Talk:Ukrainian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Ukrainian language was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Portal:language
 language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] 1897 census: Polish, "European Russia"

Is there a reason for the Polish column in the census table? Is this a particularly large minority in Ukrainian lands? The cited census results includes dozens of languages, and I can't see why Polish specifically should be included here.

Does 1897's Jevropejskaja Rossija include Malorossija and Bjelorossija, or only what we know as today's Russian Federation? —Michael Z. 2006-01-29 22:53 Z

Judging from the census source, "European Russia" includes them all. Andrew Alexander, simple is good, but only if it's complete and accurate. I changed the table heading 'European part of Russian Empire' back to '"European Russia", incl. Ukraine and Belarus', because with your wording:
  • Privislinskij Kraj and part of the Caucasus were also in the European part of the Empire, but not in "Russia"
  • It is important for readers to understand that this contemporary subdivision included modern Ukraine, and Belarus
  • The quotation marks should make clear that we are quoting a contemporary, POV classification, while the addition makes clear how it differs from modern views
  • Part of the point is to make clear the historical context of the Ukrainian language's persecution—helping readers understand the Imperial rhetoric of "one indivisible Russia" and its effect on Ukrainian culture. We don't use the census's language and classification ourselves, but we make clear the relevant aspects of it. I hope this seems sensible to you.
—Michael Z. 2006-01-30 03:53 Z
What I wanted to do was to then break down Guberniyas into Urban and rural and to show that Ukarainians still formed the majority of the peasentry but not of the urban populations. (Also I would like to include Yiddish in perspective) This contributed to the perception of Ukrainian being a peasent language. --Kuban Cossack 14:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
How to define "urban" and "rural"—did the census have these classifications? —Michael Z. 2006-02-25 16:48 Z
Yes it did "в уездах" and "в городах" ie in rural areas and in cities. --Kuban Cossack 19:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Prevailing terminology"

I've changed the phrase "that time's prevailing teminology" to "the Imperial census's terminology"—this doesn't change the facts, just limits the scope of the assertion to the census.

Saying "prevailing" is an oversimplification, and the issue is discussed in some detail in the section above (although some more could be added). Regardless of the EB1911 picking up its academic view of East Slavs from non-censored Russian academics, the term was not universally used—by 1897 many Ukrainians already considered themselves Ukrainians, and others Ruthenians, and the state-endorsed terminology represents one particular POV with a heavy political agenda behind it. —Michael Z. 2006-01-30 06:29 Z

I agree with you on how Ukrainians might have considered themselves at the time. However, most of the Ukrainians didn't speak English. Those who considered themselves Ruthenians, actually used "Rusyny" or "Rus'ki". Thise who considered themselves "Ukrainians" (actually would be interesting how wide-spread the term was at the time) actually used Ukrayintsi. That time's most accepted in English terminology was the same as the one used by the Imperial authorities but translated, rather than transliterated. Thus, the term "Little Russians" was used not only by the Imperial authorities, but within the mainstream scholarship not only in the Empire. Hence I wrote "prevailing". How is that incorrect? This does not deny that the term "Ukrainians" was gaining usage at the time despite it hasn't received a wide recognition yet by then. --Irpen 02:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, today we generally write in today's prevailing English terminology. In an article about Ukraine, we mention the changes in terminology which reflect what was happening in Ukraine. If we were writing about Ukrainians in England, or international views of the Russian Empire, or English historiography of the East, then the terminology used in EB1911 and other English publications would be more relevant, but I don't think that's the case here. —Michael Z. 2006-01-31 05:32 Z

[edit] Ukrainian speakers in Ukraine

Data of the 2001 census is inexact interpreted in this article.

In the 2001 census:

Also, total of the sum: 32.577.468 + 9.797.380 = 42.374.848 Ukrainian speakers of 48.240.902 population (87.84%). See also [3]. --Yakudza 13:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rusyn "dialects" and the inter-war period in Poland

I think it's highly controversial to enlist Rusyn dialects as dialects of the Ukrainian language. As far as I know, they consider themselves to be a seperate entity. It should be at least marked as disputed.

