Talk:Slavic vocabulary

message: Just to get people on the same page, this is what I hope this article will eventually encompass.  If I do it by myself it'll probably take a long time.
#List of these 7(possibly change the number) languages in pure IPA and no orthography.  Right now there's orthography so that even users not familiar with the languages can easily cross check and make sure the words are transcribed correctly.  A possible inclusion of reconstructed Common Slavonic should also be there.
#A detailed analysis of the changes that underwent the languages or branches from Common Slavonic to the modern day languages.  Going from PIE might be too off-topic and more appropriate for the Common Slavonic article.
#Possibly some explanation of the historical contexts of these changes (migrations, political and technological impacts, etc).
Any help is much appreciated.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think orthography is important because it brings languages closer together - Russian words spelled with е could be pronounced as ё. I fixed the Russian pronunciation in a lot of cases. -iopq 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We could probably put the two columns together and just have the IPA next to the spelling -iopq 04:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

message: I have no experience with Swadesh list, but I'm native Polish and I find at least few of the translations awkward. Certain English words have several Polish equivalents which are context-dependent. I'll try to list them in case somebody cares and can tweak this list appropriately.
*they - oni, one (one in case all of them are f. or n.; oni in mixed cases and purely m. groups)
*this - ten, ta, to (masculine, feminine and neuter respectively)
*that - tamten, tamta, tamto (masculine, feminine and neuter respectively)
*all - wszyscy, wszystkie (wszyscy for masculine and mixed cases; wszystkie for feminine or neuter only; e.g. wszyscy obecni - all (people) present but wszystkie dzieci - all kids or wszystkie kobiety - all women)
*many - dużo (quantity), bardzo (quality), wiele & wielu (quantity)
*few - mało, niewiele
*other - inny, inna, inne (m., f., n.)
*big - duży/duża/duże/duzi, wielki/wielka/wielkie/wielcy (m., f., n. but also plural for feminine and neuter, plural for masculine and mixed)
*long - długi/długa/długie/dłudzy (m., f., n. but also plural for feminine and neuter, plural for masculine and mixed)
*wide - szeroki/szeroka/szerokie/szerocy (the same)
*thick - gruby/gruba/grube/grubi, tłusty/tłusta/tłuste/tłuści (e.g. gruby papier - thick paper; rarely tłusty palec - thick finger)
*heavy - ciężki/ciężka/ciężkie/ciężcy
*small - mały/mała/małe/mali
*short - krótki/krótka/krótkie/którcy
*narrow - wąski/wąska/wąskie/wąscy
*thin - cienki/cienka/cienkie/ciency
*egg - jajo, jajko
*neck - szyja, kark (front/back of the neck)
*back - tył (back of the car), plecy (back of the body, upper part), tyłek, zad (lower back; note similarity to Czech záda)
*to vomit - wymiotować, zwracać
*to smell - wąchać (to smell with your nose; czuć has wider meaning to feel)
*to fear - bać się, obawiać się
*to split - dzielić, podzielić, rozdzielić
*to stab - pchnąć, pchnąć nożem (pchnąć alone has wider meaning to push)
*to scratch - skrobać, drapać
*to fall - padać, upadać, spadać
*to hold - trzymać, utrzymywać, dzierżyć (this is rare but not considered archaic; note similarity to Czech držet)
*to squeeze - ściskać
*to pull - ciągać, ciągnąć
*to push - pchać, pchnąć
*to throw - rzucić, rzucać
*to float - pływać, płynąć, unosić się na wodzie (current IPA matches pływać)
*to freeze - marznąć, zamarzać
*sand - piach, piasek
*dust - pył, kurz
*ash - popiół, proch
*to burn - palić, płonąć
*red - czerwony/czerwona/czerwone/czerwoni (m., f., n. but also plural for feminine and neuter, plural for masculine and mixed)
*green - zielony/zielona/zielone/zieloni
*yellow - żółty/żółta/żółte/żółci
*white - biały/biała/białe/biali
*black - czarny/czarna/czarne/czarni
*warm - ciepły/ciepła/ciepłe/ciepli
*cold - zimny/zimna/zimne/zimni, chłodny/chłodna/chłodne/chłodni
*full - pełny/-a/-e/-i
*new - nowy/-a/-e/-i
*old - stary/-a/-e/starzy
*good - dobry/-a/-e/dobrzy
*bad - zły/-a/-e/źli
*rotten - zgniły/-a/-e/zgnili
*dirty - brudny/-a/-e/-i
*straight - prosty/-a/-e/prości
*round - okrągły/-a/-e/okrągli
*sharp - ostry/-a/-e/ostrzy
*dull - tępy/-a/-e/-i
*smooth - gładki/-a/-ie/gładcy
*wet - mokry/-a/-e/mokrzy
*dry - suchy/-a/-e/susi
*correct - poprawny/-a/-e/-i, prawidłowy/-a/-e/-i, właściwy/-a/-e/-i
*near - bliski/-a/-e/bliscy
*far - daleki/-a/-ie/gładcy, odległy/-a/-e/odlegli
*right - prawy/-a/-e/-i
*left - lewy/-a/-e/-i
*because - bo, dlatego że, ponieważ, przeto (archaic)
*name - imię (for humans), nazwa (for objects and animals)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConayR (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt if including all the possible translations and grammatical forms is necessary. I think that best we can do is to choose the most often used ones and the ones most similar to the other Slavic forms in their grammatical form which is used in dictionaries (e.g. masculine singular nominative for adjectives). Pittmirg 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see similar contextual mistakes that still remain in the Polish list, and also in Russian, as I speak both.  For example, "all" can differ depending on whether you are addressing animate or inanimate subjects, etc, but at least one of the forms will usually be close to the Proto-Slavic, and thus that is the form that is more relevant to this article's intention.  I'm not going to mess with the article, as I have no idea how to do the [pronunciation] bit for each thing, but if anyone cares to fix the mistakes at any point, I'll be happy to provide the corrections for Russian and Polish, just drop me a note on my talkpage.  The giant list provided by user ConayR above is less useful to someone who might want to "fix" this table, as it lists all possible versions in every possible context he could think of.  These are mostly not relevant to the intention of this article, which compares the retention of certain words throughout modern Slavonic languages that could trace their origins to a single source and have remained largely unchanged through the centuries.  RoseOfKali (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, what we want is to find published Swadesh lists of these languages so that we avoid WP:OR.  While I understand that any speaker of a given language can fill out each item, the above concerns demonstrate that linguists working with Swadesh lists would be best qualified as to determine which translation is best given the context and purpose.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of context ambiguity to create correct list of Polish words 

message: See :wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists for Slavic languages - relatively regularly updated/corrected, with many more languages (Kashubian left to be merged, and Sorbian/Old East Slavic yet to be compiled). Most of these Swadesh lists for various languages have already been transkwikied to Wiktionary a long time ago, I'm surprised that this remnant left populating :Category:Swadesh lists. Does it make sense to have duplicate lists here and there? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the beginning of this talk page.  This is not intended to be a simple list, though I'll admit that I haven't done much to make it seem elsewise.  I'll see if I can't add some information about Proto-Slavic here.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Already on Wiktionary 

message: This currently compares Slavic languages with each other but it should also compare them with Proto-Slavic.  I know no PS words/roots, so this will probably be blank for a while.  As Channon (1971) seems to break up Slavic dialects into East, South, and West, and since this list is already cumbersome enough as it is, I propose that we eliminate two or three languages.  
# East Ukrainian vs Russian - I prefer we keep Russian but this is mostly because I know it's phonology better.
# South Bulgarian vs Serbo-Croatian - I prefer Bulgarian simply to avoid potential Serbo-Croatian-wasn't-ever-a-real-language arguments and nationalism.
# West Czech vs Polish - Not sure about deleting either, since Channon divides west into Lechitic (Polish), Central Slovak, and other (Czech).
And, of course, deleting them from the list doesn't mean that we won't go into details on their developments.  I'll wait a little for consensus and if nobody objects, I'll add PS and remove Ukrainian and Serbo-Croatian.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's lots of kewl wrong going on recently on :wikt:Category:Proto-Slavic language (big lists, and I've been creating separate articles in Appendix: so that individual NS:0 entries can link to them), so you could probably dig out of there, with, of course, the help of Derksen's Slavic inherited lexicon, most of the Late Proto-Slavic etymons of Swadesh list. However, lots of those LPSl. meanings/lexemes that have been lost in literary dialect have been preserved as archaisms or in subliterary dialects, so you're risking somebody adding a cognate that most native speakers wouldn't recognize (or would consider it uncommon) but still with reasonable argumentation, just to "demonstrate" how conservative his language is ^_^ This mostly refers to German/Turkish/Lithuanian borrowings in respective branches.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you've provided  doesn't seem to work (but I've bookmarked it anyway.  Looks pretty cool).  I'll see if I can't find a book at my university library to help me out.  — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of Proto-Slavic

