|
|||||||
History of the Ukrainian Language
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
13th October 2002, 03:59
|
|||
|
|||
History of the Ukrainian Language
This is my translation of sections from the works of Y. Krasnyakov and A. Karevin. It's very long, well documented, and is for serious patriots only.
In the wake of the 1848 rebellion of ethnic groups in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, the head of Austrian administration in Galicia, duke F. C. Stadion von Varthausen summoned representatives of the local Russian movement to tell them to stop identifying themselves the same nation as Great Russians and declare themselves a separate nation, so as to escape possible joint Austrian-Polish repressions. The Galicians had no choice and were promised support from the duke and from Vienna. A new formula came into use at that time: “We are not Russians, we are Ruthenians (Rusyni),” to identify a new Ruthenian ethnicity. The compliant part of the Galician community also took upon itself an obligation to develop a new literary language that would be different from Russian, which was spoken in Galicia at the time. During the reign of Nicholas I, when Russian troops marched through Galicia in 1849 to quell the rebellion in Austria, as was requested by Vienna, they were welcomed by the local Rusyni, and it turned out that both peoples could understand each other very well and spoke a very similar language. Russian campaign participant P. Alabin noted that there were some Polish words in the Rusyns’ Russian language. The people said they were proud to be brothers of the Russians and even Uniate priests were very friendly. (Àëàáèí Ï.×åòûðå âîéíû. Ïîõîäíûå çàïèñêè â 1849, 1853, 1854-1856, 1877-1878 ãîäàõ. Ñàìàðà 1888. ×àñòü 1. – ñ.15, 25-26) Local Carpathian scholar, P. Sova, noted that in Carpathian Rus lands the surroundings were such that many soldiers thought they were still in Russia and were anxious to know when the enemy’s Magyar land will finally begin. (Öèò.ïî: Ìàêàðà Ì., ×àâàðãà ². Ðîñ³ÿíè â Êàðïàòàõ // Íàóêîâèé â³ñíèê Óæãîðîäñüêîãî óí³âåðñèòåòó. Ñåð³ÿ ²ñòîð³ÿ. Âèïóñê 2. 1998. – ñ.86.) A Russian renaissance has begun and continued after the Tsar’s army left. Galician press noted that the Schmidt common Russian-language dictionary was used in Lvov as well as in St. Petersburg for reference to the Russian literary language. (Ãíàòþê Â. Íàö³îíàëüíå â³äðîäæåííÿ àâñòðî-óãîðñüêèõ óêðà¿íö³â (1772-1880 ðîêè) ³äåíü. 1916. - ñ.44.) Austria tolerated the local linguistic peculiarities until 1854, when Russia suffered defeat in the Crimean War. Even hardcore Russophobes were baffled by Emperor France Joseph’s hostility toward Russia just a few years after Russia sent him help in quelling internal rebellions. From that time Vienna began to close down Russian-language newspapers and put pressure on Galician-Russian public figures. France Joseph’s governor in Galicia, A. Golukhovsky, said “the Ruthenians unfortunately did not do anything to make their language different from Great Russian, therefore, the government must take the initiative into its own hands in this regard.” (Ôèëåâè÷ È.È. Âîïðîñ î äâóõ ðóññêèõ íàðîäíîñòÿõ è «Êèåâñêàÿ ñòàðèíà». // Íàó÷íî-ëèòåðàòóðíûé ñáîðíèê. Ïîâðåìåííîå èçäàíèå «Ãàëèöêî-ðóññêîé ìàòèöû». 1902. Ò.2. Êí.4. – ñ.156.) Galicians tried to justify themselves because it was obvious they could not change the facts. At a session of the Galician Seim parliament, famous writer, public figure and priest Ioann Naumovich said: “It is not our fault that our language is similar to the one spoken in Moscow. The similarity of our language with that of Moscow’s is obvious, because both are based on the same foundation and rules.” Naumovich also noted the great contribution of Little Russians to the Russian literary language and by accepting this language, “we take back what belongs to us. The similarity of our language with the language of the whole Rus cannot be destroyed by anyone in the world – not laws, not seims, not ministers.” (Ãíàòþê Â. Âêàçàíà ïðàöÿ. – ñ.45.) Vienna didn’t care to listen to Russian-speakers and put its effort into creating the Ruthenian movement, called “Young Rus” and akin to the Ukrainian movement. They were in opposition to the old Russian movement that professed unity between Great Russians, Little Russians and Belorussians. The “Young” movement favored unity only with Little Russians in the Ukraine, and to achieve this they declared the development of a separate Little Russian (Ukrainian) literature and language. The old Russians were subjected to persecution, while the new “Young” people were favored in all respects and were well financed. They also pitted local Rusyns against each other, calling them derogatory names, like katsap, moskal and traitor, as state propaganda instructed them. “Set Rusyn against Rusyn, so they would destroy each other,” as duke Golukhovsky put it. (Ñâèñòóí Ô. Ïðèêàðïàòñêàÿ Ðóñü ïîä âëàäåíèåì Àâñòðèè. ×àñòü 2. Ëüâîâ, 1896. – ñ.40) The “Young” failed to achieve any success, so Vienna turned to the Polish movement. After some deliberation, the Poles embraced the idea of molding a new nation out of Galician Russians. Ukrainian-born leader of the Polish movement Henric Yablonsky came to Galicia from Paris specifically for that purpose. He said that it is necessary to “cultivate in [the Rusyns] a sense of national distinctness from the Great Russians for unified actions against Russia.” (Ù¸ãîëåâ Ñ.Í. Óêðàèíñêîå äâèæåíèå êàê ñîâðåìåííûé ýòàï þæíîðóññêîãî ñåïàðàòèçìà. Ê.1912. – ñ.83.) In the 20th century, Pilsudsky’s colleague V. Bonchkovsky said that it does not matter to Poles whether there exists a separate Ukrainian nation or it is just an ethnographic variety of the Russian nation: “If a Ukrainian nation did not exist, but only an ethnographical mass, it would be useful to help it achieve a national consciousness. Why and what for? So that we wouldn’t have to deal with 90 million Great Russians plus 40 million Little Russians, not divided among themselves but united ethnically.” (Öèò. ïî: Ìàêàð÷óê Ñ.À. Ýíòîñîöèàëüíîå ðàçâèòèå è íàöèîíàëüíûå îòíîøåíèÿ íà çàïàäíîóêðàèíñêèõ çåìëÿõ â ïåðèîä èìïåðèàëèçìà. Ëüâîâ. 1983. – ñ.109.) The Poles proceeded to create a Ukrainian language. “All Polish officials, professors, teachers, even priests began to study predominantly philology, not Masurian or Polish, but exclusively ours: Russian, so that with the assistance of Russian traitors they could create a new Russian-Polish language,” A. I. Dobryansky, a famous Carpathian Russian writer remembered. (Äîáðÿíñêèé À.È. Î ñîâðåìåííîì ðåëèãèîçíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêîì ïîëîæåíèè Àâñòðî- Óãîðñêîé Ðóñè. Ì. 1885.– ñ.11-12) Converting the language into Latin orthography failed, as did attempts to mix it with Polish. Next step was to reform the grammar. Several letters “û,” “ý” and “ú – hard sign” were eliminated from the local alphabet, and new letters “º” and “ ¿ ” were introduced. To make the locals accept these changes an official decree forced the new rules to be taught in schools. It was advisable for all the emperor’s subjects to follow the new language reforms because it was “better and safer not to use the orthography that was used in Russia.” (Ôëîðèíñêèé Ò. Ìàëîðóññêèé ÿçûê è «óêðà³íî-ðóñüêèé» ëèòåðàòóðíûé ñåïàðàòèçì. ÑÏá.1900. – ñ. 113.) Vocabulary was next. Everything that even remotely reminded of anything Russian was deleted from literature and from dictionaries. The vacuum was filled with Polish, German and other equivalents and even newly invented words (neologisms). “The greater part of words, turns and forms of speech from the Austrian-Ruthenian period was considered ‘Muscovite’ and was substituted with new words, as if they were less harmful,” as one former Ukrainophile explained. The word “napravleniye” is a Muscovite word and should no longer be used, they told the “Young” followers, instead they use “napriam.” “Sovremenniy” is also a Muscovite word and should be replaced by “suchasniy,” “isklyuchitel’no” is replaced by “vyklyuchno,” “prosvetitel’niy” is replaced by “prosvitnii,” “obshchestvo” is replaced by “tovaristvo” or “suspil’stvo.” (Íàïðàâëåíèå - íàïðÿì, ñîâðåìåííûé - ñó÷àñíûé, èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî - âûêëþ÷íî, ïðîñâåòèòåëüíûé - ïðîñâ³òíèé, îáùåñòâî - òîâàðèñòâî, ñóñï³ëüñòâî) (Ãàëèöêàÿ Ðóñü â åâðîïåéñêîé ïîëèòèêå. Ëüâîâ. 1886. – ñ.116-117.) Polish public figure Yan Dobzhansky overlooked the “cleansing” of the language and the making of new schoolbooks. He never got tired of finding ever new “muscovitisms,” as he called it, in those books. (Òàì æå. – ñ.117.) The national conference of teachers in 1896 in Przhemysl and Gliniany noted that after the massive substitution of words and “reforming of orthography” not only the students but also the teachers could not understand the new schoolbooks and urged that it was “necessary to publish an explanatory dictionary for teachers.” (Ñâèñòóí Ô. Óêàç.ñî÷. Ò.2. – ñ.441.) Polish reformers of the Galician-Russian language were unfazed, and teachers who protested their reforms were kicked out of schools. Officials who pointed out the absurdity of the “changes” lost their jobs. Writers and journalists who preferred to write in the pre-reform orthography and vocabulary were branded as “moskals” and subjected to persecution. “Our language was being sifted through a Polish sieve,” Naumovich noted. “Healthy seeds were discarded as ‘moskovshchina,’ but seedlings were left to us at their mercy.” (Òàì æå. – ñ.278-279.) In this regard, it is most educational when comparing early editions of the works of Ukrainian writer Ivan Franko with later editions. Many words were taken out of the 1870-1880 editions of the writer’s works, s. a.: vzgliad, vozdukh, voisko, vchera, zhaloba, mnogo, nevol’nik, no, obrazovaniye, ozhidala, ostorozhno, perevodit’, pisatel’, seichas, sleza, sluchai, starushka, ugnetyonniy, uzel, khot’, chitateli, chuvstvo and many others («âçãëÿä», «âîçäóõ», «âîéñêî», «â÷åðà», «æàëîáà», «ìíîãî», «íåâîëüíèê», «íî», «îáðàçîâàíèå», «îæèäàëà», «îñòîðîæíî», «ïåðåâîäèòü», «ïèñàòåëü», «ñåé÷àñ», «ñëåçà», «ñëó÷àé», «ñòàðóøêà», «óãíåòåííûé», «óçåë», «õîòü», «÷èòàòåëè», «÷óâñòâî»), and in later editions, were replaced with poglyad, povitrya, viis’ko, vchora, skarga, bagato, nevil’nik, ale, osvita, chekala, oberezhno, perekladati, pis’mennik, zaraz, sl’oza, vipadok, babusya, prignoblenii, vuzol, khoch, chitachi, pochuttya, etc («ïîãëÿä», «ïîâ³òðÿ», «â³éñüêî», «â÷îðà», «ñêàðãà», «áàãàòî», «íåâ³ëüíèê», «àëå», «îñâ³òà», «÷åêàëà», «îáåðåæíî», «ïåðåêëàäàòè», «ïèñüìåííèê», «çàðàç», «ñëüîçà», «âèïàäîê», «áàáóñÿ», «ïðèãíîáëåíèé», «âóçîë», «õî÷», «÷èòà÷³», «ïî÷óòòÿ»). (Êîðí³ºíêî Í.Ï. Áîðîòüáà ².Ôðàíêà çà ÷èñòîòó óêðà¿íñüêî¿ ë³òåðàòóðíî¿ ìîâè // Ìîâîçíàâñòâî. 1955. Ò.13. – ñ.91-93, 100. Ï.Ê. ßçèêîâ³ òà ñòèë³ñòè÷í³ ïîïðàâêè Ôðàíêà â òåêñò³ ë³òåðàòóðíî-êðèòè÷íî¿ ñòó䳿 «Òåìíå öàðñòâî» // ˳òåðàòóðíèé àðõ³â. 1931. Êí.1. – ñ.119-129.) Nationalists wrongly claim that Franko changed the language to allow better understanding by all Ukrainians, however, it was evident that the words in earlier editions were clearly understood by both Ukrainians and Galicians. It is also known that the young Franko was not yet a nationalist and wrote in the language he heard from the people around him and considered himself a part of the pan-Russian culture. When he later ventured into politics he gave his support to the language reform and proceeded to make corrections of “outdated” words in his works. In Franko’s 43 works published in two or more editions during his life, language experts found more than 10,000 changes! (Êîðí³ºíêî Í.Ï. Âêàçàíà ïðàöÿ. – ñ.89.) Some of the changing was done by nationalist editors, who were eager to take out any perceived “moskalisms.” Even after Franko’s death further corrections were administered to his language and style to bring his works up to “standard” with the new nationalist language. (Ï.Ê. «ßçèêîâ³ òà ñòèë³ñòè÷í³» ïîïðàâêè Ôðàíêà. – ñ.129.) The followers of France Joseph’s linguistic policies also mangled up works by other local writers and even writers from the Russian Ukraine who wrote in Little Russian dialect. Works by M.M. Kotsyubinsky, I.S. Nechuy-Levitsky, P.A. Kulish, V.K. Vinnichenko and others published in Galicia (sometimes without the author’s knowledge) also underwent revisions. Gradually, the new language was being exported across the border into Russian Kiev, Chernigov, Kharkov, etc. to introduce Ukrainian nationalists in those regions with Galician language reforms. Ukrainian nationalist professor M. Grushevsky was a big participant in this process. In 1906, an Austrian-financed language crusade came to Little Russia, and Ukrainian-language newspapers and publishing houses were founded in Kiev, Kharkov, Poltava and other cities. Hundreds of language missionaries inundated Ukrainian cities and villages with language propaganda. Unlike the people of Austrian-Polish Galicia, Russian Ukrainians would not accept the new “ridna mova” nonsense. They also could not understand the papers and books written in the new language. Explanations of new words were useless, as were the constant reminders in the press that instructed to read the letter “i” (è) as “y” (û), the letter “e” (º), as “ye” (éå) and “i” (¿) as “yii” (é³). Even local Ukrainian nationalists said they could not understand that language and constantly requested Grushevsky to include dictionaries when he sends them books and papers. Famous theatrical critic and authentic Ukrainian nationalist V.D. Gorlenko complained in his letter to Ukrainian writer Ganna Barvinok, “What is today presented as the Little Russian language [in the new papers], is unlike anything. Of course, these people cannot be blamed for the lack of words for new and abstract concepts, but they should be blamed for undertaking the creation of a language being completely untalented. I subscribe to the ‘Ridnii krai,’ but I can hardly read it.” (Äîðîøêåâè÷ Î. Åñòåò ³ ïîì³ùèê // Æèòòÿ é ðåâîëþö³ÿ. 1925. ¹11. – ñ.66.) Another steadfast Ukrainian nationalist, N.F. Sumtsov, voiced similar objections. In a note prepared by a special commission at the Kharkov University (which jointly with the Academy of Sciences commission dealt with issues of the “Little Russian language”) under Sumtsov’s supervision, acknowledged that “the Little Russian language in a linguistic sense is a dialect of the Russian language” and that previously the language of Ukrainian literature (prose of Kvitka, poetry of Shevchenko) stood “close to Russian.” Later on, according to Sumtsov and his colleagues, due to prohibitions and persecutions (Ems Ukase) the center of Ukrainian literary life moved to Austria-Hungary. As a result, “Ukrainian literature banished to Galicia inescapably adopted those elements from the distant Galician- and Carpathian-Russian dialects and underwent such German and Polish influences, which included many new words, new concepts, new literary turns and methods, foreign to Russian literary speech.” And today “native Ukrainians will remember with sadness the graceful simplicity and clarity of the language of Kvitka and Shevchenko, and for a long time the memory will live about the terrible destinies of bygone 40 years.” (Çàïèñêà ïî âîïðîñó î öåíçóðå êíèã íà ìàëîðîññèéñêîì ÿçûêå. Õ. 1905. – ñ.2,8.) Closer to the truth were the words of another Ukrainian nationalist whose letter appeared in a Lvov magazine Literaturno-Naukovii Visnik, the main publication of the Ukrainian movement at the time. He wrote: “You, Rusiny, think in Polish and translate your thoughts literally into Rusin, and at that you do not translate all the words and leave many untranslated in the Polish original, likewise, we think in Russian and translate into Ukrainian literally … This way a Galician and Ukrainian bilingualism develops: You understand little of our language, and we even less of yours.” (˳òåðàòóðíî-íàóêîâèé â³ñíèê. 1901. ¹3. – ñ.227-228.) Apolitical Ukrainian writer Ivan S. Nechuy-Levitsky, himself partly to blame for inventing new words, nevertheless was resentful that the language “crusaders” introduced a great deal of Polish and invented words into the language, which replaced popular existing words. To replace existing words Grushevsky and colleagues propagated new ones: Instead of “derzhat’” – “trimati,” instead of “zhdat’” – “chekati,” instead of “poizd” – “potyag,” instead of “predlozhili” – “proponuvali,” instead of “yarko” – “yaskravo,” instead of “krugom” – “navkolo,” and so on. The word “uchebnik” used by Kievan scholars in the Middle Ages was changed by Austrian-Polish sycophants into “pidruchnik,” “uchenik” into “uchen’,” “na lugu” into “na rozi” (as in “horns”) (Íå÷óé-Ëåâèöüêèé ².Ñ. Êðèâå äçåðêàëî óêðà³íñüêî³ ìîâè. Ê. 1912. – ñ.26.), “raznitsa” into “riznitsya,” “pridanoye” into “posag,” “voina” into “viina,” “odezhda” into “odyag,” etc. (Ñì. Íå÷óé-Ëåâèöüêèé ².Ñ. Ñüîãî÷àñíà ÷àñîïèñíà ìîâà íà Óêðà³í³. //Óêðà¿íà.107. ¹1-3 Íå÷óé-Ëåâèöüêèé ².Ñ. Êðèâå äçåðêàëî óêðà³íñüêî³ ìîâè. Ê. 1912.) Nechui-Levitsky explained that the basis for all the changes was the goal to make the new literary language as distant from Russian as possible: “The result was indeed quite distant from Russian, but also just as distant from Ukrainian.” (Íå÷óé-Ëåâèöüêèé ².Ñ. Ñüîãî÷àñíà ÷àñîïèñíà ìîâà íà Óêðà³í³ // Óêðà¿íà. 1907. ¹2. – ñ.197.) Nechui-Levitsky was also opposed to the letter “s” as preposition being replaced by “z,” according to Polish rules: “z toboyu” instead of “s toboyu,” “rozhodit’sya” instead of “roshodit’sya,” etc. The same relates to the prefix “od” (in essence the same as Russian “ot”), even though Nechui-Levitsky preferred to use “od,” just to be different. The same with the ending “t’,” which was replaced by prefix/preposition “vid” and ending “ti,” as in “vidkriti, vidgonyati and khoditi” instead of the popular “odkryt’, odgonyat’ and khodit’.” Nechui-Levitsky attributed to Polish influences the introduction of new cases “dlya narodu, vid sinodu, bez zakonu, z potoku and takogo faktu,” when the popular way in the Ukraine was to say: “dlya naroda, od sinoda, bez zakona, s potoka, takogo fakta.” He was especially indignant about the use of the apostrophe and the letter “i” with two dots (“ ¿ ”): “Peasants only stare with surprise and keep asking me: why are there all these ‘tails’ hanging over the words.” (Òàì æå. – 1907. ¹1. – ñ.25.) The writer insisted that the Ukrainian literary language should have been created on the basis of popular Dnepr dialects, and not on Galician speak, “transitional to Polish with a great deal of Polish words,” (Íå÷óé-Ëåâèöüêèé ².Ñ. Êðèâå äçåðêàëî óêðà³íñüêî³ ìîâè. Ê. 1912. – ñ.7.) which also includes a “myriad of distinctly Polish words: ‘peredplata, pomeshkannya, octatochno, rukh, rakhunok, rakhuvat’, spivchuttya, spivrobitnik,’” etc. (Òàì æå. – ñ.44.) Nechui-Levitsky used to say that Polish, Jewish and German linguistic influences are too strong in Galicia and therefore, “it is impossible to learn Ukrainian in Lvov, but one could only lose his pure Ukrainian entirely.” (Òàì æå. – ñ.16.) Even before Nechui-Levitsky, writers N.I. Kostomarov, P.A. Kulsh and M.M. Kotsyubinsky also warned that the new language is incomprehensible to Ukrainians. Kotsyubinsky eventually caved in to the new linguistic reforms and proceeded to make corrections in his own works, changing “temnota” to “temryava,” “metelitsa” to “khurtovina,” “soglasno” to “u zgodi,” etc. (Ïàëàìàð÷óê Ë.Ñ. Ñïîñòåðåæåííÿ íàä àâòîðñüêèìè ëåêñèêî-ñèíîí³ì³÷íèìè çàì³íàìè â òåêñòàõ õóäîæí³õ òâîð³â Ì.Êîöþáèíñüêîãî // Ìîâîçíàâñòâî. 1955. Ò.13. – ñ.110.) Another Galician public figure, M. Pachovsky, in reply to Nechui-Levitsky’s speech, claimed that the population of Russian Ukraine is “not conscious.” They call themselves Russians, show interest in Russian literature, and even the peasants consider their own tongue a “muzhik” variety of the Russian language. In general, there is neither Ukrainian society, nor Ukrainian life in the Russian Ukraine. Pachovsky however, preferred to keep silent about the imposing of Ukrainian schools upon the Galicians by the Austrian authorities in place of Russian schools. I.M. Steshenko, the future general secretary (minister) of education in the Central Rada government, defended the Ukrainian language, saying that the “nationally conscious” Galicians were compelled to undertake the creation of a new language because the Ukrainians in the Russian Ukraine didn’t want to do it. Natives of Russian Ukraine, even conscious patriots, were quite comfortable with Russian and didn’t see any need for a creation of a separate Ukrainian language. “And so the Galician literati undertake this important endeavor. A language is being created for institutes, schools, sciences and magazines. Material is taken from German, from Polish, from Latin, words are also forged from popular examples…” (Ñòåøåíêî ². Ïðî óêðà¿íñüêó ë³òåðàòóðíó ìîâó. Ê.1912. – ñ.15.) Regarding the unfamiliarity of people with the new language, Steshenko wrote “The un-habit could become habit if something is seen often or instilled in a compulsory manner. The same about a language. Its neologisms, at first ‘horrible,’ are gradually administered and in a few generations become completely native and even pleasant.” (Òàì æå. – ñ.8-9.) Over time, unfortunately and thanks to direct orders from above, this language has become native in Galicia. Steshenko also didn’t worry that nobody spoke the new language in the Russian Ukraine and there was no literature written in that language. He kept promoting the use of dictionaries. Renowned scholar and professor N.P. Vasilenko also protested the forcing of the language onto Ukrainians. He noted that spreading the language by force is “most likely dictated by disbelief in the power and ability of Ukrainian to develop naturally…” (ßíêîâñüêèé Î. Ïîñÿãàííÿ íà ìîâó – ïîñÿãàííÿ íà äåðæàâí³ñòü // ³÷å. 1993. ¹4. – ñ.128.) For speaking his opinion, Vasilenko was branded an enemy of the Ukraine by Grushevsky. “The leaders of the Ukrainian movement insist on introducing in the Ukraine a distinct state language, which would not be a product of organic development but rather of artificial creation with a particular and clear expectation of making it as different from the common Russian language as possible. For that purpose a multitude of words and forms foreign not only to the Great Russian but also to the Little Russian language were inserted into it, which makes it hard to understand even for the people of Little Russia. The effort to replace the common Russian literary language in the future Ukraine by such artificially created and underdeveloped language poses a danger of retarding the development of literacy among the people who will be forced to use it,” warned professors at the St. Vladimir University of Kiev in their Protest Against Compulsory Ukrainization of Southern Russia. (Ïðîòåñò Ñîâåòà Óíèâåðñèòåòà Ñâ. Âëàäèìèðà ïðîòèâ íàñèëüñòâåííîé óêðàèíèçàöèè Þæíîé Ðîññèè, ïðèíÿòûé íà çàñåäàíèè Ñîâåòà 26 èþëÿ 1917 ãîäà // Óíèâåðñèòåòñêèå èçâåñòèÿ. 1916. ¹11-12. Ê. 1917. – ñ.6.) Despite the propaganda, it was not as easy to Ukrainize the Russian-speaking population of the Ukraine. Press organs of the Ukrainian movement acknowledged that not only the intelligentsia and the workers in “Russified cities,” but also the peasants in villages demanded to preserve teaching in Russian at schools for their children and opposed Ukrainization. At the 1918 all-Ukrainian conferences of teachers and journalists it was noted that peasants who gathered at village meetings do not understand the new Ukrainian language and after listening to speeches of state officials in “derzhavna mova” demand a translation of the speeches into Russian. (Åëïàòüåâñêèé Ñ.Óêðàèíà è Ðîññèÿ // Ðîäíàÿ çåìëÿ. 1918. ¹1 – ñ.105.) “The village populace is incapable of adopting … the new laws … by their official texts, and awaits its Russian translation,” was stressed in the statement sent by the Union of Poltavshchina Grain-Growers to Kiev. (ßíêîâñêèé Î. Âêàçàíà ïðàöÿ. – ñ.120.) Nationalist-anarchist leader Machno in his memoirs, written in exile, remembered that during political rallies when agitators from Central Rada were calling for a struggle against the Russians – “enemies of the mova” – the idea was insulting to the peasants. They reached to the podiums and pulled down the preachers and beat them up like enemies of unity of brotherly Ukrainian and Russian people.” (Ìàõíî Í. Âîñïîìèíàíèÿ. Êí.1. Ê. 1991. – ñ.113.) In 1918, V.K. Vinnichenko, the so-called prime minister of the Central Rada government in Petliura’s Cabinet, as he was running away from Kiev in the midst of peasant masses, noted a special hatred of the Ukrainian peasants toward the Rada government, along with their mocking of everything Ukrainian, s. a. language, songs, schools, newspapers and books.” (Âèííè÷åíêî Â. ³äðîäæåííÿ íàö³¿. ×àñòèíà 2. Ê. 1990. – ñ.259-260.) Before the 1917 Revolution, Little Russians (today’s Ukrainians) considered themselves just as Russian as Great Russians. “We reject all sorts of Ukrainophile propaganda, because we never considered ourselves nor do we now consider ourselves non-Russians. No matter what clever tricks the complaisant Messrs Milyukovs might use to instill in us a sense of difference from Great Russians, they will not succeed. We, Little Russians, as Great Russians, are in deed Russian people,” declared Deputy Andriichuk, a peasant from Podolia, during a State Duma session, in reply to an attempt by Russian liberal P.N. Milyukov to organize support for Ukrainian language-makers in the Russian parliament. (Ãîñóäàðñòâåííàÿ Äóìà. Òðåòèé ñîçûâ. Ñòåíîãðàôè÷åñêèå îò÷¸òû. 1909ã. Ñåññèÿ òðåòüÿ. ×àñòü 1. ÑÏá. 1910. – ñ.3081.) “We are Russians, and nobody has a right to say otherwise,” stressed another peasant deputy, a representative of Volynia, Andreichuk (similar name). (Òàì æå. 1910ã. Ñåññèÿ ÷åòâ¸ðòàÿ. ×àñòü 1. ÑÏá. 1910. – ñ.1280.) Even Petliura’s minister N.E. Shapoval acknowledged that millions of people in the Ukraine supported Russia, rather than Ukrainian nationalists, during the Russian civil war. In Soviet times, a special resolution by the People’s Commissars on Education of Workers and Peasants in the government of Soviet Ukraine noted that Ukrainians “not being aware of it” are actually a nation different from the Russians. In connection with this, the Soviets set a goal to “actively work to develop the Ukrainian language and culture.” (Ñîáðàíèå óçàêîíåíèé è ðàñïîðÿæåíèé Ðàáî÷å-êðåñòüÿíñêîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà Óêðàèíû . 1919. ¹23. – ñ.348.) The Soviets made the new language official in Ukrainian institutions and most schools. In October 1921, in the midst of post civil war ruin and famine, the Soviet government allocated 500,000 gold rubles to pay for printing Ukrainian-language schoolbooks abroad. Later on Lenin’s initiative another 250,000 rubles was paid for that cause. Communist party members were obligated to study Ukrainian and support its dissemination. Ukrainian-speaking communists were given higher posts in the hierarchy. However, by 1922 the Bolsheviks realized that the working masses in the Ukraine are not at all Ukrainian-speaking and made changes to their linguistic policies. For a short time Communist newspapers for peasants came out in both languages. Ukrainization restarted shortly afterwards. When Galicia became part of Poland in 1923, Grushevsky and the nationalists requested Moscow for help. In exchange for support against Poland, Ukrainian nationalists made the condition that the Soviets conduct a wide-scale Ukrainization of Soviet Ukraine. The agreement was reached, and on Aug. 1, 1923, the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee and People’s Soviet Commissars of Ukr. S.S.R. accepted a joint resolution, which stated that “the previously accepted formal equality “ of Russain and Ukrainian in the Ukraine, “is insufficient,” because “experience shows that life leads to a de facto dominance of Russian.” (Ñîáðàíèÿ óçàêîíåíèé è ðàñïîðÿæåíèé Ðàáî÷å-êðåñòüÿíñêîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà Óêðàèíû. 1923. ¹29. – ñ.913-914.) Ukrainian was placed in a privileged position. Taras Shevchenko is considered the spiritual father of Ukrainian national renaissance, however, very few people know the language used by the “Kobzar” in his literary works. After some analysis it becomes evident that many of “bat’ko Taras’s” books underwent a substantial editing, and the language in which Shevchenko wrote significantly differs from modern Ukrainian. M.P. Dragomirov had noted that “Shevchenko, for example, hadn’t yet thought about creating a separate Ukrainian literature, because he wrote his novels in the Muscovite language, which is the way he wrote his ‘Diary,’ the script for ‘Stodola’ and so on. This only means that Shevchenko chose to write in the language that was more appropriate and one he easily understood himself, but didn’t think about necessarily creating a special independent literature and language as did some later Ukrainophiles.” (Äðàãîìàíîâ Ì.Ï. Ëèñòè íà Íàääí³ïðÿíñüêó Óêðà¿íó. // Äðàãîìàíîâ Ì.Ï. ˳òåðàòóðíî-ïóáë³öèñòè÷í³ ïðàö³. Ê. 1970. – ñ.452.) Not approving of the “great Kobzar’s” inactivity in their cause, the nationalists proceeded to make “corrections” in his works. Words in Shevchenko’s manuscripts, such as, “osen’,” “kamen’,” “sem’ya,” “vsego,” “chernilo,” “yavor,” “tsar’,” “Kiev,” “Pol’sha” and others were changed, when the works were published, into “osin’,” “kamin’,” “sim’ya,” “vsiogo,” “chornilo,” “yavir,” “tsar,” “Kiyiv,” “Pol’shcha” and so on. The letter “s” (ñ) in prefixes was replaced by “z” (ç). Even the word “kobzar’,” spelled with the soft sign by Shevchenko himself, was changed to “kobzar” by the nationalists. (Ñèíÿâñüêèé Î. Ïðèíöèïè ðåäàãóâàííÿ ìîâè é ïðàâîïèñó Ò.Øåâ÷åíêî // Êóëüòóðà óêðà¿íñüêîãî ñëîâà. Çá³ðíèê 1.Õ. – Ê. 1931. – ñ.117-118.) Orthography underwent drastic changes also. Poet Shevchenko was not familiar with the letters “i” with two dots (¿), and open “eh” (º), not to mention the letter “g” (ã) with the tail and the apostrophy. He used the Russian alphabet (with the letters “û, ý, ú”), which was native to him. Photocopies of Shevchenko’s manuscripts can be found in compilations of his works. In 1860, the “Ukrainian” poet put together a “South-Russian ABC-book” (Bukvar yuzhnorussky) to educate children in speaking the Little Russian dialect. The alphabet in the “Bukvar” was Russian without any deviations or “reforms.” (Øåâ÷åíêî Ò.Ã. Ïîâíå ç³áðàííÿ òâîð³â. Ò.6. Ê. 1964. – ñ.367.) “I am not sure if it’s not a sin that we have ‘kobzar,’ ‘tsar’ etc., but Shevchenko has ‘-r’ [soft sign]’ everywhere,” wrote one Ukrainian nationalist, V.N. Dovanitsky, to another, P. Ya. Stebnitsky. But Domanitsky was eventually persuaded to believe that this falsification was nothing to be ashamed of in the “patriotic” process of cultivating the “Ukrainian national idea.” (Øåâ÷åíêî Ò.Ã. â åï³ñòîëÿ𳿠â³ää³ëó ðóêîïèñ³â. Ê. 1966. – ñ.253.) The poet’s later publications were destined to be changed. The power broker of Ukrainization in the 20s and 30s, A. Sinyavsky, issued clear orders: “Everything in the language and orthography of Shevchenko’s works that could be sustained and undiversified with modern literary norms without violating the essence of Shevchenko’s language, in particular, without harm to the verses and rhymes, has to be consistently undiversified.” Recommendations regarding the words “osen’,” “yavor,” “kobzar’,” “shinkar’,” “sem’ya,” etc. followed. (Ñèíÿâñüêèé Î. Ïðèíöèïè ðåäàãóâàííÿ ìîâè é ïðàâîïèñó Ò.Øåâ÷åíêî. – ñ.116.) Even Grushevsky worried that the people would not accept anything less than the language of Shevchenko. In the early years of Soviet rule, some of the activities of Communist leader Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich in the Ukraine are seldom remembered today. He became the general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of the Ukraine in April 1925, when Ukrainization was already underway. During the tenure of his predecessor, E.I. Kviring, the number of schools teaching in Ukrainian increased quickly and steadily. At the same time the number of schools teaching in Russian steadily decreased. Notwithstanding, Kviring acknowledged that imposing a foreign language on a people in such a short time would be very difficult, and that Ukrainization is a “lengthy, gradual process” which requires many “five-year plans,” and it was necessary to prepare “the appropriate teaching personnel” for a new generation of instructors. Kviring allowed himself to throw occasional caustic remarks at the nationalists: “Every Ukrainian chauvinist will continue to cry about forceful Russification if even a single professor of music or histology is left who still lectures in Russian.” (Êâ³ð³íã Å. Êðóòèé ïîâîðîò ÷è ðîçãîðòàííÿ ïîïåðåäíüî¿ ðîáîòè // ×åðâîíèé øëÿõ. 1923. ¹4-5. – ñ.109.) Kaganovich replaced Kviring and in 1925 was called “leader of the Ukrainian people” and had far-reaching jurisdiction for making decisions. The southern branch of the Russian people, now officially called Ukrainians, nevertheless rejected Ukrainization and could not understand the new language and did not wish to. Vlas Chubar, the chairman of the Ukrainian SSR Soviet of People’s Commissars, declared: “We are obligated to make the Ukrainian language more understandable to the general masses of the Ukrainian people.” (Öèò ïî: Ñóëèìà Ì. Ðåãóëÿòîðè é äèñîíàòîðè óêðà¿íñüêî¿ ë³òåðàòóðíî¿ ìîâè // Æèòòÿ ³ ðåâîëþö³ÿ. 