# Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian (BCS): One language?



## JLanguage

From wikipedia I gather that Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian are all essentially the same language. Bosnian and Serbian use both Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, while Croatian only uses the Latin alphabet. I have numerous questions: 

1 .Are Bosnian and Serbian spelled the same way when written with the Cyrillic alphabet? 

2. Is same orthography used for Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian when written with the Latin alphabet? 

3. Which is more prevalent in Bosnia and Serbia, the Cyrillic or Latin orthographies? 

4. Do all Bosnians and Serbians know both orthographies?

5. Can Croatians read the Bosnian and Serbian when written in Cyrillic?

Sorry for all the questions, but I am very curious,
-Jonathan.


----------



## Cairenn

I'm sorry it took some time to answer your questions, but I'm very busy, and then I forgot, and then .. well, you know how it goes ..

anyway, I disscused your questions with some friends of mine, and one of them wrote a pretty coherent answer to your post, so I'm just gonna paste it here .. I hope it'll be satisfactory   



> The question if two or more languages are identical is generally a tricky one. I know for sure that some linguists don't even want to go into that matter because there are so many conflicting interests - political, cultural, probably even financial - that can distort and blur the purely scientific arguments. This especially works for the issue of Southern Slavic language(s). Croats and Bosnians have a political interest to claim their languages are different while the Serbs have a political interest to claim they're not. So, basically, since linguists are just people, some of them will decide to evade the topic, some will embrace a particular policy, while some will try to be neutral and discuss the problem objectively. The problem is distinguishing between all of them (of course, except the first, and it's a fact that even the third gruoup can't agrre among themselves).
> 
> One of the main issues is what makes a language different from others. If you take the principle of "being able to understand each other", the we have a serious problem; Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Montenegrians can officially understand each other if they all speak ther "proper languages"; I myself can also understand most of Slovenian (ex-YU compatriots with an officially reckognised "different language") and some Russian. However, my girlfreind gets in serious trouble wher trying to talk to a Slovenian and a friend of mine who grew up in the same town as me has the same problem with the Russian. After some thought, I realised why this was so: when I was a kid, we watched a lot of Slovenian TV and I simply "picked up" some of the vocabulary and synthax which made it easier for me to later understand Slovenian. As for the Russian language, when I was a kid I watched TV a lot and there were a lot of Russian films on. My friend, however, was an "outside" type of kid: he played football and was hanging around a lot so he didn't watch those films.
> 
> There is also the fact that a lot of peasents from villages in Northern Croatia (that's what I'm sure about, there are probably other examples) that are 10 km apart - who supposedly share the same dialect - can't understand each other. But nobody in their right mind would claim that they speak different languages. Also, I met some guys from Serbia when I was in Bulgaria, another Slavic country. I remember that I could understand less than 30% of what the locals were saying, but these guys were communicating, well, not exactly fluently, but they were communicating, although they never actually *studied* Bulgarian. However, geographically, Serbia is placed exactly between Croatia and Bulgaria, so go figure.
> 
> As for 99% mutual understandability of Croatian and Serbian, I believe it's a consequence of around 150 years of planned merging of the languages and 70 years of living together in the same state. We had the same legal system, shared TV shows, films, series, news, books, sometimes newspapers, basically everything. So, eventually, one gets to understand the language pretty perfectly. Well, almost perfectly. I can recall some funny stories people used to tell from the time they were in the military, and I can witness that I myself once took a Serbian mathematical book thinking "hey, it's Serbian, what's there *not* to understand?" After I opened it, I gazed at the pages for about fifteen minutes and realised it'd save me a lot of trouble if I tried some other language instead. English, for example.
> 
> There is also the principle of historical development, but that one is even more feeble. Norwegean language was born after Norway gained independance from Sweden, when the Norwegeans deliberately took one of their dialects most different from Swedish and made it their official language. Today nobody argues that Norwegean is different from Sweden. Well, maybe someone would if they could understand any of them…
> 
> Anyway, as for historical development, it is a fact that the language was just one of many fronts of nationalist/separatist movements that used the difference in dialects to prove one had the right to have one's own nation, while the unitarian movements used the similarities to prove that "they're all one happy nation". So I think it would be better if we don't go into that…
> 
> Now, all these examples don't prove a thing. What could be used in some kind of a scientific proof are the following facts:
> 
> - Serbian and Croatian are 90% identical in vocabulary (that's just my estimate, it could be anywhere between 66 and 99%)
> - there ARE grammar differences; minor, but official and solid
> - there are a few "spelling" differences (I've put quotes because "spelling" in our language(s) isn't quite the same thing as spelling in English)
> 
> But what that proof would prove is beyond my grasp. And, as it seems, beyond grasp of most of "official" linguists. Simply, there are arguments to claim both ways: that Croatian and Serbian are identical and that they are separate languages.
> 
> This is why I had to make my own theory:
> 
> A language is a living thing. It evolves, splits into two, sometimes dies. All rules regarding it are fluid and depend on many things. That is why all language rules are a convention, a deal among people who use it about what they will use and how. The next question is, who gets to take part in this deal, and who gets to be left out. Well, the answer is quite obvious: those who use it have the right to decide on the convention, and those who don't, don't. And here is a quite predictable conclusion: if the Croats are the ones who are the sole users of what some Serbs call "the Latinic/Western/whatever variant of Serbian language", then the Croats are the only ones who have the right to take part in the deal regarding the convention of their language. The convention doesn't regard only the ways of usage, but also the name of the language. And if the Croats say it's a separate language, well, what does anyone have to argue about that? Especially since the Croatian and Serbian are *not* identical. They are similar, but then, it all depends where you put the treshold of identity. So, my amateur argument is: if argument can be made for both sides, and it can, then let the users decide on the convention for themselves.
> 
> There is another amateur argument in favour of Croatian and Serbian being separate languages. American and British English have officially separated 200 years ago and have been developing separately since, but today they are more similar than Croatian and Serbian that had been planningly merged for the last 150 years. Why would they remain so different if they hadn't been even more different in the beginning?
> 
> Of course, as I sad in the beginning, I'm not an expert. But I'm a physicist and physicists like to think that when you know the fundamental facts of the Universe, it only a matter of time until you deduce everything else Osmjeh za tebe
> 
> As for Bosnian, most of the things I said work for it, too. Except the fact that I think Bosnian was never officially reckognised as a language in Yugoslavia. The first time they started talking about it was after they gained independance.
> 
> And now for your questions (although, as you may have guessed by now, I believe your questions are not the right ones, or at least there is not enough of them):
> 
> 1. Yes
> 
> 2. Yes
> 
> 3. During Yugoslavia Bosnia was 50-50 (I think, but I should check that), but today there is no more Cyrillic there, except in the exclusively Serbian parts (which is 49%).
> 
> 4. Serbians do; I'm not sure for Bosnians.
> 
> 5. If they learned it. Cyrillic was never a part of Croatian heritage; it is exclusively Serbian/Bulgarian/Ukrainian/Russian alphabet (I'm not sure about the Belarus). In Yugoslavia it was obligatory for everyone to know both (hence the term half- or semi-literate). But as soon as Croatia separated, it was no longer the case.


----------



## JLanguage

Thanks Cairenn for such an informative reply,

-Jonathan.


----------



## vesna

Hi all!
Let me participate in this debate with my Slovenian point of view. 
When Yugoslavia existed, we all had to learn Serbo-Croatian language in school for one year, apart from our own language. They just put the two languages together and 'sold' them as one, one might say. 
Nowadays, I wouldn't dare to speak Serbo-Croatian in Croatia nor in Serbia. There are differences that a native notices immediately and possibly gets offended. I must say I understand both fairly well, and it could be said that they also can understand Slovene (it's more a question of will than of knowledge, I dare say).
Well, take care everybody


----------



## martinemussies

jalexoid said:
			
		

> - Belarusian uses Cyrillic.


 
True, *беларуская мова* is one of the three "East-Slavic Languages". It is also known as "Belarusan", "Byelorussian", "Belorussian" etc. The word "Byelorussian" comes from the Russian name of the country (_Byelorussia_). 

Question.... do people with Serbo-Croatian as a mothertongue exist?


----------



## natasha2000

vesna said:
			
		

> Hi all!
> Let me participate in this debate with my Slovenian point of view.
> When Yugoslavia existed, we all had to learn Serbo-Croatian language in school for one year, apart from our own language. They just put the two languages together and 'sold' them as one, one might say.
> Nowadays, I wouldn't dare to speak Serbo-Croatian in Croatia nor in Serbia. There are differences that a native notices immediately and possibly gets offended. I must say I understand both fairly well, and it could be said that they also can understand Slovene (it's more a question of will than of knowledge, I dare say).
> Well, take care everybody


 
Hi everybody,
Vesna, please explain me why you *wouldn`t dare* to speak Serbian/Croatian in their respective countries? What do you mean by differences that native notices and possibly get offended? What is there to offend? If you spoke to me in my language, I would be delighted, and I am sure a Croatian too, never mind the mistakes you might make. Due to all the horror we experienced not so long time ago, I think we are still full of some stupid fear of the opposite side... Stupid and narrow-minded people exist in each country and each nation, but this is no reason for normal people to communicate. 
Personally, I think Croatian, Serbian,Bosnian, Montenegrian, etc... are all the same language, and the differences are in dialects and certain number of words, semantics and they are not more different than for example Spanish in Spain and in Latin America, or English in America, England, Australia or Canada. Iknow that I might produce a reaction from some participants in this thread, but this is my opinion. But, as someone here said, this is very touchy political question...Hey, I even had an advantage of this... Now the part of my CV regarding foreign languages I speak has increased. Now, besides English and Spanish, I also speak Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrian... 
My best wishes to all
Natasha


----------



## Cairenn

I get a headache from the pollitical stuff, so I won't go there.
but I disagree that Croatian and Serbian are the same language. a language isn't just words and grammar rules, it's also its tradition. Serbian and Croatian evolved separatly - maybe from the same source, yes, but separately, taking in different influences; not until 20th century it was tried to melt them into one language.


----------



## natasha2000

Cairenn said:
			
		

> I get a headache from the pollitical stuff, so I won't go there.
> but I disagree that Croatian and Serbian are the same language. a language isn't just words and grammar rules, it's also its tradition. Serbian and Croatian evolved separatly - maybe from the same source, yes, but separately, taking in different influences; not until 20th century it was tried to melt them into one language.


 
Believe me, me too... But I think this is not a political question, it is rather the question of a logic. Maybe English in America and Britain and Australia have the same tradition? Or maybe Spanish from every and each hispanic country and Spain have the same tradition?
Let me ask one simple question, ok?
If a foreigner learns American English, would he understand without any problem an Australian or British speaker?
If a foreigner learns Spanish in Mexico, would he understand without any problem a Spanish or Colombian, or Peruvian speaker?
If a foreigner learns Croatian, would he understan without any problem a Serbian or Bosnian or Montenegrian speaker?

The answer to all these three question is YES. 

Why? Because 99% of words are THE SAME. Grammar is 99% the same. And each and every country I mentioned has its own culture, its own history, more or less connected, its own tradition... I am not denying it. But this is not the matter in question.
The unfortunate fact in the relation Croatian-Serbian is that the same language has two different names, which is the base of confusion arrouses in foreigner when trying to figure it out if these two languages are the same language or not. So, if one says, well, Croatian does not exist, its only a Serbian, it is natural that this makes go crazy every Croatian, and vice versa, if you say there is no Serbian, there is only Croatian, the same happens with Serbians... Maybe we should give it another, third name and then maybe everyone would be in peace. 
Call it whatever you want, but I know if I spoke to you in "my" language, you would understand perfectly what I am saying, and if you answered me in "your" language, I would also understand perfectly. 
I am trying to talk about logical things, not politics. Politics does not have anything to do with this, although some tried to use it and misuse it in political causes. Why when talking about these things, always rises the question of politics? I find it very sad.
Please try to look things beyond the everydays political trash. Please. Use logic.
My best regards to all
Natasha


----------



## BBYM

but how about the term "Dialect"? Mandarin is much more differ from Cantonese, Fukienese and Wu language, but we claim them "Chinese Language". and some Cantonese, Fukienese letters are only used locally, but not the northern Chinese ppl, but we never say they r not part of chinese language. 
could we say croatian, bosnian, serbian r three dialects of the same language? just like german language in alsace and austria compare with those in north germany. ppl of there can't communicate in the daily life with each of their local language but no one say they r not german language.


----------



## JLanguage

You have to keep in mind that politics and other considerations have as  much influence on the distinction between dialect and language as the similarities and differences between the languages.


----------



## Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!

lonelyheartsclubband said:
			
		

> Sorry, the Belarusian language is a Western-Slavic language.
> It means that the Belarussian language is closer Czech and Polish, rather than to Russian and Ukranian.
> Yes, the Belarusian language uses Cyrillic letters.


I've honestly never seen Belarusian classified as a West-Slavic language. Though from the little I have seen, I agree it appears to be more similar to Polish than to Russian in some respects.

By the way, Belarusian has also been written with the Latin alphabet. Look up "Lacinka" on the web.


----------



## Tchesko

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> If a foreigner learns Spanish in Mexico, would he understand without any problem a Spanish or Colombian, or Peruvian speaker?


I would claim the answer is no. The Mexicans speak MUCH slowlier than the Spanish!  



			
				BBYM said:
			
		

> but how about the term "Dialect"? Mandarin is much more differ from Cantonese, Fukienese and Wu language, but we claim them "Chinese Language". and some Cantonese, Fukienese letters are only used locally, but not the northern Chinese ppl, but we never say they r not part of chinese language.


From my personal experience, the Chinese say Chinese is a single language, whereas Cantonese, Mandarin, etc. are dialects. However, there is a debate as to know whether Chinese is a language or a family of languages (see Wikipedia, article "Chinese"). Once again, this is partly a political issue...


----------



## BBYM

its merely a political issue, but more likely a cultural regconition. dialects in chinese involved sound differences but they use same characters...and mostly the same words. although some people use different words, others can understand dat easily....because the chinese characters which form the words have their distinct meaning. 
two or three meaning together we have a word. others can guess the meaning from looking at the characters.
e.g. glucose (i cant type chinese characters coz this forum doesnt support dat)
in mandarin:    pu tu tang
in cantonese:  po to tong
"pu tu" and "po to" mean "grape", coz glucose was once extracted from grape
"tang" and "tong" mean "sugar", coz glucose is sweet

"dialect" in chinese would be much more differ each other in oral, but diffrent-placed chinese could communicate each other by writing, in the age that putonghua still not being standardized.

politics should be away from science. if u found dat its true, then keep in mind........forget the rigmaroles from politicians 

do slavic languages have some words write in the same way but read differently?


----------



## JLanguage

BBYM said:
			
		

> its merely a political issue, but more likely a cultural regconition. dialects in chinese involved sound differences but they use same characters...and mostly the same words. although some people use different words, others can understand dat easily....because the chinese characters which form the words have their distinct meaning.
> two or three meaning together we have a word. others can guess the meaning from looking at the characters.
> e.g. glucose (i cant type chinese characters coz this forum doesnt support dat)
> in mandarin: pu tu tang
> in cantonese: po to tong
> "pu tu" and "po to" mean "grape", coz glucose was once extracted from grape
> "tang" and "tong" mean "sugar", coz glucose is sweet
> 
> "dialect" in chinese would be much more differ each other in oral, but diffrent-placed chinese could communicate each other by writing, in the age that putonghua still not being standardized.
> 
> politics should be away from science. if u found dat its true, then keep in mind........forget the rigmaroles from politicians
> 
> do slavic languages have some words write in the same way but read differently?


 
As you know the written Chinese language is based on Mandarin Chinese. There is a big difference between a Cantonese person speaking the Mandarin written language with a Cantonese accent, and him speaking Cantonese.

EDIT: This thread is starting to veer off-topic, unless we are to extend this thread's topic to include the discussion of _dialect vs. language. _Perhaps those posts should be spliced into a new thread? I'll leave it to Jana to decide as while this is my thread, in the end she is the moderator.


----------



## Juri

Let me add same curiosities about similarity or better the same ROOTS of slavic words.
When a lady after a long shopping-day says in Ljubljana "Joj kako sem TRUDNA!" it means shi is very TIRED. As she says the same in Zagreb, people wil ask"How many months?"(are you PREGNANT)

One can adorn a packet with a beautiful RIBBON in Slovenia = PENTLJA.
The same word in Russia means HENGMAN'S  SLIP KNOT.

Worse than the celebrated english "friend words"!


----------



## natasha2000

Juri said:
			
		

> Let me add same curiosities about similarity or better the same ROOTS of slavic words.
> When a lady after a long shopping-day says in Ljubljana "Joj kako sem TRUDNA!" it means shi is very TIRED. As she says the same in Zagreb, people wil ask"How many months?"(are you PREGNANT)
> 
> One can adorn a packet with a beautiful RIBBON in Slovenia = PENTLJA.
> The same word in Russia means HENGMAN'S SLIP KNOT.
> 
> Worse than the celebrated english "friend words"!


 
Just a little correction. This is called "false friends", bacause the same word means two completely different things in two languages. The examples yuou gave are perfect, since "false friends" do not exist only in English, but in all languages.
trudna - slovenian - tired
trudna - croatian/serbian - pregnant


----------



## Jana337

JLanguage said:
			
		

> EDIT: This thread is starting to veer off-topic, unless we are to extend this thread's topic to include the discussion of _dialect vs. language. _Perhaps those posts should be spliced into a new thread? I'll leave it to Jana to decide as while this is my thread, in the end she is the moderator.


I actually pondered such a move, but I could not figure out a way to cut out a meaningful part while preserving the continuity of the original topic. I suggest that forer@s interested in a discussion about dialects and politics open a new thread in the Cultural forum, linking to this thread as a case study.

Jana


----------



## natasha2000

Tchesko said:
			
		

> I would claim the answer is no. The Mexicans speak MUCH slowlier than the Spanish!
> 
> 
> Tchesko, my friend, sorry for not answering earlier, I did not see your answer to my question.... Then, according to you, all Mexicans that come to live in Spain should start to learn again, now Spanish language... I apologize for my frankness, but I consider it a big noncense. As I live in Spain, and my building where I live is full of Latino American people, I assure you that all of them find their way here very easily with their "Mexican", "Peruvian" or "Colombian", etc... language brought from their respective countries.... O you were just joking?
> 
> PS: If you don't believe me, visit the Spanish forum here, and you will see that participants come from various countries from Latin America, not only from Spain, and they understand each other perfectly.... Yes, there are differences, considering their different cultural development and heritage, but it is still ONE LANGUAGE, not 20....


----------



## dell22

I dont care how one classifies the languages and can say i do honestly admire their opinions but consider this. My parents are both Serbian and i was born in a town on the border of Bosnia and Croatia. My parents i guess then both speak "Bosnian", however we moved to Serbia when i was young and i ended up speaking Serbian. Now ... i understand my parents perfectly, i understand my family in Bosnia, friends from Croatia and etc. I often go back to all three countries either to visit family or go on vacatino on the Adriatic. From years of visiting all three countries i have not once ran into someone from either who could not understand me, not once could i not understand someone else, and not once could i not read a road sign. From that and from my own experience i can tell you its the same language, however when i travel to the different countries i knwo to expect a different dialect and proncounciatino of certain words, but this difference is so small and obvious that i couldnt imagine someone not understanding. for example the word for left in Serbian is "levo", while in Bosnian it is "lijevo" (pronounced lyehvo - the y making its constenant sound). Further, someone earlier mentioned that they might offend someone speaking a different dialect. I think that is complete nonsense, take Serbia for example, 100's of thousands of Serbs from Bosnia have fled as refugees and are not riticuled nor do they have problems getting around (i know this as some are my friends and family). Also we must consider hundreds of thousands if not millions of others that have been displaced, Croatians from Bosnia to Croatia, Serbs from Croatia into Serbia, Bosniaks into Croatia and etc. All three nations speak the three languages, why? Because not all Serbs are from Serbia, not all Bosniaks (Muslims) are from Bosnia, and not all Croatians are from Croatia. These people lived throughout former Yugoslavia and speaker as they did in their native surroundings ... Just my 2 cents a bit of a ramble, but please people its the same language.


----------



## natasha2000

dell22 said:
			
		

> I dont care how one classifies the languages and can say i do honestly admire their opinions but consider this. My parents are both Serbian and i was born in a town on the border of Bosnia and Croatia. My parents i guess then both speak "Bosnian", however we moved to Serbia when i was young and i ended up speaking Serbian. Now ... i understand my parents perfectly, i understand my family in Bosnia, friends from Croatia and etc. I often go back to all three countries either to visit family or go on vacatino on the Adriatic. From years of visiting all three countries i have not once ran into someone from either who could not understand me, not once could i not understand someone else, and not once could i not read a road sign. From that and from my own experience i can tell you its the same language, however when i travel to the different countries i knwo to expect a different dialect and proncounciatino of certain words, but this difference is so small and obvious that i couldnt imagine someone not understanding. for example the word for left in Serbian is "levo", while in Bosnian it is "lijevo" (pronounced lyehvo - the y making its constenant sound). Further, someone earlier mentioned that they might offend someone speaking a different dialect. I think that is complete nonsense, take Serbia for example, 100's of thousands of Serbs from Bosnia have fled as refugees and are not riticuled nor do they have problems getting around (i know this as some are my friends and family). Also we must consider hundreds of thousands if not millions of others that have been displaced, Croatians from Bosnia to Croatia, Serbs from Croatia into Serbia, Bosniaks into Croatia and etc. All three nations speak the three languages, why? Because not all Serbs are from Serbia, not all Bosniaks (Muslims) are from Bosnia, and not all Croatians are from Croatia. These people lived throughout former Yugoslavia and speaker as they did in their native surroundings ... Just my 2 cents a bit of a ramble, but please people its the same language.


 
You're completely right. But I think this new division of this language to three(four???- I hear there ewill be aso Montenegrian!!) is of rather political than linguistic nature. Many people from Croatia and Bosinia insist on the fact that they speak different language from Serbian, and I find this topic very sensitive one. Therefore, I don't mind calling the language they speak as Croatian or Bosnian, if this makes those people happy, and I won't try to convince them that we speak one language, with different dialects, because I consider it stupid reason to start discussion... We had enough with all the horror we passed which started exactly with stupid nationalisms...


----------



## Anna Mary

1 .Are Bosnian and Serbian spelled the same way when written with the Cyrillic alphabet? 
Yes they are.

2. Is same orthography used for Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian when written with the Latin alphabet? 
no it is not, because Croatian and Serbian lang. have different spelling,for example S= lepo (nice) C= lijepo (nice) and there are many different words - S= hleb (bread) C= kruh , so we can not talk of the same language.

3. Which is more prevalent in Bosnia and Serbia, the Cyrillic or Latin orthographies? 
Cyrillic

4. Do all Bosnians and Serbians know both orthographies?
I do not think so, because in the former Yugoslavia, you had to learn in school both cyrillic and Latin, but nowdays Serbian just use cyrillic, while Croatian Latin.This is a quite complicated thing.

5. Can Croatians read the Bosnian and Serbian when written in Cyrillic?
if they know cyrillic yes, but many don't.


----------



## natasha2000

Anna Mary said:
			
		

> 1 .Are Bosnian and Serbian spelled the same way when written with the Cyrillic alphabet?
> Yes they are.
> 
> Bosnians use more latinic alphabet than cyrillic. My family who lives in Bosnia, almost cannot read cyrillic, and prefer me to write them in latinic.
> 
> 
> 2. Is same orthography used for Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian when written with the Latin alphabet?
> no it is not, because Croatian and Serbian lang. have different spelling,for example S= lepo (nice) C= lijepo (nice) and there are many different words - S= hleb (bread) C= kruh , so we can not talk of the same language.
> 
> This is a notorious nonsense. There is no "different" spelling in Serbian and Croatian, since both languages pronounce the words just as they are written. So, if Croatian says LIJEPO, he writes LIJEPO, ans if Serbian says LEPO, he writes what he says, too. The difference is just as in pronunciation of the letter R in American English and English English...
> 
> As far as the different words are concerned, no more different words exist in Serbi-an-Croatian relationship than in AmericanE-EnglishE, or Spanish Spanish and LatinAmerican Spanish, or French French or Canadian or Swiss French, etc...
> If you and I spoke to each other in our own "languages" do you think we could not understand each other, including the slightest hidden meanings of the words? I think no.
> 
> Besides, Croatian can be written in cyrillic without any problem. Of course, if you know how to write it. And you know it if you learn it. If not, you don't.
> 
> 
> 3. Which is more prevalent in Bosnia and Serbia, the Cyrillic or Latin orthographies?
> Cyrillic
> Again, wrong. I already explained in Nº1
> 
> 4. Do all Bosnians and Serbians know both orthographies?
> I do not think so, because in the former Yugoslavia, you had to learn in school both cyrillic and Latin, but nowdays Serbian just use cyrillic , while Croatian Latin .This is a quite complicated thing.
> 
> Wrong. Serbians in school still learn latinic, and when they finish school, they dont mind if some text is written in cyrillic or latinic, they read it indistinctively. And it is NOT a complicated thing.
> 
> 5. Can Croatians read the Bosnian and Serbian when written in Cyrillic?
> if they know cyrillic yes, but many don't.
> You can read and write Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian in cyrillic and latinic, indistinctively. They are just two ways of writting the same language. Of course, first you should KNOW how to read it, and there, I am sorry to say it, but Serbians take an advantage... They can read both alphabets, while many Croatians and Bosnians don't.


 

But as I said, since this is rather political than linguistic issue, I don't mind calling your language Croatian, if you prefer to be like this. I really don't. I think there are more important things in relation between two nations than this....
Pozdrav


----------



## dell22

i gotta say its nerve racking to see certain responses. when it comes to any language from former yugoslavia the spelling is always the same as words are written exactly how they are pronounced. 

as for latin and cyrillic i think that has become a political thing nowadays. from living both in serbia and bosnia i can attest than the serbian parts of bosnia definetely use more cyrillic than serbia (on road signs and buildings). however everyone can read and write the latin script and its as essential as speaking the language. though even in serbian parts of bosnia international routes such as highways and motorways show both scripts all the time. in serbia its not uncommon to see one or the other, however from what i remmber you are most likely to see both. definetely on highways. 

as for croatians and bosniaks being to read cyrillic i would say that depends on age since of course the breakup croatians and bosniaks found no reason to learn cyrillic. anyone who has completed any primary school before the breakup would definetely know cyrillic. as i mentioned earlier i and most of my family were born in bosnia however all can read and write cyrillic along with latin, it was never anything special, just the way it is.


----------



## Pedja

It is quite stragne to read some opinions here, stating that serbian and croatian language are different. That is not true, that is the same language. Tehre is more differences among soem dialects within the alnguage than between serbian and croatian.

 Real croatian language is actually very arhaic and spoken in narow area. What is now called croatian is actually serbian dialect which was spread in western balcan. It was even writeen in cyrillic and pre-cyrillic alphabet.

 Back in 18th century, when Croats and Serbs both gained cultural revolution it was matter of mutual ageement to recognize Serbian language as mean to make all divided Balcan slovene nations closer. Since Croats were familiar with latin alphabet they kept using it, and Serbs kept using cyrilic. But alphabet never made a difference. Language stayed the same with all its rules.

 After the WWII, new revolution came which marged two in one, caling it serbocroatian language, and it was obligatory to all to learn both cyrillic and latin alphabet. That stayed untill recent civil war in ex Yugoslavia. 

 Nowadays, Croats learn latin, but Serbs still learn both cyrillic and latin, and they still speak the same language. Differencies are minor and everyone can understand everyone. Large number of different words are actually arhaic words from serbian that are still used in croatian language.

 Even now you cannot easily distinguish serbian and croatian language by dialect differencies because all dialects are used in both langages. Some are predominant in one, some in other, but they are still used in both.

 Bosnian is actually not a language. After muslims in Bosnia secessed they wanted to enlarge their difference from Serbs in any way including making their own language. So they made up bosnian which is in no way different from Serbian and Croatian. They declared latin as official alphabet just to make themselver mroe different from Serabs. The fact is that, before the civil war, Bosnia was the state where cyrillic alphabet was almost exclusively used, by the same muslim population.

 It does not matter what variation you know and use, you will be well understood everywhere in Balcan, starting from Slovenia and going all the way to the Macedonia.


----------



## Jana337

I respectfully disagree. I don't consider myself partisan in this issue, it's just an experience of an observer: A Croatian member prepared the welcome sticky both in Croatian and Serbian. She did an amazingly good job in the latter, and yet, a Serbian forera submitted a corrected version.

Another interesting thread is here. The thread opener wanted to have something translated into Croatian. A Slovenian native gave it a try, and he was reasonably close. A Serbian forera corrected it, but a Croatian forera was able to find another mistake. If Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian were one language, I would assume they would have been able to pin down one correct version and to relegate the others to dialect forms.

I am afraid that the enthusiasm of those who believe that all South Slavic languages are actually one language would peter out sooner or later if I randomly picked one, say Slovenian Bosnian (OK, Slovenian was a lapsus), and deleted the others from our welcome sticky.

This is not to downplay the role of political emancipation in the process, neither do I want to dispute possible mixed forms in the border regions. But bygones are bygones; and the existence of a proto-Slavic language many centuries ago does not make Czech, Belarussian and Bulgarian dialects of one common (standard if you want) language. In the Balkans, the divergence of languages is undeniably recent, and it carries a lot of emotions for obvious reasons. But it is foolish to pretend that it does not exist.

Jana

P.S. Pedja, please spell and capitalize properly; it would be so much easier to read. 


> Tehre is are more differences among soem dialects within the alnguage than between *s*erbian and *c*roatian
> Real *c*roatian language is actually very ar*c*haic and spoken in narow area.


----------



## cadavir

*-Are Bosnian and Serbian spelled the same way when written with the Cyrillic alphabet?* 
 No! In the Bosnia&Herzegowina the offical letter is latin alphabet. Serbian language is "ekavica" and Bosnian/Croatian is "ijekavica".
Becouse there are political conflicts in Bosnia&Herzegowina some still use Serbian as they Language thought they use latin alphabet and speak "ijekavica" not "ekavica". As far as I know Serbian language is writed in cyrillic or latin alphabet but it's 100% "ekavica". In Serbian language no one use "ijekavica" there is only Croatian or Bosnian. About 90% is latin alphabet in Bosnia&Herzegowina.

*- Which is more prevalent in Bosnia and Serbia, the Cyrillic or Latin orthographies?* 
In Bosnia&Herzegowina latin alphabet is about 90%.

* - Do all Bosnians and Serbians know both orthographies?*
 They should know.

* - Can Croatians read the Bosnian and Serbian when written in Cyrillic?*
 When they know cyrillic alphabet.


Cad


----------



## natasha2000

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree. I don't consider myself partisan in this issue, it's just an experience of an observer: A Croatian member prepared the welcome sticky both in Croatian and Serbian. She did an amazingly good job in the latter, and yet, a Serbian forera submitted a corrected version.
> 
> Another interesting thread is here. The thread opener wanted to have something translated into Croatian. A Slovenian native gave it a try, and he was reasonably close. A Serbian forera corrected it, but a Croatian forera was able to find another mistake. If Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian were one language, I would assume they would have been able to pin down one correct version and to relegate the others to dialect forms.
> 
> I am afraid that the enthusiasm of those who believe that all South Slavic languages are actually one language would peter out sooner or later if I randomly picked one, say Slovenian, and deleted the others from our welcome sticky.
> 
> This is not to downplay the role of political emancipation in the process, neither do I want to dispute possible mixed forms in the border regions. But bygones are bygones; and the existence of a proto-Slavic language many centuries ago does not make Czech, Belarussian and Bulgarian dialects of one common (standard if you want) language. In the Balkans, the divergence of languages is undeniably recent, and it carries a lot of emotions for obvious reasons. But it is foolish to pretend that it does not exist.
> 
> Jana
> 
> P.S. Pedja, please spell and capitalize properly; it would be so much easier to read.


 
Jana, I do respect your opinion, but I think you got it all wrong. Nobody says that all Slavic languages are in fact one Slavic language, since all Slavic people do not have neither the same history nor culture. All of us developed through history in very different ways and with various influences, therefore it is ridiculous to say that all Slavic languages are the same in the same way in which all Romanic or all Germanic languages ARE NOT the same.
The question is here in Serbian and Croatian, and you are again wrong, nobody ever claimed that they are same as Slovenian. Serbian and Croatian ARE the same language, different dialects, just as it is Spanish in Spain and Spanish in every and each country of Latin America. The corrections I made (because it was I who made corrections in the thread you give examples) are case corrections, and I corrected a Slovenian forero, who speaks Croatian/Serbian but as a FOREIGN language, evan though the mistakes he made could be very possibly made by an uneducated Serb or Croatian. Then, the correction a Croatian forera made to my correction, is really insignificant one. If I say Devojka or Djevojka, everyone will understand, the difference is only that if I say Djevojka, the one qho listens me will know I do not come from Serbia, I might come ffrom Croatia or Bosnia, and if I say Devojka then I for sure come from Serbia. And it is the same as a difference in pronunciation of C and Z in Spanish Spanish and Latin American Spanish. Spanish people pronounce it as English THE, and Latin Americans as S. Whatever you pronounce these letters, you will speak Spanish, and not Argentinian or Peruvian or Maxican.
The unfortunate thing with Serbian/Croatian is that there is one language called in two diffrent ways, I would even porpose to say to call Serbian and Croatian dialects of some nameless language. 
The difference that is insisted upon lately IS of very political reason, and as I really consider this stupid reason to have endless discussions that go nowhere, I am do call the language of Croats Croatian, and I do respect the differences of theirs from Serbian, like that J or preference to use infinitive rather than DA + present. But then, if you tell me that in all Czech Republic the Czech language is uniform in all territory, then I would admit that Croatian is a completely different language. Otherwise, how come I understand everything they say???
PS: And I also correctesd the sticky, since it was obvious that it was written by a Croatian person, and since everyone is insisting so much in difference between Serbian and Croatian, I hed to do it. Otherwise, I wouldn't mind to leave it just as it was. By the way, if you remember, with every correction I also put what is wrong, and in almos every correction I put something like: this is how Croatian would say. Serbians say like this....
Two ways of saying the same thing. And both understandable to the other side.


----------



## Maja

Well, when we were living in the same country (former SFRY), the language was called Serbo-Croatian, but after the country's division into several separated countries (former Republics), we "split" it into Serbian and Croatian. Although most words and grammar are the same. We can understand each other WITHOUT difficulty, meaning no interpreter/translator needed, which is not the case with other Slavic languages (for example: although Bulgarian and Serbian are similar in many aspects, one still needs a translator).
On the other hand there are  NO Bosnian or Montenegrin language. And there never were.  

Answers to questions:
1 No, because there are some differences in pronunciation. We had three - "ekavski izgovor" (in Serbia), "ijekavski" (Montenegro, Croatia and BiH) and "ikavski" (Croatian cost). 
Example: ml*e*ko, ml*ije*ko, ml*i*ko (means  milk).

2. No (same as above).

3. In Bosnia I think  Latin alphabet, the Republic of Srpska Cyrillic, and in Serbia both, but  Cyrillic is the primary one. 

4. Serbs yes, people who live in the  Republic of Srpska also yes, dunno for those in  Bosnia.

5. Most of them yes because it was obligatory to know Cyrillic and Latin alphabet when we lived in the same country. Younger post-war-generations probably not.

Hope this helps   
p.s. Nataša, narečja  (dialect) are: čakavsko, kajkavsko and  štokavsko!


----------



## Pedja

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree. I don't consider myself partisan in this issue, it's just an experience of an observer: A Croatian member prepared the welcome sticky both in Croatian and Serbian. She did an amazingly good job in the latter, and yet, a Serbian forera submitted a corrected version.


It may look different in your foreigner eyes but for us, that is the same language. Actually, Croatian and "Bosnian" translations are still full of errors, so I guess they were written by someone who is not quite good in languages. It is obvious that "Bosnian" translation was copied from croatian and he altered it a bit. It was obviously done by someone who wants to present "Bosnian" language different from Serbian. I've been in Bosnia so many times before the civil war, and I never heard someone speaking like that, except if he was Croat.

Historical fact is that Bosnia was always populated by Serbian inhabitants, and that did not change even when Turks occupied this area and made them Muslims. They spoke Serbian then and they speak it now. Until civil war, they even used cyril alphabet.

You cannot make paralell among development of antient slavic language and development of Croatian from Serbian which took part in very recent history. It simply was not enough time to make a difference. When you look at "Bosnian" language, it would be that language developed in just ten years.




> Another interesting thread is here. The thread opener wanted to have something translated into Croatian. A Slovenian native gave it a try, and he was reasonably close. A Serbian forera corrected it, but a Croatian forera was able to find another mistake. If Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian were one language, I would assume they would have been able to pin down one correct version and to relegate the others to dialect forms.


The first translation was obviously done by someone who does not know language well. It was wrong, althrough pretty close to correct translation. The second one just corrected mistakes, but it used _ekavica_. Third one was just minor correction regarding the fact that Croatioan language uses _ijekavica_. 

That is just the way how old letter _jat_ was transformed in modern language. In Croatian, ijekavica and ikavica are predominant, in Serbian ekavica and ijekavica are predominant. Transformation is so clear that you can easily have computer to "translate" from one form to other, and in Serbian it does not mattter what form you use. It just shows what area you originate from.



> I am afraid that the enthusiasm of those who believe that all South Slavic languages are actually one language would peter out sooner or later if I randomly picked one, say Slovenian, and deleted the others from our welcome sticky.


That is pretty loose interpretation. Noone claims that all south slavic languages are the same, because they are not. They are similar to Serbian and Croatian in the same way as other Slavic languages and no more than that. 

The only "problem" is among Serbian and Croatian which are the same language, and that is scientific and historical fact, which is constantly being negated due to political reasons.

*You cannot say they are different languages as you cannot say that british, american and australian languages are different. This is exactly the same kind of difference.*

Historical fact is that some 200 years ago, Croatians spoke cakavski and kajkavski dialect, but stokavski (spoken mostly by Serbs who lived there in larger number) prevailed. When Croats started their process of forming independent nation, they volontairely took Serbian as basic of their language as that was strong enough to give them national identity. It was not hard thing to do, since their language and Serbian were the forms of the same language and thus very similar. It was just that their form was spoken by small population.

Unfortunately, romantic view of brotherhood among so similar people vanished in time. 

There was one big issue: Croats were catholic, and Serbs were orthodox. Catolic church does not tolerate orthodox religion, so they instumented Croats against Serbs. Under its influence process of differentitation started and it is still going on. Direct result is that most of the Serbis who were predominand inhabitants in nowaday Croatia are expelled, killed or converted to catholic religion. It happened in three massive waves: under the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, during the WWI, under the Croatian state during the WWII and in recent civil war. 

Now, it is almost offical, that everyone who is catholic is considered to be Croat and everyone who is orthodox is considered to be Serb, and that is basis for claims for separate languages. Truth is different. Large number of nowadays Croats are actualy Serbs who were forcefully converted to catholic religion. They stil speak the same language as before, therefore they cannot be basis for forming of new Croatian language.

Today, it is even worse. Now, there are claims that everything that was writen in latin characters is Croatian language. It goes that far that they even claim as Croatian all writers and scientsts who were without question Serbs (not just by fact of birth, but they claimed themselves in that way), because they were botn on the ground of nowadays Croatioa, or they spoke language variant that is more common to one spoken in Croatia.

Well, that is how Croatian language become.



			
				cadavir said:
			
		

> *-Are Bosnian and Serbian spelled the same way when written with the Cyrillic alphabet?*
> No! In the Bosnia&Herzegowina the offical letter is latin alphabet. Serbian language is "ekavica" and Bosnian/Croatian is "ijekavica".
> Becouse there are political conflicts in Bosnia&Herzegowina some still use Serbian as they Language thought they use latin alphabet and speak "ijekavica" not "ekavica". As far as I know Serbian language is writed in cyrillic or latin alphabet but it's 100% "ekavica". In Serbian language no one use "ijekavica" there is only Croatian or Bosnian. About 90% is latin alphabet in Bosnia&Herzegowina.
> It's very simple, why using Cyrillic when in the Europe, USA all people use latin alphabet.


This is good example how today's language policy in Bosnia works. They make such claims which have no support in history and science, and they just make people who do not have good knowledge, believe them.

Look what you said: "_some still use Serbian_". Do you know what it means? It means that even you recognize that there was or is Serbian language in use but there is intention and policy to change that fact.

Latin alphabet was made official by muslim gouvernment, which does everything to minimise serbian cultural and hitorical presence in Bosnia. They even do not regard that Serbs constituted largest population in Bosnia before they were killed or expelled, or forcefully converted to muslim religion. 

The fact is that, before the civil war, when people were free to use any alphabet they wanted, most used cyrillic, even Muslims.

Claim that ekavica belong to Serbs and ijekavica to Muslims and Croats is just an fine example of your ignorance. The first books written in modern Serbian were writen in ijekavica, as it was the most used form of the language at that time.

Later, it was decided to switch to ekavica and in time it became most used. Even today there are some regions in Croatia and Bosnia where people who do not see themselves as Serbs, do use ekavica. Also, there are regions in Serbia where ijekavica is used by Serbs. 

The form of language that one uses, is not result of his nationality, but the region where he lives.



			
				cadavir said:
			
		

> It's very simple, why using Cyrillic when in the Europe, USA all people use latin alphabet.


Why should people give up ther cultural herritage just to match others? The point is that living together means to live in peace, respect each others differencies, and to keep not just your own herritage, but other's too.

Serbian language has the advantage that it uses latin and cyril alphabet equally. One can use whichever alphabet he wants or which suits occasion. the fact that you decided to use just one alphabet, does not make your language different.


----------



## Jana337

Dear friends,

As you have probably noticed, this thread was out of sight for a while. The discussion turned rather nasty while I was offline. I am sorry that I had to intervene ex post. 

I deleted a large number of posts that were at odds with our mission and rules.


> Mission Statement
> 
> I. WordReference.com provides Forums for exchanges about translation, word usage, terminology equivalency and other linguistic topics.
> 
> II. The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.
> 
> III. We welcome members who share our goals and philosophy, and agree to act in accord with the rules and guidelines of the Forums.





> Please keep your language clean and decent. This includes personal inflammatory language as well as obscenities.
> 
> Slanderous, defamatory, obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic, violent, abusive, insulting, threatening and harassing comments are not tolerated.
> 
> Flaming: flaming or personal attacks are not allowed or tolerated. Should anyone use inappropriate language, start a personal attack, or engage in hate speech, they will be barred from all further discussions.
> 
> Any post that disparages, denigrates, or degrades other members, groups of people, cultures or nations will be deleted. The rules of common courtesy and decency shall be applied at all times.


I deleted indiscriminately. To preserve continuity, I also deleted decent replies to unacceptable posts.

Specifically, the tone some of you used was inflammatory and not very respectful of others. Such behavior won't be condoned. 

I am restoring this thread in good faith: It remains open for your contributions. However, I am determined to close it if it gets out of hand again.

When posting, you should bear the following in mind:

This forum does not want to be another battlefield of the Balkan wars. We are primarily a language forum although we have a fair share of political discussions in the Cultural forum. This subforum and this thread, however, are devoted to languages. While there is a political dimension to this issue, many of you drifted away from the topic completely.

Obviously, being off topic was not the main issue here. It is totally inappropriate to accuse people you have never seen of being on a par with mass murderers. It is also inappropriate to denigrate nations and to obstinately insist that other people are in fact members of your nation although they don't feel they are.

Also, when you want to dispute a claim of other forum members, the proper words to use are "I respectfully disagree", "I beg to differ", "I don't think you are right", not "you are silly" and "what you say is so infantile".

Last but not least, this thread was started by an English native, and is of general interest. It is a matter of common courtesy to stick to English. Posts in other languages will be deleted regardless of content.

Thank you for your understanding. 

Jana


----------



## cadavir

Pedja said:
			
		

> I've been in Bosnia so many times before the civil war...
> *Probably you were not in Bosnia&Herzegovina during war, and you were never after war, and therefore you say something like it was civil war. But it wasn't civil war, Milosevic was there accoused, as a President of Serbia, for war in Bosnia&Croatia. I was in Dubrovnik and Sarajevo during war, and you were probably in Serbia. Bosnia was attacked and Serbia wasn't.*
> 
> They spoke Serbian then and they speak it now. Until civil war, they even used cyril alphabet.
> *In Bosnia&Herzegovina they speak Bosnian language, that is also used in Otoman period. The one of the oldest letter is called "Bosanicica" (was used by Bosnian King Kulin Ban). The Charter of Kulin Ban was written in Bosancica, you can see that in Museum in Sarajevo.
> The Charter of Kulin **(1180-1240), **is a symbolic birth certificate of Bosnian statehood  as it is the first written document that talks of Bosnian borders (between the rivers of Drina, Sava and Una) and of the elements of the Bosnian state: its ruler, throne and political organization. It also noted Bosnia's population - Bosnians. The Charter was a trade agreement between Bosnia and republic of Dubrovnik.
> Offical alphabet in Bosnia&Herzegovina is latin. Both alphabet is always used by sings and Personal documents (Passport etc.).*
> 
> 
> When you look at "Bosnian" language, it would be that language developed in just ten years.
> *Read above.*
> 
> 
> This is good example how today's language policy in Bosnia works. They make such claims which have no support in history and science, and they just make people who do not have good knowledge, believe them.
> *As I see you have no good knowledge, becouse you do not all the facts.*
> 
> Latin alphabet was made official by muslim gouvernment, which does everything to minimise serbian cultural and hitorical presence in Bosnia. They even do not regard that Serbs constituted largest population in Bosnia before they were killed or expelled, or forcefully converted to muslim religion.
> *There is no muslim goverment, you are wrong. There is only Federation between Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks, and federal goverment is not purely muslim. The Serbs are not the largest population in Bosnia&Herzegovina: * *Bosniak 48%, Serb 37.1%, Croat 14.3%, other 0.6% (2000).*
> 
> The fact is that, before the civil war, when people were free to use any alphabet they wanted, most used cyrillic, even Muslims.
> *People are still free to use every alphabet. Fact that all have used mostly cyrillic (in Yugoslavia) was becouse in Ex-Yugoslavia all people have learnd both alphabet and used both alphabet. But they haven't use only cyrillic alphabet.*
> 
> Claim that ekavica belong to Serbs and ijekavica to Muslims and Croats is just an fine example of your ignorance. The first books written in modern Serbian were writen in ijekavica, as it was the most used form of the language at that time.
> Later, it was decided to switch to ekavica and in time it became most used. Even today there are some regions in Croatia and Bosnia where people who do not see themselves as Serbs, do use ekavica. Also, there are regions in Serbia where ijekavica is used by Serbs.
> *Therefor you can't say ijekavica only belongs to Serbian or Croatian, it belongs also to Bosnian Language. As I said Charter of Kulin Ban is writed on Bosancica (later known as Bosnian Language).*



Bosnia&Herzegovina is Independent State and always was (even in Ex-Yugoslavia, as SRBiH), and there is Bosnian Language as language of citizens of Bosnia&Herzegovina.

Cad


----------



## Jana337

Now that we've heard opinions of both sides on whether or not it was a civil war and on the ethnic composition of Bosna, I would like ask everyone not to bring up these topics again in this language thread.

Thanks,

Jana


----------



## Maja

Well, after reading some of the answers I have to change my previous answers 1. and 2. into YES, because I probable misunderstood the question. I have to agree with Nataša. The SAME word, written in both Cyrillic and Latinic, sounds totally the same because we go by the rule: "Write as you speak, read as it is written", meaning the words are exactly pronounced as they are written and vice versa. 
For the comparison of the Cyrillic alphabet (called  Azbuka) and Latin alphabet (called Abeceda):

Cyrillic:  *А* (A) *Б* (B) *В* (V)  *Г* (G ) *Д* (D) *Ђ* (Đ) *Е* (E) *Ж* (Ž) *З* (Z) *И* (I ) *Ј* (J) *К* (K) *Л* (L) *Љ* (Lj) *М* (M) *Н* (N)  *Њ* (Nj) *О* (O) *П* (P) *Р* (R) *С* (S) *Т* (T) *Ћ* (Ć) *У* (U) *Ф* (F) *Х*  (H) *Ц* (C) *Ч* (Č) *Џ* (Dž) *Ш* (Š) 
(corresponding letters in Latinic are in brackets).

It can be a bit confusing because some of the letters in Cyrillic are written the same as in Latinic but they stand for different sounds (like "B" is actually "V" and not "B" as in bottle).

Hope this helps!
Pozdrav!


----------



## Stormwoken

I thought of typing my opinion, but it would, for the most part, be a repetition of what natasha2000 (a voice of reason in this thread) already said.

Although it`s an undeniable fact that it`s incomparably easier for people from Zagreb and Novi Sad to understand each other than it is for, say, a Texan and a Cockney, one cannot be denied the right to speak whatever language they want. If you understand them all, good for you. You can always brag about speaking 7 of them (this is a light-hearted way of looking at it, I`m not too serious) 

Regards


----------



## janecito

I just discovered this forum and right away come across this rather interesting discussion. I'm not an expert on the subject, so I'll limit myself to commenting on two details.




			
				dell22 said:
			
		

> Further, someone earlier mentioned that they might offend someone speaking a different dialect. I think that is complete nonsense....



 You might change your mind if you walked into a grocery store in Croatia and wouldn't get bread for (mistakenly?) asking for a loaf of 'hleb' instead of 'kruh'. I'm speaking from a personal experience, so I know what vesna was trying to say (she was the one that mentioned what you're referring to). Of course, I know it has absolutely nothing to do with understanding (the lady understood me perfectly), but that doesn't really help you if you end up hungry. It would even be much easier for me to say 'kruh' as we use the same word in Slovene, but I was trying to make an (extra) effort and what do I get in return? From then on, I'm only using self-service supermarkets when I'm in Croatia.  And I bet it would not be the same if I was a German tourist and said the same thing.


 Of course, I know that a vast majority of people is not like that and wouldn't mind selling me 'kruh' for 'hleb', but one such experience is enough to make you wonder 'Is it really worth making an effort to speak the language of the country you're in if this is the response you get?' I guess everyone comes to a different conclusion. I, personally, got reoriented to other languages.




			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> You can read and write Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian in cyrillic and latinic, indistinctively.



 Cyrillic is one of two writing systems that were created exclusively for the Slavic language(s) (the other one being glagolitic alphabet). And not only can Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian be written in cyrillic (as well), every Slavic language can be written using this alphabet as it contains all the  characters needed to represent all the sounds of the modern Slavic languages (including palatal and velar consonants, nasal sounds, semivocals etc.). I'm talking about the original (i.e. old) cyrillic and not about any of today variants (Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Russian etc.). I, could just as well write in my language (Slovene) using cyrillic writing. Of course it is not according to today's Slovenian normative grammar (just like it wouldn't be in the case of Polish, Slovak, Croatian etc.) but could, theoretically be done. The fact that some Slavic nations gave up cyrillic has its roots in the cultural traditions (western Slavic countries, religion etc.), I'm guessing.


----------



## natasha2000

janecito said:
			
		

> Of course it is not according to today's Slovenian normative grammar (just like it wouldn't be in the case of Polish, Slovak, Croatian etc.) but could, theoretically be done.


 
Croatian CAN be written in cyrillic, without any problem. The thing is Croats chose NOT to use it. "Croatian" alphabet has the same letters as "Serbian" - 30 letters. You can see it from Maja's last post

I would give you example in words, but my keybord does not have cyrillic letters.
The letters are the same, with the same pronunciation. "Croatian" letter is pronounced in the same way as "Serbian" letter - in the way Vuk Karadzic said: "Write as you speak, speak as it is written", which means, one letter, one sound, and the same sound no matter if the letter is at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of the word, no matter if it has vowels or consonants in front or behind it, T is always T, A is always A etc. This goes for Bosnian, too.

*Kruh* or *hleb*, *vlak* or *voz*... One does not understand not because they can't but because they refuse to understand it. The difference is exactly the same as:

English:
lift - elevator
pavement - sidewalk

or in Spanish:
patata - papa
autobus - autocar - guagua - etc... 
charlar - platicar

Someone mentioned the existence of J in some words:
devojka - djevojka

it is the same difference as in:
English:
armor - armour
neighbor - neigbour
gotten - got

Spanish:
cacahuete - cacahuate

Anyway....

As far as I know, this is not the case with Slovenian, Czeck or Polish...
And yes, I agree with you. The most probable thing is that using latinic letters ia directly connected with catholic church, as well as the use of cyrillic with orthodox one, even though, recently I knew some examples of exceptions, such as Ukranian Greek Catholic church that use cyrillic letters, but then, I would dare to say this is the Greek influence. I assume that although there is also Polish ortodox church, Orthodox Polish people write like the Catholic ones - using latinic letters... Polish or other people who know better are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Maja

janecito said:
			
		

> Cyrillic is one of two writing systems that were created exclusively for the Slavic language(s) (the other one being glagolitic alphabet). And not only can Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian be written in cyrillic (as well), every Slavic language can be written using this alphabet as it contains all the characters needed to represent all the sounds of the modern Slavic languages (including palatal and velar consonants, nasal sounds, semivocals etc.). I'm talking about the original (i.e. old) cyrillic and not about any of today variants (Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Russian etc.).


