# Croatian (BCS): Is doba indeclinable?



## Vincent Jappi

"Doba" (n.)  is undeclinable in Croatian.


----------



## DenisBiH

Vincent Jappi said:


> "Doba" (n.)  is undeclinable in Croatian.




No it's not.


----------



## Vincent Jappi

Yes it is.


----------



## Duya

No it's not. We're native speakers, please trust us.

I was about to point you to declension at HJP, but they got it spectacularly wrong (and I reported the error); seems that they applied feminine declension, when in fact it should be neuter (it is an odd word because it is neuter but has -a suffix in the nominative). The declension should be:

Sg.
N doba
G doba
D dobu
A doba
V doba
L dobu
I dobom

Pl.
N doba
G doba
D dobima
A doba
V doba
L dobima
I dobima


----------



## Orlin

Duya said:


> No it's not. We're native speakers, please trust us.
> 
> I was about to point you to declension at HJP, but they got it spectacularly wrong (and I reported the error); seems that they applied feminine declension, when in fact it should be neuter (it is an odd word because it is neuter but has -a suffix in the nominative). The declension should be:
> 
> Sg.
> N doba
> G doba
> D dobu
> A doba
> V doba
> L dobu
> I dobom
> 
> Pl.
> N doba
> G doba
> D dobima
> A doba
> V doba
> L dobima
> I dobima


 
I ja sam primetio taj problem s deklinacijom "doba" na HJP i isto sam se tako mnogo čudio kako bi mogao da bude tako nelogično!


----------



## Vincent Jappi

Both my French and German dictionaries indicate "doba" as indeclinable.   Maybe  the rule  is so contrary to the spirit of the language that it is being followed by no one.   But why would dictionaries and manuals contradict actual practice if there were no reason for it?

The author of "DAS KROATISCHE VOLKSSPRACHLICHE MISSALE ROMANUM DES 16. JAHRHUNDERTS"  also seems to believe hat "doba" is indeclinable. He says :   'Nur einmal ist das Substantiv doba im Genitiv mit der Endung -i belegt: do togai dobi (284). Im Übrigen ist doba WIE HEUTE INDEKLINABEL, vgl. "u mieru doba" (240, 373),  "u to(i) doba" (32, 104, 107, 141, 228), "do toga(i)doba" (175)'

"Hrvatski pravopis: Obradio Ured za hrvatski jezik" Franjo Cipra, A. B. Klaić - 1944 - 459 s.  "obično se ne sklanja, na pr. živimo u velikom doba; Novo Doba novine"


----------



## Duya

I trust you, but they got it wrong (overwriting from the same source, perhaps?).

I don't think that Serbo-Croatian has really indeclinable nouns. I found the following on Google books:

Lalević (1974) says that "Nepromenljive su imenice, doba, po, pola, podne, put, ali se neke katkad i menjaju u ponekom padežu..." However:



_doba_ is fully declinable and I really don't know where he got it otherwise
_p__o_ and _pola_ (meaning, _half_) are indeclinable indeed, but I'm not sure they are _nouns_. HJP says they are adverbs (which is not quite logical either), and I'd say they behave exactly like numbers.
_podne_ (_noon_) has full declination (see HJP). Having undeclined form in e.g. "_Sunce najjače prži u letnjim *podnevima*_." is unimaginable.
_put_ (in sense, _times_, _svaki put=every time_) is also indeclinable, but I'm not sure it's a noun either. HJP again says adverb.
 Further down the page, Stanić/Moračić (1981) say that "_a neke nepromenljive (ledi, mis, mister)_". While those honorific loans are indeclinable indeed, their status as nouns is again doubtful. They sound more like indeclinable adjectives (we have plenty of those). HJP even declines mister, but it is really funny, and could be applicable only to a beauty contest winner "mister", not to "gospodin" one.

_Ledi_ (lady) is the only real candidate for an indeclinable BCS noun, in my opinion.


----------



## Vincent Jappi

GRAMMAIRE DE LA LANGUE SERBO-CROATE DE PARCIC  TRADUITE  AVEC DE NOMBREUSES MODIFICATIONS DE LA GRAMMAIRE SLAVE  PAR LE DR FEUVRIER, LAURÉAT DE L'ACADEMIE FRANÇAISE  EN MISSION AU MONTENEGRO DE 1873 À 1880 ET DE 1885 À 1889   "Doba 406a «époque, temps», est neutre et indéclinable."  More recently :  Celia Hawkesworth,  "Colloquial Croatian and Serbian: the complete course for beginners", p. 132:  "u ovo doba  ----------- at this time (doba: n. and indeclinable)"


----------



## Duya

Vincent Jappi said:


> "Hrvatski pravopis: Obradio Ured za hrvatski jezik" Franjo Cipra, A. B. Klaić - 1944 - 459 s.  "obično se ne sklanja, na pr. živimo u velikom doba; Novo Doba novine"



Fair enough, but your newest source is from 1944. Both modern Serbian and Croatian happily decline it: "prehrana po dobima", "trčanje po raznim godišnjim dobima", "U tom dobu izrađena su i prva koplja.", "U tom dobu dolazi do spuštanja"


----------



## Vincent Jappi

I have also found the alleged "declension" on Wictionary. But there is definitely an inconsistency between the absolutely constant practice of saying "u to doba"  and the alleged locative in "dobu".

the complete course for beginners is from the 21th century. And I have never heard anything like "u tom dobu" on the radio. Only once did I hear "u toj dobi".


----------



## Duya

Vincent Jappi said:


> "u ovo doba  ----------- at this time (doba: n. and indeclinable)"



Yeah, but "ovo doba" is accusative, not locative, here, and thus the same as nominative for neuter inanimate nouns. Compare "u ovaj trenutak" (m.), "u ovo vreme" (n.) (but "u ov*u* sekund*u*" (f.)).

It is quite possible that the noun _used to be_ indeclinable. But the language strongly resists the notion, and it is certainly not anymore.


----------



## Vincent Jappi

"DAS KROATISCHE VOLKSSPRACHLICHE. MISSALE ROMANUM DES 16. JAHRHUNDERTS"  is from Mario Grčević (2005).  So we have a contemporary Croatian philologist who states unequivocally that "doba" is indeclinable NOW.


----------



## Duya

...and, let us distinguish related noun dob, which refers specifically to an age of life, and is of 4th (?) declension group (feminines ending in vocal). It is almost exclusively Croatian. It has locative "u toj dobi".


----------



## Duya

Vincent Jappi said:


> "DAS KROATISCHE VOLKSSPRACHLICHE. MISSALE ROMANUM DES 16. JAHRHUNDERTS"  is from Mario Grčević (2005).  So we have a contemporary Croatian philologist who states unequivocally that "doba" is indeclinable NOW.



Hm, even with my bad German I understand that the title means "_Croatian folk speech. Roman Misal in 16th Century_", and the examples you quoted above are written in ancient orthography.


----------



## Vincent Jappi

"U ovo doba" is NOT accusative in most cases.  Where "u to doba" appears,  you would say alternatively "u tom vremenu",  and not "u to vrijeme".


----------



## Duya

Vincent Jappi said:


> "u uvo doba" is NOT accusative in most cases.  Where "u to doba" appears,  you would say alternatively "u tom vremenu",  and not "u to vrijeme".



False 

http://www.google.com/search?q="u+to+vrijeme"

Both are allowed, with slightly different meaning. But "u to vrijeme" is slightly preferred to http://www.google.com/search?q="u+tom+vremenu". 

I think that "u+accusative" works only for temporal notions, but it is slightly preferred to locative. Specifically:

* "u to vrijeme" means "at/around that moment"
* "u tom vremenu" means "in that period"


----------



## Vincent Jappi

What counts is that "u to doba"  may also stand for "u tom vremenu" and I have never heard "u tom dobu"  from professional speakers.


----------



## DenisBiH

I must say I find this whole scene of a Frenchman teaching Croatian to a native speaker of one of the BCS languages rather amusing, but nevertheless, let's stress it again...doba is declinable.

