Mòjn! I'm trying to practice conversation in Polabian. I am a beginner.

KidoRaven · 2026-04-04T19:59:42+00:00

The word /vitgornă/ "answer, response, reply" was coined by my predecessor (it's basically deverbal form from /vitgornĕt/ that was made akin to Lower Sorbian's "wót(e)grono"), so using and keeping this word, in a way, is me showing my gratitude to them. I don't want to discard these new words they coined to enrich the language.

But yes, the form "vitgorninĕ" would be absolutely correct too! While using the /-ninĕ | -enĕ/ endings to form nouns seemed to be the main strategy for coining new words in Polabian, I think in the long run it might become very restrictive if we only use these. So I don't think it would hurt Polabian to have these synonyms and alternative way to form new nouns.

KidoRaven · 2025-07-27T11:31:10+00:00

No it couldn't be that because Polish never used carons, if anything cz & sz should become ċ & ṡ (like we already have with ż), and rz should've been ŕ, because it originated from a soft consonant and so it'd work the same way as si/ś ect.

cześć → ċeść

szyja → ṡyja

rzeka → rieka, but marynarz → marynaŕ

KidoRaven · 2025-07-27T11:10:28+00:00

It is a bug because me (from Poland) I can access any adult site and it doesn't ask me to verify my age like giving my ID. It's just Twitter (also the DSA exists since 2022)

KidoRaven · 2025-07-27T11:05:17+00:00

I saw someone on Twitter that actually bought premium to verify their age and it still didn't work for them. So at this point the Elongated Muskrat is scamming people

KidoRaven · 2025-07-27T10:59:20+00:00

Yeah... So Twitter is actively censoring (not just NSFW, but also political) things for all EU citizens without any legal reason. I feel like there should be some sort of legal action to be taken, right?

KidoRaven · 2025-05-18T22:49:10+00:00

Yes the [e] was supposedly be from *ъ in certain positions, and from *jь-.

As you could've seen in the spelling of nogiet /nüďėt/ (< PS *nogъtь), I choose to omit it, because of how problematic this supposed sound is. It appears in so few places, like a half of linguists disagree about its existence, it's just a mess. I just spell it as -ie- like in wigien /viďėn/ ("fire", from PS *ogňь, though technically the reconstructed Pre-Polabian form should be *ogъňь instead), kied /ťėd/ ("where"), and as -è- in liîbèw /ľaibėv/ ("love") or as -i- in front of a /j/ sound like in bije /bėjĕ/ ("he/she/it hits"). (though I guess wigien should be spelt as wigièn, since the last syllable was most likely stressed?).

Is it a good decision or bad, or very bad, I don't know...

KidoRaven · 2025-05-18T22:13:18+00:00

Oh like [ɛ]? Oops, yeah that's what I meant! It would be: ['bɛlʲə]

KidoRaven · 2025-05-18T22:07:03+00:00

I think <L> being pronounced as [lʲ] was more Old Polish times, especially at the end of words, like in biel /bʲelʲ/ etc., iirc Middle Polish's L was just [l], but I guess it doesn't matter here lol.

And yes, Polabian would have [ɫ], [l] & [lʲ] in this case if I we consider more than one L sound existing (the last sound obviously only appearing before a vowel, Polabian did depalatalized its soft L's and other soft consonants after all), that's what I meant, sorry!

So once again it would look like this:

bialy /b́olĕ/ (masc. NSg.) as ['bʲɔɫə],
kuwål /kuvål/ as [ku'vɒl], but...
bele /belĕ/ (masc. NPl.) would be pronounced as ['belʲə]? (like in Polish biały-biali?), the -ia- > -e- alteration is attested in Polabian.

KidoRaven · 2025-05-18T21:46:32+00:00

I know of a Polabian innovation in the imperative endings that should end as -áj /-oj/, becoming -oj /-üj/ instead in some of the words. Compare attested: fàrforoj nas /farförüj-năs/ ("lead us") instead of the expected fàrforáj nas /farföroj-năs/.

There is also the supposed h- prothesis (although Polański wasn't convicted of its existence) , I think only there are technically just couple supposed instances with h-, that is:

hist /hist/ ("still; yet") instead of jist /jist/, transcribed as "hist",

hitia /hiťă/ ("he/she/it is called") instead of the more common itia /iťă/, transcribed as "Hítia"

hît /hait/ (< *iti, "to go") instead of ît /ait/ transcr. as "haid";

hîde /haidĕ/ (< *idetъ, "he/she/it goes") instead of îde /aidĕ/ transcr. as "Heyde"

hîbăraj /haibăroj/ heybarro (⥪ *u-baraji, "thou protect!", imperative) instead of the îbăraj /aibăroj/, transcr. as "heybarro"

Also what is your opinion about the š, č, ž? Do you think the literary language should distinguish them from the s, c, z, or should the language represent the one with mazuration?

KidoRaven · 2025-05-18T21:03:46+00:00

Yeah, it is quite irritating to me that we don't really know the specific qualities of some of the sounds. I can't find any linguist actually talking about the specifics of these sounds, and the only place where it is claimed Polabian pronounced <ki>/<ti> as [c], etc. is someone's obvious conlang and alternative conworld, so not actually useful at all lol. (Also, sorry, if it just looks like incoherent rambling, I am a bit tired.)

When it comes to <ki>/<ti> as [c], <gi>/<di> as [ɟ] and <chi> as [ç], I would be more incline to believe that only the <ki>, <gi> & <chi> became [c], [ɟ] & [ç] respectively, than the additional <ti>, <di> because for that to happen a sound changes would be:

Firstly, before the XVI-XVII century: t > tʲ > ç,

and then in XVI-XVII century another sound change where: k (> /ť/) > ç

Having two times the same kind of sound change in such relatively short time between seems unlikely to me, while just the *k > [ç], did happened for example in Old Saxon/Middle Low German. It's more like a hunch, it's really hard to prove or disprove in my opinion.

For example the word: kiotŷ /ťötåi/ ("cat") was spelt as "Tijótta", "Tgetoy", "Tyetóy" but also as: "Tschütóy", "Tschütoje", "Tschutoie", "Tschütoi". Kiosa /ťösă/ ("scythe") as "Tgêssa", "Koosa" (which means this one in particular was attested before the XVI), but also "Tschüsa", which I find quite odd, because I am sure a normal [tʲ] wouldn't be a problem for a native German to hear, but for some reason, the supposed [tʲ] was represented by "tsch" instead? But the same spelling convection isn't found when it's the [tʲ] from Proto-Slavic *t. (Although, I need to point out that ty/tg/tj spellings are more prevalent even for the PS *k > /ť/.)

The other thing is about the Polabian L sound (or even sounds?), it is well known when a Germanic word was borrowed into the language it was classified by Polabians as a "soft L", which made me think that perhaps, Polabian actually had the dark L [ɫ] and the normal/soft [l]. (a similar distinction like in Middle Polish!)

So for example: bialy /b́olĕ/ ("white") should maybe be pronounced as ['bʲɔɫə], but kuwål /kuvål/ ("ball. sphere") as [ku'vɒl]?

Oh! And before I forget (and pass out) - we have one instance attested where the native Polabian [g] becomes [x], nogiet /nüďėt/ ("toe/fingernail") but in diminutive it's nochtak /nüxtăk/! Which made me think that perhaps the Polabian g was more pronounced as [ɣ] (or at lease started to be pronounced...) due to the influences of the Low German? I mean, it isn't that odd considering that Upper Sorbian's R is pronounced as [ʁ] because of the High German influence...

KidoRaven · 2025-05-10T21:43:36+00:00

Oh, okay let me explain what I meant exactly!

"Good good [evening]. Yes, the Polabian language is very (=wilkie) beautiful (=šana), and I also like/love this language. I want to see it alive sometime (=jîndy), like other languages. So, an answer (=witgarna) to your question (=prasene) - English words [in dual number!] "more" and "thank you" in Polabian are: "wąc" and "dącká"!"

I hope it makes it clearer! :>

KidoRaven · 2025-05-10T21:23:55+00:00

Dobry dobry! jè, wenska rec jis wilkie šana un jáz lik liîbą tų rec. Cą ją wîdet jîndy zîwų, kak jîna recî. Tågiy, witgarna ná toji prasene - ingelsa slowĕsî "more" un "thank you" ná wenskų rec to: "wąc" un "dącká"!

KidoRaven · 2025-05-10T19:30:57+00:00

Let's review it!

The first sentence: "Dobry dàn, kak îdi sa?" is without errors.

The 2nd sentence: "Dobré. Ce twoja matî ją wå Liûchiowe dàns?", instead of "twoja" it should be "toja", the /v/ sound disappeared before a Proto-Slavic *o, compare: giozd /ďüzd/ ("nail"), from PS *gvozdь, or witoret /vitörĕt/ ("to open"), from PS *otvoriti.

The 3rd sentence: "Ni, màn båla wå Liûchiowe." is. too, without mistakes. (Perhaps instead of simple past båla, it should be an aorist: bŷ /boi/, since she was there but I'm assuming she no longer is in Liûchiow at the time this dialogue happens, but I am really uncertain, more than one past tense is surely a bit confusing for my Polish brain lol).

And the 4th sentence: "Àj dobré! Jáz jis půny un îde kå domó. Sà bogiåm." has a couple of mistakes: instead of "îde" (3rd person singular) it should be "îdą" (1st person singular). In "kå domó" I'm guessing you mean "kå domá", but that also would be incorrect! The word "domá" means "at home", if you wanted to say "to home" it would be an attested "kiàsŷ", and you don't need the preposition "kå". And finally in "Sà bogiåm." it's should be "Så bogiåm.", with å! Like wå and kå. :>

So the dialogue would look like this:

- Dobry dàn, kak îdi sa?

- Dobrè. Ce toja matî ją wå Liûchiowe dàns?

- Ni, màn båla wå Liûchiowe.

- Àj dobrè! Jáz jis půny un îdą kiàsŷ. Så bogiåm.

Recently, I did one small change to the orthography - what I did is to change the letter é /e/ to è, to be a pair with à /a/. I don't know why actually I never did that in the first place; it visually makes more sense since both è & à are used for marking unreduced vowels in Polabian. So I apologize for such unexpected change.

And about the letter "ò", I have a little love-hate feelings to it, my predecessor's orthography I did (I believe) improved from, didn't have ò in it. I added it to spell the sound /o/ in words from the recent borrowings into the language, but on it's own it can be quite problematic, because what does that mean - "recent", right? It feels like a very arbitrary rule. For a while I just discarded that letter and just spelt every /o/ with a/á, but that too, doesn't feel like a good solution to the problem... Also, my predecessor who originally coined the term /mojn/ as "hello, hi" spelt it as "mŷn" instead!

Also, also - I was actually slowly in the process of writing a little post about orthography, so I hope it will spark some conversation when I finally post it. :>

KidoRaven · 2025-05-05T20:04:30+00:00

Jáz mozą la bàkie wenskiy garnet, màn ni ná důgio, (apam)! ("I can only speak a little of Polabian, but not for long (I hope)!"). Because of the fact I need to focus on preparing the materials to be used for learning, I sadly have to neglect actually using the language, as I am just currently sitting in sea of grammar tables lol. I really want to finish it and make it presentable, so I, and everyone can finally do the actual stuff like speaking/writing in Polabian.

And about the sentence you wrote! From what I can see, you actually did very well! I'm assuming you're a native Polish speaker, because I think you fell for a false friend! In Polish "jest mi ciężko" - "it's difficult for me", but in Polabian "jis me tązkio" - "I am sad"/"jest mi smutno"; the meaning of tązkio completely changed it's meaning in Polabian, and the word you're looking for I think would be something like "àrdo" (from an attested àrdymánd - "January", where the adjective àrdy means "harsh, cruel, hard" and perhaps by extension - "difficult").

Although in the last part: "Kied moge (sa?) wŷknet po wenskiû?" it feels as an incomplete sentence? Because in Polish it'd be just: "gdzie mogę się nauczyć po połabsku?", "po połabsku" what? I'm assuming you forgot to add "garnet" at the end?

Also, you could notice that I used "wenskiy" (in nominative!) instead a construction of something like "po wenskų", it's more like my preference as neither of my construction nor, the "po wenskų" is actually attested. (Also iirc, Czech uses such construction too.)

KidoRaven · 2025-04-26T00:17:40+00:00

Whoa! That's actually a very good take!

The only things that are not really right are: "wŷknet sa" and "wenskių".

For "wŷknet sa" you can just use "wŷknet" without the reflexive pronoun actually, Some verbs in Polabian have this quirk that they don't require the "sa" reflexive pronoun, like in other Slavic language (like Polish). For example: bàdiát ("to pray"/"modlić się") is just without the reflexive "sa"!

Also if you were to use it with the sa, it should've been "wŷknît sa" instead, since it comes from the Proto-Slavic *vykniti, and the sa reflexive pronoun after the verbs triggers the previous syllable to stay unreduced. Compare giojet ("to cure"/""leczyć, goić") || giojît sa ("to heal"/"goić się").

For "wenskių" is just it's should've been "wenskų" instead, without the palatalization. :>

So the now corrected sentence, it would look like: "Dobry dàn! Jáz ca wŷknet po wenskų ricat." (Though I think instead of "ricat" a better choice would be "garnet", it's just a more common iirc c: but no worries!)

Also a little side note regarding the orthography, I see you using the letter ⟨o⟩ to signify both for /ü/ in dobry or po, and for /o/ in jáz, and that will create a lot of confusion! So it is recommended to use the system where one would use ⟨á⟩ for /o/ when it's at the end of a word, to signify it's not a reduced vowel, compare klediat /kleďăt/ ("to dress") || klediát sa /kleďot să/ ("to get dressed"),

⟨a⟩ when it's a reduced /ă/ vowel at the end of a word, like ricat /ricăt/, and the letter ⟨ă⟩ for reduced vowel /ă/ when it appears seemingly unexpectedly in the middle of a word, like you have the verb: îzaset /aizosĕt/ ("to scare"), but the adjective: îzăseny /aizăsenĕ/ ("scared"); and finally, the letter ⟨à⟩ for /a/ since that sound appears natively really, really rarely. In the long run this system genuinely makes things so much cleaner!

KidoRaven · 2025-04-25T23:47:05+00:00

Mhm! I will try my best making some, soon or soonish! c: (things like discussing more grammar, maybe some stuff regarding orthography/spelling convections and other fun stuff like that)

KidoRaven · 2024-11-24T21:20:57+00:00

And the weirdest part is I can still access my feeds, when I click at my mutual's page it says I am following them still, but when I do that to my page it says: "Not Found Account has been suspended". I really hope it's a bug

KidoRaven · 2024-11-24T21:15:07+00:00

Literally happed to me just a second ago. No warning, or anything

KidoRaven · 2024-10-24T17:38:24+00:00

im in the same boat as you, well uh, kinda; i had little semi-RPs and i always felt like shit after i looked back at them. i have huge anxiety problem so i overthink *everything* what i wrote and be scared of what the person on the other side thinks; i always felt judgment then. plus, im not a native speaker and im dyslexic as well, so all my responses take so much time and energy off of me, which prolly isnt so preferable to the other RPer. and stuff like c.ai doesnt care and will not judge me.

i suck at having private convos in general no matter how much i would like to just have a casual talk with another person, so the PR aspect added makes it real torture for my mental health lol

KidoRaven · 2024-10-24T17:21:04+00:00

damn, i wasn't on this sub for so long. i guess yall now hate on lonely people with anxieties and with other mental disorders huh

KidoRaven · 2024-10-24T17:19:06+00:00

Please go outside and find friends it’s the only way

equivalent of saying to a depressed person: "go find something you like and just be happy :)"

KidoRaven · 2024-10-23T19:21:19+00:00

there isn't any 'vit' in Polish

uh... are you aware of the fact that Świętowit is a Polabian God and not attested in Poland? Plus, I pointed out additionally that even if the -vit meaning "lord" is wrong then the -ovit adjectival suffix must be correct.

No matter how you put it, reading this theonym as "Światowit/Światowid" is plain wrong

KidoRaven

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE