Belarusian, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!

[W. R.]

The text below glorifies such an ideology as Belarusian Grammar Nazism. I hope it can induce an interesting discussion, but if not, at least after having read it you will know more about Belarus, there is nothing bad about it.

The Belarusian language is dying being replaced by the Russian language. What and who is to blame? First and foremost it is the weak national identity (the first part of the text is about it). The vast majority of Belarusians still remain “West Russians” (I already wrote (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12091) about this situation in detail). It is simply stupid to expect from West Russians (including the West Russians who are in power here) any significant support for the Belarusian language.

I also “blame” the language itself, or rather its speakers. In the text I write how the Belarusian language is becoming primitive. You see, in present situation of the total domination of the Russian language the Belarusian language experiences both “quantitative” and “qualitative” losses. Its sympathizers more often pay attention to its “quantitative” losses (decreasing percentage of schools teaching pupils in Belarusian, for example), but few people worry about the qualitative losses. The text below is mainly about them.

I am a supporter of the “controlled” way of development of the Belarusian language. The Belarusian language now has to survive in the difficult circumstances, and as long as the Russian language is not driven out of our beloved Weissruthenien, the Belarusian language must be kept up and receive all care it needs.

There are plenty of texts which tell about the “qualitative” losses of the Belarusian language, but (surprisingly!) they all are in Belarusian. But if you read Belarusian then I’d suggest that you read them. Here they are:

Kuźma Čorny, “Non-Belarusian language in the Belarusian literature” (http://knihi.com/corny/niebielaruskaja.html)

Jury Paciupa, “The orthographic symptom of the language disease” (!!!) (http://arche.bymedia.net/2007-11/paciupa711.htm)

For further reading:

Stanislaŭ Stankievič, “Russification of the Belarusian language in the BSSR and the struggle against the process of Russification” (http://knihi.com/mova/rusifikacyja.html)

Kastuś Ćvirka, “The blight of the language – calque” (http://prajdzisvet.org/mova/8)

Pavieł Ściacko “Calques the cripples” (http://prajdzisvet.org/mova/9)

http://i44.tinypic.com/2gvoabc.jpg

1. THE IDENTITY AND THE LANGUAGE

When talking about the situation with the Belarusian language one should take into account the situation with the Belarusian identity. The revival of the Belarusian language must not be expected as long as most Belarusians remain mentally West-Russians. What I wrote in my text on the Belarusian identity is not especially original, many people who have some information about the history of the Belarusian nation have come to the same conclusions, and sometimes they use the same terms.

One can say that the Belarusian nation is schizophrenic. The West-Russianness and Belarusianness manage to coexist somehow on this territory, but unfortunately the West-Russianness dominates. Too many times I have heard the words "our" and "Russian" used as synonyms. "Our good Russian film", for example. For me (because I am Belarusian) it is like saying "potato chips made of apples" or something like that. It is especially abnormal, since by the Belarusian national movement Russians (and also Poles) have always traditionally been seen as sort of “antipodes”, and the West-Russianism as antipodal ideology. It is indeed "schizophrenia", that there exists a nation with two national ideologies hostile to each other. Really hostile. For example, if a Belarusian nervously reacts to another Belarusian speaking to him Belarusian, you can be sure, that the first one is "West-Russian" while the second one is "Belarusian".

It can be understood better if one takes the Ukraine as an example. The Ukraine consists of the two parts, of the Ukrainian speaking West (with strong national identity) and "surzhyk" speaking/Russian speaking East. And there exist certain hostility between them, or at least tension. Of course only generally speaking but still. And still in the Eastern Ukraine one can find a Ukrainian who could react to the Ukrainian language nervously.

Unlike in the case of Ukrainians Belarusians do not have their "Piedmont" (Western Ukraine, Lviv), and the Belarusian identity is weaker. The West-Russians are in power here after Łukašenka was elected. :( Sad but true. Belarusians are a minority.

It must be said that it is not acknowledged "officially" that the two identities coexist. Both Łukašenka and, say, Zianon Paźniak regard themselves Belarusian, but their understanding of the Belarusian history, of what the Belarusian culture is, what place should the Belarusian language take etc. is totally different.

For example, for West-Russian Łukašenka (who also happened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPOvYlLQcDc) to mix up the words "our" and "Russian") the Belarusian language is just something "local", which can be taken seriously only by "nationalists", ant it doesn't need neither special care, nor protection. It exists in some "reservation" and it is enough. While for Zianon Paźniak it is the national language, which must be the main language of Belarus and the only state language, and it does need care and protection.

2. WHY THE BELARUSIAN LANGUAGE MUST BE KEPT PURE

In the middle of XX century Dr. Jan Stankievič (being an immigrant in the USA) wrote that the Belarusian language of Soviet newspapers could only frighten Belarusians off. People love what is natively theirs. They could love the Belarusian language too (even West-Russians), but not if it were nothing but a caricature of itself or the Russian language. Unfortunately that is what it became to turn into during Soviet times. Dr. Jan Stankievič once used the term “the terrible Belarusian-Soviet-Russian jargon”. It happened to me (once or twice) that people refused to speak to me in Belarusian because “the Belarusian language is not what it is supposed to be”. Now I think I know what they meant. They talked about this “jargon”.

Besides it is obvious (at least for me) :) that the Belarusian language with all its dialects is a separate system, a separate organism. The separate organism cannot develop normally if it is so much infected by foreign vocabulary, syntax, and sometimes morphology; and even phonetics! Yes, I am not exagerrating! The foreign influence is so big and harmful, that it distorts the Belarusian language even at the phonetic (most resistive) level! :mad:

The Belarusian language must be kept pure if we want it to develop normally. The foreign influence must be removed. That means there must be at least certain areas where it doesn’t have to coexist with Russian. Ideally whole Belarus must be such an area of course…

Below I’m going to write about some diseases of the Belarusian language.

3. SOVIET BELARUSIAN LANGUAGE

During the Soviet era the Belarusian language had both achievements and losses. On the one hand there was a short Belarusization in 1920s and the Belarusian language developed as a state language of the BSSR, on the other hand – its development was greatly influenced by the Russian language and communist ideology. In Soviet dictionaries you can find both the native Belarusian words and obvious Russian calques which contradict the spirit of the Belarusian language.

To give a couple of examples: Belarusians don’t say “Good morning”. I don’t know why. They just don’t. They say either “Good day” or “Good evening”. I can bring two witnesses. The first one is Dr. Jan Stankievič himself; the second one is my grandmother. Really, I just can’t imagine my grandmother saying “Good morning”, because… she just does not use this expression. But unfortunately in many dictionaries this unnatural form can be found.

Another example: “How are you doing?” In Russian: “How are businesses?”/”Kak dieła?”

It is not correct to ask “How are businesses?” in Belarusian. In Belarusian you have to ask (literally) “How do you have yourself?” – “Jak majeśsia?”.

If one asked "Jak sravy?" (Kak dieła?), that would mean that he/she would use a Russian expression, replacing Russian words by Belarusian ones. But again, I can’t imagine my grandfather or grandmother using this strange Belarusified Russian expression, despite the fact that the Soviet Belarusian language could see it as acceptable.

In his article “Non-Belarusian language in the Belarusian literature” Kuźma Čorny parodied and mocked this language, by putting “Soviet Belarusian” words in a mouth of a rural woman: “U čym sprava? Biezumoŭna, niemetazhodna…” Despite the fact that you can find such words and expressions in dictionaries, they sound funny when said by a rural woman: they all are calques. U čym sprava? – Russian “V čiom dieło?” (literally “In what is the business?” (What’s the matter?)); biez-umoŭ-na – Russian “biez-uslov-no” (unconditionally), nie-meta-zhod-na – Russian “nie-cele-soobraz-no” (inexpedient)… Belarusians do not speak like this! Well, as long as they don't learn this “jargon”. :mad:

4. THE SIMPLE BELARUSIAN LANGUAGE

This is another kind of disease plaguing the literary Belarusian language.

I remember myself reading “New Land” by Jakub Kołas at school. And I remember envy that I felt: his language was very “light” and natural. I thought I was not able to write like that, my language was (and is) much poorer than Jakub Kołas’. That kind of envy that I felt when reading “New Land” as a pupil, now visits me very rarely, because the beautiful Belarusian language now is rare too… Once I happened to write an article (http://community.livejournal.com/by_mova/665040.html) about the language of the newspaper “Naša Niva”. I pointed out there obvious language mistakes of “NN”. But in fact even if they had corrected all the mistakes, the language of the newspaper would have remained insipid anyway.

Today people who nominally are Belarusian speakers live in the world where there is too little Belarusian language (especially of good quality). Unfortunately in most cases because of these circumstances their language remains quite insipid and underdeveloped. Even when they are journalists... or even writers! Of course they can say “this is a car” or “I want beer” without any mistakes, but if one is for example a writer his/her language is supposed to be... well, full of colours, shades and nuances. “The simple Belarusian language” is not enough.

A characteristic illustrative detail: some people with whom I communicate in Belarusian even tend to confuse “tabie” with “ciabie” and “sabie” with “siabie” all the time! It is like a German confusing “dir” with “dich” and “mir” with “mich”. Enough said.

5. IDIOTIC “PURISM”

Some Belarusian speakers tend to chose words which are dissimilar with the respective Russian ones. But in fact this tendency is just another example of the (indirect) Russian influence. Some examples:

“To help” in Russian is “pomagat’”. In Belarusian one can say or “pamahać” or “dapamahać”, with no difference in meaning. Linguist (and purist) Dr. Jan Stankievič would use “pamahać”, this is the only form to find in his dictionary. He believed that the form “dapamahać” is influenced by Polish.

