Hello, I'm originally from Belarus. Why do I see Belorussian instead of Belarusian? Check wikipedia.org
Thank you.

³òàþ. ß çü Áåëàðóñ³. ×àìó ÿ áà÷ó Belorussian çàìåñò Belarusian? Ãëÿäç³öå wikipedia.org
Äçÿêóþ.

Please use Cyrillic Windows....

It's because Belorussian is the russian spelling.

Белорусский

I know four adjective term used for Belarus:

"Belarusian" (derived from contemporary English name for Belarus)
"Belorussian" (based on transliteration of Russian)
"Byelorussian" (transliteration of Russian in pre-1918 orthography)
"White Russian" (literally translation)

As far as know everyone uses "Belarusian" here.

Since Englishmen call Czechs in Polish, I don't see a problem in calling Balarusians in Russian.

It should be as "Belorusiani" call their own country. Not as Russians or English do that.


S - lingva has its name as : BELORUSIA

Citizen is : BELORUSIAN (plural : BELORUSIANI )

Language is : BELORUSIO

Adjective : Belorusie

Adverb : Belorusio

___________________________________________________________________________

It has its meaning. Because 2 words are connected the first one comes with the end - o. The same it is with C'eh'oslovakia (C'eh'ia + Slovakia)


Almost all the words are done this way in S-lingva (compound words)

But in different constructed slavic langs it can be called their own ways.

It can be either BELORUSIA or BELARUSIA. It depends what are grammar rules in that language.

It should be as \\\"Belorusiani\\\" call their own country. Not as Russians or English do that.

Any language has the right to call any nation as the speakers of the language like. Or do you think we should call the US Junajtid Stejts ov Amerika, Japan Nipon, Southern Korea Anguk, China Czungkuo etc.?

Of course, Slovianski-P has Belorusija, beloruski and belorus/belorusi.

Wikipedia is in large scale a tool of manipulation of fools and naiive ones, as only too many biased maniacs, and somtime even outright fools, can redact it only too easy at too many occasions. It is full of rubbish and biased reject designed to serve no one looking for reliable information but rather ignorants.

Sometime, but only if you are informed previously of some topic from other, more reliable sources you can find some interesting additional facts, but I really recommend never trust it as a reliable information source. It can be of some use, but rather as only source of interesting sometime, but invalid until double checked information.

If you disagree with whatever is written in wikipedia, you can edit it too.

Ay Igor!
mind your logic!!!

People are just angry about the fact that everyone disagrees with them.