Talk:Ruthenian language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ruthenian, Russian

Ruthenian language, also known (less precisely) as Russian, This might be a problem... I think we have a breakdown in communications here. Wetman 17:40, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And a huge one. Mikkalai 02:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Old Russian

This page should be merged with Old Russian language! — Monedula 14:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not really, Monedula. Ukrainian and Rusyn are not equal to Old Ruthenian. I believe the current disambiguation should stay as it is. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:05, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Old Ruthenian language

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Old Ruthenian language whether to rename that page to Old Russian language or not. If a consensus to move the page is reached at Wikipedia:Requested moves, the page will be moved to the new location. Please take part in the ongoing discussion. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:05, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

(Can someone write a normal article here instead of this Russian imperial propaganda POV? I've worked with many Old Belarusan texts, and they are MORE different from Russian sometimes than modern literary Belarusan. And this "divergence" theory is purely Russian imperial invention.) Rydel 11:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your "Old Belarusian" (from the late 16th century on) may be regarded as a dialect of Polish.

Actually, 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 for a Moscovian who did not know Polish. Ghirlandajo citing Daniel Buncic 2005-01-08 09:04 (CET)

Cool, this still doesn't explain the fact that the earliest texts of Southern Eastern Slavic tribes does not have "akan'e" and the Northern do. This is in tenth century! There are some very Ukrainian and very Belarusian features present in the earliest known manuscripts before any Polish influence. -Iopq 01:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

May I please ask what Ruthenian are still in existance for scholars (or random people on Wikipedia!) to research and look at? At what point was the language first recorded (that we know of)?

Sorry I don't have an account, I'm just passing through but I do want to know! (220.253.122.96 02:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

"Incorporated" or "Conquered"?

Rydel wrote that the Ruthenian territories were "conquered" by Russian Empire rather that "incorporated" into it. The wording "conquered" would be correct if Russian Empire would have waged war against "Ruthenia". In reality, however, wars have been made with Rzecz Pospolita, Sweden and Ottoman Empire. There never have been any "Russian-Ruthenian" wars as such. — Monedula 07:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ruthenian dialect of Ukrainian

Is there not also a Ruthenian spoken today? In Vojvodina, Serbia, the Ukrainians are still called Ruthenians, also in Barbara Grimes' Ethnologue there is a mention of Ruthenian as: "dialect of Ukrainian" and as an "alternative for North-West Ukrainian".

See Rusyn language, Rusyns. --Joy [shallot] 11:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Moscovian"

I feel the use of "Moscovian" should be avoided for two reasons: 1) for the same reason as the use of "Little Russian"; 2) this just not an adopted name of any language or dialect. So the "Ruthenian-Moscovian differences" should be "Ruthenian-Russian differences", or if the author whats to emphasize the difference between modern Russian and 17-th century Middle Russian, "differences between Ruthenian and Middle Russian".

This is akin to saying the difference between Danish and 16th century American. Muscowy was the official name of the country until Peter I i the early 1700's ````. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandurist (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A new linguistic discovery?

"so that nowadays the most striking lexical differences between Russian on the one hand and Belarusian and Ukrainian on the other are the much greater share of slavonicisms in the former and of polonisms in the latter."

What kind of bovine excrement is that? Someone making such broad lexicographic judgements should die of shame. I propose annihilation of this delirium. Of course, that is not a place for Belarussian, Ukrainian or Russian lexicographic dispute, but the above statement is, to the least, misleading.Compay 00:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if this difference is "the most striking", but it is quite prominent and well visible for anyone who is familiar with these 5 languages (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Polish and Church Slavonic). — Monedula 06:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The guy probably misread "slavonicisms" for "slavicisms", i.e., "slavisms". Of course this would be funny. mikka (t) 06:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Support Mikka's dictum. The phrase is OK. --Ghirlandajo 07:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Language code

