This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The new Examples section ought to be put into a better phonetic transcription, like Wikipedia:Simplified phonetic transcription for Lithuanian. -- Theodore Kloba 18:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, we have a few Lithuanian samples at Albanian language#How Albanian compares with other languages. Could someone please check if the yare correct? Rex( talk) 23:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's one for the experts: Is the Lithuanian word mažas (small) cognate to PIE *meĝ (great), and akin to Latin mega and Sanskrit महा/mahā? The sound changes tell us it could be; the "exact opposite" semantic shift is interesting. -- Theodore Kloba 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
According to the Ethymological dictionary of Latvian by Konstantins Karulis, latv. "mazs" and lith. "mažas" are derived from pie. *meĝh-. This root used to denotate the size in total opposites. An other example is "magus" (boy) in the Gothic. The development should have been following: ide. *meĝh- : *moĝh- > balt. *maž- > latv. maz-. Also, there are dialectal forms in Latvian: "maģ" - few, a little. So this theory is actually true. - Janis
Anyway, according to the linguists the most likely tree is something like this:
2500 BC 1000 BC 1 AD 300 AD 1500 AD -> *(proto-Satem)---> (proto-Daco-Albanian)-\--> (Dacian dialect) --> (Daco-Romanian) --> Romanian | |--> (another Dac. dialect) --> --> Albanian ---> (proto-Baltic) -\---> (proto-Latvian) --> --> Latvian |--> (proto-Lithuanian) --> --> Lithuanian
Is this true? -- Bonaparte talk 19:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
“The earliest-known written Lithuanian text is a hymnal translation from 1545” Is it right that earliest known written text is from 1545? I know there is a written prayer text in ~1503. M.K 12:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Lithuanian is no closer to Latin than it is to other Indo-European languages. As a result, I've tried to write the section to discuss only shared vocabulary. The morphological details which were written there are in no way limited to Latin and Lithuanian--only someone with little or no training in comparative Indo-European linguistics would concoct such an explanation. Furthermore, mention of morphology doesn't belong in a section on lexicon. CRCulver 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, in a sense, you're right. There have always been attempts to show how Lithuanian grammar is similar to that of Latin. However, Lithuanian is special not because it's similar to Latin but simply because of being archaic. That's all.
Nevertheless, I see you've changed one of the most conservative to one of the more conservative. That was quite surprising to me. Despite the fact I always try to avoid being etnocentric as much as possible, I have to ask you to provide me a list of languages that are the most conservative (since Lithuanian belongs to the more conservative languages). RokasT 13:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
In the article section, "The lexical borrowings in the language" the following phrases are troublesome (from neutrality standpoint):
"However, there are many words which have Lithuanian counterparts, hence they should not be used."
"...many words have recently flooded the language (like dispenseris, hakeris or singlas) and they are not to be tolerated."
Perhaps a discussion about the prevailing attitudes toward recent lexical borrowings could be included instead. Also, are there any official government activities (like those in France or Iceland, for example) to discourage use of these loanwords?
-- Theodore Kloba 19:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are no official government activities to discourage use of loanwords.
This article may seem troublesome when you take it out of context and try to analyze "as is". However, it is not. You must understand the problems that arise every day to the Lithuanian language to understand what this means.
In Lithuania, no one thinks that a loan word should not be used only because it is a loan word. But barbarisms certainly should be avoided. English can take new words equally easily from Japanese and German whereas in Lithuanian it would be impossible. Simply to add Lithuanian endings to nouns, verbs etc. is not enough. I think this is what the article means.
On the other hand, I myself think that this article should be re-written and I think I will do that one day.-- 213.226.138.241 19:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have completely rewritten this article (which was initially written by me as well) and disposed of all the rubbish in it, which was making other people want to question its point of view. I've tried to write in a completely neutral POV. RokasT 14:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Lithuanian population isn't big, Lithuanian language is surrounded mostly by Slavic languages, so influence on phonetic and different tendencies of articulation also exist. Another source of different treatment is usage of different phonologic systems by different scholars, but it's unessential in our case. The treatment of Lithuanian sounds, accepted in Lithuanian schools, mass-media and so on, also exist. For shortening purposes we'll call it official here.
Two points of view with some comments are presented in the table below, the first one according to Dr. A. Girdenis (from: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija by Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius, 1999) and the second one according to Dr. W.R. Schmalstieg (from the site of journal Lituanus, 1982.1.,Vol 28). Lithuanian sounds in the table are denoted by Lithuanian letters, which are normally pronounced as corresponding sounds.
Sounds (indicated by Lithuanian letters) |
Definition according to A. Girdenis |
Definition according to W. R. Schmalstieg |
Other points of view |
Comments |
c, č, dz, dž |
Affricates (*) |
Affricates (*) |
Two different sounds (t+s, t+š , d+z, d+ž), which can be divided into different syllables. |
Traditionally affricates. However, tendency to separate a stop from a fricative exists in Lithuanian spoken language, especially in unpalatalized variant. |
Alveolar sounds |
Retracted alveo-palatal sounds |
|
Difference of terms, which isn't essential here. |
|
|
Nasal and fricative sounds |
Continuant sounds (with voiced, unvoiced and nasal subdivision) |
|
Caused by systematic differences. |
h |
Voiced velar fricative (*) |
Voiceless glottal continuant (diff!). |
|
Tends to voiced more than to unvoiced in spoken Lithuanian. Officially considered as voiced pair of ch (SAMPA x). See note (2) below. |
l |
Dental lateral (*). |
Lateral |
|
|
r |
Alveolar trill (*). |
Apical trill |
|
There is no essential difference, I think. |
v |
(Voiced) labial spirant (*). |
Voiced continuant. (diff!) |
|
Pronounciation of v tends to short vowel u (SAMPA u), reduced to consonant (not semivovel as w in SAMPA). Fricative tendencies are rare. See note (3) below. |
Sounds (indicated by Lithuanian letters) |
Definition according to A. Girdenis |
Definition according to W. R. Schmalstieg |
Comments |
ę |
Low front (+) |
Low mid front |
There is a tendency to articulate ę as more middle than ą in spoken language. Many scholars keep this tendency inessential. In this case ę is considered low with back pair ą. |
(1) The point of view, analogous to official one, is marked by (*), by (+) prevalent point of view is marked. By (diff!) an essential difference between A. Girdenis and W. R. Schmalstieg is marked.
(2) Sound h in Lithuanian has its specific history. It wasn't used in spoken Lithuanian till the beginning of XX century. Maybe for this reason Dr. Schmalstieg gives more common pronunciation of Western Indo-European languages? But in reality this sound has been used for more than 70 years (in school, theatre, mass-media), so it has a tradition as other sounds do. Officially it's considered as voiced velar fricative, the voiced pair of voiceless ch. In its pronouncing the tendency to glottal, maybe, exist, but practically there are no tendencies to voiceless.
(3) Sound v in Lithuanian has a difference from languages, where it's fricative. Its tendencies to fricative in Lithuanian are weak. The sound is pronounced as u (SAMPA u), reduced to consonant (not semivowel as SAMPA w). It's considered voiced, but has no voiceless pair ( the same situation as with j, l, n). Its “voicedness” is low and v does not make consonants before them voiced. Dr. Schmalstieg's system doesn't points up this thing. Considering v as continuant may imply fricative. Continued Lithuanian v gives short vowel u (as j gives i in this case).
Note: For comparing X-SAMPA and SAMPA charts of wiki's articles were used.
Letter of sound |
Official definition of sound |
The closest sound in X-SAMPA |
The closest sound in SAMPA |
Comments |
z, ž, h, (s, š, ch) |
Voiced (voiceless) fricatives |
Voiced (voiceless) fricatives: z, z\, G, (s, s\, x) |
Voiced (voiceless) fricatives: z, Z, G, (s, S, x). |
|
dz, dž, (c, č) |
Voiced (voiceless) affricates |
Voiced (voiceless) affricates: ts\ etc. |
Voiced (voiceless) affricates: tS etc. |
|
b, d, g, (p, t, k) |
Voiced (voiceless) plosives |
Voiced (voiceless) plosives: b, d, g, (p, t, k) |
Voiced (voiceless) stops: b, d, g, (p, t, k) |
|
b (p) |
Voiced (voiceless) labial plosive |
Voiced (voiceless) bilabial plosive: b (p). |
Voiced (voiceless) bilabial plosive: b (p). |
|
f |
Voiceless labial fricative |
Voiceless labiodental fricative: f |
Voiceless labiodental fricative: f |
|
z, dz, (s, c) |
Voiced (voiceless) dental |
Voiced (voiceless) alveolar: z, dz, (s, ts) |
Voiced (voiceless) alveolar: z, dz, (s, ts) |
|
ž, dž, (š, č) |
Voiced (voiceless) alveolar |
Voiced (voiceless) alveopalatal: z\, dz\, (s\, ts\) |
Voiced (voiceless) postalveolar Z, dZ, (S, tS) |
The better distinction in X-SAMPA (Lithuanian ž (š) differs from more palatal sound in other languages, being closer to z_a (s_a)). |
v |
Labial spirant |
Labial approximant: v\ |
- |
No distinction from v fricative in SAMPA chart |
j |
Palatal spirant |
Palatal approximant: j |
- |
No distinction from j semivowel in SAMPA chart |
m |
Labial nasal |
Bilabial nasal: m |
Bilabial nasal: m |
|
n |
Dental nasal |
Alveolar nasal: n |
Alveolar nasal: n |
|
l |
Dental lateral |
Alveolar lateral flap: l\ |
(alveolar lateral: l) |
No distinction between “West-European” and “East-European” articulation of l in SAMPA |
r |
Alveolar trill |
Alveolar trill: r |
Alveolar trill: r |
|
Letter of sound |
Official definition of sound |
The closest sound in X-SAMPA and SAMPA |
Comments |
i |
Short high front unrounded vowel |
Lax close front unrounded vowel (short): I |
|
į or y |
Long high front unrounded vowel |
Tense close front unrounded vowel (long): i: |
|
ė |
Long mid front unrounded vowel |
Close-mid front unrounded vowel (long): e: |
The short variant of this sound (having no own letter and denoted by letters ė, e or i) is very rare in Lithuanian. It also hasn't a different sign in X-SAMPA (closest to i, but more mid). |
e |
Short low front unrounded vowel |
Open-mid front unrounded vowel (short): E |
|
ę |
Long low front unrounded vowel |
Open front unrounded vowel (long): {: |
|
a |
Short low back unrounded vowel |
Open-mid back unrounded vowel (short): V |
|
ą |
Long low back unrounded vowel |
Open back unrounded vowel (long): A: |
|
o |
Long mid back rounded vowel |
Open-mid back rounded vowel (long): O: |
|
o (variant) |
Short mid back rounded vowel |
Close-mid back rounded vowel (short): o |
|
u |
Short high back rounded vowel |
Lax close back rounded vowel (short): U |
|
ų or ū |
Long high back rounded vowel |
Tense close back rounded vowel (long): u: |
|
Rule |
Definition |
Examples |
Comments |
1. Diphtongs. |
There are eight diphtongs in Lithuanian: ai, au, ei, (eu), ie, (oi), ui, uo. |
|
Diphtongs eu and oi are very rare in the language, and used mostly in borrowings (As 'Europa'). |
2. Diphtong pronouncing (1). |
Pronouncing diphtong, one should pronounce quickly both vowels one after the other. Pronouncing of vowels is the same as in the case of single, short pronouncing is more often. |
|
|
3. Diphtong pronouncing (2) |
Diphtongs mostly are pronounced lax, as if they were short vowels. There are some positions in standard Lithuanian, when they are pronounced tense. |
|
1) The lax pronouncing of diphtongs is more often, then tense. |
Rule |
Definition |
Examples |
Comments |
1. All consonants have their palatalized variants. |
Every consonant have palatalized and unpalatalized, variants, except j (which is palatalized only). |
|
|
2.Before front vowels |
If consonant goes directly before front vowel , it's pronounced palatalized. |
|
This rule is more or less clear for Slavic speakers. Other language speakers could have problems with it. By the way, 'e' denotes front vowel. |
3. Before back vowels |
Consonants directly before back vowels may be unpalatalized or palatalized. In this case the palatalized form is labeled by letter i before the back vowel letter. |
Rašau (ra s\au, I write) – rašiau (ra s\_jau, I wrote) |
1)'i' as palatalization mark is used in some other languages
(e. g. Polish) too. |
4. The regressive chain rule of palatalizing. |
If consonant goes directly before palatalized one, it is pronounced palatalized. |
Smeigsiu (s_jm_jei g_js_ju, I will stab) |
|
5. Other situations with palatalizing (1) |
Before non-palatalized consonant sometimes (mostly in proper names and borrowings) 'l' may be palatalized and always 'j' is. |
Polka (pol_j ka, polka, name of a Chech dance) |
However this palatalization of l stays not marked in written form. So it's proposed to use as rare as possible in standard Lithuanian. |
6. Other situations with palatalization (2). |
In other cases than 2 – 5 consonants are non-palatalized. |
|
This rule must be given also as “regressive chain rule of unpalatalizing” with exception of rule nr. 5, and it would sound: If consonant goes directly before unpalatalized one, it is pronounced unpalatalized. |
I'm a little unsure about the statement "Some linguists have speculated that proto-Baltic languages split from other Indo-European languages before 1000 BCE." Unless I've misunderstood, that seems awfully late - many other distinct Indo-European languages had developed many hundred years before 1000 BC, and even the written records of Mycenaean Greek and Hittite go back well before that date. Is it a typo? -- MockTurtle 01:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would like to see some sources quoted in this section. What evidence is being used to make these statements? Perhaps a stronger caveat is also necessary. Indo-European linguistics is not an exact science and the theoretical nature of scholarly opinions ought not to be stated as fact.
The text briefly mentions the use of Y but does not otherwise mention the several reforms of the Lithuanian alphabet that occurred during the 20th century. Perhaps someone would like to expand this section? ProhibitOnions (T) 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a great deal of English-language scholarship with regard to the Lithuanian language, and these sources must take precedence over the Polish-language reference that has been inserted into the lead paragraph. Per the site [1], "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Ruthenian was the language of the Orthodox and Uniate inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." This statement warrants the inclusion of Ruthenian into the body of the article, and into the PL-LT Commonwealth article, but not into the lead paragraph of this article. Sincerely, Novickas 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Are the voiceless stops aspirated or not in Lithuanian? It would improve the article to mention it! Laurelindë 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No they aren't. Neither the voiced nor the voiceless steps are aspirated in Lithuanian. They can be palatalized (every consonant, š or ž diferently from neighbour languages is preferently palatalized) or not (every consonant except j). Palatalization is a distinctive feature, and it can be distinctive in morphology too, e. g.: rašau 'I write' — rašiau 'I wrote'.
Your sugestion would better the article, if it were, say, in Phonetics of Lithuanian language or in a similar article. No, we should consider, that the statement, if we included it here, would be fully negative: e. g. Stops in Lithuanian are not aspirated. I think it's possible with more absent features enumerated: Stops in Lithuanian are not aspirated, ..., ... Now, what features could anybody suggest? Linas Lituanus 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Is Lithuanian l plain (IPA [l]) or velarized (IPA [ɫ], as in Slavic languages)?
In fact, I don't know a good source to solve this question. I'll try to do it as I can. -- So I think, the Lithuanian don't make distinction between [l] and [ɫ], and features of pronouncing depend on a speaker. Lithuanians (and I too) don't hear, how these sounds differ at the sense the difference is defined. But we have a palatalized [lj] and a not palatalized [l], that are similar to the previuos pair. So, [lj] approximates to IPA [l], but the not papatalized [l] to IPA [ɫ]. IMHO, taking in general, l is closer to ɫ, but it can depend on its position in word too (as we don't make the distinction between the two l-s). For example, l in diphtongs al, el, il, ul before t, d seems to be more IPA [l] than other positions of l. Linas Lituanus 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be a much cherished idea that modern Lithuanian originated from the Suvalkija dialect, but Zinkevicius in his History of the Lithuanian language is quite clear about this: the basis of modern Lithuanian is Prussian-Lithuanian.
