Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [sig]was Interested newcomer/ now need pattern info

Expand Messages
  • Lisa Kies
    ... First of all, the article referred to almost never uses the term Russian alone as a descriptor - it is almost always used as a phrase such as ancient
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 25, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Rick Orli wrote:

      > However the author makes the careless and apparently very common
      > error of describing pre 18th C. Kiev as 'Russian' - while a possible
      > translation of 'Rus' is Russian, the word used to prevent confusion
      > with Muscovy is 'Ruthenian'.

      First of all, the article referred to almost never uses the term
      "Russian" alone as a descriptor - it is almost always used as a phrase
      such as "ancient Russian" or "Kievan Russian" to avoid the overuse of the
      term "Kievan Rus". The places where "Russian" is used alone, it generally
      refers to information that is more modern, i.e. the folklore ideal of
      beauty, that can not with certainty be imposed on "ancient Rus".

      "Ruthenian" is a term that is primarily found in foreign period
      manuscripts written by men who generally had little clue about the
      culture they were referring to, nor its language. It is not found in
      general use in any of the academic texts I'm familiar with, except as an
      historical relic. "Russ-kij" traslates to "Russ-ian", not "Ruth-enian".

      The terms to avoid confusion with "Muscovy" are "Muscovite Rus", "post
      Mongol Rus", "late medieval Rus", "early tsarist Russia", "the early
      Russian empire", etc.

      > Kiev was prior to mid 17th
      > C. at the heart of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and prior to
      > that the G.D. of Lithuania - politically, ethnically & culturally.

      The article in question refers to Rus from the 10th to, at the
      latest, the 15th century and was written by someone who's actual period
      of interest is late 13th and early 14th century Rus.

      Lithuania had no power over the heart of Rus at that time, and was
      just starting to extend control over the western border provinces (Galicia
      and Volhynia, if I remember correctly).

      > >From the mid 17th C. to the mid 18th, at least one would say Kiev
      > was 'Ukraniane'.

      Therefore, "Ukrainian" is not really useful in an article about the
      10th-15th cent. Particularly since it is a term created much later by the
      "Great Russians" to refer to the provincial "Little Russian" people who
      were on (u) the border (krai) of the Russian world of the time.

      > It is almost akin to saying that the independent Siberian tribesmen
      > who would have considered Russians to be the totally alien mortal
      > enemy in 1600 were themselves 'Russian' then, because its all one big
      > totally happy Russia motherland now.

      Hardly. Kiev is the "mother of Russia", the first capital, and the
      birthplace of all that we now know as Russian.

      Just because the center of modern "Russian" culture is in Moscow/St.
      Petersburg and Kiev is now the capital of the Ukraine, doesn't change the
      fact that the center of ancient "Russian" culture was in Kiev nor make
      that Kievan culture less "Russian".

      In other words, there was no place more "Russian" than Kiev at that time,
      so insisting on a different term to refer to the culture of early Kiev is
      disconcerting. If ancient "Russian" was exactly the same as modern
      "Russian" we wouldn't have to go to so much trouble to study it.

      In service,
      Sofya la Rus
    • Alexey Kiyaikin
      Greetings Sofya! ... first of all, let s remember that Ruthenia is a Latin word after all, and exists only in Latin-bound texts, e.g., Mendeleev s Table of
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 25, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings Sofya!

        > "Ruthenian" is a term that is primarily found in foreign period
        > manuscripts written by men who generally had little clue about the
        > culture they were referring to, nor its language. It is not found in
        > general use in any of the academic texts I'm familiar with, except as an
        > historical relic. "Russ-kij" traslates to "Russ-ian", not "Ruth-enian".

        first of all, let's remember that Ruthenia is a Latin word after all,
        and exists only in Latin-bound texts, e.g., Mendeleev's Table of
        Elements, with its Ruthenium, named after Russia. Next, AFAIR,Rutha is ONE
        of possible pronunciations of an Arabic word from a geographical
        survey of eastern Europe. As you may remember, pronunciations of
        Arabic inscriptions may vary greatly. All in all, the term was really
        in use outside Russia/Rus, and was never the only one.


        > Therefore, "Ukrainian" is not really useful in an article about the
        > 10th-15th cent. Particularly since it is a term created much later by the
        > "Great Russians" to refer to the provincial "Little Russian" people who
        > were on (u) the border (krai) of the Russian world of the time.

        I think you are not correct here, as _U_kraina is an Ukrainian word,
        meaning something marginal, not just a border. E.g. ukr. "po dal'nim
        ukrainam" means "in far&hidden places". The russian word was
        Malorossia. Ukraine was really a marginal region, IMHO, the term was
        created when it was under Rzech Pospolita (excuse my spelling), to
        which it was really a far-away land near the border.

        > Hardly. Kiev is the "mother of Russia", the first capital, and the
        > birthplace of all that we now know as Russian.

        A funny thing. When I presented my second child to my grandmother, I -
        for the first time - heard a nice soothing rhyme from her (that
        doesn't mean she never soothed ME, but that one was totally new). It ended
        with "and in Kiev there's Motherland". She lives in Ulyanovsk (see the
        map, it's ~400 km south from Kazan or the same north from Samara), and was
        never a Ukrainian in a long line of ancestors.

        bye,
        Alex
      • Rick Orli
        We are speaking in english. If we were speaking in a slavic language we would say that Kiev was in the 1500s russian , and the part of the heartland of Poland
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 26, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          We are speaking in english. If we were speaking in a slavic language
          we would say that Kiev was in the 1500s 'russian', and the part of
          the heartland of Poland from the very border of Kracow east is the
          land of the Black Russians. This must be understood - the black
          white and red russians were then 'Polish' and they were not, just
          like the Mazovs were 'Polish' and were not. But that is only like
          saying Andalucians are 'Spanish', and they are not. In every case
          they were an integrated part of the culture. Only a small minority
          of Poland was Polish/Polish - and it was not the Polish/polish
          driving the culture, but the whole mess of groups living and working
          together over a few hundred years that created that culture.

          In 1400 folk in little poland were not wearing kaftans, how did they
          start wearing kaftans in 1550? It was Rus/Lithuanian influence on
          the culture.

          THe trouble is, in modern English, 'Russian' means what in the 16th-
          17th C. meant Muscovy, and perhaps those lands that had not been
          muscovite ethnically nor culturally before what became in the 19th
          C.-20th C. ethnically and culturally muscovite.

          Kiev was not culturally or ethnically muscovite. That was not their
          culture, that was not their fashion of dress, that was not their
          language. There culture was of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,
          their Dress was of the commonwealth, their dialect was integrated
          with the language set of the commonwealth, and all educated people
          spoke Polish and studied Latin - not muscovite/russian and greek.
          They and the peasantry would have considered the Muscovites alien,
          an enemy!

          Yes, in the Russian myth, Kiev was their 'founder' - that was 600
          years earlier. That's a long time. If you are doing 900 AD, sure
          think of russian moscow kiew in the same viking boat, what ever that
          means.

          You say Lithuania had no power over the heart of Rus at that time,
          and was just starting to extend control over the western border
          provinces (Galicia and Volhynia, if I remember correctly). - ALmost
          all lithuanian nobility was ethnically rus, and even the lithuanian/
          lithuanian nobles spoke Polish and ruthenian in their homes and
          offices. Yes they were digesting more, but they achieved their
          sucess because they were cultural co-opters.

          Why do I care? Well, for example, because of the Soviet-trained
          Russian lady who interrupted my conversation a couple of years ago
          when I mentioned Joseph Conrad - 'Conrad was a Russian, you know'.
          Yes I know that conrad was born in land that Russia had anexed, and
          that his parents were both sent to a concentration camp as potitical
          prisoners because of thier active Polish patriotism, where they died
          young, which is why Conrad wished to not be a Russian and then
          because English. And according the the Russian Impearialists and
          later Soviet Impearialists, Curie, Chopin, Sienkiewitz... ALL
          RUSSIAN. Bottom line, it was a systematic government- organized and
          deliberate theft, a theft of history and culture, and so very
          serious theft if you love history and culture.

          So, IN 1600, Kiew was NOT Russian.
          -Rick

          --- In sig@y..., Lisa Kies <lkies@j...> wrote:
          > On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Rick Orli wrote:
          >
          > > However the author makes the careless and apparently very common
          > > error of describing pre 18th C. Kiev as 'Russian' - while a
          possible
          > > translation of 'Rus' is Russian, the word used to prevent
          confusion
          > > with Muscovy is 'Ruthenian'.
          >
          > First of all, the article referred to almost never uses the term
          > "Russian" alone as a descriptor - it is almost always used as a
          phrase
          > such as "ancient Russian" or "Kievan Russian" to avoid the overuse
          of the
          > term "Kievan Rus". The places where "Russian" is used alone, it
          generally
          > refers to information that is more modern, i.e. the folklore ideal
          of
          > beauty, that can not with certainty be imposed on "ancient Rus".
          >
          > "Ruthenian" is a term that is primarily found in foreign period
          > manuscripts written by men who generally had little clue about the
          > culture they were referring to, nor its language. It is not found
          in
          > general use in any of the academic texts I'm familiar with, except
          as an
          > historical relic. "Russ-kij" traslates to "Russ-ian", not "Ruth-
          enian".
          >
          > The terms to avoid confusion with "Muscovy" are "Muscovite
          Rus", "post
          > Mongol Rus", "late medieval Rus", "early tsarist Russia", "the
          early
          > Russian empire", etc.
          >
          > > Kiev was prior to mid 17th
          > > C. at the heart of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and prior
          to
          > > that the G.D. of Lithuania - politically, ethnically &
          culturally.
          >
          > The article in question refers to Rus from the 10th to, at the
          > latest, the 15th century and was written by someone who's actual
          period
          > of interest is late 13th and early 14th century Rus.
          >
          > Lithuania had no power over the heart of Rus at that time, and was
          > just starting to extend control over the western border provinces
          (Galicia
          > and Volhynia, if I remember correctly).
          >
          > > >From the mid 17th C. to the mid 18th, at least one would say
          Kiev
          > > was 'Ukraniane'.
          >
          > Therefore, "Ukrainian" is not really useful in an article about
          the
          > 10th-15th cent. Particularly since it is a term created much later
          by the
          > "Great Russians" to refer to the provincial "Little Russian"
          people who
          > were on (u) the border (krai) of the Russian world of the time.
          >
          > > It is almost akin to saying that the independent Siberian
          tribesmen
          > > who would have considered Russians to be the totally alien
          mortal
          > > enemy in 1600 were themselves 'Russian' then, because its all
          one big
          > > totally happy Russia motherland now.
          >
          > Hardly. Kiev is the "mother of Russia", the first capital, and
          the
          > birthplace of all that we now know as Russian.
          >
          > Just because the center of modern "Russian" culture is in
          Moscow/St.
          > Petersburg and Kiev is now the capital of the Ukraine, doesn't
          change the
          > fact that the center of ancient "Russian" culture was in Kiev nor
          make
          > that Kievan culture less "Russian".
          >
          > In other words, there was no place more "Russian" than Kiev at
          that time,
          > so insisting on a different term to refer to the culture of early
          Kiev is
          > disconcerting. If ancient "Russian" was exactly the same as modern
          > "Russian" we wouldn't have to go to so much trouble to study it.
          >
          > In service,
          > Sofya la Rus
        • Jeanne
          A friend in Latvia added that when the wall came down copies of The Deer Hunter were sold out. In it, it shows a traditional Polish (?) wedding (I don t like
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 26, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            A friend in Latvia added that when the wall came down copies of "The Deer
            Hunter" were sold out. In it, it shows a traditional Polish (?) wedding (I
            don't like the movie, so I don't remember the ethnicity). Which was
            OUTLAWED under communism. So they used a movie to try bring their heritage
            back.

            Just another example.....

            Soffya

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Rick Orli [mailto:orlirva@...]
            Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:14 AM
            To: sig@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [sig]was Interested newcomer/ now need pattern info



            Why do I care? Well, for example, because of the Soviet-trained
            Russian lady who interrupted my conversation a couple of years ago
            when I mentioned Joseph Conrad - 'Conrad was a Russian, you know'.
            Yes I know that conrad was born in land that Russia had anexed, and
            that his parents were both sent to a concentration camp as potitical
            prisoners because of thier active Polish patriotism, where they died
            young, which is why Conrad wished to not be a Russian and then
            because English. And according the the Russian Impearialists and
            later Soviet Impearialists, Curie, Chopin, Sienkiewitz... ALL
            RUSSIAN. Bottom line, it was a systematic government- organized and
            deliberate theft, a theft of history and culture, and so very
            serious theft if you love history and culture.

            So, IN 1600, Kiew was NOT Russian.
            -Rick
          • Alastair Millar
            ... Yes indeed... but I think part of the problem here is the assumption that the word Russian _always_ automatically includes all of its senses as an
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 27, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > We are speaking in english

              Yes indeed... but I think part of the problem here is the assumption that
              the word 'Russian' _always_ automatically includes all of its senses as
              an adjective (linguistic, ethnic, cultural, geographical, political), when
              in fact it can
              be used to mean only one at a time. It is for exactly this reason that
              phrases like "Kievan Rus" have come to be used. Analogy from western Europe:
              it is acceptable to say that Aquitaine/Guienne was English in the 14th
              century, because politically (but obviously not linguistically, ethnically,
              geographically or culturally) it was...

              When writing, therefore, it is obviously necessary to be clear as to which
              sense is meant if confusion is to be avoided. This, I think, is clear from
              Soffya's message, too. However, in reading it is also necessary to bear in
              mind that a writer may only have been considering one of the senses...

              Alastair

              Alastair Millar
              -----------------------------------------------------
              Alastair Millar BSc (Hons) - alastair@...
              Translation & Consultancy for the Heritage Industry
              P.O. Box 11, CZ 413 01 Roudnice, Czech Republic
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.