CC BY
95
Section 14. Philology and linguistics
Moscow at the foot ofVorobyovy Gory. Curiously other printed texts were bound to the copy of the 1898 edition.
In one binding with «Miterikon», we found the list of editions of Athos Russian Panteleimonov Monastery, «Lay of seven cheese days» of the saint Tikhon Zadon-sky (printed at the Saint-Petersburg synodal typography in 1899 according to the determination of the Holy Synod) as well as instructions of the saint Efrem Sirin «Flowers from the garden of the saint Efrem Sirin» (published in Moscow at the Synodal typography in 1883). Who and why combined these «sacred» texts?! It is clear that the content of an ecclesiastical book for a believer is above formal nuances. The bishop Theophan says about it in his «Preface» (From the «Preface» to the first edition of «Miterikon»: «Not everything is translated, not because of me, but due
to the condition of the manuscript. Nothing significant is lost, though...»). However, for scientists, a book is a carrier of cultural codes, large socio-cultural space, spiritual memory of the mankind through which we learn history. In this aspect, translators, copyists, publishers and keepers of the manuscript of «Miterikon» played an important role in recreation of the historical truth and in the destiny of a separate book. Yes, copyists make mistakes; translators make mistakes; publishers and editors also do, as we can see. Not only a rare book, a historical document or a valuable manuscript suffers from it, but, primarily, history suffers and, eventually, a man themselves. Another question is whether there is a social historical regularity without which the history of a book wouldn’t be a history?! (The word «history» is translated from Greek as «discovering», «inquiring».)
References:
1. Isaiah of Egypt. Miterikon: collection of instructions. - M., Athos Russian Panteleimonov, 1891.
2. Isaiah, Abba of Nitriensis. Miterikon. - M., Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam monastery, 1995.
3. Likhacheva V. D. The role of household realia and landscape in the miniatures of the manuscript of the State Public Li-brary//Byzantian annals, - 1967. - № 27.
4. Milchin A. E. Publishing dictionary and reference: [electronic edition]. - 3rd edition, revised and updated. - M.: OLMA-Press, 2006.
5. Miterikon, collection of instructions of Abba Isaiah to the nun Feodora/translated by the bishop Theophan (Govorov). -Kyiv, 1891.
6. Miterikon, collection of instructions of Abba Isaiah to the honest nun Feodora. - M., 1898.
7. Miterikon, collection of instructions of Abba Isaiah to the honest nun Feodora. 3rd edition. - M., typolithography of I. Efimov, 1908.
8. Miterikon, collection of instructions ofAbba Isaiah to the honest nun Feodora/Epilogue and remarks of Morozova Yu. G. -М., Siberian goodness bell-tower, 2014.
9. Porphyrius (of Uspensk), bishop. Christian East. Athos. History of Athos. - Kyiv, 1877. - P. 3. - Monacal Athos.
Panteleev Audrey Feliksovitch, Southern Federal University, PhD in linguistics, associate Professor, Department of the Language theory and the Russian language
E-mail: AF3@yandex.ru
Dolmatova Anna Sergeevna, Southern Federal University, Master's degree in linguistics, Department of the Language theory and the Russian language
E-mail: flomasteri@mail.ru
Comparative in the poetry of Russian acmeism
Abstract: This article is devoted to the analysis of structures “comparative + genitive case of nominal parts of speech" in the language of Gumilev’s poetry because he is one of the most typical representatives in Russian acmeism. Comparative in the conjunction with a dependent genitive case of nominal parts of speech is one of the most common means of expressing the intensity of expression in the works of N. S. Gumilev. Examples occupy a special place of use within the meaning of the poet comparatives in the meaning of superlatives.
Keywords: comparative, expressiveness, intensity, intensifier, intensive, superlative.
Expressiveness as one of the properties of a linguistic Genetically a lot of expressive means are fixed by the system
unit is closely related to the category of emotional evalua- of language, including tropes and figures of speech, as well
tion in general and with the expression of the man’s emotions. as techniques for forming the verse trace to the peculiarities
82
Comparative in the poetry of Russian acmeism
of setting the statements in the emotive (effective) speech. This explains the similarity of the arsenal of expressive means and principles of functioning in the languages of different systems. It is typical in the works of a number of linguists that the category of expressiveness and emotion are identified [2]. E. M. Galkina-Fedoruk believes that “expression is a strengthening of significance and increasing the affecting force of what was said” [1]. To convey expressive, language makes resort to split-level means which represent such forming levels of a language as phonetics, lexicology, morphology and syntax. Thus grammatical units interact with lexical. This article attempts to analyze the specific of the operation of comparatives as a means of creating expressive language in Gumilev’s poetry.
