Stages of the formation of Russian spelling. The main stages in the development of Russian orthography

?Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
State educational institution
Higher professional education
"Tula State University»
Faculty of Humanities
Department of Russian Language

Essay
by discipline
Russian language
“From the history of Russian spelling”

Student group 821301
Oshlokova N.A.

Checked:
Serdyukova N.A.

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.
Russian spelling developed over a long period of time historical development, therefore there are quite a lot of spellings in it that no longer correspond to either its basic principle or current situation business
The spelling system of the Russian language is determined by a set of principles, the main of which is morphological.
The modern spelling norm requires knowledge, firstly, of more than a hundred spelling rules, and secondly, large quantity exceptions to the rules and, thirdly, the spelling of the so-called vocabulary words, i.e. words whose spelling is not regulated by rules. It is obvious that the Russian spelling system is objectively complex. Active processes in the field of vocabulary, replenishment literary language new words, mostly borrowed, introduce additional difficulties.

History of Russian spelling.
Great importance in the history of Russian spelling, there was a decree on the introduction of the Russian civil alphabet, issued in 1708 by Peter I. This event, which was an indicator of the decline in the authority and influence of the church, was expressed in some change appearance and the composition of the Russian alphabet: letters that were unnecessary for the Russian sound system were eliminated, “titla” (abbreviations) and “sily” (accents) were eliminated. The strengthening of spelling was also facilitated by the opening in 1727 of an academic printing house, the publications of which adhered to a certain spelling system.
At the turn of the first half of the 18th century. Spelling issues are being posed in principle. They are associated with issues of the Russian literary language and acquire social significance.
The first to raise the question of the basis of Russian orthography was Trediakovsky. In his treatise “A conversation between a foreigner and a Russian about ancient and new spelling and everything that belongs to this matter” (1748), Trediakovsky proclaims the phonetic principle of spelling. Considering that phonetic writing is most accessible to the masses, Trediakovsky, however, recognizes only the correct pronunciation of people who know the norms of the literary language, and makes a number of concessions to traditional spellings. Trediakovsky did not solve the question of the essence of our spelling; his views were not decisive in the history of our spelling.
M.V. Lomonosov included discussions about spelling in his Russian Grammar (1755). Characteristics of Lomonosov theoretical foundations spelling represents a combination of the phonetic principle of spelling with the morphological one. Paying attention to tradition in writing, Lomonosov covers a wide range of spelling issues related to grammar. Despite their authority and persuasiveness, Lomonosov's rules have not received universal recognition. The rules were not approved by the highest government agency and did not have the force of law. The establishment of spelling standards proposed by Lomonosov was facilitated by the works of V. Svetov and A.A. Barsov, authors of school-type grammatical works. In their works, these authors gave a brief set of spelling rules of the second half of the 18th century, implementing the morphological principle of spelling established by Lomonosov. The final approval of the morphological principle of spelling is associated with the publication of the “Russian Grammar” by the Academy of Sciences (1802, 1809, 1819) and the “Dictionary of the Russian Academy” (1789-1794). The spelling standards established in the mid-18th century were not stable. Significant differences in spelling were noted both in official documents and in the works of writers.
Grammars compiled at the beginning and middle of the 19th century. (Vostokov, Grech, Davydov, Buslaev), and the dictionaries published at that time could not eliminate the spelling discrepancy, which continued throughout the 19th century.
N.A. contributed a lot of useful things to Russian orthography. Karamzin, who influenced spelling practice with his authority (substantiation of the spelling of Russian and foreign words, introduction of the letter ё instead of io).
An extremely important milestone in the history of Russian orthography is the major work of Academician Y.K. Grota “Controversial Issues of Russian Spelling from Peter the Great to the Present” (1873, 1876, 1885) and his book “Russian Spelling” (1885), which is a practical guide for school and print. Grot's work is dedicated to the history and theory of Russian spelling. It covers practical issues of spelling from a scientific perspective. The set of spelling rules compiled by Grot played an important role in establishing spelling standards.
At the beginning of the 20th century. Increasingly broader social tasks of spelling reform are being identified, and the leadership in solving spelling issues is provided by the Academy of Sciences. The resolution on spelling reform, adopted at a broad meeting at the Academy of Sciences on May 11, 1917, had no practical significance. The reformed spelling remained optional for school and printing. Only the Soviet government, by decrees of December 23, 1917 and October 10, 1918, approved the resolution of the meeting of the Academy of Sciences. The new spelling was declared mandatory for all Soviet citizens.
Spelling reform 1917-1918 significantly simplified and facilitated our writing, but did not touch upon many particular issues of spelling, which served as a source of inconsistency in writing practice. It was shaking common system spelling and caused many difficulties in the work of publishing houses, as well as in school teaching.
In 1930 an organized attempt was made to bring about a radical reform of our writing. The draft of such a reform was drawn up by a special commission of the People's Commissariat for Education. The project introduced a disruption in Russian spelling that was not caused by a genuine need in life, moreover, it was not scientifically justifiable, and therefore practically impractical. The project was rejected. The need to streamline spelling became increasingly urgent.
The implementation of this task began in the mid-30s, when work was organized to compile a complete set of spelling and punctuation rules. The result of the long work of philologists and teachers was the “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation”, approved in 1956 by the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Ministry higher education USSR and the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR. The rules are mandatory for all users of writing, both for press organs, educational institutions, government and public organizations, and for individual citizens.
“Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation” is, in essence, the first complete set of rules of modern Russian spelling in the history of Russian writing and consists of two parts - spelling and punctuation - with the appendix of a dictionary of the most difficult or dubious spellings. A spelling dictionary (110 thousand words), compiled on the basis of the “Rules”, was published in 1956. The “Rules” formed the basis for a number of reference books, dictionaries, and manuals.
However, by the end of the 20th century. The 1956 “Rules” are largely outdated and do not currently reflect emerging trends in spelling. Therefore, a special commission has been created at the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, whose task is to create a new set of rules for spelling and punctuation.
Periodic adjustment of the rules is natural and quite natural, since it meets the needs of the developing language and the practice of covering it.
As the history of spelling shows, a greater or lesser number of different spellings always remained after each successive settlement. The thing is that spelling does not keep up with the development of language. The source of the emergence of mass fluctuations is the development of the vocabulary of the language, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The development of vocabulary through the internal means of the literary language introduced especially many contradictions into literary practice.
Fluctuations in the spellings of adverbs, compound adjectives and other entire categories of words are especially noticeable in our spelling practice. What is required here is the creation of such clear, objectively accessible rules that could, to a certain extent, indicate the path for writing newly formed words.
The history of spelling shows that spelling never develops by breaking the existing system. Historically appropriate and socially justified is the internal improvement of spelling, taking into account the laws of language development with the elimination of survival elements, as was the case, for example, in 1917.
Survival elements that contradict the phonetic and morphological system of the modern Russian language have been eliminated. The main task of improving the culture of written speech is not reform, but the streamlining of spelling.
Principles of Russian spelling.
At its core, Russian spelling is morphological, accordingly main principle Russian spelling is a morphological principle. Its essence lies in the fact that it requires unity in the writing of the significant parts of the word. The spelling, for example, of the root -house- is preserved in all words with the same root, despite the fact that its pronunciation in different words of this series is different (cf.: houses, home, brownie, housewife, etc.).
In the same way, the unity of spelling of most suffixes, prefixes and endings is observed.
Russian orthography took shape in the process of long historical development, so there are quite a lot of spellings in it that no longer correspond to either its basic principle or the modern state of affairs. So, in the Old Russian language the sounds zh and sh were soft and after them should be written i. In modern Russian, these sounds are already hard, but we, paying tribute to tradition, continue to write after them not ы, but и: to live, to sew. The ancient spelling of the endings of adjectives -ого, -его is also preserved, although in modern language in place of g we pronounce v. Writings explained by the history of the language, the history of the word, are called traditional.
There is also a small number of phonetic spellings in Russian orthography: the word is written as it is heard. In accordance with the phonetic principle, prefixes with -з, -с and the initial root ы are written after Russian prefixes with a consonant.
Thus, the spelling system of the Russian language is determined by a set of principles, the main of which is morphological.
The modern spelling norm requires knowledge, firstly, of more than a hundred spelling rules, secondly, a large number of exceptions to the rules and, thirdly, the spelling of so-called dictionary words, i.e. words whose spelling is not regulated by rules. It is obvious that the Russian spelling system is objectively complex. Active processes in the field of vocabulary, replenishment of the literary language with new words, mainly borrowed, introduce additional difficulties. Which is correct: brand or brand, offshore, offshore, offshore or offshore, fitness or fitness? There are still a lot of words whose spelling is out of order and causes serious difficulties.
It is impossible to know how all the words existing in a language are spelled. It is very important to know the regulatory sources to which you need to turn when a particular problem arises.
Conclusion.
Today, the need to make changes to spelling and punctuation norms, according to linguists, is due to the fact that the current “Code of Rules,” approved in 1956, is quite outdated. During this time, the language acquired many neologisms, for which there are no rules for writing; The spelling of a number of words has changed significantly in practice. Confusion has begun in the publication of spelling dictionaries and textbooks on the Russian language: dictionaries that are obviously outdated and, at the same time, modern ones are being republished under the guise of “new.” IN Russian Federation There are no equivalent language standards for the state language. In addition, the position of Russian linguists has not been consolidated
Chairman of the Spelling Commission V.V. Lopatin emphasized that the discussed spelling reform cannot be called a reform of the Russian language, since it does not provide for any fundamental changes in the rules: we are talking only about those 23 norms that life itself has already changed. Thus, work on improving spelling continues in our time.

