Modern Semitic linguistics in Russia arises and develops as an integral part of semitology - a complex historical and philological science. Within the framework of this article, it is impossible to exhaustively cover and highlight all areas of this multidisciplinary science and the activities of all its worthy representatives, to mention all scientific and educational centers Therefore, the author confines himself to turning points in the history of Semitic linguistics and the most original ideas and hypotheses in this area.

The prehistory of scientific semitology in Russia is a long period of accumulation of information about Semitic-speaking peoples, starting from Moscow Rus and until the foundation of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1724-1725). In brief, this "prehistoric" period can be described as an expansion of knowledge about Semitic languages, about Semitic religions (Judaism and Islam), about Semitic culture and literature. These processes were connected with the development of trade and political contacts between Russia and the countries of Asia and Africa, and with the expansion of relations with the Orthodox patriarchates abroad in the East and Africa .2

Systematic teaching of the Hebrew language in Russian theological academies began as early as the first half of the 18th century. Along with the Hebrew language, the first information about the Ethiopian language as the language of the only Christian state in Africa also penetrates the spiritual and scientific environment. In the middle of the 18th century (1755), M. V. Lomonosov ordered the development of a technique for printing a syllabic Ethiopian font. Information about the Arabic language gets to Russia through pilgrims to Palestine, travelers to the East and Africa, indirectly - from European and Byzantine written sources, as well as through Turkish and Tatar trade relations.

The Kunstkamera, founded by Peter I, and later the Asian Museum, established in St. Petersburg in 1818, became the main centers for the collection and study of Oriental manuscripts and books. Since the beginning of the XVIII century, the Kunstkamera has been forming large numismatic collections created from Oriental coins that were discovered in hoards discovered on the territory of Russia.

Young Russian research centers attract foreign orientalists for the development of Oriental studies. Some of them made a great contribution to the development of semitology on the Russian soil. A native of Germany, G. J. Ker (1692-1740) was the first in Europe to decipher the Kufic script and show that this font is only a type of Arabic script; he also established the Indian origin of Arabic numerals. Orientalist August Schlezer (1735-1809), working in Russia, introduces not only the term "Semitic languages", but also the concept of kinship of languages. Under the influence of Leibniz's ideas, the Comparative Dictionary of All Languages and Dialects, compiled by order of Empress Catherine II, was published in St. Petersburg in 1787-1814).

(c) 2003

page 23

It also includes Semitic languages: Hebrew, Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic, Maltese, Assyrian (New Aramaic?).

The expansion of the manuscript, epigraphic, and numismatic collections of the Asian Museum, the introduction of teaching Oriental languages at St. Petersburg University, provided a continuous tradition of research in the 19th century, and the expansion of the circle of semitologists and Arabists of the historical and philological direction. The first semitologists of Russia in the 19th century received preliminary scientific training in Europe, mainly in the scientific centers of classical semitology in Germany and France.

Later, Oriental studies centers began to form in Russia as well. Since 1811, the teaching of Oriental languages has been introduced at Moscow University. A.V. Boldyrev (1780-1842), who received fundamental semitological training in Germany and France, begins teaching Arabic and Hebrew and compiles the first scientific grammar of the Arabic language (largely influenced by Sylvester de Sacy, as well as the subsequent grammar of the Arabic language by M. T. Navrotsky (1823-1871). The German orientalist Samuel Genzi (1794-1829) teaches Hebrew at the University of Dorpat (now Tartu). Academician B. A. Dorn (1805-1881) began teaching Arabic, Hebrew, and Ethiopian in Kharkov, and then continued in St. Petersburg (1842-1881). The scientist devotes his scientific research to a critical study of the Ethiopian translations of the Bible, psalms, and also works on the description of Ethiopian manuscripts. In 1807-1817, the Center of Arabic studies was formed in Kazan under the leadership of A. D. Fren (1782-1851). This center paid great attention to the study of Arabic sources on the history of Russia. Later, the representative of the Kazan school, G. S. Sablukov (1804-1880 )made the first translation of the Qur'an into Russian directly from the original Arabic on the basis of the late Muslim tradition (ed. 1877, 1894, 1907) .3

In St. Petersburg, along with the study of Arabic and Ethiopian manuscripts, the study of Jewish, Hebrew - Arabic manuscripts by the Hebraists D. A. Khvolson (1819-1911), A. Ya.Garkavi (1835-1919), and Jonah Gurland (1843-1890) is expanding.

D. A. Khvolson, a semitologist with multi-faceted interests, contributed to the development of many areas of Russian semitology. In 1855, he defended his dissertation "Sabaeans and Sabeism" at the University of Breslau (published in 1856), studied and published Jewish inscriptions from the Crimea, and carried out the first scientific translation of the Bible into Russian. Aspects of D. A. Khvolson's research and teaching activities were: history of the East, Assyriology, Eastern epigraphy, grammar and phonetics of the Hebrew language. His student A. J. Garkavi, who received scientific training in Berlin from Lepsius, in Paris - from Oppert, is responsible for research and publication of handwritten sources, monuments of Semitic epigraphy, including the history of the Slavs and Russians (1869), the history of Jews in Poland and Lithuania, and the legends of Jewish authors about the Khazars (1874).. Relying on handwritten sources, A. Ya. Garkavi gave a new light to the history of the Karaites .4 In 1872, he devoted his doctoral dissertation to the problem of the ancestral homeland of Semitic-Hamitic and Indo-European peoples ("On the original habitation of Semites, Indo-Europeans and Hamites"). As a librarian of the Imperial Public Library (St. Petersburg) for many years, A. Y. Garkavi published descriptions and catalogues of Semitic manuscripts, including the first Russian catalog of Samaritan manuscripts, 5 and was a co-editor of the Jewish Encyclopedia.

