In the 1920s, Ukrainian linguistics flourished, and considerable work was done to standardize the Ukrainian literary language, scientific terminology, and dictionaries. The work of scientists was marked by the publication of the Ukrainian orthography in 1928, which for the first time became official and unified for the whole of Ukraine. The Academic Russian-Ukrainian Dictionary, ed. Ahatanhel Krymskyi. However, the codification of 1928–1929, which combined the Dnieper and Transdniestrian language norms in one orthographic code, proved unsatisfactory under those political circumstances[1] and required changes.
The beginning of repression and Russification
In the early 1930s, a wave of total planned Russification swept over Ukraine under the slogans of the struggle against Ukrainian nationalism.
The "new era" of Soviet policy in relation to Ukrainian culture, as well as language, began after the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) on April 3, 1932, "On the Suppression of Nationalism in Ukraine" and the introduction of communist ideas throughout. To do this, Pavel Postyshev was sent to Ukraine, and he arrived in the capital, Kharkiv, in January 1933. He forcibly cleansed Ukraine of "nationalists." On July 7, 1933, Mykola Skrypnyk committed suicide without enduring torture. Members of the Presidium of the Orthography Commission Vsevolod Hantsov, A. Prykhodko, S. Pylypenko were repressed (Oleksa Syniavsky and A. Krymskyi were later repressed). The orthography looked for the "nationalist wreckage" needed to fight the Ukrainian national revival.
Eradication of specific features of the Ukrainian language
To destroy and stop the flourishing of the Ukrainian language in general, and the literary language in particular, the Bolsheviks first undertook with other people's hands - this was undertaken by Andrii Khvylia (real name Olinter) and N. Kaganovych. In fact, they were the first to make a fuss, as if in Ukrainian linguistics it was a bourgeois-chauvinistic destructive method, which A. Khvylia consolidated in his sad memory with the book "Eradicate, Destroy the Roots of Ukrainian Nationalism on the Linguistic Front", Kharkiv, 1933,[2] printed 15,000 copies.[3]
A. Khvylia, chairman of the newly created 1933 Orthography Commission at the People's Commissariat of Education, stated:
The orthography adopted by M. Skrypnyk on September 6, 1928, directed the development of the Ukrainian language to Polish and Czech bourgeois culture. This put a barrier between the Ukrainian and Russian languages, hampered the study of literacy by the broad working masses. (…). The commission set up by the NGO was revised „Ukrainian orthography“ (…). The main corrections concerned the elimination of all rules that focused the Ukrainian language on the Polish and Czech bourgeois cultures, distorted the modern Ukrainian language, and set a barrier between the Ukrainian and Russian languages. (…). Deadly conservative norms established by nationalists, distorting the modern Ukrainian language, the living language of the practice of the working masses of Ukraine, have been thrown out.
Without any discussions or conferences, the said Commission "revised" and in 1933 issued new rules. The letter ґ was dropped from the alphabet, the spelling of foreign words was radically changed, and paradigms of declension tokens were changed. About 126 amendments have been made to the rules, the section on orthography of foreign words has been completely changed. The new orthography rules were first published in the journal "Polytechnic Education" (933, No. 6), at the end of 1933 they were published in a separate book "Ukrainian orthography".
With accusations of drive a wedge between Russian and Ukrainian language practices:
Removed dual forms (дві книзі, три вербі, чотири хаті, дві руці та ін.).
The use of the possessive case in the forms: бачу молодиці, веду хлопці, дивлюся на піонерки.
From parallel forms бабів and баб, хатів and хат, губів and губ, статтів and статей only those closest to the Russian version are left.
From parallel word-forming variants становисько — становище, огнисько — огнище, гноїсько — гноїще preference is given to the formation with an extension (suffix) -ище.
Parallel forms of the dative and local singular cases of nouns of the second declension святові — святу, серцеві — серцю, сонцеві — сонцю, у русі — у рухові limited to forms on -у (ю), common with Russian forms.
Alternation of prefixes (prepositions) з — с before deaf consonants к, п, т, х was distributed on ф:
The inscription of the foreign words бакханка, барбаризм on the Latin model is returned to the East Ukrainian variants developed under the influence of the Russian languages: вакханка, варваризм, as well as претенсія, іхтіосавр, бронтосавр, (legalized претензія, іхтіозавр, бронтозавр), радіюс, консиліюм, медіюм,Маріюпіль (legalized радіус, консиліум, медіум, Маріуполь).[4]
The use of the endings of the dative singular of the masculine singular (-ові, -еві/-єві) is simplified. According to the previous orthography, masculine nouns should have the endings -ові, -еві/-єві, and the use of the ending -у/-ю is limited. Further reforms simplified and generalized the use of these forms, preferring a similar Russian ending -у/-ю.
There is a solid spelling of a number of adjectives:
Geographical names are Russified. According to the 1928 orthography, the names of cities had to be transmitted "in writing in their folk-historical form" (§ 81), and the Orthography of 1933 required to be transmitted "as accepted by the Soviet authorities" (§ 89):
The names of the cities began to end in -ськ, -цьк (not -ське, -цьке): Волочинське, Старобільське, Пинське, Зінов'ївське, Луцьке, etc.
