The categorization of Rusyn as a language or dialect is a source of controversy.[23] Czech, Slovak, and Hungarian, as well as American and some Polish and Serbian linguists treat it as a distinct language[24][needs update] (with its own ISO 639-3 code), whereas other scholars (in Ukraine, Poland, Serbia, and Romania) treat it as a dialect of Ukrainian.[25][needs update]
Name
In the English language, the term Rusyn is recognized officially by the ISO.[26] Other names are sometimes also used to refer to the language, mainly deriving from exonyms such as Ruthenian or Ruthene (UK: /rʊˈθiːn/RUUTH-een, US: /ruːˈθiːn/ROO-theen),[27] that have more general meanings, and thus (by adding regional adjectives) some specific designations are formed, such as: Carpathian Ruthenian/Ruthene or Carpatho-Ruthenian/Ruthene.[28]
Within the Rusyn community, the language is also referred to as руснацькый язык, rusnac'kyj jazyk, 'Rusnak language',[18][29] or simply referred to as speaking our way (Carpathian Rusyn: по-нашому, romanized: po-nashomu).[30]
Classification
The classification of the Rusyn language has historically been both linguistically and politically controversial. During the 19th century, several questions were raised among linguists, regarding the classification of East Slavic dialects that were spoken in the northeastern (Carpathian) regions of the Kingdom of Hungary, and also in neighbouring regions of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria. From those questions, three main theories emerged:[31]
Some linguists claimed that East Slavic dialects of the Carpathian region should be classified as specific varieties of the Russian language.
Other linguists argued that those dialects should be classified as western varieties of a distinctive Ukrainian language.
A third group claimed that those dialects are specific enough to be recognized as a distinctive East Slavic language.
In spite of these linguistic disputes, official terminology used by the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy that ruled the Carpathian region remained unchanged. For Austro-Hungarian state authorities, the entire East Slavic linguistic body within the borders of the Monarchy was classified as Ruthenian language (German: ruthenische Sprache, Hungarian: Rutén nyelv), an archaic and exonymic term that remained in use until 1918.[32]
Geographic distribution
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (December 2021)
In terms of geographic distribution, Rusyn language is represented by two specific clusters: the first is encompassing Carpathian Rusyn or Carpatho-Rusyn varieties, and the second is represented by Pannonian Rusyn.[33]
The main continuum of Rusyn varieties stretches from Transcarpathia and follows the Carpathian Mountains westward into South-Eastern Poland and Eastern Slovakia, forming an area referred to as Carpathian Ruthenia. As with any language, all three major varieties of Rusyn vary with respect to phonology, morphology, and syntax, and have various features unique to themselves, while of course also containing their own, more local sub-varieties. The continuum of Rusyn is agreed to include the varieties known historically as Lemko and Bojko, and is also generally accepted to end at or with the Hucul variety, which is "not included in the Rusyn continuum per se, but represent[s] a linguistic variant .. better seen as a dialect of Ukrainian". As the westernmost member of the family of East Slavic languages, it has also acquired a number of West Slavic features—unique to East Slavic languages—due to prolonged contact with the coterritorial languages of Polish and Slovak.[35]
Literary languages
Today, there are three formally codified Rusyn literary varieties and one de facto (Subcarpathian Rusyn). These varieties reflect the culmination of nearly two centuries of activist and academic labor, during which a literary Rusyn language was desired, discussed, and addressed (time and again) by a dedicated intelligentsia. Linguist Stefan M. Pugh notes, "...at every stage someone was thinking of writing in Rusyn; approximately every generation a grammar of some sort would be written but not find wide acceptance, primarily for reasons of a political nature (and of course logistical practicalities)."[36]
Some of these earlier grammars include those by Dmytrij Vyslockij[a] (Karpatorusskij bukvar'[b]),[37] Vanja Hunjanky (1931), Metodyj Trochanovskij(Bukvar: Perša knyžečka dlja narodnıx škol;[c] 1935),[38][39] and Ivan Harajda (1941).[22] Harajda's grammar is particularly notable for having arrived in the midst of a five-year linguistic fervor for Carpatho-Rusyn. From 1939 through 1944 an estimated 1,500 to 3,000 Rusyn-language publications (mostly centered around Uzhhorod, Ukraine) entered print and from 1941 onward, Harajda's grammar was the accepted standard.
In Slovakia, the Prešov literary variety has been under continuous codification since 1995[40] when first published by Vasyl Jabur, Anna Plíšková and Kvetoslava Koporová.[citation needed] Its namesakes are both the city and region of Prešov, Slovakia—historically, each have been respective centers for Rusyn academia and the Rusyn population of Slovakia.
Prešov Rusyn was based on varieties of Rusyn found in a relatively compact area within the Prešov Region. Specifically, the variety is based on the language spoken in the area between the West Zemplin and East Zemplin Rusyn dialects (even more specifically: a line along the towns and villages of Osadne, Hostovice, Parihuzovce, Čukalovce, Pcoline, Pichne, Nechvalova Polianka, Zubne, Nizna Jablonka, Vysna Jablonka, Svetlice, and Zbojne). And though the many Rusyn dialects of Slovakia entirely surpass the limited set of features prescribed in the standard, this comparatively small sample size was consciously chosen by codifiers in order to provide a structured ecosystem within which a variety of written and spoken language would inevitably (and already did) thrive.[19]
Its orthography is largely based on Zhelekhivka,[citation needed] a late 19th century variety of the Ukrainian alphabet.
In Poland, a standard Lemko-Rusyn grammar and dictionary, Gramatyka języka łemkowskiego, 'Grammar of the Lemko Language' (Rusyn: Ґраматыка лемківского языка, romanized: Gramatŷka lemkivskoho jazŷka), was published in 2000 by Mirosława Chomiak and Henryk Fontański [pl; rue], with a second edition issued in 2004.[41][42]
Subcarpathian Rusyn
In Transcarpathia, Ukraine, M. Almašij's and Igor Kerča's Материнськый язык: Писемниця русинського языка, Materyns'kyj jazyk: pysemnycja rusyns'koho jazyka, serves as the de facto literary standard for Subcarpathian, though "unofficial". Published in 1999, with a second edition in 2004, and a 58,000 word Rusyn-Russian dictionary in 2007, Kerča's work has been used by prominent Rusyn publishers in Uzhhorod—albeit with variations between published works that are typical of the spoken language.[43][44]
Despite the above codified varieties, many Carpatho-Rusyn publications will use a combination of the three Carpathian standards (most notably in Hungary and in Transcarpathia). There have even attempts to revitalize the pre-war etymological orthography with archaic Cyrillic orthography (i.e. usage of the letter ѣ, or yat'); the latter can be observed throughout Rusyn Wikipedia, where even a single article may be written in several different codified varieties. And while somewhat archaic, used of Harajda's grammar is even promoted by some in Rusyn Wikipedia (although parts of the articles are written using other standards).
Pannonian Rusyn, has variously been referred to as an incredibly distinct dialect of Carpathian Rusyn or a separate language altogether. In the ISO 639-9 identifier application for Pannonian Rusyn (or "Ruthenian" as it is referred to in that document), the authors note that "Ruthenian is closest to [a] linguistic entity sometimes called [ Slovak: východoslovenský, Pan. Rusyn: виходнярски, lit. 'East Slovak' ],[i] ... (the speeches of Trebišov and Prešov [districts])."[45]
Literary language
The literary variety of Serbian and Croatian Rusyns is, again, significantly different from the above three Carpathian varieties in both vocabulary and grammar.[citation needed] It was first standardized in 1923 by G. Kostelnik.[citation needed] The modern standard has been continuously developed since the 1980s by Julian Ramač, Helena Međeši and Mihajlo Fejsa of Serbia, and Mihály Káprály of Hungary.[citation needed]
History
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2022)
The Rusyn Language in History
One of the dangers of any enterprise like the codification of a language is the desire to 'see' its history go back as far as possible. This danger affects every single language that may have had difficulties in gaining acceptance of its identity ... A good example is Ukrainian itself ... It was not recognized by ... the 19th century ('great') Russian establishment ... leading to a continued perception ... that Ukrainian was a 'dialect' of Russian ... Such treatment invariably led later Ukrainian scholars ... to refer to the language of those [earliest] features as not only 'old' Ukrainian but 'proto'-Ukrainian ... The desire to see the beginnings of Rusyn as existing before, say, the 18th century is entirely natural – it was clearly in evidence in that century, so the beginnings must have been earlier. In fact, it is possible to see linguistic traces of what we recognize as 'Rusyn' in documents in very early texts – but this is not to say that these texts were written in 'Old Rusyn'. It is safe to say that Rusyn begins to be quite recognizable in a more systematic fashion (in terms of modern Rusyn) by the 18th century. Of course, given the political and social histories of the region, and especially religious history, documents differ according to the region, time, and the (socio-)linguistic milieu in which they were composed – e.g., Church Slavonic, Russian, Latin, etc.
The Niagovo Postilla (Njagovskie poučenija), dated to 1758, is one of the earliest texts possessing significant phonetic and morphological characteristics of modern Rusyn (specifically the Subcarpathian variant) and is potentially "linguistically traceable" to the 16th century.[47][48]
By the 18th century, the Rusyn language was "clearly in evidence" and "quite recognizable in a more systematic fashion".[46]
The first books produced exclusively for Rusyn readership were printed under the direction of bishop of Mukachevo, Joseph Decamillis (r. 1690 – 1706). Under his direction, the printshop at the University of Trnava published a catechism (Katekhisis dlia naouki Ouhorouskim liudem, 1698) and an elementary language primer (Boukvar’ iazyka slaven’ska, 1699). For decades, these would be the only textbooks available to Rusyn students.[49]
By the 19th century, "attempts to write in a form of Russo-Church Slavonic with a Rusyn flavor, or a type of 'Subcarpathian Russian' with Rusyn phonetic features," began to be made. Notably, Myxajlo Lučkaj's grammar of the Subcarpathian variety of Church Slavonic, Grammatica Slavo-Ruthena, of 1830 had a "distinctly Rusyn flavor". And while Lučkaj did not support use of vernacular as a literary language (commenting on the proper usage of either lingua eruditorum et Communis plebis, 'the languages of the learned and the languages of the common people' in his Praefatio), he did include examples of "Rusyn paradigms" in his work to attempt demonstrate its similarity to Church Slavonic. Lučkaj in effect sought to prove the two languages were close sisters of a common ancestor. [47][53]
In 1847, Greek Catholic priest Alexander Dukhnovych published the first textbook written almost fully in common Rusyn vernacular, Knyzhytsia chytalnaia dlia nachynaiushchykh (A Reader for Beginners).[54] Further editions of the primer followed in 1850 and 1852, as well as the establishment of "the first Carpatho-Rusyn cultural organization", the Prešov Literary Society, in 1850. Over the next four years of its existence, the Society would go on to publish a further 12 works, including Dukhnovych's Virtue is More Important than Riches (the very first play written in Carpatho-Rusyn), as well Carpatho-Rusyn's first literary anthologies in 1850, 1851, and 1852, titled Greetings to the Rusyns.[55]
By the end of 1919, the region of Subcarpathian Ruthenia was appended to the newly formed Czechoslovak state, as its easternmost province. During the next twenty years, linguistic debates were continued between the same three options (pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, and local Rusyn), with Czechoslovak state authorities occasionally acting as arbiters.[57]
In March 1939, the region proclaimed independence under the name Carpatho-Ukraine, but it was immediately occupied and annexed by Hungary. The region was later occupied (1944) and annexed (1945) by the Soviet Union, and incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR,[58] which proceeded with implementation of Ukrainian linguistic standards. In Soviet Ukraine, Rusyns were not recognized as a distinctive ethnicity, and their language was considered a dialect of Ukrainian language. Poland employed similar policies,[59] using internal deportations to move many Eastern Slavs from southeastern to newly acquired western regions (Operation Vistula),[60] and switch their language to Polish, and Ukrainian at school.