In the mid-19th century, Hebraic studies were introduced by G. P. Pavsky (1787-1863) and K. A. Kossovich (1815-1883), who was also a Sanskrit scholar.

In 1882, the Orthodox Palestinian Society was created (since 1918, as the Russian Palestinian Society, it has been included in the Academy of Sciences system).

page 24

It plays an important role in bringing together Russian semitological studies and publishing their results. The Faculty of Oriental Languages of St. Petersburg University, which opened in 1855, becomes the center for training scientific personnel of semitologists and general Orientalists. In the middle of the 19th century, Prof. Sheikh M. Tantavi and O. I. Senkovsky were later studied by the famous Finnish Arabists G. A. Wallin and A.-G.-A. Chelgern.

The main bases for the development of classical Russian semitology in the 19th century were the manuscript collections of the Asiatic Museum (1818-1930, and since 1930-the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR), the Imperial Public Library (now the St. Petersburg Library named after V. I. Abramovich). Saltykov-Shchedrin), libraries of the Faculty of Oriental Studies of St. Petersburg University. The introduction of A. S. Firkovich's manuscript collections (1784-1874) to the Public Library in the 70s of the XIX century created the basis for studying Jewish, Arabic-Jewish and Samaritan manuscripts and contributed to the further development of semitology.

In the late 1880s, the first Abyssinian scholar, a graduate of the Theological Academy V. V. Bolotov (1854-1900), began his scientific activity in St. Petersburg. He refers to Ethiopian sources on the history of the Ethiopian Church and literature. At the same time, V. V. Bolotov, one of the first in Russia, gets acquainted with the Amharic language.

In the second half of the 19th century, a philological direction was developed in St. Petersburg thanks to the great Russian scholar V. F. Girgas (1835-1887). V. F. Girgas is the author of the first Russian study of Arabic grammatical theory (1873), based on primary sources that had not yet been published, and the dictionary of the Koran and the Arabic Anthology (1881), which is still used today. The continuation of the tradition of V. F. Girgas and M. T. Navrotsky was V. R. Rosen (1849-1908), a general orientalist who received scientific training at the Leipzig School of G. Fleischer. Under the leadership of V. R. Rosen, a new school of Russian Oriental studies is being formed. In 1876, V. R. Rosen was one of the organizers of the III International Congress of Orientalists, held in St. Petersburg.

Source studies, which has a fundamental basis of the manuscript heritage, is actively developing. In 1891, A. F. Shebunin completed a paleographic study of the "Ottoman" list of the Koran; students of V. R. Rosen, in particular N. A. Mednikov (1855-1918) and D. K. Petrov (1872-1925), studied sources on the history of Byzantine - Arab relations, the history of Palestine, and Spanish-Arabic literature.

Since 1848, new programs and charters of the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages have been developed in Moscow, which has become a center for practical training of orientalists. In addition to Russians, natives of the Arab East are also involved as teachers.

The turn of the XIX-XX centuries was marked by the beginning of the development of Semitic linguistics: in 1901 , the popular work of the representative of the Moscow School A. E. Krymsky (1871-1941) "Semitic Languages and Peoples" (based on the book by T. Neldeke) 6 was published, and in 1908 the course "Introduction to Semitic Languages" was included in the curriculum at St. Petersburg University at the Faculty of Oriental Studies. semitology".

The foundation of Russian Assyriology at the end of the 19th century is laid by M. V. Nikolsky (1848-1917), a graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, known for his research and publication of Cappadocian texts (Old Akkadian texts from the Assyrian colonies in Asia Minor, Moscow, 1915), and wedge-shaped inscriptions of Transcaucasia (Moscow, 1896). On the basis of cuneiform monuments from the collections of Egyptologists B. S. Golenishchev and N. P. Likhachev in the 90s of the XIX century, publications by B. A. Turaev appear.

At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries, the historical and philological direction of Russian semitology continues to develop. Building on the latest achievements of the Western Council of Europe-

page 25

mitologies and results of Russian researchers of the XIX century, a new galaxy of major scientists contributes to the development of semitology. Academician B. A. Turaev (1868-1920), a historian of the Ancient East and Abyssinian scholar, opens a new source for historical science in the field of Ethiopian studies - hagiographic literature in the Ethiopian language; creates a complete catalog of Ethiopian manuscripts from the collections of St. Petersburg collections of his time. Academician P. K. Kokovtsov (1861-1942), semitologist - encyclopedist, disciple and successor of D. A. Khvolson, improved his knowledge in scientific centers of Germany and France, Italy, England and Turkey. He turns to the study and publication of Hebrew-Arabic manuscripts and draws the attention of the scientific community to the medieval Jewish philological school of the X-XII centuries, which initiated the comparative study of Hebrew and Arabic (master's degree, dissertation 1893, ed. 1916); in 1932, he published the work " Jewish-Khazar correspondence in the X century.", representing a sample of source research 7 . Academician I. Y. Krachkovsky (1883-1951) played a decisive role in the development of Russian and Soviet Arabic studies, not only in the field of source studies and literary studies (the discovery of New Arabic literature), but also in the field of linguistic study of the Arabic language and dialects, the Efiosemitic and South Arabian languages .8

After the revolution of 1917, the manuscript collections of the scientific centers of Petrograd and Moscow were replenished with collections of manuscripts and books from pre-revolutionary state, spiritual and private collections; the funds of the Asian Museum received Jewish-Karaite manuscripts from the Karaite National Library of Crimea, the collection of Jewish books of the L. P. Friedland Library( Bibliotheca Fridlenderiana), later - from the private libraries of B. A. Turaev and P. K. Kokovtsov. The former Rumyantsev Library (Moscow) receives an extensive collection of Jewish books and manuscripts by D. G. Ginzburg.

