Open main menu

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Trasianka

Trasianka WikipediaEdit

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Trasianka)
submitted verification final decision
  This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Trasianka (Трасянка, tra [invented])
  • Editing community: trasianka editor (P), Jan-ivan, Zlobny, Prostahlopyec
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.
  • Number of speakers: 2-6 million
  • Locations spoken: Belarus, especially its eastern parts: Mahilou, Homiel, Vitebsk and Minsk regions.
  • No link to a Wikipedia article or whatsoever. We'd like to verify this information somehow. Please provide such a link, whether to en: or to be: or ru:, if you'll only enable us to look it up somewhere. Otherwise I can't support this request. Caesarion Velim, non opto 20:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I added some links to wikipedia articles on Trasianka. However, I doubt it really needs a wikipedia. Belarusian and Russian are closely related anyway, and I don't think Trasianka is really distinct enough from either of them. It would be better (IMO) to support the Belarusian wiki, which is still quite small. --Chamdarae 20:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, Belarusian language differs from Russian rather strongly, though they are closely related. It is much more likely that Bellorussians would understand (and be understood by) Ukranians [this two languages are most closely related to each other; much more than to Russian (neither to Polish)], than Russian would understand Belarusian language because of lots of differences mostly in lexics (thogh in syntaxis too). The only reason why Belarusians understand Russian is that evrybody in Belarus just KNOW Russian. Trasianka is strongly distinct from Belarusian in lexics (espessially from non-official "Tarashkievica"-Belarusian, used in Wikipedia, which differs to Russian very much) and strongly distinkt from Russian in phonetics, spelling and, partly, in syntaxis. It may be called "half-way between Belarusian and Russian". Far enough from both of them to be identified as another language, though there should be no problems in understanding Trasianka, Belarusian and Russian in Belarus. But the reason for it is at least bilingualism of all Belarusians (they all know Russian), though Belarusian differs from Russian rather strongly. trasianka editor
  • Oppose - Not really a recognized or established language (i.e. different people use different mix of Russian and Belarusian, no literature, etc). Ornil 00:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It is called "synonims". I'd rather don't call it a problem. trasianka editor 02:21, 3 April 2006
  • Support, if user registers and provides more information about themselves. Belarusian and Russian are similar, yes, but Trasianka itself is quite distinct from both of them, and it will not be accepted at either the Belarusian or the Russian WP. --Node ue 06:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Thank you for support. The most relative language to Belarusian is Ukranian (95-98% of common lexics + grammar), while they have had the similar history. There were some influances of Polish and West-European languages, while some East (tatar/mongol/finno-ugric and others) languages have influanced Russian. Trasianka stays between them. trasianka editor 02:20, 3 April 2006
  • Support, but conditional on establishing a firm community first. I have been in favour of a Stadsfries wikipedia for a long time, Stadsfries being a language with a similar history (also a blend of two similar languages, the vocabulary being largely Dutch and the language principles largely Frisian); so it seems to me that I can not oppose this Transianka. But, as was said before, it has no status or whatsoever, no literary history, no standard variety, so there should be a really firm community to get it off the ground. Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Belarusian language had the similar sitaution in its history about a hundred years ago, when accused to be a russian dialect with some polonisms used by uneducated lumpens. Now the same with Trasianka. So it needs support. trasianka editor 02:14, 3 April 2006
  • I can also add, that it would be very simple for Belorusians to translate articles from Russian to Trasianka, than to non-official "Tarashkievica"-Belorusian, used in be:Wikipedia, because comparetivly Trasianka is not so academic/puristic/archaic (as in be:Wiki). I can also propose translations from Belorusian, Ukranian and Polish without any problems. trasianka editor 18:28, 17 October 2005
  • Hi Trasianka-Editor! I've been trying to find some more information on Trasianka but I still can't really figure out why it is considered a separate language here. Does it have any original words at all or are all words you use in Trasianka either Russian or Belarusian? Is there a dictionary or a grammar book? Is Trasianka used at all for writing non-fictional texts? Can it be considered a written language at all? Is it stabilized in any form? Is there a significant number of native speakers?
