<<It is a fact that any Russian word or an expression (idiom) that has no motivation in Russian is explained through the Arabic language and its roots. Arabic unmotivated words and expressions are explained through the Russian language. All unmotivated words and expressions of other languages ​​ultimately go back to Russian or Arabic. And this is regardless of history or geography.

There are no exceptions, the etymologies are laconic, in the corridor of axiomaticity. So, magpie in Arabic means “thief”, despite the fact that no bird is designated by this word in Arabic. Thus, there is no need to talk about borrowing.

During the search for etymological solutions, it turned out that It is not peoples who invent a language for themselves, but a language that forms nations and not only, but the entire system called Life. It turned out that the words that we use to communicate are at the same time elements of the programs according to which the evolution of Life occurs from the organelles of plant cells to human communities and which control the behavior of any biological object, as well as processes, including physiological, social and even spontaneous.>>

N.N. Vashkevich.

There was and is no riddle of the word. There is a sleeping consciousness. .

With the discovery of the language core and the accompanying universal language code, there are no secrets associated with language.

The essence of the discovery comes down to the following.

All Russian unmotivated words and expressions (idioms) are motivated by Arabic roots, and incomprehensible (unmotivated) Arabic vocabulary, in particular Islamic terms, is motivated by the Russian language.

All other unmotivated words of any language are ultimately reduced to either Russian or Arabic. This pattern does not depend on history or geography. Thus, the linguistic core consists of two languages, Russian and Arabic (RA).

Just a few examples.

Shark in Arabic means “gluttonous”, ram means “innocent”, lark “flapping its wings without flying”, magpie means “thief”, honeycomb means “sixfold”, Kalmyks means “camel breeders”, Kara Sea means “icy”.

These kinds of words cannot be called borrowings, because they do not exist in Arabic.

From idioms.

In the idiom "moving matchmaker", not matchmaker, but the Arabic word savvaha "avid traveler", in the idiom "nightmare (cold, etc.) dog" is not a dog, but the Arabic kabos (read the other way around, i.e. in Arabic ) "nightmare". There are no exceptions, so it makes no sense to multiply examples, especially since the etymological dictionary of Russian idioms has already been published.

Here are some examples of Arabic unmotivated vocabulary.

Ashwel means "left-handed" in Arabic.

Salavat - “prayers”, from the Russian to glorify, especially since another name for prayer in Arabic means literally “glorification”.

The Koran in reverse reading gives in Russian NAROC, which according to Dahl’s dictionary means COVENANT.

Sufism, (written TSUF) from Russian. deserts.

Hajj, pronounced: khazhzhon, “pilgrimage” from Russian walking.

If we take the ancient Greek civilization with its language and mythology, it turns out that the heroes and gods of myths have “speaking” surnames if you read them in Arabic. Let's take this short story: "Jealous Hera sent a mental illness to Hercules, and he, in a fit of rage, killed his children born to his beloved wife Megara." In Greek these names mean nothing. And in Arabic, gera means “jealous,” ger ’aqel means “mad,” and megara means “object of jealousy.”

The list is easy to continue. The god of the sea element Poseidon in reverse reading, in Arabic means “storm-causing” (who dares object?), the mother of Bacchus, the god of wine, Semele, is not “earth”, as the Greeks themselves thought, this name contains the Arabic word samula “to get drunk” ". Actually, Russian hops come from the same source. The newfangled word sommelier, “a specialist in wines and spirits,” is not a French word at all, as we see, but an Arabic one. As for Bacchus himself, his name in Arabic means “rude, impudent, impudent,” that is, the kind a drunk person becomes.

And here is a trace of the Russian language. in ancient Greek myths. Laocoon is the only one of the defenders of Troy who exclaimed: the horse is a fake. In fact, he simply translated his name from Russian to Greek. And perhaps the most important word is theos "god". It comes from the Russian SVET. The letter vav also conveys the sound O. But the most important god is Zeus, which in Arabic means LIGHT. You just need to remove the Greek ending.

Available in ancient greek mythology and a joint Russian-Arab trail. Aphrodite, according to available dictionaries, is translated as “born from foam.” But to give birth is a Russian word, and not at all Greek, while ʿafr is in Arabic “the foamy crest of a sea wave.”

And the effect of RA extends beyond the boundaries of myth-making. There are Greek words in our language. For example, a chameleon, in Greek “earth lion” (?), jellyfish - it seems to have no meaning at all. We just know what it is Greek word, and that's the end of the matter. The first name in Arabic means “protected by color”, the second means “burning”. You can't say more precisely. In Mediterranean resorts, according to media reports in last year Tens of thousands of people who suffered from the stinging tentacles of jellyfish turned to doctors.

The medical terminology supposedly of Greek origin is especially striking in its meaninglessness. Trachoma - “rough”, syndrome - “running together”, leprosy (leprosy) - “lumpy”. In fact, the first term is from the Arabic itrahamma “bad vision”, the second is (when read backwards) “semi-disease”, the third is “lion’s disease”, literally “disease of the maned one”. Al-'afrus "maned head". This is the name of a lion in Arabic. This disease is also called in Arabic: “lion disease.” One of the main signs of leprosy, according to medical reference books, is the so-called “lion's face.”

Everything that has been said fully applies to reading the dark places of sacred books in a variety of languages.

Dark places in the Koran are read with “Russian eyes”, then they become understandable. Biblical texts are sometimes read in Arabic, sometimes in Russian. We will not burden the reader with Arabic texts, but we will work with the Bible, which is more familiar to the reader.

Let's start right from the first book of Moses, Genesis. In Hebrew it is called Bereshit. The Jews named the chapters of the book not according to their meaning, but according to the first word of the text. In this case, it is the first word of the first phrase: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Bereshit means "in the beginning."

It is literally difficult for a modern person to understand this phrase. The Earth is far from the first object in the Universe. If there are doubts about the correctness of this understanding, one must turn to an already proven method. This method did not come out of nowhere. I do roughly the same thing when I read Arabic texts every day. If the meaning does not add up, it means that I have identified the root incorrectly somewhere or have placed the vowels incorrectly. We have to look for another reading option. So it is here.

We look at the word Bereshit with “Arab eyes.” Now the same letters are read like this: birasih “with your head.” We will show the phonetic and morphological features of the word. Bi is the preposition of an instrument, ras "head, in Hebrew resh, them is a continuous pronoun of the third person (him). The final aspiration in some cases, depending on the context, can be read as it, which happened in Hebrew.

So, we have come to the conclusion that we are talking about the fact that God created the heavens and the earth with his head, i.e. according to his own providence. First I thought, and then I created. We usually do the opposite.

Below we read that God created man in his own image and likeness. It's completely unclear. Is man, a vessel of sin, filled with envy, selfishness and all possible sins, including the seven mortal ones, similar to God? I can’t imagine a God filled with physical impurities, which a person is forced to get rid of every day, sometimes walking around in small ways, and sometimes in big ways.

Naturally, in such cases they resort to allegory to explain. But this method is too ambiguous and often leads to arbitrary interpretations, which, in my opinion, is unacceptable for sacred books. Did God really not have the words to express his thoughts clearly? My method of penetrating the true meaning is different. Resorting to it, I again look for suspicious words where a semantic glitch could occur.

It is clear that the error lies in the phrase “in the image and likeness”. It is immediately clear to an Arabist that the original most likely sounded in Arabic. Arabic texts are replete with such synonymous repetitions. Well, let's translate it into Arabic. And you may need to listen to the translation with “Russian ears.” The translation is: "bi-misli". It is clear that this is Russian “by thought”, by design. I think it is hardly worth challenging the simple and extremely clear idea that the Creator created everything, including man, according to his providence.

It's over. Let's move on to other riddles.

One of the greatest mysteries in the Bible is the six-day creation. You cannot create everything in six days. This contradicts the laws of nature, which are the laws of the Creator. God will not contradict or try to refute himself.

In general, anyone who undertakes to reveal the meaning of biblical and other sacred texts must grasp a simple idea. It is formulated in three words: God does not speak nonsense. One might add: His language is simple and clear. If there is stupidity or dark passages in the texts, it is not His fault. This is the fault of translators or interpreters, and indeed of the prophets themselves, the direct producers of texts as revelations. Sometimes they hear something that is not right.

There are many versions of interpretation of the text of “Shestidenev”. Some exist with rights seemingly recognized by the church, as long as they are presented in theological literature. The trouble is that there is not a single logical one. Let's try to find a logical one using our method.

Let us turn directly to the text about the Creation of the World. In Arabic, this chapter is called takwin, which means “creation”, “creation”. But this word also has another meaning: “structure”, “device”. Such a meaning does not imply a process unfolding in historical sequence. Agree, this changes things somewhat.

