13:38 Dec 27, 2008 

... and written specifically for the purpose, whatever that is. Yes, they do glorify their tsars these day - as they would sultans and nawabs too, if they had any. Anything to justify the ambition.

12:33 Dec 27, 2008 

only small letters could be seen except for the name. I am not argueing about how it appears in the overoll text: Liberator King.

12:09 Dec 27, 2008 

Would any of us dare render the "New Camelot" nickname of JF Kennedy's administration as "one redolent of the harmony implcit in the legends of King Arthur"..?

It is astounding that we should be discussing this issue with such ire. We are not minting a new term here; we are advising a colleague of the term which _people_actually_use. Right from 1861, Aleksandr II (with or without a "ks" or an "x", lest I start another discussion) was known _in_English_histories_ as "the Tsar Liberator" (albeit often with a hyphen; often cited as "Csar").

One may personally disagree with the grammatical or descriptive soundness of the term "floppy disc" but "floppy disc" it has to be if one is to be understood, and "a plastic-encased magnetic memory medium" is a grammatically correct comedy!

By the same token, advising a colleague to render "the Tsar Liberator" as anything else on grammarian grounds is tantamount to prompting that colleague to be exposed to finger-pointing ridicule. To anyone aware of one's history the Tsar Liberator brings forth definite associations, while any "Great Emancipator Emperor" (or similar), with all due respect, sounds like something out of Ninja-land.

11:58 Dec 27, 2008 

Would it be applicable?

11:53 Dec 27, 2008 

You say it is "a critical article on a modern Russian sculptor", and curiousity takes me into its grip: When has the article been written--pre-Stalinist era, post-stalinist era, or Boris Yeltsin or Putin era--glorification of Tsars, Kings, Sultans, Nawabs

11:31 Dec 27, 2008 

"The Liberator tsar" - but I am not sure - should "Tsar" be capital or not. The sequence of words should be correct, but it comes to me: "The tsar who was a liberator".

11:31 Dec 27, 2008 

Your 03:30 note (and a dash) has it all; the Liberator, Tsar Alexander II. He is also the Liberator, or the Liberator Tsar, or Tsar Alexander II. or Tsar Alexander II. the Liberator, even Alexander II. the Liberator Tsar.

11:30 Dec 27, 2008 

Another example of prescriptivists avoiding reality that is germane to this linguistic discussion is the classical language rule that was enforce on English, a Germanic languae, that you must not end sentence in preepositions.

However, I must say, "this is something up which which I will not put." Needless to say, this sound ludicrous and in everyday informal English sounds appropriate to state: This is something I will not put up with."

Of course in written English, and in less informal English, be it formal or neutral English, we can "avoid" this if we want to by stating: "This is something I will not tolerate."

11:26 Dec 27, 2008 

Really what it comes down to is if actual learned usage should take priority, or grammar rules.

From a prescriptive viewpoint, Gary D. is right. However, from a descriptive viewpoint, the majority of speakers, across the board, from all sociolingluistic levels, use "the Tsar Liberator" and this choice is the appropriate one.

An analagous example are prescriptivists that state that you must state: "It doesn'st matter to me" instead of stating "It don't matter to me." And, in general, they are right; however, when a song in modern music was being sung in the late sixties, early seventies, and the lyrics were: "It don't matter to me" this selection was actually more appropriate than the "correect" one, even though it is stigmatized in regular English usage.

11:05 Dec 27, 2008 

2) classical English written by English writers from England

10:53 Dec 27, 2008 

The Liberator Tsar is a Liberator Ruler, Tsar Liberator is Liberator of Rulers, your assumption is correct it should be "Liberator Tsar"

10:14 Dec 27, 2008 

Thank you, Alexondra. I didn't know. Which two operas?

09:20 Dec 27, 2008 

Two parts from different operas.

04:12 Dec 27, 2008 

I don't mind encroachment at all. Language is dynamic, a living being, if you will. It must evolve and change; if not, it dies. Take the word "egregious" in English. Etymologically it means separate from the pack. It used to have a positive connotation, and the corresponding cognate in Spanish still does (egregio). However, in English, right around the thirteenth century if I recall correctly, it switched to a negative connotation and now means atrocious, etc., and is quite often used to describe a horrific murder.

Since the Tsar Liberator refers to history, and supposedly history does not change (exlcuding history revisionists), it would seem to be justified to leave it in its static, almost petrified form.

If language were not dynamic, it would be possible to master them and not the ongoing challenge we actually face on a daily basis.

03:40 Dec 27, 2008 

Thanks for your extensive comment - and never mind the miswrites, I got your meaning just fine. It was my point exactly, most google hits are for Tsar Liberator, not the other way around. I am now leaning your way, but let's see what other folks have to say too. Anyway, feel the alien linguistics encroaching on the good old English yet?

03:30 Dec 27, 2008 

A new monumental project the artist is involved in also has ties to national history. [Work] on this monument to the Liberator Tsar Alexander II required of the author detailed studies of documentary and iconographic sources, lifetime portraits of the emperor, official texts and memoirs by contemporaries of this Russian monarch.

02:42 Dec 27, 2008 

Misha, I have seen 'the Russian Liberator Tsar' mentioned. Can you offer some context, or a sample of the usage? Thanks!