🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr26.225050.3546@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, abrodnik@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Andrej Brodnik (Andy)) writes:
>In article <1992Apr26.010634.2687@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu> dlv@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu writes:
>>Remark 1. 'Bela' in 'Belarus' actually stands for 'free'. (Has to do with
>>serfdom, Lithuanian domination, etc).
>
>Interesting. Can you give us a bit more background. Namely what is a
>root of this word. As far as I know "bela" or "belo" or "bjelo" ... in
>most of Slavic languages means "white".

(I'll comment on the other follow-up at the same time.)
1. Bel- / Bil- / Byal- / B{\yat')l- ... does mean 'White' in many Slavic
languages. I'm impressed with your knowdlege of 'most' of them :).

However in the name 'Belarus', it originally meant 'free'.  If I may adduce
some analogies, when you speak of the United States of America as being the
land of the free, you don't mean that you're uniting the conditions in which
America might be or that everything here is available without payment. :)

The 3 branches of Eastern Slavdom were once known as 'Velikaya Rus'' (now
Russia itself), 'Malaya Rus'' (now Ukraina) and 'Belaya Rus'' (now Belarus).
The title of the Russian Tsars 'gosudar' vseya Rusi' refers to this division,
as do the 3 stripes on the revived Russian tricolor flag (even though it's
only used by Russia

2. Red Russians / White Russians:  I'm impressed that so many Usenet readers
know that there was a civil war in the former Russian empire in 1917--1924
and that the sided were known as 'Reds' (Bolsheviks and their allies) and
'Whites' (their opponents).  Similar appelations were used during the
revolutions in Western Europe in 1790s and 1848.  The conjecture that
there is some connection between Belorussians and the losing side in the
civil war is plausible, but totally false.  There's no more connection
between them than between either and, say, David Duke's National Association
for the Advancement of White People. :)   But I see how confusion might arise:
about 2 million people (mostly ethnic Russians) fled Russia after the war
and settled mostly in France and what became Yugoslavia; the Soviet press
called them 'beloemigranty' (White emigres) and the Western press called them
'White Russians'.  (Of course, it's not correct to call Belorussians 'White
Russians' :).  

A propos: the army of the USSR was called the Red Army until mid-WWII, when
it became the 'Sovet Army'.  Early in the war the USSR was the ally of nazi 
Germany and invaded Poland and Finland (and annexed the Baltic states and
parts of Romania).  The Soviet propaganda referred to the opponents as
'belopolyaki' and 'belofinny', combining political and ethnic slurs. 

3.  I'd be happy to stick with the name 'Byelorussia', but I suspect that
Belorussians might one day decide that it's not politically correct to the
the 'y', just like Ukrainians have decided and 'the' should no longer be used
with 'Ukraine' (and thepress has complied).

More generally, I see no rhyme or reason to the way the media complies or
doesn't comply with the geographical name changes. If you'll look at the
original posting by the ignoramus Erland, you'll notice some 'new' names:
Kyrghyzstan, not Kirgizistan,  Moldova, not Moldavia,  and some 'old' names:
Lithuania, not Lietuva,  Armenia, not 'Hiyaland' or whatever Erland might
make up by analogy with Whiterussia :)  When the rulers of Burmah (not nice
people, I hear) decided to rename their country Myanmar, everybody started
using the new name. So, the answer to that one is 'I don't know'.

Disclaimer: most folks at CUNY are capable of reading the above message
and understanding it. We're not as bad as you think we is.
Dimitri Vulis
CUNY GC Math
DLV@CUNYVMS1.BITNET DLV@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU

Disclaimer: my Usenet postings don't necessarily represent anyone's views,
especially my own and/or CUNY's.