February 28, 2010
How Can One Learn Russian Through Dostoevsky?
Как учиться русскому через Достоевского?
Well, I am not sure anynore. There has been a бунт, a rebellion, in my 204 course — I use the word that entitles the chapter in Братья Карамазовы in which Ivan details the crimes of men against innocent children.
So I feel like the God to whom Ivan decided to return the ticket of life — thanks, but no thanks, not on these terms.
Well, here are some ideas. I, in your position, I would really, really study the text, with my notes. I would listen to the recording of the Russian actor reading these pages; it’s a couple of hours in length for Part I, Chapters 1-7, those pages we are reading. I think the experience of reading over and over again, without having to use the dictionary, is a marvelous learning vehicle by itself. I would listen to the voices of the всеведущий рассказчик, пьяный Мармеладов, дорогая мамаша (которую Родя любит). I would memorize a few pages by heart for recitation.
But these are practices of mine that you know about already. You may have heard my recitation of the first eight pages of Nakobov’s chapter on Chernyshevsky. But you are not me. I already know a lot of Russian, you do not. How could you memorize pages from Crime and Punishment?
But you could, you could.
Some of you have objected that not all the words are on the bottom of the page. This argument is vitiated: true, true; but those words not on the page are in the glossary in the back of the book, so all the words are in the book. Those in the glossary are the most frequent words in the text, and you might read the glossary to see what they are. You do not need a dicitonary to read this.
But, as Byron justifiably complainted to me, you feel that you are losing your grip on Russian language. (At least Dostoevsky is not making you lose your grip on your sanity.) I understand; you want to continue advancing all your skills and feeling your speaking/writing/grammar atrophy. Indeed, I agree.
So I am encapsulating some grammar topics that are really and truly useful, in distinction to the abstract musings of Jakobson’s conjugation rules. I will jump on examples in our text that can present these grammar topics. So far: infinitive constructions, predications with не–, real and unreal conditions, and more. I will give you great examples from the heart of the novel itself.
A good example: Нет мамаша, нет Дунечка, не обмануть меня вам. Raskoln’kov here says, bitterly and angrily: “No, darling mother, no dear Dunia, you’re not going to trick me.” Here you see the tremendous modal power of the Russian infinitive. Check the word order: ‘not to trick me is-it-to-you (dative)’. And our latest handout has a set of expressive unreal conditions from a letter of the young Dostoevsky to his brother.
I think you have to tell me, precisely, what grammar you want to look at. Sasha has already mentioned that you want to speak more in class. She's right I am sure.
So we still have eight weeks left, and a magnificent murder lies ahead for us!
Счастливо,gmc
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Last Chapter on Conjugation
February 24, 2010
Russian Conjugation -- Finale
I’ve omitted quite a few details, all of which in the long run are important one way or another, but this has gone on long enough. We need a demonstration of what all this does and what its descriptive power is like.
Let’s take some of the base forms for verbs I discussed at the beginning of this discussion. The morphophemic stem p’ok is a velar stem, so it will have substitutive softening in the present endings 2nd sg to 2nd pl. The vocalic endings will have round vowels u and o, according to the rule of acuteness attraction, since the stem is itself unstressed, so that all endings bear a stress. So here is the present tense: p’okU, p’očOš, p’očOt, p’očOm, p’očOt’e, p’okUt. In Cyrillic this is пеку печёшь печёт печём печёте пекут. (The phonemic transcription will reveal the reductions in the vowels: p’iku p’ičoš.) The infinitive will be печь, as velar stems have infinitives in чь and o is not permitted between two soft or palatal consonants. The past tense will be, phonemically, p’ok, p’ikla, p’ikl’i, with end-stress everywhere, as the velar stems have, and with the masc ending l suppressed. The imperative, also stressed, will have i, causing bare softening: пеки.
This shows us that in producing the forms of the present, infinitive, and past tenses the stem category must be specified, since it spells out lexically within its entry the movement of stress and the interplay of consonants and vowels at morpheme boundaries. These interplays may be strongly conditioned by the category of the verb, namely, the type of the last C and the stress pattern.
The general rules, for example, V(1) plus V (2) > V(2), C(1) plus C(2) > C(2), apply across all stem categories. To see how widespread this is, let’s look at the verbs ending in j (spelled й, or as a soft vowel letter after a vowel). These are suffixed stems, unlike p’ok, and embrace a variety of derived stems, like спрашивать, опазывать, советовать, делать, уметь. Note that, of course, there is no jot (j) in any of these infinitives. Why? Because the j, seen as a C, is deleted before a C ending (an ending beginning in C), and so jot disappears before infinitive and past, but is maintained in the present and imperative with their V endings.
So: делаю делаешь делает делаем делаете делают. Note that to the learner the endings seem to be –ю, –ешь, –ет, еtc., which are analyzed into j-u, j-iš, etc. here. This analysis is hard to teach because the very Cyrillic spelling seems to belie it.
In Jakobson’s analysis, the endings are not ю, ешь. ет, etc., but rather u, iš, it, im it’i, ut, in phonemic transcription with reduced vowels. The phonemic spelling is crucial, because the rule of intensity attraction predicts unstressed endings will begin with a high (diffuse) vowel: u, i. And so it is. The morphophonemic base stem is d’él-aj—, showing the interior root and stem, with stem-stress througout. This predicts all of the forms of the verb. The jod is everywhere and in every case deleted before any C.
Most handbooks give the endings as the naive student sees them, and conveniently contrast them with stressed endings spelled like иду идёшь идёт идём идёте идут. The problem with jod remains, however. What was it doing in the endings of делать and then disappearing in идти? When you look at these stems in the wider context of Russian verbs, you have to concede that the jod is part of the verb stem that appears only before V, just like the n in denu, the v in živu.
In verbs like давать даЮ даёшь даёт, where the vowel of the ending bears stress (this is the so-called deep truncation before va), the vowel changes to o, as a stressed V in a hard stem (rule of acuteness attraction).
It is interesting that in Russian spelling we see e for phonemic i, and ё for phonemic o. The o developed from stressed e in Old Russian. Nonetheless Jakobson points out that the vowel of плАчешь ‘you weep’ and and that of вИдишь ‘you see’ are phonemically the same. In a more abstract analysis, you might want to derive the former from an underlying o, and the latter from an i. This, however, goes outside of Jakobson’s model, which in itself captures an important generalization.
Some more examples, to see what generalizations they conceal.
Жить живу живёшь живут, жил, жилА, жили. This is a resonant stem in v that behaves very much like jot stems, also resonants. The v is lost before the C-endings of infinitive and past. Endings of the present are stressed, and so bear the rounded vowels if not soft (rule of acuteness attraction). The morphophonemic base živ lacks a stress, so that the present endings are stressed, but in the past, there is mobile stress — only the feminine ending bears the stress, otherwise it stays on the stem.
Compare the stress of unstressed suffixed stems, where the mobility appears in the present, but the past has stressed fixed on the theme vowel. There is only one suffixed stems that has past mobility: родитьс(ся) родился, родилась 'to be born'. These may be very important verbs, e.g. l’ubi, kup’i, p’isa, poluči. Example of mobility: куплЮ кУпишь кУпит кУпим кУпите кУпят. купил, past tense купила, купили. The unstressed endings show a diffuse (high) vowel u, i (rule of intensity attraction — weaker position is unstressed, so weaker vowel (diffuse).
This neatly described the Russian of Jakobson’s Moscow generation, where people said видют, учут though they wrote видят, учат. Now this is archaic and the rule is less attractive today. But still serviceable!
Looking briefly at the consonantal unsuffixed stems, we see an unproductive but important group. There are eight C’s, after the resonants j n m l r, that verbs may end with, and they are the very symmetrical group p b t d s z k g. Four voiced, four voiceless, two dental fricatives, four stops, two labial, two dental, two velar. They share an important trait: they maintain the group C(1) -C (2) at least some of the time. They are the exception that proves the rule!
Those in labials and dental plosives change those stops to s before the infinitive ending -ти. Dental stop stems lose their stop only before the past tense: в’ед– > вести вёл велА велИ. Velars lost the stop only in the infinitive (печь). Dental fricatives preserve their final consonant everywhere: несу несёшь несут, нести, нёс, несла, несло, несли, нёсший, неси.
One of my favorite C-stems is the velar žg– ‘burn’, present žgu, žžoš, žžot (жгу жжёшь жжёт), where the long жж is pronounced soft (palatalized), as it is both across morpheme boundaries and in roots, as in извозчик ‘coachman, driver’, вожжи ‘reins’, дрожжи ‘yeast’. Past tense of the verb is жёг (the masculine past drops the ending l, but keeps the velar; a fill vowel is necessary so the word can be pronounced) жгла жгли жгли, infinitive (с)жечь like печь, and past passive participle (со)жжён with that beautiful palatal.
That’s all for this topic,
gmc
Russian Conjugation -- Finale
I’ve omitted quite a few details, all of which in the long run are important one way or another, but this has gone on long enough. We need a demonstration of what all this does and what its descriptive power is like.
Let’s take some of the base forms for verbs I discussed at the beginning of this discussion. The morphophemic stem p’ok is a velar stem, so it will have substitutive softening in the present endings 2nd sg to 2nd pl. The vocalic endings will have round vowels u and o, according to the rule of acuteness attraction, since the stem is itself unstressed, so that all endings bear a stress. So here is the present tense: p’okU, p’očOš, p’očOt, p’očOm, p’očOt’e, p’okUt. In Cyrillic this is пеку печёшь печёт печём печёте пекут. (The phonemic transcription will reveal the reductions in the vowels: p’iku p’ičoš.) The infinitive will be печь, as velar stems have infinitives in чь and o is not permitted between two soft or palatal consonants. The past tense will be, phonemically, p’ok, p’ikla, p’ikl’i, with end-stress everywhere, as the velar stems have, and with the masc ending l suppressed. The imperative, also stressed, will have i, causing bare softening: пеки.
