Talk:Slovak language

General Editing

I propose standardisation of sections and their order, in regard to other article on similar languages, like Croatian, Czech, Polish, Slovene, Lithuanian, Estonian, Romanian etc. See Danish language, very nice article.

I found Polish order particularly fine. I.e. History, Geographic distribution, Dialects, Phonology, Ortography, Grammar. Seems to be useful to have section on Using/Use, including official use and status, somewhere. I give my vote in favour of Literature overview (with link to literature) in article on language.

Then, I added already a section with sample text from Universal Declaration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipcontributor800 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Now, I have merged so called Syntax and Morphology under united section ,,Grammar". It is based on more common pattern on wikipedia, see e.g. Polish, Estonian. And English. This is English language wikipedia, anyway, but Slovak is central European language. So article should reflect on that. Wikipcontributor800 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Slovak or Slovakian language?

The whole article uses the word "Slovak" (Slovak Republic, Slovak spelling etc.)

Whoever changed "slovenský jazyk" to "kokotskijazyk"... I revised it back. Some people's stupidity amazes me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.192.80 (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I too was wondering about the spelling, surely "Slovakian" is acceptable too? Malick78 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC) --> No, Slovakian is incorrect. The correct for is "Slovak" for every case.

I am crying too Brion...

and also... who wrote that nonsense about Slovaks from the western part of the country often not being able to understand those in the east. If, as an foreigner, I have little difficulty in understanding Spisske or Vychodnarske dialects, I think that those not able to understand are really just unwilling to understand.

James

You do not know what you are talking about...It is impossible to understand many of the eastern dialects if you speak standard Slovak only - both phonetically and in terms of vocabulary. There is a special dictionary for Eastern Slovak dialects...Obviously, you did never hear true dialects, because few people are using them today. Juro 12:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am crying

Removed the following non-information:

Slovak is believed to be harder to speak for non- Czech or non- Slovak.

-- Brion 18:05 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

I know German dialects very well (although, of course, not all of them) and they do not have different declension and conjunction (they are only - to put it simply - different, often very different, degrees of vocabulary "distortions") - and generally that`s what makes the main difference between two languages and two dialects (unless there is a very different vocabulary, or a severe political separation (eg. Noth and South Korean language or, in the past, the Netherlands and Germany)). Juro .... Waiting for a reaction by Rgrg...

I know very little about german dialects :-), everything of course depends on what you consider dialect (e.g. Lower Saxon is sometimes considered a separate language), but e.g. using only one past tense, no future tense and just three cases in Swiss german or Lower Saxon makes the differences in my eyes bigger than those between Czech and Slovak (loss of vocative in Slovak, some merging of cases in Czech, and different usage of participles). Of course, one has to agree with your description of when a language becomes a language.

And this has not much to do with mutual intelligibility, that depends mostly on similar vocabulary, then on similar phonology (or orthography for written languages), and grammar goes the last (unless you get familiar with the language, you are just guessing the part of speech values anyway). Rgrg

O.K. If the above is true, you know much more about the German dialects than me :). But still,in general, for me the distinction between laguage and dialect is the grammar, although I know that like most things in the world, its just a question of definition.

Another question: How "exactly" is a Language continuum defined (if there is an official definition at all)?. Above all, must there be a real "continuum"(i.e.gradual and continuous change)? Juro

Definition is vague and differs by authors, as everywhere in sociolinguistics :-) but more or less says that the "dialects" belonging to one "language" (note the quotes) have no clear boundary between them and the adjanced ones are "mutually intelligible", while the dialects from different parts of the spectrum can be radically different. The question of continuum is different according to language register, e.g. Czech and Slovak (if we deliberatly neglect transitional dialects into Russyn and Polish) form continuum on informal register, but when using formal, higher style register, there are three clearly separated language varietes: Literary Czech, Colloquial Czech and Standard Slovak, and using even higher, very formal register, the colloquial Czech stops being acceptable variant (of course, there is a continuum between different registers :-)). Nowadays, TV and school education are destroying the dialects and the language continuum stops being so prominent as in the past. rado 13:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ïanà as a Slovak dialect?

There is an orphaned article in the Wikipedia, Ïanà, which is identified as a French-influenced dialect of Slovakian. As such, would it be appropriate to include a link to that article from the article on the Slovak language? I'm no linguist, so I am not sure. Kevyn 02:50, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

bogus?

I have a strong suspicion that Ïanà article is completely bogus. Why it is not impossible that such a language has been invented (however the date given puts it before the planned languages boom inspired by Esperanto), the sentence about existing speakers makes me highly suspicious.

OK, I've been had... ;-) So is there a category for best bogus Wikipedia entries? LOL Kevyn 07:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now on VfD

Ïanà is now listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Kevyn 22:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Ïanà has been deleted from Wikipedia, as per VfD. Kevyn 02:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Long "consonant" clusters

Isn't it true that in those long consonant clusters, what's really happening is that 'r' is functioning as a vowel? If that's true, we should explain it that way.

The text DOES say that (right at the beginning)...Juro 14:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re: this is necessary because there are pages on the web erroneously stating the opposite

Please, don't be "overdefensive". Many people are, especially when it comes down to a national or language feelings, but this does not belong to an encyclopedia. If there are web pages stating incorrect information, let them be. Overdefensiveness practically oozes through the whole article of Slovakia and Slovak language - the smallest hint that could be interpreted as lowering the status of Slovak(ia) is thoroughly analysed, explained, re-analysed, counterexamples are provided, just to defend Slovak(ia) from... whom? Class enemy? In my opinion, neither Slovakia nor Slovak language needs such a defence. And it is at the expense of simplicity and clarity. rado 14:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(1) As an example, there is a seriously looking web page ( I do not remember which one) explicitely saying that the Slovak language arose from the Czech language (from Middle Czech as far as I remember). Moreover, I have read an English language book saying that Slovak arose from Polish (2) Is the sentence wrong? - no, Is it unclear - no?, Does it correct wrong information provided by other sources? - yes -> so where's the problem ?? (most of the last changes in the article are superfluous and too dificult for non-linguists - that's what should be changed, not that sentence), (3) actually this is not the matter at hand, but since you have opened this interesting question: the Slovak language needs much more help and defense then any Slovak in Slovakia (even the linguists) can imagine nowadays - but to find that out you would have to spend several years abroad (not in Czehia) and with foreign texts to see how catastrophic the situation is reagarding ANY information on Slovakia, regarding the teaching of the Slovak language compared to any other language in Central Europe, regarding anything...but as opposed to the Slovenes, absolutely nothing happens in this field with Slovaks (no wonder in a country unable to write - in the 21st century - at least one single big bilingual English dictionary) ...[In addition, my personal estimate is that the language will not really be used anymore in 100 years (in favour of the Czech and English language), so it actually needs defense, although that has not been the problem in this particular case] Juro 02:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: (1, 2) if we had to react to each and every page produced by numerous cranks on the internet, we'd be drowned soon. Just keep(verb in plural) the writing style neutral and informative, not defensive and corrective.

about the "linguistic stuff": this is an entry about a language and as such, it should be informative in that given field - just look at an average wikipedia article about mathematics and physics. Yes, there should be a short introduction for non-linguists, which is elaborated later on, and yes, it is missing from the article about Slovak language (or it is intermingled with the linguistic stuff), and that should be fixed (I might take a stab at it, once I have some free time on my hands... once...)

(3) I take the liberty to disagree :-). This might have been true 100 years ago, but certainly not anymore, and (barring any drastic sociopolitical changes such as WWIII) Slovak language will certainly be spoken and alive in another 100 years. Yes, people (USA&comp) are often misinformed, but let's face it, they do not care, and this is not going to change no matter what you write here. (Quick intermezzo check to see if we are better: without looking it up, what is the official language of Luxembourg?)

