# a dismissive/derogatory этот



## pimlicodude

From Solzhenitsyn:


> На XV съезде компартии (декабрь 1927) пришло время высказываться по нарастающе грозному крестьянскому вопросу: что делать с *этим* несносным крестьянством, которое в обмен на хлеб нагло желает получать промышленные товары?


I can't find any proof in dictionaries or grammar books for this, but I feel that этим here doesn't really mean "this", but is derogatory or dismissive in tone about the peasantry. Does anyone recognise this as an established definition of этот?


----------



## Vovan

pimlicodude said:


> Does anyone recognise this as an established definition of этот?


It's listed in _Малый академический словарь_:


> *этот
> 6.* _указательное._
> Служит для выражения эмоционального отношения к определяемому предмету, явлению и т. п.
> _— Федю я знаю хорошо, он только тем и виноват, что баловал жену. Ну, да и женился он по любви, а из этих из любовных свадеб ничего путного никогда не выходит, — прибавила старушка._ (Тургенев, "Дворянское гнездо")
> _И писать не о чем в письмах, жизнь истощилась, ничто не интересно в этой Ялте._ (Чехов, Письмо О. Л. Книппер, 5 янв. 1903)
> https://classes.ru/all-russian/dictionary-russian-academ-term-91021.htm


As the reader can guess by looking at the two examples the dictionary provides, the tone of that "этот" is dismissive most of the time.
So you're right.


----------



## nizzebro

I think no more derogatory than that in "Whats gone with *that *boy, I wonder? You Tom!*" - *only that we use "этот".


----------



## pimlicodude

nizzebro said:


> I think no more derogatory that in "Whats gone with *that *boy, I wonder? You Tom!*" - *only that we use "этот".


What's going on with that boy?


----------



## nizzebro

I'm not sure but in this one Mark Twain. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer it is "What's gone".
But I missed the apostrophe, anyway.


----------



## pimlicodude

nizzebro said:


> I'm not sure but in this one Mark Twain. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer it is "What's gone".
> But I missed the apostrophe, anyway.


Well, in that case, it strikes me as a truncation of "what's going on", as I have no idea what "what's gone" would mean. But the Americans on the English Only forum may have a different and more expert view on this. Yes, Tom Sawyer is a great book to read, and Huckleberry Finn too. Nizzebro, I hope you have read the original text (at The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, By Mark Twain), because the madness in America has led to the production of expurgated editions (without the N-word), but that is not authentic.

Edit: I have found this thread: gone with that


----------



## nizzebro

Yes, I prefer books without censorship or adaptations; honestly I think that adapted versions for learners should be prohibited - if a simple narrative for kids is needed, write your own and leave the classic book alone. I was so angry when I started to read something from O'Henry, whom I like very much, online, and realized that it is an adaptation. When you have it already read translated in your language, you want to see the original as at is.


----------



## Rosett

pimlicodude said:


> From Solzhenitsyn:
> 
> I can't find any proof in dictionaries or grammar books for this, but I feel that этим here doesn't really mean "this", but is derogatory or dismissive in tone about the peasantry. Does anyone recognise this as an established definition of этот?


Yes, such a definition is listed in a dictionary:
этот
…
II мест.
…
6. разг. Употребляется при выражении неодобрительного, иронического отношения говорящего к какому-либо лицу или предмету.


----------



## Kalaus

Rosett said:


> 6. разг. Употребляется при выражении неодобрительного, иронического отношения говорящего к какому-либо лицу или предмету.


This Wikipedia article provides a good example of this usage:

"*Эта страна* — словосочетание в русском языке, которое, будучи употреблённым в России и по отношению к России, является символическим во внутриполитической борьбе. Такое использование словосочетания вызывает обвинения в отсутствии патриотизма в связи с отчуждённостью, характерной для местоимения «эта» <...>

Традиционно в русском языке по отношению к своей стране и её жителям использовались притяжательные местоимения: «наша страна», «мой народ» <...> Более того, «этот» зачастую имеет ярко выраженную отрицательную окраску: «Ничто не интересно в этой Ялте» (А. П. Чехов, письмо О. Л. Книппер-Чеховой). <...> Противопоставление «наш»/«этот» хорошо заметно в риторике А. А. Навального: у него страна «наша», а власть — «эти люди»."


----------



## nizzebro

Kalaus said:


> This Wikipedia article provides a good example of this usage:
> 
> "*Эта страна* — с


However,  in this specific usage, the pronoun actually has an adjectival function, while in our case it is only referential in terms of the sentence structure. I mean, if we omit it in the original as  "что делать с несносным крестьянством, которое ..." we merely turn "the obnoxious peasantry" into "an/the obnoxious kind of peasantry". So I see no clear derogatory meaning in the pronoun itself, rather it is an effect of determination/emphasis that can further result in a derogatory sense, but also it might be something like  "Что делать с этим странным устройством, которое не реагирует на сигнал", or  "Что делать мне с этим прекрасным существом, которое глядит на меня полным робкой надежды взглядом". I suppose it is not exclusively a feature of Russian.


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> I mean, if we omit it in the original as "что делать с несносным крестьянством, которое ..." we merely turn "the obnoxious peasantry" into "an/the obnoxious kind of peasantry".


... Which doesn't seem to make logical sense.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> ... Which doesn't seem to make logical sense.


Do you mean English or? Okay, let it be "sort, type". I feel that this is a stretch and normally I shouldn't say like this in English; but anyway, I see the logic behind это and its alternatives - even with a collective noun - like this:

это крестьянство, которое bla bla = a specific known, that is, unique, instance; no matter, a group or a type; if we mean coffee - it could be "Jardin". (Yes, in our case it looks as referring to the universal concept of it - but, it is the same function: so in English, we have e.g. "_the _Universe").

крестьянство, которое bla bla = a unique but not defined yet instance/type - it is determined by the subsequent description (которое bla bla). if we mean coffee - it could be "which they sell at the corner" (considering that this phrase is a definition and not a kind of reference itself - that which could have been used in the discourse before, and is used in a restrictive function).

то крестьянство, которое bla bla = same as above but rather opposed to other instances/types - restriction is applied.

такое крестьянство, которое bla bla = same as above but conveyed through some qualities/traits.


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> Do you mean English or? Okay, let it be "sort, type".


Well, first and foremost, несносный as an emotionally expressive adjective is hardly ever used in the delimiting sense, but almost exclusively as a side qualification.
(The dependent relative clause is basically irrelevant here.)


----------



## MIDAV

I can't hear anything dismissive/derogatory about _этим _either (like nizzebro). We could replace _несносным _and the rest with a bunch of positive attributes and it would still make as much sense. 

Consider this: _Что нам делать с этим великодушным крестьянством, которое готово безвозмездно отдавать хлеб? Как достойно вознаградить его?_ Sounds about as natural as the original passage to me.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> Well, first and foremost, несносный as an emotionally expressive adjective is hardly ever used in the delimiting sense, but almost exclusively as a side qualification.
> (The dependent relative clause is basically irrelevant here.)


You are right probably, if you mean that "kind/sort of X" itself gives a delimiting effect.
Anyway, I can't get your point. Is it about translation, or you mean that  "что делать с несносным крестьянством, которое" sounds infelicitous ? To me, the latter sounds fine and the dependent clause matters for it - because несносным doesn't work well as a self-sufficient determiner; and on the other hand, with этим, you can omit the dependent. So we have two different cases here: that with это and that without it, and, I feel that I cannot use "_the _obnoxious peasantry that..." for the latter, because, regardless of the fact that the determiner ('the') provides a forward reference here, it anyway affects the noun at once so that sets a unique instance explicitly - while the Russian sentence doesn't, and the entity is not fully definite there in the same way as in "таким крестьянством".


----------



## Rosett

Интересно, что когда по-английски говорят “in this country,” находясь в этой стране, это означает по-русски «в нашей стране».


----------



## Awwal12

nizzebro said:


> Anyway, I can't get your point. Is it about translation, or you mean that "что делать с несносным крестьянством, которое" sounds infelicitous ?


The problem is in the intended semantics (X kind of peasantry). With "несносное" it can only be "the X peasantry", with our without "это".


----------



## Awwal12

Rosett said:


> Интересно, что когда по-английски говорят “in this country,” находясь в этой стране, это означает по-русски «в нашей стране».


Normally it means "in the country where one is located at the moment". A British tourist in Egypt definitely won't refer to Britain as "this country". The relative frequency of various applicable expressions in the same context is another topic, I suppose.


----------



## nizzebro

Awwal12 said:


> With "несносное" it can only be "the X peasantry", with our without "это".


I'm not so sure anyway, because I think I can say "what is to be done with _an _obnoxious peasantry like this" - which is, of course, not the same as "kind",  but anyway - my objection was only that "the" makes it fully definite and so eliminates the nuance.


----------



## Vovan

nizzebro said:


> if we omit it [=этим] in the original as "что делать с несносным крестьянством, которое ..." we merely turn "the obnoxious peasantry" into "an/the obnoxious kind of peasantry".


I don't think it matters in Russian: you could easily omit "этим", but that wouldn't suddenly suggest the idea of "таким (крестьянством, которое...)" coming up instead. There's no real reason to believe that the author meant the relative clause to be restrictive or that he was talking about any "sorts" of peasantry.



nizzebro said:


> "Что делать мне с этим прекрасным существом, которое глядит на меня полным робкой надежды взглядом"


Well, out of context, I wouldn't know how many beautiful creatures were around you if you omitted "этим".  

The argument in favour of the emphatic use of "*этим*" is that, *logically*, "этим" is simply *redundant *after "по крестьянскому вопросу": there's no need to use the demonstrative pronoun, as the reference to a particular group is clear enough. 

But I must agree that, in that sentence, the emphatic use of "этим" is less evident than it could be should "несносным" be missing:
_Пришло время высказываться по нарастающе грозному крестьянскому вопросу: что делать с *этим* крестьянством, которое в обмен на хлеб нагло желает получать промышленные товары?        _​


----------

