# намякивать vs. намекать



## Redram

Is the difference between "намякивать" and "намекать" simply that "намякивать" has the sense of "remind from time to time," or is there more to it than that? Or is the meaning of "намякивать" quite different?


----------



## Esten

"намякивать" - there is no such word in Russian.

"remind [from time to time]" is "напоминать [время от времени]".

"намекать" is "give a tip", "give a hint".


----------



## morzh

There is no such word as "намякивать".

There is also no such word as "намёкивать".

There is "намекать", that  literally means "to hint".

Both these verbs are "illegal" (I would not even call them colloquial - just mangled in a funny fashion; we Russians like to do this sometimes) versions of it, meaning exactly the same when used. Strictly t make them sound funny - again, they are not real words. Not even a slang.


----------



## morbo

Redram, maybe you asked about the difference between "намякать" und "намекать"?


----------



## Redram

morzh said:


> There is no such word as "намякивать".
> 
> There is also no such word as "намёкивать".
> 
> There is "намекать", that  literally means "to hint".
> 
> Both these verbs are "illegal" (I would not even call them colloquial - just mangled in a funny fashion; we Russians like to do this sometimes) versions of it, meaning exactly the same when used. Strictly t make them sound funny - again, they are not real words. Not even a slang.




I am certainly not a purist, but I don't think I would go so far as to say "There is no such word as..." Even if a word is a "made-up word," if it has a wide enough sphere of usage, I would contend that it deserves some recognition, even at the lowest level. Not recommending a word is not the same as denying its existence. Witness the following examples from the Internet. Many others could have been cited. (I know! I know! You can find *anything* on the Internet, which does not necessarily establish its legitimacy. Still...) Consider:

Как приличной девушке правильно *намякивать* мужчине, что нравится?

Я вам уже *намякивать* утомился.

Мне это, Глебушко, напоминает наш с тобой первый разговор, так что нечего тут *намякивать*.

Спрашивается, какое право имел генерал *намякивать*, что основным фактором, определяющим криминогенную обстановку, является присутствие в городе в огромных количествах наших братьев с Кавказа и из Средней Азии?

Я знаю, что мой не умеет дарить подарки, поэтому заранее начинаю *намякивать* ему, что б я хотела, или подбираю себе сама подарки.

"To drop hints" would seem to fit the above examples. Clearly, the speaker or writer who uses *намякивать* is fully aware of the existence of *намекать*, but for whatever reason chose not to use it.

Please don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating that people use such a non-standard word as *намякивать*, but rather I only wish to state that, like it or not, the word _is_ used.


----------



## Maroseika

Redram said:


> I am certainly not a purist, but I don't think I would go so far as to say "There is no such word as..." Even if a word is a "made-up word," if it has a wide enough sphere of usage, I would contend that it deserves some recognition, even at the lowest level.



There is a big difference between such words as намякивать and ляживать, беривать/бирывать, рабливать, отпускивать, кушивать (the latters really exist in some dialects). As we can see from your examples, намякивать doesn't bear any additional semantical sense (of repeating action, in particular), and therefore is quite excessive with availability of the regular pair намекать/намекнуть. On the other hand, usage of other verbs, reported above, distinctly demonstrate their necessity in the speech, because the people, using them, clearly distinguish спросить-спрашивать-спрашивливать, брать-бирать-бирывать and so on.

So the word намякивать is wrong not just because it doesn't "exsist", but rather because it is misused. Languagely deaf people do not understand that намякивать can mean only the repeating action and use it just instead of imperfect намекать.


----------



## Redram

Maroseika said:


> There is a big difference between such words as намякивать and ляживать, беривать/бирывать, рабливать, отпускивать, кушивать (the latters really exist in some dialects). As we can see from your examples, намякивать doesn't bear any additional semantical sense (of repeating action, in particular), and therefore is quite excessive with availability of the regular pair намекать/намекнуть. On the other hand, usage of other verbs, reported above, distinctly demonstrate their necessity in the speech, because the people, using them, clearly distinguish спросить-спрашивать-спрашивливать, брать-бирать-бирывать and so on.
> 
> So the word намякивать is wrong not just because it doesn't "exsist", but rather because it is misused. Languagely deaf people do not understand that намякивать can mean only the repeating action and use it just instead of imperfect намекать.



I very much appreciate your comments but am puzzled by one thing: How can something which doesn't exist be misused?


----------



## morbo

The sentences you provided are, at best, examples of jocular distortion of the word "намекать"; they do not even represent its possible dialectal use. There are words whose "legitimate" imperfect form reminds this "намякивать": "вытряхивать" "уговаривать", so probably the authors of those utterances wanted something that would sound alike, having the sense of "намекать".


