Dictionary of Solzhenitsyn expansion. Russian language extension dictionary (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)

Malygina Inna Yurievna

"RUSSIAN DICTIONARY OF LANGUAGE EXPANSION" BY A. I. SOLZHENITSYN AS A FORM OF "DIALOGUE" WITH RUSSIAN WRITERS OF THE XX CENTURY (A. SOLZHENITSYN, E. ZAMYATIN, I. SHMELEV)

The object of study in the article is A. Solzhenitsyn’s “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”, which we consider as a certain form of “dialogue” with Russian writers of the twentieth century. With the help of metapoetic data (analysis of the preface to the dictionary), the mechanism of the writer’s work on the publication is revealed, the sources, purpose and objectives of its development are determined, and the author’s interpretation of its meaning is emphasized. Based on the "Literary Collection" of Alexander Isaevich, an analytical review of the functioning of lexemes - definitions of the "Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion" - in the works of E. Zamyatin, I. Shmelev and A. Solzhenitsyn is given. Article address: www.gramota.net/materials/272016/1 -2/10.html

Source

Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice

Tambov: Certificate, 2016. No. 1(55): in 2 parts. Part 2. P. 34-39. ISSN 1997-2911.

Journal address: www.gramota.net/editions/2.html

© Publishing house "Gramota"

Information about the possibility of publishing articles in the journal is posted on the publisher’s website: www.gramota.net The editors ask questions related to the publication of scientific materials to be sent to: [email protected]

19. Distributed consciousness: Tatyana Chernigovskaya about the future of reading [Electronic resource] // Theory and practice. URL: http://theoryandpractice.ru/posts/7582-chernigovskaya (date of access: 09/26/2015).

20. Romanicheva E. S. “Oncoming traffic” as new technology introducing schoolchildren to reading // Literature at school. 2012. No. 3. pp. 19-22.

21. Smetannikova N. N. Place of reading in the process of formation of the information community [Electronic resource]. URL: http://uchitel-slovesnik.ru/data/uploads/iz-opita-raboti/mesto-chtenia.pdf (access date: 10/22/2015).

22. Troitsky V. Yu. Russian word as a heritage // Literature at school. 2009. No. 9. P. 20-22.

THE SITUATION WITH READING AT PRESENT: THE REVIEW OF APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM

Malakhova Mariya Amiranovna

Orenburg State Pedagogical University [email protected]

The article examines the situation of a reading crisis for the last several decades; the approaches to the solution to this problem are analyzed, including how efficiently "The National Program of Support and Development of Reading in Russia in 2007-2020" is being realized now. The way out of the reading crisis with account of the peculiarities of modern children and adolescents is evaluated.

Key words and phrases: reading; the problem of reading; non-reading generation; the list of recommended books; hypertext; screen reading.

The object of study in the article is A. Solzhenitsyn’s “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”, which we consider as a certain form of “dialogue” with Russian writers of the twentieth century. With the help of meta-poetic data (analysis of the preface to the dictionary), the mechanism of the writer’s work on the publication is revealed, the sources, purpose and objectives of its development are determined, and the author’s interpretation of its meaning is emphasized. Based on the “Literary Collection” of Alexander Isaevich, an analytical review of the functioning of lexemes - definitions of the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion” - in the works of E. Zamyatin, I. Shmelev and A. Solzhenitsyn is given.

Key words and phrases: lexeme; dictionary; language; work; literary collection; creativity of E. Zamyatin, I. Shmelev, A. Solzhenitsyn.

Malygina Inna Yurievna, Ph.D. n.

Stavropol State Pedagogical Institute pavlihina@bk. T

“RUSSIAN DICTIONARY OF LANGUAGE EXPANSION” by A. I. SOLZHENITSYN AS A FORM OF “DIALOGUE” WITH RUSSIAN WRITERS OF THE XX CENTURY.

(A. SOLZHENITSYN, E. ZAMYATIN, I. SHMELEV)

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn is a figure of paramount importance, who left a bright mark in various fields of science and culture. An artist of words, a deeply thinking philosopher, a professional analyst of history and Russian politics - this is the overall portrait of his perception in modern times. However, unfortunately, this portrait turns out to be outline, with pronounced strokes under the headings “writer”, “historiographer”, “philosopher”. Against the background of these constants, other aspects of Alexander Isaevich’s life affirmation in world culture fade, among which Solzhenitsyn the linguist is of undeniable value for the Russian people. Let us make a reservation that when applied to Solzhenitsyn’s name, the definition “linguist” sounds, in our opinion, unnatural. In our perception, he primarily appears as the guardian and life-giving force of the “great and mighty” Russian language. Confirmation of this high title is Solzhenitsyn’s word, which is close in its content to the Russian people (both written and oral).

The source of linguistic inspiration for Solzhenitsyn has always been V. Dahl’s “Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language”: “Since 1947, for many years (and all the camp years, so rich in patience and only small scraps of leisure), I have been working on Dahl’s dictionary almost every day - for my literary needs and language gymnastics". Zh. Niva rightly noted: “Solzhenitsyn’s dictionary is conceived as gymnastics, as an exercise in linguistic breathing. Not in order to record in protocol the current stock of Russian words (with a “rush” of Anglicisms), but in order to expand the lungs of the Russian person, his linguistic lungs.” Thanks to these efforts, Solzhenitsyn was subsequently able to take a step that was most serious in scale and significance - to compile the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion.”

Solzhenitsyn’s daily meticulous work on Dalev’s edition took place in several stages: extracting cumbersome dictionary entries and reducing them. At the same time, Alexander Isaevich followed the path not of simple reduction and discarding of secondary things, but along the path of concentration, highlighting the main idea, the central meaning of the category. Deep penetration into the very essence of the language system helped the writer identify a number of global reconstruction tasks for further resolution: to revive forgotten words and “make up for the general decline in instinct” for language.

The dictionary entries of the publication we are considering precede Alexander Isaevich’s thoughts about the idea of ​​​​creating such a book, the history of its compilation and writing, but most importantly, the author himself focuses on the meaning of the dictionary for the present and future Russian people. The fundamental difference between Solzhenitsyn’s “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion” and other dictionaries lies in the main task facing the author when writing it - the task of presenting not the full composition of the language (as in most Russian dictionary publications), but, on the contrary, in the revival of unjustly forgotten words.

In the preface to the dictionary, Solzhenitsyn explains to the reader the procedure for working with the publication. At the same time, the author points out his own principles for selecting language material and explains more specific aspects of the organization of dictionary entries. An analytical review of Solzhenitsyn's dictionary from the point of view of linguistic features is covered in sufficient detail in domestic philological science. However, the question of the functioning of verbal units included in the pages of Solzhenitsyn’s dictionary literary texts Russian writers of the 19th-20th centuries. (their names are indicated after the preface) and in the creative heritage of the writer himself remains little studied today. In this article, we attempted such a comprehension by studying the works of E. Zamyatin, I. Shmelev and A. Solzhenitsyn (the results of a typical analysis of the works of V. Belov, V. Rasputin, V. Astafiev and A. Solzhenitsyn are expected to be presented in the next article).

