Talk:Ruthenians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is part of Wikipedia:Russian History Harmonization. If you have a comment which might be relevant for other articles on Russian history, consider posting at Wikipedia talk:Russian History Harmonization.
Is there any relation between the names Lemko and Lemberg, the Austrian/German name of Lvov? In any case, what is the etymology of the name Lemko? Mikkalai 03:48, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Lemkos and L'viv/Lemburg
The "Lemkos" take their name from their regional conversational style, which is to frequently use the word, "lem", which means, "well", "like," "you know," and most commonly "but."
On the other hand, "L'viv" takes it name from it's founding in the mid-13th century by Prince Danylo (Daniel) of the Halych-Volynia, the successor state to Rus' proper. Danylo named the city after his son Lev (or Lew or Leo) essentially calling it 'Leo's City'. Hence, the classic version on some maps, "Leopolis." Why the Germanic version include an "M" not clear to me. Lv'iv is not part of Lemkivshchyna or Lemko-land, which lies to the south and west, in today's Poland.
- Thank you. Since it seems you know the subject well, can you tell something about the etymology of Bojko and Hucul? And how about starting articles about all these three peoples? Mikkalai 18:04, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sure, I'll get around to it sometime!
Hucul, Hutsul, or Hutzul? What should be the spelling used on Wikipedia? The books I have (Orest Subtelny's Ukraine: A History and a travel guide) both use the spelling Hutsul, so that's what I've used so far, but I would love to hear your opinions on this. --Iceager 16:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hutzul is Germanized version, Hucul is Polonized, Hutsul is typical transliteration from Cyrillic. The first form is definitely out. Of two remaining I'd prefer as more "historically natural". Also, Google shows mild preference of the hucul form. But dont count my vote: I am no expert. Mikkalai 16:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
The article is not consistent with other acticles on the similar topics. Drbug 10:56, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- That's not neutrality dispute. Can you be more specific? --Jiang 10:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Stressed use of Ruthenians in sense of Rus and Russians is sure Non-NPOV. Drbug 11:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
no comprehende. try using complete sentences. --Jiang 23:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Removed.
- Ruthenians or Ruthenes- group of Slavic tribes living in Eastern Europe between the Black Sea (south) and the White Sea (north). Their name first appears in the 9th century AD. The most important tribes were (according to the Primary Chronicle): the Polans (the area around Kyiv), the Volhynians (Volhynia), the Dregovichs (Drehovichs) (Polesie, Belarus, Ukraine), the Drevlians, the Radimichs, the Krivichs, the Vyatichs, the Severians, the Ulichs, the Tiverians, the Ilmen Slavs.
This suggestion is anachronism. They are not Ruthenes. They are what they are: Slavic tribes, according to the mentioned Primary chronicle. Mikkalai 07:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you. I didn't remove this clause earlier only to avoid accusations in "Russian imperialism"... Dr Bug (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 11:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's actually not a case of anachronism. Ruthenia and Ruthenes were titles created for this place and these people by explorers from Greco-Roman societies to the south. It is likely how Greek or Latin speakers rendered Rus' in their own languages. For this reason, Latin language maps from throughout Europe nearly always called the land Ruthenia (just like Britannia, Germania, Hibernia, et al., even though none of those people called themselves Germans or Hibernians (Britons is a term used only in modern times by English people). As such, it is correct from an historical point of view to call those Slavic tribes Ruthenes collectively.
[edit] Ruthenia
Isn't Ruthenia just a Latin word for Russia? With respect, Ko Soi IX 08:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
