Linguist with a gun

Talking with Tsvetkov

Alexander Genis: Our conversation with Tsvetkov today we will devote to a sick and important topic for us - the Russian language in the metropolis and emigration.

Alexey, you are constantly conducting linguistic battles on Facebook, for which I follow the excitement, for which you are fighting against?

Alexey Tsvetkov: Roughly speaking, there are two theories of the language that determine who the master has this language. One of them is the theory of linguists, although it existed unformed, at least acted long before the linguists. She claims that the language is an instrument of communication, that he belongs to a society that communicates on it, that he does not need any owner, no repair is needed. So the language acted, in fact, for millennia, when it was not even not that linguists or guardians of its purity, and not literacy, letters. Another theory actually arose only two centuries ago in the bosom of nationalism. According to her, the language is a national treasure, or even the property of the state.

Alexander Genis: Language is the soul of the people.

Alexey Tsvetkov: That the language is beautiful, that it must be monitored, it must always be verified so that it is correct. Although it is not clear why yesterday the language was wrong, but this is our right one.

Alexander Genis: You know, these are different things. As for the soul of the people, this is the theory of Herder, to which I tenderly relate already because he began his career in Riga. I also went to look at the monument to Herder, although I had no idea who he was. Herder said that it was in the language that the unique national characteristics of each people are hiding. In essence, this is the same theory that had a gigantic effect on Solzhenitsyn. That is why he began to engage in improving the language, turning it into the past and inventing his words.

As for the fact that you are talking about an attempt to put supervisors over the tongue, they are now called “grammar-nazi”. I read a wonderful definition of the Kronhaus, the famous linguist of our, what is a grammar-nazi. He writes: "The most radical literacy fighters are people who, neglecting the interests of communications, discuss the not declared topic, but mistakes in the written speech of the interlocutor. They are characterized primarily by the desire to correct the interlocutor’s speech, and not to talk to him."

I know this by myself. I recently wrote a text in which I made a mistake, quoting the Strugatsky. They have such a thing - "metag", and I wrote "megata". Some woman on Facebook wrote to me: "I thought that Genis is an educated person. Now I see that he is the same insignificance as everyone else." This is a very characteristic reaction.

Alexey Tsvetkov: sharply, yes. But in this case, you were mistaken and were subjected to fair criticism. But the grammar-nazi is not correcting errors, they correct a living language from the point of view of what seems to them the right language. Meanwhile, the correct language is an arbitrary norm set by some police officers in the language. Again, I say, without these ranks, he somehow always existed. I personally fight with grammar-nazi primarily and I treat with great interest in changes in the language, because language is always a process. The guardian treats him as a frozen picture, but the tongue is not a photograph.

Alexander Genis: Yes, language - cinema.

It is important to remember when it all started. In the XIX century, Russian literature did not have an idea of canonical Russian. Russian writers did not always write the same. I'm not talking about punctuation, which was completely arbitrary and every writer has its own. You try to put properly commas, say, in the speech of Goncharov’s characters. It also depends on who says. Personality affects punctuation. The canonization occurred in Stalin's times. Then the work of Academician Vinogradov "Russian Language" appeared. This huge volume that we, students, scared us, in fact, was fundamental. It resembled the Criminal Code. And everyone who deviated from this code was attacked. It was decided that there should always be one language.

It is interesting that foreigners who know the Russian language well and talk about Russian literature are surprised that in Russian literature it is difficult to determine where the author came from, because everything is usually (of course, great exceptions, like Gogol) write in the same language. I’m not talking about the fact that in England every 50 miles of a different dialect, but also in France, a much more centralized country, is also usually felt where the author came from.

Alexei Tsvetkov: In Russia, the dialect picture is partially erased even because there was a very strong policy of Russification and standardization. It began at the kings. I think, under Alexander III, for sure.

Alexander Genis: How do you feel about changes in the language, how do you think they happen and what should be done to them?

Alexey Tsvetkov: Here we have Scylla and Haribda. On the one hand, the language, of course, changes and will always change. But as historical experience shows, it changes the fastest and most strongly in the era of social cataclysms. I once wrote a dissertation about Platonov’s language. I dealt with this issue because I was interested in the language of war, revolution. In these eras, mixing of peoples occurs, less people have time and attention to follow the one who pronounces words. This situation in Russia was in the revolution and civil war, and the latter very large linguistic cataclysm was in the era of perestroika and subsequent years.

Alexander Genis: In my opinion, he continues, because even now that the Putin regime is fighting with America, he does it in American. I do not always understand what Russian is saying today, because I must first transfer from Russian into English, only then I will understand what is meant. I follow Facebook for how normal people talk, and not like you and you, who are on the side of the epicenter of the Russian language. Such words as “quest”, “quiz” became normal in Russian speech. Once I saw a basketball team called the Ural Grait. What did the authors who came up with such a name for the team meant? Apparently, the fact is that the English word, as it were, costs the cost of everything that it is added to.

Alexei Tsvetkov: If we see how to relate to the language, it will become clear that it cannot be released, because then many social markers in speech disappear with us. They depend on who is by profession or who speaks in what environment. Whether we are sitting in the company and drinking or performing from the rostrum.

Alexander Genis: Social Markers are an interesting topic. We all know that "coffee" is him. Several years ago, the dictionaries allowed us to transfer the “coffee” to the middle clan: “coffee” - it, of course, is more consistent with normal language. I was shocked, how people were offended by dictionaries, because “coffee” was a word-chiboblet, according to the way they are used, you can determine the social and educational level of the interlocutor. This is what a social marker is, how I understand it.

Alexey Tsvetkov: You know, all my life I tried, with all my might, I was forced to say “coffee” - it is due to my beliefs, but I cannot do this.

Alexander Genis: Strange beliefs are like that.

Alexei Tsvetkov: I belief, because I believe that language practice, usage is always right, it wins in almost any situation.

Alexander Genis: Then we can say "lay down" too?

Alexey Tsvetkov: I'm not sure. But “coffee” in an average gender was indeed a massive mistake.

Alexander Genis: "Laying" also massively, I assure you.

Alexey Tsvetkov: If so, then this form will win, here is the only answer to this. I monitor on my own, in fact. Suppose the differences between "dressing" and "put on" is also a favorite social marker.

Alexander Genis: This is also a form-shibchite.

Alexey Tsvetkov: So I noticed, and I already stopped fighting that I only use the word “dress”, and “put on” and “dress” for inanimate objects: “put a cap on the handle”, say.

Alexander Genis: That is, you want to create and use them as it is convenient for you?

Alexey Tsvetkov: This is not my rules, the fact is that this is a linguistic reality, in the case of “putting on” and “dressing” it is clear that one of these verbs simply dies.

Alexander Genis: So you want to say that the language is always right?

Alexey Tsvetkov: The language is always right, because it cannot break. Another thing is that this does not cancel the need for normal.

Alexander Genis: Is this not a contradiction?

Alexey Tsvetkov: No, this is etiquette. There are different methods of behavior. At home you can jump, scratch some place, you will not do that at work. There is about the same. When you read the quarterly report, you cannot afford to express yourself too much, because this is not what they expect from you is not the genre.

Alexander Genis: I do not know how much etiquette determines the language, and how much it is not known what. It seems to me that the factors that operate in linguistics are as mysterious as in our life, because the language has its own life, he disposes of it himself. Moreover, I'm not even trying to resist. I once gave an interview to one Moscow magazine. Among other things, I said a harmless phrase: “I like to eat deliciously.” In the magazine I was attributed to me the following words: “The best brands are my trend.” Simple and clear.

Alexey Tsvetkov: Did you say it allegedly?

Alexander Genis: They translated me like that, because it is otherwise incomprehensible. “Trend, brand” is already an elite language, but everyone can say “delicious to eat”. I was horrified. But on the other hand, I understand that we, emigrants, are afraid of linguistic innovations.

Alexey Tsvetkov: Linguistics do not have to blame. This was a fan of disadvantage.

Alexander Genis: How to tell you. The fact is that if the language is right, then it is always right. And we cannot judge him, because we live from him aside.

Alexey Tsvetkov: This does not mean that every carrier is right. Uzus is not the specifics of the speech of a particular person whom we see.

Alexander Genis: And if these are masses? Where is the critical limit?

Alexey Tsvetkov: A critical limit where he wins, that's all. This is determined by practice.

Alexander Genis: You know changes in Russian.

Alexey Tsvetkov: The critical limit is the "coffee" of the middle kind.

Alexander Genis: Now the processes in the Russian language are rapid, it is changing very much. For example, I noticed how the cases of numerals disappear, because no one can bow them. The Russian navigator in the car only knows the nominative case. Maybe this is right, because it is really difficult.

Alexey Tsvetkov: In Russian declension, there is a hole simply.

Alexander Genis: I talked about this with the Serbs who simplify their language. For example, months. In the Serbian language, as in Ukrainian, there were their Slavic names of the months, but they forgot them, and now they call just the first, second, third month. I was terribly surprised: how sorry, how could you? They say: do you know all 16 degrees of kinship in Russian? After all, we also forgot these words.

That is, some things are added, and some things disappear. Moreover, it is interesting, judging by what the language accepts, and what it refuses, allows you to say a lot about the people. For example, I was struck by the fact that in the Russian language the Russian language fell in love with English gerundia, very much like everyone’s shopping, shaping, they became Russian words. But my beloved is "improvement."

Alexey Tsvetkov: "Improving" is the best. This suffix itself does not work in Russian, although it was attached to the "improvement". No, they just took the whole words. There is no word for "shopping" in Russian. In our times, no one was engaged in shopping, they just saw the turn and became, but one and a half hour standing you could not call shopping.

Alexander Genis: Another acute issue is related to the speed of change in the language. When I arrived in America, I was surprised how few people read Dickens here. Dickens is a great writer, my beloved writer, anything, but maybe a few percent of Americans read him. I was told that the language of Dickens is so outdated that it is difficult to read it is a language that is difficult to understand to a modern person. But we read literature of the 19th century without any problems. The British, maybe Americans may have difficulties, because their language has changed faster than ours. Do you agree with this?

Alexey Tsvetkov: I agree with this. By the way, there is a note to the Russian language. Let us return for a second to the cases you talked about. I think that a much more serious process is going on, maybe in Serbian, too, which, for example, has passed in Bulgarian. The cases just die off, the entire case system dies. And although this may not be correct from the point of view of the Grammar-Nazi, it can happen to the Russian.

What happened to English, not only with Dickens? We can understand the very least, at least educated people among us, we can understand the Old Russian language. Even in the "Tale of Bygone Years" we can understand between whom and who is straight. The Englishman, an American, without learning the language specifically, will not understand anything in Old English. So, in English there was a rather rich case system, it was completely dead literally in a hundred years. It was, and it did not become - this is how the language is changing. But, however, if there were any scientists with guns with guns who would be on guard, maybe evolution was slower. It is important that such processes occur regardless of our desire.

Alexander Genis: We will return to linguists with guns now.

(Music)

Alexander Genis: I promised that we would return to the linguists with guns. In this regard, I want to ask you: who is responsible for the language - writers and poets or scientists and dictionaries?

Alexey Tsvetkov: The point is that not the same. Both of them are more likely to usurp power over the language. About writers in general, a separate conversation. Some authors in a more favorable situation were, like, say, Pushkin and Karamzin, who did not have enough dictionary in Russian, so they flooded him with borrowings. I think the current Grammar-Nazi would simply eat them with giblets.

Alexander Genis: They and ate. If you recall how they treated Pushkin. "Ruslan and Lyudmila" was considered an indecent poem.

Alexey Tsvetkov: There are indecent scenes.

Alexander Genis: There is, but she was indecent yet because Pushkin inserted words there that should not be in verses. Approximately like Brodsky inserted some "Swiss boilers", speaking of wristwatch. And these jargon words in Brodsky cause the same irritation as the first readers of Ruslan and Lyudmila.

Alexey Tsvetkov: Let, but I want to say that word -making has come to naught. There is a good example: Dostoevsky invented the word "cherished." A very beautiful word, it has long died, it was not common, no one now uses it now, probably, some people know what it means.

Alexander Genis: It seems to me that this is because the revolution that occurred in the era of Pushkin and Karamzin ended in their victory. The new language was suitable for the next generation of writers to dispose of it. Both Tolstoy and Dostoevsky did not need to come up with the language, because he was not too interested in them. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were interested in ideas, not words. It seems to me that it is different to treat them - this means to transfer the point of view of the twentieth century in the XIX. It was in the twentieth century that we became the fetishists of the language, and our best literary achievements - Babel, say, or Mayakovsky - belong to the authors who worshiped the language. I think this continues until Brodsky, who was the main fetishist of the language in our generation.

Alexey Tsvetkov: And yet Dostoevsky ... I understand that the difference is not the same as with Dickens, but this is a rather archaic language in a modern way, it is recognized as archaic.

Alexander Genis: I do not agree. He, perhaps, is outdated, but exactly what a bit, we do not need to climb the dictionary to read Dostoevsky.

Alexey Tsvetkov: Of course. But still, gallicisms that a modern person may not understand, and the syntax is not quite the same.

Alexander Genis: Okay, I agree. But let's, as always, go to personalities. Tell me what is your personal poetic tactics in handling the language?

Alexey Tsvetkov: Personal? I treat the language as a master and do what I want with him.

Alexander Genis: Do you think that you determine the rules, since you are the owner of the language?

Alexey Tsvetkov: In this limited territory, behind this fence, of course, I am only my language. No linguist will tell me what to write and how to write. And even moreover, the Minister of Culture cannot tell me that you must build this phrase like this, but here you should have a title letter.

Alexander Genis: You don't have them.

Alexey Tsvetkov: I don't, yes. Language is my property. My only responsibility to the extent that I take it to myself, I recognize it for myself - this is the responsibility to the reader. I try to create with the reader the impression that I am striving for. Language is my tool, my material, I GNU and break it, as I want. But of course, only within these limits.

Alexander Genis: How does your language change in a foreign language?

Alexey Tsvetkov: In the sense of not poems, but the household sphere?

Alexander Genis: No, I'm talking about poems. Я заметил, что за те годы, 40 лет, которые я прожил в эмиграции, у меня очень сильно изменилось отношение к русскому языку. Я его чувствую как сломанную руку. Я его берегу, потому что я чувствую опасность вторжения иностранного языка, который может наступить на мой русский язык.

Алексей Цветков: Нет, я приветствую совершенно все поползновения на мой язык и охотно их принимаю.

Александр Генис: А вы не боитесь макаронической поэзии?

Алексей Цветков: А я ее писал.

Александр Генис: И как, не страшно?

Алексей Цветков: Нет, не страшно совершенно.

Александр Генис: А разве не получается язык Брайтон-Бич?

Алексей Цветков: Я прихожу, допустим, в русский супермаркет, и прошу девушку: "Дайте мне, пожалуйста, фунт рыбы". Она меня переспрашивает: "Паунд?"

Александр Генис: Я во всех русских магазинах говорю фунт и настаиваю на этом.

Алексей Цветков: А я говорю теперь "паунд". Потому что она меня понимает и я ее понимаю. Я же не лингвист с ружьем. Вам я не скажу "паунд". Вот это и есть языковый этикет.

Александр Генис: Как вы считаете, русский язык в Америке что-нибудь приобрел, он как-то изменился, есть русско-американский язык?

Алексей Цветков: Это факт. Есть эмигрантские диалекты, их целый куст. Если вы поедете в Германию и будете в тамошней колонии, там услышите совсем другой диалект, чем в Америке. Эмигрантские диалекты всегда существовали.

Александр Генис: А вы можете по языку русского стихотворения определить, где оно написано?

Алексей Цветков: По языку стихотворения? Нет, конечно, нельзя.

Александр Генис: Я этот вопрос задавал многим. У меня есть приятель, он хороший американский писатель, причем он южноафриканского происхождения, вот я его и спросил: вы можете понять, где написана книга – в Англии, в Австралии, в Южной Африке, в Америке?

Алексей Цветков: Это совсем другое. Конечно, иногда можно, не всегда.

Александр Генис: Он тоже сказал, что в общем-то нет, если, конечно, убрать слова, ведь понятно, что если есть какие-то местные слова, то это легко, но в целом – нет. Сам-то я считаю, что можно. В данном случае я с ним не согласен, особенно когда речь идет о нон-фикшн, я заметил, что британские книги используют более сложный синтаксис, чем американские авторы.

Алексей Цветков: Они используют другую орфографию, тут просто очевидно.

Александр Генис: Орфография – это легко, это подсказка. А вы можете сказать, что это русский писатель, который работает в Израиле; русский писатель, который живет в Германии; русский писатель, который живет в Америке или во Франции?

Alexey Tsvetkov: No. Когда это плохая поэзия, то я просто не понимаю разницы между одним и другим, какая разница, где графоман живет. Когда это хорошая поэзия, то человек может использовать очень разнообразные средства. Кроме того, наша русская ситуация отличается от различий между Австралией и Канадой. Потому что мы же живем в диаспоре, это население не возобновляется. Поэтому все поэты чего-то стоящие, как, допустим, из второй эмиграции Елагин или Моршен, они принадлежат только этому поколению, у них свой язык, они могут быть немножко старомодны, но это тоже ни о чем не говорит. Ходасевич вообще писал старомодным языком, для него это было присуще. Поэтому – нет. Наших определить нельзя. А авторов из Канады или Австралии можно вычислить.

Александр Генис: А вы не считаете, что в ближайшем будущем возможно разделение русского языка на разные версии – русско-американский язык, русско-немецкий, русско-израильский? Так же, как распад Британской империи привел к появлению новых гибридных английских языков, на которых существуют целые литературы.

Алексей Цветков: Я думаю, что это происходит уже и будет происходить в Украине, потому что ей Россия не указ. Другое дело, что в Украине идут сейчас свои войны языковые, к сожалению, из-за нового закона о языке, который сейчас Украину поссорил с массой соседних стран. Но поскольку русскоязычное население в Украине никуда не денется – это совершенно очевидно, то язык оно не будет брать на откуп у Москвы. Собственно говоря, как Соединенные Штаты не арендуют свой язык у Лондона – это разные языки. Кстати, есть еще мелкие диаспоры, скажем, та же Латвия – будет интересно посмотреть. Но Латвия маловата, конечно, для создания своего диалекта. What if?

Александр Генис: В Латвии, кстати, я недавно был. Хочу сказать, что в Риге, например, очень чистый русский язык, который не похож ни на московский, ни на петербургский, это нейтральный язык.

Скажите, как вы, поэт, пережили 40-летнюю разлуку со своим родным языком? Я понимаю, мы все живем в Русской Америке, мы общаемся друг с другом, но тем не менее, граница существует. Бродский, например, ее очень остро чувствовал.

Алексей Цветков: У Бродского это чувствуется. Вот вы сказали "котлы", но это же очень устаревший термин.

У меня был период, когда я просто бросил писать стихи. Но потом появился мост, перекинутый через эту пропасть. В Россию теперь можно ездить, что Бродскому было невозможно. А во-вторых, интернет. В нем живой язык. Все равно читаешь же русскую прессу, каким бы чудовищным языком она иногда ни была бы написана, но это живой язык. Поэтому нет, сейчас я дефицита родного языка совершенно не чувствую.

Александр Генис: Ну что ж, а теперь стихи о языке.

Language

* * *

найти другой язык писать на нем

сочащемся сквозь пиксели огнем

сбивающем в свой плазменный комок

все что вчерашний выразить не мог

все флексии глагола проглотив

впасть в неспрягаемый инфинитив

для жизни в измерении другом

чем три осточертевшие кругом

от стойки в ночь шагнуть навеселе

внутри тебя стекло и ты в стекле

раз выговориться невмоготу

уже без прежних падежей во рту

в преображенном космосе где из-

под верха с визгом вытащили низ

и только мысль последняя тверда

что ты теперь не тот кем был тогда