Языковая политика

Да, но тут интересно, как ломался русский. Если SOV объясним тюркскими или уральскими, императив как правило представляет чистую основу наст. вр., то происхождение моя и твоя остаётся загадочным.

И что же такого замечательно в этих ие. окончаниях, чтобы ради них уродовать чужие имена?

и это человек претендует на звание лингвиста? Он даже не в курсе, что в Канаде два государственных языка?

У вас какая-нибудь статистика на сей счёт?

Sirotinina (1965) studied Russian word order, relying on the Prague school information-
structural tradition. Her approach to syntax was different from what we find in modern
formal or functional studies: rather than analyzing when SVO, SOV, or other orders are
used, she analyzed how often the object precedes or follows the verb and which factors
affectthisprobability. Inotherwords,inherdata,SOV,OSVandOVSorders,whichhave
distinct syntactic and IS properties, are combined. Nevertheless, she conducted one of
the first corpus studies of written and spoken Russian (recording many monologues and
dialogues for this purpose) and made many important observations that were confirmed
in subsequent work.

Firstly, Sirotinina noted that OV orders are more frequent in spoken Russian than in
written Russian. Secondly, the dataset of spoken Russian that she had could be divided
into more formal and less formal texts, and the share of OV orders was larger in the latter.
Thirdly, pronominal objects were preverbal more frequently than non-pronominal ones.
At the same time, Sirotinina demonstrated that both given and new objects can
precede and follow the verb. Several examples are provided in (1)–(5) (examples (1)–(3)
arefromSirotinina1965, 49–50,(4)isfromKodzasov1996, 184,and(5)fromZemskaya
1978, 43). A new object follows the verb in (1-a) , but precedes it in (3)–(5). A given
object is before the verb in (1-b) , but after it in (2). Capital letters are used to mark the
main, or sentential, stress.

The share of OV orders in Sirotinina’s spoken Russian data was very high: 60.9% for
given objects and 40.3% for new objects. This led Slioussar (2007) to conclude that
colloquial Russian is undergoing a diachronic shift from VO to OV. She hypothesized
that it is becoming one of the languages in which communicatively prominent or salient
information,bothgivenandnew,precedestheverb,whilelesssalientinformationfollows
it.

SOV in Russian: A corpus study
Natalia Slioussar, Ilya Makarchuk