Древневерхненемецкие словообразовательные типы отвлеченных имен (реконструкция системных отношений)
Following pioneering ideas of Bojan Čop, this paper offers a brief sketch of a theory of the origin of Proto-Indo-European ablaut in the light of Indo-Uralic comparison. Starting from the assumption that Proto-Indo-Uralic phonotactics and morphophonology were essentially preserved in Proto-Uralic, but significantly changed in Proto-Indo-European, we trace the origin of Proto-Indo-European ablaut paradigms (mobile and acrostatic paradigms of root nouns, hysterokinetic, proterokinetic, amphikinetic and acrostatic paradigms of suffixed nouns). Each of these paradigms can be derived by a set of simple rules from the proposed Proto-Indo-Uralic reconstruction that is itself based on the conventional Proto-Uralic reconstruction.
The article deals with the current tendency towards an increase in Russian speakers’ verbalized metalinguistic reflection on language and culture contact, generated by growing exposure to global English and the influx of Anglicisms. Of crucial importance to cross-cultural research are metalinguistic commentaries, in which lay speakers register their negative attitude to those borrowings from English which reflect cultural norms and values clashing with the system of traditional Russian cultural norms and values. This is defined as a "linguacultural clash" or "linguacultural conflict"; its negatively marked metalinguistic interpretation is seen as part of speakers' "linguistic self-defense".
The paper discusses certain aspects of Indo-Uralic reconstruction, focusing on a comparison of our theoretical expectations from the comparison of Indo-European and Uralic basic lexicon with the actual results of lexicostatistical analysis.
In the paper, the classes of labile verbs (verbs which can be transitive or intransitive without any formal changes) are analyzed on the data of European and North Caucasian languages. The main conclusion is that there is a semantic difference between classes of labile verbs in the two language groups under analysis. In European languages, predicates with low semantic transitivity are labile (for instance, motion verbs and phasal verbs), while in Caucasian languages, lability is more characteristic of verbs with high semantic transitivity (verbs of destruction and similar verb classes).