It is also useful to note that the text has a weekly structure, since seven days make up a week. Starting from this idea, we immediately exclude Greek from the list of possible original languages. The Greeks did not know the seven-part week, but divided the month into decades. Ancient Hebrew is also excluded from such languages, because the Jews named the days of the week not with numbers, as is done in the text (day one, day two...), but with letters, i.e., their names: yom alef, yom bet, Yom Gimel...

The Arabs number the days of the week with numbers: day one, day two, day three. Only Friday is left out of this count. It is called jum'a "conciliarity", i.e. "day of congregational prayer." It is clear that this day was renamed in connection with the establishment of Mohammedanism in Arabia. Just like the name Sunday, in Arabic yom ahad "day one" or "day one", appeared in connection with the event of the resurrection of Christ.

As we have seen, the Russian language is always accompanied by Arabic and vice versa. Let us focus our attention on the Russian word DAYS, despite the fact that this word is considered a translation, possibly, of an Arabic word. If you remove the softness of the pronunciation of the sound N, and the softness-hardness of consonants usually does not differ in other languages, you will get the word DAYS.

It is clear that we are not talking about the duration of the creation of the world, but about the structure of Being, its levels. Otherwise, about the seven-bottom world.

Now it is easy to rewrite the text indicating these levels, allowing yourself a little editing. After all, some elements of the text could appear due to a misunderstanding initially. Let's not pay attention for now special attention for these little things.

Day one. The first level of existence is cosmic plasma, the substance of the sun and stars. As science has found, cosmic plasma makes up more than 99% of the detected matter.

Day two. The second level is chemical, translated from Arabic as “hidden”, cf. hema "dwelling, tent". Hidden in the sense that it is not accessible to direct observation.

Day three. The third level is “physical, bodily”, a level where the main concept is the body, which can be touched, seen, weighed, etc.

Day four. The fourth level is the “vegetation level”, flora.

Day five. The fifth level is the “level of the animal world,” fauna.

Day six. The sixth level is the “human level”.

Day seven. The seventh level is the “level of information fields,” the level of the Spirit, called in the Bible the day of rest. According to the consonance of the Arabic sab'at "seven" and the Russian sleep, ar. Subat "hibernation", Jews strictly forbade themselves to do any work on this day.

Look what happened. With such a minimal semantic twist, the text becomes not only extremely understandable, but also reveals to us a scientific picture of the world. It is clear that just a few centuries ago any possibility of understanding it was excluded, since the idea of ​​the level organization of systems developed in science only in the 20th century. Tsiolkovsky also wrote that man consists of atoms. At that time, the great scientist could still afford a statement that carried the burden of man’s dark ideas about the structure of the world.

In fact, a person does not consist of atoms, but of organs, organs consist of tissues, tissues consist of cells, cells consist of organelles, organelles consist of molecules, molecules consist of atoms. And this entire multi-level structure is immersed in semantic fields that control a person at all levels of his organization.

What are we talking about if even in our time not all scientists are close to the idea of ​​a level organization of being, which, as it turns out, is presented, as if in a disguised form, in the ancient text of the Bible.

Let us return, however, to the biblical text. Let's look at the names of its main characters, Moses and his brother Aaron. As we could observe in fragments of ancient Greek mythology, the gods and heroes there bore names that were incomprehensible in the Greek understanding, but which instantly became “speaking” when viewed through the prism of the Arabic and Russian languages. Jewish legends are no exception in this regard.

The name Moses is believed to mean "saved from the water" in Hebrew. Indeed, there is such a fact in his biography, but this event has almost nothing to do with his role in Jewish history. It is even possible that this story was inserted into his biography in order to justify the understanding of the name suggested by the Hebrew language. If we look at the name Moses in the Arabic, Koranic version: Musa, then when we restore the guttural articulations that have fallen in all Semitic languages, two reading versions appear.

Restoring the final sound of 'ayin gives us musa', "received power from God."

And when restoring the guttural sound of the sound s in this name, in Arabic studies this is called emphaticity, giving the word moussa “receiving the covenant.” Here we conventionally denote emphaticity by doubling the letter s.

Anyone who is familiar at least firsthand with the history of Moses will note to himself that two main events are recorded in the name of Moses, which determined not only the fate of Moses himself, but the fate of the Jewish people.

The first happened at the burning bush, when Moses' attention was attracted by a strange bush that burned without burning. And suddenly, from behind him, the voice of God was heard, who gave him instructions to save the Jewish people, who were at that time in slavery to the Egyptian Pharaoh. Moses, being tongue-tied and indecisive, began to refuse, but God gave him strength and determination, indicating that the speech part of the task could be completed by his eloquent brother Aaron.

The second happened on the fiftieth day after the Exodus, during the ascent of Moses to Mount Sinai, during the so-called Sinai revelation. It's about about a book called the Torah, otherwise called the Pentateuch of Moses, where the covenants of God (mitzvot) were included.

Knowing that emphatic sounds fall, and in their place the sound Ts appears, we can easily understand that the Hebrew word mitzvot has the same root as the Arabic moussa (t) “covenants” and in the name Moussa itself.

It was time to take a close look at the name of his eloquent brother Aaron. In the Arabic version it sounds like Harun. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to guess that this is the Russian word for talker. True, in the Arabic version the weak consonant vav was dropped, but it is dropped often in Arabic, which is why it is called weak.

It should not escape us that one brother’s name is revealed through the Arabic language, the name of another brother through the Russian language. Is this not an indication of the key with which we are now clearing up the dark places of the Bible? And not only. Previously, we used these two languages ​​to clarify the names of the heroes and gods of ancient Greek mythology. It was shown earlier that all Russian idioms without exception are also revealed. Their number in the Russian language is in the thousands.

These are not hypotheses, because the work “Idioms. Etymological Dictionary” has already been published. It must be said that idioms have never been the subject of etymology. This is the first time such work has been done.

Moreover, a dictionary of etymological and hidden meanings of all unmotivated Russian vocabulary has been prepared. At the same time, the dictionary included not only native Russian words, but also borrowings from the most different languages. Two issues (up to letter 3 inclusive) have already been published.

Some experience has also been gained in revealing the meaning of the darkest part of the vocabulary of any language - toponyms. For example, the Kara Sea. No one knows what the name means. There are no versions. With the use of Arabic the word becomes extremely clear. This turns out to be the Cold Sea. Who can argue with that? The method gives extremely concise results, as they say, in the corridor of axiomaticity.

Let's return to the Sinai revelation. According to legend, Moses, having ascended Mount Sinai, received from God not only the Book of Covenants (Torah), but also two stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed.

The issue with the commandments is not very clear. There are much more of them in the Talmud - 613. This suggests that you can come up with as many commandments as you need. Why exactly ten? But here we will be concerned not so much with the number of commandments as with the tablets themselves. After all, the Ten Commandments are set out in the text of the Torah. Why else are there tablets? Let's try to solve this riddle in a proven way.

Two tablets in Arabic, lohathein. Strange. Because two languages ​​in Arabic are logatein. The point is not only that these two words differ in sounds that are very similar to each other. It is also very important that Moses, being an Egyptian in language, could not distinguish between these two Arabic sounds by definition. They are only available in Arabic. In all Semitic languages ​​they have fallen. There are none. Neither one nor the other. In some languages, pale traces of them remain in the form of sounds similar to aspiration.

So what did God tell Moses: two tablets or two tongues?

We can accept the first version, then nothing becomes clearer. We can accept the second version. Then everything is explained. God revealed the keys to one of the brothers. Keys to understanding sacred texts in general, not just the Bible. Keys to understanding all words in general, not just Russian and Arabic. As for the material of the “tablets,” it is not stone, but the Arabic word for fireplace, “secret,” “hidden.” In our case, “unsolved”.

It should be noted that Moses had doubts about the tablets. Which version should I choose? Stone tablets? Or unsolved clues in the form of two languages?

He chose both. Apparently, just in case. The bilingual version is embodied in something sacred for Jews bakery product called challah. In Russian vernacular it is called pletenka. It consists of two dough tongues woven together, sprinkled with poppy seeds and baked. We use it, as they say, in vain, but for Jews it is a special Shabbat bread. Nobody knows, not even the Jews, why it is called that. What does the word challah mean? This Arabic word actually means "to unravel." And this is its meaning.

If you don’t untwist your two tongues, you will remain a fool (poppy in Arabic is to be a fool). Or you can understand it this way: while you’re a fool, you can’t untwist your two tongues.

Since 2010, it has been customary to celebrate Arabic Language Day. This began when the UN Department of Public Affairs proposed establishing its own holiday for each of the six official languages organizations. This initiative aims to strengthen intercultural dialogue and develop a multilingual world. The date chosen for Arabic Language Day in the international calendar is December 18th.

This date was not chosen by chance, because it was on this day in 1973 that the UN General Assembly included Arabic among the official and working languages ​​of the United Nations.

