# BCS: benefits and costs of language separation



## Lars H

In Sweden, as in many other countries, the increase of migration the last decades has created new demands on authorities to be able to communicate in more languages than one.

If a Swedish authority, say the Swedish Tax Agency, wishes to communicate something in the ten most wide spread languages in Sweden, they will face an interesting decision: 
In case the Swedish Tax Agency handles BCS as one language, it is the third most widespread mothers tounge in Sweden (after Swedish and Finnish) and translation will of course be implemented. 
But. If Bosnian, Croatian an Serbian are seen as three separate languages, no one of the three will reach the "top ten"-list and no translation will be made to any of these three.

What decision would a native speaker of either Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian prefer? 
I am not asking for a linguistic discussion of what defines a language or a dialect. I am more curious about if the practical benefits of being able to read  "BCS" exceeds the costs of being grouped together with the two other languages or not - from the individual's point of view. 
And a second question, would "BHS" be the correct abbreviation in Bosnian? in Croatian? in Serbian?


----------



## DenisBiH

Hi Lars! 

I rather think Bosnian could make that top ten list on its own in Sweden, but I could be mistaken so never mind that.  Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are today three different languages. Would the speakers of these languages in Sweden accept a common translation labeled "BCS" or whatever, you should ask them as they are the ones standing to benefit from it. For me as a Bosnian speaker in Bosnia-Herzegovina it is only important to point out that that would be a local Swedish practice and in no way to be interpreted as a desired course for the future official language of the EU.

United States already has a practice of translating documents into Bosnian in those municipalities (or whatever they are called) that have a significant number of Bosnian speakers, so Sweden may wish to consult with them regarding the label as they would probably have more to say from their own experience.

Moreover, my personal opinion is that this practice should be clearly defined as aiming towards the elderly people unable to undertake learning a new language in their advanced age. The younger generations should be expected to be fluent in the native language of the country they live in now, that is Swedish. Instead of spending money on translations, I think it would be better spent on helping the establishment of schools and programs that would teach Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language and culture to those Swedes of Bosniak, Croat or Serb origin and anyone else who would be interested. But again, it is Swedish money, so you should be the ones to decide where to spend it.


----------



## Orlin

I'd like to add that it is best to be consistent: now Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are considered separate languages mainly because the nation is identified by the language besides all the rest in the Balkans (that is why after Croatia and BiH became independent states, they separated linguistically as well) and to switch back to language unification in order to get a certain benefit doesn't look good. It won't look serious if you constantly change your opinion according to your interests in every particular situation as it is here - divide linguistically to establish national identity and later reunite to get a monetary benefit.
I'm afraid that the thread will be closed or deleted for being outside the scope of the forum.


----------



## DenisBiH

Indeed, this is a rather sensitive issue that could easily spiral out of control, and a similar thread has already been closed by sokol. If at some point in the future we get to be as rich as the people in Scandinavia, we will probably discuss these issues with ease and laugh at how sensitive they were in the past.


----------



## Lars H

It is not my intention to stir things up and if I have done so, I apologize. 
My question has risen from the fact that these three languages in many cases are treated as one at a number of Swedish official web sites, for reasons explained in my first text. Swedes tend to be more pragmatical than sensitive 
Perhaps it would be wiser to close this thread and that I instead direct my question to Swedes with respectively Bosniak, Croatian and Serbian origin.


----------



## DenisBiH

Well, I don't know, what friends I have that reside in Sweden mainly tell me that Swedes are a nice people, so you can't possibly be very insensitive. At least that is supported by your sense of humor - those "A Swede, a Norwegian and a Dane..." jokes are awesome. 

Back on topic, yes, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian speakers in Sweden should probably be the ones you should consult first. Btw, I'd be interested in seeing some of those translations on Swedish web-sites. Could you provide some links?


----------



## Lars H

DenisBiH said:


> I'd be interested in seeing some of those translations on Swedish web-sites. Could you provide some links?



Hej

Here comes a few links to Swedish official web sites.

http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____1928.aspx
http://www.skatteverket.se/otherlanguages/other.4.3a2a542410ab40a421c80007475.html
http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/324.html

Riksdagen.se is the official web site for the Swedish parliament. 
Skatteverket.se is the Swedish Tax Agency.
Migrationsverket.se handles migration issues. On this web site there are three three different links, but they lead to the same information pages, in "BKS" (Croat is spelled with an initial K in Scandinavia).

Please bear in mind that it is quite rare to find any translations between Danish, Norwegian or Swedish in Sweden, although the differencies between these three Scandinavian languages are much wider than between the three Slavic languages. We (Danes, Norwegians and Swedes alike) are simply expected to understand "the other" languages in writing. So it is only logical when our authorities does not expect less ability to understand, from Swedes with Bosniak, Croat or Serb origins.

And yes, there is a lot of squabbling  going on between the Scandinavian peoples - and the Finns. But only for the last thousand years or so...


----------



## DenisBiH

Thanks Lars.  The first two links seem to use ekavian Serbian standard, the last one seems to use standard Croatian in the first two documents, ekavian Serbian in the third, I didn't check the rest.




> Please bear in mind that it is quite rare to find any translations between Danish, Norwegian or Swedish in Sweden, although the differencies between these three Scandinavian languages are much wider than between the three Slavic languages. We (Danes, Norwegians and Swedes alike) are simply expected to understand "the other" languages in writing. So it is only logical when our authorities does not expect less ability to understand, from Swedes with Bosniak, Croat or Serb origins.


I didn't know that. Well, the situation is similar in Bosnia-Herzegovina for example. There are three official languages in use, but I believe although anyone can choose any of the three in official correspondence, a document written in any of the three should generally be accepted by the authorities. There were some cases right after the war where a document in one of them was refused by the authorities that preferred another, but I don't think this is the case anymore. And as for the media and everyday communication of course everyone understands 99% of all three. But still these are treated as three languages, just as Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are. You may not translate a Danish text, but I guess you wouldn't label it DSN. 

I personally don't object so much to the use of BCS abbreviation itself, but to the consequences. Which of the three standards is to be used? Are the texts going to be ekavian or ijekavian? Which lexicon is to be preferred  (Serbian and Croatian are quite distinct in scientific/professional lexicon). Who gets to translate? Should the translating jobs be given to all three equally, or according to the percentage in the population? Is it going to hurt someone's feelings that translations are predominantly/exclusively in one of the other two languages? How is that going to reflect on the attitute towards Swedish authorities?

You see, such a nice gesture but it could provoke some major debates.  But then again, if it works and the people are not objecting...who am I to complain. 




> And yes, there is a lot of squabbling  going on between the Scandinavian peoples - and the Finns. But only for the last thousand years or so...


I don't know, maybe it's something your ancestors carried along with them when they left the Balkans all those thousands of years ago.  Which reminds me, a couple of days ago I heard this story about a Swede of Bosniak origin who brought a couple of native Swedes to Bosnia and Croatia. After visiting Sarajevo and on their way to the Croatian coast, somewhere in Herzegovina they took a break and the native Swedes suddenly started crying for no apparent reason. When asked why, they said they cannot possibly comprehend why we would want to go to war with all this beauty around. Now that's not insensitive the least bit.


----------



## Duya

Lars H said:


> http://www.migrationsverket.se/info/324.html
> Migrationsverket.se handles migration issues. On this web site there are three three different links, but they lead to the same information pages, in "BKS" (Croat is spelled with an initial K in Scandinavia).



I like that solution. To obscure the matter more, one can go one step further and provide three separate information pages in "Bosnian", "Serbian" and "Croatian", but *all linking to the same documents*. The documents could be written in Bosnian idiom as a "middle ground". If anyone dares to protest, you can always dismiss them: "Well, we hired the translator, we can't be sure where he's from. Besides, you got them for free and you're able to comprehend them, aren't you?"


----------



## DenisBiH

Duya said:


> I like that solution. To obscure the matter more, one can go one step further and provide three separate information pages in "Bosnian", "Serbian" and "Croatian", but *all linking to the same documents*. The documents could be written in Bosnian idiom as a "middle ground". If anyone dares to protest, you can always dismiss them: "Well, we hired the translator, we can't be sure where he's from. Besides, you got them for free and you're able to comprehend them, aren't you?"




Or alternatively, put them under the BKS heading, but separately mark each document as either Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian depending on the actual standard used in it. Also put a notice on the page along the lines of "Swedish authorities have determined that speakers of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian can adequately understand the documents in the other two languages..."

That would then be the truth in most cases, it would distinguish between the standards, and would still save money.


----------



## Lars H

Hej igen



DenisBiH said:


> You may not translate a Danish text, but I guess you wouldn't label it DSN.



I guess not. If I did I would be the first. 



DenisBiH said:


> I personally don't object so much to the use of BCS abbreviation itself, but to the consequences. Which of the three standards is to be used? Are the texts going to be ekavian or ijekavian? Which lexicon is to be preferred  (Serbian and Croatian are quite distinct in scientific/professional lexicon). Who gets to translate? Should the translating jobs be given to all three equally, or according to the percentage in the population? Is it going to hurt someone's feelings that translations are predominantly/exclusively in one of the other two languages? How is that going to reflect on the attitute towards Swedish authorities?



Good questions, but maybe not completely impossible to answer. 
Some hotels abroad offer "Scandinavian speaking service", meaning service provided by either a Dane, a Norwegian or a Swede. If such a person is good, he/she will adjust his/hers native tongue to make it easier to understand for other Scandinavians; pronounciation, choice of synonyms, avoiding "domestic" expressions, etc. In the same way, what if a Swedish authority offers service in either Bosnian, Croatian och Serbian? 
The individual translator, regardless of origin, should be expected to avoid domestic expressions, choose synonyms more likely to be understood by speakers of any ot the three languages etc, without compromizing with what is seen as good language. It is simply a matter of demand for professionalism.
And if it will show over time that there are more translators speaking one of these three languages than the other two, then isn't that only a reflection of the origins of Swedes coming from the former Yugoslavia?

Funny thing with Sweden, we actually don't have a clue of how many Swedes that have Bosniak, Croat or Serb - or any other - origin. It is by law forbidden to register etnicity or native tongue, since we made some really bad experiences in this area in the thirties... But what is known, is birth country. 

I think that there could be good solutions provided to give public service to Swedes of Bosniak, Croat and Serb origin in a way that combines efficiency and proper respect. But I am just not yet sure of how.

Denis, Sweden is basicly a vast forest where we over time have made a few clearings. Some of these have been pretty large, but the rest of it is still most woods. I would say that  "If you have seen one million pine trees, you have seen them all" :/ And I have heard from many that Bosna i Hercegovina is a very beautiful country, although I - sorry to say - havn't been there yet.


----------



## DenisBiH

Hm, hotel service is a somewhat different matter and in those cases it would suffice for the person providing the service to simply avoid those words or expressions that are very distinctly regional and not understood by the majority.

However, the type of documents on the links you have provided is another matter. See, Croatian language is probably the most purist of the three (now four). Generally in Croatian a Slavic Croatian word is preferred over an "international" word / borrowing, although Croatian also sometimes uses the latter. These native words are both commonly used there and considered proper.

Examples:

povijest - istorija / historija 
zemljopis - geografija 
glazba - muzika
zrakoplov - avion (airplane)
putovnica - pasoš (passport)
jamstvo - garancija (warranty)
dobit - profit

Serbian is more lax towards borrowings, but incidentally, not towards borrowing from Croatian (at least not these days)

Bosnian standard often recognizes both forms as proper and normal and it is up to the speaker to decide which to use. Among the Bosniaks / Bosnian Muslims, before the war of the 90s this has generally meant international ones the same as Serbian, before the second Yugoslavia (1945) it would have often meant Slavic ones borrowed from Croatian, today it's a mix.

Now, these differences are most pronounced exactly in the type of language used for the documents your links point to. Official documents, government decisions, constitution etc.

Now, most of this could be understood by all, with the possible effect of being annoyed at having to repeatedly read forms preferred by the other language and considered less proper/to be avoided/non-existent in one's own. But I suspect that in some cases where documents are very technical and thus use the specialized lexicon which differs the most, there could plausibly be misunderstanding and/or not understanding parts of the text.

In these cases instructing the translator to pick the words that would be understood by the majority could very plausibly be considered as very improper and a case of forced language change/unification. I believe that would for many be indeed a very serious issue.

I am definitely more in favor of having the BKS translations composed of documents either in standard Bosnian or Croatian or Serbian rather than trying to find some middle ground. If then it turns out some documents are problematic/not easily understood by all, or the ratio does not match the ratio of the speakers, this can be addressed.


----------



## Lars H

Hej Denis!



DenisBiH said:


> Generally in Croatian a Slavic Croatian word is preferred over an "international" word / borrowing,



That was new to me and very interesting. Such different preferencies could really create a lack of understanding. I draw a parallel with the German language, that has its own inventions like "Fahrrad" för bicycle and "Fernsehen" for TV, when we - less worried about "imports" or borrowings - have settled for "cykel" and "TV".



DenisBiH said:


> In these cases instructing the translator to pick the words that would be understood by the majority could very plausibly be considered as very improper and a case of forced language change/unification. I believe that would for many be indeed a very serious issue.



You are right. I agree. The translator should be true to his or hers native tongue and translate it into as good Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian as possible.
There should be no attempts to create a "severoslavic" pseudo language on Swedish soil .

But still I persist in the value of what a skilled translator can do. He or she can identify any words or expressions in his or hers native tongue that could create problems for speakers of any of the other languages. And - if needed - he or she can make comments, clarifications, footnotes or anything similar in order to avoid misunderstanding. 
This does not always happen today, mostly because those ordering translations from Swedish to "BCS" does not have enough knowledge to demand it.
But if more knowledge could be obtained and structured, those who order translations could be more specific in demands when it comes to translating into Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian and in that way create value for Swedes of either Bosniak, Croat or Serb origin.

Your comments on this topic has been very insightful, and helpful for me. And what you wrote about a formal notice is very clever and something I really will think over. I thank you for that!


----------



## Duya

Incidentally, just today I stumbled at Consular Center of US State Department. This is the front page for visa forms:

https://ceac.state.gov/genniv/

(alas, security certificate is invalid, and you'll have to convince Firefox you want to get there).

Now, once you get to the page, please just pay attention to the language selector at the top. Among English, Chinese, Hindu, Russian, you will find... 

Now more seriously, I disagree with Denis. Those documents are not "official" in the sense that it's an *obligation *of Swedish state to provide them. Instead, they are kindly provided for convenience of its foreign residents, and they shouldn't expect the host to unreasonably spend money and bureaucracy to satisfy someone's ostensible political feelings.

*Edit*: I had misread Denis's sentence "I am definitely more in favor of having the BKS translations composed of documents either in standard Bosnian or Croatian or Serbian rather than trying to find some middle ground." Thus, I agree with him, and I struck mu comment above.


----------



## Lars H

Hej!



Duya said:


> Among English, Chinese, Hindu, Russian, you will find...



That was quite unexpected 
I haven't by any means forgotten the official language of Crna Gora, it is only that the expression "BCS" (in my tongue "BKS") excludes montenegrian.

And yes, you are right. There is no formal obligation involved, only a wish to improve the public service to Swedes with other native tongues than Swedish.
Only recently (July 2009) we got a legislation that actually stated Swedish as the main language. Some languages do have the status of official minority languages, but they have all been spoken within Sweden's realms for centuries.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> I personally don't object so much to the use of BCS abbreviation itself, but to the consequences. Which of the three standards is to be used? Are the texts going to be ekavian or ijekavian? Which lexicon is to be preferred (Serbian and Croatian are quite distinct in scientific/professional lexicon). Who gets to translate? Should the translating jobs be given to all three equally, or according to the percentage in the population? Is it going to hurt someone's feelings that translations are predominantly/exclusively in one of the other two languages? How is that going to reflect on the attitute towards Swedish authorities?


 
You are forgetting that even in the times when we had a single name for the standard language there were (at least) two variants and there was no mixing between them.

The other point I have to make is that our situation can't be compared with that in Scandinavia. If you need to compare BC(M)S with some other language(s) then you may compare it with English. There are (at least) two variants with significant phonological, orthographical and lexical and some syntactic differences but these variants are completely mutually understandable and no one can argue about that. I think we have a pretty same situation.


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> You are forgetting that even in the times when we had a single name for the standard language there were (at least) two variants and there was no mixing between them.
> 
> The other point I have to make is that our situation can't be compared with that in Scandinavia. If you need to compare BC(M)S with some other language(s) then you may compare it with English. There are (at least) two variants with significant phonological, orthographical and lexical and some syntactic differences but these variants are completely mutually understandable and no one can argue about that. I think we have a pretty same situation.




Hm, maybe Hindi/Urdu would be a better parallel to the situation today? Or rather somewhere in between English and Hindi/Urdu.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if instead of "Serbo-Croatian" another name was chosen as a common denominator, perhaps "Illyrian" as was used for some time. Would we today have B/C/S (standards of a single) Illyrian? Or "Herzegovinian" for that matter, it reflects the geographical region which is most important to the dialectal base on which the standard was actually based, and all three (indeed, all four) modern nations inhabit and cherish Herzegovina as part of their heritage. Indeed, some of the first written records in the vernacular are from what is today or once was Herzegovina and Dubrovnik, or in relation to them (Kulin ban's charter of 1189 is addressed to Dubrovnik). But I guess that wouldn't have been a realistic choice for other reasons. However, the name srpskohrvatski itself seems to have been problematic even during the days of Yugoslavia, with srpskohrvatski being used by the Serbs, hrvatskosrpski preferred by the Croats, and in B-H, in order to remain neutral, a gargantuan "srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski" name appeared (Pavle Ivić, "Srpski narod i njegov jezik, p. 218). 

As for the mixing, here is an interesting passage from "Srpski narod i njegov jezik" (The Serbian people and its language) by Pavle Ivić, a rather famous Serbian linguist, published in 1971, about the then current state of affairs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, pp. 218-219:



> Одбачена је помисао о стварању посебне језичке варијанте и потврђена отвореност према обема странама...Констатовано је да се источна и западна варијанта у Босни прожимају и неутралишу али да босанскохерцеговачка пракса у појединим случајевима има одређенe предилекције...


For non-BCS speakers, Ivić here talks about the language policy in B-H then refusing the notion of creating a separate version of Serbo-Croatian and reaffirming openness to both east and west, and states that back then it was claimed that there is "mixing and neutralization" of the eastern and western version of Serbo-Croatian in B-H, with certain preferences nevertheless existing.

However, later on he states that certain currents in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as the result of the state of language affairs of Serbo-Croatian back then, while tolerant of both versions, started insisting on the affirmation of the autochthonous character of the language. 



> У најновије време, уз постојано истицање ставова о толеранцији, све се гласније говори и о афирмацији језичке аутохтоности. Поједини људи, чији су пространи хоризонти некада надвисивали све деобе, окренули су се према својој ужој средини сада кад су схватили да су догађаји оставили за собом њихову широкогрудност...Истина, стоји и чињеница да ватрена одбрана аутохтоности помало сужава ширину врата отворених ка истоку и ка западу.


 He then cites the example of the ekavian pronunciation being banned in primary and secondary education in B-H. So definitely, the language situation was not very simple during the period of SFRJ.


----------



## DenisBiH

> There should be no attempts to create a "severoslavic" pseudo language on Swedish soil .


Hmm, when you put it that way...they are, after all, Swedes now...and finally having a Northern Slavic language would be nice...maybe even mix in some Bulgarian and Macedonian...restore the dual forms by borrowing from Slovenian...

Just kidding. 



> But if more knowledge could be obtained and structured, those who order translations could be more specific in demands when it comes to translating into Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian and in that way create value for Swedes of either Bosniak, Croat or Serb origin.


Well, one possible way of reducing the differences in translation and still adhering strictly to the three standards would be to make ijekavian the preferred form. Serbian I believe considers both ekavian and ijekavian as proper and parts of standard, Serbian in Republika Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina uses ijekavian, and ijekavian is exclusively used in the Croatian, Bosnian and I presume now the Montenegrin standard. This would be a "light" version of Duya's proposal to use the Bosnian idiom. However, note that ijekavian vs ekavian difference usually never causes problems with understanding, and that preferring ijekavian would only have the effect of reducing the feeling of non-Serbian speakers that they're reading documents in another language than their own.

I don't think there is a single way of tackling the issue of doublets, but some guidelines could possibly be experimented with. For example, the use of the most recent neologisms that are used exclusively in one language could be discouraged (but this is still a very slippery slope). One example that comes to mind, if I'm not mistaken, is the term for "washing machine". In Bosnian, and I presume Serbian, it's usually "veš-mašina". In Croatian prior to the 90s it used to be "stroj za pranje rublja". Recently however "perilica" is commonly used in Croatian. Now, "stroj za pranje rublja", which is still perfectly Croatian I believe, would be better understood and seem much more neutral than "perilica" to Bosnian and Serbian speakers. Similarly "samokres" (pištolj, pistol), "vrtolet" (helikopter), tank (tenk, as in armored vehicle) etc.

Appropriate monolingual and bilingual dictionaries exist today for all three languages I believe, and one could insist that those forms should be preferred that are considered neutral and unmarked by all three whenever possible, without compromising the nature of the specific language that the translator is using. In that case, if someone complains, you can always point out that the reference dictionary for their language contains the word(s) in question and doesn't consider them marked. But still, one should exercise extreme caution here.


----------



## Lars H

DenisBiH said:


> Now, "stroj za pranje rublja", which is still perfectly Croatian I believe, would be better understood and seem much more neutral than "perilica" to Bosnian and Serbian speakers.



A good example. I think by using common sense a person can both be true to his/hers native language and still be well understood by "the others". This is perfectly doable in Scandinavian, and I think/hope also in BCS.

There is this Scandinavian (DaNoSw) dictionary that only contains words that are really different, or similar words bearing different meanings. The dictionary does not contain words like "kung/konge" (king), "löpare/løber" (runner) or "olika/ulike" (different), words that a Scandinavian speaker is expected to grasp without help. But words like "vindue/fönster" (window) "tilbud/tillbud" (Da offering, Sw incident) or "rolig/rolig" (Da calm, Sw funny) are explained. 
Thanks to the many similarities inbetween our languages, the dictionary succeds to be both thin and thourough . 12 000 words...


----------



## DenisBiH

Lars H said:


> There is this Scandinavian (DaNoSw) dictionary that only contains words that are really different, or similar words bearing different meanings. The dictionary does not contain words like "kung/konge" (king), "löpare/løber" (runner) or "olika/ulike" (different), words that a Scandinavian speaker is expected to grasp without help. But words like "vindue/fönster" (window) "tilbud/tillbud" (Da offering, Sw incident) or "rolig/rolig" (Da calm, Sw funny) are explained.
> Thanks to the many similarities inbetween our languages, the dictionary succeds to be both thin and thourough . 12 000 words...




It seems there were similar attempts to do the same by Croats. There is also this one available online, "Osnovni razlikovni rječnik između hrvatskog jezika i srpskog jezika" (Basic differentiating dictionary between the Croatian and the Serbian language), but I don't know who the author is and if it can be trusted. It's 108 pages long.

The others are listed here.

Some of the works on the link above:


> Blažanović, Stjepan: _Hrvatski rječnik — najučestalijih 7500 razlikovnih riječi hrvatskoga i srpskoga jezika_, Zagreb — Sarajevo, 1995.
> Brodnjak, Vladimir: _Razlikovni rječnik srpskog i hrvatskog jezika_, Zagreb, 1991., 1992.
> Šamija, Ivan Branko i Lukačić, Dražen: _Razlike između hrvatskoga i srpskoga jezika_, Zagreb, 1991., drugo izdanje; _Razlikovnica hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika_, Zagreb, 1992.
> Vazdar, Zdenko: _Razlikovni rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga graditeljskoga nazivlja_, Zagreb, 1993.