During that period, the only country that was officially recognizing the Rusyn minority and its language was Yugoslavia.[61]
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, modern standards of minority rights were gradually applied throughout Eastern Europe, thus affecting the attitude of several states towards the Rusyn language. As successors of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Croatia continued to recognize the Rusyn language as an official minority language.[62]
Scholars with the former Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies in Moscow (now the Institute of Slavonic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences) formally acknowledged Rusyn as a separate language in 1992, and trained specialists to study the language.[63] These studies were financially supported by the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Since 1995, Rusyn has been recognized as a minority language in Slovakia, enjoying the status of an official language in municipalities where more than 20 percent of the inhabitants speak Rusyn.[64]
Contemporary status
Ukrainian state authorities do not recognize Rusyns as a separate ethnicity, regardless of Rusyn self-identification. Ukraine officially considered Rusyn a dialect of Ukrainian. In 2012, Ukraine adopted a new law, recognizing Rusyn as one of several minority and regional languages, but that law was revoked in 2014.[65]
It is not possible to estimate accurately the number of fluent speakers of Rusyn; however, their number is estimated to be in the tens of thousands.[citation needed]
On January 20, 2022, the ISO 639-3 identifier, rsk, and language names, Rusyn and Ruthenian, were approved for Pannonian Rusyn by ISO. The change followed a November 2020 request by a group of linguists (including Aleksandr Dulichenko) in which ISO was asked to recognize Pannonian Rusyn as distinct and separate from Carpathian Rusyn and to issue it the new ISO 639-3 identifier, Ruthenian language (with the additional name, Rusnak).[67][68]
This ISO update is the latest development since a 2019 proposal from a smaller group of those same linguists which similarly requested suppression of the code, rue, and division of Rusyn language into two distinct languages: the East Rusyn language (Carpathian Rusyn) and the South Rusyn language (Pannonian Rusyn). However, in January 2020, ISO authorities rejected the request.[69]
As explained earlier, term Ruthenian language already has a specific and well-established meaning. However, the additional term, Rusnak, also has a wider connotation as it is a traditional endonym for all Rusyns (whether in Pannonia or Carpathian Rus').[18][70] The effects of the adoption of these terms for Pannonian Rusyn by ISO (if any) remain to be seen.
^The [w] sound only exists within alteration of [v]. However, in the Lemko variety, the [w] sound also represents the non-palatalized L, as is the case with the Polish ł.
A soft consonant combination sound [ʃʲt͡ʃʲ] exists more among the northern and western dialects. In the eastern dialects the sound is recognized as [ʃʲʃʲ], including the area on which the standard dialect is based. It is noted that a combination sound like this one, could have evolved into a soft fricative sound [ʃʲ].[71]
/ɪ/ and /ɤ/ tend to be more towards centralized as [ɪ̈], [ɤ̈].[72]
Grammar
Noun declension
This section is missing information about Lemko and Subcarpathian declension. Please expand the section to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page.(January 2022)
One final point of note is that the masculine gender (and only the masculine gender) is further subdivided into animate and inanimate types. While there are no suffixesspecific to animacy, declension between the two differs in that for animates, the form of the accusative case copies that of the genitive case.[73]
Grammatical cases
As mentioned in the preceding section, Rusyn cases are similar to those of other Slavic languages. A very general summary of usage is given in the table below, though proper usage depends on a particular situation, prepositions, and verbs used, as well as other extenuating circumstances.[73]
Nouns will generally decline differently to indicate each case (e.g. English they/them/their/theirs). Based on how they decline, nouns can be grouped into one of four "types".
