# Is this: Alamut (Savremeni jugoslavenski roman) Slovenian?



## César Lasso

Hi!

I'd like to know what language is this edition of the novel «Alamut», written by Slovenian writer Vladimir Bartol in 1937 but become an international success quite recently.

"Alamut" is just a place in Iran, but hope you can know the language from the other details (Savremeni jugoslavenski roman)

The publisher of this edition is Svjetlost (1990). I have an idea that the language for the edition might be Croatian. Am I right?

If by chance you could tell me the language for this other edition, I'd be grateful:

Alamut (Hova Obzorja)
Unknown Binding, 505 pages, published in 1984 by Lipa

Thanks!


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Yes, _Alamut_ is a Slovenian novel by Vladimir Bartol. Your edition is indeed the Croatian edition, published as part of a series of books called _Savremeni jugoslavenski roman_ (Croatian for "Contemporary Yugoslav Novel"). The other edition is Slovenian; it's part of a series called _*N*ova obzorja_ (Slovenian for "New Horizons"). As you've stated, _Lipa_ ("linden tree") is the name of the publisher.


----------



## Morana_

Well, the first one is actually Bosnian, translated by an eminent Bosnian poet/writer Josip Osti and published by Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana, and Svjetlost, Sarajevo.

The second one is indeed Slovenian and a part of the "Nova obzorja" series, published by Obzorja, Maribor, and Lipa, Koper.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Morana_ said:


> Well, the first one is actually Bosnian, translated by an eminent Bosnian poet/writer Josip Osti and published by Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana, and Svjetlost, Sarajevo.


 
Thanks for the correction! I thought that _Svjetlost_ was based in Zagreb, but you're absolutely right: It's a Bosnian publisher.


----------



## César Lasso

Thanks to both of you!

César


----------



## DenisBiH

Strictly speaking, in 1990 the official name of the language in Bosnia-Herzegovina was still "Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian" ("srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski", the doubling in the name was a conscious choice by B-H linguists). The current Bosnian standard was not yet in existence back then, though there arguably existed a Bosnian literary variety of Serbo-Croatian.

I'm personally for using historically correct terms, so in this case "Bosnian" may not be the best option. Unless the author had explicitly stated his own preference for the name of the language, "Serbo-Croatian" (or if not available, "BCS" or some other cover-all term) may be more appropriate in this case.

As for the language features, the form _jugosl*a*venski_ would correspond to modern Croatian and Bosnian. I think that the Serbian form would be _jugosl*o*venski_. On the other hand the form _s*a*vremeni _would correspond more to Bosnian and Serbian, the preferred Croatian form being, I believe, _s*u*vremeni_. 

Serbian: _Savremeni jugoslovenski roman_
Bosnian: _Savremeni jugoslavenski roman_
Croatian: _Suvremeni jugoslavenski roman_

So, as far as the features themselves are concerned, it would probably correspond the most to the current Bosnian standard, but keep in mind the note above. So perhaps "Bosnian literary variety of Serbo-Croatian" describes it best in terms of language features and historical reality? I welcome any corrections and comments by other foreros.


----------



## César Lasso

DenisBiH said:


> Strictly speaking, in 1990 the official name of the language in Bosnia-Herzegovina was still "Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian" ("srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski", the doubling in the name was a conscious choice by B-H linguists). The current Bosnian standard was not yet in existence back then, though there arguably existed a Bosnian literary variety of Serbo-Croatian.


 
Thanks, Denis. It actually crossed my mind but I did not dare suggest that.


----------



## Morana_

You're absolutely right, Denis, as far as politically-historical terms are concerned - but political correctness is not always historically correct, is it? I'm not drawing politics into this - what I'm saying is that, in former Yugoslavia, when reading a so-called Serbo-Croatian text you could always tell right away whether the text was writtten in Serbian, in Croatian, or - let me put it this way - whether it was written by someone coming from Bosnia. And the same goes for the spoken language. I remember being taught about Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian literature - and the distinction between these three was made on the basis of authors' nationality/ethnicity and therefore on the basis of the language used. Or the variety of the language used, if you want to put it this way. 

To cut the long story short: the language used by Bosnian authors in former Yugoslavia definitely was not Serbo-Croatian (and the same goes for Serbian and Croatian authors), it was a distinct - as you put it: Bosnian variety of Serbo-Croatian, and as I put it: Bosnian language. 

But we're basically saying the same thing, aren't we.


----------



## DenisBiH

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Morana.  It's great to have a first-hand account (I'm too young to have many personal memories of those issues).


----------



## César Lasso

Well, I think both sides --whether calling the language used in 1990 Bosnian or Serbo-Croatian-- have a point and none is completely wrong. Even if the current convention is to treat Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian as separate languages, they are mutually intelligible. I don't think the distance between the three of them might be farther than between Spanish from Spain and Argentina, considered two varieties of one same language, although they are both very distinct, differing not just in intonation but also in pronunciation, vocabulary and even some parts of grammar (especially the second person pronoun and the corresponding verbal form for that pronoun).

The problem of when to consider something a variety of a language or a separate language is tricky. Although there must have been a conscience of peculiarity in Luxembourg for centuries, Luxembourgish was standardised as a separate language from German few decades ago.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

DenisBiH said:


> Serbian: _Savremeni jugoslovenski roman_
> Bosnian: _Savremeni jugoslavenski roman_
> Croatian: _Suvremeni jugoslavenski roman_


 
For the record, here's how this phrase would look in Slovenian:

_Sodobni jugosl*o*v*a*nski roman_


----------



## DenisBiH

Basically, one way stresses the official name and status, and the other the essence. It is true that language name is a tricky business. Official nomenclature of language(s) in Bosnia-Herzegovina, historically (as much as I can gather):



> *pre-1878:* no official name. The names used were, depending on the author, region and period: _Bosnian_, _Bosniak_, _Serbian_, _Croatian_, _Illyrian _and possibly a few others.
> *1878-1907:* _Bosnian_. This is the main watershed as what was pretty much the modern standard (except for a few things) was introduced at this time for much of the population (for some, somewhat earlier, a few decades)
> *1907-1918: *_Serbo-Croatian_, with the allowance by Austro-Hungarian authorities for Muslim organizations to continue using the name _Bosnian_
> *1921-1941:* _Serbo-Croato-Slovenian_ (at least according to the constitution)
> *1941-1945:* _Croatian _by NDH authorities, presumably _Serbo-Croatian_ by Tito's partisans
> *1945-1970's *(roughly)*:* _Serbo-Croatian_
> *1970's *(roughly)*-1992:* _Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian_
> *1992-present:* _Bosnian_, _Serbian_, _Croatian_


We have, where names (not language features) are concerned, basically reverted to pre-1878 situation. Where actual language features are concerned, 1878-present forms more of a continuous evolution rather than radical revolution.

In some of these periods some authors may have chosen to call their language differently than what was the official name at the time.

As a historical curiosity, one of earliest mentions of all three names side by side that I know of is in 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"). He is talking about his vision of how Old Church Slavonic came about, which is more useful for what it reveals of the situation of his time rather than what he thinks about OCS:



> 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.



On the other hand, it is kinda funny that this kind of linguistic disputes (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) were in vogue even back then.


----------



## César Lasso

Very interesting, Denis. Thanks


----------

