Talk:Ukrainian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Ukrainian language was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{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.
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)
What would be worth while to take into account is from what year did Rusyns start considering their language as separate from Ukrainian. Bandurist 01:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


78.151.173.120 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Can anyone explain to me why '25 times smaller' country as Lithuania took over Kiev Rus and couldn't do the same with Russia??? Explanaition here only one - LITHUANIANS AND KIEV RASIANS WERE THE SAME NATION ALWAYS IN THE PAST CALLED BALTS, BUT THEY WERE FORCED TO USE SLAVIAN ALPHABET, CAUSE THEY HAD ONLY RUNES WHICH WAS REPLACED WITH CHRISTIANITY BY GREEK LETTERS...Explain me and another fact - WE NEVER EVER HAD WAR BETWEEN US, GUD (Gudai or in russian language Belorussians) AND RUS (Rasai or in russian language Ukrainians), but always lived in peace. And why Russia exterminated Ukrainians and Belorussians??????? And why Poles tried to Polonise all these 3 countries (in fact this is one and the same nation Balts, but Slavs were like parasites seeking the ways to destroy or enslave us)78.151.173.120 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (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)

[edit] Map of the language

Language map is incorrect and does not reflect the reality. Some parts of the South-Eastern regions and the whole Crimean peninsula should not have such an intense coloring. If I understand coloring should represent the percentage of people speaking in Ukrainian in those areas but there are problems. In Crimea less than 7% of the population actually speak it. (Ahnode 00:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

There is coloration by country but not by every actual piece of earth in the world. So as the Crimean peninsula and the South-Eastern regions are parts of Ukraine, they have the same color, and the statistics represents an assessment of the entire country. Probably, we merely ought to underscore that fact in the description of the language map. At least it is a better solution than to re-count the statistics of all the language usage in the world.--Mormat 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Whan I compare the map to those that I have it is inaccurate. Also it does not reflect the use of Ukrainian in ethnic areas neighbouring Ukraine, in particular in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldavia, Belorus and Russia in particular Slobozhan regions and Kuban. The Map is seriously in eror. Bandurist 01:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it does include the Sloboda, but apart from that it has to reflect on present distribution of langauge, which at 0.9% in the Kuban is rather marginal, and limited to urban centres... I'd imagine same for the rest of the regions. --Kuban Cossack 13:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
So on the basis of what study was the map made. I have some from 1960's, but I know an Atlas of Ukrainian language was published in 3 volumes in the late 80's. Maybe it would be better to use that map. Bandurist 13:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Basis of modern censuses and figures. I already made a Image:Ukrainains in Russia.PNG, I can make a similar one based on languages, but for such minority figures as below 5% there really is no point to even include them IMO. --Kuban Cossack 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The map is of ethnic Ukrainians per region according to the census, not of Ukrainophones, whose numbers are smaller in the East. It is therefore irrelevant and should be removed immediately. Cossack (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valuyevsky Ukaz - Mistaken quoting

Pyotr Valuyev proclaimed in his decree that "there never has been, is not, and never can be a separate Little Russian language".[10]

Someone is trying to make the forgery look like a genuine quote. According to some authors, the famous "there never has been, is not, and never can be..." is personal opinion of the minister Valueyev. In fact, he was just stating what the 'majority of Little-Russians' were arguing about.

...самый вопрос о пользе и возможности употребления в школах этого наречия не только не решен, но даже возбуждение этого вопроса принято большинством малороссиян с негодованием, часто высказывающимся в печати. Они весьма основательно доказывают, что никакого особенного малороссийского языка не было, нет и быть не может, и что наречие их, употребляемое простонародием, есть тот же русский язык, только испорченный влиянием на него Польши...

Ahnode 09:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor, misunderstood Valuyev.
FYI, there's an English translation at s:Valuyev Circular—please proofread the translation, if you have a bit of spare time. Relevant here: I'm not sure of my translation of "они весьма основательно доказывают" as "they thoroughly corroborate that...". —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 07:41 Z
Thank you. Well the translation seems perfect as to me. You could though rephrase "they thoroughly corroborate that..." into "They give well-grounded proofs..." or "They quite thoroughly argue that..." Though I don't see a big difference. Ahnode (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian Scouting

Can someone render Hotuis (Be Prepared), the Scout Motto, into Ukrainian script? Thanks! Chris 15:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hotuis in Ukrainian: Будь Готовий (Bud' Hotovyi).--Riurik(discuss) 03:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
We used to say "готуйсь!" as young novaky, and later on "скоб!" (skob), short for "сильно, красно, обережно й бистро" (syl’no, krasno, oberezhno y bystro). —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 07:29 Z
Thank you! So Hotuis is for the younger members of Plast? Chris 06:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's right. —Michael Z. 2007-08-13 13:57 Z

[edit] Balachka - deragotory?

Bandurist you write that: A Kuban dialect related to the Steppe dialect often referred to by the derogatory term of Balachka is spoken in the Kuban region in Russia, by the descendants of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, who settled in that area in the late eighteenth century. This dialect features the use of some Russian vocabulary on a Ukrainian grammar substructure. There are 3 main variants according to location.

  • Allow me to dissapoint you:
      1. Balachka is not limited to the Kuban, in fact all Cossacks Балакуют.
      2. Its not deragotory to Гутарить на балачке
      3. Kuban Cossacks are descendants primarily of Black Sea Cossacks, and Line Cossacks, but also include the Bug, Azov, Khoper, and Yekaterinoslav groups...and God knows who else.
      4. Contrary to your beliefs, it is Russian grammar and some Ukrainisms, even the Kuban-Black Sea version, in addition Circassian exclamations such as "Асса!", which you forgot to mention
      5. Lastly three variants is false, there is a Terek Balachka, Siberian Cossack Balachkas, ever heard and Uralets or an Orenburzhets, unique speech patterns, not found anywhere else, and still called Balachka.
  • Nuff said, stop reverting. --Kuban Cossack 11:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, would a compromise be possible? If Kuban insists (without sources I might add) that it is a subgroup of the Russian language, then let's remove it altogether from an article about Ukrainian language and move it to the Russian language article. Unless there are sources to prove it belongs here. --Hillock65 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kuban is distorting the information. Please refer to the map at http://harazd.net/~nadbuhom/mapy-historia/mapy_8.htm. He has also distorted the article on the Ukrainian dialects of the Kuban as well. He is pushing POV which is contrary to Ukrainian scholarship in this case. There is no entry for Balachka in the Russian Wiki because it does not exist as a Russian term or a language. There is one however in Ukrainian wiki. Please also notice the differences between the link to Kubiyovych's map of Ukrainian language from the Ukrainian Encyclopedia and the map Kuban has posted. Kuban's mapo is not only inaccurate it distorts the information we have with regard to the use of Ukrainian language in Ukrainian ethnographic areas.

Bandurist 15:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As is often the case a word from one language means something different in another. For example, if the term Balachka, as you say is deragotory in Ukrainian, in the Kuban it is a normal version of the word! That I can refrence. Some might say that the word Жид for a Jew is offensive, yet in Ukrainian it is a standard word. Same here. Now Bandurist says There is no entry for Balachka in the Russian Wiki because it does not exist as a Russian term or a language.. Of course, and there is no entry for Kharkiv Metro in Ukrainian wiki as well, that does not mean that the system does not exist! (seriously such excuses are laughable). Finally the map you post says nothing, it's hand drawn and has no author's refrence. I also liked how it intrudes into Crimea, knowing just how widespread Ukrainian is there (i.e. only in airport announcements)... I did like how it interluded into the Don territory, but you yourself removed all refrences about the Don Balachka. Whereas here is a great refrence on their dialects [6]. In particular:

Въ станицахъ 1 - го Донского окр. въ говор часто встрчаются слова малороссiйскiя; этихъ словъ еще больше встрчается въ говорнизовыхъ казаковъ и въ станицахъ, расположенныхъ выше по Донцу, въ Гундоровской и въ особенности Луганской. Въ говорнизовыхъ казаковъ звуки в и у часто замняютъ другъ друга, особенно въ началсловъ, какъ, напримръ: усе - все, узять, лоуко - ловко, въ мене - у меня, въ насъ -у насъ. Вмсто ы всегда употребляется и, какъ то: бики, корови, риба, вигодно, вiхалъ, виждалъ, вискочилъ, вилeтлъ, вишал(вышелъ), викосилъ, вирзалъ, ми (мы), ви и проч. Вмсто ы часто произносится о: накролъ, закролъ, помолъ (помылъ); звукъ е почти всегда замняется и, а окончанiе "eтъ", произносится какъ "ить", напримръ: бгаить или бгить, читаить, играить, гуляить, скачить и т. д. Также говорятъ: ходю, просю, крутю, чистю, оны (они), булъ (былъ), чугинъ (чугунъ), выпулилъ глаза, вмсто выпялилъ гла­за, вечиръ вмсто вечеръ, смички, гарбузъ - арбузъ и проч. As for the map, it, unlike your clearly marks territory which is a hybrid dialect, and territory which is Ukrainian. If you disagree with me, I will begin a WP:DR process, I've had enough of POV's thrown at Kuban Cossacks. --Kuban Cossack 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, might I remind the two of you about WP:SOURCE? A picture of a map is not a source. Please present the source that substantiates your statements about Balachka, preferrably from research or encyclopaedia. I am sure, there are plenty of those. Then this information will stay without any problem. And Kazak, please do not wage revert wars here. If you consider it a variant of the Russian language and support it with 1908 (?!) Imperial research, please move it to the appropriate article about the Russian language or Fringe Theories. Your revertwarring of unrelated material in this article is disruptive, consider (WP:BATTLE). --Hillock65 16:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with 1908 Russian research? Find a source that contradicts it first. Like I said times change and so do dialects. You yourself never challenged Yarnovitsky, or Grushevsky, what makes Savel'yev different? BTW as it was published after 1905, there was no censorship in Russia after that point, so you can't really blame the source. And here is even better, [7]. Its all there, have a read.--Kuban Cossack 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Since it is Russian, it does not belong here. Which of the sources support which of your statements? The pre-revolutionary outdated and biased stuff or the stuff on the Kuban songs? You need to have another read of WP:SOURCE. Not that it matters here, let editors in Russian language get worried about that. For the second time, your insisting on including the unrelated material in the article is very disruptive. Please stop. --Hillock65 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Including hybrid dialects is not related? And outdated, does not mean anything, Maxwells equations are not outdated, nor is Einsteins relativity theorem. Yet they are not new. Hell, Newton's law of motion date to the 17th century, yet they still hold. --Kuban Cossack 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you consider it a hybrid dialect of Russian, not Ukrainaian - so move it where it belongs. In Russian language. --Hillock65 17:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A hybrid of Russian with Ukrainian. Like Surzhyk. --Kuban Cossack 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Surzyk is dialect of Ukrainian. A while ago you were insisting balachka is a dialect of Russian, not Ukrainian, so get it out of here! Move it where it belongs. Please stop pretending and playing games, what you are doing is very disruptive. --Hillock65 17:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again your Great Russian chauvensim is shining bright Kuban. The base language of the Kuban was Ukrainian (or Little Russian as you laike to say). This is beacuase the bulk of the settlers in the Kuban were from Ukraine. The language spoke is a dialect of Ukrainian. (That is why it is not classes in Russian encyclopedias as a Russian dialect). Despite you particular feelings. I know and understand that there is a rising awareness of a Kozak national identity similar to the rise in awareness of Rusyn, however it does not make the language Russian no matter how hard you try top distort information. Bandurist 18:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I answered that queation at Talk:Balachka and the source [here, which sould be intersting to you explores the question. Chauvinism is what you should see in the mirror given the lengths you go to tip articles that reflect a narrow POV that is foreign to the Kuban Cossacks. You obviously have personal thoughts on the issue, but fact is that our Balachka compared to Ukrainian is same as Serbian is compared to standard Russian. It's a unique dialect, and its base is as Russian as it was Ukrainian, as it was Circassian. --Kuban Cossack 18:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reworked the paragraph without referring it to either Russian or Ukrianian. I also added the source from an encyclopaedia. I hope that settles it. --Hillock65 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with your edit for now, except do you mind changing the Zaporozhian to Black Sea Cossacks just to be precise. --Kuban Cossack 18:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Zaporozhian is what the source says. Have a look. --Hillock65 18:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Which source, do you not believe of the existance of the Chernomorskoye Voisko? --Kuban Cossack 17:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great and Little Russian languages

Малоруський та великоруський мови / малорусский а великорусский языкы (Speakers in the Russian Empire sub-section, in the table header): As no one expressing moderate, balanced views in the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Byelorussia and places in independant countries where Russian is widely used (Kazakhstan, for example) does not use these words of Little or Great (or White, either) Russian nowadays, why do we use them here? This is clearly derogative, and every time I ask Russians what they mean about these words, only chauvinistic, nationalistic partisans use them — not the moderate Russians. I still put this question around in Peterburg and Moscow last week, just before the legislative elections, and the divide was clearly visible here too between true democrats or rather opinionless people on one side, and partisans of Putin and others on the other 'side', including assumed backward-looking or self-proclaimed partisans of a return to some 'new old' Empire-like state of things.
Would not it be good to live in the present time, and limit the use of such words to specific articles, like the one about the Great Russian language (which does not state what the Russian article says, by the way, nor do the History of the Russian language and Russian language ones).
I wish these lines were not to be the beginning of any raging (but undesirable) war… If so, I will stay apart. — Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The use of terms that are deemed derogatory do the Wikipedia a disservice. Maybe we should take a vote of the editors as to whether we continue to include these archaic and derogatory terms in this article. Bandurist (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Дуже дякую за те, Бандуристе! — Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with you, except, that the data presented in the census tables is directly based on the 1897 census. And we simply stay true to the source. There is no need for extra politics, and as for not using it, I myself personally do not mind admitting to some of my heritage as Little Russian. --Kuban Cossack 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
So I gues we need to ask the question. Does the concept Little Russian refer to anything that is not Ukrainian? If you look at the definition, Little Russian refers to just a small part of Ukraine.
When refering to language does it refer just to the language of that area or does it refer to or include other languages. From the definition, to me, it refers just to Ukrainian. From the definition in Wiki I would use the term Ukrainian for Maloros.
An analogy would be the use of the term "Afro-American" or "Black" for what was previously described by the term "negro" or "Nigger", "Roma" for "Gypsy", or in Ukrainian the ethnonym "Yevrey" for "Zhyd", "Rosiyanyn" for "Moskal", "Poliak" for "Liakh", "Rumun" for "Volox". I see no need to use derogatory terms in today's society. Bandurist (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no question of one term being deragotory, is just that we present the statistics as they were presented in that time frame See for yourself. --Kuban Cossack 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I know the statistics. I know the langiuage used at the time. However, if you refer to a Ukrainian today as a Little Russian he will be offended. Just like the list of ethnonyms above. To continue to use an ethnonym that offends a person is to be quite insensitive and can be though of as pushing an out of date and offensive POV from over 100 years ago. There are plenty of documents from a hundered years ago that have been changed because they are offensive. The meaning stays the same. The offense is removed. I suggest that this article be updated and the insensitive and offending materials removed. Bandurist (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh no! Just what I feared… I did mean «I wish these lines were not to be the beginning of any raging (but undesirable) war».
I am just curious to know what you would think if guys went writing here and there that Moscow is a (not central) part of the “Київська Русь” (in Ukrainian, of course), or, if you prefer to follow the (Алексий II) patriarchal-like lines, a very tiny (маленький) part of the “(Кыѥвьска) Рѹсь”, and then declare the city's inhabitants use a local dialect called “крихітноросійський” (крошечнорусский), or something as preposterous nowadays as many things I could read here.
So, I will stay apart from this, but I will support any initiative Bandurist would like to take. Do we have to ask for a lengthy arbitration process, just to have those outdated words removed, because of an unconstructive and epidermic attitude? Wouldn't you browse through and read what Russian scholars write about it? — Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC) (not 1897…)
Even the Russian wiki doesn't use the term Little Russian. But here we do... I wonder why????

Последовательное и систематическое искоренение украинского языка нашло свое наиболее яркое отражение в знаменитом валуевском циркуляре 1863 г., наложившем запрет на печатание учебной и научно-популярной литературы на украинском языке под тем предлогом, что «oни весьма основательно доказывают, что никакого особенного малороссийского языка не было, нет и быть не может и что наречие их, употребляемое простонародьем, есть тот же русский язык, только испорченный влиянием на него Польши». С неимоверными трудностями украинский язык преодолевал подобные полицейские рогатки, но развиваться нормально в таких условиях, безусловно, не мог, что привело почти к полному исчезновению украинского языка изо всех областей культурной и общественно-политической жизни. В 1876 г. царское правительство запретило печатание большинства видов литературы на украинском языке, а также ввоз любых украинских изданий из-за рубежа («Эмский указ»). Этот указ оставался в силе и применялся вплоть до революции 1905 г., которая вынудила царское правительство дать некоторые послабления, просуществовавшие очень недолго и уничтоженные в период реакции.

Царский режим неимоверно глушил и временами почти совершенно устранял малейшие возможности для развития украинского языка, но ему не удалось и не могло удаться полицейскими мерами окончательно искоренить украинский язык, так как существовал живой народный язык, остающийся неизменной основой для литературного языка. Bandurist (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I would add that you will find nothing like this here in the Polish version (Język ukraiński), despite historical reasons that could push some Polish to do so, nor does the German article (Ukrainische Sprache), yet again despite historical reasons. But does Kuban kazak really knows history and this subject? I can't help but wonder…
So, I do think that this non-talk will lead us to nowhere. I guess that I can remove these odd little words without being reverted, without seeing more constantly disruptive behavior.
Furthermore, those words which some seem to love are already given just over the table — so what's the use of insisting so heavily? Then, I reestablish the link about Russian speakers (that have been removed without asking first on this page, together with the note about the meaning these derogatory, forged words always bore). Or else, we should remove the link to the Polish language (not a minor one, so why linking to it if you don't to the Russian language?). Please be at least coherent.
Дякую, спасибо, дзякую, dziękuję, ітд. — Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, re-reading the article, I really cannot see what's the point of having this Speakers in the Russian Empire subsection here, underlining that I do not see it in the Belarusian language nor in the Russian language articles… That's inconsistent! It should be moved to the Russian Empire, where there is no such section, which should be complemented with all the other languages. What's your opinion about this move? — Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no need for it here. Bandurist (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks link does not work

The wikibooks link to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ukrainian does not work properly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.202.233 (talk) 10:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds

I suggest deleting the sentence "Ukrainians tend to pronounce long sounds where the letters are doubled in other languages, English or Russian, for example" from the Sounds section. This type of pronunciation is erroneous and clearly influenced by the Russian language. If the purpose of this section is to analyze common mistakes people make, then other errors must be discussed as well.

The Sounds section also contains the questionable statement that the Old East Slavic letter г denoted /g/. I find it more likely that г used to be fricative in old Russian, which is suggested by its mutation into ж when palatalized (нога — ножка), its lenition when it is devoiced (снег, когти), and its traditional fricative pronunciation in the word Господи.

Sclerolith (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Related Languages

I find it very awkward that the Croatian language is identified as being related to Ukrainian, yet Serbian nor Bosnian are, even though they are the same languages? Does the Croatian language take precedence over the other languages? The articles needs to be edited to include all the languages, if one is mentioned. The Croatian language as of late, does not use the Cyrillic alphabet, so in reality they would not be able to read any Ukrainian, since they can't read their alphabet. I myself have know Cyrillic as well as Serbo-croatian, and I can confirm that are languages are related, because in many of the pictures I can understand most of the words. Such as the one with the Ukrainian schools for Ukrainian children: Ukrajnskој djeci Ukrajnsku Skolu Украјнској Дјеци Украјнску Школу So if anything, I think Serbian would be more appropriate to add, since the majority of Croatians don't know Cyrillic.67.204.1.106 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am Ugo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.193.194 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The politicized alphabet

Regarding KK's edit labelled Alphabet: Oh come on, there is not a source that links grammatical reforms with political scenes, why can't one try and keep sensitive topics neutral:

Since language was traditionally equated with the survival of national distinctiveness, it is not surprising that among Skrypnyk's greatest sins was his promotion of Ukrainian language reforms, including linguistic purism and a new orthography (popularly known as the skrypnykivka) approved in 1928. Seemingly esoteric academic issues took on profound political significance: the revised Ukrainian alphabet and the search for a 'pure' Ukrainian vocabulary offered clear evidence, in the words of one critic, that 'Comrade Skrypnyk ... had taken the path of alienating the Ukrainian language from Russian and bringing it closer to Polish.' (Magocsi 1996:567)

No one could be sure that a neighbor, a co-worker, even a family member was not a secret police informer ready to accuse him or her of being a counterrevolutionary, because of some offhand comment or joke about daily life, or—absurd as it may sound—such things as favoring use of the letter G (a Ukrainian Cyrillic letter that does not appear in Russian) in the 'Skrypnyk alphabet'. (Magocsi 1996:567)

With regard to cultural life, the goal after 1933 was to reverse the policy of the previous years, in which Shums’kyi's and Skrypnyk's 'nefarious' policies had brought about 'forced Ukrainianization.' More and more emphasis was to be given to Russian culture and the Russian language, considered the medium through which the world's 'first socialist state' had been created. In 1933, the alphabet and language reforms instituted in 1928 were abolished, and decrees were passed requiring that in its alphabet, vocabulary, and grammar the Ukrainian language be brought steadily closer to Russian. By 1937, Soviet ideologists were proposing the intimate union of the two languages, and the following year a law was passed providing for a rigid system of language training designed to ensure that all Ukrainians, whether in the cities or the countryside, would have a fluent command of Russian. (Magocsi 1996:570–71)

One can find more, but this should be enough to justify restoring the article to the previous revision. —Michael Z. 2008-05-14 12:07 z

Had a read of it, and I honestly fail to see a connection between orthographic reforms and politics. I must honestly say that Magosci sound like he is speculating. The abolishment of G is really not much of an evidence. Also I am yet to a see a source that states that the 1930s reforms had a political meaning, and even if they did why were they not reversed? It's not just the G that was affected by reforms. Also "banned" is rather subjective, one could say that the Ъ was banned in Russia, yet people, notably Mikhail Nesterov continued to use it in signatures and some still do. The previous version looks an awfully like a WP:POINTy attempt, and the present one keeps all the core facts but removes speculation and politics. --Kuban Cossack 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Which of Magocsi's statements to you declare to be speculation, Kuban Kazak, and what evidence can you show? —Michael Z. 2008-05-14 14:45 z
Okay, first you said "there is not a source"[8] and "keep speculation out"[9]. So I cited an impeccable source above, which literally says that the alphabet and vocabulary took on profound political significance. Now you question the source with an unspecific accusation (sorry, WP:CITE trumps "it sounds like speculation to Kuban Kazak"), and unanswerable questions like "why were they not reversed?" (read the history book dealing with 1933–91 for some insight). Regarding Nesterov, I don't know if he was politically active in the 1930s, but I can cite George S. N. Luckyj to show that Russian culture and cultural intelligentsia were not attacked the bloody way that Ukrainian culture and cultural workers were. (Are you talking about Ukrainian-language publications of Nesterov's, or his manuscript signature in Russian? The latter couldn't be relevant.)
"Banned" describes it quite accurately: a new orthography was imposed from above, mandated in education, at the same time as publishing and other cultural fields were Russified (Magocsi cites figures on publishing and theatre groups), and spoken Ukrainian declined in many settings. People who used the ґ could disappear, so the letter disappeared from use instead.
Please cite the sources which discredit Magocsi or present contrary evidence, and we can discuss specific changes. Until then, I'm restoring the text, and let's reach a consensus here about changes. If you're in a rush to change it, then let's ask for a WP:3RD opinion. —Michael Z. 2008-05-14 19:12 z

[edit] Opinion

In my opinion but not only opinion but also facts i would say there is no clear ukrainian language. People around Lvov speak one type and people around Poltava speak different type. I agree with Lomonosov in this case. The language spoken in Lvov had strong influence of polish. Because by historical facts we know that Lvov and western part of ukraine has been taken away by poland. Before that it that there were several russian kingdoms lying on that land with capital of kiev. That is why it was called "kievan rus". By the way rus is older name for russia and is still widely used. After polish took over tha land they started forcing the locals to catholic church and polish language. Since people did not want to change from orthodox to catholic. Polish created an uniat church which was a mix of catholic and orthodox beliefs. After almost 300 hundred years russia got half of ukraine back, but other half remaind with poland for 200 more years. Because of that long period under polish government western ukraine is now talks that language. Eastern part however spoke russian and surzhik for long time. Surshik appeared because of westerners movin to east 1600-1900 and mixing with russian speaking population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxater (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of thе preceding comment. Do you have any suggestions? Or is it simply an observation? If the point you are making is that there is no clear Ukrainian language, let me ask you this: is there a clear English language? — Sclerolith (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this discussion is out of place here. alt.opinions.ukrainian.etc. --Irpen 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. What an opinion. My folk s came from Poltava. My wife was born in Lviv. I have toured mosyt of Ukraine Poland and the Kuban with concerts. Yes there are some differences in the language from Western Ukraine to the Kuban, primarily lexical, however it is the same language. It baffles me when some people say that Western Ukrainian is not understandable by Ukrainians in the Kuban. It makes me laugh when half their songs are from Western Ukraine only with the word striletz (rifleman) substituted by the word kozak. Surzhik exists, primarily in the urban centres and primarily spoken by people with an incomplete education. I did not hear it in the Kuban however, nr n the many collective farms I performed in . Bandurist (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)