Talk:Church Slavonic

message: zdravstvuyte, Monedula, et. al!
and, please excuse the latin letters!
This is a fascinating article!
But, it also raises some fascinating questions!
So, tell us, Did this Church Slavonic Language (CSL) completely displace the Old Church Slavonic (OCS) that the Russians recieved from Kiev?  If so, when?
Did the two exist simultaneously--always?--never?--for a while?
:The change was rather gradual, and the Church Slavonic changed considerably through the centuries.  So Old Church Slavonic and modern Church Slavonic never coexisted, but rather the former gradually changed into the latter. — Monedula 22:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article is about the Russian recension of CSL (not OSC!), although there have been many others recensions of CSL. — Monedula 22:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: No, CSL did NOT evolve into Russian.  CSL is a South Slavic language, whereas Russian and Old Russian are East Slavic languages — so there are quite characteristic differences between them. — Monedula 22:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Let us know!
Spasiba!
Genyo 17:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: I trimmed the following phrase until clarification, because as it was, it is very confusing for non-Russian speakers.
: The letter е [je] is never pronounced as ё [jo]. Compare Church Slavonic and Russian words: небо/нёбо, одежда/одёжа.
Two things are mixed into one basket here. 
#First, the lazy Soviet orthography introduced a habit to omit the diacritic in the  ё [jo] turning it into е [je]; e.g., Khrushchev is in fact Khrushchyov, Chebyshev is Chebyshov, and (probably no one remembers this) Brezhnev was Brezhnyov when he was politruk during WWII. (Probably to misguide imperialist spies, as it was done with Baikonur Cosmodrome :-).)
#Second, in the course of evolution Russian phonetics was changed by replacing unstressed word endings with je into stressed endings with jo; e.g., priidem ((we) will come) -> pridyom, but the latter is "lazily" written as pridem. 
Therefore an untrained person when reading a church text has an urge to read priidyom instead of priidem. (note: I hope Monedula will add Cyrillics in the above examples (and removes this note).) Mikkalai 18:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is, the Church Slavonic language was not a widely spoken language — it was tought in schools, and students were urged to pronounce words exactly as they are written.  So Church Slavonic pronunciation has its own tradition. — Monedula 23:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: No, it was correct.  Old Church Slavonic as such ceased to exist in the 11th century.  After that, all its variations and descendants are called simply Church Slavonic. — Monedula 23:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I was not careful in reading the sentence: I didn't pay attention to the word "literary " . But IMO it is still incorrect in a sense that it is NOT completely replaced as a liturgical. But I don't know to what extent it is used in Russian church. Can you clarify the discussed phrase in this respect? Mikkalai 23:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronounciation

message: I returned the article to "Slavonic" from "Slavic". I have never heard this language called "Church Slavic" in English. Every single standard (print) reference I have ever seen, every Orthodox priest I have ever spoken to, every Uniate clergyman and cantor I know -- and there have been several of the latter in my family -- call it "Slavonic". The edit comment for the original change was incorrect in this context anyway. "Slavonic" as the name for this language is never taken as referring to the region in Croatia. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the academy, this is a matter of British vs. American usage, with the former preferring "Slavonic" and the latter "Slavic". If the article is written according to American orthography and punctuation norms, it should be at "Slavic". Yes, in some eccesiastical contexts you'll see "Slavonic", but I'd prefer the article focus on the linguistic aspects, not liturgical use. CRCulver 01:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish that had been made clear in the original edit summary instead of what was said. I generally don't touch issues of English/American orthography. Given that, if you want to put it back I won't argue. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait, I read that backward. I'm in America, born and raised here. If it's called something in academic circles other than what it's called everywhere else in the English-speaking world, I have to admit it's news to me. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to edit this yet again, but I note the article appears to use British orthography otherwise. Although neither style is preferred over the other in Wikipedia, it is preferred that usage be consistent within a single article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavic/Slavonic

message: How comprehensible are the words of e.g. a Slavonic Liturgy for a modern Slav who has not specifically studied Slavonic? -- 85.182.126.186 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comprehensibility?

message: Note that Church Slavonic does not mean Russian Church Slavonic, and it certainly does not mean Orthodoxy+Cyrillic. The fact that Russian Church Slavonic eventually came to supersede basically all the other local Orthodox Church Slavonic norms does not invalidate their individual centuries-old development, tradition and attested corpus. It would be advisable to separate individual Church Slavonic traditions in the L3 ===X recension=== sections, and if they grow too large, create individual articles like Russian Church Slavonic, Bulgarian Church Slavonic etc. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further work

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Church Slavonic language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225012715/http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9780415780636/ to http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/details/9780415780636/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120903224026/http://www.mineya.ru/articles/87-liturgy-languages.html to http://www.mineya.ru/articles/87-liturgy-languages.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sbible.ru/slavpdf.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Church Slavonic language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719123753/http://www.manu.edu.mk/cal/CAL/004_Seg_Staroslovenski.pdf to http://www.manu.edu.mk/cal/CAL/004_Seg_Staroslovenski.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article in its current state is largely a mess (also refer to Ivan Štambuk's statement above). The way it is written, it largely refers to the currently extant Russian Church Slavonic, rather than to the range of historical recensions that collectively form Church Slavonic. I would suggest moving the body of the article to a new page called Russian Church Slavonic, and moving the body of the Church Slavonic subsection in Old Church Slavonic here and possibly expanding it. In the absence of any reasonable objections, I hope to have the time to do that in the course of next week. Any interested parties, please holler and give your opinion. VMORO 10:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is incorrect and mostly refers to Russian Church Slavonic