Mikhail Suvorov, Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Arabic Philology, Faculty of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg State University, talks especially for Islam.ru about the Arabic language and its significance.

Mikhail Nikolaevich, we are very glad to see you in the editorial office of the Islam.ru website. I would like to talk with you about such a topic as the importance of the Arabic language for Russia, in particular. If you ask any Muslim what Arabic means to him, he will say that it is the language of the Koran, the language spoken by the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). What can you say about the Arabic language?

Arabic- this is my profession, so it would be strange not to love this language. Naturally, this is a language that I love very much, which has accompanied me since childhood, because as a child I lived with my parents in Yemen, which is probably why I chose the specialty of Orientalist-Arabist. For me personally, the Arabic language is everything. This language is also very important for Russia, where a huge number of Muslims live, and for them Arabic is the language of the Koran, the language of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), accordingly, a real Muslim should strive to learn the Arabic language, at least to some extent. In addition, it must be said that Russia has always maintained contacts with various Arab countries, so the Arabic language was necessary for translators, for specialists who work in Arab countries. And although these ties died down to some extent in the 90s, they now continue to develop again. Therefore, Arabic is of interest not only to Muslims.

In your opinion, what percentage of people in Russia know Arabic?

I think not so much. This is due to the fact that before perestroika (in Soviet era) in fact, in the USSR there were 5 or 6 educational institutions where Arabic was taught: these were St. Petersburg University, Moscow University, Baku, Tashkent and, probably, Alma-Ata. That is, there were few places where Arabic was taught. I don’t know if the language was taught in mosques in those days, I have no doubt that not, so there are not many people who know Arabic. But after perestroika, many Islamic educational institutions and not only Islamic ones appeared, i.e., the Arabic language began to be introduced into the curriculum in other secular universities, where it had not existed before. Therefore, the number of people who know him is now, of course, much larger.

It should be noted that the level of knowledge of the Arabic language in the USSR was high. Everyone knows Baranov's Arabic-Russian dictionary, which is used by a huge number of people. As I know, our modern orientalists-Arabists have an excellent command of the Arabic language, even the Arabs are surprised.

Despite the fact that there were not many educational institutions where people trained in Arabic, the level of training in them was very high. Now there are a large number of institutions where Arabic is taught, and I believe that the level in them is also generally good.

Especially in Dagestan, in universities where Arabic is taught, many teachers know the language very well, they have extensive speaking and reading practice, they are excellent experts in the Arabic language.

What doors open to a person who knows Arabic? What does this give?

I would say that there are two directions for further work with the Arabic language. Firstly, this is work in Arab countries as a translator, specialist, in the diplomatic corps. The language is becoming popular and you can become a teacher of Arabic, that is, with knowledge of the Arabic language you will not be left without a piece of bread. I am quite pleased that I chose this profession, because back then it was not so popular. People knew little about the Arabs, and in particular not much was known about Muslim culture. Now Muslim culture in Russia is being revived, and the Arabic language is needed everywhere. I consider myself very lucky with my choice of language.

People, studying Arabic in Russia from classical books, master literary Arabic, and when they travel to Arab countries, they are faced with the problem of Arabs not understanding the language in which our compatriots are trying to communicate with them. Our classical language is a little incomprehensible for Arabs. They wonder how our people know such a language.

This is a very interesting question, of course, but it has always been there. We teach in all educational institutions literary Arabic, but sometimes we add a dialect course to this. For example, in our faculty (among Arabists) the Egyptian dialect is taught, because the Egyptian dialect is the most famous at present, since the Egyptians graduate large number film and television products, as this is in demand in all Arab countries. In Arab countries, they know the Egyptian dialect best because they watch Egyptian programs.

The problem, of course, is for the translator who, having learned the literary language, ends up in the Arabic East. When he speaks, everyone understands him. Once upon a time, the literary language was an alien language for ordinary Arab people, because they only knew the dialect. Since all media are in literary language, now the most common person understands the literary language. Another thing is that it is difficult for a Russian specialist, for example, to understand this dialect. But this is a matter of habit. Within a short time a person begins to understand it too.

Is it difficult for a Russian person to get used to letters and sounds that do not exist in the Russian language? Are they difficult to pronounce?

I would say that this is the minimum problem you might encounter when learning Arabic. When a person begins to learn Arabic, within a month he goes through the alphabet and an experienced teacher, as they say, “puts these letters” on him, that is, helps him learn to pronounce them correctly. They're not so crazy, these sounds. Maybe the most difficult sound is "'ayn", a guttural sound, but nevertheless, I don't know that anyone has problems.

As a specialist, what do you tell the ordinary Russian person, how long will it take to normally learn to speak, read, and write in Arabic?

This is a difficult question. It depends on how regularly a person exercises.

How difficult is Arabic to learn? Is English easier to learn or Arabic?

This is perhaps a difficult question, because if, for example, a person knows English, studied it at school, and then he chooses French or Arabic, then French is easier to master, since it is closer to English. But if you consider that a person does not have any linguistic base, he only knows Russian, and the choice is to study English or Arabic, then I would not say that Arabic is more difficult than English. For example, many things in Arabic are easier than in English: for example, in Arabic both are pronounced and written, but in English we pronounce a word, but we still have to know how to spell it. There are no complex tense structures in Arabic. In many ways, Arabic is even simpler, I would say.

In the republics of the North Caucasus there were problems with teaching Arabic in schools. Should you be wary of the Arabic language? Is this language dangerous enough to be banned from public schools?

Well, of course not. Because the socio-political problems that we can observe in these republics have nothing to do with the Arabic language. This is not a language problem. If a person knew Arabic, he himself would be able to better familiarize himself and understand what they are lying to him about. Knowing an additional language brings only benefits to a person; it is unlikely to cause harm. I don’t even understand why they don’t allow teaching Arabic in schools. We can assume that this is not some kind of political problem, maybe it has something to do with curriculum. It's hard for me to judge this.

It seems to me that the level of knowledge not only of Arabic, but of foreign languages ​​in general in Russia is slightly lower than the global average. It often happens that a child studies at school for 11 years, of which he studies English for 7-8 years, still goes to university, etc., but the level is low. You couldn’t encourage schoolchildren and students to study more foreign languages ​​and tell them what opportunities knowledge of a particular language opens up for them.

To be honest, it seems to me that there is no need to even call, since this is already obvious to everyone. Previously, the problem was that children learned English, but there was actually no benefit to them from it. Because travel abroad was closed, there were practically no English-speaking people inside the country. The same can be said about the Arabic language. Now the world has changed. We travel to other countries, do business with them, and engage in some educational and cultural projects. Therefore, a modern person without knowledge of a foreign language is unlikely to be able to make a successful career. English, since it has become a world language, and Arabic have become very important for Muslim regions.

Vladimir Ivanovich Ryzhikh, senior researcher at NAU ERA,

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor. Ukraine.

Conference participant.

Comparative analysis of grammatical categories of Russian and Arabic languages, clarification of similarities and differences in the grammatical traditions of the two languages. Analysis of the categories of parts of speech, number, gender, animation, the degree of their compliance with the new worldview.

Keywords: Arabic language, Russian language, grammatical category, parts of speech, gender, number, animation.

Throughout his history, man has tried to know himself, to know the world around him, to understand how he appeared on this planet and how the numerous languages ​​that modern humanity uses today appeared on Earth. The world's leading philologists put forward various versions of the origin of languages, trying to understand the patterns of the transformations that occur in them, and to find out why certain objects, phenomena and concepts received the names that we use today. Hundreds and thousands of dictionaries have appeared in our world, including etymological ones, in which the origin of various words is analyzed. Such works help to understand many processes that took place before and are happening now not only in the field of linguistics, but also in the development of all mankind. We will try to look at the problems of language development through the development of their grammatical categories and choose two languages ​​for study: Russian and Arabic.

A comparison of these two languages ​​is also of some interest because they belong to different macro-families: Russian belongs to the Indo-European languages, and Arabic belongs to the Afroasiatic languages, which until recently were called the group of Semitic-Hamitic languages. It is known that the further two languages ​​are separated from each other according to a known classification, the less similarities we will find between them in the lexical composition and grammatical structure. Analysis of the current state of these two languages, available in official science, confirms this pattern, both at the level of vocabulary and at the level of grammatical tradition. In this article we will analyze the state of some grammatical categories of these two languages ​​not only at this stage, but also in the process of their development.

