Comparative-historical study of languages in general, uses a variety of special techniques-techniques. It seems appropriate in this general complex system of scientific methods of comparative-historical research, not forgetting about its integrity, provide separate special tricks for closer consideration.
Comparative-historical method will make and unrelated languages, unless they are still genetically identical units. For example, this method is applicable to a joint study of the German language and zapadnofinskih as words such as Finnish. kuningas, rengas, kultaHT.n., historically, respectively identical DVN. kuning, yes. cyning, Disley. hringr, DVN. and yes. bring, of gul, Disley. gull, DVN. and yes. gold and so on. etc .: Here you can not only simple comparison, but recovery on the basis of comparison.
However, the greatest value of the comparative-historical method has been known to the study of related languages here — the main area of application. In order to really understand why this is so, it is necessary to better define the essence of «kinship of languages.»
The expression «affinity of languages» is widely used by linguists. However, not all put into it the same concept and not always appropriate term is sufficiently certain. Especially great confusion in the understanding of the relationship of languages made marrovskoe «new doctrine» with its theory of the formation of kinship as a result of cross-breeding, «similarities» and «recessional» transformation.
In order to achieve clarity as to the relationship of languages, it is first necessary to distinguish clearly two points: 1) the relationship of these languages as such and 2) the actual similarities between the languages.
Kinship languages
Kinship language is a historical fact of their origin from one language. But what does «the origin of one language»? To answer this question is to find out what «the same, the same language», ie. E. Generally define the concept of the identity of the language.
The identity of the language to be understood well.
Language, as we know, can be quite heterogeneous, dialectic is fragmented, specialized in various fields of application, and yet it is the same language as long as the different variants or species will be live interaction and act together as a means of communication, serving one continuous chain of communication within a given society. In this reaction occurs inevitably certain identification, at least partly different, the language units. For example, when interdialect communication word X in the dialect, and the relevant X into neighboring dialect B inevitably identified with each other to function as a unit, as one and the same word (only dialectal modified; for example, he and Yong, mushroom and gryb towel neuter. masculine and towels, etc.). Even a completely different word (for example, Veres — juniper) act with the most similar synonyms within a language, and not as a multilingual word, as they are embedded in a mass of words being identified. In this way, the dialects of one language does not constitute the sum and unity, which manifested the identity of the language, even with its considerable diversity.
The discrepancy between the individual species, for example, between the dialects of one language may, under certain conditions to be so large that these varieties (dialects) are mutually unintelligible. However, if such dialects, for example, A and D, are actually dialects — varieties of the same language, they will be part of this unity as related to each other certain intermediates, dialects B, C and D, since every two related dialect, A and B, B and C, and D, D and E, are interrelated and interact in interdialect communication. If conditionally accept that the discrepancy between the neighboring dialects may not exceed a certain value d, the difference between the A and D can not exceed 4d, t. E. It is still limited, although A and D, and are mutually incomprehensible. The discrepancy between the different languages can be, in principle, arbitrarily large.
What has been said here about the unity of dialects as amended relates generally to the unity of the different options (species) of the language, the identity of language in its various modifications. Consider all possible cases of the relationship between variants of the same language is not necessary, as there is important to emphasize a distinction between identity and uniformity of language. The fact that language is never quite the same, absolutely is uniform throughout its area of use, as is well known, led neogrammarians and their students to deeply erroneous assertion that the only true reality is, after all, the language of the individual.
Such a profound misunderstanding of the social nature of language, how easily it can be seen, is closely connected with the confusion of identity of language and its consistency: the fact of the lack of complete uniformity of language was done on the basis of erroneous philosophical concepts, false conclusion about the absence of a single language of society, a «fictitious» such language.
Strictly distinguishing the identity and uniformity of language is necessary, however, to draw attention to the fact that the first is still necessarily presupposes a certain, albeit relative uniformity, since without a certain similarity between the language variants may not be using them in a single, inseparable network communication as the primary means of communication. However, the communication itself supports the necessary relative uniformity of language, corresponding to the possible relationship of communication that have been established in the present historical conditions. But as the changes in the communication is often relatively quickly, the structure of the language is changed relatively slowly, the degree of uniformity of language is often largely reflects the historical conditions that define the communication, which have been in the past (compare, for example, long-term preservation of dialect differences, reflecting the already vanished feudal fragmentation of society).
Communication takes place, it is clear not only between members of the same generation, but also between generations, and thus carried out the transfer of the same language from generation to generation. If such transfer is ongoing, we have a tradition of language and its historical identity for a number of eras — with all its changes in the course of its historical development. Historical identity and language can be a very large difference between one language and another language, distant from her era. For modern English, although it is different from the Old about nothing less than the modern German, yet it is historically the same language, the language «Anglo-Saxon Chronicle» 9 -10 centuries, it is associated with a continuous thread tradition throughout the millennial way of this development was no «explosion» and there was no replacement of one language by another.
If, then, the two languages that were identical all the time myself, find themselves in the past, identical to each other, ie. E. Without interruption traditions date back to the same language, they are genetically identical, the language related.
Kinship languages, so there is their genetic identity, t. E. A historical fact, the essence of which is determined by the historical identity of each of these languages in their separate identity and each other at some point in their past history. Just as a person born in this city, is a native of this city, wherever he moved, the language, which is a new stage of development of some of the ancient language, is related to all the other languages, going back to this ancient language, and forms with them a family (branch group) language as he time nor changed, unless all it was not superseded by any other language, t. e. no longer be used as an important means of communication. Greater or lesser similarities between related languages there is not the essence of the relationship, but it must be a manifestation and expression, on the basis of which the relationship can be ascertained.
The actual similarities between languages can not be based on their genetic identity, t. E. Not related. Many similar and common elements in the composition and order (e.g., in the derivation, syntax) could be based on the borrowing and parallel neoplasms. Similarity and generality of this type do not form a relationship: relationship, as already stated, can not be created by the «convergence». The crossing of the two languages, as pointed out by Stalin, does not allow any third language. And it does not lead to the establishment of relationship between languages and crossed by the linguistic groups to which they belonged. For example, the crossing of the English language 11 — 12 centuries, with the Norman-French of the era did not lead to the formation of a new relationship between the English and the French, and thus between the Germanic and Romance languages, as a result of this cross has not received any new «German-Romanesque» language. The English language was English, belonging to the German group of languages, although he is very much enriched by the French elements.
Thus, the similarity between the actual language itself has no affinity languages, because it is not their identity in the past. But its origin is a similarity may be based, and often is actually based on kinship. At the same time, however, it is often determined by other circumstances and different historical development of these languages. And all it turns out that the similarities, based on kinship, in general, substantially different from the elements of similarity having any other base (borrowing etc.).
From all this it is clear why the most important area of application of comparative-historical method is exactly the scope of the total in different languages, which is not based on borrowing, not crossed, and their relationship. In the history of this total is shown on the teachings of Stalin, the history of the very basis of each of the language, the history of what constitutes the essence of his identity. Here we are dealing with the sort of pivot around which grew each of these related languages. After basic vocabulary in every epoch the development of language served as the base for the formation of new words, because it is based on assimilated and borrowing. After grammar throughout the history of the language set in motion vocabulary of «building material», anyway covers all existing, newly formed and borrowed words. All units of the structure of language passed down from generation to generation, not individually, but as part of a general system of language within it and with it, because this system is continuously manifested in coherent speech: in a word, with a history of these units (ie. E. Units common kindred languages, precisely because of their relationship) connected to the tradition of these languages as such, t. e. as the entire system are at any given moment the most important means of communication in the respective society. Other units of the general anyhow appear, at least one of two compared languages, namely as individual units, one vkraplivayas the overall system and assimilated by its structure.
