Talk:East Slavic languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Old talk[edit]

Enough revanchism, gentlemen. Try not to let your ethnic prejudices show, pro or anti Ukraine. СТЫДНО!!!!

Documentation! If you wish to remove facts, please show that they are not facts! Factually, Muscovy was renamed "Rossiya" in 1713; this caused communication betweeen the Muscovite rulers and their ambassadors due to resistance in European capitals! Genyo 03:35, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is ridiculous info. Marcus2 22:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please respond with facts and documentation, not opinions on Wikipedia, thank you! Genyo 02:27, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the chapter on the history of the literary languages is okay and neutral now, though of course it can still be improved. What is needed is more information on the dialectal history: What features of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian can be observed in which texts? Can please someone who has engaged in this discussion now engage in that? --Daniel Buncic 2005-01-06 13:14 CET

I believe the history section, as it involves only two languages out of three, should be moved to the Ruthenian language article. Ghirlandajo 16:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
All three languages have always been (and still are) mutually intelligible, so that trash about the overwhelming "Ruthenian-Moscovian differences" should be removed for neutrality's sake. Ghirlandajo 16:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, these differences are nowhere classified as "overwhelming". But Ruthenian texts often included so many polonisms that they looked sometimes more like transliterated Polish (with some East Slavic case endings and structure words replacing the Polish ones). This language was indeed hard to understand vor a Moscovian who did not know Polish. I'm not talking about the peasants and their language; they should be treated in the "dialects" section. And of course it was possible for any Ruthenian to make himself understood in Muscovy; nothing contrary is stated on the page. But there were two quite distinct literary standards. Not one, like Russian nationalists usually maintain, and not three, like Belarusian and Ukrainian nationalists usually claim. Western linguists usually speak of Ruthenian and Russian texts. Daniel Buncic 2005-01-08 09:04 (CET)

This is politics, not linguistics[edit]

By the sheer number of the printed books, the Old Belarusian of the 16th-17th surpassed the contemporary Great Russian (Muscovite). It is sometimes considered, although contended, too, that the even the printing tradition in 16th cent. Muscovy had been initiated either by Skaryna during his visit to Moscow (c.1520s) or by another Belarusian printer, Pyotr Mstislavets (Belarusian: Пётр Мсціславец); c.1564), together with Muscovite Ivan Fyodorov.

It is worth noting, that not only the literature in Old Belarusian, but also the Orthodox literature in Church Slavonic, if printed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, had been met with certain suspicion and even with hostility in the contemporary Muscovy, being perceived as «spoiled by the Latin and Polish influences» and highly «un-Orthodox». It had come to book-burnings, e.g., in c.1530 (books of Skaryna) and in 1627 (books of Greek-Catholic author Trankvilion-Stawravyetski). In 1627 and in 1672, there had been decrees issued, forbidding buying or owning books «of Lithuanian [Old Belarusian] print».

Put simply, the passage displays a nationalist outlook. The terms "Muscovite language", "Great Russian language", "Old Belarusian language" have no currency in the academia. Furthermore, the passage fails to reveal influence of "Old Belarusian" on "Muscovite" or the other way around. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Graph of East Slavic Languages Tree[edit]

Am I the only who considers [1] quite ridiculous? I understand that it should apply only to the East Slavic languages, but could you somehow graphically differentiate other branches of Slavic languages. By being prominently displayed in the top of the page and without any good caption it looks like the only West Slavic language is Polish (which kind of makes me, a Czech, sad) and the only South Slavic language is New Church Slavonic (our brethern on Balkan would have some complaints, I guess).

Ceplm (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It shows only those Slavic languages outside of the Eastern branch, that have had a significant influence (namely, Polish, OCS/Old Bulgaro-Macedonian and NCS). It does not show the others for the sake of compactness. If you realy insist I could add them, but the diagram might be not so compact as it is now.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Note also that for the Southern and Western branches there are hot debates on the number of the languages and the status of some of them. Should we list Serbian and Croatian independently if it is rather a political than a linguistic issue? Should we list Bosniak and Montenegrin? Moravian, Silesian, Kashubian, etc.? Should we list two Sorbian or one language subbranch is enough? I do not want to bring these issues into the diagram that concerns only the Eastern branch.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
My point was actually not that you should show different number of actual languages, but that non-East Slavic languages should be shown in some obviously different style (smaller font?, italics?) that it would be obvious that these are serving as help to the diagram. Does it make sense?
Ceplm (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)