# Alaska, one land



## CurtisHight

Hello!

I have three words: “Аляска”, “один”, and “земля”. Can they be rendered together as:

Аляска, одна земля

I am looking for a meaning of “land” that equates to the “land” as formed under Russian hegemony, hemmed in by British hegemony in Canada.

Is “земля” the correct term. Аre these three words “Аляска, одна земля” strung together intelligible in Russian? Do I need grammatical adjustments?


----------



## GCRaistlin

С грамматической точки зрения все верно. Но непонятно, почему уточняется, что _одна._


----------



## Awwal12

Grammatically it's basically ok, but I'm not sure that using "one" = "одна" is idiomatic here in Russian, as it would be used predominantly in "one with something else". Couldn't you elaborate what's the intended pragmatics of your phrase?


----------



## pimlicodude

CurtisHight said:


> Hello!
> 
> I have three words: “Аляска”, “один”, and “земля”. Can they be rendered together as:
> 
> Аляска, одна земля
> 
> I am looking for a meaning of “land” that equates to the “land” as formed under Russian hegemony, hemmed in by British hegemony in Canada.
> 
> Is “земля” the correct term. Аre these three words “Аляска, одна земля” strung together intelligible in Russian? Do I need grammatical adjustments?


You seem to mean "Russia and Alaska" are one land. But I'm not sure that this phrase in English or in Russian contains that implication. Maybe - Аляска -- русская почва?


----------



## Awwal12

pimlicodude said:


> Maybe - Аляска -- русская почва?


For reference, почва would be used only as "soil (from the agricultural or biological perspective)" or "ground (for sth, figurative)".


----------



## CurtisHight

Rivers flow, unless damned or dried, and have often made for natural borders, mountain ranges, too.

If our wildlife biologists are correct, then animals were migrating through the land of the north Pacific for a very long time. If our anthropologists are correct, then humanity has also migrated through the land of the north Pacific, for a lesser but still a long time. At one point, the waters rose and the sea divided the land. New migration would entail new challenges.

Years passed. Peoples from the west crossed the waters and continued moving east. Peoples from the east were also on the move, to the west. In time, they met. They drew a border, an ambiguous line on a map. “One land” was now formed, however imperfectly. “One land” between British hegemony and the Bering Sea, with details worked out over time.

The line on the map did not prevent the rivers from flowing, neither the animals from migrating, but now the attentions of humanity were commanded by separate capitals of sovereignty, diverse societies. The sovereign of the land to the west was far away and sought a friend to whom he could sell his “territory and dominion/_Territoire avec droit de souveraineté_” between British hegemony and the Bering Sea. A friend was found, an agreement was reached, gold was received. Marvelous and powerful ideas poured in, communication and transportation improved immensely, and one people, “one demos” blossomed upon the land, a “more perfect Union” formed, however imperfectly.

Alaska, one land, one demos, one state!


----------



## pimlicodude

CurtisHight said:


> Rivers flow, unless damned or dried, and have often made for natural borders, mountain ranges, too.
> 
> If our wildlife biologists are correct, then animals were migrating through the land of the north Pacific for a very long time. If our anthropologists are correct, then humanity has also migrated through the land of the north Pacific, for a lesser but still a long time. At one point, the waters rose and the sea divided the land. New migration would entail new challenges.
> 
> Years passed. Peoples from the west crossed the waters and continued moving east. Peoples from the east were also on the move, to the west. In time, they met. They drew a border, an ambiguous line on a map. “One land” was now formed, however imperfectly. “One land” between British hegemony and the Bering Sea, with details worked out over time.
> 
> The line on the map did not prevent the rivers from flowing, neither the animals from migrating, but now the attentions of humanity were commanded by separate capitals of sovereignty, diverse societies. The sovereign of the land to the west was far away and sought a friend to whom he could sell his “territory and dominion/_Territoire avec droit de souveraineté_” between British hegemony and the Bering Sea. A friend was found, an agreement was reached, gold was received. Marvelous and powerful ideas poured in, communication and transportation improved immensely, and one people, “one demos” blossomed upon the land, a “more perfect Union” formed, however imperfectly.
> 
> Alaska, one land, one demos, one state!


Well, that makes no sense in any language, unless Alaska is a term that can be used to refer to Russia as well as Alaska. I have no objection to the geopolitical aim to get it back but Moscow isn't in "Alaska".


----------



## CurtisHight

pimlicodude said:


> Well, that makes no sense in any language, unless Alaska is a term that can be used to refer to Russia as well as Alaska. I have no objection to the geopolitical aim to get it back but Moscow isn't in "Alaska".


Above you wrote: “You seem to mean ‘Russia and Alaska’ are one land.” I meant and wrote nothing of the sort.

You then wrote: “unless Alaska is a term that can be used to refer to Russia as well as Alaska.” I am confused with your words. I clearly stated the cession of Alaska to another society.

If you are reading into my words sensibilities of our current geopolitical machinations, then you are walking an unproductive path. I asked for the term in Russian out of respect for the fact that it was under Russia that Alaska as a geographic unit cohered. Similarly, it is under the aegis of the political thinking of Western Civilization that the current citizens of Alaska became a “people”. This past winter, I met someone on a bus in Anchorage who told me he lived far up a remote river, that he’d walked 50 miles to reach a settlement from which he’d flown to Anchorage. What was his next move? He said he was pondering flying to Hawaii _or_ flying to Japan. That liberty is a lovely thing! His forefathers did not have it and neither did mine. We are here together, as one! My writing in this thread is in celebration of that unity, a piece of a whole expressing gratitude to all, acknowledgment of every virtuous hand, recognition that there have been knaves along the way.


----------



## Maroseika

Maybe you mean to say something like Аляска - один народ, or люди Аляски едины?


----------



## CurtisHight

Maroseika said:


> Maybe you mean to say something like Аляска - один народ, or люди Аляски едины?


Thank you for your thought. Nevertheless, no, because this is not a statement about the populace, but of the cohering of a geography that has become a spatial frame of reference and an iconic shape. (This could be the case even if a cohered geography was formed entirely via the natural borders of rivers and mountains: A choice would still be made regarding the specific rivers and the specific mountains).


----------



## CurtisHight

I visited the site: Multi-City Flights, Frequent Flyer Perks & Airport Lounges

A Russian version is offered. I took a peek. “oneworld” is listed in Latin characters amid the Cyrillic characters, such as: “Авиакомпании-участники альянса oneworld совместно делают поездки максимально удобными — от регистрации до прохождения проверок безопасности и посадки.”

This may be more of a branding issue than an inability to find a fitting translation, but still notable, maybe.  
—
Thank you to all for your comments!


----------



## Sobakus

It's a basic fact that brands aren't translated, at best they're transliterated. A translated brand is treated as a separate brand, such as a region-specific daughter company.


CurtisHight said:


> I clearly stated the cession of Alaska to another society.


You most certainly haven't mentioned any cession even once in this thread. The only hint at any cession you've offered is the classical 19th century style nationalist motto "Alaska, one land, one demos, one state!" (message #6). However, you prefaced it with an extended piece of nationalistic myth-building which was even more incoherent with the nationalist idea it's supposed to serve as a crutch for, than is usual in this genre. Indeed, it talks about the fluidity of animal and people movements, and stresses the meaninglessness of drawing lines on a map. The motto that follows is completely incongruous with that mythology - and that's before we get to your assertion about "one demos". Speaking plainly, this attempt would look blunt even to 19th century peasants who didn't have the benefit of historical insight.

The generic nationalist motto you're trying to translate doesn't require either mythological support or much imagination. The word "one" here means "single and indivisible", making a claim for political legitimacy for a one-nation state with centralised power. Using один in this sense may work for "people" and "state", but not for "land". The corresponding Russian word is единый, so you're looking for "Аляска, единая земля" - and likewise единый народ, единое государство "one people, one state".


----------



## CurtisHight

Sobakus said:


> You most certainly haven't mentioned any cession even once in this thread.


I did so here: 
“sell his ‘territory and dominion/_Territoire avec droit de souveraineté_’ between British hegemony and the Bering Sea. A friend was found, an agreement was reached, gold was received.”

I quote from the: _Treaty concerning the Cession of the Russian Possessions in North America by his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias to the United States of America_

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875


----------



## Sobakus

CurtisHight said:


> I quote from the: _Treaty concerning the Cession of the Russian Possessions in North America by his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias to the United States of America_
> 
> A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875


What is the quote and where can it be found in the document?


----------



## CurtisHight

Sobakus said:


> What is the quote and where can it be found in the document?


The treaty was concluded in English and French. My selection is from Article I, the first sentence:

“His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit:…”

“Sa Majesté l’Empereur de toutes les Russies s’engage, par cette convention, à céder aux Etats-Unis, immédiatement après l’échange des ratifications, tout le Territoire avec droit de souveraineté actuellement possédé par Sa Majesté sur le continent d’Amérique ainsi que les îles contigües, le tit Territoire étant compris dans les limites géographiques ci-dessous indiquées, savoir:…”


----------



## pimlicodude

CurtisHight said:


> The treaty was concluded in English and French. My selection is from Article I, the first sentence:
> 
> “His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit:…”
> 
> “Sa Majesté l’Empereur de toutes les Russies s’engage, par cette convention, à céder aux Etats-Unis, immédiatement après l’échange des ratifications, tout le Territoire avec droit de souveraineté actuellement possédé par Sa Majesté sur le continent d’Amérique ainsi que les îles contigües, le tit Territoire étant compris dans les limites géographiques ci-dessous indiquées, savoir:…”


But everyone here knows Alaska was ceded by Alexander II.....


----------



## CurtisHight

pimlicodude said:


> But everyone here knows Alaska was ceded by Alexander II.....


Everyone _here_, too! (Well, actually, I suppose most people don’t know the name of the sovereign.


----------



## Sobakus

Sobakus said:


> and likewise единый народ, единое государство "one people, one state".


единый штат if we're talking about a US territory, as naturally we do here.


----------



## CurtisHight

Sobakus said:


> единый штат if we're talking about a US territory, as naturally we do here.


Thank you. Not a U.S. state but a “shared state of affairs” to which we respond with a “collective will to survive and flourish”, one component of which is, in this case, citizenship in a U.S. state. Alaska, one love?


----------



## CurtisHight

Sobakus said:


> nationalist


The concept of self-determination contains a concession to division, concession of division of the people of this planet down to the individual. The concept of self-determination also contains a practical invitation, an invitation to unify with our family, our neighbors, and then more neighbors in a collective will to survive and flourish.

Bob Marley & The Wailers sing / _one love_ / _one heart_ / _let’s get together and feel all right_ /. Pat Benatar sings her own “One Love”: / _colors woven in the golden dream_ /. Meanwhile, TLC sing / _It’s my life, it’s my life, and I believe_ / _that it don’t effect nobody else but me, me, me, me_ /, and Bobby Brown sings / _I don’t need permission_ / _make my own decisions_ / _that’s my prerogative_ /.*

We work with tradeoffs. We hope for the greatest good. Under what conditions are we willing to sacrifice self?

/ _how sweet it is to love someone_ / _how right it is to care_ /.**

Христос воскрес! May brotherly love rise anew between Slavic brothers!

Alaska, one love!
———————
* Bob Marley & The Wailers, “One Love /  People Get Ready,” _Legend: The Best of Bob Marly and the Wailers_, 0:15–0:25. Pat Benatar, “One Love (Song of the Lion),” _Best Shots_, 2:56–3:00. TLC, “My Life,” _Fanmail_, 1:00–1:07. Bobby Brown, “My Prerogative,” _Don’t Be Cruel_, 1:22–1:29.

** John Denver, “Poems, Prayers And Promises”, _John Denver’s Greatest Hits_, 1:46–1:53.


----------



## pimlicodude

CurtisHight said:


> Христос воскрес!


The Orthodox Easter is April 24th this year. Of course, not everyone in the East Slavic world is Orthodox, but it's worth noting.


----------



## CurtisHight

pimlicodude said:


> The Orthodox Easter is April 24th this year. Of course, not everyone in the East Slavic world is Orthodox, but it's worth noting.


Of course, thank you! I was wondering, went searching, and found no instances of “Христос воскрес!” in distinct Ukrainian orthography, even from a source (Пасхальное приветствие — Википедия) listing distinct orthographies for other Slavic languages. I opted to post with that measure of support. I wondered about the dates, too. I should have also explored this. Now that you raise the topic, I recall having read about it somewhere in the past. Thank you, again.


----------



## pimlicodude

CurtisHight said:


> Of course, thank you! I was wondering, went searching, and found no instances of “Христос воскрес!” in distinct Ukrainian orthography, even from a source (Пасхальное приветствие — Википедия) listing distinct orthographies for other Slavic languages. I opted to post with that measure of support. I wondered about the dates, too. I should have also explored this. Now that you raise the topic, I recall having read about it somewhere in the past. Thank you, again.


I'm not sure what you mean "a distinct Ukrainian orthography". The Orthodox Church works on the basis of "Church Slavonic", not modern Slavic languages. Христос воскрес is correct Russian and correct Ukrainian for that phrase. You can hear the (slight) difference in pronunciation by entering the phrase into forvo com.


----------



## CurtisHight

pimlicodude said:


> I'm not sure what you mean "a distinct Ukrainian orthography". The Orthodox Church works on the basis of "Church Slavonic", not modern Slavic languages. Христос воскрес is correct Russian and correct Ukrainian for that phrase. You can hear the (slight) difference in pronunciation by entering the phrase into forvo com.


I was anticipating Ukrainian orthography to be Хрїстос воскрес. I saw that Church Slavonic was Хрїсто́съ воскре́се. I wasn’t supposing the greeting to be limited to adherents of Orthodoxy. All good. Thank you for your comments.


----------



## pimlicodude

CurtisHight said:


> I was anticipating Ukrainian orthography to be Хрїстос воскрес. I saw that Church Slavonic was Хрїсто́съ воскре́се. I wasn’t supposing the greeting to be limited to adherents of Orthodoxy. All good. Thank you for your comments.


The Ukrainian is Христос воскрес. ї is used in Ukrainian for /ji/ and would not be found in the  middle of word like this. The dictionary at sum in ua (add dots) shows the correct form.

The Church Slavonic is Христо́съ воске́рсе. It is generally written in OCs as Хрто́съ with a tiny с over the р and a titlo (see the Wikipedia entry under titlo and the list of manuscript abbreviations) - the titlo signifies that the word is abbreviated. The word is not Хрїсто́съ in OCS.

Looking at the Russian Wikipedia page for титло, we can see that Хро́тсь actually has a titlo over the р called "слово-титло". I think this is all off-topic in this forum and could be moved to the General Slavic forum.


----------



## CurtisHight

T


pimlicodude said:


> The Ukrainian is Христос воскрес. ї is used in Ukrainian for /ji/ and would not be found in the  middle of word like this. The dictionary at sum in ua (add dots) shows the correct form.
> 
> The Church Slavonic is Христо́съ воске́рсе. It is generally written in OCs as Хрто́съ with a tiny с over the р and a titlo (see the Wikipedia entry under titlo and the list of manuscript abbreviations) - the titlo signifies that the word is abbreviated. The word is not Хрїсто́съ in OCS.
> 
> Looking at the Russian Wikipedia page for титло, we can see that Хро́тсь actually has a titlo over the р called "слово-титло". I think this is all off-topic in this forum and could be moved to the General Slavic forum.


Thank you for the additional comments. I speculate that we’ve now exhausted this conversation. See you around!


----------