A significant difference between the Russian and Arabic languages ​​begins already at the stage of identifying parts of speech. In the Russian language, there are usually ten parts of speech: noun, adjective, numeral, pronoun, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, particles and interjections [ 1, p. 42]. In addition, participles and gerunds are sometimes distinguished as independent parts of speech, and in this case the number of parts of speech reaches twelve. And if we take into account some other candidates for the role of parts of speech, then their number in the Russian language will exceed two dozen. It should be noted that there is also a reverse trend aimed at reducing the number of parts of speech. Such grammarians as Potebnya A.A., Fortunatov F.F., Peshkovsky A.M. they denied that numerals and pronouns have grammatical features that make it possible to distinguish them as independent parts of speech. In this case, the number of parts of speech will be reduced to eight. And if you analyze the proposals of such researchers as J. Vandries, prof. Kudryavsky, prof. Kurilovich, acad. Fortunatov, then the number of parts of speech will be reduced to three (noun, adjective and verb), and if you combine a noun with an adjective into one part of speech “name”, which J. Vandries suggests doing, then only two parts of speech will remain: name and verb [ 1, p. 43].

Against this background, the stability of identifying parts of speech in Arabic is striking. There were always three of them: name, verb, particles [ 2, p. 116]. And there are currently no proposals to increase or decrease this list. And the most optimal proposals for highlighting parts of speech in Russian are very close to what has long existed in Arabic.

No less interesting is comparative analysis in Russian and Arabic the categories of numbers. In the Russian language there are currently two numbers: singular and plural. In Arabic, three numbers are actively used: singular, plural and dual [ 2, p. 148]. Those for whom Russian is a native language, for the most part, cannot even represent the dual number in their grammar. The understanding that number, as a grammatical category, can only be singular or plural has long been established in their minds. And really, is the dual number really necessary in language? All phenomena in our world are divided into opposites, for example: light and darkness, up and down, left and right, external and internal, freedom and prison, North Pole and the south pole. Try inserting something third into these pairs. It won't work. And if we do something contrary to this order, the balance will be disrupted. So dualism is the reality of our world, which is present at every step. And any reality must be reflected in language. That is why the presence of a dual number is natural and even necessary. But how does the Russian language exist without this, as it turns out, very necessary category? The grammatical structure of the Russian language, unlike Arabic, is in constant development: something is lost and something appears. There was also a dual number in the Russian language. Almost every study of the Old Russian language mentions the presence of a dual number.

The famous French linguist Meillet A., who studied the ancient state of the Slavic languages, writes: “In the common Slavic language, the dual number was used regularly. The most ancient monuments represent, where appropriate, a constant and strict use endings of the dual number; However, over time, this category is lost: in the Russian language, certain deviations in the use of the dual number indicate its disappearance at least since the 13th century. ...The disappearance of the dual number occurred gradually and left abundant traces, morphological and syntactic, in all languages. Slavic languages together with Lithuanian, they are the only Indo-European languages ​​where the dual number has been preserved for so long.” [ 3, C. 260].

Our contemporary, Doctor of Philology Zholobov O.F. mentions that in Proto-Slavic use the Old Russian structure of the dual number included five types of forms: free dv.ch., bound dv.ch., pronominal-verbal dv.ch. in dialogical speech, dv. h. in constructions with two names and congruent dv.h. [ 4, p. 205]. This description indicates that the dual number in Old Russian was represented in even more detail than in modern Arabic.

As examples of the use of words in the dual number, Zholobov gives “rukama”, “rogama”, “two rounds”, “two mooses”. [ 4, p. 100]. Similar examples are given by other authors studying the category of dual number.

In our opinion, the remnants of the dual number that have been preserved in the modern Russian language should also include a group of nouns in the Russian language that are used only in the plural. Words such as “sleigh”, “scissors”, “glasses”, “pants”, “shorts”, “trousers” most likely should also be attributed to the remnants of the dual number that was once in the Old Russian language, because all these words denote objects that clearly contain two identical elements. In addition, it should be noted that the ending of such words with “-и, -ы” is similar to the ending of Arabic words of the dual number after truncation of the letter “n”, which often occurs in such words when forming certain syntactic constructions, and in words such as “sleigh” and “pants” these endings completely coincide. In any case, the assumption that the nouns listed above are extant forms of the dual number and at the same time somehow connected with the Arabic language deserves special attention.

The next grammatical category that needs to be considered is the category of animacy. In Russian, this category includes names denoting people, animals, birds, fish, etc. In Arabic, only that which is connected with Man is animate, and everything else is inanimate. “Word agreement depends on whether it means given name persons or does not indicate" [ 5, p. 120]. This distribution of names in the category of animate-inanimate corresponds to the worldview scientific school predecessors of NAU ERA, which talks about the presence in nature of three main programs based on one another: the Program of the Universe, the Program of Life and the Program of the Evolution of the Mind. Human development is determined by the Program of the Evolution of the Mind, and the Program of Life includes all animals and flora. It is on this principle that the division of names between animate and inanimate occurred in the Arabic language, which once again confirms the inextricable connection between the processes occurring in nature and the development of language. In the Russian language, the division of names into animate and inanimate occurred according to the “living-inanimate” principle, while plants fell into the category of “inanimate”, but they were also created according to the Life Program. Thus, many questions arise related to the criteria by which names were divided into animate and inanimate. But has it always been like this in the Russian language? - It turns out not. Research in the field of the Old Russian language shows that the category of animate-inanimate in the Russian language went through three stages in its development. Its presence in the Old Russian language was recorded by the coincidence of the forms of the genitive and accusative cases for the singular in masculine names and for plural for all three genera. “Old Slavonic monuments reflect the initial stage of development of this grammatical category. The form of the genitive case in the meaning of the accusative in the Old Church Slavonic language was usually received in the singular only by masculine nouns, denoting persons with social rights..., as well as proper names of the masculine gender” [ 7, p. 185]. Thus, at first only names denoting masculine persons fell into the category of animate ones, and this was recorded around the 13th century. Only from the end of the 15th century did names denoting feminine persons begin to be classified as animate. And only in the 17th century, when names denoting animals began to be included in this category, did the category of animate-inanimate take shape in the form in which it exists today [ 8, p. 210]. Therefore, we can say that immediately before the 17th century the category of animate-inanimate in the Russian and Arabic languages ​​was practically identical in the composition of names. Comparing this category in Russian and Arabic, one cannot fail to note one more aspect. Since in Arabic only names denoting a Person are considered animate, the terms “person” and “non-person” are used to designate it instead of “animate” and “inanimate”. These terms are used in almost all Arabic language textbooks intended for Russian-speaking readers. In the Arabic grammatical tradition, instead of the terms “animate” and “inanimate,” terms are used that, when more accurately translated, mean “reasonable” and “unreasonable.” And here again we have to state that these Arabic grammatical terms are more consistent with the worldview of the scientific school of NAU ERA than the terms used in the grammar of the Russian language.

The next grammatical category that is worth exploring is the category of gender. There are three genders in the Russian language: masculine, feminine and neuter. In Arabic there are only two of them: masculine and feminine. In everything in nature we see the masculine and feminine principles: humans, animals, plants. And since there is no third option, it should be recognized that the Arabic grammatical tradition in this category is more consistent with the state of things in nature than the grammatical structure of the Russian language. At the same time, it should be noted that in the Arabic language there is a group of names that can be agreed upon in both masculine and feminine gender, but, firstly, there are few such names, and they are usually given in a separate small list [ 9, p. 938], and, secondly, not a single Arabic grammarian tried to isolate this group of names into a separate category and call it neuter or any other gender.

The history of the development of grammatical gender in the Russian language does not allow us to note complete similarity with the Arabic language at some stage, as was the case with other grammatical categories, but one interesting trend can be noted. The neuter gender, in contrast to the masculine and feminine, throughout the development of this category constantly showed instability, and names of the neuter gender became masculine or feminine. “The most significant event in the history of the genus is the destruction (and in some places, perhaps complete loss) of the category of the neuter gender with the transition of nouns of this gender usually into the feminine, and in some places (less often) into the masculine gender, which took place mainly in Southern Great Russian and partly in transitional dialects" [ 8, p. 207]. Thus, in the grammatical category of gender in the Russian language there was a tendency to converge in composition with the Arabic language, but this tendency was not properly developed.

Comparing the grammatical traditions of the Russian and Arabic languages, it should be noted that against the background of constant changes occurring in the studied grammatical categories of the Russian language, the Arabic grammatical tradition is striking, first of all, with its stability and a greater degree of compliance with the Program of the Evolution of the Mind. Throughout the existence of the Arabic language, its grammatical structure has not changed: those grammatical structures and concepts that were described in the very first works on grammar have still been preserved in the modern Arabic literary language. The Russian language has been actively developing throughout the entire period of its existence: the grammatical structure has changed significantly, and the lexical composition has been significantly enriched. Is this good or bad? Probably, the disappearance of some grammatical categories had a negative impact on grammar, but one cannot fail to note other properties of the Russian language. Here is how the classic of French literature Prosper Merimee writes about it: “Rich, sonorous, lively, distinguished by the flexibility of stress and infinitely varied in onomatopoeia, capable of conveying the finest shades, endowed, like Greek, with almost limitless creative thought, the Russian language seems to us created for poetry ". I would like to recall the words of another famous cultural figure of the 20th century, artist and philosopher N.K. Roerich, who wrote: “Isn’t it surprising that in Russian the word world unanimously for peace and for the universe? These concepts are unanimous not because of the poverty of the language. The language is rich. They are unanimous in essence. The universe and peaceful creativity are inseparable."

