Русские наречия со значением времени только, только-только, только что: значение недавнего прошлого и результативное значение
The paper describes Russian constructions with the markers of immediate past tol’ko, tol’ko-tol’ko, and tol’ko čto, such as On tol’ko / tol’ko-tol’ko / tol’ko čto prišel ‘He has just come’, and their relations with the resultative semantics. The main question posed in the article is whether the use of the three markers under analysis presupposes that the result of the situation persists at the moment of speech. I show that the meaning of immediate past does not necessarily correlate with the resultative meaning. The meaning of some immediate past constructions can contain the resultative component, while others lack it. In Russian, the markers tol’ko and tol’ko-tol’ko are tightly connected with the resultative meaning, while the marker tol’ko čto does not require either the presence or the absence of the result. The connection of tol’ko and tol’kotol’ko with resultative contexts follows from their semantics and discourse properties, which are also addressed in the paper.
The article analyzes l-forms without an auxiliary with a meaning of a pre-past action. Such l-participles are usually regarded as perfect forms used in pluperfect contexts. However, it will be shown that apparently we deal with the rise of a specialized for expressing the grammatical meaning of result, for which the correlation with time (present or past) was irrelevant. This interpretation is confirmed with the material of Modern Russian dialects with -shi / -vshi perfect and pluperfect, where the -shi / -vshi form used without the auxiliary in the past tense can mean the result pertaining not only to the present, but also to the past.
The paper describes the group of perfective past tenses in Aghul (Lezgic, East Caucasian), focusing on the expression of the perfect meaning. There are four verbal forms which can express the meaning of the perfect ‘family’; at the same time, it is not obvious whether Aghul can be qualified as a language with a dedicated perfect form. All the four forms in question are periphrastic in origin, with the perfective converb or participle of the main verb and the postpositional auxiliary in the present tense. The Aorist is a typical perfective past used in narratives, although it is employed in the immediate (‘hot news’) contexts as well. The “participial” Aorist has an experiential or existential meaning, which is commonly associated with perfects. The Resultative is a polyfunctional form which expresses both perfect and resultative meanings, as well as indirect evidentiality in the past (in the latter function, it is a frequent tense used in ‘second-hand’ narratives). Finally, the “participial” Resultative has a narrower perfect meaning and introduces a currently relevant situation as already “known”, the function of the corresponding clause being explanatory or confirmatory. Thus, Aghul can be said to possess two perfect-like forms, one with a wide distribution, and another with a more narrow distribution than expected of a ‘classical’ current-relevance perfect.
Each of the four forms has a counterpart with the ‘pluperfect’ structure, including the perfective converb or participle and the auxiliary in the past. These forms express the meanings that are typical of pluperfects cross-linguistically, including the resultant state in the past, the anteriority in the past, ‘discontinuous’ past etc.
The chapter analyzes Russian comparative constructions. The focus is on constructions with comparative subordinators, such as "kak", "kak budto", "slovno", "tochno", "budto". It is showed that the constructions under analysis differ from each other both in the syntactic and semantic respects. For instance, the distinction between two-part constructions ('He cried as if someone was killing him') and one-part constructions ('He seems to keeping something in mind') is traced. The opposition between restrictive and non-restrictive constructions is applied here to comparative constructions (traditionally it is primarily used to distinguish relative clauses).
The article analyzes instances of verbal l-forms used without auxiliary in Old Russian Hypatian Chronicle (13th–15th c.). Special emphasis is on the contexts where l-forms do not convey the meaning of the perfect tense. One part consists of contexts that are typical for participle predications. The other part consists of examples where the l-forms appear in typical participle contexts of the vstavъ (i) reče type. All examples where l-forms do not have the meaning of the perfect tense can be attributed either to the first or to the second group. Taking this into account, as well as the material from the dialects and other Slavic languages that include, to varying extent, adjectives going back to l-participles, it seems reasonable to assume that l-forms could function not only as a part of the compound verbal predicate, but also as a past participle -ъš-/-vъš-.
The paper focuses on the two most important perfective forms expressing past time reference in the Nizh dialect of Udi, a language of the Lezgic group of East Caucasian family. The form with the suffix -i is the most frequent in narrative texts, and can be properly characterized as the Aorist (perfective past). The form with the suffix -e is less frequent, but has a wide range of uses, including the expression of current relevance of past situations and the experiential meaning, as well as the resultative meaning (present state); on the whole, this form fits the crosslinguistic category of the perfect. There is also the Pluperfect, which is derived from the Perfect by means of the “retrospective switch” enclitic, and is semantically a “perfect in the past”. Apart from the functional differences between the Aorist and the Perfect, there is a number of morphosyntactic ones. In particular, the default position of person markers on the verb is enclitic in case of the Perfect, but endoclitic (intraclitic) in case of the Aorist. Also, there is a special negation strategy available only for the Perfect, which includes the perfective participle and the postpositional negative complex. According to the hypothesis put forward in the paper, this negation structure may at least partly disclose the origin of the Perfect form, which seems to be based on the participle. The diachronic scenarios of the Aorist and the Perfect origin and evolution are discussed in the paper, as well as the perspectives for future research of the system of past tenses in Udi.
The paper is devoted to the marginal construction that appears to be a kind of hybrid of an imperative and the future perfect: the auxiliary verb has the form of the imperative mood and is used with an l-participle. The construction is semantically and structurally similar to the Slavic perfect and the Slavic future perfect, however it is attested only in some archaic translated Church Slavonic monuments represented by East Slavic copies from the 11th through the 15th centuries of South Slavic translations (these include the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem and the Homily to the Entombment and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Gregory of Antioch, as a part of the Uspensky Sbornik of the 12th–13th century) or by East Slavic translations of the Story of Ahikar. The author of the article suggests different interpretations of the grammatical state of the construction in question and describes the advantages and disadvantages of each. The following interpretations are offered: 1) regarding the construction as a tracing of the original structure, 2) regarding it as an artificial rhetorical construction, and 3) regarding it as an analytical construction with an auxiliary verb in the imperative mood and the main verb in the form of an l-participle. It seems preferable not to regard the construction as a simple calque of the original structure but rather as a particular archaic perfect imperative periphrasis. It remains unclear, however, whether it was an exclusively literary structure and was used as a possible means of translating Greek constructions with éstō or if it could be used independently.
The paper is focused on the study of reaction of italian literature critics on the publication of the Boris Pasternak's novel "Doctor Jivago". The analysys of the book ""Doctor Jivago", Pasternak, 1958, Italy" (published in Russian language in "Reka vremen", 2012, in Moscow) is given. The papers of italian writers, critics and historians of literature, who reacted immediately upon the publication of the novel (A. Moravia, I. Calvino, F.Fortini, C. Cassola, C. Salinari ecc.) are studied and analised.
In the article the patterns of the realization of emotional utterances in dialogic and monologic speech are described. The author pays special attention to the characteristic features of the speech of a speaker feeling psychic tension and to the compositional-pragmatic peculiarities of dialogic and monologic text.