There are words clearly separated by pronunciation andeven by etymology, they have nothing in common with each other, but when we use another instead of one, we are understood as clearly as if each word were used strictly according to purpose. How is this to be accepted - as the immensity of our native language, which strives to fill with shades all meaning, or the sacredness of some words so powerful that they fit into hundreds of concepts?
So what's the point? In his dictionary Dah for the first time, as they say, officially mentioned and in his own way fully revealed the concept of the word, as "samostvo". Until then, not only did the meaning of the word "essence" exist, but its use in living speech implied only one of the forms of the verb "is."
Those who know English should rememberthe verb "to be" is still used. Just as the diligent Briton says that "the parrot is a bird", so Cyril and Methodius, forming the classical Old Slavonic, suggested that "the apple tree is a tree." And the word intermediate word in such a bundle, meant the statement in relation to the pronoun of a third person. For quite a long time the interpretation of what such an essence was was based on emphasizing the first noun in relation to the following.
In other words, it would be strange to hear inpoems of famous poets such a bureaucratic nonsense, and since it was the living word that formed the spoken language, the verbal bunch remained on the paper of the clerks for a time.
The most precise concept, what is the essence, gives us the Bulgarian language, explaining that "essence" is treated only "soul, essence".
The root, the source, the meaning, the grain, the beginning, the foot,core, subsoil, focus, quintessence ... all this is one thing. The essence is revealed, so it can become the goal: "get to the point", they will say then. But it can also become the primary source of the task that leads to disclosure: "Based on the essence of the goal" - is quite another matter, is not it?
In any case, how not to play with words giventhe word always means the cause - an event, an action, an action. Any synonym, any metaphor, leading to the depths of the original idea, this is the essence. The beginning of any process is its essence, from which they are repelled. And the end of the process is the same as the meaning of all the efforts undertaken.
I'll have to remember Stirlitz with his winged one: "It's not important." "In essence, it's not so important" - to paraphrase the scout, the intellectual would say. "Not so significant" is a more diplomatic version of the same disparaging attitude to some action.
"Not in fact (the essence)" - so you can cut off the brazen defendant in court. "This is not the point" - as an argument for the disputants. "It's not that it's so" - a version for those who doubt.
As you can see, the modern concept of what isessence, depends on the direction of the conversation and the mutual mood for the frequency of the conversation. They can be stressed, denied, asserted, bound; with the help of this word you can agree and doubt. The main thing is to use it on the substance of the conversation and not deviate from the point.
</ p>