I have not spent years abroad, but I have been in several countries around, and the situation is not THAT bad. Of course, everything is relative. People (abroad) usually know about Slovakia more that Slovaks know about e.g. Lithuania (real life story - one of my best friends is a lithuanian living in Slovakia, so I know what I am talking about. How often people abroad assumed that your native language is Czech? Slovaks WAY TOO often think his native language is Russian. His country it almost constantly mistaken for Latvia). If you want to see languages that REALLY need defence, look at Sorbian(s), Rusyn or Kashubian, to mention just the close ones.

a) The text I have mentioned is an (allegedly) official serious text. b) It still holds that the statement is correct and represents useful information, thus there is no reason for deleting it c) I understand that you do not know how terrible the situation is, I had the same opinions like you here years ago (and that's somehow typically "Slovak"), but that is simply not true. Even in the neighbouring Austria Slovak virtually does not exist, compared even to Slovenian and other small languages - not the mention knowledge about Slovak history, literature from Slovakia etc... And just do not want to know what would be written about Slovakia in this and other wikipedias if I had not contributed here virtually all the basic articles and ... some other things I cannot mention here. d) The fact that people also do not know about Lithuania etc. is a typical irrational argument - that does not change anything regarding the situation of Slovakia. I did not say Slovakia was the only country in the world with such problems. Juro 22:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slovak lyrics at Hey, Slavs

I've copied Slovak lyric to Hey, Slavs from the web [1]. It's all in ASCII; I corrected the ČŠŽ letters where I could guess them, but it needs a native speaker for other diacritics, as well as a thorough checking for correctness.

Additions to the article and/or comments are appreciated as well. Zocky 15:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My edits

I improved the IPA (or so I hope). As part of this, I stumbled over the fact that ď, ť, ň, ľ, which I would have expected to be palatalized based on other Slavic languages, were transcribed as fully palatal, while the descriptions in the text are more compatible with palatalized consonants. I removed this discrepancy by interpreting them all as palatalized. However, I have not heard enough spoken Slovak to be sure about this. If you are sure that I'm wrong, please edit that, but keep in mind that the Romance sounds written gn and gl in Italian are not [ɲ] and [ʎ] – instead they are [ɲj] and [ʎj]! (I should add some diacritic to the [j], but I can't find a suiting one.)

I changed the SAMPA to Kirshenbaum. The reasons for this are:

• I thought the SAMPA symbol for [æ], [{], was messing up the table (the line for ä was not visible on the main page, even though it was there in the edit window). It turns out I was wrong, though... a } was missing in an IPA template.
• I know Kirshenbaum better than SAMPA, so I can write more precisely in it.

Please feel free to change this back to SAMPA, to add SAMPA, or to simply remove both – after all IPA is enough by itself!

www.slavism.net does not exist. Someone please fix the link.

David Marjanović david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at 2005/9/28 00:38 CET-summertime

those are really considered palatals, not just palatalized consonants. The difference is of course very small, but is there, e.g. the Russian consonants sound (very slightly) differently. Anyway, this IPA table (made by me, sorry for the missing "}") is a very broad transcription (as the usage of /o/ instead of /ɔ/ and slashes suggest), so one can argue that in this context palatals vs. palatalized consonants are allophonic.... I have a rather detailed (printed) article here describing very narrow Slovak transcription, going into deep details including frequency analysis, and the author uses palatals - not palatalized consonants. BTW what lead you into changing /ʒ/ into /z̠/? rado 07:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

If you say the Russian ones are different, I'll change the Slovak ones to [ɟj cj λj ɲj], if you don't do it first.

I fixed the use of [e] and [o] – I've heard two Slovaks speak French, and both have trouble pronouncing [e] and [o], even though they are fluent in French.

[ʒ] is fine in a phonemic transcription, but the actual sound occurs in French (and English – pleasure, Asia) rather than any Slavic language I know of. [ʐ] would be better. I was picky in using [z̠]; this specifies what kind of "retroflex" it is. See Postalveolar consonant.

David 2005/9/29 1:17 CET-summertime

yes, Russian consonants are different, but only very slightly. Most "typical" pronunciation of slovak palatals can be considered as "extremely strongly" palatalized consonants, almost (and certainly allophonically) true palatals, and most correctly would be transcribed as [t̻ʲ³] [d̻ʲ³]... (or even palatals with decreased level of palatalization [cʲ⁻¹] [ɟʲ⁻¹]... )

Whew! Wow! Levels of palatalization! I didn't even know linguists had ever discussed this! OK, we surely don't need that kind of precision. I'll leave it to you to decide between palatalized and palatal spellings. Toss a coin if you need to. :-)

Slovak "ž" is more apical than laminal, unlike Polish, so the better transcription would be perhaps [ẓ]? or [ʒ̺]? Note that this discussion is already stressing my phonology knowledge to its limits :-)

Sorry. I was being unscientific. I simply assumed it was retracted like in Russian, Polish and Serbocroatian, but some other Wikipedia page says that of Czech is apical, so I had no basis for my inference. Plus, Safari doesn't correctly display the diacritic (it shows _ behind the letter). I'll change them to the general retroflex symbols. (There is so far no accepted IPA symbol for apical retroflexes, so that makes the choice easy.)

With vowels you are correct, [o] and [e] are inapropriate for slovak - but [ɛ] and [ɔ] are not quite correct either. I am reading here some articles proposing to transcribe it as [e̞] and [ɔ̝] (and other vowels as [ɐ̞] [u̞] [i̞]) as the "most precise"

Wow... I agree it isn't necessary to write this...

David 2005/11/19 13:20 CET

I've made the changes. I just wonder... are you sure about [f̬]? I can produce such a sound, but it's extremely odd. Do you just mean [v]?

David 13:44

But, we have to realize, that *this* kind of transcription alone is extremely confusing and useless for a casual reader. Perhaps there should be two tables, one with general broad (phonemic) transcription and one with precise (phonetic) narrow one.

rado 11:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian "shepherd"

shepherd (sk: pastier, hu: pásztor)

I say that Romanian "păstor" would be a more likely etymology. bogdan | ^Talk 09:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The list stems from experts. I "say" the Romanian word is derived from a Slavic word (if it means shepherd). What I mean is that external appearance is not enough for such speculations. You have to know where the word occured first, when it occured first, how it looked like historically etc. Juro 13:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

My dictionary says Romanian "păstor" is from Latin "pastor" (shepherd). You know, like in the New Testament: "ego sum pastor bonus" = "I am the good shepherd" [2] bogdan | ^Talk 13:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, I meant the sentence rather as a joke...Now, seriously, unless you have a special reason to believe that the word is from Romanian (other than the appearance), I see these basic possibilities - it stems from a) Latin, b) Romanian, c) Slavic, d) Slavic and adapted to Latin/Romanian later. Having no Hungarian or other etymological dictionary here, I can only say that I would expect a) or b) if the word was rather "new", c) if it was rather "old" in the Hungarian language. I do not think that the authors of this wordlist have overseen that there is the Latin word "pastor". The only thing I can advise to you is to ask User:Adam78 to look into a Hungarian etym. dictionary. It is also possible of course that this is a disputed etymology. Juro 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it came from Latin to Hungarian and from there to Slovak? Ultimately it's obviously Latin, but that doesn't necessarily mean the Slovak derivative isn't a Hungarian loan. Qırğız universitesi and Turkish üniversitesi are from Russian and French, respectively, even though both ultimately come from Latin universitas.

