Talk:Old East Slavic

message: Many things mentioned in this section were written not in Old Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian language, but in Church Slavonic language.Monedula 11:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Old Russian Literature" section needs cleanup

message: Dear fellow Wikipedians.  We're all trying to improve Wikipedia.  Peppering edit summaries with accusations of theft just makes you look like a grouch.  "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will...", and all that.  Please find your Wikilove.  Or vent your anger out in the open, and get over it.  Cheers, Michael Z.
Anger?  borrowed joke, see edits for History of the Russian language. :). WRT wikilove, sorry, but the discussions are just full of it.  (Pun intended.)  :) XXXOOO A. Shetsen 18:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilove 

message: There was: A striking innovation in the evolution of this language was the development of so-called full vocalism, which came to differentiate the newly evolving Russian north from Rus' propria, arguably under influence of indigenous Finno-Ugric languages majority population stock of the Russian nation. For instance, Proto-Slavic /*gordъ/ town, became OES /gorod/, Proto-Slavic /*melko/, milk - OES /moloko/, and Proto-Slavic /*korva/, cow - OES /korova/. The more central and more thoroughly Slavic parts of Rus' ("Ruthenia": Ukraine and Belarus') did not undergo this innovation.
However, this version makes no sense, since Russian is no different from Ukrainian or Belarusian in the matter of "full vocalism", as all three have /moloko/, /korova/ etc.Monedula 10:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion with "full vocalism"

message: The Ukrainian form is княжити, the Russian is княжить.  I put it here because some of the more politically-oriented Ukrainian supporters (this means you, Genyo) do not seem to know this. A. Shetsen 05:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old East Slavic къняжити 

message: The text Genyo had reverted to (eliminating an earlier edit, see below) was this:
:"Illustrates the sung epics. Typical use of metaphor and simile. The nonsensical misquote растекаться мыслью по древу (to effuse/pour out one's thought upon/over wood; a product of an old and habitual misreading of the word мысію, "squirrel-like" as мыслію, "thought-like", and a change in the meaning of the word течь) has become proverbial in the meaning "to speak ornately, at length, excessively"."
It (in light of the response below, I clarify: the text quoted A. Shetsen 05:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Illustrates the sung epics. Typical use of metaphor and simile. The apparent (Russian) misreading растекаться мыслью по древу (to effuse/pour out one's thought upon/over wood) has become proverbial in modern Russian with the meaning "to speak ornately, at length, excessively". (The misreading is of мысію, "squirrel-like", taken to be мыслію, "thought-like". It is present in both the manuscript copy of 1790 and the first edition of 1800, and appears to have been caused by a then misunderstood change in the meaning of the word R течь.)
If someone wishes to add Ukrainian, Belarusian, Rusyn linguistic commentary to this, it would be more than welcome!  But politics, politics...  A. Shetsen 05:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovo o polku 

message: I change the following formulation:
: As the language is, to varying degrees, part of the national and/or pre-national history of the Eastern Slavs, [...]
What was meant with "to varying degrees"? Is it more part of Russian than of Ukrainian, or the other way round, or what? No, the early period is equally part of the history of all Eastern Slavs.
The verbalization "national and/or pre-national" seems mistakable. At first glance, it seems as if it was part of the pre-national history of some, but of the national history proper of others. This cannot be meant. It is rather a question of whether one defines the pre-national history as part of the national history (which I would do) or not. So I change this passage to:
: As the language is part of the (pre-)national history of all Eastern Slavs, [...]
— Buncic 09:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  National history 

message: Hi folks, I believe there are several misconceptions here. Is there anybody planning working on this currently? Primarily, the Old Belarusian and Ukrainian dubs are completely out of place here. E.g., Old Belarusian phase is conventionally defined as a phenomenon of 13-18th cent., and the Old Russian (proto-Russian) phase is usually supposed to span c.7-8--c.12 th cent. That's disregarding the 20th cent. deductions on the phase existence per se, as an entity, which some may like and some not, e.g., as per Czech Indyist O. Hujer (c. 1920s-1940s, as cit. in Stankyevich (1939). Does somebody have access to Hujer's works?). Also I understand the term "common East Slavic" should be attributed to M. I. Tolstoy (as e.g. per: Будзько І. Гістарычная лінгвістычная тэрміналогія: генезіс, дублетнасць і перспектывы развіцця // Гістарычны альманах. Том 9. 2003.Гродна, 2003. С.164—168.). Yury Tarasievich 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's working on this now? 

message: I have rewritten the Слово о пълку Игоревѣ quote/translation to reflect the facts as scholarship presents them to us.  It is absurd to talk about the "mouse" theory as if it were fact, and present the actual reading of the text as a misreading.  I have not referenced it because it is the reading of all texts I have on hand or can find via Google Books; it is up to the partisans of the "mouse" theory to substantiate their version with references to scholarly editions, if they can find them.  I cannot find a single scholarly edition (or any other, for that matter) that has this version.  I have also deleted the image link, because it claims to be a reproduction of an original version with "мысію," which in actuality does not exist.  The whole thing reminds me of the "Война и міръ" nonsense, which for a while was also presented in the Wikipedia article as fact. Languagehat (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought/mouse 

message: In the quotes displayed in the article, both the letters Ѧ and Я appear. But that isn't possible; Я was originally a handwritten variant of Ѧ and there was no actual difference between those letters. They were considered the same. So I think it may be a misquote? CodeCat (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting observation, Codecat. Thanks for bringing it up. I've noticed this being used in various ru forums and have only been able to trace it back to this entry. Spurious, at best. I've gone through many images & online versions of the text in question & only Ѧ is used. I suspect that this may have been some sort of attempt to address Ѧ as being Я in modern Cyrillic (???). If that is the case, I'd consider it to be a sloppy attempt which should not be used as is here. I've also noted that the translations into modern Russian and modern Ukrainian appear to have simply been taken directly out of current translations and aren't actually accurate translations of the sentence used as an example but are, rather, pulled out of current translations which would employ literary licence in order that they read comfortably within that specific context and that translation (rather like a multitude of 'translations' of Shakespeare into modern English). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misquote? 

message: I'm still having issues with the 'translations' of the original Laurentian codex into Russian and Ukrainian. Having studied Old Slavonic years ago, if 'translations' are to be used they should reflect the text, not simply cite the relevant passage out of modern translations which use literary license to facilitate the fluidity of the (modern audience's) reading of the text. Pulling excerpts out of context can only be construed as a simplistic approach. The two translations don't even match up in translation back into English. Either have more accurate, direct translation or why bother at all?
More accurate translations would be:
Russian - "Это повесть временных лет, откуда пошла русская земля, кто в Киеве начал первым княжить, и откуда возникла русская земля."
Ukrainian - "Це повість временних літ, звідки пішла руська земля, хто в Київі почав першим княжити, і звідки виникла Руська Земля." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Laurentian Codex 'pseudo-translations' 

message: References have been (justifiably) asked for to back up the use of "рѹсьскъ ѩзыкъ" ("ѩзыкъ" being used to represent "language") as the native name of the language. While various versions of the Primary Chronicles back support the use of "Рѹ́сьскаѧ землѧ" ("землѧ" being land/territory), I haven't encountered any reliable sources citing the former use of language as being acknowledged in any sources, rather that it's a WP:OR piece of WP:SYNTH. Unless someone can come up with quality sources for this usage, I'd suggest that it be removed from the infobox promptly. Only Russian Wikipedia has the field filled in as "рѹсьскꙑи ꙗꙁꙑкъ", but it is sans reference. Ukrainian and Polish Wikipedia don't use the parameter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Native name" problem 

message: I've changed the tag for  from cite needed to dubious. Given that the introduction uses the Texas University description to support the use of "Old Russian" as  (see the full text here), it can only be described as POV SYNTH. The terminology section needs to be rewritten in line with the anachronistic use of the term, however I'd rather check with other editors as to their take on the matter before making any adjustments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology section: "The most neutral, supranational term..."? 

message: Now that the article has been locked, we can turn to more relevant issues.
First off, as a general point: This article must be clear about its scope, and whether it is mainly about the written or the spoken language. This way, the contradiction between text and infobox can be resolved.
It's not easy to put a start date on Old East Slavic as a spoken language. The dissolution of Proto-Slavic in the 7th century provides a terminus ante quem, but considering that the Common Slavic "Great Slavic Vowel Shift" and the specifically East Slavic polnoglasie (see Slavic liquid metathesis and pleophony) are generally dated to about the early 9th century, East Slavic of the 7th and 8th centuries (only indirectly reflected in the form of loanwords, especially in Finnic but also East Baltic) would not be recognisable as distinctively as East Slavic, the dating in the infobox is questionable.
It's better to focus on Old East Slavic as we know it from texts. The main difficulty is that the language introduced after the Christianisation of the Rus' in the late 10th century was Old Church Slavonic, so texts largely reflect the local recension of OCS, i. e. South Slavic with a few East Slavic features, not the spoken East Slavic dialects (which included both Old East Slavic proper, the immediate ancestor of the modern East Slavic languages, and contemporary dialects that were later absorbed by East Slavic proper, of which only the highly divergent dialect of Novgorod and Pskov is actually known to us). Concrete texts therefore reflect some degree of mixture between OCS and the vernacular, with essentially a continuum ranging from more-or-less pure OCS to more-or-less pure vernacular texts. In the 11th century, texts can still be described as being in (the local recension of) OCS. The most celebrated texts of the 12th century are fairly mixed. The Old Novgorodian texts run more or less the full gamut. However, pure Old East Slavic is basically not attested in texts. Even generously speaking, it makes little sense to talk of an East Slavic written language before the 11th, let alone 10th century. And the spoken language of the preliterary period (most of which even precedes the foundation of the Rus') is basically pure reconstruction, so it makes little sense to include it explicitly (just like we don't project Old Norwegian back into the Viking Age, even though we've actually got runic texts from that period). Therefore I propose to stick to the majority of the sources, which (unlike the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, which is moreover misrepresented in the infobox and in fact much more nuanced) limit the Old East Slavic period to start in the 10th or 11th century.
I'd also prefer to date the end of the Old East Slavic period to coincide with the end of the Rus', in the 13th century, given that characteristically Ukrainian developments (especially in the vocalism) had definitely started by that time. Also compare the sentence in the article: "When after the end of the 'Tatar yoke' the territory of former Kievan Rus was divided between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the medieval Rus' principality Grand Principality of Moscow, two separate literary traditions emerged in these states, Ruthenian in the west and medieval Russian in the east." However, I acknowledge that the demarcation is tricky and largely subjective.
I have a few more suggestions and definite corrections, however:
* "The samples of birch-bark writing excavated in Novgorod have provided crucial information about the pure tenth-century vernacular in North-West Russia, almost entirely free of Church Slavonic influence." Tenth-century is too early and conflicts with the traditional 11th–15th century dating also given at Old Novgorod dialect.
* At the beginning: was a language should be is a language, as even extinct languages (Old East Slavic technically not even being extinct, only changed into more modern forms) are still languages. (This is a MOS issue that comes up with some regularity and should have a house style recommendation for consistency.)
* I also think that "later" in the introductory sentence is slightly misplaced and sounds off.
* The comma after "misnomer" can probably be removed.
* "Old Slavic is therefore more appropriate term" lacks an article.
* "Other Slavic languages are differed" definitely sounds wrong; it should probably say "different".
* "Old East Slavonic" should be "Old East Slavic" (for consistency, even if "Slavonic" is an acceptable synonym of "Slavic", although it sounds old-fashioned to me).
* "The Old Church Slavonic language was introduced." Superfluous sentence.
* The full stop after NOTE: should be removed.
* MOS: Punctuation such as commas, semicolons or full stops should precede footnotes.
So much for now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various minor issues 

message: It is so obvious that the title of this article tries to appease the easily-offended Ukrainian pseudohistorians. Rus' is Russia/Ruthenia, those are two words in different languages (Russian, Greek, Latin, English). Building identities on different time periods of the same country is laughable. But hey, even Anglo-Saxon is now a racist term. What a joke.--Adûnâi (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A clear case of political correctness 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Rusian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Rusian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rusian" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I think the use of that infographic showing the evolution of the Slavic languages should be reconsidered, because it is very misleading. That graphic is linked from almost all Slaving languages pages. It leads you to believe that it is an illustration of the evolution of the said language when, in fact, it comes from a DNA study. It has nothing to do with the languages themselves, but rather the genetic makeup of their speakers - which is very different. In particular, Macedonian and Bulgarian have been distinct languages only since the late 19th century. Mmom (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you’re misinterpreting the chart. Original source says it’s a “phylogenetic tree of the Balto-Slavic languages” and it’s based on “correlation between genetic, geographic and linguistic distances of Balto-Slavic populations.” Sorry I’m no expert and I can’t take the time to dig into the paper and its references about methodology, but I do believe the chart is about the languages. Perhaps there’s a wikiproject where we can find someone for a more informed interpretation. —Michael Z. 02:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: While the paper is indeed a DNA study, there are two linguists (Anna Dybo, Alexei Kassian) among its authors. Obviously, they are responsible for the chart which was produced by means of a phylogenetic analysis of linguistic data. The dating methods of the Moscow School are not universally accepted, but I don't find the chart egregiously undue here. –Austronesier (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading infographic 

message: The name “Old Russian” is a misnomer, and even this source which uses that name admits it. Ermenrich reverted my edit and told to take it to the talk page. Not sure why you can’t start a thread yourself, but I have started one. I’m gonna assume good faith at the beginning, that you are not trying to push a pro-russian POV. If Old East Slavic is the language  (colored text was taken directly from the article), then calling it Old Russian is a misnomer, and I don’t see any reason why some users would be against it, unless they are trying to push a POV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an online language course. Not the best thing to use. This was also discussed in Talk: Old East Slavic#Removing "Old Russian". Mellk (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , this is an online language course, but it’s still a reliable source. It’s by the University of Texas at Austin Linguistic Research Center. I don’t see any reason to dispute its reliability, and I think it’s good for this cause because despite the fact that it uses the term “Old Russian”, it also explains why it’s inaccurate. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We have other better sources that do not say this. Mellk (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , why is this relevant? Do you have sources that say the name “Old Russian” is not a misnomer? I can take any claim made in any article in Wikipedia and find . -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have you already linked you the discussion above. There is no new argument here. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , The discussion you linked was about removing the name “Old Russian”, not about labeling it as a misnomer. Even the users who were against removing admitted it was a misnomer. Again, I don’t see why you are against calling a misnomer a misnomer. You haven’t made even one comprehensive argument in this entire thread. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 19:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read the section properly where how "Old Russian" should be mentioned in the lead was discussed. Mellk (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , you may want to make an argument instead of constantly linking to an old discussion. In this discussion there’s a quote . If you want to make a comprehensive argument for not calling it a misnomer, you should find at least reliable source that defends that term. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Where many RS use "Old Russian" without the authors also saying "also yeah we are using this wrong but whatever". We can say it has been described as a misnomer but stating in wikivoice that it is a misnomer is not WP:NPOV. Mellk (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ✅ -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we have a terminology section. Mellk (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I literally just implemented your suggestion and then you say “no”. You haven’t made even one argument in this entire discussion. Stop trying to push a POV in articles related to Kyivan Rus. Thanks, -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 21:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a section where the "misnomer" issue is raised. There is no reason to do that in the lead. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the fact that it was called a misnomer will mislead users. The terminology section should describe why it was called a misnomer, and the leader should say that it was called a misnomer. Please stop bludgeoning the process. In fact, this entire thread is WP:BLUDGEON, there was no reason to start it at all. My edits to this article should have just stayed. A reader who reads the article in its current state will not be aware that the name “Old Russian” was criticized by reliable sources. If Wikipedia is indeed an , then it should say in the header that the name “Old Russian” has been criticized or something’s along the lines. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 21:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

text: The terminology section also mentions the names “Old Ukrainian” and “Proto Ukrainian”. Why are not they included as alternative names as well? -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 21:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would read the discussion that  already pointed you to, you would know.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name “Old Russian” is a misnomer. I don’t see why you are against such a basic fact 

message: The lands of Kievan Rus were divided between the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania way before the end of the Tatar yoke. Muscovy was initially a vassal of the Golden Horde. 67.84.81.241 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kievan Rus following the Tatar yoke 

message: @Mellk, when your edit are undoed, you are supposed to discuss it on a talk page, not to edit war  . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make nonsensical claims of edit warring (again). You were reverted once. Mellk (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Also, this translation is unsourced and is OR written by Mzajac. Mellk (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://books.google.com/books?id=TMgjjgEACAAJ&newbks=0&hl=en&redir_esc=y the term “Old Russian” is ultimately no less anachronistic than “Old Ukrainian” and why both terms can still make sense, although in most cases one should, admittedly, speak rather of “Old Rus'ian” or “Old East Slavic”. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that "Old Rus language" is the correct translation of "давньоруська мова"? Mellk (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations