Talk:Belarusian language

message: I want to know:
The real difference between the two variants of Belarusian, the Tarashkevitsa and the Academic version. Really. This is not an article about politics. I don't care about the politics. I know you care, but we need LANGUAGE information in a language article.
I want the linguistic details! Please someone tell me, what is the difference?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.25.219 (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, please feel free to translate the linguistic part of :be:Тарашкевіца. It is academically sourced as far as possible. I don't know the English linguistic terminology well enough, so I can't hope to do this and survive. :) And it is not just the "orthography", it's the "literary norm", including but not limited to the orthography (per Antonyuk, Plotnikov, Belarusian language, Linguistic compendium, 2003). AFAICU, the Western sources won't help you here, as they mostly just draw on the several stereotypes, cultivated around the issue. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This material is already used in the article (the paper source, StStank 1962). Irrelevant to the subject at hand right now, though. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real difference between the two variants of Belarusian, the Tarashkevitsa??? What is it? 

message: The text is among References, but not quoted directly.Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you look? It's used in the post-1945 part, Footnote #21. Okay now? Yury Tarasievich (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  StStank 1962 isn't quoted 

message: I'm moving the "Vocabulary" section here to the talk page because so much of it is disputed in comments, and much more of it could be. It reads as follows (including the comments):
:Historically, besides the adoptions from neighbouring Russian, Polish and Ukrainian, the Belarusian language includes words adopted from: Celtic languages — "бот" (bot), "тын" (tyn); Greek language — "кадка" (kadka), "крыніца" (krynica), "кмен" (kmjen), "мак" (mak), "аладка" (aladka), "хаўтуры" (haŭtury), "чабор" (čabor); Latin language — "байструк" (bajstruk), "бульба" (bul'ba), "каляды" (kaljady), "кот" (kot), "ягня" (jahnja); Gothic language — "бондар" (bondar), "бочка" (bočka), "гурок" (hurok), "кацёл" (kacjol), "крупа" (krupa), "кульгаць" (kul'hac'), "лапік" (lapik), "меч" (meč), "пасма" (pasma), "піла" (pila), "рэмень" (remjen'), "сталь" (stal'); Daco-Thracian language  — "каноплі (kanopli)"; Romanian language, and others.
It would help if these words were glossed into English. Without knowing what they mean, and without any sources cited, it's difficult for the reader to evaluate the claims. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here're some, and some approximated (no vocabularies at hand right now): Celtic - boot, palisade;  Greek - wooden vessel (short barrel), spring (watersource), ..., poppy, sort of pancake, wake (not sure about this), ...; Latin - bastard, potatoe, Christmas (calendae), cat, young sheep (I know there's a special word in English); Gothic - barrel-maker, barrel, cucumber, cauldron, groats, (to) limp, patch (as in patch of the land), sword, strip (of cloth) or lock (of hair), saw, belt, steel; Daco-Thracian - hemp. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word you're looking for that means "young sheep" is lamb. But jahnja is almost certainly NOT a loan-word from Latin agnus, but rather a cognate to it. I suspect several other of these words are also cognates rather than loans, and others (like kot and kaljady) are probably loanwords into Proto-Slavic rather than loanwords into Belarussian. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocabulary section 

message: Belarusian alphabet says that the pronunciation of Г is /ɣ/, but on the other hand, Г says it's /ɦ/. what's the right one? Just Omer • Talk 21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been some discussion of this at Talk:Belarusian phonology#velar fricative? too. It looks like there's a degree of free variation between the two, but  is considered prescriptively correct. —Angr 06:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, fricative (gamma) is overwhelmingly prevailing when spoken, while glottal and plosive are spoken variations (plosive's also prescripted in several loanwords). Yury Tarasievich (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation of Г  

message: Taraškievica is more preferable title, as this is the original name and spells so in the Belarusian Latin, so I doesn't require additional romanization to Tarashkevitsa from Cyrillic as already exists in the Belarusian Latin script. Romanization of Belarusian Geographic names using the Belarusian Latin script was adopted by the United Nations in 2007 as well . So I suggest using Belarusian script for Belarusian proper names. —zedlik (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally the title Taraškievica is used in the corresponding messages file in MediaWiki (), and language subtag registry . —zedlik (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: There are certain rules to transliterate Cyrillic words to the Latin script, as written here: Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic. The meaning of a transliteration is, that one can flawlessly "translate" it back to Cyrillic, so one letter in the Latin script should represent one letter in the Cyrillic one. But for Belarusian this is anyway easier, as it already has a Latin alphabet: Belarusian Latin alphabet. Weltengeist (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarashkevitsa and Taraškievica 

message: I think the summary should explain the two standards (normative and Taraškievica). Now there seem to be two different Belorussian languages. Or may be I misunderstood (I did not read the whole lengthy article). Andries (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary should explain the two standards

message: This article shows a map saying "territory, where Belarusian language is used chiefly". I don't understand what is the source for the linguistic data. I tried asking the uploader, :ru:User:Olegzima, but he didn't reply. If a source won't be presented in the next few days, i'll have to remove it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map of "territory, where Belarusian language is used chiefly" 

message: Hello.  I would like to work on this article more with grammar checking and the completing of sentences. Please correct me if I make grammar or conceptual errors.  Lam Kin Keung (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar Checks

message: The information about the pronunciation of the word молоко in 7.4.1 is not entirely accurate. I don't know about Belarusian and southern Russian, but in standard Russian the word is pronounced , not . In Russian  and  are allophones of the sound , which only appears in stressed positions. The point about the difference between Russian and Belarusian orthographies with regard to akanye is valid, but the transcriptions are still off. Can anyone think of a way to reformulate the statements?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VonPeterhof (talk • contribs) 02:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As a native Russian I can feel practically NO difference between Russian pronunciation of "молоко" and Belarusian "малако". Dilas25 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also a native speaker of Russian, albeit without much exposure to spoken Belarusian. I suppose one way to reformulate the statement could be to change the transcription from phonetic ([]) to phonemic (//). That way  will fit Russian phonemes and won't contradict any information in the Belarusian phonology article. It would be nice if said article made it clear whether or not the Belarusian  has any allophones, but that's a different topic.VonPeterhof (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On a second look at the Belarusian phonology article I saw there is a problem with another phoneme. According to the article Belarusian has the phoneme , not . The Russian phonology page makes no mention of , not even as an allophone, and the Belarusian one has hardly any information on allophones, so there is still no way of transcribing the words молоко and малако the same way without contradicting phonetic information from other Wikipedia pages.VonPeterhof (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Went ahead and removed the example altogether. Also replaced [a] with /a/ to account for allophonic variation in Russian. VonPeterhof (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Akanye and Russian

message: Would it be helpful to include the English pronunciation of the name of the language? To many it may be clear that it's 'Belarus' + '-ian' , but in English 's' in this position is always voiced /z/ or palatalized /ʒ/ and is never just /s/, except in 'Belarusian'. Though it might be just me who is confused by this :) --Moogsi (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem pronouncing it either [bɛləruːsiən], or [bɛləruːziən]. It is okay for a language to adapt a foreign spelling to its own rule set. Weltengeist (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of 'Belarusian' 

message: The population was reduced to 4M, but I don't see any discussion here. For a 50% cut I'd think we'd at least want people to sign off on the figure. I put in a range temporarily. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Belarusian 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/20091205223914/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org:80/translation/Belarusan/ to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Belarusan/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505120940/http://belstat.gov.by:80/homep/en/census/main.php to http://belstat.gov.by/homep/en/census/main.php
*Added  tag to http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/doc/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050525185706/http://www.stat.gov.pl:80/dane_spol-gosp/nsp/ludnosc/index.htm to http://www.stat.gov.pl/dane_spol-gosp/nsp/ludnosc/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329034801/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org:80/definition/Belarusan-english/ to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Belarusan-english/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97_uezd.php?reg=113
The Vitebsk Governorate should have 788,599 instead of 987,020.
46.119.135.6 (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong 1897 Census total for Vitebsk 

message: There was someone a while ago who claimed that the language was originally known as "Belarusan" after Belarus gained independence until around 1995 when it was replaced by "Belarusian". However, looking at Google Ngram, this is wrong so this should not be restored. Mellk (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Very unlikely that Belarusian was ever originally known as "Belarusan" as this doesn't seem to work in Belarusian itself. Sounds like something that was invented by a foreign language. Nakonana (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a brief period when the official name of the country in English was changed form "Byelorussia" to "Belarus" (according to the official name of the state in the native language) and people didn't have an agreement how to form the (English-language) adjective. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Belarusan" 

message: Why belarusian language is stated to be vulnerable despite being an official language of belarus? I think, there is no reason to put there in classifying such a language. Where the news come from "says belarusian language as vulnerable due to falling number of mother tongue.  2404:8000:1027:85F6:4931:7800:F749:B0B0 (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reference in the article. But I clicked and it is dead link. And it is old ref. MOdern reference says it is "safe". SO I am deletin "vulnerable".  Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unesco: vulnerable? 

message: Regarding this edit, I do not think Ruthenian counts as a "language family", rather it is an earlier form. Mellk (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this edit. It is an extinct 'language'. Mellk (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may be right, I shouldn't be so hasty with this. Ruthenian language does say "By the end of the 18th century, they gradually diverged into regional variants, which subsequently developed into the modern Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Rusyn languages." with four sources, though I should check those sources to see if "Ruthenian" is considered a unified linguistic clade similar to language families such as the Lechitic languages, East Slavic languages, Frisian languages before adding it as a language family. Reading the article, it's unclear whether "Ruthenian" refers to a formerly unified language that eventually split up into Ukrainian, Rusyn, and Belarusian (and Podlachian, Pannonian Rusyn, West Polesian, etc depending on whether those are considered distinct languages or not) or if it was simply an exonym for all non-Russian dialects within the East Slavic dialect continuum. The former would mean that they are a unified clade, while the latter would mean they're no more closely related to each other than they are to Russian (with the possible exception of Ukrainian and Rusyn, but that's a different question entirely). I'll also remove Ruthenian as a language family from the page for West Polesian for now, though I should note I was not the one who added it there, but I did add it to a page for a West Polesian dialect for the sake of consistency. I'll get back to you once I'm done reviewing the sources I mentioned to see what they say on the subject. Thank you. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no worries. I think they are all simply grouped as East Slavic without any further subdivisions. Mellk (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I think Ruthenian generally refers to the older form of Belarusian, Rusyn and Ukrainian. Maybe in some older contexts it has been used to refer to all East Slavic languages, but not in modern use. Mellk (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware Ruthenian refers to the older form(s) of Belarusian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian. It does appear that it essentially referred to all East Slavic languages at the time other than Russian, but I still need to check exactly what that meant. Because it could mean that these three languages were originally one language that split up over time, meaning that they would be part of one subdivision, or they were never a unified language and the term just generically referred to any non-Russian East Slavic dialects without regard for linguistic classification beyond that. ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, understood. At least for modern classifications, it is not used, to sum my point up. Mellk (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language family 

message: Please join the work on the content of Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words. - Altenmann >talk 12:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stress marks in East Slavic words