----------



## Redram

morbo said:


> The sentences you provided are, at best, examples of jocular distortion of the word "намекать"; they do not even represent its possible dialectal use. There are words whose "legitimate" imperfect form reminds this "намякивать": "вытряхивать" "уговаривать", so probably the authors of those utterances wanted something that would sound alike, having the sense of "намекать".



I would say that "jocular distortion" fairly sums up what is going on here, and I thank you for that. Certainly, the use of a word like *намякивать* is emotionally-colored and is designed to elicit some sort of reaction on the part of the interlocutor, be it a smile, grin, or grimace.


----------



## morbo

Redram said:


> I thank you for that.


For summing it up or for distorting something?


----------



## Redram

morbo said:


> For summing it up or for distorting something?



For summing it up!


----------



## gvozd

I've never heard the word намякивать and I'm sure I would not have understood it if somebody spoke it to me


----------



## morbo

Anyway, I thought the discussion was about whether it's reasonable to assume that this word has any place in "everyday" speech and whether it can be produced by any number of native speakers as something natural.
  And I fully endorse its existence as something used to evoke one of the responses you mentioned.

*edit*:
I didn't notice the penultimate paragraph of your #5 post, hence my initial bewilderment.

*edit:*
And the ultimate too.


----------



## Maroseika

Redram said:


> I very much appreciate your comments but am puzzled by one thing: How can something which doesn't exist be misused?


As you might notice, I put "exist" in quotes, because everybody means different things using this word. In our case this is just a word unlisted in the dictionaries, which fact doesn't mean too much of itself.


----------



## Natalisha

Redram said:


> Is the difference between "намякивать" and "намекать" simply that "намякивать" has the sense of "remind from time to time," or is there more to it than that? Or is the meaning of "намякивать" quite different?


There's a great difference for me. I've never heard the first one and don't know what it means whereas the second one is a widely used word.


----------



## Ptak

gvozd said:


> I've never heard the word намякивать and I'm sure I would not have understood it


Me either.


----------



## football_

Redram said:


> I would say that "jocular distortion" fairly sums up what is going on here, and I thank you for that. Certainly, the use of a word like *намякивать* is emotionally-colored and is designed to elicit some sort of reaction on the part of the interlocutor, be it a smile, grin, or grimace.


Not only. I think, the main reason to use the word in the sentences you presented was to give an idea to an interlocutor that the action somehow differs from "намекать". For example, we know that it's not appropriate for a girl to give hints ("намекать") to a man that she likes him, so we don't even discuss such conduct; but "намякивать" is somehow another action (and it's up to a reader to understand what's the difference), so maybe a girl may do that?

Also, I should admit that, never having heard "намякивать" before, at first I thought it should mean an imperfective variant of "to give a hint from time to time", just like *morzh*, who suggested a better word for this, "намёкивать", which also "doesn't exist". But after reading the examples, I understood that the reason to use the word was the one I said of above.


----------



## morzh

Redram

If you want to stick to the opinion that the word exist, be my guest, please.

But remember one thing: Russian is not as democratic or relatively rules-free (as the English forum folks agreed with) as English is.

I can only repeat what I said : the word "намякивать" does not exist, and the "намёкивать" formally does not exist, and informally exists barely.

If you want to learn them and use them - more power to ya. They sound ridiculous enough; I can only imagine how they would sound being uttered by a foreigner, especially an American.
But....it will make people around you smile, if this is the desired effect


----------



## football_

morzh said:


> But remember one thing: Russian is not as democratic or relatively rules-free (as the English forum folks agreed with) as English is.


----------



## morzh

Recently (about a month or so ago ) there was a discussion on English only where it was agreed by many that English, when it comes to the words' usage, pronunciation etc etc (not grammar of course!) is very flexible. Many situations where people say "this is right, and this is right too" in Russian would be "this is right and this is wrong".


----------



## football_

Well, I don't know... First, what you say doesn't look plausible  because, I'm sure, there was no discussion of the Russian language in the English only forum, and therefore there was no comparison. Second, Russian is quite flexible when it goes out of the concern of the standard state language and some nervous philologists (and some nervous pseudo-philologists who would like to look smart  —of course, I'm not pointing at anyone) — for example, in newspapers and, even more, in oral talk. "Great, mighty, truthful and free", as Turgenev said.

So there is no way to affirm that Russian or English is less or more rules-free. Both are "national" languages. The only difference is that English is more widespread, that is, it covers more nations.

Anyway, all of that is an off-topic here


----------



## Redram

morzh said:


> Recently (about a month or so ago ) there was a discussion on English only where it was agreed by many that English, when it comes to the words' usage, pronunciation etc etc (not grammar of course!) is very flexible. Many situations where people say "this is right, and this is right too" in Russian would be "this is right and this is wrong".



Thank you for your thoughtful comments, morzh.


----------



## morzh

football_ said:


> Well, I don't know... First, what you say doesn't look plausible  because, I'm sure, there was no discussion of the Russian language in the English only forum, and therefore there was no comparison. Second, Russian is quite flexible when it comes out of the concern of the standard state language and some nervous philologists (and some nervous pseudo-philologists who would like to look smart  —of course, I don't point at anyone) — for example, in newspapers and, even more, in oral talk. "Great, mighty, truthful and free", as Turgenev said.
> 
> Anyway, it is an off-topic here



It was not a comparison discussion - it was just a discussion about "wrong" usages in English.


----------



## Hoax

Redram said:


> Is the difference between "намякивать" and "намекать" simply that "намякивать" has the sense of "remind from time to time," or is there more to it than that? Or is the meaning of "намякивать" quite different?



"Намякивать" is wrong, i guess it comes from Ukrainians who use the word incorrectly, at least I heard it from them only and it was hard for me to understand what the word meant.
There is a verb "намякать" (to become wet) but I can hardly imagine such form of this verb as "намякивать". 

And whatever football_ says, there is wrong and right in each and every language.


----------



## Ptak

football_ said:


> we know that it's not appropriate for a girl to give hints ("намекать") to a man that she likes him


Oh really???


----------



## Albertovna

Hoax said:


> "намякать" (to become wet)


To become soft?

Намякивать or намёкивать do not exist!


----------



## one_day

Hoax said:


> And whatever football_ says, there is wrong and right in each and every language.


 'whatever morzh says', you wanted to say? "Democratic and relatively rules-free" — but note the "relatively"! And as for football_, he or she did not say anything at least close to what you claim they said.

They both meant language is flexible in certain situations, they did not say there is absolutely no 'wrong'.


Ptak said:


> Oh really???


Ah, may be  . There was a talk about "приличные девушки" 

=======================



Albertovna said:


> To become soft?


To become wet and soft, I'd say. Mainly — to become wet, as Hoax noted.


Albertovna said:


> Намякивать or намёкивать do not exist!


Already said a handful times.


----------



## Redram

Albertovna said:


> To become soft?
> 
> Намякивать or намёкивать do not exist!




*Намякивать*... Есть, уминать [?]: _Взяла бы черного хлеба с солью и намякивала, вот и насытилась бы_... 1976

*Намёкивать*... Намекать; говорить двусмысленности... 1902-1904

These examples come from: Словарь русских народных говоров.

The boldfaced words may not exist in the standard literary language, but they have been attested to in certain dialects.


----------



## Albertovna

Redram said:


> they have been attested to in certain dialects


 This may well be so, but we are not discussing dialects here, are we? Dialects are a separate inexhaustible question. I am sorry, these words both sound abominable to me...


----------



## Redram

Albertovna said:


> This may well be so, but we are not discussing dialects here, are we? Dialects are a separate inexhaustible question. I am sorry, these words both sound abominable to me...



I am very sorry if I have unwittingly offended your linguistic sensitivities. *That was most certainly not my intention.* I merely meant to draw attention to your categorical statement of the "non-existence" of a particular linguistic fact and feel that it is imprudent to be so dogmatic in such matters. I never meant to suggest that I was advocating that such "abominable" words be used.


----------



## Ptak

Redram, dialects almost don't exist in modern Russian. It is not surprising that the word can be found in a 1902-1904 dictionary, but since then, many things happened to the Russian language. Generally accessible education and TV made a phenomenon which keeps to remain incredible to foreigners.


----------



## Redram

Ptak said:


> Redram, dialects almost don't exist in modern Russian. It is not surprising that the word can be found in a 1902-1904 dictionary, but since then, many things happened to the Russian language. Generally accessible education and TV made a phenomenon which keeps to remain incredible to foreigners.




Your words make a lot of sense. Thank you, Ptak.


----------



## MIDAV

Redram, I am honestly impressed by your grasp of the Russian language. You could contribute to this forum in the name of Russian speakers (no sarcasm). 

