Talk:Ukrainian language

Anti-Ukrainian slant of this article

The problem is that languages are imposed to people which never spoke them, and languages are used as an instument to make people more ignorant... imagine Cosica becomes independednt and proclaims "Corse" as sole national Language, forgetting French? This articles needs serious revision, figures are fake as they all riged by newly independent now "Ukranian" KGB officials. THIS IS A QUALITY WARNING and not an agitation of pilitics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.97.142 (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I am so tired of reading all this anti Ukrainian nonsense on Wikipedia. Why is Ukrainian language the only selected to be described is "mutually intelligible" from Russian? Why the same phrase or a phrase that "some linguistic references list them as dialects of a single language" is not used in the Belorussian language entry? Why is Ukrainian the only language to have a section "classification and relationship to other languages" and "differences between Russian and Ukrainian" as to imply to the casual reader that this is of paramount significance, whereas again, Belorussian, a language more closely related to Russian, does not have such entries, Finally, one just needs to look at the entry for Rusyn langauage to see that again, Ukrainian gets the short end of the stick. Why doesn't it say that Rusyn and Ukrainian languages are "mutually intelligible?" After all they are practically identical and were thought to be identical until about 19 years ago. Maybe we should have a section on the modern persecution of Ukrainian language. Mykyta (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are free to add this section to Belarusian language. No one is stopping you. Wikipedia has uneven coverage not because of some bias, but because some editors have worked at X location, but not at Y location. --Taivo (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the section appropriately and added it to Belarusian language. --Taivo (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Surzhyk chart

I moved the chart comparing Russian, Surzhyk, and Ukrainian to the Surzhyk article where it is more appropriately placed. --Taivo (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Official Language status

I live in Poland and to my knowledge, Ukrainian is not a recognised minority language. We do have four, Lithuanian, Kasubian, German, and Belarusian. Also, I believe Moldavian in the Cyrillic is the official language, with Ukrainian and Russian as working languages. Can we get a reference on these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.19.229.72 (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked for a list of recognized minority languages in Polish report for ECRML (PDF), where on page 9 it lists Ukrainian among others, 15 languages in total. Can you provide a reference on your list of only four languages? Thanks in advance. StasMalyga (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

AGAIN!!????

The anti Ukrainian slant of Wikepedia is absolutely ridiculous and it needs to stop. If the editors are allowing this garbage to be posted, then the article needs to be locked. How in the world is the entire section starting with "However its obvious closeness to Russian make critics consider it rather as a "dialect" of Russian..." even allowed?? Not only it's very offensive, I can't even begin to write how many Wikepedia rules it breaks! The part about the "no significant literature" is beyond disgusting, obviously an opinion of a prejudiced individual. I can't believe that someone actually wrote little notes like "clarification needed" and left this offensive unsupported writing of a chauvinist. Really, really , really? If I sound frustrated, I am. I'm tired of always having to watch these articles to see what's the next offensive thing that will be added. And to think I wasn't even allowed to add that Carol of the Bells is also known as Ukrainian Bell Carol with tons of supporting documents and you're allowing this gibberish? Please remove this immediately. There is no scientific supporting documents nor quotations, stop being a vehicle of the Russian propaganda. Mykyta (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that section, but there is still something that should not be there:

"It is very closely related to Russian and many Western linguists consider the two (along with Belarusian) to be dialects of a single East Slavic language." Please remove it or provide actual citations where "many western linguists" call Ukrainian language a dialect. Mykyta (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

References added. I think they were here last year when you brought this issue up previously, but perhaps some nationalist editor deleted them. --Taivo (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Found the references. They were buried down at the bottom of the article under the subsection "Classification and Relationship..." --Taivo (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that if you are adding an opinion of some linguists that the languages are mutually intelligible, you must also add that many linguists also consider them far apart to be separate languages otherwise this article is still very biased and unbalanced.Mykyta (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No linguist thinks these languages are "far apart". None. Not one. If they claim this they are not real linguists, but ignoring the very close relationship between them and the fact that there is a very high degree of mutual intelligibility between them. It's not "some linguists" who consider these languages to be mutually intelligible, it's "all linguists". The majority opinion is exactly what the article currently states--that mutual intelligibility in this case isn't the only factor that most linguists use to call these separate languages, otherwise they would have to be called one language because they're mutually intelligible. --Taivo (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

