Talk:Võro language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Estonia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Võro language is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Languages (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Hi! It would be great if somebody will translate the article ´Võro language´ to his own language and add to his language Wikipedia. I mean especially our neighbours: finns (hei suomalaiset suomentakaa se artikkeli lähisukukielestänne!!) latvians (labdien!), swedes, russians! -Võrolang 10:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The edition from 20. January is made by me. --Võrolang 16:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

language codes[edit]

I removed the "proposed" language codes from the infobox, because the language is currently covered by already-existing codes, which should be there for those who need the refererence. Ethnologue explicitly states "Vôru" to be a dialect of Estonian, so I couldn't do anything about that, but I was charitable and used the ISO code "fiu" (Finno-Ugric, other) instead of "et/est" (Estonian). The proposed Võro-specific language codes can be added back later if and after ISO or Ethnologue officially accept them. —Muke Tever 20:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that what Ethnologue says is not sacred chapter and verse, and just because they say something does not make it fact in and of itself. Of course, then, much of the criticism of Ethnologue has been on their being apparently too willing to declare things as independent languages than the opposite, but even still, that alone does question the idea of Ethnologue's judgements being fixed truths unto themselves. -Travis 8:10, 16 Apr 2006 (UTC)
ISO_639-3 code for Võro is now vro, ISO_639-2 stays obviously fiu and ISO_639-1 et, as the macrolanguage code both for (Standard) Estonian and Võro.--Võrok (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there an Estonian Language Institute statement to that effect? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnologue is not the ISO-639-3 standard. Please check Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

List of words[edit]

Basic greetings[edit]

  • Tereq! - Hello! Good day!
  • (Tere) hummogust - Good morning
  • (Tere) õdagust - Good evening
  • Hääd üüd / hüvvä üüd - Good night
  • Näemiq - See you later
  • Hüvvä / hääd nägemist - Goodbye
  • Rõõm nätäq - Nice to meet you
  • Aiteh / Aitjumma - Thank you
  • Aiteh sullõ kah - Likewise
  • Kuis lätt - How are you / How you doing?
  • Häste - I'm fine
  • Olõq terveq tulõmast! - Welcome!

Important words[edit]

  • jah / jaa - yes
  • ei - no
  • ma olõ - I am
  • maq, saq, tä - I, you, he/she
  • miiq, tiiq, nääq - we, you, they
  • seo - this, it
  • taa / tuu - that, it
  • muidoki - of course
  • Üts silmäpilk - One moment!
  • Mul om - I have
  • Sul om - You have
  • Kas sul om? - do you have?
  • üts, kats, kolm - one, two, three
  • neli, viis, kuus - four, five, six
  • säidse, katõsa - seven, eight
  • ütesä, kümme - nine, ten
  • sada, tuhat, mill'on - hundred, thousand, million
  • vabandust / pallõ andis - sorry or excuse me
  • vesi - water
  • oluq - beer
  • Eesti - Estonia
  • Võromaa - Võro area
  • võro kiil - Võro language
  • võrokõnõ - Võro (person)
  • eestläne - Estonian (person)
  • saa-i arvo - I don't understand
  • saa arvo - (I) understand
  • Kas võro kiilt mõistat? - Do you understand Võro?
  • Kas inglüse kiilt kõnõlõt? - Do you speak English?
  • Ma olõ ingläne / ameeriklanõ / kanadalanõ / austraallanõ / vahtsõmeremaalanõ / iirläne / sotlanõ - I am English / American / Canadian / Australian / New Zealander / Irish / Scottish
  • Kas ti olõt ingläne? - Are you English?
  • Kon sa elät / kon ti elät? - Where do you live?

This needs to be transwikied to Wiktionary, if at all possible/necessary. ALTON .ıl 21:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be still useful to have at least some most important of them also in the article, as it appears in the article about Finnish. I will add a shortened list.--Võrok (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Abrubt moving the article without any discussion[edit]

The article Võro language was suddenly moved to another name Võro dialect by user:Miacek without any discussion on the talk page of the article or it's editors. There was left only following short declarative notice in the edit summary: there is no such thing as separate võro language. removed WP:OR and POV-pushing. It is not right to take so sudden and abrubt actions against articles which are developed many years by another users. If somebody believes that such extreme actions are absolutely necessary, so I think it should be discussed and well argumented before at least on the talk page of the article or its main editors. Without thorough discussion and argumentation a long developed article should not be moved or fundamentaly changed. On this reason these abrubt changes should be cancelled and previous form of the article restored. Please be so kind and don't do such big changes without discussion any more.--Võrok (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The best argument is that no encyclopedia be it Eesti Entsüklopeedia, Britannica or Encarta treats Võru dialects as a separate Fenno-Ugric language (see also: [1]). It is your personal theory that there are separate Seto, Võro, Mulgi or Tartu languages, which has no academic or official recognition. Please stop pushing your marginal theories here, Wikipedia is not place for original research or propaganda. Wikipedia just reflects existing conventions and scholarly consensus. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
And why is the title 'Võro dialects' not 'Võro dialect' then? Flying Saucer (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The ISO language code is pretty much a form of official recognition. Ronabop (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't. The ISO language code is nothing more than a system for cataloging books. If a sufficient number of books are written in a particular dialect, it will receive a ISO language code. Note that Flemish also has an ISO code "vls", even though it is acknowledged as a dialect of Dutch. The academic view is that Võro is a dialect, see here. Martintg (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Two issues: One, assuming that a single paper which refers to language hybrids, extensions, and variants as dialects, rather than discrete languages, does not mean that another source (ISO, the International Standards Organization) shouldn't be recognized in wikipedia. We can recognize multiple sources, and opinions, without enforcing a given opinion. Two: The job of wikipedia is not to determine "truth", we merely report, and cite, what others have said. Not what scholars say, or what academics say, or what governments say, but what reliable sources say. Ronabop (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the first issue, you seem to be making the assumption that because a dialect has an ISO language code, it therefore qualifies it as a language. Flemish has an ISO language code, yet linguists agree it is a dialect of Dutch, not a distinct language. In regard to your second point, Wikipedia does indeed report what the sources say, by with due weight given to those source. Thus if the majority of the sources say it is a dialect, while a minority of sources say it is a language, then coverage in Wikipedia must reflect that coverage with due weight. Martintg (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Martintg, don't you think it is not the best way to contribute to a long developed article placing very big and empty infobox on the top of the article. It tends to be quite misleading in this context. If you want to have series about Estonian dialects, maybe you firstly should start with writing articles about the dialects, not attempting to show that Võro and South Estonian are just dialects or dialect groups. In this case I would say that obviusly all means used in Netherlands don't suite automatically for other countries. Maybe you could remove your infobox from the top of the article, please.--Võrok (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Võrok, please assume good faith, I do indeed intent to write a series of articles. I find working in a top-down approach helpful in this task. Martintg (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, in this case the series could be discussed and maybe called Series about Estonian dialects and regional languages but anyway it doesn't suite on the top of the articles about Võro and South Estonian. Maybe you can hold it temporary on the discussion pages of the articles.--Võrok (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia follow the out-of-date viewpoints just by routine repetition? Actually the vantage of Wikipedia is its contemporaneity. I don't call the traditional, centralized classification of the Estonian language a mistake, it just has it's historical and political backgrounds. The sophistry relying upon either the minority or majority of sources is a dead end, leaving no room for any development. What sources had Galileo?
The Wikipedia article of the Estonian language says clearly, that Tartu, Mulgi, Võro and Seto dialects are sometimes considered either variants of a South Estonian language, or separate languages altogether.Valpri (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Valpri, Wikipedia cannot be a publisher of original research, it must reflect only what other published sources say, relying particularly upon secondary sources while treating primary sources with caution. If the majority of published sources reflect a certain viewpoint, Wikipedia must reflect that viewpoint, no matter how much we personally may think that viewpoint is out of date. Martintg (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Valpri, here's a bit of free advice: comparing oneself to Galileo or Einstein is best left to kooks. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have performed a history merge to reunite the histories of these pages. Any further move proposals should follow the instructions at WP:RM. –xeno (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup, Xeno ; vous êtes le Maître des Ignoramusiz ! --Budelberger (   ) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Thank you too, for your tireless interest in 'võro kiil'. But I'd like to remind you that it's English Wikipedia here, so the default means of communication is the English language here. Merci. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the historic dialect with the artificial language[edit]

What's happened here is obviously a case of some radical activists deliberately conflating the modern constructed language with the historic dialect, using associations from one or the other as suits their fancy. Furthermore, the idea of 70 000 speakers doesn't go with either -- the population of Võrumaa was never that large when the dialect was still current, and the modern population of that county speaks neither of the specific Võros in such a large scale.

I've split up the articles, but it'll take time to sort the mess out. Help is certainly welcome. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is attacking again the article about the Võro language. He considers it an artificial language and has splitted and rewrited the article according to his view. Võro definitely isn't an artificial language. It's my mother tongue and many people around me speak and read it every day. A literary language of an old and endangered but still vital living language definitely can not be understood as an artificial language. And the written Võro is almost identical with the spoken Võro (only peripheral dialects of the language area like Harglõ or Räpinä differ a bit more), there is nothing artificial except some new words invented for new terms or concepts. But every modern living language creates new words and has language planning. It doesn't make a language artificial. It is obvious and also ISO has recognised Võro as a individual living language, not as an artificial language. I'm just afraid I have no energy to have again a long and tiring discussion to prove someting to users who are suspecting and accusing me in god knows what. It already was the case with Võro, South Estonian and with template of the Uralic languages. Many regional or minority languages have their own literary languages and these can not be considered artificial languages. Read carefully the article about artificial languages. Võro definitely is not the case.--Võrok (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I support the argument that it is a clear exaggeration to call Võro a constructed language. As far as I know (not too much), there are some controversies over the new literary language, but then, if we'd call it a constructed language, we could call every second [literary] language a constructed language. K731 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The relationship between the Old Võro and the Modern Võro is comparable to that of Old Hebrew and Modern Hebrew. There's some inspiration from the old traditions, but since it hasn't been under active development for most of the 20th century and is ill-equipped to deal with the modern world, the activists have been constructing a lot of new words. Hence, constructed language. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The situation with Hebrew is definitely different. Hebrew was revived from a liturgical and written language, whereas Võro has always been a living, spoken language (though its use has declined). It is perfectly normal that new words are invented for dealing with the modern world, but again, that is not a reason for calling it a constructed language. After all, you don't call Estonian in such way, although numerous words in Estonian are pure inventions (let us remember Johannes Aavik or the modern competitions for finding new words for newly arisen subjects). In addition, your current attempts to call Võro a (re-)constructed language are pretty much original research. When you insist calling Võro a language is a fringe theory, calling it a reconstructed language is even more. K731 (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That's the point of comparisons: to analyse the similarities and differences. Of course there are some differences between these cases, but the old/new distinction is similar.
Construction does not flow from the inflow of words. Construction flows from the deliberate process of construction -- in this case, picking and choosing parts from various dialects. Of course, rapid inflow of words may be a sign of construction or, in some cases, pidginisation. The "kopi" root found in the Võro Wikipedia's user interface, for example, is a clear example of the latter; it has been borrowed from 1990s' Estonian computer slang. Estonian, in turn, borrowed from English. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
As for construction -- look at this article, at the website of the Võro Institute. It begins with a description of the conference that "passed" the Võro orthography in 1995, as resolutions are passed. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "artificial" may be a bit strong, perhaps he meant "re-constructed", in the sense that Võro remained mainly a spoken tongue by an increasingly elderly population of Southern Estonia for much of the 20th century (while official Estonian continued to develop), until it was revived within the last ten years or so by the efforts of people like Võrok. Because of this lack of development of Võro in the last 100 years, it lacked terms for many concepts developed during that period, for example there is no specific term for "dialect" in Võro (murre in Estonian), while meaning of "kiil" to an elderly authentic Võro speaker has a slightly different meaning to the concept of "language" in english as we know it. Ofcourse the Võro Institute is working hard to correct this situation, and the Institutes activities in developing Võro is what is meant when saying it has been "re-constructed".
Digwuren, Miacek and Võrok are educated people, all graduates of Tartu University in Estonia, and this content dispute here is indicative of the controversy that seems to exist within Estonia over the place of Võro within the Estonian linguistic space. Ofcourse Võro is Võrok's mother tongue and thus there is a strong emotional aspect here as well and he is certainly a strong advocate of Võro and has had a good run so far in getting the message out via Wikipedia. But as WP:NPOV requires, Wikipedia should be a roadmap to all particular viewpoints on a topic with due regard to weight as reflected in reliable sources, so I think the first step is to articulate what this controversy (perhaps it is just in the way it is being presented here) is here and then to develop these articles in an acceptable direction. Martintg (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
"Strong emotional aspect" is putting it lightly. Have you seen this assumption of hatred?
Maybe we should put Petri and Võrok together, just to see which one is kookier. Petri would just *love* the Võro emancipation idea. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know Petri, who is he?--Võrok (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just forget I even mentioned him. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess language standardization would be the correct term of the development of Võro in recent decades. And some aspects of the new standard language have been controversial, most prominently the use of q for marking glottal stop. For example, this article (in Estonian, by et:Enn Haabsaar) is highly critical of the new Võro literary language, its main argument is that the modern Võru is an artificial mix of different Võro dialects and Standard Estonian and should no way be promoted as a regional language or something official. Estonian wiki article on the new literary Võro states that it has been criticized for the foreignness of the letters q and y. Estonian writer et:Contra also writes: q at the end of word is an object of irony for many Võros. So, there are controversies, but development of a new standard language probably always creates them and this isn't an argument for calling the new language a constructed language. K731 (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there have been really controversies and discussions about the principles and concrete details of the written Võro. K731 explained quite well the situation. The main discussions have been on two topics: a) how puristic should be the written language (main opponents have been Mati Hint and Toomas Help (in Publ. of Võro Institute no 6, 1999)); b) ortography, mainly using letters q and y, which are a foreign letters in Estonian (various opponents, but mainly the younger generation supports using the letters and older opposes it; the same discussions also in Seto); from 2005 Võro literary language actually don't use letter "y" any more, so using of the "q" for marking glottal stop is the main controversy and issue of the disputes by now. It should be remarked that Võro and Seto people are quite interested in the issue and quite many people have been actively took part in the public discussions in media (a discussion workshop about Määne om "õigõ" võro kiil? ('what is a "right" Võro language?') will take place again in the Võro institute this week (See news on the page of the Võro Institute [2]). Something about the discussions could be added also to the article about Võro here in the Wikipedia. It would be one real thing making the article more neutral and adequate.--Võrok (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I can accept the compromise of "reconstructed language". ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As K731 already said, Võro isn't a reconstructed language. It has always been and is today spoken not only by eldrly but also by most middle-aged people. Yes, the language is definitely endangered (The Encyclopedia of the world’s endangered languages) like most of the contemporary autochthonic regional and minority languages of Europe. The language change from Võro-Estonian bilingualism or diglossia to the Estonian only monolingualism has been started. The same process is going on in most lesser used languages but only in some of them (Livonian, Votic, Manx, also South Estonian varieties Tartu and Mulgi) it has already finished or almost finished. But even these languages are not reconstructed though there are attempts to revitalize some of them. Võro is happily a better preserved language. It has never been extinct or almost extinct. There have been also võro-speaking young people and children all the time, but definitely their number has been decreased much in the last 20-40 years (Koreinik etc 2000: A kiilt rahvas kynõlõs). Today there is increasing number of the families where Võro is choosen conciously to the main language of interaction (Ojar 2005). The same like in the other RMLs of the Europe. In Võro, there is happened in about last 15-20 years and happening now language planning (standardisation, some revitalization, corpus and aquisition planning etc.). This is happening in some extent in the all European regional and minority languages, that obviously doesn't make them artificial or reconstructed. Please do not revert the article again to the reconstructed language.--Võrok (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The reactions of opposition here may be due to the disconnect between the language/dialect debate within Estonian and the way it is presented here. The danger is that a non-neutral presentation of the topic may be misleading to English readers who are not familiar with the debate in Estonia. I don't live in Estonia, but even for me there are glaring distortions in the article, for example the claim there are 70,000 Võro speakers does not fit with the fact there are only 39,696 (2004 census) people living in Võromaa nor your own assertion that it is spoken by most elderly and middle aged people (so even less than 39,000). The absolute numbers do not really matter, but these apparent clumsy distortions leads to the question: what else is being distorted?
Seems to me the kernel of the content dispute here is whether or not modern Võro is a reconstructed language developed from a regional dialect. This academic question has apparently been politicised by regionalists advocating a Võros homeland and thus the imperative for a distinct language, as speaking in terms of the "emancipation of Võro" seems to indicate. Martintg (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It's ironic that the Võro Institute folks would pretend that all the different Võro dialects are the same yet distinct from Estonian language. In the counties farther from the urban centre, the differences between what VI advocates and what actual dialect speakers use is reportedly so big that the elementary school textbooks composed by VI are of very little use in teaching the "regional language".
A more reasonable approach would be to recognise that the different Võro dialects amount to variety within the Võro dialect, just the same way as Võro dialect (taken as a group) is a variant of Estonian language. Of course, the problem is that linguists have a term for 'regional variant language', and VI hates that term.
I also don't think VI can claim it's "standardising" the language. To me, mix-and-match makes rather poor standardising effort. Rather, they should analyse and write down grammatical rules and vocabularies of various dialects -- in whatever order of preference their funders find best. Modern Estonian wasn't done through a mix-and-match procedure; it was done by collecting the rules used in a particular dominant variety, and the low-cost distribution of printed text entrenched the result's dominant position further. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Võro, as most languages has it's dialects and literary language. Nobody never required to speak the Võro literary language (as it has happened in case of Standard Estonian). There have been always suggested to people (also to Võro teachers) to speak their own dialect or whatever individual spoken variant of the language they have. Written standard is only for certain books and texts which can not be printed in all dialects.--Võrok (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK guys, lest take it easy now. First of all, language or not, if any regular Estonian speaker would claim that he/she understands what a Voru speaker is talking about if she/he uses his/her native tongue, I say you're full of it. It's simply not possible to understand Voru if you're not familiar with the language/dialect. I can bet on it that the Northern Estonians understand easier Finnish than Voru. Now, putting that aside as WP:OR, lets simply concentrate what the sources say pr WP:RS and in case there are conflicting perspectives (like there obviously are) each should be presented fairly. Now, putting wikilawyering behind, lets concentrate on sources and try to find some middle ground here:

The Voro language is a dialect of Estonian, but it has its own literary language and is in search of official recognition as an autochthonous regional language of Estonia There are discussions whether the Võru language is a separate language or just an Estonian dialect and probably the discussions will continue. The Võru language (which has about 70 000 passive and 15 000 active users).

Also, please keep those facts in mind: The language ideology of the Estonian government has dramatically changed in the twentieth century...A crucial aspect of language planning during the interwar period was the standardization of Estonian...the Voro language was left unprotected and demoted in status. The ban on the instruction and speaking of Voro in schools continiued during Soviet occupation...Since 1994 the Estonian government has begun to voice an interest in the protection and development of Estonia's regional languages like Voro and Seto. etc. the full story is published in Civil Society Or Shadow State? Regional Language Policy, the European Union, the Estonian Government, and the Voro Institute in Estonia by Kara D. Brown. ISBN 1593112017--Termer (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I speak Estonian. I understand Võru people speaking. And I'm not a particularly talented linguist. (Case in point: I *still* don't speak Esperanto, and my Interlingua skills are rather passive.) ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
RE:Διγουρεν Do you understand Võru people speaking..Estonian or Voro? According to Kara Brown the people, even the teachers at school speak Voro only among themselves. So Võru people speak in Estonian to outsiders and use Voru for internal communication only. In any case you saying that you understand "Võru people speaking" doesn't tell much about anything.--Termer (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW.Danes understand pretty much 99% of spoken Norwegian and 100% of written Norwegian. Does that make Norwegian a Danish dialect?--Termer (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Wiedemann's comparison: Võro-Estonian like Danish-Swedish: F. J. Wiedemann (in it's Võro grammar from 1864, preface) says the same about relationship of Võro and Estonian (Tallinn) in attitudes of Võro people: "Tallinna murdesse suhtutakse siiski pigem nagu kergesti arusaadavasse võõrkeelde, mis ei suuda kõnekeelt mõjutada samal määral kui seal, kus inimestega on lapsest saadik kirikus ja koolis selles keeles kõneldud. Olukord on võrreldav näiteks sellega, kui taanlane võib ilma suuremate raskusteta lugeda ja mõista rootsikeelseid raamatuid, ilma et see mõjutaks tema enese emakeelt." Rough translation: "Peoples' attitudes towards Tallinn dialect are rather like towards an easy understandable foreign language, which can not influence their spoken language as much as in the regions where this (Tallinn) language was spoken to people in church and school from their childhood. One can comparise it with the situation where a Dane can read and understand Swedish books without influencing his own mother tongue." Of course the situation is changed, but the point remains the same.--Võrok (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lexical similarities to Finnish[edit]

I don't know if it is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article, but many of the words in the comparison between Standard Estonian and Võro are strikingly similar to their counterparts in standard Finnish. I'm offering this augmented table for possible inclusion (copy/pasted from the article; added a column for Finnish).

Estonian Võro Estonian (dialectal) literary word Finnish Meaning
punane verrev verev (punainen) red
soe lämmi lämmi, lämbe lämmin warm
jahe oigõ - (haalea) cool, chilly
õde sõsar sõsar- (in compound words) sisar sister
uus vahtsõnõ vastne (uusi) new
koer pini peni (koira) dog
pöial päss - (peukalo) thumb
pesema mõskma mõskma (pestä) to wash
tänavu timahavva - (tänä vuonna) this year
hunt susi susi susi wolf
mäger kähr - (mäyrä) badger
laupäev puulpäiv - (lauantai) Saturday
surema kuulma koolma kuolla to die
sõstar hõrak - (viinimarja) currant
kask kõiv kõiv koivu birch
nutma ikma itkema itkeä to weep
märkama rõbahtama - (huomata) to notice

I'm not familiar with Võro so I don't know how well this generalizes to the vocabulary at large, but it seems from this data that Standard Estonian is the odd one out. -- era (Talk | History) 17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Era, it is a good idea! I added the Finnish comparisions to the article.--Võrok (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)