Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Everything old is new again: Another look into the history of Russian adjectives

Все новое—хорошо забытое старое: История русских прилагательных в ином ракурсе

  • Published:
Russian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The history of the adjective in Russian manifests the convergence of its declensional paradigm with the declension of non-personal pronouns. The present paper focuses on the sg. masc. ending -ogo, the syncretic Gen.-Acc. that replaces the corresponding ending -ago in Old East Slavic, the ending -ago being the result of prehistoric compounding of the short adjective and the anaphoric pronoun jego. While the development of the adjectival paradigm, separate from that originally shared with nouns, took the compounding route at some stage, it may have not been quite linear, at least in the Acc. case. It is hypothesized that the ending -ogo was not a new substitute for the old Gen. -ago, but rather a variant Acc. form used since antiquity to refer to persons. It may have already emerged in short adjectives, by direct analogy to kogo (Gen.-Acc. of the interrogative-indefinite kŭto ‘who’), independently of the compounding, in the same manner in which the Gen.-Acc. of non-personal pronouns arose. It is proposed that the compound form marked definiteness, and was associated with long active participles, with transitivity and subject-object distinction especially, while -ogo marked personhood in pronouns and in certain pronoun-like adjectives while they were still part of the nominal paradigm.

Аннотация

История имени прилагательного в русском языке указывает на сближение его склонения со склонением неличных местоимений. Настоящая статья сосредоточена на окончании м. р. ед. ч. -ого—синкретичного род.-вин. падежа, которое в ранневосточнославянский период стало заменять соответствующее ему окончание -аго; последнее представляет собой результат сложения краткого прилагательного с местоимением го. Хотя развитие парадигмы прилагательного отдельно от изначально общей парадигмы с существительным и прошло этап сложения, данный процесс не был прямолинейным по крайней мере в вин. падеже. Выдвинутая здесь гипотеза предполагает, что окончание -ого представляет собой не новообразование на месте прежнего окончания род. падежа -аго, а старинный вариант вин. падежа, употреблявшийся для обозначения людей. Это окончание, возможно, возникло независимо от процесса сложения уже в склонении краткой формы прилагательного по непосредственной аналогии с местоимением кого (род.-вин. падеж вопросительно-неопределенного къто), таким же путем, как и род.-вин. форма неличных местоимений. Членная форма обозначала определенность и, прежде всего, была связана с членными причастиями активного залога, с переходностью и различением субъекта и объекта, тогда как -ого служила для обозначения категории личности в местоимениях и в некоторых близких к местоимениям прилагательных, когда они еще принадлежали к общему с существительными склонению.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See also Kuznecov (1959, p. 140), Markov (1961, p. 100). Kuznecov, Iordanidi, and Krys’ko (2006, pp. 30, 15) oppose the idea of reconstructing a single nominal part of speech for prehistory, and caution against applying the terms ‘noun’ and ‘adjective’ to the Proto-Indo European (PIE) period, stressing that the difference between words with a substantive and an adjectival function was not reflected in their inflection but in the lexical and semantic features of their stems.

  2. The same stem is used for the Common Slavic relative pronoun iže.

  3. See Ferrell’s (1972) elaboration on the possible paths the change took in various cases of the compound paradigm.

  4. See, for example, Tolkačev (1959, p. 75).

  5. The same ending is attested in Serbian Church Slavonic before the newer -oga (Meillet 1897, p. 135, with reference to Daničić; Stieber 1971, p. 81).

  6. Regarding svjat-, it should also be mentioned that it is very common in metonymic reference to churches named after either certain Saints or Biblical events, such as Voznesenie ‘Ascension’.

  7. See also Hjelmslev (1959, p. 233).

  8. See Gunnarson’s (1931, pp. 9–11) summary of various terms.

  9. See also Luraghi (2014).

  10. See also Andersen (to appear), Definiteness in Slavic, Baltic, and Germanic. In M. Nomachi & A. Danilenko (Eds.), Slavic in the Language Map of Europe (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs). Berlin, New York. I would like to thank Henning Andersen for graciously providing me his article before it appeared in print. Also see Vaillant (1958, pp. 495–496).

  11. See also Andersen (to appear; cf. fn. 10), Meillet (1965, pp. 445–446). Gonda (1954, p. 9) disputes the terminology and the essence regarding the PIE relative *io, claiming instead that it was “an introductory, announcing; isolating; explaining, qualifying, defining, distinguishing pronominal word which introduced the word or word group to which it drew attention or which it introduced etc. in a larger whole.” Andersen (to appear) prefers the term ‘subordinator’ for this definite marker pronoun.

