![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Hmmm, this article is a funny mixture of 19th century propaganda (Malorossiya anyone?) with linguistic terms and some crazed history with 12 centuries compressed to two or three sentences. IMO it needs serious NPOVing. Halibutt 01:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
It's funny that this time my edits were called russophobic, while some other editors accused me for other edits in Russian Imperialism. I guess, it is better to be accused in both than in one, perhaps it mean that I am neither. Anyway, I am restoring my edits. If they are reverted again, I will not persist for now, but please care to explain what is russophobic there, or if not, what's wrong. And better yet, please be a little more polite. Thanks! - Irpen June 28, 2005 21:08 (UTC)
Halibutt, maybe my version was not the best way to say it, but the version you made needs changes, I think. In the 19-th century not only Russian, but many other historians accepted the version of 3 dialects, see 1911 Britannica for example. The influence of Russian scholarship in the East Slavic historical thought was and remains very significant. That what I meant by the phrase "...under the influence of the scholarship most accepted in the Imperial Russia, many scholars didn't distinguish between...". I will not restore my text for now. I would like to see what others say first. However, the claim that even in the 19-th century Ukrainian and Russian were indeed, rather than claimed to be, mutually intelligible is very questionable, I think. - Irpen June 28, 2005 21:42 (UTC)
The notion of "Ukraine" barely existed in the 19-th century. If there was some kind of conspiracy in Russian scholarship, if you like to use such word, it was not anti-Ukrainian or anti-anything else. It was pro single Rus' "united and indivisible". Not all scholars had views along those lines, but that certainly was a dominant line of thought. The question about the definition of a dialect vs a language is not a trivial one. There are many today's and historical examples like you gave above that can be used by either side of this debate. Mutual intelligibility is an important criterion, but now a single one of course. The issue of whether Little Russian in 19-th century was a dialect or a language is a matter of debate and different sides view that differently. 19-th century scholarship tended to see it more as a dialect (and Russian state tend to actively discourage it, but that's a separate matter). That's fine if we mention that there was such a view at that time. It is also correct to point out the source. Peace! - Irpen June 28, 2005 22:09 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, I think you have a point when you say that the dialect vs language issue should be discussed in a different article. However, in this case this topic should not be discussed here at all rather than present only one side of the debate. Even more radically, we can have this page simply a redirect to Great Russia, the article I created myself some time ago together with Little Russia (to which I redirected Little Russian created at the same time). There are two aspects with the term Great Russian (language). One is etymological and historical and both belong to Great Russia article. The other is the thing, that often goes with those who use this terminology nowadays about a dialect, etc. If we keep the dialect debate in Russian/Ukraine language articles and keep etymology within Great/Little Russia articles, it will be a fine thing to simply redirect this article to Great Russia. I will not mind if someone blanks this entire article into a redirect - Irpen June 30, 2005 02:09 (UTC)
There are absolutely no references here. I think that with the history of this article, they are desperately needed. I looked, but have not been able to find any. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 07:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I think that this article only describes what happened in the Russian empire of the 19th century. Therefore, I think it would best be called "the great russian language of the russian empire". Any comments? Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Are there any objections to renaming this article "The Great Russian Language of the 19th Century"?
All of the sources describe exactly that.
Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 07:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
look, "Great Russian language" is simply a 19th century term for the very same language now known as the Russian language. This should just be a redirect. -- dab (𒁳) 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. This is an appropriate topic and article title as an article describing a historic usage and perspective on the language. I think it's fine as it, and a merge is inappropriate. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Hmmm, this article is a funny mixture of 19th century propaganda (Malorossiya anyone?) with linguistic terms and some crazed history with 12 centuries compressed to two or three sentences. IMO it needs serious NPOVing. Halibutt 01:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
It's funny that this time my edits were called russophobic, while some other editors accused me for other edits in Russian Imperialism. I guess, it is better to be accused in both than in one, perhaps it mean that I am neither. Anyway, I am restoring my edits. If they are reverted again, I will not persist for now, but please care to explain what is russophobic there, or if not, what's wrong. And better yet, please be a little more polite. Thanks! - Irpen June 28, 2005 21:08 (UTC)
Halibutt, maybe my version was not the best way to say it, but the version you made needs changes, I think. In the 19-th century not only Russian, but many other historians accepted the version of 3 dialects, see 1911 Britannica for example. The influence of Russian scholarship in the East Slavic historical thought was and remains very significant. That what I meant by the phrase "...under the influence of the scholarship most accepted in the Imperial Russia, many scholars didn't distinguish between...". I will not restore my text for now. I would like to see what others say first. However, the claim that even in the 19-th century Ukrainian and Russian were indeed, rather than claimed to be, mutually intelligible is very questionable, I think. - Irpen June 28, 2005 21:42 (UTC)
The notion of "Ukraine" barely existed in the 19-th century. If there was some kind of conspiracy in Russian scholarship, if you like to use such word, it was not anti-Ukrainian or anti-anything else. It was pro single Rus' "united and indivisible". Not all scholars had views along those lines, but that certainly was a dominant line of thought. The question about the definition of a dialect vs a language is not a trivial one. There are many today's and historical examples like you gave above that can be used by either side of this debate. Mutual intelligibility is an important criterion, but now a single one of course. The issue of whether Little Russian in 19-th century was a dialect or a language is a matter of debate and different sides view that differently. 19-th century scholarship tended to see it more as a dialect (and Russian state tend to actively discourage it, but that's a separate matter). That's fine if we mention that there was such a view at that time. It is also correct to point out the source. Peace! - Irpen June 28, 2005 22:09 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, I think you have a point when you say that the dialect vs language issue should be discussed in a different article. However, in this case this topic should not be discussed here at all rather than present only one side of the debate. Even more radically, we can have this page simply a redirect to Great Russia, the article I created myself some time ago together with Little Russia (to which I redirected Little Russian created at the same time). There are two aspects with the term Great Russian (language). One is etymological and historical and both belong to Great Russia article. The other is the thing, that often goes with those who use this terminology nowadays about a dialect, etc. If we keep the dialect debate in Russian/Ukraine language articles and keep etymology within Great/Little Russia articles, it will be a fine thing to simply redirect this article to Great Russia. I will not mind if someone blanks this entire article into a redirect - Irpen June 30, 2005 02:09 (UTC)
There are absolutely no references here. I think that with the history of this article, they are desperately needed. I looked, but have not been able to find any. Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 07:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I think that this article only describes what happened in the Russian empire of the 19th century. Therefore, I think it would best be called "the great russian language of the russian empire". Any comments? Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Are there any objections to renaming this article "The Great Russian Language of the 19th Century"?
All of the sources describe exactly that.
Thanks, Horlo ( talk) 07:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
look, "Great Russian language" is simply a 19th century term for the very same language now known as the Russian language. This should just be a redirect. -- dab (𒁳) 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. This is an appropriate topic and article title as an article describing a historic usage and perspective on the language. I think it's fine as it, and a merge is inappropriate. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)