Talk:Polish language

Languages Top‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Top‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Borrowings from Russia

"Direct borrowings from Russian are extremely rare, in spite of long periods of dependence on Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, and are limited to a few internationalisms, such as sputnik and pierestrojka" This is not very true because Polish has many phraseological calques borrowed from Russian that came to Standard Polish from Eastern dialects. I hope someone will clear this out some day in the future. Anyway "extremely rare" in this case sounds POV 77.40.103.127 (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely rare? Seems like you are not a native Polish speaker because the Polish has got thousands of words directly borrowed from Russian. You can see a plenty of examples in numbers, colours, mythological and political statements. Kirilyakov1721RUS (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? 2003:E6:737:9E55:B883:D24A:31B3:91ED (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not exist... 185.234.241.9 (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retroflex or postalveolar?

In the Consonants section, the sounds represented by cz, sz, ż / rz and dż are described as retroflex ([tʂ], [ʂ], [ʐ] and [dʐ]), yet the table in the Orthography section lists them as postalveolar sounds ([ʧ], [ʃ], [ʒ] and [dʒ]). While I think the latter one is correct, it may also be possible that the Polish sounds are somewhere in between, so both versions are correct. This is still inconsistent, though. Any ideas? --Pipifax 21:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although the values of sz, ż/rz, cz and dż may be inbetween postalveolar and retroflex, thy are clearly more postalveolar (if you have ever heard true retroflex sounds made by native speakers of some Indian languages, you'll know wha I mean). Because of this I would strongly vote for listing them as postalveolar ([ʧ] [ʃ] [ʒ] [dʒ]). --Kubusj 10:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can compare the sounds yourself szum has Media:voiceless retroflex fricative.ogg, not Media:voiceless postalveolar fricative.ogg. You can see the rest by following the links on Polish phonology. As stated lower down in Polish retroflexes are laminal, as opposed to the Hindi apical, neither of these are "true" retroflexes. In any case [ʧ], [ʃ], [ʒ] and [dʒ] are miles closer to ć, ś, ź and dź. --BadSeed 10:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@ 69.59.75.163 (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

How can there be millions of Polish speakers overseas when Polish has a population of 38.5 million and the following sentence claims there are 40 million in total? --2.245.248.108 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Nation have 50 milions of people. 185.234.241.9 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral language / Use of propaganda terms

"Recovered Territories" is a propaganda term of the Polish communist party. It is equivalent to "German territories under Polish administration". Neither of these would be in accordance with the neutrality required of an encyclopaedia, not even in quotation marks. Maybe once or twice wouldn't hurt, but it's several times throughout the article. As far as I can see, "former German territories" is an option widely used as a neutral term. It decribes the reality of what these territories were and also -- through the word "former" -- makes it clear that this is in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.71.22 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a propaganda term. It is justified by facts, because in the Middle Ages these areas were often under the rule of the Polish monarchy. As we know, various areas around the world have been transferred to one jurisdiction and then to another for hundreds of years, because this is how history goes. Therefore, calling them the Recovered Territories by the Communist Party was based on historical facts and was not a lie. Calling them former German lands is as true as calling them former Polish lands - it depends on what years in the past we are referring to. 185.234.241.9 (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.140.107 (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Siwierski" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Siwierski has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 22 § Siwierski until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 18:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]