Traditional Slavic month names

[muckefuck]

Ukrainian	Sičen'	Ljutyj	Berezen'	Kviten'	Traven'	Červen'	Lypen'	Serpen'	Veresen'	Žovten'	Lystopad	Hruden'
Belarussian	Studzen'	Ljuty	Sakavik	Krasavik	Maj	Čèrven'	Lipen'	Žniven'	Verasen'	Kastryčnik	Listapad	Snežan'
Polish	styczeń	luty	marzec	kwiecień	maj	czerwiec	lipiec	sierpień	wrzesień	październik	listopad	grudzień
Kashubian	stëcznik	gromicznik	strëmiannik	łżëkwiat	môj	czerwińc	lëpińc	zélnik	séwnik	rujan	lëstopadnik	gòdnik
Sorbian (Upper)	wulki róžk	mały róžk	nalětnik	jutrownik	róžownik	smažnik	pražnik	žnjenc	požnjenc	winowc	nazymnik	hodownik
Czech	leden	únor	březen	duben	květen	červen	červenec	srpen	září	říjen	listopad	prosinec
Croatian	siječanj	veljača	ožujak	travanj	svibanj	lipanj	srpanj	kolovoz	rujan	listopad	studeni	prosinac
MHG	Wintarmanoth	Hornung	Lenzinmanoth	Ostarmanoth	Winnemanoth	Brachmanoth	Hewinmanoth	Aranmanoth	Witumanoth	Windumanoth	Herbistmanoth	Heligmanoth

All the other major standard Slavic languages use some version of the Latin month names. The Middle High German names are in there because I suspect some mutual influence between the Slavic and Germanic systems. I need to reformat this as a table so I can more easily compare across languages.

Comments

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I don't like the fact that all the different systems are jumbled together with no indication of where they were derived from. I'm not into neo-paganism, so I like to be able to separate the genuinely ancient material (like the Carolingian month names) from the modern inventions.

[niemandsrose.livejournal.com]

Huh. Reminds me of this, which I've been meaning to find out more about for a long time: The French Revolutionary Calendar:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/fr/FrenchRe-c.html

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I actually considered adding the Revolutionary calendar as well. Since it couldn't possibly have influenced--and is unlikely to have been influenced by--the other ones, it would act as a good "control" when I look for similarities.

[aadroma.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's the part I don't like; I want to know who's using what, and when. I like the fact that the source is there, but it's also floating in what I find not helpful at all ...

Re:

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

A resource that jumbles together material from different sources without attribution, mediaeval-style, is essentially useless for research purposes.