The first cited dictionary above lists 7,500 most common lexical differences. So, not far from the 12,000 in the dictionary you mention. However, I guess the contrasting pairs it cites might be related to preference for a certain word in a certain language, not to its (non)existence. But someone who owns or has looked at it should confirm whether this is true or not.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> Hm, maybe Hindi/Urdu would be a better parallel to the situation today? Or rather somewhere in between English and Hindi/Urdu.
> 
> I sometimes wonder what would have happened if instead of "Serbo-Croatian" another name was chosen as a common denominator, perhaps "Illyrian" as was used for some time. Would we today have B/C/S (standards of a single) Illyrian? Or "Herzegovinian" for that matter, it reflects the geographical region which is most important to the dialectal base on which the standard was actually based, and all three (indeed, all four) modern nations inhabit and cherish Herzegovina as part of their heritage. Indeed, some of the first written records in the vernacular are from what is today or once was Herzegovina and Dubrovnik, or in relation to them (Kulin ban's charter of 1189 is addressed to Dubrovnik). But I guess that wouldn't have been a realistic choice for other reasons. However, the name srpskohrvatski itself seems to have been problematic even during the days of Yugoslavia, with srpskohrvatski being used by the Serbs, hrvatskosrpski preferred by the Croats, and in B-H, in order to remain neutral, a gargantuan "srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski" name appeared (Pavle Ivić, "Srpski narod i njegov jezik, p. 218).
> 
> As for the mixing, here is an interesting passage from "Srpski narod i njegov jezik" (The Serbian people and its language) by Pavle Ivić, a rather famous Serbian linguist, published in 1971, about the then current state of affairs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, pp. 218-219:
> 
> For non-BCS speakers, Ivić here talks about the language policy in B-H then refusing the notion of creating a separate version of Serbo-Croatian and reaffirming openness to both east and west, and states that back then it was claimed that there is "mixing and neutralization" of the eastern and western version of Serbo-Croatian in B-H, with certain preferences nevertheless existing.
> 
> However, later on he states that certain currents in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as the result of the state of language affairs of Serbo-Croatian back then, while tolerant of both versions, started insisting on the affirmation of the autochthonous character of the language.
> 
> He then cites the example of the ekavian pronunciation being banned in primary and secondary education in B-H. So definitely, the language situation was not very simple during the period of SFRJ.


 
I admit that when I said no mixing I had in mind Belgrade and Zagreb and for example books published here and there. But I can imagine that in Bosnia pairs like "inostrani" and "vanjski", "pisac" and "spisatelj", were interchangeable.


----------



## vatreno

Lars,

There will always be, for some reason or another, objectors to however you chose to translate these documents. 

In response to your original question, I think translating the document into two forms ijekavian and ekavian would be satisfactory for what you are trying to achieve- a mutually understandable document able to be read by a large group of people.

Herzegovinian (ijekavian) standard is regarded as the most proper form of ijekavian and is the majority basis of the present standards. It is probably the most widely used (or mutually understood) standard being used by Croats (Slavonia, Dubrovnik, Herzegovina), Serbs (Republika Srpska), Montenegrins and Bosnians. 

Essentially this would be an acceptable option for you as well as ekavian/Serbian as a second option.

I have been to a few websites that offer translation options in Croatian and Serbian, which is somewhat similar to what I suggested.

All depends on who you ask though, but then again it is in your best interest not to ask.


----------



## DenisBiH

> There will always be, for some reason or another, objectors to however you chose to translate these documents.


As there would be in any situation where a form of language is forced onto people that consider it foreign. Lars seems to be aware of this, though. 



> Herzegovinian (ijekavian) standard is regarded as the most proper form of ijekavian and is the majority basis of the present standards. It is probably the most widely used (or mutually understood) *standard* being used by Croats (Slavonia, Dubrovnik, Herzegovina), Serbs (Republika Srpska), Montenegrins and Bosnians.


You seem to be mixing dialect and the standard language. Standard Croatian, which is ijekavian, is known and used by pretty much all Croats as a standard literary language (as far as I know), whether their native dialect is shtokavian ijekavian or not. There is no Herzegovinian standard, there is Eastern-Herzegovinian dialect which was, along with the dialect of Dubrovnik, used as a primary basis for the standard, today standards. From what I know, not all features of this dialect were included in the standard, such as e.g. some cases of ijekavsko jotovanje (ćerati, đevojka) and the loss of word-initial h. A person that has Eastern-Herzegovinian as a native dialect can thus sound distinctly non-standard. 




> All depends on who you ask though, but then again it is in your best interest not to ask.


I don't agree. The only thing "don't ask" policy is going to achieve is more distrust, which we have enough of already. Complex issues should be investigated and openly discussed so that the best solution can be found. However, I do agree that this forum may not be the best place for it because of the danger of inciting severe conflicts among forum members that generally do get along and understand each other just fine with minimum foreign assistance by our dear sokol, who in any case is almost native.


----------



## Lars H

Hej



vatreno said:


> There will always be, for some reason or another, objectors to however you chose to translate these documents.



The fact that any given solution will find meet objections from someone, does not mean that the need for a solution disappears by itself. I am very well aware of there is no single "right" in this matter so my ambition is simply to search for something that actually works.



vatreno said:


> All depends on who you ask though, but then again it is in your best interest not to ask.



Well, I don't agree and I will certainly continue to ask. But perhaps not further on this Forum. By now I am much better prepared to discuss the matter IRL with Swedes of Bosnian, Croat and Serbian origin.


----------



## vatreno

DenisBiH said:


> There is no Herzegovinian standard, there is Eastern-Herzegovinian dialect which was, along with the dialect of Dubrovnik, used as a primary basis for the standard, today standards.
> 
> Although I used the term of dialect and standard somewhat interchangeably, I think we can agree here that this would be the most suitable usage that Lars would be looking for.
> 
> :Vatreno:


----------



## DenisBiH

> Although I used the term of dialect and standard somewhat interchangeably, I think we can agree here that this would be the most suitable usage that Lars would be looking for.


No, I don't think we can agree on that.

I've already mentioned this, but decided to delete it as I thought it was somewhat off topic. However, since we have delved into several issues here, this is the kind of assistance to Swedes of Bosniak, Serb and Croat origin that I think would be more helpful than massive translations - go to YouTube and search for: KETC Living St. Louis Aria (watch?v=FduaMc5-dtU)

Swedes of Bosniak, Croat and Serb origin should not be made a minority and should be expected to be fully integrated into Swedish society (like for example this gentleman here), which includes knowing the Swedish language. Perhaps instead of translating documents and worrying about which standard to use or whether to invent a new one, interpreting teams, perhaps mobile, could be established to help those Swedish citizens who are recent immigrants and who because of their old age have trouble learning good Swedish, and do not have family or friends that could help them on a regular basis with the tax statements and whatever. This way would also help to impart knowledge of Swedish laws and procedures that can still be obscure to an average Swede of Bosniak, Croat or Serb origin even with the best translation. Of course, it is best to ask Swedes of Bosniak, Croat and Serb origin what they consider would be more helpful. An another method would be to follow e.g. how many hits do these translated web-pages actually receive.

On the other hand, the younger generation of Swedes of Bosniak, Croat and Serb origin would in my opinion be better served by the establishment of such programs that would teach their ancestral language and culture to them (and all other Swedes that would be interested), be it Bosnian, Serbian or Croatian. In this way, the money that the Swedish state spends would not merely be a cost, but also an investment that would ensure continued existence of a number of bilingual Swedish citizens that could help improve the trade, cultural and other relations between Sweden and the countries of the western Balkans in the decades to come. That way, the entire Swedish society can benefit from this money, not just a group of Swedes from the western Balkans.


----------



## Lars H

Hej

As it is, BCS translators in Sweden are most probably of different origins, which means that the translated texts are sometimes Bosnian, sometimes Croatian and sometimes Serbian.
It would not be very wise to limit the translation only into one of these languages or a particular dialect. It would be both a waste of translator skills and proof of disrespect towards the speakers who would never find any translations into their native language(s). 
As pointed out before, there is no structured knowledge how many Swedes speaking a particular native language.

And, sas a parallel. In Scandinavia, Norwegian is most often seen as the "foreign" language  easiest to understand by all but that does not mean that Norwegian should be used in intrascandinavian communication. 

Just to clearify, the ambition is of course always that immigrants should learn the language of their new country, as many Swedes born in Bosnia, Crioatia, Serbia, Montengegro, Macedonia and other places in deed have done, and very well too. Translations into other native tongues will mainly be done to facilitate for them who have not yet learned Swedish (recent arrivals), and for elderly.


----------



## sokol

Hello Lars,

I understand your problem, and I can tell you that we deal with it pragmatically, here in Austria.

In Austria, BCS languages would easily be the biggest group of Non-German native languages spoken here in Austria if counted as one language; however, since "Serbokroatisch" (as it was called formerly here in Austria, this was the only term used) is divided into (currently) three standard languages they are counted separately - which lead to the following ranking (see the original statistik in German, Austrian census - "colloquial language" = more or less native tongue):
1.) Turkish: 183.445
2.) Serbian: 177.320
3.) Croatian: 131.307
...
6.) Bosnian: 34.857*)

*) Note that this does by no means include all speakers of Bosnian provenience, as some Bosnian natives give "Serbian" or "Croatian" as native.

As this group is huge (actually, by rights, the biggest migrant group) we are printing brochures in this language - e. g. in health care institutions you find them, and elsewhere.
Those that I've seen were written in Jekavian standard language which, in my impression, is not so very much "Croatian" but probably still "Old Serbocroatian" (note that all three nations use Jekavian standard even though mainland Serbian is Ekavian), or not "markedly Croatian" at least.

Also, "Ex-YU" natives even sometimes refer to their "ethnic" group as "bivša Jugoslavija" - even on TV (there's a TV station with programs for the "BCS group", in "BCS language", and one of those programs even is called "Ex-YU in Wien" = "Ex-Yougoslavia in Vienna"; however, this program deals almost exclusively - if not exclusively - with Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin language and culture and natives, or at least I have never seen a single Slovene or Macedonian program, or even guest there, nor have I seen any of the minorities included, like Gypsies of which there live plenty in the region, or Kosovo-Albanians or Hungarians - this programs _*are*_ about "BCS culture".)

Still, the separation into three ethnic groups _*has*_ taken place here in Austria too, and in Vienna especially, of that I am sure. Croats and Serbs couldn't possibly be subsumed under any group name. To think that this would be possible almost sounds ridiculous.
I think that at least Austrian Bosnians wouldn't mind too much being subsumed under a group name - but the option doesn't arise as Croats and Serbs want to be kept separate, and for those Bosnians who cannot identify with either group their own name of Bosnians therefore also has become essential.

In real life there is of course no communication problem. The problem here however is legislation - also on EU level, don't forget that; we had this topic recently (Hrvatsko-srpski u EU).
I felt I had to close this thread as we were only going round in circles without reaching any useful conclusions at all - as it seems there is not really a solution to the problem: the three standard languages stand, they need to be referred to separately.


By the way, in Austria language teaching classes indeed are called "BKS" (= BCS = Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian, in alphabetical order): courses for this language(s) are ONE language course, with one teacher and one textbook, and students learn one language in three varieties.
Which variety now, this will obviously depend on the teacher - after all, he or she will be most proficient in his or her own native variety, and this will be the language used in classes.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> Hm, maybe Hindi/Urdu would be a better parallel to the situation today? Or rather somewhere in between English and Hindi/Urdu.


 
I was reading this text and I remember this discussion so I thought it would be interesting to post a quote from the text (page 4) here:



> Razlike između hrvatske i srpske varijante do danas nisu veće od razlika između varijanti drugih policentričnih jezika (Blum 2002, 134). Thomas (2003, 314) pokazuje da su čak manje od razlika između varijanti standardnog engleskog u Velikoj Britaniji, Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, Australiji i Kanadi, između varijanata standardnog španjolskog u Španjolskoj i Latinskoj Americi, portugalskog u Portugalu i Brazilu, francuskog u Francuskoj, Belgiji, Kanadi i Africi, njemačkog u Njemačkoj i Austriji. I drugi lingvisti zaključuju isto, npr. McLennan (1996, 107) ističe da su manje od razlika između kanadske i drugih varijanata engleskog jezika, Pohl (1996, 219) da su manje od razlika između njemačke i austrijske varijante njemačkog jezika, Groschel (2003, 180-181) da "su na svim sistemskim razinama manje od razlika između 'holandske (sjevernonizozemske) i 'flamanske' (južnonizozemske) varijante nizozemskog jezika. (...) čak su i strukturne razlike između jezika bijelaca i jezika crnaca u velikim gradovima na sjeveru Amerike - a oba jezična oblika su samo podvarijante varijante američkog engleskog - veće od onih između hrvatskog, bosanskog/bošnjačkog i srpskog".


----------



## phosphore

And this one (page 5) too:



> On se zato navodi s drugim jezicima takvog tipa kao "policentričan standardni jezik (hindski-urdski, srpskohrvatski)" (Blum 2002, 8). Npr. nacionalne varijante hindustanstog jezika, hindska i urdska, pokazuju niz paralela s varijantama srpskohrvatskog jezika jer i tamo se radi o susjednim državama, Indiji i Pakistanu, o različitim religijama, hinduizmu i islamu, o različitim pismima, devanagari i arapskom, no i "te dvije varijante se, međutim, razlikuju više nego srpski, bošnjački i hrvatski međusobno" (Thomas 2003, 318).


----------



## itreius

Somewhat related

http://waz.euobserver.com/887/31340


----------



## phosphore

> The EU rule foresees that a language enshrined as official in a joining country's constitution will become an official EU language as well. This status was awarded to Czech and Slovakian, two languages as similar to one another as Croatian is to Serbian. Statements by Czech officials and Czech films broadcast on Slovak TV are not translated.


 
The author says something about Czech and Slovak (page 3) too:



> Da bi unutar jednog dijalektalnog kontinuuma nastali različiti standardni jezici, neophodno je da se za standardnu osnovu uzmu različiti dijalekti (Cooper 1989, 139). A to kod standardnog jezika u Hrvatskoj, Srbiji, BiH i Crnoj Gori nije bio slučaj (...). Nasuprot tim primjerima, parovi poput češkog i slovačkog, bugarskog i makedonskog, danskog i švedskog predstavljaju slučajeve književnih standarda baziranih na različitim dijalektima" (ibid.).


----------



## el_tigre

Lars H said:


> I am not asking for a linguistic discussion of what defines a language or a dialect. I am more curious about if the practical benefits of being able to read  "BCS" exceeds the costs of being grouped together with the two other languages or not - from the individual's point of view.



And a question to you Lars:

Why don't we use (let's say in EU official documents)  use *DNS*  (*D*anish *N*orwegian *S*wedish) language?? 
 You already do understand each other anyway, right?? DNS as single language would bigger ranking.


----------



## phosphore

el_tigre said:


> And a question to you Lars:
> 
> Why don't we use (let's say in EU official documents) use *DNS* (*D*anish *N*orwegian *S*wedish) language??
> You already do understand each other anyway, right?? DNS as single language would bigger ranking.


 
Haven't you seen the quote just above your post?



> Da bi unutar jednog dijalektalnog kontinuuma nastali različiti standardni jezici, neophodno je da se za standardnu osnovu uzmu različiti dijalekti (Cooper 1989, 139). A to kod standardnog jezika u Hrvatskoj, Srbiji, BiH i Crnoj Gori nije bio slučaj (...). Nasuprot tim primjerima, parovi poput češkog i slovačkog, bugarskog i makedonskog, *danskog i švedskog* predstavljaju slučajeve književnih standarda baziranih na različitim dijalektima" (ibid.).


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> Haven't you seen the quote just above your post?



Ok, but if I remember correctly you said that ekavian Serbian is not based on istočnohercegovački, but rather on šumadijsko-vojvođanski dialect? If we were to follow the logic of that quote we would have two languages, one mono-centric (ekavian Serbian), and one poly-centric (ijekavian Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin).

Personally, I find the quote somewhat of an arbitrary ad hoc argument. Surely standard ekavian Serbian and standard ijekavian Serbian are closer than either is to standard Croatian.

In other words, standard languages should not behave according to mr Cooper's description, but rather mr Cooper should amend his description to reflect how standard languages work in the real world.

Btw, are Danish and Bokmål Norwegiasn based on different dialects?


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> Ok, but if I remember correctly you said that ekavian Serbian is not based on istočnohercegovački, but rather on šumadijsko-vojvođanski dialect? If we were to follow the logic of that quote we would have two languages, one mono-centric (ekavian Serbian), and one poly-centric (ijekavian Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin).
> 
> Personally, I find the quote somewhat of an arbitrary ad hoc argument. Surely standard ekavian Serbian and standard ijekavian Serbian are closer than either is to standard Croatian.


 
Oh but the dialect here is the Neoštokavian, not the East Herzegovina dialect. But either way, there are but a few differences between the East Herzegovina and the Šumadija-Vojvodina dialects.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> In other words, standard languages should not behave according to mr Cooper's description, but rather mr Cooper should amend his description to reflect how standard languages work in the real world.


 
You should read her article because she lists all the different criteria one may apply to distinguish languages from variants of one single language, how these differences are measured and so on. I posted it to back up on my comparison with the Hindi/Urdu situation but she answers your further questions as well.


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> Oh but the dialect here is the Neoštokavian, not the East Herzegovina dialect. But either way, there are but a few differences between the East Herzegovina and the Šumadija-Vojvodina dialects.




But Neoshtokavian is not a dialect, it's a group of dialects, it also includes dialects such as bosansko-dalmatinski (mlađi ikavski), which are not the basis of the standard. Yugoslav dialectology knows istočnohercegovački as a separate dialect.

If we were to discard that and play with focus, Croats could argue that Dubrovnik dialect is a dialect different to istočnohercegovački.

And then one could also claim that the standard itself does not and never did fully follow any organic dialect (jekavsko jotovanje, the issue of /h/). Or alternatively that the standard language is not istočnohercegovački at all, but rather was closest to the vernacular (of a part) of Muslim Bosniaks and the language of Dubrovnik, following arguments this guy is making:



> *U celini, (novoštokavski) istočno-hercegovački dijalekat postao je osnova srpskog književnog jezika (i)jekavskog izgovora.*
> ...
> Uglavnom je rašireno jekavsko jotovanje: _đevojka, ćerati_, *ali se u govoru Dubrovnika i Bošnjaka u gradovima ono ne nalazi*: _djevojka, tjerati._ U najvećem delu dijalekta nema glasa x, *ali se nalazi u jeziku Dubrovnika i bošnjačkog stanovništva*: _ljeb_ (od hljeb), _rana_ (hrana),_ ora_ (orah). Ima još nekih osobenosti, ali ovo je dovoljno.


Basically, I don't think we should play with linguistic arguments in an issue that is clearly political. We Balkanese are so creative we could find appropriate loopholes in such linguistic arguments, and furthermore it could also lead to additional forced further separation in order to make such linguistic arguments null.

Better sit down over a cup of Bosnian coffee and rahatlokum like men and argue slowly amongst each other, than have additional forced solutions to an already messed up situation.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> If we were to discard that and play with focus, Croats could argue that Dubrovnik dialect is a dialect different to istočnohercegovački.
> 
> And then one could also claim that the standard itself does not and never did fully follow any organic dialect (jekavsko jotovanje, the issue of /h/). Or alternatively that the standard language is not istočnohercegovački at all, but rather was closest to the vernacular (of a part) of Muslim Bosniaks and the language of Dubrovnik,


 
So what?

Serbs say Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins stole Vuk's language. Croats say they were the first ones to use that language as their language of culture. But Bosniaks say the dialect that served as the basis of it is actually spoken in Bosnia. While Montengrins say, knowing that Vuk's family had come from Montenegro, that language is actually Montenegrin. And then what?

We don't have to play any linguistic arguments because linguistics is absolutely clear on this matter. The issue is clearly political, but seeing how linguistic facts are falsified to realise dubious political objectives, I don't think we should just watch and let it happen. The lies should be demystified over and over again until a scientific view of the matter is widely publicly accepted. 

As to the controversies you mention, about features that were or were not present in this or that dialect, about organic dialects and normativist constructs, they are of so little importance as to the system as a whole, that I don't think they deserve to be discussed in this context.


----------



## itreius

el_tigre said:


> And a question to you Lars:
> 
> Why don't we use (let's say in EU official documents)  use *DNS*  (*D*anish *N*orwegian *S*wedish) language??
> You already do understand each other anyway, right?? DNS as single language would bigger ranking.



Mutual intelligibility is a lot lower for Scandinavian languages than it is for BCS, though.


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> So what?
> 
> Serbs say Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins stole Vuk's language. Croats say they were first to use that language as their language of culture. But Bosniaks say the dialect that served as the basis of it is actually spoken in Bosnia. While Montengrins say, knowing that Vuk's family had come from Montenegro, that language is actually Montenegrin. And then what?
> 
> We don't have to play any linguistic arguments because linguistics is absolutely clear on this matter. The issue is clearly political, but seeing how linguistic facts are falsified to realise dubious political objectives, I don't think we should just watch and let it happen. The lies should be demystified over and over until a scientific view is widely accepted.




In order for us to leave these issues entirely to linguistics, I believe at least the following two needs to be true:

a) Linguistics needs to be an absolutely trustworthy and objective science, a-la mathematics, immune from any potential manipulation by linguists themselves serving particular political goals, with absolute consensus among linguists on the matter of what a dialect, language and standard language etc is. 
b) Language that we all speak would have to be deemed solely within the realm of linguists, and outside the realm of writers, literature historians, historians in general and everybody else.

Neither of this seems possible to me. Yes, you may have Snježana Kordić writing stuff you personally like, but then another linguist could also write something completely different.

Didn't we get into this situation in the first place by letting a tiny group of people decide on behalf of everybody else in the matter that rightly belongs to all of us? Vienna accord anyone? 

I've seen these 'objective' discussions a gazillion times. Not once have I seen an objective one. It starts with a charade of objectivity, goes into deconstruction of national myths, and then we're in the territory of poturice, vlasi, kauri etc etc.

Why for the love of God should we waste more time following the same approach that has so far shown itself to be unproductive and damaging? 




> As to the controversies you mention, about features that were or were  not present in this or that dialect, about organic dialects and  normativist constructs, they are of so little importance as to the  system as a whole, that I don't think they deserve to be discussed in  this context.


Please clarify on this. What does deserve to be discussed in this context if not exactly that?


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> In order for us to leave these issues entirely to linguistics, I believe at least the following two needs to be true:
> 
> a) Linguistics needs to be an absolutely trustworthy and objective science, a-la mathematics, immune from any potential manipulation by linguists themselves serving particular political goals, with absolute consensus among linguists on the matter of what a dialect, language and standard language etc is.
> b) Language that we all speak would have to be deemed solely within the realm of linguists, and outside the realm of writers, literature historicans, historians in general and everybody else.
> 
> Neither of this seems possible to me. Yes, you may have Snježana Kordić writing stuff you personally like, but then another linguist could also write something completely different.


 
Linguistics _is_ (as) objective and trustworthy (as a science can ever be). It has _already_ considered all the aspects that are of interest here (and from a purely linguistic point of view). Those you call linguists manipulating the facts to achieve some political goals are not linguists at all. Please read just the first two pages of this article.



DenisBiH said:


> Please clarify on this. What does deserve to be discussed in this context if not exactly that?


 
I believe it's obvious issues like the phoneme /x/ being part of the phonological system of some dialect or not are so marginal that they need not be discussed. But we can of course discuss anything you think we should.


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> Linguistics _is_ (as) objective and trustworthy (as a science can ever be). It has _already_ considered all aspects that of interest here (and from a purely linguistic point of view).




I'm sorry, but linguists I know are capable of fervently claiming one thing, than changing 180 degrees and claiming another, depending on the particular fashion of the times. They are also capable of outright lying. 

And furthermore, I don't think they deserve to be the sole guardians and adjudicators in the issues of language.

Let me express it this way - linguists want to deal with Neoshtokavian? Let them. They want to deal with East Herzegovinian? Let them. They want to deal with Sarajevo slang? Let them.

But the moment they step into the territory of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian they are entering a construct that never was, is not, and never will be a purely linguistic one, but is rather a socio-political and historical construct. As is pretty much every other language.




> Those you call lingustists manipulating the facts to achive some  political goals are not linguists at all. Please read just the first two  pages of this article.


You can't now introduce your own subjective definition of what a linguist is. Linguist is someone with formal training in linguistics. I'll try to read it tonight.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> You can't now introduce your own subjective definition of what a linguist is. Linguist is someone with formal training in linguistics. I'll try to read it tonight.


 

You're maybe not aware that I am someone with a training in lingustics, and I don't consider myself to be a linguist yet, who happens to know also how much biased are many of those who claim to be linguists and, unfortunately, are considered as such by those who don't have formal education in the field. So right there comes an issue that deserves to be discussed - who should be considered linguist at all? or what kind of argument they need to provide so that their view is considered valuable?


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> You're maybe not aware that I am someone with a training in lingustics, and I don't consider myself to be a linguist yet, who happens to know also how much biased are many of those who claim to be linguists and, unfortunately, are considered as such by those who don't have formal education in the field. So right there comes an issue that deserves to be discussed - who should be considered linguist at all? or what kind of argument they need to provide so that their view is considered valuable?




To me linguist is someone with formal training in linguistics. Of course, some of us amateurs are able to discern when trained linguists are talking nonsense, especially in issues like this where linguistics is only part of the issue. Take for example Snježana's quote above.

How historically illiterate one needs to be in order to say that 'original Croatia' was around Zagreb? I mean, to me it's like saying Internet was not invented by the US Department of Defense, but rather by Zimbambwean coal miners. There goes at least a century and a half of serious historical, archaeological etc. studies out the window.*1 

 *1 Not that those were much better where bias is concerned.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> Let's discuss it nevertheless. I would appreciate if you could elaborate more, just so that I make sure I understand you correctly before answering.


 
Alright, but what do you want me to elaborate on, precisely? /x/ is one phoneme that wasn't present in most dialects spoken at the time, except the urban dialects of Bosnia and Dubrovnik. Vuk introduced it from these dialects to his standard language, so we all have it now. We all agree on that. So, would I be speaking another language if I said _Teo bi malo leba, oćeš i ti? _instead of saying it with /x/?



DenisBiH said:


> Ovako phosphore, da mi ti nisi jaran, poslije ovakve njene gluposti bih odmah zatvorio PDF i otišao gledati Stargate SG-1. Jesam li ja rekao da ćemo se odmah vratiti na poturice, vlahe i kaure? Već u trećem paragrafu čovjeće!


 
Ako joj ne veruješ a ti proveri izvor: Tornow, S. (2005), "Was ist Osteuropa?", Wiesbaden, page 444.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> To me linguist is someone with formal training in linguistics. Of course, some of us amateurs are able to discern when trained linguists are talking nonsense, especially in issues like this where linguistics is only part of the issue. Take for example Snježana's quote above.
> 
> How historically illiterate one needs to be in order to say that 'original Croatia' was around Zagreb? I mean, to me it's like saying Internet was not invented by the US Department of Defense, but rather by Zimbambwean coal miners. There goes at least a century and a half of serious historical, archaeological etc. studies out the window.


 
I do have formal training in linguistics. I am though an amateur in the domain of history and political theory but I am completely on her side when saying Croatian nation (and Serbian nation too, for that matter) is a construct of the first half of the 19th century. Both are built on so many lies that made so many people suffer and one of those lies are falsified linguistic facts. I feel it's our responsability to demystify them.


----------



## DenisBiH

phosphore said:


> I have formal training in linguistics.
> 
> I am though an amateur in the domain of history and political theory but I am completely on her side when saying Croatian natian (and Serbian nation too, for that matter) is a construct of the first half of the 19th century. Both are built on so many lies that made so many people suffer and one of those lies are falsified linguistic facts. I feel it's our responsability to demystify them.




Oh, but saying that Serbian and Croatian nation are in many ways artificial constructs (as are Bosniak and Montenegrin nations, for that matter) is one thing. That's ok.

But substantiating that with incorrect information is another. The original Croatia was not in Zagorje, but rather further south, in parts of modern Dalmatia in Croatia and parts of western Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Furthermore, while the 'Croat' self-designation in the first half of the 19th century may not have been as spread as today, as far as I know it was more spread that she is claiming. Also, lack of a common name does not mean nonexistence of certain cultural unity. Yugoslavs also had many names for their 'nationalities' but you can't deny that they had, as we still do, certain cultural bond among us that makes us a single entity from some perspectives. Take most of  pre-19th century Croat documents, substitute 'Illyrian' for 'Croatian', and you'll get an ethno-cultural-linguistic group very similar to modern Croats. What's in a name? 

And last but not least, lack of Croatian nation in the modern sense does not equate to nonexistence of the Croatian people. I make distinction between the concepts of 'narod' and 'nacija'. But never mind that now.


----------



## phosphore

DenisBiH said:


> Nije pitanje provjere izvora, ovo je provala stoljeća. Ako je i Tomow napisao da je 'prvotna Hrvatska' bila oko Zagreba, onda je i njegova provala.


 
Ovo izlazi iz okvira teme, ali šta tačno tvrdiš da je pogrešno u toj izjavi? Misliš da je hrvatska nacija uvek imala isti obim kao danas i da se nekim spontantim procesom koji se ne dovodi u pitanje u nekom predistorijskom trenutku oblikovala kao takva?



DenisBiH said:


> But substantiating that with incorrect information is another. The original Croatia was not in Zagorje, but rather further south, in parts of modern Dalmatia in Croatia and parts of western Bosnia-Herzegovina.


 
You're referring to Medieval Croatia? But that is like saying Serbian nation was born in Kosovo (that's what many do say actually, but it's nonetheless a lie).


----------



## el_tigre

itreius said:


> Mutual intelligibility is a lot lower for Scandinavian languages than it is for BCS, though.



Which off course "everybody knows"??


----------



## el_tigre

phosphore said:


> Haven't you seen the quote just above your post?




Yes, I have . As in "our" case we have:
*languages that are mutually intelligible (enough that people do not need to communicate in foreign language)
*some lexical,grammar and orthography differences-Note that neither during Yugoslavia there was no 1 unique standards -there were 2 -eastern and western
 (although it had one name)


----------



## DenisBiH

> Alright, but what do you want me to elaborate on, precisely? /x/ is one  phoneme that wasn't present in most dialects spoken at the time, except  the urban dialects of Bosnia and Dubrovnik. Vuk introduced it from these  dialects to his standard language, so we all have it now. We all agree  on that. So, would I be speaking another language if I said _Teo bi malo leba, oćeš i ti? _instead of saying it with /x/?


I forgot to answer this. Sure, of course it would still be the same _language_, but strictly speaking the _standard_ would have been markedly different if those two features (loss of /x/ and jekavsko jotovanje) had been introduced into the standard. Đekna comes to mind. 

As for /x/, I'm not sure it was only about reintroducing /x/ as a phoneme. When /x/ was lost, it was replaced (correct me if I'm wrong) in istočnohercegovački in a number of ways:

1) 0 - gra, ora, ljeb
2) f - prifatiti, fala (the hv > f may not strictly belong here, but for completeness I'm listing it)
3) š - šćeti (this is probably due more to jekavsko jotovanje than the loss of h-, but still relevant)
4) v - kuvati
5) j - aždaja, promaja
6) k - bik (this I've heard in Đekna only, may not be widespread)

If I'm not wrong, only 4) and 5) entered Serbian / eastern Serbo-Croatian, and they did not enter Croatian, or modern Bosnian (or rather, 5) was present in pre-war B-H Serbo-Croatian, and is a part of the standard now, but along with _aždaha_ and _promaha_)

That's a lot of sound changes, connected with /x/ in one way or another, that were basically 'reverted', not a simple reintroduction of /x/.


----------



## Lars H

el_tigre said:


> And a question to you Lars:
> 
> Why don't we use (let's say in EU official documents)  use *DNS*  (*D*anish *N*orwegian *S*wedish) language??
> You already do understand each other anyway, right?? DNS as single language would bigger ranking.



Well, at some point even the most ignorant nationalistic flagwavers within EU will be forced to realize that a union trying to function with 23 (soon 24 or even 25?) official languages, all demanding translations of tons of documents, isn't an all that brilliant idea. 
Together with many others in the Union, I do pay good money for this waste to go on, and I don't like it one bit.

But until this folly comes to an end, there is no reason to treat Danish or Swedish different than for example Estonian, Irish or Maltese.

As previously pointed out by Itreius, the differencies within the Scandinavian languages family are bigger than within the BCS family.
Any Swede of any BCS origin, having good knowledge of both language families, can confirm this.

But then, if I came to Croatia and could read signs, menues or other texts in Danish or Norwegian, that would be very helpful for me, almost as good as Swedish. But to make things worse (or simpler), a text in English is even easier to understand for me than a Danish or a Norwegian one...


----------



## DenisBiH

Lars H said:


> Well, at some point even the most ignorant nationalistic flagwavers within EU will be forced to realize that a union trying to function with 23 (soon 24 or even 25?) official languages, all demanding translations of tons of documents, isn't an all that brilliant idea.
> Together with many others in the Union, I do pay good money for this waste to go on, and I don't like it one bit.




This is easily solved by having everybody pay for their own language. As we in ex-Yu say, "čist račun, duga ljubav". 

I thought about posting this link today, but then decided not to as it wasn't directly on topic. However, now that you mention it, if you read above, members of one of many parliaments we have here in Bosnia-Herzegovina (this time at the state level), managed to spend €450,000 on Parliament *toilet* restoration last year. By the time we in B-H get close to EU membership (which may never happen), we'd have hopefully reduced over-sized bureaucracy and corruption to that extent to be able to pay for our own translations. We'll reduce the toilet paper use to the bare minimum if need be. 

There are other practical methods - official document translations could be separate, but if the magnificent four decide, they could split the live interpretation costs by sharing interpreters, etc.

Besides, by the way it's going now, Croatians might well say no to the EU in their own referendum, and they're the first in line. No worries, no worries.


----------



## Duya

DenisBiH said:


> As we in ex-Yu say, "čist račun, duga ljubav".



In which language?


----------



## Lars H

I agree that the number of languages used in official EU documents or meetings is not the most burning of issues, but it is still badly arranged as it is today. No private enterprise would dream of putting up a interpretor circus to run a multinational meeting or to share written information. 

Hopefully and probably our national languages will survive over the years, but there will be a need of a commonly shared "lingua franca" (obviously the one we use here on this forum, English).

If this comes to us through abandoning the mass interpretations first or through future use of new technology (imagine what Google Translate could do thirty years from now) I do not know.

There is another possible candidate to the EU, our cousins on Iceland. Icelandic, spoken by some 320 000 souls, is quite different from the continental Scandinavian languages and they have over the years consequently translated international words, like "situation" or "TV" to more Norse sounding words, Icelandic is half language, half linguistic museum, you might say.
But since the Icelandic do realize that few people abroad speak their language, they are normally very good in both English and/or continental Scandinavian. And if Iceland joins, Norway could com soon after.

However, the EU must be about what unite its members, not what divides them, a future EU might be better of without BCMS divided in four in the southeast and DINS divided in four in the north. The distance between multilingualism and fragmentation isn't all that great.


----------



## DenisBiH

> I agree that the number of languages used in official EU documents or  meetings is not the most burning of issues, but it is still badly  arranged as it is today. No private enterprise would dream of putting up  a interpretor circus to run a multinational meeting or to share written  information.


Ah Lars, but the other side can also play that type of arguments. 

Can you imagine a multi-national company arguing to its Athens branch that Tallinn, Estonia rather than Istanbul is geographically, culturally, historically and otherwise closer to Greece and thus more deserving of increasing mutual cooperation and investment?

Or convincing a Polish company that Portugal is a much more promising market than Ukraine due to Polish-Portuguese historical, cultural and other relations and sheer geographical proximity?

And yet isn't this precisely what EU is doing? 

Doesn't it kinda look like, looking at the current economic events, that EU is a kind of organization where its 'peripheral' members (the current economic term for some of them is PIGS I believe) are consciously and willingly giving up their competitive advantages outside EU and becoming second-class members in the process? And now they're supposed to give up their language as well?

I don't think this is fair, or even rational for that matter.


----------



## Lars H

DenisBiH said:


> Can you imagine a multi-national company arguing to its Athens branch that Tallinn, Estonia rather than Istanbul is geographically, culturally, historically and otherwise closer to Greece and thus more deserving of increasing mutual cooperation and investment?
> 
> Or convincing a Polish company that Portugal is a much more promising market than Ukraine due to Polish-Portuguese historical, cultural and other relations and sheer geographical proximity?



Well, no, not really. Most sound enterprises are led by more by rationality than by ethnic chauvinism, so irrelevant arguments should not be allowed to have any influence. This, however, does not mean that EU is all that rational 

In 1958 there were four official languages (Du, Fr, Ge, It) so already at that point Lëtzebuergesch did not achieve official status.
And today larger lingual groups like ethnic Russians (in the Baltic states), Catalonians or Turks (more than 2,5 mill in Germany alone) are unrepresented. Add to that all the smaller groups, like the Slavic Ruthenians or Sorbs, or Saami, Meänkieli & Kvääni, three Finno-Ugrian languages spoken in northern Scandinavia and many others.

So I mean it is already an established fact that not all European languages are, or can expect to become, official. 

One could argue what's fair and what's unfair but we should not pretend that there isn't a practical aspect as well.


----------



## phosphore

phosphore said:


> Linguistics _is_ (as) objective and trustworthy (as a science can ever be). It has _already_ considered all the aspects that are of interest here (and from a purely linguistic point of view). Those you call linguists manipulating the facts to achieve some political goals are not linguists at all. Please read just the first two pages of this article.


 
I've just realised I referred you to the wrong article. The article I had in mind is this one.

As to your argument about the phoneme /x/ and the related phonological changes, I can follow it but can't see your point, because I still don't think it's relevant, be it only the phoneme /x/ or some other minor changes too the language we speak is undeniably one and the same, structurally that is, and no comparison with other linguistic situations, no insisting on the minor difference that exist between the standards, no political argument or whatever can change that. That's the only point I'm making and that's the point she made too.


----------



## LilithE

I don't really have time to comment on all of this now and I just wouldn't know how to give a concise version of what I think.  So I will leave that for some other time.
The entire question is hardly a linguistical one - people can't even agree on the question related to the number of languages let alone anything else.
It wouldn't even be interesting if we would always agree, would it?


----------



## phosphore

I'd be happy to read your view when you post it, and as to my view I completely agree with that expressed by Kordić in her papers.

Cheers.


----------



## el_tigre

Duya said:


> In which language?



Originally Latin "Clara pacta ,boni amici". But it is not important here.

What is important is that each country in EU  will pay for the translation into the language that they *find the most convenient*.I repeat :they pay themselves-not other for them.Croatia might demand the translation into Korean and as far as it pays EU has to provide it.

And then comes some EU bureucrat to say:Could we spare some money??

OK, first at your own backyard.


----------

