Talk:Latgale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Latvia, a WikiProject related to Latvia.	Latvia Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Old talk

Peoples of Latgale are not created by mixing of finno - ugric, slavian and balts tribes. They are truly balts and part of latvian folk.

Anent the unsigned comment above: there was indeed a Finnic culture here prior to the arrival of Latgalians, and latgalieši (as distinct from latgaļi) are indeed a mixture -- see, for instance, Latvju enciklopēdija, ed. Švābe, entry "Latgalieši": "Latg. latvieši, kas runā augšzemnieku dialektu un pa daļai ir seno l a t g a ļ u (sk.) pēcteči, pa daļai ar lielkrievu, baltkrievu, poļu un leišu asiņu piejaukumu..." ("The Latvians of Latgalia, who speak the High Latvian dialect and are partly the descendants of the Latgalian tribe, but with an infusion of Great Russian, Belarusian, Polish and Lithuanian blood...")

I made some changes to the article, which needs substantial revision and expansion (like most of the Latvia-related articles...). Hopefully others will contribute. --Pēteris Cedriņš 12:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here [1]Endzelīns mentions that Latgalians are refered to as "broļi" which means "brothers" in latgalian - maybe it was comon in early 20. century ? I know that it is comon to name certaint nations like that even if it isn`t their name, but here it seems like it was their name.

In my oppinion Latgaļi and Latgalieši are synonims (i.e. itāļi/itālieši is similar case) and calling them latgaļi isn`t seperatism, besides ancient latgalians are also called lets or letgaļi -- Xil - talk 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasals! They are not synonyms, though many people use them that way; formally, the "itāļi" and "itālieši" you suggest as an analogy are not synonyms, either -- modern Italians ought to be called "itālieši," whilst "itāļi" should be used for the ancient Italic tribes. This is the view of the State Language Agency (VVA) [2], for example, though VVA readily admits that the proper terms have become confused under the influence of "spāņi" and "portugāļi." In the case of the Latvian and Latgalian terms for the Latgalians, the question of the form is not merely academic but has an important bearing on the subject, which I hope to illustrate with some remarks on the history of the appellation.

The separate Latvju enciklopēdija entries are explicit about the distinction (latgalieši refers to the ethnic Latvians of Latgalia, whilst latgaļi refers to the ancient tribe). "Separatists" may seem too strong in my revision of the article, and I do agree that it might not be the best choice of word -- but another, striking example of how the terms are not synonomous can be found in this brief essay by Kūceņu Armands (Armands Kociņš), "Latgali ci latgalīši?" (in Latgalian). Kociņš does not see the terms as synonymous, either, but for very different reasons -- "mes latgaļus pīzeistam par atsevišku tautu [...] latgalīši, taipat kai i zemgalīši, kūrzemnīki, vydzemnīki irā regionals, na nacionals apzeimuojums" ("we know latgaļi as a separate people [...] latgalīši, like zemgalīši, kurzemnīki, vydzemnīki [the Latgalian for those from the other historical regions] is a regional and not a national term"). He is, in other words, arguing that latgaļi should be used because Latgalians constitute a separate nation; latgalīši is to him the term for all of the inhabitants of Latgalia, regardless of ethnicity. I don't know what his politics are, but they are immaterial to the terminology. What is more relevant is his view of Latgalian identity and the language/dialect, and I am trying to be as NPOV as possible... and treading on thin ice, of course, because this is a very controversial subject. The fact is that Kociņš and those who hold views like his dismiss the views of most linguists out of hand, especially those linguists of the Endzelīns school. He cites the late Antons Breidaks and goes so far as to claim that whether Latgalian is a language or a dialect is a purely political rather than a linguistic question; this is not uncommon in certain Latgalian quarters, though it is arguably a minority view.

Appropriately enough, Xil, you brought up Jānis Endzelīns -- the bête noir of Latgalian separatists and/or those who are adamant about Latgalian being a separate language. Endzelīns wrote an article for Dzimtenes Vēstnesis in 1913 called "Latvieši un latgalieši" (it's reprinted in Darbu izlase, II. sēj. Rīga: A. Upīša Valodas un literatūras institūts, 1974). In his essay, Endzelīns notes that in the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, "Lethigalli" denotes all Latvians north of the Daugava. Catholic Latvians in Vitebsk guberniya could therefore more properly be called "Inflantians" -- from the Polish "Inflanty," a corruption of "Liflanty," which derives from the German Livland -- Vidzeme. Until the period of Swedish rule, not only contemporary Vidzeme but also the ethnographically Latvian part of Vitebsk guberniya was called Livonia (Livland). As Endzelîns puts it, if one doesn't like "Inflantian" because it's a foreign term, one could abandon the historical sense of "latgaliešu" and and use the word in an intentionally narrow meaning -- but this would require determining exactly what's meant by "latgaliešu." "Valodas starpības šis vārds nevar apzīmēt." ("This word cannot denote differences in language.") Why? Because the so-called "latgaliešu" dialect is spoken outside Vitebsk guberniya, too, in Upper Courland roughly from Birži and Nereta to the east (i.e., Selonia), and in Vidzeme (Alūksne, Gulbene, etc.). On the other hand, not all of the Latvians in Vitebsk guberniya spoke "Inflantian." Endzelîns also notes that there were ca. 12 villages in Pskov guberniya, their indigenous inhabitants to be distinguished from Russians, who spoke Latvian though they had converted to Orthodoxy and many no longer retained any consciousness of being Latvian at all (some he met were afraid of getting into trouble for speaking Latvian with him). Endzelīns closes his article with the strong argument that it might be better to avoid a narrow use of the dubious term "Latgalian" in favor of the merely geographical term "Inflantian," since some people were attempting to describe Latgalians as separate from Latvians for political reasons -- something that continued into the Soviet period, when descriptions of cities like Daugavpils would often list the inhabitants as "Russians, Latvians, and Latgalians" -- and something that can still be seen here and there even today -- e.g., in Olga Cibe's article at Dialogi, "Путь к сердцу Даугавпилса" ("Ceļš uz Daugavpils sirdi") -- "Latvietim ir jābūt latvietim, bet latgalim jābūt latgalim." ("A Latvian must be a Latvian, a Latgalian must be a Latgalian."). In his brief essay, Endzelīns succinctly demonstrates that the early 20th C use of the term "Latgalian" had no linguistic, ethnic, or even religious basis (since there are Orthodox Inflantians and Catholics in western Courland), only a cultural basis resulting from Inflantia's separation from the rest of Latvia. Endzelīns continued his polemics in "Par inflantiešiem un viņu izloksni," published in 1916, and other writings.

Sites like this one, supporting the view that Latgalian is a separate language, very often evidence telling flaws -- "There are three dialects in the Latgalian language: Central Latgalian, North Latgalian and Selonian." Selonian is a dialect of Latgalian?! That makes no sense to me, and seems to be simply a slippery way of avoiding the more accepted classification of the High Latvian dialect and its subdialects, spoken not only in Latgalia but also in Maliena and Selonia, for reasons at least as political as those of Endzelīnists and others who do not share that point of view. The term "latgalieši" is quite recent, first used by Trasuns and Kemps between 1900 and 1903; it did not come into widespread use until after 1908, and its adoption was influenced by Trasuns' book Latgalieši, published in 1910 (LE). I'm not trying to argue for or against calling Latgalian a language -- I'm only trying to explain things because Wikipedia is already seeing articles that are very POV on the issue. From what I wrote above, you can hopefully see why Endzelīns is disliked by those who have the POV I am calling "separatist" for want of a better term (in a sense, "Latgalian nationalist" might be a better choice). Obviously, many Latgalians do have a Latgalian identity (which blends or does not blend with a Latvian identity in different degrees), and much has changed in the last century. The question is one of how to describe that identity and what weight to give to different perspectives. There are linguistic approaches, ethnic approaches, political approaches, and various mixes of these. Heh, as Max Weinreich put it, "a shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot"... I think we must be careful to try to present the different views, and the terminology we use is part of that presentation. --Pēteris Cedriņš 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked about Endzelīns because I was slightly surprised about that term, it was different question. I strongly agree that Latgalian isn`t a language - it appears that only significant difference is phonemic change and it also appears that Latgalian isn`t only example in world (see Vowel shift). Their "dialects" you mentioned - Latvian language has three dialects, each of them has subdialects (izloksnes), and each sudialect can be divided even further, there are diferent opinions what subdialects Latgalian have, but one of them definitely is named Selonian (it is adjective - sēlisks, not possessive - sēļu), thought that webpage is "separatism" such classification is less faulty than naming their "dialects" after towns as some other pages do.

Anyway I still disagree with you that naming them "latgaļi" is seperatism - I`ve seen many latgalian nationalists on web pages naming themselves "latgalīši" as well as latvians naming them "latgaļi", so even if it is incorrect to refer to them as "latgaļi" people do so regardless of their own opinion. Refering to latvians as "latvji" usualy is either poetry or nationalism, so it might appear that "latgaļi" is same thing, but as far I`ve seen it rather is common mistake.

P.S. You have mentioned novel that refers to latgalians as "čangaļi" in article - could you tell more about it ? -- Xil/talk 10:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

More later, but just quickly -- what I mean is that Selonian is a sub-dialect of High Latvian, but not Latgalian; I don't see how people who claim Latgalian is a language (who are often people who see Latgalian as a separate ethnic group) can claim Selonian to be a dialect of Latgalian when the Selonians were a different tribe and Sēlija is not in Latgola (as I know very well, because I live in Latgola and spend part of the summer across the river!). Maybe I am missing something, but I wish somebody well versed in the argument that Latgalian is a language would revise this page (and the Latgalian language page, which was recently edited in a way I can't agree with -- removing the note on linguists who see it as a language, making the tribe speak a dialect when it was a language, etc.). I have heard that Toporov said that according to the criteria by which the Slavic languages are separated, modern Latgalian would be a separate language (so there is some linguistic argument in favor -- and Latgalian is standardized, of course). The language article was POV, but what we need is a decent, balanced article written by a linguist or at least a student of linguistics. Pēteris Cedriņš 11:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Judging from dialectal map and description I found in web latgalian language is only one subdialect of hiland dialect(namely augžzemnieku dialekta nesēliskā dziļā izloksne), if it is so and those subdialects are diferent as you say, then their claim is a bit wierd, but since they simply claim that all highland dialect is latgalian language - viewed in such manner their clasification is correct. Anyway linguists mentioned in lagalian language article as far I`ve heard are latgalian nationalists themselves. Only reason why this is language I`ve heard is that latgalian is standartised and that is not a good argument from them as anything can be standartised, fact that slavic languages aren`t viewed as dialects is more in favor (thouth - I`ve recently noticed that german dialects appear to be quite diferent, but still are considered one language). -- Xil/talk 20:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current version

I removed a few ridiculous passages, but this article needs serious editing. "They spoke some unknown East Baltic language"? This is pathetic. --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored these ridiculous passages. They mention some important historical facts and dates. You have to rewrite deleting POV, not delete huge chunks. `'юзырь:mikka 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please reread the passages, Mikkalai. I didn't remove anything of substance. --Pēteris Cedriņš 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that the piece in question is hysterically POV ("irredentist war", " to please its economic interests", etc.). However it does mention a number of facts not mentioned elsewhere in the article (acts by Riga peace treaty, Jaunlatgale, etc.). If these facts are false, please explain in detail. `'юзырь:mikka 02:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Only a small part of the Jaunlatgale/Abrene District was part of the Ostrov region. See the Abrene district article and its talk page. Not economic interests but strategic interests dictated the border (the railway junction) -- and the ethnographic border was necessarily inaccurate on all sides (with Estonia and Lithuania, too -- pockets remained on both sides, as might be expected). The text as it stands is misleading. A war of independence isn't an irredentist war. Regards, --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)