Type I: feminine nouns ending in -а/-я in the nominative singular
Type II:
masculine nouns ending in a consonant in the nominative singular
neuter and masculine nouns ending in a consonant or -o in the nominative singular
neuters ending in -e or -а/-я in the nominative singular
Type III:
feminine nouns ending in a paired consonant (-cons.+ь),[ii] an unpaired palato-alveolar consonant (-ш, -ч, щ, -ж, or -дж),[iii] or -ов in the nominative singular
the feminine noun мати, maty, 'mother'
Type IV: neuter nouns ending in -а/-я in the nominative singular
Declension type I: feminines ending in -а/-я
This type consists of grammatically feminine nouns ending in -а (hard) or -я (soft) in the nominative case. The table below includes four examples of such nouns. The first two represent the archetypal feminine paradigm, while the second two represent a "common" or "two-fold gender" paradigm.
It is important to note that this second paradigm has atypical dative, locative, and instrumental singular suffixes which are actually representative of the male/neuter declension paradigm (visible later in this article). According to Pugh, this peculiarity developed as a result of the societal roles of "judge" and "elder" being traditionally patriarchal. This phenomenon is in contrast to grammatically feminine nouns of ambiguous gender where a particular role was not historically male-oriented, such as сирота, orphan. In these cases, the typical feminine paradigm is maintained.[74]
Feminine Nouns Ending in -а/-я in the Nominative Singular[74]
This declension type encompasses a very large set of vocabulary as it contains nouns of both masculine and neuter genders, hard and soft stems, as well as animate and inanimate beings (for the masculine gender).[75]
Masculines ending in consonants
This declension contains a large amount of identical forms (syncretism) between cases. Depending on the noun, the number of distinct forms may number from as few as 3 to as many as 6. For singular animate nouns, there is a single form for the accusative and genitive cases, as well as a single form for the dative and locative cases. Similarly, singular inanimate nouns share a form for nominative and locative cases.[76]
Masculine Nouns Ending in a Consonant in the Nominative Singular[76]
^ For this declension, nouns may decline with either -u or -a. Use of one or the other depends on whether the concept or object is (very generally) abstract or tangible in nature. For instance, Pugh provides the following examples for the former: "anger, pain, reason, sugar, tea"; and the following for the latter: "table, nose, knife, et al."
Neuters or masculines ending in -o, neuters ending in -e or -а/-я
The following table demonstrates the declension paradigm for nouns with hard stems which end in -o in the nominative case. Though there are some masculine nouns in this category, these nouns are predominantly neuter.
Neuter or Masculine Nouns (with Hard Stems) Ending in -o in the Nominative Singular[77]
^This follows the typical masculine animate paradigm where the genitive takes the place of the accusative.
^For the locative case, there are three possible suffixes: -ovy for animates, -i for inanimates (either masculine or neuter), and -u for stems ending in velar or soft consonants.
Neuter Nouns (with Soft Stems) Ending in -e and -а/-я in the Nominative Singular[78]
All nouns in this type are feminine. The paradigm can be identified by the following suffixes in the nominative singular case: a paired consonant (-cons.+ь),[ii] an unpaired palato-alveolar consonant (-ш, -ч, щ, -ж, or -дж),[iii] or the suffix -ов. Additionally, the noun мати, maty, 'mother' is also part of this type.
Feminine Nouns Ending in a Consonant and 'Mati'[80]
^The declension for all feminine nouns in the instrumental case is the same (-ов) across all declension types.