  12. The Germanic strong inflection too is found in predicates (Lehmann 1970, pp. 287–289).

  13. A small number of the palatal (‘soft’) stem adjectives and participles have the variant -ego for -ogo, but the greatest majority of Russian adjectives are non-palatal stem.

  14. See Tolstoj (1957) and Tolkačev (1959) for critical surveys up to the mid-20th century, and Kuznecov, Iordanidi, and Krys’ko (2006) for the most recent discussion of the subject.

  15. Compare Kuznecov, Iordanidi, and Krys’ko’s (2006, p. 140) remarks on the status of certain long forms as phrases that include a post-posed determiner.

  16. See also Baranov (2003, p. 150), including for references regarding the affinity between the short form and the verbal predicate.

  17. Tolstoj (1957, p. 115) does not consider the OCS nouns zŭlo ‘evil’, dobro ‘goodness, virtue’, blago ‘good’ to be substantivized adjectives, claiming instead that they must have originated at a time when the two were not separate from each other yet.

  18. The change is the result of the loss of the so-called weak jers, /ĭ/ and /ŭ/, the reduced mid vowels (front and back respectively). OESl, as opposed to OCS, had no high allophones of jers contiguous with /j/. The native Nom. sg. masc. adjectival ending /-oj/ was later replaced by the Church Slavonic /-yj/, hence modern Russian vožatyj.

  19. The same is true of the Polish equivalent Jerzy (and other borrowed names, e.g. Bonifacy, Ignacy): Gen. and Acc. Jerzego, etc. Some borrowed surnames have a hybrid nominal and adjectival declension. Incidentally, this group also includes the substantivized adjectives svjaty ‘saint, holy’ (McShane 2001, pp. 57–58).

  20. Lomtev (1956, pp. 134–136) provides many modern Russian illustrations of this point.

  21. See Kuznecov, Iordanidi, and Krys’ko (2006, pp. 30, 15).

  22. Contrast Vaillant (1958, p. 500).

  23. They may have emerged by analogy to nouns, as is also the case elsewhere in Slavic, including OCS and Serbian (Kuznecov, Iordanidi, and Krys’ko 2006, p. 246; Meillet 1897, p. 131; Vaillant 1948, p. 136). Furthermore, Vaahtera’s (2009) historical phonology investigation of the Northern Russian /o/ may shed a different light on its graphic representation.

  24. Tolstoj (1957) provides a detailed summary of the studies up to the mid-20th century. For a comprehensive most recent account see Kuznecov, Iordanidi, and Krys’ko (2006, pp. 76–90).

  25. See also Larsen (2005, p. 14).

  26. Jakubinskij (1952) is the most vocal opponent of this view, arguing that definiteness is a lexical-semantic category.

  27. On the other hand, they are also most likely to be the subject of the narrative.

  28. See Luraghi (2011), for example, on the rise of the feminine gender in the transformation of the PIE two-gender system based on animacy, into a three-gender one based on sex, in many of its daughter languages. See also Hjelmslev (1959, p. 229). Luraghi (2014) deals with the question of PIE gender in terms of derivational and inflectional morphology.

  29. See also Meillet (1965, p. 443). Hjelmslev (1959) further comments that the Baltic languages that used to have such opposition in the interrogative pronoun no longer have it.

  30. A similar statement is made by Žuravlev (1991, p. 114).

  31. Compare Meillet (1897, p. 145).

  32. See Shields (1994) on deictic particles in personal pronouns that served for the derivation of their emphatic forms.

  33. Exactly when the Gen.-Acc. syncretism arose in personal pronouns is a matter of debate. See Bratishenko (2003, pp. 92–93), Frink (1962, pp. 136–137), Klenin (1983), Meillet (1965, p. 406). Weiss (2015, p. 134) argues for an inverse chronology for the Gen.-Acc. in personal pronouns in relation to the proper *o-stem nouns, as well as the interrogative kogo, based on tonal distinctions between the Acc. and Gen. forms.

  34. Compare also Meillet’s (1897, p. 131) citations from OCS.

  35. In this respect, Oliverius (1972, p. 270), in his survey of modern Russian interrogative and relative pronouns distinguishes between the semantic components of pronominal roots and the semantic components of pronominal suffixes, in that the former “put demonstrative objects into perspective as perceived from the point of view of the speaker”, whereas the latter “indicate very broad categorial classes of notions corresponding to a certain extent with classification of words into parts of speech.”

