It is believed that the literary Ukrainian language existed already in the 18th century. During this period, works were created that reflect the variability of the Ukrainian language - from the language of Hryhoriy Skovoroda to the language of Ivan Kotlyarevsky ("Aeneid"), but already having enough in common to support such an opinion:
Eney buv motor lad
I lad at least where a Cossack,
Having succeeded in all the evil of the agile,
Zavyatishiy od all barge haulers.
But the Greeks, like burning down Troy,
They crushed pus from her,
Vin, taking a sack, giving a draft;
Having taken away some Trojans,
Osmalenikh, like a kettlebell, Lanciv,
P'yatami from Troy nakivav.
I. Kotlyarevsky. Aeneid ( Aeneida)
XI-XIV centuries
The common origin and culture, as well as the state-political commonality of the Old Russian people, which was consolidated during the period of the power of Kievan Rus, led to the emergence of a single Old Russian language on the basis of very close dialects of the East Slavic tribes. Historical events in the life of the Old Russian people of the late 11th and especially the 12th - early 13th centuries. - the growth of feudal fragmentation and the strengthening of individual principalities, which weakened Kievan Rus as a state, the Tatar-Mongol invasion, and then (since the 14th century) the seizure of western and southwestern Russian lands by Lithuania, Poland and Hungary - led to the dismemberment of the Old Russian people and suspended the process of further development of a single Old Russian language Smooth V. D. > Slavic world: I-XVI centuries: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: CJSC Publishing House Tsentrpoligraf, 2001. - S. 703. >
XIV-XVI centuries
Most of this society<казачества XIV века>consisted, however, of the primitive, indigenous inhabitants of southern Russia. The proof is in the language, which, despite the adoption of many Tatar and Polish words, always had a purely Slavic southern physiognomy, which brought it closer to the then Russian. Gogol N. V. "A look at the compilation of Little Russia" // . - M.; L.: AN USSR: 1937-1952. - T. 8. - S. 47. Property "Link/Edition" (as page type) with input value "(!LANG: Gogol N. V. Complete Works: [In 14 vol." contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. !} Property "Quote/Author" (as page type) with input value "(!LANG:Gogol N. V. // Gogol N. V. Complete Works: [In 14 volumes]. - M.; L.: AN USSR: 1937-1952. - T. 8. - S. 47.Property"Ссылка/Издание" (as page type) with input value "Gogol N. V. Complete Works: [In 14 vols." contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process." contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. !}
In the 14-16 centuries. the Russian (Great Russian), Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalities are formed, and in this process the languages of the East Slavic nationalities are formed. Smooth V. D. Slavic world: I-XVI centuries: Encyclopedic Dictionary > Property "Quote/Author" (as page type) with input value "(!LANG:Smooth V.D. Slavic world: I-XVI centuries: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: CJSC Publishing House Tsentrpoligraf, 2001. - S. 703. > " contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. !}
XVIII-XIX centuries
Belinsky starts<рецензию на сборник „Ластовка“>from an important question: “Is there a Little Russian language in the world, or is it only a regional dialect?” In response, it is indicated that “the Little Russian language really existed during the time of the originality of Little Russia and exists now - in the monuments of folk poetry of those glorious times.” The line is laid by the era of Peter I. According to Belinsky, until that time there was no class differentiation of the Ukrainian language ... But with Peter the Great, the division of estates began. The nobility, in the course of historical necessity, adopted the Russian language and Russian-European customs in their way of life. The language of the people itself began to deteriorate […]. Consequently, we have every right to say that now there is no longer a Little Russian language, but there is a regional Little Russian dialect, as there are Belarusian, Siberian and other similar regional dialects. Vinogradov V.V. "Language of Gogol" // . - M.: Nauka: 1990. - S. 274. Property "Quote/Author" (as page type) with input value "(!LANG:Vinogradov V. V. // Vinogradov VV Language and style of Russian writers. From Karamzin to Gogol: Selected Works. - M.: Nauka: 1990. - S. 274." contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. !}
Formation of the Ukrainian language in the 19th century
At the end of the 19th century, the rapid development of industry in Russia ensured the demand for literate workers, and the progress of printing made books and newspapers more accessible to the broad masses of the people. At the same time, the revolutionary environment of this period led to the emergence of a number of national and nationalist movements. Some national movements received support from political forces and other states, often with the aim of weakening the Russian Empire.
Modern Ukrainian alphabet - Cyrillic
The writing of the Ukrainian language is currently based on the Cyrillic alphabet (civil script).
There were also alphabets based on the Latin alphabet (“Ukrainian Latin”), but they were not widely used.
In its current form, the Ukrainian alphabet has existed since the end of the 19th century; it includes 33 letters: compared to Russian, Ъё, Ъъ, Yы, Еэ are not used, but Ґґ, Єє, Іі and Її are added.
In 1932-1990, the letter Ґ was absent, and the soft sign was not in its current place, but with the last letter.)
| A a | B b | in in | G g | Ґ ґ | D d | Her |
| Є є | F | W h | And and | І і | Ї ї | th |
| K to | L l | Mm | N n | Oh oh | P p | R p |
| C with | T t | u u | f f | x x | C c | |
| h h | W w | u u | b b | yu yu | I am |
|
|
G conveys a voiced guttural or posterior lingual fricative;
Ґ
corresponds to Russian G;
E corresponds to Russian E;
Є
corresponds to Russian E;
AND corresponds to Russian S(somewhat softer, close to Russian AND);
I corresponds to Russian AND(usually somewhat softer);
Ї
- /ji/ or /jɪ/ .
As separating mark(similar to a hard sign in Russian) an apostrophe is used ( ’ ) .
For more on the history of letters, see the articles on individual letters (in the table on the right).
Ukrainian Latin
Ukrainian Latin- a common name for historical and recent projects for the approval of the Latin alphabet for the Ukrainian language. Traditionally, Cyrillic in its various variants was used to record texts in Ukrainian. None of the proposals to latinize the Ukrainian script received wide support. Linguistically, the Ukrainian Latin alphabet (in all its variants) resembles the Polish and (especially) the Czech alphabet.
The first Ukrainian texts in Latin dating from the 16th-17th centuries were written in the Polish or Czech alphabet. In the 19th century, Iosif Lozinsky, a scientist and priest from Lviv, tried to establish Latin writing in the 19th-20th centuries (see abetsadlo). Later, the Latin alphabet was used by the bureaucracy of Galicia under Austrian rule.
Now the Latin alphabet is used unofficially: for the "export spelling" of Ukrainian proper names for languages using the Latin alphabet; in e-mail, in mobile communications, etc.
Below is a table of correspondence between Cyrillic and Latin in its most extended modern version:
| aa | bb | CC | Čč | Dd | ee | FF | gg |
| aa | bb | ts | hh | dd | ee | FF | Ґґ |
| hh | II | jj | Kk | Ll | mm | Nn | Oh |
| Gg | II | yy | Kk | Ll | Mm | Hn | Oh |
| pp | Rr | Ss | Šš | Šč šč | Tt | Uu | vv |
| Pp | pp | ss | shh | Shch | Tt | woo | Vv |
| xx | Yy | Zz | Žž | " | |||
| xx | ii | Zz | Learn | b |
letters I, Yu, Є, Ї in Latin they correspond to Ja, Ju, Je, Ji after vowels and an apostrophe, and "a, "u, "e, "i after consonants. Since in this case the apostrophe is not needed to separate consonants and iotated vowels, it is used to indicate the softness of the previous consonant. Ŝ has also been proposed instead of Šč, but this idea has not received general support.
As an example of the text, the transcription of the text (“Testament” - Zapovit T. G. Shevchenko) in modern Ukrainian Latin is given, for comparison, the text is given Commandment in standard spelling.
| Taras ŠEVČENKO Zapovіt |
Taras Shevchenko Order |
|---|---|
|
Jak umru, to poxovajte Ščob lany šyrokopolі, Jak ponese z Ukrajiny All pokynu and polynu Poxovajte ta vstavajte, I mene v semji velykіj, |
If I die, then pooh Schob doe wide-field, Yak carried from Ukraine I will leave everything and Polina Come on, get up I am in this "ї great, |
ABC in Latin
| aa | bb | CC | Ćć | Czech | Dd | Ďď | ee | FF | gg |
| aa | bb | ts | ts'ts' | hh | dd | Gd | ee | FF | Ґґ |
| hh | II | jj | Kk | Ll | Łł | mm | Nn | Ńń | Oh |
| Gg | II | yy | Kk | ll | Ll | Mm | Hn | nyn | Oh |
| pp | Rr | Ŕŕ | Ss | Śś | Szsz | Tt | Ťť | Uu | www |
| Pp | pp | Rrr | ss | Sci | shh | Tt | pah | woo | Vv |
| Yy | Zz | Źź | Žž | ||||||
| ii | Zz | 3z | Learn |
Digraphs
- i, є, u, ї = ja, je, ju, ji
- x= ch, just like in Polish.
