What a nice opportunity to convince some people to finally read the rules.But then, we need a text to translate into these languages...
Yes... All volunteers were translating from English (or at least I assume they did), and I didn't place too many restrictions on them.Etcetera said:Oh dear, how many secrets WR has!I just read the English variant of the rules and ran, so I didn't notice that these rules were written in all Slavic languages!
Hmm, how strange. Russian and Polish texts are written in pretty informal tone, and the Ukrainian one is more formal!![]()
Somehow I find it hard to believe that both translators independently used the word "запустить/и". I imagine the Ukranian translator just copied the Russian variant in this case. But I'm sure there's a better word when talking about starting an activity - both in Russian and Ukranian.übermönch said:I'd say we actually don't have to reach far. The first sentence in the rules is more or less equal in all translations.
Ukr:
Допоможіть "запустити" слов’янський форум, поставте своє запитання!
Help "launching" the slavic forum, ask your question!
...
Rus:
Помоги "запустить" славянский форум, задай вопрос!
Help "launching" the slavic forum, ask a question!
Now we'd just have to equalize them. That'd be easier then anything else.
Very likely to be true, as transitional dialects exist on every border between our countries.Etcetera said:Finally, in Belarusian there are words which exist in the dialect of Russian west, so a Russian from Smolensk would understand a Belarusian perfectly.
I wonder why the topic says Belarusian, not Polish? We'll probably get much more input in Polish than Belarusian, anyway because the knowledge of Belarusian is quite poor in Belarus.Etcetera said:BTW, our principal goal was to compare Polish to Ukrainian to Russian.![]()
Let's decide what we are going to do here!![]()
Next explanation is that both language areas have been for an extended period (centuries) politically separated from Russia (Novgorod & Moscow) due to Polish dominance.Thats interesting that Belarussian and Ukranian are more similar to each other than Russian....Do these countries share a bordeR? I though Russia cut between them...better look at a map to be sure!
The comparison would greatly depend on the subject; poetry is one matter, official documents are another, and everyday speech is totally the third one.Split from here.
Thanks, Etcetera, I was just curious to know point of view of Russian native speaker. Maybe we should make an experiment here and try to compare Polish to Ukrainian to Russian![]()
Які ж ми злиденні!The comparison would greatly depend on the subject; poetry is one matter, official documents are another, and everyday speech is totally the third one.
It also would depend on what exactly you want to compare. Despite a huge amount of Polish loanwords and calques in Ukrainian, its synthax and morphology are much, much closer to Russian ones.
George Shevelov "Ukrainian", in: ~ · 1993 · The Slavonic languages: 990–991 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJWWV3OWtRZzl6cFU/edit?usp=sharing)Які ж ми злиденні!
Still, it is a literary language, strongly influenced by Old-Church-Slavonic (градъ, священъ, some calques from Greek, etc.), not a vivid Ruthenian speech.How the literary language in the land that later became Ukraine looked like before the Polish influence can be seen e. g. here: http://izbornyk.org.ua/oldukr2/oldukr2.htm
Азъ, милостію человѣколюбивааго бога мнихъ и прозвитеръ Иларионъ, изволеніемь его от богочестивыихъ епископъ священъ быхъ и настолованъ въ велицѣмь и богохранимѣмь градѣ Кыевѣ, яко быти ми въ немь митрополиту, пастуху же и учителю.
Быша же си въ лѣто s̃ф̃н̃θ̃ (6559 [1051]), владычествующу благовѣрьному кагану Ярославу, сыну Владимирю.
Of course: this was meant as an illustration of the layer replaced by later Polish borrowings. There are no documents of the southern East Slavic vernacular of that time, as far as I know.Still, it is a literary language, strongly influenced by Old-Church-Slavonic (градъ, священъ, some calques from Greek, etc.), not a vivid Ruthenian speech.
I doubt that borders are able to split anything by themselves. The main cause seemingly was the desertion of steppe and directly adjacent areas (especially in the XIV-XV centuries); as a result, virtually all local population was captured, killed or fled into the forestal areas to the north. The Old Muscovite dialect was replaced by a new dialect (of mostly South Russian origin) exactly around the XIV century - although the newcomers had adopted the North Russian cultural complex, which remained intact (and later spreaded south as the Moscow influence grew).And, by the way, the language of the 11th century still shouldn't be called Ruthenian: dialect boundaries of the pre-Mongol and pre-Lithuanian times, as far as we can tell, nowhere corresponded to the future boundaries between Ruthenian and the remaining East Slavic (later Russian) — the boundary between Lithuania and the Horde split several dialectal groups.
Great Duchy of Lithuania: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Великое_княжество_Литовское#mediaviewer/File:VKL-1462-ru.pngI doubt that borders are able to split anything by themselves.
You speak about the south, whereas there is no linguistic boundary between Belarusian and Russian further to the north.The main cause seemingly was the desertion of steppe and directly adjacent areas (especially in the XIV-XV centuries); as a result, virtually all local population was captured, killed or fled into the forestal areas to the north.
Sources?The Old Muscovite dialect was replaced by a new dialect (of mostly South Russian origin) exactly around the XIV century - although the newcomers had adopted the North Russian cultural complex, which remained intact (and later spreaded south as the Moscow influence grew).
I really don't see what you're trying to show there. Correlation doesn't mean causation, and, quite obviously, spreading of old states was defined by the same geographical factors.Great Duchy of Lithuania: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Великое_княжество_Литовское#mediaviewer/File:VKL-1462-ru.png
East Slavic dialectal map of 1914: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Диале...ile:Dialektologicheskaia_Karta_1914_goda.jpeg
Kriviches ceased to exist in the XI century in the first place - at least in any socially relevant meaning. And then there was the consolidation around the new feudal entities. Sure Kriviches (and other tribes) predefined some features of later Old Russian dialects, but we cannot know for sure which and where exactly. We cannot ignore contact phenomena and migrations (which, btw, were large enough to shift the very average physical portrait of later Russian and Belarusian populations compared to the early East Slavic tribes).Krivichis were split between all the three major post-Kievan states, Great Duchy of Lithuania, Novgorod-Pskov and the North-East, and played a major role in all three areas
I'm afraid I don't see the point again. Well, at all. Middle Russian dialects quite definetly demonstrate strong contact features (often obviously late ones). And basic features of the late East Slavic macro-dialects most definetly don't go back to the tribal age (exactly why Nikolayev just ignores them and concentrates on what he believes to be most archaic features).The former Krivichian area within what is now Russian (Николаев СЛ · 1988 · Следы особенностей восточнославянских племенных диалектов в современных великорусских говорах. I. Кривичи: 115 — https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7...it?usp=sharing) constitutes the major part of the Middle Russian dialects: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Диалек...�та-1965.png and the correspondence is too striking to maintain the old view that the Middle Russian is merely the result of a linguistic interchange between the once opposed North and South Russian.
I am trying to show that the boundaries of the later Belarusian and Ukrainian language areas largely correspond to the boundaries of the Great Duchy of Lithuania. If not the Mongol invasion, or if some other political changes had divided the East Slavic territory in some other ways, the modern language boundaries most probably would have been quite different, and the very number and nature of these languages could have been different as well.I really don't see what you're trying to show there. Correlation doesn't mean causation, and, quite obviously, spreading of old states was defined by the same geographical factors.
My remark was an answer to your phrase "I doubt that borders are able to split anything by themselves". The speech of descendants of Krivichis, who found themselves in three different political entities, developed into three (later two through the elimination of Novgorod-Pskov) languages — thus, the political borders were able to split something by themselves.Kriviches ceased to exist in the XI century in the first place - at least in any socially relevant meaning. And then there was the consolidation around the new feudal entities. Sure Kriviches (and other tribes) predefined some features of later Old Russian dialects, but we cannot know for sure which and where exactly. We cannot ignore contact phenomena and migrations (which, btw, were large enough to shift the very average physical portrait of later Russian and Belarusian populations compared to the early East Slavic tribes).
The question is whether this contact zone is simply geographical, or it has its own ancient dialectal background. Why does it go from the northwest to the southeast? Why does it largely correspond to the ancient boundaries of Krivichian and of what Nikolayev calls "dialects of the literary type"?I'm afraid I don't see the point again. Well, at all. Middle Russian dialects quite definetly demonstrate strong contact features (often obviously late ones). And basic features of the late East Slavic macro-dialects most definetly don't go back to the tribal age (exactly why Nikolayev just ignores them and concentrates on what he believes to be most archaic features).