ON “JOKES” IN PRANKSTERGROUND, IN FULL SERIOUSNESS

On the margins of the political, politicological and politicking conversations about the Russian pranksters, there are also some language-related talks. I am immensely happy when people are interested in their language, when they want to develop it. But not if the talk is reduced to nitpicking if the work “prankster” is impure and should be replaced by a “pure” Macedonian word – like a jokester, or comedian (шегобиец, шегаџија, for those of you who want to learn some Macedonian).

Hmmmmmmm  …

When we translate, or when we introduce a new word into our long-suffering and quite unpampered Macedonian language,  we should not be just looking into a dictionary or a glossary; we need to transpose its meaning. We need to understand the concept and the context in which it was used in the original language, and then find “how do we say it here”. Because, we are no strangers to prankstering, quite the contrary, we have been a pranksterground for so long that an entire book, from the mandatory reading list in primary school is dedicated to a mega-prankster. Known as Itar Peyo.

Itar Peyo (Peyo the Trickster) keeps scheming against his fellow villagers. He is not even after deriving some profit for himself; what counts is duping them, hoodwinking, bamboozling them, making monkeys out of them, fooling them, ridiculing them, making them slip on thin ice,[1]  … and there are also some X-rated expressions, you will undoubtedly know them. So, what would be the formulation we need to use for “prankster”? Monkeymaker? Onthiniceslipper? Ridiculer?   Maytapdziya might be the most adequate, but still, it does not relate the full maliciousness of the approach. Otherwise, all these words comply to linguistic rules of how words are coined, they are linguistically sound, they do denote the concept of pranking precisely enough. We are free to use them, to invent new words, too, to create, to coin and cobble together makeshift words – since this is how the language is created, developed, enriched: It is created by its natural and naturalized speakers, and not by an authorized laboratory.

But some of those words sound funny, they might distract from the serious contexts, such as the currently topical one.

My proposal, as a sublimate of those before is PAKOSNIK ПАКОСНИК – a “spiter”.
The prank is ill-intended, it is an attempt to spite someone, it is premeditated, planned, prepared, in order to cause (seemingly lightheartedly) damage to someone. And usually (in the contemporary context) pranking is public, in order to damage the reputation of the pranked, to expose them as someone gullible, or at least not wiser than the pranksters who outsmart them (the unsuccessful attempts are certainly not disclosed) It is not a joke, it is not hahaha funny, it is mischievous, a trap set for someone, in order to dupe them, ridicule them, regardless of whether it is in the spirit of friendship or enmity. But anyhow, it is done with spite, to cause spite. That is not what “joking” is. Owing to makedonski.info (a grassroots, volunteering, but outstandingly useful language resource) we have the references from fiction:
https://makedonski.info/literature/search/%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA
But also, as an interpreter who is an engineer, and not linguist by education, I really have nothing against using “prank” as it is, or in an adapted form.
The purpose of the language is to understand each other, to be precise in our expression, to know what we are saying exactly. To know if something is a cucumber, pepper or a tomato, and not just the generic “vegetable”.
And so even for such ordinary words, for the everyday piperki and domati which are staples of our cuisine, we are using adaptations of international words, derived from paprika, tomato. This is done in much more developed languages, too, so when speaking English you will say savoir faire and you will find the phrase in English language dictionaries (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savoir%20faire), because, alas, that phrase has that certain something, that  je ne sais quoi J that can’t be fully replaced by “pure” English words.

So, we could also say prank, we don’t have to use pakost, spite. But we certainly cannot use “joke”. Let’s not use an innocuous and benevolent “jokester” to give banality to something that obviously has different agenda, and also serious logistics, when it is able to fulfill its agenda. Let’s not call a joke something that has no intention of making us laugh and rejoice, but to undermine the serious efforts to make serious progress in which we could then joke in rahat.
The words of Turkish origin have become completely acceptable (rahat, maytap) and they are not considered international or alien, so it is equally as appropriate to accept the more recent terms, from another language that is now dominant in the regional culture, as Turkish once was.
But, let’s accept them without başibozuk (sloppiness), and let’s be precise in our ideas, in our thought, and expression, and in understanding the language of the others. Let’s understand precisely what we are talking about, so that we are able to face it with precision and effectiveness.

Endnote:
“Prank”, some of the definitions in English language dictionaries:
a trick that is intended to be amusing and often to make someone look foolish
a trick of an amusing, playful, or sometimes malicious nature.

In the English language, the word is used for centuries. According to dictionary com,  it was first observed in 1530. It has reached us, as far as I know, some five centuries later, with Ashton Kutcher’s show Punk’d

Jasna Shoptrajanova – Conference interpreter

[1] Мајтапи, насамари или намагарчи, да ги зафркне, да се изнамајтапи со нив, да ги исмее, да ги направи на будали, да ги насанка