HJP (faulty declension aside) in its entry for doba clearly shows (*dȏba* _sr_ 〈D L dȏbu〉) it is not indeclinable in Croatian. HJP is based on these dictionaries, which seems to be as up to date a collection as any can be.


----------



## Duya

Not really, the meanings are slightly different:


u to doba = u to vrijeme = at that time
u tom dobu = u tom vremenu = at that [defined] period
You will seldom hear "u tom dobu" because it requires a previously well-defined time period. When talking about the Stone Age, ("_kameno doba_") (hr.wikipedia link above), you would say "_u tom dobu_" (that is, _kamenom_). Just see the Google search. In every example on the first page of hits, it's either about a life age, or a historical period, always defined by the context.
 
"U to doba", "u to vrijeme" is more often used because it basically just means "simultaneously, at the same time". Which is much more often required in speech.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Duya said:


> seems that they applied feminine declension, when in fact it should be neuter (it is an odd word because it is neuter but has -a suffix in the nominative).


 
Could the Croatian standard be different than the Serbian standard in this case? I'm wondering because *doba* is feminine in Slovenian, so perhaps this is a case of Kajkavian (or Chakavian) influence on standard Croatian?

As for Slovenian, in addition to the names mentioned by Sokol, there are a few other nouns that aren't usually declined (e.g. *punči*, *karitas*),* but they are exceedingly rare. Even loanwords that aren't usually declined when they first enter the Slovenian language tend to become declinable after some time.

* Note that these are both are feminine nouns not ending in *-a*, just like the personal names mentioned by Sokol. However, most other feminine nouns not ending in *-a* (e.g. *cerkev, peč, miš, rit, povodenj*) _are_ fully declinable.


----------



## DenisBiH

> Could the Croatian standard be different than the Serbian standard in this case? I'm wondering because *doba* in Slovenian is feminine, so perhaps this is a case of Kajkavian (or Chakavian) influence on standard Croatian?


If you look at the page with the faulty declension, at the top you can see the correct forms for D/L (dobu) taken from the dictionary entries, and then the erroneous forms listed declined below (D/L **dobi). If it truly were a difference in standards and not a mistake, you wouldn't have that discrepancy.

What I presume is that these declensions on the HJP site were not created manually, but rather automatically with an engine that deduces case endings based on some criteria, and that in this case the engine failed miserably.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

DenisBiH said:


> If you look at the page with the faulty declension, at the top you can see the correct forms for D/L (dobu) taken from the dictionary entries, and then the erroneous forms listed declined below (D/L **dobi). If it truly were a difference in standards and not a mistake, you wouldn't have that discrepancy.


 
That makes sense. Hvala!


----------



## Duya

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Could the Croatian standard be different than the Serbian standard in this case? I'm wondering because *doba* is feminine in Slovenian, so perhaps this is a case of Kajkavian (or Chakavian) influence on standard Croatian?



Well, no, I cited Croatian dictionary and Croatian websites all the time. As I said, Croatian does have an additional feminine noun *dob*, but it wasn't the focus of this thread.

It is possible that neuter *doba* is a recent invention. It is the only neuter noun ending in -a that I know about (that's probably why HJP got it wrong), so the declension may have been "re-invented". But I don't know for sure.


----------



## DenisBiH

Po nekim primjerima iz Hrvatskog jezičnog korpusa čini se kao da je u književnom hrvatskom nekad i postojala riječ _doba_ f.



> ...ne ima na njem što bi se izvinuti iliti                 izpraviti moralo, dakle je za svoju *dobu* i odveć pametan...
> Miroslav Kraljević [*1863*], _Požežki đak ili Ljubimo milu svoju narodnost i grlimo, sladki svoj narodni jezik_
> 
> Odakle u tu kasnu *dobu*?   - Od fratra, kapetane!
> August Šenoa [*1875*], _Čuvaj se senjske ruke_
> 
> , i baš se uglibio u mudre                 izreke stojičke škole o pravom shvatanju svieta, tješio se i svojom *dobom
> *Ksaver Šandor Gjalski [*1886*], _Pod starimi krovovi. Zapisci i ulomci iz plemenitaškoga svieta._


No, evo i nekoliko primjera sklanjanja/deklinacije _doba_ n. iz HJK:



> Kada kucne časak tome *dobu*
> — A kucnut će, to svi dusi mniju,
> ...
> O desetom *dobu* kano mjesec
> Svojom rieči okolici                         svieti;
> ...
> Nov ti obraz kreće s ovim                         *dobom*.
> Istina je, rast će ko do sada


Sva tri primjera su iz: Petar Preradović [*1890*], _Izabrane pjesme_  (Matica hrvatska, Zagreb)


----------



## Orlin

DenisBiH said:


> Po nekim primjerima iz Hrvatskog jezičnog korpusa čini se kao da je u književnom hrvatskom nekad i postojala riječ _doba_ f.
> 
> 
> No, evo i nekoliko primjera sklanjanja/deklinacije _doba_ n. iz HJK:
> 
> Sva tri primjera su iz: Petar Preradović [*1890*], _Izabrane pjesme_ (Matica hrvatska, Zagreb)


 
U bugarskom postoji imenica доба *ženskog* roda (više ili manje arhaična) i zato je sve što si spomenuo sasvim verovatno.


----------



## sokol

Duya said:


> Hm, even with my bad German I understand that the title means "_Croatian folk speech. Roman Misal in 16th Century_", and the examples you quoted above are written in ancient orthography.





Vincent Jappi said:


> The author of "DAS KROATISCHE VOLKSSPRACHLICHE MISSALE ROMANUM DES 16. JAHRHUNDERTS"  also seems to believe hat "doba" is indeclinable. He says :   'Nur einmal ist das Substantiv doba im Genitiv mit der Endung -i belegt: do togai dobi (284). Im Übrigen ist doba WIE HEUTE INDEKLINABEL, vgl. "u mieru doba" (240, 373),  "u to(i) doba" (32, 104, 107, 141, 228), "do toga(i)doba" (175)'



Duya, the quote given by Vincent says that doba is "wie heute indeklinabel", meaning it was indeclinable then and "is indeclinable now".
So the author quoted by Vincent claims that "doba" were indeclinable even in modern Croatian (while he isn't clearly stating whether he's referring to standard language or colloquial language/dialect).

The author quoted by Vincent still might of course be wrong (and all evidence given by native speakers points in this direction ).
So I'm just giving the correct translation of the quote - I'm not saying that Vincent's quote is reliable.


----------



## Maroseika

Duya said:


> It is possible that neuter *doba* is a recent invention. It is the only neuter noun ending in -a that I know about (that's probably why HJP got it wrong), so the declension may have been "re-invented". But I don't know for sure.


_Doba _is also feminine in Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Polish and in all other Slavic, except SC and Upper Sorbian. However, according to Max Vasmer, initially it was neutral (like in Ancient-Czech "v ta dobu"). So it is not a recent invention but vice versa - lingvo-fossil.

Maybe will be of interest that Finnish _tapa _(customs, manner, temper) is also from this stem, but loaned from Lat. or Lith.


----------



## phosphore

A quick Google search for "od neko doba" (57 hits) "od ono doba" (40 hits) and "od to doba" (133 hits) shows that this noun sometimes does seem to be indeclinable. These cases are, however, highly disputable and the noun is, in any case, systematically declinable, despite such uses.


----------



## bibax

According to my etymological dictionary *doba* (< *dova, related to davno) was originally an adverb. So it is natural that it was originally indeclinable and neuter when used as a noun.

Let us compare it with some other adverbs ending in -a, e.g. včera, zítra, ...

In Czech we can say: nešťastné včera, šťastné zítra

In these expressions včera and zítra behave like indeclinable neuter nouns. But Czech developed regular declinable masculine nouns distinct from the corresponding adverbs: včerejšek, zítřek. So we should rather say "nešťastný včerejšek, šťastný zítřek".

And the adverb doba was changed to the declinable feminine noun meaning "a (long) time period" (like in "doba železná") in Czech.


----------



## Vincent Jappi

> It is possible that neuter *doba* is a recent invention. It is the only neuter noun ending in -a that I know about (that's probably why HJP got it wrong), so the declension may have been "re-invented". But I don't know for sure.


   A "recent invention",  whereas  it has been quoted in a document from the 16th century? A little more logic might be in order here.   

  I have provided quotations from language specialists from the 19th century to the present, to the effect that "doba" is indeclinable in Croatian, and has been for centuries.  

If you are  only willing to look for quotations to the contrary,  it serves no purpose: if you have not been taught that rule, I have no doubt that others  haven't,  either.  The issue is whether it is correct to use "doba" as an indeclinable substantive,  whether the word does exist as such.   

That is how I have been taught,  and the fact that I am not a native speaker only  provides  a further presumption that it does exist: why would I have wanted to make up such a rule,  and where would I have found it elsewhere than in teaching material, presumably written by specialists? I am not the one who claims to know here; I am only reporting the statements of others who do.  

From the evidence I have seen, I now hold it as an established fact  that there has indeed been such a usage,  in spite  of a present contradiction on the issue between self-proclaimed experts of the language.   

If you can't resolve that contradiction otherwise than by multiplying statements which only confirm its existence,  there is no point for further discussion. What we would have to do to resolve it is find a quotation mentioning that contradiction,  and trying to account for it,  if only by stating that either is acceptable. It is not something I can do.  

Yet,  in order to be able to say,  as I have stated,  that "doba" is indeed an indeclinable word of the Croatian language,  it is sufficient to prove that such a usage is recognized.  Which, in my opinion,  has been done.


----------



## DenisBiH

Vincent Jappi said:


> Yet,  in order to be able to say,  as I have stated,  that "doba" is indeed an indeclinable word of the Croatian language,  it is sufficient to prove that such a usage is recognized.




Šta mislite da pređemo na BCS pošto se već želite nadvikivati ovdje sa nama ostalima? 

Dakle, gornjoj izjavi nedostaje elementarna logika. Naravno da nije dovoljno pokazati da se u 2-3 zastarjela jezična priručnika i jednoj za temu nerelevantnoj novijoj filološkoj studiji (gdje je jedan od vaših 'krunskih dokaza' knjiga štampana za vrijeme NDH) _doba_ pominje kao nesklonjivo da bi dokazali da ono doista i jeste nesklonjivo u *današnjem* hrvatskom jeziku, naročito kad uzmemo u obzir da protiv vaše tvrdnje stoje:

a) autoritativni i friški hrvatski rječnici
b) hrvatski jezični korpus
c) do sada na ovoj temi tri izvorna govornika nekog od BCS jezika

Vaša sujeta se može porediti jedino sa vašom arogancijom pokazanom na ovoj temi.


----------



## Vincent Jappi

I see that,  in spite of your implicit admission that the rule I have mentioned  has existed --a great leap forward,  you have not understood which issues have been settled and which are still worth a discussion. 

And no,  since I already have the inconvenience of dealing with people who do not always understand the implications of the evidence,  I cannot deal with the further disadvantage of having to write in a language which I understand much better than I speak.

I have established that,  less than ten years ago,  professional linguists referred to the rule I have mentioned as general, and without any qualifications. That is evidence enough that some professional linguists regard it as unconditionally valid in the present. 

And,  since it is a quite illogical one, I think I can remember always hearing that rule being respected by professional speakers,  which has not been the case of "podne",  which was also quoted as an indeclinable substantive by a grammar from 1961 I have just found 
(But wouldn't someone who went to school in 1961 still follow that rule and expect members of his generation to do the same?).



> "Imenice _doba _i *podne nepromjenljive *su: _do podne_,  _u podne_, _od to(g) doba_, _u to doba_. One se upotrebljavaju za nominativ:  _podne je_, _doba je_; za genitiv:  _od podne_, _od to(g) doba_; za akuzativ [sic] _o podne_, _u to doba bili smo na radu_; za vokativ: _o, sunčano podne!_ _eh, sretno doba! _
> "Imenicu _doba_ možemo zamijeniti imenicom _vrijeme_, koja ima jednako značenje, a promjenljiva je. Drukčijeg je značenja riječ _dob_, _dob-i_ (uzrast, godine): _Nas dvojica su jedne dobi_ (=  jednih godina).
> _U toj dobi _(tj. toga uzrast), djeca još ne idu na rad. _U ono doba_ (= vrijeme), bio sam tvoje dobi (tvojih godina)."
> 
> Dr Ivan Brabec, dr Mate Hraste, dr Sreten Živković, _Gramatika hrvatosrpskog jezika_, IV, prerađeno izdanje, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1961, p. 64, § 85 ("Nepravilnosti"), e).


