Talk: My Belarusy

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

The right form is My biełarusy. Andres 01:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who told you so? Polish Solidarnost? :-) Seriously, yours is a Polish spelling. Not byelorusy, not biełarusy, but belarusy. I am wondering why the French anthem you write "as is": "La Marseillaise", but the Belarussian one some want to Russify, others want to Polonize. And don't tell me about Cyrillic vs. Latin: there are fairly established tranliteration rules. Жыве Беларусь! Mikkalai 09:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See here. This is the official Latinization. Andres 14:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, I knew Polish language since early childhood :-). First, we are talking about the State Anthem here, hence the issue is political, not grammatical. Lacinka is not recognized by Belarus state as a second script, and hardly it will be in a forseeable future. Therefore I used the Library of Congess transliteration of Cyrillic, meaning no disrespect to Lacinka, which traces way back into the history. And I will be only happy to see texts of Bialystok Belarussians and of Belarus National Republic in Lacinka (as long as they learn how to use it consistently, since Lacinka doesn't exactly match Belarussian phonetics either). Second, Lacinka is NOT transliteration; it is a second valid script, and as such, it requires its own transliteration (for diacritics).

Thank you for yuor interest in Belarus. Suur tanu! Mikkalai 18:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Lacinka is a script, not just Latinization.

I am not sure that titles should be without diacritics. And even if they should, the original form should be indicated in the text.

You might be right that the current government doesn't recognize Lacinka. I thought it did.

Is the transliteration of Cyrillic unified for all languages using it?

I agree that here we have a politically sensitive issue. My concern here is linguistic correctness, but you seem to know more than me.

My personal opinion is that there is no need to require that a script should exactly match phonetics. Andres 17:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are right about Lacinka: it is not officially recognized. I was wrong. However, there is an official Romanization [1] (pdf-file). As far as I understand, according to that Romanization the right form is Bielarusy (contains an i and a common Latin l). This is the way the word was written in the title before you changed it. Andres 18:04, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You have almost convinced me to revert. However the name of the country still Belarus. Mikkalai 18:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I am not telling you what to do because there are arguments both for a transliteration (though I am not sure you are chosen the right one), for the official Romanization from 2000, and for Łacinka. In the Estonian Wikipedia we decided (this was not my initiative, this is why I were under a wrong impression) for Łacinka because there seems to be no need to use some Romanization or some transliteration when there is a relatively widely used and old enough Latin script (the Romanizations have been unstable and the current one could be changed very soon; there are different systems of transliteration; Łacinka is well-established and vital). True, this might be interpreted as stance against the present regime, which is NPOV. Andres 21:12, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that the name of a country is an English word. But the title of the anthem is not in English. Andres 21:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the way, the French anthem is called "Marseljees" in Estonian. This is a loan, and it is written as an Estonian word. Andres 21:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We are speaking about English language here. Let's just wait for more opinions, to see if anyone really cares. I will also keep my eye at the official site for the usage. Mikkalai 17:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)