Condition category. The question of the category of state as an independent part of speech. Words of the state category, correlative with adverbs and nouns. Degrees of comparison for state category words

In the school course of the Russian language, words denoting a state are studied. Schoolchildren often confuse them with adverbs and adjectives, although they have differences.

The category of the state is words, morphological characteristics which allow us to classify them as adverbs because they answer the questions “what?” And How?" and are intended to describe the emotions or mood of animate objects or physical processes associated with inanimate objects and their habitat or location. For example: There was restless.

But not so long ago, impersonal predicates, or predicates - another name that the words of the category of state bear - some linguists began to consider But at the same time, there is no unity among scientists on the issue of criteria for belonging to it. The words that make it up are grammatically heterogeneous. Sometimes it includes short forms of adjectives that are not used in their full form. For example: obliged, must, glad, etc.

The category of the condition is expressed by words that are most often found in impersonal sentences main members and occupy an independent position. They denote a static situation and have homonyms, so they are difficult to distinguish from adverbs and short forms of adjectives. For example:

2. Calmly and the river flows smoothly (adverb);

3. Animal calmly(short

The status category has the following distinctive features: Firstly, it names the mood or emotions of a living being, and also describes the environment. Secondly, it is often part of the nominal compound predicate in an impersonal sentence where there is no subject. For example:

1. In the shade chilly And damp.

(habitat state: cool, damp, light, warm, etc.)

2. Him hurt

(physiological sensations of living beings: heard, not seen, painful, cramped and stuffy, etc.)

3. Ah! How joyfully!

Person: hurt, happy, scared, annoyed and sorry, etc.)

4. Sin don't see it!

5. Got up early.

(spatial as well as temporal characteristics: late, early, far, close, high).

If the state category (examples are given below) describes animate objects, then their names are expressed in the dative case. If - natural environment, then its name is often presented in the prepositional case. For example:

1. Alone bad (one - D.p., name of the person).

2. Summer in the park shady and cool (in the park - P.p., the name of the natural environment object).

Predicates have permanent and non-constant morphological features. The constant category is their immutability. And unstable is in those words that were formed from For example:

On the south side warmer.

The syntactic role of words of the state category is limited to the predicate in one-part impersonal sentences.

1. Even though difficult, but we must go forward!

2. How quiet all around!

Predicates are often used together with the words “will” and “happened”, “became” and “was”, “will become” and “happens”, etc. For example:

1. But was quiet.

2. It happened and noisy.

In order to correctly determine whether a lexical unit belongs to a state category, the student needs to know the rules well and practice by doing exercises. At the same time, in order not to confuse it with an adverb and a short adjective, you need to parse the word according to the scheme indicating syntactic role in a sentence.

From the first third of the 19th century. in Russian grammars, a category of words was consistently identified that were intermediate between nouns and verbs and mainly expressed a state. The following were noted as grammatical features of this category of words: their use either exclusively or predominantly in the function of a predicate, their invariability in cases - with closeness to adjectives and nouns - and the meaning of time, inseparable from their grammatical forms. These words differed from adverbs by the presence of peculiar “nominatives” - sometimes with gender forms, like the past tense of a verb, the meaning of time, relation to a person or shades of impersonality, and most importantly, by the fact that these words did not denote a sign of quality and action. In some groups of these words, the similarity with the short forms of adjectives was striking. A. Kh. Vostokov in his “Russian Grammar” attaches this entire category of words to the category of verb. He includes here all generally short forms of adjectives, considering them “conjugated words.” Even more clearly, according to Vostokov, the shade of verbality, conjugation appears in some impersonal words that are similar to nouns or adverbs, and in some generic and personal predicative (predicate) words that are similar to short adjectives, but which do not have correlative full forms among adjectives. Yes, words lzya(cf. it is forbidden), sorry, lazy(in this colloquial usage: I was too lazy to get up so early) Vostokov classifies them as impersonal verbs. Listing the verbs that control the infinitive, Vostokov places among them glad, ready(among verbs meaning disposition to action), much, it is possible, it should(among verbs meaning the possibility and need for action).

However, the point of view of A. Kh. Vostokov seemed too radical to the majority of Russian grammarians of the first half of the 19th century V. In the name of historical and genetic premises about the relationship of short forms of adjectives with nouns, it was rejected by Pavsky and then K. S. Aksakov. A. A. Potebnya joined this tradition. Only M. Katkov briefly expressed agreement with Vostokov’s definition of short adjectives as conjugated forms.

In addition, softened echoes of Vostokov’s concept can be found in the grammatical works of a generalizer and at the same time educational type, like “The Experience of a General Comparative Grammar of the Russian Language” by I. I. Davydov or “ Historical grammar" F. I. Buslaeva.

Thus, F.I. Buslaev wrote: “The middle verbs include a noun or auxiliary, either alone or in conjunction with an adjective, to mean the predicate... For example, he was sick for a long time".

Only N.P. Nekrasov, in his book “On the Meaning of the Forms of the Russian Verb,” acted as a decisive and even extreme follower of Vostokov’s concept, coming to it from the other side: “How a verb, through an adjective form, can acquire the meaning of a purely adjectival name, for example, to give birth - darling... to be able - skillful, to burn - burnt... etc., so, on the contrary, an adjective name, through a short form with a neuter ending or with an indifferent ending, can take on the meaning of a verb, for example:

And, hey, what a bill!..

If only there was some hunting.

There is plenty here from the adjective complete, -oh, -oh has the meaning of a verb in absolute personal form in -And(i.e. in the form of the imperative mood. - V.V.).

No, it's not funny when the painter is worthless

Raphael's Madonna gets dirty for me.

Here it is funny from the adjective funny, -oh, -oh It also has the meaning of a verb, because the quality expressed by it, in the meaning of speech, appears to be inherent in the subject under the condition of a certain duration. It is known that every adjective with a short ending can have the meaning of a verb when it stands in place of the predicate in a sentence. Thus, the verb in the development of its forms is transformed into an adjective (cf. the forms of participles and their evolution - V.V.), the adjective in the abbreviation of its forms is transformed into a verb."

Before "Essay on modern Russian literary language"A. A. Shakhmatov, the question of the category of state remained in such an uncertain position. For example, Prof. V. A. Bogoroditsky pointed out that impersonal expressions of nominal origin, like can, must, now are for the senses verbs or verbal particles, and referred to the tense forms inherent in them (cf. past tense it was possible, it was necessary).

Academician A. A. Shakhmatov approved Vostokov’s discovery with his authority, also recognizing short forms of adjectives as conjugated words. But A. A. Shakhmatov in his “Essay on the Modern Russian Literary Language” and in “Syntax of the Russian Language” dealt primarily with individual morphological and syntactic peculiarities of the short form of the adjective. He did not put “categories of state” in a row with other “parts of speech”. This step was taken by Prof. L. V. Shcherboy in his article “On parts of speech in the Russian language.”

The category of state is unchangeable words denoting a state, capable of being combined with a connective and used as a predicate of an impersonal sentence or as a predicate of a two-part sentence with an infinitive subject.

Pr-r: Shurka was embarrassed; Prokhor felt painful and scared; How wonderful it is here!

The term state category emphasizes the lexical meaning of this part of speech. There is another term - impersonal predicative words, which emphasizes its syntactic functions. Scientists. Those who do not recognize these words as an independent part of speech usually call them predicative adverbs. Sometimes the term predicates is used.

LEXICAL-SEMANTIC FEATURES OF THE STATE CATEGORY

Groups of impersonal predicative words by meaning.

Main hallmark impersonal predicative words is their semantic commonality.

Depending on what state they express, impersonal predicative words are divided into the following groups:

1. Words denoting state environment: dark, hot, empty, damp, white, etc. Words of this group are usually combined only with adverbial words, rarely with a gender complement. case, but with them there cannot be a dative case denoting the subject. In the presence of a dative subject, these words denote the state not of the environment, but of the subject: I’m stuffy here, they’re having fun there.

2. Words expressing physical state living beings: sick, painful, chilly, bitter, cold, sick, ticklish, etc. Only part of the organism of a living being can be in one state or another.

3. Words expressing state of mind person: creepy, offensive, bitter, pleasant, etc.

4. Words expressing the state of temporal and spatial relations: far, close, deep, high, long, wide, narrow, etc.

5. Words expressing negative and positive assessment any state or action: true, right, lovely, etc. The words of this group include visible, audible, etc. They usually express an assessment of the state of the environment from the point of view of the auditory and visual perception of objects: nothing is visible here, a path barely noticeable, you can hear the crow of a rooster.

6. Impersonal predicative words that have a modal meaning: it is necessary, it is necessary, it is possible, it is impossible, it is possible (impossible), it must, it is necessary, etc.

7. Close to the words of the 6th group are words with a modal meaning, expressing the manifestation of something to a sufficient extent, according to the speaker’s definition, denoting the need to terminate the action: enough, quite, fully, enough, will be.

8. a separate group consists of words like cover, kayuk, kaput, cross, end, etc., traditionally considered in interjections. Unlike interjections, these words, firstly, are grammatically related to other words: they control the dative case of the subject (he’s a boat, you’re a lid), combined with adverbial words denoting a place, time (tomorrow he’s a lid, here he’s a boat), secondly, they all denote the state of someone (something), which, as it were, decides its fate.

GRAMMATICAL FEATURES OF THE STATE CATEGORIES

Time forms

Impersonal predicative words are used in the form of three tenses: present (with the zero connective), past (with the connective was) and future (with the connective will): warm, was warm, will be warm, etc.

Mood forms

The indicated tense forms are simultaneously forms of the indicative mood of the category of state. The subjunctive mood is formed by attaching to impersonal predicative words the formative particle would and an auxiliary verb with the suffix -l-: it would be even quieter, etc. In the present tense form, the particle would be attached directly to impersonal predicative words or, much less often, to those depending on them infinitives: it would be good; it wouldn't be bad; I wish I could fall asleep, it seems it’s time, etc. The category of state does not have an imperative mood.

