# BCS: Meko i tvrdo č



## ag724

I am originally croatian but i was born and brought up in London and at home with my parents i have always spoken croatian. My croatian is more serbo-croat than strict croatian and i am fully fluent yet i still cannot grasp the rules for the č and ć. i am fluent in spanish and english also and speak german to a high level yet croatian grammar is something that completely throws me! my parents always correct my speech when i make a minor mistake and try their best to explain why what i've said is wrong but can anyone help with the meko i tvrdo č/ć?!


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

This thread may be helpful:

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1572117


----------



## VelikiMag

For some unknown to me reason, mostly Croatian speakers mix č and ć, I hardly hear it elsewhere. Perhaps it would be the best that you find a good Croatian grammar (an e-book or a web site are also welcomed), where you can study grammatical rules about using those sounds in different constructions. And when it's about words, you must simply know them by heart if there is č or ć, cause there is no rule for that.
Personally I don't like calling them hard or soft č or ć, because č can only be hard whilst ć can only be soft. Those are two different sounds represented by two different letters, therefore one should simply accept them like that.


----------



## itreius

VelikiMag said:


> For some unknown to me reason, mostly Croatian speakers mix č and ć


The reason for it is largely due to the lack of distinction between č and ć in Kajkavian (Kajkavian never had _ć_). It is also one of the few Kajkavian influences on immigrants who came to Zagreb and its surrounding areas. Of course, č and ć are still used in written language even by people who don't distinguish the two in speech but can be a frequent source of frustration.


----------



## VelikiMag

itreius said:


> The reason for it is largely due to the lack of distinction between č and ć in Kajkavian (Kajkavian never had _ć_). It is also one of the few Kajkavian influences on immigrants who came to Zagreb and its surrounding areas. Of course, č and ć are still used in written language even by people who don't distinguish the two in speech but can be a frequent source of frustration.


Thank you for this information. But then I have another question. Having in mind that rather small group of people have this 'problem' of non-distinction and that the majority makes a clear distinction, how does it happen that someone fails to learn to recognize it and implement it in his/her own speech?
Does it mean that a person had such situation at home where they pronounced these two sounds almost equally so he/she grew up with it, or still the confusion comes later at some point?


----------



## phosphore

VelikiMag said:


> Thank you for this information. But then I have another question. Having in mind that rather small group of people have this 'problem' of non-distinction and that the majority makes a clear distinction, how does it happen that someone fails to learn to recognize it and implement it in his/her own speech?
> Does it mean that a person had such situation at home where they pronounced these two sounds almost equally so he/she grew up with it, or still the confusion comes later at some point?


 
First, the population is not that small, and second, it's not restricted to Zagreb and its surroundings. Third, I don't think the distinction can almost be made, it is either made or not. 

Basically, the standard language knows four phonemes: /č/, /ć/, /dž/ and /đ/, and so does a great portion of the Serbo-Croatian speaking population (Serbia, Montenegro, parts of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina). However, another great portion (parts of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina) knows only two: /č/ and /dž/. They don't make any distinction between /č/ and /ć/, /dž/ and /đ/. But knowing that the standard language does make it, they have to learn when to use which letter for what is one and the same sound in their pronunciation, so they call the sound the soft and the hard /č/.


----------



## Wikislav

The reasons for the presence of duplicates as _ć/č_ and _đ/dž_ in Croatian appeared mostly artificial-ideological. This was well confirmed recently by the academician Prof.dr. Ivo Škarić (an expert in BCS phonology) and by his collaborators: By exact quantitative records they registered many speakers across Croatia and Bosnia, and the result was that above 90% Croats do not distinguish that in speech, including the Kaykavians, Chakavians and Ikavish-Shtokavians; they made only written distinctions after a heavy drilling in school. 

Only 7% to 10% of original Yekavish-Shtokavians in Croatia made their speaking distinction before school, but it is mostly well distinguished in Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro. Therefore, Škarić & al. logically proposed to abolish that artificial distinction in Croatian writing, but that was refused by traditional mainstream linguists (Yougoslavists) there, for conserving the unity of BCS diasystem.


----------



## DenisBiH

Wikislav said:


> The reasons for the presence of duplicates as _ć/č_ and _đ/dž_ in Croatian appeared mostly artificial-ideological. This was well confirmed recently by the academician Prof.dr. Ivo Škarić (an expert in BCS phonology) and by his collaborators: By exact quantitative records they registered many speakers across Croatia and Bosnia, and the result was that above 90% Croats do not distinguish that in speech, including the Kaykavians, Chakavians and Ikavish-Shtokavians; they made only written distinctions after a heavy drilling in school.
> 
> Only 7% to 10% of original Yekavish-Shtokavians in Croatia made their speaking distinction before school, but it is mostly well distinguished in Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro. Therefore, Škarić & al. logically proposed to abolish that artificial distinction in Croatian writing, but that was refused by traditional mainstream linguists (Yougoslavists) there, for conserving the unity of BCS diasystem.




This non-distinction is fairly widespread among Bosnian speakers too. Personally I am more and more inclined to think that abolishing č/ć, dž/đ and ije/je distinction for Bosnian is a good idea. These three are anyway the main type of errors done both in school and written language today (especially less formal Internet conversations), along with writing ne together with the following verb as a single word (this was actually done by some authors prior to the 19th century)

Since Bosnian in the last 15 years has followed Croatian closely in many ways, if Croatian linguists moved along that route I think it is very possible that this idea would gain traction among Bosnian linguists as well. In this way 'conserving the unity' might work in favor of the abolition.

You are quite right about heavy drilling in school, at least in my part of B-H (Sarajevo). One particular trick we used to use in school was to write a c with a horizontal line above it to make it difficult for the teacher to judge whether it was č or ć.  Of course, the teacher didn't fall for it.


----------



## LilithE

Wikislav said:


> The reasons for the presence of duplicates as _ć/č_ and _đ/dž_ in Croatian appeared mostly artificial-ideological. This was well confirmed recently by the academician Prof.dr. Ivo Škarić (an expert in BCS phonology) and by his collaborators: By exact quantitative records they registered many speakers across Croatia and Bosnia, and the result was that above 90% Croats do not distinguish that in speech, including the Kaykavians, Chakavians and Ikavish-Shtokavians; they made only written distinctions after a heavy drilling in school.
> 
> Only 7% to 10% of original Yekavish-Shtokavians in Croatia made their speaking distinction before school, but it is mostly well distinguished in Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro. Therefore, Škarić & al. logically proposed to abolish that artificial distinction in Croatian writing, but that was refused by traditional mainstream linguists (Yougoslavists) there, for conserving the unity of BCS diasystem.



And what does _*many speakers across Croatia*_ mean?! If that so called research covered mostly Kaykavian area and a random participant or two from others, that percentage could even be accurate but that has nothing to do with the actual situation. Two out of three dialects make a clear distinction between those 2 phonemes and there is nothing artificial or ideological about that. I don't deny Škarić's work or effort in that area but that hardly makes him an expert in phonology. 
The deseased gentleman was born on the island Brač and I just find it incredible that someone who had Chakavian origins could have come up with such theories. How could reducing of distinction _ije/je_ to _je_ in every situation be something natural? Although I naturally make a difference between č and ć since I started talking, when I was a school kid I did use teacher's tip for ije/je when I was in doubt. And that tip was - When you are not sure, pronounce it in dialect. If you pronounce long 'i' then it is _ije_, if it is short then use _je_. But doesn't that prove that we do make a difference even in dialects?
It just seems to me that Šarić, fighting against ideologies, based his theories on his own ideologies.

But let me return to č and ć. Even if you come from the part of Krk where most words are pronounced with 'c', the first neibhours that make a clear difference between č and ć can't be that far. There are parts where that dictinction is even č-t' and I find it hard to believe that an alophone t' could be mistaken for č. 

If we are going to follow Škarić's principle 'let Croatians speak their language how they want' then I suggest that we get rid of both č and ć and use just c. Although I don't mind hearing any variation, I find reading texts (written in some sort of standard language) with too many errors quite annoying simply because I don't naturally pronounce those words in that way. When I see just 'c', I read it the way I pronounce it in that word.

I have no idea what should be _mainstream linguists (Yougoslavists)_. Neću politiku u svoju butigu!  The languages are different enough, we don't need to invent differences. They are also similar enough and there is nothing wrong about that either.
And getting rid of one phoneme wouldn't make this nation more literate.

I'll finish with something at least a little bit useful for ag724. There are no clear tips when to use č or ć but there are some patterns anyway. At least for verbs you can be sure that they end in _-ći_ and not _-či_. If I think of some other "tip", I'll add it later.


----------



## DenisBiH

As for the situation in Bosnian (or rather in a part of vernaculars of Bosnia-Herzegovina) I'll stress this earlier post of mine where it is indicated that at least as far as Sarajevo is concerned the non-distinction (or rather almost nonexistent distinction in that quote) goes back at least a century. And yes, it is present and very real.

And now for some of my subjective impressions. I've recently had a chance to translate from Croatian into Bosnian, and I noticed a high number of errors precisely where č/ć and ije/je are concerned. I don't know where the author comes from, but I have also seen these same mistakes in other written texts by Croatian speakers. So yes those are also present and real. I don't want this to become me clashing with a native Croatian speaker , but I've at least been around forum.hr and other Croatian sites long enough to be able to claim this. How spread it is I don't know, but it seemed very common to me.

We were told in school to pronounce it ekavian in order to find out whether it is ije or je. The fact is that many of us, myself included, do not distinguish between ije and je, but rather between jē and je. The -i- is simply not present in most cases and its spelling goes against the 'spirit' of our spelling system which tries to remain close to actual pronunciation of the words. So yes, you do make a distinction between -ī- and -i- as I distinguish between jē and je, but from your and my experiences presented here it seems to me that neither of us distinguishes between -ije- and -je- - we both rely on our schooling and those 'tips'.

Mlijeko nije bijelo nego je mljēko bjēlo.


----------



## LilithE

Yes, my milk would be _mlīko je bīlo_. 
When I speak standard language that i in ije perhaps isn't pronounced that clear but it is often still there no matted how mild or partly 'swallowed' it is. I migh occasionally still use that 'tip' with dialect and pronounce i unnaturally long when distinction is a bit vague but it is rare and I don't find it is such a big effort. 
But I agree that -ije/-je is something we were 'trained' to use. But that is the difference between standard language and dialects. We learn how to use standard language correctly and dialect is something you sort of 'inherit'. 
Absence or presence of some sound in spoken language never sounds unnatural to me. I find all variations very charming and those little differences always suit the speaker - if that makes any sense. Those differences are charming in texts written in dialects as well.
But texts written in standard language are something else. I expect them to be correct. I am not always impressed by various changes but although I sometimes have 'lazy' periods I tend to inform myself about those changes when I need to. In my opinion, getting the culture of reading to some higher level would solve some spelling problems better than adapting the rules to those who are making mistakes. Besides orthography of our languages is quite easy compared to some other languages.
Ok, I supose I could live without ije/je but I really don't see the need to remove that distinction.
Don't worry, I do know how often those mistakes appear.  I also know a lot of people who make those mistakes and I was often next to those persons when they were writing something. Very often it isn't their not knowing wheir language that is responsible for the mistakes but just their lack of confidence. Obviously those teachers were too strict and let the generations believe they don't know how to write.  Last time it happened one person asked me whether we write čovjek with č or ć. I made him say that word again but to listen that time and tell me what he heard. Of course, it was correct.


----------



## DenisBiH

I don't think we should change the orthography to suit every 'whim', so to speak, of the speakers, but in this case I believe it is warranted. Whether it is something inherited from our local dialects before the standardization (if I'm not mistaken East Bosnian dialect that covers much of Sarajevo-Zenica-Tuzla-Posavina area was jekavian, or mixed) or something that developed after the introduction of the standard, these are basically our own (for many of us) speech traits that we are then trained to 'correct' in school. Some do it, some don't. 

I don't like the lack of confidence you're describing that it causes in some people. My case is not that far developed, and I did have a nice education, but I still have to stop now and then to figure out whether it is č or ć, ije or je. One particular word is čuti, which I never seem to remember. I had to look it up in HJP even now. 

But then, I might be a somewhat extreme example. For instance, I would also love it if Ikavian was a part of Bosnian and Croatian standards. It's strange, a dialect spread across so much of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia and historically used as a literary vehicle ends up being non-standard. I find it sad, and somehow unjust, but not to go off-topic.


----------



## Wikislav

Concerning the fiery penultimate post I have _no comments_, because it was mostly a cloning of local BCS dogmas from thirty or fourty years ago. 

As the last interesting post by DenisBiH, I had also short similar insights in the field on local Ikavish-*Šć*akavian idioms (e.g. _šćap, dvorišće_, etc.) at Una, Duvno and Rama (from where my ancestors once emigrated). While the typical Ikavish-NeoShtokavians (with _štap, dvorište)_ of Herzegovina, Lika and Dalmatian Zagora made at least partial distinctions between č / ć, these archaic Ikavish-Šćakavians almost do not distinguish č/ć. On the other hand, typical archaic Kaykavians in Zagorje hills often have an exotic distinction of slavic yat, i.e. a shorter _'e'_ replacing je, and diphtong_ '*ie*'_ instead of ije (this was almost neglected by Shtokavian Vukovians). 

I personally had never problems with č/ć and je/ije, because yet from childhood I spoke there different replacing Chakavian phonems from my native islander idiom: yat as true _' *i* '_ instead of standard je, and a deeper *y* (= _*ü*)_ replacing ije; then also '_tj_' instead of ć, and a depalatalized _c_ replacing č. Moreover I was then also anew drilled in ć/č and ije/je during my Classical college, and now I use them well in 95-98% situations in official writing for print and wikis (90% in provisional concepts and forums) - this minute rest is usually corrected by my wife (professor in Slavistics).


----------



## Istriano

In Northeastern Istria people seem to differentiate between the two because *ć* is pronounced not like [tɕ] but like a palatalized t: [tʲ].

[tʃa] ča  ''what'' (ča si reka? = what did you say?)
[tʲa] ća ''away''  (gren ća = I'm going away).

In many parts of Southern Istria the intermediate variant is used for both ć and č: between  [tɕ]and [tʃ].

Most urban speakers (born in cities of Pula, Rijeka, Zagreb, Split) have merged ć and č in production/pronunciation, even when reading a text aloud, the stressed differentiation is seen as something rural or ''eastern''.
I'd say for the most people, the difference is a mere spelling one.

  [tɕ] and [tʃ] oposition in production (aka speech) is typical of Serbian, and not of Croatian (where is seen as rural or dialectal).
Furthermore, the superhard [tʃ] č typical of Serbian is never used in Croatian, even by people who pronounce ć and č differently.


----------



## Istriano

LilithE said:


> . Two out of three dialects make a clear distinction between those 2 phonemes and there is nothing artificial or ideological about that.


Split is hardly a Kajkavian city and there is a merger between two phonemes, they are mere allophones of the same phoneme, and the difference is maintained only in spelling.

I'd say that in spoken Croatian, č ~  ć  merger is as common as [w] ~ [hw] merger in spoken English ( _which _[hw] ~ _witch _[w];  _whales _[hw] ~ _Wales _[w]).
In the spoken language, unmerger is 1. very formal; 2. dialectal/regional.

The unmerger is observed in spelling and may be occasionally forced/reintroduced in reading as ''spelling pronunciation''. 
Soft ć is typical of Northeastern Istria (Opatija) and Northern Islands (Krk, Cres).
Hard č is typical of regions at the Serbian border (Vukovar), due to Serbian influence.


----------



## DenisBiH

> _Kroz vrimena gruba i kroz ljute boje, branili smo časno mi ognji*šć*e svoje..._


I wonder if that's Dražen Žanko's native dialect or if it is for that song only. One of most beautiful patriotic songs I've ever heard, btw, and in my opinion also reflective of strong Croatian protective attitude towards their language (_bez jezika narod nema više sreće..._). 

To go back on-topic, so, č/ć non-distinction could be a šćakavian feature in Shtokavian? Interesting.


----------



## Orlin

Izgleda da ja kao neizvorni govornik imam neku prednost u razlikovanju _č_ i _ć_ u pisanju iako ih sasvim ne odlikujem na sluh jer najčešće učim nove reči iz pisanih tekstova a i znam etimologiju _č_ i _ć_ i mogu rešiti većinu nedoumica uz pomoć kognata u drugim slovenskim jezicima koje poznajem. Dok is je/ije gotovo nikako nisam upoznat i zbog toga nikada ne pišem ijekavicom (nemam i namere da to radim u bliskoj budućnosti pošto mi se čini preteško).


----------

