Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 21 December 2005

• Talk:Belarusian language/Archive 1

Polonization

Was Belarusian subject to polonization or not? It is evident that Belarusian has incorporated a great quantity of Polish words. Still Rydel has deleted link to polonization. What's the matter with it? — Monedula 14:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Monedula, I don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, there was Polonization in Belarus. The word polonization refers to the process that took place after we made a union with the Poles, the famous Recz Paspalitaja, and our nobles and even some simple people started switching to Polish, started educating their kids in Polish, etc. This is what Polonization means.

I am not aware of any polonization that took place inside the Belarusian language. I never heard of the term "polonization" in the linguistic sense. I should add, Old Belarusian language basically died, became extinct, stopped existing (thanks to Poles and Russians!). And there was a big hiatus between Old Belarusian of the times of the Grand Duchy and the modern Belarusian. And I never heard anything about polonization of the modern Belarusian language at any point.

So I'm looking forward to hearing from you. And I'd like to see some concrete example. E.g. some concrete grammatical, syntactical features that let's say Old Belarusian did not have, and that modern Belarusian does have, and that it was indeed from the Polish language that this particular change came from.

I'm really excited about your new discoveries. --rydel 18:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess that Monedula meant the huge number of Belarussian words of Polish origin. There are lots of such words in many languages, but it should be noted that it had nothing to do with polonisation of the language. Similarily, the huge number of Turkish words in Russian language does not mean that Russian was turkified. Halibutt 19:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that was what she was referring to, to the common vocabulary between the two languages (Belarusian and Polish). Overall, and this is just my personal opinion, a real IMHO, etymology often seems to be a pseudo-science, that people use for political means. This whole "word origin" thing often times seems very fishy, IMHO.

Of course, it's customary to speak of Belarusan having thousands of Polish loan words. But are they loan words? Who determined that? Some people found them in older Polish texts, and didn't find them in some Old Ruthenian texts? Is that the proof? I think the only proof would be 12-16th century audio tapes from Warszawa, Krakow, Bialystok, Hrodna, Navahradak, Vorsza, Polacak. ;) Otherwise, it's all a bit suspcious, and could be used for political means. Are "cikavy" and "ciekawy" cognates, or we should call it a Polish loan word? Are "siastra" and "siostra" cognates, or we should call it a Polish cognate? How about abzac, bursztyn, babior, dach, tlumaczyc, drot, jajka, jesci, plaszka, hvalt, hurok, handal, klajnot, kufar, koszt, kuchnia, lamantavac, lichtar, nyrki, achviara, kvitok, rachunak, szyba, szynka, szryft, szrot, szvagier, szpacyravac, sztraf, talerka, chvala, cybula? And thousands of others. Are they Polish? Are they Belarusian? Well, in fact, all the Belarusian words that I just wrote are, most probably, German loan words. So does it mean somebody "germanized" our language? I really have no answers to that, and I don't really like the answers I hear from the traditional "etymology specialists". --rydel 20:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, if there was no polonization, then what do you mean by "Russification" of Belarusian, and why it must be mentioned? — Monedula 22:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far my understanding goes, the term russification primarily means this (the same as with polonization): Belarusian-speaking people (mostly villagers) switching to Russian which is perceived as more "prestigious" and "urban" language, and Belarusian-speaking people educating their children in Russian.

And when I say "government pursuing russification policies" I mean that in spite of the fact that equality of the two languages is proclaimed in the Constitution of this country, one of the languages is most of the time ignored, abandoned, not used, and simply discriminated.

As for the Russification of our language (i.e. from the linguistic perspective), I guess the best example is the Bolshevik's reform of 1933. This reform changed the language quite a bit, and affected the language for 70+ years, and it's still in place. (And there never was such a reform at any point in the past when someone would forcefully introduce some Polish grammatical, syntactical or other features into our language. It simply never happened). --rydel 23:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, the reform of 1933 is the only thing that makes the difference? And did it really make Belarusian more like Russian? Russian language was reformed, too (in 1918), but it did not make it any worse. — Monedula 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It did. 1933 reform was mostly a reform of orthographical rules, which means obviously that only spelling rules were changed. So theoretically it should've only affected the spelling, not how the language is spoken. But, of course, in practice it turned out differently. Here is an example (arguably one of the most damaging changes of that reform). This reform cancelled soft sign to show palatalization. E.g. before 1933 you had to write "сьнег", "песьня". And after 1933 the soft sign was abandoned, so you had to write "снег", "песня" (exactly like in Russian). Of course, you still had to pronounce all those words just the way you did before. But now the writing looked more like Russian, and I personally noticed that it affects pronunciation: most of the Russian-speaking kids from Minsk when they learn Belarusian in school, pronounce such words "лазня", "з'ява", "свет" just like in Russian, with hard з and с. They simply don't realize they should pronounce it very softly сь, зь (сЬвет, зЬява), almost like in Polish.

After 1933 there was another reform in Soviet 1957, which did some damage too, but only a little bit. Unfortunately there is very little information in English about either of the two reforms. Here is one article which I put on pravapis: 1968: Grammatical Changes in Modern Literary Belarusian Language, Professor R. G. A. de Bray. The professor is not an expert in Belarusian language studies, so he himself misunderstood a couple things, but in any case I guess that's the best text in English so far about 1933 reform that is available online as of this moment. --rydel

Now, if "they" really wanted to Russify Belarusian spelling, why did they change so little? Just replace all ці, дзі, це, дзе, ць, дзь with ти, ди, те, де, ть, дь, replace all ў with в, replace some stressless а and я with о and е, and the resulting language will be difficult to distinguish from Russian. But nobody tried to do what. So, I suppose, the spelling reform was motivated by the internal logic of Belarusian, not by desire to "Russify" it. (In 1930s, the standard Russian did not differ from Belarusian in the matter of softening с in песня and снег — the hard с here is only a recent phenomenon). — Monedula 11:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"the spelling reform was motivated by the internal logic of Belarusian, not by desire to "Russify" it". No, I just gave you an example. And you still don't get it, do you?

