Empty "you" with a hearty "you"

On June 6, I accidentally came across some TV show, the participants of which were talking, naturally, about Pushkin. The general pathos, as usual, was that culture was dying (for some reason it is accepted that it is intelligent to think so). In this regard, one of the participants told a funny story from the time of the celebration of Pushkin’s 200th anniversary. During the festivities, somewhere there, I don’t remember, there was a book for guests of honor, in which some official wrote with feeling: “Alexander Sergeevich, we are with you!” Of course, the participants in the program had their fill, as they now say, about the “party” combination of “you” and patronymic and, in general, about what was in the official’s head and from what hangover he wrote it. I would especially like to know where the poor fellow planned to be with Pushkin: either on Parnassus, or in a better world. As for “you,” everything is more complicated.

Linguists have repeatedly described the distribution between you and you in modern Russian. In particular, the article “You” is in the legendary TKS - “Explanatory-Combinatorial Dictionary”, which was compiled by a brilliant team of linguists in the second half of the 60s - the first half of the 70s, but was never published in the USSR. This, however, is a different story. By the way, the article “You” was written by the founding fathers of TKS - I.A. Melchuk and A.K. Zholkovsky, and one can imagine how the authors had fun describing this word using the powerful apparatus of lexical functions. Well, “through the ritual drinking of the alcoholic drink IncepOperb. This is in the sense of drinking for brotherhood. The article lists cases when you are used in literary Russian. Of course, between close relatives (it is now difficult to find an archaic family where children address their parents as “you”). Outside the family - between people of close age with close personal relationships. Between children and when addressing children. This is also clear. Well, then it gets more interesting. You are used when referring to God (Lord, my God, my green-eyed one... Give a little to everyone). Of course, no one will say: Lord, forgive and have mercy on me. You is used in relation to various kinds of fictitious interlocutors: animals (You are my Burenushka!), objects and all kinds of objects and entities (You alone are my support and support... Russian language; My Light, mirror, tell me...; Motherland, I sing your glory; My life, or did I dream about you?; Heart, you don’t want peace), to the dead (Sleep well, dear Pyotr Ivanovich), to great people (Pushkin! secret freedom / We sang after you! / Give us your hand in bad weather, / Help in the silent struggle). In general, during a mental dialogue with a person, we often do not address him as “you,” as we would address him personally. Listening to a politician on TV, even the most ceremonious person can exclaim: Why are you, you bastard, lying and not even blushing!

It may seem only at first glance that the list of cases when the pronoun you is used is rather arbitrary. In fact, all this is semantically determined. system The you-you works like this. Addressing “you” is marked and indicates a certain social relationship between speakers. Therefore, “you” is addressed not only to someone with whom they are in a different, closer relationship, but also to someone who is generally outside the social hierarchy (God, Muse, soul, deceased, animal, thing, etc.). So for that official, Pushkin was at once a dear dead man, a great man, and a monument. Of course, in combination with the middle name it turned out funny. Here Mayakovsky spoke on “you”: Alexander Sergeevich, allow me to introduce myself. And further: I love you, but alive, not a mummy. This is how I politely addressed the living. And he wanted to treat him like a deity, but it turned out the other way around. Moreover, he became friends. With you, they say...

But a couple of days after Pushkin’s birthday, Prime Minister Putin demonstrated his masterly command of personal pronouns. In one of his interviews, he talked about the warm relationship he has with President Medvedev. “Just as before, I don’t think it’s shameful to pick up the phone and tell him: “Listen, let’s agree, let’s consult.” And he, no, no, will call: “You know, we need to talk, let’s think about it, this is a problem, I would like to hear your opinion.” And the Emperor, having learned about their friendship, granted them generals. However, what am I talking about? And such a nice symmetry: in the first case, for reliability, the number is singular three times (listen, come on, come on), and in the second case the same number is plural three times (you know, come on, your opinion). It should be noted that communication on “you” or “you” is a matter of personal choice, and here everything can be very different. On the one hand, the empty “you” is a heartfelt “you”, but on the other hand - Why did we switch to “you”? For this we suffered... But an asymmetrical situation, when one pokes and the other pokes, is a very specific thing.

By the way, it is interesting that the Russian verb poke indicates somewhat inappropriate behavior - just like vykat. Natural: No need to poke me!, but strange: Can I poke you? This differs from the similar German verb duzen (from du - you), which is quite possible in the corresponding phrase.

So here it is. Asymmetrical address, when out of two adults the first calls the second “you”, and the second calls the first “you”, it is neutral only in one case. Namely: if one person knew another as a child, while he himself was already an adult. It was natural for an adult to address a child as “you,” and then it became the custom, even when the child grew up. The transition to “you” is generally a strange procedure; there seems to be nothing contrary to brotherhood in our culture. And for the second person to switch to “you”, there is also not always a reason. We address ourselves as “you” to our children’s grown-up friends who use “you” with us. Well, we still get poked at by former teachers, with whom we, naturally, are usually still on first terms. If a boss pokes at his subordinates, even though he has recognized them as adults, and in no way expects familiarity from them in return, then this is typical managerial rudeness.

So what did the Prime Minister want to tell us with his story, in which he casually mentioned six times how he and Medvedev address each other? Well, probably, about the fact that he knew the President almost from the cradle. That for others he is the President, but for him, Putin, he is still a smaller brother. And of course, there can be no question of “mentioning a word” here.