Talk:Ukrainian language/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

"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

Ukrainian speakers in Ukraine

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

In the 2001 census:

• Named Ukrainian as their native language [1](назвали українську рідною):
  • Ukrainians: 31.970.728 people
  • Other nationalities: 606.740
  • Total: 32.577.468

• Named Ukrainian as "language other than native" [2] (Вказали, що володіють українською як другою мовою):
  • Ukrainians: 4.371.191 people
  • Other nationalities: 5.426.189
  • Total: 9.797.380

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)

It's been two and half years already. There are no objections, no comments whatsoever, everything seems to be correct, why not change it then? Ahnode (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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) To me it is a dialect of Ukrainian as can be seen by the grammar and historic development. There are many borrowings from Slovak, but the basis of the language is Ukrainian. Bandurist (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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...

• Valuyevsky_Ukaz

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)

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

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)

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)

Excellent point on the subject. And I think it can be a good reference. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just for some thought about |g|~|h|:
The palatization of our |g|~|h| typically into a fricative |ž| may be due to economy in pronunication. Naturally, voiced obstruents, like |g|, are more susceptible to lenition than their corresponding voiceless couterparts, like |k|. It may be the case that our |g|~|h| had a plosive–fricative variable pronunciation, and it's palatalized form also had an affricate–fricative variable pronunciation, perhaps, throughout the Slavic continuum. The fricative form definitely established itself between vowels across the Slavic continuum, but what about obstruent clusters, like |zg|? Consider whether you can find зг→жж or зг→ждж, on the pattern of ск→щ (in Polish, e.g., miazga→miażdżyć (zg→ždž), while waga→ważyć (g→ž)).
It is more plausible that our |g|~|h| derives from a plosive |g| rather than a fricative |h| because crosslinguistically obstruents tend to loss their constriction rather than gain it (e.g., Indo-European palatal-velar plosives became Slavic alveolar fricatives). With respects to our |g|~|h|, there are many cognates in other Slavic languages and other Indo-European languages that have |g| in the position of our |g|~|h|. The palatization of the velars had occured as a phonetic phenomenon already in the Common Slavic language, and therefore the alternation of г→ж in Cyrillic texts can be no argument for the pronunciation of г because the phonetic process predates the Cyrillic writing.--Jeziorko (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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 folks came from Poltava. My wife was born in Lviv. I have toured most 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 originally from Western Ukraine only with the word striletz (rifleman) substituted by the word kozak. Surzhik does exists, primarily in the urban centres and primarily spoken by people with an incomplete education. I did not hear it in the Kuban however, nor in the many collective farms I performed in . Bandurist (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If one would suggest that "there is no clear Ukrainian language", then how would one explain Ukrainian phonology, morphology and syntax – which can be quite unique from both Polish and Russian?--Jeziorko (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. This one hasn't been active on Wikipedia for three months, so there's no point in continuing the chatter. —Michael Z. 2008-08-07 18:37 z

Eneyida

Is it the fact that Eneyida was the first publicised literary work in the Ukrainian? What does support this hypothesis? What about the Ruska Biblia? It was published before that. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Eneid was the first example of vernacular Ukrainian was used in a literary work. The various publications had cancelery Ukrainian, a written form which contained may vernacular words but was not a spoken language, 03:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainization

I think it is wrong to call changing the language on the signs as the Ukrainization. It sounds as something forceful which in truth is something logical. The sign in the Kyivan metro is provided to the Ukrainian citizens who pay their taxes to their government therefore for convenience purposes they have the sign to inform them. On the other hand, what kind of a citizen would not be able to speak their own language? The Russian-speaking, of course. For him or her, everybody needs to speak Russian and therefore any extension on the freedoms of other languages perceived to be offensive towards him or her. Is it fair and civil? Is it logical? The answer is no! I understand when in the Russian Federation, for example Taganrog or Voronezh, placing Ukrainian language based signs would be perceived as a process of the Ukrainization; or placing such signs in Peremyshl or Sanok in Poland.

On another note, how come publically funded schools in Ukraine have nerve to protest conversion of them into the Ukrainian speaking? How do those teacher contribute to provide the residence with the foreign language? Using the tax money of the Ukrainian citizens in their personal interest and the interest of the foreign land. Why does Ukraine need such teachers? Russian as any other foreign language should be the primary language of privately owned schools. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you label changing the language back to Russian as "Russification"? Gradual eradication of the Russian language form all spheres of life is a governmental policy called ukrainisation. It has many faces. Since Kiev metro didn't simply add needed titles and notes in Ukrainian to the existing signs, but demounted all signs in Russian, you can call it ukrainisation. For your information, russophones are nothing less citizens of Ukraine than ukrainophones, thus they are also subject to taxation and they possess equal rights. They certainly can demand whatever they want from the government and exercise their rights given by constitution, secured by different laws and international treaties ratified by Ukraine. "How come publically funded school in Ukraine have nerve to protest..."? Well the students and their parents are citizens, right? Meaning they are also taxpayers, so I guess they have all the rights to protest. And I hate saying this to you, but you are full of prejudice. Ahnode (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Demounting all signs in Russian" is de-Russification, not Ukrainization. Why is it that the the language or ethnicity that evolved natively is so prone to being shown as aggressive when, in fact, it is only fighting for its own place in its own land? Same question goes to post-war Poland: why do we call it "German expulsion", and not plainly de-Germanization, when, in fact, Poland was only regaining its own lands (its own cradle lands actually!), which had been invaded previously and Germanized?--Jeziorko (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the understanding of the situation. For hundreds of years large part of the Ukrainian population has been and is speaking Russian on a daily basis, some even consider it as their mother tongue. It is not the language nor the ethnicity that "is prone to being shown as aggressive" but the policy of the Ukraine's government. I feel that today's government has got a slightly weird conception of how they should encourage people to use the state language and become proficient in Ukrainian. "Fighting" with their own, well aware of their Ukrainian ethnicity, citizens who nevertheless chose to speak Russian. Surely Ukraine was russified to a certain extent while in the USSR, and noone dawdled with it but as a friend of mine has said "by the same token to ukrainise the Russian speaking part of the country would be just as wrong", don't you think? How and what else can explain all the protests that we hear of in the news? Evidently people aren't very happy about it. As for Poland, you can answer your question by looking up the definition of "expulsion". Ahnode (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments seem fair, Ahnode, but I'm not sure. You feel that "today's government has got a slightly weird conception of how they should encourage people to use the state language and become proficient in Ukrainian". What are your suggestions then for the Ukrainian-speaking people in their struggle to keep Ukrainian alive?--Jeziorko (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Studying Ukrainian was also a requirement in all schools of the Ukrainian SSR

I have heard this from a friend, but can't find a sollid reference for it (for now). Is it true? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No. This may have been true in the Shelest years, but under Brezhnev they worked in exemptions initially from children of military who were on temporary assignement, then all military, then those who had moved from other republics, and then gradually to include anyone who wanted their child exempt.

Another interesting point was that although Russian language teachers were paid initially the same as Ukrainian langiuage teachers, during the breahnev years they introduced an additional bonus to the the pay of Russian teachers. (I think 35%) which once again stacked the cards agains Ukrainian language.

They also changed the name of the subject from "Russkiy yazyk" (Russian language) to "Rodnaya Rech" (True/ spesking????/ My language?).

Bandurist (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian language wasn't compulsory until 1995 even in already independent Ukraine (e.g. in Aqyar)--Riwnodennyk ✉ 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Дякую :))))))))))) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You should specify the years that we are talking about. For instance I've found some interesting information on the matter over here. It says that on March 4th, 1940, Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR issued a decree "On reorganisation of primary and secondary schools located in territories of Ukraine's western regions". It specifically orders to "Introduce mandatory teaching of Russian and Ukrainian languages in schools with the language of instruction other than Ukrainian, and mandatory Russian language teaching in schools where Ukrainian is the language of instruction." I hope this helps you. --Ahnode (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

From the personal experience I can say that in the age of my parent's studying at school (1970s and 1980s) the Ukrainian language was an optional subject --Riwnodennyk ✉ 11:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"The language shares some vocabulary ...."

I don't understand why this phrase is at the top of this article or come to think of it, why is it there at all? "The language shares some vocabulary with the languages of the neighboring Slavic nations, most notably with Polish and Slovak in the West, and Belarusan and Russian in the North and the East."

If you think, that's significant, then a similar, equivalent phrase should be added to Polish, Slovak, Belarussan and Russian laungages as well. Why is only Ukrainian selected as if to imply that's it's not a real language. I am truly tired of this anti Ukrainian bias on Wikipedia. Anytime I look something up, there is always some offensive phrase added. Enough of this already. Please remove this phrase or add it to ALL other Slavic langauges who ALL share some vocabulary with their respective Slavic neighbours. Funny how you all insist that Ukrainian is similar to Russian and Polish and yet in the same breath claim that a language practically IDENTICAL to Ukrainian - Rusyn is a separate langauge. It is really a shame that a a group of individuals have taken a knowledge site hostage and is using it to push their own political agenda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.228.193 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why you think this sentence was added with malicious intent (have you had a chance to glance at WP:AGF yet?), but I have removed the sentence as it is indeed redundant to the statement preceding it (that Ukrainian belongs to the East Slavic subgroup of languages). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:26, June 11, 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it was done with malicious intent but the English wikipages Russians in Ukraine + Russian language in Ukraine did gave the impression that some form of slow genoicide of Russian was taken place in Ukraine before I started to work on the pages (on a Ukrainian national survey only 0,5% of respondents felt they where discriminated because of their language!!!). Hence the first times I was in Kyiv I was very surpriced to find out that a lot of pro-Ukrainians speak mostly Russian... I do believe the situation is better now, editors on Ukrainian topics in wikipedia do not display ultra-nationalistic views anymore these days. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ukrainophone section

I disagree with the statement that "almost all" Ukrainian citizens in modern Ukraine speak Ukrainian. I dont want to get wrapped up in your nationalist arguments - I really am just a passive observer - but I lived for a year in Donetsk teaching English. I met only a few people who told me that they "spoke" ukrainian. They understand it of course, but they don't (and can't) speak it. Its enough to go and listen to Yanukovich give a speech in Ukrainian :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.208.200 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Something doesn't end up. I understand little French and thus can speak little French. Usually if you can understand a language you can also speak some. Are you sure they didn't mean that they never use the language? Statements like "almost all" Ukrainian citizens in modern Ukraine speak Ukrainian or many Doneskians can't speak but do understand Ukrainian do need reliable references of course. Original research is (of course) not allowed on wikipedia. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 16:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I live in Donetsk and easily can speake ukrainian, same as all my friends and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.31.179.210 (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a gradient from west to east on Ukrainian proficiency. In western Ukraine, the Ukrainian is very dialectal, but with little Russification. In eastern Ukraine, as one gets closer to Luhansk and Crimea, there is an increasing amount of Russification and Ukrainian blends into Surzhyk. Young people in eastern Ukraine are exposed to Ukrainian in school, so have more knowledge of it and can use it to some extent (although the variety used in everyday speech is Surzhyk). Most young people also use Russian at home since that is the language of their parents. The older generations are virtually monolingual in Russian and understand Ukrainian only passively--news broadcasts, etc. As young people enter the workforce, they also tend to use more and more Russian since that is the language of their superiors. Ukrainian (in the camouflage of Surzhyk) is making inroads into eastern Ukraine, but only slowly. I don't trust the Ukrainian census to determine what language people are speaking. When a government official comes to their door and says, "What language do you speak?" I don't expect people raised in the Soviet Union to trust government workers and answer honestly. Of course they're going to say "Ukrainian" if they think that saying "Russian" might have ramifications. The Ukrainian census shows the broad strokes of the gradient of Ukrainian use from west to east, but the fine details are probably unreliable. (Taivo (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Grammar Section

I'm not a linguist, but if you look at any other language page, you will see what a real grammar page looks like. What is described in the grammar section, I think, is called Morphology. It needs attention from an expert on the subject.72.78.25.72 (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Diaspora omission

In the opening paragraph of the Ukrainian Diaspora section, there is the phrase "Canada and the United States are also home to a large Ukrainian population." There is not, however, an entry for the United States in the list. Did this get accidentally deleted at some point, or is there a reason for its absence? Does anyone know the number from a reliable source? 216.49.181.254 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian not a language - just a dialect of Russian

Some very intelligent people, linguisists, intellectuals (Anatoly Vasserman - http://vz.ru/news/2009/3/16/265622.html), etc. claim that Ukrainian is NOT a language, but a dialect of Russian. For example, up until 19th century there was no literature in Ukrainian. And many other such proves. What do you think? How would you argue Mr. Vasserman? Would you argue at all? Are these people factually correct (if not politically)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 08:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

These talk pages in wikipedia are to ask questions about the articles content, not general discussions about the subject. Including in this article that there are people who claim Ukrainian is not a language but a dialect of Russian is not a bad idea as most people in the English speaking world don't know that (I presume).

Placing in wiki-articles words like "very intelligent people" is not done on wikipedia . — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 08:55, 4 May 2010

Done! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the political comments in the lead and replaced them with quotes and references to actual reliable linguistic sources. The question just isn't clearcut and can't be decided on linguistic factors alone. If the only criterion is mutual intelligibility, then the East Slavic group is one language. But sociolinguistic factors as well as other non-linguistic factors tend to divide them into three or four separate languages. The existence of Surzhyk is a very clear indicator that Ukrainian and Russian are mutually intelligible and speakers can understand one another and borrow lexicon readily from each other. Impressionistically, from my experience watching both Russian and Ukrainian speakers communicate with each other, the difference between Ukrainian and Russian is much like the difference between Scots English and other varieties of English. The same linguists who link Ukrainian and Russian also tend to link Scots and English, while the same linguists who separate Ukrainian and Russian also tend to separate Scots and English. The whole question of language versus dialect is a gray area (and always will be) because there is a range of factors to consider as well as a gradient of mutual intelligibility--it's not a simple question at all. (Taivo (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

The languages are not mutually intelligible to people who have only been exposed to one language (which, is not Russian speakers from Ukraine who have extensive exposure to the Ukrainian language through television etc.). Our nanny is an ethnic Russian from central Asia and she cannot understand anything in Ukrainian. Ukrainian and Russian are as mutually understandable as Ukrainian and Polish or Russian and Polish.Faustian (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been clear that, like English and Scots, the languages have a high degree of mutual intelligibility. That doesn't mean that someone from Vladivostok will understand someone from Kyiv on the first day any more than someone from Austin, Texas can understand someone from Aberdeen, Scotland on the first day. Like all languages that have a great deal of dialect diversity, people from opposite ends of the geographic spread will not understand each other. That's completely normal in diverse languages and dialect chains. After a short time living in Kyiv, however, that person from Vladivostok would be able to understand Ukrainian without "learning a second language" just as that Texan would be able to understand Scots. Give your friend from Central Asia a little time in Kyiv and she would understand Ukrainian without going to language classes. Non-linguists often misunderstand what "mutual intelligibility" means in a linguistic sense. Of course, there are differences between Standard Ukrainian and Standard Russian just as there are lexical, phonological, and grammatical differences between dialects of any language. I would be unable to understand anyone from Aberdeen, Scotland at first hearing as well. Indeed, I lived in North Carolina for a year and still had a hard time understand the rural dialects around there. But we still were speaking one language. "Mutual intelligibility" in a complex dialect situation doesn't mean that you understand everything that every speaker of every dialect of that language says without living in the area. It means that exposure alone over a relatively short time is sufficient to get communication flowing. --Taivo (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay - but from that perspective there is no difference between Russian/Ukrainian and Polish/Ukrainian. Or Spanish and Italian.Faustian (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in some regards. It's all a matter of degrees and Slavicists admit that drawing hard and fast language lines among the Slavic languages is difficult if not impossible because there is a certain level of mutual intelligibility among them all, just as there is among most of the Romance languages as well. But there are degrees of intelligibility that are commonly recognized by linguists and used to, arbitrarily of course, separate two languages from two dialects of a single language. Based on mutual intelligibility tests a percentage of intelligibility is assigned to two languages. If two languages are above a certain number (can't remember off the top of my head what the most commonly used number is), then they are considered dialects of a single language. If below that number then they are considered to be two languages. The East Slavic languages are all above that number on mutual intelligibility tests, while comparing them with Polish, for example, they are below that number. The Slavic languages have a very, very shallow time depth, so there is some level of mutual intelligibility between all the languages. The same is true generally of Romance. Indeed, the time depth between the Slavic languages and the Romance languages is roughly similar, although the Romance time depth is a couple hundred years greater. I've tried to construct the paragraph so that it covers both viewpoints concerning the relationship of Ukrainian and Russian neutrally. There's not much else to be said about it other than what is already said--"some linguists say X and some linguists say Y". --Taivo (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I am really curious where Polish, Ukrainian and Russia sit on that mutual intelligibility spectrum, as in my experience Russian is no more closer to Ukrainian than is Polish (in speech, of course). And Ukrainian and Russian are much more different than southern US vs. northern US English or British English. There is no comparison. Take the example I gave on your talk page - "It's hot outside." In Ukrainian, "Дуже спекотно." In Russian, "Очень жарко." Every word is completely different (and that's vocabulary, not even accents or grammar). A New Yorker or Londoner reads William Faulkner's work, written in the southern dialect, untranslated. Good luck getting a Muscovite or Siberian to be able to understand untranslated Ukrainian-language books. The other point is that it is considered standard that the Ukrainian and Russian are separate languages and that the idea that they are dialects of one language is not the most commonly accepted one. The article ought to reflect this - the two ideas are not equally accepted.Faustian (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am quite sure every Russian will have no problem understanding the Ukrainian "Дуже спекотно" as well as any Ukrainian will understand the Russian "Очень жарко". And I think the reason is that in either langage there are very similar words. For example, the Russian дюжий (sturdy, strong) has the same root as the Ukrainian дуже (very, strongly). And the Ukrainian спекотно (hot, burning) has the same root as the Russian пекло (hell; scorching heat) and спечь (to bake). --Garik 11 (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Guessing after-the-fact is not the same is understanding what is said. In Polish "duzhe" means big, so for a Ukrainian it's an easy word to learn (in Ukrainian duzhe means very). But someone with no experience of Polish wouldn't know that a duzhe auto is a "big car", it would read as "very car" which makes no sense. So a Russian unfamilair with Ukrainian would read "sturdy, strong and an unfamiliar word which in retrospect has the same root as "heat." And the Russian words ochen zharko make no sense whatsoever to a Ukrainian unfamiliar with Russian.Faustian (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, native Russian speakers do use the word дюже (d'uzhe) meaning "very" quite a lot when they want to sound casual or "rural". Although this word cannot be found in dictionaries of the modern Russian literary language it is part of dialects in such places as Kaluga and Ryazan, but even people from other regions know fully well that it means "very". A native Ukrainian speaker unfamiliar with Russian knows the Ukrainian word жар (zhar) (heat), so the Russian zharko with the root "zhar" and the Ukrainian/Russian suffix -ko makes perfect sense to them. No guessing involved, pure knowing (or "mutual intelligibility"). --Garik 11 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Zhar is not a common word for heat (it is found it more common words such as pozhar - fire) or hot and "ochen" is utterly unlike any Ukrainan word. So the phrase "ochen zharko" is meaningless to a Ukrainin speaker unfamiliar with the Russian language. He might guess that it has something to do with eyes ("ochi" in Ukrainian - closest thing to ochen). Burning eyes? Moreover there are many very common words that are totally incomprehensible. The Russian word look - smotry - is completely alien from Ukrainian (dyvytysia), together (Russian vmesti vs. Ukrainian razom), "yes" (da vs. tak) etc. etc. I just asked a native of Moscow if she had ever heard Russians use the word "duzhe", and she did not although she knew this word from having travelled to Ukraine (that's how I learned the Polish word, bardzo, for "very")Faustian (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is truly ridiculous to read this kind of reasoning from a person with superficial knowledge of Russian and Ukrainian! I could have provided more sources to clarify/refute things, but apparently you are not paying attention and not interested in learning how much Ukrainian and Russian languages/dialects have in common, but enjoy picking up differences which are not so many as there are similarities. --Garik 11 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Placing the political comments in the lead was mabey a bit over the top... I agree with your latest edits! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing your latest changes [10]. Your The question of whether Ukrainian and Russian (as well as Belorussian and Rusyn) are dialects of a single language or separate languages is not entirely decided by linguistic factors alone is supported by citations but I don't' see first citation talking about Ukrainian, and the second one only talks that "The three East Slavonic languages are very close to one another..." doesn't supporting what is in the article. Also please provide a quote for "Some linguistic references list them as dialects of a single language" from The Linguasphere Register of the World's Languages and Speech Communities . The source Classification and Index of the World's Languages adds "In terms of immediate mutual intelligibility" before "the East Slavic zone is a single language", which should be added to the article as well. --windyhead (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The first quote is from an entire volume that only deals with the Slavic languages and the quote is about the problems throughout the family, of which the problem with Ukrainian/Russian is one. I will assume good faith on your part, but that statement (that the question cannot be decided on linguistic factors alone) is linguistically axiomatic. It doesn't even need citations since linguists take that statement as being true without evidence needing to be presented. I have added the information from Linguasphere, where the four East Slavic varieites are treated as one language. The references are quite sufficient to prove the point--some linguists treat them as dialects of a single language, but other linguists treat them as different languages. (Taivo (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Hi, for some reason you don't provide full quotes, you even don't provide full sentence, cutting it and taking words from the middle. The correctness of information you add couldn't be checked. Please provide quotes including at least sentence before and after what you are referring to, preferably full section if it's not too big, so the context the source is talking in would be understood. --windyhead (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The amount of the quote is quite sufficient to verify the information. I take it that despite solid linguistic references you don't believe that some linguists treat the East Slavic languages as a single language. Well, it's totally unnecessary to provide the length of quote you're asking for in a Wikipedia article. Look up the books for yourself if you're curious. The statements stand quite solidly as they are and are perfectly referenced--"Some linguists treat the East Slavic varieties as a single language." That is a true statement and is adequately referenced for Wikipedia purposes. Remember that the statement isn't asking you to treat them as one language, and it isn't saying that all linguists treat them as one language, it is only stating that some linguists in reliable sources have treated them as one language. (Taivo (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

Hi, the quotes you provided does not contain what has been added to the article. I will update the article according to quotes you provided. --windyhead (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The way you "rewrote" the paragraph was not clear and did not match the scholarly linguistic opinion. The quotes in the footnotes, as well as the longer statements within the references themselves, say exactly what the paragraph says--1) these "languages" are mutually intelligible (the normal situation for dialects of a single language), 2) the division into three (or four) languages is based on non-linguistic factors, 3) some linguists separate them into three languages and others join them into a single language. That's exactly what the sources say. Do not rewrite unless you have read the cited sources. --Taivo (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, because you provided only partial quotes which does not contain what you've added in the article, I see this as that the source contain no more information confirming what you've added. I will mark info which is not in quote as "not in source" and will remove it later. --windyhead (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You don't understand how Wikipedia works. I don't have to provide the full quote for everything written in Wikipedia, just a source where you, yourself, can look it up to verify it. Do not remove anything in that paragraph. It is all properly referenced by reliable sources and verifiable. I don't have to provide you with the hard copy, it is your responsibility to look it up yourself if you don't think it is there. --Taivo (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked the content you added per orphaned quotations you provided. In particular, you've added [11] "Some linguistic references list them as dialects of a single language" while quotations you provided does not contain that. --windyhead (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the sources. I don't have to provide you with "quotes" based on Wikipedia's verifiability standards. You are required to look up the sources if you don't think they support the issue at hand. Stop your anti-linguistic crusade. The sources completely support the paragraph as it is written without your changes. If you don't think so, then look up the sources yourself and prove me wrong. But do not removed properly sourced material from reliable sources. In Wikipedia, we do not have to justify every single sentence fragment with a full quote from the source. We have to provide a proper source and if you doubt it, then you have to look it up in the actual source. Unless you are holding these books in your hand, then leave the paragraph alone. --Taivo (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Your edits that try to de-emphasize the fact that the Eastern Slavic languages are virtually one language based on the strictly linguistic criterion of mutual intelligibility are not based on actual scholarly sources, but upon your own POV. I read on your talk page that you pushed for Rusyn to be considered a dialect of Ukrainian. It seems rather hypocritical to push for the inclusion in Ukrainian of Rusyn because of mutual intelligibility, but fight against discussing Russian/Belarusan/Ukrainian as a single language despite their mutual intelligibility. The linguistic scholarly literature on the subject all agrees that the Eastern Slavic languages are mutually intelligible. Some list them as three separate languages, some list them as one language. Those are the linguistic facts and the paragraph is very clear on that fact. --Taivo (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, on May 7, you said: The amount of the quote is quite sufficient to verify the information. Based on that, I'm using quotations you provided to verify info you added. Sources contain either no info you added, or the info you added into the article differs from what the source says. So I'm adding "not in source" tags to the info you added. Please don't remove "not in source" tags until problems raised here are resolved. --windyhead (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As has been told to you many times already and by other editors at the ANI thread you opened, I don't need to provide entire quotes, just a reference to a reliable source. If you don't believe that I have summarized the source properly, then read the source yourself and show me where my summary is wrong. --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not answering to the points I raised. Again: on May 7, you said: "The amount of the quote is quite sufficient to verify the information". Based on that, I'm using quotations you provided to verify info you added. Sources contain either no info you added, or the info you added into the article differs from what the source says. Your The question of whether Ukrainian and Russian (as well as Belorussian and Rusyn) are dialects of a single language or separate languages is not entirely decided by linguistic factors alone - first source doesn't talk talk about Ukrainian, and the second one only talks that "The three East Slavonic languages are very close to one another..." doesn't supporting what you've added. You've added "Some linguistic references list them as dialects of a single language" while quotations you provided does not contain that first source uses specific classification which is different from what you've added and second source says "In terms of immediate mutual intelligibility, the East Slavic zone is a single language." and you orphaned the bold part --windyhead (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Windyhead, can you please answer one simple question—did you or did you not obtain the sources Taivo is quoting and did you or did you not go through them to make absolutely sure the facts he is referencing are not in those sources? If the answer is no, then there is nothing to discuss here—unless you are willing to physically obtain the sources and check them, your demands to provide "full quotes" (which, as Taivo correctly pointed out, is not something our policies require, although is occasionally done outside the article space as a gesture of good will) have no basis whatsoever. If, on the other hand, you did personally inspect those sources and found out that Taivo's claims are not in there, then, of course, it's a problem of a different sort. If that's the case, you need to request an uninvolved third-party to do another review and confirm your findings. Hope this clarifies the situation for you. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 28, 2010; 13:55 (UTC)

Hi, I don't demand "full quotes" after Taivo said that orphaned quotes he provided are enough to verify. After that, everyone can check quotes he provided, and confirm that they do differ from what he added to the article. But yes, I checked sources provided for The question of whether Ukrainian and Russian (as well as Belorussian and Rusyn) are dialects of a single language or separate languages is not entirely decided by linguistic factors alone, and sources contain no such information. And no, I don't have to be "absolutely sure" in it, because the burden of proof is not on me. And no, there is no need to look for another person willing to check if Taivo claims are in source or not. It is waste of time and resources, it is completely enough I volunteered my time and done that. --windyhead (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Windyhead, I like to assume good faith of the other editors, but I seriously doubt that you have read any of the sources which I have quoted. Six hours ago you were wondering how you would ever find those sources and now you claim to have read them all? I doubt it. And if you had read them, then you would not have made the statement you just did. --Taivo (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to give so much attention to that, because, as was said a number of times, after you provided quotes and said they are enough to verify, the verification can be performed on those quotes. --windyhead (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Any trained linguist will see that the quotes are sufficient. If you need more then you will have to read the sources. I'm not going to quote paragraphs just to satisfy you. --Taivo (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents - if the editor does not have a history of misusing sources we ought to assume good faith and until someone proves the source is misquoted it ought to be accepted.Faustian (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

And my 2 cents—if one party says something is in the source, the other says it's not there, and the first disagrees in return, the best way to resolve this is to request someone uninvolved re-check the sources in question. That's not a "waste of time", that's the most logical course. Sorry for the bluntness, but one of the two parties is definitely lying (or is really sloppy with the sources), which isn't something that can be satisfactorily resolved on good faith alone.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 29, 2010; 12:52 (UTC)

In rereading Windyhead's comments I think there was a language issue going on and what, on a plain reading, sounded like "I have checked the sources", may have actually been a non-native speaker's attempt to say "I am/will be checking the sources". Faustian and I tweaked the paragraph so Windyhead may now be satisfied. --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

Respectable organisations like the UN and the BBC treat Ukrainian as a separate language; should there be some mentioning of that in this article? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 00:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate

This article focusses on external history and politics. There's a place for this but it doesn't fit into the usual format for an article on a specific language or dialect. If you look at, for instance, Scots, whose position is similar, or Basque, which is also in quite a politicised situation, whereas the politics and history of those forms of speech are covered, it's from an internal perspective, whereas this article fails to inform in that respect. I don't know anything about the politics of Ukrainian aside from the general politics of minority languages in the former Soviet Union and Russian Empire, but I think this needs to have a different title and there should be a separate article on the Ukrainian language from the perspective of the likes of internal history, morphology, phonology and the like. Right now, this is not informative in the right way. I came here to compare this with standard Russian and it's not very helpful in that respect.

Nineteenthly (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. This article is more of the external history and should be called "History of Ukrainian language". Not enough has been written on the structure of Ukrainian. But in Wikipedia we only have what people are willing and able to write on any given topic. --Taivo (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PC

The first paragraph in this "History" section is not PC and should be removed, or moved to another page.

Language is a social phenomenon, and is intimately tied to national and cultural identity. The implication of the paragraph, that Ukrainian, Belorussian and Russian are considered (albeit for the purposes of comparison) by linguists to be one language, is offensive to Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Russians, who have the right to their own language, culture and national identity. This paragraph should be removed from this, the main page describing the Ukrainian language, and, perhaps, moved to a different page, discussing the commonalities between the Slavic tongues.

In the end, it IS true that what constitutes a language vs. a "dialect" or “variant” is up for the speakers to decide, not linguists, no matter their qualifications.

There is no evidence to support the theory that a proto-“western” Slavic language (as opposed to a proto-“Eastern” Slavic language ever existed. The distinction between the Eastern and Western Slavic languages is purely geographical, and does not imply any commonality nor links between grammar or vocabulary. Modern Ukrainian and Belorussian can just as easily be grouped together with Polish. In fact, Ukrainian is closer to Polish than Russian in many aspects, including basic vocabulary words, number of cases (7 for Polish and Ukrainian, vs. 6 in Russian), use of particles, sentence structure, and verb conjugations (Ukrainian and Polish both have a true future form, where Russian does not.) Insofar as mutual intelligibility is concerned, among educated speakers, the Slavic languages in general are as mutually intelligible as the neo-latin group. The existence of “Surzhyk” in Ukraine does not imply that the speakers are using a common language any more than “Portuñol” speakers in the bordering regions of Brazil and Argentina are speaking a common Spanish/Portuguese hybrid language. I believe it would be difficult to say that Portuguese and Spanish are simply dialects of a common “Western Neo-Latin” language, no one claims to speak. The fact that Portuguese and certain dialects of Spain did not become distinct languages until the 16th century is proof to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BohdanH (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is completely unscientific. You have no proof, no scholarly support, no reason to remove this properly sourced, academically written, scientifically accurate content. If you have linguistic sources that claim that Ukrainian and Russian are not descended from a common ancestor and do not retain a fair amount of mutual intelligibility, please present them here and we will discuss them. As it is, the paragraph is completely accurate in describing the consensus of the scientific linguistic community. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make the Ukrainians or any other group of people feel good about themselves. It is to present facts. The paragraph you deleted presents scientifically verifiable facts about the Ukrainian language that are relevant for a discussion of the history and present state of the language. "PC" is irrelevant. Indeed, the paragraph itself says that the issue is broader than linguistics alone and that some linguists group them as a single language and other linguists don't. However, the large degree of mutual intelligibility between the Eastern Slavic languages is well-documented. The fact they they are descended from a common Proto-Eastern Slavic ancestor is uncontested in the linguistic literature, however. It has universal acceptance and strong proof in the historical linguistic literature. --Taivo (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is one of undue weight. While you can find legitimate references to certain scholars who claim that the Ukrainian and Russian are dialects of one language, this idea (that Russian and UKrainian are dialects of a single language vs. separate languages) is not commonly accepted, perhaps even fringe (not in the ufo abduction sense of course, but in terms of being accepted by mainstream scholarship). The article ought to reflect that. As for Bohdan's points, with references his claims ought to fit into a comparative languages section of this article (such a section also should include the dialect vs. language points).Faustian (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dialects versus Languages

This discussion kind of got segmented, so I'm going to initiate a single thread. There are several layers to the question of whether Ukrainian is part of a single East Slavic language or a separate language within an East Slavic groups of languages. Each deserves to be dealt with, but I'm not sure that all the issues are necessarily relevant to this article because some are theoretical and practical issues within the science of linguistics rather than specific to Ukrainian.

• Linguistics. Linguistics in general recognizes that the boundary between languages and dialects are not cut and dried. Of course, it is possible to identify the difference between Russian and English as being a language barrier, but the differences between closely related languages become less and less until at some imperceptible point they become divergent dialects of a single language. The traditional means of defining a language barrier is mutual intelligibility. But that barrier is not a fixed point, but merely some arbitrarily defined point along a continuum of intelligibility between two speakers. There are also situations such as between Portuguese and Spanish and Comanche and Shoshoni where mutual intelligibility is not the same in each direction for phonological reasons. This is part of theoretical linguistics, however, and should not be rehashed here in this article. Between the Eastern Slavic languages there is a very high degree mutual intelligibility. All scholarly works recognize that, even the works that list Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Russian as separate languages. There is also a higher measured level of mutual intelligibility between the Eastern Slavic languages than any of them have with Polish. Yes, there are a lot of Polish loan words in Ukrainian, but Ukrainian is still clearly and undeniably Eastern Slavic and its phonology, grammar, and lexicon is still much more strongly linked to Russian and Belorussian than to Polish. Based strictly on the measurement of mutual intelligibility, the Eastern Slavic varieties are one language.
• Orthography and Standard Languages. Standardization of both literary forms and orthography usually always masks the phonological similarities and differences between speech forms. The wide variety of English dialects are often not intelligible to speakers of other dialects, but because the literary language and orthography has been standardized for at least the last 250 years, that incomprehension is masked by the ability of speakers to communicate in a common written language. This orthographic and literary uniformity, however, masks serious dialect divisions in the spoken language. Ukrainian developed a separate literary tradition from Russian and a separate orthography, so even though there is linguistically-defined mutual intelligibility similar to that for English, the different orthographies and the lack of a common literary tradition makes the speech forms look more different than they actually are. That very difference in orthography and literary norms is one of the driving factors in treating Ukrainian and Russian as separate languages even though the dialect differences are roughly equivalent to the dialect differences in English. Linguists sometimes ignore and sometimes consider orthographic and literary norm differences in separating dialects into languages and sometimes ignore them. Hindi and Urdu are one language, but they are often separated based on different orthographic traditions. This always needs to be specifically mentioned in articles concerning these two languages so that their relationship is clear. That's what this paragraph here in Ukrainian language does--it clarifies the linguistic position between Ukrainian and Russian outside of the political, non-linguistic issues.
• Sociolinguistics. This is where popular perception comes into play, including political issues. Ukrainians are independently-minded and do not want to be associated with Russia. I don't blame them for historical reasons. This is where the popular perception that Ukrainian and Russian are different languages and even that Ukrainian is closer to Polish than to Russian comes into play. These are non-linguistic factors.
• Scholarly consensus. There are two positions within the linguistic literature. All the sources that discuss intelligibility are in agreement that Russian and Ukrainian are mutually intelligible based on the most common linguistic measurements. So the question is how much the sources rely on differing literary traditions or sociolinguistic issues to link or divide the Eastern Slavic languages. Most references separate them into three (or four) different languages, even when they mention mutual intelligibility. There are, however, linguistic references that combine them into one language while recognizing separate literary traditions and sociolinguistic factors.

