We continue to follow the principles of real freedom of speech, and publish these judgments of critic V. Toporov, implying that our site is open to opinions and reciprocal claims against the author from all those involved in the current literary process, which are mentioned in this article.
You can’t enter the same river twice,” Heraclitus said, and everyone agreed, “a catchphrase. Everyone agreed, but not everyone understood (or not everyone remembered). Until now, quite often you meet this formula distorted beyond recognition: "You cannot enter the same water twice." But, please, why not? You can’t go into the river, because it flows and the water in it is flowing, but into some kind of basin. In the bathhouse gang that Zoshchenko wrote about. Step into it, come out, step again - and the water is still the same. Of course, you can’t drink it, and no one drinks it, but the water is the same. It just gets a little dirtier every time...
I started talking about literary awards, but before continuing on a specific level, I digress for a moment. In the same story by Zoshchenko "In the Bath" a citizen is described washing himself in three gangs at once: he washes in one, lowers his legs into the other, and holds with the third hand so as not to be carried away. And this, you know, is also directly related to domestic literary awards - and to each of them separately, and, most importantly, to all together.
There are actually three main ones - "Russian Booker", "Natsbest" and "Big Book" (in order of occurrence). There were two more that claimed the status of the main ones - Antibooker and the Apollon Grigoriev Prize - but both eventually expired. There are several more semi-main ones - NOS, Debut, Russian Prize, Belkin's Tales - but all this, of course, is a corps de ballet, although for different reasons. There is a "Poet" - but not everyone knows how to write a column. There are monetary premiums, but reputationally zero (if not negative), but we are not talking about them now. One of them died a year ago - "Triumph" from Boris Berezovsky - and no one noticed it.
Each award has its own clearly defined, although not always as precisely observed, regulations and its own traditions. Let's say, "Russian Booker" was initially awarded only for novels (then it was canceled) - and all our prose writers immediately began to call novels novels, and even stories - and, say, Vladimir Makanin received his "Booker" for the story. However ferocity Russian laws mitigated, as is known, by the optionality of their execution. Alla Latynina, chairman of the very first Booker jury, rapped out: “What the jury considers a novel is considered a novel” - and closed the controversial topic once and for all.
Her daughter Yulia Latynina somehow does not work out with Russian awards, but the work of Maria Rybakova, the daughter of the famous Soviet and post-Soviet critic Natalya Ivanova, was included in several shortlists a year ago. And it doesn’t matter that the awards were prosaic, and Rybakova’s “Gnedich” was written in verse, but she is the granddaughter of “Dagger with Stalin” (Anatoly Rybakov), and her mother is either herself a member of most of the award organizing committees and juries, or delegates these pleasant burdensome duties to a colleague and head of the "Znamya" Sergei Chuprinin.
This, however, is about something else. There were and still are some unwritten rules - both for internal use within the framework of one award, and for cross-pollination (more precisely, on the contrary, directed against cross-pollination). Here they are in Lately went at random - and it looks like this process will reach its climax just this fall. At the very least, it is difficult to imagine what exactly could prevent such a development of events.
Of the unwritten rules of internal order, it was "not to give more than one award to one hand." This rule was first violated by National Best a year ago - Dmitry Bykov became the laureate again. True, the organizing committee fined him for not appearing at the final ceremony without a good reason and for insulting remarks about the organizing committee itself (here, however, Bykov had a good reason) for the entire amount of the monetary reward, but the precedent was thus created.
And immediately after the “National Best”, the “Big Book” went down the same path, noting the same novel “Ostromov” - and thereby making Bykov twice a laureate (although this time not the first, but the third degree - by a somewhat dubious analogy with the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" of various degrees, which can also be awarded several times, and not necessarily in ascending order, but in random order: first, say, the second degree, then the fourth). Looking ahead a little, I will note that now Ostromov is also claiming the Russian Booker.
There are two unwritten rules between awards: 1) not to give two large awards for the same work; 2) not to award his prize at all to a writer who has already been awarded one of the other two. The Big Book violated the first rule (and twice at once), in the very first year of its existence, giving the first-degree prize to Bykov for his biography Pasternak, and the third-degree prize to Mikhail Shishkin's novel Venus Hair (books marked by the National Best of 2006 "and" National Best-2005 "respectively).
The second rule was the first to be violated by National Best by proclaiming Shishkin a laureate, who by that time had already received the Russian Booker (albeit for a different novel). To date, this rule (let me remind you, like all of the above, unwritten) has practically been canceled: the laureates of the Russian Booker Alexander Ilichevsky and Lyudmila Ulitskaya and the laureates of the National Best Viktor Pelevin and Leonid Yuzefovich receive " big book» of various degrees - and this no longer bothers anyone. A little more conservative (but only in this respect) is the “Russian Booker”, defiantly surrounding Yuzefovich (“Cranes and Dwarfs”) and Alexander Terekhov (“Stone Bridge”) as freshly baked laureates “ big book”, awarded, as you know, exactly one week before the “Russian Booker”.
All three unwritten rules, which were discussed above, stem from each time implied, although far from always voiced, rhetorical question: “Won’t your face crack?”, which members of various juries voluntarily or involuntarily address to the laureates of past years; But none of the written regulations include such restrictions. International practice in this regard is heterogeneous: for example, the British (that is, real) Booker can be received several times, even several times in a row, but the most prestigious Heinrich Kleist Prize in Germany is awarded only once. In the USSR, there were restrictions on Lenin Prizes, but not on Stalin Prizes (later state ones). Finally, Nobel Prize in literature, you can get only once - and for all the equanimity of the Swedes, one cannot fail to see in this the same sacramental (and sarcastic) exclamation: “Won’t the muzzle crack?”
The arguments both for and against the above unwritten rules are quite weighty. And the point here is not only in clan, not to say mafia games. Consider the situation that has developed around Viktor Pelevin, who is fundamentally out of all sorts of literary parties. A prolific and disciplined writer, under an agreement with a publishing house, he releases exactly one book a year (each time in December). And, in theory, almost any of his books is competitive in the premium range, which means that it can qualify for each of the three awards (or even all three at once) - and turn out to be marked by it year after year ... So, give all the awards Pelevin - or, on the contrary, expel him from the bonus layouts - he, after all, earns a lot, which means that his little-known "muzzle" cracks in and without it?
Such a decision (written, according to the regulations, and not oral) would have its own logic. Based on the tripartite nature of the bonus itself: literary prize- this is an annual Golden medal champion, and the so-called Progress Cup, and, at the same time, the Discovery of the Year nomination. Pelevin may be the champion, of course, there is no longer a discovery, but with the Progress Cup - the question is open. After all, nothing prevents a popular prose writer, who already writes at the "champion" level, from suddenly giving out a masterpiece at the level of "Chapaev and Void" - and well, in this case, you will order us to ignore this fact - and defiantly award the prize to someone whatever (to anyone) to another?
Or here is the situation with the writer, on the contrary, not so much as rarely Alexander Terekhov. His "Stone Bridge" received the "Big Book" of the second degree, and the recent "Germans" - "Natsbest" - and now claim the "Russian Booker". The novel The Germans, in my opinion, is somewhat weaker than The Stone Bridge, but, nevertheless, it looks like an obvious favorite in the Booker long list of 24 positions. Just as blatantly scandalous is his absence from the shortlist of 12 items in the Big Book. That is, or rather, "The Germans" would have looked like a favorite, if there were no uncertainty in the question of whether the jury would resort to the unwritten rule of "uncracked muzzle" in relation to the writer himself.
And next to Ilichevsky, next to Slavnikova, next to Volos - Booker laureates of past years. And nearby is Prilepin, the winner of the National Best and Super National Best, and finally Bykov is nearby ... And something tells me that the unwritten rule of the “uncracked muzzle” will certainly be applied to Prilepin and Terekhov and may well be ignored in the case of Ilichevsky and Slavnikova. I don’t presume to judge Bykov: here, as a year ago, non-literary circumstances will certainly intervene, and if then - against the backdrop of the resounding success of Citizen Poet - they definitely worked for him (and for him), now they can work both for, so against.
I summarize. The above unwritten rules exist - and it is quite clear why. Another thing is not clear: why they remain unwritten (and, at the same time, not canceled), and therefore not formalized, and therefore amenable to arbitrarily subjective, and even mafia interpretation in the spirit of the notorious: “I will give this, but I won’t give it.” Follow all these rules honestly - and Yuri Buida will receive the Booker for Blue Blood or Sergey Nosov for Francoise. Refuse to use them - and the prize will go to Terekhov for "Nemtsev". And in the current turbulent state, literally anything is possible, which means that you need to suspect the worst, or rather the most average: some Andrei Dmitriev, some Alexander Melikhov (or even Nikolai Kryschuk), some Alexey Slapovsky.
A similar situation has developed in the Big Book, except that here the matter is complicated by the presence of three awards at once (that is, three prizes, each of which is very solid) and an honorary award of the “contribution for contribution” type, which 93-year-old Daniil Granin will surely receive ... And while the court and the case, attention is drawn to the unfortunate fact that the chairman of the Booker jury, Samuil Lurie (St. Petersburg) and the chairman of the panel of experts of the Big Book, Mikhail Butov (“ New world”) included as many people on their lists: fellow countrymen - the first, and colleagues - the second, as many people do not live in St. Petersburg, and do not work in the Novy Mir magazine. And here, you know, there is no time for rules, written or not, and even more so - no time for literature; here the minimum decency would be observed.
More meanings of the word and translation A Muzzle Won't Crack from English into Russian in English-Russian dictionaries.
What is the translation and the Muzzle WILL NOT Crack from Russian into English in Russian-English dictionaries.
More meanings of this word and English-Russian, Russian-English translations for A Muzzle Won't Crack in dictionaries.
- NOT- negativ particle, not; not (one) only, not only; scheme prefix, un-, non-non-Abelian, adj., non-Abelian
- A- prefix non-
Russian-English Dictionary of the Mathematical Sciences - — conj. and, but, while; not..., but..., not..., but...; namely, namely; and not that, or else; …
Russian-English Dictionary of the Mathematical Sciences - - A
American English-Russian Dictionary - NOT--A-
- NOT— Not
Russian-American English dictionary - MUZZLE— snout
Russian-American English Dictionary - - A
Russian-American English Dictionary - NOT-- see words with this prefix; (in many adjectives, also in adjectives from participles) un-, un- uninteresting - ...
- NOT- 1. (in different cases) not (with pres. insufficient verb can is written together: cannot); -n "t unfold (continuously ...
Anglo- Russian-English dictionary general vocabulary - Collection of the best dictionaries - MUZZLE- 1. muzzle, snout 2. rude. (of a face) (ugly) face, mug
English-Russian-English Dictionary of General Vocabulary - Collection of the best dictionaries - A--a-; non-asymmetric - asymmetric (al) immoral - amoral, non-moral
English-Russian-English Dictionary of General Vocabulary - Collection of the best dictionaries -
English-Russian-English Dictionary of General Vocabulary - Collection of the best dictionaries - NOT-- adj. un-, in-, non-, mis-, dis-
- NOT- particle 1. (gives the word the meaning of complete negation) not; (with comparative art.) no, not ... any; (with nominal skaz.) no; (with adverb) ...
Russian-English Dictionary of General Subjects - MUZZLE- 1. muzzle; (feline) face; 2. rough. (about a person) mug 1) muzzle, snout 2) vulg. (about face) mug
Russian-English Dictionary of General Subjects - - 1. union 1) while (while); and (no opposition); but (but) not .., but ... - not ..., but ... ...
Russian-English Dictionary of General Subjects - MUZZLE- 1) (animal) face 2) muzzle 3) (animal) neb 4) nose 5) snout
New Russian-English Biological Dictionary - NOT— Not
Russian Learner's Dictionary - NOT— isn't
Russian Learner's Dictionary - NOT-
Russian-English dictionary - NOT
Russian-English dictionary - MUZZLE
Russian-English dictionary - A-
Russian-English dictionary - - 1. union 1. (whereas) while; (without opposition) and; (but) but the parents are gone, and ...
Russian-English dictionary - NOT-- (prefix) see words with this prefix; (in many adjectives, also in adjectives from participles) un-, un- uninteresting ...
- NOT- particle 1. (in different cases) not (with pres. insufficient verb can is written together: cannot); -n "t open (...
Russian-English Smirnitsky abbreviations dictionary - MUZZLE- and. 1. muzzle, snout 2. rude. (of a face) (ugly) face, mug
Russian-English Smirnitsky abbreviations dictionary - A-- (prefix in foreign words, giving a negative meaning) a-; non-asymmetric - asymmetric (al) immoral - amoral, non-moral
Russian-English Smirnitsky abbreviations dictionary - - 1. union 1. (whereas) while; (without opposition) and; (but) but the parents are gone, and ...
Russian-English Smirnitsky abbreviations dictionary - - 1) while (while); and (no opposition); but (but)
Russian-English Edic - NOT— NOT
Russian-English Edic - NOT- particle 1) not (gives the word the meaning of complete negation); no, not...any (with comparative degree) ; no...
- MUZZLE- wives. 1) muzzle, snout 2) vulg. (about face) mug
Russian-English short dictionary By general vocabulary - - 1. union 1) while (while); and (no opposite) ; but (but) not .., ...
Russian-English Concise Dictionary of General Vocabulary - MUZZLE— Trap
- MUZZLE— Muffle
British Russian-English Dictionary - MUZZLE— maw
British Russian-English Dictionary - MUZZLE— Jaws
British Russian-English Dictionary - MUZZLE— Chamfer
British Russian-English Dictionary - MUZZLE— Brawn
British Russian-English Dictionary - — U
British Russian-English Dictionary - — S
British Russian-English Dictionary - — P
British Russian-English Dictionary - — O
British Russian-English Dictionary - — N
British Russian-English Dictionary - — K
British Russian-English Dictionary - — I
British Russian-English Dictionary - - H
British Russian-English Dictionary
1. Independent parts of speech:
- nouns (see morphological norms of nouns);
- Verbs:
- sacraments;
- gerunds;
- adjectives;
- numerals;
- pronouns;
- adverbs;
2. Service parts of speech:
- prepositions;
- unions;
- particles;
3. Interjections.
None of the classifications (according to the morphological system) of the Russian language fall into:
- the words yes and no, if they act as an independent sentence.
- introductory words: so, by the way, total, as a separate sentence, as well as a number of other words.
Morphological analysis of a noun
- the initial form in the nominative case, singular (with the exception of nouns used only in the plural: scissors, etc.);
- own or common noun;
- animate or inanimate;
- gender (m, f, cf.);
- number (unit, plural);
- declination;
- case;
- syntactic role in a sentence.
Plan of morphological analysis of a noun
"The baby is drinking milk."
Kid (answers the question who?) - noun;
- initial form - baby;
- constant morphological features: animated, common noun, concrete, male, I-th declension;
- inconstant morphological features: nominative case, singular;
- at parsing The sentence plays the role of the subject.
Morphological analysis of the word "milk" (answers the question of whom? What?).
- initial form - milk;
- constant morphological characteristic of the word: neuter, inanimate, real, common noun, 2nd declension;
- variable morphological features: accusative, singular;
- in a sentence with a direct object.
Here is another example of how to make a morphological analysis of a noun, based on a literary source:
"Two ladies ran up to Luzhin and helped him get up. He began to knock the dust off his coat with his palm. (Example from: Luzhin's Defense, Vladimir Nabokov)."
Ladies (who?) - noun;
- the initial form is a lady;
- constant morphological features: common noun, animate, concrete, female, I declination;
- fickle morphological noun characteristic: singular, genitive;
- syntactic role: part of the subject.
Luzhin (to whom?) - noun;
- initial form - Luzhin;
- faithful morphological characteristic of the word: proper name, animated, concrete, masculine, mixed declension;
- non-permanent morphological features of a noun: singular, dative case;
Palm (what?) - noun;
- initial form - palm;
- constant morphological features: feminine, inanimate, common noun, concrete, I declension;
- unstable morphos. signs: singular, instrumental case;
- syntactic role in context: complement.
Dust (what?) - noun;
- initial form - dust;
- main morphological features: common noun, real, feminine, singular, animate not characterized, III declension (noun with zero ending);
- fickle morphological word characteristic: accusative;
- syntactic role: complement.
(c) Coat (Why?) - noun;
- the initial form is a coat;
- constant correct morphological characteristic of the word: inanimate, common noun, concrete, neuter, indeclinable;
- morphological features are unstable: the number cannot be determined from the context, the genitive case;
- syntactic role as a member of a sentence: addition.
Morphological analysis of the adjective
The adjective is a significant part of speech. Answers questions What? Which? Which? Which? and characterizes the features or qualities of an object. Table of morphological features of the adjective name:
- initial form in the nominative case, singular, masculine;
- constant morphological features of adjectives:
- rank, according to the value:
- - quality (warm, silent);
- - relative (yesterday, reading);
- - possessive (hare, mother's);
- degree of comparison (for qualitative, in which this feature is constant);
- full / short form (for quality, in which this feature is permanent);
- non-permanent morphological features of the adjective:
- quality adjectives change according to the degree of comparison (in comparative degrees, a simple form, in superlatives - complex): beautiful-beautiful-most beautiful;
- full or short form (only qualitative adjectives);
- genus sign (only in the singular);
- number (consistent with the noun);
- case (consistent with the noun);
- syntactic role in the sentence: the adjective is a definition or part of a compound nominal predicate.
Plan of morphological analysis of the adjective
Suggestion example:
The full moon rose over the city.
Full (what?) - adjective;
- initial form - complete;
- permanent morphological features of the adjective: qualitative, full form;
- fickle morphological characteristic: in a positive (zero) degree of comparison, feminine (consistent with the noun), nominative;
- according to syntactic analysis - a minor member of the sentence, performs the role of a definition.
Here is another whole literary passage and a morphological analysis of the adjective, using examples:
The girl was beautiful: slender, thin, blue eyes, like two amazing sapphires, looked into your soul.
Beautiful (what?) - adjective;
- the initial form is beautiful (in this sense);
- constant morphological norms: qualitative, short;
- non-permanent symptoms: positive degree comparison, singular, feminine;
Slender (what?) - adjective;
- initial form - slender;
- permanent morphological features: qualitative, complete;
- inconstant morphological characteristics of the word: full, positive degree of comparison, singular, feminine, nominative;
- syntactic role in the sentence: part of the predicate.
Thin (what?) - adjective;
- the initial form is thin;
- morphological permanent features: qualitative, complete;
- inconstant morphological characteristic of the adjective: positive degree of comparison, singular, feminine, nominative;
- syntactic role: part of the predicate.
Blue (what?) - adjective;
- initial form - blue;
- table of constant morphological features of the adjective: qualitative;
- inconsistent morphological characteristics: complete, positive degree of comparison, plural, nominative;
- syntactic role: definition.
Amazing (what?) - adjective;
- initial form - amazing;
- permanent signs in morphology: relative, expressive;
- inconsistent morphological features: plural, genitive;
- syntactic role in the sentence: part of the circumstance.
Morphological features of the verb
According to the morphology of the Russian language, the verb is independent part speech. It can denote an action (to walk), a property (to limp), an attitude (to equal), a state (to rejoice), a sign (to turn white, show off) of an object. Verbs answer the question what to do? what to do? what is he doing? what did you do? or what will it do? To different groups verbal word forms are characterized by heterogeneous morphological characteristics and grammatical features.
Morphological forms of verbs:
- the initial form of the verb is the infinitive. It is also called the indefinite or invariable form of the verb. Variable morphological features are absent;
- conjugated (personal and impersonal) forms;
- non-conjugated forms: participles and participles.
Morphological analysis of the verb
- the initial form is the infinitive;
- constant morphological features of the verb:
- transitivity:
- transitive (used with accusative nouns without a preposition);
- intransitive (not used with a noun in the accusative case without a preposition);
- returnability:
- returnable (there are -sya, -sya);
- irrevocable (no -sya, -sya);
- imperfect (what to do?);
- perfect (what to do?);
- conjugation:
- I conjugation (do-eat, do-et, do-eat, do-et, do-yut / ut);
- II conjugation (sto-ish, sto-it, sto-im, sto-ite, sto-yat / at);
- conjugated verbs (want, run);
- non-permanent morphological features of the verb:
- mood:
- indicative: what did you do? What did you do? what is he doing? what will he do?;
- conditional: what would you do? what would you do?;
- imperative: do it!;
- time (in the indicative mood: past / present / future);
- person (in the present/future tense, indicative and imperative: 1st person: I/we, 2nd person: you/you, 3rd person: he/they);
- gender (in the past tense, singular, indicative and conditional);
- number;
- syntactic role in a sentence. The infinitive can be any part of the sentence:
- predicate: To be a holiday today;
- Subject: Learning is always useful;
- addition: All the guests asked her to dance;
- definition: He has an overwhelming desire to eat;
- circumstance: I went out for a walk.
Morphological analysis of the verb example
To understand the scheme, we will conduct a written analysis of the morphology of the verb using the example of a sentence:
Crow somehow God sent a piece of cheese ... (fable, I. Krylov)
Sent (what did you do?) - part of speech verb;
- initial form - send;
- permanent morphological features: perfect view, transitive, 1st conjugation;
- inconstant morphological characteristic of the verb: indicative mood, past tense, masculine, singular;
Next online sample morphological analysis of the verb in the sentence:
What silence, listen.
Listen (what to do?) - verb;
- the initial form is to listen;
- morphological constant features: perfect form, intransitive, reflexive, 1st conjugation;
- inconstant morphological characteristics of the word: imperative, plural, 2nd person;
- syntactic role in the sentence: predicate.
Plan for the morphological analysis of the verb online for free, based on an example from a whole paragraph:
He needs to be warned.
No need, let him know another time how to break the rules.
What are the rules?
Wait, I'll tell you later. Has entered! (“The Golden Calf”, I. Ilf)
Warn (what to do?) - verb;
- initial form - warn;
- morphological features of the verb are constant: perfective, transitive, irrevocable, 1st conjugation;
- non-permanent morphology of the part of speech: infinitive;
- syntactic function in a sentence: component predicate.
Let him know (what is he doing?) - part of speech verb;
- the initial form is to know;
- inconstant morphology of the verb: imperative, singular, 3rd person;
- syntactic role in the sentence: predicate.
Violate (what to do?) - the word is a verb;
- the initial form is to violate;
- permanent morphological features: imperfect species, irrevocable, transitive, 1st conjugation;
- non-permanent signs of the verb: infinitive (initial form);
- syntactic role in the context: part of the predicate.
Wait (what to do?) - part of speech verb;
- initial form - wait;
- permanent morphological features: perfect form, irrevocable, transitional, 1st conjugation;
- inconstant morphological characteristic of the verb: imperative mood, plural, 2nd person;
- syntactic role in the sentence: predicate.
Entered (what did?) - verb;
- initial form - enter;
- permanent morphological features: perfective, irrevocable, intransitive, 1st conjugation;
- inconstant morphological characteristic of the verb: past tense, indicative mood, singular, masculine;
- syntactic role in the sentence: predicate.
