Talk:Belarusian language/Archive 2

message: Over at List of country names in various languages there's a whole slew of names purporting to be Belarusian but clearly aren't (a lot of them use the letter и for one thing). Apparently someone went through adding "Belarusian" to every Russian name, assuming they'd be identical. Could someone who actually knows Belarusian (I don't) please go through and correct the Belarusian spelling of the names, or at least remove the "Belarusian" label from the names where it doesn't belong? Thanks! --Angr/comhrá 09:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank for pointing that out. You are right, they are all totally wrong (except for 4-5% of the cases when the spelling of a given country name coincides in Russian and Belarusan). Maybe I'll do it, when I have a bit more free time. --rydel 16:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belarusian country names 

message: I'm presently writing biographies on sport shooters, and there are quite a few Belarusian ones. I wonder what transliteration I should use for these. The International Shooting Sport Federation itself seems to use Russian-style transliterations (Sergei Martynov, Igor Basinski etc), but I'm not sure whether that's a preference given to them by the Belarusian shooting federation, or just an old habit that hasn't been broken. I have seen 2000-style transliterations (Siarhei Martynau, Ihar Basinski) in some situations. What should we use here? (So far the only entry in :Category:Belarusian sport shooters is Kanstantsin Lukashyk, which is what the ISSF uses.) -- Jao 18:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The question about naming Belarusian sportsmen is not quite easy. Almost every sportsman has numerous available transliterations of his name and different organisations use different transliteration. I propose this algorithm to select proper transliteration for Wikipedia:
# First of all, check if there is one widely used name transliteration for this sportsman (for example, he is playing in club in Western Europe); if it is available, one should use this transliteration. See Sergei Gurenko (while he is probably transliterated Siarhei Hurenka in his international passport), Vitali Kutuzov and so on.
# Second, check any official protocols on international competitions. We usually can find really official transliteration in protocol, not something just translated (like on website). See Ivan Tikhon article for example (while his name should be transliterated Ivan Cichan).
# If neither widely used nor official transliteration couldn't be found, one shouldn't prefer one website's transliteration over any other's - all they (even official ones) can give different transliterations created without any logic (often in Russian style). One should use direct one-to-one Cyrillics-to-Łacinka transliteration, because it reflects name in Belarusian absolutely exactly. For shooters it should be Siarhej Martynaǔ and Ihar Basinski. Transliteration rules should be available on Łacinka page. Anyway, feel free to consult about transliteration. --Monkbel 10:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to name biographies 

message: In the section on noun declension it says that ноч is a feminine noun ending with a hard consonant? Is ч really hard in Belarusian? It isn't in Russian.
--ChadThomson 12:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Belarusian isn't Russian. it has its own letters and pronunciation. --Monkbel 14:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Just for your curiosity: There is not even a letter и in the Belarusian alphabet, so you never write чи (nor чі) but чы, as you pronounce it. Belarusian is a language different from Russian, not a Russian dialect. --Daniel Bunčić 09:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the deal? I didn't say Belarusian is a Russian dialect. I'm interested in it though, as I know Russian and some Ukrainian. Very interesting. Maybe this could be added somewhere in the article: "Although ч is palatalised in Russian and Ukrainian, in Belarusian it is retroflex." Or "Belarusian differs from other Slavic languages such as Ukrainian and Russian in that ч is retroflex, as opposed to palatalised." --chad 07:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That ч is hard is clearly visible from the Phonetics section of the article, and the article about the Voiceless postalveolar affricate even says that the Russian ч in contrast to the Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Belarusian one is a different sound. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so I think it does not make much sense to describe a foreign language like Belarusian in contrast to another foreign language like Russian. This has to be done in the so far very poor Russian-language article. Maybe it would be a good start to translate the information from the English article (which is more exhaustive even than the Belarusian one) into Russian, and then such comparisons can be made there. --Daniel Bunčić 12:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Well, the Ukrainian ч is also a Voiceless postalveolar affricate and it can be palatalized and unpalatalized. I can translate the article when I have time :D -Iopq 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Ukrainian, ч [tʃ] is palatalized before [i], but in Belarusian, ч [tʃ] cannot occur before [i], so that it is never palatalized. --Daniel Bunčić 11:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, it is interesting how some phonetic features overlap with Russian and some with Ukranian. One can't even say which language is "closer" -Iopq 17:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ч is hard?

message: Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at 
#  Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Wikipedia
#  Discussing potential revision of current practices
—Michael Z. 2005-12-9 20:39 Z
::Italics in Cyrillics:
::A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic in Wikipedia 

message: I suggest this should receive some attention. Here is a good map: http://www.belarusguide.com/as/map_text/havorki.html
I know that Polessian dialect of Belarusian is identical to Volynian dialect of Ukrainian and their only difference is that the former uses Belarusian language and the latter Ukrainian.--Kuban kazak 22:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialects and Accents of Belarusian

message: Can someone stop Kuban Kazak from inserting misinformation onto this page? The person is from Russia and has no clue at all about Belarusan language.
:May I please know who I am speaking to and have some credible sources. BTW is there a problem with being Russian? -- Kuban kazak 00:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kuban kazak

message: Where a language disappears, there you have the disappearance also of the national structure
and the national spirit. The death of a language is the death of its people.
The case of Belarusian, a national and co-official language, which the great majority of the population of Belarus considers as its mother tongue, but which has become endangered due to sustained official policies discriminating against it, and the general apathy of the population.
For a variety of complex historical and contemporary reasons, Belarus missed out in this nationbuilding process and the Belarusian language failed to emerge as a catalyst for national revival or as the undisputed hallmark of Belarusian identity (Radzik). Although the rising national significance of Polish, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and Ukrainian has been well documented in each country’s history, literature and scholarly research (Davies, 1996), the fate of Belarusian has been very largely neglected. The complex set of historical, social, cultural and political circumstances that prevented that country from
following the common trend set by its Central and Eastern European neighbours, where each has
emerged as a separate nation with its own distinct language, is worthy of closer investigation.
The exceptional status of Belarus throughout the twentieth century continues to this day, with the country generally regarded as one of the most enigmatic nation-states of Europe. Although freed from Soviet rule, it appears to disdain its national language and its newly independent status, shows distrust of western-style democratic institutions and hankers after its old links with Russia. This quixotic behaviour, so much out of keeping with the explosion of nationalism and the simultaneous craving for a market economy evident among its Baltic neighbours and all the other countries of East-Central Europe, can be traced to the turbulent history of Belarus which reflects the deep-rooted east–west cultural split derived from the country’s dual allegiance to rival forms of Christianity (Radzik).
===National identity, mother tongue and home language use in Belarus===
The 1999 census data are very illuminating in highlighting the dissonance among the population
in relation to their self-declared national identity, ‘mother tongue’ and the language spoken at home Belarusian was the declared ‘mother tongue’ for 73.7% of the citizens, but no more than
36.7% claimed Belarusian as the language ‘usually spoken at home’, while 62.8% said they used Russian. What is even more remarkable was that among the clear majority of people (81.2% of the
republic) claiming to be ethnic Belarusians, as many as 85.6% declared Belarusian was their
mother tongue, but only 41.3% stated that they actually used Belarusian as their usual home language. Belarusian was better maintained among the rural population, with 96.8% claiming Belarusian as their mother tongue and 79.2% speaking mainly Belarusian at home. The corresponding figures for the urban Belarusian population revealed that while 80.2% regarded Belarusian as their mother tongue, only 23.0% usually spoke it at home. 
Reference: Radzik, R., 2001. Belarus between the east and the west: The Soviet-Russian option versus the nationalist option in Belarusian society. International Journal of Sociology 31 (3), 11–45.
  Bonaparte  talk 22:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Belarusian as an endangered language??

message: The 1999 census data are very illuminating in highlighting the dissonance among the population
in relation to their self-declared national identity, ‘mother tongue’ and the language spoken at home Belarusian was the declared ‘mother tongue’ for 73.7% of the citizens, but no more than
36.7% claimed Belarusian as the language ‘usually spoken at home’, while 62.8% said they used Russian. What is even more remarkable was that among the clear majority of people (81.2% of the
republic) claiming to be ethnic Belarusians, as many as 85.6% declared Belarusian was their
mother tongue, but only 41.3% stated that they actually used Belarusian as their usual home language. Belarusian was better maintained among the rural population, with 96.8% claiming Belarusian as their mother tongue and 79.2% speaking mainly Belarusian at home. The corresponding figures for the urban Belarusian population revealed that while 80.2% regarded Belarusian as their mother tongue, only 23.0% usually spoke it at home. 
Reference: Radzik, R., 2001. Belarus between the east and the west: The Soviet-Russian option versus the nationalist option in Belarusian society. International Journal of Sociology 31 (3), 11–45.
  Bonaparte  talk 22:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National identity, mother tongue and home language use in Belarus

message: If I understand correctly - Belastok is a Belarusian name of the city. But it's an English Wiki, containing the entry - Białystok.
:But this is about a Belarusian laguage not Polish. And it is logical to be consistent. Fell free to add () to it. --Kuban kazak 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names, both of you. --Lysytalk 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belastok 

message: Kazak, would you explain why have you reverted the edits of Xx236 ? --Lysytalk 18:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bialystok I explained. Apart from that I reverted the main articles' which xx236 put his edits on top. That was merely an accident, for which I apologise, and should a concenssus be reached...then his edits will be the first ones to be put back into the text. --Kuban kazak 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it would be wise to move this discussion to Talk:Bialystok, please begin with expressing ideas there, I created a heading. Also may I suggest that you go through a process of registration and create a personal discussion page.  --Kuban kazak 14:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reverts by Kuban kazak

message: administrators please add an interwiki link to Chinese: :zh:白俄罗斯语 --Hello World! 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: interwiki

message: My further comments are in italics.
# Skaryna's Bible was the first East Slavic Bible. It's a fact. This was returned to the article; Cyril and Methodius did not write in an EAST Slavic language, did they?
# I reinstated the removed sentence "The 16th century was the Belarusian golden age". This is also a fact; Kuban Kozak's answer "What was so gold about living under Polish rule?" is just a bitter sulky comment, not an answer or a rebuttal.
# I reinstated the removed explanation that term "rus'ki" means "Ruthenian", not the language of Muscovy. It's a very important clarification. And no, "russian" and "ruthenian" are not the same thing at all, although Kuban Kozak wants to confuse the matters (just like the propagandists of the Russian empire did before him).
# I reinstated the removed sentence: "Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive." It's not off-topic. Ukraine and Belarus have very similar histories, so it's worth making a comparison. And national identity is also very closely related to languages in our region. So it's not OT, as Kuba Kozak said.
# I reinstated the removed sentence: "There existed a minor movement for returning to the Belarusian language; it was important in the circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz." 
# I removed this paragraph (because it contains false information suchs claims that Russification was good) and makes a point of how the language was called during census (as if that matters, "rose by any other name..."):  "This latter fact caused many nobles of Imperial Russian authorities to assume that the language spoken by Belarusian peasents was nothing but Polonised Russian, nevertheless as Polish influence over the territory slackened, the Russification of Belarusian peasents proved counter productive. In the 1897 Imperial census most refered to their native language not as Ruthenian as they did during the Polish rule, but as White Ruthenian or Belarusian." Kuban Kozak wanted to confuse things further, by posting large texts on the talk page of propaganda nature (with "proofs" how destruction of Uniate faith on Belarus' lands was a good thing).
# I reinstated the removed sentence: "Hundreds of people were shot or sent to Siberia ". Adding a link where you can see last names and biographies of these persons. Of course, thousands were shot. I meant the people of culture: writers, historians, journalists, politicians, prominent people. And, again, Kuban Kozak has nothing to answer, but just picks on the spellings of the word "Minsk" in a language that he doesn't even speak (hint: the languages is called Belarusian).
# I rephrased this sentence: "In terms of lexicon, Belarusian is most closely related to Ukrainian, then to Polish." This can be proven by looking at Swadesh lists, for example. You can find them on Wiktionary. No one provided a rebuttal or more precise data, so this definetely stays. 
--rydel 00:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers to "answers"

message: Work it out. And. Legit edits are not "vandalism". I'd suggest dispute resolution at this point. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprotected 

message: Kuban kazak has removed this information.
Xx236 13:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really improtant? Please reference of its significance and you can put it back in?--Kuban Cossack 14:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What does a rock festival have to do with Belarusian language? That is what I am asking and trying to get you to explain here!--Kuban Cossack 16:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of attitude is this? All I am asking is for you to explain the significance of this concert to Belarusian language. You can do it in two sentances. I mean I can also put that Iron Maiden toured in China. Except that would not have any relevance to this article and so far neither does Basovishcha. --Kuban Cossack 00:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belrusian Student Union organizes rock festival Basovishcha.  

message: In the middle of all this reverting, some poor langauge remains: Old Belarusian was actually the language of the first Bible to be printed in one of the Eastern Slavic languages – the achievement of Francysk Skaryna. Wrong already, see Saints Cyril and Methodius. Errrm... if the statement is wrong, it shouldn't be there! William M. Connolley 17:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never edited the article, but still... Can't you see a difference between "written", "translated", and "printed"? The first Bible in the world was printed in 1455, no? --Ghirla -трёп- 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstand me. I have no idea what the facts are. I'm objecting to a sentence being, apparently, negated by the "wrong already" in the very next sentence. William M. Connolley 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this is ridiculous. What can I say? The article needs work but Rydel and KK are too busy revert warring to even read it carefully. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry was meant to put it in invisible addition, one sec.--Kuban Cossack 19:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  You have 12 hours  :-) William M. Connolley 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone removed it already...--Kuban Cossack 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Many Belarusians were people of the Renaissance, educated at the universities of Western Europe or the Lithuanian university in Vilnius that was founded in 1579. AFAIK name Belarusia originates somewhere in XVIII th century, but Belarusians in in XVI th century? Very opriginal research.--Lokyz 20:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are the untouched yet remnants of the previous text which was indeed very shallow, to the point of being wildly humorous. ---Yury Tarasievich 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddness 

message: Having survived roughly for a three weeks with no reverts I think it is safe to remove the NPOV tag from the article, unless of course dear Rydel still has any objections and CONSTRUCTIVE proposals to the dispute, I think everything else is settled the tag should be removed. --Kuban Cossack 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, how do I add new section to the talk? Have to settle for "replying" here. Anyway, folks, article seems somewhat shallow. Lot's of important facts glossed over, let's hope in good faith. Telling the Belarusian language history with e.g., Karsky not mentioned? I've committed one correction already and have rather more coming... Yury Tarasievich 20:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: Wikipedia contributor Kuban coSSack talking about dictatorial ruler Lukashenka and today's storming of the October square, when hundreds of special police arrested peaceful demonstrators, totally destoryed the camp, threw empty vodka bottles into the mess and videotaped that for Belarusan state television. Here's Kuban coSSack's comment about this police action and break-up of a peaceful protest, which took place at 3AM so that there would be no witnesses of their activity:
* http://www.br23.net/en/2006/03/24/game-over/#comments
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rydel#.22kuban_coSSack.22
Dear fellow Wikipedians, do you understand that his only purpose of his contributions on articles about Belarus (such as Belarusian language, Belarusian history, Belarus, etc.) is to push Russian imperial POV and lies? Please, see history and talk pages of the Belarus-related articles. --rydel 16:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello; well, strangely how long some parallels run: the same with Serbian failed interventions on the Croatian language page. But, dont worry: as Gandhi had said: "In the end, deceivers deceive only themselves." Mir Harven 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all mate anything on non-wiki sites is simple gibberish, actually it is you who is pushing your POV, by adding irrespective and irrational comments and continuously reverting with no discussions. Add that with the sum of the insults that I got in my direction sent from you, I can only say speak for yourself. What you put on your userpage is your userpage. What put in articles is not Here everybody plays by the same rules...  If you really want to, start an RfC get some independent opinion on this topic. Otherwise I will remove this OT from the discussion. .Oh btw I do sincerely congradulate Lukashenko and the Belarusian people, pity you don't fall into the latter category.--Kuban Cossack 17:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're addressing a wrong guy. Be as it may-Belarusians have chosen security with Lukashenka. Fine. Just, he'll, in retrospect, remain a footnote in history's textbooks, just like 100,000 Irish who had died during the WW1 fighting on the Britain's side. Unlike those few killed in Kilmanhaim jail after the Easter rebellion. Lukashenka will go down in history as a temporarily successful anachronism. Mir Harven 18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About one contributor