The Politics of “Ukraine” versus “The Ukraine” | Hacker News Reader

The Politics of “Ukraine” versus “The Ukraine”

sapiens.org

The article glosses over the "exceptions" bit and makes it seem like dropped the definitive article is the rule for the names of nations. But how can that be the rule when it isn't the case for the names of the predominant English speaking nations? Its The United States of America not United States of America. And its The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You can argue if The is technically part of the name or not but its always used. The author seems to forget that definitive articles are often used to denote proper nouns in English.

English is inconsistent on this, proper nouns don't have to include a definitive article. We rarely use them for names, probably because names are common. But if we do its to emphasize we are usually talking about the most prominent individual with that name. Ex: I'm not just talking about John Smith but The John Smith."

Because of this, and that fact that many other languages do have stricter rules regarding inclusion of the definitive article like German, I think this is more about virtue signally than anything else. It reminds me of the whole "Latinx" thing, another term invented and pushed by English speaking Americans who are trying to push a specific agenda of inclusiveness while displaying their ignorance of the culture and language they wish to include. It's all very silly.

Having said that, I've always called it just Ukraine. But that's because that's what I heard it called first.

> Its The United States of America not United States of America

Not the same situation at all! With the US, "the" is officially part of the name of the country, used in the very first sentence of the US Constitution.

And even before that, in the Articles of Confederation, stated explicitly in its article 1: The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."

Agreed, The Netherlands would be a better example

It would illustrate both a similarity and a difference: "The nether lands" of what? Well, they speak D(e)ut(s)ch... That's the similarity. The difference is, they've been an independent nation for so long they don't fear that this particular wording will be used to imply they aren't. For Ukraine, it is being used for that.

> "Because of this, and that fact that many other languages do have stricter rules regarding inclusion of the definitive article like German, [..]"

In German most states are neuter and go without article. If the state name is a plural (the United States), female or male it requires the article. Ukraine is female, so it is "die Ukraine" in German.

Regions require an article (der Kaukasus = the Caucasus) like in English and similar to Russian.

As always with languages, there are exceptions.

> Regions require an article (der Kaukasus = the Caucasus) like in English and similar to Russian.

This seems to be the crux of the matter: The Z brigades are employing it so as to demote Ukraine from a nation to a region. (The purpose of that, in turn, being to answer the question "But if it's not a nation of its own, then what nation is it a region of?" with "Of Russia, of course".)

> I think this is more about virtue signally than anything else

I don't really agree with you here, I think it's more about being respectful to the wishes of a country's people. Politics aside, Ukrainians do not want their country to be called "the Ukraine" in English, and respecting that isn't virtue signaling, it's just being respectful to that desire.

But see that's the thing. Every actual verified Ukrainian I've seen weigh in has said they don't really care. That's not to say that a sample size of several people can represent an entire nation. But I think its telling that everyone I've seen make a big deal out of it has been an American and I have yet to see a Ukrainian national do so. I think they all have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

> I have yet to see a Ukrainian national [care whether it's "Ukraine" or "the Ukraine"]. I think they all have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Which seems to imply that if they hadn't, perhaps they would.

> Its The United States of America not United States of America. And its The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You can argue if The is technically part of the name or not but its always used. The author seems to forget that definitive articles are often used to denote proper nouns in English.

But those two are an exception, and AFAICS that's probably because they're not actually ordinary proper nouns -- they're noun phrases, where the main word is a common noun: The United Kingdom and The United States.

There are no other nations with the same constituent words so you can't talk about a United Kingdom. And if there were it wouldn't make sense to talk of any United States; there's only one of each, so it's "the" one.

> Having said that, I've always called it just Ukraine. But that's because that's what I heard it called first.

The other way around for me (in English, that is), and I can still see that as defensible on grounds of linguistic conservatism: This constant changing of names of stuff, usually for reasons of "political correctness", is often damn silly and gets exceedingly tiresome after a while.

But in this case, I'm working on dropping the "the". It's not really all that hard, when one limits it to actually deserving cases.

In my perception, "the Ukraine" feels like a geographical entity (a region, perhaps a part of something larger), whereas "Ukraine" would be a nation (an independent state). So yeah, it has been "Ukraine" since the country's own Independence Day.

I appreciate this article, but this strikes me as the latest wave of Western style virtue signaling (for people who aren't actually fighting), and an attempt to create a new offensive reference out of nothing.

I'm married to a Ukrainian (half of whose family has fled to Poland, the other half who is stuck in Kyiv due to the conscription laws), so the war has impacted us quite a bit and I wish it to be over soon.

With that said, I've been informed that before this conflict started, there was nothing offensive about this linguistic difference (between saying "Ukraine" vs. "the Ukraine" in Russian). Similar to how British and U.S. English has subtle differences (in spelling or idioms), but one nationality hearing the other isn't offended by one practice or the other.

Am I wrong? I'm curious what actual Ukrainians think about this. Was saying "the Ukraine" actually offensive to you, before this whole conflict started? (If so, I'll shut right the hell up.)

Anecdotal, but I have been told this long before this war: "There's no 'The' before Ukraine, and also there's no 't' at the end of 'borsch'"

Why assume this is Western virtue signaling? The article explains the implications pretty well.

Interesting, and duly noted.

> Why assume this is Western virtue signaling?

In my case: because my wife (who is Ukrainian) told me so. I also have other Russian speaking friends (who live in the West though) who have expressed similar opinions. With that said: I'm open to changing my mind. And I get that words/phrases change in meaning over time, and gain new significance.

Still curious what Ukrainians think: was this is a thing for you all, before this awful war?

I'm not Ukrainian, but I have Ukrainian friends that have told me both that I shouldn't say/spell "the Ukraine" and should spell their capital city "Kyiv" years ago, well before this current war (although after Crimea was taken), so I think that, at least for some Ukrainians, it was a thing before the current war.

> this strikes me as the latest wave of Western style virtue signaling

> I'm married to a Ukrainian (half of whose family has fled to Poland, the other half who is stuck in Kyiv due to the conscription laws)

Another comment claims using Kyiv is itself Western virtue signaling - go figure

> I've been informed that before this conflict started, there was nothing offensive about this linguistic difference (between saying "Ukraine" vs. "the Ukraine" in Russian)

The Russian and Ukrainian languages don't have the definite article, so there is literally no way of saying "the Ukraine" in either.

There is a very direct analog: the way you say "in Ukraine". In Russian/Ukrainian, both «на Україні» and «в Україні» аre grammatically correct, but the first one has the same connotation as 'the Ukraine', Ukraine being an open territory without borders, which is often the intentional undertone in modern Russian.

Curiously, "na Ukrainie" in Polish usually does not bother us much, this usage does not feel directly linked to possible aggressive contempt, but more to archaic Polish perception of Ukraine from Middle Ages.

(a Ukrainian here)

It's not about Western virtue signaling. I don't feel that this is directly offensive (others might disagree), but it's often intentionally used in this way.

It's more in line with inclusive language: it's about removing small jarring bits that hark back to gruesome history we'd like to leave in the past. Hearing "the Ukraine" is a bit jarring, because it makes me wary of other historical stereotypes that the speaker might have.

Interesting article, but it should be noted that there is no "official name in English" in any meaningful sense of the word. Yes, you can cite what a particular government entity uses, but unlike French, English is not an officially regulated language, and as such, we are all free to call things and places what we please.

Every language has names for foreign places that are not the same as the name that is in local use in that place. It is Munich and Rome, not München and Roma. That is because place names, like all words, are chosen organically by speakers of the language for convenience, ease, and clarity. To an English speaker, "München" or "Kyiv" are hard to pronounce in their native forms, and so we have alternatives. No disrespect is intended, and none should be taken. Foreigners do the same thing for American place names, as well they should.

There is also value in continuity. Changing place names in a language due to external pressure of non-resident non-speakers of the language, places an undue burden on the speakers, for little or no benefit to the speakers of the language. The language is for its speakers, not for non-speakers.

I grew up with "Kiev" and "the Ukraine" (as well as Peking, Bombay, Canton, and many others). It is relatively harmless to change these, which is why most people just go with the flow. But it is not a moral issue, and people who wish to stick with older forms should not be ostracized. No one can stop a scold from being a scold, but most people don't like scolds, even if they sometime acquiesce to their demands out of politeness or a sense of conflict-avoidance.

There might not be a regulatory body that dictates English usage, but there are multiple occupational authorities who publish guidelines for English usage. The AP guide is pretty contextually relevant here, and the basis for which they changed their style guide to "Ukraine" from "the Ukraine" was their departure from the USSR, so there's a definite political context to the usage in English reporting.

> but unlike French, English is not an officially regulated language

This isn't actually how french works either, or any of those languages that have official academies. Those should probably be viewed mostly as vestigial tools of state formation left over from the bootstrapping-nationstates era of european history. Or cultural relics from before linguistics had its current understanding of how languages form and change. They are many things but ultimately they're not the ones that decide what words should be used or what they mean.

> But it is not a moral issue

It's not a dire one by any means, I wouldn't argue for consequences for failing to meet it. But I do think we have a light moral responsibility to refer to people and groups of people by the names they ask us to use when referring to them. A lot of "new" names for cities and countries are because the "old" name was chosen without consideration or consultation with the people who live there. We're now much more easily able to have those consultations, so we should, and they should inform the names we use.

You are right about French. The language academy has no legal authority (they don’t “officially regulate” anything), and very little influence on common speech. It is a state-funded cultural institution, nothing more.

The Wikipedia page states: "The Académie is France's official authority on the usages, vocabulary, and grammar of the French language". And "The body has the duty of acting as an official authority on the language."

So while they may lack the power to enforce their official positions, the mere existence of an official state-sanctioned authority for a language is a notable difference from English.

If you meet a new person, and they identify themselves as "The Tootie" you don't instantly start calling them Tom, that's just stupid. So what do they refer to themselves as?

The constitution and declaration of independence say "Ukraine", no The. Seems like they have decided what name(s) they prefer, so use their preferred names[0].

I couldn't find an English source on an official .gov.ua website, though the presidents page[1] in English always says "president of Ukraine" and not president of The Ukraine. Easily enough, they seem to prefer no the, so Ukraine it is.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of... 1: http://www.president.gov.ua/

This must be an American thing; in Europe I've have never seen anyone use "the Ukraine".

Probably depends on how old you are. I heard it called 'the' when the Soviet Union was still a thing (mostly when the Chernobyl stuff was happening)

It's almost always "die Ukraine" in German at least.

FWIW, there's a handful countries with definite article in German including Switzerland, Turkey and the US:

https://deutschtraining.org/deutsche-grammatik/artikel/laend...

Is there any (political?) pattern there? It's "Wir fahren nach Russland", but "Wir fahren in die Sowjetunion", Wir fahren in den Kongo" but "Wir fahren nach Kamerun".

I don't think there's a reason, tbh. See the list I added to my earlier post. It's all kinds of countries with relatively little in common.

Interesting list. It really doesn't seem to have any agenda, I think it would be hard to argue that Switzerland or the Netherlands are somehow regarded less than Austria or Belgium.

Not as far as I can tell. Maybe you can squint at some of them and come up with a story, but in practice it's just another set of essentially arbitrary things, like the grammatical gender of the names of rivers, to memorize when you learn German.

The US requires an article in German because it is a plural (United States). Switzerland and Turkey require it because they are female.

Ukraine is female too and therefore "die Ukraine" is correct.

Most state names in German are neuter and go without article.

Some state names can be used as male with article (der Kongo) or neuter without (Kongo). Iran is the most common example of this category, in the news "in Iran" and "im Iran" are both used frequently

On behalf of English readers I plead that this German article be replaced with something else.

The article mentions that it's a Russian language thing. "na Ukraine” or “v Ukraine"

Yes, but how many native English speakers understand at least basic Russian grammar and know the history between USSR and Ukraine? I'd wager not even half a percent.

Russian is ambivalent in this way. For example, they say "on the plain" but "in the field." It's just generally accepted usage, not a rule. Sometimes the choice depends on a local or family's tradition, even: some say "in the hallway" but "on the kitchen" while others would say it the other way around (either way they would never use the same preposition, strangely enough).

So it's a "woke" thing after all?

If you put it this way, yes.

The plain is unbounded, the field is bounded. Seems perfectly consistent with TFA.

I think it might be more of an age/time thing. I grew up in Europe and was taught that it was called "The Ukraine" in English. It's only in the past few years I've seen people switching over to using "Ukraine"

I was referring to political commentary rather than the general population as that was the perspective of the article. In political contexts people choose their language carefully; if they are using an anachronism that is probably intentional.

I don't think I've ever heard someone say "Ukraine" in Australia. It sounds a bit unnatural to say with an Aussie accent.

Just going to throw out some totally uneducated linguistics BS here that's just based on my own Aussie accent, but I think there's a tendency with Australian English to not emphasize long vowel affixes like 'yoo' as much (it's more like a sharper 'yu-'), and to blend them with the previous word if it's related. "the Ukraine" sounds very natural because it comes out like "thyu-crayne", whereas "in Ukraine" rolls off the tongue like 'inyu-crayne' which parses more like you're saying Emu Crane or something. Whereas if I put on an American accent (which might be totally inaccurate) it very clearly sounds like three syllables (in-you-creane)

I feel like I have to make a very conscious effort to say 'Ukraine', which probably explains why it hasn't caught on here even though it's more standard everywhere else.

This is one of the problems with trying to make language political btw. I very seriously doubt that any native Australian is saying 'the Ukraine' as some sort of pro-Russian sentiment.

Maybe you're just too young to have seen it? The version without the "the" has only been in use for thirty years, and widespread use for less than that. I'd only ever seen "the Ukraine" until about a decade ago, and being linguistically conservative I used it myself until recently. (Very recently.)

I hadn't heard "The Ukraine" until American media started using that variant in 2014. I can't recall ever hearing it in British news. Realistically not many people know the history of the country; within the current generation of Americans few even knew it existed before the war, so I honestly figured it was just a completely reflexive uttering caused by the three other prevalent "U" nation states in US media - The USA, The United Kingdom, The UAE.

you can be forgiven, as the present inception of the country has only had a constitution for 26 patriotic years (the Simpsons have been around longer.)

Much like the media pivot to "Kyiv" it all smacks of hastily constructed, ham-fisted virtue signaling by a west that is sadly not in a position to provide much direct assistance.

It's simply switching to the preferred local transcription to not offend by using the oppressor's ways. Sensible, IMHO. I'd not want to call it the Russian way if I was a content producer too, especially a place like the capital city.

In case anybody is interested, there's a very good explanation of some language-related political subtleties in https://blog.duolingo.com/ukraine-language/

Apparently indefinite/definite articles can be as politically charged as pronouns.

And really, neither should be political, if someone requests you refer to them in a specific way, why not? That's just being nice. It take no effort on our part to just use the term they want.

Words mean things. It's when they're applied to contentious topic that they become political.

A pretty interesting explanation. I had never thought of the distinction - Danish seems to have roughly the same principle as English.

In Danish there is no distinction. "I Ukraine" is the only option available in Danish. Danish only has a distinction for distinct territory, such as a hill or an island. One is "i Odsherred", but "på Sjælland". But it's overruled by countries, e.g. "i Grønland", not "på Grønland".

Since Ukraine is not an island, the potential distinction does not exist in this case. It's awkward in Danish to make proper nouns definitive.

I don’t speak any Danish, so correct me if I’m wrong, but maybe the situation with islands is parallel to English.

“I’m on Manhattan” and “I’m in Manhattan” both sound like fine English to me, the former having the connotation that you are specifically referring to the physical island rather than the political subdivision (borough of NYC) that roughly corresponds to it. But nobody would ever say “I’m on Jamaica” unless they were trying to advocate for some extremist political view that it’s not actually an independent country.

In French it's "le Danemark", not just "Danemark". Dunno for sure why, but I think it has to do with "mark" meaning non-specific "borderlands" or something.

The same logic should apply to The Gambia, but for that country the definitive article seems to be official and preferred.

see: 'palestine' vs 'palestinian territories'

It's a way to appear like "you're helping" without actually lifting a finger to do anything useful. Lecturing others gives you some temporary relief from your conscience with a superiority complex.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com