Voice of Russia's windy grammar brings enticing thoughts of the open air on a sunny Friday in early spring

Hands up anyone who believes this sentence: “Cossacks are an entity of people who live in southern Russia and Ukraine, whose main occupation is being warriors.”

I am thinking of dressing up for my ride
across Europe this autumn with the Cossacks

     Once again, the Voice of Russia provides a good example of the way not to use English. Leaving aside the factual nonsense—what groups of people in Russia live today as “warriors”?—that sentence is part of a piece about a proposed visit of Cossacks to France, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's retreat from Russia, which contains so many examples of ungrammatical English that it would be boring to list them all. In that sentence there are at least two.
     First, you can have a group of people, or a political or social entity, but not “an entity of people”. An occupation is something that you do, not something you are. That is a profession or trade. The Cossacks’ main occupation might be war, or you could say that Cossacks are warriors. But their “occupation” cannot be “being warriors”, or being anything else for that matter. That is a state of existence. You could say, “Cossacks would once again like to be warriors.”
     So that sentence might read as follows:

“For approximately four centuries before the Revolution, Cossacks formed semi-autonomous communities in what is today southern Russia and the Ukraine, where they lived by warfare, initially as a form of self-defence against the neighbouring Russian Empire. After that Empire expanded to include their lands, they provided reconnaissance cavalry for the Russian Army and mounted enforcers for the Tsarist police.”

     That version may be a good deal longer, but at least it is accurate. Later on, there is an example of even sloppier fact-checking:

“The entry of Cossacks into Paris in 1814 was a picturesque sight, but now, the only thing in Paris which reminds of that event is the name ‘bistro’, which is applied to small restaurants there. When Russian Cossacks sat in Paris restaurants, they cried to the waiters: ‘Bystro!’, which means ‘Quicker!’ in Russian—hence the name.”

     Wow! The Voice of Russia cannot even speak Russian, it would seem! Быстро means “quickly”, not quicker, which is быстрее. I also suspect many English-speaking readers, to whom this piece is directed, will feel faintly patronized by having the word “bistro” explained to them, especially when it is implied that some special knowledge of France is required to understand the word.
     But that is small stuff. Now for the really bad news. That comes towards the end, in the description of the journey that 25 modern-day Cossacks intend to make this autumn, from Moscow to Fontainebleau, to commemorate their ancestors’ long march. They intend to cover as much of the distance as possible on horseback, taking two months to do so.
     “I have no doubt that the horses will manage the route,” says Pavel Moschalkov, one of the organizers of the expedition. “But I am afraid that in some countries—first of all, in Germany—we will not be allowed to ride on horseback. Most likely in Germany we will have to carry our horses in special cars.”
     I can quite imagine. Russia will permit people to cross country on horseback, and so, I can image, will Poland and possibly even France. But not Germany, where alles должен быть in ordnung без исключения. How depressing is that! I can also imagine that if their route took them across England, the other Teutonic country in Europe, the Cossacks would have so many Health and Safety problems, and right to roam issues about the threat to private property, that the whole thing would be impossible.
     That is the glory of Russia—you can do pretty much what you like off the beaten track in this great country (except invade it!). I would forgive all the wonky English and factual absurdities of the Voice of Russia for just one afternoon cantering through autumn forests towards the Berezina River, with thoughts of footsore Frenchmen up ahead, a sabre in my belt and a nagaika (the fearsome Cossack whip) handy in case I feel the need to express my disapproval of modern Teutonic ideas about the dangers of having fun in the fresh air without a certificate of competency, a First Aid crew nearby and a team of vets in attendance at all times.
     The modern Cossacks will probably be forced to wear riding helmets outside Russia, and cover their traditional costumes in high-viz jackets, and install brake-lights on the buttocks of the horses. Such, I am afraid, is the price of ordnung. Hands up anyone who believes that’s cool.

Who? Where? Why? When? Watch this space for more clues...

And what might the gentleman be drinking?

Brief boobs #6: How many is the size of France?

Today’s Financial Times (usually one of the best-edited papers) prints a description of an article about the urbanization of the developing world which says:

“Beyondbrics: The Great Migration: This year alone, the population of the world’s cities will grow by the size of France.”

     The “size of France” is 210,000 square miles, or 543,000 square kilometres, in terms of its land surface. By mapped area it is 213,000 square miles, or 551,000 square kilometres, which includes all the lakes, ponds and large glaciers which might become “land” if global warming continues for another few thousand years, and if it does not result in any countervailing loss of coastal area due to rises in the sea level.
     Are these the figures the sub-editors at the Financial Times meant us to think about when they talked of the rise in the world’s urban population? They don't seem large enough. Even the highest of them, 551,000 is not really significant when set against the total population of the world's cities.
     Perhaps they were not talking about metropolitan France, but instead about France as a state entity, in which case the figures are 260,000 square miles, or 675,000 square kilometres, which includes all colonies and dependencies, parts and pendicles.
     But even that sounds too little. If you turn to the article to which that headline refers, you will see that the figure they are trying to describe is 65 million. This, of course, is not the “size” of France, but the population of the country. What an odd mistake to make for a paper so accustomed to statistics as the FT! I was always taught at school not to multiply apples by oranges. I know the FT is typeset on Apple computers and printed on orangey-coloured paper (it is not pink), but is that any excuse?
     No, it is not. Perhaps the subs thought that to say “the population of the world’s cities will grow by the population of France” would sound repetitive, or be too long for the space allocated to that headline. Maybe they thought nobody would know what the population of France is. But who knows what the “size” of France is?
      So let the expert (me) try to re-write the text more clearly:

“Beyondbrics: The Great Migration: In 2012, the population of the world’s cities will grow by 65 million.”

     Simple, if you know how.

Advice-points on written English #1: Clarity

One of the main points I make to Russian students of English is that it is much harder to write well than to speak fluently. English is such an international language these days that we have become tolerant of different ways of (mis-)using it—in speech. But when it comes to writing, poor English still looks decidedly деревенский.
     But there is hope. There are several basic points which non-native speakers should try to remember, and which I will be mentioning in future posts as I find relevant examples which illustrate them. Today’s concerns clarity.
     Over my muesli and yoghurt this morning, I had to read the passage below about six times before I understood what the writer was trying to say. It comes from the English-language edition of Pravda, and is part of a story about the Paraguayan economy, explaining why it depends so heavily on soya bean exports. The causes lie back in the mid-nineteenth century: (my italics)

“Forced isolation was largely the reason of the successes of the industrial development of Paraguay. Cut off the world trading system controlled by the British, it was forced to support itself by manufacturing goods. Once British products entered the Paraguayan market, the need to develop their own production … ​​has disappeared. The resources were not there either. Due to the fact that the local landowners were focused on the British market and depended on the British loans, the British quickly gained a huge impact in the economy of the Latin American country.”

     The simple mistakes/inelegancies first:

     – “Largely the reason” should be “the main reason”.
     – “The reason for success” not “of success”.
     – It should be: “Cut off from the world trading system”.
     – It would have been better to have said, “support itself by manufacturing”, since the only thing you can manufacture, in this context at least, is “goods”.
     – It should have been “the need to develop local production…” since “their own” does refer to the subject of the paragraph so far, which is Paraguay, not the Paraguayan people.
     – No “has” in “the need to develop their own production disappeared.” “Has” used there makes it into the present tense.
     – No “the” before “British loans”.
     – You “make” an impact, not “gain” it. So “the British quickly made a huge impact.”
     But these are details. The main point is that the logic is so confused. Let me try to unravel it:

“Forced isolation from the world trading system compelled Paraguay to develop local industry. But when British products began to arrive in the country, the attempt was abandoned. Without natural resources, and with a landowning class which was dependent on Britain for loans and markets, Paraguay soon became just a component of the British-controlled international economy.”

     If I have got the logic right, my version is better because it is clearer (and shorter). To write English well, is to write it in a way which anyone who is vaguely literate can understand. The habit of openness and accessibility, which is not always obvious in Russian journalism, is one of the reasons why English is so widely-used around the world today.

All you need is language — to get very rich indeed

Come and join the Malt Russky Club at a free Glenfiddich tasting in the nearish future by correctly answering two questions in connection with the picture below:

1 - in order to establish that you are over the legal drinking age:

What are the names of the three women in the picture below?

2 - the important question:

How many Rolls-Royces was the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (pictured right) said to have owned at the time of his death? (If no-one gets the answer exactly right, I will accept a figure correct to the nearest ten either side.)

All you need is curry (and a joint, man)

Voice of Russia and the King of Swaziland’s cows

It ought to be a matter of shame that the Russian state broadcasting station, Voice of Russia (VoR), is not only not able to translate its own stories into reasonably fluent English, as I have pointed out in several previous posts (e.g. 14, 24 February and 6 March), but apparently cannot even précis material originally presented in English.

King Mswati III, one of the richest
monarchs in the world,
has nine wives and is absolute ruler
of one of the poorest
countries in the world

     I draw this conclusion from today’s story about the King of Swaziland, Mswati III, who is shortly to turn 44 and who has asked some of his provincial governors to give him cattle to be slaughtered for a feast in his honour.
     “Chiefs from the Shiselweni region, where the celebrations will be held, will have to canvas their subjects for cattle to be slaughtered for the king,” notes iAfrica, the sub-continent’s leading current affairs website, from which it appears VoR took its story. The item is reproduced more or less verbatim in a number of other South African news sites. Only Voice of Russia manages to mangle it. The beasts, it says, “will be sacrificed in honor of feast (sic).”
     First, the cattle will not be “sacrificed”, a verb which implies a religious ritual; they will be slaughtered, which is the word to use when animals are killed for eating, disease prevention or other reasons. Secondly, they are to be killed in honour of the King, not of “the feast”. The feast is, itself, to be held in honour of the King.
     I have sacrificed my time in order to make these points in honour of the English language (and have ignored several factual errors in the précis, like the face that it is the Shiselweni chiefs who have been ordered to provide the cattle, not “his subjects”, as VoR says). Perhaps I should reward myself with a thick steak.

Is this the dullest video of all time?

Stewart Stevenson MSP,
 Minister for the Environment
and Climate Change
in the Scottish government

Anyone seeking to understand why politics increasingly bores people of all races, creeds, colours, political orientations, ages, intelligence levels, sexual preferences and income levels, and of both genders, would do well to watch this video of a Scottish politician who claims in the course of it to have walked two miles across Edinburgh rather than used the public transport, and therefore to have made a contribution to preventing climate change. This, he says, is “active travel” and he implicitly commends his mode of life to everyone else.
     The bottomless vacuity of this sort of political posturing is a much greater threat to the environment than an additional passenger on one of Edinburgh’s wastefully oversized buses. Russians should be aware of the expression “to talk a lot of hot air”. It means that when you talk, nothing comes out of your mouth other than warm breath—no sense, no information, no wit, no beauty, no music, no contribution to humanity’s desire to enjoy life, or help with its need to endure it. When hot-airing, the process of verbalisation is a complete waste of cerebral agitation. But global warming is about nothing if it is not about “hot air”. Is the Scottish Minister for Climate Change a closet global warmer? I think we should be told.
     But then again, maybe not. Who cares? Nobody, I suspect. Except him, of course. He cares. Stewart Stevenson MSP cares. He not only cares, he notices. Look at his Twitter account if you don't believe me. Almost every day, he advertises his climatological compassion by making a caring reference to what used to be known as the weather. He is so concerned to demonstrate his care for what we must all now call the “climate” that if he has nothing personal to say about it, he re-Tweets someone else’s important observation.
     Here are some recent quotes: “First lunch outside in Banffshire this year. Hats essential. Have returned indoors to escape heat!” (25 March), “Another v v warm day” (26 March), “Warm again” (27 March), “Warm again” (28 March), “Three month forward forecast mildly encouraging after a week of cold.” (2 April).
     Is Stewart Stevenson MSP the most hellishly stupid man ever to enter politics? Send me your views. And don’t forget to watch the even duller video than the dullest one of all time. This one is about cycling, another form of “active travel”, in case you didn’t know.

A rather good joke

A friend in Scotland has just sent me a rather good joke. Maybe you’ve heard it before, but it has enough of a language aspect to allow me to post it here for the benefit of those who have not.

     Angela Merkel arrives at passport control in Athens:
     “Nationality?” asks the immigration officer.
     “German,” she replies.
     “Occupation?”
      “No, just here for a few days.”

Common mistakes #8: “variant”

It’s Monday morning, so we must put away the bottle of Glenfiddich and get back to work, starting with a very common mistake which Russians make when speaking English.
     Most use the word “variant” in the same way that they use the Russian word вариант. They should not do so as the English word “variant” means something slightly different from “alternative” or “option” or “choice”, which is what Russians most commonly wish to say when using “variant”. Другой вариант should not be translated as “other variant”, but “other option”, or “alternative” (remember that to use “other alternative” there have to be three options, as “alternative” already implies a second choice; only a third can be the “other” alternative). Similarly, хороший вариант should be rendered: “good choice”, not “good variant”, which sounds clunky in English, to put it mildly.
     I make this point today since, in between gentle, contemplative sips of Glenfiddich, I spent much of a cloudy, damp weekend reading An Economic History of the USSR by Alec Nove (as he called himself in Britain). This may sound dull, but Professor Nove’s book is one of those rare works on economic history that is written both readably and clearly. Part of that clarity comes from his use of language, including the word “variant”.
     This is particularly impressive as the good Professor was actually Russian, having been born in St Petersburg during the First World War. He was one of the many émigrés who, then as now, used their skills and intelligence for the benefit of the world outside Russia. In his case, it was Scotland that gained, as he was for twenty years the internationally renowned Professor Economics at the University of Glasgow—where I once briefly met him, with his cheerful, bustling manner and uncontrolled mane of white hair. He was a great loss to his native land, as he was to Scotland when he died in 1994.
     Be that as it may, on page 126 (Penguin edition) Professor Nove wrote: “The five-year plan, in its optimal variant adopted as late as the spring of 1929, envisaged….” Likewise, on page 135: “It proved necessary to formulate the plan in two versions: the initial variant and the optimal variant. The initial variant was optimistic enough. It was rejected by the sixteenth party conference in favour of the more ambitious version…”
     Correctly used these days, a variant is a variation on an original idea, plan or thing. In the latter category, it is correct to speak, for example, of the manual or automatic variants of the Range- Rover or Toyota Land-cruiser (though in polite society in Scotland is rarely polite to mention Toyota 4x4s—but that is a different issue). You can choose the manual option if you like, but also the automatic variant. But to think of the Range Rover as a better variant than the Toyota is incorrect. “Variant” is not an alternative course of action or choice in any general sense.  It is best thought of as a synonym for “version”, as Профессор Александр Новаковский correctly understood.
     Incidentally, Professor Nove makes another important, if unrelated, point that English-speaking readers who wish to understand Russian might like to note. On page 32, he talks of Lenin’s idea of “workers’ control”, saying: “The Russian word kontrol’ means not a takeover but inspection and checking (like the French contrôle des billets)… yet now and again, kontrol’ shades into control, developing into complete regulation of production and distribution…”
     What an interesting weekend I had, Glenfiddich or no Glenfiddich!

His ‘n’ Hers: a message in two bottles?

Not having a genderist agenda, I will say only that whoever has not drunk
the bottle on the left must be observing Lent rather strictly

I am calling for expressions of interest in malt whisky from readers, of either gender, who might consider joining the Malt Russky Club. This will be a private association for those in Russia and elsewhere (but in Russia initially and especially) who wish to explore the world of malt whisky in any way that is fit, proper and pleasurable. Please mail me with your contact details, and any suggestions you may have on how to approach this important subject. There can be little doubt that fluids aid fluency, and that liquids and language go together like glasses and bottles. One only drinks to learn, of course.

    You might like to take a quick look at my new website, www.whiskymalt.net which is open to visitors, though very much still under construction. Indeed there is almost nothing there but the smell of peat smoke and the memory of sea breezes. But it will give you a little bit of the flavour of how I hope the Club, once constituted, will wish to proceed.
     If you like the sound of it, why not sign up? I will be in touch in due course when matters are advanced enough that we can hold our first members’ tasting, to which you will be invited.

The WhiskyMalt motto: The night has a thousand “Aye!”s