Not sold on this, why do people say “The United Kingdom,” or “The United States,” then? And before the states were established territories were refered to without always using the word “the.”
Sounds like this is a technicality to Russian that doesn’t translate fully to English.
I don’t know. Contextual placements are tricky and can be used to confuse.
Somewhere along the line I believe the word Ukraine was defined as “the borderlands”. Maybe I’m wrong.
Yet another infopropagandist piece of woke buffalo-excreta.
The article presents the argument for why using the is considered politically incorrect – namely, that using the somehow demeans the country by implying it’s just an ill-defined region, not a nation-state. Traditionally, in English, “the Ukraine” was either the norm or at least considered perfectly proper usage. This is a distinction that has nothing to do with Russian or Ukrainian. They, and the languages closely related to them, do not use the definite or indefinite article, so they have no equivalent for the.
I’m not “a linguistic anthropologist” (whatever that is) or “an expert on language politics in Russia,” as the article’s author apparently is, but I did study Russian at university level. I’m not sure the author’s point about the difference between the Russian prepositions na and v has quite as much merit as the article implies. Yes, I suppose if a Russian were trying to make a point of not acknowledging the legitimacy of the Ukraine as a state, I could see why he’d avoid using v. However, back in the days of the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR was, theoretically, an independent or semi-independent republic, with borders. It wasn’t a vaguely defined region. As the author herself points out, it was common in those days to say na Ukraine (and still is). I never got the impression someone saying na Ukraine in Russian was trying to demean the Ukraine or Ukrainians.
This article is shot through with the type of woke-esque political correctness that is the bane of so much contemporary “journalism” and “academics”:
The distinction is critically important for the sovereignty of the Ukrainian nation-state.
A ridiculous statement on its face.
To a Ukrainian worried about the nation-state’s territorial integrity, that little word “the” might suggest that the speaker does not much care whether Ukraine is an independent state.
Is it my moral duty to walk on linguistic eggshells to show whether I care?
Like it or not, and intentionally or not, the language a person uses reflects their political positions, including their position on Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty.
I contest the notion that using the says anything about my political position.
I’m part Ukrainian and, personally, couldn’t care less whether someone uses the or not. I’m happy to follow Dr. Farrell’s usage when communicating on his website. And even if I don’t have a strong opinion on this particular question, I very much respect Dr. Farrell’s refusal to bend to the political agenda du jour by changing his language.
Agree, using language to define one’s politics is trickery and misleading.
How is it when reading an article in British publications they do not put the word “the” in front of hospital or university? Yet in American publications “the” precedes the mention of either.
He was in the hospital vs He was in hospital.
She was attending the university vs She was attending university.
Is that a King’s English language thing vs the American English thing? It stumps me.
Yeah Canadians (at least in south B.C.) say they went “to university,” also, no “the,” which seems like a more general way to just mention going to “a” university or college as opposed to a specific one specified by a “the.” Slang is to just say “went to uni.”
They also pronounce “literally” different, more like lit-rally that lit-er-ally the e is more silent.
I agree 100%
This would be like to say to someone in Sri Lanka, “If you don’t pronounce United States correctly, you might has well have just burned a u.s. flag and killed an eagle in front of the White House!”