Talk:Ruthenian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization. If you have a comment which might be relevant for other articles on Russian history, consider posting at Wikipedia talk:Russian History Harmonization.

This article is part of WikiProject Languages (daughter of WikiProject Linguistics), an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. Suggestions for improving articles on languages should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages.


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)

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)

Contents

[edit] 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))

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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".

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) Image: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) Image: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) Image: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) Image: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) Image:UW Logo-secondary.gif 17:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/t/Talk%7ERuthenian_language_fe6f.html"