Talk:Polabian language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Why is "Canada" included in the list of countries it was spoken in? Crusadeonilliteracy 14:33, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

While the Polabian language had several dialects, it is still classified by linguist as a single language. -- Naive cynic 22:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~.

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments.

I've moved the page. Paul August 19:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Name of City of Bremen[edit]

It is not true that the name of the City of Bremen is from slavic Origin. It is a saxon word.

User:Knallcharge —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Lord's Prayer[edit]

Where does the Polabian Lord's Prayer come from? It's obviously written in a Polish-like rather than German-derived orthography, which the paragraph above says all Polabian texts are in - is it some sort of reconstruction? A source would be welcome. Orcoteuthis (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, the lutheran minister Christian Henning von Jessen wrote it down, in the 18.th century (?)

--user Knallcharge-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knallcharge (talkcontribs) 20:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Lord's Prayer[edit]

The highlighted word woarda (name) is not of Germanic origin, but Baltic (Lithuanian vardas, "name"), cognate to Germanic word (< *wurdan) and Latin verbum (word, from *werfom < *werdhon).--186.18.119.122 (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Lord's Prayer version found online (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/JPN-polabian.html) is this:

Nos Fader, tå tåi jis vå něbiśai, sjǫtă vårdă tüji jaimă. Tüjă rik komă. Tüjă vil’ă šinót, kok vå něbiśai, tok kăk no zimě. Nosėj vėsědanesnă st’aibě doj-năm dans. Un vitědoj-năm nos grex, kăk moi vitědojimě nosěm gresnărüm. Un ni brind’oj nos kå farsükońě, tåi lözoj nos vit vėsokăg x́audăg. 186.18.119.122 (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slavic etymologies for Bremen and Brandenburg[edit]

Both etymologies (note that only the supposed older names are given, but no further explanation, for example of the original meanings) are highly dubious and possibly nationalistically motivated. The source given is in Croatian and apparently, fairly obscure; I cannot find anything about it on the standard catalogues using the ISBN number. It seems to be an introduction to Indo-European linguistics as far as I understand the title, not a specialised study (perhaps in a wider-understood language), which should have been given instead.

As a linguist trained in I-E philology with some fairly deep knowledge about Germanic philology and history and also some knowledge about Slavic philology and history, I note the following:

The area of Bremen was never colonised by Slavs in any considerable number and the German Wikipedia gives the origin of the place-name as the Old Saxon bremo "margin, enclosement" possibly referring to the edge of the dune (sourced); Bremen could continue a dative singular breman or plural bremon "at the margin(s)", which makes sense, while Bremin makes no sense in Slavic that I could discern and I cannot find anything about its attestion; the Latinised version is Brema.

As for Brandenburg, German Wikipedia explicitly notes that the form Branibor, or actually Brennabor, is spurious (also sourced), not attested except with a 17th century Czech cleric who tried to reconstruct place names in the areas of former Slavic settlement, while sources that attest to -burg are much older, of course. Therefore, Brennabor is most likely an ahistorical invention with no basis in anything but wishful thinking on the part of a nationalistically motivated Czech before the development of scientific etymological research.

The English Wikipedia articles about Bremen and Brandenburg an der Havel do not discuss the etymologies.

I conclude that the German etymologies (at least for Bremen, while there is no clear etymology for the first part of Brandenburg) look sound and not at all suspicious, while the Slavic etymologies (or actually supposed pre-forms) appear bogus. Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From Britannica[1]: It was founded as Branibor (Brennabor, or Brennaburg) by the West Slavic Havelli tribe and was captured by the German king Henry I the Fowler in 928. A bishopric was first established there in 948. The city was retaken by the Slavs in 983, but it was inherited from the childless Havellian king Pribislav-Henry in 1134 by the Ascanian Albert I the Bear. He rebuilt the town and gave its name to the margravate of Brandenburg in 1157..
Not sure about Bremen, that might be wrong. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Britannica as a source? An authority on toponomastics even? Are you serious?
Well, what are Britannica's sources here? ;-) According to Tschirch (the source that de-WP gives), no name in -bor is actually attested in documents, the only forms found are in -burg. This would hardly be the first time that Britannica is simply wrong, parroting some hardy legend that has long been known to be false and disproved among specialists. Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a perfectly credible source per Wikipedia policy. For once, it clearly dismisses any claims that we're dealing with nationalism-motivated propaganda or something. If there is some newer research that disproves otherwise established and widespread scholarly doctrine, it certainly merits discussion. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Britannica is an encyclopedia itself, a third-hand source. By Wikipedia policy, in normal circumstances, other encyclopedias shouldn't be given as sources; second-hand sources are preferred. I do not want to insinuate that the Britannica editors are biased in favour of Slavic nationalism; they were probably perfectly acting bona fide, but the (ultimate) source itself, the Czech cleric, was biased and did not rely on sound methodology, according to Tschirch. Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true, but given the fact that Britannica is the world's most renowned encyclopedia, and that the disputed statement can also be cited in several other independent sources, the accusations for nationalism are certainly far-fetched. Obsolete scholarship - maybe, but nationalism - hardly. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just read what I've actually written; I've never accused anyone of nationalism, really, quite the opposite – well, except the Czech pastor, that is – because, well, his etymological speculation actually was politically motivated. :) Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you find some other examples of Polabian-originating toponyms preserved to this day that these 2 could be substituted with? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean Polabian in the narrow sense (the Slavic dialect of the Drawehn), or in the wider sense? Either way, there are lots of names to choose from. See de:Wustrow, de:Lüchow (Wendland)#Geschichte and de:Drawehn#Kulturhistorische Aspekte for the narrow sense, and de:Polabische Sprache mentions Stargard, Rostock, Potsdam, Usedom, de:Rostock mentions Warnow (and Warnemünde) − take your pick. Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks :) Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning![edit]

There's something fishy here. Wikisource Otche nash (Polabian) presents a very different Our Father than this article. I suspect someone have scribbled in this article. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, looking up the source (TITUS) it is the other way around: the Wikisource version seems to be bogus. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the Wikisource version. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Polabian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Aryomaniac?[edit]

What's this, for Goodness sake?

"The map already shows the Saxon (Sasové) invasion into the Veletic/Slavic territory of the Volci (Volcae), Chaci (Chatti) and Chruści (Cherusci) called Perkunia (Aryan), Orkynia (Greek) or Hercynia (Latin)." "Treetrunk coffin of the Egtved Girl, apparently a young noble women of the Arya of Spyrgowa (related to the owners of the Golden Hat of Schifferstadt) of the early Eneti/Veleti (around 1400 BCE) at the National Museum of Denmark."

Obviously, some lunatic is trying to edit Wikipedia! 46.252.224.26 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That explains why Rybincian was presented as a real dialect of Ğolabian on the wiki page. DudefromIzmit (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rybincian isn't real[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/rybincian/comments/gfb8nj/what_is_rybincian/

Rybincian is a conlang (constructed language) based on a number of West Slavic languages. DudefromIzmit (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]