  36. See Huntley’s (1980, p. 205) view on the analogical pressure on masc. personal nouns from both kogo, and fem. personal nouns and compound adjectives that had Acc. forms different from the Nom.

  37. Recall Meillet’s (1897) observation that in OCS they are invariably used in the Gen.-Acc.

  38. In Modern Russian, present active participles are a feature of high style, especially in written language. The ESl cognates have joined adjectives: e.g. vezučij ‘lucky’, gorjačij ‘hot (to the touch)’, brodjačij ‘stray’ vs. vezuščij ‘carrying’, gorjaščij ‘burning’, brodjaščij ‘wondering’. See Kuznecov (1959) for other examples.

  39. Kuznecov, Iordanidi, and Krys’ko (2006, p. 245) provide examples.

  40. Incidentally, Meillet (1965, p. 442) refers to them as adjectives with a partial pronominal pattern of declension.

  41. See Bhat (2004, pp. 1–5) for further discussion.

  42. Vaillant (1948, p. 117) says that velii is ‘in principle always indefinite’ (translation—E.B.).

  43. Recall in this regard Lehmann’s (1974) observation about pre- and post-position of the adjective in PIE.

  44. Despite recognizing the attestation as Acc., Gippius (1993, p. 74), for example, refers to the form as ‘a new Gen. sg. masc.-neut. ending’, presumably as a short-hand.

  45. See Potebnja (1958, pp. 295–324) on the second predicative cases.

  46. Birnbaum (1994), in his tribute to Potebnja’s work, also touches on the problem of the legitimacy of the category of state.

  47. Menzel (2008) applies their framework in his analysis of OESl and Middle Russian material.

  48. Today the adjective russkij ‘Russian’ used as a substantive to refer to nationality, stands out against ethnic and national designations that are nouns, e.g. kanadec ‘a Canadian’. An example of the -ĭsk- adjective that, on the contrary, refers to the country is Polish Polska ‘Poland’. The latter is an ellipsis.

  49. See Frolova (1960a, p. 76) for Trubetskoy’s statement to this effect and for other references.

  50. Kurz (1960) hypothesizes about the existence of the Nom. *jĭ and the development of the 3rd pers. paradigm in Slavic.

Sources

  • Life of Boris and Gleb: Knjazevskaja, O. A., Dem’janov, V. G., & Ljapon, M. V. (1971). Uspenskij sbornik XII–XIII veka (pod. red. S. I. Kotkova). Moskva.

  • Life of St. Theodosius: Knjazevskaja, O. A., Dem’janov, V. G., & Ljapon, M. V. (1971). Uspenskij sbornik XII–XIII veka (pod. red. S. I. Kotkova). Moskva.

  • Laurentian Chronicle: Polnoe sobranie russkix letopisej. Tom 1: Lavrent’evskaja letopis’ i Suzdal’skaja letopis’ po Akademičeskomu spisku. Moskva 1962.

  • 1st Novgorod Chronicle (Synod edition): Polnoe sobranie russkich letopisej. Tom III: Novgorodskija letopisi. S.-Peterburg 1841 (Slavica-Reprint Nr. 67/3). Düsseldorf, Vaduz 1973.

  • Russkaja Pravda (Synod edition): Grekov, B. D. (Ed.) (1967 [1940]). Pravda russkaja. Tom 1: Teksty (Slavica-Reprint, 1). The Hague.

  • Savva’s Book: Ščepkin, V. (Ed.) (1959[1903]). Savvina kniga (reprinted ed.). Graz.

  • 1229 Smolensk-Riga Trade Treaty, copy A: Avanesov, R. I. (Ed.) (1963). Smolenskie gramoty XIII–XIV vekov. Moskva.

References

  • Baranov, V. A. (2003). Formirovanie opredelitel’nyx kategorij v istorii russkogo jazyka (Avtoreferat dissertacii, Kazanskij gosudarstvennyj universitet). Kazan’.

  • Bhat, D. N. S. (2004). Pronouns. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, H. (1994). Potebnja’s conception of East Slavic morphosyntax viewed in its historical context. In M. S. Flier (Ed.), Ukrainian philology and linguistics [Special issue]. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 18(1/2), 117–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratishenko, E. (2003). Genitive-accusative and possessive adjective in Old East Slavic. Scando-Slavica, 49(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00806760310000928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugmann, K. (1897). Nature and origin of the noun genders in the Indo-European languages. A lecture delivered on the occasion of the sesquicentennial celebration of Princeton University. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, G. G. (2004). The Russian adjective: A pervasive yet elusive category. In R. W. M. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology (Explorations in linguistic typology, 1, pp. 199–222). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diessel, H. (1999). Demonstratives. Form, function, and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language, 42). Amsterdam, Philadelphia.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Diessel, H. (2003). The relationship between demonstratives and interrogatives. Studies in Language, 27(3), 635–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durnovo, N. (1959[1924]). Očerk istorii russkago jazyka (reprinted ed.). The Hague.

  • Ferrell, J. (1972). On the history of the forms of the determined adjective in Old Russian. Slavia, 41, 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flier, M. S. (1974). Aspects of nominal determination in Old Church Slavic. The Hague, Paris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frink, O. (1962). Genitive-Accusative in the Laurentian Primary Chronicle. The Slavic and East European Journal, 6(2), 133–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frolova, S. V. (1960a). K voprosu o proisxoždenii russkix neizmenjaemyx familij na -ovo/-evo. Učenye zapiski Kujbyševskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo instituta, 32, 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frolova, S. V. (1960b). K voprosu o prirode i genezise pritjažatel’nyx prilagatel’nyx russkogo jazyka. Učenye zapiski Kujbyševskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo instituta, 32, 323–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gippius, A. A. (1993). Morfologičeskie, leksičeskie i sintaksičeskie faktory v sklonenii drevnerusskix člennyx prilagatel’nyx. In B. A. Uspenskij & M. N. Ševeleva (Eds.), Issledovanija po slavjanskomu i istoričeskomu jazykoznaniju. Pamjati professora G. A. Xaburgaeva (pp. 66–84). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonda, J. (1954). The original character of the Indo-European relative pronoun ̯io. Lingua, 4, 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunnarson, G. (1931). Recherches syntaxiques sur la décadence de l’adjectif nominal en slave. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjelmslev, L. (1959). Animé et inanimé. Personnel et non-personnel (1956). In L. Hjelmslev, Essais linguistiques (Travaux du cercle linguistique de Copenhague, 12, pp. 211–249). Copenhague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntley, D. (1980). The evolution of genitive-accusative animate and personal nouns in Slavic dialects. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical morphology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 17, pp. 189–212). The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isačenko, A. V. (1976). O vozniknovenii i razvitii ‘kategorii sostojanija’ v slavjanskix jazykax. In A. V. Isačenko, Opera selecta (Forum slavicum, 45, pp. 98–115). München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Istrina, E. (1921). Upotreblenie imennyx i mestoimennyx form imen prilagatel’nyx v Sinodal’nom spiske 1 Novgorodskoj letopisi. Izvestija otdelenija russkago jazyka i slovesnosti Rossijskoj Akademii nauk, 23(1918), 33–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakubinskij, L. P. (1952). Iz istorii imeni prilagatel’nogo. Institut jazykoznanija. Doklady i soobščenija, 1, 52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klenin, E. (1983). Animacy in Russian. A new interpretation (UCLA Slavic Studies, 6). Columbus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuryłowicz, J. (1964). The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurz, J. (1960). K otázce nominativu zájmena třetí osoby v slovanštině, Acta Universitatis Carolina. Philologica, 2, 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznecov, P. S. (1959). Očerki istoričeskoj morfologii russkogo jazyka. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznecov, A. M. (1999). Funkcii i značenija količestvennyx mestoimenij v drevnerusskom knižnom jazyke XI–XIV vv. In Ju. Kudrjavcev & I. Kjul’moja (Eds.), Trudy po russkoj i slavjanskoj filologii. Lingvistika. Novaja serija 2: Pragmatičeskij aspekt issledovanija jazyka (pp. 133–150). Tartu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuznecov, A. M., Iordanidi, S. I., & Krys’ko, V. B. (2006). Prilagatel’nye (Istoričeskaja grammatika drevnerusskogo jazyka, 3). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, K. (2005). The evolution of the system of long and short adjectives in Old Russian (Slavistische Beitrage, 439). München.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, W. P. (1970). Definite adjective declensions and syntactic types. In V. Rūķe-Draviņa (Ed.), Donum Balticum (pp. 286–290). Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, W. P. (1974). Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomtev, T. P. (1956). Očerki po istoričeskomu sintaksisu russkogo jazyka. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunt, H. (1974). Old Church Slavonic grammar (6th ed., rev.). The Hague, Paris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luraghi, S. (2011). The origin of the Proto-Indo-European gender system: typological considerations. Folia Linguistica, 45(2), 435–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luraghi, S. (2014). Gender and word formation: the PIE gender system in cross-linguistic perspective. In S. Neri & R. Schuhmann (Eds.), Studies on the collective and feminine in Indo-European from a diachronic and typological perspective (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Language and Linguistics, 11, pp. 199–231). Leiden.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Markov, V. M. (1961). K voprosu o substantivacii imen prilagatel’nyx v russkom jazyke. Učenye zapiski Kazanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 1959, 119(5), 94–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • McShane, M. J. (2001). Polish inflection fit for man and machine. Memoranda in computer and cognitive science. Computing research laboratory. New Mexico State University. http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/~mcsham2/Publications.html.

  • Meillet, A. (1897). Recherches sur l’emploi du génitif-accusatif en vieux-slave. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meillet, A. (1965). Le slave commun (seconde édition revue et augmentée). Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel, T. (2008). On secondary predicates in Old Russian. In C. Schroeder, G. Hentschel, & W. Boeder (Eds.), Secondary predicates in Eastern European languages and beyond (Studia Slavica Oldenburgensia, 16, pp. 233–253). Oldenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mur’janov, M. F. (1980). K istorii ad”ektivnoj fleksii -ogo. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 5, 106–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliverius, Z. F. (1972). A morphemic analysis of some Russian pronouns. Slavia, 41(3), 263–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potebnja, A. A. (1958). Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike (T. 1–2). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šaxmatov, A. A. (1941). Sintaksis russkogo jazyka. Leningrad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ščerba, L. V. (1974[1924]). O častjax reči v russkom jazyke. In L. V. Ščerba, Jazykovaja sistema i rečevaja dejatel’nost’ (pp. 77–100). Leningrad.

  • Schultze-Berndt, E., & Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic typology, 8(1), 59–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields, K. Jr. (1994). The role of deictic particles in the IE personal pronoun system. Word, 45(3), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1994.11435930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobolevskij, A. I. (1962[1907]). Lekcii po istorii russkago jazyka (reprinted ed.). ’s-Gravenhage.

  • Stieber, Z. (1971). Zarys gramatyki porównawczej języków słowiańskich. Part 2/1: Fleksja imienna. Warszawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolkačev, A. I. (1959). Ob obrazovanii nekotoryx padežnyx form prilagatel’nyx v slavjanskix jazykax (roditel’nyj, datel’nyj i mestnyj padeži edinstvennogo čisla mužskogo i srednego roda). In V. V. Vinogradov (Ed.), Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie (pp. 72–85). Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolstoj, N. I. (1957). O značenii kratkix i polnyx prilagatel’nyx v staroslavjanskom jazyke. Voprosy slavjanskogo jazykoznanija, 2, 43–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaahtera, J. M. (2009). Evoliucija sistemy glasnyx fonem v nekotoryx russkix govorax Vologodskoj oblasti (Slavica Helsingiensia, 37). Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, A. (1948). Manuel du vieux slave. Tome 1: Grammaire. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, A. (1958). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome II: Morphologie. Deuxième partie: Flexion pronominale. Lyon, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillant, A. (1977). Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome V: La syntax. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Večerka, R. (1993). Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax, II: die innere Satzstruktur (Monumenta linguae slavicae dialecti veteris. Fontes et dissertationes, XXXIV[XXVII-2]). Freiburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, M. (2015). The Genitive-Accusative of the Personal Pronouns in Old Church Slavonic. Indo-European Linguistics, 3(1), 118–144. https://doi.org/10.1163/22125892-00301005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaliznjak, A. A. (2004). Drevnenovgorodskij dialect. Vtoroje izdanie, pererabotannoe s učetom materiala naxodok 1995–2003 gg. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žolobov, O. F. (1996). Ad”ektivnye formy v kompozicii drevnerusskogo teksta. In H. Jelitte & E. A. Balalykina (Eds.), Das Adjektiv im Russischen: Geschichte, Strukturen, Funktionen (Beiträge zur Slavistik, 29, pp. 225–238). Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žuravlev, V. K. (1991). Diaxroničeskaja morfologija. Moskva.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

    Elena Bratishenko

Authors
  1. Elena Bratishenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Bratishenko.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bratishenko, E. Everything old is new again: Another look into the history of Russian adjectives. Russ Linguist 43, 41–64 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-018-09205-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-018-09205-3

Search

Navigation