And, anyway, this is a bizarre question, a strange way of trying to play Devil's advocate perhaps? "Why did they do so little?" My guess is that (1) there were enough resistence within that system (among linguists), (2) it was not possible to do much more damage within that system. Changing it any more than that would mean really to create a new system, which would not be phonetic at all. While modern Belarusian (like many other newer languages) by definition tries to be as phonetic as possible, it's considered to be a fundamental principle "як чуецца, так і пішацца" (although of course, it's no 100% phonetic). Now, I personally wouldn't mind using the "traditional" way, because that would create a tighter and more obvious link with the old language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But I think it would be more difficult for people to be able to read and write properly in that language. So personally I am fine with what we got from our early 20th century linguists.

"the resulting language will be difficult to distinguish from Russian" - oh, please... Please... If you like having discussion at such a level, then I better stop right here, right now and not waste anymore time on you. Please, do me a favor. Open any text in Belarusan. Let's say, for random purposes, just any article on rydel.net: -1-, -2-, -3-. And do this conversion of soft d', t' and post the results here, and see how easy or "difficult" it is to "distinguish it from Russian". (Or, alternatively, just stop bullsh***ing on the subject you don't seem to know much about). --rydel 12:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the resulting language will be difficult to distinguish from Russian — yes, it is an exaggeration. Still many Belarusian words would become spelled identically with the Russian ones. (It has nothing to do with phonetic changes — Russian ти is in reality pronounced as ці!) The simple reality is that, both in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union, nobody cared to "Russify" Belarusian language. What purpose would it serve? The actual policy was to teach standard Russian language to everyone. — Monedula 13:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV

Look: "and the government does not provide any support for the Belarusian language.". Perhaps it is true, but the way of saying it, isn't.

Perhaps the independent Belarus is just too poor to give the support required. Under the Soviets, national cultures and languages were heavily subsidized, but Soviet Union was much richer than today's independent republics. — Monedula 11:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Anonymous and Monedula just proved that they've never been to Belarus and that they do not know anything about current sociolinguistic situation in that country. Indeed, the above statement is, in my opinion, a POV, but the other way around. It should instead say something like "Government actively fights and oppresses Belarusian speakers."

Here's just one example for you ladies and gentlemen: There is not a single school in Minsk (almost two million people, the capital) where all subjects are taught in Belarusian. Lukashenka closed them all down. Get it: there is not a single Belarusian-language school in 1.5-million capital. The last one was shut down two years ago after Lukashenka called it "a bee-hive of the opposition." Just search the web for "ліцэй"].

Now they exist underground. For example, right now for two weeks they are having normal classes in a normal building in ... Vilnia Lithuania. Lithuanians invited them. Lithuanian school let them use their premises while the Lithuanian kids are having X-mas vacations. And those kids are under complete ban in Belarus. For one single reason - all subjects were taught in Belarusan in their school.

And this is just one of many examples.

In fact, I think a separate section in this article is needed to describe and suumarize what the government of Belarus has been doing to Belarusian speakers since 1995-1996 (after Lukashenka turned authocractic and almost dictatorial). --rydel 18:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a bit about this liceum case in the Alexander Lukashenko#Economic and political problems section some time ago. Mikkalai 19:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A new big article about Belarusan Lyceum in Gazeta Wyborcza:

• Lekcja tajnego języka. Białoruś (Original article in Polish)
• “Gazeta Wyborcza” пра беларускі Ліцэй: “Заняткі па тайнай мове. Беларусь” (Short summary of the article in Belarusian)
• Беларусь. Урок запрещённого языка. (a translation of the article into Russian)

--rydel 03:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Monedula's major rewrite

Hey-hey, hold your horses, Russian miss. This is like a totally new, different article. I personally disagree with the changes. I propose that we discuss each change step-by-step and then do it (or not do it).

1) First, I don't agree with the restructuring. Can you explain the reason for shifting paragraphs and sentences around? I think it weakened the chronological and logical flow.

No, quite the reverse — I just attempted to put everything in chronological order. Maybe something got wrong, but we can work it out. Do not revert it wholesale.

And here are some other concerns that I have:

2 After partitions of Poland (1772-1796), the Belarusian territory was incorporated into Imperial Russia. Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive.

Did you forget about Kosziuszko's anti-russian uprising and Kalinouski anti-russian uprising and Slucak anti-bolshevik uprising? No one lacked identity at that point. The problem with Belarus' identity is the problem of USSR times and Russification policies. The above sentence is in both versions, but in the original version this phrase does not stand next to 1772-1796, so it does not create a false time frame association with the 18th century.

To what time it belongs, then? In Soviet times, at least, there was no problem with Belarusian identity, because Belarusians had their own republic.

3 By the 16th century, the term "ruski" ("Russian" or "Ruthenian" in Latin) continued to refer to the language spoken in modern-day Ukraine and Belarus, not to the language of Muscovy (the Russians).

It is a fact. Why did you delete that? You, Muscovites, wanted to call your language "Russian", that's true, but it's very important to note that back then no one else called it "Russian". Later, yes. But not in 16th century. "Russian" was refered to "Old Ruthenian" or "Old Belarusian". For example, one of the many sources is http://txt.knihi.com/mova/dyplamat.html Дыпляматычная кантравэрсыя 1646 году за беларускую мову. (And this is even 17th century - Polish, Litvins, Ruthenes still resisted calling your language "Russian", even a century later)

I suspect the major reason for juggling with paragraphs and sentences was to delete this sentence. Very cunning.

I did not delete it, but moved to a different place. You just did not notice.

4 A process of divergence that accelerated in the 17th century, created a new division between the languages spoken in the south (Ukraine) and north (Belarus) of Ruthenian-speaking territory.

This was deleted too without any grounds for doing that. Care to explain?

The division appeared much earlier. For instance, the transition of "o" → "a" in unstressed syllables appeared in the 15th century (and Belarusian shares this feature with Russian language, not with Ukrainian!). And the Ukrainian transition "o" → "i" (not featured in Belarusian) appeared in the 15th century too (possibly even earlier). So the phrase about 17th century is clearly disinformation.

5 The Belarusization was stalled and even reversed since 1930s. The orthographic reform of 1933, although minor, is seen by some as an attempt to "russify" Belarusian language. In 1938 Russian language become an obligatory subject in all Soviet schools. The final blow was the school reform of 1958, when parents were given right to select the language of instruction for their children. After that, more and more people began to send their children to Russian-language schools, and the number of Belarusian-language schools began to diminish.

"is seen by some" is ridiculous. The only reason for the reform was to bring the spelling (orthographic) rules closer to Russian. Period. I don't think anybody ever questioned that. It's obvious. Just read something about the reform or compare the spelling rules.

Nonsence! If someone really wanted to "Russify" Belarusian language, one could just reintroduce the Old Belarusian spelling, which is much closer to modern Russian spelling. Obviously that was not the issue.

6 The interest to Belarusian language was revived at the end of 1980s during perestroika. In 1990 Belarusian became the only official language of Belarusian SSR, and a second campain of Belarusization followed.

Has it become the only official language of BSSR or independent Belarus? I think BSSR is wrong here.

Yes, it's true! In 1990 Belarusian was proclaimed the official language of Belarusian SSR! And Russian was not!

7 However, the Belarusization proved to be unpopular, and at the 1995 Referendum people overwhelmingly (83.3%) voted for giving Russian language an equal status with Belarusian.

God! Ridiculous! What's next? You'll write that Saddam Husseyn is more popular and democratic than Bill Clinton, because Clinton got only 43% of the popular vote, and Saddam Husseyn got almost 99.999%? Of course, that Lukashenka's referendum was rigged and falsified. No one knows what were the real figures. Whether it was 1% or 99% for any of the questions.

Oh! I see. If you dislike a referendum, you just declare it rigged. Can you give some proof that it was rigged? So far as I know, people really disliked the Belarusification campaign of early 1990s.

8 This lack of a strong ethnolinguistic identity, along with the popular association of Belarusian dialects as rural, peasant languages as opposed to Russian's modern/urban connotations, is seen by some as a threat that may lead to the eventual extinction of the Belarusian language in Belarus.

I think that refers to Soviet times and early 90's. Nowdays the socio-linguistic situation is different and not so simple.

Try to ajust the sentence.

9 The situation changed dramatically after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the creation of Belarusian SSR. In 1920s Bolsheviks have launched a massive campain of forced Belarusization (a part of a larger korenizatsiya program), combined with a campain for universal literacy ("likbez"). It was the only then that the notions of "Belarus" and "Belarusian language" have become clear-cut.

My god, you are putting things upside down, giving credit to Bolsheviks for something which they actually fought against. What's your agenda here, by inserting this misinformation?

You are totally misinformed. Bolsheviks have never fought against Belarusian. Of course, at times massive repressions caused disruption, but, all in all, Belarusian had a firm position in Belarusian SSR, and Belarusian culture was well subsidized.

First of all, you should not start with Russian Revolution of 1917, but mention the BNR of 1918, the first national state that really cared about national values. And in 1917 Russians were not even in Belarus. There were Germans on our territory. World War I, ok?

BNR was ephemerial and disappeared without traces. Modern Belarus is a successor of Belarusian SSR, that's clear.

Second, please provide facts on "forced Belarusization". Who was forced? When? By whom?

Bolsheviks forced everyone in Belarus to study Belarusian language, and children were sent to Belarusian-language schools without asking the parents what langauge they preferred. All administration and legal affairs began to be carried out in Belarusian. Many people really disliked this. If you want facts, just read something beyond the official Polish propaganda.

Third, what is "clear-cut", and what was not "clear-cut" before the Bolsheviks?

Before 1920, Belarusian language was just a collection of rural dialects, plus a few literary works written and read mainly by Polish nationalists. 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica stated that Belarisian dialects belong to Russian language. Most Belarusian peasants called themselves not Belarusians, but tutejshiye ("local people"). The real Belarusian identity was created by Bolshevics (and not by the Polish).

