# Forum About Russia Culture and History  Mind Your Language

## TexasMark

Story from today's BBC Online News.  Belgorod region bans swearing in public (increased punishment if children or elderly are present!)  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3707192.stm 
What do you think?  Hardly the sort of thing that should be a part of a free and democratic society.  There's a pretty good non-fallacious slipperly slope argument to be constructed here . . .

----------


## scotcher

Quite apart from the slippery slope angle, I'd have thought the police would have had other slightly more pressing/important issues to contend with, or is Belgorod so wonderfully crime-free that they have nothing else to do?

----------


## VendingMachine

> Story from today's BBC Online News.  Belgorod region bans swearing in public (increased punishment if children or elderly are present!)  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3707192.stm 
> What do you think?  Hardly the sort of thing that should be a part of a free and democratic society.  There's a pretty good non-fallacious slipperly slope argument to be constructed here . . .

 About time. Can't stand it when people swear. I take my hat off to Belgorodians.

----------


## VendingMachine

> Hardly the sort of thing that should be a part of a free and democratic society.

 Freedom and democracy doesn't mean freedom to abuse other citizens in public places by forcing them to listen to profanity. Good show, Belgorod cops. Can't wait till they start the same scheme in St Pete and on this board.

----------


## луговой лютик

> Freedom and democracy doesn't mean freedom to abuse other citizens in public places by forcing them to listen to profanity.

 Totaly agree with VM . If you want to swear choose the appropriate company then.  Nowdays it's difficult to be with a kid in  public (i mean in Russia).Wherever u drop in for a bite in the city  u'll hear ppl swearing and think of earplugs for a kid.

----------


## BlackMage

When I went to Petersburg I kind of liked the swearing.  I would hear people speaking about things I dont understand, and then all of the sudden, [expletive], and I would think,

----------


## Friendy

> Freedom and democracy doesn't mean freedom to abuse other citizens in public places by forcing them to listen to profanity.

 Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to the foul language, no one forbids you to go away to a place where you won't hear it. Anyone can say: I don't want to be forced to listen to *A*. Where *A* can be any characteristic. Some would replace *A* with "profanity", some may replace it with "conversations about politics" or "conversations about food", with anything, there are plenty of things different people can't stand. To satisfy all those people you would simply have to ban _talking_ in public places.  ::

----------


## VendingMachine

> Originally Posted by VendingMachine  Freedom and democracy doesn't mean freedom to abuse other citizens in public places by forcing them to listen to profanity.   Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to the foul language, no one forbids you to go away to a place where you won't hear it. Anyone can say: I don't want to be forced to listen to *A*. Where *A* can be any characteristic. Some would replace *A* with "profanity", some may replace it with "conversations about politics" or "conversations about food", with anything, there are plenty of things different people can't stand. To satisfy all those people you would simply have to ban _talking_ in public places.

 Oh yeah? Here's a real situation for you - mum and child at a bus stop, right, a gang of youth comes along, right, effing and blinding, Billingsgate fishmongers turning over in their graves - what's the woman supposed to do? According to you she has the only option - go away. And I say that ain't right, Friendy. She came there first, she needs that bus, why should she move? See, in this situation _she's actually being forced to listen to foul language_. Ahhhh, the little punks want to get on a bus too, don't they? Then they should be good enough to respect the people around them, because they are in a _public place_ or face the music. 
Applying the same lame kind of logic:
a couple decides to have sex in public - no one's forcing you to watch, you know. Replace "sex" with X and you had better stay indoors!

----------


## Старик

I think that swearing in public is quite an old problem in Russia. 
The Baltic nobleman August von Kotzebue was arrested in 1800 and sent to Siberia. After his return he wrote a report about is journey. In this book he complained about the wide-spread swearing within the Russian population. It seems that not so much has changed since.
Some time ago I read a tourist guide for Russia in which the author dedicated a whole chapter to swearing.
One speciality I remember: A lot of swear words have sexual connotations of the worst kind but nowbody takes them really for earnest and feels his honor violated by them. From this statement the autor made one exception: She wrote that you really have to fear for your live if you call a criminal "gay".

----------


## VendingMachine

> Some time ago I read a tourist guide for Russia in which the author dedicated a whole chapter to swearing.

 Well, I have a 'rough guide' to Germany and there's also a chapter which teaches you how to _fluchen_ in German. A friend of mine served in the ex-GDR when in the military and he came back with a truckload of colourful German expressions. And I don't think that those words had parochial connotations either.   

> One speciality I remember: A lot of swear words have sexual connotations of the worst kind but nowbody takes them really for earnest and feels his honor violated by them. From this statement the autor made one exception: She wrote that you really have to fear for your live if you call a criminal "gay".

 Well, then I suggest you put her theory to a little test - how about you approach a group of thugs in St Pete and tell them you've slept with everyone's mum? Don't tell them you think they are gay, just tell them you've slept with their mums. According to that stupid woman's theory you have nothing to fear. However, my advice would be this - run for your life.

----------


## DDT

It is  a good idea to ban swearing if the people decide that the" standard" that they choose to live by dictates that swearing is obscene. And since most people think it is obscene and something that they don't want their children to hear, I applaud that city for banning it. 
The question we should be asking is, "What is swearing anyway?". The word in English that I am not allowed to even type here "F*CK" is actually a legitmately used word that at one time was used in our courts of law to describe an action. It was used by our most esteemed judges and lawers. How it came to be regaurded as a word not to be uttered is beyond me. There are many such words that we are not "allowed" to say whick over time have made the transition from  benign to  either  foul or racist.

----------


## BlackMage

For Unlawfull Carnal Knowledge

----------


## waxwing

> a gang of youth comes along, right, effing and blinding, Billingsgate fishmongers turning over in their graves

 OK finally I've worked it out. You're actually my 70 year old mother who has secretly learned Russian in the depths of Kensal Green. Well done Mum! 
[I knew I shouldn't have bought her that computer, no good was ever going to come of it.]

----------


## Старик

> Well, then I suggest you put her theory to a little test - how about you approach a group of thugs in St Pete and tell them you've slept with everyone's mum? Don't tell them you think they are gay, just tell them you've slept with their mums. According to that stupid woman's theory you have nothing to fear. However, my advice would be this - run for your life.

 I'm sure you are right that it would be better for me as an outsider not to make this test. But I could imagine that the guys you have in mind use this kind of swear words among themselves without any big consequences. This may be so because the statements ("I have slept with your mothers") are really so absurd that nobody accepts them at face value.

----------


## VendingMachine

Rubbish, the word f*ck is not an acronym for unlawful carnal knowledge - it's been explained a countless number of times (just as the word sh*t is not an ancronym either and neither is c*nt), how can you be so ignorant - it's an old Anglo Saxon word, just as it's German brother "ficken" is. Anyway, the language they speak in Belgorod is Russian, not English - I don't understand what the attitude of English speakers towards the word f..k has to do with what they're doing in Belogorod.   ::

----------


## VendingMachine

> But I could imagine that the guys you have in mind use this kind of swear words among themselves without any big consequences. This may be so because the statements ("I have slept with your mothers") are really so absurd that nobody accepts them at face value.

 And why would you be thinking that? Are you talking from experience? German experience? Is it because that's how the Germans talk to each other? I'm sure that would explain it, Старик. The Germans swear so much it's almost impossible for learners of the language to participate in conversations.

----------


## Старик

> [The Germans swear so much it's almost impossible for learners of the language to participate in conversations.

