Talk:Belarusian language

• Talk:Belarusian language/Archive 1

Contents

1 Polonization 2 POV 3 Monedula's major rewrite 4 Monedula has no authority to make such changes 5 The referendum of May 14, 1995 6 Belarusian country names

Polonization

Was Belarusian subject to polonization or not? It is evident that Belarusian has incorporated a great quantity of Polish words. Still Rydel has deleted link to polonization. What's the matter with it? — Monedula 14:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Monedula, I don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, there was Polonization in Belarus. The word polonization refers to the process that took place after we made a union with the Poles, the famous Recz Paspalitaja, and our nobles and even some simple people started switching to Polish, started educating their kids in Polish, etc. This is what Polonization means.

I am not aware of any polonization that took place inside the Belarusian language. I never heard of the term "polonization" in the linguistic sense. I should add, Old Belarusian language basically died, became extinct, stopped existing (thanks to Poles and Russians!). And there was a big hiatus between Old Belarusian of the times of the Grand Duchy and the modern Belarusian. And I never heard anything about polonization of the modern Belarusian language at any point.

So I'm looking forward to hearing from you. And I'd like to see some concrete example. E.g. some concrete grammatical, syntactical features that let's say Old Belarusian did not have, and that modern Belarusian does have, and that it was indeed from the Polish language that this particular change came from.

I'm really excited about your new discoveries. --rydel 18:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess that Monedula meant the huge number of Belarussian words of Polish origin. There are lots of such words in many languages, but it should be noted that it had nothing to do with polonisation of the language. Similarily, the huge number of Turkish words in Russian language does not mean that Russian was turkified. Halibutt 19:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that was what she was referring to, to the common vocabulary between the two languages (Belarusian and Polish). Overall, and this is just my personal opinion, a real IMHO, etymology often seems to be a pseudo-science, that people use for political means. This whole "word origin" thing often times seems very fishy, IMHO.

Of course, it's customary to speak of Belarusan having thousands of Polish loan words. But are they loan words? Who determined that? Some people found them in older Polish texts, and didn't find them in some Old Ruthenian texts? Is that the proof? I think the only proof would be 12-16th century audio tapes from Warszawa, Krakow, Bialystok, Hrodna, Navahradak, Vorsza, Polacak. ;) Otherwise, it's all a bit suspcious, and could be used for political means. Are "cikavy" and "ciekawy" cognates, or we should call it a Polish loan word? Are "siastra" and "siostra" cognates, or we should call it a Polish cognate? How about abzac, bursztyn, babior, dach, tlumaczyc, drot, jajka, jesci, plaszka, hvalt, hurok, handal, klajnot, kufar, koszt, kuchnia, lamantavac, lichtar, nyrki, achviara, kvitok, rachunak, szyba, szynka, szryft, szrot, szvagier, szpacyravac, sztraf, talerka, chvala, cybula? And thousands of others. Are they Polish? Are they Belarusian? Well, in fact, all the Belarusian words that I just wrote are, most probably, German loan words. So does it mean somebody "germanized" our language? I really have no answers to that, and I don't really like the answers I hear from the traditional "etymology specialists". --rydel 20:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now, if there was no polonization, then what do you mean by "Russification" of Belarusian, and why it must be mentioned? — Monedula 22:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far my understanding goes, the term russification primarily means this (the same as with polonization): Belarusian-speaking people (mostly villagers) switching to Russian which is perceived as more "prestigious" and "urban" language, and Belarusian-speaking people educating their children in Russian.

And when I say "government pursuing russification policies" I mean that in spite of the fact that equality of the two languages is proclaimed in the Constitution of this country, one of the languages is most of the time ignored, abandoned, not used, and simply discriminated.

