The disappearance of impersonal constructions in the languages of Indo-European origin seems to us, first of all, a consequence of analysis, that is, the transition from a synthetic system to an analytical one. For languages that gravitate towards an analytical device (French, English, Italian, Spanish, Bulgarian, Danish), the expression of grammatical meanings is characteristic not by the forms of the words themselves, but by the intonation of the sentence, auxiliary words with significant words and the order of significant words. In synthetic languages (Russian, Ancient Greek, Latin, Old Slavonic, Lithuanian), on the contrary, grammatical meanings are expressed within the word itself (affixation, internal inflection, stress, suppletivism, etc.). A.V. Schlegel named the following main characteristics of analytic languages: 1) the use definite article; 2) the use of the subject-pronoun with the verb; 3) use of auxiliary verbs; 4) the use of prepositions instead of case endings; 5) the use of periphrastic degrees of comparison with the help of adverbs (Siemund, 2004, S. 170). Since many impersonal constructions are inherited from the synthetic Indo-European proto-language (see below), their structure implies the existence of an extensive case system that makes it possible to clearly distinguish between subject and object. With the disappearance of the corresponding inflections, the personal constructions that depend on them invariably fall out of use. Those that do not depend on the distinction between subject and object are preserved (in particular, the weather type Morosit), which contradicts the thesis about the replacement of the irrational type of thinking by rational, allegedly reflected in the disappearance of the impersonal.
If we compare modern English with much more synthetic Old English, it turns out that impersonal phrases that have almost disappeared today were used earlier in a disproportionately larger volume. Here are some of them.
Nature:
Hit friest (Freeze); Hit winterlamp;cep (It's getting cold, winter is coming); Nit hagolad (There is hail); Hit rind (It's raining); Hit smwd (It's snowing); Hit blamp; wd (Blowing (wind)); Hit styrmd (Stormy); Hit lieht (Sparkles (lightning)); Hitpunrad (Thunder (thunder)); Hit (ge) widerap (It cleared up); Hit leohtad/frumlieht/dagad (Dawn); Hit sefenlamp;cd famp;fnad (Evening), etc.
Physical and mental states:
Him camp;ld (He is cold); Him swiercd (It went dark before his eyes); Hit turnep abutan his heafod (He is dizzy); Hine sec(e)p (He hurts); Hit (be)cymd him to adle /geyfelad (He got sick); Hine hyngred (He wants to eat); Hine pyrst (ed) (He is thirsty); Him (ge) licad (He likes it); Him gelustfullad (Heamily); Him (ge)lyst(ed) (He wants to); Hine (ge) hriewd / hreowsad (He repents); Him (ge) scamap (He is ashamed); Hine priet (He is tired); Him ofpynced (He is sad, unpleasant); Him (ge)m^t(ed) / (ge)swefnad (He dreams); Him (ge)pync(e)d (It seems to him); Him mispync(e)d (He is delusional); Him (ge) tweod / (ge) tweonad (He doubts), etc.
Modal values:
(Hit) Behofad / (ge)neodad / bepearf (Need); Gebyred / gedafenad / be- lim(e)d /gerist (Should), Liefd (May), etc.
In total, in the book by N. Wahlen “Old English impersonal verbs”, from which these examples are taken, 121 verbs with impersonal meanings are described (some of them had several), of which 17 verbs are marked “uncertain impersonalia” (Wahlen, 1925). A fairly detailed list of impersonal verbs used in different periods of history in the English language can also be found in the book Diachronic Analysis of English Impersonal Constructions with an Experiencer (Krzyszpien, 1990, pp. 39-143). All verbs were used in the form of 3 l. units hours, that is, the same as in Russian (McCawley, 1976, p. 192; Pocheptsov, 1997, p. 482). Subjects with them, if any were present at all, stood in dative or accusative. Constructions that did not require dative and accusative subjects, for the most part, have survived to this day, while the rest, with rare exceptions, have disappeared because they did not fit into the new word order “subject (nom.) gt; predicate gt; supplement (acc.)".
As can be seen from the translations, some impersonal constructions of the Old English language do not have exact equivalents in Russian, which is why personal constructions were used to convey their meaning. Although this list is far from complete, there is every reason to believe that the sphere of impersonality was still much less developed even in Old English than in modern Russian. This is due, however, not to the peculiarities of the national character of the Germans, but to a significant degree of analysis of Old English. There were not six cases in it, as in Old Russian, Russian and Proto-Germanic languages (Ringe, 2006, p. 233; Bukatevich et al., 1974, p. 119; Borkovsky, Kuznetsov, 2006, p. 177; Bomhard, Kerns, 1994 , p. 20), and not eight, as in the Indo-European language (nominative, vocative, accusative, dative, genitive, instrumental, ablative and locative) (“Atlas of World Languages”, 1998, p. 28; “The Cambridge History of the English Language", 1992. Vol. 1, p. 4748; Brugmann, 1904, S. 417-445; Mallory, Adams, 2006, p. 56; Hudson-
Williams, 1966, p. 46; Green, 1966, p. 10; Emerson, 1906, p. 160), but only four (with the remains of the fifth); even then, as can be seen from the examples from the first group, the formal subject it (OE hit) was used, although not always; even then articles and other functional words were born, and the dual number was found only in a few ossified forms (Jespersen, 1918, p. 24; Jespersen, 1894, p. 160; Emerson, 1906, p. 182; Moore, 1919, p. 49 ; Mitchell and Robinson, 2003, pp. 19, 106-107; Arakin, 2003, pp. 73-74, 143). Thus, it can be confidently asserted that even Old English is much further from the Indo-European proto-language than modern Russian. This circumstance is partly due to the smaller number of impersonal constructions. We emphasize, however, that the most active phase of analysis dates back to 1050-1350, and it is precisely the degree of synthesis / analyticism that Middle English most differs from Old English (Janson, 2002, p. 157; Meiklejohn, 1891, p. 317-318), also called “ a period of complete endings” (Krapp, 1909, p. 62).
