Hey man, I was busy lately, but I have completed name list for Pomorski character. My vision was to mix characteristics of Polabian, Kashubian and Old Polish (which greatly influenced Old Kashubian). Names come from Pomeranian and Polabian dukes that were written down in chronicles. I haven't touched landed titles, cause I have to do some historical reasearch. I had also encountered some problems with diacritics; "á" works great, but "ò", "ù" and "ã" don't and I see that you managed to put labialised "o" in your submod. Could you tell how did you do that?i dont mind at all. ideally attach sources to your names.
There is however a problem with the writing system of polish and kashubian. Many sounds changed with time and its pretty hard to decide what would fit best ingame both for historical accuracy and the modern polish/kashubian player-connection to these cultures.
Letters like "ą ł ó" which are pronounced almost like "o v u" but in the past were actually "a l o"
And "ę y ż" are almost the same as "e i ź"
Also the letters "ś w ź" are questionable since we have the identical "š v ž" forms from other far more widespread slavic languages
And Kashubian (also silesian) has some more letters i believe also with many different diacritical marks
idk what you mean. ò works just fine...Hey man, I was busy lately, but I have completed name list for Pomorski character. My vision was to mix characteristics of Polabian, Kashubian and Old Polish (which greatly influenced Old Kashubian). Names come from Pomeranian and Polabian dukes that were written down in chronicles. I haven't touched landed titles, cause I have to do some historical reasearch. I had also encountered some problems with diacritics; "á" works great, but "ò", "ù" and "ã" don't and I see that you managed to put labialised "o" in your submod. Could you tell how did you do that?
they seem south slavic to you because modern south slavic names did not change much from proto slavic times unlike polish ones. My names list consists mostly of names with -slav, -mir and -mil endings connected with common slavic words in front of them.While I'm doing localisation stuff and more I think I will write when I'm finished a big post explaing my approach, both historical and liguistic. Shortly, I have dechristianised and archaised Pomorski names, then I kashubised them. Place names are lil' bit harder, but I'm on a good path.
Also, I checked Sorbian names and in my opinion they are too South Slavic and not very West Slavic as they should be; it's seen in the development form Proto-Slavic and in ortography.
I think the same issue is with the Horvartski names, they are obviously South Slavic, and if White Croatians were 100% South Slavic, then it would make a great impact on Polish language and it would easily distinguishable. Way of compromising this could be writing them using Polish ortography
Polish given names derived from proto slavic didn't change that much as in other languages and it's a normal process of liguististic divergence.idk what you mean. ò works just fine...
they seem south slavic to you because modern south slavic names did not change much from proto slavic times unlike polish ones. My names list consists mostly of names with -slav, -mir and -mil endings connected with common slavic words in front of them.
Also, you completely missed the point of my post. There are two Sorbian languages - Upper Sorbian (similar to Polish) and Lower Sobrian (similar to Czech), and Sorbian group is part of West Slavic branch, together with Polish, Kashubian, Czech, Slovak and Polabian. It means that they are closely related to each other, and their given names are more similar to each other. As it comes to being historical: I don't know your sources and with exclusion of now extinct languages such as Old Low Saxon, Anglosaxon, Old Norse and so on, I think that given names in HIP are based on modern names. This leads to my point - we should use modern Sorbian names coming from Proto Slavic and borrow the rest from other West Slavic languages and "sorbianise" them.There are just a few historic differences between the sorbian and horvatian names.
Not true, because Kashubian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashubian_alphabet) and Sorbian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbian_alphabet) are more or less based on Polish alphabet. My intent is, that by using original scripts, not Czechoslovak/Serbocroat, it will make Pomeranian and Sorbian more authencity.Polish ortography makes no sense as only poles use it today.
Number of languages using it? Yes. Total number of speakers> I don't think so.Czechoslovak/Serbocroat ortography is much more widespread.
That's the way Polish language sounds, and to me it's absolutely normalI cringe everytime when I see someone named Władisław. Poles pronounce this proto-slavic name like "Wwadiswaw" poor Vladislavs...
thats where i completely disagree.Polish given names derived from proto slavic didn't change that much as in other languages
pretty sure you switched them.Upper Sorbian (similar to Polish) and Lower Sobrian (similar to Czech)
This is the case for the modern situation but in the middle ages there was yet no concept of dividing slavs into "west, east and south" until the foundation of this concept developed around the 1000s because of the polish/russian border of culture and religion along with the division of south and north by hungarians and germans.Sorbian group is part of West Slavic branch, together with Polish, Kashubian, Czech, Slovak and Polabian. It means that they are closely related to each other, and their given names are more similar to each other
This is what I surely wont do. No whateverisations in my mod.This leads to my point - we should use modern Sorbian names coming from Proto Slavic and borrow the rest from other West Slavic languages and "sorbianise" them.
I counted Kashubian into modern polish. Sorbian is a mixture of czech and polish ortography.
should be about the same number of speakers.Number of languages using it? Yes. Total number of speakers> I don't think so.
I know and thats the issue because it is basic knowledge that polish language derived most from original proto slavic. Those sounds are not common slavic.That's the way Polish language sounds, and to me it's absolutely normal
I agree and i am happy to hear your thoughts but dont expect me to act on them (im already struggling to find some time for compatching)And last I don't want us to have a beef, I'm just trying to (in my opinion) improve your mod
Yeah, my bad.pretty sure you switched them.
I see your point, but with this logic there would be no place in HIP for Angelcynn and Englisc (there was really no significant difference, only Nore influence), distinct Italian dialects/languages (they were only emerging at the same time as Slavic langueages were).This is the case for the modern situation but in the middle ages there was yet no concept of dividing slavs into "west, east and south" until the foundation of this concept developed around the 1000s because of the polish/russian border of culture and religion along with the division of south and north by hungarians and germans.
Too bad, because this is what I did with Pomeranian names. Most of them come from historical given names of Polabian and Pomeranian rulers. But records are too sparse and after removing distortion made by Latin script, they looked very similar to Polish, so I decided to Kashubise them. The same goes with Sorbian, they use even less original slavic given names and it would look very weird to see slovienska vera ruler named Hendrich or Chrystof. I thought it would be fine solution for plausible, but not historical, immersion.This is what I surely wont do. No whateverisations in my mod.
Polish (and Kashubian to a lesser extend) retained nasal vowels, while other lost them during the ages. My point is that - even if Polish doesn't sound slavic to other Slavs because of some sound changes it underwent, it doesn't mean that Polish shouldn't be taken under consideration when it comes to Sorbians and White Croats.I know and thats the issue because it is basic knowledge that polish language derived most from original proto slavic. Those sounds are not common slavic.
No pressure man, if we don't see eye to eye, I will make a kind of private mod, just like I did with Kashubian. I'm open for any discussion.[/QUOTE]I agree and i am happy to hear your thoughts but dont expect me to act on them (im already struggling to find some time for compatching)
Here are some historic sorbian names:it would look very weird to see slovienska vera ruler named Hendrich or Chrystof
I wasn't talking about historical names (of course they have Polish versions) and some of them come from Polabian rulers, like Krut and Ratibor.Here are some historic sorbian names:
For you they might look Serbo-Croatian but they are actually very Proto-Slavic (which makes sense if you read my startpost introduction).
- Drvan, knez (631—636)
- Semela, kralj (pre 805)
- Miliduh, kralj (pre 806)
- Tunglo, vođa (oko 820—839)
- Čimislav, kralj (839—840)
- Žistibor, knez (840—859)
- Slavibor, knez (859—894)
- Dragomir, knez (894 — 10. vek)
- Pribislav, sudski izvršitelj u Majsenu
- Bogislav, vladar
- Dragovit, kralj
- Kruto, vladar
- Miroslav, slovenski vojvoda
- Priznoslav, vođa
- Ratibor, vođa
- Borjanta, vojnik
- Časlav, vojnik
There is absolutely no need to "Sorbify" or "Polish" them to modern standards. I was very careful when I put those proto-slavic names together for Sorbs and Horvats to make the cultures appear as accurate as possible. They are not meant to look polish. Thats why they shrink in favor of the polish culture fairly early in the game.
I'm afraid that some of the names are indeed South Slavic, not Proto-Slavic; most of them are ok. Following expamples prove my thesis:I was very careful when I put those proto-slavic names together for Sorbs and Horvats to make the cultures appear as accurate as possible.
Quod erat demontrandum, I think there is a strong point of Sorbification of Proto-Slavic names. If Sorbian language had gone extinct in at most by end date of CK2, there would be no such problem in archaisation carried out as you did. That's the reason I'm not in favor in doing separate Polabian culture (but it would be very fun to do so), because it was written down for the first time in the begining of 18th century, just few decades it died out entirely. I'm for Sorbification and Kashubisation, because these languages survived to this day, although with significant German and Polish influence, respectively. And as cultures in CK2 also refer to the culture given and place names, my point is that through Sorbification and Kashubisation it would bring back more original flavor that these launguages certainly had. I don't have degree in Slavistics, but I do have a solid grasp of knoledge of historical development of Slavic languages, especially West Slavic.There is absolutely no need to "Sorbify" or "Polish" them to modern standards.
Do you want me to get them as Proto-Slavic as close as I get or only remove names that I pointed out?Ok you have a point with those names and you did a good job there. Feel free to edit and post 00_cultures.txt here as soon as you are done so i can go through your changes when i find some time.
Ok, it's your mod and you're the decisionmaker here. I respect that, even though I completely disagree.
for others or just yourself?Do you want me to get them as Proto-Slavic as close as I get or only remove names that I pointed out?
Ok, it's your mod and you're the decisionmaker here. I respect that, even though I completely disagree.
PS. Would have any problem with me making a private submod just myself, partially based on your mod?
It's a long paragraph with lots of things to be explained. First of all, what is the base for statement "The cultural changes evolved around the conclusion that there was an entity called "Horvatija" which ceased to exists at the latest in 562." Why it's called Horvatija (which by the way is Croatian name for modern Croatia), who called it and when. Why ceased to exist in 562?The most obvious feature of this mod is the heavily changed cultural setup of Eastern Europe in 867 and 936 which is supposed to represent the local cultures independent from what will later in time evolve into modern Slavic states.
The cultural changes evolved around the conclusion that there was an entity called "Horvatija" which ceased to exists at the latest in 562.
Its inhabitants were what we today call "Proto-Slavs" which were formed inside as a culture with two main ingredients:
1. An indigenous population which romans referred to as the "Veneti" people and we today culturally identify as "Proto-Balto-Slavs".
The "Veneti" inhabited a large area in Eastern Europe all the way from Prussia in the west, the Carpathians in the south and Moscow in the east.
They did not yet have any specifically "Slavic" character but were instead an early form of what would later influencelessly evolve into cultures like Lithuanian, Latvian, Prussian and "Dnepr-Baltic".
However a large portion of the "Veneti" was heavily influenced which brings us to the second main ingredient of "Proto Slavic":
2. Skytho - Sarmatian Nomads invaded an area roughly including from what is today Katowice in the west, Košice in the south, Zhytomyr in the east and Brest in the North.
These people who trace their origin from somewhere in Persia acted as a less numbered and ruling warrior-class.
Over time they influenced the local "Veneti" both culturally and linguistically and this slowly gave birth to the "Proto-Slavic" ethos.
It is very likely that all kinds of different nomadic people entered this melting pot, like for example "Alans".
It's true that Croat is a suspected scythian term, as well as Serb/Sorb (but there other theories too)+, but I couldn't find sources for DulebesHowever we know only of two tribes whose ethonym survived to this day and unlike all the other ethonyms of known slavic tribes it does not trace its origin from the "Proto-Slavic" linguistic spectrum or any geographic region but instead from the Steppe or beyond.
Im talking about what is today identified as "Croatian" and "Serbian".
The modern Croatians and Serbians however do not have much in common with the ancient people from whom they inherited their identity as an arhaic leftover of what they today use for their ethnical self identification.
The name of the entity they formed with the "Veneti" might have changed even multiple times but its last and only known name is "Megali Croatia" by Greco-Romans and "Horvatija" in the native tongue.
Over time the biggest part of its population started to embrace the identity of their overlords which meant that they identified as "Horvati", "Sorbi" and "Dulibi".
The origin of the "Dulebes" is uncertain but its likely that their ethonym also evolved in or beyond the Steppe. They are regarded as the primary ancestors of "Volhynians" and "Buzhans".
They are described as predecesors of modern Balkan Serbs, but it's not justified to present medieval Sorbs as ancestors of Serbians, because medieval Sorbs are direct ancestors of modern Sorbs.The next slavic sphere was the "Sorbian" one which was based in western Silesia, northern and western Bohemia and westwardly extended Lusatia.
These regions were sparsely populated by "elbe Germanic" leftovers which had a rather central Germanic character. They formed the Sorbian entity with their new "Sorbian" overlords, which is often referred to as "White Serbia".
These "Sorbs" dwell to this day in eastern Germany where they managed to preserve their culture, language and heritage after centuries of agressive persecution.
Historical speculations doesn't supported by evidence. Most of the stories described in Ljetopis popa Dukljanina are not considered historical.But you might ask yourself what happend to the "Horvatians", the ruling class of "Horvatija"? The better question would rather be: is there something that did not happen to them?Because of "Horvatijas" decline the "Horvatians" were probably the biggest enemies of the Avars and this is probably the reason why they scattered all over Eastern Europe and created tribal enclaves which struggled for survival in the following centuries.
But it's basically what you did with Horvatski culture.
Problem is that Laborec is not considered as a historical ruler.A different "Horvatian" enclave and its current ruler "Laborec" found its end around Uzhhorod during the Hungarian conquest in 896.
Again, just because Nestor's Chronicle mentions White Croatians it doesn't mean that they were ethnically Croatian.
Sources please, 'cause it's a really big and important statement that needs to be backed with sources to be considered true.More Horvats are mentioned briefly by many different primary sources in Carinthia, Silesia, Polabia, around Kiev, around Moscow etc.
Your main mistake is identifying Rysyns as White Croatians and it's not supported by historical evidence whatsoever.However their culture still exists in the only region that offered them natural protection from bigger outside factors - The Carpathian Mountains.
The only issue is that they did not manage to preserve their name after the 19th century.
Instead they refer to themselves by their smallest tribal subcultures in fear of persecution while the world accepted a label for them which was invented with the purpose to make them look closer to what we today call "Russian".
This label is called "Rusyn" and it is equally meaningless like the other exonyms to form bigger sub-russian identities like "(White, Black, Red Ruthenian", "Malorossijani" (Small-Russians), "Bilorussovi" (White-Russians), "Velikorossijani" (Great-Russians) etc.
Due to the ending of heavy persecution they slowly start to identify as "Horvati" again.
Confirmation bias, you look only for the argument that proove your thesis, while ignoring other. You see dialiects of different languages, their territory and it "fit" with whitecroatian heritage, while there are other more plausible explanations.
Lendians never called themselves as "Lemko", because Lemkos identify themselves as Rusyns or Ukrainians.The last bigger enclave is a tribe that we today call "Lendians" or "Ljahs" which itself however still calls "Lemko(-Rusyn)" and inhabited the region of "Lesser Poland" and the "Cherven Cities" until it got conquered by Mieszko I. Piast around 990 who from then on integrated them into the early polish state.
True, but the tribe's name was Polanie, Poljani is a Croatian version.This brings us back to the establishment of the "Poljani" tribe which begins with the founding of the capital Gniezno by the mythical polish forefather "Lech".
"Polje" means "Field/Farm" in Slavic and "Poljani" therefore "Fielders/Farmers".
First part is true, but there were no Proto-Slavs at the end of 10th century, and Veneti were long gone by that time.This tribe managed to dominate the surrounding tribes and it started to do so by expanding to the east and uniting the previously mentioned culture from Gniezno to Wizna consisting of "Proto Slavs" and the indigenous "Veneti".
I didn't know that Polish has additional Baltic features. Also, Old Polish was a emerging language back then, so it couldn't be "created".This culture and its formed dialect of "Proto Slavic" with additional Baltic features will later manage to dominate inside the modern polish state and establish the southern continuums, which lack these additional Baltic features, as dialects of its newly created language.
It's true that Bohemia owned Silesia and Lesser Poland at the time, but Sorbs never controlled Lebus, and the link you provided confims that.The early polish state continued to expand over Lebus, "Lesser Poland" and Silesia which were to this point part of the Sorb union and Bohemia and much more related to their cultural sphere.
True for Bohemia, but by the reign of Mieszko I, sorbian tribes where counquered and incorporated into Saxon March.This was made possible with the help of the Holy Roman Empire which used the early polish state as an ally to put pressure from all directions on Bohemia and the Sorb union in order to establish their own rule there.
Silesia and the "Cherven Cities" remained to this day a heavily disputed border region of the polish state
Modern borders or the medieval ones? Because I don't hear about polish borders being disputed, yet alone "heavily disputed", of course excluding nationalists/historical revisionists.First of all "Polanie", not "Poljani".and this is how the former territory of "Horvatija" got divided right in its center at the very same time by three major powers: the Hungarians, the Poljani and the Rus.
There are parts of Czech history, but I'm not an expert in this topic, so I won't discuss it.
To summarize, I think that it comes to White Croats as a single ethnicity insted of separate west, east and south tribes and and insertion of a de jure kingdom between Poland and Russia with remade croatian CoA is ahistorical, because it mixes separate historical facts with fiction. It would be fine in a standalone submod, but it's not a good choice to be inclided in historical one.
no its not. Modern croatia is in dialects: Hrvatska, Horvatska, Harvatska, Ervatska and 'Rvatska. In rare cases even with C instead of TSwhich by the way is Croatian name for modern Croatia
I chose Horvatija because its the Ukrainian and more Proto Slavic term. Also thiswho called it and when
Im not gonna reply on questions the post you criticize already answers. Read. The. Whole. Damn. Thing.Why ceased to exist in 562?
There is no stron evidence to prove anything at all in this area for the next few hundred years. So calling it fiction because it cant be undeniable proven is extremly pathetic when you push your views the same way.but there is no strong evidence to prove it.
This is literally what it was called in sources like DAI. You are comparing memes to primary sources and idk what to say about thatMegali Croatia/Horvatija is big overstretch
lmao who is the ancestor of modern serbs then? Balkan potatoes? they just spawned there? You know that your siblings have the same ancestors like you do right? There is no way to claim an ancestor for yourself. wtf is this topicbut it's not justified to present medieval Sorbs as ancestors of Serbians
But some are and others are not because the people are butthurt about some stuff inside of it so they pick cherrys they like. And thats where we have an issue.
you completely missed the point of this mod. Did i make them south slavic croatian? or did i make them north slavic Horvatian? Croatian =/= Horvatian. get that in your head. im not trying to find a CB to conquer our land. lmao GIB BACC CROLANDdoesn't mean their ethnicity was Croatian, they could be a east slavic tribe
and yet he is mentioned in an historic document. Its not about this one person its about the fact that there was talked (like in many other places) about Horvatians
Hurr Durr Croatia is everywhere gib bacc. Invasion now reeeAgain, just because Nestor's Chronicle mentions White Croatians it doesn't mean that they were ethnically Croatian.
i really need to find some time to post everything here in a clean and readable stateSources please, 'cause it's a really big and important statement that needs to be backed with sources to be considered true.
yeah right and it doesnt matter how they call themselves. I actually talked to some online and they were very open about it and showed me some school material they use. very interesting stuff. But there is no evidence so dont let them be what they are i guess.Your main mistake is identifying Rysyns as White Croatians and it's not supported by historical evidence whatsoever.
you can learn a little about linguistics yourself. Example: "Eastern (Slovak) dialects are considerably different from Central and Western dialects in their phonology, morphology and vocabulary, set apart by a stronger connection to Polish and Rusyn"Confirmation bias, you look only for the argument that proove your thesis, while ignoring other. You see dialiects of different languages, their territory and it "fit" with whitecroatian heritage, while there are other more plausible explanations.