Talk:Siemomysł, Duke of Pomerania

message: 1. To speak about Polish and Pomeranian in 11th centuries as if they were two clearly distinct languages contradicts what we know about slavic linguistic history. Back then there  would be no distinct national languages, but rather a western slavic dialect continuum from southern Bohemia to the Baltic. Poles, Bohemians, Moravians and Pomeranians would use similar set of Slavic names and pronounce them without much difference - at least not a difference audible for a non-Slavic chronicler.
2. For a word to be Slavic it needs to have a demonstrable slavic etymology. To find one for "Zemuzil" the easiest way is to assume that it is a misshaped bipatrite name formed along typical Slavic patterns and with typical Slavic roots. The most obvious candidate fo the original seems to be Semysl/Semomysl. This particular name happens to be assosiated with Polish history, but there is nothing particularly Polish about it, it uses common Slavic roots and could as well appear in any other 11th century slavic dialect - sounding less or more the same.
3. Siemomysl or Siemosil, spelled in modern Polish Siemomysł or Siemosił. While it is ok for a Polish book to use the Polish equivalent of the Pomeranian name (Polish authors often Polonize names from other languages)
As explained above, from linguistic point of view it makes no sense to differenciate between Polish and Pomeranian that early, what we have there is western Slavic dialect continuum. Also, as explained above, "Zemuzil" is not an original form of any kind, but a clumsy mediaeval latin rendering of a spoken word which must have sounded somehow along "S'emomysl". So what above mentioned authors are doing is rendering early Slavic in modern Polish, not "Polonizing a foreign name". You could as well use Czech or Kashubian spelling, or some form of Slavic linguistic transcription for this purpose and it is still going to look more like "Semomysl" than "Zemuzil".
4. The above arguments are meant to combat the assumption that the "Siemomysł" form is some kind of free invention. On the contrary - it is perfectly valid linguistic reconstruction. Strictly Polish spelling may be indeed unjustified in English wikipedia, but some internationalized slavic transcription ("S'emomysl") should do just fine  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.132.150 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on Zemuzil's original name 

message: There is a selection from the book Saga of the Kashub People in Poland, Canada, U.S.A. by Fr. Aloysius J. Rekowski () which states:
Around the year 1000 the East Pomeranian Prince or Duke reigning in Danzig (Gdansk) married the daughter of the Polish King Boleslaw and was baptized.
I'd like to see if anyone is able to back that up. Fr. Rekowski has been known to base his works off of an (out-of-print?) book called Ziemia Gromadzi Prochy (The Land Gathers Dust) by Józef Kisielewski, made in 1939. -- Zblewski|talk  21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember right, this is a myth originating in the Hungarian "Gesta". I'll need to look it up though. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Bolesław I the Brave 

message: Maybe we should move this to Zemuzil, as there is no other Zemuzil on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All other dukes of Pomerania have the epitaph "..., Duke of Pomerania" in the article title. What do the nobility naming guides say? For consistency, I'd say either move all or none. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Just wondering if the "Author (date)" format is appropriate for Wikipedia articles. It's how usually history papers are referenced but I haven't come across it done this way here. I believe the author name is sufficient (and not always necessary).radek (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  author format 

message: On this sentence "Stabenow further says that the 1046 entry constitutes the first written record of the Slavic Pomeranians" - can we get the exact text from the source with a translation? The Bavarian Geographer obviously mentions several Slavic Pomeranian tribes and it predates 1046 by about two centuries. I'm guessing that what this is supposed to mean is that it is the first written record which uses the word "Pomeranian" (or its latinization) to refer to some of these tribes - so is that it? If so it should be made clearer.radek (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reiterating the question.radek (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  first record? 

message: While there was some disputes on this article, I'd like to invite Skapperod and anyone else who cares to compare the present version of the article  with what was there before . I think we can all agree that the article has improved tremendously; before we had a sketchy stub and now we have a full article that actually covers the various issues involved. Hell, I'll take credit for initiating this improvement drive, but I'm game enough to give Skapperod credit for doing his part. And looking at the dispute I am quite willing to partially withdraw my charges of original research - in the sense that most of the original research by Skapperod was done on the talk page but little of it was placed into the article itself. Sometimes disagreements can lead to better articles when editors are willing to go do some research and get reliable sources. Thanks.radek (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  much improvement