"The activists used as a model that language of Lithuania Minor which was described in the grammars of the great Lithuanian specialists Schleicher and Kursaitis and was universally adopted by comparative linguistics. This was the language taught at Moscow University by Prof. Filip Fortunatov, whose lectures were attended by many of the activists of the national revival movement. That famous Lithuanian model, in the words of Kazimieras Büga, "the skeleton of the written language", was, for all intents and purposes, used in the periodical and other press in Lithuania Major, but it was somewhat modified and adapted to new requirements. This language is the origin of current Standard Lithuanian. Hence, it developed from the former written Standard language used in Lithuania Minor."
"Essentially this was not a new written language, but a further stage in the development of the written Standard language of Lithuania Minor, which was meant to satisfy the needs of Czarist Lithuania. This is evident from the many correspondences between current Standard Lithuanian and the written language of Lithuania Minor. The latter differed significantly from the Suvalkish dialect of that period, which dialectologists now call the West Aukstaitish Kaunas dialect."
Lutz Szemkus
Is it so easy to create the integrated language from separate dialects? Everybody will answer, that it isn't. It can be always a complicated process of joining and rejecting. Assuming this, we can say, that a point of view is possible, even that the standard Lithuanian is still in development. And it's even more true, that every dialect of Lithuanian and every region of Lithuania has tributed its imput to the standard Lithuanian.
For example, You stress that the dialect of surroundings of Kaunas differs from the former standard / written language of Lithuania Minor. It's so. But these two dialects differ among themselves less than any other dialect of Lithuania with any dialect of Lithuania minor. So, it's quite problematic to say in one sentence, which was the basic, choosing between the Suvalkija dialect and and the written language of Lithuania Minor.
I myself am inclined to agree with You (and thus with prof. Zinkevičius ), but I see some complicated aspects of this problem, that not allow to say it in one sentence.
For example, the first aspect is situation "de jure". When the modern normative grammar was written by Jablonskis with later addings by other linguists, it was stated clearly: Lithuanian was being built on a basis of Suvalkija dialect. This situation "de jure" was never questioned by Lithuanian linguists. So it became even tradition to say, that Suvalkija dialect is the basic. Almost nobody pays attention, that this statment was just a wish at the time, when the first normative grammar was written. So, that it needs to be verified now, when the standard Lithuanian has grown. Zinkevičius did it and his conclusions are clear. Inspite of it, Lithuanian grammars and texbooks hasn't been rewritten according to his conclusions. So, conclusions of Zinkevicius mean, that the written language of Lithuania Minor, being better developed and having more clear written tradition, just superseded the intended Suvalkia dialect as the standard for the language.
So one can name the precedence of the Suvalkija dialect just an urban legend. But this is not exactly so. So, the other aspect is, that the Eastern dialect of Lithuania Minor was not so different from the Suvalkija dialect. But namly this dialect became the basis for the written language of Lithuania Minor. So, many people that speak Suvalkian natively, find the standard Lithuanian as their own language and not as any borrowed dialect from Prussian Lithuania, especially comparing with other dialects of the Lithuanian. This is aproximately true not only for Suvalkija but for Kaunas region too. This question has yet other interesting aspect. Namely, that the spoken Suvalkija dialect in the early 20th century was influenced by the Easten dialect of the Lithuania Minor without any doubt. For example, my grandmother, that was from (eastern not western)Suvalkija, often used some typical sayings from Lithuania Minor (not germanicisms), although she didn't have any direct relations with people of this region. I suppose that people in Suvalkija considered the dialect of Lithuania Minor as more prestigeous, but this thing isn't explored sufficiently. So, the later generations in Suvalkija might consider many natively Minor Lithuanian features as features of their own dialect (of more literate sort of the same dialect, for example) . They used language with these "Minor Lithuanicisms" even not thinking about their descent. So it's possible, that many features of the written language of Lithuania Minor reached the standard language not directly, but from the spoken language in Suvalkija.
Now, I suggest to leave the statement in the article as it is, while it's in one sentence, or to write a more detailed explanation. Linas Lituanus 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Esperanto wikipedia claims that a few Esperanto words were taken from Lithuanian. I was wondering if anyone could confirm these? They are:
Du seems hard to justify, since it's so close to Romance. But is there anything in Lithuanian that sounds like tuj and means something like "immediately, right away, as soon as", etc.?
Also, the comparative "the" is parallel to German. There's a pair of words, ju ... des, which are used as follows:
What would the parallel be in Lithuanian?
Thanks, kwami 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning that there was an attempt in the late 19th century, as part of Russification, to force Lithuanian to be written in the Cyrillic rather than Latin alphabet. -- Delirium 23:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the article. I have removed the unnecessary examples of Lithuanian words comparison to Sanskrit or Greek counterparts and restructurized the first few examples at the beginning of the Vocabulary section.
I have also elaborated the grammar section by giving examples of the archaisms and innovations of the verbal system. I have removed the unnecessary part "However, Lithuanian verbal morphology shows many innovations" since it is decribed at the beginning of the Grammar section. -- 89.117.44.17 ( talk) 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Lithuanian sound mutch like slavic langues. And it is heavily slavic influenced langue. For example like palatisation. Modern lithuanian deffinetly isn't more ancient, then say polish. The article should mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.44.4 ( talk) 17:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As for being ancient, Slavic languages basically retain the same level of grammar as Lithuanian and Latvian but when we take into account lexicon and phonology, Lithuanian and Latvian readily "win". One major difference between these languages is that Baltic languages form their future tense with the -s- suffix, whereas Slavic languages have abandoned this in favour of the more recent analytic construction. Slavis languages retain the neuter gender which is absent in the two modern Baltic languages. So much for this simple matter ... -- 89.117.44.17 ( talk) 13:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. Lithuanian is a quite pure language and it definitely doesn't sound like those slavic languages. Probably the most related dialect to Slavic languages is the Southern dialect (Dzūkų tarmė), because of close relations with Polsh-speaking people during the ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.61.59.236 ( talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Using the superlative form may be a bit problematic. Ancient Prussian, Lithuanian, and Latvian (dialects in all aside) were the three surviving languages, then only Lithuanian and Latvian remained. I can't say I've seen research as to which of those two is older, although from my own readings Lithuanian appears to have the most votes for comparisons to Sanskrit. More importantly, Albanian, an Indo-European language, also lays claim to the "oldest" title. A discussion of "oldest" based on several sources, and briefly dealing with the other likely contenders, would be appropriate. For example, Albanian might be older while Lithuanian might have stayed truer to proto-Indo-European. The underlying assumption of "oldest" here--starting with the opening quote--is that the most similar to ancient = the most ancient. Purely an editorial comment to suggest a bit more attention to the claim of "oldest". PētersV 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. You'll pardon my simplistic representation. My primary editorial concern is reconciliation with the Albanian claim, which would require some discussion of "oldest how." PētersV 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"Oldest" is not a proper descriptive term for a modern language, as all are dated the same (i.e. 2008 or whatever). OTOH, Lithuanian is almost certainly the most *conservative* of modern spoken Indo-European languages (Sanskrit doesn't count as it's not a modern language) in (most aspects of) its sound system and nominal grammar; less obviously in its verb system. Benwing ( talk) 06:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
in particular, description of the accentual system. Nowhere are the acute and circumflex accents described, nor any of the tone marks. Benwing ( talk) 06:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What is this interpunct symbol <ˑ> in IPA phonetic transcriptions in the section on pitch accent?
Also, isn't the remark of sufficiency of only one diacritic to properly transcribe Lithuanian diphtongs a bit stray and unimportant? Such non-essential details should be best reserved for a separate article on Lithuanian phonology and prosody IMHO. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
-- 86.100.205.18 ( talk) 14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Did You knew that these letters { in english it would sound like Ch, Sh, Zh) came from Czech alphabet? Czechs fighted in the battle of Žalgiris (Grunwald) wth the King-Grand duke Vytautas. But these letters where written in polish Cz , Sz, Rz. (in example the first lithuanian newspaper Aušra was written as Auszra). After the Indepenence from Russian Empire czech letters startd to be writted as I writed - č, š, ž.
Though not called the same in the Russian language article, I think that "free accent" describes the same issue as in Russian, that you have to learn accentuation by heart because it's not predictable. So does "free accent" mean the same? In this case, I'd like to point this out in the article, since much more foreign WP:EN readers speak Russian than they would Lithuanian. -andy 212.114.254.107 ( talk) 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This statement is odd: "An earlier Old Prussian Baltic language was extinct by the 19th century which is similar to Scandinavian or Germanic language" and I'm about to delete it.-- Pe t 'usek petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom 07:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
When you look through the consonant table, you can see that, e.g. /tʃ/ or /dʒ/ are classified as palatal stops. Nevertheless in Wikipedia's article on consonants, /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ are classified under affricates (NOT stops which is a separate subset of consonants). Should we fix it?-- 78.60.103.193 ( talk) 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The section about the classification contains nice parts that is more appropriate to be joined within the article about the Baltic or Balto-Slavic languages.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody know where I could find an automatic Lithuanian to English translator? Thanks
Oh, come on. Why can't you use Google Translate? Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom). ( talk) 19:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Why do I find that many times the ę vowel is replaced by the ė vowel? For example isn't the word for week, savaitę, although in the Wikipedia Lithuanian it is spelled savaitė. I am trying to list Indo-European roots with Lithuanian but, I am finding it difficult which vowel the word is as all online dictionaries do not use the ę vowel. Imperial78
The list of cognate words is excessively long, plus it's also misleading in some cases where what appears to be closely-sounding Sanskrit or Latin word is in fact a similarity resulting from completely independent development - e.g. compensatory lenghening by loss of laryngeals (Lith. sūnùs < PIE *suHnús, Lith. dū́mas < PIE *dʰuHmós) or the change of PIE *o > *a which was independent sound change in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (as can be seen from relative chronology of all sound changes in those 2 families). Furthermore, Slavic words, despite being less "similar" at first sight to Lithuanian lexeme than Latin or Sanskrit cognates, are in fact often much more related than either, sharing some less "visible" properties such as accentual development (various accent shifts and paradigm). Lithuanian dū́mas has much more in common with OCS dymъ (Serbo-Croatian dȉm, with fixed stress on the root vowel), than with either Ancient Greek thumós, Sanskrit dhūmás or Latin fūmus. The section should really be trimmed down. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I have come across comparisons between Lithuanian dūmas, Sanskrit dhumas and Latin fumus etc. in professional textbooks so I don't see why this example should not be considered valid enough for Wikipedia. -- 78.60.103.193 ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
See the last three paragraphs in Talk:Balto-Slavic languages, for some actual argumentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskan Wanderer ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In both cases, we are promised more than the 10 or 3 items in the Balto-Slavonic lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.97.141 ( talk) 11:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The map depicting the language in XVIth century is slightly inacurate in some parts. It marks territories which were largely covered by forest and unsettled as predominantly Lithuanian which is misleading. Also in some areas - near Hrodna, Bialystok, Suwalki both Ruthenian Polish and Lithuanian villages were mixed and interspersed, sometimes the colonist population of a single village was mixed. So they were mixed rather then predominantly Lithuanian. In such instances the map is misleading. It looks poorly accurate anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storzych ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Because of these two cited texts:
With all Indo-European languages, the percentages of words, found in more than one branch, should be given. This is more enlightening than the current short list, while still avoiding the large amount of space needed to give all the I.-E vocabulary separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montananevadagirl ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest giving Old Lithuanian a page of its own?
Anonymous 173.57.48.70 ( talk) 20:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just created Help:IPA for Lithuanian, because it seemed like a major gap in Wikipedia's IPA keys. As I have no knowledge of the language other than what I've read online, I would appreciate it if someone would add Lithuanian example words to the chart. ( suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 19:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I restored a previous version of the table because the new one makes little sense:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Lithuanian language. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lithuanian language. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, is anybody interested in translation of an article "Proto-Baltic language"? It's in Lithuanian Wikipedia https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balt%C5%B3_prokalb%C4%97. Some users of English Wikipedia know Lithuanian language well. Could you ask them about it?-- Ed1974LT ( talk) 20:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Mentioned in source: Беларуская мова і мовазнаўства: ХІХ стагоддзе/ пад агул. Рэд. М.Р. Прыгодзіча. — Мінск: БДУ, 2013. — С.81-111. ISBN: 978-985-518-849-1. Link: http://elib.bsu.by/handle/123456789/57376:
Also:
"Vyacheslav Ivanov and Vladimir Toporov believed in the unity of Balto-Slavic, but not in the unity of Baltic. In the 1960s, they proposed a new division, that into East-Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian), West-Baltic (Old Prussian), and Slavic. The Ivanov–Toporov theory is gaining ground among students of comparative-historic grammar of Indo-European language, and seems to be replacing the previous two stances in most PIE textbooks.[dubious – discuss]"
Can anyone find an up to date source of the total number of speakers? I have seen variations up to 4 million. Not to mention that the lead says 3.1m including 200,000 abroard, and the info box says 3.0m. Will change to 3.1m until further evidence is provided? http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=100090 Alexandre8 ( talk) 10:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lithuanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Lithuanian has been the subject of much linguistic hyperbole from 19th century comparative linguists that has bled into the modern oral tradition that "Hearing Lithuanian is like hearing Proto-Indo-European". That is rubbish in modern comparative linguistic thought. Lithuanian certainly has some conservative features, but it also has many non-conservative features as well. I've removed the most egregious bits of preening from the article and edited the remainder to be more neutral and accurate. -- Taivo ( talk) 12:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
What about the U with ring?-- Manfariel ( talk) 12:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The pronunciation of some of the letters isn't defined; I'm thinking particularly of <ė>.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
"The history of the relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages, and our[who?] understanding of the affinity between the two groups, remain in dispute (see: Balto-Slavic languages). "
i mean this sentence marked with the request for clarification: [who?].
my argument for the removal of the marking is: the "we" obviously points to the writer of the text, also the reader and in both cases to the encyclopedia (personified if you will) itself, a community which again stands in for the "scientific community of the relevant field to the extent it can be identified from the scientific discourse of the relevant field of science". therefore my opinion is that asking for clarification of who thinks what the article puts as "we think" is basically a request for a citation. the acknowledgement of the need for such citation is (imho) contained in the article itself, as it goes on to point out an ongoing scientific debate concerning the statement about this "balto-slavic" stuff which is (supposedly) laid out in more detail at the link already in the article "see: Balto-Slavic languages". if the need for citations is not satisfied properly, then the request/marking for further citations should be placed at the "balto-slavic languages" article.
for the above reasoning i suggest to remove the tag for citation: "who?" from this article.
89.134.199.32 ( talk) 19:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC).
Hi, can some of you experts on Lithuanian help over at the Jurevičius page? As I wrote on the talk page there, we really need a pronunciation guide in IPA added there. Much obliged. Might be helpful to do the same on pages about other Lithuanian names, because most of us have no idea how to pronounce them. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 13:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Liethuvim. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 7#Liethuvim until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
11:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The map by Casimir Delamarre shows very obvious mistakes according to the present knowledge. It says that Russian (called "Moscovite") is of Fino-Turkish origin, and that Lithuanian is a non-classified Slavic language. I think that a map with such mistakes should be deleted, more so because it is used as the basis to state that Lithuanian was dominant in certain areas. I will delete it after some time if there is no objection. CS20M ( talk) 10:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
See Permissive mood. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 06:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Just a suggestion. Algæ ( talk) 02:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The new Examples section ought to be put into a better phonetic transcription, like Wikipedia:Simplified phonetic transcription for Lithuanian. -- Theodore Kloba 18:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, we have a few Lithuanian samples at Albanian language#How Albanian compares with other languages. Could someone please check if the yare correct? Rex( talk) 23:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's one for the experts: Is the Lithuanian word mažas (small) cognate to PIE *meĝ (great), and akin to Latin mega and Sanskrit महा/mahā? The sound changes tell us it could be; the "exact opposite" semantic shift is interesting. -- Theodore Kloba 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
According to the Ethymological dictionary of Latvian by Konstantins Karulis, latv. "mazs" and lith. "mažas" are derived from pie. *meĝh-. This root used to denotate the size in total opposites. An other example is "magus" (boy) in the Gothic. The development should have been following: ide. *meĝh- : *moĝh- > balt. *maž- > latv. maz-. Also, there are dialectal forms in Latvian: "maģ" - few, a little. So this theory is actually true. - Janis
Anyway, according to the linguists the most likely tree is something like this:
2500 BC 1000 BC 1 AD 300 AD 1500 AD -> *(proto-Satem)---> (proto-Daco-Albanian)-\--> (Dacian dialect) --> (Daco-Romanian) --> Romanian | |--> (another Dac. dialect) --> --> Albanian ---> (proto-Baltic) -\---> (proto-Latvian) --> --> Latvian |--> (proto-Lithuanian) --> --> Lithuanian
Is this true? -- Bonaparte talk 19:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
“The earliest-known written Lithuanian text is a hymnal translation from 1545” Is it right that earliest known written text is from 1545? I know there is a written prayer text in ~1503. M.K 12:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Lithuanian is no closer to Latin than it is to other Indo-European languages. As a result, I've tried to write the section to discuss only shared vocabulary. The morphological details which were written there are in no way limited to Latin and Lithuanian--only someone with little or no training in comparative Indo-European linguistics would concoct such an explanation. Furthermore, mention of morphology doesn't belong in a section on lexicon. CRCulver 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, in a sense, you're right. There have always been attempts to show how Lithuanian grammar is similar to that of Latin. However, Lithuanian is special not because it's similar to Latin but simply because of being archaic. That's all.
Nevertheless, I see you've changed one of the most conservative to one of the more conservative. That was quite surprising to me. Despite the fact I always try to avoid being etnocentric as much as possible, I have to ask you to provide me a list of languages that are the most conservative (since Lithuanian belongs to the more conservative languages). RokasT 13:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
In the article section, "The lexical borrowings in the language" the following phrases are troublesome (from neutrality standpoint):
"However, there are many words which have Lithuanian counterparts, hence they should not be used."
"...many words have recently flooded the language (like dispenseris, hakeris or singlas) and they are not to be tolerated."
Perhaps a discussion about the prevailing attitudes toward recent lexical borrowings could be included instead. Also, are there any official government activities (like those in France or Iceland, for example) to discourage use of these loanwords?
-- Theodore Kloba 19:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are no official government activities to discourage use of loanwords.
This article may seem troublesome when you take it out of context and try to analyze "as is". However, it is not. You must understand the problems that arise every day to the Lithuanian language to understand what this means.
In Lithuania, no one thinks that a loan word should not be used only because it is a loan word. But barbarisms certainly should be avoided. English can take new words equally easily from Japanese and German whereas in Lithuanian it would be impossible. Simply to add Lithuanian endings to nouns, verbs etc. is not enough. I think this is what the article means.
On the other hand, I myself think that this article should be re-written and I think I will do that one day.-- 213.226.138.241 19:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have completely rewritten this article (which was initially written by me as well) and disposed of all the rubbish in it, which was making other people want to question its point of view. I've tried to write in a completely neutral POV. RokasT 14:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Lithuanian population isn't big, Lithuanian language is surrounded mostly by Slavic languages, so influence on phonetic and different tendencies of articulation also exist. Another source of different treatment is usage of different phonologic systems by different scholars, but it's unessential in our case. The treatment of Lithuanian sounds, accepted in Lithuanian schools, mass-media and so on, also exist. For shortening purposes we'll call it official here.
Two points of view with some comments are presented in the table below, the first one according to Dr. A. Girdenis (from: Lietuvių kalbos enciklopedija by Institute of the Lithuanian Language. Vilnius, 1999) and the second one according to Dr. W.R. Schmalstieg (from the site of journal Lituanus, 1982.1.,Vol 28). Lithuanian sounds in the table are denoted by Lithuanian letters, which are normally pronounced as corresponding sounds.
Sounds (indicated by Lithuanian letters) |
Definition according to A. Girdenis |
Definition according to W. R. Schmalstieg |
Other points of view |
Comments |
c, č, dz, dž |
Affricates (*) |
Affricates (*) |
Two different sounds (t+s, t+š , d+z, d+ž), which can be divided into different syllables. |
Traditionally affricates. However, tendency to separate a stop from a fricative exists in Lithuanian spoken language, especially in unpalatalized variant. |
Alveolar sounds |
Retracted alveo-palatal sounds |
|
Difference of terms, which isn't essential here. |
|
|
Nasal and fricative sounds |
Continuant sounds (with voiced, unvoiced and nasal subdivision) |
|
Caused by systematic differences. |
h |
Voiced velar fricative (*) |
Voiceless glottal continuant (diff!). |
|
Tends to voiced more than to unvoiced in spoken Lithuanian. Officially considered as voiced pair of ch (SAMPA x). See note (2) below. |
l |
Dental lateral (*). |
Lateral |
|
|
r |
Alveolar trill (*). |
Apical trill |
|
There is no essential difference, I think. |
v |
(Voiced) labial spirant (*). |
Voiced continuant. (diff!) |
|
Pronounciation of v tends to short vowel u (SAMPA u), reduced to consonant (not semivovel as w in SAMPA). Fricative tendencies are rare. See note (3) below. |
Sounds (indicated by Lithuanian letters) |
Definition according to A. Girdenis |
Definition according to W. R. Schmalstieg |
Comments |
ę |
Low front (+) |
Low mid front |
There is a tendency to articulate ę as more middle than ą in spoken language. Many scholars keep this tendency inessential. In this case ę is considered low with back pair ą. |
(1) The point of view, analogous to official one, is marked by (*), by (+) prevalent point of view is marked. By (diff!) an essential difference between A. Girdenis and W. R. Schmalstieg is marked.
(2) Sound h in Lithuanian has its specific history. It wasn't used in spoken Lithuanian till the beginning of XX century. Maybe for this reason Dr. Schmalstieg gives more common pronunciation of Western Indo-European languages? But in reality this sound has been used for more than 70 years (in school, theatre, mass-media), so it has a tradition as other sounds do. Officially it's considered as voiced velar fricative, the voiced pair of voiceless ch. In its pronouncing the tendency to glottal, maybe, exist, but practically there are no tendencies to voiceless.
(3) Sound v in Lithuanian has a difference from languages, where it's fricative. Its tendencies to fricative in Lithuanian are weak. The sound is pronounced as u (SAMPA u), reduced to consonant (not semivowel as SAMPA w). It's considered voiced, but has no voiceless pair ( the same situation as with j, l, n). Its “voicedness” is low and v does not make consonants before them voiced. Dr. Schmalstieg's system doesn't points up this thing. Considering v as continuant may imply fricative. Continued Lithuanian v gives short vowel u (as j gives i in this case).
Note: For comparing X-SAMPA and SAMPA charts of wiki's articles were used.
Letter of sound |
Official definition of sound |
The closest sound in X-SAMPA |
The closest sound in SAMPA |
Comments |
z, ž, h, (s, š, ch) |
Voiced (voiceless) fricatives |
Voiced (voiceless) fricatives: z, z\, G, (s, s\, x) |
Voiced (voiceless) fricatives: z, Z, G, (s, S, x). |
|
dz, dž, (c, č) |
Voiced (voiceless) affricates |
Voiced (voiceless) affricates: ts\ etc. |
Voiced (voiceless) affricates: tS etc. |
|
b, d, g, (p, t, k) |
Voiced (voiceless) plosives |
Voiced (voiceless) plosives: b, d, g, (p, t, k) |
Voiced (voiceless) stops: b, d, g, (p, t, k) |
|
b (p) |
Voiced (voiceless) labial plosive |
Voiced (voiceless) bilabial plosive: b (p). |
Voiced (voiceless) bilabial plosive: b (p). |
|
f |
Voiceless labial fricative |
Voiceless labiodental fricative: f |
Voiceless labiodental fricative: f |
|
z, dz, (s, c) |
Voiced (voiceless) dental |
Voiced (voiceless) alveolar: z, dz, (s, ts) |
Voiced (voiceless) alveolar: z, dz, (s, ts) |
|
ž, dž, (š, č) |
Voiced (voiceless) alveolar |
Voiced (voiceless) alveopalatal: z\, dz\, (s\, ts\) |
Voiced (voiceless) postalveolar Z, dZ, (S, tS) |
The better distinction in X-SAMPA (Lithuanian ž (š) differs from more palatal sound in other languages, being closer to z_a (s_a)). |
v |
Labial spirant |
Labial approximant: v\ |
- |
No distinction from v fricative in SAMPA chart |
j |
Palatal spirant |
Palatal approximant: j |
- |
No distinction from j semivowel in SAMPA chart |
m |
Labial nasal |
Bilabial nasal: m |
Bilabial nasal: m |
|
n |
Dental nasal |
Alveolar nasal: n |
Alveolar nasal: n |
|
l |
Dental lateral |
Alveolar lateral flap: l\ |
(alveolar lateral: l) |
No distinction between “West-European” and “East-European” articulation of l in SAMPA |
r |
Alveolar trill |
Alveolar trill: r |
Alveolar trill: r |
|
Letter of sound |
Official definition of sound |
The closest sound in X-SAMPA and SAMPA |
Comments |
i |
Short high front unrounded vowel |
Lax close front unrounded vowel (short): I |
|
į or y |
Long high front unrounded vowel |
Tense close front unrounded vowel (long): i: |
|
ė |
Long mid front unrounded vowel |
Close-mid front unrounded vowel (long): e: |
The short variant of this sound (having no own letter and denoted by letters ė, e or i) is very rare in Lithuanian. It also hasn't a different sign in X-SAMPA (closest to i, but more mid). |
e |
Short low front unrounded vowel |
Open-mid front unrounded vowel (short): E |
|
ę |
Long low front unrounded vowel |
Open front unrounded vowel (long): {: |
|
a |
Short low back unrounded vowel |
Open-mid back unrounded vowel (short): V |
|
ą |
Long low back unrounded vowel |
Open back unrounded vowel (long): A: |
|
o |
Long mid back rounded vowel |
Open-mid back rounded vowel (long): O: |
|
o (variant) |
Short mid back rounded vowel |
Close-mid back rounded vowel (short): o |
|
u |
Short high back rounded vowel |
Lax close back rounded vowel (short): U |
|
ų or ū |
Long high back rounded vowel |
Tense close back rounded vowel (long): u: |
|
Rule |
Definition |
Examples |
Comments |
1. Diphtongs. |
There are eight diphtongs in Lithuanian: ai, au, ei, (eu), ie, (oi), ui, uo. |
|
Diphtongs eu and oi are very rare in the language, and used mostly in borrowings (As 'Europa'). |
2. Diphtong pronouncing (1). |
Pronouncing diphtong, one should pronounce quickly both vowels one after the other. Pronouncing of vowels is the same as in the case of single, short pronouncing is more often. |
|
|
3. Diphtong pronouncing (2) |
Diphtongs mostly are pronounced lax, as if they were short vowels. There are some positions in standard Lithuanian, when they are pronounced tense. |
|
1) The lax pronouncing of diphtongs is more often, then tense. |
Rule |
Definition |
Examples |
Comments |
1. All consonants have their palatalized variants. |
Every consonant have palatalized and unpalatalized, variants, except j (which is palatalized only). |
|
|
2.Before front vowels |
If consonant goes directly before front vowel , it's pronounced palatalized. |
|
This rule is more or less clear for Slavic speakers. Other language speakers could have problems with it. By the way, 'e' denotes front vowel. |
3. Before back vowels |
Consonants directly before back vowels may be unpalatalized or palatalized. In this case the palatalized form is labeled by letter i before the back vowel letter. |
Rašau (ra s\au, I write) – rašiau (ra s\_jau, I wrote) |
1)'i' as palatalization mark is used in some other languages
(e. g. Polish) too. |
4. The regressive chain rule of palatalizing. |
If consonant goes directly before palatalized one, it is pronounced palatalized. |
Smeigsiu (s_jm_jei g_js_ju, I will stab) |
|
5. Other situations with palatalizing (1) |
Before non-palatalized consonant sometimes (mostly in proper names and borrowings) 'l' may be palatalized and always 'j' is. |
Polka (pol_j ka, polka, name of a Chech dance) |
However this palatalization of l stays not marked in written form. So it's proposed to use as rare as possible in standard Lithuanian. |
6. Other situations with palatalization (2). |
In other cases than 2 – 5 consonants are non-palatalized. |
|
This rule must be given also as “regressive chain rule of unpalatalizing” with exception of rule nr. 5, and it would sound: If consonant goes directly before unpalatalized one, it is pronounced unpalatalized. |
I'm a little unsure about the statement "Some linguists have speculated that proto-Baltic languages split from other Indo-European languages before 1000 BCE." Unless I've misunderstood, that seems awfully late - many other distinct Indo-European languages had developed many hundred years before 1000 BC, and even the written records of Mycenaean Greek and Hittite go back well before that date. Is it a typo? -- MockTurtle 01:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would like to see some sources quoted in this section. What evidence is being used to make these statements? Perhaps a stronger caveat is also necessary. Indo-European linguistics is not an exact science and the theoretical nature of scholarly opinions ought not to be stated as fact.
The text briefly mentions the use of Y but does not otherwise mention the several reforms of the Lithuanian alphabet that occurred during the 20th century. Perhaps someone would like to expand this section? ProhibitOnions (T) 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a great deal of English-language scholarship with regard to the Lithuanian language, and these sources must take precedence over the Polish-language reference that has been inserted into the lead paragraph. Per the site [1], "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Ruthenian was the language of the Orthodox and Uniate inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." This statement warrants the inclusion of Ruthenian into the body of the article, and into the PL-LT Commonwealth article, but not into the lead paragraph of this article. Sincerely, Novickas 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Are the voiceless stops aspirated or not in Lithuanian? It would improve the article to mention it! Laurelindë 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No they aren't. Neither the voiced nor the voiceless steps are aspirated in Lithuanian. They can be palatalized (every consonant, š or ž diferently from neighbour languages is preferently palatalized) or not (every consonant except j). Palatalization is a distinctive feature, and it can be distinctive in morphology too, e. g.: rašau 'I write' — rašiau 'I wrote'.
Your sugestion would better the article, if it were, say, in Phonetics of Lithuanian language or in a similar article. No, we should consider, that the statement, if we included it here, would be fully negative: e. g. Stops in Lithuanian are not aspirated. I think it's possible with more absent features enumerated: Stops in Lithuanian are not aspirated, ..., ... Now, what features could anybody suggest? Linas Lituanus 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Is Lithuanian l plain (IPA [l]) or velarized (IPA [ɫ], as in Slavic languages)?
In fact, I don't know a good source to solve this question. I'll try to do it as I can. -- So I think, the Lithuanian don't make distinction between [l] and [ɫ], and features of pronouncing depend on a speaker. Lithuanians (and I too) don't hear, how these sounds differ at the sense the difference is defined. But we have a palatalized [lj] and a not palatalized [l], that are similar to the previuos pair. So, [lj] approximates to IPA [l], but the not papatalized [l] to IPA [ɫ]. IMHO, taking in general, l is closer to ɫ, but it can depend on its position in word too (as we don't make the distinction between the two l-s). For example, l in diphtongs al, el, il, ul before t, d seems to be more IPA [l] than other positions of l. Linas Lituanus 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be a much cherished idea that modern Lithuanian originated from the Suvalkija dialect, but Zinkevicius in his History of the Lithuanian language is quite clear about this: the basis of modern Lithuanian is Prussian-Lithuanian.
