Talk:Moravian dialects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Czech Republic (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Languages (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Which dialect do those who claim Moravian is a language claim to be the standard? Hanácký? Valašský? The words given in the table probably also vary from region to region. - filelakeshoe 10:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say. The most recent effort of the Institute of Moravian Language is in the phase of construction (or, to put it precisely, the project looks inactive), and I have to admit that it all looks very funny and amateurish. The language they use on the website isn't spoken in any Moravian region, it is an artificial and unnatural construct (which was noted also by media and linguists, see [1], [2], [3]). Yes, the table is a bit confusing, for example in the region where I live people usually say chcet, not cht (to want). There are some words characteristic for most of Moravian dialects (su, aji), but in most cases it is difficult to determine a single Moravian version. I live in a South Moravian microregion, and from what I know, the dialects and pronunciations differ not only between regions but also between villages. In my village people say "vekópat" (to bathe). In a nearby village (cca 3 km) they usually say "okúpat" etc etc (I can give many examples, I love comparing the dialects). The differences in dialects are often subjects of jokes and imitations between villages. But it is in my opinion impossible to claim that the Moravian language exists as a whole. On the other hand, there's clearly a difference in the sound of the Bohemian and Moravian speech, as well as in the structure of the spoken language. A long time ago, I and my friends from Moravia visited another friend living in Prague (and speaking excellent pražáčtina (Prague or Central Bohemian dialect/accent), despite his Moravian roots :)). In the night, in a pub, someone told us that he can't stand the nasty Moravian accent. My friends (more hot blodded than me) started fight immediatelly :) The same is when people from Prague (or Bohemia) visit Moravian countryside (they do it more often today when the wine tourism and industry is growing in Moravia). The "strange" sound of their speech and some funny words are imitated and ridiculed by amused Moravian villagers. All that is rather funny and it can't be considered as a national separatist fight, however, a minor tension exists. Then we have some separatist or autonomous movements, such as Moravané. They aren't really significant in the context of the Czech politics in the 21st century, but their presence is still apparent and their chances are regularly discussed before elections. I think that the inventors of the 'official' Moravian language strive to create some intellectual support for the separatist movements. But it is just my speculation. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it was also chtět which set my alarm off. That website looks very weird.. perhaps it's just because I learned a lot of Czech in Moravia and thus equate Moravian with Czech but I can really only spot about 3 words on each page which wouldn't be acceptible in spisovná čeština.. is it actually supposed to be written in "Moravian" or is it just lazily written in Czech with a few spelling errors? It certainly seems that there is no Moravian literary standard, not even a decent attempt at making one.. as I understand that website it says they "intend to work towards creating one" after some preliminary steps.. and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - filelakeshoe 18:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
And yeah - Praguers definitely do have a warped and inaccurate view on Moravian dialects, worth bearing that in mind when looking at sources.. one of my students yesterday said he believed Hantec was "made up as a joke".. spent the next 10 minutes explaining about pidgins and créoles:) - filelakeshoe 18:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The page is basically written in spisovná čeština, the only difference I spotted is that the letter ů was replaced by ú. They elaborate further on the subpages. What looks really strange is ch replaced by x in written Moravian (e.g. jarnj-íx, see Menu → Projekty → Slavnostní-novoliturgický styl moravštiny. I guess they found an inspiration in Euskara :D I don't think we should take the initiative seriously.
Actually, as far as I know Basque, the grapheme ⟨x⟩ represents the sound [ʃ] rather than [x]. Similarly in in Catalan or Galician. Määriläinen (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hantec is rather jargon than dialect. According to Pavel "Čiča" Jelínek (a well known hantec expert), it was made up by plotňáci, a subculture active in Brno before the WWI. It is a mix of Czech, German and Yiddish. [4] We should not confuse it with Moravian dialects.
  • There's a prevailing stereotype in our society (between Prague and Moravia or the rest of the country): Moravians often view Praguers as arrogant snobs, while Praguers tend to see Moravians as bunch of rednecks. I'm talking from my experience, but you can find a more diplomatic description here. But that's really not an issue. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
When creating the list of Moravian archaisms, I was trying to make a careful choice of the forms that are (more or less) uniform throughout the Moravian territory (despite the regional diversity mentioned in the article, there are some features that are shared by all the Moravian dialects). Alternatively, we could make separate columns for each of the Moravian dialect groups, or just explicitly mark those forms that are not general Moravian and specify the region in a footnote under the table.
I'm currently working on a new version of this table that will contain more items and classify them according to the changes that occurred during the development of the language (′a > e and ′u > i vowel shifts, vowel length variation, depalatalization of palatals etc.). Määriläinen (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. It is definitely possible to compile such a table. Please, try to avoid original research. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the people does not oppose the program, many people rather are nervous, sure possible the new language is indeed difficult. The Kajkavian Croats also want to translate the Bible in a new Kajkavian literary language. The new standard is also difficult, but few Kajkavians welcomes and supports the idea (other Croats [Štokavians] opposed this new language). The Kajkavian liturgical language was maintained in many Croatian church. Doncsecztalk 15:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that Moravians are more nervous these days, similarly as the rest of Europe. But I don't think they are in pressing need of a new national language. In any case, we aren't here to speculate. The article should explain the origins of Moravian language separatism (which seem to stretch back to the 19th century). The following article could be very useful as a source: Bláha, Ondřej : Moravský jazykový separatismus: zdroje, cíle, slovanský kontext. In: Studia Moravica 3. Sborník historiografických, filologických a uměnovědných příspěvků přednesených na vědecké konferenci Mars Moravicus - Neklidná léta Moravy. Olomouc, Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci 2005, s. 293-299. Rés. něm. s. 299. Der mährische Sprachseparatismus: Ursprünge, Ziele, slavischer Kontext. I found an interesting annotation here: "The rather amateurish attempts to codify 'literary Moravian language' have always had political overtones" or "In Moravia, there's no (at least minimally) stabilized language system which could be called 'general Moravian'". I think it applies also to the most recent efforts of the 'Institute of Moravian Language'. The politologist Martin Bastl says in this article ( that the amateur linguists (who are behind the idea of the institute) have similar — politically motivated — goals as their predecessors who were active in this field in the 1990s. He characterizes the efforts as 'bizarre and marginal'.
The topic is notable and interesting, but here on Wikipedia we have to follow reliable sources, not someone's personal opinions or speculations. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In the world there are outstanding debts (question of new or old nations and languages). Always was and always will be. One should distinguish things: for ex. unnecessary hack-language the Balearic languages (sanctimoniousness of the Spanish nationalisms), but the Burgenland Croatian or Banat Bulgarian has a serious culture. Doncsecztalk 17:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Here we are talking about Moravian language, or rather, about Moravian language separatism. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Moravian language separatism[edit]

I think it would be appropriate to add an explanatory section about Moravian language separatism to the article. I could create a short introduction based on the findings cited above. Do you agree? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Needed volunteers, who writes an (objective) article about the Moravian language separatism. I do not have source. Doncsecztalk 13:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Which 'Moravian language separatism' do you have in mind? The 19th century phenomenon, when some scholars (František Cyril Kampelík, Vincenc Pavel Žák and others) attempted to incorporate various Moravian regional expressions into the literary Czech(oslovak) language, or the struggle for creating a distinct Moravian literary language after 1989 (Rostislav Svoboda and Jan Kozohorský, ehm...if his work is worth mentioning at all)? Anyway, if you have appropriate materials, I'll be glad to see the article expand. Määriläinen (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I have in mind a brief overview mentioning all the efforts. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is true. The denomination separatism is a malicious classification, since exist Burgenland Croatian Standard language and his existance guarantee also Croatia. Vid Balog actor also experimenting to create a new Kajkavian Standard language and other Croatian linguists are not attacking this plain (Balog's work is the Kajkavian New Testament). In Slovenia prominent linguists argue, still has Prekmurian Standard language in the art of Prekmurian and Hungarian Slovene writers and in the publications of Porabje and Porabski koledar. There is no question about language separatism. Doncsecztalk 14:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


Could the person who's just slapped all those tags on this article please explain themselves? There is clearly enough available source which primarily discusses this topic, I don't see how on Earth its "notability is in question". - filelakeshoe 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear File! A lot of lesser-known languages ​​in the world, zB.: in Africa and Asia, or the Istro-Romanian language in the Balkan. Doncsecztalk 17:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you, are you saying you do agree with me that this is notable, or not? - filelakeshoe 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Moravian language" is newly created construct, mentioned only in two scholar articles ("BLÁHA" and "Stich"), other are self-published. Both reliable articles are about craziness of inventor of this new language. This language not mentioned in any reliable source about languages.
    • CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD, Elsevier 2009, ISBN 978-0-08-087774-7 - nothing about Moravian language
    • DICTIONARY OF LANGUAGES, Andrew Dalby, A & C Black London 2006, ISBN-10: 0 7136 7841 0 - p.144 "The dialects of Moravia to the south-east are counted as Czech", nothing about Moravian language
    • Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered Languages, Christopher Moseley, Routledge 2007, ISBN13: 978-0-7007-1197-0 - nothing about ML (in case if is endangered)
    • Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Keith Brown, Elsevier 2005, ISBN-9780080442990- say "West Slavic, consisting of Polish, Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian", but nothing about ML
    • THE SLAVONIC LANGUAGES, Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, Routledge 1993, ISBN 0-415-04755-2 - again, nothing about ML

According to WP:N if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, is notable. I´m in doubts about "significant coverage", if this language is not in any reliable encyclopedia of languages.--Yopie (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

@Yopie: No, it is not a newly created construct, the discussion about the concept continues from the 19th century, no matter how crazy it is. Notability of the topic is not in question and here we are not restricted to use only scientific language encyclopedias. Here is a list of sources describing the most recent efforts of Moravian language separatists:
However, I agree with you that our article presents facts in an unencyclopedic manner. What is, for example, Moravian: moravščina in the opening sentence?? I'm Moravian and I know some of the Moravian dialects (actually, one of them is my real 'native language'), but I have never heard about the term "moravščina". Is it taken from Slovene? The section 'Dialects' seems to be OK, and I think it is possible to verify the content. The comparative table in the section 'Linguistic features' seems to be someone's WP:OR, but it could be in my opinion developed in a more encyclopedic way (I mean citing reliable sources for the claims stated). Our article should focus on Moravian language separatism or Moravian dialects, but it should not present Moravian as a stand alone and established language, as it is not an established language, but a variety of dialects based mainly on standard Czech. It is true that "some Moravians assert that Moravian is a language distinct from Czech, however, their efforts are not widely supported by academics and the public" (I'm quoting my own addition to the article Moravia). I've explained my opinion also in my comments above. Would you mind to remove the "notability" tag? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If you wanted to cry WP:FRINGE (something I tend to avoid), you might justify moving this to Moravian dialects with a section on Moravian language separatism. But I hate the idea of arbitrarily restricting coverage of something in a dedicated article because it's "not mainstream opinion". Anyway, "Moravian language" obviously cannot be a newly created construct if it was mentioned on the Austro-Hungarian census. The pushes to standardise a "Moravian language" are recent, but there must be some historical sources which discuss the situation before linguists started talking about a "Czech language"? - filelakeshoe 12:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Good, forget these expressions of the Czech nationalism: language-separatism, and other. The pursuits for the Moravian literary language is not separatism, in Croatia also seek for the new Kajkavian and Čakavian literary language, and the Burgenland Croatian is also standardised, official language. About this programs not or hardly informations in the internet, perhaps in the newspapers (Kaj). Doncsecztalk 12:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The moving Moravian dialects is completely unfounded: few languages is not homogeneous, have few dialects. Doncsecztalk 12:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The typical examples of the language-separatism and sharing of a nation not the Moravian, but the Moldovan language: the Moldavian is a Romanian dialectical speech, there is no legal historical basis. Doncsecztalk 12:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Stealing the language"[edit]

The political party Moravané claims that Czech language is originally Moravian and that Czechs stole the language.

Source and explain this better please, "stealing a language" is meaningless nationalist propaganda. No one "stole" anything. It's not like Charles IV broke into Olomouc under cover of night and somehow "stole" the language. Is it supposed to say that people living in Bohemia previously spoke another language, then they adopted the language spoken in Moravia which was later standardised as Bohemian? - filelakeshoe 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a meaningless nationalist propaganda. But it is true - the political party indeed claims that Czechs have stolen the Czech language from Moravians. The claimed reason for this is that the Bible of Kralice was made in Moravia (which itself is true). The whole issue has a very strong political context. That should be mentioned as the creation of a new language in Moravia is primarily fuelled by politics.--Pipexito (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Aha, yes, I've just found this:

Na základě konstitučního patentu v roce 1848 se utvořil nový zemský sněm Moravského markrabství. Na návrh Petra ryt. Chlumeckého sněm uzákonil, aby moravský jazyk v kostelích a školách, v úřadě a před právem s německým stejně se postavil. Podle J. Jungmanna byla tehdejší forma českého spisovného jazyka bližší jazyku moravské Kralické bibli než spisům českých Veleslavínových a mluvilo se vlastně řečí moravskou. A podle názoru K.Havlíčka byl spisovný jazyk v Čechách vlastně čistou moravštinou

/Národní listy/ Havlík Lubomír E., Moravské letopisy, Brno, 1993

We can't really report that Josef Jungmann said those things without a better reference but we could say Moravané advocate that claim, sure - filelakeshoe 19:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Constructed languages[edit]

Disagree that this is a constructed language. The attempts to standardise it are nothing out of the ordinary and are based on the way people speak. Constructed languages are written before they are spoken. - filelakeshoe 12:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Moravian cannot be called a "constructed language", despite the recent efforts to create a standard and unified language. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Please, read e. g. : "Především je to skutečnost, že zcela vážně nelze hovořit, že na Moravě je užíván jiný jazyk než čeština ..Ve druhé, volně navazující části, jsem ukázal, kudy vede cesta vytvoření skutečného moravského jazyka – záměrným „hnětením“ jakéhosi (vývojově) přednářečního „těsta“, při němž moravská nářečí hrají jen pomocnou roli inspirace a případně vodítka toho, jak daleko ještě (ne)lze zajít. ..Teprve tehdy, až se bude muset rodilý mluvčí češtiny moravštinu učit, bude možné s klidným svědomím říct, že jde o jiný jazyk. Sice znovu musím zopakovat obavu, že je pak otázka, zda mluvčí češtiny na Moravě jiný jazyk budou ochotni přijmout za svůj, ale jiná cesta k samostatnému jazyku skutečně není. " And from pages of "Ústav jazyka moravského" : Při konstruování jazyka vyzdvihovat velkomoravské jazykové tradice" . Even creators of this language declared, that this is constructed language.--Yopie (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a native Czech speaker but I read that "konstruování jazyka" to mean writing the standard, which like I said is nothing out of the ordinary. Same thing Ľudovit Štúr did with Slovak. A conlang is one which is totally made up before anyone even speaks it, which isn't the case here. The language is being "created" (i.e. standardised) based on how people speak. - filelakeshoe 11:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yopie, both the sources you cite mention possibilities and obstacles in constructing standardised Moravian language. The historical context of determining the language is far broader, see for example this article (published by Britské listy). In 1809, Josef Dobrovský codified Czech grammar in his Podrobná mluvnice spisovné češtiny. He systematically unified various scattered elements of Czech language and created what is — even today — considered valid codification of the language [5]. Does that mean that he constructed or made up the language? I don't think so, because he worked with an existing substance which he attempted to cultivate and stabilize. The situation is similar with Moravian language. The definition of the language is not clear, and it should be apparent from our article, but Moravian is definitely not a constructed language ... Btw, I don't think that blogs and separatist websites are the best sources for us. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This that the Moravian is Constructed language is a drool. All literary language is constructed language. The official view of Czech about the Moravian is disinterested (see the Rusyn language). Doncsecztalk 09:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


I really think the title of this article should be plural dialects. See for example this, which looks like it referenced some of this article, which refers to Moravian dialects as a group. Since the bridge dialects all share features with whatever they're next to (Slovakia, Cieszyn Silesia or in the case of Brno, the shadows of Germans and Jews), there's no plausible way they could ever have evolved to what they are now from one dialect. I like, which I realise isn't an academic source, but I gather a Moravian can look at it and not think it's insane, and there really are not many words and features shared amongst all dialects. - filelakeshoe 20:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It came to my mind immediately after User:Kwamikagami moved the article to its current title. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved, and I translated a section from cs:Moravština about separatism. I'm still pondering over those massive comparison tables. The "retaining short vowels" one for example seems a bit misleading, since in Lach dialects there are simply no long vowels at all, not about short vowels being "retained" but about the čárka simply not doing anything. Are those tables sourced from anywhere? - filelakeshoe 14:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Just seen from an edit summary, Lamprecht, A. (1976): Czech Dialectal Texts or Bartoš, F. (1886; 1895): Moravian Dialectology, will look them up.. - filelakeshoe 14:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Short vowels"[edit]

I removed the table "retaining short vowels" under linguistic features. While I can tell this is sometimes true that čárky are missing, there is the problem that North Moravian dialects never observe long vowels, full stop. The words in the table were also far too region-specific. I have never heard anyone say "jest" instead of "jíst", I would expect "jést" from Hanáčtina, "íst" from Valašstina, "jist" or "ist" in SM (I believe "un í" for "on jí" is a shibboleth for some North Moravian microregion). The claim that "može" instead of "může" is endemic to Eastern Moravia is incorrect, I know it's an old source but Bartoš's dialectology really shows it scattered all over the place, and that ů -> o retention definitely blends into the SM dialects too. "Mucha" for "moucha" is bound to exist somewhere, but "mócha" and "múcha" do also. Anyway, those were just bad examples, but the short vowels is a more complicated issue than a retention of an archaic feature and the comparison to other languages which don't even use long vowels wasn't illustrating much. - filelakeshoe 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)