Russian "mat" and Russian mentality
Boris A. Veytsman
(PETER VOROBIEFF) says:
>
>
>One idea: why not start some really hot flamewar over some really
>interest subject? For instance, whether obscene language is acceptable
>in Russian literature or not...
>
>
This is a really good question. You may remember that a couple
of decades ago English literature was very strict: even the words
like damned were not allowed. Now English is much more permissible, and
Hemingway's euphemisms in "For whom the bell tolls" (remember, this of
thy father) seem to be artificial. Will Russian undergo such evolution?
To answer this question let us recall that Russian mat is a unique
phenomenon.
1) many people use it in abundance (in some circles it is IMPOSSIBLE to
say a phrase without it - you'd be considered a suspicious stranger)
2) it is strictly prohibited in written or formal language.
Therefore I think that Russian mat is a social ritual sign. If I say you
"Starik, huli ty pizdish'", I implicitly assume that you are my equal
(or below) in social status and our conversation is informal. My choice
of words conveys this message to you. Russian society (pre-Soviet,
Soviet, post-Soviet) has been highly structured and hierarchial.
Therefore a language sign system is very useful to navigate through it.
From the other part, mat as the self-expression of the flesh, 'telesnyy
niz' (re Bakhtin) is opposed to hierarchies, and plays an important role
of ritual negation of the system. Therefore it cannot be published in
books.
I think there is no such thing as the mystery of Russian soul. Russian
mentality is a typical medieval mentality. 5-7 hundred years all Europe
had such mentality. Russian mat is very similar to medieval carnivals
(once more Bakhtin) and plays a similar role.
Now we can say something about the future of Russian mat. As the Russian
mentality (hopefully) will be less medieval, mat will lose its social
role. It will be less frequently used in the spoken language. From the
other hand, books will lose its medieval sacrality, and mat will be
allowed to be printed.
Of course, I'm an amateur in this science, so any comment is welcomed.
Good luck
-Boris
PETER VOROBIEFF
>In article <1993Jun22.0...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, pv...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
>(PETER VOROBIEFF) says:
>This is a really good question. You may remember that a couple
Thanx $)
>of decades ago English literature was very strict: even the words
>like damned were not allowed. Now English is much more permissible, and
>Hemingway's euphemisms in "For whom the bell tolls" (remember, this of
>thy father) seem to be artificial. Will Russian undergo such evolution?
>To answer this question let us recall that Russian mat is a unique
>phenomenon.
>
>1) many people use it in abundance (in some circles it is IMPOSSIBLE to
>say a phrase without it - you'd be considered a suspicious stranger)
>
>2) it is strictly prohibited in written or formal language.
Let us also add
3) - mat has unique flexibility in the sense that it allows creation
of absolutely new and perfectly understandable words to fit any situation.
English swearwords don't have this property. German do, but still not to
the extent of Russian mat.
BTW, the people that use mat as everyday speech abuse the abovementioned
flexibility and limit themselves to a very poor vocabulary.
>From the other part, mat as the self-expression of the flesh, 'telesnyy
>niz' (re Bakhtin) is opposed to hierarchies, and plays an important role
>of ritual negation of the system. Therefore it cannot be published in
>books.
A good point.
What always bothered me in Russian was lack of terminology connected
with sexual intercourse. All the words are either medical terms or
obscenities. Why is Russian such a non-romantic language?
--
---
Thus spake Kalmoth the Avenger, Speaker for the Undead.
Boris A. Veytsman
WARNING: articles in this thread contain strong language
examples.
In article <1993Jun23.0...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, pv...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(PETER VOROBIEFF) says:
>
>
>Let us also add
>
>3) - mat has unique flexibility in the sense that it allows creation
>of absolutely new and perfectly understandable words to fit any situation.
>
>English swearwords don't have this property. German do, but still not to
>the extent of Russian mat.
Are you sure? My Longman dictionary lists 1.5 columns of derivatives
of fuck (like to f. about, to f. around etc). Of course English
derivatives are made using modifier words unlike Russian changing
the word itself (pri-yebat'sya, za-yebat'sya, ot-y., do-y., pere-y., etc)
but it corresponds to the difference in our grammar. The German grammar
is synthetic like Russian, so the apparent abundance of German
swearwords.
>BTW, the people that use mat as everyday speech abuse the abovementioned
>flexibility and limit themselves to a very poor vocabulary.
>
>
>What always bothered me in Russian was lack of terminology connected
>with sexual intercourse. All the words are either medical terms or
>obscenities. Why is Russian such a non-romantic language?
>
Is it different in other languages? The only neutral English
expression - to make love - has the exact Russian equivalent
zanimat'sya lyubov'yu. I think no language has neutral terms
describing sex and excretion. Toomuch emotional intensity involved.
Good luck
-Boris
Anatoly Tomashevsky
(PETER VOROBIEFF) says:
>
>
>One idea: why not start some really hot flamewar over some really
>interest subject? For instance, whether obscene language is acceptable
>in Russian literature or not...
>
>
It seems to me as long as Russian literature stays to be a literature any
words are permitted. For example: "Moskva-Petushky" by Erofeev.
I red this a long time ago and it was great. I don't know if all words are
survived in a today's edition.
Pushkin in "Tzar Nikita i tridcat' docherey" gave a very good approach to
this theme, but without real _mat_.
Best regards.
--
^^^^^^^^^^
Anatoly Tomashevsky ( * || * )
( || )
// ~~ \\ Internet: ana...@tamri.com
Vera Izrailit
: >What always bothered me in Russian was lack of terminology connected
: >with sexual intercourse. All the words are either medical terms or
: >obscenities. Why is Russian such a non-romantic language?
: >
: Is it different in other languages? The only neutral English
: expression - to make love - has the exact Russian equivalent
: zanimat'sya lyubov'yu. I think no language has neutral terms
: describing sex and excretion. Toomuch emotional intensity involved.
What do you guys mean by 'neutral' here? Some words are more neutral than
others. For example, 'screw' is more neutral than 'fuck' in English, and,
I believe, 'trahat'sya' is more neutral than 'yebat'sya' in Russian, at
least I hear a lot of Russians use 'trahat'sya' just to mean an intercourse,
without any negative connotations. There are fairly neutral ( without much
emotional connotation) terms for sex in every language, for example in
English:
screw (vulgar style but often used neutrally)
have sex,
go to bed with, etc.
I am sure you also have some words in Russian that you can use meaning
sexual intercourse, without any emotional connotation.
Best regards,
hugs and kisses,
V.
Boris A. Veytsman
Neutral expressions have no emotional connotations - like table,
car, book etc. Expressions like to screw ot trakhat'sya are
vulgar and/or youth jargon. Expressions like to go to bed with
or spat' s are euphemisms. Only expressions like to have sex
or zanimat'sya lyubov'yu may be considered as nearly neutral.
Still, they are not so neutral as 'to drive' or 'to read'.
Good luck
-Boris
Vera Izrailit
: Neutral expressions have no emotional connotations - like table,
: car, book etc. Expressions like to screw ot trakhat'sya are
: vulgar and/or youth jargon. Expressions like to go to bed with
: or spat' s are euphemisms. Only expressions like to have sex
: or zanimat'sya lyubov'yu may be considered as nearly neutral.
: Still, they are not so neutral as 'to drive' or 'to read'.
Don't mix it up: the terms like vulgar/youth jargon/slang refer to style
(i.e. distribution) and not to the emotional connotation. A word can be
vulgar without an emotional connotation or mainstream with an emotional
connotation.
And yes, you're right, even the most neutral expressions refering to sex
are somewhat less neutral than 'to drive' or 'to read'.
PETER VOROBIEFF
>Boris A. Veytsman (BA...@psuvm.psu.edu) wrote:
>: Is it different in other languages? The only neutral English
>: expression - to make love - has the exact Russian equivalent
>: zanimat'sya lyubov'yu. I think no language has neutral terms
>: describing sex and excretion. Too much emotional intensity involved.
Partially I have to agree with Boris: lovemaking is more emotionally
involving that some other ways of having fun, but what I crave for
are not _neutral_ terms - I just look for terms that are not dirty
and don't belong in medical (or any other) slang.
>What do you guys mean by 'neutral' here? Some words are more neutral than
>others. For example, 'screw' is more neutral than 'fuck' in English, and,
>I believe, 'trahat'sya' is more neutral than 'yebat'sya' in Russian, at
>least I hear a lot of Russians use 'trahat'sya' just to mean an intercourse,
>without any negative connotations. There are fairly neutral ( without much
Hmm... I know a girl who, having heard from her boyfriend that he and she
were engaged in the activity named "trakh", denied him the right to
participate in the said activity (whatever be its name) for a week or so.
Russian lacks words that are absolutely essential. Of course it doesn't
cripple a soul of a Russian-speaker completely (hell, you can always
think in images!), but the inability to verbalize the thoughts leads
to freakish reasoning, silly decisions and thinking with one's balls.