Talk:Statutes of Lithuania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lithuanian?[edit]

Do you need a title in "Lithuanian", if the documents itself do not contain a single word in Lithuanian language? --rydel 00:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is know as such in both Polish and Lithuanians. The language is not important, the Lithuanian stands for 'related to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I bet Rydel meant the Lithuanian translation of the title in the header. //Halibutt 13:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use "Litva" instead of Lithuania, which only confuses the issue, implying that contemporary Lithuania is somehow equivalent to historical Lithuania. Objectively speaking, it is not; this is a case where the name is greater than the people--Ysakavik ````

Because such country as Litva never existed, like Baltarusija or Lenkija... Iulius 17:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The language is very important. The official language of The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Old Belarusian. And of course, all the statutes were written in Old Belarusian (look at the statutes covers). For this reason we have to mention Belarusian variant of the word combination "Statutes of The Grand Duchy of Lithuania". 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Litvin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.164.30.78 (talk)

The language is not important? What a nonsense! Look at the title page of the statute and then at the modern (even modern) Belarusian variant of the document's name. See a great resemblance? Thus stop finish off Belarusian history. If anything, why the Polish variant should be mentioned if the documents were written BEFORE the establishment of the Commonwealth? On those days Grand Duchy was SEPARATE from anybody (especially Muscovites and Poles), standing by itself. Thus, what's the reason to mention Polish variant? Just because the document was translated into Polish? OK, let's then put the Russian variant as well, because it was translated for Muscovites as well... "The language is not important", it's just like you would say about modern Poland, that the official language of the country is not important. It's an insult! You all are ready to lie anything just to finish off Belarusian history or to steal something from it. Have a heart! (UTC)Olga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.164.79.150 (talk)
A question from a linguist: About what "artificial language" are you talking in the article. Artificial language? Are you kidding me?

Author[edit]

Who actually wrote these statutes ? Lysy 08:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is more info on my article (made mostly from Talk:Union of Lublin here: Statutes of Lithuania. This needs to be merged, and the resulting article would benefit from linking from more relevant articles - I created mine cause it was not linked from Union of Lublin and I didn't thought there already is one. Still, I think mine is better then the orginal - see below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV[edit]

'The Lithuanian Statutes, especially the Third Statute, were so well-written that they answered society's needs for 250 years. ' Seems rather strange to me. Weren't they written by and for Lithuanian magnates and therefore more opressive then the Union of Lublin legislation? Even if not, I doubt that the above society includes the peasants or townsfolk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It did include everyone, most remarkable part in the third statute was the fact, that for killing everyone regardless of their status received the same punishment. Statutes were the masterpiece of Golden age of Grand Duchy.

I'm not quite expert on the matter, you might read Juliusz Bardach works on the subject, he is one of th most renowned Polish specialists in the field.--Lokyz 16:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Statutes of Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What written in chronicles[edit]

500 families from the city of Aquileia left when they were attacked by Atilla and landed up the Neman River on Baltic sea then some of them crossed the Vilija River to the sunrise where they played trumpets (Tubo) local Balts and Rus called Lithuania.

In 1529 was created a code of laws Statute of the GDL in the language of Rus modern Belarusian, but immediately was translated into Latin language in 1530 and that the language of Ancient Rome and city Aquillea and that are Italian. For the majority of nobility native language was Latin or Roman or Italian it is clearly written in chronicles. Александр Макович (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translated on Italian?[edit]

Any other contry translated on latin ther internal laws? Александр Макович (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

How did it become Chancery Ruthenian? The page for it has no mentions of statutes, and it's the Old Russian, not Old Belarusian. See for example [1] that doesn't mention "Chancery", or see here: Its sociolinguistic status was very peculiar and has to be adequately understood in the conteXt of its time: on the one hand, Prosta Mova stands in opposition to a "high", Church Slavonic variant, on the other hand, it was clearly distinguished from the "uncultivated, low" vernacular of the East Slavic peasants. The famous Lithuanian Statutes from 1529, 1566 and 1588 were written in this language; they announced that official documents had to be formulated in it. Artem.G (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frost, p. 418: In his absence, Gostautas piloted through the codification of the law which was the price for Sigismund August’s election. Discussions over its final form extended the sejm until February, when what is known as the First Lithuanian Statute was agreed. It came into force on St Martin’s Day (29 November 1529). Written in the chancery Ruthenian that had been the grand duchy’s language of government since the fourteenth century, it soon appeared in Latin (1530) and Polish (1532) translations.
Also linked by you Wiemer, p. 110: At least since Vytautas' time (see above) but probably much earlier, documents were written in an East Slavic variety which soon was to become a kind of lingua franca of the GDL. This variety has been variably called either 'Old BeIarusian' or 'rus'ka mova' (cf. Cekmonas 2001a: 81), 'Prosta Mova' (cf. Moser 1998) or (West Russian Chancellory Language' (cf. Stang 1935).12 Though its structural basis was clearly East Slavic, with time it was more and more influenced by Polish. The name 'Prosta Mova' refers instead to its status during the 16th-17th centuries and The famous Lithuanian Statutes from 1529, 1566 and 1588 were written in this language; they announced that official documents had to be formulated in it.
It was certainly not Church Slavonic, but a written version of Ruthenian, in its Western variety, used in the GDL chancery, which is usually called "Chancery Ruthenian." The language underwent changes over time.
I would ask that the version sourced by Frost be restored. Marcelus (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
check the page for Chancery Ruthenian, and check what was written in it - is there a source that says that The Tale of Igor's Campaign and Statutes are written in the same language? The terminology for Old Russian / Belarusian / Church Slavonic is messed, but I doubt it was the same language. Artem.G (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there best source I can find is The language of the Lithuanian statute of 1529 : orthography, phonology, inflections, but it's not online. Artem.G (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a bad redirect, it should link to Ruthenian language. The Tale of Igor's Campaign was written in the in the Old Ruthenina/Old East Slavic, which isn't the same as Ruthenian language or Chancery Ruthenian. Church Slavonic isn't the same language, it's not even the same branch, it's related more to Old Bulgarian. Forst and Wiemer are good enough sources, we don't really need anything more. Please restore the version you removed. Marcelus (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Statutes_of_Lithuania&oldid=1210547464"