message: A transcription of polish "nasal vowels" like [ˈt͡ɕɛ̃ʂki], [ɔˈkrɔ̃ɡwɨ], [ˈpwɨnɔ̃t͡ɕ] is false. It isn't neither phonetic nor phonological. It's just based on orthography, what is total unacteptable in the case of a language, which orthography is etymological.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.177.61 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Fee free to change it. — Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription of Polish words 

message: Zero surprise whatsoever to see that the Macedonian section was added after the fact by a certain User:MacedonianBoy. From a comparative standpoint, Macedonian has no usefulness in a table like this, because it's so close to Bulgarian (in fact, it would almost certainly be considered a dialect of Bulgarian were it not for political reasons) and because it is generally less conservative than Bulgarian in its phonology.  OTOH Serbo-Croatian is *extremely* useful from a comparative standpoint, particularly if accent marks are supplied. I would hope someone competent in Serbo-Croatian can fill this in. Benwing (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian no, Serbo-Croatian yes 

message: There are several mistakes in the Russian words.  This is especially noticeable in cases where the Proto-Slavic and Russian verbs look noticeably different.  In such cases, the difference is because the Proto-Slavic word reflects the more basic form (sometimes perfective, sometimes imperfective) while the Russian word is always cited in the imperfective.  Hence e.g. ubit' , plyt' , sest'  are all perfectly fine Russian verbs with the expected meanings.
Also, I am not a native speaker but I doubt the correctness of the IPA with [jæ] sequences.  This is not how standard Russian sounds as I've heard it; AFAIK this nowadays is only a dialect feature.
Benwing (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  mistakes in the Russian words 

message: *The Proto-Slavic adjectives are cited in their short form, but the modern languages all have the long form given.  Proto-Slavic long form clearly existed as well, and many languages still preserve at least some short forms.
*Bulgarian is citing the first person or sometimes the third person singular present indicative in place of the infinitive.  This is because the infinitive has been lost.  However, (a) the proper translation of the infinitive has da preceding the indicative, (b) this isn't noted anywhere, (c) perhaps for comparative purposes the present tense 1st singular should be used everywhere rather than the infinitive, because they often differ in stem.
More generally, if this list is to be truly useful, it should compare the reflexes of the Proto-Slavic words (or at least cognates) whenever possible, not just give a random list of translations, otherwise it's little more than a dictionary exercise. Benwing (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  other comments 

message: Aeusoes asked me to post about renaming this page to "History of the Slavic languages". Currently there's a large amount of info on the development of the Slavic languages, most in Proto-Slavic and some here, and in neither case did the name indicate that such info existed in the articles.  I also notice that Aeusoes himself, in the intro post on the talk page, asked people to expand this article to include text on the development of the Slavic languages.  Not surprisingly, this got done in the Proto-Slavic article rather than here. I've done much of this work but until today I had no idea this article here even existed. I called it a "prototypical example" of a badly named page and I stand by it -- who would have expected to find an article named "Swadesh list of the Slavic languages"? Even if this article had nothing but vocabulary, it doesn't agree with normal WP naming conventions, which would prefer something like "Slavic language vocabulary comparison" or similar name that's much more obvious to non-specialists. And adding general info about Slavic developments makes it even worse of a name.
In point of fact I suggest keeping the new name and moving the "Origin", "Historical Development" and "Dialectal Differentiation" sections from Proto-Slavic to here, and either copying or moving the "Notation" section. Maybe also moving "Loanwords". Another possibility, given the fact that significantly more than 50% of the text of Proto-Slavic would be moving here, would be to move this article out of the way, rename "Proto-Slavic" to "History of the Slavic languages" and then create a new "Proto-Slavic" article containing the intro, phonology and grammar sections. Benwing (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming 

message: #Place stress marks where appropriate in Russian and Bulgarian.
#Delete the IPA columns; the stress marks are enough.Instead, only give IPA when the pronunciation is irregular given the spelling.  
#Put some simple pronunciation keys down below discussing the basic spelling -> IPA conversions.
#Delete the Macedonian column. Replace with Serbo-Croatian when possible.
#Create new columns for transliterating the Russian and Bulgarian.
#When verbs have two aspects with significantly different stems, include both, for Proto-Slavic as well as the various langs.
#Use Proto-Slavic reflexes wherever possible, even if the meaning has changed; if so, give the new meaning as well as the replacement word with the same meaning.
#Add accent marks to Proto-Slavic.
The Proto-Slavic accent marks, as well as cognates in various langs, can be found in Rick Derksen's etymological dictionary of the Slavic langs.  Derksen unfortunately doesn't distinguish acute from neoacute, although he does give the accent paradigm (a, b, or c), and the neoacute can generally be worked out by the fact that it tends to occur in accent class (b), and the old acute always gets shortened.  He claims that in Proto-Slavic the neoacute did not lengthen short syllables it fell on; if so, it would have fallen together with the acute and I have a hard time seeing how langs like Czech, Slovak and Polish could then sort the two out.
If we follow Derksen, we will need a lot of prosodies to deal with: short acute, long circumflex, short circumflex in multisyllabic roots, short neoacute, long neoacute, length in unstressed syllable.  "Short circumflex in multisyllabic roots" is a regular change from long circumflex, so we could ignore it.  But alternatively, we could just handle accent (acute/circumflex/neoacute) separately from length by indicating the length explicitly, with only three accents: acute ', circumflex ^, neoacute ~. Note that this accentuation represents a synchronic compression of what in reality was diachronic, i.e. it's unlikely there would more than two accent types ever distinguished on long or short syllables.
Some examples:
* *svě̂:tƅ m. o (c) "light, world" i.e. a masculine o stem, class c (i.e. movable)
* *sƅ̃nƅ m. o (b) "sleep, dream", i.e. a masculine o stem, class b (i.e. original suffix accent; (given in Derksen as *sъ̀nъ; short neoacute required by accent class b)
* *sŷ:nƅ m. u (c) "son"
* *sь̂rdьce n. jo (c) "heart" (given as *sь̏rdьce in Derksen with short falling accent due to shortening in multisyllables)
* *dъkti f. r (c) "daughter" (no accent given)
* *dǫ́ti v. (a) "blow"
* *dra:žíti v. (b?) "incite, provoke" (neoacute *drã:žišь, *drã:žitь in present as shown by Chakavian (Vrg.) drå̄žȉti, 2sg. drå̃žiš)
* *dušá f. jā (c) "soul"
* *dь̂:nь m. n (c) "day" (lengthening under circumflex in monosyllables)
* *dô:mъ m. u (c) "house" (same)
* *pь̃sъ m. o (b) "dog" (given in Derksen as *pь̀sъ; short neoacute required by accent class b)
* *pь́rsь f. i (a) "chest, breast" (given as *sь̏rdьce in Derksen with short falling accent due to shortening in multisyllables)
* *pь̃rstъ m. o (b) "finger" (again, neoacute not indicated in Derksen)
* pь̂:rxъ m. o (c) "dust" (lengthening under circumflex in monosyllables)
etc.
As mentioned above, Derksen indicates four-way long vs. short, rising vs. falling.  Neoacute is inferred.
Benwing (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestions for fixing up the list 

message: Not exist a common Serbo-Croatian vocabulary, this is faked text!
--31.45.151.127 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not exist a common Serbo-Croatian vocabulary 

message: https://slavic.world/ - can we add any references?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.72.154.104 (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Big Slavic Dictionary 

message: I think it should have affirmative and negation word like 'yes' and 'no'.
: And what would those words be? Rua (mew) 10:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  POLISH yes=tak, no=nie, not=nie Nyth63 14:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  On further review, this list page seems to leave out many common words.  See this list  for example. Nyth63 14:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested word additions 

message: There's no entries in Ukrainian for a lot of rows. Is there a reason for it? 217.166.251.59 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very few Ukrainian words