Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології

The exploration of these motivational processes contributed seriously to the development of etymological methods and in particular to the formation of the so called nesting method where the controversy between empirical and theoretical approaches has found reasonable solution. There was a well known deficiency of the traditional etymological method of inner reconstruction (built primarily on empirical approach) where the lack of integrity of the language system had been constantly present so that the derivative connections and transitions between the nests were ignored⁴⁷⁷. The correction of such a deficiency has become the aim of the nesting method that has radically turned the direction of analytical procedure – from the reconstructed etymons as an integrated system to dispersed and disparate lexical stuff that had to be distributed among the already existent taxonomic units (“nests”). In other words the task now consists not in the reconstruction of hypothetical roots with inductive methods (as the generalizing abstraction) but vice versa in the attribution of the relation of lexical units to the previously built with the deductive methods taxonomic units as the space of opportunities. This radical methodological inversion was enabled due to the essence of theoretical reflection that always presumes inversion as the necessary consequence of negation belonging to its foundations. Methodologically it denotes that an opportunity always exists for such an inversion of analytical procedure. Instead of constructing hypothetical inductive roots generalizing empirical data it is now the already restored stuff of the roots that has been taken for granted as the complete field of deductive opportunities and used as a kind of heuristic device for the search and choice of further lexical material to be classified⁴⁷⁸ as the reflections of these opportunities. Respectively the aim was set to discover the intermediary links of semantic development⁴⁷⁹. Under such conditions the derivation becomes the principal target of etymological researches.

At the same time the necessity for the methodological inversion was prepared with the development of the precedent reconstructive method of etymology. If the Indo-European roots’ system had been earlier reproduced as the base for artificially built source language, the situation took a different turn when new levels of generalization were achieved. The abstraction of second level over the primary inductive material was produced that couldn’t be subdued to verification procedures. The risk of etymons turning into non existent phantoms has become a real danger. To return to verifiable constructions one ought to explore the possibilities of reconstructions obtained. Respectively the explorative procedures has got the direction from theory towards empirical material, from artificially built deductive etymons to attested lexical units, “from nest to word”. Etymons and their nests are then regarded as virtual objects that enable taxonomic classification of inductive empirically observed lexical units. As the next step the necessity has arisen to proceed from the reconstruction of virtual set of possible roots to their semantic interpretation. Etymons are built as possible combinations of phonemes so that no vacant places remain: as an example may serve the reconstruction of the so called Boreal predecessor of the Indo-European. There ensues from here the problem about the semantic interpretation of the produced expressive opportunities. It appears in such interpretative efforts that not only usual semantic transitions do take place but also semantic diffusion must be recognized. It does not go about cognitive informational deficit entailing diffuse meanings and semantic syncretism. These places of indefiniteness represent the residue, the remainder of the phenomenological reduction of existential nature. Such residues reflect existential quality of infinity and thus refer to transcendental qualities represented in language ensuing from the ultimate situation achieved at the last term of gradual procedures of etymological reconstruction (as far as the etymological cognitive modeling of real developmental process is regarded). Reflection necessarily introduces transcendental elements in verbal contents.

The central problem of etymology that the nesting method helps to cope with is the problem of semantic diffusion (especially in the form of the so called homonymy of roots) as the revelation of spontaneity. This problem arises as the result of the very essence of virtual & latent root in the Indo-European languages. In contrast to Turk and Semitic this root acts as a virtual morpheme that is only implied with a lexical unit and must be reconstructed in every act of a word’s usage⁴⁸⁰. Such instability of Indo-European root entails very important consequences as to its content. It becomes impossible to tie such mutable and changeable entities with constant denotations. Hardly would it be possible to apply the logical principles of identity to such roots. These roots as such variable signs are apt to render derivative processes. Roots here serve to designate semantic taxonomic classes comprising derivative elements i.e. etymological nests so that they become the signs of filiation of the contents. They render references to the words of such classes as their common though latent feature that is still to be found. In this respect the range of a root’s meaning’s variation becomes essential index of derivative possibilities (productivity) of the respective taxonomic class⁴⁸¹.

Such nature of root’s semantics causes restrictions put over the opportunities of root building, so that a single syllable or even a sound could play the role of a root⁴⁸². Thus the situation arises that resembles that of poetic idiolect with its manifold semantic motivation of slightest sounds. A. Rimbaud’s ideas as to the meaningfulness of each sound of poetic speech expressed in his verse “The Vowels” (“A noir, E blanc …” A black, E white …) find their counterpart in etymological studies. Moreover, the concept of a root as an initial makes us return to Baroque images of “World Alphabet” (as in the title of Hr. Skovoroda’s work). It resembles also the situation of a child that studies writing: each letter becomes here identified with the initial of a set of words associated with respective sound. For example, there were in “The Ukrainian Alphabet” by Hr.I. Narbut such words with accompanying pictures as «заєць, зима, зірки» to demonstrate the initial Z. Such a broad similarity between poetic idiolect, child language and the construction of etymons ensues from the limitations of the “playground” with phonological possibilities of constructing restricted and finite set of virtual roots.

Obviously it would be fortuitous to look for any hint to a bunch of homonyms at such roots – initials where there remains no places of coincidences of different meanings. They bear diffuse semantic interpretative opportunities that can split further in different homonymous formants. It may be said that at the construction of such initial roots a certain extreme process takes place that can’t be trespassed within the given “playground”. At this limitation virtually each phoneme becomes a formant, in particular as a root’s initial. Phoneme as formant represents a crisscross, an intersection of different possible roots where it can occupy the initial position. Accordingly it connects those semantic fields to which these roots can belong. For instance the phoneme L (the so called liquidum lateralis) with a great probability becomes the initial of the roots united with the semantic attributes of bend or curve of the convex members of a body such as Ukrainian <лікоть> (= Russ. <локоть> = Lat. <ulna> = Germ. <Elle, Ellenbogen>)> = Engl. Elbow; <лоно ‘lap’, обличчя = лицо ‘face’, луг ‘meadow, lawn’, лукавий ‘sly’ (that deviates from the usual way), ланита ‘cheek’, ляжка (= Lat. lumbi), лягаться = Germ. löcken, лягушка, лодка (Dan. olde ‘trough’)>. Through metonymy (as in the image of tension) this series can be completed also with the field of light’s designations (Old Slavonic лqча ‘a candle, a ray, a torch’). Here belongs also the term of Indian phallic rituals linga “membrum virilis”⁴⁸³.

Such roots as initials of perfectly different senses have an overt tendency to coincide. The same takes place in childish speech: an infant uses the same syllable to designate perfectly different things, so that it can demand “give me not bet but bet” where bet is used simultaneously for both bread and belt. In the same way a root acquires syncretism so that it unites antonymic meanings becoming thus semantically ambivalent. It is to stress that an etymological nest is built up as a row of metonymic transitions. Such was, for example, the coincidence of the meanings “cut” and “sew” reflected in the kinship between Germ. schneiden and nähen (< √*sne)⁴⁸⁴ as well as in the Slav. (сила - жила). At the same time the conjectures as to the inherent root’s syncretism and polysemy are not always persuasive, and the substantiations seem to become concocted arbitrarily. If the precedent example as well as √*sker (> крутить ‘to twist’ / кроить ‘to cut out (a dress etc.)’), √*kel (> клонить ‘to bend’ / чело ‘a head (in a lofty style), a brow’ (as something convex)) may somehow comply with the demands for motivation, there are still numerous cases left without explanation. Then it will go about spontaneity (diffusion) that conceals motivation. When a single phoneme becomes the incarnation of a root it will mean that the process of transitions from one reconstruction to another acquires ultimate quality of limit. The transitional processes attaining limit are transformed into transcendental ones. It concerns both phonological “playground” of opportunities and the plane of meanings. Spontaneous or diffuse phenomena are transformed into transcendental ones at the limit of admissible transitions. These transcendental phenomena arise in the heart of etymons and replace rational derivational & motivational reasons.

Thus the question of diffusion is included in a broader problem of heterogeneity within a system’s boundaries. It was O.N. Trubachev [Трубачев, 1986] who had for the first time attracted attention to the fact that the reconstruction of etymons often entailed the coincidences of the roots restored from different sources so that the whole bunches of alleged homonyms or pseudo-homonyms appeared. Meanwhile the homonymy in these cases becomes the surface of much deeper mutuality of the coincided roots caused with principal distinctions of the ancient world map from the modern one. The coincidence of different roots becomes seeming because the very roots are actually variants of the same etymon. In particular, “a multitude of synonyms and homonyms are the revelation of multidialectal essence of any natural language” [Трубачев, 1986, p. 14], subsequently the crisscross of interaction of these dialects overlaps the intersection of semantic subdivisions of the language world map. In each particular case a question arises as to the interpretation of a root as a bunch of homonyms or as a polysemy and relic of syncretism. Moreover even if the root’s meaning were described sufficiently, then the indefiniteness of its widening (Germ. Erweiterung) or determinative formants would still prevail. The reconstructions of the kind remain within the limits of pure theoretical reflection and can’t be put under examination in opposite to lexical stuff of idioms. As a sample may serve a couple of homonymous roots √*jar (1) “spring” and (2) “passion” reproduced in two reflections: (1) Czech jaro “spring”, Gr. ‘ “hour (borrowed from here through Fr. heure), time”; (2) ярий, Gr.  “burning”. The name of the Pagan Spring god Ярило comes obviously from the former revealing at the same time similitude to the latter [Топоров, 1969]. A similar problem of the distinction between homonyms is to encounter in the root √*per⁴⁸⁵. The root √*sphel reflected in Germ. spalten, Russ. полоть allows also to pose the question on the rhyming (allothetic) kinship with the root √*skel reflected in Russ. колоть, Germ. Holz. Such homonymous coincidences create the situation of spontaneous diffusion where the places (or, rather, “gaps”) of indefiniteness arise as the inherent property of etymons.

Such situation reflects the interference between adjacent nests that takes place within the system of etymons. In particular it concerns the phenomenon of rhyming devices for word building so that etymons and their nests turn out to be surrounded with such peripheral intermediary zone of interference. Accordingly rhyming and paronomasia that entail such interference turn out to become of a special interest for etymological reconstruction of the nests because they point to the nearest proximity between the nests and the links that lie in the intermediary space. The very construction of a taxonomic nest that resembles that of a versified string where alliteration (rhyming, paronymous attraction) gives grounds for such conclusion as the prerequisite for further selection of the collected lexical units. Etymons act as a kind of filter for selecting and eliminating rhymed variants while building a nest, and the interference appears as the indication of the imperfection of such filters. The cases of interference may be exemplified with the Czech locution <kopna zem> ‘the parcel of ground where the snow has been melted away’. The epithet can from one side belong to the nest of <*kopati> ‘to dig’ (as ‘where one can dig‘); from another side it can be interpreted as ‘baked ground (covered with smoke, black)’ and referred to the nest of the designation of heating procedures, reflected also in the Ukrainian <кипіти, квапитися> ‘to boil, to haste’. The latter version can be motivated with Czech <kvapik> ‘a dance’ or Ukrainian locution <сніг прокиптів> ‘the snow has been “boiled” (i.e. thawed)’⁴⁸⁶. Obviously such intermediary elements can often arise as a secondary product of convergent processes. As another example the history of Russian <обуять> ‘to seize (in spiritual sense of anger etc.)’ can serve: here two different homonymous verbs that belong to different nests have been merged together – those of <обуять> as <объять> ‘to embrace’ and <обуять> from <буйствовать, буянить> ‘to make a row, to brawl’ [Виноградов, 1999, 392-393]. The just cited nest of the initial L designating the convex members of a body (elbow etc.) displays the paronymous attraction with another nest generated with the etymon √*leug ‘to bend’ reflected in <луг, лгать = Germ. lügen> that produces the derivative meaning of ‘lie’⁴⁸⁷. All these samples evidently betray the existence of the zones of indefiniteness where the etymological solution becomes uneasy. Roots of etymons are surrounded with a zone of diffuse word formation so that the whole nest gets the outlook of a fuzzy set.

As far as in such cases the alternative “homonymy (and paronomasia as partitive homonymy) vs. polysemy” remains insoluble in itself, its very existence turns out to be not only the consequence of the cognitive lack of information but also the existential state of indefiniteness. Of course to overcome the cognitive difficulties it becomes necessary to supply outer additional material, its possible sources being available under the condition that one would refuse from restricting with the paradigmatic side (where etymological nests belong to) only. It presumes the possibility to treat nests (roots, etymons) similar to separate words that may combine in building a text. The nests display the property of compatibility inherent for lexical units as far as etymons can be regarded similarly to these units. It goes about compatibility being extrapolated from lexical units over the broader realm of taxonomic classes and etymological nests in particular. Respectively etymons behaving as if they were words designate in reality the possibility of the intersections of their nests (as in the case of interference). Such an approach enables detecting relations of rhyme between the nests that gives an opportunity to find the way of replacing the problem of homonyms with that of rhyming variants⁴⁸⁸.

No need to add here that the situation resembles that of the languages of isolating type so that the question arises whether a typical rhyming method of Sinology apt for languages of isolating type would become applicable for the Indo-European studies of flexional languages. Besides it becomes necessary to take into account the situation that has been reached in Sinology where the similar difficulties of diffusion are to be encountered. It goes about mutability of root morphemes caused with the conditions of rhyming rows and the effects of paronomasia. In particular the mentioned ultimate case of roots reduced to the only initial (with its widening in formants) in Indo-European is regarded as a commonplace in Indo-China⁴⁸⁹. The extreme mutability may be demonstrated with the alterations of the same word on its migratory ways: the designation for ‘sun’ is Tibetan nyi, Chinese (contemporary) ri and Japanese (loan word) nichi; for ‘tree’ – Tibetan mgo (literally ‘top’), Chinese mu, Japanese moku; for ‘bamboo’ – smyug, chu, chiku respectively [Бадараев, 1967, 167, 189]. In Burma one encounters alternation between palatal semivowel and vibrant [Янсон 93], and in diachronic development the maximal roots with three initial consonants have given contemporary reflections of paronomasia as pran ‘to return’ and ‘pyam ‘to fly’⁴⁹⁰. All it resulted in the conclusion about the semantic irrelevance of sound changes in monosyllabic languages⁴⁹¹. As to the possibilities of etymological study, they were very skeptically evaluated in the remark of the leading scholar: «If you reconstruct etyma like *mrgsla, and the monstrous cluster *mrgsl occurs only in a single etymon, any set of reflexes in the daughter languages can be said regular» [Matisoff, 538]. It means the nihilistic danger of fortuitous and arbitrary virtual phantoms obtained at the ultimate points of reconstruction. As a result the preference for lexicological way of study instead of separate roots was marked still in the early years of nesting method development⁴⁹².

It is to underline the relevancy of syllabic structure for the morphemic divisions discovered with the progress of Indo-European studies⁴⁹³ that enables confronting our roots with those of Sino - Tibetan area. Thus from one side one has discovered the disyllabic structure of the so called Boreal ancestor of the Indo – European so that its lexemes coincided actually with the contemporary Chinese words usually including a couple of monosyllabic morphemes⁴⁹⁴. As to the Indo – European root morpheme, it is seen as a diphthong; in particular M.M. Makovski has suggested the existence of 36 roots with such structure⁴⁹⁵. Therefore the situation of an inversion between the Indo – European and Sino – Tibetan arises: if in the first monosyllabic tendencies are reconstructed as the initial point of development, in the second they arise as the result of leveling the lost phonological structures⁴⁹⁶. In its turn the development of the STED (Sino-Tibetan Etymological Dictionary) which preliminary results have been summed up in the monograph of J. Matisoff, enabled the discovery of a paradoxical syllable structure that would not be measured with integer numbers and demanded to acknowledge the “halves” of a syllable as an admissible measure: «Prefixes, especially those that were stops… were undoubtedly vocalized by an epenthetic schwa for ease of pronunciation. Strictly speaking such forms are “sesquisyllabic” (i.e. “a syllable and a half” long) rather than simply monosyllabic. When a sequence of two prefixes occurs before the same root, the one closer to the root is deemed to be older historically» [Matisoff, 2003, 11].

Respectively in Indo – European one could regard as such forms the disyllabic lexemes with the reduced vowel in the last syllable (as in the Middle German forms nebn < neben, gebn < geben). Meanwhile one can detect still deeper parallels as between Old Slavonic indefinite vowels and the analogous phenomena in Tibetan where fricatives play the role of syllabic formants in consonant clusters⁴⁹⁷. Subsequently the discernibleness between vowels and consonants becomes vague and enables the reciprocal substitution of their functions. It comes in particular to the phenomenon of the so called “coarticulation” where instead of these phonemes one deals with more universal asymmetry of a syllable⁴⁹⁸. Besides, the reciprocal adaptation of vowels and consonants as the powers opening and closing the mouth takes place so that it doesn’t go about differential attributes of phonemes but about their functions within the syllable⁴⁹⁹. Universal nature of “coarticulation” gives grounds to consider a syllable as an entire entity that can’t be reduced to phonemes’ combination so that the syllabic structure of monosyllabic languages (that of the four elements “initial – medial – central - terminal”) would be spread over the Indo – European too.