Such names as nouns began to be distinguished: із Старобільська, під Волочинськом, and not as adjectives: із Старобільського, під Волочинським.
Adjectives formed from the names of cities перемиський, радомиський, inverted on перемишльський, радомишльський.
It is practiced to avoid nouns in cases when they do not repeat the Russian use: preposition до in pairs with до школи, до Києва successively replaced by a preposition у — у школу, у Київ.
Constructions with impersonal adjectives have disappeared from use in the UkrSSR: випуск машин припинено, злочинця затримано; натомість процвітає суржикування: випуск машин припинений, злочинець затриманий.
Artificially divided adjective дружній of two adjectives: дружний and дружній, the difference between them can be established only by putting them with Russian counterparts дружный and дружественный. The same operation is done with the word багатир. Two words are artificially made from one word: багатир (rich) and богатир (vytiaz, knight, hero).
Introduction of new terminology copied from Russian in all fields of knowledge:
Because the letter ґ was removed from the alphabet, foreign proper names with h and g began to be given with only one letter г, regardless of pronunciation (§ 76):
After the physical massacre of linguists, the terminological case suffered another blow. Special brigades were set up to review dictionaries and remove "nationalist" words and terms; by violent methods all terminology (technical, scientific) is brought into full compliance with the Russian. Even in linguistics, Russian grammatical terminology has been introduced, rejecting all the achievements of Ukrainian scholars.
The "orthographic" reform has actually turned into a struggle with the original and authentic features of the Ukrainian language. To this end, Andriy Khvylia, a fighter against "nationalism" in linguistics, himself later repressed for nationalism, put forward the following demands to the party's supervisory bodies for terminological activities:
Stop publishing all dictionaries immediately;
Review dictionaries and all terminology;
Unify technical terminology with the terminology that exists in the Soviet Union and is used in Ukraine;
Review the cadres on the language front and expel bourgeois-nationalist elements from this front;
Review orthography.
Ukrainian vocabulary was made dependent on Russian, there was a systematic elimination of specific Ukrainian vocabulary and its replacement by Russian. For example:
Orthography of 1928
Orthography of 1933
гуртовий
оптовий
дбайливий
бережливий
досить
достатньо
зазіхання
посягання
обставати за /обстоювати/ що
ратувати за що
Specific Ukrainian word закотистий (закотистий комір) removed from dictionaries and introduced words відкладний (відкладний комір), because it repeats the Russian form отложной (отложной воротник).
When the compilers of the 1933 Orthography were repressed, in circumstances of fear and language chaos, all periodicals, as well as publishing houses in the UkrSSR, regularly received lists of words to avoid from the leading Communist party publication.
Exactly the same language policy is applied to the Belarusian language. Also in 1933, a new Belarusian spelling was introduced — "Narkamaŭka", about 30 phonetic and morphological features, taken from the Russian language, were introduced into the Belarusian language. Active Russification of Belarusian vocabulary began by directing the lexicographic practice.[4]
↑A common language defect in the pronunciation of -iя- under the new rules of 1928 was noted in the advisers of the time: «…in words of foreign origin pronunciation іа, but it is necessary ія» Zhovtobriukh Mykhailo AndriiovychEssay on the history of Ukrainian Soviet linguistics (1918—1941), К., 1991, P. 68.
↑From time immemorial, as our sights show, we have not had the habit of pronouncing foreign words ґ and ль, but pronounced them in their own way (that is, in Greek): Платон, Іларіон, Лонгин, грек, Іспанія, Ірина (not Плятон, Іляріон, Льонгін, ґрек, Еспанія, Ірена), etc. This is the so-called Greek system of pronunciation of foreign words, and in fact it is strongly ingrained in our language in princely times, and remains dominant in the people until the present time.» Ohiienko Ivan. History of the Ukrainian literary language. К., 2001.
↑«…always written іа, іе, іу, еа, except for the position at the end of the word...» (§ 79, P. 61)
References
↑«Правопис 1928—1929 років, дарма що старанно опрацьований видатними мовознавцями, був нереальний, приречений на невдачу. Від самого початку його прийняли вельми неприхильно, дотримувалися неохоче. Бажане поєднання двох правописно-мовних традицій не відбулося, та ледве чи й могло відбутися при збереженні їх обох у своєрідному, штучно накиненому компромісі.». Ю. Шевельов. Українська мова в першій половині двадцятого століття 1900—1941. // Там само. — С. 171. «Учительство посилало численні делегації до комісара освіти М. Скрипника й просило перегляду правил писання іншомовних слів.» Огієнко І.Історія української літературної мови. — К., 2001.
↑ 4.04.1Masenko, Larysa (2005). Larysa Masenko. Ukrainian Language in the 20th Century: History of Linguocide: documents and materials. KM-Academy, Kyiv.
Sources
Караванський С. Секрети української мови. Науково-популярна розвідка з додатком словничків репресованої та занедбаної української лексики. — К. : УКСП «Кобза», 1994. — 152 с. — ISBN 5-87274-051-4.
