Talk:Shtokavian dialect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Geographic and religious affiliation of native speakers of štokavian dialect 2 Worth mentioning 3 Politics and štokavian dialect 4 Shoud be moved to Shtokavian super-dialect 5 Number of Phonemes 6 Štokavian dialects 7 Map? 8 Shtokavian dialect and the Croatian language: some myths addressed 9 Collateral damage 9.1 Looks like Ivić deserves more 9.2 Štokavian vernacular literacy and literature 10 Common shtokavian dialect = coming from the same ethnic stock (despite national lines)?

[edit] Geographic and religious affiliation of native speakers of štokavian dialect

I opted for geography and religion instead of ethnicity as that might prove to be something we will not agree on.

Concerning the Eastern-Herzegovinian (EH) dialect. As far as I know, in Slavonia, only the Orthodox speak it (or rather spoke it before the wholesale genocide 1991-1995), the Catholics are ikavian and ekavian-ikavian. In the Krajina (Banija, Lika, Kordun) pretty much same story, Orthodox ijekavian, Catholics ikavian. In Dalmatia some Orthodox in the Drnis area speak ikavian, all the rest are ijekavian. Catholics are all ikavians in Dalmatia (Dalmatia is Northwest of the Neretva mind you). In all of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Orthodox are ijekavians of this EH dialect. Southwest Serbia and the greater western half of Montenegro is also EH, that's also Orthodox. Now comes the great exception, Muslims of the Podrinje, Eastern Herzegovina and Catholics of former Dubrovnik Republice (from Peljesac to Konavli) speak it as well.

So if we keep score that would be:

+ 570,000 Orthodox (Krajina, Slavonia, Dalmatia)

+ 1,350,000 Orthodox (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

+ 300,000 Orthodox (Montenegro)

+ 500,000 Orthodox (Serbia)

= 2,720,000 Orthodox

+ 50,000 Muslims (Serbia)

+ 50,000 Muslims (Eastern Herzegovina)

+ 200,000 Muslims (Eastern Bosnia)

+ 20,000 Muslims (Montenegro)

= 320,000 Muslims

+ 110,000 Catholics (Croatia, basically Dubrovacko-Neretvanska zupanija)

+ 30,000 Catholics (Herzegovina, Konjic, Neum, Capljina, Trebinje, Gacko, Nevesinje)

= 140,000 Catholics

So that makes:

• 86% Orthodox
• 10% Muslim
• 4% Catholic

I guess that I was generous with my previous estimation? Let's make it 85-10-5 just to satisfy the primordial Croat in Mir Harven, OK? --Igor 10:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aside "ironies" of this participant, the above figures are concoction and, let's be frank-nonsense.

Unlike Mir Harven this participant backs up his info. Mir Harven at first claimed that 60% of the Ijekavian Eastern-Herzegovina dialect were Orthodox (Serbian and Montenegrin as he puts it) he later dropped that to 50%. Let us who is closer to the actual figure.--Igor 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although dialectologists have been doing their work well into 1960s and 1970s, it has become clear that "native speakers" melt away before standard languages (urbanization, electronic media influence, school system,..) like snow under the sun. So, partial figures that would make sense at all should come from censa before, say, WW1.

The same figure for the 1910 census can be extrapolated but for now we shall work with the 1991 census.--Igor 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are two other things I've noticed in the above text: fixation on "yat" reflex, which is not such a discerning feature as older dialectologists had thought (for instance, Croatian philologist Milan Rešetar

Milan Rešetar was a Serb Catholic philologist from Dubrovnik.--Igor 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

proposed that Bosnian-Dalmatian (Ikavian) and western Ijekavian (yat pronounced as one diphtong, unlike the situation in western Serbia (Užice) or Montenegro (Nikšić) or eastern Herzegovina (Bileća))- should be put under one umbrella since their phonetic characteristics more naturally classify them into one field.

I have never heard of such a proposition, if true (it would not suprise me if it were a product of Mir Harven's overactive imagination) it would remain at that, just a proposition. --Igor 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or, neoštokavian-ijekavian in Western areas of former Yu has more in common with neoštokavian-ikavian than with neoštokavian-ijekavian in Eastern areas.

Another false thing is visible in numbers: "Catholics" who speak neoštokavian-ijekavian (now) are (or were) in Bosnia and Herzegovina much more numerous: they inhabit Mostar, Čapljina, Stolac, parts of other former municiplities in Konjic etc.

Capljina, Stolac and Konjic were calculated, Mir Harven, as usual, did not take the proper care to read what was written: '30,000 Catholics (Herzegovina, Konjic, Neum, Capljina, Trebinje, Gacko, Nevesinje). He just decided to object on grounds of the result not agreeing with his prejudice about the matter (the 50% figure). Mostar Catholics are ikavians, emigrants from the right bank of the Neretva river (new ikavian Western Herzegovina). --Igor 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, Sarajevo Croats are nepštokavian-ijekavian speakers by default (for instance, philologist Dalibor Brozović).

Not if they are from Western Herzegovina or Central Bosnia (Vares, Kresevo, Bugojno etc.) and most of them were. Sarajevo almost no Catholic population before the Austrian occupation.

Not to speak of Croatia, when Croats (or "Catholics") are neoštokavian-ijekavians in northern areas (major parts of Banovina, Kordun, parts of Podravina, Žumberak, Moslavina,...).

The linguistic borders usually follow religious ones. The northern Banija is kajkavian, parts of Kordun are as well as chakavian. i.e. the Catholics of Banija and Kordun are kajkavian and chakavian. Zumberak is settled by Greek Catholic Serbs (Uniates, see Eparchy of Krizevci).--Igor 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, "Orthodox" population speaking neoštokavian-ijekavian in Serbia is blown out of proportion, and "Muslim" is greatly reduced.

Zlatibor_District plus Ivanjica, Cacak, Lucani, Ljubovija, Bajina Basta.--Igor 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Be as it may- the above figures are a product of mixed ignorance and wishful thinking-leading nowhere,

Whatever. Seems to me like you are just clueless as to what to say in order to dispute my figures, you can come up with precise figures yet you know that mine must be wrong. --Igor 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

since it raises cynical questions about voicelessness/aridity of "Orthodox" population in any area of vernacular expression for more than 4 centuries, as well as strong Serbian opposition to Ijekavian form of the vernacular. They knew it was "foreign" to them, to say the least. Mir Harven 19:42, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nope, not foreign to 3 million speakers.--Igor 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Worth mentioning

Orthodox in Krajina etc. having different speech from Catholics is clearly based on the fact that most people of Orthodox faith migrated there over 200 years ago where-by they brought their previous dialect with them and maintained it somewhat - but they spread some things into the wider community as well as assimilate features originally spoken by pre-settled Catholics. In Slavonija, this is not the case. Western Slavonija partly creates one end of the Krajina but heading inwards towards the border with Serbia, Orthodox and Catholics speak the same. Like Vojvodina, neighbouring Slavonija is also a zone where people have come and gone from various regions over the centuries and you are left with several named nationalities, some Slavic, some not. This might explain some catholics speaking on Ikavian as they too may have migrated. In fact, Slavonija has long had a tradition of both religions being practised there and natives descended from those to have been settled since Slavic arrival will still operate as part of the dialect continuum which runs from Slovenia down to Bulgaria with NO interruptions, not even if you are Muslims living next to Catholics with Orthodox accross the street. Slavonia existed as a name alongside Croatia at times in history when Croatia was independent, semi-independent, autonomous etc. How the Catholics came to be known as Croats and the Orthodox people Serb is probably one of politics, where-by since Slavonija was NOT to be given republic status, the people's ethnic names were superceded by the more powerful Serb and Croat, persuading them to follow their centralized principles. I was raised in a town called Brčko, Bosnia, where Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims not only speak the same, but also in a way according to the neighbours on all sides, now in Croatia and Serbia, slightly closer to east than west, slightly closer to west than east etc. Any movement from Catholics to copy Croatia's language, Orthodox for the Serb's language is purely artificial since the whole fabric of Brčko's speech has developed over centuries of all religions being practised there. Slavonija is generally Ekavian, not Ijek- nor Ik-. It is in line with Vojvodina traditionally being Ekavian, PLUS the Slavs of Hungary never to have seen their homeland incorporated into Yugoslavia speak on Ekavian, even the Catholic ones, and over into Slovenia where Slovenia's entire language structure is Ekavian. The term still applies even if Slovene is not within the former Serbo-Croat domain - Macedonian is also Ekavian, but Bulgarian switches to a strange YA-kavian. Byalo (white), Sryada (Wednesday), Lyavo, Dyasno (Left, Right), still based on the same principle. There are simple tests known by linguists which can prove that many of the Serbianisms of Bosnia and Croatia by Serbs, Croatianisms by Croats of Bosnia and Serbia, and Bosnianisms by Bosniaks of Croatia and Serbia ARE artificial, but I will only explain these IF someone should challenge my observation. Ragusan 9 November 2005

[edit] Politics and štokavian dialect

It seems that this participant, "armed" with a combination of national zeal and linguistic (all right-not only linguistic) ignorance, has just, with a few minor points, repeated what he had said earlier. So, this discussion will be settled now and the state of article reverted-the only possible other option would come from presentation of other, more credible arguments. Probably-the bad thing is that the answer will turn out to be a rather academic and boring. But, it will serve the purpose, if only as a copy/paste resource.

1. the participant Igor has not answered nor, it seems to me, even understood, that modern censa account for-nothing. Even the censa he has presented are rendered in a twisted way. Must I repeat: standard languages are rolling over dialects, and dialects tend to be preserved, partially, in rural isolated ares without significant influence of electronic media. So, all his censa data are completely worthless. This can be seen even in Croatia, for Croatian Serbs: 1991 data gives ca. 550.000-600.000 Serbs in Croatia (dont recall the exact figure). Out of these, a significant number had lived in towns with Croatian majority (Zadar, Split, Zagreb, Karlovac, Osijek, Sisak, Požega, Bjelovar, ...) and had adopted the speech of the majority. Now, this may not alter the picture where the Croatian majority spoke standard language based on some kind of Ijekavian (Virovitica, Bjelovar, Grubišno polje,..), but in cases where it didn't (Split, Zadar, Šibenik, Zagreb, Karlovac, Sisak, Koprivnica,..), the settled Serbs generally adopted the local idiom and ceased to speak the dialect of their ancestors. There are figures on Serbs who dwellt among Croats in cities with Croatian majority (this can be verified), and they numbered somewhere between 150.000- 300.000. Although no strict dialectological analyses had been made (as I recall)- they spoke the local idiom. In the case of Zagreb (the situation I am familiar with), Serbs spoke and speak "the Zagreb idiom", a mixed kajkavian-shtokavian speech born from mixture of all dialects from Croatia and standard language propagated through media. The same was/is in Karlovac etc. So, speaking on Serbs in 1991 in Croatia, at least, say, 30% of them didn't speak dialect of their ancestors, but the local idiom of the cities they came to dwell in.

2. Other blatantly inaccurate contentions are:

• the number of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina who are native speakers of neoštokavian-ijekavian (later, neo-ije) dialect. Dialectological investigations based on numerous works in the field (Asim Peco, Dalibor Brozović, Jovan Vuković,..) are further elaborated and summarised in Josip Lisac, Croatian dialectologist's book: Hrvatski dijalekti, štokavsko i torlačko narječje, Zagreb 2004. There is clearly visible that neo-ije Croats in BiH "cover" much wider area that they were "allocated" by Igor and the likes. In short: speaking of Mostar Croats, they came both from the east and the west of the Neretva river (and other parts, too), and only ignorant in sociolinguistics could suppose they, in the situation of standard language based on ijekavian idiom and melting pot consisting of ijekavian Croats and non-Croats- ikavian part of Croatian speakers could retain their subdialect while in Croatia even Serbs in kajkavian and čakavian-dominated cities simply switched their linguistic idiom to a hybrid colloquial speech based on another dialect (Kajkavian dialect, Chakavian dialect). Further distortion is evasion of data on Sarajevo Croats, but this can be applied also to other cities where Croats had switched from, say, eastern-bosnian (also ijekavian) to neo-ije: Tuzla, Živinice, Doboj, Teslić, ..Be as it may, simple data from 1991 census show that approximate number of neo-ije Croatian speakers in Herzegovina is somewhere 70.000-80.000, and in northern Bosnia well over 50.000 (not mentioning Croats in Banja Luka or Prijedor, which piety prevents me from addressing). In ethnically dominant areas, or in those where they live alongside Bosniaks, Croats have retained their bosnian-dalmatian (ikavian) dialect (Ljubuški, Travnik, Vitez, Jajce, Posušje, Uskoplje,..) or eastern-bosnian (ijekavian) (Kreševo, Kiseljak, Fojnica, Vareš, Žepče, Kakanj,..), but in other, melting pot areas they have switched to neo-ije (Sarajevo, Teslić, Doboj, Tuzla, Breza, Gradačac,..). Just one point: user Igor cites rough figures from 1991 census (which is, as I've said, nonsense) and simultaneously tries to avoid incorporating the figure from the same census when it applies to Sarajevo Croats (and, as we have said, those from Tuzla, Doboj, Teslić, Živinice,..), with the lame "excuse" that Sarajevo Croats had almost no Croat population before Austrian occupation. Only an ignoramus, who had never heard of "Latinluk", could spell out such a stupidity. But, this leads us to a much more interesting phenomenon. All right: which census user Igor is talking about: 1991, 1981, 1931, ...? Never mind his "method" is worthless- if he expects to be taken seriously (or, half-seriously), he should be consistent in his frame of reference. As I see it- this is a display of typically Greater Serbian ideological falsity. The classic example: in parts of Croatia (former military border) Serbs constituted majority in 11 municipalities at 1991. They came to the area in 1500s-1600s as Orthodox Vlachs, during the 19th century developed Serb national consciousness, and were ethnic majority in these parts- but without historical root prior to the mentioned settlement. There are no reliable records about them before, no traces of historical presence in any form, they do not appear in the social fabric of Croatian society before- in short, they came as foreigners into centuries-old habitat. In this case, Greater Serbian ideologues argued that these parts should be incoporated in Serbian state due to "ethnic majority argument" (classic irredentism), since their territorial claims possessed no historical legitimacy. On the other hand, in Kosovo Serbs had undisputable historical legitimacy- but Kosovo Albanians constituted overwhelming ethnic majority. However, this time Serbian ideologues magically turned to "historical legitimacy" principle, irreparably struck by amnesia attack about "ethnic majority argument". So- if "ethnic majority" is prevalent, Serbs could (at least in theory) have had territorial claims on parts of Croatia- but should have said goodbye to Kosovo on the same ground. Or, vice versa. As is well known- they wanted both and lost both.

Why this excursus into history ? Simply because it illustrates distortions of Greater Serbian propaganda and their copycats. We have seen the example of the same double criteria approach (along with fabrications and sheer ignorance) in user Igor's post.This juggling with figures, meagre or nil knowledge of linguistics, dialectology, distortion and evasion of censa data- this all shows that truth is not the issue. The issue here are Serbian linguistic-nationalist fictions that had begun to grow in musty corners of early Slavic philology, and, although discarded by virtually the entire world, still reign in Serbian scientific and pseudo-scientific circles- a fodder for grandomaniacal fantasies.

• as far as Croatia is concerned , the number of Croats who are native speakers of neo-ije dialect is hard to ascertain due to influence of standard language spread via electronic media. However, since Croats in parts of Podravina, Kordun, Žumberak, Banovina, Moslavina, Slavonia,..are also speakers of neo-ije dialect, it is at least twice or thrice greater than those quoted in listed figures. As had been earlier mentioned, the number of Serbs is, due to urban linguistic assimilation significantly lower than the number cited: maybe only 60-70% Serbs in Croatia in 1991 actually spoke some kind of neo-ije dialect. As for the Croats from Žumberak (I guess the "targeted population" are Catholic uniates, Greek Catholics or Catholics of Byzantine rite)- they stem from Orthodox Vlachs who came to this area in 1500s-1600s and in the process of nation-making were ethnically assimilated as Croats (as did much numerous portions of Hungarians, Czechs, Germans, Italians, Slovaks, Roman Catholic Vlachs,..)- in the same vein the vast majority of Orthodox Vlachs had been assimilated into Serbian ethnic corpus at the mid-19th century. There are no "Serbs in Žumberak"- only Croats, among which those of Byzantine rite had been prominent in many fields of Croatian national culture (one of the most prominent historians, compiler of Croatian diplomatic codex, Tadija Smičiklas, theologian and politician Milan Šimrak, publicist Jovan Hranilović,..). Enough for any rational person: http://www.midwest-croatians.org/archives/svpetraipavla.html , http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/ndd/10listopad/1001%20Smiciklas.html . The misinformation on "Catholic Serbs" in this wiki will have to go-or, better, it will be assimilated in the article where it properly belongs: Greater Serbia ideology.

• at last, it should be noted that General Slavic linguistic atlas is under way and it will, in all probabilty, dispell this ideological rubbish we're witnesing now

• user Igor has mentioned Milan Rešetar, a Croatian philologist. Mr. Rešetar was, it seems, due to insecurities re personal identity prone to identifying himself with phanstasmic quasi-ethnicities: first "Serb-Catholic" and, later, "Yugoslav". Since both imaginary quasi-ethnicities, after being some time fed by various pro-Serbian ideologies, vanished from history for good- looks like Mr. Rešetar's personal insecurites are not the issue here. The point is that he is, by any standard philological reference, listed as Croatian philologist-regardless of his personal proclivities or identifications. Looks like user Igor's perception with regard to these matters is obscured by weird notions on interplay between one's ethnicity (a personal matter) and broader national culture one is a part of. Hence, even "authentic" Serbs (unlike Rešetar) Vojislav Kuzmanović, Vladan Desnica, Čedo Prica, Vojin Jelić, Branislav Glumac, ...are Croatian- and only Croatian writers. Russian Vladimir Nabokov is American, and Irish Samel Beckett French author (although sometimes classified as belonging to 2 or 3 literatures, it isn't the point of dispute here. Beckett wasn't ethnically French, nor was Nabokov American).

Serb-Catholic, and Yugoslav, as only as imaginary as Croatian and Serbian, much less infact. Firstly, I know a fair few Catholic Serbs. If they wish to declare their nationality Serbian, then that is their choice - if a Serb wishes to convert to catholisism, that is his choice, doesn't make him less Serbian. Otherwise you must really ask yourself, what is Croathood really based on? If it is just being Catholic then are we ALL not Catholic Serbs? If there is more to it, there can be no problems with Serbs being Catholic and having been so since becoming Christians over 1,000 years ago. And if people want to call themselves Yugoslavs, then that is their choice. I say there are no Poles. Poland comprises hundreds of communities all complete with their own dialects, their own flags, their own anthems, their own traditions, their own paraphernalia but today, 96% declare themselves Poles and hardly 2% use the old ethnic name, they have integrated, just because MOST people in Yugoslavia didn't, doesn't mean ALL hadn't. That is a question of administration, not difference of people. Today many people call themselves Serb and Croat in regions where those were not the names being used before the First World War. I say Italians are not a nation, why the unification of Italy happened in 1861 before which, you had Tuscans, Ligurians, Sicilians, Friulians, Venetians (until 1866), the list goes on... it is ALL a question of demarcation. Slovenian vs Yugoslav. A Slovene will draw borders around him and say, these are my people, those outside it are foreigners even if they are Slavic. A Yugoslav will seek to celebrate nationality with anyone else who is Slavic from the South...as opposed to the north (ie. Poland, Russia etc), nationality is about school of thought, not 'does a corresponding state exist, and are all of its people the same height, same weight, same colour, speak the same dialect, follow the same religion, have the same size nose, wear the same clothes and are born on the same day of the week etc. etc etc.' You choose your nationality, you don't choose mine; just as you're being Bosniak/Bulgarian might have a basis, so might my 'West Balkan Farmers' declaration. (That's just an example). Ragusan 9 November 2005.

As for Rešetar's opinions on dialects: "..ali se meni čini, da činjenicama bolje odgovara drugačija podjela. Da se najprije odijeli ekavsko narječje, čini mi se posve opravdano; naprotiv držim, da se jekavski i ikavski govori, koji se govore u Dubrovniku, u većem dijelu Hercegovine i Bosne, u Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji, ne smiju dijeliti jedan od drugoga, nego spojiti u jednu skupinu, jer su odvajanja kod njih minimalna, ako se apstrahira od različitog izgovora ě ". (Der Štok. Dial., 27) / "..but it seems to me that another division should be better. First, to separate ekavian dialect is a most justifiable; on the contrary, jekavian and ikavian speeches, spoken in Dubrovnik, greater parts of Herzegovina, Bosnia, Croatia and Slavonia, should be grouped together, because differences among them are minimal, setting aside different pronunciation of ě". (Der Štokawische Dialekt, 27) "Ja sam došao do zaključka da mi zapadni jekavci, koji izgovaramo jat kao jedan diftonag, činimo jednu skupinu govora sa ikavcima, dok su nam naša braća koji ga izgovaraju kao dva sloga bliza, ali nisu iste govorne vrste " (pismo Franji Fancevu, 18. 6. 1940)./ "I have come to the conclusion that we, western jekavians who pronounce yat as one diphtong, comprise one group of speeches along with ikavians, and our brothers who pronounce it as two syllables are close, but not of the same speech group" (letter to philologist and historian Franjo Fancev, June 18th 1940).

3. It seems that we have covered all user Igor's objections: the figures of neo-ije speakers (his numbers being shown false, and even more- impossible to be precisely pinned down, margin of error fluctuating rather wildly due to lack of sociolinguistic data)-both in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, both with regard to Croats and Serbs (wouldn't go into details on figures in Serbia since I'm not conversant with the situation); Rešetar and his philological status (about which he's rather clueless),....no, there remains a tiny (and significant) point- and this is origin of standard languages and the interplay of these with dialects. Let's see user Igor's arguments.

His contentions can be summed up in two points:

• The "Orthodox" folx (ie. Serbs) are the majority speakers of neo-ije dialect and so, a standard language based on this dialect is, somehow, "Serbian". I suppose this would be the gist.

• virtually all non-"Orthodox" native speakers of neo-ije dialect (Catholics, Muslims) are, if we look at the tone and argumentation of this post (and another posts on this Website), in a sense, "ethnically" Serb, lost to the Serbdom mainly through religious conversions.

From these two contentions anyone can deduce that user Igor's opinion is just a rehash of dilapidated Greater Serbian ideology, one of the central tenets of this ideology being the following equation: native speakers of Shtokavian dialect = ethnic Serbs .

A person knowledgeable about South Slavic language histories can immediately see that such a stance is simply- false.

a) as far as numerical prevalence of Serbs among neo-ije native speakers- this fact is completely insignificant since due to various reasons, this majority was, so to speak, "mute" and voiceless in the formative period of štokavian-based literacy and literature from 1400s to 1800s. Virtually all writers (imaginative and liturgical) who wrote during this multicentenary period were Croats and belong to the Croatian corpus of written words (only tiny exception being a few Bosnian Muslim authors and 2-3 Serbian writers in the latter half of the 18th century). Not only that they themselves called Croats (along with regional designations like Dalmatian, Slavonian and Bosnian, or supra-national Slovin or Illyrian name- an instance of early, essentially Catholic version of pan-Slavism)- the significant point is that not one person of literary standing who wrote in štokavian dialect identified himself as Serb or his language as Serbian. This included Ragusan writers (Marin Drzic, Menčetić, Zlatarić, Ivan Gundulic, Vetranović, Stulli,..), Bosnian Franciscans (Divković, Matijević, Margitić, Posilović,..), Dalmatian writers (Kašić from Zadar, Kavanjin from Split, Kanavelović from Hvar, Kačić Miošić from Makarska, Grabovac from Vrlika,..) and Slavonians (Kanižlić, Relković, Ivanošić, Došen,..). There is nothing "Serbian" in reference to the language or ethnicity of these writers.

b) but, what is linguistically/dialectologically more important, these works are, judging from their language physionomy (morphology, syntax, lexis,..) a mixture of štokavian and čakavian dialects (the majority of Dubrovnik/Ragusan writers and some writers from Split and Hvar), or written in the eastern-bosnian dialect (early Bosnian Franciscans), or in neoštokavian-ikavian (the majority of Slavonian, Dalmatian and later Bosnian writers). Phonologically, morphologically, syntactically, semantically- their works contain (or are based upon) forms that don't appear in Serbian/Orthodox štokavian idioms.

c) on the other hand, Serbian language reformer Vuk Karadzic based his Serbian language revolution on two pillars: Croatian literary heritage and field work in Serbs inhabited rural areas. As Croatian linguist Miro Kačić has observed: Karadžić adopted one Croatian literary idiom and tried to impose it as the Serbian literary language. Without going into numerous technicalities (he didn’t adopt Croatian literary form "tko" for "who", numerous morphological features, especially those in word-formation, as well as various syntactical structures- but did prescribe specifically Croatian literary norms like "djevojka " instead of "đevojka " for girl, or reinstated phoneme "h", unknown in Serbian folk speech), there remains a gap between Croatian tradition that formed standard Croatian language and Karadžić’s forging of Serbian language. Although he did assimilate numerous traits from Croatian heritage, his view on standard language was different, and his particular vision of it remains essentially unchanged in Serbian culture. All similarities and influences aside, it boils down to:

• Serbian view on standard language is based on idealisation of rural štokavian idiom, exaltation of folk cultural production (poetry, fables,..), indifference towards foreign words which become assimilated as loan-words and complete break-up with Serbian Slavic literary past

• Croatian view on standard language is based on three points: interpenetration of all three Croatian dialects (štokavian, čakavian, kajkavian), with štokavian being the pillar but not the exclusive source; linguistic purism that creates Croatian neo-logisms and, generally, rejects foreign loan-words; continuity and constant replenishment from more than 7 centuries old Croatian vernacular literature.