 I'm afraid I'm moving in the wrong circles.

----------


## VendingMachine

> Originally Posted by VendingMachine  [The Germans swear so much it's almost impossible for learners of the language to participate in conversations.   I'm afraid I'm moving in the wrong circles.

 Good on you, Старик.

----------


## BlackMage

For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge was abbreviated as F**K historically.  I cite as my source my history teacher with his Ph.D and whatnot.

----------


## VendingMachine

> For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge was abbreviated as F**K historically.  I cite as my source my history teacher with his Ph.D and whatnot.

 Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, that teacher of yours was full of sh*t and his Ph.D is worth f**k all. Read all you need to know about f**k here:  http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A753527 http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/Fuck.html 
IMPORTANT! Type f*ck (with u, not  ::  instead of @@@@ in the first and third links.

----------


## waxwing

> IMPORTANT! Type f*ck (with u, not  instead of @@@@ in the first and third links.

 Interestingly enough, it's not important. Good programming eh?   

> www.yourencyclopedia.net/Fuck.html

 Fucking great link!  :: 
 I'm bookmarking that site.

----------


## JB

I wonder if the police in Belgorod will let the people they "catch" swearing pay the штраф right away instead of going to the station?  ::

----------


## VendingMachine

> Interestingly enough, it's not important. Good programming eh?

 Awsome! I didn't realise it at the time.

----------


## VendingMachine

> I wonder if the police in Belgorod will let the people they "catch" swearing pay the штраф right away instead of going to the station?

 Who would've thought our JB would've gone for so long without making a snide remark or two. How typical. Yes, they will let them pay the штраф on the spot and I don't give a toss about it - and if they also apply their _демократизатор_ to the culprit's kidneys a few times, the better.

----------


## Friendy

> Oh yeah? Here's a real situation for you - mum and child at a bus stop, right, a gang of youth comes along, right, effing and blinding, Billingsgate fishmongers turning over in their graves - what's the woman supposed to do? According to you she has the only option - go away. And I say that ain't right, Friendy. She came there first, she needs that bus, why should she move? See, in this situation _she's actually being forced to listen to foul language_. Ahhhh, the little punks want to get on a bus too, don't they? Then they should be good enough to respect the people around them, because they are in a _public place_ or face the music.

 The best thing that mother could do in this situation is to start an interesting conversation with her child simply ignoring these swearing young people. Btw, I don’t think that random encounters like that have any significant effect on a child’s using foul language later, it more has to do with the environment the child is in more or less constantly, that is - their relatives, friends, schoolmates and so on. More than that, if those guys talk too loud and in an aggressive tone it’s more likely that the child would develop negative attitude to their behavior. Parents always want to keep their child from a lot of things they think influence him badly (and foul language is certainly not the worst of them) and that's more than understandable but it's the reality that they can't keep him from all those things and no banning will help here.   

> Applying the same lame kind of logic:
> a couple decides to have sex in public - no one's forcing you to watch, you know. Replace "sex" with X and you had better stay indoors!

 OK, I replace “sex” with “cars”, for example, I can’t stand seeing cars. I have at least two options:
1) to stay indoors or whenever someone is able to accompany me to go out with a black bandage over my eyes like a blind person.
2) to put up with the fact that I can’t avoid seeing cars and act like a normal person, of course in this case I’ll do my best to reduce my looking at cars to a minimum by trying to fix my view on other objects.
Anyway, that’s the matter of my _personal_ choice only. But if I demand to ban cars it will be quite another story. 
Though it seems to me that it really missed me what exactly you were criticizing here, sorry  :: .  

> The question we should be asking is, "What is swearing anyway?".

 That’s really a good question. I would like to pay attention to the following aspect. I think we should distinguish a conversation that is full of excessive obscene words and when such words just slip accidentally. Also I think that fining is especially unacceptable without oral warnings being made first and them being ignored.

----------


## VendingMachine

> The best thing that mother could do in this situation is to start an interesting conversation with her child simply ignoring these swearing young people....More than that, if those guys talk too loud and in an aggressive tone it’s more likely that the child would develop negative attitude to their behavior.

 That's utter nonsence. My parents tell me that I was always mesmerised by people swearing in front of me - I'd cling onto their every word for it sounded like some weird foreign language to me and I'd be mesmerised and enchanted by it and then I'd practice my newly acquired linguistic skills at the top of my voice. Obvioulsy, Friendy, you've never been around children, you don't know what they're like and how they'd behave in such situations.   

> Btw, I don’t think that random encounters like that have any significant effect on a child’s using foul language later, it more has to do with the environment the child is in more or less constantly, that is - their relatives, friends, schoolmates and so on.

 That's beside the point. Why on earth should the mother and her child be subjected to that kind of verbal abuse at that particular point in time? I'm not talking about the long term effects and all that BS, they have a right not to be abused in that particular situation.   

> Parents always want to keep their child from a lot of things they think influence him badly (and foul language is certainly not the worst of them) and that's more than understandable but it's the reality that they can't keep him from all those things and no banning will help here.

 Sure, that's not the worst that can happen to them - they might also get raped and even killed in a horrible way, so what? I don't see how the possibility of a more horrible thing happening to them deprives them of their right to be protected from that kind of abuse at that particular point in their lives?   

> Though it seems to me that it really missed me what exactly you were criticizing here, sorry .

 I was just demonstrating how an idiotic argument can be built if one just blindly follows the rules of formal logic with no negative feedback with regard to our way of life and our society's values. Excellent excercise in sophistry, Friendy - too bad our law makers engage themselves in similar activities most of the time. Don't make them your models. 
P.S. You live in a society, Friendy, and if the majority of its members find verbal abuse an offence then an offence it is. End of story.

----------


## VendingMachine

*Friendy*, imagine someone's been mugged, right, and the copper tells the poor berk to look on the bright side and that he should've tried to take his mind off it while he was being mugged by thinking about the latest cricket scores, etc. Does the fact that the victim had a multitude of ways to take his mind off what was happening to him at the time make what happened to him less of a crime???

----------


## JB

This kind of law is not for protecting the public because it is impossible to enforce. How can anyone stop swearing among the thousands of people in public places? And what about swearing in different languages? This law is only good for padding a few cops pockets.

----------


## VendingMachine

> This kind of law is not for protecting the public because it is impossible to enforce. How can anyone stop swearing among the thousands of people in public places? And what about swearing in different languages? This law is only good for padding a few cops pockets.

 I've just spoken to someone from Belgorod - it's actually working, the foulmouthed are getting their just comeuppence. Of course this is a tough law to inforce but so are most laws. Think about murder laws and how many people get killed every minute. As for swearing in different languages - this is not an issue for Belgorod. I don't care if the coppers line their own pockets in this case - it is time the verbal abusers were punished. Hell, I don't care even if they feed the offenders a coupla knuckle sandwiches when they catch them. Honest citizens are sick and tired of this softly softly approach to lawmaking. Whatever happend to the short sharp shock? If the wee buggers think they live in a pigsty it's only right they should be treated as pigs. As the old bill's adage goes if you do the crime you do the time.

----------


## VendingMachine

According to my observation, most working class people are against wanton use of profanity, it's the wee undergraduate twats and other 'intellectuals' who indulge in it. In other words the salt of the earth is very much in favour of this wonderful law.

----------


## TexasMark

> Originally Posted by VendingMachine  Freedom and democracy doesn't mean freedom to abuse other citizens in public places by forcing them to listen to profanity.   Totaly agree with VM . If you want to swear choose the appropriate company then.  Nowdays it's difficult to be with a kid in  public (i mean in Russia).Wherever u drop in for a bite in the city  u'll hear ppl swearing and think of earplugs for a kid.

 The way this thread has gone it is about whether swearing is okay in public or not.  That's not my point.  I do indeed find it mildly offensive and very offensive if kids are around.  Do I think people should swear in public place?  No, absolutely not.  Do I think there should be a law against it? No, absolutely not.   
My problem with this kind of law is twofold: 
(1) This is invariably the kind of rule that gets "selectively" enforced.  "Undesireables" in socieity (be that racial, religious, or whatever) are often on the receiving end of these kind of "public moral" laws in a disproportionate amount. 
(2) Unless you are really clear in the ordinance/rule about prohibited words, it becomes very difficult to decide where its application begins and ends.  This is particularly a problem with the speech gets mixed with political expression in a public context.   This is particularly problematic if the defined prohibited speech is loosely defined as "offensive" speech.    
The Upshot can be illustrated by (cliched) examples:   
I disagree with the use of swearing in public and am a Kerry supporter, but I like living in a country where a guy wearing a "F**K Kerry" t-shirt has no fear of being arrested . . . 
I may hate the guy with the "Fags will burn in Hell" banner but I'll happily support his right to wave it. 
You get the point.

----------


## TexasMark

> According to my observation, most working class people are against wanton use of profanity, it's the wee undergraduate twats and other 'intellectuals' who indulge in it. In other words the salt of the earth is very much in favour of this wonderful law.

 I'm guessing you have not spent much time in English pubs.  ::

----------


## JB

I wonder if those "working class salt of the earth" folks are going to try and ban all the provocative pictures of naked women in the newspapers, magazines and advertisements all over Russia? "Bad" words on t-shirts, signs, lamp posts? Or maybe they'll ban watching MTV, foreign movies and late night channel 14 in Moscow?(LOTS of bad words there, plus porno) Until every bit of socially unacceptable speech and material is wiped off the face of the earth, the mothers of the world are just going to have to lock their kids in a closet.  ::

----------


## VendingMachine

> Originally Posted by VendingMachine  According to my observation, most working class people are against wanton use of profanity, it's the wee undergraduate twats and other 'intellectuals' who indulge in it. In other words the salt of the earth is very much in favour of this wonderful law.   I'm guessing you have not spent much time in English pubs.

 For crying out loud, we're talking about Russia here, not Blighty. We're talking about the attitudes of *Russian* people towards swearing in Russian, not English or German or Swahili. When will you get this through your skulls?

----------


## VendingMachine

> I wonder if those "working class salt of the earth" folks are going to try and ban all the provocative pictures of naked women in the newspapers, magazines and advertisements all over Russia? "Bad" words on t-shirts, signs, lamp posts?

 And I would back them 100%.   

> Or maybe they'll ban watching MTV, foreign movies and late night channel 14 in Moscow?(LOTS of bad words there, plus porno) Until every bit of socially unacceptable speech and material is wiped off the face of the earth, the mothers of the world are just going to have to lock their kids in a closet.

 We're talking about the right of people not to be subjected to verbal abuse. I have nothing against people swearing but not in front of me or anyone else who might object. The majority of the people think they have a right not to be exposed to that kind of abuse. You wanna swear, fine, swear till you're blue in the face for ought I care but *out of my earshot*. It's the same story as with smoking in public places - *it's the smoker's duty to make sure the smoke from his cigarette doesn't disturb those around him*, not the other way round  - if they wish to smoke, fine, go somewhere private and pump yourselves fulla nicotine but don't go telling us that the people around you lot should seek shelter from your fumes. The same goes for swearing - on the telly there's a thing called the watershed - give me a watershed at a bus stop! 
P.S. Need I remind you, that as a foreigner *you have no say in this matter*?

----------


## VendingMachine

> (2) Unless you are really clear in the ordinance/rule about prohibited words, it becomes very difficult to decide where its application begins and ends.

 First of all may I remind you that we're talking about Russian here. You may not know this, not being a native speaker of Russian, so I will tell you - the thing is that in Russian there's a clear definition of which words and derivatives are considered profanity by the majority of native speakers. The law being inforced in Belgorod is exactly about those words and their derivates. Other words, albeit used for swearing, are not considered offensive. Actually, there has always been a law in Russia against the use of those particular words in public places and my parents tell me that in extreme cases the offender could even be given community service. So we're practically talking about a revival of a good old tradition.

----------


## Friendy

> Originally Posted by Friendy  The best thing that mother could do in this situation is to start an interesting conversation with her child simply ignoring these swearing young people....More than that, if those guys talk too loud and in an aggressive tone it’s more likely that the child would develop negative attitude to their behavior.   That's utter nonsence. My parents tell me that I was always mesmerised by people swearing in front of me - I'd cling onto their every word for it sounded like some weird foreign language to me and I'd be mesmerised and enchanted by it and then I'd practice my newly acquired linguistic skills at the top of my voice.

 First of all I didn’t say that all children would necessarily behave like that (I was using rather careful terms in my statement). Also it’s hard to determine now how aggressive were the guys you are talking about. I know that the children are intrigued by unknown words but I also know that they are afraid of aggressiveness (I certainly was), remember how some parents scare their children with "страшные дяди" (будешь плохо себя вести страшный дядя заберёт   ::  ).    

> Obvioulsy, Friendy, you've never been around children, you don't know what they're like and how they'd behave in such situations.

 Just for the record, I’ve been enough around children, read enough about children and I also remember my own childhood quite well.   

> Why on earth should the mother and her child be subjected to that kind of verbal abuse at that particular point in time? I'm not talking about the long term effects and all that BS, they have a right not to be abused in that particular situation.

 So if I got you right, your main argument is “abusing at that particular moment”. I think that calling it abusing is very arguable. Here is the definition of "verbal abuse" that I found in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse (sorry I didn't find a better source (something like a law dictionary) if you or someone else finds one I'll be very grateful)   

> Verbal abuse: the use of foul language, obscenities or demeaning talk directed at another.

 (underlining is mine) 
By that definition when you hear "mat" but it's not directed at you it's not the verbal abuse. You may call it abuse if by abuse you mean anything that brings you some discomfort but that's too subjective to be used as a legal ground for anything. And why on earth should people be subjected to the abuse of their human rights by being fined because of the words they use in their _private_ conversation?   

> [quote:2ks5m0pd]Parents always want to keep their child from a lot of things they think influence him badly (and foul language is certainly not the worst of them) and that's more than understandable but it's the reality that they can't keep him from all those things and no banning will help here.

 Sure, that's not the worst that can happen to them - they might also get raped and even killed in a horrible way, so what? I don't see how the possibility of a more horrible thing happening to them deprives them of their right to be protected from that kind of abuse at that particular point in their lives?[/quote:2ks5m0pd]
That wasn’t my point at all. I was just saying that banning isn’t the way to keep your child from bad influence.   

> [quote:2ks5m0pd]Though it seems to me that it really missed me what exactly you were criticizing here, sorry .

 I was just demonstrating how an idiotic argument can be built if one just blindly follows the rules of formal logic with no negative feedback with regard to our way of life and our society's values. [/quote:2ks5m0pd]
Though _in general_ I agree that the pure formal logic without any regard to the society isn’t always applicable, whether it's applicable or not should be considered in each particular situation and with regard what point one is trying to make. In our case I do think that my logic was justified. My point was that *just* because people find something offensive it doesn't justify banning those things. However that doesn't mean that banning can't be justified at all.   

