Pre-Slavic, or common Slavic period. Proto-Slavic language. Linguistic paleoslavistics
Common Slavic or Proto-Slavic the language spoken by the ancestors of modern Slavic peoples who lived on the territory of their ancestral home was preserved in the first centuries AD. e. (at least until the middle of the first millennium), but the settlement of the Slavs over increasingly vast territories naturally led to the development of local dialects, some of which then underwent transformation into independent languages.
Modern philological ideas about this language concern mainly its phonology and morphology; It’s unlikely that anyone will undertake to compose a long coherent phrase on it, or even more so to try to “speak Proto-Slavic”. The fact is that the Proto-Slavic language was a language preliterate; There are no texts on it, and philologists deduce its word forms, features of its phonology and phonetics by the method of reconstruction. Philology students are introduced to the principles of such reconstruction in detail, in particular, in the course of the Old Church Slavonic language. The course “Introduction to Slavic Philology,” while avoiding duplication of such information, still includes its necessary beginnings in a brief “introductory and reminder” form.
In the Proto-Slavic language, for example, a very unique system of verbal conjugation and declension of names developed, some scattered features of which are still preserved to one degree or another by modern Slavic languages. The complex system of genders (male, female, and even neuter) corresponded to several declensions. Sonorous(“smooth”) consonants j, w, r, l, m, n in Proto-Slavic were capable of forming an independent syllable (without the participation of a vowel phoneme). In the process of historical evolution, the Proto-Slavic language repeatedly experienced softening ( palatalization) consonants.
In the Proto-Slavic language, among the consonants, some were only hard, but then they were softened, and *k, *g, *h before front vowels became sizzling k > h', g > w', x > w' (with certain conditions k, g, x subsequently also turned into soft whistling k > c’, g > z’, x > c’).
In recent centuries, the Proto-Slavic language has experienced a process of transition from closed syllables to open ones. There were diphthongs among the vowels. Diphthong vowel combinations still exist in some other Indo-European languages. As a result of complex processes, they were lost, as a result of which the Old Slavonic and from the diphthong ei, from oi, ai - ѣ (yat), etc. new basis diphthongs developed later in Slovak and Czech.
Greek brothers Konstantin(in monasticism Cyril, c. 827–869) and Methodius(c. 815–885) were natives of Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki) and knew well the local South Slavic dialect, which was apparently a dialect of the Old Bulgarian language. The Old Church Slavonic language was originally based on it, preserved in many ancient texts of the end of the 1st millennium AD. e., written in Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabet. (Another name for it is Old Church Slavonic.) Constantine created the Slavic alphabet, using which the brothers translated the most important Christian holy books into Old Church Slavonic. Thanks to the presence of writing and monuments, Old Church Slavonic, unlike Proto-Slavic, has been well studied by philologists.
The main Glagolitic monuments are Kyiv leaflets, Assemanian Gospel, Zograf Gospel, Sinai Psalter, Mariinsky Gospel etc. The main Cyrillic monuments are Savvin's book, Suprasl manuscript, Hilandar leaves etc.
The Old Church Slavonic language is characterized by complex system verb forms that convey various shades of the past tense - aorist (past perfect), perfect (past indefinite), imperfect (past imperfect), plusquaperfect (long past).
It contained reduced vowels ъ and ь, which were later at the end of the word and in weak position lost (eg. window from Art. – glory. window, house from Art. – glory. dom), and in a strong position developed into “full vowels” ( father from Art. – glory. father). A characteristic Old Slavonic feature was the nasal vowels [on] and [en] - represented by the letters ѫ ("yus big") and ѧ ("yus small"). Nasals are preserved, for example, in Polish language, in Russian [he] moved to [u], and [en] to [’a].
The fate of the Proto-Slavic vowels *o and *e in combination with the sonorant consonants *r and *l was very interesting. If we conventionally designate all other consonants with the letter t, then it turns out that among the southern Slavs, for example, in the same Old Church Slavonic language, the vowel was lengthened with its subsequent change in places with the consonant *r, *l: *tort > *to: rt > tro: t > trat; *tolt > to: lt > tlo: t > tlat; *tert > te: rt > tre: t > trht; *telt > te: lt > tle: t > tlet (that is, the so-called disagreement of the type −ra−, −la−, −рѣ− has developed: hail, head, gold, power, milk, environment, etc.). Among the Western Slavs, this corresponded to disagreement of the type −ro−, −lo− (cf. Polish głowa, krowa). The Eastern Slavs developed full consonance of the type -roro-, -olo-, -re- (city, head, gold, parish, milk, middle, etc.): *tort > tort > tor°t > torot; *tårt > tert > teret > teret, etc. (a small letter in upper case indicates an initially weak overtone).
Russian classical poetry actively used Old Church Slavonic words-synonyms (familiar to Russian readers through the Church Slavonic language) - for example, to give “height” to the style.
There were seven cases in the Old Church Slavonic language. Usually the endings of the nominative and accusative singular cases coincided in both animate and inanimate nouns (an exception was made to designate persons standing hierarchically high: prophet, prince, father, etc. - here the accusative form could coincide with the genitive form, as in modern Russian). Modern prepositional case, the sixth in a row, corresponded to the local one. By the way, as for Old Church Slavonic words and their declension by case, let us mention such interesting phenomena as the lost Russian language vocative case nouns (seventh) - goro (from mountain), earth (from earth), sonou (from son), etc., as well as the dual number, also lost in Slavic languages (except for the language of the Lusatian Serbs). The Bulgarian and Macedonian languages have generally lost the declension of nouns - in them, as in other languages of the analytical system (like, for example, French), prepositions and word order indicate the contextual meanings of nouns (they have also developed a characteristic postpositive definite article, written together after words – for example, Bulgarian “book” that" from "book").
In Polish speech, personal pronouns ja, ty, my, wy, on, etc. are rarely used, although they are provided for by the language system. Instead of the second person pronoun wy, Poles usually use the word "pan" (in relation to a woman or girl pani), transforming the phrase accordingly - so that the address is made in the third person form, for example: co pan chce? (i.e. “what do you want”?)
A characteristic feature of Slavic languages is the verbal form (imperfect and perfect), which allows compact expression semantic nuances associated with an action that is ongoing or repeated, on the one hand, and completed, on the other.
Slavic languages form a group belonging to the Indo-European language family. Slavic languages are currently spoken by more than 400 million people. The languages of the group under discussion fall, in turn, into West Slavic (Czech, Slovak, Polish, Kashubian, Serbo-Sorbian, which includes two dialects (Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian), and Polabian, which has been dead since the end of the 18th century), South Slavic (Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian and dead since the beginning of the 20th century. Slovinsky) and East Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian). As a result of a detailed comparative historical study of Slavic languages, one of the largest philologists of the 20th century. prince Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy(1890–1938) wrote:
“We saw that in relation to language, the Russian tribe occupies a position among the Slavs that is completely exceptional in its historical significance.”
This conclusion of Trubetskoy is based on the unique historical and cultural role of the Russian language, which he understands as follows: “Being a modernized and Russified form of the Church Slavonic language, the Russian literary language is the only direct successor to the common Slavic literary and linguistic tradition, originating from the holy Slavic first teachers, i.e. that is, from the end of the era of pre-Slavic unity.”
To substantiate the question of “ historical significance“of the “Russian tribe” it is necessary, of course, in addition to the peculiarities of the language, to attract the spiritual culture created by the Russian people. Since this is a hugely complex problem, we will limit ourselves here to simply listing the main names: in science - Lomonosov, Lobachevsky, Mendeleev, Pavlov, Korolev; in literature - Pushkin, Turgenev, Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky, Bunin, Mayakovsky, Bulgakov, Sholokhov; in music - Glinka, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Sviridov; in painting and sculpture - Bryullov, Surikov, Repin, Vasnetsov, Valentin Serov, Kustodiev, Konenkov, etc.
And M.V. Lomonosov in the “Dedication” prefaced by his “Russian Grammar” states:
“Charles the Fifth, the Roman Emperor, used to say that it is decent to speak Spanish with God, French with friends, German with enemies, Italian with women. But if he were skilled in the Russian language, then, of course, he would have added that it is decent for them to speak with all of them, for he would have found in him the splendor of Spanish, the liveliness of French, the strength of German, the tenderness of Italian, in addition to the richness and strength in the images brevity of Greek and Latin."
As for understanding the Russian literary language as a “Russified form” of Church Slavonic, for the sake of objectivity it is necessary to dwell a little on this topic.
Two groups of concepts of the origin of the Russian literary language can be distinguished. Some concepts, partly going back to the academician Izmail Ivanovich Sreznevsky(1812–1880), partly to the academician Alexey Alexandrovich Shakhmatov(1864–1920), one way or another see in the Old Russian literary language the Russified Old Church Slavonic. Others go back to the works of the academician Sergei Petrovich Obnorsky (1888–1962).
In the work of S. P. Obnorsky “ “Russian Truth” as a monument of the Russian literary language" says:
“The analysis of the language of “Russian Truth” made it possible to put into flesh and blood the concept of this literary Russian language of the older period. Its essential features are a certain artlessness of structure, i.e. closeness to the colloquial element of speech,<…>absence of traces of interaction with the Bulgarian, general – Bulgarian-Byzantine culture...”
The scientist’s conclusion is that the Russians already in the 10th century. it had its own literary language, independent from Old Church Slavonic, was revolutionary, and they immediately tried to challenge it, emphasizing that “Russian Truth” was not a literary monument, but a work of “business content.” Then S.P. Obnorsky attracted to the analysis “The Tale of Igor’s Host”, “The Instruction” of Vladimir Monomakh, “The Prayer of Daniil the Prisoner” - that is, the most important ancient Russian monuments in artistic terms.
Academician Obnorsky published the famous book “ Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the older period" In it, in particular, he wrote “about the Russian basis of our literary language, and, accordingly, about the later collision of the Church Slavonic language with it and the secondary nature of the process of penetration of Church Slavonic elements into it.” The works of S. P. Obnorsky were deservedly awarded the Stalin Prize (1947) and the Lenin Prize (1970, posthumously) - that is, the highest creative awards of Soviet times.
The essence of Academician Obnorsky’s conclusions is that the Russian literary language developed independently - that is, “the Russian literary language is Russian by nature, Church Slavonic elements are secondary in it.”
Indeed, all of the monuments listed above studied by Obnorsky - both the set of ancient legal norms “Russian Truth” and the literary and artistic masterpieces - are typically Russian in their linguistic structure.
(This does not negate the fact that, at the same time, Russians wrote in Church Slavonic in a number of genres - for example, Metropolitan Hilarion’s “Sermon on Law and Grace,” the lives of saints, church teachings, etc. And oral speech was heard in Church Slavonic during church services.)
For comparison, we can point out, for example, the Polish language, the vocabulary of which significantly reflected the results of centuries-old pressure on it from Latin, explained by the fact that the direction of development of Polish culture has long been set Catholic Church. The Poles generally wrote in Latin for centuries, while the Orthodox Slavic peoples created literature in Church Slavonic. But, on the other hand, it was Polish, as already mentioned, that preserved the Proto-Slavic nasal vowels [en] and [on] (in Polish they are designated by the letters ę and ą: for example, księżyc - moon, month; dąb - oak). Some other Slavic languages also retained some Proto-Slavic features. So, in Czech to this day there are so-called smooth syllabics, for example vlk - wolf. Bulgarian still uses such ancient verb tenses as aorist (past perfect), perfect (past indefinite) and imperfect (past imperfect); in Slovenian, the “long-past” (“pre-past”) verbal tense plusquaperfect and such a special unconjugated verbal form (which was also in Old Church Slavonic) as supin (accomplishment mood) have been preserved.
The language of the Polabian Slavs (Polabyans), who lived along the western bank of the Laba (Elbe) River, disappeared by the middle of the 18th century. His small dictionary has been preserved, including individual phrases in Polish. This text, invaluable for philologists, was compiled in the 18th century. literate Polabian Jan Parum Schulze, who was apparently not a simple peasant, but a village innkeeper. Around the same time, the German pastor H. Hennig, a native of the historical residence of the Polabians, compiled an extensive German-Polabian dictionary.
The Polabian language, like Polish, retained nasal vowels. It had an aorist and an imperfect, as well as a dual number of nouns. It is very interesting that the stress in this West Slavic language was, judging by a number of data, varied.
The status of some Slavic languages is still philologically debatable.
For example, they consider themselves a separate independent people Rusyns, currently living in Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia and other regions. Under the conditions of the USSR, they persistently tried to classify them as Ukrainians, which caused constant protests among the Ruthenians. Based on their self-name, Rusyns usually associate themselves with Russians (according to their folk etymology, Rusyns are “ Sons of Rus'"). The question of the degree of real closeness of the Rusyn language to Russian has not yet been clearly resolved. In medieval texts, “Rusyns” often refer to themselves as “Russians.”
