Language desk
< December 28	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 29

Russian place name meaning

In 1951, the naval dockyard and town of Vaenga or Vayenga (Ваенга) near Murmansk had its name changed to Severomorsk (Северомо́рск). I'm curious about why the name was changed; is there a literal translation? Is there a reference available so that I can add it to our article? Alansplodge (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the first part cеверо, as "north". And I remember морской порт is "sea port" so I'm guessing the мо́рск part has something to do with the sea/ocean. I will see if I can dig up some references (if nobody else gets to it first).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 11:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Severomorsk means "northern sea town", which is acpretty straightforward description given the city's location. The name change may have been part of a russification campaign, as "Vaenga" sounds like it comes from Finnish or a related language. Better to give a strategic port city a Russian name to ensure it's not claimed by Finland at some point I guess. --Xuxl (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The -sk ending common in Russian cities, as far as I know, actually originates from shortening of adjectival suffix -sky/-skoy (-ский/-ской), cognate with English -ish. Cf. Magnitogorsk, Vitebsk, Omsk. With time it became a productive suffix on its own, applied almost exclusively to city names. No such user (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge:: According to the city's official page, [1], "18 апреля 1951 года Указом Президиума Верховного Совета РСФСР рабочий поселок Ваенга был преобразован в город областного подчинения - город Североморск.", "On 18 April 1951 by decree of Presidium of Supreme Soviet of RSFSR, worker's village Vaenga was transformed into city of oblast rank -- city of Severnomorsk". It does not offer any further background. According to that page, in the village lived Sami, Finns and Russians, but Finns left during the October Revolution. All of that is, however, mostly recorded in our article, but sourced from an offline document. No such user (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I ran bits of that pdf file through Google Translate before I asked here and drew a blank. I'm sure I remember reading (maybe on one of the webpages used as references that are now dead links) that the inhabitants requested the change because of their contribution to the war effort. Vaenga was (and still is) the main base of the Soviet Northern Fleet (Северный флот) and I thought perhaps that was in the etymology somehow... Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Vayenga River and Vayenga Bay still have the former name. According to the Russian Wikipedia article ru:Североморск, this comes from the word for a female reindeer in one of the Sami languages, "vayongg". (The Severomorsk city web site [2] has the same story but gives the Saami word instead as "vaadzh'".) The village itself seems to have been given the name of the river when a name was needed for census purposes. By all accounts the original village was tiny, around a dozen people, and it's safe to say that the military settlement that existed in 1951 would have had little or no connection with the former village beyond the name. --Amble (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, you might be unsurprised to find out that the Sami have quite a lot of words for reindeer: [3]. And there are many Sami languages, of which the ones originally spoken in this area will be quite different from the ones spoken today in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. --Amble (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you one and all. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they are wrong. Itkonen's Sami dictionary, the fullest ever known, gives only vaij (with variants) for a female reindeer (V.1, p.709). His dictionary is very hard to use and I might not find the word "vayongg" for a female reindeer, but it seems more likely that the river name came from that first word for a female reindeer plus the words for "river" (written like jokk and jänn in the same dictionary).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds plausible. I wouldn't take either the Russian Wikipedia page or the Severomorsk city web site as authoritative for the exact Sami word. Does Itkonen's Sami dictionary cover the relevant Sami language (Kildin Sami I suppose)? --Amble (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I thought our article about him lists his works, and that was why I did not name the dictionary in full, but here is the link [4] (the dictionary is partly in German, so it can be understood without Finnish, though the transcription there is very overloaded with diacritic signs). But I could not find the place which would say about the toponym, so I can not cite the dictionary directly and the above said about etymology was just my speculation (though it is not worse than the present speculation from the city's website).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to art works by the artist's name

When not otherwise identified, the works of visual artists are often referred to by their surname alone:

We thought it was a Gainsborough but were delighted to discover it was a Watteau.
The collection includes 3 Rembrandts, 6 Velasquezes, 5 van Goghs and a Pollock. In the extensive grounds are 2 Rodins and a group of Henry Moores.

But this never seems to apply to other art forms. I mean, I've never heard:

I own 5 Dickenses, 4 Hemingways, and assorted Agatha Christies.
Today's concert will feature a Beethoven, 2 Chopins and a Schubert.
I've just been to the movies. I saw an Almodovar.

Why the difference? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer I know, but I dispute your last point, films are often referred to by there director, 'a Tarantino', 'a Hitchcock', 'a Woody Allen' etc. And you could indeed say 'I've just been to the movies and saw the latest Tarantino' Fgf10 (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it has to do with a Rembrandt, for example, referring to a unique physical work of Rembrandt, rather than book by Dickens, which is a copy. A Dickens would mean an original manuscript actually written by Dickens. Film works a little differently. Peter Grey (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're unique works, as opposed to mass-produced books, performances and screenings. I could imagine somebody asking a book collector how many first editions they had and the response being your first example. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:JackofOz, I think basically your first observation about Watteau and Rembrandt shows that the construction is used when talking about collections of originals. But although I own about 20 books by Tolkien, including posthumous works and multiple collections *3 coopies of LotR, e.g.) and translations in German, French and Spanish of parts of his published oeuvre, I wouldn't call them "Tolkiens" because they are not unique originals in the way an original painting is. Likewise, although I would ask "Do you want to watch Almodovar or Kubrick tonight?" rather than "Do you want to watch a Hitchcock, or a Waters tonight" unless I were being ironically pretentious four humors' sake, I would not at all be surprised to have a video-store proprietor who knows my tastes say, "Hey, I've got a great new Lean for you to consider." In one word, context. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above responses. Works of visual art are often akin to signatures; uniqueness is a good part of their identity. Having said that, there is a problem with identifying artworks by the artist's name alone; some of the work by an artist may be good, some of the works may be mediocre. The focus can be problematically on the identity of the artist while the analysis and examination of the artwork may be neglected. Does the artist really matter? The cultural milestone resides in the identity of the individual artwork, thus its identity (title, materials, dimensions, year created, present location) are of paramount importance. Bus stop (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(following from edit request) ―Mandruss ☎ 09:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that works of literature are not referred to in the style "three Shakespeares", but I don't think this extends to genre or series fiction. "Three John Grishams" or "three Agatha Christies" seems a normal enough usage to me. Or similarly, "Are there any more Agatha Christies here?" And just as people might see (or not see) "the latest Almodovar", so they might read (or not read) "the latest Grisham". Of course, if the series features a single lead character, the character's name may be used in the same way, but that's another matter. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your contributions. Happy New Year. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]