Thematic table of contents (Reviews and criticism: literature)
previous related………………………………… next related
previous on other topics…………… next on other topics

In yesterday's "intellectually provocative" program of Gordon there were three characters - Zadornov with a new word about the origin of people in general and the Slavs in particular, Dragunkin with ideas about the origin of the Russian language and some completely wild type who claimed that the ancient Slavs wrote in modern literary Russian, but in runes.

In this trinity, Dragunkin stands somewhat apart, who, out of cunning, did not particularly speak out and tell his theories. Since I got acquainted with his work at a book exhibition last year and even bought one of the books, I’ll tell you a little about it.

Dragunkin positions himself as a leading innovator in teaching Russians foreign languages. To do this, in his books, in addition to training courses, he talks about his theory: that not most of the modern Indo-European languages ​​\u200b\u200bcame from some parent language close to Sanskrit, but, on the contrary, that all these languages, including Sanskrit, originated from Russian. He explains the difference in pronunciation by fixed distortions. For example, strongly lisping people moved somewhere, so they got a wild lisping or gundos Russian, from which Estonian originated. Now, if you speak Russian in a state of permanent sinusitis and a runny nose, you get ordinary English. We all know how damp the climate is in England.

To confirm his theory, he shows how similar words of another language are obtained from Russian words by a series of substitutions of some letters for others. Type "black", that is, black - this is from dark - dim, that is, faded. In this case, you can arrange not one, but several replacements in a row.

At the time it was such an intellectual fun: to make an elephant out of a fly, that is, to pick up a sequence of four-letter Russian words that differ by one letter, starting with the word “fly” and ending with the word “elephant”. However, this is very non-trivial, so Dragunkin, in order not to strain himself, makes a number of simplifications. So, endings can be discarded from words or, conversely, they can be added, all vowels can be added, discarded and changed, since everyone knows how unstable these vowels are in phonetics. You can also change one consonant for another similar. I dug a little into the schemes of possible substitutions given by him and as a result I realized that in fact all consonants are divided into two groups and within this group any sound can be changed to any.

As a result, at once you can make any other word out of any word.

How to treat it? Seriously, of course, it's impossible. Even if you do not know anything about the origin of foreign languages, even a superficial knowledge of the history of the Russian language does not allow you to take these reconstructions seriously. For example, since the 12th century, the ancestors of modern European languages ​​are fairly well fixed in written sources. Therefore, they should come from Russian earlier, but Russian of the 12th century is not at all the language that we speak now. And the set of letters was different, and the roots were often used by others, and it was seriously transformed - only two vowel falls are worth something. So if we are to build reconstructions, then we need to look for analogues not in modern Russian, but in ancient, which neither Dragunkin nor his associates know.

Yes, what am I - neither common sense nor a sense of humor allows you to take Dragunkin's research seriously.

And at the same time, I have an extremely positive attitude towards Dragunkin as an innovator in the field of teaching Russians foreign languages. It is one thing to suffer with the development of other people's words and their wild pronunciation and consider yourself stupid and mediocre because it is badly given. And it’s quite another thing to know that it’s you who speaks the correct language, and if you can’t pronounce something correctly, then not because of your small ability, but because these wild, snotty natives have our correct Russian words wildly twisted.

VL / Articles / Interesting

17-08-2015, 03:00

But far from those that are attributed to him by opponents of everything Soviet

Many liberal researchers poured so many buckets of dirt on Stalin that it is already difficult to figure out where is the truth and where is fiction? Look through the yellowed filings of the "perestroika" Soviet newspapers and magazines, such as Ogonyok and Moskovskie Novosti. Almost every issue contains at least one material, but always with spitting on the Soviet Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

At first they talked about his departure from the "Leninist norms." Then - about the tragic miscalculations. And finally, they came to accusations of crimes. As a result of this hysterical campaign, those who strive for an objective and adequate assessment of Stalin's role in history have become somehow uncomfortable talking about his real miscalculations - they did not even want to indirectly stand on a par with the de-Stalinizers of our Fatherland.

But times are changing. We can now talk about the successful and not very successful decisions of the chief architect of the victory over fascism, without looking back at the hysteria of those who hate not so much Stalin himself as the USSR he constructed.

Let's try to make out the real, not imaginary miscalculations of Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili as the head of our state. Mistakes did take place, he himself admitted them. In particular, in the famous toast to the health of the Russian people on May 24, 1945.

The first mistake is the expulsion of Leon Trotsky abroad.

It was indeed a gross miscalculation, but paradoxically, in many respects rehabilitating Stalin. If he was such a ruthless, bloodthirsty monster as liberal anti-Soviet historiography portrayed him, then why didn't he send his key enemy and main rival in the internal party struggle to the Gulag? And calmly and even coolly allowed Trotsky to go to Istanbul?

As a result, I made a mistake - neither Trotskyism could be made the property of the past, nor Trotsky himself could be consigned to oblivion. Everything turned out exactly the opposite. The Trotskyists hid inside the USSR, but were ready, together with other oppositionists, to try to take revenge. Well, on the world stage, Trotskyist groups actually split the communists into two irreconcilable camps that exist, in a certain sense, to this day - into adherents of a pseudo-revolutionary phrase in everything and supporters of traditional spiritual values. This split had especially severe consequences in Spain, in many ways allowing Franco's fascists to win the civil war.

It is possible that this was the last straw that overflowed the patience of the Soviet leadership. One way or another, in 1940, shortly after the Francoists took over, in distant Mexico, the ice ax of Ramon Mercader fell on Trotsky's head.

This happened 11 years after the expulsion. All this time, Lev Davydovich fought not so much with Stalin, but with the state led by him, which he considered the product of the Thermidorian degeneration. He published the subversive Bulletin of the Opposition, where in one of the issues, in the midst of trials against his supporters in the USSR, he placed a huge photograph of Vladimir Lenin with something like this caption: "This is the main accused."

Mistake two - after suppressing an attempt at a very likely military coup, Stalin allowed the head of the NKVD, Nikolai Yezhov, to spin the flywheel of repression.

It is not completely clear whether there was still a “conspiracy of marshals” against the Soviet leadership in 1937? It is only known that the military elite was sharply opposed to the People's Commissar of Defense Klim Voroshilov and would like to achieve his resignation. Only indirect data can suggest that the appetites of Mikhail Tukhachevsky and his supporters were not limited to this.

The scenario of the coup, which Stalin outlined on June 2, 1937 at the expanded board of the People's Commissariat of Defense, surprisingly coincides with what Nikita Khrushchev later used to arrest the omnipotent Lavrenty Beria: “If you had read the plan, how they wanted to capture the Kremlin, how they wanted to deceive the school VTsIK. They wanted to deceive some, put some in one place, others in another, and still others in a third, and tell them to guard the Kremlin, that the Kremlin must be protected, and inside they must arrest the government.”

The very likely conspirators did not take into account one thing, that their plans would become known to the Soviet leadership, and therefore they would not be realized. Unlike the arrest of Beria in 1953. Beria did not suspect anything until the very end. The fact that the coup scenario was known to Stalin's supporters was later reported to the writer Felix Chuev by Vyacheslav Molotov.

One way or another, a highly probable military conspiracy was crushed. And here it was necessary to put an end to it, but, apparently, emotions overwhelmed Stalin. He gave free rein to the head of the NKVD Yezhov. A man, of course, devoted to him, but not ready to comply with socialist legality. Which led to truly tragic consequences.

Only in 1939, after the removal of the head of the NKVD Yezhov, did the repressions subside. Moreover, under the "bloody" Lavrenty Beria, many thousands of honest Soviet workers were able to return from their places of detention. It is this, in fact, the broadest amnesty that our country owes the salvation of two outstanding commanders of the Great Patriotic War - Konstantin Rokossovsky and Kirill Meretskov.

Mistake three - Stalin did not believe in the possibility of an attack by the Nazis on the USSR in 1941.

Even when the Nazi attack became a fact, when the bombs of the Nazi vultures were already raining down on Soviet soil, and the Wehrmacht boats were already sailing through the Western Bug, the leader of the Soviet state hoped to settle the matter amicably. On the night of June 22, 1941, he sent Foreign Minister Molotov to the German ambassador to clarify his country's claims to the USSR. Count Schulenburg, in response, read out a memorandum in which war was declared ex post facto.

For his part, Stalin did everything to prevent it from happening. He was able to successively sign non-aggression acts with Germany and Japan. For a moment - the key members of the Anti-Commintern (i.e., anti-Soviet) bloc. It was possible to achieve a delay and push the border far to the west.

Now, when American tanks, like the German ones once, are advancing to the borders of our country, the situation is much worse. In 1940, the Baltic republics became part of the USSR. So 75 years ago our country had a much more powerful "airbag".

Stalin also did a lot to create a huge military machine, which, by its sheer numbers, was supposed to scare away any aggressor. Again, it was not his fault that this role was completely obsessed with Hitler, who risked plunging his country into a deliberately losing war on two fronts.

So here we can talk not about a mistake, but simply about the fatal failure of the head of the USSR. Even the belated directive to put the army and navy on alert cannot be blamed on him either. If the Soviet command had issued this document earlier, the Nazis would have used this decision as a pretext for an attack. And so aggression turned out to be absolutely unmotivated in the eyes of world public opinion. And accordingly - losing for Hitler in moral and political terms.

The fourth mistake - the fight against the Nazi collaborators in the Baltic States and Western Ukraine was clearly insufficient.

In liberal historiography, it is customary to talk, on the contrary, about the cruelty of the Soviet regime. Even - about the "occupation" of the Baltic republics and Galicia. In fact, of course, the Soviet authorities did not show any particular severity in relation to the accomplices of the Nazis from among national minorities.

The result of softness was not slow to show itself in the form of banditry of Hitler's minions who had gone into the forests. Bandera was especially atrocious in Galicia, whose annexation to the Soviet Union, many also reasonably consider I.V.'s mistake. Stalin.

The fight against the anti-Soviet underground in the Baltics and Western Ukraine continued until the 1950s and, as we now understand, ended for the Soviet government with only a temporary victory. In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union, weakened by Gorbachevism, no longer had the strength to fight the pro-fascist nationalists who crawled out of the rat holes in these parts.

Well, after the collapse of the Union in the Baltic States and in Western Ukraine (and after the bloody "Maidan" and not only in Western Ukraine), the process of rehabilitation and even glorification of Nazi puppets began. Pass the marches of the former SS and Bandera decades after their defeat.

Where would the participants in such shameful events with a “brown” tint come from if the Stalinist leadership were in fact as harsh and totalitarian as they are portrayed in Western and liberal propaganda? Just the severity was not enough after the end of the most terrible war in history. It even went so far as to abolish the death penalty in 1947. True, here the Soviet authorities, unlike the post-Soviet ones, quickly caught on when they saw an increase in serious crimes. And the highest measure was immediately returned.

Fifth mistake - Stalin did not remove Khrushchev, who secretly hated him, from public affairs.

This was far from the first and not the last case in the history of mankind, when the successor in the management of this or that state hung all the dogs on the predecessor. But definitely one of the most egregious. Actually, Khrushchev can rightfully be considered the founder of the de-Stalinization movement in our country. In his speeches at the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU, he only portrayed the one before whom he had kowtowed for twenty years, the devil with horns. From his reasoning, it turned out that the country was led by a mediocre, cruel and treacherous person, all of whose thoughts were occupied only with those who else would be sent to places not so remote or even shot.

But there is in this whole story the fault of Stalin himself, who managed to forgive the simple-minded, executive and helpful Nikita Sergeevich a lot of sins. First of all, a series of miscalculations in the role of a member of the Military Council of the Southwestern Front. Khrushchev's fault that Kharkov more than once during the war our troops had to surrender to the enemy is beyond doubt.

Stalin also forgave the intercession of Nikita Sergeevich for his son-pilot Leonid, who killed a colleague on a drunken shop. As a result, he was convicted, sent to the front, where he soon disappeared without a trace.

It is very likely that Khrushchev laid the blame for the loss of Leonid on Stalin, who himself had both sons at the front. And one, being captured, died.

One way or another, it was the defeat of the Stalinist leadership carried out by Khrushchev under the banner of debunking the “cult of personality” that led to the weakening of socialism in our country, the formation of the environment of the “sixties”, from which the Gorbachevism that ruined the country arose.

So it was not by chance that in those days the people in a ditty asked: “Dear Comrade Stalin, to whom did you leave us?”

In general, Stalin had a lot of real miscalculations, but this does not prevent the apologists of liberalism from attributing imaginary mistakes and even crimes to him.

Well, for example, about the supposedly equal responsibility of the USSR and Nazi Germany for the outbreak of World War II. Like, if our country had not concluded a non-aggression pact with the Third Reich, the Nazis would not have attacked Poland. But Helmut Greiner, officer of the OKW (High Command of the Nazis), would categorically disagree with this. In his book “Military Campaigns of the Wehrmacht”, published by “Tsentrpoligraf” in 2011, on page 26, a de facto refutation of these insinuations is given: branches of the armed forces of the Wehrmacht before the end of August to prepare for military clashes with Poland, which seemed inevitable.

At the end of March (meaning 1939), that is, six months before the conclusion of the treaty signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop, the Nazis began to prepare for the invasion of Poland. There were no hints yet that Moscow might become disillusioned with the sabotage by Great Britain and France of an agreement on joint actions in the event of Hitlerite aggression and decide to conclude a pact with Nazi Germany. In other words, there is no connection between these events. Just as there is no Stalin's fault here.

A person runs through life, sparing no legs. Home - work, home - work, serving time. Weekends - a respite, vacation, like a halt. Old age, retirement, shortness of breath, did you run here? … You were born for this? And lived for it? Happiness waited, dreamed, studied, trusted and loved? If not, then perhaps slow down your run. And start your journey from the beginning - a new person.

Oksana Belkina

In the stream of fuss of everyday affairs and worries, we somehow forget that our world keeps a lot of secrets and mysteries. It sometimes seems to us that everything is already more or less clear in this world and it is known that there is nothing new to discover. But this is far from true. We humans do not yet know the answers to many fundamental questions of our being: Where did everything come from? Where does a person come from? What is a person? What is its role in the universe? Did he show up? Was it created? Has it existed forever? How did the language come about? What was the parent language? .

And many people are looking for answers to these questions, solve the mysteries of this world, and sometimes what they find completely overturns the usual established view of the surrounding reality. One of these people is our guest philologist Alexander Dragunkin. He is a researcher in the field of linguistics. As a result of linguistic research, he came to a rather interesting conclusion thatthe world parent language is - Russian!

On this occasion, he developed his theory. It is set forth in Alexander Dragunkin's books "Five Sensations", "The Origin of Words, Numbers and Letters". And this is not some kind of neo-pagan fantasy that cannot be verified, but a slender, one might say, scientific theory that can be felt and touched.

And even if some conclusions and generalizations of the author may seem too unusual and bold, but as Syumbyul said in the TV series “The Magnificent Age”: “Every story wants to be told…”.

- Tell us about your research, please?

First, I do not deal with the various stages or periods of the development of the Russian language. Because not 99, but 100 percent of Russianists, if they are engaged in the history of the language, then they are engaged in the history of the language, i.e. its existence at a particular stage of development, in a particular time period. I'm the only one who encroached on the very beginning. The very beginning. That is, where does the Russian language come from, what is it like, what kind of phenomenon is it, and so on. And already from this information follows (the theory) that the Russian language is the parent language.

It was not my purpose to prove that it is a proto-language. I had a goal to see what in general where did it come from? And this already showed me that, after all, the Russian language is more primary than other languages. At least the Eurasian ones.

- Are all or not all languages ​​descended from the Russian language?

You know, it all depends on how you see the universe in general. Because if, suppose, we were created. Then: why couldn't we create several different models, several options. Well, since there are several options, why not give each subtype its own tool for transmitting and storing information, that is, language? This is one look.

But the fact is that there is one rather mysterious phenomenon. It lies in the fact that, anyway, all people are arranged according to the same principle. Their oral cavity is the same for everyone. She is exactly the same. In chimpanzees, for example, it may differ in other primates, too. Even the only person of all primates has the so-called hyoid bone. This is a tiny tiny bone that is located at the bottom of the mouth. In chimpanzees, this bone disappeared about 500 thousand years ago; in humans, it was the only one left.

And only thanks to this bone a person can pronounce (articulate) sounds. That is, clearly pronounce the desired sounds in any combination. In addition, the human oral cavity is designed in such a way that it can pronounce very specific sounds. These sounds are official, let's say, science says that they differ in the way they are pronounced. I was the first to say that they differ in the place of education. So a person has three places where these sounds are formed: the first is the lips and tongue (labial and dental sounds: they are even officially called that), the second is where the alveoli are (the alveoli are tubercles behind the teeth in the palate), and the third is the throat (k, g, x, and so on).

I'm talking about consonants because vowels are bullshit. Vowels are only needed to separate consonants (I have special thoughts on this topic, but this is not our topic now).

So, sounds formed in one place, they can be interchanged without loss of meaning (i.e. m b p they are absolutely calmly interchangeable in different languages, so they have one place of origin).

The most interesting thing is that the possible combination of all three places of education gives the so-called bases. Let's conditionally call the sponge-teeth - "base No. 1", the alveoli - "base No. 2", the neck - "base No. 3". Here are all the combinations (1+1, 1+2, 1+3, 2+2, 2+1, 2+3, 3+3, 3+2, 3+1) there are nine of them. And here the funniest thing begins, from which no one can disown. Even the most ardent academics.

The fact is that only in Russian all these possible combinations (1 + 1, 1 + 2, 1 + 3, 2 + 2.2 + 1, 2 + 3, 3 + 3, 3 + 2, 3 + 1 ) they give bases consisting of consonants, which, when vowels are inserted into them, give roots. nine roots. significant roots. But they are significant only in Russian. Here, whatever you want, then say.

The most interesting thing is that they are not only significant, but they also give categories. See, for example, the combination 1+2. Base No. 1 is “m”, “b”, “p”, “c”, Base No. 2 is “l”, “p”, “n”, “d”. So the combination 1 + 2 gives a category (watch out, this is not in any language in the world) m + l = small, but b + l = large, c + l = great, that is, the category of size. The combination 3+2 gives the quality x+p=good. All this is fully described in my books.

The funny thing is that only in Russian all these combinations or types of combinations of sounds give meaningful roots. Take for example the English word "small". "s" comes and goes. This is a normal prefix and is not required. For example, we say “spoil”, and in the villages grandmothers say “s-spoil”. That is, "with" does not affect the meaning of the word. So in the English word “small”, “s”, discard it, it will turn out “small”, small, but they do not have the root “m + l”. Base m+l. For them, the word "small" is just a word that has fallen from the sky. They don't know where it came from.

Moreover, take some etymological dictionary (dictionary about the origin of words), then a lot of things will be written there: High German, Old German, Old Islamic, and God knows what else is written. But where did it come from - they never write this, because they know very well that it came from the Russian language.

Or, for example, if we consider the combination b - g (1 + 3)b O Gaty - b replace with m =m O Gteaching (and the rich is the mighty), and so on and so forth. That is, all these possible combinations make sense. But this meaning is only in Russian. No matter how much we squeak.

And this, of course, official science cannot accept, because then all its postulates collapse, then the mention of the Slavs in the 6th century becomes ridiculous, and so on. All this becomes nonsense.

Then, for example, take Latin, 6th century BC, hoary antiquity. What is the Latin word for "thief"? "Thief" in Latin is "fur". And "v" and "f" are the same thing. We have: “vr = steal”, “br = take”, we have a root, we have a meaning, we have everything. And they don't have. Their “fur” is a torn word, it just fell from the sky, where it came from, none of them knows at all. And so on. In the book "5 sensations" and "The origin of words, numbers and letters" - this is all described in detail.

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, I don't give a damn: I'm not the first there. There are no such concepts in my worldview. There is reality, there is a given, there is a big plan, of which we are an element. And right is not right - it's all nonsense. But facts are facts. What I am demonstrating. I'm not proving, pay attention, I'm just demonstrating - this is either generally inexplicable from the point of view of traditional historiography, or it is understandable from the point of view on which I stand. Not because I'm great, huge and brilliant, but simply because I took this point of view and that's it.

- And how similar are that parent language and modern Russian? After all, if you look at old manuscripts, books, then the languages ​​are quite different.

First, you need to look where these books are written. Because most of our old books are still not purely Russian. Purely Russian books were destroyed. This is the first. Second - you need to look: who wrote? The thing is that at a certain time, instead of the normal Russian language, Church Slavonic was introduced into Russia, which was prestigious to speak. Church Slavonic is just really an Old Bulgarian language (it had its own historical reasons for it there).

The notorious Cyril and Methodius, who are sung about, are plagiarists. Although the church already clearly knows that they did not invent our Cyrillic alphabet. But simply there is already a “reality” that no one wants to overthrow. So Cyril and Methodius were entrusted with the translation of the Bible into Russian. Of course, these two lazy people didn’t know Russian, they didn’t go anywhere further than Thessaloniki, but what is next to Thessaloniki? Bulgaria. Slavic country. They thought they were the same. And instead of Russian, they translated the Bible into Old Bulgarian. And this old Bulgarian language was later recognized as the language of the Bible, Church Slavonic. And Old Russian and Church Slavonic are completely different things.

And you know, if you read (look somewhere on the Internet, of course everything is hidden, but look) birch bark letters of the 11th century Novgorod, then you will simply be stunned - they just write in modern Russian there. From my point of view, the Russian language is, in fact, the language of the universe, and from my point of view, if aliens fly to us, they will speak the language that we understand. Because the Creator, I believe, did not need to create many communication tools. He doesn't need events like the Tower of Babel. And if you want to remember the episode with the Tower of Babel, then the single language that split in those days was the language that we speak today.

Of course small changes, deviations could occur. Because of geography, peculiarities of national pronunciation. For example, we say “package”, while Azerbaijanis say “packet”. Or let's say someone went to the taiga with the whole family, a huge big family and took away the language, and the children of the person who left, they began to lisp, well, it just happened: maybe the wasp bit, maybe they broke their tooth - they began to lisp and instead of "s" they began to say “sh” (well, I say conditionally, you understand?), so their children will already perceive this as the norm. Do you understand the idea?

That is, of course, there can be a departure. But this departure is not so great that we do not understand it. And they could not single out this Old Russian language. Although I have no concept of Old Russian, there is a general Russian. The same elders who supposedly sleep in the caves of the Himalayas for thousands of years, I think that the biggest secret that they will discover if they wake up is that in the whole universe, in the whole universe, there is only one people and they speak the same language. This is a hundred times more important than any discoveries of physics. Any colahedron.

- Does anyone else in the world say that their language is the most ancient?

You know very well, many said, for example, that Sanskrit is older than Russian. There are many names, all of them must be respected because they want to get to the bottom of the truth, they try. The only thing, of course, is that you don’t need to do all this with pomp, shouting. You just need to show the origin. I showed it, you can see it when you read my books. It's not realistic to get angry. You can just send me three letters to turn around and leave, or say “yes cool!”. It's not realistic to get angry.

The same is true here, no matter who promotes any theories, but to refuse that only in Russian all 9 possible combinations of sounds give significant roots - you can’t refuse this, you can’t jump anywhere, neither to the left nor to the right. And in “5 Sensations” there is my etymological Sanskrit dictionary, where it is clearly seen that Russian words are older than Sanskrit ones. Therefore, everything is simple here.

- There are also ancient Ukrainians who also say that their language and culture are the most ancient.

And who dug up the Black Sea...

- Yes... You don't see any parallels here: your theory with Ukrainian nationalism? And in general, nationalism in general is bad in itself, isn't it?

Well, firstly, from my point of view, nationalism is not bad. Because, you know, there is a state-forming nation. I won't argue about it now, but nationalism is a good thing for me. But look, those ancient settlements that are found on the territory of Ukraine.

Pay attention, they are found exactly on the TERRITORYUkraine. This does not mean that these people were Ukrainians. This is the first. Second - what is Ukraine? Ukraine is a distorted word "outskirts". And everyone knows it. That's why we say "in Ukraine". All these idiotic "in Ukraine" is nonsense from the point of view of the correctness of the language. Not in terms of nationalism. No. And from the point of view of the correctness of the language: who says "in the outskirts"? Everyone says “on the outskirts”, “in Ukraine”. Everything is fine, no problem.

There was never Ukraine, there was a suburb. There was Kievan Rus. Still Rus'. Even Poroshenko wants to rename Ukraine to something related to Kievan Rus. Therefore ukry-good people. And the word is just idiotic.

And those settlements that were found there - yes, they are very ancient. They are much older than any European settlements there. Older than Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Middle Eastern settlements and civilizations. All this is true. But this does not mean at all that they were Ukrainians. It was a people, people are already higher in development than the Cro-Magnons. It was a modern man. And he wore trousers and he knew how to carve a bone, he made jewelry (which means that the concept of beauty already existed). What I said about the pants is very important, because it is believed that the pants were supposedly brought by the Turks. No pants were already on the territory of modern Ukraine. But we should not forget this and start arguing “and here you are”, “and here we are”.

Then remember Arkaim, which has nothing to do with Ukraine at all. It was a whole huge city in the Urals. Just a city! And not a pastoral or agricultural settlement. Therefore, you can spit on nationalism in the poor sense of the word. And you need to think realistically. The reality is quite different. Arkaim is a city, and Ukrainian settlements are settlements. These are different things. Moreover, they are not Ukrainian, but they are located on the territory of Ukraine. But in the same way they are on the territory of Romania, there are even more ancient ones. But culture is one. Do you understand me? And you can't outdo Arkaim.

Therefore, there is no need to argue “but we have”, “and you have”. Moreover, what we are talking about now is the different stages of development of an already existing person. And I try to go to the very beginning. Where did it all come from anyway? Where does a person come from? What is a person? His role in the universe? Did he show up? Was it created? Has it existed forever?

From my point of view, there was no beginning or end at all. From my point of view, the universe exists forever. It had no beginning, no end. From my point of view, man is simply an integral part of the universe.

- And why, from the point of view of psychology, if we are the keepers of the language from which everything started, then why are representatives of other civilizations so destructive to us. The West looks down on us from above and wants to destroy us, while the East also wants to civilize us in its own way, believing that we have weak spirituality (all sorts of Vedic teachings, for example). Why is it so?

Well, firstly, who will allow us to be recognized (namely, we, I'm not talking about everyone now) as higher beings or that we come directly from God? Or that everyone went from us? Nobody will allow this at all. This is the first. Second - you will forgive me, but the West does not look down on us, they are afraid of us. And they are afraid - it means they respect and respect on the gene plane. Wherever a Russian comes, there is always alertness to him. They don't even understand why. Who is wary of? To the one you're afraid of.

And the East is not a delicate matter at all. The East has only one joy - grub. They either meditate or eat. 99% of Chinese conversations with each other are about food. About money and food. That is, they do not smell of spirituality at all. They only have more sophisticated ways to survive. Even their meditations. Here is a man sitting meditating. What is he meditating about? After all, in fact, he does not even think, he leaves reality. A departure from reality, from my point of view, has never been something worthy.

And now the most disastrous: where does he go from reality? From reality, it’s still okay if you get drunk and get away from reality. But here they are consciously moving away from reality. Where? Unclear. And no one in the world can answer this question. It is unlikely that the Lord God created us in order for us to go away from reality. He created us so that we could do something, accomplish something, maybe even prove with our good deeds what we are.

So there is nothing wrong with that. You take the history of Russia. Throughout history, Russia has been beaten up. The whole story! From ancient times to the present day. And yet it's worth it. Isn't this the will of God? It would not exist long ago if it were not pleasing to God, the Creator. And every time she is reborn herself, not thanks to, but in spite of.

If the king had not been thrown off, what would we have? We would have been a colony of France, because French capital had already captured 90% of Russian industry (precisely French capital).

If the king had not been thrown out, 90% of the population would have been illiterate. And you read what happened after the revolution. Read the authors of the 30s, at least the same Valentin Kataev “Time Forward”, this is something! This is the transformation of the whole country. And we came out of such a cataclysm! Sami. Not because of someone, but in spite of. And 46-47 years? When in 1949 they wanted to drop 150 atomic bombs on us, on our cities? And we survived on our own. Who actually helped us then?

But in the Great Patriotic War, we did not fight with Germany, we fought with the whole of united Europe. From everything! Who distinguished himself at Stalingrad? French SS divisions. Belgian and so on. We fought with the potential of all of Europe. France gave 90% of Germany's steam locomotives. In the Czech Republic, the Skoda factories and other concerns until the very last moment (until the Soviet troops ran into the territory of the factories) produced weapons for the Germans. This is Prague. Our soldiers stopped production, and the Czechs stood at the machines and worked and produced tanks. We fought against all of Europe.

In fact, no one helped us. The Marshall Plan helped Europe, but not us. When the Americans gave us Lend-Lease, after all, they took everything that we didn’t eat, they took everything, even the broken jeeps they pressed on the pier and loaded into their ships. We ourselves came out of all this. I'm not talking about older times. In 1812, too, the whole of Europe came against us. All Europe. Nevertheless.

And now take it. All these sanctions are generally great, wonderful. The Russians stopped carrying tons of dollars abroad. For Russians, it turns out, there is also the Crimea, the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea, it turns out, there are wonderful resorts within the country. Billions of dollars spent on this stupid tourism. When the owner of three stalls immediately bought dollars (supporting the American economy) and went there, spending them there, and not spending them here. And now everyone is back again. Everything is fine.

The world is concrete. Zbigniew Brzezinski said everything correctly: the world is a chessboard. Right. But on the chessboard everything is very motivated, balanced. And here everything is balanced. If there were no Russia, what would be? Direct confrontation between Europe and Asia?

- As far as I understand now, they want to destroy our (Russian) civilization, including with the help of small-town nationalisms. Belarus, Ukraine. There is a pitting and opposition of local nationalisms to Russian culture, Russia. Is the separation of Belarusian, Ukrainian culture from Russian - a natural process or an artificial one?

Certainly artificial. The alienation, for example, of languages ​​is, of course, an artificial process. He is stimulated. Just like now, the Ukrainian language has simply changed due to the vocabulary - it has been greatly replenished: with Polish words, artificially created words, old, ancient words, and so on. That is, it is deliberate nationalization. Well, listen, understand these are not our games with you, these are the games of the elites. Of course, the Americans are in charge of everything. It's natural, but it's just the games of the elites. You understand, open the borders between Ukraine and Russia or Belarus and Russia - there will be natural assimilation.

- And the nationalists are against it, so that assimilation occurs. They are afraid that Russian culture will absorb our national Belarusian identity: language, sounds. This gives rise to aggression on the part of the nationalists.

I will give you an example with the Baltic States. Look, during Soviet rule, when the Baltics were Soviet, I don’t know how it was in Belarus, but in the entire European part of Russia it was wildly prestigious to go to the Baltics, that is, to go with a girl to Tallinn or Riga - it was like a space trip, right away declaration of love. Do you understand? Latvians, Estonians, they were generally quoted. Georgians were quoted in terms of money. From the point of view of intelligence, Leningraders were quoted. But from the point of view, let's say, the Balts were quoted as elite. Who needs these Balts now? Tell me honestly! Half of which will soon become blacks there.

First. Second. It's not just that. The fact is that under Soviet rule, both Estonian culture and Latvian culture flourished. Literature was artificially supported by subsidies, language was taught. The number (listen to my words) of Latvians and Estonians increased, grew naturally due to the birth rate. It does not matter that there were also Russians in the republics. I am talking now about Latvians and Estonians. A third have already left. If not already half. And their children will never be either Latvians or Estonians.

So what kind of oppression can we talk about? Bullshit! The Baltic republics were subsidized. Now they don't fish. In Estonia, under pressure from the Americans, it was allowed to grow GMOs. In Estonia, girls are told that it is better to have an abortion than to have a baby. Where will they go?

And what happened under Soviet rule? A child is the pinnacle of everything! Family is the pinnacle of everything! Do you understand? Latvian literature existed, Estonian literature existed. Books were published in Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian. Yes, Russian was also taught. So what? It was exactly the same language as all the others. And friendly people. Why not teach him? Just like today everyone is learning English.

And once again - why am I the only one talking about this? - the number of Estonians and Latvians has constantly increased! And no one oppressed them, no one sent them to Siberia, no one rebaptized them as Russians, and so on. What now! Everything is very easy! Let's see what will happen in 5 years with Estonia, Latvia. Let's see what happens in 10 years.

And don't think I'm not happy. But it's funny to listen to what they say. This simply did not happen in the Soviet Union. Yes, maybe Russification was going on. But I think she was natural. Because the ratio was 1 to 20. Maybe it was necessary at that time to really raise the issue of greater concern for the preservation of national identity, this may have been missed. This is mistake.

But this is not a malicious error. No one even thought of making the Latvians Russian. Yes, be a Latvian as much as you want: lead your round dances, weave wreaths on your heads, catch fish. Who needs you to become Russian? Produce excellent receivers "Speedol" for the entire Soviet Union, receive huge subsidies from the center, develop culture. And the Academy of Sciences! - they also had a real Academy of Sciences, a huge building. What is there now? It's funny, it's a shame - a commercial center, everything is rented out as offices. Who else will talk about something?

What is happening in Belarus or Ukraine is a war of elites. The elites need to create their own footholds. And you can’t create a foothold faster than on nationalism. Money is universal, it is international, it flows. In today's world, the concepts of "ruble", "yuan", "dollar", "euro" are already nonsense. There is a concept of money - and that's it. They flow like mercury. But national identity is the only springboard on which you can build your empire, you can isolate it, you can separate it, and so on.

Look, in Kazakhstan, for example, the Russian language is still holding on, but soon there will probably be bilingualism - Kazakh and English. Well, who will it help? Russia is Russia. And knowing Russian is no worse than knowing Chinese or English. That's all. So these are elite games. Rotten and elites. There are no real elites. There are money elites, and these are bad elites, they need to stay in power. And their only argument is nationalism. That's all. This can be played anywhere. And in Poland - there are not only Poles, there are also Kashubians and many others. Then you will also find some in Belarus.

- There are Lithuanians in Belarus.

You see, only everyone forgets that the Litvinians spoke Russian. Just take the official documents of Moldova, Romania, Belarus, Ukraine - after all, they were written in Russian. And neither you nor I have anything to do with it.

What is the difference between a dialect and a language?

There is a norm. There is a departure from this rule. That's all.

- Can we say that the Belarusian language is a dialect of Russian?

- No. This is a dialect of the common Russian. Russian is also a dialect of the common Russian. Ukrainian is also a dialect of the common Russian. East Slavic dialect. Russian is also a dialect of the East Slavic language. Well, look, we in St. Petersburg say "bakery", in Moscow they say "buloshnaya". We in St. Petersburg say "front door", they say "entrance". We say curb, they say curb. Here it is already possible to say dialects. A dialect is either a different pronunciation, but most likely it is already a vocabulary, slightly different words.

- The realization that the Russian language is the world parent language will help to solve the national question or will it aggravate it?

If we assume in Belarus and Ukraine they accept the fact of the existence of a single East Slavic language, which then gradually separated from itself three main dialects: Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, then this is the strongest factor of unification, not separation. And there is no need to put pressure on the Russians. In my book, I call this language common Russian or East Slavic. The most correct thing is all-Russian.

After all, Russia-Rus consisted of Great Russia, Little Russia and Belarus. There was also Red Rus' (this is Transcarpathia). Even the name "Belarus" - where can you get away from the word "Russia"? Well, if you don’t want to be Belarusians, let them be Lithuanians, what will change from this? The language is really the same. It is enough to go back 500 years. 500 years ago there was no difference. And everyone knows this. It's just beneficial to push the idea that these are different languages.

- It turns out that there were no nations as such 500 years ago?

Well, of course not. Even the official historiography knows this. There were no Ukrainians. There were Russians. Grand Duchy of Moscow. Principality of Kiev. Rus' was. There is no need to be afraid of the word "Rus" - this is a unified concept. What didn't please the Ukrainians-ukrams Kievan Rus? Well, this is a historical fact.

- Ukrainians believe that they are real Slavs, and those who are now called Russians are Finno-Ugrians and Mongols.

You are talking about genetics, but genetics does not bother me at all.

- Genetics is not connected with language?

Of course not.

- Why?

Take Israel, for example, anyone there is considered a Jew if he professes Judaism. They don't care if you're a Negro or a Semite or whatever. Or try telling American actor Robert De Niro that he is not American, but Italian. Try to tell the writer Saroyan that he is not an American, but an Armenian. Or try telling Tyson he's African and not American. Cultural factors play a more decisive role in this sense. Not genetics.

And the fact that we have more Finno-Ugric blood - so what? For example, I have a grandfather from the Kama (a tributary of the Volga), and on another line from Siberia. But already 4 four generations my ancestors in St. Petersburg.

Yes, I don’t give a damn how many genes I have there - the main thing is history, culture, geography. Yes, even if I’m a Finno-Ugric a hundred times, even if I’m a Mongol or a Tatar a hundred times: I speak Russian, I live in Russia, my history of my country is called the history of Russia and my culture is purely Russian. I am Russian. I don't care about genes.

Suppose, in Minsk, there are probably already such people, an African studied at Minsk University, knocked up a real Belarusian woman (just like a Belarusian from Belarusian women) and left. And now his son, chocolate-colored, is walking down the street. Who is he? That's right, right, he is Belarusian. And we both know about it. Therefore, all these R1 and so on are all nonsense. The main language and culture.

- That is, there are no pure Slavs as such?

This is not my topic. I do not associate Russians and Slavs. After all, the Czechs are also Slavs, and the Poles are Slavs, and the Serbs are Slavs, and the Serbs are Slavs, and the Bosniaks (albeit Muslims) are also Slavs, although they are closer to the Turks. You see, you must clearly define for yourself: what are you talking about - about the Slavs or about the Russians specifically.

Russians are belonging to a certain group of the population, which have a single language, history, culture and geography. I had a very interesting case. I had one Buryat friend. Very nice person, very knowledgeable doctor. Have you ever seen a Buryat? They have round faces, a large round bronze head with all the purely Asian features. And once we are sitting and talking with him (and he is a big lover of ancient history), and now he, in all seriousness, says to me “And we are arias”, etc. That is, he identifies himself with the Aryans. Try to explain it in terms of genetics.

If you go into racial theories, then after all, people with blond hair and blue eyes, they appeared later than people with dark hair and olive skin. Everyone knows about it, they just don't always talk about it.

- What can you say about Chudinov's works?

As one of the characters in the TV series Magnificent Age said: "Every story wants to be told." If he has his own theory, then why not state it? I respect searching people. Let them be mistaken in something, but still they are looking. Even if he is wrong, who am I to say that he is wrong?

You see, I'll give you an example. A very famous person once approached me for advice, he sent me his version of the origin of Japanese words for a review. He sought to prove that Russians and Arabs are one people. Once he sent me his work, in which he demonstrates that Japanese words are of Arabic origin. I have looked at this work. The fact is that this person did not know that 90% of Japanese words are of Chinese origin. Especially nouns. So he made these analogies without knowing where these words actually came from. I sent this work back, writing that I do not believe that a respected person could not know such and such and draw absolutely wrong conclusions, I think that someone wanted to compromise him. Do you understand? That is, if I disagree with something, in any case, I will never undermine the authority of a person. You see, there are other interesting people. There are academicians Fomenko and Nosovsky. Fomenko reads my books very well and quotes me. With them, we have not only cooperation, but a fruitful exchange of ideas, let's put it this way.

In other cases, I try not to comment on anything at all, because I have my own fully formed opinion or idea about the universe, about who a person is, about who a Russian is, and what a language is. Therefore, I do not impose my opinion. I don't want to win an argument.

Understand. I do not need superiority, I do not need to prove that I am smarter, that I am more cunning, that I am more brilliant, that I am more right. I do not need it. It only plays into my hands that these people are slowly leading the people away from the huge boulder of traditional linguistics, traditional science.

I'll tell you more simply, such theories as Fomenko and Nosovsky (in the field of linguistics), Zadornov, Chudinov, are quite easy to overthrow. And my work cannot be disputed, you can only agree with them or reject them and say that all this is nonsense. But this is nonsense, which explains everything. Here's what's most interesting.

- But have you tried to enter into a dialogue with scientists, enter into their structures and work with them?

I don't want to be with them. I want to be alone

- But this could somehow legalize your version. And so they built, as it were, a barrier that you are a kind of marginal and it seems that it is not necessary to consider your version.

- Don't want. Because their recognition means nothing to me. I don't need it.

- Maybe it's because your theory is not scientific and you won't be able to pass their certification?

- Of course I won't. Just like I won't pass, for example, an examTOEFLunprepared for it. Of course I won't. I'm not even ashamed of it. And I will not pass for three reasons: and because I do not agree, and because I do not know their criteria, and because they will not pass. Certainly. This is fine. This is the protection of a crowd of dwarfs from one giant.

- But official linguistics is reliable knowledge. After all, scientists do not take some unverified data, some fiction, before accumulating them. Maybe they don’t accept you because they use a lot of unverified information in their conclusions?

There is a certain pelvis. This basin contains all their information. And here they are from this basin, stirring it, they take something all the time. First. Second, notice that they quote each other and link to each other. And thirdly, I'm the only one who encroached on the very beginning and they don't like it.

Understand, I already communicated, at the dawn of my existence in this area, I already communicated with them. Once I spoke with the Deputy Minister of Education when he proposed to introduce my method of teaching English. He said, “Alexander Nikolaevich, this is not at all in my power. There is a system, there is a curriculum, and so on. I can't change it." That is, he clearly said no, that's all.

I spoke with our philological faculty of our great St. Petersburg State University. I won’t name names, but everyone there knows me, respects me (I’ll be honest), even, one might say, love me, but they can’t, even technically can’t give me a go as a researcher, collaborator, teacher. Because I do not fit into any program, any system, or anywhere. They can't even give me a podium to speak. Although all the departments have my books, because my followers bring them there and read them with pleasure.

I will even say more that very high-ranking officials from the Russian language absolutely behind the scenes, unofficially invite me to various very important parties. Seminars, assemblies, etc. But with one condition (they ask, they don’t order) that I don’t get up anywhere at all, don’t raise my hand, don’t present my books, etc. But out of respect invite. Otherwise it is impossible. And I understand it.

In the same way, the reality of the Great Patriotic War has already been created. Everyone already knows that Zhukov, for example, is not such a brilliant commander as historiography made him. That he often achieved victories at the expense of thousands, tens of thousands of dead. Nevertheless, a historiography has been created. People are brought up on it. Zhukov erected a chic monument in front of Red Square in Moscow.

Exactly the same here. Yes, their system does not suit me. But I just know that firstly, I still won’t be able to destroy it, and secondly, I will spend a lot of effort and energy without achieving anything, and during this time I could write new books. So I'd rather be quiet, you know how one boy in Holland saved the country by plugging a small hole in the dam with his finger. Because if he had not plugged this little hole, the water would have gradually destroyed the entire dam. And very quickly. So I’d better create this hole and expand it and expand it. I'll go downstairs. To gradually destroy the old vision in people's minds. Bottom. Let's do it together. This is valid.

Because my golden day will come when, at school, in a history or Russian language lesson, a student gets up from his desk and very politely asks: “Tamara Ivanovna, what can you say about the book“ The Origin of Words, Numbers and Letters of Alexander Nikolaevich Dragunkin? . This is what the golden day is. And why fight them?

- Do not fight, but enter into a dialogue.

They do not want to. It will not happen. You can find on the Internet the program "Gordon Quixote" for 2008, where Mikhail Zadornov was invited as a guest. What is the discussion there? Well they were shouting good obscenities there, whatever. And our arguments there just cut out.

- Did you cut a lot?

They cut me out. We left a couple of moments there. And I fought there like a lion. He jumped out to the barrier already without an invitation. There was such a fight. And these orthodoxes, they all yelled well there.

- In the end, did you find any consensus?

- Of course not. Zero. Complete zero. But this is also a result. The result is that at least the positions have come to light. It is also good. Though they left only attacks. But one of the greats said, I don’t give a damn what they write about me, the main thing is that they write.

- And do people who live with their everyday problems now need information that the Russian language is actually the world parent language and other similar things? What do you think, is it necessary now to hammer people with these heads?

I perfectly understand that a person may have more important needs such as sausage or where to go with his mistress.

Therefore, at the very beginning of my book The Origin of Words, Numbers and Letters, I write the following: “Gentlemen! I understand that this book may not affect your daily life, but –– since great effects arise from a combination of small causes – these “small causes” must be present ... This book is one of these “small causes” ... ".

This is a grain of sand. Maybe ten grains of sand. Maybe a hundred. Do you understand the idea? A drop wears away a stone. There are people who want to read such literature. There are some that are not. Understand. I have a different goal. You're always sliding (in a good way) to win. I have other features. Just like with English - I changed everything and left. I created. It's the same with Chinese - I created an awesome teaching method - but I don't run around and yell that I'm a king and a god and so on. That I am the king of beasts. I created and left. I showed it and left.

The second question is will I promote it? And there may already be a lot of reasons. Because you can promote for millions of reasons: it is possible for commercial reasons, and for reasons of prestige, and for reasons of sewing in the ass, and for reasons of high political goals, and for reasons of "I think it's important" and so on. It's already a matter of choice. And I am free in this regard. I want to promote it in a way that doesn't interfere with my other books.

- There is such an expression of Newton that I saw so much because I stood on the shoulders of giants. Do you have any predecessors on whose shoulders you stood? Has anyone worked on this?

No. People worked in many plans. But what I did is just the beginning. It wasn't. If someone gets up, they will already stand on my shoulders. And you understand this is not narcissism, it's just a statement of fact. There were a million works on the history of the Russian language, there were hundreds of works on the fact that the Russian language is the parent language. But where did it all come from? And even more so about writing. In general, my work puts philological science on its head. Not upside down, but head to foot.

- Thank you for the conversation and all the best in the New Year!

Thank you for your attention!

interview

Wikipedia speaks of him rather sparingly: "Russian philologist, author of English textbooks, author of pseudoscientific historical and linguistic ideas." On the world wide web you can find a variety of opinions about his methodology, on various forums you will meet both ardent fans and those who consider him a charlatan. I myself unexpectedly came across the assertion that one of his students was once Vladimir Putin...

In addition to English, our hero, by his own admission, can speak fluently in French, German, Italian, Swedish, Polish and Spanish. Alexander Dragunkin, who are you really?

Last weekend, Doctor of Philology Alexander Nikolayevich Dragunkin visited one of the private educational institutions in Tallinn and gave a master class. Our guest did not experience a shortage of listeners: two days of intensive studies interested almost a hundred people. According to the teacher, he expected to face skepticism and ill will, but the audience met him very friendly.

"Untie your tongue!"

Apart from everything that is written about you, how would you characterize your activities yourself?

I proposed to learn English according to other rules, that is, I proposed a fundamentally different method of teaching grammar. It's not easier or better, it's just different. Although it turned out to be easier, since there are no exceptions in it. You can say this: it is understandable.
I dare to be sure that my students understand what needs to be done when learning English and, most importantly, why this should be done. I would describe my professional slogan with one phrase: "Correct English from the first approach." My master class is not a miracle cure and, of course, not a way to master a foreign language in a couple of days. It just helps to loosen the tongue!

"Untie your tongue"? How familiar we are!

Yes, and not only untie, but also learn how to build complex structures. Words are bricks, folded into a single building structure. But not all of them are fundamentally important. However, I do not believe that a person with a small vocabulary will be able to reach the same level as a person who knows more English words. The main thing is the competent construction of the proposal. Structurally, the expressions “I took a loan from a bank” and “I took a pie from the shelf” are almost identical. And a person can replenish the vocabulary with the help of a regular dictionary. I am sure that my master class will allow people to go to improve their language already on any other courses or go to the country of native speakers of this language to improve it already on the spot.

Are your textbooks published only in Russian?

From what? Already available in Mongolian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Armenian and Tatar. Not so long ago, under the patronage of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, one of my textbooks was also published in Latvian. And soon a manual in Ukrainian will be published - this is a subject of my special pride. Books not only come out, they sell well. You know what they say, “a product is a product!” Although here I would make a small clarification: my textbooks are more needed for adults who did not master English at one time. Still, young people, especially European ones, know the basics of the main language of international communication quite tolerably. Therefore, I am not at all surprised that one of the visitors to the recent workshop in Tallinn was a 66-year-old man. And, it seems to me, he was very pleased.

Estonian is normal, but with its own specifics

Is your professional interest limited to English?

It may be interesting for you to know that not so long ago a Chinese language textbook was published, it is completely built on my methodology.

So, maybe you will take a swing at the Estonian textbook?

As a philologist, I am very interested in the Estonian language. And I would be glad to be useful to Russian-speaking residents of Estonia. I do not rule out that such a textbook will appear. But for this, I myself need to master Estonian. I took with me a couple of Estonian textbooks, published at the end of the last century. I'll look through them at my leisure, I'll try to catch the essence. So be patient. But I can say with confidence that a dictionary of five hundred words is already ready to be compiled.

And you didn't run into trouble?

I definitely do not see any difficulties in the structure of the Estonian language. But over the presentation of grammar will have to work in more detail. In general, I am familiar with your “language” situation. And it seems to me that the Russian-speaking inhabitants of the country are too scared of Estonian grammar. But as a philologist, it doesn't scare me at all. These difficulties are mostly psychological. This is where a vocabulary guide would help a lot.

Estonian is an absolutely normal language, but with its own specific features. It also has a number of advantages - there are no articles, the text is both written and read.

So, on your next visit, will you be ready to present an Estonian textbook?

Well, until the end of October, with all the desire, I won’t have time. After all, I'm going to visit Tallinn again in a month. So - see you soon!

My communication with Alexander Nikolaevich took place on the train that was taking us to St. Petersburg. My interlocutor seemed to me a very obsessed person. Either geniuses or charlatans behave like this. To understand this, I now want to attend the next master class of a Russian philologist myself. What if this is really a revolution in teaching?

Ecology of consciousness. Life: We are used to the fact that the main world language is English, and our native Russian has been doing just that lately ...

We are accustomed to the fact that the main world language is English, and our native Russian has recently been doing nothing but borrowing a word from there, a word from here. But is it?

A graduate of the Oriental Faculty of Leningrad State University, a linguist, the author of several sensational books, Alexander Dragunkin, claims that everything was just the opposite. Moreover, he came to the conclusion that the Old Russian language was the proto-language of the whole Earth!

Are the English descendants of the Russians?

It all started with the English language, which I taught for many years, - Alexander Dragunkin told us the background of his discovery. - The further, the more I was not satisfied with the method of his teaching - and some new ideas appeared latently. In 1998, I sat down to write my first book, a guide to the English language. I stopped going to the office, closed myself at home, and on the most primitive computer in a month I tapped SOMETHING, from which I was stunned. In that work, I proposed my own way of quickly memorizing English words - by analogy with Russian ones. And while developing it, I came across the obvious: English words don't just look like Russian - they have a Russian origin!

- Can you prove it?

- Certainly. Just remember the three simple basic rules of philology first.

• First: you can ignore the vowels in the word, the most important thing is the backbone of the consonants.
• Second: consonants are very clearly grouped according to the place of formation in the mouth - for example, L, R, H are formed by different movements of the tongue, but in the same part of the palate. Try to pronounce them and see for yourself. There are several such chains of consonants: v-m-b-p-f, l-r-s-t-d-n, x-c-k-g-z-zh, v-r-x, s-c-h (jj). When a word is borrowed, it is possible to replace letters in accordance with these chains.
• AND third rule: when moving from one language to another, the word can only be shortened, and most often the first syllable disappears.

And now examples.

- Please.

The English word GIRL (girl - girl) has no origin in its homeland. But in Old Russian there was a wonderful word that young people were called - Gorlitsa! The backbone of consonants is the same, and the English word is shorter - so who took the word from whom?

Another example is the English REVOLT. Let's say you don't know what it means - now let's see who stole from whom. Any Latinist will tell you that RE is a prefix, VOL is a root and "mysterious T". Where it came from, Western philologists do not even say. But I am a simple person: let's assume an idiotic version - that the British took this word from someone and distorted it over time. Then, if RE is a prefix meaning "repetition", and the British took this prefix from someone, then in a thousand years it could only become shorter (recall the philological law). So, it can be assumed that it was originally longer. So, in the whole world there is only one prefix, which meant the same thing, but was longer - Russian TRANS-!

L and R are interchangeable consonants from the same chain. We rewrite the word in Russian - PERE-VOR-ot. REVOLT in translation means "coup, rebellion" - so who borrowed from whom?

And the “mysterious T”, on which all English linguists stumble, turns out to be the most common Russian suffix. There are an incredible number of such examples.

- And why should the British, who live on an island far from our vast homeland, get by with Russian words - they didn’t have their own?

- The British may well be the descendants of the ancient Russians. There is absolutely official data (which, however, is often hushed up) that the Saxons - the ancestors of the British - did not come from anywhere, but from the Volga River. In the scientific world, this is an axiom. Saxons is the plural of the word "Sak". That is, on the Volga they were SAKs.

Further, according to the law on the shortening of a word during the transition to another language, we conclude that this word could have been originally longer. I do not see any other explanation for the origin of the word SAKI, except from the truncated RUSAKI.

Mat was not invented by the Tatars

- Okay, but what about other languages? You don't claim to know every language in the world, do you?

- I do not approve. But I know many languages. I can easily communicate in English, French, Italian, German, Swedish, Polish. I know Japanese, but I don't speak it. He studied ancient Chinese at the university, and seriously studied Hindi in his youth. So I can compare. Here's an example for you.

Take the Latin word SECRET (secret, something hidden). The whole world is staring at this word, but its origin is unknown. In addition, it is not decomposed into components - there is no prefix or suffix. Some see the same "mysterious suffix T". The most dashing Western philologists single out the root CR - this is the Latin CER, "to see." But why on earth is the “secret”, what is being hidden, based on the root “see”? This is absurd!

I do it differently - I become impudent and write the same letters in Old Russian - СъКРыТ. And I get a complete similarity of meaning, a clear prefix C, a beautiful root and our native suffix. Remember that vowels are completely unimportant for philology.

Or else - the word "harem". The fact that the Russian princes before the Romanovs had whole crowds of concubines is a historical fact. Now, if I have many beautiful wives, where will I keep them? In the best rooms, which in Rus' were called KhoroMy - let's remember the chains of alternating consonants - so where did the word GAREM come from?

“So it means that everything was borrowed from us, and not we from strangers?”

- Naturally! I even refuted the prevailing "Tatar" theory of the origin of Russian obscenity.

- There were no Tatars?

- It was not - this is only our invention. I can demonstrate. We have the word star - this is a star, yes. A star is a distorted "light". That is, a star is that “light-it”. And if you follow this word-formation scheme, what will be the name of what they “write”? This is one word.

Further - where did the word "stick" come from? Initially, it was called "pkhalka", because it was pkhali, shoved. The English stick (stack, stick) is clearly our poke, “poke”. Let's go back to the word "phat" - form an imperative mood, as with the word "poke": poke - sui, pkhat - what?

And "p" eventually disappeared. The most interesting thing with the verb is that only in Russian you can say: "I fucked her." M and B, as you remember, are alternating - replace the letter M in the word "fuck" and see what happens ...

- Well, swearing is not proof that Old Russian is the parent language of the whole world.

- Well, here's another thing: the names of all sacred religious books are of Russian origin.

“Even the Quran?”

- Yes. In the Arab world, it is believed that this word has no etymology. But she is.

The Quran, as you know, is the revelations of the Prophet Muhammad, collected by the scribe Zeid - and SAVE by him!

The Qur'an is So-kran.

It is even easier with the Jewish Torah: this is a book about CREATION - the Torah is the T (v) ora.

The Bible is a little different - you need to know that it is written on paper, and paper is made from cotton. Cotton in Slavic is called BaVeLna - BiBLe. The Bible is just a stack of paper!

I am not talking about the Indian "Vedas" at all: here the origin from the word to know is obvious. Each of these explanations can be disputed separately, but it is interesting that all the names have the correct interpretation only through the Russian language.

– Well, what about the names of gods and servants?

- Allah ... If we assume that this word is not Arabic and eventually lost the first consonant, then only one word remains, which also corresponds to the meaning - WALLAH - Volhv, and the Magi were the priests.

There is also the Russian root MOL, from which the word "pray" appeared. MoL - the same as MuL - MULLA who asks God. In English, the priest PRIEST - in Russian letters ASK.

I don't believe there can be so many coincidences. The fact that the words are similar and at the same time have the same meaning is half the battle. But pay attention: in all cases when a word in its “native” language cannot find an origin, in Russian it acquires a completely logical etymology - and all its riddles, suffixes that come from nowhere that traditional philology cannot explain, become completely normal parts words in Russian!

Our language is amazing. It brings us to the bottom of the world - I am sure that it was created artificially, and the matrix of the universe is encrypted in it.

What is hell and heaven

– Have you been able to decipher anything?

- Very interesting stuff. For example, only in Russian the whole world surrounding a person was described using one syllable with the root BL (taking into account the chains of consonant alternation).

What was around the ancient man? Bor, Sea, Field, Swamp, Par (as the air used to be called) and so on.

The entire animal world is described on a geometric basis only in Russian: in other languages ​​these are words taken out of context, in ours they are added to the system. Living beings have been described with three roots, which are the forms of the body. For example, everything Round is described with the help of the root KR / GL and its derivatives - Head, Eye, Throat, Knee, Lower Leg.

Further - only in Russian was a person separated from the rest of the animal world according to the main feature - reason. The mind is in the head, which used to have another name - HUMAN. How we were singled out from the world - we were called HUMAN-Century!

– So, did our ancestors get knowledge about the world from the language itself?

– Our ancestors knew everything, because everything was described in a simple language. Paradise is nothing more than a stripped-down EDGE, where everything is great and cool.

Hell is just what is BELOW us. Let's remember the word "star" - light, yes - long before telescopes, people who spoke Russian knew that stars are not just holes in the sky, but that which shines, radiates light!

– You said that the language was created artificially. Why even create it at all? After all, love could well be expressed in the number of killed mammoths.

- The Russian language also answers this question. Do you remember Tyutchev's famous phrase: "A thought uttered is a lie"? What did the poet want to say? I'll show you.

In Russian, there are three verbs that mean the process of speech - to speak, to say, to utter (or expound). But what is interesting, only in Russian three verbs meaning lies have the same roots: speak - lie, state / state - lie / lie, say - distort.

The language was originally created not for the exchange of information, but as a tool for its distortion, a way of influence.

Now, of course, we already use it for communication. However, be sure - of all the peoples of the world, only we speak the most direct descendant of the parent language.

- And who created it?

“Those who created mankind.

Also interesting: How the brain works while reading

Russian catchphrases: secret meaning

These words are considered borrowed by the Russian language in recent centuries. However, Alexander Dragunkin is convinced of their Russian "origin".

• Galaxy - from the Russian dialect "GaLaGa" (fog)
• Dollar - from Share
• CALCULATOR - FROM HOW MUCH
• Laboratory - from Work (L and R alternate)
• LeDi - from Lada (Old Russian goddess)
• HoTel (hotel) - from HaTa
• NeGR - from Not Beautiful
• ELEMENT - FROM UNBREAKABLE
• SMoG - from MGL
• GLOBUS - from Kolobok (G and K alternate).