User talk:Buncic

Hi Daniel. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks very much for your input on East Slavic languages. We've really needed it.

I'll get a few of the articles started, as you've outlined them in your summary. I'll put an "in use" notice at the top of some of them, so people know that they're looking at unfinished material. Please edit at will, and remove the in use notice when you're done.

—Michael Z. 17:31, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Well, that was easier than I thought. I've set up a stub at Ruthenian language, and disambiguation pages at Old Russian language and Old Ruthenian language. None of this should be at all controversial, since these pages already had similar functions as disambig or redirects. I'll have a look back late tonight, and see how I can help out. —Michael Z. 18:05, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Old East Slavic Language

(I have answered that in the Old East Slavic discussion, where it belongs.)

Thanks!

...for your answers in the Old East Slavic discussion. They are much appreciated! --Iceager 05:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

can you look at my post on belarussian langauge please?

Thank you. -- Bonaparte talk 22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Belarusian

I just created this new article. Would you please have a look over it for mistakes? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-02-12 22:55 Z

Kawior z puszki and other false friends

Hi there! Thanks for letting me know. I added two more here and will probably add some more Polish-Czech and Polish-Russian false friends at a later stage. Great idea and a great job, congrats! Halibu tt 00:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall invest myself

I will do what I can. But I don't know what I can do. :) --VKokielov 17:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Friends of the Slavist/Polish

Hi, I noticed your message at Piotrus' page. I'll leave some of my comments here [1]. Let me know if that's what you need.--SylwiaS | talk 01:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False friends of slavists

Daniel I appreciate your invitation to this article, I will do my best to help, allthough I have to say that I am not on the wikipedia very often. Damir Mišić 14:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False friends including matka

False friends pages look very complicated, so I didn't dare touch them. Maybe they should be generated from map, or maybe both should be generated from a common simpler source code. This could be done by an extension (better, but more complicated) or by a bot (not as nice, but easier to get done). Hmmm... I'll think about how this could be done and I'll try to ask somebody with a functioning bot for help.

That's a very good idea, you're very welcome. I think the bilingual pages are not too complicated, I rather like them this way, as they were very inflexible with a machine behind it (which was the case in pre-Wikibook times). The monolingual pages of course are desperate, a kind of bot making the monolingual pages on the basis of the bilingual ones (and/or the maps) would be a very good thing there.

A more practical thing, both Slovenian and Serbocroatian have the word matica which is AFAICT a direct cognate of matka and has many meanings, including "queen bee or ant", "(screw) nut", "mother country or organization" and "maelstrom". It's also used in expressions like biserna matica (mother of pearl). This is not a direct false friend of matka, as it is spelt and pronounced differently, but it shares etymology and many meanings. Should this be added or not? Zocky | picture popups 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a practical question. Go ahead if you think it works, and if you need more than seven different meanings in the maps, you will have to draw new shadings. But I have no general objections, as of course someone learning either of these languages would at first glance assume that matka and matica might have the same meaning, because the suffixes -ka and -ica tend to have similar functions. Problems only arise when there are languages having both a -ka word and a -ica word. I don't know by heart if there is a language like that in this case. But this is where the individually editable bilingual pages are much more practical than the central program I used to have. --Daniel Bunčić 14:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Friends of the Slavist

I recommend you talk with Miloš Rančić about this. He studies slavistic.--Milan Jelisavčić 16:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OCS

You added "Old Bulgarian" to the portion of the Old Church Slavonic article about the term "Old Macedonian". How is "Old Bulgarian" appropriate there? I've reverted it. Thessaloniki was never part of the Kingdom of Bulgaria, so the term "Old Bulgarian" makes no sense if we are looking for a term that includes the language's basis in the Solun dialect. Please, before you edit the article again, acquire the major English-language handbooks (such as those of Nandris, Lunt, and Schmalstieg). CRCulver 19:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at my comment at Talk:Old Church Slavonic#Modern Slavic nomenclature. --Daniel Bunčić 20:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian

Please see my comments at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:False_Friends_of_the_Slavist#Bosnian.2C_Croatian.2C_Serbian

Allow me

For your knowledgeable and much needed input to East Slavic related article, I hereby award you this original barnstar! Thank you! --Irpen

Belarusian language

Thanks for grammar corrections. However, I disagree with your edits of factuals and will revert them after 24h on my 2 edits runs out. It was pointed out that B.A. generates from Old... because, as far as I know, there are Cyrillic-script alphabets generating (based on) from Russian alphabet. Then, you are saying "deleted too much", however, the material on Belarusian Latin alphabet is superfluous here and is already duplicated in other articles (actually, I'm preparing to enhance it!) Not to mention that both your version and version before my edit are sort of blowing the significance of this, rather marginal (and that can be proved!), phenomemon out of all proportion. I could even say those versions were weasel-wording something quite out of touch with facts. So, possibly you'd just revert your edit -- excepting the corrections of grammar?.. —Yury Tarasievich 07:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've re-edited the article. See remarks I've left in the comment tags. Removed info is duplicated several times elsewhere, and is certainly irrelevant here!? ---Yury Tarasievich 13:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian language and others

Hey man, I see you're a lecturer in Slavonic languages. I wonder could you take a look over Macedonian language and History of the Macedonian language, and give some feedback (only if you have time). Also, the move vote for Molise Slavic is underfoot. Regards, - FrancisTyers · 11:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I see you referenced "Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in different nations", whilst certainly a good reference, I'm doubtful as to the accuracy of Tomić's article on Macedonian, see for example User_talk:FrancisTyers/Archive5#Your_coursework and User_talk:Telex/Archive1#My_essay - FrancisTyers · 11:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian phonology

I've recently been taking some attention to Russian phonology. Your comment on the status of [ɨ] in Russian makes me think that you would be a good person to contribute to the article, specifically in reference to the number of vowel phonemes and the dispute around it. . AEuSoes1 23:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]