What do the letters mean? 3. Consistency. Problems of Modern Words (Part 1)

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Now that we see how everything looks at a deeper level, we can take a different look at some problem areas of modern word formation. And before that, we will promise ourselves not to scold or accuse anyone. No obsession like "we are smart and they are fools." Just an abstract analysis based on genuine interest.

In the last chapter, we ourselves left a couple of such misunderstandings when we took apart the consoles. Remember, we had a couple of roots that fell from the sky: "patrol" and "denunciation". Let's start with them.

Here is such a funny picture we get according to modern rules, if the root of the word is "watch". Unusual. But we'll figure it out. What do we have? D - reason-source. Z - action. R - Result. That's bullshit. First, a consonant should not indicate an action. And secondly, we have unidirectional connecting vowels. What do they connect? They can organize processes either within one morpheme, or between them. Let us assume for a second that the root is indeed a "watch". How is the meaning conveyed through the connecting vowels "O"? No, really, how? By chain? Okay, so what will the second "O" refer to then? To the letter "Z" or to the letter "D", or to a bunch of "doses"? We do not know any of this and cannot find out, because the word does not indicate it. Maybe it really fell from the sky?

But if you only dare to assume that the root is "zor", and "do" is a prefix, everything immediately falls into place. And, lo and behold! The word takes on meaning. Then Deed (D) forms (O) the meaning of the root "zor". And the "watch" itself is the use of sight ("zor") for a certain period of time (D). This is, in fact, so. A patrol is a time-limited observation, with the aim of further reporting information.

By the way, the "denunciation" itself, it is logical to decipher by analogy in the same way, with the prefix "to" and the root "nose". There is such a root, right? For example, in the word "inform".

"Donos" … Act (D) forms (O) root value "nose".

Then "denunciation" is a process of wearing, limited by time or specified frames. Lucy began to wear sneakers with the aim of delivering them, and sooner or later she brings them, and this process will stop. The meaning of the letter "D" in all its glory. The second meaning of the word "denunciation" is even easier. This is where the reporting process begins and ends almost immediately as soon as the report is made. Lucy, in old sneakers, told the court adviser about the atrocities of her new neighbor. She told me, that is, the story had a beginning, and there was an end, and this is important, because a denunciation is, first of all, a message. By the way, in both cases the perpetrator of the denunciation is wearing something: literally or figuratively.

"Shame" … Constancy (P) forms (O) root value "Dawn".

Shame is what appears to the eye, what is constantly in sight, a performance, a spectacle. Constantly visible image. After a serious misconduct, the corresponding "glory" was assigned to the person, which remained with him for a long time. The image of this act constantly appeared before my eyes when looking at the villain or mentioning him.

"Pѣtukh" ≈ "Rooster". Not knowing the meaning of "ѣ" yet, we will replace it with "e". For comfort.

"Rooster" … The root value " pet " points to (Ooh) hѣr (X) … The obviousness of the semantic connection of the word with the verb "to sing" is beyond doubt, and, as a rule, this is associated with the fact that the rooster crows in the morning and acts as an alarm clock. In fact, the rooster crows all day long with and without purpose, simply because it can. And the one that bawls at dawn, well, as soon as he woke up, he began. People sing for exactly the same reason, because they can and because they can. Yes, we do it much better, but the rooster sings, "khurovo", but still sings. On the other hand, maybe it's even easier. Maybe "n btukh "just crappy" p btita "?

That's so beautiful! Nothing is lost, nothing superfluous appears either! All letters are in place. What problems are not solved if you just correctly break the word into morphemes.

"Fire" … Constancy (P) forms (O) root value "heat".

The constant image of heat, that which is constantly frying. It seems that comments are superfluous. However, there is an interesting moment with another word that has exactly the same structure, but with a correctly selected prefix and root. This is the word "Chef". It’s interesting, according to what logic, according to modern rules, the fire was combined into a whole root, and the cook, both cooked and cooks.

"Udul" … Pointing to (Ooh) root value "Dul".

An indication of the place separated by the act (D) (L). The receptacle (L) appeared due to the division of the land into plots. And the lot just points to this land.

"Feat" … Constancy (P) forms (O) root value "Move".