  • It's surely an interesting phenomenon but would the enormous effort of building an entire encyclopedia in that idiom really benefit anybody? I mean, would a native speaker of Belarusian not be served better by the Belarusian encyclopedia? So who would actually prefer to read and/or write a Trasianka Wikipedia instead the Belarusian or Russian editionArbeo 18:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The lexics of trasianka is slavic. Trasianka vocabulary is based on russian and belarusian lexics, pronounced (and spelled) in a very specific way. The percentage of the original lexics actually is rather low. But though allmost all the words are of the belarusian or russian origin, they shouldn't be called elements of either Russian or Belarusian because the words are used in the Trasianka kontext. Trasianka was never officially called a language (or even a dialect!), so, unfortunately, there aren't neither any dictionaries (because it is used to suggest, that Trasianka hasn't its own vocabulary), nor grammar books (Trasianka grammar is very close to russian with some belarussian influation. It is the same situation with the Belarusian syntaxis, which was never recognised to be different from Russian...). Trasianka of cause can be considered a written language, because its specific pronounciation can be easily transcripted with the help of cyrillic alphabet (close to modern official Belarusian alphabet/orthography - but not "Tarashkievica" (mostly used in belarusian Wikipedia) or "Łacinka" variants - both controversial and non-official). Trasianka has allways been a spoken, traditional language, therefore in some cases it is rather variable/not-stabilized. The number of native speakers is rather big, because Trasianka is widely used in {villagers<->towners; officials<->non-officials; small-town-inhabitants<->big-town-inhabitants} contacts mostly in Mahilou, Homiel, Minsk and Vitebsk regions of Belarus. The problem is that its users often do not identify themselves as Trasianka-native-speakers, because for many years (untill now) they were used to identify Belarusian as their mother-tongue, although you can hardly ever hear official, literal form of Belarusian: people use either region dialects (among there small communities which may include only one village) or Trasianka (with others) -- they just don't know and can't speak literal, classic variants (pronounciation/a big amount of "high" lexics) of Belarusian (nor Russian). A lot of people in Belarus are native speakers of at least two languages or more, Trasianka including - of cause Russian and Belarusian are officially let me call it "stronger", "more powerfull", in a "higher position". But I suppose that Trasianka has a right to be representated among all the Wiki-languages. trasianka editor 02:44, 22 October 2005
  • This is a very interesting proposal. I don't know if I should support or not, since I think creole languages that aren't literary shouldn't really have a Wikipedia, at least not in this context. A lot of us here in Transylvania use Hungarian words in our day-to-day Romanian vocabulary - we would say "De ce cioleşti?" instead of "De ce trişezi?" for "Why are you cheating?" or "Te invit la un langoş" instead of "Te invit la o plăcintă" for "I'm inviting you to have a pie". This is because of the large Hungarian minority here. Hungarians do it too, in reverse (substituting Romanian words for Hungarian ones). I think, from reading above, that this is the same as what happens in Trasianka. Am I right or wrong - is it just code-switching - the incorporation of Russian words into Belarusian - or an actual separate language brought about by a more complete fusion between the two languages? Ronline 08:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please support the project, it needs your support now. trasianka editor 02:04, 3 April 2006
  • Ronline, using a few Hungarian words does not mean you speak a creole. See en:Creole language. Creole languages usually have simplified grammars. In fact, they aren't a fusion of the vocabulary of two languages but rather they use almost exclusively the single parent language, with some minor vocabulary influences. Now, Trasianka can't really be considered a creole, but rather a mixed language. It is an actual separate language brought about by a more complete fusion of two languages -- a mix of Russian and Belarusan grammar and vocabulary and phonology, with fixed expressions and largely (although not totally) fixed vocabulary characteristic of fully formed languages.
  • Oppose. --Võrok 12:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Rather interesting project. I think it would very interesting first of all for other slavic autors (and users), especially for those, who, for example, knows Russian, but didn't know anything about Trasianka. So it would be a fine possibility for studying such a linguistic phenomenon as Trasianka language. --Porjidlo 17:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm willing to help this project. It is really interesting. I hope it will succeed. --Jan-ivan 18:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Belgian man and Võrok, could you please explain your position not just to ignore the idea but to oppose it, it would better for the discussion to know your arguments I think. trasianka editor 19:47, 18 November 2005
  • I can tell you why at least Belgian Man opposes this wiki: Trasianka is not recognised/listed by Ethnologue, which means in his view that it does not exist. Caesarion 00:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - It's rather interesting project and funny a little bit. Trasianka is used mostly by illiteral people in Belarus, but sometimes it is used to express some special features, f.e. in Belarusian anecdotes (and in life as well =)) Lukashenka and his surroundings are Trasianka-speaking --Zlobny 11:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for support, but I must tell, we are not going to make fun, we are completly serious in our intensions. And I also want to add, that Lukashenka does not actually speak Trasianka, as he is an official, and all his speaches are written in literal Russian (he does not use Belarusian neither), but he just speak with Belarusian accent. It's not the same, you see. And recently his accent becomes each time less and less. He used Trasianka some 8-10 years ago. trasianka editor 02:01, 3 April 2006
  • Support - Здрасьце! :) Я вельмі паддзержваю гэты праект, патаму што мяня ўсягда абіжает, што такое неўважэнне да трасянкі. Очэнь прыятна, што Вікіпедзісты ўзяліся за трасянку, эта очэнь нужнае нам ўсім дзела. Вот лічна я сябе шчытаю трасянкаязычным, так как не магу харашо гаварыць ні на русскам языке, ні на беларускай мове, а на трасянке я заўсёды гавару, і так ужэ не адно пакаленне ў нашай сям'е! Я даже спецыяльна зарэгістрыраваўся і абяцаю дапамагаць, як смагу, хаця ў праграміраванні я не очэнь разбіраюся, но ўсё-такі буду старацца. Даўно пара! Дзякуй! Надзеюсь скора ўсё запусціцца. (P.S. А дапамагаць беларускай і русскай Вікіпедзіі мне неінцерэсна.)--Prostahlopyec 18:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although I am a Russophil I would normally support this request. However, after reading of English and Croatian articles about Trasianka I saw that it is a language (or a dialect) as much as Zlatiborian is. So, if there shouldn't be a Zlatiborian Wikipedia, there shouldn't be a Wikipedia in Trasianka either. --Ђорђе Д. Божовић 20:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but we are not guilty in the problems of Zlatiborian Wikipedia promoting, so you shouldn't take offence at us. And you see, there are definitlly more native speakers of Trasianka. But please, don't make us guilty, it's not our fault, if there's no Zlatiborian Wiki. trasianka editor 01:52, 3 April 2006
  • Oppose Gdarin | talk 12:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)- not codified and non-literal language
  • No problems with codifying and making literal. trasianka editor 01:46, 3 April 2006
  • Oppose dassax | talk 12:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)- it is just a silly thing to make wikipedia in trasianka, 'cause it was stressed by many linguists that it is not a language or dialect in a full sense of these words while it has no system at all (in difference from language or dialect), it may be different in different situations. The person who uses trasianka may say Belarusian word but in five minutes he will use word in Russian and again in five minutes he will use something mixed. I make conclusion that the proposed trasianka will be just pure creation of the people who want to make Wikipedia in this nonsense.
  • Again, synonims make no problems at all. The grammar make system, and there is grammar in Trasianka. Phonetics is also stable. You should not forget, that Trasianka-speakers are at least bilingual, so they also can use Russian, but it does not prove (or mean) there's no Trasianka. trasianka editor 02:51, 3 April 2006
  • Oppose - Obviously not a literary language - if it is a language at all (see comments above) -- Raetius 11:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not literary? Obviously it's spelling is based on cyrillic alphabet and the phonetic principles. trasianka editor 01:45, 3 April 2006
  • Oppose - Not a language, any support means supporting further russification of Belarusian language. Shaul 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • On the contrary. Any support of trasianka would mean the further distinction between Belarusian and Russian languages. Trasianka would 'defend' in some way Belarusian from the regular attempts to call it 'border language' or 'dialect of Russian, influenced by Polish'. Trasianka would enlarge the distance between Belarusian and Russian. trasianka editor 01:42, 3 April 2006
  • Oppose - continuum of diversing Belarusian wiki-society seems never ending. In my opinion firstly there must be founded present Belarusian wiki (which is actually proposal) which will show (in my opinion) bigger participation of average Belarusians or at least give up arguing at be:-wiki. When the situation on, I think we can say so, common Belarusian nation-wiki will be quite stable you may think about sub-projects like dialects or such phenomenons like trasianka. Regards, D_T_G 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, that's all fine, BUT: we are not speaking about Belarusian here, and that's no way sub-project. We are speaking about completly another wiki-project. trasianka editor 02:42, 3 April 2006
  • Sorry, we are not going to have fun. We are going to write an encyclopedia. trasianka editor 01:35, 3 April 2006

support Qrc2006 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Стандарт зусім не распрацаваны, патрэбна шмат работы, каб наладзіць "трасянку". Якім алфавітам карыстацца, пішучы ёю? Ці пашырана на яе зацвярдзеласць "р" і шмат іншых пытанняў напаткаюць таго, хто захоча граматна пісаць трасянкай. -- Postwardream 15:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE -- User:Martynenka 22:31 (EEST)