Interslavic language

Interslavic
Medžuslovjanski, Меджусловјански
Created by	Ondrej Rečnik, Gabriel Svoboda, Jan van Steenbergen, Igor Polyakov, Vojtěch Merunka, Steeven Radzikowski
Date	2006
Setting and usage	Auxiliary language, intended for communication between or with speakers of different Slavic languages
Users	several hundreds (2012)
Purpose	Constructed languages International auxiliary languages Zonal constructed languages Interslavic
Writing system	Latin, Cyrillic
Language codes
ISO 639-3	None (mis)
Glottolog	None

Interslavic (Medžuslovjanski, in Cyrillic Меджусловјански) is an international auxiliary language based on the Slavic languages. Its purpose is to facilitate communication between representatives of different Slavic nations, as well as to allow people who do not know any Slavic language to communicate with Slavs. For the latter, it can fulfill an educational role as well.

Interslavic can be classified as a semi-artificial language. It is essentially a modern continuation of Old Church Slavonic, but also draws on the various improvised language forms Slavs have been using for centuries to communicate with Slavs of other nationalities, for example in multi-Slavic environments and on the Internet, providing them with a scientific base. Thus, both grammar and vocabulary are based on the commonalities between the Slavic languages, and artificial elements are avoided. Its main focus lies on instant understandability rather than easy learning, a balance typical for naturalistic (as opposed to schematic) languages.

The language has a long history, predating constructed languages like Volapük and Esperanto by centuries: the oldest description, written by the Croatian priest Juraj Križanić, goes back to the years 1659–1666. In its current form, Interslavic was created in 2006 under the name Slovianski. In 2011, Slovianski underwent a thorough reform and merged with two other projects, simultaneously changing its name to "Interslavic", a name that was first proposed by the Czech Ignac Hošek in 1908.

Interslavic can be written using the Latin and the Cyrillic alphabets.

Background

Gramatíčno izkázanje ob rúskom jezíku (1665) by Juraj Križanić, the first Interslavic grammar

The history of the Interslavic or Pan-Slavic language is closely connected with Pan-Slavism, an ideology that endeavors cultural and political unification of all Slavs, based on the conception that all Slavic people are part of a single Slavic nation. Along with this belief came also the need for a Slavic umbrella language. A strong candidate for that position was Russian, the language of the largest (and during most of the 19th century the only) Slavic state and also mother tongue of more than half of the Slavs. This option enjoyed most of its popularity in Russia itself, but was also favoured by Pan-Slavists abroad, for example the Slovak Ľudovít Štúr. Others believed that Old Church Slavonic was a better and also more neutral solution. In previous centuries, this language had served as an administrative language in a large part of the Slavic world, and it was still used on a large scale in Orthodox liturgy, where it played a role similar to Latin in the West. Old Church Slavonic had the additional advantage of being very similar to the common ancestor of the Slavic languages, Proto-Slavic. However, Old Church Slavonic had several practical disadvantages as well: it was written in a highly archaic form of Cyrillic, grammar was complex and its vocabulary was characterized by many obsolete words as well as the absence of words for modern concepts. Hence, early examples of Pan-Slavic language projects were aimed at modernizing Old Church Slavonic and adapting it to the needs of everyday communication.

Early projects

The first Interslavic grammar, Gramatíčno izkázanje ob rúskom jezíku by the Croatian priest Juraj Križanić, was written in 1665. He referred to the language as Ruski, but in reality it was mostly based on a mixture of the Russian edition of Church Slavonic and his own Ikavian Čakavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. Križanić used it not only for this grammar, but also in other works, including the treatise Politika (1663–1666). According to an analysis of the Dutch Slavist Tom Ekman, 59% of the words used in Politika are of common Slavic descent, 10% come from Russian and Church Slavonic, 9% from Serbo-Croatian and 2.5% from Polish.

It should be noted that Križanić was not the first who attempted writing in a language understandable to all Slavs. In 1583 another Croatian priest, Šime Budinić, had translated the Summa Doctrinae Christanae by Petrus Canisius into "Slovignsky", in which he used both the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets.

After Križanić, numerous other efforts have been made to create an umbrella language for the speakers of Slavic languages. A notable example is Universalis Lingua Slavica by the Slovak attorney Ján Herkeľ (1786–1853), published in Latin and in Slovak in 1826. Unlike Križanić' project, this project was closer to the West Slavic languages.

During the second half of the 19th century Pan-Slavic language projects were mostly the domain of Slovenes and Croats. In this era of awakening national consciousness, the Russians were the only Slavs who had their own state; other Slavic peoples inhabited large, mostly non-Slavic states, and clear borders between the various nations were mostly lacking. Among the numerous efforts at creating written standards for the South Slavic languages there were also efforts at establishing a common South Slavic language, Illyrian, that might also serve as a literary language for all Slavs in the future. Of special importance is the work of Matija Majar (1809–1892), a Slovenian Austroslavist who later converted to Pan-Slavism. In 1865 he published Uzajemni Pravopis Slavjanski ("Mutual Slavic Orthography"). In this work, he postulated that the best way for Slavs to communicate with other Slavs was taking own language as a starting point and then modifying it in steps. First, he proposed changing the orthography of each individual language into a generic ("mutual") Pan-Slavic orthography, subsequently he described a grammar that was based on comparing the five major Slavic languages of his days: Old Church Slavonic, Russian, Polish, Czech and Serbian. Apart from a book about the language itself, Majar also used it for a biography of Cyril and Methodius and for a magazine he published in the years 1873–1875, Slavjan. A fragment in the language can still be seen on the altar of Majar's church in Görtschach. Other Pan-Slavic language projects were published in the same period by the Croatian Matija Ban, the Slovenes Radoslav Razlag and Božidar Raič, as well as the Macedonian Grigor Parlichev – all based on the idea of combining Old Church Slavonic with elements from the modern South Slavic languages.

• Authors of Pan-Slavic language projects in the 19th century
• 

  Stefan Stratimirović
  (1757–1836)

• 

  Matija Ban
  (1818–1903)

• 

  Radoslav Razlag
  (1826–1880)

• 

  Božidar Raič
  (1827–1886)

• 

  Matija Majar-Ziljski
  (1809–1892)

• 

  Grigor Parlichev
  (1830–1893)

All authors mentioned above were motivated by the belief that all Slavic languages were dialects of one single Slavic language rather than separate languages. They deplored the fact that these dialects had diverged beyond mutual comprehensability, and the Pan-Slavic language they envisioned was intended to reverse this process. Their long-term objective was that this language would replace the individual Slavic languages. Majar, for example, compared the Pan-Slavic language with standardized languages like Ancient Greek and several modern languages:

The ancient Greeks spoke and wrote in four dialects, but nevertheless they had one single Greek language and one single Greek literature. Many modern educated nations, for example the French, the Italians, the English and the Germans, have a higher number of more divergent dialects and subdialects than we Slavs, and yet they have one single literary language. What is possible for other nations and what really exists among them, why should this be impossible only for us Slavs?

— Matija Majar, Sveta brata Ciril i Metod, slavjanska apostola i osnovatelja slovstva slavjanskoga (1864)

Consequently these authors did not consider their projects constructed languages at all. In most cases they provided grammatical comparisons between the Slavic languages, sometimes but not always offering solutions they labelled as "Pan-Slavic". What their projects have in common that they neither have a rigidly prescriptive grammar, nor a separate vocabulary.

The twentieth century

Bohumil Holý
(1885–1947)

In the early 20th century it had become clear that the divergation of the Slavic languages was irreversible and the concept of a Pan-Slavic literary language was no longer realistic. The Pan-Slavic dream had lost most of its power, and Pan-Slavists had to satisfy themselves with the formation of two multinational Slavic states, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. However, the need for a common language of communication for Slavs was still felt, and due to the influence of artificial languages like Esperanto, efforts were made to create a language that was no longer supposed to replace the individual Slavic languages, but to serve as an additional second language for Interslavic communication.

In the same period, the nexus of Interslavic activity shifted to the North, especially to the Czech lands. In 1907 the Czech dialectologist Ignac Hošek (1852–1919) published a grammar of Neuslavisch, a proposal for a common literary language for all Slavs within the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Five years later another Czech, Josef Konečný, published Slavina, a "Slavic Esperanto", which however had very little in common with Esperanto, but instead was mostly based on Czech. Whereas these two projects were naturalistic, the same cannot be said about two other projects by Czech authors, Slovanština by Edmund Kolkop and Slavski jezik by Bohumil Holý. Both projects, published in 1912 and 1920 respectively, show a clear tendency towards simplification, for example by eliminating grammatical gender and cases, and schematicism.

During the 1950s the Czech poet and former Esperantist Ladislav Podmele (1920–2000), also known under his pseudonym Jiří Karen, worked for several years with a team of prominent interlinguists on an elaborate project, Mežduslavjanski jezik ("Interslavic language"). Among other things, they wrote a grammar, an Esperanto–Interslavic word list, a dictionary, a course and a textbook. Although none of those were ever published, the project gained some attention of linguists from various countries. Probably due to the political reality of those days, this language was primarily based on Russian.

The digital age

Although Pan-Slavism has not played a role of any significance since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, globalization and new media like the Internet have led to a renewed interest in a language that would be understandable for all Slavs alike. Older projects were largely forgotten, but as it became relatively easy for authors of new projects to publish their work, several new projects emerged. Most of them originated from Slavic émigrée circles. During the first years of the 21st century, especially Slovio of the Slovak Mark Hučko acquired some fame. Unlike most previous projects it was not a naturalistic, but a schematic language, its grammar being based largely on Esperanto. Slovio was not only intended to serve as an auxiliary language for Slavs, but also for use on a global scale like Esperanto. For that reason it gained little acceptance among Slavs: a high degree of simplification, characteristic for most international auxiliary languages, makes it easier to learn for non-Slavs, but widens the distance with the natural Slavic languages and gives the language an overly synthetic character, which by many is considered a disadvantage.

In March 2006, the Slovianski project was started by a group of people from different countries, who felt the need for a simple and neutral Slavic language that the Slavs could understand without prior learning. The language they envisioned should be naturalistic and only consist of material existing in all or most Slavic languages, without any artificial additions. Initially, Slovianski was being developed in two different variants: a naturalistic version known as Slovianski-N (initiated by Jan van Steenbergen and further developed by Igor Polyakov), and a more simplified version known as Slovianski-P (initiated by Ondrej Rečnik and further developed by Gabriel Svoboda). The difference was that Slovianski-N had six grammatical cases, while Slovianski-P—like English, Bulgarian and Macedonian—used prepositions instead. Apart from these two variants (N stands for naturalism, P for pidgin or prosti "simple"), a schematic version, Slovianski-S, has been experimented with as well, but was abandoned in an early stage of the project. In 2009 it was decided that only the naturalistic version would be continued under the name Slovianski. Although Slovianski had three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter), six cases and full conjugation of verbs—features usually avoided in international auxiliary languages—a high level of simplification was achieved by means of simple, unambiguous endings and irregularity being kept to a minimum.

Slovianski was mostly used in Internet traffic and in a news letter, Slovianska Gazeta. In February and March 2010 there was much publicity about Slovianski after articles had been dedicated to it on the Polish internet portal Interia.pl and the Serbian newspaper Večernje Novosti. Shortly thereafter, articles about Slovianski appeared in the Slovak newspaper Pravda, on the news site of the Czech broadcasting station ČT24, in the Serbian blogosphere Jedan jezik za sve Slovene and the Serbian edition of Reader's Digest, as well as other newspapers and internet portals in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Ukraine.

Neoslavonic logo

Slovianski has played a role in the development of other, related projects as well. Rozumio (2008) and Slovioski (2009) were both efforts to build a bridge between Slovianski and Slovio. Originally, Slovioski was merely intended to reform Slovio, but gradually it developed into a separate language. Like Slovianski, it was a collaborative project that existed in two variants: a "full" and a simplified version. In January 2010 a new language was published, Neoslavonic ("Novoslovienskij", later "Novoslověnsky") by the Czech Vojtěch Merunka, based on Old Church Slavonic grammar but using part of Slovianski's vocabulary.

In 2011, Slovianski, Slovioski and Novosloviensky merged into one common project under the name Interslavic (Medžuslovjanski). Slovianski grammar and dictionary were expanded to include all options of Neoslavonic as well, turning it into a more flexible language based on prototypes rather than fixed rules. From that time Slovianski and Neoslavonic have no longer been developed as separate projects, even though their names are still frequently in use as synonyms or "dialects" of Interslavic.

In the same year, the various simplified forms of Slovianski and Slovioski that were meant to meet the needs of beginners and non-Slavs, were reworked into a highly simplified form of Interslavic, Slovianto.

Community

Interslavic has an active community, including an Internet forum with around 350 members and two Facebook groups with more than 600 and 400 members respectively, Furthermore, the project has an online news portal and a wiki.

The number of people who speak Interslavic is difficult to establish; the lack of demographic data is a common problem among constructed languages, so that estimates are always rough. The Bulgarian author G. Iliev mentions a number of "several hundreds of speakers" in 2012, the language's Facebook page mentions 4600 speakers.

Alphabet

One of the main principles of Interslavic is that it can be written on any Slavic keyboard. The border between Latin and Cyrillic runs through the middle of Slavic territory, and therefore both alphabets can be used. Because of the differences between for example the Polish alphabet and other Latin alphabets, as well as between Serbian/Macedonian Cyrillic and other forms of Cyrillic, Interslavic has no official orthography, but uses a prototype orthography instead, which means that many phonemes can be written and pronounced in various ways. For example, the distinction between hard and soft consonants (t vs. ť, r vs. ŕ, etc.), characteristic for the West and East Slavic languages, is optional both in speaking and in writing. Because Interslavic is not an ethnic language, there are no severe rules regarding accentuation either.

What all varieties of Interslavic have in common is the following basic set of phonemes that can be found in all Slavic languages:

Latin	Cyrillic	Alternative representations	Pronunciation
A a	A а		ɑ ~ a
B b	Б б		b
C c	Ц ц		ts
Č č	Ч ч	Lat. cz, cx	tʃ ~ tʂ
D d	Д д		d
DŽ dž	ДЖ дж	Lat. dzs, dzx, dzh, dż, dƶ	dʒ ~ dʐ
E e	Е е		ɛ ~ e
F f	Ф ф		f
G g	Г г		g ~ ɦ
H h	Х х	Lat. ch	x
I i	И и	Cyr. і	i ~ ji
J j	Ј ј	Cyr. й	j
K k	К к		k
L l	Л л		l ~ ɫ
Ľ ľ	ЛЬ ль	Lat. lj, l’ / Cyr. љ	lj ~ lʲ ~ ʎ
M m	М м		m
N n	Н н		n
Ń ń	НЬ нь	Lat. ň, nj, n’ / Cyr. њ	nj ~ nʲ ~ ɲ
O o	О о		ɔ ~ o
P p	П п		p
R r	Р р		r
S s	С с		s
Š š	Ш ш	Lat. sz, sx	ʃ ~ ʂ
T t	Т т		t
U u	У у		u
V v	В в		v ~ ʋ
Y y	Ы ы	Lat. i, Cyr. и	i ~ ɪ ~ ɨ
Z z	З з		z
Ž ž	Ж ж	Lat. zs, zx, zh, ż, ƶ	ʒ ~ ʐ

Apart from the basic alphabet above, other characters are used as well, usually carrying a diacritic, convey additional etymological information and linking directly to Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic. Their usage is not mandatory. The purpose of these characters is threefold:

• they allow for a more precise pronunciation,
• because sound changes from Proto-Slavic tend to be regular in all Slavic languages, they can be linked to a particular phoneme in every individual Slavic language, thus enhancing comprehensability,
• by writing and/or pronouncing them in a different way, they can be used to manipulate the language in such way that it becomes more understandable for speakers of particular languages (in a process called "flavorization").

Latin	Cyrillic	Variants	Pronunciation
Å å	—	usually: Lat. a, Cyr. а	ɒ
Ę ę	Ѧ ѧ	usually: Lat. e, Cyr. е	jæ ~ ʲæ
Ě ě	Ѣ ѣ	usually: Lat. e, ie, je, Cyr. е	jɛ ~ ʲɛ ~ ɛ
Ų ų	Ѫ ѫ	usually: Lat. u, Cyr. у	u ~ ow
Ò ò	Ъ ъ	usually: Lat. o, Cyr. о	ə
Ŕ ŕ	РЬ рь	Lat. ř, rj, r’; usually: Lat. r, Cyr. р	rj ~ rʲ ~ r̝ ~ r
Ď ď	ДЬ дь	Lat. dj, d’; usually: Lat. d, Cyr. д	dj ~ dʲ ~ ɟ ~ d
Ť ť	ТЬ ть	Lat. tj, t’; usually: Lat. t, Cyr. т	tj ~ tʲ ~ c ~ t
Ś ś	СЬ сь	Lat. sj, s’; usually: Lat. s, Cyr. с	sj ~ sʲ ~ ɕ ~ s
Ź ź	ЗЬ зь	Lat. zj, z’; usually: Lat. z, Cyr. з	zj ~ zʲ ~ ʑ ~ z
Ć ć	Ћ ћ	Lat. tj; usually: Lat. č, Cyr. ч	ʨ
Đ đ	Ђ ђ	Lat. dź; usually: Lat. dž, Cyr. дж	ʥ
X x	КС кс	usually: Lat. ks	ks

At last, the following ligatures can also be encountered in Interslavic:

Ligature	Instead of
Я я	ја or ьа
Є є	је or ье
Ї ї	ји or ьи
Ю ю	ју or ьу
Ѩ ѩ	јѧ or ьѧ
Ѭ ѭ	јѫ or ьѫ
Щ щ	шч or шт

Soft consonants

The consonants ľ, ń, ŕ, ť, ď, ś and ź are softened or palatalized counterparts of l, n, r, t, d, s and z. The latter may also be pronounced like their softened/palatalized equivalents before i, ě, ę and possibly before e. This pronunciation is not mandatory, though: they may as well be written and pronounced hard.

Soft consonants are normally represented by an acute or a haček, but other ways of writing are possible as well: nj, n’, etc. To avoid texts from becoming heavy on diacritics, it is recommended that before a vowel, soft consonants are written as a hard consonant followed by a j: nom. koń, gen. konja (instead of końa).

Morphology

Interslavic grammar is based on the greatest common denominator of that of the natural Slavic languages, and partly also a simplification thereof. It consists of elements that can be encountered in all or at least most of them.

Nouns

Interslavic is an inflecting language. Nouns can have three genders, two numbers (singular and plural), as well as six cases (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, instrumental and locative). Since several Slavic languages also have a vocative, it is usually displayed in tables as well, even though strictly speaking the vocative is not a case. It occurs only in the singular of masculine and feminine nouns.

There is no article. The complicated system of noun classes in Slavic has been reduced to four or five declensions:

• masculine nouns (ending in a – usually hard – consonant): dom "house", mųž "man"
• feminine nouns ending in -a: žena "woman", zemja "earth"
• feminine nouns ending in a soft consonant: kosť "bone"
• neuter nouns ending in -o or -e: slovo "word", morje "sea"
• Old Church Slavonic also had a consonantal declension that in most Slavic languages merged into the remaining declensions. Some Interslavic projects and writers preserve this declension, which consists of nouns of all three genders, mostly neuters:
  • neuter nouns of the group -mę/-men-: imę/imene "name"
  • neuter nouns of the group -ę/-ęt- (children and young animals): telę/telęte "calf"
  • neuter nouns of the group -o/-es-: nebo/nebese "heaven"
  • masculine nouns of the group -en-: kameń/kamene "stone"
  • feminine nouns with the ending -òv: cŕkòv/cŕkve "church"
  • feminine nouns with the ending -i/-er-: mati/matere "mother"

Declension of nouns

	masculine				neuter		feminine			consonantal
	hard, animate	hard, non-animate	soft, animate	soft, non-animate	hard	soft	-a, hard	-a, soft	-Ø	m.	n.	f.
	singular
N.	brat "brother"	dom "house"	mųž "man"	kraj "land"	slovo "word"	morje "sea"	žena "woman"	zemja "earth"	kosť "bone"	kamen "stone"	imę "name"	mati "mother"
A.	brata	dom	mųža	kraj	slovo	morje	ženų	zemjų	kosť	kamen	imę	mater
G.	brata	doma	mųža	kraja	slova	morja	ženy	zemje	kosti	kamene	imene	matere
D.	bratu	domu	mųžu	kraju	slovu	morju	ženě	zemji	kosti	kameni	imeni	materi
I.	bratom	domom	mųžem	krajem	slovom	morjem	ženojų	zemjejų	kostjų	kamenem	imenem	materjų
L.	bratě	domě	mųži	kraji	slově	morji	ženě	zemji	kosti	kameni	imeni	materi
V.	brate	dome	mųžu	kraju	slovo	morje	ženo	zemjo	kost(i)	kamen(i)	imę	mati
	plural
N.	brati	domy	mųži	kraje	slova	morja	ženy	zemje	kosti	kameni	imena	materi
A.	bratov	domy	mųžev	kraje	slova	morja	ženy	zemje	kosti	kameni	imena	materi
G.	bratov	domov	mųžev	krajev	slov	mor(ej)	žen	zem(ej)	kostij	kamenev	imen	materij
D.	bratam	domam	mųžam	krajam	slovam	morjam	ženam	zemjam	kostjam	kamenam	imenam	materam
I.	bratami	domami	mųžami	krajami	slovami	morjami	ženami	zemjami	kostjami	kamenami	imenami	materami
L.	bratah	domah	mųžah	krajah	slovah	morjah	ženah	zemjah	kostjah	kamenah	imenah	materah

Adjectives

Adjectives are always regular. They agree with the noun they modify in gender, case and number, and are usually placed before it. In the column with the masculine forms, the first relates to animate nouns, the second to inanimate nouns. A distinction is made between hard and soft stems, for example: dobry "good" and svěži "fresh":

Declension of adjectives

	hard			soft
	m.	n.	f.	m.	n.	f.
	singular
N.	dobry	dobro	dobra	svěži	svěže	svěža
A.	dobrogo/dobry	dobro	dobrų	svěžego/svěži	svěže	svěžų
G.	dobrogo	dobrogo	dobroj	svěžego	svěžego	svěžej
D.	dobromu	dobromu	dobroj	svěžemu	svěžemu	svěžej
I.	dobrym	dobrym	dobrojų	svěžim	svěžim	svěžejų
L.	dobrom	dobrom	dobroj	svěžem	svěžem	svěžej
	plural
N.	dobri/dobre	dobre	dobre	svěži/svěže	svěže	svěže
A.	dobryh/dobre	dobre	dobre	svěžih/svěže	svěža	svěže
G.	dobryh			svěžih
D.	dobrym			svěžim
I.	dobrymi			svěžimi
L.	dobryh			svěžih

Some writers do not distinguish between hard and soft adjectives. One can write dobrego instead of dobrogo, svěžogo instead of svěžego.

Comparison

The comparative is formed with the ending -(ěj)ši: slabši "weaker", pòlnějši "fuller". The superlative is formed by adding the prefix naj- to the comparative: najslabši "weakest". Comparatives can also be formed with the adverbs bolje or vyše "more", superlatives with the adverbs najbolje or najvyše "most".

Adverbs

An adjective can be turned into an adverb with the ending -o: dobro "well", svěžo "freshly". Comparatives and superlatives can be adverbialized with the ending -ěje: slaběje "weaker".

Pronouns

The personal pronouns are: ja "I", ty "you, thou", on "he", ona "she", ono "it", my "we", vy "you" (pl.), oni "they". When a personal pronoun of the third person is preceded by a preposition, n- is placed before it.

