Nem

And here they did not guess. Not about rallies, not about slogans, and nothing at all. Moreover, now the site is already a “folklore of the snow revolution”, and conferences about the language explosion are held. But I can’t resist, I still quote one thing. NTV, one of the "Boards" says: "We will be for being, as it is now!" But I'm talking about science.

I read on Facebook a record of journalist Kirill Rogov on February 3: the best in a day. The sweetest girl writes to me the sweetest girl (a request for some comments): “On Monday, I was lucky enough to get to the seminar in the memorial, but was not lucky to talk to you.” N-yes, unlucky, so unlucky. Sorry. Girls, bypass me, maybe you are lucky not to talk to me.

Funny. The girl could not cope with the verbs. And here, by the way, is a very interesting linguistic problem. The thing is that the semantic components in the statements and in the meanings of words can have different logical status. In particular, assertion and presupposition are distinguished. Assertia is what is claimed. Presoup is what is relied on by itself. That is, this is a kind of hidden statement. The most important feature of the presupposition is that it does not fall under denial. A classic example is the verb to miss. I missed - it means that I did not hit the target. But at the same time he shot: no one will say about a person who just walks along the street that he missed. He didn’t hit - assertion, shot - presupposition. Upon denial: did not miss anyway, it means that he shot, that is, this part of the meaning does not fall under the denial, but only that the shot was past the target. Therefore, by the way, it is not at all a common question that can be answered or not. Well, everything is simple with Navalny's questions:-Russia will be free! Yes or not? - Yeees! - We will come again! Yes or not? - Yeah! Ugh, again I get down to rallies! This, by the way, is probably a legal one. In the courts they love to crush in this way: answer, they say, yes or no. When I act in court as an expert and some prosecutor tries to knock me down: yes you just answer, yes or no, I always want to say to him: answer, have you already stopped beating your wife, and or not? Indeed, he cannot answer not - this will mean that he beats. But he cannot answer and yes, because he recognizes that he had previously beat. And he and his wives, perhaps, have no.

So, back to the verbs are lucky and to be lucky. And there is still a good word to come (happened). We wrote about them with Anna Zaliznyak more than 20 years ago. And so, in particular, what we wrote. All three words indicate that something good happened to a person, while it happened as if by itself, not thanks to his efforts. The differences between the three verbs are determined primarily by the character and place in their semantic structure of the assessment component. Here are wonderful Dovlatov examples: Marusins ​​were necessary in the deep rear. They did not happen to visit the trenches; But the examiner asked: - You read Belkin’s Tales? “Somehow I didn’t happen,” answered Lenya, “do you recommend?” The following means the following: a kind of good event could not have happened, but it happened, as if by itself.

This event is not necessarily in itself, but, perhaps, because it enriched the human life experience: I happened to visit war. I happened -this is exactly about something that really happened, but not about what was avoided. They don’t say: I had a chance not to get into an accident, avoid court, escape from the bombing - because invalidity is difficult to consider as an element of life experience. However, it happened to be used almost unprofitably: on the right, a bed on the wall, on the left of the bed. /We go together every other day to irradiate, /Twes and the former number of such and such, /This is where I had a chance to meet again! (A. Galich). However, not really very bad: no one will say the opportunity to lose the family during the war.

In the case of lucky, it was about something very good, which is also large-even very high-the probability could not have happened, but it happened as if by itself, and the event is good not only as an element of life experience, but simply well. In the lines of Galich, instead of happened, could not be lucky.

And now lucky. This word means that as a result of chance, something good happened to a person.

So the main difference was lucky from the two previous words in the fact that the assessment here is in Assertia: in the phrase we were lucky that today the heat is appreciated positively, but we were not lucky that today a hot man does not approve of the heat. And it was hot in both cases. Meanwhile, a positive assessment of the situation was reached in the case, cf. I have not visited, then. And Pamir is good. Therefore, by the way, it is lucky that it can be used independently, as a replica response:

- Such a terrible accident, and he just broke his leg.

- Lucky!

No one would answer: - Has happened! Or - it was lucky!

It is quite obvious that the phrase was not lucky enough to talk to you in the sense that the conversation did not take place and this is bad (denial acts on assertion, presupposition, namely, the assessment of the conversation with you as something good, remains unchanged). But the phrase I was unlucky to talk to you have a different meaning: the conversation took place, only the joy of this is not enough. Denial refers to the assessment, because it is in assertion.

It is remarkable, by the way, that the word was lucky to have the same meaning before that the modern was lucky (now such use is outdated): one - it was behind Terek - I went with the Abreks to beat off Russian herds; We were not lucky, and we scattered where (M. Lermontov); Another thing is Fedka: this seems to have been lucky more than Peter Stepanovich (F. Dostoevsky); We were lucky. Autumn turned out to be dry and warm. They managed to dig potatoes before rains and the onset of cold weather (B. Pasternak).

Well, in the finale, something should be said about the beautifulness of our language and the cunning of all of us, who speak this language. Well, yes, the readers of my speakers have already heard about it more than once. And who did not read - well, that was not lucky.

Irina Levontina