Solzhenitsyn in the text of “Explanations” categorically denies the scientific nature of word selection, defining the purpose of the dictionary as “artistic.” In our opinion, Alexander Isaevich subtly felt the difference between a writer and a scientist - both explore, try to comprehend objective reality, but the first looks at life creatively, through the prism of special artistic thinking, bringing his own subjective view of things, and the second strives for objectification, applying strictly scientific methods of cognition, being in a rigidly constructed paradigm of scientific thinking. A writer, unlike a scientist, has the advantage of having the opportunity to expand the field of his own activity, the horizons of insight into the essence of a cognizable object. That is why Solzhenitsyn’s view of language is special - he combines two sides of a cognitive personality (both a scientist and a writer).

A significant fact can be considered that the author took into account linguistic features when compiling the dictionary wide range native speakers of the Russian language: people from different parts of Russia, writers of the past, present, but most importantly, the author took into account linguistic elements “not from the cliches of the Soviet era, but from the fundamental stream of the language.”

In the mind of the writer, words appeared as clots of “energy,” which allowed the author of the dictionary to embrace the word in its ambiguity and reveal its lexical potential as strongly as possible. Moreover, the words included in the publication were taken by the author not only from the living, sounding speech of the Russian people, but also from written sources that artistically record it. Thus, in Solzhenitsyn’s “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion” we find vocabulary from the works of A. Pushkin, N. Gogol, I. Turgenev, S. Leskov, F. Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, I. Bunin, I. Shmelev, S. Yesenin , E. Zamyatin, V. Astafiev, V. Belov, V. Rasputin, A. Tolstoy and many others. etc. However, one should not think that Solzhenitsyn’s task was only to fix and return forgotten or lost Russian words, to restore their rights - this is too narrow an understanding of the writer’s attitude. These words are some kind of “bridges” in creative laboratory artist.

Today, getting into Solzhenitsyn’s studio is not particularly difficult: the collected works of Alexander Isaevich, published in Russia in large numbers, his memoirs, criticism, and epistolary opuses help in this. The work published in 1997-2004 helps to reveal the mechanism of Solzhenitsyn’s work with the words of Russian writers of the 19th-20th centuries, which were included in the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”. in the magazine “New World” the so-called “Literary Collection”.

The “Literary Collection,” which synthesizes the features of different genres (the diary, the essay, the critical opus, and the so-called “writer’s laboratory”), turned out to be a uniquely significant phenomenon in the history and criticism of Russian literature. Firstly, the texts from the “Literary Collection” allow the reader to understand Solzhenitsyn’s vision of a particular artist of the word, an understanding of his creative heritage in general and individual works. Secondly, Alexander Isaevich’s assessment of the artistic manner of writers comes in the inextricable unity of the work under consideration and the historical and literary era (the most striking examples: “I. Shmelev and emigration”, “B. Pilnyak and “Russia. Revolution. Mutiny””, “E . Zamyatin and Soviet Russia", "L. Leonov and F. Dostoevsky", "M. Bulgakov and Soviet literary criticism", "V. Rasputin and countryside writers", "F. Svetlov and Soviet life of the 1970s", "I. Brodsky and "irony as a religion of the entire twentieth century." As G. E. Zhilyaev notes, “the collection helps to better see and decipher the most characteristic nodes of Russian spiritual life over several decades.”

Thirdly, the value of the “Literary Collection” is Solzhenitsyn’s observations in the field of “writing,” “making” a work of art, thereby updating the concept of a “writer’s workshop.” In this regard, the observations of Solzhenitsyn, a “craftsman”, who approaches the creative process not only as an inspired act, but also as hard, painstaking work, are invaluable. Based on this message,

Solzhenitsyn does not restrain himself in his own assessments and characteristics of the creative methods and techniques of writers, in indicating not only the strong facets of their embodied talent, but also the weak points of creativity. This, naturally, in many cases causes disagreement and rejection among many researchers (it is enough to recall, for example, the article by L.V. Polyakova “Solzhenitsyn on Zamyatin”, in which the author-Zamyatovo scholar attacks Solzhenitsyn with criticism of his ideas and observations, rendering his verdict to the writer: “The entire author’s preface to the “Literary Collection” “From Yevgeny Zamyatin” is replete with subjective, extremely politicized characteristics, remarks, grins, indicating that Solzhenitsyn, unfortunately, still cannot break through the veil of view of the greatest writer of the twentieth century.. ."). The last aspect - Solzhenitsyn’s critical view of the creator’s work - in our opinion, is fundamental for the texts from the “Literary Collection”. This is the path leading to the artist’s creative laboratory.

The logic of Solzhenitsyn’s critical view of a literary text develops according to a certain pattern - an indication of any inconsistencies reality and artistic (for example, “chronological failures” in B. Pilnyak’s “The Hungry Year”), highlighting weaknesses and strengths in compositional structure, plot development, character system and identifying the most striking features and author’s findings in the language paradigm (lexis and syntax). And in many texts from the “Literary Collection” Solzhenitsyn directly notes those words that are included in the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion” or could supplement it.

Let us dwell in more detail on the linguistic side of the works of E. Zamyatin, who, as one of the significant figures in literature of the first half of the twentieth century. presented in all its diversity of emotional assessments in the opus “From Evgeniy Zamyatin.” Solzhenitsyn comprehended the writer’s life milestones (6 years spent fruitlessly in exile - a missed chance to “rise high in spirit and thought”; falling in love with the revolution and refusal to “comprehend and understand “what happened to the country”” at that time), his ideological and philosophical searches (one faith for two with M. Gorky - “man-godliness”; the “anti-religiousness” experienced and never left the writer), gave an assessment of the creative heritage (from the “swine Russian life” of “Uyezdny” (1912), “literary hooliganism” “On the middle of nowhere" "(1914), "just some kind of insanity" "God" (1916) to "raised above the time" "North" (1918), "a timely story with instructive conciseness" "The Sinner's Helper" (1918), the pearl "About That How the monk Erasmus was healed" (1920)). Observations on the linguistic side of Zamyatin’s texts became a separate object of attention.

“I was always amazed,” writes Solzhenitsyn, “by the defiantly brief brightness in the portraits and his energetic, concise syntax.” From the first lines of the article, the writer identifies Zamyatin as one of his teachers in syntax, noting, however, that he eventually gained little experience from him. Despite the original central thesis, the writer also focuses on the lexical side of Zamyatin’s texts. The article contains a separate list of figurative expressions and descriptions.