These phonological particulars entail essential semantic consequences. It concerns first of all the role of rhyme and of paronomasia as a whole that are intensified enormously within the narrow space of a syllable. In this regard it is worth mentioning the concept of allophames (that corresponds to allothetic word formation) introduced by J. Matisoff where the consonant of a cluster that is the most proximate to a root displays also the most propinquity and becomes the label of semantic classification. It gives at the disposal the wide opportunities of the correlation between semantic transitions and the phonological changes⁵⁰⁰. Therefore rhyme becomes semantically relevant and entails immediate semantic consequences⁵⁰¹.

Such approach suggesting correlation between inner and outer forms develops in its turn the ideas initiated by V.V. Shevoroshkin that concerned the opportunity of representing lexical units with syllabic sequences. In particular it has been demonstrated the necessity of syllabic structures for phonemic existence as well as the priority of open syllables⁵⁰². The last can be exemplified with the experience of infantile speech⁵⁰³. Another property of syllabic structures is the tendency of phonemic distribution⁵⁰⁴ that correlates with the mentioned notion of “coarticulation”. Moreover one can even observe the appearance of isolated consonants that nevertheless do build up syllables⁵⁰⁵. In this regard the just mentioned parallel of monosyllabic structures in different distant languages gets here special substantiation⁵⁰⁶. To sum up these statements one can conceive the opposition lexical vs. syllabic as the representation of inner and outer forms. One can say therefore of lexeme vs. syllabeme as the couple constantly at hand in textual codification in opposition to the abstract morpheme vs. phoneme that belong to the code only. The importance of the syllabic lexical satellite is intensified in particular due to the involvement of prosodic features transgressing the verbal borders. Meanwhile in spite of the just shown significance of syllabic sequences they remain still beyond the reach of exact definitions so that as to the syllable “…there is no room for it on a taxonomic scale of the linguistic units” [Cygan, 15]. The solution of such contradiction is seen in the confrontation of syllable with lexeme while “… syllable is for word as phoneme is for morpheme” [Cygan, 17]. Therefore one has to regard lexeme vs. syllable as the pair representing the relation between inner and outer forms in their unity.

The ensuing set of taxonomic affiliations includes first of all the phenomena of allothetic relations between the roots and the so called rhyming way of words’ building (Germ. Reimbildung) discovered comparatively recently⁵⁰⁷. It was the admittance of the already mentioned affricates into the Indo-European that has led to the problems of allothetic or rhyming variants of roots⁵⁰⁸. As one of the rhyming lists one can cite the row that comprises the allothetic variants of the root series √*kt/tk > √*(ket, ked, kes,… ges, het, hed, hes, kert, kelt, kent, kemt, tek, teg,… serh etc.) witnessed with such Slavonic reflexes as <тыкать, стучать (with a prothetic s), ткать, also гадать, годный, Czech hoditi ‘to hit’ (with metathesis), толковать, Pol. dygotac ‘to tremble’> [Мельничук, Коломієць 1993, с. 109], and also with Germ. Dolch = Fr. dague = Engl. dagger [Бурковський, с. 86-87]. Another sample can be found in a broadly ramified root *uei ‘bend’ as the allothetic variant of more primitive *eue ‘to bend, to twist, to weave, to sew’ (attested with reflections in the Ukrainian віть, вити, віяти, Germ. weben = weave, Lat. vetus ‘old’). In its turn there are still two homonymous roots standing behind, those of *vs - (1) «tasty, healthy, strong, gay, safe, good» and (2) «to turn about, to drill, to weave, to bend». Both semantic lineages are interconnected in the same way of syncretism as in сила and жила:

From here in its turn the questions on the semantic relevance of the taxonomic compatibility (and of paronymous attraction in particular) between the nests arises. Of a special importance seems to be the discovery of the semantic law that “those semantic units that are nearer to each other… are denoted with more near combinations of phonetic units” [Левицкий, Стернин, 171]. It gives again a special pretext for the attention towards paronymous attraction. The composition of an etymological nest appears as a row of paronomasia (or partitive homonyms) and it causes the possibility of contaminating its components with those of other nests thus determining the condition for such paronymous attraction and the subsequent effects of interference. As an example the etymological nests of the designation of heat in Ukrainian <горіти, пічка, печера> (burn, oven, cave) studied by T.A. Chernysh may serve⁵⁰⁹. The comparison of some formants of Slavic stems with ritual realities has given ground for T.B. Lukinova to treat them as the indicators of respected semantic classes⁵¹⁰. Thus the correlation between phonological and semantic systems can arise at the brim of etymological reconstruction so that sound may be attached to sense with certain probability as its direct designation in the ultimate zone of etymological reconstruction.

There are grounds to define metonymy as the principal intermediary link as regards the transition between etymological nests. To evaluate it one ought to remind the meaning of derivation within etymological nests where it replaces the subordination that determines the formation of semantic fields. Instead of the relations of broader and narrower notions (hyponymy) the transition from one partitive description to another (or from one detail to another) proper for metonymy comes into play where there are no such hierarchical rigid features. For instance, while taken from purely ideographic viewpoint within the semantic fields’ theory, тонути (топити) would belong to verbs designating movement in liquid substances together with such verbs as “to swim”; meanwhile for etymology it looks out as the derivative from топтати –затоптувати under water. Thus it has become possible on the foundation of the study of the cult of fire to find ground for the conjecture as to the relationship between Slav. упир and I.-Eu. *pyr- (reflected also in Germ. Feuer and in Gr. ) [Лукінова, 1981]. In the same way жир would belong in ideography to the designations of parts of body situated under skin; etymologically it is the derivative of Old Slav. жирява (literally “victuals”) cognate to Ukrainian життя, жити. In a most vivid manner such a controversy between ideography and etymology is to be demonstrated in the realm of animals’ denotations that reflect their affiliation to totemic classes: волк means влекущий, as well as пес is пестрое (motley) animal. For etymological nests there are no animals as such, there names belonging to various totemic classes, so that it lacks ideographic type of fauna! Instead of pyramid of notions we deal here with a net of semantic transitions and motivational interdependencies chiefly of metonymic nature. For instance in German languages an index of 254 types of etymological derivation is compiled, each of them being of a very regular character as they are present more than once in more than one nest. Among them one encounters such semantic transitions as “deck (cover) → shade”, “cut → brim” (краяти → край), “sharp → wise, witty” [Левицкий, 2000, 3, 192 – 199, N.74, 181, 105]. Lexical integration is based upon derivative nets and by no means can be conceived through ideographic hierarchy.

The etymon жити “to live” has Indoeuropean distribution (Lat. vivere = Ind. jivati = ), but in the Germanic languages only its reduced meaning has survived – German keck = English quick. While continuing this analysis one obtains further semantic derivatives. Germ. kommen (Engl. come) goes back (through ) to the same root that is reflected in жизнь = . Here does also belong  (= Germ. Kuh, Engl. cow), the semantic motivation being the comprehension of cattle as a moveable property passing through a space. Thus an alliterative row  –  –  arises that enables us seeing the living world as something coming to our presence. Such an interpretation finds its support also in another nest reflected in Ukr. зяяти, зівати = Germ. gähnen (= Engl. yawn) which in its turn belongs to the same nest that or Germ. gehen (= Engl. go). Here belongs also  “devastate” that gives  = chaos, so that a clear antithesis come and go arises. Life and existence in general are represented as something filling the space, something coming to us (whence the idiom “to come to existence”), thus they are opposed to the vacuity of chaos, to the forlorn places that do “yawn” in the space. The ancient archetype attested with the rule of horror vacui is revealed in these etymological reconstructions [Левицкий, 2000, 1, 179; 2, 17].

