71–80 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Щ is already a pretty pointless letter. If you are simplifying anything then just using шт is one of the lowest hanging fruits. Ditto for я and ю.
Щ is indeed read as "sht" in Bulgarian, but in Russian it would be read as a softer "sh" or mix between "sh" and "ch". If anything, maybe it can just be dropped in favour of plain "sh"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is such an idea of a greater connection between Slavic nations called Pan-Slavism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism ). When it comes to "one country" - the USSR aimed at that, and from the perspective of hundreds of millions of people, it wasn't the best idea. Plus, I think that ethnic states are one of the worst inventions of the 19th century, which accelerated a lot after WWI & WWII. I prefer cities…
The problem with panslavism is that Russians would have majority, and Russian states were almost always authoritharian and oppressive.
I've learned some Czech about 10 years ago. Not much left, since i didn't need it that much (yes, shame on me), but i actually understand several words. Nice. Now i wonder if something like this exists for germanic languages.
> Now i wonder if something like this exists for germanic languages. Dutch. Only half joking. Dutch would at least make a great starting point in terms of written language. As a native speaker with English as a second language and German as my third, I can read a whole lot of Dutch because it's closer in spelling to Scandinavian languages than German is, but has kept many words that are still used in German but archa…
Lithuanian and Latvian is not slavic and Slovio would not be understood by their native speakers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is such an idea of a greater connection between Slavic nations called Pan-Slavism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Slavism ). When it comes to "one country" - the USSR aimed at that, and from the perspective of hundreds of millions of people, it wasn't the best idea. Plus, I think that ethnic states are one of the worst inventions of the 19th century, which accelerated a lot after WWI & WWII. I prefer cities…
The problem with panslavism is that Russians would have majority, and Russian states were almost always authoritharian and oppressive.
Yet, this idea would be dangerous even with very different cultures - vide "Ein Reich".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm only familiar with Russian, but "es" for "to be" feels weird too. And it's used where Russian would just omit it. Are there Slavic languages that are more liberal with it? And I feel like some form of Cyrillic would be much more natural both because of the available phonemes and because I believe most Slavic speakers would be more familiar with it than the Latin alphabet. As a non-native learner, I've always had…
Even though Russian does drop the "to be" in present tense for all pronouns, other Slavic languages do feature it either as a separate word or together. For example this is how you say "I am Russian" and "You are Russian" in: Slovenian: Jaz sem Rus Ti si Rus Croatian: Ja sam Rus Ti si Rus Slovak: Som Rus Ty si Rus Whereas in Polish is a joint word (but the to be is still merged in there): Jestem z Rosji Jesteś Rosjan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm only familiar with Russian, but "es" for "to be" feels weird too. And it's used where Russian would just omit it. Are there Slavic languages that are more liberal with it? And I feel like some form of Cyrillic would be much more natural both because of the available phonemes and because I believe most Slavic speakers would be more familiar with it than the Latin alphabet. As a non-native learner, I've always had…
Even though Russian does drop the "to be" in present tense for all pronouns, other Slavic languages do feature it either as a separate word or together. For example this is how you say "I am Russian" and "You are Russian" in: Slovenian: Jaz sem Rus Ti si Rus Croatian: Ja sam Rus Ti si Rus Slovak: Som Rus Ty si Rus Whereas in Polish is a joint word (but the to be is still merged in there): Jestem z Rosji Jesteś Rosjan…
There’s a number of romanization standards for Cyrillic, and which one is the most intuitive might be language-dependent (e.g. what Russian writes as a stressed ‹и› Ukrainian writes as ‹і›, which post-1918 Russian doesn’t use; what Ukrainian writes as ‹и› is closer but not identical to what Russian denotes ‹ы›, which Ukrainian doesn’t use).
Wikipedia has a good summary table[1] of some of the formal standards, but these don’t cover some of the vernacular usage, so to say. The most frequent quirk is probably writing ‹щ› as ‹sch›, as you do, when standards insist on ‹shch› (my guess is because the Belarusian counterpart of ‹щ› is ‹шч›, which would also be written ‹shch›); most confusing is perhaps writing the masculine adjectival ending ‹-ий›, ‹-ый› as ‹-y› or rarely ‹-yy› (writing ‹Navalny› for the surname ‹Навальный› or ‹Zelenskyy› for the surname ‹Зеленський›, maybe because old 19th-century German-inspired romanizations usually wrote it as ‹-i›, merging the ending with its Polish counterpart). I have to say I’ve never seen ‹zsh› instead for ‹zh› for ‹ж›, though.
Empirically, I’ve also found that French people struggle with pronouncing an English-inspired transliteration (‹sh› for ‹ш›, ‹ch› for ‹ч›), but have no problem with finding at least a pronounceable fallback using a Czech/Serbo-Croatian-inspired one (‹š› for ‹ш›, ‹č› for ‹ч›), so diacritics might indeed be underrated here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Russian#Transl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interslavic seems just as understandable to me. Sometimes I wish all slavic people had one country, one language. Let's call it Slavia.
We had Yugoslavia, for southern Slavic people. Didn’t work out.
Also, instead of returning to our root slavic religion, we got atheism. Without any form of religion, people can not feel that deep bond. Especially Slavic people, who are naturaly very religious.
Yugoslavia was a mistake, but not for reasons you might think.