These verbal formulas include words and phrases that were included in Solzhenitsyn’s dictionary, such as “round voice”, “laughed”. The author noted more than 50 lexemes from Zamyatin’s works, which he did not use at all in his own written speech. However, there are some who deserve, from his point of view, “ eternal life": "unrepentant", "prozor", "dream". It is significant that Solzhenitsyn does not use Zamyatin’s vocabulary in its original form. It transforms the word, preserving its “core”, its “energy”. If we read from Zamyatin: “Shmit called for dinner. Andrei Ivanovich began to refuse to repent, but Shmit didn’t even want to hear it” (“In the middle of nowhere”). In Solzhenitsyn’s texts, it is not the Zamyatin word that is used, but the meaning given to it by the author of the dictionary: “After Borodin, I imagined that I was a free person. No, no, not at all! How my legs get stuck, how difficult it is to pull them out! I’m trying to make excuses for the fact that: “Grani” was late. The Times has already published it. - “The Times” - it doesn’t matter, what’s important is “Grani”! resistance and Soviet integrity are important!” (“The calf butted with an oak tree”).

“To deny,” according to Solzhenitsyn, corresponds to the basic meaning of “to refuse” from V. I. Dahl’s dictionary: “Nekat - to repeatedly say no; refuse, renounce, deny; || make excuses or disagree." In the excerpt from the book “The Calf Butted an Oak Tree,” the lexeme is preceded by the repeated use of the particle “no” (the main meaning of Dalev’s interpretation), revealing the dominant meaning of refusal.

In Zamyatin’s “North” the lexeme “scab” is found: “- Well, everything depends on the person himself. When I first set foot here - who was I? So - a scab, a plover, like Styopka, and now - yes... ". And in Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago” a related lexeme appears no less vivid: “And they also beat you if you are weaker than everyone else, or you beat someone who is weaker than you. Isn't this molestation? The old camp inmate A. Rubailo calls mental deprivation this rapid deterioration of a person under external pressure.” In both cases, the linguistic units used convey the basic meaning of the word “lousy” - bad, trashy, nasty; disgusting, insignificant. In “North” this meaning is conveyed more harshly, bitingly (largely due to its form). And in “The Gulag Archipelago,” Solzhenitsyn, working with the meaning of the word, goes much further: here it is no longer just a nomination, a statement of a sign, but a reflection of the process that leads a person to call him a “scab.” And how typical this is of Solzhenitsyn’s style - the master of depicting not a ready-made, static character, but a dynamic, changing, “fluid” one. T. Kleofastova, confirming this, noted that “in Solzhenitsyn, a person is always the main structuring element of an event.” The hero is squeezed by external frameworks - society, the state, etc. - oppressive, suffocating, affecting the entire human body from the inside. Hence, it is quite natural on the pages of the “GULAG Archipelago” to see such speech units and phrases as “they confuse”, “throat trembling with freedom”,

“the besieged dregs of suffering, insults, bullying”, “straining”, “selfless uprisings”, “educational action”, “retribution”, “eradication”, “scab” and many others. etc.

The word “prozor” became Solzhenitsyn’s favorite linguistic unit. In Zamyatin’s “Help of Sinners” we see its use once: “Nafanael’s mother loved spring, drops, black glimpses of the earth through the snow” (this is exactly how the lexeme is given in the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”). In Solzhenitsyn’s texts, this word amazes the reader with its polysemantic nature and the richness of additional shades. Here is some space being surveyed at a distance (in modern Russian - “view”): “On the way, looking at the map with a flashlight: it fell to Boev to move to the eastern bank of the Passargais, then another kilometer and a half along the country road, and probably set up fire behind the village of Adlig Schwenkitten, - so that forward to the east there is still another six hundred meters of clearance to the nearest forest and it is not dangerous to shoot at a low angle" ("Adlig Schwenkitten"), "Tambov district was not so convenient for guerrilla warfare: how and most of the province is sparsely forested, plain, small hills, although there are many deep ravines and ravines (“yarug”), giving the cavalry shelter from the steppe openness” (“Two Stories”) [Ibid., p. 302]. Here is the imposition on the basic meaning of the individual author’s understanding, expressed in the syllable, style of the writer, which most clearly reveals the ideological and thematic originality of his works: “During this time, the Technical Department managed to try a windmill and abandon it and stood in the utility yard (in a sheltered place from view from towers and from low-flying U-2 aircraft) install a hydroelectric power station powered by<...>water tap" ("GULAG Archipelago"), "He is no one, Shkuropatenko, just a prisoner, but his soul is Vertukhai. They give him a temporary work order for one thing: he guards prefabricated houses from prisoners and does not allow them to be taken away. It’s this Shkuropa-tenko who will most likely catch them in the open gap” (“One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”). In the latter case, the word is already placed in a “prison-camp” context; it is perceived in its entirety, being on a par with “supervision,” “inspection,” “guard,” “tower,” “shmon,” “punishment cell.”

The lexeme “prozor” is found not only in Solzhenitsyn’s literary texts, but also in journalistic texts: “However, only this division will clarify for us the vision of the future” (“How can we arrange Russia”). “Prozor” in this context is synonymous with “clearance”; the observed space at a distance (the main meaning of the word) is no longer considered in a spatial, but in a temporal framework. Or in the article “Education”: “And there is also a special category - eminent people, so inaccessible, so firmly established their name, protectively shrouded in all-Union, and even world fame, that, at least in the post-Stalin era, their the police blow can no longer befall, this is clear to everyone, both close and from afar; and you can’t punish them with need either - it’s accumulated” [Ibid., p. 222]. In this case, the word is synonymous with the constructions “clearer than clear”, “without exception”, “for sure” (i.e. “naprozor” acts as an amplifier of the statement), and the subsequent lexemes “near”, “from afar” also with the repetition of connecting conjunctions hint at absolute transparency, the undeniable reliability of the correct perception of the situation and situation seen.

Noteworthy is the similar use of lexemes by Zamyatin and Solzhenitsyn with the meanings of “peace, immobility, numbness,” “apathy, inaction, stagnation.” Only each of the writers finds his own shell for expressing the author’s thought: “So a stone splashes into the watery slumber, stirs everything up, circles: now they scatter - only light wrinkles, like at the corners of the eyes from a smile - and again the smooth surface” (E. Zamyatin, “Rus” ") - “Here the trait of the Russian-Ukrainian character (without distinguishing which of the thugs is considered which) was tragically reflected, that in moments of anger we surrender to the blind impulse of “itch your shoulder”, not distinguishing between the right and the guilty, and after an attack of this anger and pogrom - we do not have the ability to carry out patient, methodical, long-term activities to correct troubles. In this sudden revelry of a wild, vengeful force after a long slumber is, in fact, the spiritual helplessness of our both peoples” (A. Solzhenitsyn, “Two hundred years together (1795-1995). Part I”). At the same time, in V.I. Dahl’s dictionary, along with many recorded word forms (drema, drowsiness, drowsiness, drowsiness, drowsiness, drowsiness, drowsiness, drowsiness, drowsiness, drowsiness), there is neither Zamyatin’s “dream” nor Solzhenitsyn’s “dream”.

Solzhenitsyn, referring to the figure of I. Shmelev in the “Literary Collection”, emphasizes its significance for Russian history and culture: he and his social activities in the pre- and post-revolutionary period, and the skill of the writer, in whose work primordially Russian, national notes are heard, traditions are transmitted, and the resurrection of Orthodox consciousness occurs. Alexander Isaevich aptly defines Shmelev’s idiostyle, analytically analyzing it “Rosstani” (1913), “The Inexhaustible Chalice” (1918), “Alien Blood” (1918), “Sun of the Dead” (1923), “Summer of the Lord” (1927-1944) . Last piece in Solzhenitsyn’s assessment, he appears as a kind of embodied ideal of Shmelev’s own worldview. The text synthesizes a “juicy”, “warm” description of Russia, which “stands up - alive”, “a leisurely flow of images” and “a single warm, sincere, righteous tone”. It is rightly noted that “the tone is for Russian literature of the twentieth century. unique: it connects the devastated Russian soul of this century with our thousand-year-old spiritual state” [Ibid].

A special place in the article is given to Solzhenitsyn’s reflections on I. Shmelev’s “Sun of the Dead”. Correlating art world this book with “The Hungry Year” by B. Pilnyak, the rhetorical question “is there any more terrible than this book (“The Sun of the Dead” - I.M.) in Russian literature?” “Who else conveyed the despair and general death of the first Soviet years, war communism? Not Pilnyak! for that one it is almost easy to perceive. But here it’s such a mentally difficult task to overcome; you read a few pages and it’s no longer possible. This means that he correctly conveyed that burden. Causes keen sympathy for these convulsing and dying

<...>Here the whole dying world is included, and along with the suffering of animals and birds. You fully feel the scale of the Revolution, how it was reflected both in deeds and in souls. Like the peak image - you can hear an “underground groan”, “The unfinished are groaning, asking for graves”? (and this is the howling of beluga seals),” writes Alexander Isaevich, echoing Shmelev’s exposure of the “primordial truth” about the “red atrocities” in the article [Ibid., p. 186]. The assessment of the revolutionary years of the first decade of the twentieth century, given in “The Sun of the Dead” by Shmelev, coincided with Solzhenitsyn’s position, hence the completely natural call to re-read the work several times.

Through Shmelev’s words, the features of Russian life, traditions, way of life, customs, Orthodox consciousness and worldview were revealed. Solzhenitsyn singled out dozens of words from the works of I. Shmelev, which ended up on the pages of the dictionary: “goodwill”, “unknown”, “prospor”, “lovebirds”, “refrain”, “remo-len”, “dangerously”, “first-to-last”. However, in his literary heritage, Solzhenitsyn used only one word - “secretly”.

“Father is in the office: they brought proceeds from the baths, ice skating rinks and porto-washes. I hear the familiar ringing (this word is also included in the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion” - I.M.) of coppers and the thin ringing of silver: it is he who deftly counts out the money, puts it in columns on the table, wraps the silver in pieces of paper; then he puts it on little notes - to which poor people, where and how much. He, Gorkin secretly told me, has a special little book, and in it are written various poor people and who previously served with us,” writes Ivan Sergeevich in the novel “The Summer of the Lord.” And Solzhenitsyn, making the word exude energy, convey its “visceral” content, includes it in the text of the novel “In the First Circle”: “And, secretly keeping watch for this deep hour of the night, when the Marfa prison rules ceased to operate, the two hundred and eighty-first prisoner quietly left from a semicircular room, squinting into the bright light and trampling densely scattered cigarette butts with his boots.” The word conveys with maximum accuracy the atmosphere of mystery, secrecy and fear of revealing the hidden that is necessary for the authors, what knowledge the heroes have (as in Shmelev), or how careful they are in their actions and thoughts (as in Solzhenitsyn).

So, Solzhenitsyn, setting as his goal to “revive” to life undeservedly forgotten, from the point of view of the writer, lexemes, studies various oral and written sources of speech, incl. artistic works of Russian writers of the 19th-20th centuries, and creates the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”. The writer gives life to the word - this is exactly what A. Solzhenitsyn demonstrates, including vocabulary from the dictionary, from the works of Russian writers into his own texts, showing its strength and energy of impact on the reader. Of course, when encountering on the pages of the dictionary with such units as “illiteracy” (Uspensky), “wifeless” (Melnikov-Pechersky), “roaring” (Remizov), “noise” (Yesenin), “lucid” (Ostrovsky), you open up for themselves new horizons of the linguistic element.

The lexical potential of linguistic material helped Solzhenitsyn understand the language, creative manner, and individual style of a particular author as a whole. Such features, in the assessment of E. Zamyatin’s work, were portrait laconicism, achieved by concise syntax, and the richest material of figurative expressions and descriptions, in I. Shmelev’s assessment - verbal formulas that reveal the traditions, national identity and Orthodox worldview of the Russian person. Solzhenitsyn does not use Zamyatin or Shmelev vocabulary in its original form, he allows the word to live new life by expanding its semantic field. The meanings that appear in words as a result of their contextual use attracted Alexander Isaevich to a greater extent, which determines the specificity of the use of the same words by different writers.

The culture of our time, as Solzhenitsyn himself rightly noted, is impoverished, impoverished, worn out. The man of the present has forgotten the centuries-old linguistic past of Russia, and not everyone has the desire to revive it. In the idea of ​​restoring “lost riches,” we must pay tribute today to the great Russian writers, scientists, and educators. And, of course, a special bow to Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn for his reverent, caring attitude towards his native language and his back-breaking work in reviving the great Russian language and national culture as a whole.

References

1. Altynbaeva G. M. “Literary collection” of A. I. Solzhenitsyn: On the question of genre // A. I. Solzhenitsyn and Russian culture. Saratov: Publishing house Sarat. University, 2004. Issue. 2. pp. 140-145.

2. Large explanatory dictionary of the Russian language / under. ed. S. A. Kuznetsova. St. Petersburg: Norint, 2004. 1536 p.

3. Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language: in 12 volumes. M.: World of Books, 2003. T. 7. 416 p.

4. Zhilyaev G. E. A. I. Solzhenitsyn - artist and thinker on the threshold of the 21st century. Armavir: ASPU, 2001. 179 p.

5. Zamyatin E.I. Complete works in one volume. M.: Alfa-kniga, 2011. 1258 p.

6. Kleofastova T. The work of A. Solzhenitsyn in the context of the twentieth century // Between two anniversaries (1998-2003): Writers, critics and literary scholars about the work of A. I. Solzhenitsyn. M.: Russian way, 2005. pp. 302-314.

7. Melnikova S.V. Lexical potential of language in the assessment of A.I. Solzhenitsyn: based on the material of the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”: abstract. diss. ... K. philol. n. M., 1996. 16 p.

8. Niva Zh. Solzhenitsyn’s poetics between “large” and “small” forms // Zvezda. 2003. No. 12. P. 143-148.

9. Polyakova L.V. Solzhenitsyn about Zamyatin // A.I. Solzhenitsyn and Russian culture. Saratov: SSU, 1999. pp. 79-80.

10. Russian dictionary of language expansion / comp. A. I. Solzhenitsyn. M.: Russian way, 2000. 280 p.

11. Solzhenitsyn A. I. The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: Parts 1-11 // Solzhenitsyn A. I. Collected works in 30 volumes. M.: Vremya, 2010. T. 4. 324 p.

12. Solzhenitsyn A.I. A calf butted with an oak tree: Essays literary life. Paris: YMCA-PRESS, 1975. 629 pp.

13. Solzhenitsyn A.I. In the first circle. M.: Vremya, 2010. 354 p.

14. Solzhenitsyn A.I. Ivan Shmelev and his “Sun of the Dead” // New World. 1998. No. 7. pp. 184-193.

15. Solzhenitsyn A.I. From Evgeny Zamyatin // New World. 1997. No. 10. P. 186-201.

16. Solzhenitsyn A.I. Journalism: in 3 volumes. Yaroslavl: Verkhne-Volzhskoe book publishing house, 1995. Vol. 1. Articles and speeches. 720 pp.

17. Solzhenitsyn A.I. Stories and crumbs. M.: Vremya, 2006. 672 p.

18. Urmanov A.V. The work of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2004. 380 p.

19. Filippov L.K. Language of A.I. Solzhenitsyn: features of the author’s spelling // A.I. Solzhenitsyn and Russian culture: interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / answer ed. A. I. Vanyukov. Saratov: SPI Publishing House, 1999. pp. 147-152.

20. Shmelev I. S. Summer of the Lord. M.: Moscow worker, 1990. 576 p.

21. Epstein M. Russian language in the light of creative philology of research // Znamya. 2006. No. 1. P. 192-207.

"RUSSIAN DICTIONARY OF LANGUAGE EXTENSIONS" BY A. I. SOLZHENITSYN AS A FORM OF "DIALOGUE" WITH THE RUSSIAN WRITERS OF THE XX CENTURY (A. SOLZHENITSYN, Y. ZAMYATIN, I SHMELYOV)

Malygina Inna Yur"evna, Ph. D. in Philology Stavropol State Pedagogical Institute [email protected]

The article aims to study "Russian Dictionary of Language Extensions" by A. I. Solzhenitsyn which is considered as a certain form of "dialogue" with the Russian writers of the XX century. By means of meta-poetical data (analysis of the introduction to the dictionary) the researcher discovers the mechanism of writer's work over the edition, identifies the sources, purpose and tasks of its development, emphasizes the author's interpretation of its importance . Relying on A. I. Solzhenitsyn's "Literary collection" the paper presents analytical survey of the functioning of the "Russian Dictionary of Language Extensions" lexexes-definitions in the creative work by Y. Zamyatin, I. Shmelyov and A. Solzhenitsyn.

Key words and phrases: lexeme; dictionary language; literary work; literary collection; creative work by Y. Zamyatin, I. Shmelyov, A. Solzhenitsyn.

The article reveals a new perspective on the landscape element in Mary Montague's Travel Letters. In her lyrical landscapes, the category of nature is associated with the feelings, perceptions, ideas, and emotions of the characters. The landscape begins to be attracted to the image inner world and the state of the characters, complements the image of the situation and the author himself. From an external detail, the landscape turns into a psychological one. In such a lyrical landscape, emotionality and expressiveness are important; feeling becomes the defining beginning.

Key words and phrases: lyrical landscape; descriptions of nature; the hero's state of mind; travel letters; depiction of realistic pictures of nature.

Nagornova Ekaterina Valerievna, Ph.D. Sc., Associate Professor

Russian University friendship of peoples katya-nagornova@yandex. T

LYRICAL LANDSCAPE OF “TRAVEL LETTERS” BY M. MONTAGUE

Until now, the landscape has remained aloof from the main lines of study by both domestic and foreign researchers. This was probably due to the fact that for a long time the role of landscape in the prose literature of the early Enlightenment was underestimated.

In domestic studies (G. V. Anikin, B. E. Galanov, V. V. Kozhinov, E. I. Savostyanov, Z. S. Starkova) and foreign (B. X. Bronson, M. Drabble, V. R Canady, S. N. Manlove, H. M. Nicholson, J. Tod) literary scholars note that the general artistic tasks of literature until the middle of the eighteenth century were solved with little or no participation of the landscape, although by all, without exception, researchers of the Enlightenment. Attention is drawn to the changing relationship between Nature and Man, Reason and Feeling. The works of B. E. Galanov, E. I. Savostyanov, Z. S. Starkova trace the evolution of the development of landscape as an element literary work. These researchers recognize the presence of landscape in the literature of all times, but landscape began to occupy a significant place only in the works of sentimentalist poets, that is, in the second half of the 18th century. Later, G.V. Anikin, analyzing the aesthetics of J. Ruskin, recognizes the strengthening of man’s emotional perception of the world. He writes about the development of observation, a new idea of ​​beauty in connection with increased interest in science, and that an increased sense of nature leads to the emergence of special forms of art and among them - landscape. The scientist highlights from Ruskin various types“picturesque”, most of which are visible only in the literature of the second half of HUL! century.

• A. I. Solzhenitsyn from the series “Little Girls” Kristina Tkach Review of the story, 66.97kb.
• Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 55.68kb.
• Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn (b. 1918): comments // Solzhenitsyn A. I. Around the first. , 370.44kb.
• Analysis of the text based on the works of A. I. Solzhenitsyn “Little Girls”. Kovalchuk E. A., , 51.59kb.
• Topic: Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, 151.86kb.
• Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Matrenin Dvor, 497kb.
• Solzhenitsyn - humanist writer, 57.25kb.
• Druzhinina Tatyana Valentinovna, 199.24kb.
• Alexander Solzhenitsyn. One day of Ivan Denisovich, 1520.38kb.
• Oleg Pavlov Russian man in the 20th century, 188.57kb.

Purpose of the lesson: acquaintance with the task of the dictionary - to understand Russian words, relying on the Russian language itself, thereby giving new life to newly discovered words; unique lexical material that expresses the writer’s main commandment: “Do not live by lies.”

Equipment: A.I. Solzhenitsyn “Russian language expansion dictionary.”

Lesson structure:

Teacher: When learning any foreign language, such as English, you cannot do without a dictionary for this language. You look at the dictionary located at the end of the textbook, and sometimes you look for the word you need in large dictionaries.

Each of us learns the Russian language from the very first moments of life, because we constantly hear it. As babies, we do not yet know either textbooks or dictionaries, but in the first four to five years of our lives we learn a huge number of words in our native language - perhaps no less than we learn throughout our entire subsequent lives.

By the time we reach school, we already know so many Russian words that we can begin to study not only the Russian language, but also other subjects. And since we speak Russian fluently, it sometimes seems to us that we know all the words of the Russian language. However, this is far from the case!

If we take any dictionary of the Russian language, and there are quite a few such dictionaries, we will see that there are many words that we do not know at all and that we do not use. Meanwhile, these words were and are actively used by people living in other places, people of other professions, or used by people of another time. Some words will have meanings unknown to us. Thus, there will be a lot of unknowns in the Russian language!

Among the numerous dictionaries of the Russian language, first of all, one should name spelling dictionaries: they indicate how a particular word is correctly spelled. There are etymological dictionaries, which contain information about the origin of words. There are explanatory dictionaries: they provide different meanings and shades of a particular word. The classic “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” was compiled by the remarkable scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Dal, who lived in Russia in the 19th century.

But today we will talk about an unusual dictionary. This - "Russian language extension dictionary." It was completed by Russian writer Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn in 1988 and was published in 1990. This dictionary contains rarely used and long-forgotten words.

Before we begin to get acquainted with this amazing dictionary, it is necessary to at least briefly say about the life path of the writer who undertook such an unusual work.

Student:

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn was born in the city of Kislovodsk on December 11, 1918, and ended his earthly journey on August 3, 2008 in Trinity-Lykovo near Moscow.

Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn wrote many wonderful books. But for quite a long time his books were banned in our country and distributed secretly. Why was it forbidden to read his books?

After graduating from university, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was preparing to become a teacher and was going to teach mathematics at school. But the Great began Patriotic War, and he went to the front. Having become an artilleryman and battery commander, he took part in many battles and received high military awards. However, in February 1945, when the war was already nearing its end, he was arrested on political charges, right at the front. Only in 1956 was the writer released from prison, and the following year he was rehabilitated, i.e. found completely innocent.

Student:

He described the suffering of people, which the writer witnessed in the prisons and camps he passed through, in his large work “The Gulag Archipelago.”

What does this name mean?

Gulag is the Main Directorate of Camps. The archipelago is an image of the mainland, which for decades was covered with a dense network of “island” camps. In the words of the writer himself, “the country of the Gulag, torn apart by geography into an archipelago, but shackled by psychology into a continent, is an almost invisible, almost intangible country inhabited by a people of prisoners.” In these camps, along with criminals, political prisoners also languished.

Having suffered himself and witnessed the grave suffering of thousands of other innocent people, the writer formulated the main commandment of his life: “ Don't live by lies." Solzhenitsyn captured the pain and suffering of his people in his books. And the truth reflected in them turned out to be so bitter and terrible that those who wanted to hide this truth from the people and who were denounced by Solzhenitsyn’s books, not daring to put the writer behind bars again, expelled him from the Fatherland. After 20 years, in 1994, the writer returned to his homeland. And even earlier, 5 years before his return, his books began to be published in Russia.

Teacher:

"Russian language extension dictionary"- one of Solzhenitsyn’s most unusual books and, perhaps, one of the rare dictionaries of the Russian language. We have already named the main commandment that guided the writer: “Do not live by lies.” How was the writer able to express it using the unique lexical material collected in his dictionary?

There is a word in the dictionary bad news, meaning "lack of news." Many of Solzhenitsyn’s contemporaries were cut off from their native antiquity, from folk life, which Russian people lived for many centuries, from rich history and the cultures of their people, since they knew little about them. But they were also divorced from reality, because no one spoke out loud the truth about the millions of innocently convicted prisoners - their fellow citizens.

Solzhenitsyn took upon himself the feat announce the truth about crimes against Russia, against its people, its history in an era when many of the writer’s compatriots did not know the whole truth. The works of Alexander Isaevich were brought to people news about the many martyrs of prisons and camps in our country, thereby preserving for history evidence of the suffering and death of innocently convicted people - those whom he saw himself and about whom he was told. For decades, the writer carefully studied the history of Russia in the 20th century, compared it with the pre-revolutionary period and was forced to draw conclusions not in favor of the 20th century.

In addition, Alexander Isaevich, as a writer, acutely felt that Russian people were cut off not only from their faith, history and rich culture, but also from your native language. But language is what distinguishes one people from another, and something without which there cannot be a people. It is no coincidence that in ancient times the word “language” also meant the people themselves who spoke this language. Let us recall the famous Pushkin lines:

Rumors about me will spread throughout Great Rus',

And every tongue that is in it will call me -

And the proud grandson of the Slavs, and the Finn, and now wild

Tungus, and friend of the steppes Kalmyk.

A people cannot have a full life if their native language is lost or distorted.

What is this dictionary?

The dictionary included: “abandoned”, “banished”, “forbidden” words that the writer wanted to save from oblivion, from being lost by their descendants. Alexander Isaevich himself wrote about his dictionary: “There are words chosen here that in no way deserve premature death... and yet they are almost completely abandoned.”

The dictionary contains notes about the origin of words. These are not only indications of the remote outlying regions of Russia, from where the words “Siberian”, “Ural”, “Arkhangelsk” and others were borrowed. The dictionary contains marks that indicate that the words belong to those spheres of life of the Russian people from which many of Solzhenitsyn’s contemporaries found themselves cut off for almost a whole century: “church”, “Cossack”, “song”, “folk”, “ancient” and the like.

Solzhenitsyn’s “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion” can also be called “a dictionary of the possibilities of the Russian language.” In the preface to his dictionary, he writes: “Sometimes I offer interpretations that are more applicable today than half a century ago... In some cases, the explanation is not given for greater freedom of use, more scope for imagination.”

This dictionary teaches you to understand Russian words, relying on the Russian language itself. In doing so, he gives new life to newly discovered words. “The best way to enrich a language is to restore previously accumulated and then lost wealth” - Solzhenitsyn believed.

Let's ask a question:

What does the Russian language say about truth and lies? How to live not by lies?

With these same questions, let’s turn to the “Russian Language Expansion Dictionary” and see what words on this topic are in it.

Here are some examples:

Forgotten - in fact, truly, truly (Are you telling the truth or are you telling the truth?). A true story is the truth, what actually happened; really - “forget it.”

Zapravsky, pravsky - genuine, real. The root is here - rights; zapravsky - the one who is “in truth”, correct, real, for example: zapravsky rider – “a skilled, real rider.”

Double- speak ambiguously, dissemble.

What then can you call a person who is not divided in his thoughts and words? There is a wonderful word in Solzhenitsyn’s dictionary chaste. The root here has the opposite meaning: instead of “bifurcation” - “integrity, wholeness, intactness.” If a person is chaste, it means he is not doubles, This means that his thought is not damaged by guile. What else can you call an intact thought? Intact means “healthy”. Therefore, the word chaste close another word:

Chaste- sensible. It has a synonym:

Right-thinking – sane.

And what did people say about those whose thoughts were not healthy?

To be smart - make a fool, don't listen good advice.

