Unifix is a unique affix; part of a word (suffix or prefix) that is not repeated in other words.
In a fairly significant part of Russian words (more than 200 formations), unique elements are singled out, that is, parts that are not found in any other word. They are called unifixes. More often among them there are unique suffixes, for example, post-amt, trick-as-s, paste,groom, but sometimes unique prefixes are possible, for example, forefront, all-in.
This term was first used by E. A. Zemskaya, she also characterized such elements of the word.
Unifixes do not have such properties of a morpheme as repetition. At the same time, the above words are perceived as derivatives, as they have motivating bases. Unifixes are associated with repeated roots (cf. glue, glue; married, marry, little wife) therefore, repetition fundamentally ensures their semantic certainty, clear semantic articulation. Such unique parts of words can hardly be called morphemes, since they are characterized by semantic insufficiency.
However, on this basis, unifixes are heterogeneous. Some of them are very close in meaning to regular affixes (cf. pop - pop-adj-a); in the series of this pair, a unique suffix denotes the wife of the person named in the deriving word, and this derivational meaning in Russian is also expressed by other suffixes, for example, in the word general. Other unifixes do not find synonyms for themselves in the system of regular derivational morphemes. For example, glass-tier.
A feature of unique elements is that some of them turn into regular morphemes over time. For example, at the beginning of the word olympiad -iad- was originally a unifix, and now with the advent of words Universiade, Spartakiad, Alpiniada the unifix has become a regular suffix.
Related called the root, used in the word only with derivational affixes. For example, you can get used to And get out of the habit, but you cannot use this verb without a prefix at all. Often in the semantics of a whole word, the meaning of the associated root is unclear, it is felt weakly. We saw it in verbs put on shoes And take off one's shoes having an associated root - at-. Here are more examples: take away - take away, raise - raise, take off - take off, accept - take. In these words, the meaning of prefixes is clearly understood, and the meaning of the associated root (-nya- in owls V., -nim- in nesov. c.) barely perceptible. What does this root mean? Some kind of action, but what exactly is unclear.
Isolation of related roots is justified only when the other parts of the word are morphemes that have a definite, clearly perceived meaning in the composition of the word: in-nz-i-t, pro-nz-i-t(compare: in-poke, pierce), add-and-t, from-bav-and-t(compare: to-li-t, excel-t); from-verg-well, into-verg-well (throw away, drop-throw, put in). If the meaning of "neighbors" is not clear, there is no reason to isolate and the associated root. Yes, in a group take away, pick up, take, take away prefixes have specific spatial meanings and are clearly understood. In the verb understand the meaning of the prefix is unclear, so there is no reason to single out the associated root in this verb.
Erofeeva Veronika, Pushkin Nikita, Pardasova Julia
Research work helps to find out the origin of words, expressions (the name of dishes, the origin of surnames) in the Russian language.
Download:
Preview:
To use the preview of presentations, create an account for yourself ( account) Google and sign in: https://accounts.google.com
Slides captions:
TOPIC: HOW THE WORDS DEVELOPED IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE
The urgency of the problem. What is the need for my work? Subject: "Russian language". There are many words in Russian that we do not understand. To reveal the lexical meaning of a word, we turn to dictionaries. Before us the question arose: how did the words come about? Who invents them? In our time, what new words have appeared in the language? This research will help us to identify the origin of words and expressions, improve academic performance in the Russian language. Type of project: theoretical, by time - medium duration, by the way children are organized - group
OBJECTIVES: to reveal the connection between the origin of the names of the most common plant-symbols in myths, legends of the peoples of the world with their history; learn about the ways of forming surnames; find out how common dishes and foods got their names. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT is to identify: how did words originate in Russian?
A riddle whose answer is the origin of the words a. 1. Lexical meaning (work with dictionaries). Attention is drawn to the ambiguity of the word. 2. Drawing of a word (according to the number of meanings of the word). 3. Etymology (origin) of the word (work with dictionaries). 4. My creativity. Work plan:
Solutions to the problem 1) Download the prepared abstract from the Internet 1) Download the prepared abstract from the Internet 2) Download the prepared answer from the Internet. 1) Ask your parents and friends. 3) Find information yourself from various sources and prepare a presentation based on it. Use dictionaries, literature on the topic, illustrations, photographs, slides, multimedia projector.
Expected result Expanding horizons. Finding out the origins of words in Russian (names of flowers, dishes, surnames). Increasing interest in the Russian language and history. Improving academic performance in the Russian language. Mutual help in learning and work.
How did the surnames come about
where do people get their last names from? ways of forming surnames
The first surnames in Rus' appeared in the 14-15 centuries. Then the owners of surnames became feudal lords, princes, boyars, later - nobles, merchants. Most often, the origin of the surnames of people from wealthy estates and the meanings of surnames were associated with the names of the lands they owned (for example, surnames: Tverskoy, Vyazemsky). The simple Russian people did without surnames, being content with first names, patronymics, and nicknames. This was the case until the abolition of serfdom in 1861. By this time, the vast majority of the population of Rus' were serfs, they did not have surnames. And only after the fall of serfdom, when the peasants ceased to belong to anyone, became independent, did the need arise to give them surnames. Then, in most cases, it was patronymics and nicknames that became the initial data for the origin of surnames.
Methods for the formation of surnames 1. Surnames from the profession. (Kuznetsov, Pastukhov) 2. Surnames from the place of residence. (Ozerov, Polevoy, Bolotnikov) 3. Surnames from geographical names. (Macedonsky, Chuvashov, Kostromin) 4. Surnames from nicknames. (Krivoshchekin, Novikov) 5. Surnames from the name. (Ivanov, Petrov, Ilyin) 7. Surnames from historical event. (Nevsky) 8. Surnames from an event in a person's life. (Naydenov, Podkidyshev) 9. Surnames from the personal qualities of a person (Bystrov, Smirnov, Smelykh, Grozny) 10. Surnames from church names and holidays. (Christmas) 11. Surnames from the names of animals and birds. (Skvortsov, Drozdov, Medvedev, Zaitsev, Bobrov)
In our class, the surnames occurred:
Origin of words. Names of common dishes and individual products
The word APPETITE came to us under Peter I from Germany. The German "appetite" comes from the Latin "appetitus", which means strong desire. As you know, "bread is the head of everything", "bread on the table, and the table is the throne" ... The very important word for the Slavs "bread" was borrowed in the common Slavic period from the Germanic languages (Gothic hlaifs, Old German hleib). The word "dough" is formed from the same stem as "squeeze" (alternating and / e, as in the words "blink / adjoin"). *Teksto changed to "dough" as a result of simplifying consonant combinations. The original meaning of this word is "what is squeezed" (i.e. crumpled in the hands).
The word "bagel" is derived from "ram"; initially bagels were called buns bent like a ram's horn (sometimes they are called volutes). This variety of sweets is named so for its resemblance to ice floes - they are similar in transparency and the ability to melt in the mouth.
The word SUGAR is borrowed from the Latin language "sakharum", randomly from the Sanskrit "sarkar", which means "gravel", "sand". Sour cream is so named because it is swept (raked) from settled sour milk. CREAM is what is drained from settled fresh milk. Fritters were popular in Ancient Greece. Fritters are butter cakes, and in Greek BUTTER is “elion”.
"Soup" - borrowed from French(in the XVIII century), where soupe goes back to the late Latin suppa - "a piece of bread dipped in gravy". The word "oil" is formed from the verb "to smear" with the help of the suffix "-sl-" (as "oar" from the word "carry", "harp" from "buzz"). The resulting form "maz-slo" was simplified, and it turned out "butter". "sandwich" in translation from German - "bread and butter".
"Tomato" in translation from Italian - " Golden Apple“Watermelon is “harbuza” from the Persian language. Orange. The word comes from two German words - “apfel” (apple) and “sina” (China), that is, “Chinese apple”. Vinaigrette is derived from the French vinaigre - "vinegar"
Research results:
Overall Study Findings: None foreign word did not come into the Russian language for no reason. In certain periods of history, different languages - Arabic, ancient Greek, German, Polish - were distinguished by a strong penetration into Russian speech. Many Russian words have these roots. And today there are many neologisms of English origin. For example: jazz, rally, athlete.
New words appear literally every day. Some do not linger in the language, while others remain. The great creator of words was the scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. He had to build a number of sciences from scratch: physics, chemistry, geography and many others. Lomonosov introduced the words "thermometer", "refraction", "balance", "diameter", "square" and "minus" into the Russian language. Trying to establish the origin of a particular word, scientists have long compared the data of different languages with each other.
The process of forming the vocabulary of the Russian language is long and complex. The question of the origin and development of vocabulary, the ways of its development is closely connected with the history of the Russian people. The entire vocabulary of the Russian language can be divided into two large classes: primordial, originally inherent in the Russian language; borrowed, that is, come to us from other languages. Thanks to borrowings, the Russian language becomes richer, they do not constitute a threat to it (only 10% of borrowed words). International vocabulary facilitates scientific, cultural and political contacts. "All peoples exchange words and borrow them from each other." (V. G. Belinsky)
Working on this topic, we learned how to use various dictionaries: etymological dictionary etymology of words meaning of words dictionary of the Russian language dictionary of synonyms Ozhegov's dictionary origin of the surname Dal's dictionary
Literature used: Dal V. Dictionary of the living Great Russian language in 4 volumes - M .: Education, 1968. From the history of Russian words: Dictionary - a guide. - M .: School - Press, 1993. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language - Russian language, 1975. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. - M., 1999. Dictionary-reference book on the Russian language. / Under the editorship of A.N. Tikhonov. - M.: Citadel, 1996. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. - M .: Publishing house of Moscow University, 1980.
Students of the 3A class of the municipal educational institution "Kugessky Lyceum" of the Cheboksary district of the Chechen Republic Erofeeva Veronika, Pardasova Yulia and Pushkin Nikita worked on the project.
ROOT is the carrier of the real, lexical meaning of the word, its central part, which remains unchanged in the processes of morphological derivation; expresses the idea of the identity of the word to itself; correlates with the concept of a lexeme; simple, or non-derivative basis of the word, remaining after the elimination of word-formation. or word change. LES elements I s. 242 (my italics - V. G.). The root is opposed to all auxiliary (affixal) morphemes and can be used either independently, i.e. without the surroundings of affixes (house, water, village), or in conjunction with derivational affixes (cat, migratory, fall apart - the derivational zone is highlighted).
Roots that have the possibility of independent use are free. Roots that live in the language only in conjunction with affixes are related. These are varieties of roots from a structural point of view.
The concept of "connected root" was put forward by G.O. distiller. “Such stems, which are always given only in conjunction with certain affixes, can be called linked stems” Notes on Russian word formation / “Izvestia of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR” / 1946, vol. V, no. 4, p. 327. These are such roots as -vyk- (to get used to), -bav- (to amuse, add), -voi- (warrior), -cork- (to clog), -u- (to put on shoes), -pt- (bird) , -sun- (sun) and many others. By the nature of the manifestation in the word, the associated roots resemble words with phraseologically related meanings (in phraseological turns, the words are inextricably linked with each other, and the associated roots with affixes are also indissoluble: squint (only eyes), bosom (only friend); also - stick piercing, strung - root -nz (bottom) - is not used without affixes). A related root can be distinguished in the composition of a word by comparing this word with related words. One related word is enough, where this root would act in connection with another affix. Thus, the boundary between the root and affixes is clarified. For example, in the word lamb (the root is connected, since the word yagnya (> gn #, “lamb”) is not used now in Russian, the root is distinguished when comparing derivatives of related words, and these words should function in the literary language , for example: yag-yat-a, yag-i-t-sya - out of the entire nest of related words, there are two of these, where the associated root yag- is clearly distinguished in conjunction with derivational affixes.
However, such roots, which have at least one case of use in a free form, cannot be considered connected in the strict sense of this term. Roots such as, for example, -elm (vyazh) -, -pis (pish) -, -zhzh (zhg) -, -ches (chesh) - and others can be free in the stems of the verb in the form of 1 person singular. hours: I knit, I write, I burn, I scratch, but since the “test” word is not formed with the help of affixes, but is a form, roots of this type are called semi-connected Shansky N. M. Free and connected stems / Essays on Russian word formation / (A. Kopeliovich does not use the term "semi-connected", considering the roots in such words to be free, since the root (for example, write-) in def. the form of the verb is equal to the stem, and this is the main criterion for determining the free root). . As a special case, the connection of the root with a zero affix (call #, noise #, crunch #, height #, depth #) is noted in the LES.
There is no doubt that now non-derivative words with associated roots were once derivatives and their root could be equal to the stem. Speaking of connected roots, we willy-nilly come across such an aspect of word formation as a historical change in the structure of the stem of a word. The main reasons why connected roots could appear are de-etymologization and simplification (which is often identified - the point of view of OS Akhmanova). These phenomena took place in antiquity, and most of the words that were affected by this have long lost their articulation. G.O. Vinokur, speaking about the fact that the study of related foundations is especially important for the history of the language, noted one of the reasons for their occurrence: “... it was not so in the Old Russian language, while the word voi was in common use, which was equal in meaning to the current warrior” Shansky N. M. Svobodnye and related stems / Essays on Russian word-formation /, and also pointed out the importance of SK for the formation of new roots: as long as, with a given primary stem, different affixes are still possible, and not just one, the affix and the stem do not completely grow together ”Ibid. The final link is a word with a new root, which was formed as a result of simplification, and it, in turn, was preceded by a gradual de-etymologization.
There are many words in the Russian language that have experienced such a transformation long before our days. To see the former structure of these words, it is necessary to refer to the etymological dictionary. Words such as a ring, a hoof, an infection, a butterfly, etc. ceased to correlate with the words wheel (> "kolo" - "circle"), dig, strike, woman (in the sense of "sorceress": according to old beliefs, some animals, including butterflies, were considered secret sorcerers of the CESRYA III), experienced complete de-etymologization and simplification, became non-derivative, lost their articulation. Now we can no longer call these roots connected, because the boundaries between the root and affixes have disappeared completely, and modern basis of these words is equal to the root, which stands out in related words as free in conjunction with other derivational affixes: ringlet, hoof, butterfly (possessive adj.).
The process of transforming a connected root into a new free one also takes place in modern word formation. Since the SSC has already begun to lose semantic transparency and - to a greater or lesser extent, but not completely - de-etymologized, it can be difficult to determine whether simplification has occurred in any words or not yet (for example, approve, appease, fertilize cf. good). This implies numerous problems related to the definition of the structural type of the root in these words (free, as in appease, or connected, as in approve), and hence with the division of such words (the boundaries of the root are blurred). There is also a problem in connection with the SC itself. Outwardly, it is very different from the free one, and therefore some linguists, characterizing the SC, deprive it of those static properties that the root has forever secured for itself. Thus, the internal essence of the SC as a root morpheme is distorted, and this is completely unacceptable in science in general, not to mention the fact that such an erroneous approach entails an equally erroneous view of the division of the SSC. This problem will be discussed below.
There are currently two classifications of related roots.
I. Classification of the NC by origin (three reasons for the appearance of Zemskaya E. A. Segmentation of words with related roots // Word formation// Modern Russian language/):
- 1) As a result of the loss of the original word with a free stem by the word-building nest (for example, after the words p'ta (bird), bhla (squirrel), pal (finger), envy (envy), soln (sun) disappeared from the Russian literary language , baviti (amuse), nzti (pierce) This reason was first noted by G. O. Vinokur.
- 2) As a result of the discrepancy between the semantics of the original word and the words derived from it (for example, the words set up, turn off, stock up, flat today can no longer be associated with the words build, key, pasture, log, although these words still exist in the language to this day) .
- 3) As a result of the complication of the basics due to the borrowing of words that are in a relationship of equal production (for example, egoist - egoism; dictation - dictate) This reason was first noted by N. M. Shansky as an expansion of the available information about the NC (Free and connected basics / Essays on Russian word formation /).