This shows us that in producing the forms of the present, infinitive, and past tenses the stem category must be specified, since it spells out lexically within its entry the movement of stress and the interplay of consonants and vowels at morpheme boundaries. These interplays may be strongly conditioned by the category of the verb, namely, the type of the last C and the stress pattern.
The general rules, for example, V(1) plus V (2) > V(2), C(1) plus C(2) > C(2), apply across all stem categories. To see how widespread this is, let’s look at the verbs ending in j (spelled й, or as a soft vowel letter after a vowel). These are suffixed stems, unlike p’ok, and embrace a variety of derived stems, like спрашивать, опазывать, советовать, делать, уметь. Note that, of course, there is no jot (j) in any of these infinitives. Why? Because the j, seen as a C, is deleted before a C ending (an ending beginning in C), and so jot disappears before infinitive and past, but is maintained in the present and imperative with their V endings.
So: делаю делаешь делает делаем делаете делают. Note that to the learner the endings seem to be –ю, –ешь, –ет, еtc., which are analyzed into j-u, j-iš, etc. here. This analysis is hard to teach because the very Cyrillic spelling seems to belie it.
In Jakobson’s analysis, the endings are not ю, ешь. ет, etc., but rather u, iš, it, im it’i, ut, in phonemic transcription with reduced vowels. The phonemic spelling is crucial, because the rule of intensity attraction predicts unstressed endings will begin with a high (diffuse) vowel: u, i. And so it is. The morphophonemic base stem is d’él-aj—, showing the interior root and stem, with stem-stress througout. This predicts all of the forms of the verb. The jod is everywhere and in every case deleted before any C.
Most handbooks give the endings as the naive student sees them, and conveniently contrast them with stressed endings spelled like иду идёшь идёт идём идёте идут. The problem with jod remains, however. What was it doing in the endings of делать and then disappearing in идти? When you look at these stems in the wider context of Russian verbs, you have to concede that the jod is part of the verb stem that appears only before V, just like the n in denu, the v in živu.
In verbs like давать даЮ даёшь даёт, where the vowel of the ending bears stress (this is the so-called deep truncation before va), the vowel changes to o, as a stressed V in a hard stem (rule of acuteness attraction).
It is interesting that in Russian spelling we see e for phonemic i, and ё for phonemic o. The o developed from stressed e in Old Russian. Nonetheless Jakobson points out that the vowel of плАчешь ‘you weep’ and and that of вИдишь ‘you see’ are phonemically the same. In a more abstract analysis, you might want to derive the former from an underlying o, and the latter from an i. This, however, goes outside of Jakobson’s model, which in itself captures an important generalization.
Some more examples, to see what generalizations they conceal.
Жить живу живёшь живут, жил, жилА, жили. This is a resonant stem in v that behaves very much like jot stems, also resonants. The v is lost before the C-endings of infinitive and past. Endings of the present are stressed, and so bear the rounded vowels if not soft (rule of acuteness attraction). The morphophonemic base živ lacks a stress, so that the present endings are stressed, but in the past, there is mobile stress — only the feminine ending bears the stress, otherwise it stays on the stem.
Compare the stress of unstressed suffixed stems, where the mobility appears in the present, but the past has stressed fixed on the theme vowel. There is only one suffixed stems that has past mobility: родитьс(ся) родился, родилась 'to be born'. These may be very important verbs, e.g. l’ubi, kup’i, p’isa, poluči. Example of mobility: куплЮ кУпишь кУпит кУпим кУпите кУпят. купил, past tense купила, купили. The unstressed endings show a diffuse (high) vowel u, i (rule of intensity attraction — weaker position is unstressed, so weaker vowel (diffuse).
This neatly described the Russian of Jakobson’s Moscow generation, where people said видют, учут though they wrote видят, учат. Now this is archaic and the rule is less attractive today. But still serviceable!
Looking briefly at the consonantal unsuffixed stems, we see an unproductive but important group. There are eight C’s, after the resonants j n m l r, that verbs may end with, and they are the very symmetrical group p b t d s z k g. Four voiced, four voiceless, two dental fricatives, four stops, two labial, two dental, two velar. They share an important trait: they maintain the group C(1) -C (2) at least some of the time. They are the exception that proves the rule!
Those in labials and dental plosives change those stops to s before the infinitive ending -ти. Dental stop stems lose their stop only before the past tense: в’ед– > вести вёл велА велИ. Velars lost the stop only in the infinitive (печь). Dental fricatives preserve their final consonant everywhere: несу несёшь несут, нести, нёс, несла, несло, несли, нёсший, неси.
One of my favorite C-stems is the velar žg– ‘burn’, present žgu, žžoš, žžot (жгу жжёшь жжёт), where the long жж is pronounced soft (palatalized), as it is both across morpheme boundaries and in roots, as in извозчик ‘coachman, driver’, вожжи ‘reins’, дрожжи ‘yeast’. Past tense of the verb is жёг (the masculine past drops the ending l, but keeps the velar; a fill vowel is necessary so the word can be pronounced) жгла жгли жгли, infinitive (с)жечь like печь, and past passive participle (со)жжён with that beautiful palatal.