They're not mutually intelligible and you proabably know it very well. I speak perfect Ukrainian but understand maybe 20% of Russian on a good day. (yes, I know that's not admissible under Wikepedia rules, I'm just stating a fact). They're mutually intellgible only for people who grew up there and grew up listening to both languages so the line of why they understand both gets pretty blurred. How could they be mutually intelligible when they have completely different words for many common objects, as well as different descriptive words. Fine, I'll locate references on my own.Mykyta (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because you, as a non-native speaker, have a difficult time doesn't mean that linguists, the experts in these languages, agree with you. We've had this discussion before. Indeed, I see that you visit this article annually and make the same complaint (that no one else seems to make). The linguistic sources are crystal clear on this issue--that Russian, Belarusian, and Ukrainian share a "(very) high degree of mutual intelligibility." And, even if you are able to find some source, that does not abrogate the statements from the multiple reliable sources that I've provided. --Taivo (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

..um, I visit here more often than annually, I wish I didn't have to but every time I look there is something offensive or discriminatory added to the article as was the case yesterday. I see that there is a whole discussion on this issue, so I'll read this through, I don't want to start a war but I do want this article to present a balanced view.Mykyta (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And I have family in Ukraine, so I do visit there often myself and have taught there. The problem is that the "balanced view" that many Ukrainians want is a complete divorce from anything to do with Russian. That, however, isn't the linguistic reality based on published sources. --Taivo (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is actually a first time I saw a scholar try to argue against a balanced view. No one is asking for a complete "divorce" from Russian, as you so quaintly put. However, I'd like to know why you wrote "The question of whether contemporary Ukrainian and Russian are dialects of a single language...." if not to push your own personal opinion that they are? Is it truly a question, when you later admit that most linguists consider them a separate language? Also, is it also something that should be in the first section of the article?Mykyta (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between "balanced view" that represents two different scholarly positions and "balanced view" that means a non-scholarly position is given equal weight. Scholarship is virtually uniform that Ukrainian and Russian have a high degree of mutual intelligibility. So there is no "balance" there, we simply state the commonly stated fact. Indeed, no one says otherwise. As far as the comment about the "dialects of a single language", that is, actually, the "balanced view", and represents virtually a direct quote of at least one of the sources that comment on the issue. While a few sources go all the way and link Ukrainian and Russian into a single language, most separate them, but make a specific comment about their mutual intelligibility, implying that the usual measure of "languageness"--a lack of mutual intelligibility--does not apply in this case. --Taivo (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to remove the reference of "mutual intelligibility" since it's agreed on by all scholars. However in a very short paragraph, you refer to Ukrainian language as a dialect twice. The paragraph structure where you start with " The question is.. " implies that it's still a continuous source of a debate and controversy in the linguistic world, when you yourself state that it's not a common position of most linguists. You're leading a casual reader to believe that many scholars are of that opinion, however that's not true so I would indeed call this paragraph rather unbalanced. By the way, what does "at least one" really mean? Does it mean one? Mykyta (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian is a dialect by the purely linguistic measurement of mutual intelligibility. When two speech varieties are mutually intelligible, they are dialects of a single language. So in a purely linguistic sense, Russian, Belarusian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian are dialects of a single language--East Slavic. However, non-linguistic factors come into play and linguists call them different languages (even though they admit they're not by linguistic measurements). This is no disrespect for Ukrainian or Ukrainian speakers. It is simply linguistic fact. Yes, Ukrainian is a dialect by linguistic definition that is commonly called a language for non-linguistic reasons. Last year, when this wording was created, it was deemed NPOV and accurate by everyone involved. --Taivo (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Therefore by purely linguistic definitions, to be fair, Wikepedia, should call few other languages simply dialects. Serbian/Croatian especially comes to mind as they're practically identical as well as Slovak/Czech, While their articles talk about their mutual intelligibility they're careful enough not to call them dialects of a single language and especially not at the top of the article. If it's purely from linguistics, then place it under that section, not in the second opening paragraph of the article. As you said, there are many other factors that go into the decision, not just linguistic factors, so by placing it in the main body, you're implying the Ukrainian is not called a language even for non linguistic reasons and that's simply not true. And please state "at least one " or "one" not "some" sources if that's all you've got. By the way, do we have to indent until we get to one column, what are the rules about that? Mykyta (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Perhaps you should look at Croatian language:

• "Croatian (hrvatski jezik) is the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Croats,[3] principally in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbian province of Vojvodina and other neighbouring countries. They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language, along with Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin."

The first sentence of this article (Ukrainian language) doesn't even mention the "East Slavic language" or mutual intelligibility. Indeed, it's not until the last paragraph of the lead that the dialect/language problem is mentioned and it's not overbearing at all, just a simple review of the linguistic issue. Your Ukrainian sensibilities are offended, but the existing wording has been discussed before and found to be neutral and honest with the facts. If you look at Bosnian language, you'll see the dialect/language issue addressed in the first paragraph of the lead, not the last, and it's even more pointed than at the Croatian article:

• "Bosnian (bosanski [bɔ̌sanskiː], Cyrillic: босански) a form of Serbo-Croatian, a South Slavic language,[1][2][3] spoken by Bosniaks. As a standardized form of the Shtokavian dialect, it is one of the three official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[4] The same subdialect of Shtokavian is also the basis of standard Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin, so all are mutually intelligible. Up until the dissolution of former SFR Yugoslavia, they were treated as a unitary Serbo-Croatian language, and that term is still used to refer to the common base (vocabulary, grammar and syntax) of what are today officially four national standards."

The Serbian language article is worded almost identically. Further afield, you can compare this with Standard Hindi:

• "Standard Hindi, or more precisely Modern Standard Hindi, also known as Manak Hindi (Devanagari: मानक हिन्दी), High Hindi, Nagari Hindi, and Literary Hindi, is a standardized and sanskritized register of the Hindi-Urdu language derived from the Khariboli dialect of Delhi....Colloquial Hindi is mutually intelligible with another register of Hindi-Urdu called Urdu. Mutual intelligibility decreases in literary and specialized contexts which rely on educated vocabulary. Due to religious nationalism and communal tensions, speakers of both Hindi and Urdu frequently assert that they are distinct languages, despite the fact that native speakers generally cannot tell the colloquial languages apart."

And with Urdu language:

• "Urdu (Urdu: اردو, IPA: [ˈʊrd̪u] ( listen); English: /ˈʊərduː/) is a register of the Hindi-Urdu language that is identified with Muslims in South Asia. It belongs to the Indo-European family....Urdu is mutually intelligible with Standard Hindi (or Hindi-Urdu) spoken in India. Both languages share the same Indic base and are so similar in phonology and grammar that they appear to be one language."

