Talk: Slavic languages
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
I only want to point, that:
- Slavic scientists usually use words like ,,peacefuly assimilated" instead of ,,conquered" :) Just like Balts do the same when speaking about Ugrofinns
- There is some wild theory that Slavs are those Balts, who left their homeland and where conquered by Huns etc. I've read that once in one, single article.
- Note about Slavs pledging allegiance to Emperor is irrevelant, since only small group of Slavs, (only from Western branch) did that, while expansion was done mainly by Eastern branch. I would suggest removing that sentence or putting more about other political entities which tried to overrun Slavic tribes plus info about states Slvs do.
- anyway HRE is anachronic, since the term started to be used in, IIRC some XIII century. .
IIRC == If I Remember Correctly.
What's "HRE"? Both of the words "conquered" and "peacefully" detract from the neutral point of view, though usually from opposite sides of an issue. Eclecticology
- The Slavic group of languages is completely different from the neighboring Baltic group
They're not "completely different", as they're both IE, and probably in closer genetic relation to each other than to any other group of IO languages. --Taw
What does "completely different" mean? Difference in languages is often only a question of degrees. Eclecticology
Sources are from position one ((1)) in Szopen/Literature. Avaiable from amazon, i guess, although i didn't try to bought it from there :) Book is in Polish, of course. szopen
I would like to see comments on the uses of the words "slavic" vs. "slavonic". It seems to me that "slavic" has a much broader application, and that "slavonic" would correctly apply only in certain specific circumstances. Eclecticology
Belarusan is the name form used by ethnologue.com and its Summer Institute of Linguistics in its development of the "SIL" codes. It also has been accepted by the Rosetta Project at http://www.rosettaproject.org:8080/live/search/detailedlanguagerecord?ethnocode=RUW. Both of these organizations cross reference the other versions to "belarusan".
- I know SIL use it, and I normally attach great (but not exclusive) weight to their findings: on this occasion, though, they and the Rosetta folk are out on a limb, and in a tiny minority: the Engish form used in Belarus(i)an official (and most other) sources is Belarus(s)ian, with one "s" I think in the majority. But there's definitely an "i", unless you want to reject the way they and most others describe it. User:David Parker
Re: compromise - yes, please: but I don't feel at liberty to compromise the way speakers of the language choose (with the assent it seems of the overwhelming majority of non-speakers) to describe it. I'm all for including alternative renditions, but your suggestion crucially leaves the future article on the language as "Belorusan". Now I've a lot of respect for SIL and other experts in the field who may have their own spellings, but this is an international project, and I can't accept that a minority of western linguists should so dictate the name of a language, especially when their version is so at odds with related adjectival forms (Russian, Rusyn, Ruthene - nowhere do we have Rusa-/Russa-). User:David Parker
- As a compromise, I've changed back to Belarusan in only one of the two places in the article where the name appears. After spending a couple hours googling on this, I'm no better off than when I started. The most influential body on the net to use Belarusan is the US State Department, for what that's worth. The English-B*** dictionary page, at http://ceti.pl/~hajduk/ to which many links eventually only makes matters worse by using both forms on its home page. I've e-mailed them asking for an explanation. As long as the experts have both versians on their page why can't Wikipedia. At least we seem to agree on the other three points of contention in this single name. It's "Be-" instead of "Bie-" or "Bye-"; it's "Bela-" instead of "Belo-"; and it's a single "s". Perhaps the whole matter should be revisited when there is clearer information. Eclecticology
There are two ways to explain the similarities between Slavic and Baltic languages:
- the common ancestor, Proto-Balto-Slavic;
- coexistence of ancient Slavic and Baltic tribes in the same land (the geographic closeness made some common processes possible).
Some linguists claim that there was no Proto-Balto-Slavic language. They explain all the similarities in the second way. They point at some structural differences between Baltic and Slavic languages. On the other hand, numerous similarities between these two groups support the Proto-Balto-Slavic theory.
Boraczek 11:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't think that Kashbian and Polish is closer then Polish and Czech!
newest map
Image talk:Slavic languages.jpg
The map contains numerous mistakes. Click the map for more info. Boraczek 10:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Correction to the map - Kashubian language
I was born and raised in Gdynia (Northern Poland).
I travelled northern Poland extensively (due to family ties).
I never heard Kashubian language east of Vistula River. The range of the Kashubian language west of Vistula River seems OK, but the part of the range east of Vistula River should be erased.
Tadeusz Piorkowski tadeuszp@yahoo.com
The new map
I finally posted a version of the map according to the references and requests I got. If anything more needs to be done on it, and if it is possible to comply, I will gladly adapt it. However, I do hope it is better than the first version for everybody... Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 00:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
