How many groups are Slavic languages ​​divided into? Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary

Experts - linguists and historians - are still arguing where the ancestral home of the Slavs was located, that is, the territory on which they lived as a single people and from where they dispersed, forming separate peoples and languages. Some scientists place it between the Vistula and the middle reaches of the Dnieper, others - between the Vistula in the east and the Oder in the west. Now many experts believe that the ancestral home of the Slavs was in Pannonia, on the Middle Danube, from where they moved to the north and east. One of the proofs that the Slavs were in Central Europe is, for example, the lexical similarity between the Slavic languages ​​and the languages ​​of Western Europe. Compare the Latin and Russian words bostis - “guest”, struere - “build”, fomus - “horn”, paludes - “flood”. The problem of the ancestral home of the Slavs is very complex, and its solution depends on the efforts of scientists of various specialties - historians, archaeologists, linguists, ethnographers, folklorists, anthropologists. Linguistics plays a special role in these searches. IN modern world There are from 10 to 13 living Slavic languages, depending on the status assigned to several of them, an independent language or a dialect. Thus, official Bulgarian studies do not recognize the Macedonian language as an independent language, considering it as a dialect of Bulgarian. Among the Slavic languages ​​there are also dead ones that no one speaks anymore. This was the first literary language of the Slavs. Russians call it Old Slavonic, and Bulgarians call it Old Bulgarian. It is based on the South Slavic dialects of old Macedonia. It was this language in the 9th century. The sacred texts were translated by Greek monks - the brothers Cyril and Methodius, who created the Slavic alphabet. Their mission to create a literary language for all Slavs became possible due to the fact that in those days Slavic speech was still relatively unified. The Old Church Slavonic language did not exist in the form of living folk speech; it always remained the language of the Church, culture and writing. However, this is not the only dead Slavic language. In the West Slavic zone, in the north of modern Germany, there once lived numerous and powerful Slavic tribes. Subsequently, they were almost completely absorbed by the Germanic ethnic group. Their immediate relatives are probably the present-day Lusatians and Kashubians. The disappeared tribes did not know writing. Only one of the dialects - Polabian (the name is derived from the Elbe River, Laba in Slavic) - has reached us in small dictionaries and records of texts made at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries. This is a valuable, although rather meager, source of knowledge about the Slavic languages ​​of the past. Among the Slavic languages, Russian is closest to Belarusian and Ukrainian. The three of them form the East Slavic subgroup. Russian language refers to largest languages world: in terms of the number of speakers it ranks fifth, behind only Chinese, English, Hindustani and Spanish. Ukrainian in this hierarchy is among the top twenty, i.e. it also belongs to very large languages. In addition to the East Slavic subgroup, the West Slavic and South Slavic subgroups are traditionally distinguished. However, if east Slavic languages go back to their common ancestor - the ancient Russian (“East Slavic”) language, then the same cannot be said about the other two groups. In their origins there were no special Proto-Western and Proto-South Slavic languages. Although the languages ​​of each of these subgroups have a number of features, some linguists tend to view the subgroups themselves not as genetic, but primarily as geographical unities. When the West Slavic and South Slavic subgroups were formed, along with the processes of language divergence (as linguists say, divergence), the processes of their rapprochement (convergence) played an important role.

(BASED ON THE DICTIONARY)

MOSCOW-1960

CONVENTIONAL ABBREVIATIONS IN LANGUAGE NAMES

Alban. - Albanian cough. - Kashubian

English. - English Latin. - Latin

Anglo-Saxon. - Anglo-Saxon Latvian. - Latvian

Armenians. - Armenian lit. - Lithuanian

Belarusian. - Belarusian him. - German

bolg. - Bulgarian nizhneluzh. - Lower Sorbian

upper meadow. - Upper Sorbian newpers. -New Persian

Goth. - Gothic floor. - Polish

Greek. - Greek Serbohorv. - Serbo-Croatian

dates. - Danish Slovak. - Slovak

ancient upper. - Old High German Slovenian.- Slovenian

ancient irl. - Old Irish Staroslav. - Old Church Slavonic

Old Pruss. - Old Prussian Ukrainian. - Ukrainian

Old Russian. - Old Russian rus. -Russian

Czech. - Czech.

Slavic peoples inhabiting vast areas of Eastern and Central Europe, the Balkan Peninsula, Siberia, Central Asia, and the Far East speak languages ​​that have pronounced similarities in the field of sound composition, grammatical structure and vocabulary. The similarity of the Slavic languages ​​is the most important manifestation of their mutual kinship.

Slavic languages ​​belong to the family of Indo-European languages. In addition to the Slavic ones, the same family also includes Indian (ancient Indian: Vedic and Sanskrit, Central Indian: Pali, Prakrit, New Indian: Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, etc.), Iranian (Old Persian, Avestan, Middle Persian, New Persian, and also Afghan, Tajik, Ossetian, etc.), Germanic (ancient: Gothic, High German, Low German, Anglo-Saxon; modern: German, Dutch, English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, etc.), Romanesque (dead Latin and living: French, Italian, Spanish , Romanian, Portuguese, etc.), Celtic languages, represented by Irish, Cymric and Breton, Greek (with Ancient Greek and Central Greek), Armenian, Albanian, Baltic languages ​​and some others.

Of the languages ​​of the Indo-European family, the Baltic ones are closest to the Slavic ones: modern Lithuanian and Latvian and extinct Old Prussian.

The Indo-European family of languages ​​arose through the development of language groups and individual languages, rooted in the common Indo-European base language (common Indo-European proto-language). The separation of the Slavic language group from the common Indo-European base language occurred long before our era.

Inside the Slavic language group There are several groups of languages. The most accepted division of Slavic languages ​​into 3 groups: East Slavic, South Slavic and West Slavic. The East Slavic group includes Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages; to the South Slavic - Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian; to the West Slavic - Czech, Slovak, Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian, Polish and Kashubian. The West Slavic group also included the extinct Polabian language, whose speakers, the Polabian Slavs, occupied the territory between the Elbe (Laba in Slavic) rivers, the Oder and the Baltic Sea.

The South Slavic language group includes the Old Slavic literary language, which has been preserved in written monuments since the end of the 10th century. He captured the ancient Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect and the features of some Slavic languages ​​that were in the 9th century. in the early stages of its independent history.

The division of Slavic languages ​​into three groups is based on the differences in some sound processes that took place in these languages ​​in ancient times, and on the commonality of some trends in their development in a later period.

In addition to facts of a purely linguistic nature, the geographical principle is also of certain importance when dividing Slavic languages ​​into three groups: the languages ​​of each of the three groups are distributed in adjacent territories.

Each group of Slavic languages ​​is close to other main Slavic language groups in different ways. East Slavic languages ​​are, in some ways, closer to South Slavic than to West Slavic. This proximity lies mainly in some sound phenomena that developed even before the advent of writing (i.e., before the 9th century) both in the south and in the east of the Slavic world, but unknown in the west. However, there are also phenomena that bring East Slavic languages ​​closer to West Slavic and together distinguish Eastern and Western languages from the south. So, the languages ​​of the Eastern Slavs, forming a compact group with common features, have different points contact with South Slavic and West Slavic languages.

The similarities that are so noticeable in the sound composition, grammatical forms and vocabulary of the Slavic languages ​​could not owe their appearance to their independent, isolated appearance in each of the languages.

The means of expression of language are not connected with concepts by nature; There are no necessary, pre-established eternal correspondences between sounds, forms and their meaning.

The initial connection between the sound of linguistic units and their meanings is a conditional connection.

Therefore, the coincidence of several linguistic units taken from different languages, characterized by the sameness or similarity of their meanings, is an important indication of the common origin of these units.

The existence of many similar features in languages ​​is an indication of the relationship of these languages, i.e., that they are the result of several different paths of development of the same language that was in use earlier. In other words, the fact of the similarity of Slavic languages ​​can be considered as an indication of the existence in the past of a single common source language, from which groups of Slavic languages ​​and individual languages ​​developed in complex and varied ways.

The material of the Slavic languages ​​provides ample opportunities for reconstructing the stages of their history and allows us to trace their development from a single source. If, while exploring the past of the Slavic languages, we go deeper and deeper into antiquity, it will become obvious that the older the era, the greater the similarities between individual languages, the closer they are to each other in sound composition, grammar and vocabulary. This leads to the idea of ​​the existence of a state of languages ​​in which they had a common sound composition, a common grammatical system, a common vocabulary and, therefore, constituted a common group of closely related languages ​​or one common language, from which individual languages ​​subsequently developed. Such a common language cannot be restored in all its details, but many of its features have been restored, and the reality of the existence of this language is now beyond doubt. The source language of the Slavic languages, theoretically restored for scientific purposes by means of comparative historical linguistics, is called the common Slavic base language or Proto-Slavic language.

The existence of a base language among the Slavs, in turn, presupposes the presence in ancient times of a single tribe or group of tribes that gave rise to the Slavic peoples and nations of a later time.

The questions of the origin of the Slavs and their ancient history contain many difficulties, and in this area not everything has yet been completely resolved.

The first reliable mentions of the Slavs belong to ancient writers and date back to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. From more ancient eras of the life of the Slavs, no other evidence has come down other than archaeological finds discovered during excavations of ancient settlements and burials, which reveal some features of the material culture of early historical Slavic settlements (for example, the type of pottery, type of buildings, household tools, decorations, method of burying the dead etc.).

Based on the study of archaeological data, it was established that the most ancient Slavic tribes formed in the territory of Eastern Europe during the millennia preceding the beginning of our era.

According to the majority of Soviet, Polish and Czechoslovak scientists, the origins of Slavic history should be sought at the end of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC, when agricultural and pastoral tribes settled in the vast areas between the Dnieper, the Carpathians, the Oder and the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, united by common features their material culture. Later, at the end of the 2nd millennium and in the 1st millennium BC. e., in the same territory lived agricultural tribes, which are considered early Slavic tribes. These tribes were in close contact with the Thracian, Illyrian, Finno-Ugric, Scythian and other neighboring tribes, some of which were subsequently assimilated by the Slavs. The result of this process was the formation at the turn of our era of the main groups of early Slavic tribes that occupied the Vistula basin, the Dnieper region and the Northern Carpathian region. The authors of the beginning of our era knew the Wendish tribe in these places. Later, in the 6th century, the existence of two large Slavic associations- Sklavin and Antes.

The language of the ancient Slavic tribes, formed in the vast expanses of Eastern Europe, was very stable for a long time (before the era of the collapse of Slavic unity), which was reflected in the long-term unchanged preservation of a number of linguistic facts. Probably, mutual contact between the tribes was so close that dialect differences did not appear too sharply.

However, this language should not be imagined as some absolutely motionless unity. Related dialects, slightly different from each other, existed in it. They interacted with the languages ​​of their closest foreign neighbors. It has been established that some borrowings from neighboring languages ​​penetrated into the common Slavic language, which later entered all or many Slavic languages, for example from the Germanic languages ​​(Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. prince, Bulgarian prince, Serbohorvian knez“prince”, “ruler of the region”, Slovenian. knez , Czech kněz “prince”, “priest”, Slovak. kňaz, floor książę “prince”, Upper Meadow and lower meadow kńez “lord”, “father”; rus. hut, Bulgarian hut“dugout”, “hut”, “hut”, Serbo-Croat. hut“room”, “cellar”, Slovenian. isba “room”, Czech. izba “room”, “hut”, floor. izba “hut”, “room”, upper meadow. jspa, spa, lower meadow śpa, porridge. jizba (with the same meanings); from Iranian languages ​​(for example, Russian. axe, Belarusian, tapor, Slovenian topor, Czech topor “axe-handle”, upper meadow Toporo, Slovak topor, floor, topòr) 1 . The wide distribution of identical foreign language borrowings throughout the entire space of Slavic languages ​​is sometimes considered as an indication of the duration of the era of ancient Slavic unity 2 .

When establishing linguistic relationships, special attention is paid to the grammatical structure of languages ​​and their sound system. The most reliable criterion for the relatedness of compared languages ​​is the proximity of the grammatical structure, since of all aspects of the language the grammatical structure is the most stable and is characterized by an extremely gradual and slow pace of development.

An important manifestation of kinship is also the similarity in the vocabulary of languages, expressed in the similarity of ancient roots of words and other word-forming elements or whole words, provided that the grammatical structure of the languages ​​from which these linguistic units are extracted gives the right to consider these languages ​​as related. The material proximity of roots, grammatical formats and whole words complements and reinforces the evidence of linguistic relatedness.

This paper examines some phenomena in the field of vocabulary that indicate the closeness between the Slavic languages ​​in our time and their origin from a single source. A number of examples have been selected from the many thousands of lexical composition of the Slavic languages, illustrating the main paths and processes of development of the oldest Slavic vocabulary and showing the emergence of new vocabulary features across languages, the complexity of related connections between individual languages ​​in the field of vocabulary.

To determine the paths of vocabulary development, it is extremely important to establish the nature and boundaries of the original, Proto-Slavic vocabulary as the starting point in the history of many words.

The ancient dictionary, of course, cannot be restored in its entirety. The development of languages ​​from a single source does not need to be understood in a straightforward and simplistic way. In the process of the historical development of a language from era to era, the words included in it change greatly; the very composition of the dictionary is updated: more and more new units are included in it, while others gradually disappear. In the vocabulary of each individual language from a group of related languages ​​there is a lot that is changed and new, and at the same time it lacks much of what was present in the base language. At the same time, facts of language that are lost without a trace cannot be restored, since restoration is done on the basis of those traces that remain in languages ​​from the ancient era.

Different areas of language develop unevenly. As for the vocabulary, this area is characterized by features of particular mobility and variability. “Life contributes to a change in vocabulary, increasing the number of causes acting on words. Social relations, specialty, and tools change the vocabulary, expel old words or change their meanings, and require the creation of new words. The activity of consciousness constantly receives new incentives to work on the dictionary. In short, there is not a single area where the causes of changes in phenomena would be more complex, numerous and varied,” wrote the French linguist J. Vandries 3.

The lexical side of the language is very susceptible to foreign borrowings and extremely permeable to them. Therefore, when we encounter words in several languages ​​that are similar in both sound composition and meaning, we must first of all resolve the question of whether this is the result of borrowing one language from another.

Regarding the question of the possibility of restoring the ancient Indo-European vocabulary, the French linguist A. Meillet noted: “The vocabulary is the most unstable in the language. Words can disappear for a variety of reasons and be replaced by new ones. The original vocabulary may include new words that outnumber the old ones. Thus, in the English language, elements of Latin and French languages, not inferior to it in volume, were layered on the Germanic layer of vocabulary. It even happens that all vocabulary belongs to a different group than grammar; This is the case in the language of the Armenian Gypsies: the grammar and phonetics in their language are entirely Armenian, and the vocabulary is completely Gypsy.” 4

Meillet's remark about the difficulty of restoring the general vocabulary of the Indo-European languages ​​can, to a certain extent, be applied to the Slavic languages.

Along with the disintegration of the common Slavic base language into separate languages, several words were formed from the same word, connected to each other by a common origin, existing simultaneously, but within different language systems. But one cannot think that all lexical phenomena that coincide in several or all Slavic languages ​​developed from a single language dating back to the period of initial community. Slavic languages ​​throughout their history interacted with the languages ​​of neighboring peoples, being influenced by them. After the emergence of writing, the vocabulary features of the Church Slavonic language, the isolated Slavic languages ​​of neighboring groups, many foreign words, and international vocabulary penetrated into them through literary languages.

However, despite all the external influences, the ancient vocabulary fund of the Slavic languages ​​has been preserved in a significant volume - incomparably larger than the Indo-European vocabulary layer found in modern Indo-European languages. The Slavic dictionary has not experienced major changes during its existence. Along with the entry of a certain number of easily assimilated foreign words and the loss of a number of ancient words in the Slavic languages, the ancient lexical fund was preserved, processed and enriched.

It is very important to understand how the original Slavic vocabulary can be separated from earlier and later vocabulary borrowings.

The high prevalence of a word in related languages ​​cannot yet serve as an indication of its originality and unborrowed nature (cf. the above-mentioned borrowings of the common Slavic period, which are widely represented in modern Slavic languages).

The most general requirement for separating native words from borrowed ones is to find genetically identical (or etymologically identical) linguistic units in several languages, that is, units that go back to the same unit and are the result of its different development in individual languages.

Genetic identity does not imply complete qualitative coincidence. These units must be similar in terms of sound, and the sound similarity must be based on regular, natural sound correspondences observed not only in this example, but in a whole group of linguistic phenomena.

Such linguistic units can be, first of all, individual morphemes, i.e. roots, suffixes, prefixes, endings, and then compounds of morphemes - whole words.

For example, the Russian word powder, Ukrainian powder“dust”, “gunpowder”, Belarusian pores"gunpowder", Bulgarian dust“dust”, “powder”, “ashes”, Serbo-Croatian dust“dust”, “gunpowder”, “powder”, Slovenian prah “dust”, “gunpowder”, Czech prach “dust”, “fluff”, “gunpowder”, Slovak prach “dust”, “gunpowder”, Polish proch “gunpowder” “, “dust”, “ashes”, Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian proch “speck of dust”, “dust”, “ashes”, “gunpowder”, Kashubian rrokh “ashes”, “dust”, “gunpowder” can be considered genetically identical and primordially Slavic words, since all these words are connected by threads going to each of them (directly or through intermediate stages) from their Proto-Slavic source - the word *porch, restored on the basis of modern Slavic words developed from it. Conventionally and schematically, the history of these words can be represented as follows:

The change in the original *porch in individual languages ​​is strictly subject to the well-known law of sound correspondences, covering a large group of Slavic words. According to this law, East Slavic combinations oro South Slavic, as well as Czech and Slovak combinations correspond between consonants ra and northwestern - Polish, Lusatian and Kashubian - combinations ro(Belarusian combination ora in a word pores is a consequence of the akanya of the Belarusian language, reflected in its spelling). The indicated correspondence is a consequence of the different development of the oldest long syllable or in the middle of a word between consonants in different local conditions.

An important requirement for the original words of this group of languages ​​is also the commonality of the morphological division of words or the presence of common points in their morphological division.

Word powder, which in word-formation terms is currently a root with a zero ending, historically was a combination of morphemes dating back to the period of the common Indo-European base language. At the same time, the root of the word powder coincides not only with the roots of genetically identical Slavic words, but also with the roots of words of Indo-European languages ​​that are similar to them. Thus, it is discovered general points in the morphological division of the word not only on Slavic, but also on Indo-European soil, which clearly indicates the original nature of this word and the fact that the proximity of the corresponding words in related languages ​​is not a consequence of borrowing.

Morphemes and words are meaningful units of language. Semantic (notional) correspondences of units having the same origin (genetically identical) presented in related languages ​​must be as accurate as sound correspondences.

The boundaries between languages, the separate use of related languages, make the vocabulary of each of them devoid of direct and living relationships with the vocabulary of other languages.

Under these conditions, original ancient words in related languages ​​often acquire different semantic development. The differences that arise between them are formed through the gradual accumulation of a new quality and the gradual withering away of the old quality in the process of transmission of language from generation to generation. Changes in initial values ​​sometimes reach great depths.

In such cases, it may be necessary to explain the relationships of meanings that take place in modern languages ​​and prove their development from a single ancient meaning through semantic transitions, the likelihood of which cannot be doubted.

For Russian powder and Bulgarian dust characterized not only by sound similarity, based on the phonetic features of the Russian and Bulgarian languages, but also by a semantic connection, the existence of which becomes an indisputable fact as soon as we turn to the history of these words.

There are common points in the semantics of Russian and Bulgarian words even now: the meanings of “gunpowder” and “powder”, “dust” are united by the idea of ​​loose bodies or individual small particles of solid matter, but in ancient times Bulgarian and Russian meanings completely coincided: Old Russian powder meant “dust” (cf. in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”: Behold the winds, Stribozhi vnutsi, they blow... cover the fields with pigs). Subsequently, with the advent of gunpowder, a narrowing of the semantics of the word occurred in the Russian language powder, the specialization of its meaning and the loss of the original meaning of “dust”, “powder” (in the Ukrainian, Slovenian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Lusatian and Kashubian languages ​​there are both old and new meanings of this word at the same time).

The connection between the meanings of the words of the group under consideration finally convinces us that we are dealing with facts that developed in different ways from the same source, i.e., genetically identical. Thus, along with the principle of phonetic and structural explainability, it is necessary to keep in mind the principle of semantic explainability of the relationships between compared units.

Guided by these basic requirements, it is possible with sufficient confidence to distinguish words whose commonality between these languages ​​is based on the kinship of these languages, from words common to them of a different origin (borrowed).

In the Slavic languages ​​there is a striking unity in relation to a number of words inherited from ancient times. Each of the words in this group has either the same or very similar sound composition in modern languages. Special linguistic analysis, the basic requirements of which are mentioned above, establishes the original nature of these words and their origin from common sources. The meanings of each word from a group of genetically related words are basically the same across languages: they have the same subject correlation and can differ in languages ​​only by differences in connections with other words.

The commonality of a large group of words for all Slavic languages ​​serves as a very clear manifestation of their closeness to each other. These common words, which coincide in Slavic languages, can be used as material for restoring elements of the vocabulary of the common Slavic base language (proto-Slavic language).

Among the numerous common Slavic words of ancient origin, a number of semantic groups of words characterized by features of special stability stand out. These are the names of family relationships, objects and natural phenomena, parts of the human and animal body, agricultural crops, domestic and wild animals, fish, economic activities, the most important simple actions and some others 5.

So, for example, the concept of a clan as a series of generations descending from one ancestor is denoted in the same way in Slavic languages: cf. rus. genus, Ukrainian read, Belarusian genus, Bulgarian and Serbohorv. genus, Slovenian rod, Czech and Slovak rod, upper meadow ród, lower meadow rod, floor ród, porridge ròd. Russian word tribe in many Slavic languages ​​words with similar sounds correspond: Ukrainian. tribe, Belarusian tribe, Bulgarian tribe, Serbohorvian tribe, Slovenian pleme, Czech plémě, Slovak plemä, floor plemię. Some difference in sound composition is explained by the different fate of the final sound of this word in Slavic languages, which in the ancient period was pronounced as a nasal vowel.

The similarity in the sound of the basic designations of kinship is obvious: cf. rus. mother, Ukrainian mother, Belarusian matsi, Bulgarian T-shirt, Serbohorvian T-shirt, Slovenian mati, Czech and Slovak matka, lower meadow maś, upper meadow mać, floor matka, porridge mac; rus. O father, Belarusian damn, Serbohorvian father, Slovenian ok, Czech. and Slovak otec, lower meadow wóśc, floor ojciec, cough. wœjc; rus. son, Ukrainian syn, Belarusian son, Bulgarian syn, Serbohorvian syn, Slovenian sin, Czech and Slovak syn, lower meadow and upper meadow syn, floor syn, cough sin; rus. daughter, Ukrainian and Belarusian. daughter, Bulgarian daughter, Serbohorvian kћi, Slovenian hči, Czech. dcera, Slovak dcera, floor córka “daughter”; rus. Brother, Ukrainian Brother, Belarusian Brother, Bulgarian Brother, Serbohorvian Brother, Slovenian brat, Czech bratr, Slovak brat, lower meadow brat, upper meadow bratr, floor brat, cough. brat; rus. sister, Ukrainian sister, Belarusian sister, Bulgarian sister, Serbohorvian sister, Slovenian sestra, Czech and Slovak sestra, lower meadow sostra, sotša, upper meadow. sotra, floor siostra, porridge sostra.

The Slavic languages ​​retain many similarities in the names of the sky, celestial bodies and some natural phenomena: cf. rus. and Ukrainian sky, Belarusian sky, Bulgarian sky, Serbohorvian sky, Slovenian sky, Czech nebe, Slovak sky, upper meadow njebjo, Paul niebo, cough. ńebœe; rus. and Belarusian. month, Ukrainian month, Bulgarian month, Slovenian mesec, Serbohorvian month, Czech mĕsíc, Slovak. mesiac, upper puddle mĕsac, floor miesiąc „calendar month“, cough. mjesо;¸; rus. Sun, Ukrainian sun, Belarusian sunshine, Bulgarian sun, Serbohorvian sunce, Slovenian sonce, Czech slunce, Slovak slnce, upper meadow slónco, lower meadow słyńco, floor słońce; rus. wind, Ukrainian wind, Belarusian vetser, Bulgarian Vyatar, Serbohorvian vetar, Slovenian veter, Czech vítr, Slovak. vietor, upper meadow wĕtr, lower meadow wĕtš, floor wiatr, cough. vjater; in the names of body parts, for example: rus. and Ukrainian head, Belarusian galava, Bulgarian and Serbohorv. chapter, Slovenian glava, Czech and Slovak hlava, upper meadow hłowa, lower meadow głowa, floor. głowa, porridge. głova; rus. Ukrainian and Belarusian. hand, Bulgarian ryka, Serbohorvian hand, Slovenian roka, Czech and Slovak ruka, upper meadow and lower meadow ruka, floor ręka, porridge. rąka; rus. and Ukrainian leg, Belarusian naga, Bulgarian dialectal leg(in general Bulgarian crack), Serbohorvian leg, Slovenian noga, Czech noha, upper meadow noha, lower meadow noga, floor noga, porridge noga; Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. tooth, bulg. zab, Serbohorvian tooth, Slovenian zob, Czech and Slovak zub, upper puddle and lower meadow zub, floor ząb, porridge. zab; pyc. yxo, Ukrainian in ear, Belarusian woohoo, Bulgarian ear, Serbohorvian ear, Slovenian uho, Czech and Slovak ucho, upper meadow wucho, lower meadow hucho, floor ucho, cough wxœu; rus. heart, Ukrainian heart, Belarusian sir, Bulgarian sartse, Serbohorvian srce, Slovenian srce, Czech and Slovak srdce, lower meadow serce, floor and porridge. serce.

Basically, the Slavs have the same name for many agricultural crops. Wed. rus. wheat, Ukrainian wheat, Belarusian wheat, Bulgarian wheat, Serbohorvian wheat, Slovenian pšenica. Czech pšenice, Slovak pšenica, lower meadow pšenica, upper meadow pšeńca, floor. pszenica, porridge pšeńica; rus. barley, Ukrainian barley, Belarusian, barley, Bulgarian echemik, Serbohorvian Ęecam, Slovenian. ječmen, Czech. ječmen, Slovak jačmeň, lower meadow jacm;´, upper meadow ječmjeń, floor jęczmień, porridge. jičmé; rus. millet, Ukrainian millet, Belarusian millet, Bulgarian millet, Serbohorvian millet, Slovenian proso, Czech proso, Slovak proso, lower meadow pšoso, upper meadow proso, floor proso, porridge proso; rus. rye, Bulgarian ryzh, Serbohorvian rage, Slovenian rž, Czech. rež, Slovak raž, lower meadow rež, upper meadow rež, porridge. rež; rus. oats, Ukrainian oats, Belarusian and weight, Bulgarian oats, Serbohorvian about you, Slovenian oves, Czech oves, Slovak ovos, lower meadow hows, upper meadow wows, floor owies, cough. wòvs; rus. peas, Ukrainian peas, Belarusian peas, Bulgarian sin, Serbohorvian sin, Slovenian grah, Czech hrách, Slovak hrach, lower meadow groch, upper meadow hroch, floor groch, cough grox; rus. linen, Ukrainian Lyon, Belarusian linen, Bulgarian linen, Serbohorvian lan, Slovenian lan, Czech len, Slovak ľan, lower meadow lan, upper meadow len, floor len, porridge len.

Great similarity is also observed in the names of some domestic animals in modern Slavic languages. Wed. rus. word pig, Ukrainian pig, Belarusian pig, Bulgarian pig, Serbohorvian svњa, Slovenian svinja, Czech svinĕ, Slovak sviňa, lower meadow swina, upper meadow swinjo, floor świnia, porridge svina; rus. cow, Ukrainian cow, Belarusian karova, Bulgarian Krava, Serbohorvian Krava, Slovenian Krava, Czech Krava, Slovak krava, upper meadow kruwa, lower meadow krowa, floor krowa, porridge krova; rus. sheep, Ukrainian vivtsia, Belarusian avechka, Bulgarian sheep, Serbohorvian sheep, Slovenian ovca, Czech. ovce, Slovak ovca, lower meadow wojca, upper meadow wowca, floor owca, porridge wœwca; rus. goat, Ukrainian goat, Belarusian kaza, Bulgarian goat, Serbohorvian goat, Slovenian koza, Czech koza, Slovak koza, lower meadow kóza, floor koza, porridge kœza; rus. horse, Ukrainian kin, Belarusian, horse, Bulgarian con, Serbohorvian which, Slovenian konj, Czech kůň, Slovak. kôň, lower meadow kóń, upper meadow koń, floor koń, porridge kòń; Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. dog, Bulgarian dog, ps, Serbohorvian pass, Slovenian pes, Czech pes, upper meadow and lower meadow pjas, floor pies, cough pjes.

From pre-Slavic times, such words from the field of cattle breeding as herd, shepherd, hay have been preserved to this day. Wed. rus. herd, Ukrainian herd, Belarusian herd, Bulgarian herd, Serbohorvian herd, Czech stádo, Slovak stádo, lower meadow stado, stadło, upper meadow. stadło, floor stado; rus. shepherd, Ukrainian shepherd, Belarusian shepherd, Bulgarian pastir, Slovenian pastir, Czech pastýř, Slovak pastier, lower meadow pastyŕ, upper meadow pastyŕ, floor pastuch, pasterz, porridge. pastuř; rus. hay, Ukrainian sino, Belarusian hay, Bulgarian hay, Serbohorvian hay, Slovenian seno, Czech seno, Slovak seno, lower meadow seno, floor siano, porridge sano.

For the names of objects associated with hunting, Proto-Slavic also had many words that have survived to this day in all Slavic languages. These are the names of hunting tools, names of wild animals, etc. Cf. rus. onion, Ukrainian onion, Belarusian onion, Bulgarian lk, Serbohorvian onion, Slovenian lok, Czech luk, upper meadow wobluk, floor łuk; rus. arrow, Ukrainian arrow, Belarusian strala, Bulgarian arrow, Serbohorvian arrow, Slovenian strela, Czech střela, Slovak. strela, lower meadow stśĕła, upper meadow třĕla, floor strzała; rus. boar, “wild boar”, Ukrainian boar, Belarusian vyapruk, Bulgarian Vepar, Serbohorvian Vepar, Slovenian veper, Czech vepř, Slovak vepor, floor wieprz, lower meadow wjapś, upper meadow vjaps; rus. fox, Ukrainian fox, fox, bald, Belarusian fox, forest, Bulgarian fox, Serbohorvian fox, Slovenian Lisa, Czech liška, Slovak líška, lower meadow liška, upper meadow lis, lišak, floor. lis, lisica, porridge. lés, léséca; rus. beaver (beaver), Ukrainian bobe r, Belarusian Baber, Bulgarian byr, Slovenian beber, Serbohorvian dabar, Czech bobr, Slovak bobor, lower meadow and upper meadow bobr, floor bobr, porridge. bœbr; rus. deer, Ukrainian deer, Belarusian alen, Bulgarian Elen, Serbohorvian Helen, Slovenian jelen, Czech jelen, Slovak jeleň, lower meadow jeleń, floor jeleń, porridge jeleń. Words to express concepts related to fishing: Russian. seine, Ukrainian never, Belarusian nevada, Bulgarian seine, Czech nevod, lower meadow navod, floor niewód; rus. Merezha, Ukrainian measure, Bulgarian mrezha, Serbohorvian mrezha, Slovenian mreža, Czech. mříže, Slovak. mreža, floor mrzeža, porridge. mřeža; rus. top, Belarusian top, Ukrainian top, Slovenian vrša, Czech. vrše, Slovak. vrša, lower meadow w;´, upper meadow wjersa, floor. wierza; rus. good luck, Ukrainian Woodka(obsolete), Belarusian. wooda, Bulgarian wow, Serbohorvian udica, Czech udice “hook”, Slovak. udica, upper meadow wuda, lower meadow huda, floor węda; rus. fish, Ukrainian riba, Belarusian fish, Bulgarian riba, Serbohorvian riba, Slovenian riba, Czech, upper meadow, lower meadow and floor. ryba, porridge reba; rus. caviar, Ukrainian caviar, Belarusian caviar, Serbohorvian caviar, Czech jikra, upper meadow jikra, lower meadow jekr, floor ikra; rus. sturgeon, Ukrainian sturgeon, yaseter, Belarusian asetr, Bulgarian esetra, Serbohorvian Jesetra, Czech jeseter, Slovak jesetr, lower meadow jesotr, floor jesiotr, cough. jesoter; rus. perch, Ukrainian perch, Belarusian Akun, Slovenian okun, Czech okoun, Slovak okun, lower meadow hokuń, floor okoń; rus. som, Ukrainian som, sum, Bulgarian som, Serbohorvian som, Slovenian som, Czech sumec, floor sum.

In ancient times, Slavic tribes were familiar with the manufacture of pottery, as evidenced not only by finds during excavations, but also by the widespread use of pottery terms in modern Slavic languages. Wed. rus. potter, Ukrainian potter, Belarusian ganchar, Bulgarian granchar, Serbohorvian grnchar, Czech hrnčiř, Slovak. hrnčiar, upper meadow hornčeŕ, floor. garncarz. Of the numerous words related to spinning and weaving, we note spindle, linen: cf. rus. and Ukrainian spindle, Bulgarian lied, Serbohorvian lied, Slovenian vreteno, Czech. vřeteno, Slovak vreteno, upper meadow wrječeno, lower meadow reśeno, floor wrzeciono; rus. and Ukrainian canvas, Bulgarian paid, Serbohorvian paid, Slovenian platno, Czech plátno, Slovak platno, upper meadow płótno, lower meadow floor, floor płótno, porridge. please.

Some native Slavic names of abstract concepts and mental processes, which appeared in ancient times, are widely used in Slavic languages. Wed. rus. Truth, Ukrainian Truth, Belarusian true, Bulgarian Truth"right", Serbo-Croatian Truth, Slovenian pravda “court”, “trial”, Czech. and Slovak pravda, upper meadow prawda, lower meadow pšawda, floor prawda; rus. faith, Ukrainian faith, Belarusian faith, Bulgarian vyara, Serbohorvian faith, Slovenian vera, Czech víra, upper meadow and lower meadow wěra, floor wiara, cough vjara; rus. joy, Ukrainian joy, Belarusian rejoice, Bulgarian joy, Serbohorvian joy, Slovenian radost, Czech and Slovak radost, upper meadow and lower meadow radosć, floor radość; rus. fear, Ukrainian fear, Belarusian fear, Bulgarian and Serbohorv. fear, Slovenian fear, Czech and Slovak strach, upper meadow strach, lower meadow tšach, floor strach, cough. strax; rus. memory, Ukrainian memory, Belarusian memory, Bulgarian memory, Serbohorvian memory, Czech paměť, Slovak. pamäť, upper meadow pomjatk, floor pamięć, porridge. pamjąc; rus. thought, Belarusian thought, Bulgarian misal, Serbohorvian misao, Slovenian misel, upper meadow and lower meadow mysľ, Czech. mysl, Slovak myšlienka, floor. myśl, porridge mesl 6.

Among the names of characteristics, some words denoting the physical properties of objects, for example color, are still widely used in Slavic languages: cf. rus. white, Ukrainian white, Belarusian white, Bulgarian banged, Serbohorvian beo, Slovenian bel, Czech, bílý, Slovak. biely, upper meadow and lower meadow běły, floor biały, porridge. bjèły; rus. yellow, Ukrainian Zhovtiy, Belarusian zhoўty, Bulgarian zhalt, Serbo-Croatian. zhut, Slovenian žolt, Czech. žlutý, Slovak. žltỳ, upper meadow žołty, floor. żółty, porridge. žêłti; pyc. green, Ukrainian greenery, Belarusian zyaleny, Bulgarian green, Serbohorvian green, Slovenian zelen, Czech greeny, Slovak green, upper meadow and lower meadow greeny, floor zielony, porridge zelony; physical characteristics of living beings, for example: rus. healthy, Ukrainian healthy, Belarusian healthy, Bulgarian healthy, Serbohorvian healthy, Slovenian, zdrav, Czech, zdravý, Slovak. zdravý, upper meadow and lower meadow strowy, floor zdrowy, cough. zdrov; rus. thick, Ukrainian tovstiy, Belarusian toasts, Bulgarian tlst, Serbohorvian toast, Slovenian thick, Czech tlusty, Slovak tlstý, upper meadow tołsty, lower meadow tłusty, kłusty, floor. tłusty, cough. tłesti; rus. weak, Ukrainian weak, weak, Belarusian weak, Bulgarian and Serbohorv. weak, Slovenian slab, Czech and Slovak slabý, upper meadow and lower meadow słaby, floor. słaby, cough. slaby.

The Slavic peoples still use many names for actions and states that arose long before the separation of the Slavic languages. These include, for example, verbs: There is(cf. Ukrainian there are, Belarusian there are, Bulgarian yam, Serbohorvian There are, Slovenian jesti, Czech jísti, Slovak jesť, upper meadow and lower meadow jěsć, floor jeść, porridge. jèsc), live (cf. Ukrainian. live, Belarusian live, Bulgarian living, Serbohorvian live and live, Slovenian živeti, Czech. žìti, Slovak. žiť, upper meadow žić, lower meadow žywiš, floor. żyć, porridge. žéc); some verbs of motion, for example: rus. go, Ukrainian iti, Belarusian isci, Bulgarian Ida, Serbohorvian and, Slovenian iti, Czech jíti, Slovak ìsť, floor. iść, porridge. jic; rus. lead, drive, Ukrainian lead, drive, Belarusian weight, vadzіts, Bulgarian driving, Serbohorvian drive, Slovenian voditi, Czech voditi, Slovak viesť, vodiť, upper meadow. wodźić, lower meadow wjasć, floor wieść, porridge. vjesc; rus. drive, Ukrainian drive away, Belarusian drive, Bulgarian chasing, Serbohorvian drive, Slovenian goniti, Czech honiti, Slovak hnať, upper meadow hnać, lower meadow gnaś, floor gnać, gonić, porridge. gœńic; some names denoting various specific actions aimed at physical objects, for example cf. rus. cut, Ukrainian rezati, Belarusian cut, Bulgarian cutting, Serbohorvian cut, Slovenian rezati, Czech. řezati, Slovak. rezať, upper meadow rězać, lower meadow rězaś, floor rzezać; rus. forge, Ukrainian kuwati, Belarusian kavatsi, Bulgarian kova, Serbohorvian Kowati, Slovenian kovati, Czech kovati, Slovak kovať, upper meadow kować, lower meadow kovaś, floor kuć, kować, porridge. kœvac; rus. wash, Ukrainian wash, Belarusian mouse, Bulgarian Mia, Serbohorvian Miti, Slovenian miti, Czech muti, Slovak myť, upper meadow myć, lower meadow myś, floor myć, porridge mec; rus. bake, Ukrainian bake, Belarusian points, Bulgarian pitch, Serbohorvian sing, Slovenian peči, Czech. peci, Slovak pec, upper meadow pjec, lower meadow pjac, floor piec, porridge pjec; rus. weave, Ukrainian weave, Belarusian weave, Bulgarian so, Serbohorvian weave, Slovenian tkati, Czech tkáti, Slovak tkať, upper meadow tkać, lower meadow tkaś, floor tkać, porridge tkac; rus. sew, Ukrainian shiti, Belarusian swish, Bulgarian shiya, Serbohorvian shiti, Slovenian šiti, Czech. šíti, Slovak. šiť, upper meadow šić, lower meadow šyś, floor szyć, porridge šéc.

Common in all Slavic languages ​​are words denoting almost all the most important types of agricultural work. Wed. Old Russian orati“to plow”, Ukrainian orati, Belarusian arats, Bulgarian ora, Serbohorvian orati, Slovenian orati, Czech orati, Slovak orať, floor orać; rus. sow, Ukrainian sit down, Belarusian sow, Bulgarian sowing, Serbohorvian sow, Slovenian sejati, Czech. siti, Slovak siať, lower meadow seś, gender siać, porridge sôc; rus. reap, Ukrainian reap, Belarusian reap, Bulgarian zhna, Serbohorvian zheti, Slovenian žeti, Slovak. žať, Czech. žíti, lower meadow žněš, upper meadow žeć, floor żąć, porridge. žic; rus. thresh, Ukrainian thresh, Belarusian Malatsy, Bulgarian lame“beat, pound”, Serbohorvian. mlatiti, Slovenian mlatiti, Czech. mlátiti, Slovak mlátiť, lower meadow młóśiś, upper meadow młóćić, floor. młócić; rus. winnow, Ukrainian howl, Belarusian blow, Bulgarian blowing, Serbohorvian most, Slovenian vejati, Czech váti, Slovak viať, lower meadow wjaś, upper meadow wěć, floor wiać, porridge vjôc; rus. grind, Ukrainian grind, Belarusian malotsya, Bulgarian grinding, Serbohorvian fly, Slovenian mleti, Czech mlíti, Slovak mlieť, lower meadow młaś, upper meadow mlěć, floor mleć, porridge mlec.

Of the names of actions related to cattle breeding, the verb is well preserved across languages graze: Wed rus. graze, Ukrainian graze, Belarusian pasvits, Bulgarian pass, Serbohorvian graze, Slovenian pasti, Czech pásti, Slovak pásť, lower meadow pastwiś, upper meadow pastwić, floor paść, pasać, cough. pasc.

The vocabulary material that is the same for all Slavic languages ​​is also available among numerals, pronouns, adverbs, and interjections. To them you can add a number of basic prepositions, conjunctions, and particles.

The wide distribution of these words across Slavic languages, the genetic identity of each group of words with similar sounds and meanings, and the peculiarities of their morphological structure are indicators that all these words were the property of the Slavic language back in the era of their original commonality.

These words convey to our time a stock of ideas recorded in the language, passed down through a number of generations and reflecting the characteristic features of the era of the tribal system with its primitive economic structure. They point to important agriculture, cattle breeding, hunting, fishing in the economy of the ancient Slavs, the existence of such cultural skills as firing pottery, weaving, sewing, blacksmithing 7.

The antiquity of words inherited by modern Slavic languages ​​from Proto-Slavic is not the same. The Proto-Slavic language arose on the basis of the ancient Indo-European linguistic heritage, therefore, linguistic analysis of the original common Slavic words makes it possible to establish a very distant historical perspective of the development of some of them. Some of these words - most often in their roots - represent a legacy of times even more ancient than the era of the Slavic community, and go back to various periods of the existence of the Indo-European base language in different territories of its distribution. For these words, one can find general parallels attested in ancient monuments or preserved to this day in all Indo-European languages, or in various zones of the Indo-European linguistic area: in the Baltic, Germanic, Iranian, Indian, etc. languages. (The absence of such parallels does not always mean that they never existed. They may have been lost or not reflected in writing.)

The oldest Indo-European lexical layer includes, first of all, various words denoting family ties: for example, the Slavic designation of mother (cf. Sanskrit mātár, Greek μήτηρ, Latin māter, Old High German muoter, Armenians, mair “mother”, Old Prussian pomatre “ stepmother", Latvian māte "mother", Lit. motė "wife", "woman"), daughter (cf. Sanskrit duhitá, Greek θυγάτηρ, Gothic dauhtar, German Tochter, Armenian dustr, lit. duktė) , sister (cf. Sanskrit svásā, Latin soror, Gothic swistar, German Schwester, Armenian, k;ֹhuyr, Old Prussian swestro, lit. sesuo), brother (cf. Sanskrit bhrātar “brother”, Greek φράτηρ “member of the phratry”, Latin frāter, Gothic brōthar, German Bruder, Lit. brolis, Latvian brālis “brother”) and many others. The root of the Slavic word father also has ancient Indo-European origins. This root is attested only by some Indo-European languages ​​(cf. Latin atta "father", Greek αττα "father", "father", Old High German atto "father", Gothic atta "father", Albanian at "father"); in Proto-Slavic, a suffix was added to the ancient root, which originally had a diminutive connotation (cf. Russian. father), which was subsequently lost.

Slavic languages ​​also retain old Indo-European roots for the names of celestial bodies: months (moons) (cf. Sanskrit mas, mā́sas “month”, “moon”, New Persian māh, mang “moon”, Greek μήν “month”, μήνη "moon", Latin mensis "month", Gothic mēna "moon", German Monat "month", Albanian muaj "month", Armenian, amis "month", Latvian mēness "moon", "month", lit. mėnuo, rnėnesis “moon”, “month”), sun (cf. Sanskrit svàr “sun”, “light”, “sky”, Greek Ηλιος “sun”, Latin sōl “sun”, German Sonne "sun", Old Prussian saule, Latvian saule, lit. saulė "sun"); natural phenomena, for example wind (cf. Sanskrit vātas, vāyú-s "wind", Greek α;'ήτης, Latin ventus, Gothic vinds, German Wind, Old Prussian wetro “wind”, Lit. vėtra “storm”); some parts of the human body, for example the ear (cf. Greek ους, Latin auris, Albanian veš, Armenian, unkn, Goth . ausō, German Ohr, Latvian auss, Lit. ausis “ear”); some agricultural crops, for example rye (compare German Roggen, English gue, Latvian rudzi, Lit. rugiai “rye”), oats ( Wed Skt. avasám “food”, Latin. avēna “oats”, “forage grass”, Old Prussian. wyse, Latvian. auzas "oats", lit. aviža “oatmeal”), peas (cf. Old High German gers, gires, girst, Latvian gārsa, lit. garšvė “to fall”), flax (cf. Greek λίνον, Latin linum, Gothic lein, German Lein “flax”, lit. linas “flax stalk”); domestic animals, for example sheep (cf. Sanskrit ávis “sheep”, Greek οϊς, Latin ovis, Anglo-Saxon ēow, English ewe, Old Prussian awins “sheep”, Latvian auns “ram”, Lit. avis “sheep” “), pigs (cf. Sanskrit sūkarás “pig”, “boar”, Greek υς “pig”, υινος “swine”, Latin sūs “pig”, suinus “pig”, Gothic swein, German Sau, Schwein "pig", Latvian sivēns "pig").

Indo-European roots are preserved in the Slavic names of wild animals, for example deer (cf. Greek ελαφος “deer”, Old Prussian alne “animal”, Latvian alnis “elk”, Lit. elnis, elnias “deer”, elne “doe”), boar (cf. Latin aper “boar”, “wild boar”, Anglo-Saxon eofor “boar”, “boar”, German Eber “boar”, “boar”), beaver (cf. Sanskrit babhrūs “brown”, Latin . fiber "beaver", Anglo-Saxon beofor, Latvian bebrs, Lit. bebras, bebrus "beaver"); hunting tools, for example a bow (cf. Latin laqueus “rope with a loop”, “lass”, Danish laenge “rope loop”, Albanian léngor “flexible”, Lit. lankas “bow”); some feelings, for example joy (cf. Anglo-Saxon rōt “joyful”, “kind”, lit. rods “willing”); mental processes, for example memory (cf. Sanskrit matis, Latin mens “mind”, “thinking”, “reason”, Gothic gamunds “memory”, Lit. atmintis “ability to remember”); in the names of some characteristics indicated by adjectives, for example in the name of the color white (cf. Sanskrit bhālam “shine”, Anglo-Saxon bael “fire”, Latvian balts “white”, Lit. baltas “white”, balti “to turn white”) yellow (cf. Greek. χόλος, χόλή “bile”, Latin. Flāvus “yellowish”, “golden”, German. Galle “bile”, ancient PRUS. Galatynam, Latv. Dzeltens “yellow”, lit. Geltas “yellow” , gelta “yellowness”); in many names of actions indicated by verbs, for example there is (cf. Sanskrit. átti “eats”, Latin. edo “is”, Greek. εσθίω “is”, Gothic itan, Old Prussian ist “eats”, Latvian ēst “is” “, “eat”, lit. ėsti, (ėda, ėdė) “devour”, “absorb”), go (cf. Sanskrit ēti, Greek είμι, Latin eo, Gothic iddja, lit. eiti), lead (cf. Old Irish feidim “lead”, Old Prussian vestwei “to lead”, Latvian vadit “to lead”, Lit. vesti “to lead”), drive (cf. Sanskrit hánti “hits”, “hits”, “kills” , Greek θείνω “beat”, “strike”, Armenian ganem “beat”, “scourge”, Lit ginti, (gena, ginė) “drive”, “drive out”), forge (cf. Latin cūdo “to hit “, “to beat”, “to pound”, German hauen “to hit”, “to chop”, “to strike”, Latvian kaut “to strike”, “forge”, Lit. kauti “to strike”, “forge”), oven ( Wed Sanskrit pácati “cooks”, “bake”, “fries”, Greek πέσσω “bake”, “cook”, Latin coquo, (coxi, coctum) “bake”, “cook”, Albanian pjek “bake” “, Latvian zept “oven”, “fry”, Lit. kepti, (with consonant rearrangement) “oven”, “fry”), sow (cf. Latin sero, goth. saian, german säen, lit. sėju “to sow”) and many others. etc.

Some old Indo-European roots continue to exist in Slavic languages ​​in common forms, in conjunction with Slavic suffixes; for example, the name of a sheep (cf. Latin ovis), heart (cf. Latin cor), month (cf. Greek μήν), sun (cf. Latin sol). From the Indo-European root that was part of the name of the bull, known, for example, in one of the Baltic languages ​​(cf. Latvian govs “cow”), Slavic languages ​​formed derivatives with similar meanings (cf. Bulgarian. Govedo"cattle", Serbohorvian. Goveda"cattle", Czech. hovado “cattle”, Russian. beef"meat cattle“) 8 .

Thus, much of the Indo-European vocabulary was preserved in the Proto-Slavic language, although this linguistic material underwent specific changes on Slavic soil.

The preserved elements of the dictionary, as well as the features of the grammatical structure, close to the grammatical structure of other Indo-European languages, closely connect the Slavic languages ​​with other Indo-European languages.

But a number of the most ancient Indo-European roots are not reflected in the Slavic languages. Compared to other Indo-European peoples, the Slavs began to call animals such as horse, dog, and ox differently. The name for fish is also a Slavic innovation. Slavic designations for these concepts do not have convincing parallels in other Indo-European languages.

Many of the most important Slavic words have parallels in the Baltic languages. Outstanding researcher of Baltic languages ​​prof. Ya. M. Endzelin noted up to two hundred such parallels back in 1911 9 . Later this figure was increased. It is very important that in the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​we find not only related roots, but also related words. Some of them are characteristic only of the Baltic and Slavic languages, are not repeated in other Indo-European languages ​​and are, apparently, the same new formations for the Baltic and Slavic languages, and, therefore, the most characteristic sign of the close connection of these languages. The existence of a large group of common words brings the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​together and sets these two language groups apart from other Indo-European ones.

So, for example, instead of various Indo-European names for hand, in Slavic languages ​​there is a special word close to the Lithuanian ranka “hand” and the Lithuanian verb rinkti - “to collect”. The Slavic name for the leg is very different from its other Indo-European names, but has a parallel in the Baltic languages: lit. naga means "hoof". Like Slavic leg, and the Lithuanian naga are derivatives of the ancient Indo-European name for the nail, which is also preserved by the Slavic and Baltic languages: Rus. nail, ancient Prussian nagutis, lit. nagas, Latvian. nags 10.

From the names of body parts, we also note the closeness of the Slavic name for the head (staroslav. chapter, ancient Russian head) or T. galva, the ancient Slavic name for the finger (staroslav. please, ancient Russian prst) or T. pirštas.

Of the names of tree species, the Slavic name linden and lit. liepa.

Among the names of domestic animals, the Slavic and Baltic languages ​​have similar names for cow (cf. Lit. karvė), among the names of fish there are similar names for catfish (cf. Lit. šamas, Latvian, sams). Among the verbs, we note the closeness of lit. nešti “to carry” and the corresponding Slavic verb.

Other elements of the Slavic vocabulary were created on Slavic soil. In terms of sound and morphological composition, they differ significantly from the corresponding words in meaning in other Indo-European languages, including the Baltic, and represent purely Slavic vocabulary phenomena.

Some Slavic new formations can be easily divided into component parts, parallels for which are found within the Slavic linguistic material; It is also possible to establish the characteristics of objects that form the basis of their names, that is, to determine the way of expressing a concept through a word. Thus, among the names of agricultural crops listed above, a purely Slavic new formation is the word wheat(in Old Church Slavonic language wheat). The root of this word is usually related to the root of the Slavic verb fuck(staroslav. fuck) “kick”, “pound”, “press” 11. Apparently, wheat in Slavic languages ​​received its name based on the processing it underwent to obtain flour: it was pounded in a mortar.

In the Slavic languages, as in the Baltic and Germanic, there is no previous name for the bear, attested by ancient Indo-European languages ​​(cf., for example, Greek άρκος, Latin ursus); it has been replaced in these languages ​​by various other words. The Slavic name for bear is formed from two roots (the root of the word honey and the root of the word There is) and originally meant “an animal that eats honey.” This name for the bear was apparently borrowed from the practice of hunters who, according to a custom associated with a vocabulary taboo and well known among many peoples, prefer to change the names of living creatures. (Perhaps for the same reason, the Slavs created new names for other animals, for example, the hare. A. Meie believes that the name of the hare in the Slavic languages ​​replaced the more ancient, Indo-European one; the Slavic designation for the hare is unclear in origin 12.)

Indo-European designations for snake were supplanted in Slavic languages ​​by new ones, formed or from the root of the word Earth(staroslav. serpent), or from the root of the word denoting something repulsive (staroslav. bastard) (while the name of the snake has a correspondence in Lit. angis and Latin anguis “snake”) 2. (The tendency to change the names of living creatures also occurs in our time. Thus, for the name of a snake in Russian local dialects, replacements again appear. Compare name skinny, noted by S. A. Koporsky in the Ostashkovsky district of the Kalinin region. 13)

Among the names of fish, the name perch has a purely Slavic character. It clearly highlights the root common to the word eye: This fish is named after its large eyes.

Among the names of crafts presented in our list in the common Slavic era, the word was created potter(in Old Church Slavonic language grjnchar), the root of which is associated with the verb burn(same as root words bugle, pot).

Thus, there is no reason to project all words of a primordial nature that coincide in modern languages ​​onto one plane, that is, to associate their emergence with one specific era. The difference in the duration of their existence in languages ​​can be calculated in thousands of years.

Our list of words of ancient origin, used in all modern Slavic languages, contains only a small part of that significant vocabulary layer that was inherited from ancient eras. Bulgarian linguist prof. I. Lekov believes that, according to approximate data, about 1120 words now belong to the general vocabulary layer of the Slavic languages. Only in 320 cases did he notice a partial violation of this unity in individual languages ​​or their groups 1 4 . Academician T. Ler-Splavinsky calculated that the three Slavic languages ​​- Polish, Czech and Russian - share almost two-thirds of the most common vocabulary. By comparing the common Slavic vocabulary, identified on the basis of special research, with a vocabulary typical of modern literary vocabulary, he established that more than 1,700 of the oldest Slavic words have been preserved in the Polish language, i.e., about one quarter of the entire active vocabulary of an educated Pole. About one tenth of these words refers in its meaning to the inner, spiritual life of a person, while over eight tenths relate to the external world and external material life; the remaining words serve to designate grammatical categories and relations (pronouns, numerals, conjunctions, prepositions). In the field of concepts related to spiritual life, the Polish language has retained from the Proto-Slavic era a fairly large list of names expressing spiritual abilities, some concepts from the field of religion and ethics, concepts about human life, about his spiritual qualities, vices, etc. Much more A complex and rich picture is presented in the Polish language by the ancient lexical heritage in the field of expressing the external and physical life of a person and his connections with the outside world. This includes a very extensive vocabulary concerning dead and living nature, such as terrain, fossils, bodies of water, times of day and year, weather and precipitation, plants, animals, and the structure of the human body and animals. Many words refer to family, economic, public life. There are also many definitions of various physical properties of people and animals (adjectives). To all these semantic categories one can also add the names of actions and states associated with them 15 .

The ancient lexical layer, included in the dictionary of modern Slavic languages, is the basis for the formation of new words: throughout the entire historical development of the Slavic languages, the main material of lexical creativity was and still is the main word-forming elements (roots, suffixes, prefixes), inherited from Proto-Slavic era. It is from them that new connections and combinations are created, focusing mainly on word-formation types inherited from antiquity.

Based on the ancient lexical layer, new complex words are created, including several roots. It serves as the main source of various idioms and phraseological formations that give each Slavic language a noticeable unique coloring.

It should be taken into account that the stability of the ancient lexical layer within modern languages ​​is not absolute. Some ancient words, which were among the most important semantic categories preserved throughout the history of Slavic languages, are subsequently replaced in individual languages ​​by others coming from dialects, vernacular and other sources.

But despite these fluctuations, the oldest layer remains the most important pillar of the vocabulary of each of the Slavic languages. For many centuries and right up to our time, it has served in each of the languages ​​as the main basis for the enrichment and development of their vocabulary.

Dispersing across the vast expanses of Eastern Europe, the Slavs lost direct contact with each other, which should have entailed a weakening and then a break in their community in their development. The first mention of the existence of separate groups - information about the division of the Slavs into Sklavins and Antes, belonging to the Gothic historian Jordan and the Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea, dates back to the 6th century. n. e. According to these data, the territory of the vast tribal union of the Ants was the Dniester and middle Dnieper regions, and the territory of the union of the Sklavins was the lands to the west of the Dniester.

It must be borne in mind that the Slavic peoples and nations of later times are not the direct successors and heirs of these specific groups or parts of the ancient Slavic world, for throughout history new regroupings of ancient tribes arose. The eastern massif is splitting: its southern part, the ancestors of the Balkan Slavs, moves south and gradually occupies the Balkan Peninsula, while the rest apparently moves somewhat to the west. This process was probably the result of the invasion of nomadic Turkic-Tatar peoples, first the Huns, and then the Avars and others, who, starting from the middle of the 4th century. wedged from the Black Sea steppes into Slavic settlements, pushing some tribes of the original eastern group through the Carpathians to the south, to the Danube, and others to the west, towards Volyn, where they came into close contact with the Western Slavs. Soon after this, a change occurred in the composition of the ancient western group: the southwestern tribes, the ancestors of the future Czechs and Slovaks, broke away from it and moved south. In Transcarpathia and along the Danube they reached the settlements of the southern Slavs, which was reflected in the appearance of some linguistic features, connecting the Czech and Slovak languages ​​with the South Slavic languages ​​and distinguishing them from Polish. However, these temporary ties soon weakened due to the penetration of the Avars into the Middle Danube Lowland, who in the 6th century. created a powerful state there, and were finally interrupted when the place of the Avars in the Middle Danube Lowland was taken by the Magyars (Hungarians), who settled there at the beginning of the 10th century. n. e.

The eastern massif of the former northern group - the ancestors of the East Slavic tribes - is separated from the western group. It develops its own linguistic features.

In the VII-IX centuries. The formation of Slavic nationalities takes place: Old Russian, Old Polish, Old Czech, Old Bulgarian, Old Serbian. The Old Russian people, who occupied the regions of Kievan Rus, included the ancestors of Russians (Great Russians), Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

The process of formation of the Slavic peoples was complex; it cannot be imagined as a simple fragmentation of the original Slavic tribal community into nationalities. For example, the Old Russian nationality, which took shape in the X-XI centuries, later, in the XIV-XV centuries, became the basis of three new East Slavic nationalities: Russian (Great Russian), Ukrainian and Belarusian.

As a result of the development of the same source material - the oldest vocabulary layer - different lexical systems arose in different Slavic languages, held together by the common origin of their supporting elements: morphemes and whole words.

There is no doubt that a number of words of ancient origin invariably fell out of circulation. The loss of the word from circulation is explained by the gradual reduction in its use, caused by changes in the language system as a whole in connection with changes in social practice and the entire history of the people.

Ancient Slavic languages ​​had more common words of Slavic origin than modern languages. The researcher already has the opportunity to register the disappearance of a particular word. case if he refers to lexical facts reflected in writing. In the Old Russian language of the 11th century. word marked yell meaning “peasant work horse”. As written monuments testify, this word was also used in the Old Czech and Old Polish languages, although in a slightly different sound form: hor, horz, horsz. Based on these individual pieces of evidence from ancient texts, it can be judged that the word was known over a large area of ​​distribution of Slavic languages. Nowadays, this word has almost gone out of use. It can be observed only in narrow usage - in poetic speech - in Czech language, where oř means “horse”. It is found in some dialects of the Russian language (in the form yell, yelling“horse”, “horse”), in Ukrainian dialects (in the form believe, vur).

There are also known examples from the history of Slavic languages, when words that were previously used over vast territories subsequently disappear in some languages, but are preserved in others. The language of ancient Russian chronicles and business writing, distant from modernity by a period of no more than nine centuries, sometimes turns out to be closer in vocabulary to some modern Slavic languages ​​than to the modern Russian language. Thus, in ancient Russian texts the word appears Boroshno or disgusting in the meaning of “food made from flour products” or “food” in general. The modern Russian literary language does not know this word 16. However, the word disgusting is still used in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian languages, and Boroshno- in Ukrainian it means “flour”.

Wed. also the Old Russian word neti “nephew”, which left no traces in modern Russian, and the Serbo-Croatian no way“sister’s son”, Slovak neter, Czech neteř “niece”. Old Russian kra“ice floe” is preserved only in some Russian dialects, but is well known in Polish, where kra “ice floe”, Czech, where kra “block of ice”, “ice floe”. In the Old Russian language there is a word svada“quarrel”, which later fell out of use in it. There are parallels for it in modern Czech, where sváda also means “quarrel”, in modern Bulgarian, where wedding- “quarrel”, “feud”. Old Russian soon- “skin”, “fur” (hence modern Russian furrier) - corresponds to skóra in modern Polish, skóra “skin” in Kashubian. Old Russian kick“to wash, wash” (hence the modern literary laundry, Smolensk regional pranik, slinger“Roller for washing clothes”) has a counterpart in modern flooring. prać “to wash”, “to wash”, Czech. práti, Serbo-Horvian. prati, Bulgarian pen"wash". Old Russian aunts“beat”, which has disappeared in all East Slavic languages, corresponds to Slovenian. tepsti, tapati “beat”, punish”, Bulgarian. temperatures“to roll the cloth”, “to beat, to pound”, “to beat”.

Knowledge of modern Slavic languages ​​helps to correctly understand ancient texts. In the initial Russian chronicle, the Tale of Bygone Years, under the year 946, there is a semi-legendary story about how the Kiev princess Olga took revenge on the Drevlyans for the murder of her husband. She took tribute from the inhabitants of the Drevlyan city with live birds - pigeons and sparrows, then ordered them to be tied to each bird tsry(in other lists of the chronicle hRb) and let the birds into the city to set it on fire. From the text it is clear that the word ts ry (damn) denotes some kind of flammable substance or material. The true meaning of this word, already unknown in the Russian language, was determined only when attention was paid to the dictionary of the modern Belarusian language in which the words tsar And tsera are now used with the meaning “tinder”, and on the dictionary data of Transcarpathian dialects Ukrainian language, where the word devil in the same meaning is noted. Thus, it turned out that Olga ordered her soldiers to tie light and dry tinder to the birds, which burns well and at the same time slowly 1 7 .

So, some words of ancient Slavic origin gradually fall out of use in all languages, while the other part firmly “settles” in some individual languages ​​or groups of languages. Modern Slavic languages ​​reflect a picture of the complex interweaving of their mutual connections in the field of vocabulary.

Prof. N. N. Durnovo noted that along with typically East Slavic words for which it is impossible to find matches in languages ​​other than Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian (for example, numerals fourty And ninety, nouns squirrel, ladle, bell, drake, tablecloth, silk, adjectives cheap, good etc.), East Slavic languages, in addition, have vocabulary that is characteristic both for them and for some other group of Slavic languages ​​or one Slavic language. N. N. Durnovo points out that the word wait brings East Slavic languages ​​closer to the Kashubian language, mirror- with Slovak and dialects of the Slovenian language, horse- with dialects of the Polish language. Words boron("Pine forest"), ram, belly, armchair, pie, dust, craft known to East Slavic and West Slavic languages, but unknown to South Slavic languages. Words board"hive in a hollow" believing, spring, mushroom, tar, pine, tail known to the East Slavic languages, West Slavic and Slovenian, but unknown to Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian. Words loaf, feast, bird, look, honeycomb known to East Slavic and South Slavic languages, but unknown to West Slavic 18. Word dog known, in addition to the East Slavic languages, Polish and Kashubian 1 9 .

It is possible that the uneven distribution of some of these words reflects not only ancient groupings and regroupings of Slavic tribes and nationalities, but also the difference in the periods of existence of words in languages.

In the languages ​​of the emerging Slavic peoples, there was a further development of the vocabulary inherited from the era of unity. It was a complex process that included opposing tendencies. On the one hand, the history of languages ​​shows the preservation of the ancient vocabulary, on the other hand, the expansion and deepening of differences between individual languages ​​in the field of vocabulary.

In the conditions of independent existence of the Slavic languages, their ancient vocabulary has changed greatly. The sound composition of words underwent changes, often quite profound. There was a break in the previous connections of words with other words and the formation of new connections and new contexts for the use of words. The meanings of words changed. There were fluctuations in the degree of use of certain words. Their stylistic coloring and their emotional intensity changed. Various replacements appeared that replaced the old words. Along with the growth of the vocabulary, there was a qualitative enrichment of vocabulary. All these processes proceeded differently in each of the Slavic languages.

Below we consider some processes in the field of vocabulary in a short and very general form.

Very ancient local changes were sound changes reflected in the dictionary, occurring in each language group and subsequently in each individual language in its own way.

Words that had followed a common development path for the entire Slavic world from Indo-European sources, and were fixed in the Proto-Slavic language in a special, purely Slavic sound design, were again subject to changes, which this time led to different results.

Phenomena in the field of sounds changed the original appearance of Proto-Slavic words, which began to be pronounced differently depending on the language in which they existed. Further deepening of the differences has led to the fact that in modern Slavic languages ​​some ancient words differ greatly in sound, and sometimes the common ancient sound complex barely appears in them.

Sound differences in words of identical origins are striking already in the above-mentioned lexical materials of Proto-Slavic origin. Illustrating the common Slavic nature of the various semantic groups of the dictionary, we turned to the corresponding words of modern Slavic languages; Moreover, words traced back to the same source sometimes turned out to be presented in different sound “shells” in individual languages. For example, a word that sounded in Old Church Slavonic (and, apparently, in Proto-Slavic) as flax, pronounced in Russian linen, in Serbian lan; Wed also Staroslav. d db, russian grandfather, Ukrainian grandfather, Belarusian dzed, floor. dziad, Bulgarian uncle; rus. Sun, Bulgarian sun, Serbohorvian sunce, Czech slunce, Slovak slnce, floor słońce. Other examples: Russian. salt, Serbohorvian with, Bulgarian Sol, Czech sůl, lower meadow sel, floor sol; rus. morning, Serbohorvian Morning, Czech jitro, porridge in vitro; Staroslav. vel(from the verb lead), Russian led, Czech vedl, floor wiódł, Serbo-Croatian veo etc.

The most important element of the structure of a word is its semantic side. It, just like the external, sound side of a word, is one of the objects of research in linguistics.

As already indicated, the meanings of words are subject to change; the original meaning of a word and its later interpretation may coincide only partially or not coincide at all.

When a word is passed on from generation to generation, its fate develops differently in each of the related languages, and therefore historical changes in genetically identical words often have a different character in languages.

Changes in the meanings of words depend mainly on two mutually intersecting reasons: firstly, on the relationship of the processes of language development with the history of the people and, secondly, on the specific features of the language in which the word functions in close connection with other words of this language.

The presence of a numerous, branched system of meanings for a word is a fact of the language that makes possible a historical change in the semantics of words. The new meaning perceived by a word usually exists as a secondary meaning to the previous use of the word.

“The logical meaning of a word is surrounded by a special emotional atmosphere that penetrates it and gives it, depending on its use in a particular context, one or another temporary coloring,” noted J. Vandries 20.

The change in semantics occurs initially in individual acts of speech, individual sentences. The resulting temporary meaning of the word either disappears later or is transferred to other sentences until the new meaning becomes common and generally accepted among a certain circle of speakers. In the latter case, the temporary meaning becomes a stable secondary meaning of the word, which can shift the semantic center of the word and become an independent center of semantic development. With this development of meaning, a chain of meanings is formed, each of the links of which successively serves as a support for the emergence of further, qualitatively new meaning. In the history of a language, it is sometimes possible to discover all the links in the semantic chain and trace all the ways and techniques of incorporating one meaning into another. In other cases, the results of semantic development appear to the researcher in a broken form, when intermediate links or the original link are lost and the meanings are very distant from each other. Occasionally, the same word can be attested in the history of a language in two opposite meanings: in these cases, all intermediary links or stages of semantic development have dropped out and disappeared from the memory of the speakers,

In the conditions of the isolated existence of the Slavic languages, the meanings of the words of the ancient lexical fund developed in independent directions. The attachment of one meaning to another and their coupling, depending on local forms of development of social life and consciousness, on the characteristics of the language system, was carried out in unique ways, the pace of development of the semantic side of different words was heterogeneous. All this created a difference in the results of semantic development of the same initial meanings of words in Slavic languages.

So, for example, the word apiary in dialects of the Russian language it is sometimes found in the meaning “part of the forest intended for felling.” Initially, this word in Slavic languages ​​apparently meant “a plot cut down in the forest” (in this meaning there is still a semantic connection with the verb flog). Later in the Russian language the word apiary acquired the meaning of “beekeeper in a cleared area in the forest,” then generally “beekeeper.” In the Czech language, the word paseka has been preserved in its original meaning - “clearing”, “clearing” 21.

Word a week originally denoted a day of the week free from business, then the meaning of the word transferred to the period between two free days (two Sundays). If the Polish language has retained the first of these meanings (cf. niedziela “Sunday”), then in Czech both meanings are known (neděle “Sunday” and “week”), and in Russian the second meaning is known, i.e. “seven days” .

Differences in individual languages ​​in the meanings of identically sounding words or words raised to a common ancient sound composition (genetically identical) can be traced already in the materials of the most ancient texts that reflected the Slavic languages: texts of the Old Church Slavonic language, on the one hand, and the Russian literary language of the most ancient period - with another. The discrepancies between the values ​​here do not yet look very sharp. Their existence is perceived as the result of the different development of an ancient single main, core meaning, around which additional meanings are grouped, which subsequently diverge across languages. These “sub-meanings,” very changeable and mobile, would be unthinkable without the central and stable meaning of the word from which they developed.

In the vocabulary related to agriculture, attention is drawn to the incomplete coincidence in the Old Russian and Old Church Slavonic languages ​​of the semantic shades of words corn(Old Russian. whole grain, Staroslav. zrunno, no good). If in Old Russian texts, starting from the most ancient ones, this word means “seed of plants, especially cereals,” as well as “a small particle of a solid substance that looks like grain,” then in Old Slavonic texts, which arose on the basis of the Bulgarian-Macedonian dialect, along with indicated, there are other things that can be conveyed in words berry(mainly grapes). It is interesting to note that the word grain in this meaning still exists in the Bulgarian language, as evidenced by some dictionaries. Along with this, in Bulgarian the word grain It also has a meaning that coincides with modern Russian.

The word does not quite coincide in its system of meanings in Old Russian and Old Church Slavonic monuments garden. In Russians ancient chronicles garden means “a piece of land planted with trees or bushes.” Meanwhile, in texts of South Slavic origin, along with the above, one can find another meaning of this word - “planted fruit tree” (in the modern Slovenian language there is another special meaning of this word: Slovenian sad means “fruit”). The existence of special semantic shades of the same word across languages ​​is also early discovered in the field of adjectives. Yes, adjective proud In Russian, it has long had the meaning “full of pride, self-esteem,” “stately,” “arrogant,” “important.” In the early South Slavic texts, along with the meaning coinciding with the indicated Russian, there is another - “terrible”, “terrible” and “amazing”. This adjective name in some Old Church Slavonic monuments is included in such unusual word combinations for the Russian language as proud miracle, proud smell, proud noise.

Similar facts exist in modern Slavic languages. Thus, in Polish the noun brzeg, which corresponds in sound composition to Russian shore, denotes not only the river bank, but also the edge of the forest, the side of the ship, the edge, the border. Polish pień means not only “stump”, but also “tree trunk”, “stump”. The adjective prosty means “simple” and “straight” in Polish. Bulgarian adjective skjp It means not only “stingy,” but also “dear.” Floor. szczupły, as well as Russian. puny means “thin”, “skinny”, but, in addition, also “cramped”, “narrow”, “meager”; Czech ostrý means not only “sharp”, but also “sharp” and “bright” (for example, ostrá barva - “bright color”); floor. ostry - “sharp” and “sharp”, “severe” (for example, ostra zima - “harsh winter”).

In all the examples reported above, there is an incomplete divergence of meanings: the ancient, original meaning still exists in different languages, but its shades already differ from each other.

But there are also examples when the shades of meaning of the same word, formed across languages, are not held together by the presence of a common unifying meaning of the word for these languages. Already in the early texts of the Slavic languages, one can notice the existence of semantic shades of words with the loss of the common meaning that previously united them.

If Staroslav. year means “time”, “a period of time of indefinite duration”, then in the Old Russian language year- "twelve months". Word With Mia in the Old Church Slavonic language it meant “servants”, “slaves”, “household members”. In ancient Russian books, starting from the works of Cyril of Turov (XII century), the word family, family means “family”, “relatives”. In addition, in Russian texts of the 16th-17th centuries. word family means “like-minded people”, “conspired friends and relatives”, and is also used in the new, figurative meaning"wife" 22. Adjective decrepit in Russian it has long meant “old”, “dilapidated”. In Old Church Slavonic this word meant “sad,” “sad.”

And in modern Slavic languages ​​one can find a number of words with different meanings, suggesting the existence of a common semantic source. So, in Serbo-Croatian under- “the floor in the room”, whereas in Russian under the house called the smooth brick lining inside the stove where firewood is placed (in the Old Russian language another meaning of this word is noted - under the mountains"foot of the mountain"). It can be assumed that these meanings were once united by a common meaning - “the lower part, the base of something” 23. Bolg. womb, means not “insides”, but “stomach”, lower abdomen. wutšoba "heart", gender. wątroba "liver"; Czech jíl means “clay,” not “silt,” as one might expect based on the Russian meaning of the word; Czech sen means “dream”, which distinguishes it from Russian dream with a wider meaning. Word vine in Russian it means “twig”, “shoot of shrub plants”, in Bulgarian - “grapevine” and “grapes” (plant), in Slovenian loza - “grapevine”, “grove”, “forest”, in Polish łoza, łozina - “willow”, “willow twig”. Bolg. green, Slovenian zelje, Czech zelí have the meaning “cabbage”, and in the Old Russian language and modern Russian dialects potion- “grass”, in Polish ziele - “grass”, in Serbo-Croatian zee- "greenery". Floor. suknia Belarusian. cloth means “dress”, Czech. sukně, Slovak. sukňa, Serbohorvian bitch- "skirt". Bolg. braid and Serbohorv. braid They mean “hair on the head”, and not “a type of female hairstyle”, as in Russian. Bolg. grub means “back”, cf. rus. hump with a different meaning (in dialects, however, it may also mean “back”). Slovenian bor means “pine”, not “pine forest”, as in Russian; kvas is not a “drink”, but “leaven”, “yeast”; južina does not mean “dinner”, but “lunch”; verb kuriti - “to heat, burn wood”, not “to smoke”, the word žaba corresponds to Russian. “frog”, the word hudi (cf. Russian thin) means “angry”, “angry”, the adjective rumeni (cf. Russian. rosy) means “yellow” (only in Slovenian dialects “red”). Floor. grób, Slovenian grob does not mean “coffin”, but “grave”, Serbohorvian. blato and Czech bláto does not mean “swamp”, but “mud”, Czech. huba is not “lip”, but “mouth”, ret is not “mouth”, but “lip”, brada is not “beard”, but “chin”, vous is not “mustache”, but “beard hair”; Bulgarian shaking and Czech střecha means “roof”, while Russian. fear- “overhanging part of the roof”, Bulgarian. cool means “sharp” (to taste), “sudden”, “bold”, fresh does not mean “unleavened”, but “fresh” (for example, Presni domati“fresh tomatoes”), floor. gruby means “thick”, “dense”, and not “rough”, as in Russian (compare with Czech hrubý “rough”, “thick”, “large”), tęgi means not “tight”, but “strong” “, “strong”; The Czech verb rýti is different from Russian dig with a narrower and more special meaning: it means “to cut out,” “to engrave.” Bolg. menacing unlike Russian formidable means “ugly.”

When translating from Slavic languages ​​into Russian, conditions sometimes arise in which the Russian language reminds and suggests the meaning foreign word, despite some differences in meaning. For example, when we read the Polish ładna dziewczyna, the Russian colloquial adjective comes to mind okay“good”, “beautiful”, which allows us to presumably translate the Polish phrase into Russian beautiful girl. However, for accurate translation, good knowledge of the vocabulary of the native language and linguistic flair are clearly not enough. Differences in the meanings of some words sometimes reach great depths, so that their old connection and the nature of the original meaning are no longer felt. For example, mountain Unlike the Russian language, in Bulgarian it means “forest”, Bulgarian. table means “chair” in contrast to Russian. table(in Old Russian so - “chair”, “throne”, as well as in Old Bulgarian; then there was a gradual change in meaning in both languages). Word mouth, which, as noted above, has fairly similar meanings in the Russian and Czech languages, in the Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian languages ​​has nothing in common with the Russian and Czech meanings: cf. Slovenian rt “elevation”, Serbo-Croatian. rt“peak, cape”, Bulgarian rt"hill", "hill". If Russian fresh and Bulgarian fresh are close in meaning, then Czech. přesny and Slovak. presný acquired a very special meaning: “accurate”, “punctual”, “neat”, “proper” (cf., for example, Slovak presna otpoveď “accurate answer”).

Czech krásny in contrast to Russian. red means “beautiful”, “handsome”, “beautiful” (the same was the meaning of the word red in Old Russian). The Polish adjective rychły and the Czech rychlý mean “quick”, “fast”, “hasty”, and the Russian loose- “soft”, “fragile”. Czech adjective náhly (cf. Russian. impudent) means “fast”. Wed. also Serbohorvian. Nagao"fast", floor. nagły “unexpected”, “sudden”, “accidental”, “hasty”, Ukrainian. insolent“quick”, “quick”, “sudden”, “unexpected”. (Compare the use of the word impudent in A.P. Chekhov’s story “The Steppe” in the speech of the old driver: “Death is nothing, it’s good, as long as, of course, you don’t die without repentance.” There is nothing worse than brazen death. Insolent death is a joy to the devil.” Here impudent means “unexpected.”)

Slovak adjective chytrý, corresponding in sound composition to Russian cunning, means “cunning”, “intelligent”, and also “fast”: the expression ako vietor chytrý means “fast as the wind”. Wed. also Serbohorvian. hitar"fast", Slovenian. hitri "quick". The Slovak, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian meanings of this word are older than the Russian meaning: the adjective cunning has a common root with predatory, kidnap, grab; originally it was used to denote a sign of speed, agility, and dexterity. Rus. a lot means “many”, Slovak. ujma - “loss”, “loss”. Rus. cloud- “a large dark cloud threatening rain, hail or snow”, Ukrainian. cloud- “thunderstorm with rain”, Serbohorvian. cloud- “hail”, floor. tęcza - “rainbow”.

As already indicated, in the history of individual languages ​​there are known cases of the gradual formation of meanings of words opposite to the original ones. Indeed, occasionally words with the same composition of genetically identical morphemes are found in different languages with opposite or very distant meanings. Wed, for example, Bulgarian. parsley“stepfather” and Czech. pastorek, Slovak pastorok, Slovenian pastorek, Serbo-Croatian parsonage"stepson". Russian word stale a Czech or Slovak can understand it as “fresh”: cf. Czech čerstvý “fresh”, “clean”, “fast”, “agile”, Slovak. čerstvý “fresh”, “alive” 24.

Using the examples of several groups of words of ancient origin, the above shows different limits of development of meanings: from the formation of different shades while maintaining the basic meaning to the emergence of interlingual homonymy, that is, such a deep difference in the meanings of compared words of common origin that their previous connection becomes completely lost. Secondary meanings that arise in words or exist for a long time in the position of secondary shades (for example, grain in the meaning of “berry” in the Bulgarian language), or become stronger and displace the original meaning (for example, mountain meaning “forest” in Bulgarian, apiary"beekeeper" in Russian).

Word in its special meaning, organically established on the basis of one or another Slavic language, ending up for various reasons in other Slavic languages, it is felt in them as something introduced from the outside, as a borrowing. Yes, word stomach, found in some phraseological combinations of the Russian language in its Old Slavonic (Church Slavonic) meaning “life”, is perceived by us as alien, despite the obvious Slavic character of its external (sound) side, which is repeated in the Russian word stomach with its other, specific meaning.

In individual Slavic languages, special cases of different interpretation of words with the same composition of genetically identical morphemes arise as a result of certain grammatical processes, for example, substantivization (with a further change in the lexical meaning of the substantivized word). Yes, Bulgarian sweet A Russian may take “jam” as a short name as a neuter adjective, and Russian children's the meaning of “children’s room” can be understood by a Czech as a feminine adjective (in the Czech language the meaning of “children’s room” is expressed descriptively: pokoi pro děti).

Comparing the vocabulary of the same language in two eras separated from each other, we notice that the fate of different words is different. Some words are preserved in the language, sometimes changing in their sound composition and meaning; other words are replaced by new ones, meaning this or that concept in a different way, more energetic, fresh and expressive than the previous ones, and gradually completely disappear from the language or “settle” in dialects or special dictionaries. Over time, the names of identical phenomena or objects turn out to be different in related languages. On the scale of Slavic languages, synonymous words arise, if this term can be applied to phenomena in the field of vocabulary of different languages.

Some of the interlingual Slavic synonyms come from the Proto-Slavic language, others arose later or more recently.

Let's consider the emergence of some of them.

In most Slavic languages, adjectives with the same root are used to denote sweet taste: cf. rus. sweet, Ukrainian licorice, Belarusian sweets, Bulgarian sweet, Serbohorvian sweetie, Slovenian slad, Czech sladký, Slovak. sladký, lower meadow slodki, floor słodki. But in the Kashubian language, the sign of sweet taste is indicated by the word mjodny, derived from mjod “honey”.

To denote rain in Slavic languages, the same root is usually used with some sound differences: cf. rus. rain, Bulgarian djd, Slovenian dež, Czech. dešť; Slovak dážď, floor. deszcz, upper meadow dešć, lower meadow dejść. But in Serbo-Croatian, meaning “rain” we find the word quisha, which has the same root as Russian. sour(cf. and bul. quisha“bad weather”, “rainy weather”, “slush”). From these examples it is clear that in the history of a particular language, former words were replaced by others (with the former meaning completely preserved), which caused differences in the designation of the same concept across languages. The formation of such synonyms also occurred in the era after the appearance of written monuments. Their gradual consolidation in the language can be traced from the texts. The Proto-Slavic word oko is preserved in its basic meaning of the organ of vision in the Bulgarian, Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Czech, Ukrainian, and Belarusian languages. In modern Russian, the word eye is used to name the organ of vision. However, as the texts show, the Old Russian literary language until the 16th century. used the Proto-Slavic word eye, and only later a word drawn from the vernacular gradually became established in it, probably initially used in a figurative meaning (cf. Pol. głaz “stone”, głazik “stone”, “pebble”). This is how a new feature of the Russian language dictionary arose and at the same time one of the dictionary features that separated the Russian language from other Slavic languages.

In Russian the word finger used as a generic generic name for all fingers and toes. Some Slavic languages ​​know this word in the same meaning. But in Serbo-Croatian common name for fingers is the word prst(cf. Old Russian prst), A finger (palace) is called only the thumb. In Bulgarian prst- “finger”, and finger(or golyam prast) - "thumb". Slovenian prst - “finger in general”, but palec - “thumb (of the hand or foot).” The ratio of names was the same as in Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian and Slovenian in the Russian language until approximately the 17th century, as can be judged from the texts. (The old name, applied exclusively to the thumb, was also reflected in Russian derivative words that have now disappeared. There was, for example, the word attacks“a ring worn on the thumb.”)

Then there was a gradual transition of the name of the thumb ( finger) on all fingers and toes. Word traces finger remained in the Russian language in derivatives, for example ring, thimble, glove(in dialects fingernail, foxglove, pershlyatka and other forms). The new lexical feature brought the Russian language closer to Polish and Ukrainian, but separated it from Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, and Slovenian 25.

Word shoulder in the Russian language the word was gradually replaced from use ramo, echoes of the ancient existence of which are found in Russian dialects in the form of derivatives (for example, ramen"part of the front leg of a horse" ramenka“mantle, part of clothing covering the shoulder,” etc.). In modern Slavic languages, both of these words with their derivatives are known to denote shoulder, but in most cases it turned out to be more vital ramo, shoulder it is used less often. Word scull in the Russian language replaced the old forehead, once used with the same meaning. Forehead became in Russian the name of only the upper part of the face. This feature brought the Russian language closer to Polish, but created a difference between Russian, Slovenian, Czech, Slovak (cf. Slovenian leb, Czech leb, Slovak lebka in the meaning “skull”) 2 6 .

It is important to note that in the formation of replacements for pre-existing words, Slavic vocabulary was used in most cases. Foreign words often enter the language along with new concepts.

From several words with similar meanings inherited from ancient times, different Slavic languages ​​do not always select and assign the same word to convey the necessary concept. So, the Russian language knows adjectives cold And icy, but the word cold is generally accepted in Russian, widely used, having a large, branched system of shades of meaning, while icy found only in poetic language, oral folk art and dialects. The picture is different in the Bulgarian language, where an adjective is usually used to express the concept “cold” student.

Russian word world“absence of war” in Polish corresponds to pokój, which, in terms of sound composition and origin, can be associated with Russian peace. The Polish language also knows the word mir, but in the meaning of “peace”, “tranquility”. Using these examples, one can see that in different languages, stable concepts that are identical to them are associated with different words from a number of intralingual synonyms, that is, words united by the proximity of their meanings.

When new words arise to name the same concept, words in different languages ​​may be based on different features. Thus, for the name of linen, some Slavic languages ​​used the sign of white color, which serves as a noticeable feature of the appearance of the object: cf. rus. underwear, floor. bielizna, Slovak bielizeň, lower meadow bĕlizń. In other languages, the name of underwear is based on the root of the verb chop(cf. Russian hem“to hem the edge of a scarf, clothing”), we find this root in Serbohorv. rubles, rubishte(same root Russian word shirt, Belarusian rub“thick clothes”, Slovenian. robača “shirt”, Bulgarian ruble(reg.) “clothing”, lower region. rub “dress”, upper mesh. rub “linen scarf”). Finally, the name of linen can be derived from a verb meaning “to wash”: cf. Czech prádlo “linen”, derived from the root of the verb práti.

Replacing one word with another, strengthening the use of one word from a synonymous series and weakening others, the use of different roots in the formation of one or another designation in Slavic languages ​​- all this leads to the formation of numerous vocabulary differences that impart unique features to the Slavic languages.

Compare, for example, the following notations for the same concepts in several languages: Russian. morning, floor. early, Slovak soon; rus. air, Ukrainian again, floor. powietrze; rus. lightning, Bulgarian lightning And Svetkavitsa, Ukrainian bliskavka, floor. błyskawica; rus. Ray, Bulgarian lch, Ukrainian forget it, floor. promień; rus. cloud, Bulgarian cloud, Belarusian clouds, Khmara, Ukrainian Khmara, floor. chmura; rus. wave, Bulgarian wave, Czech vlna, Slovak vlna, Ukrainian Khvilya, Belarusian praising, floor. fala, wał, Serbo-Croatian shaft; rus. spring, Belarusian Viasna, Slovenian spring, floor wiosna, jar, jarz, Czech. jaro, Slovak vesna, jar, jaro, bulg. span, Serbohorvian prolese, jar; rus. autumn, Ukrainian autumn, Bulgarian Yesen, floor. jesień, porridge. jeseń, Serbohorvian Yesen, Slovenian jesen, Slovak jeseń, podzim, Czech. podzim; rus. year, Belarusian year, Bulgarian hour, Serbohorvian hour, Slovenian summer, rock, Ukrainian rik, floor. rock, Czech rock, Slovak rock; rus. a week, Ukrainian weekday, week, Belarusian Tydzen, floor. Tydzień, Czech týden, Slovak týždeň, Bulgarian week, a week, Serbohorvian week, week, Slovenian nedelja, teden; rus. snake, Ukrainian snake, Bulgarian bastard, reptile, Serbohorvian bastard, floor. gadzina, gad, płaz, Czech. had, plaz, zmije; rus. squirrel, Ukrainian squirrel, vivirka, Belarusian rope, floor. Wiewiórka, Czech veverka, Serbohorvian veritsa, Slovenian veverica, Bulgarian katerichka, squirrel; rus. grey, Belarusian shares, floor. szary, Czech. šedý, šedivý, Bulgarian siv, Slovenian siv, Serbohorvian siv; rus. red, Ukrainian red, red gold, Belarusian chyrvony, floor. czerwony, Czech. červený, rudy, Serbohorvian. Crven, Slovenian rudeč, črven; rus. blue, Belarusian black, Bulgarian heavenly, Slovenian modry, Czech. lazurovy, floor. blękitny 27 .

An important factor that contributed to the isolation of Slavic languages ​​or groups of languages ​​was the difference in the specific forms and manifestations of the enrichment of their vocabulary. The history of Slavic peoples and nationalities was accompanied by the complication of their social system and the development of material and spiritual culture. From clan and tribal life, the Slavs moved on to the formation of classes and the emergence of states. Cities are growing and flourishing.

The linguistic capabilities inherited from previous eras are becoming insufficient. The growth and development of language is expressed primarily in vocabulary. There is a need for new words. The expansion of the vocabulary is achieved partly through borrowing from other languages, but mainly through the independent use of roots inherited from ancient eras, as well as suffixes and prefixes (prefixes), i.e., by transforming their existing word-forming elements.

External influences in the field of vocabulary, manifested in the process of borrowing, as well as differences in the paths of internal evolution, modify and change languages.

As for borrowings, they were originally oral and came from the languages ​​of those cultural areas with which the Slavs had territorial proximity. Borrowings from Latin and German penetrated into the Slavic languages ​​of the West. There are especially many German borrowings in the Lusatian languages: cf. bur ("peasant", German Bauer), butra ("butter", German Butter), négluka ("misfortune", German Unglück), bom ("tree", German Baum), štunda ("hour", German Stunde), etc. Borrowings from Greek and Turkish penetrated into the Slavic languages ​​of the Balkan Peninsula. For example, Bulgarian coliba, “hut”, “hut”, prayer"pencil", bark"stomach", kokal"bone", haresvam“like” and others are of Greek origin, and the words Cherga"a rough woolen blanket or carpet" Cheshma"source", kalfa"journeyman", zarzavat“greens”, “fresh vegetables”, kurshum"bullet", felt"bag", "sack", bag, “bag”, “suma” and others - Turkish. In addition, borrowings from German and partly Italian (for example, bandera “banner”, barka “boat” and some others) penetrated into the Slovenian language. The earliest borrowings in the Russian language were words from Scandinavian languages ​​(for example, sneak, stall, hook, brand and others), Finnish ( blizzard, tundra and others), Turkic ( shoe, kaftan, box, pouch and others,). After the emergence of writing and the establishment of widespread cultural exchange between peoples, the process of borrowing foreign language elements goes beyond territorial proximity, and the influx of borrowed words increases. Thus, in the first centuries of Russian writing, Greek vocabulary was transferred mainly through the South Slavic medium into the Russian language, mainly from the sphere of church and liturgical services: altar, angel, icon, cell, monk etc. He had a noticeable influence on the Russian language and Latin, the vocabulary of which penetrated to us not only directly, but also through other languages ​​(cf., for example, the words author, student, minister, exam etc.). From the end of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. the Russian language was influenced quite significantly by the Polish language (cf. words monogram, harness, clerk, constable and etc.). Since the Peter the Great era, due to historical conditions, the Russian language has been replenished with words from German, Dutch, French and English. Especially many French words from the field of everyday life and household use appeared in the Russian language at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. Since the 19th century, words related to the field of railways, public life, everyday life, and sports have been transferred from English to Russian. Many musical terms come from Italian into Russian.

Borrowings that have become entrenched in a language are adapted to the grammatical structure and sound features of the language that received them. Sometimes the original meaning of a borrowed word changes. Yes, gender. węzeł means “knot” and is related to the verb wiązač (to knit). It entered the Russian language only in the very special meaning of “monogram”.

But the method of enriching a language through borrowing is always clearly inferior in quantitative terms to other methods, mainly the method of forming words from Slavic material. New words in a language are created not from arbitrary sound complexes, but from combinations of word-forming elements already existing in the language.

A distinctive feature of almost all classes of words (except for numerals, pronouns), which have been preserved for many centuries and millennia, is the ability to form large nests of derivative words or to be included as a constituent element in complex words. The presence of numerous and varied formations from one word root is associated with the long stay of this root in the language. Words of ancient origin are distinguished by their exceptional richness and diversity of word production. So, for example, the word fly gave the Russian language a basis for the formation of words: fly in, take off, fly in, fly in, fly in, fly around, fly off, fly in, fly in, fly in, fly over, fly in, fly off, fly away, fly in, fly off, fly in, fly off, fly in, fly in, fly in, fly around, fly off, fly off, fly off, raid, arrival, overflight, underflight, departure, rally, flight., migratory, flying, flying., flyer, pilot, flying, etc. (Examples of Academician V.V. Vinogradov). From the root of the word live There are over a hundred different derivative words in the Russian language.

Derived words formed from previous roots often themselves become a source for the formation of new words: for example, the Russian word herbal, formed from the root word grass, served as the basis for the adjective grassy; root of the word empty became the basis for a noun desert, which then became the source of the word deserted, word high-altitude climber derived from high-rise, which in turn is from height, A height- from high.

The existence of nests of derived words contributes to the long-term preservation of word roots in languages. Therefore, powerful word-formation tendencies, which are a characteristic feature of the Slavic languages, support their primordial kinship in the field of vocabulary.

Using the example of a number of Slavic languages, which have not only numerous parallels in the roots of words, but also a significant number of common suffixes and prefixes, one can notice the peculiar, specific for each individual Slavic language, use of suffixes and prefixes in the composition of words.

When comparing vocabulary materials of Slavic languages, the difference in the use of suffixes and prefixes can be observed when words drawn from different languages ​​have the same root. Thus, the Polish noun popłoch and Russian commotion having same value, differ from each other by the difference in prefixes but have a common root. The difference in consoles is also visible between genders. przemiał and rus. grinding, floor. przepaść and rus. abyss, floor. posucha and rus. drought, Serbohorvian mistletoe and Russian pomelo, Czech učesati and rus. comb etc. As examples of the use of different suffixes in words with the same root and general meaning You can use, for example, the name of the rooster in Slavic languages. It is formed from the root of the verb sing, but with the help of different suffixes: cf. rus. rooster(and dialect petun), Belarusian. chant, Bulgarian loops.

Wed. also the difference in suffixes for nouns of abstract meaning: Russian. quantity, Serbohorvian quantity, Slovenian kolikost; rus. purity and floor. czystość; rus. unity and floor. jedność. Wed. adjectives bone, bony, bony in Russian and kostnatý, kostlivý in Slovak, etc.

Russian word strawberries differs from Polish poziomka not only in the absence of a prefix, but also in special suffixes. This is the essence of the difference between Russian. blizzard and floor. zamieć, russian revenge and Polish, Slovak, Czech. pomsta. Slovak ozimina has with Russian. winter common prefix, but different suffixes; Bulgarian winter road differs from these words in the absence of a prefix and special suffixes.

In the Czech language, the root -nik- can be combined with both the prefix vz- and the prefix za-, which is opposite in meaning: cf. vznikati “to arise”, “to occur”, “to begin” and zanikati “to perish”, “to cease”, “to die out”, “to fade away”. But the Russian language, which has at its disposal both the root -nik- and the prefix za-, of the verb get stuck does not know.

Some word-forming elements have different areas of distribution in Slavic languages. So, if the prefix from- with the meaning of removal being a characteristic feature of the original South Slavic vocabulary, then the prefix You- with the same meaning is a distinctive feature of East Slavic and West Slavic words (cf. Bulgarian verbs limestone, expelling and Russian bring out, kick out, Czech vyvádeti, vyhnati).

Quantitative relationships in the use of different prefixes and suffixes are not the same across Slavic languages. Suffix - ar, borrowed in ancient times from Latin, widely known already in the Old Church Slavonic language as part of the names of characters, is much less common in Russian than in Czech: cf. Czech rybář, řezbář, kovář and Russian. fisherman, cutter, blacksmith 28. Ancient Slavic suffix - bah(cf. Russian struggle) is almost completely absent in the Polish language, while in other languages ​​there are quite a lot of words with this suffix. For the Bulgarian language, nouns with an abstract meaning, formed using the suffix - ka(cf. Russian insurance) 29 .

The divergence in the morphological structure of words, with a common stock of word-formation elements and word formation models, also gives the Slavic languages ​​a noticeable individual coloring.

On the basis of the languages ​​of the Slavic peoples, as a result of the development of the nationalities themselves into nations, with the advent and strengthening of capitalism, the national languages ​​of the Slavs took shape.

The socio-political and cultural-historical conditions in which the process of formation of national languages ​​among different Slavic peoples took place were heterogeneous, the pace of this process was uneven, and the eras were not the same. Therefore, the age of modern Slavic national languages ​​is different. The final formation of most national languages ​​dates back to the period of the 18th-19th centuries. The Macedonian literary language developed much later. Its formation began in the 40s of the current century, when, during the struggle against fascism, a decision was made to transform Yugoslavia into a federal state on the basis of national equality of all its peoples, including the Macedonians.

In connection with the formation of national languages, the emergence of new dialect phenomena in them gradually ceases, and then the erasure of dialect differences gradually begins under the influence of the literary norm of the language.

The expansion and development of the vocabulary during this period occurs both due to word production from words of the old Slavic stock, and through various borrowings. Local dialects are gradually filled with elements of the national language and at the same time contribute their elements to its general stock, mainly in the field of vocabulary and phraseology. “Such familiar Russian words,” writes academician. V.V. Vinogradov, - how strawberry, strawberry, spider, heron, plowman, plowing, upper reaches, enthusiasm, such as smile, frail, feigned, annoying, dumbfounded, nonsense, very, take a nap, beggar, go crazy, en masse, fist, farmhand, world-eater, at random, clumsy, mumble etc., in their origin are regional... expressions” 30.

Merging into a single language in the process of developing a national language norm, part of the dialect phenomena (especially in the field of vocabulary) enters the national language, while the other part persists for some time and is then gradually forced out of circulation. To one degree or another, dialect-regional differences persist for a long time in the composition of the national language, especially among some of the rural population.

The idea of ​​the close relationship of Slavic languages ​​turns out to be even more complete and comprehensive if, when comparing them, in addition to the facts of national literary languages, we involve the linguistic (especially vocabulary) material of dialects (local dialects) in all its diversity, i.e., take into account the facts of the language that are not entered the national literary languages ​​during their formation. It is absolutely clear that the vocabulary of the literary language is much richer than the vocabulary of dialects that were little influenced by the book language. But in the sphere of dialect speech, the kinship of Slavic languages ​​can be illustrated by many additional examples that reveal the complexity of the interpenetration and interrelations of elements of different Slavic languages ​​in our time. Thus, individual dialects of the Russian language, often retaining traces of ancient times, in some of their lexical features are closer to the South Slavic or West Slavic languages ​​than the literary language. This proximity is found in the names of specific actions, ancient tools and household items, names of animals, plants, natural phenomena, qualitative characteristics, etc.

When comparing the vocabulary of some Old Church Slavonic monuments with data from the Russian language and its dialects, it turned out that in Russian dialects one can find parallels to many Old Church Slavonic words 31 .

Thus, the study of various dialects of Slavic languages ​​allows the researcher to observe more and more new relationships between languages. Further study of the vocabulary of dialects will do a lot to clarify these relationships.

Let us indicate some correspondences between Russian dialect vocabulary material and data from Slavic languages.

The Bulgarian vero (adverb) “clear” (about the weather) is close to the Ukrainian. bucket and Russian bucket(noun) “clear, quiet, dry and generally good weather.” In Russian dialects this word is very widespread. It was noted in the Moscow, Kalinin, Velikoluksk, Leningrad, Pskov, Novgorod, and Vologda regions. Pre-revolutionary researchers recorded it in the Arkhangelsk and Vyatka provinces.

Wed. also Czech. loni, floor łoni, upper meadow łoni, lower meadow loni “last year” (this word is also related to Bulgarian. doe, Serbohorvian Lana, Slovenian lani) and Russian dialect loni, lonis “last year,” noted in Perm, Tver, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Vyatka, Novgorod, Zaonezh, Yaroslavl, Smolensk, Tobolsk dialects of the Urals, Amur dialects of the Far East. This word is also known in Ukrainian Carpathian dialects.

Wed. Czech obilí “cereal products”, “grain or standing bread”, Slovak. obilie “cereals”, “bread in the field”, “bread as a commodity” and Russian. dialectal abundance, noted in Arkhangelsk dialects in the meaning of “all standing bread”, in Zaonezh dialects in the meaning of “grain bread”, in Yaroslavl dialects in the meaning of “bread seeds”.

Wed. floor. zawora “wooden bolt”, “bolt”, “constipation”, Czech. závora, “bolt, bolt”, Serbohorvian. zealot“latch”, Ukrainian zavora“latch” and Russian dialect forms zealot, Zavorina, zavor, zvorka, factory, curl a, etc. In Arkhangelsk dialects it is noted zealot"a pole with which to lay a fence" backlashes“a passage laid with poles between a fence,” in Zaonezh dialects - zealot, zavor“horizontal stakes in a fence”, in Vologda dialects - zavor"gate in the hedge" zealots And Zavorins“poles”, in Novgorod dialects - zavor And backlashes“gate at field hedges”, in Tver dialects - zavor“one of the fence spindles that can be easily disassembled and assembled”, zavor, zvorka, factory, Zavorina“a pole placed in the passage of a fence”, in the former Vyatka province - Zavorina“a hewn pole inserted into a fence, that is, into a passage in a fence,” in Yaroslavl dialects - zavor“part of the crossbars in the fence, removed for the passage of carts,” in Tobolsk dialects - backlashes“poles in the garden that can be dismantled for travel.”

Wed. Bulgarian gba, Czech houba, Slovak huba, Slovenian goba “mushroom” and Arkhangelsk, Kostroma, Perm lip“any edible mushroom” or “mushroom from the milk mushroom breed, but of poorer quality”, Vyatka lips, “mushrooms of all kinds”, Yaroslavl lips"mushrooms", gubina“berries, garden vegetables and mushrooms used as food”, Vologda gubina“mushrooms and berries”, Smolensk spongy“fungal growth on trees.”

Wed. floor. korec, Czech korec, ukr. stump“measure of granular bodies” and Novgorod korets“jug”, “ladle”, Zaonezhskoe korets“ladle”, Yaroslavl, Kalinin, Ryazan, Smolensk korets, Bryansk korets, korchik, Tula and Kaluga korets, korchik.

Wed. floor. kąt “corner”, Ukrainian kut"angle" and Arkhangelsk kut“the farthest corner in the stove or in the house”, Vologda kut“place at the back wall in the oven”, “kitchen”, “bedroom”, “rear corner”, Kutny corner"corner at the threshold" Kut“the back of the hut by the stove”, “the corner by the door where rubbish is swept away”, Novgorod kut“front corner”, Vyatskoe Kutany“Spectators at a wedding crowding in the corner”, Tverskoe kutnik“short bench going from the longitudinal bench to the door”, Yaroslavl Kut“corner opposite the stove”, “place behind the stove in the back corner of the hut”, “place in the corner opposite from the stove”, Tobolsk Kut“part of the hut located near the front of the stove”, Tula and Oryol kut“front corner in the hut, to the right of the front door,” Smolenskoe kut, Kutok“red corner”, Kaluga kut, Kutok, kutnik“a corner in a house,” “a part of the land that juts out into the river.”

Wed. floor, gnój “manure, fertilizer”, Czech. hnůj, Slovenian. gnoj, Serbohorvian pus, Bulgarian pus, Ukrainian rotten“manure” and Russian dialectal pus“manure”, known in Ryazan and Smolensk dialects. Wed. floor. dzieża and Tula, Kaluga, Smolensk, Penza, Ryazan, Saratov, Tambov deja, deck, dizhka“kvashnya”, Yaroslavl deja"kvashnya" dezhnik“tire for the picker”.

Wed. Bulgarian guna, Gunya“a type of peasant outerwear, usually white,” Serbohorvian. (dialectal) guњa“men's clothing, lined with leather or sheepskin” and Tula and Oryol gunka“women’s shirt”, Vyatsk Gunya“shirt”, Zaonezhsky Gunya“clean clothes” and “worn clothes”, Tver Gunya“old, worn clothes”, Arkhangelsk gunyo“old junk, rags, cast-offs”, Don goonie“rags, rags”, Ryazan and Penza guni “rags, cast-offs”.

Wed. Bulgarian whale, kiten“bundle, bunch”, “brush”, “bouquet”, Serbohorian. whale“bun, bouquet”, Slovenian. kitica “bouquet of flowers”, kita “garland”, Ukrainian. nod, whale“brush”, “bouquet” and Vologda regional whale“potato branches”, “pulled peas”, “pea stems”, Kostroma whale“pea”, “pea grass”, Yaroslavl whale"pea stalk" whale“brush”, “bunch of grass or flowers”.

Wed. Bulgarian goiter“feed”, Slovenian. zob “grain food”, Serbohorvian goiter, goiter"oats" "grain food" mob"field where oats were sown" Zobiti"feed grain" goiter“bag for horse feed”, Zobenitsa“oat bread”, Ukrainian dialectal dziobenka“bag, a type of knapsack worn over the shoulder,” and related words from dialects of the Russian language: Arkhangelsk gouge, to irritate“eat berries, peas, cereals and other small items, taking them one by one,” goiter“eat flour, grains”, goiter“basket wicker from splinters”, goiter, goiter“birch bark basket”, Zaonezhskoe goiter“eat dry oatmeal, flour, berries”, “chew”, “eat”, “bite into pieces”, goiter, goiter"basket", Novgorod Zobelka“a small basket in which mushrooms or berries are collected”, Zobenka“Birch bark basket”, Vologda goiter"there are berries" goiter“birch bark basket”, Tverskoe goiter“to consume a lot of something, for example tobacco, wine,” Vyatka goiter“eat flour and oatmeal greedily”, goiter"basket" goiter“four”, Yaroslavl Zobinka, Zobentya“basket with a lid, made of bast or shingles,” Tula and Oryol goat“basket for mushrooms made from linden bast trees”, Bryansk prankster"strawberry", Kursk prankster“strawberry”, Irkutsk goiter"bag".

Wed. Polish verb ochłonąć “calm down, come to your senses”, Ukrainian. chill out“cool down, cool down” and Russian northwestern cool off with the same meaning.

Wed. Czech vír “whirlwind”, “whirlpool”, floor. wir “gyre”, “whirlpool”, “abyss”, Serbohorvian. vir“source”, “pool in a river”, “whirlpool”, Slovenian vir “stream”, Bulgarian. vir“whirlpool”, “whirlpool”, “reservoir”, “pool” and Russian dialect vir, noted in Kursk dialects with the meaning of “pool”, and in Perm and Tver dialects - “a place in a mill where water falls” (cf. the use of this word in N. S. Leskov’s novel “Nowhere” in the speech of an old nanny: “.. "... there is nothing, no winder, nothing, nothing. We stopped in a vir-swamp, and we are wading." Vir-swamp has a figurative meaning here - “a deserted, deserted, deaf place”).

The list of correspondences between the dictionary data of Russian dialects and Slavic languages ​​could be increased.

In the dictionary of Russian dialects, the old relationships between some names have long been preserved, bringing these dialects closer to other Slavic languages. As mentioned above, in Old Russian. language finger was called the thumb, and the remaining fingers and toes were called fingers. Nowadays words finger And finger with the same meanings are noted in some Vologda dialects (Charozersky district) 32. In Vyatka dialects at the beginning of the 20th century. word finger also recorded only in the meaning of the thumb (for the index, middle and ring fingers the name finger) 33 .

Vocabulary connections between Slavic dialects and languages ​​are often possible to establish in territories separated by large spaces. V. G. Bogoraz at the beginning of the 20th century. noted in the Russian dialects of Siberia (along the Kolyma River) a number of words that he mistook for Polish (for example, osilok"strong man" nickname"Name", Urma"in droves" on holidays"in a fight" rassokha“the main tributary of the river”, etc.) 3 4 . According to the explanation of D.K. Zelenin, these language features were brought to Siberia in the 16th-17th centuries. descendants of Novgorod residents, i.e. Ilmen Slovenes. At different times, groups of Baltic Slavs came to the Ilmen Slovenes from the west, who left their own imprint on the speech of the population of the ancient region of Veliky Novgorod. In the north and east of Siberia, the West Slavic features of Russian dialects are better preserved than on European territory 35 .

The closeness between the vocabulary of dialects, which was not included in the literary language, and the vocabulary of other Slavic languages ​​once again indicates that in the era before the formation national languages relations between Slavic languages ​​were of a different nature compared to modern times.

Slavic languages ​​contain more similarities inherited from ancient times than differences acquired during the period of separate existence. A representative of any Slavic nationality, after some preliminary preparation, will now understand people speaking other Slavic languages.

The similarity of the Slavic languages ​​in the field of grammatical structure, stock of word-formation elements and words makes it easier for representatives of fraternal Slavic nationalities to study Slavic languages, contributes to the strengthening cultural relations between all Slavic countries.

The Slavic group of languages ​​is the closest of this family to the Baltic group, so some scientists combine these two groups into one - Balto-Slavic subfamily Indo-European languages. The total number of native speakers of Slavic languages ​​is over 300 million. The majority of speakers of Slavic languages ​​live in Russia and Ukraine.

The Slavic group of languages ​​is divided into three branches: East Slavic, West Slavic And South Slavic. The East Slavic branch of languages ​​includes: Russian language or Great Russian, Ukrainian, also known as Little Russian or Ruthenian, and Belarusian. These languages ​​are collectively spoken by about 225 million people. The West Slavic branch includes: Polish, Czech, Slovak, Lusatian, Kashubian and the extinct Polabian language. Living West Slavic languages ​​are spoken today by approximately 56 million people, mainly in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The South Slavic branch consists of Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Slovenian and Macedonian languages. The language also belongs to this branch church service Church Slavonic language. The first four languages ​​are collectively spoken by more than 30 million people in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Macedonia and Bulgaria.

All Slavic languages, according to linguistic research, are rooted in one common ancestor language, usually called Proto-Slavic language, which in turn separated much earlier from Proto-Indo-European language(around 2000 BC), the ancestor of all Indo-European languages. The Proto-Slavic language was probably common to all Slavs as early as the 1st century BC, and already from the 8th century AD. Separate Slavic languages ​​begin to form.

General characteristics

Conversational Slavic languages are very similar to each other, more so than the Germanic or Romance languages ​​are to each other. However, even if there is common features in vocabulary, grammar and phonetics, they still differ in many aspects. One of the common characteristics of all Slavic languages ​​is the relative a large number of consonant sounds. A striking example of different usage is the variety of basic stress positions in individual Slavic languages. For example, in Czech the stress falls on the first syllable of a word, and in Polish - on the next syllable after the last, while in Russian and Bulgarian the stress can fall on any syllable.

Grammar

Grammatically, Slavic languages, with the exception of Bulgarian and Macedonian, have a highly developed system of noun inflections, up to seven cases(nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, prepositional and vocative). The verb in Slavic languages ​​has three simple tenses(past, present and future), but is also characterized by such a complex characteristic as species. A verb can be imperfect (shows continuity or repetition of an action) or perfect (denotes the completion of an action). Participles and gerunds are widely used (one can compare their use with the use of participles and gerunds in English). In all Slavic languages, except Bulgarian and Macedonian, there is no article. The languages ​​of the Slavic subfamily are more conservative and therefore closer to Proto-Indo-European language than the languages ​​of the Germanic and Romance groups, as evidenced by the preservation by the Slavic languages ​​of seven of the eight cases for nouns that were characteristic of the Proto-Indo-European language, as well as the development of the aspect of the verb.

Vocabulary composition

The vocabulary of Slavic languages ​​is predominantly of Indo-European origin. There are also important element mutual influence of the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​on each other, which is reflected in the vocabulary. Borrowed words or translations of words go back to Iranian and German groups, and also to Greek, Latin, and Turkic languages. They influenced the vocabulary of such languages ​​as Italian and French. Slavic languages ​​also borrowed words from each other. The borrowing of foreign words tends to translate and imitate rather than simply absorb them.

Writing

Perhaps it is in the written form that the most significant differences between the Slavic languages ​​lie. Some Slavic languages ​​(in particular Czech, Slovak, Slovenian and Polish) have a written language based on the Latin alphabet, since the speakers of these languages ​​belong predominantly to the Catholic faith. Other Slavic languages ​​(such as Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian) use adopted variants of the Cyrillic alphabet as a result of the influence of the Orthodox Church. The only language, Serbo-Croatian, uses two alphabets: Cyrillic for Serbian and Latin for Croatian.
The invention of the Cyrillic alphabet is traditionally attributed to Cyril, a Greek missionary who was sent by the Byzantine Emperor Michael III to the Slavic peoples who were present at the time - in the 9th century AD. in the territory of present-day Slovakia. There is no doubt that Kirill created the predecessor of the Cyrillic alphabet - Glagolitic, based on the Greek alphabet, where new symbols were added to represent Slavic sounds that did not find a correspondence in the Greek language. However, the very first texts in Cyrillic dating back to the 9th century AD. not preserved. The oldest Slavic texts preserved in the ecclesiastical Old Church Slavonic language date back to the 10th and 11th centuries.

Non-Slavic Russia

When starting a conversation about Russian, or more precisely about the Russian language, we should first of all remember that Russia is a non-Slavic country.

The territories inhabited by ancient near-Slavic peoples include only Smolensk, Kursk, Bryansk - the territories of the ancient Krivichi, Slavicized by the Western Slavs of the Balts.

The remaining lands are Finnish, where no Slavs have ever lived: Chud, Muroma, Mordovians, Perm, Vyatichi and others.

The main toponyms of historical Muscovy themselves are all Finnish: Moscow, Murom, Ryazan (Erzya), Vologda, Kostroma, Suzdal, Tula, etc.

These territories were conquered over several centuries by Rurik colonists who sailed from Laba or Elbe, but the number of colonists who built Novgorod near Ladoga - as a continuation of the then existing Polabian Old Town - now Oldenburg - was extremely small in these parts.

In the rare fortress towns founded by the Obodrite-Rusyns and Normans: Danes and Swedes, a handful of colonial rulers lived with their retinue - the network of these fortress-colonies was called “Rus”.

And 90-95% of the region’s population were non-Slavic natives, subordinate to these more civilized occupiers.

The language of the colonies was Slavic Koine - that is, a language used for communication between peoples with different dialects and languages.

Gradually, over many centuries, the local native population adopted this koine, in the Novgorod land, as academician Yanov writes, this process took at least 250 years - judging by the language of birch bark letters, which from Sami gradually becomes an Indo-European, Slavic analytical language, with inflections carried out for the word, and only then normal Slavic synthetic.

By the way, Nestor writes about this in “The Tale of Bygone Years”: that the Ladoga Sami gradually learned the Slavic language of Rurik and after that began to be called “Slovenians” - that is, those who understand the word, as opposed to the “Germans”, dumb - that is, those who do not understand the language.

“The term “Slavs” has no relation to the term “Slovenians”, since it comes from the original “sklavens”.

The second after the Ladoga Sami began to adopt the Slavic Koine were the northern Finnish peoples - the Muroma, Ves or Vepsians, Chud, but for them the process took much longer, and among the more southern Finns directly from Mordovian Moscow and its surroundings, the adoption of the Slavic Koine dragged on until the time of Peter the Great, and some -where their original native languages ​​were preserved - like the Erzya language of Ryazan or the Finnish dialect of the Vyatichi.

The characteristic “Okanye” of the population of Central Russia today is mistakenly considered “Old Slavonic,” although this is a purely Finnish dialect, which precisely reflects the incompleteness of the Slavicization of the region.

“By the way, bast shoes are also a purely Finnish attribute: the Slavs never wore bast shoes, but only wore leather shoes, while all Finnish peoples wear bast shoes.”

During the Golden Horde, Muscovy for three centuries went to the ethnically related peoples of the Finno-Ugric peoples, who were gathered under their rule by the Horde kings.

During this period, the language of the region was greatly influenced by the Turkic language, as part of the generally enormous influence of Asia.

The book by Afanasy Nikitin, from the late 15th century, “On Walking Beyond Three Seas,” is indicative.

“In the name of Allah, the Gracious and Merciful and Jesus the Spirit of God. Allah is great..."

In the original:

“Bismillah Rahman Rahim. Isa Ruh Wallo. Allah Akbar. Allah kerim."

At that time, the religion common to Muscovy and the Horde was a hybrid of Islam and Arian Christianity; Jesus and Mohammed were equally revered, and the division of faith occurred in 1589, when Moscow accepted the Greek canon, and Kazan adopted pure Islam.

In medieval Muscovy, several languages ​​existed simultaneously.

Near-Slavic Koine is like the language of the princely nobility.

The native languages ​​are Finnish.

Turkic languages ​​as religious languages ​​during their stay in the Horde and after Ivan the Terrible seized power in the Horde until 1589.

And finally, the Bulgarian language is the language of Orthodox texts and religious cults.

This whole mixture ultimately became the basis for the current Russian language, which coincides in vocabulary only 30-40% with other Slavic languages, in which (including Belarusian and Ukrainian) this coincidence is disproportionately higher and amounts to 70-80%.

Today, Russian linguists basically reduce the origins of the modern Russian language to only two components: this is the national language of Russia, not at all Slavic, but Slavic-Finnish Koine with great Turkic and Mongolian influence - and Bulgarian Old Bulgarian, also known as “Church Slavonic”.

The third language of Russia can be called the modern literary Russian language, which is a completely artificial armchair invention, a kind of “Esperanto” based on the two source languages ​​indicated above; I am writing this article in Esperanto.

Is Russia Slavic?

There are three points that all Russian linguists strenuously hide, although, as people say, you can’t hide a bag in a bag.

1. Until the 18th century, the language of Muscovy was not considered Russian by anyone in the world, but was specifically called the language of the Muscovites, Muscovite.


2. Until this time, only the Ukrainian language was called the Russian language.


3. The language of Muscovy - the Muscovite language - was not recognized until that time by European linguists, including Slavic countries, even as a Slavic language, but belonged to the Finnish dialects.

Of course, today everything is not so: for the sake of imperial interests of conquering Slavic countries, Russia had a huge influence on its linguistic science, setting it the task of giving the Russian language “Slavic status”.

Moreover, if Germanic peoples lived to the west of Russia, then in exactly the same way she would prove that the Russian language is from the family of Germanic languages: for such would be the order of the Empire.

And the linguistic reforms of the Russian language, begun by Lomonosov, were precisely aimed at emphasizing its weak Slavic features.

However, as the Polish Slavist Jerzy Leszczynski wrote about the Western Balts related to the Slavs 150 years ago, “the Prussian language has much more reason to be considered Slavic than the Great Russian language, which has Polish language and other Slavic languages ​​have much less in common than even the West Baltic Prussian language.”

Let me remind you that Russia began to be called “Russia” for the first time officially only under Peter I, who considered the previous name - Muscovy - dark and obscurantist.

Peter not only began to forcibly shave his beards, forbade all women of Muscovy to wear veils in the Asian style and banned harems, towers where women were kept locked up, but during his trips to Europe he demanded from cartographers that from now on on maps his country would be called not Muscovy or Muscovitia, as before, but by Russia.

And so that the Muscovites themselves would be considered Slavs for the first time in history, which was overall strategy to “cut a window to Europe” - coupled with Peter’s request to move the eastern border of Europe from the border between Muscovy and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania now to the Urals, thereby including geographically Muscovy within Europe for the first time in history.

Before this, Polish and Czech linguists and the creators of Slavic grammars clearly distinguished the Russian language - Ukrainian and Muscovite, and did not classify this Muscovite language itself as a member of the family of Slavic languages.

For the language of Muscovy was poor in Slavic vocabulary.

As Russian linguist I.S. writes. Ulukhanov at work " Colloquial speech Ancient Rus'", "Russian Speech", No. 5, 1972, the circle of Slavicisms, regularly repeated in the living speech of the people of Muscovy, expanded very slowly.

Recordings of live oral speech made by foreigners in Muscovy in the 16th-17th centuries include only some Slavic words against the backdrop of the bulk of local Finnish and Turkic vocabulary.

In the “Parisian Dictionary of Muscovites” (1586) among TOTAL DICTIONARY we find the Muscovite people, as I.S. writes. Ulukhanov, only the words “lord” and “zlat”.

There are already more of them in the diary-dictionary of the Englishman Richard James 1618-1619 - 16 WHOLE WORDS : “good”, “blessing”, “scold”, “Sunday”, “resurrect”, “enemy”, “time”, “boat”, “weakness”, “cave”, “help”, “holiday”, “ prapor", "fragmentation", "sweet", "temple".

In the book “Grammar of the Muscovite language” by the German scientist and traveler W. Ludolph from 1696 SLAVIC WORDS 41!

Moreover, some with a huge Finnish “okan” in the prefixes - like “to reason.”

The rest of the oral vocabulary of Muscovites in these phrase books is Finnish and Turkic.

Linguists of that era had no reason to classify the Muscovite language as a “Slavic language”, since the Slavicisms themselves were not in oral speech, and it is the oral speech of the people that is the criterion here.

And therefore, the spoken language of Muscovy was not considered either Slavic or even near-Russian: the peasants of Muscovy spoke their Finnish dialects.

A typical example: the Mordvin Ivan Susanin of the Kostroma district did not know Russian, and his relatives, submitting a petition to the queen, paid an interpreter for translation from Finnish Kostroma into the Russian “sovereign” language.

It’s funny that today absolutely Mordovian Kostroma is considered in Russia to be the “standard” of “Russianness” and “Slavism”; there is even a rock band that sings Mordovian songs from Kostroma in Russian, passing them off as supposedly “Slavic”, although two centuries ago no one I didn’t speak Slavic in Kostroma.

And the fact that the Moscow Church broadcast in the Bulgarian language, in which the state papers of Muscovy were written, did not mean anything, since all of Europe at that time spoke Latin in churches and conducted office work in Latin, and this had nothing to do with the fact What kind of peoples live here?

Let me remind you that after the Union of Lublin in 1569, when the Belarusians created a union state with the Poles - the Republic, in Polish - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania retained Belarusian, that is, Ruthenian, as its state language, and Poland introduced Latin as the state language.

But this does not mean at all that the national language of the Poles is Latin.

In the same way, Russian was not the popular language in Muscovy-Russia at that time - until Russian villages learned it.

Here is another example: today and from time immemorial in the villages of Smolensk, Kursk and Bryansk regions, which were once part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, speak not Russian at all, but Belarusian.

They don’t speak literary Russian there, just as no one “okats” - reflecting the Finnish accent, as in the Ryazan or Moscow regions, but they speak completely the language spoken by the villagers of the Vitebsk or Minsk regions.

Any linguist should draw one conclusion: the Belarusian population lives in these Russian regions, because they speak the Belarusian language.

But for some reason this population is ethnically attributed to the “nearby” eastern neighbors, who at the time of Ludolf knew only 41 Slavic words there.

I.S. Ulukhanov writes that speaking about the existence of two languages ​​among the Muscovites - Slavic or Church Bulgarian and his own Muscovite, V. Ludolf reported in the “Grammar of the Muscovite Language”:

“The more learned someone wants to appear, the more he mixes Slavic expressions into his speech or in his writings, although some laugh at those who abuse the Slavic language in ordinary speech.”

Marvelous!

What is this “Slavic language” of Moscow, which people laugh at for using Slavic words instead of their own Finnish and Turkic words?

This did not happen in Belarus-VKL - here no one laughs at people who use Slavic words in their speech.

On the contrary, no one will understand someone who constructs phrases using Finnish or Turkic vocabulary instead of Slavic.

This “bilingualism” did not exist anywhere among the Slavs, except in Muscovy alone.

“By the way: The statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were written in the purest Slavic language - the state language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, a purely Slavic state, where the Litvins were the Slavs - the current Belarusians.”

This problem of “bilingualism” due to the lack of a folk Slavic basis in Russia has always haunted the creators of the literary Russian language - as in general the main problem Russian language.

It went through the “stages of development of the term”, being called first Muscovite, then Russian under Lomonosov - until 1795, then during the occupation by Russia in 1794, formally consolidated in 1795, Belarus and Western and Central Ukraine had to change it to the “Great Russian dialect of the Russian language "

This is exactly how the Russian language figured in the 1840s in the title of Dahl’s dictionary “Explanatory Dictionary of the Great Russian Dictionary of the Russian Language,” where the Russian language itself was generally understood as Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian, although today all Russian linguists have unscientifically distorted the name of Dahl’s dictionary to “Explanatory Dictionary living Russian language,” although he never wrote a dictionary with that name.

In 1778, a brochure by the writer and linguist Fyodor Grigorievich Karin “Letter on the Transformers of the Russian Language” was published in Moscow.

He wrote: “The terrible difference between our language, throughout his work he calls it the “Moscow dialect,” and Slavic often prevents us from expressing ourselves in it with that freedom that alone enlivens eloquence and which is acquired nothing other than daily conversation. ... Just as a skillful gardener renews an old tree with a young graft, clearing the withered vines and thorns growing at its roots, so the great writers acted in transforming our language, which in itself was poor, and when counterfeited with the Slavic it has already become ugly.”

"Poor" and "ugly" - this, of course, is at odds with his future assessment as “great and powerful.”

The justification here is the fact that Pushkin was not yet born for the young green language just created by Lomonosov’s experiments.

Again, I draw your attention: this problem has never existed among Belarusians, Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Serbs and other Slavs - where the language of the villagers organically becomes the language of the country and the people.

This is a purely Russian unique problem - how to combine the Finnish language of the villagers with the Slavic language of the state, for example, in Belarus it is absurd: to argue about the possible “dominance of Slavicisms in written speech,” implying, as in Russia, the dominance of Bulgarian vocabulary, when the Belarusian vocabulary itself is such but with completely Slavic vocabulary and the same Slavicisms - that is, there is no very subject for such a dispute, because the Slavicisms of the Bulgarian language cannot in any way “spoil” the Belarusian language, which is already based only on Slavicisms - you can’t spoil butter with butter.

As a result, Russian linguists heroically break the “umbilical cord” of the centuries-old connection between the culture of Moscow and the Bulgarian language, which they unanimously find “alien,” “pretentious in Russian conditions,” and “inhibiting the formation of the literary Russian language.”

And they reject the Bulgarian language, boldly falling into the fold vernacular“Moscow dialect”, which consists of 60-70% non-Slavic vocabulary.

The great figures who are making this linguistic revolution in Russia are F.G. Karin in his work names Feofan Prokopovich, M.V. Lomonosov and A.P. Sumarokova.

So, at the very end of the 18th century, Russia refused to follow the Bulgarian language, which for centuries, like a rope, kept it in the Slavic field and converted it “to Slavism” - and began to consider itself linguistically free and sovereign, recognizing as its language not Bulgarian, but that the folk language of the Slavicized Finns, which by no means had, like Bulgarian, obvious Slavic features.

Alphabet

A general misconception: in Russia everyone believes that they write in “Cyrillic”, although no one in Russia writes in it.

They write in a completely different alphabet, very little related to the Cyrillic alphabet - this is the “civil alphabet” introduced by Peter I.

It is not a Cyrillic alphabet, since it was not created by Cyril and Methodius.

This is the imperial Russian alphabet, which Russia during the Tsarist and Soviet periods tried to spread among all its neighbors, even the Turks and Finns.

He is trying to do this today: not so long ago, the Duma banned Karelia and Tatarstan from returning to the Latin alphabet, calling it “separatist intrigues,” although it is the Latin alphabet that more successfully reflects the linguistic realities of the Finnish and Tatar languages.

In general, this looks completely absurd: it turns out that Cyril and Methodius created writing not for the Bulgarians and Czechs so that they could read Byzantine Bibles, but for the Tatars who profess Islam.

But why do Muslims need the Orthodox alphabet?

The second misconception is that the Cyrillic alphabet is considered a “Slavic alphabet”.

This is actually just a slightly modified Greek alphabet, and the Greeks are not Slavs.

And more than half of the Slavic peoples write in Latin, not Cyrillic.

Finally, this is the alphabet of Church Slavonic - that is, Bulgarian - books, this is the Bulgarian alphabet, and not at all our own Russian, Belarusian or Ukrainian.

Referring to religious Orthodox traditions here is simply ridiculous, because in the Middle Ages all of Catholic Europe used Latin in religion - is this a reason for all these countries to abandon their national languages ​​and return to Latin?

Of course not.

By the way, the Belarusian alphabet today should be Latin, not Cyrillic, more precisely: the alphabet of Peter I, since the Belarusian literary language over the centuries was formed as a language based on the Latin alphabet, and all the founders of Belarusian literature wrote in the Latin alphabet.

Let me remind you that after the Russian occupation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1795, the tsar banned the Belarusian language by decree in 1839, in 1863 he banned religious literature already in the Ukrainian language, in 1876 - all types of literature in the Ukrainian language, except for fiction.

In Ukraine, the literary language was formed on the basis of the Cyrillic alphabet, but in Belarus - on the basis of the Latin alphabet, and in the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, Belarusian periodicals were published in the Latin alphabet - “Bielarus”, “Bielaruskaja krynica”, “Nasza Niwa” and so on.

Slavic programming languages, Slavic languages ​​of the world
branch

Languages ​​of Eurasia

Indo-European family

Compound

East Slavic, West Slavic, South Slavic groups

Separation time:

XII-XIII centuries n. e.

Language group codes GOST 7.75–97: ISO 639-2: ISO 639-5: See also: Project: Linguistics Slavic languages. According to the publication of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Languages ​​of the World”, volume “Slavic Languages”, M., 2005

Indo-Europeans
Indo-European languages
Anatolian Albanian Armenian · Baltic · Venetian Germanic Illyrian Aryan: Nuristan, Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Dardic Italian (Roman) Celtic · Paleo-Balkan Slavic· Tocharian Dead language groups are in italics
Indo-Europeans
Albanians · Armenians · Balts Veneti · Germans · Greeks Illyrians · Iranians · Indo-Aryans Italics (Romans) · Celts Cimmerians · Slavs · Tocharians Thracians · Hittites in italics indicate now defunct communities
Proto-Indo-Europeans
Language · Ancestor · Religion
Indo-European Studies p·o·r

Slavic languages- a group of related languages ​​of the Indo-European family. Distributed throughout Europe and Asia. The total number of speakers is more than 400 million people. They are distinguished by a high degree of closeness to each other, which is found in the structure of the word, the use of grammatical categories, sentence structure, semantics, a system of regular sound correspondences, and morphonological alternations. This closeness is explained by the unity of origin of the Slavic languages ​​and their long and intense contacts with each other at the level literary languages and dialects.

The long-term independent development of the Slavic peoples in different ethnic, geographical, historical and cultural conditions, their contacts with various ethnic groups led to the emergence of differences of a material, functional and typological nature.

• 1 Classification
• 2 Origin
  • 2.1 Modern research
• 3 Development history
• 4 Phonetics
• 5 Writing
• 6 Literary languages
• 7 See also
• 8 Notes
• 9 Literature

Classification

Slavic languages, according to the degree of their proximity to each other, are usually divided into 3 groups: East Slavic, South Slavic and West Slavic. The distribution of Slavic languages ​​within each group has its own characteristics. Each Slavic language includes a literary language with all its internal varieties and its own territorial dialects. Dialectal division and stylistic structure within each Slavic language are not the same.

Branches of Slavic languages:

East Slavic branch Belarusian (ISO 639-1: be; ISO 639-3: bel) Old Russian † (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: orv) Old Novgorod dialect † (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: -) Western Russian † (ISO 639-1: - ;ISO 639-3: -) Russian (ISO 639-1: ru; ISO 639-3: rus) Ukrainian (ISO 639-1: uk; ISO 639-3: ukr) Rusyn (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: rue)

West Slavic branch Lehitic subgroup Pomeranian (Pomeranian) languages Kashubian (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: csb) Slovinian † (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: -) Polabian † (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: pox) Polish (ISO 639-1: pl; ISO 639-3: pol) Silesian (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: szl) Lusatian subgroup Upper Sorbian (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: hsb) Lower Sorbian (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: dsb) Czech-Slovak subgroup Slovak (ISO 639-1: sk; ISO 639-3: slk) Czech (ISO 639-1: cs; ISO 639-3: ces) knaanite† (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: czk)

South Slavic branch Eastern group Bulgarian (ISO 639-1: bg; ISO 639-3: bul) Macedonian (ISO 639-1: mk; ISO 639-3: mkd) Old Church Slavonic † (ISO 639-1: cu; ISO 639-3: chu) Church Slavonic (ISO 639-1: cu; ISO 639-3: chu) Western group Serbo-Croatian group/Serbo-Croatian language (ISO 639-1: - ; ISO 639-3: hbs): Bosnian (ISO 639-1: bs; ISO 639-3: bos) Serbian (ISO 639-1: sr; ISO 639-3: srp) Slavic Serbian † (ISO 639-1: - ;ISO 639-3: -) Croatian (ISO 639-1: hr; ISO 639-3: hrv) Kajkavian (ISO 639-3: kjv) Montenegrin (ISO 639-1: - ;ISO 639-3: -) Slovenian (ISO 639-1: sl; ISO 639-3: slv)

Origin

Family tree of modern Slavic languages ​​according to Gray and Atkinson

Slavic languages ​​within the Indo-European family are closest to the Baltic languages. The similarities between the two groups served as the basis for the theory of the “Balto-Slavic proto-language”, according to which the Balto-Slavic proto-language first emerged from the Indo-European proto-language, which later split into Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic. However, many scientists explain their special closeness by the long-term contact of the ancient Balts and Slavs, and deny the existence of the Balto-Slavic language.

It has not been established in what territory the separation of the Slavic language continuum from the Indo-European/Balto-Slavic occurred. It can be assumed that it occurred to the south of those territories that, according to various theories, belong to the territory of the Slavic ancestral homelands. From one of the Indo-European dialects (Proto-Slavic), the Proto-Slavic language was formed, which is the ancestor of all modern Slavic languages. The history of the Proto-Slavic language was longer than the history of individual Slavic languages. over a long period of time it developed as a single dialect with an identical structure. Dialectal variants arose later.

The process of transition of the Proto-Slavic language into independent languages took place most actively in the 2nd half of the 1st millennium AD, during the formation of the early Slavic states in the territory of South-Eastern and Eastern Europe. During this period, the territory of Slavic settlements increased significantly. Areas of different geographical zones with different natural and climatic conditions, the Slavs entered into relationships with the population of these territories, standing at different stages of cultural development. All this was reflected in the history of Slavic languages.

The history of the Proto-Slavic language is divided into 3 periods: the oldest - before the establishment of close Balto-Slavic linguistic contact, the period of the Balto-Slavic community and the period of dialect fragmentation and the beginning of the formation of independent Slavic languages.

Modern research

In 2003, Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson, scientists from the University of Oklad, published their study of modern languages ​​of the Indo-European family in the scientific journal Nature. The data obtained indicate that the Slavic linguistic unity disintegrated 1300 years ago, that is, around the 8th century AD. And the Balto-Slavic linguistic unity collapsed 3400 years ago, that is, around the 15th century BC.

History of development

Main article: History of Slavic languages Bascan slab, 11th century, Krk, Croatia

In the early period of development of the Slavic proto-language, a new system vowel sonants, consonantism was significantly simplified, the reduction stage became widespread in ablaut, the root ceased to obey ancient restrictions. The Proto-Slavic language is part of the satem group (sрьдьce, pisati, prositi, Wed. Lat. cor, - cordis, pictus, precor; zьrno, znati, zima, Wed. Lat. granum, cognosco, hiems). However, this feature was not fully realized: cf. Praslav *kamy, *kosa. *gǫsь, *gordъ, *bergъ, etc. Proto-Slavic morphology represents significant deviations from the Indo-European type. This primarily applies to the verb, to a lesser extent to the name.

Novgorod birch bark charter of the 14th century

Most of the suffixes were already formed on Proto-Slavic soil. During the early period of its development, the Proto-Slavic language experienced a number of transformations in the field of vocabulary. Having retained in most cases the old Indo-European vocabulary, he at the same time lost some lexemes (for example, some terms from the field of social relations, nature, etc.). Many words were lost due to various kinds of prohibitions (taboos). For example, the name of oak was lost - the Indo-European perkuos, from which the Latin quercus. In the Slavic language, the taboo dǫbъ was established, from where “oak”, Polish. dąb, Bulgarian dab, etc. The Indo-European name for the bear has been lost. It is preserved only in the new scientific term “Arctic” (cf. Greek ἄρκτος). The Indo-European word in Proto-Slavic was replaced by the taboo combination of words *medvědь (originally “honey eater”, from honey and *ěd-).

Zograph Codex, X-XI centuries.

During the period of the Balto-Slavic community, vowel sonants were lost in the Proto-Slavic language, in their place diphthong combinations arose in the position before consonants and the sequence “vowel sonant before vowels” (sъmрti, but umirati), intonations (acute and circumflex) became relevant features. The most important processes of the Proto-Slavic period were the loss of closed syllables and the softening of consonants before the iota. In connection with the first process, all ancient diphthong combinations turned into monophthongs, smooth syllabic, nasal vowels arose, a shift in the syllable division occurred, which, in turn, caused a simplification of consonant groups and the phenomenon of intersyllabic dissimilation. These ancient processes left their mark on all modern Slavic languages, which is reflected in many alternations: cf. “reap - reap”; “take - I’ll take”, “name - names”, Czech. ziti - znu, vziti - vezmu; Serbohorv. zheti - we reap, uzeti - we will know, name - names. The softening of consonants before the yot is reflected in the form of alternations s - sh, z - zh, etc. All these processes had a strong impact on the grammatical structure and the system of inflections. Due to the softening of consonants before the iota, the so-called process was experienced. first palatalization of the posterior palatal: k > h, g > g, x > w. On this basis, even in the Proto-Slavic language, the alternations k: h, g: w, x: w were formed, which had big influence on nominal and verbal word formation.

Later, the second and third palatalizations of the posterior palatal developed, as a result of which the alternations arose: c, g: dz (z), x: s (x). The name changed according to cases and numbers. Except the only one plural There was a dual number, which was later lost in almost all Slavic languages, except Slovenian and Lusatian, while the rudiments of dualism are preserved in almost all Slavic languages.

There were nominal stems that performed the functions of definitions. In the late Proto-Slavic period, pronominal adjectives arose. The verb had the bases of the infinitive and the present tense. From the first, the infinitive, supin, aorist, imperfect, participles in -l, active participles of the past tense in -в and passive participles in -n were formed. From the bases of the present tense, the present tense, the imperative mood, and the active participle of the present tense were formed. Later, in some Slavic languages, an imperfect began to form from this stem.

Dialects began to form in the Proto-Slavic language. There were three groups of dialects: eastern, western and southern. From them the corresponding languages ​​were then formed. The group of East Slavic dialects was the most compact. The West Slavic group had 3 subgroups: Lechitic, Serbo-Sorbian and Czech-Slovak. The South Slavic group was the most differentiated in terms of dialect.

The Proto-Slavic language functioned in the pre-state period of the history of the Slavs, when the tribal social system dominated. Significant changes occurred during the period of early feudalism. XII-XIII centuries further differentiation of the Slavic languages ​​took place, and the super-short (reduced) vowels ъ and ь, characteristic of the Proto-Slavic language, were lost. in some cases they disappeared, in others they became fully formed vowels. As a result, significant changes occurred in the phonetic and morphological structure of the Slavic languages, in their lexical composition.

Phonetics

In the field of phonetics, there are some significant differences between the Slavic languages.

In most Slavic languages, the long/short vowel opposition has been lost, at the same time in the Czech and Slovak languages ​​(excluding the North Moravian and East Slovak dialects), in the literary norms of the Shtokavian group (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin), and also partly in the Slovenian language these differences persist. Lechitic languages, Polish and Kashubian, retain nasal vowels, which are lost in other Slavic languages ​​(nasal vowels were also characteristic of the phonetic system of the extinct Polabian language). For a long time, nasals were retained in the Bulgarian-Macedonian and Slovenian language areas (in the peripheral dialects of the corresponding languages, relics of nasalization are reflected in a number of words to this day).

Slavic languages ​​are characterized by the presence of palatalization of consonants - the approach of the flat middle part of the tongue to the palate when pronouncing a sound. Almost all consonants in Slavic languages ​​can be hard (non-palatalized) or soft (palatalized). Due to a number of depalatalization processes, the opposition of hard/soft consonants in the languages ​​of the Czech-Slovak group is significantly limited (in Czech the opposition t - t', d - d', n - n' is preserved, in Slovak - t - t', d - d' , n - n', l - l', while in the Western Slovak dialect, due to the assimilation of t', d' and their subsequent hardening, as well as the hardening of l', as a rule, only one pair n - n' is presented, in a number of Western Slovak dialects ( Považski, Trnava, Zagorje) paired soft consonants are completely absent). The opposition of consonants in terms of hardness/softness did not develop in the Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian and Western Bulgarian-Macedonian language areas - of the old paired soft consonants, only n’ (< *nj), l’ (< *lj) не подверглись отвердению (в первую очередь в сербохорватском ареале).

Stress is implemented differently in Slavic languages. In most Slavic languages ​​(except for Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian), the polytonic Proto-Slavic stress was replaced by a dynamic one. The free, mobile nature of the Proto-Slavic stress was preserved in the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Bulgarian languages, as well as in the Torlak dialect and the northern dialect of the Kashubian language (the stress was also mobile in the extinct Polabian language). Central Russian dialects (and, accordingly, in the Russian literary language), in the South Russian dialect, in the Northern Kashubian dialects, as well as in the Belarusian and Bulgarian languages, this type of stress caused the reduction of unstressed vowels. A number of languages, primarily Western Slavic, have developed a fixed stress assigned to a specific syllable of a word or beat group. The penultimate syllable is stressed in the literary Polish language and most of its dialects, in the Czech North Moravian and East Slovak dialects, in the southwestern dialects of the southern dialect of the Kashubian language, as well as in the Lemko dialect. The stress falls on the first syllable in the Czech and Slovak literary languages ​​and most of their dialects, in the Sorbian languages, in the South Kashubian dialect, as well as in some Gural dialects of the Lesser Poland dialect. In the Macedonian language, the stress is also fixed - it falls no further than the third syllable from the end of the word (accent group). In the Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian languages, the stress is polytonic, varied; the tonic characteristics and stress distribution in word forms are different among dialects. In the Central Kashubian dialect, the stress varies, but is assigned to a specific morpheme.

Writing

The Slavic languages ​​received their first literary treatment in the 60s. 9th century. The creators of Slavic writing were the brothers Cyril (Constantine the Philosopher) and Methodius. They transferred for the needs of Great Moravia from Greek language into Slavic liturgical texts. The new literary language was based on the South Macedonian (Thessalonica) dialect, but in Great Moravia it acquired many local linguistic features. Later it was further developed in Bulgaria. In this language (usually called Old Church Slavonic) a wealth of original and translated literature was created in Moravia, Pannonia, Bulgaria, Rus', and Serbia. There were two Slavic alphabets: Glagolitic and Cyrillic. From the 9th century no Slavic texts have survived. The most ancient ones date back to the 10th century: the Dobrudzhan inscription of 943, the inscription of Tsar Samuel of 993, the Varosha inscription of 996 and others. Since the 11th century. More Slavic monuments have survived.

Modern Slavic languages ​​use alphabets based on Cyrillic and Latin. Glagolitic script is used in Catholic worship in Montenegro and several coastal areas in Croatia. For some time in Bosnia, in parallel with the Cyrillic and Latin alphabet, the Arabic alphabet was also used.

Literary languages

In the era of feudalism, Slavic literary languages, as a rule, did not have strict norms. Sometimes the functions of the literary language were performed by foreign languages ​​(in Rus' - the Old Church Slavonic language, in the Czech Republic and Poland - the Latin language).

The Russian literary language has experienced centuries-long and complex evolution. It absorbed folk elements and elements of the Old Church Slavonic language, and was influenced by many European languages.

In the Czech Republic in the 18th century. literary language, which reached in the XIV-XVI centuries. great perfection, has almost disappeared. cities dominated German. The period of national revival in the Czech Republic artificially revived the language of the 16th century, which at that time was already far from the national language. History of the Czech literary language of the 19th-20th centuries. reflects the interaction between the old book language and the spoken language. The Slovak literary language had a different history; it developed on the basis of the folk language. Serbia until the 19th century. The Church Slavonic language was dominant. XVIII century the process of bringing this language closer to the folk one began. As a result of the reform carried out by Vuk Karadzic in the mid-19th century, a new literary language was created. The Macedonian literary language was finally formed in the middle of the 20th century.

In addition to the “large” Slavic languages, there are a number of small Slavic literary languages ​​(microlanguages), which usually function alongside the national literary languages ​​and serve either relatively small ethnic groups, or even individual literary genres.

see also

• Swadesh lists for Slavic languages ​​at Wiktionary.

Notes

1. Balto-Slavonic Natural Language Processing 2009
2. http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/worldlang.htm
3. Languages ​​Spoken by More Than 10 Million People (Languages ​​spoken by more than 10 million people) according to the Encarta encyclopedia. Archived from the original on October 31, 2009.
4. Omniglot
5. 1 2 Sometimes separated into a separate language
6. see Meillet's Law.
7. Vasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. - 1st ed. - T. 1-4. - M., 1964-1973.
8. Suprun A. E., Skorvid S. S. Slavic languages. - P. 15. (Retrieved March 26, 2014)
9. Suprun A. E., Skorvid S. S. Slavic languages. - P. 10. (Retrieved March 26, 2014)
10. Lifanov K.V. Dialectology of the Slovak language: Tutorial. - M.: Infra-M, 2012. - P. 34. - ISBN 978-5-16-005518-3.
11. Suprun A. E., Skorvid S. S. Slavic languages. - P. 16. (Retrieved March 26, 2014)
12. Suprun A. E., Skorvid S. S. Slavic languages. - pp. 14-15. (Retrieved March 26, 2014)

Literature

• Bernshtein S. B. Essay on the comparative grammar of Slavic languages. Introduction. Phonetics. M., 1961.
• Bernshtein S. B. Essay on the comparative grammar of Slavic languages. Alternations. Name bases. M., 1974.
• Birnbaum H. Proto-Slavic language. Achievements and problems of its reconstruction, trans. from English, M., 1987.
• Boshkovich R. Fundamentals of comparative grammar of Slavic languages. Phonetics and word formation. M., 1984.
• Hilferding A.F. Common Slavic alphabet with the application of samples of Slavic dialects. - St. Petersburg: Type. Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1871.
• Kuznetsov P. S. Essays on the morphology of the Proto-Slavic language. M., 1961.
• Meie A. Common Slavic language, trans. from French, M., 1951.
• Nachtigal R. Slavic languages, trans. from Slovenia, M., 1963.
• National revival and formation of Slavic literary languages. M., 1978.
• Entering the historical tradition of Slovenian languages. Per ed. O. S. Melnichuk. Kiev, 1966.
• Vaillant A. Grammaire comparee des langues slaves, t. 1-5. Lyon - P., 1950-77.
• Russell D. Gray & Quentin D. Atkinson. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature, 426: 435-439 (27 November 2003).

Proto-Slavic language † (proto-language)
Eastern	Old Novgorod † (Old Pskovsky †) Old Russian † Western Russian † Belarusian (dialects) Russian (dialects) Ukrainian (Rusyn dialects)
Western
Southern
Other	literary microlanguages ​​pan-Slavic languages
† - dead, split or changed languages

Slavic microlanguages
Eastern	Galshansky | Carpatho-Rusyn | Podlaski | Western Polesie
Western	Wichich | Eastern Slovak | Polish | Pannonian-Rusyn
Southwestern	Venetian-Slovenian | Gradiscan-Croatian | kaykavian | Molese-Slavic | Prekmurje-Slovenian | rezyanskiy | Chakavian
Southeast	Banat-Bulgarian | Pomak | Aegean-Macedonian
see also

Slavic languages, Slavic languages ​​of India, Slavic languages ​​of Spain, Slavic languages ​​of Kazakhstan, Slavic languages ​​of cats, Slavic languages ​​of love, Slavic languages ​​of the world, Slavic languages ​​of flame, Slavic programming languages, Slavic markup languages

Slavic languages ​​Information About