What do the letters mean? 3. Consistency. Deep decryption

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

In one of the previous chapters, we analyzed morphemes, and found out that there are connecting signs not only between two roots, but also between other parts of the word. In particular, now we know that between the prefix and the root there can be a transmitting sign - "b", and between the root and the suffix there is a transitional "b". It will not be superfluous to remember that two roots are also connected using the vowels "O" or "E".

So, we have connecting signs that are engaged in the transfer of action-meaning from one part of a word to another. Let's draw up a plate to see clearly what we got.

A very correct postscript at the end. But what if we have an ordinary word, with one root and a prefix ending in a vowel. How then will the value be transmitted? For example, "hike".

Nothing, it seems, complicated. We have done this more than once. "P" forms "Move". The value of the action is transmitted through the letter "O". Everything is as usual, so what's the problem? And the thing is that the letter "O" refers to the prefix, although at the same time it performs all the same functions as any of the connecting signs. Stands in the same place. Conveys meaning from one morpheme to another. We brought all the connecting signs outside the morphemes, and it was logical. Moreover, we even proved it with a bunch of examples and sound reasoning.

Somewhere something does not agree: either in our head, or in the rules, new or old. Let's build our logical chain again.

one. Two roots in one word converge with two consonants. There is always a connecting sign between them ("O" or "E"). This is beyond doubt.

a) This sign does not belong to any of the roots that it connects. This is according to the rules and logic.

b) This sign transfers meaning from one root to another, using its own meaning.

Samovar. "Sam" (O) "var". "Sam" (forms) "var"

"Pѣeshod". "Pѣsh" (E) "move". "Pѣsh" (exists in) "course"

We brought this out on our own. It is logical and understandable.

v) This meaning is transmitted in the present tense, an active voice. There are no exceptions.

Further, having searched for a long time in old dictionaries, we identified an important pattern:

2. In cases where the prefix and the root are adjacent consonants, a solid sign ("b") is always placed between them.

a) This sign conveys the meaning from the prefix to the root, using its own meaning.

"Podval". "Under" (b) "shaft". "Under" (created) "shaft"

"Signature". "Prѣd" (b) "scripture". "Prod" (created) "scripture"

We also made this conclusion on our own, based on knowledge and logic.

b) This meaning is transmitted in the past tense, passive voice. Vocabulary fact. There are no system exceptions.

3. In cases where the root and suffix are adjacent consonants, a soft sign is always placed between them.

a) This sign conveys the meaning from the root to the suffix, using its own meaning.

"Chair". "Chair" (b) "chick". "Chair" (bounded) from "chick"

"Topky". "Top" (b) "cue". "Top" (formed) from "cue"

And we also came to this on our own.

b) This meaning is transmitted in the past tense, passive voice. Vocabulary fact. There are no system exceptions.

Okay. Let's reread and think about what might be wrong.

Aha, the passive voice in the past tense! And what if we are wrong, what if, due to the fact that the direction of transfer of the meaning is turned in the opposite direction, the sign can be displayed outside the brackets. What if in the active voice it is possible to do without the transitional sign, but in the passive voice it is impossible? This is logical. If only because the passive voice is significantly less popular than the active voice in terms of popularity, probably because of its inconvenience. It is very logical. Maybe it is ?!

Everything is fine, and one could calm down, since a logical solution was found, but there is one serious "but". And we always have one thing - facts. We have many words in which the letter "O" is used between two roots. And the letter "O" forms an active voice, in the same way being between two consonants, and you can't get out of it. This is even confirmed by modern rules. Add to exclusions? Whatever it is! The rules, even for tens of thousands of words, should not have a hint of exceptions, and here we are sculpting one on top of the other in 9 pillars. It will not work, let's look for a sensible logical solution.

We need more examples, different and understandable.

All prefixes convey the meaning to the root, because in the word they stand in front of it, and the meaning is transmitted in the word from left to right, using vowels or signs "b", "b", indicating what kind of action is being performed. Let's emphasize them and highlight them for clarity.

Letters "O", "I", "E", "b", "b". All perform the same function: they convey the meaning of the adjacent part of the word, in one direction or another. The only difference is that, for certain reasons, some are part of the morphemes, while others are not. And this is strange, since there is no logical reason for this. Let's try to go from the opposite. Let's say we have two options: either both are part of the morphemes, or both are not. Since the first is excluded by the rule about connecting vowels between roots, we will start from the second and see what happens.

Let's highlight our (P) permanent examples of morphemes.

What do you think about this? After such execution, the prefixes with vowels at the end decreased in size. Unusual. "Pere" and "under" had, so to speak, a certain margin of safety and did not deteriorate much. Whereas from the "pri" there were only "horns and legs" in the form of a bundle "pr". But the word itself did not change in this case, neither in size nor in content. The meaning also remained in place. Well, so what if in the word "hike" only the letter "P" remained from the prefix. Even according to modern rules, we have a lot of such: "U", "B", "S". And suffixes from one letter cannot be counted at all. And they are all capable of transferring meaning between parts of a word. Let's decipher now.

"P-o-hod". "P" conveys the meaning to the root "stroke" using the connecting letter "O".

"Pr-and-go" … The link "Pr" conveys the meaning to the root "move" with the help of the connecting letter "I".

"Pod-b-hod". The link "Under" conveys the meaning to the root "stroke" with the help of the connecting letter "b".

"Per-e-go-b-nik". The link "Per" conveys the meaning to the root "stroke" using the connecting letter "E". The "Transition" link conveys the meaning to the "nick" suffix using the connecting letter "b".

