# простой/выразительный



## mimi2

Hi, 
*“Проста и выразительна форма Мавзолея*”
I understand this sentence like this:
=>The form of the mausoleum is simple and impressive. 
I don’t know why the two adjectives “простой” and “*выраз**и**тельный” have the form of “*Проста” and “выразительна”
Could you explain a little?
Thanks.


----------



## Q-cumber

Hi *mimi2*!
These are short forms of the adjectives. 
This matter (краткие формы прилагательных) had been discussed on the forum in details a while ago. You need to search for the appropriate topics. Unfortunately, it can't be explained "in a word".


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=498717

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=230490

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=488976


----------



## Crescent

mimi2 said:


> Hi,
> *“Проста и выразительна форма Мавзолея*”
> I understand this sentence like this:
> =>The form of the mausoleum is simple and impressive.
> I don’t know why the two adjectives “простой” and “*выраз**и**тельный” have the form of “*Проста” and “выразительна”
> Could you explain a little?
> Thanks.


 
Hello, mimi! 

I think your translation is nearly correct: in fact the only little thing I would change is : The form of the mausoleum is simple and *ex*pressive. 

Well, you're right to think that this is slightly unusual that the two adjectives should occupy such a position in the sentence, and I admit I had to think about it quite thoroughly before answering, but...
First of all,*простой* and *выразительный* change to their feminine form because of course ''*форма'' *is feminine.

The reason that they are placed at the begining of the sentence is harder to identify. I think the main purpose really is for emphasis on the adjectives rather than on the noun ''*форма*''*.* 
It also sounds slightly more archaic, or at least..._soutenu _when the sentence is structured like this. 
This reminds me of a famous song which begins with the lines: 
_Fair is the white star of twilight..._

Well, I'm not entirely sure as to how much this explanation will be clear or useful to you but I hope that at least the other foreros will be able to explain it better!


----------



## mimi2

Q-cumber said:


> Hi *mimi2*!
> These are short forms of the adjectives.
> This matter (краткие формы прилагательных) had been discussed on the forum in details a while ago. You need to search for the appropriate topics. Unfortunately, it can't be explained "in a word".
> 
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=498717
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=230490
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=488976


Hi, Q-cumber.
I understand when you said they are short forms of adjectives. 
Thanks.


----------



## mimi2

Crescent said:


> Hello, mimi!
> 
> I think your translation is nearly correct: in fact the only little thing I would change is : The form of the mausoleum is simple and *ex*pressive.
> 
> Well, you're right to think that this is slightly unusual that the two adjectives should occupy such a position in the sentence, and I admit I had to think about it quite thoroughly before answering, but...
> First of all,*простой* and *выразительный* change to their feminine form because of course ''*форма'' *is feminine.
> 
> The reason that they are placed at the begining of the sentence is harder to identify. I think the main purpose really is for emphasis on the adjectives rather than on the noun ''*форма*''*.*
> It also sounds slightly more archaic, or at least..._soutenu _when the sentence is structured like this.
> This reminds me of a famous song which begins with the lines:
> _Fair is the white star of twilight..._
> 
> Well, I'm not entirely sure as to how much this explanation will be clear or useful to you but I hope that at least the other foreros will be able to explain it better!


Hi, Crescent. 
Yes, I know what you explained to me. 
As for "expressive" and "impressive". I prefer "impressive" to "expressive".
What does "expressive" mean in the context? How expressive is the mausoleum? 
Thanks.


----------



## jazyk

It's not a matter of preference. Выразительный means expressive. Вы is equivalent to ex. Ex comes from Latin ex, which means out(wards), the same thing as вы. Выразительный comes from the verb разить, to strike, similar to the Latin verb underlying expressive, premere, to squeeze.

Impressive would be впечательный. В equals in, from Latin in, in(wards). It's the same premere in the English word. In Russian it you can find in the adjective the verb печать, to press.

Other similar examples are to turn on (включить) and to turn off (выключить).


----------



## Q-cumber

jazyk said:


> Impressive would be впечательный (?). В equals in, from Latin in, in(wards). It's the same premere in the English word. In Russian it you can find in the adjective the verb печать, to press.
> 
> Other similar examples are to turn on (включить) and to turn off (выключить).



Hi *jazyk*!

Actaully, impressive means "making a strong impression" (впечатляющий). I see no problem with using it in the translation...not an exact interpretation, but close enough to the original meaning...


----------



## jazyk

Yes, I meant впечатляющий. This transliterator sometimes doesn't work the way it should (or maybe there's a problem with the guy handling it ).



> Actaully, impressive means "making a strong impression" (впечатляющий).


I know that. I even explained its etymology.


----------



## Q-cumber

*jazyk*

Sorry, I thought you actually meant *впечатлительный* (impressionable), which is somewhat opposite to *впечатляющий* <passive vs active, inwards - outwards;  being under the impression -  making an impression >. 
In any case, I'd not call expressive - impressive distinction similar to the turn on - turn off one...the latter couple are antonyms.


----------



## palomnik

Actually, it always struck me that выразительный is a commoner word in Russian than "expressive" is in English. It's just not a word that English speakers tend to use much, unless they're talking about flowery rhetoric or sweeping gestures, and as often as not it has a slightly negative connotation, implying a substitution of form for substance, and in fact can almost mean the opposite of выразительный in some contexts.

"Impressive", on the other hand, often seems to have little to do with impressions - it tends to mean something that deserves attention, and I don't know of one word that translates that in all circumstances in Russian.

Maybe "affecting" is a better translation in this context.


----------



## jazyk

> In any case, I'd not call expressive - impressive distinction similar to the turn on - turn off one...the latter couple are antonyms.


 I added those verbs to make my point about the importance of clearly understanding prefixes and how they relate across languages, which is something that never ceases to amaze me. Romance languages have traduzir/traducir/traduire/tradurre, etc.,from Latin transducere, which means to take to the other side. Germanic languages have übersetzen/oversætte/oversätta, etc., which means to take to the other side. Slavic languages have přeložit/перевести, which also means to take to the other side. I think this is all a fascinating "coincidence".


----------



## Q-cumber

palomnik said:


> Actually, it always struck me that выразительный is a commoner word in Russian than "expressive" is in English. It's just not a word that English speakers tend to use much, unless they're talking about flowery rhetoric or sweeping gestures, and as often as not it has a slightly negative connotation, implying a substitution of form for substance, and in fact can almost mean the opposite of выразительный in some contexts.
> 
> "Impressive", on the other hand, often seems to have little to do with impressions - it tends to mean something that deserves attention, and I don't know of one word that translates that in all circumstances in Russian.
> 
> Maybe "affecting" is a better translation in this context.



Hi *palomnik*!

Actually, the adjective выразительный has several meanings.

   Should we call a face (or eyes) выразительное, we imply a lively face, from which we can easily read the person's thoughts and emotions... and so on. 
    Speaking about the subject phrase in particular, I need to mention that it is a specimen of the "old Soviet publicistic style", so to speak. There were no accidental words in such texts. Every "marker" word was on its place and had a special "approved" meaning. So, "простой" here means something like "simple, democratic, without a materialistic (bourgeois) splendor"; "выразительный" - "making everyone feel admiration and respect towards Vladimir Lenin", "conveying an idea of an immortality of the revolutionary values and the triumph of communism"...something like this.
. 
PS Please don't forget to fix my mistakes.


----------



## palomnik

Q-cumber said:


> Hi *palomnik*!
> 
> Actually, the adjective выразительный has several meanings.
> 
> Should we call a face (or eyes) выразительное, we imply a lively face, from which we can easily read the person's thoughts and emotions... and so on.
> Speaking about the subject phrase in particular, I need to mention that it is a specimen of the "old Soviet publicistic style", so to speak. There were no accidental words in such texts. Every "marker" word was on its place and had a special "approved" meaning. So, "простой" here means something like "simple, democratic, without a materialistic (bourgeois) splendor"; "выразительный" - "making everyone feel admiration and respect towards Vladimir Lenin", "conveying an idea of an immortality of the revolutionary values and the triumph of communism"...something like this.
> .
> PS Please don't forget to fix my mistakes.


 
I read your comments over several times, Q-cumber, and I can't find any mistakes.  I scratched my head over "publicistic" since it sounds strange, but I can't think of a better word.

Actually a great deal of what Mimi2 has been asking about sounds like classic Soviet jargonese, the type they made us read when I was learning Russian back in the seventies.  Mimi, I think you need to know that people don't write that way so much any more.


----------



## Q-cumber

palomnik said:


> I read your comments over several times, Q-cumber, and I can't find any mistakes.



Thanks, *palomnik*. In fact, I didn't mean these only  comments. Since you are one of very few native English speakers on the Slavic forum, it is your holy duty to correct any mistakes you might notice in Enslish texts.  



> I scratched my head over "publicistic" since it sounds strange, but I can't think of a better word.


 
Well, this word (публицистический) is overformal in Russian too. And now I think I picked an imprecise word. "the front page style" would be more correct, since another newspapers' pages were often written by means of normal Russian language. No need to say that people were seldom reading title page articles. Most of them were reading newspapers, starting from very last pages.


----------



## Crescent

Hello, Q-cumber. 
Well, I know that I'm not quite a native speaker, and am therefore not as good as one could potentially prove to be, but I hope that having spent a sufficient number of years inhabiting an entirely and exclusively English-speaking environment, I'm somewhat qualifided also to... make a few corrections to your almost-perfect English. 

#





Q-cumber said:


> Thanks, *palomnik*. In fact, I didn't mean _only_ these only comments. (better to say, even: _I wasn't refering to only these comments/posts_) Since you are one of very few native English speakers on the Slavic forum, it is your holy duty to correct any mistakes you might notice in En*g*lish texts.
> (but I don't count that, since it's obviously a little typo )


 
As for our original topic of conversation, I have to say that apart from finding Jazyk's explanation an extremely interestating and ...édifiant...(edifying?) one, I also deeply share his opinion!

I don't really think that the translation of ''*выразительный*'' is optional here: impressive and expressive, as jazyk said, mean completely different things.

I believe that in mimi's context, it's talking about the fact that the form/shape of the Mausoleum (..?) is simple and _expressive_ - meaning that despite it's simplicity, it has the capacity to please the eye of the observer by its expressiveness - something which does not necesseraly require complex and beautiful ornaments.

However, the word ''impressive'' actually implies that the object is pleasing to the observer - which, in my opinion, isn't really the original meaning here. 

If anyone notices any mistakes or contradictions in my English or the content of my post -...all are welcome.


----------



## Q-cumber

Hi *Crescent*!

Thanks for your help.


----------



## palomnik

Crescent said:


> Hello, Q-cumber.
> Well, I know that I'm not quite a native speaker, and am therefore not as good as one could potentially prove to be, but I hope that having spent a sufficient number of years inhabiting an entirely and exclusively English-speaking environment, I'm somewhat qualifided also to... make a few corrections to your almost-perfect English.
> 
> #
> 
> As for our original topic of conversation, I have to say that apart from finding Jazyk's explanation an extremely interestating and ...édifiant...(edifying?) one, I also deeply share his opinion!
> 
> I don't really think that the translation of ''*выразительный*'' is optional here: impressive and expressive, as jazyk said, mean completely different things.
> 
> I believe that in mimi's context, it's talking about the fact that the form/shape of the Mausoleum (..?) is simple and _expressive_ - meaning that despite it's simplicity, it has the capacity to please the eye of the observer by its expressiveness - something which does not necesseraly require complex and beautiful ornaments.
> 
> However, the word ''impressive'' actually implies that the object is pleasing to the observer - which, in my opinion, isn't really the original meaning here.
> 
> If anyone notices any mistakes or contradictions in my English or the content of my post -...all are welcome.


 
Crescent, I've highlighted a couple of items above, which I think are mainly typo's rather than mistakes.  If you've lived in an English speaking environment for a while, you no doubt realize that even well-educated English speakers make spelling mistakes all the time, and it's not really viewed as ignorance.  Since it appears that I am the resident alien here, I guess I will have to overcome my Anglo-Saxon reticence to correct other people's mistakes.

Two points:  to get back on topic, what do you think would be an adequate translation of выразительный here?

Secondly, regarding jazyk's comments, I was under the impression that a lot of these relatively literary words in Russian like перевести were in fact borrowings (i.e., calques) from Latin in the eighteenth century.  Am I wrong in that?


----------

