Jump to content

Talk:Litvin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Article is unimportant and unnecessary

“Litvin – is the Slavic name for people living in Lithuania, and means Lithuanian in the Lithuanian (Lietuvis), Polish (Litwin), and Russian (Литвин) languages. It was applied earlier to all people living in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and later the Lithuanian part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As this area was primarily comprised of Lithuanians and Ruthenians, Litvini was the designated term for the inhabitants of this territory, by Slavic speaking peoples.” -------– Litvin is a Slavonic form of Lithuanian. So I can’t understand why we should create different articles. Should I create article about Lituanos, Lietuviai, Litouwers and Litovcy in English Wikipedia? The name became „Litvin“ because Ruthenians didn‘t have diphthong. Thats how Vytautas became Vitovt, Kaunas – Cowno, Lietuvis – Litvin, Jaunutis – Jawnut. As we see, it is enought to apply only one rule and everything became clear.

“In this our state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and in all of its lands, we [the Sovereign] shall grant any ranks and positions … to Lithuania and to Russia only, who are ancient dwellers and natives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. … To any offices and appointments, only those shall be appointed by us, the Sovereign, who are ancient natives of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, those are – Lithuanian and Ruthenian”[1].What nation was named "Lithuanians" here, is explained by the author of the Statutes of Lithuania, Lew Sapieha, in a corresponding article of the Lithuanian Statute:"...it is not in any foreign language, but in the language of our own, that we have our rights written"[2]. –------ So, as we see difference between Lithuanians and Ruthenians are. And, I cant imagine where do You see explanation of Sapieha about who is Lithuanians. So, this part must be deleted because: 1) Lithuanians and Ruthenians were separated again, 2) There are no explanation of Sapieha.

The Ukranians called Belarusians “Litvins” until the 1940-s, which can be illustrated by still existing folklore sayings. Dwellers of Bryansk and Kursk regions of Russia (bordering on Belarus), and of Bialystok region of Poland would call Belarusians “Litvins” all through the 19th century and even up to nowadays. -----– Possible. For Ukrainians territory of Belarus was territory of Grand Duchy of Lithuania from old times. So they really could use that name. As Lithuanians still use all name of Goths to describe Belorussian. And that name appears in Lithuanian documents of Grand Duchy of Lithuania: “Mes Wladislaus / Ketwirtassis Isch Diewo Malo= nes / Karalius Lenku / Diddisis Kunigaikschtis Lietuwniku / Guddu / Prusu / Mo= suriu / Szemaicziu / Inflantůsa / Smolenska / Czernichowa etc. Priegtam ir Schwe= du / Gothu / bei Wandalu Tewiksztinis Karalius etc.” (We, Wladyslaw, IV, By the Grace of God, King of Poles, Grand Duke of Lithuanians, Gudai(Ruthenians), Prussians, Mosurians, Samogytians, etc, etc”. So as we see Ruthenians are separated from Lithuanians again. ( http://lietuvos.istorija.net/lituanistica/wladislaus1639.htm ). Our folk songs also says “gudai”.

It should be stressed, that the original form of the name is the form “Litwin”, which occurs in all medieval historical sources[6]. No any forms as “lietuva”, “lietuviai”, “litowcy” etc. occur in any medieval source. –------ Lie again. I’ve already posted one example and can add more. http://www.epaveldas.lt/vbspi/biRecord.do?biRecordId=980 – it is Lithuanian book of 1653. And there we can see written “Bažnyčioms Didės Kunigystės Lietuwos išduota“ it means „For the churches of Grand Duchy of Lithuania“. Of course, it is not medieval source, but i want to remind that no one medieval Lithuanian text reached us. (First texts in Lithuanian are of XVI c.)

“Litwins” come to be widely known in sources as of the formation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (ca. 1240’s), as a denomination of Lithuanians and part of Belarus. The first Grand Duke of Lithuania Mindaugas himself signed in his Latin letters as “rex Litwinorum”[7] (“duke of Litwins”)Template:Dubiuos.During the 1210’s, a duke Dovgerd (who, after some scholars[8] might have been Mindaugas father) is known, as “one of the most powerful of Lithuanians”[9]. Some scholars made suggestions, that Dovgerd might have his residence in Oshmiany [10] or Vilna[11].In 1267 a baron named Luka Litvin[12] was present at the court of a Lithuanian duke Daumantas, who was the ruler of Pskov since 1265. (Luka is an orthodox Christian name, popular with Slavs). Probably, “Litvin” existed as a surname already in those times.Lithuanian grand duke Vytenis (ruled 1294-1316) was called “rex Lethowinorum” (“duke of Lithuanians”) in Latin sources. Peter of Duisburg (ca. 1326) depicted a crusader’s raid onto Lithuanians near Hrodna in 1295[13]: “…five brothers (crusaders) and 150 men from Sambia and Nattangia went on a raid to the castle of Hrodna; and when they came close, they wished to dismount and go down the Neman on ships; they devastated a village of Lithuanians [Lethowinorum] on the riverbank there, killed and captured many people, and moved on”. (In 1295, a village of Lithuanians was situated near Hrodna). –------ So, as You see, not Litwins, but Litwinorum, Lethowinorum, etc. But it is just names of Lithuanian in other languages.

Vilnius martyrs of 1347 were, no doubt, Slavs.[citation needed] Their names were Kumec, Kruglec and Nezhilo, which are distinct Slavic names, and they were naperers at the court of the Lithuanian grand duke Algirdas in Vilnius. The chronicles said that[14]: “Kruglec, Kumec and Nezhilo were born in Lithuania”; “their Lithuanian names were Kruglec, Kumec, Nezhilo”. –----- What do You want to say with this? Pagan Lithuanian duke with Lithuanian name, killed those ortodox with Slavonic names. So what does it prove?

A Vilnius prelate Matthew, according to a 1422 document, was a born Lithuanian (“venerabilem virum magistrum Mathiam origine Lytwanum”). However the Lithuanian grand duke Vytautas made a purposeful statement on Matthew's being appropriate for a position of the bishop of Samogitia in Medninkai (nowadays Varniai), as Matej had “a satisfactory command of the Samogitian dialect” (“ac de ydiomate Samagitico sufficintissime institutum”[16]). The second catholic bishop of Vilnius was also a Lithuanian – Jacub (Jan’s son) Plichta ([jakub plihta]), who died on February 2, 1407. The documents testify of him as of a distinct Lithuanian, from the nation and language of Lithuania (“Johannis dicti Plychta … viro vicarium Lythuanie, eiusdemque nacionis et lingue”[16]). –----- I can’t understand this again. What do You mean? Maybe its just a manner to make text longer?

A Russian chronicle gives a list of Lithuanian dukes, who perished in the battle of Vorskla on August 12, 1399[17]: “These are the names of the Lithuanian dukes, who perished: Andrey Olgerdovich of Polock, Dmitry Olgerdovich of Bryansk, Ivan Dmitrievich Kindyr, Andrey Dmitrievich, Ivan Evlashkovich, Leon Koriadovich, Michailo Vasylievich, his brother Semen Vasylievich, Michailo Podberezsky, his brother Alexander, Fedor Patrikeevich Rylsky, Andrey of Druck, Mont Toluntovich, Ivan Yuryevich Belsky…”. –------ And what does it mean? Sons of Algirdas really took East Christianity and adopted Slavonic culture when they ruled Ruthenian lands. There must be also said: “And said Andrey Olgerdovich for his brother Dmitry: we are two brothers – Songs of Olgierd, Grandsons of Edimant[Gediminas], and descendants of Skolomend” Thoose names are Baltic.

The enlightener and Roman Pope Aneus Silvius Piccolomini wrote in 1458, that Lithuanians speak a Slavic language[18]. Such European scientists as Hertman Schedel (in his “World Cronicon”, 1493), Jan Norich (in “Decachyston”, 1511[19]), Jan of Bohemia (in “Omnius Gentes Mores”, 1538[20]) and an Austrian diplomat Sigismund Herberstein (in “History of Moscovia”, 1549) wrote of Litva (Lithuania) as of a Slavonic country, and altogether considered the Lithuanian language a Slavic language. ------------– Of course, foreigners could be confused. For example Johannes Boemus Aubanus(not Jan of Bohemia, like you mentioned) just repeated what Piccolomini had written earlier. But the true that Piccolomini never knew Lithuanian language and never has been there. But even there Johannes Boemus Aubanus separate nations: “Aliae Graeco ritu sacra peragunt, vt Bulgari, Rutheni, et ex Lithuanis plerique. Nonnullae ab his diuersae proprias haereses habent, vt Boemi sunt, Moraui et Bosnienses. Hussitarum quaedam obseruant delirium: pars multo maxima Manicheum: quaedam adhuc etiam gentili caecitate tenentur, idola colunt, quemadmodum multi ex Lithuanis”.Sigismund Herberstein, as foreigner, could easily confuse. And of course, even today we have lot of words that came from Slavonic languages. So that’s why we have to use local sources. For example: Michalo Lituanus – Lithuanian humanist, activist, diplomat – writes: “ We take mascovian sciense, that has nothing ancient and can’t wake up virtues, because RUTHENIAN LANGUAGE IS ALIEN FOR US, LITHUANIANS, hoc est Italians, from Italian blood. [Cum idioma Ruthenum alienum sit a nobis Lituanis, hoc est, Italianis, Italico sanguine oriundis]. Then he add Latin words that are similar to Lithuanian. I will write Latin text and I will add Lithuanian translation in brackets. “[…] extinctus est per baptismatis vndam vgnis(Lithuanian word ugnis, as we know Latin “v” could be read as “u”), id est, ignis. Etenim et ignis(ugnis), et vnda(vanduo), aer(oras), sol(saulė), mensis(mėnesis), dies(diena), noctis(naktis), ros(rasa), aurora(aušra), dues(dievas), vir(vyras), deuir, i.e. leuir(dieveris), Nepotis(Nepotis), neptis( anūkė), tu(tu), tuus(tavas), meus(mano), suus(savo), levis(lengvas), tenuis(tėvas), vivus(gyvas), juvenis(jaunas), vetustus,senis(senas), oculus(akis), auris(ausis), nasus(nosis), dentes(dantys), gentes(gentys), sta(stok), sede(sėdėk), verte(versk),inverte(įversk), perverte(perversk), aratum(artų), occatum(akėtų), satum(sėtų), semen(sėmenys), lens(lęšis), linum(linai), canapum(kanapės), avena(aviža), pecus(pėkus), ovis(avis), anguis(angis), ansa(ąsa), corbis(gurbas), axis(ašis), rota(ratas), jugum(jungas), pondus(pundas), culeus(kūlė), callis (kelias), cur(kur), nunc(nūnai), tractus(trauktas), intractus(įtrauktas), pertractus(pertrauktas), extractus(ištrauktas), merctus(merktas), immerctus(įmerktas), sutus(siūtas), insutus(įsiūtas), versus(verstas), inversus(įverstas), perversus(perverstas), primus(pirmas), unus(vienas), duo (du), tres(trys), quatuor(keturi), quinque(penki), sex(šeši), septem(septyni), et pleraque alia, idem significant Lituano sermone quod et Latino(and lot of other words in Lithuanian language mean the same like in Latin." So as we see he was Lithuanian that could feel clear distinction between Lithuanians and Ruthenians, and between Lithuanian language and Ruthenian. Marcin Kromer – Polish historian humanist. Who finished academy of Cracow, studied in Padua and Bologna and later worked as secretary for Sigismund Augustus, and looks like, lived in Vilnius where helped to organise library for King – wrote: thoose lands now are ruled by Livonians, Samogytians, Lithuanians and Prussians. Thoose nations difference by rules, and by the form of government, but use almost the same language, ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT FROM SLAVONIC...“ Alexander Guagnini – Italian, who was born in 1538 in Verona, in 1561 he came to Poland, from here he was sent to army of Lithuania and from 1561-1579 served in garrison of Vitebsk of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, partaken in Livonian wars – in his “Kronika Sarmacyi Europskiej” wrote: “As we have already spoken in the description of Polish kings, until the times of Wladyslaw Jagiello – King of Poles and Grand Duke of Lithuanians – whole people of LITHUANIANS AND SAMOGYTIANS NATION(wszyscy obywatele narodu litewskiego I žmudzkiego) – worshiped lot of Gods….”. Also he wrote: “they worshiped as the god also the thunder, that in them language they call him Perkunos”. I want to remind that Slavic people call him “Pierun”. Maciej Stryjkowski – historian and poet, who came to Lithuania until 1565, served for Lithuanian army, made lot of trips, lived in palaces of Chodkiewicz, later was parson in Jurbarkas, lived in Varniai, Jurbarkas – describing the old religion of Lithuanians, Samogytians and Prussians wrote: “There, to the honor of Perkunas either Prussians, and Samogytians, and Lithuanians for all days and nights fired eternal fire..” and “They worshiped him very much, - every Samogytian, Lithuanian and Prussian kept grass-snake at home…”. Later he describes those Gods of “Lithuanians, Samogytians, Semba, Latvians and Prussians”, and those are: “Okopirmnos, Swajtestix, Auschlavis, Atrimpos, Protrimpos, Gardoajtis, Pergrubius, Pilwitos, Perkunos or Piorunos, Poklus”. Then he describes the most special “gods of Lithuanians and Samogytians”, and they are: Prokorimos, Raguczis, Ziemiennik, Krummie Pradziu Warpu, Lituwanis, Chaurirari, Sotwaros, Seimi Dewos, Upinis Dewos, Bubilos, Dzidzis Lado, Gulbi Dziewos, Goniglis Dziewos, Swieczpunscynis, Kielu Dziewos, Puschajtis. As we see, he already knew how close thoose nations were. Jan Laciscki(~1534-1599) – historian, bibliographer, schoolmaster – who lived in Vilnius during his childhood and from about 1581 until his death wrote: “[..]Samogytia, because it is close to the sea is named “Lowland”, and Lithuania “Highland”; the language of Lithuanians and Samogytians is almost the same, almost the same are, also, dressing and religion.” And really, until today we use those words like Žemaitija and Aukštaitija. While Žemas in Lithuania means “low”, Aukštas means “high”. As we see, only those “scientist” who has never been in Lithuania, didn’t know language, was confused, and those who lived in Lithuania or WERE Lithuanians clearly showed who is who. Grand Duke of Lithuania – Vytautas – in 1420 wrote about Samogytia: “it was always one and the same Lithuania, because there is one language and the same people. But because Samogytia(Samaytarum in the letter) is Lowland, that’s why it is names Samaytarum, because it is a name of Lowland in Lithuania. And Samogytians(Samoyte in the letter) call Lithuania as Auxstote, id est Higher land from the view of Samogytians. Also, the people of Samogytia has never named themselves as Samogytians, but only as Lithuanians, and because of this identity in our letter we don’t write about Samagicia, because everything is the same, one land and the same people”

A known Polish revolutionary activist and a national hero of Poland and the USA – Tadeusz Kosciuszko (born near Brest, Belarus) – appealed to his companions: “Am I not your fellow countryman? Am I not a Litvin?..”. In his letter to the Russian tzar Kosciuszko wrote: “I was born a Litvin…”. –----- So what? If he wrote in Polish he had to use Polish word that means Lithuanians.


A world-famous Polish poet Adam Mickewicz (who was born and dwelled near and in Navahradak – in Grodno region of Belarus) appealed to his native land as “O Litva! My homeland!..”. –----- The same. If he write in Polish he has to use Polish word that means Lithuania. Don’t forget that the same Mickiewicz wrote: “Lithuanian nation, consisting of Lithuanian, Prussian, Latvian tribes…” It is very important, I think. He clearly let to understand that it is different tribe from Slavonic.

So, as we see, we can make few conclusions: 1) The article is full of lie that no one used name of “Lietuva” and other forms of Lithuanians, but just Litvins. 2) The “scientists” whom links are showed are unreliable because they weren’t connected to Lithuanians like those I presented. 3) Litvin is just Slavonic name of Lithuanian and Ruthenians were always excluded. Of course, Ruthenians could name themselves as Lithuanians in the meaning of citizenship. But it is the same situation today. 4) This article is unnecessary, because in this way we can create hundreds of articles about Lithuanians in English wikipedia with just different names.

So. My baggage of examples is still not empty and I’m prepared to discuss more -- User:Egisz , 17:17, 03 September, 2009 (UTC)

Egisz, in these types of debates on WP, one is usually wasting their time, and I speak here from experience. The historical facts are simple. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was established by the pagan Lithuanians, in Lithuania, and expanded eastward. These eastern, vast, and largely uninhabited lands, were subdued and became part of the Duchy. Those Slavic inhabitants who were "incorporated" into this entity called themselves "Lithuanians" (Litvini), in their own languages). Ergo, the rest of this argument is nonsense. It's really pretty simple. Did Lietuvis etymologically stem from Litvin, or was it the other way around. Again, it's that simple. Please understand that often "national histories" are sometimes based on the need to create phantom and fantastic scenarios about their past. I don't think that it is unfair to say that many, many nations, both great and not so great, are guilty of that sin. Just the same, your input and research deserves acknowledgment and kudos. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the historical facts are really simple, and those are the opposite to what you're saying.
1) "The GDL was established by the pagan Lithuanians" - Lies. There's no testimony that Mindaug was pagan. His son Voiszelk was an Orthodox Christian. If you might mean any other "Lithuanians", than we know also dukes, who were called "Litva" or "Litovsky" with Slavic names, who were ancestors of Criwicz dukes, and could not be pagan, but were Christian, for example, "litva" in 1180 - Vselav Mikulich, Andrey Volodshich, Vasilko; in 1213 - Vladimir Mstislavich, "litovsky"
2) "was established in Lithuania" - Yes, for sure it was established in Lithuania, which was the name for western Belarus of those times. Novogradek is Litva during Mindaug's times, as chronicles say. If you really knew the sources, you'd know that Mindaug gave Zhemaitia (western Lietuva) to crusaders as a gift. An the second grand duke Voiszelk conquered the lands of Devoltva and Upita (nowadays eastern Lietuva) with his army in 1264. So, where was the grand duke's proper land - ever fancied that?... lol. Voiszelk came to conquer Devoltva and Upite with an army from Pinsk and Novogradek (the chronicle says, they were "his father soldiers and friends", PSRL, II, 860-863).
3) "and expanded eastward" - Nope. It was expanding northward, from Novogradek onto the lands of nowadays Lietuva, as an example with the grand duke Voiszelk shows.
Now take a rest, you're tired of producing fantasies. Rasool-3 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Egisz, I really am feeling sorry for you, as you're chewing again and again some propaganda fantasies, which were proven a stupid joke long-long ago. We have dozens of people like you on tut.by who just are coming in dozens and asking the same questions, and we show to them that their questions are just another occasion for us to take a good laugh, nothing more:

1) "Litvin is a Slavonic form of Lithuanian" - Yeah, really? I'm really laghing out loudly!... Maybe, you, as my wise adviser, will show me ANY OTHER forms of the name in the overall volume of the official documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, except for "Litvin"?... This is really hilariuos. Maybe you know any other form of the name in all the medieval sources, different from Литвин, Litwin, Lithuani - I'd fancy looking at that. You seem not to know at all, that the main official document of the GDL, the Statute, written in the old Belarusian language, names the duchy citizens - Litvin. And you fancied, why the Statute was NEVER translated to your language (what is nowadays called "Lithuanian")? And there was never another name in the GDL, except for Litvin?... lol. I'm leaving you quarrying in your "baggage" and I switch to another question.

2) "So I can’t understand why we should create different articles." - You might try to actually read the article, and you'll understand, that it's not about modern Lithuanians, but about the historical phenomenon "Litvins", which embraced in the past both part of nowadays Lithuanians and Belarusians.

"The name became „Litvin“ because Ruthenians didn‘t have diphthong." - Yeah, really? You seem to have a prophetic vision, and travelling with a time machine, just like Baranauskas. Could you show me, when it "BECAME"?.. The first mentionings are all of "Litvins". We don't have any lietuviai at all during the Middle ages. First, show me any mentionings of "lietuviai" in medieval sources, then talk of "becoming" from one to the other... By the way, Belarusians do have diphthongs - in all the named words: Vitaut, Kouna, Jaunut - we have diphthongs. By the way, "kounia" means forge shop in Old Belarusian, that's why the town was named so. You really thought it was your name?...

3) "So, as we see difference between Lithuanians and Ruthenians are." - And so? If there's a difference, then Litvins are necessarily nothing but ethnic Balts? Eventhough, the main official document of the state is written in the Belarusian language, of which the Lithuanian chancellor Lew Sapieha says, that the Statute was written "in OUR OWN language"? lol. Moscovites also regarded Litvins (i.e. Belarusians from Mogilev, Minsk) as foreigners in 1654, and regarded their "Lithuanian" (Belarusian language) as a foreign language...

"And, I cant imagine where do You see explanation of Sapieha about who is Lithuanians." - If you can't see this, then you are really stupid. I'll try: the LITHUANIAN chancellor (actually, the second person in the state after the grand duke) is writing in the LITHUANIAN Statute (written in the Belarusian language), that this Statute is being written "not in any foreign language, but in the language OF OUR OWN".

And all that - regarding, there are totally no any documents or even a couple of words in modern Lithuanian in all official documents of the GDL throughout all its 5-century history.

4) "And that name appears in Lithuanian documents of Grand Duchy of Lithuania: “Mes Wladislaus " - I'm already seek and tired of that, we have already repeated that dozens of times: this "document" is not a document by Wladislav, because there's no his personal signature, and his stamp; and ALL the official documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, all the grand duke's decrees were provided with the grand duke's signature and stamp. And this letter is just an unauthorized TRANSLATION, made by noone-know-whom, somewhere in Prussia (beyond the territory of the GDL), and has nothing to do with the official grand duke's chancellor' office at all. It was not even authorized by anyone. Its legal force is null. It's just a piece of paper with words on it. It has the same legal force, as any piece of paper, where some peasant from Prussia or Germany would write his erotic fantasies about the grand duke...

I'm too tired to discuss further. What I've read further is just some kind of delirium. I think, what I've already said is enough. And your "baggage" really needs to be revised. I think that will be enough for you. Good luck. Rasool-3 (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


First of all read different sources not only in russian language. You don‘t find any „litvin“ form until the end of 14 century. The form „lethowen“ you can find in source the of 13 century.

And why your Sapieha never mentioned that Statut language is “litvin” language, but “rusin” language, maybe because hi was rusin?

For the rest, I recommend very deeply check his writings I catch him cheating with sources. Kutis

Guys, your lengthy and hostile explanations are quite a read. Rasool's statement..."where some peasant from Prussia or Germany would write his erotic fantasies about the grand duke"...pretty much sums up his rant. I suggest reviewing English scholarly works on the subject (this is after all, English Wikipedia). It might be a better alternative than using Belarusian or Lithuanian ones. It certainly would give a more neutral perspective to the article. Best, Dr. Dan (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. Rasool, thanks for suggesting that I take a rest. I needed one. Since you closed with "I'm too tired to discuss further"..., I will reciprocate your suggestion with the same.

Yeah, really? I'm really laghing out loudly!... Maybe, you, as my wise adviser, will show me ANY OTHER forms of the name in the overall volume of the official documents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, except for "Litvin"?... This is really hilariuos. Maybe you know any other form of the name in all the medieval sources, different from Литвин, Litwin, Lithuani - I'd fancy looking at that.

Looks like you are blind or just don’t want to see. I showed you few examples. For example the book that is dedicated for all churches of Grand Duchy of Lithuania(Bažnyčioms Didės Kunigystės Lietuwos išduota). It also fits to the name of Lithuanians who lived in Prussia. So, I don’t understand which forms do You want to hear? Litwin was Slavonic name and that’s all. The fact that it was used without diphthongs in other languages means nothing but only that they took Slavonic version. But even those who used that form without diphthong(because Slavonic language lost diphthongs) they clearly explains that Lithuanians, Samogytians, Prussians are similar nations, with similar language, religion. And such a people like Jan Dlugosz(he wrote: “Prussians had them unique language, that came from Latin language, related and similar to Lithuanian language, worshiped almost the same gods....”), Michal Lituanus(diplomat, politic of GDL), Maciej Strijkowski, Alexander Guagnini, etc, - those scientists, people, warriors who were enough experienced and educated to know, had strong connection with Lithuania(worked as diplomat, served in army or just lived). And not only scientists, but also Lithuanians like Vytautas(In the title of the letter “Magni ducis Lithuaniae”. So the form is also used without diphthong, but in the letter he explains that Lithuanians are “Auxstote(Aukštaitija-Higland)” and “Samoyte(žemaičiai-lowlanders)” and Adam Mickiewicz(“Lithuanian nation, constisting from Lithuanian, Prussian and Letts tribes”). Also there were formes like Lettowen(Lithuania) and Lettower(Lithuanian). So, I and other people here proved that: 1) Litvin was not the only form 2) it doesn’t mean anything.

You seem not to know at all, that the main official document of the GDL, the Statute, written in the old Belarusian language, names the duchy citizens - Litvin.

I really know it. Thanks for Your language that really helped for us at that timeJ Lithuanians really often used old Ruthenian language. Even Augustin Rotundus wrote: “Lithuanians originated of Italians, how we could predict from language of commons, that is similar to Italian language, despite of that both languages are separated by the time and distance. NOBLES, living together with Poles and Ruthenians(actually “RUSSO” in the original text) in COMMON STATE, instead of native language habituated to using of Polish and Ruthenian language”.

You might try to actually read the article, and you'll understand, that it's not about modern Lithuanians, but about the historical phenomenon "Litvins", which embraced in the past both part of nowadays Lithuanians and Belarusians.

Litvin is just Slavonic name of those people.

Yeah, really? You seem to have a prophetic vision, and travelling with a time machine, just like Baranauskas. Could you show me, when it "BECAME"?.. The first mentionings are all of "Litvins". We don't have any lietuviai at all during the Middle ages. First, show me any mentionings of "lietuviai" in medieval sources, then talk of "becoming" from one to the other... By the way, Belarusians do have diphthongs - in all the named words: Vitaut, Kouna, Jaunut - we have diphthongs. By the way, "kounia" means forge shop in Old Belarusian, that's why the town was named so. You really thought it was your name?...

You don’t have any “Lietuviai” because you didn’t have diphtongs when you took that form.. I would like to see proves about “kounia”. Do You know that the West Belarus is full of Lithuanian toponymes? Ashmeny, Lyda, Kiemielishki, Lyntupy and lot of other are ABSOLUTELY LITHUANIAN. The same with the names. We can easily explain names like Vytaut, Gedimine, Kiejstut, Algird, Jaunut and lot of other. The same with most of the surnames of the nobles who got Coat of Arms in Horodle.

You might try to actually read the article, and you'll understand, that it's not about modern Lithuanians, but about the historical phenomenon "Litvins", which embraced in the past both part of nowadays Lithuanians and Belarusians.

If it is not about modern Lithuanians, why those “Litvins”, by normal scientist, Lithuanians(those who called themselves so), or people who lived here for longer time explained very well about similarities between Lithuanians, Samogytians, Prussians?

And so? If there's a difference, then Litvins are necessarily nothing but ethnic Balts? Eventhough, the main official document of the state is written in the Belarusian language, of which the Lithuanian chancellor Lew Sapieha says, that the Statute was written "in OUR OWN language"? lol. Moscovites also regarded Litvins (i.e. Belarusians from Mogilev, Minsk) as foreigners in 1654, and regarded their "Lithuanian" (Belarusian language) as a foreign language...

Of course, there were few meanings of Lithuanians at that time. Gente Lituanus(equivalent to Gente Ruthenus), and natione Lituanus that didn’t have any equivalent. So, Ruthenians were also Lithuanians in the meaning of citizenship. But now, in Republic of Lithuania, You can also call Yourself Lithuanian in that meaning, even being from another Gente. But the fact is that GDL was created mostly by Baltic Lithuanians, who created that civilization together with people of Ruthenian origin, who could be Natione Lituanus too. But then I don’t see need to create ENGLISH article with Belorussian name.

Sapieha didn’t say it was Lithuanian language!! Lithuanians really often used Ruthenian language. But lot of them understood that the true language of this ethnic group, who “came from Italia “ is not the Ruthenian one.(as You can see from my quotes). 

If you can't see this, then you are really stupid. I'll try: the LITHUANIAN chancellor (actually, the second person in the state after the grand duke) is writing in the LITHUANIAN Statute (written in the Belarusian language), that this Statute is being written "not in any foreign language, but in the language OF OUR OWN".

Lew Sapieha, of course, was Ruthenian. But I can’t see where he explains “who is Lithuanians”. Don’t be funny, please, brother Lithuanian.

And all that - regarding, there are totally no any documents or even a couple of words in modern Lithuanian in all official documents of the GDL throughout all its 5-century history.

What about Kosciuszko uprising or translation of Constitution of May 3rd ? You should know that language is not the main factor. Look to the Scots who doesn’t speak Scottish, but still feel they are Scots..

Lies. There's no testimony that Mindaug was pagan. His son Voiszelk was an Orthodox Christian. If you might mean any other "Lithuanians", than we know also dukes, who were called "Litva" or "Litovsky" with Slavic names, who were ancestors of Criwicz dukes, and could not be pagan, but were Christian, for example, "litva" in 1180 - Vselav Mikulich, Andrey Volodshich, Vasilko; in 1213 - Vladimir Mstislavich, "litovsky"

So fantastic. Look at the Chronicle of Hipatius. “Mindaugas(Mindog) sent his envoys to pope and took Christianity. His Christianization was false; he secretly sacrificed for his gods: Nunadievis and Teliavelis and Diviriksis, zaejachemoy bogu and Medeinai”. So the Chronicle not only shows that Mindaugas was pagan, but also write the names of Lithuanian gods… Voiszelk was really Orthodox, but later dukes were pagan.. until Jogiello and Vytaut. Show me the sources with those “Litva” and “Litovsky”. English translation will be ok. (But bigger quote that could help me to see context)

Yes, for sure it was established in Lithuania, which was the name for western Belarus of those times. Novogradek is Litva during Mindaug's times, as chronicles say. If you really knew the sources, you'd know that Mindaug gave Zhemaitia (western Lietuva) to crusaders as a gift. An the second grand duke Voiszelk conquered the lands of Devoltva and Upita (nowadays eastern Lietuva) with his army in 1264. So, where was the grand duke's proper land - ever fancied that?... lol. Voiszelk came to conquer Devoltva and Upite with an army from Pinsk and Novogradek (the chronicle says, they were "his father soldiers and friends", PSRL, II, 860-863).

East Lithuania + West Belarus was really very important place. But just have in mind that most of etnonymes of those places in West Belarus are of Lithuanian origin. Wait wait wait, as I understand, at that time, after murdering of Mindaugas it was like interwar there. Voiszelk was supported by dukes of Halych and just took Upita and Deltuva from opponents and those who killed his father. I don’t see any inconsistence. But from this Your text we can see that You are really cheating with the sources, not telling everything. So, this article because of cheating, bad explanation do not have something common with the sciense and must be deleted. If we want to create article about ciizens of GDL we should write that GDL was created by Baltic Lithuanians and later made Natione Lituanus which consisted of Gente Lituanus and Gente Ruthenus(+some other ethnic groups). Even Ruthenian language was important for maybe 200 years, but everyone who were Lithuanians, lived in Lithuania knew that it is Ruthenian and not Lithuanian language. Egisz , 21:44, 06 September, 2009 (UTC) 195.182.70.130 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Afrika-Budivid again forgot that Voishalk became ortodox then he became ruler of Novogorodok, not from birth date.Kutis

"Looks like you are blind or just don’t want to see. I showed you few examples. For example the book that is dedicated for all churches of Grand Duchy of Lithuania(Bažnyčioms Didės Kunigystės Lietuwos išduota). " -- of the year of 1653? lol. I stopped reading on this one... After this you want to discuss, as if it is serious? Take my advice, take a rest. And you'd better read the things, which are based on historical sources, for example, this article, written by me. Regards, Rasool-3 (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So, looks like he don't want more discussions, but he wants just to put his version without arguments. He also don't hear what other people argue. So, his version must be refused. He even take of the warning, that this article is not neutral and full of lies. Egisz , 11:06, 08 September, 2009 (UTC)

Really? Where is a lie? Give me at least one example, if you can. Rasool-3 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote enough to refuse Your article. Its only one Your version, without alternative quotes of Lithuanians and those, who lives there longly. Furthermore, You delete even warnings that this article is still very doubtful, and it is ugly. Egisz 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egisz (talk • contribs)

So, you cannot give an example of a "lie". Squirt. Rasool-3 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You lied about the name, that was "never" mentioned in another type. You lied about the fact that Lithuanian language was Slavonic, but i showed the works of contemporary people that showed contrary. I know You are very depressed right now, but take a rest and everything will be ok. --Egisz (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Policies

Reading list to everyone:

Renata (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Renata, you are not totally correct.
a) If you yourself can provide some secondary sources (so called by you, "works by relevant scholars"), which state that those who were called Litvins always were ethnical (modern) Lithuanians, please do. I haven't ever seen such claims, and I doubt I ever will see such a non-sense. So the article should not begin with the claim, that "Litvin" was a denomination of an ethnical (modern) Lithuanian. "Litvin" was NEVER throughout all the history used to describe the (modern) Lithuanian ethnicity ONLY; this is OBVIOUS from all the EXAMPLES, provided by me in the article. So why shall we turn a blind eye on those, and put down something which is predeterminedly wrong? What's the reason of it?
b) about "a term used in Slavic languages" - there was never OTHER name of Litvins in the GDL, except for the name in the Slavic language, exactly, the Belarusian language. If you now any sources which give the name in other languages than Slavic, please kindly let me know, I would be greatly surprised.
In general, the "Litvins" is clearly the name of the Belarusians in the GDL, it is obvious from the first glance, and it is obvious from the Statute. What else do we need? Rasool-3 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Do not care about any of the above. Please read, understand and follow the policies linked above. Your points may be all very valid, but you have to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. When in Rome, do as Romans do. When in Wikipedia, do as Wikipedians do: follow policies, cite reliable sources, and refrain from original research. If your point is so obvious, there should not be hard to come up with some reliable books and journals, should it? You do not have to convince me you are right by giving providing exampes (which is prime example of original research). You have to show me that historian X in his/her book said that.
PS. I protected the article for a month to avoid an edit-war. I hope it will give you time to cool down, understand Wikipedia policies, gather the books, and re-write the article to meet all Wikipedia requirements. Renata (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. OK, if I could provide citations by relevant Belarusian historians - Ph.D. and Doctors of Arts (History) - about the same that I've written, i.e., that "Litvin" always was the name of Belarusians and part of (modern) Lithuanians, where it would be stated outrightly and clearly in these very words - would that do? Would it be OK for you? I can do that. A month is pretty too much, three days will do. Regards, Rasool-3 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

a) WE DON'T SAY THAT LITVIN WERE ALWAYS ETHNIC LITHUANIANS. As You saw it was written that the word Lithuanian (haha, also "slavonic" yes?) meant not only Baltic Lithuanians. But understanding of Gente Lituanus was always clear. Clear for Vytautas, clear for Mickiewicz, clear for Rotundus, clear for Michal Lituanus. And there were not only Litwin, but also Lietuwa, Lettowiae, lietuwininkai, Letphanorum. It just depends on language of the text. b) I showed You some. But anyway, it doesn't have big importance. Whats the difference if Europe took Slavonic version? The name Litvins is Slavonic name of Lithuanians. At the time of GDL Ruthenians also could name themselves as Lithuanians. - Egisz 15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egisz (talk • contribs) 195.182.70.130 (talk)From the letter of Prussian Grand Master to Livonian 1295: "...quatenus super predictis articulis nobis vestrum maturum consilium rescribatis et, si vobis et vesris videbitur forsitan expedire, quod possitis et velitis adhuc ista b[h]yeme producere exercitum contra hostes Lettowinos videlicet de Sameyten, nos ex nostra parte terram regis Butegeyde eodem tempore invademus. "

Lithuanians from Zemaitija —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.70.130 (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"the word Lithuanian (haha, also "slavonic" yes?)" - The word "Lithuanian" is clearly not a Slavonic word. It is an English word. And the word Литвин/Литовски which is in ALL AND ANY of the documents of the GDL (and there HAVE NEVER BEEN OTHER name) - is certainly a Slavic word. Only stupids can deny that, such as you. You can do your "haha" further on... I'm just feeling sorry for you. What you're having - is some kind of misspeling of 17th century made somewhere in Prussia, outside the GDL and NEVER EVER seen or used by Lithuanian grand dukes and barons who all spoke Belarusian ("Lithuanian") language. It's just hilarious for you to come up with that. And you thought, the word "Litvin" with its clear Slavic ending (-in) - is a Baltic word? lol. "Litva" and "Litvin" originally meant not ethnicity, but a land under the Polock rule. That's why we see both Dovgerd/Stekse and Vseslav/Andrey Volodszicz/Vasilko as "litva" in 1180-1216. And there has been only Belarusian language in Litva and GDL FOR CENTURIES, from 13 to 19 centuries. There had never been your language there, except for some lower peasants, not known to anyone.
"Litvins from Zhemaitija" - ok, what did you want to show, that there were Litvins (Belarusians) in Zhemaitija, as well as they were in Navahradak, Polock, Minsk and Brest? That's no wonder for me. I'm already tired of you, good bye. Rasool-3 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, You are leaving. I know that You are sad now, but history is history. I want to remind that you forgot again. Letter of Vytautas, works of contemporary people living in Lithuania or even being Lithuanians. --Egisz (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 195.182.70.130 (talk) You asked for another name of Lithuanians in the sources, I gave source of the 13 century where "Lithuanians" are mentioned as "Lettowinos", not "Litvin". And you again not happy. —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

Rasool-3, please try to cool down your emotions. You'll get farther with your efforts. Earlier in my WP editing, I too had a tendency to be less courteous to those with whom I disagreed. I've made an effort to correct this. I hope you will too. Regarding your comment..."The word "Lithuanian" is clearly not a Slavonic word. It is an English word." That's true, but this is after all, English Wikipedia. That's why here on English Wikipedia, Lithuania is not called Litva, and Lithuanians are not called Litvin (sing) or Litvini (plur). However if you go to the variously linked Slavic speaking articles of Wikipedia (including Belarusian), like Bulgarian, Czech, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croation, Slovak, Slovenian, Ukrainian (sorry for not including everyone else that applies) you will find that in those respective languages, the English word Lithuania is Litva or Litwa in their languages. Same for Litwin, Litvin, Litoviets, etc. Hopefully that clarifies why the current opening statement of this article explains the distinction. If as Renata mentioned, you are able to reliably source your contentions, go ahead and prepare your edits. It seems that your major desire is to inform everyone that modern day Belarusians are the true Lithuanians, while modern day Lithuanians are not. Isn't that the gist of it? Good luck on your endeavors, and best wishes. As much as I would enjoy doing some work on the article, I believe the protection was a very good idea. The article will still be here after its lifted. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Possible Updates

Rasool-3, you need to understand that in the English language, "Lithuanian" refers to the Baltic people who live in Lithuania. In German they are called Litauer, in French Lituaniens, in Italian Lituani, and in the Slavic languages Litwini or some variant of that word. Lietuviai is the Lithuanian word for Lithuanian. It is not the English word for Lithuanian. Litvin is also not the English word for Lithuanians. Please get over that fact. During their early history the Lithuanians conquered vast underpopulated territories which included modern day Belarus as well as other territories that include other modern day countries. Just like the English were able to subdue other areas of the British Isles (with longer lasting effects). That the Ruthenians and other Slavic peoples comprised a significant portion of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (probably a numerical majority) is neither here nor there. If you want to note that many Ruthenians were subjects of Lithuania, and therefore were "Lithuanians" by virtue of that fact, go ahead, knock yourself out. Especially if it makes you feel better. Please keep in mind that Samogitia was also part of Lithuania. Too often these ultra-nationalistic rants are based on "Romanticized" monographs written in the 19th century in order to foster a political agenda. From all sides. It seems more than anything this is a semantical argument. We're on English Wikipedia at the moment. Lithuanian is an English word. Litvin is not. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Litvin/Archive_2&oldid=1265016094"