The pretext for the assumptions of the inherent multitude of lineages of roots irreducible to convergent impacts gives the reciprocal transformations of the roots under the conditions of limitation. The ultimate primitive roots-initials can’t be treated as separate “atoms” for further divergent ramification only because they can be obtained from other roots and become the sources for the generation of other ones. Such roots designate the limit nec plus ultra for the possibilities of etymological reconstruction. At the same time they are obtainable from other roots so that they can’t be regarded as primitive ones: M.M. Makovski [1988, 138-186] has demonstrated 362 samples of such amalgamation, not to mention numerous samples of composite + contracture type (peculiar for Vulgar Latin in the manner of Fr. aider < VL. adjuvare). The transformations of the kind are well known as the processes of destruction of inner form – in particular, those of “recombination” («переразложение») and “simplification” («опрощение»). It doesn’t go here about convergence as the result of general diffusion: it goes about reciprocal transformability of those roots that seemed to be primitive ones. This property of general transformability and the absence of a terminal invariant form of root contributes essentially to the multitude of lineages entailing simultaneously the risk of reduction to conventional charades (especially in deetymologization).

There always exist migratory processes that destroy old nests and create new ones instead. They reflect heterogeneity of language and ought to be regarded as the special kind of diffusion. Thus we have to cope with the situation similar to sets of alleged homonyms when different versions of a word’s origin are regarded as results of homonymic convergence or of contamination. Etymological researches with the lack of ideographic criteria generate a picture that is very near to the so called fuzzy sets that reflects the situation of indefiniteness. The situation is marked with the circumstance that there remains no void & vacant places within the space of virtual etymons and morphemes: accordingly the creation of something new in such processes results in the emergence of the morpheme coinciding with the already existent ones. Subsequently the newly coined morphemes must necessarily coincide with the already existent ones so that they enter secondarily the respective nests. But this coincidence being secondary, the “new” morphemes must be regarded as the homonyms to the preexistent ones. One comes in reality to the very case of roots’ homonymy that O.N. Trubachev had predicted.

The spontaneity & ambiguity (and the ensuing multitude of lineages) seems not to be reduced to the revelation of chaos and disorder as “asystematic” phenomena “caused by casual factors” [Маковский, 2006 (1980), 207] and especially to errors and other pathological deviations⁵¹³. It suffices to remark that within the phonology such phenomena would become the domain of speech defects’ studies making all communication impossible! If in semantics the mentioned multitude is easily to be connected to such phenomena as the variability of synonymous rows (the so called Sperber’s law and enanthiosemy i.e. the formation of antonymous rows) it is in phonology where the dependence upon entirety becomes the necessary premise for speech to be comprehensible so that diachronic development turns out to be rigidly determined. As an example the guttural consonants becoming palatal in Old Slavonic may be regarded where the interconnection with textual conditions is to be seen⁵¹⁴. As another example of the kind the fate of the sound may serve that endured multilateral impact from other variable sounds attesting the entirety of phonological system⁵¹⁵. The sibilant phoneme (both whistling and whispering or hushing) as the rest of the so called reptile complex deserves special attention due to its particular diachronic development⁵¹⁶. It is due to such particular place that s has acquired the decisive role for building up syllables (instead of vowels) and morphemic formants that was discovered by O.S. Melnychuk. As the crucial proof in favor to the precision of phonological interrelations can the theory of grouped phonemes elaborated by V.C. Zhuravlev serve where the many-sided dependence of the delimitation between sounds in a syllable is demonstrated⁵¹⁷. Thus the phonological system appears as an extremely coherent organism that can’t tolerate any distortion. It would be absurd to replace gap with lap or cap though the alternation of the kind are possible in diachrony. Moreover the changes of the kind become the regularity when it goes about the transition to another dialect as in the transformations heave → dial. <teave>, pith → dial. <mith>, <mirrot> = carrot, = little, quad = bad etc.⁵¹⁸. Meanwhile such alterations between different dialects are out of possibility within the borders of one dialect as it would entail confusion. Thus from one side phonological system remains exclusively precise and sensible; from another side it constantly produces alterations that would seem casual and that actually are caused with interdependences of every phoneme with all others.

To sum up the above discussed matters, the process of speech generations could be conceived as a counterpart to the so called diagonal process in the set theory. Obviously the etymological nest with its chiefly metonymic structure creates a kind of thesaurus that includes lexical stuff of various origins as the phenotypes reflecting the genotype of etymon. Here the general idea of set’s partition can be chosen as the background for the nesting method. The taxonomic classes then can be conceived as the