Dmitri: Tushé! On nas pogubit!
(He’ll be the ruin of us!)

On a linguistic point: although only the plural ruini [fem.] survives in everyday Russian (presumably meaning both ruin and ruins in context), there’s a real case to be made for an original, archaic singular ruina, quite capable of being resurrected by a playful POET such as Derzhavin. We must not be slaves to the slovar’? Most languages have singular [peculiar!] plurals: trousers, scissors ... KUDOS (as in “kudos *were not abundant in the Nemser article.” * one kudo, two kudos! Some insist on two kudoi, others kudea)

Who will now claim PRIORITY in discovering this NON-acrostic?

“As I was scanning Derzhavin’s verse, I met an acrostic that wasn’t there.
“It wasn’t there again today; I wish to God it would go away.”

CTaH

On 26/02/2009 19:28, "Nabokv-L" <nabokv-l@UTK.EDU> wrote:
  
 Subject:
Re: [NABOKV-L] THOUGHTS: Derzhavin's acrostic (was "New Republic" etc)  
  From:
Dmitri Nabokov
   
  Date:
Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:33:55 +0100    
  To:
Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@listserv.ucsb.edu> <mailto:NABOKV-L@listserv.ucsb.edu>   

  "Accidential acrostrich", whether sharp, flat, honored, read, or ruined must have been doubtful nightingale even to Derzhavin's ear. Sorry, DN



On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Nabokv-L <nabokv-l@utk.edu> wrote:


 
-------- Original Message --------   
 Subject:  Re: [NABOKV-L] (corrected version of previous mail)  
 Date:  Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:14:39 +0100 (CET)  
 From:  soloviev@irit.fr  
 To:  Vladimir Nabokov Forum <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU> <mailto:NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>     
 

I should notice (for all our "amateurs" of acrostichs etc) that
in this case the acrostich is not perfect from the point of view
of a russian reader - it looks doubtful even that Derzhavin was
conscious that it is there. "Ruinu chti" would be more convincing. 1)
"Ruina" is not russian word; 2)in the expression "ruina chti"
it means rather "ruin read this"; 3) "chtit" ("pochitat") may mean also
"honor", and "ruinU chti" may mean "honor the destruction",
but then actual "ruina" is not right declination; 4) eight lines
is very short poem, and an approximative acrostich with doubtful
meaning may very well be accidential.  
 
Search the archive Contact the Editors Visit "Nabokov Online Journal"
Visit Zembla View Nabokv-L Policies Manage subscription options

All private editorial communications, without exception, are read by both co-editors.