New spelling rules. Philologist Vladimir Pakhomov about changes in the Russian language and why you shouldn’t be afraid of it
Starting today, new norms for the literary Russian language are in force in Russia. Now you can’t blame those who sign not an agreement, but an agreement and drink STRONG coffee with illiteracy. Such norms are enshrined in dictionaries that the Ministry of Education and Science has approved as reference standards.
It is advisable to sign the “agreement” on “Wednesdays”. In the morning, have breakfast with yogurt and drink black coffee. All these words and phrases should no longer offend the ears; they are acceptable to use. From now on, saying this is the norm. On Knowledge Day, the Ministry of Education and Science released words that were previously considered the height of illiteracy. Here are just a few innovations. The word “married” is a mistake; it is correct to say “married”. "Karate" must be written with an "e". You can conclude as you like - both “agreement” and “agreement”. Moreover, both on Wednesdays and on Wednesdays. Well, what’s absolutely surprising is the double emphasis in the word “yogurt”/“yogurt”. Such rules are determined by the list of “dictionaries, grammars and reference books containing the norms of the modern Russian literary language,” specified in the order of the Ministry of Education, which officially comes into force today.
The Ministry of Education decided that there were too many low-quality dictionaries, and it was time to separate the wheat from the chaff. Publishers were asked to undergo a kind of certification - submit their reference books to a commission for verification in order to compile a list of official publications that can and should be consulted. There were four of these. And it is precisely them, as stated in the official document of the Ministry of Education, that are recommended to be used “when using Russian as the state language”:
"Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language" by Bronislava Bukchina, Inna Sazonova and Lyudmila Cheltsova,
"Grammar Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by Andrey Zaliznyak, "Dictionary of Stresses of the Russian Language" by Irina Reznichenko, "Big Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language" by Veronica Telia. Interestingly, all four books were published by the same publisher.
The Ministry delicately refused to give an official comment to the order to Vesti today, saying only that the list of dictionaries was recommended to officials and supposedly does not introduce new rules for the Russian language. Moreover, this list is not final. As a result, there will be several dozen reference books.
Meanwhile, there is confusion in the ranks of philologists. It is not clear why this list did not include any of the dictionaries that until today were considered standard - Rosenthal's books, for example, or Lopatin's academic reference book. Where, by the way, is the word “coffee”? male. However, a number of experts refer to the fact that language norms change over time, and this is normal. The dictionary only records how it is customary to speak in a given era. So, for example, in the 30s they said both “my” and “my” taxi. And if now more and more people say “agreement” or “strong coffee”, then this is becoming normal. This point of view is shared by one of the authors of the spelling dictionary from the new list. Will new dictionaries take root in government institutions? And will their use in educational institutions mandatory - the order of the Ministry does not stipulate.
It is interesting that in these four books we also found the word “Internet”, which from now on needs to be written only with a capital letter (although “telephone” or “television” - with a small letter). And it’s completely Russian - “fife-o-klok”. That is, “I didn’t have a fife-o-clock today” in the sense of “I didn’t have an afternoon snack today.”
At the Onezhsky cultural center, as part of a joint project of the website “Theories and Practices” and the Moscow Department of Culture “City Lecture Hall”, a lecture was held by the editor-in-chief of the portal “Gramota.ru”, candidate of philological sciences Vladimir Pakhomov. He told how spelling has changed in the history of the Russian language, why the use of the words “call” with an emphasis on the first syllable and “coffee” in the neuter gender is not an indicator of illiteracy, and why it makes no sense to ban foreign words. Lenta.ru publishes the main points of his speech.
How we hear and what we write
In the minds of most people, two different concepts are very often confused: language and spelling (spelling). Therefore, the Russian language is often perceived simply as a set of rules, once invented by someone and randomly systematized in textbooks and reference books. Many people sincerely believe that if a person has learned the rules, this means that he knows his native language.
In fact, spelling rules are not the language itself, but its shell. They can be compared to the wrapper in which chocolate candy(in this case it is similar to language). And at school they mainly study the rules of spelling, and not the language. Writing competently does not mean having perfect command of the Russian language. Doctor of Philological Sciences Igor Miloslavsky rightly notes that “the level of proficiency in native literary language is determined by a person’s ability to accurately and completely understand everything he reads or hears, as well as his ability to express absolutely clearly his own thoughts and feelings, depending on the conditions and addressee of communication.” Let me emphasize: language and spelling are completely different things.
There is nothing specially invented by anyone in the spelling rules. Our spelling is harmonious and logical. 96 percent of spellings of Russian words are based on one single principle - the main principle of Russian spelling. This is a morphological principle, the essence of which is that each morpheme (prefix, root, suffix, ending) is written the same way despite the fact that it can be pronounced differently in different words. For example, we say du[p] and du[b]y, but we write this root the same way: oak.
How sailors changed the Russian alphabet
In the history of the Russian language there have been only two reforms of graphics and spelling. The first was carried out by Peter I in 1708-1710. To a greater extent, it concerned graphics: the writing of uppercase (large) and lowercase (small) letters was legalized, unnecessary letters were removed from the Russian alphabet and the writing of the rest was simplified. The second occurred in 1917-1918. This was already a reform of both graphics and spelling. During it, the letters Ѣ (yat), Ѳ (fita), I (“And decimal”), and the hard sign (Ъ) at the end of words were removed. In addition, some spelling rules have been changed. For example, in the genitive and accusative cases of adjectives and participles, the endings -ago, -yago were replaced by -ого, -и (for example, old - old), in the nominative and accusative cases plural feminine and neuter gender -yya, -iya - on -yy, -y (old - old).
By the way, the initiators of this reform were not the Bolsheviks at all. Changes in Russian spelling have been brewing for a long time; preparations began at the end of the 19th century. The spelling commission at the Imperial Academy of Sciences began working in 1904, and the first draft was presented in 1912. Some of the scientists' proposals were very radical: for example, at the end of words it was proposed to remove not only the hard sign (Ъ), but also the soft sign (b). If this proposal had been accepted (later linguists abandoned it), then we would now write not “night”, but “noch”.
In May 1917, the reform project was approved by the Provisional Government. It was assumed that the transition to the new spelling would take place gradually, and for some time both the old and the new spelling would be considered correct. But the Bolsheviks who seized power approached this issue in their characteristic manner. New rules were introduced immediately, and in the printing houses detachments of revolutionary sailors confiscated the “canceled” letters. This led to an incident: the letter hard sign (Ъ) was also selected despite the fact that its writing as separator inside the words was preserved. Therefore, typesetters had to use an apostrophe (’), which is how spellings like s’ezd arose.
The adoption in 1956 of the officially still in force Russian spelling rules was not a spelling reform: the text did not contain many changes. For example, now it was necessary to write the words “shell”, “barber”, “scurvy”, “mat” with the letter “i” instead of “s”, “apparently”, “still” with a hyphen instead of the previously accepted continuous spelling , the spellings “devil”, “go”, “come” were approved - instead of “devil”, “itti”, “come”.
Hare and parachute
The next serious spelling reform in the Russian language was scheduled for 1964. Many linguists were aware of the incompleteness and some inconsistency of the 1956 rules, which were replete with a huge number of exceptions. The idea was not to simplify Russian spelling, but to make it even more coherent, more systematic and more logical, making it easier to learn at school. This was important both for teachers, who in the 1960s often complained about the low literacy of schoolchildren and the lack of hours to study the Russian language, and for the state. Why, for example, was it suggested to write “hare”? Look, we write “fighter” - “fighter”, “fighter”. In the controversial word, the vowel also disappears: “hare”, “hare”, so why not write “hare” by analogy with “fighter”? In other words, it was not a question of simplifying for the sake of simplifying, but of eliminating unjustified exceptions. Unfortunately, after Khrushchev’s removal, the country’s new leaders, who were “allergic” to the ideas of their predecessor, curtailed the already prepared reform.
The need to streamline the rules of Russian spelling was again discussed in the late 1990s. The country has changed, times have changed, and many of the rules of 1956 began to look not only outdated, but also downright ridiculous. For example, in Soviet years, in accordance with ideological guidelines, the USSR army was required to be called exclusively the Armed Forces. At the same time, when writing the names of the armies of socialist countries, only the first word was written with a capital letter - Armed Forces, and the armies of capitalist states and NATO countries could only be called armed forces.
In addition, many new words have appeared, their first parts: media, Internet, web, business. Therefore, the Spelling Commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences began work on a new edition of the spelling rules, with examples relevant to modern written speech. Linguists discussed changes in the spelling of individual words (many people remember the discussion about the words “parachute”, “brochure”, “jury”, which were proposed to be written with “u”; linguists later abandoned this idea). Alas, the work of linguists was not fully covered in the media; journalists talked about supposedly impending “language reform,” etc. As a result, society reacted extremely negatively to the work of the Spelling Commission, so the draft of a new edition of the Russian spelling rules prepared by it was not approved and the 1956 code remains generally binding to this day.
However, the work of the Spelling Commission was not in vain; its result was the complete academic reference book “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation”, published in 2006, as well as the academic “Russian Spelling Dictionary” edited by Doctor of Philology Vladimir Lopatin - the most complete spelling dictionary of the modern Russian language . There are few changes compared to the 1956 rules. For example, verbal adjective“read”, which was previously an exception and was written with two letters “n”, is now subsumed under general rule and is written with one “n”, while the participle is written with two (a few minutes and the money counted by the accountant, cf.: fried potatoes and fried potatoes).
RINGING or RINGING?
We talked about how often spelling changes. How often does the Russian language change? Constantly, because the Russian language is a living language, and only dead languages do not change. Changes in language are a normal process that should not be feared and considered degradation or destruction of the language.
The place of stress in words changes. Let's take the most famous example with the verb “to call”; anyway, not a single conversation about language can do without it. Some native speakers demonstratively depict painful suffering when they hear the stress zvonit (despite the fact that they themselves make similar spelling errors without noticing it at all, for example they say drills instead of the normative drills), and journalists in relation to the stress zvonit use their favorite cliche “litmus test of illiteracy.” Meanwhile, linguists are aware of the presence in the language of such a phenomenon as the shift of stress on verbs ending in -it in personal forms from the ending to the root (this process began at the end of the 18th century). Some verbs have already gone this way. For example, they once said: loads, cooks, rolls, smokes, pays. Now we say: loads, cooks, rolls, smokes, pays.
Photo: Alexander Polyakov / RIA Novosti
Knowledge of this trend gave the authors of the “Big Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language”, published in 2012, grounds to record the option vklyuchit (previously prohibited) as acceptable (with a strict literary norm, vklyuchit). There is no doubt that this option, which has already passed the path from prohibited to permissible, will continue to move towards the only possible and sooner or later will supplant the old emphasis turns on, just as the new option pays once replaced the old emphasis pays.
The same process occurs with the verb “to call.” He would also follow this path, but we - native speakers - do not let him. The educated part of society has a very negative attitude towards the variant zvonit, and that is why it is not yet included in dictionaries as acceptable (although back in the 1970s, linguists wrote that the ban on the accent zvonit is clearly artificial). Now, in 2015, the norm is only calling. But knowledge of the orthoepic law, which is mentioned above, gives grounds to assert that this will not always be the case and the stress ringing, most likely, sooner or later will become the only correct one. Not because “linguists will follow the lead of illiterate people,” but because these are the laws of language.
In the process of language evolution, they often change lexical meanings some words. Korney Chukovsky in his book “Alive as Life” gives an interesting example. The famous Russian lawyer A.F. Koni in the last years of his life (and he died already at Soviet power in 1927) was very indignant when others used the word “necessarily” in the new meaning of “certainly”, although before the revolution it only meant “kindly”, “helpfully”.
Why are languages simplified?
Language changes at the grammatical level. It is known that in the Old Russian language there were six types of declension of nouns, and in modern Russian there are three left. There were three numbers (singular, dual and plural), only two remained (singular and plural).
And here it is worth mentioning another interesting pattern. We know that evolution is a path from simple to complex. But in language it's the other way around. The evolution of language is a path from complex forms to simpler ones. The grammar of modern Russian is simpler than that of ancient Russian; Modern English is simpler than Old English; modern Greek is easier than ancient Greek. Why is this happening?
I have already said that in the ancient Russian language there were three numbers: singular, dual (when we were talking about only two objects) and plural, that is, in the minds of our ancestors there could be one, two or many objects. Now in Russian only singular or multiple, that is, there may be one item or several. It's more high level abstractions. On the one hand, there are fewer grammatical forms and some simplification has occurred. On the other hand, the category of number with the advent of the distinction “one - many” became more harmonious, logical and clear. Therefore, these processes not only are not a sign of language degradation, but, on the contrary, indicate its improvement and development.
From masculine to neuter
Many people have the wrong idea about the work of linguists. Some believe that they invent the rules of the Russian language and force society to live by them. For example, everyone says “kill a spider with a slipper,” but the linguist claims that you can’t say that because the word “slipper” is feminine (the correct word would be “kill a spider with a slipper”). Some believe that linguists simplify the norm for the sake of poorly educated people and include illiterate variants in dictionaries like coffee in the neuter gender.
In fact, linguists do not invent language norms, they record them. Observe the language and record findings in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Scientists should do this regardless of whether they like a particular option or not. But at the same time, they look to see whether the option meets the laws of language. Depending on this, the option is marked as prohibited or allowed.
Why is the word “coffee” often used in the neuter gender? Is it just because of illiteracy? Not at all. The fact is that the masculine gender of the word “coffee” is resisted by the language system itself. This word is borrowed, inanimate, common noun, indeclinable and ending in a vowel. The overwhelming majority of such words in Russian belong to the neuter gender. “Coffee” was included in the exceptions because there were once in the language the forms “coffee”, “coffee” - masculine, they declined like “tea”: drink tea, drink coffee. And so the masculine gender of the word “coffee” is a monument to long-dead forms, while the laws of a living language drag it into the neuter gender.
And these laws are very strong. Even words that resist them still give in over time. For example, when the metro opened in Moscow in 1935, the media wrote: the metro is very convenient for passengers. The newspaper “Soviet Metro” was published, and Utesov sang: “But the metro sparkled with oak railings, it immediately bewitched all the riders.” The word “metro” was masculine (because “metropolitan” is masculine), but gradually “went” into the neuter gender. Consequently, the fact that “coffee” becomes a neuter word does not occur because people are illiterate, but because these are the laws of language development.
Who cares about foreign words?
Also, any conversation about the Russian language is not complete without discussing borrowing words. We often hear that the Russian language is becoming clogged with foreign words and that we urgently need to get rid of borrowings, that if we don’t take action and stop the flow of borrowings, we will all soon speak a mixture of English and Nizhny Novgorod. And these myths are passed on from generation to generation.
Photo: Mary Evans Picture Library/Global Look
It is very easy to prove that the Russian language is unthinkable without borrowed words. It is enough to give examples of words that seem to us to be originally Russian, but in fact are not. So, even in the Old Russian language the words “shark”, “whip”, “herring”, “sneak” came from the Scandinavian languages, from the Turkic - “money”, “pencil”, “robe”, from the Greek - “letter”, “ bed", "sail", "notebook". Even the word “bread” is very likely a borrowing: scholars suggest that its source is the Gothic language.
In different eras, borrowings from one language usually prevailed in the Russian language. When, during the time of Peter I, Russia was building a fleet in order to “open a window to Europe,” many words related to maritime affairs came to us, most of them from the Dutch language (shipyard, harbor, compass, cruiser, sailor), after all, The Dutch at that time were considered the best shipwrights and many of them worked in Russian shipyards. In the 18th-19th centuries, the Russian language was enriched with the names of dishes, clothing, jewelry, and furnishings that came from the French language: soup, broth, champignon, cutlet, marmalade, vest, coat, wardrobe, bracelet, brooch. In recent decades, words have come into the Russian language mainly from in English and they are connected with modern technical devices and information technology(computer, laptop, smartphone, online, website).
What has been said does not mean that the Russian language is so poor or greedy: it only receives and gives nothing. Not at all. Russian also shares its words with other languages, but exports often go not to the West, but to the East. If we compare the Russian language and the Kazakh language, for example, we will see that the Kazakh language has a lot of borrowings from Russian. In addition, the Russian language is an intermediary for many words coming from West to East and from East to West. The same role was played in the 17th-19th centuries by the Polish language, through which a lot of words came into Russian (thanks to the Poles, we say “Paris” and not “Paris”, “revolution” and not “revolution”).
If we ban foreign words, we will simply stop the development of the language. And then there is a threat that we will start speaking in another language (for example, in English), because the Russian language in this case will not allow us to express our thoughts fully and in detail. In other words, a ban on the use of foreign words leads not to the preservation, but to the destruction of the language.
1. Introduction.
2. Main part:
a) the project “Code of Russian Spelling Rules.
b) type - indefinite article;
3. Conclusion.
4. List of used literature.
Introduction
Spelling is one of the most important components of national culture, and the presence of a generally binding set of spelling rules is one of the signs of the cultural health of a society.
But the question of the nature of language changes has not lost its interest even today, continuing to attract close attention from linguists of various profiles. Language changes are caused by reasons of an external, social order, but supporters of another thesis believe that language changes are associated exclusively with internal reasons.
At the Institute of Russian Language named after. V. V. Vinogradov of the Russian Academy of Sciences prepared a draft “Code of Rules of Russian Spelling (spelling and punctuation)”, approved by the Spelling Commission at the Department of Literature and Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences. At the end of last year, the project was published in a limited edition for specialists. University teachers, methodologists, representatives of a number of educational institutions, and the teaching community are familiar with it. Discussions of the project took place and written feedback was received. As a result of these discussions, taking into account the comments made, the text of the code was finalized and should now be submitted for official approval.
In some media one could read or hear about an allegedly upcoming reform of Russian spelling (or even the Russian language). In fact, this is not a reform at all.
We are talking only about a new, revised and significantly expanded edition of the “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation”, approved back in 1956. This new edition of the rules corresponds to the modern (late 20th century) state of the Russian language and modern writing practice. Indeed, in the 1956 “Rules” themselves, much was left unsaid or not mentioned at all, and, on the other hand, they were naturally outdated in many ways. It is no coincidence that no one has been using the text of these rules for a long time; they have not actually been republished for thirty years; instead of them, various spelling reference books were and are widely used for press workers and teachers, and they often (as their users themselves note) contain contradictory recommendations. In these conditions, the preparation of a new, modern, complete and, most importantly, generally binding text of the rules of Russian spelling is a task that is long overdue and even, one might say, overripe.
Main part
“Code of Russian spelling rules (spelling and punctuation)”
There are no fundamental spelling changes in the new text of the rules. Simplifying spelling was not an end in itself. The question of the advisability of simplifying or “lightening” the rules of Russian writing still (as at the beginning of the last century and in the 60s) remains relevant and continues to cause controversy. There are supporters of this simplification among linguists, including members of the Orthographic Commission of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and, naturally, among teachers and methodologists. Adhering to constructive and necessary (within certain limits) conservatism in this matter, an opinion is expressed: for the sake of simplifying spelling, facilitating the process of its assimilation, it is not worth changing spelling rules, just as it is not worth doing this for the sake of the purity of the basic - phonomorphological - principle of Russian writing. In modern Russian orthography there are many deviations from this principle, and it is hardly advisable to try to eliminate through a reformist effort all traditional spellings that represent such deviations. It is hardly necessary, for example, to eliminate the final letter ь in words like mouse, night(where this letter, by the way, marks a certain morphological type of words) or always write the letter o after sibilants under stress (i.e., not only in the word rustle, for example, but also in whisper, let's go etc.), and at the end of the consoles without- (bes-), from- (is-), times- (dis-) etc. - letter z. One should not strive for a “distilled” spelling, fundamentally banishing exceptions and difficulties from it. It is even permissible to assert that the spelling of a natural language cannot be absolutely “pure” and consistent, since it is largely the product of a fairly long historical and cultural self-development.
They say: have pity on the schoolchildren, leave them more time to study the language itself. This is hardly a compelling argument. It is unlikely that our spelling is more complex than, for example, English or French. Methodologists should first of all look for ways to master spelling and increase the level of literacy, which would allow them to spend less time on it than now. The most rational approaches to this problem lie on the path of bringing together spelling skills with linguistic (primarily phonetic and grammatical) knowledge itself, deepening this knowledge in the learning process - with the appropriate development of such topics as “phonetics and spelling”, “word formation and spelling”, "Morphology and Spelling".
We must not forget that spelling is by no means only the result of normalization efforts, a system of rules established once and for all, it is also a self-developing system that requires regular and systematic adjustment, streamlining, taking into account the existing practice of writing based on tracking spontaneous events in it changes. Such ordering itself, necessary when preparing a new text of generally binding, modern, consistent spelling rules, cannot but contribute to improving literacy and, ultimately, the level of language teaching.
Moving on to the spelling changes proposed in the new code, I note that in the sections of the code devoted to the use of letters and the transmission of the letter composition of words and morphemes, they are few. Thus, it is proposed to unify the spelling of participles and adjectives formed from unprefixed imperfective verbs (such as loaded, shorn, fried, dyed); always write them with one n, both with and without dependent words. The existing rule of writing one or two n in such education it does not have a reliable linguistic base, and in teaching practice it usually turns out to be a stumbling block.
It is proposed to expand the use of the separative ъ in compound words like Ministry of Justice, Foreign Languages, Children, State Language, Party Cell, Special Education. It is suggested to write Ministry of Justice, special food, state language etc.
Other changes in these sections affect individual words. Eliminate exceptions: words brochure And parachute it is suggested to write with the letter y, word wanted - with letter A in the prefix (cf. loose, painted, draft), word windy - with two I in the suffix (cf. windless, leeward, and literal, painful, meaningless and other words with the same suffix).
In accordance with existing writing practice, it is suggested to write the ending -e in the prepositional case of nouns on -yy, dative and prepositional cases of nouns in -and I, having a monosyllabic base (about which, about the serpent, in “Vie”, to Iya, Liya, on the river Biya), a single consonant before the suffix in diminutive and familiar forms of personal names like Alka, Kirilka. It is allowed in artistic speech (especially in poetic speech) to write prepositional case forms with the ending -And instead of e (in silence And, think about it And, into the gorge And ); obsolete forms of suffixes ( Marf And Nka, Paul And Nka, Ven And chka); writing with capital letter adjectives on - skiy, if these adjectives have the meaning of individual belonging (“... flew in before dark and became the old AND Ivagovsky house..."). In some cases, double (separate or hyphenated) spelling of such combinations as screamingly bright And screamingly bright. If the writer considers such a combination to be a combination of an adverb and an adjective, then he must write it separately; if he sees a complex word in it, then he has the right to write it with a hyphen.
Most of the proposed changes concern two sections of the code: firstly, continuous, separate and hyphenated spellings and, secondly, the use of uppercase and lowercase letters. Let's look at them in more detail.
The most significant (quantitatively) spelling changes are associated with the rule of writing complex adjectives. It is proposed to write complex adjectives with a hyphen, having in the first component the basis of a relative adjective with a suffix (-n-, -oe-, -sk- or other suffixes ending in n, sk), as well as the basics on -ik-, -log-, -graph-(correlative with adjectives in -ic), for example: national economic, northern Russian, Central Asian, water sports, indefinite leave, Church Slavonic, copyright, chemical technology. If there is no adjective suffix in the first component, compound adjectives should be written together: oil and gas, sound-letter, income, goods and passengers.
Thus, the principle of writing complex adjectives, the last part of which can be used as an independent word, changes: the semantic-syntactic principle (the nature of the relationship of the stems that make up a complex word) is replaced by a formal-grammatical one. The semantic criterion remains decisive only in two groups of complex adjectives - denoting shades of quality (mainly color and taste: bright red, light brown, bitter salty etc.) and relations between countries, languages, peoples (English-Russian, Russian-English, Afro-Asian and so on.). In these groups, regardless of the structure of the first stem, the hyphen spelling is always preserved.
The rule of the 1956 code on the writing of complex adjectives, which is still legally in force today, is based on the opposition of adjectives with an equal ( hyphenated spelling) and unequal, subordinating (combined spelling) relationship of the stems. In the practice of writing, this rule - for all its apparent simplicity - was never consistently observed, which was recorded in the academic “Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language”, and when this dictionary was republished, the number of spellings that contradicted the current rule increased. This is, for example, the spelling adopted in the 1956 rules themselves deaf and dumb.
These are the same spellings recorded in the 13th edition of the said dictionary (1974): drilling and blasting, asbestos concrete, oil and gas, gas-steam, steam-water, water-air, and bourgeois-democratic, military-historical, parachute landing, housing cooperative, state-monopoly, scientific research, science fiction, rocket technology, civil law, medical consultation, dairy and livestock farming, shooting sports, experimental psychological, nuclear energy and many others. In the 29th edition of the dictionary (1991) the following were added to them: cargo-and-passenger, liquor, geological exploration, pathological-anatomical, wood-chip, natural science, mine-barrage, folk-poetic, national-economic, primitive-communal, conditioned-reflex(And unconditionally reflexive), parochial etc. Other complex adjectives, first recorded in the new academic “Russian Spelling Dictionary” (1999), are also written in the same way, for example: Christian-democratic, physical therapy, new party nomenklatura, currency exchange. If there are dozens of words that do not obey the formulated rule, one cannot help but admit that this rule does not apply.
The transition to a new rule based on a formal grammatical principle will lead to changes in the spelling of a number of other adjectives. At the same time, the new project retains, as an exception, several traditional spellings according to the old rule ( railway, agricultural, coal, cotton), and it is also stipulated that the writing of highly specialized complex adjectives that contradicts the new rule is allowed if it is based on a stable tradition.
The new rule proposes to subordinate the spelling of complex adjectives formed from two-word (separately written) geographical names: cf., on the one hand, Veliky Ustyug, New Zealand, Latin American, where in the first part of complex adjectives there is no suffix, and on the other - South American, East Siberian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Gorno-Altai, Naberezhnye Chelny, Sergiev Posad etc., where such a suffix is available. The influence of the suffix factor in the first part of such complex adjectives has long been discovered in the writing of compound geographical names. The complex adjectives included in their composition, if there was a suffix in the first part, were written with a hyphen and with two capital letters, for example: West Siberian Lowland, East China Sea, South Africa, Gorno-Altai Autonomous Region(old name) Gavrilovo-Posadsky district(from Gavrilov Posad), Kamsko-Ustinsky district(from Kama Ustye, village), but: Asia Minor Plateau, Velikoustyugsky district, Starooskolsky district, Krasnopresnensky district etc. (at the same time, not as part of geographical names, all such adjectives were written together). Now adjectives with a suffix in the first part are proposed to be written uniformly - with a hyphen, regardless of whether they are used in compound name or not, i.e. write, for example, not only., West Siberian Lowland or West Siberian Metallurgical Plant, but also West Siberian nature, vegetation and so on.
Contrary to the recommendations of the 1956 rules, it is now proposed to write together adjectives formed (without a connecting vowel) from separately written personal names like Julieverne's, Walterscott's, Romain Rolland's, Conandoy's, Sherlock Holmes's, Mao Zedong's. This type of writing is actually already established and absolutely predominates in writing practice.
As for the merged and hyphenated spellings of nouns, we note the following innovations.
It is proposed to write connections to the component floor-"half" is always hyphenated: not only half a leaf, half a lemon, half an orange, half an apple, half a Moscow, but also half a house, half a kilometer, half a tangerine; Not only half past ten but also half past twelve, half past twelve etc. Unification of spellings with floor- replaces the previous rule by which spellings differed from floor- before consonants, except l(merged), and spellings with floor- before vowels, consonants l and before a capital letter (hyphens). The simplification of this rule seems to be dictated not only by linguistic considerations (the well-known independence of the component floor-, close to a single word), but also simple common sense.
In the new code, for the first time, it is formulated in general view rule for writing nouns formed from nouns written with a hyphen. All of them must preserve the hyphen of the producing word, for example: General Government, Chamber-Junkership(from governor-general, chamberlain), trade unionism, non-commissioned officer, Ku Klux Klansman, somersault-mortalist, yacht club member, chess player. This also includes nouns formed from proper names, mainly from geographical names: Alma-Ata, New Yorkers(from Alma-Ata, New York), Orekhovo-Zuevo residents, Yoshkar-Olin residents, Ust-Abakan residents, Gavrilov-Yamtsy(from Orekhovo-Zuevo, Yoshkar-Ola, Ust-Abakan, Gavrilov-Yam), Ulan-Ude, Los Angeles, Buenos Aires; Saint-Simonism, Saint-Simonist(from Saint-Simon). Hyphenated spelling of names of residents formed from hyphenated spellings geographical names, is consistent, firstly, with the hyphenated spelling of nouns formed from hyphenated common nouns proposed here, and, secondly, with the hyphenated spelling of adjectives from the same geographical names: New York, Orekhovo-Zuevsky and so on.
In the 1956 rules, the spelling of both groups of nouns formed from hyphenated nouns is not regulated at all; however, later in reference books for press workers, in the reference dictionary “Together or Separately?”, in the “Dictionary of the Names of Residents of the USSR” it was recommended to write the names of residents from hyphenated geographical names together. The proposed change in the spelling of these names makes the spelling of all derivatives of hyphenated nouns uniform.
It is proposed to expand the scope of application of the hyphen in combinations with an application: to write through a hyphen not only combinations with a one-word application following the defined word (old mother, amateur gardener, Masha the frolicker), but also combinations with an application preceding the word being defined - one that, according to the definition of the 1956 code, “can be equated in meaning to an adjective” (old man-father, beautiful daughter, naughty monkey), including with an application preceding the proper name (Mother Rus', beautiful Volga, playful Masha). Both the last groups in the 1956 code were proposed to be written separately. Printing practice shows that this rule was not observed in a number of cases, especially in classical texts, cf.:
An old mother is waiting for her son from the battle(Lermontov), "Handsome Man"(title of the play by A. N. Ostrovsky), Mother Rus'(in Nekrasov’s poem).
It was decided to subjugate general rule hyphenated writing of repetition combinations that have an intensifying meaning (both pure repetitions and affix-complicated ones: barely, just barely, blue-blue, clever-wise, washed-washed, day-to-day, glad-to-be, a long time ago, firmly and firmly etc.), writing combinations consisting of a noun in the nominative case and the same noun in the instrumental case, such as honor-honor, rank-rank, well done-well done, fool-fool, log-log, pig-pig. Hyphenated spellings will distinguish such intensifying combinations from combinations of the nominative case with the instrumental and obligatory subsequent conjunction A or But, not having an intensifying meaning, such as friendship is friendship, and service is service; laughter is laughter, and...; jokes aside, but... etc. Combinations of the latter type can be formed with almost any noun, while intensifying repetitions of such a structure are formed only with forms of nouns of a certain semantics.
It is proposed to eliminate exceptions to the rule of continuous spelling of compound nouns with connecting vowels, extending the continuous spelling to two groups of words:
names of units of measurement (bed space, parking space, machine hour, passenger kilometer, flight departure, man-day) and names of political parties, trends and their supporters (anarchosyndicalism, anarchosyndicalist, monarchofascism, left-radical, communopatriot). In the 1956 code, both groups of names were proposed to be written with a hyphen.
The continuous spelling of complex nouns of a special structural type is unified throughout - with the first part coinciding with the form of the imperative mood of the verb:
it is proposed to write together not only adonis, derzhimorda, daredevil, whirligig, hoarder, robbery army etc., but also perekatipole, gulaigorod, written with a hyphen, non-spill water, written separately, in three words.
No fundamental changes have been made to the traditionally complex and voluminous section of rules devoted to the combined and separate writing of adverbs (or “adverbial combinations”). It is only proposed to replace the separate spelling of the following adverbs with continuous writing: in the hearts, before dying, before falling, noon, midnight, canopy, groping, afloat, swooping, rushing, approaching, and do not mind. The point here is that the process of codification of continuous spellings of adverbs arising from prepositional-case combinations is traditionally of a purely individual nature, that is, it is aimed at specific linguistic units. The selective approach to consolidating the continuous spellings of adverbs is due, on the one hand, to the stability of writing traditions, and on the other, to the living nature of the process of isolating adverbs from the paradigm of nouns and the resulting possibility of different linguistic interpretations of the same fact.
Changes recent years, which occurred in the public awareness of the sacred concepts of religion, required inclusion in the new code special section
"Names associated with religion." It is based on the practice of using capital letters, which existed in pre-revolutionary times and has been established over the last decade (after the lifting of ideological prohibitions) in the modern press, for example, in the words God, Lord, Mother of God, in the names of religious holidays (Easter, Christmas, Epiphany), holy books(Bible, Gospel, Koran) etc. However, significant clarifications are introduced: about writing words with a lowercase letter God And lord in expressions of an interjection and evaluative nature, used in colloquial speech without direct connection with religion (for example, By God, God knows what, not God knows what, not thank God"unfavorable", interjections oh my god, oh my god) on the use of capital letters in names national holidays associated with the church holiday cycle, such as Christmastide, Maslenitsa, and a number of other clarifications.
Another change concerns the use of capital letters. In the official names of government bodies, institutions, societies, scientific, educational, and entertainment institutions, political parties, etc., it is recommended that only the first word (as well as those included in them) be capitalized. proper names), For example: World Peace Council. The State Duma, Federal Assembly, Russian Academy of Sciences, Navy, Union of Theater Workers of Russia. Words like Thought, Academy of Sciences, should be capitalized only in cases where they are used instead of the full official name. This cancels the directive recommendations of the old code, according to which it was proposed to write with a capital letter all words, except for service words and words the consignment, in the names of the highest party, government, trade union institutions and organizations Soviet Union- such as Supreme Council, Council of Ministers of the USSR, Soviet Army and Navy.
It is proposed to write any names of positions and titles with a lowercase letter, and use a capital letter when naming higher government positions and titles only in the texts of official documents - decrees, agreements, communiques, etc. Thus, the rule that provided for writing names with a capital letter is canceled highest positions in the USSR and with lowercase - the names of other positions and titles.
It is suggested to write in capital letters any sound abbreviations : Hydroelectric power station, housing office, university, media, ultrasound, etc.. Words derived from abbreviations should be written in lowercase letters following the letter names : MKhAT member, KVN member (from MKhAT, KVN).
The new transfer rules remove some of the restrictions provided for by the 1956 code. In a number of cases, rules that were previously proposed as mandatory are recognized as only preferable. In particular, restrictions on the separation of groups of consonants during transfer have been lifted: not only transfers such as toss(with mandatory consideration of the boundaries between morphemes), but also such as toss up. This is partly due to new technical conditions for computer typing. However, the main prohibitions - on transferring one letter, on separating a vowel from the preceding consonant, etc., naturally, remain.
Greater variability compared to the 1956 code is allowed by the new rules of Punctuation. Thus, before enumeration and in some other cases, not only the colon, but also the dash are now recognized as correct. In general, punctuation rules have become more diverse due to the widespread use of colloquial constructions in modern written speech. The composition of the “Punctuation” section itself has also changed: the material in it is arranged not by punctuation marks, as before, but by types of syntactic constructions.
Like - indefinite article
Sometimes grammar gets tired of being simplified, and then it comes up with something that, at first glance, does not fit into any gate. The article, that is, an auxiliary word attached to a noun and giving it the meaning of definiteness or uncertainty, is an unheard-of phenomenon in the Russian language. If someone had said ten years ago that this was possible, they would have laughed at him. And yet, willy-nilly, we have to admit the presence in modern oral speech of the rapidly emerging indefinite article.
Lovers of jokes, of course, will decide that this is a well-known melodic word from profanity - and they will be mistaken. Contrary to folklore, this word cannot in any way claim to be an article. Firstly, it is not attached to any specific noun, and secondly, it does not introduce a connotation of certainty or uncertainty. But the word “type” fully satisfies the above requirements and, as we will soon see, not only them. Notice how naturally it combines with nouns, giving them a charming blur :
I.p. like a friend
R.p. kind of friend
D.p. like a friend
V.p. kind of friend
etc. like a friend
P.p. like about a friend.
Western denigrators will certainly try to explain this phenomenon by overseas influence. Naturally, their main trump card will be the presence of articles in English, as well as the foreign origin of the word “type”.
In the course of the upcoming controversy, opponents will resort to deliberate non-distinction between the noun “type” and the article “type”. However, their difference from each other is obvious. The intermediate form (noun "type" in the genitive case) in combination with other names requires control ("type of ship"). But this is not an article yet. The real article begins where control ceases to operate (“like a ship”). Let us add that in no language other than Russian does the word “type” play the role of a service word. This is a purely domestic phenomenon that arose on Russian soil and is directly related to the collapse of the totalitarian regime.
Let's begin with to the Soviet man doubts were not common at all. Each word strived for the only possible, ideologically verified meaning. Here is an excellent example of a phrase from the Soviet period : "Man came from the monkey." A post-Soviet individual would never express himself that way. He will say : "Man kind of evolved from a monkey." That is, the speaker himself is no longer sure : But is it really from a monkey? Maybe, after all, “like God created”?
In other words, the collapse of the materialistic worldview was reflected in grammar, although it was not the main reason for the emergence of the article. The main reason, oddly enough, is purely financial. With the advent of the iron and soldering iron into the economic sphere, responsibility for every spoken word has increased significantly. Let's compare two sentences : “I’m your debtor...” - and “I’m kind of your debtor...” You have to answer for the first phrase. For the second - kind of answer.
It should be noted that the indefinite article “type” is superior to the best foreign examples in many characteristics. True, it is not inflected, like the articles of the ancient and Middle Greek languages, and does not change in gender and number, like German articles, but it can be widespread. For example : "kind of like that." (“Well, he’s kind of like a linguist.”)
The indefinite article “like” can be attached not only to nouns, but also to other names (“like business”), to pronouns (“like she has”) and even to verbs (“like there is”). Strictly speaking, this is not typical for articles. In any case, nothing like this has ever been observed in world practice. Although, on the other hand, they don’t mix gasoline with water - so what now!
This difficulty, it seems to me, can be resolved in two ways. First : recognize the right of articles to be attached not only to nouns, but also to verbs (especially since verbs in the Russian language are doomed anyway, and their disappearance is only a matter of time). However, due to their inertia, linguists are unlikely to dare to radically break traditional ideas that have developed over centuries. Therefore, I see the second way out as more realistic : declare the word "type" fundamentally new service part speech.
It's not just an indefinite article, it's like an indefinite article
Conclusion
It must be admitted that the greatest damage from the reform is suffered by literate adults, and more precisely, by people who write and read a lot. They are the most accustomed to the existing order, and it is more difficult for them to rebuild. From being the most literate, they instantly become the most illiterate (though only for a certain time). Among other things, literacy is one of the components of culture, and its loss is perceived painfully by cultural people.
The most unexpected losses are possible here. For example, the expression “do na yat” disappeared from the Russian language. Or more personal: after the reform of graphics and spelling, the line from Marina Tsvetaeva’s poem dedicated to Alexander Blok essentially lost its meaning: “Your name is five letters.” With the loss of era at the end of the name Block was reduced to four letters, and the line became a cultural or linguistic incident.
On the other hand, people who are not very literate lose much less from the reform, and children who master spelling and punctuation are likely to benefit from simpler and more logical rules. Thus, it is not unreasonably believed that it was the reform of spelling and punctuation that allowed the Bolsheviks to as soon as possible eliminate illiteracy. Schoolchildren of all subsequent generations should also thank the reformers. They no longer need to memorize verses with words in which it is written: “The poor pale white demon ran into the forest with lunch...” Their torment is limited to memorizing the canonical line “I can’t bear to get married,” which, you see, is much simpler.
Bibliography
1. Lopatin V.V. “Russian spelling: correction tasks.” " New world", 2001, No. 5."
2. Krongauz M. A. “Living by the rules or the right to old writing.” "New World" 2001, No. 8.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
(“The code” was prepared in the sector of spelling and spelling of the Institute of Russian Language named after V. V. Vinogradov RAS, discussed by the Spelling Commission at the Department of Literature and Language of the RAS)
as of 10/01/2000
The following changes are proposed to the rules. (Further after the item number the number of the paragraph of the 1956 Rules is indicated)
1) Expand the use of dividing ъ before letters e, e, yu, i.
1) § 70. Distribute writings with ъ for all complex words without connecting vowels; write with ъ not only words with first components two-, three-, four- and words pan-European, courier(spellings provided for by the current rules), but also write: art fair(new word with first part art in the meaning of "artistic", cf. art show, art market and etc.), hypercore(Where hyper- not a prefix, but part of a word hyperon), Hitler Youth.
2) § 110 a). Distribute writings with ъ for compound words; write: military lawyer, state language, children's school, foreign language, phenomena, party cell, food fair, special food, special capacity, business unit, Injurkollegiya, Ministry of Justice.
Types of spellings that still exist today: children, foreign language, special education, household unit, Ministry of Justice contradict one of the basic principles of Russian writing - syllabic, according to which letters i, yu, e, yo in the position after consonant letters (within the limits of a written word) do not indicate “iotated” vowels, and at the same time the letters I, yu, yo serve to indicate the softness of the preceding paired consonant. Thus, the currently accepted spellings do not accurately convey the sound composition of words: they lack a reading “signal” e, y, I as combinations of "iota" with vowels. At the same time, they can give rise to difficulties in reading and recognizing words, caused by reading skills based on the syllabic principle, and sometimes by hyphens like Mi-nyust, gosya-zyk.
2) § 15. Write wanted instead of wanted, thereby eliminating the exception to the rule of writing the prefix not specified in the 1956 code rose-/time-. The writing of this prefix does not obey the general rule of using letters in place of unstressed vowels: here a letter is written in an unstressed position A, although under stress - only O, eg: distribute, But distributed; paint And painted, But painting; loose, But placer; dissolve, But dissolution; spill And draft, But bottling. Therefore, for the word wanted word check doesn't work wanted. You should write: search, search, detective, operational-search, investigative-search, service-search.
Word wanted has intensified (in this spelling) since the 30s of the 20th century, and although the correct spelling wanted was proposed in Explanatory dictionary edited by D. N. Ushakov (1939) and in the original draft of the academic “Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language”, ed. S.I. Ozhegov (1952, proofreading), it never made it into spelling dictionaries - we believe, for extra-linguistic reasons.
3) § 40. Write with an ending -e prepositional case forms of nouns in -th, dative and prepositional cases of nouns on -and I having a monosyllabic stem, for example: cue - oh cue(option: about cues), serpent - oh serpent, Viy - about Viye, in "Viye", Pius - about Piya, Iya - to (about) Ie, Lia - to (about) Lie, Biya (river) - to (about, on) Biya.
The basis for this change is the predominance of such spellings in printing practice, despite the current rule (Code 1956, § 40) suggesting writing with a special ending -And the indicated forms of all nouns in -ii, -ii.
4) § 61. Write an adjective windy with two n(instead of one) - how all other denominative adjectives are written with this suffix, always unstressed: cf. letter, painful, watch, maneuverable, meaningless etc., including other formations from the word wind: calm, windward, leeward(But: wind, wind smallpox - with a different suffix). Also write words derived from windy: windiness, anemone, anemone, windy(predicative: It's windy outside today).
5) §§ 62-63. The writing rule is changing NN And n in full forms of passive past participles and correlative adjectives.
According to the current rule (code of 1956, §§ 62-63), participles and adjectives (except those ending in -ovanny, -evanny), not having a prefix: reports read at the meeting And read book. In fact, the indicated orthographic distinction concerns only verbs of the imperfect form, while formations from a few prefixless verbs of the perfect form are written with only two NN (item purchased yesterday And purchased item).
The new rule is based on the criterion of the aspect of the verb. The change proposed in it is to abandon the orthographic distinction between participles and adjectives (not in -ovanny, -evanny), formed from imperfective verbs; for both, spellings with one are accepted n: fried potatoes And fried potatoes, short hair And shorn hair, carts loaded with firewood And loaded carts. For formations from perfective verbs, single spellings with two NN (abandoned, finished, deprived, decided and etc.).
The old rule is an exception among those rules that relate to the transfer of the letter composition of words, since its application requires reference to the context and syntactic analysis. It is also an exception because it requires orthographic differentiation only within one category of correlative participles and adjectives, while the overwhelming majority of full forms of participles and adjectives -ny(they are formed from perfective verbs) are conveyed in writing in the same way (not to mention the forms -th).
In addition, this rule, difficult for practical application, in fact leads to a spelling distinction not between participles and adjectives (as formulated in the 1956 rule), but forms with and without dependent words: the former are written with NN, the second - with n. But not every dependent word means that we have a participle in front of us. If in cases like hair cut by a barber, walls painted many times(with dependent words denoting the producer of the action or its repetition) participles are used, then with other dependent words ( crew-cut hair, light-colored walls etc.) such formations are more likely to belong to adjectives: the verbality of these forms is clearly weakened. Thus, overcoming significant spelling difficulties, the writer does not reflect in the writing the linguistic differences stated in the rule.
The current difference in spellings with NN And n is not supported by pronunciation: in such combinations as, for example, carts loaded with firewood And loaded carts, willow basket And wicker basket, fabric woven from wool And woven products, words loaded, wicker, woven pronounced the same way, with one n, regardless of whether they are participles or adjectives, or whether they have dependent words. This is clearly seen when comparing them with such participial forms of perfective verbs as given, decided, forgiven, where doubled, long is pronounced n. Consequently, the proposed elimination of the orthographic difference between spellings and NN And n type loaded And laden does not mean "interference with language".
In the new rule, it may be difficult to determine the verb aspect. But, on the one hand, it is possible to focus on the presence/absence of a prefix: all formations from imperfective verbs are non-prefixed, while perfective non-prefixed verbs represent a very small group (the participles formed from them are listed in §... of this project). On the other hand, applying the new rule does not require constant reference to the aspect of the verb. The abolition of the main difficulty of the current rule (the need for syntactic analysis to establish the spelling of a word) means that an important factor begins to operate - memorizing the letter forms of words.
Education naturally falls under the new rule done (made indifference), counted (counted minutes) And home-grown, hitherto written from NN, and finished (finished man), written with one n.
6) § 69. The basic rule about preserving double consonants at the end of generating stems before suffixes remains in force; however, clarifications are being made to this rule. They concern the introduction of two new private rules: write one consonant letter before the suffix -k(a) in diminutive and familiar forms of personal names like Alka(from Allah) Emka(from Emma) Kirilka, Filipka(from Kirill, Philip) and one letter n- in any nouns with a suffix -k(a), eg: Finnish (cf. Finn), five-tone, column, antenna. In both cases, the suggested spellings are determined by existing writing practices. The number of exceptions (spellings with one consonant letter before the suffix that do not comply with the formulated rules) is reduced to three: crystal, Finnish, operetta.
7) § 78, paragraph 1. Extend the rule of the 1956 code on the continuous spelling of compound words with initial components like aero-, air-(§ 78, paragraph 1) to formations with components that have appeared in recent decades audio, video, disco, maxi, media, midi, mini, retro(among them are those that are still usually written with a hyphen). Write: audio equipment, video recorder, disco club, maxiskirt, media holding, midi fashion, mini tractor, retro music and so on.
8) § 77, paragraph 1, note. Write hyphenated combinations consisting of a noun in the nominative case and the same noun in the instrumental case, having an intensifying meaning, for example: honor-honor, rank-rank, well done-well done, fool-fool, log-log, pig-pig, and thus bring them under the general rule of writing repetition combinations.
Hyphens will separate them from combinations nominative case with instrumental and subsequent conjunction A or But that do not have an intensifying meaning, such as: friendship is friendship, and service is service; laughter is laughter, but...; jokes aside, but... etc. Combinations of the latter type can be formed with almost any noun, while “intensifying” repetitions are formed only with forms of nouns of a certain semantics.
9) § 79, paragraphs. 2 and 3. Eliminate exceptions to the rule of continuous spelling of complex nouns with connecting vowels, extending continuous spelling to: a) names of units of measurement, for example: bed, parking space, passenger-kilometer, flight departure, man-day; b) names of political parties and movements and their supporters, for example: anarchosyndicalism, anarchosyndicalist, monarchofascism, monarchofascist, left radical, communopatriot. In the set of rules of 1956 (§ 79, paragraphs 2 and 3), such names were proposed to be written with a hyphen.
10) § 78, paragraph 3. Extend the continuous spelling to all complex nouns of a special structural type - with the first part coinciding with the imperative form of the verb. Writing together is not only adonis, derzhimorda, whirligig, hoarder, daredevil, robbery army etc., but also perekatipole, gulaigorod(written with a hyphen), non-spillwater(written separately, in three words), plucked out the eye(a word first spelled regulated in the academic “Russian Spelling Dictionary” in 1999).
11) § 79, paragraph 14, note 1. Expand the scope of application of the hyphen in combinations with an application: write through a hyphen not only combinations with a one-word application following the defined word ( old mother, amateur gardener, Masha the frolic), but also combinations with an application preceding the word being defined - one that, according to the definition of the 1956 code (§ 79, paragraph 14, note 1), “can be equated in meaning to an adjective” ( old father, beautiful daughter, naughty monkey), including with an application preceding the proper name ( beautiful Volga, Mother Rus', young man Pushkin, playful Masha). It was proposed to write the two last groups separately in the 1956 code.
§ 79, paragraph 14, note 3a. From the wording of the current rule (see § 79, paragraph 14, note 3a) it follows that the combination of a common noun with the following proper name can only be written separately. Examples are given only for cases where the proper name is an application. Thus, this rule does not provide for the possibility when a common noun preceding a proper name acts as an application. Such cases, presented in the practice of the press, are now brought under the rule.
12) Write hyphenated nouns formed from hyphenated nouns, including such as: Ku Klux Klansman, ping pong player, somersault mortalist, yacht club member, chess master; nouns formed from proper names (mainly geographical names): Alma-Ata, New Yorkers(from Almaty, New York), Orekhovo-Zuevtsy, Yoshkar-Olintsy, Ust-Abakintsy, Gavrilov-Yamtsy(from Orekhovo-Zuevo, Yoshkar-Ola, Ust-Abakan, Gavrilov-Yam), Ulan-Uden, Los Angeles, Addis Ababa, Buenos Aires, Costa Ricans; Saint-Simonism, Saint-Simonist(from Saint-Simon).
The hyphenated spelling of the names of residents formed from hyphenated geographical names is consistent, firstly, with the hyphenated spelling of nouns proposed here, formed from hyphenated common nouns, and, secondly, with the hyphenated spelling of adjectives from the same geographical names.
In the current set of rules of 1956, the spelling of both groups of nouns formed from hyphenated nouns is not regulated at all; however, in the future in reference books for press workers; in the reference dictionary “Together or Separately?”, in the “Dictionary of the Names of Residents of the USSR” it was recommended to write the names of residents from hyphenated geographical names together. The proposed change in the spelling of these names makes the spelling of all formations (both nouns and adjectives) from hyphenated nouns uniform.
13) § 79, paragraph 12. Write connections with the component half- (“half”) always with a hyphen: not only half a leaf, half an orange, half eleven, half Moscow, but also half a house, half a room, half a meter, half past eleven, half past twelve etc. Unification of spellings with floor- replaces the previous rule by which spellings differed from floor- before consonants, except l(merged) and spellings with floor- before vowels, consonants l and before a capital letter (hyphens).
14) § 80-81. Hyphenate compound adjectives that have a stem in the first component relative adjective with a suffix, as well as bases on -ik-, -log-, -graph-(correlative with adjectives in -ic), e.g.: national economic, Northern Russian, West Siberian, Central Asian, water sports, indefinite leave, primitive communal, Church Slavonic, copyright, chemical technology. If there is no adjective suffix in the first component, write complex adjectives together, for example: oil and gas, drilling and blasting, sound-letter, income-expenditure, goods-and-passenger.
Thus, the principle of writing complex adjectives changes, the last part of which can be used as an independent word: semantic-syntactic principle(the nature of the relationship of the stems that make up a complex word) is replaced formal-grammatical. The semantic criterion remains decisive only in two groups of complex adjectives - denoting shades of quality (mainly color and taste) and relations between countries, languages, peoples, etc.
This rule is based on the provisions adopted by B. Z. Bukchina and L. P. Kalakutskaya in their dictionary-reference book “Together or separately?” (1st ed. 1972; 8th ed. 1998) and based on the trends that they identified in modern writing practice.
The current rule for writing complex adjectives (code 1956, §§ 80-81) is based on the opposition of spelling adjectives with equal (hyphenated spelling) and unequal, subordinate (fused spelling) relation of stems. In the practice of writing, this rule, for all its apparent simplicity, was never consistently observed, which was recorded in the academic “Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language”, and when this dictionary was republished, the number of spellings that contradicted the current rule increased. These are, for example, the spellings recorded in the 13th edition of the dictionary (1974): drilling and blasting, asbestos concrete, oil and gas, gas-steam, steam-water, water-air, and bourgeois-democratic, military-historical, parachute landing, housing cooperative, state-monopoly, scientific research, science fiction, rocket technology, criminal procedure, civil law, medical consultation, dairy and livestock farming, national democratic, shooting sports, experimental psychological, nuclear energy and many others. In the 29th edition of the dictionary (1991) the following were added to them: cargo-passenger, liquor, geological exploration, pathological-anatomical, wood-chip, natural science, mine-laying, folk-poetic, national-economic, primitive-communal, conditioned-reflex (and unconditionally-reflex), church-parochial, Church Slavonic etc. Other complex adjectives, first recorded in the “Russian Spelling Dictionary” (1999), are also written in the same way, for example: Christian-democratic, physical therapy, new party nomenklatura, currency exchange.
The transition to a new rule based on a formal grammatical principle will lead to changes in the spelling of a number of more adjectives; all such changes are specifically noted in the new academic “Russian Spelling Dictionary”. At the same time, in this draft, as an exception, several traditional spellings according to the old rule are preserved, and it is also stipulated that the combined spelling of highly specialized complex adjectives, which is contrary to the new rule, is allowed if it is based on a stable tradition.
The new rule proposes to subordinate the spelling of complex adjectives formed from two-word (separately written) geographical names: cf., on the one hand, Veliky Ustyug, New Zealand, Latin American, where in the first part of complex adjectives there is no suffix, and on the other, South American, Nagorno-Karabakh, Gorno-Altai, Naberezhnye Chelny, Sergiev Posad etc., where such a suffix is available. The influence of the suffix factor in the first part of such complex adjectives has long been discovered in the writing of compound geographical names; the complex adjectives included in them, if there was a suffix in the first part, were written with a hyphen and with two capital letters, for example: West Siberian Lowland, East China Sea, South Africa, Gorno-Altai Autonomous Region(old name) Gavrilovo-Posadsky district(from Gavrilov Posad), Kamsko-Ustinsky district(from Kamskoye Ustye, village), but: Asia Minor Plateau, Velikoustyugsky district, Starooskolsky district, Krasnopresnensky district etc. (at the same time, not as part of geographical names, all such adjectives were written together). Now adjectives with a suffix in the first part are proposed to be written uniformly - with a hyphen, regardless of whether they are used in a compound name or not.
15) § 81, paragraph 1. Write together adjectives formed from separately written personal names, such as Walterscott's, Romainrolland's, Juulverne's, Mao Zedong's. This spelling is in fact already established and absolutely predominates in writing practice (contrary to the recommendation to write them with a hyphen contained in the Code of 1956, § 81, paragraph 1).
16) § 86, paragraph 3, note 1. Write with a hyphen the pronoun each other, which is actually a single word, although it is still written separately. It belongs to the class of pronoun-nouns and constitutes a special category of them - a reciprocal pronoun (see, for example, the encyclopedia "Russian Language", 1997, articles "Pronoun" and "Reflexive Pronouns"). All grammatical features combine this word with other noun pronouns, none of which (in prepositional forms) are written separately. Just like words yourself, no one, nothing, at the word each other no nominative case form; like words someone, something, nobody, nothing, no one, nothing, in prepositional-case combinations the preposition is inserted inside this word, the first part of it remains unchanged: cf. with each other, about each other and with someone, about something, with no one, with nothing, with no one, with nothing etc. Suggested hyphen spelling of the word each other, bringing it closer orthographically to pronouns with the first part some makes the entire class of pronoun-nouns uniform not only grammatically, but also orthographically.
17) § 103, note. Changes in recent years that have occurred in public awareness of the sacred concepts of religion required the inclusion of a special section “Names associated with religion” in the new code. It is based on the practice of using capital letters, which existed in pre-revolutionary times and was established in modern printing, for example, in the words God, Lord, Mother of God, in the names of religious holidays, sacred books, etc. However, significant clarifications are introduced: about writing with a lowercase letter the words god and lord in expressions of an interjection and evaluative nature, used in colloquial speech without a direct connection with religion (for example.. By God, not God knows what, not thank God"unfortunate", interjections oh my god, oh my god etc.), about the use of capital letters in the names of holidays associated with the church holiday cycle, such as Christmastide, Maslenitsa, and a number of other clarifications.
18) § 105-106. IN official names authorities, institutions, societies, scientific, educational and entertainment institutions, political parties, etc. Always capitalize only the first word (as well as the proper names included in them), for example: World Peace Council, State Duma, Russian Academy Sciences, Navy, Union of Theater Workers of Russia. This cancels the directive recommendations of the old code, according to which it was proposed to capitalize all words, except official words and the word party, in the names of the highest party, government, trade union institutions and organizations of the Soviet Union (for example: Supreme Council, Council of Ministers of the USSR, Soviet Army and Navy), and in all other names of central institutions and organizations, capitalize only the first word (e.g. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR: see Code 1956, §§ 105-106).
19) § 95, notes 6, 7. Write any names of positions and titles with a lowercase letter, and use a capital letter when naming higher government positions and titles only in the texts of official documents. Thus, the rule that provided for the names of the highest positions in the USSR to be written in capital letters and the names of other positions and titles in lowercase letters is canceled (see code 1956, § 95, notes 6, 7)
20) § 117-124. The new transfer rules remove many of the restrictions of the 1956 code. In a number of cases, rules previously proposed as mandatory are recognized as only preferable.
Of particular note are the formulations: which became possible thanks to the proposed expansion of the use of the dividing ъ(see above, paragraph 3). Now the prohibition on separating a vowel from a preceding consonant is formulated separately for letters e, e, yu, i, where it is absolute in nature, and for other vowels, where such a prohibition does not apply to the position after the prefix, the first part of a complex or compound word: hyphens like irresponsible, special clothes are even considered desirable.
An innovation is the “minimum rule”, in which only the main strict prohibitions are separately formulated.
On the procedure for introducing new rules. Any changes in spelling are not immediately absorbed. It takes some time for a native speaker to adapt to them. This cannot be ignored when developing criteria for the official assessment of a person’s literacy - for example, when determining a grade on a final school written exam or on a university admissions exam. Apparently, some kind of transition period (for example, 3 years) will be required, during which a “moratorium” should be declared on recognizing old spellings that do not comply with the new set of rules as errors. During this period, necessary changes may also be made to existing textbooks and methodological manuals, new manuals and recommendations have been prepared. Such a transition period could be declared by decree, formalized as an order of the Minister of Education and mandatory for all graduation and admissions committees. This would be, in the opinion of the developers of the new code and members of the Spelling Commission, the most rational solution to the pressing issue that arises during the transition to new rules with their (generally few) spelling changes.
(Project "Code of Russian Spelling Rules. Spelling. Punctuation". M., 2000, pp. 377-393).
Spelling changes proposed in the draft
"Code of Russian Spelling Rules. Spelling. Punctuation", which the Spelling Commission decided to abandon
as of 10/01/2001
1) § 9, paragraph 2. Write sequentially without a letter th before e common nouns nouns with the component -er; accept changed spellings conveyor, stayer, false fire, fireworks; approve spelling for new word player(eliminating the hesitation).
In other words (mostly rare and exotic), keep the spelling of the letter th before e, yu, i: vilayet, doyen, foyer; Kikuyu; hallelujah, vaya, guava, maya, papaya, paranoia, sequoia, tupaya and etc.
2) § 1. Write with a letter at(instead of Yu) words brochure And parachute(and derivatives from them), since they are consistently pronounced with a hard w. This brings under the general rule the writing of two common words from among the exceptions that did not obey the rule about writing the letter y after sibilants.
Spellings with letters are saved Yu after and And w in common nouns julienne, jury, monteju, embouchure, pshut, fichu, schutte, shutskor, in which soft pronunciation is not excluded and And w.
3) § 79, paragraph 13. Write together formations with a prefix the ex- in the meaning of “former”, which is combined with nouns and adjectives, for example: ex-president, ex-minister, ex-champion, ex-Soviet- the same as formations with the same prefix meaning “outside”: extraterritorial, expatriation. Combination in the 1956 code (§ 79, paragraph 13) of the more freely functioning component ex- with hyphenated components chief, non-commissioned, life, headquarters, vice, found in a narrow circle of job titles and titles, has no convincing basis.
4) § 83, paragraph 6. Replace the separate spelling of the following adverbs with continuous writing: in my heart, before I die, before I fall, noon, midnight, canopy, groping, afloat, galloping, rushing, approaching, and do not mind.
The process of codification of fused adverbs is traditionally of a purely individual nature, i.e., it is aimed at specific linguistic units. The selective approach to consolidating the continuous spellings of adverbs is due, on the one hand, to the stability of writing traditions, and on the other, to the living nature of the process of separating adverbs from the paradigm of nouns and the resulting possibility of different linguistic interpretations of the same fact.
As Kommersant learned, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation will begin introducing new advanced training programs for teachers of Russian language and literature in the summer of 2016. Changes will affect the content educational programs and methods of teaching them. It is assumed that the number practical classes within these disciplines will increase, and in the future an oral part will appear in the Unified State Examination. In the meantime, the teachers themselves face a serious test: teachers from Chechnya, Kabardino-Balkaria, Dagestan, Karachay-Cherkessia, Ingushetia, and Tuva must pass a test on knowledge of the rules of the Russian language and the ability to convey them to the student.
New advanced training programs for school teachers of Russian language and literature are undergoing examination and will begin to be implemented in the summer of 2016, the press service of the Ministry of Education and Science told Kommersant. Fresh standards developed State Institute Russian language named after. A. S. Pushkin and the Academy of Advanced Training and Professional Retraining of Education Workers. They are based on the “Concept of teaching Russian language and literature” approved by the government in the spring of 2016. The changes will affect the content of educational disciplines and methods of teaching them. Thus, the Ministry of Education and Science assumes that the innovations “will increase the number of practical activities in the classroom.”
The procedure for improving the qualifications of teachers will also change: “there will be more practical work, open lessons, the interactive component will be strengthened.” “The learning process should become more individual, taking into account the characteristics of each student, no matter what level of language knowledge he comes to school with,” the press service of the department quotes First Deputy Minister of Education and Science Natalya Tretyak. According to her, schoolchildren must be able to “communicate fluently in good written and spoken language." In particular, we are talking about developing a mechanism for introducing the oral part into the final certification, including in the Russian language. The Ministry of Education and Science emphasized that this is necessary to “increase the level of literacy and interest to reading among Russian youth." However, the Unified State Examination in the Russian language with an oral part awaits schoolchildren no earlier than "in a few years," the department clarified.
The new rules will help solve a number of problems that “have been accumulating in schools for decades,” says the dean of the philological faculty of the Russian Language Institute. A. S. Pushkin Andrey Shcherbakov. In particular, he drew attention to the methodology of teaching Russian in classes where there are students for whom Russian is not their native language.
Now, according to federal state educational standards, 2,685 hours are allocated annually for the study of Russian language and literature (from four to nine hours per week) at all levels of education, thus, approximately every fourth lesson in school is a lesson in Russian language and literature.
In April 2016, Rosobrnadzor began checking the level of knowledge of teachers of the Russian language and literature. More than 32 thousand teachers from Chechnya, Kabardino-Balkaria, Dagestan, Karachay-Cherkessia, Ingushetia, and Tuva will be tested. The study will take place in two stages (lexico-grammatical and methodological) and will allow “to assess the readiness of teachers to teach the Russian language in multi-ethnic, multilingual classes”, its results will be presented in July 2016.
An increase in practical classes will, first of all, help teachers themselves better understand the subject and teaching methods, says Sergei Volkov, a teacher of Russian language and literature at the education center N57, “we need to pass on a living school tradition from a strong teacher to a less experienced one: how to ask questions, how to communicate with students, what tasks give." However, he fears that it is technologically difficult to organize such meetings as part of the teacher training procedure. In addition, in his opinion, the tasks of the oral part should touch on what “excites the child, so that there is an opportunity to enter into a dialogue with him, but the Unified State Exam procedure requires impersonality,” which also raises concerns of the professional community.
Loading...