David (see above) 13:24

I'd say it came from Latin to Romanian, in the Antiquity (Roman conquests), and then was introduced to both Slovaks and Hungarians. Remember, the Romanians (Wallachians or wlahoi or dahoi dacian origins) taught the Slovaks all about sheep herding. Slovak bryndza originates from Romanian brânzǎ! Jancikotuc 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think, that it is quite possible, that the word shephard = pastier/pastor may be a common "Indo-european" word - which means, it is equally good a latin as also a slovak word. I don't speak Latin/Romanian, but I speak Slovak, and we have also a verb "pásť", which means "to shepherd" and it is related to the word pastier. JH from Slovakia

hey

i am just learning and it seems real fun

Just a question is slovak closer to russian or to serbo-croatian? - Lazar

Depends on how you define "closer". Grammar has probably the same "distance" from Russian and Serbocroatian, lexica is maybe a bit closer to serbocroatian, and pronunciation is closer to serbocroatian because of Russian polnoglasie. rado 07:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And vocabulary is closer to Serbo-Croatian. Russian vocab is quite different from the rest of the Slavic languages because of the high number of russified French and German words. Jancikotuc 14:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

French words like frekvente? Oh wait, that's Slovak. This is all speculation anyway. They are about the same. In terms of pronunciation don't forget that serbocroatian has letters like ђ. -Iopq 09:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hej! Chceš vedieť po Slovensky? Ja ta to nenaučím! --84.47.45.41 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

trivia

What happened to the "trivia" section? Rmpfu89 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, should i put there a statement that Slovak language, despite having far fewer speakers than, say, Turkish, Korean or Hebrew, has got more Wikipedia articles?? Please answer. Jancikotuc 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You should not. Juro 15:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

you shouldn't specially because it's not true (at least in regard to one of them, i didn't bother to check the rest).131.211.101.235 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You should not. Please see Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, esp. this section. —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There's an error in the Verbs section

Hi people, i've got a feeling that descriptions for the Gerund and the Present Participle are swapped. i'm not a linguist so i cannot modify it and vouch for the correctness, but i'm a native Slovak speaker and that's quite enough.

Yes, the gerund and the present participle are the same in English (A *sleeping* man. -- A man was lying there, *sleeping*.), but NOT in Slovak. That might be the cause of this error. Jancikotuc 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no error in that part of the article.Juro 16:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

With the "small" detail that there is no gerund in Slovak... What is call gerund in the article is actually a transgressive. rado 17:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, i must disagree. If i get some linguist involved and they agree with me, i'll let you know... Jancikotuc 17:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovak spelling

Is biele read /biɛlɛ/ or /bjɛlɛ/ or /bʲɛlɛ/? -Iopq 09:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

last one. 78.98.59.92 (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Number 3 (but all three are the same, actually, when you try to pronounce them). Juro 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it should be /bi̯ɛlɛ/ (Slovak does not have palatalized /b/), but since this is phonemic, not phonetic transcription, #2 is O.K. and #3 is acceptable. rado 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought the small symbol was an I; if it is a small palatalization-J from IPA, then #3 is wrong. Juro 20:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, #3 is Slovak spoken with a Russian accent and #1 with Hungarian :-) rado 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe someone can incorporate non-syllabic vowels into the article? -Iopq 10:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ia, ie, iu form diphthongs /i̯a/ /i̯ɛ/ /i̯u/ in native Slovak words, - it is already mentioned there (I wrote it some time ago :-)), however, the article itself is quite a mess, thanks to accumulated cruft over all the editions. rado 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet it's STILL unclear to me if uhlie is /uhli̯ɛ/ or /uhlʲi̯ɛ/ because it says nothing about what happens to the preceding consonant. According to the article, it should be palatalized - "ne, de, te, le, ni, di etc. are pronounced as if there were a caron above the consonant" but is that what happens? -Iopq 11:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

it should be /uɦli̯ɛ/, /l/ is not palatalized anymore in standard Slovak before "e" or "i" (however, it is palatalized in some dialects and in official prescribed language version). However, the consonants are traditionally not described as palatalized, but as true palatals, i.e. it would be /ʎ/in this case. I wrote the IPA table with palatals, but someone thought he knew better and re-wrote it with palatalized consonants, and I had no strength to fight :-) rado 17:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the article in Wikipedia says that "pekný" and "pekní" are read in the same way. As far as I know, there IS a little difference: "ý" does not soften the consonant "n", but "í" does. The same says my grammar that I have at home. Can a native-speaker verify this? Zyx, 7 Jan 2007

There is no difference, they are and have always been proncounced the same way, thy -í is only an orthographical rule to show it is a word in plural and thus an exception from the softening "rule". The article cannot contain the whole grammar and all exceptions, otherwise it would be endless. Juro 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that nobody seems to be distracted by the fact that ɛ corresponds to slovak ä, not e. If it wouldn't, all the speakers would speak with "a terrible Hungarian accent" (since it's prevalent in Hungarian, and most of the Slovak speakers view those who have a heavy Hungarian accent to hava an awful/terrible/nasty accent).CoolKoon (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The article contains the statement "The circumflex ("vokáň") exists only above the letter o. It turns the o into a diphthong (see below).". Afterward O circumflex isn't mentioned. You'd expect such a statement to be followed by an explanation detailing the role of O circumflex, its usage, the IPA representation, etc. No such luck. ???

The pronunciation is noted in the table below Cunikm (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

German pronunciation

Just to say that I've removed the reference to the German pronunciation of "ch" in ch – Scottish ch, for example in Loch Ness (like German ch in Bach, Russian х).

The Germans pronounce 'Bach' with an ach-Laut that is to say the voiceless velar fricative [x].

And so do Slovaks, what's the problem? -Iopq 07:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The German 'ch' is not the same as the Czech and Slovak 'ch'.Sladek 14:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is the same - in some positions (like after "o" and "u"), and not the same (like after "a" and "e", "i", "ö" and "ü"). Anyway this pronounciation example is quite popular in anglophone literature about other languages... But "Loch" is a good example and sufficient. Qubux 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"pěkný" vs. "pěkní"

These are certainly not pronounced in the same way; "-ní" is /ɲi:/, but "-ný" is /ni:/, right? Sladek 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You may have confused Slovak and Czech. The thing you wrote is true for Czech, not for Slovak. Slovak pekný (not pěkný – it is Czech) and pekní are both pronounced the same way: [pɛkniː]. --Pajast 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As a slovakian u should write pekný bc if u type "pekní" 78.98.59.92 (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I see; thanks for that. Sladek 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

slovaks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks --> there are 5.8 mil. slovaks

but here, you said "total speakers - more than 6 mil???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.152.20 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

hundreds of dialects

In "Differences between the Slovak and Czech languages" somebody got emotional: "hundreds of dialects" is not very scientific. In Tyrol most villages have an a bit differing dialect OF THEIR OWN - but they are all subdialects of Tyrolian, which is considered a dialect of German. I'm sure it's the same with Slovakian dialects. Qubux 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Slovak loanwords in Hungarian

I've tweaked this section somewhat. Some of the connections are wrong (e.g. Hungarian word for brain agy and isn't borrowed from Slavonic *mozga; words such as könyv/kniha, szán/sane and szóba/soba are classified as Wanderwörter and linguists argue over how they came about into the Hungarian lexicon, since similar words turn up in Turkic, Mongolic and other Slavonic languages. In any case, I've "filled in the blanks" for some of the other loanowrds.

Nevertheless, I have a suscpicion that whoever worked on this originally has a rather anti-Hungarian view and is really trying to underline that the Hungarians were truly barbaric outsiders in contrast to the sedentary and "civilized" Slavs. While no one disputes the amount of borrowing in Hungarian, is it really necessary to make such a big list? I mean we could argue that Proto-Slavs were similar to these barbaric Hungarian pagans before their conversion to Christianity and exposure to the Germanic tribes. Several Slovak loanwords in Hungarian originally entered Proto-Slavonic from Latin, Greek or an Old Germanic language.

e.g. ultimately borrowed from Latin or Greek:

- Christian -> kresťan > keresztény

- angel -> anjel > angyal

- cross -> kríž > kereszt

e.g. ultimately borrowed from Germanic:

- *kuningaz (cf. English 'king', German: könig) -> knieža > kenéz

- *Karol (cf. Charlemagne ~ "Great King") -> kráľ > király

I reason that since we're dealing with the Slovak language, why is there such a relatively substantial list of Slovak words in Hungarian? Shouldn't the emphasis in this Slovak article be on Hungarian loanwords in Slovak? (however few they are) It would make sense for this section of Slovak loanwords in Hungarian to be placed in the article about Hungarian, right? --Vput 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am Slovak and I think you're right about the attempt to show, that old hungarians were primitive barbarians. The list is too long, it doesnt belong here in this extent. Boris.

So were all nations at one time.

to Hronsky re Mutual intelligibility of Slovak and Czech

I have made changes to your changes in the respective part of the article, since you claimed that Slovak films etc. had to be dubbed into Czech for Czech children now, which had not been the case in the past. This is not quite so:

(1) Why they have to be dubbed? Czech children were not able to understand Slovak well in the period of Czechoslovakia, too, so why they have to be dubbed now and why not in the past? And how the film-makers etc. find out that the children would really not understand? - Their translating etc. activities are based on mere assumptions, not a comparative research or qualified knowledge of the past vs. present-time. I would like to stress that how people understand the other language and how they think they understand it are two different things.

(2) Some fairy tales and other kinds of media products were translated from Slovak to Czech in the past (Czechoslovakia) as well. This is not a new phenomena (albeit more spread).

Another point. You state that Czech children themselves claim that they do not understand Slovak well. Yes, but this was the case in the period Czechoslovakia, too! - If you were interested in literature on this topic (including what is listed in References), where some evidence can be found, you can contact me via icq (268-144-094). Best, Marian Sloboda - Nairam 09:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The debate about the problems of Czech kids not understanding Slovak starts to be fairly stupid already. I normally watched Slovak TV shows for children, when I was about 8 years old, and I don't remember that I would have ever had any difficulties - perhaps except for few words that have no parallel in Czech. It is understandable that just because of these few words that would unnecessarily complicate understanding, Czech TV stations prefer dubbing Slovak fairy-tales into Czech. However, I really don't know, why a small Czech kid that is not mentally retarded couldn't understand Slovak. 82.100.61.114 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal experience, but a Czech person who was born in the early 1980s reported to me quite contrary experience: she had not liked to watch Slovak TV shows for children, because she had not understood Slovak well, she said. - The point is: what is needed, and what should encyclopedic articles such those in Wikipedia be based on, is scientific research that goes beyond individual anecdotic experience. Nairam (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Do videnia, or dovidenia?

I reverted "Grammar review for "Na shledanou" and "Do videnia" by native speaker" (78.128.193.66). I am a native speaker of Czech and I'm sure that only "na shledanou" is correct (see official Slovník spisovné češtiny). Although "nashledanou" can be frequently seen, it is treated as incorrect. I don't know the codified rules of the Slovak orthography but I think this is similar in Slovak as in Czech. Maybe, both variants (do videnia/dovidenia) are correct in Slovak. --Pajast 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The brand-new Slovník súčasného slovenského jazyka (2006) has this entry: dovidenia, pís. i do videnia. The same is true for Príručka slovenského pravopisu pre školy a prax (also 2006). —Daniel Šebesta {chat | contribs} 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dovidenia. But "Do videnia" can be used too. 84.47.45.41 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Slovak loanwords in Hungarian

I've tweaked this section somewhat. Some of the connections are wrong (e.g. Hungarian word for brain agy and isn't borrowed from Slavonic *mozga; words such as könyv/kniha, szán/sane and szóba/soba are classified as Wanderwörter and linguists argue over how they came about into the Hungarian lexicon, since similar words turn up in Turkic, Mongolic and other Slavonic languages. In any case, I've "filled in the blanks" for some of the other loanowrds.

Nevertheless, I have a suscpicion that whoever worked on this originally has a rather anti-Hungarian view and is really trying to underline that the Hungarians were truly barbaric outsiders in contrast to the sedentary and "civilized" Slavs. While no one disputes the amount of borrowing in Hungarian, is it really necessary to make such a big list? I mean we could argue that Proto-Slavs were similar to these barbaric Hungarian pagans before their conversion to Christianity and exposure to the Germanic tribes. Several Slovak loanwords in Hungarian originally entered Proto-Slavonic from Latin, Greek or an Old Germanic language.

e.g. ultimately borrowed from Latin or Greek:

- Christian -> kresťan > keresztény

- angel -> anjel > angyal

- cross -> kríž > kereszt

e.g. ultimately borrowed from Germanic:

- *kuningaz (cf. English 'king', German: könig) -> knieža > kenéz

- *Karol (cf. Charlemagne ~ "Great King") -> kráľ > király

I reason that since we're dealing with the Slovak language, why is there such a relatively substantial list of Slovak words in Hungarian? Shouldn't the emphasis in this Slovak article be on Hungarian loanwords in Slovak? (however few they are) It would make sense for this section of Slovak loanwords in Hungarian to be placed in the article about Hungarian, right? --Vput 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am Slovak and I think you're right about the attempt to show, that old hungarians were primitive barbarians. The list is too long, it doesnt belong here in this extent. Boris.

I am Hungarian, I can only laugh about this attempt to pretend a different name. Géza

I don't know if you're Hungarian, but you're definitely a sockpuppet, Bruce (or Géza?) Squash Racket 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Would someone talk about this? We have a Hungarian and a Slovakian user agreeing on that, but no action taken. Why is it so important to talk about the Hungarian language so much in the article about Slovak? Squash Racket 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just cut down this section about Slovak loanwords in Hungarian. I guess that I'm not the only one who was puzzled by the original contributor's/contributors' heavy emphasis on Slovak loanwords in Hungarian (and subtle antipathy to Hungarians???). Vput 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone reverted my reduction of this section and restored the long and detailed list (even though it's more suitable for an article on Hunagarian rather than Slovak.) It seems that someone wants to keep belabouring the point that the ancient Hungarians were barbarians and had to borrow many words from the neighbouring Slovaks. Whatever. I can now see why Wikipedia is viewed negatively by serious scholarship. Vput 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you go deep, according to Hungarian linguists, most above mentioned word come from South Slavonic, most probebly from Bulgarian, into Hungarian.. if Slavonic languages are so similar, easy to state words come from Slovak... (Do you have second person in Slovak between singular and plural?? )small part of the words are not Slavonic, but other origin, Latin, German, or even .. Hungarian! Vargatamas 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The text provides many and serious sources for what it says. The first source is the standard Hungarian source for this. The list is far from complete, there are far more Slovak and Slavic words in Hungarian. The text does not say that the ALL words listed are from Slovak, if you read it carefully. You can provide alternate etymologies for selected words with a source comparable to sources given in the article, until then nobody is interested to what you write and invent here, especially if you dont understand Slavic languages. Bruce95bruce 01:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of these are Slavic loanwords (not Slovak), but the real question is: why do you put a whole section about the Hungarian language into this article about Slovakian? Squash Racket 07:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who wrote the text, but the text is correct. I repeat: The text provides sources, you provide nothing and dare to add tags to the article. Add sources for the etymologies you consider disputed or leave (for ever, "sockpuppet", whatever that may mean). Bruce95bruce 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of these are Slavic loanwords (not Slovak), but the real question is: why do you put a whole section about the Hungarian language into this article about Slovakian? I don't like to repeat myself, but you force me to. Squash Racket 04:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It should certainly be cleaned up. Etymologists were braver about divining origins in the past, but from a more contemporary view there is no compelling evidence, for instance, that the hydronym Danube entered Hungarian via Old Slavic; čiapka is more likely to have gone from French (chapeau) to Turkish (şapka), to Hungarian, to Slovak, etc. I wonder whether the copiousness of the section may have been an attempt to compensate for the absence of any such information in the Wikipedia entries on the Hungarian Language and its history. The entries do include a list of Hungarian loan words in English, but next to nothing about either Hungarian words in the neighboring languages or borrowed words in Hungarian.

