STUDIES IN RUSSIAN 525 



structions in which this case is found with one of its proper values : 



kurica sidit nasedockoj ; on uze dbddcat' let starsinoj, etc. 



The conclusion can therefore be drawn that the Russian language 

 has not been appreciably altered by its contact with Turkish and 

 Finnish tongues. This preservation of the integrity of its own proper 

 form confirms what was said above in regard to its unity as well as to 

 its general fidelity to the Indo-European model definitely abandoned. 



(2) This Russian language, which presents to the linguist an interest 

 equal to that of Sanskrit, Greek, or Lithuanian, of w r hich Merimee 

 said, "It is the most beautiful language of Europe, Greek not ex- 

 cepted," while Turgeniev wishes to see in it the most certain token 

 of the genius of his nation, are we well acquainted with its present 

 state? Has a complete inventory of its resources been made? Have 

 the treasures of its vocabulary been collected? Have the multiple 

 forms of its morphology been determined? Have the rules of its 

 syntax been analyzed? Without failing to appreciate what has 

 already been accomplished along these lines, it is permitted to express 

 one's surprise that there still remains so much to be done. 



A well-known Manual, already thirty years old, but, by four suc- 

 cessive editions, brought to a point of perfection which seems difficult 

 to surpass, the Handbuch dcr Altbulgarischen (Altkirchenslamscheri) 

 Sprache of A. Leskien, has determined, in an extremely epitomized 

 form, the distinctive features of Old Slavic phonetics, morphology, 

 and syntax. The works of A. Vostokov, I. Sreznevski, P. Fortunatov, 

 A. Shakhmatov, and A. Sobolevski permit a faithful reconstruction of 

 the successive stages of the vocabulary and grammar of Old Russian. 

 But the present state of Russian has not been analyzed with any such 

 mastery or minuteness. 



If you ask a Russian book-dealer for a dictionary of his language 

 in his language, he will offer you only works that arc out of print, 

 and have become rare. The Dictionary of the Academy is over half 

 a century old (the edition of 1867 being only a simple reprint of the 

 original edition of 1847). The Dictionary of Dal is more modern, 

 the dui'able testimony of a considerable effort, but little solicitous of 

 accentuation and morphology. The very distribution of the subject- 

 headings, where alphabetical order lias been sacrificed to derivation, 

 often makes its handling most difficult. 



Or. supposing you to be more interested in "'up-to-date" Russian, 

 the book-dealer turns your choice to the more recent unfinished 

 works, the date of completion of which it is still premature to foretell. 

 The new Dictionary of the Academy was begun in 1891 under the 

 direction of J. Grot, continued from 1897. on a considerably enlarged 

 plan, too enlarged perhaps, by A. Shakhmatov. The republicatiou 

 of the Dictionary of Dal was recently undertaken by J. Haudouin de 

 Courtenay. In other words, the balance-sheet of Russian lexicography 



