Talk:Lithuanian mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Lithuanian mythology is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lithuania on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our to-do list. On the project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Comments Please leave a short summary to explain the ratings and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This page edits Welnias. I need people who can help in Lithuanian and Russian translations to English language. Please contact me if you are interested to help me.

Contents

[edit] Expansion request

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

This could still use more research to create an article. Long list of gods is mostly red links.--Stockwell 06:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New version of article

Linaslit has kindly added a lot of useful new material, but it needs extensive copyediting before it's ready to replace the current version. It's now at Lithuanian mythology/temp, so that we can work on it. Could editors work on this new version rather than the current article, so that their effort doesn't need to be duplicated? Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

This sub-title was added in order to discuss such statements as "Lithuanian mythology is one of the oldest examples of pagan religions". It's not true. The list of gods needs not only to be commented, but also more specify definition of the term God in this case. In other way we see Lithuanian mythology here, presented in the level as the mytology was understood in the beginning of the 19th century. Linas Lituanus 18:43, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

  • P. S. See Lithuanian mythology/temp and the previous note by user:Mel_Etitis

The /temp page has now been deleted, and all maetrial added to this article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedited

I've added the first section of the new material. Could you check to make sure that I haven't misrepresented what you were trying to say? There were places where in trying to correct the English I might have inadvertently distorted the intended meaning.
I'll get the rest done as soon as possible (it looks as though no-one else is going to join in the near future). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank You. I think, all is correct in the first section now, except perhaps "This method of reconstruction is thorny, and none of the attempts has been completed." ("This way of reconstructions is thorny and anyhow isn't finished yet"). I meant, that the reconstruction in generally isn't completed (or that none of reconstructions were recognized as a final solution of the problem) in that my unclear, as I see now, sentence. The variant, as You've written it, is also close to truth, but it can be opposed by supporters of some schools. Linas Lituanus 08:10, 2005 May 25 (UTC) (Well, my attitude towards the pagan doesn't change. I don't think it's wrong, but it has too unclear meaning in common usage, and discriminates a group of few religions from the others. It's actually not a problem of this article, but perhaps it's worth to mention LL).

[edit] Relations with other mythological systems

I'm not sure about "On the other hand, when separate elements have much incommon with other mythological systems, and especially with those of neighbouring cultures. " (In Relations with other mythological systems) Linas Lituanus 07:31, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
It was a typing error — I've corrected it, thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting

[edit] The elements of Lithuanian mythology

"!-- I can't make out what this means"

I see. I tried to do a very short description of myths, not involving into details, but it is hardly understandable. Perhaps I should try to write a more clear version, and then continue this revising, making copyediting easier and more effective? Linas Lituanus 11:16, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Sea, not see:

In the last sentence sea must be instead of see (it was my own misspelling). Thus "The Land over All the Seas" or something like it.Linas Lituanus 11:29, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
I've changed that. What did you mean by "the lucid man"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, perhaps it's confusing, but I mean (perhaps it only should be 'a lucid man' in some cases) directly what it means, i. e. light, brilliant. Figuratively it means 'virtuous, moral, chaste man' in our mythology. The direct meaning of the Lithuanian word is bright, lucid, brilliant. I doubt, how to present this thing, although I see that it's hardly understandable for a common reader. Linas Lituanus 20:59, 2005 May 27 (UTC)


[edit] Finished

I've now transferred all the new material into the main article. I'm afraid that I gave up on finding an English version of "lucid man" that fitted, so I just omitted it. Perhaps I'll come up with something later (or someone else?). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it all is very good. "lucid man" perhaps needs longer explaining instead uf using this phrase. Thanks. Linas Lituanus 11:09, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

[edit] List of Lithuanian gods

*For a renewed variant, see Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology (list), please.

*That article may be deleted now, but it's a question, whether it or the second half of the 
Lithuanian mythology should be deleted / changed.

Well, I did it. Few minutes later I tried to log in the Wikipedia, but the server ansvered with an error, and I decided to wait for short time. This name actually is incorrect, considering lists, but the word mythic is taken from a category, "Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology". (I suppose, that it was made by me, but anyway mythic beings exist in other category, which has that one as subcategory. “Deities, spirits and mythic beings” or like it).

Now, I didn't want to duplicate the information, but I couldn't access the wikipedia (Sorry, for Your time, used to correct the situation). When I log in at least, Your note on deletion had already been added. I had an idea to make a separate article of these sections, leaving in Lithuanian mythology a short list of main deities instead of the existing one, that contains 107 instances and could be expanded twice or more, if all of names of this kind were included. I didn't think anyone is against it.

But we should make our choice now, because integrating of this list into Lithuanian mythology requires to push one step down in the hierarchy of subsections. Now, it seems unfinished without it.

And, if You agree with the idea to make the separate article, perhaps You could suggest the name? Linas Lituanus 15:03, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry — I'd thought that it was some anonymous editor, which always makes discussion difficult. If I'd realised that it was you, I should have discussed it first.
Secondly, it's a lttle worrying that "mythic" is used in categories.
Thirdly, could we, instead of separating out the list, make it more manageable, perhaps by using a table? I must admit that I'm not keen on separate list-articles, though sometimes they are needed, of course. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

About “mythic”. My dictionaries (first, Longman contemporary English / 1995) give both mythic and mythical with very fine difference. I understand that mythical is better in this case, but how about mythic? And should we revise these categories in this case?

About the list. I don't like this making of series of lists too and prefer avoid them using categories or simply including a list into an article. Now, I see this case a bit different. We already have 107 items in the list, which may be expanded by any user twice or more. These items are in many cases no more than links to very small articles, mostly stubs and incomplete ones. Many of them, except ones about the main deities aren't worth to exist as articles at all. One or two sentences, saying, that nothing concrete is known aren't worth to have a separate article. My idea was to cancel many of these articles, redirecting them to a bigger compound article, which could give more clear picture of the subject too. This mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology (list) was intended as the first version of such article. (I can add here, that obviously nobody edits these small articles now. I have necessary data almost on every item to write a longer explaining, including possible etymologies and interpretations by later scholars. But I don't find it necessary now for me to go deep in this, when the main things on Lithuanian mythology haven't been said yet. I also want to improve these articles at least not leaving all it as it is now.)

Why didn't I want to use the Lithuanian mythology for it. The main reason is, that this particular problem takes too much place in the article, if we leave the list in it. Shortening the list to 10-20 names would give more clear conception of Lithuanian mythology. But we would offend the NPOV, if we simply delete other items. This information is real, although it isn't the main. That's why I am for separating this list. At least it may be not a list, but a normal article with the note in the section of the Lithuanian mythology the main article is (although I haven't prepared material to write that now, except the list). Linas Lituanus 09:38, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

I've deleted the first list, as not necessary. Linas Lituanus 10:00, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

P. S. Concerning the short articles about the items of the list, many links are still red too. Only few of them requires an article immediately. Others could be simply replaced by a short comment in the list itself (at least till somebody will write a full description). ). Linas Lituanus 10:00, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

[edit] The names, that haven't been listed in the new list

These names, haven't been identified by me yet:

  • Lada Lasicki or its informer Laskowski had heard the whoop Lado from songs, and decided, that it was an addressing to goddess. By the way, vocative in Lithuanian never ends with o (Polish language affected his understanding with any doubt). But all our later mythologists as if were conspired propose that such goddess had to exist, although more accurate examination shows, that nobody can identify her with any actual mythic personage nor describe more concretely. The first idea perhaps was Narbutt's, who said , that such goddess had to exist, because Greeks had Leda, the Mother of Kastor and Pollux, and Lado "is the same". I don't know where to put this name and how to present it.
  • Lėta
  • Magyla
  • Maras – it's masculine anthropomorphism of the plague and no more (not a god), I think, (a spirit of nature?).
  • Maro deivės – goddesses of the plague literally, they were actual mythic personages, but the Lithuanian name was different: maro mergos or something like it. I don't find it from my sources.
  • Ragė
  • Varūna - mother of Vejopatis


  • Žemynas ???
  • Žemė

We should add them, especially ones with real articles somewhere to the new list. Linas Lituanus 10:02, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)