What do the letters mean? 2. Decoding. Interfixes

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

Whether you noticed it or not, in the last examples I tried to specifically highlight the fact that vowels (plus "b" and "b") serve to convey meaning from one part of a word to another. Skim through this great chapter on morphemes and you will see that there was not a single word that didn’t have these transition letters between morphemes. In the process of work, I had to read dictionaries for a long time, mostly for specific purposes, in search of something: meanings, meanings, correct spellings. Many interesting words just caught my eye, memorized, wrote out. Sometimes I read dictionaries just like that, without any purpose, and I discovered a very interesting feature:

• There is always a "b" between the prefix ending in a consonant and the next morpheme. Not one dictionary contains an indication that such prefixes, although they can often be written without "ъ", but their full spelling is with a "hard sign". Like this: "vnimanie", "subordinate", "primate", "congregation", "otdyhanie".
• There is always "b" between a root ending in a consonant and a suffix starting with a consonant. For example, "bliss", "good", "insolence", "motionless", "cunning", "hereditary". And I'm not kidding at all, this is actually the spelling of words as it was before the reformatting in the early 19th century.
• Between the two roots there are always not only the vowels (O, E), but sometimes "b". For example, "water carrier", "zemlemurts", "shell" (shell), "stupidity", "native", "bad language", "vanity".

Interesting observation, isn't it?

Now let's think about what part of the word to refer to these very transitional "soft and hard signs" that we just found. Let's say the word "podgorok". The solid sign clearly does not refer to the root, it is unlikely that the root starts out so exotic, and even without the prefix "b" in front of the root it disappears. Maybe a console? Remember what we said about the solid mark at the end of words? It is an ending and does not apply to other morphemes due to the fact that it indicates the state of the object, which changes depending on the declension in which it is placed. We see the same thing here. The hard sign summarizes the meaning of the prefix by indicating its state in relation to the root value. That is, he does not apply to the prefix either, he ends it, just as he does it at the end of words. Neither to the root nor to the prefix, a lonely ownerless solid sign, sandwiched between two parts of the word.

Now "b" between roots and suffixes. It's easier here. Suffixes also cannot begin with a "soft sign", in this they are no different from the roots. The roots themselves do not end with a soft sign either, due to the fact that if you remove the suffixes, the root will become a word with the ending "ь". For example, "swamp" - "swamp". In other cases, this soft sign completely disappears, changing to a hard sign. "Varvarsky" - "barvar", "hunting" - "catch". It also does not apply to the root. Nobody needs a soft sign either.

According to modern rules, there is always a connecting vowel between two roots in our language - an interfix (Samovar, solstice). If it is not there, then it is implied and bears the title of zero (bar-restaurant, rock music). This connecting vowel is separated into a separate morpheme. And just as it disappears when the word is decomposed. "Samovar" = "Sam" + "Var". There is no letter "O". Okay. Now let's decipher all these connecting letters.

Hmm. Am I the only one who thinks all these connecting letters do the same thing? Both those and others convey the meaning from one morpheme to another, and they do it quite logically and competently. We are accustomed to the fact that between the roots there must be a connecting vowel "O" or "E", which we cannot imagine how it can be without them. "Zemlmer", "Samrodok". Without them, it really is not right. Both ugly and pointless. We are also accustomed to the fact that between a prefix ending with a consonant and a root starting with a vowel (for example, departure) there is a "hard sign". It won't be easy without him here either. Our ancestors were used to something different. With these connecting vowels in writing and in oral speech, they separated all morphemes from each other. Thus, it was immediately clear what this word was, what it came from and, most importantly, what exactly it means. Information in this way was transmitted quickly, clearly and there was no doubt about its meaning, although today this language seems excessively cumbersome to us.

In all these cases, these letters have a meaning and a reason. But now we know that each letter also has its own meaning, which just determines the reason why it is in one place or another in the word. And if we have even a drop of sound mind, we just have to accept as a fact that, since the reasons for the appearance and relationship with morphemes in all these connecting signs (O, E, b, b) are the same, then the rules the same should apply to them. Since the interfixes are outside the main morphemes, it would be logical to assume that the connecting "b" and "b" are also outside the main morphemes.

Note one more interesting thing: ALL prefixes ending in a consonant, in their modern meaning, are in a subordinate position to the root. Even the word “submission” itself begins with the prefix “under”. "Under", "Prev", "From", "Without", "B", "S" - they all receive meaning from the root and obey it in meaning. The presence of a "solid sign" between them only confirms this. The soft sign, connecting the root and suffixes, did the same: it indicated the direction of subordination, the primacy of one process in relation to another.

And finally, put together everything we now know.

1. The presence of two types of letters (vowels and consonants) clearly implies the use of two parts of speech that are polar to each other when decoding. At the same time, it is obvious that for the appearance of at least some meaning, these parts of speech must interact with each other.
2. Vowels indicate action and can be deciphered with verbs or participles to improve readability. The consonants denote the "objects" that these actions perform. You can decipher with nouns.
3. The meaning inside the word is transmitted and accumulated from letter to letter, from morpheme to morpheme, from left to right, from cause to effect, using the carriers of the action - vowels.
4. The prefix changes the meaning of the next morpheme. The suffix adds meaning to the bundle of all morphemes in front of it. The ending indicates the condition of the item. The root acts as a derivational nucleus, a certain origin of coordinates, capable of changing the meaning of its own meaning depending on morpheme-attachments.
5. There is always a connecting vowel between all parts of the word, which conveys the meaning from one morpheme to another.

Not bad at all for a blasphemous assumption, and so interesting, right?

© Dmitry Lyutin. 2017.