Dedicated Russian thread

Glue_Sniffer

Old-Salt
It is logical to begin with the Crimean war, why not? Moreover Crimea now is a hotspot of international politics, while hardly Angola is frequently mentioned in the news.
Of course the Soviet union was involved in the Angolan civil war but the main contributor was Cuba.
True.
But there is usually more information available on older conflicts.
 

Slime

LE
It's not a separate language or "political English", it's just (like almost any specialist field) certain phrases have specific meanings.

As an engineer you would know this of course.
What he may not know.....As he is Russian, is that the article is not correct either, and its ‘guidelines’ are not always followed.

What may be more apparent in nature than any written or un written rules on language or dialect are the posts from a Russian avatar with varying levels of English language trying to tell native English speakers how to speak in English :)
 
It is logical to begin with the Crimean war, why not? Moreover Crimea now is a hotspot of international politics,
Because Russia invaded
while hardly Angola is frequently mentioned in the news.


Of course the Soviet union was involved in the Angolan civil war but the main contributor was Cuba.
Angola had something to do with it as well.

Note that the Angolan civil war was a civil war, whereas Crimea just happened to get annexed by Russia again and again
 
What he may not know.....As he is Russian, is that the article is not correct either, and its ‘guidelines’ are not always followed.

What may be more apparent in nature than any written or un written rules on language or dialect are the posts from a Russian avatar with varying levels of English language trying to tell native English speakers how to speak in English :)
It is a natural feature of any human being to make mistakes. I'm not an exception and I dare say that you too.
The news item I saw said that the prison service would do their best to keep them seperate.
I have no idea if the prison service can do that, but as the parents had prior internet searches looking to see if couples can stay together, and that was part of the case evidence I wonder if the judge could specify anything.
The right spelling is separate.
Many native English speakers use to make a mistake in this word, while foreigners don't.
 
First of all, thank you for interesting clarifications. When I taught English I was told that if we speak about our planet then the first letter in the word 'earth' should be capitalised and the article 'the' should be used. But it is not that simple. Now I see that if from the context it is clear that our planet is meant then all forms are acceptable - earth, the earth, Earth, the Earth. But if the context is not so clear then forms the earth, Earth, the Earth are preferable. I mean phases like these ones.
There is a lot of water on the surface of earth.
There is a lot of water on the surface of the Earth.
In Russian the situation is much simpler. The first letter is capitalised in all cases to denote our planet.
Земля means the Earth and земля means soil, ground.
Technically, if "Earth" is used as a proper noun then it should be capitalised. A proper noun is the name of a specific person, place, or thing. If however "earth" is used as a common noun then it should not be capitalised. A common noun is the name used for a category of things.

So if I were to say "the history of life on Earth" that would from a technical perspective be the most correct form. If were to say "we shall travel from Earth to Mars" that is also correct. Indeed, if I were to say "we shall travel from earth to Mars" that would stand out as a glaring inconsistency and look wrong to most English speakers.

However, there are so many instances of where "earth" is in practice used uncapitalised when referring to the specific planet that it is hard to absolutely say they are incorrect. For example, you can find so many instances of people writing "I am the happiest person on earth" that it is hard to say it is incorrect rather than an exception to grammatical rules, much like we do in the case of the sun.

The apparent contradiction as I said is rooted in various usages and phrases becoming established in English before we were aware that the Earth was just another planet and the sun was just another star. While some forms are clearly right and some are clearly wrong, there is an ambiguous grey area in between in some cases due to changes which have occurred in how we perceive the universe. As I have mentioned earlier we would never say "the Venus" or "the Mars" when referring to the names of those planets, yet the earth (or the Earth) and the sun are considered to be valid exceptions.

If you are teaching English and are looking to provide a simple rule for capitalisation, then when using "Earth" as a proper noun (the actual name of the planet) if you always capitalise it you will not be wrong. To apply this to your examples above, then if you capitalised "Earth" in both cases you would have been correct, as you are using it as a proper noun in each case.

English has many inconsistencies in it, in grammar, spelling, and pronunciation. Some of this is as I have said above due to changes in perceptions of the universe which have occurred over time.

The same by the way is true of spelling. Many of the spelling inconsistencies are due to changes in common pronunciation which have occurred since late medieval and renaissance times. If you look at some of Shakespeare's poetry for example, some couplets don't appear to rhyme to us, but that is because pronunciation of those words has changed.

"American" forms of spelling though are purely political in origin. They were adopted as part of a conscious campaign by certain revolutionary figures to change the language as used in the newly independent US in an effort to differentiate the US from Britain and to try to introduce a cultural divide between them. This effort was spearheaded by one of their radical revolutionaries by the name of Webster, who produced a dictionary of the "approved" new form of the language. The effort to reshape the language had only limited success as the common people didn't have any great desire themselves to change and the state had no practical means to enforce it. However, a version of his dictionary incorporating a limited number of spelling changes is still considered to be the "standard" dictionary in the US and so some of the "official" spellings were widely adopted in the US. The end result has been that spelling in the US is even more inconsistent than in the rest of the English speaking world (e.g. "defense" versus "fencing" in the US as compared to "defence" and "fencing" in the rest of the English speaking world). It's an interesting example however of language as propaganda.
 

Slime

LE
It is a natural feature of any human being to make mistakes. I'm not an exception and I dare say that you too.

The right spelling is separate.
Many native English speakers use to make a mistake in this word, while foreigners don't.
Thank you for reaffirming the very point I was making about you :)

When you mentioned the ‘right’ spelling were you perhaps trying to point out the ‘correct’ spelling ;)

I’ll ignore the other errors in your post.
 
Last edited:
Note that the Angolan civil war was a civil war, whereas Crimea just happened to get annexed by Russia again and again
Ethnic-Russian Ukrainian citizens don't want to be ruled by Ukraine and so rebel. Sounds a teeny bit civil-war-ish.
 
Ethnic-Russian Ukrainian citizens don't want to be ruled by Ukraine and so rebel. Sounds a teeny bit civil-war-ish.
I can see a deal being made by "the master deal maker" which will solve that issue. The US could recognise Russia annexing Crimea if Russia recognises Israel annexing part of the West Bank and Jerusalem. So much winning!
 
I can see a deal being made by "the master deal maker" which will solve that issue. The US could recognise Russia annexing Crimea if Russia recognises Israel annexing part of the West Bank and Jerusalem. So much winning!
Ah, but two wrongs do not make a right.
But perhaps a mathematical allegory is beyond the ken of a stable genius.
 
Ah, but two wrongs do not make a right.
But perhaps a mathematical allegory is beyond the ken of a stable genius.
There is no question though that the Russian government will see the Americans recognising an Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank as a diplomatic god send, as it would once and for all break the post-1945 consensus of no forcible annexation of territory. It's not just Crimea that is at stake, there's also bits of Georgia and Transnistria as well. And of course once the consensus is broken, the floodgates are opened everywhere.
 
There is no question though that the Russian government will see the Americans recognising an Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank as a diplomatic god send, as it would once and for all break the post-1945 consensus of no forcible annexation of territory. It's not just Crimea that is at stake, there's also bits of Georgia and Transnistria as well. And of course once the consensus is broken, the floodgates are opened everywhere.
It would be a lot less hassle than trying to reframe it as forcible separation of territory c.f. Kosovo, their got-to comparison of the 21st century.

Come to think of it, have any of our governments explained why ethnic Albanians are entitled to our support in unilaterally separating from their parent country but ethnic Serbs, Russians, Catalans, etc. aren't?
 
It would be a lot less hassle than trying to reframe it as forcible separation of territory c.f. Kosovo, their got-to comparison of the 21st century.

Come to think of it, have any of our governments explained why ethnic Albanians are entitled to our support in unilaterally separating from their parent country but ethnic Serbs, Russians, Catalans, etc. aren't?
Independence and separation movements have always been treated differently from straightforward annexations. The former were given an air of legitimacy, to a great extent due post-WWII to de-colonialisation, but also due to pre-WWII ideas about nation states versus multi-national empires.

Annexation however got a bit of a bad rap due to a certain Austrian corporal. It was further reinforced by the consensus that attempting to re-draw post-colonial borders along national or tribal lines, or just to satisfy national ambition, would lead to endless wars among the newly independent ex-colonies.

To the country that is losing territory the difference may seem academic. However, adding annexation to the menu of acceptable actions in international relations promises to lead to a whole new level of violence.
 
There is no question though that the Russian government will see the Americans recognising an Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank as a diplomatic god send, as it would once and for all break the post-1945 consensus of no forcible annexation of territory. It's not just Crimea that is at stake, there's also bits of Georgia and Transnistria as well. And of course once the consensus is broken, the floodgates are opened everywhere.
One might add that Moscow is actively working towards that consensus being broken.
 
One might add that Moscow is actively working towards that consensus being broken.
I posted this video 10 days ago.

It's definitely worth watching the whole video if you haven't seen it yet. I've marked a point which is relevant to your comment, you should at least watch the next few minutes from that point. The interviewee said that the Russians are operating on the basis of exposing our own hypocrisy with regards to human rights and national self-determination with respect to Kosovo and Crimea. The interviewer remarks that most days of the week that isn't too hard.

 
It should be said that separatism, including creation of separatist entities, statelets even if external military force is used, is accepted by the West as something that doesn't contradict to the international law. Let's recall Kosovo in this context.
Technically, Crimea de facto became a separatist entity with support of Russian armed forces. After collapse of the Soviet union separatist sentiments were strong in the peninsula with its predominantly ethnically Russian population.
Classical annexation includes deportations, settlers, absence of any referendum and local population is not granted the citizenship of the annexing Power. For example Arabs in East Jerusalem have no Israeli citizenship.
Israeli annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are 'classical' in this sense. And planned annexation of parts of the West Bank will be also 'classical'.
By contrast there was a referendum in Crimea, there are no settlers, the whole population was given Russian citizenship. So anyway it was not 'classical' annexation.
As for Russia and Crimea then the West has common position - unconditional condemnation and regime of sanctions.
But as for Israel and the annexations (implemented and planned) then the West is divided.
For Europe it is a problem. Generally European countries condemn the planned annexation but hardly any meaningful sanctions will be imposed.
For the USA it is not a problem at all. Unconditional support of Israel is unshakable.
Canada the last years generally follows Washington.
...where’s Canada? As a Special Rapporteur for the United Nations Human Rights Council on the situation in the Palestinian territory, I argue that Canada is missing in action.
No public statements against Israel’s annexation proposal have been issued. No planned accountability measures have been floated. No criticism, however mild, has been offered.
At the same time
In mid-March, Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne did, however, issue a statement related to illegal annexation. He marked the sixth anniversary of the Russian annexation of Crimea by saying that: “Canada unequivocally condemns this violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and of international law.”
Let's recall that
In 2015, newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that “Canada is back” on the world stage and promised to support a rules-based international order.
Here we see typical example then political English is used. The phrase should be read as
...to support an international order based of rules established by Washington...
 
In Russia the rules are what whoever is top dog in the Kremlin says they are.
 
As with many things, your analysis is flawed.
Russians have been conditioned over centuries to see the world very differently from us. Ever since the Mongols destroyed the original “Rus” state of many principalities. And their diligent pupil and tax-collector, Muscovy grew and imposed its baleful autocracy over them.
 
It should be said that separatism, including creation of separatist entities, statelets even if external military force is used, is accepted by the West as something that doesn't contradict to the international law. Let's recall Kosovo in this context.
Technically, Crimea de facto became a separatist entity with support of Russian armed forces. After collapse of the Soviet union separatist sentiments were strong in the peninsula with its predominantly ethnically Russian population.
Classical annexation includes deportations, settlers, absence of any referendum and local population is not granted the citizenship of the annexing Power. For example Arabs in East Jerusalem have no Israeli citizenship.
Israeli annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are 'classical' in this sense. And planned annexation of parts of the West Bank will be also 'classical'.
By contrast there was a referendum in Crimea, there are no settlers, the whole population was given Russian citizenship. So anyway it was not 'classical' annexation.
As for Russia and Crimea then the West has common position - unconditional condemnation and regime of sanctions.
But as for Israel and the annexations (implemented and planned) then the West is divided.
For Europe it is a problem. Generally European countries condemn the planned annexation but hardly any meaningful sanctions will be imposed.
For the USA it is not a problem at all. Unconditional support of Israel is unshakable.
Canada the last years generally follows Washington.

At the same time

Let's recall that

Here we see typical example then political English is used. The phrase should be read as
...to support an international order based of rules established by Washington...
The Government of Canada's position on the status of East Jerusalem:
Canada considers the status of Jerusalem can be resolved only as part of a general settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. Canada does not recognize Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem.
The Government of Canada's position on the Occupied Territories.
Canada does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). The Fourth Geneva Convention applies in the occupied territories and establishes Israel's obligations as an occupying power, in particular with respect to the humane treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. As referred to in UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465, Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The settlements also constitute a serious obstacle to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.

Canada believes that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must fully respect international human rights and humanitarian law which is key to ensuring the protection of civilians, and can contribute to the creation of a climate conducive to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement.
How the Israeli press perceives Canada's position:
Trudeau's remarks, touting Canada and Israel's "long history as close friends," is the latest in statements made by leaders and international groups, warning the new government, sworn in on Sunday, against its annexation proposal.

Netanyahu’s office said Trudeau called him on Monday, adding in a statement they discussed the coronavirus pandemic and “the latest regional developments.”
The problem with getting your news from politically oriented sites such as The Conversation is that they will only tell you the news that fits the agenda of their authors.
 
The Government of Canada's position on the status of East Jerusalem:


The Government of Canada's position on the Occupied Territories.


How the Israeli press perceives Canada's position:


The problem with getting your news from politically oriented sites such as The Conversation is that they will only tell you the news that fits the agenda of their authors.
Well, you have explained official position of Canadian government absolutely clear. However, are there any sanctions directed against Israel for annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, that are in force now? Does Canadian government plan to mull sanctions (additional sanction) if Israel will annex new territories in the West Bank?
 

Latest Threads

Top