Talk:Dialects of Polish

1

LUCPOL, please, do not revert my changes. Just provide a source where a different scheme is given and we'll include it as well. I understand all the problems you mentioned in the edit summaries. Personally I love Silesian and consider it a separate language. However, we need a source that would give a different scheme. As long as we don't have it, I believe a disclaimer is more than enough. Thanks to your efforts now we have a double disclaimer: one above the scheme and one in the preceding paragraph. Is it enough? Or do we really need a third disclaimer, in the "Controversies" section? All three would say the very same thing... //Halibutt 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hallibut, "Kashubian dialect" and "Silesian dialect" does not exist. This officially name Kashubian language and Silesian language. Moreover, articles are under these names. I wanted to go on compromise - to permit in article "Dialects of the Polish language" registration about Silesian and Kashubian languages + controversies. Your edition introduces lying division, as Silesian language and Kashubian language not appertain to "traditional" division. You do not want above compromise so we will remove these two languages (this information - about two languages to permit only in section "Dialect or language"). LUCPOL 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

LUCPOL, the case of Kashubian is still not settled even though most agree that it's a language. However, Silesian is even less documented. The controversy is IMHO well-explained in my version. Judging by the problems at the Polish wiki I guess that I'm not the only one having problems with lack on sources confirming your understanding of Silesian as a Western Slavic language.

As to your meddling with the scheme I copied and translated from a source, please do not change it unless you have another source to give a different, more modern scheme. We should include that too. //Halibutt 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there must be some way to solve this. Let me ask you some questions:

1. Do you understand that both Silesian and Kashubian are/were traditionally considered dialects of the Polish language?
2. Have you read any books on Polish dialectology that would support the thesis that Silesian is a distinct language? Could you please cite them?
3. Do you have any modern book with some decent dialect scheme covering all of Poland's dialects? If so, could you please add another section (say, named "Modern division") and list them there for all to compare (preferably with a source)?

//Halibutt 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Belarusian: a dialect of Polish?

The article now says:

"Until early 20th century the same was also true to Belarusian language[2], which is now considered a separate language, belonging to the Eastern Slavic group."

Just making sure, does the ref state that Belarusian was considered a dialect of Polish until early 20th century? Please elaborate on this amazing idea. --Irpen 05:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The source says that Belarusian was considered a folk dialect. Amazing as it is, this is the way some Poles thought in early XX century. Same with Russians who considered both Ukrainian and Belarusian as dialects of Russian. We have to look at this from perspective - 100 years ago people were thinking in a different way. Tymek 17:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I was amazed myself when I discovered that. In case you don't see the exact quotation, it goes like this: (...) For other groups, it was very difficult to understand what Byelorussianism was all about. Traditionally, the language was considered a folk dialect closer to Polish than, let us say, Provençal is to French.(...). //Halibutt 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Luckily for us Belarusians, in those times the scientifical knowledge wasn't defined by consensus, but by reasearch.

Frankly, I'm surprised this rather unscientific notion gets that much exposition in the article. Somebody's gotta be kidding. This concept (Belarusian as dialect of Polish) stemmed rather from ill-informedness and from the generally low development of linguistical studies in the 19th century, than from any scientific data... Even so, it wasn't universal even in 19th century, and among the supporters even the Old Belarusian/Ruthenian language of Skaryna books was classified as the "dialect of Polish" (notable supporters of the concept — Shtritter, Polish researcher Samuel Bogumił Linde, Polish writer Wisniewski, per the Yefim Karskiy report of 1893). Yury Tarasievich 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, unfortunately for Belarusians most of 19th century researchers assumed a priori that their language must be some dialect, probably without much research. In some cases the statements might've been politically motivated I guess, in others motivated by stupidity. On the other hand I wouldn't say that the concept gets much exposition in this article. It's merely one sentence, after all. //Halibutt 11:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, that one sentence is quite unhappily formulated, unintentionally attributing the, frankly, fringe and uninformed 19th cent. concept (one of many, after all) with respectability and popularity, sort of. I'll just try to re-word it. Yury Tarasievich 07:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I softened it a tad and mentioned the first Belarusian grammar. Is it ok with you? //Halibutt 14:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your intention, and I'd love to leave it at that. However, that'd leave us with incomplete and, indeed, with misleading picture. The grammar had nothing to do with anything here, while Taraszkiewicz himself spent lots of times in Sejm in 1920s battling exactly that political attitude I mentioned.

I wouldn't want to look silly "hitting the olive branch", but would you possibly consider reverting your edit, or somehow re-phrasing it to closer reflect what's actually relevant here?.. Yury Tarasievich 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• So I've reverted the entry. I should add I don't quite see what's there to "soften" in the way of facts, those were the (unpleasant) historical realities. Yury Tarasievich 09:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I realise that you guys are experts on the subject but can you please talk in English as this is English Wikipedia. Thanks. Kaeso Dio 21:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yury, I had two basic problems with your edit and some minor points.

1. Firstly, what does the Polish-Bolshevik War have to do with an article on linguistics? Such a notion was visible both before it, during it and afterwards. Why mention it here if the notion was born in 19th century or even before, and not during the war? Besides, during that particular war the Belarusians gained more political influence in Poland then they did during the entire centuries before, including the official recognition of their language
2. Secondly, the "official policies" need at least one reference. I don't deny that the pro-state policies of the Sanacja were often targeted at minorities, but putting it the way you did we'd suggest that Belarusians were treated differently from any other minority.
3. Thirdly, the name of the state in English was Republic of Poland, or - if you have to use the name - Second Republic of Poland (name not used until after WWII). Not Rzecz Pospolita.

Given all of the above, could you please reword your addition or - at the very least - source it? Thanks in advance. //Halibutt 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand quite well you have a problem with this edit. However, I'm at a loss how to sweeten it more. And of course, I'll provide the references.

The massive re-introduction of the concept into the Polish policies in 1919 was quite a rude awakening for the Belarusian federalists and for Belarusian Polonophiles, in general (among those, Taraszkiewicz and Kupala). If the marginal pre-scientific notion of the 19th century is mentioned in the article (I guess it's okay), then its massive employment in the 20th century is yet more relevant.

Please go ahead and edit the style, but let's keep true to the facts. Yury Tarasievich 07:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As a side note: the short-termed "recognition" of, primarily, Belarusians and Ukrainians in Poland wasn't factored by grammar, but rather by the policies of League of Nations and pro-minorities Soviet policies of 1920s Communists. Also, AFAIU, the curbing of national minorities' development began fairly ahead of Sanacja (c.1923-1924, IIRC).

I don't mean to sweeten it. Feel free to add all the brutal history to, say, History of Belarus, History of Poland, Belarusian minority in Poland, or any other article focused on Polish-Belarusian common history. However, is this really the place to discuss such quite complicated details? I mean mostly the war, as it had little to do with this process except for establishing Poland as a sovereign state.

As to recognition of Belarusian language, it was not withdrawn in the interbellum, even after Poland stopped caring about the minorities treaty. Closing down of Belarusian, Lithuanian or Polish schools (it's often forgotten that Polish authorities closed down hundreds of Polish schools as well) is IMHO way outside the scope of this article. The Polish state might've closed some schools, but it did not promote the view that Belarusian was a dialect of Polish, which is the crucial information here. //Halibutt 07:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And so we end where we started. To set that high threshold of relevance would mean leaving out the 19th concept as well. What relevance would have each and every misconception? The relevance of it is exactly in its massive employment in the national policy (Belarusians and their language to be a corrupted version of Poles and Polish language). The discussion on wars, schools etc. is out of the scope of this article. My mention of the war was only to set the context for the activity. Yury Tarasievich 12:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Map