Significant place among the comparative structures which can be found in the poetry of N. S. Gumilev takes the constrictions “comparative + genitive case of nominal parts of speech”. In the texts of the poet’s works comparatives with dependent genitive case of nouns are used twice as often than the constructions with a single comparative. It is arguable that the construction of the “comparative + genitive case of nominal parts of speech” is about a third of the total number of examples of using the comparative forms of adjectives in the Gumilev’s lyric. Comparative with the dependent genitive case is constituted by the hidden comparison it includes in its membership three essential components: a noun (to which comparative relates), comparative degree of an adjective and a noun in the form of genitive case as an object of comparison. Such a comparison is more economical in the use of linguistic resources; it reflects the aspiration to compression, pressing statements while maintaining its informative and expressive sides.
Analyzing the lyric poet’s works it should be noted that adjectives of different lexical-semantic groups are used in the construction of “comparative + genitive case of nominal parts of speech”. For example a group that includes constructions in which comparative denotes the outward signs of things “overweight”, “white”, “black”, “ornamental”, “low”, compare: «По болотам блуждают огни,//Черепаха грузнее утеса,//Клювоносы таятся в тени//Своего исполинского носа» (Gumilev. Liberia).
Comparative connects a point of comparison it is an animate noun “turtle” with the object of comparison the inanimate noun “cliff”. The lexeme “cliff” means: “The Rock. High crag” [3]. “Turtle” is a “slow-moving reptile with short limb” [3]. The link between these seemingly incompatible concepts is a comparative “overweight”. Such hyperbolic comparison increases the expression of this fragment of the text. Turtle does not look just like a cliff that in itself can be seen as a bright, strong copyright comparison but it is “more massive than a cliff” which indicates a greater degree of appearance of an attribute in the subject.
In the following examples the poet uses the form of adjectives which denotes the color in the form comparatives, compare: «Краски взяв у пустынных закатов,//Попугаям он перья раскрасил,//Дал слону он клыки, что белее// Облаков африканского неба» (Gumilev. Sudan). Comparative
connects a point of comparison the plural noun “fangs” with the object of comparison “cloud”.
Thus it can be seen that the meaning of these two nouns in the mind of speakers are closely related to some ideal embodiment of white. Consequently it highlights the high degree of intensity appearance of an attribute in the subject of “fangs”.
For Gumilev typical combination contains noun with an adjective, compare: «Кружев узорней аркады,//Воды застыли стеклом» (Gumilev. Venice).
The explanatory dictionary states the following lexical meaning of the word “lace”: “... pattern woven mesh fabric for finishing linen, clothes” [4]. As you can see lace in itself is patterned. Gumilev for even greater intensity appearance of an attribute uses the adjective “more patterned” in the comparative degree which in combination with the inversion increases the expressiveness convoluted comparison “lace more patterned than arcade”.
Similar constructions can be considered very typical for Gumilev’s lyric. For example, in the poem “Liberia” we found the following comparison, compare: « — «Господин президент, ваш слуга!» —//Вы с поклоном промолвите бы-стро,//Но взгляните: черней сапога//Господин президент и министры» (Gumilev. Liberia).
Animated nouns “Mr. President and Ministers” compared with inanimate “boot” using the comparative “blacker”. Considering this example in the first place it should be noted that these words are pronounced by the servant and he uses colloquial vocabulary for describing the higher lords (President and Minister). The servant says that they are “blacker than boots” referring to the appearance and dirty thoughts of those people who are in power, thus showing their dismissive attitude. “Boot” in the minds of native Russian speakers in the early twentieth century was a kind of tuning fork the incarnation of black and the comparative degree of “blacker” gives this phrase an additional expression. This phrase in the relation to Mr. President and the Minister gives a touch of irony and even sarcasm.
The following examples represent a group of constructs in which comparative denotes internal signs of people or things “strong”, “nice”, “holy” etc. Compare: «Тридцать лет я по лесу блуждаю,//Не боюсь ни людей, ни огня,//Ни богов... но что знаю, то знаю://Есть один, кто сильнее меня.//Это слон в неизведанных чащах» (Gumilev. Zambezi).
Lyrical hero says that he is confident in his abilities he is not afraid of anyone or anything but the elephant still exists it surpasses him in a strength. This surpassing quality expressed with the help of an adjective in the comparative degree “stronger”.
