креативность языка

[avva]

Где-то в английской части ЖЖ, уже не помню где, наткнулся на выражение:
I'm doing SFA. Кто-то другой его не понял, и автор объяснил: SFA = sweet fuck-all.

Тут, возможно, необходимо пояснение, так как фраза эта за пределами англоязычного мира не очень широко известна. fuck-all обозначает всего-навсего nothing, ничего. Это в основном бритишизм, хотя американцы уже тоже потихоньку начинают использовать. Но вроде бы в Голливудских фильмах так ещё не говорят, поэтому, наверное, не так широко известно.

Мне очень нравится этот "перевёртыш". Интересно, есть ли в других языках что-нибудь подобное?

Comments

[mikhael.livejournal.com]

Na ivirite est' starinnaya fraza "klum ata jodea" doslovnyj perevod vyhodit takoj: "Nichego ty znaesh". Prichem na sovremennom ivrite eto zvuchit kak utverzhdenie togo chto ty nichego ne znaesh. Na samom zhe dele fraza yavlyaetsya voprosom "Znaesh li ty?"

hmmm...

[(Anonymous)]

I wonder why you call it "ïåðåâ¸ðòûø". Do you imply that the "natural" order in the sentence, i.e syntactic order, would be 'all-fuck'? By the way, this formation, although rare, is present in English, for example, 'heal-all' (herb, Prunella vulgaris).

By the way, the order where the preposition or the adverb appears after the verb is a widespread Old Scandinavian (thus Old English as well) syntactic feature. Especially it was prominent in poetry, for example in Beowulf,

18 Beowulf wæs breme blæd wide sprang/,
19 Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
'Famed was Beowulf: boars (of him) flew wide ,
Son of Scyld, in the Scandian lands
(lit. Scandian lands in).'

There is a problem with fuck-all, of course... Would you like to continue?


Renee (http://www.idiolectic.com/news/news.html)

[(Anonymous)]

Íàñêîëüêî ìíå èçâåñòíî, ïîäîáíûå âåùè ðîæäàþòñÿ ÷àùå âñåãî â àðìåéñêîé ñðåäå êàê ïåðåêîäèðîâêà ñóùåñòâóþùèõ àááðåâèàòóð. SFA è SFB - âñåãî ëèøü US Army îáîçíà÷åíèÿ Ñàí-Ôðàíöèñêî àðåà è åãî æå áåé. Åù¸ èç ïðèìåðîâ - ïîï-ãðóïïà UB40 íå èìååò íèêàêîãî îòíîøåíèÿ ê 40-ëåòèþ, ýòî âñåãî ëèøü êîäîâîå íàçâàíèå áëàíêà-"áåãóíêà",çàïîëíÿåìîãî ïåðåä äåìîáèëèçàöèåé. Èç èâðèòà ìîãó ïðèïîìíèòü íàïðèìåð íàèáîëåå ïðèæèâøååñÿ ðàáèíñêîå èçîáðåòåíèå - "bablAt" èëè "bilbul beyzim lelo tachles".

Re: hmmm...

[avva.livejournal.com]

Íåò, ÿ èìåë â âèäó ïåðåâåðòûø ñ ñåìàíòè÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ: all - âñ¸, íî fuck-all - íè÷åãî. Ýêñïëåòèâ ïåðåâîðà÷èâàåò (íå èñêàæàåò, íå èñïîøëÿåò, à èìåííî ïåðåâîðà÷èâàåò íà 180 ãðàäóñîâ) ñìûñë ñëåäóþùåãî ñëîâà.
Ïî-ìîåìó, âåñüìà èíòåðåñíîå ÿâëåíèå.

There is a problem with fuck-all, of course... Would you like to continue?

Sure, what do you mean?

[i-shmael.livejournal.com]

áðèòèøèçì, ñêîðåå, bugger-all

[avva.livejournal.com]

Äóìàþ, ÷òî îíè îáà áðèòèøèçìû. À OED, êñòàòè, äà¸ò öèòàòû íà damn-all åù¸ â 30-õ ãîäàõ 20-ãî âåêà (à ïåðâàÿ öèòàòà íà fuck-all - 1960).

Re: hmmm...

[i-shmael.livejournal.com]

Äà ïðîñòîå ðóññêîå "õðåí òåáå". Îòðèöàíèå, õîòÿ ôîðìàëüíî óòâåðæäåíèå.

Re: hmmm...

[avva.livejournal.com]

Íå ñîâñåì. Èìåííî ÷òî îòðèöàíèå, íî äîñëîâíî - íå óòâåðæäåíèå, à ïîäàðîê :)

Re: hmmm...

[(Anonymous)]

OK, I think that "ïåðåâåðòûø ñ ñåìàíòè÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ" exists only in translation. After all, SFA literally means that you're doing easy things, especialy in the army, compare Hebrew 'בית זונות 'whorehouse', said of an easy job in the army. 'Doing nothing' also doesn't imply that you lie immovably on the bed , just that you're not doing any work. You could easily play computer games, eat, etc., and this would be the fuck-all state, which isn't an absense of action as such.

The problem I was talking about, I'm afraid, isn't relevant from the semantic point of view. Shortly, it has to do with the grammatical category of 'all', which could be adjective, adverb, pronoun or even noun- though not in this case. It is unclear to me what is the recipient of 'all', i.e all as in 'everybody', 'everything', or maybe it refers to time?

p.s I just noticed a typo in the Beowulf translation: it isn't boar, but boast :) sorry

Renee (http://www.idiolectic.com/news/news.html)

Íó

[i-shmael.livejournal.com]

Ïîëíûå àíàëîãè íàéòè òðóäíî, îäíàêî... ïî-ìîåìó, ýòî íåïëîõîå ïðèáëèæåíèå...

Èíòåðåñíî, ïî-ôð. bugger-all, âåðîÿòíî, ìîæíî ïåðåâåñòè que dalle... òîæå ñòðàííàÿ ãðàììàòè÷åñêàÿ êîíñòðóêöèÿ... íàâåðíîå, îò il n'a que dalle, ò.å. ne... que - òîëüêî...

Re: hmmm...

[avva.livejournal.com]

I disagree. It seems to be that fuck-all is exactly equivalent to nothing semantically, and "doing fuck-all" is exactly "doing nothing": both are said of doing easy stuff. Of course, "sweet fuck-all" in particular is an idiom and "sweet nothing" isn't (well, not in this sense), but that's as far as it goes.
"fuck-all" is not restricted to "doing sweet fuck-all"; it's used as "nothing" in many other circmstances, e.g. "you know fuck-all about life". Of course, there's no complete equivalence: *this is fuck-all, don't worry.

I'm not sure about the grammatical category of "all" in fuck-all. Does it have to be independently analyzable at all? In fact, the pronunciation seems to indicate that that "fuck-all" is a single phonological word.

Re: hmmm...

[(Anonymous)]

OK, I wasn't aware of the "you know fuck-all about life" usage, in this case you are right.

No, it shouldn't be analyzable independently, not in this case anyway, when, as you've pointed out, it is already a compound -one word having only one accent. Still, there are exocentric verbal compounds where you can analyze a certain part as referential to another element in the clause; not in this case, if I can judge from your examples.

I was wondering about grammatical category because I was thinking of this Old English correspondence and wondering whether it could be in the same paradigm as 'lands-in' in
Beowulf. Meanwhile it appears I didn't understand the usage of fuck-all, so it's irrelevant.

Renee

Re: Íó

[manual.livejournal.com]

Åñëè ðàçâèòü ìûñëü ïðî "õðåí òåáå"..
Èäåàëüíûé ðóññêèé ïåðåâ¸ðòûø ýòî "õóé/íè õóÿ"..
Íàïðèìåð, ôðàçû "õóé òàì" è "íè õóÿ òàì" çíà÷àò ñîâåðøåííî îäíî..