Wiktionary talk:About Belarusian

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Spelling[edit]

@Ssvb. Hi. In your table Łacinka "simvał" is not attestable, "symbal" is.

I would also stick to one version of Łacinka, even on сі́мвал (símval). Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev: Thanks for your feedback. The word "сімвал" and its variants with minor vowel adjustments was in use even before the infamous 1933's reform: "сімвалу" (Уладзімір Пічэта in 1924), "сымвол" (Максім Гарэцкі in 1921), "сымвол" (Максім Багдановіч in 1913), "сымвал" (Зьміцер Жылуновіч in 1918), "сымвалы" (Антон Луцкевіч in 1921), "symwału" (Wacłaŭ Łastoŭski in 1919), "symwoł" (Wacłaŭ Łastoŭski in 1918). The historical dictionary hints simultaneous coexistence of both "сімвал" and "сымбаль" even earlier: https://verbum.by/hsbm/simvol https://verbum.by/hsbm/simbol
In 1927 Аркадзь Смоліч wrote the following about Максім Багдановіч: "У 9-м радку аўтарам, як звычайна, ужыта слова „сымвол“ зам. сучаснага літаратурнага „сымболь“". Hinting that the "сы́мболь" ("symbol") spelling used to be the literary norm in 1927. It had the unstressed о, as prescribed by the rules of Taraškievica 1918 for foreign loanwords ("Словы чужазе́мныя, што ўжываюцца ў кніжках і ў кніжнай мове і да народу не дайшлі або дайшлі нядаўна, пі­шуцца так, як у тэй мове, скуль яны ўзятыя: тэлегра́ф, тэлеграма, літэратура, монолёг, тэа́тр, дынастыя, партыя, рэдакцыя, інспэктар, дырэктар, рэдактар і г. д.").
The modern codification of Taraškievica 2005 abolished the unstressed о ("прыхільнікі клясычнага стандарту ў Беларусі адмовіліся ад захаваньня “оканьня” ў пазычаньнях, ад “правіла другога складу” ды шэрагу іншых правілаў і прынялі сфармуляваныя ў артаграфічным зборы 1959 году асноўныя прынцыпы правапісу складаных словаў"). However it prescribes "сы-" in the beginning of foreign loanwords, so "сімвал" with the letter і indeed does not follow the rules and it would be more correct to have it as "сымвал", similar to how it was in some 1920s books, as shown in the examples above. Still the question remains whether "сымвал" and "сымбаль" have the right to coexist as synonyms within the same orthography standard. Does one of them have to be prohibited and erased? --Ssvb (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is largely politically motivated. The soviet commissars shoved their vision of the Belarusian language orthography down the people's throats in 1933, also jailing and executing many Belarusian linguists and writers in the 1930s. Even the USSR authorities later acknowledged these atrocities themselves after Stalin's death and posthumously rehabilitated the victims. This is still remembered today and affects how people feel about these things. Anyway, the essence of the 1933's reform can be illustrated using these examples (mostly foreign loanwords, because the deformation of spelling of the native Belarusian words via removing soft signs is a separate issue and deserves a separate comment):
Basically, many of the changes pursued the goal of making the Belarusian language closer to Russian and away from Polish. That's how сымбаль got erased from the official dictionaries. But there's one interesting outlier: the pair of Belarusian words "срэбра" & "серабро". Is their relationship any different from the relationship between the "сымбаль" & "сімвал" pair? I think that the only reason why "срэбра" was kept in the Belarusian dictionaries and survived the 1933's reform is that the Russian language also happened to have words "сребро" and "серебро" as a pair of synonyms. Is there any good reason why "сымбаль" and "сімвал" can't be treated as synonyms as well? BTW, the Ukrainian language is also in exactly the same shoes when it comes to the "міт" & "міф" pair even without having multiple competing orthography standards.
Overall, my non-professional impression is that some of the Taraškievica adepts would want to erase the words of foreign origin, that had been already loaned via the Russian language as an intermediary during the USSR times, as a way to undo the damage done by the soviet commissars. And replace them with proper loanwords, constructed according to the prescribed Taraškievica 2005 rules. But after almost a century, it feels a little bit artificial to replace a part of the familiar vocabulary. The so-called "Дзеясловіца" compromise solution also exists (or existed before 2010) as a middle ground approach: basically use the Taraškievica spelling for the native Belarusian words, but take the existing foreign loanwords from Narkamaŭka, because that's how many real people actually speak today. --Ssvb (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssvb: Thanks for the response and the links. It answered some other questions I had, e.g. regarding the usage of letter ґ (g).
My preference is to stick to one standard but if there are some exceptions based on citations, perhaps a reference should be required? It's good thing to document decisions. Thanks for starting it. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:About_Belarusian&oldid=78695755"