Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works1 min ago
One Word In Russian
24 Answers
I have just learned that the Russian word 'mir' can mean 'world' or 'peace'. How can a Russian know what is meant when he sees the word (in Cyrillic characters)? How can one word have two such different meanings?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bert45. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Russian word 'мир' is derived from the Proto-Slavic 'mirъ', which in turn is derived from Proto-Indo-European (PTE), which was a spoken language from about 4500 BCE to 2500 BCE. Given that the word has therefore been around for at least 6500 years it's pobably not unsurprising that it's been used in more than one way. Indeed, the original word had become 'mitis' (meaning 'mild') by the time it found its way into Latin (which, like modern Slavic languages, can also be traced back to PIE).
As has been suggested above, context will help a Russian speaker to understand which of the two meanings applies when he encounters 'мир'. For example, 'Война и мир' is usually seen as meaning 'War and Peace', rather than as 'War and the World' (which could be a possible interpretation, as the Slavic group of languages doesn't make use of definite or indefinite articles), simply because 'peace' is an antonym of 'war'.
As has been suggested above, context will help a Russian speaker to understand which of the two meanings applies when he encounters 'мир'. For example, 'Война и мир' is usually seen as meaning 'War and Peace', rather than as 'War and the World' (which could be a possible interpretation, as the Slavic group of languages doesn't make use of definite or indefinite articles), simply because 'peace' is an antonym of 'war'.
^^^ It was a mixture, Wolfie.
My post was derived from a variety of online sources, plus a bit of background knowledge about PTE and knowing that some scholars have suggested that Tolstoy actually meant the title of his book to be 'War and The World' (although they're pobably very much in a minority).
The absence of definite and indefinite articles in the Slavic group of languages was known to me through struggling (largely unsuccesfully) with the complexities of Polish at evening classes in Cambridge.
My post was derived from a variety of online sources, plus a bit of background knowledge about PTE and knowing that some scholars have suggested that Tolstoy actually meant the title of his book to be 'War and The World' (although they're pobably very much in a minority).
The absence of definite and indefinite articles in the Slavic group of languages was known to me through struggling (largely unsuccesfully) with the complexities of Polish at evening classes in Cambridge.
My memory is shot to hell by Lithium so I am envious of anyone who remember information. My brother has a degree in History and Politics and he remembers it all and understands it. He is visiting from Nottingham with his family just now but my brilliant idea of not cleaning the flat has meant that they are staying in a hotel.
I may be crazy but I'm not stupid.
:-)
I may be crazy but I'm not stupid.
:-)
My pal and i went back to college in the nineties to do maths at o-level. We had failed it a few times before but this time we passed. We have forgotten it all. I still count on my fingers.
Apologies Bert for hijacking your thread. I'm off to bed, I'm actually pinned under the duvet by Frankie, he his purring and snoring.
Night
Apologies Bert for hijacking your thread. I'm off to bed, I'm actually pinned under the duvet by Frankie, he his purring and snoring.
Night
My elder daughter did G.C.S.E. Russian and yes, it's all depending on context. My friend who now lives in Thailand, wrote to me in her early days there bemoaning that the same word had several different meanings - but that you wouldn't say 'the horse is on the rug' so the word had to mean 'dog' - or something else unlikely.
Hi boys Not much on television
My thought on this are as follows:
Linguists are full off the idea of meaning (semantics). They draw the distinction between words from different roots which I think from Chris’ entry “mir” and “mir” are, (ie like bat and bat – take you pick of whichever I mean.) (‘allophones’) – which are distinguished by context . As opposed to “get” and “get to” which have suffered word smear (meaning smear) – and they are also distinguished by context.
.
This is covered in the idea of Frame linguistics ( a branch of cognitive linguistics) - the meaning of a word is dependent on the frame in which it is received. This is not kinda rocket science. A “wall of silence” is different to “I will build a great warl to keep mehican rapists out”. I was going to say the first wall is good and the second is bad. However knowing the average mucker on AB – the first ‘wall’ is good and the second is Even Bedda!
This little fellow is talking about it
.
.
this is the seventh hour of a ten hour course and yes I know a lot about cognitive linguistics now! The lecturer does 25 meanings of come, come to, come by, come from, and so on and on.
and the context explains why you cant really do word-for-word translation – Mandarin you need two or three to get the sense (saussure’s chaine de termes)
.
and you will agree that you can’t do word for word translation of ‘go up thy bald-head’ – Elijah, KJV, he translated them into little crows hur hur hur. Go up is a phrasal verb.
.
Analytic languages – ( English Arabic Mandarin) are meant to be the easiest for word for word because they don’t mutate. (much) Latin and Greek are hopeless as they mutate and allow the word order to vary as to meaning.
.
.
Oh, who spotted BoJos(*) ‘ignoratio elenchi’ was one word of Latin and one word of Greek ? Last PMQ before the dissolution. So the phrase can’t have been classical it must have been a later silver age gloss.
It means “ignorance of refutation” or in our terms refuting an argument with red herring.
and finally
there are some languages that a tv news-reader can pick up the ‘latest’ and just read it . English is said to be one, but I was always taught to prepare it. Arabic on the other hand is a complete no-no – too many vowels missing.
So it all boils down to context
.
(*) I just know someone is gonna go for the side splitting one liner- “who bojo den?”
My thought on this are as follows:
Linguists are full off the idea of meaning (semantics). They draw the distinction between words from different roots which I think from Chris’ entry “mir” and “mir” are, (ie like bat and bat – take you pick of whichever I mean.) (‘allophones’) – which are distinguished by context . As opposed to “get” and “get to” which have suffered word smear (meaning smear) – and they are also distinguished by context.
.
This is covered in the idea of Frame linguistics ( a branch of cognitive linguistics) - the meaning of a word is dependent on the frame in which it is received. This is not kinda rocket science. A “wall of silence” is different to “I will build a great warl to keep mehican rapists out”. I was going to say the first wall is good and the second is bad. However knowing the average mucker on AB – the first ‘wall’ is good and the second is Even Bedda!
This little fellow is talking about it
.
.
this is the seventh hour of a ten hour course and yes I know a lot about cognitive linguistics now! The lecturer does 25 meanings of come, come to, come by, come from, and so on and on.
and the context explains why you cant really do word-for-word translation – Mandarin you need two or three to get the sense (saussure’s chaine de termes)
.
and you will agree that you can’t do word for word translation of ‘go up thy bald-head’ – Elijah, KJV, he translated them into little crows hur hur hur. Go up is a phrasal verb.
.
Analytic languages – ( English Arabic Mandarin) are meant to be the easiest for word for word because they don’t mutate. (much) Latin and Greek are hopeless as they mutate and allow the word order to vary as to meaning.
.
.
Oh, who spotted BoJos(*) ‘ignoratio elenchi’ was one word of Latin and one word of Greek ? Last PMQ before the dissolution. So the phrase can’t have been classical it must have been a later silver age gloss.
It means “ignorance of refutation” or in our terms refuting an argument with red herring.
and finally
there are some languages that a tv news-reader can pick up the ‘latest’ and just read it . English is said to be one, but I was always taught to prepare it. Arabic on the other hand is a complete no-no – too many vowels missing.
So it all boils down to context
.
(*) I just know someone is gonna go for the side splitting one liner- “who bojo den?”
but that you wouldn't say 'the horse is on the rug'
hahahaha: try speaking Mandarin in a restaurant – the English get the tones wrong . When the waiter bursts out laughing, instead of flied Chow mein, you have really said something like boiled horses weenie.
Yeah or allo’ ( how to answer a telephone in English and French)
Is ‘weh’ ( er hallo) falling tone and NOT wê – questioning, rising tone.
A mandarin commented to me: you have just said ‘ prostitute’.
hahahaha: try speaking Mandarin in a restaurant – the English get the tones wrong . When the waiter bursts out laughing, instead of flied Chow mein, you have really said something like boiled horses weenie.
Yeah or allo’ ( how to answer a telephone in English and French)
Is ‘weh’ ( er hallo) falling tone and NOT wê – questioning, rising tone.
A mandarin commented to me: you have just said ‘ prostitute’.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