Declension type IV: neuters ending in -а/-я
This declension paradigm is used very rarely. It entirely consists of grammatically neuter nouns. This paradigm can be identified by the -a suffix in the nominative and accusative cases, as well as the appearance of the affix-t- between the stem and suffix in other cases. There is no variation in this paradigm: all nouns decline in an identical manner.[81]
Type IV is predominantly made up of words referring to the young of animals and humans. However, this should not be taken as a hard rule as some nouns which historically declined differently (e.g. вымя, vŷmja, 'udder' and горня, hornja, 'cup, mug'), now decline according to this paradigm instead.[81]
This section is missing information about Lemko and Subcarpathian conjugation. Please expand the section to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page.(January 2022)
Verbs may be divided into two major conjugation types, which may be identified based on the "stem-marker" that appears during conjugation. The infinitive verb forms are often ambiguous and as such, there is no general system that allows an infinitive to be identified as either Type I or Type II. Some infinitive suffixes, however, are unique to at least Type I, i.e. -ути, -овати, -нути, etc. In the following sections, the stem-markers are given in Latin as Cyrillic often obscures the markers in the conjugated forms.[83]
Conjugation type I
Type I may be divided into several sub-types, the most notable of which are the vowel+j stem-markers: -uj-, -ij-, -yj-, etc. It is important to remember that in the infinitive and some conjugations that the consonant, -j-, is truncated when followed by another consonant, e.g. бісїдув-aj-ty → бісїдув-a-ty.[84]
UJ stem markers
The -uj- set of verbs can be divided into two groups based the presence of the suffixal markers -ova- or -uj- in the infinitive. The former group representing the overwhelming majority of verbs in this type.[84]
Verbs with stem formant -IJ- are typically derived from adjectives and thus indicate the acquisition of a given property i.e. зеленый, zelenŷj, 'green' → зеленї́ти, zelenjity, 'to (turn) green'. In the infinitive, these verbs are identical to those of Conjugation II, Type I. However, these two types of verbs are conjugated differently.[86]
^ There are two conjugation schemes given in this table for the verb пити. The first is the codified variant; the second variant is found regularly in common speech.[87]
ЫJ stem markers
This conjugation scheme works similarly to the previous one.[88]
The -AJ- stem type has variations within different Rusyn dialects and regions. In the Prešov Rusyn community, the -A(J)- type described below is the predominant conjugational pattern. However, in regions further east within Slovakia and in other Rusyn communities, a full-fledged "AJ" type conjugation exists, resembling the patterns found in the rest of East Slavic.
In the Prešov Rusyn community, the -A(J)- conjugation is recommended for the written system, while the -AJ- type is limited and occurs primarily with specific verb stems like "maj-", "znaj-", and "staj-". Both forms may coexist in speech and writing, but the "A(J)" type is more prevalent in the Prešov dialect.
In Lemko Rusyn, the conjugation system generally agrees with that of Prešov Rusyn; a fully-fledged -AJ- conjugation is limited to the third person singular of only three verb stems: "мати", "знати", and "познати". In Subcarpathian Rusyn, however, the -AJ- type is predominant, and the element "aj" can appear in all persons in the non-past paradigm.[89]
A(J) stem markers
While this stem type follows a conjugation structure similar to other East Slavic languages, it is completely unique in that -j- (normally in the form of suffixes -ю, -єш, -є, -єме, -єте, -ют) is truncated—except for in the 3rd person plural. The absence of the connector vowel -e- in this conjugation type is a distinctive feature, likely influenced by West Slavic languages. The conjugational pattern is similar to other Slavic languages, particularly Slovak.[90]
This stem type also includes verbs with the suffix -ывати, a suffix which is often found in imperfective verbs.[91]
This conjugation type is marked by the presence of -AVA- in the infinitive. The conjugation scheme for these verbs vacillates depending on local dialect: sometimes being conjugated as if they were of the previously-discussed -AJ- stem type. A comparison between the two different conjugation schemes is given in the table below. The -AJ- conjugation scheme is preferred by the Prešov standard.[92]
Each of the Rusyn standard varieties has its own Cyrillic alphabet. The table below shows the Rusyn alphabet of the Prešov Standard, with notes on other varieties. The alphabets of the other Carpathian Rusyn varieties, Lemko Rusyn and Subcarpathian Rusyn, differ from the Prešov Standard in lacking ё and ї. For the Pannonian Rusyn alphabet, see Pannonian Rusyn language § Alphabet.[citation needed]
1 The Pannonian Rusyn alphabet places this letter directly after з, like the Ukrainian alphabet.
According to ALA–LC romanization, it is romanized i for Pannonian Rusyn and y otherwise.
1 "Soft Sign": marks the preceding consonant as palatalized (soft)
1 "Hard Sign": marks the preceding consonant as NOT palatalized (hard).
Until World War II, the letter ѣ (їть or yat') was used, and was pronounced /ji,ʲi/ or /i/ⓘ. This letter is still used in part of the articles in the Rusyn Wikipedia.
The Rusyn alphabets all place ь after я, as the Ukrainian alphabet did until 1990. The vast majority of Cyrillic alphabets place ь before э (if present), ю, and я.
The Lemko and Prešov Rusyn alphabets place ъ at the very end, while the vast majority of Cyrillic alphabets place it after щ. They also place ы before й, while the vast majority of Cyrillic alphabets place it after ш, щ (if present), and ъ (if present).
In the Prešov Rusyn alphabet, і and ї come before и, and likewise, і comes before и in the Lemko Rusyn alphabet (which does not have ї). In the Ukrainian alphabet, however, и precedes і and ї, and the Pannonian Rusyn alphabet (which does not have і) follows this precedent by placing и before ї.
Sample text
Lemko Rusyn
Того року одбыла ся уж друга стрича габурскых родаків, котрых на Сільському уряді в Габурі 8. липця 2006, на ридни земли привитав староста села М. Ющік. Щиры слова подякы і гордости за шыриня доброй славы свого села, витаня медже довго невидженыма родаками, спомины давных часив, Габури, родини і традициї были не лем на стричи родаків, але і на цілим дводньовим культурно-суспільним і спортовим сьвяті, яке ся одбыло під назвом «Габура співає і спортує».
Prešov Rusyn
Того року ся одбыла уж друга стріча габурскых родаків, котрых на Сельскім уряді в Габурі 8. юла 2006, на роднім ґрунті привитав староста села М. Ющік. Слова до душы, подякы і гордости за шыріня доброго хыру о своїм селі, витаня довго невидженых родаків, споминаня на давны часы, на Габуру, на родину і традіції мали свій простор нелем на стрічі родаків але і на цілій двадньовій културно-сполоченьскій і шпортовій акції, яка ся одбывала під назвом: «Габура співає і шпортує.»
Pannonian Rusyn
Того року ше одбуло уж друге стретнуце габурчанох по походзеню, хторих у Валалским уряду, у Габури 8. юлия 2006. року, на родней груди привитал староста валалу М. Ющик. Щири слова, подзековносц, пиха и гордосц пре добри глас о своїм валалу, витаня длуго нєвидзеней родзини, здогадованя на давни часи, на Габуру, на родзину и традицию, мали свойо место нє лєм на стретнуцох родзини, алє и на цалей дводньовей културно-уметнїцкей и спортовей програми хтора ше одбувала под назву: «Габура шпива и шпортує».
Standard Ukrainian
Того року відбулася друга зустріч габурських земляків, котрих на Сільському уряді в Габурі 8 липня 2006 року, на рідній землі привітав староста села М. Ющік. Щирі слова подяки й гордості за поширення доброї слави свого села, вітання довго не бачених земляків, спомини давніх часів, Габури, родини і традицій мали місце не лише на зустрічі земляків, але й на дводенному культурно-суспільному і спортивному святі, яке відбувалося під назвою «Габура співає і займається спортом».
^ abThe terms "paired" and "unpaired" refer to a consonant's use with the soft sign, the letter ь. Consonants that can be palatalized with the soft sign are referred to as "paired consonants", as in the case of н/нь. Others that are inherently hard or soft and never appear with ь are referred to as "unpaired consonants", as in the cases of the letters к or ч.[79]
^ abPugh refers to these collectively as "hushers".
^"Implementation of the Charter in Hungary". Database for the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Public Foundation for European Comparative Minority Research. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 16 June 2014.
^Udvari, István (2004). "The Urbarium of Maria Theresa in the languages of the South Slavic peoples of the Hungarian Kingdom". Studia Slavica. 49 (1–2): 103–119. doi:10.1556/sslav.49.2004.1-2.7.
Csernicskó, István; Fedinec, Csilla (2016). "Four Language Laws of Ukraine". International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 23: 560–582. Archived from the original on 17 February 2022. Retrieved 28 June 2021.
![[icon]](File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
