Russian words that don’t translate
Viktor Nikitin

© Viktor Nikitin, 2026

ISBN 978-5-0070-5484-3

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

At first glance, translation seems like a straightforward process: one word in one language is replaced by its closest equivalent in another. In practice, however, this is often impossible. Some words resist direct translation not because they are obscure, but because they are deeply rooted in a particular way of seeing and interpreting the world. They carry not only meaning, but also emotion, cultural memory, and implicit assumptions that do not fully exist elsewhere.

This essay explores a group of Russian words that are often cited as “untranslatable” — including toska, dusha, poshlost’, avos’, volya, and others. These terms do not simply name things or states; they condense entire patterns of experience into single linguistic forms. Through them, we can see how language shapes thought, and how different cultures divide up reality in different ways.

* * *

Anyone who has ever tried to explain to a foreigner what “toska” means, or why the Russian word “nichego” can simultaneously mean “it’s fine,” “you’re welcome,” “not bad,” and sometimes even “everything is okay,” knows this quiet feeling of linguistic failure. The word is right there in your mind, clear and immediate, but as soon as you try to carry it into another language, it starts to dissolve. There is no single equivalent waiting on the other side, sometimes not even a close approximation. You are forced to unpack it, to build a small explanatory paragraph instead of offering one clean word. And even then something essential slips away — not the dictionary meaning, but the tone, the emotional temperature, the cultural instinct behind it.

Linguists describe these situations as lexical gaps or “lacunae” — places where one language has a word or expression that simply does not have a ready-made counterpart in another. But this is not just a technical issue of vocabulary. It reveals something deeper about how languages are tied to ways of seeing the world. Words like “bеспредел” (a sense of boundless lawlessness that goes beyond simple “lawlessness”), “пошлость” (a mix of vulgarity, banality, and moral aesthetic dullness), or “тоска” (a layered feeling of longing, melancholy, and existential unease) are not just labels for external reality. They are compressed cultural experiences. Each of them carries within it a specific emotional logic shaped by history, literature, and everyday speech.

The difficulty of translating such words lies in the fact that they are not purely semantic units. They are also emotional shortcuts and cultural codes. When a language embeds a concept so deeply into daily usage, it begins to assume shared background knowledge that other cultures may not possess. As a result, translation turns into interpretation: instead of replacing one word with another, you have to reconstruct an entire atmosphere. You explain not only what is meant, but also how it feels, when it is used, and what attitudes it implies. And even then, the result is always slightly off-center, like a photograph taken at the wrong angle — recognizable, but missing its original depth.

* * *

The Russian word “toska” became one of the most famous examples in world linguistics thanks to Vladimir Nabokov. While working on his English translation of Eugene Onegin, a task that required not only literary mastery but also absolute precision in both languages, Nabokov openly admitted something unusual for a writer of his stature: there is no exact English equivalent for this word.

In his commentary, he carefully unpacked why “toska” resists translation. It is not a single, stable emotion that can be neatly mapped onto another term. Instead, it is a layered psychological state that shifts depending on context and intensity. At its most extreme, it can resemble deep spiritual anguish — a kind of suffering without a clear cause, when the inner world feels painfully exposed and unanchored. In a softer form, it may become a vague restlessness, a quiet dissatisfaction with life that has no obvious reason or direction. It can also carry shades of nostalgia, the aching pull toward something lost or distant, as well as romantic longing, emotional emptiness, or even simple boredom that becomes strangely heavy and existential.

What makes “toska” particularly resistant to translation is precisely this range of meanings. English provides a whole set of partial approximations — words like anguish, melancholy, yearning, boredom, or depression — but each of them isolates only one fragment of the experience. None of them can contain the full emotional spectrum that Russian speakers intuitively compress into a single word. In English, these states are separated and categorized; in Russian, they often coexist within one shifting feeling.

Nabokov’s observation quickly became canonical in linguistic and literary studies. It is still frequently cited as a textbook case of “untranslatability” — not in the sense that translation is impossible, but in the sense that it always requires decomposition. The word must be broken apart into explanations, interpretations, and analogies, rather than carried over intact.

Over time, “toska” has taken on a life beyond linguistics. For many Western readers it became a kind of symbolic entry point into the perceived mystery of the “Russian soul” — a cultural shorthand for emotional depth, ambiguity, and inner intensity that supposedly resists simple rational description.

* * *

Another word that challenged Nabokov was poshlost’. The writer devoted separate reflections to it, insisting that English has no single term capable of capturing its full meaning. At first glance, it is often translated as “vulgarity” or “bad taste,” but Nabokov considered these equivalents far too narrow and misleading.

The difficulty lies in the fact that poshlost’ is not merely about crude or low-class aesthetics. It describes a far more subtle and intellectually charged phenomenon. It is a blend of banality, pretension, spiritual emptiness, and self-satisfied mediocrity. Something can be poshly even if it is outwardly polished, refined, or emotionally elaborate. In fact, it is often precisely this surface of refinement that conceals the inner lack of substance. A sentimental speech, an overly “beautiful” artistic gesture, a cliché presented as profound truth — all of these can fall under the category of poshlost’ if they imitate depth without actually possessing it.