Talk:Русьскаꙗ землꙗ

русьскаꙗ землꙗ
This is SOP:. The citations and usage notes can all be moved to the separate articles. --WikiTiki89 06:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Before the existence of Rus and Russia, this was a word for the land of all Rusians/Russians, ancestors of East Slavic people. Русь was an adjective, not a noun. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything you say is true, but that does not mean it is not SOP. --WikiTiki89 07:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So is United States. It's the name of the land, a proper noun, idiomatic. The older sources have it capitalised too but it doesn't have to be. Modern Russian is also used poetically, especially in the historical works. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 08:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * United States is not SOP. It refers to a specific political entity, not just any states that happen to be united. русьскаꙗ землꙗ refers to the land of the Rus, wherever that land happened to be, and not to a political entity. --WikiTiki89 18:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Does a territory need to be recognised by a certain number of countries as well? This term is important for the Slavic history and literature. Please try knocking less important terms. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Recognition has nothing to do with it. And I'm not trying to offend the term. I agree that the concept of the "land of the Rus" was very important to Slavic history and the two words were used frequently in literature, but they are still two separate words that can be readily understood from their parts. --WikiTiki89 02:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You do offend it by failing to recognise its importance. The name "Русская земля" in various variations (letters) was used as a proper noun, name since 852 AD. It had defined borders, even if it wasn't a united state. The term "всея́ Руси́" (of all Russia, of all Rusians/Russians - including Great Russia and Little Russia) is equally important as an attribute form. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * -sche's example, the "German Nation", is also an important term. A dictionary is not a collection of important things, it's a collection of words, and русьскаꙗ землꙗ is not a word; it is two words. --WikiTiki89 04:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that non-native speakers may argue that "Русская земля" in the historical context just means "the Russian/Rusian land/the land of the Rus" but you're native speaker, you're able to educate yourself and read more about its usage, what historians and linguists say and try to understand that this is a word, a name for a land and the only name used by East Slavs, it's not a concept. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it boils down to the same debate that we had for (which is not archived on its discussion page, I wonder where it is). I don't consider "русский язык" to be a word, but I think I remember that you did and probably still do. --WikiTiki89 04:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's some discussion on Talk:Türk dili, and some more on Talk:старославянский язык. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And here: Talk:tadžikų kalba --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 20:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An orthographical dictionary entry: Русская земля @ Яндекс.Словари › Орфографический словарь. — 2004. The site gramota.ru recommends to capitalise the term: "земля Русская"/"Русская земля"@ gramota.ru. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that one dictionary includes it means very little to me. --WikiTiki89 04:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How does this compare to, say, German nation / German Nation? It is "important for [Germanic] history and literature". - -sche (discuss) 02:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's different. "Русьскаꙗ землꙗ" was used as a name for the country/land. As I said, it's still used as or  as a complete replacement for  and  (in all caps and lower case), not the "Rus(s)ian land" but "Rus(sia)". You  would need to browse "Сло́во о полку́ И́гореве" (The Tale of Igor's Campaign) to get an idea about the usage. There is a lot of discussion about the usage of "Русская земля" in the Old Russian literature. It is has lots of controversies and various claims but nevertheless, "Русская земля" is now a term to refer to Rus in the modern literature. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that you referred to it in Modern Russian as the separately-linked, just proves my point further. --WikiTiki89 02:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't created an entry yet but I will, when I get enough sources. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but instead of redlinking it as a word we don't have, you linked them separately, because that is sufficient. And it is sufficient because it's SOP. --WikiTiki89 03:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My linking means nothing, I copied it from the derivation section. why would I redlink non-existent entry if people can't look it up and understand? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was that if linking them separately is enough for people to understand the term, then the term is SOP. --WikiTiki89 04:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Being understandable doesn't mean it's not a word. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To quote WT:CFI: "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." --WikiTiki89 04:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Being SOP is not a reason to delete, but it’s also not a reason, by itself, to keep. English-speakers who do not know Russian cannot look at the two separate words and understand what Ру́сская земля́ means. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Just as - -sche asked if it is like "German nation"...he asked that because he does not know what it means, and it is not like "German nation." —Stephen (Talk) 05:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He asked because he does not know if it means what he thinks it means. But it does mean exactly what he thinks it means. You say it is different from "German nation", but in what way is it different? --WikiTiki89 05:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I ask because I think they are comparable, and I'd like to know if others agree or disagree. I haven't formed an opinion as to whether their comparability means we should have both (and Deutsche Nation/deutsche Nation) or delete them. They are descriptive phrases, often capitalized, with identifiable referents. The referents are countries, and in that way the terms could be compared (imperfectly) to the Republic of Ireland, State of Israel, Kingdom of Sweden, etc, which we have entries for. The precise identities of the referents were fluid over time (i.e. which lands were the "land[s] of the Rus" varied from decade to decade), but the identities of countries were in general more fluid in the past (which lands were part of "China"/"中國" also varied). OTOH, "capital of China" and "capital of Russia" are descriptive phrases with identifiable, fluid references, as, for that matter, are "land of the Turks" and "land of the Saracens". - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know an English equivalent, maybe French Pays de la Loire? The "Русьская земля" (this spelling is used in Russia as ꙗ is quite new) - the name of the land, was later referred to as "Русь", and so was also used in other languages in later translations (e.g. English "Rus"). The current definition is mostly a literal translation or rather an explanation of the term into English, with a more modern term "Rus". My first impression is Deutsche Nation/deutsche Nation are non-idiomatic but that's my first impression. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, and Anatoli will probably disagree with me, "Русьскаꙗ землꙗ" is the equivalent of something like "Land of (the Tribe of) Benjamin". The Tribe of Benjamin had well-defined borders and some political independence, there was nonetheless no real "name" for the land. It was just the "Land of Benjamin". The fact that this land refers to a specific location in a specific time period where a specific people lived, does not make the phrase "Land of Benjamin" idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 02:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You guessed it right, I disagree. There is nothing idiomatic about "Land of Benjamin", I find this example quite silly actually. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So tell me, what's the difference between the Rus and the Tribe of Benjamin? --WikiTiki89 03:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just stop edit-warring. I don't expect you to be well-read in Russian or have respect for the language or history, though. I'm leaving this discussion for now, talk to someone else. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you responded to my edit summary I wouldn't be so quick to revert you. Those links have absolutely no useful information. --WikiTiki89 03:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Usefulness is subjective and you don't control Wiktionary and references to dictionaries are allowed, especially proving that the term is a word not a free collocation. I have blocked User:Wikitiki89 for a short period for edit-warring. I'm sure someone will unblock him or he will unblock himself. He can hate me but there's no reason to hate his own language, if he considers Russian his language. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is mutual, if was edit warring then so were you. At least I gave you the courtesy of an edit summary, which you did not respond to at all. The reason I think those pages don't have useful content is because the first one says nothing more than "Ру́сская земля́ (Россия, Русь)", while the second one is just a search result of a Q&A forum asking about how to capitalize "Русская земля". The third and fourth at least go into more depth and are therefore actually useful as references, which is why I left them. --WikiTiki89 03:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Orthographic dictionary is definitely a reference, "Русская земля" is used as a separate word, not an example, no wonder you don't like this reference. 2. [gramota.ru] is not a forum but a Russian government financed organisation, their references are used for determining correct spelling of words and forms. In particular, capitalisation of "Русская земля" (for other users, Russian adjectives, including ethnicities are not capitalised (as I have explained to you earlier, it's "русский" not "Русский", "белорусский" not "Белорусский") is a prove that it is a proper noun because it's a name of a country, cf. "русский народ" is only written in lower case. 3. Referencing dictionaries don't require any explanations, especially if they are removed as "useless".
 * Re: "Mutual" edit warring. You have reverted my edit with references, which obviously work against your RFD case but support the validity of entries, brushing off as "useless". I don't see how I started it. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. If you had said that you wanted it there to demonstrate capitalization, I would have let it go. 2. Gramota.ru is a search engine/dictionary thing. When you search for a word it returns dictionary results as well as other results. In this case, it said "Всего найдено: 1" (Total found: 1), "Вопрос № 241992" (Question #241992), and then a question and then an answer. It may not be exactly a "forum", but i is close enough. 3. Referencing dictionaries does require explanation if someone doubts the relevance. In this case, you posted links to dictionaries of modern Russian on an Old East Slavic page, which is totally wrong. Remember that this RFD is of the Old East Slavic term, not the modern Russian term. Lastly, the entry itself is not a place to make an argument for keeping a term unless it improves the page itself, if you want us to consider those sources, post them here, not there. I don't think Wiktionary's readers will find those links particularly useful. I also seem to feel that you think that capitalization is a key point in this RFD debate, but it isn't. Capitalized proper nouns can still be SOP. --WikiTiki89 04:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Old East Slavic words and expressions, grammar are also normally considered Russian words because letters used before are hardly used. "Откуда есть пошла Русская земля" is such an example of using OES grammar in a Russian sentence. It's impossible to find references for a script no longer used. All ancient books are published in a modern way and the term remained, even if spelled in a modern way. Capitalisation may not prove to be useful with other languages or with company names, with Russian and with geographical names, they are useful. Place names are allowed but we had battles about their inclusion, which are long over. I will modify grammar.ru reference to make it better. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not about the script. If you referenced an Old East Slavic dictionary that spelled it "Русская земля", that would be a valid reference. But a Modern Russian dictionary is an entirely different story. --WikiTiki89 04:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In your own words OES is Old Russian but now this doesn't suit you. Old German words are found in modern German dictionaries, old Russian words are found in modern Russian dictionaries. "Русская земля" in the old Russian literature is used in this spelling if you want to use Internet for references, stylicised to make it more readable, old letters are simply not supported. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth, what you call the language makes no difference. Old East Slavic, or Old Russian, is as different from Russian as Middle English is from English. It is the direct ancestor of Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian. So if you want to say that it is the same language as Modern Russian, then you're gonna have to say that it is also the same language as Modern Ukrainian and Modern Belarusian. There are plenty of expressions that were SOP in Middle English that are now idiomatic in Modern English. --WikiTiki89 05:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Similarly, modern Russian dictionaries use Old Russian spelling (without missing fonts), e.g. «Роуская»/«Руская»/«Руськая»/«Русьская» земля» as in Русская земля, this entry gives 5 definitions of "Русская земля". No, it's not "the same", it's the archaic form of Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian, authors choosing the letters they can find and readers can understand. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, the spelling is not important. A dictionary of Modern Russian does not count as a reference for Old Russian. Go ahead and try to find one other editor who disagrees with that. --WikiTiki89 05:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The modern Russian dictionary clearly shows Old Russian origin of the term, if it's not obvious. None of «Роуская»/«Руская»/«Руськая»/«Русьская» земля» are used in modern Russian. What's next? You want a published Old Russian dictionary? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it originated in Old Russian, but that doesn't mean it was idiomatic in Old Russian. SOP phrases can become idiomatic as time goes on. The question here is if this phrase was idiomatic back then, and I don't think it was. --WikiTiki89 06:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you don't think it was but you can't make such a judgement, with a number of OES manuscripts before 15th century left and their availability. What is available proves it was a word back then as well. At least, you acknowledge that it is idiomatic in the modern Russian, which in turn, without any doubts, was derived from Old East Slavic. I am sure you will deny this now. I have to go, will check answers later, not enjoying this at all. BTW, do you have to be so difficult? Is this pride or you just hate to be wrong in anything? I don't care about being wrong, if I'm wrong but I care about words. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 07:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I think it is idiomatic in Modern Russian is because it is a historical term that implies a specific time period. The word "Русский" in Russian no longer refers to the "Русь", which is now a historical term as well, but to the Russian people, which are descended from the "Русь" but no longer equated with them. Back then, there was no such distinction, "Русьскыи" referred simply to the Rus and "Русьскаꙗ землꙗ" to their land/country/territory. BTW, you take these things too personally. I didn't nominate this because of pride or lack of respect for Russian history (contrary to what you think, I have a great deal of respect for Russian history, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered knowing anything at all about OES). I nominated this for deletion because I truly think that it is SOP. When you try to make it personal, it interferes with the discussion and makes me feel guilty. But I don't concede discussions just because I feel guilty, I concede discussions after being proven wrong in a logical debate. --WikiTiki89 14:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Anatoli. —Stephen (Talk) 04:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kept. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)