I do not know how to change the data for the language template. The entry "|lc1=rue|ld1=Rusyn|ll1=Rusyn language" was wrong, as they are for Rusyn, and the extinct Ruthenian language discussed in this article is not Rusyn. Probably there is no ISO/DIS 639-3 code for Ruthenian. If anyone understands how to enter a "-" in the appropriate field, please do so. --Daniel Bunčić 11:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Guys - "Ruthenian language"

Please forgive ignorant old me, but I'm kinda doubtful about the title of this article. The word Ruthenian from my knowledge is simply a Latinate word for Russian. I notice both the disambig and this article is avoiding this. Now, I'm no Russian expert, but the various works I've consulted over the years as a student and elsewhere did not give me the impression this contention is valid. It looks like an attempt to legitimize the distinction between Russian and other eastern Slavic languages (and hence the modern states) by dating them as separate to as early a date as possible. POV pushers of the "Scots" "language" tried to do a similar thing on wiki by contriving the Ynglis language. Please give me reason to believe this isn't true, and scholarly references to the language. Ethnologue might be a good for starters. Otherwise, a dispute tag may have to go up. Thanks for your time. - Calgacus 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Magocsi's* and Subtelny's* big history books of Ukraine call the official Slavic language of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Ruthenian. If you're going to dispute the title, then at least offer your opinion on how to correct it. Change it to the awkward neologism West Rus’ian language? Merge this with Old Russian language?—the languages have two different histories, and this one is not of Russia. Ruthenian is used in academic sources, and the name has a long history.

By the way, speaking of POV-pushers: I hope your implication that the distinction between Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian languages and states needs "legitimizing" is merely the result a poor choice of words. —Michael Z. 2006-02-06 23:41 Z

Yes, the name Ruthenia does have a long history. It was a Latin term used in the High Middle Ages, and it meant Russia. No, not the modern Russian Federation (how could it possibly mean that), but the entire lands of the eastern Slavs. I assume you know this already, but if you don't, I'll throw you some references. I feel a little more comfortable that the term is used by scholars, even if in an innovative way. However, the entire article looks a little too prescriptive; the title could remain, so long as there is more emphasis on the problems of the term. In fairness, the article content does allude to the fact that both Moskovskij and "Lytvynskij" were used in a way that reflected the nature of a common Rus'ian language, but this is little commented upon, and is sidelined towards the narrative which overwhelmingly holds two groups of eastern slavic dialects as separate languages. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: btw: Well, I do find it funny how language history is always made to fit present national identities; but the reference wasn't intended to diminish Ukrainian, Belarusian or Russian national identity. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Although it seems to be used a bit, Rus’ian is just not a real word. The adjective meaning "of Rus’" is Rus’: Rus’ people, Rus’ language, just like United States citizen, Sydney harbour, and Hong Kong Garden. Anyway, the Rus’ language is called Old East Slavic, formerly and less precisely Old Russian. It diverged into what we now call Old Ruthenian and Old Russian.

I suppose you've also read the article "Ruthenia". Short synopsis: in modern parlance 'Ruthenians'=Rusyny, 'Russians'=Russkije, in reference to most of history since around 1250. The Austrians applied Ruthenen to the Ukrainians in Galicia when they encountered them in the late eighteenth century, because they were obviously not Russians.

Today English Ruthenia doesn't mean what its High Middle Ages Latin ancestor did. Concepts of identity, nation and country are different than they were then. I can understand the conservative inertia of historiography—you would think that would only take us back a generation, or at most to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica—but its just odd that critics in this area so often seem nostalgic for the revival of some other language's 'national' terminology from hundreds of years ago (e.g. Talk:Kievan_Rus'#The_title_is_POV).

Yes, modern concepts of nationality do colour our historical terminology: that's how it is. Since it's the prevailing usage reflecting our POV, for us it is more NPOV than what was once used. If you take the view that Ruthenian is a synonym Russian, just try writing "Ruthenian" in an article about something in the area of Moscow or Novgorod, in any period of history, and see the responses you get. —Michael Z. 2006-02-07 00:51 Z

I'm not sure Latin writers using the word were terribly conscious of any Rusyny/Russkije split (could you please elaborate on that BTW; date of first use, context, etc). Rus'ian of course is a real word, a word used by many historians who obviously feel awkward about using the words Ruthenian or Russian. I would never use Ruthenian in an article anyways, I'd just use "Russian" or "Rus'ian". But anyways, do you not think any of my concerns are important? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

PS, you've convinced me that the name is usuable for wikipedia, rather than the invention of wiki editors, so I won't put a dispute tag up. That was my main concern. I'll leave it to others with more knowledge to fix one-sidedness of the article. Thanks. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just started the article on Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov and could not help noticing that he used the term "рутенский язык" in his article "Slavonic Dialects as Compared to Other Languages of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania". --Ghirla | talk 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is рутенский язык unusual in Russian? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you should have a look here guys - this is the intro to Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii by Sigismund von Herberstein.>>> http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/sub/digbib/loader?ht=VIEW&did=D180281&p=12 The book was the main early source of knowledge about Russia in Western Europe.

He starts it with words Moscoviam mihi descripturo, quae Russiae caput est... - that is "Moscovia described by me, which is the capital of Russia". Why not Ruthenia - if it's a Latin word for Russia ? OK, lets suppose both term were used to signify Russia. Later on however, he says ... Slauonicae linguae (quae cum Rhutenica et Moscovitica eadem est) cognitione beneficioqe adiutum on the same page, meaning that he benefited from knowing of Slovenian, which he describes as identical to Ruthenian (Rhutenica) and Moscovian (Moscovitica). It is worth noticing that they all couldn't be the same, 'cause we know that Slovenian was remarkably distinct from other Slavic languages long before the middle of 16-th century: Written documents of the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries already have some local linguistic features. For example the Freising monuments show a language which contains some phonetic and lexical elements peculiar to Slovenian dialects (e.g. rhotacism, the word krilatec).

In addition what's the point of mentioning two languages - one referred to Ruthenia-Rus', the other to Moscovy if he encountered or knew about just one, which was shared by both Ruthenians and Moscovians? Maybe he wanted to avoid confusion of his European contemporaries who knew from geography that Russie and Moscovie ([| French map 1754])are kinda different things? But still, whats the point of mentioning two languages then? Of course he could understand much of what people in Ruthenia and Moscovia were saying knowing Slovneian, and they appeard to him the same in a way Spanish and Catalan may appear to be same for a persone who is not proficient in either, especially taking into an account that level of political correctness and accuracy in that time was very different from what it is nowadays, and most of his observations about how Rusyn Moscovy is were acquired in Moscov, not in Kyiv, in times of its(Tsardom of Russia) formation and seeking for assertive historical past when casualties like executing everyone denying that Russian dukes were descendents of Augustus Octavianus were not unusual.

Herberstein obviously uses terms Ruthenia and Russia interchangeably, 'cause the difference between them does not influence his description of what was going on in Moscovy in any way so it is the context in which he uses them on what we should look. Similarly when Russian Empire got stronger nowbody in western world cared on what basis terms Russia and Ruthenia are used interchangibly as in 19-th century English translation of Herberstein: http://international.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtfxtx&fileName=txg/g340002190a//mtfxtxg340002190a.db&recNum=179&itemLink=r%3Fintldl%2Fmtfront%3A%40field%28NUMBER%2B%40od1%28mtfxtx%2Bg340002190a%29%29&linkText=0. However look on the context here - when Herberstein talks about Lithuania and Samogothia, first word that comes into his mind is "Ruthenia", for he knew that it was accustomed term for the slavs living in that area, nevertheless in the next paragraph when he thinks of Magnus dux Moscovuie he uses term "Russie", recently picked up in Moscovy, he later applies to Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, even though, they're obviously not Russia, as English translation says. See Latin version of the page for comparison>>> http://dz-srv1.sub.uni-goettingen.de/sub/digbib/loader?ht=VIEW&did=D180281&p=14

Of cource the notions of linguistic that is cultural, and national identity were very different in middle ages, but from this point not recognizing that are the very basis of historical continutiy of European nations one may assert that there are no nations, cultures and languages at all - they're all just Proto-Indo-European dialects.

Lord's prayer

What language is this in:

Molitwa Gospodnja. Otczé nasz szczo na nebi! Necháj swjatíťsja imjá twoé. Necháj príjde cárstwo twoé. Necháj búde wólja twojá, jak na nébi, tak i na zemlí. Chlib nasz szczodénnij daj nam sëgódni. I prostí nam dowgí nászi, jak i mi proszczáemo dowžnikám nászim. I ne wwedí nas u spokusu, a izbáwi nas od lukáwogo. Bo twoe esť cárstwo i síla, I sláwa po wíki. Amíń.

It looks like Ukrainian using Polish orthography..... Except with a G instead of an H

Why ë?

In Ukrainian it would be

Molytva Hospodnia. Otché nash shcho na nebi! Nekhái swiatyťsia imiá twoié. Nekhái príyde Tsárstvo tvoé. Nekhái búde vólia twviá, Yak na nébi, tak i na zemlí. Khlib nash shchodénniy dai nam siohódni. I prosty nam dovhy náshi, Yak i my proshcháiemo dovzhnykám náshym. I ne vvedy nas u spokusu, a izbávy nas od lukávoho. Bo tvoie yesť tsárstvo i syla, I sláva po wíki. Amíń.

Lord's prayer was removed and placed here. The one quoted in the article is in Ukrainian and used by those in the Byzantine Catholic chrch. It is not in Ruthenian.

Bandurist (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Molitwa Gospodnja.

Otczé nasz szczo na nebi! Necháj swjatíťsja imjá twoé.

Necháj príjde cárstwo twoé. Necháj búde wólja twojá, jak na nébi, tak i na zemlí.

Chlib nasz szczodénnij daj nam sëgódni.

I prostí nam dowgí nászi, jak i mi proszczáemo dowžnikám nászim.

I ne wwedí nas u spokusu, a izbáwi nas od lukáwogo. Bo twoe esť cárstwo i síla, I sláwa po wíki. Amíń.

Bandurist (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

separate article Old Belarusian language

IMHO, it'll be better, if both article are in unified article to describe fully the situation around nomenclature, literary/spoken status and so on. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Old Belarusian Language

I merge these page, because old belarusian one of names of ruthenian language, used by belarusians

ukrainian's name of this language - old-ukrainian, why this page no on wiki? make a old-ukrainian page? or merge ruthenian language with old belaruian pages

also you can make a remark, that in Poland it is called Russian Language(Język ruski in polish), but modern Russian they called Rosiyskiy Language(wrote in english transсription, in polish name of modern russian is "Język rosyjski") but it's facts, that is not historic name of this language, it's only names of one language--SANCEZZZ (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would not. Both Old Belarusian language and Ruthenian language articles are to big to merge them without loss of quality.UrusHyby (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is confusing terminology. The wiki articles imply that there was one "Old East Slavic language" until the 14th century, and that they broke up into Old Belarusian, Old Ukrainian, and Old Russian [and presumably in future, since history has to be continually rewritten to give a full past to every political unit, Old Rusyn] ... but outside the new nationalist strongholds of wikipedia Old Russian is the common name for "Old East Slavic", so many will presume by analogy that Old Belarusian and Old Ukrainian are versions of "Old East Slavic".

Not that the traditional terminology lacks nationalistic anachronism. "Old East Slavic" speakers called their language "Slavic", not "Russian" [i.e. East Slavic], Old Belarusian speakers "Russian" [which meant what we'd mean by "East Slavic] .... i.e. we assign names from the future generation to each previous generation.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

one more NO reason is that Ruthenian was a predecessor of both Ukrainan, Belarussian and Russian languages at least, so merging does not help much. And Ruthanian (according to the articles) have been usen in 10th-15th centuries, but old belarussian in 14th—17th centuries, so they are different subjects. UrusHyby (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to avoid the term западнорусский язык, meaning West Russian Language, which was the official name of the language when it was the main language of Lithuania. Is that discussion dominated by Russofobic agenda, bending the truth by playing with words to avoid this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.163.107.100 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)