Talk:Swadesh list of Slavic languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just to get people on the same page, this is what I hope this article will eventually encompass. If I do it by myself it'll probably take a long time.

  1. List of these 7(possibly change the number) languages in pure IPA and no orthography. Right now there's orthography so that even users not familiar with the languages can easily cross check and make sure the words are transcribed correctly. A possible inclusion of reconstructed Common Slavonic should also be there.
  2. A detailed analysis of the changes that underwent the languages or branches from Common Slavonic to the modern day languages. Going from PIE might be too off-topic and more appropriate for the Common Slavonic article.
  3. Possibly some explanation of the historical contexts of these changes (migrations, political and technological impacts, etc).

Any help is much appreciated. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think orthography is important because it brings languages closer together - Russian words spelled with е could be pronounced as ё. I fixed the Russian pronunciation in a lot of cases. -iopq 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
We could probably put the two columns together and just have the IPA next to the spelling -iopq 04:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Russian pronunciation

I think that there are the same rules of voicing/devoicing consonants in Russian as in Czech or other Slavic languages. So, for instance, все should be trascribed [fsʲe], not [vsʲe] – compare with Czech všichni [fʃɪxɲɪ]. /v/ preceding devoiced consonants is realized as devoiced [f]. --Pajast 12:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Good catch. I agree, I just failed to notice that one. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]

[edit] Merging with the Croatian list

In the beginning of this discussion there is written that this list is finally going to be only in IPA, while the Croatian list is orthographic. Therefore I do not think they should be merged. But I would suggest to make this list both orthographic and in IPA, as it partly is. I, for example, can read the cyrilics fluently but I have to think when reading the words in IPA (and I also have problems with displaying some IPA glyphs), so for me such a combination would be more friendly. And I would have no objections against merging the article with the Croatian list. Jan.Kamenicek 00:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The list can be orthographic and IPA for now. This page is very incomplete as is and it is okay if only the orthography is present (it's still a good start). The Swadesh lists are used for proto-language reconstruction and so, to a certain extent, the orthography will not really be relevant. Swadesh lists by themselves (and with no explanatory prose) have already been transfered to Wiktionary and if the Croatian list isn't merged here, it will have to be deleted.
I honestly don't know the differences between Serbian, Bosnian, Serbo-Croatian, and Croatian but I don't think that we would need both Serbo-Croatian and Croatian. If Croatian is significantly different enough from Serbo-Croatian, I'd rather have Serbo-Croatian. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I understand and I agree with the merging. But I would still prefer if the orthography remained later as well (and was added to the Russian column).
If you look at the Serbian/Croatian list in Wiktionary, you will see that the languages are practically identical. However, there are some slight changes from time to time, and therefore you will have to consider, in what way you will deal with them, if you want to have unified Serbo-Croatian on the list. Include both versions? Or prefer one of them? And which one?
Do you think that Slovak should be included as well? It is similar to Czech, but most words are more or less different (sometimes minor differences such as: velký - veľký (big), sometimes bigger differences, such as dítě - dieťa (child), and rarely completely different words, such as mnoho - veľa (many)). If you agree, I might add most of them some time. Jan.Kamenicek 01:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to add too many languages, partially because it makes it a lot harder to do the proper research, but also because the table becomes too wide. I'm tempted to even remove Ukrainian or Belarusian since they are similar to Russian. If Slovak is similar to Czech, it might be redundant to include both in the list. As for Croatian, if the most complete list we have right now is Croatian then we can go with Croatian. The prose we include in the article can explain the nuances about South Slavic languages as well as include discussion of languages not on the list. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that Serbian and Croatian are even more similar than Slovak and Czech, however, differences do exist. For example, dialect is different, and due to that a lot of Croatian words have "extra js" - i.e. child (Serbian - dete, Croatian - dijete). Pronounciation is nearly the same. There are some words which are completely different (bread, S-hleb, C-kruh), but they are somewhat rare. I do have one dillema - Serbo-Croatian, now non-existent as an official language, can be written with any of the two scripts, Latin or Cyrillic. However, Croatian(s) never use Cyrillic (although they usually understand it), unlike Serbian(s), which de facto treats the scripts equally and it's up to the writer to chose which one will be used. Thus, it would be imperative to include both versions for common words, for example snake (zmija/змија). But, what should be done in case where the languages differ? Should only Serbian variant be spelled with both scripts (hleb/хлеб, kruh), or should both variants include Cyrillic and Latin (hleb/хлеб, kruh/крух)? Meelosh 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We have three basic options: Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, or Croatian. Any of them are fine since this is an example that doesn't need to accomodate all South Slavic dialects. Since we've got the Croatian list we can use Croatian and rename the column Croatian (that's probably simplest). Any nationalists who have a problem with this should understand that we'll be discussing all South Slavic languages in the prose. The orthographic complexities is part of the reason why I want to do away with orthography once we get the IPA down pat. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I don't know IPA, I'm of no help - however, as I am fluent in Serbian, Croatian and/or Serbo-Croatian, I will try to finish the orthographic list in a short time. Of course, existing Croatian list is of great help. Just one more thing - while Croatian and Serbian do differ at certain points, my personal belief is that it is the same language with differences comparable to those of British and American English. While most discussions about Serbian and Croatian being totally different do have nationalism at their core, I believe that the fact that two scripts are used on equal footing is a great, extremely rare and quite distinct feature of the language which should be stressed out at every possible occasion. That's why I'd like to see Cyrillic version of Croatian list here, as well. Best regards, Meelosh 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
Merging of Croatian and Serbian is not a good idea. Normally I'd agree that Serbian and Croatian are very similar, but this merging goes against the very purpose of this list, and its purpose is to illustrate and quantify differences between languages. It makes no sense to say "the languages are practically identical"; this list is supposed to show that fact (by letting the reader compare the two columns, of course), not imply it. GregorB 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The broad purpose of the article is, indeed, to illustrate and quantify differences between Slavic languages. However, there's already a page with the purpose of showing that Serbian and Croatian are similar: Differences in official languages in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia. Because this article's scope encompasses all Slavic languages, there's naturally going to be a bit of glossing over lesser differences. Also, as I said above, the table is just the beginning and the article's prose should deal with all Slavic languages whether they're on the table or not. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
That link is red so I can't check whether the article in question covers this subject... Link fixed. Personally, I like the Swadesh list because it is probably as close as it gets to "objective measurement" of differences between two languages. Differences between Serbian and Croatian (and Bosnian and Montenegrin too) are still a politically charged issue, so I think this would be useful. But I agree with you, the table is pretty big as it is, and e.g. Slovenian and Bulgarian/Macedonian (another hot issue!) are missing. A separate table for South Slavic languages, perhaps? GregorB 08:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Differences in official languages in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia is pretty comprehensive. There are side-by-side lists there too, but as I said, Swadesh lists are "objective" in that respect, i.e. the choice of words is neutral. Still, I see your point: this is about Slavic languages in general, so this level of detail would perhaps not be necessary. GregorB 14:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian pronunciation-2

In modern Russian soft /l/ never palatalizes preceding consonants. Therefore длинный isn't [ˈdʲlʲinnɨj] , but [ˈdlʲinnɨj] etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.14.137 (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The Russian pronunciation is that of Standard Moscow dialect. In this dialect, /lʲ/ does indeed palatalize paired dental phonemes. See Russian phonology#Palatalization. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This pronunciation was acceptable long time ago, now nobody who speaks Standard Russian palatalizes dentals before /lʲ/. There is mistake in "Russian phonology" article. Such pronunciation is very silly for native speakers (include me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.14.137 (talk • contribs)
The source on that info is legitimate but it is old (almost 50 years!). Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything more recent. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
At 30's Russians speak like now (except that some effects like typical Moscow осталась with hard final [s], тихий with hard [x] and some other were more frequent). Therefore Halle's book was obsolete already at 1959. The area of palatal assimilation in Russian had tendence to decrease. E. g. 100 years ago standard pronunciation was на травке [nʌ ˈtrafʲkʲɪ], две [ˈdʲvʲе]. Now that couldn't be heard at TV.

[edit] Lack of context ambiguity to create correct list of Polish words

I have no experience with Swadesh list, but I'm native Polish and I find at least few of the translations awkward. Certain English words have several Polish equivalents which are context-dependent. I'll try to list them in case somebody cares and can tweak this list appropriately.

  • they - oni, one (one in case all of them are f. or n.; oni in mixed cases and purely m. groups)
  • this - ten, ta, to (masculine, feminine and neuter respectively)
  • that - tamten, tamta, tamto (masculine, feminine and neuter respectively)
  • all - wszyscy, wszystkie (wszyscy for masculine and mixed cases; wszystkie for feminine or neuter only; e.g. wszyscy obecni - all (people) present but wszystkie dzieci - all kids or wszystkie kobiety - all women)
  • many - dużo (quantity), bardzo (quality), wiele & wielu (quantity)
  • few - mało, niewiele
  • other - inny, inna, inne (m., f., n.)
  • big - duży/duża/duże/duzi, wielki/wielka/wielkie/wielcy (m., f., n. but also plural for feminine and neuter, plural for masculine and mixed)
  • long - długi/długa/długie/dłudzy (m., f., n. but also plural for feminine and neuter, plural for masculine and mixed)
  • wide - szeroki/szeroka/szerokie/szerocy (the same)
  • thick - gruby/gruba/grube/grubi, tłusty/tłusta/tłuste/tłuści (e.g. gruby papier - thick paper; rarely tłusty palec - thick finger)
  • heavy - ciężki/ciężka/ciężkie/ciężcy
  • small - mały/mała/małe/mali
  • short - krótki/krótka/krótkie/którcy
  • narrow - wąski/wąska/wąskie/wąscy
  • thin - cienki/cienka/cienkie/ciency
  • egg - jajo, jajko
  • neck - szyja, kark (front/back of the neck)
  • back - tył (back of the car), plecy (back of the body, upper part), tyłek, zad (lower back; note similarity to Czech záda)
  • to vomit - wymiotować, zwracać
  • to smell - wąchać (to smell with your nose; czuć has wider meaning to feel)
  • to fear - bać się, obawiać się
  • to split - dzielić, podzielić, rozdzielić
  • to stab - pchnąć, pchnąć nożem (pchnąć alone has wider meaning to push)
  • to scratch - skrobać, drapać
  • to fall - padać, upadać, spadać
  • to hold - trzymać, utrzymywać, dzierżyć (this is rare but not considered archaic; note similarity to Czech držet)
  • to squeeze - ściskać
  • to pull - ciągać, ciągnąć
  • to push - pchać, pchnąć
  • to throw - rzucić, rzucać
  • to float - pływać, płynąć, unosić się na wodzie (current IPA matches pływać)
  • to freeze - marznąć, zamarzać
  • sand - piach, piasek
  • dust - pył, kurz
  • ash - popiół, proch
  • to burn - palić, płonąć
  • red - czerwony/czerwona/czerwone/czerwoni (m., f., n. but also plural for feminine and neuter, plural for masculine and mixed)
  • green - zielony/zielona/zielone/zieloni
  • yellow - żółty/żółta/żółte/żółci
  • white - biały/biała/białe/biali
  • black - czarny/czarna/czarne/czarni
  • warm - ciepły/ciepła/ciepłe/ciepli
  • cold - zimny/zimna/zimne/zimni, chłodny/chłodna/chłodne/chłodni
  • full - pełny/-a/-e/-i
  • new - nowy/-a/-e/-i
  • old - stary/-a/-e/starzy
  • good - dobry/-a/-e/dobrzy
  • bad - zły/-a/-e/źli
  • rotten - zgniły/-a/-e/zgnili
  • dirty - brudny/-a/-e/-i
  • straight - prosty/-a/-e/prości
  • round - okrągły/-a/-e/okrągli
  • sharp - ostry/-a/-e/ostrzy
  • dull - tępy/-a/-e/-i
  • smooth - gładki/-a/-ie/gładcy
  • wet - mokry/-a/-e/mokrzy
  • dry - suchy/-a/-e/susi
  • correct - poprawny/-a/-e/-i, prawidłowy/-a/-e/-i, właściwy/-a/-e/-i
  • near - bliski/-a/-e/bliscy
  • far - daleki/-a/-ie/gładcy, odległy/-a/-e/odlegli
  • right - prawy/-a/-e/-i
  • left - lewy/-a/-e/-i
  • because - bo, dlatego że, ponieważ, przeto (archaic)
  • name - imię (for humans), nazwa (for objects and animals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConayR (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I doubt if including all the possible translations and grammatical forms is necessary. I think that best we can do is to choose the most often used ones and the ones most similar to the other Slavic forms in their grammatical form which is used in dictionaries (e.g. masculine singular nominative for adjectives). Pittmirg 14:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittmirg (talk • contribs)

[edit] Already on Wiktionary

See wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists for Slavic languages - relatively regularly updated/corrected, with many more languages (Kashubian left to be merged, and Sorbian/Old East Slavic yet to be compiled). Most of these Swadesh lists for various languages have already been transkwikied to Wiktionary a long time ago, I'm surprised that this remnant left populating Category:Swadesh lists. Does it make sense to have duplicate lists here and there? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See the beginning of this talk page. This is not intended to be a simple list, though I'll admit that I haven't done much to make it seem elsewise. I'll see if I can't add some information about Proto-Slavic here. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Proto-Slavic

This currently compares Slavic languages with each other but it should also compare them with Proto-Slavic. I know no PS words/roots, so this will probably be blank for a while. As Channon (1971) seems to break up Slavic dialects into East, South, and West, and since this list is already cumbersome enough as it is, I propose that we eliminate two or three languages.

  1. East Ukrainian vs Russian - I prefer we keep Russian but this is mostly because I know it's phonology better.
  2. South Bulgarian vs Serbo-Croatian - I prefer Bulgarian simply to avoid potential Serbo-Croatian-wasn't-ever-a-real-language arguments and nationalism.
  3. West Czech vs Polish - Not sure about deleting either, since Channon divides west into Lechitic (Polish), Central Slovak, and other (Czech).

And, of course, deleting them from the list doesn't mean that we won't go into details on their developments. I'll wait a little for consensus and if nobody objects, I'll add PS and remove Ukrainian and Serbo-Croatian. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There's lots of kewl wrong going on recently on wikt:Category:Proto-Slavic language (big lists, and I've been creating separate articles in Appendix: so that individual NS:0 entries can link to them), so you could probably dig out of there, with, of course, the help of Derksen's Slavic inherited lexicon, most of the Late Proto-Slavic etymons of Swadesh list. However, lots of those LPSl. meanings/lexemes that have been lost in literary dialect have been preserved as archaisms or in subliterary dialects, so you're risking somebody adding a cognate that most native speakers wouldn't recognize (or would consider it uncommon) but still with reasonable argumentation, just to "demonstrate" how conservative his language is ^_^ This mostly refers to German/Turkish/Lithuanian borrowings in respective branches.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The link you've provided doesn't seem to work (but I've bookmarked it anyway. Looks pretty cool). I'll see if I can't find a book at my university library to help me out. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Finished up most of the rest; accent marks are still left to be added to protoetymons. Once the WT has entries on all of LPSl. lexemes in Appendix:, I'll cross-wikify: them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)