In Poland, attempts were repeatedly made to prove that the Kashubian language is not an independent Slavic language, but only an adverb of the Polish language, that is, in other words, its dialect (thus the Kashubians were denied the status of an independent Slavic people). Something similar can be found in Bulgaria in relation to the Macedonian language.
In Russia until October Revolution In philological science, the prevailing point of view was that the Russian language is divided into three unique huge dialects - Great Russian (Moscow), Little Russian and Belarusian. Its presentation can be found, for example, in the works of such major linguists as A. A. Shakhmatov, academician. A. I. Sobolevsky, A. A. Potebnya, T. D. Florinsky and others.
Yes, academician Alexey Alexandrovich Shakhmatov(1864–1920) wrote: “Russian language is a term used in two meanings. It means: 1) a set of dialects of Great Russian, Belarusian and Little Russian; 2) the modern literary language of Russia, which at its core appears to be one of the Great Russian dialects.”
Looking ahead, it is impossible not to emphasize that at present the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages, qualitatively different from Russian, are already undeniably reality .
This is, in particular, the result of the fact that throughout the 20th century. After the October Revolution, the artificial distancing of Little Russians and Belarusians from Russians and the Russian language was systematically ideologically provoked under the pretext of pursuing the so-called “Leninist” national policy, which consciously and consistently aroused local nationalist sentiments:
“It happens that we hear conversations that, they say, Ukrainization is being carried out too sharply, that the masses do not need it, that the peasantry seems to be good and understands the Russian language, that the workers do not want to assimilate Ukrainian culture, because it alienates them from their Russian brothers.” , - one of the party leaders of the 1920s franked, further declaring with pathos: “All such talk - no matter what ultra-revolutionary and “internationalist” outfits they dress in - the party in the person of its leaders and every individual reasonable party member - considers a manifestation anti-worker and anti-revolutionary influence of bourgeois-NEP and intellectual sentiments on the working class... But the will of the Soviet government is unshakable, and it knows how, as almost ten years of experience has shown, to bring to the end any task recognized as useful for the revolution, and will overcome any resistance against its own events. So it will be with the national policy, which the vanguard of the proletariat, its spokesman and leader, the All-Union Communist Party, decided to implement.”
M. V. Lomonosov in the 18th century. not unreasonably believed that philologists are faced with not a separate Slavic language, but a “Little Russian dialect”, and “although this dialect is very similar to ours, its emphasis, pronunciation and endings of utterances have been greatly abolished due to the proximity to the Poles and the long-term existence under their rule, or, to put it bluntly, they’ve gone bad.” The conviction that the local dialect of the Little Russians was simply “Russian, modified to the Polish model” was shared by other philologists.
N. S. Trubetskoy in the 20s of the XX century. continued to believe that the Ukrainian folk dialect is a branch of the Russian language (“There is no need to talk about the depth or antiquity of the differences between the three main Russian (East Slavic) dialects”). At the same time, a well-informed scientist noted the following curious fact:
“The corresponding folk languages - Great Russian and Little Russian - are closely related and similar to each other. But those Ukrainian intellectuals who advocated for the creation of an independent Ukrainian literary language did not want precisely this natural similarity with the Russian literary language. Therefore, they abandoned the only natural path to creating their own literary language, completely broke not only with the Russian, but also with the Church Slavonic literary and linguistic tradition and decided to create a literary language exclusively on the basis of the folk dialect, and in such a way that this language would resemble as little as possible into Russian."
“As one would expect,” N. S. Trubetskoy further writes, “this enterprise in this form turned out to be impracticable: the dictionary of the folk language was insufficient to express all the shades of thought necessary for a literary language, and the syntactic structure of folk speech was too clumsy for that.” to satisfy at least the elementary requirements of literary stylistics. But out of necessity, it was necessary to join some already existing and well-developed literary and linguistic tradition. And since they never wanted to join the Russian literary and linguistic tradition, all that remained was to join the tradition of the Polish literary language.” Wed. also: “And indeed, the modern Ukrainian literary language... is so full of Polonisms that it gives the impression of simply a Polish language, slightly flavored with a Little Russian element and squeezed into a Little Russian grammatical system.”
In the middle of the 19th century. Ukrainian writer Panteleimon Alexandrovich Kulish(1819–1897) invented a spelling system based on the phonetic principle, since then usually called “Kulishivka” to “help the people to enlightenment”. For example, she canceled the letters “ы”, “е”, “ъ”, but instead introduced “є” and “ї”.
Later, in his declining years, P. A. Kulish tried to protest against the attempts of political intriguers to present this “phonetic spelling” of his “as a banner of our Russian discord,” even declaring that, as a rebuff to such attempts, from now on he would “print with etymological old-world spelling” ( that is, in Russian. Yu. M.).
After the October Revolution, Kulishivka was actively used in the creation of the modern Ukrainian alphabet. For Belarusians, after the revolution, an alphabet was also invented, based on a phonetic rather than an etymological principle (for example, Belarusians write “malako”, not milk, "naga", not leg etc.).
The vast majority of words are common to Slavic languages, although their meaning now does not always coincide. For example, the Russian word palace in Polish corresponds to the word “pałac”, while “dworzec” in Polish is not a palace, but a “station”; rynek in Polish not a market, but “square”, “beauty” in Polish “uroda” (cf. Russian “freak”). Such words are often called “the translator’s false friends.”
The sharp differences between Slavic languages are related to stress. In Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, as well as in Bulgarian, there is a variable (free) stress: it can fall on any syllable, that is, there are words with stress on the first syllable, on the second, on the last, etc. In Serbo-Croatian stress there is already a limitation : it falls on any syllable except the last. Fixed stress in Polish (on the penultimate syllable of a word), in Macedonian (on the third syllable from the end of words), as well as in Czech and Slovak (on the first syllable). These differences entail considerable consequences (for example, in the field of versification).
And yet, the Slavs, as a rule, are able to carry on a conversation among themselves, even without knowing each other’s languages, which once again reminds us of both close linguistic proximity and ethnic kinship. Even if he wants to declare his inability to speak this or that Slavic language, the Slav involuntarily expresses himself clearly for the surrounding speakers of this language. The Russian phrase “I can’t speak Russian” corresponds to the Bulgarian “Not speaking Bulgarian”, the Serbian “Ja don’t speak Srpski”, the Polish “Nie muwię po polsku” (Not speaking in Polish), etc. Instead of the Russian “Come in!” the Bulgarian says “Get in!”, the Serb “Slobodno!”, the Pole “Proszę!” (usually with clarification of whom he “asks”: pana, pani, państwa). The speech of the Slavs is filled with such mutually recognizable, commonly understood words and expressions.
What will we do with the received material:
If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:
It has long been noted that there is not a single community of languages where the similarity of its constituent members is as striking as that of the Slavic languages. It is difficult to find a phonetic phenomenon or grammatical category that could fundamentally distinguish Slavic languages from each other. The material commonality of the morphemic inventory and some lexical-semantic groups is also striking. If we move to the area of diachrony, then here too we can find that identical changes and even processes of linguistic evolution sooner or later cover the entire Slavic space, regardless of its division into East Slavic, South Slavic, West Slavic subgroups, and they proceed fundamentally in the same direction, leading to very similar consequences. In addition, Serbs and Poles, Ukrainians and Slovenes, as a rule, are able to communicate with each other without a translator and without switching to some commonly understood language. The range of such examples can be expanded without much difficulty. What are the reasons for this commonality? Firstly, it indicates the existence Proto-Slavic language- the source language of all subsequent Slavic languages. Its presence presupposes a compact territory of residence, a common ethnic and linguistic consciousness among the Slavs. Secondly, the close relationship of the Slavic languages is dictated by the relative youth of the Proto-Slavic language. It is believed that the base language has existed since the 3rd millennium BC. until the first half of the 1st millennium AD. In addition, the already isolated Slavic languages underwent more or less radical dissimilarity only by the 14th century.
The unusual thing about the Proto-Slavic language is that not a single text written in it has been found. It was artificially reconstructed, modeled by scientists and represents a gigantic, but very strict and harmonious system of archetypes - hypothetically (not absolutely reliably) derived language forms that became the source for later continuations. Proto-Slavic forms are written in Latin letters and are placed under an asterisk (asterisk) - *. The main method of their restoration is the analysis of a record large number of regular correspondences, primarily in closely related Slavic languages, as well as in other Indo-European languages (mainly those that have a centuries-old history - Latin, Lithuanian, Gothic, etc.). Valuable results are also obtained by comparing words with the same root and etymologically similar words within one language.
In the scientific literature you can find several terminological designations intended for the language in question. The most correct definition is Proto-Slavic language, which clearly indicates the precedence of the system in question to the rest of the Slavic languages, as well as a period of relative ethnic and linguistic unity. A less successful term competes with the specified term common Slavic language. Word structure Common Slavic suggests some features common to all Slavic languages at one time or another (even after the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language). Such an interpretation is located in the field of linguistic typology and, in fact, ignores the historical reasons for the structural similarity that stems from the genetic relationship of Slavic languages among themselves. Often the listed designations are used as synonyms. Some scientists are not inclined to interchange terms common Slavic language And Proto-Slavic language, using them in relation to different stages of the existence of the parent of the Slavic languages, taking into account that the base language developed dynamically, having experienced a number of important transformations: common Slavic language How initial period development (immediately after its separation from some larger linguistic unit - the Balto-Slavic or Proto-Indo-European language (the source of all languages of the Indo-European family), Proto-Slavic language as the final stage of a more or less homogeneous existence, which immediately preceded the disintegration into several Slavic linguistic subgroups. The opposite usage also occurs. The possibility of such a situation clearly demonstrates that an absolutely clear division of the Slavic proto-language into earlier and later periods remains unattainable due to the relative and often very contradictory chronology of many changes on which the attempt at such differentiation is based. Thus, current state science about the ancestor of all Slavic languages forces us to stop at the use of a single term - Proto-Slavic language.
As close as possible to the considered system Old Church Slavonic language, not only in time, but also in structural characteristics. This language is unique in that it was deliberately created in the middle of the 9th century by Slavic educators and missionaries - the brothers Cyril and Methodius. The system they developed as a result of the greatest Divinely inspired creative process went down in history as the first written literary Slavic language, which was intended for the needs of the Christian cult, and above all for the translation of Greek liturgical books. Despite the fact that it is based on the South Slavic dialect of the city of Thessaloniki - the birthplace of Cyril and Methodius (which is why they are called the Thessalonica brothers), the Old Church Slavonic language was never used as a means of live, everyday communication, but was originally conceived as a bookish, literary, written language. Moreover, it was not an indicator of nationality. This system accepted the medieval Slavic peoples of Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe. Old Church Slavonic is a language of translations from Greek, which by the 9th century had a thousand years of literary development. And the first bookish and literary Slavic language fully reflected the achievements of this ancient classical language, especially in the field of artistic means and vocabulary. Large quantity Greekisms entered the Old Church Slavonic language in different ways, and later into Russian: angel, grace, dialectics, icon, enlightenment, and many others. Hence, distinctive features From the very beginning, the language in question was supra-dialectal, international, processed, and had only a written form. In addition, the Old Church Slavonic language is characterized by structural homogeneity, which is apparently explained by the preservation in it of the phonetic and morphological features of the Proto-Slavic language, as well as the conservatism of its functions - a written medium that ensures the dissemination of authoritative religious texts. The difficulty of studying the Old Church Slavonic language is as follows: the very first translations made directly by Cyril and Methodius have not survived. Science has only lists (copies) of them or new translations made in the 10th-11th centuries following the example of the oldest ones. Of course, the existing texts deviate to one degree or another from the original, “model” system, but the deviations are generally insignificant, therefore the language of later monuments is conventionally considered as Old Church Slavonic. However, there are very few such sources - about 20. Analyzing them, Slavists encountered another problem: these texts are written using two alphabets - Cyrillic and Glagolitic, which are very different from each other. So, for example, the Zograf, Mariinsky, Assemani Gospels, the Rila and Ohrid leaves are Glagolitic, and the Suprasl manuscript, the Book of Savvina, the Enin Apostle, the inscriptions on stone slabs are Cyrillic. There is a whole system of terms to designate the analyzed language, reflecting, among other things, its changing sociocultural status and the state of Slavic science. Definition Slavic language- the most obvious and says almost nothing about the specifics of the system under consideration, because it marks it only from the point of view of existence among the Slavic peoples. Under pan-Slavic language here refers to a single literary language widespread throughout Slavia. The term Old Slavic language establishes continuity with other Slavic languages that arose after the 9th century. Designation Church Slavonic language emphasizes the prophetic, sacred status of the language, completely ignoring that the Thessalonica brothers and their followers created the language of not only religion, but science and philosophy (one can recall at least the treatise “on writing” by the monk Khrabra, which sets out the facts related to the creation of Slavic writing ). Combination Old Church Slavonic language separates the original system from later ones (see below). The most controversial terms Old Bulgarian, old Bulgarian , which focuses unjustifiably much attention on the fact that the Solunsky dialect, whose speakers were Cyril and Methodius, is part of the Old Bulgarian language, that the main preparatory work (creation of the alphabet, development of translation mechanisms, etc.) was carried out before the missionary trip to Moravia and that Finally, the flourishing of the first literary language of all Slavs is associated with the reign of the Bulgarian kings Boris and Simeon. In addition, the foundations of the ancient, old, imply that the modern Bulgarian language somehow has its direct source from the system developed by Cyril and Methodius, which, of course, is not true. The most widely used term in modern linguistics is the Old Church Slavonic language. It would seem that it is no different from the combination of the Old Slavic language.
However, there is one subtle semantic nuance here that is of fundamental importance.
The adjective old has the meaning “previous, not now appeared, was in use,” and the word ancient means “existed in the distant past, occurring in early historical eras.” This lexical-semantic variant indicates that the phenomenon undergoes a certain development, has phases at different times (and the old one is just one of the stages of the ancient).
Periodization of the first literary language of all Slavic peoples is hardly advisable. Based on such semasiological and derivational analysis, one should, on the contrary, recognize the correctness and convenience of the term Old Russian language (see below). Consequently, all of these definitions differently characterize the origin, initial localization, structure, functions, and evolution of the language in question. However, the most adequate, reflecting the nature of the language being studied, as well as its relationship with subsequent languages, should be recognized as the term Old Church Slavonic language.
The Old Church Slavonic language ceased to exist at the end of the 10th century, when writing and culture in the South Slavic territories experienced a period of decline. This language, within the framework of scientific and pragmatic classifications, is considered dead on the basis that it currently does not function either in written or oral form and is not used in any of the material spheres.
Created for the needs of Orthodoxy and extremely close to existing oral systems, the Old Church Slavonic language quickly spread among the Slavic peoples. Under the influence of living local speech, it acquires features that are individually characteristic of different languages. Already the earliest monuments of the 10th-11th centuries reflect features characteristic of the speech of scribes. Over time, for each of the Slavic Orthodox peoples, the confessional language began to appear in a local edition, variant, or edition. Thus, the Old Church Slavonic language of the Bulgarian-Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, Czech Moravian editions developed. It is quite natural that the large-scale Christianization of Rus' at the end of the 10th century led to the emergence of the Old Slavonic language of the Russian (East Slavic) translation), otherwise called the Church Slavonic language. Unlike Old Church Slavonic, that is, conventionally Old Church Slavonic, it can be qualified as a New Church Slavonic language, but this term is rarely used in scientific use. The oldest monuments of the Church Slavonic language include the Ostromir Gospel of 1056-1057, the Kupriyanovsky (Novgorod) leaves, the Novgorod Service Menaions, the Evgenievskaya Psalter. Its Russian version is distinguished from the “model” Old Church Slavonic language by phonetics (loss of nasal vowels, frequent cases of full vowel, hard sound [zh] instead of soft [zh,d,], etc.), graphics (absence of most iotated letters, etc.) , grammatical structure (syncretism of paradigms, modification of syntactic structures, etc.), an extensive system of diacritics, a set of spelling instructions, etc.
During the XI-XVII centuries, that is, in the pre-national period, Church Slavonic, like its ancestor, acted in Rus' as a written, literary language, having a huge and fruitful impact on the development of the Russian language itself. This means that the Church Slavonic language was standardized, codified, multifunctional and stylistically differentiated. It is customary to date the beginning of the modern Church Slavonic language to the 17th century. Then - under Patriarch Nikon - a new translation of the main liturgical books was carried out, the main spelling rules and the grammatical system was codified. In the 18th century, the Church Slavonic language lost its status as a literary language - this role is now played by the Russian language. The Church Slavonic language has only one, original function, which it still performs today - to be the language of worship and liturgical literature. For the authenticity of the picture, it is necessary to mention that since the late 80s of the 20th century, large number publishing houses that, among other things, publish books in Church Slavonic belonging to different editions and linguistic traditions. In addition, recently, against the backdrop of low Church Slavonic literacy, long-standing debates about replacing the liturgical language with Russian have flared up with renewed vigor. These facts provide grounds for moving the boundaries of the modern Church Slavonic language several centuries forward - to the turn of the 20th-19th centuries.
Of course, in addition to the bookish - written language, in Rus' there was also an oral - spoken language of a single common East Slavic nationality, which originated in the 7th-8th centuries. Then language picture was distinguished by its extraordinary dialect diversity. However, later, in the 10th-19th centuries - during the period of Kievan Rus, a standard language - Koine - crystallized from this diversity, that is, a functional linguistic type that is used as the main means of communication with a wide range of communicative spheres in conditions of stable interaction between speakers of different dialects . It had a fairly wide range of public application: the public sphere (messages, reports, princely decrees, international treaties), legal practice (records court decisions), public speeches (speeches of princes, governors, ambassadors), folklore. However, over time, Koine retains only the function of everyday communication, transferring the remaining roles to book-written and business language.
Thus, the organic combination of two elements - oral-conversational and book-Slavic, constitutes Old Russian, or Common East Slavic language(the first term appears in scientific publications much more often than the second). The indicated intralingual types differed in any case according to the following characteristics: lexical and phraseological composition (primordial Russianisms and Old Church Slavonicisms); word usage (direct and figurative meanings); specificity of the text structure (simplified syntax and constructions based on ancient Greek patterns); a set of artistic and expressive means (uncomplicated, pragmatically determined language and an abundance of rhetorical figures); communication areas (everyday communication and written practice).
During feudal fragmentation, after the collapse of Kievan Rus, on its territory, from a single ancient Russian (common East Slavic) nationality, three separate nationalities began to form - Russian (Great Russian), Ukrainian and Belarusian, which was closely associated with the formation of new state associations, among which the greatest authority gained over time Principality of Moscow. The listed circumstances, as well as multi-stage changes associated mainly with the active development of the oral-conversational type of language, led to the emergence of new linguistic communities in the XIV-XV centuries - Old Russian, Old Belarusian and Old Ukrainian languages.
And finally, in the 17th century, all the necessary socio-political conditions developed for the formation of three independent nations (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian), and therefore for the formation of three independent national languages- Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian, which, having gone through a centuries-long path of development, continue to perform their functions to the present day...
ABSTRACT
Moscow 2017
Proto-Slavic
, or period common Slavic language-base
East Slavic period.
East Slavic
Old Russian period.
Old Russian Kiev Koine
ABSTRACT
In the discipline "Introduction to linguistics"
"Russian language from the ancient Slavs to the present day"
Moscow 2017
The Russian language belongs to the Slavic branch of the Indo-European family of languages. The collapse of the Indo-European community led to the formation of several related languages, such as Latin, Greek, Germanic languages (German, English, etc.), Iranian languages (Persian, Ossetian, etc.), etc.
Pre-Slavic, or common Slavic period.
According to linguists, at the beginning of the 3rd millennium
BC e. there was a separation of the Slavic language (or rather, a group of tribes who spoke similar dialects, forming the Slavic language). This period is called Proto-Slavic
, or period common Slavic language-base
, and it ended, presumably, in the middle of the 1st millennium AD,
since it was at this time that linguistic features appeared that contrasted 3 groups of Slavs with each other: eastern, western and southern. The early pan-Slavic period covers a longer period, which lasts about two and a half thousand years. The Proto-Slavs lived very compactly at this time and spoke a single language. All linguistic processes that took place in their language were the same. In connection with the great migration of peoples and the settlement of the Slavs to the west and southwest, territorial unity was disrupted, and with it it split into three language groups and Proto-Slavic language. Unified linguistic processes that originated in the depths of the base language now receive different reflexes. Time from VI to IX centuries. AD It is customary to call it the late pan-Slavic period. During this period, features emerged that radically distinguished the East Slavic languages from the West Slavic and South Slavic languages.
Despite the fact that the Proto-Slavic language is relatively young, not a single text written in it has been found. Thanks to a comparative analysis of Slavic and Indo-European languages, the Proto-Slavic language was artificially reconstructed by scientists. Now knowledge about the Proto-Slavic language represents a strict system of archetypes - hypothetically (that is, not absolutely reliably) derived language forms that underwent further phonetic and grammatical changes in accordance with the linguistic laws and patterns that were in effect at different times. Proto-Slavic forms are written in Latin letters and placed under an asterisk (asterix) - *. The main method of their restoration is the analysis of regular correspondences in closely related (Slavic) and other Indo-European languages (mainly those that have a centuries-old history - Latin, Greek, Lithuanian, Gothic, etc.). Significant results are also obtained by comparing words with the same root and etymologically similar words within one language.
East Slavic period.
From about the 6th century. AD begins East Slavic period of development of our language. The East Slavic community was formed by the tribes of Slovenians, Krivichi, Vyatichi, Radimichi, Dregovichi, Polyans, Drevlyans, Ulichs, Tivertsi, Dulebs, Croats (according to the Tale of Bygone Years), who spoke similar dialects and united around two large centers - Kyiv in the south and Novgorod in the north. They spoke common East Slavic or, as it is also called, Old Russian language, descended from a single Proto-Slavic language. The definition of “Old Russian” is very arbitrary; a single language could not exist in such a large space, although representatives of various East Slavic tribes understood each other. The tribal dialects that formed the basis of the Old Russian language were formed as a result of close interaction with the languages of various peoples who inhabited the territories developed by the Eastern Slavs, both friendly and competing - Germanic, Finnish, Celtic, Turkic, Scythian and Sarmatian tribes. Even at an early stage of its development, the Russian language showed amazing flexibility, the ability to combine and assimilate various cultural traditions. It is interesting that even the disputes among scientists around the ethnonym “Rus” itself reflect the historically established mosaic of peoples and tribes whose cultures the Russian language has absorbed. There are versions about the Slavic etymology of the word “Rus”, about its origin from the name of the mythical tribe Ros, mentioned among biblical prophet Ezekiel, or from the name of the ancient Iranian-speaking people Roxolans 1. There are also hypotheses about the Finnish, Khazar, Gothic, Georgian origins of this word, and many other theories, which often involve mysterious and little-studied tribes. By the end of this period (IX century AD), tribal names disappear, and a single Old Russian language begins to form.
Old Russian period.
The next stage of development is called Old Russian (from the 9th to the 14th centuries). At this time, old tribal dialects disappear and new ones are formed: Novgorod-Pskov, Ryazan, Smolensk, Rostov-Suzdal. For the first time on the territory of the Eastern Slavs, an urban Kiev Koine- the spoken language of Kyiv, formed by mixing different dialect features 2. During this period, written culture spread widely in Rus', original Slavic works were created, and Byzantine (Greek) books were translated.
1 Vinogradov V.V. The main problems of studying the education and development of the Old Russian literary language / V.V. Vinogradov; Soviet Committee of Slavists. - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1958. - 138 p. - (4th International Congress of Slavists. Reports).
2 Vinokur G. O. History of the Russian literary language / G. O. Vinokur. - M.: LIBROKOM, 2010. - 184 p.
Not only church leaders and princes are literate, but also ordinary townspeople and even young women (inconceivable for medieval Europe situation: in those days, some European kings were illiterate). By the standards of that time, Kievan Rus was a huge state, and therefore difficult to govern. As a result, the collapse of a single state began, a period of so-called feudal fragmentation. Political life moved from Kyiv to the north, to local cities - Vladimir, Suzdal, etc. In the language, dialectal features became more sharply defined, the development of which led to the formation independent languages, and by the 14th century. 3 East Slavic nationalities emerged: Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Some of the Eastern Slavs ended up on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which also contributed to the process of stratification.
Slavic languages go back to one source. This common Slavic ancestor language is conventionally called Proto-Slavic; conditionally because it is unknown what the people who spoke this language called themselves in ancient times.
Although the Proto-Slavic language existed for a very long time and no written texts remain from it, nevertheless we have a fairly complete understanding of it. We know how its sound structure developed, we know its morphology and the basic fund of vocabulary, which is inherited from Proto-Slavic by all Slavic languages. Our knowledge is based on the results of the comparative historical study of Slavic languages: it allows us to restore the original appearance (protoform) of each linguistic fact under study. The reality of the restored (original) Proto-Slavic form can be verified and clarified by the testimony of other Indo-European languages. Correspondences to Slavic words and forms are found especially often in Baltic languages, for example in Lithuanian. This can be illustrated by roots, which include combinations of sounds that changed differently in different Slavic languages after the collapse of Proto-Slavic, but remained unchanged in the Lithuanian language.
Many words are common to all Slavic languages, therefore, they were already known to the Proto-Slavic language. The ancestral form common to them has undergone different changes in different Slavic languages; and the design of these words in Lithuanian (and in other Indo-European languages) suggests that originally the vowel was in all roots before I or g. In the Proto-Slavic language, the roots of these words were supposed to sound: *bolt-o from the earlier *ba° lt-"a°n, *golv-a, *kolt-iti, *vort-a, *gord-b, *korva. The established relationships allow us to formulate a historical-phonetic law, according to which it is possible in all other similar cases reconstruct (presumably restore) the original ancestral form: Russian norov, Bulgarian moral, etc. provide the basis for the reconstruction of Proto-Slavic *pogu-ъ (compare Lithuanian narv-ytis - “to be stubborn”), peas, grakh and etc. - Proto-Slavic *gorx-b (compare Lithuanian garb "a - type of grass), etc. It is in this way that the appearance of the collapsed Proto-Slavic language is restored.
We can talk about Proto-Slavic as a unique Indo-European language insofar as it is characterized by a complex of features that are unique to it and combined with a series of features that are, to one degree or another, known to other languages of Europe and South Asia.
At some stage of their life, a group of European tribes speaking dialects close to the ancient Baltic, Iranian, Balkan, Germanic, united into a sufficiently strong alliance, within which, for a long time, there was a convergence (levelling, alignment) of dialects, necessary for the development of mutual understanding between members of the tribal union. It can be assumed that in the 1st millennium BC. e. An Indo-European language already existed, characterized by features that were subsequently known only to Slavic languages, which allows us, modern researchers, to call it Proto-Slavic.
The originality of the Proto-Slavic language is largely explained by the fact that its historical changes were determined by development trends inherent only to it. The most common of them was the tendency towards syllabification of speech. At the late stage of development of the Proto-Slavic language, a uniform structure of syllables was formed, which led to the restructuring of the previous syllables in such a way that they all ended in vowels.
Proto-Slavic language existed until the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e., when the tribes who spoke it, having settled over vast territories of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, began to lose contact with each other. The language of each of the isolated groups of tribes continued to develop in isolation from the others, acquiring new sound, grammatical and lexical features. This is the usual way of forming “related” languages from a single source language (proto-language), noted by F. Engels, who wrote: “Tribes, dismembered, turn into peoples, into whole groups of tribes... languages change , becoming not only mutually incomprehensible, but also losing almost every trace of the original unity.” Quote Based on the book: Kodukhov V.I. Introduction to linguistics. M., 1987, p. 98.
Target: reveal the historical path of development of the language of the Slavs of the Indo-European and Proto-Slavic periods .
Key words: Indo-European language, Proto-Slavic language, archetype, asterisk, Balto-Slavic relations, comparative historical method, reconstruction, proto-language.
Questions:
Indo-European proto-language.
Graphic apparatus of Proto-Slavic reconstruction.
Equipment: Table “Proto-Slavic transcription”
Indo-European proto-language.
The kinship of Indo-European languages is a precisely established fact by science. Another thing is how to understand this relationship. According to A. Schleicher or I. Schmid? In the 19th century most scientists perceived the Indo-European proto-language as a real language that was once spoken by our distant ancestors. That is why the main goal of Indo-European studies was the reconstruction of the ancient proto-language in its entirety and in all its details.
Gradually, scientists began to doubt the absolute reality of their reconstructions, and an understanding came of the relativity of knowledge obtained by comparing languages attested by history. The crisis was expressed in the fact that the Indo-European language began to be considered not a real language, but only a convenient scientific form used when comparing related languages.
One of the leading Indo-Europeanists of the first third of the twentieth century expressed skepticism about the possibility of restoring the proto-language. – Meillet (1866 – 1936): “the comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages is in the same position as the comparative grammar of the Romance languages would have been in if Latin had not been known; the only reality it deals with is the correspondences between attested languages. Correspondences presuppose a common ground, but this common ground can only be imagined by hypotheses that cannot be tested; therefore, correspondences alone constitute the object of science... The Indo-European language cannot be restored.”
Thus, the kinship of Indo-European languages is provable and real, but the restoration of the Indo-European proto-language is impossible. N. S. Trubetskoy was even more skeptical about the reality of the Indo-European language: “... the assumption of a single Indo-European proto-language cannot be considered completely impossible. However, it is by no means absolutely necessary, and one can do just fine without it.” In fact, N. S. Trubetskoy is inclined to I. Schmid’s scheme, the similarity of Indo-European languages is explained not by their kinship (origin from the same language), but by their kinship (residence in adjacent territories).
The most critical statements regarding the theory of the Indo-European proto-language were expressed by N. Ya. Marr, who generally refused to recognize in one form or another the existence of the Indo-European community, considering the Indo-European languages to be an invention of “bourgeois scientists”. The matter was further complicated by the fact that Indo-European studies was held in high esteem by the scientists of Nazi Germany, who, using the misunderstood methods of this science, drew conclusions about the usefulness or inferiority of certain peoples. A racial criterion was imposed on linguistics.
After the Second World War, there were no ideological reasons left for which comparative historical linguistics, including Indo-European studies, could be traced. It is gradually being revived in our country, while scientists are increasingly taking the position of A. Schleicher rather than I. Schmid.
Proto-Slavic language and its chronological characteristics.
In the III-II millennia BC. e. the collapse of the ancient European community occurs. Branches are formed individual Indo-European languages in Europe. A Slavic linguistic community also emerges, i.e. Proto-Slavic language. Therefore, it is possible to reconstruct the Proto-Slavic language in more detail. However, the Proto-Indo-European language, the Proto-Slavic language, is also the result of reconstruction, therefore the Proto-Slavic forms are usually written “under an asterisk”.
Throughout its existence, the Proto-Slavic language changed, so its linguistic properties are different stages existences were different. It is usually customary to distinguish three main periods in its history.
Proto-Slavic is a Slavic language that can be considered a dialect of late Indo-European;
Early Proto-Slavic is a Proto-Slavic language, still devoid of clear dialectal features;
Late Proto-Slavic is a language already heavily fragmented into dialects, which is at the stage of transition to specific Slavic languages.
It is clear that it is difficult to draw clear boundaries.
We first obtain information about the Proto-Slavic language by comparing Slavic languages with each other, and also by comparison with other related Indo-European languages. Those facts that are attested by various Slavic languages may reflect ancient Slavic phenomena, especially if this is confirmed by phenomena in other Indo-European languages. For example, Russian and Belarusian e in a word summer and similar in Ukrainian corresponds to I(liThat), in Bulgarian- a (lyato), in Polish too (lato), stands e or O: rus. and Ukrainian lake, Polish jezioro, Bulgarian ezero etc. From here in the part of Slavic languages in sound e, there were two different Proto-Slavic phonemes * e And *e, comparison with other Indo-European languages confirms this assumption, since in place *e there a short vowel or its current reflection (reflex) appears, and in place *e- long vowel or its reflex.
The Proto-Slavic language was not recorded in writing. The monuments of the first Slavic written language, Old Slavic, reflected many features of the sound and especially grammatical structure of the Proto-Slavic language of the late period of its existence, although some linguistic phenomena in Old Slavic do not coincide with Proto-Slavic: from the time of settlement of the Slavs and the collapse of the Proto-Slavic language (mid-1st millennium AD .) several centuries passed before the emergence of the Old Church Slavonic language (11th century) and the creation of written monuments that have reached us.
Periodization of the Proto-Slavic language.
|
Sub-period |
Chronology |
Characteristic |
|
|
Proto-Slavic |
Balto-Slavic |
III-II millennium BC e. |
A period of slight intimacy between the Balts and Slavs |
|
Actually Proto-Slavic |
II millennium BC e. – beginning of AD |
The period of existence of the Balto-Slavic isogloss region |
|
|
Early Proto-Slavic |
Beginning of AD – VI century n. e. |
The period of the most dynamic transformations in the structure of the Proto-Slavic language |
|
|
Late Proto-Slavic |
Actually Proto-Slavic |
VII–IX centuries n. e. |
Prerequisites for the separate existence of Slavic languages |
|
Old Slavic |
X – XII centuries. AD |
The gradual formation of individual Slavic languages while maintaining unity, strengthened by the Church Slavonic language common to the majority of Slavs |
Problems of Balto-Slavic relations.
Proto-Slavic phenomena combine Slavic languages with Baltic and Iranian. There is still an ongoing debate in science regarding the nature of Balto-Slavic linguistic relations. It is indisputable that the Baltic and Slavs were neighbors for a long time. Slavic and Baltic languages have much in common, both in grammar and vocabulary. Moreover, the Baltic languages look extremely archaic against the background of the Slavic ones; sometimes one may get the impression that, for example, the Lithuanian language is almost Proto-Slavic, although this, of course, is not the case. Nevertheless, there are still many convergences. In addition to the fact that phonetic processes similar to those of the Proto-Slavic language occurred in the Baltic languages, many similarities are observed in morphology and vocabulary.
To show the special closeness between the Slavic and Baltic languages at the lexical level, we will select a group of words from the main lexical fund and check how it is represented in the Slavic, Baltic, and Germanic languages. The Germanic language was chosen third, because the Slavs already in ancient times had contact with both the Baltic people and the Germanic people. For purely geographical reasons, the proximity between the Slavic and Germanic languages should be no less than between the Slavic and Baltic languages, but the linguistic material provides a ratio that demonstrates the special closeness of the Slavic and Baltic languages.
Let's consider words denoting parts of the body: eyebrow, hair, eye, lip, stomach, knee, fist, face, elbow, leg, nose, shoulder, hand, ear, neck, cheek. Not all words in the list are common Slavic. In this regard, we are now interested in the Russian language as a representative of the Slavic languages; we need to eliminate or replace with others those words from the list that are not common Slavic. It is curious that these are precisely the words that do not find a counterpart in other Indo-European languages.
The word eyes is not found in other Slavic languages, and even in the Russian language in its modern meaning it was noted only from the end of the 16th century. Where it comes from in Russian in terms of origin is unknown. The original Russians used the word to denote the eye eye, which today we perceive as outdated. Exactly the word eye known to all Slavic languages.
Word fist in the meaning of “clasped hand” is found only in the East Slavic languages (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian) and Polish, where it was borrowed. In Turkish there is a word kol, which means “hand”, and this is the source of our word. Thus, the East Slavic material does not give us the opportunity to establish the degree of proximity of the Slavic languages to the Baltic and Germanic. If we nevertheless take the word for comparison fist, then we will determine the degree of closeness of the Baltic and Germanic languages to the Turkic languages, which, naturally, is not part of our tasks.
Significant similarities between the Slavic and Baltic languages can be traced in many other cases. Based on similar facts, many scientists (for example, A. Schleicher, A.A. Shakhmatov, etc.) believed that the Slavs and the Baltic people, after being separated from the Proto-Indo-European community (more precisely, from the ancient European community), represented one people and only much later did their separation occur. “The comparative study of Indo-European languages proves the special closeness between the Slavic and Baltic languages. This closeness cannot be accidental and cannot depend only on their common origin from the Indo-European proto-language: in the Baltic and Slavic languages a number of general relationship, and these common deviations indicate their common life in an era when they had already separated from the rest of the Indo-European languages.
Questions for self-control:
How do Indo-European and Proto-Slavic languages differ from each other?
Indicate the time of the appearance of the Proto-Slavic language.
What are the periods in the Proto-Slavic language?
Describe graphics system Proto-Slavic language.
Adlivankin S. Yu. Proto-Slavic language [Text]: textbook / S. Yu. Adlivankin; S. Yu. Adlivankin, V. A. Mishlanov, I. A. Frolova. - Perm, 2007. - 159 p.
Bernstein S.B. Comparative grammar of Slavic languages [Text]: textbook / S.B. Bernstein.- 2nd ed.: Moscow State University, Science, 2009.- (Classical university textbook).
Grutso A.P. Old Church Slavonic language [Text]: textbook / A.P. Grutso, 2007.
Culture of the Slavs and Rus' [Text]: textbook, 2008.
Mineralov Yu.I. Introduction to Slavic philology [Text]: textbook / Yu.I. Minerals.- M.: Vyssh. school, 2009.- 320 p.
Selishchev A. M. Introduction to the comparative grammar of Slavic languages [Text]: monograph / A. M. Selishchev. - M.: Komkniga, 2010. - 128 p.
Sokolyansky A.A. Introduction to Slavic philology [Text]: textbook / A.A. Sokolyansky.- M.: Academy, 2007.- 398 p.
Suprun A.E. Introduction to Slavic philology [Text]: textbook / A.E. Suprun. - 2nd ed., revised - Minsk: Higher. school, 2009.- 480 p.
