Thread: аканье и оканье

Originally Posted by Trzeci_Wymiar

The idea that "dialects can't happen to Russian" is completely ridiculous

Зачем ты ходишь на этот форум, если ты и так лучше нас всё знаешь?

Диалектов в русском языке НЕТ! Есть говоры, но это совершенно другая песня.
As for "the blatnoy dialect", it's not a dialect, it's a slang, there's a big difference.

Я до сих помню, как ты меня уверял, что "даже Достоевский" употреблял в своих романах "матерное" выражение орать благим матом. It's you who's ridiculous, really.

исправьте-ка мои ошибки

Пиши-ка для начала по-русски.
FYI, "исправьте-ка" is not a polite form of request at all.

In "Using Russian: A Guide to Contemporary Usage" Derek Offord and Natalia Gogolitsyna maintain that there are three broad categories of dialects within Russian --

1. The Northern Dialects (North of Novgorod)

2. The Southern Dialects (From the Belarus and Ukraine borders to Kolomna)

3. The Central Dialects (Moscow, Pskov, Vladimir)

They differ in matters of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.

I mean, I suppose if equipped with an extensive background in linguistics, one could argue the merits of these categorizations (probably simply on the basis that we can't definitively define "dialect") but I'm sure the fact that Russian has "dialects," or at least marked variation, is widely accepted among Russian scholars, native speakers and otherwise.

Originally Posted by Trzeci_Wymiar

In "Using Russian: A Guide to Contemporary Usage" Derek Offord and Natalia Gogolitsyna maintain that there are three broad categories of dialects within Russian --

1. The Northern Dialects (North of Novgorod)

2. The Southern Dialects (From the Belarus and Ukraine borders to Kolomna)

3. The Central Dialects (Moscow, Pskov, Vladimir)

They differ in matters of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary.

They are говоры. Говор is not the same as dialect.
As for the difference in grammar and vocabulary - it's minimal and casual, and you can talk to someone from another region for hours, or even days or weeks, and not notice any difference in grammar and vocabulary in comparison with "standart" language. In fact, all the Russians speak "standart" language.

Anyway, using the word "dialect" as applied to the Russian language, is wrong, it only confuses foreigners because they think that there really are "dialects" with different grammar and vocabulary in Russian. But there are NOT.

Originally Posted by Trzeci_Wymiar

There also exists, of course, the blatnoy dialect,...

A HUGE, huge mistake. It's not a dialect, but an argot (a slang, to put it simply).
Surely you can see a difference between a real dialect (with it's own geography, 'native' speakers and such) and a criminal slang, popularized somewhat by television?

I'm sure "dialect" could be used loosely to subsume argots, it's a very generalized term that has no real meaning at the level of the nitty gritty other than "variant."

Mirriam Webster, in fact, shows as its second definition for dialect: "The language peculiar to the members of a group, especially in an occupation; jargon: the dialect of science."

Argots, jargons, dialects, they can be used synonymously.

So it's not a HUGE mistake, in fact it's not really a mistake at all.

As for Olya's point, yes, the central dialects are referred to as "govory," but the Northern and Southern dialects are referred to as "narechie," if that makes a difference.

As for the word "standard" it's fairly useless to try and use it seriously. Up and down linguistics there's debates as to whether "standards" even exist. The general consensus is that they don't. Standard dialects are dialects with the largest "armies and navies," they're chosen by the accident of history and/or the arbitrary calculations of legislators.

In fact, learners should be aware of the distinctions, however minor. To a Russian speaking to a Russian, dialect variations might only be considered in passing if at all, completely comprehensible. However, if a non-native starts using highly regionalized words in the wrong region and rather inconsistently, he'll probably be laughed at.

If I started interspersing tsokan'e (tsaj and tsysto as opposed to chai and chysto) and the fricatives "gh" and "h" for "g" and started saying "damno" as opposed to "davno" or "dobre" and "vyoda" along with muscovite speech, I'd probably be labeled as confused.

Just the same as if I had heard a Russian saying "Y'all" in a southern way with an admixture of New York features and majority-of-the-time California surfer's speak. It'd be weird - it'd benefit the learner to be aware of the variations so as to be able to be consistent. If you go to the southwest and start speaking like a Belorussian, stick with it, and don't try to mix it into the "standard" muscovite of the classroom.

Originally Posted by Trzeci_Wymiar

I'm sure "dialect" could be used loosely to subsume argots, it's a very generalized term that has no real meaning at the level of the nitty gritty other than "variant."

Mirriam Webster, in fact, shows as its second definition for dialect: "The language peculiar to the members of a group, especially in an occupation; jargon: the dialect of science."

Argots, jargons, dialects, they can be used synonymously.

So it's not a HUGE mistake, in fact it's not really a mistake at all.

Remember that terminology may vary and be very different in different languages. You are right that "dialect," as a matter of fact, is used loosely. The reason is that it is very difficult to differentiate between languages and dialects, dialects and other subdivisions... That is why, I think, it is more "politically correct" to use the term "lect" in many cases. In Russian linguistic tradition, you can't apply "dialect" to argots and jargons. Actually, argots and jargons even tend to be separate phenomena, and thus we have three different but "loosely" understood "speaks". I must say that there is no agreed standard as to what one might call "dialect. Period" when studying variations of the Russian language. Govori and narechiya are more understandable somehow. And, last but not least, jargons and argots are not included in them because they have specific usage within language.

Originally Posted by Trzeci_Wymiar

As for Olya's point, yes, the central dialects are referred to as "govory," but the Northern and Southern dialects are referred to as "narechie," if that makes a difference.

As for the word "standard" it's fairly useless to try and use it seriously.

Listen, I'm really tired of arguing with you. You have hardly written a single Russian word except swear-words in this forum, but you're talking about Russian language so complacently.
I'm a Russian native speaker and, believe me, I know about Russian language including the 'standart' language much more than you or some foreign professors do. So go and talk "seriously" with them, not with us.

I repeat - there are NO dialects in Russian.

Originally Posted by Trzeci_Wymiar

Argots, jargons, dialects, they can be used synonymously.
So it's not a HUGE mistake, in fact it's not really a mistake at all.

Well, it is. The topic starter obviously reffered in his question to the term dialect as a regional language (i.e. in its most common scientific meaning). So we discuss here if there are any serious deviations from the 'standard' Russian in pronunciation, grammar, etc.

In this case slang, argot, etc. are obviously not dialects. The same slang words are used troughout the country regardless of the speaker's ethnicity, place of residence and his or her actual accent/dialect (if there's any). They change pretty fast, with a life cycle often less than a decade, and we can safely say that they are NOT dialects (as a stable regional varieties of the same language).

And back to the point - If I talk to my buddies in 'standard' Russian (with standard 'textbook' pronunciation and grammar) using plenty of jargon/slang words does it mean I'm a 'dialect' speaker? NO. If I talk to my boss using a professional slang does it mean our Russian is not standard? NO.

It's a matter of vocabulary and formal/informal speech, not dialects.

Dialects do happen in illiterate societies.
The communists had its faults but they did achieve one great thing - nearly 100% literacy among the population of the USSR. Everyone can read and thus speaks the same language.

In this case slang, argot, etc. are obviously not dialects. The same slang words are used troughout the country regardless of the speaker's ethnicity, place of residence and his or her actual accent/dialect (if there's any). They change pretty fast, with a life cycle often less than a decade, and we can safely say that they are NOT dialects (as a stable regional varieties of the same language).

It's all ultimately a matter of definition. People simply haven't found a good set of rules for classifying language variation. Languages are ultimately too amorphous to demarcate so starkly.

But I'd posit that the life expectency of a manner of speaking has no bearing on its status as a dialect. If you attempt to quantify dialects and make exclusions based on life expectency, you're doing something completely arbitrary and useless.

Even though argots and jargons have little to no traction among the majority of the people and die out quickly, they're still classifiable or subsumable as dialects in the sense, as the long-standing English dictionary Miriam Webster points out, that they're peculiar to certain social groups, even if not to particular regions or ethnicities (take for instance, in English, the Irish Travellers' Cant).

