Talk:Rusyn language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WARNING regarding Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups and self-identification[edit]

WARNING regarding Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups and self-identification Just a reminder of Wiki naming policy for ethnic groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes) "Self-identification-How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." As noted by Paul Robert Magosci, there is an ethnic group known in English as Ruthenians, but which self identifies as Carpatho-Rusyns, or simply Rusyns. They do not self-identify as Ukrainians. In fact, they find the Ukrainian label offensive. Anyone refering to Carpatho-Rusyns as Ukrainians may result in complaints being lodged in the appropriate Wiki forums.37.200.224.205 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it correct language name: по нашому (po našomu) ?[edit]

The self-name "по нашому (po našomu)" means "our language" - I believe that it is unlikely that this could be the correct name of the language. ALEF7 (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably comparable to the word plat in Dutch, or Platt in German. Anything and everything that's not standard language in the Netherlands and Western Germany can be 'plat'/'Platt'. To add to the confusion, Platt also has a specific meaning of Low German in Germany. Serbo-Croatian is also colloquially called naški ('ours'). Those constructions with the root naš- are probably more widespread than that. I've done little research on Slavic languages so someone else would have to confirm that. Either way, по нашому is probably a correct colloquial name for the language, yes. Sol505000 (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More details about grammar[edit]

Could anyone, who knows this language well, add some details concerning grammar? Like e.g. how many cases, how many times or time aspects does this language have, are there any special pecularities and stuff like that. Would be interesting to know! --Edmund Sackbauer (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, in Ukraine it's not real language, it's more like dialect of Ukrainian which nobody speaks in Ukraine and differs only for some words/pronunciation, all others grammar are the same to Ukrainian. If you wanna know more about this language, please read more about "Rusyn" separatism --178.214.196.34 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is true then it's a dialect of Ukrainian (perhaps a Western Carpathian one, though I'm not sure about that), rather than a separate language. The differences you're describing seem to be akin to the differences between Croatian and Serbian standards of Serbo-Croatian, though they could be even less pronounced.
Again, we should find academic sources that describe the situation in a WP:NPOV manner. It doesn't matter whether Rusyns want to identify as Ukrainian or not, if their language is essentially Ukrainian then we should say so - if it's an either-or issue, that is. Afrikaans, for instance, is distinct enough from Dutch to warrant its classification as a separate language, coupled with the fact that most of its native speakers have no knowledge of Standard Dutch (though it's probably very easy to learn for them). Sol505000 (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

just minor correction of a phrase "conquered from Germany"[edit]

In sentence "Poland did the same, using internal exile to move all Ukrainians from the southern homelands to western areas conquered from Germany, and switch everyday language to Polish." word "conquered" is not a best choice imho. However different nations/ethnic groups involved may perceive post-WWII forced relocations of people, today's Poland westernmost parts weren't "conquered" by Poland, what may this way of putting it suggest. Poland forcefully relocated people - right. Germany lost areas which now belong to Poland - right. But Poland was practically non-existent at the time when borders were set. Stalin took this area from Germany and "granted" it to newly created puppet-state of "Poland".

In short: change "conquered" for "incorporated" :)

Queuedziej (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Language, Dialect, etc.[edit]

This article characterizes the Rusyn language as a "lect" despite the article title. Wikipedia naming conventions for language articles dictate that "The choice of "language" or "dialect" should follow the most common usage in relevant reliable sources." Therefore, either the article title is incorrect, or the usage of the term "lect" (which per the aforementioned convention should be changed to Variety_(linguistics)) is incorrect. The article title and text should be brought into harmony.

Modern sources should be gathered and evaluated to determine the contemporary consensus. However, considering that this "variety" of East Slavic was assigned an ISO language code, it seems that the international consensus leans toward Rusyn being a distinct language.

I will begin reviewing modern literature to determine this for certain.

KaerbaqianRen (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Lect" is a larger category whose subcategories include both languages and dialects and is used when the writer doesn't want to take a position on whether something is a "language" or a "dialect." It is clearly appropriate here - as the article explains, there is no consensus on whether to treat Rusyn as an independent language or a dialect of Ukrainian (or for that matter as a standard variety of a pluricentric Ukrainian/Rusyn language or dialect continuum). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.229.2 (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:100.34.229.2, I don't believe any editor involved in this article has ever put in enough effort to establish whether the effort to establish what the "consensus" is--one way or another. Throughout the article, there is no valuable source exactly breaking down how attitudes have changed in the last 20 years since the fall of the USSR. Language is dynamic.
Based on a [cursory Google Ngram], it is pretty clear that the term "Rusyn language" severely outnumbers mentions of "Rusyn dialect" and "Rusyn lect". So what is the point in using a term that is not even mentioned in literature? Let me know if you have any evidence to the contrary. KaerbaqianRen[ talk ] 23:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]