# Товарищ vs господин/госпожа



## ChaosPhoenix7

I'm a student learning Russian. I understand that Господин/Госпожа is the Russian equivalent of Mr./Mrs. and Товарищ/Товарища is the Russian equivalent of Comrade. I tend to use Товарищ/Товарища because I prefer how it sounds. I know that Товарищ/Товарища has been used less in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, but is it considered rude or odd? For example, if I call a native Russian Товарищ/Товарища, will that be a bad idea?


----------



## gvozd

ChaosPhoenix7 said:


> I tend to use Товарищ/Товарища because I prefer how it sounds. I know that Товарищ/Товарища has been used less in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, but is it considered rude or odd? For example, if I call a native Russian Товарищ/Товарища, will that be a bad idea?




Well, it's a difficult question. My personal opinion is that now this word sounds a bit ridiculous being used by a non-Russian speaker. I would prefer господин/госпожа. 
P.S. If you think 'товарища' is used to address a woman you're mistaken. The word 'товарища' doesn't exist and if you want to address a woman you should also use 'товарищ'. Товарищ Сидорова, for example.


----------



## morzh

"Товарищ" is  masculine noun, that is used as a "common gender" noun (formally common gender nouns are all in 1st declension).
It does not have feminine form.


----------



## Explorer41

The question is very difficult even for us in our life. There is no commonly accepted address in Russian. So we often have to do without any address. Or to address a forty-five years  old lady by "девушка" ;-) and other odd things like this...


----------



## morzh

Actually, no accepted by all addressing existed in Soviet times either.
No one would address you as "товарищ" on the street.

Addressing strongly depended on the situation, cultural customs of the person, of the locality etc etc.
The situation is pretty much the same today as it was then.
One might hear "женщина!", "мужчина!", "молодой человек", "девушка!", and such. None of these is really a  good way, but they are in use nevertheless.

Here's my method: myself, when trying to address an unknown person on a street (subway, store, museum etc) I simply omit the addressing, substituting it with Russian equivalent of "Excuse me"/"Be so kind", that is "простите" / "простите, пожалуйста" / "Будьте добръi".

- Будьте добръi, не подскажете, как мне пройти к Камергерскому переулку?
- Простите пожалуйста, можно мне пройти?

This always solved that for me.


----------



## LilianaB

I personally think it is a bad idea to call anybody Товарищ.


----------



## Explorer41

I personally think otherwise.

By the way, American "comrade" *can't* be the same as Russian "товарищ". As well as American "mister" can't be the same as Russian "господин". These pairs of words should have very different connotations.


----------



## morzh

I think that as long as the word is not inherently bad, it cannot be claimed "using it is a bad idea".
What can be claimed is that the word should be, if ever, used judiciously, and that, although, it was pushed for a long time by the Party ideologists as the only accepted form of addressing a person in the Soviet Russia, it never really grew roots outside of the official language / official gatherings, and addressing a stranger as "товарищ", both then and today, would sound out of place, though not without exceptions.
It is still good to address a certain crowd of people, especially with the purpose of consolidation; also good as a humorous address to someone.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, I agree with Morzh, but only in very limited contexts, such as a group of friends going hiking, for example, and somebody says: Let's go, товарищu.


----------



## Syline

"Товарищ + last name" sounds ridiculous nowadays, unless spoken for some humorous effect.
"Товарищ + rank" (товарищ майор) is used in the Russian army, police, etc. as уставное* addressing. 

*Don't know exact English equivalent


----------



## ahvalj

By the way, in Russian (as in English) both these words are ancient borrowings: «господь» is a Germanic word (as evidenced by the «д» instead of the expected «т» in Slavic; the Germanic prototype being something like "gastfaþs", from IE *ghostipotis, "guest-lord"), while «товарищ» is borrowed from some Turkic language. Nor sure if it is relevant, but to some extent the borrowed character of «господин» might explain why there never was a universal system of honorifics in Russian (the prerevolutionary «господинъ Петровъ» was then rather limited as well).


----------



## LilianaB

How did the aristocracy refer to one another, except the Your Highness equivalent which was used in reference to the King.


----------



## Syline

LilianaB said:


> How did the aristocracy refer to one another, except the Your Highness equivalent which was used in reference to the King.


Your Highness is for princes and dukes, for kings is Your Majesty.


----------



## LilianaB

I meant in Russian. Your Highness may also refer to kings in English


----------



## Syline

LilianaB said:


> Your Highness may also refer to kings in English


Nowadays? Can you provide an example?

For Russian nobility in Russian: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Формы_титулования_в_Российской_империи


----------



## LilianaB

This is not an English forum, so I cannot discuss it here. Yes, it can, maybe not to all contemporary kings, depending on the protocol, but definitely to kings from the past and fictional characters.


----------



## Explorer41

LilianaB said:


> Yes, I agree with Morzh, but only in very limited contexts, such as a group of friends going hiking, for example, and somebody says: Let's go, товарищu.


Actually the contexts of use of the addressing "товарищ" are not so limited as you describe. For example, one can use it in the street to address an unknown person, but it's informal (though respectful).


LilianaB said:


> How did the aristocracy refer to one another, except the Your Highness equivalent which was used in reference to the King.


Если верить классикам, то по титулам:
- А знаете, князь, -- сказал он совсем почти другим голосом, -- ведь я вас всё-таки не знаю, да и Елизавета Прокофьевна, может быть, захочет посмотреть на однофамильца... Подождите, если хотите, коли у вас время терпит.

(Ф.М. Достоевский, "Идиот")


----------



## LilianaB

Not in the United States in the Russian-speaking community. Thank you. So you think they would refer to each other by titles and use the second person plural for politeness, like the rest of the society.


----------



## Albertovna

ChaosPhoenix7 said:


> I tend to use Товарищ because I prefer how it sounds.


I wonder how you cope with "щ"


----------



## ahvalj

LilianaB said:


> Yes, I agree with Morzh, but only in very limited contexts, such as a group of friends going hiking, for example, and somebody says: Let's go, товарищu.


I think, exactly like now — by name and patronymic for a higher or equal person, and by name or diminutive for a lower one. «Надёжа-государь Иван Васильевич, твой холоп Петька челом бьёт». In the lower classes or in an earlier period — just by names (examples here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Novgorod_dialect)


----------



## morzh

ahvalj said:


> By the way, in Russian (as in English) both these words are ancient borrowings: «господь» is a Germanic word (as evidenced by the «д» instead of the expected «т» in Slavic; the Germanic prototype being something like "gastfaþs", from IE *ghostipotis, "guest-lord")



I read long time ago that "господин" is borrowed from Germanic, namely Scandinavian "husbonden" (meaning the same).
Interesting that English "husband" is borrowed from the same word (during Viking conquest era) and reflects superior position of the husband towards wife.


----------



## ahvalj

morzh said:


> I read long time ago that "господин" is borrowed from Germanic, namely Scandinavian "husbonden" (meaning the same).
> Interesting that English "husband" is borrowed from the same word (during Viking conquest era) and reflects superior position of the husband towards wife.


That word (and of course both its components) existed in various Germanic languages, not necessarily Scandinavian (only East Slavic has Scandinavian words), but there are problems with deriving the Slavic form from here: the Slavic borrowings from the Germanic languages usually obey pretty well the phonetic rules, while here the word should have been distorted too much for a usual Germanic borrowing: "g" instead of "h" (though хлеб<hlaibs, худож-ник<handags, хиж-ина<hu:s), "о" instead of "ъ", "sp" instead of "sb", "o" instead of "ǫ", unclear final "ь" — actually, no sound should have been heard correctly — this is of course possible with the casual borrowings from the languages overseas, but not during the Slavic-Germanic contact, especially for this kind of word. In contrast, the Gothic gastfaþs (earlier *gastfadis) requires just the elimination of "t" within the consonant cluster and the trivial substitutions (Germanic "a" > Slavic "o", "f" > "p", Germanic gh, dh> Slavic g, d — everything as usual).


----------



## morzh

ahvalj said:


> That word (and of course both its components) existed in various Germanic languages, not necessarily Scandinavian (only East Slavic has Scandinavian words), but there are problems with deriving the Slavic form from here: the Slavic borrowings from the Germanic languages usually obey pretty well the phonetic rules, while here the word should have been distorted too much for a usual Germanic borrowing:.



"Х'сбонден - г'сподин" - не так много и изменений.
Кроме того, я вообще не очень верю в ети "точнъiе правила заимствования из иностраннъi язъков "; 

давайте вспомним ту же "ръiнду бей" из "ring the bell".


----------



## ahvalj

morzh said:


> "Х'сбонден - г'сподин" - не так много и изменений.
> Кроме того, я вообще не очень верю в ети "точнъiе правила заимствования из иностраннъi язъков ";
> 
> давайте вспомним ту же "ръiнду бей" из "ring the bell".


Все прочие древние германские заимствования (а их несколько десятков) преобразовывались по правилам. Насчёт рынды ничего не знаю. Слово «господь» — древнее, обросшее производными уже в самых ранних текстах, а значит заимствованное ещё при Великом переселении народов. В восточногерманском (готском), с которым единственно контактировали славяне, это слово должно было звучать как "hu:sbanda", что дало бы ко времени Кирилла и Мефодия (IX век) «хызбѫды» или подобную же форму с другим типом склонения. Так что, были бы Вы сейчас не «господин Морж», а «хизбудин Морж».


----------



## ahvalj

Вот, кстати, в готском было слово "ulbandus", заимствованное на слух из греческого elephas/elephantas «слон». Славяне заимствовали его у готов тоже, видимо, на слух, и в современном русском оно имеет вид «верблюд» (http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/верблюд). Обратим внимание на передачу слога "band".


----------



## morzh

Интересно, зачем готъi назвали верблюда греческим "елефантосом", когда в греческом бъiло слово для верблюда "камелос".
Тупъie они какие-то. Готъi-то.


----------



## ahvalj

morzh said:


> Интересно, зачем готъi назвали верблюда греческим "елефантосом", когда в греческом бъiло слово для верблюда "камелос".
> Тупъie они какие-то. Готъi-то.


Это, кажется, уже славяне обозвали — всё равно они ни слонов, ни верблюдов не видали.


----------



## ahvalj

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliphaunt#M.C3.BBmakil


----------



## LilianaB

Bonde is a farmer in Swedish and bondkvinna is a farm woman, if these words are somehow connected. Bondgard is a farm.


----------



## morzh

Ет че....вон, сначала библейское "шапан" (даман) европейцъi перевели как "кролик". Потому что даманов не видели. В результате "кролик" стал считаться нечистъм животнъiм вместо дамана.
Дальше - больше.
Финикийские мореплаватели (финикийский и древ. иврит взаимопонимаемъi- оба язъiки канаанской подгруппъi), попав на Пиренеи, и увидев кроликов, которъiх никогда дотоле не видали, обозвали их даманами. Потому что даманов они знали. 
Место же назвали "и-шапан-ам", от которого произошло название "Hispania".


----------



## ahvalj

Далеко же мы от господ с товарищами отдалились...


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

morzh said:


> "Товарищ" is  masculine noun, that is used as a "common gender" noun (formally common gender nouns are all in 1st declension).
> It does not have feminine form.


Товарка - редко, но используется, пусть и не при обращении и не сопровождается ни именем, ни фамилией.
is used, even if scarcely, and not when addressing anybody nor does it go together with a first or last name.


----------



## morzh

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Товарка - редко, но используется, пусть и не при обращении и не сопровождается ни именем, ни фамилией.
> is used, even if scarcely, and not when addressing anybody nor does it go together with a first or last name.



Yes, "товарка" (though I only encountered it in literature about older times, maybe up to some time in the early-to-mid-20th century) does exist, but as you said yourself, it was not used as an addressing - addressing was always masculine:

- Тъi прости меня, товарищ Парамонова (с) Галич.


----------



## ahvalj

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Товарка - редко, но используется, пусть и не при обращении и не сопровождается ни именем, ни фамилией.
> is used, even if scarcely, and not when addressing anybody nor does it go together with a first or last name.


Indeed, «товарка» is not a counterpart of «товарищ»: now it is almost obsolete except for some exotic cases (I have never heard it, only read), but even in the remote past it was a rather lower register word, like «кумушка» etc., while «товарищ» was neutral and before the revolution was even officially used for vice's (vice minister — «товарищ министра», vice president — «товарищ председателя»). The socialist «товарищ» was definitely a foreign (German?) calque.


----------



## morzh

ahvalj said:


> Indeed, «товарка» is not a counterpart of «товарищ»:



Actually it is, at least in one of the meanings. And, while in use, in that sense it was not "lower register word". It was quite normal colloquial one.

*Значение*

_женск от_ товарищ; подруга ◆ Однажды пригласила её на танцевальный вечер *товарка* по гимназии, некая Сашенька Озерецкая, дочь инспектора студентов, занимавшего казённую квартиру этажом ниже нашей. _М. А. Бекетова, «В цепях тягостной свободы…», 1922 г. _(цитата из Национального корпуса русского языка, см. Список литературы)◆


----------



## ahvalj

morzh said:


> Actually it is, at least in one of the meanings. And, while in use, in that sense it was not "lower register word". It was quite normal.
> 
> *Значение*
> 
> _женск от_ товарищ; подруга ◆ Однажды пригласила её на танцевальный вечер *товарка* по гимназии, некая Сашенька Озерецкая, дочь инспектора студентов, занимавшего казённую квартиру этажом ниже нашей. _М. А. Бекетова, «В цепях тягостной свободы…», 1922 г. _(цитата из Национального корпуса русского языка, см. Список литературы)◆


OMG!


----------



## Encolpius

Syline said:


> ..."Товарищ + rank" (товарищ майор) is used in the Russian army, police, etc. as уставное* addressing.



Interesting topic. I heard "товарищ прапорщик" (policeman) in a 2007 Russian movie, does it mean you cannot say: "Гoсподин прапорщик"?


----------



## Maroseika

Encolpius said:


> Interesting topic. I heard "товарищ прапорщик" (policeman) in a 2007 Russian movie, does it mean you cannot say: "Гoсподин прапорщик"?


Yes, in Russian army and police товарищ is still in use, being the only possible formal address. Господин can be used only jokingly.


----------



## Rosett

Maroseika said:


> Yes, in Russian army and police товарищ is still in use, being the only possible formal address. Господин can be used only jokingly.


Jokingly, "товарищ майор" may be used to address an officer of secret services of any rank.


----------



## Encolpius

Maroseika said:


> Yes, in Russian army and police товарищ is still in use, being the only possible formal address. Господин can be used only jokingly.



Very interesting!


----------



## Korenson

You can still use Товарищ addressing a military man if you know his rank. Though it may sound a bit odd hearing that from a stranger 
Товарищ капитан, не подскажите где театр?! 
Better ommit that at all


----------



## Encolpius

I think it is more probable to be in a situation to address a *policeman *than a soldier. And according to the previous comments it is OK and still modern. I cannot imagine a situation nowadays asking a soldier where the theatre is.


----------



## Elena_27

An army officer should know where the theatre is. They are educated people and tend to visit cultural places. So, he's a right person to be asked this. Nevertheless, if you are not a military man yourself, it's a little bit strange to address him using his rank. So, better say "Извините, Вы не знаете, где находится театр?" without "господин" or "товарищ".


----------

