Talk:Russian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Russian language is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 6, 2004 Peer review Reviewed July 29, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 23, 2007 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Russia Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale. This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. language Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a project to improve all Belarus-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Belarus-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Belarus To-do: edit purge Template:WikiProject Belarus/to do This article is part of WikiProject Latvia, a WikiProject related to Latvia. Latvia Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article.

Archives
January 2003 – February 2007

Contents 1 Too many questionable statements in this article 2 The Czech Republic should not be listed in the infobox 3 Dialectology 4 Not a most spoken language of Eurasia 5 New category? 6 Regulator 7 Considering Rusyn 8 Why the Mongol Invasion didn't impact the Russian ethnic & language? 9 Translation Help 10 Commonwealth of Independent States 11 Language 12 A "Four-Square" for extra info (If it helps)... 13 RFC: "different but equally valid ways of transliterating Cyrillic"??? 14 K, g, x 15 Allies vs. sattelites 16 The word, "debuccalized" 17 80% of the population of the Baltic states are able to hold a conversation in Russian 18 Soviet policy 19 palatization 20 Language policy 21 Need Cyrillic help 22 Inclusion into Russian speaking countries category 23 Category III? 24 Classification 25 Largest native language in Europe 26 Scientific publications 27 Svalbard is not a country 28 Top of page is not right. 29 Racist picture 30 Need Russian help 31 Spoken in:

[edit] Too many questionable statements in this article

Particularly related to Moscow dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.131.10.195 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Czech Republic should not be listed in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dialectology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seemed to me that natives of St. Petersburg had a strong local dialect, which they used to establish their 'bona fides' as locals, rather than generic Homo sovieticus. When they used it, I had a lot more difficulty following what was said than I usually did in Moscow, for example. Has anyone else experienced this? LADave 11:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that dialectal differences are minimal across Russia and even including former USSR republics. Mixed languages (Balachka, Surzhyk, Trasianka) are more distant from standard Russian than any dialect, not to be confused if someone speaks a mixed language from someone speaking with a Ukrainian or South-Russian accent. Southern accent, mentioned here, differs mainly in the pronunciation of letter Г (G), which doesn't constitute a serious problem for learners or native speakers but is considered a less prestigious accent for many Russian-speakers, including southerners themselves. --Atitarev (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a most spoken language of Eurasia

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

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

Actualy not. There are many chinese speakers in Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New category?

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

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

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

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

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

Excuse me, but Belarus is Russian-*language* majority (with their President addressing the population in Russian, and most Belarussian descent measured by last name syntax, not language), and Ukraine is purely bilingual (with television mixed, from soaps to debates between polititians often having 1 speaking Ukrainian, the other answering in Russian, and the host speaking in a bilingual slang mix). In the Eastern half of the Ukraine, it is nearly impossible to find any Ukrainian speech or writing outside of government buildings, and any government or commercial organ, including police, immigration, and banks, will (albeit, grudgingly, in some areas) accept any documents written in Russian. In some areas of the Ukraine, even state employees are barely proficient in Ukrainian and struggle with or even will not accept documents unless those are written in Russian. For Belarus, Russian is the primary state language. All other CIS countries have large Russian-native groups and near-100% advanced comprehension of Russian (while Ukraine and Belarus have near-100% FLUENCY). Kaliningrad Oblast', meanwhile, is A PART of Russia. Israel has a high 2-digit percentage of Soviet expatriates and is therefore definitely a Russian-speaking country. As smalpcts expatriate enclaves, prominent examples would be West Hollywood, CA, USA and Brighton Beach, NY, USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.186.63 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a bit of a political can of worms, as some editors have removed Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Caucasus states (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) from the category. The first group has a very significant number of both native Russian speakers (ethnic Russian + Ukrainians, Belarusians and Jews) and native local speakers who are fluent in Russian. Israel editors would also resist this inclusion, although they have 700 thousand to 1 mln people who are fluent in Russian. Russian is either number 3 or 4 in Israel (Hebrew, Arabic and English) and is used in some formal situations and writing as well. --Atitarev (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regulator

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

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

[edit] Considering Rusyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of my Russian teachers said there are a lot of Tatar loan words. For example the verb kushat' is Tatar while yest' is Slavic, both meaning "to eat".

