|
Slovianski is an international auxiliary language, created by a group of people interested in the creation of a Slavic interlanguage.
The Slovianski project was started in March 2006 as an effort to create a language that would be easily understood by speakers of any Slavic language, and that can be learned easily by both Slavs and non-Slavs. It is the collaborative effort of a group of people, gathered in the Slovianski Forum. In part, it came about as a reaction against various non-Slavic elements in the best-known Slavic interlanguage, Slovio.
Because the language is a fairly recent phenomenon, it is not yet clear which precise direction it will take. At present, three different versions of the language are being developed:
The differences between these three versions are mostly in the field of grammar: for example, Slovianski-P and Slovianski-N have grammatical gender, while Slovianski-S doesn't. Slovianski-N has six cases, Slovianski-S two, and Slovianski-P none. On the other hand, the creators of the language try to keep things like vocabulary and orthography central.
At some later point of the development of Slovianski it will be decided with of the three versions has most advantages, or otherwise whether a compromise can be reached.
The Slavic languages are a relatively coherent language group. It consists of three subfamilies with their own specific traits, but all three families share many characteristics, both in grammar, vocabulary and syntax. Knowledge of one Slavic language is sufficient to get at least a very rough, basic understanding of what a text in any other Slavic language is about (provided that the person in question can read the alphabet, of course).
The purpose of any Slavic interlanguage is based on this very fact: to facilitate communication between speakers of different Slavic languages. More specifically, the goals of such an interlanguage are:
As for the other aspect frequently mentioned in descriptions of auxiliary languages, cultural neutrality: ideally, a Slavic interlanguage should be based as much as possible on the common heritage of all Slavic people, and find a compromise there where the differences are. No Slavic language ought to be favoured over another, although it is inevitable that such an interlanguage would be closer to "middle-of-the-road" languages like Slovak, Slovenian or Rusyn.
Slovianski is explicitly not meant to be "more Slavic than the Slavs themselves" by purifying it from foreign influences. But the creation of a language based on what all Slavic languages have in common will automatically lead to the elimination of various local (non-Slavic) influences. There is, on the other hand, no reason to exclude international vocabulary, as long as it can be recognised easily by most, if not all, Slavs.
Many Slavic interlanguages have been created over the years. They fall apart into four groups:
Slovianski belongs firmly to the first category, along with the best-known Slavic interlanguage, Slovio.
Interlanguages can also be subdivided into schematic and naturalistic languages. This division is not based on the original source of the word stock, but on how grammar is constructed and how words are derived from others. See the next section for a further explanation.
The purposes of Slovianski have been defined as follows:
Nice as this may sound, these two goals are slightly contradictory with each other. If you concentrate on the non-Slavs, you must consider that many typical Slavic concepts will be hard to grasp for native speakers of for example English or Chinese. You will have to do away with things like gender, declension, aspect and conjugation. Orthography should be as simple as possible, and you would have to eliminate many sounds. As a result, the only thing that will be Slavic is the vocabulary, and in a deformed form to that. On the other hand, if you prefer to create a language that is maximally understandable for Slavs, you will have to incorporate all those typically Slavic things, which will make it harder for a non-Slav by definition. A compromise between both directions is of course possible, but will likely result in a language that is attractive for neither Slavs nor non-Slavs.
Therefore, we have two possible solutions, known as the "schematic" and the "naturalistic" approach.
Quoting Wikipedia:
A schematic planned language is a type of language whose grammar and morphology have been deliberately simplified and regularized, with idiosyncrasies from source languages (if any) removed, in order to be simpler and more streamlined than those of the ethnic languages, even if this should make the language's vocabulary relatively unrecognizable to newcomers to the language. The best known example of this type of language is Esperanto.
A naturalistic planned language is specifically devised to reproduce the commonalities in morphology and vocabulary from a group of closely related languages, usually with the idea that such a language will be relatively easier to use passively -- in many cases, without prior study -- by speakers of one or more languages in the group. The best known languages of this type are Occidental and Interlingua.
It cannot be said that one approach is better than the other. They serve different purposes and different audiences. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. To sum it up:
Like I said, it can't be said that one approach is better than the other. They are simply different. Just like it would be foolish for a schematic language to have grammatical gender, it would be foolish for a naturalistic Slavic language to leave it out.
Obviously, schematicism and naturalism are just extremes on a scale. A schematic Slavic language is bound to have at least some naturalistic elements, while a naturalistic languages in its efforts to be simple will likely incorporate some schematic elements as well. Yet, efforts to find a real compromise between the two are doomed to fail: you are likely to end up with a spineless mass, full of internal contradictions, that nobody is really satisfied about. Therefore, it's better to develop two separate versions of the language, a schematic and a naturalistic one, than trying to build a half-baked compromise that will be worse than both. We provisionally call them Slovianski-S and Slovianski-N, and at some later stage we will see if, and how, we can reconcile them.
Let's ask ourselves a question. What is more important: that millions of people - Slavs and non-Slavs - learn it, or that millions of people - Slavs and people who know a Slavic language only - can understand it?
You can't say that one purpose is "better" than the other. It's simply different. But let's ask ourselves another question: why do people start learning an auxiliary language? Well, here is the answer: not because it is better or easier than other auxiliary languages, but simply because there is something in it for them. So let's therefore concentrate on the profit Slovianski can offer them. Given the character of the Slavic language family, I do believe it's possible to create a naturalistic language, 90-95% of which will be readily understandable for virtually every Slav. And thát, in turn, could be an excellent reason for people to start learning it! Its grammar would admittedly be longer than that of a schematic language; but because of a high degree of familiarity, and a considerable amount of simplification anyway, I don't think it will be much harder to learn at all. Besides, a language like that could also provide non-Slavs with a useful introduction into the world of Slavic languages.
I don't have too many illusions regarding the number of people who will learn it. Many hundreds of international auxiliary languages have been created over the years, and no more than ten of them have ever acquired a community of speakers bigger than, say, twenty. In other words, if 25 people would learn our language, I think we can already call that a success. But what really counts is this: no matter how many people will actually learn it, those who do will be equipped with an excellent tool that allows them to address the entire Slavic world. And what is more, they will be able to understand a text in any Slavic language as well. I am quite sure that such a language will have better odds for success than a language that might be easier to learn, but the usability of which would hardly exceed the circles of those who have really learned it.
Also, there is Slovio to take into account. To put it bluntly: the place on the schematic end of the scale has already been taken. Whatever you may think of Slovio, it is a well-known and well-developed language with nearly 40,000 words, excellent marketing, and a significant group of adherents. I don't think there is much point in trying to outcompete it in its own field; spinnoff languages, based on the mistakes of others, are rarely successful. But there is still plenty of space on the naturalistic end of the scale. Except for a few small one-man projects and some forgotten older projects, there isn't really anything there. Since Slovio is essentially a Slavic Esperanto, a naturalistic Slovianski could coexist peacefully with it as a "Slavic Interlingua".
At last, I'm quite sure that the vast majority of those potentially interested in Slovianski will be Slavs. No matter how easy and perfect a schematic Slovianski becomes, an American, Italian or Korean will probably opt for Esperanto anyway, rather than learning a Slavic interlanguage. Why would he? So let's therefore concentrate ourselves on the Slavs. And let's take this for granted: a language fully based on Slavic material will be easier for them to understand than a language that introduces various non-Slavic elements for the sake of simplicity.
Generally speaking, Slovianski-N is based on the commonalities of the living Slavic languages. Where commonalities are absent or less obvious, we try to build a compromise; if even a compromise is impossible, we have to make a choice. In all cases, maximum intelligibility for all Slavs is the primary purpose. A side effect of this approach is inevitably a high degree of simplification.
Before one can start coining even a single word, it is absolutely imperative to have the design criteria of the language clearly defined. That goes for grammar, syntax, and also for vocabulary building.
By "all living Slavic languages", we mean:
For practical reasons, we will mostly disregard languages that are spoken by small communities (less than one million speakers): Sorbian, Kashubian and Rusyn. Because of their similarity, Serbian, Bosnian and Croat are usually treated as one language. For the rest, we do our best not to favour one language over another, and to treat all three languages groups on an equal base.
We try to create words that look familiar to all speakers of a Slavic language, and that - even if a word does not occur in one's own language in that particular form - will at least evoke a connotation that gives them a hint in the right direction. Of course, that is not always possible. You can't suit everybody, but we do our best.
When a word exists in all Slavic languages in the same meaning, it's easy: we happily adopt it.
When only one or two languages diverge, we do the same.
When two or more groups can be distinguished, each based on a different Slavic root, we act as follows:
If that doesn't work either, we have several options:
We basically follow the same process when it comes to picking the right forms for words. If all languages agree with one another, so much for the better. If they don't, we basically follow the majority. However, merely counting "votes" does not always give the desired result. Therefore, we have to build in a few constraints:
A few other examples:
The same which goes for the creation of words, goes also for the creation of a morphology. Grammatical elements that all Slavic languages have in common are our starting point. All Slavic languages have gender? - so let's have gender. Almost all Slavic languages have six or seven cases? - so let's have them as well. All Slavic languages have verb aspect? - so will we!
But, on the other hand, we don't want endless tables with nominal and verbal paradigms, and therefore we try to achieve a great deal of simplification anyway. Most important is that the forms chosen will be instantly recognisable, even if the given forms would look differently in someone's own language. We try avoid irregularity, but only as far as easy recognisability is not jeopardised. A lot of simplification will come by itself. For example, most Slavic languages can have various endings for the masculine genitive singular, but there is one ending they all have in common: -a, which is what we pick for all occurrences of this form.
Slovianski has a simple phonology, primarily based on sounds that occur in all Slavic languages. Therefore, it does not make a distinction between, for example, i and y.
All vowels can be palatalised as well. In that case, they are followed by e, i, or ’. This pronunciation, however, is not mandatory.
Accentuation is free.
Slovianski can be written using in the Latin alphabet and the Cyrillic alphabet. One basic design principle is that it can be written on any keyboard. Therefore, it is inevitable to allow for alternate spellings, especially if we want to keep it natural:
Thus we have:
| Latin (Polish) (ASCII) | Aa | Bb | Cc | Čč CZcz | Dd | Ee | Ff | Gg | Hh | Ii | Jj | Kk | Ll | Mm | Nn | Oo | Pp | Rr | Ss | Šš SZsz | Tt | Uu | Vv | Zz | Žž Żż ZZzz | ’ | ||
| Cyrillic (alt.) (Serbian) | Аа | Бб | Цц | Чч | Дд | Ее | Фф | Гг | Хх | Ии | Йй Јј | Кк | Лл | Мм | Нн | Оо | Пп | Рр | Сс | Шш | Тт | Уу | Вв | Зз | Жж | Юю ЙУйу ЈУју | Яя ЙАйа ЈАја | Ьь ’ |
Notes:
The Slovianski Transliterator makes it possible to transliterate any of these five versions into any of the other four.
All Slavic languages, except Bulgarian and Macedonian, have six or seven cases. These cases are fairly consistent with one another. Since I don't think we need a vocative, I propose the following six cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative. Furthermore, since all Slavic languages have three genders, so will Slovianski-N: masculine, feminine, neuter.
Long and complicated paradigms are to be avoided, but we cannot escape distinguishing between a few different word classes.
These are the basic endings:
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below follow a few examples of each declension:
One declension will do here. Three examples: pes "dog", muž "man", put' "journey":
| singular | plural | |
|---|---|---|
| Nom | pes, muž, put' | pesi, muži, puti |
| Acc | pes, muža (*), put' | pesi, mužov (*), puti |
| Gen | pesa, muža, putia | pesov, mužov, putiov |
| Dat | pesu, mužu, putiu | pesom, mužom, putiom |
| Ins | pesom, mužom, putiom | pesami, mužami, putiami |
| Loc | pese, muže, pute | pesah, mužah, putiah |
(*) I think we can keep the rule, that the accusative forms of male persons are based on the genitive instead of the nominative.
Here we can't escape introducting two different declensions: one on -a, one on a consonant. Examples: žena "woman", zemia "earth", jednost' "unit(y)".
| singular | plural | |
|---|---|---|
| Nom | žena, zemia, jednost' | ženi, zemi, jednosti |
| Acc | ženu, zemiu, jednost' | |
| Gen | ženi, zemi, jednosti | žen, zem', jednosti |
| Dat | žene, zeme, jednosti | ženam, zemiam, jednostiam |
| Ins | ženiu, zemiu, jednostiu | ženami, zemiami, jednostiami |
| Loc | žene, zeme, jednoste | ženah, zemiah, jednostiah |
Only one (perhaps to be split in two):
| singular | plural | |
|---|---|---|
| Nom | slovo, more, imene | slova, moria, imena |
| Acc | ||
| Gen | slova, moria, imenia | slov, mor', imen |
| Dat | slovu, moriu, imeniu | slovom, moriom, imenom |
| Ins | slovom, moriom, imeniom | slovami, moriami, imenami |
| Loc | slove, more, imene | slovah, moriah, imenah |
Adjectives match with the noun they modify in gender, case and number. Declension is always regular:
| singular | plural | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| masculine | feminine | neuter | ||
| Nom | dobri | dobra | dobro | dobre |
| Acc | dobru | |||
| Gen | dobrogo | dobroj | dobroj | dobrih |
| Dat | dobromu | dobroj | dobromu | dobrim |
| Ins | dobrim | dobriu | dobrim | dobrimi |
| Loc | dobrom | dobroj | dobrom | dobrih |
The comparative is formed by adding the prefix više- to the adjective, the normal superlative by adding the prefix naj-. There is also another superlative with the prefix pre-, meaning "too". Another comparative can be formed with the prefix mene-, meaning "less".
Examples: dobri "good", više-dobri "better", naj-dobri "best", mene-dobri "less good", pre-dobri "too good, extremely good".
An adjective can be made into an adverb by using the neuter singular ending -o: dobro "well".
Here are the forms as I see them:
| 1st person | 2nd person | 3rd person | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| masc. (neut.) | fem. | |||
| Singular | ||||
| Nom | ja | ti | on (ono) | ona |
| Acc | mene (me) | tebe (te) | jego | ju |
| Gen | mene | tebe | jego | jej |
| Dat | mne (mi) | tobe (ti) | jemu | jej |
| Ins | mniu | tobiu | im | ju |
| Loc | mne | tebe | im | jej |
| Plural | ||||
| Nom | mi | vi | oni | |
| Acc | nas | vas | ih | |
| Gen | ||||
| Dat | nam | vam | im | |
| Ins | nami | vami | imi | |
| Loc | nas | vas | ih | |
Notes:
The reflexive pronoun is sebe. It is inflected like ti, tebe, ..., with the only difference that it does not have a nominative.
The possessive pronouns are:
They correspond with the noun they modify in gender, number and case. Apart from the forms of the nominative (and if corresponding with it, the accusative), they are inflected like adjectives.
There is no possessive pronoun of the third person. If the possessor is also the subject of the sentence, svoj is used. Otherwise, the genitive form of the corresponding personal pronoun is used: jego, jej, ih.
Slovianki-N has two demonstrative pronouns: tot (this) and ovi (that, yonder). Except for the masculine nominative singular tot, both are declined like adjectives:
| singular | plural | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| masculine | feminine | neuter | ||
| Nom | tot | ta | to | te |
| Acc | tu | |||
| Gen | togo | toj | togo | tih |
| Dat | tomu | toj | tomu | tim |
| Ins | tim | tiu | tim | timi |
| Loc | tom | toj | tom | tih |
The relative pronoun is ktori (declined like an adjective). Alternatively, the use of čo "what" is also allowed.
| who? | what? | |
|---|---|---|
| Nom | kto | čo |
| Acc | kogo | |
| Gen | čego | |
| Dat | komu | čemu |
| Ins | kim | čim |
| Loc | kom | čem |
On of Zamenhof's best inventions was his table of correlatives, a group of interrelated pronouns, adverbs and adjectives. The principle here is the same as everywhere in Slovianski-N: I try to keep it as regular as possible, but not at the expense of recognisability for speakers of Slavic languages. Therefore, unlike the schematicists, it is not my intention to make the table perfectly regular. A few virtually impossible words have been left out, and a few other regular forms have been replaced by forms that are common in the natural languages.
| question | here | there | some | any | no | every | else | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| which? | ktori | tot | ovi | nektori | liboktori | žadni | vse | ini |
| who? | kto | nekto | libokto | nikto | vsekto | inokto | ||
| what? | čo | nečo | libočo | ničo | vsečo | inočo | ||
| how much? | kolko | tolko | nekolko | libokolko | - | |||
| whose? | čiji | - | nečiji | libočiji | ničiji | vsečiji | inočiji | |
| what kind of? | kaki | taki | nekaki | libokaki | nikaki | vsekaki | inokaki | |
| how? | kak | tak | nekak | libokak | nikak | vsekak | inokak | |
| where? | gde | tut | tam | negde | libogde | nigde | vsegde | inogde |
| when? | kogdi | tper | togdi | nekogdi | libokogdi | nikogdi | vsekogdi | inokogdi |
| whither? | dokud | dotud | donekud | dolibokud | donikud | dovsekud | doinokud | |
| whence? | otkud | ottud | otnekud | otlibokud | otnikud | otvsekud | otinokud | |
| why? | prečo | preto | prenečo | prelibočo | preničo | - | - | |
In the table above, adverbs are in black, adjectives and demonstrative pronouns in blue, interrogative and indefinite pronouns in red. Irregular forms (i.e. not looking the way they should according to the table) are in italics.
| 1-10 | 11-19 | 20-90 | 100-900 | 1000- |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
jedin (jedna, jedno) |
jedinast |
|
sto |
tisiač |
Basically, these are formed by adding -i to the corresponding cardinal number. Except for the following:
1st - pervi
2nd - drugi
3rd - treti
4rd - četverti
7th - sedmi
8th - osmi
100th - setni
?00th - -setni
Verbs in Slovianski-N behave pretty much like they do in the natural Slavic languages: they are conjugated for three persons in two numbers. There are three tenses: present tense, past tense and future tense. Furthermore, there are participles, imperatives and verbal nouns. There is also aspect: most verbs are either perfective or imperfective, most perfective verbs have an imperfective counterpart and vice versa.
Slavic verbs are quite a complicated thing. Usually, the perfective and the imperfective versions need to be learned separately. And in addition to that, most verbs have two basic roots, which also need to be memorised. And since this phenomenon occurs in áll Slavic languages, that leaves us little choice but to incorporate it into Slovianski-N as well, although we do our best to make it as simple as possible.
For most verbs goes that the entire conjugation can be derived from the infinitive. By removing the infinitive ending -t', you get the root of the verb, and all forms of the verb are a matter of simply adding the correct endings to it. These roots can both end in a consonant and in a vowel.
A number of verbs, however, use a separate root in the present tense. Usually, these are verbs were the infinitive root ends in a vowel, while the present-tense root ends in a consonant. An active user of Slovianski will have to learn both forms. He will notice, however, that in most cases the formation of this second root happens in a predictable way:
Whenever the present-tense root cannot be logically derived from the infinitive, it will be given in the dictionary.
I am aware, of course, that this is making the language more difficult than a language with a fully regular grammar; however, it cannot be avoided without making the distance between Slovianski and the natural Slavic languages bigger. And with this approach, we can at least avoid subdividing verbs into classes and the like.
All infinitives have the ending -t' (-at', -et', -it', -ut', in some particular cases a consonant + t')
The present-tense endings are:
In the first person singular, the ending -(e)m is preferred, but the ending -(j)u is also allowed.
Examples:
| infinitive | delat' | umet' | prosit' | nest' | pisat' | čut' | kradnut' |
| present-tense root | on a vowel | on a consonant | |||||
| dela- | ume- | prosi- | nes- | piš- | čuj- | kradn- | |
| ja | delam (delaju) | umem (umeju) | prosim (prosiju) | nesem (nesu) | pišem (pišu) | čujem (čuju) | kradnem (kradnu) |
| ti | delaš | umeš | prosiš | neseš | pišeš | čuješ | kradneš |
| on/ona/ono | dela | ume | prosi | nese | piše | čuje | kradne |
| mi | delamo | umemo | prosimo | nesemo | pišemo | čujemo | kradnemo |
| vi | delate | umete | prosite | nesete | pišete | čujete | kradnete |
| oni | delajut | umejut | prosijut | nesut | pišut | čujut | kradnut |
Explanation of my choice for the forms:
The past tense in formed by replacing the -t' of the infinitive by the ending -l (masculine singular), -la (feminine singular), -lo (neuter singular), -li (plural).
Examples:
| infinitive | delat' | umet' | prosit' | nest' | pisat' | čut' | kradnut' |
| (masculine) ja/ti/on | delal | umel | prosil | nesl | pisal | čul | kradnul |
| (feminine) ja/ti/ona | delala | umela | prosila | nesla | pisala | čula | kradnula |
| (neuter) ono | delalo | umelo | prosilo | neslo | pisalo | čulo | kradnulo |
| (plural) mi/vi/oni | delali | umeli | prosili | nesli | pisali | čuli | kradnuli |
The future tense is formed by combining the future of bit' "to be" with the infinitive:
The imperative has forms for the 2nd person singular, the 1st person plural and the 2nd person plural. Contrary to what the Slavic languages do, they are derived from the infinitive.
If the infinitive root ends in a vowel, the endings are: -j, -jmo, -jte
If the infinitive root ends in a consonant, the endings are: -', -mo, -te.
Examples:
| infinitive | delat' | umet' | prosit' | nest' | pisat' | čut' | kradnut' |
| 2sg | delaj | umej | prosij | nes' | pisaj | čuj | kradnuj |
| 1pl | delajmo | umejmo | prosijmo | nesmo | pisajmo | čujmo | kradnujmo |
| 2pl | delajte | umejte | prosijte | neste | pisajte | čujte | kradnujte |
The conditional is formed by adding the particle bi to the past tense:
There are two participles: the present active participle and the past passive participle. The former is derived from the present-tense root, the latter from the infinitive root.
The present active participle has the ending -juč (-juči when used as an adjective) when the present-tense root ends in a vowel, -uč (-učí) when it ends in a consonant. In other words, you can build it by replacing the ending -t of the 3rd person plural by -č.
The past passive participle is created by replacing the infinitive ending -t' by -ni ('-eni when the infinitive root ends in a consonant or i). In some specific cases, the ending is not -ni but -ti.
The verbal noun can be derived very simply from the past passive participle by replacing the endings -ni resp. -ti by -nie resp. -tie.
Examples:
| infinitive | delat' | umet' | prosit' | nest' | pisat' | čut' | kradnut' |
| present-tense root | on a vowel | on a consonant | |||||
| dela- | ume- | prosi- | nes- | piš- | čuj- | kradn- | |
| p.a.p. | delajuč(i) | umejuč(i) | prosijuč(i) | nesuč(i) | pišuč(i) | čujuč(i) | kradnuč(i) |
| p.p.p. | delani | umeni | prosieni | neseni | pisani | čuti | kradnuti |
| verbal noun | delanie | umenie | prosienie | nesenie | pisanie | čutie | kradnutie |
The passive voice is created by combinating a form of the verb bit' "to be" with the past passive participle:
Is conjugated as follows:
| present | past | future | imperative | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1sg | jesem (jesu) | bil, bila, bilo | budem (budu) | |
| 2sg | ješ | bil, bila, bilo | budeš | bud' |
| 3sg | je (jest) | bil, bila, bilo | bude | |
| 1pl | jesmo | bili | budemo | budmo |
| 2pl | jeste | bili | budete | budte |
| 3pl | jesut | bili | budut | &bbsp; |
| infinitive | bit' | present active participle | buduč(i) | verbal noun | bitie |
Here follows a preliminary list. Eventually, cases will be attached to them.
aždo - till |
mimo - next to |
poverh - across |
Since we are discussing prepositions, we might as well add a few prefixes:
do- to |
pod- under; approximation |
v- - in |
|
Naš otec, ktori ješ v nebah, |
Наш отец, ктори йеш в небах, |
|
|
Vse liudi rodijut se svobodne i rovne v dostojnoste i pravah. Oni jesut obdariene rozumom i svestiu i dolžijut postupat' jedin do drugogo v duhe bratstva.
Все люди родиют се свободне и ровне в достойносте и правах. Они йесут обдариене розумом и свестю и должиют поступать йедин до другого в духе братства.
Papež Rimski Jan Pavel II, podčas viziti v Nemečine, rešil idet' v prosti supermarket. On kupil čo hotel, i kogdi vihodil iz supermarketa privital jego direktor supermarketa s buketom kvetov.
- Skazajte mi, čo značijut te kveti? Preto čo jesem papež rimski ili čo jesem vaš milionski kupec?
- Ne preto, ne pre ovo. Vi jeste pervi Poliak ktori v supermarkete ničego ne kradnul.
Prihodi muž do doktora i govori:
- Pan doktor, ja imam problem. Mislim čo ne možem imat' detiov.
- Prečo vi tak mislite?
- Preto čo moj otec tož ne imal detiov, i moj ded ih tož ne imal.
- Vaš otec i vaš ded ne imali detiov? Izvinijte, ale vi otkud jeste?
- Ja? Iz Dnepropetrovska!
Fanatična tolpa hoče kamenit' grešijuču ženu.
Jesus s žestom stopi tolpu: "Kidaj kamen kto je bez greha!"
Ot tolpi leti dobro celiti kamen i žena pada vdol, polna kreviu.
Jesus povrača se do tolpi s obviniajučim pogliadom: "Prečo, mama..."
Jan Pavel II stoi pred vrotiu neba.
Sviati Petr: "Kto ti ješ?"
- "Ja jesem Karol Wojtyła, Jan Pavel II, papež, predstavitel' Boga na zeme."
- "Ne znam či šef bi imal na zeme predstavitelia. Ja trebim jego pitat'."
On ide do Boga, ktori tož ob ničem ne zna. Preto oni idut k Jesusu. Tot ide do nebskoj vroti abi to rozviazat' osobno. Po hvile on vrača imajuč očevidno dobro nastrojenie: "Vi pomnite, čo ja ovogdi - pred okolo dva tisiače rokov - osnovil tu bandu ribakov? Tper ja znam, čo ona funkcionuje do denesa."
Vi imate pravdu. Nam treba pisat' na slovianske jaziki. Ja mislim čo mi vse budemo rozumet' jedin drugogo. Možno bude naj-dobro probovat' pisat' po-slovianski. Tper mi imamo osnovnu gramatiku i naj-dobro bude kogdi pišemo s pomočiu slovianskoj gramatiki i slovianskih slov.
V Podgorice, glovnom grode Černoj Gori, velika demonstacia imala mesto pred nedelnim referendum ob otrivanie se ot Serbii. Piatdesiat tisiač liudi sbirali se na glovoj plošče abi slišet' tradicionalne černogorske pesni i reči politikov pro-nezaležnostnih. Červenozlote flagi s černogorskim krolevskim gerbem viseli na balkonah i drevah okolo plošči. Poslania podpora bili čitane ot znanih sportovecov i inih publičnih osob. Pervi minister Milo Diukanovicz, ktori vodil kampaniu za nezaležnost', govoril čo budučnost' narodu je v ih rukah. Černa Gora, on govoril, prehodi test vozrosnosti i celi svet na niu gliada.
Černa Gora v toj hvile je čast' serbsko-černogorskogo sojuza. Te dva narodi imajut blizke sviazania religiove i kulturove jedin s drugim, i preto černogorski narod je gluboko rozdeleni ob tom, či prervat' sojuz s Serbiu či ne. Jesli Černa Gora glosuje za nezaležnost' v nedele, to bude posledni akt rozviazania biloj Jugoslavi. Černa Gora, v ktoroj žijut poniž 700.000 liudiov, bila naj-mala republika jugoslavska. Je pred počti 90 rokami kogdi ona posledni raz bila nezaležna deržava.
В Подгорице, гловном гроде Черной Гори, велика демонстаця имала место пред неделним референдум об отривание се от Сербии. Пятдесят тисяч люди сбирали се на гловой плошче аби слишеть традиционалне черногорске песни и речи политиков про-незалежностних. Червенозлоте флаги с черногорским кролевским гербем висели на балконах и древах около плошчи. Посланя подпора били читане от знаних спортовецов и иних публичних особ. Перви министер Мило Дюканович, ктори водил кампаню за незалежность, говорил чо будучность народу йе в их руках. Черна Гора, он говорил, преходи тест возросности и цели свет на ню гляда.
Черна Гора в той хвиле йе часть сербско-черногорского союза. Те два народи имают близке связаня религиове и културове йедин с другим, и прето черногорски народ йе глубоко розделени об том, чи прервать союз с Сербю чи не. Йесли Черна Гора глосуйе за незалежность в неделе, то буде последни акт розвязаня билой Югослави. Черна Гора, в кторой жиют пониж 700.000 людиов, била най-мала република югославска. Йе пред почти 90 роками когди она последни раз била незалежна держава.
V Černoj Gore, malo množinstvo vibralo nezaležnost' ot sojuza s Serbiu. Glova viborovoj komisi Černoj Gori, František Lipka, oglosil čo 55,4 % glosovali za otdelenie se ot Serbii. 25.000 glosi trebijut ješče bit' sčitane, ale on ne misli čo oni budut silno vplivat' na rezultat. Minimum glosov abi vigrat' referendum je 55%.
Kogdi bilo jasno, čo blok za nezaležnost' vigral glosovanie, načali se spontanične slavenia v glovnim grode Podgorice. Auta trubili, liudi strelali strelbami, a mlodeneci mahali červenozlotimi flagami staroj černogorskoj monarhi. "Deneso, s rešeniem množinstva graždanov Černoj Gori, nezaležnost' deržavi bila odnovena", govoril pervi minister Milo Diukanovič. On misli, čo nezaležna Černa Gora bude imat' više-silnu ekonomiu i više-dobre sposobnosti abi vhodit' do Europejskogo Sojuza.
Pitanie nezaležnosti gluboko rozdelil Černu Goru. Serbske politiki, vodži pravoslavnoj cerkvi i černogoriane v vnutrenih častiah blizko Serbii široko sprotivili se protiv referendum. Oni mnemajut, čo sviazania ekonomične, familne i politične s Serbiu budut zaškodene. Na drugoj strone, etnični černogoriane i albaniane v pobrežnoj časte deržavi podpirali nezaležnost'.
Tot rezultat stira poslednu reštu biloj Jugoslavi. Serbsko-černogorski sojuz bil osnoveni v 2003 roke. Podolg jej harti osnovitelnoj, Serbia bude jego deržava-naslednik, a Černa Gora sama trebi iskat' členstvo Europejskogo Sojuza, Organizaci Sjedinenih Narodov i inih organizac' medžunarodnih. Serbia tož nasledi pravo na Kosovo, ktorogo status bude osnoveni pri konece togo roka.
Konecove rezultati budut ogloseni večerom v 19:00.
В Черной Горе, мало множинство вибрало незалежность от союза с Сербю. Глова виборовой комиси Черной Гори, Франтишек Липка, оглосил чо 55,4 % глосовали за отделение се от Сербии. 25.000 глоси требиют йешче бить считане, але он не мисли чо они будут силно впливать на резултат. Минимум глосов аби виграть референдум йе 55%.
Когди било ясно, чо блок за незалежность виграл глосование, начали се спонтаничне славеня в гловним гроде Подгорице. Аута трубили, люди стрелали стрелбами, а млоденеци махали червенозлотими флагами старой черногорской монархи. "Денесо, с решением множинства гражданов Черной Гори, незалежность держави била одновена", говорил перви министер Мило Дюканович. Он мисли, чо незалежна Черна Гора буде имать више-силну економю и више-добре способности аби входить до Еуропейского Союза.
Питание незалежности глубоко розделил Черну Гору. Сербске политики, воджи православной церкви и черногоряне в внутрених частях близко Сербии широко спротивили се против референдум. Они мнемают, чо связаня економичне, фамилне и политичне с Сербю будут зашкодене. На другой строне, етнични черногоряне и албаняне в побрежной часте держави подпирали незалежность.
Тот резултат стира последну решту билой Югослави. Сербско-черногорски союз бил основени в 2003 роке. Подолг йей харти основителной, Сербя буде йего держава-наследник, а Черна Гора сама треби искать членство Еуропейского Союза, Организаци Сйединених Народов и иних организаць меджународних. Сербя тож наследи право на Косово, кторого статус буде основени при конеце того рока.
Конецове резултати будут оглосени вечером в 19:00.
Boris Tadič govoril, čo Serbia vsekogdi bude priatel' Černoj Gori.
Serbski president Boris Tadič priznal rezultati Černogorskogo glosovania za nezaležnost', v pervom oficialnom otvete iz Serbii. "Ja priznam časove rezultati osiagnute ot referendovoj komisi", pan Tadič skazal v presovoj konferenci.
Oficialne rezultati nedelnogo referendum v Černoj Gore dali 55,5 % glosov za nezaležnost', tolko pol procent poviž proga abi vigrat'.
Ale vižadovanie ot pro-Serbskih jednostiovih parti za drugo sčitanie bilo otkideno.
"Kak vi znate, ja podpiral podderženie spolnoj deržavi... ale kak demokrat i president demokratičnogo kraja, ja jesem celo gotovi priznat' rešenie množinstva graždanov Černoj Gori", pan Tadič govoril.
Борис Тадич говорил, чо Сербя всекогди буде прятель Черной Гори.
Сербски пресидент Борис Тадич признал резултати Черногорского глосованя за незалежность, в первом офицялном ответе из Сербии. "Я признам часове резултати осягнуте от референдовой комиси", пан Тадич сказал в пресовой конференци.
Офицялне резултати неделного референдум в Черной Горе дали 55,5 % глосов за незалежность, толко пол процент повиж прога аби виграть.
Але вижадование от про-Сербских йедностиових парти за друго считание било откидено.
"Как ви знате, я подпирал поддержение сполной держави... але как демократ и пресидент демократичного края, я йесем цело готови признать решение множинства гражданов Черной Гори", пан Тадич говорил.
Novi parlament Ukraini sbiral se pervi raz ot generalnih viborov v marece. Te vibori bili hvaleni kak naj-svobodne i naj-čestne ktore libo-kogdi imali mesto v toj biloj republike soveckoj.
Pro-Rosiska opozicia vigrala naj-mnogo glosov, ale ne sbirala ih dostatečno dla pravogo vitiazstva.
Rozgovori medžu partiu presidenta Viktor Juščenko i inimi partiami pro-zahodnimi trivajut. Oni ješče ne mogli iztvorit' koaliciu. Okazuje se krajno trudno dla bilih sojuznikov Oranžovoj Revoluci - specialno dla pana Juščenko i Juli Tymošenko - abi se sjedinit' snova.
Ale po sjezde inauguralnim, treba bude stvorit' koaliciu vnutri jednogo mesiača, ino-kogdi president može rozviazat' parlament i viglosit' nove vibori.
Členi parlamenta sbirali se v izbe v četirnike, kogdi poem "Liubit' Ukrajinu" bil čitani. Potom oni otšeli abi podpisat' prisiagi.
Očekuje se, čo Pan Juščenko premovi pred izbiu kogdi sobere se više-pozno.
Нови парламент Украини сбирал се перви раз от генералних виборов в мареце. Те вибори били хвалени как най-свободне и най-честне кторе либо-когди имали место в той билой републике совецкой.
Про-Росиска опозиця виграла най-много глосов, але не сбирала их достатечно дла правого витяжтва.
Розговори меджу партю пресидента Виктор Юшченко и иними партями про-заходними тривают. Они йешче не могли изтворить коалицю. Оказуйе се крайно трудно дла билих союзников Оранжовой Револуци - спецялно дла пана Юшченко и Юли Тымошенко - аби се сйединить снова.
Але по сйезде инаугуралним, треба буде створить коалицю внутри йедного месяча, ино-когди пресидент може розвязать парламент и виглосить нове вибори.
Члени парламента сбирали се в избе в четирнике, когди поем "Любить Украйину" бил читани. Потом они отшели аби подписать присяги.
Очекуйе се, чо Пан Юшченко премови пред избю когди собере се више-позно.