The particle же
Sep. 7th, 2008 05:43 pmI understand how the particle же is usually used, although I wouldn't always necessarily trust myself to use it correctly. It seems to express emphasis; for example, конечно же! is an even stronger way of saying конечно!
Anyway, a while ago I noticed a usage which seems to be different (from Master and Margarita):
Те, кто имел уже несчастье в эти дни попасться на его дороге, даже при этом слабом светом язычка в лампадке, конечно, тотчас же узнали бы его. Это был Коровьёв, он же Фагот.
Those who had had the misfortune of encountering him in those last few days would have, of course, recognized him immediately, even in the weak light of the lamp. It was Korovyov, also known as Bassoon.
The first же, in тотчас же, is emphatic, making the concept of "immediately" even stronger. But am I correct that the second же here conveys the meaning "also known as"? It doesn't seem to serve any kind of emphatic function, so that's my best guess.
Thanks!
Anyway, a while ago I noticed a usage which seems to be different (from Master and Margarita):
Те, кто имел уже несчастье в эти дни попасться на его дороге, даже при этом слабом светом язычка в лампадке, конечно, тотчас же узнали бы его. Это был Коровьёв, он же Фагот.
Those who had had the misfortune of encountering him in those last few days would have, of course, recognized him immediately, even in the weak light of the lamp. It was Korovyov, also known as Bassoon.
The first же, in тотчас же, is emphatic, making the concept of "immediately" even stronger. But am I correct that the second же here conveys the meaning "also known as"? It doesn't seem to serve any kind of emphatic function, so that's my best guess.
Thanks!
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 10:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 06:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 11:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 11:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 11:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 12:01 am (UTC)As to your point, I agree that the stress should go on the second syllable, but this surname is not derived from корова (that would be Коровин).
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 12:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 01:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 01:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 06:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 09:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 11:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 11:14 pm (UTC)So how did they get Korovyov? I assume at least one of the translators is a native speaker, since that's usually how the powerhouse novel translation teams (like Pevear and Volokhonsky, for example) work. But maybe she immigrated at a young age and doesn't have the same intuitions as others...
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 11:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 01:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 02:06 am (UTC)As to the second one, польты is illiterate plural form of пальто (coat); this word does not have a plural form (одно пальто, два пальто, три пальто). As you can see, there was no reference to any kind of laboratory in the original phrase - it was born by the translator's rampant imagination. As to cats, it's very easy: you take off the fur, dye it and make a neckpiece for the coat.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 11:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 12:14 am (UTC)