Hubbry Logo
Ruthenian languageRuthenian languageMain
Open search
Ruthenian language
Community hub
Ruthenian language
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ruthenian language
Ruthenian language
Ruthenian language
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Ruthenian
Native toEast Slavic regions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
ExtinctDeveloped into Belarusian, Ukrainian and Rusyn
Early forms
Official status
Official language in
Grand Duchy of Lithuania[1][2] (later replaced by Polish[2])
Language codes
ISO 639-3None (mis)
orv-olr
GlottologNone

Ruthenian (see also other names) is an exonymic linguonym for a closely related group of East Slavic linguistic varieties, particularly those spoken from the 15th to 18th centuries in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in East Slavic regions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Regional distribution of those varieties, both in their literary and vernacular forms, corresponded approximately to the territories of the modern states of Belarus and Ukraine. By the end of the 18th century, they gradually diverged into regional variants, which subsequently developed into the modern Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Rusyn languages, all of which are mutually intelligible.[3][4][5][6]

Several linguistic issues are debated among linguists: various questions related to classification of literary and vernacular varieties of this language; issues related to meanings and proper uses of various endonymic (native) and exonymic (foreign) glottonyms (names of languages and linguistic varieties); questions on its relation to modern East Slavic languages, and its relation to Old East Slavic (the colloquial language used in Kievan Rus' in the 10th through 13th centuries).[7]

Nomenclature

[edit]
A fragment from the 1588 codification of Lithuanian law, regulating the official use of the rusky language (рꙋскиⸯ єзыкь).[8]
Ruthenian Bible printed in 1517

Since the term Ruthenian language was exonymic (foreign, both in origin and nature), its use was very complex, both in historical and modern scholarly terminology.[9]

Names in historical use

[edit]

Contemporary names, that were used for this language from the 15th to 18th centuries, can be divided into two basic linguistic categories, the first being endonyms (native names, used by native speakers as self-designations for their language), and the second exonyms (names in foreign languages).

Common endonyms:

  • Ruska(ja) mova, written in various ways, as: ру́скаꙗ мо́ва, and also as: ру́скїй ѧзы́къ (ruskiy jazyk').
  • Prosta(ja) mova (meaning: the simple speech, or the simple talk), also written in various ways, as: проста(ѧ) мова or простй ѧзыкъ (Old Belarusian / Old Ukrainian: простый руский (язык) or простая молва, проста мова) – publisher Hryhorii Khodkevych (16th century). Those terms for simple vernacular speech were designating its diglossic opposition to literary Church Slavonic.[10][11][12]
  • It was sometimes also referred to (in territorial terms) as Litovsky (Russian: Литовский язык / Lithuanian). Also by Zizaniy (end of the 16th century), Pamvo Berynda (1653).

Common exonyms:

  • in Latin: lingua ruthenica, or lingua ruthena, which is rendered in English as: Ruthenian or Ruthene language.[13]
  • in German: ruthenische Sprache, derived from the Latin exonym for this language.
  • in Hungarian: Rutén nyelv, also derived from the Latin exonym.

Names in modern use

[edit]
East Slavic languages in 1389. Colors represent spoken dialects. Dashed lines represent written languages:
  Written Early Ruthenian
  Written Old/Middle Russian
  Written Old Novgorodian

Modern names of this language and its varieties, that are used by scholars (mainly linguists), can also be divided in two basic categories, the first including those that are derived from endonymic (native) names, and the second encompassing those that are derived from exonymic (foreign) names.

Names derived from endonymic terms:

  • One "s" terms: Rus’ian, Rusian, Rusky or Ruski, employed explicitly with only one letter "s" in order to distinguish this name from terms that are designating modern Russian.[14]
  • West Russian or Western Rus' language or dialect (Russian: западнорусский язык, romanized: zapadnorusskij jazyk, западнорусское наречие zapadnorusskoye narechie)[15] – terms used mainly by supporters of the concept of the Proto-Russian phase, especially since the end of the 19th century. Employed by authors such as Karskiy and Shakhmatov.[16] Outside Russia, these terms are no longer commonly used, and regarded as pejorative or even imperialist, particularly in Belarus and Ukraine. A noticeable shift already occurried in the late Soviet period, when the Lithuanian Chronicles, still called Western Rus' Chronicles (Zapadnorusskie letopisi) in PSRL Volume 17 (1907), were rebranded Belarusian–Lithuanian Chronicles (Belorussko-litovskie letopisi) in PSRL Volumes 32 (1975) and 35 (1980).[17]
  • Old Belarusian language (Belarusian: Старабеларуская мова, romanized: Starabyelaruskaya mova) – term used by various Belarusian and some Russian scholars, and also by Kryzhanich. The denotation Belarusian (language) (Russian: белорусский (язык)) when referring both to the post-19th-century language and to the older language had been used in works of the 19th-century Russian researchers Fyodor Buslayev, Ogonovskiy, Zhitetskiy, Sobolevskiy, Nedeshev, Vladimirov and Belarusian researchers, such as Karskiy.[18]
  • Old Ukrainian language (Ukrainian: Староукраїнська мова, romanized: Staroukrajinsjka mova) – term used by various Ukrainian and some other scholars.
  • Lithuanian-Rus' language (Russian: литовско-русский язык, romanized: litovsko-russkij jazyk) – regionally oriented designation, used by some 19th-century Russian researchers such as: Keppen, archbishop Filaret, Sakharov, Karatayev.
  • Lithuanian-Slavic language (Russian: литово-славянский язык, romanized: litovo-slavjanskij) – another regionally oriented designation, used by 19th-century Russian researcher Baranovskiy.[19]
  • Chancery Slavonic, or Chancery Slavic – a term used for the written form, based on Old Church Slavonic, but influenced by various local dialects and used in the chancery of Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[11][20]

Names derived from exonymic terms:

  • Ruthenian or Ruthene language – modern scholarly terms, derived from older Latin exonyms (Latin: lingua ruthenica, lingua ruthena), commonly used by scholars who are writing in English and other western languages, and also by various Lithuanian and Polish scholars.[21][22]
  • Ruthenian literary language, or Literary Ruthenian language – terms used by the same groups of scholars in order to designate more precisely the literary variety of this language.[5]
  • Ruthenian chancery language, or Chancery Ruthenian language – terms used by the same groups of scholars in order to designate more precisely the chancery variety of this language, used in official and legal documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.[23]
  • Ruthenian common language, or Common Ruthenian language – terms used by the same groups of scholars in order to designate more precisely the vernacular variety of this language.[24]
  • North Ruthenian dialect or language – a term used by some scholars as designation for northern varieties, that gave rise to modern Belarusian language,[25] that is also designated as White Ruthenian.[26]
  • South Ruthenian dialect or language – a term used by some scholars as designation for southern varieties, that gave rise to modern Ukrainian language,[27][28] that is also designated as Red Ruthenian.

Terminological dichotomy, embodied in parallel uses of various endoymic and exonymic terms, resulted in a vast variety of ambiguous, overlapping or even contrary meanings, that were applied to particular terms by different scholars. That complex situation is addressed by most English and other western scholars by preferring the exonymic Ruthenian designations.[29][30][22]

Periodization

[edit]
Linguistic, ethnographic, and political map of Eastern Europe by Casimir Delamarre, 1868
  Ruthenians and Ruthenian language

Daniel Bunčić suggested a periodization of the literary language into:[31]

  1. Early Ruthenian, dating from the separation of Lithuanian and Muscovite chancery languages (15th century) to the early 16th century
  2. High Ruthenian, from Francysk Skaryna (fl. 1517–25), to Ivan Uzhevych (Hramatyka slovenskaia, 1643, 1645)
  3. Late Ruthenian, from 1648 to the establishment of the Ukrainian and Belarusian standard languages at the end of the 18th century

Development

[edit]

Early Ruthenian (c. 1300–1550)

[edit]

According to linguist Andrii Danylenko (2006), what is now called 'Ruthenian' first arose as a primarily administrative language in the 14th and 15th centuries, shaped by the chancery of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Vilnius (Vilna).[32][a] He identified the Polissian (Polesian) dialect spoken on both sides of the modern Belarusian–Ukrainian border as the basis of both written Ruthenian (rusьkij jazykъ or Chancery Slavonic) and spoken dialects of Ruthenian (проста(я) мова prosta(ja) mova or "simple speech"),[33] which he called 'two stylistically differentiated varieties of one secular vernacular standard'.[34]

From the second half of the 15th century through the 16th century, when present-day Ukraine and Belarus were part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Renaissance had a major impact on shifting culture, art and literature away from Byzantine Christian theocentrism as expressed in Church Slavonic.[35] Instead, they moved towards humanist anthropocentrism, which in writing was increasingly expressed by taking the vernacular language of the common people as the basis of texts.[35] New literary genres developed that were closer to secular topics, such as poetry, polemical literature, and scientific literature, while Church Slavonic works of previous times were translated into what became known as Ruthenian, Chancery Slavonic, or Old Ukrainian (also called проста мова prosta mova or "simple language" since the 14th century).[36] It is virtually impossible to differentiate Ruthenian texts into "Ukrainian" and "Belarusian" subgroups until the 16th century; with some variety, these were all functionally one language between the 14th and 16th century.[37]

High Ruthenian (c. 1550–1650)

[edit]

The vernacular Ruthenian "business speech" (Ukrainian: ділове мовлення, romanized: dilove movlennya) of the 16th century would spread to most other domains of everyday communication in the 17th century, with an influx of words, expressions and style from Polish and other European languages, while the usage of Church Slavonic became more restricted to the affairs of religion, the church, hagiography, and some forms of art and science.[38]

The 1569 Union of Lublin establishing the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth had significant linguistic implications: the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland (which now included Ukraine) had previously used Latin for administration, but switched to Middle Polish (standardised c. 1569–1648[39]), while the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (including Belarus, but no longer Ukraine) gave up Chancery Slavonic (Ruthenian) and also switched to Middle Polish.[39] Much of the Polish and Ruthenian nobility briefly converted to various kinds of Protestantism during the Reformation, but in the end all of them either returned or converted to Catholicism and increasingly used the Polish language; while Ukrainian nobles thus Polonised, most Ukrainian (and Belarusian) peasants remained Orthodox-believing and Ruthenian-speaking.[40]

Late Ruthenian (c. 1650–1800)

[edit]

When the Cossack Hetmanate arose in the mid-17th century, Polish remained a language of administration in the Hetmanate, and most Cossack officers and Polish nobles (two groups which overlapped a lot) still communicated with each other using a combination of Latin, Polish and Ruthenian.[41] On the other hand, the language barrier between Cossack officers and Muscovite officials had become so great that they needed translators to understand each other during negotiations, and hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky 'had letters in Muscovite dialect translated into Latin, so that he could read them.'[41]

The 17th century witnessed the standardisation of the Ruthenian language that would later split into modern Ukrainian and Belarusian.[42] From the 16th century onwards, two regional variations of spoken Ruthenian began to emerge as written Ruthenian gradually lost its prestige to Polish in administration.[37] The spoken prosta(ja) mova disappeared in the early 18th century, to be replaced by a more Polonised (central) early Belarusian variety and a more Slavonicised (southwestern) early Ukrainian variety.[37] Meanwhile, Church Slavonic remained the literary and administrative standard in Russia until the late 18th century.[43]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Literature

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ruthenian language

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Ruthenian language, known in Latin as lingua ruthenica, refers to a group of closely related East Slavic vernacular varieties and their literary forms used from the 14th to 18th centuries in the and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It emerged as a continuation of spoken in Kievan Rus', incorporating local dialects from regions now in , , and adjacent areas, and functioned primarily as a chancery for administration, legal documents, and Orthodox religious texts. Distinct from Church Slavonic, which was reserved for ecclesiastical purposes, Ruthenian reflected spoken East Slavic features such as simplified declensions and phonetic shifts toward proto-Ukrainian and proto-Belarusian traits. As the official language of the and clergy until the mid-16th century, it underpinned significant cultural outputs, including legal codes like the Lithuanian Statutes and translations such as the Peresopnytsia Gospel, preserving a distinct Slavic identity amid pressures. By the , however, increasing Polish influence led to its gradual replacement in official use by Polish, though it persisted in and folk traditions, evolving into modern Ukrainian and Belarusian amid debates over its status as a unified language or . Linguistic scholarship emphasizes its role in bridging medieval East Slavic unity and the divergence of contemporary languages, with phonological evidence like the loss of nasal vowels and akanye distinguishing it from northern Russian varieties. The language's nomenclature and boundaries remain contested, with terms like "West Russian" or "Chancery Slavonic" highlighting its administrative hybridity between vernacular and stylized forms, underscoring how political fragmentation rather than inherent linguistic divergence drove its development.

Classification

Linguistic Status and Debates

The Ruthenian language is classified as a distinct historical variety of East Slavic, emerging in the 14th century as the chancery and literary medium in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where it served as the for legal, administrative, and ecclesiastical documents until the late 17th century. It developed from but exhibited regional phonological and morphological features, such as initial Belarusian-like traits in northern texts (e.g., consistent akanye ) that adapted to southern Ukrainian innovations like consonant depalatalization by the . Linguists recognize it as a standardized written form bridging dialects, rather than a mere dialect of modern Ukrainian or Belarusian, though its extinction as a unified koine occurred with the rise of Polish influence and the divergence into proto-Ukrainian and proto-Belarusian variants post-1650. Debates on its status revolve around its internal coherence and ethnic-linguistic attribution, with some scholars positing a unified based on shared orthographic conventions in Cyrillic manuscripts from to , while others emphasize dialectal fragmentation reflecting spoken diversity across Ruthenian lands. In the , Ruthenian intellectuals debated its elevation against , arguing for vernacular prestige in Orthodox polemics to counter Latin and Polish dominance, as evidenced in treatises advocating "simple Ruthenian speech" for theological works. Contemporary analyses highlight national biases: Ukrainian-oriented studies stress its proto-Ukrainian evolution in southern codices with iotation patterns akin to modern Ukrainian, whereas Belarusian perspectives underscore its foundational role in GDL statutes with northern lexical preferences, underscoring the need for phonetic reconstructions over ideological claims. Empirical corpus studies, drawing from over 1,000 Ruthenian texts dated –, reveal a gradual vernacularization but no single "pure" form, supporting its treatment as a transitional East Slavic register rather than an ethnically monolithic tongue.

Relation to East Slavic Languages

Ruthenian belongs to the East Slavic branch of the Slavic languages, which also encompasses Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian. It emerged as a distinct variety from Old East Slavic—the vernacular spoken across Kievan Rus' from the 9th to 13th centuries—with noticeable divergence occurring by the 14th to 15th centuries amid political fragmentation following the Mongol invasions and the rise of principalities like Galicia-Volhynia and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In contrast to the northern Old East Slavic dialects that coalesced into Russian, Ruthenian developed in southwestern territories, incorporating regional vernacular traits alongside elements in administrative and literary use; it functioned as the chancery language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the 14th to late 17th centuries, when Polish gradually supplanted it. This positioning made Ruthenian a transitional form, retaining archaic features like certain case endings and verb conjugations while innovating in phonology, such as the loss of nasal vowels earlier than in . Ruthenian shares core East Slavic grammatical structures, including synthetic morphology and aspectual pairs, with its modern descendants, but exhibits closer lexical and phonetic affinities to Ukrainian and Belarusian—such as the i for etymological ě (e.g., my "we" vs. Russian my) and dialectal straddling of Belarusian-Ukrainian borders—than to Russian, which preserved more conservative traits in northern isolation. Its literary tradition, documented in texts like the 15th-century Lithuanian Statutes, directly ancestral to Ukrainian and Belarusian standards codified in the 19th–20th centuries, while influencing 18th-century Russian vernacular reforms under Lomonosov. Scholars emphasize this evolution as rather than abrupt split, with Ruthenian's southeastern innovations distinguishing it from Russian's northeastern path.

Nomenclature

Historical Terms and Designations

The Ruthenian language was self-designated by its speakers in historical documents as rus'ka mova (Руська мова, "Rus' language") or ruskyi iazyk (Руський язик, "Rus' tongue"), terms that underscored its perceived descent from the vernacular of Kievan Rus' and its role in administrative and literary contexts from the 14th to 18th centuries. These endonyms appear explicitly in the Lithuanian Statutes, with the 1529 edition noting its composition "pisano ruskom jazyczi" (written in the Rus' language), reflecting its status as the primary written medium for law in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. By the 16th century, under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, similar phrasing persisted in official acts, such as privileges and diets, where it was termed język ruski in Polish records to distinguish it from Polish and Latin. Exonyms predominated in Latin and Western European sources, with lingua ruthenica or lingua ruthena emerging by the late medieval period to denote the vernacular of the Ruthenian lands, derived from the Rutheni for inhabitants of former Rus' territories. This Latin designation gained traction in diplomatic and texts from the onward, as seen in papal bulls and Habsburg correspondence referring to the language of Galician and Volhynian scribes. In German-speaking contexts, it was rendered as ruthenische Sprache, used administratively in the until 1918 for the speech of Carpathian . These foreign terms often carried a broader application, encompassing both the chancery variety influenced by and regional spoken dialects, though contemporary scholars note their imprecision compared to native usages. Additional historical designations included prosta mova ("plain speech") in 17th-century Ruthenian polemics to contrast it with , and chancery Ruthenian for the standardized administrative form codified in the 1588 Third Statute of . Such terms highlight functional distinctions within the language's usage, with rus'ka mova retaining prevalence in self-referential legal and confessional writings until the early 18th century, when increasingly marginalized it in favor of Polish.

Modern Interpretations and Controversies

In contemporary , Ruthenian is frequently interpreted as a chancery language of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (14th–18th centuries) that evolved into distinct southern and northern branches, with the southern variety serving as the direct literary precursor to modern Ukrainian through features like softened consonants and Polish lexical borrowings exceeding 10% in administrative texts by the . This view prioritizes empirical divergence from northern East Slavic (proto-Russian) norms, evidenced by phonological shifts such as the loss of Belarusian-influenced akanye in Ukrainian territories, leading to a consolidated prosta mova (plain speech) by around 1600 that aligned with local vernaculars rather than standards. Belarusian linguists similarly claim the northern branch as proto-Belarusian, though debates persist over the extent of with , which comprised up to 30% of elite Ruthenian vocabulary in legal documents. Controversies intensify around Russian assertions of a unified "triune Rus'" linguistic heritage, as revived in 21st-century political discourse claiming Ruthenian as an undivided East Slavic continuum with modern Russian; such positions ignore quantitative metrics like Levenshtein distances, where Ukrainian exhibits only 62–70% lexical overlap with Russian swadesh lists, closer in some contact-induced layers to Polish (e.g., 500+ shared administrative terms) due to four centuries of rule. These claims, often amplified in non-peer-reviewed outlets, contrast with peer-reviewed analyses emphasizing causal factors like imperial bans on Ukrainian printing (e.g., Valuev Circular of 1863, of 1876) that accelerated divergence, rendering Ruthenian interpretations tools in rather than neutral . A parallel dispute involves Carpathian Rusyn varieties, positioned by some as a living extension of Ruthenian distinct from Ukrainian, with codification efforts yielding four competing standards since 1992 (e.g., Slovakia's 1995 norm using Cyrillic based on dialects, recognized for 55,469 speakers in the 2011 census). In , however, Rusyn remains officially a Ukrainian dialect, with only regional ethnic acknowledgment in Transcarpathia since 2007 and 10,200 self-identifiers in the 2001 census, fueling activist critiques of state assimilation policies rooted in Soviet Ukrainianization (1920s–1980s). Linguistic critiques highlight Rusyn's dialectal fragmentation and hybridity (e.g., 15–20% Slovak/Hungarian loans), questioning its viability as a standardized without political subsidization, as seen in low-output literary production post-codification. These tensions reflect broader ethno-linguistic rivalries, where academic classifications yield to in regions like and , where Rusyn gained minority status in 1999 and 2005, respectively.

