Ukraine

[Zenon M. Feszczak]

>Zenon M. Feszczak wrote:
>
>>With all due respect:
>>I would dare to surmise you might feel otherwise if Ukrainian were to
>>utilize a condescending name for your land, and, in addition, Ukrainian
>>were to become one of the predominant languages of international
>>business, law, science, politics . . .
>
>Well, *nemec* was not only condescending but maybe even derogatory. The
>same could be said about *tatarin* or *tartar*. (Remember: Nezvanyj gost'
>xuzhe tatarina.) I've heard the argument that these reduplicated forms were
>uses as derogatory names, they are not self-names (the same for *berber*).
>In fact, they lost their derogatory flair. In the case where the process
>was reversed, *chuxonec* for Suomi probably was neutral at first and became
>derogatory (as it is now) later, then it got replace by a borrowing: Finn.
>
>Alina Israeli

Hello,

Thank you for these examples.

Though I'm not sure what the point was, unless to say that the pot is calling
the kettle black!

At any rate - yes, often names with derrogatory origin lose that sense over
time.    Evidently to many English speakers the term "the Ukraine" has _not_
lost that sense.      Hence the desire to rectify.

The case with Ukraine is particularly painful, for two simple reasons:

1. The looming presence of English as the language of discourse for
international business, politics, science, i.t.d.

2. Ukraine is at that crucial juncture of defining her image in the eyes of the
world, attempting to lose the shadow of imperialism and her own resultant
provincialism.    At this point, perception is destiny.

Zenon M. Feszczak
Colloquialist