But very many Belarusian speakers see “dapamahać” as “more Belarusian” form, because it is less similar to Russian “pomogat’”. Google gives these results: about 378,000 for “dapamahać” and only about 8,400 for “pamahać”! In fact “pamahać” is being forgotten only because it appears to be more similar to its Russian equivalent. Pure idiocy.

Another example, even sadder. There are two words in Belarusian for “to know”: “znać” and “viedać”. Russians have only “znat’”. Similarly as in case with “dapamahać”, some Belarusian speakers tend to use “viedać” exclusively.

What is especially sad here? The words “znać” and “viedać” have slightly different meanings. For example one can say that a dog does not bark at a postman because it “znaje” him, “recognises” him. If you say, that the dog “viedaje” him, you will mean that the dog knows some things about the postman, for example his habits, his way of life etc.

If “viedać” starts being used instead of both “znać” and “viedać”, that means that the Belarusian language becomes poorer, because these “shades and nuances” of the meanings disappear. What is to blame? The idiotic “purism” and also the lack of the “language feeling” (Sprachgefühl). :(

6. UNDER DR. JAN STANKIEVIČ’S BANNER FORWARD TO THE GRAMMAR NAZI DICTATORSHIP!

Jury Paciupa (there is no other Grammar Führer but Dr. Jan Stankievič and Jury Paciupa is His Prophet) compared once his work to the work of creator of Nynorsk Ivar Aasen and reviver of the Hebrew language Eliezer Ben-Yehuda. I think the situations are quite comparable indeed. Just “down with Russian, let’s speak Belarusian because we are Belarusians” is not enough. Quality of the language is also very important. All the elements of “the terrible Belarusian-Soviet-Russian jargon” that poison the organism of the Belarusian language must be eliminated, and it must have all the care and protection it needs.

The End

[Jarl]

No worries. There are still Belarusian-speaking communities in Podlasie, in Poland. And Belarusian schools. Not much has changed since Medieval Ages. If Belarusian dies out in Belarusia, Podlasie will its last stronghold. And btw. more Belarusian Poles speak Belarusian (percentage-wise) than the Belarusians themselves ;)

[W. R.]

No worries. There are still Belarusian-speaking communities in Podlasie, in Poland. And Belarusian schools. Not much has changed since Medieval Ages. If Belarusian dies out in Belarusia, Podlasie will its last stronghold. And btw. more Belarusian Poles speak Belarusian (percentage-wise) than the Belarusians themselves ;)Very good. :) I don't think that the Belarusian language will die out completely in Belarus, though. Even the present regime will keep it in some reservations anyway (some newspapers, some broadcasting stations, some hours in the school schedule). But I do worry about its degradation that is caused by its subordinate status and by the domination of the Russian language.

[Wulfhere]

Are Belorussian and Russian mutually intelligible?

[W. R.]

Are Belorussian and Russian mutually intelligible?It largely depends on people’s own capabilities and experience. You can hear from Russians both “Wtf, I don’t understand anything” and “Oh, I can understand nearly everything”.

[Jarl]

Are Belorussian and Russian mutually intelligible?

By and large yes. It depends on the dialect though. Some Belarusian dialects of Podlasie form a transition between Masovian dialect of Polish and other Belarusian dialects. And anyway, vast majority of Belarusians speak a creole (mixed-language) with varying degree of Russian vocabulary. This language is called "трасянка".


No, he is from Iŭje district (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejon_iwiejski).

But in Polesie he has his stronghold as well (I found it out only today). Look at this red spot in the centre of Polesie: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Зянон_Пазьняк_1994_(заліўка).png I'm proud that I was born in so nationalist a district! :thumb001:

It is actually quite striking that the stronghold of Belarusian nationalism is almost exactly in the same districts where Polish minority/majority can be found, ie. its confined to Western Belarus, which until 1939-1945 was a part Poland.

Same thing can be observed with Ukrainian nationalist movement. Interesting correlation :)


It largely depends on people’s own capabilities and experience. You can hear from Russians both “Wtf, I don’t understand anything” and “Oh, I can understand nearly everything”.


Btw. what is your stance on the Polish minority in Belarus? It is quite interesting since most Poles were expelled by the Soviet Union or send to Siberia. Many, if not most, Polish-speaking families were repatriated Poland at the end of WW II. So who is left? Apparently from those Poles in Belarus, only 5% declare Polish as their mother tongue. I read that some part of the Belarusian-speaking Poles are simply local polonised Belarusians/Lithuanians/Yotvingians etc. Do you have any statistical data or know any sources about the ethnic transitions in Western Belarus?

[poiuytrewq0987]

I know a Belarusian who lives in the US, she doesn't understand a word of Belarusian but she speaks and read Russian very well.

[Ilya.S]

I know a Belarusian who lives in the US, she doesn't understand a word of Belarusian but she speaks and read Russian very well.

That's strange even though I'm not a Belarussian even I can understand a lot of it.

[Jarl]

That's strange even though I'm not a Belarussian even I can understand a lot of it.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that most people DO NOT speak pure Belarusian. But anyway saying that a Russian can't understand a word of Belarusian is utter nonsense.

[W. R.]

Btw. what is your stance on the Polish minority in Belarus?Well, I'd say so: nobody has ever convinced me that the ancestors of the Belarusian Poles were "real" Poles from the Polish ethnographic territory. I simply think that many Belarusian Catholics choose the Polish identity for the same reason why many Orthodox compatriots of theirs tend to confuse words "our" and "Russian": because the Belarusian national identity is still weak.

And that's why they are never included in plans of ethnic cleansings. :tongue
Do you have any statistical data or know any sources about the ethnic transitions in Western Belarus?No, I don't, sorry. :( I'll let you know if I come across some.

[Jarl]

And that's why they are never included in plans of ethnic cleansings.

That would set the seal on Belarusian identity and language. Belarusians and Belarusian Poles are in the same boat now. Btw. is your sig. in Belarusian?

[Osweo]

jak nie ad nas zaléžyć vybirać sabié baćkoŭ, tak nie ad nas zaléžyć vybirać sabié nacyju; možna tolki spaŭniać abo nie spaŭniać pavinnaści, vynikajučyja z prynaléžnaści da svajho narodu .......... HMMMM......

як не ад нас залежiт' вiбирать сабе бацков, так не ад нас залежiть вiбирать сабе нацию; можна толки спавнять або не спавнять павиннасци, вiникаючiя з прiналежнасци да свайго народу.... хммм....

як не от нас залежить въбирать себе батков, так не от нас залежить въбирать себе нацию; можно только спавнять ибо не спавнять повинности, въникаючая из принадлежности до своего народу.... гмммм....

как не от нас залежит выбирать себе предков, так не от нас залежить выбирать себе нацию; можно только спавнять или не спавнять повинности, исходя с принадлежности к своему народу... :strokebeard: ... NEARLY...!

WHat's this bloody 'spauniac'?!? :p
исполнять ???

"Just as it is not left unto us to choose our ancestors, so we may not choose our nation; We can only fulfill or not fulfill the obligations that come from being a member of our people."

[W. R.]

Btw. is your sig. in Belarusian?Yes, sir!
WHat's this bloody 'spauniac'?!? :p
исполнять ???Yes, sir!
"Just as it is not left unto us to choose our ancestors, so we may not choose our nation; We can only fulfill or not fulfill the obligations that come from being a member of our people."Cool! :) Thanks for the help with translation. Native speaker will always do it better. :thumb001:

On Stirpes my signature was translated like this:
"[...] just as it depends not on us to choose for ourselves parents, it depends not on us to choose for ourselves a nation; one can only perform or not perform the duties which are the consequence of belonging to his/her people.”

© Dr. Jan Stankievič "From the History of Belarus"Here is the original quoted fragment in Cyrillic:

"[...] як не ад нас залежыць выбіраць сабе бацькоў, так не ад нас залежыць выбіраць сабе нацыю; можна толькі спаўняць або не спаўняць павіннасьці, вынікаючыя з прыналежнасьці да свайго народу."

© Д-р Ян Станкевіч "Зь гісторыі Беларусі"

Цыт. подле Ян Станкевіч, "Гістарычныя творы", Менск, "Энцыклапедыкс", 2003, с. 479

[Osweo]

Cool! :) Thanks for the help with translation. Native speaker will always do it better. :thumb001:
Hold your horses, I'm not quite satisfied with it yet... ;)

On Stirpes my signature was translated like this:Here is the original quoted fragment in Cyrillic:
"[...] як не ад нас залежыць выбіраць сабе бацькоў, так не ад нас залежыць выбіраць сабе нацыю; можна толькі спаўняць або не спаўняць павіннасьці, вынікаючыя з прыналежнасьці да свайго народу."
Good Gods, my EYES! :eek: That's quite horrific. :p

"[...] just as it depends not on us to choose for ourselves parents, it depends not on us to choose for ourselves a nation; one can only perform or not perform the duties which are the consequence of belonging to his/her people.”
Yuck!

Let's have another go...

"Just as it is not left unto us to choose our ancestors, so we may not choose our nation; We can only fulfil or not fulfil the obligations that come from being a member of our people."
...
I'm not happy with the collocation 'fulfil .. obligations' you see. Nor 'perform ... duties'... :chin:

The dictionary does have ...
to discharge / fulfil / meet an obligation — выполнять, исполнять долг
.. however.

Damn, take it as it is! But I improved the punctuation slightly.
"Just as it is not left unto us to choose our ancestors, so we may not choose our nation; We can only fulfil, or not fulfil, the obligations that come from being a member of our people."

I'm in two minds over whether 'or shirk' might sound best instead of 'or not fulfil'... :(


Anyway, though... Heheh.... Haven't we just demonstrated that an Englishman with minimal understanding of Russian, can deal with written Belorussian without too much exertion? :p Wouldn't 'Western Russian' be a fitting title, after all... :eek::thumb001::whistle::dev


:ftomato:

[W. R.]

an Englishman with minimal understanding of RussianAwww, you are being too modest. :biggrin:
Wouldn't 'Western Russian' be a fitting title, after all...No, sir! :nono:

You said it because you haven't been cured of your Russophilia yet. Were you, for example, Polonophile, your opinion could be completely different.
This "maxim" sounds almost identical in Polish BTW.:eviltongue: :eviltongue: :eviltongue:

[Osweo]

You said it because you haven't been cured of your Russophilia yet.
I have been assured by the finest physicians, Ваша Милащ, that mine is a terminal case. ;)

Were you, for example, Polonophile, your opinion could be completely different.
Дай Бог, нет! Проклятим Ляхобасурманофилом никогда не стану!
And it's pretty awkward that you're not called Bialopolskie... ;)

[Jarl]

Yes, sir!Yes, sir!


Damn! Are you serious?????????

jak nie ad nas zaléžyć vybirać sabié baćkoŭ, tak nie ad nas zaléžyć vybirać sabié nacyju; možna tolki spaŭniać abo nie spaŭniać pavinnaści, vynikajučyja z prynaléžnaści da svajho narodu


Im really perplexed! I knew Ukrainian is quite similar... but this stuff actually reads like some Polish dialect! Honestly, I read it off in one single go without any problem at all. Even though I have never had any contact with Belarusian before. Just as it was written in my own language. The only word that seemed bit hazy was baćkou. But from the sound and the context it was clear that it means "ociec".


Do you have any other Belarusian text written in latin alphabet??? Bring some here!

[poiuytrewq0987]

Damn! Are you serious?????????

jak nie ad nas zaléžyć vybirać sabié baćkoŭ, tak nie ad nas zaléžyć vybirać sabié nacyju; možna tolki spaŭniać abo nie spaŭniać pavinnaści, vynikajučyja z prynaléžnaści da svajho narodu


Im really perplexed! I knew Ukrainian is quite similar... but this stuff actually reads like some Polish dialect! Honestly, I read it off in one single go without any problem at all. Even though I have never had any contact with Belarusian before. Just as it was written in my own language. The only word that seemed bit hazy was baćkou. But from the sound and the context it was clear that it means "ociec".


Do you have any other Belarusian text written in latin alphabet??? Bring some here!

Belarus is not Western Russia but rather Eastern Poland. ;) :p

[Osweo]

Im really perplexed! I knew Ukrainian is quite similar...
More artificially so than Belorussian is, I believe. Opoljacziwanie is more blatant and self-conscious there, by and large. ;)

but this stuff actually reads like some Polish dialect! Honestly, I read it off in one single go without any problem at all. Even though I have never had any contact with Belarusian before. Just as it was written in my own language. The only word that seemed bit hazy was baćkou. But from the sound and the context it was clear that it means "ociec".
Hehe! Why are you so surprised? I can half read Polish, with Russian, so the intermediate entity is bound to seem like a dialect to both ends of the linguistic continuum.
Do you not have any cognate for 'Batko', 'Batka', 'Batyushka'? How curious!

I remember reading some Letopis from Boleslaw Khrabry's time stating that the Russian and Polish forces could easily understand each other, shouting across the battlefield or river or whatever it was.

Tell you what, though, Jarl; you see what I did, gradually turning the Belorussian into a kind of Russian that made more sense to me? In three or so steps? Could you do the same, Polonicising? Might be interesting. :)

[Jarl]

More artificially so than Belorussian is, I believe. Opoljacziwanie is more blatant and self-conscious there, by and large. ;)

I was never immensly interested in lingustics, but I have to say this thing today, really grabbed my attention. With Ukrainian, its mainly the vocabulary thats main hinderance as far as my personal subjective impression is concerned.


Hehe! Why are you so surprised? I can half read Polish, with Russian, so the intermediate entity is bound to seem like a dialect to both ends of the linguistic continuum.
Do you not have any cognate for 'Batko', 'Batka', 'Batyushka'? How curious!

I remember reading some Letopis from Boleslaw Khrabry's time stating that the Russian and Polish forces could easily understand each other, shouting across the battlefield or river or whatever it was.

That is true. It is described in "latopis Nestora". At the battle of Wołyń (Volhynia), the local Ruthenian wojewoda tried to insult king Boleslaw... before half the Ruthenian army was slain.

The king of Rus, Jaroslaw the Wise, did not want to give his sister to Boleslaw. Later, when Boleslaw took Kiev, he rode towards the city gates and struck them with his sword, and jokingly said to his comrades:

"Just like now the Golden Gate has been struck by this sword, so will tomorrow night yield the sister of the most cowardly of all kings, who did not want to give her to me."

The sword got chipped in the process and hence it became known as "szczerbiec". It was one of the symbols of the Piast dynasty and the Polish monarchy, used as regalia at coronations.

Later, when he was coming back to Poland, the Ruthenians tried to get him near the Bug river (or some other river in Western Ukraine). This time king Jaroslaw was so cocksure that he sent a message to Boleslaw, warning him that "he is surrounded like a boar in a puddle by his huntsmen". Boleslaw replied that indeed Jaroslaw spoke the truth, coz like a wild boar he will soak the hoves of his horses in the blood of Ruthenians.

The armies gathered along the river. Poles were preparing for a feast eviscerating cattle and washing the meat in the river. Men from both armies would shout insults at each other from both banks across the water throwing bits of mud and animal entrails at each other. Later the battle took place and Jaroslaw was routed.


Tell you what, though, Jarl; you see what I did, gradually turning the Belorussian into a kind of Russian that made more sense to me? In three or so steps? Could you do the same, Polonicising? Might be interesting. :)

jak nie ad nas zaléžyć vybirać sabié baćkoŭ, tak nie ad nas zaléžyć vybirać sabié nacyju; možna tolki spaŭniać abo nie spaŭniać pavinnaści, vynikajučyja z prynaléžnaści da svajho narodu

In Polish this text would/could be (phonetically):

jak nie od nas zależy vybierać sobie oćców, tak nie od nas zależy vybierać sobie nacji; można tylko speuniać albo nie speuniać powinności, vynikającej z przynależności do svojego narodu








Actually things look pretty grim for Belarusian:


According to the 1999 Belarus Census, the Belarusian language is declared as a "language spoken at home" by about 3,686,000 people (36.7% of the population)[6] as of 1999.[7]

According to a study done by the Belarusian government in 2009, 72% of Belarusians speak Russian at home, while Belarusian is only used by 11.9% of Belarusians. 29.4% of Belarusians can write, speak and read Belarusian, while only 52.5% can read and speak it. According to the research, one out of ten Belarusians does not understand Belarusian.


If it is really 12% (which must count the Belarusian-speakin Poles in as well), than this is not good. But don't worry. There are some 50 000 in Poland:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Belarusians_in_Poland%2C_2002.png

...and 40 000 (80%) speak Belarusian :)

You should go to Grabarka one day, Whiteruthenian. Btw. why dont you write down "Ojcze Nasz" in Belarusian here? Or some other txt?

[W. R.]

Btw. why dont you write down "Ojcze Nasz" in Belarusian here?I already did (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142532&postcount=22). ;)
Do you have any other Belarusian text written in latin alphabet??? Bring some here!Mmmkay. Here is a legend "Palašuki j Palaviki". It seems it was shortened and edited a bit by Dr. Jan Stankiévič. Surprisingly I found it out only now. I tried to translate it into English; the translation is far from being perfect but you can read it here (http://forum.stirpes.net/1041-1077-1083-1072-1088-1091-1089-1100/9700-jecha-kaza-nik-baj.html). It appears that I made the translation of the original (not shortened) version. :lightbul:

Palašuki j Palaviki

[“Palavikami” Palašuki zavuć tych Biełarusaŭ, što žyvuć vonkach Paleśsia (u vužšym značańniu hetaha słova). Aprača taho, miaščanie ŭ Biełarusi zavuć “palavymi” siełavych ludzioŭ. U hetaj paleskaj kazcy adbiłasia historyja Biełaruskaha Narodu. U joj-ža paleskija Biełarusy vykazujuć svoj pahlad na Biełarusaŭ inšych, jak na svaich darahich bratoŭ, nakšych ad tych bratoŭ-narodaŭ, što stalisia razbojnikami i ichnymi varahami. Kazka ŭziata z knihi Alaksandry Sieržputoŭskaha “Kazki j apaviadańni Biełarusaŭ z Słuckaha pavietu”, vydanaj u 1926 h. – Jan Stankievič]

Było ŭ baćki dvanancacioch synoŭ dy ŭsie jany vielmi ŭdałyja dziaciuki. Žyli jany ŭ ciomnym lesie, dzie viałosia šmat usialakaha źviarja, paścili svoj statak dy łavili źviarynu. Susiedzi žyli daloka i redka rabili im škodu, bo bajalisia ŭdałych dziaciukoŭ, kab nie nahreli im pa patylicy. Žyli jany razam i słuchali staroha baćki, a jon, užo sivieńki by łuń, siadzieŭ sabie ŭ kažušku i ŭletku dy zahadavaŭ. I byŭ u ich ład, i ŭsim było dobra. Jany ŭsie pažanilisia, i było ŭ ich šmat dziaciej, ale ŭsie słuchali staroha, i kažyn rabiŭ svajo dzieła.

Tolki voś pamior stary baćka, i pačali žanki svarycca pamižsobku, pačali vadzicca dy padvučać svaich haspadaroŭ. I takaja ŭ ich pajšła zvada, što j žytki niama. Viedama, kali baby čaho zachočuć, to j sam čort ich nie pierastavić. A tut jany ŭ vadzin hołas kryčać: dzialicca dy dzialicca. Pačali jany dzialicca. Vadzilisia, vadzilisia jany, pakul dzialili žyviołu dy ŭsio dabro, a jak pašli dzialić ziamlu, dyk pačali bicca, što ledź adzin adnaho nie pazabivali, dy tak i nie padzialili mo dahetul. Vadziacca braty pamižsobku za ziamlu, zachaplajuć čužyja dzialanki, i nikoli ŭ ich niamaš spakoju.

Tolki dva małodšyja braty žyli pamiž saboju vielmi zhodna: kudy adzin, tudy j druhi. Nie zachacieli jany vadzicca z bratami, kinuli svaju baćkaŭščynu dyj pašli ŭ śviet šukać sabie ziamli. Voś zaniali dyj pahnali jany svoj statak i zabralisia ŭ taki les, što j kanca jamu niamašaka. Nia mohuć dalej jechać – les zaminaje. Pačali jany cierabić darohu dy maścić hrebli. Ale dzie tam, čym dalej, tym les usio huścieje, a ŭ im staić takaja tchłań i nietra, što j vybracca nielha. Voś i kaža bolšy brat: zastanusia ja tut, bo nie mahu vybracca ź lesu”. I zastaŭsia jon siarod taho lesu. I nazvali jaho i dzieci jaho Palašukami. Małodšy-ž brat praciareblevaŭ darohu, maściŭ hrebli dy kłaŭ kładki i jechaŭ dalej. Mo j dahetul na Paleśsiu jašče jo tyja prasieki dy hrebli, što narabiŭ toj čałaviek. Nia doŭha jany jechali na svaich kołach, jak ubačyli, što les pačaŭ radzieć, pačali traplacca prahaliny, palanki dy pali, dyk jany ataŭbavalisia tam i pačali razrablać pole, zatym i nazvalisia jany Palavikami. Potym razmnožylisia jak Palašuki, tak Palaviki, zaniali pusty les dyj pačali žyć adny kala adnych pobač.

Za niemały čas u Palašukoŭ i Palavikoŭ raźviałosia šmat žyvioły dyj ŭsialakaha źviarja ŭ ich lasoch było bolš, čymsia ŭ tym miescu, dzie ataŭbavalisia tyja dziesiacioch bratoŭ. Voś jany paškadavali, što puścili siudy mienšych bratoŭ i što dali im šmat žyvioły, paškadavali dyj uzdumali adabrać nazad. Daviedalisia Palašuki j Palaviki, što tyja padchodziać da ich z razbojam, narabili ŭ lesie zavałaŭ, dy nakapali hłybokich jamaŭ dyj zaciecianili ich mocham, a sami pachavalisia ŭ huščary dyj cikujuć, što budzie dalej. Ale voś padyšli tyja razbojniki – dyj pačali valicca ŭ jamy, a ŭ ich była vada. Adnyja patapilisia, a druhija zabłytalisia ŭ zasiekach dyj zahinuli ŭ nietry bieź jady. Voś adahnali apošnich razbojnikaŭ Palašuki j Palaviki dyj davaj vychvalacca adny pierad adnymi. Palašuki kažuć, što heta jany svajmi zasiekami ŭ lesie zahubili razbojnikaŭ, a Palaviki kažuć, što razbojniki zahinuli ŭ tych jamach, što Palaviki vykapali. Pašli jany vychvalacca dy spračacca. Spračalisia, spračalisia, dy za čuby, dy za kały… I pašła tut takaja bitva, što harej, jak ad razbojnikaŭ. Bjucca Palašuki z Palavikami, palać sioły, niščać dabro dy paryvajucca spresu zahubić adny adnych, harej, jak lutyja varahi. Doŭha bilisia jany, ale nia mohuć zdoleć adny adnych, tolki što dalej, to ŭsio bolš i bolš słabiejuć jak tyja, tak i druhija.

Dačulisia varahi, što Palašuki j Palaviki bjucca mižsobku, što jany nie baroniać svaje rubiažy, voś jany jznoŭ zybrali vialikaje vojska dyj pašli palić sioły dyj zabivać jak Palašukoŭ, tak i Palavikoŭ. Achamianulisia Palašuki j Palaviki, hodzie bicca sami z saboj, davaj bicca z voraham. Bilisia jany, bilisia, mo ŭžo pałavina ich palahło, a ničoha nia mohuć zrabić, bo varahi lezuć usio novyja i novyja. Šmat palahło i varahoŭ u čystym poli, šmat zabłudziłasia ŭ lesie dy ŭ bałotach i tam zahinuła ad hoładu, ad choładu, ci patapiłasia ŭ hrazi, ale jašče šmat zastałosia. Lezuć jany jak śvinie ŭ harod, lezuć dy zabirajuć Palašukoŭ i Palavikoŭ u pałon, zabirajuć ich ziamlu, žyviołu i ŭsio dabro, a starych i małych zabivajuć ci ckujuć sabakami. Zakavali jany ŭ zialeźzi ŭsich Palašukoŭ i Palavikoŭ dyj zahadali sabie słužyć.

Ničoha nie paradziš. Słužać Palašuki j Palaviki tym varahom, bo nie svaja vola, słužać hod, słužać dva, a moža j bolš. Pracujuć jany na varahoŭ, by čorny voł, i nijakaje palohki nia majuć, pracujuć, harujuć dy praklinajuć svaju žytku. A varahi panujuć dy ździekujucca z prostych ludzioŭ, a tyja rady, što choć zastalisia žyvymi. Bačać pany, što prostyja ludzi źmirylisia, voś i śkinuli ź ich zialeźzi. Rady prostyja ludzi, dziakujuć Bohu j za toje. I pačali jany pracavać na panoŭ tak ščyra, jak sami sabie. A panom tolki toje j treba. Pracujuć prostyja ludzi, a pany tolki zahadujuć dy padhaniajuć. I advučylisia pany ad usialakaje raboty, dy tak advučylisia, što biaz prostych ludzioŭ nia mohuć i žyć, by taja ptuška, jak jaje vypuściać iz kletki na volu. Bačać toje prostyja ludzi dy tolki śmiajucca z panoŭ. Jany śmiajucca, a pany choć by što, balujuć sabie dy jašče bolš prybaŭlajuć raboty. Bo jany, kaa, rahočuć by žarabcy zatym, što mała dzieła. Jašče harej stała ludziom, i pačali jany rabić panom pomstu: to śviran spalać ci humno, to karovy zahoniać u takuju tchłań, što jany tam i pahinuć, to śvinie patopiać, ale ad taho j sami nia majuć čaho jeści, bo, viedama, žyvuć na andynarji: pana čort nie biare – jon u susieda dastanie, a ludzi padychajuć dy puchnuć z hoładu. Što tut rabić, što paradzić? Ni ź jakaha boku nielha pazbavicca ad tych panoŭ.

Ale voś prychodzić tudy jakiś stareńki dziadok dyj kaža: “Ludzi, ludzi, vas šmat, a panoŭ žmienia, i hetaja žmienia ździekujecca dy jeździć u vas na karku. Ci heta-ž vy ludzi a nie aviečki”. Pahamaniŭ jon u vadnym miescu dy ŭ druhim, voś i schamianulisia ludzi dyj pačali varušycca. Znajšlisia ŭdałyja dziaciuki, zybrali svaju viatku dobrych małajcoŭ dyj pašli piareścić dy miasić tych panoŭ. Bačać tyja, što heta nie piareliŭki, dyj puścilisia naŭcioki: chto ŭ les, a chto ŭ čužyja kraji. Voś i asłabanili Palašuki j Palaviki svoj kraj ad tych varahoŭ.

[Cail]

Belarussian is actually very close to both Russian and Polish. In fact, Russian and Polish themselves are incredibly close to each other, once you learn some easy rules and get used to both. You can literally take entire sentences from Russian or Polish, change the phonetics by regular shift laws and voila! you have a Polish or Russian sentence. Actually, i'd say in many aspects Polish is close to Russian then it is to Czech. And Belorussian/Ukrainian are undoubtedly closer to Polish than Czech is.

[Osweo]

Palašuki j Palaviki

[“Palavikami” Palašuki zavuć tych Biełarusaŭ, što žyvuć vonkach Paleśsia (u vužšym značańniu hetaha słova).
'Palaviks' is what Palashuks (Polaks?) call those Belarusy that live in Polessye (in the narrow sense of the term.
Aprača taho, miaščanie ŭ Biełarusi zavuć “palavymi” siełavych ludzioŭ.
Also, townsfolk in Belarus call village people 'Palavy' or 'field-folk'.
U hetaj paleskaj kazcy adbiłasia historyja Biełaruskaha Narodu.
In this Polessian tale, the history of the Belarussian People is ...ed???
U joj-ža paleskija Biełarusy vykazujuć svoj pahlad na Biełarusaŭ inšych, jak na svaich darahich bratoŭ, nakšych ad tych bratoŭ-narodaŭ, što stalisia razbojnikami i ichnymi varahami.
In ?this (tale)? Polessian Belarusy express their view of ?other? Belarussians, as on their dear brothers, .... of those brother-peoples, that became bandits and ?their? enemies.
Kazka ŭziata z knihi Alaksandry Sieržputoŭskaha “Kazki j apaviadańni Biełarusaŭ z Słuckaha pavietu”, vydanaj u 1926 h. – Jan Stankievič]
THe tale is taken from Aleksandr Serputovsky's book 'Tales and stories of the Belarussians from Slutsky ?region?', published in 1926 - Jan Stankevich.

Było ŭ baćki dvanancacioch synoŭ dy ŭsie jany vielmi ŭdałyja dziaciuki.
An old man had twelve sons, and all of them were bold boys.
Žyli jany ŭ ciomnym lesie, dzie viałosia šmat usialakaha źviarja, paścili svoj statak dy łavili źviarynu.
THey lived in a dark forest, where ?? of all kinds of beasts roamed, they pastured their herds and caught small game.
Susiedzi žyli daloka i redka rabili im škodu, bo bajalisia ŭdałych dziaciukoŭ, kab nie nahreli im pa patylicy.
Their nieghbours lived far away, and rarely ?came to visit?, they were afraid of the wild youths, as though they wouldn't ?warm them on the back!??! :p
Žyli jany razam i słuchali staroha baćki, a jon, užo sivieńki by łuń, siadzieŭ sabie ŭ kažušku i ŭletku dy zahadavaŭ.
They lived ??, and obeyed their old dad, and he, ?????, sat in a ??? ??? ??? :p
I byŭ u ich ład, i ŭsim było dobra.
ANd all was well with them, and they all were happy.
Jany ŭsie pažanilisia, i było ŭ ich šmat dziaciej, ale ŭsie słuchali staroha, i kažyn rabiŭ svajo dzieła.
THey all married, and they had lots of children, and all of them paid heed to their elders, and each carried out his own tasks.

Tolki voś pamior stary baćka, i pačali žanki svarycca pamižsobku, pačali vadzicca dy padvučać svaich haspadaroŭ.
Suddenly the old man died, and the wives ?began? to cook ?badly?, to ... and ?trick? their husbands?
I takaja ŭ ich pajšła zvada, što j žytki niama.
And it went on until there was no food in the cupboard... ?

Great fun, but I'm off to read the translation now. :D

[Jarl]

And Belorussian/Ukrainian are undoubtedly closer to Polish than Czech is.

Damn! Actually... After having read these texts I think I will have to agree that at least it is very similar. That is something really amazing. :confused: ... coz "West Slavic" languages should be much more similar, shouldn't they? While this Belorusian thing reads just like a dialect. I really do not think that texts in Kashubian or Silesian dialects are much less difficult. Czech and Slovakian languages are not too difficult, but Slovakian is definitely closer. Also, in my perception, Belarusian seems to be closer to Polish than Ukrainian.

[Jarl]

Susiedzi žyli daloka i redka rabili im škodu, bo bajalisia ŭdałych dziaciukoŭ, kab nie nahreli im pa patylicy.
Their nieghbours lived far away, and rarely ?came to visit?, they were afraid of the wild youths, as though they wouldn't ?warm them on the back!??! :p

:P Very good! Śkodu is the same as Polish "szkoda" - a mischief, harm. "kab nie nahreli po potylicy" must mean "so that they would not beat them on the head" :D


Belarussian is actually very close to both Russian and Polish. In fact, Russian and Polish themselves are incredibly close to each other, once you learn some easy rules and get used to both.

Yes. Thats true. But Russian needs training. The phonetics and vocabulary is not all that comprehensive. I also don't think I could read off Russian in one single flow like these Belarusian texts. They seem closer.

[Cail]

Damn! Actually... After having read these texts I think I will have to agree that at least it is very similar. That is something really amazing. :confused: ... coz "West Slavic" languages should be much more similar, shouldn't they?
As i've written many times (check other slavic-related threads in this section), from the linguistic point of view (scientific, not political/historical), there are no "west" and "east" branches, only the "northern" one. There are dialect continuums between all adjacent languages and sublanguages, forming one huge northern-slavic supercontinuum.


While this Belorusian thing reads just like a dialect. I really do not think that texts in Kashubian or Silesian dialects are much less difficult. Czech and Slovakian languages are not too difficult, but Slovakian is definitely closer.
Yes, Slovak is much closer. Also to Ukrainian (via Rusin) - a textbook example of an extremely smooth dialect continuum in eastern Slovakia-Carpaths.

Kashubian is not a dialect of Polish btw. It's a remnant of Slovincian.


Also, in my perception, Belarusian seems to be closer to Polish than Ukrainian.

Belorussian might be closer to Polish in the phonetical part, but lexic-wise Belorussian and Ukrainian are almost identical. They're closer to each other than to any other language.

[Cail]

Btw. why dont you write down "Ojcze Nasz" in Belarusian here? Or some other txt?

Polish-Belorussian-Russian-Ukrainian-Slovak. Not the as-in-bible versions (since they differ in words actually, being a artistic translation), but the word-to-word translations of one single version.

P: Ojcze nasz, ktorys jest w niebiesiech,
B: Ojcza nasz, jakij jesć w niabiesach,
R: Otcze nasz, kotory jest w niebiesach,
U: Otcze nasz, jakij je w nebesach,
S: Otcze nasz, ktory je w nebesiach,

P: Swięć się imię Twoje;
B: Swiacić sia imia Twoje;
R: Swiatit sia imia Twoje;
U: Swiatit sia imia Twoje;
S: Swet' sa jmeno Twoje;

P: Przyjdź krolestwo Twoje;
B: Pryjdź karalewstwo Twoje;
R: Prijd' korolewstwo Twoje;
U: Prijde koroliwstwo Twoje;
S: Prid' kralowstwo Twoje;

P: Bądź wola Twoja jak w niebie, tak i na ziemi;
B: Budź wolia Twoja jak w niebie, tak i na ziamli;
R: Bud' wolia Twoja kak w niebie, tak i na ziemlie;
U: Bude wolia Twoja, jak w nebi, tak i na ziemli;
S: Bud' wola Twoja jako w nebi, tak i na zemi;

P: Chleba naszego powszedniego daj
B: Chleba naszago pawsiadzienego daj
R: Chleba naszego powsednievniego daj
U: Chliba naszego powsiakdennego daj
S: Chlieba naszeho każdodenneho daj

P: Nam dzisiaj; i odpuść
B: Nam sej dzeń, i adpuśćі
R: Nam sej deń, i otpuśti
U: Nam cej deń, i vidpuśti
S: Nam dnes, i odpust'

P: Nam winy nasze, jak i my
B: Nam winy naszy, jak i my
R: Nam winy naszy, kak i my
U: Nam winy naszy, jak i my
S: Nam winy nasze, jako i my

P: Odpuszczamy naszym winowajcom.
B: Adpuskajem naszym winawatym.
R: Otpuskajem naszym winowatym.
U: Vidpuskajemo naszym winuwatym.
S: Odpuszt'ame naszym winnikom.

P: I nie wodź nas na pokuszenie,
B: I nie wwiadzi nas w spakuszennie,
R: I nie wwodi nas w iskuszenije,
U: I ne wwedi nas w spokuszennie,
S: I ne uwod' nas w pokuszenie,

P: Ale zbaw nas od złego.
B: Ale zbaw nas ad zloga.
R: No izbaw nas ot zlogo.
U: Ale izbaw nas vid zlogo.
S: Ale zbaw nas od zleho.

P: Bo Twoje jest Krolestwo
B: Bo Twoje jesć Karalewstwo
R: Ibo Twoje jest Korolewstwo
U: Bo Twoje je Koroliwstwo
S: Lebo Twoje je Kralowstwo

P: I siła i sława na wieki.
B: I sila i slawa na wieki.
R: I sila i slawa na wieki.
U: I sila, i slawa na wiki.
S: I sila i slawa na weky.

[Jarl]

Mhm... yest. There is a distinction between the three East Slavic ones and West Slavic languages. For instance in the ending of the imperative. Belarusian and Slovak seem most similar to Polish, I think. Each in its own way. Probably Slovak is closer overall... Then Russian and Ukrainian - I am not certain about the order.

From my experience I know it is well possible for a Pole to converse with a Slovak without great problems. Its a bit harder with Ukrainians and I think even slightly harder with Russians, but still possible. I have never spoken to a Belarusian though :) I must meet one some day!

[Cail]

Mhm... yest. There is a distinction between the three East Slavic ones and West Slavic languages. For instance in the ending of the imperative.
That's not a grammatic difference, but a phonetical one. Soft "d" in Polish becomes "dź", as it does in Belarusian (though in Belarusian "ź" is pronounced clearly, without hissing), but it doesn't in Russian/Ukrainian/Slovak. Russian <d'> (soft d) is 100% same as Polish <dź>, just another phonetics. Same as Russian <t'> is same as Polish and Belarusian <ć> (again, in Belarusian "ć" is non-hissing). In linguistics it is called "affricatization" (dź and ć are so called "affricates" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affricate).

There are Russian dialects with dź and ć too (these pronounces are called "dziekanie" and "ciekanie" in Russian), in the area transitional to Belarusian (f.e. in Smolensk).


Belarusian and Slovak seem most similar to Polish, I think. Each in its own way. Probably Slovak is closer overall... Then Russian and Ukrainian - I am not certain about the order.
Ukrainian is closer to Polish lexically and partly phonetically (like for example in Ukrainian the "cz" sound is exactly the same as the Polish one. Russians are unable to pronounce it hard, it sounds like Polish "ć" in Russian everywhere. For example "czas" would be "cias" et cetera). But Russian and Polish too have features in common that Ukrainian doesn't (most often innovations on Ukrainian part).

[Cail]

From my experience I know it is well possible for a Pole to converse with a Slovak without great problems. Its a bit harder with Ukrainians and I think even slightly harder with Russians, but still possible. I have never spoken to a Belarusian though :) I must meet one some day!
I must say that when i became interested in learning Polish, i found out that i didn't have to actually. I knew Belarussian, Russian and Czech, and i could just turn on an audiobook in Polish and, after some initial short frustration because of phonetics (nasal sounds in place of vowels that i was used to, hissing pronounce of soft whistling sounds et cetera), i was able to listen it with zero problems. I never even learned Polish properly, all i did was read and listen books and watch films once in a while. After a couple of months i was already able to speak and write myself.

[Osweo]

:P Very good! Śkodu is the same as Polish "szkoda" - a mischief, harm.
Ah, my ex-almost-mother-in-law from the Ukraine used to say that to the cat when it was jumping on top of the telly! "ШКОДА!!!!" :rofl:

R: Swiatit sia
Grrrr!!! ODNO slowo! :p

imia Twoje;
R: Prijd' korolewstwo Twoje;
R: Ibo Twoje jest Korolewstwo
TwojO!

R: Chleba naszego powsednievniego daj
R: No izbaw nas ot zlogo.
Pishetsya -Go, sure, but goworjat -Vo!

R: Nam sej deń, i otpuśti
Very ustarevshy... ;)

R: I nie wwodi nas w iskuszenije,
ввЕди, no? :confused:

:thumb001:

By the way, I can't view the translation of the story. :cry Is it just me?

[W. R.]

kab nie nahreli im pa patylicy"Nahreć pa patylicy" is an idiom, which should be translated with an English idiomatic equivalent of "to beat up". ;) "So that they will not be beaten up".
the word-to-word translations of one single versionHey, orthographical errors? In my thread?! :tongue

I'm going to underline stressed vowels and use the Polish Latin alphabet.

P: Ojcze nasz, ktorys jest w niebiesiech,
B: Wojcza nasz, jaki jość u niabiosach, (Stressed "o" at the beginning of a word must be preceded by "w", there are some exceptions, but the vocative of "aciec" is not among them, I believe. :chin: Plural form of "nieba" is "niabiosy".

P: Swięć się imię Twoje;
B: Swiacisia imia Twajo;

P: Przyjdź krolestwo Twoje;
B: Pryjdzi karaleŭstwa Twajo;

P: Bądź wola Twoja jak w niebie, tak i na ziemi;
B: Budź wola Twaja jak u niebie, tak i na ziamli;

P: Chleba naszego powszedniego daj
B: Chleba naszaha paŭsiadzionnaha daj

P: Nam dzisiaj; i odpuść
B: Nam sionnia, i adpuścі

P: Nam winy nasze, jak i my
B: Nam winy naszy, jak i my

P: Odpuszczamy naszym winowajcom.
B: Adpuskajem naszym winawatym.

P: I nie wodź nas na pokuszenie,
B: I nie ŭwiadzi nas u spakuszennie,

P: Ale zbaw nas od złego.
B: Ale zbaŭ nas ad złoha.

P: Bo Twoje jest Krolestwo
B: Bo Twajo jość Karaleŭstwa

P: I siła i sława na wieki.
B: I siła i sława na wiaki.

[W. R.]

By the way, I can't view the translation of the story. :cry Is it just me?Try this link: http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:-I7BxMqgy7UJ:forum.stirpes.net/1041-1077-1083-1072-1088-1091-1089-1100/9700-jecha-kaza-nik-baj.html&hl=en&strip=1

[Osweo]

There are Russian dialects with dź and ć too (these pronounces are called "dziekanie" and "ciekanie" in Russian), in the area transitional to Belarusian (f.e. in Smolensk).
Yep.

But your Latin orthography is confusing me. What's this 'ciekanie' in Cyrillic? It's not цокание is it? TS in other words? Saying 'ts' instead of (English) 'ch'?

I copied a map once of Tsokayuschie dialects, and heard it was often if not always associated with Finnic substrate. Here it is, all the Northern or Pomor dialects seem to have it, whereas it only seems to exist scattered in islands in the northwest. There's a big strip by the Belorussian border though - does it cover ALL of Belarus?
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2448/errrz20070728rus2007000.jpg

By the way, why is the area around Starodub not included on Russian dialect maps? Is it considered fully Ukrainian?

[W. R.]

But your Latin orthography is confusing me. What's this 'ciekanie' in Cyrillic? It's not цокание is it? TS in other words? Saying 'ts' instead of (English) 'ch'?

I copied a map once of Tsokayuschie dialects, and heard it was often if not always associated with Finnic substrate. Here it is, all the Northern or Pomor dialects seem to have it, whereas it only seems to exist scattered in islands in the northwest. There's a big strip by the Belorussian border though - does it cover ALL of Belarus?
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2448/errrz20070728rus2007000.jpgNo, sir! Цокание is not the same as дзеканне/цеканне. It can be found only in some North Eastern areas of Belarus. Дзеканне/цеканне can be found almost everywhere and means alternation of hard d/t with soft dz/c. For example dzień (singular) but dni (plural); brat (nominative) but bracie (vocative).

It is characteristic for Belarusian, Polish, (Kashubian?), Upper and Lower Serbo-Lusatian literary languages and for vast majority of their dialects.

[Osweo]

Try this link: http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:-I7BxMqgy7UJ:forum.stirpes.net/1041-1077-1083-1072-1088-1091-1089-1100/9700-jecha-kaza-nik-baj.html&hl=en&strip=1
А зачем тут не копиандпейстировать? :p

**********
Паляшукі й Палявікі

[“Палявікамі” Паляшукі завуць тых Беларусаў, што жывуць вонках Палесься (у вужшым значаньню гэтага слова). Апрача таго, мяшчане ў Беларусі завуць “палявымі” селавых людзёў. У гэтай палескай казцы адбілася гісторыя Беларускага Народу. У ёй-жа палескія Беларусы выказуюць свой пагляд на Беларусаў іншых, як на сваіх дарагіх братоў, накшых ад тых братоў-народаў, што сталіся разбойнікамі і іхнымі варагамі. Казка ўзята з кнігі Аляксандры Сержпутоўскага “Казкі й апавяданьні Беларусаў з Слуцкага павету”, выданай у 1926 г. – Ян Станкевіч]

Было ў бацькі двананцацёх сыноў ды ўсе яны вельмі ўдалыя дзяцюкі. Жылі яны ў цёмным лесе, дзе вялося шмат усялякага зьвяр’я, пасьцілі свой статак ды лавілі зьвярыну. Суседзі жылі далёка і рэдка рабілі ім шкоду, бо баяліся ўдалых дзяцюкоў, каб не нагрэлі ім па патыліцы. Жылі яны разам і слухалі старога бацькі, а ён, ужо сівенькі бы лунь, сядзеў сабе ў кажушку і ўлетку ды загадаваў. І быў у іх лад, і ўсім было добра. Яны ўсе пажаніліся, і было ў іх шмат дзяцей, але ўсе слухалі старога, і кажын рабіў сваё дзела.

Толькі вось памёр стары бацька, і пачалі жанкі сварыцца паміжсобку, пачалі вадзіцца ды падвучаць сваіх гаспадароў. І такая ў іх пайшла звада, што й жыткі няма. Ведама, калі бабы чаго захочуць, то й сам чорт іх не пераставіць. А тут яны ў вадзін голас крычаць: дзяліцца ды дзяліцца. Пачалі яны дзяліцца. Вадзіліся, вадзіліся яны, пакуль дзялілі жывёлу ды ўсё дабро, а як пашлі дзяліць зямлю, дык пачалі біцца, што ледзь адзін аднаго не пазабівалі, ды так і не падзялілі мо дагэтуль. Вадзяцца браты паміжсобку за зямлю, захапляюць чужыя дзялянкі, і ніколі ў іх нямаш спакою.

Толькі два малодшыя браты жылі паміж сабою вельмі згодна: куды адзін, туды й другі. Не захацелі яны вадзіцца з братамі, кінулі сваю бацькаўшчыну дый пашлі ў сьвет шукаць сабе зямлі. Вось занялі дый пагналі яны свой статак і забраліся ў такі лес, што й канца яму нямашака. Ня могуць далей ехаць – лес замінае. Пачалі яны церабіць дарогу ды масьціць грэблі. Але дзе там, чым далей, тым лес усе гусьцее, а ў ім стаіць такая тхлань і нетра, што й выбрацца нельга. Вось і кажа большы брат: застануся я тут, бо не магу выбрацца зь лесу”. І застаўся ён сярод таго лесу. І назвалі яго і дзеці яго Паляшукамі. Малодшы-ж брат працярэблеваў дарогу, масьціў грэблі ды клаў кладкі і ехаў далей. Мо й дагэтуль на Палесьсю яшчэ ё тыя прасекі ды грэблі, што нарабіў той чалавек. Ня доўга яны ехалі на сваіх колах, як убачылі, што лес пачаў радзець, пачалі трапляцца прагаліны, палянкі ды палі, дык яны атаўбаваліся там і пачалі разрабляць поле, затым і назваліся яны Палявікамі. Потым размножыліся як Паляшукі, так Палявікі, занялі пусты лес дый пачалі жыць адны каля адных побач.

За немалы час у Паляшукоў і Палявікоў разьвялося шмат жывёлы дый ўсялякага зьвяр’я ў іх лясох было больш, чымся ў тым месцу, дзе атаўбаваліся тыя дзесяцёх братоў. Вось яны пашкадавалі, што пусьцілі сюды меншых братоў і што далі ім шмат жывёлы, пашкадавалі дый уздумалі адабраць назад. Даведаліся Паляшукі й Палявікі, што тыя падходзяць да іх з разбоям, нарабілі ў лесе завалаў, ды накапалі глыбокіх ямаў дый зацецянілі іх мохам, а самі пахаваліся ў гушчары дый цікуюць, што будзе далей. Але вось падышлі тыя разбойнікі – дый пачалі валіцца ў ямы, а ў іх была вада. Адныя патапіліся, а другія заблыталіся ў засеках дый загінулі ў нетры безь яды. Вось адагналі апошніх разбойнікаў Паляшукі й Палявікі дый давай выхваляцца адны перад аднымі. Паляшукі кажуць, што гэта яны сваймі засекамі ў лесе загубілі разбойнікаў, а Палявікі кажуць, што разбойнікі загінулі ў тых ямах, што Палявікі выкапалі. Пашлі яны выхваляцца ды спрачацца. Спрачаліся, спрачаліся, ды за чубы, ды за калы… І пашла тут такая бітва, што гарэй, як ад разбойнікаў. Б’юцца Паляшукі з Палявікамі, паляць сёлы, нішчаць дабро ды парываюцца спрэсу загубіць адны адных, гарэй, як лютыя варагі. Доўга біліся яны, але ня могуць здолець адны адных, толькі што далей, то ўсё больш і больш слабеюць як тыя, так і другія.

Дачуліся варагі, што Паляшукі й Палявікі б’юцца міжсобку, што яны не бароняць свае рубяжы, вось яны йзноў зыбралі вялікае войска дый пашлі паліць сёлы дый забіваць як Паляшукоў, так і Палявікоў. Ахамянуліся Паляшукі й Палявікі, годзе біцца самі з сабой, давай біцца з ворагам. Біліся яны, біліся, мо ўжо палавіна іх палягло, а нічога ня могуць зрабіць, бо варагі лезуць усё новыя і новыя. Шмат палягло і варагоў у чыстым полі, шмат заблудзілася ў лесе ды ў балотах і там загінула ад голаду, ад холаду, ці патапілася ў гразі, але яшчэ шмат засталося. Лезуць яны як сьвіне ў гарод, лезуць ды забіраюць Паляшукоў і Палявікоў у палон, забіраюць іх зямлю, жывёлу і ўсё дабро, а старых і малых забіваюць ці цкуюць сабакамі. Закавалі яны ў зялезьзі ўсіх Паляшукоў і Палявікоў дый загадалі сабе служыць.

Нічога не парадзіш. Служаць Паляшукі й Палявікі тым варагом, бо не свая воля, служаць год, служаць два, а можа й больш. Працуюць яны на варагоў, бы чорны вол, і ніякае палёгкі ня маюць, працуюць, гаруюць ды праклінаюць сваю жытку. А варагі пануюць ды зьдзекуюцца з простых людзёў, а тыя рады, што хоць засталіся жывымі. Бачаць паны, што простыя людзі зьмірыліся, вось і ськінулі зь іх зялезьзі. Рады простыя людзі, дзякуюць Богу й за тое. І пачалі яны працаваць на паноў так шчыра, як самі сабе. А паном толькі тое й трэба. Працуюць простыя людзі, а паны толькі загадуюць ды падганяюць. І адвучыліся паны ад усялякае работы, ды так адвучыліся, што бяз простых людзёў ня могуць і жыць, бы тая птушка, як яе выпусьцяць із клеткі на волю. Бачаць тое простыя людзі ды толькі сьмяюцца з паноў. Яны сьмяюцца, а паны хоць бы што, балююць сабе ды яшчэ больш прыбаўляюць работы. Бо яны, каа, рагочуць бы жарабцы затым, што мала дзела. Яшчэ гарэй стала людзём, і пачалі яны рабіць паном помсту: то сьвіран спаляць ці гумно, то каровы загоняць у такую тхлань, што яны там і пагінуць, то сьвіне патопяць, але ад таго й самі ня маюць чаго есьці, бо, ведама, жывуць на андынар’і: пана чорт не бярэ – ён у суседа дастане, а людзі падыхаюць ды пухнуць з голаду. Што тут рабіць, што парадзіць? Ні зь якага боку нельга пазбавіцца ад тых паноў.

Але вось прыходзіць туды якісь старэнькі дзядок дый кажа: “Людзі, людзі, вас шмат, а паноў жменя, і гэтая жменя зьдзекуецца ды езьдзіць у вас на карку. Ці гэта-ж вы людзі а не авечкі”. Пагаманіў ён у вадным месцу ды ў другім, вось і схамянуліся людзі дый пачалі варушыцца. Знайшліся ўдалыя дзяцюкі, зыбралі сваю вятку добрых малайцоў дый пашлі пярэсьціць ды мясіць тых паноў. Бачаць тыя, што гэта не пярэліўкі, дый пусьціліся наўцёкі: хто ў лес, а хто ў чужыя краі. Вось і [i]аслабанілі Паляшукі й Палявікі свой край ад тых варагоў.

************************************************** ********88
A lot bloody easier in a decent civilised alphabet!

I still haven't read the full translation, as I want to struggle on with my own poor attempt, but I place it here for convenience;

************************************************** ***********
(“Palašuk” from “les” (las-/laš-) – forest; “Palavik” from “pole” (pal-) – field)

There once was a father who had twelve sons, and all of them were great lads. They lived in a dark forest, where there were a lot of animals, grazed their cattle and hunted. Neighbours lived far away and rarely do any harm to them, because they were afraid to be beaten up by the great lads. The lads lived together and obeyed their father, and he, being already completely grey-headed, just sat in a sheepskin coat even in summer and commanded. And there was peace among them and everybody was okay.

All of them got married and had lots of children, but everybody obeyed the old father and did what he was supposed to. But the old father died, and women started quarrelling, fighting and inciting their masters. And the fight was so great that the life there became unbearable. This is well known: if a woman wants something even the devil himself cannot be more stubborn. And in this case they started calling on men to divide. The brothers began to divide. They fought while dividing the cattle and property, and when they began to divide the land they began to fight so hard, that almost killed each other. Probably even now they haven’t divided the land yet.

Only the two youngest brothers lived together in peace: where one would go, the other would follow him. They refused fighting with the brothers, left their fatherland and went away to search for land. So they gathered and drove away their cattle, made a great sledge out of two big oaks with roots, harnessed twelve pairs of bullocks, loaded some property, sat wives with children there and set off. The bullocks pulled the sledge for a while and then stopped not being able to pull the sledge on the sand. So the elder brother started to lay round blocks perpendicularly under the runners. The blocks run, the sledge slowly goes forward. The younger brother got tired of laying the blocks under the runners so he said:

- Brother, let’s make a thing which would make the block always roll under the runners. - So they made wheels.

It became easy for bullocks to pull the sledge so the brothers sat in the cart. They go further and further and come to a great river. They had been looking for a while for a shallow place where they could cross the river when a great storm began. The forest roars like an animal. The wind breaks trees, just as women break flax, and throws them on the ground and into the river. Trees float on the water like rafts. The younger brother looked at that and guessed how to cross the river. So he and his brother began to get trees from the river, and to bind them together. They bound some and made a raft. After the storm ceased they led the raft closely to the bank, harnessed the bullocks and get the cart to the raft. The brothers stand on the raft and manage it with long poles, and the raft floats with the water. The raft went far away from the bank but in the end it came to the other bank. The cattle saw that bullock swam the river and came out of the water on the other bank, went into the water and swam across the river. The brothers came on. and get into such a wild forest that it seemed having no end. So they are not able to go on, because the forest is too thick. The brothers started working their way through the forest and making roads of brushwood across marshy ground. But they coped not too well: the deeper they went into the forest the thicker was it. That made almost impossible for them to go out. So the elder brother said:

- I’m staying here because I can’t get out from the forest.

In such a way he remained in that forest. And he and his children were later called Palašuks. The younger brother made his way through the forest, made roads and gangways and went further and further. Possibly even now in Polesia there have remained the clearances and roads made by that man. The younger brother’s family had been on their way not too long when they saw that the wood was getting sparser. They came across blanks, glades and fields more often. So they stayed there and started working the land. That’s why they were called Palaviks. Later both Palašuks and Palaviks multiplied, occupied the empty forest and started to live as neighbours.

In a long period of time the number of Palašuks and Palaviks’ cattle grew. And there were more animals in their forests than on the place where their ten brothers lived. So the ten brothers regretted allowing the younger brothers to settle there, they regretted giving them much cattle and decided to take everything back. Palašuks and Palaviks found out that their brothers are coming to rob them, made barricades and dug deep holes and covered them with moss. Then they hid in deepest places of the forests and started to expect what would happen next. When the robbers came, they started falling into the holes, and there was water in them. Some of the robbers drowned, some stuck in forests and perished there without food. When the last robbers were driven away both Palašuks and Palaviks started boasting. Palašuks say it were they who destroyed the robbers by building barricades in the forests, and Palaviks say, that the robbers have been destroyed in the holes dug by Palaviks. So they started to boast and quarrel. They quarrelled and then grabbed one another by hair, seized stakes… And such a fight started that it was worse than the attack of the robbers. Palašuks and Palaviks fight, burn down villages, destroy property and strive to exterminate one another completely, as if they were worse to one another than the worst enemies were. They fought for a long time but nobody of them was able to destroy the foe completely. The longer they fought the weaker they became.

