Some problems of the russian spelling

Some problems of
the russian spelling

S.B. Nevejina

This article deals with the least
investigated orthographic aspect of borrowings from European languages. A brief
analysis of foreign words from "Vesty-Kuranty. 1600-1639." - a
business written language monument of the XVII century - has been given from the
point of view of their spelling.

There is no technique of
orthographical analysis of the borrowings represented in a medieval written
language monument yet. As a rule spelling of borrowings is studied to expose
phonetic and morphological features of monuments. Spelling phenomena are
examined to indicate changes in pronunciation or grammar but not to demonstrate
the system relations in orthographical sphere.

This article could be considered as
an attempt to approach solution of the problem by analyzing the foreign word
orthographic features from the point of view of their correlation with the
Russian orthographical system as a whole. Orthography is known to be: 1) the
historically established system of uniform spellings used in a written
language; 2) the rules providing for spelling uniformity in the cases variants
are possible.

One of the central ideas in
orthography is the conception of an orthogram. The orthogram is "the way
of spelling having been chosen or being chosen in cases when the choice to letter
a sound (a phoneme) is given to a writer."[1, 79] Phonemes may be lettered
variously but the choice of letters is always based on certain ideas, so-called
orthographic principles, which exist in the language system objectively (i.e.
may be not fixed).

The Russian script is the sound
(phonetic) script using morphological, phonetic, traditional and symbolical
principles. (The last principle is not accepted by all scholars). Considering
morphological principle from the point of view of phoneme alternation V. F.
Ivanova defines it as the principle of morpheme graphic uniformity provision
owing to designation of phonemes in weak positions by the letters that are
adequate to phonemes in strong positions. You see, then, the fundamental idea
of morphological principle is the concept of control by the strong position.
But how to classify a majority of unchecked spellings in foreign words? V. F.
Ivanova offeres all of them to be rated the display of traditional principle.
Let me not agree with her because positional alternations are the particular
case of positional changes on the whole. That is why it would be suitable to
accept the following morphological principle definition: it is the principle
reflecting non- positional phoneme changes and not reflecting positional
changes of phonemes, i.e. when "the choice of the letter for positional
alternating phoneme is determined not by the strong position but the origin of
phoneme". [5,12] As for foreign word material the origin of phoneme is
determined on the basis of its (phoneme) written form in a language-source or
on the basis of its reflexes in a borrowing language.

Then phonetic principle is the
principle reflecting both positional and non-positional changes of phonemes.
Traditional principle is the principle not reproducing changes at all. It is
the conservation of habitual writings already not reflecting language reality.
(For the XVII century it was spellings of doublet letters: Ь - е, и - i, о - ,  - ф, Ю - А - я /а / because the real opposition of the phonemes
lettered by them had been lost and the choice of them was determined by the
tradition only.

A kind of the traditional principle
is hypercorrect or hyperical spellings. They appear as a result of wrong ideas
about correctness, as a result of false etymologizing. Having been fixed in a
language such spellings become traditional. It is prematurely to speak about
language fixation with respect to the material of "Vesty-Kuranty.
1600-1639." But it is possible to set up hyperical principle (reflecting
changes of spelling contrary to changes of phonemes) as applied to foreign
lexics in general.

So, all spellings in any case are
determined by action of these orthographical principles in the Russian
language. Apparently it is true for foreign words too. Now I would like to
study interrelation of foreign words and orthographical system of the Russian
language in the XVII century when uncodified spelling standards existed in use
only and to find out the specificity of orthographic assimilation of
borrowings. It is especially attractive because of having been kept the
"Kuranty" in rough and fair copies. Looking through and rewriting
rough copies a scriber corrected them and this estimation element might be
evidence of the aspiration to follow a certain language usage. Spelling usage
could coincide with living language phenomena or not.

Now there are a few words about
technique. The first step was material selection. In connection with using some
statistical method elements in the work the material was limited to names of
places because most of the appellatives sometimes had too individual ways of
assimilation in the Russian language. Then guided by graphic and orthographical
variants of the words I made some attemps to define a language-source and to
restore a spelling form in it. It was restored 316 names of places in all.
After the restoration I observed in the texts how the words reflected in the
Russian language. Since orthographical variants were investigated, they could
be different in different word-uses. So it was important not a number of words
but a quantity of word-uses in the texts. There were 1790 ones in
"Vesty-Kuranty. 1600-1639." Let me pass on directly to the display of
spelling principles in their correlation with the Russian orthographical
system.

It would be more comfortable to
begin with the traditional principle. As was said the traditional principle in
the XVII centure acted as applied to the choice among doublet letters and the
given spellings showed the choice having been done in favour of one of
variants. Thus, in the word "Боргъ" the scriber was given the choice to
letter Oby o or  and he chose o. This spelling was
determined by tradition or scriber preference exclusively and it did not
reflect living language phenomena. You could see 4 traditional spellings of
vowels in the word "Оверисел": o - , e - Ь, и - i, e - ь.

Total number of such traditional
spellings (for 1790 word-uses) was: o -  - 385, И - i - 588, e - Ь - 1263, я - А - Ю - - 102, кс -  - 18, ф -  - 118.

But it was the first step of
traditional spellings calculation in the texts. The second step was connected
with so-called double choice when vowel was lettered. For example, choosing a
letter for the vowel phoneme аa writer should choose both between o and  and between o and а. E. g.: the word 'Анзбах' (Ger. Ansbach) had 2 orthograms in
lettering vowel phonemes: 1) the choice between and o (according to phonetic or
morphological principle) and, as consequence of the letter o - appearance, 2)
the choice between o and  (according to traditional one). But the second step might be realized
after analysis of morphological, phonetical and hyperical spellings only. A
weak position of phoneme is the starting-point in the choice of letter in
favour of morphological or phonetic principle. But weak positions for vowel and
consonant phonemes have different conditions. That is why I'll consider them
one after another. It should be remarked that reproduction of vowel
combinations and diphthongs, additional vowel appearance in consonant
combinations (f. e.: 'Карлесбад, Карелсбад, Карисбад' from German 'Karlsbad') are not
anylized in quantitative aspect. For vowels the weak position is an unstressed
one. Therefore a stress determines presence or absence of the orthogram in a
word. Unfortunately the "Kuranty" texts are not accented. Although it
is clear the results of the analysis depend on stress position I however have
made bold to stress given forms of the foreign words. There are some additional
dificulties: borrowings being periphery of the language system are not under
the pressure of language standards, various forms in the texts are few in
number. I was guided by given variants of the words and by the idea that an
accent in Russian could be on any syllable and in foreign words it often kept
the place of the original language. Thus, there was the first syllable stressed
in German mainly, the last syllable in French, the penultimate syllable in
Italian. E. g.: ‚Висмар
(Ger. Wismar), Колбергъ
(Ger. Kolberg), Анор
(Fr. Anor), (у) Вервен(а) (Fr. Vervins), Песар (It. Pesaro), Фазано (It. Fossano).




Phonemes and letters





Correlation with principles







morphological





phonetic





hyperical





traditional







after hard consonants and at
the absolute beginning heightof words. Letters О and А





212





8





9





136








after soft consonants. Letters Е and И





563





67





5





629







after hard consonants (the
beginning of words after heightproposition). Letters И and Ы





50





26





-





26






Table 1. Ratio of morphological,
phonetic, hyperical and traditional orthographic principles in vowel phoneme
lettering on foreign word material from "Vesty-Kuranty. 1600-1639".

We have no possibility to give the
list of accented forms in the paper. Many words have two accents (one of them,
additional, appears by virtue of phonetic reasons). The additional stress
position is the strong one in the Russian language and it may be not
considered.

Let me proceed to the orthographic
analysis directly. A stressed variant of the word is compared with written and
spoken forms in the language-source and then is classified as the demonstration
of certain principles. Then phonemes а(in the position after hard
consonants and at the absolute beginning of words) and i(in the position after soft
consonants and at the beginning of words where it can alternate with y) are considered. So, аin these positions may be lettered
by O or A in Russian.

If ais lettered by A and ais a reflex of the phoneme
designated in a languagesource by the letter reproducing phoneme refllex ait is considered as the display of
morphological principle. E.g.: ' Аргелскии' - Spanish ' Argel'.

If ais lettered by O and ais a reflex of the phoneme
designated in a languagesource by the letter reproducing phoneme refllex oit is the display of morphological
principle too. E.g.: 'Комора' - Ger. 'Komorn'.

If ais lettered by A and ais a reflex of the phoneme
designated in a languagesource by the letter reproducing phoneme refllex oit is considered as the
demonstration of phonetic principle. E.g.: ' азано' - It. 'Fossano'.

If ais lettered by O and ais a reflex of the phoneme
designated in a languagesource by the letter reproducing phoneme refllex ait is the demonstration of hyperical
principle. E.g.: 'Ровенстеин' - Ger. 'Ravenstein'.

As for iit can be lettered by Е or И (if at the beginning of words it is lettered
by Ы it may be
classified as the action of phonetic principle).

If iis lettered by И and iis a reflex of the phoneme
designated in a languagesource by the letter reproducing phoneme refllex iit is the display of morphological
principle. E.g.: 'Лютих'
- Ger. 'Luttich'.

If iis lettered by Е and iis a reflex of the phoneme
designated in a languagesource by the letter reproducing phoneme refllex eit is the display of morphological
principle too. E.g.: 'Антверпен' - Ger. 'Antwerpens'.

If iis lettered by И and iis a reflex of the phoneme
designated in a languagesource by the letter reproducing phoneme refllex eit is the demonstration of phonetic
principle. E.g.: '(из) Дрездина' - Ger. 'Dresden'.

