Ukraine War Day #251: Kherson Gambit At Ugledar?

Dear Readers:

Today I switch the topic to some timely battlefront news, I have this piece written by our old friend Evgeny Krutikov. A couple of days ago we were talking about coal, and today we will talk about a city that is all about coal. The very name of the city Ugledar means “gift of coal”.

The word itself, Russian уголь (ugol’) has an interesting etymology. Linguists can trace the word back to Proto-Indo-European *egni- (“fire”) which is obviously the same as the English word “ignite”, which was borrowed from Latin. Sanskrit shows áŋgāras, Classical Greek is ἄνθραξ (anthras). Old Prussian form is anglis. These words are virtually identical to the Slavic word, once one understands that the nasal syllable an- gives the Proto-Slavic nasal vowel , which must have sounded like the French nasal in, for example, the word bon (medieval Slavs spoke through their noses in a snooty way, just like modern French); and so we get Slavic ѫгль (ǫglь), and the then the nasal vowel becomes Russian /u/, so we get ugol’. With the exact same word in all of the Slavic languages, for example Slovak uhol, and so on. And thus the word for this hard black substance continues virtually unchanged throughout the millennia. And lastly, the Slavic root -dar just means “gift”. Distantly related to the English (via Latin) “donation”, but I won’t bother to trace that one, you can look it up yourself. (English “coal” is not a related word, by the way, it’s from a completely different Indo-European root.)

Anyhow, even though tracing words is a lot more fun than being pounded by artillery, let us hie ourselves to the battlefield. We need to figure out what is really going on. Krutikov maintains that the current clashes around Ugledar (Ukrainian Vuhledar) are just a part of a broader strategy, also involving Kherson. And he sees a very cunning scheme there, which I will try to elucidate.

On The Battlefield

After the usual preparatory pastings, which included blasts from the famous Russian “Solntsepek” (“Sunburn”) flamethrower heavy artillery, Russian troops went onto the counter-offensive near Ugledar and also Avdeevka. Participants of this offensive array include units of the 29th Army, the 68th Army, and also DPR militias.

Russian troops build pontoon over the Kashgalach.

Towards the middle of the day yesterday (October 31), Russian troops entered the village of Pavlovka, right up to the little river (stream?) called Kashgalach. [I don’t have time to research that etymology, but I bet it’s a doozie.]

On the other side of the stream, the rest of the town is basically the remnants of an old Soviet sovkhoz (collective farm). Some Ukrainian troops are holed up there, apparently, and those guys are the only thing standing between their Russian counterparts and Ugledar itself.

In the middle of the night (last night), the Ukrainians attempted to bring up reinforcements, some tanks and armored troops carriers. Not to mention 6 Howitzers of the “Bogdan” type. This shows that the enemy intends to dig in and build a secondary line of defense to the West and Southwest approaches to Ugledar. Although this is not an easy job for them, because it’s just flat steppe out there.

On the other hand, Ugledar is a very tough nut to crack. Although not a large city, geographically speaking, it has (or had) a large population, who live in multi-storey high rises. Which have been commandeered by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) and converted into defensive lairs and machine-gun nests. From these high-rise buildings the Ukrainians can see and observe the whole steppe below, for miles and miles.

yalensis: I think I already see where Krutikov is going with this, and it jibes with a tweet I saw this morning on Intel-Slava, written in pidgin English:

In the morning, fighting intensified in the Ugledar direction. Our artillery and aviation are actively working. Our fighters destroy and squeeze out the enemy from Pavlovka and Novomikhailovka. In fact, it would not make sense to enter Vgledar if the Ugledar-Marinka highway is cut off through Novomikhailovka, the enemy will be surrounded and will be forced to run away in the fields, most likely on foot in such weather, or surrender en masse again. But on the other hand, keeping Ugledar under siege is costly in terms of people and time.

In other words, Russian commanders may have decided, at the tactical level, that it is too costly and just not worth it to storm Ugledar. Maybe there is a better way.

Krutikov: Simultaneously, towards the North and Northeast of Ugledar, Allied troops are moving in the direction of Novomikhailovka, whose potential seizure would open the road to neighboring Konstantinovka, a major intersection. And that, in turn, would lead to the encirclement of Ugledar from three sides, and cut off all supplies to it. In other words, it looks like the plan is no longer to take Ugledar, but rather to hold it in siege.

In the town of Novomikhailovka, the Ukrainian forces consist of the 72nd Mechanized and the 79th Paratrooper Brigades. It seems like the UAF are somewhat confused and can’t decide yet which part of the front around Ugledar is more important and needs more protecting. Last night the 72nd threw some reserves from Novomikhailovka in the direction of Pavlovka. But by doing this, they weakened a different part of their line. These waverings show that the Ukrainians were not expecting the Russians to advance so close to Ugledar.

Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, there is a movement of the front line to the North of Donetsk, as Russian troops approach the towns of Pervomaiskoe, Vodyanoe and Opytnoe. Utilizing all means of heavy artillery systems and military aviation in support.

All of these troop movements and offensive operations are inter-connected. Ukrainian forces in Avdeevka are surrounded on three sides, just as in Ugledar. Were Fortune to shine on these Russian maneuvers, then the Ukrainian fortress city of Avdeevka will turn into the new Azovstal.

Are Russians Good At Chess? Does A Bear Sleep In The Woods?

Meanwhile, Ukrainian reserves area dwindling. The 72nd, which was previously responsible for Ugledar, was considered an elite “Presidential” Brigade; but now is down to its last battalion. The 93rd has been brought up, as reserve, to Soledar, along with the Aidar Battalion. Both of these formations are stuck where they are [in the Bakhmut-Soledar area] and cannot be brought to Ugledar. Not unless Kiev makes the decision to sacrifice Bakhmut in favor of Ugledar.

Krutikov believes that the Ukrainian leaders are hung up on inertial “counter-offensive” projects like Svatovo-Kremennaya and also the Kherson counter-offensive, where they had achieved some notable successes in the past. And still stubbornly plugging away in those directions, while overlooking the more important developments taking place in the Donetsk arena.

Krutikov concludes by comparing the entire Ukraine front to a large chessboard, and calls Russia’s next move the “Kherson Gambit”. He believes that the demonstrative evacuation of residents from Kherson and surrounding towns was just a cunning ruse. [Krutikov: shhhh! why are you telling the enemy this? and more, importantly, why is General Surovikin not censoring your article?!] He cites the bombastic statements of Russian officials about the imminent danger of a “massive Ukrainian counteroffensive” and their theatrical show of preparing the troops for street battles in downtown Kherson. These pessimistic proclamations brought joy to the cockles of the leaders in Kiev. Emboldened and re-energized, the UAF renewed their attacks on Kherson and Berislav, repeatedly moving their soldiers, like lemmings, into a series of “fire traps”. And then the icing on the cake: the Ukrainians decided to move some of their remaining HIMARS, to add support, from the Svatovo-Kremennaya front down to Kherson.

Budanov: “Ve will not be fooled by your pathetic attempts at Slavic cunning! Heil Hitler!”

Meanwhile, Ukrainian Military Intel Chief Budanov guessed the ruse and declared that the Russians clearly do not plan to abandon Kherson, as they had hinted. Budanov is clearly smarter than the average bear. But by the time Budanov chimed in it was already too late, hee hee! The UAF had already moved a bunch of equipment, including tanks, down to Kherson, and now they won’t be able to move them back!

Another result beneficial to the Russian side: The UAF has practically no operative reserves left on the Donetsk side. For example, near Bakhmut (Artemovsk) and Chasovy Yar, around 3 brigades are just stuck there, along with a couple of Territorial Defense brigades and the neo-Naughty Aidar Battalion. Those guys are literally stuck: all they can do is just sit there and do nothing, since the Russians have them pinned down quite nicely. It’s a stalemate, though: the Russians can’t take Bakhmut so long as those guys there; but nor can those guys move away to help out somewhere else.

As a result, the entire Ukrainian front line, from Zaporozhie to Kremennaya, is simply stuck in a giant stalemate. And everybody is waiting for somebody else to make the next big move.

This entry was posted in Linguistics, Military and War. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Ukraine War Day #251: Kherson Gambit At Ugledar?

  1. stephentjohnson says:

    Well, one quibble, if I may, against a typically interesting and informative piece. The Ukrainian forces around Artemovsk are, indeed, not easily relocated, especially with the fresh Geranium-scented but de-energized grid. However, they will eventually disappear under the stress of artillery fire (and/or air attack, seems like the VKS has been getting busy thereabouts), one way or another, no?
    I also do think that General Armageddon certainly was and maybe still is worried about the flooding scenario. It’s pretty clear that the Banderastan crowd are getting rather desperate, which can lead people to do all manner of things (like that assault on Sevastopol, Боже мой!), and while it may be unlikely, it is, indeed, very seriously bad. Also, less civilians in the battle front is, unquestionably, mo’ betta in a thousand ways, so any excuse is good for removing civilians from the line of fire, while the RF awaits freeze-up.

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Very good points, Stephen! Although certain “evil tongues” claim that the drone attack on the Sebastopol fleet was actually an English job.

      Ukrainians, for their part, can’t decide if they want to (a) deny they had any involvement, or (b) gloat that they may have caused some damage to the Admiral Makarov.

      Like

  2. peter moritz says:

    “Dar”, to give, is the same (almost) in the Latin languages (Italian, Portuguese, Spanish) with the exception of France, where it is “donnar”?
    However, a gift in French is “don”, Portuguese “dom” means a talent, in Serbian like in other Slavic languages it is “dar”, Italian “dono”.

    I guess that means that this word has a very ancient root. Which in Portuguese usually means, like in most other Latin languages, completely irregular conjugations, the bane of every learner of thoselanguages.
    But not “dar”, which follows the usual conjugations for “ar” endings. Go figure, and compare that to conjugations or “ir”, to go, or “ser”, to be. Obviously very ancient basic words and nightmares, especially for a 73-year-old brain…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tom Hickey says:

      All these words derive from Proto-European dō-, a root meaning “to give.” The Sanskrit root becomes dā.

      Like

      • peter moritz says:

        Thanks

        Like

        • Tom Hickey says:

          Proto European” above should be “Proto-Indo-European,” abbreviated PIE.

          “Gift” probably derives from Proto-Indo-European ghebh, a root meaning “to give or receive.”

          Like

          • peter moritz says:

            “ghebh, a root meaning “to give or receive.” In German, the verb “geben” and the noun “Gabe”, the gift, are very close to the original.
            Gift in German however means poison. I guess the Anglo Saxons messed up.

            Like

            • Tom Hickey says:

              The same word often has many meanings, some opposite. For example. ghebh can mean both “to give” and “to receive.” A gift requires mutual giving and acceptance. In addition, there are good and bad giving/receiving, like poison. While I was unable to find a direct connection, the derivation of German “Gift” (poison) from ghebh seems reasonable. (This can often pose a problem when trying to translate an ancient text for which context is sparse.h

              Like

              • yalensis says:

                “Here, I give you little treat, a goblet of poison! Say hello to my little friend!”
                “No, no, I never could. You drink first, please!”
                “No, no, you are my guest, I am the host.”
                [another twin-set of PIE words with same root, gʰóstis !]

                “No, my friend/fiend, you are too polite! You must drink first. Oh, look over there! Is that a giraffe?!”

                [quickly switches goblets]

                Like

          • yalensis says:

            Thanks, Tom! You sound suspiciously like a Historical Linguist!
            That very ancient root *dō-, some Comparative Linguists believe that root goes back even further, to a common Proto-Indo-European-Hittite common language, where the long vowel was actually a vowel + laryngeal.

            In the Proto-Proto language, in theory, the syllabic structure was CVC (consonant-vowel-consonant), but regional variants developed, where the laryngeal consonant fell away, resulting in a long vowel in many PIE dialects.

            Sanskrit is not really a good example for many of these roots, because there was so much corruption and merging of vowels in Sanskrit. Well, it’s actually logical development, because language phonology starts changing radically when other languages collide. And we know that the Aryans when conquering the Indian continent collided with many other regional languages, resulting in phonological changes and merging of phonemes. I often wonder if Sanskrit itself might not have become a type of Creole. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

            Like

            • Tom Hickey says:

              Thanks, yalensis. Didn’t know that about the “proto-proto.”

              While it is interesting and important to speculate on “proto” language but there is little actual evidence to go on and it’s mostly reasoning backward from historical languages since there is no records available from what I understand. This is not my field. Studying Sanskrit is a hobby for me.

              Sanskrit is important in this regard because we know a lot about it. The early language of which we have a record is Vedic Sanskrit. The Vedic pandits have presumably kept the original language more or less intact their their rigorous process of transmitting the language across generations. Moreover, The Vedangas (subordinate literature like grammar) give a theoretical picture.

              While this may be of interest primarily to Sanskritists, it is important linguistically owing to the verifiable contributions of Sanskrit to the development of Indo-European languages.

              Gathic Avestan, comparable to Vedic Sanskrit, was also important in this regard. Like Vedic Sanskrit, the language has been kept alive by its use in the Zoroastrian tradition.

              I had a friend, a Sanskrit scholar, who was doing research on the origins of Sanskrit and the basis for the subsequent development of European languages and I found it fascinating to listen to him. Unfortunately, he recently passed away from a heart attack while in Nepal, perhaps owing to the altitude.

              Anyway, I am gratified to find other people that are interested in etymology.

              Like

              • yalensis says:

                Thanks, Tom, and I wish you well with your Sanskrit studies. It’s a very important field, and somebody has to do it.
                You probably know already that Sanskrit scholars like Pāṇini practically invented the field of Scientific Linguistics. They did it all, long before anybody else: phonology, grammar, semantics and syntax. Many centuries later the discovery and study of Sanskrit by important European scholars, led to the field of comparative morphology and the reconstruction of the PIE language.

                As for proto-proto that was a further development at the beginning of the 20th century, if I am not mistaken. (I would have to google further, because I have forgotten a lot of the history.) But basically, there was an important Linguist (can’t remember his name!) who posited the existence of laryngeal consonants in the proto language and came up with the syllabic structure CVC. The hypothetical laryngeals explained quite a lot, and simplified the comparisons, like the roots with a single consonant and long vowel that we were discussing.

                Anyhow, long story short, a few years later (again, apologize for the sketchy non-researched layout, but I’m in a hurry, I have to do my daily post before I go to work) scholars discovered and deciphered some ancient Hittite manuscripts. And bingo, Hittite turned out to be the missing link, laryngeals and all! So, now we have a hypothetical Proto-Indo-European-Hittite language that was separate from the Semitic group.

                (And possibly going back even further, maybe there was a genetic connection with Semitic languages as well, but nobody has been able to prove this yet, it’s probably just going too far back to have any meaningful word-pairs.)

                Like

  3. michaeldroy says:

    I found a very interesting piece in the Postil. A Catholic online magazine which has published the work of Jacques Baud earlier this year (funny, I thought the only people with a clue about the world were the far right and some of the far left on the basis that they don’t trust mainstream news; I missed the unworldy Catholic academics).

    https://www.thepostil.com/what-ukraine-tells-us-about-the-coming-war/
    It diverts to explain the Spanish civil war strategy of Franco which for decades had been considered as weak but needs to be re-considered. It is meant as a comparison to current Russian strategy.

    Bernard Wicht writes:
    ‘Let’s explain this with a historical example.

    The case of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) is particularly emblematic from this point of view. General Franco, commander-in-chief of the nationalist forces, was considered for a long time, certainly as a very shrewd politician, but as a poor strategist on the ground. Despite the military superiority at his disposal, he made poor operational choices, giving the Republicans the opportunity to carry out desperate counterattacks, prolonging, in this way, the war by at least two years.

    Then recently, historical research revealed that these “wrong choices” were made knowingly in order to exhaust the human potential of Republicans in battles of annihilation, where the firepower of the nationalist army could reach its full potential. For example, even in September 1936, rather than seizing Madrid, then very little defended, and thus obtaining the capitulation of the Republican government and ending the war in two months, Franco opted for the capture of Toledo—a city certainly very symbolic, but whose strategic importance was limited. Franco wanted a long war to destroy the demographic pool of the Republicans and thus “cleanse” the conquered regions of populations favorable to the regime in place. He felt that he could not have the stability necessary to rebuild the country if a young and sufficiently large pro-Republican generation survived the war. He said it explicitly in an interview: “In a civil war, it is better to systematically occupy the territory, accompanied by the necessary cleansing, than a rapid rout of the enemy armies that would leave the country infested with adversaries.”’

    So this is the same point I keep making – demilitarisation (and denazification) means engaging with Ukrainian troops in large numbers (at least large Ukrainian numbers).
    You can’t do that if you chase nazis all over W Ukraine. The only thing you can do is to persuade them either to defend en masse (as happened outside Donbas for a long while) or better to attack en masse. Kherson, Kupyanst, Izium were perfect for their purpose – killing Ukrainians. And Kherson sticking up on the wrong side of the Dnieper is the perfect place from which to troll the Ukrainian nationalists and make them angry.
    This isn’t so much as a Kherson Gambit in chess terminology. Rather it is swapping one Knight for 6 pawns when the standard exchange rate is 1:3. The only way Ukraine is going to attack it is if they are really angry, stupid angry.

    All best done before the US masters (if not the British) tell them to throw in the towel come Nov 8th. The recent retracted peace initiative from a group of democrats indicates to me that both Dems and Republicans want to do this as soon as elections are over. The deliberate leak of Biden supposedly losing his temper with Zelensky back in June for being too pushy is clearly a sign that the Biden puppeteers are winding down the pro-war rhetoric because they know it is no longer popular.

    Like

    • peter moritz says:

      Thanks for the link, and I have read the article. It confirms what a friend and I long suspected, that we are at the end of the nation-state, and the violence monopoly rests no longer with a disintegrating state but reverts into the hand of the individual, to protect him or herself from mercenary forces.

      Those are funded by international financial capitalism that is independent of any nation and does no longer need this protection because it is able to fund this protection itself, against a population deprived of what we come to define as a humane (menschenwuerdige) existence.

      Back to feudalism – which I have argued for a long time would happen, since observing the rise of financial capitalism, back to rent-seeking, as Michael Hudson defines it, capitalism that no longer relies on the production of goods for profit, where you do not own anything, where what you need you rent, and have to defend yourself against the forces of the lord, if that is possible, or submit. Preppers may have been right all along, sad to say.

      Like

      • peter moritz says:

        It seems to be already to be happening, with the support of NATO:

        “Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) said it has received preliminary information that criminals in Finland might have captured military arms, such as assault rifles, meant for Ukrainian forces.
        “Weapons shipped [by various countries] to Ukraine have also been found in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands,” NBI Detective Superintendent Christer Ahlgren told Yle.

        International media outlets have reported that the European law enforcement agency Europol has anticipated criminal gangs stashing weapons in border areas. This past summer Europol issued a statement warning that the proliferation of firearms and explosives in Ukraine could lead to an increase in firearms and munitions trafficked into the EU via established smuggling routes or online platforms.

        “We’ve seen signs of these weapons already finding their way to Finland,” Ahlgren said.

        “Three of the world’s largest motorcycle gangs—that are part of larger international organisations—are active in Finland. One of these is Bandidos MC, which has a unit in every major Ukrainian city,” he explained. “We know that contacts and routes are being warmed up, so that they’re in place.”

        https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/11/some-ukraine-items-.html#more

        Sweet dreams…..

        Like

      • yalensis says:

        I think that neo-feudalism is the thing I fear the most. I have a very stubborn personality, and I always get in trouble when people try to order me around.
        The thought of being somebody’s serf, is simply unbearable to me!
        😦

        Like

        • peter moritz says:

          You won’t even feel it, like the factory workers in the USA felt they all were free and could all rise to the position of boss. Like we were all made to feel in school the system was what the system should be, and as citizens, we all should do our duty, and obey what the authorities told us was the right thing to do.

          It all will be so natural, you get your food, your housing, maybe even a job, till you are no longer needed, just like right now, you just don’t own a car, or a house, or your own clothes, or any of your kitchen equipment, you all rent it, and when you don’t have the money to rent anymore because you have become superfluous, you just go to a nice home where nice people will take care of you.

          You will read and follow the narrative of the day, you will not read things that might cause you trouble, they are unhealthy and disturb your sleep, and that is bad. You wear your mask when you are told, you get your vaccines without any thinking about if they are needed or not, and it all will feel just normal. Don’t worry, be happy.

          Like

  4. james says:

    thanks yalensis… this is yet another helpful post for anyone whose imagination is not working very well! for one who has an active imagination – all of this makes a lot of sense!

    Like

  5. Jean Meslier says:

    Thanks once again, Yalensis, for a very interesting post. I’ve, once or twice, given a thought about the “depopulation” angle. After all, one of Russia’s objective is demilitarization.

    Not sure I’d believe Franco’s word about anything though.

    On a quite unrelated note, I wanted to share something that lifted my spirit about the conflict.

    This NY Times article :

    explains that trade between Russia and the rest of the world, notably many EU members, is booming after the sanctions. It also backs it up with numbers, and, as it is a piece that is (for once) not especially painting Russia in a purely negative way, one could see a grain of truth into it.

    Of specific interest to me, was the data about my home country, Belgium.
    Belgium (11.000.000 pop.) is a very open, trade oriented medium-small economy. It is also a stalwart NATO member (NATO Headquarters, SHAPE, is located in Mons, a small Belgian town), and of course one of the EU founding members (EU’s informal capital city is also Belgium’s capital city : Brussels)

    As such, it goes without saying, Belgium jumped into the sanctions bandwagon, though, when it came to the details of it, the national mainstream press (not much of anything else in Belgium) was quite subdued.

    I now understand why :).

    You see, before the sanctions, Belgium total trade with Russia amounted to 750 millions dollars, of which 250 millions were exports to Russia and 500 millions were imports from Russia. Not inconsequential by any measure, but not really awesome either.

    After the sanctions, Belgium trade with Russia amounted to 1.4 billion dollars, yes, it very nearly doubled. And, as a cherry on the cake, Belgian exports to Russia dropped 20%, while imports from Russia increased 130% !! The sanctions made my country actively support Russia in the conflict (compare this with the terrific 20-40 millions Belgium gave in support of the Ukraine since the beginning of the war :).

    I find this hilariously funny and therefore, hereby humbly request the Stavka to paint a little Belgian flag on 1 on 20 of the Iskanders that fly towards the Ukraine. We deserve it !!! I bet it wasn’t the outcome the morons in charge expected.

    And another thing, with 1.4 billion in trade, Belgium has become, after Belarus, the best per capita trade partner of Moscow (its trade volume is around the same as Japan – 120.000.000 pop – or the U.S. – 350.000.000 pop. 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Say hurray to the Belgians !

    Like

  6. Because my (former) job used to involve a lot of trying to figure out what people were thinking — not just the crazy ones, but my bosses too — I often wonder “What does the world look like through someone else’s eyes?” You, and some of your readers who appear to follow you via their professional linguistic connections, frequently discuss the derivation of words. As in, you can see how this word or that stretches back through history, and where it has cousins in other languages, etc. When you put your mind to it, Yalensis, is it like you’re peering backwards through the Fourth Dimension of Time when you contemplate a word? “I know you, and I can see what your grandfatherword looked like, and this is what you sounded like when people wearing furry skins for clothes were grunting your syllables in the primeval forest…” Does that make it harder to read things, like you’re unpacking the text’s baggage as well as absorbing its surface content?

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      “grunting syllables in the primeval forest” – haha! Actually, those ancient languages were probably way more complex than our modern ones. People didn’t grunt. Maybe they burped and farted, but they didn’t grunt. They probably had, like, 100 vowels and 200 consonants, and people had to twist their tongues and teeth in all possible directions to pronounce their big long words; and don’t forget the clicking sounds too! Proto-language probably had tongue clicks, like Bushman language still does.

      I’m being a little facetious, but not much. One of the things that happen to languages, when they become more popular and widely used, is that they tend to simplify, especially grammatically. It’s called Creolization. For example, every person who has to learn English as an adult, adds their own little quirks to the grammar and vocabulary, not to mention speaking with an accent, which eventually leads to sound changes. Without these external impeti, there is basically no reason why a language would ever change.

      Like

  7. S Brennan says:

    Yalensis,

    Most excellent post..thank you.

    Like

  8. Daiva says:

    While on linguistic front, a couple of notable happenings ↓↓

    #1 Old Prussian anglis = very contemporary Lithuanian, letter for letter 😉

    #2 💬 Unlike most reflexive verbs, “hie” generally takes the simple object pronouns rather than the reflexive pronouns. Thus “we hied us” and “hie you,” rather than “we hied ourselves” and “hie yourself.” This peculiarity most likely arises from a sense that the poetic connotations of “hie” accord well with the archaic practice of using object pronouns with reflexive verbs. ← Thus wiktionary readily informs us 😇

    Like

    • yalensis says:

      Thanks, Daiva, that is very interesting. It never occurred to me before (or I never noticed) the difference between, say, “hie us” and “hie ourselves” in reflexive verb usage.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s