Journal archive

Abstract: The article deals with the problems of perception and presentation of the etymological heritage that has accumulated in the Russian historical studies of the Russian language since the introduction of the comparative historical method into the research practice. The great merits of Max Fasmer as a compiler of the most complete etymological dictionary of the Russian language are emphasized. There is a growing interest in the etymology and, along with this, the emergence of a negative attitude of non-specialists in the field of etymology to the individual and scientific work of M. Fasmer in connection with the development of false-etimological trends in the interpretation of Russian vocabulary. The complexity of the etymological work, the forced plurality of etymological interpretations of one word and, at the same time, the strict validity of the conclusions of modern comparative studies are characterized. The necessity of competent interpretation of etymological dictionaries, the absence of which allows to draw incorrect conclusions about the content of dictionary entries is manifested. The examples of alternative etymological interpretations based on the “taste” approach to the problem of the origin of Russian words and falsely understood linguistic patriotism are discussed. The task is to expand information about the origin of Russian vocabulary in the educational practice of secondary school. The information and practical tasks related to the origin of Russian vocabulary are reviewed in modern school textbooks on the Russian language for grades 5–11. Attention is drawn to the clear advantage of the study of the borrowed vocabulary and disregard for the etymology of the primordial words of the Russian language in school practice. The author calls for reassessment of the importance of information on the history of the Russian language in school practice, to strengthen the historical component in the teaching of the Russian language at school.