Talk:буковинець сипав воду а галичан віллів

RFV discussion: August 2020–February 2024
Ukrainian. @Atitarev This has no hits outside of Wiktionary, and the grammar of галичан віллів seems questionable; галичан is genitive plural, which doesn't fit, and віллів cannot be found in any dictionary. Benwing2 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2: Entry created by User:Kevlar67, apparently from hearsay, used by some narrow community in Canada. I don't understand the grammar and most of the vocab in the phrase. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Hearsay" is one way of saying it. It's actually "oral history research" done by professional museum researchers.  http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/heritagevillage/dictionary.php#B  see the quote: "Bukovýnets sýpav vódu a halychán výlliv — a Bukovynian and a Galician both pour water, but each calls it by another name." I just transliterated it into Cyrillic. (though perhaps it should be виллів) Kevlar67 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So what we have here is an obsolete Canadian dialect of Ukrainian, taken from a website of questionable provenance, with no source identified for the words, written in a non-scientific transcription, then back-transliterated into Cyrillic (sometimes with errors) and identified as "Ukrainian" often with no indication that it's obsolete dialect. This doesn't bode well, to say the least. I feel uncomfortable about accepting these terms at all into this dictionary; I think it does no favors to the quality of the dictionary to include them. Furthermore, do you understand the grammar of this sentence? I don't: the word for Galician is галича́нин (галича́н is genitive plural, which makes no sense here) and ви́ллів looks like a genitive plural but I don't know of what word; it can't be found in the dictionary. I suspect this phrase is garbled by whoever did the research. Benwing2 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2: Obsolete is a bit strong; it's in decline, sure, but so are thousands of languages and dialects around the world. The research was done the [[w:Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village]|Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, an agency of the Government of Alberta, by professional researchers including Klymasz] Robert Klymasz the preeminent Ukrainian-Canadian folklorist and expert on the local dialect.  The link I provided is a summary comprised of the glossaries of several published works of oral history research, most notably Robert B. Klymasz, |Sviéto: Celebrating Ukrainian-Canadian ritual in East Central Alberta through the Generations, Edmonton, 1992.  Notice that the title is even in dialect, the standard being Sviato.  Yes, indeed the phrase it should be given context labels.  I have no issue with that, in fact I can do it now. Kevlar67 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * About the transcription: it is a modified version of the Library of Congress system that the research staff at the Ukrainian Village adopted for their first published report in 1976, Ukrainian Vernacular Architecture in Alberta by John Lehr, when access to word processors that could make diacritical marks in Canada was limited. Further, the materials were meant to be read by non-linguists, mainly museum employees, historians, folklorists, etc.  I don't see this as an issue in any way.  Works about the dialect were also published in Cyrillic, notably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Rudnyckyj Jaroslav Rudnyckyj's multi-volume Ukrainian-Canadian Folklore and Dermatological Texts (Winnipeg, 1956, 1958, and 1962-63). Kevlar67 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kevlar67: The phrase has no value and should be deleted. It was poorly transliterated (the page just uses phonetic Anglicisation, not any specific standard) and poorly translated or rather described. Now I understand what it meant:
 * At play is a variation of two verbs with similar meaning:
 * си́пати/насипа́ти (наси́пати)/висипа́ти (ви́сипати) vs ли́ти/налива́ти (нали́ти)/вилива́ти (ви́лити)
 * "sýpav" refers to си́пав (from си́пати-impf) and "výlliv" is ви́лив (from ви́лити-pf, to pour out).
 * There is a mix-up in East Slavic languages, not unique to Ukrainian about си́пати (to pour friable/solid objects, such as sand, sugar, salt, etc) and ли́ти (to pour (liquid). Using си́пати (*sỳpati) is normally considered incorrect in standard Ukrainian, ли́ти (*liti) should be used for liquids. This incorrect usage is ascribed to a Galician speaker and it's supposed to be funny in how one person from Bukovina pours water in, the other from Galicia pours it out but they just use different verbs to describe their action.
 * The sentence uses inconsistent aspects - the first part is imperfective and the second is perfective.
 * It's grammatically incorrect. It can be rewritten as "букови́нець си́пав во́ду, а галича́нин вилива́в" (imperfective) or "букови́нець naси́пав во́ду, а галича́нин ви́лив" (perfective). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of no value to whom? Yes, I understand it is humourous, that was the point all along.  It is equivalent to the English saying: Britain and American are two countries divided by a common language.  Rather than give an word-for-word translation, I think the point of the sentence is best compared to this popular English joke.  This was how Galicians and Bukovinians felt about each other when they settled together in Canada: similar enough to understand each other but different enough to get confused.  Again, this is recorded exactly as spoken from oral history interviews, using the Library of Congress system so if the grammar doesn't match standardized conventions, this is not an error, it is verity.  In any event, I will be adding more examples of Ukrainian-Canadian usage as part of my work to document and publicize this endangered dialect.  Kevlar67 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Kevlar67: Are you even sure that "виллів" is correct? Why is "l" doubled and it's an "і", not "и"? It's not Ukrainian by any measure. What is this word? Are you sure that the author did a good job by transliterating into an Anglicised version of Ukrainian? Why different verbs aspects are used? It doesn't make sense. How well did the interviewees speak Ukrainian? Diaspora Ukrainian differs from modern standard Ukrainian but in different ways. Such examples only give false impressions. By not providing the links to lemmas or providing the literal translations (on top of the explanation), you're doing a disservice to users. Adding some labels (Canada, dated) is a good start but your spellings suggest that Ukrainians in 1920's in Canada didn't know how to pronounce or spell. Your source actually provides stresses, which you failed to insert. The RFV will take its course and the entry will be deleted (by any user who knows the rules here) because there are no citations provided. A single mention in this dictionary is not a enough. There are zero uses and one mention. On top of that, we don't record non-idiomatic phrases. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe this should be put into an appendix, along with any other such Canadian Ukrainian idioms that have a similar level of attestation, if there are any. 70.172.194.25 03:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. The sole citation is a questionable mention in a different script, and Ukrainian is a WDL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)