RSS
Putin has just signed a law on simplified citizenship for residents of the LDNR.
Any person with LDNR residency documents now has the right to apply for Russian citizenship, and can expect an answer within three months. Citizenship is immediately conferred upon a positive decision.
Comments:
1. Fundamentally, this is the humanitarian thing to do, as it rescues the Donbass from the state of legal limbo they have resided in since May 2014.
2. This is a much more serious step than the recognition of LDNR documents and nationalization of Ukrainian enterprises in February 2017. All steps which, in retrospect, have led up to this moment.
3. By the end of 2019, a large percentage of the LDNR’s 3.7 million residents will give up their their Ukrainian citizenships and become Russian citizens. Zhuchkovsky writes that the monthly applications processing capacity of the Rostov and Voronezh offices opened to process LDNR citizenship applications sums up to 30,000 a month, so in reality the processs will go a lot slower. Moreover, siloviks and bureucrats will have priority, so it will be a few months before ordinary LDNR citizens can get processed.
This conclusively ends the “Putinsliv” theory (the idea promoted by some Russian “zradniks”, such as Strelkov, that the Kremlin was preparing to cut its losses in the Donbass and withdraw its protection). In the aftermath of any putative Operation Storm, the Ukraine would now have a legal framework to mass expel its former citizens who have taken up Russian citizenship (as Croatia did to Serbs in Krajina). So allowing it to happen would now be even riskier than before in terms of political optics.
4. There is an LDNR law that fixes its borders at the frontline, so any military attempt by the Ukrainians to revise Minsk II would presumably be followed by further avalanches of Russian passports in the areas subsequently liberated.
5. Russian liberals already crying over this being a “knife in the back” in Ukraine’s new “peace-orientated” President. As I pointed out, this characterization was quite unlikely to be true.
***
In the meantime, Poroshenko appears to be exploring options to prevent Zelensky coming to power. Ideas include dismissing the head of the Constitutional Court, which would delay his inauguration. A more promising avenue is a law to strip the President of most of his powers and transfer most of them to the Prime Minister, which was submitted to the Rada soon after the first round of the elections (i.e. when Poroshenko must have realized he was toast).
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Outcome of the policy will be to increase emigration of people of Donbass to Russia.
In the internet of the last few weeks, most Russian liberal commentators seemed very supporting Poroshenko, and were nothing but angry about the popularity of gopnik clown Zelensky. You think there is already a transition to calling him “peace-oriented”? It’s funny if it’s true, how quickly it changes.
Unless Zelensky plans to imprison him, I don’t understand the point of stunts like this.
It’s not like Poroshenko is an interesting ideologue determined to implement some grand vision by any means necessary.
And given his vast wealth, it’s not like he needs the office to have a good lifestyle.
What’s the point?
He does it because he thinks that maybe in 2024 he can have a serious chance too look like he did a good job in retrospect(LOL) and get reelected again...and keep on being more corrupt and powerful.
He does need the office to keep on the good side of the west and no go to prison. His son is in politics so he might also want to set up a "dynasty"
Similar things for years have been going on with Tymoshenko, Yushchenko, Yanukovich, Kuchma et.al.
P.S. As another commenter has pointed out, he seems to have also developed a lust for power for its own sake.
Some Ukies and sympathizers claimed that Ukraine experienced a peaceful transition of power. This remains to be seen. The jury is still out.Replies: @neutral
It's not like Poroshenko is an interesting ideologue determined to implement some grand vision by any means necessary.
And given his vast wealth, it's not like he needs the office to have a good lifestyle.
What's the point?Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mitleser, @Gerard2, @anonym00se, @Dreadilk, @AnonFromTN
He wants power for power’s sake.
2) Because it was fun to screw with people. Like, knocking up the king of Sparta's wife and then fleeing to Persia or whatever. I mean, even for a prude like me .... you know, gosh, that sounds kinda interesting.So, yeah, personally, those are reasons we probably all can understand.And then you have a more recent villain like John Wilkes Booth, who shot Lincoln for two reasons. 1) He was totally crazy: 2) He had this hilarious vintage Southern American desire for revenge at any costs.Yeah, I get that too.But power for power's sake? I mean, what the hell?And then the fact that it's the Ukraine........good grief, the mafia in Rhode Island lives a more prestigious life than that. Poroshenko could absolutely make more money as a mob boss or whatever. Oooh, President of the Ukraine, wow-ee, what a title. You can't convince me that that's more prestigious than being a stooge like that dude in Chechnya. At least he gets cool track suits.Replies: @Daniel Chieh
Let’s be clear – not doing this before now was to try and not exacerbate the situation/get more sanctions applied/actually solve the conflict ….it wasn’t because of the age-old problems of bureaucracy and a so-called lack of interest in these people
The west didn’t stop crying about it happening in South Ossetia a decade ago
It's not like Poroshenko is an interesting ideologue determined to implement some grand vision by any means necessary.
And given his vast wealth, it's not like he needs the office to have a good lifestyle.
What's the point?Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mitleser, @Gerard2, @anonym00se, @Dreadilk, @AnonFromTN
Maybe he does not want to live in exile and write off his assets in the Ukraine.
Step by step, the Donbass will be re-integrated with Russia. This is a major step in that direction.
It's not like Poroshenko is an interesting ideologue determined to implement some grand vision by any means necessary.
And given his vast wealth, it's not like he needs the office to have a good lifestyle.
What's the point?Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mitleser, @Gerard2, @anonym00se, @Dreadilk, @AnonFromTN
Ukrop politics is a freakshow – paper institutions, chaos, infighting, extreme corruption, fistfights, ………..Ukraine is an externally controlled country, the Parliament has the mentality and the power to disrupt the work of the President ( which it has for years)….all this creates the perfect environment for him to try and sabotage Zelensky.
He does it because he thinks that maybe in 2024 he can have a serious chance too look like he did a good job in retrospect(LOL) and get reelected again…and keep on being more corrupt and powerful.
He does need the office to keep on the good side of the west and no go to prison. His son is in politics so he might also want to set up a “dynasty”
Similar things for years have been going on with Tymoshenko, Yushchenko, Yanukovich, Kuchma et.al.
It's not like Poroshenko is an interesting ideologue determined to implement some grand vision by any means necessary.
And given his vast wealth, it's not like he needs the office to have a good lifestyle.
What's the point?Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mitleser, @Gerard2, @anonym00se, @Dreadilk, @AnonFromTN
If having enough for a good lifestyle were enough to sate a kleptocrats greed, you wouldn’t see them accumulating more money than they could spend in a lifetime -if greed weren’t Poroshenko’s overwhelming passion in life, he never would have accumulated his fortune by what in normal countries would be considered thievery.
P.S. As another commenter has pointed out, he seems to have also developed a lust for power for its own sake.
I really don’t understand these people.
If you look at the real old-time crooks, it was neater.
Like that crazy Greek villain guy, Alcibiades, who seemed to do all his crazy stuff for two reasons:
1) Sex with hot babes
2) Because it was fun to screw with people. Like, knocking up the king of Sparta’s wife and then fleeing to Persia or whatever. I mean, even for a prude like me …. you know, gosh, that sounds kinda interesting.
So, yeah, personally, those are reasons we probably all can understand.
And then you have a more recent villain like John Wilkes Booth, who shot Lincoln for two reasons. 1) He was totally crazy: 2) He had this hilarious vintage Southern American desire for revenge at any costs.
Yeah, I get that too.
But power for power’s sake? I mean, what the hell?
And then the fact that it’s the Ukraine……..good grief, the mafia in Rhode Island lives a more prestigious life than that. Poroshenko could absolutely make more money as a mob boss or whatever. Oooh, President of the Ukraine, wow-ee, what a title. You can’t convince me that that’s more prestigious than being a stooge like that dude in Chechnya. At least he gets cool track suits.
2) Because it was fun to screw with people. Like, knocking up the king of Sparta's wife and then fleeing to Persia or whatever. I mean, even for a prude like me .... you know, gosh, that sounds kinda interesting.So, yeah, personally, those are reasons we probably all can understand.And then you have a more recent villain like John Wilkes Booth, who shot Lincoln for two reasons. 1) He was totally crazy: 2) He had this hilarious vintage Southern American desire for revenge at any costs.Yeah, I get that too.But power for power's sake? I mean, what the hell?And then the fact that it's the Ukraine........good grief, the mafia in Rhode Island lives a more prestigious life than that. Poroshenko could absolutely make more money as a mob boss or whatever. Oooh, President of the Ukraine, wow-ee, what a title. You can't convince me that that's more prestigious than being a stooge like that dude in Chechnya. At least he gets cool track suits.Replies: @Daniel Chieh
Maybe he’s worried that if he loses power, unlike the tyrants of the past, there is no peaceful distant land for him to flee to. Only mysterious automotive accidents.
Is Russia willing to payout pensions to these new citizens? I’m assuming that any formerly Ukrainian citizens would forfeit their rights to a Ukrainian pension by adopting Russian citizenship. A generous pension, as formulated within Crimea would seem to be an incredible strain on Russia.
As a rule, you don't forfeit your pension - which you get by virtue of working and paying taxes your entire life in any given country - by forfeiting your citizenship.Replies: @Mr. Hack, @iffen
Sure, we are talking about a relatively small amount of people remaining and the Ukrainian pensions for GPW veterans isn't comparable to the quite sizeable Russian size ( plus extras) ...but it's the principle that counts Mr Hack/spack/Elephant man
No surprise if your relatives now start claiming this pension - though this is not nearly as bad as claiming to be "victim" of the William Randolph Hearst make-believe famine (commonly referred to as the Golodomor) in 1932-33.
Not the incredible strain, I estimate it at no more than $3 billion, which compares to the size of gas transit fee Russia pays to the Ukraine every year. And why am I seeing your posts? I thought I put you on ignore list, or something.
It's not like Poroshenko is an interesting ideologue determined to implement some grand vision by any means necessary.
And given his vast wealth, it's not like he needs the office to have a good lifestyle.
What's the point?Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mitleser, @Gerard2, @anonym00se, @Dreadilk, @AnonFromTN
He messed around with a lot of people in the last five years. Everyone wants a piece of him.
Ukraine has no way of knowing who has a Russian passport. So either pay double or don’t pay to anyone. Guess which wins in either scenario?
Why? This isn’t how any civilized nation behaves. If the Ukraine is an exception, it reflects very badly on it.
As a rule, you don’t forfeit your pension – which you get by virtue of working and paying taxes your entire life in any given country – by forfeiting your citizenship.
My stuff is so important that it overrides ‘ignore’ commands. 🙂
You see, once read, you can’t ignore it!
Russia is crossing a red line: no compromise on Donbas. By the time Zelinsky takes over it will be a fait accompli, they decided not to give him a benefit of doubt.
It was done to prevent any potential Zelinsky goodwill approach to Donbas, like paying pensions. Next Russia will work to make sure that Zelinsky is failure on economy, easy: stop or reduce gas transit, cut oil exports, mess with the remittances. They have timed it well, EU is no position to step in with more aid or trade and EU economy is slowing down, US is distracted and regionally weak. Sanctions have been used ad infinitum, so they are irrelevant.
Before some start screaming about ‘commercial aggression‘ by Russia, we should consider how the game is always played: timing, patience, sow divisions, then attack when enemy is trying to reform. Ukraine with 2-3 more years in the economic morass, with comic escapism already tried – it will be volatile beyond anything eastern Europe has seen since WWII.
Cookies, candy and clowns. What has been lacking is common sense.
The EU has one magic trick to bailout Ukraine, rubber stamp a work visa for anyone wanting to leave. People will complain, but then realize "at least they aren't Turks/Africans".
Recall that the mere executive action of the US President is said to confer an non-revocable TPS status, granting a work permit which is nine-tenths of citizenship. Bolton could wormtongue Trump into granting it for Ukraine, and there is pressure in Congress to grant it for Venezuela.Replies: @reiner Tor
lol, good one
As a rule, you don't forfeit your pension - which you get by virtue of working and paying taxes your entire life in any given country - by forfeiting your citizenship.Replies: @Mr. Hack, @iffen
I don’t know how any ‘civilized’ nation behaves, but I just checked with some contacts in Ukraine, and they indicate that whether in the Crimea or in Donbas, once somebody forsakes their Ukrainian citizenship for a Russian one, they also give up their Ukrainian pension. Russia has been know for paying much higher pensions in Crimea than Ukraine, and this will most likely continue in Donbas. More money has always been a good motivator as far as influencing national orientation? I’m not saying that I’m an expert in this field, and you’d do everyone here a service by checking your own sources…
Well the Ukraine is setting itself for nice lawsuit in the future if they do that.
Perhaps? I don’t know, but think that Dreadilk in #14 is on to something…
This is excellent news.
My thoughts turn to those poor old women Anatoly Shariy featured on his video blog last week. It warms my heart that they will now live out their days in peace.
Second approach is what Yanukovcih was conemplating. If tru, a bad development. But likely not true – remember how according to Russian nationsalists, martial law was certainly going to end in cancelled elections?
My own link is from a Ukrainian newspaper for that matter.
FWIW, I doubt it will go through. It appears that Petro Poroshenko Bloc, People's Front, and Self-Reliance have 240/450 seats between them. I assume that to change the Constitution they need 300 voices, or 2/3 (as in the case of writing NATO integration into the Constitution). There are 61 Independents. Highly unlikely they'll get all of them, I assume. None of the others, I assume, are likely to go along with this.Replies: @AP
Nice to see that Putin continues to help with Ukrainian nation-building and de-Sovietization.
Well, the draft law was uncovered by Ukrainian journalists, and its been all over its media the past day, if you notice.
My own link is from a Ukrainian newspaper for that matter.
FWIW, I doubt it will go through. It appears that Petro Poroshenko Bloc, People’s Front, and Self-Reliance have 240/450 seats between them. I assume that to change the Constitution they need 300 voices, or 2/3 (as in the case of writing NATO integration into the Constitution). There are 61 Independents. Highly unlikely they’ll get all of them, I assume. None of the others, I assume, are likely to go along with this.
My own link is from a Ukrainian newspaper for that matter.
FWIW, I doubt it will go through. It appears that Petro Poroshenko Bloc, People's Front, and Self-Reliance have 240/450 seats between them. I assume that to change the Constitution they need 300 voices, or 2/3 (as in the case of writing NATO integration into the Constitution). There are 61 Independents. Highly unlikely they'll get all of them, I assume. None of the others, I assume, are likely to go along with this.Replies: @AP
Self-reliance dislike Poroshenko (he caused the garbage crisis in Lviv). They are allied with Hrytsenko who endorsed Zelensky.
I included them since they were the ones who proposed the law in the first place. I suppose if their other deputies doesn’t go along with it, the chances of its success drop to near zero.
As a rule, you don't forfeit your pension - which you get by virtue of working and paying taxes your entire life in any given country - by forfeiting your citizenship.Replies: @Mr. Hack, @iffen
As a rule, you don’t forfeit your pension – which you get by virtue of working and paying taxes your entire life in any given country – by forfeiting your citizenship.
I guess that we get to the point of whether citizenship means something or not. BTW, are you still a “Murican”?
You are right.
I remember that the government in Kuhyiv took the Donbass pensions for itself. This changes nothing re: pensions.
So why bring it up?…
So, rumors about the “Puerto Rico model” were true. This is the first step to re-orbit Donbas into the Russian planetary system. Anyway, it just legalizes a de facto state.
You said “Oooh they better not” because of the pensions, but that is no reason for the Donbass to reintegrate back into the Ukraine. The pensions are already gone. The only reason for reintegration is to stop the rain of bombs on civilians, but that will never work. That’s racketeering.
Just a reminder that the Nazi lowlife state of Ukraine/Banderastan starting giving UPA excrement veterans the SAME size pensions as GPW heroes recently. Deplorable
Sure, we are talking about a relatively small amount of people remaining and the Ukrainian pensions for GPW veterans isn’t comparable to the quite sizeable Russian size ( plus extras) …but it’s the principle that counts Mr Hack/spack/Elephant man
No surprise if your relatives now start claiming this pension – though this is not nearly as bad as claiming to be “victim” of the William Randolph Hearst make-believe famine (commonly referred to as the Golodomor) in 1932-33.
I did? Where??…
The endgame is Salvini getting enough support to end the sanctions in Brussels. The sanctions must be unanimously renewed, IIRC, but there are threats of German fiscal punishment if countries vote against renewal. The Dems and neocons in the US Congress will also discover ways of punishing a EU country that doesn’t do what it is told.
The EU has one magic trick to bailout Ukraine, rubber stamp a work visa for anyone wanting to leave. People will complain, but then realize “at least they aren’t Turks/Africans”.
Recall that the mere executive action of the US President is said to confer an non-revocable TPS status, granting a work permit which is nine-tenths of citizenship. Bolton could wormtongue Trump into granting it for Ukraine, and there is pressure in Congress to grant it for Venezuela.
Anyway, I don't think Ukrainian guest workers are among our biggest problems.
The EU has one magic trick to bailout Ukraine, rubber stamp a work visa for anyone wanting to leave. People will complain, but then realize "at least they aren't Turks/Africans".
Recall that the mere executive action of the US President is said to confer an non-revocable TPS status, granting a work permit which is nine-tenths of citizenship. Bolton could wormtongue Trump into granting it for Ukraine, and there is pressure in Congress to grant it for Venezuela.Replies: @reiner Tor
In Hungary there is a growing number of Ukrainian guest workers. Some people started to complain about them, and hilariously many leftist politicians took up the issue, whose views on refugees are usually ambiguous (because it’s not politically expedient to admit to supporting an increase in the number of people granted asylum), and even some leftist sympathizers of my acquaintance (who usually lambaste the “Goebbels-like Fidesz anti-refugee propaganda”) started mentioning it.
Anyway, I don’t think Ukrainian guest workers are among our biggest problems.
” (as Croatia did to Serbs in Krajina”
Didn’t happen. You can’t expel people who have already left (and under orders of their own authority).
This is an ACKSHUALLY but it must be stated, repeatedly.
“President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday a decision to give residents of Ukrainian rebel regions fast-track access to Russian passports was no different from what European Union states were already doing. Speaking to reporters at the end of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Putin said that both Romania and Hungary grant citizenship to their own ethnic kin living outside their borders. He said it was strange that Kiev had reacted angrily to the Russian move on passports”
Is it true about Hungary and Romania?
Is it true about Hungary and Romania?Replies: @reiner Tor
Yes. It’s a serious issue between Ukraine and Hungary. (And between Romania and Moldova. I have always assumed that Moldovans were just Romanians, but now I read some bits of information here and there that that’s not exactly the case.)
I have more information about the Hungarian citizenship requirements. You have to prove that your ancestors were Hungarian citizens (maybe only in 1918? I’m not sure if there’s a time limit), and you still haven’t lost touch with Hungarian culture (e.g. you have a Hungarian name, you can speak Hungarian, etc.), and then you only have to apply and will receive Hungarian citizenship and a passport.
Ukraine doesn’t like that Hungarians in Ukraine receive that.
Though I don’t think Ukraine has a right to decide who gets Hungarian citizenship and who doesn’t, but some of the Ukrainian complaints are justified: the SBU managed to obtain a video of Ukrainian citizens taking the oath upon receiving Hungarian citizenship, and the Hungarian diplomat (consulate employee?) then giving advice on how to conceal it from the Ukrainian authorities. This is not very diplomatic behavior, to say the least.
Moldova is also an ultra fake country, something that actual Moldovans at least have the decency and presence of mind to acknowledge, instead of laboring under svidomy delusions.
Moldova is basically a Romanian Russian creol civilization, though I consider that it belongs to Romania by principle of precedence. Like their only difference is that 10% of their vocab is Slavonic instead of just 5%. Plus some of them have been hoodwinked into thinking they're Russians.
The Ukraine is a Russian Polish creol civilization, which, conversely, belongs to Russia by precedence.Replies: @reiner Tor, @inertial, @hgv, @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel Chieh, @Aedib
The Ukraine is a fake country, unlike Hungary, so their complaints should be of no concern as a matter of basic self-respect. Why care for “diplomacy” with random Bantustans?
Moldova is also an ultra fake country, something that actual Moldovans at least have the decency and presence of mind to acknowledge, instead of laboring under svidomy delusions.
Moldova is basically a Romanian Russian creol civilization, though I consider that it belongs to Romania by principle of precedence. Like their only difference is that 10% of their vocab is Slavonic instead of just 5%. Plus some of them have been hoodwinked into thinking they’re Russians.
The Ukraine is a Russian Polish creol civilization, which, conversely, belongs to Russia by precedence.
So what happened?I don't care very much for their complaints, but I don't think Hungarian diplomats should get a reputation for undiplomatic behavior. I don't like incompetence.Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @hgv
Then there is Russian influence, which btw long predates the Russian conquest. When Kutuzov came to Bessarabia in 1812 the local nobility was already bilingual in Russian.
Also, contrary to what you might have heard from the Romanian side, the Romanian occupation of Bessarabia in the 1920-30s was not exactly a lovefest.Replies: @Epigon, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel.I
Moldova is also an ultra fake country, something that actual Moldovans at least have the decency and presence of mind to acknowledge, instead of laboring under svidomy delusions.
Moldova is basically a Romanian Russian creol civilization, though I consider that it belongs to Romania by principle of precedence. Like their only difference is that 10% of their vocab is Slavonic instead of just 5%. Plus some of them have been hoodwinked into thinking they're Russians.
The Ukraine is a Russian Polish creol civilization, which, conversely, belongs to Russia by precedence.Replies: @reiner Tor, @inertial, @hgv, @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel Chieh, @Aedib
I never understood how it continued to exist after the breakup of the USSR. Romania is richer (less poor in 1991), so there should have been no reason for Moldovans to object to being swallowed by Romania. And swallowing them would be a nice Romanian nationalist project, bringing back (almost) the Greater Romania which existed for two decades before WW2.
So what happened?
I don’t care very much for their complaints, but I don’t think Hungarian diplomats should get a reputation for undiplomatic behavior. I don’t like incompetence.
Perhaps they've swallowed too much Balkanoid poison.
Although that might not be a good explanation in that Balkanoid swine are frequently ultranationalist lunatics.
Does that Dacien Soros guy want to chip in?Replies: @hgv
So what happened?I don't care very much for their complaints, but I don't think Hungarian diplomats should get a reputation for undiplomatic behavior. I don't like incompetence.Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @hgv
Romanian seems to have a political class of lower quality and vision than the Visegrad countries.
Perhaps they’ve swallowed too much Balkanoid poison.
Although that might not be a good explanation in that Balkanoid swine are frequently ultranationalist lunatics.
Does that Dacien Soros guy want to chip in?
So what happened?I don't care very much for their complaints, but I don't think Hungarian diplomats should get a reputation for undiplomatic behavior. I don't like incompetence.Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @hgv
The situation can be summed up in only one word: Transnistria. A longer explanation is that Romania was not a stable state during the 1990s, and neirher did it possess the necessary money and administrative capacity for any kind of unification. Because of Transnistria, Romania was kind of constrained to recognize Moldova as an independent state. Even without Transnistria,there were and still are minorities in Moldova,and they would have been very anti-Romanian and difficult to deal with (I am not saying this out of Russophobia, I am simply stating a fact). Only God knows how Russia would have reacted, even without Transnistria. Plus, there were ethnic conflicts in Transylvania…it wasnt really possible. And maybe it was for the best…who knows what dangers would have appeared(economic, social etc)?
Perhaps they've swallowed too much Balkanoid poison.
Although that might not be a good explanation in that Balkanoid swine are frequently ultranationalist lunatics.
Does that Dacien Soros guy want to chip in?Replies: @hgv
This Balkanoid swine already answered reinertor, if you care to read. And you are right about the political clas…
Oh, yes, I now remember. But still… wouldn’t it make sense to just renounce Transnistria? If I were Romanian, I’d certainly be all for it.
I remember that some Transylvanian ethnic Hungarian leader told Hungarian TV back then how they were actually looking forward to the unification, because then they’d get powerful allies in the Russian ethnic minority in Moldova.
Ofcourse it makes sense to renounce Transnistria, but this was not an option at the time: Ukraine was friendly to Russia at the time, and a Transnistria outside Moldova or Romania would have been either a puppet state of Russia, or an outright Russian territory. And having a land border with Russia is dangerous, to say the least. The international community was not very pleased with the idea of an unification and possibly a 20 million-strong failed state in South Eastern Europe. Anyway, the unification should never happen; let the existence of the republic of Moldova to be a lesson,of where corruption and incompetence can take a nation. It could have been waaay worse than it was.
Moldova is also an ultra fake country, something that actual Moldovans at least have the decency and presence of mind to acknowledge, instead of laboring under svidomy delusions.
Moldova is basically a Romanian Russian creol civilization, though I consider that it belongs to Romania by principle of precedence. Like their only difference is that 10% of their vocab is Slavonic instead of just 5%. Plus some of them have been hoodwinked into thinking they're Russians.
The Ukraine is a Russian Polish creol civilization, which, conversely, belongs to Russia by precedence.Replies: @reiner Tor, @inertial, @hgv, @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel Chieh, @Aedib
Romania is a fake country itself. Actually no, not really. Not anymore. But there was a transitional period ~150-200 years ago when Romanian nation and Romanian identity was still being formed. Moldova (Bessarabia) stayed outside this process, so they kept their own separate identity.
Then there is Russian influence, which btw long predates the Russian conquest. When Kutuzov came to Bessarabia in 1812 the local nobility was already bilingual in Russian.
Also, contrary to what you might have heard from the Romanian side, the Romanian occupation of Bessarabia in the 1920-30s was not exactly a lovefest.
Even so, you can’t purge tell-tales like historical boyars, voivode, razboi - their military and agricultural terminology is of Slavic origin.Romanian is probably the Romance language most similar to vulgar/medieval Latin because it was a late development - languages like French and Spanish separated from Latin a thousand years earlier, and developed since.Let the French (and) Freemasonry have their Balkan bulwark. It won’t help them in the long run.Replies: @hgv
Just out of curiosity, is there any country neighboring Russia that isn't fake and whose inhabitants are not Russians in denial ?Replies: @inertial, @Anatoly Karlin
Moldova is also an ultra fake country, something that actual Moldovans at least have the decency and presence of mind to acknowledge, instead of laboring under svidomy delusions.
Moldova is basically a Romanian Russian creol civilization, though I consider that it belongs to Romania by principle of precedence. Like their only difference is that 10% of their vocab is Slavonic instead of just 5%. Plus some of them have been hoodwinked into thinking they're Russians.
The Ukraine is a Russian Polish creol civilization, which, conversely, belongs to Russia by precedence.Replies: @reiner Tor, @inertial, @hgv, @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel Chieh, @Aedib
I am not writing this to “poke the bear”, but when I watch people from the Republic of Moldova speaking,I don’t need translation. On the other hand, I saw that when a man is shown speaking Ucrainian on Russian tv, it translated (doubled) into Russian ( I watch the youtube channels that traslate the verbal content in English). And once you said that your Ukrainian skills were not so great. Are the languages that different?…
Moldova is also an ultra fake country, something that actual Moldovans at least have the decency and presence of mind to acknowledge, instead of laboring under svidomy delusions.
Moldova is basically a Romanian Russian creol civilization, though I consider that it belongs to Romania by principle of precedence. Like their only difference is that 10% of their vocab is Slavonic instead of just 5%. Plus some of them have been hoodwinked into thinking they're Russians.
The Ukraine is a Russian Polish creol civilization, which, conversely, belongs to Russia by precedence.Replies: @reiner Tor, @inertial, @hgv, @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel Chieh, @Aedib
You’ve been reading way too much of the Mad Bohemian, Budvar, and paying way too little attention to your good friend AP. I guess that Russian svidomism trumps all logic.
For what it’s worth, Germans from, say, Hannover, don’t understand Swiss German. It takes them several months to adjust and start understanding it.
It depends on what Ukrainian you are listening to. Real Ukrainian and Surgic is easy to understand. Fake and gay polish is not.
Thank you, porcine Balkanoid.
Repeat this for another 999 times, then come back to check whether it has become the truth.
The Croat smugness knows no bounds – they proceeded to systematically murder those few thousand that remained scattered, and now proudly boast that others left “of their own volition”. This coming from WW2 savages that made German officials sick with their crimes.
I guess you would have preferred they stayed in reach of Norac, Merčep and other Croat heroes?
I'm more than ready to do that since it is necessary to continue to repeat the truth.
You cannot cleanse that which has already left prior to your own arrival.Replies: @Epigon
Then there is Russian influence, which btw long predates the Russian conquest. When Kutuzov came to Bessarabia in 1812 the local nobility was already bilingual in Russian.
Also, contrary to what you might have heard from the Romanian side, the Romanian occupation of Bessarabia in the 1920-30s was not exactly a lovefest.Replies: @Epigon, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel.I
They purged the language of many Slavic words in the last 100 years.
Even so, you can’t purge tell-tales like historical boyars, voivode, razboi – their military and agricultural terminology is of Slavic origin.
Romanian is probably the Romance language most similar to vulgar/medieval Latin because it was a late development – languages like French and Spanish separated from Latin a thousand years earlier, and developed since.
Let the French (and) Freemasonry have their Balkan bulwark. It won’t help them in the long run.
Even so, you can’t purge tell-tales like historical boyars, voivode, razboi - their military and agricultural terminology is of Slavic origin.Romanian is probably the Romance language most similar to vulgar/medieval Latin because it was a late development - languages like French and Spanish separated from Latin a thousand years earlier, and developed since.Let the French (and) Freemasonry have their Balkan bulwark. It won’t help them in the long run.Replies: @hgv
The highest estimate of the number of Slavic words in Romanian is 20%. And the thing with Freemasonry…I won’t dignify that with a response.
Ukrainian to Russian is like Scots to English. 90% of the time it’s just a quaint accent and some regionalist archaic nouns, but if one is determined to make life difficult, it’s possible to speak in an “authentic”, unintelligible way.
Moldova is also an ultra fake country, something that actual Moldovans at least have the decency and presence of mind to acknowledge, instead of laboring under svidomy delusions.
Moldova is basically a Romanian Russian creol civilization, though I consider that it belongs to Romania by principle of precedence. Like their only difference is that 10% of their vocab is Slavonic instead of just 5%. Plus some of them have been hoodwinked into thinking they're Russians.
The Ukraine is a Russian Polish creol civilization, which, conversely, belongs to Russia by precedence.Replies: @reiner Tor, @inertial, @hgv, @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel Chieh, @Aedib
What about Belarus?
Then there is Russian influence, which btw long predates the Russian conquest. When Kutuzov came to Bessarabia in 1812 the local nobility was already bilingual in Russian.
Also, contrary to what you might have heard from the Romanian side, the Romanian occupation of Bessarabia in the 1920-30s was not exactly a lovefest.Replies: @Epigon, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel.I
What were the objections to this?
Thank you. Now it gets clear. Then, could we say that we are witnessing the live birth of a nation (though it can probably be called a forced birth)?
In terms of vocabulary Ukrainian is about a close to Russian as Spanish is to Italian:
http://cdn8.openculture.com/2017/08/27223953/lexical-distance-among-the-languages-of-europe-2-1-mid-size.pngReplies: @Swedish Family, @hgv
Moldova is also an ultra fake country, something that actual Moldovans at least have the decency and presence of mind to acknowledge, instead of laboring under svidomy delusions.
Moldova is basically a Romanian Russian creol civilization, though I consider that it belongs to Romania by principle of precedence. Like their only difference is that 10% of their vocab is Slavonic instead of just 5%. Plus some of them have been hoodwinked into thinking they're Russians.
The Ukraine is a Russian Polish creol civilization, which, conversely, belongs to Russia by precedence.Replies: @reiner Tor, @inertial, @hgv, @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel Chieh, @Aedib
Powerful.
May be Putin had in-advance information about this:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/25/ukraine-passes-language-restriction-worsening-dispute-with-neighbors-a65387
… and so, he decided to speed-up the Russification of Donbas people.
But note the weasel words:Terrible wording here -- and one must assume, intentional. Would similar steps in Tatarstan be described as "boosting" the use of Russian? To ask the question is to answer it.At least here the writer is calling things by their right name ("forcing people outright to use Ukrainian"), but why single out Zelensky as a Russian speaker when it's common knowledge that they both are?
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/25/ukraine-passes-language-restriction-worsening-dispute-with-neighbors-a65387
... and so, he decided to speed-up the Russification of Donbas people.Replies: @Swedish Family, @reiner Tor
Pretty sure this is just the passing of the new language law that people have known of for months.
But note the weasel words:
Terrible wording here — and one must assume, intentional. Would similar steps in Tatarstan be described as “boosting” the use of Russian? To ask the question is to answer it.
At least here the writer is calling things by their right name (“forcing people outright to use Ukrainian”), but why single out Zelensky as a Russian speaker when it’s common knowledge that they both are?
He writes nonsense and is infamous for getting everything wrong (ask our host Karlin about him).
In terms of vocabulary Ukrainian is about a close to Russian as Spanish is to Italian:
LEXICAL DISTANCE/SIMILARITY
English and French
Tishchenko 56 (out of 100, it seems -- higher is less similar)
Ethnologue 27% (out of 100% -- higher is more similar) (link)
English and German
Tishchenko 49
Ethnologue 60% (see previous link)
French and Italian
Tishchenko 30
Ethnologue 89% (see previous link)
French and Portuguese
Tishchenko 39
Ethnologue 75% (see previous link)
What we have here, then, is one single Ukrainian study that diverges rather strongly from a Western one. This doesn't mean that we should reject it as a matter of course -- for all we know, Tishchenko's might be the better method here -- but I think we can all agree that more data is needed. And at minimum, I would like to know the details of how the Tishchenko study was carried out. (This goes for the Ethnologue study too, obviously, but that I just picked by way of illustration.)Replies: @AP
It's not like Poroshenko is an interesting ideologue determined to implement some grand vision by any means necessary.
And given his vast wealth, it's not like he needs the office to have a good lifestyle.
What's the point?Replies: @reiner Tor, @Mitleser, @Gerard2, @anonym00se, @Dreadilk, @AnonFromTN
Greed has no limits. Porky resents that he was denied a chance to steal even more. Naturally, he’d do anything to remain close to the trough.
Some Ukies and sympathizers claimed that Ukraine experienced a peaceful transition of power. This remains to be seen. The jury is still out.
In terms of vocabulary Ukrainian is about a close to Russian as Spanish is to Italian:
http://cdn8.openculture.com/2017/08/27223953/lexical-distance-among-the-languages-of-europe-2-1-mid-size.pngReplies: @Swedish Family, @hgv
I looked up the sources for that map, and from what I can tell, Elms (2008) in turn refers back to Tishchenko (1999) (blog post here), so those two sources cited are really only one, Tishchenko, published in Ukrainian in 1999 (I only have Elms’ words to go by here since I can’t find any English information on it). This already raises my eyebrows — lexical comparisons are notoriously tricky (what wordlists do you compare and how do you compare them?) and must be carried out in good faith — and my doubt grows even stronger when I compare Tishchenko’s distances with the similarity data published by Ethnologue.
LEXICAL DISTANCE/SIMILARITY
English and French
Tishchenko 56 (out of 100, it seems — higher is less similar)
Ethnologue 27% (out of 100% — higher is more similar) (link)
English and German
Tishchenko 49
Ethnologue 60% (see previous link)
French and Italian
Tishchenko 30
Ethnologue 89% (see previous link)
French and Portuguese
Tishchenko 39
Ethnologue 75% (see previous link)
What we have here, then, is one single Ukrainian study that diverges rather strongly from a Western one. This doesn’t mean that we should reject it as a matter of course — for all we know, Tishchenko’s might be the better method here — but I think we can all agree that more data is needed. And at minimum, I would like to know the details of how the Tishchenko study was carried out. (This goes for the Ethnologue study too, obviously, but that I just picked by way of illustration.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=z9DmBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&dq=lexical+distance+russian+ukrainian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw2__pot_SAhVCJiYKHXd0BUs4FBDoAQg-MAc#v=snippet&q=ukrainuian%20figure%2012&f=true
Table pg. 323.
This source analyzed the vocabularies in a single book (the Bible) across dozens of languages.
It's hard to see, but Ukrainian is closer to Polish than to Russian, and about as far from Russian as Italian is from Spanish, or Dutch from German. Danish and Norwegian are much closer to each other than Ukrainian is to Russian.Replies: @Adam, @Swedish Family
Then there is Russian influence, which btw long predates the Russian conquest. When Kutuzov came to Bessarabia in 1812 the local nobility was already bilingual in Russian.
Also, contrary to what you might have heard from the Romanian side, the Romanian occupation of Bessarabia in the 1920-30s was not exactly a lovefest.Replies: @Epigon, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel.I
According to this logic, France, Germany and Italy are also fake countries.
Just out of curiosity, is there any country neighboring Russia that isn’t fake and whose inhabitants are not Russians in denial ?
Russia has the same issue, in spades. When the modern Rus nation was being re-formed, a large number of the Rus people stayed outside and formed a separate identity. For some it's only somewhat separate, for others strongly separate, and for still others anything in between. Many of these people are now called Ukrainians. As you can see, decades and centuries of living in the same nations did not make this separation go away.
This indicates that even if Romania and Moldova ever unite, most Moldovans will still maintain a separate identity. And it could even turn anti-Romanian.
Not sure about Balts and Azerbaijan. Probably not fake, though former are certainly gay.
LEXICAL DISTANCE/SIMILARITY
English and French
Tishchenko 56 (out of 100, it seems -- higher is less similar)
Ethnologue 27% (out of 100% -- higher is more similar) (link)
English and German
Tishchenko 49
Ethnologue 60% (see previous link)
French and Italian
Tishchenko 30
Ethnologue 89% (see previous link)
French and Portuguese
Tishchenko 39
Ethnologue 75% (see previous link)
What we have here, then, is one single Ukrainian study that diverges rather strongly from a Western one. This doesn't mean that we should reject it as a matter of course -- for all we know, Tishchenko's might be the better method here -- but I think we can all agree that more data is needed. And at minimum, I would like to know the details of how the Tishchenko study was carried out. (This goes for the Ethnologue study too, obviously, but that I just picked by way of illustration.)Replies: @AP
This source corroborates Tishchenko:
https://books.google.com/books?id=z9DmBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&dq=lexical+distance+russian+ukrainian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw2__pot_SAhVCJiYKHXd0BUs4FBDoAQg-MAc#v=snippet&q=ukrainuian%20figure%2012&f=true
Table pg. 323.
This source analyzed the vocabularies in a single book (the Bible) across dozens of languages.
It’s hard to see, but Ukrainian is closer to Polish than to Russian, and about as far from Russian as Italian is from Spanish, or Dutch from German. Danish and Norwegian are much closer to each other than Ukrainian is to Russian.
As for that other study you linked to, I don't find any Polish cluster in Figure 12 on page 323. Are you sure you got the reference right? It's also hard to comment on it since many pages and much of the methodology is missing. As a rule, however, I'm deeply sceptical of subjecting these things to cluster analysis, and the problem lies less with the clustering itself than with what you have to do to the data to lend it to cluster analysis. The best survey I have seen on language intelligibility was actually quite statistically basic, but very well thought out. It would take me some time to search it out, but it had carefully selected groups of Swedish, Danish and Norwegian teenagers listen to (and maybe read, my memory fails me) texts in the other languages. As I remember them, the results were that Norwegian teenagers were by far the best at understanding the other languages and that Swedish teenagers listening to Danish speech did worst (Danish teenagers did slightly better with Swedish).Replies: @Lars Porsena, @AP
“Repeat this for another 999 times, then come back to check whether it has become the truth.”
I’m more than ready to do that since it is necessary to continue to repeat the truth.
You cannot cleanse that which has already left prior to your own arrival.
You're disappointed the bloodshed was smaller. This isn't an isolated opinion - German commander in NDH inquired why didn't just Croats expell all Serbs to Serbia, instead adopting the "kill 1/3, expell 1/3, convert/assimilate 1/3" - to which Ustashe leadership replied it would be just strengthening Serbs for the next showdown.998 times left, twitard.Replies: @reiner Tor, @Niccolo Salo
Moldova is also an ultra fake country, something that actual Moldovans at least have the decency and presence of mind to acknowledge, instead of laboring under svidomy delusions.
Moldova is basically a Romanian Russian creol civilization, though I consider that it belongs to Romania by principle of precedence. Like their only difference is that 10% of their vocab is Slavonic instead of just 5%. Plus some of them have been hoodwinked into thinking they're Russians.
The Ukraine is a Russian Polish creol civilization, which, conversely, belongs to Russia by precedence.Replies: @reiner Tor, @inertial, @hgv, @Mr. Hack, @Mr. XYZ, @Daniel Chieh, @Aedib
Is Belarus a fake-country? Are the Baltic states fake-countries?
https://books.google.com/books?id=z9DmBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&dq=lexical+distance+russian+ukrainian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw2__pot_SAhVCJiYKHXd0BUs4FBDoAQg-MAc#v=snippet&q=ukrainuian%20figure%2012&f=true
Table pg. 323.
This source analyzed the vocabularies in a single book (the Bible) across dozens of languages.
It's hard to see, but Ukrainian is closer to Polish than to Russian, and about as far from Russian as Italian is from Spanish, or Dutch from German. Danish and Norwegian are much closer to each other than Ukrainian is to Russian.Replies: @Adam, @Swedish Family
Ukrainian is intermediate between Polish and Russian, closer to Russian in grammar and phonology, and to Polish in vocabulary. In Europe there were many such languages before dialect continuums were wiped out by national languages, Low German between German and Dutch, Occitan between Spanish, French, and Italian, Scandinavian dialects that are increasingly disappearing etc.
Russians downplay the differences between Russian and Ukrainian and Ukrainians exaggerate them. They are not immediately mutually intelligible, but a Russian speaker can learn good Ukrainian in less than 6 months – something not possible between languages that are not very closely related.
It is not like an intermediate between Dutch and German, or Spanish and Italian. Surzhyk would be analogous to that.Replies: @Adam
I agree. I suspect a German could learn good Dutch in 6 months, an Italian good Spanish in 6 months.
It is not like an intermediate between Dutch and German, or Spanish and Italian. Surzhyk would be analogous to that.
It is not like an intermediate between Dutch and German, or Spanish and Italian. Surzhyk would be analogous to that.Replies: @Adam
Probably, but it would take considerably more effort.
Dutch and German diverged around 500 AD, Spanish and Italian a century or two later, while Russian and Ukrainian diverged around the 13th-14th century. They are considerably closer in grammar and phonology, though the lexical distance is similar.
Surzhyk is a mixed language which is not what I’m talking about. Low German and Occitan did not arise from mixing Dutch and German and Spanish and Italian – rather they were in the middle of a dialect continuum and were roughly equidistant in features between both ends of the continuum, just like Ukrainian.
If you want to assume linguistic differentiation began with political fragmentation, this would have been in 1150 when the last unified ruler of Rus died.
The massive influx of Polish words into Ukrainian, that characterizes the modern Ukrainian language, began in the 13th-14th centuries. But the speech was still probably rather distinct long before that. Grafitti from 11th century Kiev already includes Ukrainian names such as Pavlo, rather than Russian Pavel and uses the vocative tense that does not exist in modern Russian.Correct.Also correct. But the point is that since Ukrainian and Russian themselves are as distinct and German and Dutch, an intermediate between those two languages would be closer to German or Dutch than Ukrainian is to Russian (Polish is further from Russian than Dutch is from German).Replies: @AP, @Adam
Rus was hardly a unitary nation-state with a uniform standardized language. The East Slavic tribes were going their separate ways by the 6th-7th century (and note, Dutch lands were part of the Holy [German] Roman Empire long after around 500 AD).
If you want to assume linguistic differentiation began with political fragmentation, this would have been in 1150 when the last unified ruler of Rus died.
The massive influx of Polish words into Ukrainian, that characterizes the modern Ukrainian language, began in the 13th-14th centuries. But the speech was still probably rather distinct long before that. Grafitti from 11th century Kiev already includes Ukrainian names such as Pavlo, rather than Russian Pavel and uses the vocative tense that does not exist in modern Russian.
Correct.
Also correct. But the point is that since Ukrainian and Russian themselves are as distinct and German and Dutch, an intermediate between those two languages would be closer to German or Dutch than Ukrainian is to Russian (Polish is further from Russian than Dutch is from German).
In terms of vocabulary Ukrainian is about a close to Russian as Spanish is to Italian:
http://cdn8.openculture.com/2017/08/27223953/lexical-distance-among-the-languages-of-europe-2-1-mid-size.pngReplies: @Swedish Family, @hgv
Thank you for the charts.
This is indeed an important clarification: only those Donbass residents, who obtain propiska in Russia, will be eligible for a Russian pension. I’m glad the government thought this through.
I'm more than ready to do that since it is necessary to continue to repeat the truth.
You cannot cleanse that which has already left prior to your own arrival.Replies: @Epigon
Do shells and rockets constitute an “arrival”?
Like I have said, those few too naive, proud or old to leave were murdered the same way their ancestors were in 1941-1945.
You’re disappointed the bloodshed was smaller.
This isn’t an isolated opinion – German commander in NDH inquired why didn’t just Croats expell all Serbs to Serbia, instead adopting the “kill 1/3, expell 1/3, convert/assimilate 1/3” – to which Ustashe leadership replied it would be just strengthening Serbs for the next showdown.
998 times left, twitard.
So what likely happened is similar to what happened to the Palestinians: there was a very reasonable fear of Croatian atrocities, so the vast majority of the population fled of its own accord (and it was impossible to compel those who didn’t want to leave to do so - come on, we’re talking about officials who are themselves fleeing, and who likely have the strongest possible reason to fear for their own lives), but wherever they stayed (either because they were surprised by the Croatian attack or the speed of the Croatian advance, or because they wanted to try their chances with them), they were either killed or told to leave at gun point. I also think that the latter happened to the vast majority - it’s likely that for each Serb killed, several (dozens?) were simply forced to leave.
It’s also interesting that a large number of the refugees fled through Croatia on the Zagreb-Belgrade highway or other roads under Croatian control. How could the Serbs have forced their population to move through Croat-controlled territory?
Another point is that after things calm down, the refugees (whether voluntarily left or were kicked out) will try to return, hoping that some semblance of law and order has been restored. The fact that only a relatively small fraction of them did in fact return shows that the Croats were not really interested in accepting them in large (or even small) numbers. I think it’s just a question semantics if we call not letting back refugees into their homes as ethnic cleansing or not.
One point which can be made is that there had been a lot of bad blood between the two: during WW2, the Croats (actually a not very popular fringe movement installed by the Germans) killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs, and then the Serbs (again, the communists, who were arguably not the most popular in Serbia at the time, but certainly they were militarily the strongest and enjoyed military support from all major powers) killed at least a hundred thousand Croats in retaliation. The Serbs in 1991 then ethnically cleansed the area of the newly created Krajina state, so the Croats certainly had a lot of reasons to be vengeful.Replies: @Epigon, @Niccolo Salo
Considering that Serbs began to leave well over a week before the first shell was launched this question is moot.
"Like I have said, those few too naive, proud or old to leave were murdered the same way their ancestors were in 1941-1945."
Except that they weren't. There were roughly 150,000 Serbs within Croatian lines by the time of Oluja, and some 250 were killed. That's a tiny percentage.
You can fool people on internet forums all you want since not everyone will check the facts but I will be here to make sure that the facts are stated.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/25/ukraine-passes-language-restriction-worsening-dispute-with-neighbors-a65387
... and so, he decided to speed-up the Russification of Donbas people.Replies: @Swedish Family, @reiner Tor
The Hungarian government hopes for a reconciliation with Ukraine, but this law will make it impossible if it goes into effect.
Some Ukies and sympathizers claimed that Ukraine experienced a peaceful transition of power. This remains to be seen. The jury is still out.Replies: @neutral
Not really, Ukraine is basically being ruled by Washington, elections like America, UK, France, do not matter.
You're disappointed the bloodshed was smaller. This isn't an isolated opinion - German commander in NDH inquired why didn't just Croats expell all Serbs to Serbia, instead adopting the "kill 1/3, expell 1/3, convert/assimilate 1/3" - to which Ustashe leadership replied it would be just strengthening Serbs for the next showdown.998 times left, twitard.Replies: @reiner Tor, @Niccolo Salo
I think it’s not rational to believe that a population voluntarily leaves an area in a few days, even if they have reasons to seriously fear for their lives. Some people will be lazy or naive enough to try their chances with the new occupiers. It’s also not credible that a collapsing administration would have the means and motivation to organize the deportation of their own population. Why would they do that? It’s more likely that officials of the collapsing administration were assisting in the flight of the population. It’s also likely that the flight was a result of both real atrocities committed by the enemy and the memories of atrocities committed by the own side earlier, and thus fear of revenge.
So what likely happened is similar to what happened to the Palestinians: there was a very reasonable fear of Croatian atrocities, so the vast majority of the population fled of its own accord (and it was impossible to compel those who didn’t want to leave to do so – come on, we’re talking about officials who are themselves fleeing, and who likely have the strongest possible reason to fear for their own lives), but wherever they stayed (either because they were surprised by the Croatian attack or the speed of the Croatian advance, or because they wanted to try their chances with them), they were either killed or told to leave at gun point. I also think that the latter happened to the vast majority – it’s likely that for each Serb killed, several (dozens?) were simply forced to leave.
It’s also interesting that a large number of the refugees fled through Croatia on the Zagreb-Belgrade highway or other roads under Croatian control. How could the Serbs have forced their population to move through Croat-controlled territory?
Another point is that after things calm down, the refugees (whether voluntarily left or were kicked out) will try to return, hoping that some semblance of law and order has been restored. The fact that only a relatively small fraction of them did in fact return shows that the Croats were not really interested in accepting them in large (or even small) numbers. I think it’s just a question semantics if we call not letting back refugees into their homes as ethnic cleansing or not.
One point which can be made is that there had been a lot of bad blood between the two: during WW2, the Croats (actually a not very popular fringe movement installed by the Germans) killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs, and then the Serbs (again, the communists, who were arguably not the most popular in Serbia at the time, but certainly they were militarily the strongest and enjoyed military support from all major powers) killed at least a hundred thousand Croats in retaliation. The Serbs in 1991 then ethnically cleansed the area of the newly created Krajina state, so the Croats certainly had a lot of reasons to be vengeful.
However, there is a significant difference - in 1991 there was no 100 000-man offensive on “Croat” areas - Serbs were actually the majority in self-proclaimed breakaway republic, and Croats naturally fled from the hostile areas to their ethnic majority a dozen miles away.
Meanwhile, Serbs in Croat areas outside of self-proclaimed territory were fired, expelled and in towns like Sisak, Osijek and Gospić - rounded up and executed - for example, the “general” Norac was convicted for disapperance of 100 civilians, murder of 52 and sentenced to 8 years of prison, during which he conceived two children, finished a degree and started a company, which now makes several million a year from business with the state. Others, like Merčep (execution of entire families, “administrative mistakes” free to walk) or Glavaš (battery acid drinking execution, or ducktaping limbs when throwing victims into the river) were prominent “democratic” politicians after the war. Even better, the man responsible for torture and deaths in Split prison later became State Prosecutor for 12 years.
In 1995 a large army converged on supposedly protected UNPA zones - everyone knows what happened next - this, and not Kosovo, was the death of “international laws” and UN as a meaningful tool of international policy and diplomacy.
And this attacking army was trained and coordinated by American officers.There will be a next round, easiest guess there can be.Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @Niccolo Salo
If you want to assume linguistic differentiation began with political fragmentation, this would have been in 1150 when the last unified ruler of Rus died.
The massive influx of Polish words into Ukrainian, that characterizes the modern Ukrainian language, began in the 13th-14th centuries. But the speech was still probably rather distinct long before that. Grafitti from 11th century Kiev already includes Ukrainian names such as Pavlo, rather than Russian Pavel and uses the vocative tense that does not exist in modern Russian.Correct.Also correct. But the point is that since Ukrainian and Russian themselves are as distinct and German and Dutch, an intermediate between those two languages would be closer to German or Dutch than Ukrainian is to Russian (Polish is further from Russian than Dutch is from German).Replies: @AP, @Adam
Should have written 14th-15th centuries. Otherwise my comment is correct. Populations moved apart in the 6th-7th century, the (loosely) unified state linking proto-Ukrainians and proto-Russians broke up into independent principalities around 1150.
You should tone down your attempts at rationalizing Medieval and early Modern history through 20th century Bolshevik and 19th century Habsburg experiment narratives.Replies: @AP
So what likely happened is similar to what happened to the Palestinians: there was a very reasonable fear of Croatian atrocities, so the vast majority of the population fled of its own accord (and it was impossible to compel those who didn’t want to leave to do so - come on, we’re talking about officials who are themselves fleeing, and who likely have the strongest possible reason to fear for their own lives), but wherever they stayed (either because they were surprised by the Croatian attack or the speed of the Croatian advance, or because they wanted to try their chances with them), they were either killed or told to leave at gun point. I also think that the latter happened to the vast majority - it’s likely that for each Serb killed, several (dozens?) were simply forced to leave.
It’s also interesting that a large number of the refugees fled through Croatia on the Zagreb-Belgrade highway or other roads under Croatian control. How could the Serbs have forced their population to move through Croat-controlled territory?
Another point is that after things calm down, the refugees (whether voluntarily left or were kicked out) will try to return, hoping that some semblance of law and order has been restored. The fact that only a relatively small fraction of them did in fact return shows that the Croats were not really interested in accepting them in large (or even small) numbers. I think it’s just a question semantics if we call not letting back refugees into their homes as ethnic cleansing or not.
One point which can be made is that there had been a lot of bad blood between the two: during WW2, the Croats (actually a not very popular fringe movement installed by the Germans) killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs, and then the Serbs (again, the communists, who were arguably not the most popular in Serbia at the time, but certainly they were militarily the strongest and enjoyed military support from all major powers) killed at least a hundred thousand Croats in retaliation. The Serbs in 1991 then ethnically cleansed the area of the newly created Krajina state, so the Croats certainly had a lot of reasons to be vengeful.Replies: @Epigon, @Niccolo Salo
They didn’t cleanse anything in 1991 – people left “of their own volition”.
See what I just did?
However, there is a significant difference – in 1991 there was no 100 000-man offensive on “Croat” areas – Serbs were actually the majority in self-proclaimed breakaway republic, and Croats naturally fled from the hostile areas to their ethnic majority a dozen miles away.
Meanwhile, Serbs in Croat areas outside of self-proclaimed territory were fired, expelled and in towns like Sisak, Osijek and Gospić – rounded up and executed – for example, the “general” Norac was convicted for disapperance of 100 civilians, murder of 52 and sentenced to 8 years of prison, during which he conceived two children, finished a degree and started a company, which now makes several million a year from business with the state. Others, like Merčep (execution of entire families, “administrative mistakes” free to walk) or Glavaš (battery acid drinking execution, or ducktaping limbs when throwing victims into the river) were prominent “democratic” politicians after the war. Even better, the man responsible for torture and deaths in Split prison later became State Prosecutor for 12 years.
In 1995 a large army converged on supposedly protected UNPA zones – everyone knows what happened next – this, and not Kosovo, was the death of “international laws” and UN as a meaningful tool of international policy and diplomacy.
And this attacking army was trained and coordinated by American officers.
There will be a next round, easiest guess there can be.
This is incorrect. In many places such as Petrinja, Vukovar, Slunj, etc. Serbs rounded up Croatian civilians forced them to leave at gunpoint.
They would also force them to sign over their homes to them.
This was ethnic cleansing.
Other Croatians who were luckier fled. This was not ethnic cleansing. That was populations fleeing an attack.
This is atrocious historiography – quoting “proto-Ukrainians” in 12th century, in addition to claiming Russians and Ukrainians drifting apart “in 6-7th century” even though Old Russian ethnogenesis hadn’t even begun at that point.
You should tone down your attempts at rationalizing Medieval and early Modern history through 20th century Bolshevik and 19th century Habsburg experiment narratives.
However, there is a significant difference - in 1991 there was no 100 000-man offensive on “Croat” areas - Serbs were actually the majority in self-proclaimed breakaway republic, and Croats naturally fled from the hostile areas to their ethnic majority a dozen miles away.
Meanwhile, Serbs in Croat areas outside of self-proclaimed territory were fired, expelled and in towns like Sisak, Osijek and Gospić - rounded up and executed - for example, the “general” Norac was convicted for disapperance of 100 civilians, murder of 52 and sentenced to 8 years of prison, during which he conceived two children, finished a degree and started a company, which now makes several million a year from business with the state. Others, like Merčep (execution of entire families, “administrative mistakes” free to walk) or Glavaš (battery acid drinking execution, or ducktaping limbs when throwing victims into the river) were prominent “democratic” politicians after the war. Even better, the man responsible for torture and deaths in Split prison later became State Prosecutor for 12 years.
In 1995 a large army converged on supposedly protected UNPA zones - everyone knows what happened next - this, and not Kosovo, was the death of “international laws” and UN as a meaningful tool of international policy and diplomacy.
And this attacking army was trained and coordinated by American officers.There will be a next round, easiest guess there can be.Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @Niccolo Salo
That’s fleeing. As I was arguing, it’s ethnic cleansing, however you spin it. They created a government which didn’t respect the rule of law and made members of the other ethnicity feel unwelcome, to say the least. As I was arguing, it’s not rational to believe that the Serbs deported themselves. But it’s also not rational to argue that the Serb Krajina government was not responsible for the fleeing of the non-Serb population.
That’s questionable. To my knowledge, the number of refugees in 1991 was in the same ballpark as in 1995.
Also there’s the example of one village which was well-reported in Hungarian media (because its population was majority Hungarian in 1991), Szentlászló (Laslovo). Its population was 580 Hungarians, 508 Croats, and 81 Serbs. After intensive fighting and shelling by the JNA in 1991, its population was forced to flee. (To my knowledge no large scale mass murder took place there.) A similar story is Kórógy (Korođ).
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szentl%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_(Horv%C3%A1torsz%C3%A1g)
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B3r%C3%B3gy_(Horv%C3%A1torsz%C3%A1g)
I’m sure there must’ve been Croatian villages like that.
However, there is a significant difference - in 1991 there was no 100 000-man offensive on “Croat” areas - Serbs were actually the majority in self-proclaimed breakaway republic, and Croats naturally fled from the hostile areas to their ethnic majority a dozen miles away.
Meanwhile, Serbs in Croat areas outside of self-proclaimed territory were fired, expelled and in towns like Sisak, Osijek and Gospić - rounded up and executed - for example, the “general” Norac was convicted for disapperance of 100 civilians, murder of 52 and sentenced to 8 years of prison, during which he conceived two children, finished a degree and started a company, which now makes several million a year from business with the state. Others, like Merčep (execution of entire families, “administrative mistakes” free to walk) or Glavaš (battery acid drinking execution, or ducktaping limbs when throwing victims into the river) were prominent “democratic” politicians after the war. Even better, the man responsible for torture and deaths in Split prison later became State Prosecutor for 12 years.
In 1995 a large army converged on supposedly protected UNPA zones - everyone knows what happened next - this, and not Kosovo, was the death of “international laws” and UN as a meaningful tool of international policy and diplomacy.
And this attacking army was trained and coordinated by American officers.There will be a next round, easiest guess there can be.Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @Niccolo Salo
By the way I think you misunderstood my comment. I reacted to the earlier claim by Niccolo Salo that “people… have already left (and under orders of their own authority).” As I was arguing, it’s not quite possible for their own authorities (which are also fleeing) to enforce such orders. The Krajina authorities had nothing to do with the Serbs fleeing, at most they might have assisted the population in fleeing (while fleeing themselves).
I was building up on your comment to demonstrate the smugness of Croats - in 1991 people were “expelled” (even though no organized Serb armed forces existed, instead local militias and paramilitaries) while in 1995 they “fled” - apparently they were supposed to stay and hold their ground against 100+ thousand attacking army (Serb rebels never had more than 25 000 armed men). Croats went so far that there is a verbal distinction - “prognanici” for Croats, “izbjeglice” for Serbs - roughly translatable as “expellees” and “refugees”.The villages you mention are actually a different area - that is east Slavonia, which came under attack by Yugoslav People’s Army Corps from Serbia - Baranya and east Slavonia/Danube area were not part of self-proclaimed territories.
Trying to force the use of a language usually backfires. Just look at what happened in Catalonia after Franco’s death. Catalan returned with vengeance.
https://twitter.com/leonidragozin/status/1121526948981821440Replies: @Aedib
So, is Russia trying to empty the Donbas?
I doubt it. Transnistria didn’t empty after receiving Russian passports. To be honest, I am not sure what the objective here is, beyond putting the pressure on Ukrainian regime.
We are in full agreement regarding the nature of ethnic “changes” in 1991-1995.
I was building up on your comment to demonstrate the smugness of Croats – in 1991 people were “expelled” (even though no organized Serb armed forces existed, instead local militias and paramilitaries) while in 1995 they “fled” – apparently they were supposed to stay and hold their ground against 100+ thousand attacking army (Serb rebels never had more than 25 000 armed men). Croats went so far that there is a verbal distinction – “prognanici” for Croats, “izbjeglice” for Serbs – roughly translatable as “expellees” and “refugees”.
The villages you mention are actually a different area – that is east Slavonia, which came under attack by Yugoslav People’s Army Corps from Serbia – Baranya and east Slavonia/Danube area were not part of self-proclaimed territories.
https://books.google.com/books?id=z9DmBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&dq=lexical+distance+russian+ukrainian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiw2__pot_SAhVCJiYKHXd0BUs4FBDoAQg-MAc#v=snippet&q=ukrainuian%20figure%2012&f=true
Table pg. 323.
This source analyzed the vocabularies in a single book (the Bible) across dozens of languages.
It's hard to see, but Ukrainian is closer to Polish than to Russian, and about as far from Russian as Italian is from Spanish, or Dutch from German. Danish and Norwegian are much closer to each other than Ukrainian is to Russian.Replies: @Adam, @Swedish Family
Let’s begin with the Tishchenko study. I did some more looking around and found a linguist named Boban Arsenijevic who shares my doubts about it.
This criticism is then answered by the graphic designer of the map you posted, Stephan F. Steinbach, who also appears to have read Tyshchenko’s book. His answer is a little confusing at first, but on reading it over with a critical eye, I am convinced that he too is only guessing at what the data says and how it came to be. We do learn from him, however, that at least part of the data dates from Soviet times, which certainly does not reassure this reader.
Steinbach’s “best guess” at Tyshchenko’s methodology follows.
These things sound impressive, but have a look at their Wikipedia pages: that Swadesh list only features some hundred words at most, the Dolgopolsky list features a pathetic fifteen words, and Levenshtein distances seem to me a laughably crude measure of linguistic relatedness (which Steinbach’s examples amply illustrate, but he is to wedded to the idea of his map to see it).
As things stand, I will side with Arsenijevic in thinking that this is at best shoddy science and at worst politically-motivated pseudoscience. Luckily, you and other Ukrainian speakers are well placed to dispel these uncertainties. You would do us all (and those many people who have spread this map all over the internet) a service if you could have a quick look at the book (link) for any words on the methodology used in the study.
As for that other study you linked to, I don’t find any Polish cluster in Figure 12 on page 323. Are you sure you got the reference right? It’s also hard to comment on it since many pages and much of the methodology is missing. As a rule, however, I’m deeply sceptical of subjecting these things to cluster analysis, and the problem lies less with the clustering itself than with what you have to do to the data to lend it to cluster analysis. The best survey I have seen on language intelligibility was actually quite statistically basic, but very well thought out. It would take me some time to search it out, but it had carefully selected groups of Swedish, Danish and Norwegian teenagers listen to (and maybe read, my memory fails me) texts in the other languages. As I remember them, the results were that Norwegian teenagers were by far the best at understanding the other languages and that Swedish teenagers listening to Danish speech did worst (Danish teenagers did slightly better with Swedish).
Here is the Lord's Prayer in English/Polish/Ukrainian/Russian. I took the Polish version from the wikipedia page for "Silesian Language" which uses it to compare Czech, Polish and Silesian, then looked up the Ukro and Ruski versions and plugged them into www.lexilogos.com to transliterate into Latin alphabet.
It's not as good as any kind of large scale study but it allows you to judge for yourself without being jerked around by nationalists with political motives. Can't trust people who actually speak the damn languages because their linguistic views almost always parallel their political beliefs.
Our Father who art in heaven,
Ojcze nasz, któryś jest w niebie,
Otče naš, ščo jesy na nebesax,
Otče naš, suŝij na nebesah!
hallowed be thy name.
święć się imię Twoje,
Nexaj svjatyt’sja Im’ja Tvoje.
Da priidet Carstvie Tvoe;
Thy kingdom come,
przyjdź królestwo Twoje,
Xaj pryjde Carstvo Tvoje,
Da priidet Carstvie Tvoe;
thy will be done,
bądź wola Twoja
nexaj bude volja Tvoja
Da budet volja Tvoja
on earth, as it is in heaven.
jako w niebie tak i na ziemi.
JAk na nebi, tak i na zemli
i na zemle, kak na nebe; [Russian version appears to reverse the zemle/nebe phrases]
Give us this day our daily bread,
Chleba naszego powszedniego daj nam dzisiaj.
Xlib naš nasuščnyj daj nam s’ohodni.
Hleb naš nasuŝnyj daj nam na sej denʹ;
and forgive us our trespasses,
I odpuść nam nasze winy,
I prosty nam provyny naši,
I prosti nam dolgi naši,
[not sure if Polish nasze winy is reversed order]
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
jako i my odpuszczamy naszym winowajcom.
jak i my proščajemo vynuvatcjam našym.
Kak i my proŝaem dolžnikam našim;
[polish word order reversed with naszym 2nd to last instead of last]
And lead us not into temptation,
I nie wódź nas na pokuszenie,
I ne vvedy nas u spokusu,
I ne vvedi nas v iskušenie,
[here Polish pokuszenie looks like it's inbetween Ukrainian spokusu and Russian iskusenie]
but deliver us from evil.
ale nas zbaw ode złego.
ale vyzvoly nas vid lukavoho.
No izbavʹ nas ot lukavogo.Replies: @Mr. Hack, @Lars Porsena
Comments about Tishchenko study:In terms of lexical distance (vocabulary) this is not so unbelievable, given that when literary Russian was created, it was heavily infused with Church Slavonic (a South Slavic language related to Bulgarian) while the others were not.Specific figures aren't on the chart. However Croatian is closer to Slovak than it is to Czech. I suppose this is plausible - both Croats and Slovaks were Slavs living under Hungary. Slovak may have Czech grammar but vocabulary almost as similar to that of Croat as to Czech (I speak neither of these languages so I am just guessing here).It is rather distant from Albanain. The chart doesn't include a line from Romanian to Slavic languages but this does not imply there are zero connections.The fact that his work was done in Soviet times, when his conclusons would not have been politicvally correct, probably speaks positively about his conclusions.It seems to be the one under Ukrainian.I agree this is not easy. However it seems that only two studies have been made and both of them place Ukrainian closer to Polish than to Russian in terms of lexical distance (vocabulary). And they both place Ukrainian and Russian as further apart than, say, Swedish and Danish. I haven't seen other studies on lexical distances and these languages.
This seems to be common sense. Just consider basic words:
Yes: Polish Tak, Ukrainian Tak, Russian Da (same as in South Slavic)
No: Polish Nie, Ukrainian Ni, Russian Nyet
Mom: Mama in all three languages
Dad: Polish Tato, Ukrainian Tato, Russian Papa (interestingly, in Bulgarian it is Tatko)
Hi: Polish Cheshch, Ukrainian Pryvit, Russian Privyet
Goodbye: Polish do vidzenia, Ukrainian do pobachenya, Russian do svidanya
Husband: Polish mazh, Ukrainian cholovik, Russian muzh
Wife: Polish zhona, Ukrainian druzhyna (also zhinka), Russian zhena
Child: Polish dietsko, Ukrainian dytyna, Russian rybyonik
Girl: Polish Dzievchyna, Ukrainian Divchyna, Russian Dyevushka
Boy: Polish Khwopiets, Ukrainian Khlopets, Russian Malchyk
Person: Polish Osoba, Ukrainian Liudyna, Russian Chelovyek
Eye: Polish Oko, Ukrainian Oko, Russian Glaz
Nose: Polish Nos, Ukrainian Nis, Russian Nos
Mouth: Polish Usta, Ukrainian Rot, Russian Rot
Ears: Polish Ushy, Ukrainain Vukha, Russian Ushy
etc. etc.Replies: @Swedish Family, @Gerard2
Yes, in normal states this is true. Not so Ukraine. My mother (a Ukrainian citizen; worked and paid taxes over 35 years) was told that Ukraine does not pay pensions to those who move abroad. In a way, it is logical: more money to steal, and the whole Ukrainian state is about stealing, the rest is smokescreen. Sheeple buy this smokescreen, though, which means that it’s working.
Ukrainian elections matter even less than the elections in the US, UK, or France. About as much as the elections in the Republic of Palau, or maybe even less.
Just out of curiosity, is there any country neighboring Russia that isn't fake and whose inhabitants are not Russians in denial ?Replies: @inertial, @Anatoly Karlin
The same applies to France, etc. When the nation of France was being formed certain French-speaking groups stayed outside the process. E.g. Walloons and the French speaking Swiss. These groups now have a separate identity which is not French.
