# социальный артикль



## William Stein

I don't understand "социальный артикль" here:
- Алло, - сказал незнакомый голос, - могу я поговорить сТатарским... э-э... господином? Татарский не обиделся - по запутавшейся интонации собеседника онпонял, что тот по ошибке произнес сначала фамилию, а потом социальныйартикль.

Does it just mean the "polite form of address" господин? Why would Tartarsky take offense at that? What is "э-э..." Does that just represent hesitation (er, er...)? (sorry about all the crazy changes in font size!)


----------



## eni8ma

May I put in my thoughts?

It says Татарский не обиделся, so he is not offended.

по запутавшейся интонации собеседника
Concerning the confused operator ...

он понял, что тот по ошибке произнес сначала фамилию, 
а потом социальный артикль.
He realises that he has mistakenly said the first name, then the salutation.

So he is not, in fact, offended (I think  )


----------



## William Stein

eni8ma said:


> May I put in my thoughts?
> 
> It says Татарский не обиделся, so he is not offended.
> 
> по запутавшейся интонации собеседника
> Concerning the confused operator ...
> 
> он понял, что тот по ошибке произнес сначала фамилию,
> а потом социальный артикль.
> He realises that he has mistakenly said the first name, then the salutation.
> 
> So he is not, in fact, offended (I think  )


 
Right, he is not offended, but that obviously implies that he might have been. Why should he have been offended? Okay, I see, the speaker should have господином Татарским, and it sounded kind of rude the other way around.


----------



## eni8ma

? because the operator started using the wrong form of address, by calling him by his name, instead of putting the title first. 

But he wasn't offended, because he realised the operator had just got it muddled.

Is Tartarsky the sort of chap who can be moody, and possibly take offence at small indiscretions?


----------



## William Stein

eni8ma said:


> ? because the operator started using the wrong form of address, by calling him by his name, instead of putting the title first.
> 
> But he wasn't offended, because he realised the operator had just got it muddled.
> 
> Is Tartarsky the sort of chap who can be moody, and possibly take offence at small indiscretions?


 
No, but it would be reasonable to be offended because it's like somebody calling you up and saying "Can I talk to Smith?" instead of "Mr. Smith" (where Mr = господин).


----------



## rusita preciosa

There is no operator there, *собеседник* is just the other person on the phone.

*Cоциальный артикль* is a very unusual way of putting it, but yes, here it means *honorific*. 

The reason Tatarsky could have been offended is the use of his name without an honorific, but then the person corrected himself using it, albeit after the name.


----------



## morzh

William Stein said:


> I don't understand "социальный артикль" here:
> - Алло, - сказал незнакомый голос, - могу я поговорить сТатарским... э-э... господином? Татарский не обиделся - по запутавшейся интонации собеседника онпонял, что тот по ошибке произнес сначала фамилию, а потом социальныйартикль.
> 
> Does it just mean the "polite form of address" господин? Why would Tartarsky take offense at that? What is "э-э..." Does that just represent hesitation (er, er...)? (sorry about all the crazy changes in font size!)



Addressing. Mr/Mrs, etc.


----------



## William Stein

rusita preciosa said:


> There is no operator there, *собеседник* is just the other person on the phone.
> 
> *Cоциальный артикль* is a very unusual way of putting it, but yes, here it means *honorific*.
> 
> The reason Tatarsky could have been offended is the use of his name without an honorific, but then the person corrected himself using it, albeit after the name.


 
The translator skipped that part, probably because he thought it was untranslatable, but I think it would work to say:
Can I speak to Tartarsky, Mister?
(that could either be rude or just a mix-up)


----------



## Ezhevika

Very difficult topic I should say. I don't know where you took this text from, but never in my life have I heard such a word combination in Russian as "социальный артикль".


----------



## morzh

Ezhevika said:


> Very difficult topic I should say. I don't know where you took this text from, but never in my life have I heard such a word combination in Russian as "социальный артикль".