Considering the constrictions “comparative + genitive case of nominal parts of speech” there is no escape from drawing attention to the examples of using these forms in the meaning of superlative. Using forms of comparative degree in the meaning of superlative is not a rare phenomenon in the Russian language and in most cases it is typical for structures “comparative + genitive case of nominal parts of speech” which is common for example for A. A. Akhmatova [5]. Specificity
83
Section 14. Philology and linguistics
Gumilev’s creative style is in the language where is the function of superlative represents comparatives in combination with the negation “no”, “not", “nothing", compare: «Нет воды вкуснее, чем в Романье,//Нет прекрасней женщин, чем в Болонье,//В лунной мгле разносятся признанья, От цветов струится благовонье» (Gumilev. Bologna).
The author emphasizes that the most delicious water is in Romanija and the most beautiful women are in Bologna, i. e. in these patterns indication of “delicious” and “beautiful” are extreme compared to their same manifestation in all other similar items. Consequently, comparative uses in the mean of superlative, as in the following example, compare: «В целой Африке нету грозней сомали,//Безотраднее нет их земли» (Gumilev. Somali Peninsula).
The main character of the poem says that he traveled the whole of Africa but could not find something more terrible than Somalia. Thus, the meaning of the word «more terrible» is very close to the meaning “the most terrible” that this sign is manifested in the absolute degree. These forms have bright expression, emotionalism. The possibility of a comparison is denied, a sign is categorically affirmed as absolute in its manifestation, compare: «И про каждого слава идет,//Что отважнее нет пред бедою...» (Gumilev. Liberia).
We find out that there is a fame of a man who is the bravest before misfortune. Although the adjective has the form of comparative degree “braver” it has a sense of the lexical meaning of superlative degree.
The comparative degree in the meaning of the superlative may be act not only in connection with the negation “no”, “not” but also with an indicator of the meaning of superlative “nothing”, compare: «Есть музей этнографии в городе этом//Над широкой, как Нил, многоводной Невой,//В час, когда я устану быть только поэтом,//Ничего не найду я желанней его» (Gumilev. Abyssinia).
Semantics plays an important role when we use the comparative forms of adjectives in the meaning of superlative, compare: «Страшнее страшных пугал//Красивым честный путь.» (Gumilev. Postal clerk).
The lexeme “scarecrow” has the following meaning: “Scarecrow. Dummy which is exhibited for scaring” [3]. The
noun “scarecrow” is derived from the verb “to fright”, i. e. “to instill fear, dread” [4]. Thus the noun “scarecrow” contains in its seme something terrible, frightening and terrifying. On the one hand we see a typical construction which is similar to “comparative + genitive case of nominal parts of speech”. However comparative “more frightful” realizes the meaning of superlative acting in combination with the name of “scarecrow” and the adjective “frightful”. It achieves a high degree of expressiveness and intensity in the example of the “more frightful than frightful scarecrows”.
The same can be seen in the following example: «Грозней громов; внимая им,//Толпа взволнованнее моря» (Gumilev. Oda dAnnutsio).
The word “thunder” contains the meaning of something “terrible, sinister and menacing”. However for strengthening the expressiveness of the text N. S. Gumilev uses comparative “more terrible” in combination with a noun in the plural form of “thunder”. It draws attention to the high degree of concentration of these means in the poem. The construction “more terrible than thunders” is perceived as a means of expression of a feature which is striving for the highest degree of manifestation, posteontext acts in construction “more excited than Sea” and it performs a similar function.
Thus we can assume that the use of comparatives in the meaning superlatives is typical for the language of N. S Gumilev’s poetry. In these contractures the role of lexical means increases and becomes closer to the semantics of superlatives. The role of microcontext in these examples is much higher than in constructions with typical comparatives.
It should be emphasized that the intensity and therefore the expression in the poetry of N. S. Gumilev is created with the combination of different enhancers. A lot of examples illustrate the author’s desire to satiate text with the expressively colored vocabulary. It also necessary to note that the constriction “comparative + genitive case of nominal parts of speech” has a greater degree of expressiveness it is more expressive than a single comparative which indicates enhancement of a sign in the subject without regarding to the other items. This also explains the high frequency structure “comparative + genitive case of nominal parts of speech” in the lyrics of acmeism.
References:
1. Galkina-Fedoruk E. N. Modern Russian language. Part 1. Phonetics. Lexicology. Word formation. - M., 1958.
2. Gridin V N. Expressiveness//Linguistics/Ch. ed. V N. Yartseva. - M., 1998.
3. Efremova T. F. New Dictionary of the Russian language. Sensibly-derivation. - M., 2000.
4. Ozhegov S. I., Shvedova N. Y. Dictionary of Russian language. - M., 1993.
5. Panteleev A. F., Dolmatova A. S. About comparative constructions in the language of poetry A. A. Akhmatova//Materi-als for the IX International scientific-practical conference “Education and Science on the twenty-first century - 2013”. -Tom 10. Philological science. Music and life. - Sofia, 2013, - Р. 31-36.
84
