Black coffee and fast metro

Reasoning about the corruption and gradual death of the Russian language can be heard at all levels - from conversations on benches to the performances of state persons. Here are fragments of a very curious discussion that unfolded in the club scientific journalists (moderator - Alexander Sergeyev ), who express different approaches to how to relate to the changes that occur in the language. The discussion began with the discussion of the common mistakes that are found in modern speech, but then it turned into a discussion that it was precisely the errors and linguistic purism from a linguistic and professional point of view.

Maxim Borisov, member of the Redsovet Trav-hunger, scientific editor of the magazine "Science in Focus"

In a non -philological environment, situations arise too often when any possibility of variability is denied (to be a proud purist sometimes pleasant). One norm is distinguished from permissible variations, and everything else is subjected to ostracism - with the most poisonous sarcasm.

But, about to teach others, it would be nice to find out everything reliably and agree on what to consider the criterion of correctness. Usually these are dictionaries, specialized publications and opinions of specialists of the Institute of the Russian Language. Therefore, let's say, the United States was and will remain unavariant and remain, regardless of any ideas about “correctness” (the “states” will not become “states”); The indispensable “walk” by sea - only in the professional environment of sailors (as “compass” or “extreme flight” instead of “last” for pilots and astronauts - just a marker of the profession).

“One coffee” and “allowing” are also some social markers, you can “go broke” for a long time and tasty, even if it is already permissible in both the same and that, but the settlements on - oh ... I regret it, but it will not work to oblige all the publications “according to the law”.

Firstly, according to the rules of the Russian language, both that and that, and the history there is whimsical-just in recent decades, a return to inclination has been returning (in the “Great Soviet Encyclopedia” they strictly do not include, say, the same “Kemerovo”). Secondly, only those toponyms that are already familiar to the readers are relatively natural. Therefore, the emergence of new or still poorly known is accompanied by a period of non -disclosure in almost all publications (you can trace the same “Skolkovo”). Sometimes you want, but you don’t scrap, and even in one newspaper they are forced to include or not in different places.

To discuss this topic in the media, the time has already come for more intricate ideas: let's say, to illuminate where the numerals can be used by counting forms, whether it is necessary to consider bacteria to be animated (and viruses?), Is it possible to “vary” or “vary”, “spare exit” or “spare”, etc. It will bring even more benefits and create a more correct impression of how the language develops and what curves arise at the same time.

Alexander Berdichevsky, Doctoral at the Institute of Foreign Languages ​​of the University of Bergen (Norway)

I agree with Maxim. Native speakers, especially those who are not professional philologists, often show radical purism in relation to some kind of language options that seem unacceptable to them. As a rule, the refrain often sounds about how the Russian language will deteriorate and die in our time (see Viktor Sonkin’s column, especially the last paragraph [1]). It is probably impossible to say that this is bad or wrong - the general language, everyone thinks that he wants - but often such a puristic rhetoric looks tasteless and, by the way, not particularly competent. This is excusable to ordinary carriers, but to reporters - to a lesser extent. I’ll try to explain for what reasons the statements “About horror, everyone says x, not y, the Russian language is dying, urgently stop and save it” may look ridiculous and tasteless (this is, in my opinion, the most accurate word). As examples, I will use only those options that were somehow criticized in previous letters.

Reasons:

1) the criticized option exists a long time ago; It is found in the speech of exemplary carriers; It has long been recognized as dictionaries. Example: the figure in the meaning "number (usually large)." It is found in dictionaries: BTS (our days, [2]), MAS (50s, [3]), Ushakov (30s!, [4]). MAS, as illustrations, gives examples from mother-Siberian, Chernyshevsky and Chekhov. In all dictionaries there is a litter “Razg.”, But notice, with a litter or not, and the word has been living for more than a hundred years and is not going to leave anywhere. In a scientific article, he, perhaps, is not a place, but in an interview - why not?

2) The criticized option is slimmer, more logical and popular than the old, the only reason to criticize it - "grandfathers said so." Example: Coffee of the middle kind. Why on earth should he be male? An unlocked inanimate word, and even on -e -such always gravitate to the middle one. The male family is the aberration of history that arose under the influence of the once existing coffee and caffeus. We do not cry about the loss of these words, so from what on earth to hold on to the now ridiculous male family? How many of the defenders of the masculinity of coffee know that the metro in the first half of the 20th century was also used in a male gender according to a rather logical rule “Reducing inherits the genus of the original word”?

Two signs with the names of the same street of the Norwegian city of Bergen. On one noun is used with a specific article (skogveien), on the other - without (Skogvei). Both options are grammatically possible, the difference is stylistic. In addition, the municipal services were clearly not determined whether it is necessary to write the second word of the name with a capital letter.

Photo from the collection of A. Berdichevsky

In addition, see the reason 1- coffee on average is used from at least the 19th century, including decent writers, and in the 70-80s of the XX century (and not from 2009, as many people believe), it is recognized as dictionaries of the Russian language without stylistic droppings.

Another example: put on - put on. If the case is indisputable with coffee , then many will not agree with me here, but I still note that, in my opinion, this contrast is completely artificial, and if historically and not artificial, then quickly losing naturalness. It does not fit into the system: where is it to put on? Where to change and shift? It is completely normal for the Russian language, as can be seen from these two examples, to use the prefix in this meaning, so why not put a shirt?

3) [In a sense, a variety of causes 1] The criticized option is declared a terrible mistake of recent times, while it is older than the critic itself. Example: Calls. Do many say turn on and turn on, as the norm requires? And, of course, no one says praise. But this is the result of the same old process - the transfer of stress in the personal forms of the verb from the end/suffix to the root. Part of the verbs (like to praise) passed irrevocably, part is close to that (turn on), but part (call) fell at the intersection and became a social marker. This does not mean that it calls to say correctly, this means that with public criticism it would be good to understand how and why this is happening.

4) the criticized option is the term either de jure or “de facto”. Example: implant. Undoubtedly, the implant is correctly, but if the dental doctors for the most part will say an implant, which option will win?

5) The critic does not see the logs in his eye. An example from our correspondence: “Super giants instead of supergiants, star clusers instead of star clusters. These are typical tracing paper in translation that arise from ignorance of terminology. ” The essence is true, but the word tracing paper is used incorrectly. Training is a borrowing of the structure of the word, while it is usually implied that the components are not borrowed, but are created by the means of the receiving language (cf. Russian skyscraper: either from the English Skyscraper, or from it. Wolkenkratzer), in this case, the error in the use of a foreign super- instead of Russian super-. This, of course, is a pick -up and boring, but is more than the original criticism? Also a mistake in terminology.

The above does not mean that any changes in the language must be meekly accept. Serious changes, by the way, the opinion of the purists is usually deeply indifferent. The mass of everything that has become the norm is historically a mistake, folk etymology, a mixing of concepts, barbarism, etc. And what, did you get a bad tongue? Any person will consider something acceptable, but something-sometimes, sometimes for rational reasons, sometimes not. But starting a public discussion, you should understand the topic well and show good taste. In addition, the genre “But how the language is more useful and useful is much more interesting and more useful, but how it was arranged earlier, but what is considered correct, but why is the option that is considered the wrong” than the peremptory “to say so!”, I.e. Scientific and popular story, and not radical purism, and even more so not the crying of Yaroslavl.

In the discussion, the expression “folk language norm” with a pronounced negative assessment sounded. But what else, if you think about it, should there be a norm?

By the way of the word people - the discussion that took place is an example of “folk linguistics”, which has been actively studied for the past 15 years. For example, in St. Petersburg there will be a whole conference in the fall [5].

Dmitry Bayuk, cand. physical. Sciences, S.N.S. Institute of History of Natural Sciences and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, deputy. editor-in-chief of the journal "Questions of the History of Natural Sciences and Technology", associate professor of the Department of History of Ideas History Faculty of State

Partly, I am in solidarity with the performance of Alexander Berdichevsky: the mistakes made by the journalist cannot and should not serve as an occasion to attack him. All colleagues have different education; The topics that have to be written are often quite far from the disciplines that we studied at universities, write stupidity, Prove and detect their own ignorance. There is quite a reason to show a workshop solidarity, and not mock a colleague who made a mistake. But mistakes, as a bad example, are often contagious, and “freelance” situations very quickly displace “abnormal”. A list of frequently encountered errors in terms is useful for many of us.

However, I cannot support the apology of ignorance contained in the same performance. The language does not die, culture is dying. Why this is happening, discussing nothing, and there is already a lot of it said about this. This is manifested, in particular, in the fact that it (culture) is “dismantled” from the language. There are people who defend their right to distort words and speak/write the way they like, or as they think right. (I note in brackets that sometimes these people find themselves in fairly high posts to formalize their idiotic ideas in the form of rules. An example can be a rule according to which the name of the Moskvich car should be written with a capital, and the name of the Mercedes car-from a lowercase letter.) Once the imperial culture got rid of Latin; This did not mean that the Latin language died. But what did this mean for European culture, we know well.

The language lives its own life, and it is hidden in very important information about the history of its development. The words “dress” and “put on” mean completely different actions, although there were serious reasons for them to be single -stone: in most European languages, their equivalents have different roots. But the verbs denoting opposite actions are already not at all the same root - to “undress” and “remove”. The difference can be felt by the phrases "to be well dressed" and "to be good (i.e. firmly) worn." Immediately, by the way, the reason why you can’t “change” the pants or shirt - you can “change” the child or doll. This is trite. When the journalist makes such a puncture, on the one hand, this is distrusted by what he writes, readers who are better formed than he, and on the other, does not help increase the cultural level of readers worse.

Approximately the same can be said about the "supergiants" or "oxigen". Seeing something similar in a popular science article, I will not read it, immediately guessing that I did not take it to find out to find out at least approximately what he was writing about. Such errors, of course, serve as a kind of “social marker”.

Alexander Berdichevsky

Unfortunately, I absolutely cannot agree with the interpretation that Dmitry Bayuk attributed to my text. Again on points:

1. I did not urge to condescending to the mistakes of journalists, especially the terminological and even more actual (this was not discussed at all). Yes, and it is not necessary to treat language errors condescendingly, especially among journalists! It’s just that you should often think and check that the error is not (see the consequences of violation of this rule in clause 4). In other words, I did not say anything in defense of a freelance situation, supergiants, oxygen , etc.

2. I did not expect that my text can be called an apology of ignorance. I would say this: the language is changing, and following these changes are not always a sign of ignorance.

3. Metaphors about culture and language, I must admit, did not understand: neither what means “culture is unleashed from the language”, nor what is the “unhangation” of imperial culture from Latin. I'm afraid that if I understand, I do not agree.

4. Dmitry writes: “Immediately, by the way, the reason why you can’t“ change ”pants or shirt -“ change ”a child or doll. This is trite. " This is not trite, this, alas, is simply wrong, see the interpretation of this word in BTS, in MAS or Ushakov. All dictionaries give the meaning of “change your pants”, MAS, however, notes it as “Razg.”, But even a strict Ushakov does not. In case of distrust of dictionaries, see also the corps [6].

5. Dmitry writes that there are people who defend their right to speak as it seems right to them - I must admit that I do not see the Apocalypse in this. As colleagues noted, the Russian (and especially Soviet) linguistic culture is characterized by very high centralization and intolerance for variability, so it is scary to imagine that several equal options may exist. But if you think about it bad? And if you normatively prohibit any variability, then you can just get a lot of “idiotic” rules (you know how many of them are in Russian punctuation, for example?).

There are three differences between these two signs located in Small Lane: spelling (in surnames: finvald or older foundwald, as on a memorial plaque); The lexical (SMAU means “lane” on the bookmole, and SMUG means the same in Nunorsk) and grammatical (the city authorities use a certain article, but unknown creators of a small plate).

“Buymol” and “Nunorsk” - two written standards of the Norwegian language (see below).

Photo from the collection of A. Berdichevsky

Many language cultures are arranged much more liberal than Russian. A peculiar record holder is Norwegian (see characteristic features in photographs). This can be discussed endlessly, but the main characteristics are very brief: two written standards (Buymol and Nunorsk), both are quite liberal, moreover, a number of intermediate options are used in practice. Lack of oral standard, i.e. Everyone (including the parliamentary deputies and in some cases of the announcements) speaks in their dialect, which are literally hundreds and which sometimes differ significantly (in Russia outside the deaf village of Dialect, go look for, which is amazing for such a huge country). In addition, visiting Swedes and Danes say and write (and they submit documents to the state-owneds), of course, in Swedish and in a twin. You can argue whether it is good or bad (which the Norwegians are happy to do), but it cannot be said that culture or language perish or ignorance flourishes.

Dmitry Bayuk

I will still return to my main thesis - about the apology of ignorance. I admit that exclamations about the death of the language can melt taste, although I did not meet this. It confuses me that you used examples to illustrate your parcels in which the wrong version seems to be more logical and not without the right to be considered correct, which is actually correct. At the same time, I fully share your dialectics and admit that everything is correct to some extent wrong, and everything is partly wrong. And yet ...

The Russian language is a creature not only changing, but also mysterious, even mysterious, mythical, like the Russian people themselves. Like every people themselves. Logic and analogies cannot be removed. Although, an amazing thing, the true connoisseurs of the Russian language - to which I do not belong - is enough to say a few words to make the truth obvious. It is not clear why the gap between them and the median carrier is increasing all the time, although it is clear that this process is natural.

But I will clarify: in this case, I look at the matter very pragmatically. The journalist-study is mostly intermediary. He needs to convey a certain knowledge that he himself, generally speaking, does not possess, from his carrier to the general public, which does not possess them all the more. The achievement of universal understanding in this scheme is possible only with a fair amount of severity and conservatism.

The meaning of my position is that any repeating error has its own reason. Александр Бердичевский относится к ним как исследователь, поэтому признает их солидность. Но подавляющее большинство людей об основаниях не думает, а говорит так, как говорят вокруг, в том социальном слое и окружении, где они выросли и живут. Для журналиста, и особенно для научного журналиста, свою принадлежность к ним лучше не показывать, потому что и те, чьи мысли он транслирует, и большинство тех, к кому он обращается в своих материалах, принадлежат другому окружению и могут не воспринять его всерьез. А это достигается только аккуратным отношением к тому, как ты говоришь.

1. http://ezhe.ru/ib/issue833.html
2. Большой толковый словарь русского языка. Ch. Ed. S.A. Кузнецов gramota.ru/slovari
3. Словарь русского языка в 4-х томах (Малый академический словарь, МАС), 1999 г. http://feb-web.ru/feb/mas/mas-abc/default.asp
4. Толковый словарь русского языка, под ред. D.N. Ушакова, 1934—1940 гг. http://feb-web.ru/feb/ushakov/ush-abc/default.asp
5. http://ruthenia.livejournal.com/706167.html
6. Национальный корпус русского языка http://ruscorpora.ru/index.html