/brabant/ - International Politics

>What is your preferred transliteration of east Slavic
Obviously cyrillic alphabet is the best, it was literally made for us and our sounds. But latin would be fine too as well as it is fine for Polish, Czech etc.
>if it should be translated in our contemporary speak or the speak of the time the book was written f.e. Victorian English v. modern English.
If you can translate everything in modern English then modern English. If you think that you need some context or something then translate on victorian English, I guess. It all should be about accuracy and convenience.

>>6353
Cyrillic isn't a transliteration, it's the original, it's not transferring to another state.
>If you can translate everything in modern English then modern English
>It all should be about accuracy and convenience.
Translations are about matching evocation and prose. It would be diminishing for example to have the Epic of Gilgamesh told in contemporary English because we feel that ancient languages, even without the exalting verbosity they used, are grand and haughty. I'm assuming I'm correct about how little Russian has changed in the past century and a half so when reading the classics of the 1800s is it interpreted in the same manner as Victorian English because of the context of the times or is it as potent as the Russian of now simply because nothing had changed.

I live in Podlasie region, and I met many Belarusians, Ukrainias, Podlashuks and even one self proclaimed Poleshuk. And I have to say that existance of two different alphabets right next to one another is so annoying. When I talk with cyrillic folk I can understand 80% of what they are saying, I sometimes even find myself using their words while speaking Polish. But writing to them, or reading stuff that they send me is just incredibly annoying due to constant need to switch your brain to different alphabet. Wish Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth returned so that we could force usage of only one alphabet

>>6354
>I'm assuming I'm correct about how little Russian has changed in the past century and a half so when reading the classics of the 1800s is it interpreted in the same manner as Victorian English because of the context of the times or is it as potent as the Russian of now simply because nothing had changed.
I have never read Victorian English, but Russian 200 years ago is very understandable to modern Russians and there definitely is feeling of antiquity in that language.
>>6355
>Wish Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth returned so that we could force usage of only one alphabet
Or Russian Empire can return and force usage of one alphabet as well

>>6356
Does it flow and get across its emotion in the same way as contemporary Russian? Do you simply understand the emotion and point? Is it just old vocabulary? Victorian English is treated with novelty and eccentricity now, it's insults and displays of emotion not reaching impact as it's seen as too proper and wordy.

>>6368
It's more like old vocabulary, but ofc it's more aristocratic and intelligent than modern Russian. More spicy, I'd say. Emotions and senses are understandable as well.

Łacinka fits the best.

>>6371
Holy d'Anthes, thank you for killing this nihhier.

Example.

Ignored for being boring or something award.

>>7026
Nah we just didn't get it

>>7027
Is the prose and vocabulary in Crime & Punishment excerpts, the 1800s, the same character as today's Russian-Belarusian-Ukrainian or is "old-timey", and which of those English translations best represents it?

>>7033
The 19th century and modern Russian is almost the same language (the old version was more elegant and aristocratic for, ahem, "known reasons"), evendoe it's also "old-timey" at the same time. Answering the second question, I think the IIIrd translation is the most accurate of these.

>>6406
Why though.

>>7935
Because Pushkin was a fucking mulatto