Translated material
Guest24.Html
IN SLOVAK 267
Projective lexicon of the Russian language January 27, 2008
GUEST EDITION - 24. About consistency in language.
However, the prospect of the revival of Hebrew as a modern language was not so obvious for everyone and not always.
Theodor Herzl, the visionary, as he is known here in Israel, of the emergence of a Jewish state in Palestine at the end of the 19th century, categorically denied the possibility of a revival of Hebrew. “How can you speak a language in which you cannot even buy a train ticket,” he wrote in his book “The Jewish State,” the Bible of modern Zionism.
Every schoolchild in Israel knows about the resuscitation of Hebrew. Young Zionist pioneers made the revival of Hebrew one of the cornerstones of
stones for building the Jewish state. Elezar became the father of modern Hebrew
Ben-Judas. He and his like-minded people, for whom Hebrew was a learned and still dead language, introduced teaching in Hebrew in schools. They began to speak Hebrew with children at home, carefully protecting them from the influence of other living languages. As a result, the son of Elezar Ben-Juda became the first child for whom Hebrew became a native and already living language.
Something else is less known. At the end of the 19th century, a newspaper was published in Palestine,
on the pages of which Ben-Judas corresponded with readers.
Two letters from Pyotr Golovanevsky
Avoid foreign words as much as possible (borrowing again). Ideally, I would like to write in Leskov’s language, but modern material, of course, does not allow this.
Regarding the transitivity of transitive verbs.
In Hebrew verbs like
Fall - drop (cause to fall)
Eat - feed (encourage to eat)
Write - dictate (encourage writing)
- have the same root, but these are DIFFERENT verbs. Of course, it is easy to give valuable instructions from afar in Israel. Is it possible in Russian to develop a tendency towards the formation of cognate verbs with different but typical meanings? I don’t know, I don’t see any prerequisites yet.
Projective lexicon of the Russian language January 27, 2008
GUEST EDITION - 24. About consistency in language.
Today our guest is Pyotr Golovanevsky, philologist, writer. For eight years now he has lived in Israel, writes in Russian and Hebrew and teaches both of these languages. Published in periodicals in Russia, Ukraine and Israel.
In this issue I present his article and two letters, the topic of which is word formation in Hebrew. Although this miracle language was revived as a living language only about a century ago, it miraculously avoids borrowings (including from English) thanks to a developed system of word production based on stable morphological patterns. P. Golovanevsky’s article is clear, understandable to a non-specialist, and suggests the desirability of more actively highlighting and using equally regular patterns of word formation in Russian.
We are talking about the yet insufficiently identified systematic nature of the Russian language, about the fact that certain morphemes (for example, suffixal ones) can acquire the role of stable models for the regular formation of new words with the desired meaning. Many episodes of "The Gift" were about how systematicity, i.e. the potentiality of the Russian language is fighting against its norm, i.e. relevance, taking the language beyond the generally accepted norms approved by grammars/dictionaries. For example, the suffix -liv- can be used to regularly form adjectives with the meaning "prone to some action or state." Along with the well-known words “envious”, “prudent”, “thrifty”, “lucky”, the language can also contain adjectives such as “hateful” (prone to hatred), “consultative” (prone to giving advice, sometimes unsolicited), “ prohibitive" (tends to prohibit everything), "quotable" (tends to quote too much), etc. (See issues 96 and 97 ).
The history of language, as linguists believe, is the history of the struggle between systematicity and the norm, and we all, consciously or unconsciously, participate in this struggle on one side or another. The history of modern Hebrew is an excellent example of how the development of a language dynamically embodies the possibilities inherent in its system.
Peter Golovanevsky. Hebrew: the secret of eternal youth.
The more I understand Hebrew, the more convinced I am of the veracity of this biblical story. I also think that G-d, as a talented editor, guided his hand, i.e. Adam's tongue. This is confirmed not only by the secret of the unexpected resurrection of Hebrew as a spoken language after two millennia of oblivion, but also by the ease with which the seemingly archaic language of the Bible forms (and does not borrow!) new words from old biblical roots and on the basis of the Old Testament models.When God Almighty formed every beast from the ground
he brought the birds of the field and every bird of the air to Adam to see what he would call them, and what Adam would call any living thing
the creature and its name. (Genesis 1:19-20).
However, the prospect of the revival of Hebrew as a modern language was not so obvious for everyone and not always.
Theodor Herzl, the visionary, as he is known here in Israel, of the emergence of a Jewish state in Palestine at the end of the 19th century, categorically denied the possibility of a revival of Hebrew. “How can you speak a language in which you cannot even buy a train ticket,” he wrote in his book “The Jewish State,” the Bible of modern Zionism.
Every schoolchild in Israel knows about the resuscitation of Hebrew. Young Zionist pioneers made the revival of Hebrew one of the cornerstones of
stones for building the Jewish state. Elezar became the father of modern Hebrew
Ben-Judas. He and his like-minded people, for whom Hebrew was a learned and still dead language, introduced teaching in Hebrew in schools. They began to speak Hebrew with children at home, carefully protecting them from the influence of other living languages. As a result, the son of Elezar Ben-Juda became the first child for whom Hebrew became a native and already living language.
Something else is less known. At the end of the 19th century, a newspaper was published in Palestine,
on the pages of which Ben-Judas corresponded with readers.
-What word can you come up with in Hebrew for the word “newspaper”? - asked the reader (newspapers,
I remind you that they did not come out in biblical times).
“For the newspaper, I suggest the word iton from the word et (time), - answered Ben-Judas.
-What is the word for “train”?
-I suggest rakevet from the word rechev (drawn transport in ancient times).
-What do you call a clock (hand clock, wall clock)?
- Shaon, от слова shaa (час).
(Why is this not an analogue of Mikhail Epstein’s “Projective Dictionary”)?
But this is not the most surprising thing. Most of the words formed by Ben-Judah and
actually entered the language, as well as those that arose later and are arising now,
are not taken from the ceiling at all. All words: both verbs, nouns, etc. V
Hebrew are divided into models with a clear general model meaning. For example, ending ON
characteristic of abstract nouns, devices and instruments. Now
We insert the known root shaa (hour) into the known model: shaON (hours). Or
Et in the same model we get itON (newspaper). Inserting the word rechev into the model of tools and vehicles, we get rakevet (train).
The process started in modern Hebrew by Ben-Judah continues to this day.
Hebrew, with rare exceptions, does not borrow words at all. He didn’t even take the word “computer” from English, but created his own. The root choshev (think) inserted into the tool model gives the desired MAchshev (computer). The root dfus (print) in the instrument model gives midpeset (printer) - in Russian, let me remind you, from the English print. And the root Sarak (comb) in the action model (present tense of the verb) gives sorek (scanner) - in Russian, again from English scan.
So it’s not in vain that it was said; "Adam gave names to all the livestock and birds of the air and all kinds of
to the beasts of the field."
Two letters from Pyotr Golovanevsky
The correspondence concerns, in particular, the possibility of future participles in the Russian language ( issue 17 ) and the strengthening of the category of transitivity in Russian verbs ( On the creative potential of the Russian language. Grammar of transitivity and transitive society . Znamya, 3, 2007)
Good afternoon, dear Mikhail!
I heard about your projective dictionary from a Radio Liberty program and decided to write to you. Briefly about myself. My name is Petr. I am a philologist and writer. I have been living in Israel for the last 8 years. I graduated from an Israeli college here, and I speak Hebrew at a native level.
First of all, I completely agree with you about future participles-
th time. The language is ripe for this: words such as reading, passing, running do not hurt the ear at all. If you don’t know that this is not grammatically possible, you may not notice it.
Regarding the extension of transitivity to intransitive verbs, the question is:
my opinion is more controversial. The sentence “he dropped it” (dropped) sounds like
You yourself, of course, understand how illiterate clumsy speech is, and is it necessary?
legitimize as a norm, I don’t presume to judge
Hebrew solves this problem very simply: “fell” and “dropped” are cognate words in Hebrew, and “dropped” refers to the verbs of a more active binyan (group) with the general meaning of “directed an action towards someone”, “forced someone to do something” "to do something." The logic of the language is amazing: if you dropped it, you made something fall.
Hebrew has developed an amazingly productive system of word formation from its own roots: there are even few international words in Hebrew. If you (or someone else from the editors of the Projective Dictionary) became familiar with Hebrew grammar (you don’t need to know Hebrew for this - this can be done using many Russian-language sites (or textbooks), then you would have many ideas in the field of Russian word formation For example, in Hebrew, all active verbs form so-called “action nouns”:
walk - walking.
sit - sitting, etc.
In Russian, such nouns are formed irregularly. From “to drown,” for example, you cannot form “drowning.”
There are many other interesting examples of word formation, but not the place
describe them in a short letter.
Of course, the Russian language cannot be adjusted to either Hebrew or any
It’s a different language, but, I repeat, a lot of ideas arise.
In a word, if you are interested in my proposal, I will be glad to be useful to you: I can send you a list of websites about Hebrew, textbooks, and if necessary,
And advise, if not, please forgive me for disturbing you.
My address: pinchas@mail.ru
Best regards, Peter.
* * *
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your letter and for your interest in the project....
As for the transitivization of transitive verbs, I am aware of their unusual, “wrong” sound, but I believe that the need for just such a straightening of the action will gradually make them more and more familiar in the Russian language, this is the tendency. Of course, no one is calling for abandoning the verb “drop,” but the verb “fall” as a transitive verb has a wider range of meanings. "Did you drop the cup?" Not necessarily dropped - it could be thrown, or accidentally moved, or deliberately slammed on the floor - any action that resulted in the cup falling. It turns out that Hebrew acts similarly, i.e. regularly forms transitive and intransitive verbs from the same root.
Thank you for your thoughts and offers of help, perhaps it will indeed be useful to me in the future. In general, I studied Hebrew for two years in Moscow, with an excellent specialist, but that was 30 years ago and almost everything has been erased from my memory, since I practically do not use this language.
I would be glad if you write in more detail for our readers about word formation in Hebrew, in particular, computer terms. How, for example, are printer and email designated? Are there root words for other popular anglicisms and international words, such as "manager, global, image, business", etc. MB, could you write a short essay on this topic? - I would give him the issue of "The Gift".
Thanks again for your participation!
Sincerely,
Michael Epstein
* * *
Good afternoon, Mikhail!
First of all, thank you for your detailed letter. I have subscribed to your newsletter and
I looked at the sites you recommended. Instilling in people a sense of language is a matter
of course, noble. By the way, it would be possible to offer a course on projective vocabulary and the whole problem of borrowing to the faculties of journalism and the Literary Institute. Gorky. The goal is for journalists and writers to cultivate the linguistic culture of readers. Of course, with current circulation, such influence is small, and the Internet cannot be raised, but
after all... Like Nekrasov:
Let him harm the enemyFor example, from the moment I began writing prose, I made a commitment
Not every warrior
But everyone go into battle,
And fate will decide the battle.
Avoid foreign words as much as possible (borrowing again). Ideally, I would like to write in Leskov’s language, but modern material, of course, does not allow this.
Regarding the transitivity of transitive verbs.
In Hebrew verbs like
Fall - drop (cause to fall)
Eat - feed (encourage to eat)
Write - dictate (encourage writing)
- have the same root, but these are DIFFERENT verbs. Of course, it is easy to give valuable instructions from afar in Israel. Is it possible in Russian to develop a tendency towards the formation of cognate verbs with different but typical meanings? I don’t know, I don’t see any prerequisites yet.
You ask how computer terms and analogues of popular ones are formed in Hebrew
Anglicisms? This is the word-formative wealth of Hebrew, that all new words (in any field) are formed quietly from Hebrew roots according to models characteristic of Biblical Hebrew:
1/. Printer-madpeset-from the Hebrew root dfus-seal (then when our great and
for some reason the mighty takes the English root print).
2/. The image idiom is “the previous, proactive opinion.”
3/. Global - the word “universal” is used (and why, by the way, is the Russian “universal” worse,
than "global"?)
4/. Business - the original word “business” is used, which has acquired a new
meaning (by the way, in Russian the same new meaning is also acquired (“business
activity", for example).
And one last thing. I think I won’t say anything new for you, but borrowing is not
trend of recent years in the field of computer terms
(if only it were so!), but - alas! - the path of development of the Russian language since ancient times. Moreover
The most frequent and common words were borrowed:
1. good - from Tatar (Slavic root - “good”; in Ukrainian - good,
in Polish - dobzhe).
2. pants - also from Tatar.
3. dad - from French - rara (in Russian it was “daddy”).
In a word,
"The monster is obnoxious, it is obnoxious
Scream and bark."
Well, we have to fight the monster. I think that your project and the sites that you
listed - these are steps in the right direction. For my part I will be glad
provide all possible assistance.
With sincere respect and wishes of success in your important work,
Peter Golovanevsky.
_________________________________________________________________
Article M. Epstein's language 2006-2008:
Russian language in the light of creative philology . "Znamya", 1, 2006, 192-207.
About the creative potential of the Russian language. Transitivity Grammar and Transitive Society . "Znamya", 3, 2007, 193-207.
Good and evil in the mirror of the Russian language . Continent, 132, 2007 (July)
Projective dictionary of the Russian language. Neology of time, in kn. Semiotics and the avant-garde. Anthology . Ed.-Assoc. U.S. Stepanov, N.A. Fateeva, V.V. Feshchenko, N.S. Sirotkin. Под общ. ed. U.S. Stepanova. M.: Academic Project; Culture, 2006, pp. 1031-1076.
The language of existence by Andrei Platonov. "Questions of Literature", 2, 2006.
Love names. Introduction to erotonymy. "October", 7, 2006.
Anaphrase: a linguistic phenomenon and literary device . "Questions of Literature", 5, 2006.
Types of new words: Experience of classification . "Topos", 5 Dec. 2006; Portal Gramma.ru , Dec. 2006.
Word of the year, century, millennium "Nezavisimaya Gazeta". March 2, 2007.
" Pushkina, Dostoevskogo i Tolstogo nashim pravnukam pridetsa chitat na latinitse
Magazine "New Time", March 5, 12, 2007
Tanya, Pushkin and money: Life as a narrative and thesaurus. "Independent newspaper". 20.12. 2007.
A glamorous year under the banner of political concreteness. For the first time in Russia, the Word and Anti-Word of the Year were chosen . "Nezavisimaya Gazeta", 17.1.2008.
_________________________________________________________________
The network project “The Gift of Words” has been published since April 2000. Every week, several new words are sent to subscribers, with definitions and examples of use. These words are not in any dictionary, and yet they denote significant phenomena and concepts for which there has not yet been a place in the public consciousness. "Dar" also conducts discussions about the Russian language, discusses letters and suggestions from readers. “The Gift of Speech” can serve as a manual on word creation and thought creation, an introduction to the linguistic sphere and conceptual sphere of the 21st century. All previous issues.
Subscribe to "Dar" your friends at (insert in this form ) http://subscribe.ru/catalog/linguistics.lexicon your email address
Yazykovod - website of the Center for Creative Development of the Russian Language.
PreDictionary - English neologisms by M. Epstein.
Association of Word and Term Finders ( AIST ) is a linguistic community on LiveJournal. An open platform for discussing new words and ideas.