Talk:Montenegrin language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

	Montenegro Portal Montenegrin language is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

• Archive 1 (Nov 17 2004-June 14 2006)

Contents 1 Dont delete facts and references 2 Recent edit war 3 Wrong 4 Regional variations 5 [dz] 6 I don't get it 7 Montenegrin Language Characteristics 8 Citation needed 9 Terminology 10 Any relevance whatsoever ? 11 Disputed section 12 Hmm... 13 We need a mapping table between South-Slavic language names and dialects 14 Bre 15 Govt. website 16 Montenegrin Wikipedia? 17 Linguistic considerations 18 Literature 19 Montenegrin Language Dictionary 20 Is there h heard in Montenegro? 21 More and Vala 22 H 23 About "ura" 24 Oteti 25 Cesa 26 Content 27 Nonsense 28 "Linguistic considerations" 29 Tag 30 "montenegrin language" in the new montenegro's constitution 31 Duja? 32 Official language, not official language, or disputed? 33 Romanisms 34 How different?

[edit] Dont delete facts and references

Documents show that occupation took place, that government was formed against constitution and law of Montenegro. I find ok that on this article there is no information about massacre in Montenegro by Serbian military which is called white terror and it was bloodiest crime to Montenegrin people, but information about the occupation is important for readers to understand pressure on Montenegrin nation and means which are used to destroy history, independence and culture of that small but respected nation. It seems that here on Wikipedia there is a one group of people which constantly spreading false information about Montenegro, and they are doing that systematically. It seems they have full support from some key people from Wikimedia Foundation. I cant understand why Foundation denied twice right to Montenegrin people to open chapter of Wikipedia on Montenegrin language. Really weird behavior of WMF... Why is dispute on the "history of montenegrin language"? There are all facts there and references. Please remove that if no one can provide information here why this part of article is not trust worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.72.2 (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit war

Few notes before it escalates:

1. Western Serbia did use ijekavian dialect—it was the native dialect of Vuk Karadžić. See the map by Pavle Ivic. However, during the course of time, it received ekavian pronunciation by the influence of wider standard in Serbia, so it should be rightfully omitted from the article.
2. "is regarded as a unique example of tolerance in the region". By whom? Clear POV. We should report the events, not interpret them.
3. "but the number of teachers and students actually involved was very small indeed." According to Pobjeda, it included at least 500 Podgorica students. More can be found here – 900 students and 42 professors only in Nikšić do not constitute "a very small number". Duja 09:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a native dialect of Karadzic only because of his origins - his parents came from Bosnia and he learned to speak serbian language in the ijekavian dialect spoken there. Ilic' map is considered outdated and inaccurate by linguists today. Be that as it may, Western Serbia has no place in this article, as ijekavian is certainly not spoken in that region now.

I'm not so sure—children usually speak the language of their environment rather than their parents. Ivic's map is indeed outdated, and I removed the reference to Western Serbia. Duja 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a POV, nor interpretation, but a report on the sentiment of the general public in Montenegro (except some right-wing serbian ultranationalists - a pleaonasm, I know, but a well placed one), as well as regional media (Vjesnik is one reputable source) and the OSCE. If you consider the democraticaly elected government, the public, the media and the OSCE as invalid over the disconent of a few dozen ppl, then that is clearly a POV.

The number given - 900 students in Niksic turned out to be a media hoax. A few dozen joined the renegade teachers, but gave up the protest a week later. It IS a very small number indeed compared to the number of people emplyed in education in Montenegro - only 11 teachers + 2 deputy principles in NIksic decaded to persist and got sacked for not turning up on work and using children for political manipulation. That make it a borderline irrelevant info. I doubt it deserves mentioning in an encyclopaedia - do not confuse Wikipedia with an internet forum. Also, the article itslef claims: "This decision resulted in a dozen Serb teachers declaring a strike ...". Duja, your edits are a case of contradictio in adjecto.

In that case, you could give the references, like I did above. I also agree that the info is only borderline relevant. However, the affair was a rather big hussle at the time. However, you also appear confuse Wikipedia with an internet forum; if you say that "sentiment of the general public in Montenegro", refer to Vjesnik and OSCE, "media hoax" etc, you should also provide some evidence.

In case you wonder about my political stance on the issue: personally, I do think that "mother tongue" is a better compromise on the issue, as well as that the strike was largely a political manipulation with children. What I want is to get the facts straight and language neutral. Duja 15:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong

It says over 22% when it should be below 22%. The full-scale figure's 21.53%, so... I guess that there was a bad calculation - it's less, not more. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The census was 3 years ago — if we could count it now, I'm positive that the percentage would be much closer, if not over, 50%. Duja 15:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regional variations

Whilst not a native of Montenegro nor a srbski speaker (but a regular visitor), I note that there are significant variations in vocabulary, with variants of Italian words used by those brought up near the Adriatic coast. No doubt a native speaker can expand on this and other variations. For a novice, the principle difference appears for standard srbski appears to be the use of "lj" in place of "l" in words like ljep/lep.

[edit] [dz]

Um. Is that Cyrillic ZE being used for [dz] or is it EZH? Because if it's the latter, there's going to be trouble in Unicodeland. Evertype 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't get it

If it is said that Vuk Karadzic wrote down the Serbian language, yet he comes from Montenegro doesn't it mean then Serbian is the same thing as Montenegrin and that calling the languages separate just like Bosnian and Croatian is just a political ploy by the ruling governments. I believe that all the languages are the same and should be classified as the same thing. The difference between Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, and Montenegrin is the same as the difference in the English dialects between people from England, The Midwest of America, The East Coast of America, and the American South...its all English just this is all the same. --Happyman22 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Really??? :)

--82.117.194.34 01:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

YES. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrin Language Characteristics

Someone is trying really, really hard to show how the mentioned characteristics are used in other areas of former Yugoslavia. Noone is trying to deny that, however, that is not what the topic is about. The topic is about the Montenegrin language and its characteristics. So, please keep to the topic. BTW, noone is trying to invent a separate new language. Montenegrin is a new standard, not a new language. As far as I am concerned "Serbian", "Croatian", "Bosnian" and "Montenegrin" have different meaning as adjectives only as different standards of the same language. They are synonyms if they refer to the language (Serbo-Croatian that is), so cool down a little and try to contribute to the knowledge base instead of cheap politics. Regards, Momisan 13:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, your original sentence read "the distinctive characteristics are"... and not all of them were trully distinctive. What is really unique is the Zetan accent (not yet documented with details), ka:, and the sounds. Besides, we were talking about the dialect(s) it was based on, and their characteristics are, as with other dialects, more unique or more shared, from case to case. I'd just assume good faith in this case. Once the language gets a standard, perhaps something more distinctive can be written (but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Duja 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also assuming good faith. OK, as I understand the topic, the language spoken in Montenegro needs to be described. I'll use mathematical analogy (not really accurate but its close enough), as I believe you should be able to handle it: Think of a whole set of Sthokavian (and some Chakavian) characteristics as 3D space and the language in Montenegro as a 2D plane. It is the combination of characteristics that is unique, although a single characteristic might be shared with another dialect. So, lets enumerate them and see what comes out of it. I believe it is closer to the mark than a sweeping statement like "almost all other Serbian and Croatian dialects have it", which doesn't help anyone. Just to touch on the term "distinctive", which obviously wasn't that important as I didn't complain when it was removed, my understanding is that "distinctive" and "unique" are not synonyms, but, let's not get hung up on that.Finally, the term "Montenegrin" language, which is to some like putting a red flag in front of a bull, for now is simply a language spoken in Montenegro. No it doesn't have a standard, so what? Branko Radicevic didn't need a standard to write in Serbian in 19th century, did he? Regards, Momisan 07:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I just took a closer look at anon's edits. Yes, you're right—while it should be mentioned where the feature is also encountered, it is also POV to insert "like in (pretty much every) neighboring dialect". There's no need for exaggeration. Duja 09:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against mentioning where else is the feature encountered as long as the information is precise (for example: "shto can also be heard in standard Croatian and x,y,z dialects, or around such and such city"). As long as it is in good faith, it is OK.Momisan 12:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

Moved from the article:

• Three sounds that were left out of the Serbo-Croatian standard and alphabets, when they were created in the 19th century:[ç], [ʝ] and [ʣ]. The standard replaced the sound [ç] with the sj combination (sjedi, sjesti, sjekira, sjever, sjutra, kisjelo, pasje etc.). It is still widely used in the spoken language, even by the educated population. The standard replaced the sound [ʝ] with zj combination (izjelica, izjesti etc.) Nowadays, it is used in only few words. The sound [ʣ] is rarely used.

Sorry Momisan, but you'll have to back this up by citations. First, it makes little sense to talk about Serbo-Croatian standard in the 19th century; at best, we could talk about Vuk's, Daničić's, Gaj's etc. works on orthography. Second, you have to offer the proof that those letters existed in the "standard", i.e. were proposed by some prominent linguists of the time so they could be dropped at all. If the sole intention was to stress that those sounds/letters weren't even considered for inclusion, the paragraph above does not carry the message in an unambiguous manner, and should be rephrased. Duja 13:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. Obviously wasn't clear enough. What I was trying to say is that these sounds existed at the time Vuk was composing the cyrillic alphabet. For some reason, Vuk did not allocate separate letters for them, thus, wasn't consistent with his rule of "one sound - one letter". To me cases 'ś'->'sj" and 'ź'->'zj' look like a classical iotation. That is why I think 'kisjelo' isn't hyper-ijekavism. Some good citation on this is welcome. The sound [ʣ] is an interesting one. I could not think of any words in Montenegrin that use it,apart from some colloquialisms, however, many italian words have it (zero, zingara etc.). Perhaps it is an interesting leftover from the past.Momisan 02:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because Vuk didn't pronounce it as 'ś' himself? Off the top of my head, I assign the feature more to the Zeta dialect rather than Herzegovina/Dubrovnik speaches which Vuk had a significant contact with. You're right, it's a iotation, (but one which wasn't realized in the rest of shtokavian area, and thus left unnoticed by the standards in the wider sense of the word). I'd certainly qualify kisjelo as a "hyper-ijekavism" regardless of whether it's noted as "kisjelo" or "kiśelo"; it's "kiselo" elsewhere (d'uh, I don't have an etymological dictionary to see whether there really was a jat). Duja 13:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Vuk didn't pronounce ś himself, I don't know, but this sound actually is one of the characteristics of the East-Herzegovina dialect (it's present in speeches of this dialect in Herzegovina, Montenegro, Bosnia, Krajina, and Western Serbia, and I'm not sure about Dubrovnik). But it is quite possible that there was no ś in Trsic speech (Vuk's birthplace), since it is the northest part of East-Herzegovina dialect, close to Shumadija ekavian dialects and Eastern Bosnian šćakavian dialects, which do not feature ś. This makes sense. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I've forgotten to say this: all the other ijekavian speeches of Central South Slavonic diasystem (aka Serbo-Croatian language) have kiselo. Kisjelo is only used in Montenegro, but not always even there. There are Montenegrin dialects that use kiselo, too. And pasje has nothing to do with yat, as well. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like its all in the area of speculation. While it is possible that Vuk didn't know about the sounds, I wouldn't underestimate his work to that extent. He travelled widely through Montenegro, also don't forget that he "found" sound 'h' around Dubrovnik area. Anyway, it is all history now. As for pasje, in Montenegro, it is pronounced as paśe. 's'+'i', isn't that an iotation? It is very easy to make a mistake if one doesn't have 'ś' in mind. Now, wait a second... pasje, that is ijekavian, even for the Serbian standard, isn't it?:-)Momisan 00:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understood you well, but pasje is both ekavian and ijekavian; that -je doesn't stem from a jat, as many other cases. Ekavians don't say "ebati" :-). Duja 08:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. You might be right :-)Momisan 09:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not every ś originates from s + short yat which is replaced with je. This sound forms whenever s or š comes before j, which doesn't always come from yat. -je is an ending for collective nouns, and is equal for both Ijekavian and Ekavian: both standards have pasje, poprsje, Podunavlje (l + je > lje), lišće (list + je > lisće [tj : ć] > lišće [sć : šć]), žbunje (n + je > nje), grožđe (grozd + je > grozđe [dj : đ] > grožđe [zđ : žđ]). As you can see, other iotated sounds appear, not only ś (lj, nj, ć, and đ). With no yat at all! :) --Djordje D. Bozovic

That was informative. Credit where credit is due:)Momisan 11:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I'd say that the more appropriate term would be a "variant" or "variety" of Serbian language (for those who think so). Dialect is not a sociolinguistic concept. It refers mainly to various vernaculars and idioms. Mir Harven 11:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any relevance whatsoever ?

Here is "Gorski vijenac", original printing: http://alas.matf.bg.ac.yu/~mr99164/tekstovi/gv.html Of course, because he didn't have grapheme /j/, Njegoš writes "long" yat as "ie", and "short" as, well, Roman ě. So, "cijelo djelo" would be "cielo dělo". Any relevance re yat pronunciation (bisyllabic, diphtong) ? Mir Harven 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The bisyllabic ronunciation of long yat differs Montenegrin language from Croatian and Bosnian, which have diphtongal long yat. It's relevant because all these three languages are based on shtokavian ijekavian standard, but as you see there are some differences between Montenegrin ijekavian and Croatian ijekavian. Yat is bisyllabic when long (when forming the group ije) in most Serbian Ijekavian dialects, unlike Croatian, which is diphtongal. For example, Croatian svijet is accented on the vowel e and pronounced almost like it's written svjet (svⁱjêt) - but with a long e, not like dialectal and archaic svjet = savjet, which has short e - since the entire ije group in svijet is a dyphtong, not two different syllables (and no words in Croatian, except some loans from other languages, could be accented on the final syllable). In Serbian Ijekavian, svijet is accented on i (svìjet), since ije group here is considered two syllables (i and je); and same goes for Serbian regarding the final syllable of a word. Njegos used yat only when it's pronounced je (short, so one letter for one syllable), and when it was two syllables - ije - he wrote them using the two letters - ie - following the bisyllabic pronunciation used by the Montenegrins and other ijekavian-speaking Serbs. --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful about "most Serbian Ijekavian dialects". I don't think (but I'm open to suggestions) that ije is bisyllabic in Krajina, Lika and Slavonia, which account for majority of ijekavian Serbian speakers. Yes, the standard says so, but it has an inherent bias by Vuk's heritage. I'm born and raised in central Posavina, and I certainly pronounce it as diphthongal. Duja 12:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly bisyllabic in East-Herzegovina dialect, and this ijekavian dialect covers the greatest territory - including Lika, Kordun and Banija, and most of the other parts of Krajina (it is also called Herzegovina-Krajina dialect), but in Slavonia, I agree, it's probably diphtongal. I'm born and today I live in Užice region, where the long yat, the ije group, is very clearly bisyllabic. :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're overgeneralizing; "East Herzegovina dialect" (the term I personally deem both stretched and archaic, but let's put that aside) is hardly a rock-solid concept with well-defined boundaries. As you said yourself in the section above, /ś/ is a characteristic only of its southeasternmost part. I maintain that this is also the case with bisyllabic/diphthongal ije (albeit the isogloss is not the same as with /ś/), namely that it's diphthongal also with majority of Krajina speakers. Duja 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is something I've noticed a long time ago. There is a myth (especially among Croatian dialectologists) that "Western Serbs" not only pronounce, but impeccably distinguish between long and short yat. From my experience, Serbs from Croatia and major part of Bosnia, generally pronounce diphtongal yat, and those near Montenegro or Western Serbia (Easternmost Herzegovina, Podrinje, Sandžak,..) are "bisyllabic". Maybe it's an unfair test, but I've frequently encountered Serbs from BH & Hr writing in the "Škarić manner" (always -je-). So I guess the correct inscription of -ije- and -je- has more to do with education than with "natural speech". This is one example (the content is irrelevant, just look for yat reflexes among Serbian commentators): http://www.glassrpske.com/cyrl/?vijest=2705&PHPSESSID=070a45874ac5881e5a16eb42893c4a5e "O Mesicu ne treba trositi rjeci. Obican lupez i beskicmenjak kojem bi i Makijaveli zavidio na beskrupuloznosti i bestidu. Tihic je malo gluplja verzija Mesica, ocigledno nedorasla Silajdzicu. To njegovo spominjanje ustava je smjesno....etc. On the other hand, some comments correctly distinguish between -ije- and -je-. Hmmmm...Mir Harven 14:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Duja 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a short comment from me. I am glad we are starting to talk more about the language and less about politics, some interesting facts are starting to come out.Momisan 04:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So I guess the correct inscription of -ije- and -je- has more to do with education than with "natural speech".

Well, I wouldn't say so. In Western Serbia, people are educated in Ekavian, but when it comes to speaking the traditional language, the long yat gets clearly bisyllabic. And such "bisyllabic Ijekavian" is here certainly the natural speech, nothing to do with education. And I have also noticed that they sometimes regularly put accent on i from the ije group - not only when the word has just these two syllables (like svijet or cvijet), but in other words as well, where it is not necessary because of the final syllable - like dijete, which becomes dijete in pronunciation. When speaking with Montenegrins, I have noticed that they put accent on i of the ije group much more often - I'd say almost always! --Djordje D. Bozovic 18:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I trust you, but we didn't refer to Western Serbia, but rather to Bosnia (region), especially Bosanska Krajina and Croatia. I'd say that i in "ije" is (almost) never stressed.
The phenomenon is perhaps most easily analysed in folk songs. Few quick examples: ko to pa·li svije·će i po krč·mi še·će, to je lije·pa Ma·ra... (Nedeljko Bilkić); umrije·ću od bo·la, umrije·ću od bo·la... (Baja Mali Knindža), Dru·ga·ri·ce po·sa·dimo cvije·će (Neda Ukraden). That's the reason why many ijekavian songs are fairly easily "ekavised"; however, with Montenegrin and Herzegovinian decasyllable, ekavization would completely destroy the meter. Duja 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bozovicu, you omitted one crucial piece of information. People living in the Western Serbia are mostly migrants from Montenegro, as your surname itself suggests.Momisan 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I'm afraid my family actually descends from Herzegovina. :) My ancestors actually were the Kulićs of Nevesinje, but one of them, named Božo Kulić, was a hajduk here at Zlatibor, and so all his descendants here took the surname Božović after him. However, despite my family history, it is true that many families here have migrated from present-day Montenegro, but certainly not all of them, and certainly not even the most of them. The most families here are actually migrants from Herzegovina, which is the main reason why people from Užice region are everywhere known as Ere (singular Hero or Ero is short from Hercegovac, which is Serbo-Croatian for inhabitant of Herzegovina or a man from Herzegovina). Nevertheless, today Ere usually does not refer to people of Herzegovina, but of Užice region in Western Serbia. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know where Era comes from. Still, what you said gives us some idea where is, shall we say, the epicentre of linguistic characteristics we are talking about. My understanding is that many people that lived in Military Frontier in Croatia, before the last war, also came from the same regions as refugees. Momisan 10:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet, I would still say that there was the bisyllabic long yat in Krajina speech (not Bosnian Krajina, but Military Frontier in Croatia). --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed section

Please, add references about: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1. AFAIK, kisjelo doesn't have jat, but it is like in words medjed and sjutra other kind of characteristics of Montenegrin dialects. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
2. sto is widely used in Serbian dialects, too. sta is used only when this pronoun is used to make a question (i.e., "ono sto sam radio", "sto( )god si namerio" etc.). So, add some relevant references about your claims. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
3. supine and infinitive are different forms. So, claim like "The verbs in infinitive end in 't', like in "pjevat"." is nonsens. Also, you added present form in "Serbian variant" (pjevas is present, pjevati is infinitve). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if you want to make this article well, please, do not behave like a POV pusher and use some linguistic literature instead. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

1. AFAIK too, kisjelo didn't have a jat, but it is apparently perceived as having one. That classifies it as a "hyper-ijekavism". Here's an interpretation: "...jer je u ovoj rijeci jos od praslovenskog doba postojao dubletizam izvornog e i jata. Ipak nece biti opravdano ovaj lik uvoditi u standardni izraz jer ...". While we don't have an official definition of "hyper-ijekavism", I'd say that kisjelo certainly classifies as one, under an ad-hoc definition of "having a reflex of jat where the original jat disappeared, didn't exist, or reflexed in a different way elsewhere".
2. Who said that što is not a Serbian form? I ammended the article to clearly say that što is used for interrogative form. In Serbia and Bosnia, što is used only as relative pronoun, šta being used for interrogative
3. The reference to supine was inserted by yourself. I admit it was the first time I heard about it. I fixed the spelling and linked, but, if Supine article is to be trusted, supine is a form of verbal noun rather than a pure synonym for infinitive. Since apparently we're talking about the use and form of classical infinitive, I think it's better and clearer to state that "the infinitive lacks the terminal 'i'" than to involve the fairly obscure concept of supine. The concept is formalized in Slovenian, but I don't think it applies to Shtokavian as-is.

Duja 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1. As I said earlier, kisjelo comes from kiśelo. When looked from that prospective, it is all crystal clear. It is a hyper-iotation, in my opinion.
2. Agree with Duja. Don't understand where the problem is.
3. For me, concept of supine is clear and it is actually an accurate description of the way Montenegrin use the infinitive. It is a verbal noun as in "Oli pjevat, hajdemo igrat etc." Serbians (at least in Serbia) don't tend to use infinitive in this manner much, ""Hajdemo da igramo" is more common. Isn't this Supine? As for infinitive, it is a broader term, and it does terminate in 't'. That is why I think that both supine and infinitive should be mentioned.

Momisan 11:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Momisan, you got it the wrong way round (or at least, that's how you expressed yourself). "kiśelo" comes from "kisjelo" (via iotation), which in turn comes from old Slavic "kisĕl" (with jat), which is an alternate form of "kisel". That later form apparently was prevailing elsewhere, and yielded "kiselo" elsewhere.--Accepted.Momisan 13:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
2. .
3. You're right, I didn't think about "Oli pjevat" in this way. However, Serbian form "hoćeš li da pjevamo" is not infinitive—some linguists describe it as "subjunctive" while others refer to it as present. Both pure-infinitive form ("hoćeš li pjevati?") and the subjunctive form are acceptable, but I'd guess that the subjunctive would prevail in Serbia while infinitive/supine in the West. Duja 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About verb forms for Momisan: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

1. "pjevati" -- infinitive --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
2. "pjevat" -- supine --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
3. "da pjevas" -- subjunctive/present --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed {{disputed}} tag because (1) Duja found source for jat in kisjelo; (2) I think that I realized that Momisan didn't know what supine is; (3) Duja found right construction fo sto/sta problem. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored {{disputed}} tag. If your intention is to get to the bottom of "supine" question, why don't you give us your explanation. What is the difference between supine and infinitive, and why do you think pjevat is supine, not infinitive? The wiki page on infinitive for slavic languages mentions that in fact most of the slavic languages have infinitives ending in 't' or 'ć'.Momisan 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on supine clearly says that it is a verbal noun. (In grammar, a supine is a form of verbal noun used in some languages...; ...can only be used in the accusative and ablative...; ...often misnamed "infinitive", though it is not such...). "Pjevat" is not a verbal noun - it's a verb. In Serbo-Croatian we refer to it as krnji infinitiv, which can be translated as "shorter infinitive", for example. It is a kind of the infinitive (in Montenegrin it is the only existing infinitive form itself), and not a different grammatical category, such as supine. I don't see why you need to 'westernize' our grammar when not necessary (and this includes the term "subjunctive" for da + present construction, too - no relevant Serbian linguist has ever refered to it as subjunctive). --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've re-read the supine article and it's still not clear to me whether the concept is unambiguously applicable outside of Latin. Even if it is, it's probably better to stick to the languages where it's officially accepted as such; usage described in Slovenian verbs is quite similar to Serbo-Croatian, but I'd be cautious to apply it here; as you said, it would probably be better to remove it altogether.
As for the Serbian "subjunctive" issue, I confess to spreading the (mis)conception around Wikipedia. It is quite true that it's seldom if ever referred to as "subjunctive" among Serbian linguists, but I can't help but notice the obvious similarity to the definition of subjunctive, as well as apparent economy of using single word to ubiquitous and ambiguous "modal form of present" or like. Heck, verbs in sentences such as "ja ću da idem", "ja bih da vidim" or "da se nosiš u..." are clearly not indicative mood, and are so specific for most Serbian speeches (excluding Western ones, to an extent) (as well as Bulgarian and Macedonian, and other Balkansprachbund languages) that they desperately need some kind of unambiguous terminology, even if stretched one. Duja 13:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. For further reading: see Balkansprachbund#Avoidance of infinitive and Balkansprachbund#Bare subjunctive constructions. Duja 13:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, your examples are not the best. All the three of them only partly fit this category. Here's how:

"ja cu da idem" - future is formed by the present tense of verb ht(j)eti (usually the short form) and the infinitive. Thus, both Eastern and Western forms would be "ja cu ici". "ja cu da idem" is used in Torlakian dialect, from where it came to common speech in Serbia, but still the use of infinitive prevails in making the statements about future. "Oli pjevat" is the future form, too (just, it's interrogative). And that's why most Serbians would rather say "Hoces li pevati" and not "Hoces li da pevas", which is rather Torlakian, and although it's getting more used lately, it's still at some extent iliteral. Nevertheless, "Hoces li da pevas?" is used in Serbia just like that, as a sentence itself (the sentence of intention - see below), because then it's not the future, but two separated verbal forms (present and da + present construction), and still the infinitive is allowed, too. However, when used as future, for example "Hoces li pevati sutra na priredbi?" infinitive is more normal to appear. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"ja bih da vidim" - what would you say that the 'Western' form is? "ja bih vidio"? "ja bih volio vidjeti"? No, all these three forms are equal in both Eastern and Western common speeches; the first one being used for present, the second for past, and the third in poetry and literature when some literary style is needed. The only possible way to escape using "ja bih da vidim" in Western form is to use "ja bih vidio" for both present and past, which is not necessary. This is the potential mode, and is different from what we discuss. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"da se nosis" - this phrase certainly doesn't replace the imperative "nosi se" in Serbia; it is rather short of "voleo bih da se nosis" (which is the same as the example described above), "zelim da se nosis", etc. Yet, there are some cases when "da se nosis" entirely replace the imperative - but only in Torlakian dialect. In other speeches of Serbia imperative is well preserved and not replaced with da + present. So, this was not a good example, especially because it has nothing to do with the infinitive at all, and that was the point. :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A fine example of replacing the infinitive with da + present construction in Serbia would be "idem p(j)evati" vs. "idem da pevam". Here you can ask "što/šta ides raditi?", and thus the infinitive or the da + present construction, roughly spoken, means the object of the sentence. Of course, a verb cannot be an object, only nouns can. It makes us think that this actually may be the gerund or supine. But it is uncorrect to say that Montenegrin "pjevat" is supine, and "pjevati" is not. They both (pjevat and pjevati) are infinitives, but they can be described as supines (both of them) when used in indirect object (actually, when used in the sentences of intention - nam(j)erne or finalne recenice in Serbo-Croatian). --Djordje D. Bozovic

So, only in the sentences of intention the Western speeches use strictly infinitive, while the Eastern use both infinitive and da + present. In the easternmost part of Shtokavian area - in Torlakian dialects - infinitive is regularly replaced with da + present. In other dialects of Serbia both infinitive and da + present are allowed and used, but in the West only the infinitive is used. Regarding the sentences of intention only! In other cases, da + present can be used even in the West, and in Montenegro as well. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was digressing from the initial subject (and now you're digressing even further :-) ). My point was not that the "subjunctive/present" (for lack of a better word) replaces only the infinitive, but that it can also extend into the future (ja ću ići), conditional (htio bih vidjeti), and imperative (nosi se...) – the bracketed constructions are likely ones in spoken Croatian, Bosnian, and "Western Serbian" (in the wide sense of the latter). In other words, the "present" is not limited to indicative but crosses well into other moods and tenses. While I concur with most of your elaboration above, I'd also add that those "da-constructs" are far more widespread than in Torlakian (where they're used pretty exclusively), and affect a greater part of the Serbian and to an extent Bosnian vernaculars. While linguistic purists might raise an eyebrow in disgust on those, the fact is that they're fairly well present in colloquial speeches. Your points about "sentences of intention" (I'd say, modal verbs in general, although in a wider sense than in English) are appreciated.
I also agree with your analysis of supine vs. infinitive. Duja 15:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bozovicu, I have the feeling this is the definitive text on supine:-) To summarise my understanding: infinitive can be seen as supine, in the sentences of intention only. The infinitive in Montenegrin always ends in 't'. Momisan 02:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that was a bit pushy removing the "disputed" marker! Don't want to split ends here,however, just to highlight that the used terminology can be seen as Serbo-centric. krnji infinitiv or short infinitive, implicitly suggests that it is incomplete, the piece is missing ... As I ponted out before, most other Slavic languages in fact have the same form of infinitive as Montenegrin. It is in fact Serbo-Croatian that has one letter too many ('i'). From the point of view of Serbo-Croatian, it might be short version, but, not from the wider point of view (English). Therefore, I ask for the term short-version to be removed and just state that infinitive ends in 't', like how it was at the beginning. Momisan 02:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I dislike having big "disputed" tags about really minor issues; I think that "short infinitive" vs. "ends in 't'" is splitting hairs—you were certainly welcome to revert the expression back if you had found it inappropriate. This is a free encyclopedia, you know :-). Besides, I (consciously or not) added the quotes around "short", indicating it's a description rather than a "mutilation of the 'right thing'". After all, this phenomenon of infinitive shortening is so common all around (esp. in West) that it probably was very close to be included in standards (I have no sources to back that up, though). Duja 09:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

Ajmo ovako... Potrosim uvek enormno vreme pokusavajuci sklopit ;) recenice na engleskom. Ovo ovde nije neka posebno problematicna stvar (u ovom tekstu ima problematicnijih, kao sto je poistovecivanje crnogorskog jezika i dijalekata koji se govore u Crnoj Gori), a cini mi se da Momisan drzi gard bez preterane potrebe... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dakle, supin je "kratki infinitiv". Makar kad je rec o slovenskim jezicima. Takav je postojao jos u zajednickom slovenskom i nije u dijalektima u Crnoj Gori (i drugim dijelektima) to stiglo s Marsa, nego upravo kao ostatak te osobine. Mislim da se mozete o supinu uputiti u prvoj knjizi Staroslovenski jezik koju je napisao (neki) Nikolic (zaboravio sam mu ime). Dakle, prihvatljivo je napisati nesto u smislu "supin (kratki infinitiv)", mada je i to "kratki infinitiv" malo besmisleno jer vec postoji oblik koji je druga kategorija (usput, i infinitiv je glagolska imenica). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Drugo, Momisane, pokusaj da podrazumevas dobru volju. Ako pogledas Dujine i moje izmene, verujem da ces moci zakljuciti da nemamo nista protiv politicke volje dela Crnogoraca da svoj jezik nazivaju crnogorskim. Nemamo nista ni protiv toga da se naznace razlike medju dijalektima i sl. Problem je i u tome sto ovaj clanak uredjujete vas dvojica Crnogoraca koji niste lingvisticki obrazovani (ti i CrnaGora, kako mi se cini). Onda stvarno imam odbojnost prema prihvatanju "lingvistickih fakata" koje sami unosite; a, eto, ume da se desi da u tome i previdim neku stvarnu cinjenicu koju ste uneli. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dakle, hajde da razresimo te stvari. Postoji gomila literature i na Internetu i mozemo ovaj clanak napraviti vrlo valjanim. Licno mislim da treba napraviti i clanke kao sto su zetsko-sjenicki dijalekat i istocnohercegovacki dijalekat, u kojim bismo opisali detaljno osobine dijalekata. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Usput, licno smatram da je solidno besmisleno trazenje posebnog lingvistickog identiteta na prostoru novostokavskih normi. Identiteti su kulturni i politicki i jedino je smisleno njih isticati. Ljudi nam se smeju kada shvate o kakvim razlikama pricamo :) Dakle, crnogorski jezik jeste politicka realnost (kao i srpski, hrvatski i bosanski), ali su lingvisticke razlike medju svim standardnim jezicima smesne. Uz to, istocnohercegovacki dijalekat, onaj kojim se govori u mozda pola Crne Gore predstavlja osnovicu svih novostokavskih standardnih jezika. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dragi moj prijatelju, odgovoricu za tebe na "Srpskom" :-) Ono sto se tebi cini kao gard je jednostavno pogled iz Crnogorske perspektive. Ja razumijem da mozda imas problema da ga shvatis ili prihvatis, medjutim, ti najvjerovatnije nijesi morao od malih nogu da korigujes svoj maternji jezik da bi pisao "knjizevnim" jezikom, kao sto to moraju Crnogorci. Kako bi se ti osjecao da ti od sad neko nametne da je sklopit knjizevni a sklopiti nekakav arhaizam? Svaki put kad izgovoris ono sklopit, nesto te zacne medju rebra... E, tako je nama, prijatelju, svaki dan. Interesuje me dali bi ti i onda razlike izgledale smijesno. Osim mene i Crne Gore, ovdje ne vidim ljude kojima je Crnogorski maternji. Znaci, samo nas dvojica mozemo ovom clanku da donesemo taj kvalitet. Sto se tice lingvistickog obrazovanja, niko, bar ne ja, tvrdi da smo profesionalni lingvisti, medjutim ja vjerujem da je solidno opste obrazovanje sasvim dovoljno da bi se moglo saradjivati sa nama. Zbog toga su neophodni i ljudi poput Bozovica i Duje da bi se tekst na kraju profesionalno uoblikovao. Kad bi se uredjivanje teksta ostavilo samo tebi, Bozovicu ili Duji, izgubila bi se posebnost, jer je vi iz vase perspektive i ne mozete vidjeti. Zato ja ne vidim u ovom trenutku jednu osobu koja bi objedinila sve neophodne sastojke za dobar tekst. Saradnja je neophodna. Momisan 01:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Znaci, samo nas dvojica mozemo ovom clanku da donesemo taj kvalitet.

Netačno. Wikipedija je delo zajedničkog rada. Niko nema posebno pravo u odnosu na nekog drugog da donosi sud o kvalitetu članka. Saradnja je svakako neophodna, ali ne sme doći do tzv. POV-a. Još je gore kada je članak pola sa jednim pogledom, a pola sa drugim pogledom na istu stvar. Idealni članak bi trebalo da ima neutralan stav.

• Sto se tice lingvistickog obrazovanja, niko, bar ne ja, tvrdi da smo profesionalni lingvisti, medjutim ja vjerujem da je solidno opste obrazovanje sasvim dovoljno da bi se moglo saradjivati sa nama.

Tačno. Naravno da možete unositi sve što vam padne na pamet u članak, ali ovom članku su potrebni EKSPERTI. Zato se uzdržavam od bilo kakvih unosa u članak. Jedino možeš videti da sam dosta davno unosio neke izmene, uglavnom ispravljajući očigledne greške i štiteći članak da bude a) neutralan, b) razumljiv i laiku (mmiloshe, što se očekuje od enciklopedijskog članka). Isto tako svako ko nije ekspert svaki svoj unos mora da triput da vaga pre nego što ga unese u članak.

Konačno, kada unosiš izmenu u članak na engleskoj Wikipediji, tačnije na bilo kojoj Wikipediji, ostavi po strani sve osećaje. Članak i treba da bude suvoparan. Ako unosiš izmene, a nešto te žacka u rebrima, najverovatnije će i čitaoca nešto da žacne, možda na drugi način. Mora se misliti i na to.

Isto tako mislim da je ovom članku potrebno jedno detaljno iščitavanje, jer mislim da se pomalo stilski izgubio, odnosno da stil izlaganja varira kroz članak.RockyMM 12:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vidim ima i posmatraca... Na ovakve komentare necu trositi(zac!) rijeci.Momisan 13:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Ovde postoje dva momenta (mislim na tvoj prvi odgovor). Pocecu od drugog: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Niko ne kaze da ovde vi trebate biti iskljuceni iz rada na clanku. Stavise, mislim da sam i gore rekao da je vrlo korisno imati nekog ko stvari gleda iznutra i ko ima pristupa materijalu koji nam moze clanak napraviti boljim. Dakle, niko ne dovodi u pitanje vase ucesce. Samo sam ti naznacio da valja podrazumevati dobru volju. Posto sam video da si u gardu misleci da zelim da objasnjavam "kako je crnogorski zapravo srpski". (Usput, podrazumevanje da jedan jezik nesto drugo je izuzetno problematicna kategorija. Svako ima pravo na svoj politicko-jezicki identitet.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Prva stvar se tice onog sto osecas kao svoju ugrozenost standradnim jezikom. Ufff... I ja sam se osecao ugrozenim standardnim jezikom zato sto je jednom Beogradjaninu misaona imenica da razlikuje kratke akcente, kao i da ustanovi gde se nalaze postakcenatske duzine. Ako si iz istocnohercegovackog govornog podrucja, tu si u znatnoj prednosti u odnosu na mene. Imaj, takodje, na umu da su mnogi ljudi i po Srbiji i po Hrvatskoj i danas izlozeni jos vecoj jezickoj represiji jer se njihovi dijalekti, vrlo razliciti od standardnih jezika, smatraju seljackim, nizim, smesnim. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Poenta je ovde da su ljudi koji se bave jezickom politikom skloni da preko jezicki hiperkorektnih osoba maltretiraju svakog ko ne govori kako treba. To je jedan oblik represije koji nikako nije valjan i iz koga proizilazi mnogo losih osecanja. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mogao bih o ovome duze, ali bih se vratio na clanak: ako postoje problemi ili nesuglasice oko nekih stvari u clanku, hajd da to resimo podrazumevajuci dobru volju druge strane. Uvek se mozemo razjasniti na nekoj od novostokavskih normi ;) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Drago mi je da smo se slozili. Momisan 06:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Infinitiv može imati osobine imenice, npr. Jako je želio kupiti tu knjigu (objekat), Razmisliti je preporučljivo (subjekat), ali to ne znači da je infinitiv imenica. To je glagol, bez obzira što se može upotrijebiti kao imenica. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I dalje se ne slažem da se crnogorsko pjevat spram standardnog pjevati može nazvati supinom. Iako su u praslovenskom postojali dvojaki oblici - infinitiv s dužim i supin s kraćim nastavkom, u onome što pretenduje da bude standardni crnogorski postoji samo jedan oblik - pjevat, učit, radit, moć - i on je tu infinitiv. U crnogorskom je to infinitiv (takav je, to je jedini oblik infinitiva), a zvati ga supinom znači da postoji i oblik infinitiva sa dužim nastavkom (pjevati, moći), za koji je oblik tipa pjevat i moć supin. A to znači da je crnogorski zapravo dijalekat onog jezika u kome je standardni infinitiv s nastavcima -ti i -ći, tj. srpskog ili hrvatskog, a to je POV. Kada biste otvorili gramatiku crnogorskog jezika, za koju nisam siguran da li je još uvijek odštampana, ne biste našli da su glagolski oblici pjevat i moć supini, već infinitivi. Takav je crnogorski infinitiv. A pjevat je supin sa srpske ili hrvatske tačke gledišta. Sa crnogorske, to je takav i jedini - infinitiv. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

E, da. To za supin koji je infinitiv... Stoji to sto govoris i ako u nekom buducem crnogorskom standardu ne postoji oblik na "-ti", onda ce svakkao supin iz standardnog srpskog/hrvatskog/bosanskog biti infinitiv. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali, ovo je malo slozeniji problem. Pre svega, zato sto smo, prema pravilima Vikipedije, poprilicno ograniceni u konstatacijama vezanim za crnogorski jezik: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Mozemo konstatovati da je crnogorski jezik odraz politicke volje oko 100.000 ljudi. U tom smilu, kao politicki entitet (kao i ono sto nazivamo "srpskim", "hrvatskim", "engleskim", "nemackim" itd.) -- postoji. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Ne mozemo konstatovati da standard postoji. Nikceviceva standardizacija nije ono sto institucije CG koriste kada referisu na "crnogorski jezik" ili "crnogorsku verziju". Ako idemo prema toj praksi, crnogorski jezik je isto sto i srpski ijekavski standard + nekoliko razlicitih reci. Stavise, mnogi dijalektizmi koje ovde opisujemo nisu standardni ni u takvom crnogorskom jeziku. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

E, sad. U odnosu na to jedini referentni sistem u odnosu na koji se poredi ono sto ovde opisujemo jeste srpska standardna ijekavica. A u srpskoj standardnoj ijekavici postoje i supin i infinitiv. U tom smislu se moze konstatovati nesto u smislu "da se u govorima Crne Gore standardni supin koristi mesto infinitiva, tj. da je standardni oblik supina zapravo infinitiv". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ostaje nam jos i potpuno neobradjena dijalektologija uopste svih stokavskih dijalekata. Ono sto je do sada obradjeno je vrlo slabo. Drugim recima, u ovom clanku bi trebalo opisivati zametak novog standarda, a ne dijalektaske osobine. Jer, i "govornik srpskog" i "govornik crnogorskog" u npr. Herceg Novom govore istocnohercegovackim dijalektom :) Isto tako i za zetsko-juznosandzacki... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ukupno, na neistrazenom smo terenu, a ovde se ne smemo koristiti originalnim istrazivanjima. I jos treba razgraniciti kategorije... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mada se slažem sa većim dijelom onog što si rekao, ne vidim da si dao neke konkretne smjernice kuda misliš da članak treba da ide (osim onih kuda ne treba da ide). Mogu se složiti da definicija Crnogorskog jezika "ne konvergira" ka Nikčevićevim rješenjima (ali pošto Wikipedija nije kristalna kugla, to se ne može reći u članku). Ne znam ni kako možemo opisati "zametak novog standarda" kad se, koliko mi je poznato, niko (osim prilično izolovanog Nikčevića) ozbiljno ne bavi pokušajima standardizacije; udžbenici koji se koriste su (pretpostavljam) stari, "Srpski", ili u najbolju ruku prepisani na "Srpski ili Crnogorski". Ono što izgleda kao dominantan trend (a što sam i pokušao da kažem u nedavnom doprinosu, pogledaj početak "Language politics" sekcije kao i mišljenja nekih javnih radnika) je da se Crnogorski jezik prosto proglasi ravnopravnim imenom zajedničkog jezika (formerly known as Serbo-Croatian), (donekle amortizujući pritisak na čisto "Srpski" karakter istog), dok bi se kao referenca standardnog jezika koristili pravopisi i gramatike koji su važili i do tad.

Ipak, mislim da dijalektološke karakteristike treba da se nadju u članku, (iako su daleko od savršenih), makar i imale tangencijalni uticaj na primarno političko pitanje. Ako ni zbog čeg drugog, ono zato što jedino one mogu da budu korektno citirane; drugi razlog je što ilustruju da ipak postoji nekakva osnova za lingvističku debatu (koju Nikčević, doduše, tjera do priličnih ekstrema.) Duja 11:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ajde da malo stvari okrenemo naopacke. Pretpostavite da ste slucajan citalac i dosli ste na ovu stranicu da biste nasli informacije o Crnogorskom jeziku. Citalac hoce da sazna sto je to sto ga cini posebnim, karakteristike, mozda i poneki primjer. Ne vjerujem da ga posebno zanima trenutni status rada na donosenju standarda. Ocito je da trenutno postoji znatna razlika izmedju govornog i knjizevnog. Kad govorimo o knjizevnom jeziku, moze da se prihvati teza da je to samo jos jedno ime za Srpsko-Hrvatski, bar dok se ne donese novi standard. Medjutim, kad se govori o govornom jeziku, dijalektoloske karakteristike su tu da objasne stvarno stanje na terenu. Razlika je istodobno i objasnjenje zasto se trazi novi standard. Mislim da se svi slazemo da je razgovor mnogo produktivniji, i strana informativnija, kad su karakteristike "na stolu". Inace, ima ih jos, naravno. Stay tuned :-)Momisan 12:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dujo, otprilike mi je sve to na pameti i treba mozda definisati prvo kako pristupiti temi. I to u smislu laganog osmisljavanja celog clanka (hajd da vidimo sta to i kako treba da opise) dok se ovaj postojeci sredjuje i prilagodjava... Uzmimo, "clanak treba da sadrzi te, te i te sekcije", "imamo te, te i te informacije relevantne za clanak", "ovo, ovo i ovo mozemo da konstatujemo a ono, ono i ono ne mozemo" i sl. (bolje na engleskom da konstruisemo sve to sa razjasnjenjima na nasim jezicima). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Momisane, problem je u tome sto politicki entitet ne govori puno o govornicima dijalekata. Ne mozes reci nekom ko se izjasnjava da govori srpskim da je njegov dijalekat "politicki deo crnogorskog jezika". A sve te osobine pripadaju i jednima i drugima. Dakle, govorni jezik je crnogorski za one koji kazu da govore crnogorskim, a srpski je za one koji kazu da je srpski. To jeste problem ovog clanka (za razliku od supina). Jedina zajednicka odrednica za sve to je zetsko-juznosandzacki dijalekat, odnosno istocnohercegovacki dijalekat. Standardni jezik se moze opisivati tek u odnosu na ono kakvim je definisan (u ovom slucaju vrlo vrlo slican srpskoj ijekavici), a dijalekti nista ne govore o entitetu zvanom crnogorski jezik (kao sto ni sumadijsko-vojvodjanski dijalekat ne govori nista o entitetu zvanom srpski jezik). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"govorni jezik je crnogorski za one koji kazu da govore crnogorskim, a srpski je za one koji kazu da je srpski. To jeste problem ovog clanka ". Ponekad mislim da je najlakse nacrtati dijagram :-) Naslov clanka je "Crnogorski jezik" i taj termin je jednoznacan (dobro, dvoznacan jer se trenutno odnosi na dva dijalekta). Clanak jednostavno treba da detaljnije obradi znacenje tog termina, tj jezicke karakteristike. Tacka. Tvoje polaziste je sa druge strane, od jezika, i onda se konstatuje da taj jezik ima dva imena. Kad bi se taj pristup usvojio, onda bi ime clanka trebalo promijeniti u "Language spoken in Montenegro". Inace, primijetio sam da se ista argumentacija koristi za clanak "Montenegrins". Medjutim, ukoliko se odlucimo za "Language spoken in Montenegro", to ne znaci da "Montenegrin Language" vise nije potreban. Kao sto Bozovic nedje rece, oko 100 000 ljudi koristi taj termin i to se ne moze ignorisati. Moj prijedlog je, dva clanka, inace nastaje zabuna, nadam se nenamjerna. Momisan 01:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bilo kako bilo-do normativnih priručnika, bar bosanske razine, ne može se skoro ništa reći o posebnom standardnom jeziku (nevažne su promjene ovoga ili onoga tipa- samo preimenovanje srpskog (i)jekavskog u crnogorski bilo bi dostatno). Ostaje ipak nekoliko ovlašnih primjedaba:

a) supin može postati relevantan jedino u standardizaciji. Ovako je marginalna pojava lokalnih govora

b) nazivi za dijalekte (hercegovački, istočnohercegovački) produkt su turske politike i njihova imenovanja lokalnih područja. Ako se novoštokavski-ijekavski i tretira kao 1 dijelekt, možda je primjerenije ime "crnogorski". Ne zaboravimo da je spajanje i odvajanje dijalekata uvijek povezano s politikom: neka se izoglosa možda proglasiti ključnom razlučnicom, kao i zanemarivom pojavom

c) ne vidim da postoji autentična artikulirana strast za afirmacijom crnogorskog, bar kao za bošnjački/bosanski.

I, na kraju, trijezna istina: lingvisti mogu napraviti 1, 2,..5,.. jezika iz relativno homogene dijalekatske mase, propisivanjem i normiranjem, tj. eliminacijom stanovitih oblika. Zahvat može ići na svim razinama, a jezična politika- ako je dovoljno uporna- može u potpunosti eliminirati neke oblike (npr., vukovac Maretić eliminirao je iz hrvatskog "proti" s dativom, što koristi još Matoš (proti njemu, proti svim neprijateljima), kao i futur 3. (ja budem pisati), dok je afirmirao neke izraze i pojmove (prijeglas, nazočnost, razudba,..). Iako se čini da u moderno doba zahvati toga tipa nisu mogući zbog elastične stabilnosti/gipke pružnosti standardnih jezika- ne bih se kladio. Baš suprotno, mediji/općila omogućuju ukorijenjivanje preskribiranih/propisanih gramatičkih i leksičkih normi (slovničkih i rječničkih obvezujućih propisa). Mir Harven 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tvoje stanoviste je vise politicko a to je upravo ono sto bih ja htio izbjec. Sadasnji termin Crnogorski jezik, bar onako kako se koristi u dnevnoj upotrebi, se prvenstveno odnosi na "govorni" jezik. Kao sto sam vec napomenuo ranije, ono o cemu ti govoris se odnosi ocito na "knjizevni" Crnogorski. Tekst sa naslovom "Crnogorski" ako pretenduje da potpuno obradi temu, treba da se bavi obojema. Momisan 01:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

E bojim se da se politika ne može izbjeći. Lingvistika (nauka o jeziku) čak i ne daje definiciju jezika, bar ne u distinktivnom smislu o kojem govorimo; "dijalekat" je, s druge strane, relativno dobro definisan pojam. Sociolingvistika, koja je grana sociologije, se bavi definicijom "jezika" sa socio-političkog aspekta. Često citirana maksima je Language is a dialect with an army and navy (taj članak je, btw, sranje, ne postižem da se pozabavim njime). Koncepti se često prepliću, kao i uvijek kad se kompleksna prirodna pojava pokušava klasifikovati u ustaljene šablone (a naše područje u dobrom dijelu bježi tim šablonima); preporučujem članke Ausbausprache za uvod u tematiku s jedne i Dialect continuum s druge strane. Mislim da bismo se svi (čak i Mir) složili da, da je istorija bila drugačija, možda danas imali jedan Jugoslovenski ili Štokavski jezik čak i ako bi njegovi govornici govorili identično kao što govore sada. Ampak, pošto nije, tu smo gdje smo—i ostaje nam da tu situaciju opišemo na fer način. Duja 10:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Da se ne miješa dijakronija i sinkronija- nije isto 21. stoljeće i 10. Stvar bi bila drugačija da na području sadašnje Crne Gore ne postoji pismenost, ili da su pismo napravili nekakvi misionari- recimo, 1890. Za jezik kao dijasistem nije problematično reći što je (iako je možda problematično nazvati to crnogorskim jezikom, no mislim da to i nije neka točka sporenja). To su razno novo- i nenovoštokavski jekavski govori. To je ono što hrvatski lingvist Josip Silić zove "jezik kao sustav". No, "jezik kao standard" nešto je drugo-ne posve drugo, no lingvistička kategorija koja ima svoje zakonitosti. Standardni jezik nosilac je civilizacije, na njemu se pišu udžbenici, titluju filmovi, studira, komunicira u sudstvu, policiji i trgovini....dakle, polivalentno sredstvo komunikacije jedne ili više zajedinica. I taj je jezik zapravo "neprirodan". On je mogao biti ovakav, a ispao je onakav. Engleski bi bio kao skandinavski jezici da francuski Normani nisu izvršili invaziju. Ne bi izgubio padeže i postao analitički, a ne flektivan jezik. Da nije bilo Turaka, možda bi postojala tri-četiri jezika u ex-Yu: kranjski (više-manje ovakav), hrvatski (čakavsko-crkvenoslavenska mješavina), bosanski (štokavsko ikavski) i srpski (štokavsko-ekavsko-crkvenoslavenska mješavina). Da nije bilo fascinacije Iliraca Dubrovnikom, možda bi hrvatski bio temeljen na štokavsko ikavskom. Da Vuk nije inzistirao na seoskim govorima i da je srpska klasa u Vojvodini bila elastičnija, možda bi srpski bio ponarodnjeni slaveno-srpski, bez lomova i prijeloma. Da i Vuk i Ilirci nisu plesali jedni oko drugih i imali love-hate relationship, možda ne bi procesi standardizacije ta dva jezika izazvali takve zbrke da su stranci i dandanas zbunjeni. Možda bi Vuk uveo nesam, nesi, neje,.....da nije tražio neke srednje putove. Možda bi Hrvati imali dvojni standard, ikavski i jekavski (kao što Srbi imaju ekavski i jekavski), da Bečka osmorka nije imala politiku na umu. Možda bi.....No, to su sve spekulacije tipa "što bi bilo kad bi bilo". "Politika" (ili jezično planiranje) određuje standard, i vjerojatno je, sada, jedino zanimljivo pitanje: u kojoj su mjeri jezici standardizirani da uopće više dopuštaju zahvat u svoje tkivo ? Glede Dujine hipoteze: hja, možda. Činjenica je da su još 1914. (Skerlićeva anketa) mnogi vjerovali u to da je moguć jedan jezik, recimo, "novoštokavski". Iako je lako poslije bitke biti general, ja mislim da Srbi i Hrvati nisu mogli imati jedan jezik onako blizak kao npr. američki i britanski engleski, jenostavno zbog ukorijenjenih kulturnih tradicija. Temeljna gramatika (padeži i sl.) mogla je biti ista, no funkcionalni stilovi proistječu iz civilizacije koja ih obilježuje na svim razinama, od sintakse do pragmatike. Vidi s eto po tom što su se od 1850. do 1950. (okvirno) usrdno mučili da stvore jedan i jedinstven jezik, a nisu uspjeli zbog sila kulturnocivilizacijske naravi. Stoga, IMO, pravo pitanje nije "jesu li ti jezici jedan ili više njih", nego- "kako to da su postali tako bliski, a opet ostali razlučivi ?" Mir Harven 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ne vidim zašto bi Vuk uopšte, čak i da nije bilo njegove želje za zajedničkim srpskohrvatskim jezikom, uvodio oblik nesam u književni srpski jezik. Vuk je rođeni ijekavac i njegov rad na standardiranju srpskog jezika zasnovan je na ijekavici, i ijekavski bi i bio i da Vuk nije sarađivao s ilircima. I ne vidim zašto bi srpski bio štokavsko-ekavsko-crkvenoslavenska mješavina da nije bilo Turaka, kad većina Srba govori ijekavskim izgovorom, i kad je i Vuk bio ijekavac. Srpski bi bio ekavski jedino da Vuka nije bilo - a ne Turaka, zaista ne znam kakve veze Turci imaju s tim - ali onda ni hrvatski ne bi bio ijekavski. Zapravo, možda i bi, ali ne bi bilo Vuka da vam napiše pravila kako da ga govorite. :p Ali u pravu si, besmisleno je govoriti o tome "šta bi bilo kad bi..." Samo sam htio da napomenem da je srpski i te kako ijekavski, a ne samo ekavski, i da nije ijekavski zbog Turaka. Srbi su ijekavicu donijeli na Balkan. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hja....ne bih želio skretati u jezično-političko-nacionalne vode, no ti je neizbježno (čini se). Uostalom, nije to prvi put:Talk:Shtokavian_dialect#Looks_like_Ivi.C4.87_deserves_more. Da ne pilim o detaljima: a) Vuk je preuzeo ikavski oblik (nisam...), a ne jekavski (nijesam-iako ga je često koristio, no, to nije bio konačni oblik na kojem se zaustavio), ni ekavski (nesam- što bi bilo konzistentno, ako ne za njega, a ono za većinu srpske pismenosti poslije njega. OK, možda nisam bio dovoljno jasan. b) glede Srba, jekavice i sl.- činjenica je da do Vuka nitko od Srba nije pisao na tom refleksu jata, pa je taj idiom tretiran kao petokolonaški Vukov pokušaj katolizacije i unijaćenja. Vjerojatno je da su većina štokavskih jekavaca (bili) Srbi-no, veoma je upitno da je većina Srba u to doba, 1800-1850., bila izvornim govornicima nekoga oblika štokavske jekavštine. Ne obazirući se na to da su se srpski jekavski govori suzili odonda, i teritorijalno, i demografski (u okviru srpske nacije)- vrlo je upitno jesu li Vukovi podatci o rasprostranjenosti jekavice među Srbima onoga doba točni. Praktički svi su srpski dokumenti u kojima ima vernakulara, od 1300ih nadalje (Dušanov zakonik, djela Venclovića i Raića i sl.) s ekavskom, a ne jekavskom zamjenom jata (ondje gdje je upisana), pa se na tom i slomio pokušaj Vukov da jekavica bude osnovicom srpskoga standarda. Ukratko- srpski su prijevodi hrvatskih vernakularnih tekstova na ikavici (Došen, Relković) i jekavici (Gundulić, kasnije Šenoa) na ekavski oblik pokazali da se taj idiom, generalno, tretira kao nešto strano. Time ne negiram ulogu srpske jekavice u literaturi (Kočić, Ćopić, Selimović, Njegoš (?)). No- to je ispalo onako usput. Glavna je teze, s tom ilustracijom ili bez nje, nepromijenjena: standardni jezik je konstrukt s dosta proizvoljnoga u sebi. Mir Harven 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To je tačno da do Vuka niko od srpskih književnika nije pisao na ijekavskom, ali ne zato što niko od Srba nije govorio ijekavski (baš naprotiv - većina Srba su (bili) ijekavci), već zato što se srpska pisana književnost u 17. i 18. vijeku jedino mogla razvijati u Vojvodini, koja je ekavska (Venclović, Dositej Obradović, Jovan Sterija Popović i dr.), dok su Srbi ijekavci živjeli u Turskom carstvu, gdje pismenosti nije bilo, bar ne u tolikoj mjeri da bi se stvorila jedna značajna pisana književnost. Međutim, usmena književnost se jeste i te kako razvijala, a ona je upravo ijekavska. Ali bilo je i rijetkih književnika u tadašnjoj Turskoj, koji su, dakle, bili ijekavci. Na primjer, užički pekar Miladin Radović u drugoj polovini čak 19. stoljeća, kada je Užice već poodavno dio ekavske (šumadijska ekavica je u pitanju) Srbije, piše svoj "Samouki rukopis", hronologiju tadašnje užičke istorije, i svakako koristi svoj maternji izgovor - ijekavski. Zatim, Vuk nije, koliko se meni čini, prihvatio oblik nisam, to je valjda bilo nekad nakon njega, u kasnijoj standardizaciji srpskog (srpskohrvatskog) jezika, a sam Vuk uvijek je pisao nijesam. Takođe je tek Aleksandar Belić (1930-tih godina) predložio da se piše tih i ovim, umjesto dotadašnjeg tijeh i ovijem, što je i Vuk tako pisao. Onda, htio sam još napomenuti i to da se ekavski izgovor pojavio u Raškoj u 13. vijeku. Kao što već rekoh, Srbi su s ijekavicom došli na Balkan, kao što su Hrvati donijeli ikavicu. A glavna prepreka da ijekavica bude osnova srpskog književnog jezika, kako je to Vuk zamislio i Daničić i drugi nakon njega, bilo je to što se većina srpske intelektualne elite nalazila u ekavskim oblastima - Novom Sadu, Beogradu, djelimično i Nišu. Čini se da je njima ipak bilo preteško govoriti mlijeko i dijete. :) Zato danas u srpskom jeziku imamo tu dvojakost ekavice i ijekavice. --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Molim vas, tema je Crnogorski jezik. Dujo, u redu, izbjec je mozda prejaka rijec. Srz pitanja Crnogorskog jezika, medjutim, i jeste fakt da sadasnji standardi ne odgovaraju u dovoljnoj mjeri sadasnjem govornom jeziku. Sa formiranjem drzave, ono sto je bio marginalan lokalni govor u Jugoslovenskim razmjerama, sada postaje vecinski, u Crnogorskim razmjerama. Jedan dio obrazovane populacije ne zeli vise da se povinuje arbitrarnim jezickim pravilima iz 19 vijeka i zeli svoj govorni jezik priznat i standardizovan. To je cijela prica i treba je kao takvu i prezentirati citaocoma Vikipedije. Zbog toga clanak kao poglavlje ima i opis govornoga jezika. Momisan 01:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. No, onda bi trebale postojati informacije o dijelu populacije CG koje traži neke standardnojezične zahvate, te opisati profil tih zahvata. Mislim da je korektno naveden dio o Nikčeviću (pročitao sam jednu njegovu knjigu s karakterističnim tipom grafije)-no, to je, koliko znam-sve. Budući da wiki služi kao servis informacija, tu može biti samo navoda o dijalekatskom profilu CG, te o iznesenim i raspravljanim projektima nove crnogorske jezične profilacije. Možda nemam dovoljno podataka, no, nisam čuo da postoji širi pokret s jasnije definiranim ciljevima o standardu (kakav je bio (i još jest) među Bošnjacima). Mir Harven 11:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali fakat da "sadašnji standardi ne odgovaraju u dovoljnoj mjeri govornom jeziku" je, manje ili više, slučaj svugdje. Većina Hrvata jedva da poznaje četvoroakcenatski sistem, i slabo razlikuje je i ije; dobar dio Bošnjaka slabo ferma č/ć, dž/đ; kao što Miloš reče, on sam ima problema sa postakcenatskim dužinama; ja sam nekako usvojio sve vrijeme, ali Miličin ne mogu da prevalim preko usta; o torlački padeži da i ne pričamo. Kad jedan dijalekt ili idiom (makar i bio "oktroisan", kao što je istočnohercegovački, Hrvati bi rekli dubrovački) uđe u široku upotrebu i etablira se kao jezik medija i pisaca, te obrazovanijeg dijela populacije, teško je naknadno "ispravljati krive Drine", i to novo "oktroisanje" će naići na značajan otpor onog drugog dijela javnosti: ili će se govor onih koji su do tada pričali "pravilno" odjednom postati "nepravilan", ili će se dopustiti sve i svašta, što će dovesti do haosa. Pogledaj koliko je buke nastalo oko benignih stvari u German spelling reform, a i oko ne ću u Hrvatskoj. Kad se stvar jednom učauri, teško je ispraviti krive Drine.
Ne slažem se u potpunosti da je sadašnji "standardni" jezik u Crnoj Gori "povinovan arbitrarnim jezičkim pravilima"; mislim da on dosta odgovara npr. hercegnovskom izrazu. To je slučaj i sa npr. Hrvatskim, baziranim na dubrovačkom. Iako su to manjinski dijalekti, što kaže Mir, "standardni jezik je konstrukt s dosta proizvoljnoga u sebi", a pokušaji da se status quo promijeni će uvijek izazvati mnogo vatre. Duja 10:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mislim da je kljucna rijec dovoljnoj, a ona je, slazem se, rastegljiv pojam. Nemam kristalnu kuglu, medjutim, samo sam zelio da naglasim da Nikcevic nije usamljen i da bi trebalo objasniti motivaciju. U nedostatku boljih izvora, mozete pogledati ovaj link [1] kao nekakav presjek trenutnog stanje dijaloga o jeziku u CG. Istocno-Hercegovacki dijalekt izgleda prilicno prostran na mapi, medjutim kad se pogleda u kojim se to gradovima govori: Niksic, Zabljak, Savnik, Pljevlja, Mojkovac, H Novi(?). Max 25-30% populacije.Momisan 01:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need a mapping table between South-Slavic language names and dialects

After the above discussion in Hmm I think a table that maps Language names to Shtokavian, kajkavijan and Cakavijan dialects would clarify terminology ambiguities once and for all.

Along the lines:

Dialect | Serbian | Croatian | Bosnian | Montenegrin |

Torlak. | x | | | |

Zeta | x | | | x |

E. Herz.| x | x | x | x |

etc. Momisan 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Dialect	Sub-Dialect	Serbian	Croatian	Bosnian	Montenegrin
Štokavian	Torlakian	x
	Zeta-South Sandžak	x		x	x
	Eastern Herzgovinian	x	x	x	x
	Šumadija-Vojvodina	x
	Dalmatian-Bosnian/Western Ikavian		x	x
	Kosovo-Resava	x		x
	East-Bosnian	x	x	x
	Slavonian	x	x	x
Čakavian	Buzet		x
	Southwest Istrian		x
	Northern Čakavian		x
	Middle Čakavian		x
	Southern Čakavian		x
	Lastovo		x
Kajkavian	Burgenland Croatian		x

I agree, it is hard to understand with all these different dialects in the Serbo-Croatian languages. I made an example of a table on top of this comment. Crna Gora 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Really a good table of the SerboCroatian dialects, showing all in details. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Momisan 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Kajkavian row should be expanded. RockyMM 09:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, aren't there any Serbs in East Bosnia? And in Western Bosnia (Neo-Ikavian dialect)? And in Lastovo, perhaps? No...? --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The correct question to ask would be: Are there any people that speak East-Bosnia dialect and call it Serbian, Croatian ...Momisan 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly all Serbs and Croats of Cities of Sarajevo, Tuzla and Zenica, but they might be considered as a "foreign element" (as they probably gradually migrated into cities during the course of 1800s and 1900s) (see Image:Ethnic_Composition_of_BiH_in_1991.gif). As for Croats, there is plenty of them e.g. in Vareš, but I'm not sure about their dialect. Duja 13:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added bosnian for sandzak and kosovo (around 60 000 speakers in Prizren area)

As I have tried to correct some, by my opinion, incorrect dialect-ethnicity relationships (see [[2]]) and that produced revert, I'll present here ongoing debate. Please feel free to contribute. --Plantago 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC) :

Source and explanation for revert? --Plantago 09:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As you were the first to edit information that was there for a long time, it would be nice if you at first place provided some references yourself to support your claims. However, you can refer to Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, Simo Matavulj and other researchers as well as the former population censuses of these areas to make sure that there are - or at least, there were - speakers of these dialects who declared as Serbs. Cheers, --George D. Božović 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as you said on my talk page:"...it would be nice if you at first place provided some references yourself to support your claims. However, you can refer to Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, Simo Matavulj and other researchers as well as the former population censuses of these areas to make sure that there are - or at least, there were - speakers of these dialects who declared as Serbs.", I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I HAVE cited reference for the mentioned change (please see my changes you have reverted and you can see that I had reference to Shtokavian dialect wiki page - see 7 and 8). If you disagree with that, than that page should be changed accordingly.
In addition, it would be nice that you provide some online available reference for your data and distinguish between place of living, being that city, region or country/state, and speaking certain dialect. Serbs in Bosnia and Slavonia definitely do not in general speak ikavian, do they? Regards, --Plantago 10:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Wikipedia articles are not reliable references to claim upon while supporting claims in other articles. I think it says somewhere, on some Wikipedia pages about citing sources (I can't look for it now). Many well-known Slavicists such as Safarik, Dobrovsky, and Vuk Karadzic have considered all Shtokavian dialects Serbian. Simo Matavulj was Serbian author who often wrote in his native Western Ikavian dialect. Slavonian dialect was used by Serbs of Slavonia (today mostly assimilated into Croats, yet some of them left in eastern Slavonia). --George D. Božović 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Đorđe, interesting remark, that WP is not good source for WP, why then we are writing at all!? I read mentioned citing rules, it applies to academic research, because WP is dynamic and unacceptable to many academic institutions. I don't want to discuss this issue in private anymore, I'm suggesting that we copy this issue to talk page and see what other other have to say. I hope you have nothing against that. Cheers, --Plantago 08:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bre

I was under strong impression that the Montenegrin language never possessed a word such as "bre" and that this is typical for Serbia. However, recently I have been hearing this accross the movies & media as well as in several coffee shops in Montenegro. Are those exceptions? --PaxEquilibrium 14:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well of course, originally this word is Torlakian only, but under the influence of mass-media, today it is used all over Serbia and Montenegro. Montenegrin and Western Serbia equivalent of bre would be more (More, Marko, ne ori drumova), but today it is much less used than bre. --Djordje D. Bozovic 11:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro and bre??? Heck, I got to tell a joke...

Turista spava na dušeku u moru na crnogorskom primorju, kad čovjek sa obale ugleda peraje morskog psa kako kruži oko njega. On poviče iz sveg glasa:

• Čoče, čoče, probudi se, probudi se!
• Šta je bilo BRE?!
• Ništa, ništa, samo ti spavaj...

Duja 06:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll say just one thing: [3]. Nikola 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Govt. website

Montenegrin govt. official website is www.vlada.cg.yu,and not www.montenegro.yu,as written in the article.Is it sufficient to say that the site has no Serbian language version,but Montenegrin? Sideshow Bob 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The language issue is (like many regarding Montenegrins/Serbs) fairly schizophrenic. The problem is that "Serbian Language" as official is still written in the Constitution, and a significant majority of citizens declared it as mother tongue in the 2002 census. However, as anyone with a non-skewed point of view could see, that situation is probably totally different now (also, AFAIK, there is a motion to change the Constitution)—the figures for Serbian and Montenegrin are probably pretty much reversed today, but we (AFAICT) don't have any polls or official data to support it.

http://www.montenegro.cg.yu acts as a portal for all state-related web sites. As a counterexample, the President's web site has "crnogorsko-srpska verzija". Probably the best solution for Wikipedia is to mention both languages where required, or avoid the reference altoghether if possible. Duja► 09:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The only reason is that the Montenegrin President is Serbian. ;) The Government is mostly ethnically Montenegrin. As regards to the official language - F. V. assured the Cetinje Metropolitan that the Serbian language will remain the official language of Montenegro in the future. --PaxEquilibrium 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This constitution ypur are talking about was adopted in 1992. According to Government Authorities, the new constitution is to be adopted next year, possibly during the springtime. So expect some changes, if any. --Crna Gora 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrin Wikipedia?

Is there a debate over whether or not to allow a Wikipedia in Montenegrin? Badagnani 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There was one, about a year ago, at m:Requests for new languages, but it was declined. Oh, I see there was a new one also, but rejected too. Duja► 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Gkmx 01:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)How about a Monte language wikipedia and another Negrin language wikipedia? Perhaps a Sumadinska wikipedia? Vojvodinska? What do you think?

There is no problem with Wikipedias in different dialects. --George D. Božović 11:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I know who would endorse a wikipedia in Užican speech >;). Đorđe, nice quote mining in that article btw. :-) Duja► 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote mining? Point it out then. I do believe Wikipedias in different Serbo-Croatian dialects would be quite useful. --George D. Božović 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic considerations

Section Linguistic considerations purports to give some features of Montenegrin language. However, they appear not to actually exist, as I will demonstrate with a set of Google searches of cg.yu domain, which accurately represent how Montenegrins actually speak.

• Using što for interrogative form of what (as in Croatian, and unlike Serbian šta): [4] vs [5].
• The group a + o gave a ("ka" instead of "kao", reka for rekao): [6] vs [7]
• Several "hyper-ijekavisms" (words keeping a jat reflex from a non-existing or elsewhere differently evolved original) (nijesam, tijeh, ovijeh, ovijema, tijema and kisjelo (or kiśelo when the iotation occurs): [8] vs [9].
• Hyper-iotations (đe for gdje, đevojka for djevojka, đeca for djeca, lećeti for letjeti, ćerati for tjerati, ćeskoba for tjeskoba etc): [10] vs [11] (in some words it's correct).

The most that could be said is that "some proponents of Montenegrin language claim that it should have these features" or something to that effect. Nikola 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The way Montenegrins speak is somehow different than how they write. They write in the standard Ijekavian Serbian language. However, some of them still speak one of the two non-standard traditional dialects used in Montenegro. This section describes those features of these dialects that differ from the standard language. The proponents of the separate Montenegrin language tend to standardize the language upon these dialectal forms. The Montenegrin language as such is not standardized yet, so Montenegrins have to write in the current standard language, and that language does not support these local features. And you can't use Google to find out how the native speakers of any of the Serbo-Croatian dialects (which are non-standard) speak (or were speaking, but the point is that you cannot write in a non-standardized dialect). --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It actually isn't because Serbian language has phonetic orthography and people write as they speak. Furthermore, if they would follow the standard, they would follow it completely, which is not the case (for example, nijesam is more common than nisam, but ovijeh is much less common than ovih). Fact, there are no linguistic features of Montenegrin language as it isn't codified, nor is there an agreement on how should it be codified, nor is there any prevailing pattern among people who claim to speak it. Nikola 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is: read again what Djordje just said. We are talking about the spoken language and you are talking about the standardised written language. Exactly because there are differences between the two, there is a movement to standardise the written language in Montenegro along the spoken-language characteristics. All native Montenegrin speakers and everyone who actually listened how they talk will agree with the statement. Also, there is aboundant literature describing Zeta dialect and its characteristics. Momisan 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no exact pattern because it is a dialect, which doesn't have a standard norm. Nikola, ja nikada ne potcenjujem ljude druge struke, ali ponekad mislim da je glupo to što se neki drugi stanu mešati u ono što im nije poziv. Ne kažem da ti nisi dovoljno obrazovan za svoju struku, ali ne verujem ni da bi se baš mogao uključiti u neku stručniju raspravu u vezi s dijalektologijom srpskohrvatskog jezika. Nemoj pogrešno da me razumeš - nije mi cilj da te vređam ili nešto slično, samo kažem da nisi u pravu i da možda ne možeš uvek da tvrdiš nešto što izilazi iz okvira tvoje struke. Nadam se da razumeš. ;) Sa ovim delom članka je sve u redu, i ja stojim iza toga. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But that is actually exactly what I said. The features not only are not "universally spoken in the country" as the article already says, but even a single speaker who has one doesn't neccesarily have another. I'll remove the tag for now but will think about how to edit the article. Nikola 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you believe that wording is not perfect? What I was saying is that the features of the dialects and speeches traditionally used in Montenegro are accurately listed and described here, despite that not all Montenegrins use each and every one of them. :) It is how the dialects work - they have their own characteristics which differ from the standard language, but since they don't have a norm or something like that, it's perfectly normal that their features vary from one native speaker to another (like Momisan said, a dialect is a spoken language and it can't be written by various people using exactly the same pattern - if it had a pattern, a norm, it wouldn't be a dialect at all, but a standardized language). --Djordje D. Bozovic 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I've never heard Montenegrins call a wave val, but instead talas. Rock is not pećina because pećina means cave. I've never heard of Montenegrins use kapire for "to understand" To talk, Montenegrins use both as a matter of fact, villagers using mostly velit(i). Also, I've never heard a Montenegrin call sand pržina because nearly all Montenegrins call sand pijesak. Please provide sources for your information. --Crna Gora 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Val is as common as talas in everyday use. You even have a waterpolo club in Boka named "Val". Przina is probably an archaic term, since I haven't heard it but a few times.Kapirat and razumjet are synonims for verb to understand and are equally understood by an average Montenegrin. Sideshow Bob 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree to change the statement "instead of" to "along with". The "Croatian" words have been much longer in use, though. I intentionally chose words that are considered "true blue" Montenegrin, not neologisms like kapirat. My intention was to show that there are Montenegrin synonyms for quite a number of "standard blessed" words, in a daily use. The words that are rarely used in Serbian language or are systematically supressed trough the school system and officially considered "old" and "archaic". Surprisingly, the same words are used quite regularly in Croatian and/or Macedonian. Now, for the specific words: don't tell me noone ever asked you: što veliš? in the city? It is as common as good morning, at least in Podgorica and Cetinje :-) pržina is now an old word, but it is still alive, especially if you talk to older people. You have heard of the beach pržno? Pećina, if you ever went to swim in Morača river, you would have dived from a pećina, not stijena. Also, have you ever heard that the summit of Durmitor is sometimes called ćirova pećina along with Bobotov Kuk? Now, you know why. No friend ever gave you a pat on the back accompanied with pećino!!? Don't tell me you thought he said cave!? It is not used much, but it does exist, that is the point.I must say I am not sure if it exist in Croatian or not :-)Momisan 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I actually do agree with you. I just didn't use common sense when I posted my post earlier. --Crna Gora 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, many of these words are not used all over Montenegro and are really rarely used in the literary language. They are actually a characteristics of some of the dialects and speeches of Montenegro, especially those of the littorial. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Djordje, these words are used in the Montenegro proper, where I grew up (Podgorica, katunska nahija, zeta, etc.).Momisan 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Montenegrin words - Kromid, Bostan, Oris and Pipun These are words for fruits and vegetables that differ from Serbia's vocabulary while being used widely in Montenegro, Kromid being used along with luk mostly in the Plav/Berane area, Bostan, Watermelon, being used in Podgorica as well as plav/berane region and boka kotorska, Oris used in the littoral along with the Plav/Berane region, in Djenovici nobody understood what pirinac meant and everyone called rice oris, and Pipun is used interchangebly with Dinja for melon in Montenegro. - Critikal1

[edit] Literature

Almost all literary works, created in Montenegro until the begining of the 20th century were written in one of the Montenegrin vernaculars, mostly in the language spoken around Cetinje, then the capital city a.k.a the Zeta dialect.

If you don't provide some veriable sources for such claim, this should be removed. I am pretty sure that the medieval and even some later (17th and 18th century) works of Montenegrin authors were written in Old Church Slavonic, and certainly not in the local vernacular. Even the language used by Njegoš contains a lot of Russian and Old Slavonic words and grammatical forms. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, I don't have access to the early works apart from online sources which are heavily editted to conform with "the standard". Propose to change to "Almost all literary works, created in Montenegro during the 19th century .."Momisan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think of it as of weasel wording. Try making sentence like this: "Many written works of Montenegrin authors provide examples of the local Montenegrin vernacular..." or something like that. Also, note that the Zeta-Sanjak dialect is not the only dialect used in Montenegro. Its characteristics do not prevail in the Montenegrin literature, but also the characteristics of some speeches of the East Herzegovina dialect. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

They include some of the folk literature collected by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić and works of writers from Montenegro, such as Petar II Petrović Njegoš's Gorski vijenac (The Mountain Wreath) and other books.

Njegoš's language was not fully Montenegrin. It did contain many Russian and Old Slavonic words and forms, and moreover Njegoš even changed some local language characteristics found in the manuscript to those of Vuk Karadžić's proposed Serbian standard before he printed the "Gorski vijenac". For example, most of the accusatives of place characteristical for local Montenegrin dialects were changed by Njegoš to Serbian standard locatives (the stanzas "U dobro je dobro biti, na muku se poznaju junaci" from the manuscript became "U dobru je dobro biti, na muci se poznaju junaci" in the printed version). --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it was not 100% fully Montenegrin vernacular. However, it is, if we can put a number on it, at least 95% Montenegrin, or "gentrified" Montenegrin. It is also much more Montenegrin that any other known Serbo-Croatian standard or a dialect. I think you are little bit splitting hairs here, criticising without giving any constructive proposals. Are you suggesting that it is NOT Montenegrin at all? BTW the correct quote is: "U dobru je lako dobar biti, na muci se poznaju junaci" :-) How about this one: "Vidji vraga su sedam binjišah, su dva mača i su dvije krune"? Momisan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, I partly misquoted it. :) Perhaps a note on Njegoš's language can be introduced to this section. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Croatian author, Ivan Mažuranić, wrote Smrt Smail-age Čengića (Death of Smail-aga Čengić), a 19th century, true story based, epic about vendetta action that Montenegrins set against a prominent Piva-Drobnjak muslim Smail-aga Čengić.

The story about Smail-aga Čengić as Mažuranić described it was not fully "true". In Mažuranić's version it contains many characters and events invented by Mažuranić. Smail-aga was muselim (I didn't mean to say 'muslim' - with lower case m). Muselim was a position in Ottoman Turkish society. By the way, why is this mentioned here? This is not Montenegrin, but Croatian literature, isn't it? :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is based on a true story, not "the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth". I think my sentence is clear on that. As per Muselim, I could not find that word in the English dictionary. Would Sipahi(Spahija) be close enough? He was from Gacko and his subjects (and tîmâr???) were from Drobnjak. Does "Death of Smail-aga Čengić" belong to the Montenegrin Literature?... It is written in the Montenegrin vernacular, that is my claim. My opinion is that it also does belong to the Montenegrin literature, along with the Croatian, however that is another question and it doesn't belong in this article.Momisan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say: true event, not the true story. Apologies. Momisan 12:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Smail-aga Čengić was a muselim indeed, not a spahija. The language of the epic does look somewhat like the local language of Montenegro, but it is certainly not the same thing, nor Mažuranić wrote in Montenegrin, but in Croatian (the East Herzegovina dialect, similar to that of Dubrovnik area). From any point of view (beside the fact that the Piva and Drobnjak regions in present-day Montenegro are where the story took place) this epic simply belongs to Croatian and not Montenegrin literature... Including the language. Look again: locatives denote place instead of accusatives characteristical for the Zeta-Sanjak dialect, "Gacko polje, l'jepo ti si/kad u tebi glada ne ima" --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I will have another look at the epic ([12]). The verse that you chose does sound more Bosnian (or Herzegovinian if you wish), however, that scene is happening in Gacko and there are others who sound more Montenegrin: "Podiže se četa mala, Na Cetinju Gore Crne.Malena je, ali hrabra, U njoj jedva sto junaka, Ne junaka biranijeh Po obličju ni ljepoti, Već po srcu junačkome;." C'mon, the whole epic talks about Montenegrins and their actions, the only non-Montenegrin elements are Smail-aga and the author. BTW, I have heard many times that it was almost impossible for a non-Montenegrin to get their language so much right and that the true author was Njegos himself. However, because he personally organised the asasination, it would have been totally politicaly incorrect, i.e. it would have caused a diplomatic row with Turkey, for him to publish the epic about it under his name. Ivan Mazuranic volunteered and secured his place in the literary history. I am little dismayed that you cannot recognise this fact. I am sure Mir will have something to add on this one as well :-) Regards, Momisan 06:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Some philologists do believe that this epic was possibly written by Njegoš (once he said that he had another text to be published, but he gave it for reading to a guest who took it and never returned it back), but this belief did not have support in main stream Yugoslav philology, nor there are any proofs for this. Why do you think "junačkome" is an example of Montenegrin language? This form is present in so many dialects and in all literary languages that have developed from common Serbo-Croatian standard. "biranijeh" does look like Montenegrin, but it is also present in some other Ijekavian areas, including the (East Herzegovinian) Dubrovnik speech, which is actually the most similar to the language of this epic. Mažuranić wrote in the East Herzegovina dialect, most likely in its Dubrovnik speech. The fact that the epic simply talks about Montenegrins is not a criteria to include it into the Montenegrin literature, is it? Besides, Njegoš always wrote in deseterac, ten syllables long stanzas, and "The Death of Smail-aga Čengić" doesn't have a common metric through the whole epic, right? ;) --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting topic. Mažuranić, let's assume it was him, struck a true chord in Montenegrins with this epic. It wasn't just someone telling a story about them, they felt it was one of them telling the story. Noone before or after him ever did anything similar in the history of South-Slav literature (in my humble knowledge :). It is a true art. Perhaps, the language was just close enough so the magic of the art did the rest, I don't know. I think Mazuranic tried to write in Montenegrin dialect and the result ended up somewhere in between Dubrovnik and Cetinje :)Momisan 04:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrin Language Dictionary

I have come accross people asking if there are any published dictionaries of the Montenegrin language. So far, I have found a reference to this book: Feel free to add more.Momisan 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PRIŚET NA RJECNIK SV. PETRA CETINJSKOGA, Cetinje, 1996. Publisher : Crnogorski Kulturni Krug -- Cetinje, Elementa Montenegrina-- Cetinje; Author: Sreten Zeković;Editor: Borislav Cimeša; Press: Cicero-- Cetinje

[edit] Is there h heard in Montenegro?

Sound /x/ (h) is lost in most speeches of Montenegro, unlike most other Štokavian dialects, where it is heard.

No, CrnaGora, it is other way around. No matter how you pronounce it yourself, I doubt you are acquainted with all the speeches of Montenegro and their linguistic characteristics. The phoneme h was lost during the Middle Ages in the most of Štokavian dialects, being simply removed from the language or being replaced with phonemes v, j, k, g, or s, depending on the etymology and phonetic environment in the respectable word. However, it was Montenegro where this sound was usually preserved. This disappearance of h was mostly influenced by the Turkish language, but the Turks had very poor power in mountainous Montenegro, and there were not very much of them in order to influence the language (note that loans from Italian are far more present in Montenegrin vernacular than loans from Turkish). Moreover, Vuk Karadžić did not use this sound until he visited Cetinje in 1836 and heard it there, so he introduced it to the alphabet and printed his Srpske narodne poslovice ("Serbian folk proverbs") that same year in Cetinje, which was the first of his books to contain h in the text. Also, h is never dropped in the text of Njegoš's Gorski vijenac: hajduče, zahuči, haljinah, gluho doba noći, zla nadživjeh tvoja svakolika, s Lovćena navrh Crkvine, devet putah jednako se čuje, strašnijeh gromovah, da li ne znaš Turke od Nikšićah, petnaest hiljadah Turakah, pohulio na vjeru Hristovu etc. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Đorđe, you might be right when you say this but today, Montenegrins barely pronounce the /x/ sound (h phoneme). Trust me on this. In other Štokavian dialects, it is heard, mostly by Serbs. Why do you think Montenegrins say "fala" instead of "hvala" or say "ajde" instead of "hajde". Why don't you go to Montenegro for a little while and see if I am right when saying that they barely pronounce the phoneme h. --CG 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to, partially, agree with CG on this although it is not so clear cut. The 'h' is very prominent in Gorski Vijenac, however, it is very rarely, or never used in Montenegrin dialects, just like in Serbia proper and chakavian Dalmatia. In fact, I have never heard "strašnijeh gromovah", but, it is very common to hear "strašnija gromova". In fact, when the 'h' is removed from archaisms like "strašnijeh" they suddenly become our familiar, daily used words. Noone says "crnijeh murava" but everyone says "crnija murava". For serbs: murva=dud=mulberry :) On the other hand, 'h' is now, although introduced by a decree, quite common. Noone says any more "aljina", "ajduk" etc. My view is that this one is a lost cause, CG, although there is a fair amount of factuality in your statements.Momisan 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More and Vala

My parents are montenegrins who lived in Novi Sad for a very long time, and they know these words were never used there or Belgrad, only in Montenegro.

No, you're wrong. These interjections are quite common outside Montenegro as well. For example, I myself use and hear them a lot here in the west of Serbia. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting you say that since I have been to Uzice and my uncle has many times, and neither I nor him have ever heard those words said by the serbs there, if its used there then they know you're from Montenegro. I dont think you were right in deleting my addition because I was right, since its not used in Belgrad, Novi Sad nor Zlatibor, while being used frequently in Podgorica and Niksic, it is clear to see that it should be associated with Montenegro and not Serbia, although you *may* now hear them in Uzice thanks to Montenegrins. - Critikal1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, it is quite commonly used. I use it myself and actually I don't know anyone who doesn't use it (phrase vala baš is particulary common). Nikola 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Most interesting. So on one side there are you, who have been to Užice a couple of times (and therefore you believe you perfectly know the way Užičans speak), and on the other side there's me, living there and being an Užičan myself, speaking so for the entire life, and being a linguist quite introduced with Serbo-Croatian dialectology; and your conclusion is that those must have been Montenegrins who spoke like that. (!?) --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes i'm not basing it of just MY knowledge but my uncles and some of my family's knowledge, my uncle has been to uzice many times, mostly Zlatibor since he considers uzice not a great place, and can say full-heartedly, "if you say more over there, they know you're a montenegrin", now you may be a "linguist", but you cannot deny the fact that those words are used mostly in Montenegro and not Serbia, maybe some seljaki in uzice use it, but if the majority in Belgrad, Novi Sad or Nis are not using it, while Podgoricanin and Niksicanin are, then your bound to come to the conclusion they're our words. - Critikal1

As Critikal1 used incorrect plural of "seljak", I submit that he is not from here, which makes his entire story false. Nikola 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no relevance if the speakers are peasants (seljaci) or academics. These words are used all over the Štokavian area, including many places outside Montenegro. The Serbian language is the Serbian language in Belgrade as well as in Užice, and it is the same language no matter of the speakers' education and place of living. Therefore, if some people who name their language Serbian use those words in every-day communication, and even if they are peasants, then those words do exist in the Serbian language. Moreover, I could say now that the Montenegrins are seljaci, as you claim those words being often used by Montenegrins. (Note that you have just called myself and Nikola seljaci.) --Djordje D. Bozovic 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Both of these words ('more' in particular) are turcisms and as such historically mostly used by various muslim populations of the Balkans. In Montenegro, 'more' would mostly be used around Rozaje and Sandzak in general in the North and Bar and Ulcinj in the south, where there is a significant muslim population. 'Vala' is more common in general use although again it is not considered a tru blue Montenegrin word. Momisan 13:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H

That with the "H" was correct. --PaxEquilibrium 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pax, you've got to be joking. Most Montenegrins nowadays somewhat pronounce the "h" phoneme, including me. Momisan even agrees with me. That was a historical thing, not based on real facts today. --CG 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we speaking here about the Montenegrin slang or the traditional Montenegrin vernacular? I believe most Montenegrins today say ajde, but that is nothing more than slang adopted from the mass media. The Zeta-Sandžak dialect does contain this phoneme. --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About "ura"

Certainly "ura" (hour) and "urar" (watch-maker) are loans from German Uhr (which itself stems from Latin hora): Branislav Brborić mentions them as loans from German (Serb. германизми) several times on that page. --George D. Božović 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay well while this may be true, in present day german "hour" is "Stunde", while "uhr" means "clock", not the same meaning as the Montenegrin word. Nevertheless it should still be implemented into the Linguistic Considerations section somehow. --Critikal1

[edit] Oteti

Otu (ocu, i want) and Netu (Necu, I dont want), does anyone know anything about these words? I hear they are used by Montenegrins in Berane.

Apparently palatalization did not occur. Just like in mogu from moći. However, note that not all Montenegrins use these forms. Actually, most of them do not - palatalized forms (h)oću and neću prevail even in Berane. --George D. Božović 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cesa

Cesa is used as 'what' in the interrogative form, many montenegrins use this word can any linguist shed some light on this.

Does ANYONE know about ćesa??Critikal1 08:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is česa or chesa. As anon pointed out, it is used, in Podgorica at least, very often among "old Podogričans" meaning 'what'. As an example: "Soke, česa si ono činjela jutros, na zoru?" Momisan 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content

A lot of this article belongs to an article about the Zeta-South Sandžak dialect and an article about the dialects of Boka Kotorska. These dialects are called Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian etc by their various speakers. This article should confine itself to the political concept of a Montenegrin language.--Hadžija 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Let's just say sociolinguistic not political concept. --George D. Božović 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's just say it's not based purely on linguistic considerations. I've added the NPOV tag, as the article talks about the dialects of Montenegro and contrasts them with the Serbian and Croatian languages - despite the fact that a 3 to 1 majority of speakers of these dialects consider them dialects of the Serbian language. So, what the article is actually talking about are dialects which are mostly considered Serbian by the speakers, and comparing them to other Serbian dialects. And this in the article on the Montenegrin language!--Hadžija 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Montenegrin language is just as linguistically valid as Croatian or Bosnian, being just as different if not more than them, denying the validness is degrading on your part.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.98.160 (talk • contribs)

You appear to have missed the point entirely, which is that we should separate linguistic factors from political/identity issues. Nothing to do with the validity of Montenegrin as a seprate language.--Hadžija 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am back from a well deserved vacation where I was actually talking some Montenegrin for a change, so re-energised let me share some of my thoughts on the matter :-) Why would you want to separate linguistical factors from political/identity issues? I think this question was discussed before at some length so I would suggest you to read previous posts before starting the whole debate again. What is exactly that you want to imply, that the Montenegrin language doesn't exist, that we need a separate page for linguisic consideration as it is getting pretty long, or something else? Personally, when I type Montenegrin Language in Wikipedia, I would expect to get some linguistic information of the language, i.e. some hard facts I can then use to assess political discussion about it. I was looking into improving article about Zeta-Zandzak dialect, however, the rest of the Shtokavian dialects were so poorly described that writing two pages just about Zeta dialect would look out of place. Furthermore, it is not entirely correct to box the dialects of Montenegro entirely into Shtokavian as it has some elements of Chakavian (ka instead of kao, the intonations etc. to name just a few)Momisan 13:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

Personally, I am disgusted with not only this article, but also with the Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian ones. There is not 4 separate languages in the Balkans, but one common one and I personally believe its time this people in the Balkans grow up and realize that. They might not like each other, but they cannot change the fact they are all the same ethnicity. Its like the old cliche, "You can choose your friends, not your family". So grow up Yugoslav people and realize the fact. --Happyman22 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I totaly agree with you, Happyman22. Cheers!24.86.110.10 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it's hardly the article's fault. Wikipedia is not the place to be directing your disgust. --Ptcamn 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I wish more people (not talking about Happyman) would realise WP, as an encyclopaedia, merely reflects the crappy state of the world.--Hadžija 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what Wikipedia is, all I wanted to do is to express my disgust. It's definately not the fault of Wikipedia. --Happyman22 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrins have been proven through anthropology and blood by Carleton S. Coon to be ethnically different than the rest of the balkans, carrying old cro-magnon genes from ancient times, so no, we are not the same as the rest of the yugoslavs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Modern South Slavs are not purely Slavonic. All of them, not only Montenegrins, also have Illyrian and Celtic blood, and some of them Turkish blood, too. Slavs who settled the Balkans assimilated aboriginal Illyrians and Celts (so-called "Vlachs"). --George D. Božović 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit of an obvious/meaningless statement, as is the one before it. Every nation is very intermixed genetically, and so to say it is different to other nations is a bit pointless. Even the "purest" families are intermixed if you go back. Nations cannot be differentiated by genetics or "race", but by a shared identity. Also, the comment by Critikal sounds like pseudoscience of the worst type. --Hadžija 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Happyman, child, dream your dreams somewhere else, Wikipedia is not a place for that.
What would be your next idea? That all South Slavs you've mentioned, speak the language of Serbs. BTW, you were the one that created Portal:Serbs? Again one of Serbs that has that delusion about "same language"...
Da je uzet nožice i istrići ove bedastoće, ali to se može učiniti sa komadom papira, nu u računalnim mjerilima... Ali tko će naći otapalo za ljepilo koje drži ove osobe u njihovom lažnom svijetu. Nikako od jedne krivulje napraviti dužinu. Niti tijekom prijašnjih stoljeća, niti za tisuću godina.
Stop dreaming. Croats never spoke Serb language, neither called it with that name. Kubura 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The only dreamer and a fake one on wikipedia is YOU, Kubura. What all normal world sees,-you deny. What is a pure visible fact,-you refuse to see. What all the world recognizes, -you ignore. Can't you see that your powrless ideas of separation of Serbocroatian language are not interesting to anybody any more. Your false 'facts' are gone with NDH and they're dead forever. Why don't you stop your sick propaganda and finally face the truth? It's simple and very well known: Serbian and Croatian are ONE language with 2 standards-western(Croatian, latin) and eastern(Serbian, cyrillic), Stokavian is the basis dialect in both standards, and people in Dalmatia, Krajina and Slavonia (who are Stokavian speakers) are linguistically closer to the Serbs (also Stokavian speakers) than to the Croats from Zagorje(Kajkavian speakers). I won't go into analogy and make conclusions what that means, but everyone normal is aware of the fact that all South Slavs, who speak Stokavian are THE SAME people. That's the truth and I am sorry if it's killing you. And when you type on your artificial mixture of'cakavian-stokavian', which nobody in Croatia understands except you, please don't offend people for telling the truth on wikipedia. Every bad word you'll say from now on will return directly to you, reflecting your culture and civilization manners. Cheers.24.86.110.10 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Refer to Ivo Andrić. --PaxEquilibrium 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

? Generalization fallacy. --Plantago

[edit] "Linguistic considerations"

ZOMG, this section has become WP:POINTy — we have wiktionary for such things; the entry is supposed to provide an overview of characteristics, not to list every single word of Montenegrin dialects which might be different from the neighbors. Duja► 08:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually most of the words are unique to montenegro, and unless we get a Montenegrin-English dictionary this is suitable for diplaying the distinctness of the Montenegrin language/dialect

Go to wiktionary then. And plese sign your comments. Duja► 07:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it might look like an overkill, however, at least we are not hearing any more such nonsenses like "Montenegrin and Serbian differ in only 2-3 words", do we? BTW, I wasn't the anon above. So, what is the suggestion? Momisan 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that not all, but many of the words listed there are actually used in many other Štokavian dialects as well, so they are not actually only Montenegrin words! The standard language used in Montenegro (the one which was referred to as "Serbian of the Ijekavian rendering" in the current Constitution of Montenegro) does differ from Serbian in precisely three words: sjutra, nijesam, and kisjelo - the latter of which is not always used. However, Nikčević's proposed Montenegrin idiom does tend to include many aspects of the grammar and vocabulary different than those of Serbian and of the current standard language used in Montenegro. But do not forget that it is still only proposed and that it's not been standardized yet! This article should deal with that proposed language of Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts (I think it shouldn't deal with the actual Montenegrin vernacular like it does at some points), but it treats it as an already accepted and standardized language, which is wrong. --George D. Božović 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think about the term Montenegrin Language in its entirety, i.e the (still) current standard + the (non-existent) DANU standard + vernacular as a broader set. I believe that this article should cover all of them as a top-level item. Then, we can start specialising topics. Choosing to write only about some aspects and not the others would look to me like a, perhaps inadvertent, censorship.Momisan 08:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, don't you think such understanding of the topic would (still) be a little bit POV, at least until Montenegrin language becomes recognized in some way? ;) --George D. Božović 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

I put a tag because there are several problems. First of all, yeah, the purer "Shto" version is more used in MNE, but it's completely unlike Croatian - because in Croatia it's practically exclusively used, which's far from the case in Montenegro.

The short infinitive is indeed used in Montenegro, to an extent. A very tiny extent, normally not excessed by the majority.

And practically the whole section. The only thing which is true for all the speakers of Montenegro is the hyper-ijekavism.

I also noticed that in the whole section, the language is actually compared as similar to Croatian. However, in Montenegro most people use the ovati domesticated verbal end, rather than -irati, just like in Serbia (and to an extent, Bulgaria - but it's a sort-of mix over there), unlike in Croatia or Bosnia. --PaxEquilibrium 11:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you do make a good point on the last part, however, Montenegrins also use a lot of the words listed on the article. --Prevalis 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "montenegrin language" in the new montenegro's constitution

Now in the article "Montenegrin language":

The new Constitution of Montenegro, ratified 19 October 2007, made Montenegrin the country's official language (as opposed to Serbian), but at the same time defined it as a dialect of the Serbian language.

Error: "but at the same time defined it as dialect of the Serbian language". Please, view the official text of the montenegrin new constitution:

"Jezik i pismo

Član 13 Službeni jezik u Crnoj Gori je crnogorski jezik. Ćirilično i latinično pismo su ravnopravni. U službenoj upotrebi su i srpski, bosanski, albanski i hrvatski jezik."

Source: Official website of the Parliament of the Republic of Montenegro, Dokumenta: http://www.skupstina.cg.yu/index1.php?module=3&sub=2 23.10.2007 Ustav Crne Gore Download:

http://www.skupstina.cg.yu/files/downloads/Ustav%20CG.doc

Best wishes 85.55.7.20 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Rafael Company i Mateo

Yes, it does not define the Montenegrin language as any sort of dialect, obviously a standardization will be coming about soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.116.9 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duja?

...why did you remove he "official" from the first paragraph? --PaxEquilibrium 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official language, not official language, or disputed?

This article contradicts itself several times, with claims that Serbian is the official language, that Montenegrin is the official language citing the constitution, that Montenegrin is the official language not citing the constitution, and that the issue is not settled. Someone with more knowledge of the issue really needs to go through the article and create some seblance of consistency, even if it is just to say that there is no clear answer. --24.1.245.85 (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just one of hilarious articles about Montenegro on Wikipedia. This behavior is fully supported by Foundation in many ways example. Tolerance toward POV pushers - People who enter this kind of rubbish here are true image of all consequences from actions of uneducated people which are sitting in Language Committee. Their constant wrong decisions like this and thisand their unmatchable devotion to their dutiesis really remarkable. This is Joke, and very bad one. --Ego and his own (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanisms

Coming from Montenegro, to me this article sounds a bit confusing and incoherent. I'm willing to contribute, not as an expert but as an interested individual. For the start, I think that the following two references should be included when talking about words of Italian (more specifically, Venetian) origin (it does not make sense that they are mentioned in the post on Serbian language, and not here): 1. Vesna Lipovac-Radulović, Romanizmi u Crnoj Gori — jugoistočni dio Boke Kotorske. Cetinje — Titograd, 1981. 2. Vesna Lipovac-Radulović, Romanizmi u Budvi i Paštrovićima. Novi Sad 1997. Since these two books are quite comprehensive (at least 5000 entries in each), it is better to refer to them than to list the (5000) examples.Vkotor (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. An article should not be a list, but has to have an actual content. --RockyMM (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How different?

I have no knowledge of Serbian or Montenegrin and I am curious how different they really are and whether it is enough to consider them to be different languages. For instance, Spanish (or more precisely Castilian) spoken in Spain has lots of differences with the varieties spoken in South America and they all differ quite a bit amongst them: vocabulary, pronunciation and sometimes even grammar. Even so there aren't many people who would consider them separate languages: Argentinian, Mexican, etc. There is only one Spanish Wikipedia! The same goes of course for other languages which spread around the world: English, French, Portuguese, ... . Are Serbian and Montenegrin more different? Tsf (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Its not that they are so much more different, it is more because those scenarios you pointed out were products of colonies, while Montenegro was never a colony, in all respects Montenegro was around longer. Known —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.83.97 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)