As for the Russification of our language (i.e. from the linguistic perspective), I guess the best example is the Bolshevik's reform of 1933. This reform changed the language quite a bit, and affected the language for 70+ years, and it's still in place. (And there never was such a reform at any point in the past when someone would forcefully introduce some Polish grammatical, syntactical or other features into our language. It simply never happened). --rydel 23:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, the reform of 1933 is the only thing that makes the difference? And did it really make Belarusian more like Russian? Russian language was reformed, too (in 1918), but it did not make it any worse. — Monedula 23:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It did. 1933 reform was mostly a reform of orthographical rules, which means obviously that only spelling rules were changed. So theoretically it should've only affected the spelling, not how the language is spoken. But, of course, in practice it turned out differently. Here is an example (arguably one of the most damaging changes of that reform). This reform cancelled soft sign to show palatalization. E.g. before 1933 you had to write "сьнег", "песьня". And after 1933 the soft sign was abandoned, so you had to write "снег", "песня" (exactly like in Russian). Of course, you still had to pronounce all those words just the way you did before. But now the writing looked more like Russian, and I personally noticed that it affects pronunciation: most of the Russian-speaking kids from Minsk when they learn Belarusian in school, pronounce such words "лазня", "з'ява", "свет" just like in Russian, with hard з and с. They simply don't realize they should pronounce it very softly сь, зь (сЬвет, зЬява), almost like in Polish.

After 1933 there was another reform in Soviet 1957, which did some damage too, but only a little bit. Unfortunately there is very little information in English about either of the two reforms. Here is one article which I put on pravapis: 1968: Grammatical Changes in Modern Literary Belarusian Language, Professor R. G. A. de Bray (http://www.pravapis.org/art_belarusian_lecture_1968.asp). The professor is not an expert in Belarusian language studies, so he himself misunderstood a couple things, but in any case I guess that's the best text in English so far about 1933 reform that is available online as of this moment. --rydel

Now, if "they" really wanted to Russify Belarusian spelling, why did they change so little? Just replace all ці, дзі, це, дзе, ць, дзь with ти, ди, те, де, ть, дь, replace all ў with в, replace some stressless а and я with о and е, and the resulting language will be difficult to distinguish from Russian. But nobody tried to do what. So, I suppose, the spelling reform was motivated by the internal logic of Belarusian, not by desire to "Russify" it. (In 1930s, the standard Russian did not differ from Belarusian in the matter of softening с in песня and снег — the hard с here is only a recent phenomenon). — Monedula 11:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"the spelling reform was motivated by the internal logic of Belarusian, not by desire to "Russify" it". No, I just gave you an example. And you still don't get it, do you?

And, anyway, this is a bizarre question, a strange way of trying to play Devil's advocate perhaps? "Why did they do so little?" My guess is that (1) there were enough resistence within that system (among linguists), (2) it was not possible to do much more damage within that system. Changing it any more than that would mean really to create a new system, which would not be phonetic at all. While modern Belarusian (like many other newer languages) by definition tries to be as phonetic as possible, it's considered to be a fundamental principle "як чуецца, так і пішацца" (although of course, it's no 100% phonetic). Now, I personally wouldn't mind using the "traditional" way, because that would create a tighter and more obvious link with the old language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But I think it would be more difficult for people to be able to read and write properly in that language. So personally I am fine with what we got from our early 20th century linguists.

"the resulting language will be difficult to distinguish from Russian" - oh, please... Please... If you like having discussion at such a level, then I better stop right here, right now and not waste anymore time on you. Please, do me a favor. Open any text in Belarusan. Let's say, for random purposes, just any article on rydel.net: -1- (http://www.rydel.net/kundera.php), -2- (http://www.rydel.net/zaploczana.php), -3- (http://www.rydel.net/sagan.php). And do this conversion of soft d', t' and post the results here, and see how easy or "difficult" it is to "distinguish it from Russian". (Or, alternatively, just stop bullsh***ing on the subject you don't seem to know much about). --rydel 12:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the resulting language will be difficult to distinguish from Russian — yes, it is an exaggeration. Still many Belarusian words would become spelled identically with the Russian ones. (It has nothing to do with phonetic changes — Russian ти is in reality pronounced as ці!) The simple reality is that, both in Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union, nobody cared to "Russify" Belarusian language. What purpose would it serve? The actual policy was to teach standard Russian language to everyone. — Monedula 13:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV

Look: "and the government does not provide any support for the Belarusian language.". Perhaps it is true, but the way of saying it, isn't.