A prefix or not a prefix, more or less, from the point of view of decoding, nothing has changed at all. Consonants or consonant bundles, as they conveyed the meaning, and convey. Only the structure of the conditional division of a word into parts has changed, and now it has become logical, understandable and, most importantly, without exceptions.

Now let's look at the transfer of meaning from root to suffix. In theory, there should be the same picture. After all, suffixes are also part of a word, and they are no better and no worse than others.

Look at all these words. Everything in them is logical, beautiful and understandable. Each part of the word is now connected to the other using either a vowel, or one of the signs, hard or soft. The prefix conveys the meaning to another prefix, which conveys it to the root, the root sends it further to the suffix, and the suffix to another suffix. Thanks to the vowels and signs between morphemes, we got a strict, harmonious and harmonious picture, in which between one morpheme and another, cause and effect, source and result, there is always an action corresponding to the meaning of the word, without exceptions. This scheme (Fig. 1) is not just logical, it makes sense!

With this approach to morphemic analysis, knowing the meaning of each letter, the meaning of any word of any complexity is fully revealed. We can easily find out what was formed, thanks to which it appeared, what properties of this object allowed our ancestors to call it that way, and much more.

No, of course, the generally accepted system does not collapse, but it is structurally changing. For the better. Looking under the foundation of the existing word-formation system, we found there another one, but more powerful and more serious. A deeper level, where the concepts of prefixes, roots, suffixes disappear. Everything that we knew about the words earlier disappears. At this level, only letters, their meanings and connections between them. It's like looking through a microscope for the first time: “Really? Is this what we are made of? From these rods and cones? Yes, that's right. It is painfully logical, terribly beautiful and just brilliant.

When I just started looking for the principle of correct decoding of words, more than two dozen exact meanings of the letters were already found, and it was very disappointing not to be able to use them to the fullest. Sometimes the simplest word turned out to be sheer gibberish, and although the found meanings of the letters themselves straightened the situation and improved the mood, they still, rather, gave hope that the work was going in the right direction, but nothing more. The very principle eluded me.

I tried to decipher by syllables, changed the time and direction of transmission of meanings, added adjectives and adverbs, sometimes I even managed to use consonants as verbs. The most serious results were achieved with the help of a banal enumeration of values from letter to letter, accumulating value from the first to the last. But once buried in the "heart" (heart), "line" and seeing a "sieve" with "salt" in front of me, for a couple of months I completely lost the desire to do this business. Some serious systemic solution was needed that would unite all words under a single universal rule, but I never found it on my own. It, as usually happens, descended from heaven: smart people did everything before me long ago, you just had to listen and believe that together with the letters they kept the secret of deciphering the words. Morphemes. I struggled with the system for almost six months and did not know what to do. When I took the parts of the word known from school (prefixes, roots, suffixes, etc.) for the meaning separators, the system gave up in 2 days.

Why am I telling you all this right now? Then, so that you understand that knowing the meaning of letters is one thing, but knowing what to do with them and how to use them is completely different. Without knowing the correct way of decoding, it is impossible to correctly reveal the meaning of the word. You can grasp the meaning, but not the meaning. You can even at some subcortex understand what is at stake and even guess at random. But without knowing the system, one cannot be even 50% sure of the correctness of the reasoning. Because two words, which, at first glance, have the same structure of construction, in different situations can have a completely different structure of decoding.

For instance. Our faithful friend "table", the oldest friend, still with crutches instead of a solid sign at the end. How to decipher it without knowing about morphemes? That's right, the easiest way is by syllables. The word "table" has one syllable. Ok, the logic is straight forward:

"The connection of the body that forms the receptacle."

Not bad. Now let's look in the dictionary, and there - "stol", with a solid sign stuck to it. Now what? Not knowing about morphemes, it is immediately striking that you need to screw this "b" to the letter "L". And this has its own logic, since he stands right after it. In everyday speech, we, as a rule, perceive the bundles of precisely adjacent words, and not spaced apart in a sentence. Then we get:

"The connection (C) of the body (T), forming (O) the receptacle (L), created by (b)".

The letter "L" took over two actions and both were in the passive voice. The "receptacle" is both "created" and "educated" at the same time. This is bad. And although you can work with it, sooner or later, pulling by the ears kills the whole venture in the bud.

And if we make a “table” out of the “table” or simply change the case, the syllable structure of the word will change. Instead of a single syllable "table", we get two "tables", and the letter "l" leaves the table, the meaning is lost.

Or, for example, two words with one structure in two syllables. "Flood" and "stomp". If you decipher both words by syllable, nothing will come of it, one of the words will be revealed incorrectly.

And there are also words with 5 consonants per vowel in one syllable! "Look", "courage" and others. Here, just no imagination is enough to build a logical subordinate connection between all consonants.

And also words that combine different parts of speech in one spelling: “smog”, “feat”, “saw”, “scarecrow”, “tear” and so on. And also accent, dull, acute, lightweight … and much, much more. Our language is not just beautiful and rich in such delights, these delights have populated it, have spawned themselves, and now it is impossible to imagine our speech without them. How to keep up with all these cunning, and where to get one decryption scheme for all cases ?!

The answer is simple. The systematic breakdown of a word into morphemes alone solves a bunch of problems. And the correct breakdown into morphemes solves all problems in general. And only such a relationship makes it possible to exclude all exceptions from the list of exceptions and generally exclude the very existence of such a list. The entire word-formation system begins to work like a lubricated clock.

Do you still don’t believe either logic or your eyes, or simply don’t understand what is happening? Cheer up, just trust the sensations. After all, despondency is a sin, and yet it is the only word in the Russian language that ends in "-ynie".

It will be easier further. Promise.

© Dmitry Lyutin. 2017.