10 I agree the "history" section could be rewritten, improved and extended, but what you've done seems just to be a mere juggling around and random insertion of Soviet propaganda. Sorry. That's not the way to make a good NPOV and informative entry. --rydel 12:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not Soviet propaganda, it's truth. Just try to read something beyond the Polish propaganda nonsense. — Monedula 19:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. I believe that some restructuring could be in place. Also, Monedula's version had certain advantages too. I guess the best solution would be to prepare a new version that would be the mixture of both versions.
2. Both of you are right here - to some extent. OTOH perhaps the wording should be changed, but the basic idea seems true - while the Belarusian folks openly supported the fight of others and in this aspect were the direct descendants of the Great Duchy, there is a huge difference between the sense of national identity in Poland or Ukraine and in Belarus. The Ruthenian gentry (and peasants as well, at least to a certain degree) took part in both January Uprising and November Uprising, the movement was by no means massive. Also, with Kalinoŭski's role in the January Uprising the modern Belarussian was starting, it was an early beginning. The sentiments were strong, but aimed in different directions. In 19th century the difference between a Belarusian, Pole or Lithuanian was still difficult to tell. Lithuania, my motherland wrote Mickiewicz - about Belarus.. The same was also true for Kościuszko who was a Pole, yet he was a Lithuanian (and Belarusian). Such a statement of identity was not contradictory at that time. Also, note the number of tutejsi even in 20th century. So, IMO Monedula's statement about lack of strong nationalistic drive seems acceptable.
3. Indeed the deleted sentence seemed true. I have no idea why was it deleted either.
4. See above
5. Indeed, this seems like an introduction of unnecessary weasel term.
6. Hmmm... never heard of SSRs adopting a new sole national language.
7. Indeed, the effects of the voting and the actual support for Lukashenka are openly questioned by almost anyone in the world. Even if the election results were true (which I seriously doubt), I believe we should avoid using them as a proof of anything unless any hard evidence is available - which I doubt will happen anytime soon...
8. Perhaps the situation is even more complex than it was, but I personally met a young couple from Minsk who told me that they knew Belarusian, but they never used it since they didn't want to be considered peasants. (BTW, they changed their mind after two years of studying here in Warsaw).
9. Well, initially the bolsheviks were not as Russo-centric as they were since late 1920's or early 1930's. Although the political independence of the national regions (SSRs, autonomous regions and such) was limited and mostly theoretical, initially they had a vast cultural autonomy. Even the Poles were given two autonomous districts with Polish-language schools and Polish newspapers. What happened later is a different story though.
10. Indeed this article deserves expansion. However, for me the arguments about Soviet propaganda are too strong. Let's just cool down and try to cooperate, without offending other contributors. Ok? Please leave the Polish propaganda/ Soviet propaganda/ Martian propaganda arguments on the side and try to prepare a great article. And please, stop the revert war, or else the article gets blocked and we'll have to cope with the wrong version, whichever it is. Halibutt 20:18, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Monedula has no authority to make such changes

Sorry, Halibutt, but I don't see any reason in arguing with this woman from Russia.

1. I spent most of my life in Belarus, she never lived in that country (don't know if she ever even visited it);
2. I have read dozens of books about Belarusan language; I doubt she ever read anything (because she couldn't - there is almost no books about it in Enligsh or Russian - those books were in Belarusan).
3. I formally studied Belarusian in school, she did not;
4. I speak native Belarusian, she does not know it;
5. I am a Belarusian language editor in a mass-medium, a language proof-reader and style editor; she has no knowledge of this language;

If she demolishes this article into some pro-Russian, pro-Soviet propaganda piece of ..., I am just going to leave. I am spending most of the time on http://be.wikipedia.org/ anyway. And let the English speakers read the BS POV from some Jaroslavl "language specialist." --rydel 23:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is not your property! If you want to make a page according to you taste only, then create your own Internet site and put there anything you like. If you cannot cooperate and negotiate, then indeed you must leave Misplaced Pages. — Monedula 00:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You didn't even understand this comment. The page is not my property. Of course, not. With this comment I presented my credentials. And as reasonable individual I hate it when true facts presented by someone who has knowledge and expertise is destroyed or changed into false information by someone who has no knowledge or expertise. Please, answer my comment. Please, present your credentials. Show me that you know this language and its history. (Unforuntatley, your questions and comments about "polonization" and "Polish propaganda" show that you are totally off.) If you can't prove your knowledge and if you can't show credible sources of your information, then stop changing this article. --rydel 01:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lord in Heaven, could you both close your eyes and count to twenty? Dear friends, cool down, please. Both of you have made lots of great edits (even if I at times opposed them) and you both have right to have your own views, even if they are wrong. Just show a little patience and try to cooperate. How about that?

Even if Monedula does not speak a word in Belarusan she might know a lot about it - as a historian, for instance. But please, be so kind as to show some maturity (both of you) and refrain yourself from future remarks similar to "Soviet propaganda", "Polish propaganda" and so on. This leads nowhere, i had the same disease when I first entered Talk:Gdansk some year ago and saw some nationalist idiots wanting to promote their stupid POV over and over again. It took me some time to realise that a compromise could be reached - and I guess a compromise could be reached here as well. I wish it to both of you and to myself as well, since I like this article and would love to read more on the "most western Slavic of the east Slavic languages".

So, Monedula, how about that: Rydel has written down his objections to your version. Could you write yours in a friendly and specific tone, without using the words "nationalist", "propaganda", "nonsense" or "bullshit"? Halibutt 01:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

For certain things compromise can indeed be reached, but for some things it's simply out of question because a given statement is either true or false. So if Monedula keeps reverting to 2+2=5, I will not settle for 2+2=4,5. Sorry. No. And the changes she made to this article so far suggest that she does not have any solid knowledge about Belarusian language and her changes fall into the category of 2+2=5 (that especially concerns statements about Bolsheviks, about 1933 reform, about Soviet policies and about sociolinguistic situation in BSSR and after the independence.) --rydel 02:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All right, let's wait for her reply (Monedula is a she, isn't she; her user page doesn't give any clue). Halibutt 15:34, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

The referendum of May 14, 1995

Rydel has wrote: All international observers said that the results of the referendum were falsified.

Can you please indicate, who exactly said that the results were falsified, and where the reports have been published? — Monedula 19:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe Russian and CIS observers said it was fine. Gotta search the archives. (I removed it for now.)

I am not proposing to delete the mention of the referendOOm. Sure, we should mention this referndum. But you seem to be making wrong conlusions from its results (even if they are true, which we do not know). Let me give you an example. I have a blog http://blog.rydel.net/ which initially was 90% only in Belarusan (with an occasional entry in English or German), but after a year or, maybe, two years I made a decision to make it bilinguial. Now I make almost all of my entries both, in Belarusan and in English. So, Monedula, does instroducing a second "official languge" to my blog mean that I don't like Belarusan so much or that I prefer English over Belarusan? Of course, not! --rydel 13:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it means that "Belarusian-only" policy is not viable. — Monedula 00:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's leads to a question that most smaller languages/cultures have to answer (let's say under 10 million). Can Danes or Slovaks or Norwegians or Belarusians survive by only knowning their native tongue? The answer is "yes" and "no". (Besides, there is at least one good counter-example: 10 millions of Hungarians. Hungarians had a state in Europe for 1000 years, they have rich culture, rich history, and they never really had a problem of losing their mother tongue). IMHO, the problem with Belarus is that it'd be wiser (and nicer) if the first foreign language would've been English, not Russian. --rydel 02:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Belarusian country names

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)

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)

Why is this passage in the article on "Belarusian language"?

"Under the Soviets, there was also the elimination of the Belarusian middle class between 1917 and 1941 by the Communist Party; in Kurapaty (a suburb of Minsk), the NKVD killed perhaps 100,000 people. Many thousands of people were sent to concentration camps (Gulag) or resettled to Siberia. Around 400 Belarusian authors were repressed during anti-nationalism campaigns that started around 1929 and culminated during the Great Purge."

If you want to bring this home again and again, put it in the "History of Belarus" article. All in all the history section look more like "History of Belarusian nationalism", then language. Related, of course. Not identical though. It has to be rewritten somewhat.

Akannie

1. akannie (аканьне) — the tendency to pronounce unstressed "o" and "e" as clear open front unrounded vowel "a";

Something is fishy here. First, AFAIK, by Belarussian orthography, there cannot be an unstresed "o". So I guess this phrase is written from the point of view that Belarusian langauge is a dialect of Russian language. Second, what kind of "e" is spoken about? "е" or e? I guess, the second one, if my "dialectologic" guess is correct. It can be unstressed in Belarusian orthography, but only in non-slavic loanwords, AFAIK, and I am not so sure in such words, e.g, "syntez", it reduces to "a"; I would rather think of schwa mikka (t) 20:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is about Belarusians speaking other languages. --Monkbel 09:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Lacinka

I see a growing number of articles using lacinka for various Belarusian names. While I agree that it is best suited for the phonetics of the Belarussian language, it is far cry for being in English language usage, which is now transliteration (and I have serious doubts about other langauges as well, including Belarussian itself; in the latter case it is a matter of entusiasts of belarussian national revival). Therefore usage of lacinka is against wikipedia policies, not to say it makes names nonrecognizable.

I am going to start removing lacinka as main usage everywhere I see it. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for promotion of some POV (including POV on how to write in Belarusian language). mikka (t) 16:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So you want to promote your POV (especially in areas you don't know anything about) in Misplaced Pages simply because you have some more time and can apply more energy to revert and so on? it's a pity this has become usual practice in en:... :( --Monkbel 22:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have something to say argumented, say it. I did not rush into the revert spree yet. I am listening. And I know more than you think, and willing to learn more. From your remark I learned only that you know how to use emoticonss and that you are prone to jumping to conclusions.

So far the usage of lacinka in native English language texts is not prominent. And there was a precedent: a very heated battle on the Kyiv/Kiev issue. So I don't think "Miensk" will be accepted in the near future. mikka (t) 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the case of Minsk is obvious. However, in cases where there is no commonly accepted English name I believe we should use lacinka for transliteration - as that is what it's for. Similarily, in Misplaced Pages we use Russian system of transliteration for Russian names, Japanese for Japanese language, Pinyin for Chinese and so on. Halibutt 06:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

For geographical names there is an officially adopted transliteration system, linked from lacinka article. For the reasons of uniformity we better use it for personal names as well. mikka (t) 07:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

How to name biographies

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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)

ч is hard?

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)

Belarusian isn't Russian. it has its own letters and pronunciation. --Monkbel 14:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so what you're saying is, ч in Belarusian is pronouced equivalent to тш? Meaning if you write чи, it's really pronounced like чы? Just curious.--ChadThomson 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Speakers of Russian in Belarus

A little preface/disclaimer:

• This is a serious question and not a political one. I want to know the real situation "on the ground".
• I was born in Moscow. My mother tongue is Russian. Now i live in Israel, speak mostly Hebrew and English, but remember Russian well.
• I have a great interest in languages and an above-average talent for language study. Although i never properly studied it, i can understand written Belarusian pretty well (i daresay - better than an average Russian-speaker).
• I don't have the slightest sympathy towards neither Lukashenko nor Putin.

Now the question:

Suppose that a group like BPF or whatever throws Lukashenko away. Flag is changed back to white-red-white, metro stations are renamed, integration with the Russian Federation is put on hold, etc. And then comes the question of language. What would actually happen in that field? The official status of Russian can be cancelled on paper, but what would the people do? How many would willingly and consciously choose to send their kids to the first grade of a Belarusian school? And if the child is already learning in a Russian school in the fifth grade, how many would choose to send him to the sixth grade in a Belarusian school? And to what extent Belarusian education will be forced?

And what about the adults? I study linguistics, and one of the most important i learnt is that people, especially adults, just hate when someone messes with the language they are used to. For example: What will actually happen if 50-years-old Russian speakers will have to fill out their tax forms written in Belarusian only? How many adult people who speak Russian at home are able to conduct a conversation in Belarusian or write it?

Yes, the referendum about the status of Russian might have been rigged, but what would be the results if it would not have been rigged? If all advertisement in Belarus is in Russian, as i read on some pro-Belarusian site, there must be a market demand for it - advertisers don't want their message to be misunderstood, so they use the language that people want; from this i understand that Russian is what people want. And please, please correct me if i'm wrong.

So the main question is: Is it possible to make Belarusian a viable state language in a democratic way, without forcing it on people?

I read the pragrama at the BPF site, in Belarusian. And even though i don't really know Belarusian i understood most of it and i didn't find a solution to this problem in their platform. I'm sure that they're not the only anti-Lukashenko movement, but they seem to be the dominant one (and correct me if i'm wrong).--Amir E. Aharoni 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all go and check Partyja BNF site (real acting party, one of the most dominant among opposition, not near-extint KCHP-BNF one you visited). Second, does your question concern Misplaced Pages in any way? :) may be you should move this discussion to forums or lj or anything more appropriate... if you need links, I can try and help with some. --Monkbel 12:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought that i might get such an answer, that's why i wrote that this question is not political. Documenting the facts about the relations between Russian and Belarusian makes excellent encyclopedic material. I don't trust Russian and Lukashenko's official media that want me to believe no-one in Minsk cares about Belarusian and everyone speaks Russian. On the opposite side, anti-Lukashenko sites say that people know Belarusian but are afraid to speak it, but they have their bias too. So whom can i trust for solid facts? Misplaced Pages is far from perfect, but i found the dispute between rydel and monedula above very interesting and more than that - scientific. So yes, it does concern Misplaced Pages.--Amir E. Aharoni 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Those are difficult questions. I guess our neighbours could serve as role models for us. Ukrainian situation is the closest to ours (although they are ahead now, in terms of Ukrainization; for us the last 11 years have been totally lost, kind of like a "time machine" that took us back). Ideally, it would be cool to have something like Czech Republic or Poland where most people speak the state language. But I think this is highly unlikely to happen in Belarus within the next 20-30 years. So I guess it'll be something like Ukraine. And then, maybe, something like Switzerland or Canada, a country where, hopefully, Belarusian is a dominating state language, but other languages are respected, and speakers of those languages do not feel opressed. (Although Russians are a special case. Just look how they stage resistance in Latvia and don't have any respect for Latvia and Latvian language.) But we have only about 10-12% of Russians, fortunately. And the others (Russians-speaking Belarusians) will be on our side, if the Belarusization is done properly without causing them too much inconvenience. --rydel 14:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not just 2 cents, you wrote some important things, rydel. (But first: let me remind yet again that my interest is scientific and not political - i'm studying Balto-Slavic linguistics in the university.)

First of all, the "time machine" you mentioned: Do you consider it "going back in time" to a certain point? To what time exactly? Was there a time in the history of Belarus, that you would consider similar to the current situation? Or would you go as far as calling it the worst time ever? And if not - what was the worst time?

Second, when you say "10-12% of Russians" what exactly do you mean? Those who speak Russian exclusively? Does that mean that 88% wouldn't mind if most of the state affairs - official documents, education, media - would be Belarusian? Or do you mean ethnical Russian? (God, i hope i'm not opening a Pandora box here.)--Amir E. Aharoni 15:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Comparison with Russian

It would be nice to be added a comparison with russian.--Bonaparte 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be nice? --rydel 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to add comparisons of Slavic languages to articles pertaining to them (same for Turkic languages, or whatever else). Slavic langauges are much more similar to one another than say, some Germanic languages such as English and German, and would be useful for people studying (a) Slavic language(s). --chad 07:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian. Please add a comparison to Ukrainian instead. —Michael Z. 2005-12-1 08:16 Z

Is this meant to be sarcastic? I suggest a comparison to Slavic languages in general. --chad 08:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry chad, that was my glib response to the heading, not to you. I have been a bit frustrated by the way a few things in Misplaced Pages are compared to Russian, which does me little good and even less to the majority of anglophones.

I think the way to approach this is to list some of the features which are defining or unique to Belarusian, and then some of the ways in which it is similar to related languages. Naturally, in the course of this contrasts, similarities, and influences of other particular languages can be mentioned where they are significant, but it doesn't have to start out as a comparison at all. It should be useful to a reader who knows nothing about Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, or Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 2005-12-2 01:39 Z

My questions are:

1. Are they identical?
2. If yes why two names?
3. If not what are their differences?
4. Some examples would be very useful. Bonaparte 1 December 2005

My mother thongue is Russian. I have never studied Belarusian properly. But without being an expert i can tell you that:

1. They are definitely not identical. There are a lot of similarities, but they are definitely distinct languages.
2. The names are different, because the languages are different.
3. There are quite a lot of difference and theoretically an article could be written about them, but the very existence of this article wouldn't be NPOV, because that would imply that Belarusian is like a little sister of Russian, and Belarusians rightfully don't like it.

The more neutral reason do to it in spite of the above would be pragmatism: it is a fact that more people know Russian and there is considerably less research about Belarusian, so a comparison between Russian and Belarusian can serve as a quick overview for those who know Russian. But the politically - and scientifically - correct way to do it would be to write a three-way comparison of Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian and treat the three languages equally, being careful not to imply that Russian is some kind of a base language or that any of them is greater or older than the others. And sorry - i am not the man to do it (at least now - but i'm in the provess of studying the subject properly in the university).

Such a comparison can go to East Slavic languages.--Amir E. Aharoni 15:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. So they are different. Again some example would be very useful. Bonaparte

Although it is not the most important difference, it is the most striking - the spelling rules are completely different. Accents of many words are different. Adjectives endings are different. Vocabulary is not the same at all. Some old Slavic words survived in Belarusian, but not in Russian (and vice versa). I'd better not go into details here, 'cuz i'll make terrible mistakes and then rydel might do to me what he did to that pig.

I would advise you to try this site. It looks like a good introduction to Belarusian for speakers of Russian and includes lists of differences in the sections "Грубые ошибки" and "Произношение". It also has a rather comprehensive grammar and textbook.

I've gotta say that i've seen at least one encyclopedia in which the article on Belarusian language consisted mostly of comparisons to Russian (i'm talking about Encyclopaedia Hebraica, an otherwise good encyclopedia in Hebrew printed in the 70's). While i can't deny that it was quite useful - especially for me - i didn't like it when i saw it a few years ago, and now i understand better then ever why it is wrong to write an encyclopedia like that.--Amir E. Aharoni 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just the same, a comparison with Polish language can be made. Belarusian was heavily influenced by Polish. Also, there are words that exist only in Belarussian, and Belarussian has grammar traits found in Lithuanian language. 21:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC) signed by user:Mikkalai

Actually there are a lot of grammar traits of Lithuanian in Russian too - and vice versa. While true, it is definitely not the only thing that differentiates Russian and Belarusian. It wasn't (just) Polish and/or Lithuanian influence that made Belarusian distinct. A lot of people just find it really hard to accept that Russian and Belarusian are simply two related, but different languages - for whatever reasons. Just like Dutch and German, Spanish and Italian. Proper research of those differences and the reasons why they came to be is valid, but it's hard to find good scientific material amongst the various unscientific claims soaked in ignorance and stupid politics.--Amir E. Aharoni 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the majority of Belarusians in Belarus speaks Russian? -- Bonaparte 07:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Will Belarus unite with Russia? and if so, what language will be official in that political construction? -- Bonaparte

No-one knows. This is an encyclopedia, not an oracle. But see discussion above, called "Speakers of Russian in Belarus", it might shed some light.--Amir E. Aharoni 10:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There must be a reason for all Amir. Yes indeed I wonder what will happen if Belarus will ever look West rather then "East". -- Bonaparte

Bonaparte, although they are from the same family, the languages are not identical. In fact, an average Russian speaker who didn't have any exposure at all to Belarusan or Ukrainian before, will probably understand very little (I'd say 25-30%, just a wild guess). Here are some places for you to start reading (this is just about vocabulary, for starters):

• Belarusan Basic Phrases (please compare, for example, how many times Russian is much more similar to Bulgarian, than to Belarusan)
• Introduction to Belarusian Alphabet (this is done exactly in the fashion that you wanted: I'm comparing it with Russian)
• Letter Frequency (Belarusian and Russian comparison again, as you wanted it)
• Swadesh List (And here, the part you probably wanted the most: the Swadesh list for Belarusian - Polish and Russian - Belarusian. The Swadesh lists are used to measure lexical similarity of the languages and the approximate dates of the "divergence" of similar languages. The result seems to suggest that Polish and Belarusian vocabulary are more similar than Russian and Belarusian.)

Once you are done reading those articles I'd be happy to answer further questions. --rydel 15:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

map of russian speakers in Belarus

I would like to see a map of the russian speakers in Belarus. I think is very related to this article and maybe someone has one. By the way is the russian minority uniformly widespread in Belarus or it is only in big cities?

The second question is regarding to the level of comprehension of Belarus people of the russian langauge, after all it is one of the official isn't it? -- Bonaparte

A map of Russian speakers in Belarus? Well, take any map of Belarus, where Belarus is, say, red. And then make a legend where red is defined as places where Russian is spoken and understood. :-(

It would be more difficult to draw a map of Belarusian speakers of Belarus. Although I think that there are more than one would think, as many people speak some kind of Belarusian at home, even in the big cities. The problem is just that Belarusian is spoken very little in public.

To answer your second question: Everyone in Belarus speaks Russian fluently. They might speak it with an accent, and they might say things that someone from Moscow would consider a mistake. And in every-day conversation they would mix Belarusian elements in their speech, too (see Trasyanka). But (unfortunately? fortunately?) there's no-one who cannot communicate fluently with a Russian who does not know Belarusian. --Daniel Bunčić 22:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. So, hmm Everyone in Belarus speaks Russian fluently. Is there a process that is called "russification"? -- Bonaparte

This process is completed in Belarus. See also Alexander Lukashenko#Economic and political problems about his negative attitude to Belarussian language. He effectively clamps down the language in part because nearly all who try to revive Belarussian language are in opposition to Luka (as it was the case of shutting down the only and single Belarussian liceum in Minsk). mikka (t) 09:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this. Is he russian? -- Bonaparte

No and he speaks with a heavy Belarussian accent. (BTW this topic is also probably undercovered in wikipedia: the most distinctive (by ear) features are

• a very hard consonant "ch" (retroflex) (in Russian language "ch" is always palatalized); as a result, the words with syllables "ch" + "iotified wowel" are pronounced as "ch" + "non-iotated counterpart", i.e., a process opposite to iotation (de-iotation?) (is there a linguistic term for this?) So "Chyorny" (чёрный black) would be pronounced "chorny", чорный.
• "Malorossian" Ge, i.e., voiced glottal fricative (in Russian it is voiced velar plosive). mikka (t) 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it true that Belarusian language is used mostly by nationalists? -- Bonaparte

Belarusian is also spoken in rural areas in Western Belarus. So in terms of the amount of Belarussian population, the answr to your question is "no". Even in rural it is to a various degree corrupted into trasianka. In towns with population over 50,000 you will hear the Belarussian speech only rarely. Also, AFAIK the Belarussian diaspora in some places in Canada and USA pretty much tries to preserve the national culture. I don't know whether it is just a hobby or they use Belarussian at home as well, but I did hear them speak Belarussian very nicely. E.g., the Belarussian Sunday School in New Yourk is known (this reminds me to write an article Danchyk (Dančyk) (Данчык, Багдан Андрусішын, Bahdan Adrusišyn (Bahdan Adrusishyn))). All Belarussian topics are heavily undercovered in Misplaced Pages. mikka (t) 19:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, any dweller of a major city who consciously speaks Belarussian language in everyday life is 95% sure nationalist, in positive sense, the one who strives for the preservation of national culture and identity. (There are no Belarussian nationalists in "negative" sense: Belaruis is already a separate nation; it was/is negative only in Soviet lingo. Soviets had a good knack in turning the meanings of the words upside down with respect to the rest of the world). mikka (t) 20:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I hope it will be still preserved the language but as I realized now the image is quite mournful. Bonaparte

Comparison

Link: (http://www.pravapis.org/art_phrases1.asp)

Belarusian (Беларуская мова)	Bulgarian (Български език)	Russian (Русский язык)	Polish	English
Вітаю/Vitayu	Здравейте/Zdraveite	Здравствуйте/Zdravstvuyte	Witam	Hello
Прывітаньне/Pryvitannie	Здрасти/Zdrasti	Привет/Privet	Cześć	Hi
Так/Tak - Не/Nye	Да/Da - Не/Ne	Да/Da - Нет/Net	Tak - Nie	Yes / No
Дзякую вам/Dziakuyu vam	Благодаря ви/Blagodarya vi	Благодарю вас/Blagodaryu vas	Dziękuję	Thank you
Спадар/Spadar Спадарыня/Spadarynya Спадарычна/Spadarychna	Господин/Gospodin Госпожа/Gozpozha Госпожица/Gospozhitsa	Господин/Gospodin Мадам/Madam	Pan Pani	Mister / Missis / Miss
Выдатна;Vydatna; файна/fayna	Отлично/Otlichno	Отлично/Otlichno	Fajnie	Excellent

Bonaparte

The table is difficult to read, especially in a narrower browser window, which makes the text wrap—you can't tell where the rows start. I believe this table compares the words themselves, and not the orthographies, so the Cyrillic can be safely removed to make the table will be easier to read with just the Latin transcriptions. —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 07:42 Z

How does this look? I've added Ukrainian—please correct my Ukrainian Canadian idiom. —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 08:47 Z

Belarusian	Bulgarian	Russian	Polish	Ukrainian	English
vitaju	zdravejte	zdravstvuyte	witam	vitaju	hello
pryvitan’ne	zdrasti	privet	cześć	pryvit	hi
tak	da	da	tak	tak	yes
nye	ne	net	nie	ni	no
dzjakuju vam	blagodarja vi	blagodaryu vas	dziękuję	djakuju	thank you
spadar	gospodin	gospodin	pan	pan	mister
spadarynja	gozpoža	gospozha	pani	pani	mrs.
spadaryčna	gospožitsa	–	–	panna	miss
vydatna/fajna	otlično	otlično	fajnie	xorošo	excellently, grade "excellent"

Should the last row agree in gender? —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 08:48 Z

But it is: all entries but English were genderless adverbs. This is a bit confusing example: the term is used to refer to the highest grade, which in Rus/Bel is traditionally adverb, but adjective in English: "excellent". I'd rather deleted it. mikka (t) 09:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; some of them sounded like adjectives to my Ukrainian ears. Would "very well" be a suitable translation? —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 09:04 Z

I'd like to add that this table is very selective and designed to demonstrate differences between Russian and Belarusian best. Russian in particular has a lot of regional dialects and vocabulary that at times make it sound very much like Belarusian, for example; what's used here is the most common word TODAY; there are many older synonyms that are still widely used that diminish the apparent differences between Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian...and even Polish. The compilers of this table only take contemporary, official Russian words and ignore the vernacular totally. It is somewhat misleading. - V.

Quite true. My mother who left Lviv during WWII often says faino or znamenyto in Ukrainian for "excellent!". I've rarely heard pryvit or khorosho, and I don't even know if non-Galician Ukrainians use pan/pani/panna very much or at all. —Michael Z. 2005-12-8 09:49 Z

Persecution and russification

I've seen this text on the Ukrainian language article. We should add something like this also!

Soviet policy towards the Ukrainian language changed abruptly in late 1932 and early 1933, when Stalin had already established his firm control over the party and, therefore, the Soviet state. In December, 1932, the regional party cells received a telegram signed by Molotov and Stalin with an order to immediately reverse the korenization policies. The telegram condemned Ukrainianization as ill-considered and harmful and demanded to "immediately halt Ukrainianization in raions (districts), switch all Ukrainianized newspapers, books and publications into Russian and prepare by autumn of 1933 for the switching of schools and instruction into Russian".

The following years were characterized by massive repression and many hardships for the Ukrainian language and people. Some historians, especially of Ukraine, emphasize that the repression was applied earlier and more fiercely in Ukraine than in other parts of the Soviet Union, and were therefore anti-Ukrainian; others assert that Stalin's goal was the generic crushing of any dissent, rather that targeting the Ukrainians in particular.

The Stalinist era also marked the beginning of the Soviet policy of encouraging Russian as the language of (inter-ethnic) Soviet communication. Although Ukrainian continued to be used (in print, education, radio and later television programs), it lost its primary place in advanced learning and republic-wide media. Ukrainian was considered to be of secondary importance, and an excessive attachment to it was considered a sign of nationalism and so "politically incorrect". At the same time, however, the new Soviet Constitution adopted in 1936 stipulated that teaching in schools should be in native languages. Bonaparte

Cyrillic in Misplaced Pages

Please see the new page at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at

1. Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Misplaced Pages
2. Discussing potential revision of current practices

—Michael Z. 2005-12-9 20:39 Z

Edit war: Kuban Kazak and Rydel

Would the user Rydel like to explain his actions of reverting my corrections, factual addition and a more NPOV approach? -- Kuban kazak 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)