No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2017
This essay seeks to establish the line of semantic cleavage between itti and ekhat' and between nesti and vezti both for old literary Russian and for contemporary literary Russian. It does not attempt to treat the problem of the relationship between the so-called determined and the so-called undetermined groups (e.g., the difference between itti and khodit)' though significant differences in usage have also taken place here in the two periods.
In pre-Petrine Russian, that is, in the literary Russian from the tenth or eleventh century through the seventeenth century, the distinction between itti and ekhat' (whether in simple or compounded forms) seems to be not unlike the difference between the English go and ride.
1 See under the separate entries in Sreznevskij, I.I., Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka (St. Petersburg, 1893-1912)Google Scholar. In addition see the reference beginning ”… i semu sja” etc., from Vladimir Monomakh (no. 16) and the reference beginning ”… se bo ne po zemli” etc., from the Primary Chronicle (no. 14).
2 Gudzij, N., Khrestomatija po drevnej russkoj literature Xl-XVll vekov (Moscow, 1947), p. 31 Google Scholar.
3 Ibid., p. 48.
4 Ibid., p. 73.
5 Ibid., pp. 86, 92.
6 Ibid., p. 127.
7 Ibid., p. 156.
8 Ibid., p. 198.
9 Ibid., p. 205.
10 Ibid., pp. 223, 225.
11 Ibid., p. 266.
12 Ibid., pp. 276-77.
13 Ibid., p. 329.
14 Ibid., p. 401.
15 Ibid., pp. 88, 104.
16 Ibid., p. 65.
17 Ibid., p. 63.
18 These definitions embrace only the more concrete concepts of the words involved. The definitions given here are based in part on Usakov, D. N., Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka (1935-1940), in part on information supplied by native informantsGoogle Scholar.
19 Gudzij, , op. cit., p. 73 Google Scholar.
20 Ibid., p. 87.
21 Ibid., p. 148.
22 Ibid., pp. 225-26.
23 Ibid., p. 203.