Perhaps the independent Belarus is just too poor to give the support required. Under the Soviets, national cultures and languages were heavily subsidized, but Soviet Union was much richer than today's independent republics. — Monedula 11:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Anonymous and Monedula just proved that they've never been to Belarus and that they do not know anything about current sociolinguistic situation in that country. Indeed, the above statement is, in my opinion, a POV, but the other way around. It should instead say something like "Government actively fights and oppresses Belarusian speakers."

Here's just one example for you ladies and gentlemen: There is not a single school in Minsk (almost two million people, the capital) where all subjects are taught in Belarusian. Lukashenka closed them all down. Get it: there is not a single Belarusian-language school in 1.5-million capital. The last one was shut down two years ago after Lukashenka called it "a bee-hive of the opposition." Just search the web for [1] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=be&q=%22%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%86%D1%8D%D0%B9%22+site%3Asvaboda.org)"ліцэй"].

Now they exist underground. For example, right now for two weeks they are having normal classes in a normal building in ... Vilnia Lithuania. Lithuanians invited them. Lithuanian school let them use their premises while the Lithuanian kids are having X-mas vacations. And those kids are under complete ban in Belarus. For one single reason - all subjects were taught in Belarusan in their school.

And this is just one of many examples.

In fact, I think a separate section in this article is needed to describe and suumarize what the government of Belarus has been doing to Belarusian speakers since 1995-1996 (after Lukashenka turned authocractic and almost dictatorial). --rydel 18:09, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a bit about this liceum case in the Alexander Lukashenko#Economic and political problems section some time ago. Mikkalai 19:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A new big article about Belarusan Lyceum in Gazeta Wyborcza:

• Lekcja tajnego języka. Białoruś (http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/df/1,34467,2470687.html?as=1&ias=8) (Original article in Polish)
• “Gazeta Wyborcza” пра беларускі Ліцэй: “Заняткі па тайнай мове. Беларусь” (http://www.svaboda.org/articlesfeatures/society/2005/1/1985D296-1F2A-4AA2-8FE0-6F275FB7250D.html) (Short summary of the article in Belarusian)
• Беларусь. Урок запрещённого языка. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/czalex/231786.html) (a translation of the article into Russian)

--rydel 03:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Monedula's major rewrite

Hey-hey, hold your horses, Russian miss. This is like a totally new, different article. I personally disagree with the changes. I propose that we discuss each change step-by-step and then do it (or not do it).

1) First, I don't agree with the restructuring. Can you explain the reason for shifting paragraphs and sentences around? I think it weakened the chronological and logical flow.

No, quite the reverse — I just attempted to put everything in chronological order. Maybe something got wrong, but we can work it out. Do not revert it wholesale.

And here are some other concerns that I have:

2 After partitions of Poland (1772-1796), the Belarusian territory was incorporated into Imperial Russia. Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive.

Did you forget about Kosziuszko's anti-russian uprising and Kalinouski anti-russian uprising and Slucak anti-bolshevik uprising? No one lacked identity at that point. The problem with Belarus' identity is the problem of USSR times and Russification policies. The above sentence is in both versions, but in the original version this phrase does not stand next to 1772-1796, so it does not create a false time frame association with the 18th century.

To what time it belongs, then? In Soviet times, at least, there was no problem with Belarusian identity, because Belarusians had their own republic.

3 By the 16th century, the term "ruski" ("Russian" or "Ruthenian" in Latin) continued to refer to the language spoken in modern-day Ukraine and Belarus, not to the language of Muscovy (the Russians).

It is a fact. Why did you delete that? You, Muscovites, wanted to call your language "Russian", that's true, but it's very important to note that back then no one else called it "Russian". Later, yes. But not in 16th century. "Russian" was refered to "Old Ruthenian" or "Old Belarusian". For example, one of the many sources is http://txt.knihi.com/mova/dyplamat.html Дыпляматычная кантравэрсыя 1646 году за беларускую мову. (And this is even 17th century - Polish, Litvins, Ruthenes still resisted calling your language "Russian", even a century later)

I suspect the major reason for juggling with paragraphs and sentences was to delete this sentence. Very cunning.

I did not delete it, but moved to a different place. You just did not notice.

4 A process of divergence that accelerated in the 17th century, created a new division between the languages spoken in the south (Ukraine) and north (Belarus) of Ruthenian-speaking territory.

This was deleted too without any grounds for doing that. Care to explain?

The division appeared much earlier. For instance, the transition of "o" → "a" in unstressed syllables appeared in the 15th century (and Belarusian shares this feature with Russian language, not with Ukrainian!). And the Ukrainian transition "o" → "i" (not featured in Belarusian) appeared in the 15th century too (possibly even earlier). So the phrase about 17th century is clearly disinformation.

5 The Belarusization was stalled and even reversed since 1930s. The orthographic reform of 1933, although minor, is seen by some as an attempt to "russify" Belarusian language. In 1938 Russian language become an obligatory subject in all Soviet schools. The final blow was the school reform of 1958, when parents were given right to select the language of instruction for their children. After that, more and more people began to send their children to Russian-language schools, and the number of Belarusian-language schools began to diminish.

"is seen by some" is ridiculous. The only reason for the reform was to bring the spelling (orthographic) rules closer to Russian. Period. I don't think anybody ever questioned that. It's obvious. Just read something about the reform or compare the spelling rules.

Nonsence! If someone really wanted to "Russify" Belarusian language, one could just reintroduce the Old Belarusian spelling, which is much closer to modern Russian spelling. Obviously that was not the issue.

6 The interest to Belarusian language was revived at the end of 1980s during perestroika. In 1990 Belarusian became the only official language of Belarusian SSR, and a second campain of Belarusization followed.

Has it become the only official language of BSSR or independent Belarus? I think BSSR is wrong here.

Yes, it's true! In 1990 Belarusian was proclaimed the official language of Belarusian SSR! And Russian was not!

7 However, the Belarusization proved to be unpopular, and at the 1995 Referendum people overwhelmingly (83.3%) voted for giving Russian language an equal status with Belarusian.

God! Ridiculous! What's next? You'll write that Saddam Husseyn is more popular and democratic than Bill Clinton, because Clinton got only 43% of the popular vote, and Saddam Husseyn got almost 99.999%? Of course, that Lukashenka's referendum was rigged and falsified. No one knows what were the real figures. Whether it was 1% or 99% for any of the questions.

Oh! I see. If you dislike a referendum, you just declare it rigged. Can you give some proof that it was rigged? So far as I know, people really disliked the Belarusification campaign of early 1990s.

8 This lack of a strong ethnolinguistic identity, along with the popular association of Belarusian dialects as rural, peasant languages as opposed to Russian's modern/urban connotations, is seen by some as a threat that may lead to the eventual extinction of the Belarusian language in Belarus.

I think that refers to Soviet times and early 90's. Nowdays the socio-linguistic situation is different and not so simple.

Try to ajust the sentence.

9 The situation changed dramatically after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the creation of Belarusian SSR. In 1920s Bolsheviks have launched a massive campain of forced Belarusization (a part of a larger korenizatsiya program), combined with a campain for universal literacy ("likbez"). It was the only then that the notions of "Belarus" and "Belarusian language" have become clear-cut.

My god, you are putting things upside down, giving credit to Bolsheviks for something which they actually fought against. What's your agenda here, by inserting this misinformation?

You are totally misinformed. Bolsheviks have never fought against Belarusian. Of course, at times massive repressions caused disruption, but, all in all, Belarusian had a firm position in Belarusian SSR, and Belarusian culture was well subsidized.

First of all, you should not start with Russian Revolution of 1917, but mention the BNR of 1918, the first national state that really cared about national values. And in 1917 Russians were not even in Belarus. There were Germans on our territory. World War I, ok?

BNR was ephemerial and disappeared without traces. Modern Belarus is a successor of Belarusian SSR, that's clear.

Second, please provide facts on "forced Belarusization". Who was forced? When? By whom?

Bolsheviks forced everyone in Belarus to study Belarusian language, and children were sent to Belarusian-language schools without asking the parents what langauge they preferred. All administration and legal affairs began to be carried out in Belarusian. Many people really disliked this. If you want facts, just read something beyond the official Polish propaganda.

Third, what is "clear-cut", and what was not "clear-cut" before the Bolsheviks?

Before 1920, Belarusian language was just a collection of rural dialects, plus a few literary works written and read mainly by Polish nationalists. 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica stated that Belarisian dialects belong to Russian language. Most Belarusian peasants called themselves not Belarusians, but tutejshiye ("local people"). The real Belarusian identity was created by Bolshevics (and not by the Polish).

10 I agree the "history" section could be rewritten, improved and extended, but what you've done seems just to be a mere juggling around and random insertion of Soviet propaganda. Sorry. That's not the way to make a good NPOV and informative entry. --rydel 12:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not Soviet propaganda, it's truth. Just try to read something beyond the Polish propaganda nonsense. — Monedula 19:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. I believe that some restructuring could be in place. Also, Monedula's version had certain advantages too. I guess the best solution would be to prepare a new version that would be the mixture of both versions.
2. Both of you are right here - to some extent. OTOH perhaps the wording should be changed, but the basic idea seems true - while the Belarusian folks openly supported the fight of others and in this aspect were the direct descendants of the Great Duchy, there is a huge difference between the sense of national identity in Poland or Ukraine and in Belarus. The Ruthenian gentry (and peasants as well, at least to a certain degree) took part in both January Uprising and November Uprising, the movement was by no means massive. Also, with Kalinoŭski's role in the January Uprising the modern Belarussian was starting, it was an early beginning. The sentiments were strong, but aimed in different directions. In 19th century the difference between a Belarusian, Pole or Lithuanian was still difficult to tell. Lithuania, my motherland wrote Mickiewicz - about Belarus.. The same was also true for Kościuszko who was a Pole, yet he was a Lithuanian (and Belarusian). Such a statement of identity was not contradictory at that time. Also, note the number of tutejsi even in 20th century. So, IMO Monedula's statement about lack of strong nationalistic drive seems acceptable.
3. Indeed the deleted sentence seemed true. I have no idea why was it deleted either.
4. See above
5. Indeed, this seems like an introduction of unnecessary weasel term.
6. Hmmm... never heard of SSRs adopting a new sole national language.
7. Indeed, the effects of the voting and the actual support for Lukashenka are openly questioned by almost anyone in the world. Even if the election results were true (which I seriously doubt), I believe we should avoid using them as a proof of anything unless any hard evidence is available - which I doubt will happen anytime soon...
8. Perhaps the situation is even more complex than it was, but I personally met a young couple from Minsk who told me that they knew Belarusian, but they never used it since they didn't want to be considered peasants. (BTW, they changed their mind after two years of studying here in Warsaw).
9. Well, initially the bolsheviks were not as Russo-centric as they were since late 1920's or early 1930's. Although the political independence of the national regions (SSRs, autonomous regions and such) was limited and mostly theoretical, initially they had a vast cultural autonomy. Even the Poles were given two autonomous districts with Polish-language schools and Polish newspapers. What happened later is a different story though.
10. Indeed this article deserves expansion. However, for me the arguments about Soviet propaganda are too strong. Let's just cool down and try to cooperate, without offending other contributors. Ok? Please leave the Polish propaganda/ Soviet propaganda/ Martian propaganda arguments on the side and try to prepare a great article. And please, stop the revert war, or else the article gets blocked and we'll have to cope with the wrong version, whichever it is. Halibutt 20:18, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Monedula has no authority to make such changes

Sorry, Halibutt, but I don't see any reason in arguing with this woman from Russia.

1. I spent most of my life in Belarus, she never lived in that country (don't know if she ever even visited it);
2. I have read dozens of books about Belarusan language; I doubt she ever read anything (because she couldn't - there is almost no books about it in Enligsh or Russian - those books were in Belarusan).
3. I formally studied Belarusian in school, she did not;
4. I speak native Belarusian, she does not know it;
5. I am a Belarusian language editor in a mass-medium, a language proof-reader and style editor; she has no knowledge of this language;

If she demolishes this article into some pro-Russian, pro-Soviet propaganda piece of ..., I am just going to leave. I am spending most of the time on http://be.wikipedia.org/ anyway. And let the English speakers read the BS POV from some Jaroslavl "language specialist." --rydel 23:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article is not your property! If you want to make a page according to you taste only, then create your own Internet site and put there anything you like. If you cannot cooperate and negotiate, then indeed you must leave Wikipedia. — Monedula 00:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You didn't even understand this comment. The page is not my property. Of course, not. With this comment I presented my credentials. And as reasonable individual I hate it when true facts presented by someone who has knowledge and expertise is destroyed or changed into false information by someone who has no knowledge or expertise. Please, answer my comment. Please, present your credentials. Show me that you know this language and its history. (Unforuntatley, your questions and comments about "polonization" and "Polish propaganda" show that you are totally off.) If you can't prove your knowledge and if you can't show credible sources of your information, then stop changing this article. --rydel 01:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lord in Heaven, could you both close your eyes and count to twenty? Dear friends, cool down, please. Both of you have made lots of great edits (even if I at times opposed them) and you both have right to have your own views, even if they are wrong. Just show a little patience and try to cooperate. How about that?

Even if Monedula does not speak a word in Belarusan she might know a lot about it - as a historian, for instance. But please, be so kind as to show some maturity (both of you) and refrain yourself from future remarks similar to "Soviet propaganda", "Polish propaganda" and so on. This leads nowhere, i had the same disease when I first entered Talk:Gdansk some year ago and saw some nationalist idiots wanting to promote their stupid POV over and over again. It took me some time to realise that a compromise could be reached - and I guess a compromise could be reached here as well. I wish it to both of you and to myself as well, since I like this article and would love to read more on the "most western Slavic of the east Slavic languages".

So, Monedula, how about that: Rydel has written down his objections to your version. Could you write yours in a friendly and specific tone, without using the words "nationalist", "propaganda", "nonsense" or "bullshit"? Halibutt 01:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

For certain things compromise can indeed be reached, but for some things it's simply out of question because a given statement is either true or false. So if Monedula keeps reverting to 2+2=5, I will not settle for 2+2=4,5. Sorry. No. And the changes she made to this article so far suggest that she does not have any solid knowledge about Belarusian language and her changes fall into the category of 2+2=5 (that especially concerns statements about Bolsheviks, about 1933 reform, about Soviet policies and about sociolinguistic situation in BSSR and after the independence.) --rydel 02:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All right, let's wait for her reply (Monedula is a she, isn't she; her user page doesn't give any clue). Halibutt 15:34, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

The referendum of May 14, 1995

Rydel has wrote: All international observers said that the results of the referendum were falsified.

Can you please indicate, who exactly said that the results were falsified, and where the reports have been published? — Monedula 19:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe Russian and CIS observers said it was fine. Gotta search the archives. (I removed it for now.)

I am not proposing to delete the mention of the referendOOm. Sure, we should mention this referndum. But you seem to be making wrong conlusions from its results (even if they are true, which we do not know). Let me give you an example. I have a blog http://blog.rydel.net/ which initially was 90% only in Belarusan (with an occasional entry in English or German), but after a year or, maybe, two years I made a decision to make it bilinguial. Now I make almost all of my entries both, in Belarusan and in English. So, Monedula, does instroducing a second "official languge" to my blog mean that I don't like Belarusan so much or that I prefer English over Belarusan? Of course, not! --rydel 13:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it means that "Belarusian-only" policy is not viable. — Monedula 00:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's leads to a question that most smaller languages/cultures have to answer (let's say under 10 million). Can Danes or Slovaks or Norwegians or Belarusians survive by only knowning their native tongue? The answer is "yes" and "no". (Besides, there is at least one good counter-example: 10 millions of Hungarians. Hungarians had a state in Europe for 1000 years, they have rich culture, rich history, and they never really had a problem of losing their mother tongue). IMHO, the problem with Belarus is that it'd be wiser (and nicer) if the first foreign language would've been English, not Russian. --rydel 02:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Belarusian country names

Over at List of country names in various languages there's a whole slew of names purporting to be Belarusian but clearly aren't (a lot of them use the letter и for one thing). Apparently someone went through adding "Belarusian" to every Russian name, assuming they'd be identical. Could someone who actually knows Belarusian (I don't) please go through and correct the Belarusian spelling of the names, or at least remove the "Belarusian" label from the names where it doesn't belong? Thanks! --Angr/_comhrá 09:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank for pointing that out. You are right, they are all totally wrong (except for 4-5% of the cases when the spelling of a given country name coincides in Russian and Belarusan). Maybe I'll do it, when I have a bit more free time. --rydel 16:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)