As for Olya's "points" - there are Russian linguists who speak half the English that I do who know twice what I do about my own language. You don't have to be native to Russian or eschew russki mat to have knowledge of something that's rather topically linguistic. It seems you harbor some fairly disturbing elitism/nationalist-chauvinism/linguistic fascism with reference to "foreign professors" of the language (not to mention colloquial or rough manners of speaking).

I mean, it might actually benefit you to "talk seriously" on the topic even if your "supreme Russian-ness" somehow obviates any hard thought into the Russian language.

And Ramil, the US has an English literacy rate of 99% (.4% lower than Russia) and we've still got dialects. You're not going to tell me that .4% difference in literacy makes the US an "illiterate" country that consequently contains dialects?

And to further reinforce or clarify my words, there is no agreement as to what actually constitutes a dialect much less a langauge. We've spawned so many subcategories off these two ill-defined categories that the entire process of categorizing language variation is very unsystematic.

In fact, a prominent linguist, formerly of Berkeley, named John McWhorter maintains that ALL languages are ultimately dialects containing groupings of sub-dialects which are in constant flux.

Russian ITSELF is a dialect, no less than Bulgarian or any of the others comprising the branches underlying PROTO-SLAVONIC. According to some, Belorusian and Ukranian, comprising the eastern Slavonic branch, are old dialects of Russian with their own literary tradition. The fact is, you're not going to find a natural language in the world that doesn't have dialects (or that isn't itself a dialect) and you're not going to find a language that's static unless it's dead.

It's quite conceivable that "Russian," as Olya clings to it, won't even exist in 500 years except possibly in name. The same goes for English and every other extant tongue.

Originally Posted by Trzeci_Wymiar

As for Olya's "points" - there are Russian linguists who speak half the English that I do who know twice what I do about my own language.

I said:
I know my own language better
1. than you
2. than some foreign professors

You don't have to be native to Russian or eschew russki mat to have knowledge of something that's rather topically linguistic.

If I or Ramil or Gromozeka tell you that all Russians speak the same language and that we don't see any grammatical / lexical difference between languages of different regions of the country in which we live whole our life - it's not "something that's rather topically linguistic". It's just a fact! But you just don't want to hear it.
Show me an American who says that Britons speak the same language as he does (or even a Londoner who says that about a Mancunian); show me a German who says that all the Germany speaks the same language and that a Bavarian can easily understand an "Ossi" or an inhabitant of Hamburg; show me an Italian who lives in Turin who'd say that in Naples they speak the same language as he does - can you? NO. That's what "dialects" are.
It's not so in Russian.

But when you hear from several Russians that their language is the same in the entire territory of Russia and is everywhere perfectly understandable - and you, without knowing a single Russian word, keep repeating to us the ideas you found in somebody else's books and convincing us that you know our language better than us - it's... marvellous, really.

It seems you harbor some fairly disturbing elitism/nationalist-chauvinism/linguistic fascism with reference to "foreign professors" of the language.

Oh no, man. Not at all. I just harbor some dislike to the dabblers like you. You are not a professor of the Russian language, undoubtedly.
As for the "foreign professors", they really can be mistaken. But I respect them at least for the fact that they have learned the language they write about (in contrast to you).

By the way, who told you that I eschew russki mat, you know-all? I know it perfectly, and I also know when it is appropriate to use and when not. Unlike you.

Well, I hope, it was serious enough for you now?

P.S.

Russian ITSELF is a dialect

Ой, боже, я и не знала, что с тобой настолько всё запущено...

Trzeci_Wymiar, you are repeating some definitions of the dialect over and over again, but it's a pure casuistry, really. Yes, we know (and happily agree), that slang exists in Russian, yes, we know that some dictionaries and linguists regard slang as a dialect, but it's not what this discussion is about, and you know that!

The topic starter asked about the existence of the appreciable regional differences in Russian language, similar to multiple regional dialects in English, and there is no such thing. While there are some divergences, Russian is still remarkably uniform.

So that's it.

Show me an American who says that Britons speak the same language as he does (or even a Londoner who says that about a Mancunian);show me a German who says that all the Germany speaks the same language and that a Bavarian can easily understand an "Ossi" or an inhabitant of Hamburg; show me an Italian who lives in Turin who'd say that in Naples they speak the same language as he does - can you? NO. That's what "dialects" are.

Chomsky, I think we've had a breakthrough.

But when you hear from several Russians that their language is the same in the entire territory of Russia and is everywhere perfectly understandable

Understandability has no bearing on the definition whatsoever. The definition has to do with the different categories of variation that Russian fully presents. If you must read the rather brief handling of this topic by a fellow countrywoman of yours named Natalia Gogolitsyna (and a formally trained linguist), refer to "Russian: A Guide to Contemporary Usage" pp 21-24.

- and you, without knowing a single Russian word, keep repeating to us the ideas you found in somebody else's books and convincing us that you know our language better than us - it's... marvellous, really.

Again, there is no one criteria for dialect, but understandability has no place within the criteria. Regional features aren't strong enough to make the different dialects incomprehensible, as with English, but there are dialects nonetheless. Plus, the ideas in one scholar's book are the culmination of years of reading others' books. Marvelous, huh?


Also, I never made any claim to knowing your language better than you, only that I'm (obviously) a bit more fluent in topics having to do with linguistics, which span all languages and not just the "mighty russian."

As for the "foreign professors", they really can be mistaken.

I'll be sure to refer you to Dell Philips at the University of Arizona, I'm sure a man of his stripe and experience would love to be put in the right by the inimitable Olya of anytown Russia.

By the way, who told you that I eschew russki mat, you know-it-all? I know it perfectly, and I also know when it is appropriate to use and when not. Unlike you.

I'm happy.

Well, I hope, it was serious enough for you now?

On the contrary, I found myself laughing hysterically.

Originally Posted by Trzeci_Wymiar

I found myself laughing hysterically.

Well, finally. Because we have been laughing at you for two pages already.

Ty navernoe lobotryas, blya!

J/k. Just testing out my Russian.

Russian language has no dialects.

There also exists, of course, the blatnoy dialect

Blatnoy dialect = criminal slang

if a non-native starts using highly regionalized words in the wrong region and rather inconsistently, he'll probably be laughed at

Yes, exactly so. And if you speak "standard" or "TV" Russian you can be sure nobody is laughing at you. And don't mix Belorussian or Ukrainian language with Russian. They are just different languages, not dialects. Russians often even can't understand Ukrainians or Belorussians. But Belorussians or Ukrainians CAN understand Russians... not because they are dialects, because most Belorussians and Ukrainians SPEAK the Russian language as international in USSR.

The communists had its faults but they did achieve one great thing - nearly 100% literacy among the population of the USSR. Everyone can read and thus speaks the same language.

Not exactly so. Yes, communists did achieve nearly 100% literacy. They taught the people to read and write, but Russians already spoke the same language before communism.

It seems you harbor some fairly disturbing elitism/nationalist-chauvinism/linguistic fascism with reference to "foreign professors" of the language (not to mention colloquial or rough manners of speaking).

I don't think so. It makes a difference between what you (or "foreign professors") think about the Russian language and what native speakers know as native speakers. The sense, not the form. It's very important to see the difference.

Originally Posted by Trzeci_Wymiar

Ty navernoe lobotryas, blya!
J/k. Just testing out my Russian.

It's ridiculous. "Lobotryas" is not "russki mat". It means just a "lazy man who doesn't think about his future". "Blya" is a short form for "blyad'", "blyad'" means "a bitch".

Originally Posted by Shikari

... "blyad'" means "a bitch".

No, it does not. It means a whore. A bitch is сука.
Привет, Shikari! Добро пожаловать к нам!

Can you tell the difference in the accents of someone from Murmansk and someone from Arkhangelsk?

I have left my home city Penza for Moscow. Absolutely no difference.
There are many people in Moscow from many places of Russia. No difference.
A.e. at my workplace there are people from Samara, Penza, Moscow, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Omsk and other cities. Absolutely no difference.
I think in most large Russian cities there is no difference at all.