Ukrainian Latin based on Slavic Latin alphabets
Belarusian Latin alphabet In the 17th-19th centuries, Latin-based writing was used - "Latin", originally built on the model of Polish writing. Some works of Belarusian literature of the 19th century were written in "Latin", the first newspaper in the Belarusian language "Muzhytskaya Pravda" () was published on it. There were several variants of this writing. The non-syllable "y" was originally denoted, like the full vowel, by the letter u(sometimes her special pronunciation was expressed in a different script). In the 1920s, the Latin alphabet underwent a significant revision: instead of Polish designations cz, sz, z for hissing [h], [w], [g] letters were introduced č, š, ž Czech-Croatian. A little later instead w began to write v. However, the Polish letter was preserved ł (to denote solid [l]).
Currently, "Latin" (as well as "Tarashkevitsa") has a small distribution among the Belarusian diaspora, especially in the United States and Canada, and in the political environment. It is necessary to distinguish the Belarusian Latin alphabet (as a spelling system) from the Latin transliteration of the Belarusian Cyrillic alphabet and from various systems Belarusian transliteration. Modern Belarusian Latin is a traditional Latin alphabet with the addition of letters č, š, ž, ć, ś, ź, ń, ū, ł .
Ukrainian Latin
| A a | Bb | c c | Ć ć | Č č | D d |
| Đ đ | Her | F f | Ğ ğ | H h | (Chch) |
| Іі | J j | K to | l l | Ł ł | M m |
| N n | Ń ń | O o | Pp | R r | Ŕ ŕ |
| S s | Ś ś | Š š | T t | Ŧ ŧ | U u |
| Ŭ ŭ | Vv | Yy(ý) | Zz | Ź ź | Ž ž |
Ukrainian transliteration - Ukrajinśka transliteracija
To read transliterated text, use the following table of correspondences:
|
|
|
- Notes
An excerpt from the work of the Ukrainian historian G. P. Pivtorak, typed in the Ukrainian Latin alphabet, is given as a sample text in Latin.
Hryhorij Petrovyč PIŬTORAK
“Pochodžeńńa ukrajinciŭ, rosijan i biłorusiŭ, ta jichnich moǔ.”
Pochodžeńńa schidnosłovjanśkych narodiǔ ta jichnich moǔ (ukrajinśkoji, rosijśkoji i biłoruśkoji) chvyluvało bahato pokoliń doslidnykiǔ. Na kožnomu istoryčnomu etapi ŭčeni tłumačyły ci probłemy po-riznomu załežno vid obśahu najaǔnoho ŭ nych faktyčnoho materiału, ideołoğičnych pozycij doslidnykiǔ, paniǔnoji na toj čas polityčnoji konjunktury toščo.
Naukovi doslidžennia etnoğenezu (tobto pochodžeńńa) schidnych słovjan majuŧ ŭže majže dvochsotlitńu tradyciju, i za cej čas sformuvałośa dekilka osnoǔnych koncepcij. Tak, u carśkij Rosiji oficijni ideołoğy, pidtrymuvani tohočasnymy istorykamy, spryjmały ŭsich schidnych słovjan jak "united Russian people" Rađanśka istorioğrafija vyznała pravo ne tilky rosijśkoho, ałe j ukrajinśkoho ta biłoruśkoho narodiǔ na svoju istoriju i svoju movu, prote partijni ideołoğy ne zmohły pozbutyśa imperśkych pretenzij na istoryčnu spadščynu Kýiǔśkoji Rusi. Prohołosyvšy jiji «obschevostochnoslavyanskim state», ci ideołoğy propahuvały doktrynu, schvałenu najvyščymy kompartijnymy instancijamy, zhidno z jakoju vytoky ukrajinśkoho ta biłoruśkoho narodiǔ i vidpovidno jichnich moǔ vidnośaŧ do pizńoho serednioviččia (XIV-XV st.). Na sproby dejakych rosijśkych istorykiǔ i fiłołoğiǔ počynaty istoriju Rosiji j rosijśkoji movy vid IX-X st. oficijna ǔłada dyvyłaśa "kriź palci", prote taki sami prahnennia v Ukrajini i Biłorusi ǔvažałyśa vorožymy j žorstoko peresliduvałyśa. Proŧahom tryvałoho času łyše v diaspori ukrajinśki ǔčeni mohły vilno vysłovluvaty svoji pohliady j rozvyvaty koncepciju etnoğenezu ukrajinciǔ zhidno z istoryčnoju praǔdoju.
- The content of this text speaks for itself.
terminological commission on natural sciences(Terminological Committee of Natural Sciences, TKPN) of Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv has created its own version of the Ukrainian Latin alphabet without diacritics and a computer program that allows you to automatically convert Cyrillic to Latin and vice versa. For a number of purposes, the system also uses doublet variants with diacritics: sh = , ch = , shh = , kh = x, gh = etc.
- See also Belarusian Latin alphabet, Polish alphabet, Czech alphabet, Slovak alphabet, Slovenian alphabet, Croatian alphabet, Upper Lusatian alphabet
Ukrainian language in the twentieth century
Ukrainian language as a linguophantome
From the point of view of some conspiracy theorists, the Ukrainian language was created at the end of the 19th century in Austria-Hungary as an artificial language of the Slavic group for the Russian population with the aim of ethnocide (by eradicating everything Russian in it, including the language), officially considered, however, natural and thus representing a linguophant.
History
Since the beginning of its official existence, especially during the Ukrainization in the 1920s-1930s, the Ukrainian language has been subjected to numerous modernizations aimed at destroying its similarity with the Russian and Church Slavonic languages ( main principle constructing the Ukrainian language - " anyhow ne yak at Muscovites"), as well as to give it the appearance of some identity. These upgrades follow the policy pseudo-purism, declaring the liberation of the language from foreign influence and the return to the fundamental norm, which in reality never existed. The source of these innovations are both dialects and other languages, primarily Polish.
In particular, the Ukrainian language is systematically cleared of words similar to Russian (the so-called Russianisms), which are replaced by polonisms and neologisms.
In the field of phonetics, pronunciation features that distinguish the Ukrainian language from Russian are selected and declared standard.
Spreading
The Ukrainian language, despite its forced imposition, did not become the language of the people, with the possible exception of Galicia, remaining the official language of the Ukrainian administration and the intelligentsia serving it. Its systematic “reforms” led to the fact that even the highest Ukrainian leadership throughout the post-Soviet independence of Ukraine did not know it firmly and did not fully comply with the modern version of Ukrainian language textbooks. Even Ukrainian nationalists admit that they hardly force themselves to read Ukrainian.
According to the official state All-Ukrainian census of 2001, Ukrainian is native for 67.5% of the population; Belarusian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Gagauzian, Greek, Yiddish, Crimean Tatar, Moldavian, German are officially recognized minority languages,
The Russian and Ukrainian languages, which have common roots, at first glance seem very similar. But it's not. In fact, they have more differences than similarities.
One roots
As you know, the Ukrainian and Russian languages belong to the same group of Eastern languages. Slavic languages. They share a common alphabet, similar grammar, and considerable lexical uniformity. However, the peculiarities of the development of the cultures of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples led to noticeable differences in their language systems.
The first differences between Russian and Ukrainian are already found in the alphabet. In the Ukrainian alphabet, which took shape at the end of the 19th century, unlike the Russian one, the letters Ёё, Ъъ, Yы, Еэ are not used, but there are Ґґ, Єє, Іі, Її, which are not in Russian.
As a result, the pronunciation of some sounds of the Ukrainian language, which is unusual for Russian. So, the letter “Ї”, which is absent in Russian, sounds approximately like “YI”, “Ch” is pronounced more firmly, as in Belarusian or Polish, and “G” conveys a guttural, fricative sound.
Close languages?
Modern studies show that the Ukrainian language is closer to other Slavic languages - Belarusian (29 common features), Czech and Slovak (23), Polish (22), Croatian and Bulgarian (21), and it has only 11 common features with Russian.
Some linguists, on the basis of these data, question the unification of the Russian and Ukrainian languages into one language group.
Statistics show that only 62% of words are common to Russian and Ukrainian. According to this indicator, the Russian language in relation to Ukrainian is only in fifth place after Polish, Czech, Slovak and Belarusian. For comparison, it can be noted that English and Dutch are 63% similar in lexical composition - that is, more than Russian and Ukrainian.
Divergence of paths
The differences between the Russian and Ukrainian languages are largely due to the peculiarities of the formation of the two nations. The Russian nation was centrally formed around Moscow, which led to the dilution of its vocabulary with Finno-Ugric and Turkic words. The Ukrainian nation was formed by uniting the South Russian ethnic groups, and therefore the Ukrainian language largely retained the Old Russian basis.
By the middle of the 16th century, the Ukrainian and Russian languages had significant differences.
But if the texts of that time in the Old Ukrainian language are generally understandable to a modern Ukrainian, then, for example, documents from the era of Ivan the Terrible are very difficult to “translate” by a resident of today's Russia.
Even more noticeable differences between the two languages began to appear with the beginning of the formation of the Russian literary language in the first half of the 18th century. The abundance of Church Slavonic words in the new Russian language made it incomprehensible to Ukrainians.
For example, let's take the Church Slavonic word "thank you" from which the well-known "thank you" arose. The Ukrainian language, on the contrary, retained the old Russian word"Dakuyu", which now exists as "Dakuyu".
From the end of the 18th century, the Ukrainian literary language began to form, which, being in line with the pan-European processes, gradually got rid of ties with the Russian language.
In particular, there is a rejection of Church Slavonicisms - instead, emphasis is placed on folk dialects, as well as borrowing words from other, primarily Eastern European languages.
To what extent the vocabulary of the modern Ukrainian language is close to a number of Eastern European languages and far from Russian, the following table can clearly show:
An important feature of the Ukrainian language is its dialectical diversity. This is a consequence of the fact that certain regions of Western Ukraine are part of other states - Austria-Hungary, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia. Thus, the speech of a resident of the Ivano-Frankivsk region is far from always understandable to a person from Kiev, while a Muscovite and a Siberian speak the same language.
Game of meanings
Despite the fact that there are a lot of common words in Russian and Ukrainian languages, and even more words similar in sound and spelling, they often have different semantic shades.
Let's take, for example, the Russian word "other" and the related Ukrainian word "inshiy". If these words are similar in sound and spelling, then their meaning has noticeable differences.
A more accurate correspondence to the Ukrainian word "inshiy" in Russian would be "other" - it is somewhat more formal and does not carry such emotional and artistic expressiveness as the word "other".
Another word - "sorry" - in both languages is identical in spelling and pronunciation, but differs in semantic meaning. In Russian, it exists as a predicative adverb. Its main task is to express regret about something, or pity for someone.
In Ukrainian, used as an adverb, the word "sorry" has a similar meaning. However, it can also be a noun, and then its semantic shades are noticeably enriched, becoming consonant with such words as sorrow, bitterness, pain. “Oh, it’s a pity that the hardship has come all over Ukraine.” In this context, this word is not used in Russian.
Western style
You can often hear from foreign students that the Ukrainian language is more close to European languages than Russian. It has long been noticed that translation from French or English into Ukrainian is in some respects easier and more convenient than into Russian.
It's all about certain grammatical constructions. Linguists have such a joke: in European languages “the priest had a dog” and only in Russian “the priest had a dog”. Indeed, in the Ukrainian language in such cases, along with the verb "is", the verb "to have" is used. For example, English phrase“I have a younger brother” in Ukrainian can sound both like “I have a younger brother” and “I have a younger brother”. 
The Ukrainian language, unlike Russian, adopted modal verbs from European languages. So, in the phrase “I may tse zrobiti” (“I must do this”), modality is used in the sense of obligation, as in English - “I have to do it”. In Russian, this function of the verb "to have" has long disappeared from use.
Another indicator of the difference in grammar is that the Russian verb "wait" is transitive, while the Ukrainian "chekati" is not, and, as a result, it is not used without a preposition: "I check on you" ("I'm waiting for you"). For comparison, in English - "waiting for you".
However, there are cases when borrowings from European languages are used in Russian, but they are not in Ukrainian. So, the names of the months in Russian are a kind of tracing paper from Latin: for example, March - martii (Latin), März (German), march (English), mars (French). The Ukrainian language here has retained its connection with the Slavic vocabulary - "birch".
Some “specialists” deduce Ukrainian almost from Sanskrit, others spread myths about imaginary Polish or even Hungarian influence, although for the most part they do not speak Polish, Ukrainian, and even less Hungarian.
Recently popular article I published about the formation of the Russian language aroused considerable interest among visitors to the UNIAN website. Readers sent us a lot of feedback, comments, questions from the field of linguistics. Having summarized these questions, I will try to answer them in the “popular language”, without delving into the scientific jungle.
Why are there many words from Sanskrit in the Ukrainian language?
Comparing different languages, scientists came to the conclusion that some of them are very close to each other, while others are more distant relatives. And there are some that have nothing in common with each other. For example, it has been established that Ukrainian, Latin, Norwegian, Tajik, Hindi, English, etc. are related. But Japanese, Hungarian, Finnish, Turkish, Etruscan, Arabic, Basque, etc. have nothing to do with Ukrainian or, say, Spanish.
It is proved that several millennia BC there was a certain community of people (tribes) who spoke close dialects. We don't know where it was or at what exact time. Perhaps 3-5 thousand years BC. It is assumed that these tribes lived somewhere in the Northern Mediterranean, perhaps even in the Dnieper region. The Indo-European proto-language has not survived to our times. The oldest written monuments that have survived to this day were written a thousand years BC in the language of the ancient inhabitants of India, which has the name “Sanskrit”. Being the oldest, this language is considered the closest to Indo-European.
Scientists reconstruct the parent language on the basis of the laws of changing sounds and grammatical forms, moving, so to speak, in the opposite direction: from modern languages to common language. Reconstructed words are given in etymological dictionaries, ancient grammatical forms - in a writer from the history of grammars.
Modern Indo-European languages have inherited most of the roots from the time of the former unity. IN different languages related words sometimes sound very different, but these differences are subject to certain sound patterns.
Compare Ukrainian and English words that have a common origin: day - day, night - night, sun - sun, mother - mother, blue - son, eye - eye, tree - tree, water - water, two - two, might - might, cook - swear, command - will. Thus, Ukrainian, like all other Indo-European languages, has many words in common with Sanskrit and other related languages - Greek, Icelandic, Old Persian, Armenian, etc., not to mention close Slavic ones - Russian, Slovak, Polish ...
As a result of the migration of peoples, wars, conquests of some peoples by others, linguistic dialects moved away from each other, new languages were formed, old ones disappeared. Indo-Europeans settled throughout Europe and penetrated into Asia (that's why they got such a name).
The Proto-Indo-European language family left behind, in particular, the following groups of languages: Romance (dead Latin, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Moldavian, etc.); Germanic (Dead Gothic, English, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Danish, Dutch, Afrikaans, etc.); Celtic (Welsh, Scottish, Irish, etc.), Indo-Iranian (dead Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Farsi, Tajik, Ossetian, Gypsy, possibly also dead Scythian, etc.); Baltic (dead Prussian, Lithuanian, Latvian, etc.), Slavic (dead Old Slavonic, or “Old Bulgarian”, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Polish, Great Russian, Belarusian, etc.). Separate Indo-European branches started up the Greek, Armenian, Albanian languages, which have no close relatives. Quite a lot of Indo-European languages did not live up to historical times.
Why are the Indo-European languages so different from each other?
As a rule, the formation of a language is associated with the geographical isolation of its speakers, migration, the conquest of some peoples by others. Differences in Indo-European languages are explained by interaction with other - often non-Indo-European - languages. One language, displacing another, received certain signs of the defeated language and, accordingly, differed in these signs from its relative (the repressed language, which left its traces, is called the substrate), and also experienced grammatical and lexical changes. Perhaps there are certain internal patterns in the development of languages, which over time “detach” it from related dialects. Although, apparently, the reason for the appearance of any internal patterns is the influence of other (substrate) languages.
Yes, in ancient times in Europe, numerous languages \u200b\u200bwere spread, the influence of which led to the current motley language picture. The development of the Greek language was influenced, in particular, by Illyrian (Albanian) and Etruscan. In English - Norman and various Celtic dialects, in French - Gallic, in Great Russian - Finno-Ugric languages, as well as "Old Bulgarian". The Finno-Ugric influence in the Great Russian language gave a weakening of unstressed vowels (in particular, akanye: milk - malako), fixing g on the spot G, stunning consonants at the end of a syllable.
It is believed that at a certain stage of linguistic evolution, before the formation of separate Slavic and Baltic languages, there was a Balto-Slavic unity, since these languages have a huge number of common words, morphemes and even grammatical forms. It is assumed that the common ancestors of the Balts and Slavs inhabited the territories from the Northern Dnieper to the Baltic Sea. However, as a result of migration processes, this unity broke up.
At the linguistic level, this was reflected in a surprising way: the Proto-Slavic language arises as a separate language (and not a Balto-Slavic dialect) with the beginning of the so-called law of the open syllable. The Proto-Slavs received this language law by interacting with some non-Indo-European people, whose language did not tolerate the combination of several consonants. Its essence boiled down to the fact that all syllables ended in a vowel sound. Old words began to be rearranged in such a way that short vowels were inserted between consonants or vowels were interchanged with consonants, final consonants were lost or short vowels appeared after them. So, “al-ktis” turned into “lo-ko-ti” (elbow), “kor-vas” into “ko-ro-va” (cow), “medus” into “me-do” (honey ), “or-bee-tee” to “ro-bee-tee” (work) “drau-gas” to “drug-gi” (other), etc. Roughly speaking, the idea of the “pre-Slavic” linguistic period is given by the Baltic languages, which were not affected by the law of the open syllable.
How do we know about this law? First of all, from the most ancient monuments of Slavic writing (X-XII centuries). Short vowel sounds were transmitted in writing with the letters “ъ” (something between short “o” and “s”) and “ь” (short “i”). The tradition of writing “ъ” at the end of words after consonants, which passed into the Great Russian language according to the Kiev tradition of the transmission of Church Slavonic, survived until the beginning of the 20th century, although, of course, these vowels were never read in Great Russian.
What language did the Slavs speak?
This language existed from the 1st millennium BC. until the middle of the 2nd millennium AD. Of course, there was no holistic language in the modern sense of the word, much less its literary version. We are talking about close dialects, which were characterized by common features.
The Proto-Slavic language, having adopted the law of an open syllable, sounded something like this: ze-le-n lie-s shu-mi-t (it reads “ze-le-nee-so shu-mi-to” - the green forest makes noise); to-de i-down-t med-vie-d and vl-k? (it reads “ko-de i-dou-to me-do-vie-do and vly-ko? (where are the bear and the wolf going?). Monotonously and evenly: tra-ta-ta-ta ... tra-ta-ta ... tra-ta-ta ... Our modern ear could hardly recognize familiar words in this stream.
Some scholars believe that the substrate language for the Proto-Slavs, which “launched” the law of the open syllable, was the non-Indo-European language of the Trypillians, who inhabited the present Ukrainian lands (the substrate language is an absorbed language that left phonetic and other traces in the victorious language).
It was he who did not tolerate clusters of consonants, syllables in him ended only in vowels. And it was allegedly from Trypillians that such words of unknown origin came to us, characterized by the openness of syllables and a strict order of sounds (consonant - vowel), such as mo-gi-la, ko-by-la and some others. They say that from the Trypillia language, Ukrainian - through the mediation of other languages and Proto-Slavic dialects - inherited its melody and some phonetic features (for example, the alternation of u-v, i-d, which helps to avoid dissonant clusters of sounds).
Unfortunately, it is impossible to either refute or confirm this hypothesis, since no reliable data on the language of the Trypillians (as, by the way, of the Scythians) have been preserved. At the same time, it is known that the substratum in a certain territory (phonetic and other traces of the defeated language) is indeed very tenacious and can be transmitted through several linguistic “eras”, even through the mediation of languages that have not survived to this day.
The relative unity of the Proto-Slavic dialects lasted until the 5th-6th centuries AD. Where the Proto-Slavs lived is not exactly known. It is believed that somewhere north of the Black Sea - in the Dnieper, Danube, in the Carpathians or between the Vistula and the Oder. In the middle of the first millennium, as a result of violent migration processes, the Proto-Slavic unity broke up. The Slavs settled all of central Europe - from the Mediterranean to the North Sea.
Since then, the proto-languages of modern Slavic languages began to form. The starting point for the emergence of new languages was the fall of the law of the open syllable. As mysterious as its origin. We do not know what caused this fall - another substratum or some kind of internal law of linguistic evolution, which began to operate in the days of Proto-Slavic unity. However, the law of the open syllable did not survive in any Slavic language. Although he left deep traces in each of them. By by and large, phonetic and morphological differences between these languages come down to how different the reflexes caused by the fall of an open syllable are in each of the languages.
How did modern Slavic languages appear?
This law fell into disrepair unevenly. In one dialect, the sing-song pronunciation (“tra-ta-ta”) survived longer, in others, the phonetic “revolution” took place faster. As a result, the Proto-Slavic language gave three subgroups of dialects: South Slavic (modern Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Slovenian, etc.); West Slavic (Polish, Czech, Slovak, etc.); East Slavic (modern Ukrainian, Great Russian, Belarusian). In ancient times, each of the subgroups represented numerous dialects, characterized by certain common features that distinguished them from other subgroups. These dialects do not always coincide with the modern division of the Slavic languages and the settlement of the Slavs. The processes of state formation, the mutual influence of Slavic dialects, as well as foreign language elements played an important role in linguistic evolution in different periods.
Actually, the collapse of the Proto-Slavic linguistic unity could occur as follows. First, the southern (Balkan) Slavs territorially “broke away” from the rest of the tribes. This explains the fact that in their dialects the law of the open syllable lasted the longest - until the 9th-12th centuries.
Among the tribes that were the ancestors of the Eastern and Western Slavs, in contrast to the Balkans, in the middle of the first millennium, the language underwent dramatic changes. The fall of the law of the open syllable gave rise to the development of new European languages, many of which have not survived to this day.
The speakers of the Proto-Ukrainian language were scattered tribes, each of which spoke its own dialect. The glades spoke Polanian, the Derevlyans spoke Derevlyansk, the Siverians spoke Siveryan, the Uchi and Tivertsy spoke their own way, and so on. But all these dialects were characterized by common features, that is, the same consequences of the fall of the open syllable, which even now distinguish the Ukrainian language from other Slavic languages.
How do we know about how they spoke in Ukraine in ancient times?
There are two real sources of our current knowledge of ancient Ukrainian dialects. The first is written monuments, the oldest of which were written in the 10th-12th centuries. However, unfortunately, records in the language spoken by our ancestors were not kept at all. The literary language of Kyiv was the “Old Bulgarian” (Church Slavonic) language, which came to us from the Balkans. This is the language into which Cyril and Methodius translated the Bible in the 9th century. It was incomprehensible to the Eastern Slavs, since it retained the ancient law of an open syllable. In particular, it sounded short vowels after consonants, denoted by the letters "b" and "b". However, in Kyiv this language was gradually Ukrainized: short sounds were not readable, and some vowels were replaced by their own - Ukrainian. In particular, nasal vowels, which are still preserved, say, in Polish, were pronounced like ordinary ones, “Old Bulgarian” diphthongs (double vowels) were read in the Ukrainian manner. Cyril and Methodius would be very surprised to hear "their" language in the Kiev church.
It is interesting that some scientists tried to reconstruct the so-called “Old Russian” language, which was supposedly common to all Eastern Slavs, based on ancient Kievan texts. And it turned out that in Kyiv they spoke almost the “Old Bulgarian” language, which, of course, in no way corresponded to the historical truth.
Ancient texts can be used to learn the language of our ancestors, but in a very peculiar way. This is exactly what Professor Ivan Ogienko did in the first half of the 20th century. He studied the typos, mistakes of Kievan authors and scribes, who, against their will, were influenced by the living folk language. At times, the ancient scribes “reworked” the words and the “Old Bulgarian” grammatical forms deliberately - to make it “clearer”.