According to the method of typological indices of J. Greenberg, the index of synthesis of the English language has a value of 1.62-1.68, Russian - 2.45-3.33 (for comparison: Old Church Slavonic - 2.29, Finnish - 2.22, Sanskrit - 2, 59, Pali - 2.81-2.85, Yakut - 2.17, Swahili - 2.55, Armenian - 2.15, Turkish - 2.86) (Zelenetsky, 2004, p. 25; Haarmann, 2004, S 79; Siemund, 2004, S. 193; Sargsyan, 2002, p. 10; Pirkola, 2001). The technique consists in the fact that on a segment of the text containing 100 words, all cases of a particular linguistic phenomenon are recorded and counted; in this case, the number of morphemes, which is then divided by 100. Languages with a value between 2 and 3 are considered synthetic, more than 3 are polysynthetic, less than 2 are analytic. The maximum of synthetism in European languages is observed in Gothic (2.31), in general in the languages of the world - in Eskimo (3.72), the minimum of synthetism - in Vietnamese (1.06). The calculations were not carried out for all languages. The analysis of some Indo-European languages is evident from the following data: in Old Persian, the synthetic index was 2.41, in modern Persian - 1.52; in ancient Greek - 2.07, in modern Greek - 1.82; in Old English the synthesis index was 2.12, in modern English it was a maximum of 1.68 (Haarmann, 2004, S. 72). The calculation of the systemic index of synthesism of verbs (temporal forms) showed that for Russian it is 0.8, for English - 0.5, for even more analytical Afrikaans - 0.2; in terms of the development of verbal analyticism, among the Indo-European languages, the German ones are in the lead (Zelenetsky, 2004, p. 182). The Indo-European parent language was synthetic, which, according to I. Balles, no one doubts at the current stage of research (Hinrichs, 2004 b, S. 19-20, 21; cp. Haarmann, 2004, S. 78; “The Oxford History of English”, 2006, p. 13).
According to the scale of inflection A.V. Shirokov's Russian belongs to the second group (inflectional languages with separate features of analyticism). This group includes most of the Slavic languages. English belongs to the fourth group (inflectional-analytical with a large number of analytical features) (Shirokova, 2000, p. 81). Altogether Shirokova distinguishes four degrees of analyticism. English belongs to the group of the most analyzed languages. The most inflectional (the first group) are only extinct languages: Old Indian, Old Iranian, Latin, Old Church Slavonic. The Lithuanian language is considered the most archaic in terms of the preservation of the case system (Comrie, 1983, p. 208; cp. Jespersen, 1894, p. 136), it uses seven cases.
Note that a reduction in the number of cases (and at the same time, inflections) is observed in all Indo-European languages, but in Slavic, Baltic, Armenian and Ossetian languages - to a lesser extent than, for example, in Romance and Germanic languages (Vostrikov, 1990, p. 43). The presumed reason for this conservatism is linguistic contacts with some non-Indo-European languages, which also have a rich system of inflections (according to G. Wagner, "each language is in typological relationship with the neighboring language" (cited in: Haarmann, 2004, S. 75)). In the case of Armenian and Ossetian, we are talking about contacts with Caucasian languages, in the case of Slavic and Baltic languages, with Finno-Ugric languages. It is also possible that there are other factors that will be discussed later. U. Hinrichs also points to the possible mutual influence of the Finno-Ugric languages (Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian and others) and Slavic (Russian, Slovene, Czech and others), thanks to which both groups managed to maintain a high degree of synthetism, comparable only to the synthetism of Icelandic outside this group. zones (Hinrichs, 2004b, S. 19-20). The Russian language turned out to be especially “anti-analytical”, according to some characteristics it even moves away from other Indo-European languages in the direction of greater synthetism. Hinrichs notes the maximum degree of analyticity in Creole languages, as well as in some African languages (Hinrichs, 2004 b, S. 21). This is an important remark, considering how often the analytical system was attributed to the expression of progressive thinking, rationality, an active attitude to life, and so on. For example, in the Yoruba language of the Benue-Congo family (West Africa), the Greenberg Synthetic Index is 1.09 (Pirkola, 2001).
H. Haarmann contrasts (on a global scale) highly synthetic languages such as Finnish, Russian and Basque with highly analytical types of English, French and Swedish (Haarmann, 2004, p. 76). Among the Baltic, he calls the Lithuanian language especially conservative, among the German ones - Icelandic; Slavic languages are, in his opinion, especially conservative in comparison with modern English due to the influence of the Uralic languages (Haarmann, 2004, S. 79, 83).
Consider the difference between analytic and synthetic languages with specific examples. To express identical semantic content in an English text, approximately 10% more words are required than in synthetic Armenian, since in English texts one-third of all words are functional words, and in Armenian - one quarter (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 5). Prepositions make up 12% of words in an average English text and
- % - in Armenian. L. Weisgerber in his book “On the Picture of the World of the German Language” cites the following data: French translations of German poetry usually contain 11% more words than the original. This is explained by the fact that the French language is much more analytical, and therefore prone to the use of functional words instead of case endings. Instead of the genitive and dative, translators use the prepositions de and a; German composites are replaced by phrases, also fastened with prepositions (Eisenbahn gt; chemin de fer - “ Railway”) (Weisgerber, 1954, S. 251). Similar transformations can be observed when translating from Old English into Modern English:
- instead of case endings, prepositions or conjunctions are used: metodes ege gt; fear of the Lord - “fear of the Lord” (the genitive changed to the preposition of), dages ond nihtes gt; by day and night - “day and night” (the genitive changed to the preposition by), dare ylcan nihte gt; in the same night - “on the same night” (the dative changed to the preposition in), lytle werode gt; with a small band - “with a small detachment” (the instrumental case has changed to the preposition with), py ilcan geare gt; in the same year - “in the same year” (the instrumental case changed to the preposition in); sunnan beorhtra gt; brighter than the sun - “brighter than the sun” and Ic eom stane heardra gt; I am harder than stone - “I am harder than stone” (in both cases, the dative was offset by the conjunction than) (Mitchell, Robinson, 2003, p. 105-106; cp. Kington Oliphant, 1878, p. 8; Crystal, 1995, p. 44; Kellner, 1892, p. 17);
- Old English composites break up into their component parts in modern English or are paraphrased: hell-waran gt; inhabitants of hell, storm-sa gt; stormy sea, ar-dag gt; early day, eall-wealda gt; ruler of all, hdah-gerdfa
- high reeve (chief officer) (Mitchell and Robinson, 2003, p. 56; Bradley, 1919, p. 105-106); many fell into disuse under the pressure of the French vocabulary: fore-elders gt; ancestors, fair-hood gt; beauty, wanhope gt; despair, earth-tilth
- agriculture, gold-hoard gt; treasure, book-hoard gt; library, star-craft gt; astronomy, learning-knight gt; disciple, leech-craft gt; medicine (Eckersley, 1970, p. 428; Bradley, 1919, p. 118-119).