Personal pronouns

	singular					plural			reflexive
	1st person	2nd person	3rd person			1st person	2nd person	3rd person
			masculine	neuter	feminine
N.	ja	ty	on	ono	ona	my	vy	oni	—
A.	mene (mę)	tebe (tę)	jego		jų	nas	vas	ih	sebe (sę)
G.	mene	tebe	jego		jej				sebe
D.	mně (mi)	tobě (ti)	jemu		jej	nam	vam	im	sobě (si)
I.	mnojų	tobojų	nim		njų	nami	vami	nimi	sobojų
L.	mně	tobě	nim		njej	nas	vas	nih	sobě

Other pronouns are inflected as adjectives:

• the possessive pronouns moj "my", tvoj "your, thy", naš "our", vaš "your" (pl.), svoj "my/your/his/her/our/their own", as well as čij "whose"
• the demonstrative pronouns toj "this, that", tutoj "this" and tamtoj "that"
• the relative pronoun ktory "which"
• the interrogative pronouns kto "who" and čto "what"
• the indefinite pronouns někto "somebody", něčto "something", nikto "nobody", ničto "nothing", ktokoli "whoever, anybody", čto-nebųď "whatever, anything", etc.

Numerals

The cardinal numbers 1–10 are: 1 – jedin/jedna/jedno, 2 – dva/dvě, 3 – tri, 4 – četyri, 5 – pęť, 6 – šesť, 7 – sedm, 8 – osm, 9 – devęť, 10 – desęť.

Higher numbers are formed by adding -nadsęť for the numbers 11–19, -desęt for the tens, -sto for the hundreds. Sometimes (but not always) the latter is inflected: dvasto/tristo/pęťsto and dvěstě/trista/pęťsòt are both correct.

The inflection of the cardinal numerals is shown in the following table. The numbers 5–99 are inflected either as nouns of the kosť type or as soft adjectives.

Declension of the numbers 1–5

	1			2		3	4	5
	m.	n.	f.	m./n.	f.
N.	jedin	jedno	jedna	dva	dvě	tri	četyri	pęť
A.	jedin	jedno	jednų	dva	dvě	tri	četyri	pęť
G.	jednogo		jednoj	dvu (dvoh, dvěh)		trěh	četyrěh	pęti (pętih)
D.	jednomu		jednoj	dvěma (dvom, dvěm)		trěm	četyrěm	pęti (pętim)
I.	jednym		jednojų	dvěma (dvoma)		trěma	četyrmi	pętjų (pętimi)
L.	jednom		jednoj	dvu (dvoh, dvěh)		trěh	četyrěh	pęti (pętih)

Ordinal numbers are formed by adding the adjective ending -y to the cardinal numbers, except in the case of pŕvy "first", drugi/vtory "second", tretji "third", četvŕty "fourth", stoty/sòtny "hundredth", tysęčny "thousandth".

Fractions are formed by adding the suffix -ina to ordinal numbers: tretjina "(one) third", četvŕtina "quarter", etc. The only exception is pol (polovina, polovica) "half".

Interslavic has other categories of numerals as well:

• collective numerals: dvoje "pair, duo, duet", troje, četvero..., etc.
• multiplicative numerals: jediny "single", dvojny "double", trojny, četverny..., etc.
• differential numerals: dvojaki "of two different kinds", trojaki, četveraki..., enz.

Verbs

Aspect

Like all Slavic languages, Interslavic verbs have grammatical aspect. A perfective verb indicates an action that has been or will be completed and therefore emphasizes the result of the action rather than its course. On the other hand, an imperfective verb focuses on the course or duration of the action, and is also used for expressing habits and repeating patterns.

Verbs without a prefix are usually imperfective. Most imperfective verbs have a perfective counterpart, which in most cases is formed by adding a prefix:
dělati ~ sdělati "to do"
čistiti ~ izčistiti "to clean"
pisati ~ napisati "to write"
Because prefixes are also used to change the meaning of a verb, secondary imperfective forms based on perfective verbs with a prefix are needed as well. These verbs are formed regularly:

• -ati becomes -yvati (e.g. zapisati ~ zapisyvati "to note, to register, to record", dokazati ~ dokazyvati "to prove")
• -iti become -jati (e.g. napraviti ~ napravjati "to lead", pozvoliti ~ pozvaljati "to allow", oprostiti ~ oprašćati "to simplify")

Some aspect pairs are irregular, for example nazvati ~ nazyvati "to name, to call", prijdti ~ prihoditi "to come", podjęti ~ podimati "to undertake".

Stems

The Slavic languages are notorious for their complicated conjugation patterns. To simply these, Interslavic has a system of two conjugations and two verbal stems. In most cases, knowing the infinitive is enough to establish both stems:

• the first stem is used for the infinitive, the past tense, the conditional mood, the past passive participle and the verbal noun. It is formed by removing the ending -ti from the infinitive: dělati "to do" > děla-, prositi "to require" > prosi-, nesti "to carry" > nes-. Verbs ending in -sti can also have their stem ending on t or d, f.ex. vesti > ved- "to lead", gnesti > gnet- "to crush".
• the second stem is used for the present tense, the imperative and the present active participle. In most cases both stems are identical, and in most of the remaining cases the second stem can be derived regularly from the first. In particular cases they have to be learned separately. In the present tense, a distinction is made between two conjugations:
  • the first conjugation includes almost all verbs that do not have the ending -iti, as well as monosyllabic verbs on -iti:
    • verbs on -ati have the stem -aj-: dělati "to do" > dělaj-
    • verbs on -ovati have the stem -uj-: kovati "to forge" > kuj-
    • verbs on -nųti have the stem -n-: tęgnųti "to pull, to draw" > tęgn-
    • monosyllabic verbs have -j-: piti "to drink" > pij-, čuti "to feel" > čuj-
    • the second stem is identical to the first stem if the latter ends in a consonant: nesti "to carry" > nes-, vesti "to lead" > ved-
  • the second conjugation includes all polysyllabic verbs on -iti and most verbs on -ěti: prositi "to require" > pros-i-, viděti "to see" > vid-i-

There are also mixed and irregular verbs, i.e. verbs with a second stem that cannot be derived regularly from the first stem, for example: pisati "to write" > piš-, spati "to sleep" > sp-i-, zvati "to call" > zov-, htěti "to want" > hoć-. In these cases both stem have to be learned separately.

Conjugation

The various moods and tenses are formed by means of the following endings:

• Present tense: -ų, -eš, -e, -emo, -ete, -ųt (first conjugation); -jų, -iš, -i, -imo, -ite, -ęt (second conjugation)
• Past tense – simple (as in Russian): m. -l, f. -la, n. -lo, pl. -li
• Past tense – complex (as in South Slavic):
  • Imperfect tense: -h, -še, -še, -hmo, -ste, -hų
  • Perfect tense: m. -l, f. -la, n. -lo, pl. -li + the present tense of byti "to be"
  • Pluperfect tense: m. -l, f. -la, n. -lo, pl. -li + the imperfect tense of byti
• Conditional: m. -l, f. -la, n. -lo, pl. -li + the conditional of byti
• Future tense: the future tense of byti + the infinitive
• Imperative: -Ø, -mo, -te after j, or -i, -imo, -ite after another consonant.

The forms with -l- in the past tense and the conditional are actually participles known as the L-participle. The remaining participles are formed as follows:

• Present active participle: -ųći (first conjugation), -ęći (second conjugation)
• Present passive participle: -omy/-emy (first conjugation), -imy (second conjugation)
• Past active participle: -vši after a vowel, or -ši after a consonant
• Past passive participle: -ny after a vowel, -eny after a consonant. Monosyllabic verbs (except for those on -ati) have -ty. Verbs on -iti have the ending -jeny.

The verbal noun is based on the past passive participle, replacing the ending -ny/-ty with -nje/-tje.

Examples

First conjugation (dělati "to do") present imperfect perfect pluperfect conditional future imperative ja dělajų dělah jesm dělal(a) běh dělal(a) byh dělal(a) bųdų dělati ty dělaješ dělaše jesi dělal(a) běše dělal(a) bys dělal(a) bųdeš dělati dělaj on ona ono dělaje dělaše je dělal je dělala je dělalo běše dělal běše dělala běše dělalo by dělal by dělala by dělalo bųde dělati my dělajemo dělahmo jesmo dělali běhmo dělali byhmo dělali bųdemo dělati dělajmo vy dělajete dělaste jeste dělali běste dělali byste dělali bųdete dělati dělajte oni dělajųt dělahų sųt dělali běhų dělali by dělali bųdųt dělati

infinitive dělati present active participle dělajųć-i (-a, -e) present passive participle dělajem-y (-a, -o) past active participle dělavš-i (-a, -e) past passive participle dělan-y (-a, -o) verbal noun dělanje

Second conjugation (hvaliti "to praise") present imperfect perfect pluperfect conditional future imperative ja hvaljų hvalih jesm hvalil(a) běh hvalil(a) byh hvalil(a) bųdų hvaliti ty hvališ hvališe jesi hvalil(a) běše hvalil(a) bys hvalil(a) bųdeš hvaliti hvali on ona ono hvali hvališe je hvalil je hvalila je hvalilo běše hvalil běše hvalila běše hvalilo by hvalil by hvalila by hvalilo bųde hvaliti my hvalimo hvalihmo jesmo hvalili běhmo hvalili byhmo hvalili bųdemo hvaliti hvalimo vy hvalite hvaliste jeste hvalili běste hvalili byste hvalili bųdete hvaliti hvalite oni hvalęt hvalihų sųt hvalili běhų hvalili by hvalili bųdųt hvaliti

infinitive hvaliti present active participle hvalęć-i (-a, -e) present passive participle hvalim-y (-a, -o) past active participle hvalivš-i (-a, -e) past passive participle hvaljen-y (-a, -o) verbal noun hvaljenje

Whenever the stem of a verbs of the second conjugation ends in s, z, t, d, st or zd, an ending starting -j causes the following mutations:

• prositi "to require": pros-jų > prošų, pros-jeny > prošeny
• voziti "to transport": voz-jų > vožų, voz-jeny > voženy
• tratiti "to lose": trat-jų > traćų, trat-jeny > traćeny
• slěditi "to follow": slěd-jų > slědžų, slěd-jeny > slědženy
• čistiti "to clean": čist-jų > čišćų, čist-jeny > čišćeny
• jezditi "to go (by transport)": jezd-jų > ježdžų, jezd-jeny > ježdženy

Alternative forms

Because Interslavic is not a highly formalized language, a lot of variation occurs between various forms. Often used are the following alternative forms:

• In the first conjugation, -aje- is often reduced to -a-: ty dělaš, on děla etc.
• Instead of the 1st person singular ending -(j)ų, the ending -(e)m is sometimes used as well: ja dělam, ja hvalim, ja nesem.
• Instead of -mo in the 1st person plural, -me can be used as well: my děla(je)me, my hvalime.
• Instead of -hmo in the imperfect tense, -smo and the more archaic -hom can be used as well.
• Instead of the conjugated forms of byti in the conditional (byh, bys etc.), by is often used as a particle: ja by pisal(a), ty by pisal(a) etc.
• Verbal nouns can have the ending -ije instead of -je: dělanije, hvaljenije.

Irregular verbs

A few verbs have an irregular conjugation:

• byti "to be" has jesm, jesi, jest, jesmo, jeste, sųt in the present tense, běh, běše... in the imperfect tense, and bųdų, bųdeš... in the future
• dati "to give", jěsti "to eat" and věděti "to know" have the following present tense: dam, daš, da, damo, date, dadųt; jem, ješ...; věm, věš...
• idti "to go by foot, to walk" has an irregular L-participle: šel, šla, šlo, šli.

Vocabulary

Words in Interslavic are based on comparison of the vocabulary of the modern Slavic languages. For this purpose, the latter are subdivided into six groups:

• Russian
• Ukrainian and Belarusian
• Polish
• Czech and Slovak
• Slovene, Croat, Serbian and Bosnian
• Bulgarian and Macedonian

These groups are treated equally. Interslavic vocabulary has been compiled in such way that words are understandable to a maximum number of Slavic speakers. The form in which a chosen word is adopted depends not only on its frequency in the modern Slavic languages, but also on the inner logic of Interslavic, as well as its form in Proto-Slavic: to ensure coherence, a system of regular derivation is applied.

Sample words in Interslavic, compared to other Slavic languages

English	Interslavic	Russian	Ukrainian	Belarusian	Polish	Czech	Slovak	Upper Sorbian	Slovene	Croat	Macedonian	Bulgarian
human being	člověk / чловѣк	человек	людина	чалавек	człowiek	člověk	človek	čłowjek	človek	čovjek	човек	човек
dog	pes / пес	пёс, собака	пес, собака	сабака	pies	pes	pes	pos, psyk	pes	pas	пес, куче	пес, куче
house	dom / дом	дом	дім	дом	dom	dům	dom	dom	dom, hiša	dom, kuća	дом, куќа	дом, къща
book	kniga / книга	книга	книга	кніга	książka	kniha	kniha	kniha	knjiga	knjiga	книга	книга
night	noć / ноч	ночь	ніч	ноч	noc	noc	noc	nóc	noč	noć	ноќ	нощ
letter	piśmo / письмо	письмо	лист	пісьмо, ліст	list, pismo	dopis	list	list	pismo	pismo	писмо	писмо
big, large	veliki / велики	большой, великий	великий	вялікі	wielki	velký	veľký	wulki	velik	velik	голем	голям
new	novy / новы	новый	новий	новы	nowy	nový	nový	nowy	nov	nov	нов	нов

Example

The Pater Noster:

Interslavic	Cyrillic	Old Church Slavonic
Otče naš, ktory jesi v nebesah, nehaj svęti sę imę Tvoje. Nehaj prijde krålevstvo Tvoje, nehaj bųde volja Tvoja, kako v nebě tako i na zemji. Hlěb naš vsjakodenny daj nam dneś, i odpusti nam naše grěhi, kako my odpušćajemo našim grěšnikam. I ne vvedi nas v pokušenje, ale izbavi nas od zlogo.	Отче наш, кторы јеси в небесах, нехај свети се име Твоје. Нехај пријде кралевство Твоје, нехај буде вольа Твоја, како в небе тако и на земји. Хлеб наш всьакоденны дај нам днесь, и одпусти нам наше грехи, како мы одпушчајемо нашим грешникам. И не введи нас в покушенје, але избави нас од злого.	Otĭče našĭ, iže jesi na nebesĭchŭ, da svętitŭ sę imę tvoje, da priidetŭ cěsarĭstvije tvoje, da bǫdetŭ volja tvoja, jako na nebesi i na zemlji; chlěbŭ našĭ nastojęštajego dĭne daždĭ namŭ dĭnĭ sĭ, i otŭpusti namŭ dlŭgy našę, jako i my otŭpuštajemŭ dlŭžĭnikomŭ našimŭ. i ne vŭvedi nasŭ vŭ napastĭ nŭ izbavi ny otŭ neprijazni.

See also

• Pan-Slavic language
• Zonal constructed languages

External links

• Interslavic
• Interslavic news site
• News translations into Interslavic
• Interslavic Wiki