Russia has the same issue, in spades. When the modern Rus nation was being re-formed, a large number of the Rus people stayed outside and formed a separate identity. For some it’s only somewhat separate, for others strongly separate, and for still others anything in between. Many of these people are now called Ukrainians. As you can see, decades and centuries of living in the same nations did not make this separation go away.
This indicates that even if Romania and Moldova ever unite, most Moldovans will still maintain a separate identity. And it could even turn anti-Romanian.
As for that other study you linked to, I don't find any Polish cluster in Figure 12 on page 323. Are you sure you got the reference right? It's also hard to comment on it since many pages and much of the methodology is missing. As a rule, however, I'm deeply sceptical of subjecting these things to cluster analysis, and the problem lies less with the clustering itself than with what you have to do to the data to lend it to cluster analysis. The best survey I have seen on language intelligibility was actually quite statistically basic, but very well thought out. It would take me some time to search it out, but it had carefully selected groups of Swedish, Danish and Norwegian teenagers listen to (and maybe read, my memory fails me) texts in the other languages. As I remember them, the results were that Norwegian teenagers were by far the best at understanding the other languages and that Swedish teenagers listening to Danish speech did worst (Danish teenagers did slightly better with Swedish).Replies: @Lars Porsena, @AP
I find the language question interesting. I do not speak any of them besides “stolat”, “nostrovya” and the names of restaurant dishes (which I mainly know in Czech), but I have become leery to trust anyone on this because it is so politicized now over national identity. Continental europeans in general are kind of untrustworthy about that, like Castilian Spanish vs. Catalonian.
Here is the Lord’s Prayer in English/Polish/Ukrainian/Russian. I took the Polish version from the wikipedia page for “Silesian Language” which uses it to compare Czech, Polish and Silesian, then looked up the Ukro and Ruski versions and plugged them into http://www.lexilogos.com to transliterate into Latin alphabet.
It’s not as good as any kind of large scale study but it allows you to judge for yourself without being jerked around by nationalists with political motives. Can’t trust people who actually speak the damn languages because their linguistic views almost always parallel their political beliefs.
Our Father who art in heaven,
Ojcze nasz, któryś jest w niebie,
Otče naš, ščo jesy na nebesax,
Otče naš, suŝij na nebesah!
hallowed be thy name.
święć się imię Twoje,
Nexaj svjatyt’sja Im’ja Tvoje.
Da priidet Carstvie Tvoe;
Thy kingdom come,
przyjdź królestwo Twoje,
Xaj pryjde Carstvo Tvoje,
Da priidet Carstvie Tvoe;
thy will be done,
bądź wola Twoja
nexaj bude volja Tvoja
Da budet volja Tvoja
on earth, as it is in heaven.
jako w niebie tak i na ziemi.
JAk na nebi, tak i na zemli
i na zemle, kak na nebe; [Russian version appears to reverse the zemle/nebe phrases]
Give us this day our daily bread,
Chleba naszego powszedniego daj nam dzisiaj.
Xlib naš nasuščnyj daj nam s’ohodni.
Hleb naš nasuŝnyj daj nam na sej denʹ;
and forgive us our trespasses,
I odpuść nam nasze winy,
I prosty nam provyny naši,
I prosti nam dolgi naši,
[not sure if Polish nasze winy is reversed order]
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
jako i my odpuszczamy naszym winowajcom.
jak i my proščajemo vynuvatcjam našym.
Kak i my proŝaem dolžnikam našim;
[polish word order reversed with naszym 2nd to last instead of last]
And lead us not into temptation,
I nie wódź nas na pokuszenie,
I ne vvedy nas u spokusu,
I ne vvedi nas v iskušenie,
[here Polish pokuszenie looks like it’s inbetween Ukrainian spokusu and Russian iskusenie]
but deliver us from evil.
ale nas zbaw ode złego.
ale vyzvoly nas vid lukavoho.
No izbavʹ nas ot lukavogo.
Vox Day's 16 points of the Nationalist Right, translated into umpteen languages.
Polish: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/alt-prawo-16-punktow.html
Ukrainian: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/05/16.html
Russian: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/11/16.html
English translation provided by Bing translate. Separate English translations because it is more paraphrased and less word for word. Probably a better practical example. I haven't got very far into this, you would have to check translations on individual words to English to compare apples to apples with the rephrasing. Definitely more work, major PITA going back and forth with Cyrillic to translate and Latin to read what word you're translating (because I can't read Cyrillic).
This is way harder than Spanish. For the same amount of time investment I could probably be picking up latinas at el supermercado by the time I made sense of it all.
At first blush this one, full of political words, is making Ukrainian look a lot more like Russian than Polish.
PL
3. The Alt-right movement is not based on a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of a noble defeat in the name of the maintenance of the pryncypists.
3. Ruch Alt-Prawica nie opiera się na defensywnej postawie i odrzuca koncepcję szlachetnej porażki w imię utrzymania pryncypiów.
UK
3. Alternative law is not profess defensive worldview, rejecting the very idea of noble and principled defeat.
3. Al’ternatyvni pravi ne spovidujut’ oboronnoho svitohljadu, vidkydajučy samu ideju blahorodnoji i pryncypovoji porazky.
RU
3. Alternative right-wing non-defensive worldview and reject the notion of noble defeat.
3. 3. Alʹternativnye pravye ne oboronitelʹnoe mirovozzrenie i otvergajut ponjatie blagorodnogo poraženija.
Looks like there is are noticeably English/German derived loan words in the Polish because I don't even need to translate stuff like koncepcję or defensywnej (and I can read it too!) See some Polish-Ukrainian similarities too though, DEFEAT: porazki/porazky/porazenija.Replies: @AP
But if pensions will be paid just to people that will move to Russia, there is a strong incentive to move to Russia.
Here is the Lord's Prayer in English/Polish/Ukrainian/Russian. I took the Polish version from the wikipedia page for "Silesian Language" which uses it to compare Czech, Polish and Silesian, then looked up the Ukro and Ruski versions and plugged them into www.lexilogos.com to transliterate into Latin alphabet.
It's not as good as any kind of large scale study but it allows you to judge for yourself without being jerked around by nationalists with political motives. Can't trust people who actually speak the damn languages because their linguistic views almost always parallel their political beliefs.
Our Father who art in heaven,
Ojcze nasz, któryś jest w niebie,
Otče naš, ščo jesy na nebesax,
Otče naš, suŝij na nebesah!
hallowed be thy name.
święć się imię Twoje,
Nexaj svjatyt’sja Im’ja Tvoje.
Da priidet Carstvie Tvoe;
Thy kingdom come,
przyjdź królestwo Twoje,
Xaj pryjde Carstvo Tvoje,
Da priidet Carstvie Tvoe;
thy will be done,
bądź wola Twoja
nexaj bude volja Tvoja
Da budet volja Tvoja
on earth, as it is in heaven.
jako w niebie tak i na ziemi.
JAk na nebi, tak i na zemli
i na zemle, kak na nebe; [Russian version appears to reverse the zemle/nebe phrases]
Give us this day our daily bread,
Chleba naszego powszedniego daj nam dzisiaj.
Xlib naš nasuščnyj daj nam s’ohodni.
Hleb naš nasuŝnyj daj nam na sej denʹ;
and forgive us our trespasses,
I odpuść nam nasze winy,
I prosty nam provyny naši,
I prosti nam dolgi naši,
[not sure if Polish nasze winy is reversed order]
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
jako i my odpuszczamy naszym winowajcom.
jak i my proščajemo vynuvatcjam našym.
Kak i my proŝaem dolžnikam našim;
[polish word order reversed with naszym 2nd to last instead of last]
And lead us not into temptation,
I nie wódź nas na pokuszenie,
I ne vvedy nas u spokusu,
I ne vvedi nas v iskušenie,
[here Polish pokuszenie looks like it's inbetween Ukrainian spokusu and Russian iskusenie]
but deliver us from evil.
ale nas zbaw ode złego.
ale vyzvoly nas vid lukavoho.
No izbavʹ nas ot lukavogo.Replies: @Mr. Hack, @Lars Porsena
And so what’s your conclusion (seeing that you supposedly ‘have no dog in this fight’)?…
As for conclusions? I haven't one really. My conclusion is that all 3 languages are indeed obviously closely related, and for the most part (baring a word here or there like pokuszenie) Ukraine does look like it's in the middle when it's not just being Ukrainian.
One could say that Ukrainian has Russian grammatical structure, but as far as I can tell all 3 languages have the same grammatical structure. I/na/nas/nam/my. The structure is almost 1 for 1 word for word in the translations between all 3. Even same word order (for the most part).
Ukrainian does seem to have both some Polish and Russian vocab words, with it's own dialectical spin on both, and a few different words of it's own. The lords prayer doesn't have a lot of good examples where all 3 aren't seemingly related to each other that Ukrainian would stick out as closer to 1 vs another where it differs, as opposed to all 3 just being slightly different. When the Russian word and Polish word are only a letter or two apart, and Ukrainian is the same letter different than either for instance. An example may be (I'm guessing at pronunciations for the most part) wodze/vvedy/vvedi. Niebie/nebi/nebe. Przyjdz/pryjde/priidet maybe. Chleba/xlib/hleb. Naszym/Nasym/Nasim.
I think some i vs y differences might be because I used lexilogos ukrainian vs russian transliteration for each one respectively, so if I went back and checked the cyrillic it might be the same letter.
Ojce vs Otce I bet sounds almost identical. Similarly Russian kak very similar to the other 2 tak or perhaps the kak is similar to the other 2 jako/jak, not sure which since that phrase is rejiggered in the Russian version.
Ukrainian has a mixture of polish sounding words and phrases and russian sounding. Sometimes closer to either one:
Polish: winowajcom/vynuvatcjam vs dolznikam, jest/jesy vs not sure, susij?, winy/provyny vs dolgi. ale/ale vs no. Swiec sie imie/svjatyt'sja im'ja vs the russian version which might just be substantially rephased.
Russian: prosty/prosti vs odpusc. Lukavogo/lukavoho vs zlego. Bude volja/budet volja vs badz wola. (all 3 are similar on that last one). Nas nasuscnyj/Nas nasuscnyj vs naszego powszedniego.
The Ukrainian nexaj appears twice in Ukrainian and nothing similar in either other version.
There are places where Polish stands out as a little different than both the others. With Polish you have the addition of i's before e's in a lot of words. nie/ne, niemi/nemi, ziemi/zemli, niebie/nebesax/nebesah. Polish (like Czech) also substitutes v's for w's. (Course, in Ukrainian and Russia it's actually Cyrillic, but I think the pronunciation tracks the transliteration as a w in Russian vs a v in Polish).
Mostly the conclusion that I draw from it is all 3 languages are fairly damn close to another, although all different. If you are talking with an expanded vocabulary I can guess that the 3 can't easily (or at all) understand one another. But if you are talking in baby talk it looks like even Russians and Polish ought to be able to communicate somewhat.
While there are some differences in Ukrainian that seem neither Russian nor Polish, Ukrainian seems about halfway to Polish from Russian I guess. And along that vein, Polish would probably get Russians halfway to Czech.Replies: @Mr. Hack
Pensions are paid in Donbass (not by Ukraine, despite repeated decisions of Ukrainian court that Ukraine should pay them), but not at the same level as in Russia proper.
You're disappointed the bloodshed was smaller. This isn't an isolated opinion - German commander in NDH inquired why didn't just Croats expell all Serbs to Serbia, instead adopting the "kill 1/3, expell 1/3, convert/assimilate 1/3" - to which Ustashe leadership replied it would be just strengthening Serbs for the next showdown.998 times left, twitard.Replies: @reiner Tor, @Niccolo Salo
“Do shells and rockets constitute an “arrival”?”
Considering that Serbs began to leave well over a week before the first shell was launched this question is moot.
“Like I have said, those few too naive, proud or old to leave were murdered the same way their ancestors were in 1941-1945.”
Except that they weren’t. There were roughly 150,000 Serbs within Croatian lines by the time of Oluja, and some 250 were killed. That’s a tiny percentage.
You can fool people on internet forums all you want since not everyone will check the facts but I will be here to make sure that the facts are stated.
So what likely happened is similar to what happened to the Palestinians: there was a very reasonable fear of Croatian atrocities, so the vast majority of the population fled of its own accord (and it was impossible to compel those who didn’t want to leave to do so - come on, we’re talking about officials who are themselves fleeing, and who likely have the strongest possible reason to fear for their own lives), but wherever they stayed (either because they were surprised by the Croatian attack or the speed of the Croatian advance, or because they wanted to try their chances with them), they were either killed or told to leave at gun point. I also think that the latter happened to the vast majority - it’s likely that for each Serb killed, several (dozens?) were simply forced to leave.
It’s also interesting that a large number of the refugees fled through Croatia on the Zagreb-Belgrade highway or other roads under Croatian control. How could the Serbs have forced their population to move through Croat-controlled territory?
Another point is that after things calm down, the refugees (whether voluntarily left or were kicked out) will try to return, hoping that some semblance of law and order has been restored. The fact that only a relatively small fraction of them did in fact return shows that the Croats were not really interested in accepting them in large (or even small) numbers. I think it’s just a question semantics if we call not letting back refugees into their homes as ethnic cleansing or not.
One point which can be made is that there had been a lot of bad blood between the two: during WW2, the Croats (actually a not very popular fringe movement installed by the Germans) killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs, and then the Serbs (again, the communists, who were arguably not the most popular in Serbia at the time, but certainly they were militarily the strongest and enjoyed military support from all major powers) killed at least a hundred thousand Croats in retaliation. The Serbs in 1991 then ethnically cleansed the area of the newly created Krajina state, so the Croats certainly had a lot of reasons to be vengeful.Replies: @Epigon, @Niccolo Salo
” but wherever they stayed (either because they were surprised by the Croatian attack or the speed of the Croatian advance, or because they wanted to try their chances with them), they were either killed or told to leave at gun point. I also think that the latter happened to the vast majority – it’s likely that for each Serb killed, several (dozens?) were simply forced to leave. ”
This didn’t happen. Not a single Serb was forced to leave Croatia at gunpoint.
Not a single one.
“It’s also interesting that a large number of the refugees fled through Croatia on the Zagreb-Belgrade highway or other roads under Croatian control. How could the Serbs have forced their population to move through Croat-controlled territory? ”
Our guys already had the roads under our control so the Serbs who chose to left (they had already begun to leave prior to our arrival) chose to leave over Croatian-controlled territory rather than Muslim-controlled territory as the Muslims pushed up to the Croatian border. They feared Muslim reprisals much more than Croatian ones.
“Another point is that after things calm down, the refugees (whether voluntarily left or were kicked out) will try to return, hoping that some semblance of law and order has been restored. The fact that only a relatively small fraction of them did in fact return shows that the Croats were not really interested in accepting them in large (or even small) numbers. I think it’s just a question semantics if we call not letting back refugees into their homes as ethnic cleansing or not. ”
Those who rebelled against the Croatian state would be charged with said rebellion as per Croatian and international law. Later on an amnesty was declared for those who weren’t involved in war crimes.
All kosher.
To reiterate:
1. The Serbs began to leave occupied Croatia in the week prior to Oluja (as per Serb documentary “The Fall of Krajina”, you can see them leaving on video).
2. After the collapse of the Serb front line Martic and the administration ordered the remaining Serbs out
3. You cannot cleanse that which has already left
4. Fear of shelling was demolished at The Hague when Gotovina, Markac, and the Croatian Army (HV) were found to have been so precise in their shelling of Knin in particular that only one civilian died. This created a headache for US and UK Army chiefs as Croatian shelling was so much more precise than the US and UK in Afghanistan six years later that if this shelling stood as a war crime, they would be subject to the same rules (ironically the range considered a war crime at The Hague was defined by a UK Army official). A Westpoint lawyer ended up writing a defense of Gotovina prior to the appeal to defend the HV, but actually to defend the US Army on this point.
5. 150,000 Serbs remained within Croatian controlled territory throughout the war, with close to ten thousand Serbs serving on the Croatian side throughout this period.
Serbs got a raw deal over Kosovo, it was bullshit. Serbs were victims of bad PR as well. But to adopt their talking points is just as bad as adopting the talking points of western interventionists because so much of it is utter shit with no basis in reality.
Another point is that you don't need to murder many to induce them to leave. The victim numbers of the Yugoslav Wars have been revised down multiple times since the mid-1990s, so probably neither side killed as many civilians as it was claimed back then. But in order to expel a population, it's usually enough to just implicitly threaten them. In the case of East Prussia, many of the roads were cut already in January 1945, when mass flight started, but roughly half the population managed to leave before the Soviets arrived. It was more than enough that the population knew about the Nemmersdorf massacre, where less than 100 German civilians were killed. People's imagination then extrapolated it to the 2 million inhabitants of East Prussia. Similarly, the number of Palestinians killed by the Jews was relatively small - just a few hundreds for well in excess of half a million refugees.
I think a lot of the bad blood between Croats and Serbs is caused by a small minority of extremists, whose crimes are then denied.
I have an otherwise nationalistic Croat friend who told me that the Ustashe were literally insane mass murderers. I don't know how common this view is in Croatia, because he's from Vojvodina (so he might've heard different stories as a child - he had some Serb friends, for example), and while he felt he was better off leaving Serbia in 1993, he had some good things to say about Serbs, too. Anyway, his family now lives in Croatia, but it's n=1. What I do know for sure is that by far the most popular party in Croatia in 1941 was the Peasant Party, whose leader refused to collaborate with the Germans. I'd presume he wouldn't have committed the mass murders committed by the Ustashe. Then in 1944-45 the Serbs committed their own horrible mass murders, too (not just against Croats, but they were prominent among the victims), but it was the communists who did it. And it's arguable that the commies only grew in strength because they were actually fighting the Germans regardless of reprisals against the civilian population, which made them a darling of foreign powers (even the Brits switched to supporting them). It's highly questionable if they could've won a fair and square election in Serbia in 1944 or 1945.
So basically both parties felt they had been victims of a horrible mass murder in WW2, and there was a lot of truth in both claims. So I think it's easy to understand that when Croatia declared independence, and the Serbs opposed, they decided to secede from Croatia and ethnically cleanse as large an area as possible.But then it's understandable why Croats didn't let this stand, conquered back the area, and expelled the Serbs. (Yes, I know, they left because they didn't like their places of residence anymore and decided to leave without compensation for property.)
So now neither party feels he did anything wrong. Anyway, I'm not going to solve this.
Orbán recently made some moves to try to facilitate reconciliation between the two nations. We've have had good ties to Croatia since 1991 (and according to surveys Hungarians viewed Croats positively way earlier than that, even some of our national heroes are common - Nikola Šubić Zrinski alias Zrínyi Miklós), while recently our relations are getting excellent with Serbia, too. It'd be nice to forget these idiotic conflicts, which pale in comparison to what's coming - globohomo, Islamization, Africanization, maybe even singularity or something similar. We can go back to hating each other after these are resolved.Replies: @Niccolo Salo
However, there is a significant difference - in 1991 there was no 100 000-man offensive on “Croat” areas - Serbs were actually the majority in self-proclaimed breakaway republic, and Croats naturally fled from the hostile areas to their ethnic majority a dozen miles away.
Meanwhile, Serbs in Croat areas outside of self-proclaimed territory were fired, expelled and in towns like Sisak, Osijek and Gospić - rounded up and executed - for example, the “general” Norac was convicted for disapperance of 100 civilians, murder of 52 and sentenced to 8 years of prison, during which he conceived two children, finished a degree and started a company, which now makes several million a year from business with the state. Others, like Merčep (execution of entire families, “administrative mistakes” free to walk) or Glavaš (battery acid drinking execution, or ducktaping limbs when throwing victims into the river) were prominent “democratic” politicians after the war. Even better, the man responsible for torture and deaths in Split prison later became State Prosecutor for 12 years.
In 1995 a large army converged on supposedly protected UNPA zones - everyone knows what happened next - this, and not Kosovo, was the death of “international laws” and UN as a meaningful tool of international policy and diplomacy.
And this attacking army was trained and coordinated by American officers.There will be a next round, easiest guess there can be.Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @Niccolo Salo
“They didn’t cleanse anything in 1991 – people left “of their own volition”.”
This is incorrect. In many places such as Petrinja, Vukovar, Slunj, etc. Serbs rounded up Croatian civilians forced them to leave at gunpoint.
They would also force them to sign over their homes to them.
This was ethnic cleansing.
Other Croatians who were luckier fled. This was not ethnic cleansing. That was populations fleeing an attack.
Pensions allocated to old people in Donbass, on the condition of giving them only if they move to Russia, would be an incentive for old, non-working people to move to Russia, which is really not so rational to want, unlike wanting working-age people of Donbass to move to Russia.
It’s also inconsistent. Russia now pays the pensions of old people in Israel, even those who were not in Russia for decades, and do not even want or ever had Russian citizenship, left before the end of the USSR, and who were never part of the Russian Federation (i.e. the latter corresponding to same situation as the pensioners of Donbass).
I wouldn’t say I have NO dog in the fight like I am the most impartial observer. A very tiny dog at best. But I am not looking at the linguistic issue that way.
As for conclusions? I haven’t one really. My conclusion is that all 3 languages are indeed obviously closely related, and for the most part (baring a word here or there like pokuszenie) Ukraine does look like it’s in the middle when it’s not just being Ukrainian.
One could say that Ukrainian has Russian grammatical structure, but as far as I can tell all 3 languages have the same grammatical structure. I/na/nas/nam/my. The structure is almost 1 for 1 word for word in the translations between all 3. Even same word order (for the most part).
Ukrainian does seem to have both some Polish and Russian vocab words, with it’s own dialectical spin on both, and a few different words of it’s own. The lords prayer doesn’t have a lot of good examples where all 3 aren’t seemingly related to each other that Ukrainian would stick out as closer to 1 vs another where it differs, as opposed to all 3 just being slightly different. When the Russian word and Polish word are only a letter or two apart, and Ukrainian is the same letter different than either for instance. An example may be (I’m guessing at pronunciations for the most part) wodze/vvedy/vvedi. Niebie/nebi/nebe. Przyjdz/pryjde/priidet maybe. Chleba/xlib/hleb. Naszym/Nasym/Nasim.
I think some i vs y differences might be because I used lexilogos ukrainian vs russian transliteration for each one respectively, so if I went back and checked the cyrillic it might be the same letter.
Ojce vs Otce I bet sounds almost identical. Similarly Russian kak very similar to the other 2 tak or perhaps the kak is similar to the other 2 jako/jak, not sure which since that phrase is rejiggered in the Russian version.
Ukrainian has a mixture of polish sounding words and phrases and russian sounding. Sometimes closer to either one:
Polish: winowajcom/vynuvatcjam vs dolznikam, jest/jesy vs not sure, susij?, winy/provyny vs dolgi. ale/ale vs no. Swiec sie imie/svjatyt’sja im’ja vs the russian version which might just be substantially rephased.
Russian: prosty/prosti vs odpusc. Lukavogo/lukavoho vs zlego. Bude volja/budet volja vs badz wola. (all 3 are similar on that last one). Nas nasuscnyj/Nas nasuscnyj vs naszego powszedniego.
The Ukrainian nexaj appears twice in Ukrainian and nothing similar in either other version.
There are places where Polish stands out as a little different than both the others. With Polish you have the addition of i’s before e’s in a lot of words. nie/ne, niemi/nemi, ziemi/zemli, niebie/nebesax/nebesah. Polish (like Czech) also substitutes v’s for w’s. (Course, in Ukrainian and Russia it’s actually Cyrillic, but I think the pronunciation tracks the transliteration as a w in Russian vs a v in Polish).
Mostly the conclusion that I draw from it is all 3 languages are fairly damn close to another, although all different. If you are talking with an expanded vocabulary I can guess that the 3 can’t easily (or at all) understand one another. But if you are talking in baby talk it looks like even Russians and Polish ought to be able to communicate somewhat.
While there are some differences in Ukrainian that seem neither Russian nor Polish, Ukrainian seems about halfway to Polish from Russian I guess. And along that vein, Polish would probably get Russians halfway to Czech.
As far as sentence structure goes, I go against the grain and feel that Ukrainian is closer to Polish in that rsepsect than to Russian. Polish to me is easy to understand for thoughts are laid out mostly as in Ukrainian. In Russian, sometimes they seem slightly in a different order. That's just me. I also once remember reading that Ukrainian includes the most similar words to all other Slavic languages, than any other Slavic language. This would attest to its ancient beginnings.
You should tone down your attempts at rationalizing Medieval and early Modern history through 20th century Bolshevik and 19th century Habsburg experiment narratives.Replies: @AP
Why not? Ancestors of people who today are called Ukrainians.
Slavs who became Russians moved north and mixed with locals Finnic peoples, Slavs who became Ukrainians stayed put or moved a little south. So yes, they drifted apart. And this began in the 6th and 7th century. So by the 10th century they were apart about as long as Americans and Brits have been apart. Though they were more isolated from each other, there was no Hollywood or Harry Potter linking the communities.
Speaking of someone focused on myths…
20th century Bolshevik narrative was that there was one uniform people living in some sort of nation-state who split into three after the Mongols invaded. I assumed you believed this myth, was I wrong?
As for conclusions? I haven't one really. My conclusion is that all 3 languages are indeed obviously closely related, and for the most part (baring a word here or there like pokuszenie) Ukraine does look like it's in the middle when it's not just being Ukrainian.
One could say that Ukrainian has Russian grammatical structure, but as far as I can tell all 3 languages have the same grammatical structure. I/na/nas/nam/my. The structure is almost 1 for 1 word for word in the translations between all 3. Even same word order (for the most part).
Ukrainian does seem to have both some Polish and Russian vocab words, with it's own dialectical spin on both, and a few different words of it's own. The lords prayer doesn't have a lot of good examples where all 3 aren't seemingly related to each other that Ukrainian would stick out as closer to 1 vs another where it differs, as opposed to all 3 just being slightly different. When the Russian word and Polish word are only a letter or two apart, and Ukrainian is the same letter different than either for instance. An example may be (I'm guessing at pronunciations for the most part) wodze/vvedy/vvedi. Niebie/nebi/nebe. Przyjdz/pryjde/priidet maybe. Chleba/xlib/hleb. Naszym/Nasym/Nasim.
I think some i vs y differences might be because I used lexilogos ukrainian vs russian transliteration for each one respectively, so if I went back and checked the cyrillic it might be the same letter.
Ojce vs Otce I bet sounds almost identical. Similarly Russian kak very similar to the other 2 tak or perhaps the kak is similar to the other 2 jako/jak, not sure which since that phrase is rejiggered in the Russian version.
Ukrainian has a mixture of polish sounding words and phrases and russian sounding. Sometimes closer to either one:
Polish: winowajcom/vynuvatcjam vs dolznikam, jest/jesy vs not sure, susij?, winy/provyny vs dolgi. ale/ale vs no. Swiec sie imie/svjatyt'sja im'ja vs the russian version which might just be substantially rephased.
Russian: prosty/prosti vs odpusc. Lukavogo/lukavoho vs zlego. Bude volja/budet volja vs badz wola. (all 3 are similar on that last one). Nas nasuscnyj/Nas nasuscnyj vs naszego powszedniego.
The Ukrainian nexaj appears twice in Ukrainian and nothing similar in either other version.
There are places where Polish stands out as a little different than both the others. With Polish you have the addition of i's before e's in a lot of words. nie/ne, niemi/nemi, ziemi/zemli, niebie/nebesax/nebesah. Polish (like Czech) also substitutes v's for w's. (Course, in Ukrainian and Russia it's actually Cyrillic, but I think the pronunciation tracks the transliteration as a w in Russian vs a v in Polish).
Mostly the conclusion that I draw from it is all 3 languages are fairly damn close to another, although all different. If you are talking with an expanded vocabulary I can guess that the 3 can't easily (or at all) understand one another. But if you are talking in baby talk it looks like even Russians and Polish ought to be able to communicate somewhat.
While there are some differences in Ukrainian that seem neither Russian nor Polish, Ukrainian seems about halfway to Polish from Russian I guess. And along that vein, Polish would probably get Russians halfway to Czech.Replies: @Mr. Hack
The general concensus is the one that you post that ‘One could say that Ukrainian has Russian grammatical structure’…and more adopted Polish words than Russian. I think the way to look at it is that it’s actuall Russian that has the greatest amount of loan words from Ukrainian. My 87 year old roomate tells me that he used to own a very large and detailed Russian dictionary that included the originating place of each word it listed. He stated that up to 40% of the words listed indicated that they originally derived from ‘MoloRussian’ origins!
As far as sentence structure goes, I go against the grain and feel that Ukrainian is closer to Polish in that rsepsect than to Russian. Polish to me is easy to understand for thoughts are laid out mostly as in Ukrainian. In Russian, sometimes they seem slightly in a different order. That’s just me. I also once remember reading that Ukrainian includes the most similar words to all other Slavic languages, than any other Slavic language. This would attest to its ancient beginnings.
Just out of curiosity, is there any country neighboring Russia that isn't fake and whose inhabitants are not Russians in denial ?Replies: @inertial, @Anatoly Karlin
China, Mongolia, Georgia, Poland, Finland.
Not sure about Balts and Azerbaijan. Probably not fake, though former are certainly gay.
Belarus – fake. Balts – real, but gay.
Here is the Lord's Prayer in English/Polish/Ukrainian/Russian. I took the Polish version from the wikipedia page for "Silesian Language" which uses it to compare Czech, Polish and Silesian, then looked up the Ukro and Ruski versions and plugged them into www.lexilogos.com to transliterate into Latin alphabet.
It's not as good as any kind of large scale study but it allows you to judge for yourself without being jerked around by nationalists with political motives. Can't trust people who actually speak the damn languages because their linguistic views almost always parallel their political beliefs.
Our Father who art in heaven,
Ojcze nasz, któryś jest w niebie,
Otče naš, ščo jesy na nebesax,
Otče naš, suŝij na nebesah!
hallowed be thy name.
święć się imię Twoje,
Nexaj svjatyt’sja Im’ja Tvoje.
Da priidet Carstvie Tvoe;
Thy kingdom come,
przyjdź królestwo Twoje,
Xaj pryjde Carstvo Tvoje,
Da priidet Carstvie Tvoe;
thy will be done,
bądź wola Twoja
nexaj bude volja Tvoja
Da budet volja Tvoja
on earth, as it is in heaven.
jako w niebie tak i na ziemi.
JAk na nebi, tak i na zemli
i na zemle, kak na nebe; [Russian version appears to reverse the zemle/nebe phrases]
Give us this day our daily bread,
Chleba naszego powszedniego daj nam dzisiaj.
Xlib naš nasuščnyj daj nam s’ohodni.
Hleb naš nasuŝnyj daj nam na sej denʹ;
and forgive us our trespasses,
I odpuść nam nasze winy,
I prosty nam provyny naši,
I prosti nam dolgi naši,
[not sure if Polish nasze winy is reversed order]
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
jako i my odpuszczamy naszym winowajcom.
jak i my proščajemo vynuvatcjam našym.
Kak i my proŝaem dolžnikam našim;
[polish word order reversed with naszym 2nd to last instead of last]
And lead us not into temptation,
I nie wódź nas na pokuszenie,
I ne vvedy nas u spokusu,
I ne vvedi nas v iskušenie,
[here Polish pokuszenie looks like it's inbetween Ukrainian spokusu and Russian iskusenie]
but deliver us from evil.
ale nas zbaw ode złego.
ale vyzvoly nas vid lukavoho.
No izbavʹ nas ot lukavogo.Replies: @Mr. Hack, @Lars Porsena
If anyone wants to further try to suss it out for themselves, I remembered another even wordier example to check.
Vox Day’s 16 points of the Nationalist Right, translated into umpteen languages.
Polish: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/alt-prawo-16-punktow.html
Ukrainian: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/05/16.html
Russian: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/11/16.html
English translation provided by Bing translate. Separate English translations because it is more paraphrased and less word for word. Probably a better practical example. I haven’t got very far into this, you would have to check translations on individual words to English to compare apples to apples with the rephrasing. Definitely more work, major PITA going back and forth with Cyrillic to translate and Latin to read what word you’re translating (because I can’t read Cyrillic).
This is way harder than Spanish. For the same amount of time investment I could probably be picking up latinas at el supermercado by the time I made sense of it all.
At first blush this one, full of political words, is making Ukrainian look a lot more like Russian than Polish.
PL
3. The Alt-right movement is not based on a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of a noble defeat in the name of the maintenance of the pryncypists.
3. Ruch Alt-Prawica nie opiera się na defensywnej postawie i odrzuca koncepcję szlachetnej porażki w imię utrzymania pryncypiów.
UK
3. Alternative law is not profess defensive worldview, rejecting the very idea of noble and principled defeat.
3. Al’ternatyvni pravi ne spovidujut’ oboronnoho svitohljadu, vidkydajučy samu ideju blahorodnoji i pryncypovoji porazky.
RU
3. Alternative right-wing non-defensive worldview and reject the notion of noble defeat.
3. 3. Alʹternativnye pravye ne oboronitelʹnoe mirovozzrenie i otvergajut ponjatie blagorodnogo poraženija.
Looks like there is are noticeably English/German derived loan words in the Polish because I don’t even need to translate stuff like koncepcję or defensywnej (and I can read it too!) See some Polish-Ukrainian similarities too though, DEFEAT: porazki/porazky/porazenija.
https://www.espressoenglish.net/100-common-nouns-in-english/
1. time Polish chas, Ukrainian chas, Rusisan vremya
2. year Polish rok, Ukrainian rik, Russian god
3. people Polish ludze, Ukrainian liude, Russia liude
4. way Polish sposob, Ukrainian sposib, Russian sposob
5. day Polish dzien, Ukrainian den, Russian den
6. man Polish chloviek, Ukrainian cholovik, Russian chelovek
7. thing Polish zhech (spelled rzecz), Ukrainian rich, Russian vyeshch
8. woman Polish kobieta, Ukrainian zhinka, Russian zhenshchyna
9. life Polish zycie, Ukrainian zhytia. Rusisan zhyzn
10. child Polish dietsko, Ukrainian dytyna, Russian rybyonik
11. world Polish sviat, Ukrainian svit, Russian myr
12. school Shkola all three languages
13. state Polish panstvo, Ukrainain derzhava, Russian gosudarstvo
14. family Polish rodzina, Ukrainian rodyna, Russian semya (in Russian rodyna means homeland but accent is on first syllable whereas Ukrainian rodyna [family]has accent on second)
15. student Polish student, Ukrainian uchen, Russian uchenyk
16. group Polish grupa, Ukrainian hrupa, Russian grupa
17. country Polish kray, Ukrainian krayina, Russian strana
18. problem Polish problem, Ukrainian problema, Russian problema
19. hand Polish reka, Ukrainian ruka, Russian ruka
20. part Polish cheshch, Ukrainian chastyna, Russian chast
21. place Polish mieysce, Ukrainian mistse, Russian myesto
22. case Polish sprava, Ukrainian vypadok (I've heard sprava a lot, Galicianism?), Russian dyelo
23. week Polish tydzien, Ukrainian tyzhden, Russian nedyela
So of the 23 nouns, 8 are in common with Polish and Ukrainian but not Russian, 2 are in common with Russian and Ukrainian but not Polish, 11 are in common for all three languages, and only 2 are unique for each language.
Of the ones that are in common for all three languages, Ukrainian tends to be closer to Russian than to Polish (i.e., Polish reka vs. Ukrainian and Russian identical ruka).
You can see from the list that Ukrainian pronunciation seems closer to Russian than to Polish (other than with respect to h-g and o-i) but the actual words are more in common with Polish than with Russian.Replies: @Adam
I don’t think Croatia should be stripped of those areas, nor that it would have been good back then. Even whether those areas had a Serb majority or not is questionable, and I can see the point in ridding one of an unruly and deeply hostile minority (especially after said minority had itself engaged in acts of ethnic cleansing), but I don’t think it usually makes sense to claim that the unwanted minority just happened to pack up and leave on its own, without explicit or even implicit threats of ethnic cleansing. That’s pretty much the Israeli explanation about Palestinians, and it’s unlikely to be true.
Another point is that you don’t need to murder many to induce them to leave. The victim numbers of the Yugoslav Wars have been revised down multiple times since the mid-1990s, so probably neither side killed as many civilians as it was claimed back then. But in order to expel a population, it’s usually enough to just implicitly threaten them. In the case of East Prussia, many of the roads were cut already in January 1945, when mass flight started, but roughly half the population managed to leave before the Soviets arrived. It was more than enough that the population knew about the Nemmersdorf massacre, where less than 100 German civilians were killed. People’s imagination then extrapolated it to the 2 million inhabitants of East Prussia. Similarly, the number of Palestinians killed by the Jews was relatively small – just a few hundreds for well in excess of half a million refugees.
I think a lot of the bad blood between Croats and Serbs is caused by a small minority of extremists, whose crimes are then denied.
I have an otherwise nationalistic Croat friend who told me that the Ustashe were literally insane mass murderers. I don’t know how common this view is in Croatia, because he’s from Vojvodina (so he might’ve heard different stories as a child – he had some Serb friends, for example), and while he felt he was better off leaving Serbia in 1993, he had some good things to say about Serbs, too. Anyway, his family now lives in Croatia, but it’s n=1. What I do know for sure is that by far the most popular party in Croatia in 1941 was the Peasant Party, whose leader refused to collaborate with the Germans. I’d presume he wouldn’t have committed the mass murders committed by the Ustashe. Then in 1944-45 the Serbs committed their own horrible mass murders, too (not just against Croats, but they were prominent among the victims), but it was the communists who did it. And it’s arguable that the commies only grew in strength because they were actually fighting the Germans regardless of reprisals against the civilian population, which made them a darling of foreign powers (even the Brits switched to supporting them). It’s highly questionable if they could’ve won a fair and square election in Serbia in 1944 or 1945.
So basically both parties felt they had been victims of a horrible mass murder in WW2, and there was a lot of truth in both claims. So I think it’s easy to understand that when Croatia declared independence, and the Serbs opposed, they decided to secede from Croatia and ethnically cleanse as large an area as possible.But then it’s understandable why Croats didn’t let this stand, conquered back the area, and expelled the Serbs. (Yes, I know, they left because they didn’t like their places of residence anymore and decided to leave without compensation for property.)
So now neither party feels he did anything wrong. Anyway, I’m not going to solve this.
Orbán recently made some moves to try to facilitate reconciliation between the two nations. We’ve have had good ties to Croatia since 1991 (and according to surveys Hungarians viewed Croats positively way earlier than that, even some of our national heroes are common – Nikola Šubić Zrinski alias Zrínyi Miklós), while recently our relations are getting excellent with Serbia, too. It’d be nice to forget these idiotic conflicts, which pale in comparison to what’s coming – globohomo, Islamization, Africanization, maybe even singularity or something similar. We can go back to hating each other after these are resolved.
The only thing wrong is the fact that the Serbs by and large left before they could be expelled, if they were to be expelled at all.
That is my entire point.
The Serbs whipped themselves up into a frenzy, convincing themselves that they'd be massacred if they stayed based on the massacres that happened in WW2.
Were we happy that so many people who couldn't reconcile themselves with life in a Croatian state (no matter how many rights they would be given) were gone? Of course.
Did we ethnically cleanse them en masse? Nope (despite some killings like in places like Gospic or Pakracna Poljana) which were mere drops in the bucket in overall numbers.
As for that other study you linked to, I don't find any Polish cluster in Figure 12 on page 323. Are you sure you got the reference right? It's also hard to comment on it since many pages and much of the methodology is missing. As a rule, however, I'm deeply sceptical of subjecting these things to cluster analysis, and the problem lies less with the clustering itself than with what you have to do to the data to lend it to cluster analysis. The best survey I have seen on language intelligibility was actually quite statistically basic, but very well thought out. It would take me some time to search it out, but it had carefully selected groups of Swedish, Danish and Norwegian teenagers listen to (and maybe read, my memory fails me) texts in the other languages. As I remember them, the results were that Norwegian teenagers were by far the best at understanding the other languages and that Swedish teenagers listening to Danish speech did worst (Danish teenagers did slightly better with Swedish).Replies: @Lars Porsena, @AP
First, thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response.
Comments about Tishchenko study:
In terms of lexical distance (vocabulary) this is not so unbelievable, given that when literary Russian was created, it was heavily infused with Church Slavonic (a South Slavic language related to Bulgarian) while the others were not.
Specific figures aren’t on the chart. However Croatian is closer to Slovak than it is to Czech. I suppose this is plausible – both Croats and Slovaks were Slavs living under Hungary. Slovak may have Czech grammar but vocabulary almost as similar to that of Croat as to Czech (I speak neither of these languages so I am just guessing here).
It is rather distant from Albanain. The chart doesn’t include a line from Romanian to Slavic languages but this does not imply there are zero connections.
The fact that his work was done in Soviet times, when his conclusons would not have been politicvally correct, probably speaks positively about his conclusions.
It seems to be the one under Ukrainian.
I agree this is not easy. However it seems that only two studies have been made and both of them place Ukrainian closer to Polish than to Russian in terms of lexical distance (vocabulary). And they both place Ukrainian and Russian as further apart than, say, Swedish and Danish. I haven’t seen other studies on lexical distances and these languages.
This seems to be common sense. Just consider basic words:
Yes: Polish Tak, Ukrainian Tak, Russian Da (same as in South Slavic)
No: Polish Nie, Ukrainian Ni, Russian Nyet
Mom: Mama in all three languages
Dad: Polish Tato, Ukrainian Tato, Russian Papa (interestingly, in Bulgarian it is Tatko)
Hi: Polish Cheshch, Ukrainian Pryvit, Russian Privyet
Goodbye: Polish do vidzenia, Ukrainian do pobachenya, Russian do svidanya
Husband: Polish mazh, Ukrainian cholovik, Russian muzh
Wife: Polish zhona, Ukrainian druzhyna (also zhinka), Russian zhena
Child: Polish dietsko, Ukrainian dytyna, Russian rybyonik
Girl: Polish Dzievchyna, Ukrainian Divchyna, Russian Dyevushka
Boy: Polish Khwopiets, Ukrainian Khlopets, Russian Malchyk
Person: Polish Osoba, Ukrainian Liudyna, Russian Chelovyek
Eye: Polish Oko, Ukrainian Oko, Russian Glaz
Nose: Polish Nos, Ukrainian Nis, Russian Nos
Mouth: Polish Usta, Ukrainian Rot, Russian Rot
Ears: Polish Ushy, Ukrainain Vukha, Russian Ushy
etc. etc.
Wife: Polish zhona, Ukrainian druzhyna (also zhinka), Russian zhena
druzhyna is derived to wife like much like 'muzh" (man) is derived to "muzhestvo" (i.e courage)...but. Zhena is plentifully used in Ukropia throughout the country as of course Druzhya used as friends .errrmm.......уха? jeezLOLOLOLOLOL.....not only is 'gosudarstvo' commonly/extensively used in Ukraine- in direct reference to the state and state agencies by the politicians, by the media and of course, by the people there you cretin..but so is derzheva in Russian used as a reference for "in power" and so on.
The worst thing in this mountain of stupidity is that you obviously have never heard of a thesaurusfrom LOL...to ridiculous. Svet is also Russian word for world you imbecile.
"mir' also being "peace" of course in "Ukrainian" and Russian - don't know if it is commonly used in PolandSemya is used in Ukrainian and the differentiation from when to used Motherland and when to use Fatherland is identical with Russian you berkFairly obvious use are dazed and confused with this clueless dimwittedness - probably you are being dateraped by Mr Hack/Elephant Man/Boston Strangler
I could go on- it's so easy that I cant even be bothered to call you a fraud.
Vox Day's 16 points of the Nationalist Right, translated into umpteen languages.
Polish: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/alt-prawo-16-punktow.html
Ukrainian: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/05/16.html
Russian: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/11/16.html
English translation provided by Bing translate. Separate English translations because it is more paraphrased and less word for word. Probably a better practical example. I haven't got very far into this, you would have to check translations on individual words to English to compare apples to apples with the rephrasing. Definitely more work, major PITA going back and forth with Cyrillic to translate and Latin to read what word you're translating (because I can't read Cyrillic).
This is way harder than Spanish. For the same amount of time investment I could probably be picking up latinas at el supermercado by the time I made sense of it all.
At first blush this one, full of political words, is making Ukrainian look a lot more like Russian than Polish.
PL
3. The Alt-right movement is not based on a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of a noble defeat in the name of the maintenance of the pryncypists.
3. Ruch Alt-Prawica nie opiera się na defensywnej postawie i odrzuca koncepcję szlachetnej porażki w imię utrzymania pryncypiów.
UK
3. Alternative law is not profess defensive worldview, rejecting the very idea of noble and principled defeat.
3. Al’ternatyvni pravi ne spovidujut’ oboronnoho svitohljadu, vidkydajučy samu ideju blahorodnoji i pryncypovoji porazky.
RU
3. Alternative right-wing non-defensive worldview and reject the notion of noble defeat.
3. 3. Alʹternativnye pravye ne oboronitelʹnoe mirovozzrenie i otvergajut ponjatie blagorodnogo poraženija.
Looks like there is are noticeably English/German derived loan words in the Polish because I don't even need to translate stuff like koncepcję or defensywnej (and I can read it too!) See some Polish-Ukrainian similarities too though, DEFEAT: porazki/porazky/porazenija.Replies: @AP
Most common nouns in English language:
https://www.espressoenglish.net/100-common-nouns-in-english/
1. time Polish chas, Ukrainian chas, Rusisan vremya
2. year Polish rok, Ukrainian rik, Russian god
3. people Polish ludze, Ukrainian liude, Russia liude
4. way Polish sposob, Ukrainian sposib, Russian sposob
5. day Polish dzien, Ukrainian den, Russian den
6. man Polish chloviek, Ukrainian cholovik, Russian chelovek
7. thing Polish zhech (spelled rzecz), Ukrainian rich, Russian vyeshch
8. woman Polish kobieta, Ukrainian zhinka, Russian zhenshchyna
9. life Polish zycie, Ukrainian zhytia. Rusisan zhyzn
10. child Polish dietsko, Ukrainian dytyna, Russian rybyonik
11. world Polish sviat, Ukrainian svit, Russian myr
12. school Shkola all three languages
13. state Polish panstvo, Ukrainain derzhava, Russian gosudarstvo
14. family Polish rodzina, Ukrainian rodyna, Russian semya (in Russian rodyna means homeland but accent is on first syllable whereas Ukrainian rodyna [family]has accent on second)
15. student Polish student, Ukrainian uchen, Russian uchenyk
16. group Polish grupa, Ukrainian hrupa, Russian grupa
17. country Polish kray, Ukrainian krayina, Russian strana
18. problem Polish problem, Ukrainian problema, Russian problema
19. hand Polish reka, Ukrainian ruka, Russian ruka
20. part Polish cheshch, Ukrainian chastyna, Russian chast
21. place Polish mieysce, Ukrainian mistse, Russian myesto
22. case Polish sprava, Ukrainian vypadok (I’ve heard sprava a lot, Galicianism?), Russian dyelo
23. week Polish tydzien, Ukrainian tyzhden, Russian nedyela
So of the 23 nouns, 8 are in common with Polish and Ukrainian but not Russian, 2 are in common with Russian and Ukrainian but not Polish, 11 are in common for all three languages, and only 2 are unique for each language.
Of the ones that are in common for all three languages, Ukrainian tends to be closer to Russian than to Polish (i.e., Polish reka vs. Ukrainian and Russian identical ruka).
You can see from the list that Ukrainian pronunciation seems closer to Russian than to Polish (other than with respect to h-g and o-i) but the actual words are more in common with Polish than with Russian.
There are also the Ukrainian words сім'я and год and the Polish words dzieło (no idea how common they are).
You've only proven that there are synonyms and that words change meanings slightly.
https://www.espressoenglish.net/100-common-nouns-in-english/
1. time Polish chas, Ukrainian chas, Rusisan vremya
2. year Polish rok, Ukrainian rik, Russian god
3. people Polish ludze, Ukrainian liude, Russia liude
4. way Polish sposob, Ukrainian sposib, Russian sposob
5. day Polish dzien, Ukrainian den, Russian den
6. man Polish chloviek, Ukrainian cholovik, Russian chelovek
7. thing Polish zhech (spelled rzecz), Ukrainian rich, Russian vyeshch
8. woman Polish kobieta, Ukrainian zhinka, Russian zhenshchyna
9. life Polish zycie, Ukrainian zhytia. Rusisan zhyzn
10. child Polish dietsko, Ukrainian dytyna, Russian rybyonik
11. world Polish sviat, Ukrainian svit, Russian myr
12. school Shkola all three languages
13. state Polish panstvo, Ukrainain derzhava, Russian gosudarstvo
14. family Polish rodzina, Ukrainian rodyna, Russian semya (in Russian rodyna means homeland but accent is on first syllable whereas Ukrainian rodyna [family]has accent on second)
15. student Polish student, Ukrainian uchen, Russian uchenyk
16. group Polish grupa, Ukrainian hrupa, Russian grupa
17. country Polish kray, Ukrainian krayina, Russian strana
18. problem Polish problem, Ukrainian problema, Russian problema
19. hand Polish reka, Ukrainian ruka, Russian ruka
20. part Polish cheshch, Ukrainian chastyna, Russian chast
21. place Polish mieysce, Ukrainian mistse, Russian myesto
22. case Polish sprava, Ukrainian vypadok (I've heard sprava a lot, Galicianism?), Russian dyelo
23. week Polish tydzien, Ukrainian tyzhden, Russian nedyela
So of the 23 nouns, 8 are in common with Polish and Ukrainian but not Russian, 2 are in common with Russian and Ukrainian but not Polish, 11 are in common for all three languages, and only 2 are unique for each language.
Of the ones that are in common for all three languages, Ukrainian tends to be closer to Russian than to Polish (i.e., Polish reka vs. Ukrainian and Russian identical ruka).
You can see from the list that Ukrainian pronunciation seems closer to Russian than to Polish (other than with respect to h-g and o-i) but the actual words are more in common with Polish than with Russian.Replies: @Adam
There are Russian cognates in most of those words i.e свет, речь, дети, чась, край, срок
There are also the Ukrainian words сім’я and год and the Polish words dzieło (no idea how common they are).
You’ve only proven that there are synonyms and that words change meanings slightly.
These words all have different meanings in Russian vs. Polish and Ukrainian.
The Russian word “svet” does not mean world as in Polish and Ukrainian, but light. Russian word речь means speech, not “thing” as in Polish and Ukrainian. Dety (Russian) is plural however a child is a rybyonik.
English-German has such a word, too “gift.” It means poison in German.
Ukrainian word simia is common but hod is basically unknown.
You're right that the meanings have shifted, but looking at 1 for 1 word translations of words without looking at synonyms is a somewhat misleading way of comparing languages.Replies: @AP
If you want to assume linguistic differentiation began with political fragmentation, this would have been in 1150 when the last unified ruler of Rus died.
The massive influx of Polish words into Ukrainian, that characterizes the modern Ukrainian language, began in the 13th-14th centuries. But the speech was still probably rather distinct long before that. Grafitti from 11th century Kiev already includes Ukrainian names such as Pavlo, rather than Russian Pavel and uses the vocative tense that does not exist in modern Russian.Correct.Also correct. But the point is that since Ukrainian and Russian themselves are as distinct and German and Dutch, an intermediate between those two languages would be closer to German or Dutch than Ukrainian is to Russian (Polish is further from Russian than Dutch is from German).Replies: @AP, @Adam
I said nothing about ‘unified nation state’ or ‘standardized language’. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Rus was a collection of interrelated East Slavic tribes that spoke the East Slavic language. They were not a nation in the modern sense (no different than in France, Germany, Italy etc.) but nothing resembling the split between Ukrainians and Russians existed.
It seems that you have no understanding of what a dialect continuum. It wasn’t just that the speech of Kiev differed from the speech of Suzdal – the speech of a village differed from the village ten miles over, and differed significantly from the speech of villages 100 miles away. However, someone from Novgorod would still be able to communicate with someone from Galicia. The situation was the same in all of Europe. The direct ancestor of French for example only existed in the Ile-de-France, but we can still speak of ‘Old French’ to refer to a collection of mutually intelligible Gallo-Roman dialects in northern France. The only standardized languages were dead languages like Latin and Old Church Slavonic, and maybe medieval Greek.
There’s no controversy that there was an East Slavic language and that the date of divergence into mutually unintelligible languages was after the Mongol conquests.
Dutch did not undergo the High German Consonant shift, lost its cases, and has a much simpler gender system than German. There are no parallel changes between Russian and Ukrainian. So while the changes in vocabulary are comparable, the languages overall are closer than Dutch and German.
The Russian word "svet" does not mean world as in Polish and Ukrainian, but light. Russian word речь means speech, not "thing" as in Polish and Ukrainian. Dety (Russian) is plural however a child is a rybyonik.
English-German has such a word, too "gift." It means poison in German.
Ukrainian word simia is common but hod is basically unknown.Replies: @Adam
Свет means world in Russian as well. You claim to be fluent in Russian and don’t know that?
You’re right that the meanings have shifted, but looking at 1 for 1 word translations of words without looking at synonyms is a somewhat misleading way of comparing languages.
At any rate, recategorizing svet still leaves us with:
"So of the 23 nouns, 7 are in common with Polish and Ukrainian but not Russian, 2 are in common with Russian and Ukrainian but not Polish, 12 are in common for all three languages, and only 2 are unique for each language."
I don't have time to investigate all 100 common nouns, but I suspect that this is a reasonable sample that that the ratios are roughly similar.Replies: @AP, @ussr andy
I did not claim that you did. I was making a general statement. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Agreed.
In the 10th or 11th century – of course. Just as an American can communicate with an Englishman.
Ukraine retained the vocative case (in Russian it only exists in some expressions such as Bozhe, my God), and had an o-i shift and a g-h shift.
You're right that the meanings have shifted, but looking at 1 for 1 word translations of words without looking at synonyms is a somewhat misleading way of comparing languages.Replies: @AP
Svet is less common and is most often used as “color” but yes I made a mistake.
I was actually considering synonyms and put them in, svet was a mistake. The other examples weren’t synonyms, речь (Russian speech) is not a synonym of “thing,” dety may be children but a child is still different (A Ukrainian would not have any idea what a rybyonik (Russian child) is – it sounds like the Ukrainian word for a fish).
At any rate, recategorizing svet still leaves us with:
“So of the 23 nouns, 7 are in common with Polish and Ukrainian but not Russian, 2 are in common with Russian and Ukrainian but not Polish, 12 are in common for all three languages, and only 2 are unique for each language.”
I don’t have time to investigate all 100 common nouns, but I suspect that this is a reasonable sample that that the ratios are roughly similar.
so, it's a bit like in English, the plural of 'person' being spelt 'people' and pronounced /ʃi:pl/ :D
At any rate, recategorizing svet still leaves us with:
"So of the 23 nouns, 7 are in common with Polish and Ukrainian but not Russian, 2 are in common with Russian and Ukrainian but not Polish, 12 are in common for all three languages, and only 2 are unique for each language."
I don't have time to investigate all 100 common nouns, but I suspect that this is a reasonable sample that that the ratios are roughly similar.Replies: @AP, @ussr andy
LOL, I meant to write “light.”
I speak conversational Russian well enough to live in and socialize in Moscow without using English, but I am mistaken for a Russian-speaking tourist from the Baltics, Poland or Czech Republic, not for a native (nor for a Westerner). I spoke a little Russian with AK and with the waitress when we met briefly in Moscow, I think he can vouch for my Russian being decent.
Another point is that you don't need to murder many to induce them to leave. The victim numbers of the Yugoslav Wars have been revised down multiple times since the mid-1990s, so probably neither side killed as many civilians as it was claimed back then. But in order to expel a population, it's usually enough to just implicitly threaten them. In the case of East Prussia, many of the roads were cut already in January 1945, when mass flight started, but roughly half the population managed to leave before the Soviets arrived. It was more than enough that the population knew about the Nemmersdorf massacre, where less than 100 German civilians were killed. People's imagination then extrapolated it to the 2 million inhabitants of East Prussia. Similarly, the number of Palestinians killed by the Jews was relatively small - just a few hundreds for well in excess of half a million refugees.
I think a lot of the bad blood between Croats and Serbs is caused by a small minority of extremists, whose crimes are then denied.
I have an otherwise nationalistic Croat friend who told me that the Ustashe were literally insane mass murderers. I don't know how common this view is in Croatia, because he's from Vojvodina (so he might've heard different stories as a child - he had some Serb friends, for example), and while he felt he was better off leaving Serbia in 1993, he had some good things to say about Serbs, too. Anyway, his family now lives in Croatia, but it's n=1. What I do know for sure is that by far the most popular party in Croatia in 1941 was the Peasant Party, whose leader refused to collaborate with the Germans. I'd presume he wouldn't have committed the mass murders committed by the Ustashe. Then in 1944-45 the Serbs committed their own horrible mass murders, too (not just against Croats, but they were prominent among the victims), but it was the communists who did it. And it's arguable that the commies only grew in strength because they were actually fighting the Germans regardless of reprisals against the civilian population, which made them a darling of foreign powers (even the Brits switched to supporting them). It's highly questionable if they could've won a fair and square election in Serbia in 1944 or 1945.
So basically both parties felt they had been victims of a horrible mass murder in WW2, and there was a lot of truth in both claims. So I think it's easy to understand that when Croatia declared independence, and the Serbs opposed, they decided to secede from Croatia and ethnically cleanse as large an area as possible.But then it's understandable why Croats didn't let this stand, conquered back the area, and expelled the Serbs. (Yes, I know, they left because they didn't like their places of residence anymore and decided to leave without compensation for property.)
So now neither party feels he did anything wrong. Anyway, I'm not going to solve this.
Orbán recently made some moves to try to facilitate reconciliation between the two nations. We've have had good ties to Croatia since 1991 (and according to surveys Hungarians viewed Croats positively way earlier than that, even some of our national heroes are common - Nikola Šubić Zrinski alias Zrínyi Miklós), while recently our relations are getting excellent with Serbia, too. It'd be nice to forget these idiotic conflicts, which pale in comparison to what's coming - globohomo, Islamization, Africanization, maybe even singularity or something similar. We can go back to hating each other after these are resolved.Replies: @Niccolo Salo
Your post is a very good one.
The only thing wrong is the fact that the Serbs by and large left before they could be expelled, if they were to be expelled at all.
That is my entire point.
The Serbs whipped themselves up into a frenzy, convincing themselves that they’d be massacred if they stayed based on the massacres that happened in WW2.
Were we happy that so many people who couldn’t reconcile themselves with life in a Croatian state (no matter how many rights they would be given) were gone? Of course.
Did we ethnically cleanse them en masse? Nope (despite some killings like in places like Gospic or Pakracna Poljana) which were mere drops in the bucket in overall numbers.
At any rate, recategorizing svet still leaves us with:
"So of the 23 nouns, 7 are in common with Polish and Ukrainian but not Russian, 2 are in common with Russian and Ukrainian but not Polish, 12 are in common for all three languages, and only 2 are unique for each language."
I don't have time to investigate all 100 common nouns, but I suspect that this is a reasonable sample that that the ratios are roughly similar.Replies: @AP, @ussr andy
the singular of ‘deti’ is ‘dityá’, but it’s not the generic word for ‘child’ (semantic drift.)
the word you mean is ‘rebyonok’. the ‘reb-‘ in ‘rebyonok’ is related (TIL…) to ‘rab-‘ and, distantly, to the ‘orph-‘ in ‘orphan’.
the diminutive ‘-yonok’ affix is used for human and animal young alike. you could say *’rybyonok’ and it would be understood, esp. in context (‘little fishy’) (productivity.)
the plural of ‘rebyonok’, ‘rebyata’, OTOH, means something like ‘friends’ or ‘young men’ (“potomu chto na 10 devchonok (!) / po statistike 9 rebyat” 🎼)
so, it’s a bit like in English, the plural of ‘person’ being spelt ‘people’ and pronounced /ʃi:pl/ 😀
Comments about Tishchenko study:In terms of lexical distance (vocabulary) this is not so unbelievable, given that when literary Russian was created, it was heavily infused with Church Slavonic (a South Slavic language related to Bulgarian) while the others were not.Specific figures aren't on the chart. However Croatian is closer to Slovak than it is to Czech. I suppose this is plausible - both Croats and Slovaks were Slavs living under Hungary. Slovak may have Czech grammar but vocabulary almost as similar to that of Croat as to Czech (I speak neither of these languages so I am just guessing here).It is rather distant from Albanain. The chart doesn't include a line from Romanian to Slavic languages but this does not imply there are zero connections.The fact that his work was done in Soviet times, when his conclusons would not have been politicvally correct, probably speaks positively about his conclusions.It seems to be the one under Ukrainian.I agree this is not easy. However it seems that only two studies have been made and both of them place Ukrainian closer to Polish than to Russian in terms of lexical distance (vocabulary). And they both place Ukrainian and Russian as further apart than, say, Swedish and Danish. I haven't seen other studies on lexical distances and these languages.
This seems to be common sense. Just consider basic words:
Yes: Polish Tak, Ukrainian Tak, Russian Da (same as in South Slavic)
No: Polish Nie, Ukrainian Ni, Russian Nyet
Mom: Mama in all three languages
Dad: Polish Tato, Ukrainian Tato, Russian Papa (interestingly, in Bulgarian it is Tatko)
Hi: Polish Cheshch, Ukrainian Pryvit, Russian Privyet
Goodbye: Polish do vidzenia, Ukrainian do pobachenya, Russian do svidanya
Husband: Polish mazh, Ukrainian cholovik, Russian muzh
Wife: Polish zhona, Ukrainian druzhyna (also zhinka), Russian zhena
Child: Polish dietsko, Ukrainian dytyna, Russian rybyonik
Girl: Polish Dzievchyna, Ukrainian Divchyna, Russian Dyevushka
Boy: Polish Khwopiets, Ukrainian Khlopets, Russian Malchyk
Person: Polish Osoba, Ukrainian Liudyna, Russian Chelovyek
Eye: Polish Oko, Ukrainian Oko, Russian Glaz
Nose: Polish Nos, Ukrainian Nis, Russian Nos
Mouth: Polish Usta, Ukrainian Rot, Russian Rot
Ears: Polish Ushy, Ukrainain Vukha, Russian Ushy
etc. etc.Replies: @Swedish Family, @Gerard2
I’m not well enough versed in Slavic languages to comment on this or your following comments. I was hoping our Czech/Slovak/Balkan commenters would chip in, but it seems they forgot about this thread.
Maybe, but ideological slants can work at different levels. The one in the Kiev of the late Soviet years might not have lined up with that in Moscow. Either way, the mere fact that the findings might be tainted by ideology — in whichever direction — is reason enough in itself not to cite the study until we have an idea of how it was carried out.
That may be, but if they both fail even the most basic scientific standards (clearly laying out your methodology and offering your data to anyone interested), they still belong in the wastebasket. That second study you cited did seem to meet these standards, but I cannot possibly comment on it since Google Books blanks out most of its pages.
Note that I’m not taking a stand either way. All I’m saying at this time is that this Tishchenko study should not be taken as evidence of anything until we know how it was carried out. I understand this is a downer, but it is what it is.
I agree, but it’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish to turn these kinds of observations into results that have a scientific footing. Looking at etymologies doesn’t cut it, and where exactly do you draw the line between distinct words and what we might call “variant pronuncitations?”
As I suggested in my previous post, my method of choice would be a subjective study where you have groups of carefully selected teenagers (no prior exposure to the other languages, etc.) from all three countries read and listen to media (news broadcasts, everyday speech, Bible passages, etc.) from the other countries and then rank them by how well each group did with each language and media format.
I wouldn’t go this far. It may be imperfect, it may be based on a very limited set of data, but it is at least something. And it matches not only the other study (the only other one available) but also cursory examinations of common words I made.
I once came across., but haven’t been able to find after a few minutes of searching, an online study (some kind of game players) that showed naive (in the experimental sense) people trying to match or identify languages that they did not understand, after hearing them spoken. Ukrainian was placed between Russian and Polish, closer to Polish, that it, it was more often misidentified as Polish than as Russian.
Where I think you are mistaken here is that you seem to judge a study by what outcome it produces (how well the outcome matches your idea of what the study looks at) rather than by the logic of how it reaches that outcome (what goes into the model and how that is turned into results). That a study reaches conclusions that seem “right” is not in itself evidence of much anything — among other things, this could be the result of blind luck or circular reasoning.
You might be thinking of a comment I made many months ago …
Comment #155 in this thread:
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/#comments
Here is the relevant map
And here is the original post
http://www.replicatedtypo.com/the-great-language-game-confusing-languages/7926.html
Comment #155 in this thread:
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/#comments
Here is the relevant map
http://www.replicatedtypo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GLG_New_raw_NoWeights2.png
And here is the original post
http://www.replicatedtypo.com/the-great-language-game-confusing-languages/7926.htmlReplies: @AP
Corroboration with what is observed helps but that’s not the main reason. We don’t know how the results in Tishchenko were made, but some sort of protocol was followed in some sort of systematic way, flawed or not (perhaps he based his conclusions on a very small number of words, etc.). So at the very least his work is better than zero.
Yes, you found it! Thank you. Another piece of evidence pointing in the same direction.
Well … again, I would very much recommend against citing it without first looking up how the results came to be. But it’s your call.
Very welcome.
Comments about Tishchenko study:In terms of lexical distance (vocabulary) this is not so unbelievable, given that when literary Russian was created, it was heavily infused with Church Slavonic (a South Slavic language related to Bulgarian) while the others were not.Specific figures aren't on the chart. However Croatian is closer to Slovak than it is to Czech. I suppose this is plausible - both Croats and Slovaks were Slavs living under Hungary. Slovak may have Czech grammar but vocabulary almost as similar to that of Croat as to Czech (I speak neither of these languages so I am just guessing here).It is rather distant from Albanain. The chart doesn't include a line from Romanian to Slavic languages but this does not imply there are zero connections.The fact that his work was done in Soviet times, when his conclusons would not have been politicvally correct, probably speaks positively about his conclusions.It seems to be the one under Ukrainian.I agree this is not easy. However it seems that only two studies have been made and both of them place Ukrainian closer to Polish than to Russian in terms of lexical distance (vocabulary). And they both place Ukrainian and Russian as further apart than, say, Swedish and Danish. I haven't seen other studies on lexical distances and these languages.
This seems to be common sense. Just consider basic words:
Yes: Polish Tak, Ukrainian Tak, Russian Da (same as in South Slavic)
No: Polish Nie, Ukrainian Ni, Russian Nyet
Mom: Mama in all three languages
Dad: Polish Tato, Ukrainian Tato, Russian Papa (interestingly, in Bulgarian it is Tatko)
Hi: Polish Cheshch, Ukrainian Pryvit, Russian Privyet
Goodbye: Polish do vidzenia, Ukrainian do pobachenya, Russian do svidanya
Husband: Polish mazh, Ukrainian cholovik, Russian muzh
Wife: Polish zhona, Ukrainian druzhyna (also zhinka), Russian zhena
Child: Polish dietsko, Ukrainian dytyna, Russian rybyonik
Girl: Polish Dzievchyna, Ukrainian Divchyna, Russian Dyevushka
Boy: Polish Khwopiets, Ukrainian Khlopets, Russian Malchyk
Person: Polish Osoba, Ukrainian Liudyna, Russian Chelovyek
Eye: Polish Oko, Ukrainian Oko, Russian Glaz
Nose: Polish Nos, Ukrainian Nis, Russian Nos
Mouth: Polish Usta, Ukrainian Rot, Russian Rot
Ears: Polish Ushy, Ukrainain Vukha, Russian Ushy
etc. etc.Replies: @Swedish Family, @Gerard2
chas – are you SERIOUS with this BS? lol- isn’t telling the time one of the first things they learn in the Russian Academy for Banderatards?
Wife: Polish zhona, Ukrainian druzhyna (also zhinka), Russian zhena
druzhyna is derived to wife like much like ‘muzh” (man) is derived to “muzhestvo” (i.e courage)…but. Zhena is plentifully used in Ukropia throughout the country as of course Druzhya used as friends .
errrmm…….уха? jeez
LOLOLOLOLOL…..not only is ‘gosudarstvo’ commonly/extensively used in Ukraine- in direct reference to the state and state agencies by the politicians, by the media and of course, by the people there you cretin..but so is derzheva in Russian used as a reference for “in power” and so on.
The worst thing in this mountain of stupidity is that you obviously have never heard of a thesaurus
from LOL…to ridiculous. Svet is also Russian word for world you imbecile.
“mir’ also being “peace” of course in “Ukrainian” and Russian – don’t know if it is commonly used in Poland
Semya is used in Ukrainian and the differentiation from when to used Motherland and when to use Fatherland is identical with Russian you berk
Fairly obvious use are dazed and confused with this clueless dimwittedness – probably you are being dateraped by Mr Hack/Elephant Man/Boston Strangler
I could go on- it’s so easy that I cant even be bothered to call you a fraud.