Talk:Old East Slavic

sample (just in case you are interested)

A sample of Old Belarusian (Ruthenian). Leu Sapieha (Lev Sapega) congratulates the Grand Duke Zygimont III Waza on signing the new Grand Lithuanian Statute, December 1, 1588.

Original:

"Наяснейшому пану, пану Жикгимонъту Третему [...] Были тые часы, наяснейшый милостивый г[о]с[по]д[а]ру королю, коли в томъ згромаженью а посполитован[ь]ю людскомъ, которое мы речью посполитою называем, не правомъ якимъ описанымъ або статутомъ, але только своимъ зданъемъ и уподобанъемъ владность свою г[о]с[по]д[а]ры и короли того света надъ людми ростегали. Але ижъ частокроть от пристойное своее повинности отступовали, а, на свой толко пожытокъ речы натегаючы, о сполное доброе всихъ мало дбали, оттул[ь] то было уросло, же люди, брыдечысе ихъ панованьемъ и звирхностю и не господарми, але тыранами оные называючы, на самом только статуте и праве описаномъ все беспеченство и доброе речы посполитое засажали. А прото онъ великий и зацный филозофъ греческий Арыстотелесъ поведилъ, же тамъ бельлуа, а по-нашому дикое звера, пануеть, где чоловекъ водлугъ уподобанья своего владность свою ростегаеть, а где опятъ право або статутъ гору маеть, там самъ богъ всимъ владнеть."

Transliterated Lacinka version:

"Najasniejšomu panu, panu Žikhimontu Trietiemu [...] Byłi tyje časy, najasniejšyj miłostivyj h[o]s[po]d[a]ru korolu, kołi v tom zhromažjeńju a pospołitovanju ludskom, kotoroje my riečju pospołitoju nazyvajem, nie pravom jakim opisanym abo statutom, ale tolko svoim zdanjem i upodobanjem vładnost svoju h[o]s[po]d[a]ry i korołi toho svieta nad ludmi rostiehałi. Ale iž častokroć ot pristojnoje svojeje povinnosti otstupovałi, a, na svoj tołko požytok riečy natiehajučy, o społnoje dobroje vsich mało dbałi, ottul to było urosło, že ludi, brydiečysie ich panovańjem i zvirchnostiu i nie hospodarmi, ale tyranami onyje nazyvajučy, na samom tolko statutie i pravie opisanom vsie biespiečjenstvo i dobroje riečy pospołitoje zasažałi. A proto on viełikij i zacnyj fiłozof hriečjeskij Arystotieles poviedił, žje tam bielłua, a po-našomu dikoje zviera, panujeć, hdie čołoviek vodłuh upodobańja svojeho vładnost svoju rostiehajeć, a hdie opiać pravo abo statut horu majeć, tam sam boh vsim vładnieć."

--rydel 14:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Today this language is called "Trasianka". You should know. To say that this a common root of Russian, Balarussian and Ukrainian makes me roll on the floor. The whole idea about "common" old-pan-east-slavic language in the conditions of no TV, no newspapers, to common literacy is so against common sense. Only a continuous multitude of dialects is imaginable for these times, the whole set of which can be called "common language" only with a good deal of stetch. Mikkalai 16:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Russian person would just say that it is simple plain Russian with some dialectal traits, plus some Polish words. – Monedula 07:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am frankly surprised by such comments, Mikkalai:

• Trasianka is NOT a written language, it's not even close to being a language, while Old Belarusian had a damn rich written tradition, starting from Great Lithuanian Statutes and Metrics to prose, poetry, and translated novels (such as stories about Tristan and Isolda, and about Skanderbeg, about knight Bova and many others!)

It was me who added mentions of Statute and Metrika and "Old Belarussian language" into wikipedia([1]), so I know all this. I used the word "trasyanka" in the sense of mixture of languages. THe example of text shows clear lamination: all political terminology is Polish layer. Mikkalai 19:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It's NOT a common root. I never said it is. This above is clearly an example of Old Belarusian.

Yet you put "Ruthenian" in parentheses. Why?

• What is this "common root" anyway, but an invention of Russian imperialists? Show me that common root? I am the guy who says there never was such a thing. Why are you putting things into my mouth?

My rant was in response to calling Belarussian Ruthenian.

• Anyway, this does not have any relevance to the naming-renaming issue, does it? I simply provided an example (the first sample I found on my hard drive) of Old Belarusian (I have hundreds more). Because there are people out there voting for something, which they never even saw a single line of, never read a single paragraph in that language. What gives the right to decide how to call it?

--rydel 18:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We are not voting about Old Belarussian here. Mikkalai 19:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now you correctly say that the language of your citation is Old Belarusian. It is not the same language as the one the article treats, i.e. the language of the Lay of Igor's Campaign. ---Ghirlandajo 18:18, 24 Dec 2004 (GMT)

The article says: Between 10th and 16th centuries it was also an official language of most of the states occupying the area of Kievan Rus: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Muscovy, and Republic of Novgorod.. So it is not even determined what this article is about. Boraczek 16:28, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old Slavic?

The article says:

The language was a direct descendant of the Old Slavic language

Old Slavic redirects to Old Church Slavonic. Is this a correct statement? Mikkalai 16:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old Ruthenian/Russian did not evolve from Old Church Slavonic. But it did evolve from the common Slavic language which may be called Old Slavic. For the time being, I'm removing the link. We need to clean up all that mess about old Slavic issues. Boraczek 16:25, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I restored the link - to Common Slavonic. Boraczek 16:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Old Church Slavonic#Nomenclature about this (if it's not reverted in the meantime). Nikola 12:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's a better example of (very late!!) East Slavic, not old, no, no, but is it Russian or Ukrainian?? We-e-ell...

"Так же то здѣлалось и с афинянами: они чувствовали, что вся вселенная мудрость их прославляет, коею будьто богатыми товарами род человѣческій снабдѣвали. Но при всем том принуждены были внимать тайному сердечному воплю. Начали догадываться, что доселѣ не все-на-все перезнали и что, конечно, нужны еще какія-то колеса для коляски."

The editors (Видавництво Академії Наук Українскої РСР, Київ, 1962) had this to say:

"Тексти Сковододи є пам'ятками української мови XVIII ст., і необхідність максимально зберегти їх мовностилічну своєрідність є очевидна."

They go on to say that Skovoroda's language is full of church-slavonicisms, mixtures of russian and ukrainian forms, etc., etc., etc. Nonetheless, this *is* a sample of eighteenth-century written Ukrainian. Or... well, kinda goes to show the modern political nature of the argument, doesn't it? A. Shetsen 06:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move Old Ruthenian language → Old Russian language 2004

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article was opriginally called "Old Russian", but with the invasion of Ukraininan nationalists, which renamed Kiev into Kyiv whenever possible, the article was renamed into "Old Ruth". 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica speaks about "Old Russian", which say in favor that "Old Ruthenian" is a modern invention of modern russophobes. It is suggested to restore the name. Mikkalai 01:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) P.S. I ain't no bloody Russian.

• Oppose. The language of Kievan Rus is the ancestor of Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian. It has been called "Old Russian", "Old Ruthenian", and "Old East Slavic". "Old Russian" is perceived as making the other two languages seem insignificant or inferior to modern Russian. Old Ruthenian is a more neutral reference to historic Kievan Rus. —Michael Z. 03:54, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC) P.S. is all the name-calling and non sequitur really necessary?
  • I found the 1911 Britannica, Mikkalai's authority for linguistic nomenclature. It doesn't say anything about "Old Russian" language or russophobes, nor does it acknowledge independent Belarusian and Ukrainian languages. Everything written there has a very narrow viewpoint, precisely equating Eastern Slavs with "Russians". Here's an excerpt from Russian Language. —Michael Z. 23:12, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Dialects.Russian dialects fall into two main divisions Great (Velikorusskij), including White (Blorusskij) Russian, and Little Russian (Malorusskij). The latter is spoken in a belt reaching from Galicia and the Northern Carpathians (see RUTHENIANS) through Podolia and Volhyni~ and the governments of Kiev, Chernigov, Poltva, Kh~rkov and the southern part of Vornezh to the Don and the Kubfln upon which the Dnpr Cossacks were settled.

• Support. The Old Germanic language was the ancestor of English, Dutch, Swedish, but it doesn't make sense to rename Old Germanic into Old Teutonic or something like that. Also, Old Russian has 200000+ hits in the Google Search, the Old Ruthenian has less than 1000. The latter term is rarely used outside Wiki. Perhaps "Old East Slavic" would sound neuter. Xenia 08:45 23 Dec 2004 (CET)
  • And shame on you for posting these misleading figures after you saw my note at Talk:Old_Ruthenian_language. "Old Russian language" gives 970 results and "Old Ruthenian language" 425. Counting Google search results doesn't prove anything, anyway. —Michael Z. 19:06, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
• Support. Old Russian is the historically evolved term used to refer to the language that was ancestral to Great Russian, Little Russian, and White Russian medieval dialects from which modern Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian languages developed. The ancestral language is called "drevnerusskiy" (Anciet Russian) in modern Russian, and "davnoruski" (Old Russian) in modern Ukrainian. Ruthenian is a late Latin term of Polish origin: it seems to make Russian and Belarusian insignificant or inferior to modern Ruthenian (the westernmost dialects of Ukrainian). It is a shame to assign Latin names to a Greek Orthodox literature and culture.Ghirlandajo 06:59 23 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • You apparently forgot to mention that the Polish term is Ruś (pronounced in almost the same way as in modern Russian), so the latin term can hardly be traced from Polish - rather from... Ruthenian itself. Halibutt 13:47, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with what Michael said above. In addition, I strongly oppose introduction of 19th century Imperial Russian bias by downgrading the history of Ukraine and Belarus to merely "White Russia" and "Little Russia". Finally, as to Xenia's argument - I don't really get it. Germanic languages are Germanic languages, not Old German. Also, nobody proposes to move it to Old Dutch, Old German, Old English, Old Norse or Old Icelandic... these are simply different terms. Also, the matter is still unsolved at the talk page, I don't see a reason to duplicate the discussion here. Halibutt 08:03, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. "Old Russian" is a well established term, "Old Ruthenian" is not. – Monedula 12:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support for precisely the same reason as Monedula. "Old Ruthenian" and language doesn't get that many hits, really, and even quite a few of those seem to be due to forks and mirrors of Wikipedia.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• If Old Russian language is POV, as is Old Ruthenian language, why not Old East Slavic language? – ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Old East Slavic seems fine with me, but I guess it would be opposed by many of our Russian friends. Also, Old Russian is fine with me as long as we split the article onto Old Belarussian language, Old Ukrainian language, Old Ruthenian language, Old Russian language, Old Hutsul language, Old Lemko language and perhaps some more. All these were the very same language (simply different dialects), but if we promote Russian language, we should promote all the other modern languages as well. Halibutt 13:53, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing "russophobic" in the name Old Ruthenian. In fact, it follows the Russian name for it, древнерусский язык. The confusion may come from the fact, that while the Russian language distincts between Русь (Ruthenia or Rus', interchangeably) and Россия (Russia), it uses the same adjective, русский for both Ruthenian and Russian. In Ukrainian, each meaning has its own adjective - there is руський and російський. So, both Russian древнерусский язык and Ukrainian давньоруська мова have the same meaning and there isn't any conflict between these two. – Naive cynic 14:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Care to point silly me to an English dictionary that translates or interprets "Русь" (Rus) as Ruthenia or vice versa? Mikkalai 16:19, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. In this case the Google test overwhelms any opposition. - UtherSRG 15:46, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Old Russian is too well-established; and see also Old German. If there's something to be said about Old Ruthenian possibly being more appropriate, it should still be (said) on the Old Russian page. Rd232 15:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, if we can't have agreement on Old Russian, then Old East Slavic (or Late Old East Slavic) should be preferred to Old Ruthenian. Rd232 16:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Old East Slavic"

