I understand that perfectly well Vinnie, but not having seen the Russian version I cannot comment on it either way. I can, however, comment on Vincent's statement relating to the English version. He was using the assertion "to cede is not to sell" as support of his view that the treaty was not permament, implying that, like "уступать", "cede" has some nuance of temporariness. Otherwise there was no point in him typing that sentence. I was simply pointing out, for Vincent's benefit and for the purpose of clarifying the comparison between the two documents, that "to cede" contains no such nuance.Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
I really don't care who owns Alaska, as long as they don't try to use bad logic to stake their claim