# BCS - Adjective forms (short vs long)



## Tassos

So, moving to adjectives now.
Here my main concern is about the various forms. 

First, the "classic" distinction between definite and indefinite forms.
I have read from various sources that this distinction is not so prominent anymore, or almost nonexistent (so much that R. Alexander uses the term *short forms* and *long forms*).
Does this hold equally in all the BCS republics?
This means that if I say 
_Kupio sam *nov* kaput_ or _Kupio sam *novi* kaput_ is virtually the same everywhere?

In general, can you give me examples (general or specific) when it's more preferable to use the short form than the long form?

Thank you.


----------



## VelikiMag

The rule is that whenever an adjective is part of a predicate, it has indefinite (short) form. So it would be: _Kaput je nov._

In your example, the adjective should be in the long form. _Kupio sam nov kaput_ somehow sounds wrong. At least with that particular adjective.


----------



## DenisBiH

Tassos said:


> This means that if I say
> _Kupio sam *nov* kaput_ or _Kupio sam *novi* kaput_ is virtually the same everywhere?



I still feel there's a difference between those two.



_Kupio sam nov kaput_ = I bought a new coat i.e. the coat is new. Since people usually buy new rather than second-hand stuff these days, it might sound a bit odd. As an expanded example, consider: _Kupio sam nov kaput, a feler na njemu._ 
_Kupio sam novi kaput_ = I bought another coat i.e. my wardrobe has one more coat in it. Also: _Kupio sam (onaj) novi kaput iz njihove zimske linije_ = I bought that/the new coat from their winter line.


----------



## Duya

While, on second thought, I sense the same difference as Denis, the utterance _kupio sam nov kaput_ probably would not catch my attention if I heard it. So yes, I'd say that the difference is often slight. As Mag said, short form is mandatory in predicative position, and it would be perceived as an error if you'd use a long one.


----------



## DenisBiH

Duya said:


> As Mag said, short form is mandatory in predicative position, and it would be perceived as an error if you'd use a long one.



How about the example below?

_Koji je Duyin __iPhone__?_
_Duyin iPhone je bijeli._ - "Duya's iPhone is *the* white *one*"

Or perhaps this isn't really the predicative position you and VelikiMag are talking about (_bijeli_ being the subject with the sentence order reversed)?


----------



## Duya

Thus spoke Zaraduya (about (in)definite forms of adjectives): 


Duya said:


> Well, I disagree. The difference is preserved in accent, however weak or volatile it is with many people's pronunciation. I do discern it, for onе:
> 
> *U kakvom je kaputu bila?*
> (What kind of coat did she wear?)
> 
> *U žú**tō**m.* (locative case of _žut_)
> ([In] A yellow one.)
> 
> *U kojem je kaputu bila?*
> (Which coat [of the known coats] did she wear?)
> 
> *U* *žû**tō**m.* (locative case of _žuti_)
> ([In] The yellow one.)



Tassos, please see the whole thread, and maybe even this one.

So yes, I agree with Denis, definite (long) form may signify "the one", i.e. one from a limited set of choices, and indefinite (short) form is just a plain descriptive adjective. Though it's questionable if the "_Duyin iPhone je bijeli_" is really a predicate adjective, because there is an implied "_Duyin iPhone je [*onaj*] bijeli_"; foreros who are more into grammar could provide us with a more strict definition. So I stand corrected -- it wouldn't "be perceived as an error if you'd use a long one", but a different semantics.


----------



## DenisBiH

Now there is an example where I *do *use the short form of adjective in cases other than nominative - the phrase _u žutu kaputu_. As in _Može, al' u žutu kaputu_. 

Very interesting stuff by the way, Duya. 

Could we try to make this observation of yours about the difference in accent into a table of sorts? This is my first attempt, if anyone is willing to correct any mistakes, I'd be very much obliged.



CaseIndefinite, Croatian and archaic BSIndefinite, BSDefinite, BCSNžȗtžȗtžȗtī
GžútažútōgžȗtōgDžútužútōmžȗtōmAžúta, žȗtžútōg, žȗtžȗtōg, žȗtī
VžȗtīžȗtīžȗtīIžútīmžútīmžȗtīmLžútužútōmžȗtōm


If this is ok, then it would seem that while indefinite forms borrowed definite declension endings, they kept their original indefinite accent/tone pattern.


----------



## el_tigre

Tassos said:


> First, the "classic" distinction between definite and indefinite forms.
> I have read from various sources that this distinction is not so prominent anymore, or almost nonexistent (so much that R. Alexander uses the term *short forms* and *long forms*).
> Does this hold equally in all the BCS republics?
> This means that if I say
> _Kupio sam *nov* kaput_ or _Kupio sam *novi* kaput_ is virtually the same everywhere?
> 
> 
> Thank you.



actually:
_Kupio sam *nov* kaput_ -I bought *a new* coat
_Kupio sam *novi* kaput_-I bought *the new* coat

this


----------



## Duya

DenisBiH said:


> Could we try to make this observation of yours about the difference in accent into a table of sorts? This is my first attempt, if anyone is willing to correct any mistakes, I'd be very much obliged.
> 
> Indefinite, BS



"indefinite BS" ?!  

The table looks accurate to me -- that is, it reflects my pronunciation* .

Those two different declensions are known as "imenička" (noun) and "pridjevska" (adjective) and yes, the former one is in retreat. Note that the noun declension of is _žȗt_ almost the same as for _pȗt_, with the exception of instrumental and vocative (I'm not sure if the vocative is _žȗtī_ or _žȗt_, and how much sense does a vocative make to address something that is undetermined yet).

*) I've learned to be very careful in presumptions that my own accentuation matches the "standard" one, particularly for Serbian standard, which is largely based on ekavian prosody from western Serbia and ijekavian prosody from Montenegro-Herzegovina area, e.g. _mlijèko_.


----------



## DenisBiH

> "indefinite BS" ?!



Indefinite forms, Bosnian and Serbian. I'm unsure about the status these forms have in Croatian.



> Note that the noun declension of is _žȗt_ almost the same as for _pȗt_, with the exception of instrumental and vocative (I'm not sure if the vocative is _žȗtī_ or _žȗt_, and how much sense does a vocative make to address something that is undetermined yet).



That (_pȗt) _actually crossed my mind.  As for the vocative, I had the same question, but since both HJP and phosphore's post here have that -_ī _for vocative of indefinite forms, I went with _žȗtī._


----------



## Tassos

Duya said:


> Tassos, please see the whole thread, and maybe even this one.



I saw it. I was sure there must have been another thread on the subject. I just didn't do the search well.
Btw, nice memory after 1200 posts!
The thing that struck me the most is when Natasha says that in mlad/mlada/mlado vs mladi/mlada/mlado the feminine and neuter are pronounced differently. And then you write: _The difference is preserved in accent, however weak or volatile it is  with many people's pronunciation. I do discern it, for onе. 
_What Natasha is saying here is that in the definite mlada/mlado the a is longer, right? But do you think that a foreigner talking to a native could discern the difference? Does it depend on the region? 



Duya said:


> So yes, I agree with Denis, definite (long) form may signify "the one", i.e. one from a limited set of choices, and indefinite (short) form is just a plain descriptive adjective. Though it's questionable if the "_Duyin iPhone je bijeli_" is really a predicate adjective, because there is an implied "_Duyin iPhone je [*onaj*] bijeli_"; foreros who are more into grammar could provide us with a more strict definition. So I stand corrected -- it wouldn't "be perceived as an error if you'd use a long one", but a different semantics.



Let's see if I got this right:
_My phone is white_ requires the short form
_My phone is the white one_ can also take the long form. But if it was another case, it could also take the *longer *form... That means depending on the meaning you want to convey this construction can use all three forms?


----------



## DenisBiH

Tassos said:


> What Natasha is saying here is that in the definite mlada/mlado the a is longer, right? But do you think that a foreigner talking to a native could discern the difference? Does it depend on the region?



In my speech at least, there is a difference in both the tone on the accented syllable (long rising vs. long falling) and the post-accentual length.

young f. indef. = mláda
young f. def. = mlȃdā 
young n. indef = mládo
young n. def = mlȃdō

Here's corroboration:


> Posebno je poučan primjer koji je još 1812. godine napisao mladi svećenik Šime Starčević u svojoj gramatici Nova ričoslovica ilirička: *Mlȃdā mlȃda još nije dosta mláda*.6



The young (*mlȃdā*, def) bride (*mlȃda*) is still not young (*mláda*, indef) enough. Although I think I use mlȃdā rather than mlȃda for "bride" (Bosnian dictionaries give both forms).


The perception and realization of tones and, especially, lengths, seems to depend on the region. 

From what I have gathered so far on this forum and elsewhere, people in Kajkavian (and possibly Chakavian) areas of Croatia and Torlakian areas of Serbia might not perceive and/or articulate the tones as is usually required in the standard(s). Also, people in some Shtokavian areas where the dialectal basis is not fully (or at all) Neo-Shtokavian might have different accentuation in at least some words. 

As for post-accentual lengths, from what I have gathered, generally they are best preserved in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro (and possibly some adjoining regions of Serbia and Croatia); in large parts of Serbia and Croatia they have been partially or completely lost. Other foreros please correct me if I'm wrong. 

So, since even native speakers don't all follow these accentuation and length rules (although they are usually given in dictionaries and grammar books and considered a part of the standard language), foreigners can get away with not pronouncing them entirely correctly also, IMHO. As for whether foreigners can generally discern those differences, with enough practice, exposure and willingness to learn everything is possible. Foreigners learn Mandarin Chinese and in it you *have to* know and use the tones. For some inspiration, I would recommend searching for  "Mary Sherhart" (an American _sevdah _performer) on YouTube. I am particularly partial to her interpretation of "Karanfile cvijeće moje".


----------



## Brainiac

DenisBiH said:


> Nova ričoslovica ilirička: *Mlȃdā mlȃda još nije dosta mláda*
> 
> 
> 
> The young (*mlȃdā*, def) bride (*mlȃda*) is still not young (*mláda*, indef) enough. Although I think I use mlȃdā rather than mlȃda for "bride" (Bosnian dictionaries give both forms).
Click to expand...


Ja sam čula i dugo i kratko A u _mlada_, u raznim sredinama i situacijama, ne bih rekla da se svi drže pravila niti da su ona striktna, u svakodnevnom govoru. Konfuzije nema, razume se iz konteksta značenje. Mene, na primer, nije trglo _mlada mlada _jedno pored drugog, već ovo _nije dosta mlada_ - valjda nije dosta stara (not old enough.... to be a bride, for example). Translation*- still not young enough* - sounds somehow illogical, or even wrong. I would translate - (she is)* not that young*.

Ja bih ovu rečenicu radije sročila: _Mlada mlada nije (baš) tako mlada_. 
Može i _Mlada mlada nije baš mlada_, mada ovaj drugi primer može da znači da je 
a. malo stara za mladu, ili (_mlada_ pridev)
b. da ne liči na mladu - ženu koja se udaje (_mlada_ imenica), ili nije za mladu jer joj ne priliči, ili nije ništa posebno lepotom/izgledom.[=_Mlada mlada i nije neka mlada]_. 
(U takvoj rečenici, recimo, nije sasvim jasno da li se misli na pridev ili imenicu, ali prva pomisao je da je pod a.)

Konstrukcija rečenice zna više da zbuni od sličnosti reči, dužini samoglasnika u rečima, razlike u tonovima, akcentima i sl.


----------



## DenisBiH

Brainiac 

The example I quoted does seem a bit confusing. I like your examples much better.


----------



## Brainiac

Denis, then I'm proud 

About Duya's ipod:

Duja ima beli ipod. Dujin ipod je *beo*. (statement, fact)
Na stolu su dva ipoda. Dujin je [onaj] *beli* (I think _beo_ fits too). *Beo/beli* je Dujin. (when there are two or more items of the same kind)


----------



## Duya

Brainiac said:


> Na stolu su dva ipoda. Dujin je [onaj] *beli* (I think _beo_ fits too). *Beo/beli* je Dujin. (when there are two or more items of the same kind)



_Beo_ doesn't work for me here.

Side note: _beo/beli_ are ekavian short/long forms, and _bijel/bijeli_ ijekavian forms of the same adjective (white), from common Slavic *běl. L-vocalization took place in _beo_, but not in _bijel_ (in which case, it would read *_bio_, still present in some dialects). However, in near-identical adjective *cěl (whole), ekavian forms are _ceo/celi_, but ijekavian are _cio/cijeli_; standards permit rarer _cijel_. So much for consistency.


----------



## Tassos

DenisBiH said:


> So, since even native speakers don't all follow these accentuation and length rules (although they are usually given in dictionaries and grammar books and considered a part of the standard language), foreigners can get away with not pronouncing them entirely correctly also, IMHO.



How about not at all? 




DenisBiH said:


> As for whether foreigners can generally discern those differences, with enough practice, exposure and willingness to learn everything is possible. Foreigners learn Mandarin Chinese and in it you *have to* know and use the tones.



If you didn't know how to pronounce the tones you would have 50 syllables with which to cover a language that consists almost entirely of one-syllable or two-syllable words.

Speaking of songs... There is a song by Idoli called Čokolada. There the lyric goes: Ti si moja čokolada, ja sam tvoja čokolada, i da nisi tako *mlada*, ja bih te ljubio.

First here the short form must be used as it is a predicate, right?
Now, if you have heard the song, how would you say that Vlada Divljan pronounces the word mlada ?


----------



## DenisBiH

Well, songs aren't necessarily the best source for learning the tones, but I hear the long rising tone there, as should be for the indefinite form. If you don't mind, I'd rather refer to the form as indefinite form rather than short form.


----------



## Brainiac

Duya said:


> _Beo_ doesn't work for me here.


Beo [=telefon] je Dujin. (The white phone belongs to Duya)
Beli je Dujin. (The white, not the black one belongs to Duya)

If this doesn't work for you or you find it wrong, then explain to me please how you feel the difference.


----------



## VelikiMag

DenisBiH said:


> How about the example below?
> 
> _Koji je Duyin __iPhone__?_
> _Duyin iPhone je bijeli._ - "Duya's iPhone is *the* white *one*"
> 
> Or perhaps this isn't really the predicative position you and VelikiMag are talking about (_bijeli_ being the subject with the sentence order reversed)?



The full sentence would be: _Duyin iPhone je bijeli iPhone._ But for obvious reasons we can omit the second _i__Phone_, although _bijeli_ remains, no matter that it refers to a word which isn't there anymore. Or we can just say: _Duyin je bijeli iPhone_ and then things are clear.

One thing which I didn't mention about this rule, but it turns out to be important, is that an adjective has to be without a noun. Here is the citation from Serbian Grammar by Ivan Klajn:


> Od presudne važnosti je samo jedno pravilo: kada je pridev bez imenice u predikatu, posle glagola _biti_ ili nekog kopulativnog glagola, kao _postati, izgledati_ i sl., obavezno će biti u neodređenom vidu, ukoliko ovaj postoji. Tako kažemo npr.:
> Glumac je _mlad_
> Izgledaš mi _umoran_
> dok bi rečenice kao *_Glumac je mladi, *Izgledaš mi umorni_ bile nemoguće. U neodređenom vidu su i privremeni atribut i apozitiv.


----------



## VelikiMag

Tassos said:


> There is a song by Idoli called Čokolada. There the lyric goes: Ti si moja čokolada, ja sam tvoja čokolada, i da nisi tako *mlada*, ja bih te ljubio.
> 
> First here the short form must be used as it is a predicate, right?


Try not to forget that only adjectives in masculine gender have so called _short_ and _long_ forms. Adjectives in feminine, neuter and plural have definite forms with long last vowel, but there isn't any difference in orthography, so you shouldn't be worried about it.


----------



## bovcic

_Duyin iPhone je bijeli._ - "Duya's iPhone is *the* white *one*.
Dujinova iPhone je beli.  "Duja is a hard name to convert to possessive."

Croatian - od Istre (Kvarner area) dialect goes like this:
Nada's cat is white, but her cow is black.
Nadinova macka je bela, ali njezina (njezinova) krava je crna.


----------

