How do proverbs differ from phraseological units

Proverbs

Consider the following examples of proverbs:

We never know the value of water till the well is dry.

You can take the horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Even these few examples clearly show that proverbs are different from those phraseological units which have been discussed above. The first distinctive feature that strikes one is the obvious structural dissimilarity. Phraseological units, as we have seen, are a kind of ready-made blocks which fit into the structure of a sentence performing a certain syntactical function, more or less as words do. E. g. George liked her for she never put on airs (predicate). Big bugs like him care nothing about small fry like ourselves, (a) subject, b) prepositional object).

Proverbs, if viewed in their structural aspect, are sentences, and so cannot be used in the way in which phraseological units are used in the above examples.

If one compares proverbs and phraseological units in the semantic aspect, the difference seems to become even more obvious. Proverbs could be best compared with minute fables for, like the latter, they sum up the collective experience of the community. They moralise (Hell is paved with good intentions), give advice (Don’t judge a tree by its bark), give warning (If you sing before breakfast, you will cry before night), admonish (Liars should have good memories), criticise (Everyone calls his own geese swans).

No phraseological unit ever does any of these things. They do not stand for whole statements as proverbs do but for a single concept. Their function in speech is purely nominative (i. e. they denote an object, an act, etc.). The function of proverbs in speech, though, is communicative (i. e. they impart certain information).

The question of whether or not proverbs should be regarded as a subtype of phraseological units and studied together with the phraseology of a language is a controversial one.

Professor A. V. Koonin includes proverbs in his classification of phraseological units and labels them communicative phraseological units (see Ch. 13). From his point of view, one of the main criteria of a phraseological unit is its stability. If the quotient of phraseological stability in a word-group is not below the minimum, it means that we are dealing with a phraseological unit. The structural type — that is, whether the unit is a combination of words or a sentence — is irrelevant.

The criterion of nomination and communication cannot be applied here either, says Professor A. V. Koonin, because there are a considerable number of verbal phraseological units which are word-groups (i. e. nominative units) when the verb is used in the Active Voice, and sentences (i. e. communicative units) when the verb is used in the Passive Voice. E. g. to cross (pass)

the Rubicon — the Rubicon is crossed (passed); to shed crocodile tears — crocodile tears are shed. Hence, if one accepts nomination as a criterion of referring or not referring this or that unit to phraseology, one is faced with the absurd conclusion that such word-groups, when with verbs in the Active Voice, are phraseological units and belong to the system of the language, and when with verbs in the Passive Voice, are non-phraseological word-groups and do not belong to the system of the language. [12]

It may be added, as one more argument in support of this concept, that there does not seem to exist any rigid or permanent border-line between proverbs and phraseological units as the latter rather frequently originate from the former.

So, the phraseological unit the last straw originated from the proverb The last straw breaks the camel’s back, the phraseological unit birds of a feather from the proverb Birds of a feather flock together, the phraseological unit to catch at a straw (straws) from A drowning man catches at straws.

What is more, some of the proverbs are easily transformed into phraseological units. E. g. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket > to put all one’s eggs in one basket; don’t cast pearls before swine > to cast pearls before swine.

Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав. Студалл.Орг (0.006 сек.)

Sayings and proverbs as pragmatic phraseological units, their features and functions

Lecture 5. Communicative phraseological units.

In folklore among all the variety and richness of its poetical significance and form it is difficult to find more interesting and researchable genre than proverbs and sayings, which are short, meaningful units and which have the rhythmic organization in poetic style – that people had created for centuries in their social and historical life.

A saying is a short, clever expression that usually contains advice or expresses some obvious truth. Many traditional sayings are still in general use today.

There are literally thousands of sayings in English (and all languages). The term saying conveys the idea of any expression of wisdom or truth, usually handed down by earlier generations. The origin of a saying is, in most cases, unknown. Many English sayings have come from other languages, and vice versa.

Most sayings are effective thanks to their shortness and directness. They use simple, vivid language, often based on everyday domestic situations, making them easy to understand and remember.

Sayings may be classified under a number of different terms, of which proverb is probably the best known. Other types of saying are adage, maxim, motto, epigram and aphorism, though frankly the distinction between them is often vague:

proverb: a piece of common-sense wisdom expressed in practical, homely terms («A stitch in time saves nine»)

adage: is a time-honored and widely known saying («Where there’s smoke, there’s fire»)

maxim: a general rule of behaviour drawn from practical experience («Neither a borrower nor a lender be»)

motto: a maxim adopted as a principal of conduct («Honesty is the best policy»)

epigram: is a brief, witty, or satirical statement that often gains effect through paradox («The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it»)

aphorism: similar to an epigram but more profound rather than witty («He is a fool that cannot conceal is wisdom»)

Proverb is a brief phrase that presents a truth or some bit of useful wisdom. It is usually based on common sense or practical experience. The effect of a proverb is to make the wisdom it tells seem to be self-evident. The same proverb often occurs among several different peoples. True proverbs have been passed from generation to generation primarily by word of month. They may also have been put into written form. Proverbs often find their way into literature.

Proverbs were always the most vivacious and at the same time the most stable part of the national languages, competing with the sayings and aphorisms of outstanding thinkers. They express the outlook of the amount of people by their social and ideal functions. Proverbs and sayings include some certain features of historical development and the culture of people.

The semantic sphere of proverbs is very wide and cannot limit them. The proverbs describe every branch of people’s life. The fact is that proverbs and sayings are similar in meaning in spite of their diversity in form and language: A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Лучше синица в руках, чем журавль на небе.

Many scholars tried to show the differences between proverbs and sayings in order to point out their border of limit. There are some features that can be helpful in identifying the proverbs from sayings.

Proverbs are characterized by their features:

Every proverb values or appreciates any event both positively and negatively. Such kind of features serve to make the proverbs popular among people.

Proverbs express wise and complete idea and sayings express the description of something but do not give complete meanings. They consist of one compositional element.

Proverbs can be used in neutral figurative meaning. This features of proverbs widen the sphere of their usage thematically. That’s why proverbs are famous among different nations and people. Sayings are characterized by limited usage in one or two nations who are near to each other geographically and in non related languages.

The function of proverbs is to prove any event or situation.

In spite of their own specific features proverbs have general sides which also belong to the other types of folklore. One of such features of the proverbs is that they are created in language in a very long time and disappear in a long period. It is connected with the formal feature of the content of the proverb. To turn some wise thoughts into proverbs some conditions are required. And this conditions may be the followings:

Firstly, the proverbs should describe the economic, social and politic life of the people.

Secondary, the idea expressed in the proverb must have global character. It means that those proverbs that describe the characters related to the human beings are the same in all the languages.

Proverbs serve as rare base in researching or studying of people: the level of their cultural, politic, economic life in ancient time or periods. As proverbs reflect the life practice of people over different periods and also they reflect moral norms and religious faith of nation. One more feature of proverbs is that proverbs are often used in colloquial speech of people and are extended in varied forms.

As we know, proverbs are used for some practical, pragmatic purposes in various circumstances of everyday communication. It is not right to consider proverbs apart from pragmatic functions.

As to familiar quotations, they are different from proverbs in their origin. They come from literature and many people using them do not even know that they are quoting and very few could accurately name the play or passage on which they are drawing even when they are aware of using a quotation from Shakespeare: For example: Something is rotten in the state of Denmark; Brevity is the soul of wit.

The problem of defining a proverb appears to be as old as man’s interest in them. People who consciously used them or began to collect them in antiquity obviously needed to differentiate proverbs from other gnomic devices such as apothegms, maxims, aphorisms, quotations.

Дата добавления: 2013-12-12 ; Просмотров: 8611 ; Нарушение авторских прав? ;

Proverbs as a phraseological unit

14.1.Classification of proverbs

14.2.Types of proverbs on meanings motivation

14.3.Proverbs as the way expressing people’s wisdom and spirit and literary works

Objectives: to demonstrate various forms of proverbs.

Proverb is a brief saying that presents a truth or some bit of useful wisdom. It is usually based on common sense or practical experience. The effect of a proverb is to make the wisdom it tells seem to be self-evident. The same proverb often occurs among several different peoples. True proverbs are sayings that have been passed from generation to generation primarily by word of month. They may also have been put into written form. The Book of Proverbs in the Hebrew Bible, or old Testament, is the most notable collection of such sayings. They include: Hope deferred month the heartsick.

A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.

A soft answer turneth away.

Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Proverbs often find their way into literature. Hany of the lower-class characters in the Canterbury tales. By Geoffrey Chaucer[1] refer to proverbs. Miguel de Ce rvantes'[2] novel Don qui xote (1005, 1615)[3] contains many proverbs. Cervantes collected the proverbs from the Spanish pea sands. The term itself phraseological units to denote a specific group of phrases was introduced by Soviet linguists and is generally accepted in our country.

Who supposedly could early on a sensible conversation for a whole evening in nothing but proverbs. Benjamin Franklin used many proverbial expressions in his Poor Richard’s Almanac», issued every year from 1733 to 1758 Franklin wrote many of them himself, and took the rest from other sources.

Proverbs, Book of is a book o f the Hebrew Bible, or old Testament. It is also known as the Proverbs of Solomon because according to tradition king ‘Solomon wrote it. However scholars believe that the book’s assortment of moral and religious saying, poems and warnings come from various periods in the history of ancient form until after the period of the Babylanian Exile, which ended in 538 B.C.

The Book of Proverbs is a product of ancient Israel Children, were educated primarily at home. The introduction value of many sections of Proverbs reflects the teachings of parents trying to raise their children to become successful and responsible adults. Other sections of the Book of Proverbs may come from a palace school for the training of government officials.

The Book of Proverbs has earned universal appeal because it contains material valuable to all people who hope to live a life of wisdom, honesty, esponsibility, for God Hany as the book’s saying have become part of everyday Speech.

Proverbs were always the most vivacious and at the same time the most stable part of the national languages, suitable competing with the sayings and aphorisms pf outstanding thinkers. In the proverbs and sayings picturesqueness of national thinking was more vivid expressed as well as their features of national character. The proverbs and sayings are the paper of folklore which is short but deep in the meaning. They express the outlook of the amount of people by their social and ideal functions. Proverbs and sayings include themselves the some certain features of historical development and the culture of people.

The semantic sphere of proverbs is very wide and cannot limit them. The proverbs describe the every branch of people’s life. The fact is that proverbs and sayings are similar in meaning in spite of their diversity in form and language. To prove the said above some examples:

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Un tiens vaut mieux que deux tu’auras.

Un chien vivant vaut mieux qu’un lion mort.

Лучше синица в руках, чем журавль на небе.

Nasiya saryog’dan, naqd о ‘pka yaxshi.

Even if the form, the word structure and the stylistic structure of these proverbs are different they have the same meaning. The proverbs change their meaning and form very rare, they have long living features. The spreading of any proverb among people is implemented as slow as it is created. Proverbs are retest by geographic area which is going to admit it only after that the proverb can become its property.

Many scholars tried to do the researches to show the differences between proverbs and sayings in order to point out their border of limit. One of the outstanding Russian scholars the author of «dictionary of vivid Russian language» and «the proverbs of Russian nation» V.I. Dal[4] wrote: saying is the bud and proverb is the fruit. So from this point of view we can see that proverbs express the full finite meaning and saying is a phrase which expresses the fugitive meaning. The sayings are considered to be the half part of the proverbs. We can also add that proverbs and sayings are separate genres which are different from each other. The meaning and explanation of these terms in Turkish language show that the semantically their meanings are various and this fact confirms our above given ideas. For example in the dictionary «o’zbek tilining izohli lug’ati»[5] there are given two meanings. The first meaning is that it does not express complete meaning and it is emphatic phrase and wise words. This explanation can express the folk saying. Another meaning refers to Arab word «masal» that (in English means fable) was changed phonetically. The explanation can be used for emphatic phrase and incomplete meanings that is sayings.

There are some features that can be helpful in identifying the proverbs from sayings.

1. When there are tow logical counters became complete composition the brief summarizing thought appeared. That explains the lack of spare word or description.

2. to express the idea straightly and logically proverbs are characterized by their features. Every proverb values or appreciates any event both positively and negatively. Such kind of features serve to make the proverbs popular among people.

3. Proverbs express wise and complete idea and sayings express the description of something but do not give complete meanings. They consist of one compositional composition.

4. Proverbs can be used in neutral figurative meaning. This features of proverbs widen the sphere of their usage thematically. That’s why proverbs are famous among different nations and people. Sayings are characterized by limited usage in one or two nations who are near to each other geographically and in non related languages. For example in Russian «заморить человека» means to eat something has no equivalent or component in Uzbek or English languages and translated by analogy. The same way of translation is used while translating such sayings as «qovun tushurmoq» and etc.

5. The sayings are the means of devices or pointing in speech the function of proverbs is to prove any event or situation.

In spite of their own specific features proverbs have general sides which also belong to the other types of folklore. One of such features of the proyerbs is that they are created in language in a very long time and disappear in a long period. It is connected with the formal feature of the content of the proverb. To turn some wise thoughts into proverbs some conditions are required. And this conditions may be the followings: first of all the proverbs should describe the economic, social and politic life of the people. To the instruction to the dictionary of Dal, Shoiochov[6] wrote that among all the proverbs which are closer and more important for them and reject those which are old and not sitable for them to build a new life. For example in Russian we can find the proverb «Где хан, там и Орда», «Старших и в Орде почитают»; these kind of proverbs can be considered as old ones and are not used in nowadays, because they do not describe the nowadays life and politics. But such kind of proverbs could be changed and said «Где царь, там и народ».

Secondary the idea expressed in the proverb must have global character. It means that those proverbs that describe the characters related to the human beings are the same in all the languages.

It can be approved from the above mentioned proverb about «хан» and «Орда». It either widens or narrows and it gives completely another meaning. In this term we can see that second feature of the proverb is that it is connected with social life, and it is close to people’s way of living.

Proverbs serve as rare base in researching or studying of people: the level of their cultural, politic, economic life in ancient time or periods. As proverbs reflect the life practice of people over different periods and also they reflect moral norms and religious faith of nation. One more feature of proverbs is that proverbs are often used in colloquial speech of people and are extended in varied forms.

Proverbs

Proverbsare different from PUs. The first distinctive feature is the obvious structural dissimilarity. PUs are a kind of ready-made blocks which fit into the structure of a sentence performing a certain syntactical function, more or less as words do.

e.g. George liked her for she never put on airs (predicate). Big bugs like him care nothing about small fry like ourselves (subject, prepositional object).

Proverbs, in their structural aspect, are sentences, and so they cannot be used in the way in which phraseological units are used.

In the semantic aspect, proverbs sum up the collective experience of the community.

· moralize Hell is paved with good intentions;

· give advice Don’t judge a tree by its bark;

· give warning you sing before breakfast, you will cry before night;

· admonish Liars should have good memories;

· criticizeEveryone calls his own geese swans.

The function of proverbs in speech is communicative i.e. they impart certain information. PUs do not stand for whole statements as proverbs do but for a single concept. Their function in speech is purely nominativei.e. they denote an object, an act etc.

The question of whether or not proverbsshould be regarded as a subtype of PUs and studied together with the phraseology of a language is a controversial one.A. V. Koonin includes proverbs in his classification of PUs as communicative phraseological units. From his point of view, one of the main criteria of a PU is its stability.

The criterion of nomination and communication cannot be applied here because there is a considerable number of verbal PUs which are word-groups (i.e. nominative units) when the verb is used in the Active Voice, and sentences (i.e. communicative units) when the verb is used in the Passive Voice.

e. g. to cross (pass) the Rubicon – the Rubicon is crossed (passed);

to shed crocodile tears – crocodile tears are shed

One more argument is that there does not exist any rigid border-line between proverbs and PUs as PUs rather frequently originate from the proverb.

e.g. the PU the last straw originated from the proverb The last straw breaks the camel’s back

birds of a feather to put all one’s eggs in one basket

Don’t cast pearls before swine > to cast pearls before swine

How to Distinguish Phraseological Units from Free Word-Groups

This is probably the most discussed — and the most controversial — problem in the field of phraseology. The task of distinguishing between free word-groups and phraseological units is further complicated by the existence of a great number of marginal cases, the so-called semi-fixed or semi-free word-groups, also called non-phraseological word-groups which share with phraseological units their structural stability but lack their semantic unity and figurativeness (e. g. to go to school, to go by bus, to commit suicide).

There are two major criteria for distinguishing between phraseological units and free word-groups: semantic and structural.

Compare the following examples:

A. Cambridge don: I’m told they’re inviting more American professors to this university. Isn’t it rather carrying coals to Newcastle?

(To carry coals to Newcastle means «to take something to a place where it is already plentiful and not needed». Cf. with the R. В Тулу со своим самоваром.)

В. This cargo ship is carrying coal to Liverpool.

The first thing that captures the eye is the semantic difference of the two word-groups consisting of the same essential constituents. In the second sentence the free word-group is carrying coal is used in the direct sense, the word coal standing for real hard, black coal and carry for the plain process of taking something from one place to another. The first context quite obviously has nothing to do either with coal or with transporting it, and the meaning of the whole word-group is something entirely new and far removed from the current meanings of the constituents.

Academician V. V. Vinogradov spoke of the semantic change in phraseological units as «a meaning resulting from a peculiar chemical combination of words». This seems a very apt comparison because in both cases between which the parallel is drawn an entirely new quality comes into existence.

The semantic shift affecting phraseological units does not consist in a mere change of meanings of each separate constituent part of the unit. The meanings of the constituents merge to produce an entirely new meaning: e. g. to have a bee in one’s bonnet means «to have an obsession about something; to be eccentric or even a little mad». The humorous metaphoric comparison with a person who is distracted by a bee continually buzzing under his cap has become erased and half-forgotten, and the speakers using the expression hardly think of bees or bonnets but accept it in its transferred sense: «obsessed, eccentric».

That is what is meant when phraseological units are said to be characterized by semantic unity. In the traditional approach, phraseological units have been defined as word-groups conveying a single concept (whereas in free word-groups each meaningful component stands for a separate concept).

It is this feature that makes phraseological units similar to words: both words and phraseological units possess semantic unity (see Introduction). Yet, words are also characterized by structural unity which phraseological units very obviously lack being combinations of words.

Most Russian scholars today accept the semantic criterion of distinguishing phraseological units from free word-groups as the major one and base their research work in the field of phraseology on the definition of a phraseological unit offered by Professor A. V. Koonin, the leading authority on problems of English phraseology in our country:

«A phraseological unit is a stable word-group characterized by a completely or partially transferred meaning.»[12]

The definition clearly suggests that the degree of semantic change in a phraseological unit may vary («completely or partially transferred meaning»). In actual fact the semantic change may affect either the whole word-group or only one of its components. The following phraseological units represent the first case: to skate on thin ice (@ to put oneself in a dangerous position; to take risks); to wear one’s heart on one’s sleeve1 (@ to expose, so that everyone knows, one’s most intimate feelings); to have one’s heart in one’s boots (@ to be deeply depressed, anxious about something); to have one’s heart in one’s mouth (@ to be greatly alarmed by what is expected to happen); to have one’s heart in the right place (@ to be a good, honest and generous fellow); a crow in borrowed plumes (@ a person pretentiously and unsuitably dressed; cf. with the R. ворона в павлиньих перьях); a wolf in a sheep’s clothing1 (@ а dangerous enemy who plausibly poses as a friend).

The second type is represented by phraseological units in which one of the components preserves its current meaning and the other is used in a transferred meaning: to lose (keep) one’s temper, to fly into a temper, to fall ill, to fall in love (out of love), to stick to one’s word (promise), to arrive at a conclusion, bosom friends, shop talk (also: to talk shop), small talk.

Here, though, we are on dangerous ground because the border-line dividing phraseological units with partially changed meanings from the so-called semi-fixed or non-phraseological word-groups (marginal cases) is uncertain and confusing.

The term «idiom», both in this country and abroad, is mostly applied to phraseological units with completely transferred meanings, that is, to the ones in which the meaning of the whole unit does not correspond to the current meanings of the components. There are many scholars who regard idioms as the essence of phraseology and the major focus of interest in phraseology research.

The structural criterion also brings forth pronounced distinctive features characterizing phraseological units and contrasting them to free word-groups.

Structural invariability is an essential feature of phraseological units, though, as we shall see, some of them possess it to a lesser degree than others. Structural invariability of phraseological units finds expression in a number of restrictions.

First of all, restriction in substitution. As a rule, no word can be substituted for any meaningful component of a phraseological unit without destroying its sense. To carry coals to Manchester makes as little sense as Б Харьков со своим самоваром.

The idiom to give somebody the cold shoulder means «to treat somebody coldly, to ignore or cut him», but a warm shoulder or a cold elbow make no sense at all. The meaning of a bee in smb’s bonnet was explained above, but a bee in his hat or cap would sound a silly error in choice of words, one of those absurd slips that people are apt to make when speaking a foreign language.

At the same time, in free word-groups substitution does not present any dangers and does not lead to any serious consequences. In The cargo ship is carrying coal to Liverpool all the components can be changed: The ship/vessel/boat carries/transports/takes/brings coal to (any port).

The second type of restriction is the restriction in introducing any additional components into the structure of a phraseological unit.

In a free word-group such changes can be made without affecting the general meaning of the utterance: This big ship is carrying a large cargo of coal to the port of Liverpool.

In the phraseological unit to carry coals to Newcastle no additional components can be introduced. Nor can one speak about the big white elephant (when using the white elephant in its phraseological sense) or about somebody having his heart in his brown boots.

Yet, such restrictions are less regular. In Vanity Fair by W. M. Thackeray the idiom to build a castle in the air is used in this way:

In fiction such variations of idioms created for stylistic purposes are not a rare thing. In oral speech phraseological units mostly preserve their traditional structures and resist the introduction of additional components.

The third type of structural restrictions in phraseological units is grammatical invariability. A typical mistake with students of English is to use the plural form of fault in the phraseological unit to find fault with somebody (e. g. The teacher always found faults with the boy). Though the plural form in this context is logically well-founded, it is a mistake in terms of the grammatical invariability of phraseological units. A similar typical mistake often occurs in the unit from head to foot (e. g. From head to foot he was immaculately dressed). Students are apt to use the plural form of foot in this phrase thus erring once more against the rigidity of structure which is so characteristic of phraseological units.

Yet again, as in the case of restriction in introducing additional components, there are exceptions to the rule, and these are probably even more numerous.

One can build a castle in the air, but also castles. A shameful or dangerous family secret is picturesquely described as a skeleton in the cupboard, the first substantive component being frequently and easily used in the plural form, as in: I’m sure they have skeletons in every cupboard! A black sheep is a disreputable member of a family who, in especially serious cases, may be described as the blackest sheep of the family.

Proverbs

Consider the following examples of proverbs:

We never know the value of water till the well is dry.

You can take the horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Even these few examples clearly show that proverbs are different from those phraseological units which have been discussed above. The first distinctive feature that strikes one is the obvious structural dissimilarity. Phraseological units, as we have seen, are a kind of ready-made blocks which fit into the structure of a sentence performing a certain syntactical function, more or less as words do. E. g. George liked her for she never put on airs (predicate). Big bugs like him care nothing about small fry like ourselves, (a) subject, b) prepositional object).

Proverbs, if viewed in their structural aspect, are sentences, and so cannot be used in the way in which phraseological units are used in the above examples.

If one compares proverbs and phraseological units in the semantic aspect, the difference seems to become even more obvious. Proverbs could be best compared with minute fables for, like the latter, they sum up the collective experience of the community. They moralize (Hell is paved with good intentions), give advice (Don’t judge a tree by its bark>, give warning (If you sing before breakfast, you will cry before night), admonish (Liars should have good memories), criticize (Everyone calls his own geese swans).

No phraseological unit ever does any of these things. They do not stand for whole statements as proverbs do but for a single concept. Their function in speech is purely nominative (i. e. they denote an object, an act, etc.). The function of proverbs in speech, though, is communicative (i. e. they impart certain information).

The question of whether or not proverbs should be regarded as a subtype of phraseological units and studied together with the phraseology of a language is a controversial one.

Professor A. V. Koonin includes proverbs in his classification of phraseological units and labels them communicative phraseological units (see Ch. 13). From his point of view, one of the main criteria of a phraseological unit is its stability. If the quotient of phraseological stability in a word-group is not below the minimum, it means that we are dealing with a phraseological unit. The structural type — that is, whether the unit is a combination of words or a sentence — is irrelevant.

The criterion of nomination and communication cannot be applied here either, says Professor A. V. Koonin, because there are a considerable number of verbal phraseological units which are word-groups (i. e. nominative units) when the verb is used in the Active Voice, and sentences (i. e. communicative units) when the verb is used in the Passive Voice. E. g. to cross (pass) the Rubicon — the Rubicon is crossed (passed); to shed crocodile tears — crocodile tears are shed. Hence, if one accepts nomination as a criterion of referring or not referring this or that unit to phraseology, one is faced with the absurd conclusion that such word-groups, when with verbs in the Active Voice, are phraseological units and belong to the system of the language, and when with verbs in the Passive Voice, are non-phraseological word-groups and do not belong to the system of the language. [12]

It may be added, as one more argument in support of this concept, that there does not seem to exist any rigid or permanent border-line between proverbs and phraseological units as the latter rather frequently originate from the former.

So, the phraseological unit the last straw originated from the proverb The last straw breaks the camel’s back, the phraseological unit birds o/ a feather from the proverb Birds of a feather flock together, the phraseological unit to catch at a straw (straws) from A drowning man catches at straws.

What is more, some of the proverbs are easily transformed into phraseological units. E. g. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket > to put all one’s eggs in one basket; don’t cast pearls before swine > to cast pearls before swine.