The Slavic languages are a relatively coherent language group. It consists of three subfamilies with their own specific traits, but all three families share many characteristics, both in grammar, vocabulary and syntax. Knowledge of one Slavic language is sufficient to get at least a very rough, basic understanding of what a text in any other Slavic language is about (provided that the person in question can read the alphabet, of course), however, the various idiosyncrasies of these languages often make it hard to understand them even better.
The primary purpose of a Slavic interlanguage is based on this very fact: to facilitate communication between speakers of different Slavic languages. We are aware that the Slavs don't need our help for that: they are perfectly able to find a common or mutual language without it — either by writing in English, or by writing in their own languages, or by improvising their own Interslavic pidgin. However, many Slavs find it a shame if Slavs communicate with each other in English, and besides, a lot of Slavs know English only at a very basic level or not at all. Texts written in natural Slavic languages are often hard to follow for other Slavs, and a lot of people will rather omit them, especially the longer ones. For those who write in an improvised ad hoc sort of Interslavic pidgin, it would be useful to know that they won't make themselves better understood by using, for example, infinitives only.
The alternative is Interslavic, or Medžuslovjanski. It is neither a new language, nor is it some kind of Slavic Esperanto. Instead, it is the sum of all things the Slavic languages have in common and those forms and words that are understandable to speakers of most Slavic languages. It can be learned and used as a separate language, but it can also be easily merged with any of the living Slavic languages. The goals of Interslavic can therefore be summarised in three points:
In other words, the purpose of Medžuslovjanski is covered by two keywords: communication and education.
Ideally, a Slavic interlanguage is based on the common heritage of all Slavic nations, and differences are bridged by building compromises. No Slavic language ought to be favoured over another, although a Slavic interlanguage is inevitably closest to „middle-of-the-road” languages like Slovak or Rusyn. Also, Slovianski is explicitly not meant to be „more Slavic than the Slavs” by purifying it from foreign influences, even though a language based on the commonalities of all Slavic languages will automatically have to eliminate various local (non-Slavic) influences. There is, on the other hand, no reason to exclude international vocabulary, as long as it can be recognised easily by most, if not all, Slavic speakers.
It should be emphasised that Slovianski is not related to any religion, ideology or political movement. Slovianski is neither intended to ever replace any living language, nor to become a universal second language of any kind. With this language, we merely hope to provide a tool to those who wish to engage in any form of Interslavic dialogue, and those who hope to achieve a better understanding of the Slavic languages as a whole.
It is impossible for an Interslavic language to be uniform. Its ideal shape depends very much on many different factors: the needs, abilities and interests of those who use it, the sort of communication it is used for, the place where it is used, the medium through which it is used, etc. This requires a highly flexible language, both horizontally and vertically, which is realised in the following manners:
Categorising Interslavic as a language is not easy. It is not a natural language, because it does not have, and never had, native speakers. Yet, it cannot be considered a purely constructed language either, because unlike constructed languages, Interslavic has been a naturally existing phenomenon for centuries. A key factor that distinguishes constructed languages from natural languages is that they have one or more authors, and this is precisely what cannot be said about Interslavic. Of course, over the centuries numerous attempts have been made by various authors to standardise it, but that does not change the fact that it was already there long before that. Basically, Interslavic is what those who use it, make of it themselves.
Therefore, the correct classification of Interslavic depends pretty much on how one looks at it. Those who see the Slavs as one big nation, would in all likeliness consider the Slavic languages dialects of one Pan-Slavic language, in other words, an umbrella language or Dachsprache. Based on the fact that Interslavic is a naturally existing phenomenon in environments where Slavs of different nationalities meet, it has a lot in common with pidgin languages, too. On the other hand, one might also treat it as the hypothetical language at the very centre of the Slavic languages: a modernised continuation of Proto-Slavic that answers the question what it would have looked like if the Slavs hadn't diverged into separate nations, in which case it is something between a reconstructed language and an alternative language. At last, it can also be considered an international auxiliary language, intended for regional use (unlike languages like Esperanto and Interlingua, which are intended to be used globally). As such, it belongs to the so-called zonal constructed languages, a group of artificial languages created for communication among/with speakers of a family of related languages.
Indeed, most of the afore-mentioned attempts at an umbrella language for Slavs carry names like „Pan-Slavic”, „Common Slavic”, „Inter-Slavic”, „New Slavic” or simply „Slavic”. Some of them have elaborate grammars, others are mere sketches. Some were meant to serve as a language for a unified pan-Slavic state or to enhance communication between Slavs of various nationalities, others were created just for fun. Some of them put more stress on simplicity than others. In general, however, most of these projects are so similar to each other that they can hardly be considered separate languages at all. Instead, it can be said that they are attempts at the very same language. However, the approaches chosen by their authors differ. This affects both the way vocabulary has been compiled and the way grammar has been constructed.
When it comes to the source of the base vocabulary, we can distinguish four groups:
The practical differences between those groups are not very significant, at least not in the sense that understandability is dramatically affected. Languages that are the result of comparative linguistics are bound to look like a modernised form of Proto-Slavic, and Old Church Slavonic in turn is fairly similar to Proto-Slavic as well. Thus, there is so much overlap that the only practical difference is a certain kind of flavourisation. Basically, all four techniques can easily be combined in one dictionary.
In terms of grammar and word formation, things are more complicated. Of crucial importance is the question what the target group of the language is. Many elements typical for the Slavic languages are hard to grasp for native speakers of for example English or Chinese, and a language intended to be easy for non-Slavs should therefore have a simple phonology, orthography and grammar and avoid gender, declension, verbal aspect and the like. On the other hand, a language that is maximally understandable for Slavs would inevitably have to include elements that make it harder for non-Slavs. Likewise, a language that is easy to use even for Slavs is not necessarily the best understandable language for other Slavs. These differences lead to three basic orientations, the so-called „schematic approach”, the „naturalistic approach” and the „pidgin approach”. Quoting Wikipedia:
„A schematic planned language is a type of language whose grammar and morphology have been deliberately simplified and regularized, with idiosyncrasies from source languages (if any) removed, in order to be simpler and more streamlined than those of the ethnic languages, even if this should make the language's vocabulary relatively unrecognizable to newcomers to the language. The best known example of this type of language is Esperanto.”
„A naturalistic planned language is specifically devised to reproduce the commonalities in morphology and vocabulary from a group of closely related languages, usually with the idea that such a language will be relatively easier to use passively — in many cases, without prior study — by speakers of one or more languages in the group. The best known languages of this type are Occidental and Interlingua.”
„A pidgin language is a simplified language that develops as a means of communication between two or more groups that do not have a language in common. Fundamentally, a pidgin is a simplified means of linguistic communication, as it is constructed impromptu, or by convention, between groups of people.”
It cannot be said that one approach is better than the others. They simply serve different purposes and different target audiences. A schematic Slavic language is easy to learn, especially for non-Slavs: all they need to know is a basic dictionary and a number of grammatical rules. However, the more Slavic grammar is sacrificed on the altar of regularity and simplicity, the more it will become strange and unfamiliar to Slavic speakers. Besides, communication in a schematic language requires that both sides (speaker/writer and listener/reader) know the rules, and therefore remains largely restricted those who have learned it. A well-designed naturalistic language on the other hand has the advantage of being readily understood by virtually anyone who knows a Slavic language, which makes it very suitable for one-way communication (websites, newsgroups, wikis, mailing lists, etc.). Mastering it will definitely take more time for non-Slavs, but those who know it have instant access to millions of people, who may not even know what language it is but can understand it anyway. It is therefore not surprising that virtually all Interslavic projects past and present are characterised by the naturalistic approach: morphology and word formation are modelled after one of the natural languages or after their greatest common denominator.
Reconciling the schematic and naturalistic approach in one language is an impossible task. Just like it would be foolish for a schematic language to have grammatical gender, it would be foolish for a naturalistic Slavic language to leave it out. Any real compromise is doomed to result in a half-baked, spineless mass full of internal contradictions, that nobody is really satisfied about. However, that does by no means exclude the possibility of simplification. It would be pointless for Slavic speakers to use an un-Slavic grammar, but there is also no reason why a non-Slav who only wishes to make himself understandable to Slavs, should plough his way through tables with Slavic declensions and conjugations. Therefore Interslavic needs to be flexible enough to offer solutions to both.
Interslavic, as described on these pages, follows the naturalistic approach. It is based on the commonalities of the living Slavic languages, although Proto-Slavic is often taken into account as a means to achieve consistence, so that it may as easily be considered a modernised version of the latter. Because both the needs of users and the intended target audiences can be very different, we provide three orthographical and grammatical levels: a simple level, using a simple phonology and a minimalist grammar; an intermediary level, based on natural simplification; and an advanced level, in which simplification is not an issue. We have made this choice for the following reasons:
First of all, a lot people over the years have expressed the need for an Interslavic language that is both easy to use and easy to understand. Improvised Interslavic languages have existed for centuries in multi-Slavic environments, and nowadays also on the Internet. They constitute the very base of Medžuslovjanski. But there is a crucial difference as well: speakers of pidgin languages do not know each other's native language, and so they do not know what their native languages really have in common either. Our team of linguists has both the knowledge and the experience to tell how one side can make himself optimally understandable to the other, providing Interslavic with a well-researched structure. This structure is not a closed system of rules, but only a toolbox with recommendations, and can easily be melted into any natural Slavic language.
There is also another reason why we have chosen not to create a classical constructed language like Esperanto. Hundreds of those have already been constructed over the years, and only a few of them have ever acquired a community of more than, say, twenty speakers. It would be unrealistic to expect that one more would make a difference. After all, what makes people decide to learn a language? Not because it is better or easier than other languages, but simply because there is something in it for them, and clearly nobody is waiting for a language that has no culture and no history of its own. That is why we do not ask anybody to actually learn Medžuslovjanski, we merely offer suggestions that will enable people to make themselves understandable to (other) Slavs in a language that is essentially their own. Given the character of the Slavic language family, they can help people writing or speaking in such way that 90-95% of it will be readily understandable for virtually every Slavic speaker. The high degree of familiarity and a considerable amount of simplification make it easy to handle for both Slavs and non-Slavs. No matter how many people will actually learn it, those who do will be equipped with an excellent tool that allows them to address the entire Slavic world. And what is more, they will be able to understand the basics of a text in any Slavic language as well. For people who don't know a Slavic language yet, there is an additional benefit as well: Slovianski will give them a good starting point for further study, laying a solid base for learning Russian, Polish, Serbian or any other Slavic language.
Medžuslovjanski has gained most of its fame under the name Slovianski, a name that is understood as „Slavic” by all Slavs. This name, however, causes one problem: Slavic is universally known as the name for a family of languages, not of one language in particular. Therefore several alternative names have been proposed and/or used as well:
Why „Slovjanski” instead of „Slavjanski”, „Slovenski” or something similar? All of them are possible, and all will be understood. But „Slovjanski” is the most common outcome. Slav- is used in Russian, Belarusian, Rusyn, Croatian, Bosnian and Bulgarian, while slov- is used in Ukrainian, Polish, Cashubian, Upper and Lower Sorbian, Czech, Slovak, Slovene, Serbian and Macedonian. Furthermore, -jan- exists in Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Rusyn, Polish, Cashubian, Upper Sorbian and Bulgarian, -an- in Czech, Slovak and Slovene, and -en- (-ěn-, -jen-) in Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Macedonian, Lower Sorbian and Old Church Slavonic. In other words, slov- and -jan- are not only the most frequently encountered forms, they are also represented in all three subbranches of Slavic.
Efforts towards a unified Slavic language have been made for centuries. Some scholars believe that even Old Church Slavonic was a constructed Pan-Slavic language, created by St. Cyril and St. Method. Even if we disregard Old Church Slavonic, it can be said that the first publications in "Slavic" go back to the 16th century. In the 17th century, Juraj Križanić was the first to actually describe a language, which he named Ruski in an effort to please the tsar, but which was in fact a mix of Russian Church Slavonic and Croatian. It was published in 1661 and if often quoted as the first constructed Interslavic language.
In the 19th century, when Pan-Slavism was at its peak, another ten projects were published by Czech, Slovak, Slovene and Croatian authors. Of these, most elaborate were: Universalis Lingua Slavica, published in 1826 by the Slovak Ján Herkeľ, a language based primarily on the West Slavic languages; Vsjeslovianьskyь, based on Church Slavonic and published in 1861 by the Czech Vaceslav Bambas; and Uzajemni Pravopis Slavjanski, published in 1865 by the Slovene Matija Majar-Ziljski. Whereas most projects were aimed at reviving and modernising (Old) Church Slavonic, Majar chose an entirely different approach. His project was based on the idea that Slavs could make themselves better understandable to other Slavs taking their own language as a starting point and then gradually modifying it. The first step in that process was altering the orthography, resulting in a generic ("mutual") Pan-Slavic orthography. Subsequently, he proposed a grammar that was based on linguistic comparison of the five major Slavic languages of those days: Old Church Slavonic, Russian, Polish, Czech and Serbian.
In the 20th century, new projects saw the light, mostly by Czech authors. Whereas previous projects had mostly been academic extrapolations, simplification became an issue as well. Some projects, like Vsevolod Cheshikhin's Neposlava, Bohumil Holý's Slavski and Mark Hučko's Slovio, were influenced by Esperanto. Ladislav Podmele's Mežduslavjanski jezik from the 1950s was based mostly on Russian, probably due to the political reality of those days.
Majar's concept of linguistic comparison also constituted the base of the Slovianski project, started in March 2006. All the living Slavic languages with at least 1 million speakers were taken into account, in such way that West, East and South Slavic were given equal weight. In the early days of the project, the authors experimented with different versions of the language. Slovianski-P (the letter P refers to the word pidgin or prosti, the Slavic word for „simple”), first proposed by Ondrej Rečnik and later adopted by Gabriel Svoboda, was intended to become a highly simplified language that incorporates elements from pidgin languages. Slovianski-N (the letter N stands for „naturalism”), initiated by Jan van Steenbergen and later joined by Igor Polyakov, was based on everything the Slavic languages have in common, including their case system. At last, Slovianski-S (the letter S stands for „schematicism”) was an effort of Gabriel Svoboda (GS-Slovianski) and Igor Polyakov (Slovjanskaj) to create a language that would combine schematicism with naturalism. All three of them worked as separate sister projects, or „dialects”, sharing one orthography, phonology and vocabulary. Gradually, Slovianski-S and Slovianski-P were abandoned, and in 2009 it was decided that Slovianski-N would carry the name Slovianski, while Slovianski-P would continue to exist as a simplified version of it, useful for communication with Bulgarians, Macedonians and non-Slavs.
Meanwhile, separate efforts have been undertaken to build a compromise language between Slovianski and Slovio by combining (a modified form of) Slovianski grammar with Slovio's larger dictionary. In 2008, a Russian, Hellerick, proposed Rozumio, about which he wrote:
"Rozumio is not a language, but rather an attempt to bring together two Slavic auxiliary conlangs Slovio and Slovianski. The language is based on Slovio, and yet can be considered a kind of Slovianski in its primitive form."
The same idea was also picked up in 2009 by Steeven Radzikowski, Andrej Moraczewski and Michal Borovička, when they started Slovioski. Unlike Rozumio, Slovioski was developed into a separate language. Originally, the idea was to replace Slovio's grammar with a more naturalistic one, while basically sticking to the Slovio dictionary. Just like Slovianski, Slovioski had three versions, or "levels": Prostij Slovioski, Srednij Slovioski and Polnij Slovioski. The latter was practically identical to Slovianski. In 2010, Srednij Slovioski was abandoned, and Slovioski was renamed Interslavic.
Since that time, Slovianski and Interslavic/Slovioski gradually grew closer to each other. Slovianski developed into a more flexible language with a prototype orthography that could easily be converted into several others, including Majar's Uzajemni Pravopis Slavjanski, a multi-level grammar and possibilities for flavourisation, thus making it perfectly suitable for serving as an umbrella language for other Interslavic projects as well. A highly simplified grammar model was also developed, Slovianto, incorporating elements of both Slovianski-P and Prostij Slovioski. In 2011, both projects ultimately merged into Medžuslovjanski.
Medžuslovjanski also includes Novoslovienskij, published in 2010 by Vojtěch Merunka. Unlike Slovianski and Slovioski, Novoslovienskij is based directly on Old Church Slavonic, which it attempts to modernise by simplifying its orthography and expanding it with modern vocabulary taken from Slovianski. It uses a separate grammar that characterised by archaic elements like multiple past tenses and the dual), however, the grammars, vocabularies and writing conventions of both projects can very easily be mixed, as is done by several authors.
So, who is behind this project? Well, many people in fact. Some would argue that the Interslavic language goes back to St. Cyril and St. Method. But whether we consider Old Church Slavonic to be an artificial language or not, one could hardly treat it as anything else but an attempt at a written standard for a number of Slavic dialects. However, if we treat Interslavic (Panslavic) as one language and not as a number of individual language projects, then Juraj Križanić has been the first person to actually give a description of it as early as the 1660s. His example was followed by Blaž Kumerdej, Stefan Stratimirović, Samuel Linde, Ján Herkeľ, Matija Ban, Radoslav Razlag, Božidar Raič, Václav Bambas, Matija Majar-Ziljski, Anton Budilovič, Ignác Hošek, Josef Konečný, Edmund Kolkop, Bohumil Holý, Ladislav Podmele, Richard Ruibar, Štefan Vitězslav Pilát, and many others.
Obviously, not all of them have had a direct impact on the content of these pages. This, however, cannot be said of Matija Majar-Ziljski. His Uzajemni Pravopis Slavjanski is more than just a precursor of Slovianski, it has also been a major inspiration and an excellent resource. Just like we do, Majar based his conclusions on comparing the whole range of Slavic languages known in his days, and perhaps most importantly, he presented a flexible system that enabled people to write in such way that they could easily take their own language as a starting point. Although our choices are sometimes different from Majar's, Medžuslovjanski can still be seen as a direct continuation or modernisation of it. In addition to that, Majar left us an excellent grammar and orthography, but no dictionary, an omission we hope to correct by providing a list of words that are generally understandable to all or most Slavs.
Nowadays our team consists (more or less in chronological order) of: Ondrej Rečnik, Gabriel Svoboda, Jan van Steenbergen, Igor Polyakov, Rostislav Levčenko, Andrej Moraczewski, Steeven Radzikowski, Michal Borovička, Maciej Pawłowski, Rolf Arvid Rökeness, Waldemar Kubica, Katarzyna Majda, Dražen Buvač, Obren Starović, Moreno Vuleta, Vojtěch Merunka, Jan Vít, Arkadiusz Danilecki, Josip Bibić, Vladimir Romanov, Brunon Kozica, Mateusz Kopa, Cxiril Slavjanski, and several others.
From the very beginning, Slovio creator Mark Hučko has been displaying an extremely hostile attitude towards other Interslavic projects. Among his more recent actions is the purchase – with the obvious purpose of confusing potentially interested people – of several domain names with the names of our projects (slovianski.eu, novoslovianski.com, interslavic.org, slovianto.com). Their content is nothing but a mix of plagiarism, parody, misinformation and hatred, or sometimes just a modification of Slovio under a name similar to ours. It should be emphasised that none of these pages are in any way related to our projects, and that neither Slovianski nor Novoslovienskij are related to Slovio, as Mr. Hučko claims. For more information, see the Memorandum of the Interslavic community about Slovio, Slovianski and Neoslavonic from September 2011.