Quote Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Quote Originally Posted by scotcher
I made no reference to the Russian word you defined, but to the English word you avoided defining.
But in the Russian version apparently there is no "cede" but simply a "уступать", so VT is saying that the definition of "уступать" signifies a temporary arrangement.
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.

I really don't care who owns Alaska, as long as they don't try to use bad logic to stake their claim