I am interested in your project. The meaning of linguistics is very wide and varied in its scope . I am interested in the psychology of language and just posted this on another thread.

The mind set of Russian leadership can be detected in the language, remember that folks the original purpose of this thread was the study of linguistics.

In Western European languages the root of the word for security consists of a Latin prefix se meaning “apart from” or “without” and a Latin noun cura meaning “anxiety” or “care”. The German word for security comes from the Old High German Sihhir, meaning “safe”. Clearly because of the similarity the Latin and Germanic words have an earlier common root in Proto-Indo-European, potentially the Sanskirt surakṣā meaning “protected”.

The Russian безопасности is not of Sanskrit origin and comes from Proto-Slavic. Like the Latin se-cura it is composed of a prefix без meaning also “apart from” or “without” but the Slavic noun опасности means “danger”.

There is a subtle difference or differance as Derrida might say. The Russian word безопасности conveys a hidden fear compared to the Sanskrit and Indo-Europan derived concept of safety. The Committee for State Security’s name ironically contained the word безопасности suggesting that Russia was “without danger” So did the "gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti" (state security) Main Directorate of State Security (GUGB) within the NKVD.

In the days of the NKVD and KGB the greatest danger to Russians came from those organisations themselves. Today’s Russians are under far greater threat from those who chose to include bezopasnosti in their titles, such as theFederal'naya sluzhba bezopasnosti, than they are from the West.

Paranoia has never been the foundation of security.

Thank you for sharing your insights. Linguistic knowledge is indeed interrelated with psychological, political, and socio-cultural aspects of different nations, reflecting context-dependent values, lexical interpretations, and semantic perceptions. Just to clarify: are you expressing general interest in the topic, or are you considering active participation in the project?

I would be happy to contribute in any way I can. I have been reading some good interpretations of linguistics in ideology and have researched the use of language in the press and in propaganda. The manipulation of language in the press is a fascinating subject. With respect to your project on cultural knowledge much shared knowledge in society is directly related to the way language is used in imparting it.

One fascinating study looked into the divergence of language as short a time as within two generations during the partition of Germany prior to 1990.

During the period from the foundation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1949 until the reunification of Germany in 1990, the languages and dialects spoken in East Germany (GDR) and West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) began to diverge in several ways.

The GDR had its own standardized version of German that included vocabulary and phrases reflecting socialist ideology and everyday life in a communist state. Certain terms were adopted or adapted to fit the political and cultural context of East Germany. This resulted in the long term in the phenomenon known as Mauer im Kopf (wall in the head) long after the physical wall (Grenze) had been demolished.

Regional dialects and variations within German became more pronounced in both East and West. The influence of the political, social, and economic conditions of each state affected the use and evolution of dialects.

Over time, the vocabularies of the two Germanies developed distinct characteristics, with East Germany using words and phrases that were specific to its political and cultural context. For example, terms related to the socialist economy or government policies were more prevalent in the GDR.

Each German state had its own media outlets, which further contributed to the development of distinct linguistic features. The GDR controlled media closely, influencing language use and promoting certain terminologies.

Differences in education, literature, and popular culture in each state also played a role in shaping language use. West Germany, for example, was influenced more by Western culture and globalization.

As a result, while the two Germanies shared a common foundation in the German language, the political and cultural divisions led to variations that became distinct over the four decades prior to reunification. After 1990, efforts were made to bridge these linguistic differences, but some aspects continue to persist today.

Thank you for your valuable insights and your willingness to contribute. Linguistic variations and dialectal shifts reflect cultural values, historical developments, and societal structures. The example of East and West Germany illustrates how differing political systems and institutional contexts can lead to long-term linguistic divergence.

Your participation in the project is welcome. To coordinate next steps and keep you updated on the project timeline, please share your email address here or contact me at [email protected]

Linguistic knowledge is the implicit understanding of a language’s structure, including its phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.