Azov sea shoreline
hippo
"Roman Kosarenko" wrote in message
> I've read a lot here about Black Sea flood and why it could not happen.
>
> For those interested in ancient shoreline on the north side of the see, I
> remember a 1997 article in Ukrainian daily "Den'" (The Day), written by
> fellows of the Institute of geological science of Ukrainian academy of
> sciences.
>
> They were studying space photographs and concluded that the whole of Azov
> sea was a huge delta of the Don river, similar to the deltas of Nile or
> Danube. According to them, this lowland was last flooded about 3000 BP.
>
> I guess all of that is long known and/or interpreted differently by
> specialists.
>
> http://www.day.kiev.ua/1997/93/history/hist2.htm (Ukrainian)
>
> A. Radzyvill, O. Radzyvill, O.Kudelya
Roman, why do you call it Ukrainian and not Russian? Is Ukrainian distinct
enough from Russian to consider it a separate language like Polish? How
difficult is it for a Great Russian (Muscovite) to understand? Is it a
simple matter of pronunciation or is there a distinct vocabulary and
different grammar? -the Troll
Roman Kosarenko
> Roman, why do you call it Ukrainian and not Russian? Is Ukrainian distinct
> enough from Russian to consider it a separate language like Polish? How
> difficult is it for a Great Russian (Muscovite) to understand? Is it a
> simple matter of pronunciation or is there a distinct vocabulary and
> different grammar? -the Troll
Having spent several years abroad I am already tired of answering to
this question. Yes, Ukrainian is a separate language. Vocabulary is
different (although significant overlaps with both Russian and Polish
do exist). Grammar is a bit different too - e.g. Ukrainian has 7 noun
cases, whereas Russian - only 6; Ukrainian has the pluperfect, and
Russian - hasn't. Pronunciation is way different - even ethnic
Russians who live in Ukraine have a distinct accent.
Ukrainian and Russian (or Ukrainian and Polish) are not mutually
intelligible - except for people who had experience with both
languages. Russians from Moscow or St.Petersburg or from Siberia
normally do not understand Ukrainian expect for some common words.
Rex F. May
at poe...@uazone.net wrote on 1/22/03 12:52 PM:
>
> Having spent several years abroad I am already tired of answering to
> this question. Yes, Ukrainian is a separate language. Vocabulary is
> different (although significant overlaps with both Russian and Polish
> do exist). Grammar is a bit different too - e.g. Ukrainian has 7 noun
> cases, whereas Russian - only 6; Ukrainian has the pluperfect, and
> Russian - hasn't. Pronunciation is way different - even ethnic
> Russians who live in Ukraine have a distinct accent.
>
> Ukrainian and Russian (or Ukrainian and Polish) are not mutually
> intelligible - except for people who had experience with both
> languages. Russians from Moscow or St.Petersburg or from Siberia
> normally do not understand Ukrainian expect for some common words.
Interesting. Is it true that Russian and Ukrainian are more similar than
either is to Polish? And how does Byelorussian fit in?
Thanks.
rm
ruffnready
> "hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote :
>> Roman, why do you call it Ukrainian and not Russian? Is Ukrainian distinct
>> enough from Russian to consider it a separate language like Polish? How
>> difficult is it for a Great Russian (Muscovite) to understand? Is it a
>> simple matter of pronunciation or is there a distinct vocabulary and
>> different grammar? -the Troll
> Having spent several years abroad I am already tired of answering to
> this question. Yes, Ukrainian is a separate language.
What is the criterium for this decision ?
This is not an objection, I am rather curious.
> Vocabulary is different
Again, without a definition of "different",
your claims are unsubstantiated.
> (although significant overlaps with both Russian and Polish
> do exist).
There is no overlap, but massive import of Polish words
to eliminate thе 100% coincidence with Russian dialects.
> Grammar is a bit different too - e.g. Ukrainian has 7 noun
> cases,
with one extra case being the Vocative, which is
not unknown to a Russian speaker.
> whereas Russian - only 6; Ukrainian has the pluperfect, and
> Russian - hasn't.
and the "Pluperfect" is not anything generic but a
pretty descriptive form.
> Pronunciation is way different - even ethnic
> Russians who live in Ukraine have a distinct accent.
Then you must pronounce say, Texan language, since anybody
that happened to live there has a very distinct accent.
> Ukrainian and Russian (or Ukrainian and Polish) are not mutually
> intelligible -
This is simply a lie.
> except for people who had experience with both
> languages.
Quite natural - to understand another language you
need first to hear it - and this is already some experience.
> Russians from Moscow or St.Petersburg or from Siberia
> normally do not understand Ukrainian expect for some common words.
This is a lie.
RR
hippo
"ruffnready" wrote in message
> Roman Kosarenko wrote:
>
> > "hippo" wrote :
>
> >> Roman, why do you call it Ukrainian and not Russian? Is Ukrainian
distinct
> >> enough from Russian to consider it a separate language like Polish? How
> >> difficult is it for a Great Russian (Muscovite) to understand? Is it a
> >> simple matter of pronunciation or is there a distinct vocabulary and
> >> different grammar? -the Troll
>
> > Having spent several years abroad I am already tired of answering to
> > this question. Yes, Ukrainian is a separate language.
>
> What is the criterium for this decision ?
> This is not an objection, I am rather curious.
>
> > Vocabulary is different
>
> Again, without a definition of "different",
> your claims are unsubstantiated.
>
> > (although significant overlaps with both Russian and Polish
> > do exist).
>
> There is no overlap, but massive import of Polish words
> to eliminate thÅ 100% coincidence with Russian dialects.
>
> > Grammar is a bit different too - e.g. Ukrainian has 7 noun
> > cases,
>
> with one extra case being the Vocative, which is
> not unknown to a Russian speaker.
>
> > whereas Russian - only 6; Ukrainian has the pluperfect, and
> > Russian - hasn't.
>
> and the "Pluperfect" is not anything generic but a
> pretty descriptive form.
>
> > Pronunciation is way different - even ethnic
> > Russians who live in Ukraine have a distinct accent.
>
> Then you must pronounce say, Texan language, since anybody
> that happened to live there has a very distinct accent.
>
> > Ukrainian and Russian (or Ukrainian and Polish) are not mutually
> > intelligible -
>
> This is simply a lie.
>
> > except for people who had experience with both
> > languages.
>
> Quite natural - to understand another language you
> need first to hear it - and this is already some experience.
>
> > Russians from Moscow or St.Petersburg or from Siberia
> > normally do not understand Ukrainian expect for some common words.
>
> This is a lie.
> RR
You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I know Poles can
not usually understand spoken Russian. I would be just as interested to find
out if the Finns can understand spoken Estonian, or Lithuanians Latvian. Our
knowledge in the West about Eastern Europe is sadly lacking. -the Troll
Cain Descending
oh my, wonder why...
ruffnready
> You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I know Poles can
> not usually understand spoken Russian.
Actually, any Slav can understand any other Slav, though not
always
on 100%. Polish historically is not that distant from Russian,
and two persons from both nations will understand each other
after 15 minutes of conversation, at least on vital issues.
> I would be just as interested to find
> out if the Finns can understand spoken Estonian,
Reportedly they can although I never watched such conversation.
> or Lithuanians Latvian.
Allegedly they will grasp a lot of common words,
but the grammars diverged too much.
RR
Henry Polard
ruffnready <nok...@otherworld.org> wrote:
> hippo wrote:
>
> > You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I know Poles can
> > not usually understand spoken Russian.
>
> Actually, any Slav can understand any other Slav, though not
> always
> on 100%. Polish historically is not that distant from Russian,
> and two persons from both nations will understand each other
> after 15 minutes of conversation, at least on vital issues.
I would be surprised if Czechs and Russians can undestand Bulgarian (let
alone eachother), but would appreciate evidence stronger than anecdotes
that would prove me wrong.
Are there any studies about Slavic mutual intelligibility?
I ask this even realizing that the notion of mutual intelliibility is a
bit fuzzy.
Henry Polard || 90% of mutual intelligibility is willingness to
intellige. -- H. Gleason
hippo
"ruffnready" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
>
> > You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I know Poles
can
> > not usually understand spoken Russian.
>
> Actually, any Slav can understand any other Slav, though not
> always
> on 100%. Polish historically is not that distant from Russian,
> and two persons from both nations will understand each other
> after 15 minutes of conversation, at least on vital issues.
That's not what they tell me except on the 'where is the toilet' level. They
do say Russian is easy for them to learn. Poles can read Russian if it is
transposed over into their alphabet.
> > I would be just as interested to find
> > out if the Finns can understand spoken Estonian,
>
> Reportedly they can although I never watched such conversation.
>
> > or Lithuanians Latvian.
>
> Allegedly they will grasp a lot of common words,
> but the grammars diverged too much.
That's what I have heard too, thanks. -the Troll
Rex F. May
nok...@otherworld.org wrote on 1/22/03 6:08 PM:
> hippo wrote:
>
>> You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I know Poles can
>> not usually understand spoken Russian.
>
> Actually, any Slav can understand any other Slav, though not
> always
> on 100%. Polish historically is not that distant from Russian,
> and two persons from both nations will understand each other
> after 15 minutes of conversation, at least on vital issues.
Interesting. I remember reading that the Slavic languages diverge much less
than either Romance or Teutonic. And the Russian I know enables me to work
out a lot of Polish, Czech, etc., when I encounter it.
rm
Roman Kosarenko
"Rex F. May" <rex...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:BA545100.545A%rex...@attbi.com...
> in article fd1a1e52.03012...@posting.google.com, Roman
Kosarenko
> at poe...@uazone.net wrote on 1/22/03 12:52 PM:
> Interesting. Is it true that Russian and Ukrainian are more similar than
> either is to Polish? And how does Byelorussian fit in?
> Thanks.
> rm
That seems true to me who was brought up in Eastern Ukraine, where Russian
is widespread too.
However, I bet many people in Western Ukraine feel that Polish is closer.
Some Polish grammar forms are imported from Polish, such as the use of the
ending sya (sie in Polish) in reflexive verbs - before the verbs they refer
to.
Roman Kosarenko
"ruffnready" <nok...@otherworld.org> wrote in message
news:3E2EFAD3...@otherworld.org...
> > this question. Yes, Ukrainian is a separate language.
>
> What is the criterium for this decision ?
> This is not an objection, I am rather curious.
Well, I base in on the notion of mutual intelligibility.
>
> > Vocabulary is different
>
> Again, without a definition of "different",
> your claims are unsubstantiated.
What's wrong with the claim of different vocabulary?
>
> > (although significant overlaps with both Russian and Polish
> > do exist).
>
> There is no overlap, but massive import of Polish words
> to eliminate thÅ 100% coincidence with Russian dialects.
This sound so much like Russian academy of sciences. :)))
Your claim has a definite political undercurrent.
However, let me say that there is a huge array of words which are unique to
Ukrainian and not present in neither Polish, nor Russian.
>
> > Grammar is a bit different too - e.g. Ukrainian has 7 noun
> > cases,
>
> with one extra case being the Vocative, which is
> not unknown to a Russian speaker.
You are not going to say that Vocative is in common use in Russian?
> > Ukrainian and Russian (or Ukrainian and Polish) are not mutually
> > intelligible -
>
> This is simply a lie.
BTW, what is your native language, and what is your linguistic credentials?
If you had previous experience with both Russian and Ukrainain, and/or you
have studied other Slavic languages, I reject your claim. I am native to
both Ukrainian and Russian and I say most Russians who had no exposure to
Ukrainian would have serious difficulty in understanding. I saw those people
many times.
Of course they would be able to communicate basic need. Which is far from
mutual intelligibility.
> > Russians from Moscow or St.Petersburg or from Siberia
> > normally do not understand Ukrainian expect for some common words.
>
> This is a lie.
No its not. I don't know where you had your knowledge of Ukrainian taken
from - and that is a real pity. Because it may be the case that what you
call Ukrainian is a bad mix of the two languages brought to Russia by
Eastern Ukrainians who try to speak Russian but invariantly use wrong
grammar, or wrong idioms or else.
ruffnready
> I would be surprised if Czechs and Russians can undestand Bulgarian (let
> alone eachother), but would appreciate evidence stronger than anecdotes
> that would prove me wrong.
Practice is the evidence.
I believe Czech speach would prove more hard for a Russian to
understand than Polish. Although Polish together with Czech
constitites West Slavonic continuum, still there are some
common features in Russian & Polish that enable scholars
to speak of "North Slavonic".
Written Bulgarian will look somewhat weird for a Russian,
but will sound mostly understandable since the large part
of vocabulary is shared (thru Old Church Slavonic).
> Are there any studies about Slavic mutual intelligibility?
I never heard of them, sorry.
> I ask this even realizing that the notion of mutual intelliibility is a
> bit fuzzy.
This is true.
RR
Roman Kosarenko
"Henry Polard" <hpo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hpolard-90B9CE...@nntp.mindspring.com...
I don't have a quote, but here in this NG one Russian linguist who studied
Slavic languages said he can read any Slavic text except Czech. He didn't
mention listening and understanding though.
Roman Kosarenko
>
> "ruffnready" wrote in message
>
> > hippo wrote:
> >
> > > You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I know Poles
> can
> > > not usually understand spoken Russian.
> >
> > Actually, any Slav can understand any other Slav, though not
> > always
> > on 100%. Polish historically is not that distant from Russian,
> > and two persons from both nations will understand each other
> > after 15 minutes of conversation, at least on vital issues.
>
> That's not what they tell me except on the 'where is the toilet' level.