The second source of our knowledge is modern Ukrainian dialects, especially those that have long remained isolated and almost not subjected to external influence. For example, the descendants of the Derevlyans still inhabit the north of the Zhytomyr region, and the Siveryans inhabit the north of the Chernihiv region. In many dialects, ancient Ukrainian phonetic, grammatical, and morphological forms have been preserved, coinciding with the misprints of Kiev scribes and writers.
IN scientific literature you can find other dates for the fall of short vowels among the Eastern Slavs - XII - XIII centuries. However, such a “lengthening of life” of the law of an open syllable is hardly justified.
When did the Ukrainian language appear?
The countdown, apparently, can be started from the middle of the first millennium - when short vowels disappeared. This is what caused the emergence of proper Ukrainian language features - as, ultimately, the features of most Slavic languages. The list of features that distinguished our parent language from other languages may be somewhat boring for non-specialists. Here are just a few of them.
The ancient Ukrainian dialects were characterized by the so-called full accord: in place of the South Slavic sound combinations ra-, la-, re-, le - in the language of our ancestors sounded -oro-, -olo-, -ere-, -ele-. For example: licorice (in “Old Bulgarian” - sweet), full (captivity), sereda (environment), darkness (gloom), etc. “Coincidences” in the Bulgarian and Russian languages are explained by the huge influence of “Old Bulgarian” on the formation of the Russian language.
The Bulgarian (South Slavic) sound combination at the beginning of the root ra-, la - answered the East Slavic ro-, lo-: robot (work), grow (grow), catch (catch). In place of the typical Bulgarian sound combination -zhd - Ukrainians had -zh-: vorozhnecha (enmity), leather (each). Bulgarian suffixes -ash-, -yushch - were answered by Ukrainian -ach-, -yuch-: howling (howling), sizzling (sizzling).
When short vowels fell after voiced consonants, in Proto-Ukrainian dialects these consonants continued to be pronounced voiced, as they are now (oak, snow, love, shelter). In Polish, stunning developed, in Great Russian too (dup, snack, lyubof, krof).
Academician Potebnya found that the disappearance of short sounds (ъ and ь) in some places “forced” to extend the pronunciation of the previous vowels “o” and “e” in a new closed syllable to compensate for the “reduction” of the word. So, sto-l (“sto-lo”) turned into “steel” (the final ъ disappeared, but the “internal” vowel became longer, turning into a double sound - a diphthong). But in forms where a vowel comes after the final consonant, the old sound has not changed: sto-lu, sto-li. Mo-stъ (“mo-hundred”) turned into mіest, muest, mіst, etc. (depending on the dialect). The diphthong eventually transformed into a regular vowel. Therefore, in the modern literary language, “i” in a closed syllable alternates with “o” and “e” in an open syllable etc.). Although some Ukrainian dialects keep ancient diphthongs in a closed syllable (kiet, popiel, rieg).
The ancient Proto-Slavic diphthongs, in particular in case endings, denoted by the letter “yat” in writing, found their continuation in the Old Ukrainian language. In some dialects, they have survived to this day, in others they have been transformed into “i” (as in the literary language): lie, on earth, mіeh, beliy, etc. By the way, Ukrainians, knowing their language, never confused the spelling “yat” and "e" in pre-revolutionary Russian orthography. In some Ukrainian dialects, the ancient diphthong was actively supplanted by the vowel “i” (lis, on earth, mіkh, white), gaining a foothold in the literary language.
Part of the phonetic and grammatical features of the Proto-Slavic language was continued in Ukrainian dialects. So, the Proto-Ukrainian inherited the ancient alternation k-ch, g-z, x-s (hand - rutsі, rіg - roses, fly - musі), which has been preserved in the modern literary language. The vocative case has long been used in our language. In the dialects, the ancient form of the “pre-future” tense (I will be brav) is active, as well as the ancient indicators of person and number in the past tense verbs (I - walk, we - walked, you - walk, you - holist).
The description of all these signs occupies entire volumes in the academic literature ...
What language was spoken in Kyiv in prehistoric times?
Certainly not in modern literary language.
Any literary language is artificial to a certain extent - it is developed by writers, educators, cultural figures as a result of rethinking the living language. Often the literary language is alien, borrowed, and sometimes incomprehensible to the uneducated part of the population. Thus, in Ukraine from the 10th to the 18th century, the literary language was considered an artificial - Ukrainized "Old Bulgarian" language, in which most literary monuments are written, in particular, "Izborniki Svyatoslav", "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", "The Tale of Time Litas", the works of Ivan Vishensky , Grigory Skovoroda, etc. The literary language was not frozen: it constantly developed, changed over the centuries, enriched with new vocabulary, its grammar was simplified. The degree of Ukrainization of texts depended on the education and "free-thinking" of the authors (the church did not approve of the penetration of the folk language into writing). This Kievan literary language, created on the basis of the “Old Bulgarian”, played a huge role in the formation of the Great Russian (“Russian”) language.
The modern literary language was formed on the basis of the Dnieper dialects - the heirs of the dialect of the annalistic meadows (and, apparently, the Antian union of tribes, known from foreign historical sources) - in the first half of the 19th century thanks to the writers Kotlyarevsky, Grebinka, Kvitka-Osnovyanenko, and also Taras Shevchenko .
Consequently, before the formation of a national language, Ukrainians spoke different Ukrainian dialects, using Ukrainized “Old Bulgarian” in writing.
In the princely era in Kyiv, they spoke in a language “commonly understood” for the inhabitants of the capital city (Koine), which was formed on the basis of various ancient Ukrainian tribal dialects, mainly polyans. No one has ever heard it, and it has not survived in the records. But, again, the descriptions of ancient chroniclers and scribes, as well as modern Ukrainian dialects, give an idea of this language. To present it, one should apparently “cross” the grammar of the Transcarpathian dialects, where the ancient forms are best preserved, Chernihiv diphthongs in place of “yat” and the modern “i” in a closed syllable, features of the “deep” pronunciation of vowels among the current inhabitants of the south of the Kiev region , as well as Cherkasy and Poltava regions.
Were modern Ukrainians able to understand the language spoken by the people of Kiev, say, in the first half of the 13th century (before the horde)?
Undoubtedly, yes. For a “modern” ear, it would sound like a kind of Ukrainian dialect. Something like what we hear in electric trains, in markets and construction sites of the capital.
Is it possible to call the ancient language "Ukrainian", if the word "Ukraine" itself did not exist?
You can name the language whatever you like - the essence of this does not change. The ancient Indo-European tribes also did not call their language “Indo-European”.
The laws of linguistic evolution in no way depend on the name of the language, which is given to it in different periods of history by its speakers or outsiders.
We do not know how the Proto-Slavs called their language. Perhaps there was no generalized name at all. We also do not know how the Eastern Slavs called their dialect in the prehistoric era. Most likely, each tribe had its own name and called its dialect in its own way. There is an assumption that the Slavs called their language simply “their own”.
The word "Russian" regarding the language of our ancestors appeared relatively late. This word first denoted a simple vernacular- as opposed to the written "Slavonic". Later, “Ruska Mova” was opposed to “Polish”, “Moscow”, as well as non-Slavic languages spoken by neighboring peoples (in different periods - Chud, Muroma, Meshchera, Cumans, Tatars, Khazars, Pechenegs, etc.). The Ukrainian language was called “Russian” until the 18th century.
In the Ukrainian language, the names are clearly distinguished - “Russian” and “Russian”, in contrast to Great Russian, where these names are groundlessly confused.
The word "Ukraine" also appeared relatively late. It has been found in chronicles since the 12th century, therefore, it appeared several centuries earlier.
How did other languages influence the formation of Ukrainian?
The Ukrainian language belongs to the “archaic” languages in terms of its vocabulary and grammatical structure (like, say, Lithuanian and Icelandic). Most Ukrainian words are inherited from the Indo-European parent language, as well as from Proto-Slavic dialects.
Quite a lot of words came to us from tribes that were neighbors with our ancestors, traded with them, fought, etc. - Goths, Greeks, Turks, Ugrians, Romans, etc. (ship, bowl, poppy, Cossack, hut etc.). Ukrainian also has borrowings from “Old Bulgarian” (for example, region, blessing, ancestor), Polish (cheat sheet, funny, saber) and other Slavic. However, none of these languages influenced either the grammar or the phonetics (sound system) of the language. Myths about Polish influence are spread, as a rule, by non-specialists who have a very distant idea of both Polish and Ukrainian, the common origin of all Slavic languages.
