THE SPELLING OF THE LATEST BORROWINGS AND THE SPELLING PRECEDENT

The article deals with the method of dictionary codification of the borrowings based on spelling precedent. Lexical examples show that relying only on internal analogies in the Russian language without taking into account etymological influences does not justify itself. Usage as a medium for the formation of a spelling norm does not obey the dictates of previous analogies. For instance, the loss of consonantal doubling in the word блог(г) ер does not entail analogous processes in the neologisms триггер, джиггер и шоппер, etc. On the contrary, with the support of the dictionary fixation of the парти and пати options, time revealed the preferred option (пати), and fl uctuations in usage practically disappeared. The article cites cases when a carelessly chosen and recommended spelling option has generated a number of undesirable spelling analogies due to the application of the law of unification: for example, ВИП-персона (using capital letters) and other combinations (a total of thirty-four units). The non-uniqueness of linguistic grounds when choosing the spelling results in justified written variability. This applies not only to borrowed vocabulary, but also to some lexical groups in the basic system (complex adjectives, adverbial combinations, words with root alternations, etc.). The current spelling dictate does not lead to the uniformity of the spelling practice. It is clear that the introduction of variable spellings means the division of spelling norms into strict, binding, and non-strict, allowing deviations, but this antinomy is inherent in the very nature of language, including in its written form.