On the other hand, synthetic languages are more inclined to use affixation (Zelenetsky and Monakhov, 1983, pp. 109, 173-174, 190; Schneider, 2003, pp. 76, 123; Grinberg, 1963). According to L.V. Sargsyan, in the average Armenian text, the number of models of morphemic structure used in
- times more than in English (49 models in Armenian, 32 models in English) (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 8). After reviewing detailed statistics on various parts of speech, the author comes to the conclusion: “Thus, the restriction of affixation, at least materially expressed, in analytical English is a general trend and applies to both significant and functional words, which is clearly revealed in comparison with Armenian” (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 10). If the class of German verbal prefixes is represented by only 8 units, then the Grammar of the Russian Literary Language (M., 1970) lists 23 units: if there are about 100 suffixes in the class of nouns in the Russian language, then in German there are less than 50; for adjectives, this ratio is 30 to 9 (Zelenetsky, Monakhov, 1983, pp. 181-182). In English, there are about 50 more or less commonly used prefixes and somewhat fewer common suffixes (Crystal, 1995, p. 128), that is, in English, about the same number of affixes are used for all parts of speech as in Russian only for nouns (about 100). According to K.K. Shvachko, out of 100 nouns formed by adding a suffix and a prefix to the generating stem, on average, there are 1-2 in English, 4-5 in Russian and Ukrainian; both suffixation and prefixation are more widely represented in Russian and Ukrainian (Shvachko et al., 1977, p. 32). If in German diminutive suffixes are still found (although infrequently compared to Russian), then in more analytical Swedish (also one of the Germanic languages), diminutive forms are almost completely absent (Weisgerber, 1954, S. 46). However, the fact that diminutive suffixes were almost never used in Synthetic Old English (Bradley, 1919, p. 138) may serve as evidence of the initial disinclination of some Germanic linguistic communities to certain types of derivation, due, perhaps, to the peculiarities of the mentality or alternative ways of expressing those the same values. The disinclination to affixation is to some extent compensated for by active compounding. Thus, the frequency of the use of composites in English fiction is approximately twice as high as in Russian and Ukrainian (Shvachko et al., 1977, p. 33). Aversion to affixation is also manifested in the prevalence of grammatical homonymy. For example, in the average Armenian text, homonyms are potentially possible in 20.8% of words, in the English text - in 34.4% (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 6). There are more homonyms in English than in German (Pirkola, 2001).
ought to, used to; the last four are called semi-modal (McArthur, 1998, p. 57). The largest German dictionary “Muret-Sanders e-GroBworterbuch Englisch” lists 12 English and 4 German auxiliary verbs. M. Deutschbein believes that the English verb to want (to want) in contexts like the following is also used as a modal: It wants to be done with patience (This must be done patiently); The collars want washing (Collars need to be washed); What he wants is a good beating (Deutschbein, 1953, S. 100).
The degree of synthetism is also directly related to the average word length (due to the more active use of affixation and endings in synthetic languages): in Russian it is 2.3 syllables, in more analytical German - 1.6 syllables, in even more analytical French - 1 ,5 syllables, in English - 1.4 syllables (Zelenetsky, 2004, p. 65) (according to L.V. Sargsyan, the average length of an English word is 1.34 syllables (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 15)). Even more "laconic" isolating Chinese, where there are no inflections at all, that is, case, gender and number are practically not marked (Yinghong, 1993, S. 36, 38; Jespersen, 1894, p. 80), composites are almost never found (Champneys, 1893, pp. 58-59), and each word consists of one syllable and two or three primary phonemes (Bloomfield, 2002, p. 192; Jespersen, 1894, p. 80). If the Greek Gospel has 39,000 syllables, the English Gospel has 29,000, then the Chinese Gospel has only 17,000 (Jungraithmayr, 2004, p. 483). The isolating languages, of which Chinese is one, are often regarded as the most complete expression of the analytic order. J. Micklejohn noted that there is a whole layer of English children's literature, where all words consist of one syllable (to facilitate understanding), and that it is incommensurably easier to write such books in English than in other Indo-European languages (Meiklejohn, 1891, p. 322; cp. Bradley, 1919, pp. 50-51, 77; Shirokova, 2000,
With. 137). According to L.V. Sargsyan, simple words in the English text are
4/
they put almost /5 of all the words of the text, while in Armenian only half of all words belong to simple words (Sarkisyan, 2002, pp. 7-8). For nouns, these figures are 75% in English and 30% in Armenian, for verbs - 80% and 6%. In Armenian, a word can contain up to 7 morphemes (for frequency words- no more than four), in English - up to 5 morphemes (for frequency - no more than two). The range of word length in synthetic Armenian is greater than in analytical English: up to 7 syllables in Armenian, up to 5 in English (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 13). In the Russian language, there are relatively few monosyllabic words, although in the Slavic languages there was a death of inflections: first, when final consonants fell off due to the operation of the law of an open syllable, then due to the fall of reduced short vowels - er, which took place at the end of the common Slavic period (Ivanov, 2004, p. 40 ). For comparison: for every 100 word forms in English, on average, there are 56 monosyllabic ones, while in Russian and Ukrainian their number is 10 (Shvachko et al., 1977, pp. 13-14). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics notes that words in inflectional languages are longer than words in isolating languages and shorter than words in agglutinative languages; the average length of words in inflectional languages is 2-3 syllables (“Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics”, 2006, p. 6952). One of the universals of the “Archive of Universals” of the University of Konstanz says: “Words tend to be longer if constituent order is free than if it is rigid” (“The Universals Archive”, 2007), which is what we observe in the case of a rigid word order in English and relatively free in Russian.
Let's talk about the connection of the impersonal with the number of cases. S. Grimm writes in the article “Subject-marking in Hindi/Urdu: A study in case and agency” that studies of impersonal constructions in various languages of the world allow us to see the following universal trend: if a case system is developed in a particular language, then there is a high probability framing a subject with low agency or a subject subject to some kind of influence in an alternative case that is not the standard case of the subject (Grimm, 2006, p. 27). In particular, subjects prone to non-standard design may lack one of the following qualities or a combination of them: volition, awareness of the action being performed, impact on something while maintaining their qualities, movement. Native speakers of any language question the agentivity of the subject if he is not aware of his actions (or is in some state against his will), does not act intentionally, at his own will, is noticeable to others, with a clear result for whom -something of the object and without visible feedback on itself (Grimm, 2006, p. 29). If the subject is framed with a dative, this may indicate a relatively passive character of the subject, awareness of the impact on him and a change in some of his qualities. For example, in Hindi and Urdu, subjects are dative when verbs of perception, mental activity, obligation, coercion, need, need, etc., are formed, that is, when a person is clearly influenced from the outside by some circumstances, forces or other people. Often one can choose one of two variants of the same construction, where the nominative one means, depending on the context, the presence or absence of volition, and the dative one only the absence of volition: Hindi Tusaar khus huaa (Tushar became happy) (nom.) - Tusaarko khusii huii (Touchard became happy), literally (Touchard became happy) (Dat.) (Grimm, 2006, p. 34). It is important to note that the nominative does not mark agency at all, but only implies it in a certain context; Grimm writes about this: “Unlike other cases, the nominative can mark any degree of agency, that is, it is not a marker of agency” (Grimm, 2006, p. 35). This remark will allow us to further understand why nominative languages such as English are not at all as agentive as many modern ethnolinguists claim, based solely on the design of subjects by the nominative. The decisive role is played not by the case of the subject, but by the context, and this context may indicate the non-volitionality of the action or state of the subject, despite the design in the nominative or common case. The fact that nominative languages cannot mark this difference in meaning grammatically is evidence of the limitation language tools, about the pressure of the language system on the speakers of the corresponding language, but not about their greater agency. It is noteworthy that in languages where ergative and nominative structures are mixed, the ergative case is often used to express a greater degree of volition / agentivity.
