Misplaced Pages

Rusyn
русиньскый язык; руски язик rusîn'skyj jazyk; ruski jazik
Ethnicity	Rusyns
Native speakers	70,000 (2001–2013) Slovakia – 38,679 Serbia – 15,626 Poland – 10,000 Ukraine – 6,725 Croatia – 2,337 Hungary – 1,113 Czech Republic – 777
Language family	Indo-European Balto-Slavic Slavic East Slavic Rusyn
Early forms	Proto-Indo-European Proto-Balto-Slavic Proto-Slavic Old East Slavic Ruthenian
Dialects	Lemko Prešov Subcarpathian Pannonian
Writing system	Cyrillic script (Rusyn alphabets) Latin script (Slovakia)
Official status
Official language in	Serbia (in Vojvodina)
Recognised minority language in	Bosnia and Herzegovina  Croatia  Czech Republic  Hungary  Poland  Romania  Slovakia
Language codes
ISO 639-3	rue
Glottolog	rusy1239
Linguasphere	53-AAA-ec < 53-AAA-e (varieties: 53-AAA-eca to 53-AAA-ecc)
Rusyn is classified as Vulnerable by the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger
This article contains IPA phonetic symbols. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Unicode characters. For an introductory guide on IPA symbols, see Help:IPA.

Rusyn (/ˈruːsɪn/ ROO-sin; Carpathian Rusyn: русиньскый язык, romanized: rusîn'skyj jazyk; Pannonian Rusyn: руски язик, romanized: ruski jazik) is an East Slavic language spoken by Rusyns in parts of Central and Eastern Europe, and written in the Cyrillic script. The majority of speakers live in an area known as Carpathian Ruthenia that spans from Transcarpathia, westward into eastern Slovakia and south-east Poland. There is also a sizeable Pannonian Rusyn linguistic island in Vojvodina, Serbia, as well as a Rusyn diaspora throughout the world. Per the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Rusyn is officially recognized as a protected minority language by Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Poland (as Lemko), Serbia, and Slovakia.

The categorization of Rusyn as a language or dialect is a source of controversy. Czech, Slovak, and Hungarian, as well as American and some Polish and Serbian linguists treat it as a distinct language (with its own ISO 639-3 code), whereas other scholars (in Ukraine, Poland, Serbia, and Romania) treat it as a dialect of Ukrainian.

Name

In the English language, the term Rusyn is recognized officially by the ISO. 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), 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.

Within the Rusyn community, the language is also referred to as руснацькый язык, rusnac'kyj jazyk, 'Rusnak language', or simply referred to as speaking our way (Carpathian Rusyn: по-нашому, romanized: po-nashomu).

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:

• 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.

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.

Carpathian Rusyn is spoken in:

• the Zakarpattia Oblast of Ukraine.
• northeastern regions of Slovakia.
• southeastern regions of Poland. The variety of Rusyn spoken in Poland is generally known as Lemko language (лемківскій язык lemkivskij jazyk).
• northeastern regions of Hungary.
• northern regions of Romania (in Maramureș).

Pannonian Rusyn is spoken by the Pannonian Rusyns in the region of Vojvodina (in Serbia), and in a nearby region of Slavonia (in Croatia).

Varieties

Carpathian Rusyn varieties

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 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.

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)."

Some of these earlier grammars include those by Dmytrij Vyslockij (Karpatorusskij bukvar'), Vanja Hunjanky (1931), Metodyj Trochanovskij (Bukvar: Perša knyžečka dlja narodnıx škol; 1935), and Ivan Harajda (1941). Harajda's grammar is particularly notable for having arrived in the midst of a five-year linguistic furvor 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.

1. Rusyn: Дмитрий Вислоцкий
2. Rusyn: Карпаторусский букварь
3. Rusyn: Буквар. Перша книжечка для народных школ.

Prešov Rusyn

In Slovakia, the Prešov literary variety has been under continuous codification since 1995 when first published by Vasyl Jabur, Anna Plíšková and Kvetoslava Koporová. 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.

Its orthography is largely based on Zhelekhivka, a late 19th century variety of the Ukrainian alphabet.

Lemko-Rusyn

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.

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.

Common usage

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages (although parts of the articles are written using other standards).

Pannonian Rusyn

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 linguistic entity sometimes called , ... (the speeches of Trebišov and Prešov )."

