Talk:Croat and Bosnian neologisms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this article true? RickK 21:18, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's true that in the late 70s, 80s & 90s Croatian linguists invented new words and revived archic words in order to differenciate Croatian from Serbian. I can't speak for the acuracy of those examples, though.
Is "newspeak" the right word for this? It may be misguided romantic nationalism, but it is hardly Orwellian thought control. Maybe "Croat and Bosnian neologisms" would be better. - Efghij 01:35, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)
It is true indeed, I expected a reaction but what I did not expect was that these guys would first off all hijack my article, erase my own contribution and turn into another one of their senseless idiocies, just type in the words in a search engine and see if they are but a mere product of my imagination or not. -- Igor 23:02, Sep 27, 2003 (UTC)

Igor, you are such a mindless troll. This time not only did you pull another chauvinistic pan-Serb attempt to poke fun at non-Serbs, but you also majorly screwed up: if you had any clue whatsoever, you wouldn't include the word "pantalone" in any sort of text that pretends to be Croatian. Otherwise, the Croatian section is simply wrong -- most those words are a pure and simple joke (by Croats!), while some are a silly product of a playful mind, some even pre-20th century. In any event, they are most definitely not officially used. If anyone does use some of it, it's not people with authority over language issues.

Ditto for the Bosnian section. The words other than kahva are from jokes, and as for that one, Bosniaks have used words with more "h" sounds than in other dialects probably much before this little troll was even born.

I implore the senior Wikipedians to do something about this person who is seriously bigoted, hateful and doesn't contribute much other than his jingoist point of view to the database -- at times continuously, since lately I seem to tend to spend a lot of time repeatedly cleaning up his derisory outbursts.

--Shallot 16:16, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Based only on the article, and what I read here, I attempted a vague NPOV approach. However, this stuff really should be merged and redirected with Croatian language and Bosnian language, and dealt with there. IMO. Martin 18:41, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is not really an issue that needs a neutral point of view, it needs a simple grasp of actual facts rather than a nebulous flamebait. Thanks for removing most of the junk from the page, but stating how Bosniaks only now started including Turkish words in their language is pan-Serbism as well: they have used a lot of words similar to Turkish or Arabic ever since the Ottoman Empire had control over Bosnia, several hundreds of years ago. It all goes hand in hand with extreme nationalist Serb claims that there is no such ethnicity or language as Bosniak or Bosnian (resp.). I guess you can see these claims as just another POV, but if the vast majority of Bosnian Muslims say they're Bosniaks and speak Bosnian (and that's over two million people), I don't see much reason for discussion.
If someone wishes to explain the tangentially related coinage increase in per-language pages, please go ahead. However, nonsense that is presented in the title and the original page can never become an encyclopedic article and should be dealt away with. Pending further discussion, I intend to propose the deletion of this page. --Shallot 13:40, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Be as it may, I have deleted the link on Bosnian language page. M H

Also-I've deleted the content since it's false. Croatian tradition of linguistic purism has been in vigorous existence for more than 5 centuries-and has nothing to with Serbian language as such. Better- forced serbianization (luckily, unsuccessful) of Croatian language was evident in attempts to suppress this purist tradition and to rely entirely on loan-words (Serbian language characteristics), rather than calques or words created by rules of Croatian word-formation. Bosnian language has no such characteristic (apart from Islamic oriental loan-words- which is anything but linguistic purism). The material on the page will be added later.

M H

I've edited the page & written the text. Well- Mr. Igor something is free to write whatever he deems appropriate on his fantasies-but not to interfere with the text I wrote. No NPOVs or similar manoeuvres which would have diluted the text and made it unreadable and impossible to follow the narrative. He may write his version-but that's all. In other case- the entire page should be deleted.

M H

Shame this has developed into such an invictive. The page is a little provocative, and needs some NPOVing, but hardline Croats did launch a campaign of neologisms, and there was a lot of pressure, particularly in areas like the Krajina and ES to be 'the most Croatian' and increase the degree of separation of the languages. For the most part it was a part of post-war Croatia coming to terms with the death of Yugoslavia, and most of the examples listed did not take on - they are funny in retrospect, but the Tudjman govt did try to do this, and many of these examples were introduced as words by the govt.

Let's see this little political missive.

Shame this has developed into such an invictive. The page is a little provocative, and needs some NPOVing, but hardline Croats did launch a campaign of neologisms

Croats did not "launch a campaign of neologisms" (btw- what a Stalinist lingo. What's next ? Some cabal of Croatian linguists ?): it's the genuine feature of Croatian language. Croatian linguistic purism

, and there was a lot of pressure, particularly in areas like the Krajina and ES to be 'the most Croatian' and increase the degree of separation of the languages.

There was never "Krajina" or "ES"- save a temporary occupied Croatian territory, during which "Yugoslav People's Army" (spit) (mis)used Serbian fifth column in Croatia-much like Hitler Germans in Sudetenland and Silesia. With known result.

For the most part it was a part of post-war Croatia coming to terms with the death of Yugoslavia, and most of the examples listed did not take on - they are funny in retrospect, but the Tudjman govt did try to do this, and many of these examples were introduced as words by the govt.

I don't really know what to say about your response, I don't feel that the references to Stalin or Hitler are entirely justified. Yes, there is an absense of linguistic information, because this is, essentially, a political, rather than a linguistic issue. My central point, and, I think, what you are disagreeing with, is that, after Croatia gained its independence, a group of Croatian politicians attempted to introduce new words into the language in order to distinguish it further from 'Serbian' or 'Bosnian'. As to whether there ever was a Krajina or ES, I don't think that this is the place for that argument.

OK, for the sake of "peace" I'll leave a puppet-statelet on Serbia's infusion out of debate. Here is the quote: "My central point, and, I think, what you are disagreeing with, is that, after Croatia gained its independence, a group of Croatian politicians attempted to introduce new words into the language in order to distinguish it further from 'Serbian' or 'Bosnian'."

Nice. Name them. C'mon.
M H
Vice Vukojevic, for one. A parliamentary deputy (Croatian Democratic Community) proposed two draft bills on language in 1995; in summary he wanted the phonetic alphabet be replaced by an etymological one and that many words be purged from the language as non-Croatian.
The other draft bill he introduced was to establishing a Government Office for Croatian Language, which would have a police function, with anyone found breaking the new language rules being fined or even imprisoned.
Both of these bills were rejected by the parliament, while the independent media and some of the top Croatian linguists regarded the proposals as outrageous.
see NOVI LIST, vol. 49, no. 141, 26 May 1995
for a Bosnian equivalent see S. Halilovic, BOSANSKI JEZIK [The Bosnian Language] (Sarajevo: Biblioteka Kljucanin, 1991); A. Isakovic, RJECNIK KARAKTERISTICNE LEKSIKE BOSANSKOG JEZIKA [A Dictionary of Characteristic Words of the Bosnian Language] (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1991).

2toise 10:23, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Protected

I have protected this page at the request of User:Igor. I have reverted it to this version, by User:MyRedDice, who is only person on the contributors list who I have direct knowledge of and trust. Folks, we got to work this out. -- Cyan 07:15, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I may be trustworthy, but I know bugger-all about the topic matter! :) Martin 09:27, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why is this destructive behaviour being rewarded, when I asked for the page to be protected I meant from those that erase it's content not from those who contribute to it.

Either restore it or 'unprotect' the page, I'd much rather have the page vandalized and myself insulted daily by this half-anonymous character than have the whole page frozen and censored -- Igor 20:17, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

I'd much rather you leave the page open to vandalism then have it frozen and censored in this manner, thank you. -- Igor 20:20, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)
Well, what Mir Harven is doing isn't quite "simple vandalism", and I didn't protect the page from him, but rather from both of you, since both of you have agendas, and these agendas are in conflict. I won't be unprotecting the page until I'm happier with the situation between you two. If you want another sysop to step in, you can make that request on Wikipedia:Protected page or Wikipedia:Village pump. As for censorship, the last edit is available in the page history, so it's a very limited form of censorship. I have removed the copy of the page that you posted above, since everyone can see it here. -- Cyan 22:39, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ahh...and what are the arguments for "protecting the page" ? C'mon, let's see: on this, discussion page, let Igor something show his examples, and I will analyze them, one by one, and show that they're nothing but crap. Also- if necessary, I'll put forward a few arguments about whole affair that will show the imbecility of the concept of the page. Please- do it.

Mir Harven

QOUT: Vice Vukojevic, for one. A parliamentary deputy (Croatian Democratic Community) proposed two draft bills on language in 1995; in summary he wanted the phonetic alphabet be replaced by an etymological one and that many words be purged from the language as non-Croatian. The other draft bill he introduced was to establishing a Government Office for Croatian Language, which would have a police function, with anyone found breaking the new language rules being fined or even imprisoned. Both of these bills were rejected by the parliament, while the independent media and some of the top Croatian linguists regarded the proposals as outrageous. see NOVI LIST, vol. 49, no. 141, 26 May 1995 for a Bosnian equivalent see S. Halilovic, BOSANSKI JEZIK [The Bosnian Language] (Sarajevo: Biblioteka Kljucanin, 1991); A. Isakovic, RJECNIK KARAKTERISTICNE LEKSIKE BOSANSKOG JEZIKA [A Dictionary of Characteristic Words of the Bosnian Language] (Sarajevo: Svjetlost, 1991). 2toise 10:23, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

HERE COMETH THE ANSWER:

And-*THIS* is the best you could come up with, huh ? Here we go:

1. Vice Vukojević (now a member of Croatia's Supreme Court, back in 90s a representative in Croatian parliament) did not propose anything with regard to "phonetic alphabet, etymological alphabet, language purges etc.". He submitted a draft of the law which would have (had it been accepted) greatly enhance Croatian linguistic culture, especially in the mass media, press etc. It's because the job of cultivating all parts of culture has become, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the field of specialized institutions funded by governments, and not a sport of isolated enthusiasts any more. Many countries (most notably France, but also Germany, various Spanish speaking South American countries and newly liberated East European ex-Communist states..) have similar institutions. For instance- public use of the term "e-mail" (instead of the French word) will result in "user" getting fined (or, gaoled- yeah, *this* is the proper word. Something funny in medieval punishment for computer-age "offense".) So- I hope that a draft similar to Vukojević's will pass (after the departure of these ex-Commies currently in office), and that things with regard to linguistic culture will have improved. As it is now- I flipped through a computer magazine and its ads on PC components. The ads were in 6-8 languages: English, Czech, Croatian, Bulgarian, Slovenian, Finnish,..Anyway, some 20 computer terms have been mentioned. In Croatian, ca. 5-8 were translated into Croatian, and the rest were loan-words: a trait atypical for Croatian linguistic purism. In Czech and Slovenian *all* terms have been translated, and not a single loan word used. The words in question were: keyboard, software, monitor, hardware, graphic viewer, printer, folder,...

2. Now, let's see this "phonetic and etymological alphabets". This is clearly a nonsense, since there is no "etymological alphabet" anywhere in the world. Evidently, the author was talking about orthography. OK, let's clear a few misconceptions:

a) there is no phonetic orthography. It is older name for *phonemic* orthography. b) there is no etymological orthography. This is older designation for *morphonological* orthography. c) no orthography is "purely" phonemic or morphonological. As a rule, languages with morphonologically "deep structure" (extreme cases Hebrew and Arabic; moderate cases French, Russian, Czech, Polish,..) use morphonological orthography (which preserves morphemes and, generally, doesnt record changes in speech), because this kind of orthography is better suited for intransparent languages, ie. for the languages with no clear connection between written and spoken words (English has another kind of orthography-historical). Other languages, those with "shallow structure" (Latin, Italian, Turkish, Spanish, Finnish, Croatian, Serbian, Hungarian,...) use phonemic orthography because it is best suited for the structure of these languages (in short, they record changes in speech and record them in writing different phonemes. Morphonological orthography would not do this.) d) Croatian orthography was, for the most part, phonemic (I'm talking about orthography-not alphabet. You can have phonemic orthography without phonemic alphabet- the example is Italian language). The 2 exceptions were period from 1840s to 1890s (Illyrian movement and Zagreb philological school), and 1941-1945 when Independent State of Croatia/NDH (Nazi & Fascist puppet) tried to reinstate morphonological orthography in exactly the same form it existed in, say, 1880s. The 19th century solution was based on Pan-Slavism:"Illyrians" thought that since Czech, Polish, Russian,..orthographies were dominantly morphonological, the Croatian should be also, since Croatian is a Slavic language. But-this solution didn't last & is in fact contrary to the Croatian orthographic tradition since most of Croatian works of literature and literacy (from, say, 1200s on) were written in some kind of phonemic orthography (but not script). For instance, virtually all Croatian Renaissance and Baroque lit. (ca. 1500 to 1650.) was written in phonemic orthography. The NDH period was completely different: the head of the state, "Poglavnik" (something like "Fuehrer") Ante Pavelic had a fixation that phonemic orthography is "Serbian", while Croatian is, essentially, morphonological (back then, they called it "etymological"-another nonsense). Virtually all Croatian linguists (the rector of Zagreb University Stjepan Ivšić, other prominent linguists like Petar Guberina, Kruno Krstić, Ljudevit Jonke,..), "armed" with knowledge of Croatian paleography, philological analysis of Croatian literature and French linguistic structuralism plus Prague school (de Saussure, then Bally, etc.. Also, Jacobson, Troubetzkoy,..)- were vociferously against. But, since the totalitarian power was stronger- it didn't help. In 1944. a manual of Croatian orthography based on morphonological principles was issued. It was a good work (strictly linguistically speaking), but essentially unnecessary burden on Croatian language. But, only a year after Communists came into power and "returned" to the old orthography. It was good, but it also didn't last. In 1950s (Novi Sad "agreement"), Commies tried to impose *Serbian* orthography (also phonemic, but with different prescriptions in numerous cases. Finnish and Hungarian orthographic prescriptions (both phonemic, and used for similar languages) differ. Likewise with Croatian and Serbian orth. principles. Here endeth a lesson in historie.

