Golden Kamuy - Vol. 18 Ch. 178 - Revolutionaries
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
@moozooh
But it is. It might make no sense for english-speaking audience, but suffixes matter a lot in russian, dropping them like "it's no biggie" just proves how little people understand other culture.
And this time it is not just a "word", it's a "name", in fact if you tell me "okrana came for Wilk" and "okhranka came for Wilk" it'll be two completely different sentences, first with little to no meaning (and sense), second would imply what Wilk probably was some kind of public enemy in Russian Empire around end of XIX and begging of XX century.
But it is. It might make no sense for english-speaking audience, but suffixes matter a lot in russian, dropping them like "it's no biggie" just proves how little people understand other culture.
And this time it is not just a "word", it's a "name", in fact if you tell me "okrana came for Wilk" and "okhranka came for Wilk" it'll be two completely different sentences, first with little to no meaning (and sense), second would imply what Wilk probably was some kind of public enemy in Russian Empire around end of XIX and begging of XX century.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2018
- Messages
- 516
@volodyuka
Your example phrases lack the most important thing: the context. A passerby may be unaware that Wilk is an enemy of the state and would be confused, but Wilk himself and his comrades do know this very well, so if one of them says 'okhrana' in a situation depicted in the chapter, they can all say with absolute certainty whose okhrana came for them. This is really a no-brainer. If it were just a diminutive suffix, it would have been natural for the parent form of the word to preserve the meaning regardless of which form was more dominant when referring to the organization in question. Especially considering the age of the term relative to the events depicted; languages don't discard meanings so quickly.
If you wanted to make a convincing case about the importance of suffixes you should have pointed out the fact that the suffix -k- does not actually carry the diminutive meaning in this case, because the word 'okhranka' does not derive from the noun 'okhrana' (which was never in the name of the organization), but the verb 'okhranyat'' in the same manner as 'stoyanka', 'lezhanka', etc., which don't have a parent 'non-diminutive' noun: they're derived from verbs, and the suffix is there to denote the attribute of the verb they are derived from; as such they are already non-diminutive. Missed opportunities, my good man!
Your example phrases lack the most important thing: the context. A passerby may be unaware that Wilk is an enemy of the state and would be confused, but Wilk himself and his comrades do know this very well, so if one of them says 'okhrana' in a situation depicted in the chapter, they can all say with absolute certainty whose okhrana came for them. This is really a no-brainer. If it were just a diminutive suffix, it would have been natural for the parent form of the word to preserve the meaning regardless of which form was more dominant when referring to the organization in question. Especially considering the age of the term relative to the events depicted; languages don't discard meanings so quickly.
If you wanted to make a convincing case about the importance of suffixes you should have pointed out the fact that the suffix -k- does not actually carry the diminutive meaning in this case, because the word 'okhranka' does not derive from the noun 'okhrana' (which was never in the name of the organization), but the verb 'okhranyat'' in the same manner as 'stoyanka', 'lezhanka', etc., which don't have a parent 'non-diminutive' noun: they're derived from verbs, and the suffix is there to denote the attribute of the verb they are derived from; as such they are already non-diminutive. Missed opportunities, my good man!
@moozooh
Mate, listen, I am russian, I was born russian, learned russian language as my first, I live inside russian culture with full awareness of russian history; as russian I am telling you, what in this case suffix (which is by the way not a -k- but -ka-) was derived from noun and not a verb, and it's supposed to mean in context of organisation, a somewhat smallish department of personal tsar security (not a state one).
And in a context of time and people lived in that time "Otdeleniye po Okhraneniyu Obshchestvennoy Bezopasnosti i Poryadka" was known for various revolutionaries (and terrorists) by the name "okranka", and no other.
(Also russian texts in manga are appalling anyway, and author has some weird conceptions of what Russian Empire was, but he is japanese and clearly doesn't have a decent consultant, which is not surprising.)
Mate, listen, I am russian, I was born russian, learned russian language as my first, I live inside russian culture with full awareness of russian history; as russian I am telling you, what in this case suffix (which is by the way not a -k- but -ka-) was derived from noun and not a verb, and it's supposed to mean in context of organisation, a somewhat smallish department of personal tsar security (not a state one).
And in a context of time and people lived in that time "Otdeleniye po Okhraneniyu Obshchestvennoy Bezopasnosti i Poryadka" was known for various revolutionaries (and terrorists) by the name "okranka", and no other.
(Also russian texts in manga are appalling anyway, and author has some weird conceptions of what Russian Empire was, but he is japanese and clearly doesn't have a decent consultant, which is not surprising.)
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2018
- Messages
- 516
@volodyuka
You're contradicting your own posts, and also common sense. First off, why are you claiming it wasn't a state service when it officially was a part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs? Next, there is no suffix -ka in the word 'okhranka'. If -a were part of the suffix it would be inflexible (so it wouldn't change regardless of the grammatical case, which is clearly not the case), so it cannot possibly be anything other than its ending. Also, I would love to know your reasoning as to why the suffix -k- in this case is a diminutive. You know the language, the culture and the history, so you should be able to provide a solid, non-anecdotal evidence, right?
Just earlier you said 'Tsarskaya Okhranka' (1) was the name of the service (which it wasn't, but w/e), and now you're saying the revolutionaries did not know of any name other than 'okhranka' (2), which is allegedly a diminutive of 'okhrana' (3) (all of these are your claims), which means it should have appeared in the vocabulary of those people already after its non-diminutive form. There's no way a diminutive would instantly and completely replace its parent noun in the community's lexicon; that just doesn't work. That makes at least three possible short forms (1, 3 and their combination) unaccounted for, and it appears that your chief argument for why they were allegedly totally never used is that you're Russian and a diligent scholar, but at this point I'm not inclined to take your word for it. Please cite your sources.
You're contradicting your own posts, and also common sense. First off, why are you claiming it wasn't a state service when it officially was a part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs? Next, there is no suffix -ka in the word 'okhranka'. If -a were part of the suffix it would be inflexible (so it wouldn't change regardless of the grammatical case, which is clearly not the case), so it cannot possibly be anything other than its ending. Also, I would love to know your reasoning as to why the suffix -k- in this case is a diminutive. You know the language, the culture and the history, so you should be able to provide a solid, non-anecdotal evidence, right?
Just earlier you said 'Tsarskaya Okhranka' (1) was the name of the service (which it wasn't, but w/e), and now you're saying the revolutionaries did not know of any name other than 'okhranka' (2), which is allegedly a diminutive of 'okhrana' (3) (all of these are your claims), which means it should have appeared in the vocabulary of those people already after its non-diminutive form. There's no way a diminutive would instantly and completely replace its parent noun in the community's lexicon; that just doesn't work. That makes at least three possible short forms (1, 3 and their combination) unaccounted for, and it appears that your chief argument for why they were allegedly totally never used is that you're Russian and a diligent scholar, but at this point I'm not inclined to take your word for it. Please cite your sources.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2019
- Messages
- 533
F
@Kathartes, @moozooh, sorry for the late reply, I just noticed this site has notifications, and I have a bunch of those piled up.
What volodyuka was saying is mostly correct. Basically, okhrana and Okhranka are two completely different words, even if they have the same root. Okhrana is direct translation of the word "guards", and it only has this meaning. "Okhranka" comes from "Department of guarding the public safety and piece". But members of those department are not really guards, they are special police, and that is correct. "Okhranka" in this case is just an unofficial shortened name for that organisation. So saying Okhranka came for him won't be strange, as it's similar to saying "FBI came for him". While saying "Okhrana came for him" wouldn't make any sense, since it basically means "Guards came for him", which is wrong, since those people are not guards, and are not called "Okhrana". Okhrana is only used when referring to people who are guarding something specific (e.g. place or person: Okhrana tyurmy - prison guards, okhrana imperatora - emperor's guards). So if people are okhrana in Russian language, it means they are guarding something, but those people weren't guarding anything, they were special police, and it was mentioned in a chapter.
What volodyuka was saying is mostly correct. Basically, okhrana and Okhranka are two completely different words, even if they have the same root. Okhrana is direct translation of the word "guards", and it only has this meaning. "Okhranka" comes from "Department of guarding the public safety and piece". But members of those department are not really guards, they are special police, and that is correct. "Okhranka" in this case is just an unofficial shortened name for that organisation. So saying Okhranka came for him won't be strange, as it's similar to saying "FBI came for him". While saying "Okhrana came for him" wouldn't make any sense, since it basically means "Guards came for him", which is wrong, since those people are not guards, and are not called "Okhrana". Okhrana is only used when referring to people who are guarding something specific (e.g. place or person: Okhrana tyurmy - prison guards, okhrana imperatora - emperor's guards). So if people are okhrana in Russian language, it means they are guarding something, but those people weren't guarding anything, they were special police, and it was mentioned in a chapter.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2020
- Messages
- 3,014
I came here expecting clarification on the last few pages, but instead there is a whole load of arguing over the name of the secret police or whatever...
Anyway... just who is that lying dead on the last page? Is it Hasegawa's wife? And if so, who shot her? Was it the police, or was she disguised as one of them and shot by... whatshername.... I forget...
Anyway... just who is that lying dead on the last page? Is it Hasegawa's wife? And if so, who shot her? Was it the police, or was she disguised as one of them and shot by... whatshername.... I forget...
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2021
- Messages
- 95
I miss Asirpa spreading Sugimoto's butt cheeks. Oh the times 