> *Friendy*, imagine someone's been mugged, right, and the copper tells the poor berk to look on the bright side and that he should've tried to take his mind off it while he was being mugged by thinking about the latest cricket scores, etc. Does the fact that the victim had a multitude of ways to take his mind off what was happening to him at the time make what happened to him less of a crime???

 If you are referring to my saying that mother should start a conversation than the analogy is false here. When you are mugged your property is taken away from you and talking about the latest cricket scores or anything doesn’t change the situation. The reason why the verbal abuse (let's admit it may be called that way) exists is only because of it's evoking a response in your mind (for example, if you are deaf, you couldn't care less if people next to you are swearing or not because you simply won't know about it) so if you occupy your mind with something else it _directly_ reduces (up to disappearing) the substance of the verbal abuse.     

> The way this thread has gone it is about whether swearing is okay in public or not.

  Strange. I didn't get that impression. I don't think that anybody in this thread was saying that swearing in public is OK. Personally, I was just trying to illustrate that the justifications for banning the foul language are very doubtful.

----------


## VendingMachine

> So if I got you right, your main argument is “abusing at that particular moment”. I think that calling it abusing is very arguable. Here is the definition of "verbal abuse" that I found in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse (sorry I didn't find a better source (something like a law dictionary) if you or someone else finds one I'll be very grateful)        Originally Posted by Wikipedia  Verbal abuse: the use of foul language, obscenities or demeaning talk directed at another.   (underlining is mine)
> By that definition when you hear "mat" but it's not directed at you it's not the verbal abuse. You may call it abuse if by abuse you mean anything that brings you some discomfort but that's too subjective to be used as a legal ground for anything.

 *It's legal grounds enough* - there are laws which deal with this sort of thing already - in fact, they have always existed but have rarely been properly enforced - there's a lot of legal ground to sue your foulmouthed @rse off here, believe me. According to our Russian law the use of "mat" in a public place is offence enough, even if it isn't directed at anyone in particular. (For pity's sake, Friendy, we're talking real world here, you can skip your worthless quotes from online sources which have just about as much bearing on our country as I have knowledge of bolshoi theater dancers' eardrum pathologies.) What is being abused here is our _public moral_. If, however, this "mat" is being directed at a person, it constitues an even further offence, that of a particular person but public moral doesn't evaporate in this case. The law states quite clearly that the use of "mat" in a public place is a punishable offence even when not directed at anyone in particular and we've had this law for ages, what they're doing in Belgorod is simply treating it with due respect and enforcing the way it should be enforced.   

> And why on earth should people be subjected to the abuse of their human rights by being fined because of the words they use in their _private_ conversation?

 Because their _private_ conversation has lead to an abuse of public moral - an offence punishable under the current law in Russia. You are intitled to privacy but not at the expense of breaking laws. Do you know Friendy, why people get arrested and charged with breach of peace if they start a fist fight in a public place even if all the parties involved are doing it willingly? Same reasons, Friendy. It's all in our laws. Study them. Respect them. 
I'm skipping the rest of your post for it makes no sense at all. Your arguments would be OK in a sophistry class, but we've a real-life situation on our hands and we have real life laws in this country.

----------


## JB

As a resident of Moscow I have just as much say in this matter as any other resident of Moscow (except for the politicians who have more say than anyone). And your opinion VM, of what is a good or bad law is just as worthless as my opinion in the eyes of the decision makers. When Russian citizens have the power to directly vote for their laws then you can be correct that I have no say.
My point is that this law is not going to protect anyone. There aren't enough police in all of Russia to stop people from swearing in public. And "protecting women and children" is such a crock of B.S. As a woman who spends a lot of time with children I can think of about a thousand other things we would rather be protected from.

----------


## TexasMark

> Originally Posted by TexasMark  (2) Unless you are really clear in the ordinance/rule about prohibited words, it becomes very difficult to decide where its application begins and ends.   First of all may I remind you that we're talking about Russian here. You may not know this, not being a native speaker of Russian, so I will tell you - the thing is that in Russian there's a clear definition of which words and derivatives are considered profanity by the majority of native speakers. The law being inforced in Belgorod is exactly about those words and their derivates. Other words, albeit used for swearing, are not considered offensive. Actually, there has always been a law in Russia against the use of those particular words in public places and my parents tell me that in extreme cases the offender could even be given community service. So we're practically talking about a revival of a good old tradition.

 That's a nice point.  That would remove some, but not all, of my doubts about the law.  It contrasts with many other languages, where swearing is a very dynamic and constantly changing part of the lexicon.

----------


## VendingMachine

> My point is that this law is not going to protect anyone.

 *It is already successfully protecting people in Belgorod* and has saved many of them from foulmouthed imbecils you applaud. Anyway, JB, you may be 1000 times a resident of Moscow or New Vasyuki or Old Mukhosransk but you're still a foreigner - you're not a citizen of my country so please be good enough to mind your own business. *As a non-native speaker of Russian you can't even adequately feel the degree of offence of each of the "mat" words in Russian.* 
P.S. I'm sorry if it sounded rude but you really are poking your nose where you shouldn't. I've been hinting at it and you've been ignoring my subtle warnings, I'm sorry, I really had to tell you bluntly.

----------


## VendingMachine

> It contrasts with many other languages, where swearing is a very dynamic and constantly changing part of the lexicon.

 Sure Russian swearwords are dynamic and all, but what we're talking about here is "mat" - the core obsenities - they've stayed unchanged for centuries and won't change in our grand-grand-grand-... children's lifetime I'm sure - and they are the ones which (and whose derivatives) are considered profanity by the majority of Russian speakers. We have a pretty clear definition in Russian.

----------


## JB

How is it protecting people? Do you live in that city? Do you see people being "saved" from the horrible consequences of hearing a few bad words?
My nose is in Russia where I live with my family. Russia IS my business and not having a red passport does not make it any less my business.

----------


## VendingMachine

> How is it protecting people? Do you live in that city?

 I have a good friend who lives there - we keep in touch. We have ICQs you know.    

> Do you see people being "saved" from the horrible consequences of hearing a few bad words?

 He does.    

> My nose is in Russia where I live with my family. Russia IS my business and not having a red passport does not make it any less my business.

 No, JB, Russia is not your business. *Only those born in Russia* have a say in such matters. You're a foreigner and always will be. You want to poke your nose around, fine, I couldn't care less, but don't you be surprised if it gets punched (figuratively, of course). You're a guest JB, always remember that. Looks like the when in Rome formula has never been drilled into your head...

----------


## JB

Sorry VM, but your friend's instant message updates of his/her opinions on the benefits of arresting rampant swearers (and yes I do understand those really bad words and phrases) is only one person's opinion.  I'd like to hear the opinion of those who were actually arrested as they have rights too.
And I'm really glad that your opinion of foreigners is in the minority, because I get nothing but kindness and affection from almost everyone I associate with in Russia. I am welcomed and my opinions are solicited and respected. And the few times anyone has attempted to "punch" me have resulted in my friends, associates and sometimes even complete strangers coming to my defense.
Now where in the world does it say "only those born in Russia" are the only people who can have a say in their community? Does this include people who were born in the former Soviet Union but whose birthplace is now an independent country?  What about all those people who immigrated to Russia and became citizens? Don't they have the same rights as any other Russian citizen?

----------


## VendingMachine

> Sorry VM, but your friend's instant message updates of his/her opinions on the benefits of arresting rampant swearers (is only one person's opinion.  I'd like to hear the opinion of those who were actually arrested as they have rights too.

 The only right a foul mouthed git has is put his hands up and surrender.   ::     

> and yes I do understand those really bad words and phrases)

 You understand what they mean - literally and figuratively, but *you do not feel exactly how offensive they are* - you have to be a native speaker to be able to feel that. You need to grow up with those words, JB. (This applies to swearing in any language.   ::  ) 
I dunno what sort of hobbits you hire to serve you as lackeys and, frankly, I don't care. All you need to know is that you've just been flushed from my memory.   ::   No ammount of negativism you spill on this forum wil ever change the simple truth that you envy me and would give your rotten front teeth to be me for just a few seconds. Bye-bye, JB.   ::  
P.S. Zapanibratskoe kovboilo ne razumeet do kontsa vseh intrikatsij nashenksoi zhisti - uchis', nabirais'a ekspirentsij, pochantuk podlozhen, ya esperuyu.  ::   ::   ::

----------


## JB

Give up the fairytale that only "real" Russians can "feel" the true emotion of the language and that words aren't understood on an emotional level unless you "grow up with them". Texas Mark is correct that language is constantly changing. So by your theory all those newly created bad words that teenagers are inventing and using daily will never be understood or "felt" except by the generation that grew up with them (which excludes you).
And as for your little joke, you keep pointing to your little friend and telling us how big he is and we'll keep laughing.  ::

----------


## VendingMachine

> Give up the fairytale that only "real" Russians can "feel" the true emotion of the language and that words aren't understood on an emotional level unless you "grow up with them".

 I didn't say "real Russians", I said native speakers of Russian. Words may indeed be understood on an emotional level but that's beside the point here - either you are and idiot, JB, or you are deliberately trying to force me to go off at a tangent - we're talking about something completely different here, namely what native speakers consider profanity and what is merely rude Russian and how native speaker feel about it. Not being a native speaker you may often surmise from the context that someone is swearing at you but you will never be able to feel the exact strength of the expressions addressed at you unless you grew up with those words. As I said before, this isn't about Russian, it's the same in any other language.   

> Texas Mark is correct that language is constantly changing. So by your theory all those newly created bad words that teenagers are inventing and using daily will never be understood or "felt" except by the generation that grew up with them (which excludes you).

 Just proves that you know nothing about how Russian "mat" works. All newly created _derivatives_ include a handful of roots which remain the same and are considered offensive. Any word derived from them will be understood and "felt" adequately by any native speaker of Russian, no matter when that derivative was invented. If, however, we're talking about non-mat swear words, then yes, new roots or new meanings of those non-mat roots will be truely understood only by those who grew up with them and of course, there will be cases where muggins here will be excluded along with the others of his generation. But that law is about "mat" words and their derivatives - since the roots are the same, it's a totally different story. I can see you have absolutely no idea how Russian "mat" works - you probably know some expressions but you've absolutely no idea how it functions. It's OK, you wouldn't cos you don't know that much Russian yet. I'm not saying this to offend you or anything, JB, I'm merely stating a simple fact - a person who constantly misreads my messages in Russian should not participate in discussions regarding "mat" - you don't have enough knowledge of the language yet.   

> And as for your little joke, you keep pointing to your little friend and telling us how big he is and we'll keep laughing.

 What joke? If you're referring to what I wrote in Russian it only proves what I was saying previously - *you understand nothing, not a single word of what I've been saying to you*. (_Polnyatskij nulevont, nichevo nye petrish._) BTW, I'm still waiting for that translation... 
P.S. Could you give us some examples of "all those newly created bad words that teenagers are inventing and using daily" - I'm tired of talking in abstractions. Give us a few examples and I will explain to you why your arguments are incorrect.

----------


## JB

The original discussion was not about any particular word or phrase but about laws prohibiting swearing in public. You seem to believe these laws only apply to a certain group of words or phrases and that the population benefits from these laws. I disagree,  and my language abilities or anyone elses language abilities have nothing to do with the law (unless the law states that people who aren't native speakers are exempt from the law because they don't really understand how offensive these words are).
I don't write down or memorize the latest vulger insults and I don't translate. 
My reference to your transliteration is about your personal opinion of yourself, not about the text.

----------


## VendingMachine

> The original discussion was not about any particular word or phrase but about laws prohibiting swearing in public. You seem to believe these laws only apply to a certain group of words or phrases and that the population benefits from these laws.

 That's what this law is about - it's about banning "mat" from public places. It states very clearly in Russian what exactly is meant under the term. It's the English translation by the BBC that blurs this distinction - _apparently you drew your conclusions from there_. You read that article in English at the BBC website and you drew your false conclusions from the word "swearing" whereas in Russian they state very clearly that they mean "mat". A native speaker reading that article would immidiately understand that in the original (that is in Russian) they talk about "mat" and "mat" derivatives because a native speaker has a lot of cultural baggage you don't have (and never will with this kind of attitude of yours) which would've enabled him to come to this logical conclusion. And indeed, if you do a search around Russian websites _you will see that they talk about "мат" or "ненормативная лексика"_ (which is legal goobledygook for "mat" and its derivatives). As usual, JB, you are ignorant, but opinionated.   

> I don't write down or memorize the latest vulger insults

 And there was me thinking you did. I wonder why the word "windbag" suddenly springs to mind...   

> and I don't translate

 Cos you can't.   

> My reference to your transliteration is about your personal opinion of yourself, not about the text.

 Of course, JB, and I wonder why. Is it because you didn't understand a bloody word, is it? Is it? 
I'm not quoting the rest of your post - it was irrelevant BS.

----------


## scotcher

VM, I'm not asking this because I am looking for an argument or taking sides or anything of that sort, I am asking because I am genuinely interested in your opinion as a native Russian speaker who evidently feels strongly about the subject. 
Firstly, would I be correct in believing that the word 'мат' is indeed derived from the word 'мать', as a result of so much of the syntax involving someone's mother (stated or implied) having unspeakable things (stated or implied) done to them by a third party (stated or implied)? I have read that that is the case (in a book written by a Russian), but I would be happy to be set straight if this information was incorrect or lacking in any way. 
Secondly, with regards to the current topic itself as well as my own previous question, what actually constitutes 'мат', in your opinion? 
The reason I ask is, a couple of my Russian mates here in Blighty (ex-pats, but only recent ex-pats) regularly use a few expressions which I had to have explained to me the first time I heard them. They don't contain any words that could be considered profane on their own, but as a sentence they_ imply_ a profanity (of course, these are generaly mixed in with many more sentences that obviously do contain stated profanity). I can't remember all of them off the top of my head, but I am pretty sure I can remember one or two of them (because their translations made me laugh). 
(Now you see, I don't even know whether I should post it here and risk bringing down Masteradmin's wrath, but since I don't know how to give an example without posting it, I will risk getting myself ticked off and censored):  
"мать твою через семь ворот с присвистом"* 
So, would that constitute мат in your book? 
Enlighten away, Laddo. 
*Sorry if I've broken your rules Masteradmin, but since finding out where those rules lie (in a general sense) was my only motivation for posting it, I'm sure you'll forgive me  ::

----------


## VendingMachine

> Firstly, would I be correct in believing that the word 'мат' is indeed derived from the word 'мать', as a result of so much of the syntax involving someone's mother (stated or implied) having unspeakable things (stated or implied) done to them by a third party (stated or implied)? I have read that that is the case (in a book written by a Russian), but I would be happy to be set straight if this information was incorrect or lacking in any way.

