Talk:Bylina

Old talk
Bogatyr and other major subject matter ought to be mentioned somehow. I'm still not quite sure of the definition of the word, so I'm not going to insert it haphazardly just yet. -- Sy / (talk)

Old East Slavic?
The article presents no evidence of really old origin of bylinas so that it can be classifi4ed as old east slavic. Editors (like me:-) may be thrown off by the dates of the events in bylinas. There was definitely no bylinas recorded in Belarus, and in Ukraine the epics were known as dumas. Please correct me if I missed something. - Altenmann >talk 02:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I did find opinions about ancient origins of bylinas, but they are just theoretical speculations and AFAIK there are no records of them (or similar plots) or about them other than in relatively modern Russian. - Altenmann >talk 02:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a disconnect. The cited source Britannica says “bylina, plural byliny, traditional form of Old Russian and Russian heroic narrative poetry transmitted orally.” What do you think it means by Old Russian? —Michael Z. 02:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Old Russian" and "Old East Slavic" are not synonymous. Mellk (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do they mean? —Michael Z. 02:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Britannica says “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.” —Michael Z. 02:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Britannica is a tertiary source, not always reliable. It was especially funny to read about Russian tsars in Britannica. Whatever Britannica says, there must be expert's opinion about existence of bylinas in the time of Kievan Rus. - Altenmann >talk 02:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. I always felt weird when linguists speak about "Old East Slavic language". It is close to impossible for people to speak the same language in ancient Kiev and ancient Novgorod at the same time without internets mass media that could unify the language. - Altenmann >talk 02:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Britannica also refers to Old Russian literature up to 17th century. Mellk (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * More disconnects.
 * That says “Old Russian literature” is a controversial term. It is not the same thing as Old Russian, which appears to be (confusingly) used later in the article when referring to the Kyivan period.
 * But it’s also irrelevant, because byliny were not literature. —Michael Z. 03:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, the article you mentioned refers to "Old Russian and Russian heroic narrative poetry". Mellk (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The cited reference for the first sentence. Right.
 * So “Old Russian” in it means Old East Slavic. —Michael Z. 03:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. This your interpretation. - Altenmann >talk 03:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is what Britannica literally says the term means, as I quoted above. And you have no interpretation, merely refusal to use the source while retaining the citation. Is there an issue for you? —Michael Z. 12:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Bylina speaks not about language, but about culture, so it is pointless to discuss what "Old Russian language" could mean. If you want to invoke language, there is 100% sure there are no bylinas recorded in "Old Russian language" whatever it could be. - Altenmann >talk 03:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It was oral poetry. It was not recorded at the time. Language was integral to it. —Michael Z. 03:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, not recorded hence no immediate evidence of their existence at the time. Is there indirect evidence, like, some arabic traveler to ar-Rus mentioned B-L-N ? - Altenmann >talk 03:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now you’re trying to deny what the source says with demands for research. I think there’s an issue here. —Michael Z. 12:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. No. - Altenmann >talk 16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

“The tradition originates in the 10th or 11th century.”

“Given that several mention Kiev, the capital city of Kievan Rus, the majority of folklore researchers agree that this area was the site of the genre’s inception. Scholars also point to other medieval principalities as possible centers of creation of bylinas: those of Galicia and Volhynia, Rostov and Suzdal.”
 * “Bylinas,” Columbia University edblogs.

—Michael Z. 13:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

“Most Russian epics probably originated from the tenth through the fourteenth centuries, mainly during the existence of what has been called Rus, Kievan Rus (Kievan Russia), or the Russian land. . . . In this period one speaks about the East Slavs, since their division into three linguistic and ethnic groups (Byelorussian, Russian, and Ukrainian) took place only in the fourteenth century.”
 * 1998, Anthology of Russian Folk Epics: xvii.

“While most of the [bylina] plots seem to have originated in Southwestern Russia, in the Pre-Mongol era, in modern times they were preserved chiefly in the outlying provinces of the Far North, eg., along the coast of the Arctic Ocean and around Lake Onega.”
 * 1974, Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics: 92.

—Michael Z. 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Reputable scholars speak cautiously about things that cannot be documented. In your quotes: 3rd ref: "plots seem to have originated ", 2nd ref: "Russian epics probably originated". 1st ref is from a blog, sloppily written, with no supporting refs. - Altenmann >talk 16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

After a good night's sleep, here is my compromise proposal, something like this: add "... probably originated in early East Slavic times" to the lede and expand the article text elaborating this statement. Especially about the puzzle that they were recorded only in the areas pretty remote from the place of deeds. - Altenmann >talk 16:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What’s the compromise there? “Early” is practically meaningless, so it’s compromised, because it doesn’t say what the sources say. Byliny originated in times when Old East Slavic was spoken. —Michael Z. 19:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * in the lede we may use "early" or any other general/summarizing word, in text body we give specific estimates for time/place. - Altenmann >talk 20:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead should identify both languages, including the originating one, and not just favour the one for some reason. —Michael Z. 20:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I favour one for a simple reason: one language we know for sure and another one is hypothetical, not factual. Therefore my suggestion: "... probably originated " - Altenmann >talk 21:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean the language is hypothetical? —Michael Z. 22:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably is an expression of likelihood but not certainty, not unlikelihood. It means it more likely is than is not (see Words of estimative probability). You are going against the sources if you have decided that we should treat probably as “probably not.” —Michael Z. 22:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And “early East Slavic times” follows none of the sources, and corresponds to nothing. East Slavic is not a time, and early in it can be any time before the present. All of the sources are more specific about time and language. —Michael Z. 22:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean that there are no bylinas known in Old East Slavic, only hypotetically bylinas were sung in Old East Slavic. - Altenmann >talk 00:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "East Slavic" is an adjective to ethnicity and early means early, not "any time". There is even an article Early Slavs .- Altenmann >talk 00:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * “Hypothetical” is your own misleading framing, And no source says this. Note the difference between accepted theory based on evidence, and an untested hypothesis. All sources say that the accepted theory is that bylinas probably originated in Old East Slavic in Kyivan Rus. Your personal hypothesis is that they might not have, or something like that, so therefore we should not mention the accepted theory. It is ass backwards. It’s like declining to mention the speed of light in the article about it because the number and relativity are “hypothetical.” It’s like letting creationism equally inform the lead in the article about the hypothetical “dinosaurs.”
 * The article early Slavs is about the 5th to 10th centuries: the Common Slavic period explicitly before the period of bylinas, Kyivan Rus, and Old East Slavic. The sources about bylinas don’t say “early Slavic times,” nor “early East Slavic times,” neither of which is a defined time nor a linguistic chronology. They say it was in the time of an old East Slavic (or ”Old Russian”).
 * I give up. You don’t seem interested in reading the sources accurately. I will move on to dispute resolution. If user:Mellk is no longer participating, then I’ll consider getting a WP:3rd, otherwise an RFC. —Michael Z. 14:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "probably originated" means it is hypothetical. Whatever you say about "old" or "early" does not invalidate the fact that there are no Old East Slavic bylinas known. Therefore it is hypothetical. And a decent lede must clearly say this. - Altenmann >talk 16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So the lead should say “ is a type of Old East Slavic and Russian oral epic poem that probably originated in Kievan Rus after the tenth century.” —Michael Z. 16:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)