Do you know what the word "rage" means? In the dictionary there is a word close in meaning to it:

Be proud- to brag boldly, to be rude. What a bright word, you can hear the word “pride” in it. Is it not pride that causes bragging, rudeness, and violence?

lie- become a liar.

Bryakotun, bryakun– liar, idle talker (can blurt out anything without thinking about the significance of each word).

There are also such words in the “Russian Language Expansion Dictionary”:

To speak evilly

To speak impudently,

Harmful speaker, malicious speaker.

You see, the word, it turns out, is capable of doing evil, causing harm. That is why Solzhenitsyn pays so much attention to every word!

The Russian Language Expansion Dictionary contains words that will surprise many today. Look:

Evil wisdom, evil wisdom, evil teaching,

Evil-wise,

False wise.

Mudrovanye – 1. inappropriate cleverness; 2. false wisdom.

It turns out that even wisdom can bring evil. Of course, this is not real wisdom, but counterfeit wisdom, that is, posing as wisdom.

But in reality it is deceit and evil. People felt that not every “teaching is light”, there are also “evil teachings”!

As you remember, Solzhenitsyn did not give interpretations to all words: in some cases, he specifically provided the reader with “freedom of use and scope for imagination.”

Let's try to understand for ourselves what words such as:

Malice. We are hardly talking about “dirty writing”. Perhaps these were the names of books containing evil teachings?

Malicious. Probably this word is derived from the ancient word “custom”, that is, “way of life”. It reminds us that not only individual actions are evil, a person’s lifestyle, habits, and customs are also evil. An evil person can become malicious. Who is this?

Malicious, malicious- who easily accepts evil.

A person who strives to live not by lies should know all these words in order to avoid making moral mistakes in his life.

But there are other words that were like hints for people - how to live in accordance with the truth, how not only to speak, but also to carry the truth in life. Here are some such words:

All-seeing, all-knowing. These words in Solzhenitsyn’s dictionary are given as synonyms, and also without explanation. Who can we call all-seeing and all-knowing, that is, seeing everyone and everything and knowing, knowing everything and about everyone? In ancient Russian books, these words were used only in relation to God. It is no coincidence that the word “justice” receives this explanation:

Justly - justice, according to God.

Goodwill. What could this word mean?

Goodwill – the opposite of the meaning of the word "schadenfreude". The words “gloating” and “gloating” are well known to all of us. Agree, isn’t it really a good idea to expand your vocabulary so that the words “goodwill” and “joyful” appear again and so that they appear in our speech more often than the word “schadenfreude”? Solzhenitsyn's dictionary helps us further expand our understanding of “goodwill.”

Dobroradny – Remember the word "careless": please - means “to care”; good-natured not someone who is simply happy if someone else is feeling good, good-natured he cares about others. Check out the explanation: good-natured -it is well-willed. Solzhenitsyn gives the word be willing(to someone), that is, “to want good for someone” and to please - “to take care of it”

We often say or hear the expression “out of spite.” But we need to use the expression “for good” more often in our words.

Benevolent -skilled in good, good. It turns out that doing good is not so easy, it is an entire art, you need to learn it!

Prosperity. What could it be?

Prosperity –perseverance in goodness. It turns out that in good deeds, as in difficult trials, perseverance is needed!

Which of these words do you think should be added to your personal dictionary first? Let's write down three words for now from the “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion” by Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn:

Dobroradny– good-willed, caring for good.

Benevolent- skilled in good, good.

Prosperity - perseverance in goodness.

This is how many words we learned for ourselves today from the dictionary compiled by A.I. Solzhenitsyn. Now we know that if a word is used very rarely, it is in danger of dying out. And if a word is used often, but is used without meaning, not to the point, or in place of another more precise word, then our speech becomes distorted and meager.

“Of course, there is no point in trying to avoid words like computer, laser, copier, names of technical devices,” wrote Alexander Isaevich. But if such unbearable words as weekend, briefing, image, and others, “then we need to say goodbye to the Russian language altogether,” the writer believed.

Imagine how impoverished our speech will be if we respond to every wonderful or even delightful news with only three or four words: “cool!”, “cool!”, “cool!” and “cool!” If, for example, a parrot learns some three or four words and pronounces them appropriately and inappropriately, then it will be very amusing and funny.

Each of you has your own vocabulary. Some people have a richer vocabulary, others have a more modest one. But the main thing is that each of you can enrich it, expand it, if you love to read Russian classical literature– a storehouse of vocabulary wealth of the Russian language.

Literature:

“Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”, compiled by A.I. Solzhenitsyn

(M.: Nauka, 1990. 272 ​​p.)

This text has not yet been proofread.- there is no dictionary itself (only scanned PDF via links). Plan: obtain the original electronic text from the copyright holder.

EXPLANATION

Since 1947, for many years (and all the camp years, so rich in patience and only small scraps of leisure), I worked almost daily on processing Dalev’s dictionary - for my literary needs and language gymnastics. To do this, I first read all four volumes of Dahl in a row, very carefully, and wrote down words and expressions in a form convenient for coverage, repetition and use. Then I found these extracts still too cumbersome and began to pull out the second from the first extract, and then from the second the third.

All this work as a whole helped me to recreate in myself the feeling of the depth and breadth of the Russian language, which I had a presentiment of, but was deprived of them due to my southern birth, urban youth - and which, as I increasingly understood, we had all undeservedly discarded in our haste century, due to careless use of words and according to the celibate Soviet custom. However, in my books I could appropriately use only five hundredth of what I found. And I wanted to somehow make up for the withering impoverishment of the Russian language and the general decline in feeling for it - especially for those young people in whom the thirst for the freshness of their native language is strong, and to satiate it - they do not have the many years of space that I used. And in general, for everyone who in our era is pushed away from the roots of the language by the obsolescence of today's written language. This is how the idea was born to compile a “Dictionary of Language Expansion” or “Living in Our Language”: not in the sense of “what lives today,” but what else can, has the right to live. Since 1975, for this purpose, I began to work through Dahl’s dictionary again, bringing to it the vocabulary of other Russian authors, of the last century and modern ones (those who wish can still find a lot from them, and the dictionary will be significantly enriched); also historical expressions that keep things fresh; and what I myself heard in different places - but not from the cliches of the Soviet era, but from the fundamental stream of language.

The best way to enrich a language is to restore previously accumulated and then lost wealth. So do the French early XIX centuries (C. Nodier and others) came to this correct method: to restore Old French words that had already been lost in the 18th century. (But we must not miss here other dangers to the language, for example, the modern surge of the international English wave. Of course, there is no point in trying to avoid words such as computer, laser, copier, names of technical devices. But if such unbearable words as “weekend”, “briefing”, “establishment” and even “establishment” (upper-statutory? supreme?), “image” - then we must say goodbye to our native language altogether. My proposals may not be accepted, but do not defend the language. along this line we cannot. Other, still Dale, proposals for replacing words, not all of them have taken root, I present, however, as a reminder, with the caveat “sometimes you can say” - at least for rare cases, at least in works of art.)

