Daži lasītāji droši vien atceras vienu no maniem nesenajiem rakstiem par interesantiem novērojumiem Latvijā. Kad biju to uzrakstījis, sapratu, ka neesmu pieskāries vienai no savdabīgākajām lietām – kā latvieši ar valodas palīdzību izpauž dusmas. Krievu vārdu lietošana latviešu valodā, iespējams, ir viena no nozīmīgākajām padomju laika paliekām.
Kad latvieši ir nikni, viņi nemeklē vārdus savā valodā, bet lieto labi zināmas frāzes krieviski. Tādas, kuras es diemžēl šeit nedrīkstu atkārtot. Kad prasu, vai runā latviski, daudzi jauni cilvēki atbild: «Ja ņe poņimaju», bet, kad ilgāku brīdi ieklausos viņu sarunās, atklājas visai labas valodas zināšanas. Fakts ir tāds, ka latviešu valoda ir izteikti pasīva, mierīgi runājama valoda, kurā nav draudu. Vēsturiski par tādiem tiek uzskatīti arī paši latvieši. Par to vislabāk liecina kāds piemērs. Kad dažiem latviešiem jautāju, kuras latviski ir uzbrūkošākās frāzes, dzirdēju arī atbildi – bitīt matos. Iztulkoju to angliski, man bija jāsmejas. Taču man tas patīk. Pievilcīga šķiet doma, ka valodā var nebūt lamuvārdu un agresijas un ka vārdi, kas to raksturo, piemēram, agresija, ir aizgūti no angļu valodas. Krievu valoda ir pavisam citāda. Grūti iedomāties valodu, kurā būtu vairāk lamuvārdu. Mani pārsteidza, ka manas universitātes bibliotēkā bija krievu lamuvārdu vārdnīca – vairāk nekā 60 lappušu bieza! Krievu valodas raksturs vēsturiski atspoguļojas arī pašas Krievijas agresīvajā dabā. Domāju, lamuvārdu trūkums Latvijā vairākās paaudzēs palīdzēs izskaidrot, kāpēc citas valstis to tik regulāri iekarojušas. Valoda nesatur uzbrukumu, līdz ar to arī cilvēkiem grūti radīt agresiju. – – -Some of my more regular followers may recall a column I wrote last month, describing what I can consider some of the more curious traits that I have noticed living here in Latvia. After writing the piece, I came to realise that I had perhaps overlooked the biggest one of all: how a Latvian expresses their anger through use of language. Long before I could speak Latvian I could easily identify an angry Latvian without necessarily being able to see them. I simply learnt to listen for one of the biggest, but often least discussed mainstays of communism in Latvia: the infiltration of Russian words into everyday Latvian language. For when a Latvian is angry, they do not call upon their own language to express their anger, but instead use well worn phrases from Russian; phrases which sadly I do not think I am allowed to repeat in this column. Now many young people will reply ‘Ja ni ponimaju’ when I inquire as to whether or not they can speak Russian, but if I stay to listen to them talking long enough…their knowledge of Russian will soon enough slip through in their dialogue. The simple fact is: Latvian is an extremely passive, unthreatening, softly spoken language.Historically, Latvian people are considered to be peaceful, non-threatening people. This is best exemplified with a simple study of the Latvian language. When I ask what the most offensive phrase in Latvian is, most Latvians will reply bitit matos. I could not help but have a laugh when I translated this. But I like this. I like the thought, that a language can be so free of aggression or offensive language, that in fact the words just to describe aggression; agresivs and ofensiva have themselves been adopted from English. In contrast, Russian could not be more different. I struggle to think of a language with more expletive phrases than Russian. The aggressive nature of the language is reflected in the aggressive nature of the Russian state, over the course of history. I was amused that my University library even carried a dictionary of Russian swearwords. I was not so much amused by the presence of the book, but rather the size of it (over 60 pages!). I think that the absence of such words in the Latvian language for so many generations can go a long way to helping understand, why Latvia was so regularly invaded from abroad. If the language itself that the people speak lacks aggression, then it is difficult for the people themselves to promote aggression, as the language tells us it is not in their nature.
