Talk:Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia
The contents by 95% do not correspond its title Mikkalai 23:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The problems with Latin and English word-usage began in the 15th and 16th century. The rulers of Muscovy reunited (or conquered) northern parts of former Kievan Rus. Later they accepted title of Ruler of All Rus. However, Lithuania and Poland that controlled southern part, were rejecting it (probably for political reasons). Later, Rus' - in Russian language - evolved to Rossiya under Greek influence (Russia is Rosia in Greek language).
- The order suggests the first, took control is shorter and more neutral
- probably a translation issue, in english accepted implies he it was his to accept or decline
- bad grammer, the political reasons are intuitively obvious: a ruler of a neighboring country wanted to take lands they controlled, there's no need to meniton political reasons here (and not everywhere else)
- "Took control" sounds somewhat like "occupated".
- I hope "evolved" is ok.
- Ok, "political reasons" removed.
- Drbug 19:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we'll need to find some native speaker to resolve all the subtleties of meaning.
- I disagree. The wording must be clear for foreigners as well. However, I see that our collision is rather political than linguistic... Drbug 05:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The wording isn't clear right now, hence I can't tell whever the collision is linguistic or political: are you merely trying to explain a dispute over those provinces or are you implying the rulers of Muscovy had some supernatural moral right in their claims, whilst Poles and Lithuanians stood in their way? Besides encyclopedic articles need to be written in a certin formal style and the whole article could use a good once over from someone speaks english natively.
- Yes, I definitely won't agree this article to deny the fact that Russian rulers had, as you say, "some supernatural moral right" for their claims. Therefore, the collision is political. Linguistically awful wording is just an awkward attempt to solve this political collision. Welcome to the Wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization, facts and reasons are listed there! Drbug 18:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The wording isn't clear right now, hence I can't tell whever the collision is linguistic or political: are you merely trying to explain a dispute over those provinces or are you implying the rulers of Muscovy had some supernatural moral right in their claims, whilst Poles and Lithuanians stood in their way? Besides encyclopedic articles need to be written in a certin formal style and the whole article could use a good once over from someone speaks english natively.
- I disagree. The wording must be clear for foreigners as well. However, I see that our collision is rather political than linguistic... Drbug 05:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'm afraid we'll need to find some native speaker to resolve all the subtleties of meaning.
In Old England, the term, "Ruce," appeared.
User:Genyo inserted the bold text in the context below:
By the 10th century, the term Ruthenia was used, among other spellings, in Latin Papal documents in the sense of Rus' the people or medieval state of Rus (Kievan Rus), and later became a dominant name for Rus in Latin. Some modern scholars use the Ruthenia spelling in English for this period. In Old England, the term, "Ruce," appeared.
To me, the whole sentence, "In Old England, the term, "Ruce," appeared." sounds weird. It doesn't seem to be an academic contribution. I haven't find neither relevant information for "Old England", nor for "Ruce".
Can anyoune write anything on this issue? Thanks!
Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Here [1]--Wiglaf 21:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, now I added info into the article. Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 23:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rus = Red
Has anybody heard that the following: the word "Rus" means "red-head" or how the original inhabitants perceived and caricatured the Scandinavian.
At any rate, if we are to talk about etymology it is perhaps advisable to mention the origin and meaning of a word. In this context we would have the equivalent of "Frank" (french) = "Freeman" etc...
- Yes, you can find the information that it could mean "read-head" on Rus' (people), but so far no one has added anything on folk etymology. I agree with you.--Wiglaf 08:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Roxolani
How about a conection to the Sarmatian tribe of Roxolani, whose name probably means the Bright Alani.???
Great Russia and Little Russia
These names were not meant to contain any judgement, as they came to be used later by Russian, i.e. 'Great Russian' nationalists. In Byzantine terminology, great regularly referred to countries further away from the Byzantine borders, whereas little referred to nearer countries and especially those inside the imperial frontiers; in a similar sense, Great Serbia and Great Bulgaria were used when these countries were independent from Constantinople, whereas the same regions were called Little Serbia and Little Bulgaria when they had to pay tribute to the emperor. --Daniel Buncic 2005-01-12 10:04 (CET)
- I believe the comment should be inserted in the article on Little Russia. I don't think the term "contained any judgement" as used by "Great Russian nationalists". It was the only term in use until 1830s, when several Little Russian writers deemed it denigrating and switched to the new term "Ukraine". So, the term was found to "contain a jusgement" by Ukrainian nationalists and not by the Russian authorities. Ghirlandajo 10:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Additionally, I don't think there had been a general term for the whole territory of Ukraine, from Kharkov to Uzhhorod, until the 20th century. Little Russia was applied to the Left Bank only (if I'm not mistaken). Ghirlandajo 10:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Even accepting that Tsar Aleksei added "Tsar of Little Russia" to his titles out of deference to Byzantine scholarship, it's hard to argue that it wasn't politically expedient to invoke "one indivisible Russia". I'm sure that Great Russian nationalists and imperial authorities referred to Cossacks like Mazepa as Little Russians with utmost respect.
- Of course there wasn't a general term for Ukraine from Kharkiv to Uzhhorod, because it was never a unified territory during this time. Tsars, kings and hetmans named their dominions. Nations weren't considered self-determining the way they might be today, and the average peasant probably referred to himself as "Orthodox", or perhaps "Rusyn". Territory inhabited by Ukrainians was constantly split up between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporozhian Host, the Crimean Khanate, Muscovy, and Transylvania/Austria, and of course borders changed constantly during thirty years of war after the Treaty of Pereyaslav. The initially-autonomous Host was further split into the Hetmanate, Zaporozhia, and Sloboda Ukraine, later absorbed into the Russian Empire and New Russia.
- But "Little Russian" obviously referred to the Ukrainian nation, regardless of its political division. It was applied to all Ukrainian territory within the Russian Empire, north of "New Russia" (the "wild" steppes that were traditionally Ottoman territory).
- According to Subtelny's Ukraine: A History (p. 141, 159), Cossack territory, which at times included parts of right-bank Ukraine but not Galicia or Volhynia, was formally called the Zaporozhian Host (Zaporoz'ke Vijs'ko?), but was referred to by Russians as Malorossiia. At the time, Ukrainian lands were referred to by Poles as Ukraine.
- By Magocsi's Historical Atlas of Ukraine (map 17), "At certain times, there were three such [governor-generalships], two of which carried the title governor-general of Little Russia. By the 1830s, there was a Little Russian governor-general for the Right Bank (Kiev/Podolia/Volhynia, 1831-1917), a Little Russian governor-general for the Left Bank (Kharkiv/Poltava/Chernihiv, 1835-1860s), and a governor-general for New Russia (Kherson/Katerynoslav/Taurida, 1797-1874)." —Michael Z. 2005-06-2 01:29 Z
A sea of inaccuracies
Don't have to read much: hit "the inhabitants called it "Русская Земля"", and here's the first one. Spelling, pronounciation differed from century to century, principality to principality. Absolutely unclear why the modern Russian version is chosen. If anything, it is "Руская земля" or "Руськая земля", if we stick with Russian, and why should we. Gaidash 6 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)
merge
why should Rus' (people) be merged here? This is an article about etymology, and that is an article about a historical people. Much of the content of Rus' (people) should be moved here, so that the arcicle can treat the people proper instead of etymological details, but there should remain an article "Rus' (people)" dedicated to the people (as described by Ibn Fadlan etc.) proper. dab (ᛏ) 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Anti-Normanist POV
I think this article contained Anti-Normanist POVs such as defining the Varangians as people of dubious extraction, and by giving wrong dates for the appearance of the name Rhos. There is nothing glorious in promoting Soviet style pseudo-history.--Wiglaf 08:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)