Political Correctness in Russia and Ukraine

[nataliek at UALBERTA.CA]

I would like to add a couple of points to Will Ryan's contribution to  
this discussion.

Old examples of taboo terms that undergo interesting metamorphoses  
include medved' which, in Ukrainian, is vedmid' and is itself a  
euphemism.  Same is true for volk/vovk.

There are, of course, very interesting euphemisms for human body  
parts, esp. those of a sexual nature, since refering to them directly  
was not socially acceptable.  But, of course, the euphemisms, when  
they become too closely identified with the organ in question, become  
taboo.

Last but not least v/na Ukraine and (the) Ukraine.  Will is right that  
Ukrainians want to be seen as an independent state, not the border of  
Russia.  Therefore no "the." By the same token, they like the idea of  
Ukraina as frontier.  It is a romantic image which evokes adventure,  
bravado, and kozaks riding into the sunset.  By the way, it is no  
longer politically correct to use the word Cossack.  Kozak is now  
preferred.

Natalie Kononenko

Quoting "William Ryan" <wfr at SAS.AC.UK>:

> I would certainly not dispute the fact that some words genuinely  
> cause offence, and even harm, in some contexts, and that politeness  
> and common decency should oblige us to avoid them. However, PC began  
> to be maligned because, however good the intentions are of those who  
> coin new words or terms, or ban old ones, they tend to reflect the  
> opinions of pressure groups, are often ignorant and/or ludicrous,  
> and may achieve the opposite of what was intended by inviting  
> ironical use or downright mockery, are a prime source of  'urban  
> legends', and when insisted on by governments, official bodies,  
> editorial boards etc., amount to censorship. This can sometimes be  
> no more than local prudishness - a journal published by a very  
> distinguished US institution once edited out of an article I had  
> written, on a history of science topic, a quotation from an  
> 18th-century text including the now obsolete astronomical term  
> 'menstrual libration' (the relative monthly movement of the moon  
> relative to the earth), on the grounds that it was offensive.  
> Nowadays Google simply asks if by 'libration' you mean 'liberation'.  
> The whole notion of prescriptive terminology for sensitive areas  
> also ignores the fact that once a word is tabooed and replaced by a  
> euphemism, the euphemism may in turn become sensitive and require  
> yet another euphemism.
>
> In the matter of v/na Ukraine, mentioned in another response, this  
> is quite literally a matter of  'political correctness', and is  
> mirrored by the insistence that we should in English refer to  
> 'Ukraine' and not, as formerly, 'the Ukraine'. The argument seems to  
> be that in both cases the old formulation implied that the Ukraine  
> was a mere territory and not an independent state (notwithstanding  
> the analogy of 'na Rusi'). This has been discussed here before, and  
> I would still maintain that it is not 'the' which implies  
> marginality but 'Ukraine', for obvious etymological reasons.
>
> Will Ryan
>
>
Natalie Kononenko
Kule Chair of Ukrainian Ethnography
University of Alberta
Modern Languages and Cultural Studies
200 Arts Building
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E6
Phone: 780-492-6810
Web: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/uvp/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------