One possible explanation for the structure of Russian remaining indo-european is that the invaders didn't bring along many of their women. If toddlers learn to speak more from their mothers than their fathers, the child of a Mongol or Tatar father and a Russian mother would learn a language following the mother's syntax. The father's contribution would most likely be miscellaneous loan words. LADave 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Invaders who were nomads didn't stay in Russian lands for a long time (from time to time they raided, pillaged and gone off to their steppe) and all possible children that were born as results of rapes had no chance to survive in conservative peasant communes. Tatar loan words could appear also as result of peaceful relations with old turkic neighbours that live down by Volga. --Nekto (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of langue important tatar words. Just few, that I remember: dengi (деньги), karandash (карандаш), loshadj (лошадь). But no mongol words, as soon all mongols was asimilated in turkic (tatar) langue. Probably only russian word of mongol origin is Hurray! (ура!)

Karandash - pencil - is a corruption/borrowing of the French "Caran D'Ache" - a brand of crayon presumably imported into Russia - and is not a Turkic or Mongol word. Similarly "voksal" ("вокзал") - station - is from the English name Vauxhall. Lstanley1979 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

it's not possible to have no impact but the impact wasn't great. I can't provide the source but there was a reverse impact too - Russian culture influenced the Mongol-Tartar culture, note that Mongols were not as destructive for the Russian culture as is the general perception. --Atitarev (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Commonwealth of Independent States

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

[edit] Language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you are not mistaken about the "ч". According to the Russian Alphabet article on English Wikipedia, "ч" is a "ch". Which means that I made a mistake when I thought it was an "sh". An "Я" would not be correct either as it would create a conflict against "И" in Cyrillic English. For those who want to ask what it means, pairing the words together answers the question on its own. Example: I believe that the Cyrillic Japanese word for Japanese would be "Нихонго". This is also not a word in Russian to give you a heads up - just a change in symbols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.181.164 (talk • contribs)

Why do you want to provide Cyrillic transliterations on the English Wikipedia? Leushenko (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think s/he believes that the Russian Wikipedia page has transliterations of the English word into Cyrillic. However, "Англичан" is actually the Russian word for an English person, as opposed to the English langauge ("Английский язык"). I don't believe it is standard practice on any language Wiki to transliterate backwards like that, though I could be wrong. It doesn't seem like it would be particularly useful for someone to know how to pronounce a word for something in a language they can't even read, especially in the case of alphabetic languages like Russian where the alphabet can be learned in a few days (as opposed to say, Chinese or Japanese). Also, rendering certain English sounds in Cyrillic is difficult or impossible. This is why, for example, it is possible for a Russian to learn about tred-unionizm at Garvard Oohniversity while studying to be a biznesmen on the veek-end.

I may be mistaken about what s/he was trying to say, and/or the prevalence of this practice on other language Wikipedias, and if so I apologize. Also, "ч" is pronounced like "ch" in "church" in English. In some common words in everyday speech (such as "что") you may hear it pronounced like "sh" in "ship." Stuffisthings (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The article on Markov numbers currently says:

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

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

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

[edit] K, g, x

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

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

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

An example for g and g': гуля is a child speak for pigeon, Гюля - is a deminutive for a wide-spread Tatar women name (Гюльнара).--Dojarca 03:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allies vs. sattelites

I have changed "Sattelites of the USSR" to "allies of the USSR" to avoid political-biased wording. In other places in Wikipedia allies of the USA called "allies", not "sattelites".--Dojarca 16:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The two have different meanings. A satellite is " a country under the domination or influence of another." Nations under the Warsaw pact (other than the Soviet Union, of course) are exemplary of this notion. While there are a few examples where this might apply to the US, it is clear that most countries in league with the United States are not under nearly as strong a political domination as were those of the Soviet Union. Keep in mind, also, that in addition to having satellite states the Soviet Union also had allies, such as China and Cuba. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. What does "political-biased" mean? These states were established by the USSR, and if they threatened to become independent they were invaded. My dictionary defines "Eastern bloc" as the states "dominated by" the USSR.

What U.S. "client states" are called is a separate issue (see WP:POINT), so deal with that there. —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 07:11 Z

Warsaw pact was a military alliance hence the term "allies" is completely correct. The USSR did not "dominate" Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania and it is very doubtful to which extent and at what times it diminated other countries. Just the same, USA dominated the western Europe. Hence, no difference. Anyway as I already pointed out the term "allies" is fully correct and neutral.--Dojarca 08:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, after taking a careful look at the sentence in question, I think that allies is a better term here because it's about the Warsaw pact and other countries not in the pact but still associated with the USSR (Cuba, for instance).

However, I don't want to walk away from this discussion without pointing out that your understanding of the relationship between the Soviet Union and other nations of the Warsaw pact needs revision. please take a look at Prague spring, Revolutions of 1989, Eastern bloc, and cominform. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 10:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One must add the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 to the list to help explain that East-Bloc countries were operating under a constant and real threat of invasion.

Albania and Cuba were clearly satellites too, totally dependent on the USSR to fuel their economies. The relevant history article literally says "Albania entered an orbit around the Soviet Union"—the country later split with Moscow, and suffered greatly because China couldn't match the level of Soviet support. After 1991, "Over 80% of Cuba's trade was lost and living conditions worsened". Political direction follows economic dependence.

The question of wording is somewhat academic—"allies" is inadequate, not "neutral", but it is not strictly incorrect. But Dojarca's comparison between the relationships of the Eastern and Western political blocs in of Europe makes me wonder if we can find any mutual grounds for discussion at all. —Michael Z. 2007-08-08 20:39 Z

Ahh, yes, I had forgotten about the Hungarian Revolution. Don't tell my Hungarian relatives. My main argument is that the Warsaw Pact is an exclusive group of obvious "satellites." I suppose if Cuba is considered a satellite state (according to Satellite state) that this isn't quite the case but the paragraph in question also mentions China, Laos, and Vietnam. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Greece an ally or sattelite of the USA? Is West Germany ally or sattelite?--Dojarca 12:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The word, "debuccalized"

What does "debuccalized" mean? Brian Pearson 01:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

loss of place of articulation. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been unable to find the word. Could it have an alternate spelling or could it be "devocalized"? Brian Pearson 00:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Unable to find it where? It's not a common term, but when you break it down, it makes sense: de ("remove from:) + buccal (relating to the mouth) -ize (turns adjective into verb). [h] and [ɦ] are often called "glottal fricatives" but are technically placeless segments (not necessarily even fricatives). So if a segment, say /θ/ becomes [h] in some context or dialect, the change is from a segment that is

[+dental], [-voice], [+consonantal], [-vocalic], [+fricative] to one that is all those things except [+dental]. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ƶ§œš¹, I appreciate it. I've noticed many combination words that have not existed that way in the past, but which are becoming much more acceptable. It seems we are watching the language evolve in front of our eyes... Brian Pearson 00:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 80% of the population of the Baltic states are able to hold a conversation in Russian

Unless refrenced with up to date data, this should be removed beacuse use of Russian langauge has declined quite quickly after breakup of Soviet Union in Baltics and younger generation more or less has a choice what to learn in school. This has resulted in growing interest in Western European languages and decline of Russian. I will try to find some refrence to how many people in Baltics, or atleast in Estonia, are still able to speak Russian. If I rember correctly, it was about 50%+ in Estonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rdi (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet policy

"During the Soviet period, the policy toward the languages of the various other ethnic groups fluctuated in practice. Though each of the constituent republics had its own official language, the unifying role and superior status was reserved for Russian." Remowed. If I remember corectly, only in Georgia, georgian was official language of soviet republic. Edo 555 (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why's that? If official language means official documentation on this language, each of the republics had own official langauge. In Georgia they had documents in both georgian and russian, Tajikistan - farsi and russian, and so on.. My father was born in Yerevan, so he has birth certificate in both russian and armenian languages, as well as university diploma. --FarShmack (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] palatization

Isn't palatisation also a part of fino-ugric language influence on russian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo 555 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how. Palatalization contrasts (a feature of all Slavic languages)are explainable through simple language change. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language policy

Russian is primarily spoken in Russia and, to a lesser extent, the other countries that were once constituent republics of the USSR. Until 1917, it was the sole official language of the Russian Empire.[citation needed] During the Soviet period, the policy toward the languages of the various other ethnic groups fluctuated in practice. Though each of the constituent republics had its own official language, the unifying role and superior status was reserved for Russian. Following the break-up of 1991, several of the newly independent states have encouraged their native languages, which has partly reversed the privileged status of Russian, though its role as the language of post-Soviet national intercourse throughout the region has continued.

Are you are folowing some political ideas? Or whay you put information, which isn't factual?

Well, in russian empire for some time russian aristocracy spoken french and countes russian as peasant language. Did french was official? In Finland gubernia administration actualy sweedish was used not russian. In Soviet Union russian was not unifying, but only official language. I don't know, from where you found, that there was some other official langues in soviet union. Edo 555 (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC) And whay almoust ewerything about central asia are removed.

[edit] Need Cyrillic help

Can someone transliterate the title of the Sakha anthem, so we can make an article about it? The link is here. Badagnani (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would direct you to WP:ROR but the title of the Sakha anthem is not in Russian. (ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ ГИМН РЕСПУБЛИКИ САХА (ЯКУТИЯ) (на якутском языке) would be transliterated GOSUDARSTVENNY GIMN RESPUBLIKI SAKHA (YAKUTIYA) (na yakutskom yazyke).) My guess is that it's Monglian, in which case it would be transliterated as Saha Öröspüübulükjetin örögöjün yryata. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm not sure what title to use, then. Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with anthem of the Sakha Republic? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's very good! Badagnani (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion into Russian speaking countries category

Various ex-USSR countries have a large number of both fluent Russian speakers and native Russians but they don' wish to admit this and to be identified as Russian speaking countries, notably: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, to a lesser extent Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Also, Israel has up-to a million Russian speakers due to migration and it has penetrated many spheres and is used semi-officially in some areas, e.g. Haifa. No-one denies their native language official status. --Atitarev (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category III?

The US Foreign service institute, which seems to be the authority on these language difficulty categories, rates Russian a Cat II language. As does this wikibooks page referencing it: [[3]]. I propose changing the text to read Category II instead of III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moltovivo (talk • contribs) 18:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classification

Why does that language classification thingy to the right only go to balto-slavic? Shouldn't it be east slavic and stuff? According to Nationalencyklopedin, it's an east-slavic language. --212.247.27.177 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Largest native language in Europe

I thought that it is a noteworthy fact, seeing how its frequent usage and the large size of territories where it is spoken are cited as well. This status is mentioned in the article on the German language, which is called the second largest native language in Europe after Russian. --Humanophage (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific publications

"Over a quareter of the world's scientific literature is published in Russian." Firstly, I couldn't find this on the site referenced. Secondly, and more importantly, what does this and the associated similar statements mean? That Russian-speaking scholars produce over a quarter of the world's scientific literature, that Russian scholars are able to translate a quarter of the world's scientific literature into Russian, or a middle ground? Same goes for "60–70% of all world information is published in English and Russian languages." This could accurately be interpreted as saying that 59.9% of world information (not my favourite choice of words either) was published in English and 0.1% was published in Russian. Basically, I don't see what these statistics add to the article if they remain unqualified (apart from weaselly promotion of the Russian language). Obviously a lot of material exists in the Russian language; what would be more relevant is how much is produced in the Russian language, or how many of the people reading that material are reading it in Russian. Simply stating that material exists says nothing about the role or relevance of either the material or the language. Leushenko (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Svalbard is not a country

Something really small, but it says in the info-box (under the map) that the map shows the countries of the world where Russian is spoken. Svalbard is highlighted on it, but it isn't a country. It is part of Norway, so shouldn't the rest of Norway also being colored? It is small, I know. Asm82 (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top of page is not right.

Could someone plese fix the top of this page, I am not sure how to do it, but it seems that it has been mucked up a bit. There is some weird scripting at the top and the picture is not where it is supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.70.12 (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racist picture

the picture with the bath room urinal statement translated into four languages has been vandalized racially with the crossing out of just arabic and the fact that it is in a Israeli airport. Im sure some one can find a better example for the Russian language in a picture.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.220.80 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need Russian help

Can a Russian speaker help with this question? In the correct Russian pronunciation surname "Shchedrin" (as in Rodion Shchedrin), should "Shch" be pronounced "sh" (as in "sheet") or "shch" (as in "fresh cheese")? Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two possible pronunciations for this sound. The normal, most common way is indeed "shch" as in "fresh cheese" and the other (the more colloquial, "slangy" way, which is not standard) is an elongated, palatalized "sh." Try pronouncing the "sh" with the tongue pressed higher toward the roof of your mouth, holding the sound out about 1.5 times as long as you would a normal "sh." Szfski (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- so in pronouncing this surname in Russia (as, for example, a radio announcer or TV presenter would), you'd say that the most proper way is to pronounce it "shch"? That's really what I needed to know. Badagnani (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken in:

Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uruguay? This seems strange. If there is a reliabale citation for it, by all means. Until then, I have deleted it from the infobox. The map, which seems to be made based on the infobox, should also be removed if this information can't be referenced.--Barend (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right that they should be removed if there's no source, but I've {{fact}} tagged the three countries to give editors note that the information is unsourced and that they have a reasonable period of time to find sources, after which removal is more appropriate. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Barend (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)