Thus, the only questions that remain are:

-- if such a rule does exists, or even for that matter used to exist,  then why do another group of purported professional linguists ignore it altogether,  as is apparently the case?  

-- If,  as it seems likely,   it is a matter of a rule being obsolescent,  why isn't it mentioned as such by either group,  as has happened with the so-called "aorist",  "perfekt "and "pluskvamperfekt" tenses? 

To wit: 

Why the _contradiction_,  and  
why the _silence  _about that contradiction?

-- And if so many people ignore that rule completely, while I have always heard it being followed by professional speakers, _how many actually do_, at what age  and under which circumstances?  

Those are the questions which might merit further discussion and require further research,  since no amount of grandstanding about who is "right" or "wrong" can answer either.

But I repeat myself.


----------



## Vincent Jappi

Another recent normative example: 



> *доба* _с(убстантив)   *нескл*(*оняемый*)_
> время, пора, эпоха



And, for that matter :



> *подне * _с(убстантив)   *нескл*(*оняемый*)_
> пре подне; полсе подне
> полдень; в первой половине дня; во второй половине дня
> 
> В. Н. Зинчук, М. П. Киршова,_ Самоучитель сербохорватского языка_, "Долина", Санкт-Петребург, *1998*, p. 386


----------



## sokol

Mod note:

I've split off the topic "doba" from the indeclinable nouns thread.

This thread should be mainly about BCS "doba" and whether or not it is declinable, but evidence from other Slavic languages which might be relevant concerning this topic may be given. However, please keep it mainly focussed on "BCS: doba".

Thank you!
sokol


----------



## sokol

Now posting as an "ordinary forero" I'd like to point something out:

I cannot (and will not ) involve myself in the discussion as such, but this source:



> В. Н. Зинчук, М. П. Киршова, Самоучитель *сербохорватского* языка, "Долина", Санкт-Петребург, 1998, p. 386



obviously is relying on standard language as used and normed before the split of Yougoslavia, despite its release date (of 1998).
Which isn't unusual at all - you can still find books in print - that is, reprints (in the year 2010 Anno Domini!) - referring to "Serbo-Croatian", especially textbooks: some publishers didn't want to put effort (and money) into a new edition when it wasn't yet clear what course the language would take.

So concerning this source I think we must date it back to at least 1991 concerning its content (or probably even further back than 1991).


(And let me add that I hope this topic will be resolved one way or another: as there has been some use of "doba" as an indeclinable noun it would be nice to have an explanation for it - be it "dated use" or "wrong use" or "dialectal use" or a combination of all that or whatever. )


----------



## DenisBiH

sokol said:


> obviously is relying on standard language as used and normed before the split of Yougoslavia, despite its release date (of 1998).




A greater problem, in my opinion, is the use of the term "normative" when referring to a Russian book called, of all things, "Самоучитель". I have a bunch of phrasebooks and "Learn X" books collected on my various travels, yet I don't consider them exactly _normative_...


----------



## sokol

DenisBiH said:


> A greater problem, in my opinion, is the use of the term "normative" when referring to a Russian book called, of all things, "Самоучитель". I have a bunch of phrasebooks and "Learn X" books collected on my various travels, yet I don't consider them exactly _normative_...



Yes of course, that too.

Vincent, to evaluate the sources given it is really essential that you give exact quotes and evaluate them in their context - which of course means it has to be taken into account that some sources are not scientific, and that others may be dated.
(And some sources may not even be dated, as e. g. Hrvatski pravopis from 1944 you quoted above - as Croatian grammars from this epoch of history never really were much more than a hypothetical concept of what the regime of the time tried to transform Croatian into; there's no point of mentioning sources like that one at all, in the context of this thread.)

An authoritative resource certainly is Hrvatska Gramatika (Zagreb 1997) from Barić, Lončarić, Malić, Pavešić, Peti, Zečević, Znika. You might want to consult that one (p. 144), it says that "doba" is neuter (but there is also a homonymous feminine one)*) (and declinable). (Well, it might actually be dated already, but it is certainly authoritative for the late 1990ies.)
As far as I have understood discussion so far there's absolutely no doubt that "doba" is declinable in modern BCS standard language - not anymore, this question has been answered by native speakers already in the posts above; what remains to being discussed here then only could be how and when and why "doba" could be used indeclinable, and whether or not this is correct.

Or have I mistaken something here?



*) Here's the full quote:
"Imenica _dȍba_ (i _dôba_) jedina je imenica srednjeg roda koja završava na _-a_. Redovno se upotrebljava u NAV, a rjeđe u ostalim padežima, u kojima ima nastavke prema uzorku 16:**)
L jd. _dȍbu_, I jd. _dȍbom_, DLI mn. _dȍbima_.
Postoji i homonimna imenica ž. r.: _dȍba_, G _dȍbē_."

**) Oh - if you need uzorak 16 I can quote that one too (p. 141 in Hrvatska Gramatika).

I would say the quote is clear enough, and please note, I am only quoting, still not involving myself in the discussion proper.


----------



## Maroseika

bibax said:


> According to my etymological dictionary *doba* (< *dova, related to davno) was originally an adverb.


According to my dictionaries _doba _and _davno _are not related at all.
Davno < Old-Slavic давѣ (recently), cognat of δήν (long time), Lat. dūdum (recently), Ancient-Ind. dūrás (far away).
Doba - cognats of this word in Lith., Lat., Goth. mean manner, sort, befitting.
Nothing common in the sematics.


----------



## Duya

First, I want to stress that it is not my style to put dismissing, smart-ass replies. But to invalidate the statement, quote, "_"Doba" (n.)  is undeclinable in Croatian._", it is sufficient to prove one example where it is declinable, Q.E.D. I did not think or imply that Vincent has made it up, just that his literature is not the most accurate. I also wondered how it was possible for such misconception to spread so widely. 

Now, I found a quite detailed (2 printed pages) explanation in M. Stevanović's capital "Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik" (Naučna knjiga 1986), of which I will translate the most interesting parts... when I find some time. The bottom line is that its varying gender (originally feminine, then neuter, but retaining the -a suffix) as well as the fact that it is rarely used in cases such as locative and intrumental contributed to the (mis)conception that it is indeclinable, which is present even in works of Vuk Karadžić. However, Stevanović thinks that such approach is not correct, and that it should be treated as, at most, a word of "limited" declination. He goes on to a list of corpus samples where its attribute is not declined (as in Phosphore's examples above) "_od neko doba", "od to doba_" (which today sound slightly archaic), but then shows a list where the adjective is normally declined and concludes that this is a normal declension ("_zora novog doba_", _"posle železnog doba"_).


----------



## bibax

> According to my dictionaries doba and davno are not related at all.


According to my dictionary your doba is another doba, not related to doba meaning 'time period, age'.

Your *doba* meaning 'shape, form' is related to Greek demas. Derivatives: podoba, ozdoba, podobati se, podobać sie, подобать, etc.


----------



## phosphore

Duya said:


> as well as the fact that it is rarely used in cases such as locative and intrumental contributed to the (mis)conception that it is indeclinable,


 
Exactly. The declension of the noun _doba_ being

N, G, A doba
D, L dobu
I dobom

where the D, I and L forms are seldom used and the N, G and A form being by far the most common, the only way one can tell whether this noun is actually declined, if we leave aside the D, I and L forms, is from the form of a determiner or an adjective, which should take different forms for the genitive case from those in the nominative/accusative. Now, there might be some phonetic influence (one plosive being elided in the position before another) or some substitution of the accusative for the genitive (which seems to me to be more likely, since such mixing is common in time expressions), but the genitive forms seem to coincide in a number of cases with those in the nominative/accusative, which results in the misconception that this noun is not declined. This misconception must have originated in an early grammar work and then it has just been rewriten over and over again since. One can't argue however that constructions such as _*ka to/tom doba_ or _*sa to/tim doba_ are grammatical or that the regular forms _ka tom dobu_ and _sa tim dobom_ don't exist, which are the evidence that this noun is declinable despite all references one may found in this or that grammar.


----------



## DenisBiH

Duya said:


> The bottom line is that its varying gender (originally feminine, then neuter, but retaining the -a suffix)




This is what Stevanović says? Because bibax's explanation of it first being an adverb that became a neuter noun sounds really plausible to me. I can just imagine _sutra_ as in e.g. "Svi se nadamo boljem sutra" in time developing distinct endings for other cases and shifting from indeclinable to declinable.


----------



## Duya

OK, here are several excerpts from Stevanović. I will not bother translating it, since everyone interested speaks BCS anyway. I hope Sokol will be lenient on copyright rules  [well okay, let's make an exception, in an exceptional thread - but let's keep it at that and don't make a rule of it  - sokol], and I'll retype only the most relevant parts:



> Ali da pogledamo prvo otkuda imenici _doba _poseban oblik i u nom. jednine i zašto se ona doista ne menja po padežima. U prastarom jeziku ova je imenica bila ž. roda, i kao takva se završavala na -a i bila promenljiva, naravno. Ona je ovoga roda u neki slovenskim jezicima, [... a tako je] upotrebljava i više naših, naročito hrvatskih pisaca [...] _Za svoju_ _dobu bila je potpuno razvita _(Vj. Novak, Posljednji Stipančići, 32) [...] Ali je ona u srpskohrvatskom jeziku pretežno sr. roda. [...] A posebno je pitanje kako je ona sa završtekom koji ima u nom. jednine mogla naći mesta među imenicama srednjeg roda. Na to pitanje možda nije moguće sasvim pouzdano odgovoriti. Ali se svakako može pretpostaviti da se ona [...] mogla osetiti kao pluralija tantum [...] jer je _doba_ svakako jedan relativno duži vremenski odsek od niza [...] kraćih.
> 
> [...]Mnogo je važnije pokazati zašto se ova imenica prestala menjati tamo gde se menja[sic]. A ovo, mislim, nije teško učiniti. Okolnošću što ona u nom. jednine ima završetak _a_ izmenjena je čitava slika njenih završetaka u pojedinim padežima. [...] Time su se oblici jednine ova tri padeža [N, A, V, op.ed.] izjednačili s gen. jedn. koji u svih imenica srednjeg [...] ima završetak _a_, a na drugoj strani su se [...] izjednačili s oblicima množine, koji se opet u svih imenica sr. roda završavaju samoglasnikom _a_. [...] onda nije nerazumljivo što se završetak _a _preneo i na ostale padeže, i što je kao posledica toga imenica _doba_ postala nepromenljivom. Ali mi smatramo da je ovde tačnije govoriti o ograničenoj promenljivosti [...] Već je pokazano [u drugom radu, op.ed.] da se u jeziku nekih naših pisaca srećemo s promenom imenice _doba_. Tamo je s pravom rečeno da se samo na osnovu oblika dvaju padeža jednine, [D i I] može videti njena promenljivost. [...] pošto je u prirodi našeg jezika da se kao vremenska odredba od ove imenica, kao uostalom i od imenice _vreme, _upotrebljava akuzativ i kada bismo očekivali lokativ. Ali je to samo delimično tačno, kao što se, naroćito s predlozima _do _i _od_ uz imenicu _doba _i atribut upotrebljava u nepromenjenom obliku, isp. _od neko doba_ (L. Lazarević, Pripovetke I, 20) [...]Ali se inače i u genitivu imenica doba menja, što se jasno vidi po obliku atributa uz nju: _nikakva briga detinjeg doba_ (L. Lazarević, Pripovetke I, 116).


----------



## kudikamo

Svašta, di ga nađe ovaj Francuz da soli pamet, baš me nasmijao. Kolko ljudi, tolko ćudi.


----------

