Today we want to talk about why the theory of the existence of the "Ra" stem, supposedly meaning sunlight, and forming the semantics of a large number of words of Slavic origin, has nothing to do with science. This theory was popularized by the satirist Mikhail Zadornov, but in general, an approach that suggests separating words by consonance with modern Russian words existed before him.
We will show the problems of this approach using the example of the word "rainbow" which Zadornov himself suggested as an illustration.
In this word, even a person far from linguistics will easily notice the "-arc". And in this case he will be right: there really is an "arc" in him. Moreover, if we look at other Slavic languages, we will find that in some of them there is no “ra” in the beginning. For example, in Czech it will be "duha", in Bulgarian it will be "d'ga", and in Serbo-Croatian it will completely coincide with Russian: "arc".
If we look at other European languages, we will see an "arc" in them: English "rainbow" and German "Regenbogen" are "rainbow" (by the way, "bow" and "bogen" also have the meaning of "bow" from which they shoot - also outwardly), and the French "arc-en-ciel" - "arc in the sky."
Reenactors demonstrate shooting from a large English bow.
In general, there is nothing surprising here. The name quite logically follows from the appearance. But if we separate the "-arc" from the "rainbow", then … it turns out that the same "ra-" remains, and Zadornov was … right?
No, I was not. "Ra-" really remains, but it has no direct relation to any sun. The proof is very, very simple.
Let's look at what the rainbow is called in the nearest languages related to Russian: Belarusian and Ukrainian. In Ukrainian it is "veselka" or "raiduga", and in Belarusian - "vyaselka" or "rainbow".
Promotional video:
As you can see, one of the options is opaquely hinting at "fun" or … "joy." So "rainbow" is a "joyous arc" abbreviated to one word. We also know very well how it decreased. Initially, it was a rhymed saying, typical for the Russian language, indicating a characteristic or mode of action of an object: "arc-rainbow". For example, "goat-dereza" is formed in a similar way. In modern Russian, we have it preserved in the inverted form "rainbow-arc".
There is another version, slightly less likely. In Ukrainian, we see a "raiduga", in which the first half ends with "y", and clearly does not belong to the "joyful" etymology.
The basis of "paradise" does exist, in ancient times one of its meanings was "motley". And then "rainbow" is short for "motley arc". But this option is much more difficult to explain through correspondences, so the opposite process is more likely: the already existing “rainbow” in consonance and through folk etymology led to the “raidug” version. This is a very common way of word formation (for example, the modern "grab").
And why is the version with "Ra" not suitable, which is sunlight, the sun god in Egypt, etc.? After all, if it comes from the word "joy", is it the same "Ra" that is embedded in it?
It does not fit, because there are no examples of the use of "Ra" by the Slavs separately in this meaning. The Slavs did not have such a root with such a meaning. Neither the western, nor the eastern, nor the southern.
Therefore, the constructions "joy" - this is "ra (sun) + delivers" or "ra (sun) + enough" - do not stand the simplest test for correspondences: what delivers and what is enough in the words "gosh", "sweetness", "Youth"?
By itself, the semantics of "Ra - the sun" is absolutely not supported by anything, and is clearly taken from modern ideas about ancient Egyptian mythology.
But there is just one problem that neither Zadornov nor other fans of analyzing words by consonance thought about, simply because they had no time to dive into the topic. The fact is that we cannot even say that the sun god was called in ancient Egypt exactly "Ra". This is a reconstruction, and very conditional: the ancient Egyptians themselves did not leave vowel sounds on the walls for us. And the sun god could be called "Ryu", and "Re", and even "Rhe".
It was important for science to somehow fix this name, and it was recorded as "Ra", but with the important caveat that this is an assumption. Naturally, this reservation disappeared immediately, as soon as "Ra" got into school textbooks: explaining linguistic nuances to children is just to confuse them. For the same reason, the school does not explain that "Kievan Rus" is a historiographic construct, and such a state did not exist in reality.
We advise you not to fall for such "simple" explanations for two reasons:
1. The real etymology is no less interesting and beautiful.
2. “Simplicity” turns into an insurmountable complexity when serious questions begin to be raised to it.
Like the joyous arc in the sky, subscribe to the channel so as not to miss new releases.