Almost all the grammatical categories of the Russian language studied here at certain stages coincided in composition with the corresponding categories of Arabic and, judging by the results of the study, the Old Russian language had many important and necessary qualities, which were lost during the development process. The reasons for these processes are hidden, of course, not so much in the language itself, but in those negative processes that took place in our society and on the planet as a whole, because At each stage of development, language corresponds to the level of development of civilization. Based on the numerous similarities that are found between the Old Russian and modern Arabic languages ​​in the grammatical tradition, we can assume the existence of a single source that determined the emergence and development of languages ​​on our planet. This same source will, of course, determine the language of communication in the next world, but what will this language be like, what qualities should it have, is it not time to understand which properties of the language should be preserved and which ones should be gotten rid of, and can we already influence these processes? Isn't it time to start a discussion on this issue in order to determine the main directions in which the Russian language should develop so as not to repeat the mistakes that have already been made?

References:

1. Vinogradov V.V. Russian language (Grammatical doctrine of words). Ed. G.A. Zolotova. / V.V. Vinogradov. - 4th edition. - M.: Russian language, 2001. - 720 p.
2. Grande B.M. Course of Arabic grammar in comparative historical light. / B.M.Grande. - 2nd edition. - M.: Eastern literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001. - 592 p.
3. Meie A. Common Slavic language [Trans. from fr. Kuznetsova P.S.]. General ed. S.B. Bernstein. / A. Meillet - 2nd edition. -M.: Progress, 2001. -500 p.
4. Zholobov O.F. Historical grammar of the Old Russian language. Volume 2. Dual number. / O. F. Zholobov, V. B. Krysko. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2001. - 240 p.
5. Kovalev A.A. Arabic language textbook. / A.A.Kovalev, G.Sh. Sharbatov: - 3rd edition. - M.: Eastern literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998. - 751 p.
6. Lias. Knights with raised visor. / V. E. Sharashov: -2nd ed., abbr. and revision - Odessa: Druk, 2009. - 528 p.
7. Khaburgaev G.A. Old Church Slavonic language. / G.A. Khaburgaev. - M.: Education, 1974. - 432 p.
8. Borkovsky V.I. Historical grammar of the Russian language. / V.I. Borkovsky, P.V. Kuznetsov. - M.: KomKniga, 2006. - 512 p.
9. Baranov H.K. Arabic-Russian dictionary. / Kh.K.Baranov: - 5th edition. -M.: Russian language, 1977. - 942 p.
10. Babaytseva V.V. Russian language. Theory. / V.V. Babaytseva, L.D. Chesnokova. - 2nd edition. -M.: Education, 1993. - 256 p.
11. N.K. Roerich. Life and creativity. Collection of articles. - M.: fine arts, 1978. - 372 p. with ill.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

Vavickina Tatyana Anatolyevna. Morphological structure of the verb word in Arabic and Russian languages ​​(Typological analysis): Dis. ...cand. Philol. Sciences: 02/10/20: Moscow, 2003 199 p. RSL OD, 61:04-10/336-0

Introduction

Chapter 1. Theoretical background for comparison . 14

1.1. The concept of "language type". 14

1.2. The question of the typological affiliation of the Arabic language. 20

1.3. Morphological theory of F.F. Fortunatova. 22

1.4. Word structure is a “measure of grammatical structure.” 24

1.5. Scheme for describing the structure of a word. 26

1.6. Conclusions on the first chapter. 47

Chapter 2. Morphological structure of the verb word in Russian . 50

2.1. The concept of the word. 50

2.2. Morphemic composition of the word. 52

2.3. Infinitive. 57

2.4. Verb basics. 59

2.5. Verb classes. 62

2.6. Forms of inflection and word formation. 64

2.7. Conclusions on the second chapter. 90

Chapter 3. Morphological structure of the verb word in modern literary Arabic . 95

3.1. Word structure in Arabic. 95

3.2. Verb as part of speech in Arabic. 105

3.3. Verb basics. 106

3.4. Verb classes. 113

3.5. Forms of inflection and word formation. 119

3.6. Conclusions on the third chapter. 155

Appendix to Chapter 3.

Typological characteristics of the Arabic literary language and Arabic dialects. 165

Conclusion. 178

Bibliography. 187

Introduction to the work

The dissertation is devoted to a comparative typological analysis of the morphological structure of the verb word in modern literary Arabic and Russian languages.

Justification of the relevance of the chosen topic.

Many languages ​​of the world combine features different types, occupying an intermediate position on the scale of morphological classification. These languages ​​include Arabic. Its typological affiliation remained uncertain for a long time. Inadequate understanding of the structure of the Semitic word (incorrect division into morphemes, determination of the status of these morphemes and the nature of the connection between them) led to the fact that Arabic was mistakenly classified as an inflectional language (A. Schleicher, G. Steinthal, N. Fink, K Brockelman, P.S. Kuznetsov, etc.). Some scientists (I.M. Dyakonov, B.A. Serebrennikov, etc.) were able to identify elements of agglutination in it, which, however, did not change its inflectional nature. Others (for example, V.P. Starinin) recognized agglutination as the dominant feature of Semitic languages, believing that diffixation was a secondary phenomenon of lesser importance. In our opinion, such uncertainty is due to the fact that the grammatical structure of the Arabic language is characterized by the action of two grammatical methods - fusion and agglutination, both of which are leading. This is reflected in the special structure of the Semitic word, contrasted with the structure of the word in both inflectional and agglutinative languages. This feature of the Arabic language was first recognized by F.F. Fortunatov, distinguishing Semitic languages ​​into a special intermediate class of inflectional-agglutinative languages ​​with a special inflectional-agglutinative composition of derivative words. Unfortunately, the ideas of F.F. Fortunatov did not find adequate support among linguists

and were not further developed, and therefore Arabic is still considered an inflectional language.

In addition, the formulation of this problem is caused by insufficiency scientific research, devoted to the study of Arabic, and more broadly Semitic, words from the point of view of its structure, division, identification of root and auxiliary morphemes, as well as the nature of their connection. Most of the works concern the traditional problem of historical Semitic linguistics - the formation of the Semitic root. This question is posed in two aspects: firstly, was the Semitic root originally three-consonant or is it the result of development from a smaller number of consonants, and, secondly, root vocalism and its place in the process of formation of the Semitic root [Belova 1987, 1991a, 1991b , 1993; Dyakonov 1991; Kogan 1995; Lekiashvili 1955, 1958; Maisel 1983; Orel, Stolbova 1988, 1990; Yushmanov 1998]. A small number of works are devoted to the problem of “internal inflection” in Arabic [Gabuchan 1965, Melchuk 1963]. Detailed analysis the structure of the Semitic root and its comparison with the roots of inflectional and agglutinative languages ​​can be found, perhaps, only in one work - this is the book by V.P. Starinin "The structure of the Semitic root" [Starinin 1963]. The author's merit lies in the fact that he proposed dividing the stem into a consonantal root and a vocalic diffix (transfix) (although the very idea of ​​such division is contained in the works of F.F. Fortunatov).

There are very few works on typological comparison of Arabic and Russian languages. Among them, for example, is the work of A.V. Shirokova “Morphology of the name in inflectional and inflectional-agglutinative languages”, where the structure of inflectional Russian and inflectional-agglutinative Arabic languages ​​is compared using the material of the name [Shirokova 1988]; dissertation of Rima Sabe Ayub “Double division of parts of speech in languages ​​with a developed morphological structure”, which presents a comparative quantitative-typological analysis of the double division of words in these languages, for the first time a typological

study of the morphemic, syllabic and phonemic structure of various classes of words in Arabic [Rima 2001]. The structure of the verb word has not previously been the object of research. Only a few were subjected to comparative analysis verb categories, namely, one of the main ones is the category of time [Vikhlyaeva 1987].

In general, comparative typological analysis

Until now, the morphological structure of one of the central parts of speech - the verb - in the Arabic and Russian languages ​​has not been done and has not been described in the scientific literature. Although, in our opinion, it is precisely this analysis that allows us to demonstrate all the typological features of the structure of the Arabic word, contrasting it with inflectional Russian, and confirm the hypothesis of F.F. Fortunatov about the inflectional-agglutinative nature of the Arabic language.

Thus, such a study of the structure of the word of the Arabic language is due to the need to clarify the typological status of the Arabic language and the place of the Semitic family of languages ​​in the typological classification.

What has been said determines relevance of this study and explains the choice of Russian and Arabic languages object comparisons. Russian language is the most bright representative languages ​​of the inflectional type with clearly defined typological features, acts as a standard language, in comparison with which the typological features of the Arabic language appear. Such a contrastive comparison of two languages ​​allows us to identify specific typological features of modern literary Arabic, which, in turn, confirm the idea of ​​the outstanding linguist F.F. Fortunatov about the belonging of this language to a completely special inflectional-agglutinative type.

Subject of research are the typological features of the morphological structure of the verb word in Arabic and Russian languages.

Main objectives of the study: a) show inflectional (synthetic) and agglutinative (analytical) features of the system of verbal forms in the compared languages, b) identify convergences and differences in the use of linguistic means in the formation of word forms, c) identify general and particular patterns in the morphological structure of the verb word of Arabic and Russian languages, d) confirm the idea of ​​F.F. Fortunatov about the Arabic language belonging to the intermediate inflectional-agglutinative type.

To achieve the set goals, it is necessary to solve a number of specific tasks:

The concept of "language type".

All typological studies, the history of which begins from the end of the 18th century, were subordinated to one general idea - the search for that main thing in the structure that would make it possible to unite languages ​​into one type, regardless of their genetic relationship.

The type of language suggests it structural features, the most characteristic properties presented in interrelation and at different levels of language. Moreover, these properties should be observed not in one language, but in a group of languages. E. Sapir called this the “basic scheme”, “the genius of linguistic structure” and said that the type is “something much more fundamental, something much deeper penetrating into the language than this or that feature we detect in it. We cannot formulate about the nature of language adequate representation to oneself by means of a simple enumeration of the various facts that form its grammar" [Sapir 1993, p. 117].

The selection of some external signs and individual features will not give a clear idea of ​​the type of language. Vocabulary, due to its variability and ability to easily move from one language to another, cannot determine the nature of the language. What then is the essence of linguistic structure?

Typologists of previous centuries (brothers A.-W. and F. Schlegel, W. von Humboldt, A. Schleicher, I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay, F.F. Fortunatov, etc.) paid attention to the word, the connection of morphemes within the word and the relationship of its parts. F. Schlegel, pointing to the unity of the word, noted that in a language of any type a word cannot be a “heap of atoms.” He interpreted case and personal-numerical affixation in Indo-European languages ​​as the “structure of language”, which “was formed purely organically, branched out in all its meanings through inflections or internal changes and transformations of root sounds, and was not composed mechanically with the help of attached words and particles" [Reformatsky 1965, p. 68]. Drawing attention to the differences in the structure of languages, Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829) identified two groups: languages ​​with affixes, affixing languages , where he included the Turkic, Polynesian and Chinese languages, which express the relationships between words purely mechanically; and inflectional languages, which included Semitic, Georgian and French languages. His brother August-Wilhelm Schlegel (1767-1845) revised this classification and identified three classes of languages: languages ​​without grammatical structure, affixing languages ​​and inflectional languages. Based on the structure of inflectional languages, he came to the conclusion that Chinese and the languages ​​of Indochina need to be separated into special group, since in these languages ​​there is no inflection, and grammatical relations are expressed using word order. August Schlegel also belongs to the division of languages ​​into earlier - synthetic - and later - analytical.

Agreeing in general with the typological classification of A. Schlegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) divided all languages ​​known to him into four types: isolating languages ​​such as Chinese, that is, languages ​​that do not have inflectional morphemes; agglutinating, or agglutinative, languages ​​such as Turkic, capable of attaching only unambiguous morphemes, and inflectional languages ​​such as Indo-European or Semitic, capable of attaching ambiguous morphemes. In a special, fourth group, he identified the languages ​​of the American Indians, in which words are capable of being combined into special word-sentences. He called this type of language incorporative.

The typological aspect is also present in the glottogonic concept of Franz Bopp (1791-1867), according to which the words of Indo-European languages ​​should be derived from primary monosyllabic roots of two types - verbal (which gave rise to verbs and names) and pronominal (from which pronouns and auxiliary parts of speech developed). He developed and introduced comparative method in language research. Somewhat later, another German linguist, a representative of the so-called biological trend in linguistics, August Schleicher (1821-1868), made an attempt to clarify the classification of Wilhelm von Humboldt, making specific additions and clarifications to it. He called the study of language types morphology, and the classification of languages ​​based on the difference in the structure of languages ​​- “morphological”. It is with Schleicher that the understanding of agglutination and fusion as the nature of affixation begins when taking into account the behavior of roots.

Later, scientists began to consider the word as a structural unit, the unity of which can have a different character.

A new aspect in the theory of formal language types and typological classification of languages ​​was discovered in the middle of the 19th century. the work of Heiman Steinthal (1823-1899), who put forward formal syntactic features as the basis for typologization. He turned not to individual words, but to the analysis of syntactic connections between words, thereby expanding the field of typological observations and adding another typological classification feature.

Continuing the line of research of G. Steinthal, the Swiss linguist Franz Misteli (1841-1903) put forward two new criteria for typological classification in addition to the already existing ones: according to the place of the word in a sentence and according to the internal structure of the word. He was the first to distinguish between root-isolating languages ​​such as Chinese and root-isolating languages ​​such as Indonesian.

I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929), contrasting the structure of the word in the Ario-European and Ural-Altaic languages, looked for the “gluing cement” of the “whole word” in these languages ​​[Baudouin de Courtenay 1876, p. 322-323].

The question of the typological affiliation of the Arabic language

The term “Semitic languages” in its scientific understanding belongs to Schlotzer, who correctly listed all the languages ​​of this family (1781). Even earlier, in 1606, E. Guichard’s book “L armonie etymologique des langues” was published, which contained an attempt to establish and scientifically substantiate the primordial kinship of the Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic languages. In 1822 J.F. Champollion deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphics, which marked the beginning of Egyptian philology. K.R. Lepsius in 1868 united the Egyptian, Cushitic and Berber languages ​​together with the Semitic languages ​​into one glottogonic family, calling it Semitic-Hamitic. This gave rise to Semitic-Hamitic (Afrasian) comparative studies.

A typological description of the morphological structure of words in Semitic-Hamitic languages ​​was given by the German scientist G. Steinthal in the book “Characteristics of the most important types of language structure” (1860). He contrasted the Semitic and Egyptian languages ​​with all the languages ​​of the world based on the presence in them of inflectional forms that differ from the inflectional forms in Indo-European languages. He saw this difference in the fact that Indo-European inflection occurs by alternating inflections, organically connected to the stem, and in Semitic languages ​​- by connecting (adding) words (stems) either with each other, or with auxiliary elements, or by alternating vowel vowels.

The presence of “internal inflection”, polysemantic affixation, including a fusional one, etc. allowed scientists to classify Arabic as an inflectional language (A. Schleicher, G. Steinthal, N. Fink, J. Lippert, K. Brockelman, I. Fyuk, P.S. Kuznetsov, etc.). Elements of fusion in Arabic were established by E. Sapir, who characterized Semitic languages ​​as “symbolic-fusional” (which essentially corresponded to the traditional definition of “inflected languages”). The significant share of internal inflection in Semitic languages, which distinguishes them in this respect from other inflected languages, was noted by N.V. Yushmanov and V. Skalichka.

All this did not prevent scientists from identifying certain elements of agglutination in Semitic languages ​​(I.M. Dyakonov, B.A. Serebrennikov, etc.), which, however, do not change the inflectional nature of the Arabic language. V.P. Starinin, on the contrary, recognized agglutination as the dominant feature of the Semitic word: “in all its forms, internal inflection in Semitic languages ​​in relation to diffixation is a phenomenon of lesser importance and secondary” [Starinin 1963, p. 4].

It must be said that all the proposed definitions of the typological affiliation of the Arabic language only partially corresponded to reality, since both grammatical tendencies - fusion and agglutination - are leading and determining in its structure. This was first noticed by F.F. Fortunatov, who identified the Semitic languages, and in particular Arabic, into a special intermediate class and characterized them as “inflectional-agglutinative languages.” It was he who determined the main typological features of these languages: the structure of the Semitic word is characterized by internal inflection of the stems, in which the root of the stem does not exist in the language separately from the inflectional parts of such stems (features that bring Semitic languages ​​closer to languages ​​of the inflectional type); which is accompanied by the independence of the stem and affixes as parts of words, the stems of words themselves are designated as parts of words and they receive this designation independently of other parts of the word (features that bring Semitic languages ​​closer to languages ​​of the agglutinative type). The type of words in these languages ​​is also special - inflectional-agglutinative. In order to better understand what F.F. meant. Fortunatov, thus defining the typological features of Semitic languages, it is necessary to consider the main provisions of his morphological theory.

Fortunatov identified complete words and partial words, or particle words, that differ in meaning in the language. His theory of the “full” word is based on the following proposition: “Every sound of speech that has a meaning in a language separately from other sounds that are words is a word... Words are the sounds of speech in their meanings... A separate word... is every a speech sound or such a complex of speech sounds that has a meaning in a language separately from other speech sounds that are words, and which, moreover, if it is a complex of sounds, cannot be decomposed into separate words without changing or without losing the meaning of one or another part in this complex of sounds" [Fortunatov 1956, p. 132-169]. Huge value F.F. Fortunatov paid attention to the form of the word: “The form of individual words in proper meaning This term is called... the ability to separate individual words from

22 itself for the consciousness of the speaker, the formal and basic affiliation of the word" [Fortunatov 1956, p. 137]. The form manifests itself at each linguistic level in oppositions (oppositions) and alternations. Words are root ("have no composition" [Fortunatov 1990, p. 67] and derivative, compound. Words of the second type consist of parts (stem and affix), and this composition can be of two kinds: “parts of a word can be either parts of the meaning of the word or parts of the word itself” [Fortunatov 1990, p. Based on their position in the word and in relation to the base of the word, F.F. Fortunatov divided the affixes of derived words into suffixes (follow the base), prefixes (precede the base) and infixes (placed inside the base). Based on the nature of the relationship between the base and the affix, three types of derivatives are distinguished. words: “the affix of a derived word in all three types is part of the word itself, and as for the stem of a derived word, in derivative words of the first type the stem of the word does not itself contain the meaning of the part of the word itself; meanwhile, in derivative words of the second and third types, the base of the word, like the affix, is itself part of the word itself.

Morphemic composition of the word

A word is understood as the basic structural-semantic unit of language, which serves to name objects and their properties, phenomena, and relations of reality. Characteristic features words are its integrity, separability and free reproducibility in speech. In the language system, a word is opposed to a morpheme (as a unit of more low level) and a sentence (as a unit of a higher level): on the one hand, it can structurally consist of a number of morphemes, from which it differs in independence and free reproduction in speech, and on the other hand, it represents a building material for a sentence, unlike which it does not express messages.

Already at the initial stages of the development of linguistic science, attention was drawn to the duality of the word. In the structure of this unit, the plane of expression (phonetic and grammatical structure) and the plane of content (lexical and grammatical meaning) were distinguished. In various periods of the development of linguistics and in its individual directions, one or another aspect of the word was more actively studied. In ancient Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristotle), the main attention was paid to the semantic side of the word - its relationship to the designated object and to the idea about it. The morphological aspect was the object of attention of Varro and especially of the Alexandrian grammarians. Dionysius of Thracia defined a word as “the smallest part of coherent speech,” and word-formation and inflectional categories were equally included in the signs (“accidents”) of parts of speech. In the Middle Ages in Europe, mainly the semantic side of the word, its relationship to things and concepts was studied. In contrast to this approach, Arabic grammarians analyzed its morphological structure in detail. For example, in the 1st half of the 10th century. representative of the Baghdad philological school Ibn Jinni (“Features of the Arabic language”) considered grammatical and lexicological issues of the connection between words and meaning, the derivational structure of the word, the meaning of the word and its use. The question of the connection between the signifier and the signified was covered in the works of Ibn Faris. Port-Royal's grammar defined a word as a series of "articulate sounds from which people make signs to indicate their thoughts" and noted its formal, sound and content sides.

In the 19th century, the main attention was paid to the analysis of the content side of the word. A major role in this was played by the development of the concept of internal form words (W. von Humboldt, A.A. Potebnya). Semantic processes in words were studied in detail by G. Paul, M. Breal, M.M. Pokrovsky. At the same time, the theory of the grammatical form of the word deepened. Humboldt used it as the basis for the typological classification of languages. In Russia, the morphology of words was studied by A.A. Potebney and F.F. Fortunatov, who distinguished between independent words (substantial, lexical, complete) and function words (formal, grammatical, partial). Synthesizing previous views on the word, A. Meillet defined it as the connection of a certain meaning with a certain set of sounds capable of a certain grammatical use, thus noting three features of the word, but without analyzing, however, the criteria for their selection.

A systematic approach to language has posed new tasks in the study of words: defining a word as a unit of language, criteria for its isolation, studying the content side of a word, methods of its analysis; study of the systematic nature of vocabulary; study of words in language and speech, in text.

The difficulty of determining uniform criteria for identifying a word for all languages ​​prompted linguists to reconsider their view of the word as the basic unit of language. At the same time, some suggested, without abandoning the concept of “words,” not to give him general definition(V. Skalichka), others believed that the concept of “word” is not applicable to all languages ​​(for example, it is not applicable to amorphous, polysynthetic languages), others rejected the concept of “word” as a unit of language (F. Boas).

Modern research confirms that the word is distinguishable in languages ​​of different systems, including amorphous (Chinese: see the works of Solntseva N.V., Solntseva V.M.) and polysynthetic (North American, Paleo-Asian languages), but at the same time they are updated various criteria. Thus, the word as a structural-semantic unit of language has a set of semantic, phonetic and grammatical features specific to each language.

The fusionism of the Russian language predetermines the main features, the main criteria for identifying a word in a given language. The most important of them are the following:

1) in the semantics of a word there is no one-to-one correspondence between the signifier and the signified, there is no separate presentation of information as part of the word form. The semantics of a derived word is, as a rule, phraseological;

2) the word is not always easily divided into morphemes. The degree of division of words into morphemes can be different (there are from 2 [Zemskaya 1973, p. 46] to 15 [Panov 1975, pp. 236-237] degrees of division);

3) the consequence of the “cohesion” of morphemes in a word is diachronic morphemic reorganization or simplification of the structure of the word;

4) when morphemes are combined in a word, their mutual adaptation occurs, which can go in different ways.

In Russian, a word can consist of one or more morphemes. There are few monomorphemic units in the Russian language: these are “yes”, “no”, interjections, service particles, as well as indeclinable nouns, as a rule foreign origin: “coat”, “kangaroo”, “chimpanzee”, “jury”, etc. If we talk about verbs, they have at least two morphemes - a root stem and an inflection, for example: nes-u, rez-#. For the most part, verbs are polymorphemic: po-on-you-cher-iva-l-i\l under.

The Russian language, as a language of the fusional type, is characterized by “complex” or “derived” morphemes, which is associated with the phenomenon of simplification: two morphemes turn into a morphologically indecomposable complex, forming a new “common” “one” morpheme for the former two morphemes [Bogoroditsky 1939, Reformatsky 1975 ]. This phenomenon is observed in both nominal and verbal word formation and affects all types of morphemes. Such diachronic morphemic re-arrangement is a striking srusionic feature of the Russian language.

Some morphemes have a strictly standardized meaning: it is the same in all verbs that have this morpheme. For example, the morpheme -i in the word form sid-i has a standardized meaning. She gives any verb the meaning of the imperative mood: write-i, knock-i, translation-i.

Morphemes that are always used accompanied by other morphemes and have a standardized meaning are called inflections (endings) [Panov 1966, p. 68]. The exchange of one inflection for another creates forms of the same word, i.e. the main lexical meaning is preserved, and only the grammatical meaning is changed. For example, in the grammemes pish-u, pish-eesh, pish-et, the general lexical meaning is retained - “the process of writing”, but each form has a grammatical meaning of person that is different from other forms: inflection -u conveys the meaning of the 1st person, -eat is the meaning of the 2nd person, -et is the meaning of the 3rd person. And, for example, in grammes we write-u - we write-e also when

Word structure in Arabic

The morphological system of modern literary Arabic (hereinafter: Arabic) is generally distinguished by a high degree of abstraction, which is expressed in the strict clarity of the construction of the Arabic word.

The structure of a Semitic word (Arabic in particular) differs significantly from the structure of an Indo-European word (Russian in particular). From the point of view of morphological structure, an Arabic word consists of the following elements:

a root consisting of only consonants, which does not contain any adjunct forms of words and serves as the basis for the formation of both names and verbs. The root is the carrier of the basic material (lexical) concept or representation expressed by a given word. As an independent word, the root does not exist and is singled out only in the mind of the speaker after comparing the given word with two rows of forms: firstly, with words of the same root, and, secondly, with words constructed according to a similar word-formation or inflectional paradigm;

transfixes (diffixes). being a means of formalizing nominal and verbal stems on the basis of a root common to nouns and verbs, and within the verb - a formal accessory for the formalization of grammatical categories inherent in the verb (which is accompanied in some cases by affixation);

inflectional morphemes that form the lexical basis in the flow of speech. The verb does not exist in the form of a pure word-formation basis, but always has some kind of grammatical indicator;

word-productive, that is, morphemes belonging to words as individual signs of objects of thought, which are consonant additions to the productive base and change its lexical meaning in formations derived from it.