By the middle of the 20th century, a solid collection of Arabic manuscripts was being formed at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek SSR (Tashkent). In general, by the middle of the 20th century, Russian semitology already had a powerful database of materials that would ensure its further development. This database was presented by:

1. Book collections of the State Public Library (Leningrad/Saint Petersburg); libraries of the Institute of Information Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Leningrad/St. Petersburg); the Russian National Library (named after Lenin); in addition. Russian semitology had more than half of all the original printed Jewish books (incunabula) preserved in the world.

2. Russian semitologists have 20 thousand Hebrew and Hebrew-Arabic manuscripts at their disposal: these collections also include: the first collection of A. Firkovich's manuscripts (1862) and his second collection (1875), and the collection of Archimandrite Antonin (Kapustin), head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem (mid-second half of the 19th century) .9

3. 40 thousand Arabic manuscripts (all over the Soviet Union, data from 1982) 10 .

4. The papyrus collections in Moscow and Leningrad in 1940 amounted to about 300 units.

Source studies and the historical and philological direction of classical semitology have been developing in Russia throughout the 20th century. At the same time, the language and genre of the source determine the differentiation of research in this previously broad direction.

In the field of Assyriology, V. K. Shileyko (1891-1930), continuing the tradition of publishing cuneiform texts and their translations, prepared for publication a collection of texts of monuments of Babylonian literature in verse translations11 . His student A. P. Riftin (1900-1945) also researched and published cuneiform legal and administrative documents. In 1933, he resumed his career in Leningrad State University.

page 26

At the University, the teaching of the Akkadian language was initiated, marking the beginning of an independent Russian school of Assyriologists and philologists, having prepared in 1938 the Assyriologist L. A. Lipin (1908-1970) and the general semitologist historian I. M. Diakonov (1915-1999).

Gradually, Assyriology becomes a discipline that combines philological and linguistic analysis of texts with historical research. The new school of Assyriology, headed by Professor I. M. Diakonov, continues in the works of V. A. Yakobson, V. K. Afanasyeva, N. B. Yankovskaya, N. V. Kozyreva, G. H. Kaplan, I. S. Klochkov and representatives of the younger generation.

In the 1920s, the teaching of the Syriac language by A. P. Alyavdin (1885-1965) and Hebrew by M. N. Sokolov (1890-1937) at Leningrad University paved the way for the formation of independent areas of Syriology and wide - profile Hebraic studies. In 1921, M. N. Sokolov was also one of the secretaries of the Board of Orientalists at the Asian Museum.

In the same years, an independent and authoritative school of Syriology was formed, the founder of which was N. V. Pigulevskaya (1894-1970). Based on Syriac sources, it recreates the history of the Middle East and Byzantium in the early Middle Ages. Her students G. M. Gluskina and A. V. Paikova (1932-1984) continue to work on Syriac sources and literary monuments, R. G. Rylova (1931-2002) devotes research to the Syriac grammar school 12 . E. N. Meshcherskaya continues to study the hagiographic genre and apocryphal works of early Syriac literature on the basis of Syriac sources.

K. B. Starkova (1915-2000) devotes research to the monuments of Qumran and Jewish-Arabic literature, studies manuscripts from the collection of A. Firkovich, ancient handwritten texts of the Bible from the collection of the Institute of Jewish Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and others. I. G. Bender (1900-1941) is engaged in the ancient history of the Jews, publishes a catalog of Jewish books (until 1892) of the Library of the Jewish Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1936); I. I. Ginzburg (1891-1942) works on Jewish manuscripts on philosophy and medicine, publishes a brief overview of the Jewish Fund of the Manuscript Department of the Jewish Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1936). The Hebraist N. M. Nikolsky (1877-1959) devotes numerous works to the ancient history of Israel, Phoenicia, and Mesopotamia. Hellenist and Hebraist I. D. Amusin (1910-1984), a historian of Ancient Near East Asia, is engaged in fundamental research of the documents of the Qumran community discovered in the Dead Sea area. M. M. Elizarova (1938-1978) works on the problems of the history of the Essene social and religious movement. Shanidze (Tbilisi) publishes a number of studies on Georgian-Jewish translations and editions of Hebrew texts. M. N. Zislin devotes research to various authors of the Eastern school of Hebrew grammarians of the X-XIII centuries. (Leningrad/Saint Petersburg).

In the 1930s, the older hebraist I. I. Ravrebe (?) and semitologist I. G. Frank-Kamenetsky (1880-1937) turned to the study of newly discovered written monuments of Ugarit.

After A. Y. Garkavi in the Public Library (Leningrad/P. K. Kokovtsov, I. Y. Markoy (1885-?), I. I. Ravrebe, and A. Ya. Borisov (1903-1942) continue their work on the registration and description of Arabic and Hebrew manuscripts from the collections of A. Firkovich and Antonin. Hebraist I. G. Troitsky (1859-1904), author of the first scientific grammar of the Hebrew language (1897). In the library of the Asiatic Museum, the collection of Jewish books by L. P. Friedland is systematically described by S. I. Wiener (1860-

page 27

1929), and the manuscripts - I. I. Ginzburg. In the former Rumyantsev Library (Moscow), Professor S. I. Eisenstadt is responsible for the collection of Jewish books and manuscripts.

In the first half of the 20th century, special studies on epigraphy and lexicography appeared in Russian semitology. I. N. Vinnikov (1897-1973), along with Arabic dialectology and ethnography, paid great attention to the analysis of Phoenician, Hebrew, Aramaic and Ugaritic epigraphic texts (1950s). In the 1950s and 1960s, the scientist published dictionaries-concordances of Aramaic texts. and Phoenician inscriptions. Under his leadership, a new method of compiling a dictionary for individual groups of monuments of Aramaic literature with fixing dialect differences was developed 13 .

The collections of Samaritan manuscripts in the collections and libraries of the Soviet Union are also of interest to researchers. L. H. Wilsker (1919-1988) published a number of translations and descriptions of Samaritan monuments, and published the first grammatical essay on the Samaritan language .14 M. M. Geltser (Vilnius) also studied the language of Qumran texts and Ugaritic monuments. The Semitic epigraphy of the Phoenician-Punic monuments is studied in the works of the historian I. S. Shifman (1930-1990). He also wrote the first Russian grammatical essay on the Phoenician language, which was studied by B. A. Turaev and I. N. Vinnikov. I. Sh. Shifman creates one of the first works in Russian semitology on the history and culture of the Nabataean state .15

As early as in the first half of the 20th century, Academician I. Y. Krachkovsky drew attention to the need for the development of Russian sabaeistics and domestic Abyssinian studies .16 In the second half of the 20th century, Russian Sabaeism was already represented by fundamental research on the history and epigraphy of Ancient Southern Arabia by A. G. Lundin (1929-1994). The author recreated the history of ancient Yemen and devoted a number of works to etymologies of epigraphic vocabulary and deciphering the proto-Sinai script .17

The Moscow school also contributes to the development of Russian Sabaeistics: G. M. Bauer (1925-1989), a historian and epigraphist, author of the first Russian essay on the language of South Arabian epigraphic writing, provides solutions to a number of etymological issues in the field of Sabaeistics. In 1991, his essay was published posthumously, which is the first study of modern South Arabian languages in Russian semitology18 .

J. B. Gruntfest (LSU graduate) publishes the first linguistic study based on the comparison of South Arabian epigraphic and other Semitic languages. After examining the forms and functions of the infinitive in epigraphic languages, he suggests that the functions of the infinitive differ significantly in Arabic and Hebrew. This is due to different features of the morphological systems of the compared languages. The South Arabian infinitive is to some extent associated with the development of a new perfect in Semitic languages. 19

At present, historical and philological studies in the field of Sabaeistics are continued in their joint works on Saykhad languages by the historian A. V. Korotaev and the general semitologist L. E. Kogan 20 . The linguistic direction in Saba studies is also developing thanks to the work of deciphering new epigraphic monuments from South Arabia by orientalists and historians: M. B. Piotrovsky - based on inscriptions from Hadramaut and Mahra, 21 S. A. Frantsuzov - based on new epigraphic materials of domestic expeditions in Yemen. 22 The languages of Ethiopia fall within the sphere of activity of semitologists-linguists, where the pioneer was N. V. Yushmanov (1896-1946). In the middle and second half of the 20th century, S. B. Chernetsov began his philological and historical research of Amharic materials .23 At the Saint Petersburg Uni-

page 28

The University is preparing a new shift of researchers to study medieval Ethiopian manuscripts.

In the first decades of the XX century, the St. Petersburg-Leningrad school of Semitology was widely represented by scientific and pedagogical activities of scientists in the field of Assyriology, Syriology and Hebraism: P. K. Kokovtsov, V. K. Shileyko and M. N. Sokolov; Egyptologist and Assyriologist, historian V. V. Struve (1889-1965), Syriologist N. V. Pigulevskaya; in the field of Arabic studies In the field of African studies, N. V. Yushmanov and D. A. Olderogge (1903-1987) introduce the Amharic language and Hausa to the scientific circle of teaching.

In the same period, thanks to the research activities of such scientists as Assyriologist A. P. Riftin, semitologist and Africanist N. V. Yushmanov, linguist-ethnographer D. A. Olderogge, semitologist-ethnographer I. N. Vinnikov, Arabist-philologist V. I. Belyaev (1902-1976) in Leningrad, Arabist-lexicographer Kh. K. Baranov (1892-1980), semitologist A. E. Krymsky in Moscow, a new era begins in the development of the Russian semitological school. It was in the first decades of the 20th century that the linguistic trend emerged from the classical semitology of the 19th century.

Turning to semitology in Russia in the XX century, I emphasize that further semitology will be understood as philological and linguistic disciplines. The study of one of the Semitic languages is also included in the scope of semitology.

The philological foundations of linguistic semitology, as already noted, were laid by B. A. Turaev, P. K. Kokovtsov, and I. Y. Krachkovsky. The first representatives of linguistic studies of Semitic languages were N. V. Yushmanov, I. N. Vinnikov, Ya. S. Vilenchik (1902-1939), N. V. Pigulevskaya, A. P. Riftin in Leningrad; S. S. Maisel (1900-1952), V. P. Starinin (1903-1973), B. M. Grande (1891-1974), Kh. K. Baranov in Moscow; G. V. Tsereteli (1904-1973), K. G. Tsereteli in Tbilisi.

Speaking about the separation of Semitic linguistics into a separate and clearly manifested direction of Russian semitology of the XX century, I note that this process took place in the conditions of a solid linguistics school already established in Russia at the end of the XIX-beginning of the XX century. This school was represented by a follower of the young grammatical tradition, Academician F. F. Fortunatov (1848-1914), the founder of the Moscow school of Russian Linguistics and his student, Academician A. A. Shakhmatov (1864-1920). N. V. Krushevsky (1851-1887) and I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay (1845-1929), who headed the St. Petersburg school at the beginning of the 20th century, were somewhat influenced by Young grammatical ideas.

Referring to the morphological principle in the classification of parts of speech, F. F. Fortunatov introduces a typological basis for the classification of world languages into Russian linguistics 24 . His definition of Semitic languages as languages of inflectional-agglutinative structure still remains the basis (with some modifications) in the works of semitologists-typologists. "N. V. Krushevsky and I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay largely anticipated the ideas of Saussurian linguistics," and in the study of phoneme and word, "I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay went further than F. M. de Courtenay.de Saussure " 25. I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay introduces the concept of phonemes and morphemes, treats language changes as systemic, reflecting a certain general trend 26 .

A student of I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay and a representative of the St. Petersburg Academy of Arts./The Leningrad School phoneticist and phonologist L. V. Shcherba (1880-1944), the founder of the so-called "phonological concept", was already a direct teacher and senior colleague of the semitologist N. V. Yushmanov. Continuing to develop the concept of the phoneme of I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay, he refuses the psychological characterization of the phoneme and proceeds to strictly phonetic criteria for its definition. Undoubtedly, N. V. Yushmanov's great attention to the phonetic aspects of Semitic and non-Semitic languages can be explained by the significant influence of the phonetic concept

page 29

L. V. Shcherby. The influence of the ideas of the "japhetic theory" or the "new teaching about language" by N. Y. Marr (1864-1934), which included the statement about the stadial development of human language, about the primary diffuse sounds of human speech, also could not but affect some of the views of N. V. Yushmanov, who was carried away to some extent by the romantic novelty of the concept of NI. Marra on a single glottogonic process. However, the strong positions of Russian semitologists who were trained in the classical traditions of Oriental studies and general linguistics of the 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as a broad knowledge of the material of Semitic languages, kept the young linguistic direction of semitology within the boundaries of comparative studies and scientific typology.

In the 1920s, linguists and semitologists turned to the comparative historical study of Semitic languages.

The short life path did not allow Y. S. Vilenchik to complete a great work - the first dictionary of non-Palestinian dialects for that time, involving comparative material from other Arabic dialects. The significance of this work is evidenced by its assessment by the German semitologist G. Bergstrasser (d. 1933), who asked J. S. Vilenchik to include in his work his materials on the Damascus dialect. 27

The development of comparative historical studies of Semitic and Semitic-Hamitic languages in the Soviet Union of the pre-war and post-war periods was largely determined by the ideas and hypotheses of N. V. Yushmanov, who studied South Semitic and Chadian languages, initiated the creation of a historical grammar of Arabic and put forward one of the original concepts of the Semitic root structure, as well as the hypothesis of the development of phonological systems of proto-Semitic and individual Semitic languages. Considering his concept of the Semitic root, it should be borne in mind that the scientist was primarily a phonetist (and in many respects a follower of L. V. Shcherba). Yushmanov's" phonetism " was also reflected in his historical views. At the same time, it is N. V. Yushmanov who first addresses the typological characteristics of Semitic languages and phonetic phenomena.

The attention of semitologists-linguists cannot but be attracted by the mystery of the Semitic emphatic and its origin. Almost simultaneously, N. V. Yushmanov (in 1926) and Ya.S. Vilenchik (in 1930) address this problem, solving it in opposite directions: N. V. Yushmanov refers the proto - Semitic to the lateral series of consonants, and Ya.S. Vilenchik-to the velarized bitches of the back row 28 .

General patterns in the development of languages in the field of syntax are traced on the material of the Akkadian language by A. P. Riftin29 . He notes two ways of development of a complex sentence; shows the process of development of conditional and subjunctive moods in Semitic languages, due to the development of complex sentences.

In the first Russian essay on the Amharic language (1936), N. V. Yushmanov draws attention to the syntactic structure of this language. The order of the main members of the sentence (subject-object verb, i.e. SOV) and the order of words in the genitive construction (definition-defined) allow the scientist to characterize the syntactic structure of the Amharic language as an agglutinative type, reflecting the "Sudanese" substratum. At the same time, the scientist defines the morphological structure of the Amharic language as inflectional .

In 1940-1942 N. V. Yushmanov created the first experience of "phonetic" typology. Based on the comparative material of non-Indo-European languages, he identifies common phenomena characteristic of some unrelated languages: wandering nasalization, permutation of consonants, correspondence of smooth consonants in Kartvelian languages.

page 30

The scientist notes that these phonetic positional phenomena in some cases reflect traces of lost morphemes .31

In 1925, N. V. Yushmanov for the first time addressed the study of such a phenomenon in Semitic languages, which he calls "root variants". Later, he includes this phenomenon in the development of his concept of the structure of the Semitic root .32 First, the initial position of N. V. Yushmanov is that the two-consonant root prevails in the languages of the world, while the Semitic root is predominantly three-consonant. This phenomenon requires a special explanation and is of interest to general linguistics. The second position of N. V. Yushmanov follows from his study of such a phenomenon as "root variants": according to the scientist, for Indo-European languages, the expression of similar concepts with similar sounds is not typical, whereas Semitic languages quite widely represent this phenomenon (such as "cut")., N. V. Yushmanov proceeds from the fact that (in contrast to the opinions of G. Ewald, E. Renan, and K. Brockelman about the primacy of the three-consonant root in Semitic languages), three-consonance cannot be the initial state of the root, since it contradicts the general course of evolution "from simple to complex".

On the basis of these two propositions, the scientist formulates two tasks of his work: 1) decompose the Semitic root into its component parts; 2) study the phonetic and phonological variations of each part of the root.

N. V. Yushmanov considers the phenomenon of "root variants "as a reflection of the historical process of splitting/differentiation of ancient undifferentiated" diffuse " archiphonemes.

According to the structure and origin of roots, N. V. Yushmanov distinguishes them into verbal and nominal ones. In the verb root, a group of variants is distinguished with one part of the root changing while the other part is constant: "cut" and changing the root as a whole: Irregular alternation of root consonants that are close in a row, while maintaining a similar or common meaning, is used for internal reconstruction of the oldest archiphonemes, the system of which belongs to an indefinite "pre-Semitic", prehistoric period.

N. V. Yushmanov's reconstruction of the system of "diffuse" archiphonemes: In this diagram: - generalized designation of diffuse dental; - explosive uvular; lateral; - labial; "the nose one.

The original two-consonant cell was formed according to the law of harmonious combination of consonants, for example: Due to crossing and dissimilation of consonants of the cell, harmony is violated: etc.

