Talk:Old Ruthenian language/Archive 1

The following is the former content of Talk:Old Ruthenian language, archived by Halibutt on January 1, 2005 due to page length.

Old talk
If the information in Great Russian language is correct, then this article could un-orphan that one. Someone knowledgeable in the subject please deal with it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is confused about history. The original geography of a non-Russian state called Rus' included Rus' proper (today, its inhabitants call it "Great Ukraine") and then, more broadly, "Greater Rus'." Later, a nation arose in part of greater Rus' called Muscovy, speaking a newly developed Russian language, brought about by large appropriation of Old Slavonic to native Slavic dialects, spoken by a Finno-Ukrainc majority being assimilated into Slavic outposts, under Mongolian political culture.

This city state expanded, claimed the title to all of Rus', and after several centuries, changed it's name to Russia. Since Muscovy claimed all of Rus', a false linguistic claim was made that all of former Rus' spoke the same language, and that the main form of this language was had in greater Rus', and that western Rus' and Rus' proper spoke dialects of this language called "Little Russian" and "White Russian."

In actuality, Rus' propria spoke Rusyn (Rusian/Ruthenian) later called Ukrainian, a separate language, and the western areas spoke a completely distinct language called Belarusyn. (Note: This wrong... Rusyn/Ruthenian never became Ukranian. Rusyn/Ruthenian became extinct and Ukrainian emerged as a new language that drew as much on Polish as on the Rusyn/Ruthenian. Modern Ukrainian is very different from Ruthenian/Rusyn spoken in Kiev because of the Polish influence. Russian as spoken in Russia is closer to the Rusyn/Ruthenian of Kievan Rus.  The Tale of Ihor's Campaign is originally written in Early Ruthenian/Ukrainian. Again, wrong information: The Tale of Igor's Campain was written in Early Ruthenian. The language closest to early Ruthenian is today's Russian, and not the polish-influenced Ukrainian.) The article is based on a fantasy called Russian imperialism. Comment: Genyo, Kievan Rus didn't speak modern Ukrainian nor would they be able to understand it if it were transported to them via a time machine. Genyo 02:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article renders a confusing (at best) image of history. In the XVth century, the Union of Poland-Lithuania included most of Belarus and half of Ukraine, and Belarussian was indeed the official language of administration at a time - but that is Belarussian, not (old) Russian. As far as modern-day Poland and Lithuania are concerned, no part of their current territory has ever been of Russian language. Failing to remind that borders in that area of Europe have been moving may lead people to make a false point that modern-day Russia has a legitimate claim onto modern-day Poland and Lithuania, on the basis of fuzzy linguistic references. I quite understand why Genyo would see Russian imperialism in that Philippe Magnabosco 14:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Latest changes by Halibutt
I modified the article lately. The changes were mostly stylistic, but there were also some clarifications and such. The most important change is of course moving the whole page to Old Ruthenian language. The reason I moved is that IMHO the Old Ruthenian is the most neutral term. Alternatively we could create three or four separate articles on Old Ukrainian language, Old Russian language, Old Belarussian language, Early Medieval Eastern Slavic and God knows how many others - yet all these articles would cover the same language with the only difference being the local dialectal differences. I believe it'd be better to have just one article. Please comment. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:51, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on the subject, but the point of view looks neutral to me. Good work, H.  &mdash;Michael Z. 22:21, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Latest changes by Ghirlandajo
Unfortunately, the extant article hopelessly confused Old Russian with Middle Belarusian and Middle Ukrainian. Some statements are plain ridiculous, e.g., - that the "Old Ruthenian" is a "direct descendant" of Old Church Slavonic (itself the Western dialect of Old Macedonian), - that there are no sufficient texts in Old Russian to make conclusions about its structure (this statement is true about Old Polish and Old Czechs, first sizable texts in these languages being dated to the 15th century), - that Old Russian language was crammed with Latin and Mongolian loanwords, etc, etc.

But wht is more bewildering, is that the article is sadly misnamed. My Google search for "Old Russian" discovered about 231000 entries, a search for "Old Ruthenian" rendered 891, first of them being taken from Wikipedia. It is quite annoying to apply to the language of great Orthodox literature the Latinized epithet Ruthenian, invented by Polish and Austrian Ukrainian scholars in the 19th century. Quite the same as to rename Old Polish into Old Lechitic on the basis that this term has been used by some Russian and Eastern Ukrainian scholars.

So I moved the article to its proper place, i.e., Old Russian language, and appended a 1911 Britannica article on Old Russian literature. ---Ghirlandajo 15:27, 22 Dec 2004 (GMT)


 * "Old Russian language" gives 970 results and "Old Ruthenian language" 425. Counting Google search results doesn't prove anything, anyway.


 * Halibutt renamed the article for good reason. "Ruthenian" is only an epithet if used with racist intent.  It's a Latinization of "Rus’" going back to the 10th century, just as Rossiya is a Hellenization which was adopted by the rulers of the Muscovite Empire.  Calling this article "Old Russian language" will be seen as reinforcing a bias, rooted in Imperial Russia and the Soviet era.  It makes Belarusian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian look like minor offshoots of "Russian proper".  If you can explain how "Ruthenian" is biased, then maybe we should use the neutral heading "Old East Slavic language" instead. : &mdash;Michael Z. 21:41, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)


 * But Russia is by no means is "a Hellenization which was adopted by the rulers of the Muscovite Empire". It is the traditional English term of Latin derivation used to allude to Kievan Rus from times immemorial. In every Old English text the country is called Russia. The same goes for Shakespeare. Xenia 08:15, 23 Dec 2004 (CET)

The example of 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica clearly shows that "Old Ruthenian" is a late invention of russophobes. Mikkalai 01:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What example? &mdash;Michael Z.
 * Can someone please point me to the relevant 1911 Britannica text? I keep seeing references to russophobes there, with no actual quote or citation. &mdash;Michael Z. 19:33, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
 * I think I found a copy of Ghirlandajo and Mikkalai's authority. Here's an excerpt from the article on Russian Language.  You seriously put this forward to support your argument?  I guess you'll have us voting on renaming Ukraine to Little Russia next.  &mdash;Michael Z. 21:51, 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.


 * The Polish pans should leave the Russian and Ukrainian articles to Russians and Ukrainians. Xenia 08:19, 23 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Shame on you. Everyone has a right to contribute here.  &mdash;Michael Z. 19:00, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Xenia, you're not being serious, are you? I agree I'm an angry imperialist and I eat workers' children for breakfast, but what does it have to do with this article? My personal hathred towards the barbaric Cossacks and love for oppresing Russian serfs does not have anything to do with this article either. Hillarious, really...

As to the Britannica - this example works both ways, you know... One can also say that the whole Russia thingie is a late 19th century invention of Russian imperialists, simultaneous to the infamous division of Russia onto "Little Russia", "White Russia", "Vistulan Russia" and some other parts... While I'd be willing to admit that the white Polish pans live in Vistulan Russia, I doubt the Belarusan and Ukrainian folks would like to be called Little Russians or White Russians.

Oh, and even if the word indeed was used in English in 15th or 16th century to denote Ruthenia, its meaning has changed ever since and currently "Russia" means Russia. Also, currently Russian language is Russian language and I doubt anyone but the most extreme right in Russia think that Ukrainian and Belarusan are but local dialects of Russian language. All in all, I believe that the most broad term that includes all the possible names for the language is the best, even if not the most accurate (although IMHO the current title is just as accurate while at the same time much less POV and much less ambiguous). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:53, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Against moving. Old Ruthenian is fine
I think "Old Ruthenian" is the appropriate name. PS. And "Old Belarusian" is even better, because I have listened to audio tapes from Euphrosyne of Polatsk, Francysk Skaryna and Symon Budny. ;)) --rydel 01:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well-preserved tapes, I guess? :-) Mikkalai 16:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)