Forms of the form

Words denoting categories of state have form forms that arise when combined with the auxiliary verbs become - become and become - become, etc. Analytical aspect pairs are formed: it became creepy (non-sov. v.) - it became creepy (sov. v.) , it became sad - it became sad.

Ability to control case forms

Develops under the influence of the verb. Words of the state category usually govern the dative case, prepositional case, less often the genitive case (with and without preposition) and accusative case of the direct object. The accusative case without a preposition is usually controlled by the words sorry, sorry, painful, necessary, necessary, necessary, desirable, noticeable, noticeable, audible, visible, possible.

Degrees of comparison

Forms comparative degree are present only in impersonal predicative words ending in –o. Wed. : But they say it’s impossible to borrow, it’s impossible to repay the debt (Nekrasov). It’s good for an engineer, but it’s better for a doctor (Mayakovsky).

The analytical form of the comparative degree of impersonal predicative words is formed by attaching the words more or less to them: But it’s more crowded here (Tynyanov). The meaning of the superlative degree of impersonal predicative words is expressed only descriptively. The superlative form is formed by joining the words everything, everyone to the comparative form: the most boring of all, the most fun of all.

Evaluation Forms

Words of the state category begin with –o, as well as homonymous adverbs and adjectives of the neuter gender. numbers have evaluation forms that are formed using the suffixes –ovat- (-evat-), -onk- (-enk-).

Syntactic features of the state category

They are the main member of an impersonal sentence - the predicate. Impersonality is the most characteristic syntactic property of the state category.

1. Short adjectives. Words of the state category differ in that they do not denote a feature of an object and do not have forms of agreement, since they do not change in gender and number.

2. They differ from adverbs because:

An adverb denotes a sign of an action, and the category of state does not denote a sign at all, it expresses the state of persons, living beings, the environment, objects.

The adverb adjoins the verb, and words of the state category, on the contrary, subordinate the verb, the infinitive adjoins them.

An adverb usually does not control the dative of the subject, and the category of state is characterized by the control of the dative case, denoting a person (or thing) that is in a particular state.

3. Much less often than adverbs and short adjectives, nouns move into the state category. At the same time, nouns lose the meaning of objectivity and begin to express a state: Laziness (noun) spoils a person and I am too lazy (state category) to get up early. In the second sentence, the word laziness denotes the state of the subject, expressed by the pronoun me.

The meaning of a qualitative assessment of a state usually develops in abstract nouns, for example: sin, shame, disgrace, disgrace, torment, hard labor, pity, hunting, reluctance, bondage, annoyance, grief, trouble, time, time, leisure, lack of time, laziness, horror and etc.

The transition of nouns into the state category is accompanied not only by a change in their lexical meaning, but also by their loss grammatical meanings characteristics of nouns - gender, number, case. Therefore, speaking in a new function for them - in the function of a predicate impersonal sentence, they do not agree with any words.

Unlike nouns, words of the state category have tense and mood forms, can be defined by qualitative adverbs, have a dative person and a subordinate infinitive.

29. Modal words.

Modality is a conceptual category. Expresses the relationship of what is being communicated to its actual implementation, determined by the speaker. In general, the relationship of a statement to reality in Russian is expressed using various means: lexical (modal meaning is included in the semantic content of many words); morphological (verb mood forms); syntactic (introductory and inserted structures).

Modal words are unchangeable words that express the attitude of the entire statement to reality, are grammatically unrelated to other words, but stand out intonationally in the structure of the sentence.

Mod words are unchangeable and are not members of a sentence. Usually act as introductory words, can be used as sentence words. Modal words are replenished by: 1) noun (true, fact); 2) short adjectives of the kind (truly, truly, truly); 3) reason (apparently); 4) SKS (seen, heard); 5) adverbs (no way); 6) verbs (it seems, of course); 7) lexicalized phrases (it goes without saying; apparently; in fact).

This determines the wide homonymy in the field of modal words. Homonyms of mode words differ from them in meaning and grammatical properties. For example, the essence of truth: is inclined, agrees with adj, is a member of the sentence, in contrast to the mod of the word truth, which is not inclined, has no forms of agreement, and is not a member of the sentence. Thus, when words go into mode, the forms of the words being modified fall out of the paradigm of declension or conjugation and seem to “freeze” in one form.

Ranks of word modes by meaning (I don’t remember by whom, the one she gave us.)

1) the speaker’s feelings (fortunately, unfortunately...)

2) assessment of the degree of reality of what is being reported: a) confidence (of course); b) uncertainty; c) assumption; d) opportunity.

3) Source of what is being reported (in my opinion...)

4) Sequence of presentation (thus, firstly...)

5) Techniques and ways of formulating thoughts (or rather, more precisely, in other words, in other words)

6) Drawing attention to the interlocutor: (you see, you understand...)

7) Evaluation of the measure, degree of commonness (at most, it happened, at least...)

