Diskuse:Slovianski

Omlouvám se, ještě jsem si nezvykl na přidávání shrnutí editace. Budu se snažit, abych ho příště napsal. --Ratego 7. 11. 2009, 13:25 (UTC)

Pravopis jména Ondřej Rečnik

Nechápu proč je na oficiálních stránkách projektu uvedeno jméno Ondřej Rečnik s ř ve slově Ondřej, ale na všech Wikipediích je s r. Osobně bych se přiklonil spíše k ř, které mimochodem anonymní editor v jednom případě zapomněl předělat na r. Ratego 18.10.2010, 14:58 (UTC)

Existuje více zdrojů? Pokud ano, zkuste zjistit, jak se jméno píše jinde. Pokud ne, pak asi spoléhejte na ty oficiální stránky. Ale ani ty nemusí být neomylné, proto by to bylo lepší někde ověřit. Palu 18. 10. 2010, 15:06 (UTC)

Odkaz slovianski.eu

Odstranil jsem odkaz na stránku slovianski.eu, neboť je zjevně výtvorem tvůrců jazyka slovio a se slovianskim nemá příliš co do činění. Spory tvůrců slovia s tvůrci slovianski jsou k přečtení například na http://s8.zetaboards.com/Slovianski/topic/8251992/1/. --Ratego 3. 1. 2011, 16:57 (UTC)

Já na té stránce vidím opak, stránka se evidentně slovianskim zabývá a rozebírá jeho gramatiku apod. a to dost podrobně. Palu 3. 1. 2011, 20:04 (UTC)

Sorry for writing in English, but I feel this needs a word of clarification. Slovianski.eu is not in any way related to the Slovianski project. It was created by Mark Hucko (the person who created Slovio), who from the very beginning has been agitating against Slovianski and a few months ago started buying internet domains under the names of several Interslavic projects, filling them with false information and Slovio propaganda. All this apparently with two purposes in mind: discrediting Slovianski and its creators, as well as channelling people with a potential interest in Slovianski to his own project. In any case, although this page obviously was made to look like one of mine, the information given on it is patently false, and the language presented here as "Slovianski" has absolutely nothing in common with the real Slovianski. If anything, it's a parody of it made up by Hucko himself. For the record, the link was added from Hucko's IP address in Bratislava. For your information, Hucko has also been campaigning for the restoration of the Slovio article at wp.en (here). The methods he has been using have resulted in an infinite block there. No matter what, this link has no place in the article - if anything, it should be mentioned that this is a parody. IJzeren Jan 6. 1. 2011, 13:01 (UTC)

It is Your point of view, I need some resources which will this prove, else is this link relevant. In secound way I cant see false sentences which will injure your language on this page. Can you show here some comparasion of both your and slovianski.eu pages to demonstrate your sentence "the language presented here as "Slovianski" has absolutely nothing in common with the real Slovianski" is right? Thanx for your cooperation. Palu 6. 1. 2011, 13:20 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't follow your train of thought. This page was published just a few days ago, and you want sources to prove that it is irrelevant? According to the same logic, I could buy a domain called esperanto dot something, write anything there and pass it off as a reliable source. I guess that can't be what you are after. What's POV about the facts?

Please be clear about one thing: Mark Hučko has been waging a war against Slovianski from the very beginning, and recently he has been extremely active in spreading false information about it. Just have a look at the Slovio forum[1] and you'll see that the vast majority of all threads are actually rants against Slovianski, its creators and even my wife (who has absolutely nothing to do with any of this), some of them of a highly xenophobic and antisemitic nature.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] According to Hučko's world view, he is "the first person in 1000 years who successfully united the Slavic nation" (on YouTube), and there are only two types of Interslavic languages: Slovio and Slovio clones. He has constantly been accusing us of plagiarising Slovio, but never managed to produce a single piece of evidence for that. Instead, he just keeps repeating the same thing all over again. You say you can't see false sentences that will injure my language. Well, I beg to differ:

"'Slovianski' has originated on Slovio-sponsored forums, namely on blognik.com - as a "more naturalistic" version of Slovio. The aim of this and other "naturalistic" versions of Slovio was to make Slovio even more appealing to some native Slavic speakers than the standard version. Slovianski wasn't a separate development, but a direct descendant, a version or dialect of Slovio." The truth is, Slovianski has had its own forum from the very start, and that's where it has been developed[9]. That Slovianski has sometimes been discussed at the Slovio forum as well does not make it Hučko's intellectual property; it has been discussed at several other places, too. Some of the members of the Slovianski team have been making suggestions for improving Slovio, that's true. But one of the reasons for starting the Slovianski project was that Slovio could impossibly serve as a base for an Interslavic language. That's why Slovianski was compiled from scratch; it's based on the natural Slavic languages only, not on Slovio.

"All the Slovianski-variants of Slovio are thus much more difficult to learn, and their grammar is often as complex and as complicated as the Grammar of the traditional Slavic languages." This is Hučko's private opinion, and he is of course entitled to it. But passing it off as the opinion of the Slovianski team is another example of falsification.

"So-called Slovianski-N is perhaps the most complicated version of the Slovio-dialects. It has grammar as complex as the most complicated Slavic grammar. Just like the other Slovianski variants also this Slovio-dialect (Slovianski-N) was born on the Slovio forums. Even though he had contributed nothing to the creation or invention of Slovianski-N, the talented Jewish translator, Jan van Steenbergen, apparently "appropriated" this project, this Slovio-dialect, around 2008, as if it had been his own invention." This is a patent lie. I have been a member of the Slovianski Forum since May 4, 2006[10] and it was me who initiated Slovianski-N [11] in May 2006. Later, it was this version, Slovianski-N, that became known as "Slovianski"[12]. For the record, I have never said anywhere that I "own" Slovianski, nor that I am its only author.

"The talented Jewish translator Jan van Steenbergen, lives partly in Zaandam, Holland (Zuiddijk 165) and partly in the mid-Polish town of Opoczno (ul. Waryńskiego 6), where (reportedly) he had been given a home by the Polish government as a restitution to the inheritors and relatives of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Before WWII, until the Nazis have decimated its Jewish population, the town of Opoczno was about 38% Jewish. The imaginative and energetic Jewish translator and conlanger, Mr. Jan van Steenbergen, translates between Dutch, English and Polish. His greatest contribution to the linguistics lies in the successful mass-production of totally fictitious, incomprehensible and irrelevant languages." Apart from the fact that all this is the most idiotic kind of nonsense, this is also a point where Hučko's antisemitism creeps in (Hučko always uses the epitheton "Jewish" in a negative context[13]). Besides, it is completely unclear to me why he deems it necessary to publish my private address without my permission. IJzeren Jan 6. 1. 2011, 23:01 (UTC)

OK. But, do you have some other references then forums? I need reliable sources (forum is not), not your opinions, point of view or grudge fights. Can you show the putative mendacity for example on official pages (http://steen.free.fr/slovianski/)? Show it ideally on the comparasion with text on slovianski.eu - show at least one injure of this page, one disagreement with official page. I want not hurt your project, i only want to solve NPOV. Thank you very much. Palu 7. 1. 2011, 00:06 (UTC)

And off topic - im very surprised, how good is for me slovianski understandable, text on your user page is for me perfectly comprehensible. Congratulations :-) Palu 7. 1. 2011, 00:13 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Well, it's quite a lot you are asking. Obviously, you won't find any other source than internet fora regarding this particular page, as it was created only a few days ago. On the Slovianski website, there are a few places where Slovio is mentioned:

"With Slovianski, we have chosen for a radically naturalistic approach. We have made this choice for several reasons. First of all, a lot people have over the years expressed the need for an inter-Slavic language that is both easy to use and easy to understand. Many of them have already been using Slovianski-like impromptu languages before Slovianski ever existed, for example in multi-Slavic environments and on the Internet. These improvised inter-Slavic pidgins have existed for centuries and constitute the very base of Slovianski. The difference is that our team of linguists has both the knowledge and the experience to tell how one side can make himself optimally understandable to the other, providing these pidgins with a well-researched structure. [...] Given the character of the Slavic language family, it is possible to create a naturalistic language, 90-95% of which will be readily understandable for virtually every Slavic speaker. [...] At last, there is Slovio to take into account. To put it bluntly: the place on the schematic end of the scale has already been taken. For all its mistakes, Slovio is a well-known and well-developed language with a huge number of words, effective marketing, and a loyal group of adherents. There is no point in trying to outcompete it in its own field; spin-off languages, based on the mistakes of others, rarely add anything of value. However, on the naturalistic end of the scale there is nothing but a few small one-man projects and some forgotten older projects. Since Slovio is essentially a Slavic Esperanto, a naturalistic Slovianski could coexist peacefully with it as a „Slavic Interlingua”, simultaneously serving as an attractive alternative for those who think Slovio is too synthetic, its vocabulary too Russian or its grammar too un-Slavic."[14]

That Slovio is a schematic language is also written by Tilman Berger.[15] Needless to add that a schematic and a naturalistic language can impossibly be the same language, or even versions of the same language. Furthermore, here's a bit project history. Initially, Slovianski was developed in three versions: a pidgin version, a naturalistic version and a schematic version (the latter was quickly abandoned. All three versions were developed from scratch: there's not a word about Slovio here. Also, you may have a look at the design criteria, where it's stated explicitly that Slovianski is based on the living natural Slavic languages (and therefore not on Slovio). At last, there are a few sentences about Slovio in the FAQ:

"Before Slovianski existed, there were dozens of other constructed Slavic languages. The older ones were forgotten and obsolete, while the newer ones were poorly developed one-man projects – with one notorious exception, Slovio. Slovio was a fairly well-known project with a huge dictionary. Some have asked: why create another language, if there is already one around? Indeed, Slovio and Slovianski are both international auxiliary languages and based on Slavic, but that is where the similarity ends. For the rest, both languages have a different word stock, a very different grammar and completely different goals. [...]"

All this should make at least one thing clear: that Slovianski is not a "version", "clone" or "copy" of Slovio, as Hučko states when he writes:

"The aim of this and other 'naturalistic' versions of Slovio was to make Slovio even more appealing to some native Slavic speakers than the standard version. Slovianski wasn't a separate development, but a direct descendant, a version or dialect of Slovio."

Also note that this claim isn't motivated anywhere. The whole story seems to be entirely based on the fact that Slovianski has been discussed at the Slovio forum, and that one of the initiators of Slovianski, Gabriel Svoboda, experimented with a schematic version called GS-Slovianski, represented here by Hučko. Just compare this GS-Slovianski to both Slovianski and Slovio, and you will see that it has very little in common with either of them. Let me add that Gabriela Svoboda also wrote:

"This language has been created by me, that's why it has got the initials GS in its name (it differs from official Slovianski). Yes, many features are a product of our cooperation with Ondrej Recznik but it isn't the case of personal pronouns, they are purely my invention."[16]

As far as my own share in Slovianski is involved, let me repeat the following Hučko quote:

"Just like the other Slovianski variants also this Slovio-dialect (Slovianski-N) was born on the Slovio forums. Even though he had contributed nothing to the creation or invention of Slovianski-N, the talented Jewish translator, Jan van Steenbergen, apparently "appropriated" this project, this Slovio-dialect, around 2008, as if it had been his own invention."

Even if you discount all evidence found on Internet fora, you still can't neglect this page at Langmaker.com, where I published my first draft of Slovianski-N in 2006 (see also [17] and [18]) Mind, the Wayback Machine never lies!

This should be enough to demonstrate the hostile character of slovianski.eu. For the record, the page also mentions a third project (called ISP there), which is indeed a modification of Slovio and has nothing to do with the Slovianski project.

At last, I'd like to state that I don't like it if Wikipedia links to pages on which my privacy is being violated.

Regards, IJzeren Jan 7. 1. 2011, 16:09 (UTC)

This all is nearly original research, but I deleted this link primary about your privacy violation. I dont know if it is in agreement with rules, i hope yes. Or else anybody can impugn this result in future and arouse new long discusion :-) Regards. Palu 7. 1. 2011, 18:22 (UTC)

Thank you! Don't worry about the rules: I've been a Wikipedian since 2003 and I know the rules. I can assure you that there won't be a problem, unless the rules here at wp.cs are significantly different from those elsewhere. Of course, all this is original research. But then, it is not my or anybody else's task to prove that this site is false and/or non-notable. That burden lies on the shoulders of the person who added the link. Let's hope no further discussion will be needed. Cheers, IJzeren Jan 7. 1. 2011, 18:32 (UTC)