Determination of meanings

What happens when one people are strongly appointed the greatest

About the language, what else can we talk about and write in the days of painful thoughts and for a minute not releasing a sense of anxiety, associated primarily with the highest degree of uncertainty.

Only he is hope for us and support and support, frankly, more and more shaky. But the other is still not. Well, we will not call hope for help! Not sensitive meaning! Where are they, and where are we!

Well, it was like a preface. And we will talk about the great destructive power of the mighty genitive case.

Trying, as real writers say, to put things in order in their writers, and in this case, in some of my computer folders with quotes and blanks, I came across another verbal monster from the rhetorical repertoire of someone from our inspirational lawmakers.

This is this monster: “Determining the meaning of the feat of the people in the protection of the Fatherland ...” Well, and so on.

When familiarizing yourself with such constructions, it is impossible not to be seduced by some frivolous verbal game, taking as a basis, for example, the structure of the “house that Jack built”. And then we will get something in this, say, gender.

The whole row will begin with the words "this is the Fatherland." Then: "And this is the defense of the Fatherland." Well and so on. And closer to the end it will be somehow like this: "And this is the diminution of the feat of the people in the protection of the Fatherland." And further: "And this is a criminal liability for diminishing the feat of the people in the protection of the Fatherland."

Well, in general, understandable.

The syntax is able to load the most seemingly semantically hopeless words or, conversely, to completely decorate those words that themselves claim to be highly semantic status.

However, this has long been, one might say, a common place.

The manic attempts of the collective mind of our “legislative organs” forcibly and, of course, closing the criminal-procedural practice to such subtle matters as feelings and measures, including religious feelings, also have long been a long place for a long time.

Sometimes it seems that this kind of formulation is specially and consciously endowed with such a flagrant gaping blur, possibly appropriate for anniversary or mourning speeches, but completely unsuitable from the point of view of any intelligible law enforcement. And all this is only so that at hand there is constantly an easy opportunity for everyone and anyone at any time and for any words and gestures tightly grab on any protruding places.

And of course, all these and similar stylistically wretched and legally ridiculous formulations can not cause in any way among the people who are accustomed to think and reason citizens of immediate readiness to be guided by them in their daily communicative practice. And they cannot cause many different questions. And they call.

What is, for example, “diminishing the meaning of the feat”? What does this mean? And what is the meaning of this "diminution"?

And even more so what does the “feat of the people” mean? Not on the poster, but, so to speak, in life.

The concept of “people” is still somehow suitable for the texts of the preamble to various constitutions and other solemn documents, which usually says that “people are a subject of direct and direct democracy”.

And in this proud statement there is more festive rhetoric than real content. And the subjectivity of the "people" on this more or less ends, so really and without starting.

Features, like crimes, are committed by people or, in extreme cases, a group of people. But not peoples. And the people, any people, consists of a huge number of completely different people - both prone to feat, and prone to cowardice, and prone to self -sacrifice, and prone to betrayal, and prone to the flight of creative thought, and prone to dull mechanical repetition of other people's actions and nouns in various and not always properly observed cases.

To exalt this or that people wholesale is no less absurd and, as history shows, is no less dangerous than this or that people to blame for anything in bulk.

However, in the second third of the twentieth century the ideology and politics of the same Central European state, the theory and practice laid down, according to which one people were strong -willed as great and eternal, while others were appointed secondary at best, others - flawed and incomplete, and the fourth were so incomplete and harmful that the issue of their very existence required a “final decision”, and the question of their very existence, What was secretly accepted on the shore of a beautiful lake, but, to the annoyance of theorists and practitioners of this “solution”, the decision still did not turn out quite “final”.

All those who did not walk the lessons of history know well how it all ended.

And those who are inclined to diminish the significance of the consequences of such theories and, especially practices, completely, well, are simply not right at all.