Москве жалко денег

In article on discussions between Russia and Chechenia because of rights of transit of oil through pipelines.
The phrase : Москве жалко денег, according with the dictionary should mean: Moscow is sorry about money. But obviously and according with the context it is not like this. On the contrary, it seems to mean: Moscow is ready to pay more, but not as much as Chechenia desires.
.
Чечня и Россия так и не смогли договориться о ценé транзќта азербайжанской нефти по чеченскому трубоводу. Москве жалко денег. Но не тех, которые требует за прокáт своей трубІ.
Please, which is the right meaning of the phrase on the title? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Чечня и Россия так и не смогли договориться о ценé транзќта азербайжанской нефти по чеченскому трубоводу

---

Чечня не Россия?

Quote:

---

Но не тех, которые требует за прокáт своей трубІ.

---

Не понял смысла предложения.

Abt political Geography I have nothing to say. I have copied everything as is.
The idea is that the two parts disagree about the amount to pay for the contract for renting one of them the right of using the "tube" :) to the other.
14/25 Tasas de los oleoductos

Чечня и Россия так и не смогли договориться о ценé транзќта азербайжанской нефти по чеченскому трубоводу. Москве жалко денег. Но не тех, которые требует за прокáт своей трубІ Чечня, а совсем других. Если Россия уступит Чечне, ей скоро придëтся расплáчиваться со всеми трубопроводящими регионами. И добывать нефть станет просто невыгодно.

I think that the right translation should be:
Moscow is in difficulties with money. But in any case she (Moscow) can pay the amount demanded by Chechenia.
Thanks.

Usually it is like following
Жалеть кого-то - to feel sorry about smb.
Жалеть что-то - to feel greedy for smth. Would rather not to give away smth.

Moscow does not wish to part with money/would rather keep the money/does not want to pay.

Moscow is tight with its money. ... is feeling tight....
...doesn't want to start down the slippery slope of paying for pipeline usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Usually it is like following
Жалеть кого-то - to feel sorry about smb.
Жалеть что-то - to feel greedy for smth. Would rather not to give away smth.

---

What about something like "Им было жалко эту девушку - они имели на нее большие планы..." ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric C.

What about something like "Им было жалко эту девушку - они имели на нее большие планы..." ?

---

That's why I wrote "usually".

Quote:

---

Москве жалко денег. Но не тех, которые требует за прокáт своей трубІ

---

Okay, I'm going to guess that this is intended to mean: Москве жалко деньги, но Москве не жалко тех, которые требуют за прокат своей трубы. (Moscow hates to part with money, but Moscow does not feel sympathy for those [the Chechens] who demand rent-money for their pipeline.)

If my interpretation is correct, then ...жалко денег. Но не тех... is intended to be an example of the rhetorical device known as zuegma or "syllepsis", in which a single word relates to two or more clauses, and has a different meaning in each clause. The wikipedia article gives some famous English examples of "syllepsis":

• There's people on the street using guns and knives, taking drugs and each others lives." -- Flight of the Conchords (In "to take drugs", the verb "take" means принять, but in "to take a life", the meaning is more like украсть.)

• "Oh, flowers are as common here, Miss Fairfax, as people are in London." -- The Importance of Being Earnest ("Common" means часто и везде встречающийся in the first clause, but бульварный or пошлый in the second -- Miss Fairfax herself is from London, and the sentence is spoken by a non-London woman as a subtle insult.)

• "You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff." -- Groucho Marx (The preposition "in" is used in three different senses, depending on the noun that follows it. "Taxi" is a concrete noun; "huff" is an abstract noun that means сердитое настроение; "in a minute" here means "after a minute," not "inside a minute." And finally, "in a minute and a huff [half]" can be interpreted as either через полтора минуты or через минуту, и в сердитом настроении!)

Anyway, do you think I'm right that "...жалко денег. Но не тех..." is an example of zuegma/syllepsis, with жалко used only once, but in two different senses?

On the other hand, it's possible that the sentence is supposed to mean:

У Москвы дефицит денег. Но нет дефицита тех, кто требуют от Москвы деньги за использование своей трубы.

(Moscow has a shortage of money, but there is no shortage of those who demand money from Moscow for the use of pipelines.)

I'm going to make another guess:

Испанским авторам испанского учебника по русской грамматике было жалко тратить деньги на обслуживание коренного русского редактора!!

(The Spanish authors of a Spanish textbook on Russian grammar were reluctant to spend money on the services of a native Russian editor-proofreader!!)

:roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Okay, I'm going to guess that this is intended to mean: Москве жалко деньги, но Москве не жалко тех, которые требуют за прокат своей трубы. (Moscow hates to part with money, but Moscow does not feel sympathy for those [the Chechens] who demand rent-money for their pipeline.)

If my interpretation is correct, then ...жалко денег. Но не тех... is intended to be an example of the rhetorical device known as zuegma or "syllepsis", in which a single word relates to two or more clauses, and has a different meaning in each clause. The wikipedia article gives some famous English examples of "syllepsis":

• There's people on the street using guns and knives, taking drugs and each others lives." -- Flight of the Conchords (In "to take drugs", the verb "take" means принять, but in "to take a life", the meaning is more like украсть.)

• "Oh, flowers are as common here, Miss Fairfax, as people are in London." -- The Importance of Being Earnest ("Common" means часто и везде встречающийся in the first clause, but бульварный or банальный in the second.)

• "You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, you can leave in a minute and a huff." -- Groucho Marx (The preposition "in" is used in three different senses, depending on the noun that follows it. "Taxi" is a concrete noun; "huff" is an abstract noun that means сердитое настроеное; "in a minute" here means "after a minute," not "inside a minute." And finally, "in a minute and a huff (half)" can be interpreted as either через полтера минуты or через минуту, и в сердитом настроении!

Anyway, do you think I'm right that "...жалко денег. Но не тех..." is an example of zuegma/syllepsis, with жалко used only once, but in two different senses?

---

No. требует is sing., so it refers to Чечня. которые is acc. pl. then. тех means тех денег.
Moscow hates to part with money. But not with the money Chechnya demands for their pipeline, but with absolutely other money. (which would be demanded by other regions)

Москве жалко денег = Москва не хочет делиться (своими) деньгами / Москва не хочет отдавать (свои) деньги.

P.S.:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by radomir

Чечня и Россия так и не смогли договориться о ценé транзита азербайджанской нефти по чеченскому трубопроводу. Москве жалко денег. Но не тех, которые требуются (которые она требует) за прокáт (за использование) своей трубы.

---

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus

No. требует is sing., so it refers to Чечня. которые is acc. pl. then. тех means тех денег.
Moscow hates to part with money. But not with the money Chechnya demands for their pipeline, but with absolutely other money. (which would be demanded by other regions)

---

Aha, ясно. So, Moscow is in principle willing to pay Chechnya a fee for pipeline-use (in a strictly bilateral agreement with Chechnya, and only with Chechnya) but does not want to "create a legal precedent" that would encourage other regions to demand a fee.