languagehat.com

Many years ago I visited the Topkapı Palace. As that Wikipedia article says, “The palace complex has hundreds of rooms and chambers, but only the most important are accessible to the public today,” and I was frustrated by the quick march our guide was providing through that limited number of rooms, so at a convenient moment I slipped away from the group and wandered for a bit through some of the closed areas. It was amazing seeing those dusty rooms with their faded ornamentation by myself; I soon hurried back to the group, not wanting to cause distress if my absence was noticed, but ever since then I’ve slipped into reveries thinking about the experience, and wished they’d open more of the place up.

Now that I’ve finished Veltman’s Strannik [The wanderer] (see this post), I have a very similar feeling. I started my swerve back to the beginning of modern Russian literature more or less on a whim, thinking I’d dash through some stories and at least start a few novels to get a sense of what the early stuff was like before settling in to Dostoevsky, but here it is the better part of a year later and I keep devouring writers of whom I, like most aficionados of Russian literature, had barely heard, thinking “Why don’t more people read this?” After finishing Narezhny’s Rossiisky Zhilblaz (A Russian Gil Blas; see this post), I went on to read two more of his novels (Bursak [The seminary student] and Dva Ivana [The two Ivans]), and once I had a taste of Pogorelsky (see this post) I read whatever else I could find by him. But what about the writers who aren’t even available online? What about Alexander Izmailov (1779–1831), whose Evgeny, ili pagubnye posledstviya durnogo vospitaniya i soobshchestva [Eugene, or the ruinous results of bad upbringing and association] Mirsky called “a cautionary and moral story, where the author describes vice with such realistic gusto that his critics were inclined to doubt the sincerity of his moral purpose”? What about Alexander Benitsky (1781–1809), whose style (again according to Mirsky) “surpassed in elegance and lucidity everything written in Russian prose before Pushkin” and upon whose death Batyushkov wrote to Gnedich: “What wit, and now no longer with us! Aren’t you ashamed not to write a line in praise of him, not in verse but prose? Why not let people know that a certain Benitsky lived and wrote ‘The Next Day’?” [Был умен, да умеръ! А тебе не стыдно ли не написать ни строчки в его похвалу, не стихами, а прозою? Зачем не известить людей, что жил некто Беницкий и написал На другой день?] (I’ve added a Google Books clip below the cut for those who can see it.) He’s so completely forgotten I can’t find a list of his stories with dates, let alone any texts, and it’s not even clear how to spell his last name (there are comparable numbers of hits for Бенитцкий and Беницкий). It’s a striking sign of the richness of Russian literature that it can afford to forget about writers that other cultures would name avenues after.

But enough preamble; let me tell you about Strannik (online here). I mentioned Moby-Dick in my previous Veltman post (linked above), and Melville certainly comes to mind; compare the openings of the two novels. Strannik: “This sedentary, monotonous life has grown wearisome; let us go, sir! — said I one day to myself — let us go a-traveling!” [Наскучив сидячею, однообразною жизнию, поедемте, сударь! — сказал я однажды сам себе, — поедемте путешествовать!] Moby-Dick (after the famous opening sentence): “Some years ago — never mind how long precisely — having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation.” And the constant detours, the apparently inconsequential interruptions and side-thoughts, these too are reminiscent of the greatest American novelist (not a considered judgment that I am prepared to defend against all comers, mind you, but it is impossible for me not to feel it after immersing myself, however briefly, in Melville’s prose)—except that both writers got this style from the fons et origo of all divagating, diverting, dissertating novelists and prestidigitators of prose, Laurence Sterne, especially his Sentimental Journey and Tristram Shandy. The former (see this LH post) provides the template for the personal (“sentimental”) approach to the act of traversing a landscape, the latter the focus on war and the memory of war—Shandy’s siege of Namur becomes the Wanderer’s sieges of Shumla and Varna, all of them equally obscure after the passage of a few centuries (and indeed, the War of the League of Augsburg is one of the least remembered of the early modern pan-European wars, as the War of 1828–29 is one of the least remembered of the Russo-Turkish wars). (Here he sums up the twin poles of the book: “I do not intend to devote this day either to peaceful wandering through the Universe and through events, or to military campaigns through Bulgaria. It is as fine as the first of May.” [Этот день я не намерен посвящать ни мирному странствию по Вселенной и по событиям, ни военным походам по Булгарии. Он так хорош, как 1-е маия.]) Another source is Xavier de Maistre‘s Voyage autour de ma chambre, but of course de Maistre himself is heavily indebted to Sterne.