But if marketing an entry, country, or history is a concern, as some comments suggest, it might be the editors of the Slovak Language entry who could worry about including such a lengthy prosaic passage that entices the reader to drop it and go to learn more about Hungarian, a language with an interesting history this passage explains. The section might do better to live up to its heading "Relationship to other languages": reduce the rather tedious enumeration of borrowings in only one language to a few captivating examples that won't tire the reader out (pick those that are still pretty reliable by modern standards), add Slovak borrowings in other languages (Romani, Rusyn, Czech... others?), and also explain borrowings from other languages in Slovak and their context. Likewise, reduce the sections comparing Slovak and Czech (long passages about only one language again), expand and add comparisons with other Slavic and non-Slavic neighbors of Slovak and its historical interaction with Latin.

As to non-contributors to the Slovak Language entry appearing stirred by the extent of the section, it would be no chip off an American's shoulder if, say, the entry on the Latin Language featured an enormous section listing Latin words that entered English (that would be almost 50% of the English words via various routes). If done well, it would be fun to read and learn about that. I'd rush to have a section on borrowings and make it interesting and informative in the entry on every language, including Hungarian and Slovak. peltosaari (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ok I do not speak Slovak do not comment on it (however I just repeat what I have read from those who did, but obviously Slovak lingusts know Hungarian better that Hungarian ones), but why do you do on Hungarian, if you do not speak? Further many cited word like pasztor is form LATIN, not Slovak, is it not nonsense that Latin, English, French, German all borrowed from Slovak?? Many Hungarian translations are not correct, some have spelling mistakes. --Vargatamas (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the list is correct or not, more important that it is absolutely out of place here. The article is about the Slovak language not Hungarian, why anybody is so interested in the topic of Slavic loanwords in Hungarian then? This obviously belongs to the Hungarian language article. Would you put in the "mountains" section of the Geography of Slovakia article a list about how small are the hills of Hungary? Only for the comparison... Zello (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• You are completely right, this section should be in Hungarian article. But still I am curious how could come Hungarian word from Slovak. For me it seems nationalistic malicious attempts to "prove" something subconcious issues to the "world".

1) Slovak as name was not mentioned before 16th century, actually no written evidences before Reformation (according also to wiki articles) 2) it separated from close related Slavic languages only much later, so if no Slovak yet no loanwords could exist... 3) in Hungarian diplomas are no mention of Slovak, while there are Slavs, Croats, Wends, Poles, Czechs, Bulgars, Servians, Bosnians, Slavonians, Russians, etc. from teh earliers times and in teh Angevin period. 4) Many agriculture related words comes from Turkish (Cuman, Pecheneg, Uz, whatever, also nomads...) e.g. arpa, ökör, etc or even Persian (or Alan, Jasz-Philisteus), therewas no good sounding Slovak word for them?

--Vargatamas (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my question: what's the aim of this list here? Hungarian etimology is definitely not the topic of the article. The readers here are obviously interested in the development of Slovak language and its etimology, but instead they will find this list about Hungarian words borrowed from Slavic languages. Why? That kind of information belongs to the Hungarian language article. Zello (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Zello, I wouldn't waste my time here with these guys. We know what the unspoken answer is. Some of the contributors are acting like lawyers and deliberately missing the point by merely hiding behind the defense that these Hungarian words are Slavonic loanwords. They don't have the guts to answer the question about the relevance of such a long list. The fact that the full list keeps returning very quickly after being removed or even pared down (courtesy Tankred and others - Tankred is an obviously proud Slovak if you check his contribution history) leads us to believe that this section is being watched closely by some apparently insecure/touchy Slovaks. While Slovaks were dominated by Hungarians for about 1000 years, this section about allegedly Slovak loanwords in Hungarian (if we check MNyTESz, the sources for Slavonic loanwords into Hungarian were from Moravians or Slovaks to the north and Slovenes, Croats and Serbs from the south) is a way for some Slovaks to insinuate to the rest of the world that if it hadn't been for the Slovaks, the barbaric Hungarians wouldn't have known such items of civilization such as tables (asztal - stôl), crosses (kereszt - kríž) and the like. If you check the history of this page, I reduced this section a bit and made some corrections to it in the fall. My corrections remained but my reduced version was reverted back to its original length. For the record I don't have Hungarian or Slovak ancestry but can speak both Hungarian and Slovak and have friends on both sides of the border. (figure that one out :-P). Thus I have an idea of what the languages are about but the emotional ties that I have to both cultures (through my friends) are equal and I'm unable to favour either side. If we use the questionable logic of Tankred, Bruce95Bruce and others who seem to get a kick at hinting at the supposed cultural superiority of speakers of Old Slovak speakers over speakers of Old Hungarian by virtue of the mainly one-way traffic of Slavonic loanwords into Hungarian, then the Wikipedia entry on the English language would be justified in having a detailed and tedious list showing all of the English loanwords that exist in Spanish, German, Russian, Hungarian, Slovak, Japanese, Chinese etc. More to the point, these same Slovaks should then have no qualms about the Wikipedia articles on Greek, Latin or Old High German each having a detailed list showing all of the Greek, Latin or Germanic loanwords in Slovak (some of which in turn passed on into Hungarian). As I've shown earlier in this talk page, I've put down some examples of the Slovak loanwords in Hungarian being loanwords themselves from Greek, Latin or Old High German. So if we want to be a little snide, we can draw the conclusion that the Slovaks of 1000 years ago were not as high and mighty as their modern-day supporters would like to think. (Vput (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

I've touched up the section of Hungarian loanwords in Slovak a bit (as far as I can tell, baňa is not a borrowing of the Hungarian bánya). For the sake of balance, I've put some information about Slavonic loanwords in Hungarian with the note that their presence does not automatically mean that the Hungarians borrowed these words or concepts from Slovaks. I consulted my copy of the Hungarian etymological dictionary to ensure accuracy, but didn't want to overload this section and make another long-winded list as was the case before. Vput (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If baňa/bánya is not a Hungarian word, where did it come from? Like I haven't found this word in any other Slavic language....

CoolKoon (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the examples but left in place the generalities. The examples are very useful for the Hungarian language article and I propose you to add them there. Nobody has anything against Slavic or Slovak loanwords in Hungarian, their existence is a linguistic fact, but there is no need for such kind of list here. Zello (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that such a list of Slavonic loanwords in Hungarian makes more sense being in the article on Hungarian but I just wanted to keep things balanced (or at least demonstrate to more sensitive folk reading this article that I'm willing to show both sides of the matter). We'll see whether things here will be reverted yet again. Vput (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

List

Relevant discussion copied from my talkpage:

Tankred just reverted the Slovak article to include the long-winded list from before (as I strongly suspected he would do.) This sensitivity and instant revert was the main reason why I included some Slavonic loanwords in my edit. I know what you're trying to say by not going into great detail about Slavonic loanwords in Hungarian and removing my examples from the article, but I felt that my way would at least give even less justification to people like Tankred to belabour the point of Slovak's supposedly major contribution to Hungarian culture. As it is, I can see a mini edit-war going on, since we have an all-or-nothing approach where people like Tankred insist on a long-winded list while you insist on having no list at all. As a non-Slovak and non-Hungarian, can't we all just compromise and put short lists showing both directions? As it was before, my shortened list provided a nice balance to your short list, so it wouldn't look like one side was trying to overwhelm the other. Vput (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tankred not even bothers to give some explanation for his revert. He never said that he will be contented with your shorter list. But the shorter list is still surplus information in the article, compromising its concision. And I don't think that I always have to take into consideration the phobias of some Slovak users who trying to prove their ethnic superiority even when they are writing about their own mother language. Is it necessary to give a list in the Geography of Slovakia article about the lowness of Hungarian mountains? Is it a good compromise to mention 2-3 Hungarian hills only for comparison? Isn't this absurd? Zello (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but as someone who is unable to favour Slovaks over Hungarians and vice-versa, I believe that the only way to acheive some kind of stability in this article is to make a compromise. The example with the mountains may not be the best way to think of this language dispute. As someone who doesn't come from the Carpathian Basin, I am a little turned-off by a language article that has a tag for a neutrality dispute. If I were interested in the language and its structure, I wouldn't want to be dragged into watching a bunch of nationalists arguing over whose word is whose and constantly reverting the article unless there were grave errors in explaining grammar, morphology, syntax or lexicon. The Serbo-Croatian article suffers from a similar problem but to an even greater degree as we have Serbs, Croats and Bosnians using the language's article and its talk-page to criticize each other and act out non-linguistic rivalries. The thing is that mountains change "ownership" because of political or military decisions as it's a matter of one group of people invading or laying claim to that territory. Lexicons can change less deliberately and all speakers from erudite scholars to humble farmers can incorporate new words and structures as they see fit. Thus we could argue that pasting a list showing the sheer number of Slavonic loanwords in Hungarian could be interpreted that Hungarians were somehow culturally inferior in being copycats since they had to borrow a lot of Slavonic words. The presence of geographical features such as which country has higher mountains or cleaner forests can't lead to the same conclusion about cultural sophistication. Vput (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that Hungarians in the 10th century were culturally inferior in many ways than Slavs. What does it matter? Linguistics is not a question of national pride. Anybody can add as a long list of Slavic loanwords to the Hungarian language article as possible. But the same list in the Slovak language article was only meant to prove this superiority theory and contained no information about the topic, the Slovak language itself. It is simply out of place. Comparison for the sake of comparison. Zello (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Tankred is in fact a hot-headed Slovak nationalist, who seems to believe only to the "facts" which his fellow nationalists invent. You know, it's really hard to explain to somebody outside of the Carpaths (or even outside of Slovakia) that why do some people fiercely believe in this. Sometimes I have a feeling that it's because of some popular people over here claiming to have the Hungarians civilized themselves (i.e. the Slovak people) when they came into the Carpathian Basin. Unfortunately there's no point in arguing with any of them, as they are absolutely confident in their own version of the "truth" (and sadly Tankred seems to be one of them). So the only thing that I can advise you is to stay away from his "Slavic loanwords in Hungarian" part (or just look for the mistakes and unused words to correct it ;) CoolKoon (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you do not resort to ad hominem attacks. Firstly, I have contributed to Wikipedia much more than two users attacking me here. I would like to recommend them to write a couple of featured and good articles instead of making personal attacks. Secondly, I did not put the list into the article, but the list is well referenced, so I am protecting it. Thirdly, this article (including the list in question) does not assume any inferiority of the Hungarian nation and I wonder why this alleged inferiority that no one sane really believes in is such a recurring topic in the comments made by some Hungarian editors. The list of loanwords from Slovak is totally appropriate to an article about the Slovak language and to a section on the relationship between the Slovak and other languages. I do not understand why a list of words loaned by Slovak is all right, but a list of words loaned from Slovak is such a hot issue. Please enlighten me. Tankred (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahem: "....a kto ich scivilizoval? No predsa my, Slovaci!!!!!!"-Sounds familiar to you, eh? And BTW when I resorted to those "ad hominem" attacks, I was just referring to your "creative" interpretation of facts in the Slovakization article where you were prone to hastily deleting anything which was not "sufficiently" supported with citations or wasn't supported at all (even after a week or so), and yeah, you did show some bias over there. Of course it's very nice and lovely to have people like you who contribute a lot to Wikipedia in connection to the Slovak culture (personally I prefer quality over quantity but that's only my personal opinion). However the edits are worthless if you're narrow-minded.

Regarding the article I'd like to note that it's fine to have that list over there. But again: does it have to be THAT long? I understand that Hungarians have borrowed many words from the Slavic languages, but could you imagine how much space would occupy the article if you'd make a similar list with other nations who have borrowed words from the Slavic languages (like, say, German, Romanian, Latvian, Lithuanian etc.)? Or do you think that you could create a comprehensible/transparent list with the words that other nations have borrowed from English? I don't think so.

You know, I can understand at some part that it's good to have an enormously long list of words which were borrowed by the Hungarians, but what purpose does it serve? Can't you just trim it or something? (besides I'd say that Hungarian has borrowed much more from German and those direct borrowings pretty much have remained in use up to this day)CoolKoon (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it does not sound familiar to me. Although I was born in Slovakia, I am not following the situation there as closely as I would like. My wild guess would be Slota or someone equally crazy as the author. Back to the article: I think the best solution would be to (1) verify the sources listed in the reference at the beginning of the list, (2) retain only those words explicitly listed by these sources as originally Slovak (and not generic Slavic), and (3) choose only three or four examples for each category in the list. Unfortunately, I cannot do it because I have not access to the cited books. Deletion of a relevant and referenced list (by Squash Racket and Zello) is unacceptable to me. Tankred (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

About the relevance of the list. Why is the section "Relationships to other languages" so incredibly focused on the Hungarian language when it comes to examples? Why don't we have such lists regarding other languages so the section can really live up to its name? Squash Racket (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a marvelous idea! Feel free to write such lists for other languages, in both directions, if you have such expertise. It would be very interesting. Tankred (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"In both directions"? This is an encyclopedia. Squash Racket (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously no Hungarian user will be able to write such a list about Slovak loanwords in Rusyn and Polish. Only Slovak users can do this but somehow they are focusing only on Hungarian. I cannot imagine why. Certainly some coincidence. Tankred, could you answer the question why the English language article contains information only about the origin of the English vocabulary? I found a lot of information about foreign loanwords in English but nothing about English words in French, German etc. The same method is followed by the French language article, the German language article etc. European people speak about the origin of the vocabulary of their mother language not about their loanwords in other languages. Zello (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We have yet another foolish edit war going on. I'm starting to think that neither Hungarians nor Slovaks should be editing this section of the article as they take their languages too damned seriously. I have some fluency in both Hungarian and Slovak (among others), but neither is my ancestors' tongue so I don't care about whose language is "purer" or "better" or what not. Here is what I propose: Keep Zello's short list and pare down the long-winded list that is constantly reverted by Tankred but NO total removal of the list (Sorry, Zello). As far as I can tell, Tankred's and Bruce95Bruce's defense that it's backed by various sources (some of which seem to be reliable) is their way of evading repeated questions concerning its length and ignores the fact that some of those loanwords in Hungarian are now obsolete anyway and relevant only for those who study the history of Hungarian (itself even more removed from the purpose of this article on Slovak). Furthermore, if we take their logic to its conclusion, then ANYTHING that can be tied back to a reference (biased or not) is worthy of inclusion in this article even if its relevance is practically nil and not representative of other otherwise comparable articles (in this case, articles on English, French, German etc.) As an example, it would then be justified for someone to include sections about Slovak-language instruction in secondary schools and the motivations of Magyarization and Slovakization as they relate to that kind of language instruction. At that point, this article's quality would become even worse and turn into another place for Slovak and Hungarian nationalists/patriots to flame each other.

