# садить на полную катушку



## Bserra

What the sentence “садить на полную катушку” means?
The whole sentence is : ” …когда начнут *садить на полную катушку* за убийство…”.
I interpreted it as “when they will begin to jail people at full capacity (at an high volume)  for killing…”.
But what is the meaning of садить? Perhaps he wanted to say: “сажать”? Or “судить”? Is it a mistyping?

Many thanks!


----------



## Hoax

Bserra said:


> What the sentence “садить на полную катушку” means?
> The whole sentence is : ” …когда начнут *садить на полную катушку* за убийство…”.
> I interpreted it as “when they will begin to jail people at full capacity (at an high volume)  for killing…”.
> But what is the meaning of садить? Perhaps he wanted to say: “сажать”? Or “судить”? Is it a mistyping?
> 
> Many thanks!



Yes, it is a mistake. And bad use of words. But you understand it correctly


----------



## Maroseika

It's not a mistake, of course, and word order is all right for me. Just садить is a colloquial word and in your example it really means сажать. 
It has also other meanings.

На всю катушку might originate from the signallers slang of the WWII epoch, and originally meant to unreel the bobbin to the fullest. According to another version, катушка meant maximal term in concentration camp (20-25 years) even in the end of 30s, but anyway it is reckoned to be connected with the wire bobbin or fishing reel.


----------



## LilianaB

Do you mean  a labor camp, like Gulag? I agree this is not any kind of a mistake, just more colloquial speech.


----------



## Maroseika

LilianaB said:


> Do you mean  a labor camp, like Gulag? I agree this is not any kind of a mistake, just more colloquial speech.


Gulag is not a camp, but the camps department.
As for the "labor" or "concentration" camps... The matter of fact is that "concentration camp" was the term widely and officially used in the USSR in the prewar years, since early 20s. Only after the war this term began associating only with the Greman concentration camps. "Labor camps" were also in some use, although not so wide use.


----------



## Hoax

LilianaB said:


> Do you mean  a labor camp, like Gulag? I agree this is not any kind of a mistake, just more colloquial speech.



from the point of view of the linguistics the sentence is built wrong, i'd say it is a terrible sentence, some uneducated guy would say that, who doesn't read at all. some even say "сОдют", my grandmother used to say it for example. you would understand it of course but it doesn't mean that the word is correct. if you consider it normal language than you would say that it is fine to pronounce unstressed "o" letter as "o" sound (as it is done in many dialects) and allow other jargon. foreigners learn the so called standard russian language and any deviance in their speech would consider to be a mistake. it is like a russian speaking english with scottish or some other accent or writing "your" instead of "you are" (many british people write it this way in the chats), natives are allowed to do stuff like that, language learners are not.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, you are right. For somebody who wants to learn the standard language, this is the wrong word in this context.


----------



## Maroseika

Hoax said:


> from the point of view of the linguistics the sentence is built wrong, i'd say it is a terrible sentence, some uneducated guy would say that, who don't read at all.



I'm sure you have serious grounds for such statement, but it somehow contradicts to what dictionaries say (Ожегов, Лопатин, Кузнецов, Ушаков); namely they say the word садить is not more than the colloquial word, but still quite correct. Ushakov adds that содит is peculiar to the Moscow patois and therefore содит, содишь would be really wrong.
We don't know the style of the whole text, but if it is all colloquial, I don't see any reason not to use the verb садить here.
As for the word order or whatever you call "wrongly built sentence", I cannot notice any errors and it would be very interesting to know what exactly you mean and who are those linguists whose point of view you share.


----------



## Hoax

Maroseika said:


> I'm sure you have serious grounds for such statement, but it somehow contradicts to what dictionaries say (Ожегов, Лопатин, Кузнецов, Ушаков); namely they say the word садить is not more than the colloquial word, but still quite correct. Ushakov adds that содит is peculiar to the Moscow patois and therefore содит, содишь would be really wrong.
> We don't know the style of the whole text, but if it is all colloquial, I don't see any reason not to use the verb садить here.
> As for the word order or whatever you call "wrongly built sentence", I cannot notice any errors and it would be very interesting to know what exactly you mean and who are those linguists whose point of view you share.



first of all the use of "садить" in this text is equal to the use of "ложить", i hope that no one will say that "ложить" is the correct word.  and second, "садить на полную катушку" - in stylistics it is called amphibology, it is a kind of a mistake.

http://uknigi.ru/koverkane_russkogo_yazyka/lojit_vesit_sadit.html


----------



## football_

Hello, Hoax,


Hoax said:


> from the point of view of the linguistics the sentence is built wrong, i'd say it is a terrible sentence, some uneducated guy would say that, who don't read at all.