In this article is specified point that Pryashiv-rusyn and Bačka-rusyn dialects some linguists consider as separate Rusyn language --Yakudza 10:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. --Kuban Cossack 11:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another problem. There is no information about status of the language in Poland in the interwar period. Western Ukraine was under Polish administration then and it might be interesting. Zbihniew 12:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all this is subject to controversy, but secondly, I do agree that the Carpathian tongues should be separated denoted as separate. The problem with that is Carpathian tongues are similar to the Galician ones and fall into the same category. In such a case it is really senseless to separate them out. Also one has to remember that some dialects can be so similar to both languages that they are outright considered as being dialects of both languages e.g Polessian dialect which is considered to be both Ukrainian and Belarusian and both grammar sets are applicable. --Kuban Cossack 13:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
WRT to Poland please feel free to expand on that in the article. --Kuban Cossack 13:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination

While this is a pretty good article, I think there needs to be a better referencing in place before it can reach a GA status. There are still a lot of areas that need references. As well the reference system that is currently here needs to be standardized. Try adopting a footnote system like the one in this article: Names_of_the_Greeks#References. I hope this helps! The best to you.--P-Chan 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official status

Ukrainian is not official language in the Serbian province of Vojvodina. No matter what some (uninformed) journalist wrote in that external link, here you can see official web site of the government of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina: http://www.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/Engleski/vojvodina.htm Quote: "The Statute of AP Vojvodina stipilates that the official languages, besides Serbian, are Hungarian, Slovak, Rumanian, Ruthenian and Croatian." Ukrainian is not mentioned, thus, not official. PANONIAN (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted your change, along with the prev anon's edit before I saw your entry. Fine with me either way but pls help figure out how thos got into the news. Maybe it's something else than "official" but still some recognition? I remember this news very well. Thanks, --Irpen 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you 2 possible solutions for the problem: 1. either Serbian government said that Ukrainian will be official in the future, but since it is not official yet, we cannot regard it as such. 2. either Ukrainian became official but on some lower administrative level (in some municipalities perhaps). Still, we cannot list it that it is official in Serbia (on the state level) or Vojvodina (on the provincial level). I know that some other languages are official on municipal level too (for example Bulgarian) and that could be the case with Ukrainian, but then we should know the proper definition of its usage. Can you tell me what exactly these external links claim because I cannot read Ukrainian so well? PANONIAN (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What this link claim exactly? http://www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian/indepth/story/2006/04/060410_serbia_language.shtml If I understand text correctly, it claim that Serbian authorities decided to make Ukrainian official, but until that is done, Ukrainians can use Rusyn instead. Am I correct? PANONIAN (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it should be official by now because it's past June of 2006. -Iopq 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rusyn (Ruthen) is official language of Vojvodyna, not Ukrainian.... And Rusyn isn't the same as Ukrainian (even if some ukrainian nationalists pretend that...) rusyn (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italics in Cyrillics

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian-speaking population in Hungary...

...is highly overestimated. Where is this data from? The website of the 2001 census says 8213 people speak Ukrainian in Hungary [4] (sorry, Hungarian only; click on the hand on the right side on the screen until you reach page 4, ukrán will be the last one under the upprmost title anyanyelvén kívül). – Alensha talk 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ukrainian speakers in the Russian Empire

Should the Cryllic spelling of the Malorusskij, Vjelikorusskij, and Bjelorusskij, be given along with the Anglicization pronunciation ( which I believe is what is written ? ) I know how to do this for Russian, but I'm not sure if there are any spelling issues for Ukrainian. NemoX 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Anyone who is familiar with Russian can reconstruct the Cyrillic from the transliteration without a second thought, while most English-language readers probably won't benefit. But if they really want to find it, then they should click through the links and find the Russian Cyrillic at the top of the respective main articles Little Russia, Great Russian language, and White Russian. —Michael Z. 2006-12-20 05:33 Z

[edit] Links to dictionaries

Should we even link to dictionaries at all? [5] was removed, but it's just another dictionary. I don't know whether we need any dictionary links at all, and if we do, how many? -Iopq 13:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why change phonetics to sounds?

I think phonetics is less ambiguous. Plus, this isn't the Simple Wikipedia. -iopq 07:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I believe "Phonetics" is a common heading in other language articles. —Michael Z. 2007-02-17 20:44 Z

[edit] Pannonian Rusyn

It is not a dialect of Ukrainian, but considered to be a dialect of Slovak. After seeing a few sample texts it's hard to disagree. The vocabulary is West Slavic (although Ukrainian does share some with West Slavic due to contact), and the entire language looks completely different from Ukrainian. -iopq 06:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/k/r/Talk%7EUkrainian_language_ba40.html"