They
> do say Russian is easy for them to learn. Poles can read Russian if it is
> transposed over into their alphabet.
>
The other way around works as well - I studied some Polish too and reading
isn't a big problem for people familiar with Ukrainian. Listening and
understanding is much more difficult, let alone for those whose only Slavic
language is Russian. Vocabulary in Russian - I heard - is heavy on Turkic
and Finno-Ugric component.
ruffnready
> "ruffnready" wrote in message
>> hippo wrote:
>>> You see from the responses this is a subject of interest.
>>> I know Poles can not usually understand spoken Russian.
>> Actually, any Slav can understand any other Slav, though not
>> always on 100%. Polish historically is not that distant from Russian,
>> and two persons from both nations will understand each other
>> after 15 minutes of conversation, at least on vital issues.
> That's not what they tell me except on the 'where is the toilet' level.
> They do say Russian is easy for them to learn. Poles can read Russian
> if it is transposed over into their alphabet.
Isn't this the sign of intelligibility ?
I must admit that when two persons of different Slavonic
tongues try to speak to each other, very soon a mental
"decoding machine" is enacted that helps to recognize
cognate words.
RR
ruffnready
> The other way around works as well - I studied some Polish too and reading
> isn't a big problem for people familiar with Ukrainian. Listening and
> understanding is much more difficult, let alone for those whose only Slavic
> language is Russian. Vocabulary in Russian - I heard - is heavy on Turkic
> and Finno-Ugric component.
In another article you said that you are familiar with both
Ukrainian
and Russian. So, please, give us examples of "Finno-Ugric
component"
of standard Russian vocabulary. As for the Turkic component, I
assure
you (and I am ready to present examples on request) that Ukrainian
vocabulary had much more "heavy" Turkic impact.
RR
Roman Kosarenko
> hippo wrote:
>
> > "ruffnready" wrote in message
>
> tongues try to speak to each other, very soon a mental
> "decoding machine" is enacted that helps to recognize
> cognate words.
> RR
I agree on mental "decoding machine" for two people with Slavic _native_
languages.
However, even here it's far from simple.
It is a known fact (which I can attest personally), that people brought up
in Ukrainian families in Canada and in the USA, where the parents
consistently spoke Ukrainian to their kids - can not understand Russian. Not
after 15 minutes, not after 2 hours.
I understand that the mental model is different here from the case of
natives, but this situation does indicate that the languages are different
enough to be called 'separate', and not just two dialects.
Roman Kosarenko
This is not the point. The point is that Ukrainian vocabulary has more
common with Polish, relative to Russian-Polish - due to loan-words or
something else. You said that in one of your earlier posts!
As for Finno-Ugric component. let me tell you a story. A known Russian
genealogist Anton Valdin who studied genealogy of some Russian family in
Arkhangel'sk oblast', came to conclusion that the surname Vorobyov, which is
very common for that region, did not originate from the word 'vorobei' (a
small bird uncommon in Arkhangel'sk) as Russian tend to think, but rather
from Saami words voarre-puej (sorry, I don't know any Uralic language and
unsure of correct reverse transliteration). The reason is simple - many
centuries ago Slavs came to the area which was already settled by Finn-Ugric
peoples. Even Moscow itself is a FU word ('mos' means wet, and 'kwa' means
'water').
ruffnready
> ruffnready wrote :
>> I must admit that when two persons of different Slavonic
>> tongues try to speak to each other, very soon a mental
>> "decoding machine" is enacted that helps to recognize
>> cognate words.
> I agree on mental "decoding machine" for two people with Slavic _native_
> languages.
> However, even here it's far from simple.
Nothing is simple.
> It is a known fact (which I can attest personally), that people brought up
> in Ukrainian families in Canada and in the USA, where the parents
> consistently spoke Ukrainian to their kids - can not understand Russian. Not
> after 15 minutes, not after 2 hours.
This is due to purely political reasons, I guess...
And - more important - the kids you mention actually
speak English, whereas Ukrainian for them is more
like Hebrew for the (American) Jews.
The language is being learned, even spoken, but it does not
compete
with English.
> I understand that the mental model is different here from the case of
> natives, but this situation does indicate that the languages are different
> enough to be called 'separate', and not just two dialects.
A dispute of this kind often sparks here.
So far the only objective definition I heard is
"A language is a dialect with an army".
RR
ruffnready
> ruffnready wrote :
>> Roman Kosarenko wrote:
>>> [...] Vocabulary in Russian - I heard - is heavy on
>>> Turkic and Finno-Ugric component.
>> In another article you said that you are familiar with both
>> Ukrainian and Russian. So, please, give us examples of "Finno-Ugric
>> component" of standard Russian vocabulary. As for the Turkic
>> component, I assure you (and I am ready to present examples on
>> request) that Ukrainian vocabulary had much more "heavy" Turkic
>> impact.
> This is not the point.
Why, then your argument was pointless.
You made a statement, I debunked it.
> The point is that Ukrainian vocabulary has more
> common with Polish, relative to Russian-Polish - due to loan-words or
> something else. You said that in one of your earlier posts!
So what ?
> As for Finno-Ugric component. let me tell you a story.
Let me then to note that you failed to point at the
"Finno-Ugric component" in Russian.
> A known Russian genealogist Anton Valdin who studied genealogy
> of some Russian family in Arkhangel'sk oblast',
If you do not mind, I prefer to comment on the run.
Arkhangel'sk oblast' is a very special region in the
sense of dialect, there are a score or two of FU
substrate words, for instance "tundra", which also
came to standard Russian (and standard English, too)
But every other feature of Arkhangel'sk dialect does
not put it outside the continuum of Russian dialects.
> came to conclusion that the surname Vorobyov, which is very
> common for that region,
> did not originate from the word 'vorobei' (a small bird uncommon in
> Arkhangel'sk) as Russian tend to think, but rather
> from Saami words voarre-puej (sorry, I don't know any Uralic language
> and unsure of correct reverse transliteration).
Excuse me, but this is rubbish.
(Traditional) Russian last names form a very rigid system
and any story of this kind is nothing but a folk etymology.
> The reason is
> simple - many centuries ago Slavs came to the area which was already
> settled by Finn-Ugric peoples.
So what ? There always is some substrate.
You just need to learn about it to take it into account.
> Even Moscow itself is a FU word
> ('mos' means wet, and 'kwa' means 'water').
Another rubbish. You "heard" something and you screwed
that something up. There is no FU word <mos> meaning 'wet'
and there is no FU <kwa> meaning whatever.
Komi <va> 'water' is irrelevant here, since Komi always lived
too far from Moscow. I may disappoint you, but <Moskva>,
older <*Mosky>, a noun of -u:- declension and is of SLavonic
origin.
RR
Jouko Heyno
>
> > The other way around works as well - I studied some Polish too and reading
> > isn't a big problem for people familiar with Ukrainian. Listening and
> > understanding is much more difficult, let alone for those whose only Slavic
> > language is Russian. Vocabulary in Russian - I heard - is heavy on Turkic
> > and Finno-Ugric component.
>
> In another article you said that you are familiar with both
> Ukrainian
> and Russian. So, please, give us examples of "Finno-Ugric
> component"
> of standard Russian vocabulary.
One good source to start with is:
XLIV. 1919. XV + 265 p. Jalo Kalima, Die ostseefinnischen Lehnwörter im Russischen
in SUST -series.
> RR
Jouko Heyno
Sericinus hunter
> "ruffnready" <nok...@otherworld.org> wrote in message
[...]
>> with one extra case being the Vocative, which is
>> not unknown to a Russian speaker.
>
> You are not going to say that Vocative is in common use in Russian?
Absolutely. If you lived in Russia you would hear it all the time.
Rex F. May
wrote on 1/23/03 11:00 AM:
Could you describe it or give a link? I had Russian for 4 years and it
never came up.
rm
hippo
"Roman Kosarenko" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
I have heard the same. Here we are all saying 'I have heard'. We need
precise information on this little discussed subject in the West as the
States west of the Urals become more included in Europe. There are too many
westerners today that just assume that Ukrainians can converse with Red
Russians, White Russians and Poles without effort. -the Troll
hippo
"ruffnready" wrote in message
Good, that's important to know, thanks. -the Troll
Sericinus hunter
>>
>>>"ruffnready" <nok...@otherworld.org> wrote in message
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>with one extra case being the Vocative, which is
>>>>not unknown to a Russian speaker.
>>>
>>>You are not going to say that Vocative is in common use in Russian?
>>
>>Absolutely. If you lived in Russia you would hear it all the time.
>
> Could you describe it or give a link? I had Russian for 4 years and it
> never came up.
It is common in everyday colloquial speech. When you call somebody
by name and use its diminutive form, you use the case which looks like
genitive plural. Words like 'father' or 'mother' can be in this form too.
hippo
"ruffnready" wrote in message
> Roman Kosarenko wrote:
> A dispute of this kind often sparks here.
> So far the only objective definition I heard is
> "A language is a dialect with an army".
> RR
Chuckle, well said and mostly true. -the Troll
Sericinus hunter
>
> There are too many
> westerners today that just assume that Ukrainians can converse with Red
> Russians, White Russians and Poles without effort. -the Troll
This is true at least about Ukrainians communicating to Russians.
Most Ukrainians living in Ukraine just speak Russian, that's all.
This itself is not a sign of language interintelligibility, although
I personally think they are such.
Roman Kosarenko
> Roman Kosarenko wrote:
>
> > Ukrainian and Russian (or Ukrainian and Polish) are not mutually
> > intelligible -
>
> This is simply a lie.
If you don't believe me, look what UCLA writes on its language project
website (www.lmp.ucla.edu):
=>The three East Slavic languages (Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian)
are very close to one another and in certain cases have a high degree
of mutual intelligibility. There is, in fact, a continuum of language
varieties from Russian to Belarusian to Ukrainian. While there are no
dialects of Russian and Ukrainian that are mutually intelligible,
there are mutually intelligible dialects between Belarusian and
Ukrainian, and Belarusian and Russian.
=>Within the West Slavic sub-group Slovak is very closely related to
Czech. They are mutually intelligible (see Short 1992).
=>The modern South Slavonic languages form a continuum of a series of
mutually intelligible dialects. The two end points, Slovene and
Bulgarian, are not mutually intelligible, but the transition between
Serbo-Croation and Slovene, Serbo-Croation and Macedonian, and
Bulgarian and Macedonian is gradual and mutual intelligibility is
high.
hippo
"Sericinus hunter" wrote in message
> hippo wrote:
> >
> > There are too many
> > westerners today that just assume that Ukrainians can converse with Red
> > Russians, White Russians and Poles without effort.
> This is true at least about Ukrainians communicating to Russians.
> Most Ukrainians living in Ukraine just speak Russian, that's all.
> This itself is not a sign of language interintelligibility, although
> I personally think they are such.
Thanks, I didn't know most Ukrainians speak Russian. This has been most
helpful. -the Troll
Simon & o8TY are Bagg Bytes
-- ostriches suck sand -- simple Simon sucks ostrich head -- o8TY sucks
simple Simon who has a dinky hollow head -- so, there's hell to pay for
oh, my, my, high 'n' dry 08TY at o8...@hotmail.com and for blithering,
poor, poor, poor simple Simon at sedd...@btinternet.com in the desert
sands and every-bloody-where these wingeing dweeb-geeks go --
further-F#@%ing-more, _F#@% _Off _And _Die _Bitches, both of ya --
Wiktor Sywula
> >>>>not unknown to a Russian speaker.
> >>>
> >>>You are not going to say that Vocative is in common use in Russian?
> >>
> >>Absolutely. If you lived in Russia you would hear it all the time.
> >
> > Could you describe it or give a link? I had Russian for 4 years and it
> > never came up.
>
> It is common in everyday colloquial speech. When you call somebody
> by name and use its diminutive form, you use the case which looks like
> genitive plural. Words like 'father' or 'mother' can be in this form too.
> Really? When I was learning Russian I've been told that vocative case has
disappeared... also I never saw/heard it, except from bozhe (from bog =
god).
--
Azarien
ruffnready
> [ Sericinus hunter wrote :]
>> It [the Vocative] is common in everyday colloquial speech.
>> When you call somebody by name and use its diminutive form,
>> you use the case which looks like genitive plural. Words like
>> 'father' or 'mother' can be in this form too.
> Really? When I was learning Russian I've been told that
> vocative case has disappeared... also I never saw/heard it,
> except from bozhe (from bog = god).
Old Slavic Vocative case has disappeared from Russian
except few traditional forms like <Bozhe> "O God!",
<kn'azhe>, <otche> etc. But there has developed a new
Vocative case as the above quote says.
RR
Daryl Krupa
> "Roman Kosarenko" wrote in message
>
> >
> > For those interested in ancient shoreline on the north side of the see, I
> > remember a 1997 article in Ukrainian daily "Den'" (The Day), written by
> > fellows of the Institute of geological science of Ukrainian academy of
> > sciences.
> >
> > They were studying space photographs and concluded that the whole of Azov
> > sea was a huge delta of the Don river, similar to the deltas of Nile or
> > Danube. According to them, this lowland was last flooded about 3000 BP.
> >
> > I guess all of that is long known and/or interpreted differently by
> > specialists.
> >
> > http://www.day.kiev.ua/1997/93/history/hist2.htm (Ukrainian)
> >
> > A. Radzyvill, O. Radzyvill, O.Kudelya
>
> Roman, why do you call it Ukrainian and not Russian? Is Ukrainian distinct
> enough from Russian to consider it a separate language like Polish? How
> difficult is it for a Great Russian (Muscovite) to understand? Is it a
> simple matter of pronunciation or is there a distinct vocabulary and
> different grammar? -the Troll
Ukrainian and Russian have been separate languages for hundreds of years.
Wiktor Sywula
Could you give some examples?
--
Azarien
Lee Sau Dan
hippo> You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I
hippo> know Poles can not usually understand spoken Russian. I
hippo> would be just as interested to find out if the Finns can
hippo> understand spoken Estonian,
They do. And Finns have told me that they do so more difficultly than
Estonians understand Finnish.
hippo> or Lithuanians Latvian.
Finnish and Estonian are in a completely different family from
Lithuanians and Latvian.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
M. Ranjit Mathews
>>>>>>"hippo" == hippo <hi...@southsudan.net> writes:
>>>>>
>
> hippo> You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I
> hippo> know Poles can not usually understand spoken Russian. I
> hippo> would be just as interested to find out if the Finns can
> hippo> understand spoken Estonian,
>
> They do. And Finns have told me that they do so more difficultly than
> Estonians understand Finnish.
>
> hippo> or Lithuanians Latvian.
>
> Finnish and Estonian are in a completely different family from
> Lithuanians and Latvian.
... although Latvian has some borrowing from Livonian, a language
related to Estonian and Finnish.
For example:
Lexical evidence for the parallel development of the Latvian and
Livonian verb particles -- B. Wálchli
http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-1993.html
ruffnready
>>> [ Sericinus hunter wrote :]
>>>> It [the Vocative] is common in everyday colloquial speech.
>>>> When you call somebody by name and use its diminutive form,
>>>> you use the case which looks like genitive plural. Words like
>>>> 'father' or 'mother' can be in this form too.
>>> Really? When I was learning Russian I've been told that
>>> vocative case has disappeared... also I never saw/heard it,
>>> except from bozhe (from bog = god).
> [ ruffnready wrote :]
>> Old Slavic Vocative case has disappeared from Russian
>> except few traditional forms like <Bozhe> "O God!",
>> <kn'azhe>, <otche> etc. But there has developed a new
>> Vocative case as the above quote says.
> Could you give some examples?
With my pleasure.
E.g. Russian Nom. <mama> 'mommy' - Voc. <mam>,
<t'ot'a> 'aunt' - <t'ot'>,
<Pet'a> 'Pete' - <Pet'>,
<Masha>, "small" form for 'Mary' - <Mash>, etc.
As it was already noted, only words for kinship
and hypocoristics possess this new case.
RR
hippo
"Lee Sau Dan" wrote in message
"hippo" writes:
> hippo> You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I
> hippo> know Poles can not usually understand spoken Russian. I
> hippo> would be just as interested to find out if the Finns can
> hippo> understand spoken Estonian,
>
> They do. And Finns have told me that they do so more difficultly than
> Estonians understand Finnish.
>
>
> hippo> or Lithuanians Latvian.
>
> Finnish and Estonian are in a completely different family from
> Lithuanians and Latvian.
I know but Lithuanian and Latvian are the same language group. -the Troll
Carl Taylor
So presumably words in this new "case" cannot be preceded by an adjective?
Was/Is it possible to have adjective concord with the old vocative case?
Does it make sense in a language like Russian to designate a certain form
as a
'case' if adjectives cannot agree with nouns in that so-called 'case'?
Carl Taylor
ruffnready
> "ruffnready" wrote :
>> Wiktor Sywula wrote:
>>> Could you give some examples?
>> With my pleasure.
>> E.g. Russian Nom. <mama> 'mommy' - Voc. <mam>,
>> <t'ot'a> 'aunt' - <t'ot'>,
>> <Pet'a> 'Pete' - <Pet'>,
>> <Masha>, "small" form for 'Mary' - <Mash>, etc.
>> As it was already noted, only words for kinship
>> and hypocoristics possess this new case.
> So presumably words in this new "case" cannot be preceded by an adjective?
Yes, they can not.
> Was/Is it possible to have adjective concord with the old vocative case?
Vocative is a case of a personal, even intimate address.
So it does not usually imply a qualifier (pronoun or adjective).
When acceptable, the adjective was used in Nom.,
e.g. <Bozhe vsemogushchiy!> = "O God almighty !"
> Does it make sense in a language like Russian to designate a certain form
> as a 'case' if adjectives cannot agree with nouns in that so-called 'case'?
The Vocative always was special in this sense.
As to whether it should be called a "case" there are
various opinions.
RR
Sericinus hunter
> "ruffnready" <n...@nn.org> wrote in message news:3E3140E9...@nn.org...
[...]
>> With my pleasure.
>> E.g. Russian Nom. <mama> 'mommy' - Voc. <mam>,
>> <t'ot'a> 'aunt' - <t'ot'>,
>> <Pet'a> 'Pete' - <Pet'>,
>> <Masha>, "small" form for 'Mary' - <Mash>, etc.
>>
>> As it was already noted, only words for kinship
>> and hypocoristics possess this new case.
>
> So presumably words in this new "case" cannot be preceded by an adjective?
> Was/Is it possible to have adjective concord with the old vocative case?
> Does it make sense in a language like Russian to designate a certain form
> as a 'case' if adjectives cannot agree with nouns in that so-called 'case'?
Well, this 'case' (Vocative) is somewhat special anyway and has
always been. Words in this role are not a part of the regular sentence
structure in a sense that they do not agree with other sentence members.
I think it is just a matter of convention to call it 'case' or 'form' or
whatever else.
Alan Crozier
news:m365sft...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de...
> >>>>> "hippo" == hippo <hi...@southsudan.net> writes:
>
> hippo> You see from the responses this is a subject of interest. I
> hippo> know Poles can not usually understand spoken Russian. I
> hippo> would be just as interested to find out if the Finns can
> hippo> understand spoken Estonian,
>
> They do. And Finns have told me that they do so more difficultly than
> Estonians understand Finnish.
>
>
> hippo> or Lithuanians Latvian.
>
> Finnish and Estonian are in a completely different family from
> Lithuanians and Latvian.
Nobody said anything different. But Finnish and Estonian are related to each
other, and Latvian and Lithuanian are related to each other. That is what
the poster meant, and that is what most people understood, I hope.
Alan
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Alan Crozier
Skatteberga 1392
247 92 Sodra Sandby
Sweden
TO REPLY BY E-MAIL: change Crazier to Crozier
Wiktor Sywula
>
> >>> Could you give some examples?
>
> >> With my pleasure.
> >> E.g. Russian Nom. <mama> 'mommy' - Voc. <mam>,
> >> <t'ot'a> 'aunt' - <t'ot'>,
> >> <Pet'a> 'Pete' - <Pet'>,
> >> <Masha>, "small" form for 'Mary' - <Mash>, etc.
>
> >> As it was already noted, only words for kinship
> >> and hypocoristics possess this new case.
Well, it doesn't look like Slavic vocative, but if this is a new case...
> > So presumably words in this new "case" cannot be preceded by an
adjective?
>
> Yes, they can not.
>
> > Was/Is it possible to have adjective concord with the old vocative case?
In Polish, vocative nouns are used with nominative adjectives. Or, one can
say, vocative is the same as nominative for adjectives (and pronouns, too).
--
Azarien
Wiktor Sywula
> >> E.g. Russian Nom. <mama> 'mommy' - Voc. <mam>,
> >> <t'ot'a> 'aunt' - <t'ot'>,
> >> <Pet'a> 'Pete' - <Pet'>,
> >> <Masha>, "small" form for 'Mary' - <Mash>, etc.
> >>
> >> As it was already noted, only words for kinship
> >> and hypocoristics possess this new case.
> >
> > So presumably words in this new "case" cannot be preceded by an
adjective?
> > Was/Is it possible to have adjective concord with the old vocative case?
> > Does it make sense in a language like Russian to designate a certain
form
> > as a 'case' if adjectives cannot agree with nouns in that so-called
'case'?
>
> Well, this 'case' (Vocative) is somewhat special anyway and has
> always been. Words in this role are not a part of the regular sentence
> structure in a sense that they do not agree with other sentence members.
Vocative nouns can be used with adjectives, at least in Polish.
--
Azarien
Daryl Krupa
> I've read a lot here about Black Sea flood and why it could not happen.
>
> For those interested in ancient shoreline on the north side of the see, I
> remember a 1997 article in Ukrainian daily "Den'" (The Day), written by
> fellows of the Institute of geological science of Ukrainian academy of
> sciences.
>
> They were studying space photographs and concluded that the whole of Azov
> sea was a huge delta of the Don river, similar to the deltas of Nile or
> Danube. According to them, this lowland was last flooded about 3000 BP.
>
> I guess all of that is long known and/or interpreted differently by
> specialists.
>
> http://www.day.kiev.ua/1997/93/history/hist2.htm (Ukrainian)
>
> A. Radzyvill, O. Radzyvill, O.Kudelya
Roman:
Do you have a link to a free onjline Ukrainian->English machine tranlator?
Djakayu
(as we third-generation Ukrainians who have lost most of the language say),
Daryl Krupa