# дожделей



## 涼宮

Good evening!

What does дожделей mean and where is the stress? I could not find it in any dictionary, and Google just gives 169 results for that word.

I found these examples on Google:

1) Уж ты дождик-дожделей,. Нам с тобою веселей,. Приходи погостить,
2) Ну тогда я вам уже не нужен, прощай мальчуган, удачи…- Дожделей подпрыгнул и  полетел обратно на своём замечательном зонтике, и туча поспешила за ним. (this one is about  в мире Сказки)
3) Вёдрит глади дожделей. Ловит зовы мозг-локатор. Гвоздит воздух, каторг злей. В связи связан зёзом вяза.
4) Баллада о Чертике и Училище Черной Магии Дожделей Собаки, похожие на черных лисиц. (Seems to be a creature)

And that word is also in the book баллада о Чертике as a tittle before putting ''Два раза в месяц Кругляшкы навещает бабушка. Приезжает в коричневом костюме; юбка длинновата. Иногда у нее с собой большой черный зонтик.''

Thank you in advance!


----------



## morzh

Дожделей - the word does not exist, it is an occasionalism.

It is created from two words: "дождь" (rain) and "лей" (pour). here it is obviously used for rhyming/playing purposes.

PS. I think it was modeled after "ветродуй". (same principle - "wind" plus "blow"). The difference is, the latter does exist, and the former does not.


----------



## 涼宮

Thank you!! That explains many things! , then, how should one translate such made-up word? rain-pour, pour-rain, doesn't look right.


----------



## Explorer41

morzh said:


> Дожделей - the word does not exist, it is an occasionalism.
> 
> It is created from two words: "дождь" (rain) and "лей" (pour). here it is obviously used for rhyming/playing purposes.
> 
> PS. I think it was modeled after "ветродуй". (same principle - "wind" plus "blow"). The difference is, the latter does exist, and the former does not.



Existences of things deserve a careful examination  .

Anyway, the reasons to make up a word are the same in both cases: the created words are colloquialisms for the initial notions -- "дождь" and "ветер". They refer to the notions more freely, more playfully and more figuratively. So, *FreshHouse* (sorry, it's hard for me to type Chinese, but at I was curious enough to look it up in a dictionary at some time  ), you just have to construct such a word or an expression in English 

The stress is on the second third syllable: "дожделе́й"


----------



## viesis

Explorer41 said:


> The stress is on the second syllable: "дожделе́й"


I think it's on the third syllable after all.


----------



## Manuel Lucero

Being myself a native Russian, I had a difficulty understanding what all those lines in your examples meant. To me, they are all pretty much a bundle of nonsense.


----------



## morzh

M. Lucero

It would be better if you copied the post you are referring to; otherwise, instead of one person you offend just about everybody here


----------



## Manuel Lucero

morzh said:


> M. Lucero
> 
> It would be better if you copied the post you are referring to; otherwise, instead of one person you offend just about everybody here


Well, firstly, I did not mean to offend anyone, it was not my purpose.
Secondly, I responded to the main question, rather than to a particular post, so I do not see why I should have quoted anything.


----------



## Explorer41

Manuel Lucero said:


> Being myself a native Russian, I had a difficulty understanding what all those lines in your examples meant. To me, they are all pretty much a bundle of nonsense.


I'm sorry, what's the point of this post? That phrases are not more nonsense than the world is. They belong to the Russian language, completely. Of course, they are playful, attentive and merry to the world ("poetic", if you wish me to put it so), but it's another matter.

PS: the phrases are easy for perception, too.


----------



## Manuel Lucero

Explorer41 said:


> I'm sorry, what's the point of this post? That phrases are not more nonsense than the world is. They belong to the Russian language, completely. Of course, they are playful, attentive and merry to the world ("poetic", if you wish me to put it so), but it's another matter.


The point is that I can see no point whatsoever in reading such things, let alone learn them or discuss, especially for learners of Russian.


----------



## Explorer41

Manuel Lucero said:


> The point is that I can see no point whatsoever in reading such things, let alone learn them or discuss, especially for learners of Russian.


Well, let it decide to those who read it. As for me, I'd learn other languages especially for things like this. 

I provided this point of view just to show you that there are different views of this matter. Of course, you have arguments to support your point of view; and I have arguments to support mine. We could discuss it, but unfortunately not here; here it would be an off-topic. This thread is about language, not about making decisions or philosophy of living.


----------



## Manuel Lucero

Explorer41 said:


> Well, let it decide to those who read it. As for me, I'd learn other languages especially for things like this.
> 
> I provided this point of view just to show you that there are different views of this matter. Of course, you have arguments to support your point of view; and I have arguments to support mine. We could discuss it, but unfortunately not here; here it would be an off-topic. This thread is about language, not about making decisions or philosophy of living.


All I wanted to say was that learners of foreign languages sometimes make the mistake of trying to learn, often unknowingly, unnecessary, useless things, and this can only hinder the mastering of a language rather than help it.


----------



## Explorer41

Manuel Lucero said:


> All I wanted to say was that learners of foreign languages sometimes make the mistake of trying to learn, often unknowingly, unnecessary, useless things, and this can only hinder the mastering of a language rather than help it.


OK. Now I understand your point. And we explained *FreshHouse* that the lines he mentions are poetic and childlike (in your view -- useless, in my view -- not); though I'm sure he already knew that.

OK, we said it clearly.


----------



## morzh

Manuel Lucero said:


> All I wanted to say was that learners of foreign languages sometimes make the mistake of trying to learn, often unknowingly, unnecessary, useless things, and this can only hinder the mastering of a language rather than help it.



See, at some point of studying a language there comes a time where one has mastered all (or nearly all) that really matters in order to become fully fluent in that language. At this point that person, if he likes to learn more, and likes to communicate, starts going outside the usual scope of using the language (job, reading newspapers, watching news, communicating with neighbors) and encounters the REAL language. Which is far too complex to be described in a textbook, and, unless he's a linguist specializing in those fields (slang, cryptolects etc), the only way to really learn it is to find out about all those "out-of-order" things that we take for granted, and often declare "unneeded" from the places like some murky Internet waters.

I myself wrote many times, for novices (and I agree with you here, to a point), that certain things, like you said, including but not limited to : songs, high poetry, and such will do nothing but hinder their progress. But then a person may no longer be a newbie, and may very well be a person who already knows the language VERY VERY well. It's just that certain parts of it cannot be learned from text books, and he or she then comes here and asks us.
We may comment on usefulness of this language, or its quality, but what I never doubt is that it does help understanding the language and the culture.

After all, there is NO one single nook or cranny of a language that a PhD dissertation would not be written about, be it "Fenya" or "urban language", or....or.....even "mat". If it presents interest to scientists, we have to afford at least as much credit to people who are curious enough to learn more about our language.

And then, when they try to speak using the vocabulary and the style of "popsa" songs, well, then we can advise them not to.


----------



## morzh

Ах, да...

Дожделей-ветродуй-снегопад-солнцепёк.


----------



## Explorer41

morzh said:


> I myself wrote many times, for novices (and I agree with you here, to a point), that certain things, like you said, including but not limited to : songs, high poetry, and such will do nothing but hinder their progress.


Disputable. Some songs and high poetry (like Alexander Pushkin's or Byron's; like Beatles', those sang by Frank Sinatra, DDT's or many good Russian romances) are relatively easy to understand for a foreigner, and they make a great job for learning a language (even missing a point that reading them and listening to them being spoken or sang may have a great value by itself). More, books made by smart people teach to think good and to speak good -- they are great in this sense. For example, I'd suggest reading of Tolstoy for learners of Russian, even starters, and reading Tolkien for learners of English, too. (I'd not suggest however reading Dostoyevskiy or maybe Dante for starters, just because their language is not documented well in sources dealing with the modern language and culture).

Myself, I read now a book of Luigi Pirandello without knowing virtually any Italian around it. And the reading is great, because Pirandello writes great; of course, for native Italians it's hard to read his works, but for me it would be virtually just as hard to read some other Italian, because I'm not native anyway. Reading other things would be just tedious and boring. Now I'm not learning Italian seriously, but who knows, it may become a good startpoint at some time.

I think, childlike songs deserve attention too, because they are pretty and interesting to learn about and to get a feel of.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Explorer41 said:


> Disputable. Some songs and high poetry (like Alexander Pushkin's or Byron's; like Beatles', those sang by Frank Sinatra, DDT's or many good Russian romances) are relatively easy to understand for a foreigner, and they make a great job for learning a language (even missing a point that reading them and listening to them being spoken or sang may have a great value by itself). More, books made by smart people teach to think good and to speak good -- they are great in this sense. For example, I'd suggest reading of Tolstoy for learners of Russian, even starters, and reading Tolkien for learners of English, too. (I'd not suggest however reading Dostoyevskiy or maybe Dante for starters, just because their language is not documented well).
> 
> Myself, I read now a book of Luigi Pirandello without knowing virtually any Italian around it. And the reading is great, because Pirandello writes great; of course, for native Italians it's hard to read his works, but for me it would be virtually just as hard to read some other Italian, because I'm not native anyway. Reading other things would be just tedious and boring. Now I'm not learning Italian seriously, but who knows, it may become a good startpoint at some time.
> 
> I think, childlike songs deserve attention too, because they are pretty and interesting to learn about and to get a feel of.



Dante's language is very well documented and commented and not too difficult to read from a purely linguistic point of view, although you have to have some knowledge of Italian because in an average dictionary you won't find many words in exactly the same shape as in Dante's works. The real problem with Dante is understanding the context: cultural, theological, historical allusions, which makes the reading difficult even for Italians. The _terza rima_ chains make it difficult for the reader to stop and think about a difficult point before the ending of a canto.


----------



## Explorer41

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Dante's language is very well documented and commented and not too difficult to read from a purely linguistic point of view, although you have to have some knowledge of Italian because in an average dictionary you won't find many words in exactly the same shape as in Dante's works. The real problem with Dante is understanding the context: cultural, theological, historical allusions, which makes the reading difficult even for Italians. The _terza rima_ chains make it difficult for the reader to stop and think about a difficult point before the ending of a canto.


Yes, I meant exactly this: I meant it is not documented well in sources, dealing with the modern language and culture (which constitute the vast majority of available sources about the Italian language, including even websites which are not specifically about the language or culture, but rather cover other topics). The same applies to the language of Dostoevskiy: probably it was examined somewhere in critiques, but that analysis is not easily available. The language of Dostoevskiy is completely Russian and therefore doesn't make a great trouble "from a linguistic point of view", but only for those who already know some Russian (because it has pecularities, and is different from the well known "standard" variety of Russian, and is various itself). Though Dostoevskiy's language should have less allusions to little known cultural backgrounds than Dante's (well, I did not read Dante, as I said above, but I guess).

The point about "already knowing some Italian" was exactly mine. You don't have to already know some Russian to read Tolstoy, or to already know some Italian to read Pirandello (though, of course, learning is always difficult, and so is in this case).

I'll correct my post above.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Explorer41 said:


> Yes, I meant exactly this: I meant it is not documented well in sources, dealing with the modern language and culture (which constitute the vast majority of available sources about the Italian language, including even websites which are not specifically about the language or culture, but rather cover other topics). The same applies to the language of Dostoevskiy: probably it was examined somewhere in critiques, but that analysis is not easily available. The language of Dostoevskiy is completely Russian and therefore doesn't make a great trouble "from a linguistic point of view", but only for those who already know some Russian (because it has pecularities, and is different from the well known "standard" variety of Russian, and is various itself). Though Dostoevskiy's language should have less allusions to little known cultural backgrounds than Dante's (well, I did not read Dante, as I said above, but I guess).



My love story with Italian began with nineteenth century opera, much of whose lexic neither is present in the dictionaries... and it wasn't a big matter, really (but then, I already knew some French and, at a later point, Spanish). Guessing through context or doing only little adjustments (sometimes there's a diphthong, sometimes not; sometimes there's an o, sometimes an u; sometimes there's an i and sometimes an e, and so on) although when I finally began to formally study Italian I had a somewhat hard time getting rid of obsolete grammatical forms, words and expressions and replacing them with their modern equivalents. So rather than "know" Italian (or Russian, for that case) you need a "feeling" of the language. With Italian, before I began to use it actively, I had some years to get the feeling of the language through passive contact (a rather inorthodox method when learning a language consciously).
I guess that's the same with all authors, texts and spontaneous speech. Sometimes your feeling of the language is enough to sort things out, sometimes not.



Explorer41 said:


> The point about "already knowing some Italian" was exactly mine. *You don't have to already know some Russian to read Tolstoy*, or to already know some Italian to read Pirandello (though, of course, learning is always difficult, and so is in this case).
> 
> I'll correct my post above.



But you might need French for some of his works.


----------