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. It was first standardized in 1923 by G. Kostelnik. 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.

History

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2022)

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 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.

By the 18th century, the Rusyn language was "clearly in evidence" and "quite recognizable in a more systematic fashion".

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.

Later, in 1767 Maria Theresa's Urbarium was published throughout the Habsburg Empire in a variety of languages, including Rusyn.

Finally, under Bishop Andriy Bachynskyi's tenure (r. 1773 – 1809) in the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Mukachevo, new texts for Rusyn student readership were published. These several editions of Ioann Kutka's primer and catechism were published in Rusyn vernacular, though with heavy influence from Church Slavonic.

19th century

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.

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). 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.

20th century

After the dissolution of Austria-Hungary (1918), the newly proclaimed Hungarian Republic recognized Rusyn regional autonomy in Subcarpathian regions and created, at the beginning of 1919, a department for Rusyn language and literature at the Budapest University.

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.

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, 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, using internal deportations to move many Eastern Slavs from southeastern to newly acquired western regions (Operation Vistula), 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.

Post-Soviet developments

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.

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. 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.

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.

Rusyn is recognized as an officially protected, minority language by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2011), Croatia (1997), Hungary (1998), Romania (2008), Poland (as Lemko, 2009), Serbia (2006), and Slovakia (2002).

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.

ISO 639-9 Identifiers

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has assigned the ISO 639-3 code 'rue' for Carpathian Rusyn.

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).

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.

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'). The effects of the adoption of these terms for Pannonian Rusyn by ISO (if any) remain to be seen.

Phonology

Consonants

1. The sound only exists within alteration of . However, in the Lemko variety, the sound also represents the non-palatalized L, as is the case with the Polish ł.

A soft consonant combination sound exists more among the northern and western dialects. In the eastern dialects the sound is recognized as , 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 .

Vowels

• /ɪ/ and /ɤ/ tend to be more towards centralized as , .

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)

Declension in Rusyn is based on grammatical number, gender, and case. Like English, only two types of grammatical number are expressed: singular and plural. And like other Slavic languages, Rusyn has three grammatical genders: feminine, masculine, and neuter. Furthermore, like those languages, Rusyn uses a seven-case system of nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, locative, instrumental, and vocative cases.

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 suffixes specific to animacy, declension between the two differs in that for animates, the form of the accusative case copies that of the genitive case.

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.

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), an unpaired palato-alveolar consonant (-ш, -ч, щ, -ж, or -дж), 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.

1. ^ -ов is pronounced as in English owe.

Declension type II: masculines and neuters

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).

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.

1. 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.

1. This follows the typical masculine animate paradigm where the genitive takes the place of the accusative.
2. 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.

1. Over time, soft consonants before -e have hardened in Rusyn.
2. This suffix changed over time from -e to -a.

Declension type III: other feminines

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), an unpaired palato-alveolar consonant (-ш, -ч, щ, -ж, or -дж), or the suffix -ов. Additionally, the noun мати, maty, 'mother' is also part of this type.

1. 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.

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.

Verbal conjugation

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.

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.

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.

IJ stem markers

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.

YJ stem markers

There are very few verbs in this category, but the members that do belong to it, tend to be commonly used.

1. 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.

ЫJ stem markers

This conjugation scheme works similarly to the previous one.

AJ stem markers

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.

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.

This stem type also includes verbs with the suffix -ывати, a suffix which is often found in imperfective verbs.

AVA stem markers

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.

A stem markers

NU stem markers

Non-syllabic stem markers

Consonant stems

Conjugation type II

Y-type I

Y-type II

I-type

Palato-Alveolar Stems

Irregular Verbs

Orthography

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.

Romanization (transliteration) is given according to ALA-LC, BGN/PCGN, generic European, ISO/R9 1968 (IDS), and ISO 9.

Usage notes

1. Not used in Lemko.
2. Not used in Pannonian Rusyn.
3. 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.
4. "Soft Sign": marks the preceding consonant as palatalized (soft)
5. "Hard Sign": marks the preceding consonant as NOT palatalized (hard).
6. In Ukraine, usage is found of the letters о̄ and ӯ.
7. 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 Misplaced Pages.
8. The letters о̂ and ӱ are used formally.

Number of letters and relationship to the Ukrainian alphabet

The Prešov Rusyn alphabet of Slovakia has 36 letters. It includes all the letters of the Ukrainian alphabet plus ё, ы, and ъ.

The Lemko Rusyn alphabet of Poland has 34 letters. It includes all the Ukrainian letters with the exception of ї, plus ы and ъ.

The Pannonian Rusyn alphabet has 32 letters, namely all the Ukrainian letters except і.

Alphabetical order

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

See also

• Alexander Duchnovič's Theatre
• Eastern Slovak dialects
• Petro Trochanowski, contemporary Rusyn poet
• Metodyj Trochanovskij, Lemko Grammarian
• Iazychie
• Rusyn was added to Minecraft as an interface language option

Newspapers

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

• Amerikansky Russky Viestnik (defunct)
• Besida, a Lemko journal
• Karpatska Rus'
• Lem.fm, Gorlice, Poland
• Lemko, Philadelphia, US (defunct)
• Narodnȳ novynkȳ (Народны новинкы)
• Podkarpatská Rus (Подкарпатська Русь)
• Ruske slovo (Руске слово), Ruski Krstur, Serbia
• Rusnatsi u Shvetse (Руснаци у Швеце)
• Rusynska besida (Русинська бесіда)

Notes

1. Original text: "Vchodnoslovensky (віходняски)"
2. ^ The 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.
3. ^ Pugh refers to these collectively as "hushers".

References

1. Rusyn at Ethnologue (25th ed., 2022)
2. "Number of population by mother tongue in the Slovak Republic at 1. 1. 2021". Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic. Archived from the original on 21 January 2022. Retrieved 21 January 2022.
3. Republic of Serbia, Republic Statistical Office (24 December 2002). "Final results of the census 2002" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 March 2009. Retrieved 16 December 2010.
4. "Home" (PDF). Central Statistical Office of Poland. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 January 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2012.
5. State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. "About number and composition population of UKRAINE by data All-Ukrainian population census 2001 data". Archived from the original on 2 March 2008. Retrieved 16 December 2010.
6. "Republic of Croatia – Central Bureau of Statistics". Crostat. Archived from the original on 27 May 2006. Retrieved 5 September 2010.
7. "1.28 Population by mother tongue, nationality and sex, 1900–2001". Hungarian Central Statistical Office. 2001. Archived from the original on 20 November 2012. Retrieved 28 February 2012.
8. "Obyvatelstvo podle věku, mateřského jazyka a pohlaví". Archived from the original on 27 June 2015. Retrieved 2 November 2012.
9. Biggam, Carole P. (2022). A Cultural History of Color in the Medieval Age. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. p. 124. ISBN 9781350193499.
10. ^ Pugh 2009, p. vii.
11. Rusyn at Ethnologue (21st ed., 2018)
12. ^ Council of Europe 2021.
13. "The Statue of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Serbia". Skupstinavojvodine.gov.rs. Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2012.
14. "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.
15. "I Raport dla Sekretarza Rady Europy z realizacji przez Rzeczpospolitą Polską postanowień Europejskiej karty języków regionalnych lub mniejszościowych" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 July 2014. Retrieved 28 April 2019.
16. "Rusyn". Oxford English Dictionary.
17. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2781/1/2011BaptieMPhil-1.pdf Archived 23 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine, p. 8.
18. ^ Plishkova 2009, p. 17, 37, 67.
19. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 7.
20. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 3.
21. Magocsi & Pop 2005, p. 267-281.
22. ^ Kushko 2007, p. 111-132.
23. Moser 2016, p. 124-139.
24. Bernard Comrie, "Slavic Languages," International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (1992, Oxford, Vol 3), pp. 452–456.
    Ethnologue, 16th edition
25. George Y. Shevelov, "Ukrainian," The Slavonic Languages, ed. Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett (1993, Routledge), pp. 947–998.
26. "ISO 639-3: 639 Identifier Documentation: Rusyn (rue)". Archived from the original on 20 July 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
27. "Home : Oxford English Dictionary". www.oed.com. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 20 February 2021.
28. Renoff & Reynolds 1975, p. 35, 51, 79–80.
29. Magocsi 2015, p. 3-5.
30. Pugh 2009, p. 2.
31. Magocsi & Pop 2005, p. 276-281.
32. Moser 2018, p. 87-104.
33. Magocsi & Pop 2005, p. 267-269, 275.
34. "Gavin Baptie (2011): Issues in Rusyn language standardisation, p. 8-9" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 May 2018. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
35. Pugh 2009, p. 3-4.
36. Pugh 2009, p. 4, 6.
37. Vyslockyj, Dmytryj (1931). Карпаторусский букварь [Karpatorusskij bukvar'] (in Rusyn). Cleveland.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
38. Trochanovskij, Metodyj (1935). Буквар. Перша книжечка для народных школ. [Bukvar. Perša knyžečka dlja narodnıx škol.] (in Rusyn). Lviv.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
39. Bogdan Horbal (2005). Custer, Richard D. (ed.). "The Rusyn Movement among the Galician Lemkos" (PDF). Rusyn-American Almanac of the Carpatho-Rusyn Society (10th Anniversary 2004–2005). Pittsburgh. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 January 2011. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
40. Taras Kuzio (2005). "The Rusyn question in Ukraine: sorting out fact from fiction" (PDF). Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism. XXXII. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 March 2009. Retrieved 3 December 2009.
41. Pugh 2009, p. 9.
42. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2781/1/2011BaptieMPhil-1.pdf Archived 23 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine, p. 52.
43. Magosci, p. 87.
44. Pugh 2009, p. 10.
45. Dulichenko, Aleksander D. (17 November 2020). "SO 639-3 Registration Authority Request for New Language Code Element in ISO 639-3" (PDF). SIL International. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 June 2021.
46. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 4-5.
47. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 5.
48. Rusinko 2003, p. 5.
49. Magocsi 2015, p. 84.
50. Magocsi 2015, p. 99.
51. 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.
52. Magocsi 2015, p. 101.
53. DANYLENKO, ANDRII (2009). "Myxajlo Lučkaj — A Dissident Forerunner of Literary Rusyn?". The Slavonic and East European Review. 87 (2): 201–226. doi:10.1353/see.2009.0132. JSTOR 40650354. S2CID 152082970. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
54. Magocsi 2015, p. 105.
55. Magocsi 2015, p. 145.
56. Magocsi & Pop 2005, p. 46, 521.
57. Csernicskó & Fedinec 2015, p. 93–113.
58. Magocsi & Pop 2005, p. 495-497.
59. Magocsi & Pop 2005, p. 73.
60. Magocsi & Pop 2005, p. 531-532.
61. Magocsi & Pop 2005, p. 75.
62. "Statute of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina". Skupstinavojvodine.gov.rs. Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2012.
63. Іван Гвать (25 December 2011). "Україна в лещатах російських спецслужб". Радіо Свобода. Radiosvoboda.org. Archived from the original on 5 June 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2012.
64. Slovenskej Republiky, Národná Rada (1999). "Zákon 184/1999 Z. z. o používaní jazykov národnostných menšín" (in Slovak). Zbierka zákonov. Archived from the original on 11 October 2017. Retrieved 18 May 2010.
65. Csernicskó & Fedinec 2016, p. 560-582.
66. "ISO 639-3: 639 Identifier Documentation: Rusyn (rue)". Archived from the original on 20 July 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
67. ISO 639-3: Change Request Documentation: 2021-005
68. "639 Identifier Documentation: rsk". ISO 639-3. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
69. ISO 639-3: Change Request Documentation: 2019-016
70. Magocsi 2015, p. 3, 5, 134, 154, 222-224.
71. Pugh 2009, p. 476.
72. Pugh 2009, p. 24.
73. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 43-44.
74. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 43-49.
75. Pugh 2009, p. 49-50.
76. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 50.
77. Pugh 2009, p. 53-54.
78. Pugh 2009, p. 54-55.
79. Pugh 2009, p. 33.
80. Pugh 2009, p. 57-59.
81. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 60.
82. Pugh 2009, p. 60-61.
83. Pugh 2009, p. 110.
84. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 111.
85. Pugh 2009, p. 111-113.
86. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 114.
87. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 115.
88. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 115-116.
89. Pugh 2009, p. 118-120.
90. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 116-118.
91. Pugh 2009, p. 117.
92. ^ Pugh 2009, p. 120.
93. Pugh 2009, p. 122.
94. Pugh 2009, p. 123.
95. Pugh 2009, p. 124-126.
96. Pugh 2009, p. 125-129.
97. Pugh 2009, p. 129.
98. Pugh 2009, p. 133-134.
99. Pugh 2009, p. 132=133.
100. Pugh 2009, p. 133.
101. Pugh 2009, p. 135.
102. "Rusyn / Carpatho-Rusyn (ALA-LC Romanization Tables)" (PDF). The Library of Congress. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 August 2020. Retrieved 10 October 2010.
103. "Romanization of Rusyn: BGN/PCGN 2016 System" (PDF). NGA GEOnet Names Server. October 2017. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 October 2020. Retrieved 10 October 2020.
104. "IDS G: Transliterationstabellen 4. Transliteration der slavischen kyrillischen Alphabete" (PDF). Informationsverbund Deutchschweiz (IDS) (Version 15.10.01 ed.). 2001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 March 2017. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
105. Gavin Baptie (2011). Issues In Rusyn Language Standardisation (PDF) (MPhil thesis). University of Glasgow. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 May 2018. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
106. Кушницькый, Мигаль (27 May 2020). "Carpatho-Rusyn Phonetics ep3 – О/Ō | Карпаторусинська фонетика №3". YouTube. Archived from the original on 28 October 2021. Retrieved 31 July 2020.
107. Кушницькый, Мигаль (1 May 2020). "Carpatho-Rusyn phonetics. Ep#2 – і, ї, ӯ | Карпаторусинська фонетика. Другый епізод". YouTube. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 31 July 2020.
108. "ruegrammatica". rueportal.eu. Archived from the original on 6 August 2020. Retrieved 31 July 2020.
109. Ecolinguist (16 March 2020). "Carpatho Rusyn Language | Can Ukrainian speakers understand? | #1| feat. @myhal-k". Youtube.
110. "Хыжа | lem.fm – Радийо Руской Бурсы". lem.fm – Радийо Руской Бурсы. Archived from the original on 19 May 2018. Retrieved 3 June 2018.
111. "Руске слово". Руске слово. Archived from the original on 26 February 2021. Retrieved 20 February 2021.
112. "Rusnaci u svece". tripod.lycos.com. Archived from the original on 8 March 2017. Retrieved 7 March 2017.

Sources

• Bunčić, Daniel (2015). "On the dialectal basis of the Ruthenian literary language" (PDF). Die Welt der Slaven. 60 (2): 276–289. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 June 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• "Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 148". Council of Europe. 16 December 2021. Archived from the original on 15 August 2021. Retrieved 16 December 2021.
• Csernicskó, István; Fedinec, Csilla (2015). "Language and Language Policy in Transcarpathia between the Two World Wars" (PDF). Minority Studies: Demography, Minority Education, Ethnopolitics. 18: 93–113. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• 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.
• Danylenko, Andrii (2009). "Myxajlo Lučkaj – A Dissident Forerunner of Literary Rusyn?". The Slavonic and East European Review. 87 (2): 201–226. doi:10.1353/see.2009.0132. S2CID 152082970. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Дуць-Файфер, Олена (2019). "Писма – документы Світового Конґресу Русинів і Світовой Рады Русинів (1991–2019)". Річник Руской Бурсы. 15: 17–89. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Aleksandr Dmitrievich Dulichenko. Jugoslavo-Ruthenica. Роботи з рускей филолоґиї. Нови Сад 1995.
• Fejsa, Mihajlo P. (2018a). "Verb forms/constructions in the Prešov variant and the Bačka-Srem variant of the Rusyn language". Studia Slavica. 63 (2): 367–378. doi:10.1556/060.2018.63.2.16. S2CID 145920941. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Геровский Г.Ю. Язык Подкарпатской Руси – Москва, 1995
• Harasowska, Marta (1999). Morphophonemic Variability, Productivity, and Change: The Case of Rusyn. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 9783110157611. Archived from the original on 24 June 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Kushko, Nadiya (2007). "Literary Standards of the Rusyn Language: The Historical Context and Contemporary Situation". The Slavic and East European Journal. 51 (1): 111–132. JSTOR 20459424. Archived from the original on 1 September 2020. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Taras Kuzio, "The Rusyn question in Ukraine: sorting out fact from fiction", Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, XXXII (2005)
• Magocsi, Paul R. (1988a). Carpatho-Rusyn Studies: An Annotated Bibliography. Vol. 1. New York: Garland. ISBN 9780824012144. Archived from the original on 27 July 2020. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Magocsi, Paul R. (1988b). Carpatho-Rusyn Studies: An Annotated Bibliography. Vol. 2. New York: Garland. ISBN 9780880334204. Archived from the original on 2 June 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Magocsi, Paul R. (1993). "Scholarly seminar on the codification of the Rusyn language (Bardejovské Kúpele, November 6–7, 1992)" (PDF). Revue des Études Slaves. 65 (3): 597–599.
• Magocsi, Paul R. (1995). "A new Slavic language is born" (PDF). Revue des Études Slaves. 67 (1): 238–240.
• Magocsi, Paul R. (1996). "The Rusyn language question revisited" (PDF). International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 120: 63–84. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1996.120.63. S2CID 56325995. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 June 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Magocsi, Paul R. (2015). With Their Backs to the Mountains: A History of Carpathian Rus' and Carpatho-Rusyns. Budapest-New York: Central European University Press. ISBN 9786155053467. Archived from the original on 8 December 2020. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Magocsi, Paul R.; Pop, Ivan I., eds. (2005) . Encyclopedia of Rusyn History and Culture (2. rev. ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Magocsi, Paul R. The Rusyn Language: Recent Achievements and Challenges (PDF). Toronto: University of Toronto. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 December 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
• Moser, Michael A. (2018). "The Fate of the Ruthenian or Little Russian (Ukrainian) Language in Austrian Galicia (1772–1867)". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 35 (2017–2018) (1/4): 87–104. JSTOR 44983536. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 28 June 2021.
• Moser, Michael A. (2016). "Rusyn: A New-Old Language In-between Nations and States". The Palgrave Handbook of Slavic Languages, Identities and Borders. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 124–139. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-34839-5_7. ISBN 978-1-349-57703-3. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
• Plišková, Anna (2007). Rusínsky jazyk na Slovensku: Náčrt vývoja a súčasné problémy (PDF). Prešov: Metodicko-pedagogické centrum. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 April 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Plishkova, Anna (2009). Language and National Identity: Rusyns South of Carpathians. Boulder: East European Monographs. Archived from the original on 18 February 2022. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Pugh, Stefan M. (2009). The Rusyn Language. Munich, Germany: LINCOM GmbH. ISBN 978-3-89586-940-2. Archived from the original on 15 December 2021. Retrieved 15 December 2021.
• Renoff, Richard; Reynolds, Stephen, eds. (1975). Proceedings of the Conference on Carpatho-Ruthenian Immigration, 8 June 1974. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. ISBN 9780916458003. Archived from the original on 24 June 2021. Retrieved 22 June 2021.
• Rusinko, Elaine (2003). Straddling Borders: Literature and Identity in Subcarpathian Rus'. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9780802037114. Archived from the original on 15 May 2019. Retrieved 28 June 2021.
• Zatkovich, Gregory. The Rusin Question in a Nutshell. OCLC 22065508.

External links

• The World Academy of Rusyn Culture: 'Language of Carpatho-Rusyn'
• Rusyn-Ukrainian Dictionary
• Lemko-Rusyn Language Course (in Polish and Lemko)
• Rusyn Greco Catholic Church in Novi Sad (Vojvodina-Serbia)

Links to related articles

v t e Languages of Slovakia Official language Slovak Minority languages Carpathian Romani Rusyn Sign languages Slovak Sign Language Category v t e Languages of Serbia Official language Serbian Minority languages Albanian Bosnian Bulgarian Croatian Hungarian Macedonian Slovak Romani Romanian Rusyn Sign languages Yugoslav Sign Language v t e Languages of Poland Official language Polish dialects Minority languages Recognized Karaim Kashubian Romani Lemko Slovak Tatar Unrecognized Silesian Halcnovian Wymysorys Sign languages Polish Sign Language Polish manual alphabet Related Bilingual communes in Poland Category v t e Languages of Ukraine Official languages Ukrainian dialects Indigenous languages Crimean Tatar dialects Karaim Krymchak Minority languages Recognized Belarusian Bulgarian Gagauz German (Zipser) Greek (Ruméika) Hungarian Polish (Lviv Southern Kresy) Romanian Moldovan Russian Slovak Yiddish Unrecognized Albanian Armenian Azerbaijani Romani (Carpathian Vlax) Swedish Turkish Urum Sign languages Ukrainian Sign Language Related Language policy in Ukraine Balachka Surzhyk Category

• Rusyns
• Rusyn language
• East Slavic languages
• Ruthenian language
• Rusyn culture
• Languages of Ukraine
• Languages of Poland
• Vulnerable languages