As you know, in modern Russian, adjectives with the ending-1 sometimes form one short form (inviolable - inviolable), and sometimes two: not truncated and truncated (immoral - immoral and immoral, daring - daring and (high) daring)However, there are quite a few controversial cases. Thus, the four-volume "Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by A. P. Evgenieva (Moscow, 1985-1988. Vol. 4) and "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" by S. I. Ozhegov and N. Yu. Shvedova (Moscow, 1994) fix only one variant of the short form of the adjective explicit-truncated: yavestv, and the " Big explanatory Dictionary of the Russian language "(St. Petersburg, 1998) gives two options: yavestv and yavestven.

Is there a rule governing the formation of truncated and non-truncated variants? In which cases are both options possible, and in which cases only one is possible? In the manual of B. N. Golovin " How to speak correctly. Notes on the culture of speech" (Moscow, 1988. pp. 51-52) we read: "If the short form of the feminine adjective has nn, then in the short form of the masculine adjective it should be at the end of the combination-nen (bold - bold, inflexible - inflexible, desert - desert, etc.); if the short form of the feminine adjective has nn, then in the short form of the masculine adjective it should be at the end of the combination-nen (bold-bold, inflexible-inflexible, desolate-desolate, etc.); the feminine adjective form has h, then in the short masculine form there should be only one h sound at the end: out - out, provided - provided, called - called.

However, the variability of short forms is observed only for adjectives in -1, so the rule should not apply to words with other endings - such as inflexible, deserted. Since there is no variation in the forms of participles (such as left out, provided for, called) and participial adjectives-

page 34

This rule should also not apply to those who are corrupt (such as exalted, measured, despicable, corrupt, etc.). Otherwise, we would have to admit, following B. N. Golovin, that "such words tend to form the masculine short form in two ways: exalted (as a participle) and exalted (as an adjective), unexpected and unexpected, measured and measured" (p.52). The rule does not apply to adjectives whose participial nature is revealed only as a result of etymological analysis (bent, confused, pompous, enthusiastic, pompous, etc.). From these adjectives, in accordance with the established tradition of inflection, only truncated variants are formed. It seems that the very form of most of these adjectives (for example, the presence of verb prefixes) supports "verbal" associations, which contributes to understanding the morpheme-enn-as a formative participial suffix and even provokes reverse word formation: bent - bend (> bend), etc. Cf.: "In the open double-leafed iron doors of the northern narthex an old beggar woman bent over... "(Solzhenitsyn. In the first circle). It seems that not only tradition, but also verbal associations impose a ban on the formation of non-truncated short forms from such adjectives: bent - bent (and not *bent), confused - confused (and not *confused) etc.

In order to formulate the desired rule, it is enough to put emphasis on the following adjectives and compare the variants of the short forms derived from them:

immoral

-veins

- venen

inviolable

-

- venen

slow

-flax

- lenen

indubitable

-

- nenen

responsible

-veins

- venen

ordinary

-

- venen

timely

-men

- менен

modern

-

- менен

The conclusion suggests itself: 1) adjectives with a stressed ending-en form only one variant of the masculine short form: na-enen; 2) adjectives with an unstressed ending-en form two variants of this form: na-yeon and na-yeonen. Unfortunately, experts do not always take this pattern into account when preparing relevant recommendations. In the dictionary "Grammatical correctness of Russian speech" by L. K. Graudina, V. A. Itskovich and L. P. Katlinskaya (Moscow, 1976, p. 232), we find the following statement: "Several adjectives with an accent on the suffix in a short form are used mainly (discharge). - V. M.) with the ending-enen: haughty, inviolable, indubitable, ordinary,

page 35

frank, insightful, respectable, modern." It can be assumed that these adjectives also have truncated short forms (in reality, there are no such forms and cannot be-in accordance with the first paragraph of the rule formulated above).

Researchers quite rightly see the reason for the emergence of short forms of na-en in the "tendency to" save "language resources" (Rosenthal D. E. Practical stylistics of the Russian language, Moscow, 1974, p. 140). It seems that the simplification of adjectives with unstressed endings (for example, explicit -> explicit) occurs as a result of haplology-the elimination of one of the same sound combinations that "collided" in a word; as is known, such a collision is not consonant in both articulatory and acoustic relations. Note that in such cases, haplology can probably be aimed at simplifying the sequence of unstressed syllables, which (especially in polysyllabic words) "makes pronunciation very difficult" (Superanskaya A.V. Stress in borrowed words in modern Russian, Moscow, 1968, p. 85). The only adjective with an unstressed ending-t, which does not fall within the scope of haplology, is temporary', probably due to the similarity (and homography) of the supposed truncated short form (*tenses) and the genitive plural form of the word time (tenses).

It should be noted that scientists (V. I. Chernyshev, D. E. Rosenthal, L. P. Katlinskaya) noted the fact that the variability of forms is observed primarily in adjectives with an unstressed ending-a. As it seems to us, three circumstances prevented us from formulating the (seemingly obvious) rule. 1. This rule does not apply to partial adjectives such as sublime, measured, despicable, corrupt, etc. However, we have already noted that participles and non-participial adjectives should not fall within the scope of this rule. 2. There is no consensus among scientists in recognizing the linguistic reality of a number of non-truncated variants of short forms such as yavestven, formed from adjectives with an unstressed ending -n, which casts doubt on the effectiveness of the second paragraph of the rule. 3. A number of adjectives do not follow this rule. Let's analyze the second and third circumstances.

Modern dictionaries reflect the uncut forms of short adjectives in different ways, but for the most part they do not accept them, although many examples can be given that indicate the use of these forms: "Three things are not feasible in our time: 1) feat, because it is meaningless 2) fight, because it is impossible; 3) sacrifice, because... funny" (S. Klychkov. Unhurried recordings / / Novy Mir, 1989. N 9); " For twenty years of links, transfers, trace-

page 36

Abramson, once a soft-spoken, easy-to-excite speaker, has become insensitive to the state's prisons, isolation wards, camps, and sharashkas..."(Solzhenitsyn. In the first circle); " Myth... both sensual and non-sensual" (Losev. Genesis. Name. Space); "I am effective because I hate action" (Solzhenitsyn. In the first circle); "At the Volkonskys' he was unnatural and absent-minded and stayed up until one o'clock..." (L. Tolstoy. Diary. Entry of March 24, 1851); "Turgenev was slow, his short novels seemed long" (Kaverin. Lighted windows); "Until recently, before the 60s, they filed a request (butterfly view. - V. M.) was quite numerous" (Sagalaev. Submitted a request // Fatherland. 1994. N 4. P. 168); "Look into their eyes, choose those who are honest..., courageous in front of their superiors" (Solzhenitsyn. Speech in the State Duma on October 28, 1994 / / Culture of Russian speech. Moscow, 1988. P. 332); "A person is responsible for his face..: how a person lived his life, you will understand by looking at his face in old age" (e. Yakovleva Street. Evening call to Vera Alentova / / Izvestiya. 2002. February 19); " Mikhail has a logical mindset "(Name. Personality. Fate, Moscow, 1995, p. 284); "Today he is somewhat burnt out, cooled down, became more substantial, but was always condescending and kind, wise" (Tynyanov. Pushkin); "And it was terrible, incomprehensible, Mysterious, like this run of Misty haze and bright spots that Sometimes illuminated the "snow" (Bunin. Peregrine falcon); "The Neanderthal is completely identical to the modern man" (Orthodox word. 2002. N 2), etc.

Dictionaries do not record the uncut short forms of a number of adjectives with an unstressed ending-for example: formless, indirect, frivolous, ordinary, chaste, emergency, etc. It is necessary, apparently, to recognize the linguistic reality of a certain number of "morphological phraseological units" such as frivolous, low, etc. However, there are uncodified, non-truncated forms in speech, such as: "This kind (of human harassment) is base and vile" (F. Bacon. New Organon (translated by S. Krasilytsikov) / / Anthology of World Philosophy: In 4 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1970. p. 215).

Separate consideration is required for adjectives with an unstressed final: lifeless, immaculate, fearless, painful, hostile, fiery, etc. Not one (as in the previous case), but two factors act against the use of uncut short forms formed from such adjectives.: 1) these forms are not recorded in any dictionary (that is, they are not codified); 2) discordance of these forms (namely, the collision of identical sound combinations: "en + en") It is aggravated by the triple tautological repetition of the sound n. This, it would seem, excludes the real use of non-truncated variants such as lifeless, immaculate, etc. in speech. However, we can even find the following features in our speech:

page 37

morphological variants: "But to remain at the stage of such apotheosis would mean falling into a deadening agnosticism, which is as dull and lifeless as crude rationalism" (Losev. Edict. op.). It seems that "such facts (in our case, non - truncated short forms like lowly, lifeless. - V. M.) would have been observed much more if it were not for the" vigilance "of editors and proofreaders" who eliminate non-truncated forms "with the same ease with which they correct spelling errors and typos" (R. Tseitlin. M. About one old mistake in word usage (to put on and put on) / / Voprosy kul'tury rechi. Issue 4. Moscow, 1963, p. 116).

In live speech, most people either trust their language sense (and it suggests that here, by analogy, there are two possible forms: low and low, clear and clear, lifeless and lifeless), or, not trusting their intuition, they turn to a dictionary (most often - to an explanatory one) - and to some kind of dictionary. V. I. Chernyshev quite rightly noted: "A considerable disadvantage in students of the < Russian language> is the worship of one or another source. Often, language lovers who know a lot have some fanatical trust in one or another authority. If, for example, an academic dictionary shows such an accent and not a different one, then the admirer of this source does not take into account either the facts or the beliefs that the disputed word also allows for a different accent. Facts studied in this way narrow a person's thought, make him petty and pedantic. Such a person will strenuously seek, how to say it better: from the forest or from the forest, need or need'?.. Meanwhile, each of these pronouncings is so common in the modern literary language that there is no reason to abandon one... pronunciation in favor of another" (Chernyshev V. I. Russian stress / / Selected works: In 2 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1970. p. 103), from one form in favor of another, - we will add.

Experts often try to determine which of the options - truncated or non-truncated-is more viable and promising (lexicographers for this purpose either use restrictive marks "outdated" and "less often", or refuse to fix "unpromising" forms). In the dictionary "Grammatical correctness of Russian speech "(p. 232) we read: "In general, for adjectives with an unstressed suffix, short forms na-en are more promising" (in Russian linguistics, such a tradition of evaluating na-en variants dates back to the work: Chernyshev V. I. Correctness and purity of Russian speech: the experience of Russian stylistic grammar / / Izbr. tr. Vol. 1. P. 533; first edition of the work appeared in 1909). To make sure that this statement is not entirely true, it is enough to compare the data from the following two dictionaries. In Tolkovoye Yel-

page 38

vare russkogo yazyka "edited by D. N. Ushakov (1st ed. 1935-1940). such, for example, non-truncated forms as masculine, feminine, mnogoy yslenen, responsible, natural, explicit and many others are either absent or characterized as rare or outdated; in the" Short Dictionary difficulties of the Russian language " by N. A. Eskova (Moscow, 1994) the same forms are already given without litters and as absolutely equal to truncated ones (masculine-masculine, feminine-feminine, explicit-explicit, etc.).

As we can see, the non-truncated forms, despite the refusal of some of them in lexicographic fixation, as well as contrary to the expectations of a number of specialists, turned out to be quite viable. This circumstance should be considered as an argument in favor of recognizing the greater regularity of the second paragraph of the rule formulated above, as well as a positive solution to the issue of fixing non-truncated forms in the presence of fluctuations - this would eliminate almost all cases of inconsistency associated with the interpretation of variants of short masculine forms formed from adjectives with an unstressed ending., data from the dictionary "Grammatical correctness of Russian Speech", the dictionary of N. A. Eskova and explanatory dictionaries about such adjectives as, slow, majestic, natural, powerful, moral, artificial, ignorant, related, premature, proper, etc.). Recognition of the linguistic reality of non-truncated forms (such as related, peculiar, etc.) would reduce the list of words that do not obey the second point of the rule and, accordingly, would make it easier to memorize such a list.

Now we will consider and try to systematize the exceptions to this rule.

1. Truncated variants are more euphonious and easy to pronounce; hence, the extension of the scope of haplology to individual units with a stressed ending-1, which is why the adjectives daring, hidden, unforgettable, self-forgotten form two variants of short forms (daring and daring, hidden and hidden, etc.). Here we note that the " Explanatory Dictionary of Russian S. I. Ozhegov and N. Y. Shvedova give the form derznoven as the only possible one; on the other hand, N. A. Eskova's dictionary gives the form derznoven as the main one, and the variant derznoven is recorded with the marks "acceptable" and "obsolete". At the same time, the four-volume "Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by A. P. Evgenieva (Moscow, 1985-1988. Vol. I) and the " Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language "(St. Petersburg, 1998) give truncated and non-truncated variants as equal. It seems that none of these forms should be denied the right to exist.

page 39

2. Partial adjectives of the two groups marked above with a stressed ending-usually, obeying the law of analogy, begin to acquire non-truncated variants of short forms, gradually replacing truncated forms; thus, individual partial adjectives fall within the scope of the first paragraph of the rule formulated above. The process of grammatical development of participial adjectives by the adjective morphological microsystem can be divided into three stages.

1) The uncut form appears in speech: a) as a slip of the tongue, an error: "Our clothing even tells us about the inner constitution of a person, whether he is vain or humble, depraved or chaste" (Orthodox word. 2002. N 4. P. 7); b) as a poetic license (for example, to please the rhythm of the verse): "Blessed is the slow passing away of autumn Love, passionate and weary, When the scarlet veil is already being torn from the transparent shoulders of the year" (Eph. Aptekman. Former favorite / / Collegium. 1993. N 2. P. 129). Cf.: "He (P. A. Pletnev. - Ya. M.) was very humble; but he was loved" (I. S. Turgenev. Literary evening at P. A. Pletnev's); "Blessed is the day of cares, blessed is the coming of darkness!" (Pushkin. Eugene Onegin).

2) The non-truncated form is not only used in speech, but also (gradually) codified: "In general, every object in Homer is "sacred", that is, it is a part of the deity" (Tago-Godi A. A., Losev A. F. Greek culture in myths, symbols and terms, St. Petersburg, 1999, p. 533). The form of priestesses is recorded in the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" by S. I. Ozhegov and N. Y. Shvedova (Moscow, 1994), as well as in the "Russian Grammar" (Moscow, 1980, Vol. I. P. 561) - with the following example: "Never pull the lampshade off the lamp! The lampshade is sacred!" (M. A. Bulgakov). The form of blazhenen is recorded in Russian Grammar and the dictionary Grammatical Correctness of Russian Speech (p. 232). The form of inspirational is already found in all modern explanatory dictionaries. Along with the non-truncated forms of short adjectives, truncated variants (sacred, blessed, inspired) are also used in the literary language. Let's give examples from the works of A. S. Pushkin: "Pig iron of Cahul, you are sacred to the Russian, for the friend of glory..." ("Pig Iron of Cahul..."); "Blessed is he who was young in his youth, Blessed is he who matured in time" ("Eugene Onegin"); " ... he was inspired from above And looked down upon for a living " ("He lived between us...").

3) The non-truncated form completely replaces the truncated one and absolutely dominates in modern speech: "His drawing is so perfect that you don't notice the skill" (Konenkov. Memories of N. I. Feshin); "He (self-portrait. - V. M.) is elegant, harmonious and perfect in its artistic completeness" (Tsyavlovskaya. Pushkin's drawings); "Only the Lord is Holy and perfect" (Ilyin. Pushkin's prophetic vocation); the form of perfection is fixed-

page 40

on in all explanatory dictionaries as the only possible one. However, in the old texts we also find a truncated version of this word: "Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (the Gospel of Matthew).; "As everything seems smooth at night, So the world is perfect for fools" (Karamzin. Hymn to fools); "It is said:' Give away everything and follow me, if you want to be perfect '" (Dostoevsky. The Karamazov brothers). Apparently, the adjectives haughty and venerable went the same way.

In conclusion, we note another, in our opinion, interesting process: the involvement in the scope of the first paragraph of the rule formulated by us of certain participial adjectives with the ending-1. Thus, dictionaries record only the truncated short form of the adjective extended, but in speech we also meet an uncut version: "This way of life was not only strangely long, but also strangely extended" (Chudakova. Through the stars to the thorns / / Novy mir. 1990. N 4. P. 243). The adjective definite (in contrast to the participle definite) has only one short form: not truncated (defined) , which is recorded by all dictionaries as the only possible one. The question arises: why is the process of expansion of non-truncated forms limited only to adjectives with the ending-yes! What is the reason for this selectivity? Apparently, in the Russian language consciousness, the final and-formed converge-by virtue of the well-known law on the transition of the stressed [e] to [b] in the position between soft and hard consonants, cf. solitary and (obsolete) solitary, (lit.) modern and (simple) modern (for more details, see: Obnorsky S. P. Perekhod e v o v sovremennom russkom yazyke [about in the modern Russian language]. Izbrannye raboty po russkomu yazyku [Selected works on the Russian language], Moscow, 1960, pp. 215-234).

The study shows that the composition and correlation of the considered variants of short adjectives are formed as a result of the struggle of two multidirectional trends: on the one hand (under the influence of the law of linguistic economy) - to articulatory simplification of forms, on the other (under the influence of the law of analogy) - to the elimination of exceptions, that is, to the consistency and regularity of inflection forms.

Volgograd.

Permanent link to this publication: