Was Chmielnitski a hero, or a nasty nationalist?
John Wojdylo
Was Chmielnitski a hero, or a nasty nationalist? What was his claim to
fame?
In which year was the city Chmielnitski given its name? Does the city
deserve that name, or do the people there wear it with about the same
amount of pride as the people of Dzherzhinsk wear theirs?
Regards,
John
Bohdan Peter Rekshynskyj
John Wojdylo <woj...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
[article abridged]
>Was Chmielnitski a hero, or a nasty nationalist? What was his claim to
>fame?
>
>Regards,
>
>John
>
Greetings,
Bohdan Khmel'nytsky, to the Ukrainians, is a national hero. I
expect a whole bunch of posts from others bearing animosity on
the net to reply otherwise. If you are really interested, may I
suggest that you pick up the following book which is neither
Russocentrist, NOR, for want of a better term, Ukrainocentrist.
Ukraine: A History
University of Toronto
by Orest Subtelny
Regards,
Bohdan Petro Rekshyns'kyj
Julian Ilicki
>Was Chmielnitski a hero, or a nasty nationalist? What was his claim to
>fame?
>John
It depends. In Polish history Chmielnicki (Polish spelling) was a traitor.
In Ukrainian history he was a national hero. In Jewish history he was
responsible for mass-murder of Jews.
Julian
˙
=======================================================================
Julian Ilicki E-mail: Julian...@soc.uu.se
Uppsala University
Dept. of Sociology Phone: +46 - (0) 18 181514
Box 821 Fax: +46 - (0) 18 181170
S-751 08 Uppsala, Sweden Private: +46 - (0) 18 204747
=======================================================================
˙
˙
Simon Streltsov
: It depends. In Polish history Chmielnicki (Polish spelling) was a traitor.
: In Ukrainian history he was a national hero. In Jewish history he was
: responsible for mass-murder of Jews.
my understanding was that he was mass-murdering Poles
also (and, essentially Jews were murdered as representatives
of Poland power over Ukraine, am I right?)
Is he considered a "good boy" by Russian historians?
He did help to get Ukraine out of Poland and to Russia
eventually, didn't he?
And what do Ukranians who try (as well as Poles, and Jews (-:)
to escape dependence from Russia think about this policy now?
Again, I profess total ignorance about Ukranian history/politics
(among many other things)
Simon /Simcha/ Streltsov
sim...@acs.bu.edu
Boston University
dmitry pruss
>In article <2j9fs5$m...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>,
>John Wojdylo <woj...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>[article abridged]
>
>>Was Chmielnitski a hero, or a nasty nationalist? What was his claim to
>>fame?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>John
>>
>Greetings,
>
> Bohdan Khmel'nytsky, to the Ukrainians, is a national hero. I
>expect a whole bunch of posts from others bearing animosity on
>the net to reply otherwise.
I'd rather expect a few posts reflecting a bit more balanced approach. I
feel really uneasy to do something which would look like painting the
Ukrainian past black; if indeed a discussion of Ukrainian history is to
begin, it would be the best to begin it from an honest and balanced
introduction, most preferrably by an Ukrainian.
As to a series of denials and counterdenials, of pink-vs-black , which Bohdan
anticipates, isn't up to my taste.
Just briefly, for John's curiousity:
1st, there were two prominent Khmel'nitskys in Ukrainian history. I guess
you meant Bohdan.
I do think he's a way too controversial to name the cities after him, but
then, the Soviets did rename everything back and forth after hell knows
whom.
He was indeed a father of Ukrainian statehood, and he won 5 decisive
battles against the Poles. He was also a godfather of many controversies
which plagued Ukrainian national cause ever since. I stop short of going
into details; in fact I'd prefer a person who receives less hate mail from
the Ukrainophiles to fill this gap.
D
Julian Ilicki
(Simon Streltsov) writes:
>Julian Ilicki (Julian...@soc.uu.se) wrote:
>: It depends. In Polish history Chmielnicki (Polish spelling) was a traitor.
>: In Ukrainian history he was a national hero. In Jewish history he was
>: responsible for mass-murder of Jews.
>Yes, indeed, but
>my understanding was that he was mass-murdering Poles
>also (and, essentially Jews were murdered as representatives
>of Poland power over Ukraine, am I right?)
Correct.
>Is he considered a "good boy" by Russian historians?
>He did help to get Ukraine out of Poland and to Russia
>eventually, didn't he?
No idea.
>Simon /Simcha/ Streltsov
>sim...@acs.bu.edu
>Boston University
Julian
ÿ
=======================================================================
Julian Ilicki E-mail: Julian...@soc.uu.se
Uppsala University
Dept. of Sociology Phone: +46 - (0) 18 181514
Box 821 Fax: +46 - (0) 18 181170
S-751 08 Uppsala, Sweden Private: +46 - (0) 18 204747
=======================================================================
ÿ
ÿ
Krzysztof Kniaz
>
>
>>Is he considered a "good boy" by Russian historians?
>>He did help to get Ukraine out of Poland and to Russia
>>eventually, didn't he?
>
Nope. After his death Poland and Russia agreed to partition Ukraine
(according to the Andrychow (?) treaty signed in 1667 (+-2 years)) among
themselves. Russia got city of Kiev and all the Ukraine lands eastward from the
Don river.
--
Krzysztof Kniaz, |
U of Pennsylvania, LRSM , | "A witty saying proves nothing"
Phila, PA, 19104, USA | Voltaire
Simon Streltsov
: >(Simon Streltsov) writes:
: >
: >
: >>Is he considered a "good boy" by Russian historians?
: >>He did help to get Ukraine out of Poland and to Russia
: >>eventually, didn't he?
: >
: Nope. After his death Poland and Russia agreed to partition Ukraine
: (according to the Andrychow (?) treaty signed in 1667 (+-2 years)) among
: themselves. Russia got city of Kiev and all the Ukraine lands eastward from the
: Don river.
<thinking>
<thinking> <thinking>
<thinking> <thinking> <thinking>
<no result><quit>
So, what does "nope" means?
Did [a big part of] Ukraine became russian instead of Polish as a result?!
Senya
dmitry pruss
Ilicki) writes:
>(Simon Streltsov) writes:
>>my understanding was that he was mass-murdering Poles
>>also (and, essentially Jews were murdered as representatives
>>of Poland power over Ukraine, am I right?)
>
>Correct.
>
>>He did help to get Ukraine out of Poland and to Russia
>>eventually, didn't he?
>
>
Hmm... Simcha, have you ever been to Moscow? Saw a metro station called
Kievskaya-Kol'cewaya (sorry, I don't know how to spell the second word in
Ukrainian ;-) ?
What a funny place! It's the Ukrainian history in mosaic murals... sorta
like a comics edition. Khmel'nitsky is *great* there ...
Also, under the Bolsheviks they promptly renaimed Marosejka street (from
Malo-Rossijska), a site of XVIth-century Ukrainian borough, to Ul. Bogdana
Khmel'nitskogo. (But - funny - left a neighboring Khokhlovsky lane)
Cheers,
do I, really, have to post Bohdan's and Yuri's biographies??
D
Zhenya Sorokin
>Nope. After his death Poland and Russia agreed to partition Ukraine
>(according to the Andrychow (?) treaty signed in 1667 (+-2 years)) among
>themselves. Russia got city of Kiev and all the Ukraine lands eastward from the
>Don river.
Should be Dnepr, not Don.
BTW, it is really interesting time. Who was at the top of both countries at
the moment of signing the treaty? And how big was the territory to partition
(i.e. how far to the south from Kiev, etc.)? Where was the eastern border
of Poland at the moment? Since Smolensk was already russian, does it mean
that Russia got the whole left bank of Dnepr down to Kiev?
>--
>Krzysztof Kniaz, |
>U of Pennsylvania, LRSM , | "A witty saying proves nothing"
>Phila, PA, 19104, USA | Voltaire
--
Zhenya Sorokin
E-mail : sor...@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at, s...@rs6.iaee.tuwien.ac.at
Paper-mail : E. Sorokin, Gusshausstr. 27/359-9, 1040 Vienna, Austria
Voice-mail : +43(1)58801-3801, -3948
Flame-mail : /dev/null
Krzysztof Kniaz
>>Russia got city of Kiev and all the Ukraine lands eastward from the
>>Don river.
>Should be Dnepr, not Don.
Huble apologies. I must have been thinking about the Novel....
Russ Mestechkin
|> >Should be Dnepr, not Don.
|>
|> Huble apologies. I must have been thinking about the Novel....
|>
- What is the boiling temperature of water?
- 90 C.
- Should be 100 not 90.
- Huble apologies. I must've thought of a straight angle.
|> Krzysztof Kniaz, |
|> U of Pennsylvania, LRSM , | "A witty saying proves nothing"
|> Phila, PA, 19104, USA | Voltaire
--
RM mest...@vnet.ibm.com
________________________________________
dmitry pruss
>
>>Nope. After his death Poland and Russia agreed to partition Ukraine
>>(according to the Andrychow (?) treaty signed in 1667 (+-2 years)) among
>>themselves. Russia got city of Kiev and all the Ukraine lands eastward from the
>>Don river.
>
>Should be Dnepr, not Don.
>
>BTW, it is really interesting time. Who was at the top of both countries at
>the moment of signing the treaty? And how big was the territory to partition
>(i.e. how far to the south from Kiev, etc.)? Where was the eastern border
>of Poland at the moment? Since Smolensk was already russian, does it mean
>that Russia got the whole left bank of Dnepr down to Kiev?
Sorry for a long post - you asked for it :)
First a little bit of early XVIIth centuru background. Then, Polish troops
with Cossacks and Serdyuks were out to Moscow twice (with 1st
Pseudo-Dimitry and with Prince Wladislaw (who was elected Russian czar at
one point). Ukrainian Cossacks, Don Cossacks and Polish volunteers also
been to Moscow with the 2nd Pseudo-Dimitry. Then, Chernihyv, Ryazan', Don
Cossacks and some from the Sich' marched to Moscow with Bolotnikov.
Muscovia appeared very weak. But sheer luck they threw the Poles out of
Moscow; the armies of the 2nd Dimitri and of Bolotnikow were ruined mostly
by the internal feud and lack of determination. It was all called the Time
of Troubles, very interesting period to compare with our times, in fact.
Then Vladislav's dad king Sigizmund died, and the young guy was too busy
ensuring his becoming the next king - and when he finally turned his eyes
to Moscow, Muscovia managed to consolidate itself somehow, the Polish
gentry wouldn't pay war expenses, the young king tried this and that but he
was short of cash (he used his own money to hire the troops!), so, nothing
worked out. In 1618, he had to agree to peace with Russia at Deulino - he
retracted his royal pretensies to the Muscovite throne, and the border was
set East of Smolensk - Chernihyw (sp?) - Zaporizhzhq. (they would take more
if they had enough troops)
Muscovia was so weak that hardly anyone counted on it. They tried to win
Smolensk back - and failed. They were summoned to help the Cossacks of Don
at Azow - but couldn't hold it against the Turks (still, the Don Cossacks
were happy that Moscow forgave them all the Time of Troubles mutinies,
fully recognized their Cossack privilleges and offered protection; they
never parted with Moscow then, markedly unlike their Ukrainian fellows).
Poland, meanwhile, seemingly decided that it's the best time to finish with
Schizmatics (Orthodoxes) and to grab as much Black Soils for its magnates
as it could. Uniatism propaganda went fall-way, and then-young Jesuit Order
established missions everywhere, and the original Cossack privilleges were
being greatly reduced. (the same process went in in Karelia, gobbled up by
Sweden - only, the conversion was to the Protestantism). Notably, a
substantial number of Byelorussians and Karelians took a refuge in Russia
(they were given lands in Twer', then terribly depopulated by the war and
famine).
In 1625, Poland stipulated that only 6,000 Cossacks will be
officially registered (all others were to become simply peasants). From
then on, Ukraine quickly went to explosion. But the rebellions were
localized till '47, when Bohdan, a Cossack-turned-Polish-noble, was elected
Sich' Hetman. (Bohdan, importantly, sought personal revenge against the
Poles for the murder of his older son).
His program was fairly simple: he demanded that Poland grants Cossackdom
and full gentry rights to 200,000 people, removes the Jesuits and transfers
Uniate churches to the Orthodoxes, and also to finish with the Jewry and
to confiscate their property.
Thus far, no 'samostijnost'' was spoken about.
Early in 1648, he travelled to Crimea and was granted Tatars' help against
Poland. With the Tatars, he promptly blew Polish troops apart in 3 battles,
advanced far West and slaughtered scores of civilians by his way.
To his enormous luck, king Vladislaw died then, and for about two years
Poland was too busy with king election to take care of Ukraine. So he ruled
Kiew and all the Left Bank as an independent state (allied with the Tatars)
and consolidated forces.
In 1651, the Poles were back. Suddenly, the Crimeans withdrew their
support (some people say, bacause of Polish hidden diplomacy; some think
about Jewish hidden diplomacy), and the Ukrainians began to loose terribly.
For a while it looked desperate; this was when they pleaded Moscow for support.
(and finally took an oath of allegiance to the czar in Pereyaslav)
Moscow, as it happens, sent troops to a Second Front rather than
subordinated it to Khmel'nitsky. They mostly acted further North, and,
after some undecisive period, it went on quite succesfully. In 1654, they
retook Smolensk, and in 1655, Vilno, Grodno and get halfway to Warsaw. A
part of the Polish nobility deposed king Jan-Kazimir (but another part
disagreed, and a sheer mess began in Poland, and for a while it stayed out
of the game).
Bohdan, meanwhile, died; Jan-Kazimir gathered his forces and moved
against Muscovia, and after watching his successes, then-Hetman Vygovsky
broke an alliance with Russia and rejoined Ukraine to Poland (Unia of
Gadyach'), and together with the Tatars bit the hell out of the Muscovite
troops. .
However, in a matter of months Ukraine got one more Hetman, with an
Anti-Gadyach platform: the Cossacks unhappy with the return of the Poles
elected Yuri, Bohdan's son, their leader.
In 1659, the two Hetman's armies met, and Yuri took over - Vygovsky's
troops deserted to him. Yuri asked for Muscovite troops to hold against the
Poles, but when in 1660 they met combined Polish-Tatar forces in Wolyn',
Yuri pissed off and pleaded the Poles to forgive him - and then they
trashed the Muscovites together. But - you guessed correctly, the Cossacks
were unhappy that Poles are back and elected another Hetman (after a while,
Yuri resurfaced when Sultan Mehmet IV installed him to rule the Turkish
portion of Ukraine, Podolia). In fact they elected two - a pro-Muscovite
turned pro-Crimean and a pro-independist turned pro-Polish turned
pro-Turkish.
For some while after these multiple splits and ally-swappings, the Ukranian
leaders were mostly busy killing one another out of treason suspicions.
The Muscovites meanwhile retreated to the left bank, defeated the Poles
couple times, and finally signed Andrusowo peace (basically returning the
Poles the right bank, Belarus and Lithuania which they have just won
back).
It all happened under Alexei Mikhailovich the Quietest (what an irony!).
Regards,
D
Zhenya Sorokin
>In article <2jbj00$q...@email.tuwien.ac.at> s...@rs6.iaee.tuwien.ac.at (Zhenya Sorokin) writes:
>>
>>BTW, it is really interesting time. Who was at the top of both countries at
>>the moment of signing the treaty? And how big was the territory to partition
>>(i.e. how far to the south from Kiev, etc.)? Where was the eastern border
>>of Poland at the moment? Since Smolensk was already russian, does it mean
>>that Russia got the whole left bank of Dnepr down to Kiev?
>Sorry for a long post - you asked for it :)
Dear Dima, thank you very much for a fascinating reading!
The only important player that got left out of scope is Sweden. It was
also the time of 30-year war, if I remember correctly, and both Muscovia
and Poland dealt with Sweden (also German Order in Balticum). If you could
insert "Swedesh" part into your article, it'll be a prepared work for a
s.c.s--s.c.u. FAQ...
Thanks again,
Darek Skalecki
> In article <2jbm4d$e...@netnews.upenn.edu>, kn...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Krzysztof Kniaz) writes:
> |> >Should be Dnepr, not Don.
> |>
> |> Huble apologies. I must have been thinking about the Novel....
> |>
>
> - What is the boiling temperature of water?
> - 90 C.
> - Should be 100 not 90.
> - Huble apologies. I must've thought of a straight angle.
>
> |> Krzysztof Kniaz, |
> |> U of Pennsylvania, LRSM , | "A witty saying proves nothing"
> |> Phila, PA, 19104, USA | Voltaire
>
> --
> RM mest...@vnet.ibm.com
> ________________________________________
Since you tried to be sarcastic you were asking for the
following:
I have not heard of straight angles? Could you explain what they are ?
I have heard of right angles but not straight angles.
Darek
dmitry pruss
>
>Dear Dima, thank you very much for a fascinating reading!
Damn, I missed the last bus home with all that lots of typing - luckily, a
neighbor picked me up :)
Not any more - setting an article length limit =50 lines now ;-)
>The only important player that got left out of scope is Sweden.
But then, it wasn't of any immediate role in the Ukrainian history. What
you probably mean is Hetman Mazepa's short alliance with the Swedes and
Poltava Battle, yes?
That was an interesting turn of the history indeed, only it happened almost
40 years _after_ the peace of Andrusowo (of which you asked). It was under
Peter I already, and not even early in his reign.
As to XVIIth century, Sweden played smaller role in both Muscovite and
Ukrainian history then. It didn't offer throne pretendents or occupied core
Russian lands (although they did took Novgorod in the Time of Troubles, and
retained the Baltic coast and Karelia after it was over).
The other place where I could have mention the Swedes was a story with
brief Muscovite occupation of Lithuania after 1655: their troops were
immediately tied up by the Swedes, who themselves intended to take
Lithuania (as well as great chunks of Poland). Around that times, the
Translylvanians were also out to Poland and held its southern areas, and the
overall scenario was similar to the divisions of Poland a century later.
But this time, the inviders were lacking unity - in fact they fought each
other bitterly, and the Poles were finally able to repel them all.
Also John Wojdylo <woj...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> writes (BTW, John, do you
think that it was a terribly nice idea, to crosspost your original 2-line
questions to scs, scu and scp???)
>Your mini-history makes great reading. Now here's a simple question.
>What exactly is a Hetman, how does the position compare with the elected
>Polish king, for instance. I'd thought Hetman was a Cossack thing, but
>from what you write, just about all the sides in the region -- Don
>Cossacks, Ukrainian C's, Poles, Muscovites (others?) elected their
>kings/leaders. To what extent is that true?
I think (although not completely sure) that Hetman corresponds to Russian
Ataman, orriginally referring to an elected chieftain of a Cossack troop,
or any armed team out to the frontier (Volga river bandits, Siberian
trailblazers or whomever).
As to the king/czar elections, the Poles had it for quite a while, while
the Muscovites were more used to a dynastic succession. But when the
Ryurikovich dinasty ceased with the death of Feodor Ioannovich (the
Terrible's son), and before the Romanov dinasty was established (since
Mikhail, Alexei's father), they did elect the czars. Among the czars
elected in that way were Boris Godunow, Vasily Shujski, Wladislaw of
Poland, and naturally Mikhail Romanow.
Then, in Russian's opinion, elcting the czars and having the Time of
Troubles are almost synonims ;-)
D
Russ Mestechkin/303875/burlingt/B00003d
|> In article <CKzCq...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, mestechr@tfkiev (Russ Mestechkin) writes:
|> > In article <2jbm4d$e...@netnews.upenn.edu>, kn...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Krzysztof Kniaz) writes:
|> > |> >Should be Dnepr, not Don.
|> > |>
|> > |> Huble apologies. I must have been thinking about the Novel....
|> > |>
|> >
|> > - What is the boiling temperature of water?
|> > - 90 C.
|> > - Should be 100 not 90.
|> > - Huble apologies. I must've thought of a straight angle.
|> ^^^^^^^^
|> >
|> > |> Krzysztof Kniaz, |
|> > |> U of Pennsylvania, LRSM , | "A witty saying proves nothing"
|> > |> Phila, PA, 19104, USA | Voltaire
|> >
|> > --
|> > RM mest...@vnet.ibm.com
|> > ________________________________________
|>
|> Since you tried to be sarcastic you were asking for the
|> following:
I did not try - it's part of my nature.
|> I have not heard of straight angles? Could you explain what they are ?
|> I have heard of right angles but not straight angles.
|>
|> Darek
This is a word for word translation of a russian joke from the popular series
about braindead military kinda jerk. "Straight angle" is a literal translation
of russian term "priomoi ugol". The translations like that are perfectly
legal in a bilingual (at least) newsgroup.
I am sincerely glad you've heared of right angles. It might also be interesting
for you to know that one of the possible literal translations for an angle
exceeding 90 degrees is a "dumb angle".
--
RM mest...@vnet.ibm.com
________________________________________
...if all you told was turned to gold,
if all you dreamed were new,
imagine sky high above
in Caribbean blue
...Earus... Afer Ventus...
Dmitry Kleinbock
mest...@tfkiev.btv.ibm.com (Russ Mestechkin) writes:
> In article <CL0Kr...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, drsk...@neumann.uwaterloo.ca (Darek Skalecki) writes:
> |> In article <CKzCq...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, mestechr@tfkiev (Russ Mestechkin) writes:
> |> > In article <2jbm4d$e...@netnews.upenn.edu>, kn...@sol1.lrsm.upenn.edu (Krzysztof Kniaz) writes:
> |> > |> >Should be Dnepr, not Don.
> |> > |>
> |> > |> Huble apologies. I must have been thinking about the Novel....
> |> > |>
> |> >
> |> > - What is the boiling temperature of water?
> |> > - 90 C.
> |> > - Should be 100 not 90.
> |> > - Huble apologies. I must've thought of a straight angle.
> |> ^^^^^^^^
> |> I have not heard of straight angles? Could you explain what they are ?
> |> I have heard of right angles but not straight angles.
> |>
>
>This is a word for word translation of a russian joke from the popular series
>about braindead military kinda jerk. "Straight angle" is a literal translation
>of russian term "priomoi ugol". The translations like that are perfectly
>legal in a bilingual (at least) newsgroup.
>I am sincerely glad you've heared of right angles.
For both of you guys: straight angle is 180 degrees. Relax,
--
/| |\ /|\
/ | /| \/ |_\ klei...@pascal.math.yale.edu
/_ |/ | | \
` '
Michal Misiurewicz
No!!! Translations like that are NOT legal. Sometimes they can be funny:
Polish expression "dziekuje z gory" ("thank you in advance") can be
translated word-for-word as "thank you from the mountain". However
sometimes they are not only funny, but make everything ununderstandable.
There was a translation of a book on probability theory from Russian to
Polish, where "po krainei mere" was translated to "wedlug miary krancowej"
("according to the end measure" - although there may be a better English
word for Polish "krancowy").
> I am sincerely glad you've heared of right angles. It might also be interesting
> for you to know that one of the possible literal translations for an angle
> exceeding 90 degrees is a "dumb angle".
Yes, and the Russian term for "structurally stable systems" is "grubye
sistemy". And think of the word-for-word translations from Russian to
other languages.
>
> --
> RM mest...@vnet.ibm.com
> ________________________________________
> ...if all you told was turned to gold,
> if all you dreamed were new,
> imagine sky high above
> in Caribbean blue
> ...Earus... Afer Ventus...
By the way, if we all in those three groups know all three languages,
why are we communicating in English :-) ?
Michal Misiurewicz
Zhenya Sorokin
>By the way, if we all in those three groups know all three languages,
>why are we communicating in English :-) ?
Yes, yes, do it, do it now!!!!
Start writing in russian to s.c.u and s.c.p (as well as to any other
x-USSR or x-(soc. conclager') group!
Oh, that's gonna be a real FUN!
>Michal Misiurewicz
Russ Mestechkin/303875/burlingt/B00003d
|> > This is a word for word translation of a russian joke from the popular series
|> > about braindead military kinda jerk. "Straight angle" is a literal translation
|> > of russian term "priomoi ugol". The translations like that are perfectly
|> > legal in a bilingual (at least) newsgroup.
For one thing I did not realize this stuff is being crossposted to the
.polish - you guys must be mighty serious over there. Who cares though.
|> No!!! Translations like that are NOT legal. Sometimes they can be funny:
You got the point, brother Slav.
|> Yes, and the Russian term for "structurally stable systems" is "grubye
|> sistemy".
It's a cool one (does not sound right though)! Tell me more ;)
|> By the way, if we all in those three groups know all three languages,
|> why are we communicating in English :-) ?
Really, why?
Michal Misiurewicz
> Michal Misiurewicz (mmis...@indyvax.iupui.edu) wrote:
>
>>By the way, if we all in those three groups know all three languages,
>>why are we communicating in English :-) ?
>
> Yes, yes, do it, do it now!!!!
> Start writing in russian to s.c.u and s.c.p (as well as to any other
> x-USSR or x-(soc. conclager') group!
Why in Russian? My experience with talking with poeple from
various Slavic countries is that if everybody speaks his/her
own language, it is possible to communicate.
>
> Oh, that's gonna be a real FUN!
You seem to think that the readers of s.c.u. and s.c.p. hate
Russian language. This is not so. Just recently we had some Russian
jokes posted on s.c.p. (in Russian) and nobody protested. The
problem could be that for instance for me it is difficult to write
in Russian using English transliteration. [in fact I do not know
about s.c.u. - maybe there readers do not like Russian?]
>
>>Michal Misiurewicz
>
>
>
> --
> Zhenya Sorokin
>
> E-mail : sor...@ps1.iaee.tuwien.ac.at, s...@rs6.iaee.tuwien.ac.at
> Paper-mail : E. Sorokin, Gusshausstr. 27/359-9, 1040 Vienna, Austria
> Voice-mail : +43(1)58801-3801, -3948
> Flame-mail : /dev/null
Michal Misiurewicz
Zhenya Sorokin
>In article <2jfk3h$q...@email.tuwien.ac.at>, s...@rs6.iaee.tuwien.ac.at (Zhenya Sorokin) writes:
>> Michal Misiurewicz (mmis...@indyvax.iupui.edu) wrote:
>>
>>>By the way, if we all in those three groups know all three languages,
>>>why are we communicating in English :-) ?
>>
>> Yes, yes, do it, do it now!!!!
>> Start writing in russian to s.c.u and s.c.p (as well as to any other
>> x-USSR or x-(soc. conclager') group!
>Why in Russian? My experience with talking with poeple from
Sorry, I didn't understand you. I thought you meant that everybody had
russian in school.
>various Slavic countries is that if everybody speaks his/her
>own language, it is possible to communicate.
My experience tells me, that it is possible if one speaks (slowly), but not
writes, especially using some weird transliteration for cyrillics.
Although this summer I was in Slovenia/Croatia and had almost no problems
using both written and spoken. In tough cases German was a rescue.
It was, however, worse in Prague. A young girl (born definitely after 1968)
was so firm in showing her "ne vnemlem" (or what's it in Chzech) that she
refused to sell me bisquits for otherwise very welcomed austrian schillings.
>>
>> Oh, that's gonna be a real FUN!
>You seem to think that the readers of s.c.u. and s.c.p. hate
>Russian language. This is not so. Just recently we had some Russian
>jokes posted on s.c.p. (in Russian) and nobody protested. The
>problem could be that for instance for me it is difficult to write
>in Russian using English transliteration. [in fact I do not know
>about s.c.u. - maybe there readers do not like Russian?]
Must admit - never read s.c.p. But s.c.baltic and crossposts from
s.c.rumania (thanks to Strekozel) made such an impression. Besides, it is
not needed that everybody doesn't like it - a couple of flame-warriors
is more then enough for real FUN.