two independent sounds: a syllabic vowel and a sonorant consonant.

Diphthongoids represented two groups, the identification of which is associated with the nature of the sonorant forming them. One group was formed by nasal consonants. It included 20 diphthongoids: *ōn, *ŏn, *ōm, *ŏm; *ān, *ăn, *ām, *ăm; *ūn, *ŭn, *ūm, *ŭm; *īn, *ĭn, *īm, *ĭm; *ēn, *ĕn, *ēm, *ĕm.

It is not always possible to reliably determine which of the nasal consonants was part of the diphthongoid, therefore the conventional nasal consonant is usually denoted by the capital N: aN, oN, uN, iN, eN.

The second group of diphthongoids was formed by the smooth consonants r and l. Initially, apparently, there were also 20 of them, but by the time the Proto-Slavic language emerged, only four remained: *or, *ol, *er, *el.

Already at a fairly early stage in the development of the Proto-Slavic language, the law of the open syllable began to operate in it, which led to the loss of diphthongs and diphthongoids by all Slavic languages. In place of the diphthongs of the *u non-syllabic group, a pure vowel sound [у] appeared in the position before the consonant and at the end of the word; in place of the diphthongs of the *i non-syllabic group - pure sounds [and] or [ě] (ѣ). In the position before the vowel, the diphthongs split into two independent sounds: a pure vowel, arising after the loss of quantitative differences, and the consonant B (originally sounded like a labial-labial) or J. In place of diphthongoids with a nasal consonant component before the consonant and at the end of the word, two new ones appeared for the Slavs, the sound is nasal O and E (ǫ and ę), which existed in all Slavic languages ​​until about the 10th – 12th centuries, and in modern Polish and some dialects of Macedonian continue to exist to this day. In the Old Slavic Cyrillic alphabet, nasal vowels were designated by special letters - ѧ (“yus small”; [ę]) and ѫ (“yus big”; [ǫ]). The change in diphthongoids, which included smooth ones, was longer

Thus, 10 pure vowels in the Proto-Slavic language were complemented by 20 diphthongs and 24 diphthongoids, which amounted to 54 syllabic components. In the late Proto-Slavic language, only 11 vowels are found in their place: i, ы, у, е, ę (ѧ), ь, о, ǫ (ѫ), ъ, еа (ѣ), а.

Consonantism

The consonantal system of the Proto-Slavic language was significantly different from those systems that modern Slavic languages ​​have.

At an early stage of its existence, the Proto-Slavic language apparently had 25 consonants. Among them, 6 are sonorous and 19 are noisy. Sonorants - j, w, r, l, m, n - acted as independent consonants, as the second component of a diphthongoid and as a syllabic sound. Noisy ones were represented by two fricatives (frictional) sounds - s, z - and seventeen plosives, among which were pure and aspirated labials - b, bh, p, ph, front-lingual - d, dh, t, th and back-lingual consonants: pure hard - g, k, pure soft – g', k', aspirated – kh, k'h and labialized – g°, k°h, k°.

At a fairly early stage of the existence of the Proto-Slavic language, as in the dialects that formed the basis of the Germanic, Celtic and Baltic languages, there was a loss of aspirated and labialized consonants, and if the consonants bh, ph, th, dh, g°, k° coincided with pure b , p, t, d, g, k, then the aspirated kh, k°h changed into [x], as a result of which another back-lingual consonant arose in the Slavs: prasl. *berǫ “take” from I.-E. *bher- (cf. Sanskrit bhárāmi); prasl. *pěna “foam” from I.-E. *sphoinā (cf. Sansk. phenah); prasl. *dvor- “yard” from I.-E. *dhwor- (cf. lat. fores); prasl. *xoxot- “laughter” from I.-E. *khakho- (cf. Sanskrit kakhati).

The sound [x] arose in the Proto-Slavic language as a result of the positional change [s] after the Proto-Slavic *r, *u, *k, *i, if the sounds [k], [p], [t] did not follow. If we compare the sound of the words flea, fly, ear, moss, etc. in Indo-European languages, we will come to the conclusion that in place of the Slavic [x], the sound [s] was once present in all these words:

Slavic languages: VS: rus. flea, moss, ear; Ukrainian blikha, moss, vukho; blr. -, moss, vuho; other Russian blah, makh, ear – ushese (r.p.); YS: tbsp. -, -, ear – ushese (R.p.); blg. balkha, makh, ear; agricultural boo, mah “mold”, ear; sll. bółha, mâh, uhô; ZS: Czech. blcha, mech, ucho; slts. blcha, mach, ucho; Polish pchła, mech, ucho; v.-l. pcha, -, wucho; n.-l. pcha, mech, hucho;
non-Slavic languages: lit. blusa, mùsos, ausìs; ltsh. blusa, -, àuss; Other-Irish brusa, -, -; Greek ψύλλα, -, ούς; lat. -, muscus “moss”, auris; d.-v.-s. -, mos, -; other Prussian -, -, āusins.

After other sounds, the consonant s could not transform into x, however, already in the early Old Slavonic monuments one can find a number of exceptions that arose by analogy with words and forms, where such a transition was phonetically natural. We find an analogous transition from s to x, for example, in the aorist forms: dakhb, nesokh as molikh.

Probably as a result of the loss of the voiced plosive velar aspirate sound (*gh) in the late common Slavic period, the pronunciation of the consonant *g had variations: in some Slavic dialects it was, as in the Proto-Slavic era, a plosive consonant, in others it was a fricative velar or glottal.

As a result of the change in Indo-European k' and g' into sibilants, the Proto-Slavic language belongs to the satem (3) group (Indian, Iranian, Baltic and other languages) and differs from the centum group (Romance languages, Greek and others), in which there is no such change. Yes, Russian. hundred - lat. centum, rus. heart - Greek καρδία, Russian. gold - English gold, etc.

In the Proto-Slavic language there were no special restrictions on the compatibility of sounds. In particular, all consonants could be freely combined with *j and front vowels, syllables could be either open or closed: *ko-njos (horse), *ge-na (wife), *ma-ter (mother), * vert-men (time). However, already at the early stage of the existence of the Proto-Slavic language, the laws of open syllables and syllabic synharmony began to operate in it, which completely restructured its phonetic and syllabic structure. Sounds within one syllable are arranged only in accordance with the principle of ascending sonority: voiceless fricative --> voiceless plosive --> voiced fricative --> voiced plosive --> sonorant --> vowel, and only voiceless sounds can be found within one syllable , or only voiced consonants (with the exception of sonorant ones, which can come after voiceless consonants). At the end of a syllable there is always a vowel sound: *stor-na --> stra-na (YUS); sto-ro-na (Sun); stro-na (ZS); *zwon-kъ --> zvǫ-kъ; *ma-ter --> ma-ti.

The action of the law of syllabic synharmonism led to the emergence of sibilants and affricates in Slavic languages.

Morphology

The morphology of the Proto-Slavic language already at an early stage differs significantly from the Indo-European type (mainly in the verb, to a lesser extent in the name). In the Indo-European proto-language, names and verbs were sharply opposed to each other: they have different sets grammatical categories, allowing to convey the concept of objectivity or movement; have their own inflection structures. However, already in the depths of the Proto-Slavic language, words appear among names that denote not the object itself, but its attribute. They continue to be part of the group of names, but develop additional grammatical categories capable of conveying new grammatical meaning.

In the Proto-Slavic language there are also unchangeable words (prepositions, particles, conjunctions, interjections) that participate in structuring speech, as well as in conveying the emotional state of the speaker.

Name

Modern Slavic languages ​​have inherited the basic grammatical categories of the name, the basic principles of inflection and word formation. However, none of modern languages The Slavs did not preserve the inflectional paradigms of the name themselves unchanged. In all languages, the number of these paradigms has been reduced, and unification has occurred in the system of inflection.

A name with a subject meaning in the Proto-Slavic language, as in all modern Slavic languages, is divided into three large groups depending on grammatical gender(male, female, average). Probably, initially, in the distribution by gender, the main role was played by the designation by name of a real object of male or female gender; later this was joined by formal grammatical indicators, including inflection. The names denoting a characteristic performed the function of definition, that is, they had to be consistent with the subject name, so they did not belong to one particular gender, but varied according to gender: *dobrъ, *dobra, *dobro. These are so-called nominal adjectives, or short adjectives. In the late period of the existence of the Proto-Slavic language, pronominal, or full adjectives, which, like nominal ones, changed according to gender: *dobrъjь, ​​*dobraja, *dobroje.

The name in the Proto-Slavic language changes according to cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative, vocative) and numbers (singular, plural, dual). The vocative case has not been preserved in modern Russian, Slovak, Low Sorbian and Slovenian languages, but is used with more or less regularity in other Slavic languages. All Slavic languages, except Slovenian and Lusatian, have lost their dual number. Depending on the sound type of the stem - the so-called suffix-determinative - and grammatical gender, the names of the Proto-Slavic language are divided into six groups:

1) feminine and masculine with stems on *ā, *jā (*uŏdās, *zĕmjās, *unŏsjās);
2) masculine and neuter gender with stems on *ŏ and *jŏ (*stŏlŏs, kŏnjŏs,* ŏknŏs, *pŏljŏs);
3) masculine gender with stem ending in *ŭ (sūnŭs, dŏmŭs);
4) feminine and masculine with stems ending in *ĭ (*kŏstĭs, *ghŏstĭs);
5) words of all genders with a stem on a consonant: (masculine gender with a stem on *n (I.p. *kāmū – V.p. *kāmenĭs); feminine gender with a stem on *r (*māter); neuter gender with a stem to *n (*imen), *s (*slŏuŏs), *t (*orbent));
6) feminine gender with stem ending in *ū (*suekrūs).

This system was inherited from the Indo-European language, where the belonging of a word to one or another declension group could be determined by its general group meaning. Thus, words with the suffix *-ter and the general meaning of “blood relationship” were distinguished (*māter, *pāter, *sĕster, *bhrāter, *dŭghter); *-ū – “non-blood relationship through the female line” (*suekrūs, *jentrūs); *-ent – ​​“baby animals and humans” (*orbent, *doitent, *oslent). Now we cannot always judge these groups of words. Nominal adjectives in the masculine and neuter gender were changed according to the model of stems to *-ŏ and *-jŏ, in the feminine gender - according to the model of stems to *-ā and *-jā; full adjectives varied according to pronominal declension.

Analysis of the nominal paradigms of modern Slavic and Indo-European languages ​​allows us to establish the Proto-Slavic type of nominal endings in different grammatical forms.

Proto-Slavic system of inflections in the nominal declension

Case	Types of declinations
	*-ā, *-jā	*-ŏ, *jŏ	*-ŭ	*-ĭ	*-r, *-n, *-s, *-t	*- ū
Singular
AND	∅	-s	-s	-s	∅/-s	∅/-s
R	-ns	-ō/-ōd	-ous	-eis	-es	-es
D	-ī	-ī	-ouī	-eiī	-ī	-ī
IN	-n	-n	-n	-n	-n	-n
T	-mĭ	-mĭ	-mĭ	-mĭ	-mĭ	-mĭ
M	-ē/- ĭ	-ē/- ĭ	∅	∅	- ĕ	- ĕ
Z	- ĕ	- ĕ	- ĕ	- ĕ
Dual meaning
I-V-Sv	-ĭ	-ō (m.r.) -ĭ (v.r.)	- ū	-ī	- ĕi	-ĭ
R-M	- ū	- ū	- ū	- ū	- ū	- ū
D-T	-ma	-ma	-ma	-ma	-ĭma	-ama
Plural
AND	-ns	-i (m.r.) -a (s.r.)	-es	-es (m.r.) -ns (w.r.)	-es	-ns
R	-ōn	-ōn	-ōn	-ōn	-ōn	-ōn
D	-mŭs	-mŭs	-mŭs	-mŭs	-mŭs	-mŭs
IN	-ns	-ns	-ns	-ns	-ns	-ns
T	-mī	-ois	-mī	-mī	-mī	-mī
M	-sŭ	-sŭ	-sŭ	-sŭ	-sŭ	-sŭ

After the processes caused by the loss of closed syllables, grammatical gender became the decisive factor in determining the type of declension in all Slavic languages. In place of the Proto-Slavic six types of declensions with hard and soft variants in the first two types, three to four types of declination were formed in modern Slavic languages ​​(4).

In the Proto-Slavic language, numerals were not an independent part of speech. Names denoting numbers belonged to different nominal bases. In all Slavic languages, this part of speech was formed later.

Verb

The Proto-Slavic verb, like the modern one, had two stems: the infinitive and the present tense (cf. *bĭrā-ti – bĕr-on). From the base of the infinitive, the infinitive, supine, aorist, imperfect, participle with -l, active past participle, passive past participle were formed. From the foundations of the present tense, the present tense, the imperative mood, the participle of the active and passive voice of the present tense were formed. Later, already in some Slavic languages, from the base of the present tense the imperfect - v.-sl. - began to be used. bereah. The verb had primary (in the present tense) and secondary inflections (in the forms of aorist, imperfect, imperative).

Transformations in verb inflection are associated with the formation of a system of verbal form during the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language. This caused changes in the methods of conveying temporary relations: duration - non-duration of an action, its correlation - lack of correlation with the present, faded into the background; the idea of ​​the completion or incompleteness of an action at the time of speech came to the fore. This idea was best embodied by the Proto-Slavic perfect, which was preserved in all Slavic languages ​​to denote action in the past. In some Slavic languages ​​(Slovak, Lusatian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian) the plusquaperfect is preserved, expressing the meaning of long-past tense. Lusatian languages, as well as South Slavic languages, except Slovenian, also retain the aorist and imperfect.

Vocabulary

The lexical fund of the Proto-Slavic language is established only tentatively, on the basis of a comparative historical study of Slavic and Indo-European languages, especially Baltic and Germanic. The Proto-Slavic language apparently retained a fairly large layer of Indo-European vocabulary associated with the designation of kinship, some household items, and the surrounding nature. At the same time, some lexemes, under the influence of various kinds of prohibitions, were lost. For example, the Indo-European name for the bear was lost, which was preserved in Greek - άρκτος, reproduced in the modern term “Arctic”. In the Proto-Slavic language it was replaced by the taboo compound *medvědъ – “honey eater”. This designation is now common Slavic. The Indo-European name for the sacred tree among the Slavs also turned out to be forbidden. The old Indo-European root *perkuos is found in the Latin quercus and in the name of the pagan god Perun. The sacred tree itself in the common Slavic language, and then in the Slavic languages ​​that developed from it, acquired a different form - *dǫb. The Proto-Slavic dictionary reflects lexical-semantic groups denoting a person and everything connected with him, his life, family, society; denoting the names of the home, the simplest household items, clothing, food, drink; it presented lexemes related to the surrounding world, nature, animals and plants, agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts; ideas about time, space, quantity, etc. Analysis of this vocabulary allows us to judge what surrounded the Slavs in ancient times, what attracted their attention.

Literature
Ivšič S. Slavenska poredbena gramatika, Zagreb, 1970.
Stieber Z. Zarys gramatyki porównawczej jezyków słowińriskich, cz. 1-2, Warsz., 1969-73.
Bernstein S.B. Proto-Slavic language // Russian language: Encyclopedia. M., 1979. S. 224-225.
Birnbaum H. Proto-Slavic language. M., 1987.
Entry into the historical-historical interpretation of the words of the Yanskih movs / Edited by O. S. Mel-nichuk, Kiev, 1966.
Gasparov B.M., Sigalov P.S. Comparative grammar of Slavic languages. Tartu, 1974.
Genealogical classification of languages ​​// Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1990. pp. 93-98.
Ivanov V.V. Proto-language // Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1990. pp. 391-392.
Kuznetsov P.S. Essays on the morphology of the Proto-Slavic language. M., 2002.
Meie A. Common Slavic language. M., 1951
Nachtigal R. Slavic languages, trans. from Slovenia, M., 1963.
Niederle L. Slavic antiquities. M., 2000.
Selishchev A.M. Proto-Slavic language. Its restoration // A.M. Selishchev. Selected works. M., 1968. P. 555-576.
Semereni O. Introduction to comparative linguistics. M., 1980.
Trubachev O.N. Linguistics and ethnogenesis of the Slavs. Ancient Slavs according to etymology and onomastics // VYa. 1982. No. 4. pp. 10-24.
Trubetskoy N.S. Experience in the prehistory of Slavic languages ​​// Bulletin of Moscow State University. 1993. No. 2. pp. 64-83.

Notes
1.Great Migration- the conventional name for a set of ethnic movements in Europe in the 4th-7th centuries, which destroyed the Western Roman Empire and affected a number of territories in Eastern Europe. The prologue of the Great Migration was the movement of Germanic tribes (Goths, Burgundians, Vandals) at the end of II - beginning of III centuries to the Black Sea. The immediate impetus for the Great Migration of Peoples was the massive movement of the Huns (from the 70s of the 4th century). In the VI-VII centuries. Slavic (Slavins, Ants) and other tribes invaded the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire.
2. Long and short vowels in modern Czech and Slovak languages ​​are the result of later processes that took place in the depths of these languages.
3. The names satem (satem) and centum (centum) go back to the Iranian (satem) and Latin (centum) versions of the word “hundred”. Languages ​​that have undergone changes from back-lingual to sibilant are called satem; those that have not undergone such a change are called centum.
4. In modern Bulgarian and Macedonian languages, only remnants of case forms have been preserved, which are not obligatory in use (especially in the Macedonian language). Thus, declension as such is absent in these languages.