Irpin : An elderly lady is assisted to cross the Irpin river on an improvised path under a bridge, that was destroyed by Ukrainian troops designed to slow any Russian military advance, while fleeing the town of Irpin, Ukraine, Saturday, March 5, 2022. What looked like a breakthrough cease-fire to evacuate residents from two cities in Ukraine quickly fell apart Saturday as Ukrainian officials said shelling had halted the work to remove civilians hours after Russia announced the deal. AP/PTI
Bloomington (US), March 10 (The Conversation/PTI) For most of the 20th century, English speakers referred to the Ukraine, following Soviet practice. That's not the case now. Ukraine's official name in English does not include the, and for good reason.
Ambassadors, commentators and historians have tried to explain the change, but not everyone has gotten the message.
So let me try. I'm a linguistic anthropologist and an expert on language politics in Russia. I'm also bilingual in Russian and English, so I understand the subtleties of the distinction.
What is at stake? Nothing less than the political sovereignty of Ukraine. Yet in their coverage of the current crisis, some journalists and commentators still refer to events unfolding in the Ukraine.
It might seem innocent, but it's not.
It's Russian and English too
Both the Russian and English languages make subtle distinctions between territories that are politically delimited and territories that are not.
In Russian, people refer to events happening na Ukraine or v Ukraine.
Russian language teachers usually explain the difference between na and v as the respective difference between on and in. One places the ketchup na the table and puts it away v the refrigerator.
Things get a little more complicated when describing larger spaces. In Russian, a person is na an unbounded territory, such as a hill, but v a bounded territory that is defined politically or institutionally, such as a nation-state.
This distinction between unbounded and bounded territories holds even when English speakers would universally use in. So a person is na the Caucasus ( in the Caucasus ) but v Germany ( in Germany ).
English makes this distinction not with different prepositions but with the definite article the.
English speakers use in before the name of a politically defined unit such as a nation or a state, and in the for a territory that is not politically defined. Hence, Last week I was in Kentucky, or, Last week I was in the Bluegrass region.
Last week I was in Ohio is fine, but if I turn to a friend and say, Last week I was in the Ohio, she might reasonably think I was in the waters of the Ohio River, on a cold swim.
There are exceptions, but these are the general principles that bind speakers of Russian and English.
Where is Ukraine?
The distinction is critically important for the sovereignty of the Ukrainian nation-state, suggesting as it does that Ukraine is either a bounded nation-state like Germany or a region of Russia with amorphous borders like the Caucasus.
This is why, in 1993, Ukraine's government asked Russia's government to abandon the Soviet-era practice of referring to Ukraine as na Ukraine and use only v Ukraine. The na construction is, however, still widely used in Russia.
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. 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.
So, does Putin say na Ukraine in the Ukraine or v Ukraine ( in Ukraine )? In a subtle twist of diplomacy, the English-language translations of Putin's recent addresses have him describing the events in Ukraine , even though he says na Ukraine in Russian throughout his addresses.
Even Putin's translators see the benefit of sticking with the official English-language name of Ukraine. Perhaps they hope it will make the content more palatable to a Western Anglophone audience.
But make no mistake: Putin is arguing that Ukraine's sovereignty is a historical fiction, and he is underscoring his point by referring to events happening na, not v, Ukraine. English speakers don't have to follow him by saying the. (The Conversation)
