Vslushat’sya, vsmotret’sya... and vlyubit’sya: the word formation model and the cases of calquing

The article studies the history of the confixal model of the verb formation with the first part v(o)- and the last part -s’a in the context of the interaction of the Russian literary language with other European languages. The word-formation processes leading to the formation of verbs with the first part v(o)- and the last part -s’a are studied. Since the 1750s the confix v(o)-...-s’a characterizes the verbs that show deepening into the action itself, such as slushat’ > vslushat’s’a. The preceding simpler complete word-formation chains were chains like t’anut’ > vt’anut’ > vt’anuts’a and krast’ > krast’s’a > vkrast’s’a. Moreover, when forming confixal verbs of intensely focused perception, the middle link is dropped: smotr’et’ > *smotr’et’s’a > vsmotr’et’s’a. The specificity of these derivatives is that their producing verbs also turn out to be verbs of goal-oriented perception: slushat’ (but not slyshat’), smotr’et’ (but not vid’et’), n’uhat’ (but not obon’at’). Confixal verbs of deepening into action suggest goal setting and have a positive connotation. Their meaning may move away from motivating non-reflexive prefixless verbs if they are calqued: dumat’ > vdumat’s’a, chitat’ > vchitat’s’a, the meaning of goal-setting is transferred to the confix. Verbs of movement such as vbit’s’a, vtolknut’s’a often have a negative connotation. The verbs like voplotit’s’a calqued from Greek in the 10^th–11^th centuries are listed (a total of 12 well-preserved verbs).

A rationale is given for the word-formation calquing of the italian innamorarsi at the beginning of the 18^th century by the Russian verb vl’ubit’s’a. The German-Polish version of the influence on the formation of this verb is rejected. Both chronologically and semantically, this verb is isolated from other verbs in the v(o)-...-s’a. Arguments are given in favor of the calqued character (from German) of the verbs vdumat’s’a, vchitat’s’a, vzhit’s’a, vrabotat’s’a, vchuvstvovat’s’a. The history of the imperfective verb vl’ublivat’s’a is considered, which was already known since the 1730s and reinterpreted by M. Tsvetaeva in a series of her many individual authorial neologisms on v ... ivats’a. Contrary to the main tendency to replace the forms like ulovl’at’ by the forms like ulavlivat’, the literary form of vl’ubl’at’s’a turned out to be more stable.