What do the letters mean? 2. Decoding. Endings

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

And what about the thunderstorm and what exactly is the same thing with it? Thunderstorm ends with A, and thunder ends with Kommersant. We agreed to ignore a solid sign, and there were good reasons for that. And here all the same "A", after all, is the first letter of the alphabet, it is useless to ignore this. Indeed, worthless. But first, tell me, what was the “hard sign” guilty of, that it can be ignored, but the letter “A” cannot be? It is little merit to be ahead of everyone. To be the first is not a merit, to be the first is a responsibility. Well, let's see.

"A" ends almost all words of the feminine gender. At the same time, "Kommersant" ends almost all masculine words. "A" completes many words in the singular genitive case, and sometimes also indicates the plural. A "solid sign" can boast of the same, but at the same time, to the heap, it ends in general all words ending in any consonant in any declension, and there are a lot of these consonants, as you understand. Which letter is more important is a big question. Both are important, and both seem to play a huge role. However, not only these two characters are located at the end of words in our language. What other letters end words? Obviously, these are all the remaining vowels and the brother of the "hard sign" - "soft". Let's take a look at them.

"B" and "I" end many words related to the feminine gender. The letter "Y" ends most of the plural and some pronouns. "O" and "E" end words related to the neuter gender. No others. When declining, more "U" and "U" appear, the rest simply replace each other depending on the case form, number or gender. Like this:

Remember the school curriculum? The variable part of the word at the end is the ending.

And also, remember, of all the letters that end words, only "b" has sunk into the abyss. At the same time, from there, from this abyss, a mysterious "zero ending" appeared, which was so annoying in school years. Interesting, isn't it? It is also interesting that this "magic empty ending" according to modern rules, it turns out, is also after the "soft sign". Let me show you something now. In the next tablet, I have highlighted the part of the word that changes with declension in cases.

There are such guys as oilmen. Oil is pumped, refined, sold. Petroleum products are used for production, we refuel the cars. In general, oilmen are engaged in useful business. The seamstresses at the factory sew clothes for us, we wear them, we do not freeze, we brag to our friends. Seamstresses are also useful girls, you can't live without them. There are also pilots, drivers, salesmen, doctors, rescuers, beekeepers. They are all needed. Even call center operators and low-level managers are beneficial. Missionaries sometimes help people out in difficult life situations. But you, gentlemen, linguists, what are you doing? WHAT are you doing if you don't see THIS?

I'm not talking about the fact that some words generally have "ѣ" in the dative case. "Yat" is a complex letter, complex from all sides, much more complicated than "Image". But this! This is in any tutorial. It can only be overlooked on purpose. Only the blind will not see, but even he will understand that all this is one and the same part of the word. The changing part of the word. The only morpheme that changes for EVERY word at any opportunity, but does not change the essence of the word, is the ending. Even, in English, if it’s more convenient for you, “flexion” is “flexible”, that is, capable of changing.

Let's calm down. Okay, now we know what endings are. Before we write them into the rules of our decoding, let's find out their meanings. Fortunately for us, words in Russian do not end with consonants, which means that the search will not take much time. Especially when you consider that we have put all the vowels on actions, and there are not so many truly global actions.

The letter a"

Without further ado, "A" can be taken for "creation."Who else but the first letter of the alphabet is responsible for such an important function. Yes, and it fits within the meaning. Let's remember a dozen words ending in the letter "A", or even better, just take some big school case table and look there for these examples in all cases, genders and numbers. Do not be lazy, find and see. Find-find, the text is not a living speech, while you are looking, will not run away … What do we see? All words in the singular in the nominative case that have the ending "A" are constructive concepts, that is, they are capable of creating something. Apparently, therefore, the feminine gender. Indeed, only women are able to create their own kind within themselves and out of themselves.

Farther. The ending "A" is present in words in the genitive singular. They point to the same thing, to creation. We are used to asking a very strange question for determining the ending in the genitive case "Nothing?", Although the very name of the case just yells: "Parent of whom?" Son "," The birth of whom? Calf "," The appearance of what? Snow ". That is, in the genitive case, the action takes place over the object, this is the action of birth, appearance, creation. Okay, everything fits. In the plural, it’s probably not worth going into the plural.

Let's now look at the letter "U" already known to us. It is only present in the dative case. Give to what? Give to whom? How can you give something to someone without specifying the subject or addressee? Perfect fit!

The letter "O" as an ending

Cloud, lake, haze, morning, bottom, courage. Interesting words, right? Some kind of incomprehensibility emanates from them. Either objects, or concepts, vague formulations and no specifics. Here we had a "table", also with the letter "O", but the table is quite understandable and specific, right here, under the keyboard, you can touch it. Can you touch these? Here's how to feel the morning? To begin with, to reach for the haze, and to feel the courage. These, if I may say so, "things", it is generally not clear what they are. For example, a "cloud" floats across the sky, we see it, so to speak, we can touch it with our eyes, but it is constantly in motion, it constantly changes its shape, every moment of its existence it is different. It belongs to the middle genus, and the neuter gender is always somewhere in the middle, it is constant somewhere in between. Neither one nor the other, forever undetermined in itself and in relation to the observer. This is an unknown, vague and incomprehensible, somehow incomprehensible, existing in one "person". This is "Image".

Ending "E"

Another neuter genus. "Heart", "Sun", "Field", "Sea", "Mountain". It seems to me, or these words are somehow livelier or something. Not as cold and abstract as their middle-class brothers with the letter "O" at the end. These people feel some kind of invisible animation and tangible independence. The heart, as if beating by itself, the sun itself shines, and the field itself lives. The monster and the mustache seemed to have grown on their own to such ominous definitions. There, inside these, if I may say so, objects, there is some kind of internal motor, thanks to which they are able to "live" apart, regardless of the environment. Inside these "guys" their own constant, incessant life boils. The ecclesiastical meaning of the letter is "Is" or "I am". This, apparently, means that "the object is" or "the object exists." Well, that's fine. These … "objects" exist in the full sense of the word, apart, independently, and quite to themselves are kind of satisfied with this. There is nothing more to say about them, otherwise it is all also "usual" for the neuter genus unknown, vague and incomprehensible in one "face". So be it. "E" - existence, exists.

"Hard sign", "Soft sign"

Absolutely everything that has a consonant at the end in modern language ends with a solid sign. From the usual noun "stol" to verbs and pronouns such as "nashkodil" or "kak". You can't cook porridge here, there are too many different parameters to deduce the whole system of its use, one letter at a time. Let's look at "b", it is both more familiar and "softer", and at the same time, the similarity of these signs, even in writing, is striking. This means that everything that we dig up about the "soft sign" in one way or another can be attributed to the hard sign.

"Swamp", "Elm", "Flesh", "Pain", "Trill", "Stink", "Burn", "Though", "Blood", "Old". What do all these words have in common? Come on, let's pile up together … Not an easy letter, it's true. But all these words must have something in common, since they all end in the same sign. Some kind of common elusive property … Some of these words are also all vague and elusive, don't you think so? It is difficult to imagine them in a certain way, the same for all of us. So that “flesh” would say, and everyone would immediately present the same thing. No, no, exactly the same thing. For example, when we say "rabbit", we all immediately imagine a rabbit. Maybe different rabbits, but we at least imagine what a rabbit is. He jumps, looks with smart eyes, cracks carrots, does a lot of other things, alone and in pairs. But can you imagine "flesh" like that, or "swamp"? Unlikely. It means that these are again “images”. Oh, the trouble is with them. Let's leave for now too.