 I agree that it is possible to write all Slavic languages in Cyrillic if there IS a corresponding Cyrillic sign for Latinic one (see my previous post). But that cannot be done with all the letters in every Slavic language because certain letters just don't have that corresponding Cyrillic letter (like W in Polish, etc.). 
And not every Cyrillic alphabet is the same (regarding the number of letters and existence of certain signs). For instance, there are "ћ, ђ, њ, љ" in Serbian and Croatian which Russians or Bulgarians do not have. And Russians use "ь, ы, э,й, ё, я, щ" that Serbs or Croats do not.
So in that sense, Serbian and Croatian are absolutely the same, as they both have THE SAME 30 letters (as Nataša already said). 

Pozdrav!


----------



## Juri

As last straw: Not many people know that the English Bernard Shaw was very fond of the Cyrillic alphabet, which - he said- has for each sound corresponding sign.


----------



## natasha2000

Juri said:
			
		

> As last straw: Not many people know that the English Bernard Shaw was very fond of the Cyrillic alphabet, which - he said- has for each sound corresponding sign.


 
And some say he left a fortune for the one who invents spelling rules for English...  The example he gave was that the word FISH can be also written as GHOTI.
GH is read as F in enouGH
TI as SH in all words finishing in TION - celebraTIon
there was an example for O too, but I forgot it.

I think that we owe a lot to Vuk Karadzic. If Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian language has a very difficult grammar, at least it is very easy to learn how to read and write it...


----------



## Juri

I'm still angry with  linguists of Napoleon's Illiric age, who didn't engage themselves in unite and non separate the south Slavic languages!!!


----------



## janecito

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Croatian *CAN* be written in cyrillic, without any problem. The thing is Croats chose *NOT* to use it. "Croatian" alphabet has the same letters as "Serbian" - 30 letters. You can see it from Maja's last post


 
 Exactly what I was saying only in a more general, Slavic context – every Slavic language *CAN* be written using Cyrillic alphabet without any problem, but some nations have chosen *NOT* to and opted for Latin alphabet. I'm sure the religion was a key factor here, but it is still a nation's chose. That means that if Slovene, Croatian, Polish etc. use Latin writing it is because they're mostly Catholic and Catholic church is based on Latin (language and therefore alphabet). If there're other religions present, that, of course, does not change anything once the norm has been established and accepted by the nation as such. There are Muslims present in Slovenia and that doesn't mean that those couple of hundreds will write in Slovene using Arabic alphabet. I even think that if all Slovenian Catholics were to convert to Orthodox Church, the Cyrillic alphabet wouldn't be (re)introduced due to all the Slovenian tradition (literature etc.) that is based on this writing system. I said '*re*introduced' because we have to remember that the first written texts on any Slavic territory were written in Cyrillic (on the other hand, of course, at that time the separate Slavic languages haven't been formed to such an extent yet that would allow us to talk about different national languages; they were probably still just different dialects based on the uniform Old Church Slavonic and influenced by regional speeches).



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I would give you example in words, but my keybord does not have cyrillic letters.



 No need to give me examples, cause I learnt Cyrillic in my sebo-croatian classes in school and we had to 'translate' Latin into Cyrillic all the time. So, I know that it is possible. But it would probably look something like this:

 kruh > крух
 hleb > хлеб

 Correct me if I did it wrong it's just that I'm more used to Russian Cyrillic than Serbian and sometimes I get confused.

 But to demonstrate my point, I could also write Slovene using the same alphabet (i.e. 'limiting' myself to only the letters of Serbian Cyrillic alphabet), because there isn't a single letter in Slovenian alphabet that wouldn't be included in Serbian Cyrillic alphabet as well. Let's do some Prešeren translation:

 Žive naj vsi narodi, ki hrepene dočakat dan... > Живе наj вси народи, ки xрепене дочакат дан...

 I think we should distinguish here between the language (pronunciation, grammar rules, vocabulary, pragmatics) on one hand and the way it is written on the other. The fact that the two languages in question are written using different alphabets as absolutely nothing to do with the  possibility that they might be 'the same' (for the sake of an argument let's suppose they are, but I really don't want to initiate any politically based emotions). I for one was taught serbo-croatian and I always perceived it as one language




			
				Maja said:
			
		

> I agree that it is possible to write all Slavic languages in Cyrillic if there IS a corresponding Cyrillic sign for Latinic one (see my previous post). But that cannot be done with all the letters in every Slavic language because certain letters just don't have that corresponding Cyrillic letter (like W in Polish, etc.).



 It is not a question of signs, it's a question of sounds. There must be corresponding Cyrillic letters to mark all the sounds of all the Slavic languages. And there are. The Polish W is just the Polish way of marking the sound [v] that is present in all Slavic languages and therefore has a corresponding Cyrillic letter (в). The sounds represented by the Polish W and by the (Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, Macedonian, Ukrainian etc.) Cyrillic letter B are exactly the same.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Kruh or hleb, vlak or voz... One does not understand not because they can't but because they refuse to understand it.


 
 I absolutely agree and that's what I said too – it wasn't the problem of understanding it was the attitude problem of the shop-assistant and some other people. I'm sure most of the people are not like that and wouldn't have a problem 'understanding' me, but that experience made me tend to avoid speaking (Serbo-)Croatian when in Croatia. If possible I use English, if not, I opt for Slovene. My girlfriend had a similar experience a couple of years ago when the simple fact of being a female saved her from getting beaten up for saying 'drug' ('друг') instead of 'prijatelj' (приjатељ). I really didn't want to bring this up again as it is purely a political and nationalist issue and has absolutely nothing to do with languages, I just wanted to comment on your observation. But you're right, for a native Croatian or Serbian speaker there's no excuse for not understanding, a foreign, on the other hand, might run into problemс here.

 Anyway, that's how I see it. Some of it is my personal opinion and experience and some of it is based on facts. I also think that we agree more than we dare to admit, though I get a feeling that sometimes we're not talking about the same things.


----------



## natasha2000

janecito said:
			
		

> Exactly what I was saying only in a more general, Slavic context – every Slavic language *CAN* be written using Cyrillic alphabet without any problem, but some nations have chosen *NOT* to and opted for Latin alphabet. I'm sure the religion was a key factor here, but it is still a nation's chose. That means that if Slovene, Croatian, Polish etc. use Latin writing it is because they're mostly Catholic and Catholic church is based on Latin (language and therefore alphabet). If there're other religions present, that, of course, does not change anything once the norm has been established and accepted by the nation as such. There are Muslims present in Slovenia and that doesn't mean that those couple of hundreds will write in Slovene using Arabic alphabet. I even think that if all Slovenian Catholics were to convert to Orthodox Church, the Cyrillic alphabet wouldn't be (re)introduced due to all the Slovenian tradition (literature etc.) that is based on this writing system. I said '*re*introduced' because we have to remember that the first written texts on any Slavic territory were written in Cyrillic (on the other hand, of course, at that time the separate Slavic languages haven't been formed to such an extent yet that would allow us to talk about different national languages; they were probably still just different dialects based on the uniform Old Church Slavonic and influenced by regional speeches).
> 
> 
> 
> No need to give me examples, cause I learnt Cyrillic in my sebo-croatian classes in school and we had to 'translate' Latin into Cyrillic all the time. So, I know that it is possible. But it would probably look something like this:
> 
> kruh > крух
> hleb > хлеб
> 
> Correct me if I did it wrong it's just that I'm more used to Russian Cyrillic than Serbian and sometimes I get confused.
> 
> But to demonstrate my point, I could also write Slovene using the same alphabet (i.e. 'limiting' myself to only the letters of Serbian Cyrillic alphabet), because there isn't a single letter in Slovenian alphabet that wouldn't be included in Serbian Cyrillic alphabet as well. Let's do some Prešeren translation:
> 
> Žive naj vsi narodi, ki hrepene dočakat dan... > Живе наj вси народи, ки xрепене дочакат дан...
> 
> I think we should distinguish here between the language (pronunciation, grammar rules, vocabulary, pragmatics) on one hand and the way it is written on the other. The fact that the two languages in question are written using different alphabets as absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that they might be 'the same' (for the sake of an argument let's suppose they are, but I really don't want to initiate any politically based emotions). I for one was taught serbo-croatian and I always perceived it as one language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a question of signs, it's a question of sounds. There must be corresponding Cyrillic letters to mark all the sounds of all the Slavic languages. And there are. The Polish W is just the Polish way of marking the sound [v] that is present in all Slavic languages and therefore has a corresponding Cyrillic letter (в). The sounds represented by the Polish W and by the (Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, Macedonian, Ukrainian etc.) Cyrillic letter B are exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree and that's what I said too – it wasn't the problem of understanding it was the attitude problem of the shop-assistant and some other people. I'm sure most of the people are not like that and wouldn't have a problem 'understanding' me, but that experience made me tend to avoid speaking (Serbo-)Croatian when in Croatia. If possible I use English, if not, I opt for Slovene. My girlfriend had a similar experience a couple of years ago when the simple fact of being a female saved her from getting beaten up for saying 'drug' ('друг') instead of 'prijatelj' (приjатељ). I really didn't want to bring this up again as it is purely a political and nationalist issue and has absolutely nothing to do with languages, I just wanted to comment on your observation. But you're right, for a native Croatian or Serbian speaker there's no excuse for not understanding, a foreign, on the other hand, might run into problemс here.
> 
> Anyway, that's how I see it. Some of it is my personal opinion and experience and some of it is based on facts. I also think that we agree more than we dare to admit, though I get a feeling that sometimes we're not talking about the same things.


 
I wasn't referring to you at all, just used one of your sentences that inspired me for my reply. In general, you and I agree in all issues, but one.

I wouldn't say that ALL Slavic languages can be written in cyrillic, because if we take your system that it is the matter of sounds and not letters, then ALL languages and not only Slavic ones can be written in cyrillic letters, which is, you must admit, a foolish thing to claim. There ARE different letters in different languages' alphabets and there is a reason for it (historical and linguistical one, of course). Try to tell A Czech or a Polish people that they can write their languages in cyrillic, and you'll see what they will tell you. It is as if you tried to write English, German, Spanish using cyrillic. Furthermore, if you tried to do that, then you should invent cyrillic letters for the letters these languages already have, and there is no corresponding cyrillic letter in any of cyrrilic alphabets that exist (Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.). I really do not know anything about Slovene, I don't even know if Slovene obeys the Karadzic rule "one letter one sound", so I cannot claim nor I want to discuss this subject with you, considering you are native Slovene, so you should know better.
But as far as other Slavic languages are concerned..... I don't think so. Each language has its own alphabet, and you cannot simply change it for a different one.


----------



## janecito

hit the roof


			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I wasn't referring to you at all, just used one of your sentences that inspired me for my reply. In general, you and I agree in all issues, but one.



 No problem, I didn't take it personally. And I did the same – I simply took a couple of your sentences to base my reply on.
 I'm glad we agree on most of the topics and as to the last one...



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that ALL Slavic languages can be written in cyrillic, because if we take your system that it is the matter of sounds and not letters, then ALL languages and not only Slavic ones can be written in cyrillic letters, which is, you must admit, a foolish thing to claim.



 I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you here. There are many, many sounds in many, many different languages that are not present in any of the modern Slavic languages and were not present in Old Church Slavonic either and therefore there're no corresponding Cyrillic letters to mark them. Let's take only nasal vowels for instance. Old Church Slavonic only had two (sounds and corresponding letters) – nasal O and nasal E, that of all Slavic languages have only been preserved in modern Polish (and are written today as ą and ę). Ą is just a graphical representation, but phonetically we are talking about nasal O. Portuguese on the other hand has 5 nasal vocal (not counting the nasal diphthongs that exist in this languages) that are completely unknown to any of the modern Slavic languages as well as the today extinct Old Church Slavonic and therefore cannot be represented by any of the letters of cyrillic alphabet. And you can find examples like that in any language of any other language group but Slavic. Sounds that simply cannot be written using Cyrillic because of the lack of corresponding letters.

 On the other hand, every single Slavic language that has adopted Latin writing system had to invent new letters to enable the Latin alphabet to mark all the sounds of that language (Slovene: čšž, Polish: żśóąęń, Croatian: čšžđć, etc.). No such adaptations would be necessary in Cyrillic alphabet, because all this letter already exist in it. And actually some of different inventions of different Slavic languages represent the same sound: Polish ń represents the same sound as Croatian nj, etc.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Try to tell A Czech or a Polish people that they can write their languages in Cyrillic, and you'll see what they will tell you.



 What do think it would happen? They would probably hit the roof, but that would be expected to their resent history. There were even (documented) intents in the past to force Cyrillic alphabet upon this nation. Done, of course, by the Soviets. I would perfectly understand them if they went crazy. But, again, that would be purely for political reasons and would have nothing to do with the language.

 Besides, every Slavic language using Latin alphabet is proud of their special Latin letters and wouldn't want to lose them for anything, but this letters were invented when the Cyrillic alphabet was abolished and the Latin one was exepted to compensate for the lack of corresponding letters in Latin alphabet.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> It is as if you tried to write English, German, Spanish using cyrillic.



 As I said there are many sounds in non Slavic languages that do not have corresponding graphical representation in Cyrillic alphabet, therefore this would be impossible without (as you said yourself) inventing new Cyrillic letters.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I really do not know anything about Slovene, I don't even know if Slovene obeys the Karadzic rule "one letter one sound", so I cannot claim nor I want to discuss this subject with you, considering you are native Slovene, so you should know better.



 I know Slovene, but unfortunately I'm not too familiar with the Karažić rule. If it says one letter one sounds, then it's true for Slovene too, but if it is 'write as you speak' then it's not. The same Slovenian letter does not always have the same phonetical outcome (is not always pronounced the same) depending on the context (but it always represents ONE sound).



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> But as far as other Slavic languages are concerned..... I don't think so. Each language has its own alphabet, and you cannot simply change it for a different one.



Now, I'm not saying that all Slavic languages should go back to using Cyrillic. Of course not! After all, Cyrillic isn't my 'native' alphabet either. I'm just saying that it would be theoretically possible.

I 100% agree with you. Nobody is trying to change anything. Today's situation is the result of hundreds of years of tradion and history. What I wanted to say was that Cyrillic alphabet still has the necessary letters to represent all the sounds of modern Slavic languages and that goes for Polish and Slovak as well as for Croatian. They simply don't use cyrillic.


----------



## natasha2000

janecito said:
			
		

> hit the roof
> 
> 
> No problem, I didn't take it personally. And I did the same – I simply took a couple of your sentences to base my reply on.
> I'm glad we agree on most of the topics and as to the last one...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you here. There are many, many sounds in many, many different languages that are not present in any of the modern Slavic languages and were not present in Old Church Slavonic either and therefore there're no corresponding Cyrillic letters to mark them. Let's take only nasal vowels for instance. Old Church Slavonic only had two (sounds and corresponding letters) – nasal O and nasal E, that of all Slavic languages have only been preserved in modern Polish (and are written today as ą and ę). Ą is just a graphical representation, but phonetically we are talking about nasal O. Portuguese on the other hand has 5 nasal vocal (not counting the nasal diphthongs that exist in this languages) that are completely unknown to any of the modern Slavic languages as well as the today extinct Old Church Slavonic and therefore cannot be represented by any of the letters of cyrillic alphabet. And you can find examples like that in any language of any other language group but Slavic. Sounds that simply cannot be written using Cyrillic because of the lack of corresponding letters.
> 
> On the other hand, every single Slavic language that has adopted Latin writing system had to invent new letters to enable the Latin alphabet to mark all the sounds of that language (Slovene: čšž, Polish: żśóąęń, Croatian: čšžđć, etc.). No such adaptations would be necessary in Cyrillic alphabet, because all this letter already exist in it. And actually some of different inventions of different Slavic languages represent the same sound: Polish ń represents the same sound as Croatian nj, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> What do think it would happen? They would probably hit the roof, but that would be expected to their resent history. There were even (documented) intents in the past to force Cyrillic alphabet upon this nation. Done, of course, by the Soviets. I would perfectly understand them if they went crazy. But, again, that would be purely for political reasons and would have nothing to do with the language.
> 
> Besides, every Slavic language using Latin alphabet is proud of their special Latin letters and wouldn't want to lose them for anything, but this letters were invented when the Cyrillic alphabet was abolished and the Latin one was exepted to compensate for the lack of corresponding letters in Latin alphabet.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said there are many sounds in non Slavic languages that do not have corresponding graphical representation in Cyrillic alphabet, therefore this would be impossible without (as you said yourself) inventing new Cyrillic letters.
> 
> 
> 
> I know Slovene, but unfortunately I'm not too familiar with the Karažić rule. If it says one letter one sounds, then it's true for Slovene too, but if it is 'write as you speak' then it's not. The same Slovenian letter does not always have the same phonetical outcome (is not always pronounced the same) depending on the context (but it always represents ONE sound).
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that all Slavic languages should go back to using Cyrillic. Of course not! After all, Cyrillic isn't my 'native' alphabet either. I'm just saying that it would be theoretically possible.
> 
> I 100% agree with you. Nobody is trying to change anything. Today's situation is the result of hundreds of years of tradion and history. What I wanted to say was that Cyrillic alphabet still has the necessary letters to represent all the sounds of modern Slavic languages and that goes for Polish and Slovak as well as for Croatian. They simply don't use cyrillic.


 
Hmm.. 
Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough knowledge in Slavistics, so I cannot go on the discussion on this subject. Slavic languages (including Slovene), except the languages spoken in ex-Yugoslavia, are completely unknown for me. I have always been oriented towards Western European languages. Therefore, I am not properly "armed" to engage in this "battle"  

Anyway, this would be a good subject for another thread, but not this one, since I feel we are going a little bit off topic here...
I would really like to hear some other Slavic language speaker's opinion...


----------



## janecito

I agree with you. I only mentioned this because there was a moment when someone tried to demonstrated the difference between Serbian and Croatian (and this is the topic of this thread) based on the fact that they use different alphabets. After all, Serbian still uses both alphabets and that doesn't mean that there are two different Serbian languages. So basically, I was just supporting your view.  Not being the native speaker neither of Croatian, nor of Serbian, the writing was the only thing I could comment on regarding this topic.

 As to the knowledge of the Slavic languages, I personally only speak Slovene too, and some Russian. I'm currently living in Poland, so I'm in contact with this language, but don't really speak it yet (hopefully this changes soon  ). I did study some basics of the general Slavic linguistics though and that's where I mostly got that from. The sentence '_All modern Slavic languages can be written using the original (!!!) Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabet._ (these are the only two originally Slavic alphabets that were created specially for the Slavic needs) was not my invention. But nobody, of course, is trying to say it would be best  (for, let's say, Slovene) if we started using Cyrillic.

 The original old Cyrillic, of course also differs a bit from the different variants of modern Cyrillic alphabets, but not much. If anyone is interested, there are plenty of sites on the Internet that cover this topic. Unfortunately, I don't have 30 posts posted yet, so I'm not allowed (yet) to post links to other sites.  Interesting politics (of the forum).

 natasha2000, you're a great person to argue with.  I mean argue as '_to give the reasons for your opinion, idea, belief, etc._' not argue as '_to speak angrily to someone, telling them that you disagree with them_'. So, that was a compliment.


----------



## natasha2000

janecito said:
			
		

> After all, Serbian still uses both alphabets and that doesn't mean that there are two different Serbian languages.
> 
> 
> 
> So true!!! An excellent point!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sentence '_All modern Slavic languages can be written using the original (!!!) Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabet._ (these are the only two originally Slavic alphabets that were created specially for the Slavic needs) was not my invention. But nobody, of course, is trying to say it would be best (for, let's say, Slovene) if we started using Cyrillic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I really wouldn't know anything about that, my ignorance on this subject is shameful .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natasha2000, you're a great person to argue with.  I mean argue as '_to give the reasons for your opinion, idea, belief, etc._' not argue as '_to speak angrily to someone, telling them that you disagree with them_'. So, that was a compliment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you. Same here. I have always thought people can argue and have different points of view without jumping to each others throats, as long as there is a mutual respect, and objectiveness.
Click to expand...


----------



## Outsider

Hi.

I linked to this article in another discussion. It mentions Serbian and Croatian and their writing systems, as well as other languages which are or were written with the Cyrillic alphabet. I thought it was an interesting overview.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> Hi.
> 
> I linked to this article in another discussion. It mentions Serbian and Croatian and their writing systems, as well as other languages which are or were written with the Cyrillic alphabet. I thought it was an interesting overview.


 
There are some things I agree and some not.

*



Yugoslavia was created out of the ashes of World War One with the conviction that Serbo-Croatian (spoken in Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro) was one language divided into several mutually intelligible dialects. 

Click to expand...

 It was not conviction. It was a fact. It is, still.





There had always been nationalists, however, who disliked the enforced unification of what they perceived as separate nations.  

Click to expand...

 More from Croatian side than from Serbian...





Having previously carried out “ethnic cleansing” campaigns against ethnic minorities, both communities are now busily orchestrating “lexical cleansing” programs designed to eliminate “Croatian” words from Serbian, and vice versa 

Click to expand...

 Again, more from Croatian side than from Serbian... There is a bunch of neo-croatian words, invented after the destruction of Yugoslavia. Serbian language remained the same as it was before. No new "Serbian words" are invented.





where Muslims wrote their version of Serbo-Croatian in Arabic until the beginning of the 20th century 

Click to expand...

 I hear for this for the first time in my life. If I understand it well, it means that in Bosnia people wrote using Arabic letters???? May I remind that we were under Turquish empire, not Arabic one. It seems to me illogical to have any arabic influence (except through Turquish culture) since no Arabs were ever in the Balcans soil.
 




the CIA World Factbook assures us that Bosnians speak three languages, Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian, giving the misleading impression that the country is multilingual (www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bk.html). 

Click to expand...

 Typical. superficially "informed" the US gouvernment. 
 
Well, sorry to say, but this text, as far as this, Serbo-Croatian subject is concerned, does not bring anything knew, I would dare to suggest it even misleads a serious reader.
 
*


----------



## Outsider

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> There are some things I agree and some not.
> 
> * It was not conviction. It was a fact. It is, still.*


There aren't many facts in these matters, IMHO. Only opinions.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> * I hear for this for the first time in my life. If I understand it well, it means that in Bosnia people wrote using Arabic letters???? May I remind that we were under Turquish empire, not Arabic one. It seems to me illogical to have any arabic influence (except through Turquish culture) since no Arabs were ever in the Balcans soil.*


Turkish itself was written in the Arabic script until the early 20th century.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> There aren't many facts in these matters, IMHO. Only opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So, it would be fair to say that the claim "Portugese and Spanish are two different languages" is not a fact, merely an opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkish itself was written in the Arabic script until the early 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. Thanks for the tip. I would really like to see an example of Serbian written in Arabic letters.
Click to expand...


----------



## janecito

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Interesting. Thanks for the tip. I would really like to see an example of Serbian written in Arabic letters.


That is interesting. I have never heard of that either. But if it was really ever written using Arabic alphabet, such text must still exist. Or are that just just  speculations?

But I believe it would be possible. Why not. The first texts written in Spanish (or let's say in romance of that territory as Spanish as we know it today hadn't been formed yet) were written in Arabic letters. I guess the same could've been done with some other languages.

When we're talking about language as such (i.e. language as a natural phenomenon), we're talking about spoken language. Writing was always secondary (I'm not saying it wasn't important). And different alphabets are purely conventional agreements. There is absolutly nothing natural in the relationship between the graphical image of the letter A and the sound it represents. It's a sort of convention that we accepted. If there was something natural about it, the letter A would represent the same sound in every language and the same would go for all the other letters. And we know that's not the case.

Theoretically, that would allow us to mix up the letters and asign different sounds to different letters. We could say that form now on the letter G will represent the sound that has by now been represented by the letter Z. And it would work. Of course, everyone would have to remember this new convention and start using it.

Or instead of mixing up the alphabet we could invent a completely new alphabet or start using another one that already exists - let's say Arabic.

That's why I quite believe that maybe someday someone tried writing Bosnian in Arabic letters. But I doubt it was a massive phenomenon. I don't know though.


----------



## Outsider

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Really? So, it would be fair to say that the claim "Portugese and Spanish are two different languages" is not a fact, merely an opinion?


I've actually read a linguist _opine_ that Spanish and Portuguese are dialects of the same language.

Since they are mutually intelligible to some extent, I can't reject that point of view absolutely. Of course, such a claim flies in the face of the political realities and the last 800 years of history of both languages (not to mention the will of the speakers). 

But I have to admit that, when there is some degree of mutual intelligibility, the line between languages is drawn a bit subjectively.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Interesting. Thanks for the tip. I would really like to see an example of Serbian written in Arabic letters.


Probably in its Bosnian version, I imagine.



			
				janecito said:
			
		

> Why not. The first texts written in Spanish (or let's say in romance of that territory as Spanish as we know it today hadn't been formed yet) were written in Arabic letters.


That was Mozarabic, not Spanish.

Going back to Serbian and Croatian, the Wikipedia article on Croatian seems to imply that Serbian and Croatian were seen as different linguistic varieties until the 19th century. Is this accurate?


----------



## janecito

Outsider said:
			
		

> That was Mozarabic, not Spanish.


And what is Mozarabic? It's a romance dialect that was spoken at that time in that territory. Of course it wasn't Spanish (and I said that in my post) because in 11th century we cannot talk about romance languages as such quite yet. But the point remains - it was a romance dialect written with Arabic letters rather than Latin ones.


----------



## Outsider

janecito said:
			
		

> And what is Mozarabic? It's a romance dialect that was spoken at that time in that territory. Of course it wasn't Spanish (and I said that in my post) because in 11th century we cannot talk about romance languages as such quite yet.


You are mistaken. By the 11th century, the dialects which originated Portuguese, Spanish, and Catalan were already different. And Mozarabic was different from each of them.


----------



## janecito

Outsider said:
			
		

> You are mistaken. By the 11th century, the dialects which originated Portuguese, Spanish, and Catalan were already different. And Mozarabic was different from each of them.


 I agree, but Mozarabic was still one of the romance (!) dialects spoken in the peninsula at that time. It was not an Arabic dialect but was still written using Arabic alphabet. I was only trying to show that languages are sometimes written in the alphabet that was not primarily intended for them. Spanish, of course, originated in the Castilian dialect (hence its [other] name).


----------



## natasha2000

A tip about Mozarabic.
More in Spanish. Here's a paragraph - my translation:


> Mozarabic language were romancve dialects that were spoken on Iberic Penisula and they developed during muslim domination. There was no unity among the, and unlike other romanic languages, they were written in arabic and not in latin alphabet.


 


> Probably in its Bosnian version, I imagine.


Whatever. To me, Serbian, Bosnian or Croatian are the same language, therefore, if Bosnian could be written in Arabic letters, then Serbian and Croatian also can.



> Going back to Serbian and Croatian, the Wikipedia article on Croatian seems to imply that Serbian and Croatian were seen as different linguistic varieties until the 19th century. Is this accurate?


 Since Wikipedia is written by ordinary people, I would take this kind of statements with reserve. Nevertheless, I incline to believe it's true, since until the first Serbo-Croatian-Bosnian "joint-venture" called Yugoslavia all three regions had very different cultural and historical development. But make no mistake!!!! As you yourself say: They WERE SEEN AS DIFFERENT LINGUISTIC VARIETIES until 19century. Which does not imply they were or are different languages. As you say, verieties - dialects - call it whatever you want, but not two different languages.
By the way, we should not forget Josip Strossmayer who collaborated with Vuk Karadzic in unification of the grammar and alphabet of the language that was called Serbian in Serbia and Croatian in Croatia in 19th century. As a matter of fact, he was a Croat who supported the idea of unification of all South Slavic peoples, and contributed by foundation of Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1867, as well as Matica Srpska and Matica Slovenska... So, as a Croat, he was also the first Yugoslav in his soul.


----------



## Outsider

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Probably in its Bosnian version, I imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Bosnia that had the largest number of Muslims, in old Yugoslavia? Hence my suggestion that it was probably there that some variety of Serbo/Croatian was written with the Arabic script.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> Wasn't it Bosnia that had the largest number of Muslims, in old Yugoslavia? Hence my suggestion that it was probably there that some variety of Serbo/Croatian was written with the Arabic script.


 
Yes, you're right. But, those Muslims are not Arabs. Never were. They are descendants of Serbs that were turned into Islam by Turks many centuries ago. Some of them were forced, some not. As a matter of fact, many of them turned by their own will to Islam, since the life was easier for a Muslim than for a Cristian in those times. Muslims did not pay "harach" - taxes - that were very high, Muslims were not kidnapped children and taken away from their mothers to be converted in Turkish elite soldiers, janissaries. I don't know if this is true, but it is said that many families crippled their sons bu cutting them a small toe or dressed boys as girls in order to prevent the Turkish soldiers to take them away. This must have been very common in those days since Bosnian folk music is full of sad songs taliking about a son, janissary who mets his mother after many years, and he does not recognise her, but she recognizes him... One of them was Mehmed Pasha Sokollu (in Serbian Sokolovich)

Muslims in Bosnia are of the same race as Serbs or Croats, they are even more blondish and of paler skin than many Serbs... During the war in Bosnia, when you saw refugees on TV, could you distinguish if they were Serbian, Muslim or Croats if you had your TV silenced? No.

So, this is the wrong intuition you had. 

Nevertheless, I was looking for some info after I read what you've wrote, and I found this:



> The Bosniak elite wrote almost exclusively in foreign (Arabic, Turkish, Persian) languages. Vernacular literature, written in modified Arabic script, was thin and sparse.


 
Vernacular literature should be the language of common people used in these times, according to definition from Wiki:



> Vernacular literature is literature written in the vernacular - the speech of the "common people".


 
And language of common people was not not Turkish nor Arab, for sure.
So, maybe you're right. Thanks for the tip, really. I am really intrigued with this and I will continue my research. I would really like to see some of my language written in Arabic letters.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:
			
		

> Natasha, I never claimed that anyone in Bosnia wrote *Arabic* (or Turkish). Many different languages have been written with the *Arabic script*. I don't see why Serbo-Croatio-Bosnian couldn't have been one of them.


 
Outsider, I never said you had said that in Bosnia wrote Arabic or Turkish. Read my post with more attention. 
I understood you very well. You said that in Bosnia the language that was used there was written in Arabic letters, isn't it?
That is why I repeated various times that i would really like to see my language written in Arabic script (letter, signs??, whatever).

And if you didn't notice, in my last post I said you might just be right.


----------



## Budz

JLanguage said:
			
		

> As you know the written Chinese language is based on Mandarin Chinese. There is a big difference between a Cantonese person speaking the Mandarin written language with a Cantonese accent, and him speaking Cantonese.
> 
> Too right!!  All those Mandarin speakers that claim that Cantonese is just a dialect know nothing about Cantonese.  They don't know that when people write in 'Cantonese' they are actually writing in Mandarin.
> 
> e.g. Cantonese say, _kui hai_ for _he is._  If they write they write _ta si_ which is much closer to Mandarin.
> 
> In any case, this thing about the writing is nonsense.  Hungarian and English uses the same symbols for numbers.  And we can understand it when a Hungarian writes a number.  Does that mean English and Hungarian are related?
> 
> Robert


----------



## natasha2000

Budz said:
			
		

> JLanguage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know the written Chinese language is based on Mandarin Chinese. There is a big difference between a Cantonese person speaking the Mandarin written language with a Cantonese accent, and him speaking Cantonese.
> 
> Too right!! All those Mandarin speakers that claim that Cantonese is just a dialect know nothing about Cantonese. They don't know that when people write in 'Cantonese' they are actually writing in Mandarin.
> 
> e.g. Cantonese say, _kui hai_ for _he is._ If they write they write _ta si_ which is much closer to Mandarin.
> 
> In any case, this thing about the writing is nonsense. Hungarian and English uses the same symbols for numbers. And we can understand it when a Hungarian writes a number. Does that mean English and Hungarian are related?
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What all this has to do with similarities between Serbian and Croatian?
Click to expand...


----------



## janecito

Budz said:
			
		

> In any case, this thing about the writing is nonsense.  Hungarian and English uses the same symbols for numbers.  And we can understand it when a Hungarian writes a number.  Does that mean English and Hungarian are related?


You got it all wrong, Budz. The question wasn't whether two languages that use the same script are related, but whether two languages that use different scripts can be related (or even might be the same), which is "aproximately" the case with Serbian and Croatian.

Following your logic would mean that most of European languages would be related (Portugues, German, Estonian etc.) because they all use Latin alphabet and saying that would really be, as you called it, nonsense. Plus, Hungarian and English (as well as most of the Western world today) uses Arabic symbols for number, so that would probably have to mean that Arabic is related to all of them as well?


----------



## natasha2000

janecito said:
			
		

> You got it all wrong, Budz. The question wasn't whether two languages that use the same script are related, but whether two languages that use different scripts can be related (or even might be the same), which is "aproximately" the case with Serbian and Croatian.
> 
> Following your logic would mean that most of European languages would be related (Portugues, German, Estonian etc.) because they all use Latin alphabet and saying that would really be, as you called it, nonsense. Plus, Hungarian and English (as well as most of the Western world today) uses Arabic symbols for number, so that would probably have to mean that Arabic is related to all of them as well?


 
Janecito, I would say that Budz was reffering to Chinese/Mandarin/Cantonese which of course is not the subject of this thread. Or maybe I am wrong, Budz? 
Anyway,Budz, I would really appreciate if you answer my previous question - what does all that  Cantonese /Mandarin thing have to do with Serbian/Croatian thing?


----------



## janecito

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Janecito, I would say that Budz was reffering to Chinese/Mandarin/Cantonese which of course is not the subject of this thread. Or maybe I am wrong, Budz?
> Anyway,Budz, I would really appreciate if you answer my previous question - what does all that  Cantonese /Mandarin thing have to do with Serbian/Croatian thing?



The sentence that he quoted was taken from this thread, so somehow it's got something to do with the thread, but definitely not with the topic.  And as to the second part of his post (the one I commented on), I think it was referring to our discussions about the usage of (different) scripts and the relationships between languages and the possible connections between the two.


----------



## Budz

Ah, sorry about that.  It's just that someone else threw in the Cantonese Mandarin thing so I was commenting on that.  It of course had nothing to do with the Serbian/Croatian thing.  And of course I wasn't really suggesting that English and Hungarian are related.  I won't go on more about it here as it's off topic.

I just joined the forum and I didn't realise that it was so well run and postings got such immediate attention.  

Budz


----------



## Stormwoken

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Again, more from Croatian side than from Serbian... There is a bunch of neo-croatian words, invented after the destruction of Yugoslavia. Serbian language remained the same as it was before. No new "Serbian words" are invented.



Actually, no new words are being invented, but many words that once were a part of the common word-stock are simply regarded as Croatian. The lexical fund of Serbian is rapidly shrinking, I`m sorry to say.  I wouldn`t say that there are actual *campaigns*, but certain tendencies do exist, nontheless. For instance, you`ll often be politely reminded of a word being "a western variant", although it`s, most apparently, a recently obsolesced Serbian word.
Thenagain, new words are being introduced in their original form and that`s mostly where Croatian tends to apply the language engineering. Serbian has an incredible amount of words borrowed from foreign languages in the last decade, Croatian has somewhat odd-sounding Slavic counterparts.  If you read a pre WWII book in Croatian, you will see a number of words that one might today deem invented.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> * Typical. superficially "informed" the US gouvernment. *



Although I share your point of view, one must realise that they`d get most violent protests for saying that one sole language is spoken throughout Bosnia (despite the fact that everyone is aware of it).

The Slavic language used in Bosnia during the Turkish reign was never written in Arabic letters. If you were an educated muslim of Slavic origin, you spoke Turkish (or Arabic) and wrote it in Arabic letters. Muslims who spoke solely Serbocroatian were not an intellectual or social elite of the time, and even if they were, the official language was Turkish, so writing the Slavic language at all would have been useless. Basically, it`s pretty much like claiming that Gaulish was written in Latinic at the time of Roman occupation.


----------



## natasha2000

Stormwoken said:
			
		

> Actually, no new words are being invented, What about zrakomlat for helicopter, gospodarstvo for economy, etc????? My mother had a friend who was born and raised in Zagreb, and married for a Serb and then lived in Belgrade... When all the fuss began, she continued to go to Croatia to see her family, and she often came back telling that each time she understands less the lenguage it was spoken on TV...
> but many words that once were a part of the common word-stock are simply regarded as Croatian. The lexical fund of Serbian is rapidly shrinking, I`m sorry to say.  I wouldn`t say that there are actual *campaigns*, but certain tendencies do exist, nontheless. For instance, you`ll often be politely reminded of a word being "a western variant", although it`s, most apparently, a recently obsolesced Serbian word. This is also true, but not at the state level. There ARE nationalists and schovinists who do not know that many words they xconsider "western variant" is as a matter of fact, Serbian word and the word used in Serbia is of foreign origin. The perfect example would be shtednjak versus sporet...
> Thenagain, new words are being introduced in their original form and that`s mostly where Croatian tends to apply the language engineering. Serbian has an incredible amount of words borrowed from foreign languages in the last decade, Croatian has somewhat odd-sounding Slavic counterparts. If you read a pre WWII book in Croatian, you will see a number of words that one might today deem invented.
> I don't doubt it. Your last paragraph confirms what I said. In a way, we do agree. I do agree that Serbian took many foreign words and forgot its old original ones, and many of them are preserved in Croatian. But it is also true that new linguistic tendency in Croatia is to be different at all cost, so if necessary, invent the word.
> 
> Although I share your point of view, one must realise that they`d get most violent protests for saying that one sole language is spoken throughout Bosnia (despite the fact that everyone is aware of it). This was about CIA report. According you say here, it is obvious then that it is rather political decision than a scientific and linguistic one.
> 
> The Slavic language used in Bosnia during the Turkish reign was never written in Arabic letters. If you were an educated muslim of Slavic origin, you spoke Turkish (or Arabic) and wrote it in Arabic letters. Muslims who spoke solely Serbocroatian were not an intellectual or social elite of the time, and even if they were, the official language was Turkish, so writing the Slavic language at all would have been useless. Basically, it`s pretty much like claiming that Gaulish was written in Latinic at the time of Roman occupation.
> Thank you for this explanation. It seems very logical, and this is what I've always thought as true. I was really surprised. But then, have you checked the link to Wiki that I put? It is a little bit confusing, or  I am not understanding it in a correct way?


 
This is the sentence that makes me doubt.


> Vernacular literature, written in modified Arabic script, was thin and sparse.


----------



## Stormwoken

I meant that no new words are being invented in Serbian (just repeated what you said). In Croatian, many words are most certainly being invented.

"zrakomlat", for example is one of the mentioned odd words (one of the counterparts of the foreign words that we use), but to me "gospodarstvo" sounds rather natural, and I wouldn`t bet on that word being recently invented (though that possibility is open, as well). I don`t know if Croats ever used "privreda" (privrijeda sounds ridiculous), instead. I`ll have to ask my mother who studied in Zagreb. Funny enough, she, too (although a Croat herself) detests the way the Croats are trying to change their language at all costs. I remember browsing through a Croatian-English dictionary and seeing "kopneno jaružalo" for German(?) "bager". I suppose that it`s the result of trying to break away from what Serbs are still "trying to impose onto them" as a common language. I was just saying that it`s very hard to know which words are invented and which are restored to use. Undoubedly, they`ve abandoned a part of their lexical corpus after WWII for the sake of living in a comon state, and are now restoring it.

I know what vernacular literature is, but that still doesn`t convince me that the use of Serbocroatian (or Bosniak) in Arabic was extensive (things might have been _written in it_, but it was never _used_). There may have been some sporadic attempts, but I believe I would`ve come across anything massive during my extensive researches on my fatherland 

As for the CIA thing, the difference is purely political (notice the interesting link with the phrase "political correctness"), since you wouldn`t be able to get many people living there confirm that they speak the same language. The unsolvable issue would occur: _How to call it?_ That`s why it has to be pieced out... *cough*unfortunately*cough*


----------



## natasha2000

Stormwoken said:
			
		

> I meant that no new words are being invented in Serbian (just repeated what you said). In Croatian, many words are most certainly being invented.
> 
> "zrakomlat", for example is one of the mentioned odd words (one of the counterparts of the foreign words that we use), but to me "gospodarstvo" sounds rather natural, and I wouldn`t bet on that word being recently invented (though that possibility is open, as well). I don`t know if Croats ever used "privreda" (privrijeda sounds ridiculous), instead. I`ll have to ask my mother who studied in Zagreb. Funny enough, she, too (although a Croat herself) detests the way the Croats are trying to change their language at all costs. I remember browsing through a Croatian-English dictionary and seeing "kopneno jaružalo" for German(?) "bager". I suppose that it`s the result of trying to break away from what Serbs are still "trying to impose onto them" as a common language. I was just saying that it`s very hard to know which words are invented and which are restored to use. Undoubedly, they`ve abandoned a part of their lexical corpus after WWII for the sake of living in a comon state, and are now restoring it.
> 
> I know what vernacular literature is, but that still doesn`t convince me that the use of Serbocroatian (or Bosniak) in Arabic was extensive (things might have been _written in it_, but it was never _used_). There may have been some sporadic attempts, but I believe I would`ve come across anything massive during my extensive researches on my fatherland
> 
> As for the CIA thing, the difference is purely political (notice the interesting link with the phrase "political correctness"), since you wouldn`t be able to get many people living there confirm that they speak the same language. The unsolvable issue would occur: _How to call it?_ That`s why it has to be pieced out... *cough*unfortunately*cough*


 
I agree with you on everything you've said. By the way, I am not now sure, but "okolostručni pantalodržač" is really a Neo-Croatian word, or it belongs to some Serbian joke? It is really a pitty that most of the participants in this thread don't understand Ser/Croat/Bosn. - It is really funny....

Anyway, I feel that something is missing in this thread, and this is some Croatian opinion... Although we had some at the beginning, very quickly they disappeared... Could it be that they are not interested in discussion?


----------



## Stormwoken

Actually, I was about to say the same. I`m sure there`s another point of view. I`ve got this strange feeling that I`m biased on this one, and I don`t quite like it =\

That about "okolotrbusni pantalodrzac" is a joke, but not only Serbian. Even Bosnian Croats are making fun of stuff like that


----------



## Juri

It's perhaps better to forget such sad things,(the trend already started during A.Pavelič in WWII)  and post one joke more about "new" Croatian words.
 Coachman, cabby,Kutscher(in German), could be: "konjski ritogled". 
It means " man looking to the horse's ass".


----------



## Maja

Juri said:
			
		

> It's perhaps better to forget such sad things,(the trend already started during A.Pavelič in WWII) and post one joke more about "new" Croatian words.
> Coachman, cabby,Kutscher(in German), could be: "konjski ritogled".
> It means " man looking to the horse's ass".



Ha, ha, ha!!!


----------



## natasha2000

I have some news.
There was a time when Bosnian (Slavic) was written using arabic letters. The links I am goinf to provide are courtesy of Pedja. Since he still cannot paste links due to low number of the posts he has, he asked me to do this for him.

The thing is that everything is written in Bosnian, so many of you won't be able to read it. The link I give is from Wikipedia, but the article is only in Bosnian. There is no other article written in any other language. The article says that AREBITZA was used from 15th to 20th century, there was even a literature written in it (called alhamiyado literature), mostly poetry, but there is some prose, too. It has some letters that don't exist in Arabic alphabet, ans some of them are borrowed from Turkish and Persian. In the 1878. Bosna started to use only latin alphabet, but it continued to be used By Bosniaks (Muslim Bosnians) in their religious purposes. The last book in arabitza was published in 1941.
And this is how it looks:
Thanks, Pedja. 
Outsider, you were right. They really did write with arabic letters.


----------



## Outsider

Not me; Mr. Collin.


----------



## Stormwoken

That`s really interesting. Neat letters, but I wouldn`t dare to try and write anything in them as of yet 
I`d take any article from Wikipedia with a grain of salt, though. Another Bosnian Wiki article mentions "arebica" being used from 1589 up to 18th century.
I tried to google it and I found the pictures of some manuscripts, but, alas, without translation.


----------



## el_tigre

First of all , you must know that croatian has 3 main dialects: chakavian(*čakavski*) , kajkavian(*kajkavski*) and shtokavian(*štokavski*). From lingugistic point of view they are *separate languages*.
So there is no way that could exist some unified serbian-croatian
until 160 years ago Croats used to write and speak in each dialect . They even had universtities in each dialects.
In that time *Ljudevit Gaj* (croatian linguist) decided to make on unified standard of croatian language. He decided to make it based on shtokavian dialect.
But he put also many words from other two dialects , like p*ogoršati *, *huškati* that are pure kajkavisms.
In the middle of 19th century political situation has been difficult to Slavic population: Domination of Austrians and Hungarians. Serbian linguist *Vuk Stefanović Karadžić* made his standard of serbian language. His standard and croatian *štokavski *were similar like czech and slovak today.*
In that time *approximately started the idea about panskavism and uniting all (south ) slavic nations into one state as opposition of Austro-Hungary .
Croatian linguists in that time decided to make croatian language more closer to serbian(practically to make them equal). From 1890 they took no words to croatian standard fro m *kajkavski* and *čakavski . 
*When* Yugoslavia *has been created *serbo-croatian *standard has been made*.
*
It was forbidden to make anything about the separate croatian language.
And *kajkavski* and *čakavski *became more and more far from standard*.And standard *croatian and serbian became similar like* brazilian *and* european portuguese.
*So today when people from Serbia  come for example to *Ston (pelješac peninsula) *
they will understand the local speech perfectly.

But , if they come 60 kilometers on the west, on the island *Korčula *(*čakavski *region) they will undestand less than 40% of the local  speech . They will feel like they are for ex.  in Czech republic.


----------



## Budz

Interesting isn't it.  On the one hand we have anecdotal _evidenc_e that some second generation Pole could go from America to Bulgaria and understand everything... yet a Serb can't go 60 km to the west...  

I don't think much of those posts about all those Slavs finding it so easy to talk to other Slavs countries away.

Robert

Oops, I was in a different thread.  One on the mutual intelligibility of Slavonic languages...  this was a good argument against...  but I've posted on the wrong thread...  sorry about that.


----------



## Maja

el_tigre said:
			
		

> First of all , you must know that croatian has 3 main dialects: chakavian(*čakavski*) , kajkavian(*kajkavski*) and shtokavian(*štokavski*). From lingugistic point of view they are *separate languages*.



You said it yourself, they are *dialects, *and they can't possible be separate languages!!!
They got those names due to pronunciation of an interrogative pronoun "what" ("što/a", "ča" and "kaj"). There are also some differences between dialects in declension, accent and especially the pronunciation of the old sound "jat", inherited from Proto-Slavic. Jat was, in time, replaced by "e" (mleko - milk) "ije/je" (mlijeko) and "i" (mliko) and so enabled three  subdialects to be formed (Ekavian, Jekavian and Ikavian).



			
				el_tigre said:
			
		

> But he put also many words from other two dialects , like *pogoršati *, *huškati* that are pure kajkavisms.



We use them in Serbian as well. I didn't even know they were from Kajkavian dialect.



			
				el_tigre said:
			
		

> His standard and croatian *štokavski *were similar like czech and slovak today.



What do you mean similar to "Croatian štokavski"???



			
				el_tigre said:
			
		

> But , if they come 60 kilometers on the west, on the island *Korčula *(*čakavski *region) they will undestand less than 40% of the local speech . They will feel like they are for ex. in Czech republic.



So you are saying that ANY Croat that goes to Korčula will understand what they are saying without any difficulty what so ever? I honestly doubt that!
OFFICIAL Serbo-Croatian language (književni jezik), when we lived in a joined state, was Štokavian dialect with Šumadija - Vojvodina and Eastern Herzegovina variants of speech (with Šumadija - Vojvodina being a variant of Ekavian subdialects and Eastern Herzegovina a variant of Jekavian subdialect). 
I don't know the situation in Croatia now a days, but I am almost positive that people in Zagreb, for instance, are NOT being taught in school to speak Kajkavian or Čakavian dialects, right?
  Please, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Now, the entirely different thing is SPOKEN (colloquial) "narodski" language. I mean, folk south of Niš (which is a town in Serbia), are using only 2 cases, even though the official Serbian has 7 of them, and use different accent. But that doesn't mean that they are speaking a DIFFERENT language and not Serbian, does it? 
So the fact that Serbs can't understand Čakavian is NOT proof that Serbian and Croatian are entirely different languages, as I am sure there are a lot of Croats that can't understand it either.
Bear in mind that I am not saying that they ARE or that they ARE NOT the same language. I just dispute your "evidence", which to me doesn't prove a thing.
   No hard feelings 


Pozdrav!


----------



## Stormwoken

I agree with Maja. Dialects couldn`t possibly be treated as separate languages by the linguistics. That`s why they`re called dialects in the first place 

Actually, people who speak čakavski do have a thick accent that makes them somewhat difficult to understand, but it`s by and large understandable. If you treated such examples as separate languages, we would be having dozens of them in every country.

Budz, you might find it interesting that one of my English teachers told me she can`t understand a thing Boston people are saying (and she`s from New Jersey).  This is somewhat related to this entire story, but you could still move your post to the other thread.


----------



## Budz

The trouble with comments such as the Boston New Jersey one... is that readers that have perhaps never been to an English speaking country might be forgiven for thinking that Boston English and New Jersey English are radically different.  Clear this , 'can't understand a thing' was said as a joke.


----------



## el_tigre

Maja said:
			
		

> You said it yourself, they are *dialects, *and they can't possible be separate languages!!!


   From linguistic point of view they are *separate languages*, but they are not all *officially* recognized!!!
  From that point view there can not be Croatian language, but Croatian languages!!!
  And especially we can talk about  unified Serbian and Croatian!



			
				Maja said:
			
		

> They got those names due to pronunciation of an interrogative pronoun "what" ("što/a", "ča" and "kaj"). There are also some differences between dialects in declension, accent and especially the pronunciation of the old sound "jat", inherited from Proto-Slavic. Jat was, in time, replaced by "e" (mleko - milk) "ije/je" (mlijeko) and "i" (mliko) and so enabled three subdialects to be formed (Ekavian, Jekavian and Ikavian).


What is new here?
  On Korčula they use ex. *Što* not *Ča! *



			
				Maja said:
			
		

> We use them in Serbian as well. I didn't even know they were from Kajkavian dialect.


Because they were taken 150 years ago into* Croatian* standard and then in* Serbian/serbo-croatian*.
  Like many others.




			
				Maja said:
			
		

> What do you mean similar to "Croatian štokavski"???


   I referred to the similarities between Croatian and Serbian *štokavski*





			
				Maja said:
			
		

> So you are saying that ANY Croat that goes to Korčula will understand what they are saying without any difficulty what so ever? I honestly doubt that!


   No Croats from other regions will also have problems to understand them.
  The fact is that Croatian speech closest to  (current )standard  is spoken in Western *Hercegovina*.
  Foreigners would laugh to that fact , but it is too tragical to be comical!



			
				Maja said:
			
		

> I don't know the situation in Croatia now a days, but I am almost positive that people in Zagreb, for instance, are NOT being taught in school to speak Kajkavian or Čakavian dialects, right?
> Please, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.


you are right , unfortunately . 
  But *Kajkavian* and  *Čakavian* *should* be taught in schools!!! 
Like they used to be until 150 years ago! In their speaking regions at least!
  Like Norwegian , that has 2 standard forms:*Bokmal* and *Nynorsk*!!!


----------



## el_tigre

About so called *NeoCroatisms
*Many words are borrowed from english /latin/greek/spanish.
In serbian they use many foreign words slightly modified.
New invented words are invented for the reason to make appropriate croatian ,or at least slavic, equivalents. There is nothing to be _againstSerbian_!

look the following list: croatian- serbian- english

glazba-muzika-music
nogomet-fudbal-football
zrakoplov-avion-airplane
glasovir-klavir-piano
časnik-oficir-officer
satnik-kapetan-captain (military and police)
bojnik-major-major (military and police)
veleposlanstvo-amabasada-embassy

etc.
and so on


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:
			
		

> About so called *NeoCroatisms*
> Many words are borrowed from english /latin/greek/spanish.
> In serbian they use many foreign words slightly modified.
> New invented words are invented for the reason to make appropriate croatian ,or at least slavic, equivalents. There is nothing to be _againstSerbian_!
> 
> look the following list: croatian- serbian- english
> 
> glazba-muzika-music
> nogomet-fudbal-football
> zrakoplov-avion-airplane
> glasovir-klavir-piano
> časnik-oficir-officer
> satnik-kapetan-captain (military and police)
> bojnik-major-major (military and police)
> veleposlanstvo-amabasada-embassy
> 
> etc.
> and so on


 
All these words you gave as examples are very well known Croatian words, they are not invented, not now nor anytime. I can add *kruh*, or *vlak*, or *dapače*, or *marelica,* or *štednjak*, or all month names, for example, or many other nice, as you say, Slavic words that are preserved in Croatian and in Serbian foreign words are used instead... 

Neocroatian words would be the words as *zrakomlat* for helicopter, as I already mentioned. Hope you will not try to claim that *zrakomlat* is also old Croatian word...


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> All these words you gave as examples are very well known Croatian words, they are not invented, not now nor anytime. I can add *kruh*, or *vlak*, or *dapače*, or *marelica,* or *štednjak*, or all month names, for example, or many other nice, as you say, Slavic words that are preserved in Croatian and in Serbian foreign words are used instead...
> 
> Neocroatian words would be the words as *zrakomlat* for helicopter, as I already mentioned. Hope you will not try to claim that *zrakomlat* is also old Croatian word...


*zrakomlat* ,as *zrakoplov* are words invented as a try to give a croatian names for each single subject.
Some are accepted in everyday usage,some are not .
Aiplane is an invention of *modern time* like computer etc.
Before that they could not exist , neither names for them .
We have a situation that ex. in informatics industry invention appear faster than words in croatian language.
So , now there are problems in translating word like:site  link  online


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:
			
		

> *zrakomlat* ,as *zrakoplov* are words invented as a try to give a croatian names for each single subject.
> Some are accepted in everyday usage,some are not .
> Aiplane is an invention of *modern time* like computer etc.
> Before that they could not exist , neither names for them .
> We have a situation that ex. in informatics industry invention appear faster than words in croatian language.
> So , now there are problems in translating word like:site link online


 
Make no mistake: When I say neocroatian, I am referring to the period beginning from the 90ties until now.

*Zrakoplov* is an old Croatian word, known in ex Yugoslavia. It was (an is used) for airplane, as *zrakoplovstvo *(airlines, airforce). In Serbian version it would be *avion* or *vazduhoplov* (although almost not used, but it exists) for *airplane* and two other words for airline/airforce - *avijacija* or *vazduhoplovstvo*. The word *zrakoplov* is not invented NOW, but it was invented when the very same machine called airplane was invented (beginning of the last century, if I am not wrong), just like a computer, as you yourself said.

*Zrakomlat* is a neo-croatian word, invented by new croatian linguists and nationalists, after the independence of Croatia. Before that, it was called by Croats as *helikopter*.


----------



## el_tigre

Well, I do not see what is the problem with that ! 
Nobody forbids to serbian linguists to invent some new serbian words.


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:
			
		

> Well, I do not see what is the problem with that !
> Nobody forbids to serbian linguists to invent some new serbian words.


 
I think they do not feel the need to invent the words just to be different from Croatians and Bosnians... There is no such trend in Serbian language.

With all due respect, I think it is one thing to invent a word because there is no word in one language for something that is new, like new technologies, or maybe as you mentioned, translation of web pages and Internet contents, and completely the other one to invent words from political reasons. I think this is the way not to improve but to destroy one language. 
This is my personal opinion, and of course, everyone is free to do with their own language what they think is the best. If they were right or wrong... The history will show.


----------



## Pedja

When Serbian and Croatioan prisoners asked to have translation for their separate languages, Hague Tribunal refused that. This decision was based on scientific fact that two language differ in about 3% of the vocabulary, so Tribunal accepted that it is one single language, and it is forcing Serbian prisoners to use Croatian translators and vice versa.


----------



## Stormwoken

el_tigre said:
			
		

> Well, I do not see what is the problem with that !
> Nobody forbids to serbian linguists to invent some new serbian words.



lol
True. It`s realy hard to be objective in these matters, though. No matter how hard you try not to take sides, you`re forced to by the very nature of the subject.

Where did you dig up that "pogoršati" thing, anyway?  It implies that Serbian (along with non-štokavian dialects of Croatian) did not have neither "pogoršati" (worsen) nor "poboljšati" (improve). Those words belong to the the basic vocabulary, which makes it a really interesting piece of info. Could you back up that claim? Thanks 

Budz, could you repost that in the other thread, please, so we can continue the discussion?


----------



## el_tigre

Pedja said:
			
		

> When Serbian and Croatioan prisoners asked to have translation for their separate languages, Hague Tribunal refused that. This decision was based on scientific fact that two language differ in about 3% of the vocabulary, so Tribunal accepted that it is one single language, and it is forcing Serbian prisoners to use Croatian translators and vice versa.


There is much more that 3% of difference .
Even without calculating with *kajkavski* and *čakavski*.
I think that Hague Tribuanal is doing a great to prisoners not giving them their rights in that issue.
Nobody can expect that translators will speak them in the dialect in their village, but a certain respect needs to be.


----------



## el_tigre

Stormwoken said:
			
		

> lol
> True. It`s realy hard to be objective in these matters, though. No matter how hard you try not to take sides, you`re forced to by the very nature of the subject.
> 
> Where did you dig up that "pogoršati" thing, anyway?  It implies that Serbian (along with non-štokavian dialects of Croatian) did not have neither "pogoršati" (worsen) nor "poboljšati" (improve). Those words belong to the the basic vocabulary, which makes it a really interesting piece of info. Could you back up that claim? Thanks
> 
> Budz, could you repost that in the other thread, please, so we can continue the discussion?


 I am not sure about *poboljšati *but *pogoršati* is certainly pure kajkavian word.
what is  and what is not *basic* vocabulary that is really hard to distinguish.


----------



## templar414

Pedja said:
			
		

> It is quite stragne to read some opinions here, stating that serbian and croatian language are different. That is not true, that is the same language. Tehre is more differences among soem dialects within the alnguage than between serbian and croatian.
> 
> Real croatian language is actually very arhaic and spoken in narow area. What is now called croatian is actually serbian dialect which was spread in western balcan. It was even writeen in cyrillic and pre-cyrillic alphabet.
> 
> Back in 18th century, when Croats and Serbs both gained cultural revolution it was matter of mutual ageement to recognize Serbian language as mean to make all divided Balcan slovene nations closer. Since Croats were familiar with latin alphabet they kept using it, and Serbs kept using cyrilic. But alphabet never made a difference. Language stayed the same with all its rules.
> 
> After the WWII, new revolution came which marged two in one, caling it serbocroatian language, and it was obligatory to all to learn both cyrillic and latin alphabet. That stayed untill recent civil war in ex Yugoslavia.
> 
> Nowadays, Croats learn latin, but Serbs still learn both cyrillic and latin, and they still speak the same language. Differencies are minor and everyone can understand everyone. Large number of different words are actually arhaic words from serbian that are still used in croatian language.
> 
> Even now you cannot easily distinguish serbian and croatian language by dialect differencies because all dialects are used in both langages. Some are predominant in one, some in other, but they are still used in both.
> 
> Bosnian is actually not a language. After muslims in Bosnia secessed they wanted to enlarge their difference from Serbs in any way including making their own language. So they made up bosnian which is in no way different from Serbian and Croatian. They declared latin as official alphabet just to make themselver mroe different from Serabs. The fact is that, before the civil war, Bosnia was the state where cyrillic alphabet was almost exclusively used, by the same muslim population.
> 
> It does not matter what variation you know and use, you will be well understood everywhere in Balcan, starting from Slovenia and going all the way to the Macedonia.


 
I don't think that all information in his text is accurate and correct. I strongly disagree with the following:

_1.Real croatian language is actually very archaic and spoken in narow area._
I guess that means Pedja believes that Dalmatians, Slavonians and Istrians speak Serbian language? And where is that "narrow area"?

_2. What is now called Croatian is actually Serbian dialect_
When I read this I was speechless. I would really like to know what are the basis for this opinion. I call upon any Serbian-speaking person to tell me why they support this opinion.

_3._ _Back in 18th century, when Croats and Serbs both gained cultural revolution it was matter of mutual ageement to recognize Serbian language as mean to make all divided Balcan Slovene nations closer._
I believe that history books provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.

_4. Large number of different words are actually arhaic words from serbian that are still used in croatian language.
_I would love to hear what these words are, as I cannot recall any of them at the moment.
_5. Even now you cannot easily distinguish Serbian and Croatian language by dialect differences because all dialects are used in both langages.Some are predominant in one, some in other, but they are still used in both. 
_I cannot disagree more. Oh I think it's very easy to distinguish Serbian and Croatian by dialect differencies, because it's just not true that all dialects are used in both languages. I have never heard someone from central Serbia to use dialect from Dalmatia and vice versa. Just like you will never hear someone from Istria speaking the dialect from southern part of Serbia and vice versa. Croatian language has 3 dialects of which at least two (cakavski and kajkavski) you will NEVER hear spoken in Serbia. Same goes for Serbian dialects. If someone knows different examples, please share with me. 
By the way, people from Serbia will never have any difficulties to tell from which part of Croatia is someone just by listening to him speak. And Croatians will also have pretty accurate picture who lives where in Serbia by listening to them speak. Dialects just don't mix.

_6. The fact is that, before the civil war, Bosnia was the state where cyrillic alphabet was almost exclusively used, by the same muslim population._
That is not accurate. The fact is that in pre-war Bosnia there were 30% Serbs, and there is no way that the Cyrillic alphabet was predominant, let alone "exclusively used". Do you really believe that 44% of Muslims wrote in Cyrillic? I don't think so. Besides, before the war half of the Serbs in Bosnia wrote in Latin. I lived in Sarajevo from 1987 till 1991 and I travelled a lot across Bosnia, so I think I can say I know something about that. I am not Muslim and I'm not trying to defend anyone, I am just trying to be objective here. And the fact is that during the war and after the war it was almost regarded as a treason if Serbs used latin alphabet, and the same thing was with Croats and Muslims using Cyrillic alphabet. I don't want to go deeper into politics, because this is supposed to be the place where we all help each other. I also think that for this kind of talk, there should be valid facts and research, not just someone's opinion, because that confuses people that don't know the history of Serbo-Croatian-Muslim issues.


----------



## b_fly

Juri said:
			
		

> trudna - slovenian – tired; trudna - croatian/serbian – pregnant


Every Croat will understand this ‘Slovenian’ word, cause our poets use that meaning of word ‘trudna’ in many poet and other literature works.
So, I would not call it ‘Slovenian’ term




			
				BBYM said:
			
		

> do Slavic languages have some words write in the same way but read differently?


No.



			
				Jana337 said:
			
		

> serbian and croatian


 
You correct Pedja in this. I must say that our language names are: srpski and hrvatski. So on our language we write it with small letters. So many people don’t know that they should write with big letters on english. Sorry, English.  you see… usual mistake.  




			
				Pedja said:
			
		

> When you look at "Bosnian" language, it would be that language developed in just ten years.


Bosnian language exists in history for many years ago. I don’t know how correct these informations are, but… here they are:
I can't type link, but you can go on google and type 'bosanski jezik' and you'll find it.




			
				Natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I would give you example in words, but my keybord does not have cyrillic letters.


You don’t need it. There is a program which can transform latin-cyrillic and opposite.  
i can't post links, but just type 'vucko program' on google, or something like that and you'll find it.  



			
				Natasha2000 said:
			
		

> The perfect example would be shtednjak versus sporet...


I must ask something… I live in Kvarner, and I’m surrounded with people who speak čakavsko narječje (dialect). How come all of them say šporet/šparet/šparket etc.??
Where’s that coming from?




			
				Natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Zrakomlat


That word is not accepted by people, and it’s not in use anymore.
 
 



			
				Stormwoken said:
			
		

> "gospodarstvo" sounds rather natural, and I wouldn’t bet on that word being recently invented (though that possibility is open, as well). I don`t know if Croats ever used "privreda" (privrijeda sounds ridiculous),


We used privreda and ekonomija, and now it’s gospodarstvo and sometimes ekonomija, if it’s about schools and things like that.
 



			
				Stormwoken said:
			
		

> Funny enough, she, too (although a Croat herself) detests the way the Croats are trying to change their language at all costs.


 
All normal Croats do. It’s not something strange and funny, it’s usual. Everybody are astonished by changes that are made lately.
 



			
				Natasha2000 said:
			
		

> "okolostručni pantalodržač"?


And what would be that? We don’t use word pantalone. Ever. I suppose you mean ‘remen’ (‘kaiš’/’kajš’ or whatever on Serbian?)?
 



			
				Natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Anyway, I feel that something is missing in this thread, and this is some Croatian opinion... Although we had some at the beginning, very quickly they disappeared... Could it be that they are not interested in discussion?


They don’t know about discussion, forum, or they don’t know English. There is more Serbs then Croats, so it’s same on the forum, I guess.  
 



			
				Stormwoken said:
			
		

> That about "okolotrbusni pantalodrzac" is a joke, but not only Serbian. Even Bosnian Croats are making fun of stuff like that


It really isn’t funny, you realize that? It’s sad. There’s so much words, I don’t know it all. 
Perilica-everybody call it veš mašina, but this word is still on use on television.
Sušilo (drier)-same case. everybody call it fen, but this word is on use on television.
Hladnjak (fridge)- same case again. everybody call it frižider. Everybody!
This words are what every Croat know what it means.
But look at this:
Uložnica -poštanski sandučić u zgradi pošte(mailbox in post office)
I found that yesterday.


----------



## venenum

Hello! 

I would like to contribute to your Croatian vs. Serbo-Croatian topic. I believe there haven’t been many contributions from the other side concerned (i.e. Croatian), simply because we see our language as related to, but not the same language as Serbian, and it is a fact we do not feel compelled to prove over and over. Nevertheless, I will try to give a contribution for the sake of those who may find some interest in the topic – the course this discussion has taken, it may seem as if only a couple of crazy Croats dispute the “Serbo-Croatian” as one and the same language, while the rest of the world is accepting it as a fact. Since I am in the linguistic field myself (DaF and EFL student), I have some general linguistic knowledge, and guided by the idea of first knowing your own language, before engaging in learning a foreign language, I have come to know the Croatian language history quite well for a layman. Since the social, historical and the political background of the language development plays a crucial role in this case, and I am neither a historian nor have studied Croatian so extensively, I may not be able to explain it as sophisticated as I would wish to… But let us begin.


From the linguistic point of view, if speakers of two languages can speak to each other, each using his/her native language, and understand each other (that would be about 90%), we are speaking about the same language. This would confirm the “Serbo-Croatian” thesis (interestingly enough, the language was called both “Serbo-Croatian” and “Croato-Serbian”, but the second name is totally ignored in this discussion), but for the historical and political background. 
Croatia and Serbia were both federative republics of SFRJ (former Yugoslavia), and, as many have said already, both languages, together with both scripts, were taught in the schools, both languages were used in radio and television broadcastings, the books were printed in both languages, and because of that, if not for any other reason (which I intend on stating later), the languages mixed. It is more than natural that a person from Croatia would understand the Serbian words, and vice versa. And if you put an adult Croat and an adult Serb together, and let them talk each his/her language, they would understand each other perfectly. But try to imagine two today’s school children, a Croat and a Serb. Not being exposed to the other language, they would face some difficulties understanding each other. “Pass me the bread, please.” Oops, two words for bread. “May I have some cream please?” What? Two words for cream. “I don’t want to eat the carrot.” Two words for carrot, too. 
This thing actually happened: In elementary school, a teacher forgot herself and used the Serbian word for notebook, and the students looked at her in wonder and asked her what she had meant. The main point is, the languages aren’t so similar as some would like to thing, we were just bread “between languages”, so we weren’t actually aware of the vast differences between them. 


Back to the historical background, if I may. It all started somewhere in the 18th century. Croatia was a part of the Habsburg monarchy. It is not general knowledge that Croatia was in personal union with the Monarchy (due to the fact that the Monarchy tended to forget that fact often), having shared only the person of the King, but otherwise having its own constitution and parliament. The Monarchy repeatedly attempted to assimilate the multitude of nations it contained, Croatians being no exception. Croatians were in a bit worse position than the other nations, being “assaulted” from two sides – Habsburgs and Hungarians both trying to assimilate them. The last straw was the Hungarians trying to force the Hungarian language as the official language of the Croatian parliament… but that is not the issue. 
The group of young students, under the leadership of Ljudevit Gaj tried to make some changes, and they decided to start with the language. As someone already mentioned, there were 3 dialects spoken in Croatia at the time, and most people considered Croatia to be 3 separate countries – Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia. Gaj and his group, called Illyrians, tried to create a unique language for all Croats to speak. They chose a dialect spoken in the Republic of Dubrovnik long time ago, since I. Gundulić, a poet they revered, wrote in this dialect, and they combined it with the Slavonian accent, adding some words out of every dialect. And voila, the first standard Croatian language was born. 
Since the Illyrians had another idea, a pan-Slavic idea of uniting all the South-Slavic nations, they started cooperating with Serbian language reformer, Vuk Karadžić, and they decided to modify the languages with the goal of making them more similar, and eventually melting them together in one language. Now I’ll skip a century or two, to bring us to 1945, after the WW2. Croatia and Serbia were included in Yugoslavia. The brotherhood and unity was the motto. The languages underwent some more minor changes in order to bring them closer together (question: why modifying the languages to make them more similar, if we are talking about one and the same language?). 


Now to the second thing I noticed in this discussion, and I would like to reply to. Someone said something about the Neo-Croatisms (or something like that) – words that were coined or derived out of other forms to replace some other words. This is actually not an attempt to make Croatian language differ from Serbian more, but a tradition developed under the German influence. The ones familiar with the German language will know that this language underwent a massive “cleansing” process, “Sprachreinigung”, in which the words of French, Italian, Slavic, even Greek and Latin origin were replaced with new coinages (some of which were ridiculous, but the others stuck and today they are a part of the basic German vocabulary and no one questions their right to exist). 
The same process in Croatian language took place a couple of centuries later – end of 19th, first half of the 20th century. Unfortunately, this process was very strong during the WW2 and associated with the Croatian fraction which collaborated with the 3rd Reich, known as Independent State of Croatia (NDH), so many of these changes, linguistic sweep-ups made according to the German model (replace the foreign word with a Croatian coinage) were discarded afterwards. And, similar to the German process, some coinages were ridiculous, but some stuck and they are an accepted part of the Croatian language today. 
And, what is more important, this process continues even today. We try to find new, Croatian, words for new inventions. Sometimes we’re successful, and they stick, sometimes we’re not, and we have to live with the foreign word. But my point is, the Serbian language never had any similar developing process, whereas this process is a vital part of the development of the Croatian language. Where do you have one language whose two dialects develop in two completely different ways?


Moving on, one more thing I would like to mention: the orthography. It is an illusion and a delusion that Croatian and Serbian languages have the same orthography. Aside the Latin/Cyrillic, there is one major difference: the Serbs stick to the Vuk’s “Write as you speak”, and they have a tendency of writing foreign names phonetically (ex: James=Džejms, Aimee=Ejmi, Annie=Eni, Tom Cruise= Tom Kruz, etc…), whereas in Croatian we are careful to preserve the original spelling.


I hope that this (rather long, definitely longer than I intended) explanation helps those who have interest in this topic.



Best regards,

Poison


----------



## b_fly

I’m sorry Poison, but I completely disagree with you.
 



> But try to imagine two today’s school children, a Croat and a Serb. Not being exposed to the other language, they would face some difficulties understanding each other. “Pass me the bread, please.” Oops, two words for bread. “May I have some cream please?” What? Two words for cream. “I don’t want to eat the carrot.” Two words for carrot, too.
> This thing actually happened: In elementary school, a teacher forgot herself and used the Serbian word for notebook, and the students looked at her in wonder and asked her what she had meant. The main point is, the languages aren’t so similar as some would like to thing, we were just bread “between languages”, so we weren’t actually aware of the vast differences between them.



Please tell me those words for cream and carrot on Serbian? (I really don't know them)
Every child in the state knows what means hleb (bread), because word hljeb is still in use around here. I see children who are still making fun of Serbian words. Unfortunately, but children are still raised in national hate. So, they are not just understand Serbian very well (!!!), they are making fun of it. 
I’m from younger generation, and I was in 1. grade 1994. And I had a Bosnian teacher who always used Serbian word for notebook. Everybody understood it, someone would laugh at the beginning, but after some time, they stopped even doing that. 
And even if it’s all true, there are no more than 20 different words in Serbian and Croatian. (not talking about ekavica & ijekavica)



> The languages underwent some more minor changes in order to bring them closer together (question: why modifying the languages to make them more similar, if we are talking about one and the same language?).


That was political thing. They were very similar, but politicians (or political linguists) wanted to made same identical language. Serbian and Croatian are not completely the same. Just about 90%. At least.



> But my point is, the Serbian language never had any similar developing process, whereas this process is a vital part of the development of the Croatian language. Where do you have one language whose two dialects develop in two completely different ways?


I don’t understand your question. Croatian language has 3 dialects, and they are definitely not developing in the same way. 



> Moving on, one more thing I would like to mention: the orthography. It is an illusion and a delusion that Croatian and Serbian languages have the same orthography. Aside the Latin/Cyrillic, there is one major difference: the Serbs stick to the Vuk’s “Write as you speak”, and they have a tendency of writing foreign names phonetically (ex: James=Džejms, Aimee=Ejmi, Annie=Eni, Tom Cruise= Tom Kruz, etc…), whereas in Croatian we are careful to preserve the original spelling.



Major difference. In their language every foreign name is written on the way it was spoke. And in Croatian that’s just with some words. 
Let’s talk just about city’s. They at least write every city on the way they speak it. And in Croatian Prague is Prag, Paris is Pariz, Warsawa is Varšava, but New York is New York. So please don’t speak about “careful preserving of original spelling”, because it’s not. That’s no difference between languages, especially not major. It’s not difference, it’s will of the journalist who writes that stuff.
 
 
P.S. I was just angry on Serbs on this topic who were making jokes about my language and I was offended. So when I told that Croats are not on this topic because of them, I didn’t mean that I disagree with them. I agree with most of them, because they wrote the same what I think and reasons why there’s not so much Croats here – it’s definitely (believe me) not that they don’t think the same way we do.
 
Love you all,
B_fly


----------



## venenum

B_fly, believe it or not:
mrkva = šargarepa
vrhnje = kajmak
hlače = čakšire/pantalone
špinat = spanać
osa = zolja
and so on… there are a lot of words that deffer in Croatian and Serbian. And the more languages develop, the greater differences become. For example, an acquaintance from Serbia talked about her cell-phone, and said she must “nabaviti kredit” – and I thought, what kind of loan does she have to get?! And in fact, that’s their expression for adding the money on the pre-paid bill, “obnoviti račun”. On the higher level, the differences are also vast. Take chemistry, for example:
dušik = azot
kositar = kalaj
- or math, for that matter: 
duž, prava, ravan… do you know what “pravougaonik” is? Both “pravokutnik” and “kvadar”, believe it or not. The cells have “jedro”, and not “jezgra” in bio, and so on, and so on… 
Still think that people can perfectly understand each other if they weren’t exposed to both languages? Maybe I exaggerated a bit, maybe not today’s children, and maybe not  completely, but have you heard all of the words above, and would you understand them?
 
The “notebook incident” is real, it happened in a 5th grade a couple of years ago, and kids really didn’t know that “sveska” means “bilježnica”.
 
And about Croatian dialects, they aren’t actually developing. They’re dying out.


----------



## natasha2000

> From the linguistic point of view, if speakers of two languages can speak to each other, each using his/her native language, and understand each other (that would be about 90%), we are speaking about the same language.


 
Correct. You would agree with me that you and I could speak each one in her own mother tongue, and we would not have any problems in understanding each other. As a matter of fact, I have just seen the movie in DVD and I was pleasantly surprised that there is a Croatian subtitles, so I can see the movie in my mother tongue.




> Croatia and Serbia were both federative republics of SFRJ (former Yugoslavia), and, as many have said already, both languages, together with both scripts, were taught in the schools, both languages were used in radio and television broadcastings, the books were printed in both languages, and because of that, if not for any other reason (which I intend on stating later), the languages mixed.


You’re only 22 years old. You couldn’t possibly have seen and had the experience of WHAT was the schooling system, TV and press in old Yugoslavia. I did. So I can tell you taht all what you are saying is not the truth. In Croatia, people used Croatian way of speaking and latin alphabet in media. No Serbian way of speaking is used. Why should be? Yes, in school children used to learn cyrillic, too, but very superficially, so all Croats were more comfortable with latinic script when it came to writing or reading. In Serbia those two alphabets were equally important. 
As far as the books are concerned, I read both Serbian and Croatian translations of the books, depending on which translation was available. It was a little bit unusual for me if I had to read Croatian translation, but not because i did not understand, but because I wasn’t used to some words. Big deal. I also read Miroslav Krleza in “original”. No traslation was needed (as now I see that Croats need translation of some Serbian movies).




> But try to imagine two today’s school children, a Croat and a Serb. Not being exposed to the other language, they would face some difficulties understanding each other. “Pass me the bread, please.” Oops, two words for bread. “May I have some cream please?”


My dear Poison. Kruh and vrhnje are the words very well known although not used by Serbs. More than one Serb was ignored in some Croatian supermarket on your beautiful coast only because he asked for hleb and not kruh. 
An as far as the different vocabulary is concerned, believe me, Spanish is spoken in 24 countries. Each country has its own and characteristic vocabulary, even so different that in one country, one word is considered extremely vulgar, while in others is used in a completely normal way. I’ll give you some examples: coger in Spain means to take. And just that. But if you say that you will coger something in America, they will look you in a very funny way, because there it means “to fu*k”. Corn in Spain is maiíz. In America is choclo. Potato is patata. In America, papa. There is a vegetable called in Spain boniato. In America they call it batata. The bus is autocar in spain. In America, depending on the country, it is called gua gua, bus, carro, etc.
As far as the grammar is concerned, in Spain perfect is more used, while in America simple past is more used. And what about personal pronouns? In Spain, “You are” would be said: Tú eres. And in Argentina, it would be said: Vos sos. Nevertheless, all 24 countries say they speak the same language. 




> Back to the historical background, if I may. It all started somewhere in the 18th century.


No. It didn’t start in 18th century, but in the 7th, when Slavic tribes came to Balkan peninsula. There was some history before 18th century, you know. From the arrival to Balkan peninsula, Croats and Serbs had different ways in their history, but they have always shared one thing – the language. Of course, each people received more or less various influences depending on their development and historical circumstances, ansd therefore Croatian maybe has more words from German and Serbian from Turkish, but in the essence, they continued to speak the same language.




> Now I’ll skip a century or two, to bring us to 1945, after the WW2. Croatia and Serbia were included in Yugoslavia.


Well, you shouldn’t. Croatia and Serbia were part of the same country many years before the end of the WW2. So, communist cannot be blamed for everything.




> (question: why modifying the languages to make them more similar, if we are talking about one and the same language?).




I agree with you here. Dialects should be respected. No need to unify the language. Believe me, there are also some words in Serbian forcely introduced from Croatian.
But then, earlier, you gave the answer to your question: 




> The brotherhood and unity was the motto.


And besides, if it is as you say:



> The languages underwent some more minor changes in order to bring them closer together.


Then why on Erth is this bothering so much the Croats? There is no irony in my words, believe me. I am just looking for a reasonable and cold head interlocutor. 




> Now to the second thing I noticed in this discussion, and I would like to reply to. Someone said something about the Neo-Croatisms (or something like that) – words that were coined or derived out of other forms to replace some other words.


I said that. But menawhile, I was told by some Croats that this forced language is used only in media. People among themselves, and especially the young ones, usually don’t use these “new” words. So, They say ekonomija, helikopter and avion. As far as the second part of this parragraph, thank you, very useful information I didn’t know.




> But my point is, the Serbian language never had any similar developing process, whereas this process is a vital part of the development of the Croatian language.


You’re right here. Sometimes I think Croats take more care about their language than Serbs. Maybe the reason can be in the kind of empire that conquered us. If I had to choose, I would rather be under Austro Hungrian that Ottoman Empire. But, then, history doesn’t ask for the preferences and opinions. It just... Happens. 




> Where do you have one language whose two dialects develop in two completely different ways?



Sorry for being so boring, but I would say – Spanish. The development of spanish in Spain and Spanish in each and every country in Latin America is different, even though they do try to unify the language rules through Real Academia Española. On the other hand, each countryu has its owh Academy of Languages, which takes care of the peculiarities of each country’s language, and they all together collaborate with Spanish Academy, which at the end publiashes the Dictionary that includes all existing variants of Spanish throughout all Spanish speaking world. My utopistic wish is that one day, our Language Academies in Belgrade, Zagreb and Sarajevo do the same thing, because I think that all differences we have contribute only to the richness of our language, no matter what name it has. But then, it is only my wish, which I sadly know that it is unlikely to become truth...

To be continued....


----------



## natasha2000

> Moving on, one more thing I would like to mention: the orthography. It is an illusion and a delusion that Croatian and Serbian languages have the same orthography. Aside the Latin/Cyrillic, there is one major difference: the Serbs stick to the Vuk’s “Write as you speak”, and they have a tendency of writing foreign names phonetically (ex: James=Džejms, Aimee=Ejmi, Annie=Eni, Tom Cruise= Tom Kruz, etc…), whereas in Croatian we are careful to preserve the original spelling.



This is no proof that Croatian and Serbian are two different languages. It is just a peculiarity of our languages that can be written both with Cyrillic and Latin script, and I find it amazing. No language in the world has it. The tendency in Serbian to trascribe the foreign names is due to the use of Cyrillic alphabet. We use it indeferently together with Latinic script (although there are some who insist on Cyrillic as the only alphabet of Serbian, but this is only a demonstration of a narrow minded people). Now, imagine how any foreign name would be written in Cyrillic, in its original version? Ridiculous. Therefore, it is transcribed. It is done by all languages that use Cyrillic alphabet. Because it is LOGICAL. Croats chose to use only Latin alphabet, so there is no problem to write foreign names in their original version. LOGICAL, again.

Maybe in some future, if the current linguistic politics on bothe sides is continued, our two dialects become really two different languages. I don’t exclude this possibility. But right now, we still speak the same language. It is not nacionalistic point of view. Really. It is the only logical point of view.

I really do hope we can continue this discussion with respect, that was lost so many times in this so touchy thread.

Best regards,
Natasha


----------



## Jana337

This thread was closed in May 2006 because my plea was not respected, and this thread turned nasty again.

I may re-open it upon request, as I have already done several times. Of someone wants to add anything valuable on topic (wars and genocides are off topic by default), please PM me. I will want to see your contribution in advance.

If you want to discuss some particular words mentioned in this thread, it would be wise to open new threads. Let's stick to the topic in this one. 

Jana


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:


> Sorry for being so boring, but I would say – Spanish. The development of spanish in Spain and Spanish in each and every country in Latin America is different, even though they do try to unify the language rules through Real Academia Española. On the other hand, each countryu has its owh Academy of Languages, which takes care of the peculiarities of each country’s language, and they all together collaborate with Spanish Academy, which at the end publiashes the Dictionary that includes all existing variants of Spanish throughout all Spanish speaking world. My utopistic wish is that one day, our Language Academies in Belgrade, Zagreb and Sarajevo do the same thing, because I think that all differences we have contribute only to the richness of our language, no matter what name it has. But then, it is only my wish, which I sadly know that it is unlikely to become truth...



First of all spanish(*español* or *castellano*) came from Spain.
It has been  modified  during couple centuries but still speakers use the same name for it.
Same for portuguese  , french  and english  in America.

And unified standard will just opress again *čakavski* and *kajkavski*.

Anyway Americans have different standard for english than it is in UK but they don't get worried about that at all.

Will Serbian linguists try to make their language more similar to croatian , russian or japanese that is really not our worry.

Croatian didn't come from Serbia (neither opposite btw) so there  is no way  we can have  connection of that kind.
Czech and Slovak are also very similar but these two countries until 20th century never had any connectionexcept borders.
Czech was under Austria and Slovakia under Hungary.
Similar things with Croatia and Serbia. Croatia with Hungary has been part of central european history(like Poland Czechia And Slovakia too) and Serbia has been involved together with Greece ,Albania and Bulgaria.
Even still today for people in Croatia, Serbia is mistery.
If you ask somebody on the street to tell you something about Serbia , 90% of them will not be able to tell 10 sentences (that are *not offensive* )
I would say that Croats know more about Japan or China that Serbia.


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:


> First of all spanish(*español* or *castellano*) came from Spain.
> It has been modified during couple centuries but still speakers use the same name for it.
> 
> You cannot imagine the differences that exist between forms of speach amog different countries. It is very easy to happen that a Spaniard has a hard time in understanding an Argentinian if Argentinian speaks in a very "Argentinian" way. But they still speak the same language. Hell, I, as a Serbian, certain people from South Serbia, and they do speak Serbian, and I am sure that you would have problems in understanding Croatian from Zagorje. Still, it does not stop to be the same language. So, if this principle can be applied in Spanish or within the same Serbian of Croatian, I really do not se the reason for not being applied to the very same relation of Serbian and Croatian.
> 
> Same for portuguese , french and english in America.
> 
> And unified standard will just opress again *čakavski* and *kajkavski*.
> 
> I was NOT talking about UNIFIED STANDARD, sorry if I did not make myself clear. Spanish does not have any UNIFIED standard, but compilates diferent ways of usage of Spanish language in different countries. So, inmy imaginary future, both *čakavski* and *kajkavski* would be admitted as a way of speaking in some parts of the territory where "THE LANGUAGE " is spoken. Therefore, both vlak and voz, hleb, hljeb and kruh, shporet and stednjak etc would be  equaly accepted.
> 
> The thing is that destiny played a very bad trick on us, so we do not have a common name for our languages, but the very same language you call Croatian and I call Serbian, and some Bosnian calls it Bosnian. But hey, we have history to explain us why is that. While Span formed a firm state in the end of 15 century, unifuing all independent kingdoms (as Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia were before Turks came), our little countries were occupied by foreign big forces, we by Turks, you by AustroHungarian Empire. If the same thing happened to Spain, now the term "Spanish" wouldn't exist.  A lot of Spaniards claim there is NO Spanish language. We can only talk about Spanish languages, which are: Castellano, catalán, euskera and gallego. On the other hand, the very same castellano, also has its own peculiarities and differences, and in different parts of Spain it is called in a different way - as asturian in Asturias, or aragonés in Aragon, etc.
> 
> Anyway Americans have different standard for english than it is in UK but they don't get worried about that at all.
> 
> I wouldn't worry at all if Croatian had one standard, and Serbian other. It is completely normal, since we had different ways al along the history. But this still does not prove that we speak two different languages.
> 
> Will Serbian linguists try to make their language more similar to croatian , russian or japanese that is really not our worry.
> 
> Of course, not. Besides, I do not see the reason why one should make its own language similar to any other language. The correct thing is to make a language to be similar to itself. Croatian should look like Croatian, and Serbian should look like Serbian. Just as AE and BE, as well as English from Australia or New Zealand. But this still does not prove that we speak two different languages.
> 
> Croatian didn't come from Serbia (neither opposite btw) so there is no way we can have connection of that kind.
> 
> No. You're completely right. I wouldn't even try to claim this and anyone who claims this, is a nacionalist of the worst kind apart of being a complete ignorant.
> But, they came to Balkans TOGETHER as two tribes of a larger group called Slavs, and they did speak the same language, which later was developed in different ways through the history.
> 
> Czech and Slovak are also very similar but these two countries until 20th century never had any connection except borders.
> Czech was under Austria and Slovakia under Hungary.
> Similar things with Croatia and Serbia. Croatia with Hungary has been part of central european history(like Poland Czechia And Slovakia too) and Serbia has been involved together with Greece ,Albania and Bulgaria.
> 
> I do not see the relation between these Croatian/Serbian and Czech/Slovak (you forgot to put Polish, too, since as I see from many posts here in this forum, Polish is also very similar to Czech, maybe even more than Slovak), but ok, I won't argue about this because I know what I know about my language, but I do not know anything about Czech and Slovak, nor their history, so here I am short for proofs.
> 
> 
> Even still today for people in Croatia, Serbia is mistery.
> If you ask somebody on the street to tell you something about Serbia, 90% of them will not be able to tell 10 sentences (that are *not offensive* ). I would say that Croats know more about Japan or China that Serbia.
> This is very sad, don't you think so? So close and yet still a mistery. But I really do not see how Croatian ignorance about Serbia has anything to do with this subject. Many Spaniards are complete ignorants about the most of Latin American countries, except tipical prejudices, some of them underestimate and look down upon everything and everyone that comes from that part of the world. *But they still speak the same language.*


 
I would also like to add that at first I did not like this all-of-a- sudden division to Croat, Serbian, Bosnian. But after a while, I saw its advantages. Calling the same language by different names, you automatically know what you are talking about, since there are differences and nobodsy can deny it. I learnt to appreciate differences participating in Spanish forum, where people are so interested in learning about the other way of saying the same, and they enjoy their differences, together, and not denying and insulting each other, like unfortunately, we usually do. They ask help from each other, recently I read the thread about a Spaniard who had to prepare a certain text for Argentinian market, asking help from Argentinian foreros. you cannot imagine how two texts are different. Why couldn't I do the same, in that *wonderful friendly spirit like they do,* for example, asking you to help me to put my Serbian text in Croatian way? Why not? These kind of things really make me very sad.


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:


> but the very same language you call Croatian and I call Serbian, and some Bosni*an* calls it Bosnian



Bosni*ak* not Bosni*an*.
There is no Bosnian ethnicity!


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:


> Bosni*ak* not Bosni*an*.
> There is no Bosnian ethnicity!


 
Whatever. You understood me perfectly well.


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:


> I do not see the relation between these Croatian/Serbian and Czech/Slovak (you forgot to put Polish, too, since as I see from many posts here in this forum, Polish is also very similar to Czech, maybe even more than Slovak), but ok, I won't argue about this because I know what I know about my language, but I do not know anything about Czech and Slovak, nor their history, so here I am short for proofs.



Czech and Slovak were languages that were subordered in their countries for many centuries.So they had a similar destiny. But ,there has never been any strong connection beetween these two countries . However there has been created a common standard for czecho-slovakian. But they have abandoned from that idea after ww2. And these 2 languages developed separately, had their own rules, tutorials...

In Yugoslavia, any book about separate croatian language(s) was forbidden. Every autrhor of such a thing had problems because of that.

Poland has been an indipendent kingdom until 19th century. their language is much different.
see this :www-travlang-com/languages


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:


> In Yugoslavia, any book about separate croatian language(s) was forbidden. Every autrhor of such a thing had problems because of that.


 
As well as if someone would have written about only Serbian language. But, this is a part that we agree about. Communist background made as much harm to Serbian as to Croatian national identity. "Brotherhood and unity" was always the most important thing. How good, well... We all saw its desastrous and tragic consequences.

But this still does not prove that you and I speak different languages.


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:


> You cannot imagine the differences that exist between forms of speach amog different countries. It is very easy to happen that a Spaniard has a hard time in understanding an Argentinian if Argentinian speaks in a very "Argentinian" way. But they still speak the same language. Hell, I, as a Serbian, certain people from South Serbia, and they do speak Serbian, and I am sure that you would have problems in understanding Croatian from Zagorje. Still, it does not stop to be the same language. So, if this principle can be applied in Spanish or within the same Serbian of Croatian, I really do not se the reason for not being applied to the very same relation of Serbian and Croatian.



people from Egypt, Morrocco ,Saudi Arabia if you ask they will all say that they speak :*arabic*.
Does it mean that they speak same language??
Not at all .
There a classical arabic (language of Quran)
but in comparison with it modern arabic dialects/languages are like romance languages compared to latin. Similarities but huge differences too.

So , if Argentinians still call their language spanish it does have to be necessarily truth if they can not be understood by Spaniards.


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:


> people from Egypt, Morrocco ,Saudi Arabia if you ask they will all say that they speak :*arabic*.
> Does it mean that they speak same language??
> Not at all .
> There a classical arabic (language of Quran)
> but in comparison with it modern arabic dialects/languages are like romance languages compared to latin. Similarities but huge differences too.


 
This has nothing to do with our subject. Arabic languages are completely ununderstandable among themselves. 
EDIT: This is the same as we would compare the relation between Serbian/Croatian with all Romance or Slavic languages. Spanish and Italian are similar, but they are two different languages, and a Spaniard can imagine what one Italian is speaking, grasp the idea, but I, listening to you speaking, understand everything, not only the words and what they mean but even the most hidden layers of all meanings of the given word, depending on how it is pronounced. This is not the same.



> So , if Argentinians still call their language spanish it does have to be necessarily truth if they can not be understood by Spaniards


Sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you reword it, please?

If you speak in Croatian slang, I doubt I would understand you, since you would be speaking in a typical speech used only in Croatia, or even more narrow, in the place where you come from. If I speak using slang from Belgrade, I doubt you would understand a word.
Well, that is what I meant with differences between Argentinian (or whatever LatinAmerican Spanish speaking country). But their grammar is pretty the same, their verbs are pretty the same etc. It is just a matter of usage of some words.
If I say to you a typical slang sentence in Serbian, you would still know what is verb, what is subject and what is predicate, in another words, you will know that "somebody" or "something" "has done something" to somebody or something", but as you don't know the correct usage of the words in Serbian slang, you would not understand "who did what to who". But you would still understand if the subject/object is in first, second or third person of singular or plural, of if the verb is in past, present or future. On the other hand, if we were talking about two different languages, you wouldn't be able to understand not even this.


----------



## beclija

el_tigre: I guess that any Croatian with any idea of zemljopis will be able to tell you which rivers flow through Belgrade, or what climate Serbia has. I guess most would fail to name a single river in Japan  Any Croatian will be able to name a few pop-bands from Serbia, probably none from China. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Đorđe Balašević is more popular in Slavonija than in Serbia outside Vojvodina... Any Slavonian knows Vojvodinian cuisine because a riblji paprikaš tastes the same across the border.


poison: _“May I have some cream please?” What? Two words for cream. “I don’t want to eat the carrot.” Two words for carrot, too._
Two very bad examples: both of these terms have different words in Austria and Germany, too - and note that I am talking about the standard language, not dialects. I wouldn't say Sahne and I might not understand it had I not lived in touristic region were people adapt to the Germans for years or were there not a massive intrusion of German dairy products. Same for "Möhre". It's Karotte, period.

el_tigre: Word lists prove anything and nothing. I can easily provide a list that "proves" that Austrian German is not possibly a variant of German because its words are closer to Serbian than to German as spoken in Germany. Here we go:

Germany:Austria:Serbian

Meerrettisch:Kren:hren
Tomate:paradaiser: paradajz
Johannisbeere:Ribisel:ribizla
Abitur:Matura:matura
Decke:plafond: plafon
Sahne:Schlag(obers):šlag
Pfannkuchen:palatschinke: palačinka
Sauerkirsche:Weichsel:višnja

(note that all of these are standard language in Austria, no dialectal variants included; except for "Decke" and "Tomate", which can be used along with their more "Austrian" synonyms, the terms from Germany are very alien to the ears of most Austrians and might well not be understood.)

I am not claiming that Croatian and Serbian are indeed one language, just showing that word lists are useless and you should better argue on grounds of structural differences.


----------



## beclija

el_tigre said:


> Bosni*ak* not Bosni*an*.
> There is no Bosnian ethnicity!


Still I think Nataša's choice of words makes sense: I happen to know Bosnians of Croatian and Serbian ethnicity who call their language - guess what? Bosanski!
(edit: Maybe I should add that those are most likely individuals who, upon inquiry, state that for them it is still one language, so in fact they use "Bosnian" as a shorthand for "Serbo-Croatian" without implying that Bosnian exists as a separate language.)


----------



## Jana337

OK, this thread happened to be open by ommission. However, the discussion seems to be rational and friendly, so I will leave it open again (but it may be closed at my discretion if things get out of hand).

Jana


----------



## Maja

beclija said:


> Germany:Austria:Serbian
> Meerrettisch:Kren:hren
> Tomate:paradaiser: paradajz
> Johannisbeere:Ribisel:ribizla
> Abitur:Matura:matura
> Decke:plafond: plafon
> Sahne:Schlag(obers):šlag
> Pfannkuchen:palatschinke: palačinka
> Sauerkirsche:Weichsel:višnja



Interesting list


----------



## el_tigre

beclija said:


> Still I think Nataša's choice of words makes sense: I happen to know Bosnians of Croatian and Serbian ethnicity who call their language - guess what? Bosanski!



One man from Sarajevo has told me:
Ti govoriš dalmatinski!- You speak dalmatian!!!

Dialect, way of speaking, pronounciation...
that is the point


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:


> One man from Sarajevo has told me:
> Ti govoriš dalmatinski!- You speak dalmatian!!!
> 
> Dialect, way of speaking, pronounciation...
> that is the point


 
Let's see... So you claim that Croatian IS a different language from Serbian, but Bosnian does not exist?

Very interesting point of view....


----------



## Juri

Nemojte molim, poćeti s nova!
Don't begin all over again, please!


----------



## natasha2000

Juri said:


> Nemojte molim, poćeti s nova!
> Don't begin all over again, please!


 
Nećemo, Juri, nema brige. 
don't worry, Juri, we won't.

I have faith that in the end, we still can have civilized discussion, even though we do not agree....Never lost it.


----------



## Aldin

In Bosnian there are three official languages:Bosnian,Croat and Serbian.
In Bosnia more than anywhere else there are huge problems with language.In constitution all nationalities have right on education on their language.For example theoreticly if there is one Croat in a classroom where all the others are Bosniaks,the Croat have a right to have a separete class on Croat language.In Bosnian grammar there are many things that are very unusual,but they are in ''spirit of Bosnian language''.
It's very common for Bosnians to use turkish words but not in standard language.Also there is a problem with 'h'.In new grammar of Senahid Halilović there are words like:
udovica-*h*udovica
zijevati-zije*h*ati

Also Bosnian language have tendency to minimaze words that use 'e'
for example
dečko-dječko

It's considerd 'serbian' word(dečko)
Also,now Bosnians think that cyrillic is an Serbian alphabet so they ignore cyrillic and generations after the war have very poor knowledge of this alphabet.

I think that Serbian,Croatian and Bosnian are the same language linguisticly but everyone has right to this language by any name.
A dog is a dog no matter how do you call it.

In Bosnia there is a great anthagonism between Bosnians and Serbs and everything that has any conections with Serbs.Which is quite obvious.But I don't think that language should suffer.

I think it's beautiful to have two alphabets,latin and cyrillic.I now arabic too,and I use them all three.
To me cyrillic is more appropriate to slavic languages but latin  is more useful.

I can entirely understand every Croat,Serb and Montenegrin. Real difficulty is understanding a Dalmatian,to me they speak foreign language.


----------



## natasha2000

Aldin said:


> In Bosnian there are three official languages:Bosnian,Croat and Serbian.
> In Bosnia more than anywhere else there are huge problems with language.In constitution all nationalities have right on education on their language.For example theoreticly if there is one Croat in a classroom where all the others are Bosniaks,the Croat have a right to have a separete class on Croat language.In Bosnian grammar there are many things that are very unusual,but they are in ''spirit of Bosnian language''.
> It's very common for Bosnians to use turkish words but not in standard language.Also there is a problem with 'h'.In new grammar of Senahid Halilović there are words like:
> udovica-*h*udovica
> zijevati-zije*h*ati
> 
> Also Bosnian language have tendency to minimaze words that use 'e'
> for example
> dečko-dječko
> 
> It's considerd 'serbian' word(dečko)
> Also,now Bosnians think that cyrillic is an Serbian alphabet so they ignore cyrillic and generations after the war have very poor knowledge of this alphabet.
> 
> I think that Serbian,Croatian and Bosnian are the same language linguisticly but everyone has right to this language by any name.
> A dog is a dog no matter how do you call it.
> 
> In Bosnia there is a great anthagonism between Bosnians and Serbs and everything that has any conections with Serbs.Which is quite obvious.But I don't think that language should suffer.
> 
> I think it's beautiful to have two alphabets,latin and cyrillic.I now arabic too,and I use them all three.
> To me cyrillic is more appropriate to slavic languages but latin is more useful.
> 
> I can entirely understand every Croat,Serb and Montenegrin. Real difficulty is understanding a Dalmatian,to me they speak foreign language.


 
Thank you, Aldin.
Your post was really thoughtful and nice.
I am glad that there are still young people who think like this.


----------



## el_tigre

Aldin said:


> I can entirely understand every Croat,Serb and Montenegrin. Real difficulty is understanding a Dalmatian,to me they speak foreign language.



What do you think saying ''Dalmatian''?? You mean Croats from Dalmatia???

In Dalmatia there are 3 speaches that are quite different:

*1.*dubrovnik speech:štokavsko-ijekavski , very close to the standard croatian. I do not think it is hard to understand to the speaker from Bosnia&Hercegovina
Spoken in Dubrovnik, Primorje 50% of Pelješac peninsula, and some islands around Dubrovnik

*2.*Štokavsko-ikavski with some addition of čakavski- most widespread speech

Spoken practically in all continental Dalmatia + cca 40 % Pelješac peninsula
A bit harde to understand  to the speaker from Bosnia&Hercegovina but still quite understandable.

*3.*Čakavsko - ikavski speech on the islands , very hard to understand to the continental people

70% of the people from Dalmatia speaks* (2)* , and many people think it is the only speach in Dalmatia .But it is not.


----------



## Anatoli

I am just an observer but I find the topic interesting. As a fellow Slavic speaker, I don't find Serbian and Croatian different enough. In another thread there was a suggestion to post in 2 languages - English and your native Slavic language. Why don't you continue in English, Serbian and Croatian and highlight the differences or vice versa emphasise the similarities (apart from the alphabet and "ije") in a friendly way?

Arabic and Chinese dialects are SO different from each other but they still call their  language Arabic or Chinese. All Slavic nations have so much in common, after reading posts in several Slavic languages I haven't used before I feel  as if I know them all. Maybe the key is to communicate and get to know each other's tongue.

 Я всего лишь наблюдатель, но нахожу тему интересной. Как и вы я славянин, и не считаю, что сербский и хорватский достаточно отличаются. В другой ветке было предложение писать сообщения на двух языках - английском и родном славянском. Почему бы вам не продолжить на английском, сербском и хорватском и не выделять различия, или наоборот, подчеркивать(кроме алфавита и "ие") по-дружески?

Арабские и китайские диалекты НАСТОЛЬКО отличаются друг от друга, но они всё равно называют их арабским или китайским языком. У всех славянских народов столько общего, я прочитав несколько сообщений на нескольких славянских языках, которыми я никогда не пользовался, чувствую, будто я их все знаю. Может быть, самое главное в общении и узнавании языка друг друга.


----------



## Aldin

Well there is no reason to be angry at anyone,Serbia did attack Croatia and Bosnia,but language is not to be blamed.I hope that you'll see that Bosnians,Croats,Montenegrins and Serbs are very alike and that they shouldn't be strangers to each others,we've lived in the same country for almost a century,and we shouldn't forget about that.

Zapravo nema razloga za ljutnju,Srbija jeste napala Hrvatsku i Bosnu,ali jezik nije taj koji bi trebao da ispašta.Nadam se da ćete uvidjeti da su Bosanci,Hrvati,Crnogorci i Srbi u mnogočemu slični i da ne bi trebali biti stranci jedni drugima,živjeli smo u jednoj državi skoro čitav vijek(čitavo stoljeće) i ne bismo to trebali zaboraviti.

Заправо нема разлога за љутњу,Србија јесте напала Хрватску у Босну,али језик није тај који би требао да испашта.Надам се да ћете увидјети да су Босанци,Хрвати,Црногорци и Срби у многочему слични и да не би требали бити странци једни другима,живјели смо у једној држави скоро читав вијек(читаво стољеће) и не бисмо то требали заборавити.

P.S.
ЈОСИП БРОЗ-ДОБАР СКРОЗ
JOSIP BROZ-DOBAR SKROZ
J...š zemlju koja piramide nema.
Ј....ш земљу која пирамиде нема.


----------



## natasha2000

Aldin said:


> P.S.
> ЈОСИП БРОЗ-ДОБАР СКРОЗ
> JOSIP BROZ-DOBAR SKROZ
> J...š zemlju koja piramide nema.
> Ј....ш земљу која пирамиде нема.


 

Hhahahah...  Vala baš, da znaš! 
A nadjoste li i faraone u zavojima...


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:


> Let's see... So you claim that Croatian IS a different language from Serbian, but Bosnian does not exist?
> 
> Very interesting point of view....



I do not claim that Bosnian language does not exist!!

Neither  I wrote here something like that!!!

I just gave a comment on a statement.

If somebody says ex. :ti govoriš bosanski( you speak bosnian)
that can mean: you speak like you are from Bosnia(not like you are foreigner)

they could say on the same way: ti govoriš zagrebački , sarajevski , dubrovački


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:


> I do not claim that Bosnian language does not exist!!
> 
> Neither I wrote here something like that!!!
> 
> I just gave a comment on a statement.
> 
> If somebody says ex. :ti govoriš bosanski( you speak bosnian)
> that can mean: you speak like you are from Bosnia(not like you are foreigner)
> 
> they could say on the same way: ti govoriš zagrebački , sarajevski , dubrovački


 
I think that you are very confused person, el_tigre. In this very same post, you claim that Bosanski (Bosnian language) exists, and then you explain that bosanski is just a way how people from Bosnia speak...





> (not like you are a foreigner).