If iis lettered by E and iis a reflex of the phoneme
designated in a languagesource by the letter reproducing phoneme refllex iit is hyperical principle. E.g.: '(из) Мендена' - Ger. 'Minden'. It can be tabled.

It allows us to sum up. There are
4029 orthograms for 1790 word-uses. There are 785 spellings according to
morphological principle that accounts for 20%, 101 spellings according to
phonetic principle that accounts for 2,5%, 14 spellings according to hyperical
principle that accounts for 0,3%, 3129 spellings (in sum with earlier figers)
according to traditional principle that accounts for 77,7%. Now I would pass to
phenomena of consosnant phoneme lettering. To begin with weak positions for
consonants are those of voicing and unvoicing. Weak positions of hardness and
softness are not analyzed in the work for lack of the material.

German g could reflect as gand in Russian therefore both 'Бранденбурк' and 'Бранденбурх' ( Brandenburg) are the
reproduction of the voiceless consonant in spelling and it can be the
demonstration of phonetic principle. Sometimes unvoicing phonemes are carried
into the strong position. E.g.: 'Амбурка' (Amburg), 'Нюренбурху' (Nurnberg). Having analysed reflection of
foreign consonants in the Russian language I can offer the table. The line
other cases", strictly sreaking it is not a position, is entered for
giving an opportunity to classify the cases clear for analysis. It includes :

1) traditional spellings in
consonants : КС - , Ф -  ;

2) morpheme juncture in adjectives :
a stem (with the last phonemes d/t, g/k/h) plus suffix -ск- (sk). The position may be reflected by changing
letters, e.g. :Гирсъqелтские - German feld , (demonstration of
phonetic principle) ; by cutting a stem (as n attemp to reproduce
pronounciation), e.g. : Гасqелский - German
feld, (phonetic principle); by retaining be letter to designate a reflex of a
phoneme in a language - source, e.g. : Гасqелдъский - German feld , (morphological principle).

There are 477 orthograms for 1790
word-uses.

There are 132 spellings according to
morphological principle that accounts for 27,7 191 spellings according to
phonetic principle that accounts for

40%, 7 spellings according to
hyperical principle that accounts for 1,47%, 147 spellings (in sum with earlier
figers) according to traditional principle that accounts for 30,8%. Conclusions.





Positions





Corellation with principles







morphological





phonetic





hyperical





traditional







VOICING





55





104





4





8







INVOICING





73





16





3





3







OTHER CASES





4





71





-





136






Table 2. Ratio of morphological,
phonetic, hyperical and traditional orthographic principles in consonant
phoneme lettering on foreign word material from "Vesty-Kuranty.
1600-1639".

After analysis of the foreign word
material from "Vesty-Kuranty.1600-1639." it could be concluded that
borrowings of the XVII century are reproduced according to 4 basic orthographic
principles: morphological, phonetic, traditional and hyperical ones. Phonetic
principle prevails in the vowel spellings and morphological does in the
consonant spellings. The total number of orthograms (both in vowel and
consonant phoneme lettering) is 4506 for 1790 word-uses. There are 917
spellings according to morphological principle that accounts for 20,35%, 292
spellings according to phonetic principle that accounts for 6,48%, 21 spellings
according to hyperical principle that accounts for 0,47%, 3276 spellings
according to traditional principle that accounts for 72,7%.

As you could see from the results of
the research traditional spellings are the majority. There is a great number of
morphological spellings in comparison with phonetic ones. It allows us to
conclude that the orthography of the foreign words from the "Kuranty"
demonstrates the general tendency which is peculiar to the spelling of the XVII
century on the whole. So, spelling of borrowings is determined by the action of
common principles. It is not the realization of new ones.

Orthographical assimilation of foreign
words by the Russian system in the XVII century mainly occured on the basis of
morphological and traditional principles. It would be evidence of the readiness
for establishment of morphological principle as the fundamental in the Russian
spellling in the XVII century.There was only one impediment in it. It was the
presence of doublet letteres being chosen according to the tradition. The
reform by Peter I abolished doublets and morphological principle took the
leading place in the Russian orthography.

Negligible quantity of hyperical
spellings in comparison with phonetic ones shows that the real composition of
phonemes is the main factor determining the choice of letteres in the sound
(phonetic) script.

Having considered the orthography of
foreign words given in the business written language monument of the XVII
century from the point of view of their correlation with the Russian
orthographical system of that time I would like to remark the spelling of the
borrowings from "Vesty-Kuranty. 1600-1639." does not demonstrate
noticeable specificity. At any rate the orthographical assimilation of foreign
words in the XVII century was according to common tendency of the Russian
language orthographical system progress in that time.
Список литературы

Иванова
В.Ф. Современная русская орфография. М., 1991. С. 79.

Осипов
Б.И. История русской орфографии и пунктуации. Новосибирск, 1992. С. 12.

Для
подготовки данной работы были использованы материалы с сайта http://www.omsu.omskreg.ru/