# Croatian (BCS): Purism



## Istracpsboss

Moderator note:
Split from this thread.
sokol

Hi

This is my first post. I'm just starting to learn Croatian. I actually just joined to find out the declension of the verb 'to be' for my first class, but had to laugh at this thread. Why does modern Croatian have to choose words that are deliberately difficult for English speakers? It seems there were often words that had an automatic association for English speakers like geografija, istorija or aerodrom that have been changed to ones that are distinctly unmemorable. I was told it was because the previous ones had Serbian associations, but many derive from Greek or Latin, as with many modern languages and are not, in themselves, English or Serbian in origin.
One of the reasons that I have found it so difficult to learn Croatian, just from listening to people, is that so many words do not create any association for me that would help me to remember them. 
I appreciate the desire to sustain a Croatian culture or even an Istarski one, but moving towards the use of words that are difficult only leaves new scholars dependent on continuing to use English to communicate, which in Istria, at least, with the astonishing multilingual capacity of its inhabitants, is an easy option.


----------



## DenisBiH

As far as I know, most of native Croatian words of this kind have been around for at least a century, century and a half, and in some cases probably more. While there certainly are newly coined words for new concepts (like IT for example), I'd say they are a minority compared to old-timers.

Furthermore, don't be offended, but I don't think that language-planning in any language is usually based on what speakers of English (or any other foreign language for that matter) find easier to learn.  You have other examples of European purist languages, I believe German and Hungarian are also nice ones.

As for associations, sure there are those. try this:


> _zemlja_ = earth (an important word, you'd do well to learn it)
> _pisati_ = to write (same as above)
> 
> _zemljopis_ = earth-writing, which is pretty much a direct translation of the Greek word that is the source of English "geography"


Also:



> _zrak _= air (also an important word to know)
> _luka_ = port (much of Croatia is on the Adriatic, a nice to know word)
> 
> _zračna luka_ = airport


Associations are right there.


----------



## sokol

Welcome to the forums, Istracpsboss!

The thing you refer to is purism, and it is certainly not an invention of Croatian (or even Slavic) linguists. 
Even though it is a concept which looks 'foreign' and 'weird' from the perspective of an English speaker it isn't even new to the English speaking world - see the Wiki article about Anglo-Saxon linguistic purism which of course is only marginal in English culture.

Croatian now definitely is 'more puristic' by magnitudes than, say, English; but it is also more puristic than some other Slavic languages - certainly more than Russian, but also more than Serbian; however, I think Slovene language is significantly more puristic than Croatian.

The reasons for this are manifold; but there are two important ones:

- small languages have more reason to 'defend' themselves against bigger ones; of course this does not explain the case of French (where puristic calques and concepts of rather strict 'language culture' are considered important) but it does explain the case of Croatian, where also differentiation from Serbian plays a significant role;

- and Slavic languages are highly inflecting, it is more difficult to integrate loans into a Slavic*) language; with nouns like 'geography' this problem has been solved by adding /-ija/ (which thus makes it feminine; an ending of /-i/ would be problematic as this would be a plural ending in Croatian); of course there are workarounds to make declension easier - but a highly inflecting language is indeed an incentive to rather calque than loan.

*) Any Slavic language, except Bulgarian and Macedonian which have lost most of their inflection, which (theoretically) makes it much easier for them to integrate loans morphologically.


Please note, my intention is _*not at all*_ to defend purism _*(nor,*_ by the way, am I trying to criticise it): my personal opinion about purism actually is of no relevance here - I just wanted to explain *why* there is purism. In very short words. (The whole concept of linguistic purism could fill entire books - and has done so, by the way.)


----------



## DenisBiH

One distinctive advantage of purism, in my opinion, is that it achieves a kind of linguistic "backward compatibility". One may take a 15th century document from western South Slavic lands and while the language has certainly changed since then, both in lexicon and morphology etc, if the words derive from Slavic roots, most of which are still present in one form or another today, the meaning can be understood to a large extent.

On the other hand, I've read (or tried to do so) some Bosnian documents from the 17th century with as much as 30-40% Oriental (Turkish, Arabic, Persian) loanwords many of which are not in use anymore and it's simply not possible without either a glossary or a dictionary.

If in 200 years people start commuting/traveling by Star Trek-style 'beaming' the concept of airport may not exist anymore, but _zračna luka_ would still give the reader some idea of what it was all about, much more than _aerodrom_.


----------



## Istracpsboss

Thanks Denis. I wasn't in the least offended. Indeed, I was worried afterwards that what I'd written might have caused offence. I'm also grateful for the excellent English that so many non native speakers use here.

Zemlja and Luka I'm familiar with, as with zračna luka, as they are words I encounter often, although it took me longer than expected to pick them up.

Thanks also Sokol. I'll check that link.

I've been surprised too at the number of French words in Croatian, like kamion and trottoir, although I see, when checking the spelling in my dictionary for the latter, it doesn't seem to be mentioned, although it seems widely used over here. Presumably these come from the Napoleonic period? 
(I just realised that when you referred to French, it was more to do with L'Institut Francaise and its attempts to keep French pure, with words like magnetophon {surely Greek in origin?} instead of the despised video !)

I checked the link and recognised the truth of it. Educated writers of English often use Latin words like, say, ipso facto, when making a point, but over usage of this sort of thing is frowned upon, particularly when the target audience is likely to be less well educated and the usage is actually an attempt to demonstrate superiority !

Cheers

Peter


----------



## DenisBiH

It's spelled _trotoar_. Here is its entry in the excellent Croatian online dictionary we often use here.  

I'm not sure about this one, but I believe a number of French words were borrowed via German.


----------



## sokol

Well, French once was the _lingua franca_ of continental Europe - though a long time ago. 

There's yet another reason why so many Slavic languages are rather puristic (some more, some less): they were under great pressure of other languages (German mainly in the case of those spoken in Habsburg Empire) - and they've adopted a great number of loans by the 19th century: it was felt a measure of self-defence to replace many of them with calques.


----------



## Istracpsboss

Hi Denis

Much of what you say is true of English, which has evolved a lot, as well as having become more unified in the last millenium. If you put an original copy of Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales' in front of a modern English speaker, they would have great difficulty reading it. 
Interestingly, I discovered when I was in Iceland that its relative isolation had kept Icelandic much more pure and that modern Icelanders could read their Sagas, written at much the same time, quite easily.
Brits at the time it was written would even have had difficulty making themselves understood 200km from where they were born, yet still within the same country, as there was much variation in spoken English around the country. At one time, in the area of NW England that I come from,if I listened long enough, I could probably guess which village a speaker came from, as there were still particular words that were peculiar to specific villages. One might talk of 'the moss', to mean a hill, whereas another would use it to talk of low lying land. 
Television has largely changed this, just as, in its time, the railways created a common time within the country. (Prior to this, times varied a lot between places, but the need to maintain a timetable, combined with a faster mode of transport, necessitated everywhere within the country keeping the same time)

Cheers

Peter


----------



## DenisBiH

> Much of what you say is true of English, which has evolved a lot, as well as having become more unified in the last millenium. If you put an original copy of Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales' in front of a modern English speaker, they would have great difficulty reading it.


In high-school, during the senior year I believe, we had a very nice teacher (a Pakistani, I believe) who taught us a sort of Advanced English language and literature class using Chaucer. I don't think he was very happy with us, but reading your comment about native speakers having problems makes me feel better. 

Here is a great series of audio-lectures on the history of the English language that I recommend wholeheartedly (I am in no way profiting from this recommendation). 

Sorry for the slight off-topic.


----------



## Istracpsboss

Reminds me of one of my law lecturers who was Ghanaian. He used to put the emphasis on the wrong vowels. Trying to transcribe my notes, which had been taken at speed, later in the day was a nightmare.
Funnily enough, when I was in West Africa, I actually found it easier to understand French speakers from Cote d'Ivoire, Benin, etc., than I did English speakers from Nigeria or Ghana.
The French speaking West Africans spoke their French much more clearly than the others did their English !

Cheers

Peter


----------



## Orlin

DenisBiH said:


> One distinctive advantage of purism, in my opinion, is that it achieves a kind of linguistic "backward compatibility". One may take a 15th century document from western South Slavic lands and while the language has certainly changed since then, both in lexicon and morphology etc, if the words derive from Slavic roots, most of which are still present in one form or another today, the meaning can be understood to a large extent.
> 
> On the other hand, I've read (or tried to do so) some Bosnian documents from the 17th century with as much as 30-40% Oriental (Turkish, Arabic, Persian) loanwords many of which are not in use anymore and it's simply not possible without either a glossary or a dictionary.
> 
> If in 200 years people start commuting/traveling by Star Trek-style 'beaming' the concept of airport may not exist anymore, but _zračna luka_ would still give the reader some idea of what it was all about, much more than _aerodrom_.


 
Potpuno se slažem s tobom da je purizam definitivno koristan da bi neko u više ili manje dalekoj budućnosti mogao razumeti o čemu se radi u nekom tekstu (čak pojmove koji nisu već u upotrebi zbog promena u životu ljudi). Dok u slučaju "punjenja" jezika posuđenicima razumljivost se brzo gubi posle "otpadanja" takvih reči iz svakodnevnog govora: izgleda da je uzimanje reči iz drugih jezika najčešće vezano s konjunkturom i nakon "izmene mode" dobar deo "neaktualnih" uzajmica ispada iz aktivne upotrebe i relativno brzo se zaboravlja (mada neke posuđenice postaju tako uobičajene da ih više ne osećamo kao "tuđe"). Mi smo imali toliko mnogo orijentalizama (valjda ne toliko mnogo kao u Bosni, ali dovoljno da mi situacija izgleda poprilično slična) do našeg oslobođenja od osmanske vlade u 1878. god. i nakon toga smo ih stalno i potpuno namerno "čistili" i rezultat je da tekstovi iz 19. veka stvaraju neke teškoće savremenim Bugarima zbog ovih orijentalskih reči koje već ne koristimo. A u 1945-90 god. punili smo bugarski rusizmima uglavnom iz političkih razloga, i sada, 20 godina kasnije, mnogi od njih nam već zvuče veoma čudno i neprirodno (ako još uvek nisu nerazumljivi, uskoro će postati). Trenutno je tendencija uvođenja anglicizama, i ko zna koliko dugo će se ova moda zadržati i šta će se desiti kad engleski izgubi sadašnju popularnost. 
Ja sam siguran da 99.9999% ljudi ne misli na ovu koncepciju kontinuiteta jezika u vremenu (baš ih briga koliko će savremeni tekstovi biti razumljivi nakon 100, 200, 500, 1 000 godina ili više), ali rekao bih u zaključku da je neki (minimalni) stepen purizma zaista potreban za sačuvanje oblika jezika i njegovog kontinuiteta u vremenu. Inače bismo imali nešto bez sopstvene koncepcije potpuno pod uticajem socijalne konjunkture.


----------



## DenisBiH

Evo jedan primjer iz 1706.



> Vi ste zevku safade
> A mi derdu belade,
> Svaki danak       džefade,
> Je li pravo, gospodo?


Pojavljuju se čitave rečenice na osmanskom turskom, ali i ovo gore je dovoljno ilustrativno.


----------



## Orlin

Ne znam da li smo krenuli off-topic ili diskusija treba da se prebaci u EHL jer se odnosi na purizam ne samo u hrvatskom već u svim jezicima.
Vratimo se purizmu: ja nisam stručnjak, ali čini mi se da svaki "mali" jezik koji previše uzajmuje strane reči prevratiće se u nešto slično bosanskom ili bugarskom 18.-19. veka i stoga su naši preci uzeli mere da se vrate "slovenskim korenima" jezika (inače bi bugarski možda sasvim izgubio ulogu nacionalnog jezika?). Valjda je naša greška da nismo produžili stil "umerenog purizma" i previše otvorili smo se sledećim aktualnim političkim uticajima u 20. veku.


----------



## DenisBiH

Orlin said:


> Vratimo se purizmu: ja nisam stručnjak, ali čini mi se da svaki "mali" jezik koji previše uzajmuje strane reči prevratiće se u nešto slično bosanskom ili bugarskom 18.-19. veka i stoga su naši preci uzeli mere da se vrate "slovenskim korenima" jezika (inače bi bugarski možda sasvim izgubio ulogu nacionalnog jezika?). Valjda je naša greška da nismo produžili stil "umerenog purizma" i previše otvorili smo se sledećim aktualnim političkim uticajima u 20. veku.




Sve opet zavisi od društvenog konteksta, kako si i sam primijetio. Evo ti sad par pisama iz diplomatske razmjene na liniji osmanski/bosanski Herceg Novi - Dubrovnik (nekih desetak godina prije pada Novog pod Mletke) pisanih bosanskom kurzivnom ćirilicom u kojima ima mnogo manje orijentalizama. Naprotiv, stil pisanja mene više podsjeća na srednjevjekovne povelje.

Resul-aga Sulejman Agić dubrovačkoj gospodi, 1675:



> 1) mnogo·pr(esv)ietlo1 · i plemenito · i svake · časti · i časne
> 2) fale · dostoiniem · g(ospodi)nu · knezu · i gospodi · dubrovačkoi
> 3) pridraziem · priateliem · i dobrohotiocem · moiem


Shodno ovome nameće se pitanje prirode tih posuđenica kao u mom prvom primjeru - koliko su zaista bile prodrle u svakodnevni jezik, tj. da li su korištene samo u literaturi određenog stila ili su bile općeprihvaćene. 

Sličnu situaciju danas imamo sa engleskim - zbog relativnog prestiža koji ima taj jezik, pogotovo u IT oblasti, jedan dio govornika počinje bez mjere upotrebljavati engleske posuđenice (i engleske riječi koje uopće nisu ni posuđene već koje imaju svoje ekvivalente). Mene je jednom prilikom od silnih anglicizama umalo zaboljela glava slušajući govor jedne gospođe na jednom okupljanju Microsoft partnera, a njoj je možda takav govor vjerovatno djelovao 'moderno' (ili pak uopće nije bila svjesna šta radi?)


----------



## Orlin

Mislim da je isto korisno pogledati purizam i iz malo druge perspektive: Koliko ja znam, postoji oko 300 reči koje čine tzv. međunarodni kulturni leksik (dolaze uglavnom iz klasičkog grčkog ili latinskog), i te reči su prisutne u _većini_ savremenih jezika. Nisam dovoljno upoznat s neevropskim jezicima i, ako se ne varam, velika većina jezika u Evropi koristi taj "klasički" internacionalni vokabular, što mnogo olakšava učenje evropskih jezika ako već vladaš nekim evropskim jezikom. Na ovom fonu jezici poput hrvatskog, slovenačkog, mađarskog itd. koji izbegavaju "opšteprihvaćene" internacionalizme kao "geografija" ili "muzika" izgledaju nekako "čudno" i nekim se čini da ovaj izbor jezičkog planiranja tvori barijeru za učenje npr. hrvatskog (što je rečeno u početnom postu ove teme). Ali po meni ne bi ipak trebalo da stav tih koji uče neki jezik kao strani određuje jezičku politiku respektivnog jezika (mada i ja bih imao interes da se koristi više internacionalizama da bi mi bio lakše učiti). Najbitniji je stav samih izvornih govornika - npr. su Hrvati tako odlučili za svoj jezik.


----------



## sokol

Moderator note:

This is a thread about Croatian purism, and we'll keep it as such.  Puristic attitudes in Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin still are on topic here too as they're not only very closely related languages, but also purism in those is indeed relevant for and interesting concerning Croatian purism.

However, if anybody wants to discuss purism in a broader way (including yet other Slavic languages, or non-Slavic ones) then please open a new thread.

Thank you!
Cheers
sokol
moderator


----------



## LilithE

Orlin, 'international' expressions would sometimes be more practical for native speakers as well.  
I am still annoyed because 'they' (whoever they are) changed most of the linguistic terminology. I first learnt it in Croatian (we still used 'international' words at that time) and it was quite practical because French and English basicly used those same words. Then after several years someone decided to change everything. Now I have a weird situation - I understand better other languages than my own. 
I still haven't bothered to learn them all (the fact that I would actually have to learn them shows that it isn't always obvious what they are about) but here are some examples: _homonym - istoglasnica_, _homograph - istopisnica_, _homophone - istozvučnica. _
_Istoglasnica_ and _istozvučnica_ sound way too similar to me. 

I don't mind 'purism' when it is well done. I guess there is always some 'clumsy' period in the process of creating new words. IT terminology is starting to make sense but there used to be some very weird attempts. Whoever is in charge of the standard language probably realized that this isn't purely linguistic question - IT specialist could actually do a better job than linguists in this case. A mere translation often doesn't work at all - the 'new' word should correspond to the IT item, idea, process etc; how much it resembles the 'original' is less important. 
Denis, perhaps that lady just thought it was 'safer' to use English words.  I am really not familiar with the situation in Bosnia. As I already said, the situation is mostly good in Croatian now - the 'new' words are mostly understandable and correct. It still happens that you have troubles guessing the meaning behind the word but those words are rare now. 
A decade ago an IT presentation would have probably sounded like your lady - the invented Croatian words had very little to do with the things they were suposed to describe.


----------



## DenisBiH

LilithE said:


> Denis, perhaps that lady just thought it was 'safer' to use English words.




It was something along the lines of: "Fičeri menadžmenta Majkrosoft aseta i sejls smol ofis produkata u kooperaciji sa našim sertifajd partnerima". That is an invented example since I don't recall exactly what she was saying, but it sounded like that, or even worse. 

Bosnian is more open to loanwords than Croatian, but not like that.

As for IT, I was an avid Bug reader in the late 90's when I suppose much of Croatian IT terminology was being introduced, and I found it relatively painless to adapt. One word I know we here joked about was _očvrsje_ for 'hardware' but I'm not sure if that was/is a real word.


----------



## Orlin

LilithE said:


> Orlin, 'international' expressions would sometimes be more practical for native speakers as well.
> I am still annoyed because 'they' (whoever they are) changed most of the linguistic terminology. I first learnt it in Croatian (we still used 'international' words at that time) and it was quite practical because French and English basicly used those same words. Then after several years someone decided to change everything. Now I have a weird situation - I understand better other languages than my own.
> I still haven't bothered to learn them all (the fact that I would actually have to learn them shows that it isn't always obvious what they are about) but here are some examples: _homonym - istoglasnica_, _homograph - istopisnica_, _homophone - istozvučnica. _
> _Istoglasnica_ and _istozvučnica_ sound way too similar to me.


Naravno ne izgleda tako prirodno menjati ustaljenu praksu bez nekog dobrog razloga kao što si navela: zašto treba da se izostavi takav lingvistički vokabular koji (barem meni) izgleda da je opšteprihvaćen na svetskom nivou? Da li Hrvati tako hoće da se "odvoje" od ostalih? Ili im tako smetaju tuđe reči bez obzira na izvorni jezik ili nivo uobičajenosti? Siguran sam da je odgovor na ova 2 pitanja "ne" i zato ne razumem zbog čega je sve to.
U stvari novokovani lingvistički termini koje si navela meni zvuče razumljivo (jer njihova morfološka struktura jasno izražava značenje koje imaju) i veoma čudno jer svi drugi jezici koje sam učio koriste "klasičke" internacionalizme koji su bili u upotrebi i u hrvatskom pre relativno malo vremena. Osim toga mislim da u nauci radikalno menjanje terminologije uopšte nije korisno jer ruši kontinuitet: sledeća pokolenja naučnika možda neće razumeti starije naučne tekstove i tako će se progres nekako oteža.


----------



## DenisBiH

Koliko ja vidim na Google Books _istopisnica_ ima pomene iz 1968. i 1971. kao i druge dvije navedene riječi. Ovdje se dakle prije radi o starijim riječima koje su na ovaj ili onaj način možda (dijelom) istisnute iz upotrebe pa onda poslije raspada SFRJ vraćene, ne o novokovanicama.

Logika vraćanja tih riječi u upotrebu je mislim slična u hrvatskom i bosanskom - vraćanje 'autentičnom' jeziku nakon 'srbizacije' pretrpljene u Jugoslaviji. Međutim ako počnemo pričati o tome šta je autentični jezik i kakva i kolika je bila ta srbizacija bojim se da možemo lako upasti u politiku.


----------



## Orlin

LilithE said:


> and it was quite practical because French and English basicly used those same words. Then after several years someone decided to change everything. Now I have a weird situation - I understand better other languages than my own.


Mada je definitivno praktički korisno biti lakše učiti inostrane jezike (jer govornici "malih" "svetski nepopularnih" jezika imaju zaista veliku potrebu učiti strane jezike za komunikaciju s drugim nacijama), ne mislim da bi trebalo da se to toliko mnogo uzima u obzir šta se tiče jezičke politike zato što čini mi se da se to gotovo ne odlikuje od toga previše uzimati u obzir gledište stranaca koji izučavaju jezik u pitanju: lakoća učenja stranih jezika (u oba smera) po meni nije najbitnije pošto je jezik uglavnom sredstvo za komunikaciju između njegovih izvornih govornika.


----------



## LilithE

Znam da je u dosta slučajeva to zapravo povratak na 'staro' - zato sam i napisala samo 'change', a ne 'izmislili'. Svejedno to meni nije praktično. 
Ovdje čak i nije slučaj kao sa IT terminologijom - sve te riječi imaju smisla. Nije problem u značenju već u navici. Ja intuitivno ne mogu znati koje su to bile starije verzije. Znači moram za svaku riječ provjeriti koji joj je današnji standardni naziv i uvjetno rečeno naučiti je. S druge strane nisam baš sigurna da bi mi bilo jasno što je _istoglasnica_, a što _istozvučnica_ da ih vidim prvi put u životu. Razlika je mnogo jasnija s homonimom (isto ime) i homofonom (isti zvuk). 
U većini mi slučajeva ti novi (bili oni zapravo stari ili mladi) nazivi 'lošije' zvuče. Draži su mi i _samoglasnik_ i _vokal_ od _otvornika_. I tako mi je svejedno čije su to zapravo riječi. 

Što se tiče _Buga_ - u njemu nisi mogao naići na takve pokušaje.  Još uvijek mi se dogodi da 'zapnem' na nekoj riječi u kakvom tekstu, ali to su obično portali koji nemaju nikakve veze s računarstvom. U slučaju IT terminologije struka donekle diktira koje će riječi preživjeti, a koje će se jednostavno odbaciti jer su krajnje sulud pokušaj. 
I mi smo se šalili na račun _očvrsja_, ali stvarno ne znam je li to bila ironija zbog nekih drugih jednako čudnih riječi ili je netko stvarno pokušao uvrstiti i tu. Znam da su se IT stručnjaci znali žaliti i na neke riječi koje možda normalno zvuče, ali uopće ne odgovaraju tome na što bi se trebale odnositi ili su pak neprecizne. Naravno da nisu preživjele jer je nekako besmisleno forsirati riječi koje nitko ne želi koristiti. Dosta ih je sačuvano i u originalnom obliku (odustalo se od isforsiranih prijevoda) pa situacija trenutno i nije tako tragična. Ne može se baš sve prevesti ili pronaći adekvatan zamjenski termin. Uostalom računarstvo se razvija brže nego što smo mi u stanju smisliti nove riječi. 
Originalni nazivi često zvuče i 'prirodnije'. Sleng ponekad ima zgodnija rješenja od samog standardnog jezika - _pržilica_ i _spržiti CD_ su sasvim zgodni izrazi koji ionako dolaze od 'burn a CD'.


----------



## LilithE

Orlin said:


> Mada je definitivno praktički korisno biti lakše učiti inostrane jezike (jer govornici "malih" "svetski nepopularnih" jezika imaju zaista veliku potrebu učiti strane jezike za komunikaciju s drugim nacijama), ne mislim da bi trebalo da se to toliko mnogo uzima u obzir šta se tiče jezičke politike zato što čini mi se da se to gotovo ne odlikuje od toga previše uzimati u obzir gledište stranaca koji izučavaju jezik u pitanju: lakoća učenja stranih jezika (u oba smera) po meni nije najbitnije pošto je jezik uglavnom sredstvo za komunikaciju između njegovih izvornih govornika.



Mislim da ove promjene netko tko tek počinje učiti hrvatski neće ni primjetiti. Sumnjam da će početi učenje baš s lingvističkom terminologijom. Ovo je čisto bila moja osobna jadikovka.  To što se meni nešto ne sviđa i nije mi praktično je za ostatak svijeta sasvim nevažno. Ni ne očekujem da će netko mijenjati pravila jer se ona meni ne sviđaju. Samo malo kukam.  Razumijem što želiš reći i zapravo se slažem. Bilo bi mi logičnije da sam te riječi morala naučiti na stranim jezicima (nije da mi smeta što su mi zapravo bile poznate) nego ova obratna situacija - ponovo ih moram 'naučiti' na materinjem jeziku. 

Svakodnevni jezik se zapravo i nije mijenjao. Možda svega par riječi koje zapravo i jesu više u duhu hrvatskog jezika - npr. _putovnica_ i _osobna karta_. Nedavno sam se sjetila da su u vrijeme dok sam bila klinka komentatori košarkaških utakmica govorili 'peta lična' - danas mi to već zvuči neobično.


----------



## el_tigre

DenisBiH said:


> It's spelled _trotoar_. Here is its entry in the excellent Croatian online dictionary we often use here.



and there is one pure Croatian word "kolnik"!


----------



## el_tigre

Some things related to Croatian language purism:
http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vijenac393.nsf/AllWebDocs/Nagrada_za_najbolju_novu_rijec
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novotvorenice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_linguistic_purism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Ivan_Šreter_Award


----------



## Wikislav

Some 'purist' notes: 

_Očvrsje_ (hardware) and some similar terms was proposed about thirty years ago, when the pioneer and doyen of Croatian informatics, acad. Prof.dr. Laszlo Bulcsu returned from his specialisation in USA. 

_Kolnik_ is a car-road not equivalent to 'trotoar' (fr. trottoir), and its classical Croatian translation was 'pločnik'.


----------

