Anna Smirnova | Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (original) (raw)
Papers by Anna Smirnova
Indoevropejskoe âzykoznanie i klassičeskaâ filologiâ, 2023
Статья посвящена источникам греческих цитат в сочинениях М. Ломоносова. Отсутствие традиции точно... more Статья посвящена источникам греческих цитат в сочинениях М. Ломоносова. Отсутствие традиции точного цитирования в XVIII в. создает трудности для современных исследователей, а цитирование не-латинских авторов осложняет задачу вопросом, с какого языка был сделан перевод. В результате анализа всех имеющихся по этому вопросу исследований авторы предлагают сводную таблицу, в которой представлена актуальная информация для каждой греческой цитаты, а также новые источники. Ключевые слова: М. В. Ломоносов, риторика, древнегреческий язык, переводная литература XVIII в.
Neo-Latin and Russian in Lomonosov's "Panegyric for Elizaveta Petrovna" (1749), 2020
Mikhail Lomonosov wrote his scientific and literary works both in Russian and in Neo- Latin, some... more Mikhail Lomonosov wrote his scientific and literary works both in Russian and in Neo- Latin, sometimes he translated his own works from one to another and vice versa. Furthermore, the style and syntax of Lomonosov’s Russian works were considerably influenced by Latin style and syntax. His rhetorical treatises (1744-1748), which had great success in Russia, were full of references to ancient authors and his own translations from Latin and Greek.
In 1749, Lomonosov was told to write a panegyric for the Russian empress. Composed first in Russian and then translated into Latin, Lomonosov’s “Panegyric for Elizaveta Petrovna” provides a particularly interesting case of Neo-Latin / vernacular bilingualism in XVIII century Russian rhetorical prose.
A close study of this bilingual text reveals a large number of syntactical and lexical correspondences in Neo-Latin and Russian. Thus, Lomonosov quoted the Church-Slavonic Bible but he did not use the Vulgate in the respective places of the Latin text, relying on the Russian wording; sometimes he played on the similarly sounding words in Russian and Latin.
Slavic historical lexicology and lexicography
Lexicography of the digital age: proceedings of the International Symposium, 2021
The report provides а problem of compiling the author's historical dictionary, the object of ... more The report provides а problem of compiling the author's historical dictionary, the object of which will be the documents of the personal scientific archive of M.V. Lomonosov. The main purpose of this new lexicographical project will be the study of terminological, dialect and vernacular vocabulary in the idiolect of M.V. Lomonosov.
The report discusses the problems of formation of the collection of Russian anthroponyms, mythony... more The report discusses the problems of formation of the collection of Russian anthroponyms, mythonyms, and theonyms in Russian panegyric poetry of the 18th century. Such a collection may serve as the basis for the compiling of a new dictionary of proper names in 18th-century Russian poetry, the main task of which will be the reflection of the transformation and development of the semantics of the “literary” anthroponym, the process of mythological anthroponyms and the onyms adaptation in the Russian culture.
Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature, 2021
Based on the National corpus data of the Russian language and especially on Mikhail Lomonosov’s t... more Based on the National corpus data of the Russian language and especially on Mikhail Lomonosov’s texts, the article focuses on a pronoun pair sei — onyi. In the Church Slavonic and in the Middle Russian language these pronouns were used in the deictic and substitution (anaphoric) function. The pronoun pair sei and onyi in a phrase or period indicates a juxtaposition or opposition of objects and these pronouns are used in a substitution function. Closer attention to these pronouns in Lomonosov’s works and translations makes it possible to notice one feature that is not fixed in dictionaries and grammars, the peculiarity of using this pair of pronouns in anaphoric function: sei replaces the last (nearest) mentioned object and onyi replaces the first mentioned one. Rare examples of such use are also found in the translated texts of the Church Slavonic and Middle Russian corpus. Similar examples are found in the body of Lomonosov’s texts not only in his translated texts, but also in his ...
Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology, 2021
Статья посвящена приему обыгрывания антропонимов в русской поэзии XVIII в. Прием уподобления геро... more Статья посвящена приему обыгрывания антропонимов в русской поэзии XVIII в. Прием уподобления героев соименным персонажам обнаруживается в барочной восточнославянской риторике и поэзии XVII в. и еще раньшев произведениях античной, христианской и новолатинской словесности. В статье рассматривается, как этот прием описан в «Кратком руководстве к красноречию» М. Ломоносова, ориентировавшегося на примеры из риторического трактата Н. Коссена, и какое развитие в панегирической поэзии XVIII в. получил один из приведенных в риторическом руководстве примеров. Ключевые слова: антропонимы, риторика, русская панегирическая поэзия, XVIII век E. M. Matveev (SPbU / Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS) A. S. Smirnova (Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS) Characters of the Same Name in M. Lomonosov's "Brief Guide to Eloquence": the Foregoing Rhetorical Tradition and the Poetical Practice in the 2 nd part of the 18 th century The article focuses on the method of playing with names (topos ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος) in Russian poetry of the 18 th century. The assimilation of characters to the same-name heroes is revealed in the baroque East Slavic rhetoric and poetry of the 17 th century and even earlier-in the ancient, Christian and Neo-Latin literature (E. Curtius, H. Keipert, L. Sazonova). The authors of the article examine how the argument from the name was described in M. Lomonosov's "Brief Guide to Eloquence" and in its source, N. Caussin's "De eloquentia sacra et humana". There are two groups of examples of the arguments. The first group is where the characters of the same names have the same destiny and the second one is where the same name does not influence the fate. The curious quantity of four mythical Actaeons in Lomonosov's treatise gets its explanation in Caussin's guide to rhetoric. Though rhetoricians had considered this topos an unconvincing argument, one of the rhetoric examples was then developed in Russian panegyric literature. Some poetical fragments (from Е. М. Матвеев, А. С. Смирнова 882 A. Sumarokov, V. Petrov and G. Derzhavin) where the method of playing with the name Constantin is represented show that the rhetorical logic was not topical for the poets and they even could use the topos from the name for the political project of Catherine the Great.
Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology
The article focuses on Latin-Russian equivalents and translation methods in the context of Mikhai... more The article focuses on Latin-Russian equivalents and translation methods in the context of Mikhail V. Lomonosov's Panegyricus Elisabetae. The Latin version closely follows the original Russian text by means of Classical Latin lexicon, as well as words peculiar to Neo-Latin authors. However, there are certain Latin words whose meanings are not covered in dictionaries. In some cases the parallel text is notable for assonant equivalents in the initial position of a phrase (индеinde, видит videt etc.). The article also points at Russian constructions corresponding to Abl. absolutus. When the differences between the Russian and Latin versions do occur, oftentimes they relate to syntactic constructions or may be explained by the need to add or emphasize a certain detail, since the Latin text was written for a foreign audience. There is no doubt that, while composing the Latin version of the Panegyricus, M. Lomonosov relied on classical examples and borrowed specific lexical stock phrases, as was common among humanist authors. At the time when Latin was yielding to national languages, the bilingual text of Panegyricus Elisabetae demonstrates that Russian language too had all the means to express the matters which in Europe had long been expressed in Latin.
Quaestio Rossica, 2020
This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov’s translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief G... more This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov’s translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief Guide to Eloquence (1748), with most of the examples being translated fragments of European literature. A comparison of the translated fragments from Cicero (the author analyses 82 excerpts from the antique orator’s works) with Lomonosov’s own Latin texts makes it possible to see some features of Lomonosov’s translation techniques. Except for the translated fragments included in the textbook on rhetoric, some of Cicero’s works were entirely translated into Russian in the eighteenth century. The author also compares Lomonosov’s translated fragments from Cicero (Cic. Leg. Man., Cat., Arch., Har. resp., etc.) with translations by K. Kondratovich, which were released twenty years after those by Lomonosov. The aim of the research is to show the peculiarities of Lomonosov’s translations, resulting both from the specifics of his translation techniques and the task of these texts as examples of R...
Quaestio Rossica, 2020
This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov's translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief G... more This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov's translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief Guide to Eloquence (1748), with most of the examples being translated fragments of European literature. A comparison of the translated fragments from Cicero (the author analyses 82 excerpts from the antique orator's works) with Lomonosov's own Latin texts makes it possible to see some features of Lomonosov's translation techniques. Except for the translated fragments included in the textbook on rhetoric, some of Cicero's works were entirely translated into Russian in the eighteenth century. The author also compares Lomonosov's translated fragments from Cicero (Cic. Leg. Man., Cat., Arch., Har. resp., etc.) with translations by K. Kondratovich, which were released twenty years after those by Lomonosov. The aim of the research is to show the peculiarities of Lomonosov's translations, resulting both from the specifics of his translation techniques and the task of these texts as examples of Russian eloquence. The comparative method allows the author to conclude that Lomonosov managed to adequately convey the content and form in his translations and to recreate the style while closely adhering to the original-all this convinced him that the Russian language 'stands out among all the languages of Europe in its grandeur and richness'. In Lomonosov's translation techniques, there is a tendency for word-byword translation and an attempt to preserve the Latin syntax; there is also a noticeable tendency to replace specific ancient culture-specific concepts with modern ones (a principle dating back to humanistic translations into Latin and vulgar languages).
Переводчики и переводы в России конца XVI - начала XVIII столетий, 2019
ФОРТУНАТОВСКИЕ ЧТЕНИЯ В КАРЕЛИИ, 2018
В двуязычных текстах М. В. Ломоносова ярко проявляются особенности авторского употребления лексик... more В двуязычных текстах М. В. Ломоносова ярко проявляются особенности авторского употребления лексики и благодаря параллельным эквивалентам уясняется ее точный смысл. В данной статье представлен сопоставительный анализ слов sidus, stella, astrum, luminare и их русских эквивалентов звезда и светило.
In the bilingual texts of M. V. Lomonosov the peculiarities of the author's use of the vocabulary are clearly revealed and due to the parallel equivalents the exact meaning of each use is understood. This article represents a comparative analysis of the words sidus, stella, astrum, luminare and their Russian equivalents.
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ АВТОРСКОЙ ЛЕКСИКОГРАФИИ, 2018
В статье рассматривается полисемия на примере многозначного прилагательного простой и его латинс... more В статье рассматривается полисемия на примере многозначного прилагательного простой и его латинских эквивалентов, встречающихся в корпусе текстов М.В. Ломоносова. Сопоставление особенностей семантической структуры слова про- стой с выявленными латинскими эквивалентами показывает, что 1) в языке Ломоносова семантической структуре русского прилагательного в целом соответствует структура значения латинского simplex; 2) представление в словарной статье всех иноязычных эквивалентов способствует верной интерпретации русских текстов Ломоносова.
Миллеровские чтения, 2018
The article concerns the Miller’s work “The origin of the people and the name of Russia” (1749) a... more The article concerns the Miller’s work “The origin of the people and the name of Russia” (1749) as the object of philological study. The Latin and Russian manuscripts and the final printed version are the subjects of the article. The study of the versions of the text and the review of its sources helps to clarify the history of creating the text. Keywords: Miller, Russian language, the Latin, XVIII c.
В статье рассматривается диссертация Г.Ф.Миллера «Происхождение народа и имени Российского» (1749) как объект филологического изучения. Предметом данной работы служат рукописные тексты на латинском и русском языках, а также их окончательная печатная версия. Изучение вариантов одного текста и обзор его источников уточняют историю создания этого сочинения.
The article concerns the vocabulary of Lomonosov’s translations of ancient authors. Thus, Lomonos... more The article concerns the vocabulary of Lomonosov’s translations of ancient authors. Thus, Lomonosov named the ancient peoples following the model of ‘afinyane’ (athenians). In the XVIIIth century the translation practice influenced the formation of the modern Russian language. Transliterations and replications were common and widespread, but Lomonosov endeavored to use less of them. In accordance with the European tradition the names of the mythological Greek persons were replaced by the appropriate Roman mythological names. The designations of ancient historical realities were translated by modern equivalents. In his translations Lomonosov tried to express the main and important idea using comprehensible Russian words.
Филологическое наследие М.В. Ломоносова, 2013
I.S. Horletzky was one of the first who worked in the period of formation of the Russian Academy ... more I.S. Horletzky was one of the first who worked in the period of formation of the Russian Academy of Sciences. After learning at the Sorbonne he became a translator of latin and french and he was instructed to translate natural-science works, grammars and lexicons, letters and documents etc. He worked together with Adodurov, Trediakovsky, Euler, Lomonosov and others. Till now some works and documents of the 30-es–40-es of the XVIII century are anonymous and this biography can help to identify some of them.
Vol. 8. 2020. № 4 by Anna Smirnova
Quaestio Rossica, 2020
This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov’s translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief G... more This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov’s translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief Guide to Eloquence (1748), with most of the examples being translated fragments of European literature. A comparison of the translated fragments from Cicero (the author analyses 82 excerpts from the antique orator’s works) with Lomonosov’s own Latin texts makes it possible to see some features of Lomonosov’s translation techniques. Except for the translated fragments included in the textbook on rhetoric, some of Cicero’s works were entirely translated into Russian in the eighteenth century. The author also compares Lomonosov’s translated fragments from Cicero (Cic. Leg. Man., Cat., Arch., Har. resp., etc.) with translations by K. Kondratovich, which were released twenty years after those by Lomonosov. The aim of the research is to show the peculiarities of Lomonosov’s translations, resulting both from the specifics of his translation techniques and the task of these texts as examples of Russian eloquence. The comparative method allows the author to conclude that Lomonosov managed to adequately convey the content and form in his translations and to recreate the style while closely adhering to the original – all this convinced him that the Russian language ‘stands out among all the languages of Europe in its grandeur and richness’. In Lomonosov’s translation techniques, there is a tendency for word-by-word translation and an attempt to preserve the Latin syntax; there is also a noticeable tendency to replace specific ancient culture-specific concepts with modern ones (a principle dating back to humanistic translations into Latin and vulgar languages). The translator’s adherence to the original is of practical importance for historians of literature and allows us to determine when the original text was taken from textbooks on rhetoric.
Исследуются переводческая техника и язык М. В. Ломоносова на материале «Краткого руководства к красноречию» (1748), большая часть примеров в котором являются переводными фрагментами европейской литературы. Сопоставление переводов фрагментов из сочинений Цицерона (всего процитировано 82 фрагмента из разных сочинений античного оратора) с оригинальными латинскими текстами позволяет увидеть некоторые особенности ломоносовской техники перевода. Помимо этих самых ранних из доступных нам и включенных в риторический учебник переводов, некоторые сочинения Цицерона были переведены на русский язык целиком в XVIII в. В статье также приводится сопоставление ломоносовских переводных фрагментов из речей Цицерона (о законе Манилия, против Катилины, в защиту Архия поэта, речь об ответах гаруспиков и др.) с переводами речей, выполненными К. Кондратовичем позднее Ломоносова. Цель работы – показать особенности переводов Ломоносова, обусловленные как спецификой его переводческой техники, так и задачей рассматриваемых текстов – служить образцами русского красноречия. Сопоставительный метод исследования позволяет сделать вывод о том, что Ломоносову удавалось адекватно передавать содержание и форму, находить языковые средства для воссоздания стиля, при этом близко придерживаясь оригинала, – все это служило для него убедительным доказательством того, что русский язык «собственным своим пространством и довольствием велик перед всеми в Европе». Пословный перевод и попытка сохранить латинский синтаксис в переводческой технике Ломоносова иногда сменяются приведением синтаксиса к более привычному русскому виду. Характерная для перевода замена специфических античных реалий на современные – принцип, восходящий еще к гуманистическим переводам на латынь и народные языки. Обнаруживаемая верность переводчика синтаксису оригинала имеет теперь практическое значение для историков литературы и позволяет установить, когда классический текст брался из риторических учебников.
Drafts by Anna Smirnova
Indoevropejskoe âzykoznanie i klassičeskaâ filologiâ, 2023
Статья посвящена источникам греческих цитат в сочинениях М. Ломоносова. Отсутствие традиции точно... more Статья посвящена источникам греческих цитат в сочинениях М. Ломоносова. Отсутствие традиции точного цитирования в XVIII в. создает трудности для современных исследователей, а цитирование не-латинских авторов осложняет задачу вопросом, с какого языка был сделан перевод. В результате анализа всех имеющихся по этому вопросу исследований авторы предлагают сводную таблицу, в которой представлена актуальная информация для каждой греческой цитаты, а также новые источники. Ключевые слова: М. В. Ломоносов, риторика, древнегреческий язык, переводная литература XVIII в.
Neo-Latin and Russian in Lomonosov's "Panegyric for Elizaveta Petrovna" (1749), 2020
Mikhail Lomonosov wrote his scientific and literary works both in Russian and in Neo- Latin, some... more Mikhail Lomonosov wrote his scientific and literary works both in Russian and in Neo- Latin, sometimes he translated his own works from one to another and vice versa. Furthermore, the style and syntax of Lomonosov’s Russian works were considerably influenced by Latin style and syntax. His rhetorical treatises (1744-1748), which had great success in Russia, were full of references to ancient authors and his own translations from Latin and Greek.
In 1749, Lomonosov was told to write a panegyric for the Russian empress. Composed first in Russian and then translated into Latin, Lomonosov’s “Panegyric for Elizaveta Petrovna” provides a particularly interesting case of Neo-Latin / vernacular bilingualism in XVIII century Russian rhetorical prose.
A close study of this bilingual text reveals a large number of syntactical and lexical correspondences in Neo-Latin and Russian. Thus, Lomonosov quoted the Church-Slavonic Bible but he did not use the Vulgate in the respective places of the Latin text, relying on the Russian wording; sometimes he played on the similarly sounding words in Russian and Latin.
Slavic historical lexicology and lexicography
Lexicography of the digital age: proceedings of the International Symposium, 2021
The report provides а problem of compiling the author's historical dictionary, the object of ... more The report provides а problem of compiling the author's historical dictionary, the object of which will be the documents of the personal scientific archive of M.V. Lomonosov. The main purpose of this new lexicographical project will be the study of terminological, dialect and vernacular vocabulary in the idiolect of M.V. Lomonosov.
The report discusses the problems of formation of the collection of Russian anthroponyms, mythony... more The report discusses the problems of formation of the collection of Russian anthroponyms, mythonyms, and theonyms in Russian panegyric poetry of the 18th century. Such a collection may serve as the basis for the compiling of a new dictionary of proper names in 18th-century Russian poetry, the main task of which will be the reflection of the transformation and development of the semantics of the “literary” anthroponym, the process of mythological anthroponyms and the onyms adaptation in the Russian culture.
Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature, 2021
Based on the National corpus data of the Russian language and especially on Mikhail Lomonosov’s t... more Based on the National corpus data of the Russian language and especially on Mikhail Lomonosov’s texts, the article focuses on a pronoun pair sei — onyi. In the Church Slavonic and in the Middle Russian language these pronouns were used in the deictic and substitution (anaphoric) function. The pronoun pair sei and onyi in a phrase or period indicates a juxtaposition or opposition of objects and these pronouns are used in a substitution function. Closer attention to these pronouns in Lomonosov’s works and translations makes it possible to notice one feature that is not fixed in dictionaries and grammars, the peculiarity of using this pair of pronouns in anaphoric function: sei replaces the last (nearest) mentioned object and onyi replaces the first mentioned one. Rare examples of such use are also found in the translated texts of the Church Slavonic and Middle Russian corpus. Similar examples are found in the body of Lomonosov’s texts not only in his translated texts, but also in his ...
Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology, 2021
Статья посвящена приему обыгрывания антропонимов в русской поэзии XVIII в. Прием уподобления геро... more Статья посвящена приему обыгрывания антропонимов в русской поэзии XVIII в. Прием уподобления героев соименным персонажам обнаруживается в барочной восточнославянской риторике и поэзии XVII в. и еще раньшев произведениях античной, христианской и новолатинской словесности. В статье рассматривается, как этот прием описан в «Кратком руководстве к красноречию» М. Ломоносова, ориентировавшегося на примеры из риторического трактата Н. Коссена, и какое развитие в панегирической поэзии XVIII в. получил один из приведенных в риторическом руководстве примеров. Ключевые слова: антропонимы, риторика, русская панегирическая поэзия, XVIII век E. M. Matveev (SPbU / Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS) A. S. Smirnova (Institute for Linguistic Studies, RAS) Characters of the Same Name in M. Lomonosov's "Brief Guide to Eloquence": the Foregoing Rhetorical Tradition and the Poetical Practice in the 2 nd part of the 18 th century The article focuses on the method of playing with names (topos ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος) in Russian poetry of the 18 th century. The assimilation of characters to the same-name heroes is revealed in the baroque East Slavic rhetoric and poetry of the 17 th century and even earlier-in the ancient, Christian and Neo-Latin literature (E. Curtius, H. Keipert, L. Sazonova). The authors of the article examine how the argument from the name was described in M. Lomonosov's "Brief Guide to Eloquence" and in its source, N. Caussin's "De eloquentia sacra et humana". There are two groups of examples of the arguments. The first group is where the characters of the same names have the same destiny and the second one is where the same name does not influence the fate. The curious quantity of four mythical Actaeons in Lomonosov's treatise gets its explanation in Caussin's guide to rhetoric. Though rhetoricians had considered this topos an unconvincing argument, one of the rhetoric examples was then developed in Russian panegyric literature. Some poetical fragments (from Е. М. Матвеев, А. С. Смирнова 882 A. Sumarokov, V. Petrov and G. Derzhavin) where the method of playing with the name Constantin is represented show that the rhetorical logic was not topical for the poets and they even could use the topos from the name for the political project of Catherine the Great.
Indo-European Linguistics and Classical Philology
The article focuses on Latin-Russian equivalents and translation methods in the context of Mikhai... more The article focuses on Latin-Russian equivalents and translation methods in the context of Mikhail V. Lomonosov's Panegyricus Elisabetae. The Latin version closely follows the original Russian text by means of Classical Latin lexicon, as well as words peculiar to Neo-Latin authors. However, there are certain Latin words whose meanings are not covered in dictionaries. In some cases the parallel text is notable for assonant equivalents in the initial position of a phrase (индеinde, видит videt etc.). The article also points at Russian constructions corresponding to Abl. absolutus. When the differences between the Russian and Latin versions do occur, oftentimes they relate to syntactic constructions or may be explained by the need to add or emphasize a certain detail, since the Latin text was written for a foreign audience. There is no doubt that, while composing the Latin version of the Panegyricus, M. Lomonosov relied on classical examples and borrowed specific lexical stock phrases, as was common among humanist authors. At the time when Latin was yielding to national languages, the bilingual text of Panegyricus Elisabetae demonstrates that Russian language too had all the means to express the matters which in Europe had long been expressed in Latin.
Quaestio Rossica, 2020
This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov’s translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief G... more This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov’s translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief Guide to Eloquence (1748), with most of the examples being translated fragments of European literature. A comparison of the translated fragments from Cicero (the author analyses 82 excerpts from the antique orator’s works) with Lomonosov’s own Latin texts makes it possible to see some features of Lomonosov’s translation techniques. Except for the translated fragments included in the textbook on rhetoric, some of Cicero’s works were entirely translated into Russian in the eighteenth century. The author also compares Lomonosov’s translated fragments from Cicero (Cic. Leg. Man., Cat., Arch., Har. resp., etc.) with translations by K. Kondratovich, which were released twenty years after those by Lomonosov. The aim of the research is to show the peculiarities of Lomonosov’s translations, resulting both from the specifics of his translation techniques and the task of these texts as examples of R...
Quaestio Rossica, 2020
This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov's translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief G... more This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov's translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief Guide to Eloquence (1748), with most of the examples being translated fragments of European literature. A comparison of the translated fragments from Cicero (the author analyses 82 excerpts from the antique orator's works) with Lomonosov's own Latin texts makes it possible to see some features of Lomonosov's translation techniques. Except for the translated fragments included in the textbook on rhetoric, some of Cicero's works were entirely translated into Russian in the eighteenth century. The author also compares Lomonosov's translated fragments from Cicero (Cic. Leg. Man., Cat., Arch., Har. resp., etc.) with translations by K. Kondratovich, which were released twenty years after those by Lomonosov. The aim of the research is to show the peculiarities of Lomonosov's translations, resulting both from the specifics of his translation techniques and the task of these texts as examples of Russian eloquence. The comparative method allows the author to conclude that Lomonosov managed to adequately convey the content and form in his translations and to recreate the style while closely adhering to the original-all this convinced him that the Russian language 'stands out among all the languages of Europe in its grandeur and richness'. In Lomonosov's translation techniques, there is a tendency for word-byword translation and an attempt to preserve the Latin syntax; there is also a noticeable tendency to replace specific ancient culture-specific concepts with modern ones (a principle dating back to humanistic translations into Latin and vulgar languages).
Переводчики и переводы в России конца XVI - начала XVIII столетий, 2019
ФОРТУНАТОВСКИЕ ЧТЕНИЯ В КАРЕЛИИ, 2018
В двуязычных текстах М. В. Ломоносова ярко проявляются особенности авторского употребления лексик... more В двуязычных текстах М. В. Ломоносова ярко проявляются особенности авторского употребления лексики и благодаря параллельным эквивалентам уясняется ее точный смысл. В данной статье представлен сопоставительный анализ слов sidus, stella, astrum, luminare и их русских эквивалентов звезда и светило.
In the bilingual texts of M. V. Lomonosov the peculiarities of the author's use of the vocabulary are clearly revealed and due to the parallel equivalents the exact meaning of each use is understood. This article represents a comparative analysis of the words sidus, stella, astrum, luminare and their Russian equivalents.
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ АВТОРСКОЙ ЛЕКСИКОГРАФИИ, 2018
В статье рассматривается полисемия на примере многозначного прилагательного простой и его латинс... more В статье рассматривается полисемия на примере многозначного прилагательного простой и его латинских эквивалентов, встречающихся в корпусе текстов М.В. Ломоносова. Сопоставление особенностей семантической структуры слова про- стой с выявленными латинскими эквивалентами показывает, что 1) в языке Ломоносова семантической структуре русского прилагательного в целом соответствует структура значения латинского simplex; 2) представление в словарной статье всех иноязычных эквивалентов способствует верной интерпретации русских текстов Ломоносова.
Миллеровские чтения, 2018
The article concerns the Miller’s work “The origin of the people and the name of Russia” (1749) a... more The article concerns the Miller’s work “The origin of the people and the name of Russia” (1749) as the object of philological study. The Latin and Russian manuscripts and the final printed version are the subjects of the article. The study of the versions of the text and the review of its sources helps to clarify the history of creating the text. Keywords: Miller, Russian language, the Latin, XVIII c.
В статье рассматривается диссертация Г.Ф.Миллера «Происхождение народа и имени Российского» (1749) как объект филологического изучения. Предметом данной работы служат рукописные тексты на латинском и русском языках, а также их окончательная печатная версия. Изучение вариантов одного текста и обзор его источников уточняют историю создания этого сочинения.
The article concerns the vocabulary of Lomonosov’s translations of ancient authors. Thus, Lomonos... more The article concerns the vocabulary of Lomonosov’s translations of ancient authors. Thus, Lomonosov named the ancient peoples following the model of ‘afinyane’ (athenians). In the XVIIIth century the translation practice influenced the formation of the modern Russian language. Transliterations and replications were common and widespread, but Lomonosov endeavored to use less of them. In accordance with the European tradition the names of the mythological Greek persons were replaced by the appropriate Roman mythological names. The designations of ancient historical realities were translated by modern equivalents. In his translations Lomonosov tried to express the main and important idea using comprehensible Russian words.
Филологическое наследие М.В. Ломоносова, 2013
I.S. Horletzky was one of the first who worked in the period of formation of the Russian Academy ... more I.S. Horletzky was one of the first who worked in the period of formation of the Russian Academy of Sciences. After learning at the Sorbonne he became a translator of latin and french and he was instructed to translate natural-science works, grammars and lexicons, letters and documents etc. He worked together with Adodurov, Trediakovsky, Euler, Lomonosov and others. Till now some works and documents of the 30-es–40-es of the XVIII century are anonymous and this biography can help to identify some of them.
Quaestio Rossica, 2020
This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov’s translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief G... more This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov’s translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief Guide to Eloquence (1748), with most of the examples being translated fragments of European literature. A comparison of the translated fragments from Cicero (the author analyses 82 excerpts from the antique orator’s works) with Lomonosov’s own Latin texts makes it possible to see some features of Lomonosov’s translation techniques. Except for the translated fragments included in the textbook on rhetoric, some of Cicero’s works were entirely translated into Russian in the eighteenth century. The author also compares Lomonosov’s translated fragments from Cicero (Cic. Leg. Man., Cat., Arch., Har. resp., etc.) with translations by K. Kondratovich, which were released twenty years after those by Lomonosov. The aim of the research is to show the peculiarities of Lomonosov’s translations, resulting both from the specifics of his translation techniques and the task of these texts as examples of Russian eloquence. The comparative method allows the author to conclude that Lomonosov managed to adequately convey the content and form in his translations and to recreate the style while closely adhering to the original – all this convinced him that the Russian language ‘stands out among all the languages of Europe in its grandeur and richness’. In Lomonosov’s translation techniques, there is a tendency for word-by-word translation and an attempt to preserve the Latin syntax; there is also a noticeable tendency to replace specific ancient culture-specific concepts with modern ones (a principle dating back to humanistic translations into Latin and vulgar languages). The translator’s adherence to the original is of practical importance for historians of literature and allows us to determine when the original text was taken from textbooks on rhetoric.
Исследуются переводческая техника и язык М. В. Ломоносова на материале «Краткого руководства к красноречию» (1748), большая часть примеров в котором являются переводными фрагментами европейской литературы. Сопоставление переводов фрагментов из сочинений Цицерона (всего процитировано 82 фрагмента из разных сочинений античного оратора) с оригинальными латинскими текстами позволяет увидеть некоторые особенности ломоносовской техники перевода. Помимо этих самых ранних из доступных нам и включенных в риторический учебник переводов, некоторые сочинения Цицерона были переведены на русский язык целиком в XVIII в. В статье также приводится сопоставление ломоносовских переводных фрагментов из речей Цицерона (о законе Манилия, против Катилины, в защиту Архия поэта, речь об ответах гаруспиков и др.) с переводами речей, выполненными К. Кондратовичем позднее Ломоносова. Цель работы – показать особенности переводов Ломоносова, обусловленные как спецификой его переводческой техники, так и задачей рассматриваемых текстов – служить образцами русского красноречия. Сопоставительный метод исследования позволяет сделать вывод о том, что Ломоносову удавалось адекватно передавать содержание и форму, находить языковые средства для воссоздания стиля, при этом близко придерживаясь оригинала, – все это служило для него убедительным доказательством того, что русский язык «собственным своим пространством и довольствием велик перед всеми в Европе». Пословный перевод и попытка сохранить латинский синтаксис в переводческой технике Ломоносова иногда сменяются приведением синтаксиса к более привычному русскому виду. Характерная для перевода замена специфических античных реалий на современные – принцип, восходящий еще к гуманистическим переводам на латынь и народные языки. Обнаруживаемая верность переводчика синтаксису оригинала имеет теперь практическое значение для историков литературы и позволяет установить, когда классический текст брался из риторических учебников.