User talk:Mova2016

Welcome!

Hello, Mova2016, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Nardog (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your undo actions are indeed encouraging. I doubt you will ever get a normal article on this topic. As for me, I have a lot of more important things to do. Good luck! Mova2016 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nardog (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Tagging, adding citations, and talk page comments are certainly not minor edits. Please read and consider the message above once again. Nardog (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, please learn how to use the preview feature and the edit summary field. Nardog (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarifications. Mova2016 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear:

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!

---

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you.

Nardog (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have noticed it, but I am still not accustomed to use it. I marked with "clarification" some ill-based or phonetically incorrect formulations. For example, the Ukrainian ɑ is not a central phoneme. Somebody cancelled my notes. On what ground? Mova2016 (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Then please be accustomed. Both reducing the number of consecutive edits to the same article and providing edit summaries help other editors.

You definitely are using that tag too liberally. Given your comment above, I get the impression that maybe you do not fully understand what "clarification" means. I recommend you look it up on a dictionary.

If you find the accuracy of a statement in an article questionable, tag it with {{Dubious}} and open up a thread on the article's talk page. If you find an unsourced statement, tag it with {{Citation needed}} or simply remove it in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you find a source to be a not reliable one, tag it with {{Better source}} or {{Unreliable source?}}. Nardog (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. They help. Mova2016 (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I spent several hours marking poorly grounded statements and lack of references, bout someone has cancelled all of this!!! What's wrong??? Mova2016 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Create a section at Talk:Ukrainian phonology and explain why they are poorly grounded in as specific a way as possible. Nardog (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, the explanation is not a problem. I can do it in two ways: either in the text of the wiki-article (as I did already in the first paragraph) or on the talk page. I expected some questions in the relevant subsection of the talk page, but we ended up in a yesterday's state. Or I am expected to write the explanations right here? Please explain. Anyway, I followed your recommendations and finally received a delete action. I don't feel encouraged, do I? Please keep in mind that I am interested in seeing results of my efforts and time spent. The article has numerous issues (probably more than one might expect) and was not amended for years (I am not surprised with this because I know the Ukrainian situation well). I thought that marking incorrect statement would be a good and tender intermediate step to make more comprehensive and grounded text. And I still do not understand what is wrong with this idea. Are the tables taboos?

If you are interested in my opinion, I would prefer to make series of relatively small textual amendments directly in the article. As you have definitely noticed, I use reliable sources and write responsibly, avoiding mere conjectures and poorly grounded declarations. If necessary, I can give explanations on the talk page. But I hate my work being neglected. This is why I will not make a one large editing. Especially after having the above-described experience. And another reason for this is that the ideas come one by one, not all at once. I would like to know your opinion about it.

And now, brief explanations. Phonetics is an experimentally-based science, so the reliable sources here are those using results of phonetic experiments (speech recording and analysis, speech perception experiments, etc.) and are duly published. Given this, the reliable sources in this article are: Bilodid 1969, Tocjka 1981, Stevens 1998, Steriopolo 2012, Pompino-Marschall et al 2016 (in the part where they analyse results of their phonetic experiment), Vakulenko 2018, Vakulenko 2019. The encyclopedy "Ukrajinsjka mova" is reliable, too, but to the extent whenever it uses the results described in Bilodid 1969 and Tocjka 1981 (the used literature is cited at the end of each article). I would like to comment on some sources I classify as unreliable.

• Antonina Bilous's thoughts presented in the doc file. If there were significant scholarly value, why not publish it in the scholarly journal? Anyway, some results of Bilous were duly cited in Vakulenko 2018.
• Danylenko & Vakulenko 1995. This is a compilation of phonetic results described in Bilodid 1969, with minor (and not experimentally proved) additions. And they ose incorrect IPA notations (for example, h for Cyrillic "г"). So the value of this work is only as an English version of Bilodid 1969 for the English-reading audience. However, the link is not working.
• Press & Pugh 2015. They are Scottish linguists specializing on Russian linguistics. As you understand, this is not the same as the Ukrainian phonetics. The European phoneticians do not consider them as phoneticians at all. No experimental (instrumentally obtained) results are presented, just observations. So the value of this work is just as an additional side observation.
• Buk et al. 2008. Having read this article, I was surprised where the authors got the material and why they do not refer to the experiment at all. I contacted Solomija Buk and asked her about it. She confessed that there were no experiment and they described their own feeling.
• Ponomariv 2001. This is a journalist, not a phonetician. The authors do not carry out phonetic research and do not publish their results in the phonetic journals. This handbook uses the results of Bilodid 1969, but their arbitrary interpretation is given therein. Not a valuable source in the phonetic sense.

In addition to this. Much misunderstanding arises when the unknown authors of wiki-articles try to interpret the results of the sources. For Ukrainian, many of them use some more or less arbitrary Latin symbols fancying that they correctly represent the Ukrainian sounds (rendered in Cyrillic script). This is not the case, because correct IPA notation is a separate problem requiring profound investigation (see Pompino-Marschall et al. 2016; Vakulenko 2018, 2019). Mova2016 (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies (start with the five pillars of Wikipedia) and understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. It's not like either your edits stay in or out. We repeat the process of revising and discussing content to improve the encyclopedia as a whole. And pay attention to the page history. Kbb2 explained the reason for removing the tags you added, saying "Take it to the talk please, this affects readability", which I agree with to be honest.

No, you are not allowed to "explain" a viewpoint of your own directly in an article. That would be a violation of the neutral point of view policy. The article's talk page is the place for that. User talk pages like this one receive very little attention while a few dozen people already have Ukrainian phonology on their watchlists, so Talk:Ukrainian phonology is a much more appropriate place to discuss the article and the improvements you want to make.

And as I already said, I strongly recommend you explain your arguments by creating a new section instead of responding to old existing sections, some of which are more than ten years old. Your arguments are scattered across the talk page and it's very hard to follow or address them at once. Nardog (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

So you're just going to ignore what I said? Again, nobody will read your replies to such old sections. Create a new section. Nardog (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you decide so? I have just created the new section named "Ukrainian phonology 2019" and put there my comments. Mova2016 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You just simply copied the replies into one thread. That's hardly better. I'm advising you to structure your comments so that they will be understood without having to read other old discussions because people don't have the luxury to read everything that has been written on top of everything you wrote. If you want to be taken seriously, make it easy to do so. Nardog (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to concur with Nardog. I appreciate the peer review process and the need for reliable sources, but your comment in Talk:Ukrainian phonology more resembles a giant logic tree than an attempt to start a dialogue, and appears to discourage other users from attempting to respond. In particular, it seems odd to automatically expect disagreements in advance and then provide a separate option tree for each expected disagreement of what processes of rebuttal will be accepted, all before other users have even responded to your comment.

Previously, I've edited the Ukrainian phonology article a great deal during a period of particular fascination with the language, and expanded details in the article as provided by the references as part of an attempt to answer unanswered questions of my own. In apparently finding those answers, I tried to annotate the article text with reference tags. In the spirit of that process of discovery and learning, I'm interested in finding out what facts are out there, and I don't really have preconceived notions to express in the first place. It's clear that you have alternative interpretations to express, and your own perspectives as a native speaker can be interesting to hear. And if you have third-party published references to back them up, that would certainly help, too.

Many of us who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis, do so as a hobby in our own spare time. Sometimes we try to improve articles on topics that we find interesting. We may even welcome the peer review process as a worthy challenge, so long as disagreements are raised and discussed in a congenial manner and there's a real effort towards reaching an editorial consensus. Many of us try to be kind and assume good faith, and want others to be kind and assume good faith, too. Even genuinely bad-faith edits promoting blatant misinformation will be analyzed on the merits of their data, and will often tend to be easily debunked anyway. But if there really is misinformation creeping up even in currently-cited third-party references, it's not always the case that editors relying on those references are trying to promote misinformation—it may simply be a case that, depending on the topic (and how controversial or politicized it might be), it can be more difficult to vet reliable references in the first place. I do my best in checking the available references, preferring readily-accessible publications that describe their data and cite their references in a well-presented and dispassionate manner, compared to personal blogs or opinion sites, because reliable references tend to look like reliable references. Can I say for certain that these references are all solid facts? Not always, but that just means sometimes our efforts improve in quality when more than one editor is simultaneously working on them, because other people can notice things that we may overlook.

So please keep all that in mind, and speak to us like the human wiki hobbyist collaborators that we are. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually genuinely very interested in what references you can provide, especially if they are reliable enough to improve the state of the articles. Your own perspectives as a native speaker are interesting enough and I appreciate hearing them. Yet for article edits to pass the muster of reference verification on Wikipedia, a third-party reference is preferred over a personal reference, because being the primary reference of your own edits raises issues of credibility and verifiability. That said, I've come to appreciate that, sometimes, a certain amount of user-generated synthesis may be unavoidable, especially in minor, trivial ways, to fill in the gaps: Choices of wording, sound logical leaps, etc. But all details, ideally, should be independently verifiable. Benign critical peer review is something that we editors should be eagerly inviting for the sake of the quality of the articles anyway. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, Gilgamesh. I appreciate academic style you use.

I have to say that I did not get your idea about a "giant logic tree" and "a separate option tree for each expected disagreement". Indeed, I tried to provide information I have about the topic. To be frank, I see here a lot of ill-based conclusions and mere conjectures following from one's fantasy rather from experimental facts and phonetic theory. I also have read the discussion in Ukrainian, and I understand the things better than the non-native speakers. This is why I expect objections. In fact, Nardog reacted in a manner that supported my worst expectations. What will happen next?

As for third-party references. The field of phonetics is almost abandoned in Ukraine, so we may wait for this for a pretty long time. You may want to amend the article by yourself using the references I provided. Mova2016 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have just realized that Nardog deleted all information I added.

So I am citing the needed articles:

• Vakulenko, Maksym. 2019. “Calculation of Phonetic Distances between Speech Sounds.” In: Journal of Quantitative Linguistics [WoS, Scopus. 2018 impact factor 0.921]. Published online: October 23, 2019. DOI: 10.1080/09296174.2019.1678709.
• Vakulenko, Maksym O. 2019. “Ukrainian Consonant Phones in the IPA Context with Special Reference to /v/ and /gh/.” In: Linguistica online 22: 36-61. Published online August 22, 2019. Available at: http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/vakulenko/vak-001.pdf [Retrieved August 26, 2019]. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36265.75363.
• Vakulenko, Maksym O. 2018. “Ukrainian vowel phones in the IPA context.” In: Govor 35 (2): 189-214. Available at: https://www.hfiloloskod.hr/images/HFD/Govor/Govor-2-2018-web.pdf [Retrieved December 30, 2018]. DOI: 10.22210/govor.2018.35.11.

They contain also all relevant references. Mova2016 (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite groggy at the moment, but I read your response and quickly skimmed the PDFs, and what little I gleaned so far looked interesting. I'm not sure when I'll have time to read through them more thoroughly, since for weeks I've been occupied in editing for a different topic, but it's always delightful to stumble upon new references with more details. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Since I just reached a milestone in another project, I decided to sit down and read the first of the two PDFs your linked. I must say that I don't know what to think of it all. It is apparently true that the previous sources were inadequate, dated, and involved a great deal of supposition. Yet at the same time, the newer reference, however compelling, has not yet itself been significantly reviewed in such a way that Wikipedia can use it with high confidence. Not that this is the fault or weakness of the reference, since, as you noted, this topic has been under-researched for a long time. For now I'm not qualified enough to draw solid conclusions based on what I'm reading, but I look forward to future consensus on the topic.

One thing I wonder about is how the different international dialects of Ukrainian can be measured and compared. After all, there are significant diaspora dialects of Canadian Ukrainian and Brazilian Ukrainian, and together they still have hundreds of thousands of speakers, preserved largely by their remote rural geography. It would be interesting to see a fuller situation of the language described taking the various dialects in Ukraine, Canada and Brazil into account, without which a complete picture of the Ukrainian language might seem incomplete. It would also be interesting to see more comparisons of Ukrainian with the various Rusyn dialects of Central Europe.

Actually, there is one thing on my mind in a pan-linguistic context, in reaction to that first PDF I read: Though it is apparently true that Ukrainian ⟨г⟩ does not reflect the same sound as ⟨h⟩ in English or German, there is precedent in other languages for transcribing [ɦ] or [ɣ] as ⟨h⟩, and a lot of this comes from other Balto-Slavic languages. To name a few, ⟨h⟩ represents [ɦ] in Czech, Slovak and Slovene, and represents [ɣ] in Lithuanian. In the Czech and Slovak languages, like in Ukrainian, ⟨h⟩ also evolved from an earlier [ɡ]. And the Lithuanian situation actually has more in common with the Ukrainian situation in that its ⟨h⟩ sound may also vary allophonically between [ɣ] and [ɦ]. In this light, the choice of ⟨h⟩ for Ukrainian ⟨г⟩ is not that strange, and would seem to have much less to do with its pronunciation in English or German, and more on established patterns already occurring in the Balto-Slavic languages of Central Europe. (Besides English and German, the third major West Germanic language of Europe, Dutch, actually does pronounce ⟨h⟩ as [ɦ].) By contrast, it is ⟨gh⟩ and ⟨ğ⟩ that have the briefer and more limited history in Central Europe, with ⟨gh⟩ largely unknown in the Latin alphabets of the region's languages except to write Romanian [ɡ] before front vowels, a convention seemingly borrowed in the late 19th century from Italian, and ⟨ğ⟩ originating from 20th century Turkish orthography and virtually exclusive to Turkic language orthographies (Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, etc.). Not that either of these spellings couldn't find a niche in transliterating Ukrainian, but ⟨h⟩ would seem to be the more natural first choice based on traditional regional criteria. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The task to study uk-BR and uk-CA is not so easy because of much difference in speech. However, it is theoretically possible - but requires much resources.

It is right to think about traditional criteria. For Ukrainian, this is reference to ancient Ukrainian written and spoken since 10 century where the letter "г" was borrowed from the Hellenic gamma. This is the main root. I hope you will find enough time to read the provided references to know more details and more arguments. Mova2016 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If I can get around to it, I'll read them. As for Canadian Ukrainian, it arrived in Canada mainly in the late 19th century and early 20th century, which in terms of linguistics was not very long ago. Canadian Ukrainian still has about 100 thousand speakers, but Brazilian Ukrainian has half a million speakers, so these linguistic communities are still very much alive. A better understanding of the phonological reflexes of these dialects could better inform a broad phonemic transcription of Ukrainian in a similar way that a broad transcription of English arose as an attempt to reconcile the differences in English spoken in England, North America, Australia, etc. If, as these new sources suggest, ⟨в⟩ has overwhelmingly become a labiodental fricative in Ukraine, then a phonemic transcription of /w/ in all positions may be inappropriate. But depending on how this sound occurs in Canada and Brazil's Ukrainian-speaking communities, it may possibly still be appropriate in broad sense...if that makes sense. I would love to learn more about them someday. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Great plans!

I appreciate your interest in Ukrainian. Please be informed, however, that the described task is not straightforward and requires much investigation, including important instrumental component.

It may be expected that the sound [w] may arise in some creole variants of Ukrainian strongly influenced by distant languages (thus, the English influence gives rise to Ukrainglish). However, this should be properly established and well documented and described. As you already know, I am skeptical about mere conjectures that are not supported by arguments and facts.

I know little about Brasilian Ukrainian, so I cannot tell anything about it.

I know instead that millions of Ukrainians live in Europe, in Russia and in Kazakhstan. They speak different variants of Ukrainian. And to my mind, these variants are perhaps more important than uk-CA and uk-BR (uk-AR). Mova2016 (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Understood.

And it was not conjecture I was engaging in, but just a reminder that until the other varieties are better documented by linguists, their phonological distinctions remain unknown to us, and it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about the international Ukrainian language as a whole that do not hold true for these important New World dialects. Also (and especially in the case of the half million speakers in Brazil), the biggest reason these language communities have thrived as well as they have is because of geographic isolation—their members have spoken Ukrainian as their primary language at home and many or most continue to do so today. The sound /w/ used in Ukrainian phonemic transcription was transcribed half a century ago, and however inadequate the data source could have been at the time, it has still remained the conventional symbol for the phoneme up to this point. This gives me questions about that /w/:

• Does it reflect how it was more generally spoken at the time it was sampled?
• Does it reflect how it was spoken before that time, such as at the dawn of the Ukrainian diaspora?
• Is it also spoken this way in Canada or Brazil?
• And if so, does it reflect influence from other languages (like English or Portuguese), or does it reflect an archaism in Ukrainian itself that was preserved in these dialects but not in Ukraine?

These are all valid questions, and my point is that we don't know their answers right now, and it is not conjecture to say this. The new data is truly welcome and gives linguists something new to study, but it still needs to be adequately peer-reviewed by more than just you or me (and ideally through published conclusions not of our own making as Wikipedia editors), and the process of peer review can raise questions just like the ones I'm raising now.

However, the new data does seem like enough to at least open a discussion on updating the phonological model of Ukrainian as it is spoken in Ukraine. And it is also generally true that the language as spoken in Ukraine perhaps has a greater significance in understanding the overall topic than the language as spoken elsewhere by smaller numbers of people. With the consensus of other editors, I might support articles being updated in this regard, as long as the updates do not misrepresent the current state of the language as a whole, and also preserves details on the historical development and influential historical analyses of the language. After all, we can only document the data we have, and for the data that we don't have, we can still note the significant questions that remain unanswered.

I'm already very familiar with the frustration of studying and trying to write articles about languages with inadequate or conflicting published references. It's because of this experience that I have a strengthened determination both not to jump to conclusions and to request and always welcome the fresh-eyed review of my fellow editors. After catching up on their reading, first, of course. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You are posing questions, and this is a good sign.

1. The sound denoted with "w" was not documented nor sampled. We should be extremely careful dealing with Ukrainian phoneticians and with their assumptions. During my work with Lionbridge and while writing articles, I spent a bit of time trying to find an answer to the question: why did Zhovtobrjukh in the mid of 20th century denoted one of the allophones of the Ukrainian phoneme /в/ by "w"? I found no indication that he meant the labiovelar approximant as in IPA. I have a strong feeling that he just wanted to distinguish the bilabial sound from similar, but different labiodental [v]. His choice of "w" seems to be a mere assumption, not a result of measurements. We cannot ask Zhovtobrjukh but we can check the IPA charts of 1950-ies. I suppose that the sign β denoting a bilabial sound, has appeared in the IPA charts only recently. Anyway, Anderson did not mention it in 1962. So, the correct notation was not simply known at that time, and Zhovtobrjukh had no chance to find a correct notation. Today we have more comprehensive charts and can avoid such mistakes.

2. I do not really think that the labiovelar approximant w was spoken at the dawn of Ukrainian diaspora (19th century). You may remember the observation of Roman Jakobson that the languages develop in one direction only: towards vocalism or towards consonantism. The Ukrainian language is a typical consonantal language. Unlike English and Portuguese. Unlike ancient Ukrainian that possessed 13 vowels (including long and short ones) and no palatalized consonants, modern Ukrainian has only 6 vowel phonemes and palatalized consonant phonemes opposed to their plain cognates. In the 19th century, the Ukrainian consonantism was already formed. Did you ever fight a rip current? I tried once, and I do not want to repeat this try. There is no chance to overcome it. Similarly, there is no way to develop any distinct vocalic feature (as transformation of a consonant into a semivowel or a glide) in spite of such a strong consonantal tendency.

3. I cannot say without proper measurements, what sound is spoken by Canadian or Brasilian diaspora. As I said earlier, I hate jumping to hot conjectures. Theoretically, a strong influence of a distant vocalic language (e. g. English) may result in sporadic appearance of such an unusual sound. But this assumption requires experimental evidence. Kenneth Stevens gives a strong restriction: a labiovelar approximant [w] has F1 and F2 below 800 Hz. Another indicator is strong lip protrusion. If both conditions are met, we may conclude that such a sound does take place. Mova2016 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know, it is Kbb2 who reverted your edits (although I ultimately concur with his revert), and your edits are still available in the page history. Editors of Wikipedia are expected to treat each other with respect and in a collegial manner. So please be careful when you address other editors in the future. Nardog (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

So it was not you, Nardog. My apologies. I assumed so because I communicated only with you, and your comments...

Anyway, my deepest thanks should be addressed to Kbb2.Mova2016 (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It keeps coming back to us needing more data to describe that international profile of the language. Data we still don't have. Its absence would seem to put most of my concerns on the back burner, so to say. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about lack of data. If you will decide to collect it, please do the recordings of the utterance "Sao Paolo" by native speakers and Ukrainian diaspora. Ask them also to pronounce "Pavlo". Mova2016 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the obscenely late response. My attentions moved on to other things, and then all the adventure that is 2020 also happened. Suffice it to say, as a hobbyist, I don't necessarily have access to any more resources than you do (or at least did, at the time we last discussed this), and none of those resources includes direct linguistics samples of diaspora language speakers. In any event, it would have done me little good, because Wikipedia has a strong preference for the editor and the data source being separate entities, because there's a certain conflict of interest and lack of neutrality when the editor is also a primary source of the data. (It is my informal understanding that, in extreme circumstances where a topic is still otherwise notable, some of these requirements can be temporarily partially relaxed until better data is available, but that cannot be considered any kind of ideal or permanent situation for the maintenance of articles.) But while I find many aspects of Ukrainian linguistics fascinating, it's still a study topic far removed from my actual everyday life, so I'm not in much of a position to collect that data myself anyway.

All that said, I really hope someone someday does collect and document that data and it becomes available as a reliable third-party reference. The answers would be just as fascinating to me as the rest of these studies have been. Diaspora languages are always fascinating that way, especially if they remain in vigorous local use as seems to be the case with Brazilian Ukrainian. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)