To the Question of Neuter Gender Toponyms’ Declension Ending on -ovo/-evo, -ino/-yno
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-4-1074-1085
Abstract
The present paper deals with the issue concerning neuter gender toponyms’ declension ending on -ovo/-evo, -ino/-yno in Russian language. Until the 20th century, these place names had been changed in cases steadily; in the middle of the century, a tendency outlined not to decline these toponyms despite the valid rule. The researchers highlight three reasons for distribution of this phenomenon: the professional speech of military men and topographers, the influence of non-Slavic indeclinable neuter gender toponyms, the attempt to eliminate the possible confusion of neuter and masculine nouns that have the same basis. The author estimates the reliability of the reasons that toponyms on -ovo/-evo, -ino/-yno appeared in indeclinable form, determines the possibility of these reasons to influence on deviation from the normative practice and makes an independent research based on available material. The main factor that strongly fastened in practice the non-declension of toponyms on -ovo/-evo, -ino/-yno is the society in which Russian language functioned for the most of 20th century. That was the totalitarian period with its cult of a simple man and orientation on the least educated; this circumstance could not but play in favour for distribution of multiple deviations from the literary norm. In addition, the appearance of numerous toponyms on -ovo/-evo, -ino/-yno formed from the surnames of the communist chiefs (Stalino, Lenino, Kalinino, Ulyanovo, Kuybyshevo, etc.), in indirect cases, created a dangerous analogy with the Soviet leaders, which could contribute in expansion of non-declension.
Supporting agencies: The author expresses his gratitude to Nikita Alexeyevich Safronov, linguist and blogger, Moscow, for critical comments that contributed to improving this paper.
References
1. Ageyeva R. A. A reply to R. Yu. Namitokova’s article "To decline, or not to decline: that is the question…". Voprosy onomastiki, 2012, (1): 112–115. (In Russ.)
2. Lebedev V. K. "It happens so that I live in Peredelkino", or Some aspects of the toponyms’ declension. Mir russkogo slova, 2014, (2): 40–46. (In Russ.)
3. Turko U. I. Linguistic norm of toponyms’ usage. Information and telecommunication systems and sechnologies: Proc. All-Russian Sci.-Prac. Conf., Kemerovo, 8–10 Oct 2020. Kemerovo: KuzGTU, 2020, 164–165. (In Russ.)
4. Shlykova L. A. To decline or not decline (on the rules for declining toponyms in Russian). Sovremennye problem gumanitarnykh i obshchestvennykh nauk, 2019, (5): 269–272. (In Russ.)
5. Kostomarov V. G. Why we worry about the gender of coffee, but not why it does not decline? Russkaia rech, 2013, (1): 44–50. (In Russ.)
6. Fedosyuk M. Yu. "Nedarom pomnit vsya Rossiya pro den'… Borodino", or Why toponyms ending on -ino, -ovo stop to be declined. Bulletin of Moscow Region State University. Series: Russian Philology, 2019, (5): 333–341. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18384/2310-7278-2019-5-333-341
7. Sharonov I. A. About the tendency not to decline burrowed nouns in historical perspective and contemporary perspective. Trudy Instituta russkogo yazyka im. V. V. Vinogradova, 2017, (13): 340–348. (In Russ.)
8. Asten T. B., Demchenko V. I., Pavlyutenkova I. V. Gender / case variability in the system and in the text. The Caucasus Scientific Thought, 2010, (1): 164–168. (In Russ.)
9. Kulikova E. G., Akay O. M. Analytization: indeclinable nouns as a factor of interlingual lacunarity. The Humanities and Social Sciences, 2020, (5): 155–161. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18522/2070-1403-2020-82-5-155-161
10. Rozental D. E. Practical stylistics of Russian language, 5th ed. Moscow: Vyssh. shk., 1987, 399. (In Russ.)
11. Kalakutskaya L. P. About declension of some groups of surnames and personal names (Russian and foreign). Anthroponymy, eds. Nikonov V. A., Superanskaya A. V. Moscow: Nauka, 1970, 26–38. (In Russ.)
12. Namitokova R. Yu. To decline, or not to decline: that is the question… Voprosy onomastiki, 2011, (1): 152–157. (In Russ.)
13. Volkov S. V. Why RF is not Russia. Nizhny Novgorod: Chernaia sotnia; Magadan: Novoe Vremia, 2020, 384. (In Russ.)
14. Shcherba L. V. Main principles of orthography and their social importance. Contemporary Russian writing: graphics, orthography, punctuation: scientific works anthology, comps. Drugoveyko-Dolzhanskaya S. V., Popov M. B. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo SPbGU, 2019, 97–101. (In Russ.)
15. Marsheva L. I. Tendencies for analytism, or premises? Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo bogoslovskogo instituta, 2004, (2): 49–59. (In Russ.)
16. Kupina N. A. Totalitarian language: Vocabulary and speech reactions. Ekaterinburg-Perm: Izd-vo Ural. un-ta, 1994, 144. (In Russ.)
17. Muchnik I. P. Grammatical categories of the verb and the name in contemporary Russian language. Moscow: Nauka, 1971, 300. (In Russ.)
18. Ilyina N. E. Changes in names’ functioning. Russian language at the end of the 20th century (1985–1995), ed. Zemskaya E. A., 2nd ed. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kultury, 2000: 327–335. (In Russ.)
19. Panova M. N. Grammatical difficulties of the Russian language in official documents as an object of linguistic description and teaching. State service language. Linguistic issues of the theory and practice: Proc. Intern. round table, Moscow, 28 May 2020. Moscow: Akademiia GPS MChS Rossii, 2020, 168–178. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Teikin M.S. To the Question of Neuter Gender Toponyms’ Declension Ending on -ovo/-evo, -ino/-yno. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2021;23(4):1074-1085. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-4-1074-1085
Views:
358
Email this article 