"Belarus", "Moldova" and other monsters of the sleeping mind
Since it’s not good to obscure the topic topic with a philological srachem, there is a suggestion to continue it in my personal blog.
The reason for writing this topic was the fact that in the space of the Russian language suddenly (about 20 years ago) nationalized geographical words appeared (I propose to shorten it to NGS ), such as “Belarus”, “Moldova”, “Kyrgyzstan”, “Tallinn” and etc.
In principle, there is nothing strange and frightening about this, the process of the emergence of the NGS coincided with the next iteration of updating the language, in turn, caused by radical political and social changes. But in the genesis of NGS there are features that distinguish them from other layers of vocabulary, such as computer slang, for example.
Let's analyze:
')
However, when the situation in the post-Soviet space calmed down, there was a need to standardize new words.
The first sign was the Order of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation
of August 17, 1995 No. 1495 ( www.nasledie.ru/vlact/5_2/article.php?art=12 ), which establishes the rules for naming countries of the former USSR in official documentation and correspondence. It enshrined traditional names as “the norm” (“Byelorussia”, “Kyrgyzstan”, “Tallinn”, “Alma-Ata”), denying the NHS the right to exist.
Finally, the traditional norm is enshrined in the “ Dictionary of Modern Geographical Names ” edited by Academician V.M. Kotlyakov in 2006, recommended by the Institute of Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation.
Thus, we can conclude that NGS is currently an established phenomenon of the language, occupying its place in its system. But the place of these words is somewhere at the junction between exoticism and slang and, of course, outside the language norm.
If, for example, in the book on national color, it would be appropriate to say "Residents of Kyrgyzstan, as one - such good fellows!", Then in official speech the use of NGS is unacceptable.
The reason for writing this topic was the fact that in the space of the Russian language suddenly (about 20 years ago) nationalized geographical words appeared (I propose to shorten it to NGS ), such as “Belarus”, “Moldova”, “Kyrgyzstan”, “Tallinn” and etc.
In principle, there is nothing strange and frightening about this, the process of the emergence of the NGS coincided with the next iteration of updating the language, in turn, caused by radical political and social changes. But in the genesis of NGS there are features that distinguish them from other layers of vocabulary, such as computer slang, for example.
Let's analyze:
')
- NGS, in contrast, for example, from computer terminology, denotes concepts that have existed long before they appeared. Belarus, in contrast to, for example, the hard drive (in the meaning of HDD), existed for hundreds of years before the appearance of the NGS “Belarus” and the appearance of this NGS is in no way due to the appearance of the corresponding geographical area.
Important note.
With some stretch it can be said that the emergence of NGS is caused by the emergence of new states in the areas they call. But upon careful consideration, this argument does not hold water - the word “Moldavia” in Russian primarily defines the geographic area in the Dniester region, between Novorossia and Romania, and not the state entity that is located in this territory. And its name does not depend on the presence or absence of an independent state in a given territory. - All newly appeared NGS are traces from the languages and adverbs of the title nations of the respective territories. In Belarusian “Belarus” is really “Belarus” and nothing else, but in Kyrgyz the Kyrgyz say “Kyrgyzstan” (approximately, of course, it sounds like [qɯrʁɯzˈstɑn]). There are no exceptions and Moldova, and Tallinn and other NGS.
Important note.
It should be noted that the obtaining of “independence” by state formations on the territory of the former USSR was accompanied, among other things, by the acceleration of the process of codification and rationing of national languages and adverbs. For example, at this time, the Moldovan language on the territory of Moldova itself changed the graphics from Cyrillic to Latin and changed the rules of spelling, and in Transnistria remained in Cyrillic. The Kyrgyz language, as well as all Central Asian Turkic in general, is at the very beginning of the process of forming national terminology. Belarusian can not be called a language in the strict sense, since the codification of national grammar and spelling has not yet been completed, but rather it is the West Russian dialect, but with some signs of the language. Ukrainian is an even more interesting case, it has been replacing almost all the vocabulary with the Newspeed invented on the go for 20 years.
These are objective and inevitable processes, but they should also be remembered. - The formation of NGS was not due to the natural development of the Russian language, but had exclusively political motives. The word “Kyrgyzstan” existed in the Kyrgyz language and its related languages long before the formation of the modern Kyrgyz Republic on the world map, a similar situation with “Belarus” and in other words.
Another thing is that the Russian language "Kyrgyzstan" and other NGS entered the moment when the modern states of the former USSR began to exist, but the Russian language still retained a single space.
In the independent republics, the names changed, laws and decrees were passed, and the media, disoriented by the flow of events, introduced into the Russian language those NHSs that we are talking about. - In the vast majority of NHS violate the rules and regulations of the Russian language. There is no need to go far for examples, please:
- In the Russian language there are connecting vowels “o” (“cosm o Drom”) and “e” (“earthquake”), but a connecting vowel “a” is impossible, as in the word “Bel a Rus”. If all the same abide by the rules of the language, then as a result of the connection "White" and "Russia" should turn out "Belorus", but not "Belarus"
- In Russian, the presence of two or more double consonants in the root of the word is not allowed. That is why Tallinn is transcribed as "Tallinn", leaving only one double - "l", because double "n" can be reduced without loss of meaning. Tallinn violates this rule.
- In addition to the norms of spelling in the Russian language, there are also norms of euphony. For example, not every confluence of consonants can be harmonious. A classic example: try saying “ hoghard flicked” and “ rzdv flicked”. Of course, “Kyrgyzstan” with its two letters “s” and the combination “zs” is clearly an inappropriate word, especially in comparison with the classical “Kyrgyzstan”.
However, when the situation in the post-Soviet space calmed down, there was a need to standardize new words.
The first sign was the Order of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation
of August 17, 1995 No. 1495 ( www.nasledie.ru/vlact/5_2/article.php?art=12 ), which establishes the rules for naming countries of the former USSR in official documentation and correspondence. It enshrined traditional names as “the norm” (“Byelorussia”, “Kyrgyzstan”, “Tallinn”, “Alma-Ata”), denying the NHS the right to exist.
Finally, the traditional norm is enshrined in the “ Dictionary of Modern Geographical Names ” edited by Academician V.M. Kotlyakov in 2006, recommended by the Institute of Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation.
Thus, we can conclude that NGS is currently an established phenomenon of the language, occupying its place in its system. But the place of these words is somewhere at the junction between exoticism and slang and, of course, outside the language norm.
If, for example, in the book on national color, it would be appropriate to say "Residents of Kyrgyzstan, as one - such good fellows!", Then in official speech the use of NGS is unacceptable.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/97104/
All Articles