Thus, the study was originally common units in related languages is very important not only in terms of the history of these specific languages, but also in terms of obscheyazykovedcheskoy. Such a study of the value of linguistic affinity is largely based on the fact that the study of related material we have to deal with the development of age-old one and the same in part similar, partly different historical conditions. In this regard, there are favorable conditions for the precise formulation and solution of such an important issue as the issue of the general laws of the parallel changes and, conversely, the differentiation of individual languages in connection with the presence of both the same and different moments in the concrete history of nations — speakers of these languages .
PRINCIPLES motivated and unmotivated
Genetically identical units can be different units in the composition and the structure of tongue, in particular, also the audio unit matter of language — the individual sounds (phonemes). So, with Slavic (s) may be genetically identical to the German h. Comparative Grammar, as we know, constantly has to deal with the genetic identity of individual sounds, and this may give the impression that the genetic identity of sounds established itself as such.
Meanwhile, establishing this identity as such is not possible. You can not, for example, to find out what genetic matches glories, with (s) in other Indo-European languages, if you compare only the sounds of the language as such.
Historical comparison of sounds possible only if the comparison meaningful linguistic units, t. E. The real units of language, units of bilateral, with both external audio and internal, meaning the side. Consequently, the historical comparison of sounds possible only through comparison of such units as a word or morpheme. So, Slavic with (s) may historically be compared with the German h in just by comparing, for example, Old Slavic word srdtse, Russian heart, the German Herz, etc., and only on the basis of this comparison as much as meaningful units established the possibility of the genetic identity of the Slavic with the (s) and German h.
The need for comparisons is significant linguistic units follows from the fact that in general the very possibility of restoring the comparative historical method based on the principle of conditionality, or unmotivated, the relationship between sound and meaning. After all, it is thanks to this connection, unmotivated coincidence famous sound similarity, or rather, the sound similarity, multilingual data units with the same or the proximity of their values can serve as a serious indication of the genetic identity of the units in the real total of their origin. If you do not accept these instructions, it is necessary to recognize an accident of such a coincidence. If an accident is absolutely incredible coincidence, is thereby established with certainty the identity of the genetic data of linguistic units. Therefore, evidence of the latter is, in fact, a reasonable statement of the impossibility of accidental coincidence of the sound similarity and semantic proximity and such a statement, it is clear in general can take place only if both the sound and the value t. E. In the comparison is meaningful units.
Speaking of the principle unmotivated (conventions) between sound and meaning, it should also be remembered that even in the language and other acts, the opposite principle — the principle of conditionality, motivation of such a connection. The language can exist and develop only if the combination of these two opposing principles.
The principle motivation of the relationship between sound and meaning, which is meant here is that the connection of the individual sounds assumes rational compound corresponding to these sound values, and vice versa: for a rational connection requires a connection to the corresponding values of sounds. This means that sound complicated by value segment of speech and complex unit of language is motivated by what the individual values expressed in this segment or in this one, and the selection of individual components of the value in the total value of such a segment of speech or a unit of language is motivated by any meaningful sound pieces are marked in the sound of it all whole.
Unmotivated principle (conventions) is, therefore, a simple, undecomposed or sufficiently isolated, idiomatically formed units. In complex as education has been the principle of motivation — along, of course, with the first principle, because of the complex formations include simple unit. In addition, it is necessary to bear in mind that various transitional and mixed cases and how conditionality and communication motivation and sound values can only be relative. Every time idiomaticity complex formation limits the motivation of its structure and can reduce it to nothing.
In general, the relationship between the convention and motivating communication sound and meaning is that as the basic unit, which can advantageously be dealing comparative-historical method, inevitably acts morpheme: it is in the morpheme principle unmotivated (conventions) is most regularly and fully.
In the formation of the higher order, consisting mostly of two or more morphemes, can often be blended with an element of motivation. Since this item is available, to the extent it can be assumed, independent, parallel education, not genetic identity.
COMPARISON OF SIGNIFICANT Morphy
It goes without saying that the morpheme (which are generally basic units, restores the comparative historical method in their ancient form) does not exist in the language of their own, not as separate pieces, but only as part of words. So first of all in the compared languages are sought appropriate words, and those words are direct objects that are processed comparative historical method.
How relevant are found each other words of different languages?