So the notion that somehow we're singling out Ukrainian for special treatment is simply not true. We use "some" because we can never make the absolutist statement "one". Since we have not surveyed every single book in the world to count the times that Ukrainian/Russian/Belarusian/Rusyn is called "one language", we cannot make absolutist statements. "Some" is vague and can cover more than one. Indeed, this very discussion shows that other scholars are equivocal about considering these dialects of a single language. The Voegelin source specifically says that if mutual intelligibility were the only consideration, then they would be dialects of one language. So "some" is appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking you to remove the section on mutual intelligibility, but you still did not answer my question why you've formed that section so that it appears to the casual reader that there is still a debate whether Ukrainian is considered a language. "The question of whether contemporary Ukrainian and Russian are dialects of a single language or separate languages.." Your sentence implies that there is still controversy surrounding Ukrainian being called a langauge, as most individuals only read first part of the sentence. There is no question that Ukrainian is a language, by standards other the lingusitic, therefore please put it either in linguistic section or reword it so there is no implication right at the top that Ukrainian is not considered a language.Mykyta (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To put this long section about Ukrainian being a dialect in the lead is surely POV-pushing. The Scandinavian languages are also mutual intelligibility but in their leads nothing is said about them being a dialect of another language. Närking (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice that. I agree that this does not belong in the lead. The other articles about language (afrikaner, Norwegian, etc.) all mention mutual intelligibuility with other languages but do not state in the lead that the languages may just be dialects. The Ukrainian language shouldn't be singled out as a possible dialect here. Also interestingly, the article abou the Russian language doesn't mention that it may be a dialect, in the lead.Faustian (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian is farther from Russian than Croat is from Serb, so the analogy is not entirely correct. However, the article as is currently written (which Taivo restores) seems to be quite balanced to me. I don't think that it gives the false impression that the view of Ukrainian being merely a dialect is a majority view among linguists. But it correctly states that some linguists believe that it is, based on a specific criterion (mutual intelligibility). I discussed this in the past with Taivo. According to the professional scientific terminology of linguists, the term mutual intelligibility doesn't mean that a Ukrainian who never in his life heard Russian will understand and speak Russian (and vice versa). According to Mutual intelligibility, "In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is recognized as a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related languages can readily understand each other without intentional study or extraordinary effort." What this means is that, for example, if a Ukrainian moved to Russia, without taking any Russian courses, within a couple of months he would be able to understand and speak imperfect but decent Russian. This wouldn't happen if he moved to the United States with respect to English. He may not understand a conversation with no exposure to Russian, but with no effort or instruction after a few weeks he would be able to pick it up. Here is a list of mutually intelligible languages: [1]. I hope this clears it up!Faustian (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification about mutual intelligibility, Faustian. It was very clearly and accurately stated. --Taivo (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility

The discussion about mutual intelligibity prompted an interest, however, I just couldn't find and materials to give me an idea of how mutually i=ntelligible the kanguages are, so I spent the weekend constructing some tables for mutual intelligibility of nouns for the most used nouns in English, Russian, Ukrainian Byelorusan and Polish.

My results for mutual undserstanding are:

E-E = x E-R = 20% E-U = 20% E-B = 20% E-P = 38%

R-E = 20% R-R = x R-U = 40% R-B = 64% R-P = 24%

U-E = 20% U-R = 40% U-U = x U-B = 64% U-P = 84%

B-E = 20% B-R = 48% B-U = 64% B-B = x B-P - 88%

P-E = 38% P-R = 24% P-U = 84% P-B = 88% P-P = x

Obviously this is original research. The parameters may shift when one takes into account false friends, and changes in pronounciation, but it does give one an idea of how intelligable. The list of words i English are given here http://www.sporcle.com/games/g/common_english_nouns

Some interesting things come to light. 1) Polish has almost twice as many English (read international) words (38%) as the East Slavic languages (20%), (which could be expected). 2) To a Russian, Polish (24%) is just slightly more understandable than English (20%). 3) To a Ukrainian, Russian (40%) is slightly more understood than English to a Pole (38%). 4) Belorusan (64%) is more understood by Russians than Ukrainian (40%) 5) Belorusan is more understood to Ukrainians (64%) than Russian (40%), and Polish is even more intelligable (84%). 6) Belorusan is more understood by Poles (88%) (by almost a factor of 3) than Russians (24%).

This obviously is OR, but to me it puts into doubt the statement about mutual understanding of the slavic languages.

I speak Russian and Ukrainian, and understand and can read Polish and Belorusan, however in the process of learning Russian I found that Russian speakers could not understand Ukrainian, and Polish even worse, however when in Poland and Belarus I had little difficulty when speaking Ukrainian.

Mutula intelligability between Russian and Ukrainian is dwarfed by the intelligibility of Polish and Belorusan.Bandurist (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We all know that Ukrainian and Russian does not have a very high degree of mutual intelligibility. I speak 2 Slavic languages, including Ukrainian on a native level, but I cannot understand much Russian. Only Russians who grew up in Ukraine understand the language for obvious reasons, Russians who rarely heard Ukrainian language have a hard time understanding it. This will never be admitted on Wikepedia though. Mykyta (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, that's really cool research. I wonder if there is something like that done already officially by some linguists so it would be admissible. Proabably, but it would probably start another war somewehre else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykyta (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

See the note at the end of the previous section by Faustian on the linguistic definition of mutual intelligibility. It's not based on lists of words like this. Linguists do use percentage studies of lists of words like this for historical research, however. But they're not used for mutual intelligibility studies. See lexicostatistics for a description. --Taivo (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, so the definition of mutual intelligibility is wrong on wikipedia, because it talks about individuals understanding each other right away, not after being immersed in the language for few monthsMykyta (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what the Wikipedia article says. It says, "without intentional study or extraordinary effort", not "right away". --Taivo (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example I thought up. Ukrainian and Russian have a few systemic differences that make the languages unintelligble for a Ukrainian speaker who was never exposed to Russian and vice ersa but which, once easily learned, cease being a barrier to understanding. These include Ukr. "ee" -> Russian "o", Ukrainian "h" -> Russian "g", Ukrainian "eh" -> Russian "ye", Ukrainian "y" (like the "i" in give) -> Russian "ee". So let's pretend that English is "Ukrainian" and consider the phrase, "His goose lives in my house." The "Russian" version would sound like "Gees whose leaves een moy gouse." To someone who has never been exposed to the different rules, it's total nonsense; one can mitakenly think that there's a question about leaves, but nothing else in that phrase makes sense. However, these rules could be learned with minimal effort and once learned the phrase becomes exactly the same. That's mutual intelligibility (and yes, I realize that with Ukrainian vs. Russian there are also some vocabulary differences).Faustian (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A good practical example from English is watching the film "Trainspotting". It's about the only film to ever reach the U.S. from Scotland with real Scots English (not English with a Scots accent). (Scots English and American English have about the same time depth of separation as Ukrainian and Russian.) The first time watching it, it's virtually unintelligible to an American. But after a couple of watchings, it becomes much more comprehensible. The only effort involved is watching the film and listening--no lessons, no workbooks, no vocabulary drills. And the new vocabulary is learned through exposure and context. Indeed, after just a few minutes you can figure out what "shayt" means, for example. The same is true of Ukrainian and Russian. How long do you think it would take a Russian speaker to understand that dyakuyu means "thank you" when they hear it in the market? (Actually, most Ukrainians use "spasibo" now anyway--"dyakuyu" is rather formal.) And how long would it take a Ukrainian speaker to figure out that adjectives in Russian end in -aya (Kavkaskaya) instead of '...a (Kavkas'ka)? Not very long at all. I figured it out right away when we moved to western Ukraine from eastern. --Taivo (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I found Trainspotting to be much more easily understood than Russian. In fact, I could understand it after the first half hour or so. If it were so uncomprehensible the movie wouldn't have been so successful in the English-speaking world or would have required subtitles (once in Moscow they showed the Ukrainian-language movie Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. The movie was subtitled into Russian). The first Russian movie I watched was Ironii Subdy; I couldn't understand it by the end. It took several weeks immersed in Russian, in Moscow, for me to pick up workable Russian, although I did so without lessons or studying. There are probably more sound changes, plus more divergent vocabulary. But generally I agree with you.Faustian (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Some characters in "Trainspotting" were more easily understood than others, of course. But, as you say, it illustrates the point--even when two speech varieties are labelled as "dialects of one language" and "mutually intelligible", that doesn't mean one can understand them right out of the box. The dialects of the rural South, especially the African-American dialects, and the dialects of northern England and lowlands Scotland, are usually very difficult for people from the Western U.S. to understand without exposure. In the documentary film "The Story of English", several of those dialects are subtitled when exemplified. But one doesn't have to go to classes to learn to understand the other. That's the fundamental point here. --Taivo (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

English Russian Ukr Byelo Polish

1 time время час час czas,

2 person человек (лицо, особа) особа чалавек osoba,

3 year год рік год rok,

4 way путь шлях шлях Ścieżka

5 day день день дзень dzień,

6 thing вещь річ рэч rzeczy,

7 man человек людина чалавек ludzi,

8 world мир (свет) світ свет świata,

9 life жизнь життя жыццё życia,

10 hand рука рука рука ręka

11 part часть частина частка część,

12 child ребенок (дитя) дитина дзіця dziecko,

13 eye глаз (око) око вока oko,

14 woman женщина жінка жанчына kobieta,

15 place место місце месца miejsca

16 work работа, робота, праца, pracy,

17 week неделя, тиждень, тыдзень, tydzień,

18 case случай, випадок, выпадак, przypadku,

19 point точка, точка, кропка, punkt,

20 government правительство, уряд, урад, rząd,

21 compamy компания, компанія, кампанія, firmy,

22 number число, число, лік, numer

23 group группа, група, група, grupy,

24 problem проблема, проблема, праблема, problem,

25 fact факт, факт, факт, fakt,

English x 5/20% 5/20% 7/38% Russian 5/20% x 10/40% 8 Ukrainian 5/20% 10/40% x 17/64% 21/84% Belorusan 17/64% x 22/88% Polish 19-21/84% 22/88% x

http://www.sporcle.com/games/g/common_english_nouns Common works

E-E = x E-R = 20% E-U = 20% E-B = 20% E-P = 38%

R-E = 20% R-R = x R-U = 40% R-B = 64% R-P = 24%

U-E = 20% U-R = 40% U-U = x U-B = 64% U-P = 84%

B-E = 20% B-R = 48% B-U = 64% B-B = x B-P - 88%

P-E = 38% P-R = 24% P-U = 84% P-B = 88% P-P = x

That's really not linguistically accurate, Bandurist. "government", "company", "fact", and "group" are not linguistically common words. And, as we have stated above, this isn't how mutual intelligibility is measured anyway. If you want to see the kind of list that linguists actually use to perform lexicostatistics for historical grouping, see Swadesh list. --Taivo (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the Swadesh list, and actually did a comparison. There is a closer allignment because the bulk of the words as amny have an indo-European core. The similarities are even greter between Ukrainian and Slovak and Polish than with Russian. The above list was just the most frequently used words in English, which I assume would probably be also frequently used words in other languages. Obviously international words are going to be very similar, but I would have thought that the bulk of these words would have been much more similar. What is astoundng is the even closer similarities between Russian and Bulgarian which is closer than with Ukrainian and the similarities to SLovak, more so than Plish. Bandurist (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem that you're noticing is that all the Slavic languages are actually very close to one another. There is actually a certain degree of mutual intelligibility (the linguistic definition) among all of them. They only began to diverge from one another after the 6th century. By comparison, the Germanic languages began to diverge about a thousand years earlier. The Romance languages are probably a better comparison for Slavic as their divergence also dates from the early part of the first millennium CE. Among the Romance languages there is also a degree of mutual intelligibility comparable to the Slavic languages. That means that lexicostatistic comparisons are not as clearcut between closely related languages as between languages that are not mutually intelligible. But, as we stated above, lexicostatistics is not a measure of mutual intelligibility, but is one of the tools used by historical linguists to evaluate historical relationships (and not even the best or most accurate one). You also must remember that the Swadesh list is a bit tricky to use for non-linguists. The rules for its original and proper use are that you ask a native speaker for a term and then you use the first term that they respond with. It's not necessarily the case of looking words up in a dictionary and finding a match in the definitions. So if you ask a speaker of English for the word for "kő" (assuming the linguist is asking in Hungarian), if the English speaker responds with "stone", that's the word you use in the comparison, not "rock". But this isn't the place for a discussion of lexicostatistics in Slavic. Reliable linguistic sources say that Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian, and Rusyn share a high degree of mutual intelligibility and that's what we go with. --Taivo (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

not sure what was meant here ..........

"Theories concerning the Ukrainian language's development

A point of view developed during the 19th and 20th centuries by linguists of Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union." - is not a sentence. ???

Also, it seems that this section - apparently in trying to "please everyone" - is giving undue weight to some very minority (read nationalist) viewpoints. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)