# Русский/Российский



## Dorogaja

Hi everybody,
I just wanted to know what's the difference between русский and российский, and more in details (since I'm translating a text about chechen war) how can I translate русская армия and российская армия?

thanks
*
*


----------



## Ptak

Российская армия.

*Российский* refers to the State (российское правительство, российское гражданство, российские телеканалы), *русский* refers to the nationality, ethnicity (русский язык, русская традиция, русская культура, русская литература).


----------



## Dorogaja

Спасибо ptak!
счастливо,

Gaia


----------



## kitenok

Just to add a bit as someone who often has to translate these words into English: I have found a good rule of thumb is to translate "российский N" as "Russian Federation N" (with "Russian Federation" as an attributive noun phrase), and "русский N" as "Russian N." This is _usually _a decent way to express the difference that Ptak explained.


----------



## Dorogaja

That's probably a good idea, I'll try to find a good solution in Italian as well 
I think I need to find the right adjective for both российский and  русский and maybe "Russian Federation" could be a good suggestion. My text says that the Russian army is called  российская армия and nobody calls it русская.
Thanks for your help!


----------



## Grisha Ermolaev

Здесь слово "русский" не вполне политкорректно,
Вот "россиянин" - это "чисто" и "конкретно".
                              Алиса "Черный"


----------



## priorytom

I fear this is perhaps a very blonde moment, but anyway, can anybody clarify...

In general, if I'm referring to a time in the past before the Russian Federation was recognised in 1991, is it still possible to use the adjective 'российский' ?

Thank you in advance


----------



## Maroseika

Depending on to what exactly time you are referring. If this is the epoch of the Russian Empire (beginning with Peter the Great), due term is российское государство, before that - русское, Soviet epoch - советское.
But with all that you can say история России or история российского государства in point of the whole history of Russia since the ancient times.


----------



## morzh

Ptak said:


> Российская армия.
> 
> *Российский* refers to the State (российское правительство, российское гражданство, российские телеканалы), *русский* refers to the nationality, ethnicity (русский язык, русская традиция, русская культура, русская литература).



Keep in mind - the rest of the world does not share Russian definition of "национальность / nationality".

nationality means "the country of the citizenship".

Hence a person from the US is an American by the nationality, but Irish/Dutch/Russian/Armenian/French by ethnicity.

Hence:

Русский - ethnicity (not nationality). Same way as someone is Avar, Catalan, Irish or Bask. It is also what we call "титильная нация" (title ethnicity, the ethnicity after which the country is named, and the prevalent one at that).
Российский - nationality-related. "Россиянин" means "Russian" in the sense of the Russia citizenship, same way as there are French, Americans, Germans, Irish, British, Indian as the citizens of their respective countries.. Российский паспорт - Russian passport.


----------



## ahvalj

Русский can be compared to English, российский — to British.

Otherwise, in the organization titles «российский» is used when it is affiliated to the state; private organizations, especially with a deeper history, may use the term «русский», e. g. «Русское географическе общество».

By the way, the Russian definition of nationality is etymologically correct: Latin "nātiō" originally means "birth", i.e. the group of people related by blood, while the Greek "ἔθνος" has no such reference, so it is the West European tradition that has inverted the original sense.


----------



## ahvalj

Dorogaja said:


> Hi everybody,
> I just wanted to know what's the difference between русский and российский, and more in details (since I'm translating a text about chechen war) how can I translate русская армия and российская армия?


The only official name is «российская армия»; the second variant, when applied to the Chechen wars, is used informally, to emphasize the confrontation with the completely alien enemy. Otherwise, when speaking about the pre-Soviet times both can be used interchangeably.


----------



## ahvalj

The entire term «Российская Федерация» is an early Soviet invention to avoid using the then banned word «Россия». I was born in 1974 and I remember me feeling confused when in 1990-1991 the term «Россия» started to reappear in respect to the republic I was living: to me as a Soviet schoolboy «Россия» was something pre-1918, even «Российская Федерация» was somewhat strange, while the only proper name was the abbreviation «РСФСР» (as if the word "Britain" were politically incorrect, and only "UK" were approved). In the present constitution both «Россия» and «Российская Федерация» are proclaimed interchangeable, but people (and especially the officials) still use the longer variant despite the country being no real federation at all. The Soviet heritage.


----------



## Maroseika

ahvalj said:


> to avoid using the then banned word «Россия».


Really??


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> Really??


Any other reasons? In those years, you almost always meet the word «Россия» with some epithet — «Красная Россия», «Советская Россия», «Рабочая Россия», «Рабоче-крестьянская Россия». «Российская Федерация» was a convenient replecement for «Российская империя» and «Российская республика». Finally, «РСФСР» was found.


----------



## ahvalj

OK, not banned, just politically doubtful and disloyal.


----------



## Maroseika

ahvalj said:


> OK, not banned, just politically doubtful and disloyal.


This is something new for me, because I cannot recall anything like that.


----------



## morzh

ahvalj said:


> The entire term «Российская Федерация» is an early Soviet invention to avoid using the then banned word «Россия».



Nothing can be further from the truth.

The song "Россия, родина моя" sang at every official concert and all over the radio...etc etc. You were too young to remember.


----------



## ahvalj

morzh said:


> Nothing can be further from the truth.
> 
> The song "Россия, родина моя" sang at every official concert and all over the radio...etc etc. You were too young to remember.


The few songs like this were virtually the only occasion where this term could be heard from an official source.


----------



## Maroseika

ahvalj said:


> The few songs like this were virtually the only occasion where this term could be heard from an official source.


But this fact strongly contradicts your version about the term Россия being "politically doubtful and disloyal". If something was politcially doubtfull in the USSR, you could hear it in the kitchen or in the smoking-room, but not at the officious concert, radio or something like that.


----------



## morzh

ahvalj said:


> The few songs like this were virtually the only occasion where this term could be heard from an official source.



I am not sure where you get your information from about the suppression of the word "Rossiya". You are 1974, so you were maturing (when people actually pay attention to this kind of stuff) during the end of 80-s, when the USSR was no longer what it was before, it was coming to its end, and the Perestroika was in full bloom and gradually tapering down, so you only know what the real USSR was from what others tell you. 

But while the USSR was the USSR in all its stagnated might, "Rossiya" word was never ever suppressed.

But realize this: there are not too many occasions where the official rulers get to say this word. Russia was one, albeit the largest, of the 15 republics, and the official name was "РСФСР", (even if written in full, not as acronym). It was mentioned as often as the other 15 were. In news mostly.

Россия - then was unofficial name, and so used mostly by people or in literature, not in formal papers/announcements. But it does not mean it is suppressed - the nature of the word dictates the usage. And there was not much usage for it in official language. This was it.

The word came back very strongly when nationalists started using it, but, again - the nature of the word dictates the usage. Has it not been for them, the word would be used not so often, and again it would have nothing to do with authorities at all. Though today they try to promote it.


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> But this fact strongly contradicts your version about the term Россия being "politically doubtful and disloyal". If something was politcially doubtfull in the USSR, you could hear it in the kitchen or in the smoking-room, but not at the officious concert, radio or something like that.


It was confined to the elevated areas like verses or songs, which were definitely not abundant. I cannot imagine this word, say, in a geography or a contemporary history manual at school in the Soviet times. Unfortunately I have no tools to prove this: I had an idea to make a search in the digitalized "Pravda" archive, but the latter is not available for laymen. So I suggest not to focus on this particular topic — this is my feeling from the 80's and no Soviet materials I have read (e. g. scientific works of that time) contradict this. If I learn something in the foreseeable future, I will comment here.


----------



## ahvalj

morzh said:


> I am not sure where you get your information from about the suppression of the word "Rossiya". You are 1974, so you were maturing (when people actually pay attention to this kind of stuff) during the end of 80-s, when the USSR was no longer what it was before, it was coming to its end, and the Perestroika was in full bloom and gradually tapering down, so you only know what the real USSR was from what others tell you.
> 
> But while the USSR was the USSR in all its stagnated might, "Rossiya" word was never ever suppressed.
> 
> But realize this: there are not too many occasions where the official rulers get to say this word. Russia was one, albeit the largest, of the 15 republics, and the official name was "РСФСР", (even if written in full, not as acronym). It was mentioned as often as the other 15 were. In news mostly.
> 
> Россия - then was unofficial name, and so used mostly by people or in literature, not in formal papers/announcements. But it does not mean it is suppressed - the nature of the word dictates the usage. And there was not much usage for it in official language. This was it.
> 
> The word came back very strongly when nationalists started using it, but, again - the nature of the word dictates the usage. Has it not been for them, the word would be used not so often, and again it would have nothing to do with authorities at all. Though today they try to promote it.



For not to repeat my reply to Maroseika's comment, I just suggest you to recall: when the names of the republics were listed in almost any occasion, how often was the name «Россия» mentioned? Two typical variants were: «РСФСР, Украинская ССР, Белорусская ССР...» or even «РСФСР, Украина, Белоруссия ...». The same in addresses, in most geographical contexts: say, in my science the localities were indicated as e. g. «Демидово (Украина)», «Борсук (Молдавия)», «Снайгупеле (Литва)» but «Отрадное (Европ. ч. РСФСР)»; the volume I am citing now contains 145 occurrences of «РСФСР» and 0 of «Россия». The word «Россия» was definitely much less frequent than any name of any republic.


----------



## ahvalj

OK, one more illustration. In the previous comment I was citing the fundamental edition called in the Soviet times «Ископаемые цветковые растения СССР» and later «Ископаемые цветковые растения России и сопредельных государств». Let's look at the dynamics:
vol. I - 1974 - РСФСР: 145 - Росси: 0
vol. II - 1982 - РСФСР: 232 - Росси: 18 (all in the names of the pre-revolutionary publications)
vol. III - 1994 - РСФСР: 0 - Росси: 90
vol. IV - 2005 - РСФСР: 0 - Росси: 259

«Тенденция, однако» ©


----------



## morzh

ahvalj said:


> For not to repeat my reply to Maroseika's comment, I just suggest you to recall: when the names of the republics were listed in almost any occasion, how often was the name «Россия» mentioned? Two typical variants were: «РСФСР, Украинская ССР, Белорусская ССР...» or even «РСФСР, Украина, Белоруссия ...». The same in addresses, in most geographical contexts: say, in my science the localities were indicated as e. g. «Демидово (Украина)», «Борсук (Молдавия)», «Снайгупеле (Литва)» but «Отрадное (Европ. ч. РСФСР)»; the volume I am citing now contains 145 occurrences of «РСФСР» and 0 of «Россия». The word «Россия» was definitely much less frequent than any name of any republic.



From my reply to you that you yourself quoted:"But realize this: there are not too many occasions where the official  rulers get to say this word. Russia was one, albeit the largest, of the  15 republics, and the *official name was "РСФСР"*, (even if written in  full, not as acronym). It was mentioned as often as the other 15 were.  In news mostly."
You're preaching to the choir here.

But this is not the sign of suppression of the word. It is a sign of lack of occasions to use it. I won't repeat myself, I've already said that.

If I do not use the word "stabilizer bar" in my speech frequently enough, and so do not other people, it is not because someone is trying to suppress the word, it is because in everyday life there's not much use for it. But come to an auto repair garage, and you will likely to hear this word at least once a week.
Words have their usage. This one at the time mentioned had its own type, dictated by the word itself.

Or take the word "Альбион". Who and how often does use it? Mostly poets, mostly in the "Туманный Альбион" Phrase. If someone wrote a book about ferns in England, do you think it'd be "папоротники Альбиона" or "папоротники Англии"?


----------



## Maroseika

Я рассказывал ему о советской России, о нашем искусстве и о своих друзьях ― словом, обо всем том, о чём вы прочтёте в моём сочинении, которое я в данный момент начал переписывать набело. [В. П. Катаев. Алмазный мой венец (1975-1977)]

Это очень умный, хитрый и в то же время какой-то поразительно доверчивый человек. Ведь это сегодняшняя Россия… ― Ну уж! ― воскликнул профессор-гость. [Василий Шукшин. Печки-лавочки (1970-1972)] 

Или другое ― это уже когда судьба забросила меня в Южную Россию. [Д. И. Коротчаев, А. Фролов. Руку, товарищ строитель! // «Юность», 1972]

Наиболее активная часть латышских писателей эвакуировалась в глубь России, где нашла крышу над головой, работу и хлеб. [Валдис Аукс. О друзьях-товарищах (1971) // «Литературная газета», 1971.05.05]

"Хороша страна Болгария, но Россия лучше всех"

Теплоход "Россия"


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> Я рассказывал ему о советской России, о нашем искусстве и о своих друзьях ― словом, обо всем том, о чём вы прочтёте в моём сочинении, которое я в данный момент начал переписывать набело. [В. П. Катаев. Алмазный мой венец (1975-1977)]
> 
> Это очень умный, хитрый и в то же время какой-то поразительно доверчивый человек. Ведь это сегодняшняя Россия… ― Ну уж! ― воскликнул профессор-гость. [Василий Шукшин. Печки-лавочки (1970-1972)]
> 
> Или другое ― это уже когда судьба забросила меня в Южную Россию. [Д. И. Коротчаев, А. Фролов. Руку, товарищ строитель! // «Юность», 1972]
> 
> Наиболее активная часть латышских писателей эвакуировалась в глубь России, где нашла крышу над головой, работу и хлеб. [Валдис Аукс. О друзьях-товарищах (1971) // «Литературная газета», 1971.05.05]
> 
> "Хороша страна Болгария, но Россия лучше всех"
> 
> Теплоход "Россия"



OK, so you have chosen to continue... All the citations you provide are informal — it is exactly the Albion Morzh mentions in his comment. Ausonia for Italy, Hellas for Greece etc. Any of these poetic terms will be appropriate in your citations. But you will have a hard time trying to find this word in any formal writing, and in any case it will be much overshadowed by «РСФСР». Why then was this acronym preferable, even in the contexts when other republics were referred to by their traditional names (Украина, Эстония, Грузия)? I don't have access to the English original, but this is the famous Russian citation from "1984":

_Слова «Коммунистический Интернационал» приводят на ум сложную картину: всемирное человеческое братство, красные флаги, баррикады, Карл Маркс, Парижская коммуна. Слово же «Коминтерн» напоминает всего лишь о крепко спаянной_ _организации и жесткой системе доктрин. Оно относится к предмету столь же легко узнаваемому и столь же ограниченному в своем назначении, как стол или стул. «Коминтерн» — это слово, которое можно произнести, почти не размышляя, в то время как «Коммунистический Интернационал» заставляет пусть на миг, но задуматься.
_
What was the reason of renaming Russia to РСФСР, the term that was preferred in most formal contexts since the early twenties until the late eighties, if not the desire to distance itself from the country that existed before 1918?


----------



## Maroseika

ahvalj said:


> What was the reason of renaming Russia to РСФСР, the term that was preferred in most formal contexts since the early twenties until the late eighties, if not the desire to distance itself from the country that existed before 1918?


Russia has never been renamed to РСФСР, it was renamed to the USSR (surprise?). 
And this is exactly the reason why РСФСР was not called Россия like БССР - Белоруссия: just to avoid ambiguity and confusion, because as in common speech as in officios texts Россия could mean only the USSR. Россия was associated only with the entire territory of the former Russian Empire. Part of USSR called РСФСР wasn't equal to Россия in any mean in the public conscience. And no supression or disloyalityfobia.


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> Russia has never been renamed to РСФСР, it was renamed to the USSR (surprise?).
> And this is exactly the reason why РСФСР was not called Россия like БССР - Белоруссия: just to avoid ambiguity and confusion, because as in common speech as in officios texts Россия could mean only the USSR. Россия was associated only with the entire territory of the former Russian Empire. Part of USSR called РСФСР wasn't equal to Россия in any mean in the public conscience. And no supression or disloyalityfobia.



*<...>*

OK, whichever the reason, the word «Россия» was successfully marginalized for 65 years.


----------



## Maroseika

ahvalj said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2OnYw_c13A
> marginalized


I'm afraid this word is so rich in semantics, that it means a bit less than nothing in this context.


----------



## Pupsik3

Such an absurdity!!! Россия is a correct and not banned or politically doubtful at all!


----------



## ahvalj

Pupsik3 said:


> Such an absurdity!!! Россия is a correct and not banned or politically doubtful at all!


I wrote about the Soviet times.


----------



## fuzzy logician

A question and a reference.



ahvalj said:


> The entire term «Российская Федерация» is an early Soviet invention to avoid using the then banned word «Россия».



Was the term «Российская Федерация» used during the Soviet period? My recollection was that Федерация was only proclaimed at the end of 1991 and prior to that it was merely a Федерати́вная Социалисти́ческая Респу́блика and Федерати́вная Сове́тская Респу́блика that existed. That is to say, «Российская Федерация» would not have been formally correct and it doesn't seem terribly colloquial either.



ahvalj said:


> constitution both «Россия» and «Российская Федерация» are proclaimed interchangeable



A useful and not insignificant point. Thought this might be useful for the OP: http://constitution.kremlin.ru/#article-1-2 and



> Статья 1





> 1. Российская Федерация — Россия есть демократическое федеративное правовое государство с республиканской формой правления.
> 
> 2. Наименования Российская Федерация и Россия равнозначны


----------



## Maroseika

fuzzy logician said:


> Was the term «Российская Федерация» used during the Soviet period?



Sure, it was widely used even officially:

Оно заключалось в том, чтобы не вовлекать другие республики в состав РСФСР, а, наоборот, создать новое союзное государство, в которое вошли бы на равных правах все четыре существовавшие тогда советские республики: Российская Федерация, Украина, Белоруссия и Закавказская Федерация, включавшая в себя Грузинскую, Азербайджанскую и Армянскую советские республики. [Анастас Микоян. Так было (1971-1974)] 

Российская Федерация слишком мощна по количеству населения, промышленности, сельскому хозяйству. [Никита Хрущев. Воспоминания (1971)]

В Российской Федерации действует более 130 тысяч народных дружин, насчитывающих свыше шести миллионов дружинников. [обобщенный. На страже правопорядка // «Человек и закон», 1979]

Командное первенство среди взрослых завоевали спортсмены Российской Федерации, последовательно шедшие к этой цели последние три года. [И. Мазуров. Старты 1972 года // «Спортсмен-подводник», 1973]

27 декабря на заключительном заседании VI сессии Верховного Совета РСФСР за крупные успехи, достигнутые в развитии сельского хозяйства, Российской Федерации вручен орден Ленина. [Равняться на передовиков соревнования (1958) // «Северный колхозник», 1958.12.30]


----------



## fuzzy logician

Interesting, and I stand corrected on my suggestion it would not have been formally correct. Thank you.


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> Russia has never been renamed to РСФСР, it was renamed to the USSR (surprise?).
> And this is exactly the reason why РСФСР was not called Россия like БССР - Белоруссия: just to avoid ambiguity and confusion, because as in common speech as in officios texts Россия could mean only the USSR. Россия was associated only with the entire territory of the former Russian Empire. Part of USSR called РСФСР wasn't equal to Россия in any mean in the public conscience. And no supression or disloyalityfobia.


I should confess, the first person I asked today gave me essentially the same answer as yours. However odd this explanation may look to me, it seems to be applicable to at least a share of the Soviet people, though I have never ever heard anything like this from my relatives or anywhere else. Anyway, I don't think this may explain the absence of this word in the official texts. My investigation continues...


----------



## Maroseika

What do you call 'official texts'? Are not Soviet newspapers and magazins official enough in this sense? Because if you mean only laws or something like that, you would hardly encounter there Эстония or Молдавия, too.


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> What do you call 'official texts'? Are not Soviet newspapers and magazins official enough in this sense? Because if you mean only laws or something like that, you would hardly encounter there Эстония or Молдавия, too.


Essentially any printed texts since all of them passed a censor, not to mention a self-censor and an editor. In one of my yesterday's posts I had cited an example from a solid scientific publication where all the republics but one were mentioned by their simple names. Examples like this abound in the scientific literature I am acquainted with. And I cannot recall any case when the word «Россия» is mentioned. I still hope to interview more people with the Soviet heritage and check the massive of the scientific literature I have optically recognized.


----------



## ahvalj

Again, any printed text on a serious matter — manual, report, etc., not the "easy genre" like fiction or poetry.


----------



## Maroseika

Даже летние осадки в Забайкалье (менее трех миллиметров), казалось бы, совсем незаметные в условиях средней полосы России, могут иметь здесь решающее значение ― они влияют на весь годовой урожай. [Василий Дмитриев. «Машина климата» на берегу Ангары // «Техника - молодежи», 1975]

«Опыт работы Коломенского завода ставит на реальную почву вопрос о русском тракторостроении, и в этом его громадное значение... Этот опыт позволил доказать, что Советская республика может обойтись без иностранных тракторов» — так восторженно откликнулся в 1924 году журнал «Металлист» на успешные испытания «Коломенца», проходившие на поле Петровской, ныне Тимирязевской, сельскохозяйственной академии. Трактор отечественной конструкции, разработанный на заводе, марка которого высоко котировалась в России, вызвал очень большой интерес. Посмотреть на работу «Коломенца» на поле академии прибыли руководители партии и правительства, члены ВЦИК СССР, представители наркоматов. В течение 10 часов было вспахано 3,5 десятины земли при средней скорости движения 3,2 версты в час. Как говорят в подобных случаях, успех превзошел ожидания. [Леонид Евсеев. «Коломенец» // «Техника - молодежи», 1975]

В начале мая 1945 года по этому шоссе, как по гигантской артерии, двигался мощный поток советских военных машин, вобравший в себя металл, нефть, конструкторскую мысль со всех концов огромной России, а также мощный поток людей в солдатской форме ― кровь России, выдавленную изо всех пор земли русской. [Н. Н. Никулин. Воспоминания о войне (1975)]

Но вряд ли они поколеблют наше предположение о том, что северные лабиринты Британии, Скандинавии и России ― потомки, пусть даже отдаленные, критского творения легендарного гения Дедала. [Вячеслав Опарин. Хоровод лабиринтов // «Техника - молодежи», 1975]

― Особое внимание партии и правительства к развитию сельского хозяйства центральных и северо-западных районов России продиктовано социальными и экономическими соображениями. [коллективный. Вторая «целина» // «Техника - молодежи», 1975]


----------



## morzh

Guys,

I think you've pretty much exhausted all of your best arguments, and from the course of this discussion I don't think you will ever agree: this is no longer the linguistic discussion but (from ahvalj at least, or so it seems like) political one.

Add to that that this is also an off-topic, and this should make it a good stopping point for all of us here.


----------



## ahvalj

Maroseika said:


> Даже летние осадки в Забайкалье (менее трех миллиметров), казалось бы, совсем незаметные в условиях средней полосы России, могут иметь здесь решающее значение ― они влияют на весь годовой урожай. [Василий Дмитриев. «Машина климата» на берегу Ангары // «Техника - молодежи», 1975]
> 
> «Опыт работы Коломенского завода ставит на реальную почву вопрос о русском тракторостроении, и в этом его громадное значение... Этот опыт позволил доказать, что Советская республика может обойтись без иностранных тракторов» — так восторженно откликнулся в 1924 году журнал «Металлист» на успешные испытания «Коломенца», проходившие на поле Петровской, ныне Тимирязевской, сельскохозяйственной академии. Трактор отечественной конструкции, разработанный на заводе, марка которого высоко котировалась в России, вызвал очень большой интерес. Посмотреть на работу «Коломенца» на поле академии прибыли руководители партии и правительства, члены ВЦИК СССР, представители наркоматов. В течение 10 часов было вспахано 3,5 десятины земли при средней скорости движения 3,2 версты в час. Как говорят в подобных случаях, успех превзошел ожидания. [Леонид Евсеев. «Коломенец» // «Техника - молодежи», 1975]
> 
> В начале мая 1945 года по этому шоссе, как по гигантской артерии, двигался мощный поток советских военных машин, вобравший в себя металл, нефть, конструкторскую мысль со всех концов огромной России, а также мощный поток людей в солдатской форме ― кровь России, выдавленную изо всех пор земли русской. [Н. Н. Никулин. Воспоминания о войне (1975)]
> 
> Но вряд ли они поколеблют наше предположение о том, что северные лабиринты Британии, Скандинавии и России ― потомки, пусть даже отдаленные, критского творения легендарного гения Дедала. [Вячеслав Опарин. Хоровод лабиринтов // «Техника - молодежи», 1975]
> 
> ― Особое внимание партии и правительства к развитию сельского хозяйства центральных и северо-западных районов России продиктовано социальными и экономическими соображениями. [коллективный. Вторая «целина» // «Техника - молодежи», 1975]



We seem to have already touched this a page ago. OK, I would call serious and formal any context where the word "Greece" cannot be replaced with "Hellas". In any of your citations here and in a previous post it can.


----------



## ahvalj

morzh said:


> Guys,
> 
> I think you've pretty much exhausted all of your best arguments, and from the course of this discussion I don't think you will ever agree: this is no longer the linguistic discussion but (from ahvalj at least, or so it seems like) political one.
> 
> Add to that that this is also an off-topic, and this should make it a good stopping point for all of us here.



I agree. We are currently repeating ourselves. I will be gathering the evidence and if I come to any conclusion, I will post here in the future.


----------

