# Artificial Slavic languages



## ozapollo

Did you know that a language called 'Slovio' has been created by a Slovak linguist called Mark Hucko to help Slavic speakers intercommunicate? It is derived from proto-Slavic, the ancient common ancestor of all Slavic languages.
You can read about 'Slovio' in Wikipedia and there is a link to the official website of this language from there (www dot slovio dot com). 

As a person who understands Russian, Bulgarian and a bit of Ukrainian, I can understand Slovio perfectly! What do others think of this Slavic lingua franca?


----------



## mr. hair

You know, I think we are going on the idea that all these people speak perfect Croatian, Russian et cetera.

I live in New England, a puree of ethnicities and languages. It is possible that two people meet and could hypothetically speak to each other because of vocab but not be able to, from nothing more than crazy thick accents.

I have a friend from Bosnia, who is a Croat. I can say hello how are you (bok, kako si) and that’s about it. But I said that to a Ukrainian who came here and was hanging around my cousin and she could understand me. But when she said the very same thing, I didn’t even know she was speaking the same language. It was all in the accent.

Oh and Spanish and Italian isn’t exactly easy to communicate with. I know a little Italian (ok mostly Sicilian slang, I admit) and Spanish speaking peoples have no clue what I say. My dad works in an almost solidly Spanish speaking city and he speaks almost perfect Italian, not a freaking clue as to what they are saying. And I suppose if you go to the actual writing there is little difference. Again, accents


----------



## skye

I saw slovio at one other site before, I know I could understand a lot except for a couple of words, but I didn't find it particularly enjoyable to read - it was quite difficult. I don't think I'd bother with it unless I really had to.

I agree with mr. hair that a lot is in the accent, but a little is in the vocabulary and syntax as well (they're not quite the same).

As for Italians and Spanish - my friend told me she once took her French relatives sightseeing and they meet a group of Italian and a group of Spanish tourists and she says they were all able to talk to each other at least a little bit. She also said that it was fun to watch. 

I think it would be at least as difficult for me to understand Russian as it is for a Spanish speaking person to understand Italian. I should know since for some peculiar reason we now get Animal Planet in Russian instead of English. If there are no subtitles I can't understand anything, if I really concentrate I recognize some words every now and then, but that's not enough to be able to watch.


----------



## Krossaffschcheg

Sorry, my enlish...) But, i try say i think about, ok?

My "5 cents"
1. Slovio no "flexion" (khm..) language - it make his simple, but "robotic", "artifical" "object", very bad for direct humans intercommunication (imho)
2. Orthodoxal Religion have old universal slavic language - (imho) best, than Slovio.
3. Slovio may become best "Interdictionary Layer" for autotranslate engine for chat, forum, documentation format, etc. I think programmers very nice understand me, or understand me after think about

----
thank you!


----------



## übermönch

Krossaffschcheg said:
			
		

> 2. Orthodoxal Religion have old universal slavic language - (imho) best, than Slovio.


Well, speaking church slavonic may be insulting to non-orthodoxals while slovio is neutral. Besides slovio is still somewhat easier to understand thank to it's simplycity. Bulgarian & Macedonian are also wonderfully applyable, but once again, these are not 'neutral' languages like slovio is.


----------



## MindStorm

Hmm.. I think the cyrillic script is more suitable for this language.. And, for all the money in the world I wouldn't have changed my russian into this ))


----------



## Jana337

MindStorm said:
			
		

> Hmm.. I think the cyrillic script is more suitable for this language.. And, for all the money in the world I wouldn't have changed my russian into this ))


I am not a fan of artificial languages either. 

However, this Slovio project is surprisingly popular. I first read about it in this thread but look at this:
Results *91* - *100* of about *182,000* for *slovio*.  (*0.36* seconds) 

182 000 results is awfully many for a Slavic-related topic (and a recent one to boot).

It has either many fans or a couple of very active backers who take great pains to promote it wherever they can.

Jana


----------



## adviliax

Well, I can understand most of it but I can see it taking off as much as Esperanto. Universal languages are kinda pointless because people tend to hold onto their heritage, and their language.


----------



## Grosvenor1

This is the first time I have heard of this, but various Slavic lingua francas have been around before. The Austro-Hungarian army, which was about 40% Slav from various groups ranging from Poles to Slovenes, had a lingua franca called "Army Slav", which even some non-Slavs learned. 

Apparently a kind of Slavic jargon also developed in Auschwitz, allowing inmates and perhaps some of the guards  (some of them Ukrainian auxiliaries) to communicate.


----------



## Jana337

Interesting.  Can you recommend any resources for further study?


----------



## Grosvenor1

The passing mention of Army Slav was in a book on the Austro-Hungarian infantry in WW1, published in Britain in about 1973. I forget the author's name but I could probably find it out. It mentioned the multi-ethnic nature of the army, and the language problems this caused. A pidgin called Army Slav was mentioned as one of the solutions, arising from so many of the soldiers having one or other Slavic idiom as a native language anyway. It did not give any examples of Army Slav. All soldiers were taught forty (some say seventy) words of command in German, and a pidginised form of German was also in use. In his work, the Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek gives no examples of Army Slav but does mention pidginised German, for example an NCO describing a rifle as a _kver - _German _Gewehr._

As for Auschwitz, there is a passing reference in _War Against The Weak_, I think by Michael Herr, to an inmate who was a doctor and used as a trusty employing a kind of "Slavic Esperanto" to communicate with inmates from Slavic countries and I believe also Ukrainian-speaking SS auxiliaries. The book is mainly about eugenics and its overlap with Nazi teachings - the doctor was into eugenics and served prison time for cooperating with Nazi experiments on inmates, despite being Jewish himself. The reference to the Slavic Esperanto is only passing and does not spell out whether the doctor made it up himself or learned a pidginised Slavic speech form in the camp.


----------



## Grosvenor1

I have taken a look at websites about Slovio. It looks interesting and even workable, though artificial languages always have problems establishing themselves. It does not surprise me that a Slovak developed it. It has been claimed by some that Slovak, situated about in the middle of the traditional Slavic-speaking region, would itself make a good Slavic lingua franca. 

Slovio looks to me rather like what Slavs whose languages are not mutually intelligible might do to achieve some communication - use their own languages but cut down on the vocabulary and inflection, and in this way hope that a communication bridge can be established.


----------



## Athaulf

Grosvenor1 said:


> Slovio looks to me rather like what Slavs whose languages are not mutually intelligible might do to achieve some communication - use their own languages but cut down on the vocabulary and inflection, and in this way hope that a communication bridge can be established.



It sure is an interesting experiment, but frankly, as a Croatian speaker, I don't find Slovio much more understandable than written Slovak (which I never studied at all). It's easy to see that the examples of Slovio on the front page of the website are contrived for wide understandability and limited to very simple language. 

In my opinion, the number of differences and false friends among Slavic languages is too large to establish any sort of "universal Slavic" that would be reasonably understandable to all (or even most) Slavs without prior study. It's easy to come up with simple everyday sentences whose cross-Slavic intelligibility is zero, and I wonder how those would be translated into Slovio. Just compare this simple sentence in Croatian and Russian:

English: _This is the most expensive dress in her closet. 
_Croatian: _Ovo je najskuplja haljina u njenom ormaru._
Russian: _Это самое дорогое платье в её шкафу._

However the author of Slovio chose to translate this sentence, at least half of it won't be understandable at all to monolingual speakers of a majority of Slavic languages. And notice that this is an example from simple, everyday language -- as soon as you step into more abstract or technical terminology, the situation becomes far more hopeless.


----------



## Ioan

English: _This is the most expensive dress in her closet. 
_Croatian: _Ovo je najskuplja haljina u njenom ormaru._
Russian: _Это самое дорогое платье в её шкафу._

------------------------------------------------------

SLOVANO (S-lingva) 

How about this :

" To es nai drage halina-platie vo taj almar-s'kafa ".


----------



## Athaulf

Ioan said:


> English: _This is the most expensive dress in her closet.
> _Croatian: _Ovo je najskuplja haljina u njenom ormaru._
> Russian: _Это самое дорогое платье в её шкафу._
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> SLOVANO (S-lingva)
> 
> How about this :
> 
> " To es nai drage halina-platie vo taj almar-s'kafa ".



And guess what -- a Croatian or Serbian reader would understand this sentence as saying that it's her _favorite_ dress, not the _most expensive_ one. There's just too many false friends to allow for any degree of precision in a text that's supposed to be readable by all Slavs. Just imagine driving directions in Slovio that are supposed to be read by some people for whom _pravo_ means _forward_, and others for whom the same word means _right_. 

As for the idea of word reduplication so as to cover all possibilities, I don't see the end product as any more appealing than simply providing a translation into all relevant languages.

By the way, could you please provide a translation of the above sentence into Slovak? I'm really curious how it would compare to the versions above.


----------



## Jana337

> To es nai drage halina-platie vo taj almar-s'kafa


A Czech reader wouldn't suspect that it is a Slavic language in the first place.  Or maybe I am just tired.


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

I'd like to add Slovene translation that you could see how words do change even accross the border. 


English: _This is the most expensive dress in her closet. _
Croatian: _Ovo je najskuplja haljina u njenom ormaru._
Slovene:_ To je najdražja obleka v njeni omari._
Russian: _Это самое дорогое платье в её шкафу._


Sounds like somewhere in between. I'd also like to see the Slovak version.


Btw, _шкаф_ means closet in Russian? _Škaf_ in Slovene is a wooden pail (or das Schaff in German).


----------



## Ioan

Toto je najdrahs'i odev (oblec'enie, s'aty) v jej s'atniku (klozet, kumbal, skrinke....).
It's sometimes difficult to find out the right expression for 1 word that would match exactly the English conterpart (the same it is vice versa - from Slovak to English). There are some more possibilities for that.

To je najdrahs'ie oblec'enie (oblek - is something as "suit" in slovak lang.)
v jej skrinke (s'atniku). 
Slovak lang doesn't exact expression for the word "closet". You can say it different ways and everybody will know what it means as it arises from previous words in the sentence.


----------



## Q-cumber

Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> Btw, _шкаф_ means closet in Russian? _Škaf_ in Slovene is a wooden pail (or das Schaff in German).



It means a wardrobe, a furniture for holding clothes, etc.


----------



## Kolan

Q-cumber said:


> It means a wardrobe, a furniture for holding clothes, etc.


Actually, it is of a more generic use, not only for clothes (in Bulgarian, too, I guess). That's why, maybe, a more precised word is *almar*-s'kaf. However, both those words are not Slavic at all.


----------



## Ioan

You are right that those words are not of slavic origin but what is most important in speech, debate and in language after all ? 
Each other understanding, regardless you use any words from any languages. If the Slavs will understand any foreign or adopted word from any language, I think, it will meet the goal of what is expected from the language.


----------



## Ioan

Athaulf said:


> And guess what -- a Croatian or Serbian reader would understand this sentence as saying that it's her _favorite_ dress, not the _most expensive_ one. There's just too many false friends to allow for any degree of precision in a text that's supposed to be readable by all Slavs. Just imagine driving directions in Slovio that are supposed to be read by some people for whom _pravo_ means _forward_, and others for whom the same word means _right_.
> 
> As for the idea of word reduplication so as to cover all possibilities, I don't see the end product as any more appealing than simply providing a translation into all relevant languages.
> 
> By the way, could you please provide a translation of the above sentence into Slovak? I'm really curious how it would compare to the versions above.


 
                                *****************

"To es nai lubime halina-platie vo taj almar-s'kafa" - this is the most favourite dress in her closet.

" To es nai drage halina-platie vo taj almar-s'kafa ". - this is the most expensive dress in her closet.


----------



## Eugeniusx

English: _This is the most expensive dress in her closet. 
_Croatian: _Ovo je najskuplja haljina u njenom ormaru._
Russian: _Это самое дорогое платье в её шкафу.
====
Slovio:
_Tut odev es naidragju v onai garderob.
_Slovio (my dialect):
_To es naidragju odev vo jej garderoba


----------



## Athaulf

Eugeniusx said:


> _
> Slovio:
> _Tut odev es naidragju v onai garderob.
> _Slovio (my dialect):
> _To es naidragju odev vo jej garderoba



Either way, the sentence is doomed to be misunderstood by most South Slavs, who will interpret _naidragju_ as _favorite_, and definitely not suggesting _most expensive_ at all. Not to mention that _odev_ will be interpreted as meaning _suit_ or _clothes_ in general, not _dress_ in particular, and _garderoba_ will likely be interpreted as the abstract notion of clothing that is in someone's possession, not a closet as a physical object. Oh, and _onai_ will be understood as _that_, not _her_. 

Such partly wrong, partly imprecise understanding is more or less equivalent to what happens when a typical Croatian, Bosnian, or Serbian speaker reads standard Slovak without prior study, or standard Russian after having learned only its alphabet. Thus, I don't see much improvement over the basic inter-Slavic intelligibility with Slovio.


----------



## Athaulf

Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> Btw, _шкаф_ means closet in Russian? _Škaf_ in Slovene is a wooden pail (or das Schaff in German).



In (folkish) Croatian, _škaf_ also means a bucket or wash-bowl, though not necessarily wooden. There's an immense number of such false friends between Slavic words for household items, which probably makes Slovio work pretty badly for discussion of such things.


----------



## Ioan

I think the most difficult problem will be unifying all the "false friends" meanings into just one word with just one meaning for all the Slavs.


----------



## Eugeniusx

The so called false friend you will find everywhere, even in only one language!
They are the salt of any language.
An inter-Slavic language has to be as simple as possible to be learned, but also as rich in the way of expression  as any other Slavic tongue.


----------



## Ioan

What is richness of a language ? Is it having several words for the same meaning ? Why ? Just because to be interesting or boasting off that our language has got the largest vocabulary in the world (as it is with English where we have 3 - or more words for the same meaning inherited from Latin, German, French and sometimes even from Keltic languages ?
Is it the aim of the functioning of a language ? 
Or just for simple each other understanding among the people.


----------



## Eugeniusx

Grosvenor1 said:


> I have taken a look at websites about Slovio. It looks interesting and even workable, though artificial languages always have problems establishing themselves...



Sorry ,but I am afraid that you are not correct here.  There some famous artificial languages which become quite popular, e.g. German (Hochdeutsch).

In fact Pan Hucxko did do something similar like Herr Martin Luther.

Eugeniusx


----------



## Grosvenor1

Eugeniusx said:


> Sorry ,but I am afraid that you are not correct here. There some famous artificial languages which become quite popular, e.g. German (Hochdeutsch).
> 
> In fact Pan Hucxko did do something similar like Herr Martin Luther.
> 
> Eugeniusx


 
_Hochdeutsch _is artificial, but no more than any other standard language. It had its roots in the language used by the Saxon chancellery, which was acceptable on a relatively wide basis in Germany.  

By artificial language, I mean something totally invented by one person, like Esperanto.


----------



## Athaulf

Eugeniusx said:


> Sorry ,but I am afraid that you are not correct here.  There some famous artificial languages which become quite popular, e.g. German (Hochdeutsch).
> 
> In fact Pan Hucxko did do something similar like Herr Martin Luther.



Luther didn't invent much of the language he wrote in. High German developed gradually during the late Middle Ages and early modern age in a pretty decentralized and spontaneous way, as more and more need for communication between regions developed (the process was largely helped by the demise of the Hanseatic League, whose _lingua franca_ was Low German). Luther's work was merely one of the factors that contributed in its spread (admittedly, a pretty important one). 

In an important way, virtually all standard languages are artificial creations, but all of them (as far as I know) are based either on some regional dialect (e.g. Castilian) or some spontaneously developed high-register standard (e.g. High German). None of them were created largely from scratch by the work of one individual or small group, like Slovio or Interlingua.


----------



## Grosvenor1

All standard languages are to some extent artificial, in that they may be influenced and even up to a point created by academics and education systems. Literary and standard Czech, for example, is in large part a 19th century creation, the form of speech sometimes called "Spoken Prague Czech" is rather different from it and more natural, in addition to having more German loanwords. 

Is there a thread devoted to discussion of Spoken Prague Czech?


----------



## boriszcat

Ioan said:


> If the Slavs will understand any foreign or adopted word from any language, I think, it will meet the goal of what is expected from the language.


Hmm... a language all Slavs can understand. I think the answer is, or soon will be, English.


----------



## kasiam

At first I thought, that slovio will be interesting project, and I even started to teach myself (just a bit ) Problem with slovio is, that it's quite ugly and unnatural, and not so easy to read at all, if you haven't learned it. Grammar was based on esperanto, not on any slavic language. Much words are very strange, for example knig (book), din (one), jazika (language). I've read, that most words are taking from russian, so that can explain why slovio is not popular in Poland.

I've found another language, that is much better for communication between Slavic people. Have you heard of slovianski? Polish wikipedia has article about it, and now the czech one too (since yesterday ) Here you have a piece of text from the website of slovianski:

"Vitame vas do stronici *Slovian&shy;skogo*, slovjanski medžujazik iztvoreni v gode 2006. Slovianski jazik može bit' mnogo upotrebimi dlja libo-kogo, ktori bi hotel adresovat' celi slovjanski svet posredstvom vebsajtov, forov, spisov e-majlskih, i.t.d., bez potrebo&shy;vanja prevodit' tekst v rozlične jaziki. Znanje togo jazika umožlivi človeku bit' rozumemi dlja libo-ktorogo govo&shy;ritelja slovjanskogo jazika i rozumet' vjačej než tol'ko osnovu teksta v libo-ktorom slovjanskom jazike."

Still looks a bit strange to me, but much more understandable as for me, than slovio. Do others can understand it too?

Kasia


----------



## texpert

I do, though no more than Polish or Russian itself. So why trying at all? Having learnt Russian at school (meeting the minimal requirements, that is) and taking an elementary interest into the languages of the neighbouring countries (skimming through an article or two in the local newspaper) has endowed me with this superpower. Attaining it did not take much more than four weeks of my lifetime (about an average amount of time spent annually on the phone these days) and it used to be the most commonplace skill in the Slavic world as late as in the early 1900's. So do we really have to construct an altogether new tongue? And do we really have to LEARN IT, in the first place? I don't really get what the fuss is all about


----------



## DiegoAlatriste

Thank you Kasiam for the info on slovjanski. Perfectly understandable for me, a Bulgarian and Russian speaker. Have to agree with texpert though - it is much more fun to read a bit of a Slavic language that interests you and, hop! next thing you know is that you understand better and some of it lives happily in your head. With Czech, e.g., I had the pleasure of leafing through a Czech-Slovak translation of a Russian book on knots, "Namornicke uzly", which I bought in Bulgaria. Hrube ale ucinne as they may say in CZ (texpert, sorry for the rough Czech spelling  )


----------



## Mishe

kasiam said:


> At first I thought, that slovio will be interesting project, and I even started to teach myself (just a bit ) Problem with slovio is, that it's quite ugly and unnatural, and not so easy to read at all, if you haven't learned it. Grammar was based on esperanto, not on any slavic language. Much words are very strange, for example knig (book), din (one), jazika (language). I've read, that most words are taking from russian, so that can explain why slovio is not popular in Poland.
> 
> I've found another language, that is much better for communication between Slavic people. Have you heard of slovianski? Polish wikipedia has article about it, and now the czech one too (since yesterday ) Here you have a piece of text from the website of slovianski:
> 
> "Vitame vas do stronici *Slovian­skogo*, slovjanski medžujazik iztvoreni v gode 2006. Slovianski jazik može bit' mnogo upotrebimi dlja libo-kogo, ktori bi hotel adresovat' celi slovjanski svet posredstvom vebsajtov, forov, spisov e-majlskih, i.t.d., bez potrebo­vanja prevodit' tekst v rozlične jaziki. Znanje togo jazika umožlivi človeku bit' rozumemi dlja libo-ktorogo govo­ritelja slovjanskogo jazika i rozumet' vjačej než tol'ko osnovu teksta v libo-ktorom slovjanskom jazike."
> 
> Still looks a bit strange to me, but much more understandable as for me, than slovio. Do others can understand it too?
> 
> Kasia




Hm, I do understand most of it, but this is more or less the case with all other Slavic languages... OK, I have some more trouble with Czech, Polish and Russian, but more or less I don't see the point of this language. We all learn English after all.


----------



## Orlin

Naravno, ne *potpuno* svi uče engleski. I još više, ne svaki voli engleski - npr. ja ga znam, ali ga mrzim. Da bismo razumeli engleski, moramo da smo ga učili, i zato ne može da se smatra univerzalnim. Ja preferiram upotrebu nekog slovenskog jezika ovde (maternjeg ili drugog - sve zavisi od očekivanja o razumljivosti u konkretnoj diskusiji) zato što u većini slučaja je razumljivost relativno dobra i često velika preciznost nije tako važna - ja posebno dajem prednost blizosti (upotreba blizkog jezika "smanja distanciju") pre preciznosti komunikacije. Takođe mislim da nije potrebno da se izgradi takav "univerzalan slovenski jezik", jer takav jezik ne bi imalo više razumljivosti nego naturalni slovenski jezici.


----------



## Mishe

Orlin said:


> Naravno, ne *potpuno* svi uče engleski. I još više, ne svaki voli engleski - npr. ja ga znam, ali ga mrzim. Da bismo razumeli engleski, moramo da smo ga učili, i zato ne može da se smatra univerzalnim. Ja preferiram upotrebu nekog slovenskog jezika ovde (maternjeg ili drugog - sve zavisi od očekivanja o razumljivosti u konkretnoj diskusiji) zato što u većini slučaja je razumljivost relativno dobra i često velika preciznost nije tako važna - ja posebno dajem prednost blizosti (upotreba blizkog jezika "smanja distanciju") pre preciznosti komunikacije. Takođe mislim da nije potrebno da se izgradi takav "univerzalan slovenski jezik", jer takav jezik ne bi imalo više razumljivosti nego naturalni slovenski jezici.



well, it's not a matter of liking or disliking it, English is de facto an international lingua franca. 

and one slavic language would also be a very panslavist achievement - i don't otherwise see the point of it - why would slavs need to communicate between each other more than with other nations.


----------



## Master Shana

Jana337 said:


> A Czech reader wouldn't suspect that it is a Slavic language in the first place.  Or maybe I am just tired.


Hahaha! right.. i'm definitely not tired, but still don't understand a word.. Slovio seems not to be working for Czech speakers...


----------



## skye

Mishe said:


> and one slavic language would also be a very panslavist achievement - i don't otherwise see the point of it - why would slavs need to communicate between each other more than with other nations.


 
In fact, we don't need to communicate with other Slavs more than with other nations. Besides occasionally using BSC (actively or passively), an *average* Slovene speaker rarely needs to communicate in any other Slavic language. I don't think it's much different for other Slavs, we all seem to be happily tucked away in our own little corners and there seems to be little need to connect more than we already are or little interest to do so (IMO). 

Besides, one Slavic language would take away all the fun of false friends and communication with mimics and hands.


----------



## kasiam

Mishe said:


> Hm, I do understand most of it, but this is more or less the case with all other Slavic languages... OK, I have some more trouble with Czech, Polish and Russian, but more or less I don't see the point of this language. We all learn English after all.


No, we don't, that's the point. Here in Poland all young people learn english THEORETICALLY. But do they know it? Most people older than 40 cannot speak a word in it, and even most young people speak it badly or not at all. They would be able to understand the basics of a language, which is similar to their own language, though.



Mishe said:


> and one slavic language would also be a very panslavist achievement - i don't otherwise see the point of it - why would slavs need to communicate between each other more than with other nations.


Of course, they don't. So if you go to Germany or Italy or France, slovio or slovianski won't help you. But if you go to Poland or Ukraine, then don't count on english too much.


----------



## Orlin

Я не знаю столь много ли нам нужен "нейтральный" искусственный славянский язык для межславянского общения. По-моемурусский язык совсем годится для международного общения в славянских государствах, потому что:
1. Есть традиции его изучать в Центральной и Восточной Европе (хотя многим это было вынужденным и поэтому хотели перервать традицию после политических перемен 1990-х).
2. На этом языке есть богатая литература, а кроме того он самый большой славянский язык по числу говорящих на нем.
Я не пытаюсь промовировать русский язык, а только хочу показать, что, может быть лучше использовать возможности существующих естественных языков для международного общения вместо пытаться творить искусственные; а кроме того не слудует путать отношение к России с отношением к русскому языку. В разных частях мира употреблялись и употребляются языки других влиятельных государств для интернационального общения (английский, французский и т. д.), хотя, разумеется, далеко не все имеют позитивное отношение к этим "мировым силам" - Великобритания, США и т. д. В конечном итоге, я не считаю политическая и культурная нейтральность искусственного языка значительным преимуществом с чисто практической точки зрения, и наверное лучше ослоняться на то, что естественные языки могут нам дать вместо руководствоваться "голым энтусиазмом" малобройных "болельщиков" искусственных языков. А также не маловажно то, что русский язык находится в близком родстве с остальными славянскими языками и поэтому взаимопонятен с ним в некоторой степени и не так трудно выучить его.


----------



## nonik

Ja ne znaju stol mnogo li nam nužen "nejtralnyj" iskusstvennyj slovanskij jazyk dlja mežslovanskogo obštenija. Po-mojemurusskij jazyk sovsem goditsja dlja meždunarodnogo obštenija v slovanskich gosudarstvach, potomu co:
1. Esť tradiciji ego izučať v Centralnoj i Vostočnoj Evrope (chotja mnogim eto bylo vynuždennym i pojetomu choteli perervať tradiciju posle političeskich peremen 1990-ch).
2. Na etom jazyke esť bogataja literatura, a krome togo on samyj bolšoj slovanskij jazyk po čislu govorjaštich na nem.
Ja ne pytajus promovirovať russkij jazyk, a tolko choču pokazať, co, možet byť lučše ispolzovať vozmožnosti suštestvujuštich estestvennych jazykov dlja meždunarodnogo obštenija vmesto pytaťsja tvoriť iskusstvennyje; a krome togo ne sludujet putať otnošenije k Rossiji s otnošenijem k russkomu jazyku. V raznych častjach mira upotrebljalis i upotrebljajutsja jazyki drugich vlijatelnych gosudarstv dlja internacijonalnogo obštenija (anglijskij, francuzskij i t. d.), chotja, razumejetsja, daleko ne vse imejut pozitivnoje otnošenije k etim "mirovym silam" - Velikobritanija, SŠA i t. d. V konečnom itoge, ja ne sčitaju političeskaja i kulturnaja nejtralnosť iskusstvennogo jazyka značitelnym prejimuštestvom s čisto praktičeskoj točki zrenija, i navernoje lučše oslonjaťsja na to, co estestvennyje jazyki mogut nam dať vmesto rukovodstvovaťsja "golym entusijazmom" malobrojnych "bolelštikov" iskusstvennych jazykov. A takže ne malovažno to, co russkij jazyk nachoditsja v blizkom rodstve s ostalnymi slovanskimi jazykami i pojetomu vzajimoponjaten s nim v nekotoroj stepeni i ne tak trudno vyjučiť ego.


just for better understanding for those, who have headache to read it in cyrilic.

I would say, why not, but russian leanguage is not good choice, still for numerous people have negative conseguencies.

Theoretically neutral slavic leanguage should be neutral as possible as could for all those who are interested. 

Russian.....1...dificullt phonetic system
2...azbuka/cyrilic not suit for everyone,problem with western computers, etc.
3...specific grammar like omitting verbs... be, have in 1-X.person etc. unlike others slavs leanguages.


So, maybe I would recomended old church slavonic,that also can help for better understanding to the natural nowadays slavic leeanguages ( but still so much difficult that nobody will learn it  so we will stay by English anyway,


----------



## bibax

Nobody mentioned *Novoslověnskij jazyk* which is simplified OCS. It has even obtained a support from the EU. 

_Novoslovienskij jazyk jest originalnij v tom, že jest izdielanij jako akademicka extrapolacia i modernizacia staroslovienskego i crkvenoslovienskego jazyka. Grammatika jego ne jest minimalno redukovana jako sut grammatiky prostiejših mežduslovienskih jazykov. Novoslovienskij jazyk jest podobnejšij živim slovienskim jazykom. Jest to jazyk bogatij, kojže imaje grammatiku i morfologiu identičnu ili blizko podobnu živim jazykom. (Jazyk imaje 7 padov vkupie s vokativom, jedninu, množinu i dvojinu, 6 glagolnih vremen, i.t.d.) No v rozlišenii ot živih jazykov ne imaje mnogo zakonov i zato ne jest težko porozumitielnij i učimij._

Sample text:

_Naše selo.

Iz vsih možnih idealnih miest, v kojihže žijut ljudi, najbolie ljubiu male selo, daleko ot šumnego grada, s jego maloj obštinoj. Ono ne imaje preplnieni bloky, samo male drvene budniky. Jest to proste i slične miesto, s žitieljami, ktorih lica sut rovno znajemi jako cviety v našem sadie. To jest zatvorenij sviet s nemnogo ljudiami, blizko s‘jednienimi jako mravky v mravkovej kupie, pčely v pčelnikie, ovcy v ovcej štalie, monahi v monastirie ili morjaki na korabie, ...._

How do you understand it?


----------



## Orlin

bibax said:


> Nobody mentioned *Novoslověnskij jazyk* which is simplified OCS. It has even obtained a support from the EU.
> 
> _Novoslovienskij jazyk jest originalnij v tom, že jest izdielanij jako akademicka extrapolacia i modernizacia staroslovienskego i crkvenoslovienskego jazyka. Grammatika jego ne jest minimalno redukovana jako sut grammatiky prostiejših mežduslovienskih jazykov. Novoslovienskij jazyk jest podobnejšij živim slovienskim jazykom. Jest to jazyk bogatij, kojže imaje grammatiku i morfologiu identičnu ili blizko podobnu živim jazykom. (Jazyk imaje 7 padov vkupie s vokativom, jedninu, množinu i dvojinu, 6 glagolnih vremen, i.t.d.) No v rozlišenii ot živih jazykov ne imaje mnogo zakonov i zato ne jest težko porozumitielnij i učimij._
> 
> Sample text:
> 
> _Naše selo._
> 
> _Iz vsih možnih idealnih miest, v kojihže žijut ljudi, najbolie ljubiu male selo, daleko ot šumnego grada, s jego maloj obštinoj. Ono ne imaje preplnieni bloky, samo male drvene budniky. Jest to proste i slične miesto, s žitieljami, ktorih lica sut rovno znajemi jako cviety v našem sadie. To jest zatvorenij sviet s nemnogo ljudiami, blizko s‘jednienimi jako mravky v mravkovej kupie, pčely v pčelnikie, ovcy v ovcej štalie, monahi v monastirie ili morjaki na korabie, ...._
> 
> How do you understand it?


I understand it well probably because I'm Bulgarian and my native language is strongly affected by OCS.


----------



## nonik

Nobody mentioned *Novoslověnskij jazyk* which is simplified OCS. It has even obtained a support from the EU. 

Yeah, I mentioned before, but than realised, it is against policy of this forum and it was deleted by moderators.
It is not aloud to promote any particular artifical language in this forum.

So, you would delete your sentence, sorry.

But, I am not sure what about Old Church Slavonic, because acording some scholars, it is semi-artifical language too (there is a lot discussion about), created in purpose to spread christianity betwen slavs.


----------



## Jana337

Just to clarify - discussion does not mean promotion. It certainly not prohibited to mention artificial Slavic languages (after all, this thread is about them)


----------



## nonik

Jana337 said:


> Just to clarify - discussion does not mean promotion. It certainly not prohibited to mention artificial Slavic languages (after all, this thread is about them)


 

just to be sure....what about writtings ?


----------



## nonik

I understand it well probably because I'm Bulgarian and my native language is strongly affected by OCS.

Orlin......according to author, almost every slavs is able to understand.
I tried it with my friends, strictly monolingual czech speakers, and they did understood very well except one word, which was meždu, but after while, they were able to figure out.


----------



## Sobakus

Well, in Russian you can use imet' instead of u mena jest' if you feel like it and there's archaic yet existent copula paradigm (jesm', jesi, jest', jesmy, jeste, sut'), but if its political connotation is too strong for you, then there's the cultural problem. I mean, I feel that people prefer natural languages over constructed ones exactly because the former are connected to their culture and people, they have their own history and literature that make them ever so exciting to learn. And if you throw away Russian, you're mostly left only with Polish, and I hear even the natives have trouble with it and it's less then comprehensible for most Slavs. And then you look at the many Slavic languages and think: which one is better for everyone to understand? I can only guess it would be something like Slovak or Rusyn, and there you have the problem of learning them and finding literature in them and stuff, and you can't help but think: is it really worth the trouble? Isn't it easier to learn a constructed one if all you're after is communication? *Slovianski*, for example, is designed exactly for this purpose, with the words and grammar tailored to be understandable for the vast majority of us. But will it be as fun to learn and use as a natural language? I highly doubt.
So what I'm trying to say is if you only need to communicate with the other Slavs, a constructed language is probably the way to go, but if it's more than that, you'll probably have to choose between the language of the commies and the language that isn't suitable for communication with other Slavs(not to mention you'll have to pronounce it yourself). And then there's English, and suddenly it's ideal in every aspect... Or am I wrong?


----------



## nonik

And then there's English, and suddenly it's ideal in every aspect... Or am I wrong? ..............................................................................................no, you are very right, english is very good option, except one BUT, it is suitable just for people who can write or speak english.

Russian........again, very good option, I learn a bit myself.

slovianski/novoslovianski.........I put it together, because the two teams are collaborate and working recently together.

Novoslovianski was created in purpose of 
1-simplified old church slavonic (rewritting old slavonic cyrilic/hlaholic text into latinica in purpose exposed them more towards west slavs who don't know cyrilic, etc) 
2-to be a comunication tools, first hint, to be understood and understand other slavic leanguage before learning completely that language (flavourization, something like Interlingua). In this way, it is working very well.
It is not meant to be just pure slavic esperanto.

Slovianski.....I would say very good work, good chosen vocabulary which works for almost 90% of slavs speakers and in majority is based on living comon words, in this way, it also could be good tools for foreigners who have to deal with multi-slavs comunity and they dont have time to learn 10 or more slavs leanguages, they would just learn words which are understood by majority of all us.

In conclusion, I would say, in some way both of them slovianski/novoslovianski could serve as a good comunication tools, as it is serving already.

Of course, they are not able to serve as a full developed natural language and displace them, but they are able to serve in the same way as old church slavonic in the past.


----------



## Orlin

sobakus said:


> and then there's english, and suddenly it's ideal in every aspect... Or am i wrong?


Я считаю, что у большинства естественных языков есть политические коннотации, особенно ели это языки "мировых суперсил". Поэтому мне кажется, что английский наверное английский не подходит всем славянам: вероятно на Западных Балканах (т. е. в бывшей Югославии) далеко не все довольны интервенциями британской и американской политики в регионе (часто с существенным влиянием на события в течение последних лет 20), и, может быть, не все любят английский. Кроме того, английский язык не славянский и поэтому совершенно непонятен славофонам, которые его не учили.
Наконец, думаю, что вряд ли существует универсальное решение проблемы, которое годилось бы для всех нескольких сотен миллионов человек, составлящих славофонский мир.


----------



## nonik

Поэтому мне кажется, что английский наверное английский не подходит всем славянам: ........................Yes, the same with russians and others.

не все любят английский. Кроме того, английский язык не славянский и поэтому совершенно непонятен славофонам, которые его не учили. ......................................yes, this is another problem.

So, what is the best choice according to you ?


----------



## Orlin

nonik said:


> So, what is the best choice according to you ?


There is no best choice for *everybody - *for some one choise will be best, for others - another one. As I said, no universal solutions for such a big number of people exists.


----------



## nonik

As I said, no universal solutions for such a big number of people exists. 

There is never be any universal solutions. 
I just wanted to know you opinion, what is the best according you.
According to me, the best solutions is english as the first language and than old church slavonic or its modifications towards novoslovianski.
Why english?.......because of the world, economy, and so on.
Why old church or novoslovienski.......because of the traditions, history, our culture and our languages.
That is my opinion.


----------



## phosphore

bibax said:


> _Novoslovienskij jazyk jest originalnij v tom, že jest izdielanij jako akademicka extrapolacia i modernizacia staroslovienskego i crkvenoslovienskego jazyka. Grammatika jego ne jest minimalno redukovana jako sut grammatiky prostiejših mežduslovienskih jazykov. Novoslovienskij jazyk jest podobnejšij živim slovienskim jazykom. Jest to jazyk bogatij, kojže imaje grammatiku i morfologiu identičnu ili blizko podobnu živim jazykom. (Jazyk imaje 7 padov vkupie s vokativom, jedninu, množinu i dvojinu, 6 glagolnih vremen, i.t.d.) No v rozlišenii ot živih jazykov ne imaje mnogo zakonov i zato ne jest težko porozumitielnij i učimij._
> 
> Sample text:
> 
> _Naše selo._
> 
> _Iz vsih možnih idealnih miest, v kojihže žijut ljudi, najbolie ljubiu male selo, daleko ot šumnego grada, s jego maloj obštinoj. Ono ne imaje preplnieni bloky, samo male drvene budniky. Jest to proste i slične miesto, s žitieljami, ktorih lica sut rovno znajemi jako cviety v našem sadie. To jest zatvorenij sviet s nemnogo ljudiami, blizko s‘jednienimi jako mravky v mravkovej kupie, pčely v pčelnikie, ovcy v ovcej štalie, monahi v monastirie ili morjaki na korabie, ...._
> 
> How do you understand it?


 
I'm not sure how well I would understand the words in blue if I didn't know some Russian. And I still don't understand the words in red.


----------



## ilocas2

> Novoslovienskij jazyk jest originalnij v tom, že jest izdielanij jako akademicka extrapolacia i modernizacia staroslovienskego i crkvenoslovienskego jazyka. Grammatika jego ne jest minimalno redukovana jako sut grammatiky prostiejših mežduslovienskih jazykov. Novoslovienskij jazyk jest podobnejšij živim slovienskim jazykom. Jest to jazyk bogatij, kojže imaje grammatiku i morfologiu identičnu ili blizko podobnu živim jazykom. (Jazyk imaje 7 padov vkupie s vokativom, jedninu, množinu i dvojinu, 6 glagolnih vremen, i.t.d.) No v rozlišenii ot živih jazykov ne imaje mnogo zakonov i zato ne jest težko porozumitielnij i učimij.
> 
> Sample text:
> 
> Naše selo.
> 
> Iz vsih možnih idealnih miest, v kojihže žijut ljudi, najbolie ljubiu male selo, daleko ot šumnego grada, s jego maloj obštinoj. Ono ne imaje preplnieni bloky, samo male drvene budniky. Jest to proste i slične miesto, s žitieljami, ktorih lica sut rovno znajemi jako cviety v našem sadie. To jest zatvorenij sviet s nemnogo ljudiami, blizko s‘jednienimi jako mravky v mravkovej kupie, pčely v pčelnikie, ovcy v ovcej štalie, monahi v monastirie ili morjaki na korabie, ....
> 
> How do you understand it?



A Czech speaker without any knowledge of Slavic languages wouldn't certainly understand everything.


----------



## nonik

phospore....because it is not meant to be pure esperanto, you can understand every word and also because the autor is czech speaker it is flavourized more towards czech( how it hapened in old church slavonic).
 But he could check the words more carefuly according inter-slavic dictionary, for example insted korabli....lodki, barki whatewer.

Some words you have to learn because they are taken directly from old church slavonic desprictions betwen 9-13 centrury, you can check them in dictionary which is on novoslovienski page. (now it is able just in czech-ns, but as i asked autor, it will be translated to serbian,russian,englich,etc.)

Than some words you can check from inter-slavic dictionary.
I did it for....prostij, podobnij and učimij-učiti and they are in level 1, which means recognisable for slavs majority speakers.

for red words....jego----njega, ga
obština......obec,selo, generaly people who lived there
bloky.....houses,
budniky.....small houses
kupie.....skupština, kupa....mravkova kupa....dont know how to translate... maybe the place where ants(insect) lived

But still for people who dont understand any english, it is more or less understandable, just to learn a few slavic words. 
Of course nothing is perfect.


----------



## nonik

A Czech speaker without any knowledge of Slavic languages wouldn't certainly understand everything

Yes, you are right, at least you have to learn a bit, like words koje, kojihže etc. which I think, on other hand, are not problem for south slavs


----------



## ilocas2

nonik said:


> A Czech speaker without any knowledge of Slavic languages wouldn't certainly understand everything
> 
> Yes, you are right, at least you have to learn a bit, like words koje, kojihže etc. which I think, on other hand, are not problem for south slavs



And what about selo, grad, šumnego, najbolie, obštinoj, morjaki, budniki, žitieljami ?


----------



## nonik

I dont know how others, my friends understand them (maybe because of russians before), but you have to certainly learn them 

but dont tell me, that you are not able recognized what means

grad
šumny
morjak
budnik
žitelj


----------



## ilocas2

nonik said:


> I dont know how others, my friends understand them (maybe because of russians before), but you have to certainly learn them
> 
> but dont tell me, that you are not able recognized what means
> 
> grad
> šumny
> morjak
> budnik
> žitelj



grad - hrad
šumny - něco co šumí
morjak - něco co souvisí s mořem - dá se poznat podle kontextu
budnik - budka
žitelj - něco co souvisí s žitím - dá se poznat podle kontextu

EDIT: Tak jasně že je z kontextu patrný, že selo má bejt vesnice a grad město, ale takhle to nefunguje vždycky.


----------



## nonik

Yes, you did regognized them well, at least the meaning.
But as I said before, nothing is perfect, you have to learn a bit.
At first I have doubt about the autor and his novoslovienski, so I started to ask him more  and started to learn little bit old church slavonic, grammar and read the text in cyrilic and so on, in my opinion, he did it well and did the most what he could.
The novoslovienski grammar is truly resemble old church slavonic, the same for vocabulary. Untill I didnt know how old church is similar to czech and others slavs leanguages. It also help me more understand serbian etc, recognized the steam of words and thus more understand. 
From my point of view, it is able to help in understanding others slavs languages and to be the bridge betwen, untill you learn perfectly leanguage.
It cant be perfect pure esperanto for every purpose. For example documents etc.


----------



## ilocas2

It cant be perfect pure esperanto for every purpose. For example documents etc...... But why should speakers of Slavic languages to communicate between themselves more than between speakers of other languages.

A k tomu učení - je lepší se rovnou naučit příslušnej jazyk než se ještě předtím zabejvat nějakým umělým - akorát by z toho byl bordel v hlavě.


----------



## nonik

But why should speakers of Slavic languages to communicate between themselves more than between speakers of other languages.

I am not sure if I understand well your question. Are you asked me, why that should comunicate more betwenn themselves?  Well they dont have to, its the choice and free will.

A k tomu učení - je lepší se rovnou naučit příslušnej jazyk  

.......................................ale jisteže, o tom není vůbec pochyb., kromě pár ALE

takovýhle mezijazyk je dobrý....1-pokud se ocitneš v multi - slavic společnosti
                                     2- pokud cestuješ mezi vícero slovanskými zeměmi a nejsi kabrńák se naučit 12 slovanských jazyku (plati i pro cizince)

3- může to být užitečné pro toho kdo se zajímá o staroslovanštinu, já mám například velký problém ty texty přelouskat v cyrilce, ale v latince to je uplne neco jiného, pokud vim jediný podobný projekt probihá někde v kanadě, kde převádějí staré cyrilske texty do latinky.

3-bordel v hlavě z toho mit nebudeš (pokud pan buh dá)

4-koneckoncu, si to proštuduj jestli chceš na příslušných stránkach a odkazech, všechny tyhle otázky jsou tam davno kladené a zodpovězené, k čemu a proč to je zamýšleno.


----------



## ilocas2

OK, I will deal it with you in personal message. I'm leaving this thread.


----------



## analyzator

Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> I'd like to add Slovene translation that you could see how words do change even accross the border.
> 
> 
> English: _This is the most expensive dress in her closet. _
> Croatian: _Ovo je najskuplja haljina u njenom ormaru._
> Slovene:_ To je najdražja obleka v njeni omari._
> Russian: _Это самое дорогое платье в её шкафу._
> Slovak: To je najdrahšie oblečenie v jej šatníku.
> 
> Sounds like somewhere in between. I'd also like to see the Slovak version.
> 
> 
> Btw, _шкаф_ means closet in Russian? _Škaf_ in Slovene is a wooden pail (or das Schaff in German).


----------



## kasiam

bibax said:


> Nobody mentioned *Novoslověnskij jazyk* which is simplified OCS. It has even obtained a support from the EU.
> 
> _Novoslovienskij jazyk jest originalnij v tom, že jest izdielanij jako akademicka extrapolacia i modernizacia staroslovienskego i crkvenoslovienskego jazyka. Grammatika jego ne jest minimalno redukovana jako sut grammatiky prostiejših mežduslovienskih jazykov. Novoslovienskij jazyk jest podobnejšij živim slovienskim jazykom. Jest to jazyk bogatij, kojže imaje grammatiku i morfologiu identičnu ili blizko podobnu živim jazykom. (Jazyk imaje 7 padov vkupie s vokativom, jedninu, množinu i dvojinu, 6 glagolnih vremen, i.t.d.) No v rozlišenii ot živih jazykov ne imaje mnogo zakonov i zato ne jest težko porozumitielnij i učimij._
> 
> Sample text:
> 
> _Naše selo._
> 
> _Iz vsih možnih idealnih miest, v kojihže žijut ljudi, najbolie ljubiu male selo, daleko ot šumnego grada, s jego maloj obštinoj. Ono ne imaje preplnieni bloky, samo male drvene budniky. Jest to proste i slične miesto, s žitieljami, ktorih lica sut rovno znajemi jako cviety v našem sadie. To jest zatvorenij sviet s nemnogo ljudiami, blizko s‘jednienimi jako mravky v mravkovej kupie, pčely v pčelnikie, ovcy v ovcej štalie, monahi v monastirie ili morjaki na korabie, ...._
> 
> How do you understand it?


It looks sympathetically but I find it more difficult to understand, than slovianski. Words, which I don't understand, are:
selo - first I thought neighborhood, but it's rather a village, right?
kojihže - a relative pronoun?
najbolie - that looks like russian - most?
obštinoj - ???
budniky - shouldn't that be budynki?
s'jednienimi - united? but that doesn't make sense in the context
štal - a stable?

What I don't understand ... why all those j? And if novoslovianski has y, why does it still write bogatij, instead of bogaty?

And why anybody needs dual number?


----------



## bibax

> obštinoj - ???


I understand that you do not understand the word obština (Czech občina, Russian община, ...) as in Polish obcy means _foreign_ and obczyzna means _foreign country_, Polish is somewhat deviant in this respect. In Czech občina is a historical term (občina rodová - forma organizace předtřídní společnosti). In the given context obština means _(village) community_.



> selo - first I thought neighborhood, but it's rather a village, right?


Originally **sědlo*. In Czech we have sedlák (= farmer). In many Slavic languages the cluster -dl- was reduced to -l- (OCS, BCS, Russian, ...). I think in Polish it is *sioło*.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

nonik said:


> Yes, you are right, at least you have to learn a bit, like words koje, kojihže etc. which I think, on other hand, are not problem for south slavs


 
A Slovenian speaker without knowledge of BCS may have difficulties as well. Where BCS uses *koji, koje, kojih*, etc., Slovenian uses *kateri, katere, katerih*, and so on (or *ki*, depending on the context).


----------



## kasiam

bibax said:


> Originally **sědlo*. In Czech we have sedlák (= farmer). In many Slavic languages the cluster -dl- was reduced to -l- (OCS, BCS, Russian, ...). I think in Polish it is *sioło*.


Siodło in polish means saddle. Sioło means nothing. But we also have the world sielski, which means idyllic.


----------



## kasiam

It's cool, that the site of novoslovianski is written in the language itself. I just looked at the page... Some things are very easy to understand, others not at all. For example this fragment:
__ 
_Prežde ubo Slovieni ne imahu knig, no črtami i riezami čitahu i gatahu, pogani suštie. _
Through everywhere ??? Slavs don't have books... then something about devils. No idea what riezami means. Something with reading. Gatahu = talking? Pagans were dry???
__ 
_Rimskimi i grečskimi pismeny pisahu sloviensku reč bez ustrojenia. No jako može byti dobro pisane grečskimi pismeny slovo Bog ili Život ili Širota ili Jazyk? I tako biehu mnoga leta._
Hmmmmm greek and roman writers write the slavic language without a system? But how can greek writers correctly write the word God or Life or Orfan or Language? And so ??? (something with running?) many years.

_Potom človiekoljubec Bog pomilovaše rod slovienskij i poslaše jemu svetego Konstantina Filosofa, iže jim stvoril jest pismen tri desiate osm po činu pismen grekskih._
After that the human beings-loving God (something with love) the slavic family and sended??? to him saint Konstantin the Philosopher, so that ??? there has been created 38 writers/writings??, after a deed of greek writers/writings??

_Si že sut slovienski pismena. Konstantin Filosof jest nam pismena stvoril i knigy preložil. I Methodij, bratr jego._
Such are the writers of slavic. Konstantin the Philosopher ?has created writings??? for us and translated books. And Method, his brother.

__ 
_Sut ješte živi, iže sut vidieli jih v vremena Mihaila cesara grečskego i Rastica knjaza moravskego._
They are still alive, so that they have seen them in the time of Mihail the greek emperor and Rastic the moravian prince.

There are just too many words in this text, that I don't recognize. I get a very vague impression, but nothing more.


----------



## bibax

> Siodło in polish means saddle. Sioło means nothing. But we also have the world sielski, which means idyllic.


There is a difference between Protoslavic *sedъlo (= saddle) and *sědlo (= village), *sedъlo has the hard yer between d and l, therefore it is седло in Russian and BCS, whereas *sědlo has changed in село in Russian and BCS. Czech did not reduce the -dl- cluster so we have sedlo (< *sedъlo) and sídlo (< *sědlo). German Siedlung is probably a loanword from Slavic.

There are Carskie Sioło (= Царское Село), Nowe Sioło, Stare Sioło, etc. in Polish. Probably a loan from Russian as Polish also has retained the cluster -dl-.


----------



## bibax

Some explanations (but I am not an expert in OCS).

imahu, čitahu, pisahu, pomilovaše, poslaše, biehu, ... are aorists (pisati -> pisahu = they wrote).

pagani suštie: -št- corresponds to the West Slavic -c- (pohany súce/jsouce in Czech = beeing pagans).

črt or črta (črta, черта) = stroke, sketch, not čert, чёрт (devil);
riez (řez, разрез) = cut;

iže jim stvoril jest pismen tri desiate osm = who created 38 letters to them;


----------



## kasiam

Thank you for the explanation, Bibax. I never have learned OCS, so this language is very difficult to understand.  But I know, that all the students of polonistic must learn OCS, so they may be interested.

But I must say, that in such a case OCS is not the best idea for ordinary Poles. Why aorists and not just pisal and poslal? Nobody in Poland will understand them. I also don't think, that russian has them. Can Russians understand?

And iže looks like a combination of two polish words, which mean the same: iż and że (that). I never would have guessed, that it means who. 

I also would never have guessed, that pismen means letter. But it is funny, now I understand it. So a letter is a 'write-thing', yes? 

Thank you once more!! 



bibax said:


> Some explanations (but I am not an expert in OCS).
> 
> imahu, čitahu, pisahu, pomilovaše, poslaše, biehu, ... are aorists (pisati -> pisahu = they wrote).
> 
> pagani suštie: -št- corresponds to the West Slavic -c- (pohany súce/jsouce in Czech = beeing pagans).
> 
> črt or črta (črta, черта) = stroke, sketch, not čert, чёрт (devil);
> riez (řez, разрез) = cut;
> 
> iže jim stvoril jest pismen tri desiate osm = who created 38 letters to them;


----------



## bibax

Modern Czech has no aorists and imperfects as well. But we have the Old Czech Chronicle of Dalimil (14th century), which is full of them. Some Czechs (including me) sometimes try to read it.

A sample from the beginning of the chronicle (the original has no diacritics, I added them):



> V srbskem jazyku jest země, jiež Charvatci jest jmě.
> V tej zemi bieše lech, jemuž jmě bieše Čech.
> Ten mužobojstva se dočini, pro něž svú zemi provini.
> Ten Čech jmieše bratruov šest, pro než jmieše moc i čest,
> a ot nich mnoho čeledi, již jedne noci Čech osledi.
> I vybra se se vsim z země, jiež bieše Charvatci jmě.
> I bra se lesem do lesa, dietky sve na pleci nesa.


_bieše (byti), dočini (dočiniti), provini (proviniti), jmieše (jmieti = to have), osledi, vybra, bra (brati)_ - aorists or imperfects;
_mužobojstvo_ = murder;
_jmě_ = name;
noc, moc (Russ. ночь, мощь) - Czech c corresponds to OCS št;



> And iže looks like a combination of two polish words, which mean the same: iż and że (that). I never would have guessed, that it means who.


iže, ježe (in Czech jenž, jež) is a relative pronoun (who, which, that), the interrogative who? is kto? of course.

letter is pismę (gen. pismene) in OCS, it is declined similarly like Polish imię (gen. imenia), so pismen is genitive plural;


----------



## DenisBiH

I thought it would be useful to offer a western South Slavic attempt at translating the above discussed text_, _available here_.__

_


> Selected from the treatise "About letters" of monk Hrab(a/e)r
> 
> Before,  (_ubo?_) the Slavs had no books, but they read and divined by lines and incisions, being pagans. _(suštie would have been difficult)_
> 
> They wrote the Slavic word (language?) with Roman and Greek letters without rules (system?). But how can the word Bog or Život or Sirota or Jazyk be written appropriately (good) with Greek letters? And so many years were (passed by?)
> 
> Then the man-loving God (showed his grace?) to the Slavic people (kind) and sent to it saint Constantine the Philosopher, who _(iže would have been difficult) _ created for them 38 letters (modeled)  after Greek letters.
> 
> And these are the Slavic letters _(not clear)._ Constantine the Philosopher created for us the letters and made _(preložil is unclear) _books. And Methodius, his brother.
> 
> _The last sentence is confusing._ They are still alive, (those) that have seen them in the time of Michael the Greek emperor and Rastic the Moravian prince/duke _(whatever you choose to translate knjaz with.)_


Btw, regarding bibax's quote:


> V srbskem jazyku jest země, jiež Charvatci jest jmě.


I believe I've seen this quote in our ex-Yu nationalist discussions. Something like "in the Serb people  there is a land, whose name is Croatia"? That's some explosive stuff over here.  I believe Croats have their own version of the story of how Czechs and others left Croatia going north. But whether this Czech version refers to the southern, Balkans Croatia or the northern one which no longer exists, I don't know. Off-topic anyway.


----------



## nonik

*Dickensov London*

Posle velikego požara ljudi znova postavihu sebie novi domy, uže ne toliko d'rvene ali samo iz kamenov i ceglin. 
Grad London jest rastl i rastl i v 1830 godie tamo sut žilo više jako jedin milion i pet sot ljudij. 
Novi fabriky i železnični cesty za pojezdy biehu s'strojeni vsedie okolo grada. I grad jest byl bogatejšij i bogatejšij. 
Ali tamo bieše takože drugie premieny. Grad stal jest nečistij i temnij, vazduh byl p'lnij ot dyma radi mnogo novih fabrik. Ljudim sut bylo třeba žiti v mnogo zlih domeh i takože mnogo biednih ljudij žilo na ulicah. 
Charles Dickens (1812-1870) žiješe mnogo let v Londoně. V jego knigah možeme čitati jakij bieše grad v jego vremeni. 
My jesme uže čitali o biednih ljudih, kojiže sut ne imali kdie žiti no u nih takože nebylo što jasti. 
Mnogo ubogih dietat nechodihu v školu no celij den robihu v rozličnih fabrikah. Dalšie žijehu na ulicah, kdie vsjakij den niekoliko iz nih umirahu. 
S'vremenij London jest lučšij. Na ulicah jest čisto i dietatom ne jest treba rabotati v fabrikah.


how do you understand that?


----------



## DenisBiH

My attempt, not strictly literal.



> After the great fire people again built homes for themselves, but not so much wooden but only out of stones and bricks.
> The city of London grew and grew and in the year 1830 more than one and a half million people lived there.
> New factories and railroads for transport were created all around the city. And the city was (getting) richer and richer.
> But there were also other changes there. The city become unclean and dark, the air was full of smoke due to many new factories. People had to live in many evil (bad?) homes and also many destitute people lived on the streets.
> Charles Dickens (1812 - 1870) lived for many years in London. In his books we can read about what the city was like in his time.
> We have (uže?) read about destitute people, which didn't have where to live but which also didn't have what to eat.
> Many poor (destitute) children did not go to school but (slave-)labored all day in various factories. Others (Furthermore?) lived in the streets, where every day some of them were dying. Modern London is nicer. The streets are clean and the children don't have to work in factories.


Primary problems with these unclear words and phrases:

uže 
pojezdy 
Ljudim sut bylo třeba žiti - why "*sut* bylo"?  třeba is "needs to" or something else?
 zlih domeh - evil or bad homes?
Dalšie - other(s) or furthermore?
lučšij


----------



## nonik

nonik said:


> pojezd...train (czech...vlak)
> uže/već
> zlij/loš/ružan/ (czech...bídný, špatný, ubohý)
> dalšie/....oki ( better drugie )...others
> lučšij/...(lepšij, or više dobrij ot starego)
> 
> Ljudim sut bylo třeba žiti .........ja jesm byl, ty jesi byl, on jest byl, my jesmo byli, vy jeste byli, oni sut byli
> 
> in old slavic... treba jest (dativ, infinitiv) _idiom_ *2* trebovati, trebuj- _v. ipf._ ........morat
> 
> i did mistake, should be treba, not třeba, but propably it is not make diffrence for you, dont you?
> what do you think, is it better like this than the same in czech ?


----------



## DenisBiH

> pojezd...train (czech...vlak)


BCS _jezditi_ to ride fast, gallop; to rush. 




> Ljudim sut bylo třeba žiti .........ja jesm byl, ty jesi byl, on jest byl, my jesmo byli, vy jeste byli, oni sut byli
> 
> in old slavic... treba jest (dativ, infinitiv) _idiom_ *2* trebovati, trebuj- _v. ipf._ ........morat


But then shouldn't it be *Ljudim jest bylo treba* or something? Why the plural form *sut*, "to be" here is not in agreement with ljudim, but with treba. Furthermore, is treba a feminine noun like BCS potreba? If so, shouldn't it be *Ljudim jest byla treba*?

The Czech spelling třeba didn't make any difference. In general the text is, as you can see, very understandable to me. I don't know what Western and Eastern Slavic speakers have to say about it.


----------



## nonik

*Ljudim jest bylo treba* ...............yes, you are perfectly right, I did horrible mistake and even did not see it after you mentioned it. thanks.


The Czech spelling třeba didn't make any difference.............třeba ne a třeba jo, já nevím, můžeme to zkusit, mám to přepsat do češtiny?

 BCS _jezditi_ to ride fast, gallop; to rush.......... same in czech


----------



## DenisBiH

> *Ljudim jest bylo treba* ...............yes, you are perfectly right, I did horrible mistake and even did not see it after you mentioned it. thanks.


Cool, but, *bylo* or *byla*? 




nonik said:


> The Czech spelling třeba didn't make any difference.............třeba ne a třeba jo, já nevím, můžeme to zkusit, mám to přepsat do češtiny?



I'm not quite sure I follow. If you think it would be easier for Czechs to understand, I don't think that ř instead of *r* would present a major problem for others to understand.


----------



## nonik

Cool, but, *bylo* or *byla*?.........cheche, for me is better ...bylo treba..., but if you have potřeba míti ...byla treba...then you can have ...byla...


I'm not quite sure I follow. If you think it would be easier for Czechs to understand, I don't think that ř instead of *r* would present a major problem for others. ...............................................................For czech it doesnt matter, everybody will understand ř or r. It is not so important. 
I have thougt that you are talking about all article.


----------



## nonik

I don't know what Western and Eastern Slavic speakers have to say about it.
...............................................................I dont know too. But one I know for sure, they will not have any problem with POJEZDY, but will have problem with CESTY...))


----------



## DenisBiH

nonik said:


> I don't know what Western and Eastern Slavic speakers have to say about it.
> ...............................................................I dont know too. But one I know for sure, they wont have any problem with POJEZDY, but do have problem with CESTY...))




Why not *puty* or *poty* or whatever instead of *cesty* then?


----------



## nonik

Why not *puty* or *poty* or whatever instead of *cesty* then?........................why not, it could be.

Novi fabriky i železnični puty za pojezdy/vlaky biehu s'strojeni vsedie okolo grada.


----------



## bibax

*Pojezd* is a Russism. (Czech *vlak* from vléci, Polish *pociąg* = potah from táhnouti = to pull, in Czech we have pojezd and potah as well, but the meaning is different).

On the other side *cěsta* is an OCS (and also Czech) noun.


----------



## nonik

Thanks, that is the problem, I mean new words, that did not exist in old slavic language time.


----------



## DenisBiH

Well, I just listened to a YouTube video with a conversation in novoslovienskij with Vojtěch Merunka, and I have to say that even the spoken version was very understandable.


----------



## SkyScout

DenisBiH said:


> But then shouldn't it be *Ljudim jest bylo treba* or something? Why the plural form *sut*, "to be" here is not in agreement with ljudim, but with treba. Furthermore, is treba a feminine noun like BCS potreba? If so, shouldn't it be *Ljudim jest byla treba*?


Greetings! I find your dialogue interesting, but it seems unfinished?
What is the intended meaning of *"Ljudim sut bylo třeba žiti v mnogo zlih domeh ..."* ?
*Nonik* - did you write the original slavic text?
DenisBiH seems to translate this as:  _*"People had to live in many evil (bad?) homes..."*_ 
DenisBiH also asks whether it should be _"...bylo or byla?"_

I don't understand how or why *"...sut bylo treba..."* means *"had to"* in English (or _"was necessary to" "were required"_ etc.)

*Nonik *- if you did write the Slavic text, what is this sentence supposed to mean?  ...in Czech, BCS or whatever?

If "..had to..." is the translation, then why not write:  _*"Ljudi trebili žiti v..."*_ or _*"Treba bylo že/da ljudi žili v..."*_ 

But, what language are we using here?
Novoslovienskij?
Medžuslovjanski (tj Slovianski)?
And which rules?
Polish?
Czech?
Slovak?
BCS?
Ukrainian?

For example *"TRZEBA"* in Polish is not a _noun_; it is more like an _adverb_.  It is always used in combination with an *INFINITIVE *(verb) or *"bylo"* or *"będzie"* ("bude").

In Polish *"trzeba"* expresses the idea of _"necessity" or "duty"_ - and implies that something_ "had better be done"_ rather than _"it must be done."_

Polish does have the noun "potrzeba" which is "a need" or "a necessity"

In Polish, if something _"must be done"_ another word is used - *"powinien" *...which is an adjective that is used as a verb!!

Thus in Polish:
*Trzeba napisać* to ćwieczenie = That exercise* had better* be written.
*Trzeba bylo to zrobić* = It *needed *to be done. _OR _It *should have* been done.
*Trzeba będzie to zrobić* = It *will need* to be done.

Compare these to Czech/Slovak and Croatian/Serbian
(I am not familiar with these languages)
_________
Back to *"Ljudim sut bylo třeba žiti"* ...

What declension case is "ljudim" ?
In which language?

I look forward to your comments!


----------



## nonik

I sent you a message. Dont want continue here. Thanks for understanding.


----------



## DenisBiH

SkyScout, most of your questions seem to me to have been answered by this nonik's post. The language, I suppose, was Novoslovienskij.



> Ljudim sut bylo třeba žiti .........ja jesm byl, ty jesi byl, on jest byl, my jesmo byli, vy jeste byli, oni sut byli
> 
> in old slavic...* treba jest (dativ, infinitiv) *idiom 2 trebovati, trebuj- v. ipf. ........morat



So, ljudim is dative, and the infinitive is there because (according to nonik) it was there in the OCS construct used to express the meaning "to have to". The only remaining issue for me is bylo vs byla, but I guess that depends on whether you interpret treba as an adverb or a noun. I don't think using either form would really present difficulties in understanding, but yes, we should check what is the "correct" usage in Novoslovienskij.



> I don't understand how or why *"...sut bylo treba..."* means *"had to"*


I believe nonik and I agreed later on it should have been "jest bylo treba". Why does it mean "had to"? Well, if "treba jest" means "have to" or "need to", how would you translate it if we put this construct into the past? As for "needed to" vs "had to", I don't think it was relevant in this case. "People needed to live in bad homes..." would sound strange (at least to me) in English.

Your Polish example seems parallel:


> *Trzeba bylo to zrobić* = It *needed *to be done. _OR _It *should have* been done.


----------



## Sobakus

nonik said:


> *Dickensov London*
> 
> Posle velikego požara ljudi znova postavihu sebie novi domy, uže ne toliko d'rvene ali samo iz kamenov i ceglin.
> Grad London jest rastl i rastl i v 1830 godie tamo sut žilo više jako jedin milion i pet sot ljudij.
> Novi fabriky i železnični cesty za pojezdy biehu s'strojeni vsedie okolo grada. I grad jest byl bogatejšij i bogatejšij.
> Ali tamo bieše takože drugie premieny. Grad stal jest nečistij i temnij, vazduh byl p'lnij ot dyma radi mnogo novih fabrik. Ljudim sut bylo třeba žiti v mnogo zlih domeh i takože mnogo biednih ljudij žilo na ulicah.
> Charles Dickens (1812-1870) žiješe mnogo let v Londoně. V jego knigah možeme čitati jakij bieše grad v jego vremeni.
> My jesme uže čitali o biednih ljudih, kojiže sut ne imali kdie žiti no u nih takože nebylo što jasti.
> Mnogo ubogih dietat nechodihu v školu no celij den robihu v rozličnih fabrikah. Dalšie žijehu na ulicah, kdie vsjakij den niekoliko iz nih umirahu.
> S'vremenij London jest lučšij. Na ulicah jest čisto i dietatom ne jest treba rabotati v fabrikah.
> 
> 
> how do you understand that?



The words I didn't understand were cesta and ceglina, and I also hesitated about dalšie, thought it was an adverb at first.


----------



## DenisBiH

Btw, I played parts of the aforementioned interview in Novoslovienskij to my mother and a friend, neither of which is a linguist, and they claimed to have understood almost everything. 

The funny thing is that all the while reading and listening to Novoslovienskij I thought - ok, South Slavs should be able to understand this, and I presume the East Slavs also, but what about West Slavs? Until I found several comments saying roughly "Ok, I as a West Slav understand this, and I presume East Slavs do too, but what about South Slavs?".


----------



## nonik

I have asked already the autor of language what would be gramaticcaly correct.
So, if you are still interesting, just wait a day, two, maybe three untill I will post the correct sentence.

My first aim wasnt about strictly correct grammar. I just wanted to try if it is possible to increase understandibility using features of old slavonic language little bit modified towards todays modern languages. That is all. 

Sobakus......according to DenisBIH, the words 'cesta" could be replaced by word "put''. The word ´dalšie' by drugie. And for ceglina I dont know anything better. Maybe somebody will find.

Also for 'lučšij, bolšij....can be used construction like... više dobrij ot tego and blablabla,.
There is already way how to improve that simple text.


----------



## nonik

definitely...Ljudim jest bylo treba...


----------



## SkyScout

Thank you for your comments (everyone).



DenisBiH said:


> So, ljudim is dative, and the infinitive is there because (according to nonik) it was there in the OCS construct used to express the meaning "to have to". The only remaining issue for me is bylo vs byla, but I guess that depends on whether you interpret treba as an adverb or a noun. I don't think using either form would really present difficulties in understanding, but yes, we should check what is the "correct" usage in Novoslovienskij.


*First of all*, I prefer Slovianski over Novoslovienskij because Slovianski looks to the grammatical construction of modern slavic languages and it is a *collaborative effort of many slavic language speakers*, while Novoslovienskij is *one person's effort* (just like Slovio) to take Old Church Slavonic (_which was just a minority language that became lucky and was published into written form_) and modernise its constructions.
Mind you, I don't oppose Novoslovienskij, but I think it would be best if it were a collaborative effort.  Better yet,  Novoslovienskij and Slovianski should merge together!

> In modern slavic languages that use "treba", I cannot find any construction where "ljudi" would be in the dative case.  But perhaps this would work nonetheless - so long as it is understood.  Unfortunately,  I don't understand the example given. 
> Infinitive: yes, the infinitive can be used, but it does not always have to be used (see my example below).  I think this is the case in all modern slavic languages that use "treba".


DenisBiH said:


> I believe nonik and I agreed later on it should have been "jest bylo treba". Why does it mean "had to"? Well, if "treba jest" means "have to" or "need to", how would you translate it if we put this construct into the past? As for "needed to" vs "had to", I don't think it was relevant in this case. "People needed to live in bad homes..." would sound strange (at least to me) in English.



There is still the question of what that sentence _*is supposed to/is intended to*_ mean?
Let's assume it was intended to mean:  *"People had to live in very dilapidated homes {or} very poor housing conditions...."*
I would translate this simply as:
*"Treba bylo že/da ljudi žili v mnogo ...."*

I would not use OCS grammatical constructions:  "...jest bylo...."  Nobody uses this construction today. Do they?  Also ... only Polish uses *"jest"*.  All modern slavic languages that use the present tense 3rd person use *"je"*, no?  So why use "jest"? 

*Please note:*  It is not my intention here to be "argumentative". I find this exercise and discussion fascinating, and I am glad you do too!


----------



## DenisBiH

But the thing is, I'm not sure how far we're allowed to go into the discussion of the merits of these artificial languages compared to one another without crossing the border of promoting one of them which is I believe declared off limits in this discussion by the moderators. And whether we prefer an artificial language developed by using OCS as the starting point or modern Slavic languages or whatever seems to be something related to personal preferences after all.  The same with ljudim in dative, with jest instead of je etc. 

Regarding jest, note that Bosnian / BCS does use jeste in the longer forms of present (sam, si, je, smo, ste, su compared tu jesam, jesi, jeste, jesmo, jeste, jesu). Also, regarding the dative, in Bosnian / BCS you can have _Meni je potrebno_, _Toj ženi je potrebno_ etc. using the dative (lit. "to me/to that woman it is needed"). And regarding your counter-example *"Treba bylo že/da ljudi žili v mnogo ...." *who said we had to have only one way of expressing the same thing? Though I would raise the issue of using žili instead of 3rd person plural present in that case.

Restricting myself to the intelligibility side alone, I have to say Novoslovienskij indeed seems very intelligible, both in the written form and in the spoken form, though I'd like to see more examples. As for who the creator is, an individual or the community, there seems to be several people involved in the project of Novoslovienskij. To what level, I don't know.


----------



## SkyScout

Yes, of course.
I was just expressing my personal preference and the reason for it.
I have watched the YouTube novoslovienskij presentation and understood it nearly 100%.
As I noted above, I find all of these constructed languages fascinating.
And - it would seem to me that it would be in the best interests if NS and Slovianski merged.
Thank you!


----------



## DenisBiH

SkyScout said:


> Yes, of course.
> I was just expressing my personal preference and the reason for it.
> I have watched the YouTube novoslovienskij presentation and understood it nearly 100%.
> As I noted above, I find all of these constructed languages fascinating.
> And - it would seem to me that it would be in the best interests if NS and Slovianski merged.
> Thank you!




Thinking about it, yes it is pretty fascinating that Slavic languages are still at a stage where something like this (such "instant" high intelligibility of an artificial language without any training) is possible at all. Would it be doable for Germanic or Romance languages I wonder?


----------



## SkyScout

There are artificial languages for both Germanic and Romance languages.
I am only vaguely familiar now with both of these.  As I recall, however, the Romance language version was not as understandable as the parallel Slavic conlangs.
You've sparked my interest in these again, so I will review.


----------



## Sobakus

SkyScout said:


> > In modern slavic languages that use "treba", I cannot find any construction where "ljudi" would be in the dative case.


Eastern Slavic uses dative, in Russian the verb is reflexive though(требуется).


> Also ... only Polish uses *"jest"*.  All modern slavic languages that use the present tense 3rd person use *"je"*, no?  So why use "jest"?



Again, Eastern Slavic as well(in Ukrainian je is preferred, to my knowledge). But even if only Poilish used it, it would still be logical to keep the OCS version simply because the language is based on OCS. Also, je is 3d person neutral pronoun, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

This is an inherently subjective exercise, but I went thriough nonik's post and marked words that may prove problematic to a Slovenian speaker with no exposure to other Slavic languages in *red*:



nonik said:


> *Dickensov London*
> 
> Posle velikego požara ljudi znova postavihu sebie novi domy, uže ne toliko d'rvene ali samo iz kamenov i ceglin.
> Grad London jest rastl i rastl i v 1830 godie tamo sut žilo više jako jedin milion i pet sot ljudij.
> Novi fabriky i železnični cesty za pojezdy biehu s'strojeni vsedie okolo grada. I grad jest byl bogatejšij i bogatejšij.
> Ali tamo bieše takože drugie premieny. Grad stal jest nečistij i temnij, vazduh byl p'lnij ot dyma radi mnogo novih fabrik. Ljudim sut bylo třeba žiti v mnogo zlih domeh i takože mnogo biednih ljudij žilo na ulicah.
> Charles Dickens (1812-1870) žiješe mnogo let v Londoně. V jego knigah možeme čitati jakij bieše grad v jego vremeni.
> My jesme uže čitali o biednih ljudih, kojiže sut ne imali kdie žiti no u nih takože nebylo što jasti.
> Mnogo ubogih dietat nechodihu v školu no celij den robihu v rozličnih fabrikah. Dalšie žijehu na ulicah, kdie vsjakij den niekoliko iz nih umirahu.
> S'vremenij London jest lučšij. Na ulicah jest čisto i dietatom ne jest treba rabotati v fabrikah.


 
Unavoidably, some of these words are false friends in Slovenian (or come very close to being false friends):

*grad* = castle (*mesto* = town, city)
*stal* = stood (*postal* = became)
*vreme* = weather (*čas* = time)
*godi* = takes pleasure in, enjoys (3rd person singular)
*posle* = business deals (accusative)
*že* = already
*jezdi* = riding a horse (3rd person singular)
*jest* = eat (supine)
*robijo* = making or using edges, telling [something] (3rd person plural)
*zlih* = evil (genitive pl. adjective)

Having said this, I understood almost the entire paragraph, and it's entirely possible that the words' context would help even someone with no knowledge of other Slavic languages to understand virtually all of it as well. However, in more complicated texts, or texts lacking sufficient context, some of these words _could_ lead to substantial confusion. In other words, the intelligibility of artificial Slavic languages should not be overstated.

Also, why does the word for "year" change from *god* to *leto* within the paragraph? I know that Russian, for instance, uses both, but surely this is needlessly complicated in an artificial language, isn't it?


----------



## SkyScout

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Also, why does the word for "year" change from *god* to *leto* within the paragraph? I know that Russian, for instance, uses both, but surely this is needlessly complicated in an artificial language, isn't it?



Good question!
At least two answers:
(1) if the artificial language is intended to reflect the Natural Slavic Languages, then there are three different words for "year" - roughly, "god" "leto" and "rok" - all of which derive from some proto-slavic word.
(2) if the artificial language is intended to be a simplified language - but based upon what is used among the Natural Slavic Languages - the question then is:  Which of the three words ("god" "leto" and "rok") should be used as the "official" word for "year"?

In answering #(2), it becomes a bit more complicated, because, for example, "god" also is the root word in several slavic languages for "hour"

"Leto" also means "summer" in (I believe) all of the NSL's.

"Rok" is used in some NSL, but not in others.

Finally, to make this even more complicated, all of the NSL's used different word forms when counting years, because they did not look at numbers as individual counting items, but, rather "bunched" the numbers into three basic "groups":
*First Group: = the number 1  (one)
Second Group: = the numbers, 2, 3 & 4
Third Group: = 5, 6, 7 + ....*

So, in Russian we have:

one summer	 =	одно лето	 =	odno *leto*
two summers	 =	Два лета	 =	dva *leta*
three summers	 =	три лета	 =	tri *leta*
four summers	 =	четыре лета	 =	četyre *leta*
five summers	 =	пять лето	 =	pjať *leto*
ten summers	 =	десять лето	 =	desať *leto*

one year	 =	один год	 =	odin *god*
two years	 =	два года	 =	dva *goda*
three years	 =	три года	 =	tri *goda*
four years	 =	четыре года	 =	četyre *goda*
five years	 =	пять лет	 =	pjať *let*
six years	 =	шесть лет	 =	šesť *let*
seven years	 =	семь лет	 =	semj *let*
ten years	 =	десять лет	 =	desať *let*
100 years	 =	100 лет	 =	100 *let*
one hour	 =	один час	 =	odin *čas*
two hours	 =	два часа	 =	dva *časa*

Polish, on the other hand, has this:


one summer	 =	jedno *lato*
two summers	 =	dwa *lata*
three summers	 =	Trzy *lata*
four summers	 =	cztery *lata*
five summers	 =	pięć *lata*
ten summers	 =	dziesięć *lata*

one year	 =	jeden *rok*
two years	 =	dwa *lata*
three years	 =	trzy *lata*
four years	 =	cztery *lata*
five years	 =	pięć *lat*
six years	 =	sześć *lat*
seven years	 =	siedem *lat*
ten years	 =	dziesięć *lat*
100 years	 =	100 *lat*
one hour	 =	jeden *godzina*
two hours	 =	dwa *godziny*

And then we have Czech:
(without coloured font emphasis)

one summer	 =	jeden léto 
two summers	 =	dvě léta
three summers	 =	tři léta
four summers	 =	čtyři léta
five summers	 =	pět lét
ten summers	 =	

one year	 =	jeden rok
two years	 =	dva roky
three years	 =	tři roky
four years	 =	čtyři roky
five years	 =	pět roků
six years	 =	šest roků
seven years	 =	sedm roků
ten years	 =	deset roků
100 years	 =	100 roků
one hour	 =	jedna hodina*
two hours	 =	dvě hodiny*

*("g" in czech and slovak became "h" several hundred years ago)

And this confusion continues on for each of the other Slavic languages - because over the thousands of years that each "tribe" had been separated from the "Mother/Father Tribe" on the other side of the mountains, each tribe developed its own unique form of using numbers and words for "summer" "hour" "year".


*So - which form should be used as the common form?*


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Interesting, SkyScout. I suppose that using two forms for "year" is fundamentally fairer; I'm just not sure that it aids comprehension.



SkyScout said:


> "Leto" also means "summer" in (I believe) all of the NSL's.


 
I believe that Slovenian is the only exception: We use *poletje* for "summer", but the root is still there, of course.

By the way, Slovenian uses *leto* for "year" and *ura* for "hour". BCS, on the other hand, uses *leto/ljeto* for "summer", *godina* for "year", and *sat/čas* for "hour" -- so there are big differences even between nearby languages.


----------



## SkyScout

TriglavNationalPark said:


> I suppose that using two forms for "year" is fundamentally fairer; I'm just not sure that it aids comprehension


Well...for a panslavic language, words such as "year" must have two or more forms - at least available in a dictionary.  That is why I like the  Interslavic Dictionary because it offers several forms, including  Novoslovjanskij and Slovianski.



TriglavNationalPark said:


> -- so there are big differences even between nearby languages.


Yes.  Those mountains between tribes are big!!
One of my friends is Slovenian.  He tells me that even in small Slovenia, there are a great number of different dialects - and that in some instances, the differences are significant.
I am still learning how unique the Southern Languages are.


----------



## nonik

Dear felows

just keep in mind that I am not expert in any slavic languages except czech language (maybe).

There could be always used constructions like scyscout proposed. ( for example ...treba bylo ze ljudi zili) or using interslavic dictionary he posted, or others. I dont mind.

You can rewrite the column as you want acorrding your will and taste and knowledge.

There is no strictly rules, that we have to writte strictly this construction and strictly use these words. 

The whole column is just an example. I just wanted to know how it  works.
Maybe the understandibility would be same if I wrote the same column in the czech language. Who knows ?

thanks for yours comments.


----------



## DenisBiH

Sobakus said:


> Eastern Slavic uses dative, in Russian the verb is reflexive though(требуется).



In BCS one can use both dative and nominative with trebati (not reflexive here).

N: (Ja) trebam olovku.
D: Treba mi olovka. / Meni treba olovka.

"I need a pencil" in all cases.


----------



## ilocas2

SkyScout said:


> one summer	         =	jedno léto
> two summers	 =	dvě léta
> three summers	 =	tři léta
> four summers	 =	čtyři léta
> five summers	 =	pět lét
> ten summers	 =	deset lét
> 
> one year	 =	jeden rok
> two years	 =	dva roky
> three years	 =	tři roky
> four years	 =	čtyři roky
> five years	 =	pět roků, pět let
> six years	 =	šest roků, šest let
> seven years =	sedm roků, sedm let
> ten years	 =	deset roků, deset let
> 100 years	 =	100 roků, 100 let
> one hour	 =	jedna hodina
> two hours	 =	dvě hodiny



For 5 years and more, Czech uses "let" too. It's used much more often than "roků".


----------



## Sobakus

DenisBiH said:


> In BCS one can use both dative and nominative with trebati (not reflexive here).
> 
> N: (Ja) trebam olovku.
> D: Treba mi olovka. / Meni treba olovka.
> 
> "I need a pencil" in all cases.



Actually, we have non-reflexive with nominative, but it means "demand, require".


SkyScout said:


> For example *"TRZEBA"* in Polish is not a _noun_; it is more like an _adverb_.  It is always used in combination with an *INFINITIVE *(verb) or *"bylo"* or *"będzie"* ("bude").


That "more like an adverb" part corresponds to Russian *нужно*(an actual adverb), which is like the reflexive treba, only non-formal.

Also, in G.pl. both summer and year are *лет*.


----------



## vianie

ilocas2 said:


> For 5 years and more, Czech uses "let" too. It's used much more often than "roků".



There's used *rokov* for *liet* in Slovak markedly more than *let* instead of *roků* in Czech.

Slovak *liet* "summers" (sg. leto) had become an archaism and is no more used in ordinary language, if only with a nostalgic tone.

In essence, the same fate befell the two words - *jarí* "springs" (sg. jar) and *zím* "winters" (sg. zima).

The only word for "season of a year", which one probably didn't express "annual cycles", is jeseň (pl. G *jesení* "autumns").


----------



## SkyScout

vianie said:


> There's used *rokov* for *liet* in Slovak markedly more than *let* instead of *roků* in Czech.
> Slovak *liet* "summers" (sg. leto) had become an archaism and is no more used in ordinary language, if only with a nostalgic tone.
> In essence, the same fate befell the two words - *jarí* "springs" (sg. jar) and *zím* "winters" (sg. zima).
> The only word for "season of a year", which one probably didn't express "annual cycles", is jeseň (pl. G *jesení* "autumns").



I am not clear on these:
So in Slovak:
1.  LIET / LETO - is this used for "summer(s)" only - but not for "year"?
2.  JARI / JAR & ZIMA - are this not used in spoken language anymore?  If not, then what is used instead?


----------



## bibax

Vianie meant: The usage of _10 liet, 10 jarí_ and _10 zím_ (instead of _10 rokov_) is an archaism in Slovak.

In Czech the word *zima* (= winter) can also be used for "year" after a numeral, especially in the ("translated") direct speech of a member of a "primitive" nation (it's a stereotype, of course). For example:

_Jsem stár *čtrnáct zim*, tedy již jsem mužem, lovcem, právoplatným členem naší malé siidy. Jsem Saami, jako moje matka, jako celá siida, ..._

= I am *14-winter-old*, ..., I am Saami .... (it is about a Saami boy/man, Saami = a small Ugrofinnic nation)


----------



## ilocas2

Regardless the inteligibility of this language, you anyway have to learn it. Well, then other people will understand you. But they also have to answer to you. So they also have to learn it. So for success of this language is necessary that people in Slavic countries begin in mass scale to study this language. I don't think that is probable that millions of people will start to study an artificial language. Because there were numerous attempts in history to create an artificial language and none of them met with some amazing success. Even the most widespread artificial language Esperanto is really rather marginal nowadays. I don't know for what reason people refuse to study artificial languages, but that's the way it is. Maybe because people study foreign languages (except English) when they want to travel or to live in that country, where that language is spoken and Novoslovjenskij is not spoken anywhere. They are also interessed in that culture, art, music etc. which are connected with that specific language, and Novoslovjenskij is not connected with anything, it's only words and grammar.


----------



## DenisBiH

ilocas2, it's kinda hard to answer your post without really crossing the border of promoting artificial languages, but I'll risk it and the moderators will have to decide what to do. Let's focus on the facts, that way maybe we'll avoid crossing the line of promoting something. 

I mostly agree with what you say about having to learn it in order to be able to speak it, and then others having to learn it in order to reply to you in a way you'll understand.

However, language is not used only for direct two-way communication. How about, as someone mentioned I believe, short texts including directions, short explanations, like for example in a museum or in tourist guides or in announcements etc.? And then, what about the web? How about a multilingual web-site that uses Novoslovienskij to reach out to more people than it normally could given limited resources, i.e. inability to translate into all Slavic languages?

I agree that "real" languages with actual culture and history, with literature associated with them have, at least for me, a kind of appeal that artificial languages don't, but in this globalized Internet age, I do see some potential benefits of these artificial languages. I mean, having the ability to construct an e-commerce site operating from Prague to Vladivostok at only a fraction of the cost where translation is concerned  seems kinda tempting.


----------



## SkyScout

ilocas2 said:


> ...They are also interessed in that culture, art, music etc. which are connected with that specific language....


None of the "current" panslavic languages is connected with any cultural, artistic or musical arenas with the Slavic speaking countries.  I am aware that there has been an on-going effort to use *Slovianski *as the language medium within the legal profession - specifically with respect to the drafting of *legal and financial documents*.  Up until now, if there were, say, two people or two companies from different Slavic countries, who wished to enter into a legal agreement with each other, the documents would be written in the native language of each country + English (sometimes German - depending upon which countries).  With a panslavic language such as Slovianski, it would be possible to omit at least the English copy.
I understand that there has been significant success in this experiment.

The other area of opportunity for a panslavic language is in *advertising* - especially tourist and internet advertising that is seeking to capture business from various Slavic countries.  Generally, a Russian or Polish speaker cannot understand any of the Southern Slavic languages - because they have morphed so much during the Slavic diaspora. 
But if there is a capability of each "branch" of Slavic speaker to understand, say, 80% of the Slovianski text without any "study", then a significant leap has been taken.


----------



## ilocas2

Yes, this language could have some use in tourism, announcements, advertising, etc., even on the web, possibilities are great, it can gradually improve and become more and more inteligibile with passing of time.

But I see one danger of this language. In the case that it really will become widespread and abundantly used, there's a threat that it will begin to pollute and contaminate the natural languages. When people will see words, which are so similar to their language and match well in the grammar, they will unconsciously start to use them in their native language. It is well seen in the case of Germanic languages, which are in recent times really heavily influenced by English. And this is possible only thanks the fact that English is a Germanic language. The impact of English on Romance or Slavic languages is much smaller.


----------



## DenisBiH

I believe that is not unlike what some think about how Proto-Slavic originally spread. If I remember correctly, some say it was simply a Baltic dialect (linguistically, not geographically) chosen as a lingua franca by traders along the river routes in central & eastern Europe etc. and then given additional prestige during the Avar Khaganate.

Ok, it's not exactly the same, Proto-Slavic was not an artificial language (as far as we know).

It's not that I'm exactly one of those anti-purist 'everything goes' types, but I don't see that it's much of a danger given that its sphere of use would in my opinion remain fairly limited. And if not, if people do start using it more and more as they're learning it, and start borrowing its words into their language, it could possibly be argued that it would be better than borrowing English words which is done today. But I think this is really beyond the 'predictive power' of any of us, in the end, to use capitalist rhetoric  ,  'market forces', i.e. the people, will decide what happens to it. Or rather them, as there are several. 

On the other hand, I'm inclined to think that government involvement in this (either to promote or to ban the use of such languages) would be a bad idea. But that may be due to reading heavily about Austrian economics and the free market the last couple of weeks (sorry for the off topic)


----------



## Sobakus

ilocas2 said:


> Regardless the inteligibility of this language, you anyway have to learn it. Well, then other people will understand you. But they also have to answer to you. So they also have to learn it. So for success of this language is necessary that people in Slavic countries begin in mass scale to study this language. I don't think that is probable that millions of people will start to study an artificial language. Because there were numerous attempts in history to create an artificial language and none of them met with some amazing success. Even the most widespread artificial language Esperanto is really rather marginal nowadays. I don't know for what reason people refuse to study artificial languages, but that's the way it is. Maybe because people study foreign languages (except English) when they want to travel or to live in that country, where that language is spoken and Novoslovjenskij is not spoken anywhere. They are also interessed in that culture, art, music etc. which are connected with that specific language, and Novoslovjenskij is not connected with anything, it's only words and grammar.



I don't think it's correct to compare Esperanto and artificial Slavic. The beauty of the latter it that, at least for a Russian, they only require you to remember the exact words chosen, and a few phonetic correspondences. It's not like you have to actually learn something. This may not be true for the more marginal languages, of course, but even they should hardly have significant problems.


----------



## nonik

They are also interessed in that culture, art, music etc. which are connected with that specific language, and Novoslovjenskij is not connected with anything, it's only words and grammar.


The vocabulary is taken from old  manuscripts (OCS language).
So it is not connected directly to nowadays culture, art, music.
But it is connected directly with our first literary language which was written by schollars st. Cyril and Method and theirs pupils.


----------



## ilocas2

nonik said:


> The vocabulary is taken from old  manuscripts (OCS language).
> So it is not connected directly to nowadays culture, art, music.
> But it is connected directly with our first literary language which was written by schollars st. Cyril and Method and theirs pupils.



What do you mean by the word our?

If you mean Slavs, yes, OCS was first Slavic literary language.

If you mean Czechs, OCS was used only as language in churches in 9th and 10th century, then was replaced by Latin. Czech language has written record not based on OCS and Cyrillic since 12th century. Czech language was affected by OCS minimally, much less than languages of nations with Orthodox Christianity.


----------



## nonik

Czech language has written record not based on OCS and Cyrillic since 12th century. Czech language was affected by OCS minimally, much less than languages of nations with Orthodox Christianity. ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Old Slavonic is the first known Slavic literacy language from IX century. It has been created by sts Kyrillos and Methodios and their partners for the mission to Moravian Empire. This language served about 2-3 centuries not only as liturgical language, but also as the official common written "high language*"* for general usage not only in Moravia, but also Bulgaria and other slavic countries. Alphabet was Glagolitic. This language influenced national languages (e.g. information flow from OS to national languages).

3) Old Church Slavonic is the medieval and the only liturgical language (from about XIII to XVIII centuries) of the medieval orthodox church. It was direct ancestor of OS and kept almost identical orthography with OS, but was written in Cyrillic, had limited dictionary and reduced grammar. This language lost its universality, because non religious communication has been started in evolving national languages. This language had many dialects (UK, RUS, SRB, BG, ...), because it has been strongly influenced. (e.g. information flow from national languages to OCS)

4) Church Slavonic is the current unified official liturgical language of the orthodox church and greek-catholic church. Of course, it is pronounced with several accents (BG, SRB, RUS, UK, ...) but it has unified cyrillic orthography, grammar and modernized dictionary, which is most influenced by Russian.

) The oldest literacy heritage of OS from IXc. proves, that OS is not only very close to the old bulgarian and macedonian, but also has many non "bulgaro-macedonian" elements coming from another archaic slavic populations in Greece, Asia minor, Panonia (this is now Hungary) and Corutania (this is now part of Austria). We exactly know, that there were 7 creators (or first writers) in this language: Kyrillos, his brother Methodios and 5 colleagues (Naum, Kliment, Sava, Angelar and Lazar). They were probably monks together with st. Methodios in the monastery at mount Olympos in Bythinia (Asia minor) and they were from miscellaneous nations - definitely not only pure Bulgarians.

b)* Next, OS language coherence (based on the lexicostatistical analysis.) to the modern Bulgarian/Slavomacedonian is less than the coherence between OS and modern Czech, for example. (Czech has very similar noun, pronoun and adjective declention patterns and also has closer vocabulary and closer prepositions. The only feature, where Czech is less coherent with OS than Bulgarian is the verbal system, but early medieval Czech had also the same verbal system, which still exists in Bulgarian.) The same very high level of coherence with CS has also Slovak, Rusyn and Slovenian.*

c) More intensive OS language use in southern slavic coutries started later - after the death of st. Methodios when slavic liturgy in Moravia has been disabled and replaced by latin by the Pope and OS awared people (priests, students, ...) were expelled from Moravia away. This started intensive usage of OS in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia and other south slavic states. And yet bit more later also in east slavic countries. Here this language has been changed through phase OCS to CS.


----------



## powaqquatsi

English: _This is the most expensive dress in her closet. 
Croatian: Ovo je najskuplja haljina u njenom ormaru.
Russian: Это самое дорогое платье в её шкафу.
Slovak: Toto s_ú najdrahsie šaty v jej skrini.


----------