I think, Pelevin is still being discussed here - hence the text.
You have to make allowances for Pelevin's style.


----------



## morzh

William Stein said:


> The translator skipped that part, probably because he thought it was untranslatable, but I think it would work to say:
> Can I speak to Tartarsky, Mister?
> (that could either be rude or just a mix-up)



Yes, you can. Or rather:

May I speak with Tatarsky...er.....with Mister....


----------



## William Stein

morzh said:


> Yes, you can. Or rather:
> 
> May I speak with Tatarsky...er.....with Mister....


 
That wouldn't work. The point is that "Mister" is a rather impolite direct form of address used by cops, for example: You'd better get moving, Mister. The "with Mister" spoils the double meaning.


----------



## Mr_Darcy

The "социальный артикль" word combination is just Pelevin's invention.
By "артикль" he probably means it is something that goes in front of the name. Had it been something that goes after, he might have just as well named it, I don't know, аппендикс instead of артикль.
He probably used социальный because господин was/is still perceived as something "upper class," opposed to "товарищ" or just any "ordinary person."


----------



## rusita preciosa

William Stein said:


> That wouldn't work. The point is that "Mister" is a rather impolite direct form of address used by cops, for example: You'd better get moving, Mister. The "with Mister" spoils the double meaning.


Well, you can translate "Can I speak to Tartarsky... er... Mr. Tatarsky?"


----------



## William Stein

rusita preciosa said:


> Well, you can translate "Can I speak to Tartarsky... er... Mr. Tatarsky?"


 
No, because that would be clear and polite so it wouldn't make any sense to say: 
But Tartarsky wasn't offended because he realized by the confused tone of the the person on the other the end of  the line that he put the last name followed by polite form of address afterward by accident.

Татарский не обиделся - по запутавшейся интонации собеседника онпонял, что тот по ошибке произнес сначала фамилию, а потом социальныйартикль.

On the other hand, you could deliberately say:
Can I speak to your mother, Mister? 
(where Mister is a term less polite than "Sir" but slightly less rude than "Buddy).


----------



## morzh

William Stein said:


> That wouldn't work. The point is that "Mister" is a rather impolite direct form of address used by cops, for example: You'd better get moving, Mister. The "with Mister" spoils the double meaning.




Yea I know, that "Mister" alone is impolite, like boys in old movies say "Hey Mister!"

I considered "WIth Tatarski....with Mister Tatarsky"....but then this breaks the "social article" after the name scheme, which awkwardness Pelevin is trying to show.

However, "Tatarski.....Mister...." is not rude in Englsih either, and this is why....when it is obvious a person is awkward and confused, in any language, including Englsih, his malaprops (except those explicitly profane ) are not perceived as rude.

In this case a person is clearly awkward and confused, and I intentionally left ellipsis after it, to show the awkwardness and confusion, the addressing not being finished.
This to me shows confusion, not rudeness.

However "Tatarsky...Mr. Tatarsky" will show just a corrected misspoken addressing, nothing more.


----------



## William Stein

morzh said:


> Yea I know, that "Mister" alone is impolite, like boys in old movies say "Hey Mister!"
> 
> .
> 
> However, "Tatarski.....Mister...." is not rude in Englsih either, .


 
"Could I speak to Tartarsky, Mister?" could be rude because it could be interpreted as "Can I speak to X, Mister?" (for example, Can I speak to the lady of the house Mister? Can I speak to Tartarsky, Mister? - if the speaker doesn't know he's already speaking with Tartarsky)


----------



## morzh

William Stein said:


> "Could I speak to Tartarsky, Mister?" could be rude because it could be interpreted as "Can I speak to X, Mister?" (for example, Can I speak to the lady of the house Mister? Can I speak to Tartarsky, Mister? - if the speaker doesn't know he's already speaking with Tartarsky)




Yes, but do agree that the "confused" pause is very different from the "comma/addressing pause":

"excuse me.....er.....mister...?" - from "excuse me, mister!"