 I've heard a similar explanation. However, I don't know the exact etymology of the word.    

> Secondly, with regards to the current topic itself as well as my own previous question, what actually constitutes 'мат', in your opinion?

 Мат is made of a handful of basic roots, such as е**ть, х*й, п***а and their countless derivatives. (Countless derivatives are possible because of the way the Russian language works with all them suffixes and prefixes, I'm sure you know that.). "Implied" мат *is not* "мат" but fruity word play.    

> "мать твою через семь ворот с присвистом"*

 No, that's not мат. I wouldn't even call that swearing. It sounds like an elaborate euphimism. If you want to swear proper use proper мат.

----------


## scotcher

Righto, cheers for the explanation. 
So if мат is concerned with the words you mentioned and their endless  derivatives (of which I am aware of dozens at least, even with my limited experience of Russian drinking establishments and building sites), what constitutes 'swearing', and what differentiates it from мат? 
Are you talking about mild curse-cum-interjections like блин or ёлки-палки, or is there another layer above which is rude enough to be considered swearing, but is still not мат?

----------


## VendingMachine

> So if мат is concerned with the words you mentioned and their endless  derivatives (of which I am aware of dozens at least, even with my limited experience of Russian drinking establishments and building sites), what constitutes 'swearing', and what differentiates it from мат?
> Are you talking about mild curse-cum-interjections like блин or ёлки-палки, or is there another layer above which is rude enough to be considered swearing, but is still not мат?

 This is how I see it:  1. мат2. common swearing[list:1vhjhj6b]2.1. dirty non-мат swear words like засранец*, мудак*, сука*, etc2.2. milder swear words like придурок, дебил, etc.[/list:u:1vhjhj6b]3.  euphimisms [list:1vhjhj6b]3.1.мат substitutes[list:1vhjhj6b]3.1.1. obvious мат substitutes3.1.2. not-so-obvious мат substitues[/list:u:1vhjhj6b]3.2. dirty non-мат swear words substitutes[/list:u:1vhjhj6b]3.3. jocular swear words which don't really offend 
Now, there are also religious curses but those will offend only very religious people. Since I'm not religious they don't offend me at all.

----------


## TexasMark

> This is how I see it:  1. мат2. common swearing[list:1tlog7lz]2.1. dirty non-мат swear words like засранец*, мудак*, сука*, etc2.2. milder swear words like придурок, дебил, etc.[/list:u:1tlog7lz]3.  euphimisms [list:1tlog7lz]3.1.мат substitutes[list:1tlog7lz]3.1.1. obvious мат substitutes3.1.2. not-so-obvious мат substitues[/list:u:1tlog7lz]3.2. dirty non-мат swear words substitutes[/list:u:1tlog7lz][list]3.3. jocular swear words which don't really offend

 Wow.  Swearing is Russian is complicated.  Maybe they should be giving those that can master it diplomas, not tickets.

----------


## bad manners

Most people swear very plainly, items 1-2 in the list above. Those few who master 3 can be fun to listen.

----------


## JB

A law that forbids anyone from using a certain group of words in public is just a cash cow for the cops and government. It doesn't matter if the law states only the mat words or yolki polki. The cop gets to decide on the spot who is guilty and collect the fine he thinks is appropriate (one newspaper quoted one cop as saying he charged more for swearing in front of veterans). If the cop says a mat word was used there is no way to dispute it even if no swear words were used at all. 
I did not derive my opinions from the BBC link because I never read it until now. I read about that law in the Russian news (both English and Russian) way before it was posted here. My original reaction was to feel sorry for all the young males in that city who are now going to have to pay hefty fines for nothing. I wish the cops would spend more effort cleaning out the corruption in their own ranks than fleecing the citizens.
VM, I am not a translator. I do not translate Russian or Spanish (and I have spoken Spanish since grammer school). I understand and speak Russian, but do not waste my time playing "who's the best speaker" games.

----------


## DimitriiPetrovich

How is мат pronounced differently from мать?  Could someone record them both so I can hear it?

----------


## Friendy

> How is мат pronounced differently from мать?  Could someone record them both so I can hear it?

 http://www.freewebs.com/friendy3/sounds/mat.mp3
the first word is "мат" the second word is "мать"

----------


## VendingMachine

> A law that forbids anyone from using a certain group of words in public is just a cash cow for the cops and government. It doesn't matter if the law states only the mat words or yolki polki.

 It does indeed. This is where I vehemently disagree with you. Since you are not a Russian citizen, and this is about a law being enforced by Russian cops in the Russian city of Belgorod, your opinion counts for nothing.   

> The cop gets to decide on the spot who is guilty and collect the fine he thinks is appropriate (one newspaper quoted one cop as saying he charged more for swearing in front of veterans).

 And that's what I call good policing. Ever heard of Gleb Zhiglov? Russia needs more Zhiglovs.   

> If the cop says a mat word was used there is no way to dispute it even if no swear words were used at all.

 Oh yes there is. I already know of people getting off scot free. Pity.    

> My original reaction was to feel sorry for all the young males in that city who are now going to have to pay hefty fines for nothing.

 Using "mat" in public is not a "nothing" _in the eyes of the majority of Russians_. The opinion of a foreigner is totally irrelevant here.   

> I wish the cops would spend more effort cleaning out the corruption in their own ranks than fleecing the citizens.

 I wish the cops put your blasphemous mouth under arrest. If you want to accuse someone particular of corruption do so. What, you can't? All you lot are good for is tossing the name of our glorious police around. And what do you do when disaster strikes? Eh? You scream for police, don't you? I suggest you read the preface to chapter 1 of Filth by Irvine Welsh, where that young man is dying: pleeeeeeaaaaaaase .... or is it poliiiiiiiiiiiice? please police?    

> I understand and speak Russian, but do not waste my time playing "who's the best speaker" games.

 This is not a "who's the best speaker game", this is a simple comprehension check. A check you've been failing ever since I started writing in Russian to you - your replies have always been a) in English, b) completely _мимо денег_.    

> VM, I am not a translator. I do not translate Russian or Spanish (and I have spoken Spanish since grammer school).

 (с) _Чукча не читатель, чукча писатель, однако._ (Hope you know where this one's from)

----------


## waxwing

> All you lot are good for is tossing the name of our glorious police around.

 Quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever seen.

----------


## JB

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/10/06/ ... eman.shtml   http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/03/subwaycop.shtml   http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/04/12/police.shtml

----------


## Friendy

> Originally Posted by Friendy  So if I got you right, your main argument is “abusing at that particular moment”. I think that calling it abusing is very arguable. Here is the definition of "verbal abuse" that I found in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse (sorry I didn't find a better source (something like a law dictionary) if you or someone else finds one I'll be very grateful)        Originally Posted by Wikipedia  Verbal abuse: the use of foul language, obscenities or demeaning talk directed at another.   (underlining is mine)
> By that definition when you hear "mat" but it's not directed at you it's not the verbal abuse. You may call it abuse if by abuse you mean anything that brings you some discomfort but that's too subjective to be used as a legal ground for anything.   *It's legal grounds enough* - there are laws which deal with this sort of thing already - in fact, they have always existed but have rarely been properly enforced - there's a lot of legal ground to sue your foulmouthed @rse off here, believe me. According to our Russian law the use of "mat" in a public place is offence enough, even if it isn't directed at anyone in particular.

 Out of interest, I decided to spend some time and find this law. Here's the link: http://www.hro.org/docs/rlex/kadm/20.htm . Interestingly, they use the term "нецензурная брань" and I think it's arguable whether "undirected mat" may be implied here. But even if it was clear (let’s suppose there are some other documents that specify it), what we are discussing here is _why this law should or shouldn't exist_ and simply stating the fact of it's existence is irrelevant.  

> What is being abused here is our _public moral_.

 Then I think here lies our main difference. I think that the law can't be built on nothing but public moral or we would have a lot of rights violating laws, such as law against adultery, for example (and we know instances when such laws existed and still exist in some societies).  

> I'm skipping the rest of your post for it makes no sense at all. Your arguments would be OK in a sophistry class, but we've a real-life situation on our hands and we have real life laws in this country.

 I wouldn’t call real life laws anything that needs to be enforced. I would use this term for something that exists regardless of the official laws. For example, A has a quarrel with B and B calls him names using foul language. According to the law A has a right to sue B but in what percentage of such cases will A actually do that? In most cases he’ll just let it go and _that_ is what I call a real life law.

----------


## Линдзи

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/10/05/zucchini.shtml 
Whoa.

----------


## VendingMachine

> http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/10/06/hammerpoliceman.shtml

  A cop driving a Lada? Give me a break. The whole story is fictional.   

> http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/08/03/subwaycop.shtml

  Sure, shot him in the mouth. And what was he going to do with the body? Bury it in the garden? What garden, he was in the metro. Ah, chop it to pieces and feed it to the metro rats which grow as big as german shepherd dogs according to another moscow rag.    

> http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/04/12/police.shtml

 Kidnapping, eh. Men wearing police uniforms, eh. If you'd lived in Russia you'd've known that police uniforms are freely available and it's the most common disguise many criminals use these days. And how much did they pay them? $400? Not exactly a king's ransom, is it.  
All three articles are nothing but lies, courtesy of the most lie-ridden newspaper in Russia.

----------


## VendingMachine

> http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/10/05/zucchini.shtml 
> Whoa.

 Zucchini, eh. What about a man with a pointed stick?

----------


## VendingMachine

*Friendy*, "нецензурная брань" *is* мат. It's legal goobledygook for what we call "мат" in colloquial Russian. There's no contradiction here, the law is very clear.   

> Then I think here lies our main difference. I think that the law can't be built on nothing but public moral or we would have a lot of rights violating laws, such as law against adultery, for example (and we know instances when such laws existed and still exist in some societies).

 It probably does, though I never said that laws could be built on _nothing but public moral_, what I did say was that laws should be built _with regard_ to public moral and thank God we have such wonderful laws that keep our citizens in check. As for a law against adultry - the public moral has nothing against it, Friendy, wake up and smell the coffee. If, however, the public moral did not approve of it then of course it would be better for all of us if we had such a law.    

> why this law should or shouldn't exist and simply stating the fact of it's existence is irrelevant

 It is relevant. If it's there it means it's there for a reason - you don't see what that reason is, I can just about discern it, people with superior analitical abilities see every detail of it and our leaders know all there is to know about it. This law is there because we all need it - they don't exactly hire basket weavers to make laws, do they. It's for our own good and we must be grateful to our gov't that we have such people who take care even of this side of our lives. I am truly happy we have such a wonderful law.    

> For example, A has a quarrel with B and B calls him names using foul language. According to the law A has a right to sue B but in what percentage of such cases will A actually do that? In most cases he’ll just let it go and that is what I call a real life law.

 I actually know people who have sued their verbal offenders quite successfully. But you're correct in saying that in most cases people don't go to court over such matters - it's so much more satisfying to punch your offender in the face, that's the reason why, Friendy.

----------


## VendingMachine

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/news/7ocl ... 1203.shtml  http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0528-06.htm  http://tn.essortment.com/policebrutality_rken.htm  http://free.freespeech.org/americanstat ... ality.html  http://www.massbrutality.org/ 
...
and thousands more

----------


## scotcher

Right, I'm convinced, Russian police are no more corrupt than anywhere else. 
I'd better go call _every single Russian I have ever met in my life_ to let them know the the truth, so that they can avoid spreading any more vicious and unfair rumours about their own police force. They will be surpised.

----------


## VendingMachine

> I'd better go call _every single Russian I have ever met in my life_ to let them know the the truth, so that they can avoid spreading any more vicious and unfair rumours about their own police force. They will be surpised.

 How old are you? I doubt you've met all that many Russians. I'm older than you and I've lived most of my life in Russia - I bet I've met a LOT more Russians than you have and most of them have nothing bad to say against our policemen. <Insert your favourite Divinity here> bless them, they've really done a lot to make our streets safe for all the good law-abiding citizens of this country. 
P.S. I bet you've met a handful of doddering idiots with a it's always better where we are not complex.

----------


## scotcher

Heh, OK VM, whatever you say.

----------


## VendingMachine

> Heh, OK VM, whatever you say.

 Good, scotcher, you make a model forum member.

----------


## scotcher

Nah, I just knew that if I estimated how many Russians I'd met in my life then in your next post you'd have asked me to prove it by naming each of them.

----------


## VendingMachine

> Nah, I just knew that if I estimated how many Russians I'd met in my life then in your next post you'd have asked me to prove it by naming each of them.

 ...something you wouldn't've been able to do because you probably have never met a single Russian in your life.  I'm sure your "list" would have been a collection of fake names like Ivan Pushkin, Nikolay Petrov, Boris Smirnov, etc. Before you post your list, may I post a list of the Scottish people I've met? Here we go: Jock MacLeod, Hamish MacNasty, Tam Burns and Lezlie MacBlowhard.

----------


## scotcher

Yep, nothing gets past you VM, I've never met a single Russian in my puff. 
By the way, how do you know Jock, Hamish, Tam and Lez? They used to be the second most well-known barbershop quartet back on my home island.

----------


## JB

It's very interesting how someone who claims to be a "native speaker" of Russian uses so many phrases that only Americans use. These phrases are scattered throughout this and other threads. Kinda makes you wonder how a native Russian would come to think these Americanisms were so clever that he had to use them when talking with other Russians. Don't you think he would use Russian colloquilisms instead?

----------


## Линдзи

> It's very interesting how someone who claims to be a "native speaker" of Russian uses so many phrases that only Americans use. These phrases are scattered throughout this and other threads. Kinda makes you wonder how a native Russian would come to think these Americanisms were so clever that he had to use them when talking with other Russians. Don't you think he would use Russian colloquilisms instead?

 To be fair, JB, I believe many of his colloquialisms are used back in Old Mother England also.   
(Or maybe I, as a US citizen, just don't want to claim him as one of ours.   ::  )

----------


## JB

OK Brits, speak up! Does anyone see anything distinctly British about any of VM's comments?

----------


## scotcher

In fairness, yes, VM's grasp of British regional dialects and slang is so good that I would be amazed if he hadn't lived in Britain for a considerable amount of time. He has a handle on the nuances of natural usage that goes way beyond stereotype, and he is able to vary his writing style according to the tone of his post  (how annoyed he is and who he's trying to wind up  ::  ), probably better than most Brits, at least over such a broad range of dialects/ accents.  The one and only voice recording of his that I've heard was, as far as I could tell, perfect. I have absolutely no idea how someone who grew up speaking an entirely different language(s) could have mastered English so completely, but I'm not interested enough to ask him since I know I wouldn't get a straight answer anyway. 
He's still mental though  ::

----------


## DDT

> OK Brits, speak up! Does anyone see anything distinctly British about any of VM's comments?

 It's a safe bet that VM has at least lived in one of the Commonwealth countries. However I do know  someone who learned English off the BBC but I don't know if one could get *that* good.

----------


## VendingMachine

> Kinda makes you wonder how a native Russian would come to think these Americanisms were so clever that he had to use them when talking with other Russians. Don't you think he would use Russian colloquilisms instead?

 I'm sorry, JB, I'm afraid I don't know what you're on about. Could you please give us an example of an "americanism" I used and a "Russian colloquilism" I might have used instead? (If you do I will cancel your translation chores.) Thank you.

----------


## waxwing

We had this discussion (at VM's own initiation) before, and, yes, I agree 100% with scotcher. Actually he puts it very eloquently. 
I don't believe VM is anywhere near as familiar with US culture as he is with British culture. I can't rememer specifics though, sorry.  
His voice too - pure Essex man. Well 'man'.  ::

----------


## DDT

What makes you think it was realy his voice?

----------


## waxwing

I have a number of reasons for thinking so, but I prefer not to say. Of course, I'm not actually sure.

----------


## BJ

Scotcher is right, VM's language skills are beyond many native English speakers. In a PM he told me how he had acquired these skills but as it was a PM I must keep quiet. Sorry folks.

----------


## JB

Any Russians want to comment on his "Russian" cultural identifiers? (or lack of)

----------


## Friendy

I never had any doubts about his being Russian.

----------


## JB

Why?

----------


## Friendy

I don't know. Intuitive thing probably.

----------


## JB

Is there anything he has said that only a Russian Native would know? Or maybe something cultural about his posts  that an expat living in Russia would never be able to imitate?

----------


## VendingMachine

> Is there anything he has said that only a Russian Native would know? Or maybe something cultural about his posts  that an expat living in Russia would never be able to imitate?

 It's everything that you fail to immitate, JB. I've been saying this for years...   ::

----------


## BJ

He's a cuddly Russian bear - it's so obvious  ::

----------


## mike

No, he's a butthole.

----------


## BJ

Jealous? You're a cuddly bear too, Mike  ::

----------


## mike

Yes, a teddy bear cut from the same butthole cloth.

----------


## BJ

I like it  ::  
The only way to deal with VM is to be nice. Then he's horrible back and you have to be even nicer. It will drive him wild with delight or worse.

----------


## TexasMark

I can't imagine how much VM must be loving all this back and forth on his international man of mystery status.

----------


## BJ

Hven't you noticed that he's been quiet for ages and has only just resurfaced? At least things get interesting and lively when he's contributing!

----------


## Friendy

> Then I think here lies our main difference. I think that the law can't be built on nothing but public moral or we would have a lot of rights violating laws, such as law against adultery, for example (and we know instances when such laws existed and still exist in some societies).
> 			
> 		  It probably does, though I never said that laws could be built on _nothing but public moral_,

 I knew you didn't say that, I really expressed it badly, sorry. I should have said that the public moral, in my opinion, is not something that should be protected (from abusing) by the law.  

> As for a law against adultry - the public moral has nothing against it, Friendy, wake up and smell the coffee.

   ::   Adultery was always condemned by public opinion, nowadays not as much as in previous times, but still.   

> [quote:bqbm5mhl]why this law should or shouldn't exist and simply stating the fact of it's existence is irrelevant

 It is relevant. If it's there it means it's there for a reason [/quote:bqbm5mhl]
So what? If there’s a reason for something to exist that doesn’t mean that it *should* exist. The robbers also have a reason for robbing - they want money.  But this reason won't keep people from thinking that robbery shouldn't exist. And by that logic these swearing in public guys also have a reason for that, will it keep you from thinking that they shouldn't do it?     

> …you don't see what that reason is, I can just about discern it, people with superior analitical abilities see every detail of it …

 I think you're overestimating the complicity here, this is not an issue that involves much of analytical abilities.   

> ...and our leaders know all there is to know about it.

  

> This law is there because we all need it - they don't exactly hire basket weavers to make laws, do they.

  

> It's for our own good and we must be grateful to our gov't that we have such people who take care even of this side of our lives.

 Ну прям "Спасибо товарищу Сталину за наше счастливое детство" или "Прошла зима, настало лето, спасибо Партии за это".   ::  Sorry, couldn't help, but it really brings up that kind of associations to my mind  :: 
Don't you think that with that kind of logic (btw, that would be an interesting exercise  ::  ) it's quite easy to justify a totalitarian state? (and I seriously doubt that you would like to live in one).

----------


## bad manners

> …you don't see what that reason is, I can just about discern it, people with superior analitical abilities see every detail of it …
> 			
> 		  [quote:3veartxz] ...and our leaders know all there is to know about it.

  

> This law is there because we all need it - they don't exactly hire basket weavers to make laws, do they.

  

> It's for our own good and we must be grateful to our gov't that we have such people who take care even of this side of our lives.

 Ну прям "Спасибо товарищу Сталину за наше счастливое детство" или "Прошла зима, настало лето, спасибо Партии за это".   ::  Sorry, couldn't help, but it really brings up that kind of associations to my mind  :: 
Don't you think that with that kind of logic (btw, that would be an interesting exercise  ::  ) it's quite easy to justify a totalitarian state? (and I seriously doubt that you would like to live in one).[/quote:3veartxz]
This kind of logic drives the so-called "Western Democracies" these days. I cannot see anything totalitarian about it. Anyone with half a brain will elect government and parliament who actually understand what they are doing. Grasp that.

----------


## Friendy

There's nothing totalitarian in the logic itself,  but mindless agreement with what your government, parlament, whatever (no matter elected or not) is doing may lead to unpleasant consequences. Their being elected(and "anyone with half brain" doesn't really have much choice here) doesn't prevent them from making unnecessary laws (and there's nothing unnatural in it 'cause we are all humans). Of course they understand what they are doing, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good decision and that everyone should agree with that.

----------


## bad manners

I do not think that "mindless agreement" is appropriate here, Friendy. In case of VendingMachine, the agreement is not mindless at all, he seems to be very much in favour of that law personally. I imagine that a large number of Russian citizens share that attitude. 
If you disagree with all the laws, then you and the other dissidents should vote for somebody else. If you do but nothing changes, it means that you're in minority and either have to put up with that, or create a party and try to get in the parliament, or just leave the country. That is democracy for you. 
P.S. I know that the majority will vote for anyone who's smart enough to fool them (and has money for that), but that is also democracy for you. 
EDIT: Says bad manners in his 1000th post.

----------


## Friendy

> I do not think that "mindless agreement" is appropriate here, Friendy. In case of VendingMachine, the agreement is not mindless at all, he seems to be very much in favour of that law personally. I imagine that a large number of Russian citizens share that attitude.

 My words "mindless agreement" where not targeted VM's position on the law in question but on the logic that I assotiate with some of his statements that I quoted (I even doubt that VM himself always follows that kind of logic because he doesn't seem to be a person inclined to mindless agreement to me).  
And, of course, congratulations on the 1000th post, bad manners.  ::

----------