Summary of a Russian language lesson in 7th grade

Textbook: Baranov M.T., Ladyzhenskaya T.A., Trostentsova L.A., Alexandrova O.M., Grigoryan L.T., Kulibaba I.I. "Russian language: textbook for 7th grade of general education institutions." – M.: Education, 2008.

Program: Baranov M.T., Ladyzhenskaya T.A., Shansky N.M. Programs of general education institutions. Russian language. 5 – 9 grades. M.: Education, 2006.

Goals:

Learn to distinguish words of the state category from short adjectives and adverbs.

Develop interest in the Russian language.

During the classes

Teacher's word

In the science of the Russian language, the category of state is as independent part speech began to be considered at the beginning of the 20th century, although its semantic (meaning) and functional-syntactic differences from adverbs and adjectives were pointed out by Alexander Khristoforovich Vostokov, a Russian philologist of the nineteenth century.

Name

Predicative adverbs

V. V. Vinogradov, E. M. Galkina-Fedoruk, A. N. Gvozdev

supporters

D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, A. A. Shakhmatov

Consider independent part speeches, the title reflected the semantic meaning.

linguistic position

They are considered a special group of adverbs; the name reflects the syntactic role: predicative - used as a predicate.

Depending on the lexical meaning of the word, state categories can be divided into groups:

Words denoting the state of nature (wet, windy).

Words denoting a person’s condition (painful, hot).

Words denoting an assessment of a state (bad, good).

Words with the meaning of possibility, obligation, necessity (impossible, necessary).

Morphological features of state category words.

Words of the state category do not change, that is, they are not declined or conjugated. Most words in the state category have the suffix –o. Words of the state category starting with -o, formed from qualitative adjectives, can form forms of degrees of comparison, for example: My soul became sadder and sadder (A. Kuprin). Some SCS have assessment forms: cold, creepy, scary.

What suffix is ​​used to form these words of the state category? (these words are formed using the diminutive suffixes –ovat.)

Syntactic role of state category words. The state category word performs the syntactic function of a predicate in a one-part impersonal sentence, for example:

Boring, scary, freezes

All around,

(F. Sologub)

The clear streets empty,

So dead.

(F. Sologub)

Words of the state category are combined with linking verbs (to be, become, become, do), and the link can have the form of all tenses (was, will be, in the present tense - zero) of the indicative mood and the form of the conditional mood (it would be colder).

Slide 9. Words of the state category must be distinguished from adverbs and short adjectives. The short form of the adjective agrees in gender, number, case with the noun it defines and can be a predicate in a sentence. An adverb defines a predicate verb and answers questions: how, when, etc. and in a sentence it is a circumstance. Words of the state category are used in impersonal sentences and are predicates.

Consolidation.

Task 1. In all examples, indicate the part of speech and syntactic role of the word “heavy”:

Although the burden is sometimes heavy, the cart is light when moving... (A.S. Pushkin)

And Neva breathed heavily, like a horse running back from battle. (A.S. Pushkin)

"Hey! Let's go, coachman!..” - “There is no urine: it’s hard for the horses, master...” (A.S. Pushkin)

Task 2. Indicate the numbers of sentences in which the highlighted words are words of the state category, short adjectives, adverbs.

His face was sad.

He sad smiled.

To me sad.

On him funny look.

Such behavior funny.

He funny looks.

Composition Interesting written.

With him Interesting argue.

Competition Interesting composition of participants.

Let's test ourselves! The highlighted words are adverbs: 2, 6, 7. Words of the state category: 3, 4, 8. Short adjectives: 1, 5, 9.

Task 3. Distribute the words of the state category into groups: human state, environmental state, state assessment.

Human condition

State of the environment

Condition assessment

Task 4. Form the comparative degree from the words of the category of state: quiet, beautiful, bad, dangerous.

How to correctly place emphasis on the comparative degree of the word “beautiful”?

What is the peculiarity of forming the comparative degree from the word “bad”? (When a degree of comparison is formed, the base is replaced; in linguistics this is called suppletivism of bases)

Summing up.

Let's summarize.

What are the morphological features of the state category?

Bibliography

Encyclopedia for children. T 10. Linguistics. Russian language. – M.: Avanta +, 2005.

Kasatkin L.L., Krysin L.P., Lvov M.R., Terekhova T.G. Russian language. Textbook for students pedagogical institutes majoring in Pedagogy and Methodology primary education" In 2 parts. – M.: Education, 1989.

However, the point of view of A. Kh. Vostokov seemed too radical to the majority of Russian grammarians of the first half of the 19th century. In the name of historical and genetic premises about the relationship of short forms of adjectives with nouns, it was rejected by Pavsky and then K. S. Aksakov. A. A. Potebnya joined this tradition. Only M. Katkov briefly expressed agreement with Vostokov’s definition of short adjectives as conjugated forms ().

In addition, softened echoes of Vostokov’s concept can be found in grammatical works of a generalizing and at the same time educational type, such as “The Experience of a General Comparative Grammar of the Russian Language” by I. I. Davydov or “Historical Grammar” by F. I. Buslaev.

Thus, F.I. Buslaev wrote: “The middle verbs include a noun or auxiliary be both alone and in conjunction with an adjective, to mean a predicate... For example, He for a long time was is ill" ().

Only N.P. Nekrasov, in his book “On the Meaning of the Forms of the Russian Verb,” acted as a decisive and even extreme follower of Vostokov’s concept, coming to it from the other side: “How a verb, through an adjective form, can acquire the meaning of a purely adjectival name, for example, give birth — darling... be able to — skillful, burn — burnt... and others, so, on the contrary, an adjective name, through a short form with a neuter ending or with an indifferent ending, can take on the meaning of a verb, for example:

AND, full that for the bills!..
If only there was some hunting.

Here full from adjective full, -and I, -oh has the meaning of a verb in an absolutely personal form in - And(i.e. in the form of the imperative mood. - IN. IN.).

Not no funny when the painter is unfit
Raphael's Madonna gets dirty for me.

Here funny from adjective funny, -and I, -oh It also has the meaning of a verb, because the quality expressed by it, in the meaning of speech, appears to be inherent in the subject under the condition of a certain duration. It is known that every adjective with a short ending can have the meaning of a verb when it stands in place of the predicate in a sentence. Thus, the verb in the development of its forms is transformed into an adjective (cf. forms of participles and their evolution. - IN. IN.), the adjective in abbreviation of its forms is converted into a verb" ().

Before A. A. Shakhmatov’s “Essay on the Modern Russian Literary Language,” the question of the category of state remained in such an uncertain position. For example, prof. V. A. Bogoroditsky pointed out that impersonal expressions of nominal origin, like possible, necessary, are now verbs or verbal particles for the senses, and referred to the tense forms inherent in them (cf. past tense Can was, necessary was) ().

Academician A. A. Shakhmatov approved Vostokov’s discovery with his authority, also recognizing short forms of adjectives as conjugated words. But A. A. Shakhmatov in his “Essay on the Modern Russian Literary Language” and in “Syntax of the Russian Language” dealt primarily with individual morphological and syntactic peculiarities of the short form of the adjective. He did not put “categories of state” in a row with other “parts of speech”. This step was taken by Prof. L. V. Shcherboy in his article “On parts of speech in the Russian language” ().

Naturally, the meanings of an object, quality, or qualitative-circumstantial relation are completely alien to the category of state. Words belonging to the category of state express an “inactive” state that can be thought of impersonally ( annoying, shameful) or attributed to this or that person as a subject experiencing this state (I glad you are must and so on.) .

Since the forms of time in the category of state are analytical, this entire category as a whole bears a clear imprint of the analytical structure. Shapes: i was glad And will glad (you will glad etc.) - are pure forms of tense and mood, without any admixture of aspectual and voice meanings. The history of the state category must be connected with the historical fate of the verb be and with the history of categories: verb, short forms of adjective and adverb.

A. M. Peshkovsky thought that in colloquial speech adverbs predominate in this impersonal predicate use, and in the book - forms of short adjectives of the neuter gender. “With an infinitive,” he wrote, “the likelihood of an impersonal adverbial interpretation always increases, since the vast majority of infinitive combinations are of a lively, conversational nature ( To you easily speak! How here funny work! etc.), and there is no need to think about the neuter gender of the adjective here. But even here there are purely bookish combinations, like To a person characteristic make a mistake, where the form is on - O clearly not an adverb... (since there is no adverb characteristic)... In general, the more lively the phrase, the more form it is - O closer to an adverb, the more literary, the closer to the neuter adjective."

But the artificiality and fallacy of this subjective-stylistic explanation is obvious. Adverb in modern language so different in its grammatical functions from the neuter adjective that it is impossible to mix their syntactic use. It is all the more difficult to assume that under exactly the same syntactic conditions, depending on the degree of colloquialism, either an adverb or a compatible adjective would appear. One can only allow the crossing of the categories of adverb and adjective in some new grammatical category. However, A. M. Peshkovsky himself immediately contradicts himself, admitting that “among these forms in the language there are several formations in - O, just the most common ones, which cannot be either adjectives or ordinary adverbs,” for example: can, should, must(cf.: you can't, you have to, it's a pity and so on.). Wed. Also: ashamed, ashamed, afraid and others like that. All these words can also be combined with an infinitive. And in other cases, according to A. M. Peshkovsky, “there is always a difference in the meaning of this form on - O compared to adverbs and short forms of adjectives." A. M. Peshkovsky, especially after L. V. Shcherba's instructions on the category of state, began to seem more likely that "we have a special grammatical category here."

