The Annals of UVAN, Winter-Spring, 1956, No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE DMITRY ČIZEVSKY Harvard University OLEKSANDER GRANOVSKY University of Minnesota ROMAN SMAL STOCKI Marquette University VOLODYMYR P. TIMOSHENKO Stanford University EDITOR MICHAEL VETUKHIV Columbia University TECHNICAL EDITOR HENRY M. NEBEL, J r . The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U. S. are published quarterly by the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., Inc. A Special issue will take place of 2 issues. All correspondence, orders, and remittances should be sent to The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U. S. ПУ2 West 26th Street, New York 10, N. Y. PRICE OF THIS ISSUE: $3.00 ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: $6.00 A special rate is offered to libraries and graduate and undergraduate students in the fields of Slavic studies. Copyright 1956, by the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the- U.S., Inc. THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES IN THE U. S., INC. W i n t e r —S p r in g , 1956 page Present and Past Active Participles (-ъ, -ѵъ) as Secondary Predicates.....................................Alexander Potebnja 1055 Towards an Understanding of Potebnja . Olexa Vetukhiv 1079 Alexander Potebnja as a Linguist . George Y. Shevelov 1112 The Influence of the Philosophy of Schelling (1775-1854) in the Ukraine. Dmitry Čiževsky 1128 A Hundred and Fifty Years of Kharkiv University Michael Vetukhiv 1140 A Study of Ukrainian-Jewish Relations Joseph L. Lichten 1160 The Genesis of the Geographical Notion of Scythia in the Ancient World..................... Alexander Dombrovsky 1178 EXPERIMENTAL WORK OF ACADEMY MEMBERS Anatomic Structures of Cucurbita Fruit and their Im portance for the Study of Economic Qualities of the F r u it ................................... Klavdia Starcheva-Sandul 1188 REVIEW ARTICLE Remarks on Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch Dmitry Čiževsky 1202 BOOK REVIEWS G. H. Lucyk, Contribution to Methods in Onomastics, Choro—and Toponyms and Their Origin Andrij Kocevalov 1219 Roman Jacobson, Slavic Languages . J. B. Rudnyckyj 1221 Alexander Ohloblyn, Treaty of Pereyaslavy 1654 N. Polons’ka-Vasy lenko 1224 E. Malanyuk, Narysy z istoriyi nasoi kuVtury (E. Mala- nyuk, Essays from the History of Our Culture) D. Čizevsky 1226 George B. de Huszar and Associates, Soviet Power and P o lic y .......................................... Jarosław Bilinskij 1228 Horace G. Lunt, editor, Harvard Slavic Studies Peter Rudy 1229 Eugene Pyziur, The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin................................Ivan L. Rudnytsky 1233 OBITUARIES Teofil Yanovsky (In Memory of His Death) I. Basilevich 1236 Valeriya Kozlovs’k a ............................................................... 1237 Volodymyr (Serhiy) Horodetsky.......................................... 1238 C H R O N IC L E .......................................................................... 1240 A NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION ...........................1245 C O N T R IB U T O R S ................................................................1246 ALEXANDER POTEBNJA (1835 - 1891) PRESENT AND PAST ACTIVE PARTICIPLES (-т>, -ѵъ) AS SECONDARY PREDICATES* ALEXANDER POTEBNJA I. Appositive Use of the Present and Past Active Participles (-ъ, -ѵъ) in the Nominative A distinction between appositive and attributive use of the above participles is evident from certain phenomena of the old language, namely, the use of an appositive participle in com bination with a second nominative, the use of a co-ordinate con junction to separate a participle of this type from the main pre dicate, and the use of nominative absolutes. However, it is also possible to ascertain this distinction in another way: on the basis of the later structure of the language, which is characterized by the existence of the gerund. Any Slavic gerund is based on the short form of the participle. The long form of the participle never becomes a gerund but either goes out of use entirely, remains a participle or be comes an adjective. However, the pronominal component pro vides participles or adjectives in general with an indication of closer contact with other substantives than does a tie which is expressed only in the agreement of a short-form participle or ad jective; dobryi, i.e., dobiji, meant approximately “the one who is good [dobra].” It follows therefore that, conversely, what the short-form adjective and gerund have in common must be their greater proximity to the predicate. Let us take the main instance of the formation of the Slavic gerund, from which partial conclusions can be drawn about other * This is a reprint from Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike (Kharkov, 1888), I— II, 181-205, 534-5 and is printed as the ninth in the series of Ukrainian source material (v. The Annals, No. 1). The number of examples, which is very large in the original, has been reduced in the translation, and the words “Little Rus sian” have been replaced by the word “Ukrainian.” 1055 1056 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY instances as well. This is the instance in which the gerund pre supposes a participle which is in the nominative and is part of the predicate or directly adjoins the subject. What happens in a sentence when such a participle becomes a gerund? Passing over the intermediary stage, which we shall deal with later, we see that ultimately the participle loses the features which show its agreement with the subject (case, gender, number), and the tie between participle and subject is destroyed. The word that was formerly a participle either begins to tend exclusively toward the predicate (if it previously was part of this predicate), or it begins for the first time to be drawn into the sphere of attrac tion of the predicate (if it did not have a direct relation to it previously). It cannot of course be held that such a shift in the center of attraction in the second instance was a sudden one; be fore this happened it was necessary for a sense of distinction to develop in the language between the long-form participles, which had closer contact with what they modified, and the other par ticiples, which were closer to the verbs. The former were attri butive in the strict sense of the word, while the latter were ap- positive. All adjectival derivatives of the participles (gorjačij, gorjučij, etc.) came from the former, while all gerunds came from the latter. Russian regional dialects lost the active participles, replacing them on the one hand with adjectives and on the other with de veloped subordinate clauses and gerunds. Literary Russian re tained these participles under the influence of Church Slavonic, and one of them—the present participle—was even retained in a non-Russian phonetic form. In literary Russian too, when such participles were in apposition it was their long form which kept them from becoming gerunds. It is still rather difficult to determine precisely the time it took for the gerunds to form in Russian. There seems to be no doubt that active appositive participles were used only in the literary language and that the gerund already existed as a fully established part of speech even by the end of the fourteenth cen tury, although this gerund differed somewhat from the modern PRESENT AND PAST ACTIVE PARTICIPLES 1057 one. In the old chronicle compilations, where the language is older in most cases than that of the time in which they were copied (Laurentian, 1377; Hypatian, fifteenth century), we still find very many instances of correct agreement of the active ap- positive participles: za nimi buda (masc. sing, nom .), uzrě, Hyp., 44, prinik%si (fern., sing., nom.) Ohga i rete, Laurv 24; Davy- doviča nedoiduča (mase., dual, nom.) paky hřada stasta blizb, Hyp., 26; Izjaslavz že i Rostislavb, uhadavša (dual) i razvěxa- stasja, Hyp. 44; my sědimb, platjače (plur.) danb, Laurv 9. These and similar examples show no traces whatsoever of borrowing from Church Slavonic. The frequent correct use of the present participle in its borrowed form (with šč) in the same texts, e.g., Volga sědjašči ѵъ teremě, posla. Laurv 24, does not in itself prove that the Russian form of this participle (fem. sing.: sě- djači; plur.: sědjače) had already gone out of use at that time. Yet these and similar texts already abound in examples in which there is no agreement in the appositive participle. Each of the forms of the nominative of the three numbers of the masculine and feminine gender (veda and vedz, veduči and vedzši, veduče and vedzse) are felt almost equally as the common form not only of all genders and numbers in the nominative but in other cases as well: Ugri prisedz (instead of prisedzse) оіъ vzstoka, і ustre- misas ja, Laurv 10; vysedlo (instead of vysědzše) na bereg%, otri- nusa lodbě ot ber ega, Laurv 61; ovize popové edinoju ženoju ože- něvsja (instead of ozenivšesja) sluzatb, a druzii do semye zeny poimajuči sluzatb, LauréJ 93; Ofaga poimše malo družiny, legko idušči, pride, Laur., 24, etc.1 This confusion can be assumed to have begun in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century, since the texts of the late thirteenth century already contain instances, although rare, of a lack of agreement (togo dělja idetb, aby po- rožnu xodjače [instead of xodjačju] jasti i piti, ѴъргаЛапіе Kju- rika [Kjurik’s Inquiry], from a 13th-century copy). 1 Forms of the comparative adverb vary in a similar fashion: boUi toho патъ n eučjalb praviti (1501-3), Akty Zapadnoj Rossii, I, 225; kotoraja treib bolši... ottulb dani bolše idetb, cl kotoraja menbša tretb, Sb toě i dani тепъ$і po Ноіоѵатъ birivali (1479), ibidv 91. 1058 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY Of the three gerund forms listed, the last one (veduče, vedvse) disappears before the others, while the equality of the gerund forms dělaja and prišedъJ dělajuči and prišedъši in Great Rus sian is evident in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries: posad- niki i sockie pročefa gramoty, i dali (1483), Akty juridičeskie, 3; Novgorodoto Severskoj, prisodъ} vzjali (1648), Akty Juznoj i Zapadnoj Rossiij III, 216.