The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/nyms/ehrlich606/1996/ehrlich.1296

From Thu Dec 19 05:53:45 PST 1996
Article: 86655 of alt.revisionism
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Where are we?
Date: 16 Dec 1996 16:02:45 GMT
Organization: AOL
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <>
References: <58mtlq$jpe$>
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader

In article <58mtlq$jpe$>,
(ibokor) writes:

>In response to the suggestion that it is implausible
>for, say, a Czech to communicate with a Pole when
>neither speakes a foreign langugae, d.A. wrote:
>Czech, Slovak, Ruthenian, Ukrainian are all northern Slavic
>languages, close enough to each other that anyone speaking
>one can understand rudimentary parts of another. It does
>not take an IQ of 163 to understand the Czech or Slovak
>equivalent of "Where are we?" if you speak Polish
>To this , Alles andere als ehrlich responded:
>Inexact.  Czech and Slovak are _West_ Slavic, along with Polish and
>numerous semi-dialects. 
>d.A. responds:
>You are are correct in tour linguistic classification.
>I was using the geographical, rather than linguistic
>What I had in mind is the fact that the geographical
>locations where Slavic languages are spoken as the local
>language are divided into two distinct and separate 
>regions, with Austria, Hungary and Roumania physically 
>separating them into a geographically southern and
>a geographically northern one.
>However, careful reading of my posting would have
>prevented misunderstanding. As I understand the situation
>--- and correct me if I am wrong  --- the Slavic (or 
>Slavonic languages) are divided into three groups: 
>East Slav(on)ic, West Slav(on)ic and South Slav(on)ic, 
>with the first two spoken north of the Austria-Hungary-Roumania 
>line (if I may be allowed a little licence) and the last south 
>of it. There is no North Slav(on)ic group. 
>The observant reader will have noted that when referring
>to the linguistic grouping, the words "West", "East"
>and "South" are captilised, as is the adjective "British",
>whereas the geographically descriptive "northern" in my
>text is not. This is a good example to show the importance
>of orthography to prevent potential misunderstanding. 
>It is a pity that Alles andere als Ehrlich has overlooked
>this fact. That is all the more noteworthy remarkable since 
>Alles andere als Ehrlich has claimed sunstantial expertise 
>in matters of language in a variety of languages.
Sajnos hogy Uborka uram nem tud erteni amit irtam vagy ir hibassal rolam. 
Sokat nyelvet olvashatok, pedig nem jo beszelek. Es -- tudjak.  Niemals
habe ich hier gesagen, das ich ein Meister der Sprachen war, nur habe ich
geschrieben dass ich sieben oder acht Sprachen lesen kann (mit einem
Woerterbuch, naturlich!). Potomu chto my znaem Vy ne ponimaite russkiy
yazik, ne napishu Vam etim yazikom.

What struck me about your post was the fact that you were apparently
unaware of the Slavic family groupings, because, if you had been aware,
you would not have characterized Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian, and Ruthenian
as four separate languages in the same family.  What you _do_ have are
essentially two languages with two names each (for politico-historical
reasons) in two related families.  This surprised me: after all, your
claimed linguistic expertise is even more notorious than mine.

The argument that it is irrelevant because they are all *northern* in a
geographic sense doesn't help you much, because if you made the same
assertion about, say, the *west* Germanic languages, or the *west* Romance
languages, let alone the *northern* Caucasian languages you would simply
be creating opportunties for, as you say, *licence-tious* mirth.

The dialectal spread among Slavic languages _even in all three families_
is probably not as great as the spread between German and English alone in
our family, and that includes the *northern* ones as well as the
*southern* ones that somehow you forgot to mention.  Your statement would
not have attracted as much attention if you had stated that _all_ Slavic
languages show mutually intelligible similarities in the most basic
vocabulary. [Shift from K to G, tendency toward zero copula in Eastern
Slavic, but would in any case have been replaced with the intensive
particle *zh* which would be devoiced by position, are all trivial
differences, and even more trivial phonologically, etc.]

Instead you insisted on this *northern* group, which seemed an
unconscionable error given your penchant for calling others *frauds* when
_they_ make mistakes, whether it be me or jbelling.  Of course, it is only
natural that those who insist on gleeful displays of Schadenfreude
whenever anyone else makes a mistake are soon reduced to the rearguard
defense of proving that they never make any.  Be my guest. In the meantime
take my original comment as a lesson on how to correct someone politely.

This post caught my eye because I am renewing acquaintances with old
languages and learning some new ones, too.  Given your *more noteworthy
remarkable* response,  so are you.  Tschau, bebe!

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.