Ukrainian is constantly updated with English, German, French, Italian, Spanish words, which is typical for any European language.
How the Ukrainian language was created - artificially and for political reasons. “The truth is never sweet,” Irina Farion recently noted, presenting her next book about the Ukrainian language on the First Channel of the National Radio of Ukraine. And in some ways, and in this it is difficult to disagree with the now widely known deputy of the Verkhovna Rada. The truth for Ukrainian "nationally conscious" figures will always be bitter. They are too far apart from her. However, the truth needs to be known. Including the truth about the Ukrainian language. For Galicia, this is especially important. After all, Mikhail Sergeevich Grushevsky recognized this.
“Work on the language, as well as work on the cultural development of Ukrainians in general, was carried out mainly on Galician soil,” he wrote.
It is worth dwelling on this work, begun in the second half of the 19th century. Galicia was then part of the Austrian Empire. Accordingly, Russia for the Galicians was a foreign country. But, despite this circumstance, the Russian literary language in the region was not considered a foreign language. Galician Rusyns perceived it as an all-Russian, common cultural language for all parts of historical Russia, and therefore for Galician Russia.
When at the congress of Galician-Russian scientists, held in 1848 in Lvov, a decision was made on the need to cleanse folk speech from polonisms, this was seen as a gradual approximation of Galician dialects to the norms of the Russian literary language. “Let the Russians start from the head, and we start from the feet, then sooner or later we will meet each other and come together in the heart,” Antony Petrushevich, a prominent Galician historian, said at the congress. Scholars and writers worked in the Russian literary language in Galicia, newspapers and magazines were published, and books were published.
All this did not please the Austrian authorities. Not without reason, they feared that cultural rapprochement with a neighboring state would entail a political rapprochement and, in the end, the Russian provinces of the empire (Galicia, Bukovina, Transcarpathia) would openly declare their desire to reunite with Russia.
And then they came up with the roots of "mova"
From Vienna, Galician-Russian cultural ties were hindered in every possible way. They tried to influence the Galicians with persuasion, threats, and bribery. When it did not work, they switched to more vigorous measures. “The Ruthenians (as the official authorities in Austria called the Galician Rusyns - Auth.) did not, unfortunately, do anything to properly isolate their language from Great Russian, so the government has to take the initiative in this regard,” said the governor of Franz- Joseph in Galicia Agenor Goluhovsky.
At first, the authorities simply wanted to ban the use of the Cyrillic alphabet in the region and introduce the Latin alphabet into the Galician-Russian alphabet. But the indignation of the Ruthenians with such an intention turned out to be so great that the government backed down.
The fight against the Russian language was carried out more subtly. Vienna attended to the creation of the movement of "young rutens". They were called young not because of their age, but because of the rejection of the "old" views. If the "old" Rusyns (rutens) considered Great Russians and Little Russians to be a single nation, then the "young" insisted on the existence of an independent Ruthenian nation (or Little Russian - the term "Ukrainian" was put into use later). Well, an independent nation should, of course, have an independent literary language. The task of writing such a language was set before the "young rutens".
Ukrainians began to grow along with the language
They did it, however, with difficulty. Although the authorities provided the movement with all possible support, it did not have influence among the people. The "young rutens" were viewed as traitors, unscrupulous servants of the government. In addition, the movement consisted of people, as a rule, insignificant in intellectual terms. The fact that such figures would be able to create and spread a new literary language in society was out of the question.
The Poles came to the rescue, whose influence in Galicia was dominant at that time. Being ardent Russophobes, representatives of the Polish movement saw a direct benefit for themselves in the split of the Russian nation. That is why they took an active part in the "linguistic" attempts of the "young rutens". “All Polish officials, professors, teachers, even priests began to deal primarily with philology, not Masurian or Polish, no, but exclusively ours, Russian, in order to create a new Russian-Polish language with the assistance of Russian traitors,” recalled a major public figure of Galicia and Transcarpathia Adolf Dobriansky.
Thanks to the Poles, things went faster. The Cyrillic alphabet was retained, but "reformed" to make it different from the one adopted in Russian. They took as a basis the so-called “kulishivka”, once invented by the Russian Ukrainophile Panteleimon Kulish, all with the same goal - to separate the Little Russians from the Great Russians. The letters "y", "e", "b" were removed from the alphabet, but "є" and "ї" missing in Russian grammar were included.
In order for the Ruthenian population to accept the changes, the “reformed” alphabet was introduced by order into schools. The need for innovation was motivated by the fact that the subjects of the Austrian emperor "are both better and safer not to use the very spelling that is customary in Russia."
Interestingly, the inventor of the “kulishivka” himself, who by that time had departed from the Ukrainophile movement, opposed such innovations. “I swear,” he wrote to the “young ruten” Omelyan Partitsky, “that if the Poles print my spelling to commemorate our discord with Great Russia If our phonetic spelling is presented not as helping the people to enlightenment, but as a banner of our Russian discord, then I, writing in my own way, in Ukrainian, will print in etymological old-world orthography. That is, we live at home, we talk and sing songs differently, and if it comes to something, then we will not allow anyone to separate ourselves. A dashing fate separated us for a long time, and we moved towards Russian unity on a bloody road, and now Lyad's attempts to separate us are useless.
But the Poles allowed themselves to ignore Kulish's opinion. They just needed Russian discord. After spelling, it was the turn of vocabulary. From literature and dictionaries, they tried to expel as many words as possible used in the Russian literary language. The resulting voids were filled with borrowings from Polish, German, other languages, or simply made-up words.
“Most of the words, turns and forms from the former Austro-Ruthenian period turned out to be “Moscow” and had to give way to new words, supposedly less harmful,” one of the “transformers”, who later repented, told about the language “reform”. - "Direction" - that's the Moscow word, can no longer be used - they said "young", and they now put the word "directly". “Modern” is also a Moscow word and gives way to the word “modern”, “exclusively” is replaced by the word “exclusive”, “enlightenment” - by the word “enlightenment”, “society” - by the word “comradeship” or “suspension” ... ".
The zeal with which they "reformed" the Rusyn speech aroused the astonishment of philologists. And not only locals. “The Galician Ukrainians do not want to take into account that none of the Little Russians has the right to the ancient verbal heritage, which Kyiv and Moscow equally claim, to frivolously leave and replace with polonisms or simply invented words,” wrote Alexander Brikner, professor of Slavic studies at the University of Berlin ( Pole by nationality). - I can't understand why in Galicia a few years ago the word "master" was anathematized and the word "kind" was used instead. “Dobrodiy” is a remnant of patriarchal-slavish relations, and we can’t stand it even in favor.”
However, the reasons for "innovation" had, of course, to be sought not in philology, but in politics. "In a new way" began to rewrite school textbooks. In vain the conferences of folk teachers, held in August and September 1896 in Przemyshlyany and Glinyany, noted that now the textbooks have become incomprehensible. And incomprehensible not only for students, but also for students. In vain did the teachers complain that, under the prevailing conditions, "it is necessary to publish an explanatory dictionary for teachers."
The government remained unwavering. Disgruntled teachers were fired from schools. Ruthenian officials who pointed out the absurdity of the changes were removed from their posts. Writers and journalists who stubbornly adhere to the "pre-reform" spelling and vocabulary were declared "Muscovites" and subjected to persecution. “Our language goes to the Polish sieve,” noted the prominent Galician writer and public figure, priest John Naumovich. “Healthy grain is separated like Muscovite, and the siftings are left to us by grace.”
In this regard, it is interesting to compare the various editions of Ivan Franko's works. Many words from the writer’s works published in 1870-1880, for example, “look”, “air”, “army”, “yesterday” and others, were replaced with “look”, “potrya”, “vіysko” in later reprints "vchora", etc. Changes were made both by Franko himself, who joined the Ukrainian movement, and by his "assistants" from among the "nationally conscious" editors.
In total, in 43 works that came out during the author's lifetime in two or more editions, experts counted more than 10 thousand (!) Changes. Moreover, after the death of the writer, “editing” of the texts continued. As, however, as well as "corrections" of texts of works of other authors. Thus, an independent literature was created in an independent language, later called Ukrainian.
But this language was not accepted by the people. The works published in Ukrainian experienced an acute shortage of readers. “Ten-fifteen years pass until the book of Franco, Kotsiubinsky, Kobylyanska will sell 1,500 copies,” Mikhail Grushevsky, who was then living in Galicia, complained in 1911. Meanwhile, the books of Russian writers (especially Gogol's "Taras Bulba") quickly dispersed in the Galician villages in huge circulation for that era.
And another great moment. When the first one flared up World War, an Austrian military publishing house published a special phrasebook in Vienna. It was intended for soldiers mobilized into the army from various parts of Austria-Hungary, so that military personnel of different nationalities could communicate with each other. The phrasebook was compiled in six languages: German, Hungarian, Czech, Polish, Croatian and Russian. “The Ukrainian language was missed. This is wrong,” lamented the “nationally conscious” newspaper Dilo. Meanwhile, everything was logical. The Austrian authorities were well aware that the Ukrainian language was created artificially and was not widespread among the people.
It was possible to plant this language on the territory of Western Ukraine (and even then not immediately) only after the massacre of the indigenous population committed in Galicia, Bukovina and Transcarpathia by the Austro-Hungarians in 1914-1917. That massacre changed a lot in the region. In Central and Eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian language spread even later, but already in a different period of history...
Alexander Karevin
The emergence of Ukrainian writing
I continue to debunk the myths and falsifications of Svidomo historians and modern Ukrainian thinkers regarding the Ukrainian language.
For the first time modern Ukrainian writing and Ukrainian letters appeared in 1857 and were developed by Panteleimon Kulish.
The Kulish system or “kulishovka” (ukr. kulishivka) is a Ukrainian spelling named after P. A. Kulish, who used it in Notes on Southern Russia (vol. 1, 1856) and in Grammar (1857). Later it was used in the Osnova magazine, which was published in 1861-1862. in St. Petersburg V. M. Belozersky, N. I. Kostomarov and P. A. Kulish.
The new writing system was happily taken up by the Poles, who saw it as another way to alienate the Russian people from Galicia from their brothers in Great Russia and Little Russia.
“You know that the spelling, nicknamed in Galicia “Kulishivka”, was invented by me at a time when everyone in Russia was busy spreading literacy among the common people. In order to facilitate the science of literacy for people who have no time to study for a long time, I came up with a simplified spelling. But now they are making a political banner out of it. The Poles are pleased that not all Russians write the same way in Russian; they have lately begun especially to praise my invention: they base their absurd plans on it and are therefore ready to flatter even such an adversary as I... Now I feel like writing a new statement of the same kind about the "slander" they exalt. Seeing this banner in enemy hands, I will be the first to hit it and renounce my spelling in the name of Russian unity.
Despite the fact that he did such a disservice to the Ukrainians, he was a smart man and realized his mistake. Later he wrote:
“Without єzuїta Lyakh, Muscovite without a bureaucrat
Zustrine among us friend and brother.
Topimo near the Dnipro, hate your brother, wild,
Three times one great empire."
Here is what the innovations of Ukrainian spelling looked like:
The letter i was used
in place of the old yat (summer, blue, autumn);
in place of the old [o], [e] in closed syllables (style, zhіnka, pіch);
in place of the ioted one (Ukraine, my, quiet).
The letter y was not used, being replaced by and (blue, fox).
In the role of a separating sign in the middle and at the end of words after consonants, the letter ъ was used (pyat, rozvyazav, vitert, smіkh).
The letter є in the original version of the kulishovka was used only after soft consonants in neuter nouns (vesіllє, tretє, schastє). The sound [e] was transmitted by the letter e (friend, sister); the combination after the vowels (walking, thinking) was also transmitted at first - in the late Kulishovka, in the latter case, they also began to use є (vіdluka, dvoє, svoє).
The letter ё was used (to him, with a tear, tehnuv, folk).
Explosive [g] was originally transmitted by the Latin letter g (dzyga, gulya), later by the letter ґ, including as a preposition "to" (they called the desert of Moavskіy straight).
In the third person of reflexive verbs, it was written -t (b) tsya (twirl, vsmіhnettsya), later -tsya (people, stand); in the second person - -shsya and -ssya (odіbeshsya, vіtaєssya).
At the same time, the prefixes ros- and ros- (to tell, rozchervonitsya) were used.
Instead of f, hv was often used: hvaraon, Khvilistim land, Sikhv, Yahvet or (before consonants) x: Ehraim; in place of fita - ht: Makhtusailo.
Another system formed the basis of the modern Ukrainian language.
Zhelekhovsky’s system or “zhelekhovka” (ukr. zhelekhivka) is a spelling system for the Ukrainian language, developed and first applied by Y. Zhelekhovsky in the “Little Russian-German Dictionary”, published in Lviv in 1886, and declared official for the Ukrainian language in Austria-Hungary in 1893. Gradually replaced alternative systems. It was used until 1922 (in some editions - until the 1940s). On its basis, in the 1920s, the current Ukrainian spelling, which replaced it, was created, which completely coincides with it alphabetically and differs in the points listed below, aimed at adapting to Eastern Ukrainian phonological norms.
There are few differences from the current Ukrainian spelling, the alphabet is completely the same. Main features:
additional verbs -mu, -mesh, -me in the forms of the future tense and the reflexive particle -sya are written separately with the verb: took sya, robiti me, walk mesh;
after soft lingual consonants (mainly in place of the old yat), ї is written, not і: dїd, leto;
after the labial consonants, a separating apostrophe is not placed: byu;
adjective suffixes -sky, -sky are written without a soft sign, but softness [s], [ts] is indicated before the soft consonant following it: svyaty, smіkh, tsvyakh;
in accordance with the Galician dialectal pronunciation in verbal and collective nouns of the middle gender, є is written, and not ya, consonants before the etymological [j] are not doubled.
This is how literary Ukrainian writing arose, subsequently developed by the works of Kotlyarevsky, Shevchenko, Lesia Ukrainka.
Modern falsifiers of Ukrainian history are trying to convince us that in ancient times in Russia-Ukraine everyone spoke only Ukrainian, and then, after 1654, the insidious “Muscovites” crept up and forced everyone to speak Russian. It's embarrassing to even comment on such nonsense. But the main task was to tear the Ukrainians away from the huge layer of their native Russian culture, teaching them the Ukrainian language, and this task was successfully carried out by modern Ukrainianizers. Independence children from Galicia completely ceased to understand the Russian language. Banderstat is now a separate province.
Just a rhetorical question. If the Ukrainian language is not recorded in any ancient document, how did Ukrainian philologists guess about its existence? And why do they stubbornly call the Russian language in their scribbles Old Ukrainian?
Roman Shporlyuk, a professor at Harvard University in the United States, an ethnic Ukrainian, wrote: “The easiest way to destroy Ukraine is to start Ukrainizing non-Ukrainians. The greatest danger to independent Ukraine is represented by language fanatics.”
Formation of the Ukrainian literary language
As the Ukrainian historian and writer Oles Buzina wrote: “It is common knowledge that in 1619 the Grammar by Meletiy Smotrytsky, a philologist originally from the town of Smotrych in Podolia, was published.
In the course of the Ukrainian language, it is passed as one of the first "Ukrainian" grammars. And at the same time, students are told that it turned out to be so “successful” that it was taught in Moscow even in the 18th century. So what language does Smotrytsky's book describe and in what language is it written? We open the original and read on the title page: "Grammars of Slavonic correct syntagm, pandering the sinful mnich Meletius Smotrytsky." Does it sound very Ukrainian? Do you know what terms Smotrytsky used in his textbook? His time is “future” and “present”, and not “maybe” and “present”, the number, of course, is “plural” and “singular”. He uses the term "verb - there is a bowed part of the word", and not "dієslovo", as in modern Ukrainian textbooks. His cases are “nominative”, “genitive”, “dative”, “accusative”, “vocative”, “creative”. Grammar” by Smotrytsky describes the rules of the Russian language, which this educated monk from Podolia spoke.
The modern Ukrainian literary language began to take shape in the middle of the 19th century, and Kotlyarevsky made a huge contribution to this process with his Aeneid. Although before him attempts were also made to write something in Ukrainian and translate famous works into it, even the Bible, but what was obtained as a result could only cause laughter. For example, the same creator of the alphabet, Panteleimon Kulish, translated into Ukrainian the lines from the Bible “Let Israel trust in the Lord” - “Hai dufaye Srul na Pan”, and there were many such incidents with translations when writing the first works in Ukrainian. Most often, the words missing in the newly created literary language were replaced by Russian or Polish, written in Ukrainian letters.
Kotlyarevsky was the first to publish an essay in the "Little Russian language". This language is indicated on the title page of the lifetime edition of his humorous poem Aeneid (1798, first edition). Moreover, the first 3 parts of this work were originally published in St. Petersburg in Russian and only then translated into Little Russian. The original of Kotlyarevsky's poem is closer in vocabulary to the Russian language than to Ukrainian: 74% of words coincide with Russian, and only 59% of matches with Ukrainian. In fact, what is published today as a poem by Kotlyarevsky is far from the original of this work, and is a translation of the Russian-language original of the poem into modern Ukrainian. And this translation begins with the title itself: instead of the word "Aeneid" on the covers of publications in the XX century. stands "Aeneid". The original of Kotlyarevsky's "Aeneid" was written in Russian letters of the then existing alphabet, was intended for the Russian reader (Ukrainian did not exist then) - after all, this is the first ever printed work in the "Little Russian language". The original "Aeneid" by Kotlyarevsky was written in Russian. This is exactly what the Ukrainian falsifiers of Kotlyarevsky want to hide. However, this is not so significant, since Kotlyarevsky himself indicated that he was translating his work into Little Russian! The language that later evolved into Ukrainian. Kotlyarevsky's "Aeneid" can be considered the first work written in the literary Ukrainian language.
From a letter from the Ukrainophile poet P. Grabovsky to Ivan Franko: “We have many people in Ukraine who write in Ukrainian but speak in Moscow.”
In fact, the creation of a literary Ukrainian language meant that new Polish words were introduced into the common Russian-Polish dialect or new Ukrainian words were invented if the existing Russian and Polish ones were not enough.
Although even the icon of Ukrainian nationalism Taras Shevchenko wrote equally much both in Ukrainian and in Russian. Even the first edition of "Kobzar" in 1840 was written in Russian and its name sounds like "Kobzar", but later the soft sign was removed.
All fiction is in Russian. Even the famous play from the history of the Zaporizhzhya Cossacks "Nazar Stodolia" was originally written in Russian and only then translated into Ukrainian.
Here is what his "Katerina" looked like in its original form:
“Catherino, my heart!
Lyshenko with you!
Where are you in your retinue?
With a little orphan?
Who will try, break,
Without a sweetheart, in retinue?
Father, mats are strangers,
It’s hard for us to live! .. "
The compiler of the explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language, V. Dal, once said: “Whoever thinks in what language belongs to that people. I think in Russian. A person most fully reveals his essence in his diaries, here he has no one to show off and flirt with. Everything he writes corresponds to his way of thinking and reflects his worldview. If we look into the diary of Taras Grigorievich, we will be surprised to note that it was written in Russian, therefore Shevchenko thought in Russian, it is understandable, since the Ukrainian language only acquired literary features at that time, including thanks to the efforts Shevchenko, and the Russian language, originally inherent in the people, reflected all its semantic richness. Here is a short excerpt from the poet's diary: “May 12, 1858. He accompanied Gritsk Galagan to Little Russia and went to Countess Nastasya Ivanovna in order to arrange a permanent apartment for himself at the Academy. She promises. And I believe her promise." As you can see, even Shevchenko uses the term Little Russia, not Ukraine, in the name of the territory.
An interesting story happened to L. Glebov. Of the 107 fables in the 1894 collection, 87 were stolen from I. Krylov, and the rest from lesser-known authors. The fables were simply translated into Ukrainian and passed off as their own. Naturally, the censorship caught such pearls and forbade them to be printed. After that, complaints about the oppression of Ukrainian literature poured in a wide stream.
The classic of Ukrainian literature, Ivan Nechuy-Levitsky, saw a threat to Ukrainian literature in obsessive Galician penetration into Ukrainian literature, here is what he wrote about this: Galician spelling signs and dots are real guns and cannons with which newspaper writers drive the Ukrainian general public away from Ukrainian literature... The public simply laughs at this newspaper language. And yet the party published three Galician grammars for Ukrainians with Galician cases. I know the main accomplices of this party, since they also pressed me to write like that. I also had Prof. Grushevsky also asked and persuaded me in the same way that I write in Galician forms. Galician books are not read here in Ukraine; they are difficult to read. It was not in vain that I raised a fuss, since we are losing such a wide public. And when Kulish told you that the Galician written language should be thrown into the trash, he was telling the truth ... This is a conspiracy of a few neo-Ukrainians who seized the publications and on whom the proofreading depends " .
Later, new masterpieces of the Ukrainian language were created in the Ukrainian diaspora. So in Mannheim in 1945 was published the second edition of the "Prayer Book for the Vitka of the Ukrainian Orthodox Population", There, Greco-Roman and biblical names The saints who have become their own in Russia for a thousand years have been replaced by ordinary folk nicknames - Timosh, Vasil, Gnat, Gorpina, Natalka, Polinarka. In the last name, it is only with difficulty that one can identify St. Apollinaris. Women's names in the "prayer book" sound especially eerie to the Orthodox ear, especially when they have a "martyr" or "reverend" in front of them: "Holy martyrs Paraska, Todoska, Yavdokha", saints "Yaryna and Gapka", martyrs "Palazhka and Yulka ", Reverend "Khivra".
Intrusion into the sacred sphere is an unacceptable act and punishable by the Higher powers.
In this regard, I would like to cite the study of the runemaster Yuri Larichev regarding the prayer "Our Father":
“A person familiar with esotericism knows the ancient magical symbol (Thoth) - a square, inside it is a triangle, and in the center is a dot. The sequence of numbers is also known: 1, 3, 4. “The One, split into the Trinity, manifested itself as the Four” (from the Slavic Veda).
The prayer of Jesus Christ is composed in exact accordance with the ancient symbol of Thoth. It consists of one appeal, three asserting "yes" and four request verbs (give, leave, enter, deliver). The last phrase is “for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen" is not included in the prayer. It is said by the priest after prayer.
“Our Father, who art in heaven!
May your name be hallowed,
Let your kingdom come
May Thy will be done, as in heaven and on earth.
Give us our daily bread today;
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.”
Here Ukrainians - Greek Catholics (Uniates) and representatives of the secessionist independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate - pray in Ukrainian. Instead of saying “yes” three times, they say their “let them go” three times. First, "hi" is a slightly disparaging "let"; secondly, the subconscious perceives words with the prefix "not" as a negation. So it turns out that such a prayer is a stupid shaking of the air.
"Our Father Our Father, Thou art in heaven,
let them be hallowed to them "I am yours,
let your kingdom come,
let Thy will be done,
as it is in heaven, so it is on earth.”
It was not worth destroying the unity Orthodox Church and distort the sacred meaning of the prayer by translating it from Church Slavonic into modern Ukrainian. Maybe from this and all the troubles of today's Ukraine.
Why did I dwell in such detail on the emergence of the Ukrainian literary language? The fact is that it is especially clearly seen here how the Ukrainian language spun off from Russian, and then, through the introduction of polonisms, was transformed into a modern language. Modern, so-called Ukrainizers, are trying to cripple it even more by introducing diasporisms, engaging in word creation and borrowing many words and terms from the modern Polish language. In fact, today's language has turned into a kind of newspeak, which has little in common with the classical language of Shevchenko, Lesia Ukrainka, Zagrebelny and other Ukrainian writers of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Why was it necessary to create the Ukrainian language, was it an objective necessity? At first, this was a way for the Russian peasantry to adapt to the language of their conquerors - the Poles. Later, this became part of the plan of the Western project to divide a single people into three different ones - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks and the Communists also had a hand in this. In Yushchenko's five-year plan, this process received the highest approval of the president in order to alienate the Russian and Ukrainian peoples even further. To break off a single linguistic and spiritual space, to deprive Russians of their native language in Ukraine, this meant breaking all ties with Russia. But, fortunately, the plan of the Washington Regional Committee failed. The reign of Judah ended and everything fell into place.
I would like to end this section with the words of the great Russian-Ukrainian writer Nikolai Gogol: “There is no word that would be so bold, smart, would break out from under the very heart, would seethe and tremble so vividly, like a well-spoken Russian word.”
lift
Living and dead water: myth or reality, what is the power of living and dead water?
Craniosynostosis, or premature fusion of the bones of the skull Frontal crest in a child
Beautiful hair How to achieve hair density at home: useful tips
Why mosquitoes bite some people, but not others
How to achieve beautiful hair