Over time, becoming more and more imbued with this idea, A. M. Peshkovsky nevertheless directs all his linguistic wit to proving that these predicate forms are not O, with very few exceptions, are not short forms of an adjective, but adverbs (as if applying this grammatical label to them makes the issue clearer). A. M. Peshkovsky proceeded from the axiom that “adjectives do not have a special form with loss of agreement like impersonal verbs” (). From this it followed that the inconsistent form on - O, — For example Cold in sentences: To me was Cold V summer coat; Today Very Cold; Cold go against wind — cannot in any way be classified as an adjective (cf. the completely different meaning of the short form of an adjective in a sentence All society was Very Cold with by me). Wed. in colloquial speech: Wait tram was Very Cold; Listen rebuke was Very ashamed; Ashamed you Not believe to me etc. However, even with this approach, according to A. M. Peshkovsky, a number of predicative impersonal forms in - O, evoking the thought of “adjective”. After all, there is “a certain line between the type of impersonality under consideration and such incomplete personal suggestions like was it was known obviously, clearly(not about the weather, of course) reliable, undoubtedly, understandable, appropriate, characteristic, decent, useful, healthy, mean, honest, bad(not about nausea, of course), smart, stupid etc." (). In relation to those of these forms that are used in colloquial speech, A. M. Peshkovsky finds some kind of loophole in the area of ​​adverbs: "It is possible that the forms short adjective The neuter gender no longer exists in literary-colloquial language, and only misdirected grammatical reflection prevents us from seeing this. And if so, then in spoken language, at least, all these sentences are impersonal. True, one can object to this that... in sentences like walk healthy the infinitive can be a substitute for the subject... But the fact is that the infinitive is generally a very bad substitute for the subject - it is too characteristic and too verbal for this, and this role can be recognized for it only out of necessity, only when the surrounding forms indisputably indicate on the personal nature of the sentence..." () In this way A. M. Peshkovsky manages to establish impersonality or a shade of impersonality for the vast majority of predicative forms on - O and, therefore, take them beyond the boundaries of the category of adjectives. But A. M. Peshkovsky immediately hurries to direct all the impersonal words like dishonest, useful, harmful etc. to the warehouse of adverbs, as if the category of impersonality, correlative with the category of person, is present in adverbs to a greater extent than in adjectives. Nevertheless, the argument of A. M. Peshkovsky in defense of the position that this group of impersonal predicative words in - O belongs to some other category than adjectives. True, A. M. Peshkovsky never managed to overcome his indecision on this issue. As a typical eclectic, he considered the safest and most cautious part of the predicative forms in - O(even if very small) leave to the share of the adjective name, identifying them with short forms (for example: it is known that...; person characteristic make a mistake). “In those cases,” wrote Prof. Peshkovsky, “when the material meaning equally allows for both personal and impersonal understanding, and the form does not O can also be understood equally as an adverb and an adjective, the form of the combination is inevitably twofold. Here it all comes down to associations of a given sentence with one or another form of combination... You can only indicate a certain grammatical proportion: the further the form is on - O from the neuter adjective, the more impersonal the copula and the further the infinitive is from the function of the subject...", for example: "I was funny approaching an unfamiliar place for the first time" (Gogol); "the closer the form is to - O to the neuter adjective, the more personal the copula is and the closer the infinitive is to the function of the subject" (). For example, Dishonorable was So act with me; compare: Is yours act was dishonest.

Thus, A. M. Peshkovsky fastens the neuter gender of short adjectives with an adverb on a living thread. But most of contradictions and ambiguities in A. M. Peshkovsky’s analysis of these forms would have disappeared if he had looked at the state of affairs from the point of view of the category of state. In fact, if individual short forms of adjectives have already moved into the category of state, and the rest of them are on the way to merging with this category, then it is not surprising that in this area they are developing, along with generic and personal forms, different types impersonal forms. Naturally, under the influence of the verb different groups predicative nominal words in - O form a complex and motley range of transitional types from complete impersonality to imaginary or potential impersonality. Thus, with the assumption of the category of state, all hesitant, ambiguous cases of the use of predicative words in - O(). Meanwhile, A. M. Peshkovsky, with his theory of the permanent oscillation of these words between the categories of adverb and adjective, was faced with a new obstacle that he had not overcome: where to place the impersonal forms of passive participles in - O type ordered report; "Already sent in pursuit" (Pushkin); "Near that fence piled up for forty carts of any copy" (Gogol, "The Inspector General"); "For all this assumed was to gather with the police chief" (Gogol, " Dead Souls") and so on.?

After all, in their meaning they are so close to “impersonal predicative adverbs,” as Peshkovsky called words like can, should, can be seen etc. A. M. Peshkovsky admitted with bewilderment: “Although about the understanding of forms in - O as an adverb there can no longer be any question here, however, these sentences also have a great inclination towards impersonality...” () Meanwhile, these forms represent a complete analogy to such impersonal predicative words as ashamed, ashamed, afraid etc. After all, in them “the form is on - O lost its meaning agreement with the neuter noun oh, and as a result of this, passive combinations became possible from intransitive verbs as a special impersonal form: was sizheno, gozheno, ezzheno, cry... etc." (). In exceptional cases, even the accusative case of the direct object is possible here. For example: "A thousand pieces of advice pressed useful" (Krylov); "Grosh sealed, but turned five times" (N. Nekrasov, "The Life and Adventures of Tikhon Trostnikov"); cf.: hurt hand, apparently mountain etc. It is also curious that, according to prof. Peshkovsky, “in some cases, personal meaning is also possible here, especially in turns of a bookish nature” () (cf.: it is assumed that...; ordered that... and so on.; Wed Also: Not ordered accept; Not ordered let in and others like that).

The analogy between the impersonal forms of short passive participles and other impersonal predicative words is so close and striking that a general assumption involuntarily arises about the strong organizing influence of short passive participles on the category of state.

Consequently, in the group of former short forms of the adjective noun - O a rapid process is taking place grammatical changes, caused by the growth of the state category, supported by the influence of the verb and regulated by it. Some of these words have received a distinct form new category (sick bad; simple boring; "To me sad, because funny you" (Lermontov), ​​etc.) In others, signs of the transitional stage are still preserved to varying degrees (cf.: to me was funny And funny was see and so on.). Some impersonal predicative words are synonymous with verbal forms and are close to them in their syntactic properties (cf., for example: To me preferably get solid answer And To me I want to get solid answer and so on.). In impersonal forms on - O the influence of verb control is widespread. For example: "It's for me enough and the fact that I will have to open you up" (Chekhov, "Uncle Vanya"); cf.: With me enough; annoying on whom-someday; compare: be annoyed on whom-someday; ashamed whom-something, something-someday; compare: be ashamed whom-something, something-someday; scary whom-something, something-someday; compare: be afraid whom-something, something-someday; it's a shame on whom-someday; Wed take offense on whom-someday etc.

Thus, not only impersonal words like bitterly on soul, but also homogeneous constructions with an infinitive like “To you Nice shedding tears" (Pushkin) are very far from the category of adjectives and adverbs. They are closer to the category of state.

Designation of being, state of acad. A. A. Shakhmatov considered the syntactic property of the adverb. In a sentence Here Cold he understood Cold as an adverb and attributed it to a sign of being, manifestation, that remained unexpressed ().

This belief in the ability of any adverb to become a predicate is fraught with many dangerous things. Apparently, this grammatical prejudice rests on the confusion of grammatical systems different eras, on the transfer of past linguistic relations to the present. After all, if the ability to directly combine with forms of time and turn into a predicate were inherent in the nature of qualitative adverbs in modern language - O(cf. the singularity of expressions like mind — good two — better and the inability to speak and write sentences such as life — in short, work — fast etc.), then this would mean either a collapse of the system of inflection of adjectives, or a weakening of the connection between the qualitative adverb and the verb and adjective, i.e., a complete merging of the categories of adverb and adjective. Meanwhile, in modern Russian the ability of predicative use is more noticeable in adverbial adverbs than in qualitative ones - O, -e(cf.: before cities it was not far more early, already late etc. - if it is impossible to say was forever, will be it was slow hastily, it will be cowardly and so on.).

There is no doubt that in the Old Russian language the possibilities for predicate use of adverbs were much wider (). Meanwhile, in modern Russian, qualitative adverbs in - O and on - ski"they just can't be predicative." “Apparently, the meaning of the sign of action in them is so strong that it cannot be combined with the abstraction of the connective,” noted Prof. A. M. Peshkovsky ().

The growth of the state category was associated with those internal grammatical contradictions that emerged in the use of adverbs in combination with auxiliary verbs. These contradictions were especially pronounced in combinations of adverbs with the copula be. These combinations corresponded to the syntactic functions of the adverb only as long as the verb be has not yet turned into a copula, into a morpheme of tense and mood. Transformation of the same verb be in an abstract connection strengthened the “predicativeness” of adverbs. In combination ashamed was word ashamed could no longer be perceived as an adverb to a verb was. It merged with the connective morpheme was into one component grammatical form, the past tense form of the word ashamed. But this use of adverbs was not reconciled with their function as a qualitative and adverbial relation (cf. also the development of similar processes in combinations of short adjectives with a copula). Loosening and weathering in the bond be lexical meanings verb led to the transition of “predicative adverbs” to the category of state.

A. A. Potebnya was the first to outline the main stages of this grammatical degeneration of “predicative” adverbs. According to Potebnya, nouns sorry, it's time etc., adjacent to the verb be, first turned into adverbs. In combinations fear it was a pity was words fear And it's a pity were once adverbs (but cf. in the language of the 19th century: “Lazy - horror to think” - Griboyedov) (). A. A. Potebnya reacted negatively to Miklosic’s idea, “that the adverb is incompatible with the verb of existence” (). He argued that in was ashamed during the period of lexical and grammatical fullness of the verb be word ashamed could not be anything other than a verb adverb. But then, due to the grammatical rethinking of the verb be, with its transformation into an auxiliary particle, was ashamed began to be understood as the analytical form of the past tense of the word ashamed, which has become a state category.

