Dear All, Dear Mark,
Belarusian Classical Grammar (sometimes called Tarashkievitsa)is used by Belarusian Language Society [http://www.tbm-language.com/eng/about.html], by Belarusian PEN Centere [http://www.pen-centre.com/eng/pen_about.html], by most important belarusian writers and free media (newspapers, magazines, radio) to name just some: Nasa Niva Newspaper [http://arche.home.by/], ARCHE Magazine [http://arche.home.by], Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty [http://www.svaboda.org], by main belarusian political parties and Non Government Organisations: Party of Belarusian Popular Front [http://www.pbnf.org], United Civil Party [http://www.ucpb.org], Viasna'96 [http://www.spring96.org], by Civil Society Center [http://www.cacedu.unibel.by/cscsc/], by belarusian Dictionary Project [http://slounik.org], by Litara.net Webzine [http://www.litara.net], by Belarusian Legal Portal [http://www.praunik.org], by Belarusian Students Portal [http://studenty.by] by many belarusian bloggers from LiveJournal Community and in particulary by Rydel's blog [http://www.br23.net/] wich won this year the 4th National Belarusian Web Content Contest, organized by prominent belarusian portal TUT.BY [http://www.tut.by].
All of above mentioned organisations and individuals use CLASSICAL grammar.
Most localisation and internationalisation job of free and open source software (GNU/Linux)in belarusian is done according to classical grammar.
As you see, it's not just "some of belarusian nationalists" which want to return to older belarusian, but intellectuals, writers, journalist, students, politicals, translators and policymakers who use it.
It is not true, that "By sheer chance, the proponents of the alternative style were the first to arrive at be.wikipedia[...]" this is because major part of BYnet (belarusian part of the web) uses classical grammar.
In such situation I belive it is inappropriate to create an alternative wikipedia for authors who want to write in official, imposed by soviet regime grammar rules (which are still obligatory).
If someone want create article in "Narkamauka", should be allowed to do so in the belarusian wikipedia.
PS Sorry for my English.
OK, that's absolutely crazy. As cited on the Requests for New Languages page, there are also newspapers written in socalled "Narkamauka". What do they use at http://gov.by/ let me guess... NOT tarashkievitsa?
Remind me, of all people educated in Belarus, which ones were taught to read in Classical Belarusan at school? NONE, they all learnt Modern Belarusan, that is the language read by the millions of speakers of the Belarusan Language. Only a minority use the "Classical grammar", and even those people were educated in Official Belarusan.
You try to put down the official language with names such as "narkamauka", and say it is "soviet imposed". That is irrelevant here. What matters is, it is official in Belarus, used by most belarusans, learnt by most belarusans at school.
Mark
On 20/05/06, Kiryl Nieviarouski k.nieviarouski@gmail.com wrote:
Dear All, Dear Mark,
Belarusian Classical Grammar (sometimes called Tarashkievitsa)is used by Belarusian Language Society [http://www.tbm-language.com/eng/about.html], by Belarusian PEN Centere [http://www.pen-centre.com/eng/pen_about.html], by most important belarusian writers and free media (newspapers, magazines, radio) to name just some: Nasa Niva Newspaper [http://arche.home.by/], ARCHE Magazine [http://arche.home.by], Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty [http://www.svaboda.org], by main belarusian political parties and Non Government Organisations: Party of Belarusian Popular Front [http://www.pbnf.org], United Civil Party [http://www.ucpb.org], Viasna'96 [http://www.spring96.org], by Civil Society Center [http://www.cacedu.unibel.by/cscsc/], by belarusian Dictionary Project [http://slounik.org], by Litara.net Webzine [http://www.litara.net], by Belarusian Legal Portal [http://www.praunik.org], by Belarusian Students Portal [http://studenty.by] by many belarusian bloggers from LiveJournal Community and in particulary by Rydel's blog [http://www.br23.net/] wich won this year the 4th National Belarusian Web Content Contest, organized by prominent belarusian portal TUT.BY [http://www.tut.by].
All of above mentioned organisations and individuals use CLASSICAL grammar.
Most localisation and internationalisation job of free and open source software (GNU/Linux)in belarusian is done according to classical grammar.
As you see, it's not just "some of belarusian nationalists" which want to return to older belarusian, but intellectuals, writers, journalist, students, politicals, translators and policymakers who use it.
It is not true, that "By sheer chance, the proponents of the alternative style were the first to arrive at be.wikipedia[...]" this is because major part of BYnet (belarusian part of the web) uses classical grammar.
In such situation I belive it is inappropriate to create an alternative wikipedia for authors who want to write in official, imposed by soviet regime grammar rules (which are still obligatory).
If someone want create article in "Narkamauka", should be allowed to do so in the belarusian wikipedia.
PS Sorry for my English.
-- With best regards, Kiryl Nieviarouski
Mark Williamson пишет:
OK, that's absolutely crazy. As cited on the Requests for New Languages page, there are also newspapers written in socalled "Narkamauka".
Today most belarusian people speaks Russsian in everyday life, unfortunatly. This is result of massive rusification conducted by Russian Emperia, then by USSR authorities and now by last dictator in Europe, Mr. Lukashenko. This is why most belarusian newspapers written in Russian. and Belarusian language in Belarus is spoken by minority of population.
What do they use at http://gov.by/ let me guess... NOT tarashkievitsa?
No, they don't. With some exceptions they use RUSSIAN ONLY! This is the prove of discrimination of Belarusian Language alltogether, which accordinly to our constitution is on of two (another one is Russian) state languages!
Let's have a closer look:
http://www.president.gov.by/ President of Republic of Belarus - ENGLISH and RUSSIAN only
Only site of Belarusian Government http://www.government.by/ru/rus_news.html has Belarusian version, but by default, Russian language version is opening.
http://www.minedu.unibel.by/ Ministry of Education of Belarus RUSSIAN and ENGLISH only
http://osipovichi.gov.by/ Osipovichy Local Administration - RUSSIAN ONLY
http://www.gkpv.gov.by/ State Office of Border Guard of Belarus - RUSSIAN ONLY
http://mintrud.gov.by/ Ministry of Work of Belarus- RUSSIAN ONLY
http://www.kultura.by/index.jsp Site of Ministry of Culture of Belarus - RUSSIAN ONLY
http://www.minenergo.gov.by/ Ministry of Energy of Belarus- RUSSIAN ONLY
http://prokuratura.gov.by/ Belarusian National Prosecutor's Office - RUSSIAN ONLY
http://www.vybor.by/ Central Comission for Elections and National Referendum of Belarus - RUSSIAN ONLY
http://kgb.by/ KGB of Belarus (do you know what does it mean?) site is entirely in Russian. Only contact info is translated to Belarusian and English.
http://www.vpk.gov.by/ State Military-Industrial Cometee of Belarus- RUSSIAN ONLY
http://www.minjust.by/ Ministry of Justice of Belarus - RUSSIAN ONLY
http://www.belstat.gov.by/ Ministry of Statistics and Analysis of Belarus RUSSIAN and ENGLISH only
I can continue if you wish...
Remind me, of all people educated in Belarus, which ones were taught to read in Classical Belarusan at school? NONE, they all learnt Modern Belarusan,
They all learnt Russian in school, because in Belarus there are no schools or Universities where education is in Belarusian. Belarusian Language and Literature is taught as a foreign language.
that is the language read by the millions of speakers of
the Belarusan Language.
Millions of speakers of Russian Language, you whant to say.
Only a minority use the "Classical grammar",
and even those people were educated in Official Belarusan.
You try to put down the official language with names such as "narkamauka", and say it is "soviet imposed".
It's a shame, but unfortunatly (as facts prove) official language in Belarus is Russian for now.
This situation will change when regime of Lukashenko will gone.
Regards,
Kiryl
Hi!
Today most belarusian people speaks Russsian in everyday life, unfortunatly. This is result of massive rusification conducted by Russian Emperia, then by USSR authorities and now by last dictator in Europe, Mr. Lukashenko.
Yes, although I am not too sure about the causes. ....
This situation will change when regime of Lukashenko will gone.
We have lots of similar cases in the west, with no need of help from russians, soviets and Lukashenko. Even if and when you succeed in making a political regime that you will like (no matter which one) you might find out that this linguistic "corrosion" will keep up and possibly even get worse. Be prepared for that. Do not ask too much from "demicracy" because you might change a president, but you will not change the people just as quick. And once you'll start to do it, you might want to use the very same pressure means that were used to impose russian. So you will eventually end up in discriminating russian speaking minorities (which will be many more people that actual minorities), as it happens in the baltic region and (to a lesser extent) in Ukraine.
Not saying that you should sit down and let your language die. Just pointing out that these are long and complicated games, in which you cannot succeed unless you are extremely realistic and prepared to make a long series of comprimises. Which is NOT the current atmosphere inside the belorussian language community (as I'd say from the ongoing discussion). I am also saying that a language is made of people, NOT of governments. Governments cannot do anything, if and when the people are not ready to obey. Catalans got their language against the government, the irish government could do (so far) very little to revive gaelic, which is really close to the bielorussian situation.
If I was you, I'd read less about governments, and more about the available success (and failure) stories in language management. It's many of them, most with a mixed result, and almost none of them is connected with a change in power. Real changes are usually much more closely connected with issues like mass media, what people considers "круто" (nice, good) and the availability of financially interesting jobs in the language.
Just one popular TV serial in belorussian could make a lot of difference. But it will not happen, even after the change of president. You know why? Because you'll kill each other trying to decide what ortography should be used for the titles... and in the meantime your youth clubs will speak russian and english. Be really careful with this stuff. It's easy to have your dreams vanish into nothing, unless you realise that only the people can choose what is their language. And that they will always choose according to "market economy". They will want a language that promises money, career, a good marriage, fashion things and so on...
Having a belorussian wiki IS a small step in that direction, but it's just one of them. And it's definitely not the decisive move. But if you cannot even make such a small step withouth breaking your forces into a set of opposite small armies, then you are sadly not going to go anywhere, no matter how many presidents and constitutions you change.
Bèrto
Hi Berto,
my point is: Don't spitting Belarusian Wikipedia.
We need one Belarusian grammar and we will reach it in effect. Time will juge which one is better or worse. But splitting wikipedia is not good. Belarusian Wikipedia does not favor classic spelling over official. It contains articles on both spellings. There were some edit wars based on spelling at beginning of 2005, but since that time both spellings coexists peacefully without major problems. Belarusian speaking Internet community is not so big, so further spelling dividing will do more harm then good.
Regards,
Kiryl
Belarusian Wikipedia does not favor classic spelling over official. It
The evidence presented at RFNL seems to indicate otherwise. The rules explicitly state that Classical is favoured. All official WIkipedia pages are written in classical Belarusan. Hmm...
contains articles on both spellings. There were some edit wars based on
The fact that it contains articles in both spellings is irrelevant. That would be like if we wrote the English Wikipedia in IPA mostly, but accepted some articles in official English orthography. Also, several users have reported that their articles are deleted, only to be rewritten minutes later by the admin in Classical spelling.
spelling at beginning of 2005, but since that time both spellings coexists peacefully without major problems. Belarusian speaking Internet
If they coexist peacefully without major problems, why do so many users want a change? They have been accused of being Russians, or Rusophiles, or anti-Belarusan, but the truth is these people just want a Wikipedia in their language, which you are trying to keep from them.
community is not so big, so further spelling dividing will do more harm then good.
One could say the same thing of many communities. But when there is a part that wants to break off, it's not your responsibility to stop it.
Mark
On 21/05/06, Kiryl Nieviarouski k.nieviarouski@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Berto,
my point is: Don't spitting Belarusian Wikipedia.
We need one Belarusian grammar and we will reach it in effect. Time will juge which one is better or worse. But splitting wikipedia is not good. Belarusian Wikipedia does not favor classic spelling over official. It contains articles on both spellings. There were some edit wars based on spelling at beginning of 2005, but since that time both spellings coexists peacefully without major problems. Belarusian speaking Internet community is not so big, so further spelling dividing will do more harm then good.
Regards,
Kiryl _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 21/05/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: ...
It seems, that my attempts to reach some compromise on subject of disputable clauses in rules of Be: community failed. My final proposals and admins (EugeneZelenko) replies were (translated more or less verbatim from Be: talk):
1 Names of [allowed] orthographies are currently politically slanted and pejorative. So I suggested to change the clause to «...besides the common/standard/normative («school») orthography the alternative [orthography] is allowed (according to "БЕЛАРУСКІ КЛЯСЫЧНЫ ПРАВАПІС. Збор правілаў. Сучасная нармалізацыя", 2005 [the (first) book containing the rules of alternative orthography])". [To name standard orthography] «official» is not good, as this name has connotation of «non mandatory» in our cultural practice.»
2 Current rules mention alternative orthography as preferred. So I suggested to remedy this by putting clause 1.1 into separate rule on orthography referenced from all other rules [concerned with text].
I've got no clear reply from admins to these two proposals at all.
3 Currently categories are done only in (and forcibly re-done into) alternative orthography. Admin points out that there exists bug 3311 which prevents redirect of categories (therefore preventing making categories in both orthographies). I contended that in such a case the categories should be temporarily done only in standard orthography.
Admin disagreed completely, named my proposal «another POV», suggested poll in community. Eligibility will be apparently limited to persons already being authors of certain number of articles before the certain date.
4 Currently rules require asking «author of article» for permission in order to be able to edit article when editing involves «changing the orthography of the article». I suggested cancelling this requirement and making one sentence the minimally possible unit of text in orthography different from rest of the text (allowing mix of orthographies in one text therefore).
Admin and supporter (MaximLitvin) contend, propose to instead allow changing of the orthography of the complete article, together with keeping one orthography both in text and references (?!), and conditioning the very possibility of such a change by amount of text being newly added (variously, by some % of existing or by added being bigger than existing).
I can't make myself to believe any more that those folks are acting in good faith, and I feel that the further discussion on rules in Be: would be pointless. Sorry to drop this in your lap in this manner, but it definitely seems the issue must go in your hands now.
-regards
Hi!
It seems, that my attempts to reach some compromise on subject of disputable clauses in rules of Be: community failed. My final proposals and admins (EugeneZelenko) replies were (translated more or less verbatim from Be: talk):
1 Names of [allowed] orthographies are currently politically slanted and pejorative. So I suggested to change the clause to «...besides the common/standard/normative («school») orthography the alternative [orthography] is allowed (according to "БЕЛАРУСКІ КЛЯСЫЧНЫ ПРАВАПІС. Збор правілаў. Сучасная нармалізацыя", 2005 [the (first) book containing the rules of alternative orthography])". [To name standard orthography] «official» is not good, as this name has connotation of «non mandatory» in our cultural practice.»
Why do you think that your opinion is only neutral one? There are other alternative suggestion was made. So it's still subject for discussion.
2 Current rules mention alternative orthography as preferred. So I suggested to remedy this by putting clause 1.1 into separate rule on orthography referenced from all other rules [concerned with text].
I've got no clear reply from admins to these two proposals at all.
I think, nobody disagree that preference to any spelling should be removed from rules.
3 Currently categories are done only in (and forcibly re-done into) alternative orthography. Admin points out that there exists bug 3311 which prevents redirect of categories (therefore preventing making categories in both orthographies). I contended that in such a case the categories should be temporarily done only in standard orthography.
Admin disagreed completely, named my proposal «another POV», suggested poll in community. Eligibility will be apparently limited to persons already being authors of certain number of articles before the certain date.
What is wrong with voting? Rules of the voting is not set yet finally and still discussable.
4 Currently rules require asking «author of article» for permission in order to be able to edit article when editing involves «changing the orthography of the article». I suggested cancelling this requirement and making one sentence the minimally possible unit of text in orthography different from rest of the text (allowing mix of orthographies in one text therefore).
Admin and supporter (MaximLitvin) contend, propose to instead allow changing of the orthography of the complete article, together with keeping one orthography both in text and references (?!), and conditioning the very possibility of such a change by amount of text being newly added (variously, by some % of existing or by added being bigger than existing).
What is wrong with single spelling in article?
I can't make myself to believe any more that those folks are acting in good faith, and I feel that the further discussion on rules in Be: would be pointless. Sorry to drop this in your lap in this manner, but it definitely seems the issue must go in your hands now.
Sorry, but I think discussion was in good faith. May be result are not are same as you wanted, but it's how compromise could be reached. We are still open for discussion.
With best regards, Eugene.
On 21/05/06, Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko@gmail.com wrote: ...
Why do you think that your opinion is only neutral one? There are
... Because it wasn't even disputed -- disputed as in "advancing arguments and proving the point". Assertion (e.g., that my opinion "isn't neutral") isn't really discussion.
Same matter with other points I've made. ...
Sorry, but I think discussion was in good faith. May be result are not are same as you wanted, but it's how compromise could be reached. We are still open for discussion.
My proposals didn't mean to get me "what I wanted". My proposals were meant to achieve some sort of consensus -- meaning *acceptable* for all concerned -- in Be: WP community.
Once again -- I wouldn't *like* the rules amended in my way, but they would be *acceptable*.
And yes, I do not believe in "good faith" of your fraction any more. (Just look at what your pal Kiryl writes here or what your pals wrote in Pravapis:Talk -- those people seem to be genuinely *pleased* with demise of "official Belarusian" community?!!)
Sorry everybody, I just couldn't let this fly.
-regards
Hi!
Why do you think that your opinion is only neutral one? There are
... Because it wasn't even disputed -- disputed as in "advancing arguments and proving the point". Assertion (e.g., that my opinion "isn't neutral") isn't really discussion.
Same matter with other points I've made. ...
Sorry, but I think discussion was in good faith. May be result are not are same as you wanted, but it's how compromise could be reached. We are still open for discussion.
My proposals didn't mean to get me "what I wanted". My proposals were meant to achieve some sort of consensus -- meaning *acceptable* for all concerned -- in Be: WP community.
Once again -- I wouldn't *like* the rules amended in my way, but they would be *acceptable*.
I think one person could not speak for all community. You have valid points, but why do you dismiss the same right for other people?
Rules should be acceptable for all contributors, this is reason, why all opinion should be accepted, not only yours.
And yes, I do not believe in "good faith" of your fraction any more. (Just look at what your pal Kiryl writes here or what your pals wrote in Pravapis:Talk -- those people seem to be genuinely *pleased* with demise of "official Belarusian" community?!!)
As far as I remember, Kiryl and you had a conflict in the past. This explains a lot.
Sorry everybody, I just couldn't let this fly.
I think good idea to discuss this first on be:, not behind the backs of be: contributors.
With best regards, Eugene.
On 22/05/06, Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko@gmail.com wrote: ...
I think one person could not speak for all community. You have valid points, but why do you dismiss the same right for other people?
Now and again, you want to discuss not the proposals but the person making the proposals (me). Please, re-read carefully what I've written in message you are replying to. I've just retold my proposals in Be: and gist of your replies. Did I omit something relevant? Did I mis-represent the facts?
Now, for that passage:
As far as I remember, Kiryl and you had a conflict in the past. This explains a lot.
I've never known the guy, however, he foul-mouthed me in maillists several times, with no provocation on my side, AFAIR. So what's that "lot" this supposedly explains and how is it related with my message at all? My remark on my belief was just a remark, I should put it in P.S. properly.
I think good idea to discuss this first on be:, not behind the backs of be: contributors.
I've done my bit of discussing in Be: already, to no avail. And I'm not under any obligation to continue "discussing" there indefinitely, too. Now I'm taking the issue to where I believe it would be handled more efficiently, if at all.
-regards
On 5/22/06, Eugene Zelenko eugene.zelenko@gmail.com wrote:
And yes, I do not believe in "good faith" of your fraction any more.
You can belive whatever you want. We are all free people.
(Just look at what your pal Kiryl writes here
What exactly am I writing here? What's the problem?
or what your pals wrote
in Pravapis:Talk -- those people seem to be genuinely *pleased* with demise of "official Belarusian" community?!!)
Definitly I am not pleased with any kind of demise or something like that. My only point is that belarusian community should be united. Period.
As far as I remember, Kiryl and you had a conflict in the past. This explains a lot.
The issue which we discuss here has nothing to our personal relationship with my friend Tarasievich.
Hi!
or what your pals wrote
in Pravapis:Talk -- those people seem to be genuinely *pleased* with demise of "official Belarusian" community?!!)
Definitly I am not pleased with any kind of demise or something like that. My only point is that belarusian community should be united. Period.
Absolutely agree with this idea, Eugene
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org