Therefore-all the jabber about Vukojević, phonetic and etymological alphabets is simply- junk.

There is also something on Bosniak works (Isaković, Halilović). Well- these are (especially Isaković's monograph) truly exemplary works in descriptive historical linguistics. For instance, Isaković has painstainkingly traced (in more than 3 decades long philological work) characteristic terminology used by Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks before forced imposition of Serbian language in Bosnia after WW 1 and WW 2. The language (especially the lexical heritage) is in many respects different from the Commies-enforced Serbian: banal example is the word municipality (in Croatian "općina", in Serbian "opština"). Cro word was first recorded in the 15th (I'm not sure- it may very well be in 1330s, in correspondence of Bosnian royal family Kotromanić with Dubrovnik), while Serb. was first officially (apart from ecclesiastical terminology) used only in 1930s. The Serb. form "prevailed" due to police, army and similar tools of oppression. As for Turkish/Islamic loan-words, these are either integrated both in Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian (some 30 words), or are colloquialisms and provincialisms (up to 50 words). The myth of "islamization" of Bosnian language is just that- a myth.

Now- I am waiting for the ARGUMENTS about CROAT and BOSNIAN NEOLOGISMS. I haven't seen yet.

Mir Harven

I decided to protect the page when I realized that there was an reversion war going on. The issue isn't who's factually right, so a heap of arguments on that issue will not get this page unprotected (not by me, at least). It is simply a matter of moving from conflict, POV edits, and reversions to politeness, neutrally-phrased edits, and consensus editing.

Are you sure ? I haven't noticed such behavior on wiki-not at all. For instance, your pages on WW 2, "revisionism" (was Hitler's attack on USSR a pre-emptive war war, the question of scope and "profile" of Jewish suffering in this waretc.) are not in any way "neutral". They lean heavily on "one side". Also, other controversial issues cannot be "solved" in NPOV manner: there is no possibility of "common ground" for, say, Croats and Serbs, or with Palestinian Arabs and Israelis, or Indian Hindus and Pakistanis, or Protestant Irish/British and Irish, and...on debatable points. The only way is present *both* sides of the story and-that's all, folx. The "truth" (whatever this may mean) is not a mixture of two versions of the same issue.


Also, Mir Harven, could you please see my comments on User talk:Mir Harven? It would help if you would log in before editing; that way, you will see when there are messages waiting for you. Cheers, Cyan 22:39, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I did, thanx. But, while politeness is surely to be recommended- do you expect it, say, from one whose land was vandalised by some garbage who's not changed a bit ? Do you expect politeness from Poles toward German fifth column in 1950 (say) ? Or from Estonians toward Russians in the same year (anyone remembers Molotiv-Ribbentrop pact ?) ? Well- if yes, then this approach is completely out of touch with reality. So- the only way to "solve" this is to *present*, on THE SAME PAGE, BOTH versions of the issue (not some NPOV or anything similar, because it gives watered down version which is, generally, unreadable and a mish-mash noone understands because the thread of narrative is broken. Then, and only then, will the issue be solved.
M H
Yes, Mir, I do. Be polite to other Wikipedians, or leave. Nobody is forcing you to be here, and if you find our insistence on basic standards of civility to be "out of touch with reality", then it would be better for all concerned if you contributed to another site. Martin 09:20, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mir - Hard to know how to deal with this discussion since your response is always a stream of abuse and accusations of Serbian extremism. Whether the law that he proposed would have 'greatly enhanced Croatian linguistic culture' or was a political attempt to differentiate Croatian language from Serbo-Croat seem to be two different points of view on the same set of facts - I guess we could go back to the proposed law and pore over the details, but I am not sure where to get copies of bills that were not passed. You don't seem to dispute that this attempt happened, you seem rather to be saying that it did happen, but that it was a good thing. Accusations of people being 'commies' doesn't seem to help, and I'm not convinced that this discussion will take us anywhere, since you don't seem prepared to discuss, only to restate your point of view in increasingly abusive terms. Perhaps someone can suggest a framework for moving this forward? 2toise 07:47, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On a slightly different tack, here are a couple of examples, not of neologisms, but of a loan word from Arabic, and the reintroduction of a 15th Century word.

1. In BiH, the attempt to replace the Serbo Croat word 'junak' (martyr) with an Arabic equivalent 'shahid'.

2. The replacement of 'hiljada' (thousand in Serbo-Croat), with 'tisuca'.

These might throw some light on the political process, and we can get around to the neologisms later. 2toise 08:04, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Maybe the right approach would be:
a) where are these "arguments" about "Croatian politicians who try to forcibly change the Croatian language" ? What this contention has to do with a draft submitted by one (1) politician ? A sweeping statement is "illustrated" with one (1) bill that was rejected. Is this called "logic" ?
b) as for "to differentiate Croatian from Serbian": they are already too different that no "inventions" are necessary for that purpose. From elementary grammatical difference (Croatian has 7 vowels, and Serbian (both Ekavian and Ijekavian) 6 vowels) via those in morphology, phonology, syntax, semantics and vocabulary- who cares about "differentiating from Serbian" ? When all fields of life are covered by Croatian language (genuinely Croat legal terminology reinstated etc.) and when Croatian is recognized in internat. relations - who cares about Serbian language ? Or that dying species, "Serbo-Croatian" ? When no grammars or computer translators for that "language" appear (for instance, NeuroTran) ?
d) Your two "examples" are: shahid and tisuća. OK: shahid (šehid) is an Islamic-oriental/Arabic word denoting holy martyr. It is used in a religious context for a Muslim martyr. Every shahid is a martyr, but not every Muslim martyr is a shahid. So, ignorance again. As for "hiljada"- there is no "Serbo-Croatian" language, and not a word in this "language"- and this includes "hiljada". Hiljada is a loan-word from Greek (hyllioi- check hiliasm) and is a word meaning "thousand" in Serbian. In Croatian, the *only* word for "thousand" is tisuća (and recorded somewhere in 1200s). This is common Slavic word which is virtually the same in Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, Slovak,...In Russian it's "tysyacha", in other languages you can check via online dictionaries. So- in Croatian language "tisuća" is the only word for "thousand" and it has always been so. Grecism "hiljada" is, in Croatian, colloquialism used frequently in slang.

M H

I'm thinking that Croatian linguistic purism would be a good place for much of this stuff - we could redirect this article there. Of course, that article needs some work for a neutral point of view. Martin 09:45, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Forget about editing, NPOV etc. Just let Igor smething write his own piece- whichever way he deems appropriate, but WITH OBLIGATION to put the link on Cr.purism (and of course-vice versa). But-forget about "neutral etc" because all "neutrals" I've read only obfuscate issues debated.
M H
No. This encyclopedia works on the principle of neutral point of view. If you think that obfuscates the issues, and want to work on a collaborative encyclopedia built around the multiple point of view, I strongly recommend Fred Bauder's Internet-Encyclopedia. Martin 10:00, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think you have a point here. Since from what I've seen on wiki pages your (not your personal-I'm talking about wikipedia) entire approach (NPOV etc.) is faulty & doesnt give credible info on controversial issues (it just creates more confusion)- I'm not interested in this stuff any more. Btw- thanx for Brauder link.
Best
M H



:b) as for "to differentiate Croatian from Serbian": they are already too different that no "inventions" are necessary for that purpose. From elementary grammatical difference (Croatian has 7 vowels, and Serbian (both Ekavian and Ijekavian) 6 vowels) via those in morphology, phonology, syntax, semantics and vocabulary- who cares about "differentiating from Serbian" ? When all fields of life are covered by Croatian language (genuinely Croat legal terminology reinstated etc.) and when Croatian is recognized in internat. relations - who cares about Serbian language ? Or that dying species, "Serbo-Croatian" ? When no grammars or computer translators for that "language" appear (for instance, NeuroTran) ? The only issue is that Serbian defamations and distortions will be reacted upon- but that's normal reaction.
I think you misquoted - I did not say to distinguish Croatian from Serbian but from Serbo-Croat. As much as you obviously find it distastefull, I think that it is reasonable to posit a strong relationship between the group of dialects, or, as I am sure you would want to call them, languages (Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbo-Croat, whatever). The Ekavian and Ijekavian differences that you mention do not, in reality, correspond closely with Serbs and Croats, in fact they are regional dialects that don't comfortably split out into national boundaries, as I suspect you know very well.

:c) but-let me ask a question: why Serbian dabblers here, on wiki, paranoically (ugh..I forgot about "politeness") meddle into anything with relation to Croats and Croatian ? Why did they try to change the content of Croatian language page-in a derogatory manner ? Why are they trying to ridicule Croatian and Bosnian languages- with this idiotic page ? Why are they deriding Bosnian language with adding link to this shitpage ? Why are they so nervous about *anything* connected with Croatian history, culture, people etc. ? Why is that no Croat (except me- I was annoyed by their constant pestering, so, for fun, put 2 or 3 linx on their history page. Of course, they deleted them immediately- and I didn't further intervene, since this is childish anyway)-so, why *no* Croat or Bosnian Muslim tries, incessantly, to alter the content of pages dealing with Serbian history, culture, etc. ? I detect sick minds here. Guess whose ?
'Serbian dabblers'? I'm not sure whether you mean Serbs who dabble, dabblers in the Serbian language, or something else, and I think people probably take an active interest because to be intellectually useful an encyclopedia has to subject content to review and criticism, rather than insist on it being a page for nationalist propoganda. I am sure that no-one here is trying to ridicule anyone elses language, but folks are nervous about discussions about languages being hi-jacked for political ends.

Well, Serbian stuff is just nationalist meddling. No knowledge, no arguments, no nothing. Theirs and their ames fraternelles' "musings" and interventions on Croatian language (history, culture,..) pages are display of ignorant chauvinist hatred- and nothing more.

The pages discussing languages do not 'belong' to people from that country, everyone has a right to be heard in this discussion.

Of course. The crap I see is greater Serbian nationalist propaganda. And with zero arguments: pure and simply, chauvinist junk. No objections answered, no arguments presented- only pro-Serbian empty slogans. Junk.

 :d) and, last: why are you dabbling into something you simply dont know about ? Your two "examples" are: shahid and tisuća. OK: shahid (šehid) is an Islamic-oriental/Arabic word denoting holy martyr. It is used in a religious context for a Muslim martyr. Every shahid is a martyr, but not every Muslim martyr is a shahid.
The point is that the word does not appear before 1991 in the context of natives to what became BiH.

Šahid appears long before & was a common trait of Bosnian Muslims' speech. Just-it was suppressed, first by Serbian royalist, and then by Communist authorities- as virtually everything connected with religion.

As for "hiljada"- there is no "Serbo-Croatian" language, and not a word in this "language"- and this includes "hiljada". Hiljada is a loan-word from Greek (hyllioi- check hiliasm) and is a word meaning "thousand" in Serbian. In Croatian, the *only* word for "thousand" is tisuća (and recorded somewhere in 1200s).
Yes, and not really since then, until around 1991, which was my point.

I beg your pardon ? Who I'm talking to ? Is here someone trying to convince me that "tisuća" was not officially used in Croatian dictionaries, works-and ordinary speech before 1991 ? In 1500, in 1600, in 1700, in 1800, in 1900 ? Wasn't it used in school, back in 1970s ? When I learnt it ? And was the official Croatian word (although continually suppressed by Yugoslav linguistic unitarism) even in both Yugoslav states ? Where does your info come from ? Some parallel universe ? Why didn't you answer the part of the response that stated the word "tisuća" was a genuine common Slavic word and Serbian "hiljada" was simply a loan-word- exactly like "shahid" in Bosniak speech ? I'm wasting my time here.


why do some nuts even presume they can "intervene" in Croatian language (history, culture,...)themes ? Mind your own biz & scram with your pathological patronizing attitude. I've wasted enough time already.
I think they do that because this is a collaborative work. 2toise 10:26, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

EOD
M H

later talk -> talk:Croatian linguistic purism

This is getting more funny/sad by each commit. --Shallot 10:23, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Indeed - although this page is supposed to have been archived, and new comments moved on...212.42.97.111 10:41, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


I would like to discuss the comments on Bosnian language. I'm not aware of any neologisms or "newspeak" being introduced in Bosnian language since its reconception in early 1990ies. In fact, being a native speaker of this language, I would say that it is the most faithful follower of the legacy of Serbo-Croat of the three languages. There were however some dirty and slanderous jokes circulating among Serb and Croat nationalists ascribing to Bosnian language some properties that it doesn't have. The original article was on the line of those jokes, but one doesn't need to read or take seriously an article history unless one wants to contribute, right? As for the present table of "neologisms", I think it's still moot and here is why:

1. In the present official Bosnian dictionary both words in the column labeled "Serbo-Croat" and those in the column "Bosnian neologisms" are listed and treated as equally acceptable synonims.

2. Certain speakers of Croat and Serb language do not pronounce H as an audible sound, more as an apostrophe (compare Rvatska, Rvati in some literar works). However speakers in central Bosnia pronounce it loud and clear, therefore it makes sense that Bosnian language seeks to preserve this sound where it was unrightfully dropped in Serbo-Croat. I find that need valid and welcome those words created by reinstation of H as desired alternatives. Even if those words were forgotten or never even existed in Bosnian, words such as historija (since history practically came to Bosnia through Serb language and thus was vandalised to become istorija, nevermind that this word starts with an H in its original Latin form).

3. A new thing in Bosnian language is that it allows (but doesn't mandate, as some would like to present) certain muslim religious terms which were simply nonexistant in previous Serbo-Croat codifications.

4. Given the above, of the words listed in rows 2-5 in the table, I find the word čahura to be perfectly normal, I use it today and have used it since forever. Igor's claim that this word is a neologism is further invalidated as this word was listed in all major Serbo-Croat wordbooks.

5. Remaining three words I don't use, but I wouldn't prohibit their use either. That's the policy of Bosnian language today.

6. The word dajdžinica is used in my family and has been used since forever. The same applies to many other Sarajevo families. It is possible that Bosniaks in Igors area (which is AFAIK Banja Luka) don't use this particular word, but in central Bosnia it is frequently used and thus I wouldn't prohibit that word. The fact that Serb and Croat languages find this word unacceptable simply because it has an oriental origin speaks loads about tolerance and political correctness of either.

7. The word šehid noted in this discussion, as explained above, does not describe just any warrior but a warrior that died on Allah's way, which is a warrior that performed a specific religious ritual before going into fight. Therefore, see my point 3. about allowing religious terms.

8. I've yet to see a real neologism in Bosnian language, since those listed are simply not. It seems that this whole article is a non-scientific pamphlet serving a political agenda. The weird situation that are Bosnian, Croat, Montenegrin and Serb languages today is described on numerous places (such as the article on Serbo-Croat language). This specific article is simply redundant and, with regards to Bosnian language, incorrect.

Vedran 10:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The fact that Serb and Croat languages find this word unacceptable simply because it has an oriental origin speaks loads about tolerance and political correctness of either. — Responding to a flamebait article with a flamebait... sadly, I'm not surprised. It's not exactly an example of tolerance to assert that because one group of people uses some word, another group needs to use it as well.
Can't we simply agree that this grossly factually incorrect and stridently biased article needs to go the way of the dodo? Having people shuffle it over and over again is ultimately a big waste of time. --Shallot 20:40, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)