So, this dictionary in no way pursues the usual task of dictionaries: to present as complete a language as possible. On the contrary, all known and confidently used words are absent here. (With general dictionaries, overlaps are inevitable only when shades of meaning are traced.) Here words have been selected that in no way deserve premature death, are still quite flexible, fraught with rich movement - and yet almost completely abandoned, existing close to the border of our worn-out narrow usage , is an area of ​​desirable and feasible linguistic expansion. Also words, partly still used, but less and less, are being lost just in our time, so that they are in danger of dying out. Or ones that can be given a refreshing new meaning today. (And, for example, with surprise we can discover among the original ancient Russian words seeming new acquisitions of modern jargon - like stare, bite, nadybat, stash, from the end etc.) Therefore, this dictionary is the opposite of the usual normal one: everything that is not used enough is eliminated - here it is precisely this that stands out. The dictionary is not compiled according to the usual standards, and I do not claim any scientific selection. This dictionary has a rather artistic purpose.

I paid increased attention to adverbs and verbal nouns, masculine and feminine, appreciating their energy. I relied on my personal linguistic instinct, trying on which words had not yet lost their share in the language or even promised flexible use. And when I found such a word as regional, ancient or ecclesiastical, I included it, often without restrictive reference: due to their unlost expressiveness, such words have the dignity of life and dissemination. In addition, Dahl’s regional instructions are naturally incomplete: he indicates the province where he heard it reliably, but the word lives in other regions, I found such cases. And in our time of population mixing, it is all the more important not to localize a word, but to quality it. (But what a word is so lucky: try to invent the word “travel” for the first time now - you will be laughed at for being pompous and artificial.) In this vocabulary expansion we encounter words of hundreds of new shades, an unusual number of syllables and rhymes that have not yet been used by anyone.

In accordance with this task of the dictionary, many words are not explained here at all, or the idea of ​​​​their possible use is only suggested. Many illustrative examples are taken verbatim from Dahl. In some cases, no explanation is given for greater freedom of use and more imagination. If the reader finds it difficult, he can take help from a large systematic dictionary, but the principle of our dictionary is only selection. If a word taken from a writer gives the possibility of interpretations other than his, I do not give any, leaving ambiguity. Sometimes I offer interpretations that are more applicable today than they were half a century ago. (For example, in Dahl, “backwording” is explained as an allegory, but today it is more likely: an expression adopted from someone or the use of speech standards.) Sometimes here it is a form of assimilation of a foreign word ( organization, protest).

The reader will not find here the completeness of the grammatical apparatus. To reduce the volume, the grammatical categories of words are not indicated everywhere, but only where it seemed necessary to me in the manual. The gender of nouns is mostly self-explanatory, adverbs are noted more often due to their unusualness. Verbs are not always given in pairs (imperfect and perfect), sometimes only one of the pair is explained, or only one of the two is explained - which I find more prominent and expressive.

Dictionaries built on large nests, like Dalev’s, are therefore doomed to neglect the alphabet ( envelop - wrap around the end). But it is as if strictly alphabetical dictionaries (like the 17-volume academic dictionary of the 50s) still allow for small nests, which means small deviations from the alphabet. And the choice of what to take as the basis of the nest (here it is often a verb) changes the arrangement of words inside it. Significant alphabetic fluctuations can also be caused by missing a letter in the prefix: about(about), WHO. Graphically, I did not highlight the nests; in this dictionary it would not make sense: most often the base word is completely omitted here, and only derivatives are given - several or even just one, and the entire dictionary flows like a series of dismembered verbal units, where derivatives are equal in rights to the original ones. But, following Dahl, I placed next to the verbs some verbs derived from them with prefixes (collected together, they are more visual), adverbs from the main word, derived forms with a change in the root vowel, or words added by association, by contrast - to deepen the impression . More often, the junction and sequence in the mutual connection of neighboring words are more important. Thus, the proposed dictionary is not intended for searching alphabetically, not for reference, but for reading, in places in a row, or for casual peeking. The desired word can be found not strictly on the spot, but with a slight shift. Sometimes a verb with a prefix can appear both by the root and by the prefix: for such a dictionary I did not see any harm in such repetition.

But even if these additions had not been made, a strictly alphabetical order would not have been possible due to fluctuations between the etymological and phonetic principles. (And stability is achievable only at the two extreme poles.) Currently, Soviet grammarians strongly incline writing towards the phonetic principle. I already had to write elsewhere that this principle has limits; phonetic techniques cannot be used to the end, because the meaning of the words is obscured. After all, we still don’t write “create”, “opter”, “rasskashchik”, “obeschik”. Or, for example, it is accepted stupid, But no use- but there is no phonetic difference. Pronunciation also changes depending on time or location. (On the contrary, the etymological principle could probably be followed quite consistently, although this would make reading and writing difficult for those who are not literate.)

The dispute between these principles is clearly reflected, for example, in the writing of prefixes without-, without-, from-, times- before voiceless sounds (before voiced sounds there is no dispute). Here, the phonetic principle consistently extinguishes the meaning of words, such as to cut, to gallop, to wear out, to try, to whittle away, through force, without bondage, without quarrel, without advice (and without class), sent down, send out, nearby. The problem must be solved somehow intermediately, which is how Dahl solved it. He writes prepositions with “-z” as “-s”: before k, i, t, f, x, i, h, w, sch(but “without” is often retained in front of them), however, he very much clings to the combination “zs” - for etymological clarity. I also tried to stick to some kind of intermediate solution: always trying to clearly express the meaning of the word, but also without defiantly diverging from phonetics. (Still, I considered “k” to be the least voiceless of the three voiceless plosives “p”, “t”, “k”.) But also in paired combinations “zs” or “ss”, “zk” or “sk”, “zt ” or “st”, “zkh” or “skh” - the choice had to be made each time so that the exact meaning of the word does not fade away, depending on its familiarity or rarity. Of course, all such decisions are made subjectively, and I do not insist on them. Here we must look for a decent balance, and I do not claim that I have found it.

Often Dahl gives bright words - casually, not in the place where they should be (for example, restlessly), but on the spot it doesn’t give them, I tried to return some to the alphabet, as well as some words from large nests, if they deviate greatly in meaning.

I consider the spellings “ъи” and “ы” to be equal ( bendless, bendless), I use both. (But they are not identical everywhere; in particular cases, a preference is possible.) I chose the spellings in nouns with “-nik” and “-niik” in each case based on the word.

If an explanation or selection of synonyms is given to a word, then: through a dash in cases of more direct correspondence; using a parenthesis when the explanation is more indirect.

Occasionally I dare to shift the emphasis or double it (there are mistakes in Dahl’s I-II editions). Words directly related to horses and some examples of swear words are highlighted in the appendix.

My youngest son Stepan helped me a lot when compiling the dictionary.