This, along with other factors, resulted in the following course of events: as far as Karažić’s reform is concerned, Serbian literary historian Jovan Skerlić was explicit: " Karadžić's option for "southern dialect" (ie. ijekavian), till then non-existent in Serbian literature, fell out with contemporary Serbian writers, who were from ekavian parts and nourished the idea that ekavian was the Serbian literary language" (Essays). Karadžić's contemporaries, Milovan Vidaković and Lukijan Mušicki, wrote to Karadžić to abandon Ijekavian idiom, since it was "not Serb". Other, extremely bizarre circumstances corroborate this: some Jefta Popović has edited in Cyrillic script and translated to Serbian ekavian Ivan Gundulic's "Osman" (until then available only in manuscripts)- all in a book titled "Collected works of Jefta Popović" , Budim, 1827. Even in late 1800s, 1897, Serbian editor-plagiarist had "published" Croatian author August Senoa's novel "Zlatarevo zlato"- in Serbian Cyrillic, ekavised and serbianised in morphology, lexis and syntax.

Of course, the simplest and most convincing is Karadžić's own statement:

(...The poems were written down as I heard them from the mouths of Serbian men and women, and their language is more regular than that which I heard as a child, and which I put down in writing last year. I hope I shall be forgiven for writing some of them in the dialect of Herzegovina and others in that of Srem. I did it for the following reason: if I had put them down in root orthography, which would have been the most correct for both sides (e.g. djevojka 'girl', djeca 'children', vidjeti 'see', letjeti 'fly' etc.), everyone would have said that they were folk songs; they would have asked why I did not write them down as they were sung by the people. We know how it should be, but we would like to know how people actually say it. If I had written everything in Herzegovinian, the people of Srem (especially townspeople) would have objected that I wanted to impose the Croatian language.)

On the history issue, one should consult Karadžic himself:

(Kopitar suggested to me earlier to start collecting Serbian words as they are used by the people... To facilitate my work, Kopitar gave me the dictionaries of Voltidi, Belostenec, Jambresic and Stulli. I glanced at these dictionaries rather than read them, and wrote on pieces of paper from memory. I never adopted words from the dictionaries unless I was sure that they were used by the people. On my return to Vienna in 1816, I took a large notebook filled with Serbian words. I started to work with Kopitar...) (quoted from Izmail Ivanovic Sreznjevski, Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic: a biographical and bibliographical note, Knjizevnost 'Literature' no. 1, Belgrade 1987: 40)

The assertion that a work A (i.e., the dictionary of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic) will contain "all the Serbian words" from work B (the source), without reading, but just glancing at the work B is highly contradictory. Pavle Ivić accounts for the fact that Vuk Stefanović Karadžić did not adopt some words from the Jesuit dictionaries because they were not present in his mother tongue. If his source was his mother tongue, and if the dictionary was conceived as its description, it is difficult to explain why he excerpted his materials from Croatian dictionaries (šokački rječnici). This, however, may not be so because some dictionary entries contain information about the regions they come from; some words, which had never existed on the territory of Serbia, vere marked as Herzegovinian (žlica 'spoon', izvan 'outside', kovčeg 'chest', ulje 'oil', utjecati 'to influence') . It seems that Karadžić used the criterion of his mother tongue as a slogan to draw attention to the popular basis of his his dictionary. Later reviews, which could not accept that the dictionary which was crucial for the development of the Serbian language was based on Croatian dictionaries, always pointed to Vuk's claims about his mother tongue. Bartol Kašić, Jakov Mikalja and Ardelio Delia Bella included contact synonyms in their dictionaries along with štokavian entries. Kajkavian authors, such as Juraj Habdelich (Dictionar Hi rechi slovenske z vexega ukup zebrane, 1670 'Dictionary or a collection of Slavic words'), Andrija Jambrešić (Lexicon latinum interpretatione illyrica, germanica et hungarica locuples, 1742) and Ivan Belostenec, introduced contact synonyms from štokavian and čakavian. They all advocated the spelling principle based on word-formation, differing only in the way it should be applied. Karadžić left čakavian and kajkavian words out of his dictionary, and retained štokavian words, claiming that they were used by the people. The Serbian Dictionary is very similar in its organization to the Jesuit dictionaries. The foreword includes the orthography which had been reformed on phonetic principles. It is followed by a grammar and the dictionary. At the suggestion of Dobrovsky, Vuk Stefanović Karadžić added Pjesnički glosarij (Poetic glossary) to the second edition of the dictionary, so that it became three times larger. Jesuit philologist Vladimir Horvat points out that Jesuit dictionaries may have had an influence on that part as well.

So, the entire chapter can be summarised thus:

• the majority of neo-ije speakers are now ethnically Serb

• it is impossible to ascertain which percentage they constitute among all neo-ije speakers, chiefly due to sociolinguistic situation (mass media influence, migrations, dialectal assimilations,..)

• they did not have a say in štokavian vernacular literacy and literature in ca. 400 years, and were prominent as one of two sources in Serbian language reformer Karadžić’s shaping of standard Serbian. Their specific (that is, different from Croatian) dialectal idiom did not influence the form of standard Croatian- although they participated in later Croatian literary culture, but as Croatian writers, irrespective of their ethnic origin

• Serbian language reform, apart from Serbian folk idiom, drew heavily on Croatian literary heritage. The reverse is not true, since there was no Serbian vernacular literary heritage for Croats to use, and Serbian folk idiom, when different from Croatian on dialectal level, did not enter the Croatian standard language

• Karadžić’s reform met with strong opposition from Serbian elite, who considered his option for neo-ije idiom as a sort of pro-Croatian imposition, since only Croats possessed ijekavian vernacular culture at that time

• this resulted in the fact that Serbian language, although linguists and cultural figures pay lip service to ijekvian form of Serbian, is in practice ekavian-based. This can be easily checked by comparing the ratio of works (printed word and electronic media output) in Serbian ekavian vs. Serbian ijekavian (books, papers, etc.). It is doubtful that that ijekvian editions account for more than 10% of all Serbian language output. And-this can be verified, unlike concocted figures from censa.

That said, the rest is a waste of time. The article is reverted, and further efforts of reversal along user Igor’s lines of thought will be treated like vandalism- if respectable contrary arguments fail to appear. Mir Harven 21:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shoud be moved to Shtokavian super-dialect

As well as Chakavian, Kajkavian and Torlak dialect. Dialect is Eastern Herzegovian dialect which is the part of Shtokavian. Just a little bit of formal distinctions :) However, I would like to hear others. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the term super-dialect really exists in English. Besides, it's annoying enough that we have a language/dialect distinction, don't create a new layer... --Joy [shallot]

I am just talking about taxonomy and not about moving the article as soon as possible. It would be good idea to find other linguists for this problem. Classifications of Central South Slavic group of languages is not good here. Better classifications can be: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Classification which differs eastern, central and western part of South Slavic lanugages:

• South Slavic
  • Eastern
    • Bulgarian
    • Macedonian
    • Torlak
  • Central
    • Shtokavian
      • Ikavian
      • Ekavian
        • Ekavized Eastern-Herzegovian
          • academic ekavian standard of Serbian language
        • Shumadia-Vojvodian
          • contemporary ekavian standard of Serbian language
        • ...
      • Iyekavian
        • Eastern-Herzegovian
          • iyekavian standard of Serbian language
          • standard of Croatian language
          • standard of Bosnian language
        • Eastern-Bosnian
        • ...
    • Chakavian
  • Western
    • Kaykavian
    • Slovenian
      • (I forgot the name)
        • standard of Slovenian language
        • ...

There can be some other similar classifications. All of them includes Shtokavian as a group of group of dialects, not dialect. Problem with classifications which exist now are their simplicity... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are some more simple variants, but better then existing classification:

• South Slavic
  • Eastern
    • Bulgarian
    • Macedonian
    • Torlakian
  • Central
    • Shtokavian
      • Serbian
      • Croatian
      • Bosnian
    • Chakavian
  • Western
    • Kaykavian
    • Slovenian

Or, with Torlakian and Kaykavian in the central group: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• South Slavic
  • Eastern
    • Bulgarian
    • Macedonian
  • Central
    • Torlakian
    • Shtokavian
      • Serbian
      • Croatian
      • Bosnian
    • Chakavian
    • Kaykavian
  • Western
    • Slovenian

But, I think that Kaykavian should go into western group and Torlakian into eastern. Also, I think that more people should talk about that... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Phonemes

An anonymous user keeps adding the statement that Serbian has 31 phoneme and Croatian 32. Please follow Wikipedia practice and cite your sources.

I can accept that ije is diphtongal in most ijekavian dialects, but it is open to interpretation and currently not accepted by "official" linguists (whatever that means), at least not in Serbia. If it's different in Croatia, please cite your sources.

Even discounting diphtongal ije, where does the 32nd phoneme come from? Even if diphtongal nature of ije is subject to discussion, I won't accept that short je is diphtongal as well. Duja 13:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Štokavian dialects

The "Štokavian dialects" (subdialects?) section of the article is a mess. However, I'm not an expert enough to fix it. Apart from bad English in preamble, it's totally unrecognizable what are the "oldest" and what are "newer" dialects. Actually, I'd say that the "newer" section actually describes the properties of "oldest" dialects, and that real information about "newer" dialects is missing.Duja 12:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, a question: how are "old Štokavian" dialects related to present-day Torlakian dialect? Is Torlakian a štokavian dialect or something else (classification on South Slavic languages page suggests it's not, but the properties described in this article suggest it is, since they very much describe what I know about Torlakian)? Should the information from here be moved/copied there? Duja 12:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map?

Maybe a geographical map of dialects should be included? --RockyMM 13:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd very like to have one within the article rather as an external ones, but I don't think any of the linked ones is available from GFDL, and it's kind of lazy difficult to create one from scratch. Duja 13:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shtokavian dialect and the Croatian language: some myths addressed

One frequently encounters (especially in Yugo-ideology affiliated circles) that Croatian language (contemporary standard) is based on the Eastern-Herzegovinian dialect. Just:

• the term "Eastern-Herzegovinian" was coined by a notable Serbian linguist Pavle Ivić, after the WW2, in- this is the Croatian linguists majority opinion- an effort to stamp "serbdom" (since Eastern Herzegovina is historically, more than 70%, ethnically Serb) on the dialectal basis of standard Croatian

• however, this basis lies in the Ragusan dialect, which is not the part of E-H dialect, but a local idiom per se. Its origin is, unlike E-H dialect, in the Western Štokavian speech which has become neo-štokavianized in the 1500s and 1600s. The Ragusan idiom shares with E-H dialect 2 basic traits: it's ijekavian & it's neoštokavian. In many other characteristics (stress, morphology and phonology,..) it is closer to the Eastern-Bosnian and, especially, neo-štokavian ikavian, with its characteristic "Mediterranean" physionomy the E-H dialect lacks

• it has been evident both to the protagonists of the Illyrian movement (Ljudevit Gaj, Antun Mažuranić, Bogoslav Šulek,..) and to the later Croatian linguists (Brozović, Katičić, Branka Tafra, Josip Vončina,..) that there was no "live" dialectal basis for the "Illyrian language" of , say, Bogoslav Šulek-similarly, there is no dialectal base which could be exactly located for standard German. Generally, the basis of the "Illyrian language" was ijekavian-štokavian, but not fully neo-štokavian, especially with regards to the plural declension. The language of August Šenoa, Ante Kovačić,...was not based on any regional dialect, but was a refinement of the "Illyrian language".

• here Vuk Karadžić enters the story. His early work was strongly based on E-H dialect, but in mid- and mature works he synthesized Croatian language heritage (đevojka > djevojka, opština >općina (later, he changed his mind), oću > hoću,..) and the spoken neoštokavian-ijekavian of his broader area. He wrote expressly "I write in the Ragusan language"-but, this was only partially true, since his language model (which differed from that of the Illyrians) has remained more "folksy" and suspicious of literary modeling Croats had been used to for centuries

• during the period of Croatian "vukovians" (for instance Tomo Maretić and Ivan Broz) the Croatian "Illyrian" language was partially reshaped in such a way to conform more to the Serbian of the Vuk Karadžić. Basically, it boils down to the neoštokavian declension in plural & a more phonemic orthography. But, their excesses in adoration of the already dated folksy vernacular did not pass the reality check: Croatian has outgrown both its Ragusan and vukovian roots (which were, anyway, mixed from the outset) & left them behind. So: historically, no Croatian literary language, during any period, has been based on E-H dialect (unlike, say, works of P.P. Njegoš and, to a lesser degree, early work of Vuk Karadžić). Much truer for Croatian standard language.

• also, one frequently encounters the opinion about the "historic" importance of the Vienna agreement in the 1850. This was, essentially, a private meeting organized by Slovene philologist Franc Miklošič, in order to standardize both Croatian and Serbian legal and bureaucratic terminologies in the Habsburg empire. This event did not have any practical consequences, since both Croatian and Serbian langauge practices went as before & not a single point of the "agreement" was respected. Only during the 20th century, in the climate of Yugoslav ideology, it has achieved (post festum) an almost sacrosanct status of some turning point in the language(s) history- an opinion not corroborated by the shape of Croatian and Serbian in 1860s, 1870s,...

• literature on the subject is vast, but I'd recommend "Vjekoslav Babukić i gramatika u Hrvata" by Branka Tafra and "Iz triju stoljeća hrvatskoga standardnoga jezika" by Marko Samardžija. Also, there are some linx on the Web (for instance:http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/135/tekstovi/08.htm ) Mir Harven 17:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probalby known to you that Croatian linguist Resetar, born i Dubrovnik said that who wants to claim taht there are two languages- Croatina and Serbian- and not only one (Serbo-Croatian), must confess that from linguistical point of view Dubrovnik always used to be Serbian (= not held by the Serbs, but that the Serbian dialect was spoken).

Rešetar is history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dubrovnik#St._Blasius... Nice that our "friend" had mentioned this Rešetar's claim. Here we go: 1. Milan Resetar was a Croatian philologist of old, neogrammarian school. He studied in Vienna and Berlin, and early in his youth accepted pan-Serbian "linguistic" ideology of Vuk Karadzic. So, he declared himself, in his 20s and 30s, to be "Serb Catholic". Fine. Later, he changed his identification to "Yugoslav". These facts only testify about Resetar's problems with national identity-and not about anything else. 2. Resetar was later, after his retirement from Zagreb University (where he edited some Dubrovnik writers like Drzic for Academy's edition "Old Croatian writers"), a resident in Florence- in Mussolini's Italy. 3. following the defeat of Yugoslavia in 1941 and creation of pro-Nazi and Fascist puppet NDH (Independent state of Croatia), this former "Serb Catholic" panicked about his pension. But, thanks to the intervention of his pupil, Croatian linguist and theatrologist Franjo Fancev, Resetar (Serb-Catholic, Yugoslav) was granted the continuation of pension which he received until his death (he died shortly after the Fancev's intervention). More- he had agreed to be elected among first 10 members of newly created-transformed Croatian Academy of Sciences in 1941. 4. Resetar's famous (famous because Serbian propagandists frequently quote it) claim about the nature of language-dialect spoken in historical Dubrovnik is reflection of his Serbian loyalties and confusions from his youth he never got rid of. It's not a reflection of an "old scholar" about the state of the matter after years of study, but an emotional throwback of an old man still confused about his identity. His ethno-philological dogma and confusion led him frequently to scientifically wrong conclusions- one of the most (in)famous being Resetar's desperate struggle to prove that Chakavian and Ikavian traits, which abound in the Renaissance literature in Dubrovnik, were never actually spoken. At first glance- this might look like an unnecessary trifling. But not for dogmatics like Resetar who accepted the Serbian ethnic atribution of Shtokavian dialect (a discarded dogma of early Slavic studies)- and Chakavian traits, which are indisputably ethnically Croatian, should not be here, in works of Dubrovnik writers. And they are, despite Resetar's troubles with that fact. Only- this also doesnt mean much since Shtokavian dialect is not ethnically atributed (just like Platteutsch or Hindustani), and Resetar wasted his time to disprove Croathood of the Renaissance Dubrovnik by focusing on Chakavian dialect- which is not something decisive as Resetar had imagined it to be. 5. later linguists, better versed in historical linguistics and equipped with broader modern apparatus (structural linguistics, newer materials galore, not burdened with Resetar's Serbian philological addictions,..) have stated things very differently: from Croatian linguists like Katicic and Brozovic to Dutch Van den Berk or German Auburger. As far as historical linguistics is concerned, Resetar's casual remarks (and much more, for that matter) are history. Mir Harven 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The vernacular of the city is East-Herzegowinian with some expected differences in urab area. If you go to island Šipan for instance, you will hear the true East-Herzegowinian dialect. The language of Konavle even has many similarities to vernacular of Piva and Drobnjak. This term was not introduced by Pavle Ivić.

1. the trem was introduced by Pavle Ivić. During the 16-18th centuries period the shtokavian (jekavian) had been most frequently called "Bosnian", and during the 19th-mid 20th centuries period "Herzegovinian". No "East" prefix before Ivić. 2. the vernacular of the city is not part of the E-H dialect-a fact mentioned even in Serbian books printed during Communist Yugoslavia period (cf. "Srpskohrvatski jezik", Grafeks, Beograd, 1972 (? 2-maybe 1971 or 1974, I write from memory). Or, in Croatian linguist Brozović's words (http://www.matica.hr/www/wwwizd2.nsf/AllWebDocs/casopisdub199223 , Dalibor Brozović:

O dijalektološkom aspektu dubrovačke jezične problematike):"...Drugim riječima, tezu o Čakavskome podrijetlu ne podupire ni analiza. dubrovačkih čakavizama, kako smo već vidjeli, ali ni analiza same štokavske fizionomije suvremenoga dubrovačkog poddijalekta. Novošto-kavski ijekavski dijalekt nije mogao unijeti na dubrovačko područje makarski (i istočnočakavski) dativ/lokativ tipa (u) mojon kući, jednostavno jer ga u njem nema. Taj bi se argument mogao oslabiti na dva načina — ili tvrdnjom da se ne radi o štokavskoj izoglosi zajedničkoj s Makarskim primorjem,4 nego o čakavskome supstratu, ili tvrdnjom da je riječ o recentnim utjecajima sa zapada. Prvo ne može biti istina — radi se zaista o novijoj pojavi pa onda ne može biti supstratna, a drugo valja preformulirati, jer nije riječ o »utjecajima« nego o mladoj zajedničkoj inovaciji izoglosnoga tipa5, što nije bez značenja. No ako o toj makarsko—dubrovačkoj izoglosi mogu i biti različita mišljenja, o jednoj akcenatskoj izoglosi ne može biti sumnje. U neodređenome obliku pridjevskih riječi tipa mlad-mlada-mlado u nedubrovačkim govorima novoštokavskoga ijekavskog dijalekta, kao i u svim drugim govorima istočnoštokavskoga podrijetla, naglasak srednjega roda jednak je onomu u ženskome, a u dubrovačkome je poddijalektu jednak naglasku u muškome rodu kao što je to u arhaičnome šćakavskom (ili slavonskom) i ijekavsko-ščakavskom (ili istočnobosanskom) i bar djelomično u novoštokavskome ikavskom dijalektu, dakle u svim dijalekttima zapadnoštokavskog podrijetla, a ujedno i u raznim čakavskim dijalektima. To ne može biti pojava čakavskoga supstrata, jer takve po jave ne preživljuju promjenu dijalekta, što znači da te promjene nije ni bilo, ali preživljuju strukturni inovacijski razvoj pa je u ženskome rodu, jer je tamo bilo uvjeta za to, provedena novoštokavizacija, strukturno ista kao u istočnohercegovačkome zaleđu, ali izvršena na različitoj podlozi pa je i rezultat nakon dokončanoga procesa ostao i dalje različit. Teza o čakavskome podrijetlu ne da se dakle braniti, i to ne zbog ne dostatka dokaza, nego zato što su dokazi protiv nje. No ona ima i još jednu slabu stranu. Kad bi bila istinita kao što nije, priznavala bi drugoj strani da je bar suvremeni dubrovački poddijalekt jednak govorima u zaleđu. Tada bi naime pretpostavljeno čakavsko podrijetlo bilo predstavljeno samo pojedinačnim reliktima, a suvremeni bi govor bio jednak novoštokavskim ijekavskim govorima istočnoštokavskoga podrijetla. Tako bi zastupnici suparničke teze dobili bar jednu zadovoljštinu — morali bi se doduše odreći prošlosti, ali današnjica bi im legitimno pripala. No iz svega iznesenoga vidi se da zastupnici istočnohercegovačke teze nemaju pravo ni na prošlost ni na sadašnjost, jer u prošlosti, dok su još prije velikih migracija i prije novoštokavskih procesa postojali istočnoštokavski i zapadnoštokavski dijalekti kao dvije posebne cjeline, dva narječja, dubrovački je dijalekt bio samostalan zapadnoštokavski dijalekt, a nakon spomenutih zbivanja, koja su značila općeštokavsku konvergenciju, približio se originalnim govorima današnjega novoštokavskog ijekavskog dijalekta, koji je onda već samim time (a i nekim drugim procesima), prestao biti sinkrono istočnoštokavski i postao naprosto štokavski. Suvremeni dubrovački poddijalekt ima veoma složenu dijalektnu fizionomiju. Konkretne su njezine značajke već odavno poznate, potrebno ih je samo na ispravan način objašnjavati. I to ne samo što se tiče njihova podrijetla i suvremene strukture u cjelini međudijalektnih odnosa nego i kada se radi o objašnjenju lingvističke prirode pojedinih isključivo dubrovačkih osobina. Jedna takva pojava bila je u dijalektološkoj literaturi netočno opisana pa je onda i netočno objašnjavana. Riječ je o naglascima u riječima tipa voda, sestra s jedne i dobrota s druge strane. Kako je ta pojava izvanredno složena i zamršena, neću se na njoj zadržavati, nego samo upućujem na priloge u kojima sam je obradio.6 Obrađivao sam je doduše na cavtatskome govoru, no u tom konkretnom slučaju između Cavtata i Grada nema razlike. Dapače, Cavtat je danas po govoru »dubrovačkiji« od samoga Dubrovnika. Budmani je god. 1883- pisao7 da su neke osobine dubrovačkoga govora u gradu poremećene (razlikovanje č i ć, Ij i/), ali da se u Cavtatu još drže posve dobro. Sto godina poslije, kada sam ja istraživao cavtatski govor, stanje ti Cavtatu posve je već odgovaralo Budmanijevoj slici iz Dubrovnika. Kakvo će stanje biti kada prođe sadanja zločinačka agresija na dubrovačkome području, nitko ne može još znati. Jer svi procesi koje je ona pokrenula, morat će imati nekakva odraza i na dijalekt. Srećom, on je već dovoljno opisan u svome pre-dokupacijskom stanju, počevši od klasičnoga Budmanijeva opisa pa sve do ranih osamdesetih godina našega stoljeća, kada se također pojavilo nekoliko radova što govore ili o samome dubrovačkom poddi-jalektu ili o njegovu mjestu u širem dijalektnom mozaiku.Mir Harven 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with politics. I totally agree that the inhabitants of Dubrovnik are Croats. I also agree that there are alswhere Croats speaking East-Herzegowinian. In the same way, Serbs in Zadar used to speak Craotian vernacular, and Serbs in Zagreb speak kajkavian. I'm just puting out linguistic fact, that East-Herzegowinian dialect (which is even today, and even by zou accepted as the base of Croatian standard language) is spoken as verneculars by the Croats there, where there used to be big Serbian influence.

No, as is said (I doubt you've read what I've written (or quoted)): standard Croatian is not based on the E-H dialect. In fact, it is not based on any particular dialect, but on the core Ragusan and Bosnian literatures from the 15th-18th centuries, which can be termed only as (neo)štokavian-jekavian. There never existed such a situation (except for the language-policing efforts of Tomo Maretić, who failed) where Croatian language would be made to conform the E-H dialect: the two-syllables pronunciation of yat, 2nd palatalization, folk forms "ko", "šta", "niko",..., numerous orientalisms, various rules of accentuation etc. Mir Harven 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't mean of course that Croatian standard language is Serbian. It's special language with own norms that is getting different through years. However, that does'nt change it's historical base. But we do not have even to write about that here. BUT PLEASE, DO NOT INSISTI ON THE WORD ORDER CROATIAN, BOSNIAN, SERBIAN, AS IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY SANCE. BOSNIAN IS ALPHABETICALLY FIRST, AND BY THE NUMBER OF NATIVE SPEAKERS SERBIAN IS FIRST BY FAR. I CHOSE FIRST OPTION, YOU MAY CHOOSE SECOND, BUT OPTION CROATIAN, BOSNIAN, SERBIAN HASN'T GOT ANY SANCE. Rather your opinion is political than mine. Best regards, --Luzzifer 14:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the order (it wasn't the issue, anyway). Mir Harven 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Personly, I think that you are wrong.

My opinion is of no importance here. What I've elaborated on (OK-just touched a bit) comprises language history parts of Croatian language textbooks, written by pre-eminent Croatian linguists like Brozovic, Katicic, Tafra, Samardžija or Dragica Malic. I suppose that as far as the Croatian language is concerned, it's their qualified opinion that counts.Mir Harven 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's apsurd to say that a literature is a base of standard language, cause standard is also (and primarly) SPOKEN.As far as I know, Croatian grammars always point accentuation, and not some accentuatuion, but the one that is only known to vernaculars of Piva i Drobnjak. It's look like a simple thing to disqalificate every person who says somthing not included in neocroatian language program. You made a nice example with Rešetar, and even more interesting is Daničić- in hvratski biografski leksikon he is one of grates Croats of all time... and in Hrvatska enciklopedija he is a minor Serb not important for language at all. Do you have any name for that.

On the contrary-literary works frequently engender a standard language. The best example is standard German, based on Luther's translation of the Bible- which, in its exact form, was not spoken anywhere in the world. It does have a dialectal basis in a fuzzy sense in speeches of Lower Saxony, but no local dialectal idiom has ever been equal to the standard German. In fact, it's good you addressed the issue here: this has been the major mistake of Croatian vukovians like Tomo Maretic who tried, following in the neo-grammarian footsteps, to equate a standard language with a vernacular dialect. He failed, but this dated view has been linguistically discarded only with the advent of structural & sociolinguistic analyses of Brozovic and Katicic, who followed standardological principles of the Prague school of Jakobson, Havranek and the rest. Also, Croatian accentuation does not follow the rules of speeches of Piva or Drobnjak, but has its roots mainly in neoštokavian-ikavian (not jekavian) idioms (after all, the 1st work that identified 4-accents speech was Šime Starcevic's grammar describing ikavian dialect of Lika). I repeat- has its roots, since no Croatian standard language textbook pays attention to any local speech. Dialects are for dialectology, standard language is for normative standardology. As far as Rešetar and/or Danicic are concerned- I'd rather leave politics out. They are distinguished philologists whose work is still valuable in numerous areas, but whose particular opinions on various language-related questions are dated & of historical importance only. In short: as far as historical dialectology, language identity/ies, historical grammar, the origin of standard language(s)..are concerned, they are obsolete and superseded.Mir Harven 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think also that 2 things are mixed in Croatian modern litaature. The language of Dubrovnik renessaince literature is often discussed. It rally has many/some Chakavian elements, mostly in poetry. Here we are talking about Dubrovnik VERNACULAR, as it's known in 19th and 20th century. I liked the text you quoted. But you should be aware, that if you try to proove that the language of Dubrovnik is not East-Herzegowinian, then there is no Croatian vernacular of East-Herzegowinian art at all. And that would mean that accentuation in Croatian Grammar is not Croatian.

The Dubrovnik vernacular was of minor importance during the Karadžic-Illyrian era, and during the 2nd half of the 19th century & 20th century of no importance whatsoever. The writers and philologists of the 1820s-1860s drew on literary and philological sources, not on any local speech- Ragusan included. The main sources were Andrija Kacic's works, Joakim Stulli's voluminous dictionary and numerous writers from Slavonia. The Ragusan is a štokavian-ijekavian dialect, but no E-H subdialect (after all, this is dialectologists's, not standardologists's field of work). As far as E-H is concerned, there are Croats who are indigenous speakers of this dialect (for instance Croats in Ravno, Konjic, Mostar, Sarajevo, ..), but they do not speak characteristically Ragusan dialect.Mir Harven 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I accept every different opinion even than when I think that it's not objectiv enough. Let's find a constructive solution. Let's put both opinions in neutral way, and underline that both opinions are discreditated on other site. Or let' just put that segment out. OK?

pozz, --82.117.194.34 18:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Croatian language is concerned, I think it's the Croatian linguists point of view that should have precedence. Of course, Serbian linguists's opinions could be mentioned, entirely, but with clear notice that this is the Serbian philologists's opinion on the Croatian language.Mir Harven 20:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's totally unimportant if they are Serbian or Croatian- Croatian and Serbian linguists are good as well- so there's no reason to think that opinion of Croatian linguists is better. Especially, I think that we should avoid to call all Croatian linguists that have another opinion "Serb" or "vukovac". Serbian standard language is neither equal to E.-H. dialect. Further than that it's based on two dialects- East-Herzegowinian (jekavian) and Sumadija-Vojvodina dialect (ekavian).

Dealing with standard language without dialectology is avoidng of problems. I don't want to judge Croatian standard language. That's not my intention at all. But, base of Italian is dialect of Toscana, French of Paris, Spanish of Madrid and sourranding cities, Serbian of Piva and Drobnjak and Kolubara-Belgrade. Neither of that vernaculars is equal to standard language, but they are BASE. Every standard must have it's roots. E.-W. was considered as a base of standard Croatian language up to 90s. Does it means that all Croatian Grammars, dictionaries etc. are false, does that mean that D. Brozovic does'nt speak correctly? It's apsurd to claim that ikavian dialects are base of Croatian standard. Where comes then jekavica from? Do you really believe that ije/je was taken from some apstract source, and accent from iakvian vernaculars?

pozz, --82.117.194.34 23:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A sto se Brozovica tice, je l' se naucni rad pise sa viserednim ekskursima o agresiji, ili da bi se doslo do rezultata nepovoljnog po "drugu stranu" (?):

Teza o čakavskome podrijetlu ne da se dakle braniti, i to ne zbog ne dostatka dokaza, nego zato što su dokazi protiv nje. No ona ima i još jednu slabu stranu. Kad bi bila istinita kao što nije, priznavala bi drugoj strani da je bar suvremeni dubrovački poddijalekt jednak govorima u zaleđu. Tada bi naime pretpostavljeno čakavsko podrijetlo bilo predstavljeno samo pojedinačnim reliktima, a suvremeni bi govor bio jednak novoštokavskim ijekavskim govorima istočnoštokavskoga podrijetla. Tako bi zastupnici suparničke teze dobili bar jednu zadovoljštinu — morali bi se doduše odreći prošlosti, ali današnjica bi im legitimno pripala.

On je dovoljno diskreditovao sebe time sto je do kasnih 80-ih insistirao da postoji jedan hrvatsko ili srpski jezik.

Could you provide me somehow the whole article of Brozovic? --82.117.194.34 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(Njegos was not a spekaer of E.-H. dialect, he only accpeted Vuk's way to write- you mix "istoriju pisane reči" with the base of standard (spoken and written) language whole the time)

I don't have the time (nor interest) to participate in increasingly politicized discussions. As far as standard Croatian is concerned, the majority opinion of the experts in the field, Croatian linguists, will be the central description. Serbian linguists's opinions on the Croatian, which are considered to be largely discredited in the contemporary Slavicist circles (Lyudmila Vasilyeva, Leopold Auburger, Gerhard Newelkowsky, Joanna Rapacka, Thomas Magner, Elisabeth Erdmann-Pandžić, Paul Gardet,...), could be expounded along the majority Croatian opinion. I think this closes this discussion which has become a no-end road. Mir Harven 08:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Only political matter in this discussion is your opinion on CROATIAN linguists who disagree with neocroatian linguistic points.

I thought I would not have to add anything to what I've already said, but, it looks like the "argumentation" has taken a national-political turn -something which has to be addressed, at least for the benefit of an inquisitive uninformed outsider. Here we can see claims dominant in the Serbian cultural milieu; claims that are simply not true.

There are no "neocroatian linguistic points" (a phrase which is, in effect, a sort of calumny, not corroborated by any facts). This contention implies that authoritative Croatian linguists are, so to speak, motivated by nationalist fervor & that they experienced a "change of heart" during the 1990s (the Croatian war for independence period)-ie., their current claims are not scientific, but just examples of nationalist propaganda. This goes for all pre-eminent Croatian linguists. And-this can be easily refuted:

1. Dalibor Brozović's central work on Croatian language standardization is "Hrvatski jezik, njegovo mjesto unutar južnoslavenskih i drugih slavenskih jezika, njegove povijesne mijene kao jezika hrvatske književnosti", published 1978. Brozović has not retracted some of its more controversial claims-for instance, he thinks that Croatian standard begins in the 1750s, while numerous other linguists consider it has begun in the 1500s.

2. Radoslav Katičić is of the similar opinion, which is expressed in his compilation "Novi jezikoslovni ogledi", published in 1986.

3. Stjepan Babić has criticized Brozović's earlier work on standard languages ("Standardni jezik", 1971.) and voiced an opinion that a) it is wrong to consider Croatian and Serbian to be one standard language (as Brozović did in 1971.), b) Croatian standard begins in the 15th-16th century. This work ("Lingvističko određenje hrvatskoga književnog jezika") was published in the philological publication "Jezik", back in 1971.

Of course, it would be ridiculous to deny that some (or- a non-negligible part of) Croatian linguists had, during the 1960-1990 period written on one, Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian standard language. But, as is evident from their major works, they did it as a tactical manoeuvre in the climate of Tito's "soft" totalitarianism where insistence on the autonomy & identity of the Croatian language was, to put it midly- "undesirable". Anyone who wishes to get a more nuanced info on the subject can see the following texts: a huge PDF (243 pages, 3.4 Mb): FOLIA CROATICO-CANADIANA http://www.hic.hr/hrvatski/izdavalastvo/FOLIA.pdf , and a more recent text in German, http://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/sprachvariation/fgvaria/magisterarbeit_grcevic.pdf Mir Harven 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This site is on shtokavian dialects, not on Croatian standard language. Neither of Serbian. But it's fair if you mantion standard languages to explain thair base.

This has been addressed in previous text. If you didn't get it by now...Mir Harven 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You gave me no answer on my question where jekavica comes from in Croatian stnadard if some constitutional marks are based in ikavian dialects. Brozovic's article shows only- by manner and style and contest (supppose that taht's the raeason you left it in Croatian)- that he is indoctrinated. Now, to be honest, old typed accentuatuon od adjectiva in Dubrovnik, shows only that it's East-Herzegowinian dialect who still has some old futures that disappeared in most progressivwe vernacuilars of Piva nad Drobnjak. As Brozovic said, it's also a future of other Shtokavian dialects, and it's even a accentuatuion in old Belgrade vernacular. You also gave me no answer on my conparation with other languages. And, just to add somethinng, nobody speaks like Luther, because Luther lived 500 years ago. Differences between German base and standard are exactly on same level as of Serbian base nad Serbian standard.

Again, this has either nothing to do with the issue debated, or has been addressed already. Mir Harven 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are very aware that Pavle Ivić is worldwide gratest dialectologist of 20th century. But I don't wan tto discuss with names. I prefer arguments. It's obvious that you are not prepared to make compromises. That's why I think it's best to leave part on shtokavian as a base of any standard language out. --82.117.194.34 11:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there ever was "the greatest dialectologist of the 20th century". As for Pavle Ivić, I'm aware he was a great dialectologist (and not only this), but a poor standardologist & not equipped to deal with the issues like language standarization, general linguistics and literary history (Croatian literary history). He misused his unquestionable authority as a dialectologist in promotion of Greater Serbian cause, which erored his credibilty even in the area he had earned respect in. But- this is politics, and I really want to get out of this fruitless debate.

Mir Harven 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Your rhetoric skills are solid. But you haven't answerd any of my questions. You may write ofcourse that my discurs is political. Why don't we let readers of this discussion to judgde? You now very well what I'm talking about. For somebody from Germany, France or England is unthikable that eminent professors write articles like old good Brozovic, not to mention newer Croatian lingusts. The quatation system of Wikipedia was made for objective science as it exists in developed country. However, it's very vunerable, since in Croatia eminent publishers publish books with undisputed nationalistic and political contest. It's always easy to say something like my discurs is not political, I'm ending discussion. It's also easy to say, tahat standard language means in Croatia something different as in whole world. But please, than be aware that you use same expression for two things, and it's would be anfair to use common expression in not so common meaning. You was ready to discuss up to point you left with out answers on my questiones. --82.117.194.34 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To sum the whole issue up for the bystanders:

1. the anon debatee claims that the Croatian standard language is based on the Eastern-Herzegovinian dialect-a dialect spoken mainly by Serbs, but also by Montenegrins, Bosniaks and Croats

2. Croatian linguists have ascertained that: a) the E-H tag was coined in the 1950s by Serbian linguist Pavle Ivić, mainly for promotion of Serb ethno-territorial claims, b) this dialect evolved form the eastern-štokavian speeches existing in the 1200s-1400s period, while the Dubrovnik/Ragusan dialect evolved from the western-štokavian speeches, c) the Ragusan speech is neoštokavian-jekavian, as is the Eastern-Herzegovinian, but-neoštokavian-jekavian cannot be reduced to the E-H dialect, ie. both the E-H and the Ragusan/Dubrovnik are neoštokavian-jekavian (to various degrees, since there are cca. 20 characteristics of a dialect). In short: neoštokavian-jekavian is a more comprehensive term than Eastern-Herzegovinian, since it contains speeches and idioms which do not belong to the E-H dialect.

3. this much for historical & contemporary dialctology. As far as the language physionomy goes, the Ragusan and Bosnian literatures from the 15th to the 18th century, whic served as models for the final Croatian language standardization in the 19th century, had been written in mixed idioms: both štokavian and chakavian, both ijekavian and ikavian (as regards the yat reflexes). The classic Ragusan literary figures (Džore Držić, Marin Držić, Bartol Kašić, Jakov Mikalja, Ivan Gundulić)-all wrote in variously mixed idioms, in many traits not neoštokavian but old-štokavian, and not reflecting the characteristics of E-H dialect, except for the yat reflex (which is, by the way, present also in Eastern-Bosnian dialect Matija Divković wrote in).

4. Croatian language standard from the mid-19th century is, thus, a synthetic language vaguely based on the neoštokavian-jekavian of the Ragusan/Dubrovnik variety, but rejecting its numerous traits (for instance, forms like "mlados", "rados",..or ikavian forms in the "pre" prefix-predgovor, not pridgovor (foreword), as well as various accentuation rules). This goes even further for the Eastern-Herzegovinian dialect, which has not entered, through its characteristics that diverge from general štokavian traits, in the prescription norm of the Croatian standard). Contemporary Croatian is simply a standard language which has long since left its roots in the Ragusan idiom, various Dalmatian, Bosnian and Slavonian literary and philological works, and exists as any other standard language. Now- I know it's unfair to compare a standard and a dialect, but, if someone would like to go along this way, it is easy to ascertain that specifically E-H traits (accentuation, the 2nd palatalization, two syllables yat pronunciation, lexical corpus, numerous syntactical features,...semantics and pragmatics are simply too removed to be addressed) are not present in the Croatian standard.

5. the insistence on the E-H dialect as the basis of the Croatian standard has, IMO, at least 3 reasons .a) it reflects Serbian language policy which has not come to terms with, for them an unpleasant fact, that Croatian vernacular štokavian literature had been in existence for 3 centuries before their language reformer, Vuk Karadžić, has appeared. Karadžić drew heavily from Croatian sources, and there is a sort of unease in the idea that contemporary standard Serbian is not some rural Serbian speech codified by Vuk (an old dogma), but essentially Serbified Croatian literary idiom. As the Croatian linguist Kačić put it somewhat brusquely and one-sidedly: Vuk Karadžić took a Croatian literary idiom and forced it upon Serbian public as the Serbian standard language. Similar stance, but more nuanced, is present in the text of linguist Ivo Pranjković: http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/135/tekstovi/08.htm Ilustrirajući svoju tezu da su na ujedinjenju više insistirali Hrvati nego Srbi spomenuo sam u svom tekstu i činjenicu da su Hrvati imali cijelu jednu jezikoslovnu školu pod nazivom hrvatski vukovci kojoj je u osnovi bila potpuna vjernost jezičnim i pravopisnim nazorima Vuka Karadžića, a da Srbi ne samo da nisu imali ništa sličnoga nego ni neke od temeljnih Karadžićevih zahtjeva nisu nikada prihvatili (npr. ijekavicu). Sada Ćorić tvrdi kako se iz toga »može jedino zaključiti da su Hrvati svojom upornošću postigli to da im Vuk Karadžić ustupi svoj model književnog jezika«. Da! Moglo bi se tako nešto zaključiti, pogotovo sa stajališta vukovaca, s tim da je Karadžićev model model hrvatskoga, a ne model srpskoga književnog (standardnog) jezika. Karadžić se naime gotovo u cijelosti oslonio na postojeću hrvatsku štokavsku standardnojezičnu tradiciju i u njegovu modelu vrlo je malo ičega što nije (bilo) dijelom te tradicije. (translation possible, but not necessary). b) Serbian linguistic culture is characterized by a sudden break with the past- something not very usual in the languages history. Vuk Karadžić, the man who accomplished this, insisted on the "pure vernacular" and rejected literary innovations and interventions in the language structure. But, historians have dispelled the myth on Karadžić as a codifier of his local area speech & proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that his language model was based on Croatian literary and philological heritage (Joakim Stulli, Ivan Belostenec, Jakov Mikalja,..)-which he reshaped, in not a few traits, to conform more closely to the his native eastern-Herzegovinian dialect (especially in accentuation and the yat pronunciation, as well as lexis). Croatian situation, with the continuous growth of a language culture is completely foreign to the Serbian cultural milieu. Croatian: literature in mixed dialectal idioms, preference for neo-logisms and linguistic purism, more "organic" growth of a standard language; Serbian-impostion of a Karadžić language model (until then a foreign and strange speech), insistence that this model is just a codification of local rural speeches (Serbian, that is), discontinuity with the past.

This is, I guess, all. I could quote further on Pavle Ivić's blunders and his association with Radovan Karadžić, whom he provided with dialectological maps as a blueprint for ethnic-cleansing-but, I'm not particulary interested in unmasking business. As far as the growth of the Croatian standard, I think this is more than enough. Mir Harven 10:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

O please, this is discusting. You are not even able to make a normal start. My questions are still unanswered. The language Vuk promoted is Serbian vernacular changed for modern world. Nobody can deny similiraties to Croatian, that's why Serbian and Croatina were considered to be one language for so long. Once again, when you learn not to start any discussion with these are Serbs, these are Croats, that's why first are helping World criminals, second are sints, when you learn to respect other opinions and be critival to your own, and finaly start bringing arguments- not rhetorical pseudoanswers with changing the usual meaning of every linguist term, you're gone be able to make point.

Until then, I'm must do rv. Best regars, --82.117.194.34 23:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What an unsupported empty talk. OK- where are arguments of this anon "debatee" ? His links ? His description of Serbian and Croatian literary and standard languages history ? His effort to refute what has been said on the growth of the Croatian standard & nascence of the neo-štokavian-jekavian dialect ? Nothing, just a political propaganda without a single argument. As i said-reverts, until this user's behavior is brought under broader scrutiny. IMO, it amounts to vandalism. Mir Harven 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all 82.117.194.34|82.117.194.34 = Luzzifer. It's a pitty to hear that scientific debate in Croatia nowday is still based on ethnic afiliation of "scienitst". I cannot even imagine how much a man must deviant to write or spread such a lie on Pavle Ivic: "This is, I guess, all. I could quote further on Pavle Ivić's blunders and his association with Radovan Karadžić, whom he provided with dialectological maps as a blueprint for ethnic-cleansing-but." Let me leave by side the human qualities of Ivic. Why would Radovan Karadzic need that map at all, when there was (unfortunately) far more ptecize ethnic map fom 1991 cenzus, and, as you probably know every older citizen in Bosnia knows exactly the ethnic distribution of his region? But even if you were right, what has that got to do with Ivic's scientific work?

But back to science. You are unfortunatelly mixing up three thigs: literal tradicy on one side, and literal and standard language on other side. Now, nobody denies very long Croatian literal traducy, but that's not literal languag (knjizevni jezik) in it's common meaning- a standard langiage in times when literal communicitation was the only one (no TV, telephon etc.). But in one point you are write, some standard languages are really based on literal tradicy. I think that it's cannot be said for Croatian. But even in those cases, even for example slavjanoseprski that was "literal" par exellance, even in this cases you may say it's got elements of Russian, Church-Slavonic and Serbian. That has nothing to do with standardization but with language history. Standard language has it's history too. In very same way, you must search for Croatian base. There is no one base of Croatian standrad language, and so far we agree, but base cannot be poor literal tradition (never). The gramatical base of Croatian standard language was since 1850s East-Herzegowinian dialect. Now, I don't sea where is the problem with that by Ivic introduced and by almost all others excepted name (East-H.). Ivic wrote the first Dilaectology in 50s. In West Herzogowina ikavian dialect is spoken, and, in older literature where we find expression "Herzegowinian" it's always a name for vernaculares which Ivic more precizely named as East-Herzegowinian. I really cannot repeat my questions on accents, history of accents, Dubrovnik vernacular, jat... Your citations have nothing to do with my questions, that demand arguments. Of course, that it's up to you to point your (I think discradated) sources, because I'm talking things that were and are for 150 excepted in domestic and foreign literature. P.S. Are you really unable to see, that your informations are all part of of political propaganda?

--Luzzifer 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collateral damage

I urge the reverters to take care not to make colateral damage when reverting; in one version, some technical and POV stuff is fixed. (I'm not sure what's up with sjedjeti, but it certainly seems that the original is sĕdĕti with different reflexes on both syllables; also, "Bosnian can be seen as hybrid" is fairly offensive, as it implies that it's kind of pidgin rather than naturally evolved dialect in a dialect continuum; Montenegrins should be at least mentioned).

I fail to see the big deal in this revert war. Finally, I left in "Mir's" version on the paragraph on standard Croatian, but I'd really like to see a source. I also fail to see what quality to the article is provided by Ivic's citation on ethnic Serbian affiliation of Neo-štokavian speakers. First, it's taken out of context; second, it certainly is a weasel way to put a fallacious argument (Neo-štokavian is basis of Croatian + Most neo-štokavian speakers are Serbs → Croatian is Serbian). Both standard languages nowadays present a mixture of vernacular dialectal bases (especially in accentuation), modern vocabulary (be it loanwords or neologisms, and orthography changed in the way, and in turn influenced the original dialects to the point of unrecognition (personally, I consider dialectal maps hopelessly outdated to be worth serious consideration in the context of modern situation). Things aren't that simple, and I urge you not to simplify them artificially. Duja 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but due to many personal problems that have accrued since my last post, I can reply (sort of) only now- and rather sparsely, because more pressing issues hold sway over me. I'll address a few points you made.

1. the equation of the E-H and neoštokavian-jekavian is a necessary part of the political-linguistical squabbles between Croats and Serbs-or, more precisely, pan-Serbian ideology which denies the "authenticity" of Croatian language as a symbol of national identity. The other is indisputed prevalence of Serbs as the native speakers of the E-H dialect: I think it's ca. 50-60%, the rest being Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks and Croats (and Montenegrins, of course). Now, it may seem ridiculous to equate a standard language and a dialect, ethically "mark" a dialect, and then try to draw far-reaching political & national conclusions from this ideologized scheme. But- this happens, as will be shown later.

2. . As for Pavle Ivić, the user Luzz.... mentioned him as the definite authority in dialectology whose claims re the Ragusan & E-H dialect have the status of the final verdict. One source of my info on Ivić's role in ex-Yu wars is the following: Croatian philological journal «Jezik», year 47., number 1., Zagreb, October 1999. The article is Mario Grčević's «Ponovno o «istočnohercegovačkoj štokavštini» i kroatističkim stranputicama», pg. 18-32. Here we read: «...Poznato je da je Ivić u mnogim stručnim pitanjima koja se odnose na hrvatski (književni) jezik, desetljećima zastupao stajališta s unitarističkom17 i određenom velikosrpskom odrednicom. On je bio sudionik mnogih polemika, npr. sa S. Babićem (60-ih godina), J. Hammom (70-ih godina), D. Ragužem i R. Katičićem (80-ih godina), zastupajući vrlo često upravo ono što mu je omogućavalo omaložavati i/ili nijekati hrvatski književni jezik, njegovu povijest, a i hrvatski narod. O takvim Ivićevim težnjama mogla bi se napisati odeblja knjiga. Početkom ovoga desetljeća P. Ivić istaknuo se otvorenim javnim nastupima s ratnohuskačkim sadržajima. D. Brozović se na njih osvrnuo 1991. godine u članku »Otvaraju se nove fronte:historiografska, filološka, etnografska... (Odgovor dru Pa vlu Iviću)«,18 a o onima R. Marojevića govorio je 1992. u članku »Sumrak srpske lingvistike«.19 Da je kritika Ivićevih izjava bila potpuno opravdana i potrebna, postalo je još jasnije u onome trenutku kada je Ivić pred sam osvit etničkoga čišćenja u Bosni i Hercegovini sudjelovao u uručenju etničkih zemljovida BiH Radovanu Karadžiću, koji je ondje provodio i vodio etničko čišćenje. O tim zemljovidima i o povezanosti srpskoga jezikoslovlja sa srpskim ratnim ciljevima pisala je E. v. Erdmann-Pandžić.20 O. Kronsteiner u širem surječju rekao je i sljedeće: »Ludost političke instrumentalizacije fonemskih izoglosa došla je do izražaja u ratu Jugoslavenske narodne armije (JNA) protiv Hrvata, gdje se je pucalo na temelju dijalekatnih zemljovida jednoga srpskoga dijalektologa.«21 /U izvorniku: »Der Irrsinn politischer Instrumentalisierung phonetischer Isoglossen hat sich im Krieg der Jugoslawischen Volksarmee (JNA) gegen die Kroaten gezeigt, wo aufgrund von Dialektkarten eines serbischen Dialektologen geschossen wurde.«, O. Kronsteiner, »Sprachgeschichte, politische Geschichte und ihre Ideologien«, Die slawischen Sprachen, 56., 1998., str. 5.-15.; str 8.-9.

Now, I don't pretend to know all the nuances of the debate, but, IMO, to invoke Ivić as the final authority & scientist with impeccable professional integrity (as opposed to the Croatian linguists like Brozović) re dialectological-national disputes is simply absurd. It was Ivić who, in his «Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika», NS, 1956., coined the term «istočno-hercegovački»/Eastern-Herzegovinian and later promoted this geographical term as the cover concept which should encompass all neoštokavian-jekavian dialects, idioms and speeches, and subsequently tried to attribute «dialectological Serbdom» to the thusly defined neoštokavian-jekavian native speakers. Speaking in terms of denominational affiliation, for him all Orthodox Christians who speak neoštokavian-jekavian are Serbs, and Muslims and Catholic Christians are amorphous mass of former ethnic Serbs who temporarily lost their national identity due to the religious conversion. All I want to say- he was as deeply embroiled in ex-Yu national conflicts as any Croatian linguist and cannot be considered an impartial authority in the field.

And, to avoid the impression of Ivić being a target of a group of Croatian linguists sometimes labeled as "nationalists" & Ivić's co-generationists (born 1920s-1930s) (Dalibor Brozović, Radoslav Katičić, Stjepan Babić), I'll quote Ivo Pranjković, considered to be a moderate re ethnic/national linguistic issues (or spineless, from another POV). http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik3.html "AFERIM, PROFESORE IVIĆU! S dosta sam zakašnjenja došao u više negoli mučnu prigodu pročitati Vaš intervju (Intervju, 3. 8. 1991) pod vrlo “učenim” naslovom - “Hrvatska će izgubiti rat”...etc." So, the title of the 1991. Ivić's interview ("Croatia will lose the war") speaks for itself (as does the content) on this linguist's political position & reliability with regard to the discussed controversies.

3. As far as dialectological attributions are concerned, it is pretty obvious that description of various dialects & speeches can be scientifically dispassionate- but not necessarily classification and catalogization. One example would suffice. For those not conversant with Serbian, authors of this Serbian lexicon published in the 1970s have correctly enumerated properties of the Ragusan/Dubrovnik speech, shown differences between it and the Eastern-Herzegovinian (here called simply "Herzegovinian") dialect-and concluded that the Ragusan speech is nevertheless a part of Herzegovinian-type speeches. They could have said that both Ragusan and "Herzegovinian" speches are examples of neoštokavian-jekavian dialect- a conclusion that would have fitted the description of the situation more exactly. Here we go: «DUBROVAČKI GOVOR, jekavski govor novoštokavskog tipa kojim se govori u Dubrovniku i okolini. Mada je srž ovoga govora hercegovačkog tipa, s obzirom na položaj Dubrovnika i njegov značaj u istoriji naših naroda, razumljivo je što u ovom govoru ima podosta i neslaganja sa govorom njegovog hercegovačkog zaleđa. Refleksi jata u dubrovačkom -govoru nisu klasični. Obična je jednosložna zamena -je, -ie i u današnjim dugim slogovima, naročito onim uzlazne intonacije: diete, ali vijek. U finalnoj poziciji je dvosložna zamena: dvije, smije. Jotovanja vezana za reflekse jata nisu vršena onako dosledno kao u hercegovačkim govorima njegovog zaleđa. Izmena sonanata n i l tu je skoro dosledna: ljeti, njegovati, ali su zato neizmenjene skupine dje, tje u djevojka, tjerati, a tu i nema izmene ostalih suglasnika koji su podložni ovom jotovanju u hercegovačkim govorima dubrovačkog zaleđa. Dakle, tu je: sjednica, izjelica, cjepalo, pjesma, vjera, bježati, mjera. Ovaj momenat, postojanje u Dubrovniku primera tipa djeca, tjerati, imao je ogromnog značaja i za uvođenje tih fonetskih likova i u književni jezik. Dubrovački vokalizam zna i za promene artikulacije, obično zatvorenije varijante vokalskih fonema: majka, hra"mm; fonema h još čini sastavni deo glagolskog sistema ovoga govora: Postojanje i izgovor foneme f. Bilabijalni nazal m u finalnoj poziciji gubi karakter bilabijalnosti kao što je to slučaj u čakavskim govorima : otuda gledan, rukon, znan, ali Rim, Hum jer je tu m podržano njegovim prisustvom u zavisnim padežima tih toponima. Bliskost čakavskog dijalekta i tešnje veze sa čakavcima ostrva ostavile su traga i u nekim drugim fonetskim osobinama dubrovačkog govora i na dubrovačkoj fonetici : čk-šk: maška, krv, crkva, uje. I u akcentuaciji ima specifičnosti: pojava kanovačkog duljenja (v. Kanovački govori) jezik, tima, čak i pojava vruSna m. vrućina. U morfologiji d. g. pokazuje više arhaičnosti nego bilo koji govor Hercegovine: ribam, ribami,rukom, rukami, a i dubrovačka leksika je znatno više natrunjena romanizmima nego bilo koji drugi govor hercegovačkog tipa. Ipak, dubrovački govor ne može se izdvojiti iz hercegovačkih ijekavskih govora, iako mu tu pripada posebno mesto-i istorijski, i danas.(«Srpskohrvatski jezik, Interpres, Bg, 1972., str. 77) Bolded conclusion is not corroborated by the text itself. So much for the Ragusan dialect attribution controversy.

• I tend to agree with Duja on most of the above. In particular, deletion of Montenegrins as an ethnic group and categorising people by their religion(sic) instead of their ethnicity belongs to some bygone era, I hope. Momisan 02:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again the same. Nobody denies Croatian standard language! It's an european SLavic language. There are also many pure Croatian vernaculars- chakavian, kajkavian and shtokavian. But the base of Croatian stnadard language is East-Herzegowinian dialect. But since one user explaind me, that is it's not E.-H. but a mixture of ikawian accentuation, with jekavian chakavian-shtokawian I'm fine. --82.117.194.34 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said: It's a pitty to hear that scientific debate in Croatia nowday is still based on ethnic afiliation of "scienitst". I cannot even imagine how much a man must deviant to write or spread such a lie on Pavle Ivic: "This is, I guess, all. I could quote further on Pavle Ivić's blunders and his association with Radovan Karadžić, whom he provided with dialectological maps as a blueprint for ethnic-cleansing-but." Let me leave by side the human qualities of Ivic. Why would Radovan Karadzic need that map at all, when there was (unfortunately) far more ptecize ethnic map fom 1991 cenzus, and, as you probably know every older citizen in Bosnia knows exactly the ethnic distribution of his region? But even if you were right, what has that got to do with Ivic's scientific work?

But back to science. You are unfortunatelly mixing up three thigs: literal tradicy on one side, and literal and standard language on other side. Now, nobody denies very long Croatian literal traducy, but that's not literal languag (knjizevni jezik) in it's common meaning- a standard langiage in times when literal communicitation was the only one (no TV, telephon etc.). But in one point you are write, some standard languages are really based on literal tradicy. I think that it's cannot be said for Croatian. But even in those cases, even for example slavjanoseprski that was "literal" par exellance, even in this cases you may say it's got elements of Russian, Church-Slavonic and Serbian. That has nothing to do with standardization but with language history. Standard language has it's history too. In very same way, you must search for Croatian base. There is no one base of Croatian standrad language, and so far we agree, but base cannot be poor literal tradition (never). The gramatical base of Croatian standard language was since 1850s East-Herzegowinian dialect. Now, I don't sea where is the problem with that by Ivic introduced and by almost all others excepted name (East-H.). Ivic wrote the first Dilaectology in 50s. In West Herzogowina ikavian dialect is spoken, and, in older literature where we find expression "Herzegowinian" it's always a name for vernaculares which Ivic more precizely named as East-Herzegowinian. I really cannot repeat my questions on accents, history of accents, Dubrovnik vernacular, jat... Your citations have nothing to do with my questions, that demand arguments. Of course, that it's up to you to point your (I think discradated) sources, because I'm talking things that were and are for 150 excepted in domestic and foreign literature. P.S. Are you really unable to see, that your informations are all part of of political propaganda?

--Luzzifer 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like Ivić deserves more

I've consulted a few sources & will post some citations and links (apart from the already mentioned) to describe Ivić's linguistic-national activity/propaganda. I cannot (and won't bother to) quote all sources, but will give a quotes from Ivić and his opponents, as well as literature where these debates can be found.

Literature

Babić, S. 1999/0: O dijalektalnoj podlozi hrvatskoga književnog jezika, Jezik, 47, 2, 1999/2000, Zagreb

Brborić, B. 2000: O jezičkom raskolu, Heleta, 2000, Beograd

Brborić, B. 2001: S jezika na jezik, Prometej, 2001, Beograd

Brozović, D. 1991: Otvaraju se nove fronte: historiografska, filološka, etnografska...(Odgovor dru Pavlu Iviću), Kolo 3: 85-112, 1991, Zagreb

Ivić, P. 1986: Nauci trebaju činjenica, a ne emocije, Jezik, 33., 3., 1986., Zagreb

Ivić, P. 1987: Radi se ipak o nečem drugom, Jezik, 34., 3., 1987., Zagreb

Ivić, P. 1990: O jeziku nekadašnjem i sadašnjem, BIGZ-Jedinstvo, 1990, Beograd

Katičić, R. 1986: O čem se zapravo radi, Jezik, 33., 4., 1986., Zagreb

Katičić, R. 1987: Radi se baš o tome, Jezik, 34., 4., 1987., Zagreb

Pranjković, Ivo 1997: Jezikoslovna sporenja, Konzor Zagreb, 1997

Raguž, D. 1987: Činjenicama bi trebalo nauke, Jezik, 34., 4., 1987., Zagreb

Tafra, B. 1993: Gramatika u Hrvata i Vjekoslav Babukić, MH, 1993, Zagreb

Tafra, B. 1995: Jezikoslovna razdvojba, MH, 1995, Zagreb

So, the real theme is the interpretation of history, ie. Ivić's, Katičić's etc. evaluation of štokavian vernacular literacy in the 15-18th centuries, assessment of the Illyrian movement & the status of Vuk Karadžić, as well as Karadžić's sources and the way of Serbian language profilation, concluding with the role of so-called Croatian Vukovians (Pero Budmani, Tomo Maretić, Ivan Broz,..). It's about interpretation of languages history.

[edit] Štokavian vernacular literacy and literature

Predrag Piper, http://www.rastko.org.yu/filologija/ppiper-slavistika_c.html

Дубровачка књижевност развија се од прве половине XV века, о чему сведоче најстарији сачувани уметнички стихови, забележени ћирилицом, између 1421. и 1430. године. Прави почетак дубровачке књижевности припада другој половини XV века, када се јављају два истакнута песника - Шишко Менчетић и Џоре Држић. У средњовековном Дубровнику, граду републици, старије, романско становништво чинило је мањину, која је временом сасвим асимилована, а словенско становништво - већину. У непосредној близини Дубровника постојала су два наречја: штокавско, српско, у залеђу Дубровника и у самом граду, и чакавско, хрватско. Дубровачка књижевност је стварана на штокавском наречју. Национална припадност Дубровчана обично је подређивана чињеници да су они били грађани исте републике. Зато је и дубровачка књижевност настала и развијала се не као српска и/или хрватска већ пре свега као дубровачка.

Predrag Piper[1]: Uvod u slavistiku 1, Beograd, 2000

Vuk Karadžić [2]

No Rječnik Serbskij mora (sad za pervij krat) predstaviti Serblem n'iov sobstveni ezik-najsvetiju narodnost-onako kakav on sam po sebi est. On mora iz samog' naroda, koi n'im govori, počerpan biti. Ja sam takovij Rječnik preduzeo, i već skupio. On će pomenutim' potrebama udovletvoriti. Soderžavaće sve Serbske rječi, koe se nalaze u Rječnicima: Kurcbekovom (koi e samo imenom Serbskij), Dellabelli, Belostencu, Jambrešiću, Stulliju, Hajmu; i maće jošt' ednu tretinu pravih Srbskih rječi, koe se ni u ednome, ot rečenih Rječnika, ne nalaze.

(Vuk Karadžić: Objavlenije o Serbskome Rječniku, 1814.)

Srbi [s pisanjem na narodnom jeziku] nisu uranili prije druge polovine osamnaestoga vijeka dok su braća zakona Rimskoga, osobito Dubrovčani i Dalmatinci, pisali u šesnaestome vijeku sve u jek !...[Dositej Obradović je] mogao slobodno kazati da se ugledamo na braću svoju zakona Rimskoga....[čiji jezik] i mi danas možemo uzeti za ugled...[Može se reći] da je u ostalijem Slavenskijem naroda teško bilo naći spisatelja onoga vremena koji bi se s njima mogli usporediti....slobodno [se] može reći da su starija djela braće naše zakona Rimskoga za naše današnje spisatelje veće skrovište i čistiji izvor od našijeh današnjijeh crkvenih knjiga.

(Vuk Karadžić: Gramatički i polemički spisi V.S. Karadžića, knjiga 3., Beograd, 1896., str. 261.)

Pavle Ivić[3], http://www.rastko.org.yu/isk/isk_04.html ..........

Za Karadžićev dalji životni put odlučan je bio susret s velikim bečkim slavistom, Slovencem Jernejem Kopitarom, ponesenim romantičarskim oduševljenjem za autentični narodni duh, otelovljen u čistom narodnom jeziku i u folkloru. Po Kopitarovom nagovoru Karadžić je pristupio objavljivanju narodnih umotvorina i obradi jezičkog materijala. Njegov Srpski rječnik s gramatikom iz 1818. udario je temelj novom tipu književnog jezika, čije je polazište seljački govor, a ne gradski. U svojim kasnijim radovima Karadžić je odredio nov stav prema crkvenoslovenskom jezičkom nasleđu. Ono se smelo zadržati samo u najnužnijoj meri, i to striktno prilagođeno glasovnoj i obličkoj strukturi srpskog jezika.........I dijalekat kojim je Karadžić pisao izazvao je oštra reagovanja. U dotadašnjoj književnosti dominirao je ekavski novoštokavski dijalekat severoistočnih krajeva, u kojima su se nalazila najvažnija kulturna, politička i privredna središta onovremenog Srpstva: cela Vojvodina i najveći deo dotad oslobođene Srbije, dok je Karadžić pisao svojim rodnim ijekavskim govorom, raširenim u zapadnoj Srbiji, u Bosni i Hercegovini, u Crnoj Gori i među Srbima u Hrvatskoj, Slavoniji i Dalmaciji............Tako su stvorene i do danas koegzistiraju dve verzije srpskoga književnog jezika, što se pokazivalo kao izvor problema, kulturnih i političkih. Deo tih problema proizašao je iz činjenice da su Hrvati u 19. veku prihvatili, doduše postepeno, u etapama, Karadžićev ijekavski govor kao temelj svoga književnog jezika, iako je tim idiomom govorio veoma mali deo Hrvata. Ovim potezom postignuto je književnojezičko ujedinjenje Hrvata, koji su se dotada služili regionalnim književnim jezicima. Ujedno je omogućeno da hrvatsko nacionalno opredeljenje prodre u predele koji su dotad imali samo regionalnu svest, a po jeziku su bili neuporedivo bliži Karadžićevom srpskom govoru nego hrvatskom kajkavskom narečju, koje je do 30-ih godina 19. veka imalo status književnog jezika u Zagrebu.

Ovakva hrvatska jezička politika, često praćena izjavama o jezičkom, pa i etničkom jedinstvu Hrvata i Srba, stvorila je novu konstelaciju u srpskohrvatskom jezičkom prostoru: ijekavska verzija karadžićevskog književnog jezika učvrstila se krajem 19. stoleća kod Hrvata, zahvativši i pre toga bosanskohercegovačke muslimane i Srbe u zapadnim krajevima, uključujući tu i Crnu Goru, smeštenu na jugozapadu, a ekavska verzija u Srbiji s Vojvodinom, koja je do 1918. ulazila u sastav Ugarske.

Nataša Bašić[4]

I srpska će i hrvatska lingvistika zacijelo morati revidirati neke uvriježene stavove u prosudbi uloge i značenja Vuka Stef .Karadžića u standardizaciji srpskoga i hrvatskoga jezika, kao i u politizaciji jezika u prošlome stoljeću. Ta su dva procesa međusobno uvjetovana i isprepletena u Karadžićevoj osobi tako i toliko da je teško reći kad je Karadžić jezikoslovac a kada političar.

On je, u prvoj fazi, reformu srpskoga književnog jezika temeljio na idiomu kakvim 'prosti narod govori'. Takav ga je pristup nužno vodio u sinkroniju i odbacivanje srpske književne baštine, jer je držao da je u njoj srpski jezik popravljanjem kvaren i nagrđivan. Za osnovicu književnoga jezika nudio je 1818. (i)jekavski govor rodnoga kraja, obilježen uskodijalektnim crtama i bez književne tradicije u Srba, pa je naišao na otpor srbijanskih i vojvođanskih učenih ljudi. Sukob se nije zasnivao na tome da li uvesti narodni jezik u književnost (on je u njoj postojao već prije Karadžića) nego u tome koja će mu biti dijalektna osnovica: (i)jekavska ili ekavska. U sljedećoj fazi dopuštao je supostojanje obaju dijalekata u funkciji književnih jezika uz uvjet da se ne miješaju. Približavajući se od sredine tridesetih godina hrvatskome jezičnom modelu, ali pod srpskim imenom, on se definitivno odlučuje za (i)jekavsku osnovicu, oslobađa jezik onih dijalektnih crta (novoštokavskoga podrijetla) što su ga previše odvajale od ostalih štokavskih govora, uvodi dio staroštokavskih osobina i upućuje na hrvatske pisce kao izvor za obogaćivanje leksičkoga fonda.U Vojvodini i Srbiji njegova reforma nije prihvaćena u pogledu izbora dijalektne osnovice zbog ekavske književne tradicije, a na leksičkoj razini razvio se, oko beogradskoga središta, poseban tip srpskoga standardnog jezika.

Nataša Bašić: V.S.Karadžić između jezikoslovlja i politike, ŠN, Zagreb, 1991.

Ivo Pranjković, http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik3.html

AFERIM, PROFESORE IVIĆU!

S dosta sam zakašnjenja došao u više negoli mučnu prigodu pročitati Vaš intervju (Intervju, 3. 8. 1991) pod vrlo “učenim” naslovom - “Hrvatska će izgubiti rat”. Iako nisam siguran ima li to ikakva smisla, dopustite da se nakratko osvrnem na neke od Vaših teza i “proteza” te da Vam s njima u vezi postavim nekoliko pitanja.....

10. Vjerujem kako i sami znate da je notorna laž ustvrditi kako su Hrvati “posegli za srpskim narodnim jezikom vukovskog tipa”. Kad već razgovaramo u stilu “tko je što kome i kako”, prije bi se mogla braniti tvrdnja da su Srbi, zajedno s Vukom, prekidajući s tradicijom srpskoslavenskoga književnog jezika, “posegli” za hrvatskim književnim (a ne narodnim jer to naprosto ne znači ništa) jezikom, koji je kroz tri prethodna stoljeća, s manje ili više uspjeha, bio izgrađivan, a dijelom i kodificiran, sve od Kašićeve Gramatike (1604), preko bosanskih franjevaca i dubrovačke književnosti do Gaja, Vebera, Šuleka i Maretića. Vjerujem, uostalom, da Vam je poznato kako je sam Vuk pisao da se služio “šokačkim” gramatikama i rječnicima u kojima je taj “srpski narodni jezik” već dobrim dijelom bio standardiziran. Djelovanje Iliraca, a i Vuka, predstavljalo je samo završnu fazu u njegovoj standardizaciji. ..........

Ivo Pranjković[5]: Jezikoslovna sporenja, Konzor Zagreb, 1997

Ivo Pranjković, http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/135/tekstovi/08.htm

Ilustrirajući svoju tezu da su na ujedinjenju više insistirali Hrvati nego Srbi spomenuo sam u svom tekstu i činjenicu da su Hrvati imali cijelu jednu jezikoslovnu školu pod nazivom hrvatski vukovci kojoj je u osnovi bila potpuna vjernost jezičnim i pravopisnim nazorima Vuka Karadžića, a da Srbi ne samo da nisu imali ništa sličnoga nego ni neke od temeljnih Karadžićevih zahtjeva nisu nikada prihvatili (npr. ijekavicu). Sada Ćorić tvrdi kako se iz toga »može jedino zaključiti da su Hrvati svojom upornošću postigli to da im Vuk Karadžić ustupi svoj model književnog jezika«. Da! Moglo bi se tako nešto zaključiti, pogotovo sa stajališta vukovaca, s tim da je Karadžićev model model hrvatskoga, a ne model srpskoga književnog (standardnog) jezika. Karadžić se naime gotovo u cijelosti oslonio na postojeću hrvatsku štokavsku standardnojezičnu tradiciju i u njegovu modelu vrlo je malo ičega što nije (bilo) dijelom te tradicije.

Ako su imali cijelu jezikoslovnu školu hrvatskih vukovaca, nejasno je, nastavlja dalje Ćorić, »zašto su docnije Hrvati napadali nevinog čovjeka, tj. Vuka Karadžića«. Odgovoriti bi se moglo da Hrvati nisu napadali Karadžića zbog onoga u čemu je »nevin«, a u to bi svakako išlo i samo postojanje hrvatskih vukovaca (sam Karadžić doista nije vukovce ni utemeljio niti je tražio od njih da mu budu onoliko vjerni koliko su bili). Napadali su ga međutim, i to Ćorić vrlo dobro zna, ali naravno da ne spominje, zbog teze iz članka Srbi svi i svuda prema kojoj su svi štokavci Srbi, a to bi značilo da je srpska i cijela štokavska književnojezična tradicija, uključujući npr. i franjevačku ili isusovačku. Izrazito kritički odnos prema Karadžiću imali su kasnije Hrvati i zbog onoga što Karadžić doduše uglavnom nije bio niti izravno učinio, ali su učinili sljedbenici velikosrpske politike koji su od njega napravili mitsku ličnost, proglasili ga simbolom (sve)srpstva, ekstremnoga unitarizma i hegemonizma.

---

I think I'll finish it. Dont see any reason for further posts & quotes, especially since anglophones dont have a clue who is who (huh...whatta rhyme). If there are serious Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Montenegrin language connoisseurs/enthusiasts interested in theses expounded in mentioned works, I'll gladly put xeroxed relevant pieces. Otherwise, it's a surreal waste of time.Mir Harven 17:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common shtokavian dialect = coming from the same ethnic stock (despite national lines)?

Judging by the existence of a common dialect, it is possible to argue that people who speak shtokavian actually come from the same ethnic stock despite the fact that they are divided in national terms into Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins. Shtokavian is essentially an 'organic' dialect - a mother tongue for the people who speak it. It is spoken across the national lines without being a product of a colonial situation (example of this being the prevalence of the English language in Ireland).

Are the speakers of shtokavian dialect (as a 'multinational dialect') an example of the same ethnic stock divided by national lines similar to the speakers of a common Niederdeutsch/Nedersaksisch dialect in Germany/the Netherlands?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.113.166 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC).