Comment by aasasd
5 years ago
The page sort of underplays the importance of these artifacts. Bark notes are one of the few primary sources for study and reconstruction of the language of that time—as in, what little is known, we greatly owe to these notes. Meanwhile, afaik there are like a handful or two of places where notes were found, and the total number of notes is on the order of a thousand-and-something, often in ruinous state: if the letters are even discerned, still cracks in the notes sometimes interfere with the scratches of the writing. Children's learning notes are uniquely helpful because they lay out some of linguistic features right there: e.g. the alphabet. (It's possible that Onfim's are the only such notes—dunno for sure but I remember Zaliznyak saying they were a pleasant surprise.)
Novgorod Republic was a Slavic state of its own, and IIRC the Novgorod dialect was one of the main dialects of Old East Slavic, informing the later differences between northern and southern dialects.
Also, most notes aren't literature but letters of trading, marriage arrangements and such. So they don't tend to expound at length—and while afaik colloquial usage is very helpful for reconstruction, there's still not much of it. Consider that poetry especially helps with reconstruction, since it directly reflects pronunciation.
Btw, for Russian-speakers interested in the history and workings of the language, and linguistics in general, I recommend Zaliznyak's lectures and interviews available on YouTube. He was great at spreading the scientific view, on the backdrop or relatively scarce popular scientific journalism and noisy, harmful and politicized folk etymology.
> The page sort of underplays the importance of these artifacts. Bark notes are [...]
The page is not about bark notes in general. It links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birch_bark_manuscript and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Novgorod_dialect. All those things are very important, but they are better placed in those specialized articles rather than one boy's biography.
underplays the importance of these artifacts
That’s a problem with Wikipedia articles. Historical and social topics tend toward beige deserts of insight. The neutral point of view discourages attempts towards writing bearing intellectual synthesis and insight.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Wikipedia. It’s rather Wikipedia is a dull read. Duller than it’s sources typically and regularly duller than what a quick Google turns up.
Wikipedia is perhaps a minimum viable HN submission. But it doesn’t bring expert opinion with it. Wikipedia articles are often 100x ideas with 0.01 execution.
I disagree, I appreciate the just-the-facts approach which leads to brevity and clarity. It may not lead to a complete understanding (such as the info provided by your parent comment), but chances are that following links in Wikipedia will find a lot of the same info.
I feel a lot of science writing appeals to emotion and has to overplay their subject matter to get readers, burying many interesting or relevant details deep in a long article. Wikipedia may be dry, but it avoids that.
Of course, different people like different styles, so some people learn better or enjoy narrative and story, others want dry facts. But it’s not a problem with Wikipedia.
My critique of Wikipedia is as a primary source on Hacker News. This article is an example of 100x idea : 0.01 execution. It’s little more than the official correct answer on the back side of a Trivial Pursuit card despite not being that kind of fact. It’s the kind of fact where expertise provides context to an evocative subject.
To be clear, what is missing is not a treatment amenable to popular taste. What is missing is passionate geeking out by a person who’s devoted months, years, or a lifetime to a slightly larger understanding of the subject.