Jump to content

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Ruthenian

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Ruthenian Wikipedia

[edit]
submitted verification final decision
This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Ruthenian (Русский, sla [invented])
  • Editing community: Yaroslav Zolotaryov (P), Mienski
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: Test project
  • External links:
    —
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Locations spoken: Great Dutchy of Lithuania.
  • Related languages: Belarusian, Ukrainian, Russian, Siberian

Comments/Questions

[edit]

Test-wiki opened - http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/sla/. Стало быть, я там пока сделал главную страницу на сибирском, но как можно быстрее это надо исправить на украинский и белорусский, а также собственно на старобелорусский. Думаю, что надо бы включить словарь и грамматику в тестовую википедию, чтобы поменьше было споров о языке. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Даешь её в восточнославянску дружыну! Правда, она опустела с ухожом сибирскаго, суржик полужив, белоруссы убарли шаблон со своей Вики. Dmitry Nikitin 13:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)--85.140.193.68 13:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
В этом плане они правы, какая может быть дружына, когда там щас одна наркомовская википедия реально работает) Если у рутенской вики будет свое коммьюнити, может и дружыну восстановим --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ну, как раз наоборот – классическая поактивнее будет. И не надо смотреть на число статей в час/день/неделю/итд. Это ничего не характеризует. --Bełamp 08:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Таварыш, Вы нават не разумееце, пра што размова. Размова пра Дружыну усходнеславянскіх Вікіпедый, якая зараз нямнога занядбаная. "Клясычная" Вікса ніколі туды не ўваходзіла, а таму яе абмяркоўваць тут не лічу патрэбным. Mienski
You should simply add link to the belarussian article. This is both old ukrainian and old belarussian language. sla is corect ISO code, and that was not me who created it)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Rus-ian language. It's Ruthenian language, and ISO-code for it is "sla". RTFM. Mienski
RUS is ISO-code for russian language --Dmitry Nikitin 11:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rsk? --MaximLitvin 16:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's no Yaroslav who made the "sla" prefix the standard. We should use this prefix, even if you think it's not so sensefull as "rsk". Mienski
You are wrong. The grammar of Uzhevich f.ex. has such a section (about alterating verbs) and a lot more. By the way, the book "Старабеларускія граматыкі" of A.A.Jaskievich (2001) is sold in almost every Minsk book-shop. It costs about 2500 Bel. rubles (~ 1$). I think that almost everyone can pay these money for "Азбука", "Граматыкія-буквар" of I.Fiodarau, "Граматыка славенска" of L.Zizanij and "Граматыка славенская" of I.Uzhevich under the one title page (plus historical discourse about the Old-Belarusian (Ruthenian) language. 80.94.230.2 14:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yakudza said me that they have complete grammar. But all the same, many linguistic issues are doubtful, so you can write in some version similiar to the original ruthenian. To avoid discussions I propose write dictionary and include it to the wiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yakudza is right. We can take the Uzhevich's Grammatics as a base of our Ruthenian-Wiki. 80.94.230.2 14:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the time borders are - XV-XVI - the time of Bel-Ukr Renessainse, and of language too. If you don't know there are already adopted grammar books in book-shops, with explanations for "end-users". Zyzani is not what we want because Zizani just wrote in Ruthenian the grammar of Old-Slavonic. Fedorov is just a possible source of lexics, not grammar ('cause his books are also about Church-Slavonic). But Uzhevich is what we should look in. Mienski
But maybe ruthenian wiki team will be able to make some modern variant of Uzhevych? Grammar science did not changed very much from the medieval times. As to lexics, I think it was variable, and this variability can be presented in ruthenian wiki too. All the same, we have Booxter and MaximLitvin, who want to write in the wiki --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This work has already been made by respective Belarusian and Ukrainian scientists. It's just the problem of 5-10$ for buying books in the book-shop:) Mienski
Booxter and MaximLitvin - not experts on this language! --MaximLitvin 20:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. The Wiki is all about non-experts:) But it's not the problem to learn the Old-Belarusiam language - there are books and other for it. All we need is just weeling. Mienski
I am using Sreznevski's 3 volume dictionary of the old Rus' language. It has a very extensive vocabulary, enough to compile any type of encyclopaedia. I have got three grammars of that language and a special syntax overview, which will allow editing articles. Andrusiak 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way we have some missunderstanding of [:uk:User:Andrusiak]]. It's not the language of Kiev Rus' (IX-XII), it's the language of the Great Dutchy (XIII-XVII). Andrusiak work on the OTHER language. Mienski
I indeed work on the OTHER language. I am focused on the IX-XII century literary language used in Kyiv (Кыєвъ) at that time. It IS quite different from the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania language. Andrusiak 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Dictionaries have already been made. Look in Старабеларускі лексікон f.ex., a book "Старабеларускія лексіконы" printed in Belarus, History Dictionary of Belarusian Language (there are 24 books already in the Dictionary) and many, many others. Mienski

Support

[edit]

Oppose

[edit]
  • Oppose. This language is not just Old-Ukrainian. It's the Old-Belarusan-Ukrainian, even more: the sources of the languages have more Belarusian than Ukrainian. And also you should change the Lang-code: this is not the Slavian Wiki but Belarusan-Ukrainian. Mienski
  • Oppose there are no actual sources saying how to alterate verbs in the ruthenian. (forex). so every single article marked as "written in the ruthenian" will be usual speculation about the theme of the language. -- Antos Kazmyarchuk
  • OpposeAlbedo
  • Oppose -- I think that without exact time borders definition and without defining a dialect base of so called 'Ruthenian' (i. e. Old Ukrainian or Old Belarusian) language the section will be profanation of idea. We have not any complete modern dictionary or grammar of the Old Ukrainian of 14-18 centures. I think Uzhevych grammar will be too complicated and useless for modern nonprofessionals. It will be difficult to separate Church Slavonic from Old Ukrainian language. Besides Church slavonian Fedorov Bukvars and Zyzani Slovenian grammar will be also useless for the 'Ruthenian' project. Maksym Ye. 17:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much appreciate the common attempt of Ukrainians and Belarusians to do something for their common ancestor language. (You should have cooperated on a common dictionary project too, instead of starting the Словник української мови XVI – першої половини XVII ст. and the Гістарычны слоўнік беларускай мовы independently; maybe then we would have had a nearly finished dictionary now instead of two unfinished ones.)
    And I agree that it is possible to find a standard to be used in the Wikipedia because the Ruthenians of the 16th/17th century really had a common standard themselves; they did not write in their respective dialects but in a standardized form of the language that was indeed described (not codified) in Uževyč’s grammar (which is even available online) and exemplified by the same author in his phrase book. See my monography on this subject, which shows that Uževyč’s grammar and phrase book reflect exactly the same standard as Skaryna’s, Smotryc’kyj’s and Vyšens’kyj’s Ruthenian texts. You may use the fifth chapter of my book (some 100 pages) or Stefan Pugh’s Testament to Ruthenian: A Linguistic Analysis of the Smotryc’kyj Variant as a kind of modern Ruthenian grammar, and the appendix to my book offers a small dictionary of Uževyč’s texts (some 150 pages), which includes a Latin-Ruthenian and a Polish-Ruthenian index, so you can even look up Ruthenian words that you do not know.
    But in general I do not like dead-language Wikipedia projects. These are not real encyclopedias who have any readers trying to find information in them; they are just a playground for lay linguists, and even the Latin Wikipedia is spotted with thousands of bad mistakes all over. I would even doubt that the Ruthenian name of the Ruthenian language is "Руськъ" as said in the introduction. I have never seen this. It is usually called "простая мова" or "простый языкъ"; Pljušč ("Русская «простая мова» на Украине в XVI–XVIII веках", in: Начальный этап формирования русского национального языка, Ленинград 1962, p. 221) also cites "русская мова", "рѣчь русская", российский языкъ", "языкъ русский", and I have also seen combinations like "простая мова русская" or "российская бесѣда общая", but I have never seen the short form "руськъ", let alone with this Modern Ukrainian soft sign in the middle. So as I see it, what will come out of this Wikipedia project is an attempt to use a language actively that the people who try to do this understand very imperfectly. This attempt cannot but fail. Therefore:
    Oppose --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · contrib.) 09:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian form corrected to proposed by you, the rest of argumentation is probably sceptical about non-experts, but all the Wikipedia is full of non-experts. Ruthenian wiki may also be center of studiyng Ruthenian language. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing in general against non-experts, but it is one thing to read books written by experts and reduce the information found there to an encyclopedia article, but a completely different thing to try to do something that even experts have never done before.
I would prefer Wikipedians interested in Ruthenian to improve the Wikipedia articles about this language, which are mostly in a very poor state. --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · contrib.) 11:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two facts that stress my point:
  • So far all entries on the discussion page of the project are in other languages than Ruthenian (except for my entries).
  • Someone put a greeting at the top of the project's start page, which consisted of 6 words, 4 of which were not Ruthenian but Church Slavonic (see [1]).
--Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · contrib.) 10:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Ruthenian&oldid=5437390"