• Oppose. I have always heard it referred to as Old Ruthenian. – JamesTeterenko 17:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Rd232. There's even no word in Russian that could mean "Ruthenian" (Рутенский, Рутенийский, Руссийский? Sounds like gibberish). There are words, however, like древнерусский (Ancient Russian), старорусский (Old Russian). I could probably give it another thought if someone tells me the exact translation of the word "Ruthenian" from Ukrainian and Belorussian languages. KNewman 19:05, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Russian doesn't have two different adjectives meaning "of Russia" and "of Rus’". English does. —Michael Z. 19:12, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
    • If someone is thinking that "Ruthenian" is an English adjective from Rus', I suggest them to look up a dictionary. The word "Ruthenia" acquired a new meaning in English, languages tend to change in time. Mikkalai 19:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Mr.Michael Z., I've always thought (being a Russian myself :)) that the word Россия (Russia) has its own adjective российский (which is not exactly русский). Русский has much more to do with Русь (Rus). So believe me, there are different adjectives in Russian for Russia and Rus. It's just that in English they never call Russia Rossiya. KNewman 21:07, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • And that's exactly it: most languages I know have the distinction between something related to "Russia" and something related to "Rus'". If the language was spoken in whole (well, most of) "Rus'", not only "Russia", then...? Halibutt
        • The word in Belarusian (not belorussian by the way) is "ruski" for something that relates to Rus (Ruthenia) and "rasiejski" for something that relates to modern-day Russia (which has very little to do with old Ruthenia). --rydel 01:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I note that Rydel is keen to rename his country in theDutch Wikipedia, too. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. I strongly oppose the move. There is a need for distinction. We shouldn't follow the "traditions" of 19th century Russian imperialists. I talked about this topic hundred times, and I know what I'm talking about. Old Ruthenian is fine. It's better than Old Russian, which is somewhat misleading and NPOV. --rydel 01:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose--Emax 02:42, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I always thought Ruthenia was a small part of Ukraine, that formerly controlled by Czechoslovakia from 1919-1939, and that Ruthenian referred to a dialect of Ukrainian. Am I wrong? I've only heard of Old Russian, and Old Slavic...never heard of "Old Ruthenian." So far, I tenatively support the move. —ExplorerCDT 03:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You are right. Russia has never been known as Ruthenia, never. Ruthenia is the name for the Trans-Carpathian Latin Catholic part of Ukraine. – Ghirlandajo 11:59 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • But we're not speaking about Russia and Russian language here, Ghirlandajo. There indeed was a Trans-Carpathian Ruthenia that once was a part of the greater Ruthenia, just like plenty of others: Red Ruthenia (Sanok, Przemyśl, Lwów, Halicz), Black Ruthenia (Navahrudak), White Ruthenia (central Belarus), Halich Ruthenia (Halicz, Volhynia), Kievan Ruthenia (Kiev)... Read the article on Ruthenia, it gives a pretty well definition. Halibutt 15:02, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Black Ruthenia and the rest were renamed by the same ukrainian anti-Russian nationalist drive which moved the language article. Mikkalai 16:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Mikkalai, please cut out the labelling, name-calling, and other abusive bullshit already? It doesn't belong here and I'm tired of tolerating it. Your request for a move starts with an insult aimed at people you disagree with, and you attribute any opinions you don't like to 19th century Ukrainians and Poles, as if that were some sort of slur. Between you and Xenia's racist remark on the talk page, this discussion is sickening. If you have to call people names, at least get it right. I'm not a Ukrainian nationalist, I'm a Canadian social democrat of Ukrainian ancestry. Or why don't you just go for the full effect and tell me I'm a dumb maloruskiy khokhol who's opinion doesn't count? —Michael Z.
    • I'd hate to say it for fear you'd call me a racist too (and it's so easy to do so with the veil of anonymity brought on by not signing your comments) but Nineteenth Century nationalism and the descendants of that tradition (more russophobic Ukrainians) seem to be at the heart of the debate. The emotive nature of nationalism (which explains your quick dash to call Mikkalai a racist and say his opinion is "bullshit") should not poison this debate, the facts themselves should determine it, without name calling. The fact, by the google test, is that Old Russian is the more prevalent (by a landslide) usage. Unfortunately, I think your backlash against Old Russian and the idea that someone would call the nationalistic attachment to "Ruthenian" is a result of the emotional connection you have to what the French would call your patrie, hence you succumbing to the appeal of nationalist fervour and rising such a defense.—ExplorerCDT 22:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't call Mikkalai's opinion bullshit, I called his disparaging labelling and sly ad hominem attacks against other Wikipedians bullshit. His habitual abusive tone causes hurt feelings in these discussions and encourages others, like Xenia, to chime in with overt racism. You speak up for "the facts" by analyzing my ethno-political background, and you think this belongs in a Wikipedia discussion? I'm not motivated by nationalism, but by disgust with a display of utter disrespect for people's points of view, unselfconsciously justified by stereotyping. —Michael Z. 16:33, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
      • ExplorerCDT, the reason "Old Russian" has such high "google count" is because it was mentioned in 1911 Britannica edition (and later too). That version of Britannica has a totally wrong, not to say misleading, harmful and offending, information about East Slavic languages. So if you do this renaming of Old Ruthenian to Old Russian, then you logically must rename Belarusan to White Russian, Ukrainian to Little Russian. That's what 1911 Britannica says. Should I start the renaming process already, add these two wonderful candidates? I already can see some Russians here happily jumping around and adding their "support" votes for these "wonderful" and "scientific" renamings. --rydel 13:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Referring to Google results for "Old Russian" without context is useless. The term can refer to "Old Russian vodka", "Old Russian motorcycles", and a thousand other things that have nothing to do with naming a 10th century language. —Michael Z. 16:33, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Support, because Old Russian is shorter and more established than Old Ruthenian. --Pierre Aronax 06:53, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose --Steschke 13:29, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC) Old Ruthenian language is definitely not Old Russian language. Ruthenian is a branch of the estslavian languages. It's more an ukrainian dialect (or independent language), but no Old Russian.
  • Steschke, if that's your reasoning, that Ruthenian is a dialect, and not Old Russian (as I read your comment), you should be Supporting the move. Are you confused? Or am I just reading you wrong? —ExplorerCDT 16:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS. For all those people above who voted to support the move, I'd like to ask you just one small favor, one small question. Have you ever seen a document written in Old Ruthenian? Have you read it? Have you understood it? Can you tell us which document(s) you read? Thank you. --rydel 15:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quite silly request. Only professional linguists can deal with old documents professionally. For a lay person, any old Slavic document written in Cyrillic will be "looking somewhat like Russian" (if the person is Russian), or "looking somewhat like Belarusian (if the person is Belarusian), or "looking somewhat like Ukrainian" (if the person is Ukrainian), or "looking somewhat like Bulgarian" (if the person is Bulgarian). So what do you want? – Monedula 18:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So why do those "lay persons" have the right to vote on the name of the article if they no clue what they are talking about? --rydel 13:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, everybody has right to vote on anything. Btw, have you got your clue? What is your great reason for changing a well-established name? – Monedula 22:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe that in your school days you passed The Lay of Igor's Campaign without paying any attention to it. As may be seen from the Middle Belarusian stuff you posted in the Talk page, you still confuse the Old Russian with Middle Belarusian. It's helpful to move the existing page to Old Russian (or Old East Slavic), and then you will write a new page about Middle Belarusian (and will call it Old Ruthenian if you like). :) --- Xenia 11:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose for following reasons:
  • Definitely, there's a need for distinction between Kyiv Rus and modern imperial Russia. Such distinction should not necessarily be in favor of Ukraino-centric vision of Rus history, but it SHOULD EXIST. This distinction need is in fact caused by Russian propagandists persistently claiming the direct continuity between Kyiv Rus, Muscovia and Peter's Russia.
  • The whole text looks doubtful for me. After reading the article, it's subject (i.e. language situation in Rus lands in given period) becomes clear. But the conclusions of the authors, as well as BOTH suggested names, seem too simplified and biased. I'm afraid it's more complicated. So I'd like to consult with professional historians and linguists before making a precedent with renaming.
  • Since renaming idea is actively supported by some known Russian propagandists, it automatically becomes suspicious for me.AlexPU 13:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support: the language is called Old Russian. Old East Slavic might be more correct, but is not widely used. Old Ruthenian is just a Ukranian nationalist invention, trying to relabel the language "Old Ukranian" (which is what Old Ruthenian means) by using a term unfamiliar to most outside nonspecialists. (OED def. 1 for Ruthene: "A former name for a member of the Ukrainian people".) Aggrieved minority POV is not the same as NPOV. Oh, and Ruthene would not exist in Russian (unless as Rufskij or something; θ -> φ in modern Russian); it's just a Latin deformation of Rus and was used to refer specifically to the Little Russians or, more specifically, those of Galicia or Transcarpathian Ruthenia. —Tkinias 19:16, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Little Russians/Little Russia (Ukraine)" is just a Russian nationalist invention :) However, Old East Slavic is a good compromise.--Emax 20:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • No-one is suggesting renaming the Ukraine or Ukrainian language articles. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed. MaloRus and BelaRus are the Greek names adopted by intellectual elite of these lands in Late Middle Ages, just like Great Poland, Little Poland, etc. It's not the "Russian imperialists" (if such a thing existed) who "invented" these names for the countries. "Ukraine" is hardly better than "Malorus", as it is a Russian word meaning "a land near the border". Also, I don't see why Ukrainians are offended by Malorus, but Belarusians consider the name Belarus perfecly normal. Malorus, Belarus - historic names evolved under the same circumstances, what makes the difference? --- Xenia 11:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • MaloRus (Little Ruthenia) - not Russia. Its like to call the Netherlands "Little Germany", only because "Dutch" sounds similar to "Deutsch" ;)--Emax 14:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, for the same reasons as ExplorerCDT. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as the "Old Ruthenian" epithet leaves out the largest portion of Kievan Rus, the modern-day Russia, which has never been known as Ruthenia, and attaches too much weight to the westernmost lands historically known as Ruthenia. Meanwhile, the old tradition of architecture, icon-painting continued in the present-day Russia, not in Ruthenia. All the monuments of the Old Russian literature - byliny, The Lay of Igor's Campaign - have been preserved in northern lands and not in Ukraine. "Old Ruthenian" is a partisan and pro-western-Ukrainian name. P.S. I decided to vote twice, following the example of Emax --- Ghirlandajo 11:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. This needs to be discussed more on the article talk page, where perhaps a compromise can be reached. Jonathunder 15:40, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
• Oppose We need to go beyond advocating one side, and clearly consider the reasons for either side. The sides are "Old Russian" vs. "Old Ruthenian."

The reason for "Old Russian" are as follows: the Rusian Empire most recently controlled MOST (not all) of the major part of Rus' (about 1700-1990). Secondly, the Russian nation, from about 1713 (for over 200 years), began to stop calling itself "Muscovia" and chose to name itself after Rus' (although, under a foreign Greek variant) "Rossiya!" On the "Old Ruthenian" side, the reasons are as follows: 1) The Rus' propria lands, or Rus' in the most proper sense (Kyiv, Pereyaslav and Chernihiv regions), were not in Russia, but in Ruthenia, and are today called "Great Ukraine." Secondly, the name "Ruthenian" was held by the population of Ukraine through the 19th century, perduring in the western part of Ukraine even until the 20th century, in the native form "Rus'ki" (Ruthenian), as opposed to "Russki" or "Rossiyski" (Muscovite or Russian). Thirdly, the difference between Rusian (Ruthenian) of the early Ukrainains and Ukraino-Belarusians) vs. the Finno-Ugkric tribes to the north, united by Moscow, later called, "Russians," was evident even in the period of Rus. The Tale of Ihor's Campaign, was from the Ruthenian areas and distinctly non-Russian, even though ancient manuscripts were preserved in Russia itself. I apologize for the fact that my entry understates the case! Genyo 23:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • LOL! Your ignorance is the best support for moving the page. The Russian nation never "stopped calling itself Muscovia", because it never used this term. Muscovy (sic!) is a correct appelation of the state in some Western sources, although for Shakespeare, Chaucher, Elizabeth I it was still Russia. And of course in Russian language, self-appelation of people has always been the same: ruskie in Ilarion's Slovo (mid-11th century) as well as now. This has never changed. Ukraine, on the other hand, never had an established name for itself. Currently it uses "Ukrayina", a Russian word for "border land", originally used to refer to "Pskov ukraines", "Ural ukraines" and even "Finnish ukraines". "The Rus propria lands" were invented by you, but there is not any locality in Ukraine having a "rus" root. The original area where the Rus lived is Staraya Russa or Old Rus near Novgorod. The term "Great Ukraine" doesn't exist, and the ugly term "Ukraine" is not 200 years old yet. The word "Russia" is attested in Latin two centuries before the term "Ruthenia". I could go on for pages debunking your lies. But it is useless to argue with chauvinists. Xenia 11:50, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The late Joseph Chauvin and I are both proud you used the word chauvinist in its correct denotation. Good argument, too, by the way. —ExplorerCDT 05:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xenia and Explorer: could you please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility? Boraczek 12:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Xenia, and we are lynching Negroes... But now seriously, perhaps indeed the word Ukraine is less than 200 years old (although it was used at leas since the Union of Lublin in 1569. Anyway - what does it have to do with the article? You say that there is only one Rus' and the rest is but some 19th century Ukrainian idiotism. Such a statement does not hold the water since the term Rus'/Ruthenia (Ruś in Polish) was used both by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and by those little states annexed by it or by Poland or Lithuania before the two merged. Also note that Lwów was the capital of... Ruthenian Voivodship (Województwo Ruskie) since its creation. Halibutt 09:12, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Please, let's each of us take a deep breath and slowly count to ten before we click "Save page". —Michael Z. 09:16, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

• Support - Wikipedia is to share information, not to wage political partisan campaign. "old russian" will facilitate more people finding the right information rather then "old ruthenian". all this "ruthenian" terms are just plain confusing for anybody other then some hardcore slavic history geek. I completely respect the position of nationalists like MichaelZ , hallibut etc to avoid association with something they don't like (i.e. Russia). If they prefer to think about this language/history as "Old Ruthenia" it would be great to have seperate page presenting this alternative viewpoint and cross-link them both. yet lets recognize the reality that such view point is a minority view point at the moment. I think both descendants of "old-Russians" and "old-Ruthenians" would prefer other billions people of this big big planet actually finding and reading about our history. Since it happen to be "Kievlan Rus" they are very likelly to search for "Old Russian". For same reason i'm against "old slavic" compromise. Its confusing, unknown and will only make it worse. Lordmax 07:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I shouldn't even reply to the remarks by Lordmax, and especially so because of his long contributions list which make me think of sock puppets. However, one thing should be explained: currently Old Russian language, Old Belarussian language, Old Ukrainian language, Old Lemko language, Old Boiko language and some others redirect to Old Ruthenian language. So the argument about confusion of someone being misinformed or prevented from finding enough info is simply false, since after writing any of the names in the search box the correct page appears. Also, the argument about the minority viewpoint seems invalid and this very voting is a great proof. Not counting the vote by Lordmax there were 12 votes in favour and 11 votes against the move. Finally, I'd strongly suggest that Lordmax stopped calling me a nationalist, eventhough in this context the remark was quite funny (I'd be the first Old Ruthenian nationalist since Middle Ages - if there ever were such nationalists back then). Anyway, in where I live this term is extremely offensive and I don't like to be called a nationalist just because I have other oppinion. Halibutt 13:38, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • I doubt if the term "nationalist" is offensive in English, but I can see no reason to think that Halibutt and Michael Z. are nationalists. It looked like an irrational and malicious label. Boraczek 12:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support Noone, either from the East or from the West of Europe, spoke of Old Ruthenian before 90-ies, when there was a political need for it. This is not about misinformation, just about following the tradition.

1. To speak about name, you must understand the Russian etymology. For Old Russian (Drevnerussky) it goes to Rus', not modern Russia, otherwise the name would be Drevnerossiysky, not Drevnerusskiy in Russian.
2. When speaking of a person, word Russky - coming from Rus' - now means ethnicity (descending from Midieval Rus' people), and Rossiysky means nationality (citizen/ belonging to modern/ tzars Russia).
3. Word Russkiy existed through ages, while Rossiysky only came into language when Peter the Great first started to address to the country as Russia - in XVIII century.

As a result the old name reflect directly what it was about: language of Old Rus', Kievan Rus', not some language of "Old Russia".FeelSunny (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

THIS POLL IS CLOSED—it is moot, because these articles have since been reorganized. —Michael Z. 2008-12-09 06:13 z

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The "Old Russian Literature" section needs cleanup

Many things mentioned in this section were written not in Old Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian language, but in Church Slavonic language. – Monedula 11:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Appeal for more differentiation

(I hope that this is the right place for this proposal; if not, please tell me where to place it.)

This whole discussion about the terminology seems quite pointless to me, since there are several languages involved, which have to have different names (and different Wikipedia articles). Have a look at the following scheme of the history of the three big East Slavic standard languages:

	History of Russian	History of Belarusan	History of Ukrainian
Preliterary period (c. until 9th c.)	East Slavic dialects of the Proto-Slavic language R. праславянский язык Ukr. праслов’янська мова Blr. праславянская мова
Old period (c. 9th to 14th c.)	Old (or Common) East Slavic (or Old Kievan) R. древневосточнославянский (or древнекиевский) язык Ukr. давньоруська мова Blr. агульнаўсходнеславянская (or старажытнаруская) мова
Middle period (c. 15th to 18th c.)	Old (or Middle) Russian R. старорусский язык Ukr. староросійська мова Blr. старарасейская мова	(Old or Middle) Ruthenian R. украино-белорусский язык, «простая мова» Ukr. староруська мова, «проста мова» Blr. украінска-беларуская мова, «простая мова»
New period (c. from 18th c.)	(Contemporary) Russian R. (современный) русский язык Ukr. (сучасна) російська мова Blr. (сучасная) расейская мова	(Contemporary) Belarusan R. (современный) белорусский язык Ukr. (сучасна) білоруська мова Blr. (сучасная) беларуская мова	(Contemporary) Ukrainian R. (современный) украинский язык Ukr. (сучасна) українська мова Blr. (сучасная) украінская мова

(This is a modified version of a table I recently presented at a conference in Uppsala; see the original as PDF. And sorry for the long names in some places; it is not my fault that the East Slavs themselves have only nice short names for the national languages.)

Consequently, I am very much in favour of the following changes:

• The article "Old East Slavic language" should be restricted to the time of Kievan Rus' and should also contain the first two sections of the historical chapter in "Russian language".
• The language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which is the language of the sample provided by rydel) should be treated in a separate article "Ruthenian language".
• At the top of this article, people looking for Rusyn (which is often also called "Ruthenian") should be redirected to "Rusyn language".
• There should be a short article "Old Russian language" which explains the difference between Old East Slavic and Muscovite Russian and links to the "Old East Slavic language" article and the Muscovite section in the "History of the Russian language".
• Another short article "Old Ruthenian language" should branch to the articles "Ruthenian language" and "Old East Slavic language".
• Of course the articles for all East Slavic languages (including Rusyn) should link to the respective earlier, pre-national stages of their history, which should, nonetheless, be treated as explained above in separate articles.
• Old East Slavic and Ruthenian should also be mentioned (as extinct) in the detailed list of the "Slavic languages" article.
• The names "Old Ukrainian", "Old Belarusan" (for both Old East Slavic and Ruthenian) and "Old Russian" (for Old East Slavic) would have to be mentioned as terms to be avoided because of their national connotation for really pre-national languages. (Their use is still the norm in the respective countries, so that a Ukrainian saying "Old Ukrainian" and a Belarusan saying "Old Belarusan" mean exactly the same thing. But surely this is not appropriate for an international encyclopedia, and indeed modern, 'western' slavicists do use the terms "Old East Slavic" and "Ruthenian" in the way I propose to use them.)

The consequences of these changes would be that

1. the pre-national stages of the East Slavic languages are treated in supra-national articles;
2. the same thing (e.g. the language of Kievan Rus') is treated only once and not in three separate articles (i.e., Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusan) from the respective nationalistic points of view;
3. even the article(s) on Rusyn would already have information on the history of that language up to the 18th century.

Is there general consent to do this?

If so, I would happily make these changes and write the article about the Ruthenian language (which is the subject of my PhD thesis), but someone will have to look for grammatical mistakes then, since I am not a native speaker.

Very interesting. Thank you for the table. I think that's a pretty reasonable and logical table and proposal. (PS. small question - Ukr. (сучасна) белоруська мова. Shouldn't it be Ukr. (сучасна) білоруська мова in Ukrainian?) --rydel 18:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your Ukrainian correction; I've changed it in the original already. --Daniel Buncic, 2005-01-05, 16:10 CET

Sounds good to me too. If we can get consensus, I'd be glad to set up stub articles and post requests for renaming, where necessary. Happy to polish off the English grammar, too. Should a version of this excellent table be added to East Slavic languages? —Michael Z. 23:33, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

It seems like there is consensus already. I don't know what has to be done, where has this request for renaming to be posted? Please tell me and/or do it. --Daniel Buncic, 2005-01-05, 16:12 CET

You can create new articles just by going to the link, and rename them by clicking the "move" tab at the top. If the heading that you're moving an article to has been used before, Wikipedia may refuse to move it. In that case, a request must be posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and 5 days of voting takes place. I can come back late tonight, and get things started. —Michael Z. 17:22, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

The table is great and the proposed changes seem fine too. I thought that the scope of this article was obvious to all who participated in the discussion, but apparently it was not. Thanks for your proposal, I'll be glad to help. I'll also start working on some sort of a navigation box (shortened version of the table you posted) to be placed on all related articles. This would ease the navigation between, let's say, modern Belarusian and Middle Slavic (or whatever is the name we adopt). Halibutt 23:48, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I added the table to the main page (in a wikified and slightly clarified form). I'd also consider adding a "dialects" row, with all sub-dialects, dialects and languages derived of modern forms of the languages, for instance trasianka for Belarusan, surzhyk, Lemko language, Ruthenian language and such for Ukrainian. How about that? The table with such a row would look like this:

History of East Slavic languages
	History of Russian	History of Belarusan	History of Ukrainian
Preliterary period (c. until 9th c.)	East Slavic dialects of the Proto-Slavic language R. праславянский язык Ukr. праслов’янська мова Blr. праславянская мова
Old period (c. 9th to 14th c.)	Old East Slavic (also Old Kievan and Common East Slavic) R. древневосточнославянский (or древнекиевский) язык Ukr. давньоруська мова Blr. агульнаўсходнеславянская (or старажытнаруская) мова
Middle period (c. 15th to 18th c.)	Middle Russian (also Old Russian) R. старорусский язык Ukr. староросійська мова Blr. старарасейская мова	Middle Ruthenian (also Old Ruthenian) R. украино-белорусский язык, «простая мова» Ukr. староруська мова, «проста мова» Blr. украінска-беларуская мова, «простая мова»
Modern period (c. from 18th c.)	(Contemporary) Russian R. (современный) русский язык Ukr. (сучасна) російська мова Blr. (сучасная) расейская мова	(Contemporary) Belarusan R. (современный) белорусский язык Ukr. (сучасна) белоруська мова Blr. (сучасная) беларуская мова	(Contemporary) Ukrainian R. (современный) украинский язык Ukr. (сучасна) українська мова Blr. (сучасная) украінская мова
dialects and derived languages (c. from 18th c.)		trasianka	surzhyk, Rusyn, Lemko, Boiko

--What do you say? Halibutt 00:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the 'dialects' can be incorporated in this table, for several reasons: First, the dialects in the word's proper sense existed from the beginnings, I'd say even in the Proto-Slavic period (if we take Proto-Slavic as a real language and not just a theoretical reconstruction, then it surely must have had dialects like any other existing language), so they would have to be added in every period (which I did in my original table for the conference). Second, trasianka and surzhyk are not really dialects but mixed speech forms (trasianka is a mixture of Belarusian and Russian, surzhyk a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian). Third, most Rusyns would object to the classification of their (two!) languages as dialects of Ukrainian. And finally, speaking of Rusyn, the Rusyn language spoken in former Yugoslavia is in many respects not even East Slavic, but West Slavic. --Daniel Buncic, 2005-01-05, 16:35 CET

I'd say some people are too easily excited. Look what I've been up to: User:Mzajac/East_Slavic_languages. —Michael Z. 01:14, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

What's the difference apart from the Old/Middle Russian and the (poorly-looking, IMO) switch from "Modern period" to "New period"? And what do you think about the whole dialects idea? Halibutt 02:18, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Not much difference at all; I had already finished working on it when I saw your posting here. I think this table would be better as a central jumping-off point in the history section of the all-encompassing East Slavic languages article, perhaps with a very small simplified navbox at the bottom of every other language's article. All of the translations of the languages' names should probably be in the respective articles, to keep the table simple. I would like to see all of the 'minor' languages and dialects represented, but I'm worried about them fitting in the table—your small font is the way to go. I like Daniel's layout in the PDF file, which arranges them left-to-right for east-to-west. —Michael Z. 05:51, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

This is a very good idea, as there even is a "History" section in the "East Slavic languages" article. As there was no objection, I've just done it. The problem is that the text there is written from a very Russian point of view and that it does not differentiate between dialect differences (which can indeed be seen in the 12th century) and the emerging of distinct literary standards (which does not take place before 1386). We will have to try to integrate the text and the table with each other. --Daniel Buncic, 2005-01-05 18:21 CET

Bah, didn't notice that. As to the east-west organisation - no problem, I'll do it. I'm also currently trying to prepare a compact version to be used as a navbox (soon to be posted as Template:Eastslavlang, so far not finished), not wider than, let's say, 200px. It could be placed inside of the Language box to replace the Genetic classification section or, alternatively, below it to serve as a navbox. Finally, there is also an option to create a raw tag for the bottom of the page simply listing all languages with links, similarily to Template:Principal cities of Poland. This option however would loose much of the charm of this excellent table. Halibutt 12:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I like all the simplifications and improvements to my table. But one important thing is that my original table was made just for this discussion and that I wanted to make some differences clear. Once we all agree on these things and incorporate them into the Wikipedia structure, they are no longer needed in the 'public' table. First of all, this applies to the East Slavic names of the languages. It is a good idea to mention them on the respective pages, but not in the table. But then I would also like to have just one English name for each language (and mention other names in the respective articles only). I would propose to use "Old East Slavic", "Old Russian", and "Ruthenian". "Common East Slavic" is not bad either, but "Old" gives an additional information and seems to me to be more popular in slavistic literature. "Middle Russian" implies that there is an earlier period called "Old Russian", and this is just what we should avoid, because that earlier period was a common language for all the Eastern Slavs and not just the Russians. Besides, this stage of Russian is usually called старорусский (literally 'Old Russian') in Russian, too – in contrast to древнерусский (literally 'Ancient Russian') for 'Old East Slavic'. The same applies of course also to "Middle Ruthenian". "Old Ruthenian" is just to differentiate it from "Ruthenian" as a name sometimes used for "Rusyn", but as long as we cling to "Rusyn", we can safely call the predecessor of Ukrainian and Belarusian (and of course Rusyn, too) "Ruthenian"; this is in fact common practice in western publications. Oh yes, and "Old Kievan" is in fact just an invention of mine, which has, as far as I know, never been applied to the language (though it has been applied to the culture). This is just meant for those people (especially East Slavs themselves) who reject "Old East Slavic" in favour of "Old Russian" etc. because they consider it too long; this is understandable if you look at древневосточнославянский, but древнекиевский is about just as short as древнерусский. (And it is even parallel to древненовгородский.) --Daniel Buncic, 2005-01-05 17:50 CET

I have just made the changes to the table I think necessary on the main page. I have also added a third colour for Belarusian (by the way, this is the Wikipedia spelling, as I have noticed), because otherwise one might think that all the white cells belong exclusively to the history of Belarusian. And I shaded "Ruthenian" in the (mathematical) mixture of the Belarusian and the Ukrainian colours. Do you like that? In principle, of course, the earlier stages then should be shaded in a mixture of all the three colours (i.e., grey), but when I tried it, that looked just awful. Maybe someone finds a better graphical solution? I have also changed "languages" or "standard languages" in the heading of the table to "literary languages", because on the one hand we have not included dialects and are talking about some kind of supradialectal variety (of which we know only the written form), on the other hand the earliest stages cannot be really called standardized in the modern sense. --Daniel Buncic, 2005-01-05 17:31 CET

Looks good. I've adjusted Ruthenian language, Old Russian language, and Old Ruthenian language. Please have a look and see if it's okay. There's still a little cut'n'paste and lots of writing to do. Now I have to go get some work done, and some Christmas shopping! —Michael Z. 18:22, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

I have written a text on the history of the East Slavic literary languages now, but the dialectal history has still to be written. Is there anyone there who can do that? – Daniel Buncic 2005-01-06 13:26 (CET)

• • Come on people be reasonable. Do not invent new russian words. As a native speaker I would suggest in Proto-slavic праславянский(as far as i know there is no prefix пра- in Russian ) to прославянский or предславянский or even древнеславянский, in Old East Slavic древневосточнославянский(is that even a word?) to древнерусский(as that language is called in Russian, refering to Rus').All other terms in Russian language are IMO corect.

I have a short question to the experts: why the alternative version of the Russian name of Old East Slavis in the table is древнекиевский? It is my understanding that it is usually called древнерусский or древнеруский. The same way as the Ukrainian name for this language is давньоруська мова and not давньокиївська. As Daniel Buncic, I am also not sure that mixed languages like surzhyk should be classed only as dialects of Ukrainian and Belorusan. Gaidash 6 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Wikilove

Dear fellow Wikipedians. We're all trying to improve Wikipedia. Peppering edit summaries with accusations of theft just makes you look like a grouch. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will...", and all that. Please find your Wikilove. Or vent your anger out in the open, and get over it. Cheers, Michael Z.

Anger? borrowed joke, see edits for History of the Russian language. :). WRT wikilove, sorry, but the discussions are just full of it. (Pun intended.)  :) XXXOOO A. Shetsen 18:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)====

IPA/old cyrillic characters

The problem with using IPA and the proper Unicode for the yuses, yats, etc. is that so few fonts include them. In particular, under the default skin, the "sans-serif" font in the stylesheet is mapped under Windows to Arial (not Unicode MS!), and so the ancient quotes are full of little squares. This is why mini-graphics were used when these passages were typed in several months ago. They're ugly and they waste space, but at least they guarantee legibility for all users. And I say this with the greatest of respect.

The alternatives appear to include:

• Approximating the letters, repacing the yat with a Serbian ђ or ћ, or a capital yer Ъ, etc. Although some Wikipedias and many, many Russian sites do just this, it is a bad solution, because the substitute letters have their own use and may have occurred in some of the ancient manuscripts.

• Changing the spelling to the modern one. Aside from its historical inaccuracy, this solution is likely to cause further political squabbling, because the ancient usage is reflected differently in each of the three modern East Slavic languages.

• Overriding the built-in font on the client side. This is, in practice, more difficult than just changing the default font display: a custom stylesheet must be provided for IE.

• Changing the default font in the article text, providing a font list for all of the possible platforms: Palatino Linotype, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Grande, XSerif Unicode. This solution is as wasteful of space as the embedded graphics, and, besides, there is no guarantee that a given user will have the font.

• Changing the skin settings. Again, the problem is that there's no guarantee the fonts will be present.

• Creating a math-formula-like generation facility. Lots of work for the developers!!

• Providing server-side fonts with markup. Tedious, because all of the browsers in use have different syntax for retrieving webfonts. Then there's the licensing issue...

I realize there's a modicum of screw-MS mentality at Wikipedia, as at all free projects. But a universal encyclopedia should do its best to be universal. I say, keep the graphics for the old letters. Perhaps this article is not the best place to discuss this point; if so, let's move it to whereever it should be discussed. A. Shetsen 19:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All good points, except that images don't guarantee legibility. E.g., a handicapped user with a text-only browser or audible page reader may see something like the following. The same applies to Google. (I generated this using Lynx (browser), which automatically transliterated the text.)

  Slovo o p"lku Igorev Image:yat_lc_ru2.PNG . c. 1200, from the Pskov
  manuscript, 15th cent.

         Ne l Image:yat_lc_ru2.PNG po li ny byashet" bratiie, nachati
         starymi slovesy trudnyh" pov Image:yat_lc_ru2.PNG stiij o polku
         Igorev Image:yat_lc_ru2.PNG , Igorya Svyat" slavicha?
         Nachatizhesya t" p Image:yat_lc_ru2.PNG sni po bylinam" sego
         vremeni, a ne po zamyshleniiyu Boyanyu. Boyan" bo v
         Image:yat_lc_ru2.PNG schiij, asche komu hotyashe p
         Image:yat_lc_ru2.PNG sn Image:yat_lc_ru2.PNG tvoriti, to
         rastekashetsya mysiiyu po drevu, s Image:yat_lc_ru2.PNG rym"
         volkom" po zemli, shizym" orlom" pod" oblaky.

Specifying fonts for runs of text containing old Cyrillic characters isn't necessarily that bad. Have a look at Template:IPA (description), which makes IPA text display correctly in a stock Windows XP installation. We can do something similar. Does anyone know if these characters (yat, yuses, etc.) are in any stock Windows fonts? —Michael Z. 02:27, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

What would you think of a link to a screen shot of the entire paragraph, rather than many little inlined yat and yus images? Then it would look good and be readable in any browser with the right fonts, and after a single click without the fonts. And neither version would suffer from ugly letter pox. —Michael Z. 02:44, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

The new images are great. I was thinking of a little link that serves as a graphic alternative, but these enhance the article whether you have the font installed, or not. They help convey a sense of the original manuscripts' character. —Michael Z. 04:43, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Thank you! A. Shetsen 05:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Confusion with "full vocalism"

There was: A striking innovation in the evolution of this language was the development of so-called full vocalism, which came to differentiate the newly evolving Russian north from Rus' propria, arguably under influence of indigenous Finno-Ugric languages majority population stock of the Russian nation. For instance, Proto-Slavic /*gordъ/ town, became OES /gorod/, Proto-Slavic /*melko/, milk - OES /moloko/, and Proto-Slavic /*korva/, cow - OES /korova/. The more central and more thoroughly Slavic parts of Rus' ("Ruthenia": Ukraine and Belarus') did not undergo this innovation.

However, this version makes no sense, since Russian is no different from Ukrainian or Belarusian in the matter of "full vocalism", as all three have /moloko/, /korova/ etc. – Monedula 10:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Glottonyms

Someone keeps deleting my changes, especially the Russian translation for Old East Slavic, "древневосточнославянский". This term was introduced by Ruben I. Avanesov (the author of the book on Russian phonetics and pronunciation) in 1976 (in "О построении истории русского языка", Вопросы русского языкознания 1, Москва 1976, pp.5–20). Yesterday, after I had seen that someone had replaced "древневосточнославянский" with "древнерусский" (though that term had already been mentioned in the next paragraph as the "traditional" term, so that now it appeared twice!), I moved the traditional terms into first position, discussing the supranational terms only in the second paragraph. I thought this would appease the nationalistic feelings of our Slavonic friends, but someone has now restored the old state with "древнерусский" mentioned twice and "древневосточнославянский" not at all. I think it is clear that this is not the ideal. I will now change one of the two "древнерусский"s back to "древневосточнославянский", and I would be pleased if these two names of the language this article is about would remain in place. I do respect the opinion of some people who think the language should be called "древнерусский", but completely removing the politically more correct term does not really enhance the informative value of this article, does it? – Buncic 15:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should be aware that what is called Old East Slavic in Wikipedia for the sake of neutrality, is never called восточнославянский in Russia. 99% of scientific literature on the subject treats about древнерусский язык. Therefore your transliteration is misleading. Also misleading is the term Old East Slavic itself. I may only hope that, under pressure of the Scottish nationalists, you will rename Old English into Old Albionic and Old Polish into Old Lekhitic. Ghirlandajo 16:04, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are several statements in this comment; let me answer each of them separately:

1. The article states explicitly that the national terms are more common in the East Slavic languages, so no-one is "mislead" here. But international Wikipedia is surely not the place to advocate nationalistic terms, however widespread they may be.
2. What is "misleading" about "the term Old East Slavic itself"?
3. I did not get your point about Old Polish.
4. Old English was really spoken in England at a time when Scotland and Wales were still mainly Gaelic-speaking. Apart from that, in contrast to the Eastern Slavs, the English-speaking world does not feel offended by the name of their language. Scotsmen, Americans, Irish and Australians have nothing against going on calling their language English. They have no problem admitting that they speak a language that was originally centered in England and then began to spread over the world. With Old East Slavic it is different: This "Old Russian" was definitely not centered in Russia (but in Kiev), and especially Ukrainians do feel offended by this term. Wikipedia should not use names by which some people feel offended. Therefore, "древнерусский" should be mentioned, but not as the only name if there are alternatives, and it should definitely not be recommended. Buncic 17:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see that Ghirlandayo has already made this point. Let me repeat it. The Russian term for this language in the period 950-1400 (+/-) is "древнерусский". Without exception, basically. "Древневосточнославянский", if used at all, denotes the dialect, proto-language, or whatever, in the period between the Common Slavonic breakup (whenever and whatever that was) and the earliest known written samples, which begin in the tenth century. Since there is no formal history or chronology before 852 (the earliest precise date in the Primary Chronicle), there is no basis for knowing the "national language" status of any of the dialects at this early period. The article is about the language in what is already the historical period. If the English term "Old East Slavic" must be used in Wikipedia to make less tempting biased edits by people who (a) believe that the omission of one s in Russian somehow makes it less applicable to Russian, (b) have in the past claimed Russian is descended from Bulgarian, (c) possess certain knowledge of the ethnic mixture in the region, and (d) do not know what full-voicing is, or even if it actually has a purpose, neutrally indicating a common culture before politics had its say – so be it. But let us not invent terms in other languages. That goes against every policy here I am aware of. I'm changing the Russian designaion for "Old East Slavic" back.

Political centres are no match for precise linguisting evidence. The region that has provided the most samples from the earliest periods is not Kiev, but Novgorod, with the birch-bark letters. The Kievan Sviatoslav miscellanies of 1073 and 1076 are really Church-Slavonic, with E-Slavic influence. The earliest extant manuscript for the Kievan chronicles dates from 1377, was written in Suzdal, and kept in Vladimir – all places in the Muscovite region. Tedious political commentary aside, that fact surely should say something about cultural unity, in those days at least, and of "Russian" claims to "Rus", to the modern purveyors of historical wrongedness.

My last point is cheap. Russians have no sensitivities to protect. Offending them God himself does ordain. :( A. Shetsen 17:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current status with no foreign-language indication in the first paragraph at all and a special treatment of the respective East Slavic names is acceptable now. But you have wiped out the supranational terms in Ukrainian and Belarusian, which I will get back, because they are used much more frequently than "древневосточнославянский".

We have no possibility of speaking of any "national language" not only before 852 (by the way, the "Русь" mentioned there were Vikings raiding Constantinople, so at least their leaders were speakers of a North Germanic dialect), but until the end of the 18th century. And that not because of any linguistic data but simply because the people before the romantic period had no notion whatsoever of a nation in the modern sense.

The birch-bark letters are not written in the literary language discussed in this article but in a very distinctive speech-form called the Old Novgorod dialect. This dialect is part of the history of Russian but not of Ukrainian and Belarusian – something that cannot be said of Old East Slavic, which is really the heritage of all East Slavic languages.

Please, when evaluating my comments, cling to what I have said. I do not claim that "Russian is descended from Bulgarian", I have no sympathy for Russian terms like "руский", and I do know what full vocalism is (i.e. полногласие; "full voicing" is something different). – Buncic 11:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please show me where I've said that you are the one guilty of (a) (b), (c), or (d), Mr. Buncic. Also, please check the edit history more carefully. :) Now, as to your own points. (1) If the Novgorod linguistic info is not applicable to Old East Slavic ( :) ), let's remove all the birch-bark and other stuff dug up on the modern political boundaries of the Russian Federation, including both the basic texts of the Primary Chronicle (the Laurentian and the Hypatian), and the Igor Tale (Pskov, right?) from this article, rename it to Old-Ukraininan-and-Belorussian, and be done. Then the article text can degenerate into the usual political bewailing like Ukrainian language etc. (3) The distinction between the Polish rosyjski and ruski (I hope I have the spelling right) in Russian is basically "российский" and "русский". The Russian super-patriots, predictably, hate the first word and all it stands for. (4) Understand once and for all that in the Russian Empire, for all its unefficient use of arbitrary measures, no formal distinction whatever was drawn between "Great", "Little" and "White" "russians", and the lists of the distinguished (as well as the condemned) are full of people from the territories that are now independent states. Just what was Razumovsky, exactly? (5) Let's dispense with the protestations of mutual sympathy. Like too many others you don't like but keep (to be precise, once kept) in the original the Ukrainian/Belorussian terms, and are sympathetic to, and presume to alter in the original the Russian ones. A. Shetsen 16:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) A. Shetsen 16:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is this whole text crossed out? Anyway.

I did not say that you accused me of anything, I just remarked that these views you cited had nothing to do with the matter and that therefore you should cling to what I had said.

(1) As to the birch-bark letters, I would in fact really prefer putting just a link to Old Novgorod dialect here, because it is better to treat a subject like that at length in one article than just to mention it in several places. As to the rest: I said that it is typical of all proper Old East Slavic literature that it is a common heritage of all East Slavs. The birch-bark letters, however, are quite off the track: First, they are not literature at all, they were never meant to be kept, let alone copied. Second, their language seems to have exercised no influence on Ukrainian and Belarusian, but it probably did influence Russian (e.g. the lack of palatalization in руке etc.).

(3) The Polish distinction between rosyjski and ruski has nothing to do with the Russian distinction between российский and русский! These are in fact 'false friends'. The two Russian words must both be translated as 'Russian', none of them means 'East Slavic'. For example, Russian русский язык = Polish język rosyjski.

(4) I do understand that there was no distinction made (as long as people spoke "proper Russian" and did not come up with such stupid postulations like wanting to have the right to speak "White Russian" in public or so); so what?

(5) That is not true. I always mentioned the name древнерусский язык and never altered it. I cited the Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalistic terms together with древнерусский, and I cited their supranational terms together with древневосточнославянский. You considered the last one to be non-existing, so we took that away upon your wish. I see no discrimination on my part here.

Let me repeat that the current status of the terminology section seems acceptable to me. If it is acceptable for you too, then we do not need to engage in any further discussion. Let's work on something else to improve Wikipedia! Buncic 15:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since it would be dishonest to pretend something, once said, was never said, the usual meaning of a struck-out passage is that it is withdrawn. In this case, in its entirety. But I would be very careful to try not to claim that people in the past had or had not a different meaning of the word "nation" (народ) than we do now. That a single nation may split (if that is the case – I think it is, IMHO) would also not be unique in world history. A. Shetsen 21:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm quite new to this community, so I thought it was some kind of mistake that your comment was struck out. In other words: I should not have reacted at all. Sorry for that.

It is not so hard to see that up to the invention of nationalism around the turn of the 19th century there was no notion of "nation" in the modern sense around at all. Just have a look at a historical dictionary and you will see that a) the word natio until the 18th century meant something quite different from the modern meaning and that b) there was no other word that exactly covered our modern notion. Or just think about who the two narody might be in Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów, and try to come to terms with it without forgetting about the Baltic Lithuanians...

 – Buncic 10:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you should have restored wrong nomenclature. We put the Cyrillic names here primarily to help find the term in Russian-language texts or in a library. The term древневосточнославянский is of no help whatsoever. Every existing dictionary of what we call here Old East Slavic language is actually "Словарь древнерусского языка". It is stupid to put the centuries-established term in the same category with the artificial wikiderivatives such as "Old Ukrainian" or "Old Belarusian". Those languages have another established term for Old Russian (давньоруська мова) which may be translated to English as Old Russian as well. Don't be sad and please remember Gogol's dictum that "every Ukrainian with some brains in his head knows that he is a Russian". Ghirlandajo 08:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old Ukrainian and Old Belarusian are not "artificial wikiderivatives" but names well-established in Ukrainian and Belarusian linguistic literature. I personally don't like them, because they are just as nationalistic as Old Russian, but they have to be accepted as facts.

The term давньоруска мова is not in "those languages" but only Ukrainian. It cannot be translated to English as "Old Russian", for that is староросійська мова. This differentiation between російський 'Russian' and руський 'East Slavic' is the same as in Polish rosyjski 'Russian' and ruski 'East Slavic'. In Belarusian, the situation is a bit more complicated. Very broadly speaking, those Belarusians who call their capital Менск also strictly make this differentiation between расейскі 'Russian' and рускі 'East Slavic' (and in this sense беларускі really does not mean 'White Russian'), while those that call their capital by the name form borrowed from Russian (and ultimately coming from Ukrainian), Мінск, also use рускі in the sense of 'Russian'. Therefore, for the former group старажытнаруская мова really means 'Old East Slavic'.

Let us not engage in a fruitless discussion on which documents are more Church Slavonic and which are less so. The fact that early manuscripts are sometimes not preserved does not say anything about their not having been written. If you consider the oldest preserved East Slavic document to be from 1377, what does that say about earlier manuscripts? Did they not exist at all? And if they did exist, why should they not have been written somewhere else? 1377 is at the very end of the Kievan period, when the East Slavic lands are being divided, with centers in Moscow and Vilnius. Kiev had been destroyed, so no wonder the Kievan manuscripts did not survive.

Gogol has been dead for 150 years now. If he really said or wrote so (when? where?), then we should keep in mind that русскій at that time meant something quite different. It was a term used for all Eastern Slavs, of which, however, the великороссы were considered better than the малороссы and the бrьлороссы. – Buncic 11:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Old Belarusian is something quite different! It is старобелорусский in Russian. Don't confuse it with Old East Slavic or Old Russian (древнерусский in Russian). – Monedula 12:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article "Old Belarusian language" you are referring to contains information about Ruthenian and should be united with that article. As to terminology: Russians do not always differentiate between древнерусский язык, which is Old East Slavic of the Kievan period, and старорусский язык, which is Old Russian proper of the Moscovian period. Just in the same fashion, Belarusians not always differentiate between старажытнабеларуская мова, which is Old East Slavic again, and старабеларуская мова, which means Ruthenian, but which is often used for Old East Slavic as well because it is shorter. This is why I advocate using supranational terms: Russian древнерусский язык, Belarusian старажытнабеларуская мова, and Ukrainian давньоукраїнська мова all mean the same thing, namely, 'Old East Slavic'; who would have thought that? It is the same with Russian западнорусский язык, Belarusian старабеларуская мова and Ukrainian староукраїнська мова, which all mean 'Ruthenian'. – Buncic 16:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My observation of this discussion. Some people want to force their politically correct views on MY native language. If I am Russian and I speak Russian and Old East Slavic is древнерусский in my language, why should I change it to something else just because someone else finds it offensive.Ukrainians and Belorussians have their own languages and they may call it whatever they like.You know that some Ukrainians refuse to call Russians Russian but call us Moscaly, should I change my nationality name because of that? So stop fixing other languages and use the names that are already given. And ofcource древнерусский implies to Rus' not Russia.

Authority on the subject (?)

"Different historical destinies of the northeastern and southwestern portions of Rus' have resulted in the linguistic and political division of the area into the three modern states, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

With Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus having a shared past, it has been a common Russian and Western practice to refer to the medieval variety of their languages as "Old Russian," there being no specialized adjectives to correspond to the distinction between Rus' and Russia. This usage, however, has been found offensive and potentially confusing because of the concurrent use of the terms "Old Ukrainian" and "Old Belarusian." To remedy the situation some American scholars have used the adjective Rus'ian as a pendant to Rus'. This coinage, however, has not gained wide acceptance, and in this volume the term East Slavic is used to denote the pre-Pterine variety of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian."

Alexander M. Schenker. The Dawn of Slavic. Yale University. 1995.

So Schenker uses East Slavic. I am surprised though he didn't mention the variant "Old Ruthenian." --rydel 02:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rydel. It's nice to be grounded by an actual reference now and then. I'd welcome other citations about the state of nomenclature too, but hopefully more recent than 1911. (Britannica 1911 is definitely an interesting part of the subject, but I'd prefer more modern references about the subject)

Just to clarify, it looks to me that no one opposes Buncic's proposed reorganization of articles on historic East Slavic languages at all. The current debate seems to be strictly about the nomenclature, to some degree the English, but mostly in the respective languages. (correct?)

Since there's obviously debate, disagreement, and transition in the academic world (e.g., Schenker's mention of Rus'ian), would it not be encyclopedic to document the debate itself? Seems to me this would comfortably belong in the Etymology of Rus' article, with prominent links there from the respective languages' articles. Or maybe in the umbrella East Slavic languages article.

There would still remain the question of what to name the historic language articles. Perhaps we should stick to English for now, and all of the respective Slavic names can be removed to the one article. The debate could continue in one place.

—Michael Z. 04:08, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Old East Slavic къняжити

The Ukrainian form is княжити, the Russian is княжить. I put it here because some of the more politically-oriented Ukrainian supporters (this means you, Genyo) do not seem to know this. A. Shetsen 05:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slovo o polku

The text Genyo had reverted to (eliminating an earlier edit, see below) was this:

"Illustrates the sung epics. Typical use of metaphor and simile. The nonsensical misquote растекаться мыслью по древу (to effuse/pour out one's thought upon/over wood; a product of an old and habitual misreading of the word мысію, "squirrel-like" as мыслію, "thought-like", and a change in the meaning of the word течь) has become proverbial in the meaning "to speak ornately, at length, excessively"."

It (in light of the response below, I clarify: the text quoted A. Shetsen 05:36, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)) clearly shows its history as having been moved from the History of the Russian language.

Since OESl is (as it's defined here) ancestral to all the modern ESl languages, I changed it back to

Illustrates the sung epics. Typical use of metaphor and simile. The apparent (Russian) misreading растекаться мыслью по древу (to effuse/pour out one's thought upon/over wood) has become proverbial in modern Russian with the meaning "to speak ornately, at length, excessively". (The misreading is of мысію, "squirrel-like", taken to be мыслію, "thought-like". It is present in both the manuscript copy of 1790 and the first edition of 1800, and appears to have been caused by a then misunderstood change in the meaning of the word R течь.)

If someone wishes to add Ukrainian, Belarusian, Rusyn linguistic commentary to this, it would be more than welcome! But politics, politics... A. Shetsen 05:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dream on! This is not relevant to my recent edits! Genyo 05:31, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

National history

I change the following formulation:

As the language is, to varying degrees, part of the national and/or pre-national history of the Eastern Slavs, [...]

What was meant with "to varying degrees"? Is it more part of Russian than of Ukrainian, or the other way round, or what? No, the early period is equally part of the history of all Eastern Slavs. The verbalization "national and/or pre-national" seems mistakable. At first glance, it seems as if it was part of the pre-national history of some, but of the national history proper of others. This cannot be meant. It is rather a question of whether one defines the pre-national history as part of the national history (which I would do) or not. So I change this passage to:

As the language is part of the (pre-)national history of all Eastern Slavs, [...]

— Buncic 09:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Names of Kievan rulers in Old East Slavic

Is there any place where I can find a list of the names of the Kievan rulers and other important personalities in Old East Slavic (or whatever you prefer to call the literary language of the Kievan Rus')? Or can anyone help me compile such a list? It would be very difficult for me alone, seeing as I am not proficient in any Slavic language. --Iceager 14:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this is a first help, taken from the Russian Wikipedia (see ru:Великие князья Киевские), which has a timeline for most of these articles; similar information is also obtainable from the Ukrainian Wikipedia:

1. Purely mythical and therefore should be left out: Kiy, Shchek and Khoriv
2. Askold and Dir (ru:Аскольд + ru:Дир, 864-882): Асколдъ/Askoldъ (< Old Norse Ho̢skuldr) + Диръ/Dirъ
3. Oleg of Novgorod (Олег, 882–912): Ольгъ/Olьgъ (< Old Norse Helgi)
4. Igor of Kiev (ru:Игорь Рюрикович, 912-945): Игорь/Igorь (< Old Norse Ingvarr)
5. Olga of Kiev (ru:Ольга (княгиня Киевская), 945-957): Ольга/Olьga (< Old Norse Helga)
6. Sviatoslav I of Kiev (ru:Святослав Игоревич, 945/57-972): Свѧтославъ/Svjatoslavъ
7. Yaropolk of Kiev (ru:Ярополк I Святославич, 972—978): Яропълкъ/Jaropъlkъ (Church Slavonic Яроплъкъ/Jaroplъkъ)
8. Vladimir I of Kiev (ru:Владимир I Святославич, 978—1015): Володимѣръ/Volodiměrъ (Church Slavonic Владимиръ/Vladimirъ)
9. Sviatopolk I of Kiev (ru:Святополк Окаянный, 1015-1016, 1018-1019): Свѧтопълкъ/Svjatopъlkъ (Church Slavonic Свѧтоплъкъ/Svjatoplъkъ)
10. Yaroslav I the Wise (ru:Ярослав I Владимирович, 1016—1018, 1019—1054): Ярославъ/Jaroslavъ
11. Iziaslav of Kiev (ru:Изяслав I Ярославич, 1054–1068, 1069–1073, 1077–1078): Изяславъ/Izjaslavъ?
12. Usiaslau of Polatsk (ru:Всеслав Полоцкий, 1068–1069): Вьсеславъ/Vьseslavъ
13. Svyatoslav II of Kiev (ru:Святослав II Ярославич, 1073–1076): Свѧтославъ/Svjatoslavъ
14. Vsevolod I of Kiev (ru:Всеволод I Ярославич, 1076–1077, 1078–1093): Вьсеволодъ/Vьsevolodъ (Church Slavonic Вьсевладъ/Vьsevladъ?)
15. Sviatopolk II of Kiev (ru:Святополк II Изяславич, 1093–1113): Свѧтопълкъ/Svjatopъlkъ (Church Slavonic Свѧтоплъкъ/Svjatoplъkъ)
16. Vladimir Monomakh (ru:Владимир Мономах, 1113–1125): Володимѣръ/Volodiměrъ (Church Slavonic Владимиръ/Vladimirъ), Greek Μονομάχος/Monomáchos (> Old East Slavic Мономахъ/Monomakh)
17. Mstislav of Kiev (ru:Мстислав I Владимирович, 1125—1132): Мьстиславъ/Mьstislavъ
18. Yaropolk II of Kiev (ru:Ярополк II Владимирович, 1132—1138): Яропълкъ/Jaropъlkъ (Church Slavonic Яроплъкъ/Jaroplъkъ)
19. Vsevolod II of Kiev (ru:Всеволод II Ольгович, 1139—1146): Вьсеволодъ/Vьsevolodъ (Church Slavonic Вьсевладъ/Vьsevladъ?)
20. Vyacheslav of Kiev ru:Вячеслав Владимирович, 1146-1155): Вѧчеславъ/Vjačeslavъ
21. Iziaslav II of Kiev ru:Изяслав II Мстиславич, 1146-1149, 1151-1154, 1157): Изяславъ/Izjaslavъ?
22. Yuri Dolgoruky ru:Юрий Владимирович Долгорукий, 1149-1151, 1155-1157): Гюрги/Gjurgi (Church Slavonic Геѡргій/Geōrgij) (< Greek Γεώργιος/Geṓrgios)
23. Rostislav of Kiev ru:Ростислав Мстиславич, 1154-1155): Ростиславъ/Rostislavъ (Church Slavonic Растиславъ/Rastislavъ)
24. Mstislav II of Kiev ru:Мстислав II Изяславич, 1157-1169): Мьстиславъ/Mьstislavъ

I hope this helps you. --Daniel Bunčić 16:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

But this is modern Russian and not Old Russian, as was required. In Old Russian, you should say not "Yuri" but "Gyurgi", not "Vladimir" but "Volodimer", etc. --Ghirlandajo 20:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In Kievan Rus, the primary literary language was Church Slavonic, not Old Russian / Old East Slavic. In Church Slavonic, it is Vladimir, exactly. – Monedula

I consulted the Church Slavonic page as well as the Old Church Slavonic page, and remain confused (and alarmed at the kind of debate caused by old Slavic languages in general). Perhaps a better question would be to ask for the names in the forms provided in the Primary Chronicle and other texts produced in the Kievan Rus'. I realise different texts probably have different forms for names; I don't expect neat traditional standardised forms à la Old Norse. But I'd appreciate anything--the names of the rulers as written down in contemporary sources, whether Old Church Slavonic, Old East Slavic, Old Norse, or Old Japanese. --Iceager 07:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If you need the Old Russian spellings, please go to online Vasmer and check every name listed above: e.g., Oleg would be Ольгъ, Mstislav would be Мьстиславъ, etc. --Ghirlandajo 08:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just overread the real question. Now I have added the Old East Slavic names in the list above. The only name I am not sure about is Izjaslavъ; what kind of name is that at all? Does anyone understand the structure and etymology of this name? --Daniel Bunčić 14:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of the names given above are the forms of the Primary Chronicle. However, there are several manuscripts of this text, and I am sure that e.g. Vladimir is written both Volodiměrъ (the 'real' Old East Slavic form) and Vladimirъ (the Old Church Slavonic form) in the old texts. Monedula's advice to use the form of the literary texts is very good. The problem is that the literary language of most Old East Slavic texts is rather mixed; it surely was not Old Church Slavonic but an East Slavic 'recension' of Church Slavonic, which did include a lot of 'East Slavic' forms where one would have expected 'South Slavic' forms (as Old Church Slavonic was originally a South Slavic language). Most serious slavicists nowadays are not sure about the language of many texts from the Old East Slavic area. So maybe one should use both forms where two exist. I have added those 'Church Slavonic' forms that differ from the East Slavic forms in the list above. (However, I have never seen the name Vsevlad in my life; I don't know if it ever existed.) --Daniel Bunčić 15:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Another afterthought: Church Slavonic is not just a matter of form, but also of content. In a real church text, e.g. Olga would probably called Elena, as this was her Christian name, and Olga was the pagan one. --Daniel Bunčić 15:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped answer this question! This is even more fascinating than I imagined. --Iceager 07:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Who's working on this now?

Hi folks, I believe there are several misconceptions here. Is there anybody planning working on this currently? Primarily, the Old Belarusian and Ukrainian dubs are completely out of place here. E.g., Old Belarusian phase is conventionally defined as a phenomenon of 13-18th cent., and the Old Russian (proto-Russian) phase is usually supposed to span c.7-8--c.12 th cent. That's disregarding the 20th cent. deductions on the phase existence per se, as an entity, which some may like and some not, e.g., as per Czech Indyist O. Hujer (c. 1920s-1940s, as cit. in Stankyevich (1939). Does somebody have access to Hujer's works?). Also I understand the term "common East Slavic" should be attributed to M. I. Tolstoy (as e.g. per: Будзько І. Гістарычная лінгвістычная тэрміналогія: генезіс, дублетнасць і перспектывы развіцця // Гістарычны альманах. Том 9. 2003. – Гродна, 2003. С.164—168.). Yury Tarasievich 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - An analysis of the supports and closes shows that every support is from a Russian, and all but two opposes are from Ukranians (and one of those is Hungarian). I strongly suspect some heavy canvassing went on here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note about the note - the above note is no longer correct. We have had numerous editors from various backgrounds oppose this move.Ostap 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note about the note about the note - That does not mean that no canvassing took place, evidence like behaviour and WP:MEATpuppetry can be seen at Talk:Zaporozhian Cossacks (concerning the alleged destruction of the Sich), Talk:Cossacks (concerning the modern Ukrainian Cossacks), Talk:Ukrainians in Russia (concerning the religious issues) and other articles. --Kuban Cossack 09:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names: The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. As the evidence below shows, "Old Russian" will be far more easier to find for interested users.

• Encyclopedia Britannica: Old Russian (language) - "Russian and the other East Slavic languages (Ukrainian, Belarusian) did not diverge noticeably from one another until the Middle Russian period (the late 13th to the 16th century). The term Old Russian is generally applied to the common East Slavic language in use before that time."

• 308 results for "Old Russian language" in google books
• 6 results for "Old East Slavic language" in google books

• 87 results for "Old Russian language" in google scholar
• 2 results for "Old East Slavic language" in google scholar

• 963,000 google results for "Old Russian"
• 11,500 results for "Old East Slavic"

Encyclopedia Britannica directly comments on this and says that "The term Old Russian is generally applied to the common East Slavic language in use before that time." Clearly, "Old Russian" is by far the more commonly used term.--Berkunt (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From which article(s)/section(s) are the Britannica quotations? "Old Russian (language)" is just a "topics" page with links to a few of them. —Michael Z. 2008-06-19 16:48 z

You start off by linking to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). This is not a geographic name. Ostap 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ancestor of modern-day Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Russian languages is Old East Slavic. Naming the article Old Russian seems as if it makes the modern-day Russian language superior to both Ukrainian and Belarusian (even though all three of them are descendants of the Old East Slavic language). The current title is neutral which can be used by all. No need to move it to anything else.

• Btw, your Google search yields such results as "Old Russian Beer Labels". I doubt this refers to the language of Kievan Rus', eh? These results should be taken with precaution as they can show results that have nothing to do with our topic. —dima/talk/ 17:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• That is why there is "Old Russian language" in google books and google scholar. 308 results for "Old Russian language" in google books compared to 2 for "Old East Slavic language. 87 results for "Old Russian language" in books compared to 2 for google scholar. Encyclopedia Britannica - "The term Old Russian is generally applied to the common East Slavic language in use before that time".--Berkunt (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The New Encyclopedia Britannica prefers Old East Slavic. Here is an excerpt from page 678: "Most of the Old East Slavic (Old Russian) literary texts were written".--Riurik^(discuss) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• No where does it say that they "prefer" Old East Slavic. This also says nothing about the use of the two terms, it was just referring to them in a passing sentence, while the current above it clearly states that "Old Russian is generally applied to the common East Slavic language in use before that time".--Berkunt (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose a google search for "old Russian"? I have a friend who is an "old Russian" but he's just an old man, not a language. The current title is fine, there is no need for a change. Ostap 17:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  That is why there is "Old Russian language" in google books and google scholar. Encyclopedia Britannica - "The term Old Russian is generally applied to the common East Slavic language in use before that time".--Berkunt (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia should be truthful and give accurate informations. This language is not only Old Russian, but pari passu Old Ukrainian and Old Russian. Old East Slavic is the best for it. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 19:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  That is why there is "Old Russian language" in google books and google scholar. 308 results for "Old Russian language" in google books compared to 2 for "Old East Slavic language. 87 results for "Old Russian language" in books compared to 2 for google scholar. Encyclopedia Britannica - "The term Old Russian is generally applied to the common East Slavic language in use before that time".--Berkunt (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It is not wikipedia's place to comment on "what is correct" (the far majority of sources disagree with you on this too, including Encyclopedia Britannica), it is what is the most commonly used, just as the longstanding "Kiev"/"Kyiv" naming debate has been time and time again decided. "Old Russian language" is by far the more commonly used term, as the google books and google scholar results evidence. Encyclopedia Britannica directly comments on which name is used - "The term Old Russian is generally applied to the common East Slavic language in use before that time".--Berkunt (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support as nominator.--Berkunt (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Above results are misleading. "Old East Slavic language" yields 6 hits, but remove "language" and it rises to 107. Also not included are "Old East Slavonic" hits, which would support the current title.--Riurik^(discuss) 02:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  And "Old Russian" (Old Russian is not always referred to as "Old Russian language" either) yields 4640,[2] what's your point?

• Oppose - The current term is appropriate, neutral and does not lead into confusion between different interpretations of "Russian".Ans-mo (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Anachronistic misnomer, just like "Old Bulgarian" is for OCS. The only reason why it's still in use today is due to 1) pure inertia 2) nationalist desire to emphasize "Russian" component :) Newer literature tends to use more politically correct naming conventions, so while e.g. "Slavonic languages" monograph uses "Old Russian" all over the place and OESl. nowhere, Schenker's later "The dawn of Slavic" book which is almost entirely based on his chapter on Proto-Slavic in the aforementioned work uses exclusively "Old East Slavic". I'm sure someone could dig out some WP guideline that says "prefer the name that is more politically correct, less ambiguous and misleading and less insultive to masses". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names: The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. Wikipedia relies on sources, not original research, and the Encyclopedia Britannica and the two search results are what is used. That is why we call it Kiev and not "Kyiv".--Berkunt (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  No, you completely missed the point. Kiev -> Kyiv is disputable because the former is much, much more used, and both are favourable with respect to one language option (Russian, Ukrainian). What you are trying to do here is to replace a term that is non-controversial with some disputable anachronism that is increasingly being dropped out of use. Britannica article itself emphasizes it very clearly ("The conventional term “Old Russian literature” is anachronistic for several reasons.."). I suspect that one day the only ones left using it would be Russian linguists themselves, much like Germans continue calling Indo-European "Indogermanische" or Bulgarians OCS "старобългарски". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• To summarize, we have a lot of (in fact, all of them are) Ukrainian users who do not want it changed to "Old Russian" for obvious reasons, completely ignoring the sources.--Berkunt (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  I strongly suggest you leave out your perceptions of users ethnicities. Strongly. Ostap 16:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

  I strongly suggest you cease WP:CANVASSing, WP:STALKing and WP:MEATpuppetry. --Kuban Cossack 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest that you produce evidence before making accusations. Ostap 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  I strongly suggest that you don't temp me to do so, as the potential disciplinary procedure resulting from such deed could have very bad consequences for your activity in wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 09:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest that you pursue this as soon as possible. Ostap 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Have to oppose otherwise move will cause a lot of misunderstandings, M.K. (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Old Russian implies that the language is based off of the modern-day Russian language. However, this is not true, so the article should remain called Old East Slavic. --Boguslav (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Cautious Support: I believe that it doesn't really matter what the name implies, as long as it is the accepted norm in English language. Since Britannica is apparently using "Old Russian", and Google Books/Scholar return more hits for that as well, a move sounds reasonable. But then I'm Russian; I'm pretty sure this support vote will be seen as a "nationalist desire to [blah]" by some. I therefore suggest the nominator inform the WikiProject Languages community about this discussion so that we had more votes from people outside Ukraine and Russia. --Jashiin (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Stop this discusion and let's impove articles! I think it was expectable the way this discussing was going, isn't good relations between wikipedians from Eastern Europe more important then the truth? I think people who are interested will find this article anyhowe (unlike Kyiv vs. Kiev). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Shouldn't we simply create a new article at Old Russian, instead of a redirect here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose First books.google hit for “Old Russian” (Magocsi 1996): “Soviet and some western writers even use the term ‘Old Russian language’ (drevnerusskii iazyk) to describe the linguistic medium supposedly used in Kievan Rus’. In fact, the language of Kievan Rus’ was not Old Russian, nor was it Old Belarusan or Old Ukrainian.” —Michael Z. 2008-06-17 13:53 z
• Oppose Old East Slavic is neutral and already widely used. Don't see the need for the move. Old Russian will only add to confusion between modern Russian and the language of the Rus, which was common for all three peoples. --Hillock65 (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support If research shows that Old Russian is used more often in modern English Historical literature certainly Old East Slavic is a form of WP:SYN? I am quite concerned on how four or five users here who don't appear to have this article on their watchlist, some of whom have are rather dormant in contributions all of a sudden within a space of 48 hours, if the initiators of the move would like to initiate a disciplinary proceeding of WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATpuppetry, I would gladly provide evidence for other like cases. --Kuban Cossack 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  Come to think of it if Britanica uses Old Russian to denote this language, why should wikipedia be different? There is nothing un-neutral in using a common term for a historical entity be they people, traditions or indeed languages. I suggest we look into other historical linguistic literature and if indeed Old Russian is what is used, then by all means move it. --Kuban Cossack 15:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - if google hits were the only measure of whether or not a title is appropriate, I might agree. However, there is the problem that I can't turn off the logical side of the my brain. Logic says that since Russia does not equal Rus', and only Rus' and not Russia existed at the time: ergo "Old Russian" is an anachronism. It would be like calling Latin "Old Italian", despite is obvious links the the other Romance languages. Besdies which, google hits are far from flawless and we have reputable academic sources that use OES. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose and Rework. Such move would just facilitate the confusion which historically exists in the naming of this entity, which was made worse in the USSR times, and which gets worse yet in the English translation. At least, the term "Common East Slavic" is of a more recent origin, and was created to address just that issue. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. As a comparison we don't have Old Danish or Old Swedish but Old Norse. Both languages have its origin in Old Norse just like Russian and Ukrainian have its in Old East Slavic. Narking (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Moral Support Proposed name is most common way of referring to it, like it or not. "Russian" when used in a medieval context in English follows medieval usage and refers to all "eastern Slavs", not just the ancestors of those who by happenstance live in the Russian Federation. Modern Russia takes its name from medieval Rus, not the other way about. Recognizing rather than fighting (and thus reinforcing) that would also btw end all implications of heritage privilege that "Old Russian" appears to create over modern Ukrainians and Belarusians but in actuality doesn't in the English-speaking world. 81.215.75.143 (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  Ruthenians and Rusyns also take their names from medieval Rus’, but it was the Imperial Russian academics whose writing was once perpetuated in English. Recognizing rather than fighting over that is what modern academia has done by adopting Old East Slavic. —Michael Z. 2008-06-28 15:05 z

  I am (a Russian) currently was working with 11th century Russian texts (Russkaya pravda by Yaroslavl the Wise) for few days. I am not an historian and wasn't taught this ancient language. However, I've been able to understand most parts of text quite easily, despite the age of the text - just after finding few pre-reformed old shaped letters. However, I hardly can understand a much of modern Ukrainian, I think it's full of Polish words which never were really a part of Old Russian. So, that's why such ancient texts should be described as "Old Russian" - they are much closer to modern Russian than to anything else. 213.187.118.145 (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, this is misunderstanding. 81.215.75.143 (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sure you're not responsible, so there's no need to apologize. —Michael Z. 2008-07-01 18:25 z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thought/mouse

I have rewritten the Слово о пълку Игоревѣ quote/translation to reflect the facts as scholarship presents them to us. It is absurd to talk about the "mouse" theory as if it were fact, and present the actual reading of the text as a misreading. I have not referenced it because it is the reading of all texts I have on hand or can find via Google Books; it is up to the partisans of the "mouse" theory to substantiate their version with references to scholarly editions, if they can find them. I cannot find a single scholarly edition (or any other, for that matter) that has this version. I have also deleted the image link, because it claims to be a reproduction of an original version with "мысію," which in actuality does not exist. The whole thing reminds me of the "Война и міръ" nonsense, which for a while was also presented in the Wikipedia article as fact. Languagehat (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Misquote?

In the quotes displayed in the article, both the letters Ѧ and Я appear. But that isn't possible; Я was originally a handwritten variant of Ѧ and there was no actual difference between those letters. They were considered the same. So I think it may be a misquote? CodeCat (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

An interesting observation, Codecat. Thanks for bringing it up. I've noticed this being used in various ru forums and have only been able to trace it back to this entry[3]. Spurious, at best. I've gone through many images & online versions of the text in question & only Ѧ is used. I suspect that this may have been some sort of attempt to address Ѧ as being Я in modern Cyrillic (???). If that is the case, I'd consider it to be a sloppy attempt which should not be used as is here. I've also noted that the translations into modern Russian and modern Ukrainian appear to have simply been taken directly out of current translations and aren't actually accurate translations of the sentence used as an example but are, rather, pulled out of current translations which would employ literary licence in order that they read comfortably within that specific context and that translation (rather like a multitude of 'translations' of Shakespeare into modern English). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of Laurentian Codex 'pseudo-translations'

I'm still having issues with the 'translations' of the original Laurentian codex into Russian and Ukrainian. Having studied Old Slavonic years ago, if 'translations' are to be used they should reflect the text, not simply cite the relevant passage out of modern translations which use literary license to facilitate the fluidity of the (modern audience's) reading of the text. Pulling excerpts out of context can only be construed as a simplistic approach. The two translations don't even match up in translation back into English. Either have more accurate, direct translation or why bother at all? More accurate translations would be: Russian - "Это повесть временных лет, откуда пошла русская земля, кто в Киеве начал первым княжить, и откуда возникла русская земля." Ukrainian - "Це повість временних літ, звідки пішла руська земля, хто в Київі почав першим княжити, і звідки виникла Руська Земля." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the assertion that these excerpts have been translated to be literal, not literary. If you are uncertain as to the difference, please consult this Wikipedia article on the subject. Having worked in Translation Studies myself, I can assure you that it's a very accurate article. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As there is no one definitive 'translation' from Old Slavonic to modern Russian and Ukrainian (in fact, there's a plethora of them), I've created amalgam translations of the original text & syntax in order that both modern languages versions reflect the similarities as best possible. Additional citations have been added for anyone interested in following this up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 00:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Old East Slavic → Old Russian – The language is called Old Russian. Sources: 1, 2, 3. Russian article — Old Russian, Ukrainian article — Old Russian, Belarusian article — Old Russian --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not even going to indulge this piece of [EDIT] Strong oppose as either WP:POV or ill-informed nonsense —

Russian Wikipedia:
"Древнеру́сский язы́к — язык восточных славян в период примерно с VI по XIII—XIV века, общий предок белорусского, русского и украинского языков."
(Translation) "Old Rus' language was the language of the Eastern Slavs in the period roughly from VI to XIII-XIV century, the common ancestor of the Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian languages."

Ukrainian Wikipedia:
"Термін давньоруська мова (також давньосхіднослов'янська мова) вживається для позначення 1) сукупності діалектів, якими розмовляло слов'янське населення Київської Русі (спільносхіднослов'янська мова) 2) наддіалектної писемної мови, якою користувались у Київській Русі (давньоруська (давньокиївська/писемно-літературна мова). Правомірність застосування цього терміну в обох його значеннях визнається не усіма дослідниками."
(Translation) "The term Old East Slavic (also Old Slavic language) is used to refer to 1) set of dialects that were spoken by the Slavic population of Kievan Rus' (common Eastern Slavic language) 2) supradialectal written language, which was in use in Kievan Rus' (Old Rus'/Old Kievan) in written/ literary language). The validity of the use of this term in both of these senses not recognized by all researchers."

Belarusian Wikipedia:
"Старажытнару́ская мова (руск.: древнерусский язык, укр.: давньоруська мова) — мова (ці сукупнасць гаворак) усходніх славян у 10—14 стагоддзях. Як мовазнаўчы тэрмін, словазлучэнне «старажытнаруская мова» ўжываецца ў двух значэннях: 1) усходнеславянскай протамовы, як сукупнасці сярэдневяковых усходнеславянскіх гаворак, і 2) наддыялектнай пісьмовай мовы, якая ўжывалася на ўсходнеславянскіх землях у сярэдневякоўі (прыблізна да XIV стагоддзя). Яе існаванне і правамернасць выкарыстання тэрміна «старажытнару́ская мова» прызнаецца не ўсімі даследчыкамі."
(Translation) "Old Rus' language (Russian: Old Rus' language, Ukrainian.: Old Rus' language) - was the language (or a set of dialects) of the Eastern Slavs in the 10th to 14th centuries. As a linguistic term, the phrase "Old Rus' language" is used in two ways: 1) East Slavic proto-language, as a set of medieval East Slavic dialects, and 2) supradialectal written language that was used in the East Slavic lands during the Middle Ages (approximately 14th century). The existence and validity of using of the term "Old Rus' language" is not universally accepted by researchers."

As for your generic examples of the use of 'Old Russian', it's merely a recidivist anachronism harking back to mistranslations and All-Russian nation ideology promoted by the Russian Empire (begun earlier with the Tsardom of Russia) and further confused in the Western world during the era of the Soviet Union whereby the concept of Rus'ki (collective noun for the Eastern Slavic peoples) was conflated with Russkiye.