"From the point of view of linguistics" the sentence is right, because its word usage bears a purpose. It would be less correct to use the word "сажать", because the phrase would be less expressive and less coherent.


Hoax said:


> some uneducated guy would say that, who don't read at all.


I don't see any correlation between the use of such (very good and thought-expressive) phrases and the presence of the ability (or the habit) to read. For example, though I'm far-far not an Academian, but I've read at least something, and still I like the phrase. 

A "mistake", that has a good purpose, is not a real mistake. For example, (so frequent) misuse of commas in Russian or the use of "i" instead of "I" in English indeed are mistakes; but competent use of colloquial language (or, for that matter, — right, grammatical speaking a dialect) is not a mistake.

By the way, many not-so-well-educated people commit the mistake of overusing the standard rules of standard Russian language (or, which is even worse, the mistake of overusing of the formulations of these rules). It is a mistake, indeed: the purposes and the scope of the standard language are limited. The general conclusion is that any kind of language use should take its place exactly where it's appropriate. "Всякому овощу — своё время". (I'm sorry, I can't translate the proverb in English).

As for the rest of what you say in the post #6, I agree.


----------



## Hoax

Here it's been answered many times (for those who don't believe )

http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search_answer/?s=%F1%E0%E4%E8%F2%FC

I guess it is called "vernacular" in english.



football_ said:


> Hello, Hoax,
> 
> "From the point of view of linguistics" the sentence is right, because its word usage bears a purpose. It would be less correct to use the word "сажать", because the phrase would be less expressive and less coherent.
> 
> I don't see any correlation between the use of such (very good and though-expressive) phrases and the presence of the ability (or the habit) to read. For example, though I'm far-far not an Academian, but I've read at least something, and still I like the phrase.
> 
> A "mistake", that has a good purpose, is not a real mistake. For example, (so frequent) misuse of commas in Russian or the use of "i" instead of "I" in English indeed are mistakes; but competent use of colloquial language (or, for that matter, — right, grammatical speaking a dialect) is not a mistake.
> 
> By the way, many not-so-well-educated people commit the mistake of overusing the standard rules of standard Russian language (or, which is even worse, the mistake of overusing of the formulations of these rules). It is a mistake, indeed. The general conclusion is that any kind of language use should take its place exactly where it's appropriate. "Всякому овощу — своё время". (I'm sorry, I can't translate the proverb in English).
> 
> As for the rest of what you say in the post #6, I agree.



Do you really think that it was made on some literary purpose? I doubt it.
And yes i do write "i", "russian" and stuff like that, i like it, it is my style lol  i like to do it as well as i like my russian accent


----------



## football_

Hoax said:


> Do you really think that it was made on some literary purpose? I doubt it.


In this context — yes. Just compare the two phrases (with "садить" and "сажать"). For my mind, the first action is more crude (maybe more connected with the verb "посадить" and, astonishingly enough, with the word "ссадина"), whereas the second one is "more polite" and "habitually bureaucratic" (in which case the wording "на полную катушку" becomes less logical; in the first case it's clearly connected in my mind (by way of an association) with a "wild party" of some kind (как известно, вечеринки "засаживают на полную катушку")).

I have to say also, that not necessarily the language serves a purpose after some long and conscious work of thought. Person's language is in fact an unconscious entity; and maybe the best speeches we can make get made unconciously * .

* "Поэзия, прости Господи, должна быть немного глупой", as Pushkin said; unfortunately, I don't remember the exact wording.


----------



## Hoax

football_ said:


> In this context — yes. Just compare the two phrases (with "садить" and "сажать"). For my mind, the first action is more crude (maybe more connected with the verb "посадить" and, astonishingly enough, with the word "ссадина"), whereas the second one is "more polite" and "habitually bureaucratic" (in which case the wording "на полную катушку" becomes less logical; in the first case it's clearly connected in my mind (by way of an association) with a "wild party" of some kind (как известно, вечеринки "засаживают на полную катушку")).
> 
> I have to say also, that not necessarily the language serves a purpose after some long and conscious work of thought. The language is in fact an unconscious entity; and maybe the best speeches we can make get made unconciously.



As for me, i consider word "садить" to be out of date and used by people living in the country (those coming from Belarus often use it by the way), therefor it is not supposed to be used in the news or even in the every day speech of a person whose native language is standard russian, the only proper use of it is an imitation of special kind of character's speech in some book, but as far as i understand the given example is not from any book.


----------



## football_

Hoax said:


> therefor it is not supposed to be used in the news or even in the every day speech


Of course, not supposed! Who said the sentence is from news? And do you speak every day about government policies of jailing people, and so emotionally?

In certain (rare, but easily imaginable) contexts the phrase is the most correct one — at least for me. There is no single phrase whose use is right in absolutely all contexts.

There are truly wrong sentences (like "Микий опагорпул овыркала пефтод", or "Большой лошадь человека беспокоило" or  "Человек который, играл в мяч был, большой") which just can't be correct in any context (though the latter can often be seen, unfortunately); we shouldn't confuse the learner and tell him/her that the phrase in question belongs to this group, because it really doesn't. On the contrary, the phrase seems to be a piece of good Russian (in the case the rest of the article, that Bserra is reading, provides a context, necessary for this phrase, and I think it is highly probable).

Dixi.


----------



## Hoax

football_ said:


> Of course, not supposed! Who said the sentence is from news? And do you speak every day about government policies of jailing people, and so emotionally?
> 
> In certain (rare, but easily imaginable) contexts the phrase is the most correct one — at least for me. There is no single phrase whose use is right in absolutely all contexts.
> 
> There are truly wrong sentences (like "Микий опагорпул овыркала пефтод", or "Большой лошадь человека беспокоило" or  "Человек который, играл в мяч был, большой") which just can't be correct in any context (though the latter can often be seen, unfortunately); we shouldn't confuse the learner and tell him/her that the phrase in question belongs to this group, because it really doesn't. On the contrary, the phrase seems to be a piece of good Russian (in the case the rest of the article, that Bserra is reading, provides a context, necessary for this phrase, and I think it is highly probable).
> 
> Dixi.



It seems you've never read on linguistics. Here is something about the mistakes: http://www.orfo.ru/Tutorial/html/Err_Styl.htm



> *Стилистические ошибки
> *​Употребление слова (выражения) неуместной стилевой окраски. Так, в литературном контексте неуместно употребление жаргонной, просторечной, бранной лексики, в деловом тексте следует избегать разговорных слов, слов экспрессивно окрашенных.



As i understand this phrase from the first post could be said between two people using standard modern russian language, there for the correct choice of word would be "сажать", as "садить" is not common word for standard russian language as it is mentioned here: http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/search_answer/?s=%F1%E0%E4%E8%F2%FC

If a foreigner said "садить" i'm almost sure people around would correct him.


----------



## football_

Please reread the words "в литературном тексте" and "в деловом тексте". They play their role here, they are constraints for a domain of use.


----------



## Hoax

football_ said:


> Please reread the words "в литературном тексте" and "в деловом тексте". They play their role here, they are constraints for a domain of use.



They are given as an example, to show that every word is suitable for its own situation. The word "садить" is not suitable for normal russian language now.


----------



## Maroseika

Hoax said:


> first of all the use of "садить" in this text is equal to the use of "ложить", i hope that no one will say that "ложить" is the correct word.



Again I can only refer to the said dictionaries, which define the word садить and ложить in the different way. Of course, you are free to have your own view on the subject, mismatching opinions of the authors of the dictionaries.
As for ложить



> and second, "садить на полную катушку" - in stylistics it is called amphibology, it is a kind of a mistake.
> 
> http://uknigi.ru/koverkane_russkogo_yazyka/lojit_vesit_sadit.html


I'm afraid I cannot notice any ambiguity here. What kind of it you mean?


----------



## Hoax

Maroseika said:


> I'm afraid I cannot notice any ambiguity here. What kind of it you mean?



The direct meaning of the verb "сажать/садить на". If this phrase was written by a professional writer for a book, it would never be written this way.

As for "ложить": http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/29_410833


----------



## football_

Hoax said:


> They are given as an example, to show that every word is suitable for its own situation.


This is exactly what I've been saying all the while.


Hoax said:


> The word "садить" is not suitable for normal russian language now.


"Normal Russian language" is too big a formation. I gave examples of phrases which are not suitable for any part of it in the post #14. "Садить" is not such example — somewhere it's good, somewhere it's bad. I agree though that it would be bad more often than good — but not always! For example, not here.


Hoax said:


> If a foreigner said "садить" i'm almost sure people around would correct him.


Good.  It's most probable. Please note that here it was not the foreigner who said the word. Anyway, it doesn't matter; what matters is the situation — where the word was used seemingly rightly.


Hoax said:


> The direct meaning of the verb "сажать/садить на".


You mean, you could read it as "to make people set on a full bobbin"? I'm afraid, nobody else could read the phrase this way.


----------



## Hoax

football_ said:


> This is exactly what I've been saying all the while.
> 
> "Normal Russian language" is too big a formation. I gave examples of phrases which are not suitable for any part of it in the post #14. "Садить" is not such example — somewhere it's good, somewhere it's bad. I agree though that it would be bad more often than good — but not always! For example, not here.
> 
> Good.  It's most probable. Please note that here it was not the foreigner who said the word. Anyway, it doesn't matter; what matters is the situation — where the word was used seemingly rightly.



You create double standards.

Would like to know if you have any idea about linguistics that you argue to people at gramota.ru


----------



## Maroseika

Hoax said:


> The direct meaning of the verb "сажать/садить на".


Do you mean сажать на двадцать лет is wrong?
Do you mean we are obliged to use words only in their direct meanings?
Do you mean preposition на has only spatial sense?


> If this phrase was written by a professional writer for a book, it would never be written this way.


But it was not written "for a book". Садить is colloquial word. Why can't we use colloquial words in the colloquial speech?



> As for "ложить": http://www.gramota.ru/spravka/buro/29_410833


Many thanks for the link. Does it somehow contradict to what I have written before?


----------



## Hoax

Maroseika said:


> Do you mean сажать на двадцать лет is wrong?
> Do you mean we are obliged to use words only in their direct meanings?
> Do you mean preposition на has only spatial sense?



No, i don't mean that.



Maroseika said:


> But it was not written "for a book". Садить is colloquial word. Why can't we use colloquial words in the colloquial speech?


Because разговорный and просторенчый - are two different types of words. "Садить" is просторечное word.



Maroseika said:


> Many thanks for the link. Does it somehow contradict to what I have written before?



Don't know, as i didn't understand why did you keep word "ложить" in your post, you could have forgotten to delete it probably.


----------



## football_

Hoax said:


> You create double standards.


 Please explain.


Hoax said:


> Would like to know if you have any idea about linguistics that you argue to people at gramota.ru



First, I'm not arguing against people at gramota.ru ("don't argue to" is 1) grammatically wrong, 2) not what I'm wishing to say). They said:


> _Сажать –_ общеупотребительное и стилистически нейтральное слово. _Садить_ - просторечие.


This is exactly what I'm saying, using other words of course.

Second, I did not go out of limits of the normal logic ("all we say we say with a purpose to transmit informations, to act upon people's minds, — often inconsciously").

And as I said in #20, I don't see any ambiguity.


----------



## Hoax

Well anyway my point of view was explained already, but people need theirs post to be the last, so i'll probably let them do it 
Oops, one more post please


----------



## Hoax

Ну я значит эта ну вы панимате да шо я хочу сказать-то - according to your logic that sentence on the left is correct, all the words do exist in russian.


----------



## football_

Hoax said:


> Ну я значит эта ну вы панимате да шо я хочу сказать-то - according to your logic that sentence on the left is correct, all the words do exist in russian.


No, "according to my logic" it is not. Because 1) it does not serve a purpose, 2) not every word exists in Russian, 3) the punctuation is downright bad, I didn't even understand the sentence at first (there were two big confusions).


----------



## Hoax

football_ said:


> No, "according to my logic" it is not. Because 1) it does not serve a purpose, 2) not every word exists in Russian, 3) the punctiation is downright bad,



1. It says that you understand my thoughts. 2. Every word exists, some of them are just colloquial as you call them above. 3. We are not talking about punctuation, i can add some commas for you but it is not the point.

there are people who speak this way indeed and it is still russian language but for some reason you don't consider it to be standard russian.




football_ said:


> I didn't even understand the sentence at first (there were two big confusions).



i think the same about the example from the first post.


----------



## football_

Hoax said:


> i think the same about the example from the first post.


I understood the example from the first post very well and at once, and I found it very good and effective at expressing thoughts and feelings (which was its purpose).

That example is very different from the example you posted in #26, where, even if you make commas right, there are so many unnecessary words that it's difficult to find necessary ones.


----------



## Hoax

football_ said:


> I understood the example from the first post very well and at once, and I found it very good and effective at expressing thoughts and feelings (which was its purpose).
> 
> That example is very different from the example you posted in #26, where, even if you make commas right, there are so many unnecessary words that it's difficult to find necessary ones.



Внемли мне, паяц, не все то золото, что переливается  

Это так, просто пример выбора слов, без обид 
Лан, как уже было сказано выше "whatever"


----------



## football_

Ok. Как говорится, "Мальчики, мальчики, не надо ссориться!" :d


----------