So that's what we have here and what I tried to maintain in the paragraph in question--that there are more factors than just mutual intelligibility involved and that there are scholarly sources that link them. I'm not sure how much detail we actually need to cover in dealing with this issue, but since readers might very well encounter works that mention the single-language option, it needs to mentioned here and why. --Taivo (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have references for your points concerning linguistics? I find it hard to believe that scholars would consider Ukrainian and Russian as mutually intelligible as southern USA vs. standard (or British, or Australian, etc.) English. Even if Ukrainian Cyrillic were convered to Russian Cyrillic a Russian from Moscow would not be able to read a Ukrainian literary book nearly as easily as a person from London would be able to read Faulkner. I mean, even very basic words such as "yes" and "no" are totally different in Ukrainian vs. Russian (Ukr. "tak" and "ni" vs. Russian "da" and "nyet." Compare to Polish "tak" and "nie"). So how are Ukrainian/Russian comparable to British/Southern USA English? Incidentally, this source claims that west and east Slavic form one continuous dialect area and that only the south Slavic languages are different. Indeed, here it is claimed that Slovak is more easily understood by Russian speakers than by Czech speakers. While this one claims that on the basis of mutual intelligibility Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian are the same but doesn't say that about the East Slavic languages.Faustian (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the quotes in the footnotes to the paragraph. Voegelin and Voegelin specifically says that in terms of mutual intelligibility the three are one language. Remember as I posted earlier, that the linguistic measurement of mutual intelligibility is based on specific testing and has a scientific definition and is not just based on speakers' personal anecdotes. I've heard people say that they understood X language perfectly when all they really understood were hand signals, facial clues, and "OK". The statement, "So and so speaks my language" or "I don't understand a word of that language", when uttered by non-linguists is more often than not based on personal belief, political desire, or economic gain. I also didn't say that Ukrainian and Russian were as similar as Georgia English and New York English. I said that when you consider forms such as Texas English and Scots English the level of intelligibility is about the same. Scots English is not what Sean Connery speaks in the movies, it's the language of the docks in Aberdeen and Edinburgh. You have to separate what you might hear in the movies from what is actually spoken in those areas. You also have to completely ignore all the literary traditions because they mask dialect similarities and differences. Forget all issues of writing. We're talking about languages here and writing is irrelevant to the issue of mutual intelligibility (see my comments above). Also, just a few words like "yes" and "no" have no real bearing on mutual intelligibility. The issue deals with overall phonology, grammar, lexicon, etc. A few words do not inhibit mutual intelligibility or the scientific measurement of it. --Taivo (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your three references, Faustian: The first reference implies that the East and West Slavic groups form an old dialect chain separate from South Slavic. I'm not particularly surprised, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an East and West break within that old dialect continuum. The majority of Slavicists still separate East Slavic from West Slavic. The second reference is rather extensive and I'll have to read it in detail unless you know specifically where the most relevant quote is. Did you just look this up in Google Books or have you actually read the work? If you've read it then please point me to the page that you are referring to. The third reference is really not relevant other than to add another source separating the three East Slavic forms. However, it's not really another source since the section was authored by Bernard Comrie who is already listed in the references (in his book Languages of the Soviet Union) as splitting them. The section is already so short that you cannot assume what he thinks about mutual intelligibility of East Slavic. His statement about Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian is based on the fact that these three language varieties have such a shallow time depth that 20 years ago it wasn't even questioned that they were the same language. That's not the case with Ukrainian and Russian--the time depth is deeper, but that doesn't really change the mutual intelligibility. Indeed, in Comrie's 1981 book, he specifically says that the East Slavic languages share a high degree of mutual intelligibility (see the references in the article). The only one of your references that is possibly germaine to the issue is the second one and I'll have to read that one to comment further. --Taivo (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Did Voegelin and Voegelin specifically conclude that the three were in general the same language or only in terms of the factor of mutual intelligibility? Because if one source claims that mutual intelligibility alone is sufficient for something being the same language (or not), and another source claims that two languages are mutually intelligable, we cannot claim that the second source claims that the two are one language. Doing so would be original research.

With respect to "a few words" - well, yes, if basic words are completely different than one person cannot understand another. If a speaker does not even know what the other person is saying when he says yes, outside, inside, boy, and many other basic words completeley different in Russian vs. Ukrainian then understanding the other person becomes impossible. The reason I mentioned Fulkner is not personal beelif but the fact that Faulkner, writing in the Southern dialect, is published untranslated in London or Australia while untranslated Ukrainian books would never be published in Moscow for Russian readers because Russians simply would be utterly unable to understand them. (I am unfamiliar with both the Texas dialect and Scots - could you provide examples?)

To add to my points - the general consenus among scholars seems to be that the Ukrainian language is indeed a separate language. For example this book about Slavic Languages published by Cambridge: "The Slavic group of languages - the fourth largest Indo-European sub-group - is one of the major language families of the modern world. With 297 million speakers, Slavic comprises 13 languages split into three groups: South Slavic, which includes Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian; East Slavic, which includes Russian and Ukrainian; and West Slavic, which includes Polish, Czech and Slovak. This book, written by two leading scholars in Slavic linguistics, presents a survey of all aspects of the linguistic structure of the Slavic languages, considering in particular those languages that enjoy official status..." I can find many other general Slavic linguistic books that conclude the same thing. The other viewpoint, theat there is no such thing as separate Ukrainian and Russian languages, is a minority one. The article needs to clearly reflect this, and currently it does not.Faustian (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I read through that article on dialectology and the study about Slovak, Czech, and Russian doesn't appear to be a mutual intelligibility test, but based simply on speaker anecdotes. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear that Czechs claim "not to understand" Slovaks. "Untranslated" is a curious term to use for English since there is a fairly standard literary form and things don't need "translating" when written in standard literary English, which Faulkner uses. Things written in Scots English use a different literary standard dating back to Burns' time. But the true measure isn't reflected in writing. You need to check out some of the episodes of the film "The Story of English" to hear dialects of English that are not comprehensible to speakers of other dialects without a great deal of exposure. You don't have to prove to me that many Slavicists list Ukrainian and Russian as separate languages. Remember that I provided the initial references to show that. My only point is that there are some scholars who list them as one language and that even scholars who list the East Slavic languages as three (or four) languages mention their mutual intelligibility. The comment that the division into three languages isn't completely based on linguistic factors is absolutely true. The text, as it stands, already says "some", an indication of minority status for those who treat them as one language. I'm not going to delete any reference to the "lumpers" as that would be false. If you have a suggestion on wording, then suggest it. --Taivo (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of Faulkner's characters speak in the Southern dialect, not standard English (Ever read his masterpiece The Sound and the Fury?). And those parts do not require translation in England or Australia or New York. They are understood in a way that Ukrainian is not for Russians in Moscow. In terms of wording, something like "while the consensus is that thelanguages ae separate, some linguists argue that based on..." would seem to be appropriate.Faustian (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the way you changed it now is quite acceptable, in my opinion. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Faulkner's characters may be speaking Southern English, but the sound of Southern English is nothing like what is written on the page. Yes, I've read "The Sound and the Fury". You have to hear rural Southern English to understand or the language of the docks of Aberdeen to hear how radically different the dialects of English really are. The written word will never, ever convey that. I don't think that "argue" is the best term. Just the current "some linguists list" is quite sufficient. It's not a major debate, but only a difference in how one chooses factors to decide on linguistic unity. No one debates the facts about the languages--mutual intelligibility, sociolinguistic differences, orthographic differences, literary standard differences, etc. It's just a question of which factors each author chooses to rank above other factors. No linguist is going to argue with the linguists who rely solely on mutual intelligibility just as no one is going to argue with someone who doesn't want onions and a tomato on his burger. --Taivo (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. Another problem solved :) --Taivo (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a native Ukrainian and English speaker. I've been in the deep South, and I've been to Russian-speaking Kiev before I learned Russian. In my experience there was no comparison in terms of intelligibility between southern English and Russian. About Scots English - could it be possible that it is not a dialect but a patois or creole language comparable to Jamaican? The Scots were Gaelic speaking who adopted the foreign English language, just as the Jamaicans were Africans who adopted the foreign English language. In contrast dialects seem to develop from one people branching, being isolated from their cousins, or influenced by others in certain geographical locations. (I realize this is not directly related to this article so feel free to delete this thread after we discuss it). Regards,Faustian (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Scots isn't a patois or creole. It's actually a descendant of the Late Old English and Early Middle English that settlers from England brought with them to the Lowlands of Scotland in the 11th to 13th centuries. Of course, just as there are many Polish loanwords in Ukrainian, there are many Gaelic loanwords in Scots. But grammatically, it's unequivocally "English" and not a creole or a Celtic-English mix of some sort. There are a fair number of linguists who separate it into a separate language from English. The sociolinguistic situation in Jamaica and the rest of Caribbean was radically different than that in southern Scotland, so there were totally different forces in play. Creoles just don't develop in situations like southern Scotland. Indeed, it's interesting to listen to Scots and then the English dialects of the Scottish Highlands and the islands off the NW coast where English didn't encroach until the 17th and 18th centuries. They are radically different. The English of the "Highlands and Islands" is much more comprehensible to average English speakers of other dialects than Scots is because the time depth is so much shallower. But the amount of Gaelic influence on both the English of the Highlands and Islands and on the English of the Scottish Lowlands (Scots) was about the same. When you were in the South, there are some sociolinguistic factors that probably meant you didn't hear the really rural dialects, which are usually more typical of the region than urban varieties. Urban speakers tend to use a more formal variety of the dialect, which is what you usually hear on the television and in films. In front of "foreigners" (including people from other regions of the country), they also tend to use a more formal register. That formal register is much more comprehensible to non-Southerners. But the time depth between Southern English and other dialects of English is not as great as between Ukrainian and Russian. The real time depth in English dialects is between Scots and non-Scots. That's where you'll notice the greatest problems in immediate mutual intelligibility. Indeed, the time depth between Scots and other varieties of English is about the same as that between Russian and Ukrainian--roughly seven to eight centuries. Try reading some of the contemporary work that is being published in Scots or listen to tapes and videos of people speaking native Scots and I think you'll feel some of the same things that you felt when confronted with Russian for the first time. It probably seemed familiar and that you should be able to understand it, but it was just beyond your grasp at the time. That's how Scots is to most English speakers. --Taivo (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks! I see the parallels between Ukrainian/Russian and Scots/English (Scots is described as a separate language in the wiki article). A further note is that some scholars maintain that Ukrainian and Russian were diverging even before the breakup of Rus (and others, that they were always different, reflecting pre-Rus tribal differences) which would make the divergence a couple hundred years sooner than the Scots/English one.Faustian (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To most English speakers, Scots might as well be a different language - it's not just the words but the accent! But most Scots can't understand Doric (the language of Aberdeen). I recall when friend of mine was married in Edinburgh, several of his bride's family observed that they had problems with the new minister who was from Peterhead! The dialects from the upper parts of the east coast have a great deal of Scandinavian in them - as do Yorkshire and Geordie - making them different in both sound and dialect words from English. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Yes, we can actually assume dialect diversity in any language that occupies a sufficiently large land area. Same is true for England in the early Middle Ages as well. We usually start dating dialect differentiation that can lead to different languages, however, based on some migration event or some historical break. Dialect differentiation actually begins on the day that one village splits and half the villagers go to live on the other side of the river. So linguistically dating dialect differentiation isn't an exact science. That's why we usually tie it to historical events when we can actually see a split in the historical record. Otherwise it's just supposition. --Taivo (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The last ruler of unified Kieven Rus was Mstislav I of Kiev, son of Vladimir II Monomakh. Mstslav's reign ended in 1132. After that the state devolved into more or less independent principalities before being destroyed by the Mongols 1240 (the principalities lived on, as Mongol vassals). However Kievan Rus' was not consolidated for very long - basically from c. 900, before which it was various tribes who were separated from each other; the distances between them were much greater than the distances between the various pre-Norman English kingdoms (who were united around 900 also). The astern Slavic lands were consoliated by foreign, Scandanavian rulers who would not be Slavicised until the mid to late 10th century. The article about the Old Novgorod dialect describes significant linguistic diversity even in Kieven Rus times.Faustian (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)