----------



## William Stein

morzh said:


> Yes, but do agree that the "confused" pause is very different from the "comma/addressing pause":
> 
> "excuse me.....er.....mister...?" - from "excuse me, mister!"


----------



## William Stein

A certain amount of adaptation is necessary to make it ambiguous in English. To take the "timid, confused tone" into account it would be better to make repetitions at the beginning, for example: Could I...Would it be okay if I spoke to Tartarsky, Mr?


----------



## morzh

William Stein said:


> A certain amount of adaptation is necessary to make it ambiguous in English. To take the "timid, confused tone" into account it would be better to make repetitions at the beginning, for example: Could I...Would it be okay if I spoke to Tartarsky, Mr?



Yes, something like it....still "Mister" is at the end.


----------



## cyanista

[/QUOTE]


William Stein said:


> - Алло, - сказал незнакомый голос, - могу я поговорить с Татарским... э-э... господином?



Might it be that there is a word play involved?  "с господином Татарским " - (with Mr Tartarski) vs "с татарским господином" (with a gentleman of Tartar origin)? After all, you can't hear on the phone if a word's capitalized or not. 

(I realize it's not very useful because I can't imagine how it could be translated it this case! Tartar... ski? OK, bad idea!...)


----------



## William Stein

cyanista said:


>



Might it be that there is a word play involved?  "с господином Татарским " - (with Mr Tartarski) vs "с татарским господином" (with a gentleman of Tartar origin)? After all, you can't hear on the phone if a word's capitalized or not. 

(I realize it's not very useful because I can't imagine how it could be translated it this case! Tartar... ski? OK, bad idea!...) 
[/QUOTE]

I see, I missed that entirely! Does Tartarski in modern Russian mean somebody from one of the Central Asian countries, like Kazahstan? I just looked up the term and in English it's supposed to mean "belonging to the Tatar tribe, primarily in Tatarstan and parts of Central Asia". Does it have a broader meaning in Russian?
That's a funny idea: Can I speak to the Tartar er... Tartarski?


----------



## morzh

Indeed, "татарский" - is possessive from "татарин", a person of tartar ethnicity.

Человек татарской национальности - a person of tartar ethnicity, a tartar.
Татарская автономная республика - Tartar autonomous republic.

Is there a pun involved? Possibly. The only person who knows for sure is Pelevin; it's for him to know, and for us to guess 
My experience is, most "between the lines"readings are readers' fantasies. But, sometimes....


----------



## morzh

Also the very last name "Татарский" itself is not a tartar last name.

 	Анализ фамилии:
	 	   Эта фамилия в 60% случаев имеет польское происхождение и происходит  либо из самой Польши, либо из граничащих с ней стран (Украина,  Белоруссия). Почти все представители таких фамилий относились к польской  шляхте. В 10% процентах носитель такой фамилии может быть потомком  древнего русского княжеского или боярского рода. В обоих случаях фамилия  указывает, как правило, на место, где жили дальние предки человека или  же тот город или село, откуда, по легендам, происходит этот род, но  может происходить и от имени дальнего предка человека. Кроме того, в 30%  случаев такая фамилия была получена предком священнослужителем, когда  он выпускался из семинарии. В этих случаях фамилия давалась по воле  руководства училища и могла быть образована от названия местности,  церковного праздника, имени святого.


----------



## yoysl

William Stein said:


> (I realize it's not very useful because I can't imagine how it could be translated it this case! Tartar... ski? OK, bad idea!...)


I'd say that this potential pun is the least of the translator of _Generation П_'s concerns ... how do you even get past the title? 

I think that "Can I speak to Tatarsk ... er ... Mr. Tatarsky" works fine in English. 

I don't actually think a pun is intended here ... Xanin (the man who's calling) knows who Tatarsky is, even though they've never met: Tatarsky has no idea who Xanin is. I think the hesitation comes from Xanin realizing that it probably seems strange of him to ask so directly for Tatarsky, since he knows that Tatarsky still has no idea who he is.


----------



## William Stein

yoysl said:


> I'd say that this potential pun is the least of the translator of _Generation П_'s concerns ... how do you even get past the title?
> 
> I think that "Can I speak to Tatarsk ... er ... Mr. Tatarsky" works fine in English.
> 
> I don't actually think a pun is intended here ... Xanin (the man who's calling) knows who Tatarsky is, even though they've never met: Tatarsky has no idea who Xanin is. I think the hesitation comes from Xanin realizing that it probably seems strange of him to ask so directly for Tatarsky, since he knows that Tatarsky still has no idea who he is.




It depends what you mean by "working fine". 
Can I speak to Tatarsk ... er ... Mr. Tatarsky" isn't funny at all and it  doesn't fit with the following sentence. Татарский не обиделся - по запутавшейся интонации собеседника онпонял, что тот по ошибке произнес сначала фамилию, а потом социальныйартикль
The pun on the other hand is very amusing so why sacrifice it unnecessarily?

Why do you mention the title? "Generation P." means the "Pepsi generation" doesn't it? Does it have a double meaning in Russian?


----------



## yoysl

William Stein said:


> The pun on the other hand is very amusing so why sacrifice it unnecessarily?


I'm not sure there's an intentional pun here at all. As I remember it, Xanin knows who Tatarsky is before he calls him: he's calling Tatarsky with a purpose, and it seems unlikely he'd mistakenly ask for a "Tatar gentleman." This sort of pun doesn't jive with anything I remember about the novel, and Pelevin is not the sort of person to throw in puns for the nonce. They all contribute to the story somehow. Of course, it's possible the significance of this one is just over my head.

I'm really pretty sure Xanin just realizes mid-sentence that he's being very direct on the phone, and this could seem strange to Tatarsky, since X knows that T doesn't know who he is; and so he haphazhardly tosses a "Mr" in there to feign politeness. You're right, a literal translation doesn't work in English: saying "Tatarsky ... er ... Mr. ..." is awkward and doesn't make much sense. That's why I suggest "Tatarsk- ... er ... Mr Tatarsky ...". You're also right, that if you take my suggestion, T's remark about putting the social article after the name doesn't make sense. But this could be changed, too. That line to me is just a reflection of T's attitude, he assumes at this point that everyone is well-intentioned. I guess this is just my reading, though.



William Stein said:


> Why do you mention the title? "Generation P." means the "Pepsi generation" doesn't it? Does it have a double meaning in Russian?


Well, first of all, the title is not "Generation P", it's "Generation П". The use of an English word with a Cyrillic letter is not an accident, which should be pretty obvious from the content of the book. It should also be clear why this in itself is not easy to translate. On that note, how can you translate most of the advertisements in the book? A lot of them are interlingual puns that simply won't work in English (or practically any other language; they're unique). Secondly, you're right that Пепси is the obvious meaning of П, given on the first page of the novel. But give Pelevin more credit than that! I don't want to spoil anything for you, though, so I'll let you finish ascending the ziggurat and find out for yourself why Пепси isn't the only interpretation of П, and consequently why the title is all the more difficult to translate literally ...


----------



## William Stein

Well, you obviously know the book very well and appreciate it, so your comments are very helpful and refreshing. I just have a couple things to add:



yoysl said:


> Xanin is alling Tatarsky with a purpose, and it seems unlikely he'd mistakenly ask for a "Tatar gentleman."...


 
It's true that it's unlikely that Xanin would ask for a Tatar gentlemen and of course he really isn't. Tartarsky realizes that but it would be a possible misinterpretation that might be rude (and comic in an absurd way because it is so unlikely), plus it would explain the following sentence. 



yoysl said:


> This sort of pun doesn't jive with anything I remember about the novel, and Pelevin is not the sort of person to throw in puns for the nonce. They all contribute to the story somehow.."...


 
 It's true that the pun wouldn't have any deep philosophical overtones that would fit in with the work as a whole, but I'm not sure the graffiti "Trapped? Masturbate" on the toilet stall is very profound, either. Pelevin, like Shakespeare, not above a little silliness just to lighten things up on occasion. Also, the act of punning in and of itself seems to have a philosophical meaning in this text: it's a sort of rebellion against established meaning as though everything we see around us has double meanings, the "sublime"  is really ridiculous and the "ridiculous" sublime. 
The puns are also related to the art of advertising, where the copywriter tries to awaken new and exciting associations with boring products, like the super-sexy spirit of Ariel giving that lady an organism with the boring detergent of the same name. I think this thought of Tartarsky sums it up pretty well (just a few pages after the passage in question):
Сразу стало ясно, что все остальное тоже придумал не Пугин. Воображение между тем успело нарисовать портрет замаскировавшегося титана рекламной мысли, способного срифмовать штаны хоть с Шекспиром, хоть с русской историей.





yoysl said:


> Well, first of all, the title is not "Generation P", it's "Generation П". The use of an English word with a Cyrillic letter is not an accident, which should be pretty obvious from the content of the book. ."...


 
That's interesting, I never thought about that. It could even be the mathematical symbol "Pi" .



yoysl said:


> On that note, how can you translate most of the advertisements in the book? A lot of them are interlingual puns that simply won't work in English (or practically any other language; they're unique)."


 
Well that may be true but I think there are two possible solutions: 1) decide the work is simply untranslatable and not translate it; 2) translate in a manner that is faithful at least to the spirt if not to the letter, and the puns are an integral part of the zany, irreverent spirit. To me, that means that the translator's inventing a crazy pun that is faithful to the spirit (if not the letter) would do more justice to the text than omitting a pun because it is impossible literally.



yoysl said:


> I don't want to spoil anything for you, though, so I'll let you finish ascending the ziggurat and find out for yourself why Пепси isn't the only interpretation of П, and consequently why the title is all the more difficult to translate literally ...


 
Okay, thanks a lot, I hope I can figure it out on top of the ziggurat.


----------



## elemika

William Stein said:


> That's interesting, I never thought about that. It could even be the mathematical symbol "Pi" .


Have a look at this


----------



## yoysl

elemika said:


> Have a look at this


... spoiler alert! also, I think there might be more than just that.





William Stein said:


> It's true that it's unlikely that Xanin would ask for a Tatar gentlemen and of course he really isn't. Tartarsky realizes that but it would be a possible misinterpretation that might be rude (and comic in an absurd way because it is so unlikely), plus it would explain the following sentence.


I'm really basing my reading on Xanin as I see him as a character, and I don't think this sort of misunderstanding fits with his character. Maybe I'm wrong, though. It's been a couple years since I read this book, and I only pulled it out again when you asked the question. I've been meaning to watch the movie ...




William Stein said:


> It's true that the pun wouldn't have any deep philosophical overtones that would fit in with the work as a whole, but I'm not sure the graffiti "Trapped? Masturbate" on the toilet stall is very profound, either. Pelevin, like Shakespeare, not above a little silliness just to lighten things up on occasion. Also, the act of punning in and of itself seems to have a philosophical meaning in this text: it's a sort of rebellion against established meaning as though everything we see around us has double meanings, the "sublime"  is really ridiculous and the "ridiculous" sublime.


That's a good point.



William Stein said:


> That's interesting, I never thought about that. It could even be the mathematical symbol "Pi"


Hadn't even though about that part, but I could definitely fit "circularity" into my reading, too! The structure of this novel (as you've surely noticed) is really well-developed.



William Stein said:


> Well that may be true but I think there are two possible solutions: 1) decide the work is simply untranslatable and not translate it; 2) translate in a manner that is faithful at least to the spirt if not to the letter, and the puns are an integral part of the zany, irreverent spirit. To me, that means that the translator's inventing a crazy pun that is faithful to the spirit (if not the letter) would do more justice to the text than omitting a pun because it is impossible literally.


This is kind of like the Arndt / Nabokov dilemma ... two translations of Eugene Onegin, the former strictly adhering to the original form, the latter adhering to function. I don't think either is very pleasing to read. On the other hand, Nabokov published extensive writings detailing the effects of the original that are lost in translation, which in my dorky worldview is a valid and useful approach. In general, staying true to form doesn't seem to work ... this is what Brodsky did when translating his poetry from Russian to English, and a lot of it ends up sounding meaningless.


----------



## Ёж!

A late remark:


William Stein said:


> That wouldn't work. The point is that "Mister" is a rather impolite direct form of address used by cops, for example: You'd better get moving, Mister. The "with Mister" spoils the double meaning.


But the Russian "господин" is not very polite here, either. It looks like, indeed, the person at the other end of the wire first called Tatarsky by his surname, which is considered impolite, then switched to «господин» so that to change the impression; as we don't use «господин» either, and it feels too much for an ordinary person – mind you, "we're just friendly comrades!"  *  , – Tatarsky might well decide that the person he talks to is making jokes at him, keeping in mind Tatarsky's status of «выскочка» (upstart, parvenu). But Tatatrsky realizes that his interlocutor didn't mean to joke and was instead just slow at thought, so he forgives the mistake to Xanin; after all, those honorifics are not really meaningful and bear no importance for anything.

I think, the usage of the word «артикль» refers exactly to their being non-important. To us Russians, «артикль» is a particle of speech that appears in foreign languages before the nouns and bears little to no meaning – it's kind of a decoration. The honorific plays exactly the same role when it is put before the names, but this role is social. I remember, for example, how mat words, that certain persons insert in their speech just anywhere as filler words, were ironically called by someone "артикли" as well.

So, I consider that the term expresses the author's irony towards the lack of meaning in social honorifics, their failing to make people honorable, their futility and voidness; and I find this irony well done; their unsoundness corresponds very well to unsoundness of everything in Pelevin's world. No landmarks, no guidelines, no truth, no eternity. Casual decisions in a fog of the almost immaterial world. People's feeling lost, but yet acting.

* This is a popular catch-phrase: «Какой я господин, я простой советский товарищ!».


----------



## Ёж!

William Stein said:


> - Алло, - сказал незнакомый голос, - могу я поговорить сТатарским... э-э... господином?


To summarise, this phrase is derogatory by the way it reads and sounds. This "э-э" can very well be understood to express a doubt: "ну какой из тебя господин?", indeed this understanding is the most obvious one. It is very possible that Xanin did in fact mean that, but he made it look like confusion as well, so Tatarsky had to decide. This sense is lost in all translations proposed so far, because the word "mister" is neutral – everyone is a mister; while the word "господин" is not neutral.


----------



## William Stein

Ёж! said:


> To summarise, this phrase is derogatory by the way it reads and sounds. This "э-э" can very well be understood to express a doubt: "ну какой из тебя господин?", indeed this understanding is the most obvious one. It is very possible that Xanin did in fact mean that, but he made it look like confusion as well, so Tatarsky had to decide. This sense is lost in all translations proposed so far, because the word "mister" is neutral – everyone is a mister; while the word "господин" is not neutral.



Thanks for all the detailed explanations, that's very interesting. I wish I could understand all the nuances the way a native speaker does. I wouldn't say that "mister" by"'  itself is neutral in English, though (everybody may be a mystery but not a mister  Monsieur in French is neutral, for example, "Bonjour, Monsieur" is polite, but "Hello Mister" sounds very strange (Although "Hello, Mr Plotkin" is perfectly polite). "You'd better move your car Mister" sounds like a cop being half-polite, meaning it's a veiled threat. "Sir" is much more polite.


----------