M. Onishi reports on the following universal regularities in the use of impersonal constructions. In languages where the case system makes it possible to distinguish between standard and non-standard shaping of the subject, non-standard shaping often occurs in the case of so-called low transitivity, that is, when, for example, the subject is inanimate or obscure, indefinite, as well as in the imperfect, with a stative meaning, in the subjunctive mood (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 5; cp. Haspelmath, 2001, p. 56). By static meaning, the author means the description of states as opposed to the description of actions. In order to experience some state, the subject does not need as much will and influence on the external world as for the production of some action; moreover, the subject of the state can often be inanimate at all (the Stone was lying), which is rather an exception in the case of the producer of the transitional action (sentences like the Stone broke the glass usually imply that the action was nevertheless performed by someone animate through some inanimate tools). In stative constructions, adjectives and adverbs are often used instead of verbs.
Further, M. Onishi mentions groups of verbs with modal meanings (“need”, “should”, “be able”, “seem”, “want”), verbs with a clear effect on the subject that have for him physical consequences (“have a headache”, “freeze”, “feel hungry”, “get sick”, “sweat”, “shake”), verbs with weak agentivity of the subject and little or no effect on the object (“see”, “hear” , "know", "remember", "think", "like", "hate", "sympathize", "miss", "be like"), verbs of mental states, feelings and emotions ("angry", "sad" , “to be ashamed”, “to be surprised”), verbs related to fate and chance, verbs of possession, lack, existence (Onishi, 2001 a, pp. 25, 28). If a certain language has impersonal constructions with the semantics of fate and chance, then it will also contain impersonal constructions of mental states, feelings, emotions, perception and mental activity constructions (“see”, “hear”, “know”, “remember”), constructs of liking ("like", "hate", "sympathize", "miss..."), constructions of desire ("want"), necessity ("need", "should", "be necessary") and constructions of having , existence, lack (“lack”, “have”) (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 42). If in a certain language the subject can be marked non-standardly with verbs of desire, then in the same language impersonal constructions of the internal state, feelings and emotions will certainly be common; the prevalence of impersonal constructions of physical state and perception is also high (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 43). Most often, the subject is marked in an alternative way if the action is performed without his desire, regardless of his consciousness and will, if the subject does not control some action or state (Onishi, 2001 a, p. 36). If the subject is formed in a non-standard way, the verb usually does not agree with it, but is put in the most neutral form such as Russian 3 l. units hours (Onishi, 2001 a, pp. 6-7; cp. Bauer, 2000, pp. 95). It should be emphasized that M. Onishi has in mind the tendencies not only of the Indo-European languages, but also of all languages of the world. Even in isolating languages, where there are usually no inflections, the possibility of expressing the dative in some way implies the presence of impersonal constructions in the same meanings as indicated above, cf. Japanese Kare ni wa sake ga nome nai (He can't drink Japanese wine, literally: He can't. ..); “cases” here are marked with particles after nouns, if in this case it is generally legitimate to talk about cases.
M. Haspelmat largely repeats what M. Onishi said. Here we note his explanation of the non-standard labeling of the subject-experiencer in the languages of the world. Haspelmath believes that standard marking, regardless of language, refers primarily to the agent, more precisely, to the active subject in the transitive verb of action (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 59). It is such a subject that is prototypical, and all deviations from it are usually marked in some way. This is usually done either by dative subjects like fr. Ce livre luiplait (He likes this book), Gr. (modern) Tu aresi afto to vivlio (He likes this book) (experiencer is in the dative, the second noun is in the nominative, and the form of the verb depends on it), or the experiencer is formed by the usual object in the accusative, and the second noun is the subject -pseudoagent, cf. German Dieses Problem beunruhigt mich (I am worried about this problem); or the experiencer is framed as if he is an agent, cf. English He hates this book (He hates this book); "he" is in the nominative, that is, in the standard case of the agent, although the subject does not carry this semantic role. The first experiencer is called dative, the second is patient, and the third is agentive (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 60).
European languages prefer to use the agentive variant; Celtic, Caucasian and Finno-Ugric - to dative, which is explained by the polyfunctionality of the nominative in European languages and the presence of a developed case system in the rest (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 61). The multifunctionality of the nominative means that it plays the role of not only an agent, but also an experiencer (I like her - I like her), and an owner (I have it - I have it), and a recipient (I got it - I got it), and location (The hotel houses 400 guests) (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 55). Haspelmat also cites interesting statistics showing the distribution of agentive and other experiential speakers in 40 European languages (however, the “Europeanness” of some languages can be called into question). Verbs with the meanings “see”, “forget”, “remember”, “freeze”, “be hungry”, “thrive to drink”, “have a headache”, “rejoice”, “regret” and “like” were tested. Dative experimenters were not separated from patients. All languages were distributed on a scale, where "0" means that all the tested subjects in the macrorole of the experimenter are made in the agentic, "5" - that all the experimenters are made in the dative or accusative (like Rus. I want, I feel sick). Here are the results: English (0.0)
- French (0.12) = Swedish (0.12) = Norwegian (0.12) lt; Portuguese (0.14)lt; Hungarian (0.22)lt; Breton (0.24) = Basque (0.24) lt; Greek (0.27)lt; Spanish (0.43)lt; Turkish (0.46)lt; Italian (0.48) = Bulgarian (0.48) lt; Dutch (0.64) lt; Maltese (0.69)lt; German (0.74)lt; Serbo-Croatian (0.75) lt; Chettian (0.76) lt; Mari (0.79) lt; Lapland (Sami) (0.81) lt; Lithuanian (0.83) = Estonian (0.83) lt; Finnish (0.87)lt; Polish (0.88)lt; Welsh (0.92) lt; Albanian (1.02)lt; Udmurt (1.09) lt; Mordovian (1.16) (obviously meaning Erzya or Moksha) lt; Latvian (1.64) lt; Russian (2.11) lt; Irish (2.21)
- Romanian (2.25)lt; Icelandic (2.29) lt; Georgian (3.08)lt; Lezgi (5.0) (Haspelmath, 2001, p. 62).
Speaking about the large number of impersonal constructions in the Russian language, one should also mention its uniqueness in terms of adherence to the synthetic system, since it is the development of the case system that makes alternative marking of the subject possible. It is well known that many synthetic languages of Indo-European origin have either become analytic or have died out over the past five or six thousand years. For example, in the "Fundamentals of the Science of Language" A.Yu. Musorin (Musorin, 2004) cites only three extinct analytic languages (Bactrian from the Iranian group, Dalmatian from the Romance group, Cornish from the Celtic group, now artificially revived) and 19 synthetic languages (see Appendix 1 b). Since many Indo-European languages of the synthetic system have already died out and a number of others are dying out, and the movement from analytical languages towards synthetic ones in the Indo-European family is not observed at all (cp. Zhirmunsky, 1940, p. 29; Hinrichs, 2004 b, S. 17-18; Haarmann, 2004, S. 82; van Nahl, 2003, S. 3; Melnikov, 2000; Emerson, 1906, pp. 160, 164; Shirokova, 2000, p. 81; Ryadchenko, 1970), it can be assumed that a pronounced The synthetic nature of the Russian language, combined with its prevalence, is a single and unique phenomenon for this group of languages.
Since the end of the twentieth century. in Russia, there is a renaissance of ethnolinguistic theories that associate various negative characteristics of the Russian mentality with the synthetic system or its individual features: passivity, lack of will, totalitarianism, disrespect for the individual, etc. Below we will repeatedly dwell on such statements in order to show their unfoundedness. Here we confine ourselves to one thing: Russian passivity is somehow connected with the synthetic structure of the language. The inconsistency of this opinion is already visible from the geographical distribution of this system (see the list in Appendix 1 a). It is not clear, for example, why a passive attitude to life is not attributed to, say, the Icelanders, whose language is also weakly subject to analysis and therefore, in many grammatical characteristics, including the development of the impersonal, is similar to Russian. Moreover, if we admit high level analyticism as a measure of an active attitude to life, then we will be forced to classify some African and Papuan tribes as the most active (agentive) peoples of the Earth, and among the speakers of Indo-European languages - the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa who speak Afrikaans (the most analyzed Indo-European language) .
Let us add that some non-Indo-European languages are currently developing from an analytical system to a synthetic one, that is, analysis is not a universal process inherent in all languages. V.V. Ivanov notes, for example, that Ancient Chinese was a synthetic language, modern Chinese is analytical, but gradually begins to return to a synthetic system (Ivanov, 1976; cp. Ivanov, 2004, p. 71; Trombetti, 1950, p. 164; Jespersen, 1894 , p. 83). He also argued that there is no reason to assume always one direction of movement - from synthesis to analysis; the author argues that modern linguistics is not able to look deep enough into linguistic history (Ivanov, 2004, p. 72).
Further development Syntheticity is observed in the Finno-Ugric languages (Veenker, 1967, p. 202; Comrie, 2004, p. 422). For example, already in the historical period, the number of cases in Finnish and Hungarian increased. H. Haarmann writes that the Uralic languages, to which the Finno-Ugric languages belong, are not moving towards an isolating type, like Indo-Europeans, but from isolating to agglutinative (Haarmann, 2004, S. 78). B. Comrie speaks of the growth of synthesis in Basque (Comrie, 2004, p. 429). In Lithuanian, after the separation from Indo-European, the illative, allative and adessive developed, and in this case, too, the influence of the Finno-Ugric substratum is assumed (Comrie, 2004, p. 421). In French the modern synthetic form of the future tense was formed from the merger of the analytical forms of folk Latin and the stem of the semantic verb (habere ("to have") + infinitive), that is, sometimes a movement towards synthetism can be observed in modern analytical languages of Indo-European origin (Bailey, Maroldt, 1977, R. 40). In the Indian languages, over a chronological interval of a little over two millennia, a cyclic process of transition from the synthetic to the analytical system and vice versa took place (Klimov, 1983, p. 167). G.A. Klimov postulates the cyclical transformation of various language types from one to another (including inflection and analysis), therefore, as he believes, there is no reason to talk about the progress of French or English, which allegedly manifests itself in a greater degree of analysis (Klimov, 1983, p. 139 -140). In confirmation of his words, G.A. Klimov cites the following quote from E. Benveniste: all types of languages “acquired an equal right to represent human language. Nothing in past history, no modern form of language, can be considered "original". A study of the most ancient languages attested shows that they are as perfect and no less complex than modern languages; analysis of the so-called primitive languages reveals their highly differentiated and ordered organization” (Klimov, 1983, p. 150).
Ch.-J. Bailey and K. Maroldt, when considering the analysis of English, also talk about the cyclical nature of the transformation of synthetic languages into analytical ones and vice versa. In the first case, we are talking about the result of an excessive complication of the system, leading to its collapse, or a mixture of languages, in the second, the transformation of auxiliary parts of speech into affixes as a result of merging (Bailey, Maroldt, 1977, pp. 40-41). I. Balles also speaks about the cyclicity of the synthetic and analytical system (Balles, 2004, S. 35). Chaos theory, described by H. Haarmann, calls into question a certain direction of language development, emphasizing the impact on each language of random and unpredictable factors (Haarmann, 2004, S. 77).
Thus, there is no reason to tie any mentality traits or the level of evolutionary / civilizational development to a certain grammatical structure or the degree of its preservation in comparison with related languages.
There are several types of languages according to the grammatical structure. The most common and well-known: synthetic and analytical. For example, Russian is a synthetic language. This means that various grammatical meanings - time, gender, number - are expressed within one word: prefixes, suffixes, endings are added. To change the meaning grammatically, you need to change the word itself.
English is analytical. Its grammar is built according to other laws. In such languages, grammatical meanings and relationships are conveyed not through word changes, but through syntax. That is, prepositions, modal verbs and other separate parts of speech and even other syntactic forms are added. For example, in English, grammatical meaning also has word order.
Of course, English cannot be called an absolutely analytical language, just as Russian is not completely synthetic. These are relative concepts: it's just that in English there are much fewer inflections (endings, suffixes and other parts of the word that change it) than in Russian. But in a "real" analytical language, they should not exist at all.
One of the main features of English analyticism
- words can move from one part of speech to another in the same form. Only the context and word order help to understand that it is not a noun that is meant, but a verb.
Compare:
The air
is polluted in this area.
– The air in this area is polluted. 
We have to air the room. We need to air out the room.
In analytical English, you can compose compound words from several words without changing the constituent parts, without using the connecting parts of the word. Sometimes such "composites" can consist of five to seven or even more words.
For instance:
HeisanannoyingI-know-everything-in-the-worldstudent. He is one of those annoying students who think they know everything.
Each analytical language has its own developmental features.
For example, in English, unlike other European languages, verbs are more susceptible to analytics than adjectives or nouns. To change the tense of a verb, you often have to use auxiliary verbs and auxiliary words, rather than inflections: havebeendoing , waseating , willcall .
Linguists say that over time, analytic languages become synthetic, and vice versa. Probably, in a few hundred years, the English language will acquire an expanded system of inflections and get rid of auxiliary verbs and prepositions. But for now, we have to learn a complex system of tenses, numerous phrasal verbs, and do not forget about word order in English.
More about the Russian language. Analytic and synthetic languages.
The elephant is catching up with Moska. The "source" of action is the elephant; the action is "applied" to Moska. The pug is chasing the elephant. Here Moska is the source of action; it is directed at the elephant. How do we guess about it? By endings in words. If pug- then this is the subject, the source of the action; pug is an addition, not a source of action. No matter how you shuffle the words in a sentence, it's still a word pug would be an addition: An elephant caught up with the pug. The elephant caught up with Moska ... The word order does not show where the subject is, where the object is. Show this endings: -a, -y in a word pug, null and -a in word elephant.
Here is a word from some unknown sentence: wave. Is it subject or not? It is clear that the subject is not: the word itself, by its composition, ending -u, says that it is an addition.
So, grammatical meanings can be expressed in the word itself, in its structure, for example, with the help of endings, or grammatical alternations, or doubling the stem ... But these same grammatical meanings can also find their expression outside the word - in a sentence. Example - English sentences: Adogrunsdownanelephant- The dog is chasing the elephant; Anelephantrunsdownadog- The elephant is chasing the dog. Who is catching up with whom - we learn only from the whole sentence, this is evidenced by the word order, and only he. There are languages where grammatical meanings are expressed mainly within the word: Latin, Ancient Greek, Russian, Polish, Finnish ... Such languages are called synthetic: they combine in a word, form a synthesis, lexical and grammatical meanings. There are languages where grammatical meanings are expressed mainly outside of the word, in the sentence: English, French, and all isolating languages (cf. isolating languages), such as Vietnamese. Such languages are called analytical, they have a word - a transmitter lexical meaning, and grammatical meanings are transmitted separately: by the order of words in a sentence, function words, intonation ...
Some languages clearly have a predilection for expressing grammatical meanings by means of a sentence, predominantly using analytical indicators, while others concentrate these indicators within a word.
There are no absolutely synthetic languages, that is, those that do not resort to grammatical analysis. So, the Russian language is synthetic, but it uses many auxiliary words - conjunctions, prepositions, particles, intonation plays a grammatical role. On the other hand, fully analytic languages are rare. Even in Vietnamese, some auxiliary words tend to approach the position of the affix.
Languages are changing. For example, the Russian language, distinctly synthetic, shows a slow movement towards analyticism. This movement is microscopic, it manifests itself in insignificant details, but these details are a number, and there are no other details that show counter-motion, i.e., act in favor of enhancing synthesis. Here is an example: instead of a form grams, kilograms(genitive case plural) in everyday speech is often used - in the role of this case - a form without -ov: three hundred grams of cheese, five kilograms of potatoes. Strict literary norm requires in these cases grams, kilograms. New, recently widespread units of measurement in the SI system also have a form in the genitive plural that is equal to the form of the nominative case: one hundred bit, eman, gauss, angstrom etc., and already as a norm. The difference seems to be small - to say grams or gram. But notice: grams- the form itself says that it is the genitive plural. Gram is the singular nominative and plural genitive. The only way to tell them apart is in the sentence. Consequently, the exact indication of the case is shifted from the "shoulders" of the word to the "shoulders" of the sentence. The fact is private, this is an insignificant detail, but many details add up to the overall picture: analytical trends in the Russian language of the 20th century. intensify.
It turned out that the younger the generation, the more inclined it is to use analytical constructions - in cases where the language makes it possible to choose between analyticism and synthetism. All this together allows us to say that the Russian literary language of the last century is slowly accumulating the features of analyticism. How far will this movement go?
Will it continue in the future? It's hard to predict. But there is no doubt that - with an extremely slow pace of change - our language will remain vividly synthetic for centuries to come.
// Encyclopedic dictionary of a philologist (linguistics)
/Comp. M. V. Panov. - M .: Pedagogy, 1984 - p.: 25-26
The elephant is catching up with Moska. The "source" of action is the elephant; the action is "applied" to Moska. The pug is chasing the elephant. Here Moska is the source of action; it is directed at the elephant. How do we guess about it? By endings in words. If Pug - then this is the subject, the source of the action; Pug is an addition, not a source of action. No matter how you shuffle the words in the sentence, the word Moska will still be an addition: the elephant caught up with the Pug. The elephant caught up with Moska ... The word order does not show where the subject is, where the object is. This endings show this: -a, -u in the word Pug, zero and -a in the word elephant.
Here is a word from some sentence unknown to us: wave. Is it subject or not? It is clear that the subject is not: the word itself, by its composition, the ending -y, says that it is an addition.
So, grammatical meanings can be expressed in the word itself, in its structure, for example, with the help of endings, or grammatical alternations, or doubling the stem ... But these same grammatical meanings can also find their expression outside the word - in a sentence. An example is English sentences: A dog runs down an elephant - The dog is catching up with the elephant; An elephant runs down a dog - An elephant is catching up with a dog. Who is catching up with whom - we learn only from the whole sentence, this is evidenced by the word order, and only he.
There are languages where grammatical meanings are expressed mainly within the word: Latin, Ancient Greek, Russian, Polish, Finnish... Such languages are called synthetic: they combine in a word, form a synthesis, lexical and grammatical meanings. There are languages where grammatical meanings are expressed mainly outside the word, in the sentence: English, French, and all isolating languages (see Isolating languages), such as Vietnamese. Such languages are called analytical, in which the word is a transmitter of lexical meaning, and grammatical meanings are transmitted separately: by the order of words in a sentence, function words, intonation ...
Some languages clearly have a predilection for expressing grammatical meanings by means of a sentence, predominantly using analytical indicators, while others concentrate these indicators within a word.
There are no absolutely synthetic languages, that is, those that do not resort to grammatical analysis. So, the Russian language is synthetic, but it uses many auxiliary words - conjunctions, prepositions, particles, intonation plays a grammatical role. On the other hand, fully analytic languages are rare. Even in Vietnamese, some auxiliary words tend to approach the position of the affix.
Languages are changing. For example, the Russian language, distinctly synthetic, shows a slow movement towards analyticism. This movement is microscopic, it manifests itself in insignificant details, but these details are a number, and there are no other details that show counter-motion, i.e., act in favor of enhancing synthesis. Here is an example: instead of the form of grams, kilograms (genitive plural) in everyday speech, the form without -oa is often used - in the role of this case: three hundred grams of cheese, five kilograms of potatoes. Strict literary norm requires in these cases grams, kilograms. New, recently widespread units of measurement in the SI system also have a form in the genitive plural that is equal to the form of the nominative case: one hundred bits, eman, gauss, angstrom, etc., and already as a norm. The difference seems to be small - say grams or grams. But note: grams - the form itself says that this is the genitive plural. Gram is the singular nominative and plural genitive form. The only way to tell them apart is in the sentence. Consequently, the exact indication of the case is shifted from the "shoulders" of the word to the "shoulders" of the sentence. The fact is private, this is an insignificant detail, but many details add up to the overall picture: analytical trends in the Russian language of the 20th century. intensify.
It turned out that the younger the generation, the more inclined it is to use analytical constructions - in cases where the language makes it possible to choose between analyticism and synthetism. All this together allows us to say that the Russian literary language of the last century is slowly accumulating the features of analyticism. How far will this movement go? Will it continue in the future? It's hard to predict. But there is no doubt that - with an extremely slow pace of change - our language will remain vividly synthetic for centuries to come.
Analytical languages- languages in which grammatical relations tend to be transmitted mainly through syntax, that is, through individual functional words (prepositions, modal verbs, etc.) through a fixed word order, context and / or intonation variations, and not through inflection with using dependent morphemes (endings, suffixes, prefixes, etc.). In other words, the synthetic way of expressing relationships between words is within the framework of one morpheme, which is part of one word, and in analytical languages these relationships are taken out of word forms, that is, there is a specialization of labor between grammatically significant service words (prepositions, auxiliary verbs) and lexically significant units that remain unchanged in form or change only slightly. If the language is isolating (only one morpheme per word), then it will by definition be "extremely analytic" (but not all analytic languages are isolating: most words in modern Chinese (官话) are compound, two-morphemic, although its grammar remains analytic). Afrikaans, English, Dutch, New Persian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian are traditional languages with a strong tendency towards analyticism. At the same time, the ancestors of all these languages were of a well-documented inflectional character. A pronounced tendency towards analyticism appears in all Romance languages, including French, which represents it most fully, showing the greatest contrast compared to inflectional Latin. Although some analytical constructions appeared in Russian and German, these languages, however, retain a predominantly inflectional structure.
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 3
Introduction to linguistics. Morphological typology of languages
Analytic forms of the verb. Part one
ENGLISH 1.5. Collocations / Collocations
Subtitles
Formation features
The term "analytic" is usually used in a relative rather than an absolute sense. For example, English has fewer inflections (internal inflexion) than most Indo-European languages (verbs in English can have up to 5 forms, nouns up to 3), and therefore it is often called analytic, although in "traditional" analytic (completely isolating) languages usually no inflections at all. Thus, the division of languages into analytical and synthetic is usually carried out on the basis of one or another prevailing linguistic trend in the development of this particular language. In other words, unlike isolating languages, which appear in this form from the very first written monuments, analytic languages in a fairly short period of time, and sometimes literally within several generations, have gone or are going through a fast path of destruction of inflections. The reasons for the collapse of inflection often lie both in intralinguistic processes (for example, in the desire to simplify the cumbersome inflectional forms of classical Latin in folk Latin), and in foreign language influence, when bilinguals in a multilingual environment show a desire to dramatically simplify the grammar of one or several languages for facilitating communication. Confirmation of the latter theory is the extreme morphological poverty of almost all Creole languages of the world.
It is also worth noting that in the course of the evolution of primordially synthetic languages, analytic tendencies may affect different parts of speech in different ways: for example, in the languages of the Romance group, classes of nouns and adjectives are generally more susceptible to analytics, and in Germanic languages - verbs.
Trends
It should also be noted that many non-Indo-European languages are currently moving from an analytical system to a synthetic one, that is, analysis is not some kind of universal final process characteristic of all languages, but with varying degrees of intensity. V. V. Ivanov notes, for example, that ancient Chinese was a synthetic language, and modern Chinese, with its analyticism, gradually begins to restore elements of synthetism (Ivanov, 1976; cp. Ivanov, 2004, p. 71; Trombetti, 1950, p. 164; Jespersen, 1894, p. 83). Further progress in synthetism in the form of an increase in the number of cases is observed in the already quite synthetic Finno-Ugric languages (Veenker, 1967, S. 202; Comrie, 2004, p. 422). B. Comrie speaks of the growth of synthesis in Basque (Comrie, 2004, p. 429). In Indo-European Lithuanian, under the influence of the Finno-Ugric substratum, the illative, allative and adessive developed in historical time (Comrie, 2004, p. 421). The cyclicity of the processes of the language structure is most interestingly manifested in the Indian languages, in which, over a chronologically short period of a little more than two millennia, a cyclic process of transition from the synthetic system to the analytical one and vice versa took place (Klimov, 1983, p. 167).
Index of analytics
The American linguist J. Greenberg introduced the synthesis index, which is calculated by the formula M / W, where M is the number of morphs in a segment of the text, and W (from the English word “word”) is the number of speech words in the same text. Primarily analytic languages include languages with an index value below 2.
Linguistic features of analyticism
Word length
Due to the decline of inflections, analytical languages tend to reduce the number of syllables in a word: if in Russian the average word consists of 2.3 syllables, then in somewhat more analytical German it drops to 1.6 syllables, in even more analytical French it is only 1.5 syllables, English only has an average of 1.34 syllables. As a result, even a peculiar layer of children's literature has taken shape in English-speaking countries, where practically only monosyllabic words are used. In Chinese, where there are no inflections at all, each word usually consists of one syllable and two or three primary phonemes.
Number of words
However, the reduction in word length in languages with a tendency towards analyticism also means an increase in the number of words for expressing the same thoughts: for example, to convey identical meaning in English translation it takes about 10% more words than its more synthetic Armenian equivalent. This is explained by the fact that in English texts, function words reach more than a third of all units, and in Armenian only one quarter (Sarkisyan, 2002, p. 5). L. Weisgerber in his book “On the Picture of the World of the German Language” gives a similar example for another pair of languages whose areas border on each other: when translating German poems into French, the translation contains on average 11% more words than its German original. This happens because the French language, where the case inflections of nouns and articles have completely died out, uses more functional words. The functions of the genitive and dative in it have long been taken over by prepositions de(s) and a(ux); and numerous German compound words are replaced by phrases fastened with the same prepositions de and a(ux): Eisenbahn > chemin de fer.
Word order
Direct word order is observed in English fiction in about 80% of cases, in Russian this figure drops to 59%, and in Ukrainian only 53% of sentences are built according to a direct model. In addition, the omission of the pronominal subject, so common in Latin and still preserved in most modern Romance languages, is no longer possible in French, where the process of withering away of verb inflections has already gone too far. The same applies to the English language.
Examples
Greenberg obtained the lowest inflection index for the Vietnamese language: 1.06 (106 morphs per 100 words). The level of English analytics was 1.68. Analytical languages include Chinese, Modern Greek, Bulgarian, Persian, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Danish, etc.
Germanic languages
In terms of the development of verbal analyticism among the Indo-European languages, the leaders are the Germanic languages. This figure is achieved mainly due to the record low level synthesis of verbs in Afrikaans (0.2) and English (0.5). In terms of its grammatical structure, the Afrikaans language is one of the most analytical Indo-European languages, since in the process of its development in just two centuries, morphology has undergone a radical simplification, although its phonetics remains very complex. Dutch and English, related to Afrikaans, as well as some German dialects, followed a similar path of growing analyticism (linguistic conservatism prevented the complete collapse of inflections in literary German). At the same time, the Icelandic language retains a high level of synthesis.
Slavic languages
In the Slavic languages, tendencies towards analyticism are generally rather weakly expressed. The exception is the South Slavic languages, which is explained by the influence of foreign language systems and active interlingual contacts within the framework of the Balkan linguistic union.
The analytic index of the Russian language ranges from 1 to 3, but averages from 2.33 to 2.45.
Bulgarian language
Bulgarian is considered the only analytic Slavic language, which makes it possible to study the development of comparative analyticism using its example. At first, his cases began to reduce and lose their sound uniqueness, which eventually leveled the difference between inflections in live speech. This process was most spontaneous in the 12th-16th centuries. A significant role in this process was played by the decline of Bulgarian writing over more than 4 centuries of the Turkish yoke, during which the oral language was not burdened by the conservative written traditions of the Old Slavonic language. At the first stage, certain prepositions began to be associated with cases in the Middle Bulgarian language. Over time, the need for the case itself disappeared altogether. The decline of case paradigms with a parallel increase in the importance of prepositions and articles are the main features of analyticism. Wed: Russian. drops of dew s with Bulgarian kapoki from dew(lit. dew drops). In the end, prepositions themselves began to quite clearly distinguish between meanings, taking on the function of cases.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the forms of wines. case husband. R. type Chakam Mr. Simeonov or giving a book for Ivan Petrov are actively replaced by caseless Chakam Mr. Simeonov and giving a book to Ivan Petrov due to the fact that it is easier to distinguish between gender and gender: for example: respect Valentina Georgiev and respect Valentin Georgiev.
The most easily subject to the decay of inflections are nouns. As in the Romance languages, this process is somewhat delayed for pronouns, which always retain their inflectional forms longer than nouns. At the same time, again, in modern oral Bulgarian speech, the growth of analyticism is evident in this category of words, even though, from the standpoint of the modern literary language, the following examples are classified as errors. Considered: “What are you relying on?” (instead of the literary case construction "On whom do you want me?”), ““Az mi se struv” (instead of “For me mi se struv”), “Toy go nyama” (instead of “ Him go nyama").
The future tense is also fully analytic and is formed using an auxiliary particle more.
Romance languages
The Romance languages are characterized by a rather early start in the development of analytic tendencies, both in terms of the breakdown of inflections in nouns, and in terms of the development of a rich spectrum of analytic tenses and various kinds of periphrastic constructions in verbs. Analytical in its essence, the construction of bud. time, according to the AMARE + HABEO model, appeared in folk Latin of the late empire, although at that time analytical trends were not yet so pronounced. Unlike cryptogender Germanic languages, the category of gender, based (as in Slavic) on the sounds at the end of the word, remains stable, although it has also undergone simplification (in most languages, the Latin neuter gender was redistributed between feminine and masculine). In Spanish, not only the morphology of nouns, but also the phonetics of the language as a whole underwent a radical simplification. At the same time, the wealth of personal inflections is preserved in the verb conjugation system, to which a whole range of new analytical constructions with auxiliary verbs HABER, TENER QUE and paraphrases IR A, ACABAR DE, PONER A has been added.
French
These analytical tendencies are most fully represented in modern French. However, its peculiarity is the preservation of a significant gap between the oral language (where analyticism has reached its apogee) and the written norm (where conservative traditions retain various inflectional markers such as the "dumb" endings -s and -x to indicate the inflection of the plural, which in the oral language has lost inflectional form). An important role for the transfer of relations between words is now played not by endings, but by the order of words in a sentence and prepositions a, de, pour, as well as auxiliary words (je sais pas) and articles (le loup > les loups). The personal inflections of the verb are greatly reduced in speech (but not in writing). Big number homophones (: saint, saint, sein, ceint, seed) in French makes context particularly important in spoken French and traditional orthography in written French. In spoken French, a word taken out of context not only has virtually no grammatical properties, but is also often devoid of semantics. However, unlike English and Afrikaans, whose analyticism gravitates towards the classical isolating structure, the analytical trends in French and other Romance languages are of a completely different nature - they develop towards analytical polysynthesism, in which the entire sentence is a single phonetic-syntactic stream: il y est alle(“He went there”) /i.ljɛ.ta.le/, Spanish. Dimelo"tell me this".
Mixed Personality Disorder: Causes, Symptoms, Types and Treatments
GTA 4 control settings
FAQ on Smuggling in GTA Online
LSPDFR - welcome to the police
The huge map of Grand Theft Auto San Andreas and its secrets