As in the Russian language, the stem of an Arabic word is distinguished by separating inflectional affixes. Despite this, in the compared languages ​​there are significant differences between the root and the base, which lie in the very definition of these concepts.

In Russian, the stem of a word is distinguished by discarding inflectional affixes, i.e. endings. It contains the lexical meaning of the word. If the base is simple, then it consists of one root morph, i.e. equal to the root. The root is the main and obligatory part of the word, the semantic core of its lexical meaning. The difficulty of finding a root in the Russian language is due to the fact that over the centuries it has changed significantly, without having a stable phonetic composition. In addition, in fusional languages, which include Russian, “complex” morphemes are distinguished. Their appearance in language is associated with the phenomenon of simplification, when two morphemes turn into a morphologically indecomposable complex. "For example, in the word boy there used to be such a division: small -ch-ik, which was correlated with the word malets (with alternation: /e/ - # and /ts/ - /ch/). In the modern Russian language the connection malets - the boy broke off... The same thing happens with root morphemes: the former da-r became dar, the former v-kus became taste "[Reformatsky 1975, p. 11].

In Arabic, as in Russian, the stem can be isolated after discarding inflectional affixes; for example, in the word katabtum “you wrote” the inflectional affix -urn is easily distinguished with the meaning of plural, m.p., 2nd person, past tense, discarding which you can get the stem katab-. But besides the lexical meaning, this basis expresses a certain grammatical meaning, namely, the past tense and the active voice (cf.: the basis of the present tense is -ktub-, and the basis of the past tense, but the passive voice is kutib-). This distinctive feature of the base of an Arabic word is due to the fact that it is almost always decomposable into a root and a non-root element consisting of consonants: in this case, the root consonants are k-b, and the vowels of the non-root element are -a-a-. The Semitic root is much more stable than the Indo-European one. The semantically and phonetically consonant part of a word (with some exceptions, which are regular) is preserved both during inflection and word formation. The three consonant components of the root have a single lexical meaning, despite the fact that they are separated by the vowels and consonants of the non-root element. This non-root remainder of the stem organizes the derivational or formative composition of the word. “For the same lexico-grammatical category, the root is a variable value, and the non-root remainder of the stem is constant” [Starinin 1963, p. 21]. Thus, the Arabic words ka:tib “writing”, ja:lis “sitting”, da:hil “entering” have a common grammatical meaning of the active participle, which is conveyed by the same vowel system (-a:-i-), but differ from each other lexical meaning represented by root consonants (k-b, j-l-s, d-h-l).

Thus, the peculiarity of the structure of the Arabic word is that three stable consonants of the root are interspersed with vowels and consonants of the non-root remainder. In this case, the lexical meaning is conveyed by the root element, and the grammatical meaning is conveyed by the vowels and consonants of the non-root element.

This made it possible for researchers to depict the structure of a Semitic word using conventional symbols. For more than a thousand years, Arab and Jewish grammarians, and after them European Semitologists, have been using formulas to designate the types of word structure of a particular lexical-grammatical category. To convey the root element, Arabic authors use the consonants f, I, and European semitologists use q.t.l. L.I. Zhirkov in 1927 in his grammar of the Persian language gave the briefest designation of the structure of the Semitic word with the image of root consonants in Arabic numerals [Zhirkov 1927]. In 1928, G. Bergstresser proposed using the letter K (the first letter of the word konsonant from the Latin consonans “consonant”) to designate root consonants with a digital designation of the order in the root. The designation of the first, second and third consonant components of the root is also used using R (from the French radicale “radical”) with a digital index. But with any designation of the root element, the non-root remainder is conveyed using ordinary writing signs in their direct sound meaning. Thus, the structure of the name of the character will have the formula fa: il, qa:til, (1)а:(2)і(3), Kіа:КгіКз, Ria:R2iR3- For example, active participles ka:tib “writer”, ra :sim “drawing” are formed according to one model of the name of the actor, while the lexical meaning is expressed by different root consonants (k-b, r-s-m), and a single lexical-grammatical meaning is expressed by the same set of vowels of the non-root remainder: a:-i.

In this work, the structures of various verbal stems will be conveyed schematically: the consonants of the root will be denoted by the Latin letter C (from the English consonant “consonant”) with a subscript corresponding to the serial number of the consonant in the root, and vowels by the Latin letter V (from the English vowel "vowel"), or, as necessary, with ordinary graphic signs corresponding to the direct sound meaning of these vowels, which is justified by their constancy.

All these structural formulas reflect the independence of the root and non-root in linguistic thinking when they coexist in a word: although the root and vowel do not exist separately from each other, but necessarily coexist in a word, Semitic linguistic thinking freely combines the root of one word with the vowel of another word, as if separating from each other everything that is generalized [Yushmanov 1938, p.23]. We find a similar statement in V.f. Soden: “Semitic names and verbs are formed from roots that are not found anywhere in the language in a pure form without any additives, but still represent reality for linguistic consciousness as the building stones of language.”

Can anyone explain why when they talk about the connection between the Russian and Arabic languages, they don’t talk about their connection with Sanskrit, and when they talk about the connection between Russian and Sanskrit, they don’t talk about their connection with Arabic, and they simply don’t talk about the connection between Arabic and Sanskrit ?

Original taken from blagin_anton There were no riddles and there are no words. There is a sleeping consciousness

Codes R A

It is a fact that any Russian word or an expression (idiom) that has no motivation in Russian is explained through Arabic, its roots.

Arabic unmotivated words and expressions are explained through Russian language.

All unmotivated words and expressions of other languages ​​ultimately go back to Russian or Arabic. And this is regardless of history or geography.

There are no exceptions, the etymologies are laconic, in the corridor of axiomaticity.

So, magpie in Arabic means “thief”, despite the fact that no bird is designated by this word in Arabic.

Thus, there is no need to talk about borrowing.

During the search for etymological solutions, it turned out that not nations invent for themselves language, and language forms peoples and not only, but the entire system called Life.

It turned out that the words that we use to communicate are at the same time elements of the programs according to which the evolution of Life occurs from the organelles of plant cells to human communities and which control the behavior of any biological object, as well as processes, including physiological, social and even spontaneous.

Due to the action of verbal programs, the periodic law of chemical elements, discovered by D. I. Mendeleev, extends far beyond the boundaries of chemistry and even covers ethnic groups that are distributed according to the linguistic-ethnic table like chemical elements, so that there are correlations between the first and second.

In particular Russian ethnicity corresponds to hydrogen , A Arabic - helium .

This correspondence can be traced by numbers, place in the table, mutual structure and function.

Russian and Arabic languages ​​form unified linguistic system, which is the core of all languages, and like the Sun, consisting of hydrogen and helium, and giving physical light, forms “semantic sun”, giving non-physical light that allows one to distinguish things of the spiritual world and reveal all the secrets of the Universe.

The materials on the website of N.N. Vashkevich, Arabist, candidate, will tell you about this in detail. philosophical sciences and military translator: http://nnvashkevich.narod.ru/.

Some examples that personally surprised me:

"...You know that fish is for the Jews—sacred food? Do you know that kashrut rules prohibit eating fish if it does not have scales, for example, an eel? Do you know why this happens? Of course, you don’t know, because no one knows. Even Jews! Neither of them knows this. But no one knows this, because they neglect both the Russian language and Arabic. Do you know what the Russian word “fish” means in Arabic? No, you don't know? So I'll tell you. In Arabic it is "loan interest". Do you also not know what scales are called in Arabic? So I’ll tell you: flu:s (فلوس). The same word means "money". If you haven’t guessed what’s going on, what’s the trick here, then I’ll tell you this too. The meaning of this ban is simple: where there is no money, a Jew has nothing to do. Do you also not know where this word “fulus” (scales) comes from in Arabic? So I'll tell you. From the Russian word "to flatten". This is how money was made, by minting... "

"...The Arabic word أراضي "ara:dy "earth", from where the Hebrew - Aretz "earth" cannot be explained in Arabic. Because it comes from the Russian "roda". After all, the earth will give birth, and we reap the harvest, what is born. But the Russian word “earth” cannot be explained in Russian. Because it comes from the Arabic root زمل = حمل ЗМЛ=ХМЛ “to bear, to be pregnant”.
What follows from this? And the fact that the Hebrew word aretz "land" ultimately comes from the Russian language..."

"... The term dialectic is understood by both ancient and modern philosophers as “dispute,” as a word related to the Greek dialogue, supposedly originally the art of conversation. In fact, the only philosopher from the entire philosophical army who understood this term correctly was Plato He taught that dialectics is the decomposition of the complex. This is precisely the meaning of the term when read in Arabic and from right to left: CT CLIT. Thousands of philosophers did not heed the teacher. We were particularly unlucky. We were simply dumbfounded by this term..."