Talk:Stanislovas Goštautas

Untitled

Trakai should not be changed to Troki at least until Union of Lublin or the acceptance of the Polish language as an official one, it is counterfactual for a Lithuanian-based city completely surrounded by ethnic Lithuanian lands and an ancient capital of Duchy of Trakai and even Lithuania for a short time (Old Trakai).

The same should go for ethnic Lithuanian families until Polonisation. The Polish names are considered superior because they are given in some sources as are Latin and Ruthenian versions of them, more official languages. Moreover, they are sometimes later translations of Lithuanian names and not completely accurate. Iulius 05:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all there is no need to change the names and after Union. Do not go to despair some elemets in wiki trying to "play" with names for long time now. M.K. 08:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As to Troki vs. Trakai - please be so kind as to show me a single contemporary source using the name of Trakai back then. I'm sorry, but you'll find none. Troki was a Ruthenian name and as such is mentioned in the chronicles. We could use Troken if you please, but Trakai? Why not mentione Stalingrad in 15th century then...

Same goes for the surname - sorry, but until after WWI the Lithuanian grammar was completely different. Why should we use the post-WWI name for a person that is named differently by the contemporaries? Gastold might be a decent compromise as that's the version used in German sources of the epoch, but Goštautas? Sure, I know the Lithuanians prefer to see all names the way they put them now, but this is but an anachronysm. //Halibu tt 11:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So why do you use Władysław II Jagiełło???? At that time such name did not existed at all nor the such spelling. If you need more examples I can provide from Polish part. About name I used English sources for determination name of this article. If you want to move it use WP:RM procedures next time. M.K. 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't Polish grammar change at all? And how was this person related to Poland and Polish language, if we prefer the Polish form? Yes, the reconstruction in Lithuanian is slightly complicated, even dialectology can come into play, etc., but it is the lesser evil than deformation of a historical image.

I stongly oppose the Trakai issue - there are more than enough data to reconstruct the original Lithuanian name of the city used back then: even the spelling has not changed at all, sice it is very simple, nor the form of a name - it was preserved in the spoken language without alterations since the establishment of the city. Moreover, the arguments concerning contemporary sources are unacceptable - it would take away a right from a majority of indigenous peoples to put the ancient toponyms of their own in their respective languages, even though their certainty is scientifically uncompromised. Iulius 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this some kind of a Polish phobia? If you see Polish everywhere, little can be done. The Germans used Polish, the Ruthenians used Polish, the Lithuanians used Polish... how about Martians? But seriously, it's not a "Polish" form, it simply remained unchanged in Polish - there's the difference. The contemporaries used the forms of Gastold or Gasztold, he himself might've been using it. That's not certain, but what is certain is that the post-1918 Lithuanian form is a complete neologism in this context. It was not used in Gastold's times. Full stop. The very same case as with Konstanty Szyrwid: Lithuanians prefer to call him Konstantinas Širvydas even though the guy did not even know that name and himself was using the surname of Szyrwid. Moreover, in his times the modern version of his name (with the Š) could not have existed at all, since that sign was introduced to Lithuanian in relatively modern times and replaced the "sz" (right, also used in Polish and Hungarian). And it was not a Polish name, nobody ever claimed that.

As to Trakai, as yet another sign of good will I could back down on that one. Although your reasoning has one serious flaw: the conflict here is between the original name used in contemporary sources and the modern reconstruction of the same name. Original vs. copy, primary work vs. derivative work, and so on. Also, take note that the language of the "indigenous peoples", as you call them, did change over time. By the same rule I could claim that the Slavs of 13th century living in what is now Poland spoke Polish language, even though the language they spoke had little to do with what we use now (same applies to Lithuanians and any other language, except perhaps for Basque and Nahuatl, but that's a different story). But what the heck, let's use the modern name of Trakai here and be friends, ok? //Halibutt 14:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I bet we could also find his original name written in some Ruthenian language chronicle as well, and instead of using the form found in Polish or German chronicles, use the transcryption of the Cyrillic form (some sort of Stanislav Gashtolt). That would be equally provable, though I'm not sure if it's a better choice. //Halibutt 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A welcome compromise here, as the language did not change so much to change the name which today means the same as it meant back then in 1300s when Gediminas spotted a nice wooded place of Trakai (literary, "Glades") to take a break :) Iulius 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC) The only difference from these times would only be in pronouncation with a slightly lenghtened "a" in the stressed syllabe. So Trakai got lucky. Iulius 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW It could be more likely Gas(h)tovt - compare Vitold - Vitaut/Vitovt - Vytautas by analogy (-taut - from tauta - nation)

Where has Halibutt gone? How long it would take to wait for his another move? Iulius 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, this particular contributor is unpredictable one day he makes WP:POINT another conducts Original research. Maybe you should try filling Wikipedia:Third opinion request, same should probably go with Antanas Baranauskas too. M.K. 08:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Title dispute

Ok, since various attempts at some reasonable title did not succeed, I added the title dispute tag and a request for citation. Please find a single pre-1918 reference to use the name of "Stanislovas Goštautas" to prove that the guy was indeed named that way. Otherwise we'd have to stick to the common sense - when no established English name, use the name the person was using. Gashtovt (whatever his name was), did not use the name of Goštautas simply because it was invented several centuries after he died. //Halibutt 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no policies of Wikipedia, which forced contributors to search pre-1918 or pre-1700 or other time sources. In fact quite contrary. I perfectly comfortable with this name as it used in academic publications, so I suggesting to you - stop your original research and consult WP:POINT. M.K. 09:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the renderings in Polish, Latin, English and Lithuanian are so numerous and varying in different contemporary and modern sources I would insist on using the same form of the patronym/surname Gostautas for all family members, referencing to a provided naming explanation in the main article. Otherwise a mess is almost inevitable. My compromise suggestion would stick to use of Gostautas, which is the most etymologically correct of all renderings and is also used in some authoritative modern English sources.[1] [2] and even French [3] and maybe Latin [4] and German [5], although it is rarely used in Lithuanian compared to Goštautas, but this is English encyclopedia anyway. Iulius 07:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My proposal (as always) is to avoid anachronysms and use the name that is used in some authoritative modern English sources ([6], [7], [8], [9]), but also used in Latin ([10], [11], [12], [13]; no wonder, after all the representatives of the family used that form of their surname themselves), French ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), and German ([20], [21], [22], [23]). Not to mention Polish and other Slavic languages.

Gasztold is also the form used both by later representatives of the same line in Latin documents, and by representatives of other lines of the same family - even in modern times, to cite only Carmen Bernos de Gasztold (a French poet and writer) or Tadeusz Gasztold (historian). //Halibutt 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all I oppose your earlier suggestion that all the family members we are speaking of referred themselves in Polish and wrote their names with diacritics (although most of them could communicate in this language) since it was among the last ethnic Lithuanian family which has not been Ruthenized (although married Ruthenian noble ladies) and not Polonized (the main line, of course). Think about the deeds of Albertas Goštautas, active Reformer, for the sake of Lithuanian language/culture, his support for the first lithuanian books, etc.

Secondly, the English language sources you mentioned are either written by Polish authors or deal with Poland exclusively, as opposed to the sources I have cited.

BTW, there are no less French people referring themselves as Gochtovtt or Lithuanians as Goštautas. Does they mean they are wrong in this case? Iulius 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said they spoke Polish or used diacritics. Certainly they did not use the post-1918 Lithuanian diacritics, that's for sure. And the case of Albert/Olbracht is also funny since he himself used the form of Gastold, not Gostautas. He sponsored Abraham of Culva, who by the way did not use the name of Abraomas Kulvietis either. These are all neologisms, used in modern Lithuanian, but not used by the people themselves. Thus this seems like yet another example of ideas leading to renaming Lech Kaczyński to Lechas Kačynskis just because modern Lithuanians call him that way. Interestingly, while such Lithuanization is quite popular among some here in wikipedia, I doubt Polonization would gather similar number of supporters. After all moving the article on Algirdas Brazauskas to Olgierd Brzozowski would follow the very same logic. //Halibutt 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Halibutt you're strangely stuck to 1918 date. Can you provide any source or reference, that before 1918 (exactly before) 1918 in Lithuanian writings there was no diacrtics used. Because as for now it you're spreading some theory I've never heard of. Maybe you could point out what exactly did happen to Lithuanian language in year 1918? Was it invented? Was the frst Lithuanian grammar written? maybe Tsar issued some order, that did alter he language drasticaly? When I did previous asked you about that, you answered somthing like I'm not worth to get this invaluable knowledge. Maybe now you could give some details of your secret knowledge? And please, could you be specific, and point out facts, not some rumours. Because your attack on Lithuanian language is quite disturbing, you're doing some far going WP:OR on it although you ahve admitted more than once you don't know the language and constanlty are mocking on it. Stop it for once. I'd suggest for you to read some linguistic research to understand differences in Lithuanian and Polish phonetics, and "originality" of the city names, also some books on importance of hydronims in this kind of research.--Lokyz 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah and another one question - isn't it the infamous Piotrus compiled list of "Poles" that urges you to push Polish name to certain people, rather than your declared good intention to provide "propper names"? because it's not the first time you're trying to Polonise anarticle of a person you do not know a sigle thing about. Wasn't this the case with Antanas Baranauskas, Konstantinas Sirvydas or Piotr Holszansky (absolutely clearly Polonised form, as he himself used Lithuanian and of slavic languages rather ruthenian form Olshanski - and this is an exact case of phonetic differnces between two languages, i was speaking about earlier).--Lokyz 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Halibutt is missing a single Point here: Lithuanian language was not invented as such in 1918 or so. Even earlier, there were only some changes introduced from the Polish and Chech alphabets to avoid using double letters as sz or zc to mark a single sound, such as š, č, ž. Also long wowels were started to be marked as ū and ė, and of course ogoneks. That meant no change in the language itself. In fact the changes in Lithuanian vocalism since the establishment of the state have been so small that are negligible, particularly the conversion of ā to o (long, not short) and ē to ė (comparing to present day standartised language). Even today some Aukštaitijan use these sounds almost unaltered. In conclusion, neither Trakai, nor Kaunas, Vilnius, Algirdas, Vytautas, Mindaugas have not changed almost at all for hundreds of years. There is not a single basis for claiming that these names are not historical, since they are supported by sound linguistical and etymological evidence, even though their true names had been forgotten to some extent. It is like an anecdote that Vilnius is an invented name, althoug Lithuanians have never ceased using this placename in spoken language, the same goes to Trakai; the name Troki had never been adopted by local ethnic Lithuanian populace, not speaking about Kaunas. We all should take in mind once and for all: these are not modern Lithuanian renderings but original Lithuanian placenames. (BTW: if they had been established some 4000 years ago their names would sound something like *Trokoĭ and *Koŭnos - a "significant" difference indeed ;) Stating otherwise is as much ridiculous as Belarusians' statements that original names had been Vitaut or Olgerd. There is the quote:

In 1911 in the first fascicle of the second volume of the periodical The Lithuanian Nation (Lietuvių tauta) Kazimieras Būga published a study about Lithuanian names, which was also issued as a separate book in the same year. Before Būga no-one had known the exact form of the names which appeared in the Slavic, German and Latin sources, but having developed a method of interpreting the names from the Old Russian chronicles Būga was able to establish the Old Lithuanian form, so that today we know how to pronounce, e.g., Mindaugas, Jogaila, Vytautas, Švitrigaila, etc. In this article he explained also that names such as Vitoldas, Butoldas, Gastoldas and Gintoldas are Belorussian (sometimes known as White Russian) renderings of the Lithuanian names Vytautas, Butautas, Goštautas and Gintautas. The Lithuanian diphthong -au- was understood as rendering -ol- and such names are also encountered in Polish, e.g., Witold, a name which is borrowed from Lithuanian.

The other point that is missed maybe intentionally, that nobody among noble or significant people has used Lithuanian language as such pre 1918, be it any dialect of a region they originated from. Yes, there was a fashion and common sence using Latinized, Polonized forms in writings whatever, but that does not mean that there has been no ethnic Lithuanians. Maybe Marcin Maszwid was also a Pole :) and Abrahamus Culvensis (he may be credited as Abraomas of/from Kulva, since Kulvietis is not a surname)? Yes there were Lithuanians around even in the 16th century onwards :) Iulius 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I admire both of you, Lokyz and Iulius, for your effort to explain situation, but it is a bit hopeless situation as contributor who making original research to present his WP:Point has long credit of disrupting wikipedia project (you can familiarize your self with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt). This "newest" event quite similar to Konstantinas Sirvydas article there he conducted massive original research.M.K. 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Iulius, I fully agree with you. Since nobody used Lithuanian, then why do you keep calling them with modern Lithuanian names even if those people did not know them themselves? A simple question... //Halibutt 16:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do the Lithuanian linguists contradict themselves while saying that the language changed not so huge comparing the samples from the 16th and the 20th century? It's just nonsense when we see Lithuanised forms of personal names for persons who might never know any single word in Lithuanian. By the way, Buga is wrong when saying: "that names such as Vitoldas, Butoldas, Gastoldas and Gintoldas are Belorussian (sometimes known as White Russian) renderings of the Lithuanian names Vytautas, Butautas, Goštautas and Gintautas". As far as I know, Belarusian language uses variants: Vitaut, Butaut, Hintaut or Gintaut, but Haštold/Gaštold (it might be a Polonized version as well). And diphthong -au- (maybe at that time -ou-) is typical for Belarusian. Thus, your idea is inconsistent when you are trying to present the role of the Lithuanian language. It was also Old Belarusian which prior to 1696 had been the official language of the GDL (I have posted some quotations to prove this issue and I can do it once again). It is the Polish language which used forms: Witold, Gasztold. So, I propose not to use Lithuanian names in the article titles unless we cannot prove that this person spoke Lithuanian! CityElefant (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)