But the "rabbit", as we found out, is quite specific, explicit, understandable and definite for us and for ourselves. As well as "stol". And "stool". "Dom", "Smoke", "Snѣg", "muzhik", "blood", "flesh". All these are simple and understandable things that have a strictly definite meaning, not blurred by muddy and unsteady definitions. We say "raft" and immediately imagine a surface tightly bound by logs. They float on it on the water. It consists of logs and ropes, and we know how to assemble it and how to handle it. But we can also determine the "trill" by properties and functions? So, they decided, "b" indicates concreteness and certainty. And such are only objects that are ready for use and use, objects that are created, objects that are completed. We already had the letter "A", which creates and manifests; it will be logical to have a letter that will be responsible for the finished, "created" objects.

Have you forgotten anything? Well, then, finally, let's try to attach part of the word "ending" to the decryption system that we already have.

"Thunder". Movement (G) by the process (P) forms (O) "M", created by (b). Hmm. It turns out "M" and is formed, and at the same time is already created. Somehow not very good, right? Let's try with a thunderstorm and compare, maybe something will come out there.

"Thunderstorm". Movement (G) by process (R) forms (O) "W", creates (A). Now, here it is more interesting. "Z" is great for us, it is formed and immediately creates. Simple and straightforward. But how can this be? Indeed, in the genitive case, the word "thunder" will also be written with the ending "A" - "thunder". Different rules for different letters, discrimination again? Then why is our theory better if there are similar incidents in it?

Oh yes, what are we. After all, "b" and "A", these are the endings. Do the endings of a word refer to the previous letter? No, they refer to all the previous letters at once, scientifically speaking, the endings refer to the whole topic of the word. Well, then instead of a comma referring to the last word before the end, put a "semicolon", which will indicate that it does not refer to the last word in the sentence, but to the entire sentence at once. Schematically, we just put the ending value outside the brackets, and it will become clear what's what.

The meaning of the theme "thunder" is created, it is created.

The meaning of the theme of "thunderstorms" is creating, it creates.

The thunderstorm threatens all the time of its existence. Thunder - died down and disappeared, it is created. Thunder is a process, and thunder is the result. And note, so as not to get confused in the future. The word "thunderstorm" does not create, it creates the root of "thunderstorms". The word "thunderstorm" is a container in which there are two related meanings ("thunderstorm" and "a"), these are two sentences that complement each other with meaning and action. Like "Masha" and "crying".

In the last chapter, in pursuit of simplicity and understanding, we put aside, although we recognized it possible, one more bundle of composing monosyllabic sentences: "noun + participle." But it is no worse, and in many respects even better. More pleasant, I suppose. This friendliness in this ligament is not without reason, the participle combines the action of the verb and the definition of the adjective. But an adjective is not just a definition, it is a characteristic of an object, but it is always something personal, something that only we ourselves endow the object with, and thus the object becomes closer to us than all the others, even if similar. Retaining all the properties from the two parts of speech, participles are more affable than verbs and more lively than adjectives, participles create an atmosphere. Compare: “floating ball” - “the ball is floating”, “crying Masha” - “Masha is crying”.

But since participles are perceived better and at the same time retain all the properties of verbs, maybe for general beauty and better understanding, is it worth replacing them at least sometimes? Can't you say? Tell. And I ask, “Does the sacrament expresses action? This action coincides in meaning with the action of the verb from which it originated? Does the direction of the tense of the participle coincide with the direction of the tense of the verb? " I guess all three answers will be the same. This is what is required from the decoding of the abbreviation: to convey the meaning as clearly as possible and without losing the meaning. The participles do this task as well as verbs. You can say "created" or "creates". You can, but, you see, the participles "created" and "creating" at the end of the sentence look clearer. And not as cold as lonely verbs.

"Stol" … Welcome back, old man.

Now we even know that the table was created by someone, it is not an image that is not clear what it looks like. This is a concrete, material object with a clearly defined function and rules of execution, and how exactly it is performed is the tenth thing, let its creator decide. The creator is the creator for that, let him create. And what is the main thing for us? To contain, for that it is needed.

So we have at the moment: