Talk:Croatian language/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Copyright

No need to panic. Freely write to the Herceg Bosna site, info@hercegbosna.org if Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net) is one of the owners of the site. The answer will be prompt. So much for copyright panic.

Mir Harven

Btw- you can e-mail Herceg Bosna on the Web: just write following the contact link at http://www.hercegbosna.org/eng_index.html

M H


Unfortumately, I must object to your removal of my page on Croatian language and re-instatemt of the one I wouldnt deign to comment on. But I would on your unprofessionalism: as I have said, you will have gotten the answer from Herceg Bosna Website (you set the deadline of 7 days) on copyright issues. So, if you want professional relationship-I expect you to abide by your words.

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)

Ahh: you fixed it. Thanks for clarifying the source of this text - I hope you understand our concern. Sorry that nobody responded to you earlier, but we're all unpaid, hence sometimes unprofessional... :) Martin 08:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, but, it's WEIRD. The site Herceg Bosna tried to e-mail you with regard that I may use the material on the site freely (in this case for wikipedia). Just- my buddy couldnt locate your address. How then is this biz re copyright cleared ? He sent mail stating he had got the linkhttp://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ#I_have,_or_can_get,_special_permission_to_copy_an_image_or_article_to_Wikipedia._Is_it_OK_to_do_that? but could not get around.

Mir Harven

Why don't you tell him or her to email wikipedia@myreddice.co.uk? I'll have a read and get back if there are any details that need to be cleared up. Martin 15:09, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Aha, thanx for info. He was lost in a maze of hyperlinx.

Mir Harven

Smolenski and Harven

I reverted "Nikola Smolenski" (paraphrased)

1. I'll write here the arguments. 2. I've never seen the arguments of "Nikola Smolenski" 3. If mr. Smolenski's behavior continues without intervention - then, maybe whole biz is not worth the effort.

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net )

If Smolenski won't explain hir reasons here, then it may be necessary to protect the page. But it's always best if the two people involved in a dispute (you and sie) can chat and resolve the differences that way. Martin 08:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

explanation of changes

Well-as for me, I am ready to explain a few things. Here we go (although I doubt that even an interested outsider can force themselves to stay tuned). Also-feel free to delete a portion from Franolic lecture in Cambridge if you're uneasy about copyright:

OK, let's see mr. Nikola Smolenski's alterations of the Croatian language wiki page:

deleting links

1. he persistently deletes following links:

http://eleaston.com/croatian.html Croatian language resources

and

http://www.hr/darko/etf/et04.html Croatian Cyrillic Script

Before saying anything about these linx, I must stress: it's a sign of obnoxious behavior to delete links on anyone's page. Not bad, not prankish, but purely and simply: disgusting. Now, back to the links:

first link

The first link is essentially a page containing Croatian language links galore.The page belongs to a respectable private company, frequently referenced by other languages pages. And it's not my fault that Croatian language is nicely presented, in the company of Albanian, English, Chinese, Latin, Russian, Franch, Polish,..and *not* Serbian. There are other Croatian language sources pages (at least two with much more links than eleaston), and pretty few Serbian language pages. Do I smell a sense of envy-huh ? Am I to blame for the fact that when I go to amazon, http://www.amazon.com/ and write Croatian language in the search window, I get more than 340 titles. When I type Serbian language, I get less than 40. This *is* childish- but, for an exclusivist nationalist, I'd say: IT HURTS.

second link

The second link, on Croatian Cyrillic Script belongs to the Zagreb University professor Darko Žubrinić who has made fine work in presenting Croatian cultural heritage on the Web. His pages are referenced in many academic and other respectable pages, like: OBSHTEZHITIE http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/ralph/obsht.htm

and Ohio university Slavic page. http://www.slavic.ohio-state.edu/people/yoo/links/slavic/medieval.htm

Now-let's drop unnecessary formalities and say a few frank words: it has been a favorite sport of Serbian scholars, mainly in the 20th century, to misattribute every Cyrillic book written in the areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and claim it as their cultural heritage. Here, we must pause a minute. Simple

This is completely untrue. Serbian scholars have always, not only in 20th century, attributed (almost) every book written in any script in Bosnia or Serbian parts of today Croatia (e.g. Dubrovnik) to their cultural heritage.
  • Problems with perception ? I wrote "mainly". And your "answer" is a devastating testimony I'm thankful for: yes, Serbian scholars from Stojanović to Kolendić (a Serbianized Croat), Djordjić, Nedeljković, Mladenović and Grickat Radulović have clung to that opinion. Croatian scholars (Jagić, Truhelka, Vrana, Zelić-Bučan, Hamm, Mošin (by birth a Russian Jew), Šidak or Raukar) have made paleographic analyses of the texts and it is a common opinion that these texts belong to Croatian heritage. But- this is not some scholarly post festum opinion. It was a living reality for people who wrote these books. Here are examples: Jerolim Kaletić from Split, Croatia, transcribing a work by archbishop from Bar, Montenegro, says that this Cyrillic text is written in "-hrvacko pismo-Croatian letters"-in year 1546.; addendum to the Poljica principality statute in 1665. claims that this (Cyrillic) text was written in "Croatian script". The same with Bosnian city of Bihać where a 1582. Cyrillic document is said to be written in "Churulika oder Chrabatische Sprache". Or, even more important: all works written in Croatian or Bosnian Cyrillic are morphologically different from Serbian Cyrillic script (more than Serbian Cyrillic was different from Bulgarian, whence it came to Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia. Why not call Serbian cyrillic "Bulgarian" ? It came from Bulgaria and was even less modified than Croatian or Bosnian.) And- works written in this type of script were embedded into Croatian culture and had no contact with Serbian whatsoever. Examples ? Works of Bosnian Franciscan writer Divković (Besjede 1616.), written in Bosnian-Croatian Cyrillic, were freely distributed, transliterated into Latin and Glagolitic script and used in all parts of Croatia- from Istria (bordering with Italy) via central Croatia in Lika region to southern Dalmatia and Dubrovnik. They were read in three scripts by the same people-Croats. Needless to say- Divković's works didn't have any influence in shaping Serbian culture or identity, from 1600s on. Serbs barely knew about his existence. And- the entire Serbian literary corpus didn't have contact with works written in Bosnian/Croatian Cyrillic script- from Dubrovnik breviary and the Manuscripts of "krstjanin" (Bosnian Christian) Hval to later works in 16th and 17th century. These works are treated as a part of Croatian heritage- for instance,http://www.bl.uk/collections/easteuropean/croatia.html or http://www.bl.uk/collections/easteuropean/bosnia.html


question is- why ? Why would anyone bother to claim that a certain book, possibly a prayer book written before 400 or 500 years, and even without artistic or literary value, belongs to the corpus of Serbian written word-and not Croatian ? Well- the answer is also simple. Wars from 1991 to 1995 in Croatia and

Perhaps because it has been written by a Serb and in Serbian language?
  • Nice. Prove that:
-it was written by a Serb
-it was written in Serbian language


Bosnia and Herzegovina have provided the answer. A provincial imperialism, like Serbian, needed some sort of "historical justification" for contemporary expansionist geopolitical plans. If Bosnian Franciscan writers, who are Croats, and as such belong to Croatian cultural heritage (Divković and

And how do you prove that they are Croats? Because they are catholics? Every catholic must be a Croat?
  • How do you prove that members of Serbian Orthodox church in Bosnia (who were, notoriously, Vlachs, Greeks, Rumanians, Armenians, Bulgars- and Serbs, of course) are Serbs ? Well-here you have a few answers: Franciscans in Olovo, Eastern Bosnia 1586.("epistles and gospels...in Croatian language explained"); Bosnian Franciscan Toma Babić's foreword to his breviary 1712.("..Bosnian children of the glorious people and Croatian language .."); Bosnian Franciscan from Dubrovnik, Bernardin Pavlović, 1747. ("..according to the father Bernardin Pavlović from the city-state of Dubrovnik..in Croatian language...for the benefit of the Croatian people.."). It's kinda dull to continue. For those conversant with Croatian:http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/kriteriji.html http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik.html


Posilović in the 17th century, Margitić and others in the 18th etc.) had written from ca. 1600 to ca. 1700 mainly in Bosnian-Croat Cyrillic Script (better known as "bosanica" or "bosančica"), and

Hahah, and now the script suddenly changes from "Croatian cyrillic" to "Bosnian-Croat cyrillic" :)) Why not just call it for what it is, "Bosnian cyrillic" and remove its link from where it doesn't belong?
  • Because the same people called it both Bosnian *and* Croatian Cyrillic, in different circumstances. "Litteris bosnensis" and "Chrabatische Sprache" were equivalent terms. With one exception: Bosnian Franciscan writer Matija Divković called, twice, these letters "sarpskie slova" (Serbian letters)-due to the fact that Serbs had been using similar sort of Cyrillic as their primary script (he could have called them "Bulgarian" as well-but Serbs were geographically closer). His predecessors (like friars in Olovo 1586.) and successors never used Serbian assignment to the script- only Bosnian and Croatian. And Divković, like his Franciscan colleagues in Bosnia, called his language Illyrian, Slovinian, Croatian or Bosnian- which are mutually interchangeble terms. They never called the language Serbian.


  • this* kind of Script is virtually exclusively Croatian- then, there are no foundations
Proved by what?
  • Sorry, fella. The burden of "proof" lies on you.


("cultural-historical") for Serbian expansionism. The same with Bosnian-Croat Cyrillic Script in Dalmatia in 14th century and later. On one hand, Serbian nationalists whine over the imagined "suppression" of Serbian Cyrillic Script in communist Yugoslavia. On the other- they are frightened when they see the affirmation of Croathood of some form of Cyrillic Script, which erodes their current geopolitical wishes.

I know it sounds silly. Why bother about such triflings ? The truth is that Serbian nationalism, based on such fabrications and lies, is not a trifling at all, and its expansionist drive after Croatian and Bosnian lands rests, partially, on distortion of linguistic and philological issues-however extravagant and silly it may seem.

text

Now to the text of mr. Smolenski. It is, I quote:

"Some Croats believe that their language was supressed in "Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia". While that could be possible during 23 years of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, ruled by Serb kings, nothing could be farther from the truth for 36 years of SFRY, held in totalitarian rule by a Croat Josip Broz Tito, during which Serbian language and its Cyrillic alphabet was systematically opressed (Most notably in the Novi Sad agreement of 1954) and Yugoslavian lexicographical institute (which was creating and publishing official and practicaly the only encyclopedias and dictionaries) was based in Zagreb and operated by Croats. Tito himself was natively speaker of what is known as Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian language and for more then 40 years of life in Belgrade never learned Serbian accent nor pronounciation."

Let's see:

1

"Some Croats believe that their language was supressed in "Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia". While that could be possible during 23 years of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, ruled by Serb kings, nothing could be farther from the truth for 36 years of SFRY, held in totalitarian rule by a Croat Josip Broz Tito,"

Rubbish. Tito was a Croat, but not a *Croatian* dictator. He was a bolshevik, communist authoritarian leader who deftly managed to hold the power with the combination of charismatic leadership (in a "soft" totalitarian state SFRJ), balancing inter-ethnic animosities and wielding Yugoslav People's Army- essentially his own, private weapon. His rule was that of a nationally indifferent despot- if we refer to his supposed Croatian national loyalty. He didn't display any during his rule. On the contrary- he brutally crushed "Croatian spring" in 1971. (more than 4.000 Croatian refugees) and tried to centralize his fiefdom of Yugoslavia- and this inevitably meant to Serbianize it, to a degree, because the capital was Belgrade and Serbs a relative majority in his Yugoslavia (some 40% of the populace).

Even if all of this would be true, then Croatian language was oppressed by a Croat, or a communist, and not by Serbs. Nor was Yugoslavia Serb-dominated.
  • OK- I'll cut you some slack here. Croatian was oppressed by Yugoslav communist elite that tried to impose Serbian as the official language of Yugoslavia. Serbs, as people, did not have a decisive say in this matter.


2

"during which Serbian language and its Cyrillic alphabet was systematically opressed (Most notably in the Novi Sad agreement of 1954)"

Rubbish. Serbian language was in fact *imposed* in vital areas of life: it was the official language of the Yugoslav Army, Yugoslav diplomacy, lingua franca in communication of Yugoslav republics that spoke

Idiocy. Serbo-Croatian language was the official language of Army and everything else. Are you saying that Serbo-Croatian language actually is Serbian language renamed?
  • Exactly. During communist Yu, Croats used the term "Croatian literary language" (in the climate of liberalism), "Croatian or Serbian" (when they were forced to) and "Croato-Serbian" (in the stifling era of cold war and Soviet-type centralism). The term "Serbo-Croatian" was, in the content (grammar, morphology, dictionary,..) nothing other than Serbian language. It was forcibly imposed, for instance, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (media, press, educational system), which is documented in Bosniak linguist Isaković's "Glossary of characteristically Bosnian speech". For instance, Serbian word for municipality, "opština", was first recorded on Bosnian soil in 1930s. Croatian "općina" was recorded in 1500s. And yet- the Serbian word "prevailed", due to Serbianization of administration.


languages other than Croatian and Serbian (Slovenia, Macedonia). During 1971. virtually all copies of Croatian orthography manual, authored by academicians Babić, Finka and Moguš was *burnt*, and one remaining copy was smuggled into Britain, where it was printed and distributed among Croatian emigres. Humorously, it got the name "the Londoner", according to the name of the city where it was reprinted.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/cro/crolang.htm

In September 1971, a manual of Croatian Orthography, designed for primary and secondary schools, was published in Zagreb. Compiled by three eminent linguists (S. Babic - B. Finka - M. Mogus), it codified the current norm of Croatian spelling and orthography: "In all ways, from a purely language point of view, The Croatian Orthography is probably the most authoritative guide to enlightened language practice in Croatia today". Forty thousand copies of this handbook awaiting distribution were seized and destroyed on the orders of the political authorities. This auto-da-fé threw a particular light on the "cultural" policy of the Belgrade government. But one copy of the Croatian Orthography survived, was smuggled abroad and reprinted in London in 1972.

Three men wrote a book called "Croatian ortography manual". But was it really a Croatian ortography manual? I guess not, more likely it was a nationalist pamphlet. And anyway, it was burned by communist regime with Croats on top, not by Serbs.
  • Bwaahhha....and *this* is a "debate", I guess ? Hear, hear. Well- the 6th edition of the "Londoner" is official Croatian orthographic manual now, in 2003. Well- who the hell are you to denounce anyone's work as "nationalist pamphlet" ? What's wrong with you Serbian guys that you think you're entitled to flout insults at anyone's face without any argument or anything similar. I guess I was too polite with this chauvinist junk.


The same fate-censorship and suppression- befell Croatian grammars (Babić-Težak), Croatian grammar of the Institute for language in Zagreb and many Croatian language related books (history of language, language counsellors,..).

Also, many Croatian men and women lost their jobs or were, in extreme cases, incarcerated because they used typically Croatian words that had unmistakeably "nationalist" resonances in the ears of Yugoslav political watchdogs: (siječanj, protimba, promidžba-january, contradiction, propaganda). Needless

Contradiction and propaganda are purely Croatian words that do not exist in Serbian language :)))) Oh, those evil Serbs, not allowing Croats to use Croatian words :))) And as "januar" is understandable to both Croats and Serbs and "sijecanj" isn't, it is logical that it should be used in publications intended for whole yugoslavia. And of course that communist authorities were firing people which didn't want to follow their rules.
  • Nonsense. "Protimba" is a Croatian word, and "protivurečnost" or "protivrečje" Serbian. Are you really so inferior that you think that Latin-roots words are the issue here. No- the Serbian and Croatian are. As for "understandable"-who the hell are you (or any Serbian chauvinist) to meddle in Croatian language issues ? We use Slavic word "tvornica" for factory, instead of Serbian "fabrika"-a German loan-word. Russian language has "konstanta pronicaemosti" for "dielectrical constant". Why don't you go to the Russians and berate them for using their own words instead of those with Graeco-Latin roots, eh ? Kick those nasty Russian linguistuc nationalists, yea.


to say- *no* Serbian grammar or orthograpy manual or whatever was prohibited. Nor any Serbian person went to jail for ostentatively using characteristically Serbian words.

No Serbian grammar existed. All grammars were of Serbo-Croatian language. Even officialy used ortography manual of today mentions Serbian language only in its title, in inside it talks about "Serbian language variant" and similar phrases.
  • It did and it exists. Stevanović's grammar is Serbian grammar which differs from Croatian grammars (even in Yugoslav period) in the title and content. Wanna check ? http://www.fil.bg.ac.yu/katedre/srpski/05.html As for "Serbo-Croatian"- in title, content and structure (phonetics, phonology, morphology,syntax and semantics)- it was (and is, where it is still used) Serbian language. Weird- why these damm Croats persistently try to write some grammars and manuals that have "Croatian or Serbian" or "Croatian literary language" in the title, and differ in content from those "Serbo-Croatian" ones ? If this is just a technical issue-why the Serbs insisted on "Serbo-Croatian" title and content, and Croats opposed both title and content ? Maybe because "Serbo-Croatian" was de facto Serbian-eh ?


As for "Cyrillic alphabet oppression" myth- Yugoslavia was in the "golden age" of Tito's detente with the West, from 1960s to his death in 1980, more or less sucked into sphere of Western influence (tourism, workers from Yu in Germany or France,..) so that Serbian Cyrillic alphabet was gradually abandoned by pro-Western Serbian youth. Even now, in 2003. (23 years after Tito's death, 13 years after the collapse

It will be that that is the reason for all government institutions to be equipped with Latin typewriters only.
  • B...b...bwaaahha...Yeah, that "typewriter conspiracy" theory I've heard of. Just one teeny-weeny-itsy-bitsy problem: PROVE IT.


of Communism and 2 years after the demise of Slobodan Milošević)- the vast majority of books, press, signs, advertisments,.. etc. in Serbia proper are in Latin script. Well- if more than 70% of city signs in Belgrade are in Latin and not Cyrillic script now, and if Serbian parliament issued a special resolution (some 2 months ago) that tried to impose Cyrillic script as the primary script in Serbia- then, it's hardly the old dictator to be the scapegoat to blame. As for Novi Sad "agreement" in 1954.- Croatian participants were outnumbered by Serbian in 3/1 ratio, and the entire "agreement" was essentially a capitulation of Croatian linguists and writers in the atmosphere of threats and oppression created by Yugoslav Communist elite that tried, following centralizing tendencies of Communist dictatorship, to "create" the official language for Yugoslavia- in this case, Serbian. It isn't for nothing that Croatian cultural institutions withdrew their signatures in the climate of growing liberalism, 1967 (Decalaration on Croatian language)- while Serbian institutions didn't move for an inch. Why would they ? The "agreement" from 1954. perfectly fit their aims. So much about "oppression" of Serbian language during Tito's totalitarian rule.

3

"Yugoslavian lexicographical institute (which was creating and publishing official and practicaly the only encyclopedias and dictionaries) was based in Zagreb and operated by Croats."

This time- only partially true. First- this was virtually the only Yugoslav institution located in Zagreb. All others were in Serbia, and the majority in Belgrade- from military history institute to

Isn't it logical that all institutions of a state are located in capital of the state?
  • No. The USA are the best example. And Yugoslavia was a multinational (not multiethnic- this is classic American English misnomer. Yugoslavia was never a nation, but was composed of various nations: Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians,..) country. Centralization was in this case Serbianization.


history institutes and the rest. "Yugoslav" simply meant- located in the capital Belgrade. As for Lexicographical institute, it was a compromise that stemmed from two reasons: its director, famous Croatian writer Miroslav Krleža, was Tito's personal friend. Second- only Croatia, among all Yugoslav republics, had a vital lexicographical tradition. This is evident especially now, when Croatian

Well, there existed a small encyclopedia called "Sveznanje" and its publisher was working on a much larger encyclopedia, but some twelve tomes of manuscripts somehow got lost. Nikola

lexicographical institute, http://www.hlz.hr/eng/home.html , is teeming with impressive lexicographical activity. In Serbia and Montenegro- nothing, zero, zippo, zilch. Who prevents you now ? As for "publishing official...dictionaries"- rubbish. Dictionaries were published across Yugoslavia by various publishers. Serbia, in order to avoid unwanted possible Croatian influence in the field, translated, in 1970s, most of famous Larousse encyclopedias. And- some encyclopedias were edited in "mixed" Croatian ijekavian and Serbian ekavian languages (Encyclopedia of Fine Arts, Encyclopedia of Forestry), while general ones had Serbian issues. And the collaboartors were from all republics of former Yugoslavia- as anyone can check.

4

"Tito himself was natively speaker of what is known as Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian language and for more then 40 years of life in Belgrade never learned Serbian accent nor pronounciation."

Bwaaahh...what can I say ? Does the page on Croatian language "deserve" such a lucid insight ? Really-no comment.

Well- that's all, folx. Little language, much politics. If anyone considers Nikola Smolenski's "doings" on this page appropriate- then, I've wandered in the wasteland.

Hastalavista baby

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)

Hm..nice. I would like, if possible, to add to the "disputed part" of the Croatian language page, a link pointing to this, discussion page, in order that someone who might stumble upon the page could hear pro et contra arguments. And see for themselves why the disputed part is debatable at all.

M H

A splendid idea. :) Martin 20:01, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"This nomenclature is used primarily by Croats around the world to designate the tongue formerly known as Serbo-Croatian." (referring to the "diasystem" notion).

Well-not quite true. In short, Croatian linguists are divided in two "camps": one avers that all dialects from Croatian/Slovenian border to Serbian/Macedonian border belong to a single system of dialects they call "Central South Slavic diasystem" and which includes kajkavian, chakavian, shtokavian and torlak dialects. The other group thinks that there is no need for any "diasystem" since standard languages are not defined in terms of genetic linguistics. Since there is no "diasystem" covering Urdu and Hindi dialects, or Bulgarian and Macedonian- no need for "Central South Slavic". Be as it may- both groups don't think that a unified "Serbo-Croatian language" ever existed (even in a bivariant form)-unlike some Serbian linguists (most notably Ranko Bugarski) who think that Serbo-Croatian existed, but has disintegrated in 2 or 3 "successor languages". Anyway- "diasystem" is still used by ca. a half of Croatian linguists, almost all Bosniak/Bosnian Muslim and almost negligible part of Serbian ones. As for situation in "other" countries (other than ex-Yu) situation is "mixed"- "diasystem" notion is used by some notable linguists in Germany, Ukraine and France. But, generally, the dominant mood is that of confusion: some work with old Serbo-Croatian paradigm, others have left it altogether, and the majority vacillate between all these positions.

M H

Greater Serbian crap about Croatian & Bosnian "newspeak" deleted. Heal your inferiority complexes elsewhere. If this crap persist-you'll get exposed in a way you truly deserve. Mind your own biz and keep out of Croatian lang page with your filthy hate.

Mir Harven

I'm a Central-European myself, so I understand the complexity of this problem. But is the discussion still alive and, above all, was any middle-ground version prepared?Halibutt 05:38, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)