The starting point should be to recognize the well-known identity or similarity. This attention can attract first or external or internal, semantic, side. The latter path — from the inside to the outside — appears to be generally more common and natural in the first stage of the comparative-historical method.
The search for a word which would correspond to a given word semantically, in many cases is not difficult, because the word originally elected sufficiently clear and certain of its values. There is no example, no doubt that the Slavic word semantically wife meet two gothic words: qino «woman» and qens «wife-husband» (who are directly represented etymologically interconnected at the top).
When semantically identical or sufficiently similar words are found in different languages and compared, then the question has to sound relations between them. If it turns out in this case that the sound of the semantically mapped words in different languages have such a relationship, which can be considered well-known likeness, the comparison can be extended: the coincidence of sound similarity with the same or proximity value indicates the possibility of the genetic identity of these words, or at least root pieces.
But what is required in order that we can talk not only about the opportunities but also the fact of the genetic identity?
It has been said that the reality of the failure to prove the identity of coincidence. And the possibility of accidental coincidence, as you know, is practically excluded, provided that the observed similarity of sound is based on the regular of regular sound correspondences. As long as we are dealing only with the individual units do not form any naturally correlated series accidental coincidences can not be considered an exception.
Examples of random coincidences are well known, particularly in the relations between related languages. So, Russian drafts — in traction, tractor — and the Swedish tag «train» English tug «tug» sufficiently similar to each other in sound and close in value, and it would seem, we can assume here the genetic identity; Meanwhile, there is only a coincidence. The same in the case of Russian yell, cry and Gothic wopjan, English weep (Wed. voice of one crying in the wilderness — was stibna wopjandins in aupidai).
Therefore, each case phono-semantic proximity multilingual units has a certain weight and significance only in the general system of relations, and in terms of this system, it should be considered and evaluated: taken separately, by itself, it does not give anything definite. So, if it is assumed that the Slavic word wife and Gothic qino, qens genetically related to each other (even if only by root), to prove this assumption, you must specify other words, which, at their semantic obedinimosti have the same sound Conformity Slavic Well — Gothic q, and so on. When, for example, we find that the old Slavic word zhrnov, Russian millstone semantically match rotskim qairnus and yet here again observed compliance Slavic letter w — Gothic q, Slav. n — g n, which are marked in the Slavic word zhena- Gothic qino, qens, the assumption of affinity data semantically closer together Gothic and Slavic words were already substantial confirmation as accidental coincidences decreases sharply.
If, then, we find Slavic alive — Gothic qius (wines. Meals. M. P. Qiwana) «alive (oh)», where again there is a correspondence Slavic Well — Gothic q, then confidence in to make a comparison, t. E. that rapprochement on the basis of the semantics of words are genetically related to their roots, it is almost complete.
If comparative-historical study of natural language data is sent from the matching words Near by value, further increasing role is played by a comparison based on certain words sound relations between them, as more and more clarified legitimate sound correspondences. When the sound correspondences are already installed, they can be used as a baseline for comparison of certain words in the language being studied, in order to find further etymological parallels. So if, for example, has established compliance with the German railway Slavic t, of Slavic — German but a Slavic m — w German, the root morpheme, genetically identical with the Slavic -dom- be found in Gothic ga-tamjan «tame» already by sound, not a semantic matching: the path of the value to the sound would have been here more difficult and complex.
It is no coincidence, therefore, that the first stages of the comparative-historical study of languages, in particular, detection of relationship between them, plays an important role mapping of semantically most clearly and certainly brings together words as numerals. Compliance Armenian. erk — Skr. dv, Greek. dF and so could hardly be expected if it does not collide with semantic mapping numerals (arm. erku- Skr. dva (u), Greek. duo, d (F) 5-). The further work on finding a genetically identical units in the languages in which the relationship between the total already identified, mainly conducted on the basis of phonetic matching.
Thus, if the sound correspondences can not be opened directly — without a comparative historical survey of significant items, mainly — morpheme (composed of words), in the future, when such compliance, in the end, based on the study of relations between meaningful units investigated and abstracted from individual cases, knowledge of these matches is a means of determining the relationship between themselves meaningful units (morphemes, words).
The principle of phonetic understandable
Renewable regular sound correspondences should have phonetic explanation. So, enough to indicate that compliance with the Slavic Well — Gothic q has a certain regularity. In order that we may recognize him as a natural, and see in it a real law, we must also ensure that such regular correspondence could really Historically as a result of the same original sound. Only then can the external, formal correspondence Slavic Well — Gothic q we can recognize the manifestation of the true genetic identity: Slavic. w = r q. It should, therefore, be taken with due regard to the principle of phonetic matching understandable observed.
The principle of phonetic explainable require clear specification of the maximum terms set appropriately. For this specification is necessary, in particular, the most comprehensive coverage of the appropriate indications from various languages. For example, given compliance with Slavic, Well — historically, the q gets more specific when it is illuminated by at least a further correspondence from the Greek. b, and g (+ u) and MRS. g and j (Skr. gna- and jani-).
In this particular example, the Slavic. f (g ~. q) is clearly evolved from Mr. resulting in palatalization and assibilizatsii it before palatal vowels (Old Slavic zhrnov unquestionably deducible from earlier zhrnov, Wed Russian millstone). Thus, compliance with the Slavic. Well — q was elevated to a more archaic: Slavic, g — r. q. Gr. b indicates that labializovannost of q, probably not developed in Gothic (and generally in the Germanic languages), and had been in the Indo-European language-based, and this is also confirmed by the fact that in the Gothic in the same situation occurs nelabializovannoe k (Wed Mr. kinnus «cheek»; Mr. kiusan «elect, experience» Greek. geus-tos). Therefore, Slavic, g should be regarded as a rising here to labialized gu, from which phonetically understandable and Greek. b (and g) and MRS. g and j. The same gu, obviously, can ascend and Gothic q, differing from it only in the absence of voice (and, perhaps, have slightly increased the power of articulation). All sound processes that are assumed in this case, are quite natural from the point of view of general phonetics.
However, the analysis of changes in individual sounds should also be covered in terms of specific patterns of development of the sound system of a particular language, as observations indicate that certain changes often affect not individual sounds and their types are known. Thus, in this example, softening (palatalization and assibilizatsiya) Slavic, Gothic forms a single process for the mitigation of the Slavic in hours; delabializatsiya gu in Slavic, Mr. similarly combined with delabializatsiey s. guh to glory, g (cf.. Lat. formus, r. warms — Russian. Hot, Skr. gharmah) and s. ku in glory, (Gr. poteros, of hvapar — Russian. which Skr. katarah); CHERMEN. stun gu in ku (= r. q) is, as you know, the same «act» consonant shift that stunning b in the p, d in t: the same in the Greek increase labialization to complete closing of the lips when gugt ; b is a complete parallel development in guh ph (with stunning associated with aspirated) and ku in the district; similarly in Sanskrit delabializatsii gu in g, with the softening in j, perfectly parallel in delabializatsiya ku k, where in mitigation — with.
Regular compliance provide a starting base for recovery of certain items, and back — the restoration of such units justified obschefoneticheskimi data and sound patterns of individual languages, is a necessary explanation of matches and an additional proof that the compliance — not exceptional coincidence, but the phenomenon based on the internal laws of development. As it is impossible to reduce to the phonology of the doctrine of sound contrasts and proportions, as well as comparative historical phonetics can not be turned into a formalist doctrine of «correspondences»: Sound matter of language in all its concreteness and its real historical movement requires more attention.
If the establishment of sound meets the requirements should be recognized as explained by their historical origin from the phonetic point of view, the analysis of semantic relations require his explanation in terms semasiology. The latter is known to be much less developed than the general phonetics. Therefore, the analysis of the semantic relationships between the compared, multilingual words is often more or less amateurish character, often based on a «common sense» and a randomly selected parallels. Meanwhile, semasiological understandable observed correlations between the values of the compared languages of words should be recognized as an important principle is essentially the same principle phonetic understandable established sound correspondences, and the development of semantic relations should be paid due attention, especially in cases where these relationships are so complex or remote that they can not serve as a baseline for comparison, which is thus primarily based on sound correspondences (cp. example above: Russian. house — was ga-tamjan).
It is necessary to ensure that such an analysis was not semasiological abstract schematic. Just as in the analysis of sound correspondences in terms of overall phonetics is necessary to take into account specific acoustic characteristics of any given language, here at semasiological analysis must take into account the specific historical conditions of the development of these linguistic phenomena in the general system of any given language in a certain era of history the society. After all, in the general semantic processes are closely related to specific moments of social and historical development, as language is directly connected with production, and with every other human activity.
Phonomorphological analysis
Use of comparative-historical method is inevitably faced with the need phonomorphological analysis of the facts of each of the languages being compared separately. So, coming to the help of the comparative historical method to the fact that Slavic g, b, and corresponds to the Greek g (+ u), Gothic q and the like, resulting in softening of the g s. gu, we at the same time there is an alternation g: Well in the Slavic and find it necessary to determine the conditions of alternation within themselves the Slavic languages. We solve this problem, on the one hand, by the phonetic analysis of the specific cases in which there are data alternating sounds, on the other hand — through the isolation and identification of the morpheme containing these sounds in different words and word forms (ie. E. Specific forms of specific words ). Both in the aggregate and is phonomorphological analysis.
Consistently and rigorously conducted phonomorphological analysis in some cases by itself can restore some past, preliterate facts of language. So, if we are convinced that the Slavic Well encountered before palatal vowels and r — before velarnymi and consonants, and if it is found that both the sound, according to this law, there are, in particular, also in the same morpheme then we have every reason to restore an ancient r and education with rail. For example, as is possible in Old Church Slavonic and grlo zhrzh highlight morpheme -gr- and -zhr- and define them as variants of a single morpheme, t. E. Identify with each other, so far there is every reason to restore — zhr- more ancient phase — * — gr- (-gr-). Thus, by analyzing phonomorphological restored preliterate development g g before palatal vowels.
You can, therefore, talk about «phonomorphological method of analysis» as other methods of recovery, along with the existing comparative historical method. The difference between the two methods is that in the comparative-historical method compares the facts of different languages, while in «method phonomorphological analysis» compares the facts within a single language (why here talking about «internal» reconstruction). This is related to some other differences that require research, specifically devoted to this issue. Here it suffices to note is that within certain limits phonomorphological analysis is an important complement to the comparative-historical method, with which it naturally can be combined.
The term «variant of the morpheme»
Next, you need to pay attention to the following. Comparative-historical method requires the allocation of morpheme. But morpheme — unit, historically evolving and changing. Morpheme can not be interpreted as some constants: in the process of language development occurs as a fusion (merge) the individual morphemes, and re-expansion of their compounds. Therefore, the selection of morphemes (and other morphological units: foundations, etc.) must always relate to a specific historical period of language development.
It should be noted, however, that all the same in the work plan comparative-historical method the most important, so to speak, the main is that the morphological division, which is restored by this method, namely, the division that corresponds to the era of the language of the base, which was immediately preceded by its fragmentation into individual (related) languages. Therefore, when it comes in this context, usually refers to a morpheme (and in general morphological education) is of this era, and they are something mostly restored and comparative-historical method.
It is understood that the above is not an era of well-defined, since the fragmentation of the language of the base could be very long and complex process, and because we are often unable to determine with certainty not only time, but even joint or a series of separate facts recovered. As regards, for example, Indo-European languages, it is very probable that many of the facts as we have restored the available even in a single language-based, actually are parallel tumors arising after the separation of the individual languages. Nevertheless, «the era immediately preceding the fragmentation of language base» can not stand, in principle, as the era to which the recoverable comparative historical method of linguistic facts.
We have already had to turn to the concept of «variant of the morpheme». In languages such as, for example, Indo-European, where there are not phonetically conditioned (for the era of fragmentation tongue base) alternation sounds recoverable morpheme is more or less regularly perform in a variety of options.
Immediately restored, strictly speaking, only certain versions of morpheme, morpheme well as those already restored on the basis of comparison and how to combine the individual options. At the same time, as already studied patterns interlace distinguish individual options, in so far as such a morpheme can be restored as a whole, even if not all of their options actually detected.
That restored the main comparative historical method unit is the morpheme (in its variants) is not to be understood so that in general are restored only individual morpheme. It has been said that the complex structures and, if they are in structure «idiomatic» may with confidence be restored as a whole.
But when we are productive, neidiomatichnye education, we are restoring their constituent morpheme, still rebuilding more than a single morpheme. After morpheme restored along with their functional and structural characteristics as the root morpheme, prefixes, suffixes — word-formation and grammatical. Thereby recovering certain morphological types of word forms and words and morphological categories, and through the last possible some conclusions about the syntax (though general recovery in this region meets the basic obstacles because of the relative limitations of syntactic means and great role of «the principle of motivation.» In addition, of course , recovery morpheme (variants) and leads to the restoration of the phonetic system is known for its laws.
The term «language-basis»
Even the fact that the restoration of the historical facts of the past development of related languages is based on the recovery of certain morphemes (though it further and go beyond the latter), limits the possibilities in advance and achievements of comparative-historical method. However, serious disadvantages of this method are not confined to this circumstance.
First of all, we must always remember that these languages continue as the language of the base system, but in a particular composition and order can have a lot of new, not rising to the language-based or ascending to it only in part. That is why the term «language is the foundation» is much better than in its very essence, the term «mother tongue», even if the latter is exempt from contact him misperceptions and marrovskih distortions of his own scientific content: the expression «language is the basis of» directs attention to the fact that the language, which through historical connection through communication back data related languages, is in terms of their specific composition and building a basis of these languages, but not the source of all that is in them generally available. This term, as it warns against too rectilinear and simplistic understanding of «the development of these languages from the same language.»
Thus, the development of the language from the language of the base is not recreated in its entirety, because the language is the basis, as the ancient phase of the development of language is not fully recoverable. After all, the very essence of the comparative historical method, completely lost these languages can not be restored.
This is especially true of words. In this regard, a total loss of a number of root morphemes always possible, as in the case of a large distance from the tongue base witnessed related languages that have developed from it, such loss should be regarded as quite certain. However, affixes can not all survive or even to leave any traces. The most fully be restored sound system, as the number of different sounds (phonemes) is typically less than a few dozen, and is very likely that the remaining morphemes (roots and affixes) are anyway, at least indirectly, reflected it.
The results need to morpheme division unit.
Then you should pay attention to another important point that follows from the very nature of comparative-historical method and at the same time, in many cases makes it difficult to obtain reliable results, why this time can also be considered to be «objective» (according to B. A word usage . Serebrennikov) disadvantages of this method. This refers to something that causes the need for division into morphemes.
This sometimes leads to the need for the allocation of very short pieces, consisting of only two or three sounds, and sometimes one. It goes without saying that the smaller the number of sounds in the material shell of the unit, the greater the possibility of coincidence. So it turns out that the deepening of the morphological analysis creates certain preconditions more problematic to draw conclusions. Meanwhile, the process of accretion older morphemes, they are often accompanied by a reduction in the more «major» new morpheme and related processes of «simplification» and «re-expansion» of complex structures are constantly observed processes, which can not be neglected. The discovery of more ancient morpheme or their residues in the composition of various data items is also important to deepen the history of their formation, and thus the history of word in the appropriate language and for the expansion of the base material to be comparative historical study. While we have not allocated the old, already dead (dolatinskih) -d- morpheme and — (e) nt- in Latin-based dent-, until we can not reveal here the ancient connection with the verb edere and understand the structure of the ancient meaning of the word. On the other hand, this partitioning root morpheme isolated as -d-, m. E. Only a single sound. Taken by itself, this -d- gives a very weak support for any rapprochement. Affinity Skr. dat — / dant-, Greek. odont-, Lat. dent-, and so on, the tun- is doubtless only because of the relationship between these fundamentals as a whole. Also, the selection -d- (alternating with -ed — / — od-) settles mostly sufficient clarity the second alleged member -ent — / — ont- and overall clarity of the resulting semantic structure. Where these conditions are not favorable, similar morphological operations are more than questionable. Compare, for example, the construction of the germ, the fundamentals himin- (which we find in himins, Disley. Himinn «Heaven») to s. k + e + men-, the received F. Specht; It is not anything more than a witty suggestion.
Opening of «determinants roots» or «accrued», «distribution» and, further, other traces of more ancient morphological structure of Indo-European base allows, on the one hand, to deepen the morphological analysis of the Indo-European language material, see new connections between different units of language and to a certain the degree to restore the historical development of the Indo-European language; on the other hand, these advances have opened a wide field of science fiction constructs. The fact that some, even the most serious thoughtful attempts to penetrate into the ancient history of Indo-European base is only lead to an interesting hypothesis is confirmed, for example, the fact that such linguists as Benveniste and Kurilovich, dedicated to this task a special study is very interesting and plausible recreate is not the same «story» form morphological units of the language. All this points to the need to further develop the application of the principles of comparative-historical method, criteria for the reliability of the results and their relationship with the «method phonomorphological analysis’, which should, in turn, imposed on similar scientific review and rigorous evaluation.
Finally, it should be recalled that the comparative-historical method as a method of recovery, as it gives a flat, written without the prospect, a picture in which different periods can be combined into a single plan. Even the sound system components, recoverable by this method can not be all simultaneously in the form in which they are recovered.
Significant doubts may cause the coexistence of separate parts of the grammatical system, due to the fact that there does not always possible to distinguish between the forms really existed in the language-based, and in parallel formed only later, in the individual languages. Thus, for example, that a complex pattern of declension and conjugation Indo-European base, which was drawn linguists of the past and the beginning of this century, exposed in many parts of reasonable doubt: it is very likely that in it we have a projection onto the plane of the language of the base of many of the formations, which developed much later, only in certain languages. But precisely and confidently separated the different stages by one only the comparative historical method is hardly possible.
However, the relative chronology of events, as we know, in some cases, set the comparative historical method is more or less certain. It should be noted, however, that this applies only to cases closely related phenomena. Apparently, these closely related phenomena are observed mainly in the field of phonetics.
In this regard, especially should pay attention to the fact that a greater or lesser incidence (ie the degree of generality) phenomenon, generally speaking, can not serve as a criterion more or less its antiquity: not necessarily to the more common (more common) events were older and less common (less common) — later. In some cases, a common phenomenon may be even later than the more limited.
As for the absolute chronology, there is a comparative historical method, of course, can not be obtained any specific data. It can only be a rough estimate of the time between the oldest attested phases of the development of these units and the recoverable phases of their development. But here, in fact, can be determined only on the basis of at least some of the provisions of that language in its development knows no explosions, modified by the gradual accumulation of new and gradual loss of the old quality. But any high here, as changes can be arbitrarily slow and long to linger at certain stages.
Since using the comparative-historical method we delve into preliterate era of development of languages, to the extent we will inevitably lose direct contact with the concrete history of these languages. But this does not mean that we must accept this state of affairs.
Therefore, the loss of the possibility of direct contact with the history of society, which we have in the presence of written records, making especially the need to find other ways different approach to the development of language from the history of the people — the creator of the language and media. Use of comparative-historical method to restore the historical facts preliterate language development urgently requires support and complement the language data data history, in particular — the history of material culture. This requires the development and improvement of methods for coordination of both data … «what is not and could not have been under the rule of marrovskih plants among archaeologists,» as the authors correctly point «Education and development of language families» in the journal «Issues of Linguistics «, 1952, number 1. This work requires a lot of joint efforts on the part of linguists and archaeologists, and at the same shutter speed and great scientific rigor, because in this area there are very easy to build a variety of fantastic.