The formation of the three-consonant root did not occur in one way and not in one era. The ways/methods of forming the system are generally distinguished:

1) by repeating a two-word cell, for example: "night"; "cut"; 2) by crossing cells of similar meaning: kanaf - "wing", kanab - "tumor", "bend of the horse's back", all "bow-legged", i.e. cells "bend" "convex-concave"; 3) by merging a two-consonant cell with an ancient service morpheme of the type: msl "flow" < ma-sil - "flow" < syl "flow".

The formation of a nominal three-consonant root could occur as a result of merging a two-consonant cell with an ancient class indicator. According to N. V. Yushmanov, the semantics of ancient proto-Semitic nominal classes differed from the system of class indicators of African languages (with the opposition "persons: things"). The scientist identifies groups of indicators for the animal class: "dog",

page 31

"wolf", 'aqrab - "scorpion"; or:" bee"; naml "ant", "camel", etc.; =*d'asad "lion", "mole", "locust"; for body parts: "tongue", "throat"; - *n'ayn- "eye", "handful", matn - "spine", "chin", badan - "trunk", etc.

In the course of developing deep reconstructions, N. V. Yushmanov performs a number of reconstructions for the general Semitic consonant system: (1) noting two different reflexes of the proto-Semitic in Akkadian - for example: "swell"," swell " and "hug", "embrace with hands" or "milk", the scientist puts forward a hypothesis about the existence of the proto-Semitic another phoneme that has not been preserved in any of the known Semitic languages, i.e. 2) in the labial phoneme system (in the labial row) N. V. Yushmanov reconstructs on the basis of the divergence of the labial: "spread" or: "flea", etc.; 3) in the Semitic system according to the Arabic N. V. Yushmanov reconstructs: "spread" or: "flea", etc.V. Yushmanov draws attention to two reflexes of this phoneme in Aramaic: "earth"and " udder". In connection with this phenomenon, he makes two opposite assumptions: either this is the result of mixing dialect forms, or (in proto-Semitic) there were two different phonemes - (lateral) and the latter assumption is supported by the alternation of root variants in Arabic not only within the lateral series, but also with interdental (interdental)ones: "bite", "sting".

Further research of the Semitic root cycle, the structure of the Semitic root, and the phenomenon of root variants was carried out in the 1940s and 1950s in the fundamental work of S. S. Maisel34 . Studying the consonant composition of Semitic roots, he puts forward an original hypothesis about the significance of such phenomena as the alternation of consonants (allotesis) of the root and the permutation (metathesis) of consonants of the root for the further development of the root fund of Semitic languages. Unlike N. V. Yushmanov's approach to the phenomenon of" root variants " in Semitic languages, which looks for the causes of this phenomenon, S. S. Maisel draws attention to the consequence of the same phenomenon. He notes that in a large number of roots, the permutation and alternation of consonants are accompanied by a modification of the primary meaning of the original root. Thus, the phenomenon of "root variants" is like a reserve for increasing the root fund.

S. S. Maisel calls the discovered semantic unity for each group of " root variants "an"isosemantic series". In other words, "isosemantic series" - the same ratio of the values of one group of compared roots with the values of another group of compared roots. For example: Arab (1) zand - "wrist" - snd "lean on someone", "help"; 2) "hand" - 'zr (met) "help" "help", "part of a building (? support)"; (3) "hand" - "support", "help". These examples represent the isosemantic series of development of the meaning "hand-support-help". At the same time, in group (1), the z/s allotesis is noted ; in group (2), the metathesis is noted (without changing the root consonants); group (3) represents the control semantic series.

S. S. Maisel's hypothesis is that the phenomenon of "root variants" and the formation of initial synonymous roots leads to further differentiation of their semantics and the acquisition of new meanings by variants. Accordingly, his work differentiates terminology: 1) if the root variants retain the same meaning, then they are the result of alternating or rearranging phonemes, for example: Arab zfd/zft "fill the vessel "(alternating d/t); Arab "bind" (alternating "side" "side" (alternating "praise"; "be deep" (permutation of the root-

page 32

(2) if the root variants represent a divergence of values, then the alternation is called an allotesis, and the permutation of the root variants is called a metathesis; for example: "to pull out hair, wool"; "to become smooth" - "to slide"; "slip -> avoid" "eat", "try" -> Arab "be greedy" "hunger for something"; "be narrow" - > " shrink (metathesis), etc.

The peculiarities of Semitic root consonancy continue to attract the attention of Russian semitologists in later years. In 1965-1974, A. M. Gaz-Ginzberg (in 1946-1951 he studied at Leningrad University, in the 1970s he left for Israel) developed the problem of the sound-forming nature of the original human speech .35 The rationale for choosing the Semitic material to support this hypothesis is that: a) the consonant composition of Semitic languages is stable, preserved in favorable conditions of the syllabic structure of the Semitic root base, in which consonant concatenation is avoided, such phenomena as assimilation, dissimilation, word composition, etc. are eliminated by dividing vowels; b) the "most archaic" ones are preserved. sounds" - pharyngeal and laryngeal.

From this premise, A. M. Gaz-Ginzberg concludes that the Semitic material may reflect a more archaic stage in the formation of human speech. The scientist cites a large amount of "proto-Semitic stock of sound-forming roots" in comparison with onomatopoeic words/roots of Indo - European, Turkic, Malay-Polynesian, Japanese, Russian, Lithuanian and many other languages. For example, transmitting the sound of lapping: lak/lok/lap/lakl/ cattle roar: rev-/arr/ar-ar/bar/an(i) r/; trampling: top / s-tup/ dub/ stip/ tup/zupp/ tap; dbdb/dbk flutter: ... etc.

Later, new, abstract concepts are developed on the basis of primary sound images, for example:" sniff "- > "smell" - > "breathe"; dbdb/dbb "trample" - > "move clumsily" -> dubb - "bear"; "walking with small steps" "small child". In the future, the "primary roots" are rearranged, including due to the phenomena of metathesis, phonetic alternations, contamination of meanings and crossing of variants.

In 1974, A. M. Gaz-Ginzberg developed the idea of the sound quality of a language based on the material of proto-Semitic inflection: from the monovocalism of the Semitic-Hamitic period to the differentiation of vowel phonemes by timbre and number of words . The inflection symbolism is manifested in the opposition of short-long vowels (in the number forms, in the III and VI breeds), in the gemination of consonants, the opposition of the short base of the imperative and the longer base of other verb forms, etc.

A comparative historical study of Semitic languages in the traditional sense is completed by the representative of the Moscow school B. M. Grande (1891-1974 )in his two works on Arabic grammar in a comparative light and on the comparative study of Semitic languages. 37 In these review and summary works, B. M. Grande also develops his own view on the origin of certain morphological categories (systems of verb tenses and breeds, gender and number of names associated with nominal classes), using comparative material from other Semitic languages.

B. M. Grande approaches the traditional problem of Semitic linguistics - the problem of the correlation of consonants and vowels in their phonological function - from the position of the traditional grammatical school of Arabic and Hebrew philologists: a) "consonants and vowels" in Semitic languages are "unequal"; b) consonants convey the" real " meanings of words, vowels-grammatical meanings. This phenomenon is reflected in the Semitic consonant writing system 38. From

page 33

The scientist concludes that the minimal semantic unit in Semitic languages is a combination of CV, i.e. an open syllable (or, as its variant - ), which he calls a "syllable phoneme" (in contrast to the usual concept of "sound phoneme", see the next article for more details).

In the question of word formation methods, B. M. Grande uses illustrative examples to put forward the position that the method of word composition and formation of complex words (composita) is much more common in Semitic languages than it is usually stated, noting the development of a trend towards this method in living Semitic languages.

(The ending follows)

notes

1 Many historical and philological studies, works on deciphering and interpreting written monuments, and the study of Semitic-language literary works remain outside the boundaries of Semitic linguistics, which often overlap with questions of Semitic linguistics or serve to test its provisions and assumptions. These are the works of I. Sh. Shifman, A. G. Lundin, and A.V. Paikova on deciphering epigraphic monuments of the northern Semitic-speaking area. South Arabia, Ethiopia; works by A. B. Khalidov on the cultural and historical description of the Arabic language and its written monuments; literary studies by A. A. Dolina and O. B. Frolova, studies by D. V. Frolov on the history and theory of versification of classical Arabic poetry, and many other studies that marked the second half of the XX century.

2 For more information about the periods of semitology of the XIX-early XX centuries in Russia and the Soviet Union, see the corresponding sections of the final reviews: History of Domestic Oriental Studies to the middle of the XIX century Moscow, 1990; History of Domestic Oriental Studies from the middle of the XIX century to 1917 Moscow, 1997;Krachkovsky I. Yu.?/Proceedings of the 11th Session of the Arabist Association, October 19-23, 1937, Moscow-Leningrad, 1941, pp. 5-30. Ocherki po istorii russkoi Arabistiki [Essays on the History of Russian Arabic Studies]. Introduction to Ethiopian Philology. LSU, 1955; Starkova K. V. Semitologiya za 40 let [Semitology for 40 years] / / Uchenye zapiski IV AN SSSR. Moscow, 1960. pp. 263-277; Struve V. V., Korostovtsev M. A. Semitologiya kak otrasl ' vostokovedeniya // Semitic Languages, Moscow, 1965, Issue 2, Part 1, pp. 33-40; Sharbatov G. S. Arabistics in the USSR (1917-1959). Philologiya, Moscow, 1959 (bibliografiya po yazykoznaniyu-pp. 72-81). Biobibliographical dictionary of Russian Orientalists (after 1917), Moscow, 1995. Kn. 1-2 and appendix with additions in the journal " Vostok (Oriens)".

3 Koran / Translated from Arabic by G. S. Sablukov. Kazan, 1907. Ed. 3.

Ocherki po istorii karaimstva [4 Essays on the history of Karaism]. St. Petersburg, 1897-1902.

5 Studien und Mitteilungen aus St. Petersburger Kaiserlichen Bibliothek; Altjudische Denkmaler aus der Krim. St. Petersburg, 1876.

Krymsky A. E. 6 "Semitic languages and peoples" by Theodor Neldeke in the processing of A. Krymsky. Moscow, 1903; Moscow, ed. 2. 1909-1912; on. Lectures and a guide to lectures on the history of Semitic languages, Moscow, 1908, Issue 2.

Kokovtsov P. K. 7 Jewish-Khazar correspondence in the tenth century, 1932.

Ocherki... pp. 251-253; onk. Vvedenie ... Gl. V. S. 112-175; see also: Belyaev V. I. Sovremennye zadachi arabskogo yazykoznaniya v Sovetskom Soyuzu [Modern problems of Arabic linguistics in the Soviet Union]. Semitic Languages, Moscow, 1965, issue 2, Part 1, pp. 50-54.

Vannikov I. N. 9 Urgent tasks of Soviet semitology / / Semitic languages. Issue No. 2. pp. 40-49.

10. Khalidov A. B. 10 Knizhnaya kul'tura [Book Culture] / / Ocherki istorii arabyskoi kul'tury V-XV vv. M., 1982. p. 307.

Shileyko V. K. 11 "To the land of hopelessness" / / Vostok. Book 4. Moscow-K. 1924.

Rylova R. G. 12 Grammar of the Syriac language of Ilya Tirkhansky. XI V. M., 1965.

13 About the works of I. N. Vinnikov See: Issak Natanovich Vinnikov // Voprosy filologii stran Azii i Afrika. L, 1965. pp. 3-14; Gluskina G. M., Demidova G. M. I. N. Vinnikov (k 70-letiyu) // Vestnik LSU, 1968. N 8; Lundin A. G. I. N. Vinnikov / / Palestine collection. 1973. Issue 25; same name. In memory of Isaak Natanovich Vinnikov. Obituary / / Semitic languages, Moscow, 1976, issue 3.

Vilsker L. H. 14 Samaritan language, Moscow, 1974.

Shifman I. Sh 15 The Phoenician language, Moscow, 1963. Nabataean State and its Culture, Moscow, 1976.

Krachkovsky I. Yu 16 Introduction ... pp. 145, 167.

page 34

Lundin A. Yuzhnaya Araviya v VI veke [Southern Arabia in the VI Century]. Palestvensky sbornik, Moscow-L., 1961, issue 8/71; ond. Deciphering the Proto-Sinaisk letter, Moscow, 1991; for a list of his works on epigraphy, see pages 97 and 101.

Bauer G. M. 18 Yazyk yuzhnoaraviyskoy pis'mosti [The language of South Arabian Writing], Moscow, 1966. Drevny yuzhnoaraviyskiy yazyk (epigraficheskiy) [The ancient South Arabian Language (epigraphic)]. Yazyki Azii i Afrika [Languages of Asia and Africa], Moscow, 1991, vol. IV. Kn. 1, pp. 168-193. Sovremennye yuzhnoaraviyskie yazyki (bezpismennye) [Modern South Arabian languages (non-written)].

Gruntfest Ya. B. 19 Infinitive in the South Arabian language / / Semitic languages, Moscow, 1965, pp. 285-306. Issue 2. Part I.

Kogan L. Ye., Korotayev A.V. 20 Sayhadic (Epigraphic South Arabian) // The Semitic Languages. L., 1998. P. 220-241.

Piotrovsky M. B. 21 Grafitti Khadramaut i Mahry [21 Grafitti of Khadramaut and Mahry]. 1989. N 2. pp. 148-153.

Frantsousoff S.A. 22 The Inscriptions from the Temples of Dhat Himyam at Raybun // Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. L., 1995. Vol. 25. P. 15-28; он же. What does a name mean? // Hrispansky Vostok. New series of St. Petersburg,Moscow, 2001, vol. 2 (VIII), pp. 102-115.

Chemetsov S. 23 On the Problem of Ethnogenesis of the Amhara // Der Sudan in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. [B. M.], 1995, pp. 17-35; on. Glagol'nye analiticheskie konstruktsii v sovremennom amharskom yazyke [Verbal analytical constructions in the modern Amharic language]. Afrikanskii etnograficheskii sbornik, L., 1972, No. 9; Yushmanov N. V. About the languages of Ethiopia // Soviet ethnography. 1936.Vol. 1; same name. Stroi amharskogo yazyka [The System of the Amharic language], L., 1936. Languages of Abyssinia / / Abyssinia (Ethiopia). M.-L., 1936.

Alpatov V. M. 24 Istoriya lingvisticheskikh ucheniy [History of linguistic studies]. Moscow, 1998, p. 106.

25 Ibid., p. 116.

26 Ibid., p. 125.

Ocherki ... p. 219; see also: Vilenchik Ya. S. Etudy po istoricheskoi fonetike vulgarno-araby dialektov [Etudes on the historical phonetics of vulgar-Arabic dialects]. Seriya. V. 1927. N1, 8.

28 Wed.: Yushmanov N. V. La correspondance du dad arabe au ' ayn arameen // Reports of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Series B. 1926. pp. 41-44; Vilencik Ja. Welchen Lautwert hatte dad im Ursemitischen? // Orientalische Literaturzeitung. XXXI-11/2. S. 90-98.

Riftin A. P. K 29 proiskhozhdeniyu formov naslozheniy v arabskom i akkadskom yazykakh [On the 29th origin of mood forms in the Arabic and Akkadian languages]. To conditional sentences in the era of the First Babylonian Dynasty // Soviet Oriental Studies, 1947. N IV.

Yushmanov N. V. 30 Stroi amharskogo yazyka [The Structure of the Amharic Language], Leningrad, 1936.

31 Yushmanov N. V. Izbrannye trudy. Works on general phonetics, semitology and Arabic classical morphology, Moscow, 1998, pp. 24-67.

Yushmanov N. V. 32 Structure of the Semitic root // Selected works ... pp. 126-199. This work was completed in the late 1930s and published in 1998.

33 Cf. the reconstruction of J. Cantineau, made on a different basis ( J. Cantineau, Etudes de linguistique arabe. P., 1960. p. 27, 280). In a later period, the assumption and reconstruction of A. Y. Militarev "About the supposed Prasemitic language" appears / / History and Philology of the Ancient East. Moscow, 1976. N 20.

Maizel S. S. 34 Puti razvitiya kornevogo fonda semitskikh yazykov [34 Ways of development of the root fund of Semitic languages].

Gaz-Ginzberg A.M. 35 Was the language pictorial in its origins? Moscow, 1965.

Gaz-Ginzberg A.M. 36 Symbolism of the proto-Semitic inflection, Moscow, 1974.

Grande B. M. 37 Course of Arabic grammar in comparative historical coverage. Moscow, 1963; ed. 2. 1998; on. Introduction to the comparative study of Semitic languages, Moscow, 1972; ed. 2, 1998. About his creative path, see: Sharbatov G. Sh. In memory of B. M. Grande // Peoples of Asia and Africa. Moscow, 1975. N 5. pp. 244-245; Belkin V. M. Professor B. M. Grande (to the centenary of his birth) // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Series V. Vostokovedenie [Oriental Studies]. 1992. N 1. P. 71-73.

Grande B. M. 38 Introduction... 1972. pp. 70-73.

Permanent link to this publication: