# Serbo-Croatian nuances



## Ziemniak

Hello  (or rather, Zdravo ),

Not long ago I've decided that I want to learn Serbo-Croatian and so I went on to start learning it. I have two questions regarding this language that popped up in my head while examining some sentences:

*1. Usage of the infinitive vs Da+conjugated verb:
*
As far as I can see, there are two ways to express the same desire in Serbo-Croatian, by either using the infinitive or using "da"+the respectively conjugated verb. Some examples:

Želim _*spavati*_. / Želim _*da spavam*_.
Mogu _*napisati* _knjigu. / Mogu_* da napišem *_knjigu.
Hoću _*ići* _na plažu. / Hoću _*da idem*_ na plažu.

As far as I know, the former is more commonly used in Croatian while the latter is more common in Serbian - am I correct?
*
2. The Genitive -og/-oga

*Another thing that seems a little confusing - which is the more common/correct suffix to use with the genitive case? For example:

Gramatika _*bosanskog *_jezika OR Gramatika _*bosanskoga *_jezika
Kuća _*mojeg *_oca OR Kuća _*mojega *_oca
Knjiga _*lijepog *_dječaka OR Knjiga _*lijepoga *_dječaka


Thanks in advance!


----------



## bigic

1. Yes, you are correct.
2. In Serbia the genitive without final "a" is more common. For Croatia and Bosnia I don't know.


----------



## Ziemniak

bigic said:


> 1. Yes, you are correct.
> 2. In Serbia the genitive without final "a" is more common. For Croatia and Bosnia I don't know.


Regarding 1, how strange would it sound if I  were to use the opposite forms? (Infinitive in Serbia, da+verb in Croatia)
I realize both are acceptable but still 

 Thank you


----------



## matkec

The da + present construction will sound awkward and maybe ungrammatical to most people in Croatia. It would be immediately interpreted as Serbian.


----------



## thegreathoo

"Da" form is more unusual amongst Croatians.  "Da" form is used exclusively with present tense, for example da idem where idem is present of the infinitive ići.   Amongst Serbs both forms are used, but the da+present denotes immediacy, action in now because of present form, whereas infinitive is undefined as far as time, it can mean now, later, or much later.
For example:
Hoćeš ić na plažu? - refers to some future action but undefined in time, because of the infinitive form ići .
Hoćeš da ideš na plažu? - refers to right now because of the present form ideš.


----------



## Ziemniak

matkec said:


> The da + present construction will sound awkward and maybe ungrammatical to most people in Croatia. It would be immediately interpreted as Serbian.


I understand, if so I will try to refrain from using it when talking to Croats  THank you 


thegreathoo said:


> "Da" form is more unusual amongst Croatians.  "Da" form is used exclusively with present tense, for example da idem where idem is present of the infinitive ići.   Amongst Serbs both forms are used, but the da+present denotes immediacy, action in now because of present form, whereas infinitive is undefined as far as time, it can mean now, later, or much later.
> For example:
> Hoćeš ić na plažu? - refers to some future action but undefined in time, because of the infinitive form ići .
> Hoćeš da ideš na plažu? - refers to right now because of the present form ideš.


Nice! I wasn't aware of that  Thank you


----------



## EuropeanOrigin

Does the "da" form exist in OCS and other Slavic languages or dialects?


----------



## vianie

EuropeanOrigin said:


> Does the "da" form exist in OCS and other Slavic languages or dialects?



Speaking of the WSL, Polish _da_ and Czech+Slovak _dá_ only means _(he/she/it) gives/will give_


----------



## ahvalj

EuropeanOrigin said:


> Does the "da" form exist in OCS and other Slavic languages or dialects?


In OCS/Russian it is mostly used to compensate the absent forms of the Imperative: _да боудетъ воля твоя/да будет воля твоя/your will be done_.


----------



## FairOaks

Oh yeah, the overly absent forms in the 3rd p.: *бѫди*, *бѫдѣтє*, *бѫдѫ*…


----------



## ahvalj

FairOaks said:


> Oh yeah, the overly absent forms in the 3rd p. *бѫди*, *бѫдѣтє*, *бѫдѫ*…


The questions please refer to Cyril and Methodius: _γενηθήτω/fiat_ was translated _да бѫдетъ_, not _б__ѫ__ди_. 
Sorry for _оу_ in my previous post. Those stupid nasals…


----------



## ahvalj

Meillet (_«Le Slave commun»_ — https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJTVpnVVZEVDVBcG8/edit?usp=sharing p. 391–392) derives the conjunctive meaning of _da_ in the OCS _изиде сѣѩи да сѣѥтъ_ from the original optative meaning in e. g. _дастъ имъ власть на доусѣхъ нечистыихъ да изгонѧтъ ѩ:_ "he gave them power: let they expell" > "he gave them power for them to expell".


----------



## FairOaks

ahvalj said:


> The questions please refer to Cyril and Methodius: _γενηθήτω/fiat_ was translated _да бѫдетъ_, not _б__ѫ__ди_.
> Sorry for _оу_ in my previous post. Those stupid nasals…


Don't apologise. I make similar mistakes all the time.
And yes, I know that it's a ДА-construction in this type of sentence, but don't you think the meaning is a tad different to an imperative? As a grammatical construction, it's closer to a bare infinitive or a "may (X) do (live/reign) blah-blah" construction (essentially, an optative).


----------



## FairOaks

ahvalj said:


> Meillet (_«Le Slave commun»_ — https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJTVpnVVZEVDVBcG8/edit?usp=sharing p. 391–392) derives the conjunctive meaning of _da_ in the OCS _изиде сѣѩи да сѣѥтъ_ from the original optative meaning in e. g. _дастъ имъ власть на доусѣхъ нечистыихъ да изгонѧтъ ѩ:_ "he gave them power: let they expell" > "he gave them power for them to expell".


Yeah. Conjunctive, too, that is to say in the sense of "(in order) to", which is present in modern Bulgarian as well.
A fuller version of that translation would be: "… in order that (they expel) …"


----------



## ahvalj

FairOaks said:


> And yes, I know that it's a ДА-construction in this type of sentence, but don't you think the meaning is a tad different to an imperative? As a grammatical construction, it's closer to a bare infinitive or a "may (X) do (live/reign) blah-blah" construction (essentially, an optative).


The Slavic Imperative itself is the IE Optative (as also in Prussian and Latvian), and the Conjunctive is the Perfect of the Optative (_далъ бимь = ich würde gegeben haben_). I agree that _да_ makes the form less strong (in Russian definitely), but it is hard to tell whether it was so in the 9–10th centuries.


----------



## FairOaks

ahvalj said:


> The Slavic Imperative itself is the IE Optative (as also in Prussian and Latvian), and the Conjunctive is the Perfect of the Optative (_далъ бимь = ich würde gegeben haben_). I agree that _да_ makes the form less strong (in Russian definitely), but it is hard to tell whether it was so in the 9–10th centuries.


1) I'm talking about Old Slavic (OCS, Old Bulgarian, whatever you want to call it).
2) "Less strong" means it's still the same thing, but to a lesser extent. An imperative means "I'm ordering you to do sth", whereas I'm talking of a wish (be it as strong as it may). Such sentences sometimes contain wishes which can never be granted, no matter how hard anyone tries. Or it could be a subjunctive, which is indeed "less strong", for it isn't a command at all.


----------



## ahvalj

FairOaks said:


> 1) I'm talking about Old Slavic (OCS, Old Bulgarian, whatever you want to call it).
> 2) "Less strong" means it's still the same thing, but to a lesser extent. An imperative means "I'm ordering you to do sth", whereas I'm talking of a wish (be it as strong as it may). Such sentences sometimes contain wishes which can never be granted, no matter how hard anyone tries. Or it could be a subjunctive, which is indeed "less strong", for it isn't a command at all.


I understand all this, I am just not sure if in the 9-10th century language the Imperative form had reached its clean imperative meaning, especially outside the second person. That's the problem. _Да_ _бѫдетъ_ translates the Greek Aoristus Imperativi Passivi (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=genhqh/tw&la=greek) and I guess this wish was expected to be granted. Anyway, that's where I have to stop as any further discussion requires a better experience in this topic, which I lack.


----------



## FairOaks

ahvalj said:


> I understand all this, I am just not sure if in the 9-10th century language the Imperative form had reached its clean imperative meaning, especially outside the second person. That's the problem. _Да_ _бѫдетъ_ translates the Greek Aoristus Imperativi Passivi (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=genhqh/tw&la=greek) and I guess this wish was expected to be granted. Anyway, that's where I have to stop as any further discussion requires a better experience in this topic, which I lack.



Well, if the imperative meaning was applied to the 2nd p., it is reasonable enough to assume that it was used likewise for the other persons; however, since I'm also quite uncertain what the old Imperative and the Greek Aoristus Imperativi Passivi meant _exactly_, I withdraw from the discussion, too. If somebody knows more about these things, may he speak!


----------



## ahvalj

By the way, I have a genial hypothesis that turns the situation upside down. There is a huge problem how to etymologize the regional Slavic _-тъ_ endings in the Present Sg. 3 and Pl. 3. However, in the Imperative _da_-construction (_да_ _бѫдетъ/__бѫд__ѫ__тъ_) these endings can be easily explained as original IE Imperative forms on -_tu_/-_ntu_: *_dō būndetu_/_būndantu_, with an absolutely regular phonetic development, and if so, these forms at the time of Cyril and Methodius could have been perceived as _regular_ Imperatives of the 3rd person (hence the translation of the Greek Imperative) as opposed to the _still somewhat Optative_ _бѫди _from_ *__būndaīt._


----------



## ahvalj

I think it would be worth separating this _da_-discussion into a new thread.


----------



## EuropeanOrigin

vianie said:
			
		

> Speaking of the WSL, Polish da and Czech+Slovak dá only means (he/she/it) gives/will give


If Croatian and west Slavic languages don't have this would it be safe to say that Slovenian doesn't either? 


			
				ahvalj said:
			
		

> In OCS/Russian it is mostly used to compensate the absent forms of the Imperative: да боудетъ воля твоя/да будет воля твоя/your will be done.


Does the same apply to Ukrainian and Belarussian? Is that the same way it is used in Serbian and Bulgarian today?


----------



## matkec

_Da + present_ like in _želim da idem_ (instead of _želim ići_) is the result of a sprachbund. Bulgarian and Macedonian have it too, I think.

It is not the same as using _da_ as a complementizer (English _that_, Czech _že_, I think), which can be done in other (all?) Slavic languages.


----------



## thegreathoo

EuropeanOrigin said:


> Is that the same way it is used in Serbian and Bulgarian today?



Yes, it can be used as imperative, analogous to "shall" in English, but it is not the only way to express such imperative. (Serbian lang. does not have the word shall, so we can only talk about analogies here.) The reasons is, as I explained before, da+present denotes immediacy, action right now, because of the verb in present.

I agree with ahvalj, and the facts he presented, da+present was in use in OCS, so I do not agree with this: 



matkec said:


> _Da + present_ like in _želim da idem_ (instead of _želim ići_)* is the result of a sprachbund*.



For example, King Milutin in 1313 CE uses it in his Deed of Land to St. Stephen Monastery, a legal document that governs duties and relations in the land. Here, da+present is analogous to "shall" because of the legal use.  In any case, we can safely conclude that this form is not a sprachbund and it has been around forever.

As far as today's use,  Serbs also use it to express the "then-now," the now at the exact time in the past or future, which is the point of contention between Serbs and Croats.  

For example:
_Htjeo sam _(past tense, I wanted)_ da idem _(present tense, to go) _na odmor_ (on vacation).   
Here, the da+present brings the now to some time in the past when that now was the case, it emphasizes it's immediacy at that time.  This use of da+present is a very common way among some Serbs to speak about the past. It is however very uncommon among Croatians, if not nonexistent, they strictly use the infinitive:  _Htjeo sam ići (_infinitive) _na odmor.

_This usage is especially pronunced when stacking verbs:
_Da sam htio da orem, da ženjem, da se znojim, ne bi došao da živim u gradu. _ This sounds like too many da, folkish, lively because of the mixing of past and present tense. The da+present has the effect of describing action at that precise time in the past.
The infinitive version is:
_Da sam htio orati, žnjeti, znojiti se, ne bi došao živjeti u gradu_.  The use of infinitive verbs has the effect of describing any time rather than precise time.


----------



## DarkChild

matkec said:


> _Da + present_ like in _želim da idem_ (instead of _želim ići_) is the result of a sprachbund. *Bulgarian and Macedonian have it too, I think.*
> 
> It is not the same as using _da_ as a complementizer (English _that_, Czech _že_, I think), which can be done in other (all?) Slavic languages.



Yes, and since we no longer have infinitives, this is the only way to say it.

By the way, the complementizer in Bulgarian is not *da*, but *che*.


----------



## ahvalj

matkec said:


> It is not the same as using _da_ as a complementizer (English _that_, Czech _že_, I think), which can be done in other (all?) Slavic languages.


Russian preserves it in the extended form _дабы_ and uses it only with the Conjunctive (when the actor in the subordinated clause is different) or Infinitive (when the actor is the same or when it is expressed with a personal pronoun in the Dative):
_дабы он поведал_ (=_чтобы он поведал_)
_дабы поведать_ (=_чтобы поведать_)
_дабы ему поведать_ (=_чтобы ему поведать_).

This conjunction had been rather obsolete for many decades but recently started to regain popularity.

Concerning the Balkanic _da, вышел сеятель да сеет_ is impossible in Russian and I cannot recall it outside the most hardcore Old Church Slavonic writings: the only form used when the actor is the same in both parts of the complex sentence is the Infinitive: _вышел сеятель сеять _(or the Supine in the oldest East Slavic).

Update. Actually, _вышел сеятель да сеет_ is possible in the countryside style, but _да_ will have the meaning "and" (like in _Иван да Марья_).


----------



## EuropeanOrigin

thegreathoo said:
			
		

> In any case, we can safely conclude that this form is not a sprachbund and it has been around forever.


Does that mean all other Slavic languages once used it?


----------



## thegreathoo

EuropeanOrigin said:


> Does that mean all other Slavic languages once used it?



I don't know.  I can only speak about Serbian.  There are documents written by kings in the area who use it.  Another one is Bosnian King Stephen (Ban Stefan), he writes to the rulers of city of Dubrovnik: да имаю и дръже и да чине всо свою воллю (to have and to hold and to do at their own will).   Here, the da+present is not used as "shall," rather as an infinitive "to have."  When it comes to general area of western Balkans (Dinaric region Serbia, Bosnia, Dalmatia), we can safely conclude that da+present is not sprachbund.  

We do not however see the unlimited use of da+present in those documents, the way Serbs use it today with every available tense in Serbian language.  That maybe because the documents are limited in content and they do not show the full scope of language, of course.  However, we do see that the form is used as infinitive (to have, to hold, etc.), so there is no reason why it cannot be applied with every tense.  (by every tense, I mean situations where there are two actions, like I went to see, where first verb can be in any tense, and the second verb to see is in the form da+present.)

I am not familiar with history of other Slavic languages.


----------



## matkec

thegreathoo said:


> we can safely conclude that da+present is not sprachbund


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Da+present is almost universally attributed to the Balkan Sprachbund in most literature.


----------



## More od Solzi

Ziemniak said:


> *
> 2. The Genitive -og/-oga
> 
> *Another thing that seems a little confusing - which is the more common/correct suffix to use with the genitive case? For example:
> 
> Gramatika _*bosanskog *_jezika OR Gramatika _*bosanskoga *_jezika
> Kuća _*mojeg *_oca OR Kuća _*mojega *_oca
> Knjiga _*lijepog *_dječaka OR Knjiga _*lijepoga *_dječaka
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!



My Croatian friend told me -og and -oga are interchangeable in Croatian (og is seen as a more colloquial variant),
with two or more adjectives this is the rule standard written language:
_
gramatika standardnoga hrvatskog jezika
gramatika modernoga standardnoga hrvatskog jezika_

the last -a is deleted


as for DA in Croatian:

Moraš se šaliti.  (obligation)    /You must joke/
Mora da se šališ (supposition) /You gotta be kidding me/
''Moraš da se šališ'' this is Serbian for /You must joke/ and never heard in Croatia.

Neću da si radim više problema (desire) / I don't want to create more problems for myself/
Neću si raditi više problema (futurity) / I'm not going to create more problems for myself/

Jedva čekam da vidim Ivanu. ( (I can't wait to see Ivana) 1
 Jedva čekam vidjeti Ivanu (I can't wait to see Ivana) 2

Tko ti je rekao da ideš na blagajnu? 1
Tko ti je rekao ići na blagajnu? 2
/Who told you to go to the cashier?/

Rekao je da će doći kasnije. 1
Rekao je doći kasnije. 2
/He said he would come later/

both are heard, in Zagreb and Dalmatia especially 2nd one is used

---
Aparrently ''rekao je doći '' is heard in Serbian too:


> _U _manastir ženski rekao je doći.


http://www.rastko.rs/knjizevnost/umetnicka/svinaver-pantologija.html


----------

