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)
Doesn't look very "Old English".--Wiglaf 20:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)