1927. ¹1. – ñ.131.) Agatangel Krymsky, who previously said that Shevchenko’s language resembles Ukrainian not more than a statue resembles a live human being, also noted that “if in practice, we see that the people have difficulty using Ukrainian, then the fault lies not with the language but with the people.” (ßíêîâñüêèé Î. Âêàçàíà ïðàöÿ. – ñ.131.). This became the thesis of Communist Ukrainophiles, who instead of adapting the language to the people started assimilating the people to the language. In this regard, Kaganovich was especially useful. Kaganovich ordered everyone to switch to Ukrainian, from industrial workers to janitors. Those who were suspected of “a negative attitude toward Ukrainization” were immediately fired without benefits (observing labor laws was not required in such cases). There were no exceptions. The whole system of education was translated into Ukrainian. The “mova” became the main subject in schools and colleges, and it became the mandatory language of teaching and scholarly research. Studying Russian was de facto equated to the study of foreign languages. Administrative methods were implied in the Ukrainization of the press, publishing industry, radio, cinema, theaters and concert halls. Russian subtitles were forbidden even in store signs and ads. Ukrainization was thoroughly controlled from above. Special commissions regularly inspected state, public and cooperative institutions. Controllers were instructed to check not only documentation and communication with the public but also to pay attention to the language in which the workers spoke with each other. The People’s Commissariat of Education discovered that in some subordinate institutions even after Ukrainization of the teaching personnel, the technical department continued to speak Russian, orders were immediately issued to force every janitor, cabby and courier to switch to Ukrainian. Those not familiar with the “ridna mova” were obligated to take courses to study it, paying with their salaries. Kaganovich especially hated the local native population who resisted Ukrainization. Famous “mova” historian and staunch nationalist Yury Sherekh (Sheveliov) established that the consequences of Kaganovich’s policies “were not so ordinary. On one hand, more people than ever before comprehended the Ukrainian language, became somewhat familiar with Ukrainian literature and culture. Some even began speaking in Ukrainian. On the streets of big cities Ukrainian could be heard more often than before, even though it still did not replace Russian as the everyday language of communication. On the other hand, the element of mandatory compelling and artificiality, common in politics, provoked a feeling of hostility to the Ukrainian language. A great deal of anecdotes that ridiculed the Ukrainian language was invented, unfortunately not compiled and not published.” (Øåðåõ (Øåâåëüîâ) Þ. Óêðà¿íñüêà ìîâà â ïåðø³é ïîëîâèí³ äâàäöÿòîãî ñòîë³òòÿ (1900-1941). Ñòàí ³ ñòàòóñ // Øåðåõ Þ. Ïîçà êíèæêàìè ³ ç êíèæîê. Ê. 1998. – ñ.329-330.). Sherekh acknowledged that Ukrainian did not find mass support from the people. Workers and the middle class were indifferent to it. (p. 330) Kaganovich, however, was not deterred. His dictatorial policies rested on the support of a select few, mainly people of Austrian category, invited from Galicia. In late 1925, an army of 50,000 Galician “janissaries,” formed during the reign of Franc Joseph, was active in Soviet Ukraine. (Áë³íäà Ë.Â. Óêðà¿í³çàö³ÿ òà ¿¿ ðîëü â ñóñï³ëüíî-ïîë³òè÷íîìó æèòò³ óêðà¿íñüêîãî íàðîäó â 20-³ ðîêè. Äèñåðòàö³ÿ íà çäîáóòòÿ íàóêîâîãî ñòóïåíÿ êàíäèäàòà ³ñòîðè÷íèõ íàóê. Ê. 1992. – ñ.117.) Their numbers grew every month. At the same time, to silence any resentment of the Ukrainizators’ activities, it was officially announced that “repetition without criticism of chauvinistic imperial views about the so-called artificiality of Ukrainization, the incomprehensible Galician language and so on” is “Russian nationalistic leaning.” (an accusation threatening serious repercussions at the time.) (Ôð³ä Ä. Äî ïèòàííÿ ïðî êîð³ííÿ ÊÏÓ. // Á³ëüøîâèê Óêðà¿íè. 1927. ¹14. – ñ.37.) Many writers were subjected to persecution under Kaganovich, because they, like most other Ukrainians, did not know the new language and drew criticism and accusations in “slave dependence” on “Russian language traditions, bourgeois in essence.” (Ãëàäêèé Ì. Ìîâà ñó÷àñíîãî óêðà¿íñüêîãî ïèñüìåíñòâà. Õ. –Ê. 1930. – ñ.96.) Accused of using “russisms” were Pavlo Tychina, Vladimir Sosyura, Maksim Ryl’sky, Yury Yanovsky, Petro Panch, Ivan Le, Andrei Golovko, Valerian Pidmogil’ny, Semion Skliarenko, Ivan Mikitenko, Mykola Khvyliovoi, Yury Smolich, Yury Shovkoplias and others. “The contemporary Ukrainian writer, with a few exceptions, does not know the Ukrainian language. He has to consult the ‘Iziumov’” (the dictionary compiled by nationalist Ukrainophile Iziumov) (Äîâãàíü Ê. «Íà äàâí³õ ïîçèö³ÿõ» (Ïðî ñó÷àñíó óêðà¿íñüêó ë³òåðàòóðíó ìîâó). // Æèòòÿ é ðåâîëþö³ÿ. 1925. ¹11. – ñ.53.). “Even renowned poets and style-writers violate correctness and purity, and spoil the effects of artistic achievements with unwanted mistakes and russisms, absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Ukrainian language,” (Ãàíöîâ Â. Ïðîáëåìè ðîçâèòêó íàøî¿ ë³òåðàòóðíî¿ ìîâè. // Æèòòÿ é ðåâîëþö³ÿ. 1925. ¹10. – ñ.65.) Kaganovich’s subordinates worried and emphatically demanded that “writers should learn the language.” (Óêðà¿íñüêà ìîâà òà øëÿõè ¿¿ ðîçâîþ. // Æèòòÿ é ðåâîëþö³ÿ. 1925. ¹11. – ñ.91.) The Ukrainian language continued to develop. Words of Russian origin were replaced with Polish, German and invented words, so as to break farther from the Great Russians. A group of scholars revised dictionaries, and grammar was reformed again. Ukrainizators were happy with the process: “Tens, even hundreds of thousands of new words were inserted into the Ukrainian language. This is a great occasion. It will not only change the Ukrainian vocabulary but will also have colossal importance in the further development of Ukrainian proletarian culture.” (Òêà÷åíêî ². Ñëîâíèêîâó ðîáîòó íà øèðîêå ãðîìàäñüêå îáãîâîðåííÿ. // Íà ìîâîçíàâ÷îìó ôðîíò³. Êí..1. Ê. 1931. – ñ.6-7.) Under Kaganovich the language created by Austrian-Polish linguists in Galicia became the state language of Soviet Ukraine. The level of culture dropped sharply, and many scholars left the socialist republic not being able to get used to the new language. One ukrainizator noted the language spoken by school kids in Poltava institutions was an ugly conglomerate and an unpronounceable mix of Ukrainian and Muscovite words. Ukrainization fanatics went as far as to suspect that some new words might have been formed on the basis of Russian word formations. Thus, words not necessarily related to Russian words were replaced once more, and this process continued without end. Terminology developed by Kievan scientists was also rejected because it was the same as that accepted in Russian. They urgently needed to come up with new terminology, and thus the «èìÿ ñóùåñòâèòåëüíîå» noun became «³ì’ÿ ñóùå», then «ñóùèíèê», «éìåííèê» and finally, «³ìåííèê». The «èìÿ ïðèëàãàòåëüíîå» adjective became «³ì’ÿì ïðèëîæíèì», then «³ì.’ÿì ïðèçíà÷íèì», «³ì.’ÿì ïðèêìåòíèì» and finally, «ïðèêìåòíèêîì». A similar evolution was undergone by the «ìåñòîèìåíèå» pronoun («ì³ñòî³ìåííÿ» - «ì³ñòîéìåííèê» - «çà³ìåííèê – «çàéìåííèê»), the «èìÿ ÷èñëèòåëüíîå» numeral («³ì’ÿ ÷èñëîâå» - «éìåííÿ ÷èñåëüíå» – «÷èñåëüíèê» – «÷èñë³âíèê»), the «çàïÿòàÿ» comma («çàïÿòà» – «çàïèíêà» – «êîìà[!]»), the «äâîåòî÷èå» colon («äâîåòî÷êà» – «äâîêðàïêà»), the «ñêàçóåìîå» predicate («ñêàçóºìå» - «ñêàçóþ÷å» - «ïðèñóäîê») and other terms. The masculine gender «ìóæñêîé» became «ìóæñüêèì», then «ìóæåñüêèì» and finally, «÷îëîâ³÷èì». Likewise, the feminine gender «æåíñêèé», consequently became «æåíñüêèé», «æ³íñüêèé», «æ³íî÷èé» and so on. They could not stop now, and only argued which of the terms would better provide independence of Ukrianian from Russian: «³ìåííèê» or «ïðåäìåòíèê», «ïðèêìåòíèê» or «ïðèçíà÷íèê», «ïðèñóäîê» or «ïðèñóäåíü», «ëàïêè» or «öÿòêè» etc. (Ìóðñüêèé Â. Êîðîòêà ãðàìàòèêà óêðà¿íñüêî¿ ìîâè äëÿ øê³ë òà ñàìîíàâ÷àííÿ. Ñìàëü-Ñòîöüêèé Ñ., Ãàðòåíåð Ô. Ãðàìàòèêà ðóñüêî¿ ìîâè. ³äåíü. 1914. Ãðîõ Ãðîõàëüñüêèé Þ. Ðîñ³éñüêî-óêðà¿íñüêèé ñëîâíè÷îê ãðàìàòè÷íèõ òåðì³í³â. Êîçÿòèí. 1917. Íå÷óé-Ëåâèöüêèé ².Ñ. Ãðàìàòèêà óêðà¿íñüêî¿ ìîâè. ×àñòêà 1. Ê. 1913. ×àñòêà 2 Ê. 1914. Ãðóíñêèé Í.Í. Óêðàèíñêàÿ ãðàìàòèêà. Ê.1919. Êðûìñêèé À. Óêðàèíñêàÿ ãðàìàòèêà äëÿ ó÷åíèêîâ âûñøèõ êëàññîâ ãèìíàçèé è ñåìèíàðèé Ïðèäíåïðîâüÿ. Ì.1908. Ò.1.) After Kaganovich was recalled from the Ukraine, in 1938 briefly Russian-language newspapers were allowed again. In cities that had a sizeable academic population, the people were given a choice of schools where to send their kids (obviously, Russian schools were the preferred ones). The Ukrainian language continued to enjoy full state support and was presented by officials as the native language of Ukrainians, while any discussion of its true origins were strictly forbidden, as they are even to this day. Russian Pogrom Even though, Austria-Hungary had a constitution, the monarchy was infamous for failing to uphold any laws especially when it came to the rights of minorities. The laws officially allowed each ethnic group in the empire to develop freely its culture and language, but in reality, Galicia, Bukovina and Carpathian Rus were outside of this law. Teaching in Russian in local state schools was forbidden. Those who studied Russian privately were suspected of spying for Russia. Local Russian national organizations were persecuted, accusations of treason were fabricated against local Russian public figures (they were branded “moscowphiles”), rigged trials were organized, local Russian children were maltreated in schools (ukrainophile teachers were especially zealous at that). Austrian laws theoretically also allowed people to convert to any religion they choose, however, every time someone converted to Orthodox Christianity it was viewed as an act of treason. Local voters were pressured to prevent the election of Russian candidates to local parliaments, and even if elected, elections would for one reason or another be considered invalid. The authorities were instrumental in appointing teachers with “Ukrainian national ideas” in schools. Teachers with Russian leanings were banished to other regions of the empire or removed from their posts. The state likewise intervened in Church affairs. “Enrollment of young men with Russian convictions in seminaries is ending,” Galician public figure I.I. Terekh remembered. “Graduates from these seminaries are inveterate politicians – fanatics – whom the people call ‘popiki.’ From the pulpit they do their evil deed, inspire the people with the new Ukrainian idea, soliciting new supporters for it and spreading animosity in the villages. The people resist it, asking the bishops to replace them, and boycotting church services, but the bishops are silent, the deputies won’t listen or reply to petitions. In the same families, some children remain Russian, while others consider themselves ‘Ukrainians.’ Disorder and hostility permeate not only the village but the houses also. The irresponsible villagers quickly fell under the spell of the popiki. Neighboring villages begin to show hostilities and fight: One side would break up a village meeting or feast of another, destroy public property (town halls, monuments – the Pushkin monument in the village of Zabolotovtsy among them). Massive bloody riots and murders become more common. Church and civil authorities are on the side of the popiki. Russian villages cannot find help anywhere. To avoid these popiki, many Uniates return to Orthodoxy and invite Orthodox priests. Austrian laws provide a full freedom of religion, one only has to notify the administration of the conversion. But Orthodox church services are dispersed by the police, Orthodox priests are arrested and accused of treason.” (Òåðåõ È. Óêðàèíèçàöèÿ Ãàëè÷èíû. // Óêðàèíà – ýòî Ðóñü. ÑÏá 2000. – ñ.134-135.) In spite of persecutions, Russian sentiment remained strong in Galicia. In November of 1884, a fervent Ukrainian nationalist M. Pavlik (a friend of I. Franko) complained to the Kurier Lvovsky newspaper that “the pro-muscovite sentiment among the masses of the Galician-Russian people” is much stronger than pro-Ukrainianism, and in Bukovina and Carpathian Rus “there are no Ukrainian feelings whatsoever at this time.” (Ïàâëèê Ì. Ìîñêâîô³ëüñòâî òà óêðà¿íîô³ëüñòâî ñåðåä àâñòðî-ðóñüêîãî íàðîäó. Ëüâ³â. 1906. – ñ.25.) In 1906, Pavlik warned that in all western Ukrainian lands an old “popular pro-muscovitism” exists in the souls of “our peasant masses,” and which will awaken any moment. (p. 4-5) State pressure was met with popular resistance, and the persecution forced the people to collect funds and open their own private Russian schools. Galician writer S. Medvetsky wrote that when one such school opened in Buchach, “the influx of students was so great that they had to build two big buildings for the school and the dormitory.” (Ìåäâåöêèé Ñ. Êàê ðîñëà è âîñïèòûâàëàñü ðóññêàÿ ìîëîä¸æü âíå ïðåäåëîâ äåðæàâíîé Ðóñè. // Óêðàèíà – ýòî Ðóñü. ÑÏá. 2000. – ñ.143.) Russian schools functioned from private funds in Lvov and other big cities. Despite all the Ukrainization, Russian sentiment was still felt even in Ukrainian schools. The “nationally conscious” teacher in the Chernovtsy school, Shpoinarovsky, informed his superiors that in written projects, some students were using the forbidden letters “y” and “hard sign” («û» and «ú»), mispronounce words (i.e. saying “moi” («ìîé») instead of “mii,” («ì³é»), “yest’” («åñòü») instead of “e” («º») and others), write compositions mixing in Russian expressions, illegally “study in Great Russian” and “do not consider themselves a people different from the Great Russians.” (Êóëàêîâñêèé Ï. Ðóññêèé ÿçûê è ëèòåðàòóðà ïðåä ñóäîì â Àâñòðî-Âåíãðèè. Âèëüíî. 1900. – ñ.22-28.) Shpoinarovsky’s informings resulted in the expelling of five students and lesser punishment for 30 more. Studying Russian literature and language, and also Russian history and geography was very popular at city dorm schools (bursas), where children of peasants from other regions lived. These dorms became centers of Russian activity no matter how many obstacles the authorities tried to throw at them (there were regular inspections looking for Russian books, finding which was reason enough to expel a student). The students in Galician villages took upon themselves the mission of educating peasant youth in the Russian literary language. At village festivals young men and women read out loud the poetry not only of their local Galician poets, but also Pushkin, Lermontov, Nekrasov, Maikov and others. Monuments to Pushkin were erected in villages. Returning home through Galicia with some Galician delegates that he recently met at the Slavic Conference in Prague, Russian State Duma deputy, Count V.A. Bobrinsky, visited one such village festival. He broke down crying, saying: “I didn’t know that outside of Russia exists this genuine Holy Rus, which lives in such an indescribable oppression.” (Òåðåõ È. Óêàç. ñî÷. – ñ.136.) When World War I broke out the work of Ukrainizationists fell apart. Representative of the Austrian Foreign Ministry at the central military command, Baron Gizl, came to Lvov for talks with the leaders of Ukrainian organizations. After becoming familiar with the situation, on August 31, 1914, Gizl reported: “The Ukrainian nationalist movement does not have the support of the population, there are only leaders without parties.” Two days later he confirmed: “Ukrainism is not backed by the people. It is exclusively a theoretical construction of the politicians.” In his next message to his foreign minister he said that the mass switching of allegiance of the local population to the Russian army was confirmed, “resulting in our army being left to the mercy of fate.” (Ïîïèê Ñ.Ä. «Ukrainischer irredentismus» äî ïèòàííÿ ïðî áîðîòüáó ç ìîñêâîô³ëüñòâîì ó Àâñò𳿠(1914-1917). // Íàóêîâèé â³ñíèê ×åðí³âåöüêîãî óí³âåðñèòåòó. 1996. Âèïóñê 6-7. ²ñòîð³ÿ. – ñ.226.) The Austrian military command warned: “The advancing Russian armies in the region of Belzets-Sokal-Podvolochisk-Gusyatin have made a great impression on the Russophile population of eastern Galicia [western Galicia was southern Poland], which for a long time had friendly relations with Russia.” The August 15, 1914 report continued: “Treason and spying on one hand and terror in regard to the non-Russian population where it made up a minority, on the other hand (Sokal, Zaloztsy, Gusyatin), are increasing in a most dangerous and directly threatening manner.” (Îñåòèíñüêèé Â.Ê. Àâñòð³éñüêèé â³éñüêîâî-ïîë³öåéñüêèé òåðîð â Ãàëè÷èí³ ï³ä ÷àñ ïåðøî¿ ñâ³òîâî¿ â³éíè. // Íàóêîâ³ çàïèñêè Ëüâ³âñüêîãî äåðæàâíîãî óí³âåðñèòåòó. Ò.46. Ëüâ³â. 1957. – ñ.67.) “I didn’t think our armies would find themselves in enemy land,” commander of the 2nd Galician Corps general Koloshrari told governor Koritovsky of Galicia, adding that before starting a war against Russia it would have been worthwhile to hang the whole Russian population of Galicia. The commandant of the Peremyshl fortress general Kumanek warned his superiors that if there is at least one Russian left in Peremyshl, he could not guarantee the safety of the fortress. (Îñåòèíñüêèé Â.Ê. Ãàëè÷èíà ï³ä ãí³òîì Àâñòðî-Óãîðùèíè â åïîõó ³ìïåð³àë³çìó. Ëüâ³â. 1954. – ñ.67.) In his report to Emperor Franc Joseph, commander-in-chief of the Austrian forces archduke Fredrik pointed out that among the native population of the eastern province there is “confidence that according to race, language and religion, they belong to Russia.” (p. 94) Austrian-Hungarian armies found themselves in Galicia in “an atmosphere of betrayal” and “in their own land had to suffer losses due to espionage and betrayal of the Russophile population, while our enemy, who presented itself as liberator could count on its full support.” (p. 97) The local people had assisted the Russian army in many ways, by informing on enemy positions, acting as escorts, disrupting enemy communications, etc. Mobilized by force the Galicians in the Austrian army surrendered to the Russians at first opportunity. The locals welcomed their liberators with a celebration. In many villages, peasant deputies greeted Russian soldiers with the traditional bread and salt. When the Russians marched through Lvov, a huge crowd showered them with flowers. A considerable number of Galician, Bukovinian and trans-Carpathian people voluntarily joined the Russian army. The rejoicing on the occasion of Russian liberation of Galicia after a 600-year oppression was heard everywhere. Even in faraway United States, the American-Galician newspaper Svit wrote: “Our Lvov – Russian, our Galich – Russian! O Lord, glory to Thee, from the millions of Russian hearts the whole Rus sends its humble prayer, great God, almighty Savior, unite us, for Thou art one in three Persons, thus shall our Rus also be one forever!” (Êàçàíñêèé Ï.Å. Ïðèñîåäèíåíèå Ãàëè÷èíû, Áóêîâèíû è Óãîðñêîé Ðóñè. Îäåñà. 1914. – ñ.18.) Russian sentiment also awakened within the ranks of the so-called Ukrainian Sech Streltsy regiment created by Ukrainian nationalists to help Austria. “The Russians are advancing. We are taking losses. Fierce battles are fought at Gnilaya Lipa. Your kholop army, your USSes, haven’t even seen battle yet, but it is obvious that they are planning to ‘bravely’ surrender to the Muscovites,” wrote Austrian general Stanislav Sheptitsky to his brother Uniate Metropolitan Andrei Sheptitsky, a steadfast Ukrainian nationalist. (Ìàñëîâñüêèé Â.². Äîðîãà â áåçîäíþ. Ëüâ³â. 1978. – ñ.25.) He was not mistaking, the Sech Streltsy began to switch to the Russian side, and the Austrian authorities had to move the ‘usses’ to the interior to ‘cleanse’ them. The Ukrainian nationalist idea was bankrupt. Vienna retaliated, and after listening to complaints by Ukrainian nationalist informers, executed tens of thousands of innocent people suspected of sympathies to Russia. Hundreds of thousands of Galicians, Bukovins and Carpathians were thrown into concentration camps, hundreds of villages were burned and their inhabitants deported deep into Austria (many had died during transport from hunger, cold and illness). Austrian officers had the right to execute civilians suspected of treason. Proof was not needed, and execution could result from someone uttering a word in Russian, or refusing to call themselves a Ukrainian. Often before killing them the accused were tortured. Parents were killed in front of children, and children in front of their parents. Young women were raped before execution. No one was spared. They also executed 5-7 year-old boys and girls and infants. One of the Austrian officers later remembered the executions of Galician peasants: “We came to a place I’ll not forget to the end of my life. An open field with soldiers crowding around one tree. There was also a group of officers there. Sneers and shouts, like “Russian dogs, traitors” were directed at the peasants awaiting their destiny. The sight of old men, women with infants in hands and crying from fear and hunger and exhausted children, who held on to their mothers’ clothes, made such a depressing impression that one officer even had tears on his eyes. The lieutenant next to him asked: ‘What’s with you?’ He replied: ‘You think these people are guilty of anything? I am sure, they are not.’ Without the slightest hitch the lieutenant said: ‘But they are Russophiles, therefore they should all have been hanged before the war.’ A typical execution followed. Everyone was hanged with the same rope, previously having been hit in the face or the chin. The hanged were pierced with bayonets in front of their mothers, wives and children.” (Öèò ïî: Ïëàòîíîâ Î. Ðîññèÿ ïåðåä âòîðûì ïðèøåñòâèåì. // Ìîëîäàÿ ãâàðäèÿ. 1996. ¹7. – ñ.316-317.) No settlement was able to escape the bloody terror. This was the way the “nationally conscious” Ukrainian nationalists revenged their own people for refusing to be ukrainized (the nationalists were the ones who informed on the “suspicious ones” to the authorities). Only the quick advance of the Russian army early in the war was able to save the greater number of Galician Russians. Liberated lands were proclaimed part of Russia. Russian organizations and newspapers were reopened (but closed again immediately after the war). Local public officials formed the Russian Peoples’ Council to defend the interests of the native population in their communication with the military authorities. Measures were taken to help the locals with food and cultural needs. The ban on Russian language was automatically lifted with the collapse of Austrian rule. In legal proceedings, the literary variety of Russian and its local vernacular, the Hutzul and Lemko, were used on par with Polish. At the same time the “artificial argot created by the Austrian government” (as “Ukrainian” was called by the new authorities) was removed from courts. (Áàòóðèíà À.Þ. Ïîëèòèêà Ðîññèéñêîé èìïåðèè â Âîñòî÷íîé Ãàëèöèè â ãîäû ïåðâîé ìèðîâîé âîéíû. Ì. 2000. – ñ.88.) The Russian administration assisted with the opening of several Russian and Polish schools. Since under Austria, Galicians were kept in relative ignorance, a program was enacted for national enlightenment and learning. In five years, it was planned to open 9,000 public schools (1,800 each year), and 70 colleges, 60 faculties, 25 gymnasiums for men and 25 for women, 10 teacher’s seminaries and two teacher’s colleges. (p. 94) These plans fell through due to subsequent Russian losses in the war. The renewed Austrian-Hungarian occupation brought a new wave of terror. Villages were burned again, and people were transferred deep into Austria if they haven’t been able to escape. Russian was once again banned. Later, in 1917, when Russia was engulfed in revolution and no longer posed a threat, the Austrian parliament initiated an investigation of the atrocities of its military. The investigation was the basis for several publications that followed. In the Ukraine, however, authorities are still silent about the 1914-1917 genocide. More than 60,000 people were killed in the genocide. Hundreds of thousands of Galicians were imprisoned in concentration camps. More than 100,000 of them died there from inhuman conditions. (Îñåòèíñüêèé Â.Ê. Ãàëè÷èíà ï³ä ãí³òîì Àâñòðî-Óãîðùèíè. Ñ.98.) It would be hard to estimate the exact number of dead and missing, many were also deported into the Austrian hinterland, and some escaped with the retreating Russian army. The media at the time estimated from 100,000 to 400,000 casualties. Historians’ estimates also vary from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands dead. (Áàòóðèíà À.Þ. Óêàç. ñî÷. – ñ.187-188. Ìàêàð÷óê Ñ.À. Óêàç.ñî÷. - -ñ.62.) Galician Rus suffered irreparable losses, almost all of its best representatives of the intelligentsia, clergy, peasants and workers were physically exterminated. Those who were left were subjected to further ‘nation molding.’ In a secret report, the first Austrian postwar governor of Lvov, major-general F. Riml, recommended that along with “merciless terror” the ideals of Ukrainian nationalism should be spread among the local population, and he regretted that “at this time the Ukrainian idea has not yet permeated the Russian village folk.” («Óêðàèíöû… ìîãóò ñäåëàòüñÿ ÷åñòíûìè àâñòðèéöàìè». // Âîåííî-èñòîðè÷åñêèé æóðíàë. 1997. ¹3. – ñ.59.) After the final collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in 1918, and the brief existence of the “West Ukrainian people’s republic,” Galicia was forcefully annexed by the newly independent Poland. At first, Poland began imposing polonization, banning all Russian and Ukrainian schools. Poland also sent Polish colonist settlers into Galician lands vacated by the victims of Austrian terror. State propaganda declared that Galicia was a historically Polish province, and was not called Rus or Ukraine. Polish authorities expected an easy assimilation after the war’s disaster, but they miscalculated, because the Russian movement resurfaced unexpectedly and became ever more powerful. Warsaw decided to return to the old policy of “pitting Rusyn against Rusyn.” After Yusef Pilsudsky came to power in 1926, polonization grows drastically weak. Russian schools are still banned but Ukrainian schools get full government support. They begin learning Ukrainian even at Polish schools in Galicia. Officials begin talking about a “Polish-Ukrainian brotherhood” directed against Russia. The Polish government handles the financing of Ukrainian organizations. The local population resisted both polonization and ukrainization. Galician newspaper Russky Golos said both phenomena were interrelated. Because the Ukrainian language, due to its “artificiality” was barely understandable to the people, ukrainization leads to a de facto polonization (in Galicia), rumanization (in Bukovina) and czechization (in Carpathia). This artificially created language “does not withstand the cultural competition of the natural literary languages of other peoples.” Because of that “after learning a foreign language in school and the army our simple folk become subjects of foreign cultural conquest.” (Öèò. ïî: Õâèëÿ À. Áëþäîëèçè ãðàô³â Áîáðèíñüêèõ. //Á³ëüøîâèê Óêðà¿íè. 1928. – ñ85.) The issue of resurrecting the education system in the Russian language in Galicia was raised at the Russian unity society conference in Lvov, but the Polish authorities were absolutely against it. They persecuted the Russian movement in every way possible. The Russian movement resurfaced due only to the natural patriotic feelings of the native population in Galicia, despite the terrible pogrom it underwent during the war, it was supported by hundreds of thousands of local folk. The Russian popular movement lasted in Galicia until World War II when it was crushed with repressive methods. The people of Carpathian Rus were able to evade Polish occupation and also rejected any attempts of ukrainization. “We, the poor Ugro-Russians, rejoice that our Galician brothers by blood and faith are concerned for us and support in us the Russian spirit. But we do not look so sympathetically on your so-called Ukrainophile party and their activity,” wrote a famous Carpathian public figure, priest Stavrovsky to another famous Galician Ukrainophile V. Gnatyuk, in reply to his appeal to join the Ukrainian movement. Stavrovsky reproached Ukrainophiles for, instead of using Russian, attempting to impose a corrupted “ridna mova” language invented by the Poles, “which is not used by neither Ukrainian, nor Galician or Ugorian [Carpathian] Russians, and which is barely understood. Furthermore, your orthography is unnatural and contrary to scientific etymology and linguistics. If you wrote according to the thousand-year-old tradition then both the Galicians and our Rusaks would understand you better… Finally, your party recently publicly declared that it rejects any solidarity with other Russians, whom it calls moskale-philes. From this it is evident that you consider all of us, who do not accept your radical views and your orthography, as enemies of the state, and that you stand in solidarity with the Poles and even under the patronage of the Poles, who inspire you with all of these abovementioned aspirations. This is the view our Ugro-Russian clergy and peasant folk have about your party, and as long as your party acts in that direction our Ugro-Russians will not sympathize with it.” (Ãíàòþê Â. Ïðè÷èíîê äî ³ñòî𳿠çíîñèí ãàëèöüêèõ ³ óãîðñüêèõ ðóñèí³â. // ˳òåðàòóðíî-íàóêîâèé â³ñíèê. 1899. ¹7-9. – ñ.167-168.) “I thank you for your esteem and trust, which you presented me in this interesting issue. But I must tell you in advance that I cannot become one of your people, since my principle views on the written Russian language are radically different from those that the Shevchenko society [i.e. the Shevchenko Scholarly Society headed by nationalist Grushevsky] is attempting to spread. I doubt you could find anybody else other than us in the Ugorshchina who would join this society, because it is very much discredited here. It has brought more harm than good even where you are. We cannot allow ourselves to conduct such experiments here… The language of that society is completely foreign and incomprehensible, and we cannot understand it. We would mock anyone who would try to speak or write in your polonized and corrupted jargon here. We are not changing our dialect into your twisted ‘mova.’ In other words, as long as the merciful Lord gives His support, we will remain Russians [ðóññêèå] and will not change into Rusians [ðóñêèå],” (p. 168-169) wrote another notable Carpathian public figure, S. Sabov, in his letter to Gnatyuk. Famous Carpathian-Russian poet Ivan Silvai also spoke against attempts to break from the Russian literary language. “I read the ‘Lirniki,’ published by you. This edition is also interesting as everything else regarding ethnography. One thing I cannot understand: why do you use ‘Kulishivka?’ Here nobody not only does not take an interest to it, but furthermore, who has ever studied any comparative philology would consider the whole ‘kulishivka’ and all attempts of literary breakup and separatism a child’s nonsense.” (p. 168-169) Another famous Carpathian Russian public figure Ivan Rakovsky was perplexed by the urge of Russian ukrainophiles to create a separate Little Russian language: “… We do not see any need to abandon the existing Russian literature and chase the ghosts of some new Little Russian literature.” (Ïèñüìî èç âåíãåðñêîé Ðóñè. // Âåñòíèê Þãî-Çàïàäíîé è Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè. 1863. Ò.3, ôåâðàëü, – ñ.253-254.) Rakovsky was astonished at the intentions to impose an incorrect pronunciation of some Russian words as a grammatically acceptable norm and on that foundation build a new language. “We do not see neither grammar, nor logic in the use of the following forms of writing: vzhe «âæå», de «äå», shche «ùå», usio «óñå», gostriy «ãîñòðèé», chitav «÷èòàâ», govorit’ «ãîâîðèòü», u tserkov’ «ó öåðêîâü», u korovi «ó êîðîâ³» and so on, instead of gde «ãäå», yeshcho «åù¸», vsio «âñ¸», ostriy «îñòðûé», chital «÷èòàë», govoril «ãîâîðèë», v tserkov’ «â öåðêîâü», v korove «â êîðîâå».” According to Rakovsky, different regions had their own pronunciations to particular words that differed from the correct literary pronunciation and from other regional pronunciations. Examples: znau «çíàó», instead of znayu «çíàþ», tsyar’ «öÿðü» instead of tsar’ «öàðü», chitat «÷èòàò» instead of chitayet «÷èòàåò» and so on. How many languages would we have to invent? (p. 254-255) “We don’t consider the existing Russian literature foreign to the Little Russian nation, we quote it as a common heritage of all Russians,” Rakovsky said. (p. 257) After the World War I popular leaders of Carpathian Rus unanimously expressed the desire to be united with Russia. However, being in opposition to the established communist power in Russia, they temporarily agreed to be part of Czechoslovakia as a province called Subcarpathian Rus, until communism falls. Czech president T. Masarik hated the Russians and considered it his duty to support Ukrainian nationalists. The Czech government financed the Ukrainization of Carpathian Rus, even though the predominant language there was Russian. Final Ukrainization was established under the Soviets in 1945 in Carpathian Rus and in the Priashevo region of Slovakia. Ukrainian was established instead of Russian as the official language there in 1952 by resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Slovakia. The Russian-speaking natives protested and demanded to retain their language, but Slovakian communists continued to systematically Ukrainize the region, alluding to a so-called “low ethnic consciousness of the Ukrainian workers.” (Äçþáà ². ²íòåðíàö³îíàë³çì ÷è ðóñèô³êàö³ÿ. // ³ò÷èçíà. 1990. ¹5. – ñ.116.) The Ukrainian language, incomprehensible only a few decades before, was elevated to the level of official state language and imposed on the Russian-speaking population as “native tongue,” or “ridna mova,” by force. It is interesting to note that the public opinion poll conducted in the Ukraine in April 2000 by the Institute of Sociology of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences shows interesting data. When answering the question: “Which language do you consider your native?” 76 percent of Kievans – native Ukrainians – said Ukrainian. However, when sociologists rephrased the same question: “In which language do you communicate in your family?” only 24 percent of Kievans said that it was in Ukrainian. («Óêðà¿íà ìîëîäà” 25 êâ³òíÿ 2000 ðîêó.) “While answering questions about their native language, respondents often identify it with their ethnic origins,” noted deputy director of the Institute of Sociology of the UAS, N.A. Shulga, Ph.D. “That is why in order to see an objective picture of the spread of languages in various aspects of life, it is necessary to ask not only about the native language but also in which language do people communicate in different circumstances.” (Øóëüãà Í.À. Ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå óêðàèíñêîãî è ðóññêîãî ÿçûêîâ â óêðàèíñêîì îáùåñòâå // ×òî äåëàòü? ¹3-4 (7-8), ôåâðàëü, 2001 ã. – ñ.82.) But even that question does not show the full picture in the issue of languages. Shulga confirms: “An indirect indicator of the spread of Russian language is the choice of the questionnaire language by the respondents. When conducting mass public opinion polls, the Ukrainian Institute of Sociology uses questionnaires in two languages: Russian and Ukrainian. Before the poll begins the respondent is offered to choose a questionnaire and an interview language. In other words, each poll is a manifestation of language preferences of the population, a sort of referendum.” Thus 49.5 percent of respondents said they speak Ukrainian at home, while 48.5 percent speak Russian, and 2 percent in another language. But only 37.2 percent of respondents chose questionnaires in Ukrainian, while 62.8 percent chose Russian-language questionnaires. This just shows that even those who say they speak Ukrainian at home, in reality prefer to speak Russian. On May 15, 2000 in his TV program, Ukrainian nationalist Vladimir Yavorivsky stated that in all of Ukraine there are only several tens of thousands of people who in reality fluently speak literary Ukrainian. These tens of thousands can be considered the only true Ukrainian-speakers in the country out of its 50 million citizens. But even within that range not all can be considered Ukrainians by origin. From the beginning of Ukrainization it was noted that Jews, Poles and Great Russians often grasp the Ukrainian language much faster than those to whom it is officially a native language. “I know a great deal of instances when a Russian or Jew, for example, becoming newly Ukrainized, surpassed “original Ukrainians” in all language parameters (especially in writing),” testified M.F. Sulima, one of Kaganovich’s top officials. (Ñóëèìà Ì.Ô. Ìîâà íàøîãî ñòóäåíòà. // Çàïèñêè Õàðê³âñüêîãî ³íñòèòóòó íàðîäíî¿ îñâ³òè. Ò.3. Õ. 1928. – ñ.20.) Is this not proof that the notorious “ridna mova” is not any closer to Ukrainians as it is to Russians or Jews? Under Lithuanian and later Polish occupation, the Russian language in southwestern Russian lands underwent various influences. “Southern Rus was the first to fall under Polish influence,” wrote famous Ukrainian scholar I.I. Ogiyenko. “This influence started early; already in the 14th century, the south Russian speech has polonisms. This influence grew with time and lead to the polonization of almost all of southern Russian nobility. The language even more so: the literary language of southern Russia, especially in the 17th century, was full of polonisms.” The aftermath was felt for a long time. As the scholar noted in 1915, “the modern Little Russian speech includes in it a great deal of borrowings from the Polish language.” (È...ú. Î õàðàêòåðå è äåÿòåëÿõ íàðîäíîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ // Âåñòíèê Þãî-Çàïàäíîé è Çàïàäíîé Ðîññèè. Ò.3, ôåâðàëü. – ñ.167.) When the Russian Revolution broke out two years later, Ogiyenko along with other nationalists proceeded to invent a legend about the ancient origins of an independent Ukrainian language. But that was not a science anymore, it was politics. Instead of using well-known Russian words like Shevchenko did, Ukrainian nationalists relied on Polish for new contributions. Besides securing numerous words and turns foreign to Russian speech, … they constantly consulted foreign vocabularies so as not to consult a Russian dictionary. This is where they got poglyad «ïîãëÿä», opovidannya «îïîâ³äàííÿ», omana «îìàíà», nadanii «íàäàíèé», odnostainii «îäíîñòàéíèé», zhadanye «æàäàíüº» and many other words which do not exist in the Little Russian language… The more “ridna mova” was developed, the further it distanced itself from Russian and from popular dialects. L.M. Kaganovich was the biggest contributer in this regard. Particularly during his regime, a considerable “progress” was achieved. In a report delivered in January 1929, at the Commission for the Study of the National Issue of the Communist Academy and devoted to the problems of “cultural building in the national republics,” it was noted: “Let us take the pre-revolutionary Ukrainian language in the Ukraine, for example, the language of Shevchenko, and today’s Ukrainian language, on one hand, and the Russian language on the other hand: almost every one of you will understand Shevchenko. But if you take any modern Ukrainian writer, like Tychina, Dosvitsky or another, I don’t know who among you would be able to understand it on the basis of Russian, not knowing Ukrainian or at least Polish. In regard to Russian, we see a considerable widening of the gap.” So at that time it was easier to understand the new Ukrainian language if you knew Polish, but not Russian. The report’s author was S. Dimanshtein, who said that it was perfectly acceptable for a nation to have a separate language and to dig up old words in its historical past and local dialects. However, that was not the case, and nobody went around asking the people which words to use. The words claimed to come from ancient history were in fact of Polish origin when checked closer. Thus the ancient Kievan Rus word gorod “ãîðîä” was replaced with the Polish misto “ì³ñòî.” The word was used in southwestern Russia from ancient times and incorporated into its geography in the names of towns like Vyshgorod, Mirgorod, Uzhgorod, Shargorod, etc. Many thousands of such examples (not a full list by far) can be found in the book: The Origins of Russian-Ukrainian Double Language in Ukraine by A. Zhelezny, Kiev, 1998. In his works, prose and letters, Taras Shevchenko never used the words “Ukrainians” or “Ukrainian.” There was never a Ukrainian nation even in his time. What kind of “Ukrainian national idea” is being imposed on the people of the Ukraine? In 1874, the first census was conducted in Kiev. Regarding the language it became evident that out of 116,774 Kievans, 46,060 people marked literary Russian (common Russian) as their native language, 8,476 marked Great Russian, 35,205 marked Little Russian, 1,379 marked Belorussian. It can be noted that 91,120 people consider their native language Russian in its various forms. (Êèåâ è åãî ïðåäìåñòüÿ ïî ïåðåïèñè 2 ìàðòà 1874 ãîäà. Ê. 1875. – ñ.20-21.) Later, however, it was discovered that the people in charge of conducting the census were Ukrainian nationalists, headed by P.P. Chubinsky, the author of the “Shche ne vmerla Ukraina” anthem, who rigged the census by raising the number of speakers of the Little Russian dialect with the aid of various tricks and machinations. It was noted on various occasions that it was easier for a Muscovite and a Little Russian to understand each other than it is for Tyrolean and Saxon Germans to do so. But Milanese and Sicilians don’t understand each other at all, living in the same country. (Òðóáåöêîé Í.Ñ. Îáùåñëàâÿíñêèé ýëåìåíò â ðóññêîé êóëüòóðå.) (Ëèïèíñêèé Â. Âêàçàíà ïðàöÿ. – ñ.18.) Today’s “native” ridna mova language with its gelikoptery, «ãåë³êîïòåðàìè», potyagi «ïîòÿãàìè», shprikalki «øïðèêàëêàìè», etc. was artificially created and cannot be considered native to anyone. Ukrainian nationalist M.P. Dragomanov was zealous in spreading the new Ukrainian among the people. He corresponded in Ukrainian with his colleagues but for some reason wrote in Russian to his sister, Ukrainian writer Olena Pchilka (the mother of Lesya Ukrainka). Russian was also the native language for M. Grushevsky, and for Boris Grinchenko, and for Ivan Steshenko, who all became Ukrainian-speakers only for political considerations. Central Rada secretary Mikhail Yermeyev noted in his memoirs that at pre-revolutionary Ukrainophile events all who were present spoke Russian, because carrying on an intelligent conversation in Ukrainian was “extremely difficult.” If someone from among the nationalists began to speak in Ukrainian others would look at him with surprise, “as if at some museum exhibit.” (ªðå쳿â Ì. Çà ëàøòóíêàìè Öåíòðàëüíîé Ðàäè (Ñòîð³íêè ç³ ñïîãàä³â). // Óêðà¿íñüêèé ³ñòîðèê. 1968. ¹1-4. – ñ.97.) In 1848, Galician-Russian scholars met at a conference to decide to clean popular dialects from polonisms and develop a native literary language. But soon it was realized that the more Galician dialects were cleansed of foreign Polish words the closer they resembled the Russian literary language. In a few years, Galician scholars rejected the idea of a separate language and unanimously accepted the language of Lomonosov, Pushkin and Gogol as their native language. [Edited by The_Last_Word on 13th October 2002 at 06:22]
__________________
 -------------------- Watch out for StasUA. He deletes posts he doesn't agree with. -------------------- 
|
|
14th October 2002, 03:02
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow, your propaganda is composed in the same style as Goebbels. I’m sure the Austrian crusaders in 1848 were able to make a 100% literacy rate with this new “language”. Your whole base it flawed right from the start, how do you teach people a new “language” when they cannot even read Russian (the vast majority). Considering Austria only had a small piece of Ukraine, it just shows how poor the Russians were since this new “language” spread across their territory. Nice try boy, I’m sure those Two Russian writers will not trick anyone, everyone knows Russian history is political based rather then fact. Maybe your next project can be linking Uzbek to Russian, go for it. Anyway I expect to get the usual run around, “you did not understand my post”… “I’m a master Russian.” Nobody takes your posts serious at Russia.com so get a life.
__________________
View if you want to understand American Democratic values for humanity. http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html Anarchism is freedom.
|
|
14th October 2002, 13:06
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: History of the Ukrainian Language
Hello Last Word,
I have read the whole description on the history of the Ukrainian Language, but I think the whole tone of it is rather meaningless. You see, language (any language) is like a live organism - it changes with time. More often than not the dominant culture & civilisation influence local vernaculars & people accept the new words because they express things & phenomena, which are a novelty, better & more accurately than their own lg. This is very often the case with new inventions in social, economic & cultural fields. For example, nowadays in Poland we have lots of English words: OK, KOMPUTER, MARKET, MENADZMENT, BIZNESMEN etc. These are not Polish words at all. They have been absorbed into Polish because of the 'American umbrella' over Europe. The French have tried to keep the purity of their beloved language by denouncing any 'Americanisms', but to no avail (as far as I know they have attempted to call comuter 'Le combinateur', but as a result their firms went bancrupt...). Polish is full of German, French & Italian words because those cultures influenced Poland over the centuries ( e.g words like: manikir,, kosciol - of Check origin, makaron etc.). In Britain every city, or town with the ending 'Chester' ( e.g Colchester) alludes to the Roman occupation of the island & comes from latin 'castra'( not to mention thousands of French words that have been anglicised). This is all only natural. Now, I do not want to argue whether this is good, or bad. It is just that the public criterium is the best one & much as I am annoyed by the English words present in Polish these days, I cannot do anything about it. People seem to prefer saying 'OK' rather than 'dobrze'... Ukraine was unfortunately a part of the Commonwealth for centuries & so the impact of Polish is inevitable. This is why in the Western Ukraine they say 'herbata' & in Eastern Ukraine they say 'czaj' ( sorry, I do not have the Russian keyboard). I presume this is not the most important thing. The Irish speak English, but that does not mean they ARE British. I think it is up to the Ukrainians what lg they wish to speak, not to either me, or you ( even if it were Mandarin Chinese, it is their country, not ours !). You must not identify every attempt of the Ukraine to speak Ukrainian as a proof of nationalism. Every country has a right to use the lg. they choose. If the Ukrainians want to get rid of Polonisms in their mother tongue, they will do it sooner, or later. Even at the Russian court they spoke Polish for a long time in the past because Poland was synonymous with the Western diplomacy. I also have a quotation for you from a lecture on 'Stereotypes & Nations' given at the Jagiellonian University by by K. Dushenko from the Moscow University in 1995: ' Let us now turn to television, todays number one mass medium. 'The thirteen Chairs Cafe' was one of the popular light programmes on Soviet TV of the Brezniev era. Although it was located in a nondescript Central European country, its patrons addressed one another with the word 'Mr', or 'Mrs' and most of the literari & musical material used came from Polish magazines & records.The light socialist 'melange' relied in a fairly obvious way on the Polish contribution (...)'. Apparently Sienkiewicz is still extremely popular in Russia ( he competes only with Dumas & Chandler in the Russian market). I do not think it is a proof of some Polish expansionism. It simply shows how languages are influenced - that is all.
|
|
22nd October 2002, 04:40
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Re: Re: History of the Ukrainian Language
I guess, as a Pole you feel obligated to defend your compatriots's "innocence" in the issue.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How can it be up to the Ukrainians now if they have been subjected to forcefull Ukrainization for more than 100 years? The worst part is that to this day they were never told about this, and they are still mislead to believe that their modern language is their historic language. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
-------------------- Watch out for StasUA. He deletes posts he doesn't agree with. --------------------
|
|
22nd October 2002, 17:14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Re: History of the Ukrainian Language
Hi Last Word,
I, honestly, did not mean that the artcle was hopeless. I read it with great interest. I think that people who live in nowadyas Ukraine - if they wish to speak Russian - they should have every right to do so. But, while there are communities who consider themselves Russian speakers, there must also be a group of people who do not necessarily think they are within the orbit of the Russian culture, language & traditions. If they prefer to think about themselves as Ukrainians and speak the Ukrainian lg, they should do likewise. If Kutchma disapproves of the Russian lg among Russian speakers, he is wrong, but by the same token you cannot follow Kutchma's example & force all Ukrainians to speak Russian for a change. This is all I mean. Besides, as I have written before, Ukraine & then Western Ukraine was a part of the Commonwealth for centuries & so it was inevitable that the Ukrainian lg adopted many Polish words. I do not think it was forced because if that had been the case, Ukrainians would have got rid of this influence very fast & a long time ago (e.g after the partitions of Poland). Please, do not take it personally, or as some kind of retaliation, but Poles under Russian partitions were forced to speak Russian at schools & in public places. There was a clear policy from both Prussia & Russia to uproot the Polish lg. Yet, it did not happen because the policy was forced & thus met with strong resistance. I dare say in the case of Polish in the Ukraine, it was not so much forced as found its way in the evey day lg. The Polish lg. of that time was also influenced by the Cossacs, by Lithuanians & by Belorussians. Even nowadays a Polish prince Sapieha describes his father as KNIAZ and this - I guess - is not a Polish word. Besides, do not forget that Cossacs were 'The Zaporozan army' of his Majesty the King of Poland & they considered Commonwealth to be their motherland. In 1648, they primamrily fought the Lords in 'Kresy', not the Polish king. That means Poland along with the Polish lg was not 100% forced on them. If the public preference in the Ukraine nowadays is, indeed, for Russian, go ahead Ukraine ! But, do the Ukrainians really think about themselves as 'little Russians'? I am not sure. P.S What exactly does Kutchma do to get rid of Russian in the Ukraine?
|
|
23rd November 2002, 23:09
|
|||
|
|||
|
The_Last_Word, i read atleast a quarter of your post where'd you get it from? I know know you gave two names but i'd like to read it someplace else cause it's to much to read on the comp, kills my eyes!!!
But since i didn't read it all I can't really reply, But in my opinion since i live in Canada it is free country speak what ever language you want but for Ukrainians who come off the boat, they sure as hell don't speak Ukrainian ,it's russian. I guess I've turned a new leaf but I don't really hate polaks (yeah I do) but not as much russians. If you day you are from somewhere and say you are something it's plain and simple speak the language, there shouldn't be any arguments for that!! ... say you are from you Ukraine speak the lg but you mix words with russian. It's NOT UKRAINIAN!! Ukrainian can't be compared to polish there's to many Z's lol. all the slavic languages are connected!! An(drij)
|
|
7th February 2003, 05:04
|
|||
|
|||
|
The_Last_Word
You're by far the most brilliant of posters at the Ukraine.com history forums. I hope you keep up the good work There's some anti-Russian skunk polluting the http://www.russia.com forums.
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:15.
Ukraine Channel Services:
Contact Us | My Account | Add Your Business | Submit an Event | Submit an Article | Directory | Advertising
Ukraine Channel Information:
Home | Privacy |
Use Policy | Site Index | Establishments Index | English Blog Index | Ukrainian Blog Index
Our Geo Sites:
Algeria
Bangladesh
Ecuador
Morocco
Nepal
Nicaragua
Puerto Rico
Scotland
South Africa
Virtual Countries
© Copyright 1995- NewMedia Holdings. All rights reserved.