Inability to understand impersonal predicative words (ending in - O) as an adverb is also proven by the fact that most qualitative adverbs in combination with an infinitive lack the property of “reversibility” (i.e., the ability to have an infinitive as a defining word). For example, in combination tensely think adverb tensely is inevitably understood as a definition of the infinitive (i.e. one cannot say: think was tensely; Wed cordially relate and so on.). It was correctly stated that if funny in a sentence Play was funny was an adverb, then the relationship between play — funny And funny — play (Children calmed down And become funny play) would be parallel to the relationship between cheerful And funny. But there is no such parallelism. Speaking play — funny, we are asserting a connection that is not at all the one that appears to be given in combination play funny (Play funny them rarely succeeded); the second suggests the possibility of boring play, the first eliminates it.

At the same time, the grammatical functions of such impersonal predicative forms as sweet, easy, fun etc., are no different from the functions of words such as it is possible, it should, it is necessary, useful, forgivable, sickening, sinful, unnecessary, ashamed, loving, shameful etc., which can no longer be recognized as adverbs. This also includes forms of passive participles, like ordered, accepted, destined, forbidden, allowed, forbidden, permitted, entrusted, prescribed, assumed, ordered, allowed, recommended etc. Thus, the grammatical differences between the category of state and the categories of qualitative adverbs in - O obvious.

But the separation of “impersonal predicative words” into - O from the adverb system does not yet decide general issue on the interaction between the category of state and the category of adverb in the modern Russian language.

Words that have forms of time contain a dialectical perception of reality in two aspects: dynamic - as a world of actions, movements, and evolutionary - as a world of qualitative states, “beings” in which persons and objects can appear. In the same way, the names of persons or objects, that is, nouns, serve not only as active subjects or objects experiencing certain influences. They can also express various characteristic properties or states. This meaning of a qualitative characteristic appears very clearly in many nouns when they specialize in the role of a predicate (for example, grated kalach, no miss; Wed from Leskov in the novel “On Knives”: “You are cunning, but so am I Not miss"). In this case, the noun is an expression of the state of another object in its development. This is how the path of the grammatical movement of nouns into the category of state is schematically outlined.

If any noun is preserved in the language only in one function, in the function of the predicate, then this grammatical restriction is usually associated with the semantic deformation of the word, with the loss of its case and gender forms and with the emergence of tense shades in it. By absorbing the meaning of time, the noun weakens or loses its meaning as an object or substance. It begins to express the internal qualities or states of another thing, becomes a reflection of those qualitative states through which an object can pass, or those impersonal, non-subjective states that are generally characteristic of reality. Thus, a noun can gradually assimilate with the category of state.

Many nouns of the modern Russian language already directly contain this function of qualitative characteristics. There are many predicative nouns that are not designations of objects, but express the qualitative state of objects. For example, the word cap, in addition to its direct, nominative meaning, is used as a figurative characteristic of a simpleton, narrow-minded, limited razini (cf. the meaning of the verb fool): "You're supposedly retarded cap" (Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons"); "Naturally, you, city gossips, are damned liars... hubcaps..." (Gogol, "The Inspector General"); "Rubbish! Cap! — Bindasov screamed" (Turgenev, "Smoke"); "I didn’t notice that he drove every day, I didn’t notice that he arrived in a carriage today. And I didn't see it. Cap!" (Chekhov, "Enemies").

There can hardly be any doubt that for modern linguistic consciousness internal form this use of the word cap half lost. After all, the buffoonish, foolish cap, from which the metonymic name for a fool, jester (and then any simpleton) a cap grew, has already lost its expressive impressiveness in the environment of modern cultural life. But the figurative meaning of the word cap still very noticeable. It is supported by the verb fool. Wed. folk sayings and proverbs: “According to Senka’s hat, according to such and cap"; "All people are like people, the same devil in cap" and so on.

These are the kind of nouns that do not name an object or person, but speak about them, characterize them, appearing only or in the demonstrative ( this cap this cap etc.), or predicative function, are drawn to the category of state (cf. phraseological unities and fusions: with side heat, flesh And blood, stick O two ends, neither peahen neither crow, parable in yazshcheh, alive relics, blood With milk, grated kalach, cf.: "This grated kalach who knows people and knows how to use them" (Turgenev, "Singers"); "I know the world by heart, I myself grated kalach" (Fonvizin, "The Minor"); seventh water on jelly, last spoke V chariot and so on.).

In the grammatical use of such words, shades of time are sharply indicated. They color their semantic structure more and more and paralyze their ability to declension and gender differences. For example, the expression Not lodger in the meaning: a person doomed to death, a person who will not live long - applies to both men and women ( Not lodger she on white light). Wed. from Leskov in “The Islanders”: “Marya Ivanovna Not lodger in this world, so I will give my head to be cut off for this, that she Not lodger". Wed: he she — Not miss.

22 Wed. the meaning of the expressions: “Get out of Moscow! I don’t go here anymore”; “I’m not a reader of nonsense, but more than exemplary” (Griboyedov), etc. Cf. Potebnya's remark: "By type of speed I Not rider, complaint my — older than Not I'm driving, I'm complaining" (). But cf. I — pass.