Incorrect map [1]. Pomeranian language is not polish dialect and Silesian / Kashubian is not polish dialect (however controversy). Map introduces mistake. I removed this map in article. LUCPOL 18:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This map does not show language divisions but Polish tribes. Think before you destroy somebody's work Tymek 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In article Dialects of the Polish language!!!! (description of map) writes: "Early mediaeval tribes, from which the modern Polish dialects descended"!!!!. On map be passed tribes from which there are no Polish dialects - map introduces mistake. LUCPOL 19:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The map presents tribes. Period. As for dialects - leave it to experts, let them decide instead of you. Tymek 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wytłumaczę to po polsku bo widzę że do niektórych może nie docierać amatorski język angielski. Jak ktoś chce to może to przetłumaczyć na angielski. Wytłumaczę to tak, aby każdy zrozumiał o co mi chodzi i aby nie było jakiś niedomówień: wiem, że mapa przedstawia plemiona w Polsce, a w zasadzie plemiona zaznaczone na mapie obecnych granic Polski (plemiona obejmują setki/tysiące lat a obecne granice Polski są od 1945 roku - to taka mała uwaga). Jednak nie w tym rzecz, rzecz w tym że mapa (zaznaczone plemiona) w artykule o dialektach oraz opis pod mapą wprowadza w błąd. Nie można ot'tak wprowadzać do artykułu o dialektach rozmieszczenia wszelkich plemion pisząc jednocześnie że od nich wzięły się polskie dialekty bo w przypadku tej mapki jest to wprowadzanie w błąd. Podałem już przykłady ale podam je jeszcze raz i w większej ilości. Na mapce zaznaczone są plemiona (dużą czcionką) np. m.in. Pomorzanie czy Ślężanie. Tyle tylko że język pomorski i język śląski to nie są dialekty języka polskiego. Owszem, sprawa śląskiego jest wśród polskich językoznawców dość kontrowersyjna (sami nawet wspólnie nie potrafią stwierdzić czym jest mowa śląska - kolejna polska parodia), ale w przypadku języka pomorskiego jest wszystko jasne - nie jest dialektem języka polskiego. Inne przykłady - na mapce (tym razem mniejszą czcionką) zaznaczeni są np. Lubuszanie, Trzebowianie czy Bużanie. Czy istnieje dialekt lubuski, dialekt trzebiowiański czy dialekt bużański? Otóż nie!!! Mapka plemion ma się nijak do języków. Tylko od małej części plemion można uznać dialekty języka polskiego. Od zdecydowanej większości wypisanych na mapce plemion nie pochodzą żadne dialekty!!!!!!!!!!! a niektóre plemiona z mapki jeśli mają własną mowę to nie jest to dialekt języka polskiego (np. język pomorski) lub są kontrowersyjne (język śląski, język kaszubski). Tak więc mapka wprowadza w błąd i dlatego powinno się już usunąć z tego artykułu. LUCPOL 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nie widze tu zadnego wprowadzania w blad, jezyk polski wywodzi sie z dialektow plemion zaznaczonych na tej mapce, kazde z tych plemion musialo jakos mowic, tak wiec obecnie nie ma znaczenia czy istnieje dialekt trzebowianski. Kiedys istnial, mieszkali tam Slowianie ktorzy jakos mowili, chyba, ze byli niemowami. Dzisiejszy jezyk polski jest pochodna dialektow ktorymi mowily te plemiona, ich mieszanka z naciskiem na malopolski i wielkopolski. Dialekt slaski natomiast jest najblizszy jezykowi staropolskiemu, z racji pozostawania Slaska przez lata poza granicami Polski zachowalo sie tu sporo archaizmow nie uzywanych juz przez standardowy polski. O tym czy jezyk pomorski jest dialektem czy nie, niestety nie dowiemy sie nigdy, gdyz takowego jezyka nie ma. Na przyszlosz radze stonowac i bez pogrozek. Polecam natomiast siegniecie po jakas ksiazke i wzbogacenie swej wiedzy. Tymek 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Spytam krótko - czy "jezyk polski wywodzi sie z dialektow WSZYSTKICH plemion zaznaczonych na tej mapce"? Krótkie pytanie i proszę o krótką PRAWDZIWĄ odpowiedź. Pytam, bo jestem całkowicie pewien że nie wszystkie zaznaczone na mapce plemiona miały "dialekty" od których wywodzi się język polski. Podając mapkę plemion w artykule o dialektach i pisząc pod nią że to plemiona od których powstał język polski jest przekłamaniem. Mapka mogłaby pozostać gdyby język wywodził się ze wszystkich zaznaczonych na mapce plemion (ich dialektów i gwar)... a tak nie jest. To trochę wygląda jak wstawienie politycznej mapy Europy (wraz z Rosją, Ukrainą, Białorusią i byłą Jugosławią jak np. tu) do artykułu o Unii Europejskiej i napisanie pod spodem "Unia Europejska". To jest encyklopedia. Na takie przekłamania nie ma miejsca. W przypadku artykułu Dialects of the Polish language na mapce mogą być tylko te plemiona od których uznawany jest obecnie jakiś dialekt języka polskiego!!!!!!, zaznaczając wyraźnie również kontrowersje), w przypadku artykułu UE powinna być mapka z zaznaczonymi państwami UE, a nie z rzuceniem "jak leci" wszystkich państw Europy. Tak więc, jeśli nikt nie poprawi mapki to ją usunę w najbliższym czasie z bieżącego artykułu. LUCPOL 14:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucpol, nobody is stating that. The caption says that the Polish dialects are descendants of dialects spoken by Western Slavic tribes once inhabiting the area of what is now Poland. It doesn't say that the map represents the tribes that gave birth to modern Polish dialects. I guess you must've misunderstood the caption.

Polish translation at request. //Halibutt 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I have two comments to shown picture (Languages_of_CE_Europe.PNG):

1. The picture looks like the border of Czech republic are unocupied. This looks like Sudetenland (before WWII ocupied by German speaking people). Here would be some Czech dialect.
2. On this picture is shown Ostrava and its region in G1 (Silesian). There is spoken by one of dialects of Czech.

This looks like POV (for Silesian language). Zagothal (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Silesian descends from Ślężanie tribe language?

citation needed - there is no single proof Silesian descends directrly from early Ślężanie tribe (Slavic) dialect - in contrast there are many proofs that it descends from medieval OldPolish. In fact Silesian dialect has every feature of Polish language (unlike e.g. Kashubian and other Pommeranian dialects). So maybe the original Ślężanie dialect extincted or (rather) was highly influenced by Polanie dialect after Polish conquest of Silesia - we dont know. But we cannot say it descends from Slezanie dialect - it is just pure speculation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.225.228 (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dialects of Polish. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003061821/http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=szl to http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=szl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)