I will go ahead with this and consult the Hungarian etymological dictionary (MNyTESz) to see which words in the long-list are indeed from Old Slovak, if necessary add some new ones and remove those which are considered to be Slavonic (i.e. undetermined whether it came from Old Slovak / Slovenian / Serbo-Croatian etc.) instead of decisvely Slovak origin. For CoolKoon, I'll also verify the etymology of bánya since as far as I remember, that word was not borrowed from Hungarian (but I could be wrong). Vput (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if you follow this discussion, but I have already proposed to (1) verify the sources listed in the reference at the beginning of the list, (2) retain only those words explicitly listed by these sources as originally Slovak (and not generic Slavic), and (3) choose only three or four examples for each category in the list. So, please calm down and stop attacking me. I will welcome any reasonable compromise that would not diminish the information value of the article (as the removal of the list did), but would improve its quality. Tankred (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you answer why other articles contain no similar lists? Zello (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Differences between slovak and czech

It is not standard to include lists of differences between closely related language varieties in Wikipedia language articles. I believe that this section has been added to this article as a nationalist polemic, rather than for its informational content. As it is rather poorly written (as is most of this article) and entirely unsourced, I believe that it should be either deleted or improved and moved to a new stub. Helikophis (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section, and gave it its own article, Differences between Slovak and Czech. It would be good if whoever wrote this section would move their references to that new page (preferably adding some citations as well!).Helikophis (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vocabulary lists

I would really appreciate your comment about the loanword list, which was discussed above. Your recent edits improved the quality of the whole article so your opinion could also help to decide the question. Zello (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't want to get myself too involved in what is apparently an important issue to some people, I do feel that this section (as well as the "Hungarian loans in Slovak" list), is not appropriate. Articles generally do not contain long lists of vocabulary. If the list were properly wikified and more genuine encyclopedic content were added, either or both lists could possibly become content for a seperate article. This content is irregular and not very helpful. I am going to make significant changes to the "relations to other languages" section today. I may deal with this problem. If we need to do so, we can take the problem to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, as it is likely that as that project takes shape, this article will be revised and standardized anyway. Helikophis (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your efforts are more than welcome. Squash Racket (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the list is only one although serious problem. I would like to see a well-referenced list containing only the Slovak loanwords not dozens of Slavic loanwords with unknown origin. But I prefer to add this imagined list to the vocabulary section of the Hungarian language article. Vocabulary lists in other articles are different: they are about the borrowed words. If somebody thinks the Slovak language article should be an exception of the general rule I will agree. But in this case somebody with expertise should write at least two similar loanword lists and create a new section under the title "Slovak loanwords in other languages". I would accept this as encyclopaedia-like content but the long, dubious Hungarian list in itself serves some other purpose, an obviously non-linguistic one. Zello (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please move discussion of the Hungarian list to the appropriate section of the talk page. This section is about the "Differences between Slovak and Czech" section.([User:Helikophis|Helikophis]] (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the total removal of vocabulary lists was a bit heavy handed. The existence of Hungarian and German loanwords in the Slovak language absolutely disappeared from the article. I would'n stick to lists but some examples and the paragraphs themselves should remain. I restored this section in a shortened form. Zello (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I will leave these short list of loan words, but I am going to try to improve the English style and remove extraneous information.Helikophis (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple non-POV solution. Split the "Relationships to other languages" section. Remove the loanword information to another section specifically dealing with loanwords. It can include two subsections; information on loanwords from other languages into Slovak and information on words Slovak gave to other languages. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we will never hear anything about Slovak loanwords in Polish or Rusyn only in Hungarian. Everbody knows the reason behind this one-sided interest. Zello (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparative/Superlative

Is there a single form for these two English concepts, or are there two forms? The adverb section is a bit confusing on this topic. Helikophis (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Language Template

I'm thinking of doing some work to get this article in conformity with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Template template. Is this alright with everybody?Helikophis (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Prehlaskovane a

Whoever wrote it there, i don't think it should be at the first place - hardly ever Slovak native speaker calls "ä" "prehlaskovane a". They almost always use term "Siroke e" since "ä" in pronunciation has almost nothing to do with a. Just try to say words like "päta" (heel) you don't even say that distorted e - it is almost the same sound as e. From the grammatical and encyclopedic wiev "prehlaskovane a" is right however hardly ever Slovak native speakers call it like that. I suggest change Cunikm (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As a native Slovak speaker, I agree. "Prehlaskovane a" is not correct. I believe this incorrect name might originate from Slovak terminology for some foreign language (possibly German?). In Slovak, "ä" is called "Široké e". You are right about the pronunciation, most people do not say (much) different sound. This needs to be looked at, but I believe both of these pronunciations ("ä" as normal "e" or as distorted e) are considered correct. Not sure about that though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.197.127.131 (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

At least in the East of Slovakia they are pronounced exactly the same, which is why the kids have literally no idea whether words are going to be spelt with "e" or "ä" until they are specifically taught lists of them at school - whereas they are able to pick up on plenty of other quite small differences (e.g. long and short "i") and spell accordingly without word-specific training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.1.230.135 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Among the Slavic languages that use the Latin alphabet, Slovak is the closest to Ukrainian and then to Russian?

This is a quotation from the article. Er, what about Czech? APW (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian and Ukrainian use the Cyrrilic alphabet. Just need to correct that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.217.138 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The whole introduction has to change. The Slovak word for "Slavic" is slovAnsky not slovEnsky. While there is obviously a common root, words mean what they mean, not what they used to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.217.130 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reversed the changes that added the idea that the Slovaks refer to themselves simply as "Slavs".

For information on the differences. Slovaks refer to themselves as Slovaci, women as Slovenky, and the general adjective for them is slovensky. When they wish to refer to (what we in English speaking countries refer to as) Slavic people in general, the words they use are Slovania, Slovanky and the general adjective is slovansky. When Slovaks wish to speak about Slovenians they refer to them as Slovinci, the women Slovinky and the general adjective is slovinsky.

While all clearly have the same root, they are different words which are understood as having different meanings by the people who use them. Otherwise it would be difficult, for example, to make laws referring to overseas Slovaks and not to all Slavs living outside the borders of the republic. If the origin of the word is its "true meaning", then it would be wrong to say that "There were many slaves in the southern states of the USA before the civil war", because the people referred to were not Slavic - only that slave (otrok) has changed its meaning over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.217.139 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Word List

I know the word list is controvesial, but can we remove Slovak vinšovať, German wünschen from the list? Zelat and Priat are the normal words for wish and I have never heard vinsovat in the 7 years I've been in this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.188 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gramatical case (Pády)

This article lacks list of "Pády". I mean nominative, genitive, etc.

Various languges differ in this.

slovak: http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1d_%28jazykoveda%29

moved

"Slovak" is not used attributively. It's either "Slovak" or "Slovakian language", but not *Slovak language. That's like "Democrat Party", which the Republicans came up with because it sounds dyslexic. kwami (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not true. Slovak is the correct adjective when referring to something of/about Slovakia. In addition to being a native speaker, I have discussed this issue many times with both Slovak and English language teachers, and so far all agree, that while Slovakian is acceptable, ONLY Slovak is technically correct. Though I'm absolutely certain of this, I can't as of yet reference it, therefore, coupled with cautiousness on my part in editing articles, I won't correct the article title. The title should be nevertheless changed back to Slovak language as soon as possible and also, anyone who has a reference should put it in the article. And to do with the "Democrat Party" thing, that is something completely different. There are many countries that do not follow the -ian/-an rule, and Slovakia is one of them.

"Both are used but only one is correct" is self-contradictory. If both are used, both are correct, unless they mean different things. Although Google searches are utterly worthless for > ~ 700 hits, they're somewhat reliable for numbers less than that. On Google Books, we have 376 "Slovak language" vs. 281 "Slovakian language", which given that some of the hits are not what we're looking for (parsible as Slovak [language-X] Y), are perhaps too close to make a call. On Google itself, there are 848 Slovakian vs 806 Slovak, but this runs up against the search cut-off, and so is probably worthless. "Speak the Slovak language" gets 45 vs. "Speak the Slovakian language" with 8. So "Slovak language" does seem to be more popular, at least on Google. To me, though, while "I speak Slovak" sounds fine, "I speak the Slovak language" sounds either illiterate or like a semi-slur against Slovaks. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Slovak language is the correct form and can be found in any dictionary, also Slovene language article does exist evern here on wikipedia so no "Democrat party" as you suggested. Slovak means in translation slovenčina, while Slovak language means slovenský jazyk, they are both one and the same thing, use whichever you want. Word slovak is as adjective (slovenčina) so noun (Slovák), word democrat is noun only - I hope we can both see the difference here. Google isn´t reliable source, official goverment institution like ÚSZZ is and they are using Slovak language, not Slovakian [3]. Also I sent a mail to Ľ. Štúr Institute of Linguistics of Slovak academy of Science about the correct spelling so I´m gonna wait and than copy the content of the reply here so we could close this. --EllsworthSK (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you all are probably right about this, even if it does sound ugly to my ears. The institute may not have any preference, but if they do, we should probably follow it. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved: So, did we get an answer from the Ľ. Štúr Institute of Linguistics? — kwami (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, either they decided to ignore me or they will reply later. Can´t say which it is but they generally answer on most of the e-mails so if anything changes I´ll post it here but so far nothing. --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rejoice, brothers and sisters for I have been answered. Simple said both Slovak and Slovakian language are correct terms and both are right, but Slovak language is used more often. --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ľ. Štúr Institute of Linguistics is not an authority on words in the English language. IMHO using the word "Slovakian" rather than "Slovak" is generally a mark of someone who rarely speaks about the country. In books "Slovak" is far more common including as an adjective https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Slovak+language%2CSlovakian+language&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSlovak%20language%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CSlovakian%20language%3B%2Cc0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.1.230.135 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"Palatalization"

The stuff in Slovak_language#Orthography about "palatalization" seems confused - firstly ť, ď, ň and ľ are listed next to the IPA values /c/, /ɟ/, /ɲ/ and /ʎ/, which are not "palatalized" consonants, but palatal consonants. Then "zelené" is transcribed as /zelʲɛnɛː/, which does give the "l" as a palatalized /l/ (rather than palatal /ʎ/). This may be distribution among dialects, they certainly aren't phonemic, but it would be good to know which is accepted as standard. - filelakeshoe 13:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this myself lately. I am a native Slovak speaker and I think it is like this: the sound transcribed in Slovak orthography as l with caron (ľ)) is a palatal (ʎ), but a regular l, without caron, is allophonically palatalized before "soft" vowels (i, e and diphthongs ia, ie etc.). Also, ľ (palatal lateral) never occurs before soft vowels (it is one of the first grammar mistakes being pointed out to children in school). But, to make it a little less simple, this palatalization does not occur everywhere, for example many speakers in Bratislava (but not all, myself included) do not palatalize the alveolar lateral before soft vowels and even go so far as ignore the palatal ľ, instead pronouncing alveolar lateral wherever there is a lateral.

Examples:

moľa (moth) is /moʎa/

ľúbiť (to love) is /ʎu:bic/, but a speaker from Bratislava may very well pronounce it /lu:bic/

zelený (green) should be /zelʲeni:/, but for a speaker from Bratislava it often is /zeleni:/

pole (field) - /polʲe/

etc. Hopefully this makes it a bit clearer :)

Edralis 10:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Speakers from Bratislava should not really be considered as typical examples of native speakers regarding pronunication (also not the use of Czech and German loanwords as they use a lot more.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:130:400:1660:B8E9:4398:33A6:9855 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Continuous" and perfective aspect being confused

In the "verbs" section it describes "skrýť" and all it's forms as being "non-continuous" and "skrývať" as being "continuous". I am pretty sure this is a misconception. Translating skryju = I hide / skrývám = I am hiding actually seems like completely the wrong way around to me. In Czech the -vat ending from a perfective verb rather denotes a repeated action, nothing to do with continuous tenses in English, and I would guess this is the same in Slovak? - filelakeshoe 23:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"Skryť" is perfective (e.g. Skryla som svoj denník. - (I hid my diary.). "Skrývať" implies that something is being done just now (e.g. I am just now hiding my diary. - Práve teraz skrývam svoj denník.) or regularly (e.g. She used to hide her diary. - Skrývala si svoj denník. or She hides her diary. - Skrýva si svoj denník.*) or it is in a context with a co-occuring action (He walked in as I was hiding my diary. - Vošiel, keď som skrývala svoj denník.), so it is used in the same situations as English continuous tenses. Btw, "skryju" (=I will hide) and "skrývám" (I am hiding just now / regularly or I hide (it is a custom of mine)) examples you mentioned are Czech; the same in Slovak would be "skryjem" (I will hide) and "skrývam" (I am hiding or I hide).

• By the way, "Skrýva si svoj denník."=She hides her diary (as a custom). BUT "Skrýva svoj denník."=She's hiding her diary (just now). :D Oh the joys of grammar!

Edralis 10:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

আমার দেখা সেরা — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuhin20wiki (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Shortdesc

Dear IP,

you deny that the Czech–Slovak languages group would exist?(KIENGIR (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC))

??? Wtf, dude. I have never said that. You should review my edits once more. You're just pushing nonsense. 37.47.196.219 (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@37.47.196.219:, I urge you to change your tone and style quickly, and try not to deteriorate from the topic (as well drop inappropriate accusations because also here what did was not ok). I checked carefully your edits. You have shown two examples, I showed another one. Anyway, if we do not agree, we may simply remove the shortdesc until get consensus. But what if we just modify that we abandon "spoken in Slovakia"? Since also outside Slovakia is spoken, similary to almost all languages...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC))

• It's not just about me disagreeing. The thing is, your description makes less sense than the standard one. It's as if you changed the description of English language from "West Germanic language" into "West Germanic languages". Why the plural form? The article describes a single language, not a language group. That's what I'm pointing out, and it seems fairly clear to me what the problem is. 37.47.202.18 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@37.47.202.18:,

in case you are the same IP, would you answr my question?

But what if we just modify that we abandon "spoken in Slovakia"? Since also outside Slovakia is spoken, similary to almost all languages...

Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC))

• I don't mind this change. Do as you see fit. 37.47.202.18 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism / disruptive editing

Can something be done about the disruptive editing that's been going on here? There have been people (or potentially a single person) removing Slovakian as an alternative term from the infobox, which makes no sense and ruins the overall consistency (the term is also mentioned and sourced in the lede, so why am I the only person reverting these edits??). Moreover, there have been attempts to remove both of those mentions, which is also bad because such changes should be justified, preferably with something more than a mere "I find it incorrect". Maybe we should skip that less common term, maybe it should be included (along with protecting the page), but the thing that's been going on is definitely fruitless. Can we settle upon one version of both the lede and the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.236.98 (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you not interested in discussing this or setting the page as protected? The vandalism has just occurred again. 37.47.202.168 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It's happening again. Seriously, am I the only person monitoring this article or what? 83.23.189.85 (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Any response? It's happened again now. 83.23.192.70 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

športovať: to do sports, šport: sport

both should probably be listed under German instead of English, given their pronunciation (š) same as in German "Sport", 77.10.214.148 (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Official status

Recognised minority language in

It is quite unprobable Slovak is recognised minority language in Russia and Belarus. There shall be cited sources. Until that time it shall be deleted. The same as to Ukraine.

In that way, I support source for Croatia, citing official gazette. And added Romania, we shall not forget, its home to some old small Slovak minority, language legally recognized.

As to Vojvodina, please note its not the same as Serbia in general, from legal point of view. So I have installed here bi-flag, as it is in ,,Romanian language" page. Seems to be more appropriate.

Dialects

I have changed dialect order. Traditional systematic order is Western, Central, Eastern, not other way round. Just like on the map in article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipcontributor800 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Relationships to other languages

Let this section be dispersed. It is ill-grounded. Slovak is language of its own. Yeah, a Slavic idiom, this should be declared in history and grammar section. Borrowings there are many, this should be reflected in vocabulary section, just like in case of other articles on languages- see Polish, Danish, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipcontributor800 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)