Talk:ЗСУ

RFV discussion: September 2022–May 2023
Russian, added by User:Gnosandes.

There are many code-switches and contamination, which don't justify inclusion in dictionaries. I heard this usage myself from anti-war media in the Russian language but it's just shows what it is - lack of knowledge or carelessness by speakers. When the usage is confirmed in the permanent media, the inclusion can be reviewed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "There are many code-switches and contamination...". Are there any examples? Is it really "many"?
 * In the anti-war media, perhaps it is a lack of knowledge or carelessness by speakers, but what if something else? In this case, we see the fact of a simple borrowing of an abbreviation and the fact of forced borrowing. In the first case it is mass, and in the second it is local. The abbreviation is already in the language, it's a fact. Therefore, I see no obstacle to include it in dictionaries. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see an obstacle. Yes, there are many, especially if you consider the reverse, how many Russianisms are currently in use in Ukrainian, since many just don't know or don't remember the right word. Let the RFV take its course, the three citations should come from permanently recorded media, then it would be a fact. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But the Ukrainian language is not a kind of monolith, just like other languages. Vasmer, for example, claimed that there are polonisms in the Belarusian language, but a more thorough analysis showed that these are borrowings of various dialects from the dialects of Smolensk and above. Thus, I will have to take you by the hand and go in all articles to give three quotes, it's strange that not 3.02 quotes, but that's different. On the contrary, I have audio recordings of forced borrowings, but I will publish them only in December. Simple borrowings can be found, as you say, in the media. But this situation resembles the development of different words based on the word "covid", which have already left the language, but are fixed by dictionaries. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the WT:CFI for Russian (as a well-documented language) required 3.02 quotes, then 3.02 would be required, otherwise, just 3 quotes will suffice. If you haven't taken part in RFV's before, then take a look around, I don't see any reasons to argue or discuss, it's straightforward. You can RFV yourself, if you have doubts about some other terms. You can try challenging CFI, if you can. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. It would be wise to wait for the result of your request. I was just wondering why exactly three quotes and why exactly with three quotes it becomes a fact. Apparently some genius came up with this nonsense and everyone agreed with him, even you. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WT:CFI Vininn126 (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)