Talk:Runglish

This article was nominated for deletion on 04-02-2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Languages 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Russia: Language & literature / Mass media / Demographics & ethnography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force. This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2021 and 31 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tsygankovgleb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--130.91.119.63 16:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)Runglish?

From my point of view, nowadays we experience a new sociolinguistic situation. Everyday we learn that there appear new 'languages', varieties of THE language, to be precise. Yesterday there were American and British English. Today we learn about Australian, Canadian, etc. Englishes. Tomorrow we will be able to learn Runglish, Chinglish, Frenglish, etc.

What will be the next week? French Frenglish, Belgian Frenglish, and Swiss Frenglish? Or maybe Russian Runglish, Ukrainian Runglish, Belorussian Runglish, Latvian Runglish, and twelve more Runglishes???

On one hand, the more the languages there are the more ways to express ourselves we get. However, what about international communication? The idea of global English creates a good question: If an international language gives birth to new languages and if they happen to become unintelligible one day (we must not deny that there IS such an opportunity!), does the idea of international English make sense? I need your response!

Do you understand Runglish?

Do you govarite po Runglish? Or do you mozhet bit speak British English? Whatever you do, what do you think of creating space Runglish? It's definitely good for Russian and Russians. But what about English and non-English speakers?

I do, but I don't think a new wikipedia in Runglish (assuming that's what you're proposing) will be either possible or even helpful. Unlike the "real" languages like Spanish and even constructed languages like Esperanto, this is not a language in any real sense. For one, Runglish is mostly a speaking phenomenon; writing Russian using Latin is much more often done for technical than for cultural reasons. That means the target audience for such a wikipedia would be rather limited. IgorSF 10:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid any Russian influence when I speak English or any other language, but being an English teacher I always hear a lot of funny stuff from my pupils. I assume I understand Runglish and even speak some variety of it, but actually as far this phenomenon is not a _language system_, there is some scale, with English on one edge and Russian on the other. My Runglish is nearer the English edge, I hope=) But everybody wants to be perfect! BoojumMXX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.203.175 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question?

what's up with "6. Runglish speakers often say "I like cats..."" is it a joke or what? --130.91.119.63 16:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. This must mean "I'm fond of cats". The same verb for "like", "love", "be fond of": любить. Though there are more precise synonims, this verb is used in the spoken language for all the cases, and this way of thinking reflects in this frase. Ъыь 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the difference between "fond of" and "like" anyway? --Theocide 12:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all in the context. If you say, "I love sports" ("Я люблю спорт") in Russian, no one's going to assume you're in romantic love with sports. But if you say "I love Katya," they're going to take it differently. You can also say "Мне нравится..." ("I like...") which literally means "Such-and-such pleases me." Graymornings 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runglish as pidgin

The artice quotes: "there were no significant, sustained English-Russian communities to develop a "true" pidgin". I beg to differ, in Brooklyn NY, there is a community call Brighton Beach where approximately 320,000 russian immigrants reside. They speak English-Russian pidgin on everyday basis. i believe that 320,000 constitutes sufficient population for true pidgin to arise.--Hq3473 07:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid you are confusing pidgin with interlanguage. There is a line of development: interlanguage->pidgin->creole, with borderline cases. But Runglish is definitely at the first stage:

• the major difference being absence of deliberate simplification of grammar and vocabulary; so far it is well within the ESL bounds for Brooklyn Russians.
• Second, native English speakers over there normally do not attempt to "pidginize" their speech to make it undertsndable.
• Third, their children (correct me if I wrong) struggle by all means to try and stay away from this "corrupted" language, assuming (IMO correctly) that otherwise they will have problems in their careers, bearing in mind long traditions of over-emphacising of language skills in English-speaking educated society. Mikkalai 21:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

let me address these concerns point by point.

• first, I believe runglish spoken in brooklyn is more then simplification of english,it has such features as using russian grammar to form english sentnces(in particular very common is asking a question in english by simply changing intonation), mixing russian and english vocabluary, coining new "runglish" words.
• second, whilte it is true that american brooklyners don't commonly pidegonize their speach, there are some cases when they do. I have personaly witnessed americans mixing in russian curses in english sentnces.
• The children are (as it often happens) bi-dialectical, they can speak clean english, but whne conversing with each other they tend to use runglish on dayly basis.

In conclusion i believe that if Runglish is not a pidgin yet, it is definitely more then interlanguage.--Hq3473 22:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess, the final answer will be known in 20-30 years :-) Mikkalai 22:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, can you please provide some references to confirm your claims. Otherwise this Brooklyn part may be disqualified as original research. Mikkalai 22:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

American-russian This is a pretty comprehensive study of russian-english mixing. Although the point the author is trying to make is different from the one i am trying to make, i belive there is enough evidence in the paper to suggest that the mix of russian and english does create pidgin. You can also refer to a published paper:

"American Russian: Language Loss Meets Language Acquisition". In Wayles Browne et al., eds.
Formal "Approaches to Slavic Linguistics", 370-407. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.

For a more more to the point analysis of russian-english mixing. --Hq3473 05:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion on what constitutes a pidgin and an interlanguage. From the way it’s being described, the Brighton Beach situation is most likely a case of code switching (such as is the case with spanglish).

An interlanguage is not the predecessor of a pidgin as pidgins arise when people of numerous (more than two) linguistic backgrounds exist together but don’t have an existing lingua franca to communicate while an interlanguage is either a type of lingua franca or a case of negative transfer of grammatical structure (the latter of which seems to be described heavily in the rest of the article).

I’m not familiar with the situation in Brighton Beach, but others who are may want to consider whether speakers of this Runglish are bilingual, whether the children learn it (or develop it into a creole), and as Mikkalai pointed out if it has some of the features common across all pidgins.--AEuSoes1 06:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not actually from there, but here in California second generation Russian speakers try to speak Russian but Russlish comes out ;D -Iopq 10:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-on, mate, and it's not a language either Russian-natives, English-speakers, *or* pure Russian-English bilinguals can comprehend without much struggle, verification, annoyance, and the mandatory headache. Fortunately, some of the Russlish speakers manage mostly clean English or Russian if pressed, but a small number that lacks basic proficiency in any language has developed. These have typically moved in their pre-teens to early teens, with little to no prior knowledge of English, to a setting (such as a single parent who works long shifts) where they are unable to sufficiently practice/maintain their Russian, yet thrown into an ESL environment with few if any examples of proficient English to learn from. Trying to comprehend them in either language or in a mix of the two is quite the ordeal. Maybe that's how I ended up becoming a translator/simulatneous interpreter naturally, without expending much effort? 128.195.186.63 18:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu[reply]

I am a native Russian speaker and lived in South Brooklyn for seven years. The mix of Russian and English ("Kto next?") was called Brightoneze (Braitonskii) by the speakers themselves. So the whole "Runglish" labeling seems a little artificial to me. ImageObserver 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's been 14, almost 15 years, I have never been to USA, and yet, I agree with you: I only saw word "runglish" once a Russian tried to speak real English in a chat or on a forum; but was called out for not writing comprehencible enough. Uchyotka (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "Russian accent" problem

So. I visited Swenglish article and saw it: that article covers topics like "Swedish people slightly mispronounce certain English words, because they already use them in Swedish with extra -a ending".

But, in comparison, this Runglish article was flawed; describing Brightonese dialect, "суржик", made of Russian language and a bunch of borrowed roots from English as heard in New York.

My issues i had to face

Instead, I feel I should cover the issues of other kind; like "And/End" problem and "Under" problem.

In Russian transliteration of English names, And/End both get transliterated as Энд.

• The AE sound never gets its special letter (although, IMO, Russian Я sounds the closes to Bri'ish "AE" sound)

• Names like "Underwood" constantly end transliterated as "Ундервуд", ignoring the fact U in "Under-" sounds like "ah" and, basically, 100% matches Russian "А".

• "Qu" may be transliterated as "Кью" (which, I believe, is correct; Q in YT videos indeed sounds softer than K to me); but some words (like "Quant" and "Quark") transliterated as "квант" and "кварк", without softness.

I thing this mismatch of pronounctuation and transliteration is a mess resulting in trobles when it comes to "bad/bed"

Also; apparently Russian "Рррррр" growl is not fornd in letter R, yet... all of a sudden, it was "normal" to pronounce "got it" in such way is actually sounds as "гар ит" to me.

I also was confused to learn "T" in English feels not like "T" in Russian", but like "T" with a ... hmmm... slight flavour of Ч, -ch- sound.

Same for ....-s. It was quite a surprise to learn words like "rules" are closer to "rulez" in most cases. Uchyotka (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Russlish joke (which is called anecdote in Russlish):

-How many hours? не не так: how much watch? six watch. such much? for whom how.

-It's three hours. -That is late! -To whom how.

If you translate it into Russian you'll understand ;d

Also, this word will appear in the vocabulary of Russlish speakers: stupaya

Mix of stupid and glupaya

Don't forget mixed prepositions: See that boat on picture? -Iopq 10:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a rather elaborate version of this joke some time ago; can't recall it in its entirety, but it ended with "Finished MGIMO? Asks!". Was pretty funny. IgorSF 10:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just found this example in the Russian version of the article. Seems very fitting; I'll put it in. IgorSF 11:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The joke "Which watch etc." is borrowed from the movie Casablanca. I am not sure it belongs here. At least, it should be explained. As is, this secton looks silly. Cema 11:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd added it, together with an explanation what it means + reference to Casablanca. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking it out; Casablanca is not a reliable source on the real world; I'd like to see some academic sources showing that a conversation anything like this has ever seriously taken place between two people. It's a funny joke, but it's got nothing to do with real phenomena.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stupaya HAS a meaning in Russian: Going/Stepping. As to temporary word-sandwiching, that is characteristic of the Russian language and does not necessarily require a foreign environment, a foreign influence, or even any contact with anything non-Russian whatsoever; the Russian pun, joke, or sarcasm is often formed through the humorous abuse of word structure, double meanings, intentional mispronunciation, and false intentional mxing/use of ethnic or class dialects. Most if not all European languages do that, to some extent, but Russian uses it heavily and constantly, to the point where, in a sarcastic monologue or dialogue may contain little to no proper grammar, syntax, or vocabulary. There's no sense or possibility to list the typical phrases and euphemisms used, since the full Russian dictionary alone, without any of these informal wordplays, is 300-500 000 words. Word modification implies possible sarcasm, irony, or further description, while the verbs and adjectives in the sentence define its meaning. Thus, the richness of Russian profanity, with its 4(!!!) core words, usable as any part of speech (with suffices, endings, and other modifications), which allow the proficient speaker to describe any complicated action using SOLELY profanity derivatives in complete, grammatically correct complex sentences. The same can be applied to just about any and all words in the language. 128.195.186.63 18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Adieu[reply]

I think "How much watch..." joke is easier to describe, because it's longer, and uncovers, at once:

• issues with false friends
• issues with omitting words
• issues with using Russian style of speech while speaking English.

Uchyotka (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I decided to save my section on "MGIMO finished" jokes here for further editing, since it's a "this whole section needs clarification" tier (I used it as an illustration for "omiting words" and overuse of simple tenses by novices.

Omitting words. "MGIMO finished?"
[This whole section requires explanation.] This "Runglish" style of overusing the "simple" tense may feel difficult to comprehend, yet distinctive, easy to recognize (as if it were a dialect).
"Runglish" as "Russian's expectably flawed English speech" can be illustrated with the following joke:
- How much watch?
- Six watches
- MGIMO finished?
- Yes, you?
- FizTeh
- Drink?
- A-a-ask!
The joke (and a sectionful[7] of similar jokes) is supposed to reflect, how many words just cannot be omited, avoided in English, while synthetic language like Russian allows such practice in day-to-day chat.
However, the dialog in Russian corresponding to the above:
- Который час? (Kotoryi chas?)
- Шесть часов (Chest' chasov)
- МГИМО закончил? (MGIMO zakonchil?)
- Да, [a] ты? (Da, a ty?)
- ФизТех. (FizTekh)
- Выпьем? (Vypyem?)
- Спра-а-ашиваешь! (Spra-a-ashivayesh'!)
would be okay for informal chat.
The "how much watch" phrase is a literal translation of "какой час?" phrase, used as "what time is it?" question.
"Six watches" was supposed to mean "six hours"; however, the word for "watch" device and "hour" unit of time is the same in Russian: "час".
The Russian language has no "simple/continous/perfect/perfect-continous" division of tenses (instead relying only on past/present/future indication on time), however, "complete/incomplete" forms for verbs replace the simple/continuous tenses.
Such a language avoids articles and "to be/to have" structures, thus omitting many words in sentences like "are you M.G.I.M.O. graduate?", "Yes, and what about you?", "I am from FizTeh university", "Should we have a drink?" and "A-a-and you're even asking! [Of course!]". In the same time, "FizTeh" word answers "Yes, you?" question, which was also an answer to the "MGIMO finished?" question itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

Collective nouns take a singular verb in Russian, which can lead to Runglish results like:

This is simply not true--Nixer 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

people = народ (narod) in that context. Народ is singular noun.

That's wrong. Russian has the same form like English in that case!

folk = народ which is singular in both languages

people = люди which is plural in both languages as well!!!

people != folk and same in Russian люди != народ

Lefsha 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vam cheesa otslice-it' ili odnym piece-om? (You want [me] to have sliced the cheese or in one piece?)

Navasibirsk State University finisht? Ask! 80.66.66.217 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time:

Children = дети (deti) - word is plural.

Not very often I see this error.

Vam cheese po-slice-it ili whole-ym piece-om voz'mete!:)

This is correct, just example in the article wrong. The better example:

"By default _users_ can't access additional functionality of the programm" - "По умолчанию _пользователь_ не имеет доступа к расширенному функционалу программы."

The article looks fairly clean except for the Spoken Manner section. The statements regarding the Russian language need to be fact checked by a fluent speaker of English and Russian. Kerowyn 08:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Russian native speaker with comprehensive knowledge of English. I confirm that that section is correct.

Bad, bed, bat, bet - can sound like "bet" in the worst case. In the best case a Russian native speaker is likely to have problems to pronounce distinctively the vowels: "bad" and "bed". Even more difficult task is to understand what a native English speaker says. For example, guess what I heard once upon a time instead of "fox". :) Ъыь 20:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for "necroposting"; I legit should add 2 my cents:

1. In Russian, English "And" and "Eng" are transliterated the same way: "Энд" (as if both are "End") 2. Not many Russians realize Russian "Я" is much closer to "ae" sound, than "Э".

.....

  >For example, guess what I heard once upon a time instead of "fox". :)

Quite a guessable whooey. Uchyotka (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing not in the spoken manner section I have noticed with Russians who speak English is the problem with double-negatives (double, triple, etc. negatives are not only fine but important in Russian, whereas in English double negatives are not allowed in normal speech). I don't claim to be an expert in "Runglish" at all, but it seemed like a somewhat glaring omission? Just a thought which came to mind in looking at the article. --Fastfission 20:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this point to the grammar section. Feel free to restate my text. Ъыь 06:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need no education isn't Runglish, but that's a good notion.

in Russian, a phrase "Нам не нужно никакого образования" would be completely fine and standard-sounding. Uchyotka (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

> Though "I haven't seen anybody" in Russian is correct, it's not widely used

In russian it'll be translated with double "no" anyway, I don't see any way to translate this with single "no".

Я никого не видел (Ya nikogo ne videl) / Я не видел никого(Ya ne videl nikogo).

And it's a normal answer, so it's widely used.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Pashator 06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, not anyway. :) "Anybody" = "кто-либо", "I haven't seen anybody" = "Я не видел кого-либо"

This is an example of usage: я не видел кого-либо подозрительного (I haven't seen anybody suspect.) Ъыь 15:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objected to... Such a phrase would be understood correctly, but you'll hardly find a single Russian speaking this way (instead of double negative "я никого подозрительного не видел"). I'm Russian, living in Russia. ringm 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but then it should be explained in the article with example and again it's a normal sentance, widely used. Pashator 06:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't understand this example

After the last edit, what is currently point 7 in Grammar states this:

Though "I haven't seen anybody" (Я никого не видел) in Russian is correct (or at least would be correctly understood), it's used not often or more particularly (Я не видел никого подозрительного - I haven't seen anybody suspicious), while "I have seen nobody" would be completely incorrect.

First of all, "Я никого не видел" is not a correct translation of "I haven't seen anybody" (this was the latest change by an IP editor). Second, the (English) sentence structure seems (at least to me) somewhat confusing, specifically at the "more particularly" point; although I'm able to understand its meaning, someone without the knowledge of Russian may not. I rewrote this to hopefully change both problems.IgorSF 11:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lefsha 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC) I would like to disagree to all of these statements. It's wrong to think that Russians use the double negative form. Cause there is a big difference between "не" and "ни" !!! There is no russian sentence where can you see something like this:[reply]

"Я не видел некто" - cause that is real double negative form! Nobody will say it in russian. Comparing this to "Я видел нечто"

The word "никто" оr in genitive form "никого", means "nor anyone" or "nor anybody". So it's only kind of escalating of the meaning. So the correct translation of russian sentence: "Я не видел никого" in English would be "I have not seen even someone." Which is not double negative in both cases. As an example, the longer russian version would be: "Я не видел _ни_ одного человека", which is once again not double negative. And it's totally wrong to say: "Я не видел _не_ человека"

The only problem is, that in russian language is not common to say negative sentence without "ни", because of the different meaning of nobody in english and "некто" in russian. Nobody in english means absence of anybody. "некто" in russian means someone whom you don't know. "нечто" means something you are not familiar with, but not an absence of things (nothing). So there is just no equivalents to such english words like "nobody" or "nothing" in russian. People use different form like "nor anybody" or "absence of even someone"

But it will be always mistaken, to think about double negative form in that case. Even russians are often confusing in use of "не" and "ни". Lefsha 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>to do sport → to go in for sports

Is it really not correct to say "go in for sports", "go in for dancing, playing piano" etc? We've been taught this all the time at school and university. --Anthony Ivanoff 17:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; at least, it's not a standard usage in American English. It very well may be standard or at least acceptable in British English though; many of forms we've been taught in Russian schools correspond to British English (my favorite example, for some reason, is flat versus apartment). IgorSF 11:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not standard British in the sense that it's been taught in Soviet and Russian schools. It's one not very common idiomatic way that someone might say they "do a lot of" sport. What jars is the extent to which Russians have been encouraged to use it. It's not Runglish, though. (Я вхожу для спортов???)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I of a polish descent, and was looking for fine russian languge tutorial, essentialy wanted to have phrases which sounds similar in english/russian, but found this. It's completly useless, it can be only a tips for russian people to ommit common mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.105.115.25 (talk • contribs)

Wikipeida is not a how-to guide. It's an encyclopedia. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed an error, but it is possible to refix it otherwise.

The table was changed on May 13, 2007 (look at the history to learn more). Someone replaced "Спрашивает" by "Спрашиваешь". It was good, but the editor didn't replace "Asks!" by "Ask!", so I did it.

"Спрашиваешь" means "Askest!" ("Thou askest!") word-for-word. What a pity it is Early New English, not modern English!!

A. Demidov (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this original research? There are no references and I doubt there is anything published it. Correct me if I'm wrong. Billscottbob (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there might be stuff published about Runglish/Russlish, you're right. It's horribly unreferenced and possibly OR. It's tagged as being unreferenced and if you think there's something that's wrong, you can take it out. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was some research published on this: example: [1], but i doubt that the current article reflects it.--Hq3473 (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a bit of a mess. There is no clear definition of Runglish; it has too many things about how Russian and English are different, and how Russians make mistakes when trying to speak English. That's not a phenomenon in itself. In addition there is no distinction made between simple loan words (such as ноу хоу) and actual mixing up of English and Russian as a cultural phenomenon.

I'm going to be bold and cut some stuff out, starting with that old joke from a film (it's not Runglish, it's a joke inserted as OR).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the joke was used for a reason. Added the "MGIMO finished" joke back for sake of explaining "omitting words" issue.Uchyotka (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After cleaning up, I realise that there are almost no sources for Runglish (the Deletion discussion cited sources that were either mirrors or translations of each other), and half of the stuff (such as the volapuk - Runglish similarity) appear to have no sources at all, at least none that I can find (searching produces lots of mirrors of the article page). As for the "spoken manner" - don't those Russians have funny accents and make mistakes is not encyclopaedic.

I suggest that the article is divided into three kinds of Runglish - the space station and other international co-operations, the Runglish of ex pats, and Runglish (Russlish/Nadsat etc.) in literature as something of interest. Foreign loanwords in Russian proper is not Runglish per se. Runglish itself is a phenomenon arising from people trying to use two different languages at once.

Unless anyone objects, I'll change things in a few days.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to list the struggles I had to face when learning English. Uchyotka (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly this refers to spread of English loanwords in Russian language and has nothing to do with neither English nor Runglish themselves. 178.177.192.133 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Some examples" section:

• "Ized cyawfeh": Not only is it unclear how this is pronounced, it does not seem like it is an accurate pronunciation anyway. Also this is an example of how "iced coffee" would be pronounced in a Russian accent rather than an example of Runglish. I checked the source article and it seems the reporter who wrote it did not have any knowledge of either Russian or Phonetics and just spelled it in the craziest way possible to make the article stand out more.
• "Slaysayushiy chiz": Personally, I find it unlikely that a word like "slaysayushiy" would ever be used in Runglish. Runglish speakers would rather resort to a more regular word such as "razslaysenyy" or "naslaysenyy" if not just "sliced".

--- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too have some reservations about the veracity of the whole concept of a Runglish. Particulary is the "Ized Cyawfeh" example. Although my grip on russian is limited I can read it and speak it enough to buy coffee (in slavic states). In russian, coffee is кофе which given its limited accent options would only be pronounced 'cofye' of 'cafye' so its already nearer to (UK) english than 'cyawfeh'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.163 (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it hard to use.

"Ized Chyai" would be plausible for iced tea, but!

Word "Chyaifeh" is, probably, a reference to word "chaif", mix of "chai" and "kaif".

"Kaif" is Russian way to pronounce borrowed "keif".

I think it was a multy-layered pun rather rhan just Runglish. Uchyotka (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for "Slay-sayushiy syr":

Word "***ayshiy" would refer to a tool which does ****.

So, a knife "which slices" (e.g. isn't dull) would be "slaysayuzhiy" in Runglish joke manner; the cheese would be "naslaisanniiy" (adaptation of normal Russian "narezanniy") Uchyotka (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Runglish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512003433/http://mainbruecke.com/reisen_ru.html to http://mainbruecke.com/reisen_ru.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109222910/http://nycma.fcny.org/nycma/voices/170/briefs/briefs_3/ to http://nycma.fcny.org/nycma/voices/170/briefs/briefs_3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

из самых шитовых статей. почти целиком хуйта и тень на плетень. Всё переписать.

лмао, очень может быть, я сам вообще не знаю. but this is an encyclopedia, not a place for our opinions. keep your commentary here on the talk page, and out of the article. Urodov (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Оу май. ОУ МА-АЙ!

This article is one-sided (influx of foregin words in Russian for no reason other than showing off); but it lacked any coverage on the opposite situation: calling out distinctive style of Russians in English chat and name it "Runglish" dialect.

Алсо, where's ... you know, where's coverage of pre-Runglish similar problems. Ну там, канцелярит, или смесь французского с нижегородским... Uchyotka (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

>Всё переписать.

Отрерайтил)))))))))) Uchyotka (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Мне тут предьявили "статья на рунглише нечитаемом написана", вот и решил навестить статью... I recently faced word "runglish" in Wikipedia being used not as Russian-with-lots-of-English-nouns; but as a summary, pharse similar to article written in incomprehencive runglish was used.

короче, есть "сведлиш" и прочие "бельглиши", пришлось и про рунглиш статью допиливать. At this rate, after seeing some other "lishes", I added my section.

Additional info:"Swenglish" article refers to hybring English mispronounced by Swedes circa 1938, rather than word borrowing practice. I decided to follow such way, now the article has a section on similar topic. Uchyotka Uchyotka (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who wrote

"Much of this is unsourced and frankly nonsensical. I have no idea what information the text is trying to convey in many places"

I have this answer: Of course it is!

1. In Russian, the very word "runglish" refers to adopting confusingly large amount of English words. Originally, the early article from ~2007 was about this kind of "runglish" etc.
2. Meanwhile, there is a list of lishes - a bunch of Wikipedia articles which describe which errors are common for which country. In this sense, there should be an article on "Runglish" of a different kind --- a "lish" a Russian may have when speaking English.

Well, №1 got a little mixed with №2. Sorry. I tried to describe some too many things in one article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused - most of it I can understand just fine, but it seems to have been written in the subject of the article. Should it not be copy-edited to American English? I'm British myself so if I did it, I'd just make a hash of it. (I've this habit of not actually doing edits, but trying to discuss them first on talk pages; I seem to have a distant memory of being a problematic editor.) Ellenor2000 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• IDK, heavy Runglish style is self-decriptory. It would be of great help to fix "Google Translate tier" grammar though. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I do believe my heavy Runglish style is important indeed. Partially, that's because of the IKEA effect. Also, that's because a well-written article in British English may look a bit too tempting, considering how British people are notorious for supporting The Sun tabloid's news 81.89.66.133 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, an anonymous with IP related to New York attempted "Correcting a blatant lie"(sic!), prompting me to wonder.

As far as I can tell, it's rude to call one's edits "blatant lies". And the very capacity of being so rude hints to a lack of tact.

Russians do, however, frequently shorten certain words or phrases. The word for “now,” seychas (сейчас) is often pronounced as “shas” (щас) or just “sha” (ща)”. This is similar to the phenomenon wherein some British English speakers pronounce "a bottle of water" as "a bo'oh o' wa'er" (effectively silencing the "t" letter).

First and foremost, the claim here is based on a single word, as opposed to an accent.

Secondly, in Russia - mostly - the practice to shorten сейчас to щаз is frowned upon. "Shchaz" sounds low-culture, gopnik-ish, even. This is not to be put on par with an accent I was describing. Although, I have to admit, some actual accents in Russia may sound weird. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Discussing the idea whether British accent is a thing to begin with would be a diffeent story. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidally(?), xkcd have published a comic (#2942) on fluid speech several days after I posted this comment. That's how I learned a fancy "glottal stop" phrase. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]