Talk:Russian language

Archives
January 2003 – February 2007

The Czech Republic should not be listed in the infobox

Russian used to be taught in the Czech Republic but English has replaced it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.148.185 (talk • contribs)

From the above thread: Czech Republic. Pop.: 10,246,178. Russian speakers: 33,500. - 0.33% — Feezo (Talk) 08:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you list the Czech Republic in the info box then you will have to list many other countries like Finland, Sweden, Greece etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.148.185 (talk • contribs)

All right, then we can have something like: Russia, former Soviet republics, Israel. Communities of speakers also reside in Germany, Czech Republic, Finland, Mongolia, and the United States. I have it in descending order from highest to lowest percentage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeusoes1 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Not enough people speak Russian in the Czech Republic for it to be in the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.148.185 (talk • contribs)

Please don't change the article until we've reached some sort of agreement. If it's a matter of not enough then we would have to remove more countries than just the Czech Republic. I personally think it's significant that there are 30,000 speakers in Czech Republic and not, say, Greece. What do you think is the cutoff point? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not significant as there are more than 60,000 native English speakers in the country and I don't know anyone who would put the Czech Republic in the English infobox. In order to be in the infobox a language needs some recognition. For example, it must be official or at least be able to be used for everday life in a part of the country. For example, in the USA you can get by with using Spanish in some places. Russian on the other hand will not get you very far in the Czech Republic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.148.185 (talk • contribs).

Actually, the only reason English doesn't have the Czech Republic in its infobox is because doing so would entail also including all the countries that have more than 60,000 speakers, which is a lot. You contradict yourself though. Spanish has little to no formal recognition in the United States and it certainly is not the official language in the states where it is most spoken. The US is in the Spanish infobox because people who speak it live there, not because there's any formal recognition of it. How well you get by using a language in a particular country is not a valid measure for whether a significant amount of speakers live there. Spanish in the United States is obviously more noteworthy than Russian in the Czech Republic but I'll ask again since you haven't answered the question. What is the cutoff point for inclusion or noninclusion? Is it 2% of the speakers? 75,000 or more speakers? Or is it some other criterion? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your wrong about the status of Spanish in the US as it does have some legal recognition in at least one state. I think that the cut off point should be around 10-20% as this would ensure that the language is actually spoken by a large sector of the population. I would allow a lower percentage if the language has official recognition or historical significance or if it is spoken by a community that has its own schools, newspapers, radio, television and where their children are growing up in that language. For example, although sorbian is spoken by a tiny minority in Germany it has legal recognition and a long history in the country. Following the previously mentioned guidelines will ensure that the speakers of a language aren't scattered throughout a country. Furthermore these guidelines would allow languages like Greek to have English in their infobox as there are greek newspapers, television shows etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.148.185 (talk • contribs).

I'd have to look Spanish up but even if it isn't legally recognized you are certainly clear on your preference. Unfortunately, your idea of what is worthy of inclusion in the infobox doesn't seem to be the criterion applied on other language pages. Hmong, for example, lists the United States in its infobox despite all speakers here being the refugees (or children of refugees) from southeast Asia. The situation is similar for Vietnamese, and Cambodian as well as Russian. Also, your own edits don't consistantly act upon this notion and if I think what would really disqualify the Russian speakers in Czech Republic if what you and Alberto both say is true: that the speakers there are very recent immigrants. While visiting and living in Czech Republic may get you authority elsewhere, Wikipedia is based on sources so some sort of book or article would really help you prove your case for the article. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Czech wikipedia page about Russian does not list Russian as one of the languages spoken in the country so I think we should stick with what it says. If you look up http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Czech+Republic it states that 33,500 people out of a total population of 10,246,178 speak Russian. This number is not significant at all. There are probably more people that speak Vietnamese and Ukrainian in the country.

The link http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=rus states that Russian is spoken in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, India, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uruguay, USA, Uzbekistan. So either include all the preceding countries or remove the Czech Republic. I would still remove it as 33,500 people really doesn't seem to be enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.148.185 (talk • contribs)

I feel like you're offering the suggestion of potentially putting in all the countries even though you don't really believe they should be there. I find putting them all in to be acceptable and we can either list them alphabetically or in descending order of percentage. Does that sound good to you? Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that descending order of percentage may be better as it shows how widespread the language is reasonably well. However, alphabetical order is better when it comes to looking up a country in the infobox. It might be a good idea to have a look at what other language pages have and do the same as both ways are perfectly acceptable.

Do you really want to deploy "CIS countries" and put all of them? I think we have to put some limits. I was on the bus the other day and there was a couple speaking in Russian. Then I guess Spain should be also on the bottom of the list. We have to stablish two criteria. On the one hand minimum percentage that shows significance (for the cases of Czech Republic or Germany). On the other hand an absolute minimum is also important (e.g. USA, whose percentage is quite low). Do you really want to put Uruguay? (14,000 speakers, 0.4%)

The Spanish Institute of Statistics says [1] that in 2005 there were about 65,000 (legal) Ukrainian residents in Spain. If 24% of Ukrainians have Russian as first language (Demographics_of_Ukraine) (not considering that most of the population is fluent in Russian anyways) then we could include Spain too :) AlbertoFL 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed. I read the discussion and it seems to me you are putting infos on the wiki by guessing.

I am the native Czech. So I can confirm that Czech Republic is not Russian speaking country. We had to learn Russian, our country belonged to Communistic Zone after WW2 and later it was the language of the Soviet Union troops, which occupied the country in 1968-1991.

Most of the people (obligate language for 100% of pupils and students in 50’s – 80’s) is not able to speak in it or read the alphabet. There were no opportunities except school or science to use Russian. And more, if someone has to do something under the force it is usually worthless. Now is the Russian again taught at business schools, because of the trade opportunities at the Post-Soviet countries.

We have more foreigners from Ukraine and Vietnam. Whole Vietnamese families settle here. Families from Ukraine and Russia usually send one member who works here as labourer and supports the rest of the family. I am including link on table of foreigners’s purpose-of-residence [2] from Czech statictical office.

Vlasta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.176.205.102 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Those people who use Russian primarily to communicate with foreigners aren't being taken into account. The only issue is whether there are significant communities of native speakers in the country. I agree that 0.3% of the population is fairly small, but if you look at French in the United States, you'll see that while only 0.5% of Americans speak French at home, for many of them it is the language of their communities and has been preserved through many generations. Do we have any way of knowing if any of the 30,000 native Russian-speakers in the Czech republic go back one or two generations there? Joeldl 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dialectology

My Russian teacher (himself a Pole) claims that Russian is overall remarkably uniform and differences minimal, at least if we take into account the vast distances between say Vladivostok and Moscow. He claims that the dialectological difference is less noticeable than (for example in English) say between a Texan and a New Yorker. Is this correct? If so, it would be interesting to note it somehow in the article. Mountolive | Talk 06:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is partly correct. Because certain areas of Russia were settled by speakers from all of the areas where Russian was traditionally spoken, they eventually adopted the most prestigious form, the Moscow one. Since those areas were settled recently, and continued to receive new immigrants throughout the twentieth century, they haven't had time to diverge significantly. On the other hand, there are significant differences between, for example, southern Russia and Moscow, albeit less than exist in English. Joeldl 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Joeldl. Wouldn't it be interesting now to make some mention of this in the article? There is already the "despite leveling after 1900" but maybe this should be slightly expanded with an additional sentence which I suggest it would include the comparison with English (for illustrative purposes and because this is the language here). I would edit myself, but, since this is a fact that I have been told about and have no direct evidence myself, I'd rather have it done by someone who is sure about the right words to use. Thank you again. Mountolive | Talk 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if you do it yourself. The best way is always to cite a reliable published source, although plainly this isn't always followed on Wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't know where I learned about what I just told you, so I can't help you with that. But yes, I agree that it is interesting. Joeldl 16:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess you understand me if I don't dare to edit with some info which I only heard about and I don't have any direct experience myself. Despite considering this proposed edit quite interesting and relevant, I couldn't edit because, if someone came to ask me to defend this assertion, my only point would be "my teacher and Joeldl told me so" do you know what I mean? :)

Besides, as you may have noted already, I am not a native English speaker either which means that my wording is usually at risk to sound clumsy, specially when I try to adapt to an existing context.

So if you dare to edit, please go ahead, if not, maybe someone else with more expertise and authority (or just self-confidence) should do. Thank you for your feedback anyway! Mountolive | Talk 05:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a most spoken language of Eurasia

It is not the most widely spoken language of Eurasia. Chinese and Hindi have more speakersMisterx 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

They have MORE speakers, but they are not as WIDESPREAD as Russian. Chinese and Hindi are mostly spoken only in China and India respectively. Russian is more widespread, then. --Andrei Knight 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

New category?

Could someone create a "Category:Russian-speaking countries" to mimic other categories like "Category:English-speaking countries," "Category:Arabic-speaking countries," "Category:Spanish-speaking countries," and so forth. It seems that there are quite a few countries (besides Russia) that could fit well in to this category. --WassermannNYC 20:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done...I've just made this category because I finally figured out how to create it, so all of you feel free to expand it (and it can be expanded massively). The categorization so far is probably sort-of sloppy (because I'm a Wiki-beginner), so please cleanup the category as you see fit. BTW: I simply cannot believe that this category wasn't created sooner! --WassermannNYC 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It may not have been created sooner because it opens a political can of worms! Joeldl 15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that I didn't "open a political can of worms" as you say, because I wasn't intending to create controversy. I did mess up in the creation of this category though -- I should have named it "Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories" (like the "Category:Chinese-speaking countries and territories") instead of "Category:Russian-speaking countries" (because they are not all proper countries, like the Crimea and the Kaliningrad Oblast, etc). Does anyone know how to move this category to "Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories" without losing all of the data? --WassermannNYC 15:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a joke (sort of). There's no reason not to have the category, it's just that some countries with Russian minorities will have people who don't want them called Russian-speaking. To rename a category you need to follow the procedure at WP:CFD, even for spelling mistakes. Joeldl 16:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regulator

It says in the infobox that russian has no regulator, but if you check that page it says russian DOES have a regulator. Mallerd 06:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody a while back said that the Russian Academy of Sciences wasn't a language regulator and removed it from the infobox. I'll put a "citation needed" tag on both pages. Joeldl 07:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering Rusyn

It says it is "often seen as a dialect of Ukrainian" - although 'Rusyn' is an officially recognized language. Ukrainian, indeed, has a lot of dialects and the Gutsul dialect is indeed almost identical to the officially recognized minority language called Rusyn in Southern Europe. Dutch, for instance, may be near-identical to the Low German dialects of the German language, still not being a dialect itself. Im changing the passage. 84.167.235.25 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Further it says again that 'some academics consider [Rusyn being a dialect of Ukrainian]'; as a matter of fact I've heard a plenty of Russians expressing the view that both Belarusian and Ukrainian are mere dialects of Russian. 84.167.235.25 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This position is POV. The predominant view is to regard it as a dialect of Ukrainian. This is what Encyclopedia Britannica says in its article on Slavic languages:

• Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian constitute the East Slavic language group.
• Carpathian, also called Carpatho-Rusyn, has sometimes been considered a language apart. In 1995 a codified form of it (Rusyn) was presented in Slovakia, thus enabling the teaching of Rusyn in schools.

I favour saying "sometimes", which reflects the balance of opinion. Joeldl 04:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the Mongol Invasion didn't impact the Russian ethnic & language?

The Mongol Invasion led by Batu Khan and his Blue Horde, conquered and ruled Russia for about 250 years. Many cities and towns were destroyed during that time. Why is that today the Russians still look caucasian and the Russian language is still an indo-european language? Didn't the mongol invaders impact the Russian language and ethnicity? Homer33 04:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly the Mongols didn't intermingle or interfere with the dealings of most inhabitants they conquered. For quite a number of principalities, especially later on, the Tatar overlordship consisted simply of payments of tribute. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation Help

I've been using www.freetranslation.com lately to translate things from English to Russian for my MSN name and when I copy the translated english and translate it back to english, it's different than what I put in. For example:

English - I'd Rather Feel Pain Than Nothing At All

Translated to Russian (a rough version of Russian) - Я предпочитаю Чувствовать Боль, Чем Ничто Вообще

Translated back to English - I prefer To feel the Pain, Than Anything In general

Can anyone who speaks perfect Russian translate the top line (the one marked English) into Russian and type it up? Or is there an online translator that translates into perfect russian (or any other language) which is free? Because I don't wanna pay $50.00USD just to get a professional translation. Thanks! 67.68.37.27 22:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Я предпочитаю чувствовать боль, нежели совсем ничего. --X-Man 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Independent States

CIS is not a country. I believe individual countries should be listed instead. Also, it's unclear whether Russian is spoken in all states of CIS. --X-Man 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Language

Are there any websites that have the English spelling of a Russian word? I just want to know, please. --76.16.151.77 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Kino Lala

If you mean transliteration of Russian words using Latin letters, try http://translit.ru. But you shouldn't try reading the result by English rules. --X-Man 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A "Four-Square" for extra info (If it helps)...

I don't know if I should be specifically talking about it in the Russian discussion, but this would provide an example. Has anyone on Wikipedia considered a fourth alphabetic translation as explained briefly?

• The Russian article on the English language would include "Английский/Angliiskiy", and "English/Англичан". "Angliiskiy" is the Cyrillic to Roman Alphabetic translation of English from Russian. Actually, "Англичан" translates to "Anglishan", so I don't know if "Англичан" would fit.
• What is a short "U" in Russian? The English article on the Russian language would include "Russian/Р_счиан", and "Русский/Russkiy". The blank is most likely a combination.

Русчиан is not a word in Russian. --X-Man 08:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it is not a word - it is close to what I think is, written in "Cyrillic English", the word for Russian. X-Man, you and I do not have the same idea right now. Can you read ロシア語, 俄语, and 러시아어? If you can't read all of them, we will eventually have the same idea. I can't read any of them, but I confirm that these are all respectively Japanese, a form of Chinese, and Korean words for Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure if I understand the first question but Russian has only one U: <у>. As far as I know, there is no vowel length in Russian and there certainly is not phonemic vowel length. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are not mistaken about the "ч". According to the Russian Alphabet article on English Wikipedia, "ч" is a "ch". Which means that I made a mistake when I thought it was an "sh". An "Я" would not be correct either as it would create a conflict against "И" in Cyrillic English. Let's not get into questions about placing "Cyrillic" beside "English".

RFC: "different but equally valid ways of transliterating Cyrillic"???

The article on Markov numbers currently says:

Markov numbers are named after the Russian mathematician Andrey Markov. Due to the different but equally valid ways of transliterating Cyrillic, the term is written as "Markoff numbers" in some literature. But in this particular case, "Markov" might be preferable because "Markoff number" might be misunderstood as "mark-off number."

Can I get some opinions on whether there really are "different but equally valid ways of transliterating Cyrillic"? Aren't some systems preferred over others by Russian linguists? Knodeltheory 19:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Because voiced consonants are devoiced word-finally in Russian, more casual transcription systems might transliterate it as Markoff, but this isn't "equally valid" with those that retain a consistant letter-to-letter conversion. See Romanization of Russian. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

K, g, x

Russian is notable for its distinction based on palatalization of most of the consonants. While /k/, /g/, /x/ do have palatalized allophones [kʲ, gʲ, xʲ], only /kʲ/ might be considered a phoneme, though it is marginal and generally not considered distinctive (the only native minimal pair which argues for /kʲ/ to be a separate phoneme is "это ткёт"/"этот кот").

Very strange statement. Try to exchange them and you'll get completely different sounding and even will be hardly intelligeble. Regarding the differece between k and k': there are many words that differ only in this phoneme, for example "Киш-Миш" (a sort of sweets) and "Кыш, Миш!" (Mike, go out!). Yes, probably the first is borrowed, but it nevertheless valid Russian word.--Dojarca 20:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page says that they are not "considered" distinctive. Perhaps it needs a source, though. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)