ble for the mere reason that derivative relations in general are not at all relations of lexico-grammatical identity; for that matter, they are rather relations of non-identity, since they actually constitute a system of production of one type of lexical units from another type of lexical units. As for the types of units belonging to the same or different lexemic classes, this is a question of their actual status in the system of lexicon, i. e. in the lexemic paradigm of nomination reflecting the fundamental correlations between the lexemic sets of language (see Ch. IV, В§ 8). Since the English lexicon does distinguish adjectives and adverbs; since adjectives are substantive-qualifying words in distinction to adverbs, which are non-substantive qualifying words; since, finally, adverbs in-ly do preserve this fundamental nonsubstantive-qualification character - there can ' t be any question of their being "adjectives" in any rationally conceivable way. As for the regularity or irregularity of derivation, it is absolutely irrelevant to the identification of their class-lexemic nature. p align="justify"> Thus, the whole problem is not a problem of part-of-speech identity; it is a problem of inter-class connections, in particular, of inter-class systemic division of functions, and, certainly , of the correlative status of the compared units in the lexical paradigm of nomination.
But worthy of attention is the relation of the adverbs in question to adverbs of other types and varieties, i. e. their intra-class correlations. As a matter of fact, the derivational features of other adverbs, in sharp contrast to the ly-adverbs, are devoid of uniformity to such an extent that practically all of them fall into a multitude of minor non-productive derivational groups. Besides, the bulk of notional qualitative adverbs of other than ly-derivation have ly-correlatives (both of similar and dissimilar meanings and connotations 'В». These facts cannot but show that adverbs in-ly should be looked upon as the standard type of the English adverb as a whole.
XX. SYNTAGMATIC CONNECTIONS OF WORDS
Performing their semantic functions, words in an utterance form various syntagmatic connections with one another.
One should distinguish between syntagmatic groupings of notional words alone, syntagmatic groupings of notional words with functional words, and syntagmatic groupings of functional words alone.
Different combinations of notional words (notional phrases) have a clearly pronounced self-dependent nominative destination, they denote complex phenomena and their properties in their inter-connections, including dynamic interconnections (semi-predicative combinations). Cf.: A sudden trembling; a soul in pain; hurrying along the stream; to lead to a cross-road; strangely familiar; so sure of their aims. p align="justify"> Combinations of a notional word with a functional word are equivalent to separate words by their nominative function. Since a functional word expresses some abstract relation, such combinations, as a rule, are quite obviously non-self-dependent; they are, as it were, stamped as artificially isolated from the context. Cf.: In a low voice; with difficulty; must finish; but a moment; and Jimmy; too cold; so unexpectedly. p align="justify"> We call these combinations "formative" ones. Their contextual dependence ("synsemantism") is quite natural; functionally they may be compared to separate notional words used in various marked grammatical forms (such as, for instance, indirect cases of nouns). Cf.: Eng. Mr. Snow's - of Mr. Snow; him - to him; Russ. Іванов - до Іванова; лісом - через ліс. p align="justify"> Expanding the cited formative phrases with the corresponding notional words one can obtain notional phrases of contextually self-dependent value ("autosemantic" on their level of functioning). Cf.: Eng. Mr. Snow's considerations - the considerations of Mr. Snow; gave it him - gave it to him; Russ. подзвонили Іванову - подзвонили до Іванова; йшли лісом - йшли через ліс.
In this connection we should remember that among the notional word-classes only the noun has a full nominative force, for it directly names a substance. Similarly, we may assert that among various phrase-types it is the noun-phrase that has a full phrasal nominative force (see further). p align="justify"> As for syntagmatic groupings of functional words, they are essentially analogous to separate functional words and are used as connectors and specifiers of notional elements of various status. Cf.: From out of; up to; so that; such as; must be able; don't let's. p align="justify"> Functional phrases of such and like character constitute limited groups supplementing the corresponding subsets of regular one-item functional words, as different from noti...