"Move" - this is for us "Action by the will is associated with movement", that is, the movement (D), limited by the time frame (D), appeared due to the power of will (C). Without will, there is no movement, no movement. Slavik showed will and jumped onto the embrasure of the machine gun, thereby making a move, starting and ending. His fellow soldiers, who saw this act, called him a feat. And now they remember and retell it to all those who have not seen it. This is the constancy of this movement, the constancy of achievement. In each retelling, Vyacheslav again and again jumps onto the embrasure, as if alive. Each retelling of this act again and again draws the image of that very volitional, time-limited movement, from which it all began. Feat is a permanent image of this movement. As long as people remember this feat, it will remain a feat.

Last, weapon, throne, legacy, bosom, combination, ledge, access, strike. Where did all these words come from that they do not have dedicated prefixes or suffixes? At first, when you see the roots of these two-syllable words, you really get the feeling that they fell from the sky or appeared during a wild booze. "Out of nowhere" and "simple". Exactly so, together and immediately, as if the laws of word formation did not concern them at all. As if the "bosom" does not resemble a groove, and the "last heir" has nothing to do with the "trace".

In fact, everything is somewhat simpler. We can say that the "throne" is an established word-formation unit. Established so long ago that they forgot to think that there was once a root "table" and the prefix "pre". This is done in order to fix the current meaning of the word in relation to the image that it denotes. Thus, it becomes possible to use the "throne" in the formation of new words, not relying on the original meaning of "table", and not take into account their relationship. For example, the heir to the throne or the first throne. Looking at them, you no longer remember the table by the window with magazines, cups of coffee and sweet conversation. Everything is serious here, the fate of the country and the world.

This is neither good nor bad. This is fine. In the end, the primary root still looms before the eyes, although it is not clearly distinguished. Quite sensible logic. However, friends, this same sane logic once gave birth to the concept of a "theme of the word", which does exactly the same thing that these roots, consisting of several syllables, are doing today: unites them into a word-formation unit. For example, the same "Dozor". The prefix "Do", the root "zor", the ending "ъ" and, attention, the theme "watch". Everything is simple and concise, all morphemes are highlighted logically and at the same time each of them does its own thing.

The word “criminal” is the root of “crime”. Okay, so be it. Knowing that there is a prefix "pre" and a root of "stupas", it is easy to guess that a person has crossed the permitted line. In the literal sense, I took a step, stepped beyond the line that should not be crossed. Just imagine, over the next two hundred years, our children, taught by modern education, will lose a couple of prefixes. Well, they will forget about them and that's it. Or the root will change. Somehow, I don't know. The editor in the dictionary will be sealed, and instead of "P" will put "L". And they will have a "throne", without prefixes and suffixes, who came from nowhere.

You can argue, they say, the "prefix" is not a needle, you will not lose it in a haystack. Do you think I'm exaggerating? In just two hundred years, more than a dozen letters have disappeared from us. Letters, friends, not needles. The letters that all the people constantly used. They were not hidden behind wallpaper, they were simply thrown away. And there will be no more of them. Tell me, are you sure that along with them, some parts of the word did not disappear and did not change as well? Prefixes, for example. For 200 years, they may not have disappeared. And for 500? There is no such confidence anymore, right? We have only officially had four European language repairs over the past four hundred years. The prefixes have changed, the suffixes have disappeared, the endings and those have gone from grief, and the roots have been eating and expanding all this time. Any of us, in 10 minutes without preparation, will name about fifty of these "shattered" words … At least the "criminal" has a suffix, and that's good. And I am not in the least naughty, seriously.

Here's an example of such a confused prefix. An example with a big "question" and a big problem.

"V'pros" … Will (V)created by (B) root value "Asking".

You do not need to be seven spans in the forehead to connect a single meaning of the word with the root "ask": "question", "demand", "interrogation", "ask." It is obvious. Yes, and the meaning is simple. “Pros” is a constant (P) process (P) of asking, forming (O) connection (C) with a person or other object from whom you are asking. The petition ("Pros") creates (A) will (B): the petition cries out for an answer that can be given only by showing will.

And after all, the main question of this "question" is not why the letter changed, and along with it the voice changed from passive to real. This is just understandable, it is from misunderstanding and for convenience.

The main question is, how many consoles has this root actually eaten in the last five hundred years?

© Dmitry Lyutin. 2017.