II. Classification of NC by structure (depending on which affixes the root is associated with): Tikhonov A.N. SSRY, v.1, p.19
1). Roots associated with the suffix:
2). Roots associated with prefix:
3). Roots associated with the config:
Both classifications in one way or another relate to the articulation of the SSC. Both linguists (E. Zemskaya and A. Tikhonov), having presented the reader with the division of the SC on some basis, begin to show clearly what the degree of difficulty in dividing the SSC depends on and, along the way, consider special words or groups of words that, in their opinion, are inseparable. There are points of difference in the arguments given by these linguists, but there are much more points of convergence.
Both linguists, when dividing a word, make a clear emphasis on affixes, although each in his own way. Of particular interest in relation to words with difficult articulation is the position of E.A. Zemskoy.
E.A. Zemskaya claims that the articulation of such words depends on Zemskaya E. A. Articulation of words with related roots // Word formation// Modern Russian language/:
- 1) on the nature of the meaning of words;
- 2) from the belonging of the word to one or another part of speech, as well as the presence in the language of words that are correlated with the given word in terms of semantics and morphemic composition.
Both points of this classification, in our opinion, in one way or another relate to the problem of isolating the root in the SSC, which is closely related to the problem of the status of the SC, and especially to the consideration of this problem by various linguists, including E. Zemskaya.
In the first case, examples are given: ob-nya-t - about-him-at, s-nya-t - with-him-at, under-nya-t - under-him-at, where the prefixes “have a clear spatial meaning, which is in other words, therefore, prefixes are isolated from the composition of the word. In other words with the same etymological root -nya-(-nim-) - understand, heed, appease - the prefixes are not distinguished, because the words have lost their original, specific meaning. It happens that the meaning of prefixes in some words with radixoids is unclear, for example: to plunge, to subject, therefore prefixes here are not distinguished from the composition of the word.
Thus, according to the point of view of E. Zemskaya, there is a "transfer of semantic weight from the root to the affix" Ibid., and the SC, not fulfilling one of the main duties of the root - not clarifying the semantics of the word - is deprived of the right to be called a full-fledged root and receives the name "radixoid "(radix - Latin "root", oid - Greek "similar"). Of course, the clear semantics of affixes in the SSC suggests that “there is almost no noticeable step towards simplification” Shansky N.M. Free and related foundations / Essays on Russian word formation /, but nothing more. It does not follow from this, as N. Shansky notes, that with a clearly perceived prefix, the word has a derivative stem, even if the SC included in this word does not occur in other words and its meaning is unclear. This is also the point of view of E. Zemskaya, illustrating the approach to the significant parts of the word - both affixes and roots - from their semantic side, and thus, semantics is put by E. Zemskaya among the categorical features of the root. Therefore, a "normal" root must first of all be "understandable", which is observed among free roots. Otherwise, the “radixoid” is singled out according to the residual principle, since the affix takes on the main semantic load in the word.
The opponent of E. Zemskaya on this issue is A.B. Kopeliovich, professor of VGPU.
Free roots, according to A. Kopeliovich, only seem to be more semantically transparent, because they are outwardly similar to the whole word (especially non-derivative words equal to the base: meter, ball, table, blue, simple, or verbal nouns formed with the help of a zero suffix : dream #, run #, dream-a, caress-a - in these words -a is both an inflection and a suffix). Such closeness makes it possible to build related words around the original one, determines the internal form of derivative words (“The root is a semantic associator that combines words into a single nest” Kopeliovich A. B. On the legitimacy of the term “radixoid” // Russian word: synchronic and diachronic aspects. Materials international scientific conference 2003. pp. 127-128.).
The SC experience "desemantization" over time. Ibid. - the process of distancing the root from external resemblance to the word, "fouling" with affixes. As a result, in such words as shod, dress and undress, undress, the root practically turns into a residue that does not express any lexical meaning.
But, according to G.O. Vinokura, the judgment about the semantics of the root is generally devoid of linguistic content, because “even free, transparent roots (-red-) are difficult to give a semantic description without referring to a full-fledged word with this root (red). Therefore, regardless of the words, the meaning of the root (any! - V.G.) cannot be formulated” Kopeliovich A.B. On the legitimacy of the term “radixoid” // Russian word: synchronic and diachronic aspects. Materials of the international scientific conference 2003. pp.127-128.. And this means that a common feature for all root morphemes is potential semantic opacity, because “the semantics of a root morpheme, like any other, is realized only as part of a word. (...) It is impossible not to agree with the idea of G.O. Vinokura that ideas about the non-semantic nature of a particular root morpheme are “devoid of linguistic content”» Kopeliovich AB Word formation and morphemics: the practice of linguistic analysis. p.48.
So, contrary to the approach of E. Zemskaya, we have no right to compare the degree of semantic load on the root and affix in the composition of any word, and then single out the root according to the residual principle on the basis of the “ambiguity” of its meaning.
Thus, a new view of the SC arises (concrete arguments in support of the thought of G. Vinokur, its expansion), which seems to us scientifically more legitimate. Note that the point of view of A. Kopeliovich can be supported by the fact that, despite specific features, SC does not lose the inherent properties of the root: in its nest, this root combines related words as a semantic associator; without it, the nest does not exist. This means that SC occupies a higher position in relation to affixes - affixes of such properties are deprived - and on this basis it stands out in the word in the first place, and affixes can be singled out according to the residual principle.
Regarding the view of E. Zemskaya on the articulation of the SSC, there is another, somewhat different point of view, which can be called a variant of the approach. A.N. Tikhonov in the "Derivational Dictionary" does not separate prefixes in words like raise, take out, where the prefix has, according to E.A. Zemskaya, spatial meaning (by analogy with the words put-it, you-ex-at), apparently because that it is impossible to find a word for comparison with another prefix that has a different, often opposite, meaning. These words themselves cannot make a pair for comparison, since it is much more difficult to see their etymological relationship. In words like subject, subdue, indivisible by E. Zemskaya, the prefix is distinguished by A. Tikhonov, because there is a word for comparison that is quite etymologically close to this one, sometimes even synonymous, for example: -nut; *prohibit-it - *prohibit-it The sign * marks etymologically related words that are in different word-formation nests. It turns out that prefixes are distinguished here on the basis of a structural comparison of etymologically related words, although the meaning of prefixes in this case is also unclear ( in contrast to verbs, for example, u-nes-ti or swim-be). Thus, there is reason to believe that E.A. Zemskaya is based on the semantics of the morpheme associated with the root (for example, prefixes), and the position of A.N. Tikhonov - structural principle. In our opinion, E. Zemskaya’s approach to the division of the SSC is closer to the methods of word-formation analysis (where the derivational meaning of each affix-formant is taken into account, since in the foreground is the relationship of word motivation), and A. Tikhonov’s approach is morphemic (where attention is paid to the structure of the word and its components are distinguished by comparison with other words, taking into account only morphemic identity). But at the same time, both linguists still attach considerable importance to the semantic side of affixes (especially E. Zemskaya). In some cases, A. Tikhonov takes a step towards derivational analysis, offering for comparison with a non-derivative word (to show the presence of SC) an etymologically related word from another nests, explaining such a comparison by the fact that “non-derivative words given for comparison in the SRL are very weakly connected with the nest of the words in question, but have not yet completely broken their family ties with it” SHSSRYa T., p. 16, which means there is some hint of a relationship of motivation.
to run, cf. score II, obsolete. Voting ball. see score I SSRY T., vol. 1, p. 16
approve (cf. good) SHSSRYa T., p. 319
u-cunning-i-t-sya (cf. cunning) SHSSRYa T., p. 517
About words like point, dobro, cunning A. Tikhonov says that “perhaps they once headed this nest, although it is sometimes very difficult to speak about this confidently, since this requires a special study of their past historical relations with cognate words, entering the nest” SSRYA T., v. 1, p.16. In our opinion, the weaker the connection of these words with each other, the more inappropriate in the word-formation dictionary are comparisons of this kind, because in the NSL these words are either not recognized as related at all (which is indicated by the need for a brief explanation of the semantics of the word score) , or do not directly communicate with each other in the minds of native speakers (as evidenced by the left-sided simplification in the word approve). Perhaps a comparison can be appropriate only in those cases where there has not been a simplification and there is an articulation of this SSC (for example, from-start-it - cf. et; for-create-it - cf. dissolve-create). Such comparisons are given in the SSRY T. along with the first.
A. Tikhonov's "addiction" to the semantics of affixes will come to light a little later, when we talk about the other side of the articulation of the SSC - the presence in their basis of particles with an ambiguous status, taken by some linguists as morphs, and by others (and Tikhonov) as submorphs.
In the second case, there is a contradiction between E. Zemskaya and A. Kopeliovich - direct, and between E. Zemskaya and A. Tikhonov - indirect.
According to E. Zemskaya, the division of the SSC depends on their belonging to one or another part of speech. For example, the words put on shoes, shoes and dress, clothes, according to E. Zemskaya, are divided in different ways. If we consider the verb pair put on - take off and put on - undress, then we will see that prefixes are easily distinguished from the composition of the word based on the opposition of the semantics of these affixes. In verbs denoting a process, affixes of opposite meanings are always especially clearly distinguished: undress is something opposite to put on shoes, and the same thing with the words undress - put on. According to E. Zemskaya, the situation will be completely different if we consider the nouns shoes and clothes derived from these verbs. In this case, it is impossible to single out either a prefix or a suffix from the composition of the word (there are no oppositions between “rosuw” and “undress”, and the suffix -в is dead). Thus, the words shoes # and clothes are inseparable, which means that they already have a different root, the so-called “new free”.
A. Kopeliovich opposes such an approach to the articulation of words of this type. As an argument, the above concept is given, according to which the root, including the connected one, is not singled out according to the residual principle (the status of the SC is proved), remains the same common part of all related words of this nest, which confirms its name of the root. On our part, one more argument can be made: the entry of an “indivisible” noun (for example, shoes) into a nest of words derived from obuv ShSSRYa T. p.315, the nest is given in an abbreviated form ..
If in modern vocabulary Since the dictionary reflects the relationship of motivation between words like put on shoes - shoes, then simplification, which entails the indivisibility of the stem, could not occur. Therefore, taking into account all of the above, we come to the conclusion that, within the framework of A. Kopeliovich's concept, words of the ob-u-v type have a SC that is currently isolated. According to the residual principle, we can distinguish the dead suffix -в- in the word footwear, and according to the principle of isolating a single root in this nest, we delimit the root -dezhd- in the word clothing from the prefix (as well as the prefix ob- in the word footwear). The fact that these are prefixes was proved earlier, using the example of motivating verbs. As for the element -zhd- at the root of the word clothes, it cannot be an affix, because it is a part historically inseparable from the root (cf. clothes - clothes; hope - hope, zhd; this is a reflection of one of the ancient phonetic processes in language).
A. Tikhonov does not speak directly about the articulation of these words, but there is good reason to believe that he does not support the point of view of E. Zemskaya, because he does not deny in his dictionary that these words enter the same nest with the verbs to put on, dress, t i.e. "closely related" to them at the moment. This means that simplification could not occur, therefore, the bases of the words shoes and clothes are articulating.
Classification of morphemes according to their role and place in the composition of the word
According to the role and place in the composition of the word, all morphemes are divided into root and affixal. The main real meaning is concentrated in the root, affixes are attached to the root and concretize its meaning. The lexical meaning of a word is formed from the totality of the meanings of the root and word-forming affixes. With the help of affixes, new words and word forms are formed.
Affixes (service morphemes, lat. affixum "attached") in relation to the root are distributed into:
1. suffixes
2. postfixes
3. prefixes
4. graduation
5. interfixes.
Root morpheme (root) -
contains the main element of the lexical meaning of the word, this is the common part of related words. The root is an obligatory part of any word. There are no words without a root.
All related words with a common root form nests of cognate words: forest, forest, wooded, grove, deforest etc. (this is only part of the nest).
All words in a nest must have the same root value.
Nests are different in the number of single-root words included in them.
clean up to 60 words
waters(Z movement, drive) more than 100 words
Yes(re-yes-th) more than 100 words
According to the most general semantics roots are divided into several groups:
Roots with subject Z (name the subject) - house, forest, book-a, fish-a, salt, man
with indicative Z - white, brave, hard, blue
with procedural Z ( read-at, move-it, let-et, carry-ti)
with quantity Z( tr-i, dv-a, five, st-o)
with the pronominal Z ( mine, mine, you / you - suppletive roots)
The common Z of the root is preserved in all derived words:
home ® home ( anyway subject Z )
salt ® salt ( anyway subject Z )
walk ® walking
walking (Z process, movement )
If you need to establish which word came from which, you must take into account the semantics of the root:
move and t ® stroke Ø(Z of the root is procedural, therefore the direction of derivation is: from a word whose part affiliation has this Z, to a word whose part affiliation does not have this Z. Conclusion: Verbs have Z of the process, therefore, the original verb)
deaf ® wildernessØ(Z root is indicative, motivated by adjective)
quiet ® quietØ
Roots can change, that is, have allomorphs(even several at the same root). They arise as a result of historical changes:
book-a / book-ny g//f
toss / toss / toss / toss
s’ // s // sh o//a
zh-t / zhn-u / s-zhin-at(in Z "to remove bread")
zh-t / zhm-y / s-zhem-ayut(in Z "squeeze")
sand(the base is equal to the root, because in SRY - unmotivated) / sand(o//null sound) / sand(c//h) / sandy(k / / h, o / / zero sound)
It is important not to divide the word where, from the point of view of the modern Russian language, the word is not divided. Common mistake:
feedit/ feeding Yu
loveit/ love Yu(j palatalization in language history)
Roots may be free and bound. Free roots act as an independent lexical unit (that is, the stem of a word is equal to its root in at least one single-root word):
tableØ sandØ
day Ø night Ø
fiveØ water-a
where is the taxi
pony there
Related roots are roots that are always followed by prefixes or suffixes. They stand out when compared with related words.
fri-itsa fri-ah-a fri-ich-iyØ fri-enets
This is a related root in SRY, but in Old Russian there was a word sweat(=bird), and the root was free.
In related roots, the lexical meaning is weakened. The meaning of such a root can be distinguished only by comparing the lexical meanings of all words containing this root, minus the values of prefixes and suffixes.
For example:
V verg kick, with verg down, down verg kick, from verg choke
Vcast down - prefix has Z "direction of action inward"
Withoverthrow- down direction
fromcast down - direction from something
undercast down - direction to the object of impact
(Z of the root - “throw, throw”, back in the 19th century there was a word overthrow)
The following rows of words can also serve as examples of related roots:
before bav it, at bav it, at bav it, at bav ka
at th ty, u th ty, under th ty, oto th ti
in nz it, about nz talk about at th, times at be
on de th, oh de th, times de be
about at th, times at be
In these and other rows of words, the Z of the root is so weakened that the semantic weight (determining the lexical Z of the word) is transferred from the root to the prefix.
In some manuals, related roots, the meaning of which is weakened, are called radixoids (from Latin radix "root" oid "similar", literally - "like a root").
Why does such a phenomenon occur, i.e. why do connected roots appear?
1. The original word disappears, but there are related ( bird, plunge)
2. associated with borrowing
optimismØ(at first not articulated, borrowed)
then: optimist, optimalist, optimist(overgrown with single-root words, and began to segment)
space(at first)
then: cosmos, cosmonaut, cosmic, cosmic field
Before we turn to the consideration of affixal morphemes, we note that the term affixoid is used in linguistics. (from Latin affix "attached" oid "similar", literally - "similar to an affix")
Affixoid -
this is a root morpheme in which the main meaning is weakened and approaches the meaning of affixes. There are prefixoids and suffixoids, which are similar in their meaning to prefixes (prefixes) and suffixes, respectively.
Affixoids differ from radixoids in that if radixoids are used in simple bases, then affixoids are used mainly in complex ones (that is, having 2 roots).
semishadow
semimonth
floorday
(semi - weakened Z, but in practice it is distinguished as a root. The weakening of the meaning is evidenced by the fact that the root floor / / floor is not used independently, that is, it has an associated meaning, a value that stands out when comparing all words with this root, e.g. half)
pushkino Vedas( Wed with Z words: Pushkin ist)
Suffix -
this is an affix that is located after the root and serves to form new words and word forms. Therefore, suffixes are divided into formative and word-formative.
Derivational suf. serve to form new words with a new lexical meaning:
clean th® clean from A
clean And be
clean O
clean yul I
The last suffix (together with the system of inflections or without inflection) is usually an indicator of HR:
clean from A- noun
clean yul I- noun
clean O - adv.
Formative Suf. serve to form grammatical forms of words (depending on the part of speech), while maintaining the identity of the lexical meaning:
Suffixes are often modified, i.e. have allomorphs.
oak OK/ oak To A(k - allomorph to -OK)
gift OK/ gift och ny
old ec/ old h essky
Suffixes can be. tangible and zero.
A NULL MORPHEME IS A SIGNIFICANT ABSENCE OF A MORPHEME.
Zero suf. stands out when compared with other words.
carried Ø /nes l A(as compared with word forms)
earless, legless, armless ( in comparison with the word image. model - Wed . horseless n th)
Null. suf. stands out in verbal nouns:
gapØ tear
transitionØ transition
Ø in noun, formed from adj. (i.e. in adjective nouns):
dryØ dry
rot Ø rotten
Origin suffixes can be. native Russian and foreign languages. The vast majority are native Russians.
Borrowed, in particular:
hell block hell uh, clown hell A
already masses already, type already, instruction already, tattoo already
ant occupation ant, divers ant, doctor ant
ism avant-garde ism, classic ism , Marx ism
In the case when we are faced with the task of isolating all living morphemes in a word, i.e. make a word-formation analysis
1) take into account the phonemic composition of the word. This is due to the fact that the phoneme [ j], often "hiding" in iotized vowels, in some cases it belongs to the root, in others to the suffix:
for example: friend- j- a - is included in the suffix
army j- a - enters the root
2) take into account the motivation of the word, and coordinate their assumptions with a model typical for word formation:
at theater aln th ← theater
because at railway station n th ← railway station
at school n th ← schools A
Prefix -
Term prefix(from lat. praetixum - “attached in front”) + tracing paper console
Prefix - an affix that is placed before the root and serves to form new words with a new lexical meaning.
rightgrandfather grandfather
undergroup group
Notbeautiful handsome
Withwrite write
Prefixes attached to verbal stems, except for derivational. functions can change the form of the verb (from the verb of the imperfect form to make the verb of the perfect form). Such prefixes should be qualified as syncretic.
Withdo ( to bring to a reasonable result the work begun )
Bybuild (-//-)
isbathe (-//-)
Youbathe (-//-)
Prefixes are placed before the root, but can also be placed before another prefix:
collect ® on-gather(collect in large numbers) ® By- to-collect(a touch of disdain - something worthless).
not-happy ® times-not-happy
SUPPLIERS SHALL BE CONNECTED ONLY TO THE SAME CH.
noun + adjective = noun: grandfather ® great-grandfather
adj. + adj. = adj.: new ® not new
verb + adjective = verb: sleep® sleep
adv. + adj. = adv.: now ® still
Attachments may have allomorphs:
in//in deposit/login
air//air nurture/cultivate
Sun//Sun dig up/sing
But among prefixes this is less common than among suffixes. And most prefixes are not modified.
By origin prefixes are proper Russian and foreign. Most are proper Russian, and date back to the common Slavic and Indo-European periods. They usually correspond with prepositions:
pretext V and prefix V ( in go V house)
from - from ( from take from appeals)
from - from ( oto go from Houses)
Some Russian prefixes have developed on the basis of particles:
do not fail, ugly
not nothing, nowhere
somehow, something
There are few foreign prefixes:
| A | = no, without | immoral, illogical |
| anti | Z "opposite" | antiparticle |
| archi | Z of excess | archival |
| de | Z destruction, return | denationalization |
| des | Z destruction, absence | disorganization |
| dis | Z destruction, absence | disqualification, disharmony |
| infra | Z "inside" | infrastructure ( internal structure ) |
| inter | between | intervocalic |
| ultra | trendy ( highest quality ) | |
| ir | Not | surreal |
| re | again, re (= redo) | reorganization |
| pseudo, quasi and some. others | Z "fake, deceitful" | quasi-language pseudoscience |
Prefixes can only be materially expressed, ZERO PREFACES DO NOT EXIST.
Before talking about other affixal morphemes, we should generalize and compare some information about prefixes and suffixes.
| Suffix | Console |
| Suffixes are often soldered with endings, jointly expressing grammatical Z with them: old-and-t (infinitive) young-ost-Ø (n. f.r.) dialect-un-Ø (n. m.r.) | Prefixes are mostly not involved in the implementation of grammatical Z (except for verbs) |
| the derivational suffix can either change or not change the word's belonging to the Czech Republic house - house house - home | the prefix never changes the word's belonging to the Czech Republic: point - sub-point cheerful - cheerful run - run away |
| the same suffix cannot form the words of different CR: -liv- - always suf. adj. ( silent, patient)-ets - suf. noun ( brave, stubborn, breadwinner) | the prefix is indifferent to the part-of-speech belonging of the word, i.e. the same prefix can be attached to words of different part-of-speech affiliation: raz-: cheerful, pretty co-: collaborator, empathize |
| Suffixes can radically change the lexicon. Z words: protein(Z "part of the egg") tiger cub(Z "tiger cub") | It does not radically change the lexical Z of the word, but only adds an additional shade to this Z. Eg. times - - shade Z "very" - beauty verbal prefixes have a Z shade - an indication of the direction: run away, run away |
| Not typical for verbs, very common for nouns. and adj. | Not common with nouns, very common with verbs |
| Often cause various alternations: paper - paper peas - peas | Virtually no effect on the phonemic structure of the word |
| Can be materially expressed and zero ( silence, hush) | Always tangible |
| And 1 more feature inherent in set-top boxes | |
| May have a secondary, additional to the main stress: renter (which prevents even the phonetic reduction of unstressed vowels) |
In addition, we note that sometimes words are formed by the simultaneous addition of a prefix and a suffix - this is a prefix-suffix way of forming words. For example,
at school n th ← schools A
behind lakes j e ← lakes O
In this case, scientists are not talking about two different derivational morphemes - a prefix and a suffix, but about one morpheme, which is called confix.
Can this term be used?
1. It can be used in morphemic parsing (when words with the same structure are selected to prove a morphemic structure). For example, proof of the prefix and suffix in the word beyond the lake there will be words Transbaikalia, Transcarpathia.
2. It is inappropriate to use it in word-formation analysis, since in the latter case it will be necessary to replace the usual term prefix-suffix way others - confiscation, which is not very convenient.
Postfix
The term is from lat. postfixum- "attached after".
Term postfix used in linguistics. science in 2 ZZ:
wide Z: "any affixal morpheme found after the root (suffix, inflection, post-inflection suffix)"
We will use it in the narrow sense, according to which a postfix is an affixal internal ó an explicit morpheme, located after the end and serving to form new words and - rarely - to form ff S.
Until recently, the postfix was called the inflectional suffix. You may come across this term in some tutorials.
Postfix included in the basis.
The most common postfixes are the verbal postfix -sya and pronominal postfixes - something, something, something.
The postfix is attached to the verb stem:
teach ® teach Xia (new LZ), Xia is after the end of the infinitive,
ff- learn-ish- Xia, learner-th- Xia ( f participles )
Postfixes - something, - either, - something form indefinite pronouns - someone, something, anyone.
It is difficult to see that the postfix is after the ending in pronouns due to the peculiarity of pronouns:
someone
to someone
to-eat something
w-his something
The main purpose of the postfix is the formation of new words, but word forms are rarely formed in passive voice verbs:
Newspapers are delivered by the postman ( This is a form of the passive voice, as the object of the action is expressed by Im.p., and the subject is Tv.p. ). Hence - delivered - is the form of the verb deliver, and the transformation is possible: Postman delivering newspapers.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to qualify this or that phenomenon, for example, to determine which morpheme is - someday in words:
Any
someone postfixes, tk. after pronoun endings
Some day
suffixes somewhere, because adverbs have no endings
Let's do a similar procedure for the verb and its forms:
scatter
run up postfixes, tk. after graduation
run away
scatter
running up - suffix, because adverbs have no endings
Flexion
Term flexion - from lat. flexio"bending", in Russian linguistics they use a doublet term ending, which indicates the final position in the word. Indeed, in most cases, the ending closes the word.
Inflection is an affix that is outside the stem and serves to form the forms of a given word.
"Russian Grammar-80" gives the following definition of inflection:
Inflectional morphs in Russian are such morphs, the interchange of which in word forms leads to a change in the morphological meanings of gender, number, case and person: walls-A, walls-s, walls-e..., st e n-s; red-th, red-and I, red-oh, red-s; write-at, write-eat, write-no, write-eat...
Inflectional morphs also include indicators of the infinitive (for example, - ti in verb carry).
Endings are distinguished only in modified words. Invariable words have no endings.
To correctly highlight the ending, you need to change the word, taking into account its part-of-speech affiliation:
tableØ, table-a, hundred-y(noun, change in numbers and cases)
sea, sea, sea
building-e, building-a, building-y
take it, take it, take it, take it, take it(verb, changes in persons and numbers)
walked, walked, walked, walked(the verb in past tense changes by gender and number)
to someone, to whom, to whom ( places, change by cases)
foxØ, fox’j-him, fox’j-him(adj., change by gender, numbers, cases)
Therefore, the ending serves as a means of expressing the most diverse GZZ:
· at noun. - Z number, case
adj. - gender, number, case
· vb. - adv., time, number, person
With the help of the ending, words are combined into a phrase and a sentence. This is the basis for classifying the Russian language as an inflectional language. That is, morphemes have national specifics.
With the help of endings are formed forms of the same word:
· at noun. - 12 cases. ff
personal forms of the verb - 6 forms (three persons, singular / plural - load, load)
We mentioned that in most cases the postfix closes the word, with the exception of 2 cases:
1. When after inflection there is a postfix ( someone, some, painted)
2. Some words have 2 endings. This phenomenon is called intra-basic endings and is manifested only in one class of words - in numerals:
five-Ø-ten-Ø
five-and-ten-and
five-th-ten-th
four hundred
four-ex-hundredth
four-eat-st-am
The reasons for such linguistic behavior of numerals lie in historical facts, among which we will name only three:
1. counts. - this is a closed group of words with uncharacteristic behavior (i.e. with minimal influence of analogy)
2. intrabasic ending indicates an incomplete fusion into one word of two components
3. the tendency to "comb" numerals, i.e. to deprive them of the intrabasic ending can be traced in colloquial speech, when the numerals cease to decline. However, this is hindered by the normative aspect of the literary language.
Endings can be materially expressed and zero.
Zero the ending is the significant absence of the ending, i.e. the ending carries GZ and is distinguished by comparison with other forms of the same word.
teacherØ ( Z m.p., units, Im.p. ), teachers
heroØ (-//-), hero
mother ( Z female, sing., Name/Win. pad. ), mothers
Difficult to distinguish Ø-endings
in words with the suffix j (or allomorphs of this suffix):
wolf-andj-Ø
wolfj-his
wolf-him
· at noun. on -ie, -ia
buildings ( im., pl. )
buildingsØ ( genus, pl )
in brief adj. m.r. isolated by comparison with the forms g. and cf. kind:
braveØ, brave-a, brave-o
in numerals.
oneØ, one-th
· in past tense m.r. in comparison with the forms and cf. R.
carrying ØØ(two null morphemes) , nesl-a, nesl-o
ran Ø, ran-a-s, ran-o-s
That is, when highlighting the Ø-ending, the general rule for highlighting endings applies.
Interfix
this is an insignificant morpheme (or a morpheme that does not have a Z), it is used for the euphonious device of a word.
For example, it is necessary to form an adj. from the word Yalta ® yalt(in)sky(to make the word aesthetically pleasing):
drink ® poi (l) ets ( suf. with a Z person, the consonant appears to overcome the confluence of vowels that is uncharacteristic for native Russian words )
live ® zhi(l)ets
sing ® ne(v)ets
Interfix is most commonly used
at the junction of the root and suffix:
coffee ® coffee
coupe ® coupe
Somali ® Somali
between two roots (what is called a connecting vowel):
chimney
locomotive
In compound words, except for interfixes oh e, there may be others:
double decker ( this is not the end
because it doesn't change )
yalta insk
resident
with the term interfix A paradoxical situation has developed in linguistics:
ü On the one hand, this term is in a number of such as prefix, suffix, postfix. Its Latin nature is clear - "being between".
ü On the other hand, the opinion is expressed that it is inappropriate to speak of an interfix as a morpheme, since the morpheme has Z, but the interfix does not. Therefore, the interfix is also called "insignificant gasket" (Zemskaya E.A.) or "asemantic element" (Gridina T.A.).
Elena Kosykh, candidate of philological sciences, associate professor
Altai State Pedagogical University, Russia
Natalya Chashchina, teacher of Russian language and literature
Secondary school №125, Barnaul
Championship participant: National championship in research analytics - "Russia";
Open European-Asian championship in research analytics;
The article presents arguments about the reasons for the appearance of related roots in the Russian language. Desemantization of the nuclear morpheme is probably due to historical phonetic processes that changed the shape of the root.
Keywords: morpheme, associated root, causes of desemantization.
The article presents the discussion of the causes that lead to the emergence of bound roots in Russian. Desemantized nuclear morphemes may be probably caused by historical phonetic processes changing the root structure.
keywords: morpheme, bound root, causes of desemantization.
If at the beginning there was a word, then it was necessarily represented by a root, which is recognized as central and obligatory element morphemic structure of the word. This morpheme is the carrier of the main lexical meaning, and affixes (suffixes and prefixes) only specify it. However, the isolation of the root in the morphemic structure of the word in present stage the functioning of the language can be a problem, since over time the external shape of the root can change. These changes are reflected in alternations and are due to various historical processes of the language.
The problem of identifying roots in words with a complex morphemic structure has led to a number of theoretical questions to which scientists still cannot give unambiguous and exhaustive answers. Opinion V.V. Lopatin and I.S. Ulukhanov that “much here remains unclear or unfulfilled” [Cit. by: Sheptukhina, 2006, p. 22] is still relevant today. The difficulty arises because the roots of the modern Russian language can be free or connected.
In synchrony, words with related roots are described in sufficient detail. However, among scientists there is no unity in the definition of the terms “connected root” and “connected stem”, the issues of derivation and articulation of words containing a connected root, a connected stem remain debatable [see, for example: Vinokur, 1959; Zemskaya, 2009; Sigalov, 1977; Sidorova, 2006; Tikhonov, 1990; Ulukhanov, 1993; Tsyganenko, 1991; Shansky, 1968; Shirshov, 1997]. Despite studies that attempt to identify the causes of the appearance of words with related roots in the Russian language [Strelkov, 1967], this aspect still remains insufficiently developed in science. In the diachronic aspect, which makes it possible to establish the cause of the origin of the connectedness of the root and to present the prospect of the loss of freedom possible for modern roots, the works are practically not noted.
To find an answer to the question: why in the modern Russian language some roots have lost the ability to be used freely, without the environment of one or more word-forming affixes, we have undertaken a study based on the analysis of historical forms.
To identify the reasons for the loss of independence by roots, we chose related roots, which are most often encountered as examples of this phenomenon in textbooks and textbooks on word formation for students of philological faculties of higher educational institutions[Zemskaya, 2009], [Kasatkin, 1995], [ Modern Russian language, 1999], [Modern Russian language, 2006].
The starting point of the work was the monograph by G.O. Vinokur "Notes on Russian word formation" [Vinokur, 1959], in which the researcher defined the term "connected stem", described this phenomenon and presented a list of related roots, using words in which these roots are given as examples.
In our study, we have a repertoire of related roots that are most often found in educational and reference literature on this issue, has about 40 nuclear morphemes that can only be used in the environment of word-building affixes (-bav-, dishes / blues (t) -,
-'a-//-im-//-em-//-ym-//?, -vad-//-import-, -vet-, -de-//-dezhd-, -ul-, - row-//-row-, -heavy-//*-thrusts-, etc.). The number of options for the functioning of these related root morphemes exceeds 1000 words of the modern Russian language (for example, fun, add; to observe, observe, observe; take, have, receiver; seduce, repel; hello, covenant; put on, clothing; street, lane; dress up, dress up; litigation, to pull, but the pull is still with a free root).
The classic example of a linked root is the morpheme - at - in words put on, put on, shoes. The formation of verbs occurs according to the well-known scheme: prefix + stem. The etymological dictionary notes that put on shoes derived from "pra-Slav. *ob-uti along with *jьz-uti (see study)” [Fasmer, 2003: Vol. 3, p. 109]. The dictionaries also state that to put on, to put on"related to lit. auti, aunu, aviau "to wear shoes, put on shoes" [Fasmer, 2003: vol. 3, p. 109]. In modern Russian, in these lexemes, a fusion of the root and the prefix is observed.
The change in semantics that affected the units under study shows
G.O. Vinokur in “Notes on Russian word formation”, noting: “The meaning of this stem does not exist outside of articulation with the meanings of the prefixes ob-, raz-. It would be wrong to think that the meaning of the stem -y- is generally indeterminate. No, it is definable, but only in such a way that, whatever its definition, the definition itself will certainly include an indication that the corresponding action is possible only in those of its modifications, which in the language are denoted by the prefixes ob-, raz-. The researcher believed that, for example, the meaning of the basis -у- could be defined as follows: "perform an action, as a result of which the legs will be provided with clothing or deprived of it" [Vinokur, 1959, p. 424].
In the course of the study, it was found that the marked root was originally a diphthong *ou-, which was monophthongized in the Proto-Slavic period. And if the spelling OBOUTI, OBOUVATI was graphically transmitted on the letter, then phonetically - monophthong [y]. The contraction of the root morpheme caused the connection of the root -у-, since the semantics of the word also changed. The meaning of “pull”, “put on” was I.-e. root *ou- [Chernykh, 2002: Vol. 1, p. 589]. Gradually, this meaning was updated in the prefix ob-, which is realized in the meaning ‘ to cover or be covered with through an action called a motivating word': shod means "put on shoes" is noted in the modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1994, p. 430]. The analysis of these meanings led to the conclusion that the semantics of the root -у- was concretized over time due to the merger of the root with homonymous derivational prefixes ob- and raz-. It is essential to emphasize that the desemantization of the root and the redistribution of the morpheme boundary in the case of the birth of a connected root is accompanied by a semantic redistribution, i.e. part of the meaning of the root morpheme is transferred to affixes (prefix or root).
From a diachronic point of view, the associated central morpheme -у- is singled out in the word shoes. The morphemic structure of this word in modern Russian is explained by E.A. Zemskaya, with whose opinion, in this case, we absolutely agree: “The meaning of the prefix in this word is unclear, although in general the prefix is habitual in the language; there is no noun in the language with the same root but with a different prefix. As for the suffix -в, it is dead and its meaning is completely incomprehensible to the speakers" [Zemskaya, 2009, p. 54]. Therefore the word shoes from the standpoint of the synchronous development of the language, it is simple and indivisible. And the meaning “clothes for the legs, what covers the legs around” is also realized through the element ob-.
Another example. The associated root -em- / -em- / -nim- / -nya- / -ym- / -’a- (Proto-Slavic *jьm) is isolated in words accept, take hug, take off, separate, listen, buddy, acceptable, heed, rise, receiver and others. In the dictionary of M. Fasmer it is indicated that the word heed, For example , formed by adding a prefix to the root: “*vъn- and *j?ti” [Fasmer, 2003: vol. 1, p. 329]. The original prosthetic -n'- in the Proto-Slavic language appeared in the position after the prepositions in, k, s which in the Proto-Slavic language sounded * vbn, *kbp,*sen. Then the consonant of the root morpheme *j merged with the final consonant of the preposition and the stem was re-decomposed. We see the same in the word bribe, formed from the prefix *vъz and *j?ti.
Thus, the etymological chain of this associated root looks like this: *jьm?j?ti? I A TI? yati? take, take, etc.
At one of the first stages of the formation of the root -’a- (-i-) there was a process monophthongization of diphthongoids(contraction into one vocal element of the vowel and nasal):
However, the establishment of phonetic processes that occurred with the root on the path of historical development is not enough to explain the reason for the loss of independence by the root.
You should track the change in the root semantics. In the etymological dictionary of Slavic languages, the following values of the root under study: “*j?ti, *jim-, *jьmQ: st-glory. I A TI, imQ “to take”, other Russian, Russian-tsslav. I A TI, imQ “take”, “take” (Instructional Vl. Mon. 82), “grab” (Church. mouth. Vlad.), “touch, fall” (Ostr. Ev.), “seize, seize , deprive of liberty "(Ostr. Ev. and others), "bring" (R. Right. Vlad. Mon.), "catch, catch" (Ostr. Ev. and others), "reach, reach" (Laurus . L. under 1169), “to take possession” (Novg. Il. under 1417), “to become” (aux. verb, Church. ust. Vlad. and others) (Sreznevsky III, 1671), Russian. dial. yat“become” (Yarosl., experience 275), “take” (Kulikovsky 143), was"wanted" (Kulikovskiy 142), take“to take” (Novg. tar), “annoy, hurt the living” (Novg. Psk.) (Experiment 131), take"to seize, take possession of something" (Dobrovolsky 495), yatsya“take on, promise”” [Trubachev, 1981, p. 226].
Thus, only according to the etymological dictionary edited by O.N. Trubachev, there are about twenty meanings of i.-e. bases *jьm?, implemented in single-root words.
In the historical and etymological dictionary P.Ya. Chernykh, the above meanings are confirmed: “the etymological root *-jьm-, ascending to I.-e. * (mо) or *em, having the meaning “to take”, “grab”, realized the later meanings “to own, to seize”” [Chernykh, 2002: V. 1, p. 344].
In the explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language V.I. Dahl noted the word YATI, YAT in the meaning of “perfect. vb. from imati (to take) and imat (to catch); in some places until now (east), but more with a pretext to take, take; catch, seize, seize; start, become . entered, yat by the hand, Matt. yal, took. Vsevolod I shake your Yaroslav, annals. took prisoner. Yalo burn, vlad. it has become, the beginning. V.I. Dahl gives more examples, in addition, this root is used with prefixes: “ Take, take (raise), raise; take, complete from take. He didn't mind his own business. Take out, take out, take out" and etc . [Dal, 2002: Vol. 2, p. 1011].
In all dictionaries, one meaning “to take” is clearly fixed, the other meanings that this root realized vary widely.
In modern Russian, the meaning of "take" is assigned only to the verb itself take:“take, take, take; took, -a, -o; taken (taken, -a, -o); owls. 1. cm. take." - noted in the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by S. I. Ozhegov and N. Yu. Shvedova Yu [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1994, p. 78].
Thus, we note the narrowing of the semantic field of the root within a single word: the meaning of "take" in the modern language is correlated only with the word take, the meaning of "capture, take possession of something", given in the list of others in the dictionary, ed. O. N. Trubacheva, implemented in the word accept"1. Take, get in charge» [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1994, p. 585]. In a word raise the meaning of “grab, seize” is reflected: “raise - 2. Take, seize, having enough strength to hold” [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1994, p. 529].
Consequently, the semantic field of one word narrows, but the semantics of words with an associated root as a whole, on the contrary, expands due to the compatibility of the associated nuclear morpheme with various affixes.
Thus, the previously used free root -’a-, for example, in the word yati, realized a large number of meanings, then, as noted by Dahl, yati“more with a preposition” began to be used, and at the present stage the root has many realizations in cognate words, but it is practically not used independently (freely).
It should be noted that the word have, which is actively used in modern Russian and contains the free root -im-. However, native speakers almost do not catch the connection of the root -im- in the word have with roots -em- / -em- / -nim- / -nya- / -im- / -ya- in words at eat property, for eat box, enterprise him atelier, zan I th, under th at, vz I weaving and others. The divergence of the semantics of these words occurred, probably, as a result of word-formation processes that occurred with the roots -em- / -em- / -nim- / -nya- / -im- / -i-. The addition of affixes to the root entailed the transfer of the main semantic load of the word to them.
It can be assumed that the free use of the root -im- in the word have is explained by the fact that the process of “binding” the root -im- with affixes has not yet been fully completed, in contrast to the roots -em-, -em-, -nim-, -nya-, -im-, -i-, which are free form in Russian does not exist.
Thus, the connected roots, in most cases, are those that in the Proto-Slavic period were affected by the law of syllable harmony, as a result of which a change in the external appearance of the word occurred. Among the phonetic processes that took place with the roots on the way of their transformation from free nuclear morphemes to connected ones, is the monophthongization of diphthongs and diphthongic combinations with the subsequent loss of nasality by monophthongized vowels. The development of a prosthesis before a vowel in the position of the beginning of a word (the appearance
It is essential to emphasize that the linguistic evolution of the related roots presented in the work in 70% of cases was accompanied by the process of monophthongization of diphthongs and diphthongoids in this morpheme. Based on this fact, we can say that it is precisely those roots that have undergone the influence of the monophthongization process that become connected.
One of the leading factors that influenced the connectedness of root morphemes is also the historical change in semantics. Over time, the root in the new vowel was no longer recognized by native speakers in the original semantics, as a result of which "affixes came to the rescue." Derivational morphemes spread, concretized the meaning of the original root and began to play a significant role in the interpretation of words with related roots. As a result, native speakers determine the semantics of words with non-free nuclear morphemes by deriving the meaning of affixes that have absorbed the semantic component of the nuclear morpheme. It is almost impossible to name the original meaning of the associated root without the use of special linguistic sources at the present stage of the functioning of the language.
It should be noted that in the course of clarifying the historical causes and conditions that influenced the transformation of the form and content of the associated roots of the Russian language, we encountered a number of features, on the basis of which we identified two groups of words with associated roots that function in the modern Russian language.
The first group is represented by words whose roots are connected in the modern Russian language, and were also used in a non-free form already in the Old Russian period. For example: -vyk- (other Russian. take it out, modern skill), pras- (other Russian. in vain, modern vain), -nz- (other Russian. inject, modern . plunge), -verg- (other Russian. bend, modern plunge) and others.
The second group includes words whose roots in the modern Russian literary language are connected, and in the Old Russian language they were free. Also, the roots of these words can be used without the environment of derivational affixes in the modern Russian language, however, their functioning is limited to certain areas of the national language, which is reflected in the marks given in dictionaries. Among them: -row- (obsolete and colloquial. dress, lit. dress up), -nud- (outdated. to force, lit. tedious), -rage- (book. smash, lit. battle) and others.
Discussing the trends in the formation of connectedness of roots, we assume that some roots of the II group (capable of being used in a free form in certain areas of the modern Russian language limited by norms) will join the ranks of absolutely connected nuclear morphemes after some time.
In addition, it can be assumed that the roots of words vlach it, mut it, rd et and some others lose their independence and become connected due to obscuration of semantics, loss of awareness by native speakers of family ties. The central morphemes of these words, as well as the roots that became connected, were influenced by the historical process of monophthongization of diphthongs and at this linguistic stage appear in words surrounded by derivational affixes. The only exceptions are the above lexemes in the form of generating non-affix infinitives.
The results obtained in the course of the study substantiate the diachronic approach to the issue of the functioning of words with associated root morphemes, and also complement and deepen the existing scientific work on the problem of associated roots.
Literature:
- Big Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language: in 17 volumes / Russian Academy Sciences, Institute for Linguistic Research: [ch. ed. K.S. Gorbachevich]. - M.; St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2006.
- Vinokur, G. O. Notes on Russian word formation // Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Department of Literature and Language. - M.: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1959. - T. V, issue. 4. - S. 419-442.
- Dal, V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language: in 2 volumes - M .: OLMA-PRESS, 2002.
- Zemskaya, E.A. Modern Russian language. Word formation: textbook. allowance / E. A. Zemskaya. - 6th ed. - M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2009. - 328 p.
- Kasatkin, L.L. Brief reference book on the modern Russian language / L.L. Kasatkin, E.V. Klobukov, P.A. Lekant; ed. P.A. Lekanta. - Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional - M.: graduate School, 1995. - 382 p.
- Kuznetsova, A.I., Efremova, T.F. Dictionary of Russian morphemes: Ok. 52,000 words. - M.: Rus. yaz., 1986. - 1136 p.
- Small academic dictionary of the Russian language [Electronic resource] / A.P. Evgeniev. - Access mode: http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas.htm].
- Maslov, Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. - M.: Higher school, 1987. - 272 p.
- Ozhegov, S.I. and Shvedova, N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / Russian AN.; Russian Cultural Foundation; - 2nd ed., corrected. and additional - M.: AZ, 1994. - 928 p.
- Otkupshchikov, Yu.V. to the origins of the word. - M.: Azbuka-klassika, Avalon, 2005. - 352 p.
- Modern Russian language. Theory. Analysis of language units: a textbook for students. higher textbook Institutions: at 2 o'clock. Part 1. Phonetics and orthoepy. Graphics and spelling. Lexicology. Phraseology. Lexicography. Morphematics. Word formation / [E.I. Dibrova, L.L. Kasatkin, N.A. Nikolina, I.I. Shcheboleva]; ed. E.I. Dibrova. - 2nd ed. correct and additional - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2006. - 480 p.
- Modern Russian language: [textbook for philological specialties of universities / V.A. Beloshapkova and others]; ed. V.A. Beloshapkova. - Ed. 3rd, rev. and additional - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. - 926 p.
- Modern Russian language: a textbook for university students / ed. P. A. Lekanta. - Ed. 2nd, rev. - M.: Bustard, 2001. - 558 p.
- Tikhonov, A. N. Derivative dictionary of the Russian language: in 2 volumes - M .: Russian language, 1990.
- Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / ed. D.N. Ushakov. - M.: TERRA-Book club, 2007.
- Ulukhanov, I.S. On changing the meanings of words // Rus. speech. - 1970. - No. 4. - S. 59-62.
- Fasmer, M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes / M. Fasmer; Per. with it., add., afterword. O. N. Trubacheva. - 4th ed., erased. -M.: AST: Astrel, 2003.
- Khaburgaev, G.A. Old Church Slavonic: a textbook for students of pedagogical institutes / G. A. Khaburgaev. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Enlightenment, 1986. - 288 p.
- Tsyganenko, G.P. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: More than 5,000 words. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - K .: Glad. school, 1989. - 511 p.
- Chernykh, P. Ya. Historical and etymological dictionary of the modern Russian language: in 2 volumes / P. Ya. Chernykh. - 5th ed., stereotype. - M.: Russian language, 2002.
- Shansky, N.M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language / N.M. Shansky, T.A. Bobrov. - M.: Proserpina: School, 1994. - 400 p.
- Sheptukhina, E.M. The evolution of verbs with associated stems in the common Russian language: author. dis. … Dr. Philol. Sciences / E.M. Sheptukhin. - Volgograd, 2006. - 51 p.
- 2Shirshov, I.A. Explanatory word-building dictionary of the Russian language. - M.: AST: Astrel: Russian dictionaries: Ermak, 2004. - 1023 p.
- Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: in 2 volumes / ed. N.M. Shansky. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1968-1975.
- Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages: Proto-Slavic lexical fund. Issue. 1. A - * conversations / ed. HE. Trubachev. - M.: Nauka, 1974. - 214 p.
- Linguistics: a large encyclopedic dictionary / ch. ed. V.N. Yartsev; ed. count N.D. Arutyunova and others - 2nd ed., reprint. - M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998. - 685 p.
Your rating: No Average: 7.2 (11 votes)
