Talk:Ukrainian language/Archive 2

message: The end of first paragraph dithe "current usage" chapter said: 
:"On the other hand, the vocabulary of Ukrainian is still limited and is not as extensive as that of more developed languages, like English, German or Russian. This can largely be attributed to the lack of a prolonged period of encouraged development. As a result, not as many linguists, poets and writers extended the vocabulary of the literary language."
This seems rather objective and neutral. Even if not particularly well written, it points out to a real situation. Some editors, who seem oversensitive in their feelings are now attacking this text. First, it was deleted without explanation by anon #1 (I restored it). Then anon #2 replaced it by this: 
:"Ukrainian language has one of the largest vocabulary in the world. The first Cybernetic dictionary was published in Ukrainian, first computer encyclopedia in USSR was in Ukrainian too. Ukrainian language now have modern base in all fields of science and life issues.
Guys, don't you see this is going well over the line??? And also in complete disconnect from the text around this. Info about computer science dictionary and encyclopedia, while true, does not prove or disprove the richness of the language. "...have modern base in all fields of science and life issues" is a POV at best. 
:--- No this is true --- if that statement above is yours - so this is your point of view - and this is point of view belonging to Ukrainian specialist. So why I'm going to see if this is true ? - 
::The statement above wasn't mine. However, it reflects historical contexts correctly (Ukrainian indeed was never encouraged in Ukraine by political powers that ruled the land and this is very unfortunate in my opinion). And it seems to reflect correctly the consequence of this for Ukrainian. I am not a linguist but I have a first-hand knowledge of the situation in Ukraine and the sentence seems objective to me. However, if you cite some sources that prove my own observations to be subjective and wrong, I will stand corrected.Irpen
Once I saw an article in the paper written by some new wave linguist proving that Sanskrit originated from Ukrainian. Should this WP article also address these views? 
:- So what ? Many people - many thoughts. 
::Diversity is good, no doubt. But this particular thought is too lunatic to be even mentioned in encyclopedia. Irpen
:Russian is developed language? Fairy tales for children. Until XIXth century they were speaking French an German. This is free to edit encyclopedia don't bother others with your only POV. --
::However harsh it sounds for some russophobes, Russian is the language of the world-class literature. And so are English and German mentioned in the text that anonymous users (or user) blanked three times in a week (twice with the whole chapter with lots of other information). This by no means makes Ukrainian or Ukrainians inferior. The development of history may have been unfair, but encyclopedia should reflect the real facts rather than wishful thinking. Irpen
I am going to revert for now and I don't mean to offend anyone's feelings. Just take editing a little more seriously. And please no flames. Irpen 23:22, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
:::First of all, 213.159.244.135, please care to write with some degree of civility and don't insert your responses in the middle of the text. This makes it difficult to follow the dialogue. Signing a response may also make the discussion easier to read but that's up to you. As for your edit, you just blanked a significant piece of an article and I am going to revert that blanking. You are free to propose an alternative text about current usage if you see this as wrong or biased but exercise some care to write encyclopedically and research the subject a little, if you are not already a specialist. I will be happy to see some real improvements you make to this article. So far all you did, you blanked out a piece you didn't like. Irpen 17:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Hi anonymous user.  I've been following the minor revert war between you and Irpen at Ukrainian language.  Blanking an article section like this will usually not bring any constructive results, since usually several editors already have a stake in the material that's there.  Also, even if you disagree with some facts or the section's point-of-view, it's clear that in this case you are removing a lot of factual information.  It would be much better to edit, and add factual material supporting your point-of-view, rather than just deleting.  —Michael Z. 2005-05-10 17:19 Z [also posted at User talk:213.159.245.38.]
: Also, if you are not happy about something on the page but not sure how to improve it, please raise your objections at the talk page. Constructive edits, even if not universally agreeable to everyone, will certainly help improve the article. Multiple changes in some parts of the article, or even sometimes deletions, may be fully appropriate. Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages is a useful guide to read, particularly its section ...but don't be reckless. -Irpen 20:16, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Just drop "English, German or Russian" and the problem is gone. Gaidash 6 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
:I think such an action would make a point less illustrated though it may make an article more politically correct. Judging from what the anon user (now gone) was saying, I think s/he would have been satisfied with just "Russian" being removed. Anyway, there is no problem right now. That edit war have subsided. --Irpen July 6, 2005 02:50 (UTC)
This may benefit from a mention of the types of vocabulary that are underdeveloped (e.g., technical, scientific, business?).  —Michael Z. 2005-07-6 05:02 Z
The phrase 
:On the other hand, Ukrainian vocabulary is still limited and is not as extensive as that of more developed languages, like English, German or Russian. This can largely be attributed to the lack of a prolonged period of encouraged development. As a result, not as many linguists, poets and writers extended the vocabulary of the literary language.
is very common among Russian chauvinists, but has nothing to do with the reality. I've translated  a lot of texts from Russian into Ukrainian, but I never encountered any difficulties concerning  ‘limitations of Ukrainian vocabulary’. Just in opposite, Ukrainian language in many cases is much more precise, while Russian has a lot of homonyms. Just a few examples:
For two different Ukrainian words 
* означення (definition) and
* визначення (determination) 
there is only one word in Russian vocabulary: определение.
Similarly, Ukrainian adjectives
* кінцевий (terminal)
* скінченний (finite)
have the same Russian equivalent конечный.
Both Ukrainian nones
* точка (point) and
* крапка (period)
are reduced to точка in Russian. 
These are only three examples of hundreds. Please do not forget that only Wikipedia:Verifiability statements are allowed in the Wikipedia articles. Your “first-hand knowledge” is not a credible source. Please mention that you but (not your opponents) have to take care about verification, if you state something in the article. --AndriyK 06:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Andriy, thanks for explaining yourself. First to your examples, there are plenty of synonyms to both "definition" and "determination" in both languages. Not just "определение" in Russian and "означення" and "визначення" in Ukrainian. Same with point and period. The information you consider incorrect may be restated to make it sound better for people with strong sensitivities, but it is based on verifyable information. Please note that the comparison is made not just to Russian but to three languages of arguably the great world literatures. Feel free to modify it, but don't just delete. If you are a specialist, please take a look at the grammar section at the bottom of this talk. It was so pitiful, that it had to be removed from the article. If you or someone can rewrite it, we can start polishing of the article to bring it to WP:FA. Thanks again, --Irpen 07:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I only reverted because you did not post here for some time. I didn't know you were writing here at that time. --Irpen 07:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel myself free to delete any part of the text that is not supproted by a credible source. There is nothing to edit there. It has to be removed. Everybody has to follow the Wikipedia policy. Please read these pages carefully. This will save a lot of your time. (As well as mine ;) ) --AndriyK 08:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current usage

message: I am under impression that it is one of the better UA-related articles as of now and with the topic being able to generate a broad interest, we could submit it for the peer review. Active editors, please express here what you think. I can't judge for "Comparative grammar" and "Language structure" chapters because I am pretty ignorant in linguistics, but the history seems rather comprehensive and more or less balanced too. More illustrations would help, of course. Please take another look at the article as a whole, comment or should we just submit for peer review without waiting? --Irpen 02:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Could this be brought to FAC now?

message: Pre-past and future simple 
I've added another 2 tenses to 'Grammar' section:
'Ukrainian language has 5 tenses: present, past, pre-past, future complex and future simple'. 
However I doubt, whether 'pre-past' is the correct definition.
This tense (давноминулий час) is formed by the verb 'бути' in a personal form and a main verb in past, and means an action taking place before another one. 
Pre-past is now used rarely in mass media and business, rather in literature and in spoken language (however, it has been used in the text of the Act of Independance, 1991). 
Future complex and future simple have the same meaning and are used equally.
--Olexij 18:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As per above, I moved this to talk. Even with my correction, this is an unacceptible presentation of Ukrainian grammar. If someone disagrees firecely, feel free to return it but, if possible, in an improved form. I would have done it myself, if I knew anything about linguistics. --Irpen 04:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "grammar" section

message: :::: Can you provide any source confirming that Ukrainian was tought in all Russian-language schools in the Ukrainian SSR? If not, please do not add this phrase again and again. Moreover it does not fit there from pure logical point of view. Think a bit on the sentence. --AndriyK 08:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I haven't realized how young you are if you know so little about the Soviet times. In fact local language was studied in all Russian schools in republics. True enough, the attitude toward learning was liberal in some districts and the article just says so already. Nevertheless, after a good school in Ukraine (even where all subjects were taught in Russian) students graduated fluent in Ukrainian since it was tought almost as many hours as the Russian. There were some stupid exscuses like waivers for the children of military officers or even health-waivers but the fact that Ukrainian was tought in all school remains correct. --Irpen 07:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you read the folowing sentence once more? Can you provide any source confirming that Ukrainian was tought in all Russian-language schools in the Ukrainian SSR? If not, please do not add this phrase again and again. --AndriyK 08:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ukrainian language in Russian schools

message: Also, if I am not mistaken, repression is oppressing people, but as for the language, suppression is more appropriate. One of ways of language suppressing the language is repression of the cultural elite. --Irpen 06:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Repression vs oppression

message: The both terms are linked to the same page. The following sentence
:: It should be noted, though, that for many Ukrainians (of various ethnic descent), the native language may not necessarily mean the same thing as the mother tongue 
sounds like a nonsence. I removed it.--AndriyK
: Anonymous, it may be a good idea to add a note to some of the statistics, saying something to the effect that the precise interpretation of some statistics is clouded by the fact that the census and polls use terms such as native language and mother tongue, whose meaning is subject to interpretation, and has been controversial.  —Michael Z. 2005-10-7 17:12 Z
:: This was my message. Sorry, I forgot to sign. I removed only this unclear sentence the rest of the text concerning census numbers vs.  primary language usage is there. It's quite neutral and sources are cited. 
:: If somebody can reformulate the above sentence, I would not object. But in its present for it looks like nonsence. Regards, --AndriyK 17:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Primary language" seems to be your personal invention. Please do not use this term unless you can reffer to a creadicle source providing its exact definition. Do you understand? I'll repeat it once more, just for the case. Please do not use this term unless you can reffer to a creadicle source providing its exact definition.--AndriyK 09:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think in most cases now its the latter case, except now its more trilingual.--Kuban Cossack 00:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Native language]] vs. [[mother tongue]] 

message: This version needs to be sourced. It is not in other encyclopedias and evennot in ua-wiki. Sounds like original research. If not, cite sources. --Irpen 07:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll do this. You do not let me finish.--AndriyK 08:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is indeed Soviet viewpoint. In Imperial Russia, the very existence of  Ukrainian denied. So there was no need of theories concerning its evolution. Some Western encyclopedias may rely on Soviet sources. --AndriyK 08:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  If I decide to put it to the article, I'll cite source, be sure. Now switch yourself to source-hunting. It would be much more productive.
Encyclopedias like Britannica are written by experts of the field (like of Ukraine) mostly from British/American Universities. They know how much credence to give to what schools of thought and write accordingly. They are aware of the problems of the Soviet and Russian schools. If they still use what you call an imperialist version, they beleive it is the best one we know. Now, you say they are wrong. That's "original research". If you still find alternative versions by some established specialists, not some crackpots, we may well include it. But still, this would have to be cited as an alternative, and the original should be called "traditional", not just "Soviet" as per above. --Irpen 08:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not an expert, but if the common Eastern-Slavic -> Ruthenian -> Uk+Be version is the only version sourced by Brittanica (and Soviet school texts as well), then we need some respectable sources before including the alternative versions abakharev 09:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added one reference and 'll for more.--AndriyK 09:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think we should keep both versions. I have slightly modified AndriyK's version so to make it less POV
You ref is useful, I will add more to article from it. However if even in your ref the accepted version is called "traditional" (see chapter 6). You cannot then call it just "Soviet" or remove from the article. --Irpen 09:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Good compromise, I like your edit. abakharev 13:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, you wrote yourself that it is from scholars of independent Ukraine. I am sorry what I learned reading your edit was only ignorance. --Irpen 12:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untraditional version of origin

message: Please check this comparison of the two versions that are used in the ongoing revert war and check their differences. I would like quickly to elaborate in order to call for opinions to help find consensus. The differences (in the order from top to bottom of the article) are the following:
#inclusion of another version of origin of Ukrainian, whether to present it as simply "correct" dismissing the other as purely ideological, or accept the the original version from the article is more mainstream accepted by academics not only in the SU and the other is just an alternative (still worth mentioning) that is shared by some scholars who are a minority. The arguments for the preferred version between the differences are at this page above (Talk:Ukrainian_language#Untraditional_version_of_origin). Please read and respond in that section
#*Please do not lye! Both POV presented in my version as well. I've just mentioned that suppoters of one POV criticise another POV as being ideological. You are free to add referensies to the books supporting Soviet POV, find there how they criticise Ukrainian-Western POV and state this in the article. Plese note, there is no reference supporting Soviet POV! Do you have any evidence that this version is widelly supported in the West? Where are the referencies.--AndriyK 08:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the edit war. Start from my version, which is based on creadible sources, add your referencies, then modify the text according to your referencies. If you do so, I'll see, that you indeed whant to learn something (which is extremely necessary in your case) and write an encyclopedia article instead of producing propaganda bullshit. Then our conflict, hopefully, will be over. --AndriyK 08:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, you're wrong. Further spreading of Russian is viewed in UA as the main threat to Ukrainian. This is the main reason why it was not allowed to become a state language yet despite the survey shows that the slight majority favors it. The issue is very related. --Irpen 16:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why are you telling me which article should I write for? Maybe if you chose to stick to less controversial topics, there would be less of the revert wars either. OTOH, I do see some ideas that you are proposing making it into the articles, including this one, with my own support, BTW. (Just check, that my edits often included revised versions of yours). Anyway, pls let me finish the rewriting of your current version I am doing  now and let's see whether we could proceed from there. I will remove "inuse" template promplty. --Irpen 17:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your efforts concerning polishing the English. But you destroyed the whole logic of the section and massed up the facts. If you did it on purpose, then we are going to have the next series of the edit war. If you did it just because of the lack of knowledge in the field, please read the literature and correct your mistakes. This will be a crucial test for your "good faith". I'll correct only the most odious mistakes.--AndriyK 08:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two versions of the revert war

message: # However, many used Russian more than they used Ukrainian. You don't have any sociological or similar data from that time. So this phrase must be removed, if you stick to facts. What we have are the 1989 census data. The sociology you have is related to the later time. And they are mentioned in the corresponding section.
# Political issues. Please compare to the article Russian language. Do you see there mentioning of the Ems Ukaz? If I use your logic, Russian is related to this issue because Russian goverment considered Ukrainian as a main threat to in Ukrainian gubernias. And they whanted to replace Ukrainian by Russian.  Do you see there any details about Russification? I think, if somebody would try to add this stuff, Russian users would protest. Not Russian nationalists. Complitely normal Russian users! I am sure! Aren't you agry?  Can you consider Ukrainian and Russian on equel footings? In the case you cannot, the user that blamed you for Ukrainophobia was right. I hope, he wasn't.  Let's do not mix linguistic and politics. This will save us one more edit war.
# Do you have any data concerning fluency of ukrainian population in Ukrainian and other languages? I did not see them. The data state merely which language is used more frequently. Please stick at facts.--AndriyK 08:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Once more about the two versions

message: This article is supposed to be about Ukrainian language, not Russian. Who's interested in the latter, please move to the Russian section of Wikipedia. Thank you.
Quote:
"During the Khazar period, the territory of Ukraine, originally settled by Iranian (post-Scythian), Turkic (post-Hunnic, proto-Bulgarian), and Finno-Ugric (proto-Hungarian) tribes, was progressively Slavicized by several waves of migration from the Slavic north."
Who is responsible for this nonsense? What kind of migration? Any references?
:Hi! If you see any noncence in the article, please do not hesitate to correct it.Be bold in updating pages.
:The article is unsatisfactory in its present form. It contains too little linguistics and too much politics.(There were even more politics a week ago).
:I suggest you register at Wikipedia. It's convenient. Hope to meet you again here.--AndriyK 15:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient history

message: OK, Mr. Irpen, let me proceed with my unstained reputation and simply quote (fair use) Britannica's article "Ukrainian Language" from its very start:
: formerly called Ruthenian, or Little Russian, Ukrainian Ukraïns'ka Mova,East Slavic language spoken in Ukraine and in Ukrainian communities in neighbouring Belarus, Russia, Poland, and Slovakia. Ukrainian is a lineal descendant of the colloquial languageused in Kievan Rus (10th–13th century). It is written in a form of the Cyrillic alphabet and isclosely related to Russian and Belarusian, from which it was indistinguishable until the 12th or 13th century. Ukrainian resembles Russian less closely than does Belarusian, though all three languages are in part mutually intelligible.
: After the fall of Kievan Rus in the 13th century, the dialectal characteristics that distinguish Ukrainian from its sister languages emerged, but for many centuries thereafter the language had almost no literary expression owing to Ukraine's long political subordination. It was not until the end of the 18th century that modern literary Ukrainian emerged out of the colloquial Ukrainian tongue. Like Belarusian, the Ukrainian language contains a large number of words borrowed from Polish, but it has fewer borrowings from Church Slavonic than does Russian.
So you see I am not going to accept the requirement "no history in the introduction". Is Britanica an authority enough for you? By the way it also directly confirms the first reverted sentence.
Concerning Shevchenko (Britannica):
: But Ukrainian national consciousness, though still confined to an educated minority, was growing, and nothing did more to crystallize Ukrainian as a literary language than Shevchenko's poetry.
So don't you think, it mught just be appropriate to point out a man who almost created literary language in the introduction to the article on it? How does it make a mess of the article?
As for the melodics, yes it is considered by many one of the most melodic tongues in Europe, you can check it out by googling on the corresponding words or talking to a ukrainist. The melodics is not my subject of study, and I already described the sources I had based my judgement on in this particular case. --ashapochka 18:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History does belong to the enc. introduction for a language 

message: Do you mean to say that they were heroes or is this a reference to their writing style? If the former, it's POV, if the latter it needs to be rewritten to clarify. --Ornil 01:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Omil, it's not "POV". Taras Shevchenko has spend only around 9 years of his life free. Despite that he managed to become the greatest Ukrainian poet that ever existed. Singlehandedly he riveved Ukrainian literature. There is not a single adult Ukrainian who hasn't read or heard Shevchenko's call to freedom, "Boritesia, poborete, vam Boh pomahaje! Za vas pravda, za vas syla, i volia sviataja!" --Andrew Alexander 04:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "heroic poets" 

message: The following sentence, 
: Ukrainian has survived mainly due to its broad base among the people of Ukraine
if you strip the high tone means simply that the language survived because people spoke this language. This so a trivial tautology, good for a political speech, but in the intro it is just waste of reader's time. mikka (t) 01:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The "broad base" means that there were a lot of people who spoke it. It's a nontrivial fact. Ukraine is a large country and could not be swallowed too easily. The size and stubborness (famous Ukrainian feature) has saved it many times, otherwise it would be read about in Russian historical books as "Little Russia" if lucky enough.--Andrew Alexander 03:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I believe you're out of control with this abuse of civil discussion. Watch your language please. --Andrew Alexander 04:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, you simply wish to erase some of the most important facts about the language. The double ban is a significant enough issue ot be mentioned in the intro. I can quote much less significant subjects from other language intros. Please find a better excuse. --Andrew Alexander 04:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tautology

message: ::The Ukrainian alphabet is based on the phonemic principal with the exception of the 'three' sounds
The two sounds are  [ʣ] and [ʤ]. What ment to be the third? [w] ? 
:: [jɪ]=йи 
There is no "йи" in the standard Ukrainian. Should it be mentioned here. Ukrainian dialects are a different issue.
Is comparing with Russian really helpful here? Most English language readers have no idea about Russian. Comparing with English would be much more helpfull.--AndriyK 09:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonetics 

message: What means "secondary" language? As far as I know unrecognized Transnistria has three oficial languages. If you can prove that some of them are "primary" and some are "secondary", please provide reference.--AndriyK 14:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well official Tiraspol (parliament hearings, courts etc) uses Russian , . And preatty much all the signposts, adverts are in Russian as well. So... -- Kuban kazak 16:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacondary language??? 

message: Does anyone have information about voicing assimilation in Ukrainian? From the little information I have gathered, Ukrainian, unlike other major living Slavic languages excluding Serbian/Croation, does not feature end devoicing (although there might be dialectal variation in this). Also, I've seen examples of where an unvoiced consonant is followed by a voiced one, the whole cluster becomes voiced (eg: vokzal->vogzal), but where a voiced consonant is followed by an unvoiced one, neither is affected. Does this always hold true? If not, which consonant clusters are affected? And if anyone could actually give examples of consonant clusters to show these rules, I think it would be a useful addition to the article. --Iceager 14:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voicing assimilation