[172]číslo strany rukopisucommon classificatory features, so its evolution (evolutionary process) can be described as a set of changes affecting some common features of the units of that group. Thus, e. g., in the Old Czech vocabulary there existed a group of lexical units of the type zeměnín, měštěnín, Praženín with the following classificatory features: (I) on the level of linguistic formation these units were defined as masculine personal nouns with the suffix -ěnín- in Sg., -ěn/-an in Plur. and with the word-formative structure (3.32) given by the relation to the corresponding impersonal name for the place; (II) on the psychic level, as units denoting the concept of an inhabitant associated with the concept of the inhabited locality; (III) on the extra-linguistic level as units denoting members of a certain collective characterized by the appurtenance to a certain place etc. During the development of these units no features of the levels II and III are subject to any change, because neither the denoted reality (III), nor its conceptual adaptation lose their relevance in the life of the Czech speakers; but the features of linguistic formation (I) are subject to change: the disparate forms of the type zeměnín – zeměné – zemanóm have been levelled out from the point of view of their morphological and phonological structures, and now form a paradigm of the type zeman – zemané – zemanům. The evolutionary process leading from zeměnín, Pražěnín etc. to zeman, Pražan etc. (we mean the change of the cited group of lexical units) is, accordingly, restricted to the level of linguistic formation (to the formal aspect) and manifests itself as set of changes both of the structure of the stem (the loss of the morpheme -ín- in singular forms) and of the phonological structure (the abolition of the alternation -ě-/-a- in the preserved suffix). That is why the factors of these changes (of this process) are to be looked for on the level of linguistic formation, and they can be found partly in the development of the Czech grammatical system (the upbuilding of the category of number on the basis of the old category of individualness/collectiveness, 9.32), partly in the development of the phonological system (as a result of the umlaut change ’a > ě, 15.1).

(35.3) The outlined evolutionary process applies, however, only to lexical units characterized by all mentioned classificatory features, i. e. units representing the central group of another greater group, the periphery of which is lacking some of the mentioned features. In the peripheral zone of the Old Czech type zeměnín, měštěnín, Pražěnín, can be found the word múřěnín: it lacks one important classificatory feature, viz. the word-formative structure (motivatedness) consisting in the relation to a corresponding impersonal noun: the word múřěnín was not, in the Old Czech stem system, associated with the name for some place, but with the vanishing personal synonym muřín (cf. OCS murinъ, MLat. Maurus). Owing to its peripheral position, the word múřěnín was not affected, in its development, by the described evolutionary process of the type zeměnín > zeman, i. e. by the change of classificatory features on the level of linguistic formation: it goes on living, in the form mouřenín, and became subject to a change typical of peripheral and unmotivated units, i. e. to the shift of meaning (the word denotes – probably owing to a passage in Schiller’s Fiesco – a man who meets only ingratitude for his effort). Even such a shift of meaning can be interpreted, too, as an evolutionary process in such a broad sense of word that it involves units characterized by certain common classificatory features: in this case we are concerned with lexical units unmotivated from the point of view of wordformation in which a morpheme can be identified (17), such as múřěnín ‘Negro’, oslnúti ‘to turn blind’ (10.33), příští ‘arrival’ (14.12) etc. Within the framework of so broadly conceived evolutionary process, involving heterogenous peripheral units (their peripheral character is also proved by their small frequency, see 14.12), more specific evolutionary processes can be found, i. e. processes covering units connected by means of other common features and thus standing nearer the centre. As an example of such a more specific evolutionary process, covered by the shift of meaning of lexical units, unmotivated from the point of view of word-formation, let us quote the change of n-verbs designating the process of vanishing perceived by senses (e. g. zhynúti, skápnúti, zhasnúti) into verbs denoting dying. But the same shift of meaning hit the co-ordinate units in a more peripheral position, too, i. e. units lacking the formal classificatory feature, the stem-formative n- (e. g., pojíti, sejíti, etc., 27.13). One arrives at the conclusion that the evolutionary process, changing a group of lexical units in a formal respect, i. e. in respect of the structure of their stems (zeměnín > zeman) does not affect co-ordinate peripheral units lacking the corresponding classificatory feature on the level of linguistic formation (motivatedness by a noun, see múřěnín > mouřenín). On the contrary, an evolutionary process changing a group of