That’s all for this topic,
gmc
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Russian Conjugation IV
Russian Conjugation IV
Softness or hardness of the final C. If the final C is soft (palatal or palatalized) it stays soft throughout, and in the 1st sg it is substitutive: вижу видишь видят, люблю любишь любят. As we saw in the last chapter, C-a in a polysyllabic stem (that is, not бра—ть, жда—ть, зва—ть) is substitutively soft before any V. This produces писать писал написан написав ~ пишу пишешь пишут пиши. Without a doubt this is a difficulty for learners, especially when you throw in the past passive participle and get попрошен, куплен, отвечен, but написан, смазан, выколот.
Things are also tricky in the closed stems (consonantal, suffixless), where only the velar stems taken substitutive softening, the others, simple softening. Hence we get: переведён, вывезен ~ испечён, сожжён.
If we understand the types говорить сидеть молчать бояться, писать, мазать, искать, плакать, we turn now to see what happens to the C at the end of all other stem types. It undergoes bare or simple softening before any vowel other than u. Velars display this bare softening only before the zero imperative ending, elsewhere they are subsтitutive. The present tense endings o and i alternate here. Example: лгать ‘to lie, tell untruths’ лгу лжёшь лжёт лгут, лгал, ждать ‘wait for’ жду ждёшь ждут ждал, печь ‘to bake’ пеку печёшь печёт пекут. This includes a number of very important suffixed as well as non-suffixed stems, such as — I give the 3rd sg — живёт, едет, идёт, тонет, исчезнет, берёт зовёт умрёт крадёт.
The imperative. This is a remarkable category, as it has a zero alternating with i (softening the final C). No other inflectional endings in nouns or verbal does this — but no other category is quite like the imperative in function. The vowel occurs after two consonants or with fixed stem stress. будь, оставь, познакомься, ответь, читай, спрашивай, арестуй; чисти, изчезн. Note all the suffixed stems in —j with fixed stress on the stem, and see the two ways Russian has of spelling zero after a soft C: soft sign, short i. Mobile stress items have i: купи, получи, пиши, ищи.
Note the strange-looking imperatives in velars сядь ‘sit’ from сесть and ляг, лягте ‘lie’ from лечь лягу ляжешь. The imperative of this latter has a zero, all right, but no softening at all.
The group j—i is admitted only if the full stem ends in ji—. There aren’t many examples, but one of them is таи ‘hide’ from taji—, but stoj— by rule gives стой, пьй—, пей. Note бояться боишься but бойся, according to his rule here, also смеяться смеёшься смейся, also петь поёт поют, пой, all according to this seeming ad hoc rule.
One more chapter to pull thing together. I will take some sample verbs and show how his rule derives their forms.
This article — if you are still suffering through this summary — came out of a bet Jakobson had with the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield, namely, that he could make a set of fully synthronic rules (not referring to historical data) for the explicit derivation of the Russian verb from a single base form.
As I say, people have gone crazy over this for years
gmc
Softness or hardness of the final C. If the final C is soft (palatal or palatalized) it stays soft throughout, and in the 1st sg it is substitutive: вижу видишь видят, люблю любишь любят. As we saw in the last chapter, C-a in a polysyllabic stem (that is, not бра—ть, жда—ть, зва—ть) is substitutively soft before any V. This produces писать писал написан написав ~ пишу пишешь пишут пиши. Without a doubt this is a difficulty for learners, especially when you throw in the past passive participle and get попрошен, куплен, отвечен, but написан, смазан, выколот.
Things are also tricky in the closed stems (consonantal, suffixless), where only the velar stems taken substitutive softening, the others, simple softening. Hence we get: переведён, вывезен ~ испечён, сожжён.
If we understand the types говорить сидеть молчать бояться, писать, мазать, искать, плакать, we turn now to see what happens to the C at the end of all other stem types. It undergoes bare or simple softening before any vowel other than u. Velars display this bare softening only before the zero imperative ending, elsewhere they are subsтitutive. The present tense endings o and i alternate here. Example: лгать ‘to lie, tell untruths’ лгу лжёшь лжёт лгут, лгал, ждать ‘wait for’ жду ждёшь ждут ждал, печь ‘to bake’ пеку печёшь печёт пекут. This includes a number of very important suffixed as well as non-suffixed stems, such as — I give the 3rd sg — живёт, едет, идёт, тонет, исчезнет, берёт зовёт умрёт крадёт.
The imperative. This is a remarkable category, as it has a zero alternating with i (softening the final C). No other inflectional endings in nouns or verbal does this — but no other category is quite like the imperative in function. The vowel occurs after two consonants or with fixed stem stress. будь, оставь, познакомься, ответь, читай, спрашивай, арестуй; чисти, изчезн. Note all the suffixed stems in —j with fixed stress on the stem, and see the two ways Russian has of spelling zero after a soft C: soft sign, short i. Mobile stress items have i: купи, получи, пиши, ищи.
Note the strange-looking imperatives in velars сядь ‘sit’ from сесть and ляг, лягте ‘lie’ from лечь лягу ляжешь. The imperative of this latter has a zero, all right, but no softening at all.
The group j—i is admitted only if the full stem ends in ji—. There aren’t many examples, but one of them is таи ‘hide’ from taji—, but stoj— by rule gives стой, пьй—, пей. Note бояться боишься but бойся, according to his rule here, also смеяться смеёшься смейся, also петь поёт поют, пой, all according to this seeming ad hoc rule.
One more chapter to pull thing together. I will take some sample verbs and show how his rule derives their forms.
This article — if you are still suffering through this summary — came out of a bet Jakobson had with the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield, namely, that he could make a set of fully synthronic rules (not referring to historical data) for the explicit derivation of the Russian verb from a single base form.
As I say, people have gone crazy over this for years
gmc
Friday, February 12, 2010
Russian Conjugation III
Thursday, February 11
Russian Conjugation III
Another concomitant change is the familiar suffixal -ova- of the infinitive/past going to -uj- in he present. He puts it: “Before dropped a, the group ov is replaced by uj”. It can also be part of the root: ковать кую ‘forge’, and two of my favorites, плевать ‘to spit’, плюю, блевать блюю ‘to vomit; notice the soft C in the stem that accounts for the юю; and the more familiar совет—овать совет—ую ‘advise’, танц—евать, танцую ‘dance’.
In the same category of concomitant changes Jakobson puts the limited changes of the vowel o in monosyllables and zero in nonsyllabic stems, before dropped j, to i: мою моешъ моют, мыть мыл ‘wash’; пьй—у (пью), пить, пил ‘drink’. Note that ‘i’ comes out ы if the preceding C is hard, but и if it is soft. (The morphophonemic base of this last verb is p’j—, as the zero cannot occur before the infinitive or past masc. morpheme, but i could occur in all these environments. This also sets up the explanation of the imperative of this verb, Part IV, to come.)
Before dropped nasal, zero in monosyllabic stems is replaced by a: на–чн—ут, на–чал ‘begin’.
Now to scrutinize some other stem structures. An open full stem can end in any of the five V’s i, e, a, o, u. The last C before the V is soft (palatal ч щ ж ш or palatalized) before e and i, hard before u and o, and hard or palatal (never palatalized) before a.
This is really a remarkable generalization. We get говорить ‘speak’, видеть ‘see’, молчать ‘be silent’, писать ‘write’, исчезнуть ‘disappear’, колоть ‘stab’. The stems morphophonemically are govor’—i, v’id’—e, molč—a, p’is—a, isčez—nu, kol—o.
I haven’t noted the stresses, as they are a further complication, but it is a stroke of great originality that he uses stress to help determine the present tense endings. There is no talk of first or second conjugation at all. Instead the acoustic distinctive features are invoked here.
If the endings are stressed, he says, they begin with an unrounded vowel in soft open full stems, like those of говорить, молчать above: говорят, говорит, молчат, молчит. (The first sg is always у/ю). If the stem is NOT soft, open, and full, the endings begin with a rounded V: So ждать. ждёшь, ждут, нести, несёшь, несут. This is the rule of acuteness attraction. Soft stems (palatal and palatalized) take unflatted (unrounded) vowels (i, a), and hard stems take flatted or rounded vowels (o, a). The roundness also reduces the pitch, so o and u are grave in this opposition, while i and u are acute.
If unstressed, all stems have endings beginning with a high vowel (see Conjugation part 1): u, i. This the the rule of intensity attraction. Unstressed vowels are less sonorous than stressed vowels. The high vowels are diffuse and of lesser sonority, while the low vowels are more sonorous.
Note how these rules account for the vowels in рабОтает, спрАшивает, пИшет, Едет (pronounced i) as well as those in живёт, ждёт, начнёт, which we ‘feel’ are somehow part of the same conjugational pattern, vs. the soft open full stems, which are ‘second’ conjugation and have i, a.
This remarkably original idea has proven far too abstract for teaching purposes, to say the least.
In soft full stems (palatal or palalatized) the final C of the stem preserves its softness throughout, but in the first sg it is substitutive. This is the переходное смягение that we see in derived imperfectives like спрашивать and in past passive participles like спрошен. Here are the correspondences:
t k ч (щ)
x s ш
g d z ж
zg zd жж
sk st щ
l r л’ р’
p b пл бл
m мл
f фл
v вл
Сижу, куплю, люблю, вижу, мажу, пишу, чищу, графлю.
A stem-final C followed by a or o in a polysyllabic stem is softened substitutively before any V ending. This is a very general rule that seems somehow ad hoc. Why does this take place in polysyllabics? Isn’t there some deep j that got in there somehow? This has always been a sticking point for readers. It produces писать, пишу from p’isa— but пИсать пИсаю from p’isaj—.
The fourth and last part of Russian Conjugation will follow.
gmc
Russian Conjugation III
Another concomitant change is the familiar suffixal -ova- of the infinitive/past going to -uj- in he present. He puts it: “Before dropped a, the group ov is replaced by uj”. It can also be part of the root: ковать кую ‘forge’, and two of my favorites, плевать ‘to spit’, плюю, блевать блюю ‘to vomit; notice the soft C in the stem that accounts for the юю; and the more familiar совет—овать совет—ую ‘advise’, танц—евать, танцую ‘dance’.
In the same category of concomitant changes Jakobson puts the limited changes of the vowel o in monosyllables and zero in nonsyllabic stems, before dropped j, to i: мою моешъ моют, мыть мыл ‘wash’; пьй—у (пью), пить, пил ‘drink’. Note that ‘i’ comes out ы if the preceding C is hard, but и if it is soft. (The morphophonemic base of this last verb is p’j—, as the zero cannot occur before the infinitive or past masc. morpheme, but i could occur in all these environments. This also sets up the explanation of the imperative of this verb, Part IV, to come.)
Before dropped nasal, zero in monosyllabic stems is replaced by a: на–чн—ут, на–чал ‘begin’.
Now to scrutinize some other stem structures. An open full stem can end in any of the five V’s i, e, a, o, u. The last C before the V is soft (palatal ч щ ж ш or palatalized) before e and i, hard before u and o, and hard or palatal (never palatalized) before a.
This is really a remarkable generalization. We get говорить ‘speak’, видеть ‘see’, молчать ‘be silent’, писать ‘write’, исчезнуть ‘disappear’, колоть ‘stab’. The stems morphophonemically are govor’—i, v’id’—e, molč—a, p’is—a, isčez—nu, kol—o.
I haven’t noted the stresses, as they are a further complication, but it is a stroke of great originality that he uses stress to help determine the present tense endings. There is no talk of first or second conjugation at all. Instead the acoustic distinctive features are invoked here.
If the endings are stressed, he says, they begin with an unrounded vowel in soft open full stems, like those of говорить, молчать above: говорят, говорит, молчат, молчит. (The first sg is always у/ю). If the stem is NOT soft, open, and full, the endings begin with a rounded V: So ждать. ждёшь, ждут, нести, несёшь, несут. This is the rule of acuteness attraction. Soft stems (palatal and palatalized) take unflatted (unrounded) vowels (i, a), and hard stems take flatted or rounded vowels (o, a). The roundness also reduces the pitch, so o and u are grave in this opposition, while i and u are acute.
If unstressed, all stems have endings beginning with a high vowel (see Conjugation part 1): u, i. This the the rule of intensity attraction. Unstressed vowels are less sonorous than stressed vowels. The high vowels are diffuse and of lesser sonority, while the low vowels are more sonorous.
Note how these rules account for the vowels in рабОтает, спрАшивает, пИшет, Едет (pronounced i) as well as those in живёт, ждёт, начнёт, which we ‘feel’ are somehow part of the same conjugational pattern, vs. the soft open full stems, which are ‘second’ conjugation and have i, a.
This remarkably original idea has proven far too abstract for teaching purposes, to say the least.
In soft full stems (palatal or palalatized) the final C of the stem preserves its softness throughout, but in the first sg it is substitutive. This is the переходное смягение that we see in derived imperfectives like спрашивать and in past passive participles like спрошен. Here are the correspondences:
t k ч (щ)
x s ш
g d z ж
zg zd жж
sk st щ
l r л’ р’
p b пл бл
m мл
f фл
v вл
Сижу, куплю, люблю, вижу, мажу, пишу, чищу, графлю.
A stem-final C followed by a or o in a polysyllabic stem is softened substitutively before any V ending. This is a very general rule that seems somehow ad hoc. Why does this take place in polysyllabics? Isn’t there some deep j that got in there somehow? This has always been a sticking point for readers. It produces писать, пишу from p’isa— but пИсать пИсаю from p’isaj—.
The fourth and last part of Russian Conjugation will follow.
gmc
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Saints Win
February 9, 2010
Saints Win! We Win!
This, the third and final postseason game for the fate-favored heavenly New Orleans Saints, was special. Now can I not carp and whine about slamming the quarterback, the knock-‘em-down-kill-‘em flavor of the Warner and Favre victories; this was a pure psychological victory. The Saints cashed in their “Bring the Wood” baseball metaphor, which Reggie Bush enthusiastically embraced and in the full flush of the bat he led them to victory with his slashing open-field running against the Cardianls. Now it was, what, a chess game, or a poker game, a beat-‘em-mentally game.
The amazing surprise of what the special teams on the Saints call their ‘ambush’ — the onside kick, and in an unbelievably daring moment, at the outset of the third quarter (it had never been attempted so early in a championship game) — had Peyton Manning and the Colts downcast and dispirited. They had been planning on a long, productive drive downfield to another touchdown, which would have made the score 17-6. Of course, the ‘ambush’ was risky, but if successful, the Saints’ coach gambled, the Saints would maintain the momentum they had controlled for the entire second quarter. And so it was. The Saints’ kicker, asked if he had been nervous, said “I was terrified.” But he did it and, by the luck of the draw, the Saints found it. It was then the Saints who drove and scored their first touchdown of the game to open the second half, and it was the Colts upon whom the realization dawned that this was going to be a very tough game, and a mental game. It was not to be “Bring the Wood,” it was to be a battle of brains.