When enemies heard that Palašuks and Palaviks fought one another, that they didn’t defend their borders, and gathered a great army again. They burned down many villages and killed many Palašuks and Palaviks. That made Palašuks and Palaviks come round. They stopped fighting each other and started to fight the enemy. They fought for a long time, probably already half of them perished but it was of no use –more and more new enemies came. A lot of enemies perished in fields too, many of them lose their ways in woods and marshes and perished there of hunger, of frost or drowned in mud; but there still remained many of them. They flood the land as pigs flood a vegetable garden, take Palašuks and Palaviks prisoner, take their land, cattle and all their property and kill the oldest and the youngest or let their dogs do away with them. So they have fettered all Palašuks and Palaviks. Nothing could be done about that.

Serve Palašuks and Palaviks to those enemies. They serve one year, two years, maybe more. They work for the enemies like a black bullock and have no relief, they work, toil and curse their life. The enemies dominate and torment them and Palašuks and Palaviks are glad that at least they are alive. When the masters saw, that people had reconciled themselves to the loss of freedom, they made those free of fetters. Even such a little thing cheered people up, and they thanked God for that. After that they started working for masters so diligently as if they worked for themselves. That was what the masters wanted. The people work and masters only give orders and urge people on. Gradually the masters had lost ability to do any work and without people they could not live like a bird when people let it free out of a cage. People see that and laugh at masters. They laugh and masters don’t care, just feast and add more work, saying that people laugh like stallions because they have little to do.

The people’s life became even harder, and they began to take their revenge: they used to burn down barns, drive cattle into depths of woods where it perished, drown pigs. But because of that they also often didn’t have anything to eat: a master could get what he wants from a neighbour, and people starve and die. What can be done about that? It seems there is no way to get rid of those masters. But once an old man came there and talked to people:

- People, people, there are lots of you and only handful of masters, and this handful torments you and rides your napes. Aren’t you humans? Are you sheer?

He talked in such a way in one place, in another one, and his words made people come round and start to act. Some daring lads created a gang of brave guys and started to fight and beat up those masters. The masters saw that that was a serious thing and fled: some to forests, some to foreign countries. In such a way Palašuks and Palaviks liberate their land from those enemies.

[W. R.]

A lot bloody easier in a decent civilised alphabet!Whoa! For me too, but Jarl politely asked for a Belarusian text written in the Latin alphabet and he got it.

Here is a small surprise for him: http://www.zedlik.com/lacinka/pragramy/kir2lac-online/

Now he is able to read any Belarusian texts he wants. :nod

[Cail]

Yep.

But your Latin orthography is confusing me. What's this 'ciekanie' in Cyrillic? It's not цокание is it? TS in other words? Saying 'ts' instead of (English) 'ch'?
Nope, as Whiteruthenian said already, "цекание" (цеканне in Belarussian) is not the same as "цокание". "Ciekanie" is affricatization of soft "t", while "cokanie" is a specific pronounce of "ch" as "c". Ciekanie is an areal feature of the center of northern-Slavic continuum, while "cokanie" is an areal feature of northernmost Belarusian and Russian dialects.

[Cail]

Grrrr!!! ODNO slowo!
According to modern Russian and Belarusian orthography - yes, in one word, but actually <sia>/<s'> is an enclitic, much like Polish <się>. The only difference is that it has a strict position in the end of the word, while in Polish it can be moved to other words in the sentence if the sense demands.

TwojO!
OCSlavonism.

Pishetsya -Go, sure, but goworjat -Vo!
It's a rather recent development.

Very ustarevshy...
Yes, but still used in "colorful" speach.

ввЕди, no?
ВвЕди is imperative complete form, ввОди is incomplete (несовершенный вид).

[Jarl]

:) Whiteruthenian... which tribes of Rus came from Lachy according to the Nestor's chronicle?

More and more, Im getting an impression, Belarusians are one of these lost Lechitic tribes :P

[W. R.]

:) Whiteruthenian... which tribes of Rus came from Lachy according to the Nestor's chronicle?Wikipedia says it were Radimiches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radimichs) and Vyatiches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyatichi). :eusa_eh:

[W. R.]

<...> The most common process leading to language death is one in which a community of speakers of one language becomes bilingual in another language, and gradually shifts allegiance to the second language until they cease to use their original (or heritage) language. This is a process of assimilation which may be voluntary or may be forced upon a population. Speakers of some languages, particularly regional or minority languages, may decide to abandon them based on economic or utilitarian grounds, in favour of languages regarded as having greater utility or prestige.

<...> Once a language is no longer a native language - that is, if no children are being socialised into it as their primary language - the process of transmission is ended and the language itself will not survive past the current generation. This is rarely a sudden event, but a slow process of each generation learning less and less of the language, until its use is relegated to the domain of traditional use, such as in poetry and song. Typically the transmission of the language from adults to children becomes more and more restricted, to the final setting that adults speaking the language will raise children who never acquire fluency. <...>

During language loss—sometimes referred to as obsolescence in the linguistic literature—the language that is being lost generally undergoes changes as speakers make their language more similar to the language that they are shifting to. This process of change has been described in two categories, though they are not mutually exclusive. Often speakers replace elements of their own language with something from the language they are shifting toward. Also, if their heritage language has an element that the new language does not, speakers may drop it.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deathIn case you didn't know that: the Belarusian language is listed in the UNESCO red book of endangered languages as "potentially endangered" (http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_index.html#potentially). :cry2

Kažuć, mova maja adžyvaje
Viek svoj cichi: joj źniknuć para.
Dla mianie ž jana viečna žyvaja,
Jak rasa, jak ślaza, jak zara...

[Thulsa Doom]

In case you didn't know that: the Belarusian language is listed in the UNESCO red book of endangered languages as "potentially endangered" (http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/europe_index.html#potentially). :cry2

Кажуць, мова мая аджывае
Век свой ціхі: ёй зьнікнуць пара.
Для мяне ж яна вечна жывая,
Як раса, як сьляза, як зара...

What´s wrong with that Lukasenko despot:mad:, what is it he trying to achieve? Is he trying to go to the history as the biggest traitor and sellout of all time?

[W. R.]

What´s wrong with that Lukasenko despot:mad:, what is it he trying to achieve? Is he trying to go to the history as the biggest traitor and sellout of all time?Possibly.

But there also exists a possibility that he has way too primitive a personality to understand the necessity of care for the language.

As for the Belarusians themselves, they are trapped in the vicious cirlce (I described the situation a couple of times): on the one hand the Belarusian language would strengthen the Belarusian national identity, on the other hand if the Belarusian national consciousness were well-established the support for the Belarusian language among Belarusians would be much stronger.

The current neo-Soviet regime neither strengthens the Belarusian national identity, nor supports the Belarusian language. The vicious circle remains.

[poiuytrewq0987]

What´s wrong with that Lukasenko despot:mad:, what is it he trying to achieve? Is he trying to go to the history as the biggest traitor and sellout of all time?

Well, the Belarusian I know doesn't read a word of Belarusian (largely because she doesn't understand the alphabet and didn't care enough to learn it) mainly because she doesn't see herself to be any different to Russians. She said that she is from Belarus but she feels like Russian so... it might be the same with Lukashenko. Oddly enough, she doesn't like Lukashenko because of his closed borders policy and communist-era mentality.


Possibly.

But there also exists a possibility that he has way too primitive a personality to understand the necessity of care for the language.

As for the Belarusians themselves, they are trapped in the vicious cirlce (I described the situation a couple of times): on the one hand the Belarusian language would strengthen the Belarusian national identity, on the other hand if the Belarusian national consciousness were well-established the support for the Belarusian language among Belarusians would be much stronger.

The current neo-Soviet regime neither strengthens the Belarusian national identity, nor supports the Belarusian language. The vicious circle remains.

That's one way to look at the situation. However I think and I could be wrong but I think it is a case of Russophilism (is that even a word) gone far than Sovietophilism (is that even a word too? lol).

[W. R.]

However I think and I could be wrong but I think it is a case of Russophilism (is that even a word) gone far than Sovietophilism (is that even a word too? lol).Well, maybe I chose a wrong word. I didn't mean allegiance to Lenin/Stalin/communism etc. I meant the adherence to Soviet symbols and myths, to the set of Soviet heroes, to the Soviet vision of history etc. That's what constitutes the Belarusian Soviet identity.

The Belarusian Soviet identity (which was implanted here by the Soviet Empire) has its direct ancestor - the West-Russian identity (which was implanted by the predecessor of the Soviet Empire - the Russian Empire), to turn the latter into the former only some accents had to be changed. Thus the latter does not contradict the former.

More details here: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12091

[W. R.]

Share my happiness, brethren and sisters. I have just downloaded (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3326312/%D0%A1%D1%8C%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%9 1%D1%96%D0%B1%D0%BB%D1%8F.pdf) the full scanned translation (1970) of the Bible, made by doctor of Slavic philology and history Jan Stankievič himself. That's what I call "the Belarusian language".

Thank you, Dasoncapadobny. Thank you.


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9135&stc=1&d=1304639723