From cloaki to intimacy

On what basis do we have the right to enter into an intimate relationship with our native language?

The second week in the domestic noosphere is the ostentatious indignation and crafty bewilderment around the phrase of the eminent philologist about the "miserable bouncer Russian, which this country is now talking and writes."

Nowadays, if you are going to blush something with an authoritative look, no card flounders are required-for nothing, or something, the world revolution of the Internet endowed each anonymous vote with the right?

Nevertheless, as a person is not public, according to a good Soviet tradition, I will probably put personal mandates on the table - not to give authority to the replica, but only to confirm that I am in the topic.

Firstly, I am also a philologist (dissertation on social mythology in modern novel poetics). Secondly, also a linguist (teacher of Romanesque languages ​​in a diploma). Thirdly, I know firsthand what various other nations write and speak of my native speech, because I write, speak and read with varying degrees of lousy in nine languages. There are also fourthly, but so far I will refrain from the spoiler, so as not to spoil the reader's pleasure from the main plot.

The main plot to the replica of Professor Huseynov will be very distant, but this replica is inspired, so I will begin with a brief assessment of embarrassment with a "wretched and closed Russians."

Confuse reminded me of one of the most popular public Putings in Russian zero. In those years, the press loved to mock declarations on the income of officials, who, at the request of the law with school diligence, indulged in official publicity. We read: “Last year I earned 420 thousand rubles”, while the wrist of the servant of the people in all photographs modestly decorates the Vacheron Constantin TraditionNelle for 21 lemon. Type 50 years old to sweat on his face plowed on "boilers". This is if you abstract from the court stable with dashing Italian and German horses - five more times the same.

The whole country read and ... had fun. Each in his own way. Some - those that also with boilers for 21 lemon - remembered the democratic conquest, which put the principle of "not caught by a thief." Others - with boilers, but so far only for 1 lemon - admired the ability to live those who succeed more. The third - completely without boilers - were even more deeply immersed in resentification, especially since it was comfortable to dive: the brains of the nation have long explained that resentification is such a national tradition.

If you put an embarrassment with a “wretched and closed Russians” in this context of the zero, it turns out that absolutely nothing has changed.

Silent people, whose only stands are Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes ( the war of all against all - ed .) At the Runet's bombed forums, again saw his own resentification in the form of a liberal with a Caucasian surname, which was a barrel of a great and mighty one (as the listener said, who called the Komsomolskaya Pravda studio on the air. With Autodafe over Kirill Martynov: “What does he want to say: what is a beautiful Azerbaijani language, or what?”).

The soils of those who, in life in chocolate, simulated indignation with varying degrees of theatrical persuasiveness - not so much “cloaca” as “this country” from the lips of a cave foreigner.

The funny thing is that the so-called injured side-the liberal forever small people-cunning no less than the others, because (you don’t need to deceive yourself), the genuine motivation of the replica is read no worse than the notorious Vasheron constanten.

The phrase about “Tom ... Russian in which they say” is an exclusively head structure! It is deliberately built by a professional linguist in such a way as to inevitably give rise to many meanings and interpretations. “The one” is a design that obviously eliminates the generalization of the concept (language in this context), and always allows you to reduce the content to particular: they say, the Russian language was not in mind, but only the language of aggression that the state propaganda trained, and not the whole country, but only this one that includes the majority of the population.

In modern Russian, this design and such a replica, respectively, can only have one name - trolling.

And not so much thin as crafty, because it leaves the gate for retreat: if you hear in my phrase not what I put in it is your problem.

Is it worth repeating that the vast majority of the population heard in the “miserable clod Russian” not what the professor-philologist had in mind? Therefore, I heard that for the sake of such a reaction, an ambivalent phrase was created.

A predictable reaction, predictable justification-stain. It has the right to exist, why not? As well as the right to exist the opinion that sounded in the same Martynovsky Komsomol-Pravdin Autodafe: the one who considers himself offended decides to be offended or not to be offended, and not the one who offended.

As a result, everyone again left the game satisfied. Some, having received another irrefutable proof of the existence of the semantic adhesion "Liberal - foreigner - Russophobe." Others, having spent their sadomasochist complex entitled "as a civilized person can live in this country with this people."

If, on such a code, embarrassment around the replica of Professor Huseynov has exhausted himself, I would never climb into a public series with my so -male opinion. However, when it already seemed that the intrigue was exhausted, the ocean of Deus Ex Machina was descended from the ocean, another professor-Mikhail Epstein, and with a skillful hand extended the embarrassment to another-already epoch-making-level.

In the article “It is terrible not dirt, but death” Mikhail Epstein first defended the rights of a philologist to criticize the language-on the grounds that this is his professional duty. And then he translated the discourse about the “wretched clod Russian” into the channel of the many -century confrontation of Westerners and Slavophiles. Moreover, he did it in an unexpected (for the American professor) for the perspective: the notorious “cloality” is most expressed in the fact that the Russian language today is experiencing the next stage of “alien” and sucks in the vacuum cleaner English words without analysis (“Maker, biker, killer ... shopping ... vau, blah blah”). If in the near future we will not move on to “creativity on our own root basis”, the Russian language is “doomed”.

It was the thriller about the “alien” that inspired me with the plot, for which he only decided to abuse the attention of the reader.

It all started with the fact that I introduced myself in the place of a normal person who is not a professional liberal, not a soil, not a Putinist and not even a philologist, and ... shuddered! He shuddered from discomfort, inevitable in a situation when you get into someone else's swarm against his will, from which you can get out of without bruises only upon presentation of a diploma of the Faculty of Philology. To an even greater extent, I shuddered from a sense of helplessness that arises at a moment when competent and authoritative people in all seriousness begin to say such things:

• The Russian language is the sacred instrument of the nation, so do not dare to distort it and insult it!

• The Russian language is a weapon of terrible destructive power involved in the new Patriotic War, unleashed by the "cave Russophobes", so the filter bazaar!

• You - and here, accusing a finger in the chest - you don’t say a “shopping”, don’t say a mog of a “clod Russian”, you can’t be offended by the subtle meanings that slip from your understanding that the professional priests of the great and mighty send you!

Zhuuut! And then suddenly dawned on: “Ba! But I, it seems, can help a tangled reader and a non-philosopher get rid of the resentment, into which scientists are methodically pushed by the minds on the right and on the left! ”

I can help because the lists of my mandates include another - the fourth, which I appreciate even above the candidate diploma: over the past 22 years I wrote, probably, more than two thousand texts in which I brought personal communication with the Russian language to such an intimate level that it is just right to illustrate the new “kamasutra”.

My intimate communication with my beloved language always took place as soon as everything can happen in a boudoir: without high -loving instructors holding a candle, and without prosecutors who prescribe a couple in love, in which robes and poses it is allowed to indulge in love joys.

Having escaped from the gloomy dungeons of the university parody of a living language, I understood the main thing: all ideas about the language norm are an attribute of a parish school, which everyone, undoubtedly, should pass in the youthful period of his life. To know grammar and syntax, to know how to speak correctly, of course, is necessary. But only in order to grow up and realize at some point: communication with the language is an individual, deeply intimate act.

Each person is free to speak the way he likes, and not as experts and experts of the language are told. Moreover, politicians and propagandists.

We are free to distort the tongue at some point if the circumstances of the discourse require it. We are free to say “wow” and “shopping”, like Mikhail Epstein or not. We are free to be offended by the “cloinic Russian”, even if a wonderful professor-philologist, wanting to troll his own Facebook friend, adds to the phrase the excuse “The one that is being said now”.

Question: on what basis do we have the right to enter into intimate relationships with our native language? Somehow it’s even embarrassing to explain the obvious ... Yes, on the grounds that we are not making love with a woman in general, especially with a Dahl dictionary. We love a specific woman. She has a name, biography, appearance. In the language (a woman with a capital letter) there are millions of private female languages. All of them are deeply individual and intimate. Each is someone's lover. And no one is free to tell you how you should build your relationship with her.

It remains to dispel the last myth woven by cabinet philologists for the reader. At yourself, they say, in BURIAR, you can practice any narvazadat with the language, but in public places - to think not a mog.

So, reader, this is a deception. Professional philologists have forgotten to tell you about one subtlety: your speech (and it doesn’t matter at all whether it is public or private) is not a language. This is your individual discourse! This is one of the inseparable parts of your Self, your language personality, your private handwriting. Every word invented by you is by no means neologism with which you are trying to rape the language, but only occasionalism is an element of an individual style, an aspect of your private attitude with your life partner.

For many years of journalistic experiment, I came up with - and gave public publicity in the press! -a sea of ​​nonexistent words and expressions: from “Internet trading” and “steep learning kurva” to “culture-ghost”, “condone packaging”, “corrupted tops”, “palmaze neophyte”, “fan-carp”, “gaping”, “xenolisgodia”, “agoradicia”, “anitifose”, “anitifose”, “anitifose”, “anitifose” "Voplephon", "neophagia" and "Aquenization of memory." All of them, however, were attached to specific plot ups and downs and served specific stylistic tasks. All of them are my individual discourse, and therefore in no way infringes and do not insult the Russian language.

The only prerequisite: intimate relationships with the language must certainly be built on love, and not on hatred. This is the main thing. If you love your language, you can write and speak the way you like. And do not pay attention to the shouts of philologists. In the end, their replicas about the correct and wrong language are nothing more than another individual discourse. One of a million equals.