In agglutinative languages, words consist of notChanging under any conditions of parts. In all parts of the inflection, words can change. Agglutinative languages are easier to learn, but in expressiveness they are inferior to inflectional. The most common languages, for example, English - are synthetic. In them, the inflectional base is supplemented by agglutination.
In the languages of both inflective and agglutinativeBuilding new words (word forms, or morphemes) are formed by adding to the root of the word, determining its meaning, the so-called formant - suffixes, prefixes. Agglutination means sticking. Flexion also means flexibility. There is already a difference in the structure of these languages. We will explain it in more detail below.
By the way, now in Russian it is acceptedWrite and speak inflectional, although inflexion remains inflexion. But "flexive" too will not be a gross mistake, philologists with linguists have not yet come to a consensus on this matter.
Gluing is known to be quiteHard. "Adhered" to the root of the suffixes in any case, retain their importance, and the value of any of them does not depend on who is his neighbor on the right or on the left. And the formants themselves in the agglutinative language do not change in any way.
For example, in Tatar "in his letters" there will be a Hutlarynd, where:
· Hut- - the letter is the root of the word and at the same time the basis of the whole expression.
· -lar- is a suffix meaning that an expression in the plural is a plural formant.
· -yn-formant, similar to the possessive pronoun of the second person in Russian, that is, "his" or "her".
· -da is the suffix of the local case. This case is typical for agglutinative languages, in this case it means that letters are not scattered around the world, but are collected and read.
Some of the inconveniences andAdvantages of agglutination. -in-does not allow to judge, about him or about it there is a speech. You need to delve into the context, and it can be vague. But the statement that requires in Russian, almost purely inflectional language, phrases of three words, is expressed here in one word.
Finally, irregular verbs in agglutinative languages are a rare exception. I learned the rules, which are not so many - you know the language, it remains only to perfect the pronunciation.
The most important shortcoming of agglutinative languages -Rigid rules of word order in the sentence. Here agglutination of errors does not stand. For example, the "Navy" in Japanese will be "Dai-Nippon Teiko-ku Kaigun", which is in the literal translation of "Great Japan of the Empire Military Fleet." And if you say: "kaigong teiko-ku da-nippon", the Japanese will understand that it is about something Japanese, but the general meaning of the phrase for him without thinking will remain dark.
Flexible languages are extraordinarily flexible and expressive. Not only formants, but also the roots of words in them can change their meaning to literally anyone depending on the "neighbors", the order of the word or the general meaning of the phrase. For example, the particle "then"
· Somewhere there - points in an uncertain direction.
· That building - indicates a specific object.
· That is, it clarifies the meaning.
· I mean - it makes sense only in the expression.
Further, the formants in flexion may have a double,Triple and even wider meaning. For example, "him", "her", "them." Here the person (the second) is expressed, and the number (single or plural) or even the sex of the subject of the utterance. And here it is clear that the formant itself can completely change. In agglutinative languages, this is impossible in principle.
The Russian language is taught by everyone, so we will not bother the reader with examples. Let's give just one more, comic, but brightly demonstrating the flexibility of inflectional languages.
Is there a philologist or linguist who can explain the origin of the word "settled"? And the fact that it means "has subsided", "calmed down", "acquired the status quo" is known to all.
Because of their flexibility, inflectional languages are almost completely indifferent to the order of words. The same "Navy" in Russian can be said as you like, and it will still be clear what it is.
But the flexibility of the language has a downside, evenTwo. The first is a lot of rules. In fact, only those who speak it from childhood can fully master Russian. That creates inconvenience not only for foreign special services (podi-ka, find among the native speakers of the subject, suitable for training for the resident), but also for those wishing to naturalize law-abiding immigrants.
Agglutinative languages are very poorly accepted inYourself borrowing foreign language. The same Japanese so could not develop their own technical jargon, they use Anglo-American. But the economy and complete certainty of agglutination led to the fact that in almost all inflectional languages there are elements of agglutination that require less stringent but certain order of words in the construction of the phrase.
For example, if you say "Yellow" in EnglishShoes "(yellow shoes), then everything is clear. But the "Shoes yellow" will make the Anglo-Saxon ponder, if he even understands what that means. You can say "These shoes are yellow" (these shoes are yellow), but only with reference to a very specific object, and the article with an official verb was also needed.
In fact, from inflectional languages only Russian andGerman can be considered clean. In them agglutination is almost not noticeable and without it it is easy to do without, and the language does not lose its expressiveness. The rest of the Romano-Germanic languages are synthetic, that is, their inflexion peacefully coexists and is friendly with agglutination.
Recall the stories of Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes, with his sharp mind and analytical abilities, guesses what it would mean (in Russian translation): "We received such feedback about you from all sides". And comes to the conclusion: "This was written by a German. Only Germans can so unceremoniously treat their verbs. " Russian, as you know, the great detective did not know.
So what is better is flexion or agglutination. It all depends on how much the person speaks the language. Who is better - Shakespeare or Leo Tolstoy? It's a pointless question. And in classical Chinese, a language of rather primitive, isolating type, there is a great literature.
"Fried" report on the inflectional with agglutinationLeaves shorter than on purely inflectional. But Shakespeare's translation into Russian is reduced in volume relative to the original, and Tolstoy in English, on the contrary, swells. First of all - due to the same articles and service words.
In general, synthetic languages are more suitable forEveryday communication. That's why English became an international language. But where it is necessary to express subtle thoughts and feelings and complex concepts, in all its glory and power acts inflexion as such.
Note at last
Artificial languages (Esperanto, Ido), intended to quickly somehow understand each other - all agglutinative.