Normally, I'm all for being liberal with our language. But this particular word – I would have said it doesn't exist before I read this thread (because I've never heard it before and also it's so hard to understand). Then I checked online, and the word certainly exists. It is not obsolete and not a dialect. Must be jocular distortion, as was correctly said above. Personally, if I had to sound funny, I would choose "намёкивать" over "намякивать" because it should be clearly understandable to everybody. 

I would say the use of the word "намякивать" is confined to modern informal written Russian where context makes the meaning clear.


----------



## Redram

MIDAV said:


> Redram, I am honestly impressed by your grasp of the Russian language. You could contribute to this forum in the name of Russian speakers (no sarcasm).
> 
> Normally, I'm all for being liberal with our language. But this particular word – I would have said it doesn't exist before I read this thread (because I've never heard it before and also it's so hard to understand). Then I checked online, and the word certainly exists. It is not obsolete and not a dialect. Must be jocular distortion, as was correctly said above. Personally, if I had to sound funny, I would choose "намёкивать" over "намякивать" because it should be clearly understandable to everybody.
> 
> I would say the use of the word "намякивать" is confined to modern informal written Russian where context makes the meaning clear.




I am equally impressed by your grasp of the English language, MIDAV. It's superb! On a different level, it's refreshing to see a posting which is clearly designed to generate more light than heat. Bravo!


----------



## gvozd

Well, there is a word in Russian for 'hate' - ненавидеть. The word 'навидеть' definitely doesn't exist! But...


> Ненавижу добрые дела,
> А *навижу* злобные делишки.
> Если налечу из-за угла -
> Вам не запереться на задвижки



It's from the Soviet cartoon movie "Голубой щенок". Sometimes wordplay can be confusing.*
*


----------



## morzh

gvozd said:


> Well, there is a word in Russian for 'hate' - ненавидеть. The word 'навидеть' definitely doesn't exist! But...
> 
> It's from the Soviet cartoon movie "Голубой щенок". Sometimes wordplay can be confusing.[/FONT][/COLOR]



Well, as in any language, we do rely on a native speaker's innate feeling of the language that allows to grasp the exact meaning of a freshly invented word without much explanation.

The word "nenavidet" does not exist. Period. It doesn't. However it has been pronounced and so in a way, informally, it exists, if only in this one cartoon.
The way it is, the native speaker will immediately understand its meaning. If "nenavidet'" means "to hate", "navidet" is then the exact opposite of "to hate".

But it is not in use, and one may go through life without ever encountering it, as it only exists in few people's vocabulary and in one cartoon.

My son, who is bi-lingual, and who speaks English as the primary and who is forced to speak Russian (I make sure he knows that when home, I do not understand English  ) invents many words, and, for instance, when he needs to say "nelzya" (not allowed) he keeps saying "ne mozhno". Though "ne mozhno" does not exist in Russian (does in Polish BTW), I perfectly understand what he means and why he uses it.
But it still does not exist. One will not hear it from a Russian native.

So, we may be lax about this, but this does not change the fact that these words are not really even a part of language. It is a realization of the language's ability to be extremely flexible, or a manifestation of its redundancy, but to consider it a part of the language is at best "ok, I don't care, let him say it" attitude.

I am not really a purist, far from it; but I have my lifetime experience speaking and reading Russian and when someone tells me "namyakivat" is a real word, this, well, makes me think "OK, I am not going to waste my effort trying to un-convince you, but inside myself I will smile".

As an example I can quote " 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves....." (Jabberwocky), which has a very good Russian translation.
I am not sure you really want to claim that these words exist in English, or "warkalos', khlivkiye shorky pyralis po nave" exist in Russian.
Still we perfectly understand what it means, especially after the explanation by Carroll.


----------



## Albertovna

Ptak said:


> dialects almost don't exist in modern Russian


 I have to differ. To take just one example, when I talk to my grannies from southern Russia, I have difficulty trying to understand what they say, because they use the local dialect. Dialects are a reality! And these women are city-dwellers, by the way. Just imagine how Russians speak in the country, near the border, on the islands, abroad, et cetera... Also, consider 129 other ethnicities living in Russia, what kind of Russian they speak.


----------



## Ptak

> because they use the local dialect


Where do they live?


----------



## Albertovna

Ptak said:


> Where do they live?


Saratov.


----------



## sagittaire

If you ask me, such a word as "намякивать" does exist and it is used as a funny version of the formal "намекать".
At least such is its usage in the northern region of Russia (the Tyumen region, to be more specific). Maybe it's related to the fact that a lot of people of different nationalities live there together - Russians, Ukranians, Tatars, etc. To me it makes perfect sense, at least.


----------