Bibliography
1. Antonova, Voiteleva “Russian language and culture of speech.” Moscow, 2005
2. Vvedenskaya, Pavlova “Russian language and culture of speech.” Rostov-on-Don, 2000
3. Krongauz M. A. “Living by the rules or the right to old writing.” " New world» 2001, No. 8.
4. Lopatin V.V. “Russian spelling: correction tasks.” “New World”, 2001, No. 5.”
5. Valgina N.S. "Modern Russian language". Moscow State University of Printing. 2005.
6. Kosmarskaya I.V. “Russian spelling: history, basic principles and modern trends”4

The theory of Russian orthography began to be created in the middle of the 18th century, its founders were V.K. Tredyakovsky and M.V. Lomonosov. But the real impact on spelling practice came in the second half of the 19th century. works of J.K. Grot. His book “Russian Spelling,” published in 1885 and going through more than 20 editions, became a guide for the school and for the press. J. K. Grot did not reform the spelling. He only organized it where there was no uniformity.

The state of spelling required more radical changes. In 1904, a spelling subcommission was formed at the Academy of Sciences, which included the most prominent linguists, and it prepared a draft reform. In a slightly modified form, this project was approved in May 1917. But only after October revolution spelling reform was implemented. By decrees of December 23, 1917 and October 10, 1918, the new spelling was introduced into school teaching and became mandatory for printing.

Having resolved many issues important for spelling, the reform did not address specific issues and did not eliminate many fluctuating spellings. Since the beginning of the 30s. work began to streamline spelling. The result of this was the “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation” of 1956 - the first officially approved and binding set of rules in Russian history. This code was not a spelling reform. But ordering and unification affected all sections of spelling.

The question of a new improvement in spelling was raised in 1962. A Spelling Commission was formed at the Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences, which published “Proposals for improving Russian spelling” in 1964. The commission proceeded from the fact that our spelling does not need a radical revision, but has known shortcomings that complicate the study of the Russian language. Among the commission's proposals were the following: 1. Abolish the letter ъ and leave one separator mark b: under ъ rides, about ъ eat, will ъ phenomenon, hell ъ Utahn, con ъ juncture. 2. After ts write And, but not s: ts And gan, ts And rukul, cucumber And, pale-faced And th, sisters And n. 3. After f, h, w, sch write under stress O, without accent - e:f ó light; and ó Lud, h ó rn, sh ó in, sch ó ki; bear ó knock, hand ó nka, funny ó n, surround ó new, fresh ó , hot ó ; shoulders ó m, sling ó th, LJ ó t, tech ó T; But and e fly, w e people, h e rnet, sch e ka, burn e bright, bright e, watchman e m, grove e yay, cry e T. 4. After f, h, w, sch write b only as a separator: face, daughter, mouse; strip, bake; you read; cut off, hid, hid; supine, completely; leash; But rye, at night. 5. In the roots -growth-, -log-, -wet-, -melt-, -gar- write unstressed vowels in accordance with the stress: R O stú, r O groaning, looking up O st (p O st); proposal O gág, presuppose O gát (sentence) O g, floor ó lives), m O kát (m O To); pl A vec, pl A vchúkha (pl á vat); zag A roar, shout A mature (zag) A R). 6. In the roots -zor- / -zar-, -skok-/ -skak- write without emphasis about: h O rya, s O rnutsa; sk O kát. 7. Cancel double consonants in foreign words that are not supported by pronunciation: A With imitation, di f erentiation, those n is. 8. Write adverbs together: recklessly, openly, desperately, on the run, in Russian. It was also planned to simplify the spelling of a number of suffixes and endings, the rules of hyphenation, and the use of capital letters.