At any rate, what am I to say of the novel now that I’ve gotten its genealogy out of the way? It’s a war memoir, a travelogue, a fantasy, a dream of fair women, with poetry and ethnography tossed in, not to mention a phrasebook with bits of Greek, Turkish, Yiddish, French, and just about every other language to be found in the surprisingly cosmopolitan towns of early-nineteenth-century Bessarabia, Moldavia, and Bulgaria. It’s definitely postmodern avant le mot. It’s funny and wistful and occasionally hints at the devastation of war without ever rubbing the reader’s nose in it. I guess the best thing to do is quote a typical passage (I’ll put the original at the end of the post). Here are a couple of chapters from the end of the second part):

CCXXIII
Boring, boring! … no, without [my Amazons] not a step forward! I’m ready to put off the march on Shumla to the end of the third part! Oh, to accomplish great deeds, one needs patience!… angelic… diabolic… do you think? no, mine—i.e., midway between them.
How patient is he who, having satisfied thirst and hunger, feelings, mind, and heart, stretches out to rest in downy waves and, already falling asleep, feels that something is crawling on his face, but fears to move lest in frightening off the insect he should also frighten sleep from his eyes… how patient he is!
And that isn’t everything, because everything is more than the whole Universe. That is not the end, nor is it the beginning… Show me a beginning and an end in anything, and I will say: No, that is a continuation.
CCXXIV
Such transitions can be likened to familiar transitions… No, better yet, to the familiar Mozart chord in the overture to La clemenza di Tito. It goes without saying that he who does not know the thoroughbass of human emotions cannot understand the rightness of abrupt transitions; he can understand only a simple scale… Haydn, expressing the creation of the world, first of all depicted Chaos… In everything, harmony arises from disharmony… Thoughts, opinions, speeches, deeds, all of life, everything is subject to this law.

That’s as close as he comes to a manifesto. I wish I had a physical copy of the book, so I could mark all the cross-references and allusions, but although a Russian edition is available, Amazon wants $30 for it, and I’m not willing to shell out that much. But I would like to be living in a world where Strannik was as valued as any other nineteenth-century masterpiece, and I continue to meditate on the reasons it’s not. I suspect it has a lot to do with the turn toward Seriousness and Social Responsibility that Russian literature took in the 1840s. Belinsky has much to answer for.

CCXXIII
Скучно, скучно!.. нет, без них ни шагу вперед! готов отложить поход к Шумле хоть до конца 3-й части! О, чтоб совершать дела великие, нужно терпение!.. ангельское… дьявольское… думаете вы? нет, мое — т. е. среднее между ними.
Как терпелив тот, который, утолив жажду и голод, чувства, ум и сердце, ложится в пуховые волны и, уже засыпая, чувствует, что что-то ползет по лицу, но боится пошевелиться, протянуть руку, чтоб, спугнув насекомое, не спугнуть и усыпления с очей своих… как терпелив он!
Это еще не все, ибо все более целой Вселенной. Это не конец и не начало… Покажите мне в чем-нибудь начало и конец, я скажу: нет, это продолжение.
CCXXIV
Подобные переходы уподобляются известным переходам… или, еще лучше, известному моцартовскому аккорду в увертюре Титова милосердие. Разумеется, что тот, кто не знает генерал-баса чувств человеческих, не может понимать правильности резких переходов; для понятий его доступна только простая гамма… Хайдн, выражая создание мира, прежде всего изобразил Хаос… Во всем стройность создается из нестройности… Мысли, мнения, речи, дела, вся жизнь, все подвержено этому закону.

Ben Zimmer sends me a link to this NYRB tweet—”First (and most likely only) occurrence of ‘doh’ in The New York Review, from 1979 http://j.mp/XsMwfT“—and asks “What do you suppose that seraphic (as opposed to Homeric) ‘doh’ was all about?” The link goes to Brodsky’s own (typically awful) translation of his “A Part of Speech” (Часть речи), and the lines in question are:

After all these years it hardly matters who
or what stands in the corner, hidden by heavy drapes,
and your mind resounds not with a seraphic “doh,”
only their rustle. […]

Here’s the Russian:

После стольких зим уже безразлично, что
или кто стоит в углу у окна за шторой,
и в мозгу раздается не неземное “до”,
но ее шуршание. […]

I’m pretty sure “до” in “неземное ‘до'” (‘unearthly “do”‘) is the note do (=C), as in “do re mi fa sol,” and the “doh” is just Brodsky’s idiosyncratic spelling; at any rate, it certainly has nothing to do with Homer Simpson’s familiar exclamation.

A reader writes:

My wife and I are both Americans and have been living in Germany for four years. I speak German well and my wife speaks it, well, reasonably well, though we speak English at home.
My son was born here 3 years ago. He goes to a German-only preschool and is fully bilingual. For some dumb reason, despite a strong (amateur) interest in linguistics I haven’t read anything at all on child language acquisition. We’re expecting our second child in September and I’d like to be better informed about what’s going on in my kids’ noggins and see what I can do to help them.
I’d be very grateful for some help finding the best books/articles on child language acquisition (both general stuff and things relating specifically to bilingual kids). I can read English, German and French, and probably Spanish in this area, if that expands the field.

That’s an area I know nothing about (except for the practical experience of watching two grandsons acquiring language), so I thought I’d toss it out there and get some recommendations from people who know about this stuff.

Margalit Fox has a nice New York Times obit for linguist John J. Gumperz, “one of the leading authorities on discourse analysis, which studies not only who says what to whom, but also how it is said and in what context.” If you can’t access the[The Times link is archived here;] much of the obit is reproduced at Ben Zimmer’s Log post (and there’s a touching comment by Gumperz’s son Andrew in the thread), but he doesn’t quote a bit that brought a wry smile to my face:

Hans-Josef Gumperz was born on Jan. 9, 1922, in Hattingen, Germany. (His surname is pronounced GUM-perts in German, though after settling in the United States he was inclined to pronounced it GUM-purrs.)

Didn’t anybody notice that Fox used “GUM” the first time to represent German /gum/, i.e. what sounds like GOOM to an English-speaker, and the second time with its “natural” English value to represent /gʌm/? Ah well, a minor slip in a good obit of a good linguist.

Just got an e-mail from frequent commenter John Cowan with a worthy cause and a book offer:

The Dictionary of American Regional English is very
close to being canceled, unless they can get more money. See here for details.

I accidentally bought two copies of McWhorter’s Power of Babel.
I will send a hardback in very good condition to the first Hattic who
contacts me at cowan@ccil.org, and I will pay postage.

On your marks, get set, go!

Tim Parks is translating “a selection of entries from Giacomo Leopardi’s Zibaldone […] a book all Italians know from school and almost nobody has read in its entirety,” and he’s written a post about it at NYRBlog. He asks “do I write in modern prose, or in an early nineteenth-century pastiche?” (the former, of course) and “Do I tidy up the very personal and unedited aspect of the text, or do preserve those qualities, if I can?” The latter question leads to a very interesting discussion, with alternate possible translations of the same passage; he also has to deal with “the first unabridged and fully annotated English edition of the Zibaldone,” which “will not be published until July (by Farrar, Straus and Giroux in the United States) but I have a proof copy. Do I look at it? Before I start? Or only after I finish, to check that at least semantically we have understood the same thing?” Of course he looks at it, and “after reading a few paragraphs of the translation itself I’m reassured that my work will not merely be a duplication of theirs, because I hear the text quite differently”:

What I’d rather like to stress is my intense awareness, as I read their translation, of the uniqueness of each reading response, which is the inevitable result, I suppose, of the individual background we bring to a book, all the reading and writing and listening and talking we’ve done in the past, our particular interests, beliefs, obsessions. I hear Leopardi in an English that has a completely different tone and feel than the one my colleagues have used. I just hear a different man speaking to me—a different voice—though what I hear is no more valid than what they hear.

A good response, and the whole thing is worth your while.

Victor Mair ended a recent Language Log post by mentioning that “upon his retirement after teaching in the Department of Linguistics at Tokyo University for nearly a quarter of a century, Hiroshi Kumamoto (Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania, 1982) was recently gifted with a magnificent Festschrift by his colleagues. This substantial Festschrift has papers on Indo-Aryan, Indo-Iranian, Pwo Karen, Kurux, Latin, Georgian, Arabic, Tocharian, Hittite, Japanese, English, Mongolian, Talaud, Sanskrit, Sogdian, and other interesting subjects.” He’s not kidding about interesting subjects; a few of the titles are “Latin Metals” (Kodama, Shigeaki), “Relative Time Reference in a Conditional Construction in Georgian” (Kojima, Yasuhiro), “Epistemic Modality and Conditional Sentence : On the Presentative Particle of an Arabic Dialect of Tunis (Tunisia)” (Kumakiri, Taku), “Terms of Ornithomancy in Hittite” (Sakuma, Yasuhiko), and “When Did Sogdians Begin to Write Vertically?” (Yoshida, Yutaka). I mean, how can you resist “Terms of Ornithomancy in Hittite”? I know I can’t.

Update (Oct. 2024). The Festschrift link is dead; the Internet Archive has many captures of it (example), but all of them appear blank to me below the university header. However, the UTokyo Repository page sorted by the keyword Kumamoto is here, and it looks like you can download pdfs of the papers from it.

Dave Wilton at Wordorigins.org has a post about a great etymology that I’d forgotten if I ever knew it:

Originally a noun (and still a noun in some isolated uses), the adjective dismal comes into English, like many of our words, with the Normans, a compound formed from the Old French phrase dis mal, which in turn is from the Latin dies mali or “bad days.” The noun dismal, meaning bad or unlucky days, appears in English c. 1300. […] The dismal, also called the Egyptian days because they were first calculated by Egyptian astrologers, consisted of two days per month on which it was unlucky to start a journey or begin a venture. […] By the fifteenth century the association with the Latin dies, “days,” had been sufficiently forgotten that people started referring to them with the redundant dismal days […] By the sixteenth century, dismal was being used as an adjective meaning unlucky or disastrous. By the seventeenth century it was being used to mean dark, gloomy, or cheerless.

(Visit the link for supporting quotes.) The American Heritage Dictionary adds that in the South Atlantic states of the U.S., “a swamp or marsh can be called a pocosin or a dismal, the second term illustrated in the name of the Dismal Swamp on the border of North Carolina and Virginia. The word pocosin possibly comes from Virginia Algonquian.”

I’ve been working my way through my latest acquisition in the Dictionary of Literary Biography series (see this LH post), Russian Literature in the Age of Realism, and I just read the entry on Sofya Engelgardt (Софья Александровна Энгельгардт, 1828-1894), which provides a telling illustration of how hard it was to make a mark as a woman writer in nineteenth-century Russia. Engelgardt published in all the important “thick journals” of the day and was friends with many of the important (male) writers, but she’s been so thoroughly forgotten there’s hardly anything online about her (and most of it is taken straight from the condescending Brockhaus and Efron entry, which says she wrote “in the manner of the second-rate female writers of the [18]40s and ’50s, almost exclusively on the themes of love and family relations,” as if those subjects were damning in and of themselves). The author of the DLB article is Mary F. Zirin, herself an admirable figure, an independent scholar who’s been working for decades to raise the profile of Russian women writers and, if necessary, rescue them from oblivion (she was responsible for the existence of the remarkably thorough Dictionary of Russian Women Writers and has had a prize named after her); she writes that Engelgardt “never took the final step toward professionalism by arranging to republish her works in collected editions. Left moldering in journals and slender volumes, her talented tales were soon forgotten, as was she: no obituaries marked her passing in 1894.” Someone should do a Selected Works and/or translate her into English; I’d love to read her, and I’ll bet others would too. At any rate, I want to quote here Zirin’s vivid description of her Francophone upbringing:

[Engelgardt and her three sisters] were educated by governesses and grew up immersed in French culture. In one of Engel’gardt’s stories the female narrator explains that “at seventeen I knew the name of Pushkin only by hearsay, and in our house Gogol was called an ‘izba [peasant-hut] writer.’ . . . Our children’s library comprised, as if selected on purpose, extremely boring books, mostly French. Particularly memorable to me is one entitled Les annales de la vertu (The Annals of Virtue). . . . Oh, virtue! how early our instructors, in all innocence, taught us to hate you.” In “Vospominaniia na dache” Engel’gardt includes an anecdote about her young narrator’s first encounter with Russian as a drawing-room language: after Iuliia sees a performance by the famous St. Petersburg-based actor Vasilii Andreevich Karatygin, she sneaks out to a neighbor’s home to attend a soirée in his honor. To her horror she discovers that “Karatygin was speaking Russian, and I couldn’t assemble two Russian phrases and, for the first time in my life, was vexed at my ignorance of my native tongue and realized that in Russia it might possibly be of use.” Engel’gardt learned the Russian language rapidly once she set her mind to the task. Although editors had to correct her grammar at first, her fiction was packed with closely described realia and aphoristic turns of phrase, and she had a keen ear for adages, idioms, and colloquial speech. She continued including French passages in her stories to indicate the prevalence of that language in Moscow society; in a couple of tales, too, she poked fun at social climbers for their bad French. In 1860 Engel’gardt put her Francophilic upbringing to journalistic use and contributed three “Zagranichnye pis’ma” (Letters from Abroad) on current events in France to a Moscow newspaper. Her translation into French of Aleksandr Sergeevich Pushkin’s dramatic works appeared in Paris in 1875.

I love “was vexed at my ignorance of my native tongue and realized that in Russia it might possibly be of use.”

Update (August 2017). Last year Erik at XIX век translated an Engelhardt story as “The Old Man,” and he’s now translating another as “It Didn’t Come Off”: introduction here, first installment here.

I’m reading Странник [The wanderer], by Alexander Veltman (see this LH post), and I’ll have a good deal to say about it (and its undeserved obscurity) when I’ve finished it, but for the moment I want to highlight this typically out-of-nowhere passage from section СХХІІІ (the narrator has just announced that he’s going to change the dedication of the book to a simple Вам [‘to you’] and compares it to the Ishvara Shiva’s laconic “Humm! – Om!” to his wife):

The word “Humm!” contains within itself the entire plenitude of a project or proposal for creation, and the question of agreement. The word “Om!” contains praise, corrections, supplements (especially to entities of the female sex) and finally agreement, confirmation, and the like.

Thus are these words elucidated by the glossarists of Indian words: the sage Father Paolino da San Bartolomeo and Langlès, basing themselves (?) on rebelling against the philologists William Jones, Charles Wilkins, and so on, who say that the mysterious word “Om!” is a representation of divinity and consists of three devanagari letters: A and U, which fuse to produce O, or with the addition of M – Om!, that is, the creator, the maintainer, the destroyer.

This is understandable. The Sanskrit language is that nothing out of which are created all other earthly languages; or that sea out of which flow the rivers of the word.

(Russian below the cut; I’m not at all sure I’ve correctly understood “восставая на,” hence the question mark.) Both “om” and “hum” are familiar from the mantra Om mani padme hum. If you get impatient with all the whale stuff in Moby-Dick, you probably won’t care for this, but if you enjoy (as I do) a healthy helping of encyclopedic brio with your fiction, Veltman is definitely your guy.

Слово Гумм! заключает в себе всю полноту прожекта, или предположения о создании, и вопрос о согласии. Слово Ом! заключает похвалу, поправки, дополнения (особенно в существовании женского пола) и, наконец, согласие, подтверждение и т. п.

Так изъясняют значение сих слов толкователи санскритских индейских слов: премудрый патер Паолино ди Санто Бартоломео и Ланглес, восставая на филологов Виллиама Джонса, Вилькинса и проч., которые говорят, что таинственное слово Ом! есть изображение божества и составлено из трех деванагарийских букв: А и У, кои сливаясь, производят О или с прибавлением M – Ом! т. е. творителя, хранителя, рушителя.

Это понятно. Санскритский язык есть то ничего, из которого созданы все прочие земные языки; или то море, из которого истекают реки глагола.