Please close off this move request before it turns into a candidate for ARBEE sanctions again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Per the detailed rationale provided by Iryna, above. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question about ꙗ, ѧ and я

The sample text of Primary Chronicle was already corrected by me, based on a graphic. But the original text of Tale of Igor's Campaign looks like a Russian text before orthography reform of 1918, я is only accepted since Petrine reform, before Peter I, it was spelled as ꙗ or ѧ. So what's the exactly spelling for the original text of Tale of Igor's Campaign? --Great Brightstar (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Great Brightstar: The original text (protograph) is lost, destroyed in the Napoleonic Wars. All that remains are 18th and 19th century copies of varying fidelity, plus some modern attempts to reconstruct the text, but of course none is the original manuscript. Here’s the passage in various editions:

• First Edition (Musin-Puškin, 1800): Не лѣполи ны бяшетъ, братiе, начяти старыми словесы трудныхъ повѣстiй о пълку Игоревѣ, Игоря Святъславлича! начати же ся тъй пѣсни по былинамь сего времени, а не по замышленiю Бояню. Боянъ бо вѣщiй, аще кому хотяше пѣснь творити, то растѣкашется мыслiю по древу, сѣрымъ вълкомъ по земли, шизымъ орломъ подъ облакы.
• Diplomatic Edition (Lihačjov, 1950; Favorskij, 1989): Не лѣпо ли ны бяшетъ, братие, начяти старыми словесы трудныхъ повѣстий о пълку Игоревѣ, Игоря Святъславлича? Начати же ся тъй пѣсни по былинамь сего времени, а не по замышлению Бояню. Боянъ бо вѣщий, аще кому хотяше пѣснь творити, то растѣкашется мыслию по древу, сѣрымъ вълкомъ по земли, шизымъ орломъ подъ облакы.
• Critical Edition (Jakobson, 1964): Не лѣпо ли ны бѣщеть, братие, начяти старыми словесы трудьныхъ повѣстии о пълку Игоревѣ, Игоря Святославичя? Начяти же ся тои пѣсни по былинамъ сего врѣмене, а не по замыщлению Бояню. Боянъ бо вѣщии, аще кому хотяше пѣснь творити, то растѣкашеть ся мыслию по дрѣву, сѣрымь вълкъмь по земли, сизымь орьлъмь подъ облакы.
• Reconstructed manuscript (Meščerskij, 1985): Нелепо ли ны бяшеть, братiе, начяти старыми словесы трудныхъ повестiи <песнь> о пълку Игореве, Игоря Святъславличя! Начяти же ся тои песни по былинамъ сего времени, а не по замышленiю Бояню. Боянъ бо вещiи, аще кому хотяше песнь творити, то растекашется мыслiю по древу, серымъ вълкомъ по земли, сизымъ орломъ подъ облакы.
• Reconstructed Old East Slavic (Dybo, 2006): Не лѣпо ли ны бѧшеть братие начати старыми словесы троудьныхъ повѣстии о пълкоу игоревѣ игорѧ свѧтъславлича начати же сѧ тъи пѣсни по былинамъ сего времени а не по замышлению боꙗню боꙗнъ бо вѣщии аще комоу хотѧше пѣснѣ творити то растѣкашетьсѧ мыслию по древоу сѣрымь вълкомь по земли шизымь орьломь подъ облакы

In short, we really don’t know what the original spelling was. Vorziblix (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

We do know that it wasn't я. That letter didn't exist yet as a distinct character, it was the civil script variant of ѧ. CodeCat (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If we’re talking about the hypothetical original text, sure; in that case Dybo’s reconstruction is the best option to go with. If we limit ourselves to what’s attested in surviving direct copies, then we only have я (which was probably a modernization made by Musin-Puškin), wrong as it may be. Either choice is fine with me, but it would be rather inconsistent to just archaicize the яs and leave the rest as it is. (Also note that я did exist before the civil script as a skoropis variant of ѧ. Not that it matters here, since the text is older than skoropis, too…) Vorziblix (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Native name" problem

References have been (justifiably) asked for to back up the use of "рѹсьскъ ѩзыкъ" ("ѩзыкъ" being used to represent "language") as the native name of the language. While various versions of the Primary Chronicles back support the use of "Рѹ́сьскаѧ землѧ" ("землѧ" being land/territory), I haven't encountered any reliable sources citing the former use of language as being acknowledged in any sources, rather that it's a WP:OR piece of WP:SYNTH. Unless someone can come up with quality sources for this usage, I'd suggest that it be removed from the infobox promptly. Only Russian Wikipedia has the field filled in as "рѹсьскꙑи ꙗꙁꙑкъ", but it is sans reference. Ukrainian and Polish Wikipedia don't use the parameter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• I removed "рѹсьскъ ѩзыкъ" because there is no source for two months. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Terminology section: "The most neutral, supranational term..."?

I've changed the tag for "The most neutral, supranational terms for Old East Slavonic can be translated to English as "Old Russian"." from cite needed to dubious. Given that the introduction uses the Texas University description to support the use of "Old Russian" as "Throughout these lessons, therefore, the terminology Old Russian is employed with a bow to tradition. However Old Russian is no more the oldest form of Russian than Latin is the oldest form of Spanish: Old Russian is equally Old Belorussian and Old Ukrainian." (see the full text here), it can only be described as POV SYNTH. The terminology section needs to be rewritten in line with the anachronistic use of the term, however I'd rather check with other editors as to their take on the matter before making any adjustments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Various minor issues

Now that the article has been locked, we can turn to more relevant issues.

First off, as a general point: This article must be clear about its scope, and whether it is mainly about the written or the spoken language. This way, the contradiction between text and infobox can be resolved.

It's not easy to put a start date on Old East Slavic as a spoken language. The dissolution of Proto-Slavic in the 7th century provides a terminus ante quem, but considering that the Common Slavic "Great Slavic Vowel Shift" and the specifically East Slavic polnoglasie (see Slavic liquid metathesis and pleophony) are generally dated to about the early 9th century, East Slavic of the 7th and 8th centuries (only indirectly reflected in the form of loanwords, especially in Finnic but also East Baltic) would not be recognisable as distinctively as East Slavic, the dating in the infobox is questionable.

It's better to focus on Old East Slavic as we know it from texts. The main difficulty is that the language introduced after the Christianisation of the Rus' in the late 10th century was Old Church Slavonic, so texts largely reflect the local recension of OCS, i. e. South Slavic with a few East Slavic features, not the spoken East Slavic dialects (which included both Old East Slavic proper, the immediate ancestor of the modern East Slavic languages, and contemporary dialects that were later absorbed by East Slavic proper, of which only the highly divergent dialect of Novgorod and Pskov is actually known to us). Concrete texts therefore reflect some degree of mixture between OCS and the vernacular, with essentially a continuum ranging from more-or-less pure OCS to more-or-less pure vernacular texts. In the 11th century, texts can still be described as being in (the local recension of) OCS. The most celebrated texts of the 12th century are fairly mixed. The Old Novgorodian texts run more or less the full gamut. However, pure Old East Slavic is basically not attested in texts. Even generously speaking, it makes little sense to talk of an East Slavic written language before the 11th, let alone 10th century. And the spoken language of the preliterary period (most of which even precedes the foundation of the Rus') is basically pure reconstruction, so it makes little sense to include it explicitly (just like we don't project Old Norwegian back into the Viking Age, even though we've actually got runic texts from that period). Therefore I propose to stick to the majority of the sources, which (unlike the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, which is moreover misrepresented in the infobox and in fact much more nuanced) limit the Old East Slavic period to start in the 10th or 11th century.

I'd also prefer to date the end of the Old East Slavic period to coincide with the end of the Rus', in the 13th century, given that characteristically Ukrainian developments (especially in the vocalism) had definitely started by that time. Also compare the sentence in the article: "When after the end of the 'Tatar yoke' the territory of former Kievan Rus was divided between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the medieval Rus' principality Grand Principality of Moscow, two separate literary traditions emerged in these states, Ruthenian in the west and medieval Russian in the east." However, I acknowledge that the demarcation is tricky and largely subjective.

I have a few more suggestions and definite corrections, however:

• "The samples of birch-bark writing excavated in Novgorod have provided crucial information about the pure tenth-century vernacular in North-West Russia, almost entirely free of Church Slavonic influence." Tenth-century is too early and conflicts with the traditional 11th–15th century dating also given at Old Novgorod dialect.
• At the beginning: was a language should be is a language, as even extinct languages (Old East Slavic technically not even being extinct, only changed into more modern forms) are still languages. (This is a MOS issue that comes up with some regularity and should have a house style recommendation for consistency.)
• I also think that "later" in the introductory sentence is slightly misplaced and sounds off.
• The comma after "misnomer" can probably be removed.
• "Old Slavic is therefore more appropriate term" lacks an article.
• "Other Slavic languages are differed" definitely sounds wrong; it should probably say "different".
• "Old East Slavonic" should be "Old East Slavic" (for consistency, even if "Slavonic" is an acceptable synonym of "Slavic", although it sounds old-fashioned to me).
• "The Old Church Slavonic language was introduced." Superfluous sentence.
• The full stop after NOTE: should be removed.
• MOS: Punctuation such as commas, semicolons or full stops should precede footnotes.

So much for now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Discounting the Encyclopedia of Ukraine as a legitimate source while also being flat-out wrong about the developments of the Ukrainian language indicates your POV:SYNTH, as described earlier on this page. Reverted back to most up-to-date version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UkrainianSavior1 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A clear case of political correctness

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is so obvious that the title of this article tries to appease the easily-offended Ukrainian pseudohistorians. Rus' is Russia/Ruthenia, those are two words in different languages (Russian, Greek, Latin, English). Building identities on different time periods of the same country is laughable. But hey, even Anglo-Saxon is now a racist term. What a joke.--Adûnâi (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Your attempts at insulting actual Ukrainian historians and paying tribute to Russophilic pseudohistorians are laughable, and fall on deaf ears when the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain neutrality, and capitulate to Russian political correctness. Rus' is Ruthenia, the old name for Ukraine, and the word "Russia" did not even appear until after the Time of Troubles in a vain, fruitless attempt at Moscow's residents to steal Ukraine's history and delude themselves into thinking their significance did not start and end with the then-destroyed Golden Horde. What's further laughable is Russophiles blindly following easily-offended Russian pseudohistorians who cannot even decide whether or not to claim Kyivan Ruthenia is part of their history upon reading actual historical records, with indisputable evidence showing clear regional differences ethnicity-wise even before then. The biggest joke by far is that there are sycophants that will mindlessly lap up the flip-flopping stances of said Russian historians. But hey, if the blind lead each other long enough, they'll eventually fall off a cliff anyway. Complaining about actual historical accuracy because it doesn't appease Russophilic yes-men - what a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UkrainianPatriot1 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock (per WP:SOCKSTRIKE) Austronesier (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

"Rusian" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rusian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Rusian until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Autonym

Is it known, what was the autonym of this language? --Mladifilozof (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the autonym of this language was simply "словеньскыи ꙗзыкъ", according to the sources cited here.

That's Old Church Slavonic. East Slavic seems to have been called "Rus" since the 11th century. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing "Old Russian"

I suggest we remove Old Russian from the begging of the article. Since Old Russian = Old Ukrainian = Old Belorussian. Based on the source provided as proof that Old Russian is a used term, also by reading the article we can say that Old Russian is "least commonly used" and "The term Old Russian is something of a misnomer". Since Wikipedia uses only the most common names, there is no point in keeping Old Russian as a synonym for Old East Slavic. It's a not good idea to keep only "Old Russian"(by this I mean, there is no point in having only Russian, since there are Ukrainian and Belorussian as well), it will confuse people on purpose. We have Terminology below which perfectly describes the meaning behind the term.

If you do not agree with me, about removing Old Russian from the begging, then we would need to add Old Belorussian and Old Ukrainian because they are the same languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.199.92 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

POV, nothing to discuss.--24.135.13.63 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@KIENGIR, I just checked the history of edits on this article and checked Archive.org versions. Originally, this page was called Old East Slavic, then Old Russian, Old Belorussian and Old Ukrainian were added as an alternative name. Apparently, after Russo-Ukrainian (2014-present)(or maybe I'm missing something here) it was vandalized and references to Old Belorussian and Old Ukrainian were removed. Again, just by POV rules of Wiki, we cannot add Old Russian, since it's "least commonly used" as stated by the authors of this article(in which, by the way, Old Russian was kept as "proof" that someone uses it, again, that just breaks the POV rule). Again, we have Terminology below which perfectly describes the meaning behind the term.--37.225.5.191 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a note: "least common" is "Old Rusian" (with one "s"). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Noraskulk, please read carefully through this discussion page before editing the article. It was discussed multiple times before why having only Old Russian isn't the best option. That's why terminology was added. You can also read comments from Iryna Harpy here, she has an excellent explanation about it. --Kram333r (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Kram333r, "consensus" is when each participant in a dispute agrees with its outcome. In this article, the dispute started with the fact that you canceled the edit of the user KIENGIR (that is, you started an edit war). So that you will not be offended, I will ask Ermenrich and Berig to resolve this dispute. Noraskulk (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC).

Please be careful when reading message from Noraskulk. The user may have some political motives. He protects this vandal. And may have some motives in this article as well. --Kram333r (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, be careful and beware of me.-) Noraskulk (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think "Old East Slavic" is the better term, because it is neutral in respect to modern Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian. We can compare this with Scandinavia. I could write "Runic Danish" or "Runic Swedish", "Old Danish" or "Old Swedish", but as these language forms were essentially the same dialect, I prefer to use "Old Norse" or "Old East Norse".--Berig (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Old East Slavic is also commonly referred to as "Old Russian". In fact, it may be more widely used than "Old East Slavic" itself (this needs to be checked), however the point is that it is a widely used name which is sourced, this should not be removed from the lede per MOS:ALTNAME. If "Old Ukrainian" and "Old Belarusian" were widely used names, then I would say they should be included in the lede, but they are not. Mellk (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps in the lede this can be described better as in the terminology section, but I do not see any reason to actually remove any mention of this in the lede. Mellk (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDLEAD says to boldface “the title and significant alternative titles.” Nothing about “more widely used,” much less any arbitrary threshold set somewhere in the vicinity of WP:ILIKEIT. The three alternate names of this language are significant, and should receive equal treatment. —Michael Z. 00:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Which makes it a significant alternative name. "Old Ukrainian" and "Old Belarusian" are significant alternative names that should receive equal treatment? Definitely not. Mellk (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What makes it significant (and the others, apparently, insignificant)? That you like it? Sincerely, I don’t know what you’re referring to. —Michael Z. 13:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We cite a source baldly stating that “The term Old Russian is something of a misnomer.”[4] So it is inappropriate to place it in bold in the first line as if it were an unqualified exact synonym. This is misleading our readers and perpetuating WP:BIAS. The problem with the name Old Russian, and its equivalent status with Old Belarusian and Old Ukrainian, should be stated along with its first mention, and not buried in a note. That is exactly what the source does in the very first paragraph of a huge series of university-level online lessons. —Michael Z. 17:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Old Russian may be a misnomer, but quite unlike Old Ukranian and Old Belorussian, a common one. Our readers will easily come across this term in the literature which is most accessible to them, i.e. linguistic overviews written in English. Corbett & Comrie's The Slavonic languages (Routledge, 2003) consistently uses Old Russian. Fortson writes: The literary language has traditionally been called Old Russian, the term we use in this book, but it is a bit of a misnomer: it was ancestral not just to Russian, but also to the other East Slavic languages, Belarusian and Ukranian (Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2004, p. 375). (Looks like Krause and Slocum did some close paraphrasing here). The term is even still found in the chapter "The dialectology of Slavic" by O. Polakov in Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics which appeared in 2018: The modern East Slavic dialects are outgrowths of a single Old Russian language, which existed until at least the 12th century...Old Russian has given rise to modern Russian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian (p. 1596). But then, in the same volume, Daniel Collins and B. Darden, the authors of the chapters "The phonology of Slavic" and "Balto-Slavic morphology", respectively, consistently use Old East Slavic (or its abbreviation OESl). I take this as evidence that the term definitely has overtaken or will overtake "Old Russian" in the literature.

I find a statement by Sussex and Cubberley in The Slavic languages (Cambridge University Press, 2009) very enlightening: All three East Slavic languages lay claim to the same early written records as evidence of their own historicity (p. 80). The edit history of this article is living evidence for this.

To sum up: 1. Keep the page title 2. Keep Old Russian in the lede as commonly encountered alternative name. 3. Instead of citing at length pet sources for Old Ukranian (or Old Belorussian) in bolded text, why not cite Sussex & Cubberley to inform our readers what's behind the "debate". –Austronesier (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these sources. They exemplify the historiographical WP:BIAS in much of Western academia that has favoured the Russian national version of Ukrainian history over the Ukrainian, and has slowly started disappearing in recent decades. I can present more good sources that explicitly illuminate the general debate, although I’m not sure if they specifically treat naming of “OES” vs. “ORu.” Why not do both?

Add to them Bunčić 2015: “It has long been agreed upon that during the ‘Old Ukrainian’ period [up to the 14th century] there was a common literary language (or koiné) for all the East Slavs, so that the terms Old Ukrainian, Old Belarusian . . . and Old Russian . . . actually mean the same thing. Consequently, Old East Slavic is a more suitable term for this common literary language.” He mainly refers to the literary and not vernacular language(s).

Commonly encountered misnomer “Old Russian” shouldn’t appear without a visible caveat. That the name is both common and deprecated makes that important. Quoting S & C doesn’t satisfy this. And you are ignoring that all three names do have significant meaning in the context of the history of the respective language, but only “Old Russian” has been formerly elevated by the false equivalence of Russia and Rus’ in Russian imperial historiography, and as the “older brother” language in Soviet historiography, and still often is either through habit or with intent.

What do you mean “pet”? George Shevelov is a leading authority on the subject. —Michael Z. 20:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

We aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by giving equal space to names that are only very rarely used in English to those that are. Calling everything "bias" doesn't really help us much and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies. I fully agree with Austronesier and Berig on how we should present the information: we already use the neutral term Old East Slavic, the other commonly encountered term is "Old Russian," and any other terms can be mentioned in a terminology section.

George Shevelov didn't believe that there was a common East Slavic language, so I hardly think we should be using him to decide what to call Old East Slavic.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources frame that conclusion about Shevelov, or you just righting a wrong? Hundreds of recent sources cite him. —Michael Z. 18:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec)wikt:pet#Adjective: 'favourite; cherished; the focus of one's (usually positive) attention'. What you call "historiographical WP:BIAS" is just terminology. Of course is the traditional notation of writing e.g. ORuss. lěto > Ukr. lito insensitive and looks somewhat silly in retrospect, but that was and is common practice, whereas you will rarely find s.o. writing OUkr. lěto > Russ. l'eto, if at all (I'd be eager to see a source which does it). This is an encyclopedia which reflects, but isn't out to right great wrongs. FWIW, we sufficiently do so by choosing "Old East Slavic" over "Old Russian" and the 'visible caveat' is already there. What we can do is to mention that scholars freely make use of the possibilty to refer to this stage as Old Ukrainian and Old Belorussian in the context of studies which treat the development from OES to later stages when Ukranian and Belorussian characteristics start to emerge. But that's a different thing from the use of "Old Russian" as plain synonym for "OES". Simply to say "Old East Slavic .... also known as Old Ukrainian" needs even more caveats. –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Most users have come to the consensus that the term "Old Russian" should be left as the fact that some historians still use it (even if not so often). Personally, I think that you can change the beginning of the article a little, for example:
Old East Slavic, sometimes called Old Russian[3]... Noraskulk (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC).

(?) . . . Would you please count out the editors’ names for and against, to demonstrate the consensus you say you’ve identified? —Michael Z. 16:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, we are in the middle of a discussion. It is not helpful to cut it off with the premature claim of a "result"/"consensus". –Austronesier (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mzajac: You have mentioned above sources that speicifically treat the question of "OES" vs. "ORu". I have found one in German. Do you have full access to this paper[5]? In his conclusion, the author supports Altostslawisch and Urostslawisch as "less problematic". –Austronesier (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have access, and I managed to struggle through the German with the help of Google translate. I guess Urostslawisch = “Proto-East Slavic”? This is a very interesting paper and looks quite important for the nomenclature section of this article. It explains the scientific reasons for adopting Old East Slavic and deprecating Old Russian, and does it while acknowledging the historical/historiographical circumstances, but without indulging any of the associated politics. It goes beyond “common name” and gives us an explanation to include in the article. Respekt. —Michael Z. 03:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we’re all (or almost all) in agreement that old Russian is an inaccurate term. I think Austronesier’s solution of “traditionally called” is the best one for how to present it.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

If the problem is that it is inaccurate, I don’t see not mentioning the fact as a “solution.” The statement is not a clue to readers of this fact. It is an excuse not to do so, and looks to me like the result of bias. Calling a spade “traditional.” —Michael Z. 13:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What about 'erroneously called Old Russian'?—blindlynx (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That could sound like it’s done by accident, but one of our references on this very question uses it intentionally “with a bow to tradition,” even though “Old Russian is something of a misnomer,” and “equally Old Belorussian and Old Ukrainian,” and OES is “more appropriate.”[6] I think it’s important to concisely but explicitly state these facts in the text:

• Rus and Russia were conflated in Russian historiography, which was adopted in the West.
• The resulting name Old Russian is inaccurate/incorrect/misleading but still maintains momentum in academic usage.
• Old East Slavic is correct and increasingly replacing it.

It needn’t be too wordy. —Michael Z. 20:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's obvious that since several sources call 'Old Russian' a misnomer and no source defends it, it can be designated as a misnomer; a sourced claim is a sourced claim. Purging it from the lede, which was the original suggestion in this thread, should be out of the question, since it is widely used and is virtually universally used in only somewhat older literature. That said, it seems to me that the international (i.e. Western) scholarly tendency that the article has to reflect because of Wikipedia policy is itself due to increasing anti-Russian bias in modern Western linguistics. It just so happens that of the three successor nations of the Kievan Rus, only one actually chose to preserve its name for itself, and only one preserved a name for its language that is derived from that name; so a natural consequence is that the adjectives for the common predecessor and that successor will coincide. The other two nations did not choose to retain that name, which is their right, but then demanding that the historical names of their ancestors should be changed retroactively because of that is ridiculous.

It's a bit like demanding that people should retroactively stop calling ancient and medieval India 'India' and its languages 'Hindic' or 'Indo-Aryan' in order to avoid offending the Pakistanis. Besides everything else, the names 'India' and 'Hindu' themselves derive from the name of the region Sindh, which is now a Pakistani province and majority-Muslim. An alternative, 'Greek' strategy may be for the Sindhis to demand that India and the Hindus should rename themselves instead of 'stealing' their name. If the Sindhis don't want to call themselves 'Indian', nobody else should have the right to do it either! A similar demand would be that people should stop calling the Frankish Empire 'Frankish Empire' because it's ancestral not only to France, but also to Germany. If Germany were to be so offended by hearing that it originated from something that sounds French, it should have just stuck to calling itself (East) Francia or something.

Nobody insists on calling Old English 'Old Insular Ingvaeonic' because it also happens to be 'Old Scots', nobody argues against 'Old Dutch' because it is also the ancestor of Afrikaans, against 'Old High German' because it is also the ancestor of Luxembourgish and Yiddish, or against 'Classical Arabic' because it is also the predecessor of Maltese. Next, somebody might insist on abolishing 'Proto-Germanic' because of its 'pro-German bias' and 'erasure' of Englishmen and Swedes, or 'Turkic' because of its 'pro-Turkish bias' and 'erasure' of Uzbeks and the Chuvash. Overall, this is just stupid and politically motivated. --95.42.19.211 (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that calling Latin 'Latin' privileges the inhabitants of Latin America and the speakers of Ladino, and calling the Romans 'Roman' privileges the speakers of Romanian and Romansh. This 'erases' French and Spanish people, so the names should obviously be changed. Unfortunately, I can't think of a name that wouldn't privilege somebody - Proto-Romance, Classical Italic etc all have the same problem. --95.42.19.211 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a quibble with the bold statement about an “increasing anti-Russian bias in modern Western linguistics,” and I’d be interested in reliable sources about this. I believe the international scholarly tendency in the last three decades is 1) an increasing awareness of biases inherited from nineteenth and twentieth-century imperial and Soviet historiography in Slavic Studies, and 2) to examine colonial, statist, and other biases in established fields like international relations and emerging ones like identity politics. Perhaps one shouldn’t take it personally. —Michael Z. 20:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit too lazy to join in beating the dead horse called bias. (I mean, what if continued "western" usage of Old Russian does not stem from not hidden triune sympathies, but just inertia?) This is an article with a perfect title. Time to move on. It's an article about a language (or an internally differentiated dialect cluster—it's actually not that difficult to reconcile Shevenov with the work of his colleagues), so maybe we should start to inform our readers about what it looked like? No phonology, no grammar? *sigh* (ok, that's me whining; there's Bräuer in my shelf and lots of lit on my hard-drive, so I might add some info some day...)

@Mzajac and All others: What about the three translations in the parentheses? Some would call it lead clutter; Vulgar Latin is the ancestor of all Romance languages, but we don't have an endless litany there about how that ancestor is called in all its daughter languages. And wait, we're talking about "Old Russian" being obsolete, obsolescent, traditional, biased etc., and there's still "давньоруська мова" in plain sight? What about: Old East Slavic (traditionally also: Old Russian) was a language... –Austronesier (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEADLANG doesn’t encourage this, and I’d happily move all of the foreign languages to “Terminology.” A separate issue that I’ve been meaning to broach somewhere is that we don’t need foreign-script text and romanizations everywhere. We need a consistent standard romanization system, like every pro encyclopedia, and the {{lang}} templates can offer native script in a tooltip, pop up, or link. Maybe I can get live with “traditionally also” in parens, since it conveys non-primary and diachronic status, but terminology section should still spell it out. —Michael Z. 19:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes moving it is better that just removing it, it's important information—and utterly confusing (me mixing up руська with російська is proof of it LOL). Cyrillic text vs. romanizations will also be a challenge when we add more descriptive information. The grammar pages of Belorusian, Russian, Ukrainian are Cyrillic-only (and also the subsection "Primary Chronicle" here), which is acutally bad. Arabic grammar, Chinese grammar, Japanese grammar work with both foreign-script and romanization; Hindustani grammar has romanized text only (for reasons of balance and readability: imagine it having three scripts!). –Austronesier (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well phonology articles or sections are different, and sometimes merit use of scientific transliteration, but so many articles just have six language '’names of a thing or person, and multiple scripts and romanizations. This can be made simpler, cleaner, and more informative. Anyway, maybe a separate conversation. —Michael Z. 23:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Misleading infographic

I think the use of that infographic showing the evolution of the Slavic languages should be reconsidered, because it is very misleading. That graphic is linked from almost all Slaving languages pages. It leads you to believe that it is an illustration of the evolution of the said language when, in fact, it comes from a DNA study. It has nothing to do with the languages themselves, but rather the genetic makeup of their speakers - which is very different. In particular, Macedonian and Bulgarian have been distinct languages only since the late 19th century. Mmom (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe you’re misinterpreting the chart. Original source says it’s a “phylogenetic tree of the Balto-Slavic languages” and it’s based on “correlation between genetic, geographic and linguistic distances of Balto-Slavic populations.” Sorry I’m no expert and I can’t take the time to dig into the paper and its references about methodology, but I do believe the chart is about the languages. Perhaps there’s a wikiproject where we can find someone for a more informed interpretation. —Michael Z. 02:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

While the paper is indeed a DNA study, there are two linguists (Anna Dybo, Alexei Kassian) among its authors. Obviously, they are responsible for the chart which was produced by means of a phylogenetic analysis of linguistic data. The dating methods of the Moscow School are not universally accepted, but I don't find the chart egregiously undue here. –Austronesier (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The name “Old Russian” is a misnomer. I don’t see why you are against such a basic fact

The name “Old Russian” is a misnomer, and even this source which uses that name admits it. Ermenrich reverted my edit and told to take it to the talk page. Not sure why you can’t start a thread yourself, but I have started one. I’m gonna assume good faith at the beginning, that you are not trying to push a pro-russian POV. If Old East Slavic is the language from which the Belarusian, Russian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian languages later evolved (colored text was taken directly from the article), then calling it Old Russian is a misnomer, and I don’t see any reason why some users would be against it, unless they are trying to push a POV. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an online language course. Not the best thing to use. This was also discussed in Talk: Old East Slavic#Removing "Old Russian". Mellk (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk:, this is an online language course, but it’s still a reliable source. It’s by the University of Texas at Austin Linguistic Research Center. I don’t see any reason to dispute its reliability, and I think it’s good for this cause because despite the fact that it uses the term “Old Russian”, it also explains why it’s inaccurate. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We have other better sources that do not say this. Mellk (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk:, why is this relevant? Do you have sources that say the name “Old Russian” is not a misnomer? I can take any claim made in any article in Wikipedia and find other better sources that do not say this. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 18:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I have you already linked you the discussion above. There is no new argument here. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk:, The discussion you linked was about removing the name “Old Russian”, not about labeling it as a misnomer. Even the users who were against removing admitted it was a misnomer. Again, I don’t see why you are against calling a misnomer a misnomer. You haven’t made even one comprehensive argument in this entire thread. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 19:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You may want to read the section properly where how "Old Russian" should be mentioned in the lead was discussed. Mellk (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk:, you may want to make an argument instead of constantly linking to an old discussion. In this discussion there’s a quote It's obvious that since several sources call 'Old Russian' a misnomer and no source defends it, it can be designated as a misnomer. If you want to make a comprehensive argument for not calling it a misnomer, you should find at least reliable source that defends that term. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Where many RS use "Old Russian" without the authors also saying "also yeah we are using this wrong but whatever". We can say it has been described as a misnomer but stating in wikivoice that it is a misnomer is not WP:NPOV. Mellk (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Done ✅ -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

No, we have a terminology section. Mellk (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I literally just implemented your suggestion and then you say “no”. You haven’t made even one argument in this entire discussion. Stop trying to push a POV in articles related to Kyivan Rus. Thanks, -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 21:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We have a section where the "misnomer" issue is raised. There is no reason to do that in the lead. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that it was called a misnomer will mislead users. The terminology section should describe why it was called a misnomer, and the leader should say that it was called a misnomer. Please stop bludgeoning the process. In fact, this entire thread is WP:BLUDGEON, there was no reason to start it at all. My edits to this article should have just stayed. A reader who reads the article in its current state will not be aware that the name “Old Russian” was criticized by reliable sources. If Wikipedia is indeed an intelligent summary of reliable sources, then it should say in the header that the name “Old Russian” has been criticized or something’s along the lines. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 21:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Myriads of topics have contentious names or contentious alternative names. We don't have to stuff every secondary information in the lede when we have a specialized section. And the "misnomer"-thing is secondary information (especially for those who have a genuine interest in the topic and don't just hijack it for proxy-warring purposes). "Old Russian" is very much still in use, and this has nothing to do with "POV"; it's just terminological inertia. There are historical reasons why this language was called "Old Russian" for over a century before some linguists started to call it into question for its literal inaccuracy; but note that many specialists from whatever background continue to use it. –Austronesier (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The terminology section also mentions the names “Old Ukrainian” and “Proto Ukrainian”. Why are not they included as alternative names as well? -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 21:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If you would read the discussion that Mellk already pointed you to, you would know.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Kievan Rus following the Tatar yoke

The lands of Kievan Rus were divided between the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania way before the end of the Tatar yoke. Muscovy was initially a vassal of the Golden Horde. 67.84.81.241 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)