These proposals were deeply thought out and logical. Many of them would lead to the abolition of spellings that contradict the basic, phonemic principle of spelling, to the simplification of spellings based on the traditional principle, to a clearer distinction between graphics and spelling. But it is clear that until these proposals are accepted, one should write and teach writing according to the rules currently in force.

LITERATURE

Ivanova V.F. Modern Russian language: Graphics and spelling. 2nd ed. - M., 1976.

I s t r i n V. A. The emergence and development of writing. - M., 1965.

P a n o v M. V. And yet she is good! A story about Russian spelling. - M., 1964.

Panov M.V. Entertaining spelling. - M., 1984.

Rules of Russian spelling and punctuation. - M., 1956.

The term "spelling" is based on the roots of the Greek words orthos "correct" and grapho "I write"; its literal translation (tracing paper) into Russian is the term “spelling”;

In the modern understanding, spelling is a system of rules for writing words. These rules are not of the same type, therefore in the spelling itself there are several relatively independent parts. The main parts of spelling are the following:

• 1) Letter designation of the sound composition of words. This part of spelling is a direct continuation of graphics (and the alphabet), therefore the general task of letter designation of the sound composition of words is solved by graphics and spelling together, for example (the spelling part is highlighted): city, support, take, etc. All other parts of spelling are incompatible with graphics .
• 2) Separate, merged and semi-merged (with a hyphen - a dash of writing: no one, no one, some; done your way, etc.
• 3) The use of uppercase (large, capital) and lowercase (small) letters: eagle - bird, eagle - city, etc.
• 4) Hyphenation rules - rules that allow one part of a word to be written at the end of one line, and the other part at the beginning of the next line: pi-letter or letter-mo, but not “p-letter”, “pi-letter”, "letter".
• 5) Graphic (letter) abbreviations of words: abbreviation of words in writing: consciousness. -- s., conc., but not “co.”, “coz.”, “conscious.” and so on.

Parts of the spelling vary general principles, underlying their specific rules. The principles of spelling are the basic, initial principles on which specific rules are built, as well as a generalization of these rules. The principles indicate the main way to achieve the goals of spelling - uniform spelling of words.

But the parts of spelling also have something in common, which unites them in unified system. All of them are word-oriented in one way or another: the letter designation of the sound composition of words, combined and separate spelling of words, word transfer, word abbreviations, the use of large and small letters in words. This is the basis for the general definition of spelling as a system of rules for writing words.

The theoretical foundations of spelling are, first of all, the principles on which it is built. The principles of spelling - along with the type of writing (sound, syllabic or other) and the composition of its characters - are one of the most important features that characterize it, and the construction of a methodology for teaching spelling directly depends on them. This dependence was once emphasized by the title of his monograph N.S. Christmas; he called the book: “Properties of Russian spelling as the basis of the methodology for teaching it” (M., 1960).

Spelling, as a system of rules, consists of five sections: 1) rules for transmitting phonemes by letters in words; 2) rules for the use of uppercase (capital, large) and lowercase (small) letters; 3) rules for transferring words from one line to another; 4) rules on continuous, semi-continuous (hyphenated) and separate spellings of words; 5) rules for graphic abbreviations of words.

Each of these sections rests on certain principles.

The central section of spelling is the first: depending on the basis on which the designation of the phonemic composition of words in a particular national spelling is built, they talk about the principle of a particular spelling system.

Without dwelling in detail on the principles underlying the second through fifth sections, since they do not cause significant disagreements in definition and interpretation, let us turn to the first section. This is where there are the most different opinions. They changed over time, with the development of language and the science of it. But even at the same time, different theoretical interpretations of the principles of orthography on which the designation of phonemes is based were and are possible. This is due to the fact that the development of the science of writing is closely connected with the development of the science of the sound basis of writing.

By the end of the 19th century. refers to the birth of a special science of sounds - phonology, and the 20th century. characterized by already branched directions in it. Conviction in the “correctness” and “uniqueness of one’s truth” in the interpretation of the concept of a selected unit of language, namely in the interpretation of the concept of a phoneme reflected in writing by a letter, inevitably leads to the fact that the authors of theoretical constructions of orthography enter into a dispute among themselves.

What is the position of the teacher in this case?

First of all, the teacher, of course, needs to know science itself, be able to compare different points of view and choose among them the one that best suits his own views. And the main thing is not to confuse the various phonemic theories on which the modern theory spelling.

The search for a reasonable basis in the construction of national orthography and attempts to comprehend the basic principle of Russian orthography as it developed at the turn of the 16th - 17th centuries were made by the anonymous authors of Slavic grammars of the 16th - 17th centuries.

In the 18th century VC. Trediakovsky and M.V. Lomonosov defined the leading rule of Russian spelling as writing “by the root”, “by the production of utterances”. V.K. Trediakovsky did not like this spelling (he proposed changing it to writing “by ringing,” that is, by sounds, by pronunciation, however, only for consonants). M.V. Lomonosov saw high expediency in the existing spelling system.

In the treatise by V.K. Trediakovsky’s “Conversation between a foreigner and a Russian about ancient and new spelling and about everything that belongs to this matter”, it is noted that the letter “by root” is not always observed (we write “can”, “possible”, or “possibility”, and not "opportunity"). This fact was used as an argument for the expediency of writing “by bells” (since it is not always possible to write “by the root”, but “by bells” is always possible). “What do I need,” writes Trediakovsky, “that the root of the work will not be visible?” “Is the whole community of writers trying to learn about roots?” Lomonosov explains the motives for writing “by the root” differently: “Friends don’t write druk for the sake of indirect cases.” In the “Russian Grammar” it is said about the spellings ftek, okhod, potpiray, oddyhayu that this is “very strange and contrary to the ability to easily read and recognize complex from simple” (i.e., derived words from non-derivative ones).

Subsequently, it was precisely the fact that historical alternations were reflected in writing while positional ones were not reflected, which was used as an argument in discussions between supporters of different points of view on the theoretical foundations of Russian spelling; phoneme theory and the typology of alternations built on its basis gave the answer to what the difference between [g] [zh] is possible - opportunity and [g] [k] in I can - could. And yet, the transmission of historical alternations in writing, on the one hand, as if by a kind of inertia, continued to be considered a “limitation” of writing “at the root” (A.N. Gvozdev); on the other hand, well understanding the phonemic inconsistency and practical absurdity of constructed spellings like “pesokanny”, “peska”, “pesokek”, “pesokeka” instead of sandy, sand, sand, sand (from sand), some scientists argued that such spellings ( with a graphically uniform root) are supposedly the “ideal” of those theorists who stand on the positions of writing “by the root” (or, otherwise, on the positions of writing based on the morphological principle Panov M.V. Theory of writing. Orthrography // Modern Russian language / Under edited by V.A. Beloshapkova.--2nd ed.--M., 1989.--P. 159., although no one has ever proclaimed such an “ideal” for Russian writing.

It is now quite obvious that the question of the inevitability of conveying historical alternations in writing is resolved at the level of graphics, and not spelling, just as graphics forces one to break the uniformity of the morpheme in cases like ash - earth (the ending is the same, but it is written differently depending on the hardness or softness of the base).

For a long time, the spellings “based on the production of sayings” (etymological) included only spellings that diverged from the pronunciation, such as water, oak, and did not include spellings like grass, soup. For the first time, the uniformity of the relationship of spellings like pond and twig to the principles of spelling was noted by V.A. Bogoroditsky. He was the first to call the principle of writing “by analogy” (pond, like a pond; twig, like a twig) morphological. But for a long time, even prominent theorists did not always include spellings like twig (i.e., spellings corresponding to pronunciation) among the spellings based on morphological relationships.

The typology of spelling patterns was most fully developed in the works of A.N. Gvozdeva Gvozdev A.N. Fundamentals of Russian spelling.-- M., 1947; 4th ed. - M., 1954, and were preceded by detailed methodological and spelling works by M.V. Ushakova. A.N. Gvozdev owns the most successful (in those years) definition of the morphological principle. He emphasized that, firstly, the unity of the same morphemes is preserved in writing, “despite the fact that in pronunciation when different conditions when used, they have a changing sound appearance”; secondly, “the graphic image of morphemes conveys the phonetic composition in relation to each sound in its most differentiated position.”

In the first part of A.N.’s definition Gvozdev’s expression despite is extremely important, because many definitions of the morphological principle say that morphemes are written uniformly regardless of pronunciation (or regardless of pronunciation). This is more than inaccurate. Between letters and phonemes in Russian orthography, a strict systematic relationship is observed, and. spellings are very strictly, with few exceptions, determined by pronunciation. The word water is not written arbitrarily, not at all independently of pronunciation: it can be written either with the letter o (which is written) or with the letter a. Other options are excluded. Only the spelling o or a is permitted by pronunciation: they are determined by the positionality of the alternation of phonemes /o/ and /a/. That is why the definition that has been given for a long time by the authors of the “Manual for Russian language classes in high school” is inaccurate high school": "The basis for writing the significant parts of a word is the morphological principle: the significant parts of a word (morphemes) are written uniformly, regardless of pronunciation" Grekov V.F., Kryuchkov S.E., Cheshko L.A. A manual for classes in the Russian language in high school. - 12th ed. - M., 1963. - P. 35. This edition was revised, but the wording given verbatim repeated the wording adopted back in 1963. m edition (1952). The definition of the morphological principle was changed only in the 32nd edition (1983). In it, the words “regardless of pronunciation” are replaced with “regardless of changes in speech pronunciation of vowels and consonants.” This is more accurate.. At the same time, of course, the authors of the manual did not mean that the spellings were arbitrary (the following are examples of water, water, water), but nevertheless the formulation was unsuccessful. With a certain degree of variability, a similar formulation can be found in many other authors.

In the second part of the definition of A.N. Gvozdev’s theory is important that it excludes the understanding of the morphological principle as adherence to some abstract graphic unity of the morpheme. The second part of the definition clarifies the first.

Theoretical interpretation of the principles of Russian orthography by A.N. Gvozdev was based on the phoneme theory of L.V. Shcherba, set out in his book “Russian vowels in qualitative and quantitative terms” (St. Petersburg, 1912) and subsequent works. L.V. Shcherba defined the phoneme as a unit capable of differentiating words and their forms. He established the conditionality of the division of the speech flow into phonemes by morphological division: in the words by-l, za-snu-l, or he-a, was-and the final phonemes are separated due to the possibility of drawing a morphological boundary in front of them, and the ability to break each word into phonemes is determined precisely by such a potentially existing connection between morpheme and phoneme. As the smallest sound unit, the native speaker is aware not of what is “pronounced” in one articulation (as is still written in some phonetics textbooks), but of the smallest segment of sound that can express meaning (be a morpheme). The linguistic function of the phoneme L.V. Shcherba also associated it with her ability to participate in the formation of the sound image of a significant unit (dressed - dressed, etc.)

The followers of V. Shcherba (scientists of the Leningrad phonological school) are characterized by the assertion that the system of phonemes of a language is not just the result of the logical constructions of a researcher, but a real organization of sound units, providing each native speaker with the opportunity to generate and perceive any speech message.

In the late 20s and early 30s, another phonological theory was created, standing apart in world phonology. It was called by its creators themselves the theory of the Moscow Phonological School (abbreviated as MPS). For a presentation of the ideas of the MPS, see; Kasatkin L.L. Moscow Phonological School // Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary.-- P. 316--317. A very thorough comparative analysis of the phonemic theories of LPS and MPS is given in textbook“Educational and methodological development on Russian phonetic transcription. -- Part I. Phonemic transcription ": Leningrad University Publishing House. - L., 1984, compiled by L.L. Bulanin and A.L. Miertsky.. This early (first) version of the MFS theory is usually called the “theory of variations and options,” and more often simply “the theory of options,” because the specificity of the MFS is determined by the concept of variant. So, if variations are called modifications of phonemes like [o], [o*], [*o], [*o*] (for example, in the words gon (t.[o]n), thin (t [o*] nenkiy ), dark (t [*o] many), Lenya (l [*o*]nya), then variants are the sounds of weak positions with which the sounds of strong positions alternate positionally in one morpheme. For example, the sound in the word water is a variant of the phoneme /o/ (cf. in [*o] dy - in yes), and in the word tr va - a variant of the phoneme /a/ (cf. tr [a] you - tr va).

The ideas of this theory were applied to the alphabet and graphics by N.F. Yakovlev, to spelling - R.I. Avanesov and V.N. Sidorov. The typology of phonemic spellings (absolutely phonemic, relatively phonemic and non-phonemic) was developed in detail by I.S. Ilyinskaya and V.N. Sidorov. They called the leading principle of spelling phonemic. The article by these authors was in a certain sense sensational. For almost two centuries (from the mid-18th to the mid-20th centuries), word production (etymological, morphological) was considered the leading principle of Russian orthography - and suddenly there was no place for it among the orthographic principles. The reason for this was a different view of the phoneme. But the new phoneme theory was not recognized by everyone.

The place of the morphological principle was eventually determined. And at present, the theory of the morphological principle (based on Shcherbov’s theory of the phoneme) is widely accepted, although along with it it is presented, especially in textbooks for universities, and the theory of the phonemic principle put forward in those years (based on the phoneme theory of the MFS.

Moving from phoneme theory to orthographic theory, M.V. Panov supports the idea of ​​I.S. Ilyinskaya and V.N. Sidorov about the phonemic principle of Russian orthography, arguing that we have “writing based on paradigmatic phonology.” The emergence of the MFS theory was positive and progressive. Its emergence in the late 20s and early 30s is associated with the needs of writing: it was a time of “language construction.” In 1929, a revolutionary-radical and extremely unsuccessful project for the reform of Russian spelling was proposed, which declared that “the reform is aimed at the illiterate and the illiterate first of all.” This project needed to be rejected with arguments, and such argumentation was offered by R.I. Avanesov and V.N. Sidorov.

With the proclamation of the phonemic principle of Russian orthography, intense competition arose in the interpretation of theoretical issues and spelling. The latter always contributes to a more thorough drilling of positions, their clarification, and everything in general contributes to the development of theory. The theory of Russian orthography reflects only two phoneme theories considered: LFS and MPS (with its variants). In accordance with the LFS theory, the leading principle of Russian orthography is defined as morphological, in accordance with the MFS theory - as phonemic. But in the end, one result is obtained: a uniform graphic appearance of morphemes (where possible). According to the LFS theory, this results from the desire to achieve exactly this (the action of conscious morphological analogies in designating sounds of weak positions). According to the theory of the MFS, this is a result, a consequence of the designation of the phoneme (in the understanding of it, as is customary in the MFS).

“The consequence of phonemic writing,” writes R.I. Avanesov, is... the unity of the morpheme. Each morpheme in a word, regardless of its actual pronunciation in different positional conditions, is written the same way...” And he explains: “Of course, we are talking about the fact that positionally determined changes in phonemes are not indicated in writing, and not about traditional historical alternations, phonemes...

Thanks to the graphic uniformity of the morpheme, supporters of the phonemic principle of orthography also use (albeit as a synonym) the term “morphological principle”.

Two interpretations of the leading principle of Russian orthography (as phonemic or morphological - depending on the phonological position of their authors) are usually presented in university textbooks. In stable school textbooks, the principles of spelling, as a rule, are not theoretically revealed. The exception was the textbook edited by L.V. Shcherby (1944). The leading principle of Russian spelling was defined in this textbook as follows:

“The morphological principle is that each significant part of a word (prefix, root, suffix, ending) is always written the same way, although the pronunciation of this part of the word in different phonetic conditions may be different.” This definition “lasted” in school textbooks until 1951.

In most school textbooks, the material is actually described on the basis of the phoneme theory of L. Sherba.

Based on the theory of phonemes of the MFS, spelling classes were conducted in one of the schools in Kharkov.

Teaching spelling based on students' familiarization with the leading principle of spelling undoubtedly contributes to a more conscious understanding of the Russian writing system.

The definition of the leading principle of Russian spelling is given in the “Russian language manual for high school students...” by V.F. Grekova, S.E. Kryuchkova, L.A. Czech.

The leading principle of spelling is also determined in books for extracurricular reading: Panov M.V. Interesting spelling. A book for extracurricular reading for students in grades 7-8. - M., 1984 (the principle is defined as phonemic and the understanding of the leading principle of Russian orthography as morphological is condemned); Moiseev A.I. Sounds and letters, letters and numbers... A book for extracurricular reading for students in grades 8-10 of secondary school - M., 1987 (the leading principle of spelling is revealed as morphological based on the theory of LFS).

There are other manuals published with the subtitle “optional course”, but, apparently, not used in school (as non-programmatic) or not widely used. Let's call them: Ivanova S.F., Nikolenko L.V. and etc. Russian word as a subject of linguistics. - M., 1972; Vetvitsky V.G. Ivanova V.F., Moiseev A.I. Modern Russian writing: A manual for students. - L., 1974. Both the first and second books use the morphological principle.

The phonemic principle (based on the theory of MFS) is carried out in the book: Russian language. Part I. Experimental educational materials for secondary school / Ed. I.S. Ilyinskaya and M.V. Panova.- M., 1979. This book was used for classes in a number of Moscow schools.

In addition to spellings that meet the morphological principle (or, in another interpretation, the phonemic principle), Russian writing contains a small number of spellings that meet the phonetic principle (the most important of them are prefixes with z). Such spellings contradict both the morphological and phonemic principles. They do not respect the graphic unity of the morpheme. There are many orthograms in Russian writing that correspond to the traditional principle. Traditional spellings (for example, dog, boot) do not contradict either the phonemic or morphological principle (since they correspond to one of the two possible letters here). However, they do not answer them: unlike morphological spellings such as water, grass, there are no test words for selecting letters (o or a). “For the writer here there is a choice, and often a painful and difficult one... Therefore, it should be stated that there are many non-phonemic spellings in Russian orthography, much more than is commonly thought,” wrote R.I. Avanesov.

Rules built on the phonetic principle (the most important of them is the rule about the prefixes raz-, without-, iz-, voz-, tra-), require the teacher to strengthen auditory work (more attention to phonetic analysis), and rules built on the traditional principle - strengthening the work of the visual (more attention to visual aids). In addition, traditional spellings, like morphological ones, are more interesting and useful to study with the help of historical and etymological references. Therefore, improving the historical and linguistic culture of the teacher is one of the most important tasks of philological education.

Explanatory comments from the teacher are also required for writing such as rye, night; cut, hide; take care. The spelling here ь is not related to the pronunciation: after h it is redundant, after w it contradicts the pronunciation. The letter ь is a graphic equalizer here morphological categories: rye, can, bend just like spruce (rye, night, spruce), and a knife, doctor - like a table (knife, doctor, table); hide, hide, cut, cut “trimmed” under throw, throw, and save - under throw. Due to such written analogies, the principle of use here is soft sign can be called the principle of graphic-morphological analogies. Otherwise, it is also called grammatical (L.R. Zinder), grammatical (Yu.S. Maslov), morphological (A.A. Reformatsky).

HISTORY OF RUSSIAN GRAPHICS. Modern Russian graphics include an alphabet invented for Slavic writing and carefully developed for the Old Church Slavonic language, which about a thousand years ago was the literary language of all Slavic peoples.

Modern Russian graphics represent slightly modified graphics of the Old Church Slavonic language, the so-called Cyrillic alphabet.

Old Slavonic graphics were compiled in the 9th century. in Bulgaria by the brothers Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius, Byzantine missionaries, scientists and diplomats, on the basis of the Greek alphabet and through the partial use of other alphabets, in particular Hebrew.

From the 10th century Old Church Slavonic graphics began to be used in Rus' when rewriting existing books and when creating original works of writing. The theory of writing and spelling rules did not exist at that time. Scribes who practically mastered the art of writing were mostly copiers of finished manuscripts. This does not mean that Old Russian scribes mechanically used the techniques of the Old Church Slavonic language. While preserving the techniques of Old Church Slavonic graphics in Russian writing (in particular, the letters of nasal vowel sounds that did not exist in the Russian language), Russian scribes adapted it to Russian pronunciation.

In the XII-XIII centuries. Russian writing is increasingly freed from Old Slavonic influence and is gradually turning into independent system, bringing writing closer to living speech.

Due to the historical development of the language, the strengthening traditions of Russian writing, naturally, should have been in some contradiction with the natural changes in the phonetic and grammatical system of the language. This is how a certain discrepancy arose between the graphic and sound systems of the Russian language, between the emerging tradition of writing and pronunciation.

The scribes' reliance on pronunciation led to certain changes in the writing schedule. By the 13th century. the letters ъ and ь, which in the Old Russian language denoted special vowel sounds in certain phonetic conditions, are replaced under stress, in accordance with the new pronunciation, by the letters o, e. Since the 16th century. the letter ь generally loses its sound meaning and becomes a sign of soft consonants and a dividing sign, and the letter ъ is used to designate hard final consonants. On the other hand, the established tradition of writing (reliance on pronunciation) was not particularly effective in the designation of consonants, voiced-voiceless pairs, as well as in relation to akanya (the pronunciation of unstressed o as a). Voicing and devoicing of consonants and acane, which appeared in the phonetic system of the language, were not widely reflected in writing. Pronunciation and tradition - these contradictory factors of writing - turned out to be progressive and equally effective in the development of Russian graphics and spelling.

Of great importance in the history of Russian graphics and spelling was the decree on the introduction of the Russian civil alphabet, issued in 1708 by Peter I. This event, which was an indicator of the decline in the authority and influence of the church, was expressed in some changes in the appearance and composition of the Russian alphabet: unnecessary for Russian sound system of letters, “title” (abbreviations) and “sily” (emphasis) are eliminated. The strengthening of graphics and spelling was also facilitated by the opening in 1727 of an academic printing house, the publications of which adhered to a certain spelling system.

Over the thousand-year period of its existence, Russian graphics have undergone only partial improvements, while the sound system of the living Russian language has continuously, although not always noticeably, changed. As a result, the relationship between Russian graphics and the sound system of the Russian language in our time has turned out to be devoid of complete correspondence: not all sounds pronounced in different phonetic positions are indicated in writing by special letters.

The modern Russian alphabet has 33 letters.

HISTORY OF RUSSIAN SPELLING. Printing, which arose in Russia in the 16th century, played a positive role in the establishment of a uniform letter. Printed materials become a model for all writers. Until the 16th century Russian scribes wrote one word after another without spaces between them. Separate spelling of words is associated with the development of printing.

At the turn of the first half of the 18th century. Issues of graphics and spelling are being posed in principle. They are associated with issues of the Russian literary language and acquire social significance.

The first to raise the question of the basis of Russian orthography was Trediakovsky. In his treatise “A conversation between a foreigner and a Russian about ancient and new spelling and everything that belongs to this matter” (1748), Trediakovsky proclaims the phonetic principle of spelling. Considering that phonetic writing is most accessible to the masses, Trediakovsky, however, recognizes only the correct pronunciation of people who know the norms of the literary language, and makes a number of concessions to traditional spellings. Trediakovsky did not solve the question of the essence of our spelling; his views were not decisive in the history of our spelling.

M.V. Lomonosov included discussions about spelling in his Russian Grammar (1755). Lomonosov's characterization of the theoretical foundations of spelling represents a combination of the phonetic principle of spelling with the morphological one. Paying attention to tradition in writing, Lomonosov covers a wide range of spelling issues related to grammar. Despite their authority and persuasiveness, Lomonosov's rules have not received universal recognition. The rules were not approved by the highest government agency and did not have the force of law. The establishment of spelling standards proposed by Lomonosov was facilitated by the works of V. Svetov and A.A. Barsov, authors of school-type grammatical works. In their works, these authors gave a brief set of spelling rules of the second half of the 18th century, implementing the morphological principle of spelling established by Lomonosov. The final approval of the morphological principle of spelling is associated with the publication of the “Russian Grammar” by the Academy of Sciences (1802, 1809, 1819) and the “Dictionary of the Russian Academy” (1789-1794). The spelling standards established in the mid-18th century were not stable. Significant differences in spelling were noted both in official documents and in the works of writers.

Grammars compiled at the beginning and middle of the 19th century. (Vostokov, Grech, Davydov, Buslaev), and the dictionaries published at that time could not eliminate the spelling discrepancy, which continued throughout the 19th century.

N.A. contributed a lot of useful things to Russian orthography. Karamzin, who influenced spelling practice with his authority (substantiation of the spelling of Russian and foreign words, introduction of the letter ё instead of io).

An extremely important milestone in the history of Russian orthography is the major work of Academician Y.K. Grota “Controversial Issues of Russian Spelling from Peter the Great to the Present” (1873, 1876, 1885) and his book “Russian Spelling” (1885), which is a practical guide for school and print. Grot's work is dedicated to the history and theory of Russian spelling. It covers practical issues of spelling from a scientific perspective. The set of spelling rules compiled by Grot played an important role in establishing spelling standards. The spelling established by Grotto was recommended and received the reputation of being academic, but it did not completely destroy the inconsistency, and most importantly, it did not simplify Russian spelling. Grot jealously adhered to the principle of legitimizing tradition and ignored the movement to simplify writing, which gained wide public momentum in the 50s and 60s of the 19th century. Therefore, Groth’s “Russian Spelling” did not meet with unanimous and complete recognition.

At the beginning of the 20th century. Increasingly broader social tasks of spelling reform are being identified, and the leadership in solving spelling issues is provided by the Academy of Sciences. The resolution on spelling reform, adopted at a broad meeting at the Academy of Sciences on May 11, 1917, had no practical significance. The reformed spelling remained optional for school and printing. Only the Soviet government, by decrees of December 23, 1917 and October 10, 1918, approved the resolution of the meeting of the Academy of Sciences. The new spelling was declared mandatory for all Soviet citizens.

Spelling reform 1917-1918 significantly simplified and facilitated our writing, but did not touch upon many particular issues of spelling, which served as a source of inconsistency in writing practice. This undermined the general spelling system and caused many difficulties in the work of publishing houses, as well as in school teaching.

In 1930 an organized attempt was made to bring about a radical reform of our writing. The draft of such a reform was drawn up by a special commission of the People's Commissariat for Education. The project introduced a disruption in Russian spelling that was not caused by a genuine need in life, moreover, it was not scientifically justifiable, and therefore practically impractical. The project was rejected. The need to streamline spelling became increasingly urgent.

“The task of the present moment is not to reform writing methods, but to streamline some of them towards uniformity and consistency and to resolve individual puzzling cases... Having established everything that has not been sufficiently established so far, it is necessary to publish a complete spelling reference book, authorized by the educational authorities,” - This is how prof. determined the further path of development of Russian orthography. D.N. Ushakov.

The implementation of this task began in the mid-30s, when work was organized to compile a complete set of spelling and punctuation rules. The result of the long work of philologists and teachers was the “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation”, approved in 1956 by the USSR Academy of Sciences, the USSR Ministry of Higher Education and the RSFSR Ministry of Education. The rules are mandatory for all users of writing, both for press organs, educational institutions, state and public organizations, and for individual citizens.

“Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation” is, in essence, the first complete set of rules of modern Russian spelling in the history of Russian writing and consists of two parts - spelling and punctuation - with the appendix of a dictionary of the most difficult or dubious spellings. A spelling dictionary (110 thousand words), compiled on the basis of the “Rules,” was published in 1956. The “Rules” formed the basis for a number of reference books, dictionaries, and manuals (see § 46).

However, by the end of the 20th century. The 1956 “Rules” are largely outdated and do not currently reflect emerging trends in spelling. Therefore, a special commission has been created at the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, whose task is to create a new set of rules for spelling and punctuation.

Periodic adjustment of the rules is natural and quite natural, since it meets the needs of the developing language and the practice of covering it.

RUSSIAN SPELLING REFORM: PROPOSALS,

–– Write consistently without the letter th before e common nouns with the component -er; accept the changed spellings conveyor, stayer, falsefire, fireworks; approve the spelling of player for the new word (eliminating hesitation). In other words (mostly rare and exotic), keep the spelling of the letter th before e, yu, ya: vilayet, doyen, foye; Kikuyu; hallelujah, vaya, guava, maya, papaya, paranoia, sequoia, tupaya, etc.

–– Write the words brochure and parachute (and their derivatives) with the letter y (instead of y), since they are consistently pronounced with a hard sh. This sums up general rule writing two common words from among the exceptions that did not obey the rule about writing the letter y after sibilants. Spellings with the letter yu after zh and sh are preserved in the common nouns julienne, jury, monteju, embouchure, pshut, fichu, schutte, shutskor, in which soft pronunciation zh and sh is not excluded.

–– extend the spelling with ъ to all complex words without connecting vowels; write with ъ not only words with the first components of two-, three-, four- and the words pan-European, courier (spellings provided for by the current rules), but also write: art fair (a new word with the first part art- in the meaning of “artistic”, cf. art show, art market, etc.), hyperkernel (where hyper is not a prefix, but part of the word hyperon), Hitler Youth.

–– Write the adjective windy with two n (instead of one) - as all other denominate adjectives are written with this suffix, always unstressed: cf. letter, painful, watch, maneuverable, meaningless, etc., including other formations from the word wind: windless, windward, leeward (but: chicken pox, chickenpox - with a different suffix). Also write words derived from windy: windiness, windy, anemone, windy (predicative: it’s windy outside today).

–– Write together formations with the prefix ex- in the meaning of “former”, which is connected with nouns and adjectives, for example: ex-president, ex-minister, ex-champion, ex-Soviet - the same as formations with the same prefix in the meaning of “outside”: extraterritorial, expatriation. The combination in the code of 1956 (§ 79, paragraph 13) of the more freely functioning component ex- with the hyphenated components chief-, non-commissioned, life-, staff-, vice-, found in a narrow circle of job titles and ranks, does not has compelling reasons.

–– Write compounds with the component pol- (“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 -twelfth, half past one, etc. The unification of spellings with pol- replaces the previous rule, according to which spellings with pol- before consonants were distinguished, except for l (fused) and spellings with pol- before vowels, consonant l and before capital letter(hyphens).

–– 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 place, passenger kilometer, flight sortie, man-day; b) the names of political parties and trends 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.

–– 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").

–– Replace the separate spelling of the following adverbs with a continuous one: in the hearts, dozarez, doupad, noon, midnight, canopy, groping, afloat, galloping, nasnosyah, stand up, and also not averse. 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.

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

Modern Russian literary language as a subject of study

A syllable is a sound or a combination of sounds united by a wave of sonority, that is, the degree of sonority of the voice, this is based on the specifics of the work of our.. a phonetic word is a syllable or a group of syllables united around one.. a speech beat or syntagma is a group of phonetic words or one phonetic word united by intonation not the end..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page in in social networks:

Spelling or spelling n (ancient Greek ὀρθογραφία, from ὀρθός - “correct” and γράφω - “I am writing”) - the uniformity of the transmission of words and grammatical forms of speech in writing. Also a set of rules that ensures this uniformity, and the branch of applied linguistics that deals with it.

History of spelling in Russia n Initially, individual spellings dominated the language. One of the most early works on the theory of spelling is the work of V.K. Trediakovsky, published in 1748, where the principles of constructing the alphabet and spelling are formulated, to which even the modern Russian alphabet corresponds well.

n M.V. Lomonosov in “Russian Grammar”, published in 1755, which became widespread and was used for many years to teach the Russian language, published spelling rules and such fundamental principles as ease of reading for everyone, proximity to the three main Russian dialects , proximity to morphology and pronunciation.

n A fairly complete review of spelling rules in their historical perspective was carried out by J. K. Grot in 1873. He considered the main principle to be morphological in combination, to some extent, with phonetic written forms. Subsequently, the primacy of the morphological principle (as opposed to phonetic) in Russian spelling was pointed out by A. N. Gvozdev, A. I. Thomson, M. N. Peterson, D. N. Ushakov

Russian pre-reform orthography (pre-revolutionary) n n The beginning of Russian pre-reform orthography can be considered the introduction of a civil font under Peter I. There was no single generally accepted standard of pre-reform orthography (similar to the Soviet code of 1956). The most authoritative (although not fully observed in the press published at that time) manuals and sets of rules on Russian pre-reform orthography are associated with the name of academician Yakov Karlovich Grot. They relate specifically to the last stable 50th anniversary of the existence of pre-reform spelling.

Changes in spelling in the twentieth century n n n n 1918 - along with “ъ” they began to use an apostrophe (’). In practice, the use of the apostrophe was widespread. 1932-1933 - periods at the end of headings were canceled. 1934 (possibly earlier) - the use of a hyphen in the conjunction “that is” was abolished. 1935 - periods in capital letter abbreviations were abolished. 1938 - the use of the apostrophe was abolished (in central newspapers it was used at least until May 1945) 1942 - the mandatory use of the letter “ё” was introduced. 1956 - the use of the letter “е” (already according to the new rules) became optional, to clarify the correct pronunciation (“bucket”).

n n The current rules of Russian spelling and punctuation are the rules approved in 1956 by the USSR Academy of Sciences, the USSR Ministry of Higher Education and the RSFSR Ministry of Education. The regulator of the norms of the modern Russian literary language is the Institute of Russian Language named after V. V. Vinogradov. Clarified and supplemented rules developed by the Spelling Commission Russian Academy Sciences in 2006, as of October 12, 2009 have not yet been approved.

Differences between pre-revolutionary spelling and modern spelling n n Before the revolution, the Russian alphabet had 35, not 33 letters, as it is now. The names of the letters of the Russian pre-reform alphabet (modern spelling): az, beeches, lead, verb, good, eat, live, earth, etc., and decimal, how, people, think, ours, he, peace, rtsy, word, firmly, uk, fert, dick, tsy, worm, sha, sha, er, er, yat, e, yu, I, fita, and zhitsa. Aa Zz O B b I and P o Xx b p C c Ѣ ѣ Vv Gg II Kk D d L Ee M l F f N m Rr Ss Tt Uu n F f Chh Sh Shch b y sh sh y Ee Yu I f Ѵ yu i ѳ ѵ

Pronunciation of abolished letters n n n The letter “i” was read as [i] The letter “ѣ” was read as [e] The letter “ѳ” was read as [f] The letter “ѵ” was read as [i] The letter “ъ” at the end of words was not read

n n Until 1942, the letter e was absent from the alphabet. The letter y is inscribed in the 1934 alphabet, but the word yod is printed with an i (“iod”). In Ushakov's dictionary, all words starting with th are redirected to analogues starting with i: iog [eg], yoga [yoga], iod [ed], iodism, iodide, iodine, Yorkshire, iota, iotation, iotated and iotated. But in the words ion, ionization, ionize, ionnian, ionnic, ionic, Jordan (b) and and about are read separately. Aa Bb Vv Gy Dd Eh Zz Ii Yy Kk Ll Mm Nn ​​Oo Pp Rr Ss Tt Uu Ff Xx Ts Chch Shsh Shch Ъъ ыы ьь Eee Yuyu Yaya

The ability to create texts and work with them according to the rules of the old spelling n n There are sites that allow you to type text in the old spelling, print it and save it. There are several computer fonts that support the old spelling

Criticism of Russian spelling n n The spelling of the Russian language has been repeatedly criticized by various writers and scientists. A number of opinions were collected by J. K. Grot in the book “Controversial Issues of Russian Spelling from Peter the Great to the Present” (1873). Y. K. Grot himself defended the letter yat, considering it important for distinguishing words, despite the fact that in the capital's dialects of the oral Russian language such words were not distinguished. The changes to the writing norm that were proposed in this book were very moderate, not affecting frequently used cases with already established spellings. However, for relatively rare words (for example, “ham”, “wedding”, “cuttlefish”), a violation of the morphological nature of their spelling was noted (instead of “vyadchina”, “svatba”, “korokatitsa”). V.V. Lopatin suggested writing in words like loaded, dyed, fried, shorn, wounded always one n, regardless of whether they have syntactically subordinate words or not

Difficulties of modern Russian orthography n n Integrated or separate spelling of nouns with a prefix that turn into adverbs is determined by the possibility/impossibility of breaking a word into two significant lexical units (to the full, but to death; in half, but in thirds; in addition, but in conclusion, dry, but in sea). The writing o or е after sibilants and ц is inconsistent: arson (noun) with arson (verb), pot with potter. The rule of writing “not” with verbs has many exceptions, also associated with the impossibility of lexical separation of the (first or only) prefix from the root of the word: nayti, hate, unkind, disliked, not received enough, etc. Writing forms of the word “go” (root -i- ) is defined only by the dictionary: to go, but to come and I will come. The same with the forms of the root -im-/ -eat-/-ya-: I will understand, but I will accept, take and take out.