 
If you say that one can say ti govoriš dalmatinski, I don't see the point of your intervention in the post 118 as a reaction to Aladin's claim that he can understand dalmatinski. If you agree that one can call the way of speaking in Dalmatia dalmatinski, then there is no need to point out that thelanguage spoken in Dalmatia is Croatian... I don't uderstand your point of view. Is there Bosanski or not?


----------



## el_tigre

Anatoli said:


> All Slavic nations have so much in common



Well , this is the statement that I can't agree at all.

There is no such a thing like_ ''Slavic nations'' _that woul be simiar like arabic or romance nations_. 

_Term_ slavic race_ was invented by nazis. That was made to indicate one lower race than Arian (germanic) races. Something beetween Arians and Semits(first of all Jews).
Semits should be exterminated and Slavs were supposed to be *slaves*.
These theories were based on the earlier publications of Karl Marx , and some statements of Otto von Bismarck.


----------



## Jana337

el_tigre said:


> Well , this is the statement that I can't agree at all.
> 
> There is no such a thing like_ ''Slavic nations'' _that woul be simiar like arabic or romance nations_.
> 
> _Term_ slavic race_ was invented by nazis. That was made to indicate one lower race than Arian (germanic) races. Something beetween Arians and Semits(first of all Jews).
> Semits should be exterminated and Slavs were supposed to be *slaves*.
> These theories were based on the earlier publications of Karl Marx , and some statements of Otto von Bismarck.


Not a topic for this thread, please do not continue here. It could be a thread in the cultural forum but check with cultural moderators before opening it.

Thanks, 

Jana


----------



## vince

I think that if we are to discuss the issue of Serbian and Croatian, we must use definitions of words such as *language*, *dialect*, *slang*, and *accent* that are universal and accepted throughout the linguistics world, and not limited to the scope of the Balkan experience.

Otherwise, the views that Serbian and Croatian being one language vs. being two to four languages are equally valid and true. Therefore making debate useless.

We must compare Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin to different linguistic scenarios:

- American English vs. British English: presence of two political systems and states, yet commonly identified as one single language. Minimal linguistic difference but a few non-trivial orthographic differences.
- Swedish vs. Norwegian vs. Danish: presence of three political systems and three "ethnic groups", commonly identified as separate languages, minor to moderate linguistic differences in grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary enough to occasionally prevent mutual comprehension, as well as many non-trivial orthographic differences
- German "dialects": presence of three political systems (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg), but only one "ethnic group", commonly identified as one single language, moderate to severe linguistic differences in grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary more than half of the time preventing mutual comprehension. One prestige "dialect" on which the written language is based, other German "dialects" do not have fully standardized writing systems.
- Italian "dialects": presence of only ONE political system (Italy), only one "ethnic group", commonly identified as one single language, moderate to severe linguistic differences in grammar, pronunciaiton and vocabulary more than half of the time preventing mutual comprehension. One prestige "dialect" on which the written language is based, other German "dialects" do not have fully standardized writing systems.
- Chinese "dialects": presence of three political systems (China, Taiwan, Singapore), but only one "ethnic group", commonly identified as one single language, severe linguistic differences in grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary almost all of the time preventing mutual comprehension. One prestige "dialect" on which the written language is based, other Chinese "dialects" do not have fully standardized writing systems.

I think that socio-culturally, Serbian and Croatian are debatably languages, but looking from a purely linguistic point of view (ignoring history, ethnic relations, religion, culture, etc), when you compare the differences between Serbian and Croatian that people here have brought up, and compare them to those between the German, Italian, and Chinese "dialects", it is clear that the latter differences are on an entirely greater level.

This brings us to two possible hypotheses:
1.) *Serbian and Croatian are two (or more) languages*, therefore there are many German languages (Pfälz, Kölsch, Schweizerdeutsch, Niedersachsisch, Luxemburgish), many Italian languages (Venetian, Emilio-Romagno, Lombard, Piedmontese, Napolitano), and many Chinese languages (Cantonese, Shanghai-nese, Taiwanese, Hakka, Gan), And therefore you should stop using the terms "German", "Italian", and "Chinese" unless referring to the entire family of languages. Don't say "He speaks Chinese" anymore, but say "He speaks Mandarin/Hakka/...", just like how you would prefer people not say "You speak Serbo-Croatian" but rather "You speak Serbian".

2.) Since it is true that German is one language, Italian is one language, and Chinese is one language, therefore *Serbian and Croatian are indisputably  the same language*.
In fact, Serbian is more related to Russian than Mandarin Chinese is to Cantonese Chinese so perhaps we should be debating whether Serbian and Russian are the same language hmm...


----------



## el_tigre

In fact:YES

particular _dialects_ German are in fact separate languages.
Divided into 3 groups:
high-german
middle -german
low-german

Speakers from Hannover(low-german) will hardly understand ex. people from SWitzerland(high-german)

SOme dialects have there official status in particular countries like :luxembougeous and saxon


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:


> In fact:YES
> 
> particular _dialects_ German are in fact separate languages.
> Divided into 3 groups:
> high-german
> middle -german
> low-german
> 
> Speakers from Hannover(low-german) will hardly understand ex. people from SWitzerland(high-german)
> 
> SOme dialects have there official status in particular countries like :luxembougeous and saxon


 
I have never heard that someone speaks High German or Middle German. But I know a lot of people who speak German.


----------



## beclija

A minor correction: The area of Hannover was historically Low German, but has been "High-Germanized" from something like the 19th century. Today, most people from Hannover probably don't even understand Low German, and they are even reputed to speak the "purest" (Standard) High German of all - because Standard German has developed as a medium of interregional communication and does not converge 100% with any particular dialect on the ground, therefor in "old" High German areas, there will always be some local features, largely absent among the Hannoverians who learnt it as a "foreign" language not too long ago. Still, it is true that Hannoverians will have a hard time understanding Swiss dialects (as indeed most Germans and Austrians).

Still, el_tigre, you are mixing things that can hardly be compared: I think we are talking here about the standard languages of Serbia and Croatia, not about dialects. I doubt anyone would deny that Čakavian and Torlački would be considered two different languages, were all speakers of Štokavian mysteriously to disappear or switch to another language and these two the only "Serbo-Croatian" dialects to remain. Probably most people here would also agree that gradišćanski hrvatski (which has an own standard based mainly on Čakavian) may be called a seperate language (here's a link to a newspaper in gradišćanski hrvatski; a quote: "Online verzija izlazi u glavnom četvrtak odpodne, poneki dijeli novin kot na primjer nogomet jur utorak."). But Standard Croatian and Standard Serbian are much closer to each other - in fact they are based on dialects spoken within a few dozen miles between Dubrovnik and Eastern Herzegovina (granting later diverging influences from other dialects on either side).

There are certain considerable lexical differences between the standard varieties in Austria, Switzerland and Germany, and between southern and northern Germany, but hardly anyone considers them different languages, it is more or less like British, American and Australian English (although many Germans find it hard to accept and think that there standard variety is the only standard and everything else dialect, no matter that decent newspapers and government announcements contain "regional" variants in A/CH, and that often the variety from Germany is considered just as much dialectal by most people here than the other way round).

As a conclusion:  Standard Serbian and Standard  Croatian are definitely further apart than the Standard German of Austria and Germany, but much closer to each other than Luxembourgish or Yiddish are to Standard German, so reference to German does not help to resolve the question.


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:


> I have never heard that someone speaks High German or Middle German. But I know a lot of people who speak German.


Kill me if I understand this!!

What are you trying to say?

beclija is probably right. My knowledgle about german is limited.
Berlin also is high-german speaking region . But originally was low.

The standard german is created in the 19th century. Before that it didn't exist.
As well as one italian , croatian, chinese!


----------



## dell22

el_tigre said:


> Kill me if I understand this!!
> 
> What are you trying to say?
> 
> beclija is probably right. My knowledgle about german is limited.
> Berlin also is high-german speaking region . But originally was low.
> 
> The standard german is created in the 19th century. Before that it didn't exist.
> As well as one italian , croatian, chinese!



I think his point was that its harder for German speaking people from different regions to understand each other than Serbs and Croats. I learned german from an instructor that came from Munich. I dont have any regrets but it can be interesting trying to keep up with the Swiss sometimes. And yet its still German. Not Croatian OR Serbian. Sure if our two languages developed independant of each other they would be very distinct today. But due to the mix of people over the years and since the joining of Serbo-Croatian in 1850 things have developed toghether and it is near impossible to have any idea which language the person is speaking if they are from Bosnia & Herzegovina for example. Ekavian and Ijekavian is obvious but its nothing more than a dialect present in Serbian in Serbia and the Serbian in Bosnia, Montenegro, and small sections of Croatia. 

Due to the situation over the past few years i'm sure we can all agree there has been too much tension and will to distinguish ourselves from one another. A clear example of this i will say is the Bosnian language, which for the life of me i will never figure out, just came out of nowhere, but im sure any scholar will immidetely tell you why.


----------



## natasha2000

el_tigre said:


> Kill me if I understand this!!
> 
> What are you trying to say?


 
I was trying to say this:



el_tigre said:


> My knowledgle about German is limited.


 
I would also like to remind you that this thread is NOT about similarities/differences among high/low/middle German, but between Serbian and Croatian.

(Try to capitalize properly when writing English.)


----------



## natasha2000

dell22 said:


> A clear example of this i will say is the Bosnian language, which for the life of me i will never figure out, just came out of nowhere, but im sure any scholar will immidetely tell you why.


 
Wait and you'll see Montenegrian as well. I heard they have already invented 31st letter - šć.

I also read here in forum, that some grammarians in Bosnia proclaimed HLOPTA as an official version of the word LOPTA... To those who don't speak one of our "languages" - it is as if zou added H in front of the word ball - HBALL. Neat, isn't it?

Just politics, if you ask me...


----------



## dell22

natasha2000 said:


> Wait and you'll see Montenegrian as well. I heard they have already invented 31st letter - šć.
> 
> I also read here in forum, that some grammarians in Bosnia proclaimed HLOPTA as an official version of the word LOPTA... To those who don't speak one of our "languages" - it is as if zou added H in front of the word ball - HBALL. Neat, isn't it?
> 
> Just politics, if you ask me...



Oh you need not explain , ive been back enough times to hear some weird new words floating around in areas that are now Bosniak. It all comes down to people wanting to distance themselves, let it be i suppose.


----------



## GoranBcn

natasha2000 said:


> Wait and you'll see Montenegrian as well. I heard they have already invented 31st letter - šć.



I've read that there will be 33 letters.

The three additional ones are: *Ś*, *Ź* and *3*. 

http://www.montenet.org/language/letters.htm


----------



## natasha2000

GoranBcn said:


> I've read that there will be 33 letters.
> 
> The three additional ones are: *Ś*, *Ź* and *3*.
> 
> http://www.montenet.org/language/letters.htm


 
Ala!! hahahah
And how do you (they) pronounce it?


----------



## GoranBcn

natasha2000 said:


> Ala!! hahahah
> And how do you (they) pronounce it?



There is a thread about this dialect... 

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=236892


----------



## natasha2000

GoranBcn said:


> There is a thread about this dialect...
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=236892


 
E, svašta! 
Hvala na linku.


----------



## el_tigre

Well,About the Montenegrin and Bosniakian language.

 Bosnia,Hercegovina and Montenegro were not speechless regions.
 They had their languages/dialects/speeches/ before. So , how they gonna call it...

 They haven't been mute so they had not to borrow(or _to steal_) _somebody's_ language       .


----------



## Maja

el_tigre said:


> They had their languages/dialects/speeches/ before. So , how they gonna call it...



Ko o čemu...


----------



## vince

beclija said:


> As a conclusion:  Standard Serbian and Standard  Croatian are definitely further apart than the Standard German of Austria and Germany, but much closer to each other than Luxembourgish or Yiddish are to Standard German, so reference to German does not help to resolve the question.



We are not talking about Standard German in Germany and Austria. I was originally comparing Austro-Bavarian, the native language spoken in Munich and Vienna to High German spoken further to the north. These "dialects" are far less mutually intelligible and greatlyl more grammatically divergent than the language/dialects spoken in Serbia and Croatia.

Therefore it remains a debatable point as to whether German being one language implies Serbian and Croatian are one and the same.

Keep in mind that one of the reasons why German, Arabic, Italian, and Chinese are considered a single language is that, although there are many languages spoken on the territory, everyone speaks the "Official" language. That is, the Swiss, Lebanese, and Cantonese are effectively bilingual in both the "Official" language and the native language they speak at home. But they consider the native language they speak at home to be a "dialect" of the "Official" language (Tuscan in Italy, High German in Germany, Mandarin in China) not for linguistic reasons, but because they have few qualms about associating themselves with that language, even if it was never historically spoken in their region*. However, the case with Serbo-Croatian seems to be that Croatian people do not want to their language to be considered a "dialect" of Serbian because this implies cultural dominance, that Serbian is the standard and Croatian is the variant. Whereas Americans have no problem considering their language as "English" despite being separate from England (the origin of the term "English"), in fact they have surpassed the British in many ways but they still call their language "English".

*Contrast Catalan in Catalonia, where people DO have qualms about associating themselves with the Official language (Castilian Spanish), hence Catalan becomes a language, rather than a Spanish dialect.


----------



## beclija

It's certainly true that some "German dialects" diverge more than Serbian and Croatian, or probably than the different Iberian or Scandinavian languages. My own dialect is probably structurally further from Standard German than Luxembourgish or Yiddish are ("structurally" meaning I ignore the lexical differences due to French and Hebrew/Aramaic borrowings in the latter two). But the difference between a language and a dialect is not really a linguistic one anyway, but rather sociologic, historical or political. Reasonable linguists have written excellent papers doing crosslinguistic comparison of a particular phenomenon, say, pronominal clitics, between, say, Swiss German and Bavarian on the one hand and Romance languages on the other, not loosing a word on Standard German (which does not have much to offer on the topic anyway), so essentially treating Swiss German/Bavarian as "languages". That does not change the fact that the normal, everyday use of "language" refers to its non-linguistic sense, by which Serbian and Croatians _are _arguably two languages.


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:


> (Try to capitalize properly when writing English.)


Whether I  write *G*erman or *g*erman everybody will understand!
If I type fast as I usually do many errors will be comitted!


----------



## Jana337

el_tigre said:


> Whether I  write *G*erman or *g*erman everybody will understand!
> If I type fast as I usually do many errors will be comitted!


No, my dear friend. We are a language forum and correct writing matters to us. Read rule 22 and start writing properly. 

Jana


----------



## vince

beclija said:


> That does not change the fact that the normal, everyday use of "language" refers to its non-linguistic sense, by which Serbian and Croatians _are _arguably two languages.



But in order to discuss the topic: "Serbian/Croatian: one language?" one must first define a common definition for language and for dialect that can be universally applied. If not, then any opinion is equally as valid: If the Croatians believe Croatian is a language, then they are correct by nationalist reasons. If Serbians believe Croatian is a dialect, then they are also correct, but for linguistic reasons. Some linguists call Serbian and Croatian independent _Ausbau-language_ but the same _Abstand-language_, they are also correct by a more precise linguistic reason.

Likewise, Cantonese and Mandarin are "one language" for nationalistic reasons, two languages for linguistic reasons, and Cantonese a _pseudo-dialectalized Abstand-language_ with (Written) Mandarin its _Dach-language_ by a more precise linguistic reason. All are 100% correct if there is no common definition of language and dialect upon which a logical debate can be based.

Because clearly, Serbian and Croatian are not "different languages" in the same sense that Russian and German are, or Japanese and Chinese.


----------



## Cepkah

natasha2000 said:


> Just a little correction. This is called "false friends", bacause the same word means two completely different things in two languages. The examples yuou gave are perfect, since "false friends" do not exist only in English, but in all languages.
> trudna - slovenian - tired
> trudna - croatian/serbian - pregnant


trudna - bulgarian - difficult(difficile) for feminin words (trudno-truden-trudna)


----------



## natasha2000

vince said:


> However, the case with Serbo-Croatian seems to be that Croatian people do not want to their language to be considered a "dialect" of Serbian because this implies cultural dominance, that Serbian is the standard and Croatian is the variant.


 
Nobody ever told that Croatian is a dialect of Serbian. Never, ever. But some of us claimed that Serbian and Croatian are the same language, i.e. they are both dialects of the same language, which is not precisely the same as saying that Croatian is a dialect of Serbian.



> Whereas Americans have no problem considering their language as "English" despite being separate from England (the origin of the term "English"), in fact they have surpassed the British in many ways but they still call their language "English".


Like more than 20 Latinamerican countries with Spanish.


> *Contrast Catalan in Catalonia, where people DO have qualms about associating themselves with the Official language (Castilian Spanish), hence Catalan becomes a language, rather than a Spanish dialect.


Here you're wrong. Your comparison is wrong. Catalan WAS and IS and always WILL BE different language, and NOT dialect of Castilian.


----------



## Maja

el_tigre said:


> Well,About the Montenegrin and Bosniakian language.
> Bosnia,Hercegovina and Montenegro were not speechless regions.
> They had their languages/dialects/speeches/ before. So , how they gonna call it...
> They haven't been mute so they had not to borrow(or _to steal_) _somebody's_ language       .


Hah??? 
Of course they haven't been mute, what kind of argument is that? They spoke, and still speak, Serbian or Serbo-Croatian if you like!!!
To be honest, I am really surprised at your line of reasoning...


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:


> Nobody ever told that Croatian is a dialect of Serbian.



Sorry, it seems you haven't seen this post
http://forum.wordreference.com/showpost.php?p=883390&postcount=24

And, that is just a tip of an iceberg. V:S.Karadžić started with an idea that
Croatian is a dialect of Serbian... and still that idea is present in between Serbian academics. Karadžić also claimed that all speakers of štokavski are in facts speakers of Serbian-due that Serbs.
http://govori.tripod.com/slovo.htm

etc.


----------



## meeryanah

A language school point of view:
Croatian one even...
I've quickly read this discussion, and I haven't seen anyone said that a language is something depending very much on the nation...
I'm 18, and so far the only Yugoslavian country I haven't been to is macedonia, and I have to say, we're different, the mentalities of these nations are quite different.
So, I belive the language, no matter the grammar, vocabulary, any similarities, just can't be the same one.
And, yes, they can all easily get offended (because of politics, of course).
meeryanah


----------



## beclija

That is not a good point, Mirjana, because there are a lot of sets of nations out there in the world which claim to be using the same language - the language we are using here is actually a good example.

And even if it were, I can tell you as a foreigner that after getting accostumed to Slavonia, I felt more alien in Dalmatia than in Vojvodina precisely for that mentality thing you mention, so I suppose there would have to be several Croatian languages. 

The mentality or the nation is not what makes a language. You can either argue that languages are defined on purely formal linguistic grounds, but than you will have to stay quite vague, it hasn't ever been defined what makes a language in this sense, as far as I know. In this meaning, we are probably talking about one language. Or you can define a language through its history (literary traditions etc.), in which case Croatian and Serbian are probably two languages. I prefer the second definition, always with the footnote that language in this sense is a rather muddy concept, but the best we have. I cannot see, though, how you would define language by nationhood or, even worse, mentality - if it's mentality, than the language of a Zagreb punk and a Zagreb rich widow don't even belong to the same language family, ridiculous, isn't it?


----------



## Anatoli

*Rumanians* and *Moldovans* WANT to speak one language and they do - Rumanian (accents, vocabulary, history, borders, different alphabets at some stage, influence from other languages don't matter).
*
Germans*, *Austrians* and even *Swiss* WANT to speak one language - German and they do. They call all regional differences - dialects, even the Swiss dialect - highly incomprehensible for German speakers.
*
Chinese* all over the world speak very different dialects, sometimes use differnt versions of script - simplified (mainland China, Singapore) and traditional (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao), they still call themselves *Chinese* (*Han*), they say they speak and write Chinese but various dialects. They use at least more a less identical version when writing.

*Arabs* are separated by borders, religions, cultures, attitudes, mentality, sometimes politically quite dfferent but they say they all speak Arabic - they have a standard version and each country a local spoken version (or more than one). The standard version is common for all Arabs but they still pronounce very often with their own local accent, grammar and vocabulary.

*Koreans* have been separated for over 50 years. They have some different spelling rules, pronunciation, expressions, vocabulary and many things have become incomprehensible on the other side of the politicla fence. 2 systems, 2 countries - quite different!
They even call the Korean language differently depending wher you are - in the North or in the South: Hangungmal (South) or Chosŏnmal (North). Do they speak the same language?

Spanish in Spain and Latin America or
Portuguese in Portugal vs Brazil or
French in France, Quebec, Switzerland are very different sometimes but their speakers call themseves speakers of those languages and that's why there's no conflict.

If Croats don't want to speak the same language as Serbs, they will make all the effort to make it different and highlight and develop the differences. We should probably give this topic a break and wait for the passions to cool down and then see in 10, 20 years what the linguists will say...


----------



## meeryanah

Well, it's not a good point, I obviously made a mistake.
 Or maybe I used the wrong word?
If you compared us by mentalities, you could probably call Croatian and Serbian dialects, I guess.
But... We're a different nation, aren't we?
I'm having some trouble thinking and talking about this in a foreign language.


----------



## b_fly

meeryanah said:
			
		

> But... We're a different nation, aren't we?.


No.



			
				meeryanah said:
			
		

> I'm having some trouble thinking and talking about this in a foreign language.


Same here.


----------



## meeryanah

I am sorry, I will speak/write properly from now on.
And one more thing, we're not?!
How come?
There are borders between our countries, the religion is different, the history (well, a part of it, the perspectiv on it also), the... hm, maybe we're the same nation if you take into consideration that we're all human.
Pozdrav!


----------



## vince

> Nobody ever told that Croatian is a dialect of Serbian. Never, ever. But some of us claimed that Serbian and Croatian are the same language, i.e. they are both dialects of the same language, which is not precisely the same as saying that Croatian is a dialect of Serbian.


This depends on the terminology. When one says that American English is a dialect of ENGLISH, one is not implying that the American variety is subservient to that spoken in ENGLAND, but rather, that American English is a dialect of the same language that British English is a dialect of. In this respect, if person A calls Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin as one language called "Serbian", then to her/him, Croatian, Serbian, etc. are dialects of her/his definition of "Serbian". If person B calls this language "Croatian", then Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin would then be dialects of Croatian.



> Here you're wrong. Your comparison is wrong. Catalan WAS and IS and always WILL BE different language, and NOT dialect of Castilian.


Explain how it is wrong? And why Catalan is a different language from Castilian? Or are you appealing to the popular, unscientific, and politically-charged definition of "language" vs. "dialect"? (i.e. "It's a language 'cuz people recognize it as such"). Certainly I personally agree that Catalan is a separate language on linguistic grounds, but if one defines Cantonese and Mandarin as linguistically the same language (a ridiculous proposition IMO), then Catalan would naturally fall into place as a dialect of "Ibero-Romance" (notice I avoid the term "Castilian dialect" even in this funny hypothetical case). Serbian and Croatian would be subdialects of the South Slavic dialect, which would be a dialect along with West Slavic (Polish, Czech, and Slovak sub-dialects) of the single Slavic language.



			
				Anatoli said:
			
		

> * Chinese* all over the world speak very different dialects, sometimes use differnt versions of script - simplified (mainland China, Singapore) and traditional (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao), they still call themselves *Chinese* (*Han*), they say they speak and write Chinese but various dialects. They use at least more a less identical version when writing.



This "identical version" is based on Mandarin. A speaker of the Wu ("Shanghainese") language in China cannot write the way he/she speaks, even when talking formally. But Wu is considered a dialect of Chinese even though it is as different grammatically from Mandarin and Written Chinese as Russian and Polish. Cantonese and Mandarin/Written Chinese are as different as Russian and the Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin language. If you refer to Cantonese and Mandarin as dialects of a single Chinese language, then you shouldn't be worrying about Serbian and Croatian being the same language: you should be worrying about Russian and Serbo-Croatian being the same language!

If you want to know more, search for "Chinese dialects" with the forum search tool. I have written extensively on this subject.


----------



## natasha2000

> This depends on the terminology. When one says that American English is a dialect of ENGLISH, one is not implying that the American variety is subservient to that spoken in ENGLAND, but rather, that American English is a dialect of the same language that British English is a dialect of. In this respect, if person A calls Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin as one language called "Serbian", then to her/him, Croatian, Serbian, etc. are dialects of her/his definition of "Serbian". If person B calls this language "Croatian", then Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin would then be dialects of Croatian.


I agree. The main problem here is terminology.
But while English is the name for all variants spoken in England, Canada, USA etc. this language of ours unfortunately does not have a common name, but it's name chages depending on the country where it is spoken. No Croat will acept that he speaks the dialect of Serbian and I understand this attitude completely and I fully agree, since from the time of Serbo-Croat period, Croats spoke Western version, and Serbs spoke Eastern version, which d have differences and cannot be dialects of each other. If you told me anything about Mandarin/Chinese, I would take your words for granted since you are a native speaker of those, and I don't have the slightest idea about those languages. So please, I beg you, believe me what I say. Or if not, just ask other people here. Let's see what Croats or Bosnians have to say on this subject. Is Croat a dialect of Serbian???? Or Bosnian is a dialect of Croatian??? I don't think so.




> Explain how it is wrong? And why Catalan is a different language from Castilian?


 Try the same sentence in Spanish only or Catalan forum. Let's see what they have to say. Even better. Ask someone from Andalusia or Madrid if they understand Catalan. I am interested to see what they will say. 



> Or are you appealing to the popular, unscientific, and politically-charged definition of "language" vs. "dialect"? (i.e. "It's a language 'cuz people recognize it as such").


No. I base my claims on what I know. Furthermore, can you prove what you are saying? If you give me a SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Catalan and Castilian are the same language, I will believe you. Otherwise...



> Certainly I personally agree that Catalan is a separate language on linguistic grounds, but if one defines Cantonese and Mandarin as linguistically the same language (a ridiculous proposition IMO), then Catalan would naturally fall into place as a dialect of "Ibero-Romance" (notice I avoid the term "Castilian dialect" even in this funny hypothetical case). Serbian and Croatian would be subdialects of the South Slavic dialect, which would be a dialect along with West Slavic (Polish, Czech, and Slovak sub-dialects) of the single Slavic language.


One thing is to say that Catalan is an Iberoromance language, and completely other to say that it is a dialect of Castilian. Those two things are compeltely different. Likewise, Serbian and Croatian can be subdialects of a South Slavic dialect which can be .... etc. I can agree with this, but this is something completely different from saying that Croatian is a dialect of Serbian.


----------



## Outsider

vince said:


> Or are you appealing to the popular, unscientific, and politically-charged definition of "language" vs. "dialect"? (i.e. "It's a language 'cuz people recognize it as such").


That's the only realistic definition of "language" there is, I'm afraid.

I know you would like there to be a definition that wasn't so dependent on political and social influences -- a "purely" linguistic definition -- but where is it? You won't find such purity anywhere in the real world. Language is not just a matter of linguistics.


----------



## kubanka

I can't believe that this thread has been going on for so long, well I guess I can, given the controversial topic. I think I should give my opinion and point of view, it may or may not be of any help. Personally, I think (hrvatski,srpski, bosanski) are all the same language, albeit with variations, as happens in all languages. 
If anyone were to argue this and say that hrvatski is a completely separate language from srpski, then the people of BiH would have all the right in the world to say that they speak bosanski. 
There may be different names for all of these variations, dialects, etc. but in the end they are essentially the same language. Providing a list of different names for the same things (kruh vs hleb) or different ways of speaking, whether it be lepa or ljepa, does not prove that they are different languages. If this were the case then the Spanish or Castillian spoken in the Latin American countries would not be Spanish, but Argentinian, Mexican, Bolivian, etc. because they all have many different words for the same things. Not just that, but different accents and pronunciations, some countries such as Argentina even use a different 2nd person pronoun, and this in turn changes the way they conjugate their verbs, in spoken as well as written Spanish. This is also the case with the Castillian of Spain, where a different form of the plural you and therefore its corresponding conjugation is different from that used in Latin America. I do also believe, that the root of the problem is the lack of a “common” or “universal” name for this language. Perhaps, if it had been called “Yugoslavian” it would have worked, but it wasn’t even called this in the former Yugoslavia, so who knows if that would have worked, probably not. But again, the fact that this language is called by different names, does not make “them” different languagues.


----------



## chung

Agreed. Linguistically, BCS can be analyzed as the same language, but composed of different dialects no differently from how one would analyze British and American English. This doesn't preclude Bosnians, Croats and Serbs from having their own ethnic makeup, literary corpus, history, etc, any more than saying that Americans and Britons speak the same language, but have their own ethnic makeup, literary corpus and history.

For political purposes, the dialectal differences between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are enough to merit calling them as separate languages on the same level as Czech, Polish and Slovak, as opposed to "dialects".

On the other hand, the differences between Mandarin and Cantonese are not strong enough politically to justify calling these two anything other than "dialects". #&*!)¢ politics...  

One can only wonder what would have happened if the Serbian and Croatian intellectuals had NOT agreed to use a neo-stokavski variant from Eastern Bosnia (i.e. Vuk Karadzic's native speech) as the basis of Serbo-Croatian in the 19th century.

To make the difference between the Croats and Serbs that much clearer, perhaps standard Croatian should have been based on Cakavski-Ikavski, while standard Serbian should have been based on Stokavski-Ekavski, right from the beginning and ditch the talk about Illyrianism...


----------



## Maja

chung said:


> One can only wonder what would have happened if the Serbian and Croatian intellectuals had NOT agreed to use a neo-stokavski variant from Eastern Bosnia (i.e. Vuk Karadzic's native speech) as the basis of Serbo-Croatian in the 19th century.


 Just a little correction, it was  eastern Herzegovian!


----------



## chung

details, details ;-)

hvala


----------



## bebita linda

I was born in Croatia and living in Serbia.I´m confused,what should I write which my native language is?Suppose that I should connect it with nationality.


----------



## natasha2000

bebita linda said:


> I was born in Croatia and living in Serbia.I´m confused,what should I write which my native language is?Suppose that I should connect it with nationality.


 
This is easy. You speak Easter version, i.e. Serbian. Normally, one speak the dialect of the place where he lives. If I lived in Sarajevo for a long time, I would end up accepting their dialect, and speak as Bosnians do. 

My mother is something like you. She was born in Sarajevo in a Croatian family, but when she was 3 years old, my grandmother married again and went to live in Serbia. My mothers speaks Serbian variant of our language, because she was surrounded by that dialect. If she stayed in Sarajevo, she would speak Bosnian. If my grandmother married a Croat and went to Croatia, my mother would speak now Croatian variant. Simple as that.
I think that you should listen to your heart if it is important for you to know who you are. Whatever your heart tells you, that is what you are. 
No language, no country can decide it. Only you.


----------



## bebita linda

Estoy de acuerdo contigo,siempre es lo mejor escuchar su corazón.


----------



## vince

chung said:


> For political purposes, the dialectal differences between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are enough to merit calling them as separate languages on the same level as Czech, Polish and Slovak, as opposed to "dialects".
> 
> On the other hand, the differences between Mandarin and Cantonese are not strong enough politically to justify calling these two anything other than "dialects". #&*!)¢ politics...



When you mean "differences", are you talking about linguistic differences, or cultural/political differences? Definitely not linguistically: Two Chinese dialects as similar as Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian would not even merit being called "dialect", maybe sub-sub-dialect. It is more a question of how strongly people feel that they _should_ be different rather than how different they actually are.

When some of you talk about trivial differences like cha vs. sto, i vs. e vs. ije, these are just differences of accent. I guess we could classify GA American English as a No-ish language and RP British English as a Neu-ish language for the pronunciaiton of "no" (negative word).

I guess Serbians are the most multilingual people in the world - they can understand so many languages - Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin (even if they can't speak them), whereas a person from southern China who speaks Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, and Mandarin (all as linguistically different as Russian and SCB) is as monolingual as a stereotypical American.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> If you told me anything about Mandarin/Chinese, I would take your words for granted since you are a native speaker of those



No, I'm not a native speaker, nor am I fluent in it. In fact, my Slavic vocabulary is rapidly approaching the size of my Mandarin vocabulary. But despite this, I study the structures and grammar of these languages. Yet to your eyes, only native speakers have any credibility? You are using the _appeal to authority_ fallacy in logic: if they know the language, they must be right. If they don't know the language, they must be wrong. Instead, if someone says something you disagree with, please rebut it, don't just dismiss it.


----------



## chung

vince said:


> When you mean "differences", are you talking about linguistic differences, or cultural/political differences? Definitely not linguistically: Two Chinese dialects as similar as Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian would not even merit being called "dialect", maybe sub-sub-dialect. It is more a question of how strongly people feel that they _should_ be different rather than how different they actually are.
> 
> When some of you talk about trivial differences like cha vs. sto, i vs. e vs. ije, these are just differences of accent. I guess we could classify GA American English as a No-ish language and RP British English as a Neu-ish language for the pronunciaiton of "no" (negative word).
> 
> I guess Serbians are the most multilingual people in the world - they can understand so many languages - Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin (even if they can't speak them), whereas a person from southern China who speaks Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, and Mandarin (all as linguistically different as Russian and SCB) is as monolingual as a stereotypical American.


 
I agree with you 100% Vince. Differences are often in the eye of the beholder, and people or their governments can play up or play down the relationship between kindred languages or dialects to suit their non-linguistic aims. It's often a political thing and has little to do with objective or descriptivist linguistics.

Linguists from outside the Balkans consider standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian as variants of one another. All of these standards arose from Vuk Karazdic's neo-stokavski dialect in Eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina about 150 years ago and today the similarities still outweigh the differences. (However, in a century or two, I would expect that the standards will keep diverging and become as different from each other as French and Italian...). I guess that some people would find it strange that all native speakers of English no matter which variant they speak, call it "English". We don't throw fits and insist that outsiders should always call them as "British English", "American English", "Indian English" etc.

Of course, nationalists and some politicians and linguists disagree and insist on each of these standards being "languages" today. In my view, it's tied to the idea that each nation must have its own language no matter what. (e.g. Citizens of Croatia speak Croatian language, and citizens of Serbia speak Serbian language even though both standard Croatian and standard Serbian arise from the same variant.) On the other hand, it's expedient for the Chinese politburo, and some Chinese nationalists to insist that Hakka, Cantonese, and Wu etc. are just dialects (thus implying a subordinate relationship to Mandarin), with the Mandarin standard of Peking being the most prestigious form. It quashes some potential for speakers of anything other than a Mandarin variant in China from making claims of autonomy or special treatment from Peking just because their speech is very different from that of the ruling class. It's all politics. We can observe similar things with Malay vs. Indonesian, Bulgarian vs. Macedonian, Polish vs. Kashubian, or Ukrainian vs. Rusyn.


----------



## natasha2000

vince said:


> When you mean "differences", are you talking about linguistic differences, or cultural/political differences? Definitely not linguistically: Two Chinese dialects as similar as Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian would not even merit being called "dialect", maybe sub-sub-dialect. It is more a question of how strongly people feel that they _should_ be different rather than how different they actually are.
> 
> When some of you talk about trivial differences like cha vs. sto, i vs. e vs. ije, these are just differences of accent. I guess we could classify GA American English as a No-ish language and RP British English as a Neu-ish language for the pronunciaiton of "no" (negative word).
> 
> I guess Serbians are the most multilingual people in the world - they can understand so many languages - Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin (even if they can't speak them), whereas a person from southern China who speaks Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, and Mandarin (all as linguistically different as Russian and SCB) is as monolingual as a stereotypical American.


 
What it would be, then? I do not understand you. First you claim that S/C/B are three different languages, and then now you claim a completely different thing. Decide, what shall it be?



> No, I'm not a native speaker, nor am I fluent in it. In fact, my Slavic vocabulary is rapidly approaching the size of my Mandarin vocabulary. But despite this, I study the structures and grammar of these languages. Yet to your eyes, only native speakers have any credibility? You are using the _appeal to authority_ fallacy in logic: if they know the language, they must be right. If they don't know the language, they must be wrong. Instead, if someone says something you disagree with, please rebut it, don't just dismiss it


 
I remember once you were amazed and you didn't believe me that I do understand Catalan, thanks to my living here and knowledge of Spanish. As a matter of fact, that was my first contact with you. Then your data said you speak Catalan. Then you have changed to Chinese and Cantonese or Mandarin, and English, living in Canada. I also read some of your posts about differences and similairities among those languages, about which language you consider as your mother tongue etc etc. All these made me think you speak decently (if not as native) Chinese/Mandarin, or at least one of those languages. Now I really do not know who you are or what languages you speak.

As far as languages are concerned, one can give opinions about languages he knows. He doesn't have to be native speaker, nor he has to speak it fluently, but enough to be able to have a decent average conversation. If your knowledge of a language is limited to few words you simply cannot give opinions on that language. you can say if it sounds to you nice or not, but you cannot simply know if that language is similar to other language or not. Because it is impossible to know. 
For example, I can give my impressions and opinions on Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian etc. or about Spanish or English, since those are languages I do speak. I also can give some limited opinions on Catalan since I understand it pretty well, but I would never dare to give opinions about let's say if Valencian and Catalan are one or two different languages, since I do not speak it, and furthermore, I have never heard any Valencian speaking language in question. I can only take for granted what people who do speak those languages tell me. That it is the same language, but two different dialects. And I believe them.

I am really sorry, and please take no offense, but I simply cannot accept your opinion as valid on this particular subject. You simply do not have enough knowledge on the subject in order to be able to give any judgements on it. It is not that if they know language, they must be right. Its just if they know the language, let's hear them what they have to say. Knowing the language is the primary requirement for even thinking of discussing this subject. And you do not have it.


----------



## vince

natasha2000 said:


> What it would be, then? I do not understand you. First you claim that S/C/B are three different languages, and then now you claim a completely different thing. Decide, what shall it be?



I was being sarcastic about S-C-B being three languages



> I remember once you were amazed and you didn't believe me that I do understand Catalan, thanks to my living here and knowledge of Spanish. As a matter of fact, that was my first contact with you. Then your data said you speak Catalan. Then you have changed to Chinese and Cantonese or Mandarin, and English, living in Canada. I also read some of your posts about differences and similairities among those languages, about which language you consider as your mother tongue etc etc. All these made me think you speak decently (if not as native) Chinese/Mandarin, or at least one of those languages. Now I really do not know who you are or what languages you speak.


I speak English with a Cantonese accent.
My Spanish is better than my Cantonese.
I do not speak fluent Spanish.

I guess my English can't be trusted due to Cantonese influence
My Cantonese can't be trusted because I'm not even fluent
My Spanish can't be trusted for the same reasons.

So you might as well block me now for I have no credibility to you in anything in this forum.



> If your knowledge of a language is limited to few words you simply cannot give opinions on that language. you can say if it sounds to you nice or not, but you cannot simply know if that language is similar to other language or not. Because it is impossible to know.
> ...
> I am really sorry, and please take no offense, but I simply cannot accept your opinion as valid on this particular subject.


An opinion is backed by facts. If you have facts that successfully contradict my opinion, then I am wrong. But until then, it is just as valid an opinion as anyone else's. It is very dangerous to trust someone just because they know more than you. I am pretty sure some of the greatest dictators and serial killers understood more about morality than I do, but that doesn't make them right. But it is equally dangerous to dismiss people's opinions just because they know less. 

Here is my opinion: Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are less different than Chinese dialects. Therefore if Chinese is one language, so is S-C-B.
My facts:
Cantonese and Mandarin have differences in the following:
- copula "to be"
- basic negations
- imperative / negative imperative
- demonstratives
- comparatives
- verbal aspects and tenses, as well as their formation
- personal pronouns
- T-V distinction (or lack of)
- possessives
- word order
- make/do distinction (or lack of)
- interrogative words (who, what, where, why, how)
- basic prepositions (e.g. at, with)
- basic adverbs (e.g. always)

By different, I mean are they totally different in etymology and construction.

 e.g. *Totally different:* the English and Spanish ways of forming questions: "Do you have my book?" (addition of "do") vs. "Tienes mi libro?" (no addition). *Same: (differing only in pronunciation evolved over the past few centuries)* Spanish vs. French to say "The U.S. is a big country .." : "Los Estados Unidos son un gran país" vs. "Les États-Unis sont un grand pays"

---

How can you render my opinion invalid? Just provide proof that Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian have differences that match or exceed in magnitude the ones I highlighted above.



> You simply do not have enough knowledge on the subject in order to be able to give any judgements on it. It is not that if they know language, they must be right. Its just if they know the language, let's hear them what they have to say. Knowing the language is the primary requirement for even thinking of discussing this subject. And you do not have it.


In addition to what I said in the previous paragraph,

there are two types of perspectives: inside perspectives, and outside perspectives. People inside a group are able to view a matter from the inside perspective, they understand the nitty-gritty, the unwritten rules, the personalities and interaction between people, as well as skills and abilities that outsiders won't have. On the other hand, their views are often biased due to their limited experience outside their situation. People who study a situation from the outside do not have the same type of knowledge as described above. But they do possess perspectives from situations outside with which they can compare their observations. They can see the group from the outside as a whole, and study the group behavior as well as the interactions of the group with the outside.


----------



## beclija

You don't happen to study (or have studied) cultural anthropology?


----------



## natasha2000

vince said:


> I was being sarcastic about S-C-B being three languages


Then there is nothing more to discuss. I thought you were talking for real.



> I speak English with a Cantonese accent.
> My Spanish is better than my Cantonese.
> I do not speak fluent Spanish.
> 
> I guess my English can't be trusted due to Cantonese influence
> My Cantonese can't be trusted because I'm not even fluent
> My Spanish can't be trusted for the same reasons.
> 
> So you might as well block me now for I have no credibility to you in anything in this forum.


On the contrary. I think that you DO have the credibility about all those three languages you say. But not about S/C/B.




> An opinion is backed by facts. If you have facts that successfully contradict my opinion, then I am wrong. But until then, it is just as valid an opinion as anyone else's.


Nobody argues this. I said *I cannot accept* your opinion. But then, I am not Word Reference. Word Reference has more than 9000 active members. Each and every one of them has the right to believe whatever they want. This is fee country.
My fact is that there is nothing to discuss if you do not speak the language. 


> It is very dangerous to trust someone just because they know more than you. I am pretty sure some of the greatest dictators and serial killers understood more about morality than I do, but that doesn't make them right. But it is equally dangerous to dismiss people's opinions just because they know less.


 
Of course you shouldn't believe all that you hear only because those qho speak know more than you. But this is not reciprocal with people who don¡t know anything about the subject. Let me give you an example. If I let's say, know nothing about cars., how on Earth can I give the opinion on which car is better and why? On the other hand, if someone who knows about carse starts to tell me that Mercedes is the best car ever made, I would go and try to get more opinions. I do not believe him ONLY because he knows more than I. But I certainly won't ask for an opinion a person who is like me - absolute ignorat about cars. 
There is no offense meant in this words. I just do not know how to explain to you what I mean without getting you offended, but I see that I somehow do not have any success.






---



> How can you render my opinion invalid? Just provide proof that Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian have differences that match or exceed in magnitude the ones I highlighted above.


I never claimed that Serbian and Croatian are two different languages. I gave a lot of examples and facts in my previous posts abut why I think so. Maybe you should read them, if you haven't already done it.




> In addition to what I said in the previous paragraph,
> 
> there are two types of perspectives: inside perspectives, and outside perspectives. People inside a group are able to view a matter from the inside perspective, they understand the nitty-gritty, the unwritten rules, the personalities and interaction between people, as well as skills and abilities that outsiders won't have. On the other hand, their views are often biased due to their limited experience outside their situation. People who study a situation from the outside do not have the same type of knowledge as described above. But they do possess perspectives from situations outside with which they can compare their observations. They can see the group from the outside as a whole, and study the group behavior as well as the interactions of the group with the outside


 
I repeat Beclija's question. Are you some kind of scientist? Something to do with antropology and culture?


----------



## Anatoli

Strange that you guys, Natasha and Chung have the same opinion about Serbian/Croatian but you still bicker.

You don't have to be fluent in any Serbian / Croatian, etc., to know how close they are and to have an opinion about it. It's a well-known linguistic peculiarity caused by politics.

Funny, I looked at a Serbian / Croatian textbook for English speakers where authors tried to be "politically correct" by not offending anyone but had a big difficulty highlighting those little differences (especially on the basic level of a textbook) and at the same time teach both versions in the same text.


----------



## janecito

natasha2000 said:


> My fact is that there is nothing to discuss if you do not speak the language.


I didn't know whether to get involved or not, but than this sentence convinced me to give my opinion on the subject (I admit, a subject that has gone a bit astray from the topic of the thread). I must disagree with you, Nataša. I don't thing knowledge *about *a language has a lot to do with knowledge *of *the language. You may not speak a certain language but can still know more about it than a native speaker. I'm not saying a native speaker cannot be an expert on the subject, but a non-native speaker can just as well be (even a non-native speaker that does not speak the language but has studied and knows a lot about it). Just like, if I may borrow your metaphor, knowing about cars doesn't equal knowing how to drive them neither does not driving a car mean not having any knowledge on the subject.

And my personal experience: I know only about 10 Lithuanian words, but still I was able to explain the use of reflexive possessive pronouns (in Lithuanian) to my native Lithuanian co-workers. I guess it's just something a native speaker pays no attention too.

This discussion would be much poorer with (native) speaker only.


----------



## Outsider

janecito said:


> I didn't know whether to get involved or not, but than this sentence convinced me to give my opinion on the subject (I admit, a subject that has gone a bit astray from the topic of the thread). I must disagree with you, Nataša. I don't thing knowledge *about *a language has a lot to do with knowledge *of *the language. You may not speak a certain language but can still know more about it than a native speaker.


I can't resist supporting Natasha. I've read too much nonsense about my language written by "experts" who know a lot "about" it but have never deigned themselves to actually learn it.


----------



## janecito

Outsider said:


> I can't resist supporting Natasha. I've read too much nonsense about my language written by "experts" who know a lot "about" it but have never deigned themselves to actually learn it.



I've never claimed ignorant people should be the judge about what they are ignorant about. I just wanted to say that (native) speaker does not mean expert and, vice versa, non(-native) speaker does not equal ignorant.

I have heard/read a lot of nonsense about my (and not just my) language from people who didn't speak it as well as from those who have. On the other hand, I've come across some foreigners who were not at all fluent in my language that knew a whole lot more about it than an average native Slovene ever will.

To sum it up, if they were saying nonsense about your language, they were not experts, I agree. But the criteria is not whether or not they are fluent speakers of the language, but rather whether or not they knew what they were saying.


----------



## Outsider

I agree with you, but still, when it comes to delicate issues such as mutual intelligibility and the status of dialects/languages... Let's just say one should be skeptical of veredicts coming from people who are not _at least_ fluent in the language (they don't have to be native speakers, I agree).

One a lighter note, I have to agree with Anatoli: isn't it funny how the people who are fiercely debating each other on this page all seem to agree with each other concerning the status of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian? Just imagine what it would be like if they _didn't_ agree!


----------



## natasha2000

janecito said:


> I've never claimed ignorant people should be the judge about what they are ignorant about. I just wanted to say that (native) speaker does not mean expert and, vice versa, non(-native) speaker does not equal ignorant.


I never said that. But to be able to compare a certain language with others, let alone to claim if two languages are the same language or not, the basic thing is to speak some of it. Don't you agree?


----------



## natasha2000

Anatoli said:


> Strange that you guys, Natasha and Chung have the same opinion about Serbian/Croatian but you still bicker.


 
What are you talking about?
I don't remember I was arguing about anything with Chung. I recommend you that before posting any personal comments, to read carefully  what the other said.


----------



## vince

natasha2000 said:


> On the contrary. I think that you DO have the credibility about [Cantonese, Spanish, English] . But not about S/C/B.



Huh? I thought you said that people only have credibility about a language if they speak it fluently! I am neither a true native speaker, nor am I fluent (i.e., if you talk to me in Mandarin, Cantonese, or Spanish, chances are I won't understand unless you speak slowly and stick to basic words)

Why do you trust my opinions on these subjects and not S-C-B?


----------



## natasha2000

vince said:


> Huh? I thought you said that people only have credibility about a language if they speak it fluently! I am neither a true native speaker, nor am I fluent (i.e., if you talk to me in Mandarin, Cantonese, or Spanish, chances are I won't understand unless you speak slowly and stick to basic words)


 
I never said you have to speak it fluently, but you have to have at least some intermediate level in order to be able to draw conclusions.



> Why do you trust my opinions on these subjects and not S-C-B?


 
Because of this. I don't see here S-C-B. Not even in your wildest dreams. Maybe I was wrong about Cantonese, but I read a lot of your posts written in English and Spanish, and I think you manage both of them good enough to be able to give opinions on their similarity or differences with other languages. I don't understand your thinking that even though you live in Canada, you consider your English lousy. You have a Cantonese accent, so what? you write as good as any other native here. But that is a different subject. I think we already said enough about you being competent about S-C-B, which BTW is NOT the subject of this thread.
Have a good day.
N.


----------



## Anatoli

natasha2000 said:


> What are you talking about?
> I don't remember I was arguing about anything with Chung. I recommend you that before posting any personal comments, to read carefully  what the other said.


My fault, sorry, confused the user names.


----------



## janecito

natasha2000 said:


> janecito said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never claimed ignorant people should be the judge about what they are ignorant about. I just wanted to say that (native) speaker does not mean expert and, vice versa, non(-native) speaker does not equal ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that.
Click to expand...


I kind of got that idea from this ...



natasha2000 said:


> My fact is that there is nothing to discuss if you do not speak the language.



My interpretation of this sentence: you don't speak the language (i.e. you're not a speaker), hence there is nothing to discuss (cause you're not equipped with the knowledge required, i.e. don't know enough - in other words are too ignorant on this subject). My interpretation, of course, might just as well be wrong. If that's the case, I apologize.




natasha2000 said:


> But to be able to compare a certain language with others, let alone to claim if two languages are the same language or not, the basic thing is to speak some of it. Don't you agree?



Yes, I agree that the knowledge of the language makes it easier. And to be frank, there are probably not a lot of people who would now a lot about a certain language without having acquired at least a certain level of that language.


----------



## natasha2000

janecito said:


> My interpretation of this sentence: you don't speak the language (i.e. you don't have a basic knowledge of the language not a speaker), hence there is nothing to discuss (*cause you're not equipped with the knowledge required, i.e. don't know enough - in other words are too ignorant on this subject*).


With little corrections, your interpretation was correct. I certainly do not limit myself only to native speakers, my God, no! I gave too many opinions on English and Spanish that I can claim such a stupid thing! In fact, there are some natives who do not even have 5% of some non-native speakers' knowledge of their own mother tongue ...  I've witnessed that too many times, in all three languages I speak (guess I count only Serbian as my mother tongue, )



> Yes, I agree that the knowledge of the language makes it easier. And to be frank, there are probably not a lot of people who would know a lot about a certain language without having acquired at least a certain level of that language.


 
That was exactly my point. I mean, can you be a taxist without knowing how to drive? I guess not.


----------



## janecito

natasha2000 said:


> That was exactly my point. I mean, can you be a taxist without knowing how to drive? I guess not.



No, you cannot. But you can still know a lot about being a taxi driver. That kind of knowledge, of course, lacks the experience, but still.

On the other hand, you're right, that would be like a priest preaching about a successful marriage.


----------



## natasha2000

janecito said:


> No, you cannot. But you can still know a lot about being a taxi driver. That kind of knowledge, of course, lacks the experience, but still.
> 
> On the other hand, you're right, that would be like a priest preaching about a successful marriage.


 
This reminds me of a spot about disuading people to automedicate themselves. It shows a grossery man, a simple woman, a post man, etc. everyone in doctor's white coats, recommending to each other medicaments. At the end it says: Only a doctor can prescribe you a medication. Go to the doctor. 

I underastand it like this. We all know what an aspirin serves for i.e. how to cure some unimportant and trivial bads of the body. But if it comes to something a little bit more serious, go to the person who stuided about it - go to the doctor.
Therefore, can you, as a comlplete ignorant on medicine, prescribe me a medication for hight pressure or diabetes? I guess not.


----------



## chung

vince said:


> I think that if we are to discuss the issue of Serbian and Croatian, we must use definitions of words such as *language*, *dialect*, *slang*, and *accent* that are universal and accepted throughout the linguistics world, and not limited to the scope of the Balkan experience.
> 
> Otherwise, the views that Serbian and Croatian being one language vs. being two to four languages are equally valid and true. Therefore making debate useless.
> 
> We must compare Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin to different linguistic scenarios:
> 
> - American English vs. British English: presence of two political systems and states, yet commonly identified as one single language. Minimal linguistic difference but a few non-trivial orthographic differences.
> - Swedish vs. Norwegian vs. Danish: presence of three political systems and three "ethnic groups", commonly identified as separate languages, minor to moderate linguistic differences in grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary enough to occasionally prevent mutual comprehension, as well as many non-trivial orthographic differences
> - German "dialects": presence of three political systems (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg), but only one "ethnic group", commonly identified as one single language, moderate to severe linguistic differences in grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary more than half of the time preventing mutual comprehension. One prestige "dialect" on which the written language is based, other German "dialects" do not have fully standardized writing systems.
> - Italian "dialects": presence of only ONE political system (Italy), only one "ethnic group", commonly identified as one single language, moderate to severe linguistic differences in grammar, pronunciaiton and vocabulary more than half of the time preventing mutual comprehension. One prestige "dialect" on which the written language is based, other German "dialects" do not have fully standardized writing systems.
> - Chinese "dialects": presence of three political systems (China, Taiwan, Singapore), but only one "ethnic group", commonly identified as one single language, severe linguistic differences in grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary almost all of the time preventing mutual comprehension. One prestige "dialect" on which the written language is based, other Chinese "dialects" do not have fully standardized writing systems.
> 
> I think that socio-culturally, Serbian and Croatian are debatably languages, but looking from a purely linguistic point of view (ignoring history, ethnic relations, religion, culture, etc), when you compare the differences between Serbian and Croatian that people here have brought up, and compare them to those between the German, Italian, and Chinese "dialects", it is clear that the latter differences are on an entirely greater level.
> 
> This brings us to two possible hypotheses:
> 1.) *Serbian and Croatian are two (or more) languages*, therefore there are many German languages (Pfälz, Kölsch, Schweizerdeutsch, Niedersachsisch, Luxemburgish), many Italian languages (Venetian, Emilio-Romagno, Lombard, Piedmontese, Napolitano), and many Chinese languages (Cantonese, Shanghai-nese, Taiwanese, Hakka, Gan), And therefore you should stop using the terms "German", "Italian", and "Chinese" unless referring to the entire family of languages. Don't say "He speaks Chinese" anymore, but say "He speaks Mandarin/Hakka/...", just like how you would prefer people not say "You speak Serbo-Croatian" but rather "You speak Serbian".
> 
> 2.) Since it is true that German is one language, Italian is one language, and Chinese is one language, therefore *Serbian and Croatian are indisputably the same language*.
> In fact, Serbian is more related to Russian than Mandarin Chinese is to Cantonese Chinese so perhaps we should be debating whether Serbian and Russian are the same language hmm...


 
I agree with Vince's approach to the extent that we need definitions of "language", "dialect", "slang" and "accent" to give some direction to the arguments. Otherwise, it'll never end and all that we'll hear are more polemics.

Here's a thought: Why didn't we call Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian as "Southern (or: Central) Stokavski", "Western Stokavski" and "Eastern Stokavski" respectively from the get-go? It would have eliminated the sensitive and dubious equation of language and nationality since if you say for example that "Croatian" doesn't exist as a language, it is also taken by many Croats to mean that you believe that Croatia and Croatian people don't exist (which is taking the original statement out of context and inexcusably being used as a reason to start a fight.) In addition, describing "Bosnian", "Croatian" and "Serbian" as forms of Štokavski is based on an observed linguistic phenomenon of using "što" for "what". Such terms also have no national or political connotations as the words "Bosnian", "Croatian" and "Serbian" do.

No matter how hard anyone argues for one extreme or the other, all three modern standards arise from the stokavski-ijekavski speech of Karazdic in the 19th century which we know very well was adopted for political reasons. Why some people still dispute this fact and see this as offensive to themselves and their countries is incomprehensible to me. (I don't understand why some people take themselves so seriously and even try to portray themselves as defenders of their nation by speaking up for their "language". Jeez, it's an accident that anyone is born wherever and would a baby who ends up hypothetically being a Croatian or Serbian nationalist develop the same views if he or she had been born in say Mongolia and given an education in Mongolian?)

It follows that standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are sub-dialects or variants of the same dialect and thus NONE of the standards can be on a higher or lower level from the others. Over time, the Serbs replaced the ijekavski element with ekavski, while the Croats continued their tradition of rational purism which gave a Croatian "twist" to Karadzic's eastern Bosnian dialect. (i.e. I'm excluding the politically-motivated crap that happened in the 1990s) They're definitely different, but that's as far as it goes. The degree of difference is being played up or down (as I've said earlier) to suit extra-linguistic motivations.

I disagree strongly with the poster who stated that Croatian is just a dialect of Serbian (I still can't believe that someone went so far as to post that stuff earnestly) as much as I do with the posters who want to convince everyone that because Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia were separate republics since the creation of Yugoslavia after World War I, then it follows that the standard speech in those republics have always been "languages" and somehow different from each other on the same level as say French and Italian (mutual intelligiblity of BCS notwithstanding). 

For me, it's significant that most linguists and Slavonicists from outside the former Yugoslavia or those who have no vested interest in Balkan politics take the moderate view and treat standard BCS as variants of the same neo-Stokavski dialect (i.e. thus reminding us of the differences but acknowledging the strong similarities). Thus they are not separate "languages" from a comparative linguist's analysis since none of them is a separate "language" to begin with. On the other hand, most linguists and laymen from the former Yugoslavia are most likely to take the extreme positions of all or nothing (i.e. either everything is the same language with regional variations figuratively swept under the rug or all three of them are languages and not just dialects or recently-created variants of the same ancestor.)

In this thread, SOME of the views expressed by the people whose memories of the war are fresh or have strong ties to the homeland (wherever it is) only reinforce my preference to read more about this debate in journals and research papers that are written or edited by non-Bosnians, Croats or Serbs. Outsiders often have the least emotional baggage and are barely affected (if at all) by the parochialism that is still borne in varying degrees by people from the Balkans. It's blunt, but the amount of self-serving stuff that I've seen is presumably meant to suit idealized collective historical memories and really intereferes with genuinely objective observations and analysis of morphological, phonological and lexical phenomena in Cakavski, Kajkavski and Stokavski.


----------



## beclija

Hello everybody.

A rather good expositio of the issue of dialect continua and the problem they pose for classifying languages, that is, an explanation why "single language" vs. "related languages" is, much of the time, a political rather than a linguistic question, can be found here.

Thanks for your attention.

beclija


----------



## giorgiob

natasha2000 said:


> [... cut ... ]
> trudna - slovenian - tired
> trudna - croatian/serbian - pregnant


Whereas
трудно = difficult in Russian


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Really interesting conversation, not least viewing it 5 odd years after it originally took place. What I get from it is that Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian/ak are all dialects of one and the same language, but divided along politically-charged lines (otherwise there might be another 5 or 10 "dialects-cum-languages" added to that extant mix).

Everyday spoken Québécois French is certainly very different from Parisian French, and there is also a not inconsiderate amount of differing technical vocabulary (cellulaire/portable - foot/soccer - pourriel/spam - stationnement/parking etc.) but no-one would ever claim the language spoken is not "French". I think the discussion highlights just how fluid the concept of "language" really is.


----------



## Zmaj

I'd like to hear more arguments from the side claiming that those are several languages! Could anyone sum up the strongest ones?


----------



## DenisBiH

Zmaj said:


> I'd like to hear more arguments from the side claiming that those are several languages! Could anyone sum up the strongest ones?



In my book:

- Serbo-Croatian standard is an invention of the 19th century. 
- There is a whole history of separate, albeit at times intertwined, development prior to the emergence of the Serbo-Croatian standard, including literacy in several standards and quasi-standards
- There is no single genetic linguistic node from which all the dialects of later Serbo-Croatian sprang forth, and only them. So Serbo-Croatian in genetic linguistic terms is a non-entity.

Were we all illiterate hillbillies prior to the 19th century who only got enlightened by that specific (supposedly Vienna-endorsed) standardization program?


----------



## Brainiac

What is the name of the book?


----------



## DenisBiH

Brainiac said:


> What is the name of the book?



A figure of speech. As for actual books, "Poredbeno povijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika" by Ranko Matasović is a good starting point.


----------



## Brainiac

> ....and indeed in newly independent Bosnia and Herzegovina, "Croatian",  "Bosnian", and "Serbian" were considered to be three names *of a single  official language*



What do you think - does BiH have 3 or 1 language(s)? 
P.S. Starting point for what?

Wikipedia - Serno-Croatian


----------



## DenisBiH

Brainiac said:


> WIkipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian
> 
> What do you say about this? Does BiH has 3 or 1 language?



There may be differing opinions, but the relevant document, "Povelja o bosanskom jeziku", is pretty much ambivalent. Here is the relevant section:



> 3. Bez obzira na slična ili različita mišljenja o zajedničkom i posebnom  u standardnim jezicima nastalim na temelju srednjojužnoslavenskog  dijasistema – a koji čini glavninu južnoslavenske jezičke zajednice –  smatramo da je u svakom od narodnosnih tokova riječ o jeziku koji Srbi  odvajkada nazivaju srpskim, Hrvati hrvatskim, a Bošnjaci bosanskim.



This basically says nothing and leaves everything open to interpretation.


----------



## Brainiac

So what is the conclusion? There is no definition of what Bosnian language is in the *relevant* document and we can openly interpret *invention* of the language(s).
How relevant then is Bosnian as a language?


----------



## DenisBiH

Brainiac said:


> So what is the conclusion? There is no definition of what Bosnian language is and we can openly interpret *invention* of the language(s).



No, there is, IMHO, no conclusive definition of the relationship of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian from the standpoint of Bosnian linguistics as expressed in the Povelja. Bosnian language on the other hand is defined as:



> 1. Bosanski jezik jeste jezik Bošnjaka i svih onih koji ga pod tim imenom osjećaju svojim.



The rest of the Povelja can be found in several places on the Internet, here is one. The list of signatories is rather representative and includes those who were most prominent in the post-breakup standardization effort. 

We can of course discuss anything, invention included.


----------



## Brainiac

> 1. Bosanski jezik jeste jezik Bošnjaka i svih onih koji ga pod tim imenom osjećaju svojim.


Why then is it called Bosnian? They should have named it " Bošnjački" instead of "Bosnian". Put like that, it looks like the *all* Bosnian people are Bosniaks, right. 
A Bosnian can be a Bosniak, Serb, Croat, Gypsy, Jew etc. All of them, who have BIH citizenship are Bosnians, not "Bošnjaci", and they speak the language named by the name of their country - Bosnia, not "Bošnjakija".
There are "Bošnjaci" in Serbia too, and they speak Serbian.


----------



## DenisBiH

Brainiac said:


> Why then is it called Bosnian? They should have named it " Bošnjački" instead of "Bosnian". Put like that, it looks like all Bosnian people are Bosniaks, right.
> A Bosnian can be a Bosniak, Serb, Croat, Gypsy, Jew etc. and all of them, who have BIH citizenship are Bosnians, not "Bošnjaci", and they speak the language named by the name of their country - Bosnia, not "Bošnjakija".
> There are "Bošnjaci" in Serbia too, and they speak Serbian.



All covered in the Povelja.



> 2. Korišćenjem naziva bosanski jezik Bošnjaci slijede nominaciju svoga jezika čiji se kontinuitet može pratiti od bosanskog srednjovjekovlja do danas, a koji je bezbroj puta potvrđen u upravno-pravnim spisima, narodnim govorima, bošnjačkoj usmenoj i pisanoj književnosti te u različitoj literaturi na slavenskim i drugim jezicima.



In other words, people were calling the language they wrote and spoke in - Bosnian - centuries before anyone got the idea of a pet project called "Serbo-Croatian". However,



> 5. Istrajavajući na upotrebi historijskog imena za svoj jezik, Bošnjaci u Bosni i Hercegovini i šire ne ugrožavaju ničija prava niti prisvajaju nešto što im ne pripada. U tom smislu, korišćenje naziva bosanski jezik ne uključuje nikakvu težnju ka unifikaciji i unitarizaciji na prostoru Bosne i Hercegovine.



As for bosanski vs. bošnjački:



> 6. Pokušaji da se Bošnjacima, umjesto historijski potvrđenog te u praksi usvojenog naziva bosanski jezik nametne bošnjačka nominacija jezika predstavljaju politiziranje koje je posljedica preživjelog a neprevladanog srpskog i hrvatskog paternalizma i negiranja bošnjačke nacionalne samosvojnosti.



On this account Povelja is a bit too harsh in my opinion, _bošnjački _is also attested historically, although not as often as _bosanski_, from what I have seen. The rather strict stance expressed in the Povelja should be viewed through the prism of political circumstances prevalent back then, and to some extent continuing to this day.

I consider Bosniaks in Serbia, and Montenegro, and Kosovo, as speaking Bosnian, although of course I leave it to them to decide.


----------



## Brainiac

> I consider Bosniaks in Serbia as speaking Bosnian.


Ah Denis, they speak Serbian and have citizenship of Serbia, so they belong to Serbian people, they are Serbs - if we name them by the country, and it makes no difference to me, we are one country, one blood (ang language), no matter of religion. I ne cepkaj mi zemlju! 
Laka ti noć!


----------



## DenisBiH

Brainiac said:


> Ah Denis, they speak Serbian and have citizenship of Serbia, so they are Serbs, even by blood, no matter of religion. I ne cepkaj mi zemlju!
> Laka ti noć!



Sure, sure, we are all Serbs by blood after all. Have a good night, Ina.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

As far as I can glean (and do correct me if I'm wrong), the "Bosniak" identity would seem to be the most recent invention to describe that group of South Slavs (genetically and linguistically indistinguishable from Serbs and Croats) which converted to Islam after the coming of the Ottomans. In much the same vein, the differences between "Serbs" and "Croats" appear to be much more based on religion (Catholic/Orthodox) and the feeling of "attachment" to the West or the East that runs with it, than any veritable deep-rooted linguistic or ethnic differences. Interesting article on the whole thing here. 

Montenegrins, too, seem to have sprung up from almost nowhere over the past few years to claim their own "language", whereas they were quite happy to record themselves as Serbs and speakers Serbian/Serbo-Croatian before the 1990s (it must be said that a very large minority still do, if the census figures are anything to go by). The Montenegrin PEN Center states the following:



> "(The) _Montenegrin language does not mean a systemically separate language, but just one of four names (Montenegrin, Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian) by which Montenegrins name their part of [the] Shtokavian system, commonly inherited with Muslims, Serbs and Croats"._



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegrin_language#Language_politics

The whole thing can be rather confusing for the untrained outsider, who is tempted to think that three or four different languages exist, when they would appear to all be one and the same tongue, and differ no more than do UK and US English.*

*Again if any of the above is objectionable, please do offer your corrections. The whole topic is rather fascinating.


----------



## DenisBiH

> As far as I can glean (and do correct me if I'm wrong), the "Bosniak" identity would seem to be the most recent invention



If by "recent" you mean four to five centuries old, then yes, it is pretty recent. And I'm being rather generous to you by not counting the "Bošnjani" of medieval Bosnia, which some do.

An overview of the Slavic group of peoples from a British perspective, from 1848:


> Another widely-diffused race, the Slavonians, is spread over eastern Europe. The nations of their stock are the Russians and Poles, the Bohemians, Moravians, Carinthians, Carniolans and Wendes, in Germany; the Slovaks, in Hungary; the Croats, Slavonians, Servians, Dalmatians, Montenegrins, Bosniaks, and Bulgarians. With generally excellent qualities of head and heart, the Slavonians are in a much less advanced state of civilisation than the majority of the nations of western  Europe.



And another quote to illustrate the state of political ideologies in the middle of the 19th century that brought about the creation of Serbo-Croatian, among other things, from 1849:


> The leading idea of this journal was the consolidation of the several Slavonic nations of the extreme south, both Austrian and Turkish, viz., the lllyrians, the Croats, the Slavonians proper, the Servians, the Dalmatians, the Bosniaks, the Montenegrins, and the Bulgarians, into one body or state, to be called Great Illyria. These nations, Dr. Gai argued, properly constituted but one mass: they all belonged to what historians had called the Graeco-Slavonic branch of the Slavonic stock ; and though dissevered by circumstances, ought to be united. To facilitate this,  however, various  preliminary measures would  be  necessary, such as, the substitution of one common Illyrian language for the different dialects, and of one common Illyrian alphabet for the two, (ihe Cyrilic of the Greek church, and the Latin of the Roman Catholics,)  then in use among the nations in question.



This new "Illyrian language" in time got the name "Serbo-Croatian". These "dialects" from which it originated, however, had centuries of prior tradition and the resurgence of these traditions during but especially after the breakup of Yugoslavia was a logical outcome. Now however we have the situation of people confusing who exactly the parent and who the child is in this whole story.

However, Pedro, I believe your post is considerably out of the scope of this subforum (ethnogenesis, genetic differences between nations etc.). It would perhaps be an interesting thread for CC, but alas, I don't go there much any longer, so perhaps someone else can oblige.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

DenisBiH said:


> However, Pedro, I believe your post is considerably out of the scope of this subforum (ethnogenesis, genetic differences between nations etc.). It would perhaps be an interesting thread for CC, but alas, I don't go there much any longer, so perhaps someone else can oblige.



The most recent in the sense that it came after the Serbian and Croatian appellations. Until recently (in English) Bosnian Muslim, or just Muslim, was the most common term used to describe this group, though Bosniak appears to be gaining some currency. I was attempting to keep it in the same ballpark as the opening language-related topic as it seems to be that the notion of ethnic identity is the key marker in this discussion. I haven't seen any convincing evidence thus far on this thread that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are different languages in anything other than a strictly politically-defined sense, though if it should arrive, I'll be more than happy to revise my view.


----------



## DenisBiH

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The most recent in the sense that it came after the Serbian and Croatian appellations. Until recently (in English) Bosnian Muslim, or just Muslim, was the most common term used to describe this group, though Bosniak appears to be gaining some currency.



Fair enough, but keep in mind that time did not start in 1990 nor in 1945. 

Otherwise, we come to all sorts of funny results. For example, we Bosniaks would have had a beef with the Serbs before we even existed.  A quote from 1806:



> The Servian insurgents, hitherto so uniformly successful against the troops of the grand seignor, have been defeated by the Bosniaks. The enmity of these two tribes towards each other has in consequence been inflamed to an uncommon degree and great multitudes of Servians have already taken the field against the latter.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

As a matter of fact Denis, what is your view, one language, three, or something else perhaps?


----------



## itreius

Pedro y La Torre said:


> than any veritable deep-rooted linguistic or ethnic differences



Are you referring to the situation prior to or after the dialect leveling? The language in use prior to the Illyrian movement exhibited far more differentiation between each other than the different registers of standard Štokavian.


----------



## DenisBiH

Pedro y La Torre said:


> As a matter of fact Denis, what is your view, one language, three, or something else perhaps?



I guess I care primarily about Bosnian and don't care that much about how many other languages there are. As I guess most Scandinavians don't care that there are two Norwegian standards and that one of those is a slightly modified copy of Danish.

Upon deeper soul-searching, I would also probably say that post 1850s developments, i.e.  Serbo-Croatian, have left too deep a mark on the development of languages in this area to be simply undone, and that we remain candidates for a pluricentric single language in the future. We are not there at the moment, however, as large bodies of speakers including some linguists are opposed to the idea, and the will of the speakers is a primary determining factor for me when it comes to language as a matter of socio-political and cultural identity. We also may not get there anytime soon if it is stuffed down our throats. Trying to simply imagine one can turn back time and go back to Serbo-Croatian times is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for different results, which I believe is Einstein's definition of insanity. That top-down approach never really worked in the past and it is not likely to work in the future, IMHO. What could work is engendering cooperation on the basis of mutual respect and the respect for both what we share and our language diversity where such exists. This is how posters on this subforum have been cooperating and still are, with excellent results.

Where precise scientific linguistic criteria are concerned, there is almost unanimous agreement by all parties on what the major dialects and subdialects are and what their features are. A linguist can thus do his or her work without concerning themselves too much with socio-political labels attached to these dialects by different groups of speakers. Whether there is a single language, three, four or fifteen it doesn't really change the nature of the study in that field. There are also several labels if one wishes to express the historical relationships between these dialects; one in particular proposed by Croatian linguists and adopted by some Bosnian linguists is "Middle-South-Slavic diasystem".

Where language learning, translation etc. are concerned the standardized forms are the primary thing that matters. Again, for someone learning one of the BCSM standards it should not matter whether there is a single language, three, four or fifteen, as they would still have to learn and follow a particular standard. You can't really freely mix American and British spelling either, even though both are variants of English. However, in the case of BCMS, I believe there is work to be done on eliminating unnecessary barriers. A person with a university degree in Serbian should not have to go to school for four more years in order to be able to teach Croatian, and vice versa, and in all possible combinations. Also, being too strict in separating between works of literature that are taught in school based on the linguistic affiliation of the author or of the standard the author used needlessly limits the exposure of students to different ideas and brilliant pieces of literature. Branislav Nušić remains one of my favorite authors even though he belongs to Serbian literature.

Where socio-political, cultural, historical etc. identity is concerned, it is the will of the speakers that should be respected, within reason.

Where literature is concerned and answering the questions of the type "Which language did a particular author write in" or "Which language a particular literary work is written in", this is still a matter of some tensions; for example the debate over which group should get to include Ivo Andrić in their national literature, who Hasanaginica belongs to etc. Fortunately, intellectual works are non-scarce goods so they can be easily shared with only a little bit of good will.


----------



## Zmaj

DenisBiH said:


> In my book:
> 
> - Serbo-Croatian standard is an invention of the 19th century.
> - There is a whole history of separate, albeit at times intertwined, development prior to the emergence of the Serbo-Croatian standard, including literacy in several standards and quasi-standards
> - There is no single genetic linguistic node from which all the dialects of later Serbo-Croatian sprang forth, and only them. So Serbo-Croatian in genetic linguistic terms is a non-entity.
> 
> Were we all illiterate hillbillies prior to the 19th century who only got enlightened by that specific (supposedly Vienna-endorsed) standardization program?




1. What does the year of standardization have to do with if it is a language or not today? For instance would you argue that because there was a lot of diversity among Swedish dialects prior to standardization , Swedish is not a language today?

2. I don't see how this is relevant. As far as I this was also the case with most other languages before standardization. Again why does several quasi standards in the past mean that Serbo-Croatian is not one language today? 

3. Why does there have to be a single node in the past? Why are genetic linguistic nodes relevant at all to conclude if we have one or several languages today? They are all genetically south slavic aren't they? 

No we just didn't have a standard yet?


----------



## Zmaj

itreius said:


> Are you referring to the situation prior to or after the dialect leveling? The language in use prior to the Illyrian movement exhibited far more differentiation between each other than the different registers of standard Štokavian.



1. Why is the langauge situation before standardiation relevant today? 2. What language did not exhibit differentiation before standardization? 3. Do you refer to all those languages that were very different before standardization by their dialectal names?


----------



## itreius

Zmaj said:


> 1. Why is the langauge situation before standardiation relevant today?




You're asking a lot of loaded question, and you seem to have skipped over the post that I quoted.  Pedro y La Torre was talking about the difference between Croats and Serbs and including the language as if it were a factor (meanwhile saying that they speak one and the same). In that context, language most certainly isn't a factor because the ethnic boundary between Croats and Serbs existed prior to the emergence of a standard Serbo-Croatian.



Zmaj said:


> 3. Do you refer to all those languages that were very different before standardization by their dialectal names?



No.


----------



## Zmaj

itreius said:


> You're asking a lot of loaded question, and you seem to have skipped over the post that I quoted.  Pedro y La Torre was talking about the difference between Croats and Serbs and including the language as if it were a factor (meanwhile saying that they speak one and the same). In that context, language most certainly isn't a factor because the ethnic boundary between Croats and Serbs existed prior to the emergence of a standard Serbo-Croatian.
> 
> Sorry my bad! I only read the quote.
> 
> No.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

itreius said:


> Are you referring to the situation prior to or after the dialect leveling? The language in use prior to the Illyrian movement exhibited far more differentiation between each other than the different registers of standard Štokavian.



After the dialect levelling, post-1850. All four standards are, as far as I know, based on the "prestige" Shtokavian dialect, and, were one to take politics out of it, would be recognized by all as one language.

Serbo-Croatian (or the variants thereof) seems like a good descriptor for this language in comparison to the very unwieldy B/C/S.


----------



## DenisBiH

Zmaj said:


> 1. What does the year of standardization have to do with if it is a language or not today? For instance would you argue that because there was a lot of diversity among Swedish dialects prior to standardization , Swedish is not a language today?
> 
> 2. I don't see how this is relevant. As far as I this was also the case with most other languages before standardization. Again why does several quasi standards in the past mean that Serbo-Croatian is not one language today?
> 
> 3. Why does there have to be a single node in the past? Why are genetic linguistic nodes relevant at all to conclude if we have one or several languages today? They are all genetically south slavic aren't they?
> 
> No we just didn't have a standard yet?



1) and 2) mean that Serbo-Croatian is but one of the attempts at standardization. Here is an earlier one relevant for Croatian. Calling Serbo-Croatian *the *standardization effort, as somehow being the only one that really matters, is both historically incorrect and, frankly speaking, somewhat offensive. People wrote and translated works of fiction, historical treatises, diplomatic correspondence, religious works etc. centuries before Serbo-Croatian was an idea in anyone's head.

Now if unified Serbo-Croatian is but one of several attempts at standardization, albeit the one with the most profound effect, there is no particular reason for it to remain the last one, nor for it to be relevant with regard to the future. It came, it was, it no longer is. 

3) is in response to those claiming that, while separately Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian do not make sense in a strictly genetic sense, Serbo-Croatian somehow does. Well, it doesn't. It is as much a creation of socio-political and cultural circumstances as the three separate languages. There is nothing genetically more "natural" about Serbo-Croatian than about Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> Serbo-Croatian (or the variants thereof) seems like a good descriptor   for this language in comparison to the very unwieldy B/C/S.



BCS really is unwieldy, but I have a better idea - why don't you all call it Bosnian? Simple,  certainly simpler than Serbo-Croatian, only seven letters, easy to pronounce.


----------



## DenisBiH

Here is an impressive list of dictionaries compiled by Croats at various points in time, showing the development of Croatian in the centuries prior to "Serbo-Croatian" and immediately following the introduction of that particular concept. 



> *16th, 17th and 18th century*
> 
> 
> 1595 – Faust Vrančić, Dictionarium quinque nobilissimarum Europae linguarum Latinae, Italicae, Germanicae, Dalmaticae et Ungaricae (the first Croatian printed dictionary in the form of a separate work).
> 1599 – Bartol Kašić, Razlika skladanja slovinska (Various Slavic compositions) (a Croatian–Italian manuscript dictionary).
> 1649 – Jakov Mikalja, Blago jezika slovinskoga (Treasury of the Slavic language) (containing selected words in an idiom in which Čakavian characteristics are grafted upon the main corpus of Ijekavian Štokavian and Ikavian texts).
> 1670 – Juraj Habdelić, Dictionar ili rechi slovenske z vexega ukup ebrane (Dictionary of Kajkavian words brought together).
> Pavao Ritter Vitezović, Lexicon Latino-Illyricum (a manuscript dictionary in which the author carried out in practice his views on the language and spelling).
> 1728 – Ardelio della Bella, Dizionario Italiano–Latino–Illirico (mainly based on Ragusan literary sources, but also includes Čakavian sources; supplemented by a short grammar of the Croatian language).
> Adam Patačić, Dictionarium latino-illyricum et germanicum (manuscript dictionary).
> 1740 – Ivan Belostenec, Gazophylacium seu latino-illyricorum onomatum aerarium.(a Kajkavian based monumental dictionary of 50,000 entries)
> 1741 – Franjo Sušnik-Andrija Jambrešić, Lexicon latinum interpretatione illyrica, germanica et hungarica locu pIes (the names "Croatian" and "Illyrian" are used synonymously).
> 1778 – Marijan Lanosović, Slavonisches Worterbuch (a list of German words and their Croatian equivalents), added to the grammar entitled Neue Einleitung zur slavonischen Sprache, Osijek. (M. Lanosović is the author of several Croatian dictionaries which have remained in manuscript).
> 
> *19th century*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1801 – Joakim Stulić, Lexicon latino-italico-illyricum, Budim.
> 1802—03 – Josip Voltiggi, Ričoslovnik iliričkoga, italijanskoga i nimačkoga jezika (A dictionary of the Illyrian, Italian and German languages) (based on Ikavian; Jekavian forms are cited along with Ikavian; Ekavian forms refer to Ikavian).
> 1806 – Joakim Stulić, Rječosložje ilirsko-talijansko-latinsko (Illyrian—Italian—Latin dictionary), Dubrovnik.
> 1810 – Joakim Stulić, Vocabolario italiano-illirico-latino, Dubrovnik (the bulk of the dictionary was excerpted from published works of Ragusan writers, along with Dalmatian, Herzegovinian, Bosnian, Slavonian and Istrian sources. More than 80,000 words on 4,600 pages, excerpted from 120 authors).
> 1842 – Ivan Mažuranić and Josip Užarević, Njemačko—ilirski slovar (A German–Illyrian dictionary. First "truly modern" Croatian dictionary).
> 1874–75 : Bogoslav Šulek, Hrvatsko-njemačko-talijanski rječnik znanstvenog nazivlja (Croatian–German–Italian dictionary of scientific terminology. The cornerstone of modern civilisation terminology).
> 1880–1976 : Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika (Dictionary of Croatian or Serbian), JAZU, Zagreb. The neogrammarian based magnum opus. More than 250,000 words.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

itreius said:


> You're asking a lot of loaded question, and you seem to have skipped over the post that I quoted.  Pedro y La Torre was talking about the difference between Croats and Serbs and including the language as if it were a factor (meanwhile saying that they speak one and the same). In that context, language most certainly isn't a factor because the ethnic boundary between Croats and Serbs existed prior to the emergence of a standard Serbo-Croatian.



Language is a crucial factor in the context I demarked, i.e. as a derivative of a politicized identity originally based primarily in religion.  



> Speakers of Serbo-Croat fell apart in three national communities on the basis of religion. Thus emerged the Bosniak nation, which identifies itself with Islam and clearly distinguishes itself from the Catholic Croats and the Orthodox Serbs. The establishment of the national states in the Balkans was accompanied, from the beginning of the 19th century, by attempts to restore the pre-Ottoman Christian states.​





> In the same period, however, within the community of speakers of Serbo-Croat, national identities began developing on the basis of religion or rather, national communities emerged, coinciding greatly with religious communities. Catholics speaking Serbo-Croat, living in the Habsburg Empire, identified themselves as Croats, whereas the Orthodox speakers of Serbo-Croat, living scattered over the Habsburg and the Ottoman Empires and in their own principality of Serbia, considered themselves Serbs.​



The linguistic appellations "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Bosnian", according to this interpretation, are more convenient political identifiers than anything else. Similar to French Canadians' eschewing the identifiers "Canadien" or "Canadien français" since the 1960s in favour of "Québécois". If they then decided to call the language they speak "Québécois" instead of French, the Yugoslav circle, so to speak, would be complete.


----------



## DenisBiH

> Speakers of Serbo-Croat fell apart in three national communities on the basis of religion.



No, Serbo-Croat(ian) came into being by members of two already distinct communities (Serbs and Croats) coming together and making a very specific deal, the Vienna Literary Agreement of 1850. Speaking of a distinct Serbo-Croatian linguistic community prior to 1850 makes no sense. This is I believe what itreius tried to explain as well.




Pedro y La Torre said:


> The linguistic appellations "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Bosnian",  according to this interpretation, are more convenient political  identifiers than anything else. Similar to French Canadians' eschewing  the identifiers "Canadien" or "Canadien français" since the 1960s in  favour of "Québécois". If they then decided to call the language they  speak "Québécois" instead of French, the Yugoslav circle, so to speak,  would be complete.



While the example of Quebec is interesting, the linguistic appellations "Croatian", "Serbian", "Bosnian" are attested side by side as early as 1423, which is some 69 years before the discovery of America and some 495 years before the establishment of Yugoslavia. Individually they are attested earlier, I believe.

An early 15th century (around 1423.) treatise of a Bulgarian scholar living in Serbia, Constantine of Kostenets (Constantine the Philosopher), in his work "Skazáni̧̤e i̓zʹja̓vljénno o̓̄ písmenex" ("Treatise on the letters").



> Certain people are mistaken about the expressions.1 Thus,  some say that it is proper to call the expressions the Serbian  language; others assert that one ought to call them Bulgarian or some  other name.2 But things are not in this way. For in the beginning it was  clear to those who wished to bring forth the divine Scriptures in the  Slavic language that they could not do so in the Bulgarian language,  even if some say that they were brought forth in it. Indeed, how can  Hellenic, Syriac, or Hebraic subtlety3 be rendered in this most coarse  of languages?4 Nor can it be rendered in Serbian, a language high in  tone and limited by nature.5 Therefore, those good and wondrous men6  reflected on the matter and selected7 the most refined and beautiful  Rus'ian language.8 Help was given to the Rus'ian language by Bulgarian,  Serbian, Bosnian,9 Slavonian, by a part  of Czech, and by the Croatian language.10 The divine Scriptures were put  into this language, and in this way they were brought forth.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

DenisBiH said:


> No, Serbo-Croat(ian) came into being by members of two already distinct communities (Serbs and Croats) coming together and making a very specific deal, the Vienna Literary Agreement of 1850. Speaking of a distinct Serbo-Croatian linguistic community prior to 1850 makes no sense. This is I believe what itreius tried to explain as well.



I understood the professor's remark as meaning that Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians have all long spoken the same South Slavic language, but identity, being religious rather than linguistically or ethnically-based, largely formed according to whether you went to a Latin church, an Orthodox mass, or a Muslim mosque.

Is it the case, then, that before the 1850 standardization, Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian were mutually unintelligible languages in their own right? I'll leave Montenegrin out as its difference seems to consist of nothing more than two recently invented letters.


----------



## DenisBiH

> I understood the prefessors remark as meaning that Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians have all long spoken the same South Slavic language, but identity, being religious rather than linguistically or ethnically-based, formed according to whether you went to a Latin church, an Orthodox mass, or a Muslim mosque.



Religion was important to the formation of modern identities, of course, but not in such a way that you had a single community that magically split into three pieces, one calling itself "Croat", the other "Serb" and the third "Bosniak". During the Ottoman time it wouldn't have been strange to find a Muslim Croat in Bosnia, or a Catholic Bosniak, or a Muslim Serb etc. Over time it coalesced into only three different ethno-religious groups, but that process (that ended up in three religiously homogenous ethnic groups) in Bosnia-Herzegovina most certainly wasn't done by 1878 when Austrians marched in. And there were exceptions even when it was mostly done.

A true story from the last war. The setting is Sarajevo, 1990-something, Serbs are shelling the city etc. An apartment of an important party official in SDA (Party of Democratic Action, the main Bosniak party), the party official is talking to his mother.


> Mother:_ Allahu dragi, potekellefi sve Srbe osim nas!_ (Dear Allah, destroy all the Serbs except us!)
> Party official:_ Pa nismo mi Srbi majko._ (But we're not Serbs, mother.)
> Mother:_ A ja šta smo sinko dragi?_ (And then what are we, my dear son?)



But aside from this comical relief, ethnogenesis is a very touchy and contested subject, more so than even language. Everyone and their grandmother has an opinion of what really happened.



> Is it the case, then, that before the 1850 standardization, Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian were mutually unintelligible languages in their own right?



What does being mutually intelligible have to do with this now? Czech and Slovak are also supposed to be mutually intelligible to this day, and I don't see anyone representing them as as a single Czecho-Slovak language because of that.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

DenisBiH said:


> What does being mutually intelligible have to do with this now? Czech and Slovak are also supposed to be mutually intelligible to this day, and I don't see anyone representing them as as a single Czecho-Slovak because of that.



Perhaps that was poorly phrased. As far as I have read, the Shtokavian dialect is the basis for the three modern standards, whilst the two others (in Croatia), Chakavian and Kajikavian, retain relatively low intelligibility with Shtokavian. Was the Shtokavian dialect also the predominant form of speech pre-1850 in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia?


----------



## DenisBiH

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Perhaps that was poorly phrased. As far as I have read, the Shtokavian dialect is the basis for the three modern standards, whilst the two others (in Croatia), Chakavian and Kajikavian, retain relatively low intelligibility with Shtokavian. Was the Shtokavian dialect also the predominant form of speech pre-1850 in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia?



Yes.



> whilst the two others (in Croatia), Chakavian and Kajikavian, retain relatively low intelligibility with Shtokavian.



"Relatively low intelligibility" is pushing it too far. We have a native Kajkavian speaker here (itreius) so he can elaborate on Kajkavian. I can for myself say that it was not unheard of for Catholic Shtokavian authors to refer to Kajkavian authors even in Bosnia. More specifically, the 18th century Bosnian Franciscan Nikola Lašvanin used some Kajkavian sources for his Ljetopis (Chronicle). This was actually identified by translation mistakes he made when translating from the Kajkavian original. So, not 100% intelligible, but enough to have facilitated even scholarly reading with little or no prior knowledge.

I suspect Chakavian is a degree more easily intelligible to Shtokavian speakers than Kajkavian, but there are some pretty "weird" island dialects I've seen on this forum, so I'll leave that to Croatian foreros. Some Chakavian texts that I've seen on the other hand are pretty straightforward to understand.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

DenisBiH said:


> Yes.



Would it not be fair, then, to say that a shared Serbo-Croat-Bosnian language did exist pre-1850? I mean if the dialect that the three standards are now based on was predominant before then, too, it seems rational enough to refer to one Serbo-Croat language, even before the Vienna agreement.



DenisBiH said:


> "Relatively low intelligibility" is pushing it too far. We have a native Kajkavian speaker here (itreius) so he can elaborate on Kajkavian. I can for myself say that it was not unheard of for Catholic Shtokavian authors to refer to Kajkavian authors even in Bosnia. More specifically, the 18th century Bosnian Franciscan Nikola Lašvanin used some Kajkavian sources for his Ljetopis (Chronicle). This was actually identified by translation mistakes he made when translating from the Kajkavian original. So, not 100% intelligible, but enough to have facilitated even scholarly reading with little or no prior knowledge.
> 
> I suspect Chakavian is a degree more easily intelligible to Shtokavian speakers than Kajkavian, but there are some pretty weird island dialects I've seen on this forum, so I'll leave that to Croatian foreros. Some Chakavian texts that I've seen on the other hand are pretty straightforward to understand.



That's really interesting, thanks.


----------



## DenisBiH

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Would it not be fair, then, to say that a shared Serbo-Croat-Bosnian language did exist pre-1850? I mean if the dialect that the three standards are now based on was predominant before then, too, it seems rational enough to refer to one Serbo-Croat language, even before the Vienna agreement.



If you were a fan of classifying languages genetically, I guess you could take only Shtokavian speakers and say that they all spoke and speak the same language. You would have to say that Kajkavians and Chakavians speak another language, and possibly those speaking Torlakian in South-East Serbia as well. This has been claimed, by the famous Serbian linguist Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, I believe, i.e. that Shtokavian is one language - Serbian, and that all Shtokavians are Serbs. 

It was also the philosophy behind some of Vojislav Šešelj's (a Serb politician) views (he's currently in the Hague, awaiting ICTY verdict on war crimes). It is generally a popular rallying cry for a part of the Serbian right - Muslim and Catholic Shtokavians are Serbs, they just don't know it (or refuse to acknowledge it out of shame for them and/or their ancestors having abandonded Serbdom etc.), Kajkavians are Slovenes, and Chakavians are the only remaining Croats.

One of the problems with this is that mutual communication and exchange of ideas was mostly intra-religious in the old days (prior to the 19th century, say). So Catholic Shtokavian and Catholic Kajkavian and Catholic Chakavian authors would have known and read/used each other's works, but those works wouldn't have been very familiar to Muslim Shtokavians or Orthodox Shtokavians (there were exceptions, of course). So who is a better fit for a real linguistic community: Catholics who participate in the same cultural sphere, communicate among each other easily, read and improve on each other's works even though belonging to different dialects, or Shtokavians of different religions who speak the same dialect but for the most part ignore each other and each other's literature?

Believe me Pedro, every possible approach, all of them, done to death, over and over again.  You could go and read a discussion on a Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian forum today and read the same things discussed back in the 19th century presented in the exact same way with exactly the same arguments and there is no agreement today just as there was no agreement back in the 19th century or the 20th century. Serves as a hell of a pastime, though.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I'm beginning to see that!


----------



## Zmaj

DenisBiH said:


> 1) and 2) mean that Serbo-Croatian is but one of the attempts at standardization. Here is an earlier one relevant for Croatian. Calling Serbo-Croatian *the *standardization effort, as somehow being the only one that really matters, is both historically incorrect and, frankly speaking, somewhat offensive. People wrote and translated works of fiction, historical treatises, diplomatic correspondence, religious works etc. centuries before Serbo-Croatian was an idea in anyone's head.
> 
> Now if unified Serbo-Croatian is but one of several attempts at standardization, albeit the one with the most profound effect, there is no particular reason for it to remain the last one, nor for it to be relevant with regard to the future. It came, it was, it no longer is.
> 
> 
> 3) is in response to those claiming that, while separately Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian do not make sense in a strictly genetic sense, Serbo-Croatian somehow does. Well, it doesn't. It is as much a creation of socio-political and cultural circumstances as the three separate languages. There is nothing genetically more "natural" about Serbo-Croatian than about Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian.
> 
> 
> 
> BCS really is unwieldy, but I have a better idea - why don't you all call it Bosnian? Simple,  certainly simpler than Serbo-Croatian, only seven letters, easy to pronounce.




The Serbocroatian standard is the first succesfull standard that spanned over the whole area. The so called separate languages today are taken from that one and almost identical. That is the truth and there's nothing historically inaccurate or offensive with that! It came it was and it still is. Merely changing the name doesn't change that (all Shtokavian) ! This exact standardization was the leap that created our language like it looks like today, therefore it is very correct to call it "the standardization"

There's nothing strange about this. Other languages have been through the same process.

Again, how do all those written documents change the fact that it is one language today? 

3. I don't think this is the difference they react on when they state that there's a difference between how B/C/S were created and how Serbo-Croatian was. With SC they looked at the whole area the different dialects and so on and tried different solutions, even trying to incorporate Slovenian. Somewhere, dealing with a dialect continumm they had to make a decision and they did(the exact same thing was done with almost every other language). With B/C/S they first looked at where the borders of every country or ethnic group go, and then ignoring that dialects may not follow those they magically created B/C/S . The latter method is very unscientific!


----------



## DenisBiH

Brainiac said:


> So, Denis, Muslim Serbs in Serbia don't speak Serbian but Bosnian, to you? Can we call it "religious discrimination of/in language", say?
> It has more than 7 letters, although.
> 
> Muslims in France, say, don't speak French?



I wouldn't know about Muslim Serbs, I was referring to Bosniaks in Serbia. They would probably qualify as speaking Serbian as well, but their native language I consider to be Bosnian.

What language do Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina speak? Bosnian, according to you?


----------



## Zmaj

DenisBiH said:


> Here is an impressive list of dictionaries compiled by Croats at various points in time, showing the development of Croatian in the centuries prior to "Serbo-Croatian" and immediately following the introduction of that particular concept.



And why are the titles predominantly "Illyrian"? Because they knew already that the language spanned outside the borders of Croatia. They looked at the whole picture. Illyrian was actually what the Serbo-Croatian language was called before they coined the new term.


----------



## Zmaj

Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs from the same area clearly speak the same language or dialect! Unfortunately someone in the Balkans invented the human "right to call your language whatever you want"


----------



## DenisBiH

Zmaj said:


> Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs from the same area clearly speak the same language or dialect! Unfortunately someone in the Balkans invented the human "right to call your language whatever you want"



Yes, and the language of Bosniaks in Serbia used to be called Bosnian by them before it got renamed to Serbian and/or Serbo-Croatian. Here is an example.

A team of Harvard scholars was touring Yugoslavia in the 1930s, collecting orally transmitted poetry. They stumbled across an area in southern Serbia, or rather in Sanjak (Novi Pazar), which was especially bountiful.



> Lord undertook his own field expeditions. He continued Parry's initial  work, but expanded it in ways that Parry could not have foreseen. He encountered bilingual singers who performed in Albanian as well as the  language called Bosnian by the singers themselves, and Lord documented these two contiguous traditions to see what kinds of  connections could be established.



Some of these songs by Salih Ugljanin can be found online. I particularly recommend "Pjesma od Bagdata" ("The song of Baghdad"). Here is a rather nice part:



> Kad je drugi mesec nastupijo,
> jedno jutro beše poranijo,
> za Bosnu se hazur ućinijo,
> i sednuo đamu do penđera.
> Vedro beše, stade tutnjavina;
> uviše se zeleni bajraci,
> zapevaše iz grla Bošnjaci,



Am I not being historically correct, aside from respecting the "right to call your language whatever you want" (within reason)?


----------



## Zmaj

Nice song!


----------



## DenisBiH

Zmaj said:


> Nice song!



A local variation on Xena the Warrior Princess.  I think you need to adjust the encoding, though.


----------



## DenisBiH

@Zmaj



> The Serbocroatian standard is the first succesfull standard that spanned over the whole area.



Ok. But note that it was also one of the focal points of conflict between Serbs and Croats in Yugoslavia.



> The so called separate languages today are taken from that one and almost identical.



I can agree that post-1990 standards have pretty much inherited the Serbo-Croatian standard, with some changes. 

Do note, however, that SC itself took from existing literature; the standard as  it was was not simply a copy of East Herzegovina dialect, SC had some more conservative features which were (re)introduced from the literary  tradition of Dubrovnik and, according to some, from the vernacular of  the Muslim Bosniak population.

Also, as a side note, when the new Serbo-Croatian standard was first being introduced to Bosnia-Herzegovina in late 19th century, it was introduced as Bosnian. Here's an often featured front page of a grammar book from 1890 as an illustration. So for Bosniaks you have that same standard going the route Bosnian > Serbo-Croatian > Bosnian. 

Based on a dialect that a sizable portion of Bosniaks spoke, possibly influenced by Bosniak-specific traits (preservation of /x/) and on top of that first introduced to B-H as "Bosnian". Who is exactly so-called here?



> Merely changing the name doesn't change that (all Shtokavian) !



The name Serbo-Croatian went away the same way that same name was first made official in Bosnia-Herzegovina (by a decree). 


> Naredbom Zemaljske vlade od 4.10.1907. g.određeno je da se "ima posve  napustiti naziv 'bosanski jezik' i da se imade zemaljski jezik nazivati  'srpsko-hrvatski jezik'.





> This exact standardization was the leap that created our language like it looks like today, therefore it is very correct to call it "the standardization"



Ok, it was a leap. And yet post-1850 writers went back to that earlier period of individual development in search of inspiration: Mak Dizdar went to medieval Bosnian texts; Ivo Andrić read Franciscan chronicles: there is a whole host of later writers inspired by Ragusan literature; and should we even mention Gorski vijenac in terms of importance it held? Not to speak of the role of oral poetry in inspiring later writers. I'm sure we could find much more, it's not something I've studied to any considerable debth. And after all, the Vienna Literary Agreement itself is quite specific:



> Jednoglasnice smo priznali da je najpravije i najbolje primiti južno narječje da bude književno; i to
> a) zato što najviše naroda tako govori,
> b) što je ono najbliže staromu slovenskomu jeziku a po tome i svjema ostalijem jezicima slovenskijem,
> *c) što su gotovo sve narodne pjesme u njemu spjevane,
> **d) što je sva stara dubrovačka književnost u njemu spisana,*






> Again, how do all those written documents change the fact that it is one language today?



Written documents in general are there to show that Vienna Literary Agreement did not come to an area composed only of _gologuzi _hillbillies, but that it based its work on an already existing foundation developed by our, separate and at times intertwined, language traditions, going centuries back, as it is clearly stated in it after all.



> With SC they looked at the whole area the different dialects and so on and tried different solutions, even trying to incorporate Slovenian. Somewhere, dealing with a dialect continumm they had to make a decision and they did(the exact same thing was done with almost every other language). With B/C/S they first looked at where the borders of every country or ethnic group go, and then ignoring that dialects may not follow those they magically created B/C/S . The latter method is very unscientific!



And where ethno-religious borders went, with them went the linguistic communities of the past. We know from early Austro-Hungarian linguistic studies in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 19th century that in many cases you could tell whether a person was e.g. Muslim or Orthodox from the way they spoke, even though they lived in the same general area. Examples (Đuro Šurmin, "Osobine današnjega sarajevskog govora", late 19th century)



> Sabirao je građu u Sarajevu i najbližoj okolici: “Po što sam ipak uvijek pitao ljude, iz kojega su kraja, to bih mogao približno odrediti za govor sarajevski ove međe: Po prilici od Visokoga treba povući ravnu crtu prema Kiseljaku, odatle prema planini Igmanu, Bjelašnici i Treskavici, odatle na istok prema Jahorini, Vitezu, Romaniji i onda na sjever prema planini Ozrenu, koji stoji u istom pravcu s Visokim”; u uvodu iznosi i ovo: “Po govoru ćeš brzo znati, koje je vjere ko”, tvrdeći da muslimani i katolici govore gotovo jednako, dok se pravoslavci od njih “govorom razlikuju”. (Šurmin 1895:187)
> 7. Muslimani i katolici govore svèćenīk, a pravoslavni svèštenīk.
> 8. Muslimani i katolici izraziti su šćakavci – u njih je: gȕšćēr, c﬇kvišće, prȋšć, pùšćenica, vríšćī. Tako i: šćȃp, šćȅta, šćȅne, pùšćiti, d﬇šćala, šćȅo. Pravoslavni su štakavci (gȕštēr, oproštenje), ali se i od njih može čuti: gȕšćēr,
> 10. Glasovna grupa tje u muslimana ostaje neizmijenjena, dok je u katolika prisutno i tje i će: tjȅrati, žútjeti (ali je češće žútiti); pravoslavni imaju: ćȅrati, lèćeti, žúćeo. Prema nejotovanim grupama cje, sje, zje u govoru muslimana i katolika (cjȅpār, sjȅme, izjesti), stoji će, śe, źe u govoru pravoslavaca.
> 11. Glas h izgovaraju muslimani (ne posve sigurno katolici) ondje “gdje mu mjesto”: hàber, hàljina itd., ali govore i: làhko, mèhko, hȑđa, h﬇zati. Pravoslavni izgovaraju h u riječima u kojima mu po etimologiji nije mjesto (làhko, mèhko, hȁt), a ne izgovaraju u riječima u kojima mu je po etimologiji mjesto (ȃn, jȁati, aláliti umjesto hȃn, jȁhati, haláliti).
> 16. Glas ĺ (lj) redovno izgovaraju katolici i pravoslavni, dok u muslimana preteže izgovor j umjesto ĺ: jepòta, zejànica, Mìjacka, jètina (mj. ĺetina). Muslimani govore i: kjànati, kjȁnānje. (Šurmin 1895:188-196)
> kršćenje, išće.
> 1. Sarajevski govor ima arhaizama i u akcentuaciji. Stariji akcenti najčešće se čuju u muslimana; u katolika ih ima u tragovima (“u usklicima”), a u pravoslavnih se čuje samo pokoji ostatak.
> ...
> 3. U dativu, instrumentalu i lokativu mn. danas je sasvim “preoteo mah” mlađi nastavak (žènama, kòstima), ali se čuju još i stariji oblici, osobito u muslimana: mȃjkam, sestram, d﬇vim, sa soldati, s Tȕrci. U katolika i muslimana je: kònjima i konjma, a u pravoslavnih samo: konjma.



I don't know of other explanations for this but limited inter-religious interactions. And yet by the spread of folk songs across great territories, we see that this was not due simply to general isolation of the population - intra-religious communication worked just fine. I already posted the link to that one song recorded in Novi Pazar where they sing about Budim, Đerzelez Alija, Budalina Tale etc. In fact, this communication went so well that even the Albanians have a whole series of songs (Këngë Kreshnikësh) that, and I quote:



> Kao što se iz iznesenog materijala može da zapazi, karakter ovih  krešničkih pesama je osoben i ponekad vrlo zagonetan. Teren na kome se  njihova radnja odigrava (Udbina, Krajina, Kotari, Novi Kotari itd) i  njeni nosioci radnje (četobaša Mujo, Halil, Zuko barjaktar, Arnaut  Osman, Budalina Tale, Imer-aga, Musa Kesedžija, Đerđelez Alija itd)  upućuju svakako na krajinsku muslimansku epiku.



From Udbina to Kosovo (or Albania even?). Another link.

So Serbo-Croatian did not break up into some random borders - it rather went back to those same linguistic communities that existed prior to its creation.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

What's really confusing about all this is that the peoples in question appear to have been calling the exact same language three different names over a long period of time, which is rather unprecedented (though why Bosniaks call their standard Bosnian instead of Bosni_ak_ still escapes me. Given the logic at play, I presume Bosnian Serbs and Croatians claim to speak "Serb" and "Croatian" respectively?). I guess it would be somewhat like Scots calling their standard of English "Scottish", then accepting the "English" appellation when they joined the UK, and re-taking up the old "Scottish" appellation if and when they become independent again.

I've even read that certain Croats were unhappy with the name Serbo-Croatian, as Serbo- was placed at the start, thus indicating that Serbs somehow had the upper hand over them hence Croato-Serbian was to be preferred instead! The whole thing involves certain things that seem rather startling to an outside eye not quite au fait with the intricacies of the question, for instance, if you go to the BiH statistics website and click on information about the organization, the pages in Bosnian and Croatian are word-for-word copies! I just hope they don't have to waste good paper printing out the same thing twice, lol. Decidedly, the Balkans is a curious if magnificent place.


----------



## DenisBiH

> What's really confusing about all this is that the peoples in question appear to have been calling the exact same language three different names over a long period of time, which is rather unprecedented



More than three sometimes, actually. The German language Universal-Lexikon der Gegenwart und Vergangenheit from 1857, under its article for "Serbian language and literature", has this



> *Serbische Sprache u. Literatur*. Die S. S. bildet mit der Bosnischen, Slawonischen u. Dalmatischen eine der vier Hauptmundarten der Slawischen Sprache, welche gewöhnlich, aber mit Unrecht Illyrische Sprache genannt



This lists Serbian, Bosnian, Slavonian and Dalmatian as four major types of the language usually but incorrectly called Illyrian. Croatian is also mentioned, but separately. That's *five*.

And a Slovene (presumably) by the name Blasius Kumerdey in his "Krainisch-Slawische Grammatik" from 1793. mentions the following Slavic languages aside from Slovene dialects and Church Slavonic: Russian, Ruthenian, Bulgarian, *Serbian*, *Bosnian*, *Dalmatian*, *Ragusan*, *Croatian*, Czech, Polish, Sorbian, Slovak and *Slavonian*. The ones in bold ought to be the ones corresponding to the modern BCS area. That's *six*.



> In der Grammatik, die ich hier ankündige, suche ich diesen Wunsch zu  erfüllen, und wähle dabei zum Grunde die Krainerisch- und Windische  Mundart, sammt der Literalslawischen Sprache, dann setze ich bei jeder  Regel die Russische, Ruthenische, Bulgarische, Serwische,  Bosnische,    Dalmatische,   Raguseische,   Kroatische, Böhmische, Polnische,  Lausitzische, Slawakische und Slawonische Mundart bei



Plenty of such lists before 1850 that I've seen, some of those languages  come and some go depending on the century and the author.



> though why Bosniaks call their standard Bosnian instead of Bosni_ak_ still escapes me.



The easy answer is that "Bosnian" is better rooted and certainly has more historical attestations. If you want some speculation about a deeper historical significance - there were first Serbs and only later Serbia, there were first Croats and only later Croatia, but there was first Bosnia and only later Bosnians/Bosniaks. In our case the name of the people itself is derived from the name of the land, in the case of Serbs and Croats they came to the Balkans under those names and established states to reflect those names. Perhaps that's also reflected in the name of the language as attested historically and used today.




> Given the logic at play, I presume Bosnian Serbs and Croatians claim to speak "Serb" and "Croatian" respectively?).



Serbian and Croatian. Yes. We are officially trilingual. My firm does work for state institutions and when we write reports, they have to be in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (Cyrillic), separately, three copies, plus in English in our case. So in Bosnia-Herzegovina today it's not only a matter of calling it this or that, this trilingual practice is official. I believe there was a recent report about a Serb official refusing to accept some official letter because it wasn't written in Serbian Cyrillic, and there is an ongoing problem (one of many, I should say) in the Federation because the Croats want a separate state TV channel exclusively in Croatian (right now it's half-Bosnian, half-Croatian, I think). 




> I've even read that certain Croats were unhappy with the name Serbo-Croatian, as Serbo- was placed at the start, thus indicating that Serbs somehow had the upper hand over them hence Croato-Serbian was to be preferred instead!



Some of the names you may encounter in literature from that time:

Serbo-Croatian
Croato-Serbian
Croatian or Serbian
Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian (this was our particular invention in Bosnia-Herzegovina to remain neutral when Croats switched to Croato-Serbian)


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Thanks Denis, you're a veritable minefield of information in relation to this!

As everything has to be "translated" thrice, I imagine it must involve a lot of excess paper being stored up, not to mention the not unimportant issue of costs. At least no-one is asking for interpreters, yet.


----------



## Gnoj

Here's how thing look from a point of view of a native Macedonian speaker. Most of the adult Macedonians (25+, maybe 20+) can fully or almost fully understand both Serbian and Croatian without even knowing how to tell if what they are hearing/reading is either Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian or Montenegrin. I would say it is the same language in essence, though decentralized in practice - one language with two fully autonomous centers (Croatian and Serbian) and two partially autonomous centers (Bosnian and Montenegrin), which are orbiting around the former two by my observations. And by "autonomous" I mean having *and putting into practice* every single right to decide about any kind of reform or change independently, either in the language itself or its name.


----------



## Anicetus

JLanguage said:


> 2. Is same orthography used for Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian when written with the Latin alphabet?



Yes, mostly. The difference is that Serbian phoneticises foreign names while the other two don't, spells the clitic and the (in most cases shortened) infinitive forming the Future I tense together ("I'll be" S: _biću_ B, C: _bit ću_), along with some other minor differences. 



> 5. Can Croatians read the Bosnian and Serbian when written in Cyrillic?



Those who went to school during the Yugoslav times learned the Cyrillic script at school, though many of them wouldn't practise it enough to become comfortable with it. Since the breakup of Yugoslavia, pupils in Croatian schools haven't been taught Cyrillic. I belong to the latter group, but I've learned it out of curiosity. Still, I have to read it word by word, reading a longer text in Cyrillic would be very tiring for me.

Cyrillic indeed hasn't been used in Croatia for a long time, but saying "it has never been a part of Croatian heritage" is blatant ignorance. Nine-year-olds learn at school that Glagolitic and Cyrillic are "historical Croatian scripts".


As for the main subject...
There's a dialect continuum stretching throughout the South Slavic area, all the way from Slovenia to Bulgaria. There's no obvious transition between Slovene and Croatian dialects, probably not between Serbian and Bulgarian either. Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro have purposely chosen the same, shared, most-spoken macro-dialect as bases for their standards. Of course, these standards are very similar as a consequence, almost identical. I think of this solely as an advantage because it means I may be perfectly understood by more than 16 million people. Anyway, the reason this dialect, "Neo-Štokavian", is as widespread as it is are migrations caused by the Ottoman conquest. Wikipedia gives this map supposedly showing the distribution of dialects before the migrations. Štokavian was then already dominant in all (modern-day) countries except Croatia and it has since spread westward, having engulfed all of Bosnia and penetrated much deeper into Croatia. BCMS ("Serbo-Croatian" isn't a "politically correct" term because there are Bosnian and Montenegrin standard as well now, and the term evidently offends many people) is an useful term for discussing the closely related Neo-Štokavian standards, but claiming that the same language is spoken in south-eastern Serbia and north-western Croatia while Slovene and Bulgarian are completely separate languages makes as little sense as insisting that the Neo-Štokavian standards are completely different and must be considered only as such. Of course any drawing of boundaries between languages is politically motivated -- in a parallel universe where language boundaries are based only on linguistic arguments, there is probably one language spoken in Slovenia and Croatia, one only in Croatia, one in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia and one in Serbia and Bulgaria (I'm not sure about Macedonia?).


----------



## DenisBiH

Gnoj said:


> I would say it is the same language in essence, though decentralized in practice - one language with two fully autonomous centers (Croatian and Serbian) and two partially autonomous centers (Bosnian and Montenegrin), which are orbiting around the former two by my observations. And by "autonomous" I mean having *and putting into practice* every single right to decide about any kind of reform or change independently, either in the language itself or its name.



Partially autonomous? In the times of Yugoslavia, perhaps, but in the last two decades, Bosnian standard is pretty much fully in our hands. We do, IMO, look to Croatian as a role model for some things these days, but that is mostly the result of our current political preferences and not the result of some hierarchical dependence. No Serbian or Croatian authority has any say over Bosnian language matters except as an interested observer. After that war in the 1990s, it would be kinda hard for anything more than that to exist. 

I believe I've read some critics claim that the recent Montenegrin standard has followed Croatian too closely in some aspects, so it could perhaps be said that Croatian has gained quite a bit in prestige post-breakup. It might be interesting to note that the people who wrote the new Montenegrin grammar from 2010 are:


Adnan Čirgić -  a Muslim Montenegrin linguist, holds a PhD from the Josip Juraj Strossmayer University in Osijek, Croatia 
Josip Silić - a Croat linguist 
Ivo Pranjković - a Bosnian Croat linguist 
Josip Silić and Ivo Pranjković are also the authors of a Croatian grammar.




Zmaj said:


> And why are the titles predominantly "Illyrian"?  Because they knew already that the language spanned outside the borders  of Croatia. They looked at the whole picture. Illyrian was actually what  the Serbo-Croatian language was called before they coined the new  term.



I'm not sure they looked that much into Serbia back then. I've read that, at one point in time and for certain historical reasons, Illyrians was a more convenient label for them to describe what we would today call Croats, i.e. predominantly Catholics, and that supposedly it wouldn't have been a great surprise had "Illyrian" prevailed instead of "Croat" for the name of the nation. But I guess there are various opinions on that matter.

But they obviously did start looking farther than Catholics at one point, at least some of them, as Gaj's quote earlier shows. After all, what is today the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts was founded in 1866 as the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts, and bore that name (JAZU) 1866-1941 and 1945-1991. Interesting that that name (Yugoslavia) today has the worst reputation among precisely the people who first used it officially, if not even invented it. 

And on the other hand, looking at the first part of my post, Croats just may, discreetly and slowly, be doing the same thing today; building the framework for a new "Yugoslavia", except this time they get to play Piedmont.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Anicetus said:


> BCMS ("Serbo-Croatian" isn't a "politically correct" term because there are Bosnian and Montenegrin standard as well now, and the term evidently offends many people) is an useful term for discussing the closely related Neo-Štokavian standards, but claiming that the same language is spoken in south-eastern Serbia and north-western Croatia while Slovene and Bulgarian are completely separate languages makes as little sense as insisting that the Neo-Štokavian standards are completely different and must be considered only as such. Of course any drawing of boundaries between languages is politically motivated -- in a parallel universe where language boundaries are based only on linguistic arguments, there is probably one language spoken in Slovenia and Croatia, one only in Croatia, one in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia and one in Serbia and Bulgaria (I'm not sure about Macedonia?).



Slovenians on here have commented, though, that they cannot readily understand Bosnian-Croato-Serbian, especially those born after the break-up of Yugoslavia. Are Bulgarian and BCS mutually intelligible? Or do you mean that certain dialects of Serbian and Bulgarian are mutually intelligible? If so, that's rather interesting, and obviously makes inter-country communication much easier.

Take for example this text from a BiH government website. 

This is Bosnian:



> Vijeće za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine osnovano je Zakonom o statistici Bosne i Hercegovine (“Službeni glasnik BiH”, broj 26/04 i 42/04).
> 
> Vijeće za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine po službenoj dužnosti sačinjavaju slijedeće osobe:
> (1) ravnatelj Agencije,
> (2) zamjenici ravnatelja Agencije,
> (3) ravnatelji entitetskih zavoda za statistiku



And this is Croatian:



> Vijeće za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine osnovano je Zakonom o statistici Bosne i Hercegovine (“Službeni glasnik BiH”, broj 26/04 i 42/04).
> 
> Vijeće za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine po službenoj dužnosti sačinjavaju slijedeće osobe:
> (1) ravnatelj Agencije,
> (2) zamjenici ravnatelja Agencije,
> (3) ravnatelji entitetskih zavoda za statistiku



As we can see, there's 0.0 per cent difference. This continues throughout each section. The same thing posted twice, with a different letter sometimes cropping up here and there. Obviously each community has a right to class the language however they want, but "translating" it into two different copies, as Denis's company has to do, seems a waste of time and money. Cyrillic, of course, is another matter.


----------



## DenisBiH

It depends on the text and who does the translation. In that example above, I would have used _direktor _instead of _ravnatelj _for Bosnian. The thing is, Croatian standard is much more strict on the vocabulary, while Bosnian is rather lax. So translating from Bosnian to Croatian can sometimes be taxing because of the need to replace all the words Croats don't consider a part of their standard or consider substandard with appropriate standard Croatian terms; but translating from Croatian to Bosnian can be a breeze because we tend not to make too much fuss over which particular word is used. This could be an example of translation from Croatian to Bosnian, if not direct copy-paste.

My firm has only Bosnian speakers so we get the more difficult translation direction (Bosnian > Croatian). It's not so much that we don't know the appropriate Croatian words and forms, but rather that we don't always know or spot a word or form that is a no-no in Croatian.

By the way, where did you get those quotes? I'm looking here and I see as below. I put the differences in bold.

Bosnian


> Vijeće za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine osnovano je Zakonom o  statistici Bosne i Hercegovine (“Službeni glasnik BiH”, broj 26/04 i  42/04).
> 
> Vijeće za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine po službenoj dužnosti sačinjavaju *sljedeće *osobe:
> (1) *direktor *Agencije,
> (2) zamjenici *direktora *Agencije,
> (3) *direktori *entitetskih zavoda za statistiku,
> (4) * rukovodilac *Ekspoziture Brčko i svi drugi *rukovodioci *ekspozitura koje  Agencija može formirati *u skladu* sa ovim Zakonom o       statistici  Bosne i Hercegovine,
> (5) guverner Centralne banke Bosne i Hercegovine (odnosno njegov predstavnik) i
> (6) ministar trezora zajedničkih institucija (odnosno njegov predstavnik).



Croatian


> Vijeće za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine osnovano je Zakonom o  statistici Bosne i Hercegovine (“Službeni glasnik BiH”, broj 26/04 i  42/04).
> 
> Vijeće za statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine po službenoj dužnosti sačinjavaju *slijedeće *osobe:
> (1) *ravnatelj *Agencije,
> (2) zamjenici *ravnatelja *Agencije,
> (3) *ravnatelji *entitetskih zavoda za statistiku,
> (4) * rukovoditelj *Ekspoziture Brčko i svi drugi *rukovoditelji *ekspozitura  koje Agencija može formirati *sukladno *Zakonom o statistici Bosne i  Hercegovine,
> (5) guverner Centralne banke Bosne i Hercegovine (odnosno njegov predstavnik) i
> (6) ministar trezora zajedničkih institucija (odnosno njegov predstavnik).


----------



## Anicetus

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Slovenians on here have commented, though, that they cannot readily understand Bosnian-Croato-Serbian, especially those born after the break-up of Yugoslavia. Are Bulgarian and BCS mutually intelligible? Or do you mean that certain dialects of Serbian and Bulgarian are mutually intelligible? If so, that's rather interesting, and obviously makes inter-country communication much easier.



Sorry, I should have made it clearer. What I meant to say was: "one language in Slovenia and (north-western) Croatia), _another one_ only in Croatia" etc. Bulgarian is actually more distant from Neo-Štokavian than Slovene is (Slovene and BCMS are usually classified as Western South Slavic languages, while Bulgarian and Macedonian are Eastern South Slavic). The dialect of south-eastern Serbia, Torlakian, is much closer to Bulgarian. Its most striking feature in relation to Neo-Štokavian is the loss or significant reduction of grammatical cases, shared with Bulgarian and Macedonian.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Croatian, somewhat ironically, seems to favour employing "Slavic" words over those of a Latin provenance in certain instances, as I think your direktor/ravnatelj example indicates. I can only imagine if my firm had to produce reports written in Québécois and French French every time something was submitted to the authorities, I think a few people would probably turn insane.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

OK, I see now. Thanks for the info Anicetus.


----------



## Tassos

Pedro y La Torre said:


> As we can see, there's 0.0 per cent difference.



That's the whole idea Pedro, everybody is trying to tell you that 

Anyway, and in the same vein, I think you'll be interested to know that recently there was a big debate in Croatia about the subtitling of Serbian films. I don't remember the details of how it began, but I remember that it was a conflict between the state TV officials and a private TV Network. There were newspaper articles, a TV talκ show and various people expressed their opinions on the subject. Finally, when the network showed an 80's Serbian comedy without subtitles it had an audience of 1000000 people. During the film the network made a poll about weather to subtitle serbian movies or not in which (according to the network) 75% of the participants voted for no subtitles. I don't know where the whole situation stands right now, but there are several youtube videos with "attempts" at subtitling that provoke various reactions in the comments (from mild irritation to outright mirth - someone said for example "I want it translated to the dialect of Banja Luka")

Regarding the general subject of the thread, I don't know if you can understand the language itself, but if you did you could gain even more insight into the whole situation just by reading the various articles written on the subject or even the comments in newspapers/forums/youtube etc.

Denis, I'm still trying to digest what you wrote and I'm realizing that you're on to something here....


----------



## b_fly

*QUOTE=DenisBiH -> I suspect Chakavian is a degree more easily intelligible to Shtokavian speakers than Kajkavian, but there are some pretty "weird" island dialects I've seen on this forum, so I'll leave that to Croatian foreros. *
It depends on a variety of a dialect. Variety which is located closer to shtokavian dialects is usually more intelligible to them. Shtokavian speakers in the region of Slavonija (north) have easier communication with kajkavian speakers (also north) then with chakavian ones. Shtokavian speakers in the region of Dalmacija (south) have easier communication with chakavian speakers (south). Neither ones don’t understand some _strange dialects_ (with really individual development), for example those in Bednja (kajkavian) or Buzet (chakavian). But those dialects are not intelligible to most of the kajkavian and chakavian people as well. 
Most of Croatian shtokavian speakers understand Macedonian language better than kajkavian or chakavian dialect. Macedonian! And I won’t even talk about Serbian etc.
If Istra (Croatian region) became a country (and it was possible 1945., and also in 90’s; even today there are still some politic parties which want this), we would have chakavian language today. So, by knowing that all south Slavic languages are dialects of tribes accidently becoming nations, we can only:
1. say that there are at least 20 languages in former Yugoslavia
2. say that shtokavian is one language, with some varieties indialects, while chakavian and kajkavian are different languages, with even bigger varieties among them selves (f.e. chakavian dialect toward other chakavian dialect).
Of course, if we are talking about linguistics. Everything else is politics.

*QUOTE=DenisBiH -> Believe me Pedro, every possible approach, all of them, done to death, over and over again.  You could go and read a discussion on a Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian forum today and read the same things discussed back in the 19th century presented in the exact same way with exactly the same arguments and there is no agreement today just as there was no agreement back in the 19th century or the 20th century.*
Well, this is true.

*QUOTE=Pedro y La Torre ->  I've even read that certain Croats were unhappy with the name Serbo-Croatian, as Serbo- was placed at the start, thus indicating that Serbs somehow had the upper hand over them hence Croato-Serbian was to be preferred instead!*
After war, some of Croats didn’t know for what to complain so they invented this. But, the truth is that during Yugoslavia, in Croatia official term was Croato-Serbian and in Serbia Serbo-Croatian. Sometimes we used both at the same time, for example, there was a book called_: Language, Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian, Croatian or Serbian _(1988.).

*QUOTE=Pedro y La Torre ->  The whole thing involves certain things that seem rather startling to an outside eye not quite au fait with the intricacies of the question, for instance, ifyou go to the BiH statistics website and click on information about the organization, the pages in Bosnian and Croatian are word-for-word copies! I just hope they don't have to waste good paper printing out the same thing twice, lol. Decidedly, the Balkans is a curious if magnificent place. *
It's not magnificent, it's horrible game of politicians, game in which language is a tool and war victims are consequence.

You were mentioning Bosnian web pages. I wouldn’t recommend visiting them, because most of them are written by illiterate people - and I'm not saying this to offend (my mother is Bosnian), I'm just being real (and warning you).

*QUOTE=Pedro y La Torre ->  Are Bulgarian and BCS mutually intelligible?*
No.
*QUOTE=Pedro y La Torre ->  Or do you mean that certain dialects of Serbian and Bulgarian are mutually intelligible?*
Yes.

Anicetus wanted to say that there is logic dialectal division between languages spoken in:
1) Slovenia and Croatia - Kajkavian
2) one only in Croatia - Chakavian
3) one in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia - Shtokavian
4) one in Serbia and Bulgaria - Torlakian

*QUOTE=DenisBiH -> My firm has only Bosnian speakers so we get the more difficult translation direction (Bosnian > Croatian). It's not so much that we don't know the appropriate Croatian words and forms, but rather that we don't always know or spot a word or form that is a no-no in Croatian.*
Well, I wouldn’t say you know Croatian words. It can be _rukovodilac_ AND _rukovoditelj_, so you don’t have to translate that. It also can be _direktor_ AND _ravnatelj_, but here I agree with preferring Slavic word. We don’t have a word _sačinjavaju_ in standard Croatian language (correct would be _čine_), and _slijedeće_ is grammatically incorrect in this place (there is a difference between _sljedeći_ and _slijedeći_ in Croatian). And you really work as a translator?!

*QUOTE=Pedro y La Torre ->  Croatian, somewhat ironically, seems to favour employing "Slavic" words over those of a Latin provenance in certain instances, as I think your direktor/ravnatelj example indicates.*
It's true; mostly we like to use OUR OWN words, instead of FOREIGN ones. Is there something strange with that? We are not French to base our language on Latin.


----------



## Anicetus

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Croatian, somewhat ironically, seems to favour employing "Slavic" words over those of a Latin provenance in certain instances, as I think your direktor/ravnatelj example indicates.



Yes, that's probably one of the principal differences between the standards. What's ironic about that? If it has been mentioned that Croatia "strives towards the West" or something like that (though Croatia is far from being Western in reality), than the "West" in question is actually Central Europe. Croatia was ruled by the Habsburgs, not France or England. The linguistic purism was adopted into Croatian from German during the times of the Monarchy, just like into Czech and Slovene, so it's considered to be an argument in favour of Croatia being Central European. 19th century Croatian was considerably more puristic than post-1991 Croatian. 




Tassos said:


> Anyway, and in the same vein, I think you'll be interested to know that recently there was a big debate in Croatia about the subtitling of Serbian films. I don't remember the details of how it began, but I remember that it was a conflict between the state TV officials and a private TV Network. There were newspaper articles, a TV tal show and various people expressed their opinions on the subject. Finally, when the network showed an 80's Serbian comedy without subtitles it had an audience of 1000000 people. During the film the network made a poll about weather to subtitle serbian movies or not in which (according to the network) 75% of the participants voted for no subtitles. I don't know where the whole situation stands right now, but there are several youtube videos with "attempts" at subtitling that provoke various reactions in the comments (from mild irritation to outright mirth - someone said for example "I want it translated to the dialect of Banja Luka")



And that's where it gets really silly... As I've learned from the few minutes of a subtitled Serbian film shown in that talk show (_Otvoreno_, on the national TV), Croatian for _jebitačno_ is _vraški ubojito_.




b_fly said:


> We don’t have a word _sačinjavaju_ in standard Croatian language (correct would be _čine_)



Really?


----------



## DenisBiH

b_fly,

with regard to your responses to my comments, especially the ones related to translation - please, go back and look at who said what and who quoted what. I merely quoted a translation found on the web-site of the B-H statistical agency and pointed out the differences to Pedro; I am not the author of that translation nor in any way responsible for it. If you have complaints regarding inaccuracies in the Croatian version, the Croatian version of the contact page seems to be here; judging by the name, the _direktor_/_ravnatelj_ is a Croat so he will probably be inclined to correcting any mistakes in the Croatian version.  

As for _sljedeći _vs _slijedeći_, and as a side note, in Bosnian both forms are acceptable as adjectives. Of course, _slijedeći _(slijédeći) is also an adverb.

Senahid Halilović, Pravopis bosanskoga jezika, Pravopisni rječnik, 1996:


> slijèdēćī/sljèdēćī (prid.)


Institut za jezik Sarajevo, Rječnik bosanskog jezika, 2007:


> slijèdēćī/sljèdēćī prid. odr. v. - onaj koji dolazi odmah nakon nekoga, drugi po redu, naredni, idući.


----------



## Tassos

Anicetus said:


> And that's where it gets really silly... As I've learned from the few minutes of a subtitled Serbian film shown in that talk show (_Otvoreno_, on the national TV), Croatian for _jebitačno_ is _vraški ubojito_.



From all the changes, this is the one that caused almost universal laughter from the youtube commentators, I just couldn't remember it exaclty.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

b_fly said:


> *QUOTE=Pedro y La Torre ->  Croatian, somewhat ironically, seems to favour employing "Slavic" words over those of a Latin provenance in certain instances, as I think your direktor/ravnatelj example indicates.*
> It's true; mostly we like to use OUR OWN words, instead of FOREIGN ones. Is there something strange with that? We are not French to base our language on Latin.



I wasn't trying to be denigratory, but given Croatia's ostensibly closer ties to the West and Latin cultures (Latin as the official language in times gone by, Latin alphabet, the Roman Catholic Church, et al.), the campaign against "foreign" words, in comparison to Serbian's apparently more relaxed approach, struck me as rather curious, nothing more.


----------



## DenisBiH

b_fly said:


> Well, I wouldn’t say you know Croatian words. It can be _rukovodilac_ AND _rukovoditelj_, so you don’t have to translate that. It also can be _direktor_ AND _ravnatelj_, but here I agree with preferring Slavic word. We don’t have a word _sačinjavaju_ in standard Croatian language (correct would be _čine_), and _slijedeće_ is grammatically incorrect in this place (there is a difference between _sljedeći_ and _slijedeći_ in Croatian).



And with this you prove my point precisely.  It isn't that we, Bosnian speakers, don't know, at least passively, both _rukovodilac _and _rukovoditelj_ etc, it's that often we don't know whether standard Croatian fully accepts some form, as you seem to claim to be the case with _direktor _and _rukovodilac_, or does not accept it, as you seem to claim to be the case with _sačinjavaju_.

And furthermore, as Anicetus' post linking to HJP shows, Croatian speakers themselves don't seem to always be in agreement over whether certain words are indeed proper standard Croatian or not, which makes translating into Croatian yet more taxing.


----------



## b_fly

Anicetus said:


> Really?



While I was studying Croatian the instruction was to use words „činiti“ or „tvoriti“ instead of „sačinjavati“ (as it was pointed out in Anić's dictionary, edition from 2007.). Though, if something changed in meantime, I apologize. 
Liber's Internet dictionary, which you’ve chosen, has a word base made of 6 dictionaries, so it’s, we can say, imaginary dictionary – which doesn’t really exists. I consider it like using 3 grammars (by 3 different authors), and put those rules together. It wont really be a happy result (when it's about Croatian).


----------



## DenisBiH

b_fly said:


> While I was studying Croatian the instruction was to use words „činiti“ or „tvoriti“ instead of „sačinjavati“ (as it was pointed out in Anić's dictionary, edition from 2007.). Though, if something changed in meantime, I apologize.
> Liber's Internet dictionary, which you’ve chosen, has a word base made of 6 dictionaries, so it’s, we can say, imaginary dictionary – which doesn’t really exists. I consider it like using 3 grammars (by 3 different authors), and put those rules together. It wont really be a happy result (when it's about Croatian).






> Rječnička baza Hrvatskog jezičnog portala nastala  je na temelju rječničkih i leksikografskih izdanja Novoga Libera u  proteklih 15 godina:
> 
> _Rječnik  hrvatskoga jezika _V.*Anić* (I. izdanje 1991, II. izdanje 1994, i III. izdanje 1998)
> _Pravopis hrvatskoga jezika _V. *Anić* – J. Silić (2001)
> _Veliki rječnik hrvatskoga jezika _V. *Anić* (2003. priredila  Ljiljana Jojić)
> _Kronologija – Hrvatska, Europa, Svijet_ (grupa autora, urednik I. Goldstein)
> _Rječnik stranih riječi _*Anić* – Goldstein (I. izdanje 1998, II. izdanje 2000)
> _Hrvatski  enciklopedijski rječnik_  (uređivački odbor: prof. dr. Vladimir *Anić*, prof. dr. Ranko Matasović,  prof. dr. Ivo Pranjković, dr. Dunja Brozović Rončević, prof. dr. Ivo  Goldstein, Slavko Goldstein, mr. Ljiljana Jojić, Ljiljana Cikota; 20


----------



## b_fly

DenisBiH said:


> b_fly,
> 
> with regard to your responses to my comments, especially the ones related to translation - please, go back and look at who said what and who quoted what. I merely quoted a translation found on the web-site of the B-H statistical agency and pointed out the differences to Pedro; I am not the author of that translation nor in any way responsible for it.


Ooh, I thought you have translated those words and bold them. Pardon!  I sincerely apologize, I really thought I got it right. (I was obviously reading too fast... ) 



DenisBiH said:


> If you have complaints regarding inaccuracies in the Croatian version, the Croatian version of the contact page seems to be here; judging by the name, the _direktor_/_ravnatelj_ is a Croat so he will probably be inclined to correcting any mistakes in the Croatian version.


Oh, yeah, I'm sure.  We are all so open for confessing that we made mistake.  If he's really Croat, I still think he's probably Croat from BiH, because in Croatia - they wash our brains out with that sljedeći/slijedeći stuff, immiedetly in 1. year of college, while they probably don't insist on that in BiH.



DenisBiH said:


> As for _sljedeći _vs _slijedeći_, and as a side note, in Bosnian both forms are acceptable as adjectives. Of course, _slijedeći _(slijédeći) is also an adverb.


Well, than I have to say - in Croatian _sljedeći _is adjectiv and _slijedeći _is adverb. Easy and simple.


----------



## DenisBiH

b_fly said:


> Oh, yeah, I'm sure.  We are all so open for confessing that we made mistake.  If he's really Croat, I still think he's probably Croat from BiH, because in Croatia - they wash our brains out with that sljedeći/slijedeći stuff, immiedetly in 1. year of college, while they probably don't insist on that in BiH.



As a matter of fact, up until recently I would have considered _slijedeći _used as an adjective a mistake just like you do and would have corrected it; seeing both forms allowed in the dictionary a few months back was somewhat of a surprise.


----------



## b_fly

DenisBiH said:


> Rječnička baza Hrvatskog jezičnog portala nastala je na temelju rječničkih i leksikografskih izdanja Novoga Libera u proteklih 15 godina:
> 
> 
> _Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika _V.*Anić* (I. izdanje 1991, II. izdanje 1994, i III. izdanje 1998)
> _Pravopis hrvatskoga jezika _V. *Anić* – J. Silić (2001)
> _Veliki rječnik hrvatskoga jezika _V. *Anić* (2003. priredila Ljiljana Jojić)
> _Kronologija – Hrvatska, Europa, Svijet_ (grupa autora, urednik I. Goldstein)
> _Rječnik stranih riječi _*Anić* – Goldstein (I. izdanje 1998, II. izdanje 2000)
> _Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik_ (uređivački odbor: prof. dr. Vladimir *Anić*, prof. dr. Ranko Matasović, prof. dr. Ivo Pranjković, dr. Dunja Brozović Rončević, prof. dr. Ivo Goldstein, Slavko Goldstein, mr. Ljiljana Jojić, Ljiljana Cikota; 20



Yeah, I get what you want to say, but you wouldn't believe...  Editions from 1991. and 2007. - incomparable. 

New dictionaries all "clean" probably quarter of those words from 90's. Yeah, even if it's the same author.


----------



## DenisBiH

b_fly said:


> Yeah, I get what you want to say, but you wouldn't believe...  Editions from 1991. and 2007. - incomparable.
> 
> New dictionaries all "clean" probably quarter of those words from 90's. Yeah, even if it's the same author.



Hm, ok, I didn't know that. Or rather, I wouldn't have presumed the differences to be that extensive. Thanks.


----------



## Gnoj

I often watch movies with BCS subtitles (I personally prefer Croatian), that is when there aren't any Macedonian or Bulgarian ones to find. Sometimes subtitles marked as Serbian appear to be in Croatian (or sometimes vice-versa), with stuff like "zbilja" instead of "zaista" or "stvarno", "dvije", "skupa" instead of "zajedno", "zrak" instead of "vazduh", "izvanredno stanje" instead of "vanredno stanje" and such.


----------



## DenisBiH

Gnoj said:


> I often watch movies with BCS subtitles (I personally prefer Croatian), that is when there aren't any Macedonian or Bulgarian ones to find. Sometimes subtitles marked as Serbian appear to be in Croatian (or sometimes vice-versa), with stuff like "zbilja" instead of "zaista" or "stvarno", "dvije", "skupa" instead of "zajedno", "zrak" instead of "vazduh", "izvanredno stanje" instead of "vanredno stanje" and such.



Well, _dvije _at least is valid Ijekavian Serbian, which is the official standard of Serbian used in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. Some of the other words may also be acceptable in Serbian.

A question for Serb foreros: Croatian, as we have seen in this thread, has had a number of dictionaries published after the breakup of Yugoslavia. Bosnian has several dictionaries as well today. I think Montenegrin currently has the orthographical dictionary and I suppose a full dictionary is being prepared. 

What is the situation with Serbian, and more specifically, Ijekavian Serbian? Have there been any post-1990 Ijekavian Serbian dictionaries, or are old Serbo-Croatian ones still in use?


----------



## DenisBiH

Speaking of movies, here is an interesting article from 2009 about the negative reactions from Republika Srpska to cartoons being widely available only dubbed into Croatian (because of market forces).

Because of cartoons, children are speaking Croatian



> Lingvista Miloš Kovačević smatra da je reč o ogromnom problemu, te da mu treba prići veoma odgovorno.
> „Posledice su nesagledive i sežu čak do pitanja nacionalnog identiteta, u čijoj osnovi i jeste srpski jezik. Karakteristične srpske jezičke osobine gube se za račun hrvatskih. Budući da su crtani filmovi omiljene dečje emisije, te reči postaju zaštitni znak tih filmova. Deca ih upijaju, zaboravljajući ili potiskujući u drugi plan njihove srpske ekvivalente. Tako se srpski jezički izraz ’rasrbljuje’“, ističe Kovačević.



A rough translation:


> The linguist Miloš Kovačević considers that this represents a huge problem which needs to be approached very responsibly.
> "The consequences are unforeseeable and reach all the way to the issue of  national identity, at the foundation of which is the Serbian language.  Characteristic Serbian linguistic traits are being lost, losing out to the Croatian ones. Cartoons being children's favorite shows/content,  these words are becoming the  trademark of those cartoons. Children  absorb them, forgetting or suppressing  their Serbian equivalents. In  that way the Serbian linguistic expression is being 'de-Serbified'",  Kovačević points out.



So Serbs are not immune themselves to this kind of reaction to other BCMS language standards.

Perhaps we could say that people in general are prone to being, at least nominally, very tolerant and inclusive when, at the end of the day, it is their language tradition that is "winning"; but that they get far less tolerant and inclusive when they're on the losing side?


----------



## b_fly

DenisBiH said:


> And with this you prove my point precisely.  It isn't that we, Bosnian speakers, don't know, at least passively, both _rukovodilac _and _rukovoditelj_ etc, it's that often we don't know whether standard Croatian fully accepts some form, as you seem to claim to be the case with _direktor _and _rukovodilac_, or does not accept it, as you seem to claim to be the case with _sačinjavaju_.



Just to make several things clear...

If you check *Anić's *dictionary (2007.), you'll see this:
direktor, sin. ravnatelj, upravitelj.
ravnatelj – najodgovornija osoba institucije (_most responsible person of the institution_).
upravitelj – 1. onaj tko upravlja, obično ustanovom (_person who manages, usually an institution_), 2. onaj tko upravlja posjedom (_person who manages possession_).

This means that Latin word (direktor) is directed to its synonyms in Croatian – words which are *preferable*. Though, it’s not obligatory to use Croatian synonym, so you can freely use “direktor”.

sačinjavati (što), 1. v. činiti, 2. v. tvoriti.
činiti – 1. biti u odnosu dijelova i cjeline, biti sastavnim dijelovima (_to form part_) [Mali obrti čine snagu rada. (_The power of labor is formed of little businesses_.)] 2. raditi, dijelovati na što tako da se izmijeni (_to do/act, to influence on something so it changes_).  [Činim što mogu. (_I do what I can._)]
tvoriti (što) – djelovati da što uđe u sastav neke tvari ili da uđe u cjelinu (obično po nekoj zakonitosti) (_to act the way that something __becomes part of a __substance or to become part of a whole (usually by some norm)_). [Vodu tvore kisik i vodik. (_Water is consisted of oxygen and hydrogen._)]

This word (sačinjavati) is directed to other words (implying with v. – vidi [see]) which should be used instead. This kind of marking is mostly used for old non-preferable words, which have a better replacement. (Of course, in this case reason was probably Croats disliking the word, because it sounds Serbian and is more often used in Serbian than Croatian. Often a pressure was put on Anić to remove those kind of words.)

When words _rukovodilac _and _rukovoditelj _are in question, it's just a matter of different suffix. Words are *synonyms *and both are in use. No one should correct you if you use rukovodilac, but rukovoditelj is preferred by some linguists. 
Suffixes –telj and –lac are among suffixes which are most common used for creating nouns with meaning: person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb (in English it would be, for example, –er). Most derived terms with suffix -l(a)c have also a term with equal meaning made with suffix –telj which is, from *practical reasons*, recomended in use.

What practical reasons? Here I'll put a quote from Croatian grammar: 
Barić, Lončarić... 1997. _Hrvatska gramatika_. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.



> Mnoge imenice sa sufiksom _-l(a)c _nemaju svog parnjaka za vršiteljicu radnje. Tako budilac, drobilac, grabilac, prskalac, slušalac,  jer budilica, drobilica, grabilica, prskalica, slušalica ... znače napravu i motivirane su glagolima buditi, drobiti, grabiti, prskati, slušati. U njih se govori o sufiksu -lica. Za razliku od imenica sa sufiksom _–l(a)c_, imenice sa sufiksom _–telj_ uvijek mogu motivirati imenicu za žensku osobu: buditelj - buditeljica, drobitelj - drobiteljica, grabitelj - grabiteljica, prskatelj - prskateljica, slušatelj - slušateljica ... , pa je u tome prednost sufiksa _-telj_ pred sufiksom _–l(a)c._


 
Translation:
Many nouns with suffix _-l(a)c _don't have their „pair“ for *female person*. So budilac (_person who wakes up somebody_), drobilac (_person who crushes something_), grabilac (_person who grabs something_), prskalac (_person who sprays somebody or something_), slušalac (_person who listens_), don't have their „pair“ because budilica (_alarm clock_), drobilica (_cracker, crusher..._), grabilica (_tool for grabbing_), prskalica (_sprayer_), slušalica (_ear phone_)... mean gadget/machine/tool, one word - *thing*, and they derived from verbs buditi (_wake up_), drobiti (_crush_), grabiti (_grab_), prskati (_spray_), slušati (_listen_). In those words we talk about suffix _-lica_. 
Nouns with suffix _–telj _can *always create nouns for female person*: buditelj – buditeljica (_male and female person who wake up somebody_), drobitelj - drobiteljica, grabitelj - grabiteljica, prskatelj - prskateljica, slušatelj - slušateljica... and that's the *advantage *of suffix _-telj_ above suffix _–l(a)c._


----------



## marco_2

So it's a big problem for foreigners. My friend was a big enthusiast of Serbo-Croatian in the 1970s. He studied it diligently and even subscribed "Borba" printed both in Belgrade and in Zagreb. He learnt the language perfectly and used both jekavski and ekavski forms if necessary. But now he asks himself: "What language do I know actually since it has four standards  ? P.S. Four? Recently I've watched a programme on TV Novi Sad _na bunjevačkom jeziku. _Is _bunjevačka lipa rič _the fifth standard of BCS? People, have mercy!


----------



## Brainiac

TV Novi Sad? _bunjevačkom jeziku_ _govoru_ (dialect) is Croatian.



> * Bunjevciu Dalmaciji,* kaže Ljuba Jovanović, „od Raba do Pelješca na cijelom kopnu” govore „zapadnijem, ikavskijem govorom”...
> ...
> Tako i Ardalić navodi primere ikavskog izgovora kod Bunjevaca u  dalmatinskom predelu Bukovici kao karakterističnu razliku između njih i  tamošnjih pravoslavnih koji su jekavci.
> Rešetar smatra severnu i srednju Dalmaciju kao predele najčistijeg  ikavskog govora i kaže, da mu iz govora tamošnjih ikavaca nije poznat  nijedan primer jekavskog izgovora i samo mali broj ekavizama (koje i  navodi)...
> 
> Svi dalmatinski Bunjevci zaista govore štokavsko-ikavskim narečjem, ali  ni u jednom delu severne i srednje Dalmacije koji sam ja prošao (bio sam  u Kotarima, Bukovici,   Kninskoj,   Vrličkoj   i Sinjskoj   Krajini   i  u okolini Skradina, a razgovarao sam i sa ljudima iz Promine) nije  njihov govor tako čisto ikavski....


o-bunjevackom-govoru


----------



## marco_2

Some of them live also e.g. in Subotica _(Hej Bunjevci na severu Bačke, sačuvajte pesme bunjevačke... - Z.Bogdan)_


----------



## Brainiac

marco_2 said:


> Some of them live also e.g. in Subotica _(Hej Bunjevci na severu Bačke, sačuvajte pesme bunjevačke... - Z.Bogdan)_



Hey, but that's the song: Hej *salaši* na severu Bačke.... 

There's _Banjevačko kolo_, *hrvatski* kulturni centar u Subotici. 



			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> In the 2002 census results published by the Statistical Office of Serbia,  Bunjevac *was not listed among main languages spoken in Serbia*, but  those that declared that their language is Bunjevac were listed in  category "*other languages*". For example, in the municipality of  Subotica, the number of those listed as speaking "other languages"  (presumably Bunjevac) was 8,914



But don't let this "language" confuse you. There is šatrovački jezik too 



			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> The status of the Bunjevac dialect / language is vague, and it is considered a dialect of Croatian by some Croatian linguists. According to the 2002 census in Serbia,  some members of the *Bunjevac ethnic community* (How many ethnic communities we have! And all of them declare their own languages! .... This is really too much!)
> *declared that their  native language is Croatian or Serbian*. This doesn't mean that they  don't use *this specific dialect*, merely that they *don't consider it  sufficiently distinct from the aforementioned standard languages  to register as speakers of a separate language*.
> However, those Bunjevci  who declared in census that Bunjevac is their native language consider  it as separate language......(ah, when are we going to work as one?!  )


----------



## b_fly

It's true, many dialects (not only in ex-Yugoslavia) are "sufficiently distinct from the standard languages". And so they want "status of language". And indeed...



> There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing a _language_ from a _dialect_. A number of rough measures exist, sometimes leading to contradictory results. Some linguists do not differentiate between languages and dialects, i.e. languages are dialects and vice versa. The distinction is therefore subjective and depends on the user's frame of reference. Note also that the terms are not always treated as mutually exclusive; there is not necessarily anything contradictory in the statement that "the _language _of the Pennsylvania Dutch is a dialect of German".


(quote from Wikipedia, article: Dialect)



> Language varieties are often called _dialects_ rather than _languages_:
> 
> if they have no standard or codified form,
> if the speakers of the given language do not have a state of their own,
> if they are rarely or never used in writing (outside reported speech),
> if they lack prestige with respect to some other, often standardised, variety.


(quote from Wikipedia, article: Dialect)

In Croatia, there are kajkavian speech (6 dialects), chakavian speech (6 dialects) and shtokavian speech (5 dialects; not counting 2 that are spoken only in Serbia); so, all together - 17 dialects.

The truth is that standard language is official language of a state/country, but that doesn't mean that "language" means "standard language". Each country desides to what it will give the status of language. If we would give each of our dialects status of language - we would have 17 languages, and not counting dialects from villages like Bednja where people speak language so unique, that other people of the same dialect don't understand it.

Myself, I don't really care will I say "Bednjan language" or "Bednjan dialect". They probably call their dialect - _a language_. Most of the speakers of dialects do that. The reason is very simple: word _language _(jezik) exists in every speech, while word _dialect _(dijalekt, narječje) is a word only for speakers of standard language, let's say more educated ones.

If people from Bunjevac ethnic community would live a happier and more fulfilled life if they know that they speak a language, and not a dialect - go for it. In the land of Balkan, where people think that that's going to solve their problems...

Not education or getting a job, but "having a language". Really important, indeed.


----------



## DenisBiH

My knowledge of the Bunjevac community is fairly limited, but I have had the opportunity to have a Bunjevac man as a cyber-acquaintance years ago on a different forum and to read his views on the matter.

The way I understand it, the (Catholic) Bunjevac community in northern Serbia is split into

1) Those who consider themselves only an ethnic group of the Croats. They
 - use their Ikavian dialect at home
 - use standard Ijekavian Croatian in their written intra-communal correspondence and possibly in part of their communication with the Serbian state
 - use standard Ekavian Serbian when communicating with other citizens of Serbia, in the rest of their communication with the Serbian state, and possibly in some of their intra-communal communication, particularly spoken

2) Those who consider themselves an ethnic group or a people separate from the Croats. They
 - use their Ikavian dialect at home
 - use or are attempting to standardize and use their Ikavian dialect for their written intra-communal correspondence and possibly in part of their communication with the Serbian state
 -  use standard Ekavian Serbian when communicating with other citizens of Serbia, in the rest of their communication with the Serbian state,  and possibly in some of their intra-communal communication, particularly  spoken

If we were indeed interested in being "economical", the most economical solution would be for both groups to use only Ekavian Serbian. Since this is not on the table, as the Croats have long resisted this kind of unification, insisting on both their separate language name and identity and their separate standard, there is no reason, except size, for those Bunjevci who do not consider themselves Croats not to insist on the same. It also seems more economical to me to use two (Ikavian and Ekavian) rather than three (Ikavian, Ijekavian and Ekavian) language types at the same time. Not adding another (Ijekavian Croatian) standard to the mix of what they have to learn and use also makes it more probable that they will be able to better preserve their original Ikavian speech.

Since a part of the Serbs seem keen on helping Bunjevci standardize in a way separate from Croatian, possibly as a tit-for-tat for Croats supporting the standardization of Montenegrin, Bunjevci may be able to compensate for their small number and lack of political autonomy by having open and direct support from the Serbian state. So, when it's in favor of the Serbs, Serbs are linguistically pro-unitary and Croats pro-separatist. When it's in favor of the Croats, Croats are linguistically pro-unitary and Serbs pro-separatist. IMHO, the real guiding principle is the principle of making one's own group as big as possible and ensuring it stays that way and preventing the "opposing" group from doing the same. In fact, if you look at the history of the formation of modern Serb and Croat national ideologies, both ideas originally were not unlike the Yugoslav idea in terms of being wide-reaching, inclusive and rather tolerant. The conflict that followed was rather a disagreement on who gets to lead and tell others what to do, and who gets to listen and follow. I am pretty sure many Croats would applaud in ecstasy at seeing a Vojvodinan or Torlakian language separate from Serbian, and many Serbs would weep with joy at seeing a Ragusan, Kajkavian or Istrian language separate from Croatian. 

Leaving Bunjevac politics aside, I think the idea of standardizing Ikavian is a good one, whoever decides to do it, because of the great historical role Ikavian played in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, and still plays in Croatia (and in B-H to a much smaller extent). The people involved in post-1850s standardizations could not themselves agree to a single standard for the reflex of yat, and therefore we got Ekavian and Ijekavian standards even during the time of Serbo-Croatian. So Ikavian lost out then, being displaced under the pretext of there being a need to be economical and standardize on a single reflex, where in fact no such standardization was ever carried out fully in practice. Remember that Serbian still has both Ijekavian and Ekavian standards, which, while presumably being pretty much identical otherwise, do not allow for mixing of the two in writing. Thus, in my book at least, those Bunjevci introducing Ikavian back as  official in the written sphere are correcting a fairly large historical  mistake.

In fact, both the Bunjevac and Montenegrin approaches to post-1990s standardization seem to be much more "original", as both groups are actually introducing features that were never part of the Serbo-Croatian standard, unlike Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian which I believe have not introduced any completely new features. Montenegrins are in fact being more faithful to the original spirit of the Vienna Literary Agreement, i.e. standardizing on East Herzegovina dialect, as modern Montenegrin standard has decided to accept even some of those features of EH dialect which were not accepted when Serbo-Croatian was first being invented. 

Aside from its obvious ties to the issues of national identity and politics, there is another purely practical reason for standardizing, which is preserving one's own speech from being degraded to a sort of a patois of illiterate peasants and consequently disappearing over time. Unlike perhaps some other parts of the world, many parts of the BCMS area are not really dialect-friendly. By raising your speech to the status of a standard language, you, in theory, ensure additional respect and its continued viability.


----------



## el_tigre

marco_2 said:


> So it's a big problem for foreigners. My friend was a big enthusiast of Serbo-Croatian in the 1970s. He studied it diligently and even subscribed "Borba" printed both in Belgrade and in Zagreb. He learnt the language perfectly and used both jekavski and ekavski forms if necessary. But now he asks himself: "What
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> marco_2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> language do I know actually since it has four standards  ? P.S. Four? Recently I've watched a programme on TV Novi Sad _na bunjevačkom jeziku. _Is _bunjevačka lipa rič _the fifth standard of BCS? People, have mercy!
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be so weird ?
> What about other languages?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_English
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_English
Click to expand...


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

el_tigre said:


> marco_2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's a big problem for foreigners. My friend was a big enthusiast of Serbo-Croatian in the 1970s. He studied it diligently and even subscribed "Borba" printed both in Belgrade and in Zagreb. He learnt the language perfectly and used both jekavski and ekavski forms if necessary. But now he asks himself: "What
> And that would be so weird ?
> What about other languages?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_English
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is, I think, everyone accepts that English is one language with many dialects. No-one would ever attempt to say they speak "American" or "Canadian" for example. People do say that they speak "Croatian", however, and not, nowadays, "Croato-Serbian/Serbo-Croatian".
Click to expand...


----------



## DenisBiH

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The difference is, I think, everyone accepts that English is one language with many dialects. No-one would ever attempt to say they speak "American" or "Canadian" for example. People do say that they speak "Croatian", however, and not, nowadays, "Croato-Serbian/Serbo-Croatian".



Fair enough, but how many people today would say that they speak Dano-Norwegian rather than Norwegian?



> The adjective and derived noun *Dano-Norwegian* means "Danish and Norwegian". It can have two related meanings:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> It can refer to the *Dano-Norwegian language*, formerly a Norwegian variant of the Danish language and predecessor of the Bokmål written standard of the modern Norwegian language. (Cf. _Gøtudanskt_)





> The term _Dano-Norwegian_ is seldom used with reference to contemporary Bokmål  and its spoken varieties. The nationality of the language has been a  hotly debated topic, and its users and proponents have generally not  been fond of the implied association with Danish (hence the neutral  names _Riksmål_ and _Bokmål_, meaning _national language_ and _literary language_ respectively). The debate intensified with the advent of a new Norwegian written language in the 19th century, now known as Nynorsk, which is based on Modern Norwegian dialects and puristic  opposition to Danish and Dano-Norwegian. Historically, many Nynorsk  supporters have held that Nynorsk is the only genuinely Norwegian  language, since Riksmål/Bokmål is a relic of the dual monarchy;  therefore, the term _Dano-Norwegian_ applied to Bokmål can be used  to stigmatize or delegitimize the language. Many Bokmål users consider  this use to be offensive, and it is therefore mainly confined to the  Nynorsk-supporting side of heated discussions.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Yes, Denis, politics, again, appears the main driver there, though I don't know if the modern standards of Swedish, Norweigan and Danish are all based on one main dialect as is the case with BCS. Perhaps if people did say they spoke American instead of English (something Americans tend to get quite upset over, as when the French, for instance, write things like _traduit de l'américain_) the Croato-Serbo-Bosniao-Montenegrin situation wouldn't appear quite so out of kilter for certain non-natives. Scandinavians would probably find it quite normal, after all.

I know that the remaining major dialects of Irish all differ from each other quite substantially, making inter-dialectal communication sometimes difficult without the aid of the "standard form", but the idea that one would class them as different languages just wouldn't be accepted. Some even favour treating Irish Gaelic and Scots Gaelic as one language, instead of two, given the proximity between the Ulster variant of Irish and Highland Gaelic in the islands. These debates have an immortal life, it seems.


----------



## DenisBiH

I was in Vienna recently (you wouldn't believe the number of BCMS speakers there!) with a group of friends and a Serbian (as it turned out) tourist approached us with "Do you speak Yugoslav?" (_Govorite li jugoslovenski?_). As he later explained it, he heard us talking but couldn't be sure who we were and where we were from, so he decided that "Yugoslav" would be a neutral term for the language. Not a bad idea, certainly more neutral than Serbo-Croatian in my book, and easier to pronounce than BCMS, but I'm not sure that Croats would look favorably at the (re-)introduction of that term, even as a grouping term. And even if they did, Slovenians and Macedonians would still have to let us use "Yugoslav" in that narrower sense. 

Still, I think I might be able to live with "Bosnian Yugoslav" if everybody else decided to settle on that term as well. So the separate standards would be: "Bosnian Yugoslav", "Croatian Yugoslav", "Serbian Yugoslav", "Montenegrin Yugoslav".


----------



## marco_2

marco_2 said:


> So it's a big problem for foreigners. My friend was a big enthusiast of Serbo-Croatian in the 1970s. He studied it diligently and even subscribed "Borba" printed both in Belgrade and in Zagreb. He learnt the language perfectly and used both jekavski and ekavski forms if necessary. But now he asks himself: "What language do I know actually since it has four standards  ?



This friend of mine says that the differentiation of the standards of BCSM sometimes seems to be "the war of synonyms" and not every native-speaker can feel all the nuances. Another our friend, who was also taught Serbo-Croatian and now is a professor of Serbian and Croatian literature at our university had a funny incident. Once she accompanied a group of Croatian scholars and one of them corrected her all the time: _Mi tako ne govorimo, gospodjo! _In the restaurant they were served a tomato soup and he asked her: What is this soup?, and she said: _Juha od rajčica. - Mi tako ne govorimo! _(we don't say like that). "So how in the world do you say?", she asked. "We say, er, ladies, how do we say?", he asked his fellow teachers. "The same!", answered the ladies. So this time our friend was right and her intuition didn't deceive her, though in old phrasebooks reads: _čorba / juha od paradajza._


----------



## b_fly

marco_2 said:


> This friend of mine says that the differentiation of the standards of BCSM sometimes seems to be "the war of synonyms" and not every native-speaker can feel all the nuances.


Well, it's true. There are bunch of synonyms which are divided into "Serbian" and "Croatian" words. For example, biggest lexical difference between Serbian and Croatian are words like historija, muzika, fudbal (S) and povijest, glazba, nogomet (C), which are synonyms of foreign and Slavic words. Though, all of those "Serbian" words are present in certain Croatian dialects. 



marco_2 said:


> Another our friend, who was also taught Serbo-Croatian and now is a professor of Serbian and Croatian literature at our university had a funny incident. Once she accompanied a group of Croatian scholars and one of them corrected her all the time: _Mi tako ne govorimo, gospodjo! _In the restaurant they were served a tomato soup and he asked her: What is this soup?, and she said: _Juha od rajčica. - Mi tako ne govorimo! _(we don't say like that). "So how in the world do you say?", she asked. "We say, er, ladies, how do we say?", he asked his fellow teachers. "The same!", answered the ladies. So this time our friend was right and her intuition didn't deceive her, though in old phrasebooks reads: _čorba / juha od paradajza._



Serbian - supa/čorba od paradajza
Croatian - juha od rajčice (or plural: rajčica)

Of course, it's only standard language. In certain Croatian dialects, you can also say "supa", "čorba" and "paradajz".


----------



## Anicetus

b_fly said:


> sačinjavati (što), 1. v. činiti, 2. v. tvoriti.
> činiti – 1. biti u odnosu dijelova i cjeline, biti sastavnim dijelovima (_to form part_) [Mali obrti čine snagu rada. (_The power of labor is formed of little businesses_.)] 2. raditi, dijelovati na što tako da se izmijeni (_to do/act, to influence on something so it changes_).  [Činim što mogu. (_I do what I can._)]
> tvoriti (što) – djelovati da što uđe u sastav neke tvari ili da uđe u cjelinu (obično po nekoj zakonitosti) (_to act the way that something __becomes part of a __substance or to become part of a whole (usually by some norm)_). [Vodu tvore kisik i vodik. (_Water is consisted of oxygen and hydrogen._)]
> 
> This word (sačinjavati) is directed to other words (implying with v. – vidi [see]) which should be used instead. This kind of marking is mostly used for old non-preferable words, which have a better replacement. (Of course, in this case reason was probably Croats disliking the word, because it sounds Serbian and is more often used in Serbian than Croatian. Often a pressure was put on Anić to remove those kind of words.)



I figured as much, some probably feel that the suffix _sa-_ is _not Croatian enough_. I doubt I'll ever understand why some people have the nerve to think themselves competent to prohibit me from using certain words, without specifying a reason on the top of that (oh, pardon me, there's a _better_ replacement -- could somebody please explain to me how one measures how good a words is?). If it weren't sad that such people are considered scientists in our country, it would be funny. 

Why stop there with impoverishing of the Croatian vocabulary? We should get rid of all horrible non-Croatian words such as _savez, savjet, sabor, savršen, sabrati, sagraditi_! 




marco_2 said:


> This friend of mine says that the differentiation of the standards of BCSM sometimes seems to be "the war of synonyms" and not every native-speaker can feel all the nuances. Another our friend, who was also taught Serbo-Croatian and now is a professor of Serbian and Croatian literature at our university had a funny incident. Once she accompanied a group of Croatian scholars and one of them corrected her all the time: _Mi tako ne govorimo, gospodjo! _In the restaurant they were served a tomato soup and he asked her: What is this soup?, and she said: _Juha od rajčica. - Mi tako ne govorimo! _(we don't say like that). "So how in the world do you say?", she asked. "We say, er, ladies, how do we say?", he asked his fellow teachers. "The same!", answered the ladies. So this time our friend was right and her intuition didn't deceive her, though in old phrasebooks reads: _čorba / juha od paradajza._



On a side note, most people in northern Croatia say _paradajz_ (taken from Austrian German), while people in southern Croatia use the words _pomadora, pomidor_ (maybe some other variants too, obviously loaned from Italian). _Rajčica_ is a standard Croatian word (clearly a calque of the German one) that I don't think anybody uses at home. _Čorba_ isn't used in my area, so I'm not sure, but I believe it isn't entirely synonymous with _juha_, at least not in Croatian -- _čorba_ is more something like stew, a thick _juha_.


----------



## DenisBiH

Anicetus said:


> _Čorba_ isn't used in my area, so I'm not sure, but I believe it isn't entirely synonymous with _juha_, at least not in Croatian -- _čorba_ is more something like stew, a thick _juha_.





_Čorba od paradajza _sounds odd to me (I personally use _supa od paradajza_) precisely because I'd expect several types of vegetables and often meat in a _čorba, _and yes, it is thick_._ Google does give a lot of hits for _čorba od paradajza_, though.

To quote the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu (they brought that word to the Balkans, after all) from his recent visit to Sarajevo:


> “Zbog svoje multikulturalnosti, Balkan se može uporediti s jednom ukusnom  čorbom s različitim sastojcima, a znamo da je čorba ukusnija što ima  više sastojaka”,
> 
> Because of its multiculturalism, the Balkans can be compared to a tasty chorba with different ingredients, and we know that chorba is tastier the more ingredients it has.


----------



## marco_2

Anicetus said:


> On a side note, people in southern Croatia use the words _pomadora, pomidor_ (maybe some other variants too, obviously loaned from Italian). _Rajčica_ is a standard Croatian word (clearly a calque of the German one) that I don't think anybody uses at home. _Čorba_ isn't used in my area, so I'm not sure, but I believe it isn't entirely synonymous with _juha_, at least not in Croatian -- _čorba_ is more something like stew, a thick _juha_.



Thank you all for interesting explanations. By the way, the Bulgarians also say _чорба _vs _супа _like you, in Polish we also say _pomidor,_ in the past we used the word _jucha _for "animal blood" and in the eastern Poland they use(d) the diminutive _juszka _for "a thin soup" or "a soup liquid, without its ingredients."


----------



## Brainiac

DenisBiH said:


> _Čorba od paradajza _sounds odd to me



Yes, odd, really. It's _paradajz čorba_. 
There's both _čorba od paradajza _and _supa _(your_ juha_) _od paradajza_, two different things. 
There are thick soups too (krem supe, krem supa sa pečurkama npr.) and not all čorbe are tick (čorba od kupusa consists lots of water, very light). The main difference to me is that soup is a _hors d'oeuvre _ or just part of a meal, but _čorba_ may be served as a main dish (actually the only dish for the lunch, one-dish meal),_ čorba_ is not appetizer.

stew - also _paprikaš_


----------



## DenisBiH

Brainiac said:


> Yes, odd, really. It's _paradajz čorba_.
> There's both _čorba od paradajza _and _supa _(your_ juha_) _od paradajza_, two different things.
> There are thick soups too (krem supe, krem supa sa pečurkama npr.) and not all čorbe are tick (čorba od kupusa consists lots of water, very light). The main difference to me is that soup is a _hors d'oeuvre _ or just part of a meal, but _čorba_ may be served as a main dish (actually the only dish for the lunch, one-dish meal),_ čorba_ is not appetizer.
> 
> stew - also _paprikaš_





Thanks! Somehow I suspected this _čorbali _discussion would benefit from some feminine touch. 

However, we do have _čorba _as an opening dish here, in fact it's quite common to have _begova čorba_, for example, before the main dish. But I could imagine someone ordering only _čorba_, as you say. I have done so myself on a few occasions.


----------



## Duya

Da zakuvam čorbu... 



Brainiac said:


> Yes, odd, really. It's _paradajz čorba_.
> There's both _čorba od paradajza _and _supa _(your_ juha_) _od paradajza_, two different things.



Um, different how? I did hear both expressions, but always perceived them as pure synonyms. I mean, in how many ways one can prepare a tomato soup?



Brainiac said:


> There are thick soups too (krem supe, krem supa sa pečurkama npr.) and not all čorbe are tick (čorba od kupusa consists lots of water, very light). The main difference to me is that soup is a _hors d'oeuvre _ or just part of a meal, but _čorba_ may be served as a main dish (actually the only dish for the lunch, one-dish meal),_ čorba_ is not appetizer.



Actually, I feel a lot of overlap between _supa/juha_ and _čorba_, and I don't think that the distinction is clearcut. Yes, generally, _čorba_ has more chunks of meat, veggies or noodles than an average _supa_, but some dishes are just called one way or another without a clear criterion.


----------



## DenisBiH

Duya said:


> Um, different how? I did hear both expressions, but always perceived them as pure synonyms. I mean, in how many ways one can prepare a tomato soup?



I think you yourself offered an explanation - _čorba _has more chunks of...stuff.  I asked my mother yesterday what she thought the difference would be, and her, always helpful, answer was that, while the distinction may not be entirely clear-cut (overlap, as you yourself point out), _supa od paradajza_ would be more _ocijeđena _(GT seems to suggest "decanted" as a translation, but I'm not sure) while _čorba od paradajza_ would (still) have chunks of tomato inside. That is, if someone still prepares a tomato soup by using actual tomatoes. 

Perhaps the moderators could move this line of discussion to a separate _čorbali _thread?


----------



## Istriano

I wouldn't really dare to say Chakavian dialects here in Istria are Serbo-Croatian, because they are Croatian-only, so the prefix Serbo- is redundant.
We may use Serbo-Croatian for Shtokavian dialect/language only.

In Norway, the main standard language is Bokmål, also known as Dano-Norwegian. But Norwegians outside the posh parts of Western Oslo don't speak this Dano-Norwegian, but Norwegian dialects that differ from this somewhat artificial standard. You would never call dialects in Western or Northern Norway dialects of Dano-Norwegian, but the dialect of West Oslo and Baerum could be considered a dialect of Dano-Norwegian.
Bokmål is said to be East Scandinavian, but Nynorsk (the other Norwegian standard) and Norwegian dialects (outside of West Oslo) are West Scandinavian.

So, Kajkavian and Chakavian could be considered Western South Slavic languages, along with Slovenian, while Shtokavian (=Serbo-Croatian) could be classified as Central South-Slavic.

There IS an alternative standard of Croatian (''Nynorsk of Croatian'') used in the Austrian province of Burgenland, a mix of Kajkavian and Chakavian. Speakers of Kajkavian and Chakavian find it easy to understand.

Dano-Norwegian (its name was changed to Bokmaal in 1920) was chosen as a Norwegian standard language because of the ''literary tradition'' (Ibsen itd), the same happened with Shtokavian in Croatia.

Maybe the love for local dialects in Western and Northern Croatia is a reaction against the shtokavization. Outside Pula (which uses the mix of chakavian and shtokavian because of many immigrants from Bosnia and Slavonia) you don't hear much shtokavian in Istria.
It's either Chakavian or Italian.

So, the name Dano-Norwegian makes more sense than Serbo-Croatian, since: the more formal Norwegian is, the more similar it is to Danish (this Danish-like Norwegian is called Riksmaal and it's the standard
of the Norwegian Academy and the most famous newspaper in Norway: Aftenposten). In Serbian and Croatian shtokavian, the main differences are at the most formal level (affecting vocabulary and syntax), while
colloquial Serbian shtokavian and colloquial Croatian shtokavian are closer.


----------



## DenisBiH

Istriano said:


> So, Kajkavian and Chakavian could be considered Western South Slavic languages, along with Slovenian, while Shtokavian (=Serbo-Croatian) could be classified as Central South-Slavic.




According to what I have read, Shtokavian is genetically classified as Western South Slavic just as Slovenian dialects, Kajkavian and Chakavian. There is no intermediate Central South Slavic genetic node that would include only Shtokavian.

So it's

Western South Slavic
- Slovenian dialects
- Kajkavian
- Chakavian
- Shtokavian

All are nodes at the same level, i.e. Kajkavian and Slovenian do not have a common ancestor for them and only them, their closest common ancestor is Western South Slavic.  Furthermore, I believe there are disputes over whether Chakavian is a genetically valid node.

I will check in Ranko Matasović's historical-comparative Croatian grammar just to be sure and report later.




> We may use Serbo-Croatian for Shtokavian dialect/language only.




Before the 1990s, while that term was still in use in Yugoslavia, it included Kajkavian and Chakavian as well.


----------



## DenisBiH

Correction, this is what Matasović says:



> D. Brozović, koji s oklijevanjem prihvaća naslijeđenu teoriju o  genetskom jedinstvu »srednjojužnoslavenskoga«, jasno uviđa da je to  jezična pojava različite vrste od ostalih čvorova na slavenskom  genealoškom stablu: »Tako je hrvatskosrpski dijasistem preživio kritično  12. stoljeće i uspio se održati, iako je stupanj unutarnje  nehomogenosti njegovih dijelova veći nego i u jednom drugom slavenskom  jeziku i veći nego što je prosjek u europskim jezicima-dijasistemima  uopće« (Brozović 2006 (1978): 164). Moguš (1971: 23 i dalje) slijedi  Junkovića (disertacija iz 1967., objavljena 1972) u pobijanju Ramovševih  (1936) izoglosa kojima se kajkavski genetskolingvistički pripisuje  slovenskomu jeziku. Premda nije posve eksplicitan, i on, čini se,  vjeruje u genetsko jedinstvo čakavskoga, kajkavskoga i štokavskoga. M.  Lončarić (2005: 46) dopušta mogućnost da se iz zapadnojužnoslavenskoga  izdvojilo *pet primarnih odvjetaka: slovenski, kajkavski, čakavski,  šćakavski (zapadnoštokavski) i (istočno-)štokavski, što je u osnovi i  naša teza.*



So, at least according to Matasović, it is:

Western South Slavic


Slovenian dialects 
Kajkavian 
Chakavian 
Shchakavian (Western Shtokavian) 
(Eastern) Shtokavian 
 
A few more relevant quotes from Matasović are below (moderators please inform me if they are too long so I can rephrase them). Matasović argues that "Central South Slavic diasystem" is a convenient grouping term (in lieu of "Serbo-Croatian") for Shtokavian, Kajkavian and Chakavian to express their *historical *relationships.




> Sve do sada rečeno o južnoslavenskome u još većoj mjeri vrijedi za navodni prajezik iz kojega su se razvili svi idiomi između slovenskoga i istočnojužnoslavenskoga (bugarsko-makedonskoga) U dijalektologiji se za skupinu dijalekata koji se govore na tom području koristi Brozovićev termin »srednjojužnoslavenski dijasistem« 93. Kada se taj termin odnosi na skup dijalekata, koji su na različite načine tijekom povijesti bili u međusobnoj interakciji i među kojima granice često nisu posve jasne, to je terminološki opravdano, a ujedno je i dobar način da se izbjegne politički nekorektan naziv »hrvatskosrpski« ili »srpskohrvatski«, koji se nažalost previše udomaćio u inozemnoj slavistici. Nema nikakve dvojbe da postoji potreba za terminom koji bi izrazio činjenicu da su upravo čakavski, štokavski i kajkavski dijalekti, osobito tijekom burnoga razdoblja seobi izazvanih turskim osvajanjima u 15. i 16. st., intenzivno utjecali jedni na druge, što je dovelo i do nastanka miješanih dijalekata, osobito na štokavskom području



However, he also points out that in a strictly *genetic *sense there is no such Central South Slavic node, only Western South Slavic and then the individual dialects listed above.



> Druga je stvar, medutim, ako se tvrdi da su dijalekti koji ulaze u srednjojužnoslavenski dijasistem potekli iz jednoga i jedinstvenoga idioma, koji je različit od praslavenskoga, odnosno ako se tvrdi da je postojao srednjojužnoslavenski prajezik kao čvor na genealoškom stablu slavenskih jezika. Da bi se to dokazalo, bilo bi potrebno utvrditi postojanje zajedničkih inovacija koje obuhvaćaju čakavski, kajkavski, štokavski i torlački, a nisu se proširile u slovenskome (ili u bugarskome i makedonskome). Samo bismo tada mogli tvrditi da termin »srednjojužnoslavenski« nije samo konvencionalan naziv za skupinu dijalekata izmedu slovenskoga i bugarsko-makedonskoga, već i termin koji ima genetskolingvistički smisao.* Medutim, takvih srednjojužnoslavenskih zajedničkih inovacija jednostavno nema. Štoviše, čak nije moguće pronaći niti zajedničke inovacije koje bi obuhvatile sve dijalekte čakavskoga narječja, dok općeštokavskih i općekajkavskih inovacija ipak ima.** Zapadnojužnoslavenski je u strogo genetskom smislu posljednji zajednički prajezik koji se može pretpostaviti za sva slovenska i hrvatska narječja.* Vrijeme postojanja zjsl. prajezika dobro se podudara s razdobljem franačke dominacije u hrvatskim zemljama (8-9. st.).
> ...
> 57 »Srednjojužnoslavenski« se, dakle, može odnositi samo na ostatak zapadnojužnoslavenskih govora preostao nakon izdvajanja slovenskoga, odnosno nakon prvih općeslovenskih inovacija koje se nisu proširile na kajkavski, čakavski, štokavski i torlački. Drugim riječima,* srednjojužnoslavenski prajezik nije postojao*99


----------



## Tassos

Anicetus said:


> 4) Same as 1) -- it's a recommendation from the language police, not a strict rule, generally obeyed in a groomed style.
> 
> 
> Brainiac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Language police? Do they arrest people?  They are something like watchdogs....  (Oh, then you are advanced....)
> 
> 
> Anicetus said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was supposed to be a sarcastic designation,  but now I've found out on Wikipedia that some countries actually do have  something like that... Language prescriptivists can't really arrest  people in Croatia, but they probably wish they could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is a small conversation occurring in this thread.
I would like to comment it, and I felt it would be more appropriate if I did it here.

Generally, I have the feeling that things in Croatia are much stricter on trying to control language issues than in the other republics. Denis spoke about Bosnia and though we haven't heard from Serbia I have the feeling things are maybe a bit more relaxed (Not as much as Bosnia maybe. Still of course I may be mistaken...). For example, recently I read an interview of Stjepan Mesic in the Serbian daily Danas published in the *original Croatian* (ijekavian and all...). Can't see that happening in Croatia...

And a couple of other points about Croatia
I noticed that sometimes journalists or opinionists in articles use clearly "Serbian" words (like hiljada or para) to mark their articles as "rebel", "anti-establishment" or whatever. Don't know if this is true, it's just an impression of mine.
Also, sometimes there are differences between "formal" written speech and "actual" spoken speech (this of course happens in all the languages, but here a little bit more). A classic axample is the names of the months (I clearly remember a forero saying that Croatians use prvi mjesec, drugi mjesec etc *a lot*, still of course I don't know if that happens only when they talk to people from the other republics or also to each other).
I am not a history expert but I can guess the reasons that lead to this situation, still from what Anicetus and b_fly are saying I conclude that to some people this can be really frustrating. My personal opinion is that this is the same mistake that was made in the former country, just done completely in reverse (difference at all costs instead of uniformity at all costs). On the other hand of course, as I can judge form the comments on newspaper articles or posts in forums etc there are also normal everyday people who support this, not only grammarians or politicians...


----------



## DenisBiH

There are, IMHO, good historical and practical reasons for Croats insisting on language purism. Considering historical ones, even before the establishment of Yugoslavia, in certain periods of Croatian history Croatian was in danger from Latin, Hungarian, German and Italian as official languages in various spheres. There is a good quote from a speech in the Croatian parliament of May 2nd 1843 by the Croatian historian/writer/politician Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski that illustrates this, but unfortunately it is used much too often to denigrate Croats in discussions of this type. I hope Croat foreros will not take this as an attempt of belittling them and their language.



> Mi gledamo svaki dan kako nam domovina sve dublje i dublje propada, kano  imanje one djetce, što su pod svakojakimi tutori; svaki si tutor utakne  nješta u đep, svaki si nješta prisvoji napokon djetci neće ostati  ništa. Mi smo malo Latini, malo Niemci malo Talijani, malo Mađari i malo  Slavjani, a ukupno (iskreno govoreći) nismo baš ništa! Mrtvi jezik  rimski a živi magjarski, njemački i talijanski, to su naši tutori, živi  nam se groze, mrtvi nas drži za grlo, duši nas i nemoćne nas vodi i  predaje živim u ruke; sada imamo još toliko sile, da se suprotstavimo  mrtvomu, zamala nećemo moći nadvladati žive, ako se čvrsto ne stavimo na  svoje noge tj. ako svoj jezik ne utvrdimo u domovini i ne postavimo ga  vladajućim. - Susjedi naši, osobito braća naša konštitucionalna Mađari,  neće već odstupljivat od svojega jezika i iz prijateljstva i uljudnosti  prama nam ili iz drugog kakova uzroka neće ga zaista zamjenjivati ma s  ikojim drugim a najmanje mrtvim, nu i to potrebovati od njih značilo bi:  svezat htjeti orlu krila, da k nebu ne poleti; njihova stalnost i  jedinost u jeziku nadvladat će zaisto našu nestalnost, neslogu i  mješariju.



A rough English translation:



> We watch every day as our homeland is going deeper and deeper into ruin, as an estate belonging to children that are under various guardians; every guardian puts a little something into his own pocket, every guardian takes something for himself so that in the end the children will be left with nothing. We are a little bit Latins, a little bit Germans, a little bit Italians, a little bit Magyars and a little bit Slavs, but in total (speaking honestly) we are absolutely nothing! The dead Roman language, and the living Hungarian, German and Italian, those are our guardians/tutors, the living ones are repulsed by us, the dead one is holding us by the throat, it is suffocating us and leading us powerless and handing us off to the living ones; today/now we still have enough strength to resist the dead one, but in a short time we will not be able to overpower the living ones, unless we plant ourselves firmly on our own feet i.e. unless we strengthen/fortify our own language in the homeland and make it the ruling/main one. - Our neighbors, especially our constitutional brothers the Magyars, will not give up their own language nor will they, out of friendship or courtesy to us or other reasons, replace it with any other (language), least of all a dead one, and wanting them to do that would mean to want to tie the eagle's wings so that it may not fly to the sky; their perseverance and unity in language will overpower our fickleness, disunity and dabbling.



This may also serve as an answer to Pedro's question about why Croats, belonging to the Catholic Church etc., tend to avoid (at least in literary language) many Latinisms and prefer Slavic words.


----------



## Istriano

A funny feature in Croatian are direct translations of German words which are promoted as new ''pure'' Croatian words, like  dalekovidnica (_Fernsehen_), podnatpisi (_Untertiteln_)...
But if you speak German, you can sense the Germanness in them.


----------



## DenisBiH

Istriano said:


> A funny feature in Croatian are direct translations of German words which are promoted as new ''pure'' Croatian words, like  dalekovidnica (_Fernsehen_), podnatpisi (_Untertiteln_)...
> But if you speak German, you can sense the Germanness in them.



Erm, how exactly do you sense the _Germanness _in those two words? How is _podnatpisi _(isn't it _podnapisi_, by the way?) closer to _Untertiteln _than to, say, _subtitles_? I must admit this is the first time I read/hear _dalekovidnica_, so I don't think it's that widely used. HJP under its entry for dalekovidnica has "_neob._ _neol._ _iron._" which I presume means "unusual, neologism, ironic".

Anyway, here are some 19th century Croatian neologisms (and possibly loanwords from Czech) that are today common in Serbian and Bosnian too: _računovodstvo, vodovod, sladoled, pojam, rukomet, zubobolja, idolopoklonstvo, časopis, kišobran_ (source). I'm sure that someone back in the 19th century thought those words hilarious as well. "Why do we need this sweet ice thing (sladoled) when we have perfectly good words dondurma/doldrma and đelat. Be reasonable, people!".


----------



## el_tigre

DenisBiH said:


> Anyway, here are some 19th century Croatian neologisms (and possibly loanwords from Czech) that are today common in Serbian and Bosnian too: _računovodstvo, vodovod, sladoled, pojam, rukomet, zubobolja, idolopoklonstvo, časopis, kišobran_ (source).


Indeed, most Czech 8and Slovak) loanwords are "imported" thanks to Croatian linguist  Bogoslav_Šulek http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogoslav_Šulek (who was Slovak! ) in order to replace German, latin, Hungarian and other loanwords. Similar thing happened  in Turkish republic during Ataturk.


----------



## DenisBiH

el_tigre said:


> Indeed, most Czech 8and Slovak) loanwords are "imported" thanks to Croatian linguist  Bogoslav_Šulek http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogoslav_Šulek (who was Slovak! ) in order to replace German, latin, Hungarian and other loanwords. Similar thing happened  in Turkish republic during Ataturk.



Here are some other important persons in the history of the Croatian language with immigrant roots:

Ljudevit Gaj - father a Slovakian German, mother also of German background
August Šenoa - father a Czech German, mother a Slovak from Budapest
Juraj Haulik - Slovak, one of the founders of Matica ilirska
Stanko Vraz - Slovenian, born as Jakob Frass

According to this article, back in 1845 around a quarter of the members of Matica ilirska (from 1874 Matica hrvatska) was made up of Czechs who supported it financially.



> Da bi se knjige mogle uopće tiskati, trebalo je novca, pa je požrtvovani Babukić skupljao pretplatnike od Leipziga do Dubrovnika. Smičiklas (1876) svjedoči da je bio središte svega knjižarstva i da je u tom poslu bio kralj nad svima te da su narudžbe knjiga obuhvaćale tisuće listova. Uza sve to Babukić je stigao tražiti članove za Maticu ilirsku te su, zahvaljujući njegovu prijateljstvu s poznatim češkim i slovačkim slavistima, godine 1845. jednu četvrtinu svih članova Matice činili Česi.




And now turning east, to Serbia:

Branislav Nušić, the famous Serbian writer, was born into a Cincar/Aromanian family, as Alkibijad Nuša (Alchiviadi al Nuşa)

And now turning to Bosnia-Herzegovina:

Enver Čolaković, Bosnian and Croatian writer (actually Hungarian as well), born in Budapest to Bosniak Vejsil-beg Čolaković and Hungarian Ilona Mednyanszky. According to his son, his mother's family belonged to Hungarian nobility and she had Enver secretly baptized as a baby, as Eduard Ladiszlaus Mednyanszky.  He wrote in Hungarian and German as well, publishing his poems in Hungarian under the name László Mednyanszky.


----------



## thelastchoice

I want to learn Bosnian Grammar but it seems that resources are scarce. My question:
Are Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian Grammar the same? If not, What is the closest Grammar to Bosnian? Is it Croatian?


----------



## Tassos

thelastchoice said:


> I want to learn Bosnian Grammar but it seems that resources are scarce. My question:
> Is Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian Grammar the same?


Yes. There is _nothing_ that holds true in one standard and not true in the other. There are some features that are used more in one standard than the other but you will be perfectly understood if you use them anywhere, because they are not so significant (from the perspective of a casual foreign speaker - for the natives they are). Anyway, you are lucky beacuse Bosnian most of the times accepts the "different" characteristics of both Serbian and Croatian (due to the multiculturalism of the country). So any of the grammars will do. To me, a good starting point is this. As for dictionaries, by far the most complete is this. They are both for Croatian but in this forum, they have been endorsed by Serbian foreros too (this is always an indication that they are really good).


----------



## thelastchoice

Dear Tassos,
Thanks a lot for your prompt and informative reply. 
I really appreciate it.


----------



## thelastchoice

I have a pdf copy of Na Drini ćuprija by Ivo Andrić.
I just want to know if this copy can be considered Croatian or Bosnian or Serbian?
Also, is it understood by all?


This is a excerpt :
Većim delom svoga toka reka Drina protiče kroz tesne gudure između strmih planina ili kroz duboke kanjone okomito odsečenih obala. Samo na nekoliko mesta rečnog toka njene se obale proširuju u otvorene doline i stvaraju, bilo na jednoj bilo na obe strane reke, župne, delimično ravne, delimično talasaste predele, podesne za obrađivanje i naselja. Takvo jedno proširenje nastaje i ovde, kod Višegrada, na mestu gde Drina izbija u naglom zavoju iz dubokog i uskog tesnaca koji stvaraju Butkove Stijene i Uzavničke planine. Zaokret koji tu pravi Drina neobično je oštar a planine sa obe strane tako su strme i toliko ublizu da izgledaju kao zatvoren masiv iz koga reka izvire pravo, kao iz mrkog zida.


----------



## itreius

thelastchoice said:


> I just want to know if this copy can be considered Croatian or Bosnian or Serbian?



That's difficult to say. The narration is done in _ekavian_, which means that you can't really classify it as either Croatian or Bosnian. On the other hand, dialogues are in _ijekavian_.

The book is filled with Turcisms and I know that I have a lot of trouble understanding it, having to lookup words pretty often. Had I never heard of the book, I wouldn't even know what the title means (I've never heard anyone use _ćuprija_ except as a reference to this book).



thelastchoice said:


> Also, is it understood by all?
> 
> This is a excerpt :
> Većim delom svoga toka reka Drina protiče kroz tesne gudure između strmih planina ili kroz duboke kanjone okomito odsečenih obala. Samo na nekoliko mesta rečnog toka njene se obale proširuju u otvorene doline i stvaraju, bilo na jednoj bilo na obe strane reke, župne, delimično ravne, delimično talasaste predele, podesne za obrađivanje i naselja. Takvo jedno proširenje nastaje i ovde, kod Višegrada, na mestu gde Drina izbija u naglom zavoju iz dubokog i uskog tesnaca koji stvaraju Butkove Stijene i Uzavničke planine. Zaokret koji tu pravi Drina neobično je oštar a planine sa obe strane tako su strme i toliko ublizu da izgledaju kao zatvoren masiv iz koga reka izvire pravo, kao iz mrkog zida.



The excerpt you've given is pretty easy and would be understood by all. The words _talasast_ and _pravo_ might perhaps be problematic for some speakers, _talas_ (_wave_, we use _val_ -> _valovit_) isn't used here and the meaning of the word _pravo_ in this excerpt is non-standard for Croatia.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

If and when Bosnia and Serbia join the EU, it will be interesting to see if the authorities translate everything into all three "languages".
As a matter of interest, do Croatian TV stations subtitle Serbs and Bosnians on news broadcasts and the like?

Apparently the Croatian authorities threatened to shut down one Croatian channel for a period of time because it refused to "subtitle Serbian films in Croatian".


----------



## Duya

There are no subtitles whatsoever. The few backdoor attempts to introduce them, including the one you quoted, were righteously ridiculed. As far as I remember, the "Solomonic" solution for that situation was that Serbian is one of recognized minority languages in Croatia, therefore the films are targeted for 
Serb audience and thus translation is not mandated.

What I find mildly annoying is that interviews and quotes  in printed media are often "translated" to the target language. But then, I've heard that American and British editions of popular books differ in a similar manner.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Duya said:


> What I find mildly annoying is that interviews and quotes  in printed media are often "translated" to the target language. But then, I've heard that American and British editions of popular books differ in a similar manner.



In regard to American English, this is apparently true (cf. Harry Potter books). I have never heard of an American work being "translated" into British English however.


----------



## thelastchoice

Thanks a lot itreius. 
That is very informative and very interesting.
I understood that this can be considered more of Serbian than Bosnian or Coratian.


----------



## dark_helmut

@thelastchoice: Differences between Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are (at least to a non-native speaker) very minor, and those are differences in standard language. Bosnian (at least in my opinion) seems to be more similar to Croatian considering the grammar, and more similar to Serbian considering the vocabulary. If you can get any Serbo-Croatian grammar and dictionary from Yugoslavian era (before 1990), you can use them to master all three contemporary languages, since different words are stated as synonyms, and different grammar rules as optional.

Considering the spoken language, it differs in different areas. For instance, in Bosnia there are all three peoples, all three speak absolutely the same, and all three call their language upon their ethnicity. The novel 'Na Drini Ćuprija' was considered as Serbian part of ex Serbo-Croatian literature, and as it was already stated here, the narrative is in pure standard Belgrade-Serbian, while the dialogues are in Bosnian dialect, which is considered part of all three languages, but is the closest to contemporary standard Bosnian. (One might say that the dialects are in Bosnian, but the characters of all three ethnicities speak it, and two of them don't consider the language as Bosnian.)

As stated before, mainly a political issue. When there was political will for unification, it was proclaimed by all that it was one language and one Yugoslavian people. When the political will for separate identities arose, the story of four nations and four languages (the 4th being Montenegrin) prevailed, along with the difficulties of explaining the whole situation to the foreign community.


----------



## thelastchoice

Thanks a lot dark_helmut.


----------



## Blinn

After reading this thread, I've decided to treat Serbian, Bosnian,  Croatian and Montenegrin as separate languages no matter how minor the  differences are. Something tells me these four languages are going to  become increasingly different from each other as time goes on and each  establish a distinct identity native to their home countries...and I  must say I'm all for it. 

One reason I like Europe so much is the many different languages that are spoken here; I like the variety.

I  come from the UK, so I know as much about the Balkan region as the next  idiot but that doesn't change the fact that I highly support the  development of new languages in the world. Some people may disagree with  me and say that we should all speak the same language but people like  that tend not to appreciate the finer things about a foreign language.  To me, it's a work of art. We should all be able to speak the same  language out of necessity if we have nothing else in common, but also be  able to use any others that we know when we can for the sake of it.  You'll make a lot more friends that way. Who wants to live in a world  that only knew English?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Blinn said:


> After reading this thread, I've decided to treat Serbian, Bosnian,  Croatian and Montenegrin as separate languages no matter how minor the  differences are. Something tells me these four languages are going to  become increasingly different from each other as time goes on and each  establish a distinct identity native to their home countries...and I  must say I'm all for it.



If I claimed that the English spoken in Ireland was a different language to the English you speak; would you support that too?


----------



## Blinn

Pedro y La Torre said:


> If I claimed that the English spoken in Ireland was a different language to the English you speak; would you support that too?



If there are noticeable differences between Irish English and British English then sure I would. Otherwise, it's just English being spoken in another country.


----------



## Duya

Noticeability is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Blinn said:


> If there are noticeable differences between Irish English and British English then sure I would. Otherwise, it's just English being spoken in another country.



I'm sure I could "create" some if I wished; it doesn't mean I'm speaking a different language though; any more than a Serb is speaking a different language to a Croat.


----------



## itreius

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I'm sure I could "create" some if I wished; it doesn't mean I'm speaking a different language though; any more than a Serb is speaking a different language to a Croat.



Are Croats in Croatian Zagorje speaking the same language as Serbs?


----------



## vianie

Apparently they are not. However that may be rather an unsurpriseful dialect matter and not the standard language-wise thing.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

itreius said:


> Are Croats in Croatian Zagorje speaking the same language as Serbs?



Apparently not, but it seems that Croats from other areas cannot understand that form of speech either.

I'll bet that Croatian newscasters are speaking the same language as in Belgrade and Sarajevo though, however it might be packaged on the tin.


----------



## itreius

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Apparently not



It's not all too apparent. Linguists consistently treat it as the same language despite the lack of mutual intelligibility.

At the sime time, if the reasoning behind such a categorization were to be applied to some _other groups of lects_ in the region, it would be immediately frowned upon by the same linguists and would be deemed non-scientific. The term language is ultimately useless.

Had Norwegians continued using the term _Dano-Norwegian_ perhaps it'd still be considered the same language.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> I'll bet that Croatian newscasters are speaking the same language as in Belgrade and Sarajevo though, however it might be packaged on the tin.



On the other hand, more often than not, I find myself not understanding cooking recipes written in Serbian.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

The weaknesses in the dialect versus language categorization are evident. However, if we throw it over completely we risk falling into anarchy. As I understand it, it is Croats themselves who oppose treating Kajikavian as a separate language to "Croatian", or is this incorrect?

I'd consider a language any form of speech that is mutually intelligible with another and shares a history of standardization and literary commonality. Serbo-Croatian has this. English (British, American etc.) has this.

If Croatians maintain that Croatian is a different language to "Bosnian", "Serbian" etc. fair enough, I'm happy to accept it. But I'd note that university faculties in Ireland, at least, give courses in Serbo-Croatian, and I have read that international authorities refuse to provide translation facilities from Croatian to Serbian on the grounds that "they're the same language".


----------



## itreius

Pedro y La Torre said:


> But I'd note that university faculties in Ireland, at least, give courses in Serbo-Croatian



The treatment of Scandinavian languages on universities is oftentimes similar, with different variants frequently being taught only for a semester or two, as _modules_, rather than fullblown language courses, and with all of it being subsumed under the _Scandinavian_ major.

There's a lot of shared history in standardization as well as literary commonality that you speak of in the case of Danish and Norwegian.

I don't see how this pertains in any way to what the people should call the language they speak, though. There's no reason why there can't be situations where, for practical reasons, BCMS/Serbo-Croatian/etc. can't be treated in one fashion while being treated differently in other situations.

Being of the opinion that they're strictly one language will not make your Serbian translation in the fields of law, administration, cooking, etc. suddenly feel understandable let alone natural to someone from Croatia. I'm not sure if that is the case with Irish English and British English (disregarding phonetics), though.


----------



## Sizif

I'd say that you can hardly get an honest and unbiased answer to this question from either Serbs, Croats, or Bosniaks... our vision is often blurred by politics, culture and ideology. However, if you ask foreigners who learned a standard, academic form of any of those three languages later in life, they will invariably tell you that Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are just different dialects of the same language - once you learn one of them, you will easily understand over 95% of any other, which is statistically sufficient to be classified as the same language. 

On top of that is the fact that most differences are minor spelling nuances, even if you don't know what "vjerojatno", "verovatno" and "vjerovatno" mean - you will easily and correctly assume they are the same word.

Another experiment you might try - if you open up a daily newspaper in Croatian, and you highlight words that are completely different than Serbian or Bosnian words representing the same meaning, you'd end up with less than 5% of highlighted words, again. If you ignore those similar words as in the example above, you practically have no major differences in any typical newspaper-style text.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

itreius said:


> I don't see how this pertains in any way to what the people should call the language they speak, though. There's no reason why there can't be situations where, for practical reasons, BCMS/Serbo-Croatian/etc. can't be treated in one fashion while being treated differently in other situations.
> 
> Being of the opinion that they're strictly one language will not make your Serbian translation in the fields of law, administration, cooking, etc. suddenly feel understandable let alone natural to someone from Croatia. I'm not sure if that is the case with Irish English and British English (disregarding phonetics), though.



I think those are all fair points. We should label people (and languages) how they want to be labelled. I can't pretend to understand the emotional issues around whether one speaks "Croatian", "Serbian", "Montenegrin" etc.
What can I say, you're looking to be multi-lingual from birth.


----------



## WillyAbs

Hello everybody,

I think the differences some of you refer to are rather signs of dialects. I can give an example from Russian. The word "vjerojatno", "verovatno" and "vjerovatno" from post #312 in Russian may sound like 'verojatno', 'verajatno', 'virojatno', 'virajatno' (вероятно, вераятно, вироятно, вираятно) depending on region, culture and so on. But this doesn't mean that the speakers use different languages. The literary language is Russian. As for vocabulary, it may differ too. Moscow and St. Petersburg seem to have no much difference, but the common enterance in an appartment house in Msc is 'pod'ezd' (подъезд), im Spb - 'paradnaja' (парадная), the border stone in Msc 'bordjur' (бордюр), in Spb - 'porebrik' (поребрик). In some regions people never ask 'Where are you going?', they ask 'Are you going far?', instead of 'What is the price?' they ask 'Is it expencieve?'. But all of them (us) think that we speak the same language.


----------



## itreius

WillyAbs said:


> 'verojatno', 'verajatno', 'virojatno', 'virajatno' (вероятно, вераятно, вироятно, вираятно) depending on region, culture and so on. But this doesn't mean that the speakers use different languages



The problem is that you could boil down most if not all differences between Norwegian Bokmal and Danish to the same. It is very difficult to make a Norwegian Bokmal text unintelligible to Danes and vice-versa.

Additionally, Norwegian Bokmal and Danish used to be called Dano-Norwegian before the countries split. There is no objective view of what constitutes one language and what constitutes two different languages.


----------



## Albatal

I see the discussion has long been paused. Let me bring it back to life 
I'd like to discuss a particular feature which exists in Serbian language but not Bosnian or Croatian, which is the phonetic transliteration of foreign names. For those of you who don't get what that is I'll explain. 
In Serbian media sites, such as news websites, which I visit from time to time, I notice the name Catherine Ashton (EU foreign policy chief) is spelled as "Ketrin Ešton". This probably occurs because it's a rule in Serbian language to "Read as you write and write as you read" meaning each word should be spelled exactly how it is read. However, to be honest I find this very problematic, let me explain why...
A Serbian friend of mine is married to a Lebanese women, her name is Tharwa Shawaf (Not literally, I changed it a bit, but get the point). When she applied for citizenship, her name in the passport was spelled as "Tharua Šauaf", dramatically different. She then had to return the passport and ask for her name to be printed in English. Interestingly, had her husband been Croatian, they would have spelled her name exactly how she is used to writing it (in English) in the Croatian passport. 
In Croatian and Bosnian this change does NOT happen. For instant, If a Croatian news site is talking about an Al-Qaida attack somewhere they would spell Al-Qaida just like in English, however a Serbian website would spell it as "Al-kajda". Now for you this may not seem as big deal, but, to me it is because actually, visiting many Serbian forums I've noticed they are always discussing language. It's either that one thinks Cyrillic should be used instead of Latin somewhere or someone complaining how the alphabets ž,ć,č,đ and š are often scraped out or how the Serbian airlines have gramatical mistakes in their food menu or bathroom sign.
Let me tell you where this problem of phonetic transliteration is problematic, If you have a person named Walter and another named Cather. In Serbian their names would be spelled as "Valter" and "Keter". Now I don't see how W=V in pronunciation nor how T=Th! It can be offensive when you call Walter "Volter" right? I know that some Serbs can't pronounce "W" and "Th" well, but most can.
But that all is unimportant. The real problem is here. Air Serbia (the new Serbian flag carrier) is spelled as Er Srbija in Serbian. Now that's is fine as long as it is not the company which spells it that way! I mean imagine the company has a brochure which says "dobrodošli na Er Srbiji" (This sentence may not be grammatically correct, my Serbian is bad!). The company will never do that, instead they'd PROBABLY say "dobrodošli na Air Serbia-i". Now this from a Serbian linguistic point of view is incorrect but from a Croatian/Bosnian point of view is perfectly correct. Now I believe it gets more problematic when the phonetic transliteration is done incorrectly. For example, Croatia Arlines is phonetically transliterated in Serbian media sites as "Kroacija Erlajns". If you try to read it in Serbian it won't really sound anything like the way it's pronounced, that's why I believe they should transliterate it as "Kroašja Erlajnz" instead. Morever, some words can have more than a way of transliterating them and that is problematic indeed.
I'd like you people to tell me how in formal Serbian the famous band "One direction" is spelled! If you pronounce it the American way you would transliterate it as "Uan Direkšon" but if you pronounce it the British way you'd transliterate it as "Uan Dajrekšon". Perhaps "Uan" should be "Van" I don't know!!
You see, that is exactly why I believe this phonetic transliteration should become an optional feature, I mean, you shouldn't strictly do it! In Croatian they would usually leave a word the way it is spelled in English (even if it's originally Arabic or Russian..), but even they have some transliteration in their language, for example, the Saudi capital's name is "Rijad" in Croatian and not "Riyadh" but the UAE's capital Abu Dhabi is spelled the same as English, "Abu Dhabi". However in Serbian every single word, even the ones difficult to transliterate (Like Croatia Airlines) and the one which have an obvious pronunciation (like Air Serbia). 
This should change, because Serbs (informally on the internet) already write foreign names the way they are spelled originally (of course unless it's a language were you have characters not available in their keyboard such as ñ or á were they would "Anglicize" them to "n" and "a" but that is not a "phonetic transliteration" remember that).
I know some will tell me well look, Serbian uses Cyrillic and Latin, and that commonly in many Serbian websites you can choose to switch between them and that foreign names like John will become "ЈОХН" in Cyrillic and that a name as "Alexander" can not be changed to Cyrillic. 
I give you credit for the argument, however, that is a technical problem. As I've mentioned most Serbs don't phonetically transliterate foreign names, that is considered informal, but notice that even if these people are traditionalist/nationalist and use Cyrillic Serbian they are likely to leave the name in English even in a sentence which is all Cyrillic. I've seen that many times. An example would be: Ја сам велики фан Rihanna. It looks awkward there, but how about, if we allow this in proper Serbian, where you put the foreign name in quotation marks? Or maybe if a site uses only Latinica can leave it as it is (Rihanna) but a website which has the option of switching can put it in brackets or quotation marks so that the word is not transliterated when you change to Cyrillic. In the Serbian Wikipedia for example, you can choose to switch from Cyrillic to Latin. You have to edit an article in Cyrillic though, and say in the article you need to write a word in English, you will have to put it in "{}" in order for the transliterating software to leave it as it is. I believe that is could be applied to Serbian websites too.

_To sum up, the solution I offer to this issue are as follows:
1-Have an option in the passport application form for your name to be printed in a different language, where you tick the option and not get your name spelled wrong then have to return it and wait months! A Serb in diaspora does not really want to spell his son George's name as "Džordž"!
2-Make this phonetic transliteration feature optional, do not overdo it especially when it is obvious, as in "Air Serbia".
 3-If your website has the transliteration feature either get a smart software to transliterate where a word between "{}" is left as it is or use the transliteration as an optional feature which suits your case.
 4-If your website is all in Latinic stop phonetically transliterating words.
5-(you may not like this) The Serbian constitution should be amended so that Cyrillic is not the only official script but also Latin, so that when people's information are registered at Serbian authorities they can spell their names just like they do it and also to save the costs of for example, bi-alphabetical road signs which are so unnecessary in a country where everybody can read Latin! It was so stupid in 2006, in my opinion, to make Cyrillic the only official script where Serbian has been using Latin for almost 100 years! Till now many governmental conferences and websites don't even use Cyrillic and this is presumably "unconstitutional"! You can choose to add a clause in the constitution that Latinic can be used whenever it is more practical (such as in ID cards, Vehicle plates, road signs, driver's licenses and passports) I'm sure some of you have complained how the Serbian ID cards are printed in Cyrillic and are so useless outside Serbia (except maybe in Montenegro and Bosnia). When Serbia joins the EU these ID cards will become travel documents, you can't leave them in Cyrillic for god sake! 
 For the record, don't most Serbs believe that Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian are the same language, then why do they have a feature which doesn't exist in those languages. Another point I'd like to specify which was raised is the fact that standard Bosnian officially used two scripts (Latin and Cyrillic) but no Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) will ever use Cyrillic nor a Bosnian website which calls the language it's using "Bosnian" or "Bosanski"
 Pozz_


----------



## Albatal

Also I'd like to raise a poll here.
choose:
1-Most Serbs (60% and up) prefer Latin.
2-Most Serbs prefer Cyrillic.
3-Most Serbs don't prefer either.

My answer would be:
1
Specifically, I believe, 80% of Serbs prefer Latin, 10% prefer Cyrillic (and are so obsessed with "preserving" it), they are mostly nationalists and would never use Latin except perhaps when texting in their cellphones. They think everything should be in Cyrillic simply because "It's the official script" and that Latin Serbian is actually "Croatian" (lol). Part of this group are the traditionalist which are not so obsessed with Cyrillic but are proud to be Serbs and proud of their "historical alphabet" and their Orthodox Christianity but would never encourage anyone to use it.
The last 10% switch from this to that and have both installed, I call these people "Let's be practical". They would have their Facebook name written in Cyrillic but would always type in Latin..... they are my favorite ! XD You gotta love Serbs man!!


----------



## Gnoj

A lot of people who "prefer" Latin use standard Latin without diacritics (S instead of Š, C instead of Č/Ć) and that's because it doesn't require switching.


----------



## Albatal

Another topic I'd like to raise, if I may is "Montenegrin language". As you all know there is a current political movement in Montenegro by the ruling party to create a new forth language called "Montenegrin". They are actually going even farther than Croats and Bosniaks by creating the alphabets new alphabets, ź and ś! This is dangerous!
I'd like to know why, even though, "Montenegrins" are orthodox Christians (70% SERB orthodox Christians, 30% "Montenegrin Orthodox") they never use Cyrillic anywhere. I mean, who said Cyrillic=Serbian?! In Montenegro, even though Cyrillic is taught in schools in real life it is invisible! 

To be honest, I'd like the same to happen in Serbia, because people already prefer Latin! Cyrillic is also a very very confusing alphabet and makes the language even more difficult to learn for all foreigners!
You have three different forms to write Cyrillic I believe, proper, cursive and Italic. An alphabet can look extremely different in each! :S
I'll give you examples where it's so confusing.
1-The letter "т" changes to "m" when written in Italic, the letter "д" suddenly becomes a "g", the letter "и" becomes "u" :O
2-The letters З and Ч look exactly like the numbers 3 and 4!
3-Ш looks like "W", П looks like "n", Ј is presumably a Latin letter but exists in Serbian Cyrillic but not any other Cyrillic.
4-J,X,P,C,H,Y although exist in English they do not sound the same!
5-The letters Л and Д are often replaced by Greek letters Λ and Δ.
Should I give more examples?!
Not to mention that Cyrillic is usually perceived as something communist/ Russian/ Autocratic, because of the Soviet union and how it imposed Cyrillic on the former states...


----------



## Albatal

Gnoj said:


> A lot of people who "prefer" Latin use standard Latin without diacritics (S instead of Š, C instead of Č/Ć) and that's because it doesn't require switching.


Of course, I call it bold Latin , it happens with many languages trust me. Croats and Bosnians do it too. I dislike it personally though, because I can't spot the language easily when all the letters exist in English if you know what I mean. diacritics makes it obvious which language it is as Serbo-Croatian has a unique one, đ.
Hey tell me about Macedonian do you people use Latinic often?


----------



## Albatal

Sizif said:


> Another experiment you might try - if you open up a daily newspaper in Croatian, and you highlight words that are completely different than Serbian or Bosnian words representing the same meaning, you'd end up with less than 5% of highlighted words, again. If you ignore those similar words as in the example above, you practically have no major differences in any typical newspaper-style text.


When you say "different than Bonsian or Serbian" you seem to imply that Serbian and Bosnian are 99% identical and that Bosnian is a very artificial language with no real differences with Serbian, even if they try to make it more different I don't think they'll find any word which is historically uniquely Bosnian unlike Croatian (which even changed the names of Months). I totally agree with you! the word Passport for instance, is Pasoš in Serbian and Bosnian and even Croatian but Croatians seem to insist their language is different and would never call a passport "Pasoš" but instead they call it "Putovnica". I don't get why Croats think they are better and different than the others! Is it because their country has such a long sea line? Don't get me wrong Croats are amazing people but there is an element of arrogance many Croats developed especially after the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. Perhaps because the west supported them.


----------



## Gnoj

Albatal said:


> Of course, I call it bold Latin , it happens with many languages trust me. Croats and Bosnians do it too. I dislike it personally though, because I can't spot the language easily when all the letters exist in English if you know what I mean. diacritics makes it obvious which language it is as Serbo-Croatian has a unique one, đ.
> Hey tell me about Macedonian do you people use Latinic often?



We use standard Latin without diacritics in chat, social networks and other types of texting, including cases where Cyrillic is not available or it's available, but byte-costy (SMS). Most people use Latin out of laziness, but also because the punctuation marks on the default Macedonian keyboard layout given by Microsoft are placed differently, so a lot of switching is required, which is annoying. Other than that we use Cyrillic almost exclusively.


----------



## Albatal

So I have a question, I know someone who's grandmother is Croatian but lived in Novi Sad, Serbia and got married to a Serb in the former Yugoslavia. They left the country since the war and now live in the US. My question is do you think his grandmother talks to members of the Croatian embassy in a Croatian accent/language, in other words will she be able to distinguish them Serbian and Croatian (since she left the country before those difference emerged) or will she speak with a Serbian accent due to her husband's influence and her living much of her life in Novi Sad or would she have perhaps a mix of both???

You know how Croatians can deny she is a Croat if she doesn't speak like them (I'm not stereotyping here!), if they are corrupt at the embassy they might even tell her to go to the Serbian embassy, where surprisingly she'll be very welcome. I KNOW PEOPLE WHO WENT THROUGH THIS, trust me! I'm not making things up nor am I saying it happens everywhere or often. Also if the woman changed her religion from Catholicism to something else they would also tell her she's not a Croat! I'm not even making things up. Croats (of course the nationalist ones, a visible proportion of society) could do their best to have the least number of Serbs in their country. That's the feeling I get, you might think I'm biased but I'm not. I mean, Croats living in Serbia lead perfect lives unlike Serbs in Croatia who are denied even the right to use their script. Serb tourists also often get their car plates destroyed in Croatia, ever asked yourself why Serbs don't do the same? Maybe they do it to prove their point that Yugoslavia worked, can't deny it. I know someone will tell me about the old Serbs republic in Croatia and what Serbs did to Croats there. Another will tell me about operation storm story and stuff. But get real man, Serbs do not hate Croats like Croats hate Serbs and don't try to convince me that Serbs did worse things. I've researched on this myself! I mean sorry for saying this, but that's the feeling I get. Both have done equally horrible things, but TODAY, it's kind of true that Serbs are more forgiving. Let's not get so political though and continue discussing language, I wrote this information to tell you why I asked my complicated question. Not to bash the Croats and not to defend Serbs. PLEASE DON'T GET ME WRONG! Personally I'd love to drawn all Serb and Croat nationalists in the Adriatic!
PS: I am not Serb or Croat or Bosniak or Montenegrin or Slovene or even Macedonian 
PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU FIND THIS POST OFFENSIVE, I AM READY TO DELETE IT!


----------



## Albatal

Do you use "y" or "j" instead of j? "Sh" or "s" instead of "ш"? I am curious because your government uses "Sh" and "y" I believe.


----------



## Gnoj

Albatal said:


> Do you use "y" or "j" instead of j? "Sh" or "s" instead of "ш"? I am curious because your government uses "Sh" and "y" I believe.


What government uses "Sh"? "Ш" is transcribed into "Sh" in Macedonian passports, that's true, but prior to 2007 it was "Š". We don't use "Y" at all. Other than that, our use of the Latin script is pretty chaotic and inconsistent. "Ш" sometimes is "S", sometimes is "Sh" and so on.


----------



## Albatal

Gnoj said:


> What government uses "Sh"? "Ш" is transcribed into "Sh" in Macedonian passports, that's true, but prior to 2007 it was "Š". We don't use "Y" at all. Other than that, our use of the Latin script is pretty chaotic and inconsistent. "Ш" sometimes is "S", sometimes is "Sh" and so on.



Aha, thanks for your input, appreciate it. Sometimes I wonder why didn't Serbo-Croatian influence Macedonian in the former Yugoslavia enough to develop it's own standard Latin version... you seem to love Cyrillic faaar more than the Serbs.


----------



## Gnoj

Albatal said:


> Aha, thanks for your input, appreciate it. Sometimes I wonder why didn't Serbo-Croatian influence Macedonian in the former Yugoslavia enough to develop it's own standard Latin version... you seem to love Cyrillic faaar more than the Serbs.


We do have our own standard Latin version and it's almost the same as the Serbo-Croatian one, but we have Ǵǵ instead of Đđ and Ḱḱ instead of Ćć. It was taught in 2nd grade when I was a child, but I don't remember it ever being used anywhere. One possible reason we don't use Latin as much as Serbs do, is because our language is different and, as opposed to Serbian, there's not much point in writing Macedonian with Latin script only to make it readable for Croats and Slovenes, when in reality they would still need to have learned or been exposed to the language to fully understand it. And yes, I myself prefer the Cyrillic script when I write in my own language. But honestly, I prefer Latin when I read Serbian and/or Croatian movie subtitles, books and magazines.


----------



## Albatal

natasha2000 said:


> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would really like to see an example of Serbian written in Arabic letters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me help you with that, having lived in Dubai for quite some time and taken numerous Arabic lessons.
> This are random sentence taken from a Serbian website:
> 1-Šta je zaustavilo najveću mašinu na svetu?
> Arabic script: *شتا يه زاوستافيلو نايڤيتشو ماشينو سڤيتو
> *Note that "*ڤ*" does not exist in Arabic but in Persian (I think). The Persians created many "Arabic script" letters to correspond to sounds like g, v, p and others which don't exist in Arabic since they exist in Persian tongue. However, Arabs in rare occasions use them. It's unnecessary because even if the letter say v does not correspond to any one Arabic letter, the letter f does. Now f and v sound slightly different for sure, BUT, when reading an Arabic word such as "Villa" (of course borrowed from English) They read it with the v sound even when it is actually written with the letter "ف" (=f). Arabs can pronounce all English letters except "p" which few can't, not all.
> Anyway let's not deviate from the topic, I wrote this to prove to you a point which is the fact that ANY language can be written in ANY script. The creation of some alphabets never means the language is not using that script.
> Even Arabic for your knowledge, can be written in Latin letters. You'll be surprised to know that actually, this "Latinized/Romanized" form of Arabic is very very commonly use. Today I believe every young Arab is familiar with it. Here's the shocking fact for you, it's extremely useless and very informal, but they do it because they think it's "cool"! I once noticed an Arab friend of mine was texting his friend, they were switching from "Romanized" Arabic to Arabic several times in the same chat. When I asked him he said it's sometimes easier (makes the sentence shorter) to write in English letters and sometimes in Arabic! I'm not sure who invented it or why, maybe it was originally for Arabs in diaspora which have no Arabic in their keyboard to communicate with others back home. Many young "globalized" Arabs are even ashamed of their language.
> Anyway, in this (very informal) "Englishized Arabic" writing they use numbers to express letters which don't exist in English. (3') for example corresponds to the sound of ("r" in French) which is the alphabet غ in Arabic. They use the numbers 2,3,5,6,7,8 and 9 to correspond to different Arabic letters. This form of Romanized Arabic, even to an Arab used to it, is extremely confusing because Arabs have different dialects (Syrians different to Egyptians (very) different to Moroccans different to Emirati...etc). It's really complicated and you'll never understand it.
> I mentioned this for another propose which is to show you how all those Arabs are united by the same language but how each country has it's own dialect but never has any tried to "create" it's own language (example: Tunisian language!). However in news channels, Magazines, Newspapers and formal websites articles are written in "formal Arabic" which all Arabs understand and study in school but never communicate in!
> You see Croats and Serbs (and Montenegrins and Bosniaks) are perhaps more connected than Arabs but unfortunately since they fought each other in the war and to an extent hate each other (collectively) now they have different languages... it's sad we are discussing whether Serbian and Croatian are the same language when we look at Arabs and see the sense of unity they all (22 countries) have despite their differences! I mean you have black Arabs, white Arabs, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sunni, Shia, Gulf Arabians, Levantine, Egyptians, North Africans.. etc they hate to divide their respective countries and rarely get into civil wars and in the end unite back (such as in Yemen where you had a sectarian civil way, and in Iraq, where half the population is Sunni and the other is Shia but would never divide Iraq despite how they actually hate each other). Some will say well they are different countries, well actually, they were united in the past but they weren't the ones who created all these countries, it was the different colonizers (Portuguese empire, British Empire, French Empire, Italy.... etc)
> Hope this post is not offensive or off-topic. I feel it's kind of related.
> Cheers.
> I'm still waiting for the discussion to get lively again! I know it's been 8 years since it was started!
Click to expand...


----------



## Albatal

natasha2000 said:


> All these words you gave as examples are very well known Croatian words, they are not invented, not now nor anytime. I can add *kruh*, or *vlak*, or *dapače*, or *marelica,* or *štednjak*, or all month names, for example, or many other nice, as you say, Slavic words that are preserved in Croatian and in Serbian foreign words are used instead...
> 
> Neocroatian words would be the words as *zrakomlat* for helicopter, as I already mentioned. Hope you will not try to claim that *zrakomlat* is also old Croatian word...



I want to add two more examples:
putovnica-pasoš-passport
veleposlanstvo-ambasada-embassy (Natasha already gave this)
Tell you why I gave these example because I believe that "putovnica" actually means "travel document", I think Serbs already know the word. I think Croats use the word "putovnica" just to feel they speak a different language or something! Even though, strictly speaking, a travel document and a passport are not necessarily the same thing!
Also "veleposlanstvo" actually (literally) means "foreign mission" (I believe), which makes sense for Serbians (Can't say if it exists in Serbian, but the word is clearly a combination of words). I'm sure Croats know the word Ambasada but they choose to use the word "veleposlanstvo" to show they are different.
Now I wonder if this applies to the other words like "časnik(officer)", "zrakoplov (airplane)" (maybe literally means Flying object )??


----------



## Albatal

natasha2000 said:


> No language in the world has it. The tendency in Serbian to trascribe the foreign names is due to the use of Cyrillic alphabet. We use it indeferently together with Latinic script (although there are some who insist on Cyrillic as the only alphabet of Serbian, but this is only a demonstration of a narrow minded people). Now, imagine how any foreign name would be written in Cyrillic, in its original version? Ridiculous. Therefore, it is transcribed. It is done by all languages that use Cyrillic alphabet. Because it is LOGICAL. Croats chose to use only Latin alphabet, so there is no problem to write foreign names in their original version. LOGICAL, again.


It's great that someone talked about this, I already discussed it and how it's not actually a good thing! Anyway let me correct you on something. You said "No language in the world has it". I assume you were referring to languages which use the Latin alphabet, but even that is false. Lithuanian and Latvian do have this feature too (even though they use Latinic letters). Read my original post discussing this to know why it's not really a nice "peculiarity"!


----------



## Albatal

beclija said:


> el_tigre: Word lists prove anything and nothing. I can easily provide a list that "proves" that Austrian German is not possibly a variant of German because its words are closer to Serbian than to German as spoken in Germany. Here we go:
> 
> Germany:Austria:Serbian
> 
> Meerrettisch:Kren:hren
> Tomatearadaiser: paradajz
> Johannisbeere:Ribisel:ribizla
> Abitur:Matura:matura
> Deckelafond: plafon
> Sahne:Schlag(obers):šlag
> Pfannkuchenalatschinke: palačinka
> Sauerkirsche:Weichsel:višnja
> 
> (note that all of these are standard language in Austria, no dialectal variants included; except for "Decke" and "Tomate", which can be used along with their more "Austrian" synonyms, the terms from Germany are very alien to the ears of most Austrians and might well not be understood.)
> 
> just showing that word lists are useless and you should better argue on grounds of structural differences.


Wow, your examples are perfect. Just like there isn't an "Austrian language" (+ German) there shouldn't be "Serbian" and "Croatian"! End of story. I made my mind about it, it's the SAME language. Call it whatever you want!


----------



## bob.rock

If all these languages are different then my twin daughters are polyglots since birth. They watch cartoons with both Croatian/Serbian synchronization equally with ease. End of story. All of these "languages" are just dialects, all attempts to make them different is just political..


----------



## Милан

A Serbian friend of mine is married to a Lebanese women, her name is  Tharwa Shawaf (Not literally, I changed it a bit, but get the point).  When she applied for citizenship, her name in the passport was spelled  as "Tharua Šauaf", dramatically different. 
Tharwa Shawaf would be in Serbian Tarva Šauaf. Tharua is just wrong...
Pravopis Matice srpske: arabic names
w=v (except in Aswan=Asuan )
th=t
aw=au (except Fawzi=Favzi)

however a Serbian website would spell it as "Al-kajda". 
Al Kaida with i.

If  you have a person named Walter and another named Cather. In Serbian  their names would be spelled as "Valter" and "Keter". Now I don't see  how W=V in pronunciation nor how T=Th! It can be offensive when you call  Walter "Volter" right? I know that some Serbs can't pronounce "W" and  "Th" well, but most can.
Most can???  Not true, especially for the Th sound, no way. We don't have these sounds /w/, /θ/ in our language.
Walter  is in Serbian Volter and that's how we pronounce it. Croatians will  spell it Walter but again they'll also pronounce it like we do. Should  Jelena (Janković) be offended when they call her name in English  JelEIna? No, cause you (english speaking people) can't pronounce /e/  without making it /eɪ/. Novak is pronounced in English like noʊvak because you don't have /o/ sound except in /oʊ/ .Every language has its own rules (I hope so) and we should respect that. 
Do english speaking people know that c in Mercedes is actually pronounced like /ts/ sound, or z-sound in pizza? 
Most likely noooooot.They pronounce it with /s/, Italians, on the other hand, with /tʃ/ sound...

But  that all is unimportant. The real problem is here. Air Serbia (the new  Serbian flag carrier) is spelled as Er Srbija in Serbian. Now that's is  fine as long as it is not the company which spells it that way! 
I agree.

The company will never do that, instead they'd PROBABLY say "dobro došli na Air Serbia-i".
Say or write? Dobro došli na Er Srbiju (would be in Serbian).

For  example, Croatia Arlines is phonetically transliterated in Serbian  media sites as "Kroacija Erlajns". If you try to read it in Serbian it  won't really sound anything like the way it's pronounced, that's why I  believe they should transliterate it as "Kroejša Erlajns" instead. Morever, some words can have more than a way of transliterating them and that is problematic indeed.
We should but it's too late for that.


I'd like you people to tell me how in formal Serbian the famous band  "One direction" is spelled! If you pronounce it the American way you  would transliterate it as "Uan Direkšon" but if you pronounce it the  British way you'd transliterate it as "Uan Dajrekšon". Perhaps "Uan"  should be "Van" I don't know!!
Van direkšon in our wikipedia.

You see, that is exactly why I believe this phonetic transliteration  should become an optional feature, I mean, you shouldn't strictly do it!
What about Polish surnames? We had one football player from Poland Tomasz Rząsa. How would you pronounce his last name in English?In Serbia his name was Tomaš Žonsa .Notice the last name! Rząsa=ŽonsaPolish pronunciation: [ˈtɔmaʂ ˈʐɔ̃sa] Would you expect that? Nooo, neither did we or we would call him Rasa, Zasa...you name it.

because Serbs (informally on the internet) write neznam, wolim te, zxelim te, yzweeni, mawa, swatka, cxekam te,srtze, jepte se, FYXO MISLISH DA SY DV0RAC SCHENBRoON E PA NYSI YADNICE SAM0 SY eTNO S3LO STANISheeћ 


As I've mentioned most Serbs don't phonetically transliterate foreign names
cause they don't know the rules or they are too lazy 

Ја сам велики фан Rihanna. 
 Aaaaaa where did you saw that? Rihanna is Rijana.


 A Serb in diaspora does not really want to spell his son George's name as "Džordž"!
That's really his problem, in Serbian he is Džordž whether he likes it or not.

2-Make this phonetic transliteration feature optional, do not overdo it especially when it is obvious, as in "Air Serbia".
It's already optional (but not recommended).

It  was so stupid in 2006, in my opinion, to make Cyrillic the only  official script where Serbian has been using Latin for almost 100 years!

1990 Ustav

*Član 8*​ U Republici Srbiji u službenoj *je upotrebi srpskohrvatski jezik i  ćiriličko pismo*, a latiničko pismo je u službenoj upotrebi na način  utvrđen zakonom.

 Na područjima Republike Srbije gde žive narodnosti u službenoj  upotrebi su istovremeno i njihovi jezici i pisma, na način utvrđen  zakonom.

2006. 


When Serbia joins the EU (ahahahahah 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) these ID cards will become travel documents, you can't leave them in Cyrillic for god sake! 
Yes we can, we'll add latin forms like Bulgarians do (Милан/Milan).


----------



## DarkChild

Albatal said:


> Aha, thanks for your input, appreciate it. Sometimes I wonder why didn't Serbo-Croatian influence Macedonian in the former Yugoslavia enough to develop it's own standard Latin version... you seem to love Cyrillic faaar more than the Serbs.



You mean its influence hasn't been destructive enough for you? 

Maybe because they see themselves as the homeland of Cyrillic (which they're not but that's another topic  ) so switching to Latin is a national treason. In Bulgaria at least that's the case.


----------



## thegreathoo

el_tigre said:


> First of all , you must know that croatian has 3 main dialects: chakavian(*čakavski*) , kajkavian(*kajkavski*) and shtokavian(*štokavski*). From lingugistic point of view they are *separate languages*.



Korcula and Zagorje (parts of chakavian i kajkavian areas) are so different, they cannot be considered Croatian, and they are not merely dialects.  They need their own name.
On the other hand, BCMS are dialects of one language.


----------



## Kailee

This one stood out, so I have to make a correction... TRUDNA is not really a slovenian word. The correct word is UTRUJENA (tired). "Trudna" was used in the old days of Yugoslavia when all nations were mixed in the region and we used serbian-croatian language. It was even taught in schools.


----------



## jadeite_85

Kailee said:


> This one stood out, so I have to make a correction... TRUDNA is not really a slovenian word. The correct word is UTRUJENA (tired). "Trudna" was used in the old days of Yugoslavia when all nations were mixed in the region and we used serbian-croatian language. It was even taught in schools.



Yet, was used by Prešeren in the XIX century in the poem "Pod oknom": "Luna sije, kladvo bije *trudne*, pozne ure že". And it is still in use in the dialects of Trieste. I agree it is not a good choice. I would mark it dialectal, old-fashioned, but still Slovene.


----------



## pastet89

What about Czech/Slovak? Aren't they as close as Serbian and Croatian? Why no one bothers discussing if they are two different languages then? I have compared texts in Slovak and Czech and I can say that they are absolutely no more different than Serbian and Croatian between themselves. Also Czechs and Slovaks communicate freely each in its own language to each other and do not need any translator, so the logic is the same.


----------



## Azori

pastet89 said:


> What about Czech/Slovak? Aren't they as close as Serbian and Croatian? Why no one bothers discussing if they are two different languages then? I have compared texts in Slovak and Czech and I can say that they are absolutely no more different than Serbian and Croatian between themselves. Also Czechs and Slovaks communicate freely each in its own language to each other and do not need any translator, so the logic is the same.


But... Slovak and Czech do differ more than BCMS languages, don't they?? In comparison texts most of the words (usually more than a half or so) would appear at least slightly different (not to mention pronunciation differences which aren't marked in spelling). For example, here are a few texts from some product packagings (some words occur only once as they are identical in both languages - at least in the written form) - _day cream, bath foam__, baking powder._


----------



## DarkChild

Azori said:


> But... Slovak and Czech do differ more than BCMS languages, don't they?? In comparison texts most of the words (usually more than a half or so) would appear at least slightly different (not to mention pronunciation differences which aren't marked in spelling). For example, here are a few texts from some product packagings (some words occur only once as they are identical in both languages - at least in the written form) - _day cream, bath foam__, baking powder._



^^

In BCS words also aren't always identical but I think they are closer than Czech and Slovak. I don't know if this difference will grow with time.


----------



## pastet89

Azori said:


> But... Slovak and Czech do differ more than BCMS languages, don't they?? In comparison texts most of the words (usually more than a half or so) would appear at least slightly different (not to mention pronunciation differences which aren't marked in spelling). For example, here are a few texts from some product packagings (some words occur only once as they are identical in both languages - at least in the written form) _._




These are text which accidently differ so much. If I want I will show you also 2 or 3 sentencies, not to mention group of words in Serbian and Croatian, which will differe even more, but this is not usual and the chance for it is much, much less than 10%. Compare a huge text in CZ and SK to avoid this variation and you will see what I am talking about. Yes, the punctoation is different, but more than 95% of the words are the same or different with one letter, such as E/IJE in SR/HR. I didn't even supposed that until few years ago, when a czech businessman asked me to find for him a bulgarian translator, and after I said I just know one slovak girl, he said with a huge confidence, "this is the same, absolutely no matter", and when I surprised repeated my question if he is sure, he again confirmed with absolute confidence that he doesn't care at all if it is czech or slovak. Unfortunately I do not speak neither CZ or SK, but I am applying a Google translation of the Lorem Ipsum text in both languages. Please, note, that even this can make it more different, because Google sometimes translates some groups of words in different way.



*Czech**Slovak*"Není nikdo, kdo miluje bolest sám , kdo hledá po ní a chce ji mít , prostě proto, že je to bolest ... "

Lorem Ipsum je prostě figuríny textu tiskařského a sázecí průmyslu. Lorem Ipsum je toto odvětví standardní figuríny textu už od roku 1500 , kdy dnes neznámý tiskař vzal galéry typu a míchaná to, aby se speciální vzorovou knihu . To přežilo nejen pět století, ale i skok do elektronické sazby , zbývající v podstatě beze změny . To bylo propagováno v roce 1960 s vydáním Letraset listů , které obsahují pasáže Lorem Ipsum , a více nedávno s DTP softwaru , jako Aldus PageMaker , včetně verzí Lorem ipsum .

Je to dlouhá prokázanou skutečností, žečtenář bude rozptylovat čitelné obsah stránky při pohledu na její uspořádání. Bod pomocí Lorem Ipsum je to, že má více či méně normální distribuci dopisů , ve srovnání s použitím " Obsah tady , obsah zde " , takže to vypadalo, jako čitelné angličtině. Mnoho DTP balíků a webových stránek vydavatelé nyní používají Lorem Ipsum jako svůj výchozí modelu textu ahledání " Lorem ipsum " poodhalí mnoho webových stránek stále ještě v plenkách . Různé verze se v průběhu let vyvíjela , někdy náhodou , někdy záměrně ( vstřikované humor a podobně )." Nie je nikto , kto miluje bolesť sám , kto hľadá po nej a chce ju mať , jednoducho preto , že je to bolesť ... "

Lorem Ipsum je jednoducho figuríny textu tlačiarenského a sádzacie priemyslu . Lorem Ipsum je toto odvetvie štandardná figuríny texte už od roku 1500, keď neznámy tlačiar zobral galery typu a miešaná to , aby sa špeciálna vzorovú knihu . To prežilo nielen päť storočí , ale aj skok do elektronickej sadzby , zostávajúce v podstate bezo zmeny . To bolo propagované v roku 1960 s vydaním Letraset listov , ktoré obsahujú pasáže Lorem Ipsum , a viac nedávno s DTP softvéru , ako Aldus PageMaker , vrátane verzií Lorem ipsum .

Je to dlhá nepopierateľnou skutočnosťou , že čitateľ bude rozptyľovať čitateľné obsah stránky pri pohľade na jej usporiadanie . Bod pomocou Lorem Ipsum je to , že má viac či menej normálne distribúciu listov , v porovnaní s použitím " Obsah tu, obsah tu " , takže to vyzeralo , ako čitateľné angličtine . Mnoho DTP balíkov a webových stránok vydavatelia teraz používajú Lorem Ipsum ako svoj predvolený modelu textu a hľadanie " Lorem ipsum " poodhalí veľa webových stránok stále ešte v plienkach . Rôzne verzie sa v priebehu rokov vyvíjala , niekedy náhodou , niekedy zámerne ( vstrekovanej humor a podobne ) .



As you can see, yes, almost every word has different punctoation, or a letter different, but the words are basically the same, at least much more than 90% of them. I see no reason why when talking for mutual intelligibility we can't say they are as close as SR/HR.


----------



## pastet89

I strongly belive that punctuation and pronanciation should not be object of discussion when talking about similarity in languages. Because, if we follow this logic, we can say that MNE is most different than SR, due to the new letters they have introduces, which is just hillarious, because MNE is just soft serbian and nothing else. HR has so much differences on all levels (gramatical, lexical, rules for writings, phonestic, etc...) but has same punctoation.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

The standardized dialect upon which Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are based is exactly the same. As far as I can see, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are like ''American'', ''Canadian'' and '' Australian'' in that they are registers of the same language with relatively small differences in vocabulary and, sometimes, grammar. The demand that they be recognized as wholly separate languages is based on ancient blood feuds.

Whereas Slovak and Czech appear to be based on demonstrably different grammatical standards stretching back a great many centuries.

I should of course confess that I am merely an outside observer looking in without any great expertise in the area, but this is how it has been explained to me previously; and the evidence seems to lend credence to it.


----------



## pastet89

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The standardized dialect upon which Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are based is exactly the same. As far as I can see, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are like ''American'', ''Canadian'' and '' Australian'' in that they are registers of the same language with relatively small differences in vocabulary and, sometimes, grammar. The demand that they be recognized as wholly separate languages is based on ancient blood feuds.
> 
> Whereas Slovak and Czech appear to be based on demonstrably different grammatical standards stretching back a great many centuries.
> 
> I should of course confess that I am merely an outside observer looking in without any great expertise in the area, but this is how it has been explained to me previously; and the evidence seems to lend credence to it.



HR differs much more than SR than American to British English. 

Yes, you are right, Czech and Slovak have more differences in grammar, as SK has one case less and some other special rules like vokal harmony, which CZ lacks. 

However, it is a fact that CZ and SK don't need translators between themselves and even TV shows like "..... is looking for talent" are being joined between two countries and using the two languages without translators.

My question was no that linguistic but practical: if both people can fluently talk about anything and understand without translator, becuase if they do not know some word on each 10, and they can explain it each other with the rest 9, this is suposed to be one language from practical point of view. If we can claim this to SR/HR, I think we can claim it as well for CZ/SK, but I am surprised why they are such less similar discussions on the CZ/SK pair.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

pastet89 said:


> HR differs much more than SR than American to British English.



Fair enough, I'll take your word on it. But even relatively distinct varieties of the same language, with widely diverging pronunciation and grammatical characteristics, such as Brazilian and European Portuguese, remain treated as the same language. 

Perhaps, to be fair, this is partly political too.



pastet89 said:


> However, it is a fact that CZ and SK don't need translators between themselves and even TV shows like "..... is looking for talent" are being joined between two countries and using the two languages without translators.
> 
> My question was no that linguistic but practical: if both people can fluently talk about anything and understand without translator, becuase if they do not know some word on each 10, and they can explain it each other with the rest 9, this is suposed to be one language from practical point of view. If we can claim this to SR/HR, I think we can claim it as well for CZ/SK, but I am surprised why they are such less similar discussions on the CZ/SK pair.



I suppose the question, again, is mostly tribal.
One could make the argument that Scots is merely a rustic dialect of modern English, or that it is a different language entirely. I don't see any means of deciding the matter definitively.

Then again, with regard to Czech and Slovak, I'm not sure whether Slovaks ever admitted that their language was the same as Czech, even when both countries were one. I _think _both sides always accepted that there was a difference.

The fact that Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian were treated as variants of the same language until the early 1990s and only ''diverged'' into separate tongues* when Yugoslavia broke up is a good hint that the ''differences'' are more emotional than tangible.

*Many people from all three states would obviously still make the argument that they were, are, and will very likely remain the same language.


----------



## whyamievenbothering

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The standardized dialect upon which Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are based is exactly the same.


What do you consider "exactly the same"? Is the separation of Shtokavian into Western and Eastern not real? Are the phonological differences made up? Did the loss of initial h- and ultimate -l not happen in Eastern Shtokavian? Or phonological differences that resulted in suffix differences like _-kat vs -kt, -isati/-ovati vs -irati_. Or morphological differences, for example suffixes like in_ sudija vs sudac_ (judge),  _autorka vs autorica_ (author), _plata vs plaća_ (salary), _saradnik vs suradnik_ (coworker), _gledalac vs gledatelj_ (viewer), _korišćen vs korišten_ (used). What about differences in word gender? Systematic differences in phonological reflexes of loanwords? This all excludes actual vocabulary differences, where most of the distinction lies (and hinders intelligibility unlike the examples I've given thus far). What is _your_ definition of _exactly the same_ and what constitutes _not the same_?

If the above is _exactly the same_, then the systematic differences between Czech and Slovak are no more relevant.  I mean, if you're able to generalize them, surely they're just identical and there's no reason to accept them as "different"? Surely then_ nikdo vs nikto_ and _dlouhá vs __dlhá_ in Czechoslovak are the same thing, are they not?



Pedro y La Torre said:


> As far as I can see, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are like ''American'', ''Canadian'' and '' Australian'' in that they are registers of the same language with relatively small differences in vocabulary and, sometimes, grammar.



I'm not aware of such differences between Canadian, Australian or American English where a book in roughly any field could be rendered useless for the person of the other variety. Yes, you can converse successfully with a Serbian. So can a Norwegian with a Dane or a Swede.

Can a Canadian safely use a book written in UK English without having to dig up a dictionary to find out how you say completely random words like oxygen, carrot, bridge, island, nephew, basket? I assume he can.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> Whereas Slovak and Czech appear to be based on demonstrably different grammatical standards stretching back a great many centuries.



I'm not sure what you mean by grammatical standards.

Nor what you mean by "great many centuries" as the official language of early Czechoslovakia was Czechoslovak.



Pedro y La Torre said:


> The demand that they be recognized as wholly separate languages is based on ancient blood feuds.



Do you consider conservative Bokmal and Danish the same language and do you consider it the result of an age old blood feud when a speaker of Norwegian calls their language Norwegian and tells you that it's a different language from Danish? Do you get your panties in a bunch then and try to right the wrongs they've commited by telling you that? I would expect you have an educated opinion on it. 



Pedro y La Torre said:


> Then again, with regard to Czech and Slovak, I'm not sure whether Slovaks ever admitted that their language was the same as Czech, even when both countries were one. I _think both sides always accepted that there was a difference._


Croats didn't admit that it was the same either. The official language in Socialist Republic of Croatia was _Croatian_. A children's book from Serbia couldn't be used, not merely for political reasons but also for pragmatic ones (like not being able to understand countless words in them).

At no point would any Croat tell you that an utterance that contains words like _saradnik_, _plata_ or _kiseonik_ could in any way be considered Croatian or part of (a) Croatian language.


----------



## Azori

pastet89 said:


> As you can see, yes, almost every word has different punctoation, or a letter different, but the words are basically the same, at least much more than 90% of them. I see no reason why when talking for mutual intelligibility we can't say they are as close as SR/HR.


Ah, the Google Translate...



Here's a short excerpt from a random Czech article (a weather forecast) and a Slovak translation of mine :

_Czech:_
Mlhy, nízká oblačnost, ale i sluneční paprsky nás budou provázet po většinu tohoto týdne. Ve dne se budou teploty pohybovat kolem deseti stupňů Celsia, v noci při vyjasnění je však možné očekávat i mráz. Maximálně však kolem dvou stupňů pod nulou. Počasí bude tento týden ovlivňovat výběžek rozsáhlé tlakové výše, který k nám bude zasahovat od východu. „Ve čtvrtek postoupí ze západní do střední Evropy studená fronta a za ní bude postupovat přes střední Evropu k východu tlaková výše. Ke konci období bude počasí u nás postupně ovlivňovat tlaková níže nad severním Atlantikem,“

_Slovak:_
Hmly, nízka oblačnosť, ale i slnečné lúče nás budú sprevádzať po väčšinu tohoto týždňa. Vo dne sa budú teploty pohybovať okolo desiatich stupňov Celzia, v noci pri vyjasnení je však možné očakávať i mráz. Maximálne však okolo dvoch stupňov pod nulou. Počasie bude tento týždeň ovplyvňovať výbežok rozsiahlej tlakovej výše, ktorý k nám bude zasahovať od východu. „Vo štvrtok postúpi zo západnej do strednej Európy studený front a za ním bude postupovať cez strednú Európu k východu tlaková výš. Ku koncu obdobia bude počasie u nás postupne ovplyvňovať tlaková níž nad severným Atlantikom,“

The words in red have at least one pronunciation difference from their Czech counterparts - not all of them are marked in spelling - e.g. dne (the letter *n*, pronounced like *ň* in Slovak), teploty ("t"), bude ("d")...


----------



## Милан

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The standardized dialect upon which Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are based is exactly the same. As far as I can see, Bosnian, Croatian *[Štokavian]* and Serbian are like ''American'', ''Canadian'' and '' Australian'' in that they are registers of the same language with relatively small differences in vocabulary and, sometimes, grammar.
> I should of course confess that I am merely an outside observer looking in without any great expertise in the area, but this is how it has been explained to me previously; and the evidence seems to lend credence to it.



Nothing more to add.


----------



## jadeite_85

Are the differences present in the written standardized forms of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian present also in the three standard colloquial languages? I studied at university with three Croats from Rijeka and I remember that they used *šta *and *ko *instead of *što *and *tko*. 
If I understand correctly, Croats in the written standardized form prefer words with slavic root instead of loans, while in Bosnian Turkish loans are more present. Correct me, please, if I'm wrong.
Does a Croat from Rijeka when speaking in an informal situation with a Croat from Dubrovnik really use zrakoplov, zračna luka, veleposlanstvo?
Does a Bosniak from Tuzla when speaking in an informal situation with a  Bosniak from Bihać really use akšam, pendžer and avlija?


----------



## glupson

jadeite_85 said:


> Are the differences present in the written standardized forms of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian present also in the three standard colloquial languages? I studied at university with three Croats from Rijeka and I remember that they used *šta *and *ko *instead of *što *and *tko*.
> If I understand correctly, Croats in the written standardized form prefer words with slavic root instead of loans, while in Bosnian Turkish loans are more present. Correct me, please, if I'm wrong.
> Does a Croat from Rijeka when speaking in an informal situation with a Croat from Dubrovnik really use zrakoplov, zračna luka, veleposlanstvo?
> Does a Bosniak from Tuzla when speaking in an informal situation with a  Bosniak from Bihać really use akšam, pendžer and avlija?



People in Bosnia - all called Bosnians - are composed of different ethnic groups, as Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. Mostly all people from the same region speak the same language, regardless of their ethnicity. So, Serbs in western Bosnia do not speak exactly the same language as Serbs in eastern Bosnia - the first is more similar to Croat, the second to Serbian.

Words like pendzer, aksam and avlija - they are used somewhat as archaic language, is specific situation. Some Turkish words are used in everyday language, others only in joke-like or archaic, poetic style. Everyday language - raja, merak, rahat, jorgan, jastuk, tiganj, pirinac, etc. Others, like aksam, are known, but not used. We all know what is pendzer, but will never say "I installed the new Microsoft Pendzer"


----------



## iezik

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The standardized dialect upon which Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are based is exactly the same. As far as I can see, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are like ''American'', ''Canadian'' and '' Australian'' in that they are registers of the same language with relatively small differences in vocabulary and, sometimes, grammar. The demand that they be recognized as wholly separate languages is based on ancient blood feuds.



I would say that it depends on the definition of a word *language*. There are at least two competing definitions. 

*Definition: L**anguage-1* is a set of sounds, letters, morphemes, words in written and sound form and the rules for connecting them.

According to this definition, there exists one language BCS with three dialects (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian). This is similar to the English language with three dialects, British, Australian, American.

*Definition: language-2* is language-1 plus the set of all written texts (belletristic, educational, scientific, legal, journalistic, ...) plus the sense of unity between the users of language-1.

In this case, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are different languages as there is no sense of unity. The nation and language leaders prefer to treat them as separate.

There are several examples where classification according to one definition is different than according to the other one. Here are few examples.

The Chinese language has a common written form, a high sense of unity, very differing pronunciation, more or less a single navy and army. The Wikipedia usually prefers to treat them as languages. The few Chinese that I met in Vancouver (of PRC citizenship or not) understand the Chinese as a single language.

The Hindi/ Urdu languages have the opposite situations. The linguistic similarity is high, the sense of unity is low.

The Arabic language is usually considered a single language. There is a common history, religion. The differences between the dialects are so high, according to English Wikipedia, that some varieties of Arabic in North Africa, for example, are incomprehensible to an Arabic speaker from the Levant or the Persian Gulf.

The dialects of European languages are sometimes considered languages. The precise statement would that the dialects of European language-2s are language-1s. The can be easily seen by the counting of native speakers, e.g. for Italy on English Wikipedia, where about 60 million people speak language-2 Italian. If we add all the people below and subtract the one from Italian part of Switzerland, about 10 million people are superfluous.

(this is a taken from plenty of web pages, a single line from each page)
Italian is spoken as a native language by 59 million people in the EU, mainly in Italy.
Venetian or Venetan is a Romance language spoken as a native language by over two million people, mostly in the Veneto region of Italy.
Sicilian is a Romance language ... native speakers: 4.7 million
Neapolitan is the language of southern continental Italy ... native speakers 5.7 million
Piedmontese is a Romance language spoken by over 1 million people in Piedmont, northwest Italy
Sardinian is a Romance language spoken primarily on three-quarters of the island of Sardinia (Italy). ... Native speakers ca. 1 million

The Slavic idiom of the valley of Resia (Friuli, Italy) is by some speakers (of this idiom) considered a dialect of Slovenian, by the others it's a separate Slavic language.


Some Bulgarians consider the Macedonian language to be a form of Bulgarian language. The Bulgarian Wikipedia article on Bulgarian language states ... Българският език е плурицентричен език — има няколко книжовни норми. Наред с основната, използвана в България, съществуват македонска норма. I haven't read any similar ideas from Macedonians.

Valencian is a language spoken in Valencia region in Spain. According to the regional constitution, it's a language. In most other cases it's regarded a dialect of Catalan.

Then the languages change. It can happen that the Belarusian language will be replaced by the Russian. Somebody from that area can explain the current trends. Belarusian might remain only a dialect of Russian.

Norwegian language (Bokmål) is a fairly recent innovation with the oldest grammar written about a century ago. Before Napoleonic wars, that area would probably identify with Danish language.


----------



## Kailee

Ok, I'll accept that. But that is very old Slovene and in this case means tired. As opposed to Croatian "trudna" that means pregnant. The point was that we mostly understand each other because a mixture was even taught in schools. You will always find words or even sentences, whole texts that someone else will understand, even though he doesn't speak that exact language, but a related one. 

They are not the same languages. Aspecially Slovenian language is quite different. The only deffiniton that I myself might accept is a comparisson with one countries dialects. Where I come from you understand some dialects, but you won't understand a person from lets say Prlekija. It is a part of the same country, same language, but a dialect so different that you can hardly understand. I myself better understand Croats/Bosnians/Serbs than someone from Prlekija...

You can go round and round with different deffinitions of this and that but the point is still that the languages are related but not the same. Plus, I have to point out again that we were all once connected in one big country and similarities are unavoidable.


----------



## verdas gong

Croatian and Serbian are not the same language just like Norwegian and Danish are not the same language.
Serbian people don't understand Croatian dialects (for example the ones used in Gruntovčani, Velo Misto or songs by Alen Vitasović),
just like Danish people do not understand Norwegian dialects, even though formal written Croatian and written Serbian are almost the same,
and the predominant (85%) form of written Norwegian is modified Danish (to the point Danish people can read with ease articles written in Aftenposten,
just like Serbs can read with ease articles written in Večernji List).

But there is more to language than the conservative written form used by formal media.
There are dialects (which are as important for Croatians as they are for Norwegians), and there is an alternative written standard based
on rural dialects, in Norway, the un-Danish standard of Norwegian is Nynorsk (and is based on Western rural dialects),
in the Croatian case, the alternative standard is called Burgenland Croatian and it is used by Croats in Austria.
Burgenland Croatian is Croatian ''Nynorsk'', a standard based on rural dialects (in this case a mix of Kajkavian and Chakavian).

Differences exist between formal written Croatian and Serbian as well, as illustrated here:

_Domaće se zadaće piše u bilježnicu.  _(Croatian)
_Domaći zadaci se pišu u svesku._ (Serbian)

Homework assignments are written in a notebook.

-
_Srbijanski veleposlanik u Švicarskoj _(Croatian)
_Srpski ambasador u Švajcarskoj _(Serbian)

Serbia's ambassador to Switzerland
_-
Nizozemci u Portugalu spasili turističku sezonu_ (Croatian)
_Holanđani u Portugaliji_ _spasali turističku sezonu_ (Serbian)

The Dutch in Portugal saved the tourist season


 Croatians could not write in idiomatic Serbian for dear life, because the difference between written Croatian and Latin script Serbian is larger than the one between written Danish and Norwegian Bokmål,
 and in Croatian schools Serbian authors are not read (neither in original nor translated), unlike in Norwegian schools where Danish writers are regularly featured and read by students, in original versions.


----------



## pastet89

verdas gong said:


> _Domaće se zadaće piše u bilježnicu. _(Croatian)
> _Domaći zadaci se pišu u svesku._ (Serbian)
> 
> Homework assignments are written in a notebook.



I dare to claim that's not correct.

1. Zadatak exists as well in croatian. 
2. I am not sure to claim about the opposite, but can you point me to the reference regarding the order of the words with reflexive verbs in croatian?

Also, while I am from the defenders of the cause that Serbian and Croatian are same language, I have to admit that official Serbian and official Croatian can be as well SPOKEN in fluent conversations. 
Is this possible with Danish and Norwegian?


----------



## pastet89

I just asked a Croatian girl and she confrmed the Crotian sentence should be

*Domaće zadaće se piše u bilježnicu. 

*_as regard to the word order. 

She also confirmed "Domaći zadaci" is OK as well in Croatian. I have one concern regarding the case and would personally prefer Locative, but I was told both are OK._


----------



## verdas gong

pastet89 said:


> Also, while I am from the defenders of the cause that Serbian and Croatian are same language, I have to admit that official Serbian and official Croatian can be as well SPOKEN in fluent conversations.
> Is this possible with Danish and Norwegian?



Yes, you can hear Sissel Kyrkjebø (Norwegian opera star) in an interview on Danish (DR) Tv:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYHnDG4byH8


----------



## pastet89

Lol, thanks!!! That's interesting. I learned the same about CZ/SK soon, it seems there are lots of twin langs.
What about Swedish?


----------



## Милан

verdas gong said:


> Croatian and Serbian are not the same language just like Norwegian and Danish are not the same language.
> Serbian people don't understand Croatian dialects


*Standard* Croatian and Serbian are based on Štokavian, *not Čakavian, Kajkavian or Torlakian.*
I have a problem with people from southeastern Serbia, their dialect is Torlakian. We even had a movie Zona Zamfirova [the most watched Serbian movie ever] with *Serbian subtitle *in DVD version because people had difficulties with Torlakian. From Serbian Torlakian to Standard Serbian. 



verdas gong said:


> _Domaće se zadaće piše u bilježnicu.  _(Croatian)
> _Domaći zadaci se pišu u svesku._ (Serbian)



It's Domaće zadaće [plural] se piš*U* u bilježnice  or Domaća zadaća [singular] se piš*E* u bilježnicu, and this is also Serbian [ijekavian]. Serbs from Bosnia [in Republika Srpska] would normally say this. Bilježnica [ekavian beležnica] is also Serbian word [you can check it in all Serbian dictionaries]. Svezak [m.] and zadatak also exist in Croatian. 



verdas gong said:


> _Srbijanski veleposlanik u Švicarskoj _(Croatian)
> _Srpski ambasador u Švajcarskoj _(Serbian)



  Again srpski and srbijanski exist in Serbian. Most Serbs find the term srbijanski insulting [including me]. Again Švicarska is not Croatian only but also Bosnian. There is no Švicarska in Serbian dictionary called RMS1 but there is:


> švic- vidi švajc-


vidi means look for, search for
Veleposlanik exist in RMS6 thought we would use ambasador.



verdas gong said:


> Nizozemci u Portugalu spasili turističku sezonu (Croatian)
> _Holanđani u Portugaliji_ _spasali turističku sezonu_ (Serbian)



Again  Portugal and Portugalija are both used in Serbian [and also you can find these two in dictionaries], even though I prefer Portugalija. Nizozemska  "Low Country" is a translation of The Netherlands, and Holandija comes from "Holland" [obviously]. My mother uses Nizozemska in her speech and she speaks Serbian [ijekavian].


----------



## pastet89

If you want really different sentences, this is better:

Ravnatelj tvrtke se je naljutio kada je saznao da je u tvrtki nedavno zaposlen novi naučnik, koji radi sporije no što se mirovnjaci kreću.
Direktor firme se naljutio kada je saznao da je u firmi nedavno zaposlen novi šegrt, koji radi sporije nego što se penzioneri kreću.


----------



## DarkChild

Speaking of Zona Zamfirova, I've seen parts of it on youtube (because it's been brought up as an example of a dialect before) and I can understand most of it. Not 100%, but the rest I can get from the context. And I grew up in Eastern Bulgaria (standard language). I imagine in the Western part they would have no problems with it.

I also have to say, folklore songs from Southern Serbia sound just like Bulgarian and are actually more understandable than most Bulgarian folklore (maybe because of the way of singing).


----------



## aprendiendo argento

Милан said:


> *Standard* Croatian and Serbian are based on Štokavian, *not Čakavian, Kajkavian or Torlakian.*
> I have a problem with people from southeastern Serbia, their dialect is Torlakian. We even had a movie Zona Zamfirova [the most watched Serbian movie ever] with *Serbian subtitle *in DVD version because people had difficulties with Torlakian. From Serbian Torlakian to Standard Serbian.
> 
> 
> 
> It's Domaće zadaće [plural] se piš*U* u bilježnice  or Domaća zadaća [singular] se piš*E* u bilježnicu, and this is also Serbian [ijekavian]. Serbs from Bosnia [in Republika Srpska] would normally say this. Bilježnica [ekavian beležnica] is also Serbian word [you can check it in all Serbian dictionaries]. Svezak [m.] and zadatak also exist in Croatian.
> 
> 
> 
> Again srpski and srbijanski exist in Serbian. Most Serbs find the term srbijanski insulting [including me]. Again Švicarska is not Croatian only but also Bosnian. There is no Švicarska in Serbian dictionary called RMS1 but there is:
> 
> vidi means look for, search for
> Veleposlanik exist in RMS6 thought we would use ambasador.
> 
> 
> 
> Again  Portugal and Portugalija are both used in Serbian [and also you can find these two in dictionaries], even though I prefer Portugalija. Nizozemska  "Low Country" is a translation of The Netherlands, and Holandija comes from "Holland" [obviously]. My mother uses Nizozemska in her speech and she speaks Serbian [ijekavian].



In standard Croatian, it has to be
_Domaće *se *zadaće *piše *u bilježnicu _ or
_Domaće zadaće *piše se *u bilježnicu_

because of the rule of enclitics/proclitics,
_Domaće zadaće *se piše *u bilježnicu_ is not correct in standard Croatian.

As for nominative vs accusative, standard Croatian prefers the accusative:

_Vi se pitate (You wonder)  _is different than _Vas se pita_ _(You are questioned/interrogated/asked..._)
_Zadaće se pišu_ (on their own, by themselves) is different than_ Zadaće se piše_ (by someone).


All of these are described in 
_Sintaksa hrvatskoga književnog jezika_, written by R. Katičić.

PS
In Bosnian it is _teka _and not _bilježnica_.

In Croatian, _domaći zadatci_ is not an expression,
but can only be analysed and understood as _home tasks_,
but not as English *homework*, which is _domaća zadaća_ or _domaći rad._

As said before, in Croatian, there is a difference between _srbijanski _(of Serbia) and _srpski _(of Serbs),
_srbijanski sudci _- judges from Serbia (those from Republika Srbija)
_srpski sudci_ - judges who are Serbian, but not from Serbia (for example those from Republika srpska)


----------



## pastet89

DarkChild said:


> Speaking of Zona Zamfirova, I've seen parts of it on youtube (because it's been brought up as an example of a dialect before) and I can understand most of it. Not 100%, but the rest I can get from the context. And I grew up in Eastern Bulgaria (standard language). I imagine in the Western part they would have no problems with it.
> 
> I also have to say, folklore songs from Southern Serbia sound just like Bulgarian and are actually more understandable than most Bulgarian folklore (maybe because of the way of singing).



I would not dare to claim that I understand any language anymore if I have not learned it after my experience with Slavic languages. 
Before I started learning Serbian I was confident that I understand 70% of it (as well as seems to be confident the lots of people making "translations" of Serbian songs in Bulgarian and uploading them, which, after being read are obvious to be done by people who have never learned Serbian in their life). Bulgarians who have never learned Serbian will believe to the end of their life that "ljubim" means "to love", "gora" means "forest" and "hrast" means "bush", and "mlada" means "young woman" while they actually mean respectively "kiss", "mountain", "oak" and "bride" ("mlada" means as well what it seems to mean, but not in all cases.). False friends with absolutely different meaning may looks strange and require looking in the dictionary, but examples such as these most likely will never be cleared. 
After I learned Serbian, I realized that I had been understanding not more than 50% of it actually, and what I had been "understanding" had been something slightly to completely different. 
Then I told myself, I will never ever believe I do understand any language before I check its words in a dictionary. 
But then I started learning Slovenian. I first taught that "imam rad" means "to work", because in Serbian "radim" means "to work" and "imam" means "to have". I was confident and I was telling myself, that including my mother tongue Bulgarian I already knew two Slavic languages (even three if would count Croatian) and if that's a false synonym I would have already knew it, because my linguistic range is wider. Then I found out that "imam rad" means "to love" and I totally gave up. I would never ever now believe I do understand some other language before I learn it. 

As regard to the movie, I have watched the whole of it and while it is indeed Torlak, it is not the toughest form of it, not so close to Bulgarian, at least not the language you can hear in Dimitrovgrad, Surdolica and Pirot. My parents who don't know Serbian as well used subtitles to watch it.


----------



## aprendiendo argento

*imati rad *means_ to be fond of _in dialectal Croatian too,
*rad *is short for *rado *(fondly), in Croatian dialects: _work _is _delo_

The unofficial city anthem of Zagreb is

*
Moj Zagreb tak imam te rad
*

the accent is different:
*rȁd *short falling* fond(ly)
**rȃd* long falling *work*


----------



## DarkChild

pastet89 said:


> I would not dare to claim that I understand any language anymore if I have not learned it after my experience with Slavic languages.
> Before I started learning Serbian I was confident that I understand 70% of it (as well as seems to be confident the lots of people making "translations" of Serbian songs in Bulgarian and uploading them, which, after being read are obvious to be done by people who have never learned Serbian in their life). Bulgarians who have never learned Serbian will believe to the end of their life that "ljubim" means "to love", "gora" means "forest" and "hrast" means "bush", and "mlada" means "young woman" while they actually mean respectively "kiss", "mountain", "oak" and "bride" ("mlada" means as well what it seems to mean, but not in all cases.). False friends with absolutely different meaning may looks strange and require looking in the dictionary, but examples such as these most likely will never be cleared.
> After I learned Serbian, I realized that I had been understanding not more than 50% of it actually, and what I had been "understanding" had been something slightly to completely different.
> Then I told myself, I will never ever believe I do understand any language before I check its words in a dictionary.
> But then I started learning Slovenian. I first taught that "imam rad" means "to work", because in Serbian "radim" means "to work" and "imam" means "to have". I was confident and I was telling myself, that including my mother tongue Bulgarian I already knew two Slavic languages (even three if would count Croatian) and if that's a false synonym I would have already knew it, because my linguistic range is wider. Then I found out that "imam rad" means "to love" and I totally gave up. I would never ever now believe I do understand some other language before I learn it.
> 
> As regard to the movie, I have watched the whole of it and while it is indeed Torlak, it is not the toughest form of it, not so close to Bulgarian, at least not the language you can hear in Dimitrovgrad, Surdolica and Pirot. My parents who don't know Serbian as well used subtitles to watch it.


Except for the last paragraph, I don't know what the rest of the post has to do with mine  These dialects are still quite close to Bulgarian so I could understand what they said. Of course, I'm sure there were false friends but I was able to grasp the meaning because it made sense. And about the songs from South Serbia (not anywhere else, nor those in Standard Serbian), those are as close to Bulgarian as you can get.


----------



## vlax12

verdas gong said:


> Serbian people don't understand Croatian dialects (for example the ones used in Gruntovčani, Velo Misto or songs by Alen Vitasović),



I've created account just to respond to this quoted statement. This statement is partially not true. Dialect in songs by Alen Vitasović sound very unusual to Serbian people but after few minutes we can understand it well. It is same for dialect used in Velo Misto.

Dialect used in Gruntovčani is indeed  hard to understand for Serbian native speakers (for me it is not that hard but some of my friends are struggling to understand some words).

I have some relatives in Pirot (small town in east Serbia ) and they talk variant of Serbian language that is sometimes hard to understand (well not exactly hard to understand , more like it's a little bit confusing to someone outside that region) even for native Serbian speakers. Same applies to mentioned Croatian dialects except for that one used in Gruntovčani (it has some very specific characteristics).

Most of the people in Croatia uses dialect that is perfectly understandable in Serbia and vice versa.

I will not say that these languages are one because I'm not qualified to answer that question but I can say that we understand each other perfectly. Croatians use old Slavic names for months which I think is really cool. 

Pozdrav za sve dobre ljude. Pusa :*


----------



## korisnik

Not to deny your understanding, but there's a world of difference between how they're spoken in reality and the way those dialects are represented in media, where the goal is to make them approachable to people from across the country.

Gruntovčani in particular features such a watered down variety of Kajkavian (and additionally mixes it with Shtokavian) that some of the Kajkavian actors themselves were complaining that it's unrealistic.

Songs tend to do the same, they water it down.

The goal in both of those is to retain a distinctive regional identity while being approachable to others. If Vitasović tried to sing the way he speaks in his circle of Chakavian friends, or if the main lead of Gruntovčani (who is Kajkavian) spoke the way he speaks to his Kajkavian friends, they would be only be able to show their regional identities, but they wouldn't be approachable to others.

Regional identity is deemed extremely important in Croatia and there's persistent criticism when for example a TV show features speeches that are deemed too standard. So when that exact opposite of real world situation happens - when actors in a TV show speaks standard - people complain that no one speaks like that, that it's too stilted, too fabricated and artificial (which eventually led to an increased usage of dialects in TV shows).

Regional music and TV shows are somewhere in the middle in terms of language use (compared to the above example of a highly artificial standard), but they're certainly not a representation of how the speeches look like in their respective regions.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Old thread but people may be interested in this: Declaration on the Common Language - Wikipedia.


----------

