Disputatio:Ucraina

message: Probably "Ruthenia Minor" or "Ruthenia Niger" will be a better name for the article? -- Boleslav
replies: text: Is that right? Google has nothing for 'Ruthenia Niger' (not surprisingly, with that grammar) and only one forum post in Russian for "Ruthenia Minor".  Lexicon Universale has "Ucraina" twice as article title   (the territory at the time divided between Poland and Russia, apparently).  "Ruthenia Nigra" only gets one google hit at the de: version of Black Ruthenia, supposed to be part of Belarus.  What do Ukrainian Latinists call their country? —Myces Tiberinus 16:56, 10 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
The word "Ucraina" is used for calling this land in modern Latin (the ancient one used "Scythia", as far as I know). E.g.: "Nam respicit eventa praeteritae ac recentioris aetatis quae cum toto coniunguntur opere evangelizationis in natione Ucraina cuius res gestae atque expertae Nobis potissimum cordi sunt et curae" (). "Ucraina" is given for "Украина (Ukraine)" in my "Russian-Latin Dictionary" by Podosinov & Belov. 
"Ruthenia Minor"... Well, we can speak about 3 parts of "Ruthenia" (Rus'): "Ruthenia Magna" (Velikaya Rus', Velikorossiya - Russia), "Ruthenia Minor" (Malaya Rus', Malorossiya - Ukraine) and "Ruthenia Alba" (Belaya Rus', Belorussiya - Belarus). But  I'm far from thinking that the Ukrainians (at least, most of them) would like calling their country "Little Russia", or even "Little Ruthenia". So, I consider "Ucraina" to be the best variant of latinisation. -- Alexander Gerascenco 14:18, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

text: However, modern name "Ucraina" is almost never used in actual Latin sources. At least, both modern name and historic name have to be present in the article. Without refference to this synonymy, Ukraine may look like "just invented" country without any relation to "Russia Minor" placed on the same territory a few centuries before. P.Y.Python (disputatio) 11:00, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: :"Russia Minor" is already mentioned in the article. What else do you think we should say? You are welcome to add information in Latin, or, if you can't do that, write here in English what you think needs to be added. Be sure to cite a Latin text that uses the term "Russia Minor". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

message: The article says 47,732,079 milia hominum Ucrainam incolunt. Wouldn't that be a thousand times too many people? Or has Latin some weird counting system I'm not familiar with? --Agricola 20:14, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, good eye.--Ioshus (disp) 21:03, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  De multitudine 

message: "Ukraine" is Parva Russia in Latin. Hellerick 16:53, 7 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source? Ucraina is well attested in Latin, as the Ucraina page shows.--Rafaelgarcia 17:32, 7 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :The earlier name for Ukraine was "Little Russia", it was relatively recently discarded by local nationalists as derogative. "Μικρά Ρωσία" was the term for this land used by the Byzatines, and "Russia Parva" (or Russia Minor etc.) was its Latin equivalent. The meaning of this term was gradually changing, until it became what was known as "Малороссiя" in Russian, i.e. equivalent to Ukraine.

text: :Sources? Just google "Parva Russia", "Parvae Russiae" etc. E.g. Grammatica Slavo-Ruthena calls Ukrainian language "Parvo-Russica" (litteral translation of the Russian term "малоросскiй"); and Nachrichten von der Georg-Augusts-Universität und der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften; 1864-93, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität mentions "Russia Parva" (page 260, item #37) among other lands of Europe, stating that the Pole Star is seen at 51 degrees from it. Hellerick 06:18, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks for the sources, we can add this name to the article. Whether this is the name we should prefer as title is another question. As we can see, there are sources for Ucraina as well.

text: ::If some nowadays consider Parva Russia derogatory, that would be a reason for us not to choose it: better to be neutral and prefer a version of the modern name which everyone seems to accept. What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:47, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I'm somehow doubtful about it. It looks like you're inventing Latin instead of using it. Hellerick 10:56, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::We are using "the latin name" attested in "the Latin language encyclopedia" from the 17 century, that is hardly "inventing". This name for Ucraina suggested by this book seems strange, non only because it seems derogatory: why would any country name itself as the little version of another? It sounds rather like they are describing a Russian colony, or perhaps the Crimea, not Ucraine? Like we say in the US, "Little Moscow" or "Little Odessa", etc, for the section of town that has lots of Russians, lots of Ucranians, etc.--Rafaelgarcia 12:11, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::"Little Italy" is the one most familiar to me, and similar terms may exist for other urban enclaves, but they may not usually be derogatory. We're probably all agreed that the lemmata of articles about people should accommodate some form of what their subjects prefer to call themselves. That concession might well apply to places pertaining to people collectively, as in the names of political entities. Then we face the question of the order in which to list alternate names. Dictionaries usually put the latest standard spellings first, but put definitions in historical order. With regard to lemmata, our articles are inconsistent: for example, we follow historical order with Robertus Allen Zimmerman (not the preferred name, Bob Dylan), but then we feature Cher (not the historically prior form, Cherilyn Sarkisian). Someday, our practice on this point might want to be regularized. IacobusAmor 12:51, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::I just asked my friend Alex (whose family is from Ucraine and Russia, having emigrated from there in the 80's); Alex explained that Russia actually originated in the Ucraine, Ucrainian conserving more aspects of ancient language, but Russia diverging more and more; however, no one in Ucraine or Russia would consider Ucraine "little russia"; he had never heard the term before, in any language.--Rafaelgarcia 15:16, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Tchaikovsky: Symphony No. 2 in C minor, op. 17, "the Little Russian symphony," much of which was composed in Ukraine. Vide :en:Symphony No. 2 (Tchaikovsky). IacobusAmor 15:24, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::Yes, you're right and look here: :en:Little Russia: "After the collapse of the empire, the word was phased out of circulation and became a derogative synonym for Ukraine. ...The term has become an archaic one, and anachronistic usage in the modern context is considered strongly offensive by Ukrainians, as it often used to imply the denial of a separate Ukrainian national identity, an opinion not uncommon among Russian nationalists." That is reason enough not to list it as a synonym at the beginning although it should be mentioned within the article and its origin and derogatory nature indicated.--Rafaelgarcia 16:01, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::As is often the case, we're in agreement 100%. IacobusAmor 16:28, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::Yes! As an additional point, Hellerick says that the name Parva Russia shifted meaning over time. And Sarmatia and Scythia, currently mentioned in the introduction, were not truly identical with modern Ukraine. So all these older names should maybe go in a section about names, where there's room for proper explanation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:43, 8 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
The term "Little Russia" has nothing to do with the terms like "Little" Italy. Strictly speaking the Latin Terms Russia or Ruthenia designate all the East Slavic peoples. Kiev is as much part of Russia as Moscow is. Sometimes to specify that all the Russian lands were meant terms like Totiae Russiae ("All Russias") were used. Russia consists of Russia Magna and Russia Parva, just like Poland consists of "Wielkopolska" (Polonia Major) and "Małopolska" (Polonia Minor), and these terms are as much derogatory. Ukrainians who deny these ancient names deny their own history and origin. Of course all these terms did fade out of use... Well, just like Latin did.
The name Russia Parva should not be put into the same category as Sarmatia, because while Sarmatia simply coincides with today's Ukraine (like Gallia with France), Russia Parva always noted ethnic Ukrainians, their immediate ancestors, and the land they lived in.
BTW, all these "Russian" terms were often confused. I have a picture of an old map of Moscow and it's written on it: Moscovia urbs metropolis totius Russiae Albae (I.e. "Moscow, the capital of all White Russia"). On the hand I have a picture of a page from a geographic book printed in 1719: "Россiйская земля, которая въ иностранныхъ языкахъ иногда московская, или московiя. А иногда великая россiа, лат: руссiа магна. Или черная россiа, лат: руссiа нигра, именуется..." ("Russian land which in foreign languages sometimes Muscovite, or Moscovia; and sometimes Great Russia, lat: Russia Magna; or Black Russia, lat: Russia Nigra; is called..."). Hellerick 08:20, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

text: The history of the names is very interesting, and important for the encyclopedia, but I think, if you want to persuade us to change the title Ucraina, for an article about the modern state, into Parva Russia, you will not succeed. We are writing about the world today (as well as about its history). Today the state is called Ucraina (vel sim.), and we have Latin sources for that name. I suggest, amice Hellerick, if the names interest you, that you now start writing in the article itself about the names and their history. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Apparently Hellerick is not denying the quoted statement above that " "After the collapse of the empire, the word was phased out of circulation and became a derogative synonym for Ukraine. ...The term has become an archaic one, and anachronistic usage in the modern context is considered strongly offensive by Ukrainians, as it often used to imply the denial of a separate Ukrainian national identity, an opinion not uncommon among Russian nationalists." Words and most especially names of groups of peoples change in meaning and connotation over time, sometimes strongly. Black americans were once called negroes or niggers, that doesn't mean that pages about black americans/african americans should today be written under those names on the english wiki or any other nor should they be mentioned as synonyms at the beginning of the article. I think this is an obvious point. To not see it is a species of intentional blindness.--Rafaelgarcia 12:00, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::On the other hand, if you feel strongly about it, write a separate article about the name "Parva Russia" detailing its evolution. But I feel it is evident that the article about Ucraine itself should not be under that term.--Rafaelgarcia 12:12, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De novo: nomen Ucrainae