Stalinka, and suffix -k- there.

[Edward M Dumanis]

Since the argument in question was mine, I want to quote what I said.
------quote begins---------------
Of course, it does not exhaust all the meanings associated with the suffix
-k-. However, in the presented context, the meaning is restricted to the
one of familiarity (and possibly hidden affection). Cf. "chitalka" and
"kurilka."
------end of quote---------------

First of all, -k- is a suffix, and -a- is an ending since it changes
depending on the case.
As one can see, the very first quoted sentence is a disclaimer rejecting
any suggestion that I would exhaust all possible meanings associated with
the suffix. It might be a topic for a serious thesis, and not just for
an e-mail message. However, the task is much easier if we restrict its
usage for a very narrow category. And this is what I have done. While it's
common to use this suffix for diminutive forms of nouns, it is also an
instrument that creates a tone of familiarity with an object. Again, it is
not the only possible effect of this suffix but a very important one in
colloquial speech. The example of troika simply does not fit in the
category that we consider because it is not the suffix itself but its
usage that indicates the category. "Lubyanka" fits the category but not in
the meaning that Martin Votruba's message refers to but in the meaning of
the name of the street where CheKa was located, and from which it took its
colloquial name.
So, as one could observe, it is not the suffix itself that provides 
an association with "a feel-good machine" but the context in which it is
used. Well, then we should define the category we are talking about. I
claim that in our context, the category is the names of libraries,
archives and other collections. This restriction is extremely important.
Moreover, it is of crucial importance because it is ALWAYS the meaning of
familiarity associated with suffix -k- in this category. I'll be happy to
find a counter-example to this rule, but I can't. In addition, when a
family name (or a nickname) is used with this suffix, it ALWAYS means a
colloquial form for "named after ..." used with the original name.
Therefore, "X-ka" in this category category ALWAYS denotes a colloquial
form of "named after X." So, in this category, it is ALWAYS positive.
I understand that it is not an intention of the group that created the
website to suggest a positive look on the life of Stalin, but the name
that they have chosen does not help to see it otherwise. So, I support the
recommendation to call it rather "Studies of Stalin" or "Stalin's archive"
and so on.

Sincerely,

Edward Dumanis <dumanis at buffalo.edu>



On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Martin Votruba wrote:

............../snip/....................
> 
> The other argument implied that the suffix -ka somehow automatically 
> diminishes or lightens the meaning of the noun it helps to form. That 
> is not the case. It is more typical of conversational style, but that 
> does not make things more or less positive. It is possible to be 
> pompously formal about the Communists or Nazis, and positive to boot. 
> Or conversational and negative.
> 
> When those suffering under Stalin and similar murderers spoke of the 
> troikas -- the three at show trials who, among other "judgments," 
> sent dissenters to the gulags -- they certainly were not being 
> frivolous or kindly. The word Lubyanka struck fear in most people's 
> hearts and sounded too positive or even affectionate to no one. The 
> suffix -ka is not a feel-good machine.
> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> votruba "at" pitt "dot" edu
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------