# Slovenian as a South Slavic language...



## OBrasilo

Well, here, I'm going to talk about something, that has been bugging me for ages.

When will the Slovenian language finally stop being classified as a South Slavic language? It clearly has more features in common with Czech and Slovak, and the serbo-croatian features were only first imported into Slovenian in the late 19th century.

Also, Slovenian clearly doesn't fit in the South Slavic evolution tables. Some examples: Old South Slavic _vš-_ evolved into _sv-_ in the West South Slavic languages, but into _vs-_ in the East South Slavic Language. Slovenian is supposed to be a West Slavic Lanauge, but yet, it has _vs-_ and not _sv-_. Then the _ćr-_ becoming _cr-_ in the West, but _čr-_ in the East.

Once again, Slovenian is in the West, but this feature evolved as in the East.  Interestingly, this matches the other West Slavic languages - _vš-_ and _č(i)er-_ in Czech and Slovak, and _wsz-_ and _czar-_ in Polish (if written using the Czecz ortography, they would be written as _vš-_ and _čar-).

Also, Slovenian has a lot of vocabulary in common with the other West Slavic languages - Old Slovenian stek vs. Czech/Slovak vztek and the Polish root wsciek- in wsciekłość (meaning the same as vztek in Czech/Slovak), ogenj vs. Czech/Slovak ohieň (sp?), pogoltniti vs. Czech/Slovak pohltnít/pohltníť, dokler vs. Slovak dokiaľ, tedaj vs. Czech tedy, Slovak teda, kdo vs. Czech kdo, Slovak/Polish kto, kje vs. Czech kdě, Slovak kde, and even kdaj vs. Polish kiedy.

And the future tense in Slovenian is formed exactlz, as in Czech, Slovak, and Polish, but nowhere near the way it's formed in the South Slavic languages.

So, how in this world, can Slovenian be a South Slavic language? I don't know. In my opinion, Slovenian is a West Slavic language, and this is further proven by the research done by the Slovenian organization Hervardi, who even stated, that according to some older researchers, Slovenian and Slovak were originally dialects of the same language. They also stated, that the Kajkavian Croatian dialect is nothing, but Croatianized Pannonic Slovenian, which is proven by not only books published in Zagreb, that refer to themselves as Slovenian, but also by the fact that the region of Slavonia was originally called Slovenijeh, or SLOVENIA, and it was only renamed to Slavonia later on, by the Croatians, who came with the name Slavonia from the Latin name of Slovenijeh, which was Sclavonia - and Sclavonia was never called Slavonija or Slavonijeh by its original inhabitants, but always Slovenijeh, and occasionally Slovinje, both names meaning essentially Slovenia, since in modern Czech and Slovak, the word slovinský still means Slovenian.

There is a lot of useful information on this subject in some of the sections of the official home page of the Slovenian organization Hervardi (located at hervardi dot com) - believe me, it's more, than worth a thorough read, and explains a lot of things.

Well, that would be it for now. _


----------



## Athaulf

OBrasilo said:


> When will the Slovenian language finally stop being classified as a South Slavic language?



As soon as those pesky Austrians and Hungarians move out of the way so that Slovenian can join a dialect continuum with Czech and Slovak. Unfortunately, I don't see a convenient way to break its present dialect continuum with Croatian.  

(UPDATE: having read the bottom part of your post, now I see that it does address the latter "problem", so please see my reply below.)



> It clearly has more features in common with Czech and Slovak, and the serbo-croatian features were only first imported into Slovenian in the late 19th century.


I don't care about the formal classification of Slovenian one way or the other, but this claim strikes me as absurdly exaggerated, even if we ignore all the mutual influences between Slovenian and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (I'll write BCS from now on) in recent history and the fact that the overwhelming majority of speakers on both sides have had at least some (and often a lot) of exposure to each other's languages. 

I'm a hard-core Shtokavian speaker (and thus definitely not speaking anything particularly close to Slovenian!), and I've never learned Slovenian or been exposed to it in practice on more than a handful of occasions. Yet, I find written Slovenian pretty easy to read even without a dictionary, and even spoken communication with younger Slovenians who have never been exposed to BCS much is not a big problem if you allow for some rephrasing, slower speech, etc. For comparison, I can recognize only occasional words and phrases in written Czech, barely enough to figure out what the topic of the text is about at all, and spoken Czech is almost totally incomprehensible to me. Ditto for Polish. I find Slovak more understandable than Czech or Polish, but still far less than Slovenian. Just ask some average Slovenians how much they understand of any West Slavic languages, and you'll get a similar answer about them versus BCS -- even the generations born in mid-1980s and later, who grew up in independent Slovenia. 



> Also, Slovenian clearly doesn't fit in the South Slavic evolution tables. Some examples: Old South Slavic _vš-_ evolved into _sv-_ in the West South Slavic languages, but into _vs-_ in the East South Slavic Language. Slovenian is supposed to be a West Slavic Lanauge, but yet, it has _vs-_ and not _sv-_. Then the _ćr-_ becoming _cr-_ in the West, but _čr-_ in the East.


And yet, Slovenian phonology is more similar to BCS than to any West Slavic language. Please don't tell me that an average Slovenian finds it easier to discern clear words when listening to Czech or Polish than to Croatian or Serbian speech.  



> Once again, Slovenian is in the West, but this feature evolved as in the East.  Interestingly, this matches the other West Slavic languages - _vš-_ and _č(i)er-_ in Czech and Slovak, and _wsz-_ and _czar-_ in Polish (if written using the Czecz ortography, they would be written as _vš-_ and _čar-).
> 
> Also, Slovenian has a lot of vocabulary in common with the other West Slavic languages - Old Slovenian stek vs. Czech/Slovak vztek and the Polish root wsciek- in wsciekłość (meaning the same as vztek in Czech/Slovak), ogenj vs. Czech/Slovak ohieň (sp?), pogoltniti vs. Czech/Slovak pohltnít/pohltníť, dokler vs. Slovak dokiaľ, tedaj vs. Czech tedy, Slovak teda, kdo vs. Czech kdo, Slovak/Polish kto, kje vs. Czech kdě, Slovak kde, and even kdaj vs. Polish kiedy.
> _


_You can "prove" anything by cherry-picking word lists like this. For example, here is a similar proof that standard Austrian German is more similar to Serbian than to the standard German used in Germany. 




			And the future tense in Slovenian is formed exactlz, as in Czech, Slovak, and Polish, but nowhere near the way it's formed in the South Slavic languages.
		
Click to expand...

This is completely false. 

Slovenian future tense is formed exactly the same way as Future II in BCS. Using Future II instead of Future I sounds strange to most BCS speakers (except Kajkavians), but it doesn't impede understanding much in practice. On the other hand, there are major differences between the way future is formed in Slovenian and West Slavic languages. 

First and foremost, West Slavic languages form the composite future using to be + infinitive, whereas Slovenian uses to be + past active participle, exactly as BCS does for Future II:BCS Future II: budem pisala
Slovenian: bom pisala​BUT:Slovak: budem písať 
Czech: budu psát
Polish: będę pisać ​Furthermore, Slovenian can use the composite form of the future tense for all verbs, both perfective and imperfective, whereas East and West Slavic languages use the morphological form of the present tense with future meaning for perfective verbs. Compare Slovenian bom napisal with Czech napíšu. Slovenian can also use the morphological present with future meaning for perfective verbs, just like BCS can use it instead of Future II, but as far as I know, West Slavic languages never use the composite future for perfective verbs.




			So, how in this world, can Slovenian be a South Slavic language? I don't know.
		
Click to expand...

Well, there is the little inconvenient fact about a (more or less) unbroken dialect continuum from the border of Slovenia and Austria all the way down to the Bulgarian Black Sea coast and the Macedonian-Greek border.  Not that this is supposed to have any political implications, of course, but we're talking linguistics here. 




			In my opinion, Slovenian is a West Slavic language, and this is further proven by the research done by the Slovenian organization Hervardi, who even stated, that according to some older researchers, Slovenian and Slovak were originally dialects of the same language.
		
Click to expand...

Did you know that some people even claim this for Slavic languages in general?  




			They also stated, that the Kajkavian Croatian dialect is nothing, but Croatianized Pannonic Slovenian, which is proven by not only books published in Zagreb, that refer to themselves as Slovenian, but also by the fact that the region of Slavonia was originally called Slovenijeh, or SLOVENIA, and it was only renamed to Slavonia later on, by the Croatians, who came with the name Slavonia from the Latin name of Slovenijeh, which was Sclavonia - and Sclavonia was never called Slavonija or Slavonijeh by its original inhabitants, but always Slovenijeh, and occasionally Slovinje, both names meaning essentially Slovenia, since in modern Czech and Slovak, the word slovinský still means Slovenian.
		
Click to expand...

Oh, so this is the part addressing the issue about the Slovenian dialect continuum with Croatian. Normally, I'd let a paragraph such as the one above speak for itself, but since, judging from the post to which I'm replying, there are people who buy this kind of stuff, I'll strongly advise you and anyone else interested in the history of South Slavs to do some reading from sources other than Slovenian (or any other) extreme nationalists. 




			There is a lot of useful information on this subject in some of the sections of the official home page of the Slovenian organization Hervardi (located at hervardi dot com) - believe me, it's more, than worth a thorough read, and explains a lot of things.
		
Click to expand...

From what I've read about Hervardi in Slovenian press (without a dictionary -- what a polyglot I am! ), it's a club of extreme nationalists who are struggling hard to build a public image of a cool-headed, non-extremist organization. However, with "historical" and "linguistic" arguments such as those displayed in this thread, they'll have a hard time differentiating themselves from other nationalist nutcases in the eyes of anyone with a slight modicum of knowledge on the relevant topics.


(EDIT: I changed some parts of the post when I realized that I'm replying to someone who innocently bought the said nationalist propaganda, rather than someone peddling it aggressively.)_


----------



## Athaulf

Just to give some idea of what actual linguists (Slovenian as well as others) have to say about the issue, here is an excerpt from a paper by an American linguist published in Slovene Linguistic Studies, a journal issued by the Institute of the Slovenian Language at the Slovenian Academy of Arts and Sciences (emphasis mine):


http://www2.ku.edu/~slavic/sj-sls/synops4.pdfGrant H. Lundberg (Brigham Young University): _A Preliminary Report on Dialectological Fieldwork in Northwestern Croatia: Brezova Gora and the Croatian-Slovene Dialect Continuum_
_
One of the more interesting questions in Western South Slavic dialectology is the relationship, both historical and modern, between the dialects of the Slovene and the Kajkavian Croatian speech territories. [...] *Contemporary Slavic linguists agree that the dialects of the Slovene and Kajkavian speech territories are part of a dialect continuum* *with almost all of the isoglosses which unite them being archaisms rather than shared innovations. *Although it is clear that this is a dialect continuum, the political border between Slovenia and Croatia has had an important influence on dialect development in this area._​


----------



## Duya

OBrasilo said:


> When will the Slovenian language finally stop being classified as a South Slavic language?



At the very moment when Croatia finally stops being classified as a Balkan country, Bosniaks as a South Slavic people (they're Illyrians, y'know), Macedonians as Slavs (they originate from Alexander the Great, y'know), Kosovo returns under the righeous Serbian rule,  and Macedonian language as a language of its own (it's a dialect of Bulgarian as everyone knows).

Well, it does turn out as sarcastic, I gather, but I'm rather leery of such discourses, which I ascribe to national(istic) frustrations rather to scientific methods. At least, we don't wage war for them anymore.


----------



## _Tasha_

Slovak and Slovenian are both Slavic languages, so of course they will have certain features in common. But it is a little too far fetched to say that Slovak is Slovenian dialect. Marko Snoj (author of Slovenian etymological dictionary) defines Slovenian as a South-West Slavic language together with Croatian and Serbian, which means that the closest to Slovenian are _kajkavščina_, _čakavščina_ and _štokavščina_. And as Athaulf said, you don't have to study either of those languages/dialects to understand it. On the other hand, Slovenians have a lot of trouble understading Slovak or Czech (not to mention Polish) and visa versa. The features that Slovenian has in common with West Slavic languages derive from times when West Slavs and our ancestors were still neighbours; that was before Hungarians and German Bavarians populated the land in between.


----------



## jazyk

> First and foremost, West Slavic languages form the composite future using _to be_ + infinitive, whereas Slovenian uses _to be_ + past active participle, exactly as BCS does for Future II:BCS Future II: _budem pisala_
> Slovenian: _bom pisala_​BUT: Slovak: _budem písať_
> Czech: _budu psát_
> Polish: _będę pisać_


Będę (na)pisał(a) is possible in Polish, though.


----------



## Athaulf

jazyk said:


> Będę (na)pisał(a) is possible in Polish, though.



Hm.. interesting, I didn't know this.  What about Czech and Slovak?

---
EDIT: Having done some googling, I now see that I was wrong: West Slavic languages can indeed use _to be _+ past active participle (or whatever it's called in each individual language) to express future. I had thought that they were in this regard similar to Russian, which uses only _to be_ + infinitive. There's a nice summary of this issue for several Slavic languages here (see Section D). 

However, it is true that Slovenian doesn't have anything similar to the _to be _+ infinitive future used in West and East Slavic languages, and it's also true that its future tense is analogous to the Future II of BCS. Therefore, the above poster's claim that "the future tense in Slovenian is formed exactly as in Czech, Slovak, and Polish, but nowhere near the way it's formed in the South Slavic languages" is still absurd on its face.


----------



## sokol

OBrasilo said:


> When will the Slovenian language finally stop being classified as a South Slavic language? It clearly has more features in common with Czech and Slovak, and the serbo-croatian features were only first imported into Slovenian in the late 19th century.


You're mixing up here something.
Though it's true that Slovene is clearly linked to Czech and even more to Slovak and though it is very likely that once there was a dialect continuum from Slovene up to Slovak, this continuum long ago has been broken apart and both languages have developed apart from each other.

(There's, by the way, even more links to Western Slavic if you look at Carinthian Slovene, but that just for the record.)

Slovene is rather more conservative and closer to the common Slavic roots except concerning the tenses where Slovene has abandoned aorist and imperfect, but in one dialect considered Slovene (the one of the Resia valley in Friuli - though the villagers sometimes did refer to themselves as 'Russian': popular ethymology, obviously) there do exist some residual forms of aorist.

And of course Slovene is much easier to understand if you speak Serbian or Croatian, no matter wether your dialect is Shtokavian or Kajkavian (although similarities are even greater with Kajkavian).
It is rather that Shtokavian has *developed away* from common Slavic, very much so, e. g. with change of 'vse' into 'sve' and cr/čr. Similarly, 'kdo' is common Slavic and 'tko' just a Shtokavian innovation (and so on). Sloven just wasn't involved in Sthokavian innovations, that's what makes some wordings of Slovene look rather Western Slavic.

Future tense, too, is in Slovenian _not exactly _the same as in Western Slavic as in Slovene it is not so that present tense + perfective verb automatically means 'future tense' but rather a 'nearer future' and not future tense exactly (so things about to happen, like the English progressive form with '-ing'): similar to Serbian/Croatian, but unlike Western Slavic where:
- present tense + perfective = future tense (although 'nearer' future too, but see explanation below)
- future tense + imperfective = future tense
In Western (and Eastern) Slavic (I think in all of them but have no way of being sure about that one) it is _not possible_ to form perfective verbs with future as present tense + perfective already is considered being future tense. (Or probably perfective + future form would mean futurum exactum, there I'm not sure.)
But in Slovene (and Southern Slavic) future tense exists with perfective verbs, too. (Though certainly perfective meaning 'transcends' into future tense too, of course.)

(At least, I hope I've got this right; I have to confess that I'm constantly fighting with ever getting a grip on Slavic aspect system - so forgive any faults if there were some here, concerning future tense.)
That the form of future tense is similar is not too strong an argument - these future tense form anyway are newer developments 

And there the Hervardi touch a *very delicate* topic:


OBrasilo said:


> They also stated, that the Kajkavian Croatian dialect is nothing, but Croatianized Pannonic Slovenian, which is proven by not only books published in Zagreb, that refer to themselves as Slovenian, but also by the fact that the region of Slavonia was originally called Slovenijeh, or SLOVENIA, [...shortened - and so on - sparing you the litany ...)


Well, this is not proven at all.
Historicians of both Slovenia and Croatia constantly tried and try to proof that Kajkavian is rather a Slovene dialect or that Slovene is rather a Kajkavian (and therefore Croatian) dialect.
This is just making politics with (supposedly) linguistics and isn't scientific at all.
'Slovene' as a name is rather the old Slavic terminus and just means 'Slav' ethymologically, so 'Slovene' is a perfectly neutral term for 'Slav' and was, in various phonetic forms, with different suffixes (Slavonia, Slovakia, etc.). This is absolutely insignificant.
It's rather that Slovenes did not change their name during their history, while most (but not all) other Slavic peoples did, for whatever reasons.

No linguist nowadays would dare to say that Slovenia is a Western Slavic language. It's clearly Southern Slavic - though, similarly clearly, showing links and letting imagine a (now disturbed) dialect continuum up and over to the Western Slavic tongues.


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

sokol said:


> (the one of the Resia valley in Friuli - though the villagers sometimes did refer to themselves as 'Russian': popular ethymology, obviously)


Not _villagers sometimes_ but _some villagers always_.
This is politics. If they feel being Russian, let them be. 
Otherwise it is the very same issue like those Carinthian Slovene-(none)-speakers, who call themselves Windischer. But both groups are in decline.




> Historicians of both Slovenia and Croatia constantly tried and try to proof that Kajkavian is rather a Slovene dialect or that Slovene is rather a Kajkavian (and therefore Croatian) dialect.


This is not really the whole truth. Slovenian historians, at least not the officially recognized historians, do not try to proof anything about Slavonians to be connected in any way to Slovenes. Slavonia has never been a Slovene speaking region like parts of Koroška and Furlanija - Julijska krajina and region around Monošter in HU.
When talking about Kajkavian dialect of Croatian, we have Hrvatsko Zagorje around Zagreb in mind. Their speech is close to Slovene or better to Štajerska dialect of Slovene. 




> It's rather that Slovenes did not change their name during their history, while most (but not all) other Slavic peoples did, for whatever reasons.


An internal Slavic issue: Slovaks also want to be _Slovenci_. _Ni govora, bratje Slovaki, mi smo pravi Slovenci!_ 

Btw, Hervards are partly right in their way of working. They would like to make Slovenes more partiotic, not nationalistic, but more homeland orientied. I like their pages about national heroes.

But sometimes they really exaggerate in talking nonesence.


----------



## sokol

Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> This is politics. If they feel being Russian, let them be.


 Yes, of course  - although it's a tiny little bit different with _die Windischen, _as these don't want to be differentiated from their German speaking Carinthian neighbours (which slowly leads to their assimilation), whereas the Resian 'Russians' clearly define themselves consciously different from their Friulian and Italian neighbours.
I didn't know, by the way, that there are _still _Resians around calling themselves 'Russians'.


Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> This is not really the whole truth. Slovenian historians, at least not the officially recognized historians, do not try to proof anything about Slavonians to be connected in any way to Slovenes.


Yes, I know I should have been more specific about that.
In the past there certainly were some Slovenes romanticizing about Kajkavians being rather their 'brothers' (not the Shtokavian Slavonia); and there too were Slovenians as well (not only Croatians) romanticizing about a great 'Illyric' language, but this is history.



Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> When talking about Kajkavian dialect of Croatian, we have Hrvatsko Zagorje around Zagreb in mind. Their speech is close to Slovene or better to Štajerska dialect of Slovene.


 Certainly, yes. I did, when in Ljubljana some 9 years ago, some research into Slovenian and Croatian/Serbian dialectology - I read some of the most important work in Slovenian, Croatian and Serbian (by the way, in my opinion the best ones were Asim Peco & Pavle Ivić; most Slovene and Croatian authors, unfortunately, though they had a lot to say, couldn't distance them enough from their language policy).



Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> An internal Slavic issue: Slovaks also want to be _Slovenci_. _Ni govora, bratje Slovaki, mi smo pravi Slovenci!_


 I'm quite happy they didn't - would have complicated matters enormously, especially now that both languages have their independence and are EU-members. 



Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> Btw, Hervards are partly right in their way of working. They would like to make Slovenes more partiotic, not nationalistic, but more homeland orientied. I like their pages about national heroes.


 I didn't ever read Hervards' works.

But with your name, I guess, you couldn't be someone other than a real Slovene patriot. 
[For the benefit of other readers, Tolovaj Mataj is a hero in Slovene literature - and much more, e. g. a Folk band.]

Zdravo!
Hermann


----------



## OBrasilo

Athaulf said:
			
		

> Well, there is the little inconvenient fact about a (more or less) unbroken dialect continuum from the border of Slovenia and Austria all the way down to the Bulgarian Black Sea coast and the Macedonian-Greek border.  Not that this is supposed to have any political implications, of course, but we're talking linguistics here.


I think it's actually three dialect continua. One is, what I call the Central Continuum, and from it, modern Slovenian, and Slovak, emerged. The second one is the Croato-Serbian Continuum, from which, Croatian, and Serbian, emerged. And the third one is the South-Eastern Continuum, from which, Bulgarian, and Macedonian, emerged. The three continua at least partially merged, starting from the period of Illyrism, and finally culminating in the 20th century.



> I'm a hard-core Shtokavian speaker (and thus definitely not speaking anything particularly close to Slovenian!), and I've never learned Slovenian or been exposed to it in practice on more than a handful of occasions. Yet, I find written Slovenian pretty easy to read even without a dictionary, and even spoken communication with younger Slovenians who have never been exposed to BCS much is not a big problem if you allow for some rephrasing, slower speech, etc. For comparison, I can recognize only occasional words and phrases in written Czech, barely enough to figure out what the topic of the text is about at all, and spoken Czech is almost totally incomprehensible to me. Ditto for Polish. I find Slovak more understandable than Czech or Polish, but still far less than Slovenian. Just ask some average Slovenians how much they understand of any West Slavic languages, and you'll get a similar answer about them versus BCS -- even the generations born in mid-1980s and later, who grew up in independent Slovenia.


And here it's all shown. Here in Slovenia, even the latest generations of Slovenians are hugely exposed to the Croato-Serbian languages - from the Croato-Serbian music, broadcast on national radio, and TV stations, to the Croato-Serbian movies being screened in the cinemas, and aired on TV, to the Croato-Serbian TV series, that are aired on Slovenian TV, and even the Croatian, and Serbian, TV stations being available from the local Cable TV providers, and the Croatian HRT also being visible with a normal aerial antenna, the exposure of the people here to the Croato-Serbian languages here is ENORMOUS, and with the arrival of new TV stations, such as MTV Adria (it has always bugged me, how come Slovania couldn't make their own MTV, but had to make one with Croatians, and Serbians, instead), it's only increasing.

And the Government isn't doing anything, in order to prevent that. Actually, the Government seems to find the prevention of the prenetration of any kind of Italian TV signal to the Slovenian territory more important.

So obviously, there's the almost mutual intelligiblity between Slovenian and the Croato-Serbian languages, but it's not, because they're so similar - it's because not only the enormous exposure of the Slovenian language to the other three languages, but also because the colloquial Slovenian usually doesn't follow the vowels of the litterary language (mostly because they're not written, so people don't even know, where to put the, and where not), but instead, uses a more simple system, much closer to that of the Croato-Serbian languages.

As for whether Slovenians understand Slovak, well, I can say, that I played the Slovak version of "Hey, Slavs" in front of some Slovenians (from Ljubljana), and they understood it, as if it was Slovenian. In fact, they even thought it was some kind of Slovenian.



> _One of the more interesting questions in Western South Slavic dialectology is the relationship, both historical and modern, between the dialects of the Slovene and the Kajkavian Croatian speech territories. [...] *Contemporary Slavic linguists agree that the dialects of the Slovene and Kajkavian speech territories are part of a dialect continuum* *with almost all of the isoglosses which unite them being archaisms rather than shared innovations. *Although it is clear that this is a dialect continuum, the political border between Slovenia and Croatia has had an important influence on dialect development in this area._


Yeah, exactly. Your quote exactly proved one of my points. 
As proved by: _www dot hervardi dot com/kronika dot php_, Anton Vramec, from Zagreb, was speaking Pannonic Slovenian. His book _Kronika_ (Chronicle) is introduced on the first page with: _Kronika vezda znovič spravljena kratka *slovenskim jezikom* po D. Antolu Pope Vramece, kanoniku *Zagrebečkom*. - The chronicle "vezda" (what does this mean?) again made short in the *Slovenian language*, after D. Antol Pop Vramec, canonic *of Zagreb*._
So, in the year of 1578, a canonic *of Zagreb* was speaking the *Slovenian language* (slovenski jezik, _szlouenski iezik_). It was Pannonic Slovenian.

So it's obvious, that Pannonic Slovenian became Kajkavian Croatian only at some point later, and your quote futher proves that.



> However, it is true that Slovenian doesn't have anything similar to the _to be _+ infinitive future used in West and East Slavic languages, and it's also true that its future tense is analogous to the Future II of BCS. Therefore, the above poster's claim that "the future tense in Slovenian is formed exactly as in Czech, Slovak, and Polish, but nowhere near the way it's formed in the South Slavic languages" is still absurd on its face.


Well, you could actually regard the South Slavic future, that is _vidjet ću_ in Croatian, and _videti čem_ in some variants of Slovenian (but warning: apparently only since the Illyrian period), as a variant of that, only with the clitic _bo(de)m_, _budu_, replaced with _(ho)čem_, _(ho)ću_. In fact, the clitic is the only difference between them.



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> You're mixing up here something.
> Though it's true that Slovene is clearly linked to Czech and even more to Slovak and though it is very likely that once there was a dialect continuum from Slovene up to Slovak, this continuum long ago has been broken apart and both languages have developed apart from each other.
> 
> (There's, by the way, even more links to Western Slavic if you look at Carinthian Slovene, but that just for the record.)
> 
> Slovene is rather more conservative and closer to the common Slavic roots except concerning the tenses where Slovene has abandoned aorist and imperfect, but in one dialect considered Slovene (the one of the Resia valley in Friuli - though the villagers sometimes did refer to themselves as 'Russian': popular ethymology, obviously) there do exist some residual forms of aorist.


I agree with all of that.



			
				Tolovaj_Mataj said:
			
		

> This is not really the whole truth. Slovenian historians, at least not the officially recognized historians, do not try to proof anything about Slavonians to be connected in any way to Slovenes. Slavonia has never been a Slovene speaking region like parts of Koroška and Furlanija - Julijska krajina and region around Monošter in HU.
> When talking about Kajkavian dialect of Croatian, we have Hrvatsko Zagorje around Zagreb in mind. Their speech is close to Slovene or better to Štajerska dialect of Slovene.


But according to what Anton Vramec wrote in 1578, the people, that lived in present day Slavonia, were Slovenians. Let me quote something: _In jasno je, da v »Slovenijeh« živijo »Szlouenci« (Slovenci), na »Horuatskem« pa Horuati (Hrvati), kar avtor večkrat zapiše. Očitno Vramec ne pozna izraza Slavonija, ker takrat ni bil poznan!_
And here you have the English translation: _And it's clear, that in "Slovenijeh", the "Szlouenci" (Slovenci/Slovenians) live, and on "Horuatsko", the "Horuati" (Hrvati/Croatians) lives, what the author writes a lot of times. Clearly, Vramec doesn't know the expression Slavonia, because it wasn't known then!_

I think this says a lot of things.

Well, since it's extremely late right now, and I have to go to sleep, I'm going to stop here for now.


----------



## vput

Why are you so keen on deemphasizing the strong link between Slovenian and BCS? Likewise why are you so keen on emphasizing the faded link between Slovenian and Slovak? As others have pointed out, modern Slovenian *IS* a South Slavonic language. Is there something outside linguistics that you're alluding to?

Off the top of my head, Slovenian has some traits that make it strange for Slovaks.

1) Slovenian still uses the dual
2) It uses the supine instead of the infinitive after verbs of motion
3) It conjugates 'iti' (to go) in the present tense with the stem of "gre-" Slovak uses "idem", "ideš", "ide" etc. which is more familiar to other Slavs.
4) It still uses mobile stress and pitch-accent like BCS.

It's true that the ancestors of the Slovenes and Slovaks spoke mutually intelligible dialects about 1300 years ago. Then again, the ancestors of ALL Slavs spoke mutually intelligible dialects and if you go a little further back, they all spoke Proto-Slavonic. The linguistic connection between Slovenes and Slovaks at that time is no more special than that between the ancestors of the Croats and Poles for example.

Judging by the comments of athaulf and tolovaj_matej about Hervardi, I would discount certain parts of Hervardi's information. I used to soak up similar sites made by Hungarian nationalists and for a while I held Hungarians in greater esteem than Slavs and Germans. Then I grew up and made friends with Slovaks, Germans, Romanians and Croats (all traditional enemies/rivals of Hungarians). I now view Hungarian nationalists with the same mistrust as nationalists anywhere else (including Slovenian ones).


----------



## _Tasha_

The features of Slovene that _vput _mentioned only prove that Slovenian language has not developed as much as the rest of Slavic languages throughout the centuries. Maybe that is beacuse we were small and always under foreign rule. Old Church Slavic is considered one of the evolutional stages of Slovenian as well as the rest of South Slavic languages. And while most of these languages have evolved and symplified, Slovenian has presereved many old language features, such as dual, mobile stress, 6 declinations out of the original 7, ect. And if you try to read Old Church Slavic you'd be surprised at how much you can understand.


----------



## sokol

vput said:


> It's true that the ancestors of the Slovenes and Slovaks spoke mutually intelligible dialects about 1300 years ago. Then again, the ancestors of ALL Slavs spoke mutually intelligible dialects and if you go a little further back, they all spoke Proto-Slavonic.


Yes, this is the core of the problem - and the fact, as Tasha mentions, that Slovene didn't develop away so much from Old Church Slavonic than Slovak and Croatian/Serbian:


_Tasha_ said:


> The features of Slovene that _vput _mentioned only prove that Slovenian language has not developed as much as the rest of Slavic languages throughout the centuries.



However, during the 19th century Slovene nationalists discovered that there were indeed some links to Western Slavic (and indeed there are - especially if you take Carinthian Slovene dialects).
When the modern Slovene standard language came into being (after the greater 'Illyric' movement failed - well, more precisely, what came of it was _srpski ili hrvatski jezik, _and it never really got a food on the ground in Slovenia though some Slovenians were in favor of 'Illyrian') some lending and loan translations from Czech were introduced.

It seems this affinity to Western Slavic still is alive in Slovenia, it's just a way of standing one's ground against Croatian/Serbian influence.
At OBrasilo: I was in Slovenia in 1998, so some time ago, but then I don't think that the situation there did change fundamentally.
To say that the government would do _nothing _against Serbian/Croatian influence simply is not true. True, the influence is heavy, especially on the youth. But there is a rather strict concept of language culture (which Slovenes have learnt from Czech structuralism & the _Pražský lingvistický kroužek_ - Circle of Linguists of Prague: again, the Western Slavic connection, very deliberatly introduced in Slovenia), and a rather strict 'father' of modern Slovene standard language (Jože Toporišič), and many Slovenes accept all this even though in everyday communication hardly anyone speaks the standard language - they do so because they know that a small language like theirs always will have to fight for it's very existence.
(Take Finland, or Island, it's different there, yes, but then not so different at all if you look closely.)

So, government and Slovenian intellectuals are _indeed _doing something against it - more than Austrians would ever accept in order to preserve their dialects (the situation here is a little bit reversed as dialects in Austria are more significant for the nation than the standard language).
But it would be censorship and restriction of human rights to go very much further. You could (should!) only do _so _much and _not _more - there's a limit to what is acceptable, in language politics too.
(If the government would go too far it would loose the support of its people.)

But that's already a little bit off topic, I fear.
What was very clear to me, to come to a conclusion, was that it is so much more easier to learn Croatian if you already know Slovenian (and I did only learn Slovenian in the beginning, without being exposed to Croatian at all).
I still have huge problems if trying to read Czech or Slovak - I can manage, but only just: both these languages are and always were much more difficult for me.


----------



## Athaulf

OBrasilo said:


> Here in Slovenia, even the latest generations of Slovenians are hugely exposed to the Croato-Serbian languages - from the Croato-Serbian music, broadcast on national radio, and TV stations, to the Croato-Serbian movies being screened in the cinemas, and aired on TV, to the Croato-Serbian TV series, that are aired on Slovenian TV, and even the Croatian, and Serbian, TV stations being available from the local Cable TV providers, and the Croatian HRT also being visible with a normal aerial antenna, the exposure of the people here to the Croato-Serbian languages here is ENORMOUS, and with the arrival of new TV stations, such as MTV Adria (it has always bugged me, how come Slovania couldn't make their own MTV, but had to make one with Croatians, and Serbians, instead), it's only increasing.
> 
> So obviously, there's the almost mutual intelligiblity between Slovenian and the Croato-Serbian languages, but it's not, because they're so similar - it's because not only the enormous exposure of the Slovenian language to the other three languages, but also because the colloquial Slovenian usually doesn't follow the vowels of the litterary language (mostly because they're not written, so people don't even know, where to put the, and where not), but instead, uses a more simple system, much closer to that of the Croato-Serbian languages.



You are trying to prove a complete absurdity, which runs counter to the experiences of everyone I've ever known. Just last night I met a Slovenian guy who was born and raised here in Canada, and speaks only some basic Slovenian that he picked from his parents at home, with virtually zero exposure to BCS in his life. This was enough for establishing basic communication (we both speak English, of course, but I wanted to see if he would understand my Croatian just for fun -- and I didn't make any effort to use Slovenian words myself). There's no chance that this guy would be able to communicate with a Czech or Pole, or even a Slovak, unless they spoke English.

Also, has it ever occurred to you that the causation might actually exist in the other direction too, namely that Slovenians enjoy Croatian and Serbian TV and movies _because they understand the language in the first place_, and not the other way around? 



> As for whether Slovenians understand Slovak, well, I can say, that I played the Slovak version of "Hey, Slavs" in front of some Slovenians (from Ljubljana), and they understood it, as if it was Slovenian. In fact, they even thought it was some kind of Slovenian.


Now you've silently switched the discussion from the similarity between Slovenian and West vs. South Slavic languages in general to the similarity between Slovenian and Slovak vs. BCS. (Obviously, even with the most strained arguments you couldn't argue that Slovenian is mutually intelligible with Czech or Polish to any reasonable degree.) Slovenian is indeed much more mutually intelligible with Slovak than Czech or Polish, but this is because out of West Slavic languages, _Slovak is by far the most similar one to South Slavic languages in general_. BCS speakers also understand Slovak far, far better than Czech or Polish.



> Yeah, exactly. Your quote exactly proved one of my points.
> As proved by: _www dot hervardi dot com/kronika dot php_, Anton Vramec, from Zagreb, was speaking Pannonic Slovenian. His book _Kronika_ (Chronicle) is introduced on the first page with: _Kronika vezda znovič spravljena kratka *slovenskim jezikom* po D. Antolu Pope Vramece, kanoniku *Zagrebečkom*. - The chronicle "vezda" (what does this mean?) again made short in the *Slovenian language*, after D. Antol Pop Vramec, canonic *of Zagreb*._
> So, in the year of 1578, a canonic *of Zagreb* was speaking the *Slovenian language* (slovenski jezik, _szlouenski iezik_). It was Pannonic Slovenian.
> 
> So it's obvious, that Pannonic Slovenian became Kajkavian Croatian only at some point later, and your quote futher proves that.
> _[...]
> [more nonsense snipped --A.]_


Oh come on. You are continuing to peddle ultra-nationalist garbage of the most absurd kind, even though you've been warned about it already. Even a Slovenian poster has agreed that this stuff is complete nonsense in one of the above posts, even though his opinion about this organization is generally better than mine. I can easily give you links to websites of similar Croatian or Serbian ultra-nationalists "proving" that their respective countries have historically encompassed anything from Nepal to the Bay of Biscay, and that all Slavs from Lusatia to Vladivostok  (and possibly some non-Slavs as well) are speaking just corrupted versions of the original Croatian/Serbian/whatever. Of course, with some googling you'll easily find similar "historical" and "linguistic" "proofs" by extremists from dozens of other nationalities across the world. 

This Hervardi stuff is just rubbish in the same league. I won't even bother to refute it in detail. I'll just note that they're trying to reinterpret some old texts by assuming that various words derived from "Slav" supposedly all in fact mean "Slovenian". And voila -- suddenly any Slavs can be proclaimed to be strayed Slovenians if necessary. 



> I think this says a lot of things.


Yes, it does, but not those you would like it to say.

And about this Hervardi organization -- a picture says more than a thousand words (well, the dude in the front row has ruined the shot by dressing in lousy sweatpants instead of army gear ). Oh, and as someone who knows quite a lot about extremist movements of this sort, I would make an educated guess that the choice of the internationally (in)famous red-white-black pattern for their flag is by no means a coincidence (this color pattern certainly doesn't correspond to any historical flags of Slovenia or any of its provinces; on their website they present some pretty lame excuses for the design).


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

sokol said:


> ... whereas the Resian 'Russians' clearly define themselves consciously different from their Friulian and Italian neighbours.
> I didn't know, by the way, that there are _still _Resians around calling themselves 'Russians'.


Oh, yes. I don't know if you are aware about the minority politics in FVG. In the last three months there was a lot of noise around when the minority law was introducing on the land level.  The law talks about the visible bilinguism /Italian-Slovene/ in some particular towns and villages. There exist people in Resija who don't feel themselves being of Slovene origine and also don't let other Resians to feel this way. They hate to think their dialect could be a dialect of Slovene, so they prefer to be 'Russians'. Honestly, this would be so hillarious, if it isn't tragic. Unfortunately I cannot find really good articles which were published in different newspapers in those days, for example in Primorski dnevnik (www.primorski.it) or Dnevnik (www.dnevnik.si).
Maybe it is not worth mentioning these people belong to the right-wing politics as it was clearly seen in the FVG regional parliament.



> and there too were Slovenians as well (not only Croatians) romanticizing about a great 'Illyric' language, but this is history.


Yes, but these Slovenes who joined the Illyrian movement are treated like national traitors.




> I'm quite happy they didn't - would have complicated matters enormously, especially now that both languages have their independence and are EU-members.


Foreigners do not see this. Slovaks had just bad luck they couldn't force others to use their internal naming.


----------



## sokol

Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> Oh, yes. I don't know if you are aware about the minority politics in FVG.


Not any more, no - since I've moved away from Graz to Vienna I've lost contact. Interesting to hear that there is a split in Resian valley with the minority, at the time I did my researches (late 90ies) this didn't sound so dramatic. (Probably not yet very active minority politics at all at the time in FVG - and then I've concentrated at the time more on Sauris/Zahre, a few kilometres to the west of Resia.)



Tolovaj_Mataj said:


> Yes, but these Slovenes who joined the Illyrian movement are treated like national traitors.


 Don't be so hard on them. 
But I can understand it - we here in Austria too don't worship Pangermanic Nationalists from that era (except, some right wing exremists just do that, but that's another story).


----------



## Tolovaj_Mataj

quote=sokol;4124896]Not any more, no - since I've moved away from Graz to Vienna I've lost contact. Interesting to hear that there is a split in Resian valley with the minority, at the time I did my researches (late 90ies) this didn't sound so dramatic. (Probably not yet very active minority politics at all at the time in FVG - and then I've concentrated at the time more on Sauris/Zahre, a few kilometres to the west of Resia.)[/QUOTE]
I cannot agree with you. The minority has been very active there in FVG since... 1918 when they became a minority in Italy. Maybe they shoul try with bombs like south Tirolians did in '70ies. But recently I've heard why Tirolians could use boms, but why Slovenes may not. 
Here is a bit of history of the news about our minority in Italy: http://www.alpskival.net/11/s/0/6/1
Just to get an impression what's going on accross the border.





> But I can understand it - we here in Austria too don't worship Pangermanic Nationalists from that era (except, some right wing exremists just do that, but that's another story).


I didn't know this. Who on earth would like to throw away his own independance and join the bigger whose-ever state? And drag hundreds of millions "_other racial"_ nations with him?


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,*

*The topic of this post is Slovenian as a South Slavic language. The posts dealing with politics were enlightening and clarifying to a certain extent, but it should not become the main topic of this thread.*


*Groetjes,*
*Frank*
*Moderator EHL*


----------



## Diaspora

*Moderator note: merged with the previous thread (sokol).*

I never understood why Slovene was classified as a South Slavic tongue?
As a Serbo-Croatian speaker, I have a fair understanding of Bulgarian and Macedonian but not Slovene! Here are the key differences that in my opinion makes Slovene West Slavic, feel free to correct my mistakes 

*Future tense* is marked with the verb "to be+conjuagted infinitive" versus BCS "to want+infinitive" or "to want+subjunctive+conjugated present"

*Definiteness* is not marked in Slovene as far as I know while in BCS they are marked through adjectives
crn kaput: a black coat
crni kaput: the black coat
z'elena jabuka vs. zelen'a jabuka, a green apple, the green apple

*Verb tenses: *Slovene hasn't perserved the Aorist and Imperfect, and to some degree the Past Perfect. BCS perserved all and contary to popular belief the Aorist and the Past Perfect are still used in modern speech.

EX. Vidi onog kretena, *zatvori* čovjeku vrata ispred nosa.
Look that idiot slammed the door right infront of that man's face.

*Accent:* BCS has an involved tone system use to differentiate noun cases. I haven't seen this in Slovene and West Slavic.

*Vocab: *Slovene has German influence, while BCS has Greek (drum, hiljada) and Turkish (murija, hajvan, tavan, carape, papuce, corav, avlija)

*Three way distinction demonstrative pronouns: *Ovaj (this), taj (that one, serves as primitive article), onaj (yonder, that one over there)


----------



## sokol

First and foremost, you are wrong concerning:

*- Future tense* is a quite new development in all Slavic languages; Slovene future tense in fact is closer to the system of South Slavic languages except that it uses a different auxiliary; and it is by the way auxiliary + past participle _(bomo preživeli).
_
*- Definiteness:* Slovenian has this too: _nov avto = a new car, nov*i *auto = the new car._
*
- Tenses:* Resia dialect still has preserved a few aorist forms; also as far as I know Croatian Kajkavian dialects have no longer aorist. We have already discussed the use of aorist and imperfect (in BCS) in separate threads, and what was established there is that native speakers can't quite agree on how much those still are used.
*
- Accent:* The BCS accent system (with four tonemic accents) is an innovation which sets BCS standard language apart from other South Slavic languages: so this is not an argument at all.
What is typical for South Slavic is that _a _tonal accent _exists _- as is the case in Slovenian: short = /`/ long = /´/ and /^/ only with /e/ and /o/ where /ê/ and /ô/ also correspond with a more open vowel, contrary to more closed /é/ and /ó/. The accent also has a tonal curve, but I leave it to native speakers to explain about that - I never managed to pronounce it correctly.
Certainly Slovene accents aren't nearly as important and distinctive as they are in BCS - but what about Bulgarian and Macedonian? I don't know much about those but I think I would know if they had an accent system similar to BCS.

*- Vocabulary:* I don't really see what kind of argument this should be; it is well-known that German also had some impact on BCS (not only on Croatian but, it seems, also on Serbian), and there is of course no doubt that Italian had an impact on coastal dialects of BCS.

*- Three demonstrative pronouns:* Now have you got an argument here? I don't have a good Bulgarian dictionary here, but the tiny one I have only lists _там = here_ as well as _there_.

To conclude, I don't see a single convincing argument.
Which is a pity because there are some: especially Carinthian Slovene dialects show some features which link them clearly to Western Slavic (like Western Slavic prefix "vy-" instead of "iz-").
Nevertheless, despite the fact that there indeed are links between Slovene and Western Slavic (for the most part not the ones you mention, but there exist others) I don't think that there can be any doubt about Slovene being a South Slavic language.

To that I'd like to add that I have learned Slovene before I learned my first words in BCS and I found it quite easy to get a basic understanding of BCS - while it is much more difficult for me to understand Czech or Slovak.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

I know that chat is discouraged here, but I would like to commend Sokol for his wonderful post!

If Slovenian is difficult for some BCS speakers to understand, this has more to do with the Slovenian language's isolation and separate development in medieval times than the few grammatical and lexical elements that are transitional to West Slavic (some of which Sokol mentioned above). Unlike many other Slavic languages, Slovenian has no "intimate" linguistic relatives, either lexically or grammatically; in other words, even BCS is substantially different from it in many respects.

BTW, not only is definiteness marked through adjectives in Slovenian, it's sometimes marked rather strikingly:

*majhen avto* = a small car
*mali avto* = the small car

@Sokol: I always thought that the West Slavic / regional Slovenian "vy-" corresponds to the South Slavic / standard Slovenian "iz-", rather than "do-".


----------



## sokol

TriglavNationalPark said:


> @Sokol: I always thought that the West Slavic / regional Slovenian "vy-" corresponds to the South Slavic / standard Slovenian "iz-", rather than "do-".


Oh right - thanks for mentioning this! 
Sloppy of me, I should have taken more care.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

No problem, Sokol! I was wondering, which language is the closest South Slavic relative of Slovenian -- BCS or Old Church Slavonic (OCS), which is also a South Slavic language? Can one even attempt to answer such a question, especially since OCS survives only as a liturgical language?

*Grammatically* speaking, Kajkavian and to a lesser extent Chakavian have a lot in common with Slovenian, but if we leave out dialects, Slovenian seems to have more in common with OCS (a full case system, the dual, etc.) than with standard BCS, whose case system, for instance, is substantially simplified.


----------



## Transatlantic

By the way, there is a parallel construction to the Slovene future tense in Serbo-Croatian. It is called _the exact future_, or _the second future_, and is used in adverbial clauses (conditional, time):

conditional: Javiću ti se ako *budem izlazio/izašao*. (I'll call you if I go out). 
time: Javiću ti se kad *budem izašao/izlazio*. (I'll call you when I go out/am going out)

This tense is constructed in exactly the same way the Slovene one is: "biti" in the present tense + the -l participle (radni glagolski pridev). It does have a different (more restricted) meaning than its Slovene counterpart, though. 

...

Determining relatedness between languages on the basis of vocabulary is a very tricky business indeed and is full of pitfalls. If you were to look at English vocabulary (even if you gave it more than just a cursory look), you might be tempted to say that English is a Romance language. However, when you look at its phonology, morphology, syntax, and particularly its history and core vocabulary, it becomes very clear that it can't be a Romance language.


----------



## dudasd

I can only give my personal vision of a very average learner - though Slovenian has kept some features of OCS that have been lost in BCS, I must note that learning Old Church Slavonic helped me to understand Russian and Bulgarian very well even before I began learning them at all, but in spite of my good will, it didn't make me an inch closer to understanding Slovenian. So I'd say it's not the grammar itself, more probably it's because of very different forms of the words, of the vocabulary itself. I don't mean loanwords, but words of Slavic origin, that's what's strange.


----------



## Ayazid

Hello

First, I would like to point out that there was already one thread about the same topic, you can find it here:

Slovenian as a South Slavic language...

Second, as I haven't studied any of these languages I can't add anything really substantial to the discussion except my personal impression and in my opinion Slovene is undoubtedly a South Slavic language, very similar to standard BSC (and certainly even more to Kajkavian dialects which I don't know).

Of course, there are some things which put it closer to West Slavic languages but overall it's really very much closer to other South Slavic tongues, no matter how perfectly their speakers understand it. Actually, even after having read a lot of texts written in Slovene and BCS I can't always immediately recognize in which one of them is the text written in! It's also possible to find some things in which Slovene differs more from West Slavic languages (at least Czech and Slovak) than BCS does (for example the way how it forms the future tense, dual..)

I am also unsure why _Diaspora _disputed the belonging of Slovene to South Slavic languages on the basis of certain grammatical differences, because from this point of view Bulgarian and Macedonian form an independent Slavic subgroup and actually have more common with non-Slavic Balkan languages in some points (the loss of cases, postposed article, complex system of tenses).


----------



## Diaspora

Regardless, as a native BCS speaker I can't follow a conversation in Slovene! (I think other native speakers would agree). Considering the future tense, Sokol I still think Slovenian is closer to West Slavic, look at
these examples: (I'm not sure if my Slovene and Czech are right)

I will sleep
Slovenian: *Bom spal*.
Czech: *Budu spát.*
BCS-West: *Spavat ću/Ja ću spavati*
BCS-East: *Ja ću da spavam/Ја ћу да спавам*​ 
In casual speech we also say things like "Ima da jedeš"
Literal translation "Have that you eat"
I'm not sure if Slovenian has anything like that.​ 
As for Kajkavian, it is practically a foreign language for me, you will never hear it in Croatian parliament or state television.​ 
As for case simplification I don't see it. Some foreigners say that the locative and dative are merged, that is true only orthographically but they are pronounced differently (stress on the same syllable but there is a "gliding up and down sound" on some vowels which are subtle to foreigners but meaningful to native speakers).​ 
So, Slovene is probably a South Slavic language but with some perks.​


----------



## Diaspora

Moreover during the times of the Yugoslav kingdom (1918-1941) the official language was SerboCroatoSlovenian. Maybe Slovenian imported BCS characteristics?


----------



## Ayazid

Diaspora said:


> I will sleep
> Slovenian: *Bom spal*.
> Czech: *Budu spát.*
> BCS-West: *Spavat ću/Ja ću spavati*
> BCS-East: *Ja ću da spavam/Ја ћу да спавам*​




Let me to say that your Czech example is correct (in Slovak it would be *budem spať*), but the literal translation of the Slovene sentence - "_budu spal_" - wouldn't make any sense in Czech, since the verb must be always in the infinitive form, never as a perfect participle. So, the Croatian form is more similar, although it uses a different auxiliary verb, which is related to the Czech _chtít - _to want ("I want to sleep" would be *chci spát* in Czech and *chcem spať* in Slovak). Nevertheless, I have to admit that the Serbian version looks even more different from Czech than the Slovene one (I guess that in Bulgarian it would be probably rendered similarly).


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Diaspora said:


> As for case simplification I don't see it. Some foreigners say that the locative and dative are merged, that is true only orthographically but they are pronounced differently (stress on the same syllable but there is a "gliding up and down sound" on some vowels which are subtle to foreigners but meaningful to native speakers).​



I would say BCS is simplified somewhat compared to Slovenian, especially in relation to the plural case endings and the loss of the dual grammatical number, for instance. In any case (no pun intended), Slovenian seems to have retained far more of OCS-era syntax.

Let's decline *nož*, for instance, in Old Church Slavonic, Slovenian, and BCS (nom., gen., dat., acc., loc., instr.):

*Old Church Slavonic:

**SG:* nož*-ь*, nož*-a*, nož*-u*, nož*-ь*, nož*-i*, nož*-emь*
*DU:* nož*-a*, nož*-u*, nož*-ema*, nož*-a*, nož*-u*, nož*-ema*
*PL:* nož*-i*, nož*-ь*, nož*-emь*, nož*-ę*, nož*-ihъ*, nož*-i*

*Slovenian (note the similarities to Old Church Slavonic):*

*SG:* nož, nož-*a*, nož-*u*, nož, nož-*u*, nož-*em*
*DU:* nož-*a*, nož-*ev*, nož-*ema*, nož*-a*, nož-*ih*, nož-*ema*
*PL:* nož-*i*, nož-*ev*, nož-*em*, nož*-e*, nož-*ih*, nož-*i*

*BCS (note the absence of the dual and the completely different plural case endings, despite the identical singular case endings):

**SG:* nož, nož-*a*, nož-*u*, nož, nož-*u*, nož-*em
DU: *N/A*
PL:  *nož-*evi*, nož-*eva*, nož-*evima*, nož-*eve*, nož-*evima*, nož-*evima* 

Note: Based in part on grammatical information from Wikipedia. Any corrections are welcome!​ 


Diaspora said:


> So, Slovene is probably a South Slavic language but with some perks.



I would say that this is a fair assessment.

Thank you for starting a fascinating thread, BTW!


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Diaspora said:


> Moreover during the times of the Yugoslav kingdom (1918-1941) the official language was SerboCroatoSlovenian. Maybe Slovenian imported BCS characteristics?



Slovenian did import some BCS characteristics, although I would say that most were imported at the height of the pan-Slavic and Illyrian movements in the 19th century. Some of these late imports, primarily but not exclusively lexical borrowings, were purged after World War II under the influence of more purist linguists.

"Serbo-Croato-Slovenian" was a political fantasy in pre-World War II Yugoslavia; it only existed on paper.


----------



## dudasd

TriglavNationalPark said:


> *Old Church Slavonic:*​
> *PL:* nož*-i*, nož*-ь*, nož*-emъ*, nož*-ę*, nož*-ihъ*, nož*-i*​
> ​




Though I think that nož/nožь is not quite a happy example; a good number of monosyllabic words and a smaller number of dysillabic words in BCS suffered "transport" to another declension group (type: volъ, sъlnъ), but many of them have both declensions even now (vukovi/vuci, golubovi/golubi). This one is also grammaticaly correct, though a bit archaic in this particular case:​ 
*SG:* nož, nož-*a*, nož-*u*, nož, nož-*u*, nož-*em
**PL: *nož-*i*, nož-*â*, nož-*ima*, nož-*e*, nož-*ima*, nož-*ima*


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Ayazid said:


> Let me to say that your Czech example is correct (in Slovak it would be *budem spať*), but the literal translation of the Slovene sentence - "_budu spal_" - wouldn't make any sense in Czech, since the verb must be always in the infinitive form, never as a perfect participle. So, the Croatian form is more similar, although it uses a different auxiliary verb, which is related to the Czech _chtít - _to want ("I want to sleep" would be *chci spát* in Czech and *chcem spať* in Slovak).


 
BTW, in Slovenian, "I want to sleep" (with the verb *hoteti*) is *hočem spati *(or *hočem spat* in colloquial Slovenian).


----------



## phosphore

Diaspora said:


> Regardless, as a native BCS speaker I can't follow a conversation in Slovene! (I think other native speakers would agree). Considering the future tense, Sokol I still think Slovenian is closer to West Slavic, look at
> these examples: (I'm not sure if my Slovene and Czech are right)
> 
> I will sleep
> Slovenian: *Bom spal*.
> Czech: *Budu spát.*
> BCS-West: *Spavat ću/Ja ću spavati*
> BCS-East: *Ja ću da spavam/Ја ћу да спавам*​


 
Actually, BCS-East: *Spavaću/Ja ću spavati;* Ja ću da spavam is less common and is slightly different in meaning. So, the difference is orthographic only, since it's pronounced the same (if you don't look at the difference between ć's in the East and in the West.


----------



## Diaspora

TriglavNationalPark said:


> BTW, in Slovenian, "I want to sleep" with the verb *hoteti* is *hočem spati *(*hočem spat* in colloquial Slovenian).


 
Interesting, in Slovenian it is pretty clear what one is talking about when using "hoteti" but since the verb "to want" is used in BCS for future; there is ambiguity as to whether it expresses desire or definite future.

*Spavat ću *
*I will sleep*

*Hoću spavati *
*ambiguous, it can mean "I will sleep" or "I want to sleep"*

*Hoću da spavam* *
*I want to sleep*

*This is one of the few cases where the so called "Serbian standard" is 
prefered in Croatian even though da+present constructions are stigmatized because of political reasons
------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't BCS retain the dual for some nouns such as vuk (wolf), oko (eye), noga (leg)? I'm not sure since I never went to school in Ex-YU.
Phosphore, I personally know of small villages in Nis area of Serbia that do not use the infinitive.


----------



## phosphore

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Let's decline *nož*, for instance, in Old Church Slavonic, Slovenian, and BCS (nom., gen., dat., acc., loc., instr.):​
> *Old Church Slavonic:*​
> *SG:* nož*-ь*, nož*-a*, nož*-u*, nož*-ь*, nož*-i*, nož*-emь*
> *DU:* nož*-a*, nož*-u*, nož*-ema*, nož*-a*, nož*-u*, nož*-ema*
> *PL:* nož*-i*, nož*-ь*, nož*-emь*, nož*-ę*, nož*-ihъ*, nož*-i*​
> *Slovenian (note the similarities to Old Church Slavonic):*​
> *SG:* nož, nož-*a*, nož-*u*, nož, nož-*u*, nož-*em*
> *DU:* nož-*a*, nož-*ev*, nož-*ema*, nož*-a*, nož-*ih*, nož-*ema*
> *PL:* nož-*i*, nož-*ev*, nož-*em*, nož*-e*, nož-*ih*, nož-*i*​
> *BCS (note the absence of the dual and the completely different plural case endings, despite the identical singular case endings):*​
> *SG:* nož, nož-*a*, nož-*u*, nož, nož-*u*, nož-*em*
> *DU: *N/A
> *PL: *nož-*evi*, nož-*eva*, nož-*evima*, nož-*eve*, nož-*evima*, nož-*evima*​
> Note: Based in part on grammatical information from Wikipedia. Any corrections are welcome!​


 
Serbian (BCS): 

SG: nož-*Ø,* nož-*a,* nož-*u,* nož-*u,* nož-*em*
PL: nož-ev-*i,* nož-ev-*a,* nož-ev-*ima,* nož-ev-*e,* nož-ev-*ima,* nož-ev-*ima*

So, -ev- is just an infix and affixes are the same in Slovenian and Serbian in plural in nominative and accusative.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Diaspora said:


> Doesn't BCS retain the dual for some nouns such as vuk (wolf), oko (eye), noga (leg)? I'm not sure since I never went to school in Ex-YU.


 
I believe there are a few_ remnants_ of the dual in many if not most Slavic languages, but the true grammatical dual is preserved in only two Slavic languages: Slovenian, a South Slavic language, and (Lusatian) Sorbian, a West Slavic language*. Coincidentally, these two are also the only Indo-European languages in which the full dual grammatical number survives.

* Old Church Slavonic has it as well, but outside of Orthodox liturgy, it's not really a living language.


----------



## phosphore

Diaspora said:


> Doesn't BCS retain the dual for some nouns such as vuk (wolf), oko (eye), noga (leg)? I'm not sure since I never went to school in Ex-YU.
> Phosphore, I personally know of small villages in Nis area of Serbia that do not use the infinitive.


 
I have also heard of that, but I was talking about standardised forms.

About the difference between "I shall sleep" and "I want to sleep", I would say that "I shall sleep" is "spavaću" or "ću spavati"; "I want to sleep" is "hoću da spavam" and hardly ever "hoću spavati" in Serbian.

I do not know anything about the dual in Serbian; there is paucal, used with numbers 2, 3 and 4 which is often misinterpreted as genitive singular.
Actually, I remember now that there are some dual forms like "gledaj _svoja posla_".


----------



## dudasd

In BCS, dual can be recognized in genitive of plural as well: noktiju (vs regular PL  nokata), ušiju (vs ušesâ), očiju (vs očesa - this plural is not in use any more, only the dual form remained), nogu (vs. nogâ - which is considered a dialectal form nowadays), slugu (vs. slugâ), etc.


----------



## sokol

Diaspora said:


> Considering the future tense, Sokol I still think Slovenian is closer to West Slavic (...)


You should keep the general use of future tense in South Slavic languages in focus (where both with perfective and imperfective verbs a future tense is formed while in West and East Slavic there's only future tense with imperfective verbs).
But this was discussed here and here and here, to quote only a few.



Diaspora said:


> In casual speech we also say things like "Ima da jedeš"
> Literal translation "Have that you eat"
> I'm not sure if Slovenian has anything like that.​



Nor has Croatian - or to formulate better: in Croatian literary language it is considered bad style to avoid infinitives with this construction.

To avoid infinitives with "have-that-you-eat"-constructions is a typical Balkansprachbund feature.
​


Diaspora said:


> As for Kajkavian, it is practically a foreign language for me, you will never hear it in Croatian parliament or state television.


I cannot see what kind of argument this should be; it seems like you were claiming that Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian standard language were the benchmark for qualifying as South Slavic - which is just unscientific.



Diaspora said:


> Doesn't BCS retain the dual for some nouns such as vuk (wolf), oko (eye), noga (leg)? I'm not sure since I never went to school in Ex-YU.


All Slavic languages once had dual besides plural - that much is a well-established fact. Only Sorbian and Slovenian retained full dual paradigms, and quite some other Slavic languages retained a so-called paral (old, frozen dual forms are used for words which come in natural pairs - like eyes and ears).
As confirmed by dudasd this also is the case for BCS.

So anyway dual is not an argument for classifying a language as Western, Southern or Eastern Slavic: it is clear that dual survived in those languages which were set apart from other Slavic languages - politically and geographically.

So I still haven't seen any convincing arguments at all for not classifying Slovenian as South Slavic.


----------



## Athaulf

Diaspora said:


> I never understood why Slovene was classified as a South Slavic tongue?



Short answer: languages are classified according to their historical development, not their present similarities. Discussing which languages are presently more similar according to various criteria can be fun, but at the end of the day, it will just lead to endless bickering without any practical usefulness. 



> As a Serbo-Croatian speaker, I have a fair understanding of Bulgarian and Macedonian but not Slovene!


That depends on whether you've had some exposure to Croatian Kajkavian dialects. If you've lived in Northwestern Croatia for a few years and picked up some common Kajkavian vocabulary and grammar that's different from standard BCS, Slovenian suddenly becomes much more understandable. 

I'm a hard-core Shtokavian speaker from Bosnia and I've never spent any time learning Slovenian, but after a few years of living in Zagreb, I started understanding Slovenian much better. Nowadays I don't have much trouble watching news and broadcasts on Slovenian TV, and I don't find communication with non-BCS-speaking Slovenians too terribly difficult either.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Ayazid said:


> Second, as I haven't studied any of these languages I can't add anything really substantial to the discussion except my personal impression and in my opinion Slovene is undoubtedly a South Slavic language, *very similar* to standard BSC (and certainly even more to Kajkavian dialects which I don't know).


 
(my bolding)

I realize that these are just your personal impressions, but I would argue that you are overstating the similarity between Slovenian and standard BCS. As T.M.S. Priestly writes in Comrie and Corbett's _The Slavonic Languages_ (Routledge), "Slovene managed to develop its native vocabulary in ways that mark it as *very different* from its closest relative, Serbo-Croat" (my bolding).

Here's some sample text in BCS:



> Na toplim izvorima sarajevske Ilidže razvio se najveći termalni kompleks u ovom dijelu Europe.
> Na površini od 15 hektara, Termalna Rivijera Ilidža svojim posjetiocima nudi prijatno opuštanje i aktivan odmor na unutrašnjim i vanjskim bazenima s brojnim atraktivnim vodenim i animacijskim programima te privlačnu prateću ponudu. Zaronite u svijet hiljadu kapljica, zaplivajte u plavetnilo valova, prepustite se božanskom slapu vode....u podnožju olimpijskih vrhova Igmana.


 
And the same text in Slovenian:



> Ob vročih sarajevskih vrelcih se je razvil največji termalni kompleks v tem delu Evrope.
> Na površini 15 hektarjev Termalna Riviera Ilidža obiskovalcem ponuja prijetno sprostitev in aktivni oddih na notranjih in zunanjih bazenih s številnimi atraktivnimi vodnimi in animacijskimi programi ter privlačno spremljevalno ponudbo. Potopite se v svet tisočerih kapljic, zaplavajte v modrino valov, prepustite se božajočim curkom vode… ob vznožju mogočnih olimpijskih vrhov Igmana.


 
Sample text source (both languages): http://www.terme-ilidza.ba


----------



## phosphore

These are the words I would not understand: obiskovalcem, sprostitev, oddih, zunanjih, curkom; and I don't speak a word of Slovene. However, I think the same text in Slovak would be completely unintelligible to me.


----------



## trance0

Well, Slovene is a South Slavic language, no doubt about that. I just feel I have to say a few things about the case system of nouns in Slovene and BCS. Slovene noun declensions ARE more archaic and show less "symplification" in form than BCS nouns. This is generally true and one can see this quite well on the following examples:

_Example 1_: declension of Slovene noun "man" = "človek":

singular: človek, človek*a*, človek*u*, človek*a*, o človek*u*, s človek*om*
dual: človek*a*, ljud*i*, človek*oma*, človek*a*, o ljud*eh*, s človek*oma*
plural: ljud*je*, ljud*i*, ljud*em*, ljud*i*, o ljud*eh*, z ljud*mi*


BCS declension of noun "čov(j)ek":

čovjek, čovjek*a*, čovjek*u*, čovjek*a*, čovječ*e*, na čovjek*u*, čovjek*om*
ljud*i*, ljud*i*, ljud*ima*, ljud*i*, o ljud*ima*, ljud*ima*

Observe the plural, only two forms exist orthographically in Standard BCS whereas there are 5 distinct plural forms in Standard Slovene.

Another _example 2 _of an even more conservative noun in Slovene in plural:

zob*je*, zob*-*, zob*em*, zob*e*, o zob*eh*, z zob*mi*

And the same noun in BCS:

zub*i*, zub*a*/(*-i(ju)*??), zub*ima*, zub*e*, o zub*ima*, zub*ima*

Only *4 *forms exist in BCS of which genetive plural is orthographically and in many dialects also pronounced the same as genitive singular, while in Slovene all *6 *cases have distinct forms which are also fully different from singular forms.

Furthermore, declension of noun "dan" in Slovene, _example 3_:

singular: dan, dnev*a*/dn*e*, dnev*u*, dan-, o dnev*u*, z dnev*om*/dn*em*
dual: dnev*a*, dn*i*, dnev*oma*, dnev*a*/dn*i*, o dnev*ih*/dn*eh*, z dnev*oma*
plural: dnev*i*, dn*i*, dnev*om*/dn*em*, dnev*e*/dn*i*, o dn*evih*/dn*eh*, z dnev*i*/dn*emi*

Watch the diversity in declension.

And more, nouns with movable(non-fixed, variable) accent in declension(accent marked with capital letters), _example 4_ noun "kost":

Slovene:

singular: kOst*-*, kost*I*, kOst*i*, kOst*-*, o kOst*i*, s kost*jO*
dual: kost*I*, kost*I*, kost*Ema*, kost*I*, o kost*Eh*, s kost*Ema*
plural: kost*I*, kost*I*, kost*Em*, kost*I*, o kost*Eh*, s kost*mI*

BCS:

singular: kOst, kOst*i*, kOst*i*, kOst-, kOst*i*, o kOst*i*, sa kOšć*u*/kOst*i*
plural: kOst*i*, kOst*i(ju)*, kOst*ima*, kOst*i*, o kOst*ima*, kOst*ima*

Considering the variable accent in singular in Slovene and more distinct plural forms it is clear that the declension in Slovene is more diverse. Especially if one takes into account the fact, that in spoken BCS the "*-i*" ending is prevailing even in cases where other forms are possible(namely in instrumental singular and genetive plural), which contributes to even less diversity in the so called "feminine consonant declension".

Also, there are many exceptions in noun declensions in Slovene, more than in BCS, and these exceptions are a testament of an even more elaborate declension system, which existed in Old Slovene.

P.S.: Correct me if I am wrong, but beside the ending "-ju" with some nouns(like oćiju etc.), the "-ima" and "-ama" endings come from dual and were not originally plural endings in BCS.


----------



## phosphore

trance0 said:


> BCS declension of noun "čov(j)ek":
> 
> čovjek, čovjek*a*, čovjek*u*, čovjek*a*, čovječ*e*, na čovjek*u*, čovjek*om*
> ljud*i*, ljud*i*, ljud*ima*, ljud*i*, o ljud*ima*, ljud*ima*
> 
> Observe the plural, only two forms exist orthographically in Standard BCS whereas there are 5 distinct plural forms in Standard Slovene.
> 
> Another _example 2 _of an even more conservative noun in Slovene in plural:
> 
> zob*je*, zob*-*, zob*em*, zob*e*, o zob*eh*, z zob*mi*
> 
> And the same noun in BCS:
> 
> zub*i*, zub*a*/(*-i(ju)*??), zub*ima*, zub*e*, o zub*ima*, zub*ima*
> 
> Only *4 *forms exist in BCS of which genetive plural is orthographically and in many dialects also pronounced the same as genitive singular, while in Slovene all *6 *cases have distinct forms which are also fully different from singular forms.
> 
> Furthermore, declension of noun "dan" in Slovene, _example 3_:
> 
> singular: dan, dnev*a*/dn*e*, dnev*u*, dan-, o dnev*u*, z dnev*om*/dn*em*
> dual: dnev*a*, dn*i*, dnev*oma*, dnev*a*/dn*i*, o dnev*ih*/dn*eh*, z dnev*oma*
> plural: dnev*i*, dn*i*, dnev*om*/dn*em*, dnev*e*/dn*i*, o dn*evih*/dn*eh*, z dnev*i*/dn*emi*
> 
> Watch the diversity in declension.
> 
> And more, nouns with movable(non-fixed, variable) accent in declension(accent marked with capital letters), _example 4_ noun "kost":
> 
> Slovene:
> 
> singular: kOst*-*, kost*I*, kOst*i*, kOst*-*, o kOst*i*, s kost*jO*
> dual: kost*I*, kost*I*, kost*Ema*, kost*I*, o kost*Eh*, s kost*Ema*
> plural: kost*I*, kost*I*, kost*Em*, kost*I*, o kost*Eh*, s kost*mI*
> 
> BCS:
> 
> singular: kOst, kOst*i*, kOst*i*, kOst-, kOst*i*, o kOst*i*, sa kOšć*u*/kOst*i*
> plural: kOst*i*, kOst*i(ju)*, kOst*ima*, kOst*i*, o kOst*ima*, kOst*ima*


 
I've never heard _košću,_ though it is perfectly fine to say _vešću_ or _mišlju;_ and I'm not sure that the genitive plural form _kosti _exists. _*Zubiju*_ does not exist, I am quite sure about that; and the accusative plural form of čovek/čovjek is *ljude.*

In any case, Serbian (BCS) declension _is_ simpler than Slovene one.


----------



## trance0

Thanks for the corrections, I haven`t taken the time to make sure all the BCS declension forms are correct, they are however correct for the most part!  The Slovene declensions are correct in all cases.


----------



## WannaBeMe

phosphore said:


> I've never heard _košću,_ though it is perfectly fine to say _vešću_ or _mišlju;_ and I'm not sure that the genitive plural form _kosti _exists. _*Zubiju*_ does not exist, I am quite sure about that; and the accusative plural form of čovek/čovjek is *ljude.*
> 
> In any case, Serbian (BCS) declension _is_ simpler than Slovene one.



I have heard : Inst.sg- košću and Gen.pl "kosti" (with a long end-i) and "zubiju and zubi" although "zuba" is more usual.  Its normal for Serbian in Bosnia and Croatia.


----------



## trance0

Ha, so I guess I was right after all.


----------



## phosphore

It seems so. You know Serbian better than I do.


----------



## Diaspora

Considering the fact that Balkansprachbund characteristics are a major feature of South Slavic languages, one could use that argument that Slovenian is not South Slavic (not that I'm making a definite point of it). We've seen that Slovenian is not affected by case simplification, infinitive loss (yes, even Croats have a habit of dropping infinitives) and lacks the perservation of simple verbs. While BCS, Bulgarian and Macedonian all share these simplifications to a varying degree.

And whatever happened to the vocative in Slovenian? Is it found in older literature?


_PS: Both "zubiju" and "zuba" are correct, though as someone whose speech comes from Central Bosnia I always use "zuba" since we faithfully observe the short falling, short rising, long falling, long rising and the so called "after length drop off" vowels. Thus, there's no confusion when it comes to noun cases that are the same orthographically._


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Diaspora said:


> Considering the fact that Balkansprachbund characteristics are a major feature of South Slavic languages, one could use that argument that Slovenian is not South Slavic (not that I'm making a definite point of it).


Indeed, one could make that point. One person, namely you and nobody else.
The rest of this planet says something similar to Athaulf (and Trance):


> Short answer: languages are classified according to their historical development, not their present similarities. Discussing which languages are presently more similar according to various criteria can be fun, but at the end of the day, it will just lead to endless bickering without any practical usefulness.


So, I start to wonder why you keep repeating your non-definite point, using non-convincing arguments?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Diaspora

Dear Frank, I think you've misunderstood my posts, I'm not making an argument but a relevant conversation. The idea that Slovenian is West Slavic is not my idea; instead there are numerous political and cultural organizations in Slovenia that propagate such ideas, I'm merely analyzing their claims.


----------



## Duya

WannaBeMe said:


> I have heard : Inst.sg- košću and Gen.pl "kosti" (with a long end-i) and "zubiju and zubi" although "zuba" is more usual.  Its normal for Serbian in Bosnia and Croatia.



In Serbia, one would ask for "meso bez *kostiju*" or "meso bez kosti" (singular genitive, short _i_). "Meso bez kostī" (plural genitive, long _i_) would sound somewhat odd (though Serbian post-vowel length can be fairly weak).



Diaspora said:


> Considering the fact that Balkansprachbund characteristics are a major feature of South Slavic languages,



I think I've had enough. In almost every your post you make an assertion not supported by science and/or not supported by facts. *How *is "Balkansprachbund a major feature of South Slavic languages" a *fact? *First, only some of its aspects are present in Bulgarian, Macedonian and South Serbian dialects. The farther west and north you go, those features disappear. In Bosnian and Vojvodinian dialects (apart from certain amount of subjunctive a.k.a. "dakanje") almost none of it is present.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Diaspora said:


> Dear Frank, I think you've misunderstood my posts, I'm not making an argument but a relevant conversation. The idea that Slovenian is West Slavic is not my idea; instead there are numerous political and cultural organizations in Slovenia that propagate such ideas, I'm merely analyzing their claims.


Cultural and political organisations. Okay... But what about _linguistics_? 

After all, this _is_ a linguistic(s) forum, and members are kindly asked to come up with _linguistic_ arguments. Relevant linguistic arguments.
If there are only political arguments, then the conversation stops to be relevenant.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Mišo

Hi all!

Interesting thread!

I could say, that Slovenian is *expressly* South Slavic language, because South Slavic features expressly prevail in it.

I do not know enough of South Slavic vocabularies to make Slovene - BCS comparison by whatsoever text. 

Even if any linguistic finds any significant differencies there, nevertheless, Slovene will become not west slavic language, just stay a bit more isolated south Slavic language - that is all.

I think modestly, I have sensitive ears to say, that Slovenes ranges into South Slavic language group their parlance and ultimately nearly to BCS group their distinctive vowels stretching.

Last but not least, Slovenians have, in comparison with north Slavs, hard pronounciation of *di ti ni* too.


----------



## trance0

Diaspora said:


> Considering the fact that Balkansprachbund characteristics are a major feature of South Slavic languages, one could use that argument that Slovenian is not South Slavic (not that I'm making a definite point of it). We've seen that Slovenian is not affected by case simplification, infinitive loss (yes, even Croats have a habit of dropping infinitives) and lacks the perservation of simple verbs. While BCS, Bulgarian and Macedonian all share these simplifications to a varying degree.
> 
> And whatever happened to the vocative in Slovenian? Is it found in older literature?




The vocative in Old Slovene was still used, although I am not sure when exactly it fell out of use. It was still clearly present in the "Freising manuscripts": Bože(instead of Modern Slovene Bog!), Gospodi(instead of Modern Slovene Gospod!),... However, the Freising manuscripts are ca. 1000 years old, so the Slovene of that era was still very archaic and much closer to West Slavic since the dialect continuum at that time was not yet broken. For example 1000 years ago Slovene still used imperfect, aorist and some of the nowdays rarely or not at all used impersonal verbal forms, vocative, some Proto Slavic declension types were still preserved(nowdays they exist only with a few nouns and are regarded more as exceptions than as declension types on their own), the original Proto Slavic genitive and locative dual forms of nouns were still preserved in Old Slovene(nowdays plural forms are used in those cases for nouns, however, Modern Slovene still uses the original dual forms in locative and genitive for personal pronouns!). Addtionally, Slovene of the Freising manuscripts era still had many features of Proto Slavic in pronunciation, for example nasal vowels, distinction betwen jat, e,... which was all visible in some of the old declensions. 

There is a very good web page about the Freising manuscripts, for anyone who is interested about the archaic Slovene and how it`s changed in the last one thounsand years and how it has conequently become more like BCS, use the following link for your education: http://nl.ijs.si/e-zrc/bs/index-en.html .

Moderator note:
The vocative discussion has been moved back to Other Slavic languages - please disucss this very special case over there. - Slovenian vocative here only is relevant in its historic forms - _not _in modern use, because there is no modern use of vocative in Slovenian. 
sokol


----------



## Frank06

*Hi everybody,

We cleaned up this thread a bit. We do apologise for the inconvenience. 

We'd also like to point out the following:
To our best knowledge there exists no accepted scientific theory about the Balkansprachbund being something typical of (and defining for) South Slavic languages. Therefore, unless very convincing sources to the contrary are show, further posts arguing that absence of Balkansprachbund features are an argument against classification of a language as South Slavic will be deleted - as these would violate the fringe theory rule (EHL-rule 15).
* 

* Frank
Moderator EHL*


----------



## Athaulf

Diaspora said:


> Considering the fact that Balkansprachbund characteristics are a major feature of South Slavic languages,



No, they are not. Among the standard South Slavic languages, characteristics of the Balkan sprachbund are exhibited only by Bulgarian and Macedonian. Among the local non-standard dialects, this sprachbund encompasses only the dialects of Bulgaria, Macedonia, and southeastern Serbia. The rest of the South Slavic dialects and standard languages don't have nothing to do with this sprachbund.

In any case, belonging to a sprachbund is irrelevant for the classification of languages.


----------



## Ayazid

TriglavNationalPark said:


> (my bolding)
> 
> I realize that these are just your personal impressions, but I would argue that you are overstating the similarity between Slovenian and standard BCS. As T.M.S. Priestly writes in Comrie and Corbett's _The Slavonic Languages_ (Routledge), "Slovene managed to develop its native vocabulary in ways that mark it as *very different* from its closest relative, Serbo-Croat" (my bolding).
> 
> Here's some sample text in BCS:
> 
> 
> 
> And the same text in Slovenian:
> 
> 
> 
> Sample text source (both languages): http://www.terme-ilidza.ba



For me it's clear that these languages are different in various aspects and in your examples the difference is quite obvious, but from my Czech point of view they seem to be both (at least superficially) very similar and about equally (un)intelligible (although the Slovene text is slightly more transparent). I wouldn't be probably able to tell which one is written in Croatian and which one in Slovenian, although the words are clearly different. 

Well, when I am thinking about it I guess that I would recognize them thanks to the typically Slovene conjunction _in _and the typically BCS letter _ć_, and the singular masculine and neuter past participle which ends with _-o_ in BCS and _-l_ in Slovene (just like in Czech and Slovak), but without that, it would be very hard to tell them apart


----------



## trance0

Well, generally I have to say I agree with Athaulf regarding Balkan sprachbund. It is irrelevant since languages in it aren`t even in the same language group(Slavic, Greek, Romance). Slovene is in some ways more archaic than BCS(part of vocabulary, declension, dual, supine), whereas BCS is more archaic in other areas(mainly: vocative with nouns, aorist and imperfect with verbs and part of vocabulary is more conservative than in Slovene). But for the most part, the languages are VERY similar at least from the Slovene point of view.

P.S.: I like the way BCS sounds, it is very vocalic(like Slovene), more than the other Slavic languages, it has a very nice intonation and several innovations in vocabulary and grammar that make it very interesting.


----------



## Mišo

Ayazid said:


> Well, when I am thinking about it I guess that I would recognize them thanks to the typically Slovene conjunction _in _and the typically BCS letter _ć_, and the singular masculine and neuter past participle which ends with _-o_ in BCS and _-l_ in Slovene (just like in Czech and Slovak), but without that, it would be very hard to tell them apart



It seems, BCS have a bit complicated alphabet compared with Slovene one, but still enough simplified for West Slavs.

BTW, symbol *ć* originated in the Polish alphabet and was adopted into South Slavic languages in the 19th century. It is the fifth letter of: Polish, Sorbian, Croatian, and Bosnian alphabets, as well as the Latin forms of Serbian and Macedonian. It is fourth in the Belarusian Łacinka alphabet.

And how it seems with Slovene surnames? Could they end with -ić (Bojan Jokić) too, or it is just a BCS influence?


----------



## sokol

Ayazid said:


> Well, when I am thinking about it I guess that I would recognize them thanks to the typically Slovene conjunction _in _and the typically BCS letter _ć_, and the singular masculine and neuter past participle which ends with _-o_ in BCS and _-l_ in Slovene (just like in Czech and Slovak), but without that, it would be very hard to tell them apart


Please take into account that Slovene script is phonemical while BCS script also writes allophones; thus it is Slovene "bil, bila" = /biu, bila/ and BCS "bio, bila" = /bio, bila/ (of course both Slovenian /u/ and BCS /o/ are not syllabic), so actually BCS and Slovenian do sound somewhat similar, concerning the past participle.
They only write it differently. 
The same applies to Sovene /v/, by the way: depending on context it is pronounced either [v] or non-syllabic : Slovene vmešati [umešati] = BCS um(ij)ešati; Slovene volk [vouk] = BCS vuk etc. (note, Slovene  of course is non-syllabic here).

As you have noticed of course Slovene "in" and BCS "ć" make it quite easy to distinguish both languages from writing alone.

Still, Slovene "in" corresponds in meaning to BCS "i", and in words where BCS has "ć" Slovenian most of the times has "č" (thus, a similar sound) while Czech has "c" at least in some cases - for example Czech "pec" = _stove/oven_ (either or both, I don't know ) is Slovene "peč" and BCS "peć".
Which means: historically, Slovene clearly is closer to BCS, the results of the Slavic palatalisations are similar in many cases, only that in Slovene "č" represents both BCS "č" and "ć".

So indeed, all those Slovene features you mentioned clearly indicate that Slovene is South Slavic. 



Mišo said:


> And how it seems with Slovene surnames? Could they end with -ić (Bojan Jokić) too, or it is just a BCS influence?


No, never - as Sovene has no "ć"; but there are plenty of Slovene names ending on "ič" which, historically, has the same origin than BCS "ić" - it is (historically) a patronym, thus you can also compare it to Russian "ич". But of course this patronymic naming tradition is not active anymore - neither in Slovene nor in BCS, see also this Cultural discussions thread.

But again, the naming tradition again puts Slovene into the South Slavic pool - being fundamentally different to Czech and Slovak "ov/á": in Slovene and BCS you don't have female names; of course proper names are declensed but "male" _Janez Pogačnik_ would be "female" _Vesna Pogačnik_ (and _*not *_Pogačnika).


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> Please take into account that Slovene script is phonemical while BCS script also writes allophones; thus it is Slovene "bil, bila" = /biu, bila/ and BCS "bio, bila" = /bio, bila/


 
I don't think [o] is an allophone of /l/ anymore.


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> I don't think [o] is an allophone of /l/ anymore.


Well - yes, after thinking about it: you are of course right.
I am still used to think of it as an "allophone" due to Slovenian (which is my first Slavic language) because this is so in Slovenian.

In BCS "bio" is even pronounced with two syllables - accent on "i" but "o" is not a nonsyllabic vowel but a vowel which forms a syllable of its own.


----------



## Athaulf

sokol said:


> Well - yes, after thinking about it: you are of course right.
> I am still used to think of it as an "allophone" due to Slovenian (which is my first Slavic language) because this is so in Slovenian.
> 
> In BCS "bio" is even pronounced with two syllables - accent on "i" but "o" is not a nonsyllabic vowel but a vowel which forms a syllable of its own.



Not only that, but there's actually a minimal pair, since /bil/ is the way BCS speakers pronounce the English name Bill. (This English name is so frequently seen and heard that, in my opinion, it can be treated as a loanword.) Thus, the words /bio/ and /bil/ (as in "Bill Clinton") clearly indicate a phonemic difference. For speakers of Kajkavian dialects where the participle has the form /bil/, these two words would be homophones.

Mod note:
Discussion about phonemic value moved to this thread.

...


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

sokol said:


> Still, Slovene "in" corresponds in meaning to BCS "i", and in words where BCS has "ć" Slovenian most of the times has "č" (thus, a similar sound) while Czech has "c" at least in some cases - for example Czech "pec" = _stove/oven_ (either or both, I don't know ) is Slovene "peč" and BCS "peć".
> Which means: historically, Slovene clearly is closer to BCS, the results of the Slavic palatalisations are similar in many cases, only that in Slovene "č" represents both BCS "č" and "ć".
> 
> So indeed, all those Slovene features you mentioned clearly indicate that Slovene is South Slavic.


 
Right, but the Slovenian word *nocoj* (=tonight) illustrates historical West Slavic influences in Slovenian, since it's derived from the West Slavic *noc*, rather than from the South Slavic (incl. modern Slovenian) *noč*.



sokol said:


> But again, the naming tradition again puts Slovene into the South Slavic pool - being fundamentally different to Czech and Slovak "ov/á": in Slovene and BCS you don't have female names; of course proper names are declensed but "male" _Janez Pogačnik_ would be "female" _Vesna Pogačnik_ (and _*not *_Pogačnika).


 
Until the 1950s or thereabouts, this hypothetical Vesna Pogačnik would have been known as *Vesna Pogačnikova* in most contexts (except perhaps in official documents and the like; I'm not sure what the policy was in that respect). The absence of female names is a relatively recent phenomenon in Slovenian. In fact, it's still used in cases where only the last name is referenced (without a honorific):

"Poznam Pogačnikovo."
*NOT* "Poznam Pogačnik."

"Novakova je bila pri meni."
*NOT* "Novak je bila pri meni."

"Clintonova obljublja nekoliko več diplomacije." 
*NOT* "Clinton obljublja nekoliko več diplomacije."

I can't remember how BCS handles situations like these.


----------



## sokol

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Until the 1950s or thereabouts, this hypothetical Vesna Pogačnik would have been known as *Vesna Pogačnikova* in most contexts (except perhaps in official documents; I'm not sure what the policy was in that respect). The absence of female names is a relatively recent phenomenon in Slovenian. In fact, it's still used in cases where only the last name is referenced:


That's very interesting and, I have to admit, completely new to me.


----------



## WannaBeMe

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Right, but the Slovenian word *nocoj* (=tonight) illustrates historical West Slavic influences in Slovenian, since it's derived from the West Slavic *noc*, rather than from the South Slavic (incl. modern Slovenian) *noč*.
> 
> 
> 
> Until the 1950s or thereabouts, this hypothetical Vesna Pogačnik would have been known as *Vesna Pogačnikova* in most contexts (except perhaps in official documents and the like; I'm not sure what the policy was in that respect). The absence of female names is a relatively recent phenomenon in Slovenian. In fact, it's still used in cases where only the last name is referenced (without a honorific):
> 
> "Poznam Pogačnikovo."
> *NOT* "Poznam Pogačnik."
> 
> "Novakova je bila pri meni."
> *NOT* "Novak je bila pri meni."
> 
> "Clintonova obljublja nekoliko več diplomacije."
> *NOT* "Clinton obljublja nekoliko več diplomacije."
> 
> I can't remember how BCS handles situations like these.


 
Formaly : Poznajem gospođu Ivanović.
Informaly: Poznajem Ivanovićku.

In Bosnien at least is very common to call a women according to the name of her Husband or even nickname. So if the man is called Elvir Pašić (Elko), his wife would be called Elvirovica or Elvirova or Elkova or Elkovnica but it is all informal.
But I know I hear in media always : Klintonova and Olbrajtova and never Klinton or Olbrajt.

Thus,I think if you put this gospođa in front of the Name it stay unchanged but normaly in everyday speech we used to make feminin ames like Slovenes.


----------



## trance0

Which again confirms (or does not refute) the position of Slovene in the South Slavic branch. It is the same in Slovene as in BCS: "gospa Clinton" and not (usually!) "gospa Clintonova", but without gospa it is usual to say "Clintonova".


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

trance0 said:


> Which again confirms (or does not refute) the position of Slovene in the South Slavic branch. It is the same in Slovene as in BCS: "gospa Clinton" and not (usually!) "gospa Clintonova", but without gospa it is usual to say "Clintonova".


 
While I certainly agree that Slovenian is a South Slavic language, I would argue that female names have absolutely nothing to do with the classification of Slavic languages. For example, Macedonian and Bulgarian always use female name suffixes (-ova, -eva, -ska, etc.), yet they are both clearly South Slavic. Besides, female name suffixes were once common in Slovenian.


----------



## phosphore

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Right, but the Slovenian word *nocoj* (=tonight) illustrates historical West Slavic influences in Slovenian, since it's derived from the West Slavic *noc*, rather than from the South Slavic (incl. modern Slovenian) *noč*.
> 
> 
> 
> Until the 1950s or thereabouts, this hypothetical Vesna Pogačnik would have been known as *Vesna Pogačnikova* in most contexts (except perhaps in official documents and the like; I'm not sure what the policy was in that respect). The absence of female names is a relatively recent phenomenon in Slovenian. In fact, it's still used in cases where only the last name is referenced (without a honorific):
> 
> "Poznam Pogačnikovo."
> *NOT* "Poznam Pogačnik."
> 
> "Novakova je bila pri meni."
> *NOT* "Novak je bila pri meni."
> 
> "Clintonova obljublja nekoliko več diplomacije."
> *NOT* "Clinton obljublja nekoliko več diplomacije."
> 
> I can't remember how BCS handles situations like these.


 
In Serbian it is also Pogačnikova, Novakova, Klintonova. Some would say Novakovićka is Novaković's wife and Novakovićeva is Novaković's daughter, but since it is not possible to know if a woman is married or not and it is no more that important, Novakovićeva is used for both Novaković's daughter and wife. Anyway, you would often hear Novakovićka, once again for both daughter and wife, but that form is quite informal.


----------



## SuryaArya

WannaBeMe said:


> Formaly : Poznajem gospođu Ivanović.
> Informaly: Poznajem Ivanovićku.
> 
> .


 
Poznajem Ivanović-evu (!)


----------



## OBrasilo

- Sokol: Excuse me? Historically, Slovenian was closer to Czech and Slovak, than to the Serbo-Croatian languages, and I can demonstate this easily with just one single sentence from the Freising monuments: _... *vi*hnan bou od slav*i* božihe, po*tom* na narod člove*c*__ki..._
This one sentence, and the present active participle _*imuji*_ are enough to disprove your point, I'd say.
And not only, Slovenian also has *č* or *šč*, where the Serbo-Croatian languages have št, like _ni__*č*_, _uni__*č*__iti_ vs. _ništa_, _uništiti_ (but West Slavic *_ni_*c*, *_ni*šč*iti_).
And finally, words, such as _no*c*oj_, which make it clear, that Slovenian had -c originally, where it now has final -č. This can't be mere influence, considering, how, for most of its time, Slovenian had no contact, whatsoever, with the other West Slavic languages.
Also, Slovenian still has -e- or -ë- (schwa), where the Serbo-Croatian languages have -a-, like danes vs. Serbo-Croatian danas (but Czech dnes), and in the noun ending _-*e*c_ vs. Serbo-Croatian _-ac_ (but West Slavic *_-*ě*c_). Also note Slovenian _p*e*s_ <_p*ë*s_> (> *_p*ě*s_) vs. Serbo-Croatian _pas_ (but West Slavic *_p*ě*s_), and the causative participle ending _-*l*_ vs. Serbo-Croatian _-o_ (but West Slavic *_-*l*_, and the ending _-*l*_ is pronounced _-*w*_ in Polish, just like in Slovenian, coincidence or something more?).
Also, about the future tense, a lot of Poles prefer using _będę -l_ to _będę -ć_, and in Slovenian, still today, the main future tense used is _bom -l_ (there also exists _čem -ti_, which has apparently been borrwed from a Serbo-Croatian language, and it's not much used). Again, coincidence, or something more?
And, in the end, Carinthian Slovenian still today uses sounds, like _-*ě*-_, and constructs, like _*vi*-_, and even neutre masculine nominative singular adjective _-e_ (vs. Standard Slovenian _-o_, as in _dobr*e* mlěko_, vs. Standard Slovenian _dobro mleko_), which are typically West Slavic, and NOT South Slavic.

So, my conclusion remains un-changed, and it's that Slovenian is, without any doubt, a West Slavic language.


----------



## trance0

I cannot agree with your claim that the examples you wrote prove Slovene to be a West Slavic language. They only prove that Slovene has retained some of the features once common to West and South Slavic (dialects). There is no denying that Slovene once was much closer to West Slavic than it is today, but so was BCS and if we go a little further back to the past, guess what, all Slavic languages were just dialects of one Common Slavic language.


----------



## OBrasilo

- trance0: Slovenian was, at least once, a West Slavic language, which was thrown into the South Slavic dialect continuum, because it got cut off from its sisters, Czech, and Slovak, because of the Hungarians, who chose to live exactly in between them.


----------



## Athaulf

OBrasilo said:


> So, my conclusion remains un-changed, and it's that Slovenian is, without any doubt, a West Slavic language.



To be precise, it's not really _your_ conclusion, but rather the conclusion of a group of ultra-nationalist nutcases whose ideas you've embraced for some strange reason (see the posts #1-15). In linguistics, there are standard, well-defined criteria for classifying languages into families and subfamilies. According to these, Slovenian belongs to the South Slavic group of the Slavic sub-family of the Indo-European family. This is completely beyond dispute. 

All of your arguments why Slovenian supposedly should not be classified as a South Slavic language are not based on any of these standard criteria, but merely on appeals to irrelevant arguments, many of which are also based on false premises (see e.g. post #2 for some examples). 



Frank06 said:


> *Therefore, unless very convincing sources to the contrary are show, further posts arguing that absence of Balkansprachbund features are an argument against classification of a language as South Slavic will be deleted - as these would violate the fringe theory rule (EHL-rule 15).*



When it comes to fringe theories, don't forget that the claims argued by the poster OBrasilo are, by his own admission, inspired by the political propaganda materials published by a Slovenian nationalist group called "Hervardi". To give the readers some idea of just how deranged the people from this group are, here's a map from their website that's supposed to represent, I quote, "the area inhabited by Slovenians at the time of Julius Caesar" (the purple area is labeled as "Slovenians around year 0"):
http://www.hervardi.com/mape/slovenci_poselitev_julij_cezar.jpg

Just to be clear, I don't think these posts should be deleted, but the source of these claims and arguments should be put into the proper perspective. The whole issue was raised as an attempt to push the propaganda of people whom it would be charitable to describe as "fringe".


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Well, I think the following two things are widely accepted by lingusts:

1.) Slovenian is a South Slavic language.

2.) Several Slovenian dialects, as well as a few features in standard Slovenian, exhibit specifically "West Slavic" characteristics in a way BCS does not.

A number of serious linguists, including the late Fran Ramovš, subscribe to the "two waves" theory. When the Slovene lands were settled by the Slavs, South Slavic and West Slavic were still undifferentiated, but there were already some linguistic features associated with the Slavs north of the Pannonian Basin, and features assotiated with the Slavs of the south. According to Ramovš, it doesn't make sense to look at individual features, such as the prefix *-vy*, because those were still found in many areas throghout the Slavic world at the time. However, by looking at several different elements together, Ramovš argued that the Slovene lands were probably settled first from the north -- the modern Wast Slavic lands -- and then from the south -- the Balkans.

This isn't a fringe theory, as this paragraph from the Slovenian government's official website indicates:



> Linguistic, archaeological and historiographic sources indicate that two waves of Slavic settlement reached what is now Slovene territory in the last quarter of the 6th century, submerging the remnants of the Romanised Celtic and other indigenous populations of the disintegrating Roman Empire. A West Slavic wave arrived first, from the northeast, followed by a South Slavic wave from the southeast. Contact with West Slavic was broken off by the settlement of the Hungarians in the Pannonian Basin in the 9th century. Nonetheless, this initial two-pronged settlement, despite the mixing of the population, has left its traces in dialectal divisions in the northwest and southeast.


 
Source: http://www.ukom.gov.si/eng/slovenia/background-information/slovene/history/


----------



## trance0

But this only confirms what I have already written. In the beginning all we had was a Common Slavic, which was still one language in the 5th and 6th centuries when the migrations from the original Slavic homeland began. What we have later is the formation of two dialects, West Slavic and South Slavic. So until the 9th century, when the dialects had already become very distinct and were already changing into different Slavic languages, the emerging Old Slovene was a link between West and South Slavic in a dialect continuum, but all the emerging Slavic languages were at that time still very close. Once the direct link to Western Slavic was severed, Slovene has been developing as a South Slavic language with predominantly South Slavic vocabulary and features into what it is today. Therefore I cannot believe the first 4 centuries after the Slavic migration, when the Slavic languages were all still very close, could actually have left a greater mark on the development and today's form of Slovene than 1000 years of only South Slavic connection, while direct link of Slovene to West Slavic had been severed long before when different Slavic languages were only just beginning to take form.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

trance0 said:


> But this only confirms what I have already written. In the beginning all we had was a Common Slavic, which was still one language in the 5th and 6th centuries when the migrations from the original Slavic homeland began. What we have later is the formation of two dialects, West Slavic and South Slavic. So until the 9th century, when the dialects had already become very distinct and were already changing into different Slavic languages, the emerging Old Slovene was a link between West and South Slavic in a dialect continuum, but all the emerging Slavic languages were at that time still very close. Once the direct link to Western Slavic was severed, Slovene has been developing as a South Slavic language with predominantly South Slavic vocabulary and features into what it is today. Therefore I cannot believe the first 4 centuries after the Slavic migration, when the Slavic languages were all still very close, could actually have left a greater mark on the development and today's form of Slovene than 1000 years of only South Slavic connection, while direct link of Slovene to West Slavic had been severed long before when different Slavic languages were only just beginning to take form.


 
Oh, I fully agree with this. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,

I start to have the impression that we reached the end of this thread and that we are about to repeat ourselves.

EHL stands for Etymology and History of Languages (though it could be Etymology and Historical Linguistics), so it's quite obvious that we urge people to come up with linguistic arguments.

As explained by Athaulf:



			In linguistics, there are standard, well-defined criteria for classifying languages into families and subfamilies. According to these, Slovenian belongs to the South Slavic group of the Slavic sub-family of the Indo-European family. This is completely beyond dispute.
		
Click to expand...


I'd like to go one step further: the rest (the political nuttery and fringe explanations) is far beyond the scope of EHL and WR.

Groetjes

Frank
Moderator
*


----------

