Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!iad
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Subject: Re: Russian words in English
Message-ID: <CzCx5x.Cu2@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <CyypDD.LKD@spss.com> <Cz2t8q.ELr@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3a43r8$956@access3.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 10:58:43 GMT
Lines: 71

In article <3a43r8$956@access3.digex.net> bsfield@access3.digex.net (Bear Field) writes:
>In article <Cz2t8q.ELr@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Well, JRR Tolkien uses _linnod_ in Appendix A of _The Lord of the Rings_,
>>also italicised but unglossed.  I'll count that as a word that English
>>has borrowed from Sindarin.
>>
>(1) Using Tolkien as an analogy is specious -- he was explicitly coining
>    a fictional language.

I don't think so.  He did have his own way with English, of course,
in particular he was very fond of archaic words and constructions,
but that doesn't make his English a fictional language.

Or did you mean that Sindarin is fictional?  Possibly, but that
doesn't make a difference here.  The question is whether English can
be said to have borrowed a word from a language, fictional or not,
just because someone has used it once without glossing it.

>(2) I dare say that most English speakers would recognize the meaning of
>    "ne kulturny" when used properly in context; just as most college-educated
>    English speakers would recognize "Ne c'est pas?" or "Que sera sera."

People recognise _N'est-ce pas?_ and _Que sera', sera'_ if/because
they have seen or heard them before.  I don't know how many English
speakers have ever come across _nekul'turnyj_ (romanised in any way).
More likely they can just guess that _ne_ is a negative particle and
what follows has to do with culture.  And then there's the context.

>Mendelevium is not a loan word of ANY kind.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say.

>It is a recent coinage (by a committee the name of which I do not
>recall) following the usual format for names of recently
>discovered/created chemical elements:  the suffix -ium (for speakers
>of English and most other Romance languages)

Most other Germanic languages, you mean.  Also most Slavic ones
(though not Russian or Bulgarian).

>or the equivalent Slavic adjectival suffix

_-ij_ in Russian element names is not a Slavic adjectival suffix (or
it should've been _-yj_); it is an adaptation of the Latin _-ium_.
Latin nominative endings such as _-um_ or _-us_ are usually cut off.
(Cf. the English _-y_ in names such as _Anthony_ or _Timothy_.  It
also looks like an adjectival suffix, but actually goes back to an
_-ius_ or _-eus_.)

Interestingly, although classical and mediaeval Greek names also lose
their nominative endings in Russian (and Bulgarian), modern Greek ones
do not, nor do Baltic ones.  It's really odd to see such forms as
_Ivanov-s-u_ (with a Russian dative ending following a Latvian
nominative one).

>is tacked onto the name of the man being honored.

Or whatever else is being honoured (sometimes a country or region).

>>Yes, a compound which was not created on Russian linguistic ground, [...]
>
>No, an ELEMENT, not a compound.

I meant the name _mendelev-_ + _-i(um)_, which was composed on
neutral, or maybe scientific pseudo-Latin, linguistic ground.

-- 
`That's yer oan problem, Judas', they telt him.  `It's nae concern tae us.'
Ivan A Derzhanski (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk/chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)  (The G-- G--)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,   Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House E113, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Pk Rd, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