"The activists used as a model that language of Lithuania Minor which was described in the grammars of the great Lithuanian specialists Schleicher and Kursaitis and was universally adopted by comparative linguistics. This was the language taught at Moscow University by Prof. Filip Fortunatov, whose lectures were attended by many of the activists of the national revival movement. That famous Lithuanian model, in the words of Kazimieras Büga, "the skeleton of the written language", was, for all intents and purposes, used in the periodical and other press in Lithuania Major, but it was somewhat modified and adapted to new requirements. This language is the origin of current Standard Lithuanian. Hence, it developed from the former written Standard language used in Lithuania Minor."
"Essentially this was not a new written language, but a further stage in the development of the written Standard language of Lithuania Minor, which was meant to satisfy the needs of Czarist Lithuania. This is evident from the many correspondences between current Standard Lithuanian and the written language of Lithuania Minor. The latter differed significantly from the Suvalkish dialect of that period, which dialectologists now call the West Aukstaitish Kaunas dialect."
Lutz Szemkus
Is it so easy to create the integrated language from separate dialects? Everybody will answer, that it isn't. It can be always a complicated process of joining and rejecting. Assuming this, we can say, that a point of view is possible, even that the standard Lithuanian is still in development. And it's even more true, that every dialect of Lithuanian and every region of Lithuania has tributed its imput to the standard Lithuanian.
For example, You stress that the dialect of surroundings of Kaunas differs from the former standard / written language of Lithuania Minor. It's so. But these two dialects differ among themselves less than any other dialect of Lithuania with any dialect of Lithuania minor. So, it's quite problematic to say in one sentence, which was the basic, choosing between the Suvalkija dialect and and the written language of Lithuania Minor.
I myself am inclined to agree with You (and thus with prof. Zinkevičius ), but I see some complicated aspects of this problem, that not allow to say it in one sentence.
For example, the first aspect is situation "de jure". When the modern normative grammar was written by Jablonskis with later addings by other linguists, it was stated clearly: Lithuanian was being built on a basis of Suvalkija dialect. This situation "de jure" was never questioned by Lithuanian linguists. So it became even tradition to say, that Suvalkija dialect is the basic. Almost nobody pays attention, that this statment was just a wish at the time, when the first normative grammar was written. So, that it needs to be verified now, when the standard Lithuanian has grown. Zinkevičius did it and his conclusions are clear. Inspite of it, Lithuanian grammars and texbooks hasn't been rewritten according to his conclusions. So, conclusions of Zinkevicius mean, that the written language of Lithuania Minor, being better developed and having more clear written tradition, just superseded the intended Suvalkia dialect as the standard for the language.
So one can name the precedence of the Suvalkija dialect just an urban legend. But this is not exactly so. So, the other aspect is, that the Eastern dialect of Lithuania Minor was not so different from the Suvalkija dialect. But namly this dialect became the basis for the written language of Lithuania Minor. So, many people that speak Suvalkian natively, find the standard Lithuanian as their own language and not as any borrowed dialect from Prussian Lithuania, especially comparing with other dialects of the Lithuanian. This is aproximately true not only for Suvalkija but for Kaunas region too. This question has yet other interesting aspect. Namely, that the spoken Suvalkija dialect in the early 20th century was influenced by the Easten dialect of the Lithuania Minor without any doubt. For example, my grandmother, that was from (eastern not western)Suvalkija, often used some typical sayings from Lithuania Minor (not germanicisms), although she didn't have any direct relations with people of this region. I suppose that people in Suvalkija considered the dialect of Lithuania Minor as more prestigeous, but this thing isn't explored sufficiently. So, the later generations in Suvalkija might consider many natively Minor Lithuanian features as features of their own dialect (of more literate sort of the same dialect, for example) . They used language with these "Minor Lithuanicisms" even not thinking about their descent. So it's possible, that many features of the written language of Lithuania Minor reached the standard language not directly, but from the spoken language in Suvalkija.
Now, I suggest to leave the statement in the article as it is, while it's in one sentence, or to write a more detailed explanation. Linas Lituanus 16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Esperanto wikipedia claims that a few Esperanto words were taken from Lithuanian. I was wondering if anyone could confirm these? They are:
Du seems hard to justify, since it's so close to Romance. But is there anything in Lithuanian that sounds like tuj and means something like "immediately, right away, as soon as", etc.?
Also, the comparative "the" is parallel to German. There's a pair of words, ju ... des, which are used as follows:
What would the parallel be in Lithuanian?
Thanks, kwami 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning that there was an attempt in the late 19th century, as part of Russification, to force Lithuanian to be written in the Cyrillic rather than Latin alphabet. -- Delirium 23:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the article. I have removed the unnecessary examples of Lithuanian words comparison to Sanskrit or Greek counterparts and restructurized the first few examples at the beginning of the Vocabulary section.
I have also elaborated the grammar section by giving examples of the archaisms and innovations of the verbal system. I have removed the unnecessary part "However, Lithuanian verbal morphology shows many innovations" since it is decribed at the beginning of the Grammar section. -- 89.117.44.17 ( talk) 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Lithuanian sound mutch like slavic langues. And it is heavily slavic influenced langue. For example like palatisation. Modern lithuanian deffinetly isn't more ancient, then say polish. The article should mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.44.4 ( talk) 17:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As for being ancient, Slavic languages basically retain the same level of grammar as Lithuanian and Latvian but when we take into account lexicon and phonology, Lithuanian and Latvian readily "win". One major difference between these languages is that Baltic languages form their future tense with the -s- suffix, whereas Slavic languages have abandoned this in favour of the more recent analytic construction. Slavis languages retain the neuter gender which is absent in the two modern Baltic languages. So much for this simple matter ... -- 89.117.44.17 ( talk) 13:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. Lithuanian is a quite pure language and it definitely doesn't sound like those slavic languages. Probably the most related dialect to Slavic languages is the Southern dialect (Dzūkų tarmė), because of close relations with Polsh-speaking people during the ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.61.59.236 ( talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Using the superlative form may be a bit problematic. Ancient Prussian, Lithuanian, and Latvian (dialects in all aside) were the three surviving languages, then only Lithuanian and Latvian remained. I can't say I've seen research as to which of those two is older, although from my own readings Lithuanian appears to have the most votes for comparisons to Sanskrit. More importantly, Albanian, an Indo-European language, also lays claim to the "oldest" title. A discussion of "oldest" based on several sources, and briefly dealing with the other likely contenders, would be appropriate. For example, Albanian might be older while Lithuanian might have stayed truer to proto-Indo-European. The underlying assumption of "oldest" here--starting with the opening quote--is that the most similar to ancient = the most ancient. Purely an editorial comment to suggest a bit more attention to the claim of "oldest". PētersV 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. You'll pardon my simplistic representation. My primary editorial concern is reconciliation with the Albanian claim, which would require some discussion of "oldest how." PētersV 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"Oldest" is not a proper descriptive term for a modern language, as all are dated the same (i.e. 2008 or whatever). OTOH, Lithuanian is almost certainly the most *conservative* of modern spoken Indo-European languages (Sanskrit doesn't count as it's not a modern language) in (most aspects of) its sound system and nominal grammar; less obviously in its verb system. Benwing ( talk) 06:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
in particular, description of the accentual system. Nowhere are the acute and circumflex accents described, nor any of the tone marks. Benwing ( talk) 06:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What is this interpunct symbol <ˑ> in IPA phonetic transcriptions in the section on pitch accent?
Also, isn't the remark of sufficiency of only one diacritic to properly transcribe Lithuanian diphtongs a bit stray and unimportant? Such non-essential details should be best reserved for a separate article on Lithuanian phonology and prosody IMHO. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
-- 86.100.205.18 ( talk) 14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Did You knew that these letters { in english it would sound like Ch, Sh, Zh) came from Czech alphabet? Czechs fighted in the battle of Žalgiris (Grunwald) wth the King-Grand duke Vytautas. But these letters where written in polish Cz , Sz, Rz. (in example the first lithuanian newspaper Aušra was written as Auszra). After the Indepenence from Russian Empire czech letters startd to be writted as I writed - č, š, ž.
Though not called the same in the Russian language article, I think that "free accent" describes the same issue as in Russian, that you have to learn accentuation by heart because it's not predictable. So does "free accent" mean the same? In this case, I'd like to point this out in the article, since much more foreign WP:EN readers speak Russian than they would Lithuanian. -andy 212.114.254.107 ( talk) 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This statement is odd: "An earlier Old Prussian Baltic language was extinct by the 19th century which is similar to Scandinavian or Germanic language" and I'm about to delete it.-- Pe t 'usek petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom 07:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
When you look through the consonant table, you can see that, e.g. /tʃ/ or /dʒ/ are classified as palatal stops. Nevertheless in Wikipedia's article on consonants, /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ are classified under affricates (NOT stops which is a separate subset of consonants). Should we fix it?-- 78.60.103.193 ( talk) 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The section about the classification contains nice parts that is more appropriate to be joined within the article about the Baltic or Balto-Slavic languages.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody know where I could find an automatic Lithuanian to English translator? Thanks
Oh, come on. Why can't you use Google Translate? Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom). ( talk) 19:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Why do I find that many times the ę vowel is replaced by the ė vowel? For example isn't the word for week, savaitę, although in the Wikipedia Lithuanian it is spelled savaitė. I am trying to list Indo-European roots with Lithuanian but, I am finding it difficult which vowel the word is as all online dictionaries do not use the ę vowel. Imperial78
The list of cognate words is excessively long, plus it's also misleading in some cases where what appears to be closely-sounding Sanskrit or Latin word is in fact a similarity resulting from completely independent development - e.g. compensatory lenghening by loss of laryngeals (Lith. sūnùs < PIE *suHnús, Lith. dū́mas < PIE *dʰuHmós) or the change of PIE *o > *a which was independent sound change in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic (as can be seen from relative chronology of all sound changes in those 2 families). Furthermore, Slavic words, despite being less "similar" at first sight to Lithuanian lexeme than Latin or Sanskrit cognates, are in fact often much more related than either, sharing some less "visible" properties such as accentual development (various accent shifts and paradigm). Lithuanian dū́mas has much more in common with OCS dymъ (Serbo-Croatian dȉm, with fixed stress on the root vowel), than with either Ancient Greek thumós, Sanskrit dhūmás or Latin fūmus. The section should really be trimmed down. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I have come across comparisons between Lithuanian dūmas, Sanskrit dhumas and Latin fumus etc. in professional textbooks so I don't see why this example should not be considered valid enough for Wikipedia. -- 78.60.103.193 ( talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
See the last three paragraphs in Talk:Balto-Slavic languages, for some actual argumentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskan Wanderer ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In both cases, we are promised more than the 10 or 3 items in the Balto-Slavonic lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.97.141 ( talk) 11:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The map depicting the language in XVIth century is slightly inacurate in some parts. It marks territories which were largely covered by forest and unsettled as predominantly Lithuanian which is misleading. Also in some areas - near Hrodna, Bialystok, Suwalki both Ruthenian Polish and Lithuanian villages were mixed and interspersed, sometimes the colonist population of a single village was mixed. So they were mixed rather then predominantly Lithuanian. In such instances the map is misleading. It looks poorly accurate anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storzych ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Because of these two cited texts:
With all Indo-European languages, the percentages of words, found in more than one branch, should be given. This is more enlightening than the current short list, while still avoiding the large amount of space needed to give all the I.-E vocabulary separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montananevadagirl ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest giving Old Lithuanian a page of its own?
Anonymous 173.57.48.70 ( talk) 20:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just created Help:IPA for Lithuanian, because it seemed like a major gap in Wikipedia's IPA keys. As I have no knowledge of the language other than what I've read online, I would appreciate it if someone would add Lithuanian example words to the chart. ( suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 19:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I restored a previous version of the table because the new one makes little sense:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Lithuanian language. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lithuanian language. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, is anybody interested in translation of an article "Proto-Baltic language"? It's in Lithuanian Wikipedia https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balt%C5%B3_prokalb%C4%97. Some users of English Wikipedia know Lithuanian language well. Could you ask them about it?-- Ed1974LT ( talk) 20:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Mentioned in source: Беларуская мова і мовазнаўства: ХІХ стагоддзе/ пад агул. Рэд. М.Р. Прыгодзіча. — Мінск: БДУ, 2013. — С.81-111. ISBN: 978-985-518-849-1. Link: http://elib.bsu.by/handle/123456789/57376:
Also:
"Vyacheslav Ivanov and Vladimir Toporov believed in the unity of Balto-Slavic, but not in the unity of Baltic. In the 1960s, they proposed a new division, that into East-Baltic (Lithuanian and Latvian), West-Baltic (Old Prussian), and Slavic. The Ivanov–Toporov theory is gaining ground among students of comparative-historic grammar of Indo-European language, and seems to be replacing the previous two stances in most PIE textbooks.[dubious – discuss]"
Can anyone find an up to date source of the total number of speakers? I have seen variations up to 4 million. Not to mention that the lead says 3.1m including 200,000 abroard, and the info box says 3.0m. Will change to 3.1m until further evidence is provided? http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=100090 Alexandre8 ( talk) 10:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lithuanian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Lithuanian has been the subject of much linguistic hyperbole from 19th century comparative linguists that has bled into the modern oral tradition that "Hearing Lithuanian is like hearing Proto-Indo-European". That is rubbish in modern comparative linguistic thought. Lithuanian certainly has some conservative features, but it also has many non-conservative features as well. I've removed the most egregious bits of preening from the article and edited the remainder to be more neutral and accurate. -- Taivo ( talk) 12:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
What about the U with ring?-- Manfariel ( talk) 12:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The pronunciation of some of the letters isn't defined; I'm thinking particularly of <ė>.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
"The history of the relationship between Baltic and Slavic languages, and our[who?] understanding of the affinity between the two groups, remain in dispute (see: Balto-Slavic languages). "
i mean this sentence marked with the request for clarification: [who?].
my argument for the removal of the marking is: the "we" obviously points to the writer of the text, also the reader and in both cases to the encyclopedia (personified if you will) itself, a community which again stands in for the "scientific community of the relevant field to the extent it can be identified from the scientific discourse of the relevant field of science". therefore my opinion is that asking for clarification of who thinks what the article puts as "we think" is basically a request for a citation. the acknowledgement of the need for such citation is (imho) contained in the article itself, as it goes on to point out an ongoing scientific debate concerning the statement about this "balto-slavic" stuff which is (supposedly) laid out in more detail at the link already in the article "see: Balto-Slavic languages". if the need for citations is not satisfied properly, then the request/marking for further citations should be placed at the "balto-slavic languages" article.
for the above reasoning i suggest to remove the tag for citation: "who?" from this article.
89.134.199.32 ( talk) 19:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC).
Hi, can some of you experts on Lithuanian help over at the Jurevičius page? As I wrote on the talk page there, we really need a pronunciation guide in IPA added there. Much obliged. Might be helpful to do the same on pages about other Lithuanian names, because most of us have no idea how to pronounce them. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 13:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Liethuvim. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 7#Liethuvim until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
11:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The map by Casimir Delamarre shows very obvious mistakes according to the present knowledge. It says that Russian (called "Moscovite") is of Fino-Turkish origin, and that Lithuanian is a non-classified Slavic language. I think that a map with such mistakes should be deleted, more so because it is used as the basis to state that Lithuanian was dominant in certain areas. I will delete it after some time if there is no objection. CS20M ( talk) 10:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
See Permissive mood. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 06:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Just a suggestion. Algæ ( talk) 02:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)