возвысил в протоиереев

pimlicodude

Senior Member
British English
Solzhenitsyn writes this:
[Иоанн III] обоих начальных еретиков, Алексия и Дионисия, за все достоинства их благочестия в 1480 взял с собой в Москву и возвысил в протоиереев Успенского и Архангельского соборов в Кремле
I'm focusing on the word протоиереев - it is not протоиереи here.
I noticed in Wiktionary under князь that в князи is stated to be превратительный падеж, probably "translative case" in English. Other examples are в гости, в люди.
In the next sentence of Solzhenitsyn we read:
[Протоиерей Алексий] убедил великого князя возвести в митрополиты – то есть во главу всей русской Церкви – из своих обращённых в ересь архимандрита Зосиму
Here we read в митрополиты.
So in the same paragraph, возвысил в протоиереев and возвести в митрополиты. Should the "translative case" have been used in the form of в протоиереи? Or maybe this case is kind of optional?
 
Last edited:
  • HotIcyDonut

    Senior Member
    Russian - Russia
    For your info, Solzhenitsyn uses rather odd orthography here and there like writing ГУЛАГ instead of proper ГУЛаг for an abbreviation.

    I agree with you, it normally should be "протоиереи", it just feels the right way.

    If it was "до" instead of "в", then it would be "возвысил до протоиреев".

    Maybe a Solzhenitsyn's personal quirk as a writer.

    Here, it's at least understandable from the context, but with some verbs the difference in noun incurs a difference in meaning, so I wouldn't recommend to use it unless you're really fluent. E.g.:

    Мужчины могут пойти в отцов (sons in families may grow up in such way that they resembles their fathers, in character and/or physical traits, or maybe a son can follow his father's footsteps like choosing the same proffesion, etc. You get the idea. It's one of our uses for "пойти").

    Мужчины могут пойти в отцы (men can become fathers of children).
     
    Last edited:

    pimlicodude

    Senior Member
    British English
    To be frank, I have a strong impression that Solzhenitsyn was never quite skillful with a pen, and got famous more because of the topics he chose and his political position than because of his actual writing skills.
    I bought a book called the Peculiarities of Solzhenitsyn's Russian, which is a dictionary (but doesn't cover Двести лет вместе, but does cover other famous books). The dictionary has a wide range, including Fenya (prison slang) words, Southern Russian dialect, and also words Solzhenitsyn found in Dahl's dictionary, high-style words etc. So he had a number of sources, both high and low. But I'm enjoying his knowledge of history.
     

    pimlicodude

    Senior Member
    British English
    If it was "до" instead of "в", then it would be "возвысил до протоиреев".
    Maybe he intended to write that, and then got sidetracked and ended up writing something slightly different. That happens in all languages.
     

    Vovan

    Senior Member
    Russian
    Should the "translative case" have been used in the form of в протоиереи? Or maybe this case is kind of optional?

    As is well known, prepositions may depend both on the preceding word(s) and the following one(s). Plus, existing set phrases may play a decisive role. The fact that we do say (for instance) "возвести кого-то в герои" doesn't necessarily mean that we may change "возвести" with another verb that has an apparently similar meaning:

    :tick: Расстраиваться из-за того, что дети в ВК (=ВКонтакте) не возвели его в герои, не стоит. (Из комментариев пользователей кинофорума.)
    :confused: Расстраиваться из-за того, что дети в ВК не возвысили его в герои, не стоит.



    Normal usage of "возвысить" (in the construction in question) is either 1. without explicitly mentioning the title/level, or rather 2. with the preposition "до":

    Что заставило его так их возвысить?
    "Меня этим фактом депортации возвысили до уровня Солженицына. Себя опустили до уровня Бандустана какого-то", - сказал экс-президент. (РИА Новости.)


    So, in my opinion, because of an unusual treatment of the verb "возвысить", Solzhenitsyn had every right to choose his ways of concordance/government.
     
    Last edited:

    nizzebro

    Senior Member
    Russian
    So, in my opinion, because of an unusual treatment of the verb "возвысить", Solzhenitsyn had every right to choose his ways of concordance/government.
    There is the stem's semantics which is not a matter of unusual treatment. Возвысить is based on a degree of height; возвести is based on the meaning of 'вести' - 'lead, direct'. Prefixes and prepositions are the next layer which works as a superstructure, providing situational patterns. And, the direct/indirect object pattern which is bound to noun cases conflicts with such usage.
    Of course, Solzhenitsyn has a right to turn everything upside down - both in language and history, but in such case there is nothing to agree or disagree with.
     
    Last edited:

    Vovan

    Senior Member
    Russian
    rather odd orthography here and there like writing ГУЛАГ instead of proper ГУЛаг
    The usual spellings are "ГУЛАГ" and "Гулаг", as far as I know. "ГУЛаг" is what some people persistently write instead of what is "ГУЛАГ" or "Гулаг" even in the original(s) itself/themselves; such are some contributors on Wikipedia, for example.
     

    Awwal12

    Senior Member
    Russian
    On a sidenote, the original Soviet documentation definitely used "ГУЛАГ".
    terror-gapf-doc15_00001_0.jpg
    0_11bac8_ebb19adf_XXL.jpg
     

    Vovan

    Senior Member
    Russian
    There is the stem's semantics which is not a matter of unusual treatment. Возвысить is based on the degree of height; возвести is based on the meaning of 'вести' - 'lead, direct'. Prefixes and prepositions are the next layer which works as a superstructure, providing situational patterns. Of course, Solzhenitsyn has a right to turn everything upside down, but in such case there is nothing to agree or disagree with.
    I'm afraid that's an oversimplification of what really happens in the course of language development. New meaning/submeanings of words are often closely associated with using different prepositions - oftentimes, not completely interchangeable ones:
    контроль над (чем-то) ≈ в пределе - власть (напр., "полный контроль над кем-то")
    контроль за (чем-то) ≈ слежение, мониторинг
    More to the point, I don't follow your logic regarding the alleged impossibility of using the genitive after "возвысить в" because of the stem (?):
    понизить до (чего?) простых служанок
    низвести до (чего?) простых служанок

    That said, I repeat that I consider neither "возвысить в протоиереев" or "возвысить в протоиереи" to be correct/normative. That's why, in my opinion, Solzhenitsyn was free to choose between them.
     

    nizzebro

    Senior Member
    Russian
    More to the point, I don't follow your logic regarding the alleged impossibility of using the genitive after "возвысить в" because of the stem (?):
    понизить до (чего?) простых служанокнизвести до (чего?) простых служанок
    We can повысить до as well , as we manipulate with height, stretching it up/down to, or until, some value.
    But we do not 'drag' or 'put' the object into somewhere so we cannot use 'в'. But with возвести, we can, as what the stem is basically about is not range but change of location. However, for such meaning, the opposition of endings matters - but the author uses a marked accusative, and with that he breaks the core opposition whom/where (i.e возвести отцов в отцы), so the idea of location change becomes invalidated either. What does remain - nobody knows but him.

    For poetry or rap music, such mixing is amazing, but the book is not like that, I suppose.
     
    Last edited:

    Vovan

    Senior Member
    Russian
    <...> we cannot use 'в'. But with возвести, we can.
    I now see what you mean: there is evident logic behind "вести в (какое-то место)" and no logic in "повысить в (какое-то место)". But why are you talking about places? The idea behind "в служанки/ученики/президенты..." is more about a category of people (and a social level, by extension), not a specific place. In essence, "в служанки" = "в категорию служанок", "на уровень служанок".

    But I still don't understand whether you consider it correct to say "возвысить в протоиереев" or, at least, "возвысить в протоиереи".

    The second phrase is understandable: some people might say "неимоверно возвысить", so why not specify and add "в герои" or something of the kind. Again, we still don't normally say that.

    The less likely to be approved "возвысить в протоиереев" can be thought of as coming from "превратить в кого-то/что-то", with the more accurately defined meaning being "превратить в кого-то/что-то через более высокое по отношению к текущему формальное назначение". In books on history, very typical are phrases like "возвышение Москвы" (which some authors define as "процесс постепенного превращения Москвы в столицу Киевской Руси").
     

    pimlicodude

    Senior Member
    British English
    This has opened a very complex discussion. What I got from this was that возвысить is not normally used in the sense of transferring someone to a job position, whereas возвести is, and so the native-speaker sense of the need to use the translative case was weakened in the former case. Thank you all for replies.
     

    Vovan

    Senior Member
    Russian
    What I got from this was that возвысить is not normally used in the sense of transferring someone to a job position, whereas возвести is
    "Возвысить" can be used to mean that, but with another preposition ("до (уровня/позиции...) чего-то/кого") and, what's very important, usually with the implication that the person doesn't deserve so high a position:

    Примерно через год его возвысили до уровня секретаря крайкома партии. (Из романа современного писателя Владимира Рунова.)
     

    nizzebro

    Senior Member
    Russian
    is more about a category of people (and a social level, by extension), not a specific place. In essence, "в служанки" = "в категорию служанок", "на уровень служанок".
    On a general, prototypical level, it is place. The point is not how you call that but that it is not incompatible with a paradigm of повысить (понизить), so
    n't understand whether you consider it correct to say "возвысить в протоиереев" or, at least, "возвысить в протоиереи".
    ... none of these is correct.
    The less likely to be approved "возвысить в протоиереев" can be thought of as coming from "превратить в кого-то/что-то", with the more accurately defined meaning being "превратить в кого-то/что-то через более высокое по отношению к текущему формальное назначение". In books on history, very typical are phrases like "возвышение Москвы" (which some authors define as "процесс постепенного превращения Москвы в столицу Киевской Руси").
    I understand, but by this logic, we can gather any words in groups and then make up explanations of what those phrases could mean. And, Возвышение Москвы does not mean directly превращение в столицу - it is a pragmatical meaning. In another context, where martians arrived, built some kind of a maintain and moved Moscow 10 km higher, (or, e.g. made all Muscovites masters and everybody else their slaves) it would be different.
     

    nizzebro

    Senior Member
    Russian
    I guess that's the way any natural language evolves.
    I quite agree, and the keyword here is 'natural' :)
    Of course, there are e.g. certain words which had been invented or adopted from foreign sources by writers such as Karamzin (if the stories are to be believed), but, that was driven by a necessity to implement specific significant notions - otherwise those words would not remain in the vocabulary. I'd say that it is not Karamzin or whoever who invented those words - but rather these words and notions behind them, used him, so to speak, as a tool to get implemented in the society.

    Solzhenitsyn was quite popular among Soviet intelligentsia; beside that, in the 80s it was posh for many people to have the Dal dictionary on the bookshelf at home, but I doubt all that had any impact on the language.
     
    Last edited:
    Top