The first quarter found the Colts moving the ball up and down at will, looking for all the world as though they would run away and hide. But then the second quarter found the Saints and Drew Brees moving the ball up and down at will and eating the clock, gobbling the time away while Manning sat glowering like a horror movie protagonist — I tell you, that’s what he looked like as he sat limply waiting.
I liked how the second quarter ended, with a goal-line drive which failed for the Saints on a running play. It was, I think, a good call. Time was running out and the Colts, when they inherited the ball, were back almost to their goal line. There was time enough — three minutes and more — for Manning to do something, but his response was weak and timid: three running plays and out. Suddenly the Saints had the ball again and, with Garrett Hartley’s charmed foot, were able to kick the field goal that they had disdained earlier. So it was 10-6 and absolutely no harm done by the fourth-down run which had failed. The Colts were already primed for the set-down, already looking defensive, and the opening ambush of the third quarter, which returned the ball and, soon, the lead, to the Saints, as I say, dispirited them.
Sometime in last quarter, I believe, it was the Colts facing a fourth down, but instead of going for it, they kicked, and missed, a fifty-one-yard field goal attempt. One has no pity for such weakness. Sorry to crow, but a championship team has to know better.
They were playing just about errorless football, as were the Saints. No egregious fumbles lost, no big turnovers, no — shall I say it — no interceptions. But this was the Saints’ specialty in 2009-10, anticipating the pass and picking it, and here it came. “I could see it, I could smell it,” said Tracy Porter, “I have seen him do this so many times in film review. I knew the route and the intended receiver, Bruce Wayne, so at the right moment I stepped out on the coverage and in front of my man. Then I was home.”
Final score 31-17. Sounds more one-sided than it was, or was it? We had them beat all the way.
“We never got our momentum,” said Manning. The Saints took it away.
I don’t like football, but I did enjoy that game. Who Dat!
gmc
Saints Win! We Win!
This, the third and final postseason game for the fate-favored heavenly New Orleans Saints, was special. Now can I not carp and whine about slamming the quarterback, the knock-‘em-down-kill-‘em flavor of the Warner and Favre victories; this was a pure psychological victory. The Saints cashed in their “Bring the Wood” baseball metaphor, which Reggie Bush enthusiastically embraced and in the full flush of the bat he led them to victory with his slashing open-field running against the Cardianls. Now it was, what, a chess game, or a poker game, a beat-‘em-mentally game.
The amazing surprise of what the special teams on the Saints call their ‘ambush’ — the onside kick, and in an unbelievably daring moment, at the outset of the third quarter (it had never been attempted so early in a championship game) — had Peyton Manning and the Colts downcast and dispirited. They had been planning on a long, productive drive downfield to another touchdown, which would have made the score 17-6. Of course, the ‘ambush’ was risky, but if successful, the Saints’ coach gambled, the Saints would maintain the momentum they had controlled for the entire second quarter. And so it was. The Saints’ kicker, asked if he had been nervous, said “I was terrified.” But he did it and, by the luck of the draw, the Saints found it. It was then the Saints who drove and scored their first touchdown of the game to open the second half, and it was the Colts upon whom the realization dawned that this was going to be a very tough game, and a mental game. It was not to be “Bring the Wood,” it was to be a battle of brains.
The first quarter found the Colts moving the ball up and down at will, looking for all the world as though they would run away and hide. But then the second quarter found the Saints and Drew Brees moving the ball up and down at will and eating the clock, gobbling the time away while Manning sat glowering like a horror movie protagonist — I tell you, that’s what he looked like as he sat limply waiting.
I liked how the second quarter ended, with a goal-line drive which failed for the Saints on a running play. It was, I think, a good call. Time was running out and the Colts, when they inherited the ball, were back almost to their goal line. There was time enough — three minutes and more — for Manning to do something, but his response was weak and timid: three running plays and out. Suddenly the Saints had the ball again and, with Garrett Hartley’s charmed foot, were able to kick the field goal that they had disdained earlier. So it was 10-6 and absolutely no harm done by the fourth-down run which had failed. The Colts were already primed for the set-down, already looking defensive, and the opening ambush of the third quarter, which returned the ball and, soon, the lead, to the Saints, as I say, dispirited them.
Sometime in last quarter, I believe, it was the Colts facing a fourth down, but instead of going for it, they kicked, and missed, a fifty-one-yard field goal attempt. One has no pity for such weakness. Sorry to crow, but a championship team has to know better.
They were playing just about errorless football, as were the Saints. No egregious fumbles lost, no big turnovers, no — shall I say it — no interceptions. But this was the Saints’ specialty in 2009-10, anticipating the pass and picking it, and here it came. “I could see it, I could smell it,” said Tracy Porter, “I have seen him do this so many times in film review. I knew the route and the intended receiver, Bruce Wayne, so at the right moment I stepped out on the coverage and in front of my man. Then I was home.”
Final score 31-17. Sounds more one-sided than it was, or was it? We had them beat all the way.
“We never got our momentum,” said Manning. The Saints took it away.
I don’t like football, but I did enjoy that game. Who Dat!
gmc
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Russian Conjugation II
February 3, 2010
More on Russian Conjugation
I continue here my brief summary of the principles in Jakobson’s epochal article of 1948, “Russian Conjugation.”
The present tense and the imperative use vocalic endings (V), while the past tense and infinitive use consonantal endings (C). This is the basic opposition in the system. Most verbs have, to the observer, two very similar stems, one ending in a C and taking V endings, the other ending in a V and taking C endings. They form a dichotomy.
Examples: жив—у, жив—ёшь, жив—ёт, and so on, for the present and imperative; these stems end in a consonant, but endings start with a V.
Past: жи—л, жил—а. жил—и, infinitive жить. These all have stems ending in a consonant (here, a resonant), and endings in V.
For this overarching rule, sonorants and resonants are considered consonants, but they form a special subdivision of consonants, as we will see.
Then stems are classified. Open full stems lose their final V before a V. So, still using Cyrillic, лёжа—у > лёжу ‘I am lying down’, and so on for the present tense лёжу—ишь, лёж—ит, but past лёжа—л, лёжать.
Narrowly closed stems are those in the sonorants j, v, m, n, which acoustically are more like vowels, but still are not full vowels. These stems are always closed before any V and always open before any C. Using Roman letters for analysis: d’elaj—u ~ d’ela—la. See how the j disappears in the Russian spelling: делаю делаешь.
Then there is another important, but unproductive class, the broadly closed stems, those in k g t d s z b r. They are all ‘irregular’ but central to the system, something like strong verbs in English. You have to know them and use them all the time, but they are special. These stems stay intact before some of the C endings, even though they end in C’s.
In this class, terminal dentals drop only before the past ending: v’od—u ‘I lead’ but v’ol (вёл) ‘I led’. Stems in s z b r are never truncated, keeping their C’s always: несу несёшь несёт; нёс, нёсла; нёсти. (Notice what happens in the past tense here: нёс—л# in the masculine turns into нёс).
Deep truncation is one of my favorite Jakobson terms (it calls to mind Adorno in its esoteric allure). Example: the suffix ну drops in the past if it means ‘change of state’: исчезнуть, исчез, исчезла ‘to disappear’. Another example: before j—, the group va, if preceded by a, is omitted in the present (not the imperative) and the stress falls on the following syllable. This sounds complicated and it is indeed hard for you to learn. It is very much like a strong verb in English.
So: давать ‘to give’, продавать ‘to sell’, отдавать ‘to give over, to pass’, have the present tenses даю даёшь даёт даём даёте дают, and so on. This works also for compounds of -знавать and –ставать.
gmc
More on Russian Conjugation
I continue here my brief summary of the principles in Jakobson’s epochal article of 1948, “Russian Conjugation.”
The present tense and the imperative use vocalic endings (V), while the past tense and infinitive use consonantal endings (C). This is the basic opposition in the system. Most verbs have, to the observer, two very similar stems, one ending in a C and taking V endings, the other ending in a V and taking C endings. They form a dichotomy.
Examples: жив—у, жив—ёшь, жив—ёт, and so on, for the present and imperative; these stems end in a consonant, but endings start with a V.
Past: жи—л, жил—а. жил—и, infinitive жить. These all have stems ending in a consonant (here, a resonant), and endings in V.
For this overarching rule, sonorants and resonants are considered consonants, but they form a special subdivision of consonants, as we will see.
Then stems are classified. Open full stems lose their final V before a V. So, still using Cyrillic, лёжа—у > лёжу ‘I am lying down’, and so on for the present tense лёжу—ишь, лёж—ит, but past лёжа—л, лёжать.
Narrowly closed stems are those in the sonorants j, v, m, n, which acoustically are more like vowels, but still are not full vowels. These stems are always closed before any V and always open before any C. Using Roman letters for analysis: d’elaj—u ~ d’ela—la. See how the j disappears in the Russian spelling: делаю делаешь.
Then there is another important, but unproductive class, the broadly closed stems, those in k g t d s z b r. They are all ‘irregular’ but central to the system, something like strong verbs in English. You have to know them and use them all the time, but they are special. These stems stay intact before some of the C endings, even though they end in C’s.
In this class, terminal dentals drop only before the past ending: v’od—u ‘I lead’ but v’ol (вёл) ‘I led’. Stems in s z b r are never truncated, keeping their C’s always: несу несёшь несёт; нёс, нёсла; нёсти. (Notice what happens in the past tense here: нёс—л# in the masculine turns into нёс).
Deep truncation is one of my favorite Jakobson terms (it calls to mind Adorno in its esoteric allure). Example: the suffix ну drops in the past if it means ‘change of state’: исчезнуть, исчез, исчезла ‘to disappear’. Another example: before j—, the group va, if preceded by a, is omitted in the present (not the imperative) and the stress falls on the following syllable. This sounds complicated and it is indeed hard for you to learn. It is very much like a strong verb in English.
So: давать ‘to give’, продавать ‘to sell’, отдавать ‘to give over, to pass’, have the present tenses даю даёшь даёт даём даёте дают, and so on. This works also for compounds of -знавать and –ставать.
gmc
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