Historical Development

Origins from Old East Slavic

The Ruthenian language emerged as the southwestern continuation of following the Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' in 1240, which accelerated the political fragmentation and dialectal divergence of East Slavic speech varieties. , attested from the 9th century onward in texts such as the (compiled around 1113), represented a relatively uniform vernacular base across the Rus' principalities, influenced by Church Slavonic in written forms but rooted in spoken dialects. In the western and southwestern territories, particularly under the Principality of Galicia-Volhynia (until its incorporation into in 1349), these dialects evolved into proto-Ruthenian forms, retaining core phonological and grammatical features like the preservation of nasal vowels and reduced jers while beginning to show regional hardening of palatalized consonants (e.g., č to c). This transition reflected broader linguistic differentiation driven by geographic separation and political shifts, with the northeastern dialects consolidating toward what became Russian under influence, while southwestern varieties—spoken in areas of modern and —formed the Ruthenian branch. Linguistic evidence from early 14th-century documents, such as legal charters from Galicia, indicates the gradual vernacularization of administrative , blending syntax with emerging dialectal traits like the loss of the and increased use of adjectives. Scholars note that Ruthenian did not constitute a single uniform but a continuum of proto-Ukrainian and proto-Belarusian varieties, unified in chancery practice under Lithuanian and Polish rule from the mid-14th century, which suppressed extreme localisms for cross-regional intelligibility. The period around 1280 marks the onset of distinct Ruthenian attestations, as seen in manuscripts like the Galician Gospel, where Old East Slavic archaisms coexist with innovations such as pleophony (e.g., or and ol diphthongs), distinguishing it from northeastern developments. This evolution was not abrupt but a gradual phonological and lexical shift, with minimal early external influences beyond Church Slavonic lexicon, preserving the East Slavic case system and verbal aspect distinctions inherited from the common ancestor. By the late 14th century, under the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenian had solidified as a distinct written medium for secular administration, reflecting its origins in the diverse dialectal mosaic of post-Kievan Rus'.

Early Ruthenian (c. 1280–1500)

The Early Ruthenian period, spanning roughly 1280 to 1500, followed the disintegration of Kievan Rus' amid the Mongol invasions of the 1240s, marking the divergence of southwestern East Slavic varieties from those in the northeast under influence. In principalities such as Galicia-Volhynia, which persisted until its partition between and in 1349–1387, the language served administrative, legal, and chronicle-writing functions, incorporating local phonological developments like incipient full vocalization of jers and pleophony in diphthongs. This stage transitioned from uniformity to a more vernacular-oriented form, reflecting the political of Ruthenian lands. Prominent texts include the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle (events 1201–1292, compiled early 14th century), preserved in the (ca. 1425), which documents the dynasty of Roman Mstyslavych and employs a transitional with East Slavic archaisms alongside emerging Ruthenian traits, such as variable representation of yat' (*ě) as ѣ or е. Charters and judicial records from Galicia-Volhynia, dating from the late , further illustrate early administrative usage, often blending syntax with vernacular lexicon. These works highlight the language's role in preserving Rus' identity amid external pressures. By the mid-14th century, as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania expanded into Rus' territories under (r. 1316–1341) and successors, Ruthenian supplanted Latin and Lithuanian in chanceries, becoming the for , , and record-keeping. The Lithuanian Metrica, archival books commencing in the 1440s but drawing on earlier 14th-century precedents, contains thousands of entries in this chancery Ruthenian, evidencing standardized orthographic practices derived from Church Slavonic yet adapted to local , including etymological of i/y distinctions and minimal akanye in formal norms. This adoption facilitated governance over a multiethnic realm where formed the literate elite. Linguistically, Early Ruthenian exhibited a koiné character, synthesizing dialects from central Ukrainian-Belarusian zones without exclusive Polissian or northern traits, as evidenced by consistent r'-dispalatalization variation (ря/ра) and secondary е for *ě in some manuscripts. Orthography retained conventions, such as apostrophe for jers, but vernacular influences appeared in morphology, like simplified forms. This period's avoided extreme dialectal markers, fostering a supra-regional standard that bridged ancestors of modern Ukrainian and Belarusian, distinct from contemporaneous developments. Scholarly analyses, including those countering nationalistic interpretations, affirm its composite basis rather than origin in a single subdialect.

Middle Ruthenian (c. 1500–1650)

Middle Ruthenian, spanning approximately 1500 to 1650, represents a transitional phase in the East Slavic linguistic continuum, evolving from Old East Slavic towards distinct Ukrainian and Belarusian varieties within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and emerging Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This period saw the consolidation of prosta mova ("simple speech"), a vernacular form contrasting with the more archaic Church Slavonic, used extensively in administrative, legal, and increasingly literary contexts. The language served as the official chancery idiom in the Grand Duchy until the late 17th century, reflecting its prestige despite growing Polish influence post-Union of Lublin in 1569. Key legal codifications exemplify Middle Ruthenian's standardized application: the First Lithuanian Statute of 1529, Second of 1566, and Third of 1588, all composed in Ruthenian to govern civil, criminal, and procedural matters across diverse ethnic territories. These texts demonstrate syntactic complexity and lexical borrowing from Polish, adapting to feudal society's needs while preserving East Slavic morphological structures like remnants and aspectual verb pairs. Religious translations, such as the Peresopnytsia (1556–1561), mark early vernacular renditions, blending phrasing with local phonetic and lexical traits, including softened consonants and regional vocabulary. Linguistically, Middle Ruthenian exhibited phonological shifts like the adoption of the fricative /f/ under Polish contact, alongside vowel reductions distinguishing it from Muscovite Russian. Grammatical features included case incipient in dative and locative, and innovative conditional forms evolving in prosta mova , as analyzed in 16th-century manuscripts. Vocabulary expanded via Polish loans in administration (e.g., terms for ) and Czech influences in some translations, fostering a koine suitable for inter-dialectal communication across Ruthenian lands. By mid-century, polemical and poetic works, such as those by Ivan Vahylevych contemporaries, highlighted stylistic maturation, though retained dominance in liturgy. This era's outputs laid groundwork for 17th-century divergences, with southern varieties aligning more with proto-Ukrainian phonetics.

Late Ruthenian (c. 1650–1800)

The Late Ruthenian period, roughly from 1650 to 1800, represented the transitional phase in which written East Slavic varieties in the territories of present-day and diverged into precursors of modern Ukrainian and Belarusian literary languages, amid declining official status under Polish and Russian imperial pressures. Following the mid-17th-century , including the Khmelnytsky Rebellion of 1648, Ruthenian continued as a medium for administrative and literary expression in the , where it evolved into prosta mova (simple speech), a vernacular-based form stripped of earlier Belarusian admixtures and aligned with local southeastern dialects in Ukrainian lands. This variety facilitated chancery documents, legal proceedings in lower courts, and polemical writings until the 1760s, when Russian imperial edicts under Catherine II progressively supplanted it with Russian in official use by the early . In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's Ruthenian-speaking regions, particularly and Belarusian territories, the faced accelerating from the late 17th century, with Polish assuming dominance in higher administration and elite , relegating Ruthenian to informal, regional, and ecclesiastical contexts. Chancery Ruthenian, once standardized in the 16th–early 17th centuries, incorporated increasing Polish loanwords and syntactic influences, contributing to phonological shifts such as the merger of i and y sounds in certain dialects and the regularization of vocalic reductions absent in northern East Slavic forms. By the 18th century, regional variants solidified: in Ukrainian areas, prosta mova texts exhibited softened consonants (e.g., h for earlier g), expanded use of vocative forms, and vocabulary reflecting Cossack military and agrarian life, setting the stage for 19th-century standardization. In Belarusian territories, parallel developments emphasized akanye () and retained more archaic East Slavic morphology, though printed output remained limited compared to Ukrainian counterparts. Literary production in Late Ruthenian included chronicles, poetry, and religious tracts, often blending vernacular prose with elements for stylistic elevation, as seen in Hetmanate and Basilian monastic writings that preserved orthographic conventions like the use of і and ї distinct from Russian reforms. The period's end coincided with the (1772–1795), which fragmented Ruthenian-speaking areas across empires, accelerating the shift to imperial languages in administration while vernacular forms persisted in and private manuscripts, laying groundwork for national linguistic revivals. This divergence reflected causal pressures from political fragmentation, elite bilingualism, and print dissemination, rather than unified evolution, with prosta mova exerting standardizing influence on emerging Ukrainian norms through its exclusion from high-prestige domains, which paradoxically allowed vernacular consolidation.

Linguistic Features

Phonological and Orthographic Traits

The Ruthenian language, as a East Slavic idiom from the 14th to 17th centuries, retained a phonological system largely inherited from but marked by progressive dialectal developments toward modern Ukrainian and Belarusian varieties. Its consonant inventory featured a distinction between hard and soft (palatalized) consonants, with depalatalization of the soft *r' merging it phonetically with hard *r in most dialects, though orthographic variation persisted (e.g., рѣка vs. ряка). The spirantization of Proto-Slavic *g to [ɦ] (as in голова [ɦolova] "head") occurred early in the Ruthenian period, distinguishing it from Russian where *g remained a stop, and this change was widespread without corresponding orthographic adjustment. Affricates like č and dz underwent phonetic shifts such as cekanje (č > c) and dzekanje (dz > dz'), but these were not systematically reflected in spelling due to their allophonic nature in many regions. The vowel system comprised six main qualities (i, e, ě/yat', a, o, u, y), with reduced yers disappearing by the late medieval period, leading to palatalization of preceding consonants and occasional vocalization in strong positions (e.g., *bĭlъ > bil "was"). The yat' (*ě) shifted to /i/ in vernacular speech, though spelling retained ѣ etymologically, with secondary e appearing in unstressed syllables; mergers of i/y were inconsistent, as evidenced by authors like distinguishing them (e.g., вїю vs. выю). Vowel reductions were limited: akanje (o/a > a unstressed) was rare and avoided in literary norms, while jekanje showed free variation between e and я for unstressed nasal *ę, ikanje approximated unstressed e to i/ě, and ukanje appeared sporadically in southern dialects. Nasal vowels from Proto-Slavic *ę/*ǫ denasalized early, aligning with broader East Slavic trends. Orthographically, Ruthenian employed the Cyrillic alphabet adapted from Church Slavonic traditions, lacking full standardization and favoring etymological over phonetic principles to ensure cross-dialectal comprehensibility—a "negative norm" excluding extreme regional variants. Common letters included ѣ for yat', и/ї for /i/ and /ji/, ы for /y/, and digraphs or single letters for palatals (e.g., ч for /tʃ/), with variable use of apostrophe for hard signs. Influences from Polish led to occasional Latin script in western regions, but Cyrillic dominated administrative and literary texts; spellings like etymological и/ы preserved distinctions despite phonetic mergers, and conservative practices (e.g., retaining ѣ) coexisted with vernacular simplifications such as e for ѣ in casual writing. This hybrid system reflected diglossia with Church Slavonic, where puristic elements overlaid spoken traits.

Grammatical Structure

The Ruthenian language exhibited a synthetic grammatical structure typical of East Slavic varieties, characterized by fusional morphology where single affixes encoded multiple categories such as case, number, and gender. Nouns inflected for seven cases (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, instrumental, locative, and vocative), three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), and two numbers (singular and plural), with paradigms organized into declension classes determined by stem vowels like /o/, /a/, or /u/. Adjectives and pronouns agreed with nouns in these categories, while declension classes influenced ending selection, as in instrumental singular forms varying between paradigms (e.g., *-omь for o-stems versus *-ojo˛ for a-stems). Verbs conjugated for , number, tense, mood, and aspect, often via theme vowels (e.g., /e/~/o/ or /i/) combined with personal endings, as seen in forms like *nesemъ (1st plural present "we carry") or *xvalimъ (1st plural present "we praise"). Aspectual opposition between imperfective and perfective was primarily achieved through verbal prefixes or stem alternations rather than dedicated suffixes, enabling distinctions like iterative or completive actions (e.g., *sъtresetъ perfective versus *sъtresajetъ imperfective). forms showed gender agreement in singular, while relied on synthetic imperfective presents or analytic perfective infinitives with . As a supradialectal koine used in chancery and literary contexts, Ruthenian grammar blended vernacular East Slavic inflections with influences, particularly in higher registers, resulting in variable syntactic patterns influenced by external contacts like Czech borrowings that occasionally altered phrase order or case usage. was predominantly subject-verb-object but flexible owing to the robust case , allowing or emphasis without loss of semantic clarity. Prepositions governed specific cases (e.g., genitive after certain spatial prepositions), and the absence of definite articles relied on context or for specificity.

Vocabulary and External Influences

The core vocabulary of Ruthenian derives from roots shared with other , encompassing basic terms for everyday life, kinship, nature, and . This inherited formed the foundation, with vernacular elements increasingly integrated into written forms from the late onward. Church Slavonic exerted a profound influence, supplying specialized religious, liturgical, and high-register terms, often through calques or direct adoption in hybrid texts like (e.g., those from 1517–1581). This diglossic relationship enriched Ruthenian with archaisms and abstract concepts absent in pure speech, persisting in religious contexts until the late . Polish loanwords proliferated, particularly peaking between 1570 and 1670 amid the Polish-Lithuanian union, infiltrating administrative, legal, and cultural domains via chancery usage. These borrowings introduced novel phonemes (e.g., /f/ and /fˈ/) and syntactic patterns, reflecting Ruthenian's adaptation to Polish models while retaining Cyrillic orthography and native phonetics. Polonisms appear extensively in 17th-century texts, underscoring the extent of lexical convergence without fully supplanting Ruthenian identity. Minor external inputs included Latin-derived terms mediated through Polish or ecclesiastical channels, alongside sporadic Turkic or German elements from regional contacts, though these remained peripheral compared to Slavic dominants.

Written Tradition

Chancery Ruthenian functioned as the principal language for administrative and legal documentation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the late through the , encompassing royal charters, privileges to and municipalities, court records, and legislative compilations. This usage persisted into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where it served local governance in Ruthenian-speaking territories alongside Latin and Polish, reflecting the multi-ethnic composition of the realm. The Lithuanian Statutes exemplify this application, with the initial code issued in 1529 under Grand Duke Sigismund I, revised in 1566, and finalized in 1588; these texts, drafted in Chancery Ruthenian, codified customary laws derived from Kyivan Rus' traditions while incorporating Roman and canon influences, and remained in force until the third partition of Poland in 1795. Other key documents included land grants and judicial acts, such as those preserved in archives from the 15th–17th centuries, which demonstrate the language's role in enforcing property rights and resolving disputes. By the late , official Ruthenian usage waned as Polish supplanted it in judicial proceedings following the 1697 decree mandating Polish for courts, though sporadic Ruthenian documents appeared in peripheral regions into the early . This transition highlighted the administrative prestige of Ruthenian, which had enabled precise legal expression for East Slavic populations amid evolving political structures.

Literary and Religious Texts

The Peresopnytsia Gospel, completed between 1556 and 1561 at the Peresopnytsia Monastery in , stands as a landmark religious text in Ruthenian. Commissioned by Duchess Anastasiya Holshanska and Prince Mykhaylo Zaslavsky, it was transcribed by monks Hryhoriy and Mykhaylo from into vernacular Ruthenian, incorporating local linguistic elements and featuring ornate illuminations. This , containing the four Gospels, exemplifies early efforts to adapt sacred texts to the spoken language of the Ruthenian lands, influencing subsequent vernacular translations. Other religious literature in Ruthenian includes 16th- and 17th-century translations of psalters, , and hagiographies, often produced in monastic scriptoria to facilitate liturgical use among the Orthodox and Uniate communities. These works bridged traditions with regional dialects, preserving theological content while reflecting phonological and lexical shifts in the language. Polemical texts, such as those by Meletij Smotryc´kyj (ca. 1578–1633), an Orthodox and linguist, further demonstrate Ruthenian in religious discourse; his Slavonic Grammar (1619) and anti-Union treatises employed the language to defend Eastern Orthodox positions against Catholic influences. Literary production in Ruthenian primarily manifested through historical chronicles, which blended factual with narrative elements. The Chronicle of Halych-Volhynia, spanning 1201–1292, chronicles regional political upheavals post-Mongol , marking a transition from to emerging Ruthenian stylistic traits. Similarly, the 14th- to 16th-century Belarusian-Lithuanian Chronicles, composed in Ruthenian under patronage, integrated Rus´ heritage with Lithuanian state narratives, serving both historiographical and ideological purposes. Secular poetry remained sparse, with initial developments in syllabic verse appearing toward the late period, often intertwined with religious themes.

Sociolinguistic Context

Dialectal Variations and Regional Usage

The Ruthenian language encompassed a range of spoken dialects across the territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, with variations primarily aligned along north-south geographic lines that prefigured the modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. Northern dialects, prevalent in present-day Belarus and parts of Lithuania, tended toward features like jekavism in the reflex of Common Slavic ě (yat') and variable ikavism or jekavism in vowel reductions, reflecting substrates in the northeastern East Slavic continuum. Southern dialects, spoken in regions such as Volhynia, Podolia, and Galicia (modern western and central Ukraine), exhibited stronger retention of etymological distinctions in phonology, including less pervasive akanje and more consistent ijekavism, alongside lexical influences from local substrates. These differences were not rigidly compartmentalized, as intermediate zones like Polissia hosted transitional dialects blending northern and southern traits, contributing to the overall fluidity of spoken Ruthenian before the 17th century. The literary and chancery Ruthenian, however, functioned as a supra-dialectal koine that deliberately bridged these regional divides, eschewing extreme localisms in favor of etymological orthography and a "negative norm" that prioritized comprehensibility across regions—such as maintaining distinct spellings for i and y despite phonological mergers in many dialects, or allowing free variation in r' depalatalization (e.g., ря vs. ра). This standardization emerged prominently in Volhynian chancelleries by the 14th century, where mobile scribes disseminated norms throughout the Grand Duchy, influencing usage from Vilnius to Lviv; private and local documents, by contrast, occasionally preserved more dialect-specific traits, like regional lexical borrowings or phonological spellings. Regional usage was widespread: in the Grand Duchy, Ruthenian served as the primary administrative vernacular until its replacement by Polish in 1699, coexisting with Lithuanian in the north and Polish in the south, while in Polish Crown lands, it persisted in legal and ecclesiastical contexts into the 18th century, adapting to local dialects in areas like Red Ruthenia (Galicia). Post-1650, intensifying political partitions amplified dialectal divergence, with southern variants evolving toward Ukrainian amid influences and northern ones toward Belarusian under pressures, though Carpathian border dialects (precursors to Rusyn) retained archaic features like mixed reflexes of tor/tol. Scholarly debate persists on the precise dialectal substrate, with some attributing primacy to Polissian intermediates, but evidence supports a composite basis shaped by chancery practices rather than any single regional .

Role in Administration and Church

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenian emerged as the dominant administrative language by the mid-14th century, employed in the chancery for official correspondence, judicial proceedings, and legislative enactments due to the extensive incorporation of Ruthenian territories and the absence of a developed Lithuanian written standard. This role solidified with the codification of in the Lithuanian Statutes of 1529, 1566, and 1588, all composed in Ruthenian, which regulated land ownership, criminal penalties, and civil rights across diverse ethnic groups. Ruthenian thus facilitated governance over a multi-ethnic realm where it served as a among Slavic populations comprising the majority. After the 1569 forming the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Polish ascended as the language of central administration and the , yet Ruthenian persisted in local courts, privileges, and eastern provincial documents until its formal replacement by Polish in 1696. This transition reflected among the nobility but preserved Ruthenian's utility in regions with prevalent Ruthenian-speaking peasantry and clergy. Within ecclesiastical spheres, Ruthenian held limited direct liturgical use, as Orthodox and Greek Catholic rites in Ruthenian lands adhered to Church Slavonic for divine services. Nonetheless, vernacular Ruthenian increasingly permeated religious texts from the late 15th century, evident in works like the Četˈja collection of saints' lives, where chancery and spoken features blended with Slavonic forms to enhance accessibility for lay audiences. Church administrative practices in Ruthenian dioceses likely mirrored secular patterns, utilizing the language for records and correspondence, though surviving examples prioritize Slavonic for formal liturgy and theology.

Decline and Legacy

Factors of Decline and Transition

The decline of Ruthenian as a unified literary and administrative language began in the late following the in 1569, which integrated the Grand Duchy's eastern territories into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and elevated Polish as the primary language of governance, law, and higher administration, thereby marginalizing Ruthenian in official domains. This shift was exacerbated by the cultural prestige of Polish, enriched by Latin influences that facilitated abstract expression, contrasting with Ruthenian's more vernacular constraints in elite circles. By the , intensified among the nobility and urban elites in Commonwealth territories, leading to widespread and gradual replacement of Ruthenian in secular texts, though it persisted longer in rural and ecclesiastical contexts. In the Russian Empire's zones after the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1772–1795), policies systematically suppressed Ruthenian variants, particularly those evolving toward Ukrainian, through bans on publications and education in non-Russian languages; for instance, the Valuev Circular of 1863 declared Ukrainian (as a Ruthenian descendant) unfit for literary development, followed by the of 1876 prohibiting its printing. These measures, aimed at linguistic homogenization, accelerated the transition by enforcing Russian in schools and administration, eroding Ruthenian's base among peasants and alike, with similar pressures applied to Belarusian variants. In Austrian Galicia, while less severe, administrative Germanization and partial further fragmented Ruthenian usage, confining it to folkloric and limited printed forms by the mid-19th century. The internal linguistic divergence of Ruthenian into distinct regional variants—proto-Ukrainian in the south, proto-Belarusian in the north, and Rusyn in Carpathian areas—by the late undermined its cohesion as a supradialectal standard, as local phonological and lexical innovations solidified amid reduced centralized . This transition culminated in 19th-century national revivals, where standardized Ukrainian (e.g., via Taras Shevchenko's works from 1840) and Belarusian emerged from Ruthenian substrates, supplanting it as modern literary vehicles, while and further eroded spoken continuity. By 1900, Ruthenian had effectively ceased as a distinct functional , its elements absorbed into successor tongues.

Connections to Modern Languages

The Ruthenian language served as the common literary and administrative medium for East Slavic speakers in the territories of the former Kyivan Rus' southwestern principalities, evolving through regional dialects into the modern Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Rusyn languages by the late . This continuity is evident in shared phonological features, such as the loss of nasal vowels by the and the development of pleophony (e.g., *golova from Proto-Slavic *golva), which persisted variably in the successor languages. Grammatical structures, including the retention of in early texts until its gradual obsolescence around 1600, also carried over, though with divergences in case endings and verb conjugations influenced by local spoken varieties. In Ukrainian, Ruthenian substrates are particularly strong in central and western dialects, where vocabulary from legal and religious texts—such as terms for governance (het'man, starosta)—remains in use, reflecting the language's role in Cossack-era documentation from the 16th to 17th centuries. Belarusian drew from northeastern Ruthenian chancery traditions under the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, preserving archaic čakavism (e.g., často for 'often') and softer palatalization patterns compared to Russian influences post-1795 partitions. Rusyn, spoken by Carpathian communities, represents a more conservative continuation, retaining Ruthenian-era tsakanje (e.g., dzerkalo for 'mirror') and vocabulary from 15th-century Transcarpathian manuscripts, though standardization efforts in the 20th century aligned it closer to regional Ukrainian norms in some areas. These connections underscore Ruthenian's role as a transitional lingua franca rather than a uniform predecessor, with dialectal bases shaping post-18th-century codifications amid Polonization and Russification pressures. Scholars note debates over precise filiations, with some Belarusian historiographers emphasizing Ruthenian as proto-Belarusian due to its dominance in 15th-16th century statutes, while Ukrainian linguists highlight continuity in Galician-Volhynian chronicles as foundational to modern Ukrainian literary norms. Empirical evidence from comparative shows 70-85% lexical overlap between Ruthenian texts and modern East Slavic variants, supporting a shared origin without subsuming one under another.

Contemporary Studies and Revivals

Contemporary linguistic research on Ruthenian focuses on philological analysis of 14th- to 18th-century manuscripts to reconstruct its grammatical features, lexicon, and dialectal substrates, often highlighting its role as a supradialectal literary norm for East Slavic speakers in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Scholars examine how Ruthenian integrated Church Slavonic elements with vernacular innovations, influencing the divergence into modern Belarusian and Ukrainian variants by the late 18th century. Key 21st-century works, such as those by Michael Moser, explore Ruthenian's legacy in Carpathian contexts, arguing it persisted in isolated forms resistant to Ukrainian national standardization. Academic institutions in regions with historical Ruthenian usage support dedicated studies. The Institute of Ruthenian Language and Culture at the University of Prešov in houses a specialized library with over 10,000 volumes on Carpatho-Rusyn , facilitating research into Ruthenian-era texts and their phonological shifts. In and , university programs analyze Ruthenian legal codes, such as the 1588 Lithuanian Statute, for insights into administrative multilingualism, with publications emphasizing empirical text editions over ideological interpretations. Revival initiatives target modern Rusyn speech forms, posited by proponents as the closest living heirs to Ruthenian due to geographic continuity in Carpathian highlands and . In , Rusyn standardization advanced in the 1990s, achieving official status by 1995, with a January 2025 declaration affirming Ruthenian as the codified written norm for Rusyn communities, supporting education and media in approximately 60,000 speakers. Cultural organizations promote revival through and theater, as documented in August 2025 analyses of post-communist resilience against assimilation pressures. In Serbia's region, a Ruthenian-speaking minority of around 15,000 maintains bilingual schools and publishing, with a 2020 study noting enhanced language vitality from digital tools and community events, countering earlier decline from . These efforts face contention, as Ukrainian linguistic orthodoxy often reclassifies Rusyn as a , prioritizing unity over separation—a view critiqued in ethnographic research for overlooking substrate evidence from Ruthenian chronicles. No widespread reconstruction of classical Ruthenian exists, but archival projects, including Belarusian efforts since 2010, enable broader access to primary sources for causal analysis of its obsolescence.

References

  1. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=54167
  2. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/ESLO/COM-032436.xml?language=en
  3. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780916458751
  4. http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.linguistics.20130201.01.html
  5. https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Ruthenian_Language/MostCited
  6. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41036132
  7. https://husj.harvard.edu/articles/the-battle-for-ukrainian-an-introduction
  8. https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/server/api/core/bitstreams/c5e291cb-ea6d-4ccf-86cc-861399bcdcbf/content
  9. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/12905/The_Triple_Division_of_the_Slavic_Langua.pdf
  10. https://aspirantum.com/blog/slavic-languages
  11. https://www.academia.edu/7683725/Ruthenica_Bohemica_Ruthenian_Translations_from_Czech_in_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania_and_Poland
  12. https://iopn.library.illinois.edu/journals/vivliofika/article/download/1139/938/4183
  13. https://handwiki.org/wiki/Social:Ruthenian_language
  14. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v8i1.5467
  15. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/PLSA/article/download/5467/5121/10944
  16. https://shron1.chtyvo.org.ua/Michael_Moser/Rusyn_A_NewOld_Language_In-between_Nations_and_States_anhl.pdf
  17. https://www.academia.edu/8852810/Rusyn_Grammar_Controversy
  18. https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/oruol
  19. https://www.academia.edu/36199052/On_the_dialectal_basis_of_the_Ruthenian_literary_language
  20. https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/7496/1/Buncic_2015_Dialectal_basis_of_Ruthenian.pdf
  21. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EMCO/SIM-01052.xml?language=en
  22. http://www.vu.lt/en/news-events/news/a-share-of-lithuanian-metrica-digitized-four-centuries-of-our-history
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4207914
  24. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=641912
  25. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/ESLO/COM-032148.xml?language=en
  26. https://akjournals.com/abstract/journals/060/50/1-2/article-p125.xml
  27. https://www.tf.vu.lt/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/V.-Vaicaitis.-The-16th-century-Lithuanian-Statutes-in-the-context-of-the-Europan-legal-tradition.pdf
  28. https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/9731
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374531612_UKRAINIAN_BIBLICAL_AND_LITURGICAL_TRANSLATION_A_Chronology
  30. https://linguifex.com/w/index.php?title=Ruthenian&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
  31. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=769393
  32. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=osu1754495128916919&disposition=inline
  33. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=952785
  34. https://www.academia.edu/62844265/Standard_Setting_Role_of_Prosta_Mova_in_the_18_th_Century
  35. https://www.austriaca.at/0xc1aa5572_0x00250229.pdf
  36. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/ESLO/COM-031958.xml
  37. https://www.[academia.edu](/page/Academia.edu)/36199052/On_the_dialectal_basis_of_the_Ruthenian_literary_language
  38. https://slaviccenters.duke.edu/sites/slaviccenters.duke.edu/files/site-images/8gladney%20x.pdf
  39. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=56853
  40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4205980
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339506956_The_Prestige_and_Decline_of_the_Official_State_Language_in_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania_Fifteenth-Sixteenth_Century_Problems_in_Belarusian_Historiography
  42. https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no15_ses/08_koyama.pdf
  43. https://rcin.org.pl/Content/22449
  44. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/27911
  45. https://sesdiva.eu/en/virtual-rooms/medieval-written-heritage/item/102-peresopnytsia-gospels-en
  46. https://www.medieval.eu/the-chronicle-of-halych-volhonia/
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359028051_THE_RUSIAN_RUTHENIAN_CHANCELLERY_LANGUAGE_IN_THE_GRAND_PRINCIPALITY_OF_LITHUANIA_FORMATION_STATE_STATUS_AND_DIALECT_INFLUENCES
  48. https://www.mruni.eu/en/library_news/the-third-statute-of-lithuania/
  49. https://chytomo.com/en/a-guide-to-the-history-of-oppression-of-the-ukrainian-language/
  50. https://research-portal.st-andrews.ac.uk/files/70019065/Krzysztof_Germanization.pdf
  51. https://www.anetapavlenko.com/pdf/Russian_Linguistics_2011_Pavlenko.pdf
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251418597_Linguistic_russification_in_the_Russian_Empire_Peasants_into_Russians
  53. https://bazekon.uek.krakow.pl/en/gospodarka/171706949
  54. https://commons.nmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=upper_country
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322219014_A_missing_chain_On_the_sociolinguistics_of_the_Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania/fulltext/5a4c3a5e458515a6bc6bfdb5/A-missing-chain-On-the-sociolinguistics-of-the-Grand-Duchy-of-Lithuania.pdf
  56. https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Ruthenian_Language
  57. https://chtyvo.org.ua/authors/Michael_Moser/Rusyn_A_NewOld_Language_In-between_Nations_and_States_anhl.pdf
  58. https://www.unipo.sk/en/center-for-languages-and-cultures-of-national-minorities/institute-of-ruthenian-language-and-culture/about-institute
  59. https://www.facebook.com/groups/2203971582/posts/10160505992236583/
  60. https://c-rs.org/voices-reclaimed-the-rusyn-revival-of-language-and-culture/
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321126733_Ruthenian_minority_in_vojvodina_and_its_language
  62. https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/publictn/slavic_eurasia_papers/no14/107-121.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.