Many articles have been written about the history of the word Moscow. But the plot. which we intend to offer readers, as far as we know, has not been touched upon: about the history of the meaning of the word Moscow and its accents.

Translated from the Dutch chimes of 1669 about negotiations with the Poles on territorial issues, the word Moscow is unusually consistent with the verb predicate in the plural:" (...) and the commission that Moscow and the Poles held has been severed." Here, probably, the word Moscow is used in the sense of "representatives of Moscow, the tsarist government", that is, as a collective name for the inhabitants of the city, which is consistent with the ethnic name of the negotiating partner - Poles; perhaps Moscow is also used as a synonym - "Moscow State", and the collectivity is emphasized by the following explanatory context: "the Moscow people do not want the fortress of Kiev to retreat by any means."

This is followed by " articles that Nashchokin submitted in the name of the Tsar's Majesty in Kadin (...) also, on the Polish side, rebukes were made against the ebo articles [that is, "on the articles of the Russian representative at the negotiations]". (Here we are talking about A. L. Ordin-Nashchokin , a Russian diplomat of the XVII century, the head of Russia's foreign policy in 1667-1671, who concluded the Armistice of Andrusov in 1667.) Here are some more examples: ".. .and they say with truth that Moscow does not want to give up Kiev"; "and other articles that Moscow announced and that the Poles at the First [ten] congresses gave rebukes"; "Moscow certainly does not want the city [we are talking about Kiev, which according to Andrusovsky

* The work was carried out with the financial support of the RGNF (project N 98-04-06141a).

page 64

the armistice went to the Russian state] the Poles will give(b)";"...They also tell us from Moscow that Moscow will retreat from Kiev(b) they don't want to take any measures unless the Poles take away those forty-seven cities that Doroshenka took away from ts[a|r] and help them take them again and give them back to Moscow(b)."

Let's ask the question, why is the verb-predicate used in the plural when the noun-subject is in the singular? As researchers of Russian historical syntax, for example, Ya. A. Sprinchak, show, such agreement in meaning is observed in Old Russian (and we can add - and in Old Russian) in cases when the noun-subject has a collective meaning, that is, it denotes the totality of many homogeneous persons or objects as a certain unity. Examples given by Ya. A. Sprinchak include such words (toponyms and common words) as brothers, army, squad, land, Korela, Lithuania, Novgorod (as in our case, the name of the city), people. Rus (Sprinchak Ya. A. Essay on Russian historical syntax. Kiev, 1960).

From the Old Russian period (XVII century) and the same texts of vesti-chimes, we can cite a number of examples of the already shown agreement of the subject with the predicate in the sense of the nouns Velikopolsha, voivodeship, army, company, people, weapons, parliament, help, gentry: "Velikopolsha (...) articles (...) submitted"; "Russian Voivodeship" (...) make (b) connection"; " Krakow voivodeship Sejm (...) humbly committed and strengthened the decree (...) and they were forced to pay) (...)"; "the Portogal army under the shpansky army is strongly advancing because they do not want to let shpansky people pass through the crossings"; "the company [trading company] got a letter from the parliament"; "the Jewish people are well - informed about the news that they received about their mess"; "all obchei people clearly declare"; "the arms of the Turks with Tatar help defeated the Cossacks"; "tea that the parliament is ordered to build a funny yard in Karesbroke"; "shkotskoi parliament put their affairs on the measure"; "g[o]s[u]d[a]rst aid that z Count fan Baden happily came to Rakonnepurch""the nobles want to get on their horses."

It should be noted that collectivity could also be expressed in a syntactic way-by combining the determinative pronoun everyone with a noun in the singular: "and everyone is happy in London", where the combination "everyone is a person" is equivalent to the noun "people".

The change of the singular number to the plural form is also reflected in the editing of the texts of vesti-chimes: "Moscow shows off under the agreements of the myakhchi". The edit shows that grammatical agreement (units-units) in the balance of the norm in the 2nd half of the XVII century had more weight than semantic agreement (units-plural), and specialists in historical syntax (see, in particular, the already quoted Ya. A. Sprinchak)

page 65

They confirm that grammatical agreement has been established as a norm in the Russian language since the middle of the XVIII century.

The above example of changing the semantic agreement to grammatical shows that what became the norm in the XVIII century was gradually formed in the XVII and in an earlier period (Old Russian, as Ya. A. Sprinchak shows). We also see such cases in vesti-chimes:

"Moscow wanted", "Moscow wants", "Moscow itself in that vynna". However, this agreement does not prevent us from attributing the meaning of collectivity to these cases.

Now consider the name Moscow against the background of other collective nouns with the suffix - (c)I or with the final (ending) of the base on - (b) a. These nouns were a good analogical support for the name Moscow. It is necessary, however, to make a reservation that the noun Moscow belonged to the Proto-Slavic type of declension on *and, and b was historically not a suffix, but the result of the re-expansion of the long *and in the position before the vowel sound into a short *and, then developed into a reduced sound [b] and a non-syllabic [y], which passed into consonant [in]. The sound [v] was historically the result of changes at the end of the base, and the nominative Moscow form (instead of the expected *Moscow) was influenced by the forms of indirect cases: gender. - Moscow, dat. - Moskvi, vin. - Moscow, which passed after the fall of the reduced ones to Moscow. It is in this form that it is found in the Ipatiev Chronicle (see Dobrodomov I. G. Moscow / / Russian language at school. 1997. N 4).

Taking into account the structural features of the base of the word Moscow, we consider it possible to use for comparisons and those nouns in which -b(i) is not isolated as a suffix.

The authors of Russkaya Grammatika (Moscow, 1980, Vol. I.?? 254, 407) show that in modern Russian nouns with the suffix-e (i) can denote a collective concept by their characteristic action: grub (colloquial) and flock (obsolete), as well as by other signs, being derived from the name of the item: foliage; from the name of the person: bratva (colloquial), patsanva (new colloquial); from the name of the nation (ethnonym): tatarva (old). From the number of parallels chosen by us according to the " Reverse Dictionary of the Russian Language "(Moscow, 1974), we will also mention the children " collecting bees. larvae of bees, as well as young bees" (Dictionary of the Russian language. In 4 volumes, Moscow, 1982), firewood "trees cut and split into logs", Lithuania " Lithuanians "(Dictionary of modern Russian literary language, Vol. 6), mangrove " tropical forest "(ibid.); Mordovia " sobir. Ugro-Finnish nationality, which makes up the main population of the Mordovian ASSR; persons belonging to this nationality" (SSRLYA. Vol. 6); orava (Additions by O. N. Trubacheva to the Etymological Dictionary of the Russian language by M. Fasmer. Vol. III: "rather from yell", which includes this formation in the series

page 66

nouns formed from verbs of a characteristic action: grub, flock).

In the listed nouns, two groups are clearly distinguished:

nouns of patronymic and verbal formation with the suffix -b (a) - listva, bratva, patsanva, tatarva, detva; grub, horde, flock, and nouns, including the toponym Moscow, where-e(a) is distinguished as a final that has not received the status of a word-forming unit-morpheme, but is charged however, the word - forming meaning - collectivity-is Lithuania, mangrove.

And, finally, about the stress in the word Moscow. In the text of the vesti-chimes of 1669 indicated at the beginning of the article, in the part that is crossed out (which is understandable in itself, since we are looking at a rough translation from the Dutch chimes), the toponym Moscow is presented with exactly this accent, the sign of which is quite clearly visible in the manuscript: "... and then everything is not according to their own standards. they did it [further crossed out: and Moscow]." The first thing that comes to mind when trying to explain such accentuation is that the transfer of stress:

Moscow - > Moscow could have occurred under the influence of the Polish language, since this is a contract of the Moscow state with the Speech of the Pos - polita ri context, where it is possible to show contacts with the Polish language. Let us note the morphological polonism in one of the articles of the draft treaty: "and other articles", cf. polsk. im. mn. ziemie "land". But the accent "to Moscow" is in the form of dates. The case is recorded in the context of the translation of vesti-chimes from Hamburg, where the influence of Polish is unlikely, and the frequent editing of Polonism to Russianism in chimes forces us to abandon such a "Polish" hypothesis and turn to the data of Russian historical accentology. (The author considers it his duty to express his gratitude to his colleague I. A. Kornilaeva for providing information on the history of word accentuation.)

Note that the accent Moscow is found in many areas of the Volga region. In Fasmer's dictionary there is an indication of this with reference to P. I. Melnikov (Andrey Pechersky), who put the following words into the mouth of the Zavolzhsky stable boy Dementius, a resident of the Old Believer skete: "What will you do with Moscow? I asked him [Vasily Borisovich] Dementium" and gives a note: "Beyond the Volga, in many localities, Moscow is spoken in a hard o [i.e., podudarny O.-V. D.] (Fasmer. Edict. soch. Vol. II). The word Moscow was changed in the old language, like other nouns of the Proto-Slavic type of declension to *and. In the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" by V. I. Dahl, words of this type of declension are given with an accent on the basis (church, morkva), which, as studies on historical accentology have shown, reflects the archaic type of stress. V. Kiparsky to the work "Der Wortakzent der russischen Schriftsprache "(Heidelberg, 1962. in Russian

page 67

The author gives a number of examples with an accent on the word Moscow from Old Russian manuscripts and old printed books of the XVI-XVII centuries and tends to conclude that the ancient type of stress on the word Moscow was characterized by constancy on the basis.

This conclusion of V. Kiparsky is supported by reconstructions of A. A. Zaliznyak (From Proto - Slavic accentuation to Russian, Moscow, 1985), where the accent scheme is reconstructed as *Mosky-Moskve and for comparison, other common nouns of the proto-Slavic declension are given on *y: zhely (zhelve) "turtle", zly (zlyve)"sister-in-law", mrky (mrkve), smoky (smokve), luby. (love).

T. G. Khazagerov (Emphasis in Russian inflection. Rostov-on-Don, 1985) cites examples with an emphasis on Moscow, to Moscow from the " Legend of Cellarer Avraamiy Palitsyn about the siege of the Trinity Monastery "(manuscript of the late XVII-early XVIII centuries), and also refers to the "Code of Tsar Alexey Mikhailovich" and "Life of Protopop Avvakum" (manuscript of the XVII century). T. G. Khazagerov examines this word in a section devoted to one of the varieties of stress change processes that reflect the alignment of indirect cases by analogy with the original im. case.

The processes of this adjustment of stress to the im. case (where since ancient times the stress was on the ending, more precisely on the thematic indicator of the base) are reflected quite early (already in the monuments of the XVII century). We can give an example from the same vesti-chimes of 1670: Moscow. However, the interpretation just proposed should be treated as rather preliminary. Moscow can be regarded as preserving the archaic type of stress. By itself, this form of the nominative case could hardly cause a transfer of stress to the ending in indirect cases. There is no evidence of accusative forms (Moscow or Moscow?), instrumental (Moskvoyu or Moskvoyu?), local, or prepositional (Moscow or Moscow?). The example of "with Moscow" (from the vesti-chimes of 1669) is not sufficiently reliable due to the fact that the accent mark is placed in the line spacing above the group of consonants. We can only say about the shift of stress from the end in the nominative case to the base in the genitive and dative (Moscow-Moscow-Moscow), that is, about the mobile type of stress, reflecting this mobility in the proto-Slavic type of stress.

Permanent link to this publication: